The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMISC_.._,-.. ,.,'"''-' ... -----)EPT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT l055 S GRADY WAY, FLOOR SlX \ENTON. WA 98057-3232 ~ \ l ~ North Renton Neighborhood Association PO Box 326 Renton. WA 98057 ~~ "ci._~.'..'.;if_ 0 Forwardu;g Order Expired O lnsuff1c1enr Acfr:,ess O Moved Left No Act dress 0Uncler~ Refuse~-" • . . ~. Q Attrrnpted ~ ~ot Known · -~~-1..ii Sl!?G{ C Nr:, S1;ch 1\\1r:1D~r C ,\: .':::i:i' !?c:ctµ(ccJe r• L, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING COMMENCING AT 11:00 AM, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL ------------------ The application(s} listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Sartori Elementary School PROJECT NUMBER: LUA16-000692, CUP-H, PPUD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Renton School District has submitted applications for Hearing Examiner Planned Urban Development and Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit approvals for the construction of a new 3-story 79,000 square foot Sartori Elementary School. The subject property consists of 14 contiguous parcels (city block) that are bound by Park Ave N., Garden Ave N., N 4th St., and N 3rd St. The 5.28 acre subject property is an entire block located within the Residential-8 (R-8), R- 10, Commercial Neighborhood (CN), and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designations. All existing structures are in the process of being removed. Vehicle access to the subject property is proposed on N. 3rd St. and N. 4th St. The proposal includes 83 parking stalls, 14 bus loading spaces, and 14 covered bicycle parking spaces. The Planned Urban Development application requests to comply with CA development and corresponding Urban Design Overlay 'D' standards for the entire property as an alternative to attempting to comply with the four underlying zones. Additional requested PUD modifications includes setbacks, parking, landscaping, refuse/recycling, and street standards. The applicant has proposed public benefits including a public facility, public plaza, large play field and other programmed play areas, and enhanced landscaping. The subject property is within the Wellhead Protection Zone 1 and potential seismic hazard area. PROJECT NAME: WSDOT 1-405/SR 167 Direct Connect Noise Variance PROJECT NUMBER: LUA16-000770, V-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is requesting a noise variance from RMC 8-7-2 (Noise Regulations, Maximum Environmental Noise Levels) to allow for 845 non-consecutive nights of construction work over 36 months, for the l-405/SR167 Direct Connect project. The work includes construction & hauling over a 36-month period at different locations along the project limits. The project includes work from 8pm to Sam on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, which will require a variance from RMC 4-4-030C.2&3 to perform the above construction outside of HEX Agenda 11.8.16 code established work days. Construction is proposed from November 22, 2016 to November 21, 2019. WSDOT would build a new flyover ramp connecting the High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on SR 167 to the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-405. The proposed work includes geotechnical drilling, demolition, building a fly-over ramp, rebuilding existing on and off-ramps, reconstructing portions of nearby local streets, relocating a noise wall, adding a raised earthen berm, ditches, culverts, catch basins, storm water facilities, water facilities, pavement markings, traffic signals, signs, ramp meters, and rebuilding electrical cabinetry and wiring. Noise levels resulting from the project's construction activities will generate peak noise levels of 64 to 85 dBA as perceived at 50 feet from the WSDOT property line. HEX Agenda 11.8.16 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -------Renton® A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HEARING DATE: Project Name: Owners: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Site Area: Project Location: November 8, 2016 New Sartori Elementary School Rick Strake; Renton School District; 7812 S 1241h St; Seattle, WA 98178 Lisa Klein; AHBL; 2215 N 30 1h Street, #300; Tacoma, WA 98043 LUA16-00D692, PPUD, CU-H Matthew Herrera, Senior Planner The Renton School District has submitted applications for Hearing Examiner Planned Urban Development and Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit approvals for the construction of a new 3-story 79,000 square foot Sartori Elementary School. The subject property consists of 14 contiguous parcels (city block) that are bound by Park Ave N., Garden Ave N., N 4th St., and N 3rd St. The 5.28 acre subject property is an entire block located within the Residential-8 (R-8), R-10, Commercial Neighborhood (CN), and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designations. All existing structures are in the process of being removed. Vehicle access to the subject property is proposed on N. 3rd St. and N. 4th St. The proposal includes 83 parking stalls, 14 bus loading spaces, and 14 covered bicycle parking spaces. The Planned Urban Development application requests to comply with CA development and corresponding Urban Design Overlay 'D' standards for the entire property as an alternative to attempting to comply with the four underlying zones. Additional requested PUD modifications includes setbacks, parking, landscaping, refuse/recycling, and street standards. The applicant has proposed public benefits including a public facility, public plaza, large play field and other programmed play areas, and enhanced landscaping. The subject property is within the Wellhead Protection Zone 1 and potential seismic hazard area. 229,996 SF (5.28 ac) Total Building Area GSF: 79,000 SF 315 Garden Ave N. Project Location Map Sartori E5_16-000692_HEX Staff Repart City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-00069Z, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 2 of 47 i B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: HEX Report, dated November 1, 2016 Site Plan Landscape Plan Neighborhood Detail Map Notice of SEPA Consultation Prepared by Renton School District City SEPA Comment Letter to District Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance issued by the Renton School District Elevations Tree Retention Plan Stormwater Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by AHBL, dated August 2016 Transportation Report prepared by Heffron Transportation, dated August 26, 2016 Arborist Report prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, dated August 23, 2016 Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences Incorporated, dated August 4, 2016. Email Comments from Angie Laulainen City Staff Response to Angie Laulainen Carbon Copy Email Comments Tree Retention Worksheet Completed by Applicant Screening Details (Garbage Enclosure) Concurrency Memo Prepared by Brianne Bannworth Development Engineering Manager, dated October 31, 2016 Civil Grading and Drainage Plan Civil Utility and Surfacing Plan Boundary and Topographic Survey Floor Plans Perspective Views (Architectural Renderings) Advisory Notes to Applicant Affidavit of Posting and Mailing Revised Architectural Renderings Sartori ES 16-000692 HEX Staff Reoort City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-00069Z, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 I C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Classification: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Renton School District 7812 S 124 th St Seattle, WA 98178 Page 3 of 47 Residential-8 (R-8); Residential -10 (R-10), Commercial Neighborhood (CN); and Commercial Arterial (CA) Residential High Density (HD); Residential Medium Density (MD); and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) The existing Sartori Education Center and surrounding residential and commercial structures which have been and/or will be demolished a. b. North: East: Renton School District Transportation Facility (IL and CA Zones) Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) c. South: d. West: 6. Site Area: Single Family ond Multi-Family Residential (CN and R-8 Zones) Commerciol, Single Family, and Multi-Family Residential (CA and CN Zones) 229,996 SF (5.28 ac) ! O. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation II E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 5758 5758 156 Date 06/22/2015 06/22/2015 05/23/1909 a. Water: Water service is provided by the City of Renton. The site is in the Valley service area in the 196' hydrologic pressure zone. There are existing mains between 6 and 16 inches in diameter in each abutting street right-of-way. b. Sewer: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 22-ich concrete sewer main within the N. 4th Street right-of-way. c. Surface/Storm Water: There are existing 12-inch stormwater mains within the Park Ave N and N. 4th St. right-of-ways and a 10-inch stormwater main with the N 3'' St. right-of-way. 2. Streets: The site is bounded by Park Ave N., Garden Ave N., N 4th St., and N. 3'' St. Each street contains curb, gutters, and sidewalks. N. 3'' St. and Garden Ave N. contain planter strips. 3. Fire Protection: Renton Fire Authority Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter z Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards d. Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards Z. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations b. Section 4-3-100: Urban Design Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 9 Permits -Specific a. Section 4-9-030: Conditional Use Permits b. Section 4-9-150: Planned Urban Development Regulations 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1-Land Use Element Z. Capital Facilities Element ~ H. FINDINGS OF FACT {FOF}: Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 4 of 47 1. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) and a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new 3-story 79,000 square foot Sartori Elementary School (Exhibit 2). Z. The subject site contains the existing Sartori Education Center and surrounding residential and commercial structures which have been and/or will be demolished. 3. The new school would be developed as a choice school to house specialized programs and is anticipated to serve a maximum of 650 students from kindergarten to s'" grade. 4. Additional improvements proposed by the applicant as shown on the landscape plan (Exhibit 3) include a 35,000 square foot grass field, various soft and hard surface play areas, 4,400 square foot covered play area, public plaza, landscaping, street frontage improvements, and drainage infrastructure. 5. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on September 2, 2016 and determined the application complete on September 14, 2016. The project complies with the 120-day review period. 6. The subject property consists of 14 contiguous parcels that are bound by Park Ave N., Garden Ave N., N 4th St., and N 3rd St. (Exhibit 4). The site is rectangular in shape and totals 229,996 square feet in area (5.28 acres). 7. The 5.28 acre subject property is an entire block and contains four differing zoning classifications: Residential-8 (R-8), Residential-10 (R-10), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designations. The site correspondingly is located within the following Comprehensive Plan Sartori ES 16-000692 HEX Staff Report City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 5 of 47 Land Use designations: Residential High Density (HD); Residential Medium Density (MD); and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). 8. Vehicle access to the subject property is proposed on N. 3rd St. and N. 4th St. 9. The proposal includes 83 parking stalls within three parking areas. One parking lot is accessed off N. 4th St. and also allows for parent drop-off/pick-up. The second parking area and service delivery is accessed from N. 3rd St. The proposal includes space for 14 school buses which would park along the west side of Garden Ave N for loading and unloading. Additional 14 covered bicycle parking spaces are provided on site. 10. The Renton School District took lead agency for the Environmental 'SEPA' Review for this project. A Notice of SEPA Consultation (Exhibit 5) was issued by the school district on August 24, 2016 with a comment period originally ending on September 23, 2016 and was further extended to September 30, 2016. 11. The City of Renton provided timely comments to the Renton School District (Exhibit 6) concerning the SEPA consultation and provided the following recommendations for mitigation measures: a. Installation of school flasher speed limit sign age. The location of the signage would be determined during the City's Construction/Utility Permit review process. b. Installation of radar sign(s) that provide vehicle speed. The location of the sign age would be determined during the City's Construction/Utility Permit review process. c. Installation of curb bulbs on Garden Ave N. at N. 3'' St. and N. 4th St. to reduce pedestrian crossing width. d. Preparation of a plan to be distributed to students and families that identifies safe walking routes to school and crossing guard locations. e. Preparation of an operational plan that provides preventative measures for offsite queuing onto N. 4th St. during pick-up and drop-off. f. Preparation of a parking plan for special events that may require more parking than is available onsite. 12. On October 21, 2016 the Renton School District issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for the New Sartori Elementary School (Exhibit 7). The MDNS included 23 mitigation measures. A 14-day comment and appeal period commenced on October 21, 2016 and will end on November 4, 2016. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed as of the date of this report. 13. The tallest point of the proposed school building would be approximately 48-feet from the average grade plane to the top of parapet along the Park Ave N. elevation. The proposed building materials would be a combination of masonry, metal siding, composite panel and glazing. Accent materials would include pre-finished metal panel, pre-finished metal trim, and canopies (Exhibit 8). 14. Requested Modifications from RMC through the PUD: The site comprises of multiple residential and commercial zoning designations that have development standards which vary significantly. It is not possible to develop the proposed elementary school on the property without deviating from many of the standards. Therefore, a PUD is being requested to allow for flexibility in order to construct the public facility that meets the educational needs of the School District, but also is complimentary to the site and neighborhood in which it is located. When approving a PUD, the City may modify those standards listed in RMC 4-2, 4-4, 4-7, and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards, except as listed in RMC 4-9- 150B.3. All of the following modifications are required to be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development: Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Stoff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 RMC Code Citation Required Standard RMC 4-2-100 Zoning There are four (4) separate tables Standards Tables dealing with the various land use categories and zones which contain the minimum and, in some cases, maximum requirements of the zone. RMC 4-2-lZOA 20-foot maximum side yard along a Development street setbacks Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations RMC 4-6-060F Street Residential Access Street Standards Standards for Garden Ave N. RMC 4-3-100 Urban Plaza located at Park Ave N. and N. 4th Design Standards St. RMC 4-3-100 Urban Any facade visible to the public shall Design Standards be comprised of at least fifty percent (50%) transparent windows and/or doors for at least the portion of the ground floor facade that is between four feet (4') and eight feet (8') above ground (as measured on the true elevation). RMC 4-3-100 Urban Parking shall be located so that no Design Standards surface parking is located between a building and the front property line; and/or a building and the side property line (when on a corner lot). RMC 4-4-070 Ten-feet of on-site landscaping is Landscaping required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways or those projects with reduced setbacks. RMC 4-4-080F, Based on the proposed number of Parking, Loading, and employees, a minimum and maximum Driveway Regulations of 60 parking spaces would be required/allowed in order to meet code. RMC 4-4-0SOF, 1 off-street parking space for each bus Parking, Loading, and of a size sufficient to park each bus Driveway Regulations RMC 4-4-0BOI, The width of any driveway shall not Parking, Loading, and exceed thirty feet (30') exclusive of Driveway Regulations the radii of the returns or the taper t;nrtnri FS 1 fi-n006Q7 HFX Wnff RPnnrt Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 6 of 47 Requested Modification The application of a single zoning classification (CA) and corresponding Design District 'D' for the entire site for the purposes of review. Exceed maximum side yard along N. 3•• St. to provide a 72-foot setback and N. 4th St. to provide a 135-foot setback. A 52-foot and 115-foot modification, respectively. Relocation of curb-line westward, 10-foot sidewalks, and bulb-outs Relocate plaza to front pf building at Park Ave N and N. 3•• St. Frosted glass in areas along the south facade Eight parking spaces are proposed between the building and side property line along N. 3•• St. No street frontage landscaping in areas between the public plaza and street. The applicant proposed a total of 83 spaces within surface parking areas. The proposal exceeds the maximum parking stall requirements by 23 spaces. Bus Parking is proposed on Garden Ave N. Driveway width on N. 3•d St. proposed at 52-feet. Driveway exceeds standards by 22-feet to City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 section, the measurement being made parallel to the centerline of the street roadway. RMC 4-4-090, Refuse The gate opening for any separate and Recyclables building or other roofed structure Standards used primarily as a refuse or recyclables deposit area/collection point shall have a vertical clearance of at least fifteen feet (15'). Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 7 of 47 accommodate delivery truck. Proposed enclosure that provides a vertical clearance of 9.5-feet. 15. There are a total of 30 trees on the subject property and 11 located in adjacent right-of-way frontage. The applicant proposes to retain 9 street streets and remove all trees on the subject property as shown on the tree retention plan (Exhibit 9). 16. The City's COR mapping database shows the subject property is within a Wellhead Protection Area Zone 1 and High Seismic Hazard Area. 17. The subject property is generally flat. Preliminary earthwork for the proposal to accommodate the removal of utilities and installation of stormwater improvements is approximately 2,000 cubic yards of cut and 4,000 yards of fill. 18. Construction is anticipated to begin April 2017 and end August 2018. in Summer of 2016 with substantial completion scheduled for Summer of 2017. 19. Studies provided by the applicant include a stormwater report (Exhibit 10), traffic study (Exhibit 11), arborist report (Exhibit 12), and geotechnical report (Exhibit 13). 20. Staff received comments related to the items within the environmental checklist (Exhibit 14) and was carbon copied on emails between the school district, City Council, and Mayor's Office. Staff responded to comments addressed to the project manager (Exhibit 15). The concerns referenced items in the environmental checklist and responses were provided as they related to city code. Emails that were carbon copies are added to the record (Exhibit 16), but were not directly responded to as they related to relations between the school district and neighbors. 21. 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. 22. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is located within the Residential High Density (HD); Residential Medium Density (MD); and Commercial Mixed Use (CMLI) land use designations. The applicant is unable to modify the application of the land use designations through the PUD. The proposal is compliant with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies if £1! conditions of approval are met: Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis Policy L-2: Support compact urban development to improve health outcomes, support ,/ transit use 1 maximize land use efficiency, and maximize public investment in infrastructure and services. ,/ Goal L-BB: Maintain a high quality of life as Renton grows by ensuring that new development is designed to be functional and attractive. Sartori ES_ 16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 8 of 47 " Goal L-FF: Strengthen the visual identity of Renton and its Community Planning Areas and neighborhoods through quality design and development. Policy L-50: Maintain existing, and encourage the creation of additional places and " events throughout the community where people can gather and interact. Allow for flexibility in public gathering places to encourage place-making efforts and activities. Policy L-51: Respond to specific site conditions such as topography, natural features, " and solar access to encourage energy savings and recognize the unique features of the site through the design of subdivisions and new buildings. Policy L-52: Include human-scale features such as pedestrian pathways, quality " landscaping, and public spaces that have discernible edges, entries, and borders to create a distinctive sense of place in neighborhoods, commercial areas, and centers. " Policy L-53: Orient buildings in developments toward the street or a common area, rather than toward parking lots. Policy L-57: Complement the built environment with landscaping using native, " naturalized, and ornamental plantings that are appropriate for the situation and circumstance and which provide for respite, recreation, and sun/shade. " Policy L-61: Improve the appearance of parking lots through landscaping and screening. Policy CF-10: Coordinate with federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions, private " industry, businesses and citizens in the planning, design and development of facilities serving and affecting the community. 23. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-150D.4, each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the underlying zoning standards; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested using the PUD process. The site is located within the Residential-8 (R-8); Residential -10 (R-10), Commercial Neighborhood (CN); and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designations. Through the PUD, the applicant is requesting the development standards of the CA designation and Urban Design District 'D' standards be applied for the entire project given strict adherence to the development standards would result in multiple site design features that would be incompatible with the proposed elementary school use (FOF 14: Requested Modifications from RMC through the PUD). The CA zoning designation was recommended by City staff given the urban presence of the building located along Park Ave N, which allows integration into future commercial development and anticipated growth along that arterial. Staff is in support of the requested modification/application of the single land use designation (with the exception of tree retention standards) if all conditions of approval are complied with (see FOF 26 PUD Decision Criteria and Analysis). The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the underlying zoning standards of the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning classification, as outlined in RMC4-2-120A: Compliance CA Zone Develop Standards and Analysis See FOf 30: Use: Pursuant to RMC 4-2-060, A K-12 educational institution (public or private) Conditional requires a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Use Permit Staff. Comment: See FOF 30: Canditianal Use Permit. N/A Density: 60 dwelling units per net acre in the City Center and Highlands Community Planning Areas. ,I' Lot Dimensions: Per RMC 4-2-120A the minimum lot size, in the CA zone, is 5,000 square feet. City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 9 of 47 ,/ Requested to be modified through the PUD- Compliant if conditions of approval are metandPUD is approved ,/ Staff Comment: Following the completion of the lot combination process and dedication of right-of-way, the subject property will be approximately 212,381 square feet or 4.88 acres. Lot Coverage: Per RMC 4-2-12DA the allowed Jot coverage is 65 percent or 75% if parking is provided within the building or within an on-site parking garage for proposals within the CA classification. Staff Comment: The lot coverage is approximately 18.8%. Setbacks: Per RMC 4-2-120A the CA zoning classification requires a minimum front yard of setback of 15 feet which may be reduced to zero feet during the site plan development review process, provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback. There is a maximum front yard setback of 20 feet. There is a minimum side yard along street setback of 15-feet and a maximum side yard along a street setback of the 20-feet. The CA zone has no rear or side yard setback except 15 feet if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential zone. Stoff Comment: The project is proposed to be built across a portion of the common boundary between existing property lines. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval the applicant be required to record a formal Lot Combination in order to ensure the proposed buildings are not built across property Jines. The instrument shall be recorded prior to building permit approval. Building setbacks would be measured from the property lines established following the Lot Combination recording, which would be the exterior lines adjacent to the four street frontages. The proposed building would have a front yard setback of 20 feet from the front property line (Pork Ave N.) which meets the maximum front yard setback. As the site improvements ore within on entire city block, the side yards along the street ore N. 3,d St and N. 4th St. property lines. The building exceeds the 20-foot maximum side yard along these frontages. The building is setback 72-feetfrom the rear property line however the proposed covered ploy area accessory structure is within the 15-foot minimum rear yard setback as the property is adjacent to residential zoned lots. The city block size property limits the ability to comply with maximum side yard along street setbacks. The building is approximately 380 feet long and is located 72-feet from the N. 3'd St. property line and 135-feet from the N. 4th St. property line. The side yards would provide pedestrian amenities and landscaping. Stoff supports the PUD modification to exceed the maximum side yard along street standard. However, the proposed play area accessory structure is adjacent to a residential zone and due to potential noise impacts the structure should meet the minimum 15-feet rear yard setback. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant submit revised site plans that locate the covered ploy area structure in an area compliant with the 15-foot minimum rear setback. The plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Height: Per RMC 4-2-120A building height is restricted to 50 feet except 60 feet for mixed use (commercial and residential) in the same building. Staff Comment: The tallest point of the structure would be approximately 48 feet from average grade to the top of parapet along the southwest portion of the building. A majority of the building, minus the parapet, is 44-feet 4-inches along the Pork Ave N. frontage. Eastern portions of the building step down to heights of 37-feet 4-inches and Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 10 of 47 N/A Requested to be Modified Through the PUD Compliant if Conditions of Approval is Met Compliant if Conditions of Approval is Met 31-feet 4-inches. The accessory play area structure is 16-feet from average ta top of structure. It should be noted that the play structure that is located near the existing single family development is compliant with the maximum height of the residential zone. Vehicular: A connection shall be provided for site-to-site vehicle access ways, where topographically feasible, to allow a smooth flow of traffic across abutting CA lots without the need to use a street. Access may comprise the aisle between rows of parking stalls, but is not allowed between a building and a public street. Staff Comment: Not applicable. Following the Lot Combination there will not be an abutting CA lot as the subject property will be an entire city block. Landscaping: Per RMC 4-4-070 ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways or those projects with reduced setbacks. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed landscaping along the frontages of the site. The applicant has also incorporated planter boxes in pedestrian areas. Perimeter parking lot landscaping is provided and interior parking lot landscaping is also shown. Street frontage landscaping is not provided along portions of the public plaza. Staff is in support of the absence of street frontage landscaping along the entire plaza edge as it results in barrier free pedestrian access from the sidewalk to this enhanced entry feature to the school and it provides additional programming opportunities. The proposed planter boxes will provide vegetation and human-scaled elements within the plaza ta mitigate the lack af street frontage landscaping. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application (Exhibit 3}. The landscape plan includes a planting plan which contains several different tree and shrub species but does not provide specific detail for the number or types of trees and shrubbery. Additionally, landscaping plan does not appear to be scaled correctly, so while it details appropriate widths, staff is unable to verify for compliance. Therefore, staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to submit a detailed landscape plan to the Current Planning Project Manager prior ta construction permit approval complying with applicable sections of RMC 4-4-070. Screening: All mechanical equipment and outdoor service and storage areas shall be screened to reduce visibility, noise, and related impacts while allowing accessibility for providers and users. Staff Comment: The applicant did not provide details of roof mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment with the land use application. Therefore, staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment. The revised plan set shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building permit approval. Tree Retention: The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations require the retention of at least 30 percent of trees of the site's significant trees for institutional development in R-8 zones, 20 percent in R-10 zones, and at least 10 percent in other zones. Significant trees shall be retained in the following priority order: Priority One: Landmark trees; significant trees that form a continuous canopy; c;nrtnri Fe; 16-noonq.J HFX Staff Reoort City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 11 of 47 significant trees on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%); Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and Significant trees over sixty feet (60') in height or greater than eighteen inches ( 18") caliper. Priority Two: Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and Other significant non-native trees. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained, unless the alders and/ or cottonwoods are used as part of an approved enhancement project within a critical area or its buffer. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted an arborist report (Exhibit 12/ prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. August 23, 2016. The arborist report identified 41 trees (30 trees onsite and 11 street trees within ROW/ and determined that five (5) of the onsite trees were in poor condition and not suitable for retention. This results in a total of 25 onsite significant trees for the subject property. The applicant is requesting o PUD for the proposed site improvements as many of the development regulations differ between the four (4) different zones encompassing the subject property. However, tree retention standards meeting the residential requirements ore not deemed a significant hindrance in developing the site with a new school and therefore staff recommends that residential tree retention standards apply as a majority of the site is zoned residential. The applicant submitted a tree retention worksheet (Exhibit 17) that identifies the site utilizing the R-8 or 30-percent retention standards. Initially, the applicant proposed the removal of all significant trees on the subject property as existing significant trees were located in the proposed building footprint, parking areas, and sports field. The tree retention worksheet identified a 96-inch caliper replacement resulting in a total of 48 new trees to be planted to compensate for the removal the subject property's existing significant trees. However, due to the revised street section along Garden Ave. N. (See FOF 27 Streets) that would maintain the existing curb line and no longer necessitate the need to construct the new sidewalk in its location shown on the site plan, there is a potential to retain three (3) significant trees identified as 29, 30, and 31 on the tree retention plan (Exhibit 9). Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant provide an updated arbarist report that provides analysis for the potential to retain trees 29, 30, and 31 on the tree retention plan with the new Garden Ave N. cross section. The trees shall be retained if viable, otherwise replacement at the required 6:1 caliper inch rotian will be required for any of the three /3} trees that cannot be retained. The arborist report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 3/ identifies six /6) new varieties of trees proposed to be planted on the subject property. However, the number of trees needed to comply with the replacement requirements of RMC 4-4-130 is not identified on the plan. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, a revised landscape plan is submitted that identifies the replacement trees meeting the replacement requirements of RMC 4-4-130. The landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Sartori ES_l6-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 12 of 47 Requested to be Modified Through the PUD Parking: The parking regulations, RMC 4-4-080, require a specific number of off- street parking stalls be provided based on the number of employees and number of busses to be parked onsite. Staff Comment: The following ratios would be applicable to the site: Elementary School A minimum and maximum of 1 per employee and 1 oft-street parking space for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Required Spaces 60 Based on the applicant's PUD modification request, the total number of employees for the proposed school is 60 and 14 school busses (11 full size and 3 small) will load/unload each school day. A minimum and maximum of 60 regular parking spaces and 14 bus spaces would be required in order to meet code. The applicant is proposing a total of 83 regular spaces and 14 school bus spaces along the Garden Avenue N frontage. The proposal exceeds the maximum requirements by 23 stalls. The applicant's justification for the increased need for parking spaces is the demand anticipated in the transportation report (Exhibit 11} that is due to the choice school element and evening events would necessitate the need for additional parking than what is permitted. The report anticipates o peak parking demand of 74 vehicles during a typical school midday, however, staff supports the increased parking request as it will provide additional capacity during special events and provide flex parking (adjacent to plaza) for temporary parking near the main entry. The school bus load and unload area is located along Garden Ave N. The applicant has requested to provide bus laad/unload an-street instead of oft-street as the busses are not kept onsite. On-street load/unload also reduces the amount of needed impervious surfaces to provide parking on the subject property and would also result in the loss of programming space. Additionally, bus ingress/egress out of the site results in potential pedestrian conflicts at driveways. On-street load/ unload is mare efficient as bus drivers can reduce turning movements and driveway crossings. At staff suggestion, the applicant will provide bus loading/unloading within the existing right- af-way instead of the originally proposed Garden Ave N widening (see FOF 26 Circulation: Street Improvements). The originally proposed food unload area would have resulted in a 21-foot wide travel lane along Garden Ave N., which would not meet the street standards or intent of o residential street. Instead, by keeping the load/unload in the existing street cross-section, curb-bulbs can be added to the street's intersection and the street's cross-section can remain a compliant residential access street without the need for channeling guides or diverters. Staff is in support of bus load/unload area to be within the existing right-of-way. The parking conforms to the minimum requirements for drive aisle, parking stall, dimensions and the provision of ADA accessible parking stalls. Per RMC 4-4-0BOF.11 the number of bicycle parking spaces shall be at least equal to 10 percent of the number of required oft-street vehicle parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 14 covered bicycle parking spaces, exceeding the minimum requirement, and proposes to locate the parking near the building's main entry in the public plaza. The applicant will be required to demonstrate spaces meet the requirements of RMC 4-4-0BOF.11.b as part of building permit applications. t;nrtnri p:; 1 fi-flnnf;q7 I-IFX _<;tnff RPnnrt City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 13 of 47 Requested to be Modified Through the PUD ,/ Refuse and Recyclables: Per RMC 4-4-090, office, educational and institutional developments require a minimum of 2 square feet per every one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area be provided for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of four (4) square feet per one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of one hundred (100) square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas. Outdoor refuse and recyclables deposit areas and collection points shall not be located within fifty feet (SD') of a lot zoned residential, except by approval through the site development plan review process, or through the modification process if exempt from site development plan review. The gate opening for any separate building or other roofed structure used primarily as a refuse or recyclables deposit area/collection point shall have a vertical clearance of at least fifteen feet (15'). Staff Comment: Based on the proposal for a total 79,000sf of gross floor area, 474 square feet of refuse and recycle area is required to be provided. The proposal includes a 650 square foot area dedicated to refuse and recycle which complies with the area dedication requirements. The enclosure is located adjacent to the southeast side from the building ond complies with the SO-foot separation from residential lots. Through the PUD the applicant is requesting a modification in order to provide an enclosure that provides o vertical clearance of 9.5-feet (Exhibit 18). The proposed enclosure design is consistent with the overall building and accessory covered orea architecture. The reduced vertical clearance maintains the solid waste hauler to access the refuse and recycling containers. Staff supports this PUD modification as it provides a better aesthetic outcome than the standard fifteen foot clearance See additional discussion below in FOF 29: Design District Review, Service Element Design and Location. Fences and Retaining Walls: For commercial, industrial, and nonresidential uses, a maximum of eight feet (8') anywhere on the lot provided the fence, retaining wall or hedge does not stand in or in front of any required landscaping or pose a traffic vision hazard. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed a chain-link fence six feet in height that will surround the gross field and ploy area with sliding gates as the fence connects to the school building on the north and south sides. 24. Critical Areas: Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if all conditions of approval are complied with: Geologically Hazardous Areas: Based upon the results of a geotechnical report and/or independent review, conditions of approval for developments may include buffers and/or setbacks from buffers. A standard 15-foot building setback is required for all structures from Protected Slope areas. A SO-foot buffer and 15-foot building setback are required from Very High Landslide Hazard Areas. Staff Comment: The City's COR mapping database identifies the property to be within a High Seismic Hazard Area. The applicant submitted a geotechnical report (Exhibit 13) prepared by Associated Earth Sciences Incorporated with the project application. The report identified conditions that are representative of recent alluvium deposits in Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 14 of 47 Compliant if condition of approval is met former channels of the Cedar River and extended beyond the depths of the deepest exploration of 91.5 feet. The findings of the exploration were identified to be in agreement with the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle which indicates the site is underlain by modified land with fill and recent alluvium associated with the nearby Cedar River. Potential for liquefaction was analyzed and determined that the estimated amount of liquefaction-induced settlement ranges from about 5-8 inches and is considered to be the result of a very large and rare seismic event. The report provided design recommendations for pile foundations that would reduce both consolidation settlement and seismically induced structure settlement to tolerable levels for new construction. The geotechnical report demonstrates the proposal can be safely accommodated on the site and identified no impacts ta other properties or critical areas. Building code standards contain compliance measures and design requirements for sites with potential seismic hazard conditions, which include the adherence to recommendations from geotechnicol reports. For purposes of the PUD no further conditions are recommend. Wellhead Protection Areas: Staff Comment: The City's COR mapping database identifies the property to be within a Wellhead Protect Area Zone 1. Areas within the Zone 1 designation are lands situated between o well or well field owned by the City ond the 365-day groundwater travel time contour. No hazardous material storage, handling, treating, use, or production is anticipated with the proposed elementary school. The applicant has indicated that approximately 4,000 cubic yards of fill will be brought to the subject property for construction purposes. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a source statement certified by a professional engineer or geologist licensed in the State af Washington shall be provided by the applicant meeting the requirements of RMC 4-4-060N.4 or provide documentation that fill will be obtained from a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT} approved source as allowed by RMC 4-4-060N.4.g. The source statement or WSDOT documentotian shall be submitted ta and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior ta construction permit approval. 25. PUD Applicability Standards: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-1506, any applicant seeking to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision regulations in a comprehensive manner shall be subject to applicability standards. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with applicability standards, as outlined in RMC 4-9- 1506: Compliance PUD Applicability Criteria and Analysis In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of RMC 4-2, RMC 4-3-100, RMC 4-4, RMC 4-6-060, and RMC 4-7. All modifications "' shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development. Staff Comment: The applicant is requesting to review the project under the CA zoning designation and corresponding Design District 'D'. Additional modification requests are noted in FOF 14. Compliant if An applicant may request additional modifications from the requirements of the Conditions of Renton Municipal Code. Approval for modifications other than those specifically Approval are described in subsection RMC 4-9-lSOB.2.a shall be approved prior to submittal of a City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 15 of 47 Met preliminary planned urban development plan. Staff Camment: All requested modifications are outlined above under FOF 14: Requested Modifications fram RMC through the PUD. Staff is in support or modified support the requested modifications provided the applicant complies with all conditions of appraval. A planned urban development may not authorize uses that are inconsistent with those uses allowed by the underlying zone, or overlay district, or other location restriction in RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to: RMC 4-2-010 to 4-2-080, 4-3- ,/ 010 to 4-3-040, 4-3-090, 4-3-095, and 4-4-010. Staff Comment: RMC 4-2-060 a/laws K-12 educational institutions in the R-8, R-10, CN, and CA zones with a Conditional Use Permit. See FOF 30 far Conditional Use Permit analysis. The number of dwelling units shall not exceed the density allowances of the N/A applicable base or overlay zone or bonus criteria in chapter 4-2 or 4-9 RMC; however, averaging density across a site with multiple zoning classifications may be allowed if approved by the Community and Economic Development Administrator. 26. PUD Decision Criteria Analysis: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-lSOD, each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the Planned Urban Development decision criteria. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the Planned Urban Development decision criteria, as outlined in RMC 4-9-lSOD: Compliance PUD Decision Criteria and Analysis Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. Staff Comment: If the conditions of approval are met, the applicant will have demonstrated compliance with the PUD regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant will have demonstrated that the development is superior to that which would result without a PUD and requested modifications will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The development of this site os a PUD results in a superior design than what would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for the following reasons: public facilities, overall design, and building and site design. The public facility provides a choice educational program and new neighborhood school within the City Center Planning Area. The school is needed ta respond ta continued growth in the City and school district capital facilities program. The proposal will provide a public plaza and playfield that would not otherwise be required under code. The overall design carrespands to the neighborhood by locating much of the building along the commercial frontage of Park Ave N. and stepping dawn as it transitions ta the residential area ta the east. The compact building footprint provides 79,000 square feet of floor area while providing the remaining areas with active recreation areas, landscaping, and parking. The building provides large expanses of glazing, weather protection, and articulation and compliments the cohesive design throughout the site. Sartori E5_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WAl6-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 16 of 47 The PUD provides flexibility in locating a public facility in a multiple zoned commercial and residential designations. The requested code modifications would not be detrimental to surrounding properties as the design orients the elementary school toward the commercial frontage and transitions to a lower scale and open space areas toward the residential zone. The site is located within the Residential High Density (HD); Residential Medium Density (MD); and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) fond use designations on the Comprehensive Pion Lond Use Mop. See Comprehensive Plan analysis under FOF 22: Comprehensive Plan Analysis. Public Benefit Required: Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the N/A same degree as without a planned urban development. Staff. Comment: Nat applicable b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, N/A or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations. Staff. Comment: Not applicable c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planned urban development. Stoff. Comment: The school will be the first elementary school in Renton School District that is in close proximity to the downtown core and is being developed as a civic and community asset to the City Center. The school will provide a neighborhood ,/ elementary but also a choice educational program for students district wide. The school will provide public amenities such as gathering and recreation areas and new streetscape improvements along oil frontages. A large public plaza is proposed along the N. 3'd and Pork Ave. N. frontage. The 10,000+ square foot plaza is on amenity that will be open for public use and not otherwise required under existing code. Opportunities within the plaza for programming, art, gathering, ond other civic uses will be an asset to the neighborhood and overall community. d. Use of Sustainable Development Techniques: Design which results in a N/A sustainable development; such as LEED certification, energy efficiency, use of alternative energy resources, low impact development techniques, etc. e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to Compliant if the design that would result from development of the subject property without a Conditions of planned urban development. A superior design may include the following: Approval are i. Oi:1en Si:1acelRecreation: Met (a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 fees in Resolution 3082; and Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 17 of 47 (b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or Staff Comment: The opplicont has provided o variety of recreation opportunities and open spaces throughout the development that ore not required code. The proposed site plan provides a hordscape play area, play equipment, and grass play field that will be open for community use. The applicant has designed the areas to accommodate Elementary Educational curriculum and be an asset to the surrounding community for after hour use. The grass field and open space area measures 35,000 square feet. The landscape identifies the area also striped as a soccer field. West of the grass field there are three (3) soft surface play areas with two of the areas partially surrounded by a concrete seat wall. Additional seat walls are provided along the east elevation of the school building. A hard surface play area extends around the grass field along west and south sides with a 4,400 square foot area containing weather protection. The open space areas are connected via pedestrian paths to the building, adjacent street frontages, and parking area. ii. Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities: or Staff Comment: The proposal provides a superior circulation pattern and parking lot location as it limits vehicle driveways on the site, places parking areas on the ends of property thereby preserving the interior and majority of the site for pedestrian oriented activities, and locates bus load/unload along Garden Ave N. which reduces additional turning movements and potential pedestrian conflicts. All driveways will be removed along Park Ave N and six (6) driveways along N. 3'd St will be reduced to one (1). The surface parking areas provide clear pedestrian pathways close to building entries and minimize pedestrian crossing drive aisles. While the subject property is a city block, there are only two vehicle entry points located on N. 3'd St. and N. 4th St. The limitation of driveways reduces potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. Additionally, bus loading and unloading will occur within a curb cut-out along Garden Ave. N. that will preserve the residential street cross section and result in the reduction in turning movements and driveway conflicts that would occur if the parking lot were expanded to provide bus load/unload. Parking areas will be screened with a 10-foot wide perimeter landscaping screen. The revised landscape plan will be reviewed by the project manager as conditioned in FOF 23: Landscaping to confirm appropriate tree and shrub spacing for adequate screening as required by RMC 4-4-070. iii. Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping. buffering, or screening in or around the proposed planned urban development. Staff Comment: Conceptually, the proposed landscape plan for the entire site is superior to what would be required by Renton's Municipal Code (Exhibit 3}. Internal parking lot landscaping is greater than the 25 square foot per space requirement. A 20-foot wide street frontage landscaping strip is provided along the building on the Park Ave N. frontage, which is double the required width. The plaza area and larger Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation WAl6-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 18 of 47 pedestrian pathway areas contain planter boxes to soften the hardscape surfaces. The proposed landscape plan (Exhibit 3) includes diverse candidate planting list: greenspire linden, european hornbeam, maidenhair, autumn blaze pear, snowbell, and autumn brilliance serviceberry. The proposed shrub planting list includes nine (9) shrub varieties. The applicant would be required ta provide a detailed landscaping plan prior to construction permit approval with specific plant details. The building and parking lot landscaping has been designed to meet several objectives including: reductions in the overall scale of the building; breaking up of large areas of parking lot pavement with interior and perimeter landscaping; perimeter landscape buffer and screening; help define circulation routes and frame or enhance views; provide environmental benefits such as shade, improved air quality, natural storm water treatment, and wildlife habitat. A permanent built-in irrigation system with an automatic controller is required to be installed and maintained for a/I landscaped areas. The irrigation system is required to provide full water coverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. iv. Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design. placement. relationship or orientation of structures. or use of solar energy. Staff Comment: The PUD modification from R-8, R-10, and CN zoning to CA zoning would result in the project being subject ta Urban Design District 'D' standards in its entirety instead of only the portion of the building located in the CA zone. Superior design requirements would result for a building of this size in a design district overlay then within the residential design and open space standards and the absence of a design overlay district for the CN zone. The placement of the building allows for natural lighting opportunities, and is respectful of the neighboring residential-scaled neighboring properties through the use of step-dawn roof forms and open spaces/landscaping between the building and residential area. The building provides high quality materials, large areas of glazing, and overhangs/canopies. The design provides a unique outdoor classroom area on the upper floors that also provides architectural interest ta the fa,ade. All visible building materials would fallow a cohesive color scheme. A variety of materials and colors are being proposed as part of the color palette for the building design aesthetic. Materials would have a variety of patterns and textures. The material palette includes phenolic panels, brick, metal canopy, curtain wall glazing, perforated metal vertical sunshade, and corrugated metal. The western frontage /Park Ave N.) contains the majority of the mass and bulk of the structure. It greatest height is along this frontage and it's the building's longest fa,ade (386-feet). The design attempts to mitigate this bulk by a 20-foat setback from the sidewalk with ground-level landscaping. A first floor overhang and upper level outdoor classrooms provide vertical and horizontal modulation. However, the amount of modulation does commensurate with the length and height of the structure. Additionally, there are blank walls that require articulation or additional glazing. Opportunities exist to enhance the building design in order to provide a superior presence along the earner of N. 3'd St. and Park Ave. N and along the fa,ade front Park Ave. N. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring additional fa,ade and ground level treatments {see discussion under FOF 29: Design District Review}. City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 19 of 47 Compliant if Condition af Approval is Met Building and Site Design: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. Stoff Comment: The proposal includes ample buffers between the proposed school building and neighboring residential areas by locating the moss of the structure along the Pork Ave. N. frontage. Roof step-downs and increased rear yard setback along Gorden Ave N provides o significant buffer and allows for greater so/or exposure over much of the open spaces. Landscaping hos been incorporated along the perimeters of parking areas. The new development is anticipated to fit into the existing developed fabric of the neighborhood. The building transitions from its highest point along Pork Ave N., which is o principal orteriol, and steps down toward the residential oreo to the south ond east. The building's location also provides o buffer between adjacent residential areas with the plaza and gross field providing separation. Additionally, the building's location will result in the absence of shadows being cost on neighboring residential areas. Stoff will be recommending, os o condition of approval, the applicant provide o materials board to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager (see discussion in FOF 29: Design District Review}.· The materials board would also be used to confirm that siding materials are non-reflective which would reduce glare. Windows could slightly reflect light from the building but not to on extent beyond any typical institutional development. The applicant has indicated that the proposal would not result in excessive glare onto adjacent properties. However, a lighting pion was not submitted with the application package, as such, staff recommends o condition of approval that requires the applicant ta provide o lighting pion that adequately provides for public safety without costing excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of construction permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all coses to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting hos been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single family, townhouses, flats, etc. Stoff Comment: The proposed improvements include o single elementary school building on the subject property. As mentioned previously, the mass of the building is oriented to Pork Ave N. and the commercial side and surrounding area. The building then transitions with the height and moss stepping down toward the neighboring residential zones. The outdoor recreation areas are shielded from the commercial zone by the building and connected to the residential oreo with pedestrian pathways to the street frontage. Accessory structures such as the covered ploy area and trash enclosure provide consistency with the buildings architecture by utilizing similar materials and colors. Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 20 of 47 Compliant if Conditions of Approval are Met ,/ Circulation: i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a transportation technical report prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc., dated August 26, 2016 (Exhibit 11). The report included a Traffic Impact Analysis that was found to meet the intent of the TIA guidelines and is Traffic related comments emails have been received by the public. The comments raise concerns regarding the amount of trips the school would generate compared to the existing conditions, potential queue issues with parent pick-up and drop off an the N. 4th Street driveway, and improvements needed ta the N. 4th St. and Garden Ave N. intersection to accommodate additional trips generated by the school. Staff provided responses to comments as they related ta city code (Exhibit 15). As mentioned previously, the Renton Schaal District was the Lead Agency far the SEPA review. The City responded ta the district's consultation period with recommendations far mitigation (see FOF 11). The TIA and the City's review of the TIA found no failures caused by the new trips generated by the proposed school. No capacity related improvements are warranted at any abutting intersection. The City did recommend and the district provided as mitigation, safety measures related to vehicle speed and pedestrian crossing widths. The district also proposed to prepare an operational plan that includes methods to mitigate any queuing that may occur on N. 4th Street during pick-up and drop-aft times. See FOF 27 for additional street and pedestrian facility analysis. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. Staff Comment: While there is only one building located on the site, the amount of open space and landscaping ansite provides a balance to the 79,000 square foot building. As mentioned previously, the 35,000 square foot grass field and active recreation areas provide a transition from the school building to the neighboring residences. Perimeter and internal lot landscaping softens the visual effects of surface parking. Additionally, planter boxes are provided in the pedestrian plaza and larger pedestrian corridors add interest in the hardscape. The multiple open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational opportunities both passive ond active. Onsite impervious surfaces and additional vehicle circulation patterns are reduced Sartari ES 16-000692 HEX Staff Reaart City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 21 of 47 N/A N/A onsite with the location of the bus load/unload zone along the Garden Ave N. frontage. This results in a pedestrian oriented site plan with limited areas of pedestrian/vehicle conflict. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent and abutting dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. Staff Comment: The building is oriented to provide views of the active recreation areas and pedestrian plaza. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. Staff Comment: Onsite parking is provided in the north and south perimeters of the subject property. The surface parking design provides maximum use of parking area and provides clear, safe vehicular circulation that promotes visibility. The north parking area is dual-functional as it provides parking and the primary student pick-up/drop-off area. The design of the parking area is focused on a clockwise drive aisle that surrounds two rows of angled parking separated by landscaping. This parking area design is intended to provide adequate queuing capacity onsite. The area is complemented by perimeter and internal landscaping. The south parking area provides 90-degree parking spaces with rows that are broken up by internal Jot landscaping. Additional perimeter landscaping provides a visual buffer to the surface parking. Pedestrian pathways are provided to the building entrance and plaza. A flex parking area of eight (BJ parking spaces is provided adjacent to the public plaza on the south side of the property. This area is provided as temporary parking near the entrance or overflow parking. The surface is treated similar to the plaza area so it con also be used for pedestrian only events. Bus load/unload on Garden Ave N. will allow for reduced turning movements for bus drivers and result in the need for additional bus circulation areas onsite. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. 27. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 22 of 47 Compliance •,' ,' ·.___ ''-<.'. -" Infrastructure and Seryices Analysis · · .. " . . . - ' Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated thot sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. The preliminary fire flow requirements far this project, as proposed, are 2,000 gpm. A minimum of two (2) fire hydrants are required. One (1) within 150-feet and one within 300-feet of the building. The building shall also meet maximum hydrant spacing of 300-feet on center. One (1) fire hydrant shall be within 50-feet of the fire department connection far the fire sprinkler and standpipe systems. Any existing hydrants used to satisfy the requirements shall meet current fire code including 5-inch storz fittings. A Fire Impact Fee at a rote of $0.45 per square foot of increased building area is required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The applicant would be required to pay an appropriate Fire Impact Fee payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Staff Comment: The subject property is located within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. The property contains three (3) sub-basins or threshold discharge areas (TDA)s. The north and central basin (TDA 1} drains to the public conveyance system that drains north along Pork Ave N. and west along N. 4'" St. and eventually discharges to the Cedar River. The south basin (TDA 2) drains to the public conveyance system that drains west along N. 3'd St. and discharging to the Cedar River. The northeastern basin (TDA 3) discharges to the northeast at the intersection of Gorden Ave N. and N. 4'" St. and drains north along Gorden Ave N. eventually discharging to the Cedar River. This project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM. To maintain vesting of the 2009 KCSWDM and current city amendments, the applicant is required to submit a construction permit application within six (6) months of the complete application dote of the Conditional Use Permit application pursuant to RMC 4-1-045E.2.b Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within a Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions). The project is subject to full drainage review as it results in more than 7,000 square feet of land disturbing activity and more than 2,000 square feet if new and/or replaced impervious surface.=. The applicant submitted o Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by AHBL, doted August 2016 (Exhibit 10). The report also includes o detailed summary of the pre and post developed conditions. The preliminary grading and drainage plan (Exhibit 20) details flow control is to be provided within detention pipes in each sub-basin. Water quality treatment would be provided utilizing Filterra stormwater filtration systems. Flow control BMPs, ponds, stormwoter wetlands, and infiltration facilities are prohibited as the site is located within a Wellhead Protection Area Zone 1. The development would be subject to storm water system development charges. Water and Sanitary Sewer: Staff Comment: Water service will be provided by the City of Renton. The site is in the Volley service area in the 196-foot hydraulic pressure zone. The approximate static c;nrtnri FS 16-00069,J HFX 5taff R~nort City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 23 of47 Requested ta be modified through the PUD- Compliant if condition af approval is met water pressure is 68 psi at a graund elevation of 33-feet. The water improvements shall be designed in accordance with Appendix J of the City's Water System Plan. The applicant has submitted a preliminary utility plan (Exhibit 21) that provides connection to the existing main in Park Ave N. The development is subject to applicable water system development charges and meter installation fees. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. An existing 22-inch concrete sewer is located in N. 4th St. The applicant has submitted a preliminary utility plan (Exhibit 21) that provides a new 6-inch side sewer connection near the east side of the proposed school. The development is subject to applicable sewer system development charges. Compliance review with sewer and water construction standards will occur with the utility permit. Streets: The applicant is proposing two points of vehicular ingress and egress into the site, which is needed for parking, pick-up, and drop-off, but also to comply with Fire Department requirements for access. The applicant has proposed one entrance off N. 3'" St. that will accommodate a smaller parking area and also the delivery area. Due to the delivery access requirements (semi-tractor trailer) the driveway exceeds the 30- foot wide limitation and contains a 52-foot cut with curb radii to accommodate the truck's turning movement. As it is understood that delivery activities require the use of a larger truck due to multiple stops within the district, it should also be recognized that a wide driveway results in a long pedestrian crossing distance that increases the potential for pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. Therefore, staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant prepare a truck loading diagram that attempts to narrow the proposed 52-foot wide driveway and curb radii to minimum width needed to accommodate the delivery truck. If the driveway cannat be narrowed, then the applicant shall provide a design that includes o pedestrian refuge area in the middle of the driveway that shortens the crossing distance. The diagram and/or plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuing the construction permit. The second vehicular access point is on N. 4th St. and provides a dual function of parking and the primary parent drop-off and pick-up area. In order to reduce confusion and expedite the student drop-off and pick-up a curb return is located between two 20-foot one-way driveways. Additionally, the driveways contain curb radii in an effort to expedite pick-up and drop-off and mitigate any queuing that could occur on N. 4th Street. More than 330-feet of street frontage serves the subject property and therefore the applicant may hove an additional driveway on N. 4th. The curb return provided exceeds the 18-foot minimum width. Level of Service: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate 1,220 vehicle trips per day that would include 415 AM peak-hour trips and 250 PM peak-hour trips. The provided transportation report analyzed the following four (4) intersection locations (Exhibit 11): Intersection 1: N. 4th St./ Park Ave. N. Intersection 2: N. 4th St./ Garden Ave. N. Intersection 3: N. 3'" St./ Park Ave. N. Intersection 4: N. 3'" St. I Garden Ave. N. Sartori E5_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 24 of 47 The provided analysis notes that all intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service with the proposed development. Therefore, the proposal would not be required ta mitigate at any intersection. Additionally, operations analyses of the proposed access driveways indicate that all movements would operate at Level of Service B or better during all times of the day. Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. The fee shall be payable ta the City at the time of building permit issuance. Site Distance: The TIA indicated no sight distance issues or problems with the proposed driveway locations. Street Improvements: Garden Ave N -Garden Ave N is a residential access street along the project's east property line. The existing road contains curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the street. A narrow planter strip is located along the project's frontage only. Per code, frontage improvements including 0.5 feet wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, and 5-foot wide sidewalk, improvements are required on residential access streets. The applicant is proposing ta move the existing curb-line west approximately 8-feet and provide a bus parking lane with curb-bulb located at the N. 4th St. and N. 3'd St. intersections. Additionally, the applicant is proposing ta provide a 10-foot wide sidewalk and landscaping interior to the project (street frontage landscaping) ond no street trees. Staff supports a modification to the residential access street standards with further modification. The proposed relocation of the existing curb line west approximately 8- feet would result in a southbound lane width of approximately 21-feet. Such a lane width would likely result in driver confusion requiring the need for channeling markers or devices or the increased width could induce speeding. Instead, in conversations with the applicant, staff has suggested the applicant maintain the existing curb line and provide the bus load/unload in the existing ROW. This would maintain the appropriate street width and allow for the applicant to provide a 12-foot sidewalk and the ability to provide additional landscaping and tree retention on the Garden Ave N frontage. As mentioned previously, staff recommended SEPA mitigation measures along the intersections of Garden Ave N at N. 4th St. and N. 3'd street to provide curb-bulbs to shorten pedestrian crossing widths and provide traffic calming to the street. These measures were included in the Renton School District issued MONS (Exhibit 7) and incorporated into recommended conditions of approval for the PUD application. Staff is in support of expanded 12-foot sidewalks to facilitate loading and unloading of the students ond provide an enhanced pedestrian experience. Staff also supports the applicant not provide an 8-foot planter strip along the street as it will conflict with the load/unload area, but as an alternative provide street trees in tree grates. Therefore, staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant resubmit revised site and utility plans far Garden Ave N that provide the curb-line maintained in its existing location, 12-faat sidewalks, street trees in tree grates, and curb-bulbs meeting city standards at the intersections of N. 4th St. and N. 3'd St. The plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Engineering Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. ~---.,; C::C 'fC 1"111/lCD'l LJCV C1--U o,,,...,..r+ City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 25 of 47 Park Ave N. -Park Ave N is a principal arterial along the project's west property line. Existing improvements include curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Per code, frontage improvements including 0.5 feet wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, and 8-foot wide sidewalk improvements are required on principal arterials. The applicant proposes a 0.5-foot wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, and 12-foot wide sidewalks. Staff supports this modification os it enhances the pedestrian area along an important arterial connection in the City Center. The applicant has proposed to retain five (5) street trees along the Park Ave N frontage. Following consultation with the City's Arborist, staff recommends the trees be removed and replanted. The existing trees are currently constrained within tree wells and growing into the overhead power lines. Establishing new trees in a planter strip that wauld provide an adequate area for root development and trees that do not need modification due to overhead utility conflicts will provide a better long term result with regard to aesthetics and maintenance. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant resubmit a revised landscape plan that replaces all five trees shown to be retained on Park Ave N. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior ta construction permit approval. The Park Ave N. frontage contains four (4) overhead power poles that will conflict with required frontage improvements. RMC 4-6-090 requires the utilities be located underground with the redevelopment of the property. The applicant will be required to submit utility plans that identify the utilities underground or obtain variance approval as provided by RMC 4·6·090G. N. 4th St. -N. 4th St. is a principal arterial along the project's north property line. Existing improvements include curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Per code, frontage improvements including 0.5 feet wide curb and gutter, on 8-foot wide landscaped planter, and 8-foot wide sidewalk improvements are required an principal arterials. The applicant proposes to provide the code standard. N. 3'" St. -N. 3'" St is a principal arterial along the project's south property line. Existing improvements include curb, gutter, planter strip, and sidewalk. Per code, frontage improvements including 0.5 feet wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, and 8-foot wide sidewalk improvements are required an principal arterials. The applicant proposes to provide the code standard, however after review staff finds a modified frontage that provides on-street parking and curb bulbs is viable. This street section would provide additional parking for the school near the entrance, which would also alleviate the need to provide auxiliary parking in the plaza area. Also, the curb bulbs would reduce the crossing distance far pedestrians along the N. 3'" St. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant resubmit revised site and utility plans for N. 3'd St. that provides curb-bulbs meeting the City's standard on the property's frontage at Park Ave N and Garden Ave N. thereby creating a row of on-street parking along the north side af N. 3'd St. The plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The applicant has alsa proposed to retain four street trees along the N. 3'" St. frontage. As the street frontage section is recommended by staff to be altered and include bulbs, it is unknown whether the trees would conflict with the new street section. There/are, staff recommends the applicant attempt to keep the four (4) trees as shown, but if the curb-bulbs and new frontage layout conflict with the existing Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 26 of 47 trees, the trees shall be removed and replaced per the City's street tree standard. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, a revised landscape plan that provides the new street frontage section and either the retention of the four (4) trees if possible or the replacement of the trees meeting City street tree standards. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Temporary Impacts: Given the concentration of development to occur in the immediate vicinity of the project site, staff anticipates that the proposed project would contribute to short term impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the applicant create a public outreach sign in coordination with City of Renton to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone areo; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The sign shall be placed on site prior to construction commencement. Concurrency -Staff recommends a transportation concurrency approval based upon a test af the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation (Exhibit 19}. 28. PUD Development Standards: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-1500.4, each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the development standards for the Planned Urban Development regulations. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the development standards of the Planned Urban Development regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-lSOE: Compliance PUD Development Standard Analysis .. . · . . ,' . 1. COMMON OPEN SPACE STANDARD: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to fifty (SO) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be N/A 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 Hearing Examiner. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. Standard: All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian-oriented space according to the following formula: Compliant if 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian- Conditions of oriented space. Approval are Staff Comment: The applicant's minimum requirement far pedestrian oriented spaces Met is 2,913 square feet (212,3Blsf lot area I 79,000sf building area). The applicant has provided a 10,300 square foot public plaza that wraps the corner of the building at the intersection of the N. 3'd St. and Park Ave N. As shown on the preliminary landscape plan (Exhibit 3) the plaza will be will be surfaced with scared concrete and provide benches for seating. Planter boxes and flag poles provide edge features that City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-00069Z, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 27 of 47 demarcate the plaza. The flexible parking area containing eight (8) parking stalls and plaza surface treatment provides an additional 4,000 square feet. Edge planting along this area softens the hardscape and provides additional edges to the plaza. No pedestrian level lighting is shown in the plaza and while bench seating is provided, it does not appear to meet the minimum requirement of three (3) feet per 60-feet of plaza area. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a detailed plaza plan that identifies compliance with lighting levels of four /4) foot candles on the ground, minimum seating areas, and other applicable pedestrian - oriented space qualifiers in RMC 4-9-1501c. The detailed plaza plan shall a/sa include detail cut sheets of the bench, planter boxes, and any other streetscape elements that will be provided. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro-climatic conditions . .,, Staff Comment: The public plaza area is located and a component of the main entry to the proposed school building. The plaza is also located along the south and southwest portions of the site, which will provide the maximum amount of solar exposure. Standard: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential N/A projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play N/A space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. 29. Design District Review: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-150D.4, each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with any overlay district associated with the subject property; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested. The subject property is located within Design District 'D' and the R-8 and R-10 zoning areas are to Residential Design and Open Space Standards. Through the PUD, the applicant is requesting that a single designation be applied for the entire project given strict adherence to the differing design standards would result in multiple site design features that would be incompatible with the proposed elementary school use (FOF 14: Requested Modifications from RMC through the PUD). Design District 'D' standards was recommended by City staff given the main presence of the building is located along Park Ave N, which allows integration into future commercial development and anticipated growth along that arterial. Staff is in support of the requested modification/application of the single Design District provided the applicant complies with all conditions of approval. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the standards of the Design District 'D' Standards and guidelines, as outlined in RMC 4-3-100.E: Compliance I Design District Guideline and Standard Analysis 1. 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. a. Building location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and Sartori ES_ 16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUAl6-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 28 of 47 pedestrian pathways. To organize buildings for pedestrian use and so that natural light is available to other structures and open space. To ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses; and increase privacy for residential uses. Guidelines: Developments shall enhance the mutual relationship of buildings with each other, as well as with the roads, open space, and pedestrian amenities while working to create a pedestrian oriented environment. Lots shall be configured to encourage variety and so that natural light is available to buildings and open space. The privacy of individuals in residential uses shall be provided for. Standard: The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be ,/ considered when siting structures. Staff Comment: The building is oriented north/south along the western portion of the property. This orientation maximizes solar exposure on the public plaza and open spaces along the east portion of the property. Standard: Buildings shall be oriented to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. ,/ Staff Comment: The building is oriented to Park Ave N and N 3"' St. Clear connections are provided via the pedestrian plaza and main public entrance. Standard: The front entry of a building shall be oriented to the street or a landscaped ,/ pedestrian-only courtyard. Staff Comment: The front entry is oriented to the Park Ave N and N 3'• St. Standard: Buildings with residential uses located at the street level shall be: a. Set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10') and feature N/A substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building; or b. Have the ground floor residential uses raised above street level for residents' privacy. b. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Guidelines: Primary entries shall face the street, serve as a focal point, and allow space for social interaction. All entries shall include features that make them easily identifiable while reflecting the architectural character of the building. The primary entry shall be the most visually prominent entry. Pedestrian access to the building from the sidewalk, parking lots, and/or other areas shall be provided and shall enhance the overall quality of the pedestrian experience on the site. 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. Staff Comment: The primary entrance is located on the corner of Park Ave N and N. 3'• St. The entrance is connected to the sidewalk via a pedestrian plaza that includes seating, planters, and bicycle parking. Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be made visibly prominent by ,/ incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting. Cn.+n,; t:C 1 h_nnnho, J...Jt:V Ctnff 11,,;,nnr+ City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 29 of 47 Staff Comment: The primary entry is made visibly prominent by a building overhang and canopy. Lorge doors and expansive glazing also provide distinction. Standard Building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide. Buildings that are taller than " thirty feet (30') in height shall also ensure that the weather protection is proportional to the distance above ground level. Staff Comment: The building entry is marked with canopies extending approximately 13-feet and overhangs extending approximately 15-feet. Coverages ore approximately 10'8" above grade to provide adequate weather protection. Standard: Building entries from a parking lot shall be subordinate to those related to the street. ,/ Stoff Comment: The main entry at the corner of Pork Ave N and N 3'd St the most architecturally prominent as detailed above. Other entries from the parking lot will hove simple overhang and/or canopies for weather protection. Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows shall be oriented to a street or pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features ,/ should be incorporated. Stoff Comment: The main entry and lobby/reception area are oriented to the pedestrian plaza ot the corner of Park Ave N ond N 3'" St. Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall direct views to building entries by N/A providing a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping. Standard: Ground floor residential units that are directly accessible from the street N/A shall include entries from front yards to provide transition space from the street or entries from an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. c. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long- established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Guidelines: Careful siting and design treatment shall be used to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. Standard: At least one of the following design elements shall be used to promote a transition to surrounding uses: 1. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels in accordance with the surrounding planned and existing land use forms; or ,/ 2. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or 3. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. Additionally, the Administrator may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a building in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUAl6-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 30 of47 sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards. Stoff Comment: The building contains design elements that incorporate all three of the above referenced standards in varying levels. The east and west elevations provide a step-back on portions of the second and third floors that accommodates outdoor learning opportunities. This step bock acts more as an upper level building modulation as it breaks the plane of the long fa,;ode assists in dividing it into smaller increments. The south and east fo,;odes provides material and height variations also divide architectural elements and reduce the bulk of the structure thereby providing transition to the adjacent residential areas. d. 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. Guidelines: Service elements shall be concentrated and located so that impacts to pedestrians and other abutting uses are minimized. The impacts of service elements shall be mitigated with landscaping and an enclosure with fencing that is made of quality materials. 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 far tenant use. Staff Comment: A consolidated service area is located along the southeastern portion of the building adjacent to the kitchen. It is separated from the pedestrian areas by landscaping, refuse/recycling enclosure, and the 10-foot high ball wall. 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 wall or fence and have self-closing doors. Compliant if Stoff Comment: The refuse and recycling enclosure pion (Exhibit 18) is enclosed on condition of three sides with on 8-foot masonry wolf, roof structure, and two (2) ten-foot wide approval is metal gates. A landscaping screen is provided along the south wolf elevation. No met details were provided with the gate hardware. Therefore, staff recommends as o condition of approval, the applicant provide o revised refuse and recycling enclosure pion that provides o detail cut-sheet of the self-closing door mechanism. The pion shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit opprovol. Standard: Service enclosures shall be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, ,/' or some combination of the three (3). Stoff Comment: The enclosure is mode of masonry. 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. Stoff Comment: The service area is adjacent to o pedestrian connection between the building and parking lot. A 9-foot wide landscaping screen is shown on the site pion. e. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City, special design features City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-0DD692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 31 of 47 and architectural elements at gateways should be provided. While gateways should be distinctive within the context of the district, they should also be compatible with the district in form and scale. Guidelines: Development that occurs at gateways shall be distinguished with features that visually indicate to both pedestrians and vehicular traffic the uniqueness and prominence of their locations in the City. Examples of these types offeatures include monuments, public art, and public plazas. N/A N/A N/A Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features. Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles. Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two (2) or more of the following: Public art; Special landscape treatment; Open space/plaza; Landmark building form; Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); Neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs do not qualify). 2. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access; 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. a. Surface Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Guidelines: Surface parking shall be located and designed so as to reduce the visual impact of the parking area and associated vehicles. Large areas of surface parking shall also be designed to accommodate future infill development. Requested to be Modified Through the PUD Standard: Parking shall be located so that no surface parking is located between: (a) A building and the front property line; and/or (b) A building and the side property line (when on a corner lot). Staff Comment: No surface parking is located between the building and front property line of Park Ave N. The submitted site plan /Exhibit 2) identifies eight /8) parking spaces between the building and the N. 3'd St. side property line that would provide a flexible parking area to serve as temporary parking near the building entrance or overflow parking for special events. The surface is treated similarly to the adjacent plaza and is intended to act as a flex space that could also be used to enlarge the plaza for pedestrian oriented events. As the amount of parking is nominal and only represents a small area of the building and property line relative to the size of building and subject property, staff is in support of this modification. The perimeter landscaping and surface treatment provide appropriate mitigation of the flexible parking area. Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 32 of 47 Standard: Parking shall be located so that it is screened from surrounding streets by ,/' buildings, landscaping, and/or gateway features as dictated by location. Staff Comment: Perimeter landscaping is provided around the surface parking areas as identified in the landscape plan {Exhibit 3}. b. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To promote more efficient use of land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages. Guidelines: Parking garages shall not dominate the streetscape; they shall be designed to be complementary with adjacent and abutting buildings. They shall be sited to complement, not subordinate, pedestrian entries. Similar forms, materials, and/or details to the primary building(s) should be used to enhance garages. Standard: Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses N/A along street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the building frontage width. Standard: The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development may approve parking structures that do not feature a pedestrian orientation in limited N/A circumstances. If allowed, the structure shall be set back at least six feet (6') from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This landscaping shall include a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to ten feet (10') when abutting a primary arterial and/or minor arterial. N/A Standard: Public facing facades shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials. N/A Standard: The entry to the parking garage shall be located away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. Standard: Parking garages at grade shall include screening or be enclosed from view N/A with treatment such as walls, decorative grilles, trellis with landscaping, or a combination of treatments. Standard: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee 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: N/A (a) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (b) Decorative artwork; (c) Display windows; (d) Brick, tile, or stone; (e) Pre-cast decorative panels; (f) Vine-covered trellis; _,artnri F_, 16-000692 HEX Staff Reoort City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 33 of 47 (g) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (h)other treatments that meet the intent of this standard ... c. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets. Guidelines: Vehicular access to parking garages and parking lots shall not impede or interrupt pedestrian mobility. The impacts of curb cuts to pedestrian access on sidewalks shall be minimized. Standard: Access to parking lots and garages shall be from alleys, when available. If not available, access shall occur at side streets . .,/ Staff Comment: No alleys ore available for access. With the exception of Gorden Ave N. the surrounding streets are Principal Arterials. Access is provided on N. 3'• St and N. 4'" St. Standard: The number of driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized, so that pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk is minimally impeded . .,/ Staff Comment: While the subject property is an entire city block, only two entrances are provided. Driveways are limited with no curb cuts located on Park Ave N and Garden Ave N. 3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating 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. a. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of projects. Sidewalks and/or pathways shall be provided and shall provide safe access to buildings from parking areas. Providing pedestrian connections to abutting properties is an important aspect of connectivity and encourages pedestrian activity and shall be considered. Pathways shall be easily identifiable to pedestrians and drivers. Standard: A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and connect buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties shall be provided. (a) Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety. .,/ (b) Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable 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. Staff comment: Pedestrian pathways and plaza area contain clear site lines and are concrete. Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-00069l, PPUD, CU·H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 34 of 47 Compliant if Condition of Approval is Met. N/A Standard: Pathways within parking areas shall be provided and differentiated by material or texture (i.e., raised walkway, stamped concrete, or pavers) from abutting paving materials. Permeable materials are encouraged. The pathways shall be perpendicular to the applicable building facade and no greater than one hundred fifty feet (150') apart. Staff Comment: The applicant has provided pathways delineated pathways in the two parking areas. The sauth parking lat contains a path providing connection ta the plaza and main entrance. The north parking lat contains pedestrian areas surrounding the pick-up/drop-off area that connects students to the active recreation areas, student entrance, and public sidewalks. It appears pedestrian pathways are raised via curb an the site plan however no material identifier is provided in the south parking lot pathway. Therefore, as o condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit a revised site plan that provides the proposed material for the pedestrian pathway in the south parking lot. The plan shall be submitted, ta and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 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. (b) Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no smaller than five feet (S') and no greater than twelve feet (12'). (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. Staff Comment: Pathways from parking areas ta the interior of the project are generally 5-feet in width which is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated number of users. Sidewalks alang the public frontages would be 12-feet and 8-feet which is anticipated to be sufficient width to accommodate the pedestrian traffic school bus drop off Standard: Mid-block connections between buildings shall be provided. b. 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 year-round activities, under typical seasonal weather conditions. Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of projects. Amenities that encourage pedestrian use and enhance the pedestrian experience shall be included. ,/ Standard: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces and at facades along streets, shall be provided. Staff Comment: The landscape plan (Exhibit 3/ provides planter boxes to accommodate trees and shrubs in the pedestrian plaza area near the building's main Sartori ES 16-000692 HEX Staff Reaart City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hear;ng Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 35 of 47 entrance and along the student drop-off/pick-up area. Standard: Amenities such as outdoor group seating, benches, transit shelters, fountains, and public art shall be provided. (a) Site furniture 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. Compliant if (b) Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to Condition of public spaces or building entrances. Approval is Staff Comment: The pedestrian plaza will provide seating and places to gather. The Met. proposal did not include specifications for proposed pedestrian amenities. Therefore staff was unable to verify the whether site furniture is compliant with the standard. As such, staff recommends a condition af approval requiring the applicant provide detailed specifications for all site furniture, and art, in order to ensure durable, vandal- and weather-resistant materials are used. The specifications shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior building permit approval. Standard: Pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs shall be provided. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide along at least seventy five percent (75%) of the length of the building facade facing the street, a maximum height of ,/ fifteen feet (15') above the ground elevation, and no lower than eight feet (8') above ground level. Staff Comment: Building overhangs and canopies are provided along 75 percent of the N.3'd St. far;:ade. The height of the weather protection is approximately 11-feet above grade level. Overhangs are provides along the entirety of the Park Ave N. frontage. 4. RECREATION AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To ensure that areas for both passive and active recreation are available to residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and to promote pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street corners. Guidelines: Developments located at street intersections should provide pedestrian-oriented space at the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (illustration below). Recreation and common open space areas are integral aspects of quality development that encourage pedestrians and users. These areas shall be provided in an amount that is adequate to be functional and usable; they shall also be landscaped and located so that they are appealing to users and pedestrians N/A Standard: All mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide common open space and/or recreation areas. Standard: All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide See FOF28 pedestrian-oriented space Staff Comment: See FOF 28 PUD Development Standards. Standard: The pedestrian-oriented space shall be provided according to the following See FOF28 formula: 1% of the site area + 1% of the gross building area, at minimum. The pedestrian-oriented space shall include all of the following: Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 36 of 47 See FOF28 Requested to be Modified Through the PUD 1. Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; and 2. Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; and 3. On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground; and 4. At least three (3) lineal feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space. Stoff Comment: See FOF 28 PUD Development Standards Standard: The following areas shall not count as pedestrian-oriented space: 1. The minimum required walkway. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian- oriented space if the Administrator determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian-oriented space. 2. Areas that abut landscaped parking lots, chain link fences, blank walls, and/or dumpsters or service areas. Staff Comment: See FOF 28 PUD Development Standards Standard: Public plazas shall be provided at intersections identified in the Commercial Arterial Zone Public Plaza Locations Map and as listed below. The public plaza must be landscaped consistent with RMC 4-4-070, including at minimum street trees, decorative paving, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and seating. Staff Comment: RMC 4-3-100E4 identifies the intersection of Park Ave N. and N. 4th St. as an area that requires a public plaza measuring no less than 1,000 square feet and a minimum dimension of 20-feet abutting the sidewalk. Additionally, the plaza is required to contain landscaping, decorative paving, pedestrian scaled lighting, and seating. The applicant has requested to modify this requirement and relocate the plaza one block south to the corner of Park Ave N. and N. 3"' St. as this corner is the main entry to the school. Staff recommends approval to relocate the plaza to N. 3'd St. Providing the plaza at the entrance of the building and separated from vehicle oriented areas, such as the N. 4th St. intersection, will result in a greater pedestrian experience and likely greater utilized plaza. The applicant proposes a plaza at Park Ave N. and N. 3'd St. at 10-times the size of the code requirement. The plaza will be landscaped, contain seating, have a buffer of on-street parking along N. 3'd St., and as conditioned have pedestrian scaled lighting. A smaller plaza type area is provided near the intersection of the Park Ave N. and N. 4th St. abutting the north end of the school building. A covered waiting area measuring 1,056 square feet is provided for students awaiting pick-up. 5. 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. a. Building Character and Massing: <;nrtnri Ft; 1 h-nnnhQ'J I-IFX r;.tnff flpnnrt City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 37 of 47 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. Guidelines: Building facades shall be modulated and/or articulated to reduce the apparent size of buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. Compliant if condition of approval is met. Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). Staff Comment: Modulations on the building facades shown on the elevation plan (Exhibit 8} is provided vertically (e.g. roof step-downs and overhangs) and horizontally (e.g. building footprint along the east far;ade and outdoor classroom areas on the second and third floors). Articulation of the facades includes expanses of curtain wall glazing, sunshades, canopies, and windows. These intervals are generally at no more than 40-feet with the exception of the north and south ends of the Park Ave N. far;ade (west elevation) and the west side of the N. 4th St. far;ade (north elevation). Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant provide additional articulation or modulation features in these areas. Staff has suggested the applicant wrap the curtain wall around the corner along the south end of the Pork Ave N. far;ade. Artwork, additional glazing, and modulation are suggested on the north end of the Park Ave N far;ade and west side of the N. 4th St. far;ade. A revised elevation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Standard: Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet (2') in depth sixteen feet (16') in height, and eight feet (8') in width. Stoff Comment: Horizontal modulations shown on the site plan and elevation plan exceed these minimum requirements. Standard: Buildings greater than one hundred sixty feet (160') in length shall provide a variety of modulations and articulations to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade; or provide an additional special feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering area. Staff Comment: As mentioned previously, the facades are provided a number of modulations and articulation along the building. However, the Park Ave N. fai;:ade (west elevation) is has significant length (approximately 386-feet), is located 20-feet from the Pork Ave N. ROW, and relative to the other facades, appears to contain the compliant if least amount of modulation and articulation. Staff has recommended conditions condition of above for articulation treatments, but additional methods are needed to mitigate the approval is appearance of bulk along the Pork Ave N far;ade (west elevation). met. As currently depicted, the ground floor height does not provide an adequate base to the building. The cantilever and upper two stories appear ta be hulking aver the ground floor. This results in a squat-like base that is out of proportion with the upper two stories. This length of for;ade and amount of bulk along Park Ave N. is not human scale as intended by the design regulations. Staff hos been in communication with the applicant regarding this issue and the applicant hos provided informal canceptuol renderings /Exhibit 27) in response. Further refinement with formal elevations is needed to confirm compliance with this standard. Therefore, staff recommends os a condition of approval, the applicant submit revised Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 38 of 47 elevations that provide increased height or the perception of increased height on the ground floor. The plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. b. 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. Guidelines: The use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood siding is encouraged. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting (illustration below). Detail features should also be used, to include things such as decorative entry paving, street furniture (benches, etc.), and/or public art. Standard: Human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature shall be provided along the facade's ground floor. Staff_ Comment: The applicant has proposed human scale elements including landscape features, large window, and varied material patterns at the primary .,,,. entrances. Window patterns vory based on interior layout, but oil facades feature o variety of window types. Wall areas visible from public streets and sidewalks are treated with canopies ar overhangs _at pedestrian entries and landscaping. Architectural detailing elements including entrance detailing/weather protection ond contrasting materials bring the proposal into compliance with the intent af this standard to create human-scale character in the pedestrian environment. Standard: On any facade visible to the public, transparent windows and/or doors are required to comprise at least 50 percent of the portion of the ground floor facade Requested to that is between 4 feet and 8 feet above ground (as measured on the true elevation). be Modified Staff_ Comment: Glazing and doors are provided at least SO-percent along the ground Through the floor however some areas adjacent to the N. 3'd St. fa~ade are proposed to be frosted PUD and not transparent. The applicant proposed non-transparent glass along this frontage to provide privacy for the students and reduce potential distractions. Staff recommends approval of this modification for safety and welfare af the students. Standard: Upper portions of building facades shall 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 50 percent. Staff_ Comment: Glazing on upper floors is proposed to be clear and there will be sunshades provided to provide shade and articulation. N/A Standard: Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. Standard: Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear N/A glazing. Staff_ Comment: .,,,. Standard: Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are prohibited. Sartori ES 16-000692 HEX Staff Reoort City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 39 of 47 Compliant if condition of approval is met. Compliant if condition of approval is met. Stoff Comment: No tinted, dork, or reflective glass is proposed. 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 6 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 has a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Stoff Comment: See recommended conditions of approval above in Building Character and Massing regarding modulation and articulation. Standard: If blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following: (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. Stoff Comment: See recommended conditions of approval above in Building Character and Mossing regarding modulation and articulation. d. 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. Guidelines: Building roof lines shall be varied and include architectural elements to add visual interest to the building. Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles: (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs (e) Buildings containing predominantly residential uses shall have pitched roofs with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4) and shall have dormers or interesting roof forms that break up the massiveness of an uninterrupted sloping roof. Stoff Comment: The elevation pion provides extended parapets and roof step downs on the north, west, and east facades. A projected cornice extends on the south fo~ade. Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 40 of 47 These treatments provide varied roof profiles consistent with intent and guidelines. d. 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. Guidelines: Building materials are an important and integral part of the architectural design of a building that is attractive and of high quality. Material variation shall be used to create visual appeal and eliminate monotony of facades. This shall occur on all facades in a consistent manner. High quality materials shall be used. If materials like concrete or block walls are used they shall be enhanced to create variation and enhance their visual appeal. 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. Stott_ Comment: All materials continue on all sides and include consistent detailing. Standard: All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns or textural changes. ,/ Stat[_ Comment: The building contains a combination of masonry, metal siding, composite. panel, and glazing. Accent materials include pre-finished metal panel, pre- finished metal trim and canopies. ,/ Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have texture, pattern, and be detailed on all visible facades. Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and consistent with more Compliant if traditional urban development, such as brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, Condition of pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass and cast-in-place concrete. Approval is Staff Comment: In order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends Met the applicant submit a materials board subject to the approval af the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. N/A Standard: If concrete is used, walls shall be enhanced by techniques such as texturing, reveals, and/or coloring with a concrete coating or admixture. Standard: If concrete block walls are used, they shall be enhanced with integral color, N/A textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or shall incorporate other masonry materials. Standard: All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal ,/ banding, patterns, or textural changes. Stat[_ Comment: The building contains material variations such as the use of masonry, panels, and glass. 6. 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. Guidelines: lighting that improves pedestrian safety and also that creates visual interest in the building and site during the evening hours shall be provided. Sartori ES 16-000692 HEX Staff Reoort City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 41 of 47 CompUantif Condition of Approval Complied With Compliant if Condition of Approval Complied With Compliant if Condition of Approval Complied With Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided at primary and secondary building entrances. Examples include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting and decorative street lighting. Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted identifying compliance with these standards, as such staff recommends a condition of appraval that the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately pravides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard. Standard: Accent lighting shall also be provided on building facades (such as sconces) and/or to illuminate other key elements of the site such as gateways, specimen trees, other significant landscaping, water features, and/or artwork. Staff Comment: Ornamental lighting fixtures would help create more visual interest for the structure in the pedestrian public realm. Therefore staff recommends, os a condition of approval, the applicant be required to submit revised elevations depicting ornamental lighting fixtures. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. If all conditions of approval are met the proposal would satisfy the intent of this standard. Standard: Downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4- 075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site (i.e., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or decorative lighting, right-of-way-lighting, etc.). Staff Comment: See Condition above. 30. Conditional Use Permit: K-12 educational institutions require a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit to locate in a R-8, R-10, CN, and CA zones. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with Conditional Use Permit decision criteria as related to the request to establish the use, as outlined in RMC 4-9-030.D: Compliance Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Analysis a. Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive ., Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. Staff Comment: See FOF 22: Comprehensive Plan Compliance, FOF 23: Zoning Development Standard Compliance, and FOF 26: PUD Decision Criteria. b. Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area ., of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. Staff Comment: The proposed school is the only elementary school within the City Center Community Planning Area. It would be the first school that is within close Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Report of November 1, 2016 Page 42 of 47 ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ proximity to the downtown and The Landing. The proposed location was previously used for educational purposes and therefore is already suited for the proposed elementary school. c. Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. Staff Comment: The proposed elementary school would not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. As noted in zoning and development standard compliance and PUD decisional criteria above, the applicant will be required to improve public frontages, provide off-street parking, provide stormwater flow control and treatment, and install street frontage landscaping. Additionally, os referenced in the Design District D review {FOF 29} the building and site plan provide an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian oriented development that will improve the existing conditions of the subject property. The new school is anticipated to result in an influx in pedestrian ond vehicular traffic during school AM and PM peak hours. However, this change in traffic is not anticipated to result in substantial ar undue adverse effects on adjacent properties os no level of service failures have been identified. d. Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Staff Comment: The proposed elementary school is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. The building main presence is located along Park Ave N. or the commercial side of the subject property. The building steps down and reduces its overall scale as it transitions east toward the residential area. By constructing a 3-story building, the programming results in a smaller overall building footprint that con be consolidated to the west side af the property. A buffer area of landscaping and the grass field provides additional transition to the residential area. e. Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. Staff Comment: Adequate parking is provided. The applicant's transportation report identifies a peak demand of 74 parking spaces. The proposal will provide 83 parking spaces onsite and new on-street parking along N. 3'd Street. Bus loading and unloading is proposed along Garden Ave N. Additionally, for special events, more parking capacity is available within the drop-off/pick-up queue, bus pull out, and offsite parking con be provided at the school district's transportation facility located north of the subject property. f. Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. Stoff Comment: Safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians will be provided. The applicant provided a transportation study that provided analysis for abutting intersections. No failures were found by adding the proposed elementary school trips to the City's transportation system. The applicant will provide frontage improvements and pedestrian enhancements. The applicant has proposed to prepare a transportation management plan that will assist student pick-up and drop-off procedures with the intent of making the process smooth and efficient thereby resulting in minimal impacts two times per doy. See further discussion under FOF 26: PUD Decision Criteria -Circulation. Sartori ES 16-000692 HEX Staff Reoort City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 43 of 47 g. Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. Staff Comment: There will be temporary noise impacts associated with the construction of the school and long term noise associated with the operation of the school. The applicant has stated noise impacts consist of typical construction activity such as heavy machinery, vehicles arriving and leaving the site, and contractor too/- use. Most notably, the construction of the building's pile foundation system will occur over the course of a 6-8 week period. The applicant will utilize an alternative to pile driving method of installing the foundation via an auger cast method. A hoolow stem auger drills to the design depth of appraximately 50-feet and when removed the pile grout is injected into the hole. This method is less impactful than driving piles and does not cause ground vibrations. The applicant proposes the following additional methods of controlling noise impacts: locating stationary equipment away from neighboring properties, erecting portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment, turning off idling construction equipment, require contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment, and train construction crews to ovoid unnecessarily loud action near noise sensitive areas. These methods are included as mitigation measures in the school district's MONS (Exhibit 7) and recommended to be adapted in full as conditions of approval. Lang term noise impacts associated with the school include vehicle traffic noise during pick-up/drop-off, bus loading/unloading, truck delivery, and noise associated with large groups of children. These impacts will be predominately during the weekday throughout the school year. Additionally, school bus operators will be instructed to turn off engines and not idle during loading and unloading. These two mitigation measures ore included in the school district's MONS and recommended to be adopted in full os conditions of approval. Truck delivery noise impacts should be minimal. Delivery access will be limited to the N. 3'd St. driveway and south portion of the subject site. School children playing outside will be an impact limited during the school day. The school building, parking lot, and grounds will be lit after dusk each evening for safety purposes. The school district's MONS has included mitigation measures that include: minimizing exterior lighting to only what is required for life safety and security, 25-foot maximum height for pole-mounted fixtures, direct light away from site perimeter, and the use of cut-off light fixtures. Further, RMC 4-4-075 provides standards that limit light trespass such as parking lot pole height limitations of 25-feet with cut-off type luminaire and building lights directed onto itself or the ground immediately abutting it. As mentioned previously in FOF 26-Building and site design and FOF 29 Lighting, staff has recommended as a condition of approval o lighting plan be submitted for review with the building permit application. Standards far design review and compliance with exterior lighting standards will be reviewed with the building permit submittal. h. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed street frontage landscaping along the perimeter of the subject property with the exception of the plaza area at Park Ave N. and N. 3'd St., driveways, and pedestrian connections. Additionally landscaping is Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-00069Z, PPUD, CU-H Page 44 of 47 provided within the interior of the surface parking area, a large grass play area located on the east portion of the property, and within planter boxes proposed in the plaza and pedestrian walkway adjacent to the parent pick-up/drop-off zone. See FOF 23 -Landscaping and FOF 26 Overall Design-Landscape/Screening. i I. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The subject site is located in the Residential Medium Density (MD), Residential High Density (HD), and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan designations and complies with the goals and policies established within these designations if all conditions of approval are met, see FOF 22. 2. The subject site is located in the Residential-8 (R-8), Residential-10 (R-10), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designations. Through the PUD the applicant requests application of the CA zoning designation for the entire property. The proposal complies with the CA zoning and development standards established with this designation provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 23. 3. The proposal complies with the Critical Area Regulations provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 24. 4. The proposal complies with the Planned Urban Development provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 25, 26, and 28. 5. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed development, see FOF 27. 6. The proposal complies with the Design District D overlay regulations provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 29. 7. The proposal complies with Conditional Use Permit decisional criteria provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 30. 8. Key features, which are integral to this project include the following PUD modification recommendations: RMC Code Citation Required Standard Recommended Modification RMC 4-2-100 Zoning There are four (4) separate tables The application of a single zoning Standards Tables dealing with the various land use classification (CA) and categories and zones which contain corresponding Design District 'D' for the minimum and, in some cases, the entire site for the purposes of maximum requirements of the zone. review. RMC 4-2-120A 20-foot maximum side yard along a Exceed maximum side yard along N. Development street setbacks 3'' St. to provide a 72-foot setback Standards for and N. 4th St. to provide a 135-foot Commercial Zoning setback. A 52-foot and 115-foot Designations modification, respectively. RMC 4-6-060F Street Residential Access Street Standards Staff Recommended Alteration - Standards for Garden Ave N. Maintain existing curb-line, 12-foot sidewalks, street trees in tree wells, and bulb-outs. Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Stoff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 RMC 4-6-060F Street Principal Arterial Street Standards for Standards -Staff N. 3,ct St. Recommended RMC 4-3-100 Urban Parking shall be located so that no Design Standards surface parking is located between a building and the front property line; and/or a building and the side property line (when on a corner lot). RMC 4-3-100 Urban Plaza located at Park Ave N. and N. 4th Design Standards St. RMC 4-3-100 Urban Any facade visible to the public shall Design Standards be comprised of at least fifty percent (50%) transparent windows and/or doors for at least the portion of the ground floor facade that is between four feet (4') and eight feet (8') above ground (as measured on the true elevation). RMC 4-4-070 Ten-feet of on-site landscaping is Landscaping required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways or those projects with reduced setbacks. RMC 4-4-080F, Based on the proposed number of Parking, Loading, and employees, a minimum and maximum Driveway Regulations of 60 parking spaces would be required/allowed in order to meet code. RMC 4-4-0BOF, 1 off-street parking space for each bus Parking, Loading, and of a size sufficient to park each bus Driveway Regulations RMC 4-4-0BOI, The width of any driveway shall not Parking, Loading, and exceed thirty feet (30') exclusive of Driveway Regulations the radii of the returns or the taper section, the measurement being made parallel to the centerline of the street roadway. RMC 4-4-090, Refuse The gate opening for any separate and Recyclables building or other roofed structure Standards used primarily as a refuse or recyclables deposit area/collection point shall have a vertical clearance of at least fifteen feet (15'). Sartori ES_15-000592_HEX Stoff Report Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 45 of47 Curb-bulbs and on-street parking along the north side of N. 3,a St. Eight parking spaces are proposed between the building and side property line along N. 3,a St. Relocate plaza to front pf building at Park Ave N and N. 3,a St. Frosted glass in areas along the south fac;ade. No street frontage landscaping in areas between the public plaza and street. The applicant proposed a total of 83 spaces within surface parking areas. The proposal exceeds the maximum parking stall requirements by 23 spaces. Bus Parking is proposed on Garden Ave N. Driveway width on N. 3,d St. proposed at 52-feet. Driveway exceeds standards by 22-feet to accommodate delivery truck. Proposed enclosure that provides a vertical clearance of 9.5-feet. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 i J. RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 46 of 47 Staff recommends approval of the New Sartori Elementary School File No. LUA16-000692, as depicted in Exhibit 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued by the Renton School District on October 21, 2016 2. The applicant shall record a formal Lot Combination in order to ensure the proposed buildings are not built across property lines. The instrument shall be recorded prior to building permit approval. 3. The applicant shall submit revised site plans that locate the covered play area structure in an area compliant with the 15-foot minimum rear setback. The plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that provides specific detail for the number or types of trees and shrubbery to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval complying with applicable sections of RMC 4-4-070. 5. The applicant shall submit a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment. The revised plan set shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall provide an updated arborist report that provides analysis for the potential to retain trees 29, 30, and 31 on the tree retention plan with the new Garden Ave N. cross section. The trees shall be retained if viable; otherwise replacement at the required 6:1 caliper inch ration will be required for any of the three (3) trees that cannot be retained. The arborist report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that identifies the replacement trees meeting the replacement requirements of RMC 4-4-130. The landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall submit a source statement certified by a professional engineer or geologist licensed in the State of Washington meeting the requirements of RMC 4-4-060N.4 or provide documentation that fill will be obtained from a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approved source as allowed by RMC 4-4-060N.4.g. The source statement or WSDOT documentation shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 9. The applicant shall submit a truck loading diagram that attempts to narrow the proposed 52-foot wide driveway and curb radii to the minimum width needed to accommodate the delivery truck. If the driveway cannot be narrowed, then the applicant shall provide a design that includes a pedestrian refuge area in the middle of the driveway that shortens the crossing distance. The diagram and/or plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuing the construction permit. 10. The applicant shall submit revised site and utility plans for Garden Ave. N. that provide the curb-line maintained in its existing location, 12-foot sidewalks, street trees in tree grates, and curb-bulbs meeting city standards at the intersections of N. 4th St. and N. 3rd St. The plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Engineering Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 11. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that replaces all five trees shown to be retained on Park Ave N. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Report of November 1, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000692, PPUD, CU-H Page 47 of 47 12. The applicant shall submit revised site and utility plans for N. 3rd St. that provides curb-bulbs meeting the City's standard on the property's frontage at Park Ave N and Garden Ave N. thereby creating a row of on-street parking along the north side of N. 3rd St. The plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 13. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that provides the new street frontage section along N. 3,a St. and either the retention of the four (4) trees if possible or the replacement of the trees due to the modified street frontage. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 14. The applicant shall create a public outreach sign in coordination with City of Renton to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The sign shall be placed on site prior to construction commencement. 15. The applicant shall submit a detailed plaza plan that identifies compliance with lighting levels of four (4) foot candles on the ground, minimum seating areas, and other applicable pedestrian -oriented space qualifiers in RMC 4-9-1501c. The detailed plaza plan shall also include detail cut sheets of the bench, planter boxes, and any other streetscape elements that will be provided. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 16. The applicant shall provide a revised refuse and recycling enclosure plan that provides a detail cut- sheet of the self-closing door mechanism. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that provides the proposed material for the pedestrian pathway in the south parking lot. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 18. The applicant shall provide detailed specifications for all site furniture and art, in order to ensure durable, vandal-and weather-resistant materials are used. The specifications shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior building permit approval. 19. The applicant shall provide additional articulation and/or modulation features on the north and south end of Park Ave N. fa~ade and the west side of the N. 4th St. facade. Staff has suggested the applicant wrap the curtain wall around the corner along the south end of the Park Ave N. fa~ade. Artwork, additional glazing, and modulation are suggested on the north end of the Park Ave N fa~ade and west side of the N. 4th St. fa~ade. A revised elevation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 20. The applicant shall submit revised elevations that provide increased height or the perception of increased height on the ground floor. The plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 21. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; provides ornamental lighting fixtures; and otherwise complies with exterior lighting requirements of RMC 4-4-075. 22. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the fa~ade treatments, raised planters, siding, windows/frames, and canopies. Sartori ES_16-000692_HEX Staff Report / ® EXHIBITS Project Name: Project Number: New Sartori Elementary School LUA16-000692,PPUD,CUP-H Date of Hearing Staff Contact Project Contact/ Applicant Project location November 8, 2016 Matthew Herrera, Senior Planner Lisa Klein, AHBL, 2215 N. 3Q1h St., 315 Garden Ave N. #BOO, Tacoma, WA 98043 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1: HEX Report, dated November 1, 2016 Exhibit 2: Site Plan Exhibit 3: Landscape Plan Exhibit 4: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 5: Notice of SEPA Consultation Prepared by Renton School District Exhibit 6: City SEPA Comment Letter to District Exhibit 7: Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance issued by the Renton School District Exhibit 8: Elevations Exhibit 9: Tree Retention Plan Exhibit 10: Stormwater Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by AHBL, dated August 2016 Exhibit 11: Transportation Report prepared by Heffron Transportation, dated August 26, 2016 Exhibit 12: Arborist Report prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, dated August 23, 2016 Exhibit 13: Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences Incorporated, dated August 4, 2016. Exhibit 14: Email Comments from Angie Laulainen Exhibit 15: City Staff Response to Angie Laulainen Exhibit 16: Carbon Copy Email Comments Exhibit 17: Tree Retention Worksheet Completed by Applicant Exhibit 18: Screening Details (Garbage Enclosure) Exhibit 19: Concurrency Memo Prepared by Brianne Bannworth Development Engineering Manager, dated October 31, 2016 Exhibit 20: Civil Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit 21: Civil Utility and Surfacing Plan Exhibit 22: Boundary and Topographic Survey Exhibit 23: Floor Plans Exhibit 24: Perspective Views (Architectural Renderings) Exhibit 25: Advisory Notes to Applicant Exhibit 26: Affidavit of Posting and Mailing Exhibit 27: Revised Architectural Renderings -----~RentOil ® m X =r a' =- "' l ~ 1 r L ! 8 J !I , I 'I ~I t z C m z 0 ~ I , \.._} _.,.!. "'"'°'"'OE: -. ~""'t" N>W rn·: .. m s::c:O[ ,_.._.._,__p:El~~T ~;;1¥,.~L.L:..!L.::.:::..c:=:::.zt:::Ur:L;,::..ti.W;;J I Renton School District Sartori Elementary School ~ / ...... 1--J ___ {_1__~---~ \ ~.~ J I / --------, I -----I I L ___ l__ _ --_I ___ -_L _, ""~%~~"' I , f ! l I s q ' ' I ,l ' z E9 _, '\,,,.,'""a•,.•'•• ,,,.a, .. ,..,.,.,',,., 315 Garden Avenue N, Renton WA 98057 _J > ' • ' • E9 I 0 p I Renton School District integr.~~, ... I ' r '' Sartori Elementary School WEISMANDESlGNGROUP .:., "8 ! 0 I I --~-·~ .. ., ~ -~ ' ! I ! iii ~ ;;; I 315GardenAvenue N, RentonWAH057 ,',' ,. ;, .'.," ............ · .. ~ '" ..... ·. "' • m /~· M1~!:ttQD ·-----···-----· [ntegr.hf~'"" .......... --------~---· ·- f\l E.lr~H 8C)RHt)~) C) DE r/\ ! 1 __ f1.'\ t', f-' ··-----·----~·-----·,. ... _,.,... _________ .... ____ .--_, ·----··"'·--~-,-..... -----· . B SARTORI ELEMENTARY SC HOOL 315 N GARDEN AVE, RENTO N, WA 98057 FACILITIES, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER CAPITAL PROJECTS OFFICE 7812 S 124th Street, Seattle, WA 98178-4830 425-204-4403, Fax 425-204-4476 NOTICE OF SEPA CONSULTATION The Remon School District has issued a SEPA C heckli s t and associated documents for comment prior to issuing a threshold determination for the construction of Sartori Elementary School. Project Name: Sartori Elementary School Name of Applicant: Renton School District No. 403, Facilities Department Notice ofSEPA Consultation Posted: August 24, 2016 Site Location: The school will be located at 315 Garden Ave N, Renton, WA. It is comprised of tax parcel numbers: 756460-0170, - 0180. -01 8 l , -0182, -0183, -0184, and 722400-0620, -0615, -0610. -0600, -0590, -0580. -0595, -0605. It is located in Section O 17 Township 23 Range 5E Project Description: The new Sartori Elementary School (SES) will be located on th e site of Renton School District's Sartori Education Center (SEC) at 315 Garden Ave Nin Renton , Washington. The site is a full block bounded by Park Ave N to the west , Garden Ave N to the east. N 4th St to the north, and N 3rd St to the south. The new school is being developed as a choice school to house a specialized program and is anticipated to serve a maximum of 650 students from ki ndergarten to 5th grade. The school w ill be the first elementary sc hool in Renton School District that is in close proximity to the downtown core and is being developed as a civic and community asset to the ci ty center where it is located. The choice progr:.im will have a neighborhood b o undary and a lso draw students from the whole school district. The new three story building w ill be approximately 76,000 square feet in size and located fronting the western/Park Ave nue s id e of the block. In addition to classrooms, th e school will contain a gymnasi um and library. The grounds will include a hardscape play area, pl ay equipment on so ti surface, and a grass p lay field that are des ig ned for shared use with the community. A public plaza is located at th e main entry at the corner of Park Ave N and N 3rd St. A to tal of approximately 80 vehicle parking spaces w ill be provided in three parking areas. One parking lo t is accessed off N 4th St and also allows for convenient parent drop-off/pick-up. Two vis itor parking areas are accessed from N 3 rd St. School buses will p ark alo ng the west side of Garden Ave N for loading and unloadi ng. Requested Approvals: Ci ty of Renton Permits/Approvals: Preliminary and Final Planned Unit D evel opment : Conditional Use Pe rmit; Site Plan Review; Cl earing, Gradin g & Site Development Permit; Building Permit; Fire System Permit; Elect rical Permit Other Agency Permits/Approvals: SEPA dete rmination by th e Renton School District: Nation al P oll utant Di sc h arge E limination System (NPDES) by the Was hing ton State Department of Ecology Identification of Existing Environmental Documents: T he Construction Stormwater General Notice of Intent was publi s hed in the Seattle T imes on April 25, 20 16 and Ma y 2. 2016: PBS Engin eering and Envi ronmental is preparing the necessary env ironmental documentatio n th at is required for the site demolition permits: G eotcchnical Report prepared by Associat ed Earth Sciences, August. 2016: Arbori st Report prepared by Was hington F orestry Cons ultant s August 20 16; Survey, prepared by AHBL . Inc. Febmary 24. 2016; Tree Retention Worksheet and Plan prepared by Wei s man Associates August 2016 ; Transportation Technical Report prepared by Heffron Transportation. In c . August 20 16 ; Drainage Report prepared by AHBL August 2016: Light Spi ll Analysis to be prepared. Copies of th e documents pertaining to thi s SEPA c o ns ult ati o n are avai la ble for review during regular business hours at th e Renton School Di s tri c t Facilities Department al th e address listed bel ow. School District Contact: Rick Stracke, Executive D irector of Facilities, Maintenance, Operations, Safety, a nd Security Des ignated SEPA Respons ible Official Renton School District 78 12 South I 24th Street Seattle. WA 98178-4810 Please submit your written comments by 5:00 pm, September 23, 20 16 to Rick Stracke at the address above. Launching Leaming to Last a Lifetim e 78 12 S 124th Street, Seattle Wa s hington 98 17 8 / p . 425.204. 4403 / f. 425.204. 44 76 www.rentonschoo/s.us ----.... RENTON " Exhibit 5 Denis Law Mayor September 30, 2.016 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent , Administrator Rick Stracke, Executive Director of Facilities, Maintenance, Operations, Safety, and Security Designated SEPA Responsible Official Renton School District 7812 South 124th Street Seattl e, WA 98178-4830 VIA Email: richard.stracke@rentonschools .us SUBJECT: SEPA Comments for Sartori School Dear Mr. Stracke, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist for the proposed Sartori Elementary Schoo! project. The Renton School District is acting as the Lead Agency for the SEPA process as allowed per WAC 197-11-050. City of Renton will be processing the land use permits necessary for the proposal. We have reviewed the Final SEPA Checklist and offer the following comments: Project Description. The description of the proposal in the final SEPA Checklist indicates the proposed school building as 76,000 square feet (sf), while the land use application submitted to Clty of Renton identifies the building as 79,000 sf. Critical Areas. The City's COR mapping database shows the subject property is within a High Seismic a re a. We request that this Critical Area be noted in the SEPA Checklist. Transportation/Pedestrian Safety. The proposal will result in an increase in pedestrians in the vicinity of the school. Therefore, the City requests mitigation for potential impacts to pedestrians and to increase pedestrian safety. Further, we request that the mitigation measures listed below be included in the SEPA Threshold DeterminaUon and be subject to City of Renton review and approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • Installation of school flasher speed limit signage. The location of the signage would be determined during the City's Construction/Utility Permit review process. • Installation of radar sign(s) that provide vehicle speed . The location of the sig nage would be determined during the City's Construction/Utility Permit review process. • Installation of curb bulbs on Garden Ave N. at N. 3rd St. and N. 4th St. to reduce pedestrian crossing width. • Preparation of a plan to be distributed to students and families that identifies safe wa lking routes to school and crossing guard locations. Transportation/Off·Site Impacts. The proposal would potentially result in vehicle queuing onto North 4th Street at the beginning and end of the school day. In addition, off-site parking impacts to the ----- Exhibit 6 105 5 So uth Grady Way, Rent o n, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Rick Stracke September 30, 2016 Page 2 surrounding neighborhood may occur during special school events. The City requests the following mitigation measures to address these concerns. The mitigation measures listed below should be subject to the review and approval of the City of Renton prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. • Preparation of an operational plan that provides preventive measures for off site queuing onto N. 4 1 h Street during pick-up and drop-off. • Preparation of a parking plan for special events that may require more parking than is available onsite . If you have any questions regarding the City's comments, please contact me at jhenning@rentonwa.gov or Matt Herrera, Senior Planner, at mherrera@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, JcAWcJ -G~ a Mi t Jennifer T. Henning, AICP Pfanning Director Cc: C.E. 'Chip' Vincent, CED Administrator Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Matt Herrera, Senior Planner Ian Fitz-James, Development Engineer Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Jim Seitz, Transportation Director FACILITIES, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER CAPITAL PROJECTS OFFICE 7812 S 1241h Street, Seattle, WA 98178-4830 425-204-4403, Fax 425-204-4476 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Sartori Elementary School DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The new Sartori Elementary School will be located on the site of Renton School District's Sartori Education Center at 315 Garden Ave Nin Renton, Washington. The s ite is a full block bounded by Park Ave N to the west, Garden Ave N to the east, N 4th St to the north, and N 3rd St to the south. The new school is being developed as a choice school to house a specialized program and is anticipated to serve a maximum of 650 students from kindergarten to 5th grade. The school will be the first elementary school in Renton School District that is in close proximity to the downtown core and is being developed as a civic and community asset to the city center where it is located. The choice program will have a neighborhood boundary and also draw students from the entire school district. The new three-story building will be approximately 79,000 square feet in size and located fronting the western/Park Avenue side of the block. In addition to classrooms, the school will contain a gymnasium and library. The grounds will include a hardscape play area, play equipment on soft surface, and a grass play field that are designed for shared use with the community. A public plaza is located at the main entry at the corner of Park Ave N and N 3rd St. A total of approximately 83 vehicle parking spaces will be provided in three parking a re as. One parking lot is accessed off N 4th St and also allows fo r convenient parent drop- off/pick-up. Two visitor parking areas are accessed from N 3rd St. School buses will park along th e west side of Garden Ave N for loading and unloading. Proponent and Lead Agency: Renton School District No. 403 Facil ities, Maintenance, and Operations Capital Proje cts Office Location of Proposal: The sc hool will be located at 315 Garden Ave N, Renton, Washington. It com prises Tax Parcel Nos. 756460-0170, -0180, -0181, -0182, -0183, and -0184, and 722400-0620, -0615, -0610, -0600, -0590 , -0580, -0595, and -0605. It is located in Section 017, Township 23, Range SE. Responsible Official: Rick Stracke, Executive Director of Facilities Planning Designated SEPA Respo nsible Official Renton School Di strict No. 403 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, WA 98178-4830 richard.stracke @rentonsc hools.us ------6nton ® Launching Learning to Las t a Life time 7812 S 124th Street, Seattle Washington 98178 / p.425.204.4403 / f.425.204.4476 www.rentonschools.us Entire Document Available Upon Request -----------RENTON Exhibit 7 ~~ ~n1~rn +q·~------------------+U·~------------------ .+31'·•·- +t6'·0"--------- + 10'·8" +44'·''----- I rtenic f'IIH.3.. ~--~l!IO !l,IOONl •Jr·,,_ ---------------------------------RRl'>c 'o.J.onNG ------ +l&'·D·--- rntegr.Ll,~, ... E ELE V1~T!ON S NORTH 3RD STREET (SOUTH) ELE VATIO N 1 /1 6 " = 1 · -o· ,----------8PlO c.J.DOtiG ~K""Al.SOING -~ NORTH 4TH STREET (NORTH) ELEVATI ON 1 11 6 • = 1 · -o· Enti re Document Avai lable Upon Request SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 315 N GARDEN AVE , RENTON , WA 98057 .... " m m " m .... m z .... 0 z z < m z .... 0 " -< "O i m X :::; a= ;::;: (0 r ~ 0 0 " ' ' _, " \ --\ /.,, -)> ;,i " ~ m --"'-z C ' m 'z ...... ~/ ~ :x: ,.-\ \ _,/ '· / /-\ ·-/ _, I I - ,_ -, . l ::; ,. <01~·· -· I I 1: ·!' !I ' -· l ~ ,. "\ \ ./ ~i l ; ~~ o, "; ~~ ·'5 ~ .;. ~ 'j( ,<l 1. '--/(J) ~~ O m w 0;;; in rm-< a, Z 0 S;;!~ Q~ z G) r X + EB •m ! G') ~m z 0 ~ ~ ~ ui UO Oo ~ ~· ~· :,:, ~· j .~ 4 ~~ ~y ~ ... ~~ u ~ ~· ~ ~-1 I)~ 8~ ii ! g i'l ~ ~ NORTH 4TH STREET j . ~ I r: --, -A!- /! NOR 1 TH.~RO STREET \ / . iqRl:!F .. ~-J:,h ~, ~·· m ~!A~i i~ ii'; ~~ iu i~i=, ,, ;a3~ .... z:~~ ~'it~ ~o ';jlv,"6 ~ !1' 1 ~~~ '•'1 • ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ z~ ~ i ,, ¥ ~ / r ---__ 1 ' -, ... :,:, -·~ J:•• rn !ii• !•;;l m "')( o >D_; :::0 "h af~::l Im y(, ~ 4 ~~~ ~9-~i! ~ 1,1~ ~»ji g .~ ~i •"•'l z Si ... , z ~~ "iS~ ~ i~ .. ~,m ~2 il~ .. ·~ ~i; ~ o I ...L ' / "'' 0 ' X 'j , __ \, -, l i ~ Renton School District Sartori Elementary School WE ISMANDES IGN GROUP 315 Garden Aven\14 N, Renton WA 9Ml57 G') )> ;,i C m z ~ m z C m z 0 :,:, ... ::c ........ ·" .......... · ........... · ... . ··~7 Technical Information Report PREPARED FOR: lntegrus Architecture 117 South Main Street, Su ite 100 Seattle, WA 98104-3496 PROJECT: New Sartori Elementary School 315 Garden Avenue North Renton, WA 98057 Project No . 2160339.10 PREPARED BY: Greg T auscheck, PE Project Engineer REVIEWED BY: William J. Fierst, PE Project Manager Sean M . Comfort, PE Principal -----~ DATE: August2016 Entire Document Available Upon Request Exhibit ;: ~! 10 !· Civil Engineers • Structural Engineers • Landscape Architects • Community Planners • L and Surveyors • Neighbors DRAFT TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT for Sartori Elementary School PREPARED FOR: Renton School District PREPARED BY: heffron t r a n s o r t a t I o n I n c. 6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle WA 98115 ph: (206) 523-3939 + fx: (206) 523-4949 August 26, 2016 ---Ifenton 0 Entire Document Available Upon Request Exhibit 1 1 WASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS w F C I 360/943-1723 FAX 360/943-4128 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C Olympia, WA 98501 August 23, 2016 Lisa Klein AHBL, Inc. 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 RE: Arborist's Report-Sartori Elementary School -Renton, WA Dear Ms. Klein: The Renton School District is planning to construct the new Sartori Elementary School at the site of the old Sartori Education Center at North 3'd Street and Park Ave. North in Renton, WA. Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. was asked to inspect all of the trees on the site to determine their condition and potential to be saved in the new project. The inspection included all mapped trees that are 6 inches DBH and larger. A Level 2 inspection was completed on July 21, 2016. At the time of the site visit some demolition had occurred, but all trees had been retained. Findings I found 41 trees of 17 species. The trees ranged from 4 to 28 inches in DBH (DBH=diameter measured 4.5 ft. above the groundline ). They included 10 street trees of which 6 (Callery pear) were in grates along Park Ave. North, and 4 (Green ash) were in a curb lawn zone along North 3rd Street. The street and landscape area trees health ranged from 'Poor' to 'Very Good'. Only 4 trees were classified 'Poor' and would not be good long-term trees if protected (the 5th Poor rated tree was a street tree). The table below provides a summary of the tree inventory. A complete list of trees is provided in Attachment #4 and maps of tree locations are provided in Attachments 2 and 3. ----Itenton ® Entire Document Available Upon Request Exhibit 12 URBAN/RURAL FORESTRY • TREE APPRAISAL • HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS RIGHT-OF-WAYS• VEGETATION MANAGEMENT• ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES• CONTRACT FORESTERS Member of International Society of Arboriculture and Society of American Foresters associated earth sciences incorporated Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington Prepared For: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT Project No. KE150719A August 4, 2016 -----Itenton © Entire Document Available Upon Request Exhibit 13 Matthew Herrera From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mr. Herrera, Enkeli <enkeli_l@yahoo.com> Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:36 PM Matthew Herrera Fw: Official Comments for SEPA Review of Sartori Elementary School Comments SEPA Final.pdf Thank you for coming to the Neighborhood meeting tonight and helping us to try and understand the process better. Attached are my first comments to the school district for the SEPA review. The notice that we received for the SEP A review tell us to direct comments to a physical address for Rick Stracke. Earlier emails I sent to Mr. Stracke were bouncing back, so I complained and now they seem to be getting through to him. I will forward another message following this one. Thank you, Angie Laulainen -----Forwarded Message----- From: Enkeli <enkeli !@yahoo.com> To: Richard (Rick) Stracke <richard.stracke@rentonschools.us> Cc: Matthew Feldmeyer <matthew.feldmeyer@rentonschools.us>; "north.renton@qmail.com" <north.renton@gmail.com>; "qeosaldaniel@wwdb.org" <qeosaldaniel@wwdb.org>; Diane Dobson <dmd821@aol.com>; "lklein@ahbl.com" <lklein@ahbl.com>; Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us>; Nancy Monahan <monahan55@hotmail.com>; Jennifer T. Henning <jhenning@rentonwa.gov>; Rocale Timmons <rtimmons@rentonwa.gov>; "qloria.hodge@rentonschools.us" <qloria.hodge@rentonschools.us>; Al Talley <al.talley@rentonschools.us>; Todd Franceschina <todd.franceschina@rentonschools.us>; Lynn Desmarais <lynn.desmarais@rentonschools.us>; Pam Teal <pam.teal@rentonschools.us>; "Arthur.Jarvis@rentonschools.us" <Arthur.Jarvis@rentonschools.us>; Gregg Zimmerman <gzimmerman@rentonwa.gov> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 1 :59 PM Subject: Official Comments for SEPA Review of Sartori Elementary School Mr. Stracke, I am sending in the attached PDF file official comments for the SEPA Review of Sartori Elementary School. Please acknowledge receipt of these comments as you are the designated school district contact for the SEPA consultation. It would be helpful if you can inform me if any changes are made to these items. Thank you. Sincerely, Angie Laulainen 1 Exhibit 14 September 11, 2016 Mr. Stracke, I am submitting the following comments for the current SEPA Review for the construction of Sartori Elementary School. For your convenience, I have listed them in the same order as the categories appear in the SEPA checklist. They are all related to section 8, environmental impacts. Thank you, Angie Laulainen Section B ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. EARTH d. & f. Regarding soil stability and erosion - The SEPA checklist states there is "no history of instability in the area". There is history of instability on Garden AVE N. at the south end of the street. There was a sink hole which opened on the east side of the street and went under the pavement under the street to the west side of the street and reappeared several years later. The City filled the hole each time, but there is currently a visible dip in the pavement all across the road where this is located as well as fissures in the road which is across the road in front of 310 Garden AVE N. It was believed this originally was caused by water left underground after a break in the Seattle water main which happened about 15 years ago. This main runs north/south under Garden AVE. There is also a history of instability in the soil in neighborhood yards. The soil which was previously part of Lake Washington and the Black River, is constantly shifting. During the Sartori Grant project, the North Renton Neighborhood Association (NRNA) added soil in order to raise the beds along the south fence of the Sartori school front field by about a foot before planting trees. So much soil had eroded or shifted away that the base of the fence posts were showing. NRNA distributed two truck loads of soil, 30 yards of top soil, in front of the fence on the south end of the front of the school, as well as 150 bags of mulch because so much soil had eroded away. I suggest that additional measures be taken to determine the stability of the soil on the site, as well as at the sink hole site where construction vehicles and school buses will be driving regularly, and action be taken as needed. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. Regarding kinds of energy used at the school The SEPA Checklist states that the school will "utilize electric power and natural gas" energy. There is no mention of solar panels. I recommend that solar panels, as well as other green energy and conservation methods be included in the design of the school. c. Regarding types of energy conservation features The SEPA Checklist states that the school will use "high-efficiency heat pump system with heat recovery, LED lighting with occupancy and daylighting controls, high- performance building envelope system, /ow-e glazing, and inclusion of weather vestibules at main entries". I am unsure if these are similar to the features that were included when Secondary Learning Center (SLC) was built but would like to see similar sustainable features included in Sartori Elementary as were included in Secondary Learning Center. I read in a Renton Reporter article, dated 4/24/2012 written by Tracy Compton, that at Secondary Learning Center 'The building has meters and lights that alert occupants to the current state of efficiency in electricity, water and gas use. The building has solar panels, lots of natural light, rainwater collection from the roofline to flush the toilets and rain gardens to capture surface water from the parking lots." http://www.rentonreporter.com/news/167240015.html Renton School District could follow it's own example set during the design and construction of Secondary Learning Center to include many energy conservations to the new Sartori Elementary School. This SLC building is described on the NAC Architecture website as as sustainable prototype for Renton School District, a statement which implies future buildings in the district will also have similar features: "As a sustainable prototype for the District, the SLC implements multiple sustainable strategies to reduce resource use, including geothermal, displacement ventilation and rainwater collection." http://www.nacarchitecture.com/portfolio/RentonSLC.html Similar emphasis on environmental design is not apparent in the SEPA checklist for Sartori Elementary. I recommend that the new school follow in the footsteps of Secondary Learning Center with an emphasis on sustainable strategies and design that is environmentally conscious. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH b. 1. Regarding off-site noise The SEPA Checklist states there is no offsite noise which affects this proposal and that the primary source of noise in the area is generated from vehicular traffic. I ask that you note, there is an abundance of noise in the area due to Boeing engine tests, airplanes from the Renton Airport (flying directly over Garden AVE), Helicopters also from the Renton Airport, Emergency vehicles using Park & N 3rd regularly, and trains traveling to Boeing using their whistles at local intersections. Noise is a problem which is recognized by neighbors to the point that is has been a topic of discussion at NRNA meetings. The SEPA checklist states that speed limits adjacent to the street are all 20 miles per hour and that will help with the noise. This statement is completely false. There are no streets in the neighborhood which are 20 miles per hour. The speed limits are 30 mph on Park and N. 4th, and 25 mph on Garden and N. 3rd. The noise from the construction will have a big impact and more measures should be taken to lessen it. The statement that current speed limits of 20 mph surrounding the site is not offering any solution. b. 2. Regarding types of noise and operating hours Although City ordinance allows work to begin at 7 AM, due to the close proximity to residences (directly across the street on Park AVE N and on Garden AVE N), these hours of operation should be adjusted. I request a delay of work to begin at 8 AM during the weekdays. This delay should be in place at least for the loud equipment such as pile drivers. The homes in North Renton are old homes, they do not block noise well, so accommodations for that and the close proximity to the construction are necessary. 10. AESTHETICS c. Regarding Measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts Consideration should be given to the appearance of the back side of the building which will be along Park AVE N. which in the design plans appears to be a brick wall with some windows. I suggest the design include art work in the form of patterns in the brick, a mural, a community project, or some other visually pleasing appearance to the back side of the building. 12. RECREATION c. Regarding the play field The SEPA Checklist states that a portion of the playfield will be left open for public use. I request that portion continue to be located along the Garden AVE side of the site which is completely residential. Also, workers on the site, and truck drivers/companies who will be accessing the site, should be made aware that the Garden side of the block is residential, and kids are used to playing at the school and crossing the street throughout the day. They should be encouraged to exercise caution while driving along this street given the knowledge that there are 15 school aged children living on Garden AVE N between N. 3rd and N. 4th street. The children appreciate the plan to keep part of the playfield open for their use. 13. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION b. Regarding historical features of the school It is noted in the SEPA Checklist that the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Historic Inventory Report were reviewed to assess the presence of historical features to the site. The Renton History Museum is not listed as having been consulted about the historical significance of Sartori and should also be consulted. 14. TRANSPORTATION The SEPA Checklist here gives reference to a detailed Transportation Technical Report (Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2016). There is a major error and omission in this Transportation report on page 4, section 2.1.1 which describes the existing roadway network. The report describes Garden AVE N. as "a two-way, north-south roadway that provides connection between Bronson Way N to the south and N Park Drive to the north". Garden AVE does not connect from Bronson Way N to N Park Drive. This statement is inaccurate and implies that Garden AVE is a through street. There is no mention in the report of the traffic barrier which is in place at that location and there is no mention that there is no through access at the intersection of Garden and N 4th Street. The SEPA Checklist also does not mention any consultation with the City of Renton Traffic division regarding traffic citations on the surrounding streets. The report gives reverence to the number of collisions, but does not reference any knowledge of citations given or problems over time at adjacent intersections. I recommend that the City of Renton Police Department be consulted to gain a better understanding of issues at the surrounding intersections. d. Regarding new or improvements to existing roads. There needs to be improvements to the intersection of N 4th and Garden AVE N. Without any changes to the street, all traffic must approach the location in the left lane along N 4th Street and Garden. Additional traffic includes Boeing employees who utilize Meadow in the morning to cut through the neighborhood and go around to Garden north off N. 4th street, and also compounded by the Boeing employees in the afternoon leaving their parking lot and turning onto N 4th Street and into that same left lane that the parent pick up lane will spill onto. The current street system cannot accommodate the proposed additional traffic for this school. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control traffic impacts The Transportation Technical Report states that "Based on these results, the project is expected to have a negligible impact to traffic operations at study area intersections". The current street system cannot accommodate the proposed additional traffic, all approaching the school in the left lane of N 4th Street. I again suggest the school district acknowledge this problem and meet with the City of Renton Transportation Department and North Renton neighbors to find solutions. I suggest the barrier not be removed, but possibly moved to a location to the north, changed to allow for school buses to travel across the street but closed to southbound traffic and possibly closed to northbound traffic. In order to help control the impact of truck traffic during construction as well as after the school is open, the established Truck Routes map for the City of Renton should be distributed to all companies who will access the school, as was done during the construction of the new bus barn. The truck companies also should be explained that the City of Renton requires trucks to use the most direct route off the truck route to and from the site. This means the trucks should be approaching off of Park AVE N., then taking the closest route back to Park AVE N. to exit the site. It is inevitable that some trucks will need to travel on N 3rd, N 4th, and Garden AVE N, but they should not be traveling on other neighborhood streets such as driving on N 4th street all the way to Logan AVE. I recommend that if necessary the school district work with the City of Renton Police Department to contact these companies. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Regarding the need for additional public services The SEPA Checklist states there will not be a need for any additional public services. However, if no improvements are made to the intersection of N. 4th and Garden, this location will not be able to handle the added vehicular trips to this location. Two Renton Police Department officers will be required daily, for at least one hour in the morning, and one hour in the afternoon, to direct traffic approaching the school. The proposed access for parent vehicles during drop off and pick up times is not appropriate for the surrounding street system without making any improvements to the street system. Matthew Herrera From: Sent: To: Enkeli <enkeli_l@yahoo.com> Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:38 PM Matthew Herrera Subject: Fw: Additional Comments for SEPA Review of Sartori Elementary School Mr. Herrera, Below are some additional comments I sent to Mr. Stracke for the SEPA review. Thank you for your interest m our concerns. Angie Laulainen -----Forwarded Message ---- From: Enkeli <enkeli_l@yahoo.com> To: Richard (Rick) Stracke <richard.stracke@rentonschools.us> Cc: Matthew Feldmeyer <matthew.feldmeyer@rentonschools.us>; "north.renton@gmail.com" <north.renton@gmail.com>; "geosaldaniel@wwdb.org" <geosaldaniel@wwdb.org>; Diane Dobson <dmd821@aol.com>; "lklein@ahbl.com" <lklein@ahbl.com>; Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us>; Nancy Monahan <monahan55@hotmail.com>; Jennifer T. Henning <jhenning@rentonwa.gov>; Rocale Timmons <rtimmons@rentonwa.gov>; Gloria Hodge <Gloria.Hodge@rentonschools.us>; Al Talley <al.talley@rentonschools.us>; Todd Franceschina <todd.franceschina@rentonschools.us>; Lynn Desmarais <lynn.desmarais@rentonschools.us>; Pam Teal <Pam.Teal@rentonschools.us>; Arthur (Art) Jarvis <Arthur.Jarvis@rentonschools.us>; Gregg Zimmerman <gzimmerman@rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:32 PM Subject: Additional Comments for SEPA Review of Sartori Elementary School September 14, 2016 Mr. Stracke, Please review and confirm receipt of these additional comments included in this message for the current SEPA Review for the construction of Sartori Elementary School. They are all related to section B, Environmental Impacts. Thank you again for your consideration, Angie Laulainen ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Section B ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 14. TRANSPORTATION d. Regarding new or improvements to existing roads. 1 In addition to the traffic previously mentioned on N 4th Street (school buses approaching Sartori to go into the bus lane, parent drivers approaching the parent loop for Sartori, Boeing commuters utilizing Meadow in the morning to cut through the neighborhood and go around to Garden north of!N 4th street, Boeing employees in the afternoon leaving their parking lot and turning onto N 4th Street), there are also Renton School District buses exiting the bus barn from a driveway directly across from the proposed entrance to the parent drop off loop. Many of these RSD buses which serve schools throughout the district will also be changing lanes immediately to go over to the left lane ofN 4th street in order to turn left onto Park A VE. In order to alleviate the impact these buses will have on access for parents to the new school, Renton School District should make an additional entrance to the bus barn on the North side of the bus barn. An entrance should be added so that Renton School Buses could enter and exit the bus barn off ofN 5th Street. This would help alleviate the impact of more school district traffic on N. 4th street. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control traffic impacts There needs to be consideration given to additional measures to reduce or control traffic impacts. The proposal routes all traffic for this school through a very problematic intersection, in fact, from May 1st to September 6th this year, the Renton Police Department issued 44 traffic citations, all for "failue to comply with restrictive signs". These citations are only a small portion of the violators at this intersection, and do not reflect the volume and complexity of the problem. I again suggest the school district acknowledge the need to address the issues at this intersection. The City of Renton Transportation Department and North Renton neighbors who are familiar with the intersection should be included in trying to find solutions rather than routing all the parents and buses through this intersection without responsible planning. From: Richard (Rick) Stracke <richard.stracke@rentonschools.us> To: Enkeli <enkeli_l@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:00 AM Subject: RE: Official Comments for SEP A Review of Sartori Elementary School Received Rick Stracke Executive Director Facilities Planning 425-204-4403 From: Enkeli [mailto:enkeli_l@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 2:00 PM To: Richard (Rick) Stracke <richard.stracke@renlonschools.us> Cc: Matthew Feldmeyer <matthew.feldmeyer@rentonschools.us>; north.renton@gmail.com; geosaldaniel@wwdb.org; Diane Dobson <dmd82l@aol.com>; lklein@ahbl.com; Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us>; Nancy Monahan <monahan55@hotrnail.com>; Jennifer T. Henning <jhenning@rentonwa.gov>; Rocale Timmons <rtimmons@rentonwa.gov>; Gloria Hodge <Gloria.l-lodge@rentonschools.us>; Al Talley <al.talley@rentonschools.us>; Todd Franceschina <todd.franccschina@rentonschools.us>; Lynn Desmarais <Iynn.desmarais@rentonschools.us>; Pam Teal <Pam.Tcal@rentonschools.us>; Arthur (Art) Jarvis <Arthur.Jarvis@rentonschools.us>; Gregg Zimmerman <gzimmcrman@rentonwa.gov> Subject: Official Comments for SEPA Review of Sartori Elementary School Mr. Stracke, 2 I am sending in the attached PDF file official comments for the SEPA Review of Sartori Elementary School. Please acknowledge receipt of these comments as you are the designated school district contact for the SEP A consultation. It would be helpful if you can inform me if any changes are made to these items. Thank you. Sincerely, Angie Laulainen 3 Matthew Herrera From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Enkeli <enkeli_l@yahoo.com> Sunday, September 18, 2016 9:00 PM Matthew Feldmeyer; Richard (Rick) Stracke; Matthew Herrera north.renton@gmail.com; geosaldaniel@wwdb.org; Diane Dobson; lklein@ahbl.com; Randy Matheson; Nancy Monahan; Jennifer T. Henning; Gloria Hodge; Arthur (Art) Jarvis; Gregg A Zimmerman Request for New Traffic Study Table 6 Transportation Report.png Mr. Stracke, Mr. Feldmeyer, and Mr. Hererra, I am sending these comments to be considered for both the SEPA review and the Land Use Application. Due to several inaccuracies of the recent traffic study done by Heffron Transportation for the SEPA review for Renton School District, I request that a new, non-biased and more thorough study be done of the Sartori site for traffic impacts. The current study asserts that the impact of the traffic to the site is "negligible" meaning there will be no impact of the new traffic to the neighborhood from the new elementary school traffic. One reason the study has reached this conclusion is because existing trips to the school are calculated based on the square footage of the school. Using these calculations, it is stated that the new school will be twice the size of the current school. Table 6 in the report (see attached) shows 610 current trips to the existing building based on its square footage (there is nowhere near that number of trips to the school). This number is offset against 1220 trips to the proposed school which is twice the square footage of the existing Sartori. When current trips of 610 are added in with an estimated 660 current trips to the deli on Park A VE, as well as any current trips to the homes on the block, the traffic study concludes that there will actually be 200 LESS trips per day to the site than current use. It seems obvious that a school with 650 students is not double the size of the current school (a handful of Adult Transition students), and there is no way that a new elementary school will generate LESS traffic. In addition, the study states that "In the mornings, school drop-off activities usually occur with limited queues or delay. This is because arrivals tend to be spread out over the 20 to 30 minutes before school start time. During this period, family drivers generally arrive, drop off students, and then immediately leave the site. In the afternoons, many family drivers arrive early and wait in the queue lane(s) or parking spaces for the students to be dismissed, and longer vehicle queues can develop." This statement is misleading to suggest the parent queue will not spill over onto N. 4th Street. Current RSD procedure is that no students are to be dropped off more than 10 to 15 minutes early. For example, the schools currently serving this area are Hazelwood which does not permit drop off more than 15 minutes before start time, and Highlands and Bryn Mawr Elementaries which do not allow drop off earlier than IO minutes prior to start time. For a more accurate result, the study needs to recognize what the impact will be of current traffic in the commercial zone (along Park AVE) being relocated into the residential zone (specifically along 4th and Garden). Traffic to the deli which occurs over the course of a day, will have significant impact when routed through the opposite intersection, which is on the residential side of the block. The study also needs to consider the fact that the proposal channels all traffic through one lane approaching the school. The stretch of N. 4th between Garden and Park needs to be studied as it has the potential for the parent queue to extend onto that location. 1 It may also benefit all parties involved to include neighbors in the discussion. Neighbors have several ideas which could improve the plan without making major changes to the site. Respectfully, Angie Laulainen 2 Denis Law Mayor October 11, 2016 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Angie Laulainen 314 Garden Ave N Renton, WA 98055 Email to enkeli_l@yahoo.com SUBJECT: Response to Public Comments Sartori Elementary School/ LUAlG-000692 Dear Ms. Laulainen: Thank you far your comments regarding the proposed Sartori Elementary School (LUA16- 000692) located at 315 Garden Ave N. The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development is reviewing the Planned Urban Development land use application and will provide a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner at an upcoming public hearing. The Renton School District is the Lead Agency for the review required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and it will issue a threshold determination prior to the public hearing. Many of the comments you submitted to the City during the land use application commenting period of September 14-28, 2016 were comments associated with the environmental checklist for the SEPA review. While the school district is the Lead Agency for the SEPA review, I have provided responses as they relate to city code. I have also added you as a Party of Record for the land use application. I've paraphrased your comments and provided a response (bulleted and italicized} to each of them below: Environmental Checklist Comments received via email September 15, 2016: 1. Earth History of instability on Garden Ave N specifically a sinkhole at the south end of the street. • I have forwarded this concern to Mike Stenhouse in the City's Public Works Mointenonce Division. Instability related to historic Lake Washington and Black River basins. • The subject property is within o High Seismic Hazard area as identified on the City's mapping database. This is due to soils that are associated with former channels of the Cedar River. A geotechnical report was prepared for the proposed new building and associated improvements. The City's adopted building code wm require the school district to design the building to withstand the effects of seismic events. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Exhibit 15 6. Energy and Natural Resources Recommend the use of solar panels and other sustainable strategies and design similar to the Secondary Learning Center. • The City supports the school district in efforts to utilize sustainable strategies ond design for the Sartori Elementary School. The City's Comprehensive Plan contains policies thot encourage LEED construction ond efforts to reduce greenhouse goses. 7. Environmental Health No mention of offsite noise that would affect the proposal. Off-site noise identified from Boeing, Renton Airport, emergency vehicles, and trains. • Modern building practices and the City's adapted building code requires exterior materials and insulation that should help mitigate same of the off-site noise impacts you have cited. Checklist refers to speeds adjacent to school at 20 mph that will mitigate noise. Speed limits posted at 30 mph in neighborhood. • Streets adjacent to schools ore limited to 20 mph. The City has provided recommendations for SE PA mitigation measures that include installation of flashing school zone signs and radar detecting school zone signs. Permitted construction hours within the City begin at 7am. There should be a delay to begin at 8am for loud equipment such as pile drivers. • The school district has proposed a method of pile construction co/led ougercast. As an alternative to traditional pile driving, piles ore formed by drilling and then grout is pumped down within o hollow stem. The school district hos indicated noise impacts from this system of foundation construction ore analogous to normal construction activities. 10. Aesthetics Concern with appearance of Park Ave N. side of building. Suggest art or other visually pleasing articulation on west elevation. • The design of the building is required to meet urbon design standards setforth in the City's Development Regulations. Applicants ore able to choose from o menu of options that meet the standards outright and/or suggest alternative methods of design that meet the intent of the guidelines. City staff will provide o recommendation, with consideration of your comments, to the Hearing Examiner on design aspects of the proposal. 12. Recreation School district has indication a portion of the playfield will remain open during construction. Available portion should be along Garden Ave N. side of property. Contractors should be made I!:\ aware of children using playfield and crossing Garden Ave N. ~ 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov • This comment is outside the scope of the City's review of the lond use opplicotion. However ony portion of the field that remains open during school construction will need to be adequately fenced and separated from construction activities. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation Renton History Museum was not listed as being consulted regarding historical significance of Sartori. • The school district did contact the Renton History Museum related to any building fixtures the museum would like to retain for their collection. No fixtures were identified by the museum curator as much of the furnishings had been already been removed. The curator did request a brick from the building following demolition. 14. Transportation Transportation report describes inaccurate description of Garden Ave N. and does not identify barrier on N. 4lh. • The City concurs and is aware of the limitations of Garden Ave N. The finalized report should provide clarification of Garden Ave N limitations including the barrier. No consultation was mentioned with the City regarding traffic citations on surrounding streets. • A Traffic Impact Analysis does not typically include area traffic citations. The analysis is intended to determine whether new vehicle trips will cause failures ta the City's transportation network and potential traffic safety hazards. The City hos recommended several pedestrian safety measures near the school such flashing pedestrian signoge and radar signs. Improvements are needed to the intersection of N. 4th and Garden Ave N. The current street system cannot accommodate the additional traffic caused by the school. • The Traffic Impact Analysis has modeled the new trips added to the intersection associated with the school and determined those trips and existing traffic will not cause a failure to the intersection. The City hos recommended improvements to the intersection that include curb-bulbs that will reduce the crossing distance far pedestrians and provide a traffic calming measure for vehicle traffic on Garden Ave. N. Additionally, the City has recommended that the school district prepare an operational plan that would address any potential queuing extending onto N. 41• St. Suggest the barrier on N. 4th and Garden Ave N. be relocated to allow school busses to access Garden Ave N. from bus facility. • The City of Renton Police Department currently ond will continue ta provide patrol ond presence in the area of the cut-through barrier located at N. 4'' Street and Garden Ave N. during Boeing shift changes. The barrier was placed ot its current location to direct vehicles to the N. 41• Street arterial. The removal or relocation of the barrier could result 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov ® in additional school bus (other than Sartori busses) and cut-through traffic along Garden Ave N. At this time, the City is not recommending the removal or relocation of the barrier due ta the potential increase of vehicle traffic on Garden Ave N. between N. 3'0 and N. 4th Avenues. Truck route maps should be distributed to all contractors during construction. The school district has been made aware of the designated truck routes in the City. Also, prior to construction of the school, a pre-construction meeting will be required with the school district and their construction superintendent where truck routes will be further discussed. 15. Public Services Two Renton Police Department offices will be required for pick-up and drop-off to direct traffic if no improvements are made to the intersection of N. 4•h St. and Garden Ave N. • As mentioned previously, the Traffic Impact Analysis has modeled the new trips added to the intersection that are associated with the school and those trips along with existing traffic volumes will not cause a failure to the intersection. The City has recommended that the school district prepare an operational plan that would address any potential queuing extending onto N. 4th St. Additional Environmental Checklist Comments received via email September 15. 2016 14. Transportation Buses leaving the school district bus barn will be exiting from a driveway directly across the Sartori pick-up and drop-off driveway. Susses will be changing lanes immediately to the far left lanes to turn onto Park Ave N. School district should make an additional entrance on the north side of bus barn to alleviate district traffic on N. 41h Street. • As mentioned previously, the Traffic Impact Analysis found no failures on the abutting intersections, which accounted for existing bus traffic and proposed trips ta the new school. Additional ingress/egress to the school district bus facility is not warranted at this time. Comments received via email September 16, 2016 Concern regarding response from Randy Matheson about a statement that the school district does not make improvement to traffic patterns or road improvements. Traffic report prepared by the school district refers to impacts created by the new school as negligible. • As part af the SEPA review, the school district and the City will review area intersections to identify any Level of Service failures caused by the new trips for the proposed elementary school. Any Level af Service failures would need to be corrected via improvements to the transportation system or reducing the scope of the project. While no Level of Service failures were identified, the City has recommended that the school district provide pedestrian safety measures and prepare operational plans for potential queuing during pick-up/drop-off and overflow parking during special events. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 , rentonwa.gov ® Comments received via email September 19. 2016 Request a new non-biased and more thorough traffic report be prepared for the project. Report identifies traffic impact to proposed school as negligible. Report identifies 200 fewer trips per day to the site than the current use. • The school district has indicated a finalized transpartatian report will be issued with the SEPA threshold determination. According to Section 3.2.2 of the report, the trip generation rates for existing uses and net change that resulted in 200 fewer trips per day was an analysis the transportation engineer prepared far disclosure purposes that could be used in determining mitigation requirements and impact fees. The analysis assumed the schaal was fully functional, which is why the analysis resulted in 200 fewer trips. This specific analysis did not determine whether the new school would cause failures to the abutting intersections. The City has informally recommended that this specific analysis either be removed /ram the final report ar better clarified. Morning drop-off times identified as 20 to 30 minutes prior to start time are not in line with the district's policy of not allowing drop off more than 10 to 15 minutes prior to start time. Study should look at impact of current traffic along Park Ave N being relocated into residential zone, specifically N. 41• and Garden Ave N. The stretch of N. 4th between Garden Ave N and Park Ave N should be studied for potential queue impacts. • The City has recommended the school district prepare an operational plan ta address any potential queue impacts onto N. 4" Street during pick-up and drop-a// time. Closing Again, thank you for providing comments regarding the proposed Sartori Elementary School. You are Party of Record for the land use application. Your comments are now part of the official file and will be considered prior to the Hearing Examiner issuing a decision. Please feel free to contact me at 425.430.6593 or matt.herrera@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions regarding the project proposal. Sincerely, Matthew Herrera, AICP Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov Matthew Herrera From: Sent: To: Cc: Enkeli <enkeli_l@yahoo.com> Friday, September 16, 2016 7:50 AM Matthew Herrera Diane Dobson; North Renton Neighborhood Association Subject: Attachments: Fw: Sartori School: SEPA request; next steps with North Renton Neighborhood Assoc 20160823_Final SEPA Checklist_2160359.pdf Mr. Herrera, I am forwarding to you this strain of messages between myself and Renton School District, most importantly, because in this last response from Randy Matheson, he states that the school district doesn't make any improvements to traffic patterns or road improvements. This is also what they said at the meeting last night, but also they refuse to make any suggestions for road improvements or even acknowledge there is a problem. The traffic report calls the impact on our neighborhood "negligible". If the school district refuses to acknowledge the impact of traffic in the SEPA review, how can we address this problem? Also, in the messages below, you can see that it took a full week of messages from me to the school district before they disclosed the SEP A checklist. After I went to the school district to ask for the traffic report, their project manager, Matt Feldmeyer, has offered to disclose any documents I request, but the school district has made the process very difficult. Regarding the traffic report, they call it a "draft" and don't want us to refer to it, but they submitted the draft to you so it appears to be official. Angie Laulainen -----Forwarded Message ---- From: Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us> To: Enkeli <enkeli_l@yahoo.com>; Matthew Feldmeyer <matthew.feldmeyer@rentonschools.us>; Brad Medrud <bmedrud@ahbl.com> Cc: North Renton Neighborhood Association <north.renton@gmail.com>; Diane Dobson <dmd821@aol.com>; George and Sally <geosaldaniel@wwdb.org>; Rocale Timmons <rtimmons@rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer T. Henning <jhenning@rentonwa.gov>; Nancy Monahan <monahan55@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 8:07 AM Subject: RE: Sartori School: SEPA request; next steps with North Renton Neighborhood Assoc Sorry for the confusion. Attached is the SEPA Checklist for the Sartori Elementary School project. In regards to your question about work on the cross streets North 4th Street and Garden Ave North: The school district does not make any changes to traffic patterns or street improvements as part of its school construction projects. We do include some work to improve sidewalks and gutters along streets that adjoin the property; but, not specifically to traffic patterns or road improvements. Randy Matheson, Executive Director, Community Relations Renton School District I 300 SW 7th Street, Renton WA 98057 1425.204.2345 I randy.matheson@rentonschools.us I www.rentonschools.us I !] g ........-'" fleQJQD 1 Exhibit 16 From: Enkeli [mailto:enkeli_l@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 12:44 AM To: Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us>; Matthew Feldmeyer <matthew.feldmeyer@rentonschools.us>; Brad Medrud <bmedrud@ahbl.com> Cc: North Renton Neighborhood Association <north.renton@gmail.com>; Diane Dobson <dmd82l@aol.com>; George and Sally <geosaldaniel@wwdb.org>; Rocale Timmons <rtimmons@rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer T. Henning <jhenning@rentonwa.gov>; Nancy Monahan <monahan55@hottnail.com> Subject: Re: Sartori School: SEPA request; next steps with North Renton Neighborhood Assoc Mr. Matheson, The document I am requesting is the SEPA checklist (not requesting all the documents and studies included in the report). Previously when I requested this during the demolition, Brad Medrud sent me a copy and also said there would be an expanded SEPA checklist done for the construction phase of the school. Since the recent notification letter I received started out with "Renton School District has issued a SEPA checklist and associated documents for comment...", I assumed that would be in the form of another PDF file. Is it not a PDF? If it the SEPA checklist is too large to email, then yes, please print a copy for myself and neighbors to review. However, ifa PDF of the checklist only is small enough to email, without all the other documents in the report, then please send as a PDF. I have emailed him again to ask for the current SEP A checklist but he is out of the office at the moment. I will CC him on this message. Thank you for your reassurances about the project. I do not doubt the school will be state of the art as I have first hand knowledge as a teacher in a school that was recently an AHBL project, as well as another school that was designed by Integrus Architecture. However, as a neighbor to this project, I have great concern about the push to get this done on the fast track without taking the time to consider our concerns and comments especially with regard to traffic. I have specifically been asking about the plans for the intersection ofN. 4th and Garden for several months, and have not gotten a response about what those plans are. I know that any proposed changes to traffic will be noted in the checklist, and also that at this time our comments are usually encouraged. If you can send the checklist, it would be very helpful to answer some of these questions and give myself and my neighbors the opportunity to partake in the process. Thank you, Angie Laulainen From: Randy Matheson <randy.mathcSQ!l@r.cntonschools.us> To: Enkeli <enkeli !@yahoo.com>; Matthew Feldmeycr <matthew.fcldmeyer(alrcntonschools.us> Cc: North Renton Neighborhood Association <north.rcnton(wgmail.com>; Diane Dobson <dmd82 l@aol.com>; George and Sally <gcosa1daniel@wwdb.org>; Rocale Timmons <rtimrnons@Lc;ntonwa.gov>; Jennifer T. Henning <jhenning@rento12wa.gQY>; Nancy Monahan <monahan55@hotmail.com>; Matthew Feldmeyer <1Tiatthcw.fcldmeycr@rentonschools.us> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 5:43 PM Subject: Sartori School: SEPA request; next steps with North Renton Neighborhood Assoc Ms. Enkeli, The contractor hired by the district to create the SEPA report for the Sartori Elementary School project recently finished the SEPA work and simultaneously notified the district and neighbors near Sartori of the completed work. Although they hadn't actually provided access to the report to the district. It's a very big document that cannot be emailed; so the district's facilities department was just given access today to download the document from the contractor's website. We'd 2 be happy to print a copy of the file and make it available to you. If that's what you'd like, please let me know and we'll start printing it. I'll let you know when it's ready to pick up. I want to ensure you and all the other North Renton Neighborhood Association members on this email thread that the district is working to build a beautiful facility in your neighborhood that you can be proud of and that will serve your children, your grandchildren, and others in the district for many decades. We'd love to have your input, ideas and involvement. As you know, we want to have this project built expertly, but in a shorter timeline than other schools in the district. The need for this elementary school is urgent as it is being built for children in the district right now. To that end, the architects and designers are well into the building design phase as well as a general layout of where the school will fit on the site. While some of this work must first be approved by the City of Renton, the work to complete the general design and placement is complete. However, there's still a lot of work to be done before building the new school begins. The district and Integrus Architecture recently presented the school board with new schematic designs for the Sartori Elementary project (see the presentation here), and I'm working on placing the new information on the district's website. We'd be happy to come to another North Renton Neighborhood meeting to present the new information. Please let me know if your group would like that presentation. Randy Matheson, Executive Director, Community Relations Reoton School District I 300 SW 7th Street, Renton WA 98057 I 425.204.2345 I randy.matheson@rentonschools.usIwww.rentonschools.us 111] C'.J ~-------" •ll~!J.!QD From: Enkeli [mailto:enkeli !@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 12:43 AM To: Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us>; Matthew Feldmeyer <matthew.feldmeyer@rentonschools.us> Cc: North Renton Neighborhood Association <north.renton@gmail.com>; Diane Dobson <dmd82l@aol.com>; George and Sally <geosaldaniel@wwdb.org>; Rocale Timmons <rtimmons@rentonwa.gov>; Jennifer T. Henning <jhenning@rentonwa.gov>; Nancy Monahan <monahan55@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Undeliverable: SEPA Checklist Request Mr. Matheson and Mr. Feldmeyer, Myself and neighbors got the attached letter on Thursday which came from the school district, announcing "Notice ofSEPA Consultation", and detailing documents available for the public to review. I do not understand why I would receive a letter stating these documents are available to the public, if they are not. I also see that the SEPA Checklist for this project is on the SEP A Register on the Department of Ecology website as (see attached screen shot). This website states to contact the Lead Agency (RSD) for actual copies of the SEPA documents. It is also posted in the Northwest Classifieds that these documents are available for review. http://nwsource.kaango.com/ad-rcnton-school-district/24750394 We appreciate the ability to comment on the plans, and have a lot of good ideas and input that could be very beneficial. I request timely and transparent access to the information that was offered for public review. Please provide copies of the SEPA Checklist, record #201604604 on the SEPA register, as was also declared to be available in the letter I received from Renton School District yesterday (also attached), for myself and my neighbors to review. I have CCd several neighbors who are also interested in this information. Thank you, Angie Laulainen 3 From: Randy Matheson <r1,1ndy.matheson@rcntonschools.us> To: Enkeli <enkeli !@yahoo.com> Cc: Matthew Feldmeyer <matthew.feldmeyer@rentonschools.us> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 11:44 AM Subject: RE: Undeliverable: SEPA Checklist Request Ms. Laulainen , Thank you for your request and continued interest on the Sartori Elementary School construction project. Renton School District is finalizing the SEPA environmental checklist for the Sartori Elementary School project. We hope to submit the documents to the City of Renton by the end of August. The City of Renton will include the documents in other items and have all documents available for public review soon after the district submits them. Randy Matheson, Executive Director, Community Relations Renton School District 1300 SW 7th Street, Renton WA 98057 I 425.204.2345 l mailto:randy.matheson@rentonsr.:hools.us I www.rentonschools.us I ('I CJ Pi\ _ __....,.~ •n-..eriJ9D From: Enkeli [mailto:enkeli ]@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:29 PM To: Matthew Feldmeyer <matthew.feldmeyer@rentonschools.us>; Randy Matheson <randy.matheson@rentonschools.us> Subject: Fw: Undeliverable: SEPA Checklist Request Mr. Feldmeyer & Mr. Matheson, I would like to request a copy of the Environmental Checklist for the upcoming construction of Sartori Elementary School. I have tried to contact Mr. Stracke who is listed as the district contact for this information, but the message has bounced back twice. Can you please provide the checklist to me? Please email a copy to this address. Thank you, Angie Laulainen -----Forwarded Message ----- From: "postmastcr(a)rcntonschools.us11 <postmaster@rcntonschools.us> To: enkcli !@yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:14 PM Subject: Undeliverable: SEPA Checklist Request -----Forwarded Message ----- Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: Richard (Rick) Stracke The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 4 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: 403.edu rick.stracke@rentonschools.us #550 5.1.1 RESOL VER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found## Original message headers: Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (207.46.163.86) by Kecexc-02.403.edu (10.1.7.72) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.389.2; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:14:25 -0700 Received: from BY2PR02CA0019.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.32.19) by SN I PR02MB2079 .namprd02. prod.outlook.com ( I 0.165 .22 7 .151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLSI_O, cipher=TLS_ECDHE _ RSA_ WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.1.587.9; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:14:22 +0000 Received: from BL2NAM02FT004.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a0 I: 111 :f400:7e46: :209) by BY2PR02CAOOl 9.outlook.office365.corn (2a0 I: 111 :e400:2c2a:: 19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLSI _ O, ciph=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_ WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.1.557.21 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:14:22 +0000 Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 98.139.212.163) smtp.mailfromryahoo.com; rentonschools.us; dkim~ass (signature was verified) header.d==yahoo.com;rentonschools.us; dmarc=pass action=none header.fromryahoo.com;rentonschools.us; dkim~ass (signature was verified) header.dryahoo.com; Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of yahoo.com designates 98.139.212.163 as permitted sender) receiv~rotection.outlook.com; client-ip=98. l 39 .212.163; helo=nm4. bullet.mail. b fl. yahoo.com; Received: from nm4.bullet.mail.bfl .yahoo.com (98.139.212.163) by BL2NAM02FT004.rnail.protection.outlook.com (I 0.152. 76.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLSl_2, ciph=TLS_ECDHE _RSA_ WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15. 1.587.6 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23: 14:23 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=l; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; dryahoo.com; s=s2048; t=l472!66863; bh=jzR2Iboedhe W+eP5 fDxs I fu9N oOcl<zP6HUQBC5 9wlk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:T o:Subj ect:References:From:Subj ect; b=mKmrN4K!ZjFM9EMS2/bCSeDlttdB8jykrzXpd54byDpBuogqTsc9dR04X7Cy6SdSyN5eNg!Fq3nHEl2o03yL WBplOP7AkQCGff t5cywayWhcoq!XeOVXanMOVan15DDWhH7mLFG2xp/B/JRE/s2go34KoMN3TTnfJz0Xzas2eCfY/CTixaeLia8vtofFmonhsd+bfHh crQ5bTcXX3PYhk0ZvQ+9cW/gvpZqsh6AIPO!MxcPDiRYfi'B2jP!Cg++hSzUJPGhljJfo9i/410tMHOu+5crWOD46BBTQv6vlMpMj ZA7ck6k3uLU6jSVSisH!b!XzUHDmu6Vkpmmt9F/ohA= Received: from [66.196.81.173] by nm4.bullet.mail.bfl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Aug 2016 23:14:23 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.221] by tml9.bullet.mail.bfl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Aug 2016 23:14:23 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by ompl030.mail.bfl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Aug 2016 23:14:22 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Y ahoo-Newman-Id: 991275.14334.bm@omp I 030.mail.bfl .yahoo.corn X-YMail-OSG: 4uJV1oQVM!kH6odE5Dkb3sDoVl6K47qRUmR9IpNo6DIZeEi80v6Sc9tiBgxfhco duunD8PVfi<.6DglOJKpwRaGXklM8FozaCmaI4GCn2uWIWMbPPTWHiBa!FgBo6qlTEn5h4TXDXwJu3 K 73Hs3m Y fr. s Y aCdCd7 dMFl3hmfwu3 Sj6z5Jh VMLiGZ vfr I b3 gFv8x I sq78FD911 kQPleErDzbud itHDr7ICG .X7R 7NeaSVI0 g!GtX2t_ Dniqm3 boLbN mEypJ avu _ K 7E9SHN cyfBQr _ edaG5BCncobfR rOXW g9WUSr _rDiNY9rtCiZkZrkgn Wb Y qyBzMvtfN eqJbDVwqJ gOimBjmt7Tzj V3p _ e _ hel8oH7m4 ILKSZQg9TD2ql3ZVhuHi8HF4A8ja0UzpldpzJzaC7Rf_t9VTKtbzn5T2bl_J85tLZoY9hE5B6QsE XseY6SH4tSGVWDlLmXol!OpboM9FhzZb0NmqvKRdeS4u0ytrQ_xXIMJwVoW3v8uw6qh5L9mJil5f rSDRh_TEhWsX6_qE- Received: fromjwsl 0603.mail.bfl.yahoo.com by sendmailwsl63.mail.bfl.yahoo.com; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:14:22 +oOOO; 1472166862.594 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:14:22 +0000 From: Enkeli <enkeli !@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Enkeli <cnkeli !@yahoo.com> To: "Richard (Rick) Stracke" <rick.strackc@rentonschools.us> Message-ID: <l 932777110.1332092. l 4 72166862342.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.corn> Subject: SEPA Checklist Request 5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/altemativc; bouudary=" ---~ ]art __ 1332091 _ l 066695948.1472166862336" References: <1932777110.1332092.14 72166862342.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.eom> Content-Length: 123 0 Return-Path: enkcli !@yahoo.com X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-EOPTenantAttributec!Message: f4944a90-5b09-48c5-9eab-09aebbbd9feb:O X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:98 .139 .212.163 ;IPV: NLI;CTR Y: US;EFV: NLI;SFV :NSPM;SFS :( 600900 I )(8156002)(29 80300002)( 43 8002)( 189002)( 199003)( 4 3 066003)(8220200 I )(27070000 I )(34 75 6002)(87 57200 I )(7116003 )( 411010000 I )(34 7 66002)( 5 3 806999)( 543 5 6999)(34 5070000 I )(81 542999)( 50986999)(106466001 )(3480700004 )( 11100500001)(8676002)(7 636002)(7 596002)( 566030000 I )(3 56003)(229853001 )(866 6005)(7846002)(8 896002)(956001 )( 110136002)(8681600 I)( 107886002)(84 3 26002)( 42186005)( 1096003 )( 4300700001 )( 18999800 1 )( 5 86003 )(85226003 )(7 617 6999)(73972006)(86362001)(2860700002)(83332001 )(246002)( 626004)(80022004 )( 450100001 )( 51287 400 2)(5000100001)(7059030)(62882003)(47276003)(37276004)(71996002);DIR:INB;SFP:;SCL:l;SRVR:SNIPR02MB2079;H:nm4.bul let.mail. bf!. yahoo. com;FPR:; SPF :Pass;PTR:nm4.bullet.mail. bf!. yahoo.com;MX: I ;A: 1 ;LANG: en; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1 ;BL2NAM02FT004; I :rvFaQT A2EzhDgx/X1Xft40H7W5Lr20WK5jjSZRwpHFGIROCjX8mH++ YX8EA54JnkFVXwyWUtlcm07 qXQ93+c94 l WrCjADP544ahAlwj EBjZTu l 3qCK yJ s4mQZcXEOtg!Xx2Zl4GleZBkr3+Hz4 l PW 4 7Il3 hpRHOogt60iYZAJwlbimkpa YQHJ6aKDjPWtVW143iZr2bWcfQZiBWjlgqFCS7pLZmbhJu81bXcV4WLlbnFqQFDuVmY5a39hTfFPDpx8HvY4v3q7MmEUiLy XhMPatue/j92/KFC7cxUrIAEHynzJwqN2+XSwywA7y4p!KLW5hnd9qVVFiq0jrj0fxMw01TIYILG8DypvL5YgpetigE87YiQnaql NPOeA5zrTztMjNcflDC7DOBgVP/aExnklcNflzE+ShqEL6LEOvoU3CxUvsAE0jX+ITSSKMLVOzX9tflQCH4VpqCp5bkXCZHM1 B9YwU4zJ4S+P0PT1Hym41KH 4/8HZji8Zvq YHa Y +F3 O!Ck!Gw3 s+G6LChOO gjRDGFdzubJbN d!BQQm6oOzV ea5F dOHjErj gywUYF wbuUeUWS+BcM82+GOqZORYbrhB5Q2w=== X-MS-Office3 65-Filtcring-Correlation-Id: 4cf7 fa 70-4 fc2-4c77-71 ea-08d3cd3d8d43 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: l;SN1PR02MB2079;2:HCpsiJQ9rguJhwE85+eL88yNCFHE3cERZqDyfliobTszs9pu0uSMZ66kZ+ZAiUEdjFTnkpRBAsdwS3onR2 QD lRJ 5 3zs093 Y wvQQ++6eN7TR TkluckUZXOzw BJ aQc V w 19 5LbSFDi8t3ZESqarQ70Vw99qckNHN81LzxQxtoR1 E + Kxh6fk0S 1 vf tOYM1Et7!59;3:qXOLDCSeJ7gps6LWIDCvoHRVt2YFRKRmPY!kcNCBBE43ULNFch7E7qKOOSIGGFM3tShp658IdakYD7fzQrfl vOGOyOCMQ I e/JBAZy41Q V gS3rZMA yrrugPHrIN 5oanrcggpnBqBbSjbsc3 STDu4bMy26d64elj wMf2 8ATvbpEyLZgvl 7 /xh+ AW sxr bOyXEYT cZzcoSi2+0k+IG HOn2x+bhzOkY xxpzfZf29w W 4gHocG 12KB VC4noNUt8nrU gZ/5Mthc5tR!gjj MF Ala 1 LKnEjV0DeK9Y pU8zWbf+YfCawXjxjrSEAPVa5slxl8ZOZvlmLHioDZy+FXv!QG8leBMeCZJRPkgNj9e05v8Xf6b!AKSU~ X-DkimResult-Test: Passed X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:O;PCL:O;RULEID:(8251501002)(3001016)(3010002)(71701004)(71702002);SRVR:SN1PR02MB2079; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1 ;SN 1 PR02MB2079 ;25 :w JkqgxN GgPi8xMDWF1krl8ieDTRwhbXP2L8 fwQLfb U eo/R3/8fqBEGwJX5 5 el 3Lylb VO yo VW oXhmRhfs dsAxjMRnL+7DMyCsm3j53GW3WflwtCltEln44GWnq23ipD!smk5XSZmLrd3nvV18dte5qlkwWbcu4KRliDKD/LYTN7jc+cBVR Oa5RA1ii0NeW7h+2s29TFf2cH7tioV8SiGdwpBXED20UvllsjNijWPtkgtge3uCTWguWxiHNbWzVpoiM9VX05k25SoZYQFLw8p Vayhx0dmmPzwnbYPkyfuz5tA6D90lkbDmzLOSJ4lbfXHmaD2VXPT1ZlwkH!lQ3t/6jHcwNQ3YobywrpY2COa4MlGtaNXTGPOi0 5r6a9hKLT1Puko8L6iz04mdnUm2fKvAdEuv6D3DPUMf0psaLg8dH7xsDoTEGuNulzL6EkowYUBZ3FpJDKGGj66vXXw/U9PF CqPFrUS6WxtPp8TrSw1Kzc9KQ!jt7VnLL4MtUbYrQEnRY2Nou0UbGOT8iD780r+jRjiHUJBVIflZWymolcAOSbZ7LvGjVKfVop Qu WKunuO Ij 3uZL TvlV uLAzbitrtf!jYO lnF2n YI5zEqT oCLKLqMTTLa Y7F3bslcghw AKJN 5KmZuETL2ikRPnXJZap/L 7mvgCo bOI gUSyWMefljhm/E3Dehh5kiHxXmvSLySs+JbC8+o4ddutlavdqDeKp7unByY1VpC6Ap22ER6/u7tq13kSchJAifyUEbZ/kYkPDDNby + 1 Bg9EEbE3+uUlpRz3ompmLAHV62ywMFolmR Y zV glKMwmu5aXWTUY +oXR 7LLAahSOjhTHHeHRXjkCEMBH7 /valhvapJE pU3nKvY!zHd4oyCrOC5XAESRj!EToFp0HERQ!Qqib8Dqal/mGnQYIGTPrana+kK5qx8cCvRhLh VlkOp WiLfztPp 1 WKOi9VUCC tmw X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1 ;SN! PR02MB2079;31 :pzid8NqRZVMCzW AJDsrY 42+uGCcbfx4shGVjQ0RcGWGPKFa0f1Gb6MD9ZwY sf8omXWN3ih+ 7dldeq bkU4aM4dzYMousKSV0MoHsuAKv58Lz7FzaqCmKJqsxBpS51tC357bufD9rquP/r17WyA4eNEUYZgtTq3B50rWuzhu!fUOSEw!U lMpAl 9je0vewSzZVOdASPP7GBgl4icvhcusXcn4anGS/akyn50cKJCDYkBGA~;20:kVvHX3rGFg0h5wRJ2LxQA+NxX2DVPf46i2 nNHtSbDtF!mbOG9JRWemncpESRAl/ AvBeD1MsaMEAt0Yn821 y6DQG 1 u!SMZ/ A3ytcJXyn/Z8BrRiwj 1 xoWXr4xtZS5oHrGUFD olB8Va+ImX!JigKKAen03/6F6Jc7vEyRCYtEZmMlkXb7p4aGFcpM5cpxGOUUUAuAHB40wmuZ3SLE07GoU1XoQHbHk2a2x4 v7x+oN8zv3 i +m/GuNhN+i3 uHiKhoO RZhLAn WEaRj 1 GJ qN oNhx053CCaK 4 Y eQ9h70wDddQsJ V!Fy80n81 j6finxt I lcNUnr4 8Qg4 rz8ylZGTXajjRHnsfkyUb3Fkd6LuFYnyCE5ElZZqnzrpRZ61oSKXx44FBMJHSoJXqcNed4m1JdNs9810tl2vGsiH3urx3ejH5POpY6a kHI33 RLF500rYVF2MRqACbd+UMc5 9FlruX72 l TDYiO RHxhdeHA 7 C!Hrs5 V ipzhCzBQYVG+urU 1 qp7 q+qQuXb3 y X-Exchangc-Antispam-Report-T est: Uri Scan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CF A-Test: BCL:O;PCL:O;RULEID:(9 IO 1531078)(601004)(240 I 047)(13023025)(13024025)( 13018025)( 13016025)(8121501046)(10201501046) (3002001 );SRVR: SN 1 PR02MB2079;BCL:0;PCL:0 ;RULEID:; SR VR: SN 1 PR02MB2079; 6 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1 ;SN! PR02MB2079 ;4:iO giY2Im/CdY uLB9HZujKL5AjyS I EOVli2wa8urV oLu87Q53jl03EdKbLpsun8Ik Y mDkG RbRuDvEPD54 W hcklls753tlmDE+8uHsUg6ovvM4bwWlk+JJg!EtvfBLYaqbbnMCPWuLf40IcBT1M/f2Ymkb5JkoXOJ60yhM4KNWdbqhRmZ+4o HctKgWB4Mcd3 liJR1S9/kgwM9fBMkKbuU+sPZuixtgB3gV A5yYxNUfWPefOgnK7 l w/jWeb+He/KQzhsGdtW5HxLiNvnXOOV5+ RXFDCmyCiKkSDflwH/kzzui0qT/9C/+8wPQleAd6DfH4xSVF7iNFlqc9310T51z4wVigaAEpfBOSTlrbHXGqDEWgtTv+ZrXfY2t XTvyzOVq lyCtDSOA/ZMiriTmmvv4Pluiral W9R3q lc1FovUN04lq63BwfqNAD3q0RYX6mNZEzVul bzhmomCgp7Wll pACKxww X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: =?us- ascii?Q?l;SNIPR02MB2079;23:ZmWoMRWSpoQIDXR4s8zkrQcKPW3Yw7xpmulxfUjZu?= =?us-ascii?Q?Vzlap/tfcB8CKKSMhs0pMqMLRtBqjsLtlgk4DssuaQkEJnoj0uvWNA61Nggl?= =?us-ascii?Q?buH4q U4a W l 4aFvP8b I Qz++pQDyPPkq l 49i3k6aivtJZrb+Spzj s+e/7HZcyz?= =?us-ascii?Q?9x8An YBNickjN aK +UKCpoRbKSB ff PPedXtFIFps!AiAGY +pbfzAGaMxiCCZP?= =?us-ascii?Q?eBWNCB3STuEFmLiGOZI2stA6JDseJo5MRibdj2UYF3kCGnpTJJRWk7/l8+S7?= =?us-ascii?Q?ydzlznBOdY2a4QR/krwC6kRgVr6QY6YyA8E+Ni+KVOK+Wvm6y5LNFOwctWoM?= =?us-ascii?Q?2H0617SfbCArudynExpljiMoolwXvE6pyzgB1psPrW3DH8mKczNMStuRVPOY?= =?us-ascii?Q?4D3fIAHcCjOLNqhSMiRAOU2QC1XLCqAF1om2N85aLdxGNhxnazqKutpBecrL?= =?us-ascii?Q?OrEFU4 FnJ/IKWjGaqlrSg 1 UIXR/88qGRcNW c7mOQ20KxEzDBSQxm VNidkrEp?= =?us-ascii?Q?mFzooL2YK/gci0kaNXUJ7Awl2tPXBuqxbxaEHtZ+4LbdEikbXh0FrRH5D2Rs?= =?us-ascii?Q?pRd04yrGf6o3jYP5hDE8qfE9wCg4APuBNUTfOOJNwphigJCE3olszyPBw06h?= =?us-ascii?Q?Gzf86grwt902Dr8sfmayes9dt5FLKZC6R5PKzyqQdM9naC821Sbz8GTQ3Yh0?= =?us-ascii?Q?y+887ZwwnHsnXKXbVwu5/65SoDhGFe8Hklny6npdfWJwLXUIVKdvjyVBQL0c?= =?us-ascii?Q?FNHXxxqmmSiixP8R/z4wOZBk11AsF+KQzpSFGnURR+7yG!lrPbhwg2ugXFSp?= =?us-ascii?Q?7KUq4t4nyrHcGmtPh2DthRk8B3vFxC5X3t+hzaN+Omw0/yho1DaSohv+HxTG?= =?us-ascii?Q?OikDSVcev3/IZSpnm+muSYpmaRGFwsGlhysUQgmCteyBK/3puZeXpj9iofcj?= =?us-ascii?Q?CLj7aZrhpZZmethkfU9Zpyrk4rh0fqRyr/sQVioSMB1Qv4AMHG8k0ptbWGwx?= =?us-ascii?Q?G4xRNHRzyhddZGo/E7mvWVSHWR7S9iofwz3UZRPihM1gFZn26Z70tp8Z54EP?= =?us-ascii?Q?9PoZ5ItFbAsEsN 6+6UVKAisSLPENN8NY mosMfGtSgC95Qb34ZA W eJtrvJ tq Y?= =?us-ascii?Q?aFcwfwkfUEVyc84be9dorugXHJj3KibJoYaCzhafiQa5SQ7HvNHtm!PaC/Wk?= =?us-ascii?Q?EtVOb U9o5KPaHBBKOvCy I NuRn WZU/p YXY yD4JbTtbRxlsTYSbD/s0f0PQj0n?= =?us-ascii?Q?L I INdwoENSGFbBU+ukAAAcXnO!typb7 A vl++ Z I WidHTt++wBf0Cf7pI8i8p3 ?= =?us-ascii?Q?x2kTD949Q86mqx5n+ l 5KmZwchZQFRuMogJDrxoP A/8Gh Y AJDX8c9to3rDbmw?= =?us-ascii?Q?7kUF 48J zl wUJ e4yt VXd+ 7 ewgWM= 3D?= X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: l;SNIPR02MB2079;6:MAmh0210gLOvp2kb2qtAfRqkndn0v4aFThuW9gTkbtPeNB30yb0m!BlNI8fJvwMBbnog/lUKVcw2qlqZO/k EkG0DZFRvrE3nTb9WgXmq8Fdjj6uTNifUX8n4hbuJDXoJ92QatjqkberrxNaTOSWJZ7AltjvTDzDybfWDqh+pni+ZTQPzefijf4m4g fvUOCkBkk/zV7/mBrsvZp0cupvnX3TajFiz+vb/b31SsOC6srE4Q7K4zd5B88bScaBq+oYHaqvuL0xUxvl/uAH/txfhTkAmZxUK8kL GughF19+GpxEFoDnkcj4PaPiud5IidMSg;5:aVik9De0Wxb4o5Afx3L4UaHzJ7EGjMdla80Wy34i5fNNXwqXMF8Jt!MBOir7Qi43r5 TAg3TJl33uvH4m/Ii6Me7aUAz/lf83nF7Pq8z9xAOPIUe4Q8Qlm!OqORV+bXclGQaCpYS7ZJUyl81IIL2teg=;24:oFOx42559hlbbfo KTB+E+Zo9/f+hxA3w5ZOdu6lszLo00YlxiDoV02Qgnc3Yfx2q2qteKNf9QYLn/GuECnQz78mpa5gG7wAsNTkdKB8Megg=;7:w UV 4FWN 4gU4bm8iTConGxlh8Xldc9ARrWmvWBFG2aQp3PudPLOIX7bhM4X8gOhke+oXpGAwffLrzificvpW /axh0qBRBR/o7t X/S2Lq9MBLT9ecpNege8ll2iMgGim917KeMDukkc0eBKbL7gPiEGwlqgSHtpJHVnxmKfilequlkdswUlxj!EHTuYS9eubouoQ/Yj Bxhqy4GUjRNCyjzyjtp3Db0e8kmKqyhKBbG2cIB9mFL33JnxpMPQCp0vISDZOB+nkTw0oDkqsAk0JTFgw== SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1 :99 SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1 ;SN 1 PR02MB2079;20:3JiapRe2M GPq3j 8tCHE6ElldBrKMbA4Sny VRLHGSpAN dD0KHtVfgfydV8S0W aN a/IlR 7 oQMSxsc 1 BeZ UfijQEz2KKl TfglzqC/f0Gjm3H3Ekhf9qsriqxjKGq9Dvg7brDuL6fJyj61+aGBP3PL3y+EDzhvBwZs6P802TYHaR1XQ= X-OriginatorOrg: rentonschools.onmicrosoft.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2016 23:14:23.4984 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: f4944a90-5b09-48c5-9eab-09aebbbd9feb X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossT enantHeadersStamped: SN I PR02MB2079 Mr. Stracke, I would like to request a copy of the Environmental Checklist for the upcoming construction of Sartori Elementary School. Please email a copy to this address. Thank you, Angie Laulainen 7 Matthew Herrera From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mayor and Council, Kathleen Booher-Sheesley <kbooher@gmail.com> Monday, September 19, 2016 9:23 PM Denis Law; Randy Corman; Don Persson; Armando Pavone; Ryan Mcirvin; Ed Prince; Carol Ann Witschi; Ruth Perez Diane Dobson; Neil Sheesley; Vanessa Dolbee; Matthew Herrera RSD SEPA Evaluation Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My apologies for not addressing the council appropriately. I was not planning on speaking this evening, was unprepared and mis-spoke. Our neighbors only have a week to respond the the SEPA evaluation comment period. RSD is claiming a zip code error on the delayed distribution of notices. Some of our neighbors received official notification of the SEPA comment period on Thursday, 9/15/16, the day of our neighborhood meeting. The inputs are supposed to be submitted by Friday, 9/23, at 5 pm. That is not enough time for our neighbors to review all the documents and provide feedback. RSD is supposed to allow 30 days for comment. Our neighbor, in an attempt to help our community posted the information at the bottom of this email on Nextdoor yesterday. This demonstrates the difficulty we've had in dealing with Randy Matheson. Our meeting on Thursday, 9/15/16, was intended to create the space for our neighbors to understand the process, where we are currently, when we have the opportunity to engage and comment, and ask questions. It didn't go well. We need your help. City representatives were far more transparent, patient, informative and helpful. Some neighbors interpreted the information provided by the city as contrary to what RSD stated -increasing our discomfort with Randy and the perception he is misleading our community. Please inform us on how we can get the comment period extended at least 2 weeks so our neighbors can respond. The next school board meeting isn't until after the comment period ends on 9/23. We need help. Please guide us through this unknown territory with a deadline approaching. Here is what I wrote to the Interim Assistant Superintendent, Susan Leland, after Randy insulted a co-worker and neighbor. Randy's "behaviors have created significant barriers to being engaged and productive. The misrepresentations of his engagement with our community, sharing of inaccurate information, and lack of response and professionalism are driving this request. He doesn't seem to have the patience, communication skills or professionalism to be our liaison. He has become very adversarial and disrespectful to our community members. We need to be able to engage with someone from RSD that is respectful and willing to partner with this community. While we appreciate his apology last night, it is not enough. Is there any way we can partner with another RSD representative? This is an urgent request as the SEPA evaluation is happening now." And ... "Another concern is that our neighbors were not advised appropriately regarding the SEPA comment period. They were informed yesterday (9/15) and responses are due on 9/23. Community members are usually given 30 days to respond. Our neighbors have a week. They have requested a week extension so they can evaluate all the forms and provide feedback." The response was talk to Matt Feldmeyer, project manager. She did not address the SEPA comment period. Nextdoor Post: This is an urgent request as the SEPA evaluation is happening now." Contacts for Sartori Comments Angie Laulainen from North Renton · ld ago 1 If you wish to comment regarding plans for Sartori, the construction phase of the new elementary school, the time to do so is now: 1) Comments to Renton School District regarding the SEPA Review (send to both names and ask them to confirm receipt of your comments) due by Friday 9/23 5:00 PM: Rick Stracke, Designated SEPA Official for Renton School District rick.stracke@rentonschools.us Matthew Feldmeyer, Project Manager for the new Sartori Elementary matthew.feldmeyer@rentonschools.us See the information Renton School District has posted here: http://www.rentonschools.us/Page/2718 Note: the artists rendering which is showing in the slide show is not the current rendition, but you can find the updated one in the posted in the school district documents. 2) Comments to City of Renton regarding the Land Use Application, due by Friday 9/28, 5:00 PM: Matthew Herrera, Project Manager for City regarding Sartori mherrera@rentonwa.gov (425) 430-6593 See the Land Use Application and documents posted here: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.asp ... If you are so inclined, send copies of your comments to our Neighborhood organization North Renton Neighborhood Association north.renton@gmail.com Edited ld ago · Shared with North Renton+ 14 nearby neighborhoods in General 2 Matthew Herrera From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: North Renton Neighborhood Association <north.renton@gmail.com> Monday, September 19, 2016 9:40 PM Denis Law; Randy Corman; Don Persson; Ruth Perez; Carol Ann Witschi; Armondo Pavone; Ryan Mcirvin; Ed Prince Neil Sheesley; Diane Dobson; Vanessa Dolbee; Matthew Herrera Fwd: Help Needed -New RSD Representative Needed Here is the email between myself and the Interim Assistant Superintendent, Susan Leland. She directs me to the city to address the processes and timelines. We were clearly told on Thursday that the SEP A evaluation, and comment period, is being conducted by RSD. I am trying to find my way through this, but I keep getting redirected. We need help getting through this mess. We need the comment period extended. It would be great if they could get a full 30 days to respond, but were willing to accept 2 weeks. FYSA ... since my experience with Randy on Thursday, 9/15, I've heard from city commissioners and other city leaders (not council or city employees, but volunteers and leaders of other organizations) that they have had similar experiences with Randy. Imagine if I could spend my time and energy doing positive, productive, even creative things rather than chasing down information to get clarity and fighting for an extension so our community members can be engaged. RSD missed a zip code on the distribution of the notification. They need to do the right thing and extend the comment period. Please help us. It shouldn't be this hard for us to be a part of a new elementary school in our community. Kathleen, Secretary North Renton Neighborhood Association ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: Susan Leland <Susan.Leland@rentonschools.us> Date: Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 3:19 PM Subject: Re: Help Needed -New RSD Representative Needed To: North Renton Neighborhood Association <north.renton@grnail.com> Cc: Neil Sheesley <nasheesley@aol.com>, Diane Dobson <dmd82l@aol.com>, Tim C <tcollins@grnail.com>, "weaveredits@gmail.com" <weaveredits@grnail.com>, Matthew Feldmeyer <matthew. feldmeyer@rentonschools.us> Dear Kathy - Thank you so much for reaching out to me. I hope the information I am providing you will assist you in getting accurate and timely information. The Sartori project manager is Matt Feldmeyer. He is your best source of district information for the Sartori project and I have included him on the email string. I also want to direct you to the lead agencies for information and comment periods i.e., the City of Renton etc. to assist you in ensuring you are aware of these strictly defined processes and timelines. The district is not in control of these processed. 1 I hope this helps. Susan Smith Leland Assistant Superintendent of Finance Get Outlook for Android From: North Renton Neighborhood Association Sent: Friday, September 16, 10:16 AM Subject: Help Needed -New RSD Representative Needed To: Susan Leland Cc: Neil Sheesley, Diane Dobson, Tim C, weaveredits@gmail.com Dear Susan, I was searching on the RSD Website and found your name. I hope that as the Interim Assistant Superintendent you can help us. I am the secretary of the North Renton Neighborhood Association (NRNA). It has become very apparent that Randy Matheson is not the right community relations representative of RSD to be engaged with our neighborhood for the Sartori School project. We are trying to understand the process and be engaged, but his behaviors have created significant barriers to being engaged and productive. The misrepresentations of his engagement with our community, sharing of inaccurate information, and lack of response and professionalism are driving this request. He doesn't seem to have the patience, communication skills or professionalism to be our liaison. He has become very adversarial and disrespectful to our community members. We need to be able to engage with someone from RSD that is respectful and willing to partner with this community. While we appreciate his apology last night, it is not enough. Is there any way we can partner with another RSD representative? This is an urgent request as the SEPA evaluation is happening now. Another concern is that our neighbors were not advised appropriately regarding the SEPA comment period. They were informed yesterday and responses are due on 9/23. Community members are usually given 30 days to respond. Our neighbors have a week. They have requested a week extension so they can evaluate all the forms and provide feedback. I think this situation is due, in part, with the discomfort our community has in their dealings with Mr. Matheson. Our neighborhood needs information and transparency on the process. We need someone we trust and is willing to be engaged. Please consider and advise. Thank you for your time and attention. Kathleen, Secretary North Renton Neighborhood Association 2 Print Form Reset Form Save Form DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT --------Renton® TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 I www.rentonwa.gov 1. Total number of trees over 6" diameter1, or alder or cottonwood trees at least 8" in diameter on project site 41 ------- 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: trees Trees that are dangerous 2 5 trees 3. Trees in proposed public streets Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers Total number of excluded trees: Subtract line 2 from line 1: ----- 11 trees ----- trees ----- trees ----- 16 trees ------- 25 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, R-6 or R-8 0.2 in all other residential zones 0.1 in all commercial and industrial zones 8 trees 5. List the number of 6" in diameter, or alder or cottonwood trees over 8" in diameter that you are proposing5 to retain 4 : 0 trees 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 trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 96 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: {Minimum 2" cali~er trees reguired for re~lacement, otherwise enter 0) 2 inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6 : (If remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 48 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. 5 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 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Se!f-Help Ha ndouts\Planning\ Tree Retention Worksheet.docx Exhibit 17 08/2015 . ~ fl~'.2D screening detc1ils r f· ;_'._;:·h integ r.~.$. .... LOCATION OF SERVICE YARD ~ r--, I I 9 I I 0 I I - L--.J r--, I I I I 5' I I~ L--.J Jl .l 1·-0·' zo·-o· A 1 4 SCREENING PLAN SCALE: 118" = 1'-0" 5' I • 0 0 _, 00 ~ (2 3 NORTH ELEVATION-SCREENING SCALE: 118" = 1'-0" b bl 5> 00 2 4 -~ ---------, ,,-----ROOF STRUCTURE ~ METAL GATES MASONRY SCREEN WALL EAST ELEVATION-SCREENING SCALE: 118" = 1 '-0" ~lb ..-i;() _,-----------SCHOOL BUILDlt _,--------ROOFSTRUCTU --MASONRY SCRE WALL SOUTH ELEVATION-SCREENING ~ ~ SCALE: 1/B" = 1'-0n S·:;i-t(}ri f=::ic~·:-r:er1ic-.ir\-C',..-..(-,nr) ' ... ,..,.-. ~-·-. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: October 31, 2016 TO: Matt Herrera, Senior Planner FROM: Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test -Satori Elementary School; File No. LUAlG-000692 The Renton School District has submitted applications for Hearing Examiner Planned Urban Development and Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit approvals for the construction of a new 3-story 79,000 square foot Satori Elementary School. The subject property consists of 14 contiguous parcels (city block) that are bound by Park Ave N., Garden Ave N., N 4th St., and N 3rd St. The 5.28 acre subject property is an entire block located within the Residential-8 (R-8), R-10, Commercial Neighborhood (CN), and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designations. All existing structures are in the process of being removed. Vehicle access to the subject property is proposed on N. 3rd St. and N. 4th St. The proposal includes 83 parking stalls, 14 bus loading spaces, and 14 covered bicycle parking spaces. The proposed development would generate a reduction in approximately 200 net new average weekday daily trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 176 net new trips (100 inbound and 76 outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would generate a reduction of approximately 26 net new trips (-19 inbound and -7 outbound). The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows: Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan Yes Within allowed growth levels Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Exhibit 19 Transportation Concurrency Test -Satori Elementary School Page 2 of 3 October 31, 2016 Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2016. Within allowed growth levels: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2016 is 79,153 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the reduction of 200 trips from this project. A resulting 79,353 trips are remaining. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit for the project. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the building prior to occupancy. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to final occupancy. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: ff no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. Transportation Concurrency Test -Satori Elementary School Page 3 of 3 October 31, 2016 The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page Xl-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test af the citywide Transpartation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigatian Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. n•~ n 00 JI • 0 -0 .. "' 0 r\ Bl!'P .. '\! ,, ' S i 18 S Renton School District Sartori Elementary School 315 Garden Avanu, N, Ran ton WA 9B057 h•r,1·1 t •i: I, ~ 1:1Y11 ~ !r..:·n 1 :,ml, • •1.:11 1-1111,1 '(" ~ ~ ,· . ' " " ' ', '!;' " i 8 i •..$----------.-c~· • l !"' ~ z z , o o " """ ~ ~ ~ "' ... "' ... c:i: In In ...... "' "' mm mm ...... In )> mz nc ... 0 z In Renton School District Sartori Elementary School 315 Garden Avenue N, Renton WA 98057 • ,'; < • a o • , ' ,, 0 ,,,', , •~·:', ": .,"': 'i ',,, ,•: ' '') ',": i!i I " F' !! J I ' ---+-'~ l " ' ~.:. i , ~ I , ... l ~I, l:i! ~:~ Ii '!!j', 1 s 1 '~ I I ' ~~l I ' ;u:~ I mn I cl ~ "'1l 0 ,f <:: <:: " .... ;aa~ ,liil:~ ~":,; ,I "~ 11 h ! I ' ! ,, "El ; ~i i I "' ,1 'El . ~ "!: ,1 ' ~ i~~ !I . a •! ! El 2 >i~i!J 11 " • ' 1!!!11 .~ ~ (,) ~ (J1 z G) )> en ;;;:J )> 0;;;:J m -l zo ~;;;:J mm . r ;;;:Jm m~ zm -l z 0 s;! .z ;;;:J ::i:: -< )> en -0 0 O::> I oO (J1 0 -..J r ' 0 rn X :,-g "' "' . A. I I I I I Tl .· " ~ _) ·, • ~~· n eoJQD No1e:These views Intended to demonstrate design intent. Refer 1o submitted slte plans for accurate site plan proposal. integr.~.~"""' PERSPECTi\/E VIE\1\/S BIRDSEYE VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST ~(i;) Entire Dotument Available Upon Request Exhibit 24 VIEW FROM VISITOR PARKING SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 315 N GARDEN AVE, RENTON, WA 98057 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 16-000692 --------Renton® Application Date: September 02, 2016 Name: Sartori Elementary School Site Address: 1212 N 3rd St Renton, WA 98057-5735 PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 \ . Police Plan Review Comments Contact: Sandra Havlik 1425-430-75191 SHavlik@Rentonwa.gov Recommendations: POLICE RELATED COMMENTS 40 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually CONSTRUCTION PHASE To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. Toolboxes and storage containers should be secured with heavy duty padlocks and kept locked when not in use. The site will need security lighting and any construction trailer should be completely fenced in with portable chain link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective thief and will demonstrate that this area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept lacked when not in use, and should also have a heavy duty deadbolt installed with no less then a 1 1/2~ throw when bolted. Any construction material that contains copper should be removed from the construction site at the end of each working day. Glass windows in the trailer should be shatter resistant. I also recommend the business post appropriate "No Trespassing" signs on the property while it's under construction. This will aid police in making arrests on the property after hours if suspects are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. The use of off duty police officers or private security guards to patrol the site during the hours of darkness is also recommended. COMPLETED BUILDING It's important to direct all foot and vehicle traffic into the main entrance of the building; this should be monitored during hours of business by placing the school office in the main lobby area. This will assist with control of the pedestrian traffic in the building's public areas. Entrance through other exterior doors should be strictly prohibited. Rules should be posted in conspicuous location, letting visitors know they are to check in at the school's office immediately upon arrival. All exterior doors should be made of solid metal or metal over wood, with heavy duty deadbolt locks, latch guards or pry resistant cylinders around the locks, and peepholes. All strikeplates should have 2 1/2 to 3" wood screws. If glass doors are used, they should be fitted with the hardware described above and additionally be fitted with a layer of security film. Security film can increase the strength of the glass by up to 300%, greatly reducing the likelihood of breaking glass to gain entry. It is recommended that this building, and the individual offices inside, have monitored security alarms installed. There should be a plan set in place for lockdown procedures, as well, should an emergency occur. It's not uncommon for a school building to experience theft and/or vandalism during the hours of darkness, so it would also be recommended that an auxiliary security service be used to patrol the property during those times. Any alternative employee entrances should have coded access to prevent trespassing. Exterior doors should be checked routinely to insure they are not being propped open. All areas of parking and pedestrian travel need to have adequate lighting. This will assist in the deterrent of theft from motor vehicle (one of the most common crimes in Renton) as well as provide safe pedestrian travel far students, employees and visitors. Landscaping around the exterior of the buildings should not be tao dense or high. It is important to allow visibility. Too much landscaping will give the building the look of a fortress and possibly give a burglar sufficient coverage to break into the buildings, especially during the hours of darkness. Key far a school of this size is proper lighting and an abundance of signage. The public needs to be made aware at all times of what space is private and what space is public. Proper No Trespassing signs should be posted in conspicuous locations throughout the outside of the buildings (including parking areas) so enforcement action can be taken if needed. I highly recommend that the developer have a Renton Police Crime Prevention Representative conduct a security survey of the premises once construction is comolete. Engineering Review Comments Contact: Ian Fitz-James I 425-430-7288 I ifitz-james@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Exhibit Ran: October 31, 2016 25 Page 1 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA16-000692 --------Renton 0 PLAN • Planning Review· Land Use Version 1 I ' .. -·· ,' . . ' . . . ' . : . ; .. . ' Engineering Review Comments ·-· ._-. . Contact: Ian Fitz-James J 425-430-7288 I ifitz-jaines@rentonwa.gov M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 14, 2016 TO: Matt Herrera, Senior Planner FROM: Ian Fitz James, Civil Plan Reviewer SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for Sartori Elementary School -315 Garden Avenue N. LUA16 000692 I have reviewed the application for Sartori Elementary School located at 315 Garden Avenue N. and have the following comments. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is approximately 5.28 acres and is rectangular in shape. The site contains the existing Sartori Education Center, a strip mall with a small grocery store and Mexican restaurant, numerous single family residences, and a few smaller commercial sites. WATER: Water service is provided by the City of RElnton. The site is in the Valley service area in the 196' hydraulic pressure Zone. The approximate static water pressure is 68 psi at a ground elevation of 33 feet. Below is a summary of existing water mains located in streets surrounding the site: a. 12" Water Main (320 Zone) that can provide 5,400 gallons per minute (gpm) east of the site in Garden Avenue N. Reference COR Project File WTR2701111 In COR Maps. b. 6" Water Main (196 Zone) that can provide 1,300 gpm east of the site in Garden Avenue N. Reference COR Project File WTR2701156 in COR Maps. c. 8" Water Main that can provide 1,500 gpm north of the site in N. 4th Street. Reference COR Project File WTR2701156 in COR Maps. d. 16" Water Main that can provide 9,600 gpm west of the site in Park Avenue N. Reference COR Project File WTR270220B in COR Maps. e. 8" Water Main in N. 3rd Street that can provide 2,000 gpm south of the site in N. 3rd Street. Reference Project File WTR2701021 in CORMaps. Below is a summary of the existing fire hydrants in the vicinity of the site: a. At the NW comer of the site (COR Facility ID HYD N 00093) b. Across the street from the NE comer of the site (COR Facility ID HYD N 00092) c. Across the street from the northern project frontage (COR Facility ID HYO N 00308) d. Across the street from the SW corner of the site (COR Facility ID HYD N 00094) e. Along the southern project frontage (COR Facility ID HYD N 00291) f. Across the street from the SE comer of the site (COR Facility ID HYO N 00091) The existing Sartori Education Center is served by a 1.5" domestic water meter (Account Number 010240). There are also numerous small meters serving the light commercial and residential lots surrounding the existing Sartori Education Center. SEWER: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 22" concrete sewer running east to west in N. 4th Street north of the site. Reference Project File WWP2700513 in COR Maps for record drawings. There is also an existing s· PVC sewer running from east to west and then south to north through the site and connecting to the existing 22" sewer in N. 4th Street. Reference Project File WWP2700513 in COR Maps for record drawings. STORM DRAINGE: The majority of the site is the site of the existing Sartori Education Center. The Sartori site contains a two story education center with an asphalt parking lot, grass fields, and lawn areas. The site is relatively flat and contains a private on site drainage Ran: October 31. 2016 PaRe2of8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 16-000692 -------Renton® PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I . Engineering Review Comments .. Contact: Ian Fitz-James 1425-430-7288 I ifitz-james@rentonwa.gov system in the parking lot. Drainage from the site is either collected by the on site drainage system, infiltrates, or sheet flows gradually off site. Drainage that is collected by the on site conveyance system is conveyed west to the public storm drainage system in Park Avenue N. Drainage that sheet flows off site to the north is intercepted by a type 1 catch basin along the southern flowline of N. 4th Street. Drainage from this catch basin is routed west by an existing 8" storm drain. Drainage that sheet flows off site to the northeast is intercepted by a type 1 catch basin located along the flowline near the intersection of N. 4th Street and Garden Avenue N. Drainage from this catch basin is routed north by an existing 6" storm drain. There are also numerous light commercial and residential lots surrounding the existing Sartori Education Center to the west and south. These lots are also relatively flat and contain no on site drainage systems. Drainage from the existing lots west of the Sartori Education Center is intercepted by three type 1 catch basins located along the eastern flowline of Park Avenue N. Drainage from these catch basins is routed north by an existing 12" storm drain. Drainage from the existing lots south of the Satori Education Center is intercepted by two type 1 catch basins located along the flowline near the intersection of Park Avenue N. and N. 3rd Street and Garden Avenue N. and N. 3rd Street. Drainage from these catch basins is routed west by an existing 12"/10" storm drain. STREETS: The site is bounded by Park Avenue N. to the west. N. 4th Street to the north, N. 3rd Street to the south, and Garden Avenue N. to the east. Park Avenue N., N 4th Street, and N. 3rd Street are classified as principal arterials. Garden Avenue N. is classified as a residential access street. N. 3rd Street and Garden Avenue N. have a current right of way width of 60' along the project frontages. Park Avenue N. and N. 4th Street have varying right of way widths of at least 60' along the project frontages. The composition of the adjacent street sections are as follows: Park Avenue N. -44' pavement width with two travel lanes in each direction (north and south). Concrete curbs and 8' sidewalks exist on each side of the street. N. 4th Street-44' pavement width with three travel lanes in the western direction and one right turn lane. Concrete curbs and 6' sidewalks exist on each side of the street. N. 3rd Street-30' pavement width with three lanes in the eastern direction. Concrete curbs and 5' sidewalks with planters exist on each side of the street. Garden Avenue N. -40' pavement width with one travel lane in each direction (north and south) and on street parking on each side of the road. Concrete curbs and 6' sidewalks with planters exist on each side of the street. WATER COMMENTS 1. Abandoned/ removed water services shall be capped at the main in accordance with City standards. 2. The two existing hydrants along the project frontage shall be replaced with new hydrants located in the planter strip. One is located along the N. 3rd Street frontage and the other is located near the northwest comer of the site near the intersection of N. 4th Street and Park Avenue N. 3. A new hydrant served by an 8" main shall be provided in the western parking island north of the proposed building. The main serving the hydrant shall have an additional valve located in the parking island before the hydrant. The new hydrant and water main shall be located in a water utility easement. 4. The area where the proposed water services and vaults are located is very crowded. A blow up detail showing the proposed configuration of the connections is required for utility permit review. All required vaults and piping shall be shown to scale to ensure constructability. Locations of proposed water services and vaults shall also take into account the location of existing utilities. Below is a summary of the required water services for the proposed building: a. A fire sprinkler stub with a double detector check assembly (DDCVA} in an exterior underground vault per COR Standard Plan 360.2 shall be installed for backflow prevention. The DDCVA may be installed inside the building if it meets the conditions as shown on COR Standard Plan 360.5 for the installation of a DDCVA inside a building. b. A domestic water meter installation shall include a reduced pressure backflow assembly (RPBA) installed behind the meter and inside an above ground heated enclosure per COR Standard Plan 350.2. Domestic water meters larger than 3" shall be installed per COR Standard Plan 320.4. Meters larger than 3" require a 4" external bypass line with a post indicator valve per COR Standard Plan 320.4. c. A separate meter is required for landscape irrigation. A double check valve assembly (DCVA) is required downstream of the meter. For services 2~ and smaller, the DCVA shall be installed per COR Standard 340.8. A RPBA is not required for an irrigation meter. If right of way vegetation requires irrigation, a separate irrigation meter with a DCVA shall be provided. 5. Water improvements shall be designed in accordance with Appendix J of the City's 2012 Water System Plan. Adequate horizontal and Ran: October 31, 2016 Page 3 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 16-000692 --------Renton® PLAN • Planning Review · Land Use Version 1 I ... . _, ·' ,·, --::-. . ·.· ' . . . ,·. -· . ' Contact: Ian F.itz-James 1425-430°7288 I ifitzajames@rentonwa.gov Engineering Review Comm8nts .---- vertical separation between the new water main and other existing and proposed utilities (sewer lines, storm drains, gas lines, power and communication ducts) shall be provided for the operation and maintenance of the water main. Retaining walls, rockeries, or similar structures cannot be installed over the water main unless the water main is installed inside of a steel casing. 6. The development is subject to applicable water system development charges (SDCs) and meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters far domestic use and fire prevention. Meters greater than 2" will be charged a $220.00 processing fee and the contractor will provide the meter and install it. A system development fee credit will be issued for any existing meters being abandoned. The full water fee schedule can be found in the City's 2016 development fees document on the City's website. SEWER COMMENTS 1. The proposed location of the school building conflicts with the location of the on site 8ft sewer. The sewer and services connected to the sewer shall be removed and/or abandoned as necessary for construction of the building. 2. The site plan indicates that the new school will connect to the existing 8" sewer main that is not removed for construction of the building. The connection of new main to the old main is proposed to occur at an existing manhole (COR Facility ID MH1988) in the new parking lot north of the new building. This provides an acceptable wastewater route for wastewater discharge from the new school. 3. The proposed sewer easement shall end south of the existing manhole that is serving as the point of connection for the new building sewer line (COR Facility ID MH1988). All new sewer main and side sewers shall be privately maintained. 4. Release of any eXisting sewer easements will be reviewed during utility permit review. 5. The development is subject to applicable sewer system development charges (SDCs) for sewer service. The SOC for sewer service is based on the size of the domestic water service. A system development fee credit will be issued for any existing sewer service being abandoned. The full sewer fee schedule can be found in the City's 2016 development fees document on the City's website. STORM DRAINAGE COMMENTS 1. Effective January 2, 2017, the City of Renton will be adopting a new stormwater manual which will be based on the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual. All projects vested after January 2, 2017 will be subject to these new stormwater requirements. Please refer to RMC 4 1 045 for information regarding project vesting. 2. A Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR) completed by AHBL were submitted to the City on September 2, 2016. The site drainage area including offsite areas is approximately 5.67 acres. The site drainage area under existing conditions contains approximately 3.17 acres of impervious area and the site drainage area under proposed conditions contains approximately 4.08 acres of impervious area. The site is relatively flat and has three separate discharge locations. Each discharge location is part of a separate threshold discharge area (TOA). Each discharge location will be maintained in the proposed condition. The site is located in the Lower Cedar River drainage basin and in Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Zone. The site is located in the City's Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Conditions). Per the preliminary TIR and KCRTS model prepared by AHBL, the project proposed to meet the flow control facility requirement using three detention pipes. There will be one detention pipe for each basin. All proposed detention pipes will be private facilities. Due to the site's flat topography and shallow existing stonn system, an in depth review will be conducted of all stormwater detention facilities and conveyance systems to ensure proper function and to examine the effects of backwater on the detention facilities during utility permit review. Six Filterra stormwater filtration systems are proposed to meet the enhanced basic water quality treatment standards. Flow control BMPS, ponds, stormwater wetlands, and infiltration facilities are prohibited as the site is located in Zone 1 of an Aquifer Protection Zone. All core and special requirements are to be addressed in the final TIR. 3. The project site is located within one half mile of the Cedar River which is classified as a major receiving water. This project may qualify for the Direct Discharge Exemption from the Flow Control Facility requirement if all criteria in Section 1.2.3 of the City amended 2009 KCSWDM are met 4. Drainage improvements along all frontages will be required to conform to the City's street standards. Catch basin spacing along all street frontages shall conform to the standards found in Section 4.2.1.1. Additional catch basins or inlets may be required to conform to these standards. 5. A geotechnical report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences Incorporated dated August 4, 2016 was submitted. 6. The development would be subject to stormwater system development charges (SDCs). The current SDCs are $0.594 per square foot Ran: October 31. 2016 Page 4 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 16-000692 -------Renton® PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I Engineering Review Comments Contact: Ian Fitz-James 1425-430-7288 I ifitz-james@rentonwa.gov . of new impervious surface area, but not less than $1,485.00. A system development fee credit will apply for the existing single family residential lots. Fees are payable at the time of permit issuance. TRANSPORTATION/STREET COMMENTS 1. The current transportation impact fee is $2.00 per square foot of building. Fees are payable at the time of permit issuance. A transportation impact fee credit will apply for the existing education facility, single family residential lots, and light commercial lots. 2. N. 3rd Street, N. 4th Street, and Park Avenue N. are classified as principal arterials. Garden Avenue N. is classified as a residential access street. City staff is recommending street sections that differ from the City's street standards found in RMC 4 6 060. A summary of the required street frontage improvements requested can be found below. a. The existing curb line shall remain in place along Park Avenue N. An 8' planter shall be located behind the curb and a 12' sidewalk shall be located behind the planter. Right of way dedication along Park Avenue N. will be required to the back of the 12' sidewalk. b. The existing curb line shall remain in place along N. 3rd Street and N. 4th Street. An 8' planter shall be located behind the curb and an 8' sidewalk shall be located behind the planter along these streets. Right of way dedication along N. 3rd Street and N. 4th Street will be required to the back of the 8' sidewalk. c. The existing curb line shall remain in place along Garden Avenue N. The proposed curb bulbs at the corners of N. 3rd Street and Garden Avenue N. and N. 4th Street and Garden Avenue N. are required with the original curb line remaining in place. The curb bulb at the corner of N. 3rd Street and Garden Avenue N. adjacent to the site shall extend for the entirety of the curb return. The addition of curb bulbs will allow for a 13' southbound travel lane on Garden Avenue N. and an 8' bus parking lane. City curb bulb design standards shall be met. The depressed curb between the bus parking lane and southbound travel lane on Garden Avenue N. shall meet the City standards for a cement concrete valley curb. A 12' sidewalk will be required directly behind the curb. Right of way dedication along Garden Avenue N. will be required to the back of the 12' sidewalk. d. Companion curb bulbs along the eastern frontage of Garden Avenue N. are required at the intersections of N. 3rd Street and N. 4th Street. These curb bulbs should only extend in the western direction to shorten the crossing distance across Garden Avenue N. No curb bulb extension north into N. 4th Street or south into N. 3rd Street is required. City curb bulb design standards shall be met. e. A curb bulb at the corner of N. 3rd Street and Park Avenue N. adjacent to the site shall extend south into N. 3rd Street. The curb bulb shall not extend west into Park Avenue N. When coupled with the required curb bulb along the entirety of the curb return at the intersection of N. 3rd Street and Garden Avenue N. (described in comment 2.c), on street parking along the northern frontage of N. 3rd Street adjacent to the site will be created. City curb bulb design standards shall be met. f. The curb radius at all intersections shall be 35'. Appropriate right of way dedication at each comer is required to accommodate the curb radius. g. Perpendicular curb ramps conforming to current ADA and WSDOT standards will be required at each corner. Curb ramps shall be perpendicular to the roadway centerline. Two curb ramps are required at each comer. The project shall comply to the City of Renton Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan adopted May 18, 2015. Required curb ramp improvements at each intersection will be evaluated to determine if additional improvements such as accessible pedestrian signals (APS) are required. Companion curb ramps across from the project site are required to be brought up to current ADA standards. h. The existing curb along all frontages shall be replaced with a new curb that meets City standards. i. Proposed access points to the site are acceptable. j. No on street parking will be permitted along N. 4th Street or Park Avenue N. k. Current channelization on N. 4th Street, Park Avenue N., and Garden Avenue N. shall remain. The far left lane on N. 3rd Street shall be a left turn only lane west of the intersection with Park Avenue N. Signal and sign modifications shall be made as necessary to ensure that the new traffic pattern with the far left lane being left only is correctly implemented. The proposed change in N. 3rd Street channelization will allow for on street parking on the north side of N. 3rd Street adjacent to the site. I. All existing manholes, handholes, and other utility covers within public sidewalks shall be brought up to current ADA standards. 3. A draft traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared by Heffron Transportation was submitted for the project. The TIA evaluated traffic operations at the four intersections adjacent to the site at the request of the City plan reviewer and Transportation department. The Ran: October 31, 2016 PageSof& ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 16-000692 -------Renton® PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I ' " .. •' ·.: _· . ·.. . : .. , Engineering Review Comments . . . Contact: l~n Fitz-James I 425-430-7288 I ifitz-jam~s@nl~tonwa.gov intersections evaluated were N. 4th Street and Park Avenue N., N. 4th Street and Garden Avenue N., N. 3rd Street and Park Avenue N., and N. 3rd Street and Garden Avenue N. To analyze the intersections, vehicle turning movements were conducted at the four study intersections on Thursday May 19, 2016 by ldax Data Solutions. Traffic counts were taken for the morning and afternoon peak periods. Heffron use the traffic counts to forecast traffic volumes in 2018 when the project will be complete. Heffron determined that all four study intersections operate at Level of Service C or better and will continue to operate at Level of Service C or better in 2018 without the project. Heffron estimated vehicle trips generated by the project using the proposed land use from the 9th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Level of Service at the four study intersections was evaluated using 2018 conditions without the project and 2018 conditions with the project. Heffron determined that all four study intersections will operate at the same Level of Service in 2018 with or without the project. Heffron evaluated on site queuing in the morning drop off period and the afternoon pick up period. The morning arrival queue was modeled using Poisson arrival methodologies and assumptions from queuing data collection at Bellevue School District. The report concludes that the estimated morning arrival queue will be accommodated on site. The afternoon arrival queue was modeled using data collected on March 15th and October 15th, 2015 from Cherry Crest Elementary School in Bellevue. Cherry Crest Elementary is similar in student and staff sizes to the proposed school and has a similar number of parking stalls to the proposed school. The report concludes that the afternoon queues could exceed the demand of the north parking lot/ load and unload loop. The report suggests that access management measures could be implemented to prevent queues from adversely impacting traffic flow on N. 4th Street. Heffron evaluated on site parking for both a typical school day and evening event. Typical school day parking demand was determined using data from several Seattle elementary schools and ITE employee based parking generation rates for middle schools. The ITE does not provide employee based parking generation rates for elementary schools. The report concludes that the on site parking supply can accommodate typical midday parking demand. For evening events, Heffron evaluated use of all possible on site parking, the bus parking area, on street parking within 400 feet of the site, and the Renton School District Transportation Facility which is located across N. 4th Street from the site. The report concludes that parking for an attendance of 675 to 790 persons can be accommodated by the evaluated parking facilities. Lastly, Heffron evaluated traffic safety and non motorized transportation facilities. The report concludes that the project will not result in any significant adverse safety impacts. The report suggests additional channelization markings on N. 4th Street near the parking lot entrance may be beneficial. The report acknowledges that an increase in pedestrian traffic activrty in the vicinity of the site will occur with this project. The report suggests implementing school speed zones and accompanying signage, along with a walk routes, crosswalk locations, and crossing guard locations. 4. A final signed traffic impact analysis shall be provided prior to utility permit submittal. 5. Street lighting analysis is required to be conducted by the developer along all street frontages. Required street lighting shall be to City of Renton standards. Street lighting was not included with the site plan submittal. 6. Paving and trench restoration within the City of Renton right of way shall comply with the City's Restoration and Overlay requirements. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The SDCs listed are for 2016. The fees that are current at the time of the utility permit application will be levied. Please see the City of Renton website for current SDCs. 2. Storm drainage detention vaults and retaining walls that are 4' or taller from bottom of footing will require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans prepared by a licensed engineer will be required. 3. The survey and all civil plans shall conform to the current City of Renton survey and drafting standards. Current drafting standards can be found on the City of Renton website. 4. A final survey that is stamped and signed by the professional land surveyor of record will need to be provided. All existing utilities need to be surveyed and shown. Please reference COR Maps for mapping and records of existing utilities in the project vicinity. 5. Separate plan submittals will be required for construction permits for utility work and street improvements. All plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer in the State of Washington. 6. When utility plans are complete, please submit four (4) copies of the plans, two (2) copies of the drainage report, an electronic copy of each, the permit application, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and application fee to the counter on the sixth floor. Ran: October 31, 2016 Page 6 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 16-000692 -------Renton® PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I . Technical Services Comments Contact: Amanda Askren 1425-430-7369 I aaskren@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Legals and exhibits were provided for what appears to be ROW dedications. If this is the case, the Deed of Dedication forms will need to be prepared along with the legal and exhibit and the REETA forms for the dedication areas for review. Lot Combination Form was reviewed as submitted. Form will need to be filled out for review with appropriate call outs for the provided exhibits. . . Building Review· Planning Comments Contact: Craig Burnell 1425-430-7290 I cburnell@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Recommendations of the Geotechnical report must be followed. Update the geotechnical report to the 2015 IBC. Planning Review Comments Contact: Matt Herrera I 425-430-6593 I mherrera@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. 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. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 6. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, UNO TRESPASSING~ Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. 7. This permit is shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permitted is responsible for adhering to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Bald Eaale Manaaement Guidelines (2007) and /or vour U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service oermit. Fire Review -Building Comments Contact: Corey Thomas 1425-430-7024 I cthomas@rentonrfa.org Recommendations: Environmental Impact Statement: 1. Fire impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $0.45 per square foot of increased building area. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Credit will be granted to the square footage of educational/retail buildings demolished/removed on this site. Code Related Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2,000 gpm. A minimum of two fire hydrants are required. One within 150 feet and one within 300 feet of the building. Building shall also meet maximum hydrant spacing of 300 feet on center. One hydrant shall be within 50 feet of the fire department connection for the fire sprinkler and standpipe systems. Any existing hydrants used ta satisfy the requirements shall meet current fire code including 5 inch storz fittings. 2. Approved fire sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood 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 rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 feet of all points on the building. Fire lane signage 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 75 psi point loading. 4. 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. 5. Separate plans and permits for any removal of existing tanks and installation of any new tanks. Ran: October 31, 2016 Page7of8 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 16-000692 PLAN • Planning Review • Land Use Engineering Review Comments .. . --------Renton® Version 1 I October 31, 2016 ' ' . ' _. •, :_ · .. -,., .' _.-, . ,' -: '•', .,-,, . :· ', _.... ---: Contact: Brianne Bannwarth I 425-430-7299 l bbannwarth@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Transportation Concurrency Test has been performed and the project has passed. See Transportation Concurrency Test Memo dated October 31, 2016 in the oroiect file. Ran: October 31. 2016 Page 8 of 8 . •.. · .. :<:fiY1bj; RE.NTQN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY:& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION . . . AFFIDAVIT qi:~fRIJIC:E BY MP.ILING ..... . .. . .. .. -.. _,_ ,' On the 14th day of September, 2016, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Notice of Application and Acceptance documents. This information was sent to: Lisa Klein, AHBL Applicant Renton School District 11403 Owner 300 Surrounding Property Owners See Attached Parties of Record See Attached Signature of Sender): U ""'" -"'V ....J l STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and 11\lr~~,ses mentioned in the instrument. ,, \-\Oll~111 111 Notary (Print): My appointment expires: Projei:t, NJ!.ine: New Sartori Elementary School . •.. ... . .. , iiroJectNumber: ' , ..... ---~ LUA16·000692, CU-H, PUD template -affidavit of service by mailing ~-;o-'''\\\\\l1t1, /::,0 ''1 _ ... ~··oll-'-'1Ss1J,1,1 z.·'l _-. (,, ,s..''1 -~ I'.., .. 1 -'I ~ ~ Public in and for the State of Washington , ~ ~% ::o ~ . --1 ;; ,, • ... .ii:! (J) ~ , rn 1 cP c-e '11E :; · --i'l', i.lC "°:F -i_, 11;,....-9. .... E 0 Cf .-.. n (f-1 _ ~ '•1t,\\\\\'-''-o~ $:: ex fr cxv ,,, SHtNG°f. " /Ji ,-..." I\\\\\\"''' Exhibit 26 -No;thR~~to~-Neighborhood Association PO Box 326 Renton, WA 98057 Jessica Roach 132 Pelly Ave N Renton, WA 98057 Nancv Monahan 325 Meadow Ave N Renton, WA 98057 Paul Rolinger 218 Burnett Ave N, Unit B Renton. WA 98057 Sarah & Tim Bishop 222 Burnett Ave N Renton, WA 98057 Debbie Natelson 218 Burnett Ave N, Unit B Renton, WA 98057 Kathleen Booher 809 N 2nd St Renton. WA 98057 Neil Sheesley 809 N 2nd St Renton, WA 98057 Rick Stracke Renton School District No. 403 7812 S 124th St Seattle, WA 98178 Scott Rice 345 Meadow Ave N Renton, WA 98057 Genie Chase 227 Wells Ave N Renton. WA 98057 Lisa Klein AHBL 2215 N 30th St, 300 Tacoma. WA Pamela Thomas 341 Meadow Ave N Renton, WA 98057 -- Rochelle Krebs 121 Wells Ave N Renton. WA 98057 Wvman Dobson 821 N 1st St Renton, WA 98057 7224000470 1352300330 1352300355 337 PARK AVE LLC ANLIKER PAUL G AULAMD 22609 SE 4TH ST 335 MEADOW AVE N 1522 E SPRUCE ST SAMMAMISH, WA 98074 RENTON, WA 98057 SEATTLE, WA 98122 1352300280 7224000280 1352300290 AUSTIN MARK+LYNN BADISSY ZINE+NAJIBA Current Resident 5401 LAKE LENGLEIS RD NE 4909 119TH PL NE 21326 5TH AVES CARNATION, WA 98014 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 DES MOINES, WA 98198 1352300370 1352300370 1352300360 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1314 N 3rd St 1308 N 3rd St 311 Meadow Ave N Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton,WA 98057 1352300290 1352300365 7224000251 Current Resident Current Resident CHEN YU FAN VINCENT 300 Garden Ave N UNIT A 305 Meadow Ave N 228 PARK AVE N Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 1352300160 1352300310 7224000360 CHENOWETH MICHAEL C CHODYKIN JOSEPH R CHUCHILL BRETT J+JO M 243 MEADOW AVE N 347 MEADOW AVE N 18624 114TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 7224000595 7224000270 7224000280 COLEE JEFFREY J CUR ENT TENANT CURENTTENANT 330 PARK AVE N 250 Park Ave N APT 2 250 Park Ave N APT 1 RENTON, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 7224000275 1352300370 1352300290 CU RENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 248 Park Ave N 1310 N 3rd St 1304 N 3rd St Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton.WA 98057 1352300290 7224000455 7564600196 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 300 Garden Ave N UNIT B 329 Park Ave N 1211 N 3rd St APT A Renton, WA 98057 Renton.WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 7564600196 7224000545 7224000545 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 1211 N 3rd St APT B 310 Pelly Ave N 308 Pelly Ave N APT A Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 7224000545 1352300090 1352300095 CURRENT TENANT CU RR ENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 308 Pelly Ave N APT B 246 Garden Ave N 240 Garden Ave N Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 7224000535 7224000535 7564600210 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 316 Pelly Ave N 314 Pelly Ave N 247 Garden Ave N APT 2 Renton, \/'IA 98057 Renton, \/'IA 98057 Renton, \/'IA 98057 7564600210 7564600210 7564600210 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 24 7 Garden Ave N APT 6 247 Garden Ave N APT 1 247 Garden Ave N APT 3 Renton, \/'IA 98057 Renton,\/'/A 98057 Renton,\NA 98057 7564600210 7564600210 7564600194 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 247 Garden Ave N APT 4 247 Garden Ave N APT 5 249 Garden Ave N Renton, \NA 98057 Renton,\NA 98057 Renton,\NA 98057 1352300350 7224000610 7224000620 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 319 Meadow Ave N 340 Park Ave N 350 Park Ave N Renton,\NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 Renton,\NA 98057 7224000600 7224000580 7564600182 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 3005\N 7TH ST 314 Park Ave N UNIT B 1212 N 3rd St RENTON, \NA 98055 Renton,\NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000590 7564600184 7564600183 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 326 Park Ave N 303 Garden Ave N 1206 N 3rd St Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000615 7224000580 7564600183 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 346 Park Ave N 314 Park Ave N UNITE 1206 N 3rd St APT B Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 9805 7 Renton, \/'IA 98057 7224000580 7564600181 1352300345 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 314 Park Ave N UNIT C 1204 N 3rd St 321 Meadow Ave N Renton, \NA 98057 Renton,\/'/A 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000440 7224000425 7224000425 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 315 Park Ave N 303 Park Ave N APT B 303 Park Ave N APT P Renton, \NA 98057 Renton,\NA 98057 Renton, 1/'JA 98057 7224000425 7224000425 7224000425 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 301 Park Ave N APT 3 301 Park Ave N APT 2 303 Park Ave N APT J Renton, \NA 98057 Renton,\NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000425 7224000425 7224000425 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 303 Park Ave N APT I 301 Park Ave N APT 4 303 Park Ave N APT K Renton,INA 98057 Renton,INA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000425 7224000425 7224000425 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 303 Park Ave N APT L 303 Park Ave N APT G 303 Park Ave N APT M Renton,\NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000425 7224000425 7224000425 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 303 Park Ave N APT 0 303 Park Ave N APT E 303 Park Ave N APT Q Renton,INA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000425 7224000425 7224000425 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 303 Park Ave N APT F 301 Park Ave N APT 5 301 Park Ave N APT l Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000425 7224000425 7224000425 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 303 Park Ave N APT H 303 Park Ave N APT N 303 Park Ave N APT A Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 Renton,\NA 98057 7224000425 722400042S 7224000425 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 303 Park Ave N APT R 303 Park Ave N APT S 303 Park Ave N APT C Renton,INA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000425 7224000355 1352300170 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 303 Park Ave N APT D 250 Pelly Ave N 235 Meadow Ave N Renton, \NA 98057 Renton, \NA 98057 Renton,INA 98057 1352300170 1352300165 7224000820 CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT CURRENT TENANT 239 Meadow Ave N 1392156TH AVES 1002 N 4th St Renton, \NA 98057 TUK\NILA, \NA 98168 Renton, \NA 98057 7224000820 1352300245 7224000515 CURRENT TENANT DENG MINNING DERRY LUELLA H 1004 N 4th St 7155 SE 24TH ST 332 PELLY AVE Renton, \NA 98057 MERCER ISLAND, \NA 98040 RENTON, \NA 98057 7224000460 7224000265 135230032S DOBSON \NYMAN K DOMINGUEZ HENRY DREEINE5 SHER ELYN P0BOX59 PO BOX 6502 339 MEADO\N AV N RENTON, \NA 98057 KENT, \NA 98064 RENTON, WA 98055 7224000805 1352300300 1352300155 DUNLAP LINDA M+TRAVIS J EHLKE DAWNA EHRLICH STEVEN F 412 PELLY AV N 353 MEADOW AVE N 245 MEADOW AVE N RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 1352300235 7564600195 1352300100 FITTEROLF DAVID W FILLEY CATHERINE+KACHUCK JO FISHER 338 GARDEN AVE N 1207 N 3ROST 16121182NO AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98058 1352300285 1352300085 1352300110 FUNKHOUSER KIZZIE+NATHAN FUNKHOUSER NATHAN K+KIZZIE GARCIA ARLINDA R+GUBBELS CH 304 Garden Ave N 248 GARDEN AVE N 230 GARDEN AVE N Renton, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 7564600197 7564600230 1352300215 GARCIA EDGAR P GENTELE WILLIAM+AMY GOET2 MATTHEW M 106 140TH PL NE 235 GARDEN AVE N 356 GARDEN AV N BELLEVUE, WA 98007 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 7224000325 7564600196 1352300220 GRAHAM CHERYL HAHN MARKW HAMMILL L NICOLE 33526 18TH AVE S 4108 MIDVALE AVE N 350 GARDEN AVE N FEDERALWAY,WA 98003 SEATTLE, WA 98103 RENTON, WA 98055 1352300255 7564600240 7224000545 HAYES DOLORES M HISEY JOHN A HOVSEPIAN CONNOR 326 GARDEN AV N 231 GARDEN AVE N 4344 90TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 7224000340 7224000340 7224000330 HUANG YUNG,.CHIANG & SU-LING HUANG YUNG-CHIANG & SU-LING HUANG YUNG-CHIANG & SU-LING 247 Park Ave N 249 Park Ave N 10748 15TH AVE NE Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 SEATTLE, WA 98125 7224000695 1352300335 7564600203 J & 5 EVERGREEN INVESTMENT JAHN JAMES R+MARIE KING COUNTY-PROPERTY SVCS 5616173RD AYE SE 1608 1ST AVE W 5004TH AVE BELLEVUE, WA 98006 SEATTLE, WA 98119 SEATTLE, WA 98004 7224000320 7224000320 7224000525 LAI YING-FANG LAI YING-FANG LAIGO LLOYD T 229 Park Ave N APT B 229 Park Ave N APT A 3704 S DAKOTA ST Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 SEATTLE, WA 98118 7224000526 1352300315 1352300275 LAIGO LLOYD T LANE STEVEN B+RICE SCOTT SH LAULAINEN FRANS A 326 Pelly Ave N 345 MEADOW AVE N 314 GARDEN AVE N Renton, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 7564600235 7564600235 7224000365 MALPHRUS THOMAS H MALPHRUS THOMAS H MITION JEREMY D 18713 102ND AVE SE 230 Park Pl N 238 PELLY AVE N RENTON, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 7224000450 7224000450 7224000605 MOLAVI AMIR TAGHl+KANGARLOO MOLAVI AMIR TAGHl+KANGARLOO MONACOLLC 2932 277TH TERR SE 323 Park Ave N 336 PARK AVE N SAMMAMISH, WA 98075 Renton,WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 1352300340 1352300090 7224000490 MONAHAN NANCYMONAHAN NANCY MUDOGARYR MY DREAM LLC 325 MEADOW AVE N 18624 SE 213TH ST 24451 SE 48TH PL RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98058 ISSAQUAH, WA 98029 7224000720 7224000535 1352300295 NGUYEN PHONG THANH NGUYEN TRINH CUU NGUYEN VINH+PHAM THI MY HAN 1503 MANGRUM ST 1401 EDMONDS AVE NE 359 MEADOW AVE N PFLUGERVILLE, TX 78660 RENTON, WA 98056 RENTON, WA 98055 7224000475 7223000010 7564600210 NORGEL LLC PACCAR INC PAPINI CARLO & ANGELA 27420 236TH PL SE PO BOX 1518 12912 SE 191ST ST MAPLE VALLEY, WA 98038 BELLEVUE, WA 98009 RENTON, WA 98058 1352300350 1352300250 7554600105 PETERSON CHARLES AARON POQUETIE ROGER L+JUDITH A RENTON SCHOOL DIST 507 WELLS AV N 328 Garden Ave N 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 RENTON,WA 98055 7564600220 1352300240 7224000550 ROSEN DYLAN SANDERS MATIHEW R+AYA SCHMULAND FAMILY IRREVOCABL 12011/2 N 3RD ST 336 GARDEN AVE N 8723 142ND AVE NE RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 REDMOND, WA 98052 1352300345 1352300150 1352300150 SCHULTZ NORMAN M SEDGE MORE JEFF G SEOGEMORE JEFF G 7634 S SUNNYCREST RO 251 MEADOW AVE N 251 Meadow Ave N APT B SEATILE,WA 98178 RENTON, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 7224000440 7224000425 7224000425 SHARAM FAMILY TRUST 11 SHARAM FAMILY TRUST II SHARAM FAMILY TRUST II PO BOX 2401 PO BOX 2401 PO BOX 2401 KIRKLAND, WA 98083 KIRKLAND, WA 98083 KIRKLAND, WA 98083 7564600180 7224000355 7224000350 SMITH GREGG SMITH JOHN F+SHARON L SMITH JOHN F+SHARON L 6208 HAZELWOOD LN 12216 164TH AVE SE 1005 N 3rd St BELLEVUE, WA 98006 RENTON, WA 98059 Renton, VvA 98057 7224000350 7224000810 1352300265 SMITH JOHN F+SHARON L SPREDER GARY M ll+KURILUK L STOUDT TIMOTHY W+JENNIFER M 1007 N 3rd St 410 PELLY AV N 318 GARDEN AVE N Renton, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 7224000260 7224000510 7224000465 TANG QUAN F+JIN E LIU TERRY TIMOTHY M & NANCY A THANH TRAN 232 PARKAVN 338 PELLY AVE N 9306 48TH AVE S RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 SEATTLE,WA 98118 7224000520 1352300320 1352300105 THOMAS MARK K THOMAS PAMELA S TWIDT BRIAN D+MARY 330 PELLY AVE N 341 MEADOW AV N 234 GARDEN AVE N RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 7224000495 1352300225 7224000815 ULRICH SAMSON VAN DYKE JERRY+KELLY VANDIVER MARY ANN 346 PELLY AV N 346 GARDEN AVE N 406 PELLY AVE N RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 7224000530 1352300170 7224000505 WAKMAN LORI TAYLOR WERLE LARRY WHITE STAR INVESTMENTS LLC 322 PELLY AVE N 4212 ANKAR PARK DRIVE #146 PO BOX 6008 RENTON, WA 98057 BELLINGHAM, WA 98226 SAINT JOSEPH, MO 64506 7564600225 7224000820 WOOANITAT YANG ANDREWLI\ N 12906 NE 25TH PL 502 S TOBIN ST BELLEVUE.WA 98005 RENTON, WA 98057 ~ ~Renton~ NOTICE OF APPLICATION Aw..Tt•A~ILMN«l~1 ... ~wltt!~~ .. c.-nr,&~~ ta.Ol-"""""' CHPll'lr,IN O,,ot J-.tan. TN~~ NWffldO..t~Milml ~~ --- '1.QJtCfDUC1IPTICl'll The 41a'l'IOI SCICd QI.ma~ t,.n ~ •Nleldars Jw .. ,_.. t,.a.,N,n11t'1.ltwwdUMIIM~ ........... ........,.._~1,,/1,1"9m'lll.lt'idr.d:~~tard' .. ~ ol • NW l-larp 1'.CIXI ~ ,-., s..rtar1 ~~TM ll4)ed ~ Cfll'MO. oi I.& ~~UV117'1»Nbt,ati.A..,.,tt..c....l.,A'l"IH..N4U\k.ltld~WS.t.t'Nl.lllCJ'II~~ bMetD"lbliliP-~_.,..~~IMl.~Ul.~~10!1.&nll~.MawW {~llfW'Wlllinl~,.,.,,.~~u..ic:a1a11c.-.... ..,,........~_,~~ ~_,,. Cflft• ... bldlffldl""""-n,..~kflOOICls:Q'lattNLladqfflCftw1.trt8~1il~AatsDAt i"'-.The0r(1~6MU!:&N/'tu~NUILl9d~a.'flllftf\Mtr.aw11Md~Z-tllnd ll'l:'l~l,aelNC.MM"4. v...._~•cr.~~i,,,_.....,.,.,._w,t.....i:N..c"Otst.n,,,,a""'°°"1.......,.t1~cu11.1• t-Aadr'l~-1.A~W,O.~~~~,...,....it,yo,...a~ftOI.IN· ll.«Cl'°""""fDDt,-1'...s,nrw:ulDfll!'lllll~~MfklHT,,..u.,.oo~hlot~pl.,n,PL,tik'pl.ua. ... ~~Mltap~oll'ldd,-1.Np~. n... '1.--4.llnr.l ~..-..'Jioi,~t6..uy ~~~· ~ .... ~P"'k:ftl. ~ .. ~ .... JUWlltul'IIWdl. Th,1c:tikM\1'.l:t prQClll!U1ll.~~~·~;il.ua. i.,,-,_,,... ..... IIIINJ~~IRtl,-~~ TN1r,ilar.tl'•Mll"l'l'Cadtt. .......... ~N:wa.ftfltheapcl.lcldian::.._,.~~flf'lll't ~~tl'lllltr'lffk~. &Ht,JCA#T/Jl.Q/fCTCOH'IACT,US.OX: Uu U.W\. MtL. UU. h lD'"' la. llOII, T~ WA S"'°1/ ~J.UJ.Ull/ ru...•aHli..allft 'Y»' rwrt7b trPT1:ah ttttttv"tdl'r &Y:crttcl I lCJt t:t!m2t l!r:rn, t,,n::, r,rm:n ,t 11 w mki.ttrmC:woet.a-.n""" u-. h,lftoo,64~0:..~ c.--uwiu... ..... ~~N~lll'lllffa,ats~~~s..~.~., ~·~~1.m.S-...,a.~W11 ........ WA,em'J,)tl.E11 ...... -'i-m..,._ll,2!?1.I. n. .-rtw• MM t ~ ~tar•~ >--c 111111 ,....._......, I. =114 st llm.Dlt. c.owd ~ ~,kmt,lltffllll"IO';ytilll,Ul5!11Mh~Vl'",lt4'l"l'IICl'l lf'°"tN~U'l ~IN~P,,_. tao'!UdtN~OMi.llOl'l~-.w.'IN'low~r.arotbnrl~tc141J)410-0TI. d~~ 0.lu~ll'l~t,y~t,'l~haclitff.l~l""'-'lftlt/dl~l1tt...""~ ..... ~p,~O'I i l"a~'Nfl:arwWHtrrt~.tl'J'O,l""'"~~tra~ar-..bl'!toblfl',,fffaN'T'!'atfK!lr"Ci •"" ~ Mm:tONJ ~ tr, 11'1&1. pl.NM cort:at t"t1 "'*'° ~,.,. ~...,., n ,m1 ati:wM:1 N'fO"lt .... ~....,..tllfM!trlG.cl~baDM•,-t,of~W .. Mrw;alldalll"lll'd~ .............. lfftll,t ~Li.tohtudl•,..,.,d~tD"°""~~O'l~lf,n:,pat.d~~,O'll1 /'QrfflMdm:..i'ltr. Otytl~~aD.M.,lll'lr'4~J.."$!~Gndy'li1"P,JltontM.tiiliA t.&.mo7. fO.~lkA.: News..rtm1~kf',a:il/WA.;.~C.l·tt.,tJO ""'~-----------------------MM.11\0.&DO«IW: __________ anmATt/tl": ______ _ rtlt'9taNt1Cl..: ________ _ PlW! IN ClUO! TllE PROJECT NU M8£R WHEN CAWNG FOR PROP[A f ll.! IO!tlTIFlCA TION lfyou~U:a111Mrn.llbtpartyi:rlm::z:::rdm1au,n~Wmffl11Q01,0fltJltt~Pl"IJ«t.~Lffl hffllt...,t¥.'.iflll\D'. Or!Gl~Cl'D.~DMID\I.QSS~GR4Y'W.,,~w-. "1tM7. "'"'"'"I""-' ,-1.1,1o,11Jm-.....,ld,ool/UW4ffl:l1Jl.Ol""-M """"~-----------~-----------....... U!..aAO(lll(Sl.. __________ OTJtr+ATt/U". ______ _ rtUP'NOA!t tta.: --------- CERTIFICATION I, ~ k a , hereby certify that \ copies of the above document .... : .-po~ted in_\_ conspicuous places or "7~" on Date: 4\,'-\\''2:o,~ ~----- STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ffi~u, > \\t'aeca signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated : d~ J'[ '._Lp4i,( I '"''"'''11 o,,,. -1,, ,~.1s s ro,.,•r,,,~~ ~ ~o r1 <"'-t;,'l ~ ~ 11..(. -~ CJ) ,, XJ-:; ~ n,:::: ,,,,. ~ :.o; ,. ,;, vf.J C. : .,.. ,11 6' LI ;;: -,, '< -- ) 111,11 9 • 1 7 ,,,-I" .;:. = ;<' l111m"'''~ "\o .:;::, l,z;A ~u1,-lG -~ Notary (Print): ,,.--,-- My appointment expires: __ ----"-/.!,)~~, l ~f <:i.....,-{~ __ :J.;...Ji,..., """''~W:1.o:',.l..,t 7'..:.----- / __,.,~ ~!:t!QD PERSPE CTIVE V IE\NS -UP DATE 10/21 /16 fO""" ---:. -?Pf~-~-., ~---~~::'"""...,...--.-,.--t~-"J-".'"~---,~:'"~'""~--;----:""..,.... •• r -,-~~-• COMMENT #5: ADDITIONAL ------, ... ROOF MODULATION ADDED BIRDSEYE VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST -8/24/16 VIEW FROM VISITOR PARKING -8/24/16 integr.~,~, ... COMMENT#3: ' ADDITIONAL MODULATION ADDED ' .. _ ... _ COMMENT #1 : SOFFIT/ OVERHANG HEIGHT ADJUSTED TO 10'-8" AT SOUTH SIDE OF PARK AVE . FACADE BIRDSEYE VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST -l 0/21 /16 .... V IEW FROM VISITOR PARK ING -l 0 /21 /16 N ote: Th ese v iews Intended to d emon strate design intent. Refer to submitted site p la ns for accurate si te pion proposal. -=---- ---Iteri"to n e Entire Document Available Upon Request Exhibit 27 SARTOR I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 315 N GARDEN AVE. RENTON, WA 98057 m TACOMA• SCATTL[ Technical Information Report PREPARED FOR: lntegrus Architecture 117 South Main Street, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98104-3496 PROJECT: New Sartori Elementary School 315 Garden Avenue North Renton, WA 98057 Project No. 2160339.10 PREPARED BY: Greg Tauscheck, PE Project Engineer REVIEWED BY.· William J. Fierst, PE Project Manager Sean M. Comfort, PE Principal DATE: August 2016 Civil Engineers • Structural Engineers • Landscape Architects • Community Planners • Land Surveyors • Neighbors CH:;/ L.nqmeers • Structural [ngine(jrs • La.nciscape Architects • CornmurJ1ty Planners • Land Surveyors • Neighbors I hereby state that this Technical Information Report for the New Sartori Elementary School project has been prepared by me or under my supervision, and meets the standard of care and expertise that is usual and customary in this community for professional engineers. I understand that City of Renton does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or perfonmance of drainage facilities prepared by me. Technical Information Report PREPARED FOR: lntegrus Architecture 117 South Main Street, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98104-3496 PROJECT: New Sartori Elementary School 315 Garden Avenue North Renton, WA 98057 Project No. 2160339.1 O PREPARED BY: Greg Tauscheck, PE Project Engineer REVIEWED BY: William J. Fierst, PE Project Manager Sean M. Comfort, PE Principal DATE: August 2016 Table of Contents Section Page 1. O Project Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Conditions and Requirements Summary .................................................................................... 2 2.1 CR 1 -Discharge at the Natural Location .......................................................................... 2 2.2 CR 2 -Offsite Analysis ....................................................................................................... 2 2.3 CR 3 -Flow Control ............................................................................................................ 3 2.4 CR 4 -Conveyance System ............................................................................................... 3 2.5 CR 5 -Erosion and Sediment Control .............................................................................. 3 2.6 CR 6 -Maintenance and Operations ................................................................................ 4 2.7 CR 7 -Financial Guarantees and Liability................................ . .. 4 2.8 CR 8 -Water Quality........................................................................................... .. 4 2.9 Special Requirement (SR) 1 -Other Adopted Requirements ............................................ 4 2.10 SR 2 -Flood Hazard Delineation ...................................................................................... 4 2.11 SR 3 -Flood Protection Facilities ............ .. . ......... 4 2. 12 SR 4 -Source Control ........................................................................................................ 4 2. 13 SR 5 -Oil Control .. .. .................. .... . ..... .. ... .. ............... 4 2.14 SR 6 -Aquifer Protection Area..................................... .. ............................................ 4 3.0 Offsite Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Task 1 -Study Area Definition and Maps............................................. ................. .. ... 5 3.2 Task 2 -Resource Review................................... .. ..... 6 3.3 Task 3 -Field Inspection .................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Task 4 -Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions... .. ..... 8 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design .................................................. 8 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) .......................................................................................... 8 4.1.1 Basin 1 (Central-West Basin) ................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Basin 2 (South Basin)..................... ... 8 4.1.3 Basin 3 (East Basin) ................................................. .. ............ 9 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) ................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 Basin 1 (Central-West Basin)... .. ........ 9 4.2.2 Basin 2 (South Basin) ............................................................................................ 9 4.2.3 Basin 3 (East Basin)............... . ... 9 4.3 Performance Standards (Part C) ........................................................................................ 9 Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 mmm11 4.4 Flow Control System (Part D) ............ . .................................................... 10 4.5 Water Quality System (Part E) .......................................................................................... 10 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design ................................................................................ 10 6.0 Special Reports and Studies ...................................................................................................... 10 7.0 Other Permits ............................................................................................................................... 10 8.0 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) Analysis and Design ....... 11 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant ..................................... 11 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Manual ........................................................................................ 11 11. O Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 12 Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 mmm11 Appendices Appendix A Exhibits A-1 ............. Vicinity Map A-2 ............. Geotechnical Report A-3 ............. Existing Conditions Map A-4 ............. Site Plan A-5 ............. Existing Basin Map A-6 ............. Developed Basin Map A-7 ............. Aquifer Protection A-8 ............. FIRM Rate Map A-9 ............. KCRTS Input and Discharge Results A-10 ........... Stormwater Treatment Basins A-11 ........... Filterra Guidelines A-12 ........... Filterra Sizing Calculations A-13 ........... Downstream Analysis A-14 ........... Erosion Hazard A-15 ........... Steep Slopes A-16 ........... Slide Hazard A-17 ........... Flood Hazard A-18 ........... Soil Map A-19 ........... Coal Mine Hazard Technical lnfonnation Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339. 1 O mmmm 1 . 0 Project Overview The Renton School District (RSD) proposes to construct a new Sartori School at 315 Garden Avenue North in Renton. Washington. The project consists of a new school building, parking lots, bus and parent drop-off and pick-up areas, outdoor landscape areas, and sports field, as well as utility and site improvements to support the program. The project site encompasses 14 Tax Parcels(7564600170, 7224000620, 7224000615, 7224000610, 7224000605, 7224000600, 7224000595, 7224000590, 7224000580, 7564600180, 75600181, 7564600183, 7564600182, and 7564600184) and is bounded by North 4th Street to the north, Garden Avenue North to the east, North 3'a Street to the south, and Park Avenue North to the west. The existing Sartori Elementary School (SES) building and associated paved parking, drive lanes, and field are located on Parcel 7564600170. The existing school parcel encompasses approximately 50 percent of the site. Existing residential houses and a market are located along the south and west perimeter of the site adjacent to Park Avenue North and North 3'" Street. Existing improvements include SES, residential properties, market, and associated parking lot and play areas. These facilities will be demolished in their entirety as part of a separate project completed prior to site development for the proposed school. Existing sidewalks and curb and gutter are located along the adjacent roadways within the public right-of-way. The adjacent sidewalks and curb and gutter are proposed for demolition and replacement with the current project. The entire site area (all Tax Parcels) is 5.28 acres. Right-of-way dedications are required along all of the roadways, including approximately 12 feet along Park Avenue North, 8.5 feet along North 4th Street, 9 feet along Garden Avenue North, and 4.5 feet along North 3'd Street. After dedications, this proposed site area will be 4.88 acres. The site drainage area including offsite areas in the proposed condition is 5.67 acres. The existing basin used to size the detention facilities contains 3.17 acres of impervious area and 2.50 acres of pervious area. The proposed condition contains 4.08 acres of impervious area and 1.59 acres of pervious area. The site has three separate discharge locations and is divided into three basins, as described below. Each discharge location and basin is part of a separate threshold discharge area (TOA). Table 1: Basin 1 Land Cover Areas Atmp (ac) Existing 2.51 Proposed 3.07 Table 2: Basin 2 Land Cover Areas Atmp (ac) Existing 0.63 Proposed 0.84 Table 3: Basin 3 Land Cover Areas Existing Proposed Technical lnfom,ation Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 Atmp (ac) 0.03 0.17 A,,.N (ac) Total (ac) 1.79 4.30 1.23 4.30 A,,,N (ac) Total (ac) 0.40 1.03 0.19 1.03 A,,,N (ac) Total (ac) 0.31 0.34 0.17 0.34 mmm11 The engineered drainage system for the proposed site will not alter existing discharge locations from the site. Runoff from the north-central portion of the site (TOA 1) will discharge to Park Avenue North and North 4th Street. Runoff from the south basin of the site (TOA 2) will discharge to North 3'd Street. Runoff from the northeast basin of the site (TOA 3) will discharge to the southwest corner of the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North 4th Street. The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual (February 2010) establish the methodology and design criteria used for the project. The Rational Method was used to determine conveyance capacities. 2.0 Conditions and Requirements Summary The project triggers Full Drainage Review because it results in more than 7,000 square feet of land disturbing activity and over 2,000 square feet of new and/or replaced impervious surface. Below is a summary of how the proposed project will meet the Core Requirements (CR). 2.1 CR 1 -Discharge at the Natural Location The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. The site is divided into three TDAs: TOA 1 is located in the central and north portion of the site and includes the building and residential properties, TOA 2 is located in the south portion of the site and includes residential properties and an existing parking lot, and TOA 3 is located in the northeast portion of the site and includes an existing landscaped field. The north and central basin (TOA 1) drains to the fublic conveyance system that drains north along Park Avenue North and west along North 41 Street, and eventually discharges to the Cedar River. The south basin (TOA 2) drains to the public conveyance system that drains west along North 3'd Street, discharging to the Cedar River. The northeast basin (TOA 3) discharges to the northeast to the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North 41 h Street, drains north along Garden Avenue North, and eventually discharges to the Cedar River. 2.2 CR 2 -Offsite Analysis AHBL staff performed a Level One Downstream Analysis for the project on August 19, 2016. The analysis included: • Defining and mapping the study area. • Reviewing available information on the study area. • Field inspecting the study area. • Analyzing the existing drainage system, including its existing and predicted problems, if any. Please refer to Section 3.0 for the full offsite analysis. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 2 mmm11 2.3 CR 3 -Flow Control The King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) model was used to model the existing stormwater conditions and design a detention pipe system for each of the three separate discharge points (TDAs). Each discharge point will have its own detention pipe system and control structure. See the KCRTS Input and Discharge Results in Appendix A-9. According to the City of Renton 2009 KCSWDM Amendment Reference 11-A, Flow Control Application Map, the site is subject to the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions). This standard requires the post-development peak flow rates to match the peak flow rates of the existing condition in the 2-year design, and 10-year and 100-year storm peak flow rates. Flow control will be provided through the use of buried detention pipes. KCRTS is used to model the hydrologic conditions. Detention Pipe Sizing Results Detention Detention Storage Pipe Diameter Pipe Length Volume (IN) (LF) fCFl Basin 1 36 500 3,534 Basin 2 48 90 1,131 Basin 3 36 220 1,555 2.4 CR 4 -Conveyance System There is one large building on the west side of the site. The building downspouts will be tight lined into a roof drain then piped to the detention system. The parking and vehicle access areas will be collected in catch basins and conveyed in pipes to the detention and treatment facilities. The landscape areas will be collected in yard drains and conveyed in pipes to the detention system, and the field underdrain system will be conveyed to the detention system. Based on Section 1.2.4.1 of the KCSWDM, new pipe systems shall be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain the 25-year peak flow, with a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard between the design water surface and structure grate. In addition, runoff from the 100-year peak storm event cannot create or aggravate a severe flooding problem or severe erosion problem. The new pipe system has sufficient capacity for a 25-year peak flow. Catch basin rims will not overtop in the 100-year peak storm event, and there will be more than 6 inches of freeboard between the design water surface and structure grate during the 25-year peak storm event. No severe flooding problems or severe erosion problems are will be created or aggravated in the 100-year storm event. Conveyance calculations will be provided with the permit submittal. 2.5 CR 5 -Erosion and Sediment Control Onsite land disturbance will consist of clearing the work site, demolition, and regrading. Erosion and sediment control will be provided with the use of temporary and permanent seeding within the work limits, silt fence or wattles, inlet sediment protection, stabilized construction entrance, and sedimentation ponds. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be included in the permit plan set. See Section 8.0 for Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) analysis and design. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 3 mmm11 2.6 CR 6 -Maintenance and Operations Maintenance and operations of all drainage facilities will be maintained by the owner. The project proposes new area drains and catch basins onsite. The Operations and Maintenance Manual will be provided in a future submittal. 2.7 CR 7 -Financial Guarantees and Liability This project will provide financial guarantees and liability per City of Renton requirements. The City of Renton Bond Quantities Worksheet will be provided in a future submittal. 2.8 CR 8 -Water Quality The new pollution generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) for the proposed site include the paved parking areas, maintenance, fire access loops, parking lot, and vehicle access. Onsite flows will be treated to meet the performance standard of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu by utilizing Contech Filterra structures. The site is within Zone 1 of the Aquifer Protection Zone. Therefore, bioretention and stormwater wetlands are prohibited .. Filterra structures will be provided for stormwater treatment for pollution generating surfaces. See Appendix A-11 for the Filterra design guidelines per Department of Ecology approval. See Appendix A-12, Filterra Sizing Calculations for sizing. 2.9 Special Requirement (SR) 1 -Other Adopted Requirements The project is included in the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. City and County basin requirements will be followed where applicable. 2.10 SR 2-Flood Hazard Delineation The proposed project is not in or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. See Appendix A-8 for the FIRM Rate Map. 2.11 SR 3 -Flood Protection Facilities This project does not rely on existing flood protection facilities nor will it modify or construct new flood protection facilities. 2.12 SR 4 -Source Control The proposed project is an educational facility; therefore, it does not fit the definition of a commercial, industrial, or multi-family site for source control purposes. 2.13 SR 5 -Oil Control The site does not meet high use criteria and is not subject to oil control measures. 2.14 SR 6 -Aquifer Protection Area The project is located within an Aquifer Protection Zone 1 per the City of Renton Sensitive Areas Aquifer Protection map. See Appendix A-7 Aquifer Protection. Ponds, stormwater wetlands, infiltration, and bioretention are prohibited within Aquifer Protection Zone 1. Technical lnfomiation Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 4 mmm11 3.0 Offsite Analysis There are no upstream tributary areas contributing drainage to the basin area. 3.1 Task 1 -Study Area Definition and Maps The Renton School District (RSD) proposes to construct a new Sartori School at 315 Garden Avenue North in Renton, Washington. AHBL staff visited the site on August 19, 2016. The project site lies within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin, as delineated by the King County Water Features Map. The project site basin receives no upstream stormwater. The project discharges to three separate discharge locations that will be referred to as Basin 1, Basin 2, and Basin 3 (TOA 1, TOA 2, and TOA 3, respectively). Basin 1 (TDA 1) Downstream Discharge 1 from Basin 1 is defined as the west and central portion of the site. It is the largest Basin, and has an area of 4.3 acres. The basin discharges west to the flow line in Park Avenue North, and to the north to a storm line in North 4th Street. Stormwater flowing west is intercepted by one of three catch basins in the east flowline of Park Avenue North. One catch basin is mid-block adjacent to 326 Park Avenue North, the second catch basin is at 340 Park Avenue North, and the third is just south of North 4th Street. All three of these catch basins are tightlined west to a 12-inch conveyance line running north on the west side of Park Avenue North that enters into a line flowing west on North 4th Street. Stormwater that flows north off the site is intercepted by a catch basin midblock in the south side of North 4th Street. It is conveyed north to the north side of North 4th Street, and then west to a catch basin. It is then directed south to a manhole in the south side of North 4th Street, where stormwater is conveyed west on North 4th Street. At the intersection with Park Avenue North, stormwater then is combined with the stormwater that flows west of the site. Stormwater then flows west in an 8-inch PVC pipe 120 feet to another manhole. Stormwater is conveyed west another 134 feet in an 8-inch concrete pipe to a catch basin at the intersection of Pelly Avenue North. Stormwater travels west another 144 feet in an 8-inch concrete pipe to a Type 2 manhole. Water is conveyed 131 feet west in an 8-inch concrete pipe to a Type 2 manhole at the intersection of Wells Avenue North. Stormwater is conveyed 142 feet west in an 8-inch concrete pipe to a Type 2 manhole. Stormwater is piped 204 feet west in an 8-inch concrete pipe to a catch basin in Williams Avenue North. Another 8-inch pipe conveys water west 148 feet to another catch basin. An 8-inch concrete pipe conveys water west 169 feet to another catch basin at the intersection of Burnett Avenue North. Stormwater is then conveyed south on Burnett Avenue North in a 21-inch pipe 430 feet to a Type 2 manhole. The storm drainage system ultimately outfalls to the Cedar River. See Appendix A-13, Downstream Analysis, for a map of the downstream piping. Technical lnfom,ation Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 5 mmm11 Basin 2 (TDA 2) Downstream Basin 2 stormwater discharges to the south flowline of North 3"' Street, where it is intercepted by an existing Type 2 catch basin in the north flowline of North 3'd Street. Stormwater flows west 419 feet in a 12-inch pipe to another Type 2 catch basin in the east side of the intersection of Park Avenue North and North 3"' Street. A 40-foot pipe conveys water across Park Avenue North to the west to another Type 2 catch basin. A 12-inch concrete pipe conveys stormwater west 255 feet to another Type 2 catch basin in the intersection of North 3"' Street and Pelly Avenue. Another 12-inch concrete pipe conveys stormwater west 151 feet to a Type 1 catch basin. Stormwater is conveyed west in another 12-inch concrete pipe 124 feet to a stormwater Type 2 catch basin in the intersection of Wells Avenue and North 3"' Street. Stormwater is then conveyed to the northwest in a 12-inch pipe 148 feet to a Type 2 catch basin. Stormwater continues to the northwest in a 12-inch pipe 216 feet to a Type 2 catch basin at the intersection of Williams Avenue North. The storm drainage system ultimately outfalls to the Cedar River. See Appendix A-13, Downstream Analysis, for a map of the downstream piping. Basin 3 (TDA 3) Downstream Basin 3 stormwater discharges overland from the grass field to the south flowline of North 4th Street and drains east, where it is intercepted by a catch basin at the southwest comer of the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North 4th Street. Stormwater will flow east in a 35-foot, 8-inch pipe to a catch basin in the east side of Garden Avenue North. An 8-inch pipe conveys water 52 feet north across North 4th Street to a Type 2 storm catch basin. A 12-inch concrete pipe conveys water 38 feet north to a Type 1L catch basin. Another 12-inch concrete pipe conveys water north 241 feet to a Type 2 catch basin. An 18-inch CPEP pipe conveys water 173 feet north to another Type 2 catch basin. An 18-inch concrete pipe conveys stormwater north 186 feet to a Type 2 catch basin in the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North 5th Street. Stormwater is then conveyed west in a 24-inch CMP pipe 316 feet to a Type 2 catch basin. Stormwater continues west in a 24-inch CMP pipe 136 feet to another Type 2 stormwater catch basin at the intersection of North 5th Street and Park Avenue North. A 24-inch CMP pipe conveys water west 28 feet to the west side of Park Avenue North to a Type 2 catch basin. Stormwater is then conveyed in a 36-inch CMP pipe west 258 feet to another Type 2 catch basin at the intersection of North 5th Street and Pelly Avenue. The storm drainage system ultimately outfalls to the Cedar River. See Appendix A-13, Downstream Analysis, for a map of the downstream piping. 3.2 Task 2 -Resource Review The following resources were reviewed to discover any existing or potential problems in the study area: • Adopted Basin Plans: The project site lies within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. Requirements for the Lower Cedar River Basin Plan will be followed where applicable. • Offsite Analysis Reports: AHBL staff has not located offsite analysis reports for projects near the Sartori Site Improvements project site. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 6 mmm11 • FEMA Map: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 53033C0977 F, dated May 16, 1995 (see Appendix A-8), indicates that the project site lies outside the categorized flood zones. • City of Renton Sensitive Areas Landslide Hazard Map (see Appendix A-16): The project site is not located within the sensitive areas Landslide Hazard Area. • City of Renton Aquifer Protection Zone Map (see Appendix A-7): The project site is within Aquifer Protection Zone 1. Requirements for Zone 1 of the Aquifer Protection Zone will be followed where applicable. • City of Renton Coal Mine Hazard Map (see Appendix A-19): The project site is located outside the coal mine hazard area. • City of Renton Erosion Hazard Map (see Appendix A-14): The project site is not within an erosion hazard area. • City of Renton Flood Hazard Map (see Appendix A-17): The project site is not within Zone X-Non Regulatory flood hazard area. • City of Renton Steep Slopes Map (see Appendix A-15): The project site is not within the steep slope area. • Soils Information: Site soils have been classified by the WA633 Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington and the City of Renton as Ur, Urban Land (see Appendix A-17). See Appendix A-2 for the Associated Earth Sciences Incorporated Geotechnical Report. 3.3 Task 3 -Field Inspection On August 19, 2016, AHBL staff performed a Downstream Analysis of the drainage system receiving stormwater runoff from the proposed Sartori Elementary School. 1. Investigate any problems reported or observed during the resource review: No problems were reported or observed during the resource review. 2. Locate all existing/potential constrictions or lack of capacity in the existing drainage system: No constrictions or lack of capacity in the existing drainage system was observed. 3. Identify all existing/potential downstream drainage problems as defined in Section 1.2.2.1: No existing/potential downstream drainage problems were observed. 4. Identify existing/potential overtopping, scouring, bank sloughing, or sedimentation: No existing/potential overtopping, scouring, bank sloughing, or sedimentation was observed. 5. Identify significant destruction of aquatic habitat or organisms (e.g., severe siltation, back erosion, or incision in a stream): No significant destruction of aquatic habitat or organisms was observed. 6. Collect qualitative data on features such as land use, impervious surfaces, topography, and soil types for the site. Land use on the project is a school site. Impervious surfaces include parking areas, buildings, and sidewalks. The topography is flat on the site, and the soil type is Ur, Urban Land. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 7 mmm11 7. Collect information on pipe sizes, channel characteristics, drainage structures, and relevant critical areas (e.g., wetlands, stream, and steep slopes): Pipe sizes were determined by using survey information and City of Renton COR Maps. 8. Verify tributary basins delineated in Task 1: Based on the topography onsite, the basin delineation based on the survey was confirmed. 9. Contact neighboring property owners or residents in the area about past or existing drainage problems, and describe these in the report (optional): This requirement is not applicable for this project. Properties on the site basin are proposed for demolition. 10. Note the date and weather conditions at the time of the inspection: The site visit occurred on August 19, 2016. The weather was sunny and 70 degrees. 3.4 Task 4-Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. The site is divided into three TDAs: TOA 1 is located in the central and north portion of the site, TOA 2 is located in the south portion of the site, and TOA 3 is located in the northeast portion of the site. The north and central basin (TOA 1) drains to the rublic conveyance system that drains north along Park Avenue North and west along North 41 Street, and eventually discharges to the Cedar River. The south basin (TOA 2) drains to the public conveyance system that drains west along North 3'd Street, discharging to the Cedar River. The northeast basin (TOA 3) discharges to the northeast to the intersection of Garden Avenue North and North 41 " Street, drains north along Garden Avenue North, and eventually discharges to the Cedar River. No signs of flooding, overtopping, or erosion were evident at the time of the inspection. 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) 4.1.1 Basin 1 (Central-West Basin) Area (Acre) Till Impervious Grass 1.79 2.51 4.1.2 Basin 2 (South Basin) Till Grass 0.40 Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 Area (Acre) Impervious 0.63 Total 4.30 Total 1.03 B Peak Flow (cfs) 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year 0.77 0.93 1.56 Peak Flow (cfs) 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year 0.19 0.23 0.38 mmmm 4.1.3 Basin 3 (East Basin) Area (Acre) Peak Flow (cfs) Till Impervious Total 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year Grass 0.31 0.03 0.34 0.02 0.04 0.08 See Figure A-5, Existing Basin Map, for delineation of the existing drainage areas. 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) 4.2.1 Basin 1 (Central-West Basin) Area (Acre) Detained Peak Flow (cfs) Till Impervious Total 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year Grass Detained 1.23 3.07 4.30 0.77 0.93 1.56 4.2.2 Basin 2 (South Basin) Area (Acre) Detained Peak Flow (cfs) Till Impervious Total 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year Grass Detained 0.19 0.84 1.03 0.19 0.23 0.38 4.2.3 Basin 3 (East Basin) Area (Acre) Detained Peak Flow (cfs) Till Impervious Total 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year Grass Detained 0.17 0.17 0.34 0.02 0.04 0.08 See Figure A-6, Developed Basin Map, for delineation of the developed drainage areas and flow routes. 4.3 Performance Standards (Part C) Per the City of Renton 2009 KCSWDM Amendment Reference 11-A, Flow Control Application Map, the site is subject to the Flow Control Duration Standard (Existing Conditions). The flow control duration standard requires runoff from urban developments to be detained and released at a rate that matches the flow duration of the existing condition rates from the 2-year, the 10-year, and the 100-year peak flow. Developed peak discharge rates shall match existing peak discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year return periods. The proposed detention pipes will detain and release at a required rates, meeting the Flow Control standards. Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 9 mmm11 In accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM and City of Renton Amendments, onsite flows from the PGIS will be treated to meet the performance standards for the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. The proposed Contech Filterra structures will exceed the performance standards of the Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. 4.4 Flow Control System (Part D) The proposed stormwater flow control system is designed to meet the requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM with City of Renton Amendments. Flow control will be provided through the use detention within buried detention pipe. KCRTS was used to size the detention tank and outlet structures. Section 1.2.3.3 of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual states that 'all proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide onsite flow control facilities to mitigate the impacts of increased storm and surface water runoff generated by the addition of new impervious surface and any related land conversion." Based on the site being in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1, infiltration is not allowed onsite. In addition, the geotechnical report indicates the site soils are not conducive for infiltration. Therefore, a detention system is proposed for the project area. Flow control calculations were performed using KCRTS. Calculations are provided as Appendix A-9. 4.5 Water Quality System (Part E) The new PGIS for the proposed site include all paved parking and maintenance access areas. As mentioned above, onsite flows will be treated to specifications provided by the Enhanced Basic Water Quality standards of the City's drainage code, using Contech Filterra structures. See the water quality analysis in Appendix A-10 for the Stormwater Treatment Basins, and Appendix A-11 for the Filterra Guidelines. Per the City of Renton 2009 KCSWDM Amendment, Section 3.2, the 2012 version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) was used to size the Filterra structures (see Appendix A-12, Filterra Sizing Calculations). 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design The project proposes collection of storm drainage from the buildings, field, landscaping area, and parking areas. Catch basins and pipe will be used to convey water to the detention pipe where it will be detained before it is released to the discharge points. Roof, plaza, and landscape drains will typically be 6 to 8 inches in diameter, and conveyance pipes will typically be 12 inches in diameter. Both roof and conveyance drains will be Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe (CPEP). Foundation and wall drains will typically be 6-inch diameter perforated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Detailed conveyance calculations will be provided in a future submittal. 6.0 Special Reports and Studies A Geotechnical Report dated August 4, 2016, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., can be found in Appendix A-2. 7.0 Other Permits No other permits beyond the building permit, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, and the site development permit are required for this project. Technical lnfom1ation Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 10 mmm11 8.0 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) Analysis and Design The proposed development shall comply with guidelines set forth in City of Renton drainage requirements. The plan will include erosion/sedimentation control features designed to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving the site or adversely affecting critical water resources during construction. The following measures will be shown on the ESC plans and will be used to control sedimentation/ erosion processes: • Clearing Limits -All areas to remain undisturbed during the construction of the project will be delineated prior to any site clearing or grading. • Cover Measures -Cover measures will be implemented for the disturbed areas. • Perimeter Protection -Filter fabric fences for site runoff protection will be provided at the downstream site perimeter. • Traffic Area Stabilization -Traffic area stabilization is not applicable for this project. • Sediment Retention -Inlet sediment protection will be utilized as part of this project. • Storm Drain Inlet Protection -Inlet sediment protection will be provided on all new and existing catch basins downstream of construction activities. • Surface Water Collection -Catch basins and conveyance pipes will provide surface water collection. • Dewatering Control -Dewatering Control is not applicable for this project. • Dust Control -Dust control measures, including sweeping and water truck, will be implemented when exposed soils are dry to the point that wind transport is possible; and roadways, drainage ways, or surface waters are likely to be impacted. • Flow Control -Flow control is provided with three gravel-filled trenches along the south side of the project site. 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant Bond Quantities will be prepared for the construction submittal. 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Manual Maintenance and operations of all drainage facilities will be maintained by the owner. The project proposes new catch basins onsite. The Operations and Maintenance Manual will be prepared for be construction submittal. Technical lnfonnation Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 11 mmm11 11.0 Conclusion This site has been designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, as amended by the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual (February 2010). Flow calculations and modeling utilize City of Renton standards for sizing stormwater conveyance. This analysis is based on data and records either supplied to or obtained by AHBL. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared using procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. AHBL, In~ (. /7 ! C:2:i·cj /,,,_,. . I. Greg Tauscheck, PE Project Engineer GT/el/lsk August 2016 Q:\2016\2160339\WORDPROC\Reports\20160831 Rpt TIR\20160831 Rpt (TIR) 2160339.1 O.docx Technical Information Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 12 mmm11 I Appendix A Exhibits A-1 .................... Vicinity Map A-2 .................... Geotechnical Report A-3 .................... Existing Conditions Map A-4 .................... Site Plan A-5 .................... Existing Basin Map A-6 .................... Developed Basin Map A-7 .................... Aquifer Protection A-8 .................... FIRM Rate Map A-9 .................... KCRTS Input and Discharge Results A-10 .................. Stormwater Treatment Basins A-11 .................. Filterra Guidelines A-12 .................. Filterra Sizing Calculations A-13 .................. Downstream Analysis A-14 .................. Erosion Hazard A-15 .................. Steep Slopes A-16 .................. Slide Hazard A-17 .................. Flood Hazard A-18 .................. Soil Map A-19 .................. Coal Mine Hazard Technical lnfonnation Report New Sartori Elementary School Project No. 2160339.10 mmm11 N bl!' ~t N Sth ';,1 PROJECT SITE .. ''rl''''' t, 11,c;,· 1 Way C ~ .! Tal)111 St C 0 ~ 's t VICINITY NOTTO SCALE N '< ~ ., i ~ f s ~ ~ ~ ~ z . • " s ~ ti, 3rd St .. , MAP mmm11 ~ § ' t " 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 1620, Seattle, WA 98101 206.267.2425 TEL 206.267.2429 FAX ~ • .. ,. ~ z h,x' " > j z ~ ;. ,. < • z N blfl ',T "' ~~r ·~'. •· . , .. ~- ~ 0 ~ ' z N 5th '~I , i f j [ 3 ; N 41h St '< 4:1, « z '< f ~ [ 'I, J 0 'I; ' s ~ ... Ji ; r z ' z ' ll N 3rd St N 3rd St ,::., C _#'Wil' f ., 1',t i ~ § ~ .. ~ > '< Sr 0 j J t ' r z z ' J-z § c; ..::c, ~ c,('lson w.-~ N <! i ,<X} 1/,91 ';;,; '< ~ ; .t' • c \ L,Dl'rt)' Park !1 "• .$! . ,_ SARTORI ELEMENTARY A-1 VICINITY MAP associated earth sciences incorporated Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington Prepared For: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT Project No. KE150719A August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016 Project No. KE150719A Renton School District 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178-4830 Attention: Mr. Rick Stracke ilSSOC:lated earth sciences Executive Director Facilities and Operations Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotcchnical Engineering Report Sartori Education Center 331 Garden Avenue North Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Stracke: We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above-referenced report. This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering studies and offers recommendations for the design and development of the proposed project. We should be allowed to review the recommendations presented in this report and modify them, if needed, once final project plans have been formulated. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer KDM/pc KE1SC719i43 :,roJects\2C1S07 l 9\K :\W:, Klrklard Office I 911 fifth Avenue I Kirkland, WA 98033 P I 425.827.7701 f I 425.827.5424 Eve,ett Office I 2911 )I Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 I Eve,ett, WA 98201 P I 425.259.0522 c I 425. 827.5424 Tacoma Office I 1552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 I Tacoma, WA 98402 P I 253.722.2992 F I 253.722.2993 www.aesgeo.com • SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington Prepared for: Renton School District 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178-4830 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5th Avenue Kirkland, Washington 98033 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 August 4, 2016 Project No. KE150719A Sartori Education Center Renton; Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering study for the Sartori Education Center located at 331 Garden Avenue North in Renton, Washington. The site location is presented on Figure 1, "Vicinity Map." The existing building locations and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the "Site and Explorations," Figure 2. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the aforementioned project. The study included drilling eight test borings and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and ground water conditions. Geologic hazard evaluations and engineering studies were also conducted to determine suitable geologic hazard mitigation techniques, the type of suitable pile foundation, pile design recommendations, anticipated settlements, floor support recommendations, and site preparation and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers geologic hazard mitigation and development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Rick Stracke of the Renton School District No. 403 (District} by means of a signed Renton School District Purchase Order (POl/2011500071). Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter dated January 8, 2016. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the District and its agents for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TEO EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3-Ptojects.\20150719\KE\WP Page 1 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on discussions with the design team. The project site is that of the existing Sartori Education Center (King County Parcel No. 756460-0170), located at 331 Garden Avenue North, and 13 adjacent parcels in Renton, Washington. These combined properties make up the subject site. The parcels encompass the city block bounded by Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North on the west and east, respectively, and by North 3rd Street and North 4th Street on the south and north, respectively. The existing Sartori Education Center parcel includes a two-story brick building built in 1929 located near the southeast corner of the parcel, a paved parking area to the west, a large open lawn to the north, and smaller lawn areas on the east and south. A paved, locked bus parking area is located in the southwest corner of the parcel. The 13 additional parcels front along Park Avenue North and North 3rd Street. Of these 13 parcels, 11 are occupied by small, single-family homes built between 1915 and 1955. Gravel/asphalt/concrete driveways and small lawns also occupy these parcels. One of the 13 parcels (722400-0600) is owned by the District, is entirely paved by asphalt, and provides access to Sartori Education Center from Park Avenue North. The last of the 13 parcels (722400-0580) is located on the southwest corner of the city block and contains a small coffee shack and a separate commercial structure. With the exception of the structures, the parcel is entirely paved in asphalt. Site topography across the city block is relatively flat. To our understanding, the proposed project will consist of removal of the existing structures on the 14 parcels and construction of the new Elementary School #15 and associated structures such as parking and outbuildings. The type, size, and location of the new school on the parcel has not yet been determined. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included drilling eight exploration borings with a track-mounted drill rig to gain subsurface information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix to this report. The depths indicated on the boring logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the eight exploration borings completed for this study. The number, type, locations, and depths of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc-KE150719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 2 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions are sometimes present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Borings The exploration borings were completed by advancing an 8-inch outside-diameter, hollow-stem auger with a trailer-mounted drill rig to depths ranging from 60 to 90 feet. Below the water table, the borings were successfully completed with little or no heaving conditions with bentonite mud stabilization drilling techniques. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 5-foot-depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an engineer from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard, 2-inch outside-diameter, split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of SO is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split-barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of selected applicable geologic literature. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, interpolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\.20150719\KE\WP Page 3 • Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. 4.1 Stratigraphy Sod/Topsoil Sod and organic-rich topsoil were generally encountered in the non-paved areas of the site to depths between 6 and 8 inches below ground surface. Sod and topsoil should be removed from below construction areas prior to site development. Fill/Modified Ground Man-placed fill was not encountered in the explorations completed for this study. However, fill is expected in unexplored areas of the site, such as the area surrounding and under existing paved areas, structures, and in the existing underground utility trenches. Fill is typically loose to medium dense and can contain high percentages of silt or deleterious material. Due to their variable density and content, existing fill soils are not suitable for foundation support. Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River Sediments encountered beneath asphalt and sod/topsoil generally consisted of bedded sandy gravel, clean sand, silty sand, clayey and lean silt with occasional lenses of peat and other organics scattered throughout the soil column. We interpret these sediments to be representative of recent alluvium deposited in former channels of the Cedar River. The alluvium extends beyond the depth of our deepest exploration (91.5 feet). The sediments appear to have been deposited in four separate "fining-upwards" packages, as shown on Figure 3, "Geologic Cross Section A-A'." Each depositional package contains gravel or sandy gravel at or near the bottom, with sediments becoming more fine-grained as you move up in the package, transitioning from gravels, to predominantly sands, and then silts/clays with peat lenses near the top. Each silt/clay bed is capped by gravels which mark the bottom of the next, younger depositional package. In general, the silt/clay and sand alluvium encountered in our explorations is loose/soft to medium dense. Starting at roughly 40 to 45 feet in explorations across the site, the alluvium consists primarily of gravels and occurs in a dense condition. These gravels extend to a depth of about 60 feet in most borings and are underlain by silt/clay of an older depositional package. In borings EB-7 and EB-8, the dense gravel zone was shallower, extending between 40 and 50 feet. Although we believe the blow counts in this zone may be overstated due to gravels, these sediments will provide end bearing capacity for a deep foundation system. August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc-KE150719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page4 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions The saturated soil in which "N" values do not exceed about 25 has a high potential for liquefaction-induced settlement. This roughly corresponds to sediments between depths of 9 and 30 feet. In addition, the abundant layers of very soft clayey and lean silt are subject to consolidation settlement under the new building loads. Therefore, structures will require deep pile foundations for support. In general, the soil where moisture content is within the compactable range is considered suitable for reuse as structural fill. It should be noted that where soils are above their optimum moisture content for compaction, their reuse as structural fill during all but the driest times of the year will be difficult. Existing alluvial soil was observed to contain silt and is considered moisture-sensitive. With appropriate remedial treatment, the soil, where moisture content is within the compactable range, may be considered suitable for support of slab-on-grade floors, hardscape, and paving. 4.2 Geologic Mapping Review of the regional geologic map titled Geologic Mop of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965), indicates that the area of the subject site is underlain by modified land with fill (afm) and recent alluvium associated with the nearby Cedar River (Qac). Our interpretation of the sediments encountered at the subject site is in general agreement with the regional geologic map. 4.3 Hydrology Ground water was encountered between depths of approximately 9 to 14 feet across the site. This depth corresponds roughly to the water level in the nearby Cedar River. However, ground water depths reported during drilling may not represent stabilized ground water elevations that would be recorded in a properly constructed monitoring well. Ground water encountered in our explorations represents the regional unconfined ground water aquifer within the Renton basin. Ground water may be encountered in excavations that penetrate into the underlying alluvial soils. To our knowledge, no deep cuts are planned that will intersect the regional ground water aquifer. If such cuts will be made, significant ground water dewatering operations will be necessary. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time of year, variations in rainfall, and adjacent river levels. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects \20150719\KE\ WP Page 5 • Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to seismic, landslide, and erosion hazards, including sediment transport. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low. 6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Sound Lowland with great regularity. Most of these events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the most recent 6.8-magnitude event on February 28, 2001 near Olympia Washington; the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. Evaluation of return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within a given 20-year period. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture The nearest known fault trace to the project site is the Seattle Fault, located approximately 5 miles to the north. Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; e.g., Johnson et al., 1994, Origin and Evalution of the Seattle Fault and Seattle Basin, Washington, Geology, v. 22, pp. 71-74; and Johnson et al., 1999, Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and Central Puget Sound Washington -Implications for Earthquake Hazards, Geologica I Society of America Bulletin, July 1999, v. 111, n. 7, pp. 1042-1053) have provided evidence of surficial ground rupture alon_g a northern splay of the Seattle Fault. The recognition of this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the studies still ongoing. According to the USGS studies, the latest movement of this fault was about 1,100 years ago when about 20 feet of surficial displacement took place. This displacement can presently be seen in the August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc-KE150719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 6 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exp/oration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations form of raised, wave-cut beach terraces along Alki Point in West Seattle and Restoration Point at the south end of Bainbridge Island. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of several thousand years. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and depth of loose/soft alluvium present within the site boundaries, the potential for surficial ground rupture is considered to be low during the expected life of the proposed structure. 6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat to gently sloping, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low. 6.3 Liquefaction We performed a liquefaction hazard analysis for this site in accordance with guidelines published in Seed & Idriss, 1982; Seed, et al., 1985; and Kramer, 1996. Our liquefaction analysis was completed with the aid of LiquefyPro computer software Version 5 by CivilTech Corporation. Liquefaction occurs when vibration or ground shaking associated with moderate to large earthquakes (generally in excess of Richter magnitude 6) results in loss of internal strength in certain types of soil deposits. These deposits generally consist of loose to medium dense sand or silty sand that is saturated (e.g., below the water table). Loss of soil strength can result in consolidation and/or lateral spreading of the affected deposit with accompanying surface subsidence and/or heaving. The liquefaction potential is dependent on several site-specific factors, such as soil grain size, density (modified to standardize field-obtained values), site geometry, static stresses, level of ground acceleration considered, and duration of the event. The earthquake parameters (a magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring directly beneath the site with a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.6g) used in our liquefaction analysis are in accordance with the required parameters set forth in the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our exploration borings EB-1 through EB-8, the estimated amount of liquefaction-induced settlement, through the depths explored, ranges from about 5 to 8 inches during a design-level event. It should be understood that several soil properties used in the liquefaction analysis are estimated based on published data and engineering judgment. The settlement predicted is based on a very large, rare seismic event. Settlement during a smaller, historically typical event will likely be less. It should also be understood that the alluvium encountered in our explorations extends below the depths explored. It is current practice to neglect the effects of liquefaction below a depth of about 80 feet. Therefore, these settlement estimates should be considered approximate and "worst- case scenarios" for the code-required seismic event. In addition to liquefaction settlement, the August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 7 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations site soils are also subject to consolidation settlement under the new static building loads (independent of seismic shaking). Therefore, we recommend that all building elements, including floor slabs and other structures, be supported on pile foundations. However, if the owner can assume the risk of potential liquefaction-induced settlements of this magnitude, the floor slab in a lightly loaded, uninhabited structure could be supported as a floating slab-on-grade. Pile foundations that extend to the minimum depths described in the "Design Recommendations" section of this report should reduce both consolidation settlement and seismically induced structure settlement to tolerable levels for new construction. 6.4 Ground Motion Structural design of the buildings should follow 2012 IBC standards using Site Class "E" as defined in Table 20.3-1 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 -Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Although site soils are liquefiable, ASCE 7 allows use of Site Class E for buildings with less than five stories. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS As of October 1, 2008, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Construction Storm Water General Permit (also known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit) requires weekly Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TES() inspections and turbidity monitoring of site runoff for all sites 1 or more acres in size that discharge storm water to surface waters of the state. The following sections provide recommendations to address these inspection and reporting requirements, as well as recommendations related to general erosion control and mitigation. The TESC inspections and turbidity monitoring of runoff must be completed by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) for the duration of the construction. The weekly TESC reports do not need to be sent to Ecology, but should be logged into the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Ecology requires a monthly summary report of the turbidity monitoring results signed by the NPDES permit holder. If the monitored turbidity equals or exceeds 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (Ecology benchmark standard), the project best management practices (BMPs) should be modified to decrease the turbidity of storm water leaving the site. Changes and upgrades to the BMPs should be documented in the weekly TESC reports and continued until the weekly turbidity reading is 25 NTU or lower. If the monitored turbidity exceeds 250 NTU, the results must be reported to Ecology via phone within 24 hours and corrective actions should be implemented as soon as possible. Daily turbidity monitoring is continued until the corrective actions lower the turbidity to below 25 NTU, or until the discharge stops. This description of the sampling benchmarks and August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pr: -KE150719A3 -Projects \20150719\KE\ WP Page 8 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations reporting requirements is a brief summary of the Construction Storm Water General Permit conditions. The general permit is available on the internet. In order to meet the current Ecology requirements, a properly developed, constructed, and maintained erosion control plan consistent with City of Renton standards and best management erosion control practices will be required for this project. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing site-specific erosion control plans. Based on past experience, it will be necessary to make adjustments and provide additional measures to the TESC plan in order to optimize its effectiveness. Ultimately, the success of the TESC plan depends on a proactive approach to project planning and contractor implementation and maintenance. The most effective erosion control measure is the maintenance of adequate ground cover. Maintaining cover measures atop disturbed ground provides the greatest reduction to the potential generation of turbid runoff and sediment transport. During the local wet season (October 1" through March 31'1), exposed soil should not remain uncovered for more than 2 days unless it is actively being worked. Ground-cover measures can include erosion control matting, plastic sheeting, straw mulch, crushed rock or recycled concrete, or mature hydroseed. Surface drainage control measures are also essential for collecting and controlling the site runoff. Flow paths across slopes should be kept to less than 50 feet in order to reduce the erosion and sediment transport potential of concentrated flow. Ditch/swale spacing will need to be shortened with increasing slope gradient. Ditches and swales that exceed a gradient of about 7 to 10 percent, depending on their flow length, should have properly constructed check dams installed to reduce the flow velocity of the runoff and reduce the erosion potential within the ditch. Flow paths that are required to be constructed on gradients between 10 to 15 percent should be placed in a riprap-lined swale with the riprap properly sized for the anticipated flow conditions. Flow paths constructed on slope gradients steeper than 15 percent should be placed in a pipe slope drain. AESI is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing a suitable erosion control plan with proper flow control. With respect to water quality, having ground cover prior to rain events is one of the most important and effective means to maintain water quality. Once very fine sediment is suspended in water, the settling times of the smallest particles are on the order of weeks and months. Therefore, the typical retention times of sediment traps or ponds will not reduce the turbidity of highly turbid site runoff to the benchmark turbidity of 25 NTU. Reduction of turbidity from a construction site is almost entirely a function of cover measures and drainage control that have been implemented prior to rain events. Temporary sediment traps and ponds are necessary to control the release rate of the runoff and to provide a catchment for August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc-KE1SD719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\WP Page 9 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations sand-sized and larger soil particles, but are very ineffective at reducing the turbidity of the runoff. Silt fencing should be utilized as buffer protection and not as a flow-control measure. Silt fencing is meant to be placed parallel with topographic contours to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving a work area or entering a sensitive area. Silt fences should not be placed to cross contour lines without having separate flow control in front of the silt fence. A swale/berm combination should be constructed to provide flow control rather than let the runoff build up behind the silt fence and utilize the silt fence as the flow-control measure. Runoff flowing in front of a silt fence will cause additional erosion and usually will cause a failure of the silt fence. Improperly installed silt fencing has the potential to cause a much larger erosion hazard than if the silt fence was not installed at all. The use of silt fencing should be limited to protect sensitive areas, and swales should be used to provide flow control. 7.1 Erosion Hazard Mitigation To mitigate the erosion hazards and potential for off-site sediment transport, we would recommend the following: 1. Construction activity should be scheduled or phased as much as possible to reduce the amount of earthwork activity that is performed during the winter months. 2. The winter performance of a site is dependent on a well-conceived plan for control of site erosion and storm water runoff. It is easier to keep the soil on the ground than to remove it from storm water. The owner and the design team should include adequate ground-cover measures, access roads, and staging areas in the project bid to give the selected contractor a workable site. The selected contractor needs to be prepared to implement and maintain the required measures to reduce the amount of exposed ground. A site maintenance plan should be in place in the event storm water turbidity measurements are greater than the Ecology standards. 3. TESC measures for a given area to be graded or otherwise worked should be installed soon after ground clearing. The recommended sequence of construction within a given area after clearing would be to install sediment traps and/or ponds and establish perimeter flow control prior to starting mass grading. 4. During the wetter months of the year, or when large storm events are predicted during the summer months, each work area should be stabilized so that if showers occur, the work area can receive the rainfall without excessive erosion or sediment transport. The required measures for an area to be "buttoned-up" will depend on the time of year and the duration the area will be left un-worked. During the winter months, areas that are August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projeds\20150719\KE\ WP Page 10 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations to be left un-worked for more than 2 days should be mulched or covered with plastic. During the summer months, stabilization will usually consist of seal-rolling the subgrade. Such measures will aid in the contractor's ability to get back into a work area after a storm event. The stabilization process also includes establishing temporary storm water conveyance channels through work areas to route runoff to the approved treatment facilities. 5. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. If it is outside of the growing season, the disturbed areas should be covered with mulch, as recommended in the erosion control plan. Straw mulch provides a cost-effective cover measure and can be made wind-resistant with the application of a tackifier after it is placed. 6. Surface runoff and discharge should be controlled during and following development. Uncontrolled discharge may promote erosion and sediment transport. Under no circumstances should concentrated discharges be allowed to flow over the top of steep slopes. 7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During the period between October 1" and March 31", these measures are required. 8. On-site erosion control inspections and turbidity monitoring (if required) should be performed in accordance with Ecology requirements. Weekly and monthly reporting to Ecology should be performed on a regularly scheduled basis. A discussion of temporary erosion control and site runoff monitoring should be part of the weekly construction team meetings. Temporary and permanent erosion control and drainage measures should be adjusted and maintained, as necessary, for the duration of project construction. It is our opinion that with the proper implementation of the TESC plans and by field-adjusting appropriate mitigation elements (BMPs) throughout construction, as recommended by the erosion control inspector, the potential adverse impacts from erosion hazards on the project may be mitigated. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc-KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\WP Page 11 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington 8.0 INTRODUCTION Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Design Recommendations Ill. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The site contains some potential soil and foundation-oriented complications with respect to compressible soils, loose granular soils susceptible to liquefaction, and near surface moisture- and disturbance-sensitive soils. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon the assumption that the foundations, floor slab, and grading construction are observed by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm. The proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint using pile foundations for the building superstructure, and pile-supported lower floor slabs. If any of the floor slabs will be "floated," they should be constructed on a minimum of 2 feet of approved structural fill compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Pavement or hardscaping support on existing soils is possible with some near-surface remedial improvements. Due to the possible presence of loose surficial soils, liquefaction hazards, and/or consolidation settlement, some settlement of non-pile-supported structures and paved areas, however, is anticipated. 9.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation of planned building and road/parking areas that will not be supported by pile foundations should include removal of all existing buildings, foundation elements, utilities, asphalt, landscaping, debris, and any other surficial deleterious material that are not part of the planned project. Additionally, any upper organic topsoil encountered should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial soils exist due to demolition or stripping/grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Fill was not encountered in our explorations but should be expected around existing buildings and buried utilities. The density, thickness, and content of the fill across the site may be highly variable. We anticipate that any upper loose surficial fill soils, once recompacted or replaced with structural fill, will be adequate for support of pavement and other external surfacing, such as sidewalks or segmented paving units. However, there will be a risk of long-term damage to these surfaces including, but not limited to, rutting, yielding, cracking, etc., if any uncontrolled loose fill or surficial loose soil is not completely removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The risk can be reduced by selective removal and replacement of the most settlement-sensitive, near-surface soils. Utilities founded above loose, uncontrolled fill are also at risk of settlement and associated damage. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc-KE150719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\WP Page 12 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Design Recommendations The extent of stripping necessary in areas of the site to receive external surfacing, such as sidewalks and pavement, can best be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. We recommend proof-rolling road and parking areas with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck to identify any soft spots. If construction is to proceed during wet weather, we recommend systematic probing in place of proof-rolling to identify soft areas of the exposed subgrade. These soft areas should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. Some of the on-site fill and surface soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material, which makes them moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. If the existing pavement will not be used for access and staging areas, consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate section of crushed rock or asphalt treated base (ATB). The existing pavement is in such poor condition that it may be necessary to augment the pavement with ATB if it will be used for construction access and staging. If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near-surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by the contractor in the field. 10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type and placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. After stripping, planned excavation, and any required overexcavation have been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground in areas to receive fill should be recompacted to 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If the subgrade contains silty soils and too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pr: -KE150719A3-Prcjects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 13 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Design Recommendations Where the exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free-draining layer by silt migration from below. After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free-draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with current local codes and standards. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the roadway edges before sloping down at an angle of 2H:1V ( Horizontal :Vertica I). The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 72 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture-sensitive. Use of moisture-sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. Some on-site soils contained significant amounts of silt and are considered moisture-sensitive. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free-draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free-draining fill consists of non-organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction with at least 25 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve. A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing program. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 14 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington 11.0 FOUNDATIONS Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hozord, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Design Recommendations To mitigate post-construction consolidation settlement and the effects of seismically induced liquefaction, a pile foundation system is recommended. For this project, we recommend the use of 18-or 24-inch-diameter augercast piles. We can provided alternative recommendations for other pile types if requested. The following sections provide pile recommendations based on assumed loading conditions and soils encountered beneath the site. 11.1 Augercast Piles We recommend that the construction of piles be accomplished by a contractor experienced in their installation. Fill soils can have concrete, brick, wood, and other demolition waste in them, and soils of alluvial origin may have gravel lenses or large cobbles present in them. It may be necessary to have a backhoe present during pile installation to dig out obstacles and backfill the excavation prior to drilling piling. If obstacles are encountered at depths where removal with a backhoe is not feasible, it might be necessary to modify the pile layout to replace piles that cannot be completed according to the original design. Observation of pile installation by AESI is important to verify that the subsurface conditions observed at pile locations are consistent with the observations in our subsurface explorations, and consistent with assumptions made during preparation of the recommendations in this report. The City of Renton will likely require such inspections of foundation piles. The augercast piles will gain support from end bearing and skin friction. Augercast piles are formed by drilling to the required depth with a continuous flight, hollow-stem auger. Fluid grout is then pumped down the hollow stem under pressure as the auger is withdrawn. Appropriately designed reinforcing steel cages are then lowered into the unset grout. A single reinforcing bar is installed for the full length of the pile for transfer of uplift loads. Since the grout is placed under pressure, actual grout volumes used are typically 15 to 50 percent greater than the theoretical volume of the pile. Actual grout volumes for piles constructed through some types of fill and peat can be much more. The pile contractor should be required to provide a pressure gauge and a calibrated pump stroke counter so that the actual grout volume for each pile can be determined. Typically, a nine-sack, minimum 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) grout mix is used for augercast piles. Once complete, the piles would then connect to a pile cap and grade beam support system for the building foundation. Typical allowable capacities for the augercast piles are given in Table 1. Development of the design capacities presented in Table 1 requires a minimum overall pile length which extends 5 feet into the bearing layer encountered across the site at about 45 feet depth. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KEl5D719A3-Projects \20150719\KE\ WP Page 15 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Design Recommendations The allowable design axial compressive loads include a safety factor of 2 and may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlement of the pile-supported foundations will generally be on the order of Y, inch. Table 1 Augercast Pile Recommendations Vertical Estimated Compressive Lateral Depth of Pile Diameter Length Capacity Capacity fixity Uplift Capacity (inches) (feet)l1l (kips) (kips)l2l (feet)l3l (kips)14l 18 so 65 45 14 60 24 50 115 80 17 90 (1) Pile length based on bearing layer occurring at 45 feet depth. (2l Allowable lateral capacities are for fixed-headed conditions {incorporation into pile caps and grade beam system), and Yi inch of deflection at the ground surface. Greater lateral capacities are possible for greater allowable deflections. (3 ) The depth of fixity does not include the code-required 20 percent increase for reinforcing cage design. <4l Uplift capacity is based on minimum pile length of 50 feet. A downdrag load (negative friction) may develop from potential liquefaction of the loose soils under the site, between depths of about 9 and 30 feet. The vertical compressive capacities presented in Table 2 represent the downward capacity of the pile after subtracting out the negative friction that would develop during an earthquake event. Piles with lateral spacing less than 6 pile diameters from another pile along the direction of force should be considered to be in the zone of influence and the lateral capacity and the reduction factors presented below in Table 2 should be used. If the lateral contribution of the piles is more critical to the practical design of the structure, we can provide a comprehensive lateral pile analysis. Such an analysis would present lateral pile capacities taking into account the interaction between piles. Based on the loose conditions of the soils through which the augercast piles are to be excavated, care should be taken in construction planning to allow grout time to set prior to drilling adjacent piles. Typically, 24 hours of set time is recommended for piles closer than 3 pile diameters or 10 feet, whichever is greater. The 24 hours can be reduced for adjacent piles drilled on different workdays. 11.2 Group Effects Where piles are installed in groups and subject to lateral loading, reductions in lateral capacity to account for group effects should be included in design. The effects of group performance should be considered where piles are spaced closer than 6 pile diameters center-to-center and August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\WP Page 16 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Design Recommendations are aligned in the direction of loading. Piles should not be spaced closer than 3 pile diameters center-to-center to achieve full vertical and uplift capacity. If piles are staggered in the x and y directions a minimum of 3 pile diameters, there is no reduction in lateral loading. For the determination of individual capacities for load application parallel to the line of spacing, the following spacing and reduction factors presented in Table 2 should apply. The last pile in a row can be assumed to develop the full lateral capacity. Table 2 Lateral Reduction Factors Pile Spacing Reduction Factor 6 diameters 1.0 5 diameters 0.8 4 diameters 0.6 3 diameters 0.4 11.3 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the pile caps and grade beams and the existing fill soils or structural fill, or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of these elements. The foundations must be backfilled with structural fill and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following allowable design parameters: • Passive equivalent fluid = 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) • Coefficient of friction = 0.30 12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT As discussed earlier in this report, existing site soils are considered to be settlement-prone, and we therefore recommend that floor slabs be designed as structural slabs and supported on pile foundations. Where potentially liquefaction-induced settlement can be tolerated, site soils can be used to support slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, or other similar structures contingent upon adequate remedial preparation and understanding of uncertainties in settlement performance. Slabs, pavement, or segmented paving stones to be supported on grade should be supported on a 2-foot-thick structural fill mat. All fill beneath slabs, paving stones, or pavement must be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. The floor slabs should be cast atop a August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 17 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Design Recommendations minimum of 4 inches of clean washed crushed rock or pea gravel to act as a capillary break. Areas of subgrade that are disturbed (loosened) during construction should be compacted to a non-yielding condition prior to placement of capillary break material. It should also be protected from dampness by an impervious moisture barrier at least 10 mils thick. The impervious barrier should be placed between the capillary break material and the concrete slab. 13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS All exterior grade beams should be provided with a drain at least 12 inches below the base of the adjacent interior slab elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. 14.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS We anticipate that the new school development will include construction of paved parking areas and bus lanes. Due to loose/soft soils near the surface, some remedial measures may be necessary for support of new pavement or for areas of hardscaping (e.g., paving stones). To reduce the depth of overexcavation required and to achieve a suitable subgrade for support of pavement, we recommend that an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrid reinforcement be placed over the stripped subgrade prior to filling. The addition of an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrids permit heavier traffic over soft subgrade and increases the service life of the system. The fabric acts as a separation barrier between relatively fine-grained surficial materials on the site and the load-distributing aggregate (sand or crushed rock). As a separator, it reduces the loss of costly aggregate material into the subgrade and prevents the upward pumping of silt into the aggregate. The high tensile strength and low modulus of elongation of the fabric also act to reduce localized stress by redistributing traffic loads over a wider area of subgrade. In addition, the recommended method of installation (proof-rolling) identifies weak areas, which can be improved prior to paving. August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 18 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Design Recommendations After the area to be paved is stripped and recompacted to the extent possible, engineering stabilization fabric, such as Mirafi 500X (or equivalent), should be placed over the subgrade with the edges overlapped in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Following subgrade preparation, clean, free-draining structural fill should be placed over the fabric and compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Where fabric is exposed, spreading should be performed such that the dozer remains on the fill material and is not allowed to operate on uncovered fabric. When 12 inches of fill has been placed, the fabric should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck to pretension the fabric and identify soft spots in the fill. Upon completing the proof-rolling operation, additional structural fill should be placed and compacted to attain desired grades. Upon completion of the structural fill, a pavement section consisting of 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) underlain by 2 inches of 5/s-inch crushed surfacing top course and 6 inches of lX-inch crushed surfacing base course is the recommended minimum. The crushed rock courses must be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Given the potentially variable in-place density of existing fill subgrade, some settlement of paved areas should be anticipated unless existing fill is entirely removed and replaced with structural fill. 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the pile foundation system depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know, and we will prepare a cost proposal. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc-KE150719A3 -Project5 \20150719\KE\ WP Page 19 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface f.xplorot1on, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnicol Engineering Report Design Recommendations We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Attachments: Figure 1: Figure 2: Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3: Geologic Cross Section A-A' Appendix: Exploration Logs August 4, 2016 DMG/pc -KE150719/l3 -Pro,iects\20150719'1,1(£\WP ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Page 20 .. ~ N ""1 St z z z z z z 1 ~ : ! ~ • .. " " ~ C C • ~ i • I I 0 ... l .. .. ! ~ a ,. N 3rd St ~ ~ • f N A 1000 2000 !!:!: ~ FEET % ~ DATA SOURCES I REFERENCES NOTE· BLACK AND WHITE USGS 241< SERIES TOPOGRPAHIC MAPS AEPROOUCT10NOF THIS COLOR associated i; (J I 1 sc1F:nces VICINITY MAP SANTORI EDUCATION CENTER RENTON, WASHINGTON i KING CO: STREETS, PARCELS OOIGINALMAY RECIJCE ITS ~ EFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TO PROJ NO DATE FIGURE: B GroQ • LOCA.,.IONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE NCCRRECTIN.,.ERPRE-AT'(;·N KE 150719A 2/16 ~L-------------------1---_______ _J_ _________ _._ ____ _._ ____ ~ 'c l " " " u C .al g ,::, w ~ ;1-----'- " C "' § LEGEND : C <::' " J. Q AE SI EXP LORAT ION BORING !S J, " C c -CRO SS SECTION .i ,,, D ~ SITE N A 0 50 FE ET ~ DATA SOURCES i ~EFERE r--C ES a. BING 2014 NOT BLACK AND WHl;E • :..HJ @ a s S 0 C I a t e d I . ...., cl '-: I ,:=, J l t , p C, SITE AND EXPLORATIONS SART ORI EDUCATI ON CEN TE R R ENT ON, WASHINGTON ~ KING CO. STR[C-S PARCE cS 2015 RE PROOUCTION OF """HIS CO.OR ~ ORIGt-lAL. MAYREDUCE ITS 8 LOCATIONS AN) D STANC ES SHOWN ARE APPROXlt/ATE ~;E CT IVENESS AN D l :AD TO PROJ NO . DATE · FIGURE 0 .__ ___________________ ...1. __ 0 R_R_Ec_T_1N_TE_R_PR-ET-A-Ti0_N_.1_ ____ ~K~E~1..::5'...'.:0'..'.7_1'._:9:..'.A:1. __ ~2::._/1~6~L---~2 L EG EN D: Qac Q UA T ERNARY AL LU V IU M CEDAR RIVER A' l BORING NORTHEAST 70 T WATER LEVE L AT T IME OF DRILLING EXISTING UJ S A RTOR I z :J TD TOT AL DEPT H OF BORING BUILDING j::: f-60 UJ 14 C DATE 0:: w -w 0::: a.. f- 0 (f) "'-. CONTACT BETWEEN A LLUVIAL 0:: I 50 "'-. D E POSIT IONAL PACKAGES a.. f- -st I VE RTICAL EXAGGERATION = 5X I- (D co 0::: en en 0 4 0 NOTE: LOCATION AND DIS TANCES SHOWN AR E APPROXIMATE UJ UJ z Qac 30 NOTES: y 1. TH E SUBSURFACE COND ITIONS PRESENTED IN TH IS GEOLOG IC CROSS -SECT ION AR E BASED ON AN INTER PRETAT ION OF COND ITI ONS y ENCOU NTERED IN WIDELY SPACED EXPLORATIONS COMPLE TE D AT THE 2 0 SUBJ ECT SITE AND RELEVAN T SITE INFORMATION DEVELOPED AND sA~~o A.NJ GRPV EL PROV IDED BY OTHERS. THE SUBSURFACE IN TERPRETATIONS -----------------? PRESENTED IN THIS GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION SHO ULD NOT BE S LT NE! CU-\Y CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY OF ACTUAL SUBSURF ACE CON DITIONS AT 10 THE SITE. OUR EXPERIE NCE HAS SHOWN THAT SOIL ANO GROUND WATER CON DITIONS CAN VARY SiGN IFICANTL Y OVER SMALL DISTANCES . SANC 2. TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM CITY OF REN TON LIDAR 0 -10 GRAVE L -? -----20 ------------ SILT A'W CLAY 7750± 40BP 7 100± 408P -30 SAl~D -4 0 GRAVEL -50 ?----------------? C!.PY T D 91.5' TD 91.5' -60 -70 NOTE: BLACK AND Wrl lTE REPROD UCTION OF THIS COLOR OR IGINAL MAY REDUC E APPENDIX ~ c -n ~o ,ll ~ 0· c Well-graded gravel and ~ "0 o· o' GW gravel with sand, little to ~ ~~o ~Q ~ no fines ~.,~~~+-+~~--~~----~ ~ it $ ~ 2 ~; 6 Poorly-graded gravel u U,) \Ill o 0 o 0 o GP 0 sq-g6g2; and gravel with sand, Is ci o;o;o littletonofines ~ z 00000 oc -q~: ~ .g J ·. Silty gravel and silty ~ ~ f:§:(/) 0 8. 0 , GM gravel with sand ; ]j ~ o I] ol(I 0 & U:r,,''il-;li,lt,--,-------------, :. "'r? -,. ' ~ ~ • jz Clayey gravel and Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency Coarse- Grained Soils Fine- Grained Soils Density SPT121 blows/foot Very Loose Oto 4 Loose 4 to 10 Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard 10 to 30 30 to 50 >50 SPT12 blows/foot Oto2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 >30 Test Symbols G = Grain Size M = Moisture Content A = Atterberg Limits C = Chemical DD -Dry Density K = Permeability j NI~ ~ GC clayey gravel with sand t'l ''.:?.::'> Component Definitions c :.:.:.:... Well-graded sand and Descriptive Term Size Range and Sieve__lllumber ~ € ·:·::'.:'.:'.:J sw sand with gravel, little Boulders Larger than 12" ~ ID::::::::::: to no fines Cobbles 3" to 12'' J: :: ..... m " Gravel 3" to No. 4 (4.75 mm) ~ aj ~ ·_._ -·_ Poorly-graded sand Coarse Gravel 3" to 3/4" 2 ui SP and sand with gravel. Fine Gravel 3/4" to No. 4 (4.75 mm) ~o : .· ... · little to no fines Sand No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) :, z Coarse Sand No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm) L ~ [ Silty sand and Medium Sand No. 1 O (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm) is0 ~ • SM silty sand with Fine Sand No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) 'CL ~";Y:::,X_i,g:;r_a_v_e_l --;--;-----1--_s_ilt_a~n~d_c_1a_:y _____ s_m_a1_1e_r_th_a_n_N_o_._2_0_0_:1_0._0 0 75_m_m_:) _________ _j {l ~r~~ Clayey sand and (3 l Estimated Percentage ~ NI :z~ SC clayey sand with gravel Component F'_erc!lritage by Weigb! 'rfrtn-----r-----------, Trace <5 Moisture Content Dry -Absence of moisture, dusty. dry to the touch Slightly Moist · Perceptible moisture Moist -Damp but no visible water C 0 m I Silt, sandy silt, gravelly silt, ML silt with sand or gravel ~~ W.W. Ufil ~;..</., -c ...J / CL Ii "' " ?%ff ~ .S ://_if:; Clay of low to medium plasticity; silty, sandy, or gravelly clay, lean clay = ...J V///. 0 Some Modifier (silty, sandy, gravelly) Very modifier (silty. sandy, gravelly) (/Ji ~=--= Organic clay or silt of low ::; ~= = == OL plasticity Blows/6" or Sampler portion of 6" 5 to <12 12 to <30 30 to <50 Symbols Type "-" ; I t:lastic silt, clayey silt, silt 2.0" OD "· I sampler Type MH with micaceous or '~~ :i Oescrin_tj9_n. ~ 11 Split-Spoon ;V, ~ ~ --- o !1 diatomaceous fine sand or Sampler ,/ 3.0" OD Split-Spoon Sampler ~ :, :1 silt (SP1] _/ 3.25" OD Split-Spoon Ring Sampler Very Moist -Water visible but not free draining Wet -Visible free water, usually from below water tab!e ~ Cement grout ;-)1 l:· surface seal ,,, l. (4): Si .- Bentonite seal . • Filter pack with =·.-blank casing .-. section B ~ ~~mw--rc='1'"a_y_o--::f-:-h-:-ig--::h-p""'1:-a-st-,-ic--::ity-, -----1 " "' CH sandy or gravelly clay, fat ffiE !;l ::; iV/.M clay with sand or gravel Grab Sample Bulk sample 3.0" OD Thin-Wa!I Tube Sampler (including Shelby tube) Screened casing or Hydrotip ·.-with filter pack u5 :E VF///' .~ !f[<f-9 Organic clay or silt of ...J V·'/// w:)fJ OH medium to high (1l Percentage by dry weight tf:!Jff/;j plasticity (2l (SPT) Standard Penetration Test r--~---.=.---i-------------1 (ASTM D-1586) ~ ·~ IJ) Peat, muck and other (J) In General Accordance with i 2'~ PT highly organic soils Standard Practice for Description O .... _ and Identification of Soils (ASTM D-2488) Portion not recovered ...:.........c.;:._ End cap (4) Depth of ground water .? ATD -At time of drilling 'l. Static water level (date) (s) Combined uses symbols used for fines between 5% and 12% ~ Classifications of sails in this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations, which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and ..J plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual-manual and/or laboratory classification en methods of ASTM D-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Soil Classification System. ~ I =@= .. ~= .•. =.,=/=/= .. =:=:=:=~= 0 h=0 =s=~ c=c.i=i .===;t=~=e~=. =;=====E=X=P=L=O=RA==T=l=O=N=L=O=G=K=E=Y========F=IG=U=RE=A1= "----------------------------------------------------- associalod earth sciences c_ _______ _...E"'xQIOifiliQ~n~L~o'",a~------- 1 1 Exploration Number I '' Project Number KE150719A EB-1 Sartori Education Ce-~n~te~r ___________ _ -'R""e"-nllct-.own"-"W,.,ACL_ ___ -___________________ _ --'G,,,D,_,l_,__/"D"'50"'-R'-'is.g_,__/uH,.,SA"'--------------__ _ Sheet 1 of 2 Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Datum _,N""/A"------ Date Start/Finish ?/3/16 213/16 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" --------------Hole Diameter (in) -8.incb,.,,,--_____ _ , ___________________________ -------------··-----~~~--------- IJ I g 00 " .c 0. 15. E " IT1 " 0 I Cl) '-15 ~ ' 20 ' 25 L 30 S-3 'i ' u---0 .c"' ; o. E 1e >, <!) "' I ' ' ' 0 0 h O 0 ·O,I I DESCRIPTION Sod I Topsoil Quateiri"aiy Alluvium -Cedar Rjver Loose, moist, brov,m, silty, fine SANO, trace organics (SM). Loose, moist, orange to light gray, fine SAND, some silt (SP). Driller noted gravels. Dense, moist, brownish orange, sandy GRAVEL; oxidized (GP). Driller notes less gravel. Loose, wet, orange brown, fine to medium SAND, some gravel (SP). Loose, wet, orange brO"Ml, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL (GW). Driller adds mud. Stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML). Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND (SM). Wood debris. C oi I 2 § lai! ,_ 15 E .SI I'\~ I I I I '!' I "' 2 2 3 I i 113 13 19, I I ' ' I ' I I 21 3! 5 2 5 4 2 2 7 I 10 I 45 i I •a ! I 1" I 1" S-6 I I Loose, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND (SP). Medium stiff, wet, brownish gray, SILT, trace fine sand (ML). '5 3 j .A5 2' ~ '-35 [' S-? i Hard, wet, brownish gray, SILT, trace fine sand (ML). 5 § I fi !23 n ·-Dense, wet, gray, grave! y, meta coarse SAND (SW). 113 0 I•: · -Driller notes gravers. I i I ;,l---_ _i_l__ ,______l'.::""--'.L:::::r ______________ _[___j_J I m Sampler Type (ST): ~ C 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) [] No Recovery M -Moisture 15 'L 3" OD SJjit Spoon Sampler (D & M) IJ Ring Sample 9:1 ~ r71 ,;. Water Level () l" Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Blows/Foot 20 30 40 I I I ! I i ' I 1 ... 32 Logged by: 1WL Approved by: CJK li i ': " ,£ jO t3 ~ Grab Sample ~ Shelby Tube Sample <'---------------------'-----'--------------------------_J ~ associateo ··---E>Cploration Log I ..• l ear I h sciences Project Number -1 -Exploration Number Sheet ; ' KE150719A EB-1 2 of 2 . Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surtace Elevation (ft) -36 I Location Renton, WA Datum l'J/A Driller/Equipment GDI I D50 Rig/ HSA Date StarUFinish 213/16,2/3116 I Hammer Weight/Drop 140# I 30" Hole Diameter (in) 8 iacbes ----------------------··--,------, ------11 I T 1 ··· .. ' ' C ai I~ g Is fil 1,gc5 !~:§ > • !iii m "' Blows/Foot ·~1 t a. ,"E.E -' .;; iG>-C 3 , ro ,:,: ~ IC m ~ :15~ .2! _Q: 'm Cl T I 8 ro a, '" ff) :,: ' i 5 1 I DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 I II Hard, wet, brownish gray, sandy SILT (ML). 16 ' S-8 26 +62 I ~ Very dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SW). 36 i I ~ 45 ~ OIi" to I S-9 0 Very dense, wet, brownish gray, sandy GRAVEL; blO'N counts overstated: driller ; 0 0 notes bouncing on rock (GP). I 0 0 I I ' 0 Q ' D Q ! 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 DrlHer notes less gravels. p 0 0 0 p 0 I ~ 50 I Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SW). ' S-10 14 •2~ 12 14 I ! I ~ 55 :: :::: : Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL (GP). I p 0 12 ",~ S-11 0 0 17 p 0 0 0 19 I p 0 0 ,, D 0 0 0 I D 0 0 0 p 0 r 60 -0 0 I p 0 No recovery. 4 S-12p 0 0 "'13 0 4 -0 9 Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet I I Note: Blow counts below 35 feet are likely overstated due to gravels. I ~ 65 I I I I I ~ 70 I ' I I ! ~ 75 I I I I I I Sampler Type (ST): JJ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) D No Recovery M · Moisture Logged by: TWL I ] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) (] Ring Samr,e 7. Water Level () Approved by: CJK ~ Grab Samr,e 2J Shelby Tube Sample y Wat.er Level at time of drilling (ATD) I ®' associaled l;~Qloration Lon I ---·--e 2 rt h sciences Project Number Bcp!oration Number I Sheet ' KE150719A EB-2 1 of 2 Project Name Sactori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -37 Location Bentgo WA ----Datum JII/A_ ___ Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA ---------Date Start!Finish -2l2116,2/2L16_ Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) 8incbes -I ------- C ID J!l g 00 lu-' g iv !£ 00 " :c _g Blows/Foot ~ a. =ttl ....I ~ '§_ "-E (Ile. .... s E ~ >-S: E ~ ffi " T "' (!) "' ai .c 0 "' 8~ 0 I I DESCRIPTION I 10 20 30 40 f~.:,t--Concrete i;?rl~~~~ -4 inches ;~ I • I I \ Crushed Gravel Base Course cillaterrliiy Alluvium. Cedar River I .. Cuttings: Moist, reddish br01Nt1, fine SAND, trace gravel (SP). ' ' ' L 5 i ' Very loose, moist, brO'NTl, fine to coarse SAND, some fine gravel, trace silt; ' I 1 ' ' S-1 I stratified (SP). 1 . &3 i [:~. 21 ! Driller notes gravels. ' i I I 10 ~i I p O. Medium dense, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified :10 lo s-2 . 0.-1 (GM-GP). · 11 121 ~ o~· 10 :ii I : ~ I '-15 • 0 f.' I i I' S-3 : Medium dense, wet, brown, interbedded SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt 7' (SP/GP). 1 8 1 I I &19 ·_._. I --I • I . ' _1 • I • ' ' 20 Driller adding mud at 20 feet. ' ·1 5-4 Loose/medium stiff, wet, gray, interbedded, silty, fine SAND and sandy SILT, ,3 trace mica; thinly bedded to laminated (SM/ML). 4 31 ! ! 25 ~~ fts above, silt beds are slightly brown-tinged, occasional organics. .. i8 4 :.:!·1 'I 3 5 I I : ' I ' ~ 30 J c:-1-;i;, Soft, very moist, gray, fine sandy SILT/CLAY; occasional brown silt interbeds ' S-6 ~{~ 2 &3 with organic material: laminated (MUCL). 1 12 I ,r] (, ,,, / I ' ;~? ' ; I • . '.j;i Driller notes gravels. ' '-35 1 rJ' ,-, .; .; ''1 Upper 8 inches of sample: /\s above (MUCL). : s-7 /~;::.~ >'.'.; 5 &23 • ' •:::i · Lower 10 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, very gravelly SAND, 10 I 13 I . ' some silt; stratified (SM-SW). .. I ' I 1°o 0 • I I Sampler Type (ST): [I] 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) 0 No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG [I] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample '7 Water Level () Approved by: CJK ~ Grab Sample LJ Shelby Tube Sample .? Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) associated earth sciences Project Number KE150719A I Exoloration Loa Exploration Number EB-2 I Sheet 2 of 2 I 1 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop Sartori Education Center Renton, WA -=~~------ ~ Ground Surface Elevation (ft) --~3,.,7 __ _ -50 -55 -60 -65 -70 ] ' 0 S-10 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I o o is-11 Q 0 I :; o S-12 S-13 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • S-14 11 I GDI / 050 Rig/ HSA 140#/30" ______ ----------~ DESCRIPTION Very dense, wet, gray, very gravelly SAND, some to trace silt, interbeds of gray CLAY; scattered organic matter; blCJIN counts may be overstated due to gravels (SP/CL). Dense, wet, brc,..vn, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, some silt; 2-inch bed of gravel (fractured) in sampler tip; stratified (SM-SP). Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified (GP). Very dense, wet, gray grading to brovm, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; fractured gravel in sampler tip; thinly bedded; blow counts may be overstated due to gravels (GP}. Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, bedded SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt (SP/GP). Lower 6 inches of sample: stiff, very moist, gray to dark brown, sandy SILT; abundant organic matter; laminated; abrupt contact (ML). Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, trace silt; thinly bedded (SP). Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, tan 'Nith orange oxidation, silty, fine SAND; thinly bedded (SM). Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, orangish brOVJ11, fine to medium SAND, trace silt; bedded (SP). Datum _JNow/A"--------1 Date Start/Finish 2/2/16 2{2116 Hole Diameter (in) _JR"-"jp_,,c_..h_,,p_,5,_ ____ _ I 15 23 28 14 9 22 10 13 12 17 23 1· j\1 6 7 9 8, 8 9 9 Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 lo.31 I I I '51 '55 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I ' I I I ! : I I "-a:-75 I S-151,,0':.·.1,11,-_________________________ I ..., p Dense, wet, reddish brown grading to brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; a stratified; some gravels are fractured (GM-GP). 10 .A.33 23 ~ I ~ 1 Bottom of e:q:iloration boring at 76.5 feet I ~ I ~ 1 I Note: Blow counts from 35 to 55 feet and at 75 feet likely overstated due to j I ! 2'-_~l~-~-~-g_ra_w_l_s. ________________________ l_~~~-~-~!-~-~-~~-1 '.:: Sampler Type (ST): § [TI 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) D No Recowry M • Moisture Logged by: DMG I g [TI 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) ~ Ring Sample ¥ Water Level () Approved by: CJK l.. ~._ __ l()J __ G_ra_b_Sa_m...;p1_e _________ ':::"-:.....JS_h_el_by:..T_u_be_Sa_m.;.p_1e_-" __ w_a_te_r_L_""_"_at_ti_·m_e_o_1_d_n1_Hn_g_(_A_T_D_) -------------- associated earth sciences -··---------------- 1 Project Number KE150719A E:xi,lorati'-o~.._n'---L..._0'"'1a""-~--~~------1 Exploration Number I Sheet EB-3 1 of 2 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop Sartori Education Center J3.enton. WA ~G=,D=le-/ ""D5,.,0'c-'R~ig,,_/~H~S=A~----__ 140# / 30" ---------------~---- DESCRIPTION Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -37 Datum _ru"'""--~------ Date Start/Finish 211116 211 /16 Hole Diameter (in) 8 inches Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 ~ :i:,\ Asphalt Pavement· 3 inches ;=j j ' \~--------sC~ru~s~h~e~ds-G-,a~ve~l "Ba~,-.-C~o~u~rs~e--------,; I I ' r 5 i, '' ID S-1 ' I I I r 10 I µ; S-2 I ' ' . r Quaternary Alluvium. Cedar River Very smooth, fast drilling. Upper 6 inches of sample: Loose, moist, brown, gravelly, medium SAND, some silt; bedded (SM-SP). Lower 6 inches of sample: Loose, moist, light brown with faint orange o)ddation, fine SAND, some gravel, some silt (SM-SP). Medium dense, wet, brown and orangish brown, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, trace silt; bedded (SP). Driller notes gravel layer. -15 m S-3 ·. ks above, 4 inch interbed of silty grave!. 6 inch heave. '" ~ ~ !,.1,i I' ~J;1 I lJ4i -25 ~! S-5 [JI I , ' I -... "~ ~ ~, ' ~l~ r 35 ---c • • ~ 'i I S-7 • ·j'• ~ n .j!.j f i ! ,ii, Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Upper 51nches of sample: As above. Middle 4 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, very silty, fine SAND; thinly bedded (SM). Lower 5 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL; stratified (GM). Medium dense, wet, gray, very gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some silt, trace organic matter; stratified (SM-SP). Driller notes less gravelly, faster drilling. Medium stiff, wet, gray, fine sandy SILT/CLAY, with occasional thin interbeds of silty, fine sand; abundant organic matter; trace gravel iscfated in interbeds (MUCL). Back into gravels. Dense, wet, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL, trace organic debris (grasses); gravels up to 2 inches in diameter; stratified (GM). I I I I • I I ' 2 I 3 4 I •t ' I ' I I :,c' I I ' 3 6 ' 6 : .t..12 I i I 8 11 9 ' I I 5 12 :14 ' 8 13 13! ' 2 ... !3 13 i ' I I I ' 111 I 18 .0.39 •21 I I I o'. I I • 1.;.·1 ~f--~·~~~,~~'~----------------------------'---~--'---.J._ _ _J_ _ _l_ _ __'_ _ _J __ ~ m Sampler Type (ST): ~ DJ w "' g 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) D No Recovery IJ Ring Sample M • Moisture Z Water Level () Logged by: DMG Approved by: CJK ij t'2l Grab Sample ~ Shelby Tube Sample -Y Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) ~-------------------------------------- ® associated Exnloration Lon I earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number I ---- Sheet ' KE150719A EB-3 2 of2 J ' Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -37 Location .Benton WA ... Datum [II/A I Driller/Equipment _G.DI / D50 Rig/ HSA Date Start/Finish 211116 2/j 116 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/ 30" Hole Diameter (in) _a.inches_. ..J ~--· g §1~' "' "' "![ '"I " :c _g -~ (l) !€ Blows/Foot ~ £ 0. a. E ~-~f ~ a. s E ~ >, ii " T "' (!)"' § ro m Isl D "' DESCRIPTION () ,;:: I I 10 20 30 40 l , , :I Dense, wet, brawn, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified (GP). ' (19 I I S-8 0 0 i 18 £45 ' 0 !20 0 0 :J C} ! I 0 0 ! ' I ' 0 I ' 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 I ! J ·:J I i i -45 ] 0 0 I Dense, wet, brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, trace silt; cccasional siltier 15 I S-9 interbeds; stratified (SP). ! 30, '!'64 34' I I ' ! I -50 ~ s-10[ As above, sand is coarser. £4~ 1g1 I 26 I I I I I I ! -55 J's-11 • Dense, wet, brown becoming reddish brown with depth (abundant oxidation), 18 ' Q ·1 fine sandy GRAVEL, some silt to silty; stratified (GM~GP). 25 £,7 it 22 I I I I I r 60 ]s-12 ~! Very dense, wet, mottled gray and brown with occasional orange oxidation, silty, 15 fine sandy GRAVEL (GM). : 25 1 ~50 -----~~----------·---------- I 25 I I Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 35 to 60 feet likely overstated due to gravels. I ~ 65 ! I I I I I I I r 70 I I I I I I I I r 75 I ;!! I 0 I N ci i I 2 I ~ I • ~ I I i' I " Sampler Type (ST): oi I ;:: [I] D No Recovery 0 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) M-Moisture Logged by: DMG ~ ~ [] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample ~ Water Level () Approved by: CJK I 0 " ~ 0 l' Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) ID t,'J Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample w < associated earth sciences . ' Project Number KE150719A Exoloration Loa Exploration Number EB-4 Sheet 1 of 2 I Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer WeighVDrop Sartori Education Center ---8filJ1on, V'JA._ .. __ .. ____ _ GDI / 050 Rig/ HSA _. 140# / 30" Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Datum ~N=IA~------- Date Start/Finish ?/1 /16 2/1 /16 Hole Diameter (in) . 8.inche.~•----- g .,, 15. ~ 0 ~ 10 ~ 15 -20 -25 ... 30 -35 ! w ~ 0. .s E T ro UJ ! I ; u-i ·-0 ' -§_ ..c ; ~[ Cl UJ DESCRIPTION ---~--------~--------------------------1·-5~~ .. ~---------·--·---,-~ 1 :;::::;Ql~ Bl /F ~ ,'lit;: ~ ows oat _ ,S:E~O Qi '.1 8 ~ ii'i 6 I 10 20 30 40 . Tr: Asphalt Pavement -1 inch I' Crushed Gravel Base Course I Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River ----.-====.--.=-----;c;--:-1 -t--t---1---i· ----~=--~-~~~--------·_'(! I . I I ' I ' I ! Medium dense, moist, orangish brown and tan with orange oxidation, silty, fine SAND, some gravel; thinly bedded with interbeds (1 inch thick) of sandy gravel and very sandy silt (SM). Gravelly drilling. Medium dense, wet, orangish brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; occasional thin (1 inch thick) interbeds of sandy silt (GM·GP). Medium dense, wet, brown, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, some silt; occasional coarser interbeds (SM-SP). Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Medium stiff, wet, gray, interbedded very silty SAND and SILT/CLAY; occasional organics and mica; bedded; laminated within silt/clay beds (SM-MUCL). Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND, trace gravel; abundant organics (bark fragments); stratified (SM). Medium stiff, wet, gray and dark bro.vn, fine sandy SILT; scattered organics (rootlets); laminated (ML). Driller notes gravels. Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; stratified {GM-GP). 0 No Recovery I] Ring Sample M -Moisture 7. Water Level I) ' I J 5 10 I ! I sl ~ 9: 9 I I Is s' 10 5 136 4 3 4 6 5 3 4 6 13 12 I ··1 ' ' ! ' •!1s i ! ' •t I i ~10 .... I "21 Logged by: DMG Approved by: CJK ' ~ Grab Sample tJ Shelby Tube Sample '!' Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) as5ociated earth sciences I I Project Number KE150719A Sartori Education Center Renton, WA _ GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA I Exploration Loa Exploration Number EB-4 I Sheet 2 of 2 Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" ~=~=~-------------------- Dmum _NJA_·~------ Date Start/Finish -2L1L1.6,-21~1~t1~6~---- Ho!e Diameter (in) JB.u.in,.c,,.bnce,,s~----- ' 'J! I I ' I I ' 1 ~{ l~J~ 1 ---Blows/Foot 1S:EJ'l.Q ~I ~ ~ ~ "' c-45 -50 -55 -60 ]I s.12 'i I ! -65 -70 -75 DESCRIPTION As above. As above, dense. As above, brownish gray. Upper 5 inches of sample: As above. Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, brawn, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some silt (SM-SP). Upper 4 inches of sample: As above. Middle 5 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, very sandy GRAVEL, some silt; slrmified (GP-GM). \ Lower 5 inches of sample: Stiff, very moist, dark brawn, SILT; scattered organic matter; thin interbed of gray sand; laminated (ML). Bottom of ei,p!oration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts form 35 to 55 feet likely overstated due to gravels. I O <11 CO (.) s: 10 20 30 40 1 1~ •23 I I 12 I ! 19 15 i251 11 ' ' i '10 15 ' 17 ' ' I 11 12 12 I 12 ...,. 91 1 5 ! I ~1---~~-~-~-------------------------~-~~~-~-~-~-~-~~ ~ Sampler Type (ST): !Ji [lJ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) [Il 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) "' 0 hml l\;J Grab Sample m a; 0 No Recovery M -Moisture I] Ring SamJJe ¥ Water Level () [7] Shelby Tube Sample .!' Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Logged by: DMG Approved by: CJK " 51 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 !;\! ~---------------------------------------------- associated earth sciences --------=E=x=p~lo~r~a=ti~o~n~L=o'-"g,_ _______ _ ~ ;; N " " • .a Project Number KE150719A Sartori Education Center E)ploration Number EB-5 I Sheet 1 of 2 Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop _JR~e"1n11IYJOOu.,,_.W'}LAn_~-------------_ GDI / 050 Rig/ HSA Datum ~w!Ac,_ ________ _ g ~ m £ C. C. s E m Tl ~ 0 <J) I ! I I '-5 L lj S-1 I ' 25 S-5 I 30 I . ~ I I I S-6 I '-I 140# / 30" Date Start/Finish 2/1 /16 2/1 /16 Hole Diameter (in) 8jnci1e,~o ____ _ ---------------------------------- 1 )o;! i) 1-l~t ~E ~-· ~ l g~ l~~J,_g DESCRIPTION c'l!;'"' I I I I . 1-.. '"-"1·~--------"As""'p'-'ha,,,1_,_t'--'Pa"'v"'e"'m"e"'n_,_t-:c2,,__,,ine,cc,h,cese_ _______ 1 , 1 n \ Crushed Gravel Base Course i'r I I i i, ' 1··,Silty sand and gravel. Fill _ _ -· ~/ ! i I I Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River ! Loose, moist, orangish brovm and tan, fine SAND, some silt to silty; thinly bedded (SM-SP). Medium dense, very moist, orangish brO"IVJl, fine sandy GRAVEL, some silt; stratified (GM-GP). Dense, wet, brovnl, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified, with 3 inch silt : bed in sample; blow counts my be overstated due to gravels (GW). Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Upper 6 inches of sample: As above. Lower 18 inches of sample: Medium stiff, wet, gray, very silty, fine SAND to very fine sandy SILT, trace organic material; 1 inch interbed of brO"IVJl, gravelly sand within silt; stratified (SM/ML). Medium dense, wet, mottled gray and dark brown, very silty, fine SAND; laminated to thinly bedded (SM)_ I As above, 6 inch bed of laminated gray SILT (ML) near sampler tip. I Driller notes gravels. 2 3 3 8 12 i14 I 131' 16 16 3 5 3 I i i I 3 5 6 2 7 8 j Blows/Foat 10 20 30 40 ------ L 35 I s-7 j 'I i·\ Dense, wet, orangish brc,,vn, gravelly SAND, some silt; gravel is fractured; f I \stratified (SP-SM). _______ j 5 23 ! 18 r·1 i ' I I ' ' ' !f -I' I 1 ii'. I i I i i <!)•f----~_L __ _J....J..L _________________________ _l _ _l__J__~-_L_ _ _J__ _ _J___c_ _ _L__L-J m Sampler Type (ST): I ~ [I] 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) J No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG g [IJ 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample 2 Water level () ~L..... __ lt!J __ G_ra_b_s_a_m_f:l_e _________ 2J_!_s_he_l...;byc..T_u_b_e_Sa_m.;.pl_e_Y __ w_a_te_r_L_eve_1 a_t_ti_m_e_o_1_dn_·1_1in_g_(A_T_D_) ____________ _J Approved by: CJK ~ assoc1a1ed Exnloration Loa earth sciences Project Number I Bcploration Number I Sheet ... '' ) ,·,,, ' ' KE150719A EB-5 2 of 2 Project Name _Sartori Education Center ,. Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Location Beol!l!l WA Datum i',1/A Driller/Equipment GDI / D!iQ Rig / HSA Date Start/Finish 2llil6 2/j 116 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" "' Hole Diameter (in) ....BJocbes g I C "ii "' u-I E ~ 1 ·-a ~ .c .a Blows/Foot ,5 a. E ~~ _J a. s E ~ >, !~ E qi m "' (!) (/) 0 T (/) I O 1ij iii DESCRIPTION I u ;;: 10 20 30 40 I s-a Very dense, wet, light grayish brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some silt; 12 stratified; blow oounts may be overstated due to gravels (SM-SP). 38 24 I ~ 45 D S-9 ~ ~ Medium dense, wet, brownish gray, very sandy GRAVEL, some silt; thinly i 11 ~ I= bedded (GM-GW). l1s "~8 ' Op 113 : Or ~.o ~ ! to, .P i ' ,o 9 ~ 50 ] s-10P: Pd Very dense, wet, grayish broYm, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; stratified 18 (GM-GW). 36 f (,; 40 o )1 Cl ·O r:,i d Oh{ 'ci -55 1 ) ' o' { As above, 1/2 inch gray, silt bed at tip of sampler. S-11 0 h 10: 30 1 'f=[ 01~· 0 0 0, I 0 ' , ~ ! Drilling smoothed out. -60 ;J Very stiff/medium dense, very moist, gray, fine SAND, trace gravel, with S-12 12: I "2• interbeds of gray to dark brown, SILT; scattered organics in silt beds; laminated I 12·, within silt beds (SM/ML). ' 12: I I i ! -65 ~ Very stiff/medium dense, moist, gray interbedded sandy SILT and silty, fine I S-13 8' SAND, some gravel near sampler tip (MUSM). 11 ~20 _J_ ' 9 ' 1 / Driller notes gravels at 67 feet. Hard, sticky, gravelly drilling. ' i ' ' ! • I -70 ·~ / S-14 ~~ Upper 6 inches of sample: Very dense, wet, gray, silty/dayey GRAVEL; 18 stratified (GM/GC). 301 r-1 • Lower 12 inches of sample: Very dense, wet, brO'W!1, silty, sandy GRAVEL; 31 ' • -I I • ·1- orange oxidation within siltier interbeds; stratified (GM). ~ I. --75 :! !I\ '.)~, Very dense, wet, brovm grading to gray, gravelly, fine to medium SANO, some I i S-15 :;:; 28 _J_ to trace silt; stratified (SW). 47 25 Bottom of exploration boring at 76.5 feet i Note: Blow counts from 35 to 75 feet likely overstated due to gravels. I I i ' I I I ' Sam~er Type (Sn: [I] 2" OD S~it Spoon Sampler (SPT) D Na Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: [lJ 3" OD S~it Spoon Sam~er (D & M) I] Ring Sample 'l-Water Level () Approved by: ~ GrabSam~e 0 ' Shelby Tube Sam~e :J: Water Level et time of drilling (ATD) 452 i 76 80/ 61 •72 I DMG CJK 1~ ~ ~ m 6 I i 1" I I I_ assoc1a1ed I e a rt h s c I e n c e s 1'------P-r-oj-ect-Number KE150719A Sartori Education Center Exploration Log Exploration Number EB-6 Sheet 1 of 3 -36 Renton. WA ____________ _ Ground Surface Elevation (ft) Datum ~N~IA~------- Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA ______________ _ 140#/ 30" Date Start/Finish ~2"-'/-_,?L/1u61,?"-"/"?,_/1"5,_ ___ _ Hole Diameter (in) B inches -------------------------------------- I w ~ " 'E. ID 0 L 5 10 '-15 . 20 ' 25 -30 35 DESCRIPTION ~i, _ _ _______ _,_As=p'-'ha,,1 .. 1_,_Pa=ve,,,m=en"'t'-----'3'--"-in,,c"'h_.-e,,_s ________ .,p <:,1":·:.·1 ··:1_-_-___ ~~~-"C'-'ru'-'s .. h,,,ee,dc,G,erc,,a .. ve,el .. Ba=•es•c:C,,,o,cue,rc;,se,e ___ ~ _____ .;; I . _ 1 -. ·1\ , _____ _,O ... l-=d--'As=p .. h,,ac,11 .. Pa__.,_,v-=• .. m,,e"'n-'-t ,_/ c,,ru._,-.s .. h,,e_.-d_,G,..r_..a .. ve ... l .. La=y,_e .. r .. ? __ _ " ' ' I_ I' I ~ ! I cl S-1 S-2 S-3 -_ ·' - 1:: i - ' ! J S-4 ! ~~- ' ' \'. I, D 0 $-fihVoC 0 0 h O 0 0 h O Q 0 h 0 0 0 h 0 I T O , h 0 S-7ho,o C C h O Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River Loose, moist, orangish brown, graveUy, fine to medium SAND, trace to some silt; stratified with occasional silty sand interbeds (SM~SP). Driller notes gravels. Medium dense, wet, orangish brown, fine to medium SAND, grading into GRAVEL, trace silt; bedded (SP/GP)_ Driller adding mud at 15 feet. Upper 4 inches of sample: As above, siltier (SP-SM). Lower 14 inches of sample: Loose/medium stiff, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND and gray, SILT, some sand; bedded, trace organics in silt layer; silt is laminated (SM/ML). Medium stiff, wet, gray, fine sandy SILT; occasional interbeds of silty sand; occasional brown silt intemeds; thinly bedded to laminated (ML). Medium stiff, very moist, gray, SILT/CLAY: interbeds of dark brown silt/day with organic matter; laminated (MUCL). Driller notes drilling firmed up. Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; some gravels are fractured (GP)_ As abo~. ~ r, (:,,:, '\ § j ~ =~ 3 ~ ~o. ... 3: > E $ .Q o ra <Xl l) ;;: 4 4 4 4 7 8 3' 2 6 6 4 4 3 2 3 5 9 11 Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 I "''a .0.5 I "'15 I ' t20 ' ' "'24 ~ C ID £ 0 j h O .:, ,::,; Driller notes gravels. 1· ~ j h 0 o''I ~ I :-, • ~ c,,1-----'---'--'--"----'"-------------------------------"-----'--'--'---'------'----'----~---'--l m Sampler Type (Sn: ;:: 5l [!] 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) 0 No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG Approved by: CJK :S JJ 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample cZ Water Level () i._ __ ~_c_G_ra_b_~_m~pl-•----------=LJ~;-S_h_~_b~y-T_u_b_e_s_a_m~pl-• __ ~_w_a_1er_L_•~_1_m_t_im_e_m_d_n_11_in_g_(_A_T_D_) ____________ _J ( ~ a s s O O ' i ! e d f------=:-c,-----;-:c,----,-----,------""E=x~DIO.._ra'c"'t"-"c'ioc"'"n~Lo=1a::,__ ___ ~~-~ I e a r t h s c I e n c e s Project Number I Exploration Number Sheet ,__ ____ • _' ·-·~·-,~· ~' ~' ~~~_K_E_15_0_71_9_A __ ~ ____ E_B_-6 ________ 2_of_3 ___ J ~S"'a=rt~o=r~i -E~du=c=a=ti=o~n~C=e=n=te~r~---------------Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop gl r 45 r 50 r 55 r 60 -65 r 70 p 0 S-8 0 0 I_:_ P 0 o 0 p 0 • 0 0 b 0 0 o: D 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 .I' s-siooo p 0 0 o: 0 0 I o o Po 0 o b 0 I O 0 0 0 ! 0 0 p 0 S-101 0 0 p 0 S-11 booo booo 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 Renton WA GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA 140# / 30" DESCRIPTION As above, stratified. Medium dense, wet, gray, fine sandy GRAVEL, trace silt; gravel is fractured; stratified (GP). As alx:ive, dense. Driller notes gravels. Dense, wet, gray, gravelly SAND, trace to some silt; stratified (SP). Very stiff, moist, gray, SILT/CLAY, with interbeds (2 to 4 inches thick) of silty, fine SAND and brown, organic-rich silt; organic OOor; laminated to thinly bedded (MUCL). As above. Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, trace dark brown/gray silt beds (-1 inch thick); bedded (SP). Ground Surface Elevation (ft) --~3~6~--- Datum NIA J Date Start/Finish 2/2116 2/2/_1.6 ____ _ Hole Diameter {in) B inches I 8 9 9 12 12 15 13 20 I 11 ! I I i . 11s 19 I :11 • 7 8 g 2 3 5 I Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 4 7 4 7 i',31 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I : 9 419 101 I I • i I ~ ] S-15 Dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some silt; stratified (SM-SP)_ 1til 44, J ~ 251 c-75 " I I I ,, . I c,1--~·~-~~~-------------------------~-~-'------~--'---'------'------'--'--E Sampler Type (ST): J \il [O 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) D No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG is [TI 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) (J Ring Sample 'SJ_ Water Level () Approved by: CJK I ill !'Jl Grab Sample Z] Shelby Tube Sample -? Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) ~'------------------------------------------------- associated earth scrences Exploration Log_ -----~-------, Exploration Number [ Sheet E~6 1 3cl3 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop Sartori Education Center _8.ell!On~Vl/A_ ____ _ GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA 140# / 30"_ --------------- Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Datum _JW,,_,,h"-------- Date Start/Finish 212L16,,,2~l~?~lJ~6~--- Hole Diameter (in) -8joche,~"---------.-----~ --------------------~---------------------~-~~----------~--i I I ' :I 1 g ~ cg_ 1's I ~ ,T en I I r 85 ~&161.11 I I I 1111 I j l]jj,!; I I S-.17 1 L j i I I DESCRIPTION Dense, wet, gray, interbedded, SAND, some silt and sandy SILT; thinly bedded to laminated (SM-SP/ML). Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, some silt; bedded (SM-SP). CW! .'l 0 >""' ~ I :.::; Q): .e Blows/Foot ~ ·a5~ j...Jr U11 is: Q. "' 3 :;; E,fJ1.9i I 8;::1"' 10 20 30 40 5 : i ' I 13; I I 16! .0.37 211 I I I I I I 11 ... J, 15 11 -90 J S-1s: 11,_'f_J_~_)_st-iff_._v_ery_m_o_is_t._li_gh_t_g_r•_Y_, c_LA_v_:_m_e_d_iu_m_t_a_h_ig_h_p_la-st-ic-ity;_._ia_m_i_na_t_ed __ __,' B 12 121 ~ ~ t t 2 ~ ~ 95 -100 t--105 l·-110 f---115 Bottom of exploration boring at 91.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 45 to 55 feet and 75 to 85 feet may be overstated due to gravels. I I I ~ ' "1------c~~--=~-=cc'---------------------------~---'---'---'---'---'---'---'---j ~ Sami,er Type (ST): ~ W 2" OD Si,it Spoon Sampler (SPT) [D 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) lfB Grab Sample 0 No Recovery M -Moisture I] Ring Sample ;£ Water Level () [ZJ Shelby Tube Sample 'f Water Leve! at time of drilling (ATD) Logged by: DMG Approved by: CJ K 'f. 0 N ,, "' • 2 D • ~ ~ ~ " ~ ;: 0 "' 0: 0 m .; w < associated earth sciences Exnloration Loa I '--~~~~---~--""""""'--=--""-'-=-'-"'='--T -----~~---- Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet KE150719A EB-7 1 of 2 I Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop §: .c 15. " 0 r 10 r 15 r 20 r 25 -30 -35 ' ! ~ ' " Q. s: E T' "' (/) ! i S-1 ,-~ ,- I I S-4 I i l~E !~E . "' if!) ti) I I'' , . ·.· .. ·. ~ S-5 ! I • . I : ~ S-6 I I i I J S-7 p 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 p CO 01 p 0 C 01 0 ,, Sampler Type (ST): Sartori Education Center Renton. WA GDI / D50 Rig / HSA 140# / 30" DESCRIPTION Sod/Toru=oil Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River Very loose, moist, orangish brCJ\A/11, SAND, trace to some gravel; thin bed of tan silt near top of sample; thinly bedded with beds of finer and coarser sand (SP). Driller notes gravels. Medium dense, very moist, brO'Nfl, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; occasional organics (rootlets); stratified (GM-GP). Medium dense, wet, brO"W'Jl, sandy GRAVEL; occasional sandy silt interbeds; scattered rootlets; stratified (GM-GP). Driller adding mud at 20 feet Medium dense, wet, gray, fine SAND, some gravel, grading into sandy SILT; scattered rootlets; thinly bedded to laminated (SP) (ML). Loose/ medium stiff, wet, gray, interbedded fine SAND and sandy SILT; scattered organics; thinly bedded to laminated (SP/ML). Medium stiff, very moist, gray with some dark brown mottling, fine sandy SILT; occasional organics; laminated (ML). Driller notes gravels. Upper 18 inches of sample: As above. Lower 4 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, GRAVEL, trace silt; gravel is fractured (GP). --; LJ No Recovery M -Moisture I] Ring Sample ¥ Water Level() Ground Surtace Elevation (ft) -36 Datum -1N_../"'A'-------I Date Start/Finish --2t3L16,2f_.,3iw1u.6._ __ _ Hole Diameter (in) -1B~inncab-"e"s~----- I I ' I :f I Blows/Fool 10 20 30 40 2 1 •2 1 10 15 12 3' 5 6 2 4 6 2 1 4 ... 5 lt-11 I I ' t10 ! I i i 2 3 3 •e "'17 ! 16 8 8 Logged by: DMG Approved by: CJK OJ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) ] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) ~ Grab Sample [:I Shelby Tube Sample l' Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) -- associalea earth sciences Exploration Log ----- Project Number i KE150719A Exploration Number EB-7 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer WeighUDrop Sartori Education Center Rentoo, WA -------------------------------GOI / D50 Rig/ HSA ____________ _ 140# / 30" g i s " T 0 .::!!. ..c ..0 ~ -"o 1--c. c. E E ~ >- " Cl "' "' I -----s------ DESCRIPTION -45 r 50 r 55 60 r 65 ~ 70 -75 11 s.a I Dense, wet, gray, very gravelly SAND, some silt; stratified (SM-SP). lJ S-9 T . S-10 - I ~ I S-11 i ' S-12 I . I - . -_-_ . 0 · Dense, wet, gray, bedded SAND and sandy GRAVEL; gravel is fractured (SP/GP). 0 _--_ I _--i I .. I I ,, Driller notes less gravels. Upper 16 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet. gray, fine to medium SAND, some silt; bedded (SM-SP). Lower 4 inches of sample; Very stiff, very moist, gray and dark brown, SILT; abundant organics; laminated (ML). Upper 1 O inches of sample: Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND (SM-SP). Lower 8 inches; Stiff, wet, gray and dark brown, SILT: laminated (ML). Stiff, wet, gray and dark brown, fine sandy SILT; occasional fine sand interbeds; thinly bedded (ML). Bottom of el<ploration boring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 40 to 45 feet likely overstated due to gravels. Ground Surface Elevation (ft) --~3~6~-- Datum uNu,/A~~~~---- Date Start/Finish 2/3/16 213/16 Hole Diameter (in) ~S=in~c~b~e~' s~---- 11~1 21 7 4 5 3 3 6 I 10 ' i '\,g I 19 Blows/Foot 20 30 40 "42 J ~I---'-'-----'----------------------------'---'-~--'-'--'---'---'---'--'--I oi Sampler Type (ST): ;: ~ [l 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPD D No Recovery is ] 3" OD S~it Spoon Sampler (D & M) IJ Ring Sam~e M -Moisture '2-Water Level () l' Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Logged by: DMG Approved by: CJK fil :QJ Grab Sample lz:I Shelby Tube Sample <'---------------------------------------------------' assoc1a1ed earth sciences Project Number KE150719A Sartori Education Center Exnloration Loa Exploration Number EB-8 I Sheet 1 of 3 Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 I I I Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer WeighUDrop Renton.WA GDI / 050 Rig / HSA Datum _N._.,,/A..._ ______ _ Date Start/Finish 213/16 2/3/16 _ _ I 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) -8Jncbes--_____ _ '-----------------------------------------~-~~-------- 1 u -I .§ 1 ~--',, -5 10 ,_ 15 ~ 20 ' 25 ' 30 fl l:.c:.8 .... - s tie[ ii~il T rn,r.,u, E.l!l- Blows/Foot DESCRIPTION > "' I 00 Ji! "'1 10 20 30 40 .<·11··,, ,,.___________ Sod/To ..... oil I S-1 I ~ S-2 -' J ., :/t l S-4 'o .•• Quaternary Alluvium· Cedar River Very loose, moist, brownish orange, medium SAND; o~dized (SP). Driller notes gravels. Dense, moist, brO'Mlish orange, gravelly, medium to coarse SAND; blCJIN counts overstated; m<idized (SP). Very stiff, wet, brONnish gray, sandy SILT (ML). Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, trace silt (SW). Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Loose, wet, gray medium SAND (SP), Medium stiff, wet, dark brON11, SILT, trace wood debris (ML). Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND (SM). ' Medium stiff, wet, brON11lsh gray, fine sandy SILT (ML). l S-6 ' Stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; thinly bedded (ML). 1 1 •2 1 6 13 20, 2 10 11 2 2 •s i 3 3 4 4 lo.21 L 35 '- • ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I i I Very stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; laminated (ML). 3 j' "N<D i i S-7 5 & 7 I , Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SANO; stratified (SP). 121 i I Driller notes gravels. 1 1 I ] I j' ,l' I' i' I ~ I "1-----'--'---'----'-----------------------------'--'----"-----"------'----_l_ _ _!__ _ _L__L--' m Sampler Type (ST): ~ [ 2" OD Splrr Spoon Sampler (SPT) [J No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: TWL I oc [I] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) IJ Ring Sample 'Si. Water Level () Approved by: CJK I [QJ Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample .Y. Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) I <'--------''---------....::;_ _ _:_ ___ .;_ _________________________ __, ® associated Exoloration_!,_c:,g__ ·--- earth sciences Project Number I Exploration Number r---Sheet '' KE150719A EB-8 I 2 of 3 Project Name Sartori Education Center .-----Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Location .Benton. WA Datum r,J/A_ ---- Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA Date Start/Finish 2/.3/.16,2/3/1.6 ____ Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" -----------Hole Diameter (in) 8 iocbes -------- §: C ] = ~ ~ lu-=i -! f[ _g ID "' Blows/Foot ~ % -' ;;; ID-~ ~ s E I~~ s~ ID O ~ ID T cii 1~ U) ~co .c 0 0 6 DESCRIPTION () I 10 20 30 40 l Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine SAND; stratified (SP). •' I S-8 Medium dense, wet, orange, fine SAND; stratified (SP). I 121 .&23: ·.-:-. Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND (SM). 11 i:-l. I I ' lj I I I ! I , i h-b ' ' ' -45 Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL (GP). I IJ S-9 , , ',I 5 ~29 15 f:: :1 ! 14 I I ~ 0 0 I ~': Driller notes gravels. ' I -50 111""( Medium dense, wet, brownish gray, sandy GRAVEL (GP). 6 '..t.22 11 ! 11 ' ' p 0 ! i I ' a 0 0 ! i O (• ~ b 0 0 ' -55 I 1"'( Loose, wet, brownish gray, sandy GRAVEL (GP). 4 "'s I Ash interbed. 13 ·2 Very stiff, wet, brovmish gray, fine sandy SILT: laminated (ML). -60 u Medium stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; with organic rich and sandy :, S-12• interbeds; thinly bedded to laminated (ML). •3 .6.7 1· ! -65 I S-13 I i ' I Stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML). I 2 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel (SP). , • .0.13 ! g I ' ! I I i I ~ 70 ' I I I Hard, wet, brO'Wnish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML). 13 , S-14 Dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND (SM). !10: '°'36 Dense, wet, gray, gravelly, medium SAND (SP). 125 I ' ' Driller notes gravels at 71.5 feet. I i i I ' i ~ 75 ' Medium dense, wet, brownish gray, silty, fine SANO, with wood-rich interbeds ' I 1, ~ ~ S-15 i ... 0 (1/2 to 3 inches thick); thinly bedded (SP). I i10 28 N I 1 14 1 ci I I I ~ ' I ' I 2 -' ! ! ~ I • ~ j I. ~ i I i ~ Sampler Type (ST): m ;:: [J D No Recovery 0 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) M -Moisture Logged by: 1WL ~ ~ [IJ 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample y Water Level () Approved by: CJK 0 ~ f.W1 LJ ~ Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) " ~ Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample w < ®' associated Exnloration Loa ' earth sciences Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet I 1 ,, ' KE150719A EB-8 3 of 3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 I Location RentQn, WA Datum Ill/A Driller/Equipment GDI I D50 Rig / HSA Date Start/Finish 2/3116 213116 I Hammer Weight/Drop 140# I 30" Hole Diameter (in) -8inches_ I ~' g ~ lu-: C: 1 . -;;; t ·-0 I ,g~"' Blows/Foot ': I .c .0 != Q} u.i £ c. E l<llo. ... ~ C. s, E I'.! >, i~ E $ .Q " " Ti " <!) U) I 8 ~"' £ Cl U) DESCRIPTION 01 I . 10 20 30 40 I· S-16 •.-. Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND (SM/SP). 6 "'22 I 8 I w, I 14 i ; I I ' I I ' ' ' r ' I L 85 ~ I i S-17 No recovery. 10! 1 ... ,3 9 I . Driller notes sand and silt interbeds . 14 I . I I I I I i I ! i ' I L 90 i ' 1}6 I S-18~ Very stiff, very moist, gray, CLAY; high plasticity; laminated (CH). ! A 18 ' ------ I I ' Bottom of e)(Jlloration boring at 91.5 feat I I Note: Blew count from 40 to 50 feet and from 70 to 75 feet likely overstated due I I I to gravels. I I I ' 95 ! I I ' ' I I i ! -100 ' ' I i I I ' I I I I ' -105 ! I I I I I I I "---11 a ' ' ' I I I I 1----115 I I Sampler Type (ST): [I] 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) D No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: lWL [I] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) [ Ring Sample ¥ Water Level () Approved by: CJK ~ GrabSampe 2J Shelby Tube Sample .!'. Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 r-~ --~ 1" = 100 FE ET m ' . J -,'--I ~/-~·-~-· ( illolo :a 200 I 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 1620, Seattle, WA 98101 206.267.2425 TE L 206.267 .24 29 FAX SARTORI ELEMENTARY EXISTIN G CONDI T IO NS M A P ""-·· ____ ... __ _. .1.L-:-nnr '--------1:.-.-.1.:-.-•L-.... .a. ;_ --• 1:.--.---""' •--... :-• •---., . .-nr'lr--... :-•-. ... I L-+.a. ..... 11 ............. _,, .... -...1-' ................. \ N A-3 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 200 ~..-~ I 1" = 100 FEET 1200 6t h Avenue, Su ite 1620, Seattle, WA 98101 206.267.2425 TEL 206.267.2429 FAX N SARTORI ELEMENTARY SITE PLAN "'-·· _____ .,. __ ....... L : ..... nnr , ___ -----•: ........ : ... -.a.L-..... .a. : ..... __ .., ,: _____ ............. __ ;_., ..... __ ,, ... nnr _ .. ;_ .. __ IL....._._,,, .............................. ....1, ___ , A-4 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 200 --~----L....a· -~ I 1"=100FEET EXISTING BASIN 1 TOTAL AREA: 187,529 SF IMPERVIOUS: 109,491 SF GRAVEL: 3,188 SF LAWN: 74,850 SF TOT AL PERVIOUS: ~ 111 ::t: :: 2 :~enue, N BASIN 3 4.30 AC 2.51 AC 0.07 AC 1.72 AC 1.79 AC EXISTING BASIN 2 TOTAL AREA: 44,751 SF IMPERVIOUS: 27,326 SF GRAVEL: 1,251 SF LAWN : 16,174 SF TOTAL PERVIOUS EXISTING BASIN 3 TOT AL AREA: 15,179 SF GRAVEL: 1,486 SF LAWN : 13,693 SF TOT AL PERVIOUS: 1.03 AC 0.63 AC 0.03 AC 0.37 AC 0.40 AC 0.34 AC 0.03 AC 0.31 AC I 0.34 A_C _ j I ..,,; ~ Seattl e, WA 98101 SARTORI ELEMENTARY ~I l~•:::::::::;::::::j============:=::=:::::::::=::==~:::::=:~=:::::L =-~::===~~=E=X=IS=:T=I N=G=-=B=:~~S=IN=M==A=P=-===-==:=='~ -~~5 __ BASIN 1 I D D D D D BASIN 2 I I o o o_o GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 --~---L.a· -~ 1"=100FEET m 200 I DEVELOPED BASIN 1 TOTAL AREA: 187 ,135 SF IMPERVIOUS: 133810 SF LAWN : 53,325 SF SOCCER: (21 ,609 SF TOTAL PERVIOUS: 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 1620, Seattle, WA 98101 206.267.2425 TEL 206.267.2429 FAX 4.30 AC 3.07 AC 1.23 AC 0.50 AC) 1.73 AC N BASIN 3 D D DEVELOPED BASIN 2 TOTAL AREA: 44 ,749 SF IMPERVIOUS: 36,416 SF LAWN: 8,333 SF TOTAL PERVIOUS: DEVELOPED BASIN 3 TOTAL AREA: 15,179 SF IMPERVIOUS: 7,590 SF LAWN: 7,590 SF SOCCER: (15,179SF TOTAL PERVIOUS: SARTORI ELEMENTARY DEVELOPED BASIN MAP 1.0 3 AC 0.84 AC 0.19 AC 0.19 AC 0.34 AC 0.17 AC 0.17 AC 0.34 AC) 0.17 AC A-6 ~1 ~ ~-~ ~-1•-·lr.ti ~-ro <;_ ~ -:., .... ... "" )> -" '""'-'" 1<. <: i " ~ Ahport W_Qyo, t!>,,.,... ~ ~ k ~ ., S <n<t St g>_ ~-~-.J S 3rd St /'-:1< . I ~- '5-0 Y,<?f.;~; _s _t ~--~~\ 7th St sl'd , ~ G'~c Y '\ I --"'j VJ ____ s VJ ~ .. ,, -' >.;:. «: «: g -~ 6th sr . ___ l .t~ i ,ii; 81 § "~\el of "' k . 'Z ,~r , I I ~ .• ,~ I I ~ I ' i i "'' ~ :I SE 1_28th St --r.-::. - .. §" -·-.... -··· ,. .. ~ ·-.. ..: • !JJ • • .... -... '!..._ ···~ ~ . ...-.) k ~ i. .. .1 • .. -.. -.. -.. -.. , :g ' I -·1 (' : -: I . .... I . :.. .. _,.. : : I ···"'I I • ! fl • -.. -, 2 r9 ) ' .. _.. "1• ..... _ .. __ .. • C c;. ,,-, .. a 1..., . ( ...... - : \ ! i ·-~"-• .. -··-··~ . l ~ "'·•,. <.. I ·- -~""~ -~· «,/ ~ .7,..J,-';;c-_ .. ,,. ', -~I . ; :· r.r;~ I <? .,~' ··~·L_ -\.."'· r~ ..... k -,l ~ \°'\ I /<./l ' \ \ \ <,'~ . \ \.\_ ;;.. I '<~q \!f' PugeJ Cr / • k ~ : ::2/ nesRd_/ -----.. --"t ' ~~ SE:J 0= ~ -----~-'!!o.!.o.l ~ -, i ----~. -~ \ "t, . . ' \ . ~,..,......... _ ...... ~ .. " .. , ) r '"-·· s VJ 14Jh St 1st_§!__ ~ ~ ~ w .TI . .J..·-··"-- 521~!..S U T' -, -- / I ' 1k \~ \ ~ \~ l \0 ' 'of 5' ~ -n .,_ 0, r:J ' ~_i1St I s ear,f .0 ~~ \ ' ,UJ \ J .:p :S "' ('-~ ," -Q.f'\ ,_<;;. cs'' Rd-~ ,/ 4t / '(~:\ .i· -· ;, ~. k ,k l I SE 168th St -I ·--- UJ VJ ~ «:' ~I :::l -r ' I ) k r I ~k tl.."'\ VJ . .,. I "I "i ~-s , • ~ ' __ :J ~·_) __ ,.,. ii' ......... -- ! ! i . '· ·~ ti'" ,·-·· : ! i , ... • I : l ~ .. -.. _ .. _,._ L. , .. -·-=-. _ _,/ ,....--· I k tu "' ---~I ,,: "' ,S I ,_"4l ~ ~~. k ~ _SE ~83rds1 "'o '\ '-«' -, ~---- ,,: :S -= ,----------·--·-·· ! ~--,' . k i -. ~ -// , : ,·, / ///· ,.; ,t192ndSt I r' ' ·' r ,. : ,f , /, / I , . , ' ,-.. -··-·-·~"."·~-·-·--r k-_,.-... / . ,,.., J . ., .. _/, ..,_I rnty i on, not guaranteed i best information ap is intended for e Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet ~ ~ '<:: ~i {,,~J Re nton City Limit s k Edu cation 4l Fire Station K Valley Medical Center '~~'i ) ':.~i~- k ~ ~ ,,: s "' ~ 0 iles Aquifer Protection Zone 1 ~ Z o n e 1 M o d ifi e d Zone 2 ,,,,. t. C ityof '-~'\, ",..\, r r,.\, ';;,,\ k ", \ A-7 \ NOR TH 5TH ii UJ LU w I-:::, :::, :::, (JJ z z z (JJ w llJ w £ > ~ > <( <( (/) I I I I I NO RTH I I 4TH I I H ) ,if /I ~ UJ Cf) z a: 2 :::, <( [!) ::; Cf) >-_J -' "" -' _J a: ? LI,) _J s LU <( CL CL 3RD I NORTH I 2ND I "' ::, z u.J :;';: z <( <.'.J 0 STR EET -' ~1 111~ ~1 I f-::, 0 0 (/) (/) (/) STREU CITY OF RE I z s300 8s I UJ 0 ~ l~ITI= I STR EET I \1 I "''l' f-a: 0 0 I NO RTH z f---a:: STREET 0 z I I STR EET I I I !\ J "~ :::) z ~ ~ N ~ .. -- I NORTH 2ND STR[ET I 1 11 !§ I srn i:u ~I SI gl 6 1 I I I <( UJ 2~J 'i' ~ • APPR O XIMATE SCALE I N FEE T 500 0 500 111!111111111 11111 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 1111 11111111 111111 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 1)!1111 11111 111111 KING CO U N TY ' WASH INGTON AND 11111 1111 1111 111!1 IN CO RP ORA T ED AREAS ................. PANEL 977 OF 1725 I SfC: MAP INDE X FOR PANELS NO T PF1 1'1 -rco1 111111111 111111111 11 11 111111 11111111 co_011y~TY. 1111 11111 11 1111111 J~;~~0~;;"~;,o '"'"' 1:U\IBEP PA~L_ _!,VfFI X "'°"" (i9l7 <;'.\QI~ "''' MAP NUMBER 53033C09n F MAP REVISED: MAY 16 , 1995 This is a n officia l copy of a ponion o f t he above referenced fl ood map. It was e xtra c ted usmg F -M IT O n-Li n e . This m ap d oes not reflect c h a n ges I or amen dmen ts which may h ave bee n m a de s ubseque nt to t h e date a n the t it l e bloc k . Far t he l at est prod uc t i nformation a bout Natio n a l F lood Insurance Progra m fl ood m aps; check the FE M A F lood Map S t ore at www.m s c .fem a .gov 00 I <t: KCRTS input file timeseries.EXC KCRTS Program ... File Directory: c:\kc_swdm\kc_DATA\ [C] CREATE a new Time series ST 0.00 0.00 1. 79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. 51 Existingl .tsf T 1.00000 T 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0 .000000 Till Pasture 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.000000 outwash Grass 0.000000 wetland 0 .000000 Impervious [TJ Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [PJ compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Exi sti ngl. tsf Existingl.pks [DJ compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Exi sti ngl. tsf Exi sti ngl. dur F F 36 -0.999990E+l5 -0 .999990E+l5 [RJ [CJ ST o.oo 0.00 1. 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.07 Proposedl. tsf T 1 .00000 T RETURN to Previous Menu CREATE a new Time series o.oo 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.000000 Till Pa s ture 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 outwash Forest 0.000000 outwa s h Pas ture 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.000000 wetland 0.000000 I mpervious [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [PJ Compute PEAKS a nd Flow Frequencies Proposedl. tsf Proposedl.pks [DJ comput e Flow DURATION and Exceedence Proposedl.t s f Proposedl.dur F F 36 -0.999990E+l5 -0.999990E+15 [R] RE TURN to Previous Menu [C] CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 outwash Fore s t 0.000000 Outwa s h Pasture Page 1 ''-·· _ ....... ,... ......... ...J .a.a...:-n nr-, ___ -----•=--•=--... i.... ...... : ................ •=-----...1 ...... __ ;_ ......... --··-nnr _ .. ;_ ... __ , .... ....,_.,, ......... --··--....,, ---' A-9 0.00 0.00 0 .00 Bypass 1. tsf T 1.00000 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 timeseries.EXC 0 .000000 outwash Grass 0 .000000 Wetland 0.000000 Impervious [T] [P] Bypassl. tsf Bypassl.pks [DJ Bypassl.tsf Bypassl.dur Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence F F 36 -0.999990E+15 -0.999990E+l5 [R] RETURN to Previous Menu [CJ CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.63 Existing2.tsf T 1.00000 T 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass Outwash Forest outwash Pasture outwash Grass Wetland Impervious [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Existing2.tsf Existing2.pks [DJ compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Existing2.tsf Existing2.dur F F 36 -0.999990E+l5 -0.999990E+15 [R] [C] ST 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 Proposed2.tsf T 1.00000 RETURN to Previous Menu CREATE a new Time series 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass outwash Forest outwash Pasture Outwash Grass Wetland Impervious T [T] [P] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Page 2 ''-·· ----4 -..J •L-.:-nr..r-l --......... -----•=--.1.=--.1,L .... ,1. : ... __ ., 1:-................ ..J .L .... __ ;_,.. ................... nr..r __ : ............... JL-u _.,, .. _._., --··--..J~ ---\ A-9 timeseries.EXC Proposed2 .tsf Proposed2 .pks [DJ compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Proposed2.tsf Proposed2.dur F F 36 -0.999990E+15 -0.999990E+15 [RJ [CJ ST 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bypass2 .tsf T 1.00000 T RETURN to Previous Menu CREATE a new Time Series 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .000000 Till Forest 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.000000 outwash Pasture 0 .000000 outwash Grass 0.000000 wetland 0 .000000 Impervious [TJ [PJ Bypass2.tsf By[)ass2 .pks [DJ Bypass2.tsf Bypass2.dur Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence F F 36 -0.999990E+l5 -0.999990E+l5 [RJ RETURN to Previous Menu [CJ CREATE a new Time series ST 0 .00 0.00 0 .31 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .03 Existing3.tsf T 1.00000 T 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass outwash Forest outwash Pasture outwash Grass wetland Impervious [TJ Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [PJ compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Existing3 .tsf Existing3 .pk s [DJ compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Existing3.tsf Existing3.dur F F 36 -0.999990E+l5 Page 3 ''-·. -----"'-..1 .&.L.:-nnr ,Z. ___ -----•=--•:--"'L--• ;_ --" ,; _____ .., •--..-:-• •-..... .-.. -nnr ........ : ..... , ....... lkw-.11 .• -·-·· ................... .,J, ---' A -9 -0 .999990E+l5 [RJ [CJ ST 0 .00 0.00 0.17 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.17 Proposed3.tsf T 1.00000 T timeseries.EXC RETURN to Previous Menu CREATE a new Time series 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .000000 Till Forest 0 .000000 Till Pasture 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.000000 outwa s h Grass 0 .000000 wetland 0 .000000 Imp e rvious [TJ Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [PJ compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Proposed3.tsf Proposed3.pks [DJ compute Flow DURATION and Exceedence Proposed3.tsf Proposed3.dur F F 36 -0.999990E+l5 -0.999990E+15 [RJ [CJ ST 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 By pa s s 3.tsf T 1 .00000 T RETURN to Previous Menu CREATE a new Time Series 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0 .000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Till Fo rest Ti ll Pasture Till Grass outwash Forest outwa s h Pas ture ou t was h Gr ass We t l a nd Impe r viou s [TJ Enter the An a lys i s TOOL S Module [PJ compu te PEAKS a nd Flow Fr e qu e ncies Byp ass 3.tsf Bypass3.pks [DJ compute Flow DU RAT I ON and Exc eeden c e Byp ass 3 .t s f Bypas s 3.dur F F 36 -0.99 9990E+l 5 -0.999990 E+15 [RJ RETU RN to Pr evious Me nu [XJ e x i t KCRTS Progra m Page 4 ,,.-.. ----•-...J .. a...:-nnr ~--------1 ; __ .,; __ •L--• ;_ --• ,; _____ _, •---:-• •---··-nnr-__ ;_.,_ ... t L.,.u-.,1 ......... --· ........... ..,, ----' A-9 KCRTS Pipe 1 Retention/Detent i on Facil i ty T ype of Facil i ty : Tank Diameter : Tank Length: Effective Storage Depth: Stage O Elevation: Storage Volume: Rise r Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Tank 3.00 ft 500 .00 ft 3 .00 ft 0. 00 ft 353 4 . cu . f t 3 .00 ft 12.00 inches 3 Fu l l Head P i pe Orifi ce# Height (ft) 0 .00 0 .50 1. 4 0 Diameter (in) 0.10 5 .56 2.80 Discharge (CFS) 0.000 1. 327 0 .269 Diameter (in) 1 2 3 T op Notch Weir : None Outflow Rat i ng Curve : None Stage (ft) 0 .00 0 .01 0 .11 0.21 0 .31 0 .41 0 .50 0 .56 0 .62 0 .6 7 0 .73 0 .7 9 0 .85 0 .9 1 0 . 96 1. 02 1.12 1.22 1. 32 1. 40 1. 43 1. 46 1. 49 1. 52 1.55 1.58 1. 60 1. 63 1. 7 3 E l evat i on (ft) 0 .00 0 .0 1 0 .11 0.21 0 .31 0.41 0 .5 0 0 .56 0 .62 0 .6 7 0.73 0.7 9 0 .85 0 .91 0. 96 1. 02 1.12 1. 22 1. 32 1. 40 1. 43 1. 46 1. 4 9 1. 52 1. 55 1. 58 1. 60 1. 63 1. 7 3 Storage (cu . f t ) (ac-ft ) 0 . 0 .000 1. 42 . 1 0 9 . 193 . 290. 38 7 . 4 56 . 527 . 589. 665. 7 43 . 824 . 906 . 975 . 1060 . 1203 . 1350 . 1 498 . 1 61 7 . 1662. 1 7 0 7 . 1752. 1 79 7 . 1 842. 1887 . 1 91 7 . 1962. 2111. 0 .000 0 .0 01 0 .002 0 .004 0 .0 07 0 .009 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 2 0.0 1 4 0.0 1 5 0.01 7 0 .0 1 9 0.0 2 1 0.0 22 0 .024 0 .028 0 .031 0 .034 0 .03 7 0 .038 0 .039 0.040 0 .041 0.042 0 .043 0.044 0.045 0.048 8 .0 6 .0 Discha rg e (cfs) 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0.009 0 .03 7 0.080 0 .140 0.2 13 0.495 0 .535 0.572 0.606 0.662 0.7 1 3 0 . 7 61 0 . 7 97 0 . 811 0 .830 0 .852 0 .8 7 8 0.907 0 . 9 4 0 0.9 7 6 0.997 1. 060 Perco la tion (cfs) 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.0 0 0.00 0 .0 0 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 A-9 1. 83 1. 83 2258 . 0 .05 2 1 .110 0 .00 1. 93 1. 93 2403 . 0 .055 1 .1 60 0.00 2.03 2 .03 2545 . 0 .058 1 . 210 0 .00 2 .13 2 .13 2684 . 0 .062 1 .260 0.00 2 .23 2 .23 2817 . 0.065 1.300 0.00 2 .33 2.33 2945. 0.068 1 .3 40 0 .00 2 .43 2 .43 3067 . 0 .070 1 .380 0.00 2 .53 2 .53 3180 . 0 .073 1 .4 20 0 .00 2.63 2 .63 3284. 0.075 1 .460 0 .00 2.73 2 .7 3 33 77 . 0 .078 1 .500 0 .00 2 .83 2 .83 3455 . 0 .079 1 .540 0.00 2 .93 2.9 3 3513. 0.081 1.570 0 .00 3.00 3 .00 3534 . 0 .081 1 .600 0 .00 3.10 3 .10 3534. 0 .08 1 1 . 940 0.00 3.20 3.20 3534 . 0.081 2 .5 40 0 .00 3.30 3 .30 3534 . 0.081 3 .300 0 .00 3.40 3 .40 3534 . 0.081 4.120 0 .00 3 .50 3.50 3534. 0 .081 4 .440 0.00 3.60 3.60 3534. 0 .08 1 4.720 0.00 3 .7 0 3.70 3534 . 0 .081 4 .990 0.00 3 .80 3.80 3534. 0 .081 5 .240 0 .00 3.90 3.90 3534. 0 .081 5 .470 0 .00 4 .00 4 .00 3534. 0 .08 1 5 .700 0.00 4 .1 0 4.10 3534. 0.081 5.910 0.00 4 .20 4.20 3534 . 0 .081 6 .110 0 .00 4 .30 4.30 3534 . 0 .081 6 .310 0 .00 4 .40 4.40 3534 . 0.08 1 6 .500 0 .00 4 .50 4 .50 3534 . 0.081 6 .690 0 .00 4 .6 0 4 .6 0 3534 . 0.081 6.860 0 .00 4 .70 4 .70 3534 . 0 .081 7 .040 0 .00 4 .80 4.80 3534 . 0 .081 7 .21 0 0 .00 4 .90 4 .90 3534. 0 .081 7 .370 0 .00 5.00 5 .00 3534 . 0.081 7 .530 0 .00 Hyd I nfl ow Outflow Peak Storage Targe t Cale Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (A c -Ft) 1 1. 7 1 1. 56 1. 56 2 .91 2 . 9 1 3502 . 0 .080 2 1.1 5 ******* 0 .93 1. 57 1. 57 1877. 0 .043 3 1. 02 0.93 0 . 91 1. 55 1. 55 1848 . 0 .042 4 0.94 ******* 0 .83 1. 46 1. 4 6 1 711 . 0 .0 39 5 0 .91 ******* 0 .82 1. 45 1. 45 1694 . 0 .039 6 0 .85 0.77 0 .77 1. 35 1. 35 15 44 . 0 .035 7 0.79 ******* 0 .67 1.13 1.13 1214. 0 .028 8 0.71 ******* 0 .61 1. 03 1. 03 1 080 . 0 .025 A-9 ,,_,. _ ....... _ .. _ _. .1.L-:-nnr , ___ ---............ 1:-....... : .... -.a.1... ...... : ... --• 1: _____ _, ,1, .... __ :_ ......... --··-nnr __ :_ ... __ tL.1.-1. ..... 1 , .• _____ --··---'' ---\ KCRTS Pipe 2 Retention/Detention Faci li ty Type of Facility: Tank Diameter: Tank Length: Effective Storage Depth: Stage O Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of ori fices: Or ifice # Height (ft) 1 0 .0 0 2 0.50 3 1. 80 Detention Tank 4 .00 ft 90.00 ft 4.00 ft 0 .00 1131. 4 .00 12 .00 3 Diameter (in) 0.10 2 .50 1. 30 ft cu. ft ft inches Full Head Discharge (CFS) 0.001 0 .317 0 .068 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Pipe Diameter (in) 6 .0 4. 0 Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft ) (ft) (cu . ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0 .00 0 . 0.000 0 .000 0 .00 0 .01 0.01 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.1 1 0 .11 9. 0.000 0 .0 00 0.00 0 .21 0 . 21 23. 0.001 0.000 0.00 0.3 1 0 .31 40. 0.001 0.000 0.00 0 .4 1 0 .41 61. 0.0 01 0.000 0 .00 0.50 0.50 82. 0.002 0.000 0 .00 0 .5 3 0 .53 89. 0.002 0.002 0 .00 0 .55 0 .55 94. 0.002 0.006 0 .00 0.58 0 .58 101. 0 .002 0 .0 1 5 0 .00 0 .60 0 .60 106. 0.002 0.026 0 .00 0.63 0.63 114 . 0.003 0.039 0 .00 0 .66 0 .66 1 22 . 0.003 0.056 0 .00 0.68 0 .68 128. 0 .003 0 .073 0 .00 0 .7 1 0.7 1 136 . 0.003 0.0 7 8 0 .00 0.8 1 0 .81 164. 0.004 0.094 0 .00 0 .91 0 .9 1 194. 0.004 0 .109 0 .00 1. 0 1 1. 0 1 224 . 0.0 05 0 .121 0.0 0 1.11 1.11 256 . 0.0 0 6 0 .133 0 .00 1. 2 1 1.21 289 . 0 .007 0 .143 0 .00 1. 3 1 1. 3 1 3 2 2. 0.007 0 .1 53 0 .0 0 1. 41 1. 4 1 356. 0.008 0 .162 0 .00 1. 5 1 1. 5 1 391. 0 .009 0 .1 7 1 0 .0 0 1. 61 1. 6 1 4 2 6. 0.010 0 .1 79 0 .00 1. 7 1 1. 7 1 462. 0 . 011 0 .1 8 7 0 .0 0 1. 80 1. 80 494 . 0 . 0 11 0 .1 94 0.00 1. 81 1. 8 1 497. 0. 0 11 0 .1 95 0 .00 1. 83 1. 83 504. 0 .012 0 .1 97 0 .0 0 1. 84 1. 84 508 . 0 .012 0 .20 0 0.00 ,,_,. ----•-..J ,1,L...: ... nnr , ___ -----•=--•:--,1,L.. .... .a. : ... --• ,: _____ _. •-_ .. ;_ ... •---·--r""llr"'\r--... : ...... _ ... IL-..,....._.,, ..... -.................... ..JS.---' A-9 1. 85 1. 85 51 2. 0 .012 0.203 0 .00 1. 87 1. 87 519 . 0.01 2 0 .20 7 0 .00 1. 88 1. 88 522 . 0 .012 0 .2 1 2 0 .00 1. 8 9 1. 89 526 . 0 .012 0. 215 0 .00 1. 91 1. 9 1 533 . 0.0 12 0. 217 0 .00 2 .01 2 .01 5 69. 0 . 013 0.230 0.00 2 .11 2 .11 605 . 0 .014 0 .241 0 .00 2.21 2 .21 641. 0 .015 0.251 0 .00 2.3 1 2 .31 6 77 . 0.016 0 .261 0 .00 2 .41 2.41 7 1 2 . 0 .016 0 . 270 0.00 2 .51 2 .51 7 4 7 . 0 .017 0 . 279 0.00 2 .6 1 2 .6 1 782 . 0 .0 18 0.288 0.0 0 2 .71 2 .7 1 816. 0 .019 0 .296 0.0 0 2.81 2 .8 1 8 49. 0 .019 0 .304 0 .00 2 .91 2.9 1 8 81. 0 .0 20 0 .31 2 0 .00 3.0 1 3.0 1 913. 0 . 021 0 .319 0.00 3 .11 3 .11 94 4 . 0 .022 0 .327 0 .00 3 .21 3.2 1 973. 0 .022 0 .334 0.0 0 3 .31 3.3 1 100 1 . 0 .023 0 .341 0 .00 3.41 3.4 1 1027 . 0 .02 4 0 .348 0.00 3 .5 1 3.5 1 1 052. 0.024 0 .354 0 .00 3.61 3.61 1074 . 0 .0 25 0 .361 0 .00 3 .7 1 3 .71 1 094 . 0 .025 0 .368 0 .00 3 .81 3 .81 1111. 0 .0 2 6 0.374 0 .00 3 .91 3.91 1 125 . 0 .026 0.380 0 .00 4 .0 0 4.00 1131 . 0 .026 0 .386 0 .00 4 .10 4.1 0 1131 . 0 .026 0.700 0.00 4 .20 4 .20 1131 . 0 .026 1. 270 0.00 4 .30 4 .3 0 1131. 0.026 2 .000 0 .00 4 .40 4 .40 1131 . 0 .026 2 .800 0 .00 4 .50 4 .50 1131 . 0.026 3 .0 90 0 .00 4 .60 4 .60 11 31 . 0 .026 3 .350 0 .00 4 .70 4 .7 0 11 31 . 0 .026 3 .59 0 0 .00 4.80 4 .80 11 31 . 0 .026 3 .810 0 .00 4.90 4 .90 11 31 . 0.0 26 4.020 0 .00 5 .00 5 .00 1131. 0.026 4.220 0 .00 5.10 5 .10 1131. 0 .026 4.410 0.0 0 5 .2 0 5 .20 1131 . 0 .026 4 .600 0 .00 5 .30 5.30 1131. 0 .0 26 4 .770 0.00 5.40 5 .40 11 31 . 0 . 02 6 4 .9 4 0 0 .00 5 .50 5 .50 1131 . 0 . 02 6 5 .1 00 0.00 5.6 0 5 .60 1131 . 0 .026 5 .260 0 .00 5 .70 5 .7 0 113 1 . 0 .0 26 5 .4 1 0 0.00 5.80 5 .8 0 1131. 0 .026 5 .560 0 .00 5 .90 5 .90 1131. 0 .026 5 .700 0.00 6.00 6.00 113 1 . 0.026 5.840 0 .00 Hyd I nflow Out f low Peak Storage Ta r get Cale Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0 .44 0 .38 0 .38 3 .98 3 .98 11 30 . 0 .02 6 2 0 .31 ******* 0.23 2.0 4 2 .04 578. 0. 013 3 0 .26 0 .23 0 .23 1. 99 1. 99 563 . 0 . 013 4 0 .25 ******* 0 .22 1. 9 4 1. 94 542. 0 .0 1 2 5 0 .23 ******* 0 .22 1. 9 1 1. 91 533. 0.0 1 2 A-9 ''-·· ____ ,.. _ _..a...:_ nnr , ___ -----1:--.. :--•L--• :.-. --• ,; _____ _. •-__ ;_ .... _ --··-nnr __ ;_., __ 1L.. ... -,11 ..... -•• --··--.J ' ---' 6 7 8 0.22 0.19 0.21 ******* 0.19 ******* 0.19 0.17 0.15 1. 79 1. 49 1. 33 1. 79 1. 49 1. 33 Route Time Series through Facility I nflow Time Series File:proposed2.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout2 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.437 CFS Peak Outflow Discharge : 0.385 CFS Peak Reservo i r Stage : 3.98 Ft Peak Reservo i r Elev : 3.98 Ft at at Peak Reservoir Storage : 1130 . Cu-Ft 0 .026 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Ti me Series F i le :rdout2.tsf Project Locat i on :Sea-Tac 4 90 . 384 . 330 . 6:00 on 8:00 on Jan Jan 0. 011 0 .009 0 .008 9 in 9 in Year 8 Year 8 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Ana l ysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Pea k --Peaks --Ran k Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.193 6 2/09/01 4:00 0.385 3.98 1 100 .00 0.990 0 .1 55 8 1/05/02 1 7 :0 0 0 .233 2 .04 2 25 .00 0.960 0 .22 8 3 2/27/03 8 :00 0 .228 1. 99 3 10 .00 0 .900 0.169 7 8/26/04 3 :00 0.220 1. 94 4 5 .00 0 .800 0.220 4 10/28/04 18:00 0 .217 1. 91 5 3 .00 0 .667 0 .217 5 1/18/06 17:00 0 .193 1. 79 6 2 .00 0 .500 0 .233 2 10/26/06 1:00 0.169 1. 49 7 1. 30 0 .231 0 .385 1 1/09/08 8:00 0 .155 1. 33 8 1.10 0 .091 Computed Peaks 0 .334 3 .21 50.00 0 .980 '/-,, _.., __ ., _ _. ....... :_ nl""\1, .. __ -----1:--•:--•L..-• :---• 1:-......... -.... ..J •--... : ....... •-..... _ ....... nnr--... : ................ 11...u _,,, ......... --··--..J' ---\ A-9 KCRTS Pipe 3 Retention/Detention Faci l ity Type of Facility: Tank Diameter: Tank Le ng th : Effective Storage Depth: S tage O Elevation: Storage Volume : Riser Head : Ri ser Diameter: Numb er of orifice s : Detention Tank 3.00 f t 220 .00 ft 3 .0 0 f t 0 .00 ft 1555 . cu . ft 3 . 00 ft 12 .00 inches 3 Ful l Head P i pe Orifice# Height (ft) 0.00 0 .50 1. 26 Diameter (in ) 0.10 1. 00 0 .60 Discharge (CFS ) 0.000 0 .043 0 .013 Diamet er (in) 1 2 3 T o p Notch Weir: No ne Out flow Rating Curve: None Stage El evation Storage (ft) (ft) (cu. ft ) (ac-ft) 0 .00 0 .00 0 . 0 .000 0 .0 1 0 .01 1. 0 .000 0 .11 0 .11 18 . 0 .000 0 .21 0 .21 48 . 0 .001 0.3 1 0 .3 1 85. 0 .002 0 .41 0 .41 12 8 . 0 .003 0.50 0.50 170. 0 .004 0 .51 0 .51 1 75 . 0 .00 4 0 .52 0 .52 180. 0 .00 4 0.53 0.53 1 85 . 0 .00 4 0 .54 0 .54 190 . 0.004 0 .55 0 .55 195 . 0 .004 0 .56 0.56 201. 0 .0 05 0 .57 0.57 206 . 0 .005 0 .58 0.58 211. 0.005 0 .68 0.68 265 . 0.006 0 .78 0 .78 321. 0 .007 0 .88 0 .88 380 . 0 .009 0 .98 0 .98 441. 0 .0 10 1. 08 1. 08 50 4 . 0.012 1.1 8 1.18 568 . 0.013 1.26 1. 26 620 . 0.014 1.27 1. 27 626. 0 .014 1.28 1.28 633 . 0 .015 1. 29 1.29 639 . 0 .015 1. 30 1. 30 646 . 0 .015 1. 31 1. 31 653. 0 .015 1. 4 1 1. 41 718. 0 .016 1. 5 1 1. 51 784 . 0 .018 4 .0 4.0 Discharge (c fs) 0.000 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .001 0 .002 0 .003 0 .005 0 .007 0 .008 0 .008 0 .0 1 2 0 .0 1 5 0.0 1 7 0 .019 0 .021 0.023 0 .02 4 0 .024 0 .025 0 .026 0. 027 0 .027 0 .030 0 .032 Percola t ion (cfs) 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 '~-•• __ _._ .... .a. .... ...J ... a...:-. nnr-,,.. __ ........ ___ ,: _ _...a.: ........ .a.1... .... ,1. : ............. .a. 1: ..................... ...,,1 •--.. : .... .a.•-.............. nnr--.. : .............. 1t...u-.r 1 ............................ ..J, ___ , A-9 Hyd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. 6 1 1. 71 1. 81 1. 91 2 .01 2 .11 2.21 2 .31 2 .4 1 2.5 1 2 .6 1 2 .71 2.8 1 2.91 3.00 3.1 0 3 .20 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.60 3.70 3.80 3 .90 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4 .40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4 .90 5 .00 1. 61 1. 71 1. 81 1. 91 2 .01 2 .1 1 2 .21 2 .3 1 2.4 1 2 .51 2.61 2 .71 2.81 2.91 3 .00 3.10 3.20 3 .30 3.40 3 .50 3 .60 3 .70 3.80 3 .90 4.00 4 .10 4 .20 4.30 4.40 4 .50 4 .60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5 .00 Inflow Outflow Target Ca l e 0 .12 0 .08 0.06 0 .06 ******* 0 .04 0 .07 0 .04 0 .04 0 .06 ******* 0.04 0 .07 ******* 0.03 0 .06 0 .02 0 .02 0 .04 ******* 0 .02 0 .05 ******* 0 .02 850 . 916 . 981. 1 045 . 1108 . 1169. 1228. 1 285. 1339. 1390. 1436 . 1478. 1514 . 1542. 1555. 1555. 1555 . 1555 . 1555 . 1555. 1555 . 1555. 1555 . 1555 . 1555 . 1 555 . 1555. 1555. 1555. 1555. 1555. 1555. 1555. 1555. 1555. Peak Stage 2 .92 1. 72 1. 72 1. 63 1. 55 1.24 0 .99 0 .90 0.020 0.021 0.023 0 .024 0 .025 0.027 0 .028 0.029 0.031 0.032 0 .033 0 .034 0.035 0 .035 0.036 0.036 0.036 0 .036 0.036 0.036 0 .036 0.036 0 .036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0 .036 0 .036 0 .036 0 .036 0.036 0 .036 0 .036 0 .036 0 .036 Elev 2. 92 1. 72 1. 72 1. 63 1. 55 1. 24 0.99 0.90 Route Time Series t hrough Facility Inflow Time Series File:proposed3 .tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout3 0 .035 0 .037 0 .039 0.0 4 0 0 .042 0.044 0.045 0.047 0.048 0.050 0.051 0.053 0.054 0.055 0.056 0.365 0 .930 1.660 2.450 2 .7 40 2 .990 3.230 3 .450 3 .650 3 .8 50 4.040 4. 21 0 4.380 4.550 4.700 4 .860 5.0 1 0 5.150 5.290 5.430 Storage 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 (Cu-F t) (Ac-Ft) 1544. 0 .03 5 922 . 0 .021 919 . 0 .021 861. 0.020 813. 0.0 1 9 607. 0.014 448. 0 .0 1 0 393 . 0 .009 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Di scha rge : 0 .116 CFS at 6 :00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 ''-·· ----•-..J .1.L : ... nr""'lr s. ___ -----•=--•:--•L--• ;_ --• 1:-----....1 •--... :-• •---·~-nnr --: .............. 1 L-.u,_.,1 •• -·-·· --··--..J~ ---' A-9 Peak Outflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage : Peak Reservoir Elev: 0.055 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 2. 92 Ft 2.92 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 1544. Cu-Ft 0.035 Ac-Ft F low Frequency Ana l ysis Time Series Fi l e:rdout3 .tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annua l Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft ) Period 0.035 4 2/09/0 1 19 :00 0 .055 2. 92 1 1 00.00 0 .990 0.019 7 1/05/02 1 7 :0 0 0 .037 1. 72 2 25.00 0.960 0.033 5 2/27/03 1 0 :00 0 .037 1. 72 3 10.00 0.900 0.017 8 8/23/04 20:00 0 .035 1. 63 4 5 .00 0.800 0 .0 24 6 10/28/04 19:0 0 0.033 1. 55 5 3 .0 0 0.667 0 .037 2 1/18/06 2 1:00 0.024 1.24 6 2 .00 0 .500 0.037 3 11/24/06 6:00 0 .019 0.99 7 1. 30 0 .23 1 0 .055 1 1/09/08 10:00 0 .0 1 7 0 .90 8 1.1 0 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.049 2.4 7 50 .00 0 .980 ''-·· ....................... .J ,1.L...: ..... nr"\r , _____ --........ _,.1: .......... : .... -,1.L ... .1. : .... __ .,. 1: ........ -....... .J .a. ............. : ..... .1. "'-_ ......... nnr __ :_ ... __ tL.. ........... ,, •• _. ___ --.......... ..J .t ---\ A-9 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 t.----~ 1"=100FEET m s \ l j I , ---~ 200 I 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 1620, Seattl e, WA 9 81 0 1 206.267.24 25 TEL 206.267.24 29 FAX ---- FILTERA 1 TOTAL AREA: IMPERVIOUS: LAWN: FILTERA2 TOTAL AREA: IMPERVIOUS: LAWN : FILTERA3 TOTAL AREA: IMPERVIOUS: LAWN: FILTERA4 TOTAL AREA: IMPERVIOUS: LAWN: FILTERA 5 TOTAL AREA: IMPERVIOUS : LAWN: FIL TERA6 TOTAL AREA: IMPERVIOUS : LAWN: FIL TERA 7 TOTAL AREA: IMPERVIOUS: LAWN: SARTORI ELEMENTARY STORMWATER TREATMENT BASINS N 12,213 SF 9,818 SF 2,395 SF 9,812 SF 6,729 SF 3,083 SF 10,935 SF 9,890 SF 1,045 SF 14,604 SF 12,438 SF 2,166 SF 6,161 SF 5,078 SF 1,083 SF 21,769 SF 18,854 SF 2,915 SF 25,840 SF 21 ,573 SF 4,267 SF 0.28AC 0.23AC 0.05AC 0.23 AC 0 .16 AC 0.07 AC 0.25AC 0.23 AC 0.02 AC 0.34 AC 0.29 AC 0.05 AC 0.14 AC 0.12 AC 0.02AC 0.50 AC 0.43 AC 0.07 AC 0.59 AC 0.49 AC 0.10 AC A-10 W AS H ING T O N STAI£ D E P 1. R T M £ N T D ' E C O L O G Y June 2016 GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS), ENHANCED, PHOSPHORUS & OIL TREATMENT Ecology's Decision: For Americast Filterra® Based on Americast's submissions, including the Final Technical Evaluation Reports, dated March 27, 2014 and December 2009, and additional information provided to Ecology dated October 9, 2009, Ecology hereby issues the following use level designations: 1. A General Use Level Designation for Basic, Enhanced, Phosphorus, and Oil Treatment at the following water quality design hydraulic loading rates: Treatment Hydraulic Conductivity* Infiltration Rate (in/hr) for (in/hr) for use in Western use in eastern Washington Washington Sizing Sizing Basic 70.92 100 Phosphorus 70.92 100 Oil 35.46 50 Enhanced 24 .82 35 *calculated based on listed infiltration rate and a hydraulic gradient of 1.41 inch/inch (2.55 ft head with 1.80 ft media). 2. The Filterra® unit is not appropriate for oil spill-control purposes. 3. Ecology approves the Filterra® units for treatment at the hydraulic loading rates listed above, to achieve the maximum water quality design flow rate. Calculate the water quality design flow rates using the following procedures: • Western Washington: for treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the sand filter module in the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology-approved continuous runoff model. The model must indicate the unit is capable of processing 91 percent of the influent runoff file. • Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the three flow rate based methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual. A-1 1 • Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility. 4 . This General Use Level Designation has no expiration date but Ecology may revoke or amend the designation, and is subject to the conditions specified below. Ecology's Conditions of Use: Filterra® units shall comply with these conditions shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the Filterra® units in accordance with applicable Americast Filterra® manuals, document, and the Ecology Decision. 2 . Each site plan must undergo Americast Filterra® review before Ecology can approve the unit for site installation. This will ensure that site grading and slope are appropriate for use of a Filterra® unit. 3. Filterra® media shall conform to the specifications submitted to and approved by Ecology. 4 . Maintenance includes removing trash, degraded mulch, and accumulated debris from the filter surface and replacing the mulch layer. Use inspections to determine the site-specific maintenance schedules and requirements. Follow maintenance procedures given in the most recent version of the Filterra® Operation and Maintenance Manual. 5. Maintenance: The required maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often dependent upon the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, Ecology does not endorse or recommend a "one size fits all" maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device . • Filterra® designs their systems for a target maintenance interval of 6 months. Maintenance includes removing accumulated sediment and trash from the surface area of the media, removing the mulch above the media, replacing the mulch, providing plant health evaluation, and pruning the plant if deemed necessary. • Conduct maintenance following manufacturer's guidelines. 6 . Filterra® units come in standard sizes. 7. The minimum size filter surface-area for use in western Washington is determined by using the sand filter module in the latest version of WWHM or other Ecology approved continuous runoff model for western Washington. Model inputs include a) Filter media depth: 1.8 feet b) Effective Ponding Depth: 0.75 feet (This is equivalent to the 6 -inch clear zone between the top of the mulch and the bottom of the slab plus 3-inches of mulch.) c) Side slopes: Vertical d) Riser height: 0 . 70 feet e) Filter Hydraulic Conductivity: Use the Hydraulic Conductivity as listed in the table above (use the lowest applicable hydraulic conductivity depending on the level of treatment required) under Ecology's Decision, above. 2 A -1 _ 8. The minimum size filter surface-area for use in eastern Washington is determined by using the design water quality flow rate (as determined in item 3, above) and the Infiltration Rate from the table above (use the lowest applicable Infiltration Rate depending on the level of treatment required). Calculate the required area by dividing the water quality design flow rate (cu-ft/sec) by the Infiltration Rate (converted to ft/sec) to obtain required surface area (sq ft) of the Filterra unit. 9. Discharges from the Filterra® units shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in receiving waters. Approved Alternate Configurations Filterra® Internal Bypass -Pipe (FTIB-P) 1. The Filterra® Internal Bypass -Pipe allows for piped-in flow from area drains, grated inlets, trench drains, and/or roof drains. Design capture flows and peak flows enter the structure through an internal slotted pipe. Filterra® inverted the slotted pipe to allow design flows to drop through to a series of splash plates that then disperse the design flows over the top surface of the Filterra® planter area. Higher flows continue to bypass the slotted pipe and convey out the structure. 2. To select a FTIB-P unit, the designer must determine the size of the standard unit u sing the sizing guidance described above. Filterra® Internal Bypass -Curb (FTIB-C) 1. The Filterra® Internal Bypass -Curb model (FTIB-C) incorporates a curb inlet, biofiltration treatment chamber, and internal high flow bypass in one single structure. Filterra® designed the FTIB-C model for use in a "Sag" or "Sump" condition and will accept flows from both directions along a gutter line. An internal flume tray weir component directs treatment flows entering the unit through the curb inlet to the biofiltration treatment chamber. Flows in excess of the water quality treatment flow rise above the flume tray weir and discharge through a standpipe orifice; providing bypass of untreated peak flows. Americast manufactures the FTIB -C model in a variety of sizes and configurations and you may use the unit on a continuous grade when a single structure providing both treatment and high flow bypass is preferred. The FTIB-C model can also incorporate a separate junction box chamber to allow larger diameter discharge pipe connections to the structure. 2 . To select a FTIB-C unit, the designer must determine the size of the standard unit using the sizing guidance described above. Filterra® Shallow 1. The Filterra® Shallow provides additional flexibility for design engineers and designers in situations where there is limited depth and various elevation constraints to applying a standard Filterra® configuration. Engineers can design this system up to six inches shallower than any of the previous Filterra unit configurations noted above. 3 A-11 2. Ecology requires that the Filterra® Shallow provide a contact time equivalent to that of the standard unit. This means that with a smaller depth of media, the surface area must increase. 3. To select a Filterra® Shallow System unit, the designer must first identify the size of the standard unit using the modeling guidance described above. 4. Once you establish the size of the standard Filterra® unit using the sizing technique described above, use information from the following table to select the appropriate size Filterra® Shallow System unit. Applicant: Notes: Shallow Unit Basic, Enhanced, and Oil Treatment Sizing Standard Depth 4x4 4x6 or6x4 Equivalent Shallow Depth 4x6 or 6x4 .. -····-·-... ·-·-·······-...... , .............. ,_, ______________________ ..................................................... .. 6x6 4x8 or 8x4 6x8 or 8x6 ----.. --·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·---·-·-·-·-·-·-·---·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-····-·--........... -··--·----·-·-·-·-·-· .. ·--------------------··"'"''"" .. --·· .............................. .. 6x6 6xl0 or 10x6 6x8 or 8x6 6x12 or 12x6 -·-----------------···-. .. --. -· .. ---·. ---·-·-·-·-·-·-·----·--·-·-·--·-.. -····-·-·-.. ··• 6xl0 or 10x6 13x7 1. Shallow Depth Boxes are less than the standard depth of 3 .5 feet but no less than 3.0 feet deep (TC to INV). Filterra® Bioretention Systems, division of Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC. Applicant's Address: 11815 NE Glenn Widing Drive Portland, OR 97220 Application Documents: • State of Washington Department of Ecology Application for Conditional Use Des ignation, Americast (September 2006) • Quality Assurance Project Plan Filterra® Bioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring, Americast (April 2008) • Quality A ssurance Project Plan Addendum Filterra® Bioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring, Americast (June 2008) • Draft Technical Evaluation Report Filterra® Bioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring, Americast (August 2009) • Final Technical Evaluation Report Filterra® J3ioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring, Americas t (December 2009) • Technical Evaluation Report Appendices Filterra® Bioretention Filtration System Performance Monitoring, Americast, August 2009 • Memorandum to Department of Ecology Dated Octobe r 9, 2009 from Americast, Inc. and Herrera Environmental Consultants 4 A-1 • Quality Assurance Project Plan Filterra® Bioretention System Phosphorus treatment and Supplemental Basic and Enhanced Treatment Performance Monitoring, Americas! (November 2011) • Filterra'"' letter August 24, 2012 regarding sizing for the Filterra® Shallow System. • University of Virginia Engineering Department Memo by Joanna Crowe Curran, Ph. D dated March 16, 2013 concerning capacity analysis of Filterra® internal weir inlet tray. • Terraphase Engineering letter to Jodi Mills, P.E. dated April 2, 2013 regarding Terraflume Hydraulic Test, Filterra® Bioretention System and attachments. • Technical Evaluation Report, Filterra® System Phosphorus Treatment and Supplemental Basic Treatment Performance Monitoring. March 27'\ 2014. Applicant's Use Level Request: General Level Use Designation for Basic, Enhanced, Phosphorus, and Oil Treatment. Applicant's Performance Claims: Field-testing and laboratory testing show that the Filterra® unit is promising as a stormwatcr treatment best management practice and can meet Ecology's performance goals for basic, enhanced, phosphorus, and oil treatment. Findings of Fact: Field Testing 2013 1. Filterra® completed field-testing of a 6.5 ft x 4 ft. unit at one site in Bellingham, Washington. Continuous flow and rainfall data collected from January 1, 2013 through July 23, 2013 indicated that 59 storm events occurred. The monitoring obtained water quality data from 22 storm events. Not all the sampled storms produced information that met TAPE criteria for storm and/or water quality data. 2. The system treated 98. 9 percent of the total 8-month runoff volume during the testing period. Consequently, the system achieved the goal of treating 91 percent of the volume from the site. Stormwater runoff bypassed during four of the 59 storm events. 3. Of the 22 sampled events, 18 qualified for TSS analysis (influent TSS concentrations ranged from 25 to 138 mg/L). The data were segregated into sample pairs with influent concentration greater than and less than 100 mg/L. The UCL95 mean effluent concentration for the data with influent less than 100 mg/L was 5.2 mg/L, below the 20- mg/L threshold. Although the TAPE guidelines do not require an evaluation of TSS removal efficiency for influent concentrations below 100 mg/L, the mean TSS removal for these samples was 90.1 percent. Average removal of influent TSS concentrations greater than I 00 mg/L (three events) was 85 percent. In addition, the system consistently exhibited TSS removal greater than 80 percent at flow rates at a 100 inches per hour [in/hr] infiltration rate and was observed at 150 in/hr. A-11 5 4. Ten of the 22 sampled events qualified for TP analysis. Americast augmented the dataset using two sample pairs from previous monitoring at the site. Influent TP concentrations ranged from 0.11 to 0.52 mg/L. The mean TP removal for these twelve events was 72.6 percent. The LCL95 mean percent removal was 66.0, well above the TAPE requirement of 50 percent. Treatment above 50 percent was evident at I 00 in/hr infiltration rate and as high as 150 in/hr. Consequently, the Filterra® test system met the TAPE Phosphorus Treatment goal at 100 in/hr. Influent ortho-P concentrations ranged from 0.005 to 0.012 mg/L; effluent ortho-P concentrations ranged from 0.005 to 0.013 mg/L. The reporting limit/resolution for the ortho-P test method is 0.01 mg/L, therefore the influent and effluent ortho-P concentrations were both at and near non-detect concentrations. Field Testing 2008-2009 I. Filterra'° completed field-testing at two sites at the Port of Tacoma. Continuous flow and rainfall data collected during the 2008-2009 monitoring period indicated that 89 storm events occurred. The monitoring obtained water quality data from 27 storm events. Not all the sampled storms produced information that met TAPE criteria for storm and/or water quality data. 2. During the testing at the Port of Tacoma, 98.96 to 99.89 percent of the annual influent runoff volume passed through the POT I and POT2 test systems respectively. Stormwater runoff bypassed the POT! test system during nine storm events and bypassed the POT2 test system during one storm event. Bypass volumes ranged from 0.13% to 15.3% of the influent storm volume. Both test systems achieved the 91 percent water quality treatment- goal over the I-year monitoring period. 3. Consultants observed infiltration rates as high as 133 in/hr during the various storms. Filterra® did not provide any paired data that identified percent removal of TSS, metals, oil, or phosphorus at an instantaneous observed flow rate. 4. The maximum storm average hydraulic loading rate associated with water quality data is <40 in/hr, with the majority of flow rates< 25 in/hr. The average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate ranged from 8.6 to 53 inches per hour. 5. The field data showed a removal rate greater than 80% for TSS with an influent concentration greater than 20 mg/I at an average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up to 53 in/hr (average influent concentration of28.8 mg/I, average effluent concentration of 4.3 mg/I). 6. The field data showed a removal rate generally greater than 54% for dissolved zinc at an average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up to 60 in/hr and an average influent concentration of0.266 mg/I (average effluent concentration of0.115 mg/1). 7. The field data showed a removal rate generally greater than 40% for dissolved copper at an average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up to 35 in/hr and an average influent concentration of0.0070 mg/I (average effluent concentration of0.0036 mg/I). 8. The field data showed an average removal rate of 93% for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) at an average instantaneous hydraulic loading rate up to 53 in/hr and an average influent concentration of 52 mg/I (average effluent concentration of2.3 mg/I). The data 6 A-11 also shows achievement of less than 15 mg/I TPH for grab samples. Filterra® provided limited visible sheen data due to access limitations at the outlet monitoring location. 9. The field data showed low percentage removals of total phosphorus at all storm flows at an average influent concentration of 0.189 mg/I (average effluent concentration of 0.171 mg/I). We may relate the relatively poor treatment performance of the Filterra® system at this location to influent characteristics for total phosphorus that are unique to the Port of Tacoma site. It appears that the Filterra® system will not meet the 50 percent removal performance goal when you expect the majority of phosphorus in the runoff to be in the dissolved form. Laboratory Testing I. Filterra® performed laboratory testing on a scaled down version of the Filterra® unit. The lab data showed an average removal from 83-91 % for TSS with influents ranging from · 21 to 320 mg/L, 82-84% for total copper with influents ranging from 0. 94 to 2.3 mg/L, and 50-61 % for orthophosphate with influents ranging from 2.46 to 14.3 7 mg/L. 2. Filterra® conducted permeability tests on the soil media. 3. Lab scale testing using Sil-Co-Sil 106 showed percent removals ranging from 70.1 % to 95.5% with a median percent removal of90.7%, for influent concentrations ranging from 8.3 to 260 mg/L. Filterra® ran these laboratory tests at an infiltration rate of 50 in/hr. 4. Supplemental lab testing conducted in September 2009 using Sil-Co-Sil 106 showed an average percent removal of 90.6%. These laboratory tests were run at infiltration rates ranging from 25 to 150 in/hr for influent concentrations ranging from 41.6 to 252.5 mg/I. Regression analysis results indicate that the Filterra® system's TSS removal performance is independent of influent concentration in the concentration rage evaluated at hydraulic loading rates ofup to 150 in/hr. Contact Information: Applicant: Sean Darcy Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC. 11815 Glenn Widing Dr Portland, OR 97220 (503) 258-3105 darcys(dconteches.com Applicant's Website: http://www.conteches.com Ecology web link: Ecology: http://www. ccy. wa. gov/programs/wg/stormwatcr/ncwtcch/indcx. html Douglas C. Howie, P.E. Department of Ecology Water Quality Program (360) 407-6444 douglas.howie(alccy. wa.gov 7 A-11 Date Revision December 2009 GULD for Basic, Enhanced, and Oil granted, CULD for Phosphorus September 2011 Extended CULD for Phosphorus Treatment September 2012 Revised desiQll storm discussion, added Shallow System. January 2013 Revised format to match Ecology standards, changed Filterra contact information Februarv 2013 Added FTIB-P system March 2013 Added FTIB-C system April 2013 Modified requirements for identifying appropriate size of unit June 2013 Modified description of FTIB-C alternate configuration March 2014 GULD awarded for Phosphorus Treatment. GULD updated for a higher flow-rate for Basic Treatment. June 2014 Revised sizing calculation methods March 2015 Revised Contact Information June 2015 CULD for Basic and Enhanced at 100 in/hr infiltration rate November 2015 Removed information on CULD (created separate CULD document for 100 in/hr infiltration rate) June 2016 Revised text regarding Hydraulic conductivity value A-11 8 WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT A-12 General Model Information Project Name: Sartori Filtera Site Name: Sartori Site Address: 315 Garden Ave N City: Renton Report Date: 8/24/2016 Gage: Seatac Data Start: 1948/10/01 Data End: 2009/09/30 Timestep: 15 Minute Precip Scale: 1.00 Version Date: 2016/02/25 Version: 4.2.12 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1: High Flow Threshold for POC1: Sartori Filtera 50 Percent of the 2 Year 50 Year 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 2 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 3 Mitigated Land Use FILTERRA 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0.05 Pervious Total 0.05 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.23 Impervious Total 0.23 Basin Total 0.28 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater Sand Filter 1 Sand Filter 1 Sartori Filtera 8/2412016 9:51 :42 AM Page4 FILTERRA 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0.07 Pervious Total 0.07 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.16 Impervious Total 0.16 Basin Total 0.23 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater Sand Filter 2 Sand Filter 2 Sartori Filtera 8/2412016 9:51 :42 AM Page 5 FILTERRA 3 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0.02 Pervious Total 0.02 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.23 Impervious Total 0.23 Basin Total 0.25 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater Sand Filter 3 Sand Filter 3 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 6 FILTERRA 4 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A 8, Lawn, Flat 0.05 Pervious Total 0.05 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.29 Impervious Total 0.29 Basin Total 0.34 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater Sand Filter 4 Sand Filter 4 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 7 FILTERRA 5 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0.02 Pervious Total 0.02 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.12 Impervious Total 0.12 Basin Total 0.14 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater Sand Filter 5 Sand Filter 5 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 8 FILTERRA 6 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0.07 Pervious Total 0.07 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.43 Impervious Total 0.43 Basin Total 0.5 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater Sand Filter 6 Sand Filter 6 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 9 FILTERRA 7 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre PARKING FLAT 0.12 Impervious Total 0.12 Basin Total 0.12 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater Sand Filter 7 Sand Filter 7 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 1 O Routing Elements ?redeveloped Routing Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 11 Mitigated Routing Sand Filter 1 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Depth: Side slope 1 : Side slope 2: Side slope 3: Side slope 4: Filtration On 6.00 It. 6.00 It. 0.75 ft. 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 Hydraulic conductivity: 24.82 Depth of filter medium: 1.8 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-11.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-11.): Total Volume Through Facility (ac-11.): Percent Infiltrated: Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: Element Flows To: Outlet 1 0.7 It. 100 in. Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic Table 33.668 1.426 35.093 95.94 0 0 Stage(feet) 0.0000 0.0083 0.0167 0.0250 0.0333 0.0417 0.0500 0.0583 0.0667 0.0750 0.0833 0.0917 0.1000 0.1083 0.1167 0.1250 0.1333 0.1417 0.1500 0.1583 0.1667 0.1750 0.1833 0.1917 0.2000 0.2083 0.2167 0.2250 Area(ac.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Volume(ac-ft.) 0.000 Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 12 0.2333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.3833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.3917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.4750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.4833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.4917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.7000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.028 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 13 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.028 0.7250 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.029 0.7333 0.000 0.000 0.538 0.029 0.7417 0.000 0.000 0.752 0.029 0.7500 0.000 0.000 0.989 0.029 0.7583 0.000 0.000 1.246 0.029 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 14 Sand Filter 2 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Depth: Side slope 1: Side slope 2: Side slope 3: Side slope 4: Filtration On 6.00 ft. 4.00 ft. 0.75 ft. 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 Hydraulic conductivity: 24.82 Depth of filter medium: 1.8 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 23.063 1.089 24.153 95.49 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): Percent Infiltrated: Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: 0.7 ft. 100 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) 0.0000 0.0083 0.0167 0.0250 0.0333 0.0417 0.0500 0.0583 0.0667 0.0750 0.0833 0.0917 0.1000 0.1083 0.1167 0.1250 0.1333 0.1417 0.1500 0.1583 0.1667 0.1750 0.1833 0.1917 0.2000 0.2083 0.2167 0.2250 0.2333 0.2417 Sartori Filtera Area(ac.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.015 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 15 0.2500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.2667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.2833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.2917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.3917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.4000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.4083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.4167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.4917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.5583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.5750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.5833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.5917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.6750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.7000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.019 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.019 0.7250 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.019 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 16 0.7333 0.7417 0.7500 0.7583 Sartori Filtera 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.538 0.752 0.989 1.246 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 Page 17 Sand Filter 3 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Depth: Side slope 1 : Side slope 2: Side slope 3: Side slope 4: Filtration On 6.00 ft. 6.00 ft. 0.75 ft. 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 Hydraulic conductivity: 24.82 Depth of filter medium: 1.8 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 33.658 1.42 35.078 95.95 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): Percent Infiltrated: Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: Element Flows To: 0.7ft. 100 in. 0 Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) 0.0000 0.0083 0.0167 0.0250 0.0333 0.0417 0.0500 0.0583 0.0667 0.0750 0.0833 0.0917 0.1000 0.1083 0.1167 0.1250 0.1333 0.1417 0.1500 0.1583 0.1667 0.1750 0.1833 0.1917 0.2000 0.2083 0.2167 0.2250 0.2333 0.2417 Sartori Filtera Area(ac.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 18 0.2500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.3833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.3917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.4750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.4833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.4917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.7000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.028 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.028 0.7250 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.029 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 19 0.7333 0.7417 0.7500 0.7583 Sartori Filtera 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.538 0.752 0.989 1.246 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 Page 20 Sand Filter 4 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Depth: Side slope 1 : Side slope 2: Side slope 3: Side slope 4: Filtration On 6.00 ft. 6.00 ft. 0.75 ft. 0 To 1 O To 1 O To 1 0 To 1 Hydraulic conductivity: 24.82 Depth of filter medium: 1.8 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 41.375 3.126 44.501 92.98 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): Percent Infiltrated: Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: Element Flows To: 0.7 ft. 100 in. 0 Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) 0.0000 0.0083 0.0167 0.0250 0.0333 0.0417 0.0500 0.0583 0.0667 0.0750 0.0833 0.0917 0.1000 0.1083 0.1167 0.1250 0.1333 0.1417 0.1500 0.1583 0.1667 0.1750 0.1833 0.1917 0.2000 0.2083 0.2167 0.2250 0.2333 0.2417 Sartori Filtera Area(ac.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.023 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 21 0.2500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.2917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.3750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.3833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.3917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.4750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.4833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.4917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.5917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.6333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.7000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.028 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.028 0.7250 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.029 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 22 0.7333 0.7417 0.7500 0.7583 Sartori Filtera 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.538 0.752 0.989 1.246 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029 Page 23 Sand Filter 5 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Depth: Side slope 1 : Side slope 2: Side slope 3: Side slope 4: Filtration On 4.00 ft. 4.00 ft. 0.75 ft. 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 Hydraulic conductivity: 24.82 Depth of filter medium: 1.8 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 16.679 1.005 17.683 94.32 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): Percent Infiltrated: Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: Element Flows To: 0.7 ft. 100 in. 0 Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) 0.0000 0.0083 0.0167 0.0250 0.0333 0.0417 0.0500 0.0583 0.0667 0.0750 0.0833 0.0917 0.1000 0.1083 0.1167 0.1250 0.1333 0.1417 0.1500 0.1583 0.1667 0.1750 0.1833 0.1917 0.2000 0.2083 0.2167 0.2250 0.2333 0.2417 Sartori Filtera Area(ac.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 24 0.2500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.7000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.012 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.012 0.7250 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.012 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 25 0.7333 0.7417 0.7500 0.7583 Sartori Filtera 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.538 0.752 0.989 1.246 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.013 Page 26 Sand Filter 6 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Depth: Side slope 1 : Side slope 2: Side slope 3: Side slope 4: Filtration On 6.00 ft. 8.00 ft. 0.75ft. O To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 O To 1 Hydraulic conductivity: 24.82 Depth of filter medium: 1.8 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 60.643 5.807 66.45 91.26 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): Percent Infiltrated: Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: Element Flows To: 0.7 ft. 100 in. 0 Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) 0.0000 0.0083 0.0167 0.0250 0.0333 0.0417 0.0500 0.0583 0.0667 0.0750 0.0833 0.0917 0.1000 0.1083 0.1167 0.1250 0.1333 0.1417 0.1500 0.1583 0.1667 0.1750 0.1833 0.1917 0.2000 0.2083 0.2167 0.2250 0.2333 0.2417 Sartori Filtera Area(ac.) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.031 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 27 0.2500 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.2583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.2667 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.2750 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.2833 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.2917 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3083 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3167 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3250 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3333 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3417 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3500 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.3583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.3667 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.3750 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.3833 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.3917 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.4000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.4083 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.4167 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4250 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4333 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4417 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4500 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4667 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4750 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.4833 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.4917 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5083 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5167 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5250 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5333 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5417 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.5500 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.5583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.5667 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.5750 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.5833 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.5917 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.6000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.6083 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.6167 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6250 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6333 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6417 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6500 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6583 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6667 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6750 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.6833 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.6917 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.7000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.7083 0.001 0.000 0.067 0.038 0.7167 0.001 0.000 0.190 0.038 0.7250 0.001 0.000 0.349 0.038 Sartori Filtera 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 28 0.7333 0.7417 0.7500 0.7583 Sartori Filtera 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.538 0.752 0.989 1.246 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM 0.038 0.038 0.039 0.039 Page 29 Sand Filter 7 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Depth: Side slope 1: Side slope 2: Side slope 3: Side slope 4: Filtration On 4.00 ft. 4.00 ft. 0.75 ft. 0 To 1 0 To 1 O To 1 0 To 1 Hydraulic conductivity: 24.82 Depth of filter medium: 1.8 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 16.673 1 17.673 94.34 0 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): Percent Infiltrated: Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: Element Flows To: 0.7ft. 100 in. 0 Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) 0.0000 0.0083 0.0167 0.0250 0.0333 0.0417 0.0500 0.0583 0.0667 0.0750 0.0833 0.0917 0.1000 0.1083 0.1167 0.1250 0.1333 0.1417 0.1500 0.1583 0.1667 0.1750 0.1833 0.1917 0.2000 0.2083 0.2167 0.2250 0.2333 0.2417 Sartori Filtera Area(ac.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 8/24/2016 9:51 :42 AM Page 30 0.2500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.2917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.3500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.3917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.4917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.5417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.5917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.6917 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.7000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.7083 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.012 0.7167 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.012 0.7250 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.012 Sartori Filtera 8/2412016 9:51 :42 AM Page 31 0.7333 0.7417 0.7500 0.7583 Sartori Filtera 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.538 0.752 0.989 1.246 8124/2016 9:51 :42 AM 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.013 Page 32 Model Default Modifications Total of O changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. Sarto ri Filtera 8/24/2016 9 :51:42 AM Page 34 Mitigated Schematic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sa rtori Filtera 8 /24/2016 9 :51 :42 AM Pag e 36 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties , either expressed or implied , including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits , loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Cre ek Solutions , Inc. 2005-2016 ; All Rights Reserved . Clear Creek Solutions, Inc . 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1 (866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Sartori Fi lt e ra 8/24/2016 9 :5 1 :43 AM Page 56 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS NOTTO SCAL E N m 1200 6th Avenue , Suite 1620, Seattle, WA 98101 206.267.2425 TEL 206 .267.2429 FAX SARTORI ELEMENTARY A-13 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS i i ~ -~, 1i:~--..... ,,_,iii,~""-.. , ,(i --{:,;, ·t ·{""\r;. ~' ~ -::-~~ y 1231 re -:,: ~·.{ bt.'· '>1 .r l f ~ .. l·'' c" ... ; 1(1 ,·.; Si A a? t 1. (/ rn ·-··-·· .... '; ;. i ): '). I .1··\·" f\\ . \\ \ \'IP,<<; • '), ~-, A ,. ~ B ,i'' ,.,_ ~[ ..i:: <' '· '" ~ }' .-:::· . .. q/5 A A ~· ·:c;,.·:, .. ! i i :, r I A : ! }· :..\.:.. -~ A -·• '!il ' ~ -.... _ .... ~ ! i l. ' '( .. _... ,.:.'""- .. l .1 ··, r/ " i ' A ., j , .. : ' "pg : . i ~ i1---·---·--··-··-··---·~.1 -)i . ,/,·11 )( · I I j B i ---(. ~ -;; -t ~ --~ ' ! , __ ...._ __ ·-··--·~---··-··J s ., ~: A .'\.'!.. ,:1h s, ·' v , ·~ \' ><· A ~ f 1t:' Jr·.t .):, w co A ~ ""ss. "<1;1·~-. '\ ~;; .... I i ! i ··--· .. i-.j ,:;, •,,a,_,.•..:: :··· ~----~--:··J--·-·-.. ~ -:-··-= -:: r·· .. ~ . ,-~~ 1..... "J . i 1 .. -; i A . . i I • • I \ . .: r-- 1 ) I A \ A ~,., \o,J:','i . 11 ·,:.'' o o.2\ 0.5 I I~'~'~ ~iles' I I I unty tion , not guaranteed 9 best information 1ap is intended for e Washington North FIP S 460 1 Fee t 111!:1 r_.~"j Renton City Limits A Education ~ Fire Station (I] Valley Medical Center rl ' ·,;,. Erosion Hazard Severity High A-14 r ~ityof * Q'c ··~ .. --------~ ; P ·r t r fJ -r t >'*' :· _r ~. -~~<....c. # '-.· _,_ ',, 'i,;-· r S2N DST --- _ ...... \.. Ill rn h\ \ '· \ ~ / lJ.J Cl) ~ ~~. <:( I ·-··---·---·---·----~- co ~ ~SE ,._Q ~ ........___q_.:§3 ~ ~ <:( ~ <:( lJ.J 0 0:: < 0 ~ / NE 2ND ST \ 0 ~ i.JJ \ \ .-··· _ ... ~ i ~ <:( <': ·-:- ...... ', i \ i ~-- :5 0 0 l: lJJ ,,_ <: \ ~ <:( r-·-·.... \ ·---.f···-··/!: i.JJ -.J ~ I i. lJJ NE 4TH ST __,,.., East Plateau! .. Q lJJ <: Cf) :::, i.JJ > <:( \ __ .......... .--i-..: --·· • (0 I ------..,,-· r· ,·-.J <: 0 !--. --P----" t:.-.,: !--·---·---.. ~ I r -·- I I lJ.J P.ilaplewood Commur,ity-F._a_~ ~ l1- 11C -':;2 !....._ ____ ,·-, I ) IC .... .... SE 16 4 TH ST Benson SE 164THST1 \ \ \ SE 168TH ST l ···,. '\ __ .... ~ ~ <:( ~ IC ..... ..... ·---·---·---·---·---·~ SE 192ND ST 'anther Lake i lJJ Cf) s;: <:( 2: co ('\J - .-/ ~ ~ <:( ~ 0 'St .... SE 183RD ) 15'_., lJJ (.IJ ~ <:( 2: co 'St ,,_ Public W orks -Surface Water Utility Print Date: 11 105/2012 l Lake Youngs ______________ __. ______ ......__.__ _____ ....._: _______ ......_ __ ---l Data Sources: City of Renton, FEMA FIRM revised May 16. 1995. =MA Flood ~ate Map Legend 1 1· --! Renton City Limits --· -Zone AE, A, AH, AO -Regulatory LJ Zone X -Non Regulatory 0 0.25 0.5 l 1 Miles I Cedar River flood hazard area updated with FEMA Cedar River LOMR (Case No. 06--10-B569P ) approved Dece mber 4, 2006. This document is a graphic representation , not guaranteed to survey accuracy, and is based o n the best information avail a ble as of the date shown . This map is intend ed for City di spl ay purposes only. A-17 \. ' I <:f _g lll1 "-~ A ), l I I '< I ii i · .. ri"-l .l I -. I -L---.. _11_~$u__ __ _ ! 0 I -i \I,· ~----i..-L .. _ ;6'rt2Jn s/ " , .iSf""J I I' -~ -.. 1 ........ -... : lU ~••tK •• .... _"}'".: :"""·~-...;. ~ r.... , Cl <;: : ,-•Ji .... r--·•-••-·•-••1 ~ L •• .I Ji t ~ • : ~I , .. 4.;" • .... ., ~ ~ ~ : I I 1-\ 1 .. , : i\..-... .-r1 I 1A?'.:f ' • " €,_,,.....-;...-•-••~ I )• f ' . ,-·~-" . ..~ . . i r .. -· i .. l· . /x, -' ' ,.,, ..... .,~ I ~ \ ,;: "" .~ J ,1~k:;t " le i ' 1/ "!;, "'' UJ I I l 1~ " '",. [ tE 1138!/J Sr ---;---- I' 0 l..J ".:I i i ~· \ . i i :, H. l"" J -. r ... 11 ~u EJ i .j ~. ~IA ' :.'-J'· ',,.. \/ ,I "' ,, • }t' ' \' ... ,. " i , , /,.,\ I I •• ~,.,:. \· f'\,\ -I ·: ~l ~ U , .:! ! '•\ -~'> l ,,... .. ,.~ " f--<,., . • --· . ;""'"' '' ' .. ' "\ ' ',.,, I • ,~.C:-' ,,,, ' ~ ', '\ r & ~·n. lJ.: . ·~: •• -/, ' .. ,· ' "' \ -. . .. . ~ . ., ,. . .., ' -;,,: ·, : ' ,, ~. . . '" \, ' l ·, , J~.~~l..t ' ·-.......... ,, ·, · ,...,:,.'\.•c l , ~ -. •. :. .. -d ~t· .'" ·~ '\' .',< \ ~.i;: \ ~. '1 .~ I f f', ~! ,.y ' + I r ' -• ' I·-. , "" •. , ; ' ·{j,· . ' ;_ -~ .. ,/f .._~;~·~ SE l a.,_ ~ . , Fil "' --~S I ,~ ,.J , .. ,.,.. ""·~ -°" t 1unty ,u ,. Ji!'. --' 1·· -,o • < I \I' I ,, • . •'\ ., • ; . ., ~ .,, r , , r:J t ,., · • I / ,--·-...I.. 1ll, ,,;, >(// ~.,,..-1 \. i < ·~·~ ~ ..... -.. -.. --.. ~r-. J~1g2~st ~~ .. 1 ~! .... i--;;,:.:· .. ,, • ·-. I -., :' . " . ' ! _ . . I 1.; , '. --,-J_l_''--:.__t_;_" \ -I T >, • • I ' b . ' • 0 • . >· ' z, I > jl , ,l,·I:.. ·-•:-·-.. -.. ..;.. ! , "'' .. ::.,...;~. I ~ . · ,i ·· , . ' _ .. __ ., . . , ... ,•r . , . • , ' , " . -. . , • . ' ' ' s . ' ~ , .• '"l'r r· ., ,,.., ' •' • "' ""' C •'f(t· r" · . I \ ~ • f;~ ~· ' •':,-;. · ,1;1 .i ' . . ' .. _ __;, • .. ,, . . ~ ·~ ,. ;(· .;I ~ ,, . "· . •.. ' ' s.---• io~ • . j p_:;y-'\" ~ ' •" ·r"' -l ~~ ltj Steep Slopes r•• ~JJ Renton City Limits Percent Range ~ Education >15% & <=25% ' .... - 1ti on, not guaranteed ~ Fire Station >25% & <=40% --~ 1e best information nap is intended for rn Valley Medical Center ~ >40% & <=90% ~ >90% ,e Wa shington North FIPS 4601 Feet 0 ., '>'-.. ~ ~ ,. e ---~-~--r\ iles' 1 '"' ~ ) ' , ' ·, . ., ., A-15 I • \;; \<> o S t .-8 "' <r. ~ "' ~ " i! .::;, /: /a '1iiil I -~"- 'Z. B ! I ! " ~ :-~I I i -~ __ j,E__41r,_ti ____ _i_ ____ -1_,._'--__§_E !1~S_1 _ f .J ! ! i i .. -:-··· . ' ,-.. J--·---... :. .. -.~·--= :-.. -,. %: r .... A " : ,l'-•J •-·1 r--··-··-··--··1 ~· ...... . I . • : ~. I ,.. ~ • "-··-1.. ...... I : A . , : I ,··-· 1 .. ...1 : • • • ~ I I -... ,.lrf P • : sr.; .. ~-··-·-. l •--.. --: r··.: ! I l.J 1 ----. ., r~ ~---~. . ~" I ._...__,~~Q-~ ··, ; ~. • • ~--! ·"' .. , ~-·. ! '<, ' -,, : O \! I _ .......... _ I • ,·-·---• • I • I.... ··-~ i...·-··-··-··.: __ , -~ ' ,) " a f ! a 3 ,t11'...r;1 " :,- .,· ~ ~l ·~ l-, 'uJ 'V , ~ ~ :..;, "'"' Q:,ic b" 0 Q}'~ - !f 1_6§!'2..§.!_ '"' V) '!! " <'ii i!!Ja t ' ..-:::i &5 ' ~I ~"'-'\ t.\'l i "' ,. I ---.. ..-~ ... ----! ,,,. U) !.!~/;( --· • ~.J..-...L. ~iY ty / [::J I ~ i L '· ·~ •• ., ,·-· : ~ I / B : l.JI ' ~ ; r "'' ~I "" a ; ,> t'7 <!!. ',, ,._ A ~.;-_st: 183,<!_s, 't, '\ ' ~ I iEJ -: --L, J ~---.......J.--.. ---.~.!taL5F_192nd St____ _ _ I ·~ I --- l ---j unty i ! a I ; '--" -:.-~ i ~ . ~ i ~ I • • (",... ~I '-··----·--··-··-··-··---" \. ~ :S I ~· B f_,,~J Renton City Limits a Education tion , not guaranteed e best information 1ap is intended for ~ Fire Station [:) Valley Medical Center 1e Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet 1 B .. ,~-, I 041\•~· ,;,· sd.--.,,.. Landslide Hazard Severity 9' Very High M High Moderate Unclassified I ~, ' -i5 r ::1 -....... B '-' . -----., -----\ \ 0 iles A-16 Soil Map-King County Area, Washington 47" 29' 19' N 47"'Rll"N 560090 560120 560150 56018'.J Map SG31e: 1: 1,180 if prirmd 00 A portrait (8S' X 11") sheet 0 15 30 60 N A ----=====-------========MEms 90 ----====-------=======feet 300 Eo;Je tics: lJT1'1 Zone 1 ON WGS84 0 SO 100 200 Map projecticn: Wa:J Mercatir Comer axnlnate;: WGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Nati onal Cooperative Soil Survey ~1iii5 Conservation Service 560210 560240 8/30/2016 Page 1 of 3 47" 'R 19"N A-18 Soi l Map-King County Area, Wash ington MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of In terest (AOI) Soila _J Soil Map Unit Polygons ~ Soil Map Unit Lines • Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features ~ Blowout l8l Borrow P it • Clay Spot 0 Closed Depression X Gravel Pit .. Gravelly Spot 0 Landfill A. Lava Flow • Marsh or swamp i(' Mine or Quarry C Miscellaneous Water 0 Perenn ial Water V Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot .. Sandy Spot * Severely Eroded Spot <} Sinkhole ~ Slide o r Slip ti Sadie Spot USDA Natural Resources :liiiiia Conservation Service § Spoil Area t) Stony Spot Gl3 Very Stony Spot v Wet Spot 6 Other --Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails _..., ,,..., Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background • Aerial Photography Web So il Survey National Cooperat ive Soil Survey MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys th at comprise your AOI we re mapped at 1 :24 ,000. Warning : Soil Map may not be val id at this scale. En la rgement o f maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accu racy of soi l l ine placement. The maps d o not show the small areas of contrasting s oils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map s heet fo r map measurements. Source of Map : Natural Resources Conse rvation Service Web Soi l Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey .n rcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercato r (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, whic h preserves direction and s hape but dist orts distance and area. A project ion that p reserves area, suc h as the Albers equal-area conic proje ct ion , should be used if more accu rate calculat ions of distance or area are required . This product is generated from t he USDA-NRCS ce rt ified data as of the vers io n date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area : Su rvey Area Data : King County Area, Washington V ersion 11, Sep 14, 2015 Soil map units a re labeled (as space all ows ) for map scales 1 :50,000 o r larger. Date(s ) aeria l images were phot ographed: Aug 31, 2013-0ct 6, 2013 The orthop hoto or other base map on which the so il lines were compiled and dig itized proba bly differs from the backg round imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, s ome minor shifting of map unit boundarie s may be evident. 8/30/20 16 Page 2 of 3 Soil Map-King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol I Ur Totals for Area of Interest USDA Natural Resou rces ">ff Conservation Service King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Name I Acres in AOI Urban land Web Soil Survey N ational Cooperative Soi l Survey 6.8 6 .8 I Percent of AOI 100.0% 100.0% A-18 8/30/2016 Page 3 of 3 031.:l1SSV18Nn ~--) 31\fcl300V\I H81H ,. ~l!JaAag spJezeH au!w 1eo~ 0 L I J8lU88 i83!P8V\I f..a11e/\ [:) JOJ papualLI! S! del UO!leWJOJU! lSaq a paalUeJen6 lOU 'uon UO!lBlS 8J!.::l ~ UO!le:mp3 ~ r f'L., Sl!W!l /\l!8 UOlU8~ f,_,; ;er. .rr, r--··-··-··-··--·---··-, i ! i i . . g ! ' 7" •• ! ~un ·;-,-,~··-··-··-..,._..----~ ._ lSPll?,6,,h :~ -' • Im ) ~ J Ir,-• 5' :i ·-·' ,· .. '· ·,.l i I .,...-.. ..... / I. -l lS 1s11 i ...... ~ .. r-_,,_---__ ,. ... I _ _/ ,,----,._ :""-"-"-··-i: t·.· -·, J• i : ..-•·-· • I ~-............. i : -~----..... '"-·...c-~· .. ~. ...... ~ \ ---~r 3S ........... ~-~· '1 ~ p;J sa, /~ '"1.~ ---~ \ : ~ r, . .. ' r\\ \.,~ !g i 7" t' ' i ! ! i i I i \ i :-.. ..1 : ) '-··-··-··! j l--··-· . -·J3 ' ..... ~;~ .L i idf'" ·-= : ~... ~-·-··-.. • I • ~ : i..... ,.-.. -.. l ! 1c.n : • • I i r••, 1~ 1 .. -··-··-··--.i l.-1 ---~ .. j :~ ~ --··-= ~--~·-··, •• ,. •• ..a rri • ______ .,.-···-, .. L ____ r·. I lS <-1f?.1 clS --•• I • ! ! i -------·1 I ~ www .a h b l .c om T A C O MA 2215 llorth 30th Street Suite 300 Taco ma, WA 98403-3350 253.383.2422 m 253.383.2572 m SEA TI LE 1200 6th Aven ue Suite 162 0 Seattle, WA 98101 -3117 206.267.2 425 TEL 206.267 .2429 w SPOKANE 827 West Firs t Avenue Suite 301 Spoka ne. WA 99201--051 8 509.252.5019 i E. 509.315.8862 ru T R l ·C IT IES 9825 Sandifur Parl<way Su ite A Pasco, WA 99301-6738 509.380.5883 m 509.380.5885 FA), a s s o e a rt h c i a t e d sciences ·@> incorporated Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington Pre pa red For: RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT Project No. KE150719A August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016 Project No. KE150719A Renton School District 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178-4830 Attention: Mr. Rick Stracke associated earth sciences ,ncorporatecl Executive Director Facilities and Operations Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Sartori Education Center 331 Garden Avenue North Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Stracke: We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above-referenced report. This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering studies and offers recommendations for the design and development of the proposed project. We should be allowed to review the recommendations presented in this report and modify them, if needed, once final project plans have been formulated. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington ~JJ•••,- Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer KDM/pc KE150719A3 Projects\20150719\KE\WP Kirkland Office I 911 Fifth Avenue I Kirkland, WA 98033 P I 425.827.7701 Fl 425.827.5424 Everett Office I 2911 Y, Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 I Everett, WA 98201 P I 425.259.0522 F I 425. 827.5424 Tacoma Office I 1552 Commerce Street, Suite 102 I Tacoma, WA 98402 PI 253.722.2992 FI 253.722.2993 www.aesgeo.com SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER Renton, Washington Prepared for: Renton School District 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178-4830 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5th Avenue Kirkland, Washington 98033 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 August 4, 2016 Project No. KE150719A Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical engineering study for the Sartori Education Center located at 331 Garden Avenue North in Renton, Washington. The site location is presented on Figure 1, "Vicinity Map." The existing building locations and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the "Site and Explorations," Figure 2. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the aforementioned project. The study included drilling eight test borings and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and ground water conditions. Geologic hazard evaluations and engineering studies were also conducted to determine suitable geologic hazard mitigation techniques, the type of suitable pile foundation, pile design recommendations, anticipated settlements, floor support recommendations, and site preparation and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers geologic hazard mitigation and development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Rick Stracke of the Renton School District No. 403 (District) by means of a signed Renton School District Purchase Order (P0#2011500071). Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter dated January 8, 2016. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the District and its agents for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3-Projer:t5\Z0150719\KE\WP Page 1 Sartari Education Center Renton, Washington 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geatechnica/ Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on discussions with the design team. The project site is that of the existing Sartori Education Center (King County Parcel No. 756460-0170), located at 331 Garden Avenue North, and 13 adjacent parcels in Renton, Washington. These combined properties make up the subject site. The parcels encompass the city block bounded by Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North on the west and east, respectively, and by North 3rd Street and North 4th Street on the south and north, respectively. The existing Sartori Education Center parcel includes a two-story brick building built in 1929 located near the southeast corner of the parcel, a paved parking area to the west, a large open lawn to the north, and smaller lawn areas on the east and south. A paved, locked bus parking area is located in the southwest corner of the parcel. The 13 additional parcels front along Park Avenue North and North 3rd Street. Of these 13 parcels, 11 are occupied by small, single-family homes built between 1915 and 1955. Gravel/asphalt/concrete driveways and small lawns also occupy these parcels. One of the 13 parcels (722400-0600) is owned by the District, is entirely paved by asphalt, and provides access to Sartori Education Center from Park Avenue North. The last of the 13 parcels (722400-0580) is located on the southwest corner of the city block and contains a small coffee shack and a separate commercial structure. With the exception of the structures, the parcel is entirely paved in asphalt. Site topography across the city block is relatively flat. To our understanding, the proposed project will consist of removal of the existing structures on the 14 parcels and construction of the new Elementary School #15 and associated structures such as parking and outbuildings. The type, size, and location of the new school on the parcel has not yet been determined. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included drilling eight exploration borings with a track-mounted drill rig to gain subsurface information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix to this report. The depths indicated on the boring logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the eight exploration borings completed for this study. The number, type, locations, and depths of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\WP Page 2 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geatechnica/ Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions are sometimes present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Borings The exploration borings were completed by advancing an 8-inch outside-diameter, hollow-stem auger with a trailer-mounted drill rig to depths ranging from 60 to 90 feet. Below the water table, the borings were successfully completed with little or no heaving conditions with bentonite mud stabilization drilling techniques. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 5-foot-depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an engineer from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard, 2-inch outside-diameter, split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split-barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of selected applicable geologic literature. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, interpolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 3 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. 4.1 Stratigraphy Sod/Topsoil Sod and organic-rich topsoil were generally encountered in the non-paved areas of the site to depths between 6 and 8 inches below ground surface. Sod and topsoil should be removed from below construction areas prior to site development. Fill/Modified Ground Man-placed fill was not encountered in the explorations completed for this study. However, fill is expected in unexplored areas of the site, such as the area surrounding and under existing paved areas, structures, and in the existing underground utility trenches. Fill is typically loose to medium dense and can contain high percentages of silt or deleterious material. Due to their variable density and content, existing fill soils are not suitable for foundation support. Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River Sediments encountered beneath asphalt and sod/topsoil generally consisted of bedded sandy gravel, clean sand, silty sand, clayey and lean silt with occasional lenses of peat and other organics scattered throughout the soil column. We interpret these sediments to be representative of recent alluvium deposited in former channels of the Cedar River. The alluvium extends beyond the depth of our deepest exploration (91.5 feet). The sediments appear to have been deposited in four separate "fining-upwards" packages, as shown on Figure 3, "Geologic Cross Section A-A'." Each depositional package contains gravel or sandy gravel at or near the bottom, with sediments becoming more fine-grained as you move up in the package, transitioning from gravels, to predominantly sands, and then silts/clays with peat lenses near the top. Each silt/clay bed is capped by gravels which mark the bottom of the next, younger depositional package. In general, the silt/clay and sand alluvium encountered in our explorations is loose/soft to medium dense. Starting at roughly 40 to 45 feet in explorations across the site, the alluvium consists primarily of gravels and occurs in a dense condition. These gravels extend to a depth of about 60 feet in most borings and are underlain by silt/clay of an older depositional package. In borings EB-7 and EB-8, the dense gravel zone was shallower, extending between 40 and 50 feet. Although we believe the blow counts in this zone may be overstated due to gravels, these sediments will provide end bearing capacity for a deep foundation system. August 4, 2016 DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\WP ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Page 4 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions The saturated soil in which "N" values do not exceed about 25 has a high potential for liquefaction-induced settlement. This roughly corresponds to sediments between depths of 9 and 30 feet. In addition, the abundant layers of very soft clayey and lean silt are subject to consolidation settlement under the new building loads. Therefore, structures will require deep pile foundations for support. In general, the soil where moisture content is within the compactable range is considered suitable for reuse as structural fill. It should be noted that where soils are above their optimum moisture content for compaction, their reuse as structural fill during all but the driest times of the year will be difficult. Existing alluvial soil was observed to contain silt and is considered moisture-sensitive. With appropriate remedial treatment, the soil, where moisture content is within the compactable range, may be considered suitable for support of slab-on-grade floors, hardscape, and paving. 4.2 Geologic Mapping Review of the regional geologic map titled Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965), indicates that the area of the subject site is underlain by modified land with fill (afm) and recent alluvium associated with the nearby Cedar River (Qac). Our interpretation of the sediments encountered at the subject site is in general agreement with the regional geologic map. 4.3 Hydrology Ground water was encountered between depths of approximately 9 to 14 feet across the site. This depth corresponds roughly to the water level in the nearby Cedar River. However, ground water depths reported during drilling may not represent stabilized ground water elevations that would be recorded in a properly constructed monitoring well. Ground water encountered in our explorations represents the regional unconfined ground water aquifer within the Renton basin. Ground water may be encountered in excavations that penetrate into the underlying alluvial soils. To our knowledge, no deep cuts are planned that will intersect the regional ground water aquifer. If such cuts will be made, significant ground water dewatering operations will be necessary. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time of year, variations in rainfall, and adjacent river levels. August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\WP Page 5 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to seismic, landslide, and erosion hazards, including sediment transport. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low. 6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Sound Lowland with great regularity. Most of these events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the most recent 6.8-magnitude event on February 28, 2001 near Olympia Washington; the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. Evaluation of return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within a given 20-year period. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture The nearest known fault trace to the project site is the Seattle Fault, located approximately 5 miles to the north. Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; e.g., Johnson et al., 1994, Origin and Evolution of the Seattle Fault and Seattle Basin, Washington, Geology, v. 22, pp. 71-74; and Johnson et al., 1999, Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and Central Puget Sound Washington -Implications for Earthquake Hazards, Geological Society of America Bulletin, July 1999, v. 111, n. 7, pp. 1042-1053) have provided evidence of surficial ground rupture along a northern splay of the Seattle Fault. The recognition of this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the studies still ongoing. According to the USGS studies, the latest movement of this fault was about 1,100 years ago when about 20 feet of surficial displacement took place. This displacement can presently be seen in the August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 6 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations form of raised, wave-cut beach terraces along Alki Point in West Seattle and Restoration Point at the south end of Bainbridge Island. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of several thousand years. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and depth of loose/soft alluvium present within the site boundaries, the potential for surficial ground rupture is considered to be low during the expected life of the proposed structure. 6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides Reconnaissance of this site was limited to the area shown on Figure 2. The site topography is relatively flat to gently sloping, and therefore the risk of landsliding is low. 6.3 Liquefaction We performed a liquefaction hazard analysis for this site in accordance with guidelines published in Seed & Idriss, 1982; Seed, et al., 1985; and Kramer, 1996. Our liquefaction analysis was completed with the aid of LiquefyPro computer software Version 5 by CivilTech Corporation. Liquefaction occurs when vibration or ground shaking associated with moderate to large earthquakes (generally in excess of Richter magnitude 6) results in loss of internal strength in certain types of soil deposits. These deposits generally consist of loose to medium dense sand or silty sand that is saturated (e.g., below the water table). Loss of soil strength can result in consolidation and/or lateral spreading of the affected deposit with accompanying surface subsidence and/or heaving. The liquefaction potential is dependent on several site-specific factors, such as soil grain size, density (modified to standardize field-obtained values), site geometry, static stresses, level of ground acceleration considered, and duration of the event. The earthquake parameters (a magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring directly beneath the site with a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.6g) used in our liquefaction analysis are in accordance with the required parameters set forth in the 2012 lnternational Building Code (IBC). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our exploration borings EB-1 through EB-8, the estimated amount of liquefaction-induced settlement, through the depths explored, ranges from about 5 to 8 inches during a design-level event. It should be understood that several soil properties used in the liquefaction analysis are estimated based on published data and engineering judgment. The settlement predicted is based on a very large, rare seismic event. Settlement during a smaller, historically typical event will likely be less. It should also be understood that the alluvium encountered in our explorations extends below the depths explored. It is current practice to neglect the effects of liquefaction below a depth of about 80 feet. Therefore, these settlement estimates should be considered approximate and "worst- case scenarios" for the code-required seismic event. In addition to liquefaction settlement, the August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 7 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations site soils are also subject to consolidation settlement under the new static building loads (independent of seismic shaking). Therefore, we recommend that all building elements, including floor slabs and other structures, be supported on pile foundations. However, if the owner can assume the risk of potential liquefaction-induced settlements of this magnitude, the floor slab in a lightly loaded, uninhabited structure could be supported as a floating slab-on-grade. Pile foundations that extend to the minimum depths described in the "Design Recommendations" section of this report should reduce both consolidation settlement and seismically induced structure settlement to tolerable levels for new construction. 6.4 Ground Motion Structural design of the buildings should follow 2012 IBC standards using Site Class "E" as defined in Table 20.3-1 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Although site soils are liquefiable, ASCE 7 allows use of Site Class E for buildings with less than five stories. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS As of October 1, 2008, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Construction Storm Water General Permit (also known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES) permit) requires weekly Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) inspections and turbidity monitoring of site runoff for all sites 1 or more acres in size that discharge storm water to surface waters of the state. The following sections provide recommendations to address these inspection and reporting requirements, as well as recommendations related to general erosion control and mitigation. The TESC inspections and turbidity monitoring of runoff must be completed by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) for the duration of the construction. The weekly TESC reports do not need to be sent to Ecology, but should be logged into the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Ecology requires a monthly summary report of the turbidity monitoring results signed by the NPDES permit holder. If the monitored turbidity equals or exceeds 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (Ecology benchmark standard), the project best management practices (BMPs) should be modified to decrease the turbidity of storm water leaving the site. Changes and upgrades to the BMPs should be documented in the weekly TESC reports and continued until the weekly turbidity reading is 25 NTU or lower. If the monitored turbidity exceeds 250 NTU, the results must be reported to Ecology via phone within 24 hours and corrective actions should be implemented as soon as possible. Daily turbidity monitoring is continued until the corrective actions lower the turbidity to below 25 NTU, or until the discharge stops. This description of the sampling benchmarks and August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pr; -KE150719A3 -Projer::ts\20150719\KE\ WP Page 8 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations reporting requirements is a brief summary of the Construction Storm Water General Permit conditions. The general permit is available on the internet. In order to meet the current Ecology requirements, a properly developed, constructed, and maintained erosion control plan consistent with City of Renton standards and best management erosion control practices will be required for this project. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing site-specific erosion control plans. Based on past experience, it will be necessary to make adjustments and provide additional measures to the TESC plan in order to optimize its effectiveness. Ultimately, the success of the TESC plan depends on a proactive approach to project planning and contractor implementation and maintenance. The most effective erosion control measure is the maintenance of adequate ground cover. Maintaining cover measures atop disturbed ground provides the greatest reduction to the potential generation of turbid runoff and sediment transport. During the local wet season (October 1" through March 31"), exposed soil should not remain uncovered for more than 2 days unless it is actively being worked. Ground-cover measures can include erosion control matting, plastic sheeting, straw mulch, crushed rock or recycled concrete, or mature hydroseed. Surface drainage control measures are also essential for collecting and controlling the site runoff. Flow paths across slopes should be kept to less than 50 feet in order to reduce the erosion and sediment transport potential of concentrated flow. Ditch/swale spacing will need to be shortened with increasing slope gradient. Ditches and swales that exceed a gradient of about 7 to 10 percent, depending on their flow length, should have properly constructed check dams installed to reduce the flow velocity of the runoff and reduce the erosion potential within the ditch. Flow paths that are required to be constructed on gradients between 10 to 15 percent should be placed in a riprap-lined swale with the riprap properly sized for the anticipated flow conditions. Flow paths constructed on slope gradients steeper than 15 percent should be placed in a pipe slope drain. AESI is available to assist the project civil engineer in developing a suitable erosion control plan with proper flow control. With respect to water quality, having ground cover prior to rain events is one of the most important and effective means to maintain water quality. Once very fine sediment is suspended in water, the settling times of the smallest particles are on the order of weeks and months. Therefore, the typical retention times of sediment traps or ponds will not reduce the turbidity of highly turbid site runoff to the benchmark turbidity of 25 NTU. Reduction of turbidity from a construction site is almost entirely a function of cover measures and drainage control that have been implemented prior to rain events. Temporary sediment traps and ponds are necessary to control the release rate of the runoff and to provide a catchment for August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 9 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnicol Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations sand-sized and larger soil particles, but are very ineffective at reducing the turbidity of the runoff. Silt fencing should be utilized as buffer protection and not as a flow-control measure. Silt fencing is meant to be placed parallel with topographic contours to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving a work area or entering a sensitive area. Silt fences should not be placed to cross contour lines without having separate flow control in front of the silt fence. A swale/berm combination should be constructed to provide flow control rather than let the runoff build up behind the silt fence and utilize the silt fence as the flow-control measure. Runoff flowing in front of a silt fence will cause additional erosion and usually will cause a failure of the silt fence. Improperly installed silt fencing has the potential to cause a much larger erosion hazard than if the silt fence was not installed at all. The use of silt fencing should be limited to protect sensitive areas, and swales should be used to provide flow control. 7.1 Erosion Hazard Mitigation To mitigate the erosion hazards and potential for off-site sediment transport, we would recommend the following: 1. Construction activity should be scheduled or phased as much as possible to reduce the amount of earthwork activity that is performed during the winter months. 2. The winter performance of a site is dependent on a well-conceived plan for control of site erosion and storm water runoff. It is easier to keep the soil on the ground than to remove it from storm water. The owner and the design team should include adequate ground-cover measures, access roads, and staging areas in the project bid to give the selected contractor a workable site. The selected contractor needs to be prepared to implement and maintain the required measures to reduce the amount of exposed ground. A site maintenance plan should be in place in the event storm water turbidity measurements are greater than the Ecology standards. 3. TESC measures for a given area to be graded or otherwise worked should be installed soon after ground clearing. The recommended sequence of construction within a given area after clearing would be to install sediment traps and/or ponds and establish perimeter flow control prior to starting mass grading. 4. During the wetter months of the year, or when large storm events are predicted during the summer months, each work area should be stabilized so that if showers occur, the work area can receive the rainfall without excessive erosion or sediment transport. The required measures for an area to be "buttoned-up" will depend on the time of year and the duration the area will be left un-worked. During the winter months, areas that are August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 10 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, ond Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations to be left un-worked for more than 2 days should be mulched or covered with plastic. During the summer months, stabilization will usually consist of seal-rolling the subgrade. Such measures will aid in the contractor's ability to get back into a work area after a storm event. The stabilization process also includes establishing temporary storm water conveyance channels through work areas to route runoff to the approved treatment facilities. 5. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. If it is outside of the growing season, the disturbed areas should be covered with mulch, as recommended in the erosion control plan. Straw mulch provides a cost-effective cover measure and can be made wind-resistant with the application of a tackifier after it is placed. 6. Surface runoff and discharge should be controlled during and following development. Uncontrolled discharge may promote erosion and sediment transport. Under no circumstances should concentrated discharges be allowed to flow over the top of steep slopes. 7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the use of silt fences around pile perimeters. During the period between October 1'' and March 31'1, these measures are required. 8. On-site erosion control inspections and turbidity monitoring (if required) should be performed in accordance with Ecology requirements. Weekly and monthly reporting to Ecology should be performed on a regularly scheduled basis. A discussion of temporary erosion control and site runoff monitoring should be part of the weekly construction team meetings. Temporary and permanent erosion control and drainage measures should be adjusted and maintained, as necessary, for the duration of project construction. It is our opinion that with the proper implementation of the TESC plans and by field-adjusting appropriate mitigation elements (BMPs) throughout construction, as recommended by the erosion control inspector, the potential adverse impacts from erosion hazards on the project may be mitigated. August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 11 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington 8.0 INTRODUCTION Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnicol Engineering Report Design Recommendations Ill. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The site contains some potential soil and foundation-oriented complications with respect to compressible soils, loose granular soils susceptible to liquefaction, and near surface moisture- and disturbance-sensitive soils. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon the assumption that the foundations, floor slab, and grading construction are observed by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm. The proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint using pile foundations for the building superstructure, and pile-supported lower floor slabs. If any of the floor slabs will be "floated," they should be constructed on a minimum of 2 feet of approved structural fill compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Pavement or hardscaping support on existing soils is possible with some near-surface remedial improvements. Due to the possible presence of loose surficial soils, liquefaction hazards, and/or consolidation settlement, some settlement of non-pile-supported structures and paved areas, however, is anticipated. 9.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation of planned building and road/parking areas that will not be supported by pile foundations should include removal of all existing buildings, foundation elements, utilities, asphalt, landscaping, debris, and any other surficial deleterious material that are not part of the planned project. Additionally, any upper organic topsoil encountered should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial soils exist due to demolition or stripping/grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Fill was not encountered in our explorations but should be expected around existing buildings and buried utilities. The density, thickness, and content of the fill across the site may be highly variable. We anticipate that any upper loose surficial fill soils, once recompacted or replaced with structural fill, will be adequate for support of pavement and other external surfacing, such as sidewalks or segmented paving units. However, there will be a risk of long-term damage to these surfaces including, but not limited to, rutting, yielding, cracking, etc., if any uncontrolled loose fill or surficial loose soil is not completely removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The risk can be reduced by selective removal and replacement of the most settlement-sensitive, near-surface soils. Utilities founded above loose, uncontrolled fill are also at risk of settlement and associated damage. August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3-Projeets\20150719\KE\ WP Page 12 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Design Recommendations The extent of stripping necessary in areas of the site to receive external surfacing, such as sidewalks and pavement, can best be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. We recommend proof-rolling road and parking areas with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck to identify any soft spots. If construction is to proceed during wet weather, we recommend systematic probing in place of proof-rolling to identify soft areas of the exposed subgrade. These soft areas should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. Some of the on-site fill and surface soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material, which makes them moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. If the existing pavement will not be used for access and staging areas, consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate section of crushed rock or asphalt treated base (ATB). The existing pavement is in such poor condition that it may be necessary to augment the pavement with ATB if it will be used for construction access and staging. If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near-surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by the contractor in the field. 10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type and placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. After stripping, planned excavation, and any required overexcavation have been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground in areas to receive fill should be recompacted to 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If the subgrade contains silty soils and too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 13 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Design Recommendations Where the exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free-draining layer by silt migration from below. After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free-draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with current local codes and standards. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the roadway edges before sloping down at an angle of 2H:1V (Horizonta I :Vertical). The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 72 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture-sensitive. Use of moisture-sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. Some on-site soils contained significant amounts of silt and are considered moisture-sensitive. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free-draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free-draining fill consists of non-organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction with at least 25 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve. A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing program. August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 14 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington 11.0 FOUNDATIONS Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Design Recommendations To mitigate post-construction consolidation settlement and the effects of seismically induced liquefaction, a pile foundation system is recommended. For this project, we recommend the use of 18-or 24-inch-diameter augercast piles. We can provided alternative recommendations for other pile types if requested. The following sections provide pile recommendations based on assumed loading conditions and soils encountered beneath the site. 11.1 Augercast Piles We recommend that the construction of piles be accomplished by a contractor experienced in their installation. Fill soils can have concrete, brick, wood, and other demolition waste in them, and soils of alluvial origin may have gravel lenses or large cobbles present in them. It may be necessary to have a backhoe present during pile installation to dig out obstacles and backfill the excavation prior to drilling piling. If obstacles are encountered at depths where removal with a backhoe is not feasible, it might be necessary to modify the pile layout to replace piles that cannot be completed according to the original design. Observation of pile installation by AESI is important to verify that the subsurface conditions observed at pile locations are consistent with the observations in our subsurface explorations, and consistent with assumptions made during preparation of the recommendations in this report. The City of Renton will likely require such inspections of foundation piles. The augercast piles will gain support from end bearing and skin friction. Augercast piles are formed by drilling to the required depth with a continuous flight, hollow-stem auger. Fluid grout is then pumped down the hollow stem under pressure as the auger is withdrawn. Appropriately designed reinforcing steel cages are then lowered into the unset grout. A single reinforcing bar is installed for the full length of the pile for transfer of uplift loads. Since the grout is placed under pressure, actual grout volumes used are typically 15 to 50 percent greater than the theoretical volume of the pile. Actual grout volumes for piles constructed through some types of fill and peat can be much more. The pile contractor should be required to provide a pressure gauge and a calibrated pump stroke counter so that the actual grout volume for each pile can be determined. Typically, a nine-sack, minimum 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) grout mix is used for augercast piles. Once complete, the piles would then connect to a pile cap and grade beam support system for the building foundation. Typical allowable capacities for the augercast piles are given in Table 1. Development of the design capacities presented in Table 1 requires a minimum overall pile length which extends 5 feet into the bearing layer encountered across the site at about 45 feet depth. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 15 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Design Recommendations The allowable design axial compressive loads include a safety factor of 2 and may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlement of the pile-supported foundations will generally be on the order of X inch. Table 1 Augercast Pile Recommendations Vertical Estimated Compressive Lateral Depth of Pile Diameter Length Capacity Capacity fixity Uplift Capacity (inches) (feet)l'I (kips) (kipsjl'I (feet)l31 (kips)141 18 so 65 45 14 60 24 50 115 80 17 90 (1l Pile length based on bearing layer occurring at 45 feet depth. (2J Allowable lateral capacities are for fixed-headed conditions {incorporation into pile caps and grade beam system), and Yi inch of deflection at the ground surface. Greater lateral capacities are possible for greater allowable deflections. (3) The depth of fixity does not include the code-required 20 percent increase for reinforcing cage design. (4) Uplift capacity is based on minimum pile length of 50 feet. A downdrag load (negative friction) may develop from potential liquefaction of the loose soils under the site, between depths of about 9 and 30 feet. The vertical compressive capacities presented in Table 2 represent the downward capacity of the pile after subtracting out the negative friction that would develop during an earthquake event. Piles with lateral spacing less than 6 pile diameters from another pile along the direction of force should be considered to be in the zone of influence and the lateral capacity and the reduction factors presented below in Table 2 should be used. If the lateral contribution of the piles is more critical to the practical design of the structure, we can provide a comprehensive lateral pile analysis. Such an analysis would present lateral pile capacities taking into account the interaction between piles. Based on the loose conditions of the soils through which the augercast piles are to be excavated, care should be taken in construction planning to allow grout time to set prior to drilling adjacent piles. Typically, 24 hours of set time is recommended for piles closer than 3 pile diameters or 10 feet, whichever is greater. The 24 hours can be reduced for adjacent piles drilled on different workdays. 11.2 Group Effects Where piles are installed in groups and subject to lateral loading, reductions in lateral capacity to account for group effects should be included in design. The effects of group performance should be considered where piles are spaced closer than 6 pile diameters center-to-center and August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 16 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Design Recommendations are aligned in the direction of loading. Piles should not be spaced closer than 3 pile diameters center-to-center to achieve full vertical and uplift capacity. If piles are staggered in the x and y directions a minimum of 3 pile diameters, there is no reduction in lateral loading. For the determination of individual capacities for load application parallel to the line of spacing, the following spacing and reduction factors presented in Table 2 should apply. The last pile in a row can be assumed to develop the full lateral capacity. Table 2 Lateral Reduction Factors Pile Spacing Reduction Factor 6 diameters 1.0 5 diameters 0.8 4 diameters 0.6 3 diameters 0.4 11.3 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the pile caps and grade beams and the existing fill soils or structural fill, or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of these elements. The foundations must be backfilled with structural fill and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following allowable design parameters: • Passive equivalent fluid= 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) • Coefficient of friction= 0.30 12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT As discussed earlier in this report, existing site soils are considered to be settlement-prone, and we therefore recommend that floor slabs be designed as structural slabs and supported on pile foundations. Where potentially liquefaction-induced settlement can be tolerated, site soils can be used to support slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, or other similar structures contingent upon adequate remedial preparation and understanding of uncertainties in settlement performance. Slabs, pavement, or segmented paving stones to be supported on grade should be supported on a 2-foot-thick structural fill mat. All fill beneath slabs, paving stones, or pavement must be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. The floor slabs should be cast atop a August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pr: -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 17 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Design Recommendations minimum of 4 inches of clean washed crushed rock or pea gravel to act as a capillary break. Areas of subgrade that are disturbed (loosened) during construction should be compacted to a non-yielding condition prior to placement of capillary break material. It should also be protected from dampness by an impervious moisture barrier at least 10 mils thick. The impervious barrier should be placed between the capillary break material and the concrete slab. 13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS All exterior grade beams should be provided with a drain at least 12 inches below the base of the adjacent interior slab elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. 14.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS We anticipate that the new school development will include construction of paved parking areas and bus lanes. Due to loose/soft soils near the surface, some remedial measures may be necessary for support of new pavement or for areas of hardscaping (e.g., paving stones). To reduce the depth of overexcavation required and to achieve a suitable subgrade for support of pavement, we recommend that an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrid reinforcement be placed over the stripped subgrade prior to filling. The addition of an engineering stabilization fabric or geogrids permit heavier traffic over soft subgrade and increases the service life of the system. The fabric acts as a separation barrier between relatively fine-grained surficial materials on the site and the load-distributing aggregate (sand or crushed rock). As a separator, it reduces the loss of costly aggregate material into the subgrade and prevents the upward pumping of silt into the aggregate. The high tensile strength and low modulus of elongation of the fabric also act to reduce localized stress by redistributing traffic loads over a wider area of subgrade. In addition, the recommended method of installation {proof-rolling) identifies weak areas, which can be improved prior to paving. August 4, 2016 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3-Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 18 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnica/ Engineering Report Design Recommendations After the area to be paved is stripped and recompacted to the extent possible, engineering stabilization fabric, such as Mirafi 500X (or equivalent), should be placed over the subgrade with the edges overlapped in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Following subgrade preparation, clean, free-draining structural fill should be placed over the fabric and compacted to 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. Where fabric is exposed, spreading should be performed such that the dozer remains on the fill material and is not allowed to operate on uncovered fabric. When 12 inches of fill has been placed, the fabric should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck to pretension the fabric and identify soft spots in the fill. Upon completing the proof-rolling operation, additional structural fill should be placed and compacted to attain desired grades. Upon completion of the structural fill, a pavement section consisting of 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement {ACP) underlain by 2 inches of 5/8-inch crushed surfacing top course and 5 inches of lY.·inch crushed surfacing base course is the recommended minimum. The crushed rock courses must be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Given the potentially variable in-place density of existing fill subgrade, some settlement of paved areas should be anticipated unless existing fill is entirely removed and replaced with structural fill. 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the pile foundation system depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us know, and we will prepare a cost proposal. August 4, 2016 ASSOC/A TED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. DMG/pc -KE150719A3 -Projects\20150719\KE\ WP Page 19 Sartori Education Center Renton, Washington Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report Design Recommendations We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Attachments: Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Appendix: August 4, 2016 Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Geologic Cross Section A-A' Exploration Logs DMG/pc-K£150719A3 -Pro]ects\20150719\KE\ WP ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Page 20 DATA SOURCES/ REFERENCES: USGS : 24K SERIES TOPOG RPAH IC MAPS KI NG CO: STREETS , PARC ELS LOCAT IONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPR OXIMATE N A 0 1000 2000 FEET NOTE: BLACK AND WHITE REPRODUCT ION OF TH IS CO LOR ORIGI NAL MAY REDUC E ITS EFFECT IVENESS AN D LEAD TO ~CORREC T INTERPR ETATIO N ®assoc iated earth sciences in corporated VICINITY MAP SANTORI EDUCATION CENTER RENTON , WASHINGTON PROJ NO. DATE : FIGURE: KE15 07 19A 2/16 1 ;,; LEGEND: 0 "" ., ~ Q AE S I EXPLORATIO N BORI NG ti ·~ -CROSS S EC T ION ~I ~ Os1TE DATA SOURCES/ RE FERENCES: BING 2014 KING CO STREETS , PARCELS 2015 LOCATI ONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROX IMATE N A so 100 FEET NOTE BLACK AND WHI TE REPRODUCTION OF THIS COLO R OR IGtlAL MAY REDUCE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND LEAD TO INCORRECT INTERPRETAT ION associated ea rth scie n ces incorpora:ed SITE AND EXPLORATIONS SARTORI EDUCATION CENTER RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJ N O . DATE: KE 1507 19A 2/16 F IGUR E: 2 ~ ~ ~ 1l ~ m ~ ~ ·c ~ "' m ~ ~ ;::-w w lS z 0 e= <( > w __, w ~ t-- Ct'. 40 f 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 - -10 - -20 - -30 - -40 - -50 - -60 - -70 - -80 - -90 - "' er, w y ?--1------ y '? <D w -- Qac SAND AND GRAVEL ----- SILT AND CLAY SAND GRAVEL ?--I -SILT AND CLAY TD 61.5' I g I 0 1'l TD76.5' I 0 0 "' SAND GRAVEL ?---- . CLAY ' 0 0 " "' er, w y y "I' <D w --+------+---? ,-..-----+ 7750± 408P t---? ~ 7100± 408P --r----------+---? TD 91.5' ' 0 0 "' ' 0 al TD 91.5' I 0 0 r-- HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FEET) APPENDIX ID > ID ii5 0 0 N ci z C 0 "O ID C 'ffi -a; "' ,ft. 0 "' C "' £ i!' 0 ::;; "' ·a U) "O ID C 1~ {'.) d, ~ "' 0 u ~ ~ ii5 D 0 N ci z "' ID "' "' "' [l_ i!' 0 ::;; _15 ,ft. D "' "' ·a (f/ "O ID C ·~ {'.) ~ C le C 0 t5 ~ LL "' "O C "' U) 0 "' C "' rn ,,.~ "'--"' u"' -g j rn ;!:: "'E ~ :.:J U) "O ·5 rr ::; I , o ,, o Well-graded gravel and gravel with sand, little to no fines Poorly-graded gravel and gravel with sand, little to no fines Clayey gravel and clayey gravel with sand Well-graded sand and sw sand with gravel, little to no fines SP SM Poorly-graded sand and sand with gravel, little to no fines Silty sand and silty sand with gravel Clayey sand and SC clayey sand with gravel ML CL Silt, sandy silt, gravelly silt, silt with sand or gravel Clay of low to medium plasticity; silty, sandy, or gravelly clay, lean clay Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency Coarse- Grained Soils Fine- Grained Soils Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Consistency Very Soft Sott Medium Stiff Stitt Very Still Hard SPT121 blows/foot 0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 >50 SPT121blows/foot Oto 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 Bio 15 15 to 30 >30 Test Symbols G = Grain Size M = Moisture Content A = Atterberg Limits C = Chemcal DD ~ Dry Density K = Permeability Descriptive Term Boulders Component Definitions Size Range and Sieve Number Larger than 12'' Cobbles Gravel Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Sand Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Silt and Clay 3' to 12" 3' to No. 4 (4. 75 mm) 3" to 3/4' 3/4" to No. 4 (4.75 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) 10 No. 1 O (2.00 mm) No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm) No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm) t3 l Estimated Percentage Moisture Content Dry -Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Slightly Moist -Perceptible moisture Moist -Damp but no visible water Component Percentage by Weight Trace Some Modifier (silty, sandy, gravelly) Very modifier (silty, sandy, gravelly) <5 5 to <12 12 to <30 30 to <50 Symbols Very Moist -Water visible but not free draining Wet -Visible free water, usually from below water table Sampler Type Elastic silt, clayey silt, silt 2.0"0D Organic clay or silt of low OL plasticity Blows/6'' or portion of 6" I Sampler Type Description Cement grout surface seal MH with micaceous or Split-Spoon diatomaceous fine sand or Sampler .---rs:"il~t -,---------1 (SPT) Clay of high plasticity, sandy or gravelly clay, fat clay with sand or gravel Bulk sample CH ,0 " " 3.0' OD Split-Spoon Sampler 3.25" OD Split-Spoon Ring Sampler • 3.0" OD Thin-Wall Tube Sampler (including Shelby tube) ,,, Bentonite seal :.-: Filter pack with ·. blank casing ·.: section '::. Screened casing . ··: or Hydrotip ~--+------------< Grab Sample ·: with jilter pack End cap o Portion not recovered (1) Percentage by dry weight ~·E fl) Organic clay or silt of medium to high plasticity (2) (SPT) Standard Penetration Test '----Ei'fB±t--+---------4 (ASTM D-1566) Peat, muck and other (3) In General Accordance with ( 4 ) Depth of ground water y ATD At time of drilling 'i;l. Static water level (date) ..c ro = :f e>~ 0 5 PT highly organic soils Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (ASTM D-2488) (5l Combined uses symbols used for fines between 5% and 12% ~ Classifications of soils in this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations, which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and ..J plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual-manual and/or laboratory classification f methods of ASTM D-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Soil Classification System. : ~> ~<t?) :0 ,/ associated e art h 1 n c o r sciences oorated EXPLORATION LOG KEY FIGURE A1 associated earth sciences incorporated Project Number KE150719A I Exnloration Loa Exploration Number EB-1 Sheet 1 of 2 I Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 £ C. ru Cl -5 -10 -15 -20 ~ 25 ~ 30 I S-1 I -p 0 S-2 o 01 b O ' ' ] S-3 ] S-4 I S-5 - S-6 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. ~ 0 i 0 0 I ' ' 111 , I '! I I Renton._WA GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA 140#/30" DESCRIPTION Sod I Topsoil Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River Loose, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND, trace organics (SM). Loose, moist, orange to light gray, fine SAND, some silt (SP). Driller noted gravels. Dense, moist, brownish orange, sandy GRAVEL; oxidized (GP). Driller notes less gravel. Loose, wet, orange brown, fine to medium SAND, some gravel (SP). Loose, wet, ocange brown, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL (GW). Driller adds mud. Stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML). Loose, wet, gray. silty, fine SAND (SM). Wood debris. Loose, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND (SP). Medium stiff, wet, brow-nish gray, SILT, trace fine sand (ML). Hard, wet, brovmish gray, SILT, trace fine sand (ML). Dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND {SW). Driller notes gravels. Datum ~N=/A~-------- Date Start'Finish Hole Diameter (in) C W 0 > - =ii~~ Q)o_ L.. :s: :S:EQ)..Q 2/3/16,2/3/16 _ -- 8 inches Blows/Foot 011ii <D 0 ,: I 10 20 30 40 13 13 19 2 3 5 2 5 4 2 2 7 5 3 2 5 23 i 13 ... 32 !""' T "I i "1--c-~---c=-'.__..,=~---------------------------"-----'----'----'----"--"--"-----"------l 'f! Sampler Type (ST): g : 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) W 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) ~ 0 ~ ;;; EJI Grab Sample L] No Recovery I] Ring Sample LJ Shelby Tube Sample M -Moisture 2 Water Level () ~ Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Logged by: TWL Approved by: CJK ~ ~----------------------------------------------' ~ a.teoti11ted Exnloration Loa ear I h sciences Project Number Exploration Number I Sheet ' " corporaleC KE150719A I EB-1 2of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Location Renton WA Datum ~•1 11.· Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 lfu I HSA Date Start/Finish 213116 2/3/16 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) Binches ---- I a ~. I ---~ g J!l 00 ~:g 00 m 1= il m le Blows/Foot ~ c_ -" 00 I t "-E m-L 3 S' E ~ >, :;:~ * .Q i;; m T rn 1<9 (I) _c 0 (I) a ~ a::i; 6 DESCRIPTION u 10 20 30 40 ' Hard, wet, brownish gray, sandy SILT (ML). I 16 i S-8 fs2 .... Very dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SW). 26 -... ' 36 i ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0/E" -45 J ... S-9 h ••• Very dense, wet, brownish gray, sandy GRAVEL; blov.' counts overstated; driller •so 0 0 0 notes bouncing on rock (GP). b 0 Luuo 0 0 b 0 0 0 Driller notes less gravels. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -50 1 0 0 s-101::::::: Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND (SW). 14 ... 2, 12 '·>>> 14 I I· •••••• ~ 55 T s-11 0 Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL (GP). 12 0 0 17 ... 3fi 0 ' 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 60 ~ 0 0 i 0 No recovery. 4 S-12 0 0 ... 13 0 I 4 ,_ ~ ' 9 ! Bottom of exploration baring at 61.5 feet Note: Blow counts below 35 feet are likely overstated due to gravels. L 65 I ! ' I I : I 70 I I I ! I I i I ' ' ' 75 ' I ~ I I 0 i I ~ 0 ;; • 2 ~ • ~ ~ ~ Sampler Type (ST): ~ ~ m '.] 0 2" OD Spnt Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: TWL ~ ~ [I] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample y__ Water Level I) Approved by: CJK a m ~ IZl !' a; Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) w ~ $ assoclttted Exploration Log_ -------T --- earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number Sheet I n C 0 rpoia1ed ' KE150719A EB-2 I 1 of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -37 Location Reoton WA Datum N/A ---- Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig / HSA Date Start/Finish 2/2116,2/2116 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) 8iacbes ---- §: C 1 = £l I m -~O 0 m t :::::;i " "' ~ " ".c -" "' Blows/Foot o. E ,,_ L ~ 15. s E ~ >, 3: ~ " 0 i;; " T ro CJ CJ) ro m " Cl CJ) 0 3: 0 I DESCRIPTION () 10 20 30 40 1.:·/:~;-· ' Concrete Dr~ve~c!Y_~_ 4 inches --,;- I -\ Crushed Gravel Base Course QU3ternary Alluvium -Cedar River Cuttings: Moist, reddish brown, fine SAND, trace gravel (SP). -5 ] I S-1 Very loose, moist, brown, fine to coarse SAND, some fine gravel, trace silt; 1 ... 3 stratified (SP). 1 2 Po ~ Driller notes gravels. 0 0 -10 I S-2p: ~ Medium dense, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified 10 "'21 (GM-GP). 11 ' 10 ' 0 ; 0 l' 0 0 i -15 l S-3 Medium dense, wet, brown, interbedded SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt 7 • (SP/GP). I 8 ' 19 • ! 11 • -. i : .. _-• r 20 _----•1 Driller adding mud at 20 feet. ~ , 11 • S-4 Loose/medium stiff, wet, gray, interbedded, silty, fine SAND and sandy SILT, 3 ... trace mica; thinly bedded to laminated (SM/ML). 4 ' ' 3 I - 1:--.!_j I , Ii r 25 I As above, silt beds are slightly brown-tinged, occasional organics. S-5 4 ... ~ 3 51 ' ' i 30 I ! I / Soft, very moist, gray, fine sandy SILT/CLAY; occasional brown silt interbeds S-6 . 2 ...3 I I with organic material; laminated (MUCL). 1 2 I I I Driller notes gravels. ~ 35 I S-7 Upper 8 inches of sample: As above (MUCL). ~ 5 "'23 0 :-:! Lower 10 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, very gravelly SAND, 10 N <<. 13 0 some silt; stratified (SM-SW) . . . - ~ ::+_ 2 n I • j• ~ ~ ~ Sampler Type (ST): ~ ;: w D ~ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG " DJ 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) [ Ring Sample 2 Water Level() Approved by: CJK 0 m ~ ~ in Grab Sample Sh<Jby Tube Sample .!: Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) w ~ .@ assocla1ed Exploration Loa earth sciences ~ Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet I n C 0 r p a 1 a 1 e C KE150719A EB-2 I 2 of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -37 Location BimtQn WA Datum '1/h Driller/Equipment __ill)I I 050 Rig I HSA ----Date StarUFinish 212116 212116 Hammer WeighVDrop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) 8iacbes g I .§ -,; ~ ~ ~:g > a • =W . "' Blows/Foot ~ ..., ;;; t C. c. E •-L 3 S' E ~ >, sE $ 0 ~ • T "' Cc)(!) "' -6 Cl (/) 0 5 "' DESCRIPTION 0 10 20 30 40 l S-8 Very dense, wet, gray, very gravelly SAND, some to trace silt, interbeds of gray 15 CLAY; scattered organic matter; blO'N counts may be overstated due to gravels 23 ·~51 (SP/CL). 28 I -45 I, ., S-9 , Dense, wet, brov..n, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, some silt; 2-inch bed 14 oi.31 of gravel (fractured) in sampler tip; stratified (SM-SP). 9 I I 22 ' -50 I S-10 0 Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified (GP). 0 0 10 "21 0 13 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °1 : >-55 -0 0 I 0 Very dense, wet, gray grading to brown, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; 17 ' S-11 0 0 0 fractured gravel in sampler tip; thinly bedded; blOW' counts may be overstated ! 23 .1.55 -0 0 due to gravels (GP). 22 p 0 0 0 ' 0 ' 0 0 ' 0 0 0 i ' 0 r 60 0 0 • Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, bedded SAND and S-12 . 11 •12 GRAVEL, trace silt (SP/GP). 6 I Lower 6 inches of sample: Stiff, very moist, gray to dark brown, sandy SILT; 6 abundant organic matter; laminated; abrupt contact (ML). ' ' I i r 65 I ' Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, trace silt; thinly ! S-13 7 •11 I bedded (SP), 9 IJ ! 8: 70 ] S-14 11 Upper 12 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, tan v.ith orange oxidation, 8 •10 silty, fine SAND; thinly bedded (SM), 9 Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, orangish brovm, fine to 9 medium SANO, trace silt; bedded (SP). -75 - ; rl ~ S-15 Dense, wet, reddish brown grading to brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; 8 .. 33 0 C • stratified; some gravels are fractured (GM-GP). 10 ~ -C -1 --23 ,;! • Bottom of exploration boring at 76.5 feet 2 I D • Note: Blow counts from 35 to 55 feet and at 75 feet likely overstated due to ~ o'. gravels. ' " Sampler Type (ST): ~ ~ --D 0 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG ;'! ~ I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) [ Ring Sample 'l-Water Level () Approved by: CJK 0 ~ - in fl: Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample y Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) w < $ associated Exnloration Loa ear I h sciences Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet ' ncorpcralec KE150719A EB-3 1 of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation {ft) -37 Location Renton WA Datum NIA -- Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA Date Start/Finish 211116 2/J 116 140#/ 30" Hole Diameter (in) ' Hammer Weight/Drop --8 inches -- -- "j1 • I € C JJl ~ .S! 0 ' 0 • .c-" k~ j ~! Blows/Foot ~ t c_ "-E 'Q)o.. ~ ~1 s E ~ >, ,3: E • 0 ,; • T m (DC/) ~ CD, .c 0 "' 0 i5 DESCRIPTION u 10 20 30 40 ~ -~ Asohalt Pavement • 3 inches r I I I \~ -Crushed Gravel Base Course I Quaternary Alluvium-Cedar River Very smooth, fast drilling. I L 5 ' 1 S-1 Upper 6 inches of sample: Loose, moist, brown, gravelly, medium SAND, some 2 " silt; bedded (SM-SP). 3 -' Lower 6 inches of sample: Loose, moist, light brown with faint orange 4 oxidation, fine SAND, some gravel. some silt (SM~SP). ' i :,c L 10 'Tl I. ,_ Medium dense, wet, brown and orangish brown, fine to medium SAND, trace S-2 3 gravel, trace silt; bedded (SP). I 6 "12 -6 Driller notes gravel layer. I ! L 15 L I I I N:. above, 4 inch interbed of silty gravel. 6 inch heave. 8 S-3 11 •20 ' 9 I I L 20 11 S-4 j I, Driller adding mud at 20 feet Upper 5 inches of sample: A5 above. 5 I "26 Middle 4 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, very silty, fine SAND: 12 thinly bedded (SM). 14 Lower 5 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL; ' ~! stratified (GM). L 25 !_,_ S-5: r Medium dense, wet, gray, very grave!!y, fine to medium SAND, some silt, trace 8 •2a organic matter; stratified (SM-SP). 13 I 13 ' Driller notes less gravelly, faster drilling. I I·.·:·. ' I .. .", 30 ~11 Medium stiff, wet, gray, fine sandy SILT/CLAY, with occasional thin interbeds of I 2 "6 silty, fine sand; abundant organic matter: trace gravel isolated in interbeds 3 (MUCL). 3 I I [ ~ I. Back into gravels. I ' 35 ! 1 ... w S-7 • Dense, wet, gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL, trace organic debris (grasses); gravels 11 •as 0 up to 2 inches in diameter; stratified (GM). 18 N • I • 2\ I 0 ' .1 ... 2 . I I ~ I • I • I I • ~ ~ .1 •• i i ~ ~ Sampler Type (ST): ;: Ill [' 0 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG ';' " [!] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample v Water Level () App,-oved by: CJK 0 • ~ LJ in Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample _J' Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) w ~ ~ associated Exgloration Log earth sciences Project Number I Exploration Number l Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-3 2 of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -37 Location BeolQD wr,., Datum f\Jill Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA -------· Date StarUFinish 2fj 116 211116 Hammer Weight/Drop _HO#/ 30" _ Hole Diameter (in) Biacbes l I C ~ = l!l §: m lu-=~ m ' "' :.cE "' "' Blows/Foot "' ~ ' 0. _, "' >-s' o. E <0-~ ~ C. E E >-;::~ "' a Ii; "' T rn "U) 1il -5 0 U) 8 ;:: <D DESCRIPTION i 10 20 30 40 1 S-8 ' Dense, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified (GP). '19 0 0 ""4 h C i 18 I 1-. Q 0 28 ' 0 0 0 0 i Q Q ' 0 6 () 0 () ! I I 45 -C 0 i S-9 i Dense, wet, brawn, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, trace silt; occasional siltier 15 .l.54' interbeds; stratified (SP). 30 ~ 34 I ' ' I I ' 50 J I I I As above, sand is coarser. 10 S-10 20 &45 261 ! I I ' 55 J1 S-11 :~ Dense, wet, brown becoming reddish brown with depth (abundant oxidation), 18 ... 7 fine sandy GRAVEL, some silt to silty; stratified (GM-GP). 25 22 oli . i oo 0 ' 60 ~ Very dense, wet, mottled gray and brown with occasional orange oxidation, silty, S-12 ~I• 15 fine sandy GRAVEL (GM), 25 ' 50 --,25 Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet i Note: Blow counts from 35 to 60 feet likely overstated due to gravels. ' 65 I 70 I ~ 75 I I I Sampler Type (ST): 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) D No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample 'l Water Level () Approved by: CJK - !l: Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample l' Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) $ associated Exnloration Loa ----earth sciences I Project Number I Exploration Number Sheet ' nccrpcraled KE150719A EB-4 I 1 of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Location _Renton~WA Datum I\J/A Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig/ HS!l. Date Start/Finish 21lil6 2/l/J 6 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) Binches -- € C oj ~ m u-0 > • m --0 =i m ,e m _c-" Blows/Foot li 1i "-E --' m >--m-L 3 s E ~ >, ;: ~ m o ~ m ro '!)Cl) rn co 0 T if) 8 = DESCRIPTION ;: 0 10 20 30 40 ."'! .• ': Asahalt Pavement -1 inch ~ ' Crushed Gravel Base Course I ' ' Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River I I L 5 ~ S-1 I I 3 Medium dense, moist, orangish brown and tan with orange oxidation, silty, fine SAND, some gravel; thinly bedded with interbeds (1 inch thick) of sandy gravel 5 •1 -and very sandy silt (SM). 10 ' ' i ' Gravelly drilling. ' .. I I I I ' I I I I ' ! L 10 b •, Medium dense, wet, orangish brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; occasional thin S-2 6 • 11a i 0 • (1 inch thick) interbeds of sandy silt (GM-GP). l' 9 b • b :1; 9 ::, 1 • '• 0 0 0 L 15 o_ • S-3 1 Medium dense, wet, brown, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, some silt; 5 ·,~ occasional coarser interbeds (SM-SP). 6 ~ 10 I 20 f-c S-4 ~ 18 Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Medium stiff, wet, gray, interbedded very silty SAND and SILT/CLAY; 116 occasional organics and mica; bedded; laminated within silUclay beds "' -(SM-MUCL). 4 Y, r I ' L 25 I ' I Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND, trace gravel; abundant organics (bark 3 ' S-5 fragments); stratified (SM). : I •10 L 30 i S-6 l Medium stiff, wet, gray and dark brovm, fine sandy SILT; scattered organics 5 • (rootlets); laminated (ML)_ 3 4 I Driller notes gravels. ' h 0 ~:, 35 b 0 Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; stratified (GM-GP). ~ S-7 o '•' 6 "'2s 0 b 13 ~ . 12 0 b 0 ~ ' o' • b ' 2 : :~: I I D • i I ~ ~ I I I I " Sampler Type (ST): m ~ [I] D ~ 2" 00 Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: OMG cr [I] 3" 00 Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample ¥ Wat.er Level I) Approved by: CJK 0 m 11',J 17] ~ Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample -" Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) w ~ .® 8SIIOC1eted Exnloration Loa earth sciences Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet ' " corpora lee KE150719A EB-4 2 of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Location Renton, WA ----Datum W,t>. ---- Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA Date Start/Finish -2/1/16,211116 --- Hammer Weight/Drop _H0#/30" _ -------Hole Diameter (in) Biocbes ----- I ! g C ~ = I J,,i 00 "-1 I E ID --0 ID <D Blows/Foot ID ~-" =as~ _, "' ~ ci a. E t-15. ,S E !!! >, I i 3 f L ~ ~ ID O ID T rn (!J(fJ rn CD 6 0 (fJ DESCRIPTION ' u ;;: I 10 20 30 40 [ ~1 As above. 10 S-8 0 • 11 "'23 ' . b O. 12 oe ' b ~ I 0. : ol I 45 ~::i M above, dense. 19 l40 15 25 0 • 0 0 0 0 ~ 50 ~: ~ As above, brownish gray. _s-10 :~ 10 "'32 15 17 b O r 01 b •• bo ~ 55 ~ S-11 bo Upper 5 inches of sample: As above. o,: 11 Lower 6 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, brown, gravelly, fine to medium 12 A24 I SAND, some silt (SM-SP). 12 :·1 ' -I. ~ 60 1 Upper 4 inches of sample: As above. ·n Middle 5 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, very sandy GRAVEL, S-12 h ' some silt; stratified (GP-GM). 12 "'14 9 I I I\ Lower 5 inches of sample: Stiff, very moist, dark brown, SILT; scattered 5 or~nic matter; thin interbed of grat sand; laminated (ML). r Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet ! Note: Blow-oounts form 35 to 55 feet likely overstated due to gravels. i ~ 65 i I ' ' ' 70 I ' 75 w 0 N ' ci ' i I • 2 ~ • ~ o' ~ Sampler Type (ST): ~ ;: -D 0 2" OD Split Spoon Sam~er (SPT) No Recovery M ~ Moisture Logged by: DMG ;e - tt []J 3" OD Split Spoon Sam~er (D & M) I] Ring Sample 'l Water Level () Approved by: CJK 0 0 ~ 0 y a; Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) w < ~ ~ 0 ~ i ~ associated earth sciences incorporated Project Number KE150719A I Exoloration Loa Exploration Number EB-5 I Sheet 1 of 2 Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer WeighVDrop _Sartori Education Center Renton WA Datum ~N=/A~-------- -5 10 15 r 20 r 25 r 30 r 35 GDI I D50 Rig/ HSA Date Start/Finish 211116 ?/1116 140#/30" Hole Diameter (in) ~8"-"in'"c'-b"e°"S------ DESCRIPTION .---;,: ·. :::,.. Asohalt Pavement -2 inches ;; ~.· ''1\0 -------~c=',~u~s"h~ed'ccGc'-r~ave=:lc:Bac'-s~e"cc'o~u~rs~e~-------~/ Fill ---r I I \Silty sand~!!_~ gravel. Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River ] S-1 1 · Loose, moist, orangish brown and tan, fine SAND, some silt to silty: thinly bedded (SM-SP). I ' I S-2 1,i 0 • o• 0 . 0. 0 Medium dense, very moist, crangish brown, fine sandy GRAVEL, some silt; stratified (GM-GP). 1 S-3 I ~; 0 \ Dense, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; stratified, with 3 inch silt , 0 bed in sample; blow counts my be overstated due to gravels (GW). 0 0 0 ? C '? r:i ·01 c:,0 n 0 0 o Q .,I 1 ' S-41'i- I! i 'I S-5 . 1 S-6 -W Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Upper 6 inches of sample: AA above. Lower 18 inches of sample: Medium stiff, wet, gray, very silty, fine SAND to very fine sandy SILT, trace organic material; 1 inch interbed of brown, gravelly sand within silt stratified (SM/ML). Medium dense, wet, mottled gray and dark brown, very silty, fine SAND; laminated to thinly bedded (SM). AA above, 6 inch bed of laminated gray SILT (ML) near sampler Up. Driller notes gravels. -\ Dense, wet, orangish brown, gravelly SAND, some silt; gravel is fractured: \stratified (SP-SM). i I r C W 0 > : :;::; (lJ :£ = Q.) ...I U) ~o.. ,._ 3: >E.S.2 o rn Ol ll 3: Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 2 3 ... 6 3 8 12 14 " i 13 16 16 i I I I~ ... ~ 3 3 lo.11 5 6 I ' ' 2 ...1J 7 I 81 i I I 5 lo.41 23 18 I I ' I I I I ~1--::-~:-::-'--=:-----------------------------'--~~~--'----'----'-----'------'---'---I Sampler Type (ST): m i; ~ ~ 0 m in w [I] [I] !ijJ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) D No Recovery [ Ring Sample M -Moisture Logged by: DMG '¥-Water Level() Approved by: CJK .!'. Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Grab Sample t'. Shelby Tube Sample ~'--------------------'-----'---------------------------' ~ " N a ' • associaled earth sciences incorporated Project Number KE150719A I Exnloration Lon Exploration Number EB-5 I Sheet 2 of 2 Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop Sartori Education Center -Renton WA Datum _N-/A~-------- _GDJ/ D50 RigLHSA 140# / 30" Date Start/Finish 2/1 /16 ?/1 /16 Hole Diameter (in) 8 incbe"'"------- '------------------------------------------~ ----~ t-is w ·-0 -£.c £ "-l"-E 15_ s E ~ » m T u'5 ;r.9 U) 0 S-8 I I I ' 45 1 S-9 u· b° C 0- 0 D~ ~ Oh 0 ,_ 50 ' ' h S-10oho -ohc "I;" h ~...) 0 0 ( o, o C o L 55 J r, C or S-11 0 h ;O ) C 0 si h 'I ,_ ' 60 I S-12 65 I L 70 ' 75 S-13 -- J1. ~r !- ~-. ' . • I • • S-14:il~' [: -.-: ... 1 s-15·.·.·.· .... - DESCRIPTION Very dense, wet, light grayish brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some silt; stratified; blow counts may be overstated due to grave!s (SM-SP). Medium dense, wet, brownish gray, very sandy GRAVEL, some silt; thinly bedded (GM-GW)_ Very dense, wet, grayish brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; stratified (GM-GW). As above, 1/2 inch gray, silt bed at tip of sampler. Drilling smoothed out. Very stiff/medium dense, very moist, gray, fine SAND, trace gravel, with interbeds of gray to dark brown, SILT; scattered organics in silt beds; laminated within silt beds (SM/ML). Very stiff/medium dense, moist, gray interbedded sandy SILT and silty, fine SAND, some gravel near sampler tip (MUSM). Driller notes gravels at 67 feet. Hard, sticky, gravelly drilling. Upper 6 inches of sample: Very dense, wet, gray, silty/clayey GRAVEL; stratified (GM/GC). Lower 12 inches of sample: Very dense, wet, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL; orange oxidation within siltier interbeds; stratified (GM). Very dense, wet, brown grading to gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some to trace silt; stratified (SW). -- Bottom of exploration boring at 76.5 feet I I I ! 12 38 24 11 15 13 18 36 40 10 30 I 015" 12 12 12 8 11 9 18 30 31 28 47, 25 Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 '62 ·~8 -~76 i ' I •soi I 1" ! •20 ""'61 472 I ~ ~ I I ~il----'--j__.L_ ___________________________ _[__L_L_L__j_ _ _l_ _ _L _ _J_ _ _l _ _[__j Note: Blow counts from 35 to 75 feet likely overstated due to gravels. ~ * ~ 0 • '" w Sampler Type (ST): [[] 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) m 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) ~ - --No Recovery I] Ring Sample M -Moisture Logged by: DMG \j_ Water Level() App,-oved by: CJK y Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Grab Sample vi Sh.;by Tube Sample <L. _____ _;_ ________ ..:....:__.:._ __ :_:_:____::_:_ _______________________ _J associated earth sciences 1ncorporaleC Project Number KE150719A I Exnloration Loa Exploration Number EB-6 I Sheet 1 of 3 Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight'Drop _Sartori Education Center Renton WA Datum ~N=/A~-------- Date Start/Finish 2/2/16 212116 GDI / P5Q_B_ig / H~S=A~-----------140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) ~B~in~c~bue=s _____ _ g ~ .9Q ID .<=-" .<= 0. a. E "E. ,s E ~ " ID IT ro <!)(I) 0 (/) I DESCRIPTION I ~ Asphalt Pavement· 3 inches F -- 1 ,::ll'\ 1 -, -------~C~ru~,~h~ed~G~r~ave=l~Ba~s~e~C~o~u~,~,e~-------~ 1 /F: . Old Asphalt Pavement f Crushed Gravel Layer? . Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River -5 -10 -15 -20 r 25 r S-1 ] S-2 I ! I. . ' • • . •• • • ] s-3i . I S-4 I ~II /,~ o I 30 ~ ' ~ r 35 S-6 C 0 p 0 p: 0 :1 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 S-7 o o p 0 0 0 p 0 ~ p O O 0 Loose, moist, orangish brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, trace to some silt; stratified with occasional silty sand interbeds (SM-SP). Driller notes gravels. Medium dense, wet, orangish brown, fine to medium SAND, grading into GRAVEL, trace silt: bedded (SP/GP). Driller adding mud at 15 feet. Upper 4 inches of sample: As above, siltier (SP-SM). Lower 14 inches of sample: Loose/medium stiff, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND and gray, S!L T, some sand; bedded, trace organics in silt layer; silt is laminated (SM/ML). Medium stiff, wet, gray, fine sandy SJL T: occasional interbeds of silty sand; occasional brown silt interbeds; thinly bedded to laminated (ML). Medium stiff, very moist, gray, SILT/CLAY: interbeds of dark brown silt/clay with organic matter; laminated (MUCL). Driller notes drilling firmed up. Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL, some to trace silt; some gravels are fractured (GP). As above. ~ p 8 0 ° Driller notes gravels. i I ' I 4 4 4 i I "' I ' I 4 7 s· 31 ~ I 6 4 4 3 2 3 5 9 11 : B , 12 '12 Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 I I . I I "a : I I &15 I I I ..IB I I A5 ~ hooo I 1il ,"'. ffi £ 0 ~ I',,,, I "1--,----~~~~~L_-------------------------------'---'---'-~--L_--'---...L-_l__l___j ~ Sampler Type (ST): ~ ~ [IJ 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) ~ 0 m ~ [I] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) !Qi Grab Sample D No Recovery IJ Ring Sample k] Shelby Tube Sample M -Moisture SI-Water Level () !'. Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Logged by: DMG Approved by: CJK ~ ~----------------------------------------------' ®' a&soclated Exnloration Loa earth sciences Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet I n C 0 rpora1ed KE150719A EB-6 2 of 3 Project Name Sartori Education Center -Ground Surface Elevation (ft) _:-3_6____ Location Reotoo WA ·· Datum [II/A Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig / HSA Date StarUFinish 212116 212116 ' Hammer WeightlDrop 140#/30" Hole Diameter (in) Biocbes _§ " ' I oo g w u-> • ;; w :c .8 i ,=Ql w "' Blows/Foot w .c 0. g. E ..., ol I-w-L ~ 15. s E ~E L L. >. ' J!l 0 w w T ro r.9 (/) I ~ CJ 5 0 (/) 0 DESCRIPTION u 10 20 30 40 11 0 0 As above, stratified. I Bl I S-8 0 0 ··18 0 0 9 ~ 0 0 I 91 I 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 I I I I I 0 0 0 0 ' 45 1 0 0 ' ! 0 0 Medium dense, wet, gray, fine sandy GRAVEL, trace silt; gravel is fractured; 12 S-9 o o stratified (GP). 12: •t7 ,0:0 15: 0 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -50 0 0 I 0 0 As above, dense. 8·10 0 0 13 &31 0 0 20 0 0 11 0 Q Driller notes gravels. 0 0 0 0 0 0 bo:c -55 r S-11 0 0 Dense, wet, gray, gravelly SAND, trace to some silt; stratified (SP). 16 &35 19 17 ·.·. ~ 60 ~ &12 ~ Very stiff, moist, gray, SILT/CLAY, with interbeds (2 to 4 inches thick) of silty, 7 ... 7 fine SAND and brown, organic-rich silt; organic odor; laminated to thinly bedded 8 I ~ (MUCL). 9 ~ ' I ~ 65 -i S-13 As above. '2 .. ~ . 3 -5 I 70 . Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, trace dark S-14 8 brown/gray silt beds (-1 inch thick); bedded (SP). ' 9 ' 19 10 I ! I I r 75 I • I I '/'. &15 Dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, some silt; stratified (SM-SP). 11 .... ! 0 20 I N 2s1 I 0 i 2 I I D i • ~ I " I " Sampler Type (ST): m ~ [I] -0 2" 00 Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG ~ - ~ [I] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) IJ Ring Sample "1. Water Level () Approved by: CJK 0 m 151 IZl a; Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample y Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) w < assoclaled earth sciences incorporate~ Project Number KE150719A Sartori Education Center I Exnloration Loa Exploration Number EB-6 I Sheet 3 of 3 Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop Renton. WA _ ···-------------~ GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA Datum _,New/A-._ ______ _ ~ I S-16 ·I. I: 140# / 30" DESCRIPTION Dense, wet, gray, interbedded, SAND, some silt and sandy SILT; thinly bedded to laminated (SM-SP/ML). I 85 ~ JI,. Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, some gravel, some silt; . 1 bedded (SM-SP). 90 ' 95 I 100 I 105 110 1.-115 S-17 ,_,, I , ] ::·1· J'.I Very stiff, very moist, light gray, CLAY; medium to high plasticity; laminated S-18 I .__(M_H).~~~-· Bottom of exploration boring at 91.5 feet Note: Blow counts from 45 to 55 feet and 75 to 85 feet may be overstated due to gravels. Date Start/Finish 212116 212116 Hole Diameter (in) . 8 inches I § ~ = .::; Q) !£ ~i:: ~ ~ E ~I .Q 0 ro.c:o 0;:: 13 16 21 I 11 15 11 I 8 12 12 10 I I Blows/Foot 20 30 40 I '"t? I I ' .. 7 I ! J!l w ,"' ~ ~ 5 ' I I I I !f-~..LJ __ 'L__L ____________________ _L_ I_LJ__J: __ L_I _____ _J_~ m Sam~er Type (ST): ~ ~ [I] 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) [ ] No Recovery ~ [D 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample M -Moisture 2 Water Level () .! Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Logged by: DMG Approved by: CJK ~ ~ Grab Sample 0 Shelby Tube Sample '------'---------=---'----'-------------------__J ~ 0 w in w < ® asaoclated Exoloration Loa earth sciences Project Number Exploration Number I Sheet ' " corporatec KE150719A I EB-7 1 of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center -------Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Location BentQn, WA Datum N/A ----- Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA -Date Start/Finish 213116 2/3116 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# L 30" ---Hole Diameter (in) Biacbes r --- g I "I,; "' w 1u-gl~ 2 :.c:_8 =(I} ...J ;;; Blows/Foot £ "-i~~ Olt5. ... ~ "-S, E ~E2 m Tl "' "'U) 0 0 "' <D U) DESCRIPTION () ~ 10 20 30 40 I ' I' ' ,, Sod J Toesoil ~ Quaternary Alluvium -Cedar River r 5 >' Very loose, moist, orangish brown, SAND, trace to some gravel; thin bed of tan j' 2 S-1 silt near top of sample; thinly bedded with beds of finer and coarser sand (SP). 1 "2 I 1 - I po~ Driller notes gravels. f--10 Medium dense, very moist, brown, sandy GRAVEL, some silt; occasional I S-2 : 0 10 " 7 organics (rootlets); stratified (GM-GP). 15 : :~ 12 'f o,, f--15 : :~ Medium dense, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL; occasional sandy silt interbeds; IS-3,o. 3 i'-11 scattered rootlets; stratified (GM-GP). 5 bo• 6 0 b I 0 • bo~ b ~ 20 0 Driller adding mud at 20 feet. ] S-4 '> Medium dense, wet, gray, fine SAND, some gravel, grading into sandy SILT; 2 scattered rootlets; thinly bedded to laminated (SP) (ML). 4 ~10 6 I -25 L I! Loose/ medium stiff, wet, gray, interbedded fine SAND and sandy SILT; S-5 ! I 2 "s scattered organics; thinly bedded to laminated (SP/ML). 1 -4 ' I -30 - S-6 Medium stiff, very moist, gray with some dark brown mottling, fine sandy SILT; ! 2 "E occasional organics; laminated (ML). 3 - , 'I I 3 ! I I I I Driller notes gravels. 35 -Upper 18 inches of sample: As above. i 6 i S-7 '8 "1p 0 0 Lower 4 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, GRAVEL, trace silt; 8 0 0 gravel is fractured (GP). ' 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sampler Type (ST): -2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) D No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: I 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (0 & M) I] Ring Sample 'SJ_ Water Level () Approved by: -t, Grab Sample 2l Shelby Tube Sample -" Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) ~ ~ ~ ~ i5 DMG CJK ~ as.soclated Exoloration Loa ,---- ----- earth sciences Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet I n C 0 rpora1e~ KE150719A EB-7 2of 2 Project Name Sartori Education Center --Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Location _&m!o_n,WA Datum _J\j/A Driller/Equipment _G_QI / D50 Rig/ HSA Date Start/Finish 213116 213116 Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" ---Hole Diameter (in) Biocbes ------ I 1-g C ID ~ ~ .!d 0 01 > ' ID .CD ~ Q)~ Blows/Foot ID t a_ "-E = Q) -I Cf.I t- s E ~> ~Q.. Q)I ~ ii; ID T rn (!)CJ) E ....... .Q 5 0 CJ) a roi ca DESCRIPTION 0 ~-10 20 30 40 I i 1 S-8 ! Dense, wet, gray, very gravelly SAND, some silt; stratified (SM-SP). 1 15 .ol.42 21 21 I ~ 45 I S-9 Dense, wet, gray, bedded SAND and sandy GRAVEL; gravel is fractured 30 .ol.4 . (SP/GP) . 23 p 0 23 I 0 C Driller notes less gravels. ' I ~ 50 ] S-10 Upper 16 inches of sample: Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND, 5 lo-21 some silt; bedded (SM-SP). 8 Lower 4 inches of sample: Very stiff, very moist, gray and dark brown, SILT; 13 ! abundant organics; laminated (ML). ' ' _j ' ' 55 [! S-11 Upper 10 inches of sample: Loose, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND 11 i I (SM-SP). 4 I ' 9 i Lower 8 inches: Stiff, wet, gray and dark brown, SILT; laminated (ML). 5 ! I -60 I l S-12 Stiff, wet, gray and dark brown, fine sandy SILT; occasional fine sand interbeds; ! 3 .ol.g thinly bedded (ML). 3 6 ' ! Bottom of exploration boring at 61.5 feet i I ' Note: Blow counts from 40 to 45 feet likely overstated due to gravels. I I -65 ' I I ! -70 ! I I -75 ' ~ I 0 N ci a' i 2 ~ ' • I ~ ~ ~ Sampler Type (ST): m ~ [I] I] 2" OD Spit Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: DMG [I] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample \} Water Level () Approved by: CJK ~ Grab Sample LJ Shelby Tube Sample _,. Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) w g " " 1 If_ associated earth sciences inccrporalec Exnloration Loa 1--~~~~~~~~~~~._.._._.._.~_._..~,__~--~--~--~ Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet KE150719A EB-8 1 of 3 Project Name Location Driller/Equipment Hammer Weight/Drop Sartori Education Center Renton WA GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA 140# / 30" DESCRIPTION Ground Surface Elevation (ft) --~3~6~-- Datum _N/A _ Date Start/Finish ---2/3/16,2/3J1fi__ Hole Diameter (in) _.R:,_uiOJ1C.;ib1tee,5,___ ____ _ Blows/Foot 10 20 30 40 ,. ,,--{ -------~--~Sod~_IT~o~ps~o~il_~~--------- :.:·. · Quaternary Alluvium· Cedar River ! ' S-1 I Very loose. moist, brownish orange, medium SAND; o~dized (SP). ~ .. ·. _I - 10 11 S-2 L- -15 ] I! I S-3 .. . . . -20 -25 i I I S-5 30 r 35 - S-7 .·. ·. ··· .. ·. Driller notes gravels. Dense, moist, brownish orange, gravelly, medium to coarse SAND; blow counts I overstated; oxidized (SP). Very stiff, wet, brownish gray, sandy SILT (ML)_ Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, trace silt (SW) . Driller adding mud at 20 feet. Loose, wet, gray medium SAND (SP). Medium stiff, wet, dark brown, SILT, trace wood debris (ML). Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND (SM). Medium stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML). S!iff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; thinly bedded (ML). .· I Very stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; laminated (ML). Medium dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND; stratified (SP). Driller notes gravels. I I I " 1 1 "'2 1 6 13 20 2 ~~1 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 5 12 I I I ... 7 " I c,f--~~~~~~,c---------------------------~----'----'----'-----'-----'-----'-----'-----'-------'----l m Sampler Type (ST): ~ ] 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) D No Recovery M -Moisture ~ L[J 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) (J Ring Sample '2 Water Level () Logged by: TWL Approved by: CJK fil ~ Grab Sample l] Shelby Tube Sample T Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) ~~-------------------------------------------------' ~ 0 N ci i 2 ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ,,, ~ w < .@ associ,11:led Exoloration Loa earth sciences Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet incorporated KE150719A EB-8 2 of 3 Project Name Sartori Education Center -----Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 Location RentQn, WA Datum •IIA Driller/Equipment GDI / D50 Rig/ HSA Date Start/Finish 213116 213116 Hammer Weight'Drop 140#/30" Hole Diameter (in) -8 iochflO ----- g C " ,,, lu-0 > a ~ :.c..8 ;:;:: i; m "' Blows/Foot .c "l"E _, w m-~ ~ a s E ~ >, s: ~ m o m T ~ IC!)(/) ~ in 0 0 DESCRIPTION u 10 20 30 40 S-8 ' Medium dense, wet, gray, gravelly, fine SAND; stratified (SP). 4 "°'23 Medium dense, wet, orange, fine SAND; stratified (SP). 12 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND (SM). 11 ~ 45 0 0 Medium dense, wet, gray, sandy GRAVEL (GP). 3.9 ~ 0 0 5 '29 0 15 0 0 14 0 0 bo 0 0 0 0 ! ~: 0 Driller notes gravels. 0 0 ~ 50 0 I s-10: 0 0 Medium dense, wet, brownish gray, sandy GRAVEL (GP). 6 0 ""22 0 11 0 0 11 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 b 0 -55 t ~11 ': 0 0 Loose, wet, brO\r\lnish gray, sandy GRAVEL (GP). 4 0 ""s Ash interbed. 3 Very stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; laminated (ML). 2 I I -60 ~ Ii! I S-12 Medium stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT; with organic rich and sandy i 4 .. , I interbeds; thinly bedded to laminated (ML). 3 ~ 4 I i I I I 111 I I 65 1 I I 11 Stiff, wet, brownish gray, fine sandy SILT (ML). 2 S-13 Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel (SP). 4 "°'13 9 i I i -70 J S-14 I I I Hard, wet, brO'Nnish gray, fine san-dy SILT (ML). ' I I 3 Dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND (SM). 10 I I &35 Dense, wet, gray, gravelly, medium SAND (SP). 26 I I Driller notes gravels at 71.5 feet. I I ' I I I I I ! 75 1 S-15 Medium dense, wet, brownish gray, silty, fine SAND, with 'NOOd-rich interbeds .. t 7, (1/2 to 3 inches thick); thinly bedded (SP). 10 14 I I I ' I ' I I i Sampler Type (ST): [I] 2" OD Spli1 Spoon Sampler (SPT) I I No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: []] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) a:; Ring Sample 'g_ Water Level () Approved by: ~ Grab Sample IZ Shelby Tube Sample _y_ Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) 2l ,,, ~ I;; .c 0 I I i I I I I 1WL CJK .® associated Exploration Loa earth sciences Project Number I Exploration Number I Sheet 1nccri::oratec KE150719A EB-8 3 of 3 Project Name Sartori Education Center Ground Surface Elevation (ft) -36 ---- Location _Renton WA Datum WA Driller/Equipment GDI / 050 Rig/ HSA Date Start/Finish 213/16 2/3116 Hammer Weight/Drop 140#/ 30" ----Hole Diameter (in) 8 inches -- -.;! g § 11; m . ~Q > • .9! ~j ID "' Blows/Foot ID _c -" _, <n I-£ "-"-E " ~ "-s E ~> ,::~ " ID O ID ID Tl rn "' (I) ~ in 5 0 (I) 8 DESCRIPTION 10 20 30 40 ~ S-16 -: .. Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND (SM/SP). 6 •22 i I 8 ' 14 !I I -85 L No recovery. S-17 -' 10 6 23 9 - I Driller notes sand and silt interbeds I 14 ' I I ' ' -90 -•-I ! ~ Very stiff. very moist, gray, CLAY; high plasticity; laminated (CH). 5 I S-18 2 •1s I I ' -16 ' ! Bottom of exploration boring at 91.5 feet I I ' Note: Blow count from 40 to 50 feet and from 70 to 75 feet likely overstated due ' to gravels. I ' ' ' ' ' ' 95 I ' I I I I I I i I I -100 i I I -105 I -110 I I I t-115 I ~ I 0 0 ,; I 2 D • " I ~ i Sampler Type (ST): II] 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) D No Recovery M -Moisture Logged by: lWL [[] 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) I] Ring Sample \j_ Water Level () Approved by: CJK -~ 0 Y Water Level at time of drilling (ATD) Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample DRAFT TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT for Sartori Elementary School PREPARED FOR: Renton School District PREPARED BY: heffron t r a n s ) o r t a t I o n, 1 r 1 c 6544 NE 61 st Street. Seattle WA 98115 ph (206) 523-3939 • fx: (206) 523-4949 August26,2016 Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... I 1.1. Project Description ................................................................................................................. I 2. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Roadway Network.. ................................................................................................................ 4 2.2. Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.3. Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 11 2.4. Parking ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.5. Traffic Safety ....................................................................................................................... 12 2.6. Transit Facilities and Service ............................................................................................... 13 2.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities ............................................................................. 14 3. PROJECT IMPACTS .................................................................................................................... 15 3.1. Roadway Network ................................................................................................................ 15 3.2. Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................... 15 3 .3. Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 19 3.4. Site Access ........................................................................................................................... 22 3.5. On-Site Vehicle Queueing ................................................................................................... 22 3.6. Parking ................................................................................................................................. 24 3.7. Traffic Safety ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.8. Transit Facilities & Service .................................................................................................. 25 3.9. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities ............................................................................. 25 3.10. Short-term Impacts from Construction ................................................................................ 25 4. MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................... 27 4.1. Transportation Impact Fees .................................................................................................. 27 4.2. Right-of-Way Dedications ................................................................................................... 28 4.3. Roadway Network Improvements ........................................................................................ 28 4.4. Operational Measures ........................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX A-LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS APPENDIX B -LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION SHEETS APPENDIX C -QUEUE MODEL RESULTS heffron -I - IMMMIMFM,MIMIIHMhMMIM August 26, 2016 Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report LIST OF FIGURES DRAFT Figure I. Site Location and Vicinity ...................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Existing (2016) Traffic Volumes-Morning and Afternoon Peak Hours ............................... 6 Figure 4. Existing (2016) Traffic Volumes -Commuter PM Peak Hour .............................................. 7 Figure 5. Forecast 2018 Without-Project Traffic Volumes -Morning and Afternoon Peak Hours ...... 9 Figure 6. Forecast 2018 Without-Project Traffic Volumes -Commuter PM Peak Hour .................... IO Figure 7. Trip Distribution & Assignments-Daily. Morning, Afternoon, & PM Peak Hours ........... 18 Figure 8. Forecast 2018 With-Project Traffic Volumes-Morning and Afternoon Peak Hours ......... 20 Figure 9. Forecast 2018 With-Project Traffic Volumes-PM Peak Hours .......................................... 21 LIST OF TABLES Table I. Existing Site Uses ..................................................................................................................... I Table 2. Level of Service -Existing (2016) and 2018-Without-Project Conditions ........................... 11 Table 3. Collision Summary (January I, 2013 through July 15, 2016) ................................................ 13 Table 4. Estimated Vehicle Trips Generated by the Proposed Project.. ............................................... 16 Table 5. Trip Generation Rates Applied to Existing Uses ................................................................... 16 Table 6. Estimated Vehicle Trips Generated by Existing Uses and Net Change With Project.. .......... 17 Table 7. Level of Service -2018 Conditions Without and With Project.. ........................................... 19 Table 8. Estimated Morning Arrival Vehicle Queues .......................................................................... 23 Table 9. Transportation Impact Fee Credit Estimate for Existing Site Uses to be Removed ............... 28 heffron -11 -August 26, 2016 IIMMii--JFN,MIMIIN,+a Sartori Elementary Schoof Transportation Technical Report 1. INTRODUCTION DRAFT This report presents the transportation impact analysis for the proposed new Sartori Elementary School planned at 315 Garden Avenue N in Renton. It includes a description of existing and proposed conditions in the site vicinity, projected trip generation and distribution pattern, operational analysis where site-generated traffic would access the street system, and an assessment of the project's impacts to transit service and non-motorized facilities. Tbe study area for this analysis was defined by City of Renton (City) review staff.1 All other elements of the analysis presented in this report follow the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Policy Guidelines for New Development.2 In addition to the analysis required in the policy guidelines, this report provides additional analysis of site access operations, queueing, special event conditions, and construction-related transportation impacts. 1.1. Project Description The site consists of 14 parcels bounded by N 4th Street on the north, Park Avenue Non the west, Garden Avenue Non the east, and N 3'd Street on the south. The site location and vicinity are shown on Figure I. Some uses at the site have already been vacated and/or demolished. However, at the time of this analysis some other uses were still occupied and operating. Table 1 presents a summary of the site's existing uses, based on King County Assessor data.3 Table 1. Existing Site Uses ' '• ofu.t Public School (Sartori Education Center) Residential units Office (converted single family residence) Commercial includes retail, su ermarket, restaurant, drive-thru es resso stand sf= square feet a. Includes nine single family residences plus one duplex. 39,284 sf 11 units' 1,720 sf 7,100 sfb b. Includes two buildings at 314 Park Avenue N consisting of a 6,390 sf supermarket! deli and fast-food restaurant; and a separate 96-sf espresso stand. It also includes 614-sf of the single-family residence building at 350 Park Avenue N, which was permitted as a retail dog grooming business. The existing school has on-site parking with about 83 striped stalls; the supermarket/restaurant site has a large paved area with about 17 marked spaces and additional unmarked pavement (review of historic aerials indicated that up to 46 spaces have been striped on this site). Most of the single family residences have driveways and/or garages that serve on-site parking. The overall site has numerous curb cuts that provide access to the various parcels. There are six curb cuts along N 3'd Street, one on N 4th Street, and five on Park Avenue N. There are no curb cuts on Garden Avenue N. The project would remove all existing structures and parking on the site and construct a new elementary school with approximately 79,000 square feet (sf) and capacity for up to 650 students (kindergarten through 5th grade). The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. The new school is proposed to include about 83 parking spaces in two surface lots (north and south). Visitors and staff would access the south lot from a driveway on N 3'd Avenue; additional staff parking and family-vehicle load/unload would be directed to the north lot with access from N 4th Street. School buses are proposed to load and unload curbside on the west side of Garden A venue N. Email communication: I. Fitz-James, Renton Department of Community & Economic Development, Aug. I, 2016. City of Renton, Rev. January 2016. King County Assessor website data, accessed, August I 0, 2016. heffron -1 -August 26, 2016 IIMMFMIUMIMIUMhMMIM z z z z J ., " " ~ ~ ~ C 1il 0 .!!'. ., E ~ .3 E ·" ~ ~ rn z z z " ., ., ~ ~ ~ = 0 00 " E ! E ·" ~ ~ rn S 2nd St SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Transportation Technical Report z z " " ~ ~ i!;-"' ., ., 0.. 0.. N 6th St z J C ., E ., <.!) Figure 1 Site Location and Vicinity heffron + N tr<1ns )Ort<1t1on 1• 1 +z II ~g . ' 1- ~ EXISTING PUBLIC = TRANSIT STOP : -- GARDEN AVENUE NORllt --T ----------, I r--...J I .,....--:-,, I I \ ! / " -1 ,.,, I r-1 I L -1 I I ---, __________ i __________ ~ OPEN SPACE I GRASS SCHOOL BUILDING 33,933 SF BlDG FOOTPRJNT 79,000 TOTAL SF ALL FLOORS PARK AVENUE NORTH HIIIIIU it ii ;i <d ~ ]I g VIEW SOUTH ON PAAK AVE ,q; = i ! ~ :§ J d 0 cl:: ~ Q) ...0 C "' ii: N~ ~ U) 5> 'i u:: &. e ICL ....J t:: oo 0 Cl.. :c~ (.) (I)_ ~-~ ~_§ z: (.) w~ :::::E w C: u:;~ -ca 0::: t:: 00 1--Cl.. 0::: ~ < ca u, t!::: Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report 2. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 2 .1. Roadway Network 2.1.1. Existing Network DRAFT The City designates streets as principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local access streets depending upon the street's function in the roadway network.4 The key roadways in the vicinity of the project site are described below. Garden Avenue N is a two-way, north-south roadway that provides connection between Bronson Way N to the south and N Park Drive to the north. North ofN 4th Street, the roadway is a three-to four-lane Minor Arterial. South ofN 4th Street, it is a two-lane local access street with on-street parking on both sides. It has a posted speed limit of25 mph. In the vicinity of the site the roadway has curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides. Its intersections with N 3rd Street and N 4th Street are signalized with crosswalks on all sides. On-street parking is permitted on both sides; however, parking is prohibited on the west side adjacent to the school site during school hours, and on the east side is limited to two hours during weekday and Saturday daytime hours. Park Avenue N is a four-lane Principal Arterial that provides north-south connection between Bronson Way N to the south and N Park Drive to the north. Adjacent to the project site, it has two travel lanes in each direction. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (mph) and curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides. Its intersections with N 3rd and N 4th Streets are signalized with crosswalks on all sides. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway. N 3rd Street is a three/four-lane Principal Arterial that provides one-way eastbound access between Logan A venue N on the west to Sunset Boulevard N on the east. Near the project site, the roadway has three eastbound travel lanes and a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It has curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway. N 4th Street is a four-lane Principal Arterial that provides one-way westbound connection between Houser Way N to the east and Logan Avenue N to the west. The eastern portion of the arterial is d e signated as Factory Place N and oriented northwest before bending west and becoming N 4th Street at Factory A venue N, about two blocks east of the site. The roadway has a posted speed limit of30 mph and has curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway. Regional access to the site vicinity is provided via lnterstate-405 (1-405), State Route (SR) 169, and SR 167. 1-405 and SR 169 can be accessed at the Sunset/Bronson Way interchange about 0.4 miles southeast of the project site. SR 167 and 1-405 can be accessed at the Rainier Avenue S interchange about 2 miles southwest. 2.1 .2. Planned Transportation Projects in Site Vicinity The City of Renton' s adopted 2016-2021 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP/ and Draft 2017-2022 TIJ>6 were reviewed to determine if any proposed projects would affect study-area roadways. Neither TIP included any projects that would affect the capacity or operations at the study area 4 6 City of Renton, Arterial Streets, Revised on August 4 , 2014, Resolution 4222. City of Renton, Adopted June 15, 2015 . City of Renton, Presented to Council August 1, 2016. heffron -4 - tr 1 'l 1 (l r t I t I <•!) August 26, 2016 Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT intersections by year 2018 when the proposed Sartori Elementary School project is expected to he complete and occupied. Therefore, the existing roadway network was assumed for analysis of2018 conditions. The Renton Trails and Bicvcle Master Plan' includes recommended hicyclc lanes along N 3'" Street, N 4'" Street, and Garden Avenue N. However, these routes are not currently identified as funded projects, so were not assumed to be complete for analysis of 2018 conditions. 2.2. Traffic Volumes The following sections document the existing and forecast background traffic within the project site vicinity during morning and afternoon peak periods when school traffic generation would be highest, and during the commuter PM peak hour (typically the highest volume hour between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M.) when background traffic on city streets is typically highest. The study area for analysis required by the City includes the following four intersections located at the site corners: • N 4"· Street/ Park J\. venue :-S • N 4" Street/ Garden J\. venue N 2.2.1. Existing Traffic Volumes • • N 3'' Street I Park Avenue N N 3'' Street / Garden Avenue N Vehicle turning movement counts were conducted at the four study-area intersections on Thursday, May 19, 2016, by ldax Data Solutions. The morning counts were performed from 7:00 to 10:00 A.M.; the afternoon counts were performed from 2:00 to 6:00 P.M. The peak volumes at these four intersections varied by location with the morning peak hours begim1ing at 7:00, 7:15, or 7:30 A.cv!. and afternoon peaks beginning at 2:30, 4:00, or 4: 15 P.M. This variation in peak hours can be explained by the combination of one-way streets that affect commuting patterns combined with the site's proximity to Boeing, which has an early shit1 end in the afternoon. It is acknowledged that the Logan Avenue Reconstruction project (about V.-mile west of the site) was still being completed at the time of these counts with Park Avenue N being used as a detour route. Therefore, the existing volumes counted on Park Avenue N are likely higher than typical conditions without the detour. The proposed Sartori Elementary School is proposed as a choice school that would draw an estimated 30% of its enrollment from the local area around the school and the remaining enrollment from the entire district (discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.3. Tnp Dislributiun and Assignment). In order to provide district-wide bus transportation to and from this site, the new Sartori Elementary would require later start and dismissal limes, with the school day expected to begin at 9:00 A.M. and end at 3:40 P.cv!. The peak hours for school traffic are expected to occur from 8: l 5 to 9: 15 A.M. and from 3: 15 to 4: 15 P.M. Conditions were analyzed for these hours, as well as the commuter PM peak hour. The existing turning movement volumes during the morning and afternoon peak hours and are shown on Figure 3; the commuter PM peak hour volumes are shown on figure 4. City of Renton, Adopted May 11, 2009. heffron -5 -August 26, 2016 =1•1•111¥111•1,W 111n1 L41 12s1 [961 348 J9 ! ,.._ 192 [292] .---79 [300] 1 Jo 10 [248] [211 ----.__1____..--~---------- z z SITE [325] 32 .J L133 [33 1 -276[295] .-------14[151 1 27 [20] ~'-_t__---- 1 I I / 01------ • N ------o,--N-3-,d-si--0 ••. ______ ,._ __ _ // ........ , [3551 [1074] 51 3r L [69] 136 __j t r 52 [6621 412 -507 [27] [241 191, 1201 J KEY: o------ +-XX [XXI AM Peak [Afternoon Peak] Volumes SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Transportation Technical Report / ',,,, / ,, 8 1121 ______ _, [121 8 Figure 3 Existing (2016) Traffic Volumes Morning and Afternoon Peak Hours ~I L 110114__j t r 55 [1022] 492---+ 14 [26] [27] 61, [151 heffron trans ortat1on 111c 319 .J SITE L 30 +-262 .---8 l 15 + N --.----0------e-___ ...,.. __ _ , N 3rd St ', 70~ 837----. 191,. j :; 202 o------ SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Transportation Technical Report / -----,,, // ',,A / V ___ .... __ J 24 1 L i}; 15 Figure 4 Existing (2016) Traffic Volumes Commuter PM Peak Hour heffron trans ortat1on ,nc Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT 2.2.2. Forecast 2018 Background Traffic Volumes Traffic forecasts were developed for future 2018 conditions, which is the year the project is planned to be eomplcled and occupied. To determine appropriate rates for background traffic growth. historical traffic counts were reviewed. A comparison of PM peak hour volumes at the N 4'" Street/Park Avenue N intersection from 2007 to 2016 found that total entering traffic has increased by about 2.2% per year.8 However, the 2016 volumes also reflected the Logan Avenue detour traflic which likely resulted in inflated values. Review of Washington State Depai1ment of Transportation (WSDOT) traffic data for SR 900 (Sunset Way) at the 1-405 interchange found daily volumes increased by about 2.3% annually from 2012 to 2015.9 Renton Transportation Operations staff'0 indicated the City review of available data found that volumes have generally either declined or remained relatively stable (wilh annual growth of0.5% or less) in the vicinity of the project. City staff noted that recent growth is likely somewhat higher due to the continued economic recovery. Overall, the count comparisons indicated that traffic volume growth has been variable depending on the location and peak period. Review of City online sources' 1 indicated no major development projects (pipeline development projects) currently planned in the study area that would add traffic to the study area intersections. City planning staff12 were also contacted to determine if there are any planned or permitted development projects (known as pipeline development projects) in the vicinity that are expected to add traffic to the study area roadways. City slaff did not respond with any infom1ation about major development projects that would add traffic to the study-area intersections. Based on these reviews, a 2.5% compound annual growih rate was applied to all existing peak hour traflic volumes to forecast 2018 without-project volumes. Since existing count volumes from 2016 were likely inflated due to the Logan Avenue construction and detour routing that was in place at the time, this growth assumption reflects a conservatively high worst-case for projecting 2018 volumes. The resulting 2018 "without project'' volumes during morning and afternoon peak hours arc shown on Figure 5; the 2018 '·without project" commuter PM peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 6. w II 12 Renton &hoot District Transportation Center --Tra:ffic Impact Ana(vsis, The Transpo Group, Inc" July 20, 2007. 2015 Annual Traffic Report, WSDOT. Personal communication, R. Mar, PF, PTOE, Transportation Operations, City of Renton, August 11, 2016. City of Renton, COR Maps GIS application, Accessed August 2016. V. fi-rovcr, Tramportation Planning & Programming, and B. I3annwarth, Development Engineering Mngr. City of Renton, August 2016 heffron -8 -August 26, 2016 i--lei•IIW#IIM•MiWMiiM [11801 [1001 365 Jo i L451301 +-200[305] .-85[3151 SITE [3451 32 .J L14o[35] +-290[3101 .-15[15] 1 + N ---+----io,--N-3r•d S•t--'~,-• __ ---+----,/ ---,,',,, i375] [1130' 55 41° L [701145 __j [6951435--->- [25120 + KEY: tr 535 [30] [2101 o------ +-XX [XX] AM Peak [Afternoon Peakl Volumes SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Transportation Technical Report / 8 [15] ______ _,, [15] 10 Figure 5 Forecast 2018 Without-Project Traffic Volumes Morning and Afternoon Peak Hours t L [10115__j t r 60 [10751515---+ 15 [301 [30110--. [151 heffron trans ortat1on inc L 25 z "' 1210 > +----255 <( jo ! 2::- .---280 -.; o._ o------ 75__1 880---0- 20--. tJ; 210 SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Transportation Technical Report N 5th St z "' ~ -1"' "' o._ , , , o' SITE Figure 6 Forecast 2018 Without-Project Traffic Volumes Commuter PM Peak Hour , , / / , , /// z Q) > <( ,. 0 ,:, "' Q) ::;; 335 .J e I I I I I I I I 25 1L 10---1 1260- 35--. L 30 +----275 .---10 l 15 tr 15 + N heffron trans ortat1on inc Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report 2.3. Traffic Operations DRAFT Traffic operations analyses were performed for the study-area intersections. Trattic operations arc evaluated using levels of service (LOS) with six letter designations, "A" through "'F ." LOS A is the best and represents the best traffic operation with little or no delay to motorists. LOS F is the worst and indicates poor traffic operations with long delays. The level of service definitions and thresholds are provided in Appendix A. The City's adopted minimum operational standard for arterial and collector intersections is LOS D (with some limited exceptions that do not apply to the study area intersections).11 Levels of service were detennincd using procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual.14 Delay calculations rely on complex equations that consider a number of variables. For example, delay at signalized intersections is dctcm1ined based on a complex combination of variables including: the quality of progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume-to-capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Delay at unsignalizcd intersections is determined for vehicles that must stop or yield for oncoming traffic. That delay is related to the availahiliry of gaps in the main street's traffic flow and the abil iry of a driver to enter or pass through those gaps. All level of service calculations were performed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic operations analysis software. The software models reflect current intersection geometries and levels of service were reported using the Synchro module for signalized intersections. Signal timings and geometric conditions were field verified. Table 2 summarizes levels of service for existing (2016) and 2018 "without project" conditions for the morning, afternoon, and commuter PM peak hours. As shown, all four signalized intersections currently operate at LOS C or better and are forecast to remain at those levels in 2018 without the project. Table 2. Level of Service -Existing (2016) and 2018-Without-Project Conditions Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour (8:15 to 9:15 A.M.) (3:15 to 4:15 P.M.) Existing 2018 w/o Existing 2018 w/o (2016) Project (2016) Project Sionalized Intersection LOS 1 Delav' LOS Delav LOS Delav LOS Delav N 4,h St I Park Ave B 16.3 B 16.6 C 24.3 C 25.3 N 4,h St I Garden Ave N A 6.9 A 6.9 A 4.7 A 4.8 N 3,, St I Garden Ave N C 20.7 C 20.8 A 8.9 A 9.6 N 3,, St I Park Ave C 24.6 C 27.2 B 15.1 B 15.4 Source: Heffron Transportation, August 2016. 1. LOS= Level of service. 2 Delay= Average seconds of delay per vehicle 14 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, Adopted June 22, 2015. Transportation Resemch Board, 20 l 0. heffron -I I - =l•i•lililil•i,Miiiil PM Peak Hour (4:00 to 5:00 P.M.) Existing 2018 w/o (2016) Project LOS Delav LOS Delav C 24.8 C 26.1 A 4.3 A 4.4 B 11.6 B 12.2 B 16.7 B 17.3 August 26, 2016 Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report 2.4. Parking 2.4.1. On-Site Parking DRAFT As described previously, the existing school use includes on-site parking with about 83 striped stalls; the supermarket/restaurant site has a large paved area with about 17 marked spaces and additional unmarked pavement that can be used for parking. Most of the single family residences have driveways and/or garages that serve on-site parking. 2.4.2. On-Street Parking In the vicinity of the project site, on-street parking occurs along both sides of Garden Avenue N (between N 2"d and 4,:, Streets), Meadow Avenue N (one block to the cast), and Pelly Avenue N (one block to the west). However, some of the on-street parking is subject to restrictions. On the west side of Garden Avenue N adjacent to the project site, parking is prohibited from 6:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on school days. On the cast side, parking is restricted to two hours from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays." On both sides of Pelly Avenue N, parking is restricted to two hours from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on weekdays. Parking is unrestricted on Meadow Avenue N between N 3'd and 4'h Streets, and on Garden, Pelly, and Meadow Avenues N lo the south between N 2"d and N 3'd Streets. ricld counts indicate a weekday on-street parking capacity of about 185 vehicles along these roadway segments. Parking counts conducted in August 2016 (when schools were out for summer) indicated a mid-morning demand of 63 vehicles (approximately 34% utilization) and a mid-afternoon demand of75 vehicles (approximately 40% utilization). 2.5. Traffic Safety Collision data for the study area intersections and roadway segments adjacent to the site were obtained from WSDOT. These data, reflecting the period between January 1, 2013 to July 15, 2016 (just over 3.5 years), were examined to determine if there are any unusual trafiic safety conditions that conld impact or be impacted by the proposed project. The collision data are summarized in Table 3. The highest number of collisions over this period was reported at the N 4'h Street/Park Avenue N intersection. The data indicate that 16 of 33 reported were right-angle collisions; of these, 11 had contributing causes listed as 'inattention' and 'disregard stop and go light.' A similar patterns of angle collisions occurred at the N 3'' Street/Park Avenue N intersection with 15 angle collisions out of the 24 total reported and 11 with conh·ibuting causes listed as 'inattention' and 'disregard stop and go light.' At the N 4'h Street/Park Avenue N intersection, there were IO left-tum collisions and two side-swipe collisions that all involved vehicles making improper left turns (e.g. from an inside through lane) from westbound N 4'h Street to southbound Park Avenue N. It is noted that there are no overhead signs or pavement markings along N 4'h Street approaching Park Avenue N indicating the lane channelization for left turns, which could result in some driver confusion. For comparison, there arc overhead signs on the X 3"' Street approach to Park Avenue N indicating left-tum channelization. One collision reported in 2013 at the N Yd Street/Garden Avenue N intersection involved a school bus. The collision involved a passenger vehicle making an improper left turn and no reported injuries. hcffron -12 -August 26, 2016 =i•HiililiUM1tiiiil Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT There were only two collisions reported along the roadway segments, along N 3"1 Street just east of Park Avenue 1':, during the 3.5-year time period. None of the intersection or roadway segment collisions involved fatalities. Table 3. Collision Summary (January 1, 2013 through July 15, 2016) Rear-Side-Left Intersection End Swipe Tum N 41h St/ Park Ave N 2 2 13 N 41h St/ Garden Ave N 1 1 2 N J'd St/ Park Ave N 0 3 5 N J'd St/ Garden Ave N 1 0 2 Rear-Side-Left Roadway Seament End Swipe Turn N 41h St -be~veen 0 0 0 Park Ave N and Garden Ave N N 3,, St -between 0 1 1 Park Ave N and Garden Ave N Park Ave N -between 0 0 0 N 4,, St and N 3,, St Garden Ave N -between 0 D 0 N 4,·, St a.~d N 3" St Source.· Washington State Department of Transportation, August 2016. a. a/Other" collision involved vehicle striking an object. 2.6. Transit Facilities and Service Right Ped/ Anale Cvcle Other a 16 0 0 0 0 1 15 1 0 0 1 0 Right Ped/ Anale Cycle Other a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total for Average/ 3.5 Years Year 33 9.4 5 1.4 24 6.9 4 1.1 Total for Average/ 3.5Years Year 0 0.0 2 0.6 0 0.0 0 00 King County Metro Transit (Metro) provides bus service directly to the project site with one stop located on Park Avenue N at N 3'" Street and two stops on Park Avenue Nat N 4'h Street. The stops arc served by the following three routes. Route 167 provides peak period service between the University District and the South Renton l'ark- and-Ride. It operates on weekdays with four northbound trips in the morning between 6:00 and about 8:00 A.M. and five southbound trips in the aflcmoon between about 2:40 and 5:00 P.M. Route 240 provides service seven-days per week between the Renton and Bellevue Transit Centers with stops in the Wilburton, Eastgatc, Newcastle, Renton Highlands, and Renton Boeing areas. Weekday service is provided from about 5:00 A.M. to about midnight with 30-minute headways (the time between consecutive buses). Route 342 provides peak period service between the Shoreline Park-and-Ride and the Renton Transit Center with stops in the Kenmore, Bothell, Totem Lake, Bellevue, and Renton Boeing areas. It operates on weekdays with three northbound trips in the morning between 5:30 and about 7:00 A.\,!. and three southbound trips in the afternoon between about 3: 15 and 5:15 l'.\1. About 0.35-milc to the west, Metro's RapidRidc F Linc operates along Logan Avenue N with stops located south ofK 4'h Street. The F Linc provides service between the Burien Transit Center and the heffron -13 -August 26, 2016 :l•i•iifflii•ieMMeiM Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT Landing in Renton (about a half-mile north of the site) with stops at the Tukwila International Boulevard Station, Southcenter, and the Renton Transit Center. About V.-mile to the north, Sound Transit's ST Express Bus Service Routes 560 and 566 serve stops on both sides of Park Avenue Nat~ 6"' Street. Route 560 provides daily two-way service between West Seattle and Bellevue with stops in Burien, SeaTac, and Renton; Route 566 provides weekday two-way service between Overlake and Kent with stops in Auburn, Renton, and Bellevue. 2.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities As described in the Roadway Netwotk section, the study area roadways have sidewalks on both sides. There are marked crosswalks with pedestrian signals at all four study-area intersections. All legs of the Park Avenue N intersections with N 3"1 and N 4'" Streets have pedestrian actuation buttons; at the Garden Avenue N intersections with N 3'' and 4'h Street, only the N 3'" Street crossings have pedestrian actuation buttons. The Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan includes recommended bicycle lane routes along N 3"1 Street, N 4'h Street, and Garden Avenue N. However, these improvements are not included in either the currently adopted or draft six-year transportation improvement programs. heffron -14 -August 26, 2016 IIMM,i--t,IHIElll•i,MM41M Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT 3. PROJECTIMPACTS This section describes the conditions that would exist with the proposed new Sartori Elementary School. Vehicle trip estimates were prepared using standard published rates and added to the forecast 2018- without-project traffic volume forecasts. Level of service analyses were performed to detennine the proposed project's impact on traffic operations in the study area. Potential impacts to site access, queuing, transit, safety, non-motorized facilities, and parking were evaluated. In addition, analysis of special event conditions and construction were examined. The following sections describe the methodology used to detenninc the proposed project's impacts. 3.1. Roadway Network The City would require frontage improvements and right-of-way dedications along all four sides of the site as part of project development described as follows. Park Avenue N -New curb at its existing location with an 8-foot wide planter and a new 12-foot wide sidewalk, requiring right-of-way dedication of about 12 feet to the back of the sidewalk. N 3'' Street -New curb at its existing location with an 8-foot wide planter and a new 8-foot wide sidewalk, requiring right-of-way dedication of about 4.5 feet to the back of the sidewalk. N 4th Street -New curb at its existing location with an 8-foot wide planter and a new 8-foot wide sidewalk, requiring right-of-way dedication of between 8.0 and 8.5 feet to the back of the sidewalk. Garden Avenue N -New curb and curb bulbs at comers of3"1 and 4th Avenue with an 8-foot wide bus parking lane and a I 0-foot sidewalk behind the curb. A right-of-way dedication of about 9 feet to the back of the sidewalk is required to provide these improvements. All intersections '\cw curb returns with radii of35 feet wmtld be required at all corners. Two perpendicular curb ramps would be required at each corner. Along Garden Avenue N, the proposed on-street load/unload zone is expected to be restricted to school buses only during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods, but could be available for general parking during other times of the day. The project would eliminate all existing site access driveways along Park Avenue N. Along N 3t' Street, all existing access driveways would be removed and a single two-way access driveway would be constructed about midway between Park and Garden Avenues N. Along N 4th Street, the existing access driveway would be removed and two one-way access driveways would be constructed to serve the family-vehicle load/unload loop and on-site parking (see Figure 2). No other changes to the roadway network arc proposed. 3.2. Traffic Volumes 3.2.1. Proposed Project Trip Generation The proposed Sartori Elementa1y School is expected to generate new trips on the surrounding transportation network. Vehicle trip generation estimates for the new school were dcte1mined using the standard rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (!TE) Trip Generation Manua/.15 Rates published for Elementa1y School (Land Use 520) were applied. This reference includes rates based on building floor area, number of students, and number of staff. In order to represent potential worst-case conditions, the rates based on building area. which produce the highest estimates, were applied to the proposed project. The vehicle trips projected to be generated by the proposed project arc summarized in Table 4. As shown, the project is anticipated to generate 1,220 vehicle trips per day (610 15 ITF, 9th Edition, 2012. hcffron -15 -August 26, 2016 ill#i,C.-l•i•IAlilii•l1WliiW Sartori Elementary Schoof Transportation Technical Report DRAFT in, 610 out), including 415 trips during the morning peak hour, 250 trips during the afternoon peak hour, and I 00 trips during the commuter PM peak hour. Table 4. Estimated Vehicle Trips Generated by the Proposed Project Morning Afternoon Commuter PM ITE Land Size Daily Peak Hour 1 Peak Hour' Peak Hour' Prooosed Land Use Use Code lsfl Trios In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Elementary School 520 I 79,000 1,220 235 180 415 ! 110 140 250 45 55 100 Source: Heffron Transportation. Inc., August 2016, using rates in Trip Generation Manual (/TE, 9" Edition, 2012). 1. The morning peak hour for the proposed school is expected to occur from 8:15 to 9:15 A.M. based on planned start time of 9:00 A.M. 2. The aflemoon peak hour for/he proposed school is expected to occur from 3:15 lo 4:15 P.M. based on planned dismissal lime of 3:40 P.M. 3. The commuter PM peak hour of the adjacent roadways varies based on location, bu/ typically occurs during one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. The trip generation reported is the highest one-hour total during this period. 3.2.2. Trip Generation of Existing Uses and Net Change with Project The project would remove the existing uses on the site. Typically, traffic impact analyses account for the removal of existing uses lo detennine the net increase in traffic associated with a new development. In those cases. traffic from existing uses to be removed would be subtracted before the new development's traffic is added. However, since some of the buildings on the site were vacant at the time that traffic counts were taken at study area intersection, no vehicle trip credit for the removal of these uses was applied to the 2018 "with project" traffic volume forecasts or operational analysis. The estimate of traffic generation by existing uses and the net changes expected due to the project are provided as a matter of disclosure and can be used in determining mitigation requirements and impact fees. Trip generation estimates for the existing uses were developed from rates and equations published in the Trip Generation Manual, as listed in Table 5. Table 5. Trip Generation Rates Applied to Existing Uses ITE Trip Generation Rates 1 ITE Land Morning Afternoon Commuter Existina Land Use Use Code Size Dailv Peak Peak PM Peak Elementary School 520 39,284 sf 15.43 I ksf 5.20 I ksf 3.11/ksf 1.21 / ksf Single-Family Homes 210 9 du 9.52 I du 0.75/du n/a 2 1.00/du Duplex (Apartmenl) 220 2 du 6.65 I du 0.51 I du nla 2 0.62 I du Office (converted SFR) 710 1,720 sf 1103/ksf 1.56 I ksf nla 2 1.49 / ksf Supermarket (including restaurant 3) 850 6,486 sf 42.70 I ksf 0.96 I ksf 2.90/ksf' 3.71 I ksf Snecialtv Retail I don nroomerl 826 614 sf 44.32 / ksf 1.95 I ksf 4 2.90/ksf 4 2.71 I ksf sf = square feet; du= dwelling units; ksf= 1,000 square feel of building area. 1. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Trip Generation, 9rh Edition, 2012. Rates listed in terms of trips generated per 1,000 square feet (ks~ or per welling unit (du). 2. nla = Trip rates are generally not published for the afternoon peak hour when elementary schools typically are dismissed. These uses would not be e)(pected to generate noticeable trips during this time. 3. The supermarket rate was applied to entire retail buifding. which includes a fast-food Mexican restaurant. This rate reflects a conservatively low estimate of trips for this existing use. 4. Morning and afternoon trip rate estimates based on hourly variation data published for Shopping Centers (Land Use 820), which indicate that at retail centers, between 5% and 9% of total weekday daily trips occur each hour from 8 to 10 A.M. and 2 to 4 P.M. heffron -16 -August 26, 2016 liiii,i--lH•IMAIIH1MliN Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT The resulting trip generation estimates for the site's existing uses is presented in Table 6. This table also shows the estimated trip generation for the proposed new school and the net change due to the project. As shown, when considering the site's existing uses, the project is estimated to generate about 200 fewer trips per day, and about 26 fewer trips during the commuter PM peak hour. The new school is estimated to generate net increases of 176 morning peak hour trips and 93 afternoon peak hour trips. These figures are reasonable and expected since school traffic tends to be focused mostly during the morning arrival time and afternoon dismissal, and the project wonld constmct a school that is roughly double the size of the existing school on the site. Table 6. Estimated Vehicle Trips Generated by Existing Uses and Net Change With Project Morning Afternoon Commuter PM ITE Land Daily Peak Hour a Peak Hour' Peak Hour' Proposed Land Use Use Code Size Trios In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Elementary School 520 39,284 sf 610 115 90 205 55 70 125 25 25 50 Single-Family Houses 210 9 du 90 2 5 7 0 0 0 d 6 3 9 Duplex (Apartment) 220 2 du 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 d 1 0 1 Office 710 1.720 sf 20 3 0 3 0 0 0 d 0 3 3 Supermarket 850 6,486 sf 660 14 8 22 15 15 30 31 30 61 Specialty Retail 826 614 sf 30 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 -------------------- ' Total Existina Uses I 1,420 135 104 239 71 86 157 64 62 126 ' Proposed School 1,220 235 180 415 110 140 250 45 55 100 1----------------- Total Net ChanQe ' -200 100 76 176 39 54 93 -19 .7 -26 : Source: Heffron Transporlation. Inc., August 2016, using rates in Trip Generation Manual (/TE, 9'° Edition, 2012). a. The morning peak hour for /he proposed school is expected to occur from 8:15 to 9:15 AM. based on planned starl time of 9:00 A.M. b. The aflernoon peak hour for the proposed school is expected to occur from J15 to 4:15 P.M. based on planned dismissaltime of 3AO P.M. c. The commuter PM peak hour of the adjacent roadways varies based on location. but typically occurs during one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M The trip generation reporled is the highest one hour total during this period. d. Rates are not provided for the afternoon peak hour when school dismissal is expected to occur. 3.2.3. Trip Distribution and Assignment As described previously, the proposed Sa,tori Elementary School is planned as a choice school that would draw an estimated 30% of its enrollment from the local area around the school and the remaining enrollment from the entire district. ln order to develop trip distribution patterns for school traftic, current enrollment data and attendance boundaries of existing elcmcntmy schools within the district were examined to approximate student population density and related residential origins and destinations. Travel routes were developed using Google Maps predictive travel times to determine likely travel routes to and from the project site. For conditions when there arc multiple viable travel routes, project trips were proportionally assigned to each route to match the travel patterns observed in existing turning movement counts from intersections around the site. These analyses assume the same distribution percentages for both inbound and outbound trips because the majority of drivers would use the same routes around the project site to reach their workplaces, residences, and commercial destinations. School bus trips were assigned separately based on anticipated routing guidance provided by the Renton School District's Transportation staff. The resulting total project trip distribution patterns and assignments for the daily, morning, afternoon, and commuter PM peak hours are shown on Figure 7. heffron -17 -August 26, 2016 =i•i•IIElll•i,MiiiM L 1111131 +-27 [27] (I OJ .------131 [88](41) z "' ~ -"' ID z "' ~ 2:- ID • N ~ "-+-I 06 [55] (26J .-------15 [15] (OJ 1 95 [34] ,,:e 116] N4thS1 ___ ,, o 11 8' z "' t ~ <( ~ "' SITE 0 0 "O t, rn rn "' ::, "- 0 I ' ' N3rdS1 Q, ' ' \ I ' I ' I ' I ' ' I (27) I ' ' ' (14) [53] I ' 0 ' ]351 92 N 2nd St ' 39 L ',, i (71[17]45-r z z z "' "' "' > ~ ~ <( "' ~ !!! "' E ID E ~ ~ ~ 310 "' " S 2nd SI Inbound Distribution AM Peak (Afternoon & Commuter Peak) ~ Outbound Distribution ~ AM Peak (Afternoon & Commuter Peak) 115 -+--XX [XX] (XX) AM Peak [Afternoon Peak] (Commuter PM Peak) Trips ~Daily fops SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Transportation Technical Report Figure 7 Trip Distribution and Assignments Daily, Morning, Afternoon, & PM Peak Hours (OJ [15] 15 L (7] [15] 4l__j (271 [56] 91 ----+ Ill 13141, heffron t r 3 54 [3] 1191 101 19) trans ortat1on 1nc Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report 3.2.1. Forcast With-Project Traffic Volumes DRAFT To estimate 2018 traffic volumes with the proposed project, the project trips were added to the 2018 without-project volumes. Forecast 2018 with-project volumes for morning and afternoon peak hours are shown on Figure 8, and shown on Figure 9 for the PM peak hour. 3.3. Traffic Operations Intersection levels of service for future with-project conditions were detennined using the same methodology described previously for existing and future without-project conditions. The new Sartori Elementary School is expected to generate new pedestrian and bicycle trips between the site and surrounding residential properties. These added trips would increase the number of pedestrian crossings at the study area intersections. The potential increases in pedestrian crossing activity and the peaking characteristics of school traffic (with school drop-off and pick-up activity primarily expected to occur during about 20 minutes within the peak hours) have all been acconnted for in the operations analyses of the study area intersections. Table 7 summarizes forecast 2018 levels of service without and with the proposed project for the morning. afternoon, and PM peak hours. As shown, the school project is expected to add some delay to most locations; ho\vcvcr, all four signalized study-area intersections are expected to continue operating at the same levels-LOS C or better-with the proposed Sartori Elementary School project. The projected increases in average delay due to the project are estimated to range from 0.1 to 2.4 seconds per vehicle. One location is forecast to experience a slight decline in overall average delay, due to higher volumes on movements with ve1y low delay. Based on these results, the project is expected to have a negligible impact to traffic operations at stndy area intersections. Table 7. Level of Service -2018 Conditions Without and With Project 2018 Morning Peak Hour 2018 Afternoon Peak Hour 2018 PM Peak Hour (8:15 to 9:15 A.M.) (3:15 to 4:15 P.M.) (4:00 to 5:00 P.M.) Without With Without With Without With Project Project Projecl Project Project Project Sianalized Intersection LOS 1 Delav' LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay N 41h St I Park Ave B 16.6 B 18.0 C 25.3 C 26.2 C 26.1 C 26.3 N 41h St / Garden Ave N A 6.9 A 9.3 A 4.8 A 6.6 A 4.4 A 5.0 N 3m St/ Garden Ave N C 20.8 C 20.3 A 9.6 B 10.5 B 12.2 B 12.3 N 3" St/ Park Ave C 27.2 C 28.6 B 15.4 B 16.4 B 17.3 B 17.6 Source: Heffron Transportation, August 2016. 1. LOS= Level of service. 2. Delay= Average seconds of delay per vehicle. heffron -19 -August 26, 2016 ,J•Hlil#lii•Metiiiil 111 eo1 L 52 131 1 [100] 365 Jo i +-227 [332] r216[403] 1 Jo 10 [260] [25] ____ __.___~~---------. LC., . ..,- SITE [349] 44 .J L140 [35] +-396 [365] .---30 [30] 1 125 [54] + N I --i-,..--,o-----,e,-. _____ ....., __ _ , N 3rd St ---, [428] [1165] 147 4r L [70] 145 ____j [712] 480-+ [25] 20 + KEY: r r 535 [33] [210[ o------ +-XX [XX] AM Peak [Afternoon Peak] Volumes SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Transportation Technical Report ,/ ' ',, / '8 [30] -------' I 151 25 r L Figure 8 Forecast 2018 With-Project Traffic Volumes Morning and Afternoon Peak Hours 1251 56 ____t i r 63 [1131[ 606-+ 69 [33] J33J 14 + 1341 heffron trans ortat1on inc 387~ 1 1I9 L o------ 75 _J i r 46 887 _. 210 20"1 SARTORI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Transportation Technical Report L 30 337 +-301 .J .---10 1 31 SITE I o----,•-------,, , N3rdSt ---/ ,/ ',,,~ _______ , ( 1I 2L Figure 9 -----+------, 11_J i r 1287--. 24 25 36"1 heffron + N Forecast 2018 With-Project Traffic Volumes Commuter PM Peak Hour trans ortat1on inc Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report 3.4. Site Access DRAFT The project would provide access in two locations. The family-vehicle drop-off/pick-up loop and a portion of staff parking (about 53 spaces) would be located at the north end of the site and would be served by two one-way access driveways on N 4'h Street-inbound at the eastern driveway and outbound at the western driveway. This access configuration. combined with the clockwise circulation pattern proposed, maximizes the amount of desirable on-site queue area for family vehicles and eliminates conflicting left-turn movements that would exist with a traditional two-way driveway on a one-way street such as N 4"' Street. The south parking lot (about 30 spaces for staff and visitors) as well as the service and loading area would be accessed from a single driveway on N 3'' Street. Operations analyses of the proposed access driveways indicate that all movements would operate at I ,OS B or better during all times of the day. School bus load/unload would occur on the west side of Garden Avenue N, adjacent to the school site. 3.5. On-Site Vehicle Queueing The on-site family-vehicle load/unload loop would provide space for about 30 vehicles to wait/queue at one time. During the afternoon dismissal period, an additional 15 to 20 parking spaces within the north parking lot are likely to be available for family-vehicle load/unload activity bringing the total north lot queuing capacity to between 45 and 50 vehicles. In the mornings, school drop-off activities usually occur with limited queues or delay. This is because arrivals tend to be spread out over the 20 to 30 minutes before school start time. During this period, family drivers generally arrive, drop off students, and then immediately leave the site. In the afternoons, many family drivers arrive early and wait in the queue lane(s) or parking spaces for the students to be dismissed, and longer vehicle queues can develop. The morning arrival queue can be modeled directly using Poisson arrival methodologies for a multi- channel service system (i.e., the number of drop-off spaces that can be used simultaneously). Assumptions documented from queuing data collection at Bellevue School District schools were used for this analysis.16 This includes the assumption that it takes about 15 seconds for sh1dents to exit a vehicle while at the drop-off location space and the entire morning arrival time for a school occurs within 20 minutes. This equates to a service rate for each drop-off space of 4 vehicles per minute (80 vehicles in 20 minutes or a rate of240 vehicles per hour). For the proposed Sartori Elementary School, the estimated morning arrival volume is 225 vehicles (as presented in the Trip Generation section); however, this value includes school buses ( expected to be l 4) and staff arrivals ( estimated at about 50). The total number of family-vehicle arrivals during the morning peak hour is estimated at 161 (to account for the compressed 20 minute arrival period, the arrival rate for the model is three times this level or 483 vehicles per hour). Students could be dropped off along much of the queue lane shown on the site plan (see Figure 2), which allows for more than 14 spaces to he used at one time in the main family-vehicle drop-off/pick-up location. However, to provide an analysis of potential worst-case conditions, a range of four to eight spaces was evaluated to estimate both the average and 95"'-percentile queues for the drop-off area closest to the building. Table 8 shows the estimated queues for the assumed drop-off spaces at the proposed school during the morning arrival. As shown, the estimated morning arrival queue is expected be accommodated on-site and is not expected to exceed the available load/unload zone capacity. The queue model calculation results are included in Appendix C. 16 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Enalai Elementary School Traffic lmpact Analysis, August 2014. heffron -22 -August 26, 2016 i--J•i•iililil•MtWiiii Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report Table 8. Estimated Morning Arrival Vehicle Queues Vehicles Served Simultaneous Iv AveraQe Queue 4 vehicles 2 vehicles 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 DRAFT Exceeds On-Site 95th Percentile Queue Vehicle Caoacitv? 5 vehicles No 4 No 4 No 4 No 4 No Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2016, usmg service rate assumptions based on observations included m the Enata1 Elementary School Traffic Impact Analysis. (Gibson Traffic Consultants, August 2014). Although the queue analysis and estimation model is reasonable for application to morning arrival queues, the atiernoon queueing conditions are different. Family drivers arrive prior to school dismissal during a time when no vehicles are being loaded (or serviced). This causes vehicle queues to develop prior to the student dismissal. In addition, students arrive at their family vehicles at different rates, so the service times per vehicle are different than during morning arrival. To estimate on-site vehicle queues during afternoon school dismissal, data collected on March 15 and October 15, 2015, at the Bellevue School District's Chen)' Crest Elementary School were considered. The Bellevue school enrolls about 570 students with 50 staff members and school parking lot has ahout 82 spaces. Therefore, conditions arc quite similar to that of the proposed Sartori Elementary School. During both afternoon observation periods, the parking lot was nearly full. Cherry Crest Elementary School is dismissed at 2:25 P.\.t.; during the October observation, there were 22 vehicles in the queue at 2:26 P.M. l11e longest standing vehicle queue observed was 30 vehicles. The queue had completely dissipated by 2:37 l'.M. lt should be noted that even though there was space on site for additional vehicles in the queue lane; 25 to 30 family- vehicles were parked on the adjacent streets and were assumed to be associated with the school dismissal activity. These vehicles had left by 2:38 P.M. Overall, the afternoon peak queues dissipated within about 15 minutes after school dismissal. As described previously, the proposed Sa11ori Elementary School would accommodate up to 650 students and 60 staff members. Based on the queue observations at Cherry Crest Elementary and adjusting for the higher potential enrollment, the afternoon queue is estimated at up to 68 vehicles. As mentioned, the proposed north load/unload loop and excess parking is estimated to accommodate 45 to 50 vehicles. If the estimated queue of68 vehicles occurs, the excess demand (18 to 23 vehicles) is likely to occur elsewhere including in the proposed visitor lot on the south side of the school and some on- street along the east side of Garden Avenue N. It should be noted that since Sartori Elementary would be a choice school drawing from the entire District, more students may rely on bus transportation, since it may be less convenient for many family drivers to make trips across the District during the atiernoon. In contrast, observations al neighborhood schools that draw from a smaller area (such as the Bellevue elementa1y observed) often have higher numbers of family drivers willing to make short trips to pick up students in the atiernoon. As a result, the estimated queues may be conservatively high. However, if ahcrnoon queues fill the north lot and load/unload area, access management measures could be implemented to prevent those queues from adversely impacting traffic ilow on N 4'h Street. It is acknowledged that some fluctuation in volumes and queuing activities are common as they can be affected by weather, special events. and unfamiliarity with drop-off/pick-up procedures at the beginning of each school year. It is noted that family drivers with younger students are more likely to park their vehicles and walk their children to and from the school. heffron · 23 -August 26, 2016 &-l•i•IIFIIM•MiWiiiii Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT 3.6. Parking 3.6.1. School Day Parking School-day parking at elementary schools is primarily driven by staffing levels and family-volunteer activity. Parking demand rates for elementary schools based on staffing levels have been developed using counts conducted at several Seattle elementary schools in 20 J 3 and 20 I 4 for recent modernizations and/or replacement projects; these data reflect peak school-day parking demand rates that range from 1.06 to 1.23 vehicles per employee. ITE's Parking Generation 17 does not include data for elementary schools based on staffing levels (the data provided arc based on curollmcnt levels and arc unclear if they reflect conditions during morning arrival. atlernoon dismissal, or special events). Parking Generation does include an employee-based rate for middle schools of 1.22-vchicles-pcr-cmployee, which is consistent with observations by Heffron Transportation. Therefore, a midday parking demand rate of 1.23 vehicles per employee was applied. This rate accounts for employees and family volunteers or other visitors who may be on-site midday. The District estimates that Sartori Elementary School could have up to 60 employees with the school at full capacity. Using the parking rate described above, the new school is projected to have a midday peak parking demand of about 74 vehicles, which is likely to occur during late morning when all teachers, administrative staff, kitchen staff, and volunteers are typically on site. Afternoon demand is often somewhat lower, as part-time and food-service staff often leave after lunch. The proposed on- site parking supply of 83 spaces is expected to accommodate typical midday peak parking demand. 3.6.2. Evening Event Parking Sartori Elementary School would have common spaces and a gymnasium that could be used for events at the school. The school is expected to host evening events periodically throughout the school year that could use these spaces. The types of events typically held at schools include the following. • Large School Events -Typically occur about once per month or once every other month. The largest events occur two or three times per year and usually include: Back to School Night; Curriculum Night Open House, and a concert or talent show. Some of the larger events have staggered arrivals and not all attendees arc on site at once, while others have fixed start and end times and all attendees are on site simultaneously. • PTA (or other) Meetings -There are commonly five or six smaller PT A events that occnr each year. Typically, attendance ranges from about 30 to 100 people .. • Community Use -The site may be scheduled for use by community groups ( e.g. Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Brownies, etc.) or recreational sports on the playfield. However, it is noted that the playficld will be smaller than those at most elementary schools and may not support organized athletics. Community-use events usually have smaller attendance levels of IO to 50 people, but may occur more frequently. For evening events, the on-site parking supply of83 spaces would be available. Room for another 17 parked vehicles would exist in the family-vehicle load/unload zone, bringing the on-site total to 100 spaces. The on-street school-bus load/unload zone could also be used for event parking and could accommodate about 28 more cars. The Renton School District Transportation facility is located across N 4th Street directly north of the site. That facility has 98 parking spaces that are within about 400-feet walking distance to the Sartori Elementary School site and could also be used to accommodate parking overflow during larger evening events. " JTE, 4'" Edition, 20 I 0. heffron -24 -August 26, 2016 :lii•iiltliUMeMN1MM Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT For larger evening events. there are typically between 3.0 and 3.5 persons attending for each parked vehicle. This rate accounts for higher levels of carpooling (families and students in a single vehicle) as well as drop-off activity that docs not generate parked vehicles. At these rates, the on-site parking supply combined with the adjacent on-street supply and the ovcrnow parking at the Transportation facility (totaling 226 spaces) could accommodate events with attendance of between 675 and 790 persons without requiring use of nearby on-street parking. It is noted however that some event attendees may choose to park on-street nearby for convenience. If event parking demand exceeds these levels or if larger attendance levels arc expected, it may be necessary to modify the event to reduce total peak demand. For example, curriculum night could be separated into two nights based on grade levels. 3.7. Traffic Safety The project is not expected to result in any significant adverse safety impacts. However, a;, noted in the analysis of collision data, there were several collisions that involved vehicles making improper left-turns from westbound N 4'h Street to southbound Park Avenue N. With the introduction of the two one-way school access driveways on N 4'h Street and additional trips along N 4'' Street, it may be beneficial to install lane channelization markings (painted arrows) and/or street signs on N 4"' Street approaching Park Avenue N that better inform drivers that the outside lanes arc for turns and the inside lanes arc for through traffic only. The school would result in increased traffic and pedestrian traffic activity around the site. The proposal should also include establishment of school crossings and school-zone speed limits during peak arrival and dismissal times. The District should work with the City to define and implement school speed zones around the site, including installation of signage. The project is not expected to result in any significant adverse safety impacts. 3.8. Transit Facilities & Service Some transit trips may be generated by the teachers or staff at the site. The nearest transit stops are currently located directly in front of the school site on Park Avenue X at the N 3"1 Street and N 4 11 ' Street intersections. School bus transportation would be provided to those students living beyond the I-mile walk area for the school. The project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to transit. 3.9. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities The new Sartori Elementary School is expected to generate additional pedestrian and bicycle trips within the site vicinity. The District should also coordinate with the City and Renton Police Department (RPD) to re-establish and enforce school-zone speed limits near the site. Prior to school opening, the District should review and identify walk routes, crosswalk locations, and crossing guard locations. 3.10. Short-term Impacts from Construction Construction at the site is planned to start in late spring 2017; the school is planned to be ready for occupancy by fall of 2018. The construction effort would include limited earthwork that would consist of excavation that would remove and export about 2,000 cubic yards ( cy) of material from the site and impo11 about 4,500 cy of fill to the site.18 Half of this earthwork activity is anticipated to occur during a several month period at the beginning of the project; the remainder would likely be spread out over several months near the end of the project. Assuming an average of 20-cubic yards per truck AHBL, Earthwork quanlities estimales. August 2016. heffron -25 -August 26, 2016 lil·Nei--l•UIMl#lli•M,MWDI Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT (truck/trailer combination), the earthwork would generate about 165 truckloads ( 165 trucks in and J 65 trucks out) during the two periods at the beginning and end of the project. Assuming these eaiihwork periods arc condensed to about two months each, this would correspond to about eight truck trips per day (four in, four out) and one or fewer truck trips per hour on a typical eight-hour work day. This volume of truck traffic may be noticeable residents living adjacent to the site, but is not expected to result in significant impacts to traffic operations in the site vicinity. The construction of the project would also generate employee and equipment trips to and from the site. Construction work shifts for schools are usually from 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 l'.M., with workers arriving between 6:30 and 6:45 A.:Vt. and leaving between 3:30 and 4:00 P.M. The number of workers at the project site at any one time would va1y depending upon the construction clement being implemented. Parking for construction personnel may be provided within the site, but some construction workers may also park on-street along the site frontage of Garden Avenue N. heffron -26 -August 26, 2016 lil#Me&-W•Ulil#IIUM,MiiiM Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report 4. MITIGATION 4.1. Transportation Impact Fees DRAFT The City of Renton collects transportation impact fees and has outlined fee rates for a variety of uses. The City's 21116 Developme111 Fees schedule docs not include a specific rate for elementary schools (a fee rate of $2.00 per square foot is listed for high schools), but indicates that fees for uses not listed are detem1ined "per current ITE Manual." For uses not listed, Renton Municipal Code (RMC) allows for an independent transportation mitigation fee calculation as stated in RMC 4-1-190.H. 1: If, in the.Judgment of the Administrator, none ofthefice categories urjiee amounts setforth in the City's Fee Schedule published and on file with the City Clerk accurately describes or captures the impacts ufu new development on puhlicjacilities. the Department may conduct independent Jee calculations and the Administrator may impose alternativefi,es on a specific development hased 011 those calculations. Based on data presented in Table 8 of the City ofRenton's Rate Studvfor Impact Fees 19 the transpo11ation impact fee rate for the High School land use category is calculated as follows: High School ITE PM Peak Hour Trip Rate 0.97 trips I 1,000 sf X %New Trips 80% Trip Length X Factor 100 Net New Trips 0.78 per 1,000 sf Rate Per Unit Based on $7,517.08 per trip $5.83 per sf However, the adopted fee rate for high school uses in 2016 is roughly 34% of the total calculated rate- (S2.00-;-$5.83 ~ 34.3%). If this same methodology is applied to the published trip generation rate for elementary schools (!TE I.and Use 520), the fee rate would be calculated as follows: Elementary School l':\1 Peak Hour Trip Rate 1.21 trips 11,000 sf X %New Trips 80% Trip Length X Factor 1.00 Net New Trips 0.97 per 1,000 sf Rate Per Unit Based on $7,517.08 per trip $7.28 per sf The calculated fee rate for 2016 would then be about $2.496 per square foot (34.3% x $7 .28). Based on this independent fee rate and the proposed school size that could be up to 79,000 square feet, the transportation impact fee for project would be $197,184. However, as described previously, the project would remove the existing uses from the site and the City allows for credit against the fee for removed uses. The estimated credit for the uses that would be removed is presented in Table 9. As shown, credit for remove of all existing uses totals just over $216,000, more than the fee for the new school. Therefore, there should be no net fee due for the proposed school project. It should be noted that transportation impact fees are due and payable before the building pennit is issued by the City based on the fee rates in effect at that time. Henderson Young & Company, August 26, 2011. heffron -27 -August 26, 2016 11¥1,W.-l,i•M+ltliUMeMMIMM Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT Table 9. Transportation Impact Fee Credit Estimate for Existing Site Uses to be Removed Tvoes of Uses Size I# of Units Fee Rate• Fee Credit Amount Public School (Sartori Education Center) 39,284 sf $2496 / sf' ($98,050) Single Family Homes 9 units $2,951.17 I dwelling ($26,561) Duplex (assume apartment rate), 2 units $1,923.831 dwelling ($3,848) Office (converted single family residence) 1,720 sf $5.10/sf ($8,772) Supermarket/ Restaurant/ Drive-Thru Espresso 6,486 sf' $11.83lsfe ($76,729) Retail (doq qroomer) 614 sf' $3.33/sfa ($2,0451 Total Credit f.$216,GIJ5'1 Fee for New School $197,184 Total Fee Due $0 Source.· Heffron Transporlation. Inc., August 2016. a. Unless othe,wise noted, rates from City of Renton's 2016 Development Fees, Revised August. 2016. b. Elementary School rate developed by Heffron Transporlation based on current /TE Trip Generation Manual and City of Renton Impact Fee Rate Study methodology. c. No rate published for "duplex," so, fee rate for Apartment was applied. d. Includes two buildings at 314 Park Avenue N consisting of a 6,390 sf Market & Deli and fast-food restaurant; and a separate 96-sf espresso stand. e. Size of restaurant is not provided by King County Assessor. so credit estimated for all uses with lower supermarket rate. f. A portion (614-s0 of the smgle-fami/y reS1dence building at 350 Park Avenue N was permitted as a retail dog grooming business. g. Neither the City's fee rate schedule nor the /TE Manual include rates for a dog groomer. Therefore, the shopping center rate (typically applied for general retail uses) was applied. 4.2. Right-of-Way Dedications In order to comply with street frontage and curb-return radii requirements outlined by the City, the project would dedicate right-of-way along the street frontages of all four sides of the project site. These would include about 12 feet along Park Avenue K, about 4.5 feet along N 3'' Street, 8.0 to 8.5 feet along N 46 Street, and about 9 feet along Garden Avenue N. In total, the right-of-way dedications are estimated at 17,524 sf(or roughly 0.4 acre). 4.3. Roadway Network Improvements 4.3.1. Frontage Improvements The City will require frontage improvements along all four sides of the site. The following describes the requirements for each roadway fronting the site. Park Avenue N -'kw curb at its existing location with an 8-foot wide planter and a new 12-foot wide sidewalk. N 3'' Street-New curb at its existing location with an 8-foot wide planter and a new 8-foot wide sidewalk. N 4th Street -New curb at its existing location with an 8-foot wide planter and a new 8-foot wide sidewalk. Garden Avenue N -New curb and curb bulbs at comers of 3'' and 4th Avenue with an 8-foot wide bus parking lane and a I 0-foot sidewalk behind the curb. The proposed on-street load/unload zone is expected to be restricted to school buses only during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods, but could be available for general parking during other times of the day. heffron -28 -August 26, 2016 11¥1,1--IH•iiffil•leMleiM Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT All intersections -New curb returns with radii of 35 feet at all comers with two perpendicular curb ramps at each corner. 4.3.2. Roadway Markings & Signage As described in Section 3. 7 Traffic Safety, it may be beneficial to install lane channelization markings (painted arrows) and/or street signs on N 4•h Street approaching Park Avenue N to better inform drivers that the outside lanes arc for turns and the inside lanes arc for through traffic only. The District should coordinate with the City to confirm the locations, extent. and signage of the school- bus load/unload zone along the west side of Garden Avenue N. The District should also coordinate with the City to review walk routes and determine if any changes should be made to crosswalk locations, signagc, or pavement markings. Part of this effort would be to define and implement school zone speed limits according to City standards. 4.4. Operational Measures The following operational measures are recommended for implementation prior to school opening and arc expected to be updated as conditions warrant. Transportation Manai:cmcnt Plan (TMP) -Prior to the school opening. the District and school principal should establish a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to educate families about the access load/unload procedures for the site layout. The effort should communicate to families and staff the constrained site conditions and limited ability to accommodate family vehicles. It should encourage school bus ridership, carpooling, and supervised walking (such as walking school buses). The plan should define clear procedures and travel routes for family vehicles and instruct family drivers not to block or partially block travel lanes with queued or waiting vehicles. The plan should also address evening event conditions by identifying appropriate parking locations for attendees, directing attendees or staff to the remote off-site parking (at the District's Transportation facility), and or adjusting the schedule or size of events to better accommodate demand with the available parking supply. Speed Enforcement -The District should coordinate with the City to ensure that school zone speed limits are signed and enforced, and that crossing guard locations are identified and staffed. Event Communication Plan -The District and school administration should develop a neighborhood communication plan to inform nearby neighbors of events each year. The plan should be updated annually ( or as events are scheduled) and should provide infom1ation about the dates, times, and rough magnitude of attendance. The communication would be intended to allow neighbors to plan for the occasional increase in on-street parking demand that would occur with large events. Construction Management Plan (CMP) -The District should require the selected contractor to develop a construction management plan (CMP) that addresses traffic and pedestrian control during school construction. It should define truck routes, lane closures, walkway closures, and parking disruptions, as necessary. To the extent possible, the C\IIP should direct trucks to arterials and away from residential streets to avoid unnecessary conflicts with resident and pedestrian activity. The CMP may also include measures to keep adjacent streets clean on a daily basis at the truck exit points (such as street sweeping or on-site truck wheel cleaning) to reduce tracking dirt offsite. The CMP should identify parking locations for the construction staff; to the extent possible, construction employee parking should be contained on-site. heffron -29 -August 26, 2016 i--J•C-iiAIM•MeMMiiW Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report APPENDIX A Level of Service Definitions heffron liiii,i--1,Uiiffli+-M,MiiiW DRAFT Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report DRAFT Levels of service (LOS) arc qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions. These levels of service are designated with letters ranging from LOS A, which is indicative of good operating condi- tions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which is indicative of stop-and-go conditions with frequent and lengthy delays. Levels of service for this analysis were developed using procedures presented in the TTighway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 20 I 0). Level of service for signali1ed intersections is defined in tenns of delay. Delay can be a cause of driver discomfort, frustration, inefficient fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in tenm of the average delay per vehicle in seconds. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables including: the quality of progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume-to-capacity ratio for the lane gronp or approach in question. Table A-1 shows the level of service criteria for signalized intersections from the Highway Capacity kfanual. Table A-1. Level of Service Criteria Level of Service A B C D E F Averaqe Delay Per Vehicle Less than 10.0 Seconds 10.1 to 20.0 seconds 20.1 to 35.0 seconds 35.1 to 55.0 seconds 55.1 to 80.0 seconds Greater than 80.0 seconds Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 General Description Free flow Stable flow (slight delays) Stable flow (acceptable delays) Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay- occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding. Unstable flow (approaching intolerable delay) Forced flow liammedl For unsignalizcd two-way-stop-controlled, all-way-stop-controlled, and roundabout intersections, level of service is based on the average delay per vehicle. The level of service for a two-way, stop- controlled intersection is detern1ined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Delay is related to the availability of gaps in the main street's traffic flow, and the ability of a driver to enter or pass through those gaps. The delay at an all-way, stop-sign (A WSC) controlled intersection is based on saturation headways, departure headways, and service times. Delay at roundabouts is based on entry flow rates and flow rate capacity. Table A-2 shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections from the ffighway Capacity Manual. heffron Table A-2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service A B C D E F Average Delay I seconds oer vehicle) Less than 100 10.1 to 15.0 15.1 to25.0 25.1 to 35.0 35.1 to 50.0 Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. A-1 +•M•MIW#lil•ieMiiiii Sartori Elementary School Transportation Technical Report APPENDIX B DRAFT Level of Service Calculation Sheets heffron l1¥1,i-1•HIIMlll•leMIIIM RSD -Sartori Elementary E x isting (2016) Morning Peak Hour 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes, Timings ..I' --+ " 'f ._ ' ' t ~ \. + " Lane Grau e EBL EBT EB R WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configu rations 4'tt .,, +ft tf+ Traffic Vo lume (vph) 0 0 0 79 192 41 10 620 0 0 348 49 Futu re Volume (vph) 0 0 0 79 192 41 10 620 0 0 348 49 Ideal Fl ow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 Storage Lane s 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Tape r Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Facto r 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.982 Fl t Protected 0.986 0.999 Sat d. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4825 1524 0 3468 0 0 3339 0 Fl t Perm itted 0.986 0.95 0 Satd. Fl ow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4822 1501 0 3298 0 0 3339 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 89 23 Li nk Speed (mp h) 30 30 30 30 Li nk Dis tance (ft ) 28 1 438 671 52 1 Travel Ti me (s) 6.4 10.0 15 .3 11.8 Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Veh icles(%) 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Adj. Fl ow (vph) 0 0 0 88 213 46 11 689 0 0 387 54 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 301 46 0 700 0 0 441 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA NA Pro tected Phases 8 1 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 12.0 50 .0 38.0 Tota l Split (s) 30.0 30 .0 30 .0 12.0 50 .0 38 .0 Tota l Sp lit (%) 37 .5% 37.5% 37.5% 15.0% 62 .5% 47.5% Maximum Green (s) 24 .5 24.5 24 .5 8.0 44.5 32.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 Lost Time Adjus t (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead -L ag Op ti mize? Yes Yes Wa lk Time (s) 7.5 7.5 7.5 32.5 19.0 Flash Dont Wal k (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 12.0 12 .0 Pedestrian Ca lls (#/h r) 0 0 0 0 0 Ac t Effct Green (s) 24 .5 24.5 44 .5 32.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.3 1 0.56 0.41 v/c Ra tio 0.20 0.09 0.38 0.32 Contro l Delay 17.5 6.7 16.5 16.1 Queu e De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total De lay 17.5 6.7 16.5 16.1 LOS B A B B Approach Delay 16.1 16.5 16.1 5/19/2016 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , Inc. -TSM/R HF RSD -Sartori Elementary 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capac ity (vph ) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 201 -+- WBT B 43 65 358 1476 0 0 0 0.20 Offset: 62.5 (78%), Referenced to phase 1 :NBL and 6:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Pretimed Maximum vie Ratio : 0.38 ' WBR 1 23 521 0 0 0 0.09 Intersection Signal De lay : 16.3 Intersection LOS: B Existing (2016) Morning Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings "\ t ~ \. + ~ NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR B B 134 72 m168 107 591 441 1848 1370 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.32 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66 .7% ICU Level of Service C Analys is Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St + 02 5/19/2016 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc . -TSM/RHF RSD -S a rtori Elem e ntary Ex i sting (20 16) Morn ing Pe ak Hour 2 : Ga rden Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes, Timi ngs ,J ---+ ~ f +-'-~ t ~ ~ + .' Lane Groue EB L EBT EBR WBL WB T WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SB T SBR Lane Configuration s 4'tt 'f' "' 'f' Tr affic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 14 276 133 27 0 0 0 0 32 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 14 276 133 27 0 0 0 0 32 Idea l Fl ow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.9 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.850 0.865 Flt Pro tected 0.998 0.950 Sa td. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4706 1468 1433 0 0 0 0 1550 Flt Permitted 0.998 0.950 Sa td. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4706 1437 1433 0 0 0 0 1550 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd . Flow (RTOR) 160 507 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 438 463 670 531 Travel Time (s) 10.0 10 .5 15.2 12.1 Confl . Peds. (#/h r) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hou r Facto r 0.83 0.25 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Veh icles(%) 0% 0% 0% 10% 10% 10% 26% 26% 26% 6% 6% 6% Adj . Fl ow (vph) 0 0 0 17 333 160 33 0 0 0 0 39 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 350 160 33 0 0 0 0 39 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Pha ses 2 Permitted Pha ses 2 2 8 4 Minimum Split (s ) 50.0 50.0 50 .0 25.5 25 .5 Total Spl it (s) 50.0 50 .0 50 .0 30.0 30 .0 Total Spl it(%) 62.5% 62.5% 62 .5% 37.5 % 37.5% Maximum Green (s) 45.0 45 .0 45.0 25.5 25 .5 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Ti me Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead -L ag Optimize? Walk Time (s) 33.0 33.0 33.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12.0 12 .0 12.0 14.0 14 .0 Pedestr ian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Gre en (s) 45 .0 45.0 25.5 25 .5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.32 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.18 007 0.05 Control Delay 8.4 2.0 21.4 0.1 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.4 2.0 21.4 0.1 LOS A A C A Approach De lay 6.4 21.4 0.1 Approach LOS A C A Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 14 0 5/19/2016 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , Inc. -TSM/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 2 : Garden Ave N & N 4th St -" -.. ~ f Lane Graue ESL EST EBR WBL Queue Length 95th (ft) Interna l Li nk Dist (ft) 358 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Sp illback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vie Ratio Intersection Summary Area Type: Othe r Cycle Length : 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 Offset O (0%), Refere nced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:, Start of Green Natura l Cycle : 80 Contro l Type: Pretimed Maximum v/c Ra ti o: 0.18 +-'- WBT WBR 37 19 383 26 47 878 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.18 Intersection Signal Delay: 6.9 Intersection LOS : A In tersection Capacity Uti lizatio n 55.4% ICU Leve l of Service B Analysis Period (m in) 15 2: Garde n Ave N & N 4th St 5/19/2016 8:15 am Heffron Transportat ion , Inc. -TSM/RHF E xisting (2016) Morning Pe a k Hou r Lanes, Volumes, Timings ' t ,,.. '. i .' NBL NBT NBR SSL SST SBR 29 0 590 451 456 839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.05 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sa rtori Elem e nta ry E x istin g (201 6) M orn ing P eak Hour 3: G a rd e n Ave N & N 3rd St Lanes, Volumes, Timings .,> --+ "'\, f ~ ' "" t ,,.. '. i ~ Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +f t f+ f+ +f Traffic Volume (vph) 14 492 6 0 0 0 0 14 55 8 11 0 Future Volume (vph) 14 492 6 0 0 0 0 14 55 8 11 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util . Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 Frt 0.998 0.892 Fl t Protected 0.999 0.980 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 4832 0 0 0 0 0 1599 0 0 141 1 0 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.915 Sa td. Flow (perm) 0 483 1 0 0 0 0 0 1599 0 0 1317 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Fl ow (RTOR) 4 71 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 439 190 467 670 Trave l Ti me (s) 10.0 4.3 10.6 15.2 Confl. Peds . (#/hr) 6 2 2 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Heavy Veh icles(%) 7% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 32% 32% 32% Adj. Flow (vph) 18 631 8 0 0 0 0 18 71 10 14 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 657 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 24 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Minimum Sp lit (s) 53 .0 53.0 27 .0 27.0 27 .0 Total Sp lit (s) 53.0 53.0 27 .0 27 .0 27 .0 Total Sp lit (%) 66.3 % 66.3% 33 .8% 33.8 % 33 .8% Max imum Green (s) 48.0 48 .0 22 .5 22 .5 22.5 Ye llow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Time (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Wa lk Time (s) 36 .0 36 .0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Wa lk (s) 12.0 12.0 15.5 15.5 15 .5 Pedest rian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 48 .0 22.5 22.5 Actuated g/C Rat io 0.60 0.28 0.28 vie Ratio 0.23 0.1 8 0.06 Control Delay 22 .2 9.0 25.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Delay 22 .2 9.0 25.5 LOS C A C Approach De lay 22.2 9.0 25 .5 Approach LOS C A C Queue Length 50th (ft) 104 7 11 Queue Length 95 th (ft) 117 30 28 511912016 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc . -TSM/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementa ry 3: Garden Ave N & N 3 rd St ..> _. \' 'f +-' Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WB T WBR Internal Link Dist (ft) 359 110 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2900 Starvat ion Cap Reduc tn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Rat io 0.23 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cyc le Length : 80 Actuated Cycle Length : 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type : Preti med Maximum vie Ratio: 0.23 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.6% Analys is Period (min ) 15 Splits and Phases: 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St Intersection LOS : C ICU Level of Service B Ex isting (2 0 16) Morn ing Pe a k Ho ur Lanes, Volumes , Timings ' t /"' '-. + ~ NB L NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 387 590 500 370 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.06 5/19/2016 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Tra nsportat ion , Inc. -TSM /RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary Ex isting (2016) Morning Peak Hour 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St Lanes , Vo lume s, Timings /' -+ ""\-f ,._ ' ~ t ~ '-. + ~ Lane Groue EBL EBT EB R WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4'tf. f. .,, tt Tra ffic Volume (vph) 136 412 19 0 0 0 0 507 52 51 388 0 Fu tu re Volume (vph) 136 41 2 19 0 0 0 0 507 52 51 388 0 Ideal Fl ow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Storag e Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 0.995 0.987 Fl t Prote cted 0.988 0.950 Sa td. Fl ow (prot) 0 4853 0 0 0 0 0 1767 0 1703 3406 0 Flt Perm itted 0.988 0.146 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 4849 0 0 0 0 0 1767 0 262 3406 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd . Fl ow (RTOR) 6 8 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Dis tan ce (ft) 309 439 474 67 1 Travel Time (s) 7.0 10 .0 10.8 15.3 Confi Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 2 2 4 4 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles(%) 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Adj. Flow (vph) 156 474 22 0 0 0 0 583 60 59 44 6 0 Shared Lane Tr affic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 652 0 0 0 0 0 643 0 59 446 0 Tu rn Type Perm NA NA pm+pt NA Pro tected Pha ses 4 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Minimum Split (s) 27 .0 27.0 39.0 14.0 53.0 Tota l Sp lit (s) 27 .0 27.0 39.0 14 .0 53 .0 Tota l Spl it (%) 33 .8% 33.8 % 48.8 % 17.5% 66.3% Max imum Green (s) 21.0 21.0 33 .0 10.0 47.0 Ye llow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lo st Time Ad just (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lead /Lag La g Lea d Lead -Lag Optim ize? Yes Yes Walk Ti me (s ) 9.0 9.0 23 .0 37.0 Flash Dant Wa lk (s) 12 .0 12.0 10.0 10.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 21.0 33.0 49.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.41 0.61 0.59 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.88 0.17 0.22 Control Delay 26 .6 37 .0 8.6 6.2 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 To tal Delay 26.6 37.0 8.6 6.2 LO S C D A A Approach De lay 26 .6 37 .0 6.5 5/19/2016 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transpo rta tion, Inc . -TSM /RHF RSD -S a rt o ri Elementary 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St -+ +- Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WB R Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft ) Base Capac ity (vph) Starvat ion Cap Reductn Sp illback Cap Reduct n Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Rat io Intersection Summary Area Type: Othe r Cycle Length : 80 Actuated Cycle Length : 80 C 100 130 229 359 1277 0 0 0 0.51 Offse t: 66 (83%), Referenced to phase 1 :SBL and 6:SB TL, Start of Green Natu ral Cycle : 80 Contro l Type: Pretimed Maximum v/c Rat io: 0.88 Intersection Signa l De lay: 24 .6 Intersection LOS : C Intersec tion Capac ity Utilization 66.7 % IC U Leve l of Service C Analys is Period (min) 15 # 95th percent ile vo lume exceeds capacity, queu e may be longer. Queue sho wn is maximum after two cycl es . Sp lits and Phases: 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St \01 t 02 5/1 9/2016 8:15 am Heffron Transportation, In c. -TSM /RHF Ex isting (2016 ) Morn ing Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes , Timings ~ t ,,.. '.. + .; NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR D A 284 8 36 #460 20 48 394 591 100 733 340 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.88 0.17 0.22 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 Without-Project -Morning Peak Hour 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volu me s, Ti mings ~ ....... • f +-' ' t ~ '. i ., Lane Groue EB L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB L NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Con fi gurat ions +ftt 'f' +ft tf+ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 85 200 45 10 650 0 0 365 50 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 85 200 45 10 650 0 0 365 50 Idea l Flow (vp hpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sto rage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 Storage Lan es 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 I Taper Le ngth (ft) 25 25 25 25 La ne Util . Fa ctor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.982 Flt Protected 0.985 0.999 Satd. Fl ow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4820 1524 0 3468 0 0 3339 0 Flt Perm itted 0.985 0.950 Satd. Fl ow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4817 1501 0 3298 0 0 3339 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd . Flow (RTOR) 89 23 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Di stance (ft) 289 438 671 576 Trave l Time (s) 6.6 10.0 15.3 13.1 Confi. Ped s. (#/hr) 3 2 2 3 1 Confi. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 94 222 50 11 722 0 0 406 56 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 316 50 0 733 0 0 462 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 8 1 6 2 Perm itted Phases 8 8 6 Minimum Sp lit (s) 30 .0 30 .0 30.0 12.0 50.0 38 .0 Tota l Split (s) 30 .0 30 .0 30.0 12.0 50.0 38.0 Tota l Split(%) 37 .5% 37 .5% 37 .5% 15.0% 62.5 % 47.5% Max imum Green (s ) 24 .5 24.5 24 .5 8.0 44 .5 32.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Al l-Red Ti me (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 Lost Time Adjust (s ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lo st Ti me (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Opt imize? Yes Yes Wa lk Time (s) 7.5 7.5 7.5 32 .5 19.0 Flash Dont Wa lk (s ) 17.0 17 .0 17.0 12.0 12.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effc t Green (s) 24 .5 24.5 44 .5 32.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.56 0.4 1 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.10 0.40 0.34 Control De lay 17.7 6.9 17 .0 16.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.7 6.9 17 .0 16.3 LOS B A B B 5/19/2018 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Tran sportation, Inc. -TSM/RHF RSD -Sartori El e mentary Forecas t 2 01 8 With o ut-Proj ect -M o rning P eak Hour 1: Park A ve N & N 4th S t .J' --+ "'\, 'f +- Lane Grou ~ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT Approach Delay 16.2 Approach LOS B Queue Leng th 50th (ft) 46 Queue Leng th 95th (ft) 68 Internal Link Dist (ft) 209 358 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1475 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spill back Cap Reductn 0 Sto rage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length : 80 Offset: 62.5 (78%), Referenced to phase 1 :NBL and 6:NBTL, Start of Green Natu ral Cycle: 80 Control Type : Pretimed Max imum v/c Ratio : 0.40 ' WBR 1 25 521 0 0 0 0.10 Intersection Signa l Delay: 16.6 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percenti le queue is metered by upst ream signa l. 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St ! 02 5/19/20 18 8:15 am Heffron Transportation , Inc. -TSM /RHF Lanes , Volumes, Timings ' t ~ '.. ! .,, NBL NBT NBR SSL SST SBR 17.0 16.3 B B 145 76 m169 112 591 496 1848 1370 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 0.34 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 With o ut-Proj ect -Morning P eak Hour 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes, Timings /' -+-~ f ~ ' ~ t ~ '-i .,' Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB L NBT NBR SBL SB T SBR Lane Configurations +ftt .,, .,, .,, Traffic Volume (v ph) 0 0 0 15 290 140 30 0 0 0 0 32 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 15 290 140 30 0 0 0 0 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.850 0.8 65 Flt Protec ted 0.998 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4706 1468 1433 0 0 0 0 1550 Flt Perm itted 0.998 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4706 1436 1433 0 0 0 0 1550 Ri ght Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sa id. Flow (RTOR) 169 489 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Li nk Di sta nce (ft) 438 463 670 574 Travel Time (s) 10 .0 10.5 15 .2 13 .0 Conn. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Conn. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Facto r 0.83 0.25 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 10% 10% 10% 26% 26% 26% 6% 6% 6% Ad j. Fl ow (v ph) 0 0 0 18 349 169 36 0 0 0 0 39 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 367 169 36 0 0 0 0 39 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Pe rm Protected Phases 2 Perm itted Phases 2 2 8 4 Mini mum Split (s) 50 .0 50 .0 50 .0 25 .5 25.5 Total Spl it (s) 50.0 50 .0 50.0 30 .0 30.0 Tota l Sp lit(%) 62 .5% 62.5% 62.5% 37 .5% 37.5% Maximum Green (s) 45 .0 45.0 45.0 25 .5 25 .5 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Los t Time Ad just (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Wa lk Ti me (s) 33 .0 33.0 33.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Don! Wa lk (s) 12.0 12.0 12 .0 14.0 14.0 Pedestr ian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 45.0 45 .0 25.5 25.5 Actuated g/C Rat io 0.56 0.56 0.32 0.32 vie Ratio 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.05 Control Delay 8.5 2.0 21.2 0.1 Que ue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.5 2.0 21 .2 0.1 LOS A A C A Approach Delay 6.4 21.2 0.1 Approach LOS A C A Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 0 15 0 5/19/2018 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St Forecast 2018 Without-Project -Morning Peak Hour La nes, Volumes , Timings Lane Group Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (v ph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Rati o Intersection Summary --+ EB L EBT 358 Area Type: Other Cyc le Length: 80 Ac tu ated Cycle Length : 80 "'\, EBR 'f +-' WBL WBT WBR 39 19 383 2647 88 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.19 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:, Start of Gree n Natural Cycle : 80 Control Type : Pretimed Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.19 Intersection Signal Delay: 6.9 Intersection Capaci ty Utiliza tion 55.4% Ana lysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases : 2: Garde n Ave N & N 4th St 5/19/2018 8:15 am Heffron Transportat ion , Inc. -TSM /RHF Intersection LO S: A ICU Le vel of Service B "" t ~ '. + .ti NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 31 0 590 494 456 827 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.05 04 ~08 Synchro 9 Report RSD -S a rtori Elementary Forec ast 2 0 18 Without-Project -Morning Pe ak Hour 3: Ga rd en A v e N & N 3 rd St Lanes, Volumes, Timings .,> ...... '\-'f ,.._ ' "\ t ,,.. \. i ~ Lane Grou~ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Co nfigu rations +ftt+ t+ +f Traffic Vo lume (vph) 15 515 10 0 0 0 0 15 60 10 15 0 Futu re Vo lume (vp h) 15 515 10 0 0 0 0 15 60 10 15 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.997 0.892 Flt Protected 0.999 0.980 Sa td. Flow (prot) 0 4826 0 0 0 0 0 1582 0 0 141 1 0 Flt Perm itted 0.999 0.908 Sa td. Flow (perm ) 0 4826 0 0 0 0 0 1582 0 0 1307 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sa td. Flow (RTOR) 6 77 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Li nk Dis tance (ft) 439 190 619 670 Travel Time (s) 10.0 4.3 14.1 15.2 Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 6 2 2 6 Co nft. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Peak Hou r Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Heavy Vehicles(%) 7% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 32 % 32% 32 % Adj. Flow (vp h) 19 660 13 0 0 0 0 19 77 13 19 0 Sha red Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 692 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 32 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Protected Phas es 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Minimum Split (s) 53.0 53.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Tota l Sp lit (s) 53 .0 53 .0 27 .0 27.0 27.0 Tota l Split(%) 66.3% 66 .3% 33 .8% 33 .8% 33.8% Maximum Green (s) 48 .0 48 .0 22.5 22 .5 22.5 Yel low Time (s ) 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 Al l-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adju st (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Los t Tim e (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead /La g Lead -L ag Optimize ? Wa lk Ti me (s) 36.0 36.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Wa lk (s) 12 .0 12 .0 15.5 15.5 15.5 Pedestrian Ca lls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Gree n (s) 48 .0 22.5 22 .5 Actua ted g/C Rat io 0.60 0.28 0.28 v/c Ra tio 0.24 0.19 0.09 Control Delay 22.2 8.9 25 .0 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 To ta! De lay 22.2 8.9 25 .0 LOS C A C Approa ch Delay 22 .2 8.9 25 .0 Approach LOS C A C Queue Leng th 50th (ft) 110 7 14 5/19/2018 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TS M/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementa ry 3: Ga rden Ave N & N 3 rd St Forecast 2018 Without-Project -Morning Peak Hou r Lanes , Volumes, Timings Lane Group Queue Length 95t h (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capac ity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Sp illback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary EBL EBT m124 359 2898 0 0 0 0.24 Area Type: Other Cycle Length : 80 Actuated Cy cl e Length: 80 "'\, 'f EBR WBL Offset : 0 (0%), Refe renced to phase 2:EBT L and 6:, Sta rt of Gree n Natural Cy cl e: 80 Control Type : Pretimed Maximu m v/c Ratio: 0.24 ._ ' WBT WBR 110 Intersecti on Signa l De lay: 20 .8 Intersec tion LOS : C Intersection Capac ity Uti liza ti on 55.9 % ICU Leve l of Service B Analysis Period (m in) 15 m Vo lume for 95 th perce nti le queue is me tered by ups tream signal. 3: Gard en Ave N & N 3rd St 5/19/2018 8:15 am Heffron Tran sportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF "\ t ~ '. i .' NBL NBT NBR SB L SBT SB R 31 32 539 590 500 367 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.19 0.09 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sarto ri El e menta ry Fo rec ast 20 1 8 W ithout-Proje ct -M o rnin g P eak Hour 4 : Park A ve N & N 3 rd St La nes, Volumes , Timings ~ --+ • 'f ._ ' "" t ~ '. -! ~ Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SB L SBT SBR Lane Configurat ions 4'tf+ f+ ~ tt Traffic Vo lume (vph) 145 435 20 0 0 0 0 535 55 55 410 0 Futu re Volume (vph) 145 435 20 0 0 0 0 535 55 55 410 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.9 1 0.9 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.995 0.987 Fl t Pro tected 0.988 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 4853 0 0 0 0 0 1767 0 1703 3406 0 Flt Permitted 0.988 0.1 17 Sa td. Flow (perm) 0 4849 0 0 0 0 0 1767 0 210 3406 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd . Flow (RTOR) 6 8 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Li nk Distance (ft) 297 439 618 671 Trave l Time (s) 6.8 10.0 14.0 15.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 2 2 4 4 2 Co nfl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hou r Facto r 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Veh icles (%) 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Ad j. Flow (vph) 167 500 23 0 0 0 0 615 63 63 471 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 690 0 0 0 0 0 678 0 63 471 0 Turn Type Pe rm NA NA pm+p t NA Protected Phases 4 2 1 6 Pe rmitted Phase s 4 6 Minimum Split (s) 27 .0 27.0 39 .0 14.0 53 .0 Total Spli t (s) 27.0 27.0 39 .0 14 .0 53 .0 Total Sp lit(%) 33 .8% 33 .8% 48 .8% 17 .5% 66.3% Maximum Green (s) 21.0 21.0 33 .0 10.0 47 .0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lost Time Ad j ust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lea d Lead-Lag Opt imi ze ? Yes Yes Wa lk Ti me (s) 9.0 9.0 23.0 37.0 Flash Dant Wa lk (s) 12.0 12 .0 10 .0 10.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s ) 21.0 33.0 49.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ra tio 0.26 0.41 0.61 0.59 v/c Ra tio 0.54 0.92 0.20 0.24 Contro l De lay 27 .0 43 .3 12.4 6.3 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total De lay 27 .0 43.3 12.4 6.3 LOS C D B A 5/19/2018 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TS M/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 Without-Project -Morning Peak Hour 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St .,) --+ .. 'f +- Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT Approach De lay 27.0 Approach LOS C Queue Length 50t h (ft) 107 Queue Length 95th (ft) 138 Interna l Link Di st (ft) 217 359 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1277 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Sp ill back Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.54 Intersection Summary Area Type : Other Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length : 80 Offset : 66 (83%), Referenced to phase 1 :SBL and 6:SBTL , Start of Green Natural Cycle : 80 Control Type: Pretimed Maximum vie Ratio: 0.92 ' WBR Intersection Signa l Delay: 27 .2 Intersection LOS: C ' NBL Inte rsection Capacity Utilization 66 .7% ICU Leve l of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th perce ntile volume exceeds capacity , queue may be longer. Queue shown is maxim um after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 4: Par k Ave N & N 3rd St \01 t 02 511912018 8:15 am Heffron Transportat ion , Inc . -TSM/RHF Lanes, Volumes, Timings t ,. \. ~ .,, NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 43.3 7.0 D A 309 9 38 #500 33 51 538 591 100 733 315 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.92 0.20 0.24 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Existing (2016) Afternoon P eak Hour 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes , Timings .,> -+, .. 'f +-' ~ t ~ '-. ! .ti Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WB T WBR NB L NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4'tt .,, 4't tf+ Traffi c Volume (vph) 0 0 0 300 292 28 21 248 0 0 1123 96 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 300 292 28 21 248 0 0 1123 96 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Facto r 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.0 0 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.988 Flt Protected 0.975 0.996 Satd. Flow (pro t) 0 0 0 0 4958 1583 0 3360 0 0 3492 0 Flt Permitted 0.975 0.842 Said. Flow (pe rm) 0 0 0 0 4943 1561 0 2841 0 0 3492 0 Righ t Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR ) 71 12 Li nk Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 284 43 8 671 53 1 Travel Time (s) 6.5 10.0 15.3 12.1 Conn. Peds. (#/h r) 2 6 6 2 5 1 5 Confi. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Peak Hour Fa ctor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 7% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 306 298 29 21 253 0 0 1146 98 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 604 29 0 274 0 0 1244 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA NA Protected Phases 8 1 6 2 Perm itted Phases 8 8 6 Minimum Sp li t (s) 35 .5 35 .5 35.5 13.0 64 .5 51 .5 Tota l Sp lit (s) 35.5 35.5 35.5 13.0 64 .5 51.5 Tota l Sp lit(%) 35.5% 35.5 % 35.5% 13 .0% 64.5% 51.5% Maximum Green (s) 30.0 30.0 30 .0 9.0 59.0 46.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Time (s ) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 Los t Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead -L ag Opt imiz e? Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 33.5 19.0 Flas h Dont Walk (s ) 17.0 17.0 17.0 12.0 12.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effc t Green (s) 30 .0 30 .0 59 .0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.46 vie Ratio 0.41 0.06 0.16 0.77 Control Delay 26.1 1.9 13.3 26.4 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total De lay 26 .1 1.9 13.3 26.4 LO S C A B C 5/19/2016 3:1 5 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transpo rtat io n, Inc. -TSM/R HF RSD -Sa rtori Elementa ry 1: P ark Ave N & N 4 th St f Lane Group EB L EBT EBR WBL Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft ) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Li nk Dist (ft) Turn Bay Lengt h (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Ca p Reductn Sp ill back Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Rat io Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length : 100 204 +- WBT 25.0 C 113 148 358 1482 0 0 0 0.4 1 Offset: 61.5 (62%), Referenced to phase 1 :NBL and 6:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle : 100 Control Type: Preti med Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77 ' WBR 0 m8 518 0 0 0 0.06 Intersection Signa l Delay: 24.3 Intersect ion LOS: C Ex isting (2 01 6 ) Aftern oo n Peak Hour Lanes , Volumes , Timings "\ t ~ '-+ .' NBL NB T NBR SB L SBT SBR 13.3 26.4 B C 42 335 77 422 59 1 451 1715 1612 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0.77 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1 % IC U Level of Service C Ana lysis Period (m in) 15 m Volume for 95th percenti le queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases : 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St 4\ 01 i 02 5/19/20 16 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , Inc. -TSM /R HF RSD -Sartori Elementary Existing (2016) Afternoon Peak Hour 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St Lanes , Volumes, Timing s /' --+ '\, ~ +-' ~ t t+' \. -! ~ Lane Graue EB L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurati ons +rtt '(I .., '(I Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 15 295 33 20 0 0 0 0 325 Future Volu me (vph) 0 0 0 15 295 33 20 0 0 0 0 325 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bik e Factor 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.850 0.865 Flt Protected 0.998 0.950 Satd. Flow (pro t) 0 0 0 0 4793 1495 1504 0 0 0 0 1627 Flt Permitted 0.998 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4793 1463 1502 0 0 0 0 1605 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 35 571 Li nk Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 438 463 670 527 Trave l Time (s) 10.0 10.5 15 .2 12.0 Confi . Pe ds . (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 Peak Hou r Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Veh icles(%) 0% 0% 0% 8% 8% 8% 20 % 20 % 20% 1% 1% 1% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 16 317 35 22 0 0 0 0 349 Shared La ne Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 333 35 22 0 0 0 0 349 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Pha ses 2 Perm itte d Pha ses 2 2 8 4 Minimum Sp lit (s) 64.0 64.0 64 .0 25.5 25 .5 To tal Spl it (s) 68 .5 68.5 68.5 31.5 31 .5 Total Split(%) 68 .5% 68.5% 68.5% 31 .5% 31.5% Max imum Green (s) 63 .5 63 .5 63.5 27.0 27 .0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Tim e Ad just (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Los t Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize ? Wa lk Time (s) 47 .0 47 .0 47.0 7.0 7.0 Fl ash Don! Walk (s) 12.0 12 .0 12.0 14.0 14.0 Pedestr ian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green ( s) 63 .5 63.5 27 .0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.27 0.27 vie Ratio 0.1 1 0.04 0.05 0.41 Control Delay 7.3 2.5 21 .8 1.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.3 2.5 21.8 1.5 LOS A A C A Approach De lay 6.8 21.8 1.5 Approach LOS A C A Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 8 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 11 20 0 5/19/2016 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportat ion, In c. -TSM /RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St ~ -+ ... f Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL Internal Link Dis t (ft) 358 Tu rn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (v ph) Starvation Cap Reductn Sp illbac k Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary Area Type : Ot he r Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Offset: O (0%), Referen ced to phas e 2:WBT L and 6:, Start of Gree n Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Pretimed Maximum v/c Ratio : 0.41 +-' WBT WBR 383 3043 94 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.04 Intersection Signal De lay: 4.7 Intersection LOS: A Existing (2016) Afternoon Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Ti ming s ' t ~ '. i " NBL NBT NBR SB L SBT SBR 590 447 405 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.41 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% IC U Leve l of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 Sp lits and Phases : 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St 04 ~08 5/19/2016 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportat ion , Inc. -TSM/R HF RSD -S a rtori Elementary Ex isting (2 0 1 6) Afternoon Pe ak Ho ur 3 : Gard e n Ave N & N 3rd St Lanes, Volumes, Timings / • f ~ ' ' t ~ '-. -! ~ --+ Lane Groue ESL ES T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NB T NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Configurations 4'tt. ~ 4' Traffic Vol ume (vph) 10 1022 27 0 0 0 0 15 26 12 12 0 Future Volume (vph) 10 10 22 27 0 0 0 0 15 26 12 12 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util . Facto r 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.996 0.9 15 Flt Protec ted 0.976 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 5062 0 0 0 0 0 1610 0 0 1717 0 Flt Pe rmit ted 0.892 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 5062 0 0 0 0 0 1610 0 0 1568 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Fl ow (RTOR) 9 29 Link Spee d (mph) 30 30 30 30 Lin k Dis tance (ft) 439 190 467 670 Trave l Time (s) 10.0 4.3 10.6 15.2 Con ft. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8 1 Conft . Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% Adj. Flow (vph ) 11 11 36 30 0 0 0 0 17 29 13 13 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1177 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 26 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Prote cted Phases 2 4 8 Perm itted Phases 2 8 Mi nimum Spli t (s) 76 .0 76 .0 24.0 24 .0 24 .0 Total Sp lit (s) 76 .0 76.0 24.0 24 .0 24 .0 Total Sp lit(%) 76 .0% 76 .0% 24 .0% 24.0% 24 .0% Maximum Gree n (s) 71.0 71.0 19.5 19 .5 19.5 Ye llow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Ti me Adjust (s ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Ti me (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead /Lag Le ad -Lag Opt im ize? Wa lk Time (s) 59.0 59 .0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flas h Do n! Wa lk (s) 12.0 12.0 12 .5 12.5 12.5 Pedestrian Calls (#/h r) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 71.0 19.5 19.5 Actua ted g/C Ratio 0.7 1 0.20 0.20 v/c Rat io 0.33 0.14 0.09 Contro l Delay 7.7 18.4 39 .7 Queue De lay 0.2 0.0 0.0 Tota l De lay 7.9 18.4 39.7 LOS A B D Approach De lay 7.9 18.4 39 .7 Approach LOS A B D Queue Length 50t h (ft) 92 9 16 5/19/2016 3:15 pm Syn chro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , Inc. -TSM/R HF RSD -Sartori El e mentary Ex isting (2016 ) Aftern o on Pea k Hou r 3: G a rden Ave N & N 3rd St ~ -+ \' ' ._ ' Lane Grou~ EBL EBT EB R WBL WB T WBR Queue Leng th 95th (ft) 143 Internal Li nk Dist (ft) 359 11 0 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 3596 Starvatio n Cap Reductn 1349 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.52 Inte rsect ion Summary Area Type: Other Cyc le Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Offse t: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EB TL and 6:, Start of Green Natura l Cycle: 100 Cont rol Type: Pretimed Maximum v/c Rat io: 0.33 Intersection Signal De lay : 8.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.3% Analysis Period (min ) 15 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St 5/19/2016 3:15 pm Heffron Tra nsportat ion, Inc. -TSM /RHF Intersection LOS : A IC U Level of Service E La nes, Volumes, Timings "\ t ,,.. \. ! .' NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 40 42 387 590 337 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 4 0.09 Syn chro 9 Report RSD -Sa rto ri Elementary Ex isting (20 16) Afternoon P eak Hour 4 : Park A ve N & N 3rd St Lanes, Volumes, Tim ings ./ -+ .. 'f ,..._ ' "" t ,,.. '. ! ~ Lane Groue EBL EB T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configu rations Etti. i. ~ tt Traffic Volume (vph) 69 662 24 0 0 0 0 201 27 355 1074 0 Future Vo lume (vph) 69 662 24 0 0 0 0 201 27 355 1074 0 Idea l Flow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Leng th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util . Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.995 0.98 4 Flt Protected 0.995 0.950 Satd . Flow (pro!} 0 4982 0 0 0 0 0 1743 0 1770 3539 0 Flt Perm itted 0.995 0.538 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 4979 0 0 0 0 0 1743 0 999 3539 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 5 9 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 422 439 474 671 Travel Time (s) 9.6 10.0 10.8 15.3 Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 3 12 12 3 4 5 5 4 Confl. Bikes (#/h r} 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% Adj . Flow (vph) 71 682 25 0 0 0 0 207 28 366 1107 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 778 0 0 0 0 0 235 0 366 1107 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Mi nimum Sp lit (s) 33.0 33.0 52 .0 15.0 67 .0 Total Sp lit (s) 33 .0 33.0 52 .0 15.0 67.0 Total Spl it(%) 33 .0% 33.0% 52 .0% 15.0% 67.0% Maximum Green (s) 27 .0 27 .0 46.0 11 .0 61.0 Yel low Ti me (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s ) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 To tal Lost Ti me (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lead /Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 15.0 15.0 23 .0 51.0 Flash Dant Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 10 .0 10.0 Pedestrian Ca lls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 27 .0 46.0 63 .0 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.46 0.63 0.6 1 vie Ratio 0.58 0.29 0.51 0.51 Cont rol Delay 33 .4 17.4 5.1 5.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total De lay 33.4 17.4 5.1 5.2 LOS C B A A 5/19/2016 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc . -TSM/R HF RSD -S a rt ori El e menta ry 4 : P a rk A ve N & N 3 rd St Existing (2016) Afternoon Peak Hour Lane Group Approach De lay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Interna l Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Sp illback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersect ion Summary f EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT 33.4 C 156 198 342 359 1347 0 0 0 0.58 Area Type: Other Cyc le Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Leng th: 10 0 Offset: 85 (85%), Re ferenced to phase 1 :S BL and 6:SB TL , Start of Green Natural Cyc le: 100 Control Type: Pret imed Max imum v/c Rat io: 0.58 ' WBR Intersection Signal Delay: 15.1 Intersect ion LOS: B In tersection Capacity Utilizat ion 83.3 % IC U Level of Service E Analys is Period (min) 15 m Vo lume for 95 th percent ile queue is metered by upstream signa l. 5/19/20 16 3:15 pm 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St f 02 Heffron Transportation, Inc . -TS M/RHF ~ NBL Lanes, Volumes , Timings t ~ '. i ~ NBT NB R SBL SBT SBR 17.4 5.1 B A 87 26 54 140 m43 73 39 4 591 100 806 714 2158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.5 1 0.51 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 Without-Project -Afternoon Peak Hour 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St La nes, Volumes , Timin gs ~ ---+ "\. f +-'-"\ t I" ~ + .; La ne Graue EBL EBT EB R WBL WB T WBR NBL NBT NBR SSL SST SBR La ne Configurations 4'tt " 4't ti. Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 315 305 30 25 260 0 0 1180 100 Future Volume (vp h) 0 0 0 315 305 30 25 260 0 0 1180 100 Id eal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.988 Flt Pro tected 0.975 0.996 Said . Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4958 1583 0 3360 0 0 3492 0 Flt Pe rmitted 0.975 0.784 Satd . Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4943 1561 0 2645 0 0 3492 0 Righ t Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 71 12 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Di stance (ft) 284 438 671 531 Travel Time (s) 6.5 10.0 15.3 12.1 Confi. Peds . (#/hr) 2 6 6 2 5 1 5 Confi. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hou r Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 7% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 321 311 31 26 265 0 0 1204 102 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Fl ow (vph) 0 0 0 0 632 31 0 291 0 0 1306 0 Turn Type Perm NA Pe rm pm+pt NA NA Protec ted Pha ses 8 1 6 2 Perm itted Phases 8 8 6 Minimum Sp lit (s) 35.5 35.5 35.5 13.0 64.5 51 .5 Tota l Split (s) 35.5 35 .5 35.5 13.0 64 .5 51 .5 Tota l Split(%) 35.5% 35 .5% 35.5% 13.0% 64 .5% 51.5% Max imum Green (s) 30.0 30.0 30 .0 9.0 59.0 46 .0 Ye llow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -R ed Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 Lost Ti me Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Wa lk Ti me (s) 13 .0 13 .0 13.0 33.5 19.0 Fla sh Dont Walk (s) 17.0 17.0 17 .0 12.0 12 .0 Pedestr ian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 30 .0 30.0 59.0 46 .0 Actuated g/C Ra tio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.46 v/c Rati o 0.43 0.06 0.18 0.81 Contro l Delay 26.3 2.0 13.8 28.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26 .3 2.0 13 .8 28.0 LOS C A B C 5/19/2018 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportat ion , Inc. -TSM/R HF RSD -Sartori Elementary Fore cast 2018 Without-Project -Afternoon Peak Hour 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St ~ -+ .. 'f +- Lane Groue EBL EB T EBR WBL WB T Approach De lay 25 .2 Approach LO S C Queue Length 50th (ft) 119 Queue Length 95th (ft) 155 Internal Li nk Dist (ft) 204 358 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1482 Starvat ion Cap Reduc tn 0 Sp illback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reduct n 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.43 Intersection Summary Area Typ e: Other Cycle Leng th: 100 Actuated Cycle Le ngth: 100 Offse t: 61.5 (62%), Referenced to phase 1 :NB L and 6:NBTL , Start of Green Na tural Cycle: 100 Control Type : Preti med Max imum vie Ratio: 0.81 ' WBR 0 ma 518 0 0 0 0.06 Intersection Sig na l Delay: 25.3 Intersection LO S: C Intersection Capacity Utili zatio n 72.1 % ICU Leve l of Service C Analysis Period (m in ) 15 m Volume for 95th perce nt ile queue is metered by upstream signal. 5/19/2018 3:15 pm Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF Lanes, Volu me s, Timings ' t /I' '-+ " NBL NBT NBR SB L SBT SBR 13.8 28.0 B C 46 362 83 455 591 45 1 1614 1612 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.81 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sarto ri Elementa ry Fore cast 201 8 With o ut-Proj ect -Afternoon P ea k Hour 2: Garde n Ave N & N 4 th St Lanes, Volumes, Ti mings .,,1 ..... .. 'f +-' ~ t ,,.. '. + .,, Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB L NBT NBR SBL SB T SBR Lane Configurations +ftt .,, ~ .,, Traffic Vo lume (vp h) 0 0 0 15 310 35 20 0 0 0 0 345 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 15 310 35 20 0 0 0 0 345 Idea l Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.9 8 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.850 0.865 Flt Protected 0.998 0.950 Satd . Fl ow (pro t) 0 0 0 0 4793 1495 1504 0 0 0 0 1627 Flt Perm itted 0.998 0.950 Said. Flow (pe rm) 0 0 0 0 4793 146 1 1502 0 0 0 0 1605 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sa id. Fl ow {RTOR) 38 552 Li nk Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 438 463 670 527 Travel Time (s) 10.0 10.5 15.2 12.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Facto r 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 8% 8% 8% 20 % 20% 20% 1% 1% 1% Ad j. Fl ow (vp h) 0 0 0 16 333 38 22 0 0 0 0 37 1 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 349 38 22 0 0 0 0 371 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 8 4 Minimu m Split (s ) 64.0 64.0 64.0 25.5 25.5 Total Spl it (s) 68.5 68 .5 68 .5 31 .5 31.5 Total Split(%) 68 .5% 68 .5% 68 .5% 31.5 % 31.5% Maximum Gre en (s) 63.5 63.5 63.5 27.0 27.0 Yel low Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Al l-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Ti me Adj ust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Walk Time (s) 47.0 47.0 47 .0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Wa lk (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 14 .0 14 .0 Pedestrian Ca lls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 63.5 63 .5 27 .0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.27 0.27 vie Ratio 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.44 Control Delay 7.3 2.3 22.4 1.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Delay 7.3 2.3 22.4 1.7 LOS A A C A Approach Delay 6.8 22 .4 1.7 Ap proach LOS A C A Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 0 8 0 5/19/2018 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , Inc . -TSM /RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 2: Garden A ve N & N 4th St Fo recast 201 8 Without-Project -Afternoon Peak Hour Lanes , Vol um es , Timings Lane Group Queue Le ng th 95 th (ft) Internal Li nk Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Sp illback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Red uced vie Ratio Intersection Summary -+ EB L EBT 358 Area Type: Other Cycle Length : 100 Actuate d Cycle Length: 100 .. f EBR WBL Offset : 0 (0%), Refere nced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Contro l Type: Pre timed Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.4 4 .,._ '- WBT WBR 41 11 383 3043 941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.04 Inte rsection Signal De lay : 4.8 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Uti liza ti on 85 .6% IC U Leve l of Service E Analysis Period (m in) 15 Spl its and Phases: 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St 5/19/20 18 3:15 pm Heffron Tr anspo rt at ion , Inc. -TSM /RHF ' t I" '. -! " NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 20 0 590 447 405 836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.4 4 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 Without-Project -Afternoon Peak Hour 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St Lanes, Volumes, Timings ~ --+ .. f +-' ' t t+' '. ! .,' Lane Grou~ EBL EBT EB R WBL WBT WB R NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4tf+ f+ 4 Traffic Vo lume (vph) 10 1075 30 0 0 0 0 15 30 15 15 0 Futu re Volume (vph) 10 1075 30 0 0 0 0 15 30 15 15 0 Ide al Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Fa cto r 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Fa ctor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.996 0.911 Flt Protected 0.976 Sa td . Flow (prot) 0 5062 0 0 0 0 0 1602 0 0 17 17 0 Flt Perm itted 0.88 1 Satd. Fl ow (perm) 0 5062 0 0 0 0 0 1602 0 0 1549 0 Righ t Tu rn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said . Fl ow (RTOR) 10 33 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft ) 439 190 467 670 Trave l Time (s) 10.0 4.3 10.6 15.2 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 8 1 1 Confl . Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehic les(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% Adj. Flow (vph) 11 1194 33 0 0 0 0 17 33 17 17 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1238 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 34 0 Tu rn Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2 4 8 Perm itted Phases 2 8 Minimum Sp lit (s) 76.0 76 .0 24 .0 24.0 24.0 Total Sp lit (s ) 76.0 76.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Tota l Spl it(%) 76.0% 76 .0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0 % Maximum Green (s) 71.0 71.0 19.5 19 .5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s ) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Tim e (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead /Lag Lead -La g Optim ize? Wa lk Time (s) 59.0 59 .0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Wa lk (s) 12.0 12 .0 12.5 12.5 12.5 Pedestr ian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Gree n (s) 71.0 19.5 19.5 Actuated g/C Ra tio 0.71 0.20 0.20 v/c Rati o 0.34 0.15 0.11 Control De lay 8.2 17.7 38.9 Queue Delay 0.2 0.0 0.0 Tota l Delay 8.4 17.7 38 .9 LOS A B D Approach De lay 8.4 17.7 38.9 Ap proach LO S A B D Queue Length 50th (ft) 103 9 20 5/19/2 018 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Tra nsportation , Inc. -TSM/R HF RSD -S a rto ri El e mentary 3: G ard en Ave N & N 3rd St Forecast 201 8 Without-Project -Aftern o on P eak H o ur Lanes, Volumes, Ti mings Lane Gro up Queue Length 95th (ft) Interna l Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Sp illback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary EBL EBT 155 359 3596 1347 0 0 0.55 Area Type: Other Cyc le Length: 100 Actu ated Cycle Len gth: 100 "'\, 'f +-' EBR WBL WBT WBR 110 Offset: 0 (0%). Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Contro l Type : Pret imed Max imum v/c Ratio: 0.34 Intersection Signa l Delay: 9.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.3% Ana lysis Period (min) 15 Sp lits and Phases: 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St 5/19/2018 3:15 pm Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF Intersection LOS: A ICU Leve l of Service E "" t ~ '. i ',.I NBL NBT NBR SBL SB T SBR 41 50 387 590 338 302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0.11 Synchro 9 Re port RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 Without-Project -Afternoon Peak Hour 4 : Park Ave N & N 3rd St Lanes , Volumes, Timings ,,. ---+ \' f +-' ' t ,,.. '. + .; Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +ft~ ~ .., tt Traffic Volume (vph) 70 695 25 0 0 0 0 210 30 375 1130 0 Future Volume (vph) 70 695 25 0 0 0 0 210 30 375 1130 0 Ideal Flow (vph pl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util . Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bi ke Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.995 0.983 Flt Protected 0.996 0.950 Said . Flow (prot) 0 4987 0 0 0 0 0 1742 0 1770 3539 0 Flt Perm itted 0.996 0.526 Said. Flow (perm) 0 4984 0 0 0 0 0 1742 0 977 3539 0 Righ t Turn on Red Yes Ye s Yes Yes Said . Flow (RTOR) 5 10 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Li nk Distance (ft) 422 439 474 67 1 Travel Time (s) 9.6 10.0 10 .8 15 .3 Confi. Peds . (#/h r) 3 12 12 3 4 5 5 4 Confl. Bike s (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Fl ow (vph) 72 716 26 0 0 0 0 216 31 387 11 65 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lan e Group Flow (vph) 0 814 0 0 0 0 0 247 0 387 1165 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA pm+pt NA Protected Pha ses 4 2 1 6 Pe rmitted Phases 4 6 Minimum Split (s) 33.0 33.0 52.0 15.0 67.0 Total Split (s) 33 .0 33 .0 52.0 15 .0 67.0 Tota l Split(%) 33 .0% 33.0% 52.0% 15 .0% 67.0% Maximum Green (s) 27 .0 27 .0 46.0 11 .0 61.0 Ye llow Ti me (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lost Time Ad just (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Le ad/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize ? Yes Ye s Wa lk Time (s ) 15.0 15.0 23 .0 51.0 Fl ash Dont Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 10.0 10 .0 Pedestr ian Ca lls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 27.0 46 .0 63 .0 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.46 0.63 0.61 vie Ratio 0.60 0.31 0.55 0.54 Control Delay 33.9 17.5 5.5 5.4 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Delay 33 .9 17.5 5.5 5.4 LOS C B A A 5/19/20 18 3: 15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 Without-Project -Afternoon Peak Hour 4 : Park Ave N & N 3rd St ~ --+ .. 'f +- Lane Graue ESL EST ESR WSL WST Approach Delay 33.9 Approach LOS C Queue Length 50th (ft) 164 Queue Le ngth 95th (ft) 208 Internal Link Di st (ft ) 342 359 Tu rn Bay Le ngth (ft ) Base Capac ity (vph) 1349 Starvat ion Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Sto rage Cap Redu ctn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 Intersecti on Summary Area Type : Other Cycle Leng th: 100 Actua ted Cycle Length : 100 Offset: 85 (85%), Referenced to phase 1 :SSL and 6:SBTL , Start of Green Natura l Cyc le: 100 Contro l Type : Pret imed Max imum v/c Ra tio : 0.60 ' WSR Intersection Signa l Delay: 15.4 Intersect ion LO S: S Intersection Capacity Utiliza ti on 84.1 % ICU Level of Service E Ana lysis Per iod (min) 15 m Volume fo r 95th percentile queue is metered by upst ream signa l. 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St t 02 5/19/20 18 3:15 pm Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF Lane s, Volumes, Timings ' t ,,.. \.. * .,, NSL NST NSR SSL SST SBR 17.5 5.4 S A 92 29 59 148 m45 77 394 59 1 100 80 6 702 2158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.55 0.54 Syn chro 9 Report RSD -S a rto ri Elem e ntary Ex is tin g (201 6) PM Pea k H o ur 1: P a rk Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Vo lumes, Ti mings ~ ---+ ..... 'f +-' ~ t t+' '. ! ~ Lane Groue EB L EBT EB R WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SSL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4'tt ., +ft ti. Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 267 242 23 24 245 0 0 1151 95 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 267 242 23 24 245 0 0 1151 95 Ideal Flow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sto rage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util . Facto r 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bi ke Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.989 Fl t Protected 0.974 0.996 Satd . Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 5002 1599 0 3299 0 0 3462 0 Flt Permitted 0.974 0.807 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4992 1575 0 2673 0 0 3462 0 Ri ght Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 71 11 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Dis tance (ft) 284 438 67 1 531 Travel Ti me (s) 6.5 10.0 15 .3 12.1 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 4 4 3 6 2 2 6 Peak Hour Facto r 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicle s (%) 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 9% 9% 9% 3% 3% 3% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 272 247 23 24 250 0 0 1174 97 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 519 23 0 274 0 0 1271 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA NA Protected Pha ses 8 1 6 2 Perm itted Phases 8 8 6 Minimum Spl it (s) 35.5 35.5 35 .5 13 .0 64 .5 51.5 Tota l Sp lit (s) 35.5 35.5 35.5 13 .0 64 .5 51.5 Tota l Split(%) 35.5% 35 .5% 35.5% 13.0% 64.5% 51.5% Maximum Gree n (s) 30 .0 30 .0 30.0 9.0 59 .0 46 .0 Ye llow Time (s ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s ) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 Lost Ti me Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Wa lk Time (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 33 .5 19.0 Flash Dant Wa lk (s) 17.0 17 .0 17.0 12.0 12.0 Pedestrian Cal ls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 30 .0 30.0 59 .0 46 .0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.46 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.04 0.17 0.80 Contro l Delay 25.4 1.5 13.9 27.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total De lay 25.4 1.5 13.9 27.4 LOS C A B C Approach De lay 24.4 13 .9 27.4 5/19/2016 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc . -TSM/R HF RSD -S artori Elementary 1: Pa rk Av e N & N 4th St Lane Group EBL EB T EBR WBL Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph ) Starvat ion Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vie Ratio Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length : 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 204 +- WB T C 95 127 358 1497 0 0 0 0.35 Offset 61.5 (62%), Refe renced to phase 1 :N BL and 6:N BTL, Start of Green Natu ral Cycle : 100 Contro l Type: Pretimed Maximum vie Ratio: 0.80 ' WBR 0 mo 522 0 0 0 0.04 Inte rsection Signal Delay: 24.8 Inte rsection LOS: C In tersection Capacity Utilizati on 72.1 % ICU Level of Service C Analys is Pe riod (min) 15 m Volume fo r 95th pe rcen tile queue is metered by upst ream signal. Splits and Phases: 1: Pa rk Ave N & N 4th St "\01 ! 02 5119/2016 4:00 pm Heffron Transporta ti on, Inc . -TSM /RHF Ex isting (2016) PM Peak Ho ur Lanes, Volumes, Ti mings ' t t+' '. -! .,' NBL NB T NB R SBL SBT SBR B C 44 348 79 440 59 1 45 1 1624 1598 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.80 Synchro 9 Report RSD -S a rto ri Ele me nta ry Ex istin g (2 0 16) PM Pe a k Hour 2 : Gard e n Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes, Timings /' -+ .. f +-' ~ t ,,., '. + ~ Lane Grou~ EBL EB T EBR WBL WBT WBR NB L NBT NBR SB L SBT SBR Lane Con fi gurations +ftt .,, .., .,, Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 8 262 30 15 0 0 0 0 319 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 8 262 30 15 0 0 0 0 319 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util . Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Fac tor 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.850 0.865 Flt Protected 0.998 0.950 Sa id. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4622 14 42 1421 0 0 0 0 1644 Flt Perm itted 0.998 0.950 Said . Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4622 141 1 1419 0 0 0 0 1621 _Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Fl ow (RTOR) 32 613 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 438 463 670 527 Trave l Time (s) 10.0 10.5 15.2 12.0 Confl . Peds . (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Veh icles(%) 0% 0% 0% 12% 12% 12% 27% 27% 27% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Fl ow (vph) 0 0 0 9 282 32 16 0 0 0 0 343 Sha red Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 29 1 32 16 0 0 0 0 343 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 8 4 Minimum Split (s ) 64 .0 64.0 64 .0 25.5 25 .5 Tota l Sp lit (s) 68.5 68 .5 68 .5 31.5 31 .5 Tota l Sp lit(%) 68.5% 68 .5% 68.5 % 31.5% 31.5% Max im um Green (s) 63.5 63.5 63.5 27.0 27.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lea d-L ag Optimize? Wa lk Time (s) 47.0 47.0 47 .0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 .0 12 .0 12.0 14.0 14.0 Pedestr ia n Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 63 .5 63.5 27.0 27 .0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.39 Control De lay 7.2 2.5 20 .6 1.3 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.2 2.5 20.6 1.3 LOS A A C A Approach Delay 6.8 20 .6 1.3 Approach LOS A C A Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 0 6 0 5/19/2016 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , Inc .• TSM/R HF RSD -Sartori El em en t ary 2 : Garden Ave N & N 4th St ..> -+ • f Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) 358 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (v ph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spil lback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio In tersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Leng th : 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle : 90 Control Type : Pretimed Maxi mum vie Rat io: 0.39 .,._ ' WBT WBR 35 10 383 2934 907 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.04 Intersection Signal De lay: 4.3 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capac ity Uti lization 84.0 % IC U Leve l of Service E Analys is Period (min) 15 m Vo lume fo r 95th pe rcenti le queue is mete red by upstream signal. Sp lits and Phases : 2: Gard en Ave N & N 4th St 5/19/2016 4:00 pm Heffron Transporta tion , Inc. -TS M/RHF Ex ist in g (20 16) PM Pea k Hour Lanes, Volumes , Timings ' t ~ '. i ~ NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR m1 4 0 59 0 447 383 885 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.39 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sa rto ri El em enta ry E x istin g (2016) P M Peak Ho ur 3: Gard e n A ve N & N 3 rd St Lanes, Volumes, Timings ~ -. ~ f +-'-' t ~ '-+ ..; Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +ftf+ f+ +t Traffic Volume (vph) 6 1198 32 0 0 0 0 15 23 24 8 0 Future Volume (vp h) 6 11 98 32 0 0 0 0 15 23 24 8 0 Idea l Flow (v phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Uti l. Factor 0.91 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.996 0.919 Fl t Pro tected 0.964 Satd . Flow (prot) 0 5062 0 0 0 0 0 1729 0 0 1728 0 Fl t Permitted 0.820 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 5062 0 0 0 0 0 1729 0 0 1465 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 10 24 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Dista nc e (ft) 439 190 467 670 Trave l Tim e (s) 10.0 4.3 10.6 15.2 Confi. Peds. (#/hr) 9 2 2 9 2 3 3 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehi cl es(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% Adj. Flo w (vph) 6 126 1 34 0 0 0 0 16 24 25 8 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1301 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 33 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Prote cte d Phases 2 4 8 Permitted Pha ses 2 8 Minimum Split (s) 76.0 76.0 24 .0 24 .0 24.0 Tota l Spli t (s) 76.0 76 .0 24.0 24 .0 24.0 Tota l Split(%) 76 .0% 76 .0% 24.0% 24 .0% 24.0% Maximum Green (s) 71 .0 71.0 19.5 19.5 19.5 Yel low Time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Ad j ust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead /Lag Lead-Lag Optimiz e? Walk Time (s) 59 .0 59 .0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 .0 12.0 12.5 12.5 12 .5 Pedestrian Ca lls (#/h r) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 71.0 19.5 19.5 Actuated g/C Rat io 0.71 0.20 0.20 vie Ratio 0.36 0.1 1 0.12 Contro l De lay 10.4 19.3 37 .3 Queue De lay 0.2 0.0 0.0 Tota l De lay 10.7 19.3 37.3 LOS B B D Approach Delay 10.7 19 .3 37.3 Approach LOS B B D Queue Length 50 th (ft) 130 8 19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 183 37 47 5/1912016 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportat ion, Inc. -TSM /RHF RSD -Sa rtori Elementary 3 : Ga rden Ave N & N 3rd St ~ _.... '\, f -+-' Lane Graue EBL EB T EBR WBL WBT WBR Internal Link Dist (ft) 359 110 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 3596 Starvation Cap Re ductn 1344 Sp illback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Re ductn 0 Reduced v/c Rat io 0.58 Intersection Summary Area Type : Other Cycle Length : 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:, Start of Green Na tura l Cycle : 100 Contro l Type: Pretimed Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.36 In tersection Signa l Delay : 11 .6 Intersection Capacity Uti lization 83.3% Analysis Period (m in) 15 Splits an d Phases: 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St 5/19/20164:00 pm Heffron Transportation, Inc . -TSM /RHF Inte rsection LOS : B ICU Level of Service E E xisting (2016) PM Peak Hour Lanes, Vo lumes, Ti mings "\ t ,,.. '. i .,, NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 387 590 356 285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.12 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sa rtori Elementa ry E x istin g (2016) PM Pe ak Hour 4: P ark A ve N & N 3 rd St Lanes, Vo lumes, Timings ~ _. ~ f +-' ' t ~ '. + .' Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Co nfi gura tion s +ft~ t. ~ tt Traffic Volume (vph ) 70 837 19 0 0 0 0 202 43 345 1063 0 Futu re Volume (vph) 70 837 19 0 0 0 0 202 43 345 1063 0 Ideal Fl ow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Leng th (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util . Factor 0.91 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.997 0.976 Flt Protected 0.996 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 5048 0 0 0 0 0 1679 0 1770 3539 0 Flt Permitte d 0.996 0.523 Sa td. Flow (perm) 0 50 45 0 0 0 0 0 1679 0 968 3539 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Fl ow (RTOR) 3 14 Li nk Speed (m ph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (fl) 422 439 474 67 1 Travel Time (s) 9.6 10.0 10.8 15.3 Conft. Peds. (#/hr) 3 9 9 3 10 11 11 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.9 8 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Veh icles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 10% 10% 10% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 71 854 19 0 0 0 0 206 44 352 1085 0 Shared Lan e Traffi c(%) Lane Group Fl ow (vph) 0 944 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 352 1085 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA pm+pt NA Prote cted Phase s 4 2 1 6 Perm itted Pha ses 4 6 Minimum Sp lit (s) 33.0 33 .0 52.0 15.0 67.0 Tota l Split (s) 33.0 33 .0 52.0 15.0 67 .0 Tota l Split(%) 33 .0% 33 .0% 52 .0% 15 .0% 67 .0% Maximum Green (s) 27.0 27 .0 46.0 11.0 61.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Al l-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lost Ti me Adjust (s ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Ti me (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lead /Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Opt imize? Yes Ye s Wal k Time (s) 15.0 15.0 23 .0 51.0 Flash Dont Wa lk (s} 12.0 12 .0 10 .0 10.0 Pede stri an Call s (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 27 .0 46 .0 63 .0 61 .0 Actua ted g/C Rat io 0.27 0.46 0.6 3 0.61 v/c Rat io 0.69 0.32 0.5 0 0.50 Con tro l Dela y 35.8 17.5 4.1 4.0 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l De lay 35.8 17 .5 4.1 4.0 LOS D B A A Approach De lay 35 .8 17.5 4.0 5/19/2016 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffro n Transportation , Inc. -TSM/R HF RSD -Sa rto ri El e mentary 4: Pa rk Ave N & N 3rd St Lane Group ESL EST EBR WSL WST WBR Approach LOS Queue Leng th 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Sp illback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vie Ratio Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Le ngth: 100 Actuated Cyc le Le ngth: 100 D 197 245 342 359 1364 0 0 0 0.69 Offset: 85 (85%), Referenced to phase 1 :SBL and 6:SSTL , Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type : Preti med Maximum vie Rat io: 0.69 Intersection Signal Delay: 16.7 Intersection LOS : B Intersec tion Capaci ty Utilization 83.3% ICU Level of Service E Analys is Period (m in) 15 m Vo lume fo r 95th pe rcentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St 511912016 4:00 pm Heffron Transportation, Inc . -TSMIRHF "' NBL Ex isting (2 01 6) PM Peak Ho ur Lanes, Volumes, Timings t ~ \. ! .,, NBT NBR SSL SS T SBR s A 92 17 42 149 m31 58 394 591 100 779 698 2158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.32 0.50 0.50 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 Without-Project -PM Peak Hour 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Vo lumes , Timings ~ --+ ~ ~ +-' '\ t ~ '. i "' Lane Graue EB L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurat ions 4'tt 7' 4't ti. Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 280 255 25 25 255 0 0 1210 100 Futu re Volume (vph) 0 0 0 280 255 25 25 255 0 0 1210 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 Storage La nes 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Fa ctor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.989 Flt Protected 0.974 0.995 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 5002 1599 0 3295 0 0 3462 0 Flt Permitted 0.974 0.775 Said. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 49 92 1575 0 2567 0 0 3462 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 71 11 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Li nk Dista nce (ft) 284 438 671 531 Trave l Time (s) 6.5 10.0 15 .3 12.1 Conn. Peds. (#/hr) 3 4 4 3 6 2 2 6 Conn. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hea vy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 9% 9% 9% 3% 3% 3% Adj. Flow (vph ) 0 0 0 286 260 26 26 260 0 0 1235 102 Shared Lane Traffi c(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 546 26 0 286 0 0 133 7 0 Turn Ty pe Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA NA Prote cte d Pha ses 8 1 6 2 Permit ted Phase s 8 8 6 Minimum Sp lit (s) 35 .5 35.5 35.5 13.0 64 .5 51.5 Total Split (s) 35.5 35.5 35.5 13.0 64 .5 51 .5 Total Split(%) 35.5% 35.5% 35.5% 13 .0% 64.5% 51 .5% Maximum Green (s) 30 .0 30.0 30 .0 9.0 59.0 46.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 Lo st Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 To ta l Lost Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Le ad-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Wa lk Tim e (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 33.5 19.0 Fl ash Dont Walk (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 12.0 12.0 Pedestr ian Calls (#/h r) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 30 .0 30.0 59.0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.46 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.05 0.18 0.84 Control Del ay 25.6 1.7 14 .1 29 .4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25 .6 1.7 14.1 29.4 LOS C A B C 5/19/2018 4:00 pm Syn chro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc . -TSM/R HF RSD -Sartori Eleme nta ry 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Forec ast 2018 Without-Project -PM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timin gs Lane Grou p Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starva tion Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reduc tn Reduced v/c Ratio Inte rsect ion Summary EBL EBT EBR WBL 204 Area Type: Othe r Cycle Length: 100 Actua ted Cycle Leng th: 100 +- WBT 24 .5 C 100 133 358 1497 0 0 0 0.36 Offse t: 61.5 (62%), Referenced to phase 1 :NBL and 6:N BTL , Start of Green Natu ral Cycle : 100 Contro l Type: Pretimed Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.84 ' WBR 0 mo 522 0 0 0 0.05 Intersect ion Signa l De lay: 26 .1 Intersection LOS: C Inte rsection Capacity Utilization 72.1 % IC U Leve l of Service C Analys is Period (min) 15 m Vo lume fo r 95th pe rce nti le queue is metered by upstream signal. 5/19 /2018 4:00 pm Heffron Transportation , Inc . -TSM /RHF '\ t ,,., '. + .,, NBL NBT NB R SBL SBT SBR 14.1 29 .4 B C 47 378 m82 476 59 1 451 1569 1598 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.84 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Fore cast 2018 Without-Project -PM Pea k Hour 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes, Timings .-1 -+ .. f +-' ' t ,,.. ~ + .,' Lane Groue ESL EST EB R WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SS L SST SBR Lane Configurations 4'tt 7' "I 7' Tr affic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 10 275 30 15 0 0 0 0 335 Futur e Vo lume (vph) 0 0 0 10 275 30 15 0 0 0 0 335 Id eal Flow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.9 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bi ke Factor 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.850 0.865 Flt Protected 0.998 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4622 1442 1421 0 0 0 0 1644 Flt Permitted 0.998 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4622 1409 1419 0 0 0 0 1621 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 32 596 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 438 463 670 527 Travel Time (s) 10.0 10.5 15.2 12 .0 Confi. Peds . (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 Confi. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Veh icles(%) 0% 0% 0% 12% 12 % 12% 27% 27% 27% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 11 296 32 16 0 0 0 0 360 Shared Lan e Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 307 32 16 0 0 0 0 360 Turn Type Pe rm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 2 2 8 4 Minimum Sp lit (s) 64.0 64.0 64 .0 25 .5 25.5 Total Split (s) 68.5 68.5 68 .5 31.5 31.5 Total Sp lit(%) 68.5% 68 .5% 68.5% 31.5% 31.5% Maximum Green (s) 63.5 63.5 63 .5 27 .0 27.0 Ye llow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Ti me (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead /Lag Lead -L ag Optimize? Walk Tim e (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Wa lk (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 14 .0 14.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 63.5 63 .5 27 .0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.41 Control Delay 7.2 2.5 22 .2 1.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Delay 7.2 2.5 22.2 1.4 LOS A A C A Approach Delay 6.8 22.2 1.4 Approa ch LOS A C A Queue Leng th 50th (ft) 25 0 6 0 5/19/20 18 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportat ion, Inc. -TS M/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St Forecast 2018 Without-Project -PM Peak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lane Gro up Queue Le ngth 95th (ft) Interna l Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvat ion Cap Reductn Spi llback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vie Ratio Intersection Summary -+ EBL EBT 358 Area Type : Other Cycle Le ngth: 100 Actuated Cy cle Length : 100 • f EBR WBL Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:, Sta rt of Green Natural Cycl e: 90 Control Type: Pre timed Maximum v/c Ra tio: 0.41 ._ ' WBT WBR 36 10 383 2934 906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.04 Intersection Signal Delay: 4.4 Intersection LOS : A Intersection Capac ity Uti liz atio n 85 .0% ICU Level of Service E Analys is Period (m in) 15 m Volume fo r 95th per centi le queue is metered by upst ream signa l. Splits and Phases : 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St 5/19/2 018 4:00 pm Heffron Tr anspo rt atio n, Inc. -TSM/RHF ~ t ~ '. + ~ NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR m16 0 590 447 383 872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.41 Synch ro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 Without-Project -PM Peak Hour 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St La nes, Volumes, Timing s ./' _. .. ("" ,._ ' ' t ~ '. * .; Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4't~ t. 4' Tra ffic Volume (vp h) 10 1260 35 0 0 0 0 15 25 25 10 0 Fut ure Vo lume (vph) 10 1260 35 0 0 0 0 15 25 25 10 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Fa ctor 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.996 0.916 Flt Pro tected 0.96 6 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 5062 0 0 0 0 0 172 1 0 0 1732 0 Flt Permitted 0.827 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 5062 0 0 0 0 0 1721 0 0 1478 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 10 26 Link Speed (mp h) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 439 190 467 670 Travel Time (s) 10.0 4.3 10.6 15.2 Confi. Peds. (#/hr) 9 2 2 9 2 3 3 2 Confi. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Peak Hour Fa ctor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9 5 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hea vy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% Adj. Flow (v ph ) 11 1326 37 0 0 0 0 16 26 26 11 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) La ne Group Flow (vph) 0 1374 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 37 0 Turn Type Per m NA NA Perm NA Prote cted Pha ses 2 4 8 Perm itted Pha ses 2 8 Minimum Split (s) 76.0 76 .0 24.0 24 .0 24 .0 Tota l Split (s) 76.0 76.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(%) 76 .0% 76.0 % 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% Max imum Green (s) 71.0 71 .0 19.5 19 .5 19.5 Ye llow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adj ust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lo stTime (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Walk Time (s) 59 .0 59 .0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Wa lk (s) 12 .0 12.0 12.5 12.5 12 .5 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Ettel Green (s) 71.0 19.5 19.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.20 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.1 2 0.13 Control Delay 11.1 18.7 37.7 Queue Delay 0.3 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11 .3 18.7 37.7 LOS B B D Approach De lay 11 .3 18.7 37.7 Appro ach LOS B B D Queue Leng th 50th (ft) 146 8 21 5/19/2018 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transporta tion , Inc. -TSM /R HF RSD -S a rtori El ementa ry Fore c ast 201 8 With out-Project -PM Pea k Hour 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St _) --+ .. f Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL Queue Length 95th (ft) 200 In ternal Link Dis t (ft) 359 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capac ity (vph) 3596 Starva ti on Cap Reductn 1342 Spillback Cap Reduc tn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced vie Rat io 0.61 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length : 100 Actuated Cycle Length : 100 Offs et: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:, Start of Green Natu ral Cycle : 100 Control Type: Pretimed Maximu m vie Ratio : 0.38 ~ ' WBT WBR 110 Intersection Signa l Delay: 12.2 Intersection LOS : B In tersect ion Capacity Utilization 83 .3% ICU Leve l of Service E Analys is Pe riod (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St 5/1 9120 18 4:00 pm Heffron Transportat ion , Inc. -TSM /RHF La nes, Volumes, Timings "" t t+' '. ! ~ NBL NBT NBR SBL SB T SBR 37 51 387 590 356 288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0.13 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Foreca st 2018 Without-Project -PM Peak Hour 4: Park Ave N & N 3 rd St Lanes, Volumes, Timi ng s -" --+-.. f -+-' ' t ~ '. i .,, Lane Groue EBL EBT EB R WBL WB T WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configu rations .ttt. t. "I t t Traffic Vo lume (vph) 75 880 20 0 0 0 0 210 45 360 1115 0 Future Volume (vph) 75 880 20 0 0 0 0 210 45 360 11 15 0 Ideal Fl ow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.9 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.997 0.976 Flt Protected 0.996 0.950 Satd . Flow (prot) 0 5048 0 0 0 0 0 1679 0 1770 3539 0 Flt Perm itted 0.996 0.513 Satd . Flow (pe rm) 0 5045 0 0 0 0 0 1679 0 950 3539 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd . Flow (RTOR) 3 14 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 422 439 474 671 Travel Time (s) 9.6 10.0 10.8 15 .3 Confl. Pe ds. (#/hr) 3 9 9 3 10 11 11 10 Co nfl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hou r Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Veh icl es(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 10% 10% 10% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 77 898 20 0 0 0 0 214 46 367 1138 0 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 995 0 0 0 0 0 260 0 367 1138 0 Turn Type Pe rm NA NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Minimum Split (s) 33 .0 33 .0 52 .0 15.0 67.0 Total Split (s) 33.0 33.0 52.0 15.0 67.0 Total Sp lit(%) 33.0% 33.0% 52 .0% 15.0% 97.0% Maximum Green (s) 27 .0 27.0 46.0 11.0 61.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s ) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Los t Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Walk Tim e (s) 15 .0 15.0 23 .0 51.0 Flash Don t Wa lk (s) 12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 Pedestrian Cal ls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 27.0 46.0 63 .0 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.46 0.63 0.61 v/c Ra ti o 0.73 0.33 0.53 0.53 Contro l Delay 36.8 17.7 4.3 4.2 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Delay 36.8 17 .7 4.3 4.2 LOS D B A A 5/19/2018 4:00 pm Synch ro 9 Report Heffron Transportati on, Inc. -TSM/RHF RSD -Sart o ri Elementa ry Foreca st 2 0 18 With o ut-Project-PM Pe ak Hour 4: Park Ave N & N 3 rd St .J---+ .. f +- Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT Approach De lay 36.8 Approach LOS D Queue Length 50th (ft) 210 Queue Length 95th (ft) 260 Internal Link Dist (ft) 342 359 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph} 1364 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduce d vie Ratio 0.73 Intersection Summary Area Type : Other Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Offset 85 (85%), Referenced to phase 1 :S BL and 6:S BTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle : 100 Control Type: Pretimed Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.73 ' WBR Intersection Signal Delay: 17 .3 Intersection LOS: B In tersection Capacity Utilization 83 .3% ICU Leve l of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume fo r 95th pe rcen ti le queue is mete red by upstream signa l. 4: Pa rk Ave N & N 3rd St f 02 5/19/20 18 4:00 pm Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF Lanes, Volumes, Timings "" t ,,.. '. + ~ NBL NBT NB R SBL SBT SBR 17.7 4.3 B A 96 19 45 155 m32 62 394 591 100 779 688 2158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.53 0.53 Synchro 9 Re port RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 With-Project -Morning Peak Hou r 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes, Timing s ,> --+ • 'f +-' ' t ~ '. + .ti Lane Gro u~ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Con fi gurations 4'tt .,, 4't t~ Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 216 227 52 10 650 0 0 365 50 Future Vo lu me (vph) 0 0 0 216 227 52 10 650 0 0 365 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Taper Lengt h (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util . Fa ctor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.9 1 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Pe d Bike Factor 0.99 0.96 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.982 Flt Protected 0.976 0.999 Satd. Fl ow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4868 1553 0 3468 0 0 3332 0 Fl t Perm itted 0.976 0.950 Said. Fl ow (pe rm ) 0 0 0 0 4810 1497 0 329 7 0 0 3332 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said . Fl ow (RTOR) 89 23 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Di stance (ft) 232 123 671 503 Travel Time (s) 5.3 2.8 15.3 11.4 Con ft. Peds. (#/hr) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Conft . Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Fa ctor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehic les(%) 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% Ad j . Flow (vph) 0 0 0 240 252 58 11 722 0 0 406 56 Shared Lane Tra ffic(%) Lan e Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 492 58 0 733 0 0 462 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA NA Pro tected Phases 8 1 6 2 Permitted Ph ases 8 8 6 Minimum Split (s) 30 .0 30.0 30.0 12.0 50 .0 38.0 Total Spl it (s) 30.0 30 .0 30.0 12.0 50.0 38.0 Total Split(%) 37 .5% 37.5% 37.5 % 15.0% 62.5% 47.5% Maximum Green (s) 24 .5 24.5 24 .5 8.0 44 .5 32.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-R ed Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Los t Tim e (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead -L ag Opt imize? Yes Yes Wa lk Time (s) 7.5 7.5 7.5 32 .5 19.0 Fl ash Dont Walk (s) 17 .0 17.0 17.0 12.0 12.0 Pedestr ian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 24 .5 24 .5 44.5 32 .5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.3 1 0.31 0.56 0.4 1 vie Rat io 0.33 0.11 0.40 0.34 Con trol Delay 22.8 4.1 16 .9 16.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Delay 22 .8 4.1 16.9 16 .3 LOS C A B B 5119/20 18 8:15 am Synch ro 9 Report Heffron Transporta tion , In c. -TSM/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Forecast 2018 With-Project -Morning Peak Hour Lanes, Vo lu mes , Timi ngs La ne Group Approach Delay Approach LO S Queue Le ngth 50th (ft) Queue Lengt h 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Sp ill back Cap Reductn Sto rage Cap Red uctn Reduced vie Ratio Intersection Su mma ry EB L EBT EB R WBL 152 Area Type: Othe r Cycle Le ngth : 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 +- WBT 20.9 C 74 103 43 1473 0 0 0 0.33 Offset: 62 .5 (78%), Referenced to pha se 1 :NBL and 6:N BT L, Start of Green Natural Cycle : 80 Control Type : Preti med Maximum vie Ra tio : 0.4 0 ' WBR 1 18 520 0 0 0 0.11 Intersection Signal Delay : 18.0 Intersection LO S: B Intersection Capacity Uti lization 66.7% IC U Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume fo r 95th percentile queue is metered by up stream signal. Sp lits and Phases: 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St + 02 ' t ,,.. \. ! ~ NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 16.9 16.3 B B 145 76 m167 112 59 1 423 1847 1367 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 0.34 5/19/2 018 8:15 am Syn chro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM/R HF RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2 018 With-Project -Morning Peak Hour 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes, Timin gs ~ .. f +-' "' t ~ '. * ~ ...... Lane Groue EB L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurat ions +ftt '(' "I '(' Traffic Vo lume (vp h) 0 0 0 30 396 140 125 0 0 0 0 44 Future Vo lume (vp h) 0 0 0 30 396 140 125 0 0 0 0 44 Idea l Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.97 Frt 0.850 0.865 Flt Protected 0.997 0.950 Satd . Flow (p ro t) 0 0 0 0 4659 1455 1703 0 0 0 0 1580 Flt Permitted 0.997 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4655 1405 1674 0 0 0 0 1535 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sa td. Flow (RTOR) 169 339 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 261 463 670 494 Tra vel Time (s) 5.9 10.5 15.2 11.2 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Conn. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Facto r 0.83 0.25 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 11% 11% 11% 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% Adj . Flow (vph) 0 0 0 36 477 169 151 0 0 0 0 53 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vp h) 0 0 0 0 513 169 151 0 0 0 0 53 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Pro tected Phases 2 Pe rm itted Phases 2 2 8 4 Mi nimum Sp lit (s) 50.0 50.0 50 .0 25 .5 25.5 Total Sp lit (s) 50.0 50.0 50 .0 30.0 30.0 Total Sp lit(%) 62.5% 62.5% 62.5% 37 .5% 37 .5% Maximum Green (s) 45.0 45 .0 45 .0 25.5 25.5 Yell ow Time (s ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Al l-R ed Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Ti me (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Opt imize? Wa lk Time (s) 33.0 33 .0 33.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Wa lk (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 14 .0 14.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/h r) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 45.0 45.0 25.5 25.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.32 0.32 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.28 O.o? Contro l Delay 8.8 2.0 22.2 0.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total De la y 8.8 2.0 22 .2 0.2 LOS A A C A Approa ch De lay 7.2 22.2 0.2 Approac h LOS A C A Queue Le ng th 50th (ft ) 42 0 51 0 5/19/2018 8:15 am Synch ro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St Forecast 2018 With-Project -Morning Peak Hour La nes, Volumes, Timings Lane Group Queue Length 95th (ft) Interna l Link Di st (ft) Turn Bay Le ngth (ft) Ba se Capac ity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spill back Cap Reduc tn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Rati o Intersection Summary EBL EBT 181 Area Type: Other Cycle Le ngth: 80 Actuated Cyc le Length : 80 ~ f EBR WBL Offse t: 0 (0 %), Re ference d to phase 2:WBTL and 6:, Sta rt of Green Natu ral Cycle: 80 Control Type: Pretimed Maximum v/c Ratio : 0.28 +-' WBT WBR 54 19 383 2618 864 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0.20 Intersection Signal Delay: 9.3 Intersection LOS : A Inte rs ec tion Capacity Util ization 65.5% ICU Level of Service C Analys is Period (min) 15 Splits and Ph ases : 2: Garden Ave N & N 4th St '\ t ,,., '. i ~ NBL NBT NB R SBL SBT SBR 88 0 590 414 533 720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 0.07 5/19/2018 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportatio n, Inc. -TSM /RHF RSD -Sartori Elem e nta ry Forecas t 201 8 With-Project -Morning P ea k Hour 3: Gard en A ve N & N 3rd St Lanes, Volumes, Timings ~ -+ .. f ,.._ ' ' t ~ '. i ~ Lane Grou~ EB L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SB L SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~t f+ f+ ~ Traffic Vo lume (vph) 56 606 14 0 0 0 0 69 63 25 15 0 Future Volume (vph) 56 606 14 0 0 0 0 69 63 25 15 0 Ideal Fl ow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.9 1 0.9 1 0.9 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.98 0.99 Frt 0.997 0.935 Flt Protected 0.996 0.970 Satd. Fl ow (prot) 0 4855 0 0 0 0 0 1645 0 0 1166 0 Flt Perm itted 0.996 0.798 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 4847 0 0 0 0 0 1645 0 0 947 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 7 58 Link Speed (m ph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 147 190 467 670 Trave l Time (s) 3.3 4.3 10 .6 15.2 Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Heavy Vehicles(%) 6% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 58% 58% 58% Adj . Flow (vph) 72 777 18 0 0 0 0 88 81 32 19 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 867 0 0 0 0 0 169 0 0 51 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA Pe rm NA Protected Phases 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 2 8 Minimum Sp lit (s) 53 .0 53.0 27.0 27 .0 27.0 Tota l Split (s) 53.0 53.0 27 .0 27 .0 27.0 Tota l Split(%) 66 .3% 66 .3% 33 .8% 33 .8% 33.8% Maximum Green (s) 48 .0 48 .0 22.5 22.5 22.5 Yel low Time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Ti me (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead -L ag Op timize? Walk Time (s) 36 .0 36 .0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12 .0 12.0 15.5 15.5 15.5 Pedestr ian Ca lls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 48.0 22.5 22 .5 Actuated g/C Rat io 0.60 0.28 0.28 vie Ratio 0.30 0.34 0.19 Control Delay 20 .5 17.0 27 .8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20 .5 17.0 27 .8 LOS C B C Approach Delay 20 .5 17.0 27 .8 Approach LOS C B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 137 43 23 5/19/2018 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportat ion , Inc. -TSM/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 With-Project -Morning Peak Hour 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St ,,> _... \' f Lane Graue EB L EBT EBR WBL Queue Length 95 th (ft) m153 Internal Link Dist (ft) 67 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 2911 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Rat io 0.30 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cyc le Length: 80 · Actuated Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:EBT L and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Co ntrol Type: Pre ti med Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.34 .,._ ' WBT WBR 110 Inte rsect ion Signal De lay: 20 .3 Intersection Capacity Uti lizatio n 70.9% Ana lysis Period (m in) 15 Intersection LOS: C ICU Level of Service C m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Spli ts and Phases: 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St Lanes, Vol ume s, Timing s "\ t ~ '. + .' NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 75 49 387 590 504 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 0.19 5/19/2018 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , In c. -TSM /R HF RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 20 18 With-Proj ect -M orning Peak H our 4 : P a rk Ave N & N 3rd St Lanes, Vo lumes , Timings ./' ---+ "'\, f .,._ ' ~ t ~ ~ + ~ Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Con fi gurations 4't t. t. "I tt Traffic Volume (vph) 145 480 20 0 0 0 0 535 61 147 449 0 Future Vo lume (vph) 145 480 20 0 0 0 0 535 61 147 449 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Facto r 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.995 0.986 Flt Protected 0.989 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 0 4855 0 0 0 0 0 1762 0 1703 3406 0 Flt Permitted 0.989 0.11 1 Said. Flow (perm) 0 4803 0 0 0 0 0 1762 0 198 3406 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said . Flow (RTOR) 6 9 Li nk Speed (mph ) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 258 292 474 671 Travel Time (s) 5.9 6.6 10 .8 15.3 Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Confl Bikes (#/h r) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehi cles (%) 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Adj . Flow (vph) 167 552 23 0 0 0 0 615 70 169 516 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 742 0 0 0 0 0 685 0 169 516 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Minimum Split (s ) 27.0 27 .0 39.0 14.0 53.0 Total Spl it (s) 27.0 27.0 39 .0 14.0 53 .0 Total Spl it(%) 33.8% 33 .8% 48.8% 17.5% 66.3 % Max imum Green (s) 21 .0 21.0 33.0 10.0 47.0 Yel low Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optim ize? Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 9.0 9.0 23.0 37 .0 Flash Dont Wa lk (s) 12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 Pedest rian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Gree n (s) 21.0 33 .0 49.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Rat io 0.26 0.41 0.61 0.59 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.94 0.55 0.26 Con tro l De lay 27.7 45 .0 26.9 8.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total De lay 27.7 45.0 26.9 8.5 LOS C D C A 5/19/2018 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary Foreca s t 2 018 With -Project -Morning Pea k Hour 4 : Park Ave N & N 3 rd St ..> -+ \' 'f +- Lane Graue EBL EBT EB R WBL WBT App roach De lay 27.7 Approach LOS C Queue Length 50th (ft) 117 Queue Length 95th (ft ) 149 Internal Link Dist (ft) 178 212 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1265 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spi llback Cap Reductn 0 Sto rage Cap Re ductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 Intersection Summary Area Type : Other Cycle Length : 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 66 (83%), Referenced to phase 1 :SBL and 6:SB TL , Start of Green Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Pret imed Maximum vi e Ratio: 0.94 ' WBR Intersection Signal Delay: 28 .6 Intersection LOS : C Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1 % ICU Leve l of Service C Ana lysis Period (min) 15 # 95th pe rcen tile vol ume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St f 02 5/19/2018 8:15 am Heffron Transportatio n, In c. -TSM /RHF Lanes, Volu mes, Ti mings ~ t ~ '. + .' NBL NBT NB R SBL SBT SBR 45.0 13.0 D B 315 55 64 #508 112 84 394 591 100 732 309 200 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 0.55 0.26 Synch ro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elem e ntary Forecas t 20 18 With-Proj ect -Mornin g P eak Hour 5: N . Exit Dri vewa~ & N 4th St HCM Uns ignalized Intersection Capaci ty Analys is _.,. l -# ._ ~ ,,.. Movement EB T EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configura tions ttt1 ~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 368 149 0 Future Vo lume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 368 149 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.40 0.40 Hou rly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 443 373 0 Pedestrians 10 Lane Wid th (ft) 12.0 Wa lking Speed (ft/s ) 4.0 Percent Bloc kage 1 Right turn flare (veh) Med ian type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signa l (ft) 123 315 pX, platoon unb locked vC, conflicting volume 10 12 1 10 vC1 , stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vol vCu, unb locked vo l 10 121 10 tC , sing le (s) 4.3 6.8 6.9 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 57 100 cM capac ity (veh/h) 1545 861 1066 Direct ion , Lane# WB 1 WB2 WB3 WB4 NB 1 Volume Total 111 11 1 111 111 373 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 373 Vo lume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 861 Vo lume to Capacity 0.07 O.Q7 O.Q7 0.07 0.43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 55 Contro l De lay (s ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 Lane LOS B Approach De lay (s) 0.0 12.3 Approac h LOS B Intersection Summ a~ Average Delay 5.6 Interse ction Capac ity Utiliza tion 20.3% ICU Level of Service A Ana lysis Period (m in) 15 5/19/20 18 8:15 am Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc . -TS M/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 7: N 3rd St & S. Driveway Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL Lane Configura tions Traffic Vo l, veh/h 23 Fut ure Vo l, veh/h 23 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 10 Sign Contro l Fr ee EBT 4tt 665 665 0 Fr ee RT Channe lized -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage , # 0 Gra de,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 87 87 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 Mvm t Flow 26 764 Major/Min or Majo r1 Conflic tin g Flow All 10 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 5.4 Crit ical Hdwy Stg 1 Cri tical Hdwy Sig 2 Follow-up Hdwy 3.15 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 1131 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoo n blocked , % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1131 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 App roach EB HCM Contro l De lay, s 0.4 HCM LOS Mino r Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT SB Ln1 Capacity (veh/h) 1131 -602 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 -0.066 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0.1 11.4 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 5/19 /2018 8:15 am Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM/R HF Forecast 2018 With-Project -Morning Peak Hour HCM 20 10 TWSC WB T WBR SBL SBR ., 0 0 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 10 0 0 Free Fre e Stop Stop -None None 0 1081229312 0 0 0 92 92 40 40 2 2 0 0 0 0 40 0 Minor2 369 10 359 5.7 6 3.8 638 0 0 626 0 602 602 596 SB 11 .4 B Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 With-Project -Afternoon Peak Hour 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes, Timi ng s .,> -+ ... f +-' "\ t ~ '. i .' Lane Grou~ EBL EB T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .rt+ 'f' +ft tt. Traffic Vo lume (vph) 0 0 0 403 332 37 25 260 0 0 1180 100 Futur e Volume (vph) 0 0 0 403 332 37 25 260 0 0 11 80 100 Ideal Fl ow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lan e Util. Facto r 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.96 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.988 Flt Protected 0.973 0.996 Satd. Flow (p rot) 0 0 0 0 4948 1583 0 3360 0 0 3487 0 Flt Permitted 0.973 0.784 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4880 1526 0 26 45 0 0 3487 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd . Flow (RTOR) 71 12 Link Speed (m ph} 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 232 123 671 503 Trave l Time (s) 5.3 2.8 15.3 11.4 Confi. Peds. (#/h r) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Confi. Bikes (#/h r) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hea vy Veh icles(%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 7% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 411 339 38 26 265 0 0 1204 102 Sha red Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 750 38 0 29 1 0 0 1306 0 Turn Ty pe Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA NA Protec ted Pha ses 8 1 6 2 Permitted Phase s 8 8 6 Minimum Split (s) 35 .5 35.5 35 .5 13.0 64.5 51.5 Tota l Split (s) 35 .5 35 .5 35.5 13.0 64.5 51.5 Tota l Split(%) 35 .5% 35.5% 35.5% 13.0% 64.5% 51.5% Maximu m Gree n (s) 30.0 30.0 30 .0 9.0 59.0 46 .0 Yellow Ti me (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Al l-Re d Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 Los t Ti me Ad just (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Los t Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Walk Ti me (s ) 13.0 13.0 13.0 33 .5 19.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 12 .0 12.0 Pedes tri an Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 30.0 30.0 59 .0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ra tio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.4 6 v/c Ratio 0.5 1 O.G7 0.18 0.81 Control Delay 28 .9 2.1 14.0 28.0 Que ue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l De lay 28 .9 2.1 14 .0 28 .0 LOS C A B C 5/19/2018 3:15 pm Syn chro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , Inc. -TSM /R HF RSD -Sartori Elementa ry Fore cast 201 8 W ith-P roject -Afte rno o n Peak Ho ur 1: P ark A ve N & N 4 th St ~ --+ \' f +- Lane Graue EBL EBT EB R WBL WB T Approach Delay 27.6 Approach LOS C Queue Length 50th (ft) 147 Queue Length 95th (ft) 189 Internal Link Dist (ft) 152 43 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1464 Starvat ion Cap Reduc tn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length : 100 Offset: 61.5 (62%), Referenced to phase 1 :NB L and 6:N BTL, Start of Green Natura l Cycle: 100 Control Type: Pret imed Maximum vie Rat io: 0.81 ' WBR 0 m9 507 0 0 0 0.07 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utiliza ti on 76.1 % IC U Level of Service D Analysis Period (m in) 15 m Volume for 95th percent ile queue is metered by upstream signal. 5/19/20 18 3:15 pm Heffron Transpo rt ation, Inc. -TSM /RHF Lanes, Volumes, Ti mings ' t t+' '. + ~ NBL NB T NBR SB L SBT SBR 14 .0 28 .0 B C 47 362 83 455 59 1 423 1614 1610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.81 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori El e men tary Forecast 201 8 With-Project -Afternoon Peak H o ur 2 : G a rden Av e N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes , Timings .,> -+ ~ 'f +-' ~ t I" \. * ~ Lane Groue EBL EB T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4'tt 7' "I 7' Traffic Vol ume (vph) 0 0 0 30 365 35 54 0 0 0 0 349 Future Vo lume (vph) 0 0 0 30 365 35 54 0 0 0 0 349 Idea l Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 Frt 0.850 0.865 Flt Protected 0.996 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4697 1468 167 1 0 0 0 0 1627 Fl t Permitted 0.996 0.950 Satd . Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4692 1419 1659 0 0 0 0 1574 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 38 464 Li nk Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Li nk Distance (ft) 261 463 670 494 Tr ave l Ti me (s) 5.9 10 .5 15.2 11.2 Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 15 15 15 15 5 15 15 15 Confl . Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 10% 10% 10% 8% 8% 8% 1% 1% 1% Adj . Flow (vph) 0 0 0 32 392 38 58 0 0 0 0 375 Shared Lane Tr affic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 d 0 0 424 38 58 0 0 d 0 375 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 Perm itted Phases 2 2 8 4 Mi nimum Split (s) 64 .0 64 .0 64 .0 25.5 25 .5 Total Sp lit (s) 68 .5 68 .5 68.5 31.5 31.5 Total Sp lit (%) 68 .5% 68.5 % 68 .5% 31.5% 31.5% Maximum Gree n (s) 63.5 63.5 63 .5 27.0 27.0 Yellow Time (s ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Ad just (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Walk Time (s) 47.0 47.0 47.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Wa lk (s) 12.0 12.0 12 .0 14 .0 14.0 Pedest rian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effc t Green (s) 63 .5 63.5 27.0 27 .0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.27 0.27 vi e Rat io 0.14 0.04 0. 13 0.49 Control Delay 7.5 2.3 25 .0 3.2 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Delay 7.5 2.3 25 .0 3.2 LOS A A C A Approach Delay 7.0 25 .0 3.2 Approach LOS A C A Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 0 21 0 5/1912018 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Repo rt Heffron Transportation , Inc . -TSM/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 2: G arden Ave N & N 4th St F orecast 201 8 W ith-Proje ct -Aft ern oon Pe ak Hour Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lane Gro up Queue Length 95th (ft) Interna l Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capac ity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Sp ill back Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary EBL EBT 181 Area Type: Othe r Cycle Length : 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 \' 'f EB R WBL Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle : 90 Control Type : Pret imed Maximum v/c Rat io: 0.49 ._ ' WBT WBR 49 11 383 2979 914 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.04 Intersection Signa l Delay: 6.6 Inte rsection LOS: A Intersection Capac ity Utilization 87.3% ICU Leve l of Service E Analys is Period (m in) 15 2: Ga rden Ave N & N 4th St 5/19/2018 3:15 pm Heffron Transportati on , Inc. -TSM/RHF ~ t I" '. + .,' NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 47 22 590 414 447 763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.4 9 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Fore ca st 20 18 W ith -Proj ect -Afte rn oon Pea k Ho ur 3: Garden Av e N & N 3 rd St Lanes , Vo lumes, Ti mings /' ....... • "f +-' "\ t "' \. + ~ Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NB R SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +t t f+ f+ +t Traffic Vo lume (vph) 25 1131 33 0 0 0 0 34 33 30 15 0 Future Volume (vph) 25 1131 33 0 0 0 0 34 33 30 15 0 Ideal Flow (vp hpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util . Factor 0.91 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.97 0.98 Frt 0.996 0.933 Flt Protected 0.999 0.968 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 5055 0 0 0 0 0 1586 0 0 1323 0 Fl t Permitted 0.999 0.808 Said . Flow (perm) 0 5053 0 0 0 0 0 1586 0 0 1079 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Fl ow (RTOR) 10 37 Li nk Spee d (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 147 190 467 670 Trave l Tim e (s) 3.3 4.3 10.6 15 .2 Conft. Peds. (#/hr) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Conft . Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Pea k Hou r Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 9% 39% 39% 39% Adj . Flow (vph) 28 1257 37 0 0 0 0 38 37 33 17 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Gro up Flow ·(vph) 0 1322 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 50 0 Turn Typ e Perm NA NA Perm NA Protected Phase s 2 4 8 Pe rmitted Phases 2 8 Minimum Split (s) ~ 76 .0 76.0 24.0 24 .0 24.0 To tal Split (s) 76.0 76 .0 24.0 24.0 24.0 To tal Split(%) 76.0% 76.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% Maximum Green (s) 71.0 71.0 19 .5 19.5 19 .5 Yellow Ti me (s) 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Ad just (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Tim e (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead /Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Walk Ti me (s) 59.0 59 .0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 Pedestr ian Ca lls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 71.0 19.5 19 .5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.20 0.20 vie Ra tio 0.37 0.22 0.24 Con tro l De lay 8.4 21.4 43.5 Queue De lay 0.3 0.0 0.0 To tal De lay 8.6 21.4 43 .5 LOS A C D Approach Delay 8.6 21 .4 43 .5 Approach LOS A C D Queue Length 50th (ft) 117 20 31 5/19/2018 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportat ion, Inc. -TSM/RHF RSD -Sartori Elem entary Forecast 2018 With -Project -Afternoon Peak Hou r 3 : Garden Av e N & N 3 rd St ,> ....... .. f +-' Lane Graue EBL EBT EB R WBL WBT WBR Queue Length 95th (ft) 170 Internal Link Dist (ft) 67 110 Turn Bay Leng th (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 3590 Starva tion Cap Reductn 1339 Sp illback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 Inte rsect ion Summary Area Type : Othe r Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length : 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Re ferenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type : Pretimed Maximum vie Ratio: 0.37 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.5 Intersection Capac ity Uti lizatio n 83.3% Analysis Period (m in) 15 Splits and Phases: 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St 5/19/2018 3:15 pm Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF Inte rsection LOS: B ICU Leve l of Service E Lanes, Volumes, Timi ngs ~ t ~ '. ~ .,, NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 59 71 387 590 339 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.24 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 With-Project -Afternoon Peak Hour 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St Lane s, Vo lumes , Ti mings ~ --+ ~ 'f -4--' ~ t I" '. i .' La ne Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR La ne Configurations +ttf+ f+ llj tt Tra ffic Vo lume (vph) 70 712 25 0 0 0 0 210 33 428 1165 0 Future Volume (vph) 70 712 25 0 0 0 0 210 33 428 1165 0 Id eal Fl ow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ta per Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.9 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Fa ctor 0.99 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.995 0.982 Fl t Protected 0.996 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 0 4985 0 0 0 0 0 1735 0 1770 3539 0 Flt Permitted 0.99 6 0.523 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 4965 0 0 0 0 0 17 35 0 960 3539 0 Righ t Tu rn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 5 10 Li nk Speed (mph ) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 305 292 474 671 Travel Time (s ) 6.9 6.6 10.8 15 .3 Conn . Peds. (#/hr) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Conn. Bik es (#/h r) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.9 7 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles(%) 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 72 734 26 0 0 0 0 216 34 441 1201 0 Sha red Lan e Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 832 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 441 1201 0 Tu rn Type Perm NA NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 2 1 6 Pe rmitted Phases 4 6 Minimu m Sp lit (s) 33.0 33.0 52 .0 15.0 67 .0 To tal Split (s ) 33.0 33.0 52 .0 15.0 67.0 Tota l Split(%) 33 .0% 33 .0% 52 .0% 15.0 % 67 .0% Maximum Green (s) 27.0 27 .0 46 .0 11 .0 61.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lo st Time Ad j us t (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lead /L ag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 15.0 15.0 23 .0 51.0 Flash Do nt Wa lk (s) 12 .0 12.0 10.0 10.0 Pede st rian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 27.0 46.0 63 .0 61.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.46 0.63 0.61 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.31 0.64 0.56 Control Delay 34 .2 17.6 7.9 7.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Delay 34.2 17.6 7.9 7.1 LO S C B A A 5/19/2 018 3: 15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Tran spo rt at ion, Inc. -TSM/RHF RS D -Sartori El ementary Forecast 201 8 W ith-Project -Aft ern oon Pea k Hou r 4: Park Av e N & N 3 rd St ..> --+ \' f +- Lane Graue ESL ES T EBR WBL WBT Approach Delay 34.2 Approach LOS C Queue Length 50th (ft) 169 Queue Length 95th (ft) 213 Interna l Link Di st (ft) 225 212 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capac ity (vph) 1344 Starvat ion Cap Reductn 0 Sp illback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 85 (85 %), Refe renced to phase 1 :SSL and 6:S BTL, Start of Green Natu ral Cycle : 100 Contro l Type: Pre ti med Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.64 ' WBR Intersection Signal De lay: 16.4 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Uti lization 87.0% IC U Level of Service E Ana lysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signa l. 5/19/2018 3: 15 pm 4: Park Ave N & N 3rd St t 02 Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF Lanes, Vol um es, Ti mings ' t ,,.. '. + ~ NBL NBT NBR SSL SS T SBR 17 .6 7.3 B A 93 46 80 149 m67 10 1 39 4 591 100 803 693 2158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.64 0.56 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 With -Project -Afternoon Peak Hour 5: N. Ex it Drivewal & N 4th St HCM Unsignalized In tersecti on Capacity Analys is _... .. ~ +-' ~ Movemen t EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations tttl "i Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 684 113 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 0 0 684 113 0 Si gn Con tro l Fr ee Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.40 0.40 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 735 283 0 Pedestrians 10 Lan e Width (ft) 12.0 Wa lking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Bloc kage Ri gh t turn flare (veh) Median type None None Med ian storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 123 315 pX, platoon un blocked vC, conflicting volume 10 194 10 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vo l 10 194 10 tC, sin gle (s ) 4.2 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 64 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1566 776 1066 Di rection , Lane# WB 1 WB 2 WB3 W8 4 NB 1 Volu me Total 184 184 184 184 283 Vo lume Left 0 0 0 0 283 Vo lume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cS H 1700 1700 1700 1700 776 Vo lu me to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.1 1 0.11 0.36 Queue Leng th 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 42 Control De lay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 .3 Lane LOS B Approach De lay (s) 0.0 12.3 Approach LOS B Intersec tion Summa~ Average Delay 3.4 Intersection Capacity Uti lization 22 .8% ICU Level of Service A Ana lys is Period (min) 15 51 19/2018 3:15 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transporta ti on , Inc. -TSM/RHF RS D -Sa rtori Eleme nt ary 7: N 3 rd St & S . Dr ivew a y Intersection In t Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL Lane Configurat ions Traffic Vo l, veh /h 11 Future Vol , veh/h 11 Conflict ing Peds, #/hr 10 Sign Control Free EBT tftt 1162 1162 0 Free RT Channelized -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Grade ,% 0 Pea k Hour Factor 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 Mvmt Flow 11 1198 Major/Minor Maj or 1 Conflict ing Flow All 10 0 Stage 1 Stag e 2 Critical Hdwy 5.36 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 3.13 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1138 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked , % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1138 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 App roach EB HCM Co ntrol Delay, s 0.2 HCM LOS Minor Lane/Ma jor Mvmt EBL EBTSBL n1 Capaci ty (veh/h) 1138 520 HCM Lane V/C Ra tio 0.01 -0.058 HCM Contro l De lay (s) 8.2 0.1 12 .3 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %t ile Q(ve h) 0 0.2 5/19/2018 3:15 pm Heffron Transportati on , Inc. -TSM /RHF F o recast 20 18 W ith -Project -Afte rn oon Pe ak Hour HCM 2010 TWSC WB T WBR SBL SBR 'I 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 Free Free Stop Stop -None None 0 108 1229312 0 0 0 92 92 40 40 2 2 0 0 0 0 30 0 Minor2 512 10 502 5.7 6 3.8 545 0 0 529 0 520 520 509 SB 12.3 B Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 With-Project -PM Peak Hour 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes , Timings ~ --+, .. f ,.._ ' ~ t /t' '. ! .,' Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SB T SBR Lane Config urations +rtt 'f' +ft ti. Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 321 265 28 25 255 0 0 121 0 100 Future Volume (vph ) 0 0 0 321 265 28 25 255 0 0 1210 100 Ideal Fl ow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft ) 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.989 Flt Pro tected 0.973 0.995 Satd . Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4997 1599 0 3295 0 0 3462 0 Flt Permitted 0.973 0.775 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4986 1575 0 2567 0 0 3462 0 Righ t Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 71 11 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Li nk Distance (ft) 232 123 671 503 Travel Time (s) 5.3 2.8 15.3 11.4 Confl . Peds. (#/hr) 3 4 4 3 6 2 2 6 Conn. Bikes (#/h r) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 'f% 9% 9% 9% 3% 3% 3% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 328 270 29 26 260 0 0 1235 102 Shared Lane Traffi c(%) Lan e Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 598 29 0 286 0 0 1337 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm pm +p t NA NA Protected Phases 8 1 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Minimum Sp lit (s) 35 .5 35.5 35.5 13.0 64.5 51.5 Total Split (s) 35 .5 35 .5 35.5 13 .0 64 .5 51 .5 Tota l Sp lit(%) 35.5% 35.5% 35.5% 13.0% 64 .5% 51.5% Maximum Green (s ) 30.0 30 .0 30 .0 9.0 59.0 46 .0 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Al l-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 Lo st Time Adj ust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l Lost Ti me (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Op ti mize? Yes Ye s Walk Time (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 33.5 19.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 17 .0 17 .0 17 .0 12.0 12.0 Pedestr ian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 30.0 30.0 59.0 46 .0 Act uate d g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.59 0.46 vie Ratio 0.40 0.06 0.18 0.84 Control Delay 26 .6 1.6 14 .1 29.4 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 To ta l De lay 26.6 1.6 14.1 29.4 LOS C A B C 5/19/2018 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportati on, Inc. -TSM/R HF RSD -Sartori Elementary 1: Park Ave N & N 4th St Forecast 2018 With-Project -PM Peak Hour Lane Group Approach Delay App ro ach LOS Queue Leng th 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Li nk Dis t (ft) Tu rn Bay Leng th (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reduct n Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection Summary EBL EBT EBR WBL 152 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 +- WBT 25.4 C 112 146 43 1495 0 0 0 0.40 Offset : 61 .5 (62%), Referenced to phase 1 :NBL and 6:NBTL, Start of Green Natu ral Cycle : 100 Control Type: Pre ti med Maximum v/c Rat io: 0.84 ' WBR 0 mo 522 0 0 0 0.06 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.3 Intersection LOS : C Intersec tion Capac ity Utilization 72.1 % IC U Level of Serv ice C Analysis Perio d (min) 15 m Vo lume for 95th percen ti le queue is metered by upst ream signal. 5/19/2018 4:00 pm Heffron Tran sportation, Inc. -TSM /RHF Lanes, Volumes , Timing s ~ t ,,.. '. + .,, NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 14.1 29.4 B C 47 378 m81 476 591 423 1569 1598 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.84 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 With-Project -PM Peak Hour 2 : Garden Ave N & N 4th St Lanes, Volumes, Timings ~ • f ~ ' "" t ~ '.. ! ~ -+- Lane Graue EBL EBT EB R WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +ftt 7' "I 7' Traffic Vo lume (v ph) 0 0 0 10 301 30 31 0 0 0 0 337 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 10 30 1 30 31 0 0 0 0 337 Idea l Flow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19 00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 La ne Uti l. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 0 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.850 0.865 Fl t Protected 0.998 0.950 Satd . Flow (prot) 0 0 0 0 4664 1455 1583 0 0 0 0 1644 Fl t Permitted 0.998 0.950 Said. Fl ow (perm) 0 0 0 0 4663 1422 1581 0 0 0 0 1621 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Fl ow (RTOR) 32 563 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 261 463 670 494 Trave l Time (s) 5.9 10.5 15.2 11 .2 Con fl . Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 Con fl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Veh icles(%) 0% 0% 0% 11% 11% 11 % 14% 14% 14% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 11 32 4 32 33 0 0 0 0 362 Sha red Lane Tra ffi c(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 335 32 33 0 0 0 0 362 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm Perm Pro tec ted Phases 2 Per mitted Phases 2 2 8 4 Minimum Sp lit (s) 64.0 64.0 64 .0 25 .5 25.5 Total Split (s) 68 .5 68 .5 68.5 31 .5 31.5 Total Split(%) 68 .5% 68.5% 68 .5% 31.5 % 31.5% Maximum Green (s ) 63.5 63.5 63 .5 27 .0 27 .0 Ye llow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lo st Time Adj ust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s ) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Opt imize? Wa lk Time (s) 47 .0 47 .0 47 .0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dant Walk (s) 12 .0 12.0 12.0 14.0 14 .0 Pedestr ian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 63.5 63 .5 27 .0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ra tio 0.64 0.64 0.27 0.27 vie Ratio 0.1 1 0.04 0.08 0.43 Contro l Delay 7.3 2.5 22.0 1.6 Queue De lay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tota l De lay 7.3 2.5 22.0 1.6 LOS A A C A Approach Delay 6.9 22 .0 1.6 Approach LO S A C A Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 12 0 5/1912018 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , Inc. -TSM/RHF RSD -S artori Elem e ntary F or ecast 201 8 With -Proje ct -PM Peak Hou r 2 : Garde n A v e N & N 4th St .J' --+ "'\, 'f +-' Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WB T WBR Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 10 Intern al Link Dist (ft) 18 1 383 Turn Bay Length (ft ) Base Capaci ty (vph ) 296 1 914 Starvati on Cap Redu ctn 0 0 Sp illbac k Ca p Reductn 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 Red uced vie Ratio 0.11 0.04 Inte rse ction Summary Area Type : Other Cycle Lengt h: 100 Actuated Cycl e Length: 100 Off set: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:, Start of Green Na tural Cycle : 90 Con tro l Type: Pret ime d Maximum vie Ra tio: 0.43 Inte rsection Signa l Delay: 5.0 In tersection Capacity Uti lization 85 .1 % Ana lys is Period (min ) 15 Spl its an d Phase s: 2: Garden Av e N & N 4th St 5/19/2018 4:00 pm Heffro n Tran sporta ti on, Inc. -TSM /RHF Intersect ion LOS : A ICU Level of Service E Lanes , Vo lumes , Timings "\ t I" '. i .' NBL NBT NBR SBL SB T SBR 27 0 590 414 426 848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.43 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori El e mentary Forecast 20 18 With-Proje ct -PM Peak Hour 3: Garden Ave N & N 3rd St Lanes, Volumes, Timi ngs .,,. ....... '\, 'f ,._ ' ~ t ~ '-i .,, Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4tf+ f+ 4 Traffic Vo lume (vph) 17 1287 36 0 0 0 0 24 25 25 10 0 Future Volume (vph) 17 1287 36 0 0 0 0 24 25 25 10 0 Ideal Flow (vphp l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 0.9 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 0.996 0.931 Flt Protected 0.999 0.966 Said. Flow (prot) 0 5057 0 0 0 0 0 1753 0 0 1732 0 Flt Permitted 0.999 0.823 Said . Flow (perm) 0 5057 0 0 0 0 0 1753 0 0 1471 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sa td. Flow (RTOR) 10 26 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 147 190 467 670 Trave l Time (s) 3.3 4.3 10 .6 15.2 Confl. Peds . (#/hr) 9 2 2 9 2 3 3 2 Confl . Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 6% Adj. Fl ow (vph) 18 1355 38 0 0 0 0 25 26 26 11 0 Sha red Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1411 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 37 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2 4 8 Perm itted Phases 2 8 Minimum Split (s) 76 .0 76 .0 24.0 24 .0 24.0 Total Spl it (s) 76.0 76.0 24.0 24.0 24 .0 Total Split(%) 76 .0% 76 .0% 24.0% 24.0% 24 .0% Maximum Gree n (s) 71.0 71.0 19.5 19.5 19.5 Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Walk Time (s) 59 .0 59.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 12.0 12 .0 12 .5 12.5 12.5 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 71.0 19.5 19.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.7 1 0.20 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.14 0.13 Control Delay 11.0 20 .9 37.7 Queue De lay 0.3 0.0 0.0 To tal De lay 11.3 20.9 37.7 LOS B C D App roach Delay 11.3 20 .9 37.7 App roach LOS B C D Queue Length 50th (ft) 151 13 21 5/19/20 18 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation , Inc. -TSM /RHF RSD -Sartori El em entary F ore cast 201 8 With-Project -PM Pe ak Ho ur 3: Ga rden Ave N & N 3 rd St ~ ---+ -. ., +-' Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Queue Length 95th (ft) 205 Internal Link Dist (ft) 67 110 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 3593 Starvat ion Cap Reduc tn 1336 Sp illback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Re ductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Leng th: 100 Actuated Cycle Length : 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:, Start of Green Natura l Cyc le: 100 Contro l Type: Pret imed Max imum vie Ra ti o: 0.39 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83 .3% Analysis Period (m in ) 15 3: Ga rden Ave N & N 3rd St 5/19/2 018 4:00 pm Heffron Transpo rt ation, Inc. -TSM/RHF Intersection LOS: B IC U Level of Service E Lanes, Volumes, Timings "' t ,,., '. -! .,, NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SB R 45 51 387 590 362 286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.13 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sart o ri El e m en t ary Foreca st 2 01 8 With -P roj ect -PM Pe a k Ho ur 4 : Pa rk Av e N & N 3rd St Lanes , Volumes, Timings ..> ---+, "'\, 'f ..... ' ' t ~ '-. ! .' Lane Groue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NB T NB R SBL SBT SBR Lane Con fi gurations 4'tt. t. l'j tt Traffic Volume (vph) 75 887 20 0 0 0 0 210 46 387 1129 0 Future Vo lume (vph) 75 887 20 0 0 0 0 210 46 387 1129 0 Idea l Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Sto rage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.9 1 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 1.00 1.00 0.99 Frt 0.997 0.976 Flt Protected 0.996 0.950 Said . Fl ow (prot) 0 5048 0 0 0 0 0 1679 0 1770 3539 0 Flt Pe rmitted 0.996 0.512 Satd . Flow (pe rm) 0 5045 0 0 0 0 0 1679 0 948 3539 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 15 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Di stance (ft) 290 292 474 67 1 Travel Time (s) 6.6 6.6 10.8 15.3 Confi. Peds . (#/h r) 3 9 9 3 10 11 11 10 Confi. Bikes (#/hr) 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Veh icles(%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 10% 10 % 10% 2% 2% 2% Adj. Flow (vph) 77 905 20 0 0 0 0 214 47 395 1152 0 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1002 0 0 0 0 0 261 0 395 1152 0 Turn Type Perm NA NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 4 2 1 6 Perm itte d Pha ses 4 6 Minimum Split (s) 33 .0 33.0 52.0 15.0 67 .0 Tota l Split (s) 33.0 33.0 52.0 15.0 67.0 Total Split(%) 33 .0% 33.0 % 52.0% 15.0% 67.0% Maximum Green (s) 27.0 27.0 46.0 11.0 61 .0 Ye llow Ti me (s ) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All -Red Ti me (s ) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Lost Ti me Adju st (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Walk Time (s) 15.0 15.0 23 .0 51.0 Flas h Dont Walk (s) 12.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Gree n (s) 27.0 46.0 63.0 61.0 Actuated g/C Rat io 0.27 0.46 0.63 0.61 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.33 0.57 0.53 Contro l De lay 36.9 17.7 5.3 5.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total De lay 36.9 17.7 5.3 5.0 LOS D B A A 5/19 /2018 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportatio n, Inc. -TSM/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementa ry Foreca st 2 018 With-Projec t -PM Peak Hour 4 : Pa rk A ve N & N 3rd St ~ ---+ "'\, 'f +- Lane Graue EB L EB T EBR WBL WBT Approach Delay 36.9 Approach LOS D Queue Length 50th (ft) 212 Queue Length 95th (ft) 263 Interna l Link Dist (ft) 210 212 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1364 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Sp ill back Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Ra ti o 0.73 Intersection Summary Area Type : Other Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length : 100 Offset: 85 (85%), Referenced to phase 1 :SBL and 6:SBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Pret imed Maximum v/c Ratio : 0.73 ' WBR Intersection Signa l Delay : 17 .6 Intersection LOS: 8 Intersection Capacity Utiliza ti on 84 .8% ICU Leve l of Service E Ana ly sis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th perce ntile que ue is metered by upstream signa l. 4: Pa rk Ave N & N 3rd St t 02 5/19/2018 4:00 pm Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TSM/R HF Lanes, Vo lumes , Timings "\ t t+' ~ -! .ti NBL NBT NBR SBL SB T SBR 17.7 5.1 B A 96 26 54 155 m41 73 394 59 1 100 780 687 2158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.57 0.53 Synchro 9 Report RSD -Sartori Elementary Forecast 2018 With-Project -PM Peak Hour 5 : N. Ex it Drivewal & N 4th St HCM Un signalized In tersection Capacity Analys is l' ~ +-' ,. __..,. Movemen t EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR La ne Config urati ons ttt1 .. Traffic Volume (v eh /h) 0 0 0 629 50 0 Future Vo lume (Vehlh) 0 0 0 629 50 0 Sign Con trol Fr ee Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.50 0.50 Hou rly now rate (vph) 0 0 0 676 100 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Righ t turn fiare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 123 315 pX, pla too n unblocked vC, confiicting volume 0 169 0 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 , stage 2 conf vo l vCu , unblocke d vol 0 169 0 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.8 6.9 tC , 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 3.5 3.3 pO queue fr ee % 100 88 100 cM capacity (veh/h ) 1586 811 1091 Dire ction , Lane# WB 1 WB2 WB3 WB4 NB 1 Volume Total 169 169 169 169 100 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 100 Volume Righ t 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 811 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 Que ue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 11 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 Lane LOS B App roach Delay (s) 0.0 10.1 Approach LOS B In tersection Summa~ Average Delay 1.3 In tersec tion Capacity Utiliza ti on 19 .1% ICU Leve l of Service A Analysis Period (m in) 15 5/19/2 018 4:00 pm Synchro 9 Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. -TS M/RHF RSD -Sartori Elementary 7: N 3rd St & S. Driveway Inte rsectio n Int De lay , s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL Lan e Con fi gurations Tra ffi c Vol , veh /h 5 Future Vo l, veh /h 5 Confli cting Peds , #/hr 0 Sign Cont rol Free EBT tttt 1315 13 15 0 Free RT Channe lized -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage , # 0 Grade ,% 0 Peak Hour Fa ctor 98 98 Heavy Vehi cl es , % 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 1342 Major/Minor Major1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critica l Hdwy 5.34 Crit ical Hdwy Stg 1 Crit ica l Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 Po t Cap -1 Ma neuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon bl oc ked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneu ver Stage 1 Stage 2 Approach EB HCM Contro l Delay , s HCM LOS Mino r La ne/Major Mvmt EBL EBT SBLn1 Capa city (veh /h) 525 HCM Lane V/C Rat io -0.019 HCM Control De lay (s) 12 HCM Lane LOS B HCM 95th %til e Q(veh ) 0.1 5/19/2018 4:00 pm Heffro n Transportat ion , Inc. -TSM /RHF WBT 0 0 0 Free Forecast 2018 With-Project -PM Peak Hour HCM 20 10 TWSC WBR SBL SBR ., 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 Free Stop Stop -None None 0 108 1229312 0 0 0 92 92 50 50 2 2 0 0 0 0 10 0 Minor2 547 0 547 5.7 6 3.8 525 0 0 501 0 525 525 501 SB 12 B Synch ro 9 Report Sartori E lementary School Transportation Technical Report heffron APPENDIX C Queue Model Results :i,i•IAlilii,i,MMIMM DRAFT heffron Dmmfi i MMWtlliitiiMMMM M/M/s Queueing Model for Renton School Disitrct's Sartori Elementary Load/Unload Zone Morning Peak Hour (Arrival) Data 0.3 0.25 0.2 ~ :.0 0.15 "' .n e 0.. 0.1 0 .05 0 µ= s = - - 483 240.0 4 ~ (average arrival rate) (average service rate) (# servers) -- 1 •. - -- - 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 N umber of Vehicles Queued for Self-Haul Scale wher e: L = average number of vehicles queued at the load/unload zone at any one time Lq=average number of vehicles in queue W = average wait time at the load/unload zone (ho urs) Wq =ave.wa it time in queue (hours) p = Load/Unload Zone utilization P0 = proba bi lity of O vehicles at the Load/Unload Zone P 1 = probabili ty of 1 vehicle at t he Load/Unload Zone. etc. 2 =Average number of vehicles at the load/unload zone at any o ne time 5 =Peak (95th-percentile) number of vehicles in load/unload zone at any one time 95 5% <= Closest probability to 95% L = L = q W= w = q p= Po = P ,= P2 = P3 = P4 = P5 = p6 = P 1 = Pa = Pg= P10 = P,, = P12 = P13 = P14 = P15 = P16 = P 17 = P ,a = P1g = P2 0 = P21 = P22 = P23 = P24 = P25 = P25 = P26 = P21 = P2s = P 29 = P 30 = P31 = P32 = P33 = P34 = P35 = p 36 = P37 = P3a = P3 g = P4 0 = Results 2.191725961 0 .179225961 Minutes 0 .005 0.3 0.000 0 .0 0 .503125 Prob < x veh icles 0.128672873 12.9% 0 0.2589541 57 38.8% 1 0.26057262 64.8% 2 0 .17 4800799 82.3% 3 0.087946652 91 .1 % 4 0.044248159 95.5% 5 0.022262355 97.7% 6 0.011200747 98.9% 7 0 005635376 99.4% 8 0.002835299 99.7% 9 0.00142651 99.9% 10 00007 17713 99.9% 11 0.000361099 100.0% 12 0 .000 181678 1 00.0% 13 9.14068E-05 1 00.0% 14 4.5989E-05 100.0% 15 2.31382E-05 1 00.0 % 16 1.16414E-05 100.0% 17 5.85709E-06 100.0 % 18 2.94685E-06 100.0% 19 1.48263E-06 100.0% 20 7.4595E-07 100.0% 2 1 3. 75306E-07 100.0% 22 1 .88826E-07 100.0% 23 9 .5003E-08 100.0% 24 4 .77984E-08 100.0% 25 2.40486E-08 100.0% 26 1.20994E-08 100.0% 27 6 .08753E-09 100.0% 28 3.06279E-09 100.0% 29 1.54096E-09 100.0% 30 7.75298E-1 0 100.0% 31 3.90072E-10 100 .0% 32 1.96255E-10 100 .0% 33 9.87407E-11 100.0% 34 4 .96789E-1 1 1 00.0% 35 2.49947E-11 100.0% 36 1.25755E-11 100.0% 37 6.32703E-1 2 100.0% 38 3 .18329E-12 100.0% 39 1.60159E-1 2 100.0% 40 8 .058E-13 100.0% 41 8/2512016 heffron UE11151i l i MMMWMMi i i MM- M/M/s Qu euei ng Model for Renton School Disitrct 's Sartori Elementary Load/Unload Zone Morning Peak Hour (Arrival) Data 0 .3 0 25 0.2 &' :c 0 .1 5 "' .D e Q. 0 .1 0 .05 0 µ= s= - 483 240.0 5 (average arrival rate) (average service rate) (# servers) - I. - - 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Number of Vehicles Queued for Se lf -Haul Scale where: L = average number of vehicles queued at the load/unload zone at any one ti me Lq=average number of vehicles in queue W = average wa it time at the load/unload zone (hours) Wq =ave.wa it time in queue (hours) p = Load/Unload Zone uti lization P0 = probabil ity of O vehicles at the Load/Unload Zone P 1 = probabil ity of 1 vehicle at the Load/Unload Zone, etc. 2 =Average number of vehicles a t the load/un load zone at any one time 4 =Peak (95th -percentile) number of vehicles in load/u nload zone at any one t ime 93.9% <= Closest probability to 95% L = L -q - W= w = q p = Po = P1 = P2 = P3 = P4 = P5 = p6 = P7 = Pa = Pg= P1 0 = P,, = P12 = P1 3 = P,4 = P1 s = P 15 = P 17 = P m= P 19 = P2 0 = P2 , = P2 2 = P23 = P24 = P2s = P25 = P26 = P27 = P2 a = P29 = P30 = P31 = P32 = P33 = P34 = P 3s = p 36 = P31 = P3a = P 39 = P40 = R es ults 2 .053635596 0.041135596 Minutes 0 .004 0.3 0.000 0.0 0.4025 Prob < x vehicles 0 .132626263 13.3% 0 0 .2669 10354 40.0% 1 0 .268578544 66.8% 2 0 180171 44 84.8% 3 0 .090648756 93.9% 4 0.036486124 97.5% 5 0.014685665 99.0% 6 0 .0059 1098 99.6% 7 0.00237917 99.8% 8 0.000957616 99.9% 9 0 00038544 100.0% 10 0.0001551 4 100.0% 11 6.24437E-05 100.0% 12 2.51336E-05 100.0% 13 1.01163E-05 100.0% 14 4 .0718E-06 100.0% 15 1.6389E-06 100.0% 16 6.59657E-07 100.0% 17 2. 65512E-07 100.0% 18 1.06869E-07 100.0% 19 4 .30146E-08 100.0% 20 1. 73 134E-08 100.0% 21 6 .96864E-09 100.0% 22 2.80488E-09 100.0% 23 1.12896E-09 100.0% 24 4.544 07E-10 100.0% 25 1.82899E-10 100.0% 26 7 .36168E-11 100 .0% 27 2 .96308E-1 1 100.0% 28 1.19264E-11 100.0% 29 4 .80037E-12 100.0% 30 1.93215E-12 100.0% 31 7.7769E-13 100.0% 32 3.1302E-13 100.0% 33 1.25991 E-13 100.0% 34 5 .07112E-14 100.0% 35 2.04113E-14 100.0% 36 8 .21554E-15 100.0% 37 3.30675E-15 100.0% 38 1.33097E-15 100.0% 39 5 .35715E-16 100.0% 40 2.15625E-16 100.0% 41 8/25120 16 heffron &alLl5iiiiMffliiiiiMFM M/M/s Queueing Model for Renton School Disitrct's Sartori Elementary Load/Unload Zone Morning Peak Hour (Arrival) Data ~ 0 .3 0.25 ), = 483 /1 = 240.0 s= 6 (average arrival rate) (average service rate) (# servers ) 0 .2 +--------------------- ~ 0.1 5 - .0 e (l_ w he re: 0.1 +.--------------- 0.05 0 2 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Number of Veh icles Queued for Self-Haul Scale L = average number of vehicles queued at the load/unload zone at any one time Lq=average number o f vehicles in queue W = average wait time at the load/u n load zone (hours) Wq =ave .wait time i n queue (hours) p = Load/Unload Zone utilization P0 = probability of O vehicles at the Load/Unload Zone P , = probabil ity of 1 vehicle at the Load/Unload Zon e, etc. 2 =Average number of vehicles at the load/unload zone at any one time 4 =Peak (95th-per centile) number of vehicles in load/unload zone at any one time 94.5% <= Closest probability to 95% L = L = Q Results 2.02185 1545 0 .009351545 W = 0.004 Wq = 0.000 f)= P o= P, = P 2 = P 3 = P4 = Ps = p6 = P7 = Pa= Pg= P,o = P11 = P,2 = P13 = P14 = P,s = P,s = P ,1 = P1a = P ,9 = P20 = P,, = P22 = P 23 = P24 = P 2s = P 2s = P2 s = P 21 = P 2a = P29 = P 30 = P 31 = P32 = P 33 = P 34 = P 3s = p 36 = P31 = P39 = P 39 = P40 = 0 .33541 6667 0 .133448827 0.268565765 0.270244301 0 .181288885 0 .09121097 0.0367124 16 0 .012313956 0 .004130306 0.001385374 0.000464677 0 .000155861 5.22782E-05 1.7535E-05 5.88153E-06 1.97276E-06 6.61697E-07 2.21944E-07 7.44438E-08 2 .49697E-08 8 .37525E-09 2.8092E-09 9.42252E-10 3.16047E-10 1.06007E-10 3.55567E-11 1.19263E-1 1 4.00028E-12 1.34176E-12 4.50049E-13 1 .50954E-13 5 .06324E-14 1.6983E-14 5 .69637E-15 1 .91066E-15 6.40866E-16 2 .14957E-16 7 .21002E-17 2 .41836E-17 8.11159E-18 2 .72076E-1 8 9.12589E-19 3.06098E-1 9 Minutes 0.3 0.0 Prob < x vehicles 13.3% 0 40.2% 67.2% 2 8 5.4% 3 94.5% 98 .1% 99.4% 99.8% 99.9% 1 00.0% 1 00.0% 100.0% 1 00.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0 % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100 .0% 1 00.0% 100.0% 1 00.0% 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 8/25/20 16 heffron &aaa:iiiiMMMIMMiiiWMM M/M/s Queueing Model for Renton School Disitrct's Sartori Elementary Load/Unload Zone Morning Peak Hour (Arrival) Data t 483 ;1 = 240.0 s= 7 (aver age arrival rate) (aver age service rate) (# servers) 0.3 ~---------------------~ 0.25 0.2 +------------- i'i O 15 +-------------------------------< 1l . e a.. 0.1 ---------- 0.05 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 N umber of Vehicles Queued for Self-Haul Scale ~--------------------------- where: L = average number of vehicles queued at the load/unload zone at any one time Lq=average number of vehicles in queue W = average wait time at the load/unload zone (hours) Wq =ave.wait time in queue (ho urs) p = Load/U nl oad Zone utilization P0 = probability of O vehicles at the Load/Unload Zone P1 = probability of 1 vehicle at the Load/Unload Zone, etc. 2 =Average number of vehicles at the load/unload zone at any one time 4 =Peak (95th-percentile) number of vehicles in load/unload zone at any one t ime 94.6% <= Closest probabili ty to 95% L = L = Q p= Po= P ,= P2 = P 3 = P4 = P 5 = p 6 = P1 = Ps = Pg = P10 = P11 = P ,2 = P13 = P 14 = P15 = P 15 = P 11 = P1s = P ,g = P20 = P21 = P22 = P23 = P 24 = P2s = P25 = P 26 = P21 = P2s = P29 = P 30 = P31 = P32 = P 33 = P34 = P3s = P3 s = P 37 = P 3s = P 39 = P•o = Results 2.0 14507452 0.002007452 0.004 0.000 0.2875 0.133615324 0.26890084 0.27058147 0.1 81515069 0 .091324 769 0.03675822 0.01232932 0.003544679 0.001019095 0.00029299 8.42346E-05 2.42174E-05 6.96252E-06 2 .00172E-06 5. 75495E-07 1.65455E-07 4 .7 5683E-08 1.36759E-08 3.93182E-09 1.1304E-09 3 .24989E-1 0 9.34344E-11 2.68624E-11 7 .72294E-1 2 2 .22034E-1 2 6.38349E-1 3 1.83525E-1 3 5.27635E-14 1.51695E-1 4 4 .36124E-1 5 1.25386E-1 5 3 .60483E-1 6 1 03639E-16 2.97962E-1 7 8 .56641E-1 8 2.4 6284E-18 7 .0 8067E-1 9 2 .03569E-1 9 5 .85262 E-20 1.68263E-20 4.83756E-21 1.3908E-21 M i nutes 0.3 0 .0 Prob< x vehicles 1 3.4% 0 40.3% 67.3% 85.5% 94.6% 98.3% 99.5% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1 00.0% 1 00.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1 00.0% 100 .0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100 .0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100 .0% 100.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 8/25120 16 heffron iiiMMffliiiiiWMMM M/M/s Queueing Model for Renton School Disitrct's Sartori Elementary Load/Unload Zone Morning Peak Hour (Arrival) Dat a µ= s= 483 240.0 8 (average arrival rate) (average service ra te) (# servers) 0.3 ~---------------------~ 0.25 0.2 _,__ ___________ _ £ ~ 0.15 .0 e 0.. 0.1 0.05 +a-------·-j----------------------1 0 2 4 where: 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number o f Vehicles Queued for Self-Haul Scale 22 24 L = average number o f vehicles queued at the load/unload zone at any one ti me LQ=average number of vehicles in queue W = avera ge wait time at the lo ad/unload zone (hours) W 0 =ave.wait time in queue (hours) p = Load/Unload Zone utilization P0 = probabil ity of O vehicles at the Load/Unload Zone P 1 = probabil ity o f 1 vehicle at the Load/Unload Zone , etc. 2 =Average number of vehicles at th e load/unload zone at any one time 4 =Peak (95th -percenti le) number of vehicles in load/unload zo n e at any one time 94.6% <= Closest probability to 95% L = L = Q Results 2.0 12900554 0.000400554 W = 0 .004 w = Q p= Po= P,= P2 = P 3 = P4 = P,= P 5 = P 1 = Ps = Pg= P ,o = P,, = P 12 = P 13 = P 14 = P 1, = p 16 = P11 = P 1s = P1 9 = P 20 = P 21 = P22 = P 23 = P 24 = P 2, = P 25 = P2 s = P 21 = P 2s = P29 = P 30 = P3 1 = P32 = P 33 = P34 = P35 = P3 s = P31 = P3 e = P 3g = P40 = 0 .000 0 .2515625 0 .13364725 0.268965091 0.270646123 0 .181558441 0 .09134659 0 .036767003 0.012332265 0 .003545526 0 .000891921 0.000224374 5 .64441 E-05 1.41992E-05 3 .57199E-06 8 .98579E-07 2 .26049E-07 5 .68654E-08 1 .43052E-08 3 .59865E-09 9 .05286E-10 2 .27736E-10 5.72898E-11 1.4412E-11 3 .62551E-12 9.12043E-13 2.29436E-13 5 .77174E-14 1.45195E-14 3.65257E-1 5 9.1885E-16 2.31148E-16 5.8 1482E-1 7 1.46279E-1 7 3.67983E-18 9.25708E-1 9 2. 32873E-19 5.85822E-20 1.47371 E-20 3 .7073E-2 1 9.32618E-22 2 . 34612E-22 5.90195E-23 1.484 7 1 E-23 Minutes 0.3 0 .0 Prob < x vehi cl es 13.4% 0 40.3% 67.3% 85.5% 94.6% 98.3% 99.5% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0 % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0 % 100.0% 100.0 % 100.0% 100.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 17 1 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 8/25/2016