No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2022 - Notice of Appeal to Renton Hearing Examiner - Hillis Clark Martin Peterson PS - Kennydale Gateway LLC1 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 NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND APPEAL - 1 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In the matter of the Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) issued for the Kennydale Gateway project (City File no. LUA 22-000011) 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N., Renton, WA 98056 NOTICE OF APPEAL A. Introduction and Relief Requested Kennydale Gateway LLC ( “Kennydale”) proposes a mixed-use development project (the “Project”) that will include three four-story buildings at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North (the “Property”) in the City of Renton (the “City”). Kennydale applied for site plan, shoreline substantial development, State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) review and other land use approvals in January. Kennydale’s submittals were supported by a SEPA Checklist and technical reports and information. After multiple rounds of review by the City and thorough responses by Kennydale, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on September 26, 2022 (the “MDNS”) as its SEPA threshold determination for the Project. The MDNS included eight conditions to the project, but conditions 3, 4 and 8 (the “Contested Conditions”) do not comply with SEPA law because they: (a) are not based on existing policies, 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 plans, rules, or regulations formally designated by the City; (b) are not related to specific and probable adverse impacts of the Project that are identified in the MDNS; and (c) are not reasonable. Through this Notice of Appeal (the “Notice”) Kennydale specifically requests the Hearing Examiner vacate the Contested Conditions. B. Matter Being Appealed. The matter being appealed is the September 26, 2022 MDNS for the Project. A copy of the MDNS is attached as Exhibit A to this Notice. C. Statement of Appellant’s Interest and Standing. Appellant Kennydale is the owner of the Property and the applicant for the Project. Kennydale is aggrieved and affected by the MDNS, and has standing pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (the “RMC” or the “Code”) 4-8-110(C)(1) as well as RCW 36.70C.060 and RCW 43.21C.070. D. Background 1. Project and Property Overview The Property is an approximately 7.76 acre (312,776 square foot) triangular site that is bounded by Lake Washington Boulevard North to the west, I-405 to the east, and the City-owned May Creek Trail Park to the south. The Property’s tax parcel number is 3224059049. The Property is currently developed with two light industrial prefabricated steel buildings on concrete slabs, surface parking, and other impervious surfaces. It is currently used for construction staging by Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) for its construction of nearby highway and street improvements. The Property is currently accessed from Lake Washington 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 3 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 Boulevard by an access road over WSDOT property to the north and by a driveway at the Property’s southwest corner.1 The Project includes onsite and offsite improvements. Onsite, existing buildings and impervious surfaces would be removed and three new four-story residential structures and associated improvements would be constructed. The new buildings would contain 385 residential units, residential amenity spaces, and 185 ground-level structured parking stalls. Building 1 would also contain 1,500 square feet of ground-level retail space. An additional 201 surface parking stalls, driveways, fire lanes, and significant landscaping would be located across the remainder of the site. The main access point would shift south from the WSDOT access road to a curb-cut from a new roundabout to be constructed approximately midway along the Property’s Lake Washington Boulevard frontage, at the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and North 43rd Street. The Property’s existing southwest corner access driveway would be retained for secondary fire access, with bollards or other treatment to prevent general-vehicle use. Offsite, improvements would include construction of the new, single-lane roundabout west of the Project’s main access point on Lake Washington Boulevard, and frontage improvements including new sidewalks and planter strips. These offsite improvements will connect with and complement improvements already planned by WSDOT in the vicinity. Currently WSDOT expects its improvements to be complete and open in Fall 2024.2 1 See generally MDNS Exhibits 2 (Site Plan) and 3 (Neighborhood Detail map). 2 See id. 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 2. Transportation Report Findings The Project application relied on detailed Transportation Impact Analysis reports (together, the “TIA”) by Heffron Transportation, Inc., which are dated June 14, 2021, March 3, 2022, and August 15, 2022.3 The TIA is attached as Exhibit B to this Notice. It references and incorporates underlying analysis performed by WSDOT for its “I-405 Renton to Bellevue – NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis Report” (the “WSDOT Report”), which is dated July 2018 and is attached as Exhibit C to this Notice. Although WSDOT only planned to reconstruct the interchange (including four new roundabouts and changes at Seahawks Way), the WSDOT Report did evaluate the potential for a new roundabout at Lake Washington Blvd North, North 43rd Street, and the Project’s main access point. For the purpose of evaluating the interchange and site access operations, WSDOT had evaluated the potential for a large mixed-use development on the subject property along with a 200-stall park-and-ride lot..4 The development configuration assumed by WSDOT would have generated approximately 200% more peak-hour vehicle trips (159 more trips in the AM peak hour and 153 more trips in the PM peak hour) than will be generated by the Project as now proposed.5 Importantly, WSDOT’s assumed project would have generated substantially more reverse-direction traffic (entering the site in the morning, and leaving the site in the afternoon) than the Project, which would have conflicted with commuter traffic from the nearby neighborhoods destined to or from the interchange.6 The WSDOT Report also assumed that a double-lane roundabout would be installed at the Property’s main access point 3 See also MDNS Exhibits 15 and 17 (Heffron responses to City transportation comments). 4 WSDOT Report at 4. 5 TIA at 9. 6 Id. 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 5 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 (the intersection of NE 43rd Street and Lake Washington Boulevard, or the “Site Access Roundabout”) to accommodate WSDOT’s assumed higher peak hour traffic volumes, particularly the high volume of traffic destined to the park-and-ride lot in the morning and leaving that lot in the afternoon. A park-and-ride lot is not proposed to be located on this site as part of the Project.7 The TIA notes that the Project actually proposes a single-lane Site Access Roundabout, and concludes that such a configuration is expected to operate at a Level of Service (“LOS”) B in the AM peak hour, and LOS A in the PM peak hour.8 Further, the TIA concluded that projected 95th percentile queue lengths do not create any issues with queue spillback into surrounding intersections during either the AM or PM peak hours.9 The City commissioned an expert third-party review of the TIA by Transpo Group, which was initially issued on July 20, 2022 and is attached as Exhibit D to this Notice.10 That third-party reviewer specifically requested additional operational analysis of the Site Access Roundabout, and asked for confirmation of the findings on roundabout geometry with a single-lane configuration.11 Following submission of the requested additional information in the August 15, 2022 version of the TIA, the City’s commissioned reviewer submitted email correspondence stating in part that “we concur with the results of the TIA,” and maintaining the recommendation for a single-lane roundabout.12 This concurrence (the “Emailed Concurrence”) is attached as Exhibit E to this Notice. In a staff report (the “Staff Report,” attached as Exhibit F to this Notice) 7 WSDOT Report at 6; MDNS Exhibit 2. 8 TIA at 13-15. 9 TIA at 15. 10 See generally MDNS Exhibit 18 (Secondary Transportation Review dated Aug. 30, 2022). 11 See generally MDNS Exhibit 16 (Secondary Transportation Review Comments dated June 20, 2022). 12 Emailed Concurrence at 1. 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 6 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 to the City’s Environmental Review Committee, staff similarly wrote in concurrence when reviewing the proposed single-lane roundabout, and noted the resulting “queuing length will not pose a physical impact or queuing problem to any of the adjacent intersections and the delay is acceptable per the City’s comprehensive plan.”13 3. Critical Areas Report Findings The Project provided an extensive Critical Areas Report documenting compliance with the City’s Shoreline and Critical Area regulations, together with a Habitat Data Report, Standard Stream Study, and a Wetland Assessment, as well as Survey Flood Hazard Data and Boundary & Topographic Survey.14 The Critical Areas Report, which is attached as Exhibit G to this Notice, concluded “[t]here will be no direct impacts to any critical areas (May Creek or the offsite wetland) resulting from the proposed development. The proposed development within the Shoreline overlay is consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (RMC 4- 3-090).”15 The Staff Report summarized the City’s review of the Critical Areas Report and related documents in a section on “wetlands, streams and lakes,” with a number of clear conclusions.16 With respect to stormwater and infiltration, the Staff Report predicted that the Project’s “use of enhanced stormwater treatment technologies would improve the quality of water discharged” (italics provided) even while “total impervious space would be reduced from 82 percent under current conditions to approximately 76 percent of the proposed developed 13 Staff Report at 17. 14 See generally Critical Areas Report; see also MDNS Exhibits 21 (Habitat Data Report), 22 (Standard Stream Study), 23 (Wetland Assessment) and 24 (Survey Flood Hazard Data and Boundary & Topographic Survey). 15 Critical Areas Report at i. 16 See Staff Report at pp 8-10. 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 7 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 condition.”17 The Staff Report restated the result of Kennydale’s professional stream study, which indicated that no net loss of ecological function would be created by the Project, summarized the City’s own critical areas finding with a statement that “the City’s Critical Areas Regulations would adequately mitigate impacts to the May Creek Floodplain,” and closed by summarizing the Critical Areas Report as showing “no direct impacts to the critical areas (May Creek or the offsite wetland) as a result of the proposed development.”18 4. Summary of Contested Conditions Condition 3 of the MDNS would require Kennydale to clear, grade and construct or reconstruct approximately 240 to 360 square feet of surface trail, “to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources” within the May Creek Trail Park property.19 However, the City did not identify any evidence of negative impacts to existing trail access, nor any SEPA policy requiring any such mitigation. It did not report any negative impacts to ecologically sensitive resources, nor disclaim the findings and conclusions of the Critical Areas Report or any related studies. And even if “impacts to ecologically sensitive resources” had been found (which they had not) Condition 3 did not explain how ecological impacts would possibly be mitigated by the clearing, grading and construction or reconstruction of a pedestrian trail.20 Condition 4 of the MDNS would require the Applicant to design interpretive signage illustrating salmon habitat and to install it on City property, as well as to design (rather than simply purchase or adopt) trailhead signage and a dog waste station fixture for installation on the 17 Id. at 9. 18 Id. at 9-10. 19 MDNS at 1. 20 See id., see also Staff Report. at 8-10. 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 Property. The City suggests this mitigation measure is necessary because of public complaints that non-residents of the area have improperly used a nearby Native Growth Protection Area and shoreline trail within the nearby Barbee Mill community.21 The City did not explain how a future Project could have caused non-residents to use a local natural area in the past, or how the project could cause non-residents to use a local natural area in the future. The City also did not specify or suggest that the Project would have any specific impact that would be mitigated by custom- designed trail signs, dog-waste fixtures, or off-site interpretive signage. Finally, Condition 8 would require Kennydale to design and construct a two-lane roundabout at the Site Access Roundabout, to include a second northbound automotive travel lane and a second northbound approach automotive travel lane.22 In addition, at the planned Lake Washington Blvd and N 41st Street Roundabout, Condition 8 would require Kennydale to add an additional southbound automotive travel lane as well as an additional southbound automotive right-turn lane.23 This Condition was included despite the City’s written acknowledgement that the single-lane roundabout would meet LOS standards and would not generate queues impacting nearby intersections.24 The City did not specify any specific SEPA policy that supported Condition 8. Its reasoning was limited to a conclusory statement in the Staff Report that a double- lane intersection would result in “a slight decrease in queuing length and no marginal change to delay.”25 Not only was the one-lane configuration of the Site Access Roundabout deemed fully 21 MDNS at 2 and Staff Report at 13. 22 MDNS at 2. 23 MDNS at 2. 24 Staff Report at 16, 17. 25 Id. at 18. 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 9 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 adequate to handle the Project’s anticipated traffic needs by all established measures by Kennydale’s traffic expert, the City’s traffic expert, and City staff, but it was designed to serve an important urban planning purpose, by creating a transition point between the interchange with I- 405 and residential neighborhoods west and south of the site, and providing a visible and physical cue to motorists that they are entering an area with slower speed limits and higher pedestrian needs. The City’s unsupported two-lane roundabout scheme would eliminate this sense of transition. E. Basis of Appeal and Legal Argument. This appeal alleges substantial errors in law and fact, each of which is documented thoroughly in the permit record pertaining to the Project. First, the Contested Conditions are erroneous as a matter of law because they exceed the City’s substantive conditioning authority under SEPA. Specifically, the Contested Conditions are not legally authorized by SEPA because they are not related to specific and probable adverse impacts of the Project MDNS; are not based on existing policies, plans, rules, or regulations formally designated by the City; and are not reasonable. 2. The Contested Conditions Are Not Related to Specific, Probable Adverse Project Impacts Identified in SEPA Documents. Each of the Contested Conditions fails the requirements of SEPA and the Code that all conditions imposed in an MDNS must mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the environmental documents prepared pursuant to SEPA and the City’s implementing ordinance (the “SEPA Rules”). See RCW 43.21C.060; RMC 4-9-070.M.3.a. The City’s Code adds that the Project impacts specifically identified must also be probable. RMC 4-9- 070.M.3.a. 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 10 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 Condition 3’s required trail construction or reconstruction does not mitigate any specific, probable adverse impact that has been adequately identified. The City reasonably assumes that residents of the Project may use the May Creek Park Trail, but the City has not identified any specific, probable adverse impacts from such use, or cited any evidence of trail degradation that can be imputed to new residents and thereby legally justify the Condition. (Instead, the City curiously tries to justify the requested clearing, grading and trail construction or reconstruction as being required “to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources.”26 However, neither this conclusory statement nor any supporting records actually identify such impacts.) Similarly, the City identifies no specific, probable adverse environmental impacts of the Project that would be mitigated by the City’s requested custom trail signage, dog-waste fixtures, and off-site interpretive signage. Finally, while data on vehicle queue lengths and intersection delays are identified in the TIA, Kennydale’s traffic expert, the City’s traffic expert, and City staff have all agreed that the single-lane roundabout proposal is sufficient to meet the City’s adopted requirement to maintain LOS D at intersections and roadways; as proposed, the Project will provide LOS A/B.27 . Simply put, the City has identified no evidence of any probable significant adverse impact resulting from the anticipated queue lengths that would be mitigated by the additional automotive travel lanes required in Condition 8. Considering the Contested Conditions’ shortcomings, the MDNS is factually and legally erroneous in its conclusory statement that its Conditions (including the Contested Conditions) are “necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review 26 MDNS at 1. 27 TIA at 13-16; Secondary Transportation Review at 1; Staff Report at 17. 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 11 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 process.”28 The City has identified no environmental impacts that the Contested Conditions are necessary to mitigate. 3. The Contested Conditions Are Not Based in Policies Identified, Incorporated, Formally Designated as Bases of SEPA Authority and are not Based on Citations. Each of the Contested Conditions also fails the requirements of SEPA Rules and the Code that all conditions imposed in an MDNS must be based on specific policies identified and incorporated into regulations, plans or codes that have been formally designated as possible bases of substantive permitting authority. RCW 43.21C.060; RMC 4-9-070.F (incorporating by reference WAC 197-11-902) and RMC 4-9-070.M.3.a. Renton’s Municipal Code adds an additional, common-sense requirement that the “license or other decision document” include specific citation to the policies upon which any conditions are based, RMC 4-9-070.M.3.e, but the applicable documents do not contain such citations as required by Renton’s own Code. The Staff Report includes general blanket references to entire chapters of the state law and the Code,29 and a reference to Renton’s Comprehensive Plan goal that the City “Continue to develop a transportation system that stimulates, supports, and enhances the safe, efficient and reliable movement of people, vehicles, and goods.”30 However, the Staff Report does not identify or cite any particular policy or policies that are included or incorporated in those documents to support the specific mitigation measures in the Contested Conditions. Contested Condition 3 fails to include or be based on any identified, incorporated and formally designated policies or code 28 MDNS at 1. 29 Staff Report at 10 (“Nexus: [SEPA] Environmental Review; RMC 4 -3-050 Critical Areas Regulations; and RMC 4-3-090F Shoreline Modification”) and 13 (“Nexus: [SEPA] Environmental Review and RMC 4 -3-050 Critical Areas Regulations”). 30 Id. at 19 (“Nexus: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Goal T-A and RMC 4-6-060”). 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 12 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 citations mandating offsite trail construction or reconstruction as a response to unsupported statements of ecological impact. Contested Condition 4 fails to include or be based on any identified, incorporated and formally designated policies or code citations that direct a developer to install offsite signage in City parks, nor to take on the role of graphic designer (for signage) or product designer (for trash infrastructure), especially where no related impacts have been adequately identified. Contested Condition 8 similarly fails to include or be based on any identified, incorporated and formally designated policies or code citations that provide standards for roundabout function or vehicle queue length, nor that would require project applicants to provide levels of service above and beyond those levels that are specifically required by the City.31 For these reasons, the Contested Conditions are impermissible under the SEPA Rules, and legally erroneous. 4. The Contested Conditions Are Unreasonable. In addition, SEPA and the City’s implementing provisions only allow mitigation conditions that are reasonable and capable of being accomplished. RCW 43.21C.060; RMC 4-9- 070.M.3.c. The MDNS fails this criterion because the Contested Conditions are not reasonable. Contested Condition 3 is unreasonable because (among other things) the City’s request for new trail infrastructure is based only on a conclusory and curious statement that trail clearing and grading will somehow advance ecological or habitat restoration, and because it does not explain how the requested trail length has any relation to the Project or any identified impact. It is also 31 The LOS policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan could not be much clearer. The City’s adopted policy is to, “[t]hrough the SEPA review process, apply the following operational LOS standard at intersections that could be impacted by a proposed development: . . . Except [at six specified routes and two specified urban centers where LOS E will apply] apply a standard of LOS D.” See Renton Comprehensive Plan at Policy T-48, C(1)-(2) (28). Kennydale has demonstrated that the Project will satisfy the City’s policy. The City cannot demand more unless it can point to an additional policy that is in effect. 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 13 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 unreasonable (and potentially incapable of being accomplished) because the City has not identified how or if it will grant Kennydale the approvals needed to complete offsite work on public property. Contested Condition 4 is similarly unreasonable, due to vagueness and for other reasons. The City has not even attempted to explain its reasoning, basis, or substantive expectations for custom designed on-site signage and fixtures, nor for off-site interpretive signage. This Condition’s demand that Kennydale provide custom-designed interpretive signage to a City park is especially unreasonable, because the City does not even attempt to draw any connection to the Project at all. Contested Condition 8 contains the same deficiencies. It is unreasonable because (among other things) the City is demanding expansive new automotive-oriented infrastructure contributions that are not related in kind or scale to any identified impacts, and essentially require Kennydale to outperform duly adopted City LOS standards. The result of implementing Contested Condition 8 is further unreasonable because it may reduce pedestrian safety (by eliminating the single-lane roundabout’s role as a visual and physical transition between limited-access highway travel in the interchange and the more pedestrian-oriented neighborhood of the Project and neighboring developments). Perhaps most problematic and unreasonable is the City’s lack of consideration for the practical outcome of this unnecessary automotive infrastructure: the substantial added lane width has a high likelihood of affecting site circulation, building massing and development capacity. Yet, none of this is analyzed or acknowledged in the MDNS. This exaction of unnecessary infrastructure may threaten the financial viability of the whole Project. It is not reasonable. Notice of Appeal: Exhibit A DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Project File Numbers: Project Name: Applicant: Project Location: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Kennydale Gateway Lori Obeyesekere, Hensley Lamkin Rachel, Inc., 14881 Quorum Rd, Dallas, TX 75254 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056 (APN 3224059049) Project Description: The applicant is requesting master site plan, Hearing Examiner site plan, shoreline substantial development permit, SEPA environmental review, and a street modification for a proposed mixed use development located at the former Pan Abode site at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N. The subject property is roughly 7. 76 acres and is located within the Commercial-Office-Residential zoning designation, Urban Design District C, and regulated shoreline jurisdiction. The applicant is proposing to construct three (3) four-story apartment buildings providing up to 385 residential units. The residential density of the proposal would result in approximately 50 du/ac. In addition, the redevelopment of the site would include approximately 1,500 square feet of retail space and a combination of 201 surface parking stalls and 185 ground level structure parking within the buildings. The proposal would be constructed in three (3) phases. Access to the mixed use development would be provided by a new roundabout constructed off Lake Washington Blvd N at N 43rd St. A portion of development would occur within the 200-foot shoreline zone of May Creek. Six (6) significant trees are proposed to be retained onsite. Lead Agency: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development Date of Decision: September 26, 2022 Mitigation Measures: 1. The project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, dated May 20, 2021 and any future addenda . 2. The applicant's geotechnical engineer shall review the project's construction and building permit plans to verify compliance with the geotechnical report(s). The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the report(s). 3. The applicant shall remove all non-native invasive blackberry plants currently growing within the May Creek Trail Park property (north of May Creek) located along the site's southern boundary. In addition, the applicant shall restore the existing soft surface trail and/or construct a new soft surface trail of permeable materials, limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources, from the proposed onsite May Creek Trail connection gate to the formal May Creek Trail located near the water (approximately 60 feet in length). The trail and vegetation management plan would be reviewed for compliance with the Shoreline Master Plan Regulations as a component of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Environmental Review Committee Determination September 26, 2022 Page 2 of 3 4. The applicant shall design and install a trail head sign and dog waste station at the gated entrance to May Creek Trail Park. In addition, the applicant shall install one (1) interpretive sign within May Creek Trail (near the gated entrance to the park) that illustrates stream habitat for May Creek Trail. The trailhead sign and interpretive sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager for compliance with May Creek Trail regulations and rules of the nearby trail systems prior to civil construction permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the submitted Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, LTD., dated May 27, 2022 and any future addenda by developing a project-specific monitoring plan for the proposed project once full project plans and cross-sections are developed in final design. Project construction activities, that would result in disturbance greater than one foot below ground surface, shall be completed under observation by a professional archeologist when soils are exposed and disturbed by the applicant. Consultation with concerned Tribes shall occur prior to survey activities. 6. The applicant shall reduce the pavement width of the proposed emergency vehicle access road to a maximum of 20-foot wide for the portion of road located immediately south of the Building 2 and south of the existing detention area (a distance of approximately 245 feet), remove all existing excess gravel south of the proposed emergency vehicle access lane, and provide and maintain a minimum eight-foot (8') wide restoration planting strip within the shoreline conservation buffer near the southwestern portion of the site. A shoreline buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted with the civil construction permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The shoreline buffer enhancement shall be monitored to ensure performance for five (5) years and backed by a surety device sufficient to guarantee that improvements and mitigation required perform satisfactorily for a minimum of five (5) years after installation has been completed . 7. The applicant shall provide additional traffic analysis to mitigate any traffic volumes realized should the 1-405/Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project not be completed and open to traffic prior to temporary occupancy of the phased project. The additional traffic study shall be reviewed and approved by Development Engineering and Transportation staff prior to temporary certificate of occupancy. 8. The applicant shall add a second northbound approach travel lane and a second northbound travel lane within the roundabout at the project intersection. The final length of a second approach travel lane would be required to be analyzed and presented to the City for review and final approval. In addition, the applicant shall add a second southbound lane within the roundabout at the N 43rd St/ Lake Washington Blvd N intersection that would include one (1) travel lane through the roundabout and one (1) dedicated right turn lane onto N 43rd St . Dedication would be required to install the identified roundabout configuration and roadway improvements as determined by a survey . The applicant shall submit plans to construct these off-site improvements with the civil construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by Development Engineering and Transportation staff prior to permit issuance . The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that probable significant environmental impacts from the proposed project can be mitigated. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Due to the ongoing state of emergency enacted by Governor's Proclamation 20-28.14 (and as amended), the City Clerk's Office is working remotely. For that reason, appeals must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or delivered to City Hall 1st floor Lobby Hub Monday through Friday. The appeal fee, Notice of Appeal: Exhibit B DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Transportation Impact Analysis -REVISED Figure 1. Site Location Source of Aerial: GoogleEarth, July 2022. The project proposes to develop 385 apartment units and parking for 385 vehicles. One of the buildings (Building 1) would also include a 1,500 square foot ( sf) ground-floor commercial retail space near the development's entrance on Lake Washington Boulevard N. The proposed Kennydale Gateway project is expected to be completed and occupied in the 3rd quarter of 2025. The site would have one access point for residential and commercial traffic via a driveway on Lake Washington Boulevard NE opposite NE 43 rd Street. The project would construct a roundabout at this intersection, which was envisioned in WSDOT's plans for the area, and which are described later in this report. An emergency-only access driveway would be located at the south edge of the site, and would have bollards or other treatment to prevent general- vehicle use. WSDOT's right-of-way for 1-405 borders the east edge of the site and WSDOT will construct a retaining wall west of the on-ramp. Because WSDOT's new interchange would be constructed under 1- 405 and the grade of NE 44th Street would change, the roundabout at the site access would be the closest pedestrian access point to the interchange. Figure 2 shows the propsoed site plan. August 15, 2022 I 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Transportation Impact Analysis -REVISED 5 .3. Future Roundabout at Lake Washington Blvd N / N 43rd Street WSDOT's NE 44 th Street interchange improvements contemplate a future roundabout at the Lake Washington Boulevard N / N 43 rd Street / Site Access intersection to be built by others. The roundabout configuration that WSDOT assumed had two lanes on each of the major Lake Washington Boulevard N approaches, and one lane each on the minor N 43 rd Street and the Site Access approaches. As previously noted, the WSDOT analysis had assumed a 200-stall park-and-ride lot on the site with a right-in/right-out only driveway on Lake Washington Boulevard N opposite Seahawks Way. The cur- rent proposed Kennydale Gateway site plan would have neither the park-and-ride lot nor this driveway . All site-generated traffic would arrive and depart the site through the roundabout at N 43 rd Street. Because the site generated volumes and access would differ from the prior WSDOT analysis, future operations for a roundabout at Lake Washington Boulevard N / N 4yct Street / Site Access were evalu- ated . It was determined that a single-lane roundabout (one approach lane in all directions) would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour with the proposed project. In both the AM and PM peak hours, calculated 95 th-percentile queue lengths do indicate any issues with queue spillback into surrounding intersections. The project proposes to construct a single-lane roundabout at this intersection. The LOS and queueing calculations sheets are included in Attachment C. 6. Summary The proposed Kennydale Gateway site is expected to generate an estimated 2 ,080 vehicle trips per day with 162 trips during the AM peak hour and 170 trips during the PM peak hour. More traffic had been assumed by WSDOT in its plans and analysis for future improvements at the NE 44th Street interchange with 1-405. The substantial upgrade to this interchange, which will replace the existing freeway overpass with an under-crossing, add a direct access ramp connection to the 1-405 HOV lanes , and replace ramp junction intersections with roundabouts is expected to operate very well in the future. Analysis determined that the proposed ramp intersections would operate at LOS A in the year 2025 and beyond with growth associated with the Kennydale Gateway and other local projects. The project is not expected to adversely affect the 41 st Street / Lake Washington Boulevard N intersection . The project would construct a single-lane roundabout at the Lake Washington Boulevard N / N 43 rd Street / Site Access intersection. This roundabout is expected to operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour. No further mitigation would be needed to accommodate the project. Attachments: Attachment A -Year 2025 Traffic Volume Backup Attachment B -Level of Service Definitions Attachment C -Level of Service Calculations for Site Driveway Intersection MCH/tsm Kennydale Gateway Traffic Imp act An alysis -RE VIS ED -08-15-2022 August 15, 2022 I 15 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Attachment A Year 2025 Traffic Volume Backup DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Attachment B Level of Service Definitions DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Appendix -level of Service Definitions Stop-Controlled Intersections For unsignalized stop-controlled intersections , level of service is based on the average delay per vehicle for each turning movement. The level of service for all-way stop-controlled intersections is based upon the average delay for all vehicles that travel through the intersection . The level of service for a one-or two- way, stop-controlled intersection, 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. Table B-1 shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition. Table B-1. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay per Vehicle A B C D E F 0 -10 seconds > 10-15 seconds > 15 -25 seconds > 25 -35 seconds > 35 -50 seconds > 50 seconds Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Exhibit 20. 2, 2016. Roundabout-Controlled Intersections Using SIDRA Method The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Sidra Policy Settings 17 recommends reporting roundabout operations u sing the SIDRA Site LOS Method. This method bases the LOS on both delay and degree of saturation (volume-to-capacity (V /C) ratio). The LOS criteria and thresholds are provided in Table B-3. The delay and V /C (HCM 6) method could be considered a simplified version of this method as it reports LOS F for oversaturated conditions (V/C > 1.0), but the SIDRA method applies V /C ratios that can result in LOS D or E for degrees of saturation close to 1.0 . The results presented in this report reflect the SID RA Site LOS Method, but consider the HCM 6.0 guidance as follows: • the v/c ratio ( degree of saturation) is taken into account together with the average delay value in determining LOS for lanes and movements, but • only the average delay value is considered in determining LOS for approaches and the intersection. Table B-3. Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA) Level of Service Definitions for Roundabout Intersections Average Control Dela~ Per Vehicle Approaches and Degree of saturation Level of Service Intersections (overall) Individual Movements (V/C ratio of movements) A s; 10 seconds 0 -10 seconds s; 0.85 B > 10 -20 seconds > 1 0 -20 seconds s; 0.85 C > 20 -35 seconds > 20 -35 seconds s; 0.85 D > 35 -55 seconds > 30 -50 seconds s; 0.85 > 0 -50 seconds > 0.85 -s; 0.95 E > 55 -80 seconds > 50 -70 seconds s; 0.95 > 0 -70 seconds > 0.95 -s; 1.00 F > 80 seconds > 70 seconds > 1.00 Source: SIDRA Solutions , SIDRA 9.0 Analysis Method (based on a proposal by Berry, 1987). Only the average delay value is considered in determining LOS for approaches and the intersection. 17 WSDOT, https ://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files /2021 -03 /TrafficOps -WSDOTSidraPolicyAndSettings.pdf, accessed Mar. 2022. August 15, 2022 I B-1 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Attachment C Level of Service Calculations for Site Access Intersection DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 USER REPORT FOR NETWORK SITE All Movement Classes [d Project: 44th_Five Roundabout_Build_Option 2_2025 - REVISED August 2022 HTi Template: Movement Report for Appendix ti.._ Site: 1 [NE 44th St and NE 43rd St-AM (Site Folder: General)] Network: 1 [Renton-to-Bellevue: Year 2025 NE 44th Street AM (Network Folder: General)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov Turn DEMAND ARRIVAL Deg. Aver. Level of 95% BACK OF Prop. Effective Aver. No. Aver. ID FLOWS FLOWS Satn Delay Service QUEUE Que Stop Cycles Speed [ Total HV] [ Total HV] [ Veh. Dist] Rate veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South : 43rd Driveway 3 L2 2 3.0 2 3.0 0 .328 18.8 LOS B 2.6 65.9 1.00 0.98 1.00 26 .2 8 T1 3 .0 3.0 0 .328 13 .2 LOS B 2.6 65.9 1.00 0.98 1.00 26 .0 18 R2 123 3 .0 123 3.0 0 .328 13 .7 LOS B 2.6 65.9 1.00 0.98 1.00 22 .0 Approach 126 3 .0 126 3 .0 0.328 13 .8 LOS B 2 .6 65 .9 1 .00 0 .98 1.00 22 .1 East: 44th 1 L2 44 3 .0 44 3.0 0 .198 7 .3 LOSA 1.3 32.8 0.22 0.35 0.22 29.2 6 T1 196 3.0 196 3.0 0 .198 2 .2 LOSA 1.3 32.8 0.22 0.35 0.22 28 .9 16 R2 16 3 .0 16 3 .0 0 .198 2 .7 LOSA 1 .3 32.8 0 .22 0 .35 0 .22 27 .8 Approach 256 3 .0 256 3 .0 0 .198 3 .1 LOSA 1 .3 32 .8 0 .22 0 .35 0.22 28 .9 North: 43rd Driveway 7 L2 353 3 .0 353 3.0 0 .359 8 .5 LOSA 2.1 52 .8 0.46 0.64 0.46 24 .8 4 T1 3 .0 3.0 0 .359 3 .3 LOSA 2.1 52 .8 0.46 0 .64 0.46 27 .7 14 R2 53 3 .0 53 3.0 0 .359 3 .8 LOSA 2 .1 52 .8 0.46 0.64 0.46 27 .1 Approach 406 3 .0 406 3.0 0 .359 7 .8 LOSA 2.1 52.8 0.46 0.64 0.46 25 .3 West: 44th 5 L2 42 3 .0 42 3 .0 0 .856 18 .1 LOS D 15 .3 390.6 1.00 1.18 1.51 26 .6 2 T1 789 3 .0 789 3 .0 0 .856 12 .5 LOS D 15 .3 390.6 1.00 1.18 1.51 22 .6 I 12 R2 3 .0 3 .0 0 .856 13 .5 LOS D 15 .3 390.6 1.00 1.18 1.51 25 .7 1 Approach 833 3 .0 833 3.0 0 .856 12.8 LOS B 15 .3 390.6 1.00 1.18 1.51 22 .9 All Vehicles 1621 3 .0 1621 3 .0 0.856 10 .1 LOS B 15.3 390.6 0.74 0.89 1.00 24.4 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method : Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Network tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard . Delay Model : SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included). Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Aki;;elik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation . DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 USER REPORT FOR NETWORK SITE All Movement Classes [d Project: 44th_Five Roundabout_Build_Option 2_2025 - REVISED August 2022 HTi Template: Movement Report for Appendix ti.._ Site: 1 [NE 44th St and NE 43rd St-PM (Site Folder: General)] Network: 2 [Renton-to-Bellevue: Year 2025 NE 44th Street PM (Network Folder: General)] New Site Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov Turn DEMAND ARRIVAL Deg. Aver. Level of 95% BACK OF Prop. Effective Aver. No. Aver. ID FLOWS FLOWS Satn Delay Service QUEUE Que Stop Cycles Speed [ Total HV] [ Total HV] [ Veh. Dist] Rate veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph South : 43rd Driveway 3 L2 3 3.0 3 3.0 0 .075 9.4 LOSA 0.4 10.0 0.56 0.56 0.56 29.4 8 T1 1 3 .0 1 3.0 0 .075 3 .8 LOSA 0.4 10.0 0.56 0.56 0.56 29 .2 18 R2 68 3 .0 68 3.0 0 .075 4 .3 LOSA 0.4 10.0 0.56 0.56 0.56 26 .7 Approach 73 3 .0 73 3 .0 0 .075 4 .5 LOSA 0.4 10 .0 0 .56 0 .56 0 .56 27 .0 East: 44th 1 L2 102 3 .0 102 3.0 0 .567 7 .8 LOSA 5.2 134.0 0.41 0.39 0.41 28 .7 6 T1 561 3.0 561 3.0 0 .567 2.7 LOSA 5.2 134.0 0.41 0.39 0.41 28 .4 16 R2 53 3 .0 53 3 .0 0 .567 3 .1 LOSA 5 .2 134.0 0.41 0 .39 0.41 27.4 Approach 716 3 .0 716 3 .0 0 .567 3.4 LOSA 5 .2 134.0 0.41 0 .39 0.41 28 .3 North: 43rd Driveway 7 L2 235 3 .0 235 3 .0 0 .335 11 .2 LOS B 2 .1 54 .2 0 .74 0 .83 0 .74 23 .8 4 T1 3 .0 3 .0 0 .335 6 .0 LOSA 2.1 54 .2 0.74 0 .83 0 .74 27 .0 14 R2 32 3 .0 32 3 .0 0 .335 6 .5 LOSA 2 .1 54 .2 0 .74 0 .83 0 .74 26.4 Approach 267 3 .0 267 3.0 0 .335 10 .6 LOS B 2.1 54.2 0.74 0.83 0.74 24 .3 West: 44th 5 L2 74 3 .0 74 3 .0 0 .304 9 .1 LOSA 1.9 48.1 0.57 0.53 0.57 29.0 2 T1 229 3 .0 229 3 .0 0 .304 3 .5 LOSA 1.9 48.1 0.57 0.53 0.57 26 .1 I 12 R2 5 3 .0 5 3 .0 0 .304 4.4 LOSA 1.9 48.1 0.57 0.53 0.57 27 .9 1 Approach 308 3 .0 308 3.0 0 .304 4.8 LOSA 1.9 48.1 0.57 0.53 0.57 27 .2 All Vehicles 1364 3 .0 1364 3 .0 0.567 5 .2 LOSA 5.2 134.0 0.52 0.52 0.52 27 .2 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method : Delay & Degree of Saturation (SIDRA). Site LOS Method is specified in the Network Data dialog (Network tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard . Delay Model : SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included). Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Aki;;elik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation . Notice of Appeal: Exhibit C DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 1-405 Renton to Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis Report FINAL Report July 2018 EXHIBIT 42 Do cuSign Envelope ID : AB 259DAD-E1F4-4927-9 86D-D48F1943589 9 INTERSECTION CONTROL ANALYSIS NE 44th Street/I-405 Interchange 07/13/2018 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Northwest Region Shoreline, Washington This Intersection Control Analysis (ICA) Report, under my direct supervision, has been prepared in accordance with appropriate Washington State Department of Transportation manuals and current design guidelines and procedures. By: Joshua Johnson, P.E. ~_;::::;::7 z._.....----Date:_/_''2_/_/_C) __ ~ 2018 Approved By: MarkLeth,P.E. ~ Concurrence By: BrianWalsh,P .E . t -j-ultd.L._ Date: \-i-(~ f Date: / 2-/z 7 , 2018 , 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 WSDOT provides data in this report with the understanding under 23 U.S. Code§ 148 and 23 U.S. Code§ 409, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 INTRODUCTION Currently, I-405 between Renton and Bellevue experiences congestion due to high regional and local traffic demands in both directions for many hours of the day. The I-405 Renton to Bellevue project will add a new lane in each direction ofl-405, and couple that with the existing HOV lane to create a two-lane express toll lane (ETL) system. This project is part of the I-405 long term vision for the corridor. As part of the Renton to Bellevue project, the NE 44th Street interchange will be reconstructed. The purpose of the ICA is to evaluate the compatibility of different intersection control types with respect to context, modal priority, design feasibility , and cost, while balancing operational needs. This analysis documents intersection traffic control and safety improvements associated with the NE 44th Street interchange reconstruction for existing, opening year , and design year conditions. A comparison of the alternatives considered is discussed and roundabout intersection control is recommended for the intersections in the vicinity of the NE 44th Street interchange. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Renton to Bellevue Project area extends along I-405 for approximately 13.7 miles from the I-5 interchange (milepost MP 0.0) in Tukwila to the NE 6th interchange (MP 13.7) in Bellevue . The NE 44th Street interchange modifications include reconstructing the local road overpass at the interchange, construction of a new direct access ramps for transit and ETL users in the I-405 median, reconstruct Lake Washington Boulevard between NE 44th Street and SE 76th Street, and realign the northbound on-ramp to I-405 to connect to Lake Washington Boulevard. MODELING ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were used in the modeling: • Year of opening for this project is 2025 and the design year is 2045. • Unsignalized and signalized intersections were modeled using Synchro version 9.1.912 . Roundabouts were analyzed using Sidra version 6.1. Input settings in the Sidra model follow the WSDOT Sidra Policy Settings (November 2015). The environmental factor was set to 1.1 for the year of opening and 1.0 for the horizon year. • The LOS reported for signaled intersections represents the average control delay in seconds per vehicle and is reported for the overall intersection . The LOS reported at one-way stop controlled (OWSC) and two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections is reported by the worst movement, typically a stop controlled, left tum movement. • Crash history was collected for each intersection for the most recent five-year period, 2012-2016. Crashes are reported by crash type and severity and are reported in total crashes over the five-year period. • For all intersections, the design accommodated a WB-67 within the available pavement and without encroaching into oncoming lanes. Therefore, a WB-67 is not precluded at any intersection. At the NE 44th Street interchange the design vehicle is a Bus-45. 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Volume Forecasts Existing intersection turning movement counts were collected on July 13, 2016 for all intersections during the AM and PM peak periods. Year 2025 and 2045 intersection volumes were developed based on PSRC forecasts as well as local development details provided by the City of Renton and Sound Transit. The City of Renton has a permitted development west of the interchange that is assumed to be constructed by year 2025. Sound Transit has identified the NE 44th Street interchange southwest quadrant as the representative location of a future 200-stall park and ride which is planned to be completed in year 2025 as well. Transit Accommodations King County Metro and Sound Transit have bus service through the study area. Where existing bus service exists, the proposed intersection control modifications will not preclude buses from operating within each interchange area. Existing bus stops would be reconfigured or relocated close to their current location under the Build alternatives. Metro has projected an increase in future bus use; however, no new stop locations are planned. Sound Transit will be implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along I-405 by year 2025. This service will operate in the ETLs and will stop at the NE 44th Street ramps and continue on I-405. Existing Conditions Figure 1 shows the existing intersection control and channelization for the five study intersections at the NE 44th Street interchange. All intersections operate as two-way stop control (TWSC) except for the NE 44th Street and I-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash. Blvd intersection, which currently operates as all-way stop control (A WSC). The posted speed limit on NE 44th Street is 25 mph. Figure 1 -Existing NE 44th Study Intersection Control and Channelization. 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Traffic Volumes Average daily traffic in 2016 was approximately 12 ,200 vehicles per day. Turning movement volumes for the AM and PM peak hours is provided in Appendix A. Transit King County Metro and Sound Transit have transit service that operates on I-405 ; however, bus stops and local transit service is not provide d within the NE 44th Street interchange area. Traffic Operations Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic operations are summarized in Table 1. Detailed intersection approach LOS and delay are provided in Appendix B . Both ramp terminal intersections currently operate with one or more approaches at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours . Table 1. Existing Intersection Peak Hour Operations AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St1 C 17 .0 C 15 .1 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 C 19 .2 C 18.4 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp F >150 F 56.0 Terminal #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp F 62.7 F 103.5 Terminals/Lake Wash . Blvd Delay reported in seconds/vehicle For roundabout intersections , LOS and Delay is reported using signalized intersection LOS thresholds For AWSC and TWSC intersections, LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement us ing HCM 2000 methodology Crash History Table 2 shows the total existing crash experience by severity and Table 3 shows the total existing crash experience by crash type. Total crash history for the last five-year period (2012-2016) shows a total of 20 crashes (approximately 4 crashes/yr) at the NE 44th Street and I-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash. Blvd intersection and 15 crashes (approximately 3 crashes/yr) at the NE 44th Street and I-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal intersection . Of the fourteen reported injury crashes at the intersections , none were a senous mJury . The most predominant crash type is sideswipe/angle, indicating vehicles were hit by opposing traffic within the intersection. As these inters e ctions are stop-controlled and operate poorly during both peak hours, it is likely drivers are misjudging gaps and/or there are not enough gaps in the traffic stream . Crash reports also indicate driver distraction/inattention is a contributing factor. 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table 2. Existing Intersection Crash Experience by Severity Severity -Total for 5 Years ID Intersection Fatality Injury PDO 24 NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way 0 1 6 25 NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound 0 8 7 Ramp Terminal 27 NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound 0 5 14 Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash . Blvd Table 3. Existing Intersection Crash Experience by Crash Type Type -Total for 5 Years ID Intersection 24 NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way 25 NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal 27 NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash . Blvd No Build and Build Conditions No Build Rear-Sideswipe/Angle End 0 5 1 14 3 17 Fixed Object 1 0 0 Unknown Total 0 0 0 15 1 20 Other Total 1 0 0 15 0 20 By 2025, local development mitigation would add capacity to the two ramp terminal intersections on NE 44th Street and the intersection of NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way by providing traffic signals. These three intersections will also have additional minor channelization improvements. Figure 2 shows the assumed No Build intersection control and channelization. Traffic Volumes Year 2025 and Year 2045 AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement forecasts are provided in Appendix A. The NE 44th Street ADT is expected to increase to 15,900 vehicles per day in 2025 and 16,700 in 2045. Three specific background developments were assumed to be completed by the year 2025: • The Port Quendall Terminals development would be located on the north side of NE 44th Street between N 43rd Street and Seahawks Way • The Hawk's Landing development would be located on the south side of NE 44th Street between the SB on-ramp and N 43rd Street. • The Kennydale Mixed-Use development would be located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Figure 2. NE 44th Study Intersection Control and Channelization: No Build Transit No change in transit operations is assumed under the No Build alternative . Traffic Operations Year 2025 No Build peak hour operations are summarized in Table 4 and Year 2045 No Build peak hour operations are summarized in Table 5. Detailed intersection approach LOS and delay are provided in Appendix B . By 2025, the additional capacity and signalization of the two ramp terminal intersections at NE 44th Street and the intersection of NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way will result in better operations than existing (2016) conditions. Build Alternatives Alternatives Considered Several interchanges types were developed, however, the configuration shown in Figure 4 was selected. Two intersection control alternatives were analyzed for this project, traffic signals and roundabouts. Design elements common to both alternatives include : • Direct access ramps to and from the Express Toll Lanes • The northbound loop on-ramp was removed. The loop ramp could not remain because design criteria could not be met with a wider 1-405 mainline and direct access ramps (i.e. the radius would be too tight due to less width). 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 • The northbound on-ramp relocated to Lake Washington Blvd. • The intersection control at NE 44th Street and N 43rd Street is assumed to be a roundabout The NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way intersection is also assumed to be converted into a right-in, right-out. All left turning movements are assumed to shift to the NE 44th Street and N 43rd Street intersection. However, construction of the roundabout and access modifications to Sea hawks Way would occur with the Hawks Landing and/or Port Quendall development and is not considered as part of the Renton-to-Bellevue project. A description of each alternative is provided below. Signals New traffic signals would be installed at the NE 44th Street and 1-405 Direct Access Ramps intersection and at the Lake Washington Blvd and Northbound 1-405 On-ramp intersection. The traffic signals, assumed to be constructed prior to 2025, at the NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal intersection and at the NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash. Blvd. would be modified to accommodate additional through and tum lanes. The Signal Alternative channelization is shown in Figure 3. The Signal Alternative is considered with the fact of its public familiarity, and coordination capability in congestion conditions. Roundabouts Roundabouts would be provided at all ramp terminal intersections. A total of four multi lane roundabouts would be along NE 44th Street and an additional single lane roundabout would be along Lake Washington Blvd. The Roundabout Alternative channelization is shown in Figure 4. Roundabouts are employed as an improvement option with the consideration of the fact that it encourages low travel speeds and continuous flow of traffic, especially during the off-peak period, and works well with pedestrian movements. Environmental Impacts No contamination above MTCA cleanup levels is detected within the NE 44th Interchange area, except at the former May Creek stream bed. This contaminated spot is located 25 feet from the southwest radius of Seahawks Way and NE 44th Street, but the depth that the contamination is not expected to be disturbed by construction activities. In the signalized intersection concept, the pavement width would be greater than the roundabout by a few feet due to the eastbound right tum pocket to Seahawks Way, but will still be within the existing interchange area and existing WSDOT right-of-way. Wetland Buffer impacts would be greater with the signalized alternative due to the wetland buffer north of NE 44th Street, between Seahawks Way and 1-405 southbound off ramp. Traffic Volumes Year 2025 and Year 2045 AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement forecasts are provided in Appendix B. The NE 44th Street ADT is expected to be to 16,900 vehicles per day in 2025 and 18,300 in 2045 under the Build condition, slightly higher than the No Build condition. 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-9B6D-D48F19435899 Transit As part of the BRT service , a freeway station will be built at the NE 44th Street interchange. Transit stops are proposed to be located on the south leg of the NE 44th Street and I-405 Direct Access Ramp s intersection. BRT service would operate through the intersection and resume operations in the I-405 ETL lanes. The BRT service is expected to operate with IO-minutes headways throughout the day. Two-way local bus service operated by King County Metro is also assumed to operate along NE 44th Street with 30-minute headways during the peak periods in concert with I-405 BRT service. Traffic Operations Year 2025 Build Alternative peak hour operations are summarized in Table 4 and Year 2045 Build Alternative peak hour operations are summarized in Table 5. Detailed intersection approach LOS and delay are provided in Appendix B . All intersections under both Build alternatives will operate at LOS C or better. Table 4. Year 2025 No Build and Build Alternatives Peak Hour Operations No Build Build- Build- Signals Roundabouts Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay AM Peak Hour #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St1 B 13.2 A 6 .2 A 6 .2 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 B 19 .3 B 15.0 B 15.0 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal D 42 .1 B 12.9 A 4.6 #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp N/A N/A A 9 .5 A 5.4 #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp B 15 .9 C 21 .5 A 5.9 Terminals/Lake Wash. Blvd #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington Blvd NE N/A N/A B 15.9 A 8.4 PM Peak Hour #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St1 C 15 .8 A 5 .5 A 5.5 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 A 8 .3 B 14 .7 B 14 .7 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal B 15 .1 B 10 .8 A 4.2 #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp N/A N/A B 12.2 A 4.7 #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp B 15 .7 C 27.2 A 6 .1 Terminals/Lake Wash. Blvd #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington Blvd NE N/A N/A B 11.8 A 7 .8 Delay reported in seconds/vehicle For roundabout intersections, LOS and Delay is reported using signalized intersection LOS thresholds For AWSC and TWSC intersections, LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement using HCM 2000 methodology 1Unsignalized in Existing and No Build Alternative , Roundabout Control in Build alternatives 2Signalized in No Build Alternative, OWSC in Existing and Build alternatives 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-9B6D-D48F19435899 Table 5. Year 2045 No Build and Build Alternatives Intersection Peak Hour Operations No Build Build -Build - Si nals Roundabouts Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM Peak Hour #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St 1 B 13 .6 A 5 .8 A #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 C 20 .0 C 15.5 B #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal D 53.8 B 14.6 A #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp N/A N/A B 10.5 A #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp B 17.7 C 23.3 A Terminals/Lake Wash. Blvd #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington Blvd NE N/A N/A B 16.1 A PM Peak Hour #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St1 B 11 .8 A 5.2 A #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 A 8.8 C 15.8 C #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal B 15 .7 B 11.8 A #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp N/A N/A B 16.5 A #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp B 16 .9 C 27.5 A Terminals/Lake Wash. Blvd #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington Blvd NE N/A N/A B 13.1 A Delay reported in seconds/vehicle For roundabout intersections , LOS and Delay is reported using signalized intersection LOS thresholds For AWSC and TWSC intersections , LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement us ing HCM 2000 methodology 1Unsignalized in No Build Alternative , Roundabout Control in Build alternatives 2Signalized in No Build Alternative , OWSC in Build alternatives Delay 5.8 15.5 4.5 5 .2 5.8 8.3 5.2 15.8 4.0 4.8 5 .9 6.9 In addition to intersection LOS and delay, 95th percentile queue lengths for both build alternatives are summarized in Appendix C for Year 2025 and Year 2045, respectively. With the signal alternative, queueing impacts will occur between closely spaced intersections , as well as on the approach to the interchanges . Especially during the AM peak period, the eastbound and westbound movement at the NE 44th/ I-405 Southbound ramp terminal intersection will overflow to upstream intersections. However, queues are expected to be contained within available storage with the roundabout alternative. With the roundabout alternative, only four lanes are required on NE 44th St across I-405, whereas, with the signal alternative, six lanes would be needed. 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Safety WSDOT maintains a crash modification factor (CMF) short list for the selection of appropriate CMFs. By converting a signal controlled intersection to roundabout in an urban environment, the expected collision reduction factors are as follows: Multi Lane Roundabout: All crashes= 0.79 (WSDOT Reference Number WC-4252)* Fatal and injury crashes= 0.34 (WSDOT Reference Number WC -4253) Single Lane Roundabout: All crashes = 0.74 (WSDOT Reference Number WC-4256)* Fatal and injury crashes = 0.45 (WSDOT Reference Number WC -4257) 'WSDOT recommends using a CMF = 1.0 for intersections with total entering volumes greater than 18 ,000 The multilane roundabouts along NE 44th Street are expected to have total entering volume greater than 18,000 vehicles per day, therefore, an overall reduction in total crashes is not expected and an increase in property damage only crashes may occur. However, a 66 percent reduction in fatal and injury related crashes is expected when compared to a signalized option. The single lane roundabout at the I-405 Northbound On-ramp and Lake Washington Blvd NE intersection is expected to have less than 18,000 total daily entering vehicles; therefore , 21 percent fewer total crashes and 55 percent fewer fatal and injury crashes are expected compared to the signalized option . While the multilane roundabout CMF's provided above do not differentiate if one or more roundabout approaches have greater than one lane, the roundabouts along NE 44th Street were designed to minimize the number of multilane entry and multi- lane circulating conflicts. With the proposed design of these roundabouts, vehicles will travel at lower speeds (15-20 mph) compared to a signalized option. Furthermore, the number of conflict points will be reduced for both vehicles and pedestrians. With the Roundabout Alternative, bicyclists will have two choices to traverse through the roundabout intersections. Bicycles will be allowed to exit the roadway via bicycle access ramps and use sidewalks or bicycles could continue along the roadway and enter the roundabouts in the traffic lane. There have been no reported pedestrian or bicycle collisions at any of the study intersections. However, due to the location of the I-405 BRT bus stops , the level of nonmotorized activity is expected to increase under both options. With the signalized option, pedestrians will be able to cross at marked crosswalk locations. With the roundabout alternative, pedestrians will be able to cross at marked crosswalks one approach leg of the roundabout at a time with a refuge island provided between the entering and exiting roundabout lanes. 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Summary and Recommendation No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative study intersections operate at LOS Dor better, with the exception of the NE 44th Street and I-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal intersection, which will operate at LOS F by the Year 2045 in the AM Peak period. The No Build Alternative is not compatible with the Renton-to-Bellevue project as major bridge reconstruction is required and ETL direct access to the NE 44th Street interchange is desirable. Signal Alternative The Signal Alternative will operate with acceptable LOS at all study intersections (LOS C or better); however, queuing impacts will occur between the closely spaced intersections. This alternative will have a higher collision risk compared with the No Build alternative as overall interchange traffic volumes will increase and two new signalized intersections are assumed with the alternative, increasing the number of potential conflict points within the interchange area. Roundabout Alternative The Roundabout Alternative operates at LOS A in both the AM and PM peak periods at all roundabout intersections. Vehicle queues are expected to be contained within available storage . With the Roundabout Alternative, only four lanes are required across I-405; whereas with the Signal Alternative, six lanes would be required. At all ramp terminal intersections, injury and fatal crashes are expected to be at least 55 percent lower than the No Build and Signal alternatives. Recommendation Based on safety performance, traffic operations, and project footprint impacts, the Roundabout Alternative best meets the project need. 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 APPENDIX A -EXISTING, 2025 AND 2045 NO BUILD AND BUILD INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis A-1 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Existing AM Peak Hour I N 43rd St I I Seahawks W ay I 1 1-405 SB Off Ramp I 23 I 20 I 24 I 50 I 25 1140 "' o I "' t 5 30 "' t .,. ~ 5 ~ 30 145 0 20 + 145 150 150 5 0 25 + 145 175 175 70 0 70 + 105 470 iii " ~ iii " "' ~ iii iii " "' ~ .c: + + .c: + " 0 + .c: .c: + " 365 + :; :; :; :; .., .., .., .., • • • • • • w 0 " w 20 " ~ .,. " w w z z z z 680 680 -+ 700 700 675 • 0 0 0 700 700 680 -+ 750 5 ~ 20 ~ I o "' .,. 0 I I 5 "' .,. 0 I 1385 "' .,. o I I N 43rd St I I Seahawks Way I 1 1-405 SB On Ramp I Existing PM Peak Hour I N43rd St I I Seahawks Way I I 1-405 SB Off Ramp I 23 I 20 1 24 I 50 1 25 1 240 o I 20 "' .,. 55 "' .,. "' .,. ~ 20 ~ 35 480 0 20 + 480 500 500 15 0 40 + 485 525 525 170 20 50 + 355 690 " ~ iii " "' ~ " "' ~ + + .c: + " 5 + + " 335 + :; .., • 0 " • w • 15 " ~ .,. " • • • z 2 15 215 • 235 235 220 • 0 0 5 265 265 240 • 290 0 ~ 25 ~ I o "' .,. o I I 5 "' .,. 5 I I 380 "' .,. o I I N43rd St I I Sea hawks Way I I 1-40 5 SB On Ramp I Figure A 1. Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis L:J I Lake Washington Bl vd l I 375 245 1 "' t ~ 45 -- 470 300 35 40 + 160 490 iii " "' ~ iii .c: + " 285 + .c: :; :; .., .., • • w 145 " ~ .,. " w z z 750 125 • 10 55 105 270 ~~ 480 ~ I 800 "' .,. 170 1 I 1-405 NB Ramps I L:J (ake Washington Blvl 1600 3651 "' .,. ~ 50 -- 690 520 15 65 + 150 275 iii iii " "' ~ iii .c: .c: + " 75 + .c: :; :; :; .., .., .., w w • 95 " ~ .,. " • w z z z 290 110 • 20 220 140 315 -~ 85 ~ Im "' .,. 380 I I 1-405 NB Ramps I A-2 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Year 2025 AM Peak Hour I N 43rd St I I Seahawks Way I 1 1-405 SB Off Ramp I 23 I 20 I 24 I 65 I 25 1140 "' o I 75 "' t 65 "' t t ~ 5 ~ 40 240 50 0 25 +-190 195 195 10 0 55 +-160 220 220 70 0 70 +-150 540 if, le "' lll if, if, le "' lll if, if, le "' lll if, if, .c +-le 0 +-.c .c +-le 20 +-.c .c +-le 390 +-.c .c :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... w -+ 15 " ~ t " -+ w w -+ 25 " ~ t " -+ w w -+ -+ w w z z z z z z z 745 730 -+ 0 0 0 755 755 700 -+ 25 0 20 775 775 755 -+ 825 0 lll 30 lll 20 lll I 0 "' t 0 I I 50 "' t 45 I 1410 "' t o I I N 43rd St I I Seahawks Way I 1 1-405 SB On Ramp I Year 2025 PM Peak Hour I N 43rd St I I Seahawks Way I I 1-405 SB Off Ramp I 23 I I 24 I 85 I 25 1265 I 55 "' t 75 80 "' t "' t 0 "' 25 ~ 65 565 30 0 25 +-535 560 560 20 0 60 + 530 615 615 ## 25 55 + 430 830 iii le "' lll if, if, le "' lll if, iii le "' lll iii if, .c + le 0 + .c .c + le 20 + .c .c +-le 400 + .c .c :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: <t <t <t <t <t <t <t w -+ 50 " "' t " -+ w w -+ 20 " "' t " -+ w w -+ -+ w w z z z z z z z 325 275 -+ 0 0 0 300 300 255 -+ 10 0 25 340 340 310 -+ 365 0 lll 25 lll 30 lll I 0 "' t 0 I I 45 "' t 35 I I 455 "' t 0 I I N 43rd St I I Seahawks Way I I 1-405 SB On Ramp I Figure A2. Year 2025 No Build Peak Hour Turning Movements 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis ~ake Wash ington Bl v9 27 1430 295 1 "' t ~ 50 ~~ 540 350 35 45 +-180 515 le "' lll if, +-le 285 +-.c :.: ... -+ 185 " ~ t " -+ w z 825 160 -+ 10 60 120 325 ~~ 480 lll I 800 "' t 190 I I 1-405 NB Ramps I Fke Was hington Bl ~ 27 Im"-t 430 1 "' 55 ~- 830 625 20 70 +-185 330 le "' lll if, + le 90 + .c :.: <t -+ 135 " ~ t " -+ w z 365 130 -+ 20 240 150 350 ~- 100 lll 1210 "' t 410 1 I 1-40 5 NB Ramps I A-3 Doc uSi gn En ve lope ID: AB 259DAD-E1F4-4 927-98 6 D-D48 F1 943 5899 Year 2045 AM Peak Hour I N 43rd St I I Seahawks Way I 1 1-405 SB Off Ramp I 23 I 20 I 24 I 65 I 25 1140 "' o I 75 "' 1' 65 "' 1' 1' ~ 5 ~ 40 250 50 0 25 ~ 200 205 205 10 0 55 ~ 170 230 230 70 0 70 ~ 160 585 iii " "' :II iii iii " "' :II iii iii " "' :II iii .c ~ " 0 ~ .c .c ~ " 20 ~ .c .c ~ " 425 ~ .c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'St 'St 'St 'St 'St 'St w -+ 15 " ~ 1' " -+ w w -+ 25 " ~ 1' " -+ w w -+ -+ w z z z z z z 770 755 -+ 0 0 0 780 780 725 -+ 25 0 20 800 800 780 -+ 850 0 :II 30 :II 20 :II I 0 "' 1' 0 I I 50 "' 1' 45 I 1445 "' 1' o I I N 43rd St I I Seahawks Way I 1 1-405 SB On Ramp I Yea r 2045 PM Pea k H our I N 43rd St I I Seahawks Way I I 1-405 SB Off Ramp I 23 I 75 I 24 I 110 90 I 25 I 280 I 30 "' 1' "' 1' "' 1' 0 ~ 25 ~ 70 610 30 0 0 ~ 580 605 605 20 0 90 ~ 575 665 665 195 25 60 ~ 470 870 iii " "' :II iii iii " "' :II iii iii " "' :II iii .c ~ " 0 ~ .c .c ~ " 20 ~ .c .c ~ le 400 ~ .c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... w -+ 50 " ~ 1' " -+ w w -+ 20 " ~ 1' " -+ w w -+ -+ w z z z z z z 340 290 -+ 0 0 0 290 290 245 -+ 10 0 25 360 360 330 -+ 390 0 :II 25 :II 30 :II I 0 "' 1' o I I 45 "' 1' 35 I I 455 "' 1' o I I N 43 rd St I I Seahawks Way I I 1-405 SB On Ramp I Figure A3. Year 2045 No Build Peak Hour Turning Movements 1-405 Re nton -t o-B ell evu e -NE 44th Stree t Inte rsecti o n Contro l An alys is ~ ke Washington Bl ~ 27 1465 "' 1' 320 1 ~ 60 -- 585 380 35 50 ~ 195 545 iii " "' :II iii .c ~ le 290 ~ .c ~ ~ 'St 'St w -+ 195 " ~ 1' " -+ w z z 850 170 -+ 10 65 130 350 -~ 485 :II 1810 ,&, 1' 205 1 1 1-4 05 NB Ra mps I ~ke Washington Bl~ 27 1755 "' 1' 4401 ~ 60 --870 655 20 80 ~ 195 345 iii " "' :II iii .c ~ le 90 ~ .c ~ ~ ... ... w -+ 140 " ~ 1' " -+ w z z 390 145 -+ 20 240 150 375 ~~ 105 :II Im "' 1' 4101 I 1-405 NB Ramps I A-4 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Year 2025 AM Peak Hour ~ I N43rdSt I _:J I SeahawksWay I _:J I 1-405 SB Off Rafll) I _:J I 1-405 ETL Rafll) I I 385 + .,. 55 I I 10 + .,. 1101 1130 + .,. o I I 110 + .,. 510 I • 15 • 110 • 95 261 50 0 335 .. 186 335 335 10 0 0 .. 325 436 436 78 0 52 .. 358 626 626 83 0 28 .. 505 752 in • » • + » • + » • + » .. 134 .. .. • 0 .. .. • 268 .. .. • 152 .. :i .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. w 40 0 • .,. • 415 • • .,. • z 822 757 .. 25 0 13 1,105 1,105 1098 • 0 0 117 1,2 15 1,215 1133 • 1 ,185 1,185 722 .. 38 0 112 862 -- 25 7 » 82 » 48 » I 159 + .,. 38 I I 7 + .,. m 1 1350 + .,. o I I 200 + .,. 150 I I N43rdSt I I SeahawksWay I I 1-405 SB On Ramp I I 1-405 Ell Rafll) I Year 2025 PM Peak Hour ~ I N43rdSt I _:J I Seahawks Way I _:J I 1-405 SB Off Rafl'l) I _:J I l-405ETLRafTl) I 1 253 + .,. 120 I 1 20 + .,. 345 1 1 310 + .,. o I 1 240 + .,. 150 I . 50 . 345 . 35 ~- 587 30 0 223 .. 533 703 703 20 0 0 .. 683 1,033 1,033 212 20 78 .. 821 1,081 1,081 174 0 66 .. 869 1,092 in • + » in • + » in • + » in • + » :i .. • 120 .. ! .. • 5 .. ! .. • 260 .. ! .. • 188 .. w .. 70 • • .,. • .. w .. 0 • • .,. • .. w .. .. w .. 115 • • .,. • .. z z z z 313 223 .. 24 0 14 460 460 455 .. 0 0 135 590 590 500 .. 578 578 396 .. 38 0 172 634 ~~ 20 » 5 » 90 » 67 » I 140 + .,. 38 I I 10 + .,. 135 1 1370 + .,. o I 1 255 + .,. 210 I I N43rdSt I I Seahawks Way I I 1-405 SB On Ramp I I 1-405 ETLRafll) I Figure A4. Year 2025 Build Peak Hour Turning Movements 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis L:J ~ke Washington B~ 452 4-,t 403 • 35 1~ --13 395 45 .. 13 133 I 8 .. • + » . 85 .. a, z .. 0 • • .,. • .. ]ii ! 0 0 .. 485 368 37 82 ,l! ~---0 » 480 "-.,. 890 ke Washington B~ L:J ke Washington B~ 480 "-.,. 890 "-259 752 435 0 45 +-287 546 in • + » in .. • 0 .. :i .. .. :i w 571 " • .,. • w z z 862 291 • 30 60 130 466 -- 0 » 0 + .,. 220 1-405 NB Rarrps L:J flke Washington Bl 766 ,,I; ,t 498 • 36 .... --- Ii'. 205 10 703 53 .. 10 113 ~ 6 .. • + » • 67 .. ~ a, c5 z .. • • .,. • .. ]ii ~ 0 .. 185 462 98 151 ,l! >-=-----» 770 "" .,. 745 ~ke Washington Bh L:J 1]keWashingtonBh 770 ,I, .,. 745 It 123 --1,092 700 0 70 f,, 372 495 • + » in .. • 0 .. ~ .. 402 11 • .,. • .. w z 634 232 • 20 220 140 442 --0 » 0 + .,. 380 1-405 NB Rarll)s A-5 Doc uSi gn En ve lope ID: AB 259DAD-E1F4-4 927-98 6 D-D48 F1 943 5899 Year 2045 AM Pea k H ou r L:J Lake Washington Blvd 487 "' ... 465 • 35 1~ ~- 13 430 45 .. 13 133 I 8 .. • "' • • 85 .. "' z -+ 0 • • ... • -+ Ji ! 0 0 -+ 545 430 40 85 & --0 . 515 "' ... 1,015 lk WashBlvd ~ I N43rdSt I L:J I SeahawksWay I ~ I 1-405 SB OffR,..., I L:J I 1-405 ETL Rarrp I L:J LkWashBlvd I 385 "' ... 54 I I 10 "' ... 1101 1 m "' ... o I 1120 "' ... 540 I 515 "' ... 1,015 • 14 • 110 • 100 • 318 --~-272 50 0 335 .. 197 346 346 10 0 0 .. 336 446 446 83 0 52 .. 363 663 663 90 0 30 .. 535 783 783 465 0 50 .. 308 626 in • • • "' • • "' • • "' • • "' • in .. 134 .. .. • 0 .. .. • 300 .. .. • 148 .. .. • 0 .. :i -+ 40 • -+ -+ 0 . -+ -+ -+ -+ 440 . -+ -+ 627 ,i -+ :i w • ... • • ... • • ... • w z z 863 798 + 25 0 13 1,146 1,146 1139 + 0 0 122 1,261 1,261 1166 + 1,218 1,218 731 -+ 38 0 177 938 938 311 + 10 70 140 501 ---- 25 7 • 95 • 47 • 0 • 1159 "' ... 381 I 7 "' ... 122 I I 395 "' ... o I I 195 "' ... m l 0 "' ... 220 I N43rdSt I I SeahawksWay I I 1-405 SB OnRarrp I I 1-405 ETL Ramp I l-405NBRarrps Yea r 2045 PM Pea k Hour L:J ~ke Washington Bl~ 836 .a, ... 563 • 36 .. --- & 210 10 773 53 .. 10 113 ~ 8 .. • "' • . 67 .. ~ "' 8 z -+ • • ... • -+ "§ ~ 0 -+ 190 527 98 151 & ,..::._~ --• 840 ,&,, ... 815 akeWashingtonBI\ ~ I N43rd St I L:J I SeahawksWay I L:J I l-405SBOffRarrp I L:J I 1-405 ETL Ra!ll> I L:J akeWashingtonBI\ I 253 "' ... 119 1 I 20 "' ... 350 I I 310 "' ... o I I 320 "' ... 160 I 840 ,&, ... 815 . 49 . 350 . 38 Pi; 132 ~---656 30 0 223 .. 602 770 770 20 0 0 .. 750 1,106 1,106 207 25 78 .. 899 1,191 1,191 208 0 113 .. 936 1,186 1,186 760 0 80 +-406 538 in • "' • in • "' • in • "' • in • "' • • "' • in ! .. • 120 .. ! .. • 5 .. ! .. • 292 .. ! .. • 212 .. .. • 0 .. ! w -+ 70 • • ... • -+ w -+ 0 • • ... • -+ w -+ -+ w -+ 123 • • ... • -+ -+ 428 ,i • ... • -+ w z z z z z 367 277 -+ 24 0 14 514 514 504 -+ 0 0 128 633 627 529 -+ 607 607 411 -+ 47 0 183 707 707 279 + 20 255 160 519 ~---20 • 10 • 98 . 73 • 0 • I 140 "' ... 38 I I 15 "' ... 128 I I 415 "' ... o I I 285 "' ... 230 I 0 "' ... 435 I N43rd St I I SeahawksWay I I 1-405 SB OnRarrp I I 1-405 ETLRafll) I 1-405 NB RafTllS Figure A5. Year 2045 Build Peak Hour Turning Movements 1-405 Renton -t o-Bell evue -NE 44th Street Intersecti o n Control An alys is A-6 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 APPENDIX B -EXISTING, 2025 AND 2045 NO BUILD AND BUILD LOS AND DELAY 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis B-1 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table Bl. Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Intersection #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St 1 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Wav1 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal 1 #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash. Blvd 2 Delay reported in seconds/vehicle XXX/(XXX) = AM/(PM) EB LOS Delay N(A) <1/(<1) N(A) 7 .6/(8.6) N(A) <1/(<1) F/(C) 100.1/(23.7) WB NB LOS Delay LOS Delay N(A) <1/(<1) - - N(A) <1/(<1) N(A) <1/(9.5) B/(A) 12.6/(9.0) - - 28 .2/(17 . D/(C) C/(F) 19.8/(55.1) 1) 1For OWSC and TWSC intersections , LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement using HCM 2000 methodology 2 For AWSC intersection , LOS and delay uses HCM 2010 methodology 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis LOS C/(C) C/(C) F/(F) F/(F) SB Overall Delay LOS Delay 17.0/(15 .1) C/(C) 17.0/(15.1) 19 .2/(18.4) C/(C) 19.2/(18.4) >150/(56.0) F/(F) >150/(56.0) 52.3/(>150) F/(F) 62. 7 /(103.5) B-2 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table B2. Year 2025 No Build AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Intersection #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St 1 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Wav1 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash. Blvd Delay reported in seconds/vehicle XXX/(XXX) = AM/(PM) EB LOS Delay A/(A) <1/(<1) C/(A) 20.7/(8.1) C/(C) 29 .1/(20 .2) A/(A) 2 .7/(5.4) WB NB LOS Delay LOS Delay A/(A) <1/(<1) - - B/(A) 14 .8/(6 .7) B/(B) 18.0/(16.8) E/(B) 64 .6/(12 .3) - - B/(B) 12 .7/(16.4) C/(B) 29.9/(18.3) 1For OWSC and TWSC intersections , LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement using HCM 2000 methodology 2 For AWSC intersection , LOS and delay uses HCM 2010 methodology 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis LOS B/(C) B/(B) C/(B) D/(B) SB Overall Delay LOS Delay 13 .2/(15 .8) B/(C) 13 .2/(15 .8) 18 .5/(18 .0) B/(A) 19.3/(8.3) 26 .9/(17 .6) D/(B) 42 .1/(15.1) 39 .0/(19 .2) B/(B) 15 .9/(15 .7) B-3 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table B3. Year 2045 No Build AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Intersection #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St1 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way1 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash . Blvd Delay reported in seconds/vehicle XXX/(XXX) = AM /(PM) EB LOS Delay A/(A) <1/(1.8) C/(A) 21.7/(8.0) C/(C) 32.4/(23 .0) A/(A) 2.8/(5.7) WB NB LOS Delay LOS Delay A/(A) <1/(<1) - - B/(A) 15.1/(7.1) B/(B) 18.0/(16.8) F/(B) 89 .5/(12 .1) - - B/(B) 13.4/(16.6) C/(B) 30.6/(18.3) 1For OWSC and TWSC intersections , LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement using HCM 2000 methodology 2For AWSC intersection , LOS and delay uses HCM 2010 methodology 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis LOS B/(B) B/(B) C/(B) D/(C) SB Overall Delay LOS Delay 13 .6/(11 .8) B/(B) 13 .6/(11 .8) 18 .5/(19 .0) C/(A) 20 .0/(8 .8) 26 .9/(17 .7) D/(B) 53 .8/(15 . 7) 44 .2/(22 .1) B/(B) 17 .7/(16 .9) B-4 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table B4. Year 2025 Build AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations-Build Signalized Alternative Intersection #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43 rd St 1 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash . Blvd #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington Blvd NE Delay reported in seconds/vehicle XXX/(XXX) = AM /(PM) LOS A/(A) A/(A) B/(A) A/(A) C/(C) - EB WB Delay LOS Delay 5.5/(4 .9) A/(A) 4.4/(3 .5) <1/(<1) A/(A) <1/(<1) 12 .0/(7 .9) A/(A) 8 .3/(3 .6) 5.5/(5 .2) A/(A) 4 .3/(3.8) 23.1/(32.8) B/(C) 18.8/(25.4) -D/(D) 47 .6/(45 .5) 1For roundabout intersection, LOS and Delay is reported for each approach using HCM 2000 methodology LOS A/(A) B/(B) - D/(D) D/(D) A/(A) 2 For OWSC and TWSC intersections , LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement using HCM 2000 methodology 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis NB SB Delay LOS Delay 8 .9/(7 .0) A/(B) 8 .9/(11.4) 15 .0/(10 .7) B/(B) 10 .3/(14 .7) -D/(D) 43 .0/(41.4) 42 .9/(41.4) D/(D) 42.7/(42.0) 45 .6/(52 . 7) B/(B) 10.8/(11.3) 7.4/(6.4) C/(B) 23 .3/(12 .1) Overall LOS Delay A/(A) 6 .2/(5 .5) B/(B) 15 .0/(14 .7) B/(B) 12 .9/(10 .8) A/(B) 9 .5/(12 .2) C/(C) 21.5/(27.2) B/(B) 15 .9/(11 .8) B-5 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table BS. Year 2045 Build AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations-Build Signalized Alternative Intersection #23 -NE 44 th Street and N 43 rd St1 #24 -NE 44 th Street and Seahawks Way2 #25 -NE 44 th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash . Blvd #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington Blvd NE Delay reported in seconds/vehicle XXX/(XXX) = AM/(PM) LOS A/(A) A/(A) B/(A) A/(B) C/(C) - EB WB Delay LOS Delay 5.1/(4 .6) A/(A) 4.2/(3.3) <1/(<1) A/(A) <1/(<1) 13 .8/(8 .9) B/(A) 10.2/(5.5) 5.6/(13.0) A/(B) 4.2/(12.2) 25 .0/(30.6) C/(C) 24.3/(30.4) -D/(D) 47.8/(45.5) 1For roundabout intersection, LOS and Delay is reported for each approach using HCM 2000 methodology LOS A/(A) C/(B) - D/(C) D/(D) A/(A) 2 For OWSC and TWSC intersections , LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement using HCM 2000 methodology 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis NB SB Delay LOS Delay 8.4/(6.8) A/(B) 8 .5/(11 .3) 15.5/(10.9) B/(C) 10.4/(15.8) -D/(D) 43.0/(41.8) 42 .8/(28.4) D/(C) 42.6/(30.3) 41.0/(47.7) B/(B) 11.5/(12.5) 7.3/(7.7) C/(B) 25 .9/(14 .0) Overall LOS Delay A/(A) 5.8/(5 .2) C/(C) 15.5/(15.8) B/(B) 14.6/(11 .8) B/(B) 10.5/(16.5) C/(C) 23.3/(27.5) B/(B) 16.1/(13.1) B-6 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table B6. Year 2025 Build AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations-Build Roundabout Alternative Intersection #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43 rd St 1 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal 1 #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp 1 #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash . Blvd 1 #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington Blvd NE 1 Delay reported in seconds/vehicle XXX/(XXX) = AM/(PM) LOS N(A) N(A) N(A) A/(A) N(A) - EB WB Delay LOS Delay 5.5/(4.9) N(A) 4.4/(3.5) <1 /(<1) N(A) <1/(<1) 4 .7/(4.2) N(A) 3.9/(3.1) 4 .7/(4 .1) N(A) 5 .8(4.0) 5 .8/(5.7) N(A) 6.9/(6.4) -B/(A) 12 .9/(10 .0) 1For roundabout intersection , LOS and Delay is reported for each approach using HCM 2000 methodology LOS N(A) B/(B) - N(A) N(A) N(A) 2 For OWSC and TWSC intersections , LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement using HCM 2000 methodology 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis NB SB Delay LOS Delay 8.9/(7.0) N(B) 8.9/(11.4) 15.0/(10.7) B/(B) 10.3/(14.7) -N(A) 6.3/(8.1) 7 .6/(5 .7) N(A) 6.3/(8.2) 7.0/(6 .5) N(A) 4.6/(6 .2) 6.0/(4 .6) B/(B) 12 .0/(10 .6) Overall LOS Delay N(A) 6 .2/(5.5) B/(B) 15 .0/(14 .7) N(A) 4 .6/(4.2) N(A) 5.4/(4 .7) N(A) 5 .9/(6.1) N(A) 8.4/(7 .8) B-7 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table B7. Year 2045 Build AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations-Build Roundabout Alternative Intersection #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43 rd St 1 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound Ramp Terminal 1 #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp 1 #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound Ramp Terminals/Lake Wash . Blvd 1 #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington Blvd NE 1 Delay reported in seconds/vehicle XXX/(XXX) = AM /(PM) LOS A/(A) A/(A) A/(A) A/(A) A/(A) - EB WB Delay LOS Delay 5 .1/(4.6) A/(A) 4.2/(3.3) <1/(<1) A/(A) <1/(<1) 4 .6/(4.2) A/(A) 4 .0/(3 .1) 4.5/(4.3) A/(A) 5.6/(4.0) 5.8/(5.5) A/(A) 6.9/(6.5) -B/(A) 13.9/(9.9) 1For roundabout intersection, LOS and Delay is reported for each approach using HCM 2000 methodology LOS A/(A) C/(B) - A/(A) A/(A) A/(A) 2 For OWSC and TWSC intersections , LOS and delay is reported for the worst movement using HCM 2000 methodology 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis NB SB Delay LOS Delay 8.4/(6 .8) A/(B) 8.5/(11.3) 15.5/(10.9) B/(C) 10.4/(15.8) -A/(A) 6 .0/(7 .3) 6.9/(5 .6) A/(A) 5.8/(8 .5) 6.1/(6.2) A/(A) 4.4/(5 .7) 5.9/(4.4) B/(A) 11.8/(8.9) Overall LOS Delay A/(A) 5 .8/(5.2) C/(C) 15 .5/(15 .8) A/(A) 4 .5/(4 .0) A/(A) 5 .2/(4.8) A/(A) 5 .8/(5.9) A/(A) 8 .3/(6.9) B-8 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 APPENDIX C -2025 AND 2045 BUILD 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE RESULTS 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis C-1 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table Cl. 95th Percentile Queue for Year 2025 Build Alternatives Intersection Build· Signals EB WB NB SB AM Peak Hour #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St1 100 50 <25 75 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 <25 <25 <25 <25 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound 425 225 75 Ramp Terminal #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp 150 100 75 50 #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound 175 150 125 m75 Ramp Terminals /Lake Wash. Blvd #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington 150 275 300 Blvd NE PM Peak Hour #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St1 <25 100 <25 75 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 <25 <25 <25 <25 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound 150 125 125 Ramp Terminal #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp 50 100 75 100 #27 • NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound #200 175 300 m75 Ramp Terminals /Lake Wash. Blvd #28 • 1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington 125 m100 375 Blvd NE #95th percentile vo lum e exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles m Volume for95th percentile queue is metere d by up stre a m signal 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue Intersection Control Analysis Build• Roundabouts EB WB NB SB 100 50 <25 75 <25 <25 <25 <25 100 <25 25 100 75 50 25 100 75 50 75 50 350 175 <25 100 <25 75 <25 <25 <25 <25 50 <25 50 50 75 50 50 50 50 75 150 50 225 325 C-2 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Table C2. 95th Percentile Queue for Year 2045 Build Alternatives Intersection Build· Signals EB WB NB SB AM Peak Hour #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St1 100 50 <25 75 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 <25 <25 50 <25 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound 475 275 75 Ramp Terminal #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp 150 100 75 50 #27 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound 225 175 150 m75 Ramp Terminals /Lake Wash. Blvd #28 -1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington 150 300 325 Blvd NE PM Peak Hour #23 -NE 44th Street and N 43rd St1 <25 100 <25 75 #24 -NE 44th Street and Seahawks Way2 <25 <25 <25 <25 #25 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 Southbound 175 125 125 Ramp Terminal #26 -NE 44th Street and 1-405 DA Ramp 50 250 75 125 #27 • NE 44th Street and 1-405 Northbound #150 200 #350 m100 Ramp Terminals /Lake Wash. Blvd #28 • 1-405 NB On Ramp and Lake Washington 125 150 450 Blvd NE #95th percentile vo lum e exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles m Volume for95th percentile queue is metere d by up stre a m signal 1-405 Renton-to-Bellevue -NE 44th Street Intersection Control Analysis Build• Roundabouts EB WB NB SB 100 50 <25 75 <25 <25 50 <25 100 <25 <25 100 75 50 <25 100 75 50 75 75 400 175 <25 100 <25 75 <25 <25 <25 <25 50 <25 50 50 100 50 75 50 75 75 150 25 200 300 C-3 Notice of Appeal: Exhibit D DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Mr. Clark Close July 20, 2022 Page 2 Comment 6: Page 5. Table 2. Trip Generation . Update table per above comments . Comment 7: Page 6. Traffic Volumes. A . The park-and-ride lot is noted on page 1 to be constructed "likely on the east side of 1-405 ". Update analysis at all study intersections accordingly. Currently the narrative indicates the trips were re-assigned assuming the park- and-ride lot west of 1-405, but the volumes don't appear to support that, nor can we track the work. B. Provide additional volume figures including the unadjusted volumes per the WSDOT's analysis and show a figure illustrating the shifts so we can review the future volumes appropriately. C . Provide a trip distribution and assignment figure , and discussion on the assumptions and why they are consistent or not consistent with the 1-405 analysis. Comment 8: Page 7. Figure 3. AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Remove 'X ' volume movements at the Seahawk Way intersection . Or define what is meant my denoting an 'X' on the figure . Comment 9: Pages 7 and 8. Figures 3 and 4. A. Assignment as illustrated at the driveway in the figures suggests less than 5 percent of trips to/from the south along Lake Washington Boulevard N. Based on a review of the assignment at the driveways in the WSDOT study, the distribution was approximately 15-20% to/from the south along Lake Washington Boulevard N . Provide support for difference from previous study or update analysis to be consistent with WSDOT study . B. Update assignment to include both driveways if appropriate (see comment 2). Comment 10: Page 8. Figure 4. Double check rounding as not all project trips are reflected in the assignment at the driveway . Comment 11: Page 9. Table 3. Double check assumed volumes at site per WSDOT study. Per review of Figure A4 in the WSDOT study, there are 321 (166/155) AM peak hour trips and 323 (173/140) PM peak hour trips. Confirm and update table as appropriate. Comment 12: Page 9. LOS Standard. Per WSDOT's LOS Map, this section of 1-405 suggests a LOS D standard . Update to assume LOS D . Comment 13: Page 10. Table 4. A . Include v/c ratios for all roundabout controlled intersections. See WSDOT sidra protocol and confirm all parameters assumed are consistent. B. Review operations using sidra corridor analysis to ensure closely spaced roundabouts and proximity to the proposed roundabout for the site access is not an impact to the adjacent interchange . Comment 14: Page 10. Operational Analysis. A. Include a queueing analysis at all study intersections using sidra corridor analysis. B. With updates , please also include the requested study intersection included in the response to comments. C. Provide LOS worksheets and roundabout layouts. Note that following the submittal of LOS worksheets, additional review of analysis parameters will be reviewed . Comment 15: Page 10. Future Roundabout at Lake Washington Blvd N / N 43rd Street. Confirm findings on roundabout geometry/channelization at the site access with updated operations and trip generation. Thank you for the opportunity to assist in this review. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 425.821.3665 should you have any questions about our comments . DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Mr. Clark Close July 20, 2022 Page 3 Sincerely, Transpo Group /~ Jon Pascal, PE Principal Notice of Appeal: Exhibit E DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject: Jon Pascal <jon.pascal@transpogroup .com > Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10 :30 AM Clark Close RE : Transportation Secondary Review CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton . Do not click links , reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Hi Clark, We have completed our review of the response to comments and revised TIA dated August 2022 for the Kennydale Gateway development. The provided comments were addressed with the exception of providing greater detail related to the traffic operations results including summarizing v/c ratios at the study intersections, as well as summarizing the queuing results . Per WSDOT's sidra policy: "Unlike other intersection control types, the primary MOE for roundabouts is not LOS ... MOE's in order of importance are v/c, delay, stop rate, queue, and then LOS ." The v/c and queueing analysis were not summarized in the TIA report as requested and the worksheets showing the corridor operations were limited to the site access. Our comments were provided to ensure the proposed site access as a roundabout truly will function acceptably given the close proximity to the new 1-405 roundabout interchange. The limited data attached in the site access worksheets showed eastbound (EB) AM peak hour queueing at the site access much greater than the prior WSDOT analysis. The reason Comments 13 and 14 were not addressed was because the TIA relied heavily on the prior WSDOT analysis of the interchange. We understand not wanting to replicate work and improve efficiency, but it was difficult to assess how the corridor operated as a system without all the v/c ratios and vehicle queuing analysis in one location. This made the review more challenging than typical, as we had to look at the various reports to review the operational assumptions and details. We were a little disappointed with the response to comments 13 and 14, as their response made it sound like we were requesting unreasonable information and that we should trust the WSDOT analysis was conducted in a manner that was acceptable. We feel that a TIA should stand on its own, and for reviewers to go through and assess results from various different reports and authors, and confirm the analysis is consistent and done appropriately is somewhat unreasonable in our opinion . And to assume that the WSDOT analysis results were correct and required no review, was not an assumption we started with. However, all that being said, we concur with the results of the TIA. It just took a while to get to that conclusion having not been involved in the project to-date, and being unfamiliar with the detailed interchange analysis conducted by WSDOT. In the future, it would be helpful for a reviewer to be involved in the initial scoping of the traffic study if there is reason to believe a 3rd party review will be necessary. That should make the TIA review go more smoothly. Please let me know if you have any questions about the above or need anything else. Thanks for the opportunity to assist. Best, Jon ?r Jon Pascal PE I Principal 1 EXHIBIT 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Jon, Please find attached review comment responses and revised traffic impact analysis prepared by Heffron for the Kennydale Gateway project. Thanks for your review. Regards, CLARK CLOSE, Principal Planner City of Renton I CED I Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way I 6th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center I Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7289 I cclose@rentonwa.gov From: Clark Close Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 10:34 AM To: Jon Pascal <jon .pascal@transpogroup .com > Subject: RE: Transportation Secondary Review Jon, Thanks for providing your comments on the traffic study for the Kennydale Gateway proposal. We 've had an opportunity to review your comments and have no questions at this time. I will provide these comments to the project applicant for a response . Regards, CLARK CLOSE, Principal Planner City of Renton I CED I Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way I 6th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center I Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7289 I cclose@rentonwa.gov From: Jon Pascal <jon .pascal@transpogroup .com > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 8:54 AM To: Clark Close <CClose@Rentonwa.gov > Subject: RE: Transportation Secondary Review CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton . Do not click links , reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe . Hi Clark, Attached are our comments on the traffic study for the Kennydale Gateway proposal. Please review and let me know if you have any questions. 'if Jon Pascal PE I Principal \. 425-896-5230 • 206-890-3868 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Hello Jon, I am processing a land use application for a proposed mixed-use development located at the former Pan Abode site at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N (APN 3224059049). The City of Renton is hoping to get a scope of work from Transpo Group for an independent review of the attached Transportation Impact Analysis -Revised, prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc . and the Response to City Comments about Transportation, prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. A link to the land use application submittal items (LUA22-000011) is available on line by clicking here . The TIA refers to various studied done by WSDOT that can be found under the Additional Documents -Transportation Files folder. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, CLARK CLOSE, Principal Planner City of Renton I CED I Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way I 6th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center I Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7289 I cclose@rentonwag .gov 7 Notice of Appeal: Exhibit F DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 TONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Pag e 2 of 20 The subject property is somewhat triangular in shape and is located at the former Pan Abode site at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N (Exhibits 2, 3, and 4). The site is approximately 338,215 square feet (7.76 gross acres) and is in the Commercial-Office-Residential (COR) zoning designation. The site is located approximately 250 feet from the eastern shore of Lake Washington and on a delta formed by May Creek. The west property line is located along Lake Washington Blvd N and the east property line is shared with the 1-405 southbound onramp. Overlay zones affecting the subject property include Urban Design District 'C' and regulated shoreline jurisdiction. The site is mostly impervious surfaces and was initially developed with five (5) light industrial buildings along with several smaller structures. Three (3) of the industrial buildings have since been demolished. Buildings A and B were approved for demolition in 2018 (LUA18-000042, ECF). While, the remaining buildings and remaining foundations at the site are constructed of prefabricated steel and concrete slabs and would be demolished in preparation for redevelopment activities. The project site is currently being used by Flatiron-Lane Joint Venture (FUV) as a temporary field office, laydown yard and a staging area for construction equipment and materials for the 1-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project under a Tier II Temporary Use Permit (LUA19-000318, ECF, TP). The Tier II Temporary Use Permit is set to expire on April 24, 2025 . The applicant is proposing to construct three (3) four-story apartment buildings providing approximately 385 residential units of studio, one, and two bedroom configurations where each of the proposed buildings would wrap around at-grade courtyard(s) (Exhibits 7, 8 and 9). The residential density of the proposal would result in approximately 50 dwelling units per net acre. In addition, the redevelopment would include approximately 1,500 square feet of retail space, bike lounge amenity space, courtyards, 201 surface parking stalls (31 with carports), and 185 ground level structure parking spaces within the buildings. The proposal would be constructed in three (3) phases. Each phase would include the construction of one of the three proposed buildings -Phase 1 would include the construction of Building 2 (located in the southwest corner of the site), Phase 2 would include the construction of Building 1 (located in the northern portion of the site), and Phase 3 would include the construction of Building 3 (located in the southeastern corner of the site) (Exhibit 28). Primary access to the mixed-use development would be provided by a new single-lane roundabout constructed off Lake Washington Blvd Nat N 43rd St, which was envisioned in Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) plans for the area (Exhibit 14). The applicant is requesting master site plan, Hearing Examiner site plan, shoreline substantial development permit, SEPA environmental review, and a street modification for a proposed mixed use development project . The site generally slopes from north and east to the southwest. Grading would include 2,880 cubic yards of cut and 4,335 cubic yards of fill from an approved source. A permanent sidewalk and slope easement would be provided over a fifteen- foot (15') portion of the property's frontage along the northwest side for future WSDOT improvements (Exhibit 36). A portion of the Residential Development would occur within the 200-foot shoreline zone of May Creek (Exhibit 20). The site's area of impact to the shoreline zone would be approximately 55 ,854 square feet (Exhibit 34). Approximately 74% of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction. Six (6) significant trees are proposed to be retained onsite (Exhibit 11). The City's mapping system has identified the subject property is within the Shoreline High-Intensity May Creek Reach B Designation, Flood Hazard Area , and Seismic Hazard Area . Studies submitted with the master application include transportation impact analysis, arborist report, geotechnical report, preliminary technical information report, critical areas report, stream study, wetland assessment, flood hazard data, and habitat data report. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Report of September 26, 2022 A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Page 3 of 20 Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day appeal period B. Mitigation Measures 1. The project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, dated May 20, 2021 and any future addenda. 2. The applicant's geotechnical engineer shall review the project's construction and building permit plans to verify compliance with the geotechnical report(s). The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the report(s). 3. The applicant shall remove all non-native invasive blackberry plants currently growing within the May Creek Trail Park property (north of May Creek) located along the site's southern boundary. In addition, the applicant shall restore the existing soft surface trail and/or construct a new soft surface trail of permeable materials, limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources, from the proposed onsite May Creek Trail connection gate to the formal May Creek Trail located near the water (approximately 60 feet in length). The trail and vegetation management plan would be reviewed for compliance with the Shoreline Master Plan Regulations as a component of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 4. The applicant shall design and install a trail head sign and dog waste station at the gated entrance to May Creek Trail Park. In addition, the applicant shall install one (1) interpretive sign within May Creek Trail (near the gated entrance to the park) that illustrates stream habitat for May Creek Trail. The trail head sign and interpretive sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager for compliance with May Creek Trail regulations and rules of the nearby trail systems prior to civil construction permit issuance . 5. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the submitted Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, LTD., dated May 27, 2022 and any future addenda by developing a project-specific monitoring plan for the proposed project once full project plans and cross-sections are developed in final design. Project construction activities, that would result in disturbance greater than one foot below ground surface, shall be completed under observation by a professional archeologist when soils are exposed and disturbed by the applicant. Consultation with concerned Tribes shall occur prior to survey activities. 6. The applicant shall reduce the pavement width of the proposed emergency vehicle access road to a maximum of 20-foot wide for the portion of road located immediately south of the Building 2 and south of the existing detention area (a distance of approximately 245 feet), remove all existing excess gravel south of the proposed emergency vehicle access lane, and provide and maintain a minimum eight-foot (8') wide restoration planting strip within the shoreline conservation buffer near the southwestern portion of the site. A shoreline buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted with the civil construction permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The shoreline buffer enhancement shall be monitored to ensure performance for five (5) years and backed by a surety device sufficient to guarantee that improvements and mitigation required perform satisfactorily for a minimum of five (5) years after installation has been completed. 7. The applicant shall provide additional traffic analysis to mitigate any traffic volumes realized should the 1- 405/Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project not be completed and open to traffic prior to temporary occupancy of the phased project. The additional traffic study shall be reviewed and SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Pag e 4 of 20 C. approved by Development Engineering and Transportation staff prior to temporary certificate of occupancy. 8. The applicant shall add a second northbound approach travel lane and a second northbound travel lane within the roundabout at the project intersection. The final length of a second approach travel lane would be required to be analyzed and presented to the City for review and final approval. In addition, the applicant shall add a second southbound lane within the roundabout at the N 43rd St/ Lake Washington Blvd N intersection that would include one (1) travel lane through the roundabout and one (1) dedicated right turn lane onto N 43rd St. Dedication would be required to install the identified roundabout configuration and roadway improvements as determined by a survey. The applicant shall submit plans to construct these off-site improvements with the civil construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by Development Engineering and Transportation staff prior to permit issuance. 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: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report Site Plan Neighborhood Detail Map Landscape Plans, dated November 22, 2021 Arborist Report, dated June 25, 2021 Architecture Schematic Design Elevations, dated December 14, 2021 Architecture Schematic Design Plans, dated December 14, 2021 Architecture Schematic Design Renderings Architecture Schematic Design and Image Packages Lighting Schematic Design Plans, dated July 1, 2021 Civil Plan Sheets (Title Sheet, Overall Site Plan, Overall Grading & Utility, Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan & Notes, Grading, Road Sections, Utility Plan, and Tree Retention Plan) Preliminary Technical Information Report, prepared by Core Design, Inc., dated November 12,2021 Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, dated May 20, 2021 Transportation Impact Analysis -Revised, prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc ., dated August 15, 2022 Response to City Comments about Transportation, prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc ., dated March 3, 2022 Secondary Transportation Review Comments, prepared by Trans po Group, dated June 20, 2022 Response to City Comments about Transportation (Round 2), prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc., dated August 15, 2022 Secondary Transportation Review of the Response to Comments and Revised TIA, prepared by Transpo Group, dated August 30, 2022 SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Report of September 26, 2022 Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Exhibit 31: Exhibit 32: Exhibit 33: Exhibit 34: Exhibit 35: Exhibit 36: Exhibit 37: Exhibit 38: Exhibit 39: Exhibit 40: Exhibit 41: Exhibit 42: Exhibit 43: Exhibit 44: Page 5 of 20 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, dated June 6, 2019 Critical Areas Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated August 23, 2019 Habitat Data Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Standard Stream Study, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Wetland Assessment, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Survey Flood Hazard Data and Boundary & Topographic Survey Transportation Concurrency Memo Public Comment Emails from L. Baker, T. Baker, Brown, Frisvold, Krupp, Long, Natha and Vira, Nugent, Olson, Reymann, Servais, Smith, and Thorp Staff Responses to Public Comment Emails Project Narrative and Phasing Plan Duwamish Tribe Comments, dated February 5, 2022 Staff Responses to Duwamish Tribe Comments Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Comments, dated February 11, 2022 Staff Responses to DOE Comments Construction Mitigation Plan (CMP), dated March 2022 SEPA Environmental Checklist -Updated #2, dated April 6, 2022 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet Sidewalk and Slope Easement Agreement Neighborhood Meeting Materials Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, LTD., dated May 27, 2022 Sun Study (June, September, and December) Street Modification Request, dated December 15, 2021 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) LOMC-Valid Letter, dated August 12, 2020 1-405, Renton to Bellevue -NE 44th St Intersection Control Analysis Report 1-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project (SN-59) Advisory Notes D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Pag e 6 of 20 Impacts: As provided in the applicant's Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, dated May 20, 2021 (Exhibit 13) the near-surface soil conditions within the central portion of the site (proposed residential building area) is generally composed of 1 to 2 feet of historical fill over about 15 feet of interlayered, soft to medium stiff silt and loose to medium dense sand/silty sand with variable amounts of gravel and trace organics. These soft/loose upper soils appear to extend slightly deeper into the northern portion of the site (20 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs)). Below these soft/loose to medium stiff/medium dense upper soils, historical borings (B-1 through B-5) advanced up to a depth of 65 feet and two mud-rotary boring (HC-Bl, HC-B2) encountered dense to very dense, interlayered sand, silty sand with gravel, and silty/sandy gravel with cobbles. These dense underlying soils are interpreted as glacially overconsolidated and considered suitable for support of deep foundations (i.e., soil bearing layer). According to the Geotechnical Study, the soft to medium stiff fine-grained and loose to medium dense granular near-surface soils at this site are compressible/potentially liquefiable and not generally considered suitable to directly support shallow building foundations. As a result, the geotechnical engineer is recommending the multi-story building foundations and floor slabs are supported either on deep pile foundations bearing in the non-liquefiable, denser sand layer at depth, or on shallow foundations bearing on ground improvement (GI) subgrade soils . The geotechnical engineer further recommends 16-to 18-inch-diameter augercast (AC) piles (or larger diameter) as the most suitable and cost-effective deep foundation system for this project. According to the Geotechnical Study, the future performance and integrity of the structural elements of the project depend largely on proper construction procedures. Close monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel are being recommended by the geotechnical engineer. City of Renton (COR) mapping indicates the site is located in a high seismic hazard area . The seismicity of western Washington is dominated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone, in which the offshore Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the continental North American plate . The project site is located within less than a mile of the mapped Class A Seattle Fault Zone which runs roughly in a northwest to southeast direction through the southern end of Mercer Island (USGS Interactive Fault Map). Because of the relatively close distance from this fault zone, there is a potential of surface rupturing at the project site. The geotechnical engineer found the project site to be classified with a relatively low risk of surface damage from potential rupturing given the distance to the mapped fault and the significant amount of sediment underlying the site (at least 75 feet, based on explorations). As a result, the relatively thick sediment layer would tend to reduce the potential surface impact of possible bedrock rupturing at depth. The geotechnical engineer indicated that significant portions of the soft fine-grained soils and loose to medium-dense sandy soils in the upper 15 to 25 feet bgs are susceptible to liquefaction during the anticipated design earthquake event . In addition, the geotechnical engineer found that because the current and planned development is relatively level and not near a steep slope, the risk of potential lateral spreading is considered very low at this site . Due to the above -referenced potential for seismic induced geotechnical hazards in a seismically active area generally including surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, and lateral spreading the geotechnical engineer has recommended the use of AC piles as the most suitable and cost-effective deep foundation system for this project . As the geotechnical study has confirmed the soft to medium stiff fine-grained and loose to medium dense granular near-surface soils at this site are compressible/potentially liquefiable and not generally considered suitable to directly support shallow building foundations , staff recommends mitigation measures related to following the recommendations of the geotechnical report, review of the construction and building permit plans by the geotechnical engineer to ensure compliance with intent and recommendations of the report, and onsite supervision by the geotechnical engineer during identified stages of construction . The applicant anticipates approximately 2,880 cubic yards of excavation and approximately 4,335 cubic yards of fill to support the construction of the proposed development. The maximum depth of site SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Report of September 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Page 7 of 20 excavation would be approximately five feet (5') in the northwest corner of the site. Erosion is possible in conjunction with any construction activity. Implementation of a Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control (TESC) plan would mitigate potential impacts from excavation activity. Once the buildings are operational, no erosion is anticipated. Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, recommends that their firm be retained to review the final aggregate pier design and to provide field observation of the aggregate pier installation, to verify and document proper installation methods. As such, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendations found in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, dated May 20, 2021 and any future addenda. Additionally, as the geotechnical report was prepared prior to the final design of the project, staff recommends as a mitigation measure, the applicant's geotechnical engineer review the project's construction and building permit plans to verify compliance with the geotechnical report(s). The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the report(s). Mitigation Measures: 1. The project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Design Study, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, dated May 20, 2021 and any future addenda. 2. The applicant's geotechnical engineer shall review the project's construction and building permit plans to verify compliance with the geotechnical report(s). The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the report(s). Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA} Environmental Review; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Policy L-36; RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations; and RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations. 2. Air Impacts: It is anticipated that some temporary air quality impacts could be associated with site work and building construction required to develop this site. Project development impacts during construction may include dust as a result of grading and exhaust from construction vehicles and equipment. Dust control would be mitigated using temporary erosion control measures, watering, or other measures to remediate impacts as needed. According to the applicant, emissions would not be expected to result in exceedance of ambient air quality standards and the proposed project has been designed to conform to the applicable regulations and standards of agencies regulating air quality (Exhibit 34). The estimated lifespan emissions for the project are approximately 446,236 MTCO2e (Exhibit 35). Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be instituted to minimize dust created during demolition and excavation activities. Demolition dust would be handled in accordance with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations and sprinkling during demolition . The applicant would complete a Hazardous Building Materials Survey prior to building demolition to identify any hazardous materials (i.e. asbestos, lead based paint, etc.) associated with the existing buildings. Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and the construction year of the existing buildings, there is a high likelihood that asbestos and/or lead-based paint are present in the building materials (Exhibit 19). If asbestos is found, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and PSCAA regulations would be adhered to relative to removal and disposal. No further site-specific mitigation for the identified impacts from typical vehicle and construction exhaust is required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: Not applicable . SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 3. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Pag e 8 of 20 Impacts: The subject property borders a City of Renton property (known as May Creek Trail Park) along the south property line that includes May Creek . May Creek is identified as a shoreline of the state and a portion of the Residential Development would occur within the 200-foot shoreline zone of May Creek. The regulated shoreline is designated a shoreline jurisdiction under the State's Shoreline Management Act and City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP). This zone is measured landward from May Creek 's Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The SMP environmental designation assigned to the subject property is Shoreline High Intensity and it is located in the May Creek Reach B (MC-B) and May Creek has a 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer for uses not designated single family residential . According to the Comprehensive Plan, the objective of the High Intensity Overlay is to provide opportunities for large-scale office and commercial employment centers, as well as, multifamily residential use and public services . This district provides opportunities for water-dependent and water-oriented uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded . Development may also provide for public use and/or community use, especially access to and along the water's edge. Prior to 2012, additional portions of the property were mapped with Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - FEMA Zone AE. The scope of the project requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, which the applicant has requested as a component of the land use application. According to the Standard Stream Study Assessment, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (Exhibit 22), no reach of May Creek flows onto the subject site, but rather flows through the City's property at May Creek Trial Park (located to the south of the subject site). This parcel is mostly forested and includes the soft surface trail improvements with restoration and enhancement plantings across the northern portion of the city park. The current trail configuration forms a loop at the park's eastern end around a Category Ill wetland and will be extended under 1-405 by 2024 as part of the permitted 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project (LUA17-000808, SM, CAR, SMV). Vegetation associated with the riparian corridor includes beaked hazelnut (Cory/us cornuta), red alder (A/nus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata), and many more . According to the Habitat Data Report, May Creek is used by numerous fish species, including coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), fall chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), resident coastal cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii), sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), and winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Exhibit 21). The Critical Areas Report indicates that the site does not contain nor is it adjacent to any Class 2 through Class 5 fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (Exhibit 20). The subject site is currently developed with impervious surfaces comprising nearly 82 percent of the total area, giving limited areas to existing vegetation . Stormwater is currently collected onsite and discharged to a stormwater ditch located at the southwestern corner of the parcel within a portion of the degraded vegetation buffer. All stormwater runoff reaching the ditch eventually drains to the existing type 2 manhole. Flows are conveyed to May Creek and runoff reached Lake Washington in approximately¼ mile to the east . The proposed area of impact to the shoreline zone would be approximately 55,854 square feet. According to the Comprehensive Plan , non-water-oriented development should be permitted where it does not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-oriented uses, or where there is not direct access to the shoreline. Comprehensive Plan management policies indicate that priority is given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the High Intensity Overlay District. According to the applicant, it is not possible to completely avoid impacts to the shoreline on the project site . The portion of the site within shoreline jurisdiction is approximately 84 percent developed with impervious surfaces and buildings . The proposed development plan is anticipating an increase the area of impervious surfaces within shoreline jurisdiction by approximately five percent (5%). SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Pag e 9 of 20 Stormwater, collected on the proposed impervious surfaces within shoreline jurisdiction, is proposed to be collected and treated using two (2) BioPod water quality filters by Oldcastle. It is anticipated that the use of enhanced stormwater treatment technologies would improve the quality of water discharged. Furthermore, no untreated stormwater would be released into the May Creek shoreline zone south of the project site. The project is proposing to include aesthetic objectives through appropriate development siting, design standards, screening, landscaping, open space, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. Based on the current development plans, the amount of impervious surface would be reduced from 82 percent under current conditions to approximately 76 percent of the proposed developed condition. The applicant is proposing to reduce the 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer or the retention of the existing 5,347 square feet reduction to the vegetation conservation buffer so that it terminates at the site 's southern boundary. The applicant's standard stream study indicates that the degraded vegetation buffer would not cause a net loss of ecological function due in part to the retention of the existing stormwater ditch and the proposed buffer averaging of 5,519 square feet of vegetative buffer enhancement (landscape planting) near the southeast corner of the property. In addition, enhanced stormwater treatment is anticipated to further improve the removal of toxic metals, organic compounds, sediments, and other debris. No other mitigation is being proposed by the applicant. To improve the vegetation buffer areas along the shoreline and maintain trail access between the formal May Creek Trail and the proposed project, staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the applicant remove all non-native invasive blackberry plants currently growing within the May Creek Trail Park property (north of May Creek) located along the site's southern boundary. In addition, the applicant shall restore the existing soft surface trail and/or construct a new soft surface trail of permeable materials, limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources, from the proposed onsite May Creek Trail connection gate to the formal May Creek Trail located near the water (approximately 60 feet in length). The trail and vegetation management plan would be reviewed for compliance with the Shoreline Master Plan Regulations as a component of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. As provided in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (dated August 23, 2019; Exhibit 20), and indicated on the Survey Flood Hazard Data and Boundary & Topographic Survey (Exhibit 24) a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) Determination Document (Removal) was issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on May 22, 2012 that removed the project site from the special flood hazard area (Exhibit 20). The property was determined to be still valid as of August 19, 2022 when the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued new or revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels (Exhibit41). It is anticipated the City's Critical Areas Regulations would adequately mitigate impacts to the May Creek floodplain . The Critical Areas Report states no wetlands, streams, or other critical areas were identified on the site . May Creek and one Category Ill wetland were identified and delineated on the May Creek Trail Park property adjacent to the south side of the project site . According to the Wetland Assessment, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc ., the Category Ill offsite wetland has a 75-foot buffer with moderate habitat function and does not extend onto the subject property (Exhibit 23). The offsite wetland is dominated by a mix of FACW, FAC, and FACU species including beaked hazelnut (Cory/us cornuta}, red alder (A/nus rubra), black cottonwood (Popu/us ba/samifera), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum}, twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrate), salmonberry (Rubus spectabi/is}, osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis), prostate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare}, creeping buttercup (Ranuncu/us repens}, and fringed willowherb (Epilobium ci/iatum). The May Creek Shoreline Management Zone and the vegetation conservation buffer extends onto the site in two (2) locations at the southwestern corner of the property. The area of the site included within the vegetation conservation buffer is currently unvegetated and covered with impermeable surfaces. A paved access road is proposed to be constructed around the southern two-thirds of the SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Pag e 10 of 20 site providing onsite parking and access for emergency vehicles. The southwestern end of the access road is proposed to connect to Lake Washington Blvd N and would be restricted by bollards for emergency vehicle use only. According to the Critical Areas Report, there would be no direct impacts to the critical areas (May Creek or the offsite wetland) as a result of the proposed development. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall remove all non -native invasive blackberry plants currently growing within the May Creek Trail Park property (north of May Creek) located along the site's southern boundary. In addition, the applicant shall restore the existing soft surface trail and/or construct a new soft surface trail of permeable materials, limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources, from the proposed onsite May Creek Trail connection gate to the formal May Creek Trail located near the water (approximately 60 feet in length). The trail and vegetation management plan would be reviewed for compliance with the Shoreline Master Plan Regulations as a component of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA} Environmental Review; RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations; and RMC 4-3-090F Shoreline Modification. b. Ground Water Impacts: The proposed project is not within an Aquifer Protection Area Zone. No groundwater would be withdrawn for drinking water or other purposes. The groundwater table in some areas is two feet (2') below the soil, but mostly ranges from four feet (4') to nine feet (9') below the surface. The applicant is proposing minor dewatering for the required aggregated piers and elevator pits. Appropriate on-site BMPs would be required to help mitigate minor dewatering activities and any new runoff created by this development. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: Not applicable. c. Storm Water Impacts: The applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report, prepared by Core Design, Inc., dated November 12, 2021 (Exhibit 12) with the application. The report analyzes existing conditions and proposed surface water collection and distribution . According to the TIR Report, the project would be adding more than 7,000 square feet of new impervious area, so the project falls under Full Drainage Review and Conservation Flow Control (Level 2). Water quality is required since the project would add more than 5,000 sf of pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS) that is not fully dispersed. The project is required to provide enhanced water quality. Due to the limited increase in peak flow rate, this project is exempt from flow control. The applicant proposes to use two (2) BioPod Water Quality Filters by Oldcastle to provide enhanced water quality treatment. This type of facility has General Use Level Designation (GULD) approval from DOE. One of the BioPods would be used to treat the northern half of the access rod, the northern multifamily residential unit building with associated parking, and the clubhouse . The second BioPod would be used to treat the southern half of the access road and all other multi-family residential unit buildings. A formal sizing of the BioPod facility would be completed during Final Design . It is anticipated that the requirements set forth by the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (2022 RSWDM) would be sufficient to mitigate stormwater impacts generated by the proposed development. The development would be subject to a surface water system development charge (SDC) fees. A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required due to clearing and grading of the site exceeding one acre . The applicant must obtain the permit and provide proof prior to Civil Permit issuance. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Nexus: Not applicable. 4. Vegetation Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Pag e 11 of 20 Impacts: The subject property contains some existing paved and gravel surface area, industrial buildings, office modular buildings, unmaintained ground cover including grass and brambles, as well as 62 trees located mainly at the perimeter of the parcel. The applicant's Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated June 25, 2021; Exhibit 5), indicated the site contains 55 significant trees, six (6) dangerous trees, and one (1) landmark tree. According to the Tree Retention Plan, the applicant is proposing to retain six (6) trees. The other 56 trees are proposed to be removed and replaced. The size of the trees ranges between 6-inches and 35-inches and the species include red alder, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, European birch, Douglas fir, and black pine. The report concludes that all six (6) saved trees are viable and can be protected by implementing the City's tree protection standards during construction. Pursuant to RMC 4-4-130.H.l.a and Ordinance 6076, tree retention standards in commercial zones require a minimum of 30 percent (30%) of the site's significant trees to be retained during and post development. Of the 56 viable significant trees, the applicant is proposing to retain between six (6) significant trees (Arborist Report) and eight (8) significant trees (Landscape Plan) near the southeast corner of the property (one (1) bigleaf maple and five (5) to seven (7) red alders). The landscape plan calls for a total of 190 replacement trees to be planted throughout the site as part of the landscape plan (Exhibits 4 and 11). The proposed replacement trees include vine maple (47), apollo sugar maple (6), serviceberry (26), palisade American hornbeam (10), maidenhair tree (21), tulip tree (4), Persian ironwood (10), Douglas fir (16), Garry oak (6), cascara (29), western red cedar (6), western hemlock (4), and Japanese zelkova (5). The proposed new trees would serve as a visual buffer for the proposed development. In addition, all offsite trees would be preserved and protect in place along the south property line within the May Creek Trail parcel. See SEPA Mitigation Measure #3 related to trail construction and vegetation management plan . Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: Not applicable . 5. Wildlife Impacts: Habitat on the subject property is limited due the previous industrial use and current laydown yard. According to the Critical Areas Report (Exhibit 20) and the Habitat Data Report (Exhibit 21), the subject site is located near May Creek stream and May Creek Trail Park. May Creek Trail Park is mostly forested, with signs of restoration and enhancement plantings. The entire Puget Sound area is within the Pacific Flyway, which is a major north-south flyway for migratory birds. According to the Habitat Data Report, the migratory species that use the Pacific Flyway could be associated with either the offsite wetland or May Creek itself. The project is not proposing to increase the amount of impervious surface (nearly 82 percent). The applicant proposes to construct buildings landward of the 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer and that there would be no impacts to May Creek . In addition, no impacts are proposed to the offsite wetland nor the vegetation conservation buffer at the site's southwestern corner . Critical areas regulations and shoreline regulations are anticipated to mitigate wildlife impacts . Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: Not applicable . 6. Environmental Health a. Noise Impacts: Noise impacts would primarily result from construction activities associated with the project, primarily for the demolition of the existing buildings, clearing and grading, construction of the proposed infrastructure improvements, and future construction of the mixed use buildings (Exhibits SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Pag e 12 of 20 33 and 34). The construction noise would be regulated through the City's adopted noise level regulations per Title 8 Chapter 7, RMC. The City's construction standards limit haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. As the site is within 300 feet of a residential area, permitted work hours are limited to Monday through Friday between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. Work on Saturdays is restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays. Noise impacts would be temporary and associated with construction. The City's construction standards are anticipated to adequately mitigate these impacts. Once the project is completed, no significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated by the developer. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: Not applicable. 7. Aesthetics Impacts: As previously indicated, the project site was developed with five (5) light industrial buildings (three (3) have since been demolished) and the remaining prefabricated steel buildings on concrete slabs are proposed to be demolished. The applicant is proposing a mixed use redevelopment project at the 7.2- acre parcel with three (3) apartment buildings providing 385 residential units of studio, one, and two bedroom configurations. Access to the site would be provided by a new single-lane roundabout constructed off Lake Washington Blvd N near the northwestern corner of the site. The multi-family residential development would consist of a three-story "wrap" apartment development where each of the proposed buildings would wrap around a courtyard. Five (5) ground floor courtyards are proposed around the periphery of the apartment complexes (Exhibits 2 and 4): two (2) with Building 1 (northernmost proposed building), two (2) associated with Building 2 (southwestern corner of the site), and one (1) with Building 3 (southeast corner of the site). The proposed buildings would be four (4) stories (three (3) residential stories over 1 ground-level of parking) and approximately 45 feet to the wall plate level (approximately 53 feet at the top of the roof) (Exhibit 6). Each multi-story building is a unique shape and would contain the at-grade concrete cast-in-place parking garage on the ground floor and wood- framed apartment construction above (Exhibit 7). The purpose of this design is to minimize the visual impacts of the parking structures so that the develop would be more aesthetically pleasing from Lake Washington Blvd N. In addition to the courtyards, surface parking, structured ground floor parking, and attached dwelling units, the buildings would include the following key features : Building 1-retail, amenity space, and a lobby/mail area; Building 2 -ground floor dwelling units, amenity spaces, such as fitness room , club area, relax room , leasing/lobby space, bicycle lounge, and mail room; and Building 3 -ground floor dwelling units and a lobby/mail room . The buildings are separated by an internal T-shaped roadway and the shapes create visual interest while breaking down bulk and scale . Cladding includes a storefront system , various colored cement panel boards and lap siding, brick veneer, metal panel , exposed architectural concrete , steel canopy system, vinyl windows, and parking security mesh . The buildings would be subject Urban Design District 'C' Standards . Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended . Nexus: Not applicable . 8. Light and Glare Impacts: The addition of new light sources on the subject property would increase the light and glare in the area and could create localized light impacts if not properly designed (Exhibit 10). Onsite lighting would include interior and exterior building lighting. According to the applicant, no glare from the project is anticipated to cause a safety hazard nor interfere with views . At a minimum, a photometric analysis would be required with the civil construction permit application demonstrating compliance with the standards listed in RMC 4-6-060.1, Street and Pedestrian Lighting Standards and RMC 4-4-075 , Lighting, Exterior On-Site. SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Pag e 13 of 20 Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: Not applicable . 9. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The project site borders May Creek Trail Park along the south property line. Access to the May Creek Trail Park and the May Creek Trail would be provided via a gated access at the south end of the property. Dog walking activities and increased public access to the May Creek Trail are anticipated to increase as a result of the proposed development. The applicant is proposing to construct an onsite dog relief area at the southeast corner of the site. The dog relief area amenities would include a 42" high perimeter fence, mulch surfacing, seating, and an overhead structure. The dog relief area is anticipated to be used by pet owners who reside within the proposed development. The proposed onsite open spaces, such as courtyards and dog relief area, would be visible and open and are anticipated to provide residents and guests with a livable community designed to accommodate both active and passive recreation opportunities. Other recreation improvements in the vicinity include trail improvements to the King County Parks East Side Rail Corridor and the extension May Creek's soft surface trail. As part of the 1-405 widening project (LUA17-000808), WSDOT is proposing to extend May Creek Trail to the east (under 1-405 to Jones Ave NE) by 2024. Trail improvements would be constructed above the 100-year floodplain and would provide approximately 600 linear feet of new trail system for people and pets in the Kennydale area and other outdoor enthusiasts. The city received public comments (via email) that identify incidents of non-residents of the area parking at Barbee Mill and accessing the May Creek trail system near the May Creek Peninsula (Exhibit 27). The May Creek Trial Park and May Creek Trail are located near the 23-acre Barbee Mill community, separated by King County Parks East Side Rail Corridor and Lake Washington Blvd N. The Barbee Mill development was constructed with a shoreline passive pedestrian trail and Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) tract along May Creek that provides reasonable public access to and along the water's edge of Lake Washington and May Creek. A NGPA trail head sign was installed within the Barbee Mill common area to welcome the Barbee Mill Community to the NGPA and identify regulations by which to follow. For example, shoreline regulations, access hours, pet responsibilities, and allowed activities. The public comments recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve the NGPA from substantially increased alteration or damage of the vegetation and shoreline at Barbee Mill. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the applicant design and install a trail head sign and dog waste station at the gated entrance to May Creek Trail Park. In addition, the applicant shall install one (1) interpretive sign within May Creek Trail (near the gated entrance to the park) that illustrates stream habitat for May Creek Trail. The trail head sign and interpretive sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager for compliance with May Creek Trail regulations and rules of the nearby trail systems prior to civil construction permit issuance . The park impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application would be levied . The impact fee in effect for 2022 is 1,977.62 per attached multi-family dwelling unit (5 or more units) or $761,383 .70 for 385 multi-family units. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall design and install a trailhead sign and dog waste station at the gated entrance to May Creek Trail Park. In addition, the applicant shall install one (1) interpretive sign within May Creek Trail (near the gated entrance to the park) that illustrates stream habitat for May Creek Trail. The trailhead sign and interpretive sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager for compliance with May Creek Trail regulations and rules of the nearby trail systems prior to civil construction permit issuance. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review and RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Report of September 26, 2022 10. Historic and Cultural Preservation Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Page 14 of 20 Impacts: The applicant submitted a Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA), prepared by Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, LTD., dated May 27, 2022 (Exhibit 38) with the application. The CRA included research into recent land use of the project site, the geographic setting and geologic conditions, ethnographic sources, and recorded cultural resources and prior surveys, but no archaeological fieldwork. Based on provided construction plans and the geologic setting and existing geotechnical data, CRA recommended development of a project-specific monitoring plan for the proposed project once full project plans and cross-sections are developed in final design. According to the CRA, the project area is within a region that has been used by humans for at least 12,500 years and is within the traditional use areas of several federally recognized Tribes including the Snoqualmie Tribe of Indians, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, and the Tulalip Tribes. The CRA indicates that the Duwamish Tribal Organization is not federally recognized, however, the project area is within the traditional use territory of its members' ancestors. The history shows a 1936 aerial photograph depicting the project site as undeveloped open space and Pan Abode Cedar Homes Company appears to have occupied the site as early as 1952. By 1964, Pan Abode constructed several large buildings on the eastern portion of the site along present-day 1-405. According to the CRA, Pan Abode Warehouse Building 1 (on the west side of the site) was constructed in 1975 and Pan Abode Warehouse Building 2 (on the south side of the site) was constructed in 1974. Paul Allen's Port Quendall Company purchased the Project Area in 1998 and as part of the agreement, Pan Abode was allowed to maintain its operations at the site for two to five years. The CRA concludes that based on a survey of built resources recorded these two (2) remaining structures are not recommended eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listing. In addition, the report findings on reviewed records on file with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) online database (WISAARD) to identify previous cultural resources studies and archaeological or historical resources recorded though April 11, 2022, in the Project vicinity. WISAARD contains records of ten cultural resources studies within one mile of the Project Area, three of which were adjacent to the project boundaries. Two (2) archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile and 29 historic structures are recorded within 0.5 mile of the project site. The DAHP predictive model for precontact cultural materials classifies the project site as having high to very high risk to contain archaeological resources likely due to the proximity to Lake Washington and May Creek . The report considers the project to have moderate to high potential to encounter archaeological materials due to the possible presence of a winter village (S(a)bal?tx: "place where things are dried") on May Creek which formerly ran north of the project area and now borders it to the south, materials related to the Colman farmstead, and the generally high probability project setting at the outlet of May Creek into Lake Washington. As a best practice, the CRA recommends that project plans and specifically outlines a process to be followed in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered at any time during implementation of the project . RCW 27.44.055 requires all activity to cease following discovery of suspected human remains and avoidance of anything that may cause further disturbance to those remains . The area of the find must be secured and protected from further disturbance. The CRA states that if human skeletal remains are found the discovery would be reported to the King County Medical Examiner and the Renton Police Department, the remains would not be touched, moved, or further disturbed, the Medical Examiner would assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and determine whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the Medical Examiner determined the remains are non-forensic, they would report that finding to the DAHP who would take jurisdiction over the remains. The DAHP would notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist would determine whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian, and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. Finally, the DAHP would then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Report of September 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Page 15 of 20 The city received a comment (via email) from the Duwamish Tribe on February 5, 2022 (Exhibit 29) and responded on February 7, 2022 and May 17, 2022 (Exhibit 30). The comment recommended an archeological review be performed for this project. This is in an area the Duwamish Tribe considers culturally significant and has a high probability to have unknown archeological deposits and that if any archeological work is performed that they received notification. Therefore, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the project construction activities that result in disturbance greater than one foot below ground surface, such as earthwork, excavation for foundation footings, construction of stormwater controls and/or utilities, be completed under observation by a professional archeologist when soils are exposed and disturbed by the applicant based on the recommendations found in the submitted assessment of cultural resources. These project disturbance activities shall be included in a project- specific monitoring plan upon completion of the final project design. Consultation with concerned Tribes shall occur prior to survey activities. In addition, the Duwamish Tribe is strongly recommending that the vegetation conservation buffer along the southwestern corner of the site, which is within the 200-foot shoreline zone for May Creek, be maintained given that native plant vegetation is vital for aquatic and land-based life as well as mitigating seasonal urban flooding. According to the Critical Areas Report and TIR, the southwest corner of the site is constructed with a ditch to collect stormwater runoff from the north and east of the property. The existing detention area is accessed via an existing 16-foot wide concrete driveway access within the right of way and a gravel access road between the south property line and the existing detention area. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing detention area and add a South BioPod at the southwest corner of the site in order to treat the southern half of the road, and all other multifamily residential unit buildings (approx. 2.99 acres of impervious area). The existing detention road access, at the southwest corner of the property, is proposed to be paved and widened to 24 feet to create a secondary fire emergency access road. However, the fire department only requires paved access roadways to be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide. Therefore, to provide a functional lift to the existing shoreline buffer, staff is recommending the applicant reduce the pavement width of the proposed emergency vehicle access road to a maximum of 20-foot wide for the portion of road located immediately south of the Building 2 and south of the existing detention area (a distance of approximately 245 feet), remove all existing excess gravel south of the proposed emergency vehicle access lane, and provide and maintain a minimum eight-foot (8') wide restoration planting strip within the shoreline conservation buffer near the southwestern portion of the site. A shoreline buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted with the civil construction permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The shoreline buffer enhancement shall be monitored to ensure performance for five (5) years and backed by a surety device sufficient to guarantee that improvements and mitigation required perform satisfactorily for a minimum of five (5) years after installation has been completed. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the submitted Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, LTD., dated May 27, 2022 and any future addenda by developing a project-specific monitoring plan for the proposed project once full project plans and cross-sections are developed in final design. Project construction activities, that would result in disturbance greater than one foot below ground surface, shall be completed under observation by a professional archeologist when soils are exposed and disturbed by the applicant. Consultation with concerned Tribes shall occur prior to survey activities. 2. The applicant shall reduce the pavement width of the proposed emergency vehicle access road to a maximum of 20-foot wide for the portion of road located immediately south of the Building 2 and south of the existing detention area (a distance of approximately 245 feet), remove all existing excess gravel south of the proposed emergency vehicle access lane, and provide and maintain a minimum eight-foot (8') wide restoration planting strip within the shoreline conservation buffer near the SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Report of September 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Page 16 of 20 southwestern portion of the site. A shoreline buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted with the civil construction permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The shoreline buffer enhancement shall be monitored to ensure performance for five (5) years and backed by a surety device sufficient to guarantee that improvements and mitigation required perform satisfactorily for a minimum of five (5) years after installation has been completed. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act {SEPA} Environmental Review; City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies L-45; RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and Resources; RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records; and RMC 4-3-090F Shoreline Modification. 11. Transportation Impacts: Since the proposed project is anticipated to generate more than 20 AM or PM peak-hour trips, a full Traffic Impact Analysis was required to be submitted with the land use application. A Transportation Impact Analysis -Revised (TIA), prepared by Heffron Transportation Inc., dated August 15, 2022 (Exhibit 14) is the applicant's most recent iteration. The TIA responds to comments made by the city and the city's secondary reviewer Transpo Group (Exhibits 15-18). The TIA discusses traffic impacts and how the proposed project traffic volumes relate to the traffic volumes assumed by Washington State Department ofTransportation (WSDOT) as part of the NE 44th St Intersection Control Analysis Report (ICAR) prepared for the 1-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project at the NE 44th St interchange (Exhibit 42). The ICAR evaluated the Level of Service (LOS) analysis conducted by WSDOT and adjusted the WSDOT data for the Kennydale Gateway project to reflect the proposed single-lane roundabout and project traffic volumes. As part of the project background, WSDOT is constructing major improvements to the 1-405 corridor between Renton and Bellevue. The project is known as the "1-405/Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project" and is currently under construction and scheduled to be completed and open to traffic in Fall 2024. WSDOT's Renton-to-Bellevue project proposes to add one new express toll lane in each direction to 1-405 for about nine miles beginning near State Route (SR) 167 and continuing approximately one mile north of Interstate 90 (1-90). As part of the WSDOT project, WSDOT would rebuild the 1-405 / NE 44th Street interchange that would relocate NE 44th St/ Lake Washington Blvd N to pass under 1-405 (often referred to as "The Flip"). On the west side of 1-405, regrading of Lake Washington Blvd N would begin at about N 43rd St. As a result, the grade of the street at Sea hawks Way would be lowered by approximately five feet (5') to eight feet (8') compared to the current overpass condition. The new interchange would also have HOV-only ramps from the center lanes of 1-405 and a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station accessed from those ramps . According to the TIA, a trip distribution pattern for the development site was derived based on WSDOT's 2025 traffic volume forecasts . The project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on most of the traffic destined to areas east of 1-405 where the neighborhood's schools and services are located and only a small amount of traffic was assumed to be destined to or from areas south of the site along Lake Washington Blvd N. WSDOT, through its consultant HNTB, performed extensive analysis of the improvements under construction at the NE 44th St interchange . It evaluated future conditions with and without the improvements for the years 2025 and 2045. The year 2025 traffic volumes were used for the analysis and traffic volume forecasts assumed traffic generated by major developments (such as Quendall Terminals) and background growth. According to the project TIA, the current proposal is expected to generate fewer trips than had already been assumed in the WSDOT analysis (159 fewer trips in the AM peak hour and 153 fewer trips in the PM peak hour). The TIA found that all nearby intersections (single-lane roundabout at Lake Wash Blvd N / N 43rd St/ Site Access, Lake Washington Boulevard N / Sea hawks Way, NE 44th St/ (SB Off and On Ramps/ HOV Ramp/ NB off Ramp, and NB On-Ramp) are expected to operate at levels of service LOS B or better in the year 2025 with the proposed interchange configuration and the proposed Kennydale Gateway project . According to the TIA, the proposed Kennydale Gateway project is expected to be fully completed and occupied in the third quarter of 2025. Levels of service for intersections were SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Pag e 17 of 20 largely determined with the completion of the I-405/Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project in 2024. If the 1-405 project is not open to traffic in the 2024 there is a potential for longer-range impacts of traffic queues on Lake Washington Blvd N. Therefore, staff is recommending a mitigation measure that the applicant provide additional traffic analysis to mitigate any traffic volumes realized should the I-405/Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project not be completed and open to traffic prior to temporary occupancy of the phased project. The additional traffic study shall be reviewed and approved by Development Engineering and Transportation staff prior to temporary certificate of occupancy. Additionally, the TIA analyzed the N 41st St / Lake Washington Blvd N intersection. The analysis determined that eastbound movements from the stop sign are expected to operate at LOS C in 2025 during both peak hours and concluded no further mitigation was needed to accommodate the proposed project. As a result, the Kennydale Gateway project would not change the levels of service and is expected to increase delay by a negligible amount (0.1 second added average delay per vehicle or less). Based on this analysis, the TIA concluded that the project is not expected to adversely affect the 41st St / Lake Washington Blvd N intersection and no mitigation was found to be necessary at this intersection. Per the TIA, the proposed project is expected to generate an estimated 2,080 daily vehicle trips with 162 trips during the AM peak hour (43 inbound and 119 outbound) and 170 trips during the PM peak hour (102 inbound and 68 outbound). The submitted traffic report determined that the combination of WSDOT improvements (replace the existing freeway overpass with an under-crossing, add a direct access ramp connection to the 1-405 HOV lanes, and replace ramp junction intersections with roundabouts) and applicant improvements (a single -lane roundabout at the Lake Washington Blvd N / N 43rd St/ Site Access intersection) would operate well into the future. As a result, the TIA determined that no further mitigation would be needed to accommodate the project and independent analysis concurred with the results of the TIA. However, the limited data attached in the site access worksheets showed eastbound AM peak hour queueing at the site access to be much greater than the prior WSDOT analysis. A measure of intersection adequacy is the LOS measured by average vehicle delay and average queuing distance. Within the WSDOT report the LOS at the subject intersection is shown to be LOS A in both during the AM and PM peak hours at a horizon year of 2025 and 2045 . The WSDOT report shows the LOS analysis with a northbound delay of 8.9/(7.0) seconds (AM/(PM)) and a southbound delay of 8.9/(11.4) seconds (AM/(PM)) of Lake Washington Blvd N. Further, the WSDOT report shows that the 95th percentile queuing length along Lake Washington Blvd N is 100 feet in both the northbound and southbound directions during the AM and PM peak hours. The analyzed queuing length in the WSDOT report with the two (2) lane configuration would not pose a physical impact or queuing problem to any of the adjacent intersections and the delay is acceptable per the City's Comprehensive Plan. By comparison, the TIA prepared by Heffron Transportation Inc., concludes that a single-lane roundabout would provide a LOS A in the horizon year of 2025 with a delay of 15 .3/(1.9) seconds (AM/(PM)) in the northbound direction and 1.3/(3.4) seconds (AM/(PM)) in the southbound direction of Lake Washington Blvd N. Further the TIA shows that the 95th percentile queuing length along Lake Washington Blvd is 391/(48) feet (AM/(PM)) in the northbound direction and 33/(134) feet AM/(PM)) in the southbound direction of Lake Washington Blvd N. Again, the proposed queuing length would not pose a physical impact or queuing problem to any of the adjacent intersections. Under the current configuration on Lake Washington Blvd N, the N 43rd St / Lake Washington Blvd N intersection (subject intersection) is stop controlled along N 43rd St such that travelers on Lake Washington Blvd N are able to travel uninterrupted . According to the TIA, the proposed project would add one (1) net new AM trip and five (5) net new PM trips northbound into the subject intersection . The estimated 2025 horizon year trips northbound on Lake Washington Blvd N would total 791 AM and 293 PM peak hour trips with 750 AM and 218 PM peak hour trips passing through the intersection continuing northbound . As previously indicated, with the addition of the proposed single-lane roundabout, vehicles are estimated to experience a queue distance of 391 feet and a delay of 15 .3 seconds during the AM peak SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Report of September 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Page 18 of 20 hour (Year 2025). To reduce the anticipated horizon year increased impacts in queuing and delay with the proposed addition of a single-lane roundabout, staff is recommending a mitigation measure that the applicant add a second northbound approach travel lane and a second northbound travel lane within the roundabout at the project intersection. It is anticipated that these proposed mitigation measures would more closely align with the street network currently under construction by WSDOT and would still align with the existing street frontage improvements at the southwest corner of the property. The final length of a second approach travel lane would be required to be analyzed and presented to the City for review and final approval. In addition, staff is recommending a mitigation measure that the applicant add a second southbound lane within the roundabout at the N 43rd St/ Lake Washington Blvd N intersection that would include one (1) travel lane through the roundabout and one (1) dedicated right turn lane onto N 43rd St. The two (2) approach travel lanes into the intersection would be an extension of the two (2) southbound lanes currently being installed by WSDOT as part of the 1-405 widening project and the single through lane would connect to the existing single southbound lane on Lake Washington Blvd N. This would provide the same volume of travel lanes currently under construction by WSDOT but convert them to a roundabout configuration at the intersection. A slight decrease in queuing length and no marginal change to delay would be experienced by vehicles. Dedication would be required to install the identified roundabout configuration and roadway improvements as determined by a survey. The applicant shall submit plans to construct these off-site improvements with the civil construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by Development Engineering and Transportation staff prior to permit issuance. Street Improvements are regulated by RMC 4-6-060 -Street Standards. See below: Lake Washington Blvd N -classified as a Collector Arterial street with an existing right-of-way (ROW) width of approximately 60 to 150 feet. To meet the City's complete street standards for Collector Arterial streets with two (2) lanes a minimum ROW width of 83 feet is required. Per RMC 4-6-060, half street improvements from the ROW centerline include a minimum 46-foot paved road (23 feet each side), a one- half-foot (0.5') wide curb, eight-foot (8') wide planter strip with street trees, eight-foot (8') wide sidewalk, two-foot (2') wide clear zone behind the sidewalk, and storm drainage improvements. Dedication of approximately 11.5 feet would be required pending final survey. However, with the development of the NE 44th St Interchange by WSDOT, an alternate street section has been designated for this section of Lake Washington Blvd N. North of the roundabout, the current approved construction drawings consist of two (2) travel lanes in both the northbound and southbound direction, five-foot (5') wide bike lane in the northbound direction, one-half-foot (0.5') wide curbs, eight-foot (8') wide planting strips, a 12-foot sidewalks, street trees and storm drainage improvements (Exhibit 43). One southbound lane has a dedicated right turn lane onto N 43rd St while the northbound configuration widens from a single lane to two (2) lanes at the N 43rd St intersection . Per WSDOT's 1-405 Renton to Bellevue -NE 44th Street intersection Control Analysis Report (WSDOT Report), (dated July 2018), a multilane roundabout configuration at the Lake Washington Blvd N/NE 43rd St intersection was assumed (Exhibit 42). In addition, the TIA and ICAR assumed the conversion of the Lake Washington Blvd N / Seahawks Way intersection to a right-in/right-out configuration and that improvements to these two (2) intersections would be constructed at a future date which is evidenced by WSDOT's 1405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project construction drawings (Exhibit 43). No proposed controls or right-of-way construction improvements were proposed as part of the TIA or civil plans (Exhibit 11) to not allow left turns either into or out of Seahawks Way . Conversion of the intersection at Seahawks Way and Lake Washington Blvd N to a right-in/right-out configuration would be further analyzed with site plan review and the street modification request . The proposal includes a street modification for the alternate roadway section (Exhibit 40). For example, north of the proposed roundabout, the proposal shows frontage improvements connecting to WSDOT's improvements within the Kennydale Gateway projects frontage . The proposed improvements, north of the roundabout, are anticipated to be in alignment with the approved WSDOT plans for the NE 44th St SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Pag e 19 of 20 Interchange. Compliance with street standard requirements would be further analyzed with site plan review. The applicant proposes to provide parking to accommodate approximately 386 parking spaces at the completion of the project. Building 1 (Phase 2) would provide 60 structured parking spaces and 45 surface parking spaces for 105 residential units and approximately 1,500 square feet of retail space. Building 2 (Phase 1) would provide 57 structured parking spaces and 72 surface parking spaces for 129 residential units. Building 3 (Phase 3) would provide 68 structured parking spaces and 84 surface parking spaces for 151 residential units. RMC 4-4-080.F.10.d requires a minimum of one (1) parking space per attached dwelling unit and allows a maximum of 1.75 per unit. Commercial activities are based on net square floor area for retail sales at a 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The TIA anticipates a portion of the surface parking spaces to be allocated for the Phase 2 retail uses . Compliance with parking requirements would be further analyzed with site plan review. The proposal has passed the City's Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D (Exhibit 25), which is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, site specific improvements, and future payment of Transportation Impact Fees. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application would be levied. The impact fee in effect for 2022 is $6,717.10 per attached dwelling unit and 7,145.85 for PM peak hour person vehicle trip. Increased traffic created by the development would be further mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall provide additional traffic analysis to mitigate any traffic volumes realized should the I-405/Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project not be completed and open to traffic prior to temporary occupancy of the phased project. The additional traffic study shall be reviewed and approved by Development Engineering and Transportation staff prior to temporary certificate of occupancy. 2. The applicant shall add a second northbound approach travel lane and a second northbound travel lane within the roundabout at the project intersection . The final length of a second approach travel lane would be required to be analyzed and presented to the City for review and final approval. In addition, the applicant shall add a second southbound lane within the roundabout at the N 43rd St/ Lake Washington Blvd N intersection that would include one (1) travel lane through the roundabout and one (1) dedicated right turn lane onto N 43rd St. Dedication would be required to install the identified roundabout configuration and roadway improvements as determined by a survey . The applicant shall submit plans to construct these off-site improvements with the civil construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by Development Engineering and Transportation staff prior to permit issuance . Nexus : City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Goal T-A and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. 12. Fire & Police Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees (Exhibit 44). Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended . Nexus: Not applicable . E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Re port of Se pte mbe r 26, 2022 Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Pag e 20 of 20 ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 2022. Due to the ongoing state of emergency enacted by Governor's Proclamation 20-28.14 (and as amended), the City Clerk's Office is working remotely. For that reason, appeals must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov or delivered to City Hall 1st floor Lobby Hub Monday through Friday . The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date if your appeal is submitted electronically. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov . SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Kennydale Gateway Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA22-000011, SA-M, SA-H, SSDP, ECF, MOD Report of September 26, 2022 Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Exhibit 31: Exhibit 32: Exhibit 33: Exhibit 34: Exhibit 35: Exhibit 36: Exhibit 37: Exhibit 38: Exhibit 39: Exhibit 40: Exhibit 41: Exhibit 42: Exhibit 43: Exhibit 44: Page 22 of 2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Hart Crowser, a division of Haley & Aldrich, dated June 6, 2019 Critical Areas Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated August 23, 2019 Habitat Data Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Standard Stream Study, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Wetland Assessment, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Survey Flood Hazard Data and Boundary & Topographic Survey Transportation Concurrency Memo Public Comment Emails from L. Baker, T. Baker, Brown, Frisvold, Krupp, Long, Natha and Vira, Nugent, Olson, Reymann, Servais, Smith, and Thorp Staff Responses to Public Comment Emails Project Narrative and Phasing Plan Duwamish Tribe Comments, dated February 5, 2022 Staff Responses to Duwamish Tribe Comments Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Comments, dated February 11, 2022 Staff Responses to DOE Comments Construction Mitigation Plan (CMP), dated March 2022 SEPA Environmental Checklist -Updated #2, dated April 6, 2022 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet Sidewalk and Slope Easement Agreement Neighborhood Meeting Materials Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by Willamette Cultural Resources Associates, LTD., dated May 27, 2022 Sun Study (June, September, and December) Street Modification Request, dated December 15, 2021 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) LOMC-Valid Letter, dated August 12, 2020 1-405, Renton to Bellevue -NE 44th St Intersection Control Analysis Report 1-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project (SN-59) Advisory Notes SR_ERC_Report_Kennydale_ Gateway_220926_ vl Notice of Appeal: Exhibit G DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 ~ PLANNING DIVISION \:;, ~~~'~'';',;,~ CRITICAL AREAS REPORT-KENNYDALE GATEWAY VULCAN REAL ESTATE RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared For: Alicia Stedman Vulcan Real Estate 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington 23 August 2019 (Revised 07 July 2021) EXHIBIT 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Critical Areas Report -Kennydale Gateway Vulcan Real Estate Renton, Washington Prepared For: Alicia Stedman Vulcan Real Estate 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared By: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 150250 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville , Washington 98077 23 August 2019 (Revised 07 July 2021) DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway PROJECT NAME: PROJECT SITE LOCATION: CLIENT: PROJECT STAFF: FIELD SURVEY: Critical Areas Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kennydale Gateway The address for the Site is 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in the City of Renton, Washington. The project will take place on a single parcel, approximately 7.2 acres in size (King County Parcel number 3224059049). The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. Alicia Stedman, Residential Development Manager, Vulcan Real Estate Bill Shiels , Principal; David Teesdale , Senior Ecologist; Alana Vidmar, Project Assistant. An initial evaluation of the Site was completed on 11 November 2018, at which time one offsite wetland and the ordinary high water mark of May Creek were preliminarily delineated . The boundaries of the wetland and the ordinary high water mark for May Creek were refreshed in June 2019 for professional surveying. DETERMINATION: No wetlands, streams, or other critical areas were identified on the Site . May Creek, which is a Shoreline of the State , and one Category Ill wetland were identified and delineated on the May Creek Trail Park property adjacent to the south side of the Site. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: As previously stated under DETERMINATION, May Creek is a Shoreline of the State and has a Shoreline Management Zone extending 200-ft landward from the stream's delineated ordinary high water mark. This Shoreline Management Zone extends onto the Site at the Site's southwestern corner. The Shoreline overlay for that portion of the Site within the Shoreline Management Zone is Shoreline High Intensity. This overlay allows for mixed commercial and multi-family residential development. VEGETATION CONSERVATION BUFFER: A 100-ft vegetation conservation buffer is required for May Creek, measured landward from the stream's ordinary high water mark . This vegetation conservation buffer extends onto the Site in two locations in the Site's southwestern corner. The area of the Site included within the vegetation conservation buffer is currently unvegetated and covered with impermeable surfaces, thus providing little to no useful ecological functions as a buffer for May Creek . PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The Client proposes to develop the Kennydale Gateway property with three units of apartments. The total number of apartments is 378 . One unit at the southwestern corner of the northernmost building will be for retail. Access to the Kennydale Gateway property will be provided by a new road that will be constructed off Lake Washington Boulevard N. The proposed interchange for the Kennydale Gateway apartments will be a round-about. An access road will be constructed around the southern two-thirds of the site providing onsite parking and access for emergency vehicles . The southwestern end of the access road will connect back to Lake Washington Boulevard N, but its access will be restricted by bollards for emergency vehicle use only . IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION REQUIRED: There will be no direct impacts to any critical areas (May Creek or the offsite wetland) resulting from the proposed development. The proposed development within the Shoreline overlay is consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (RMC 4-3-090). It will be necessary to reduce the 100-ft vegetation conservation buffer so that it terminates at the Site's southern boundary. This is allowed under the City of Renton's Shoreline Management Program since there will be no loss of ecological function (that portion of the vegetation conservation buffer on the subject property is currently unvegetated and covered with impervious 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page i DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report surfaces and the total reduction of buffer width is less than 50% of the standard width}. No mitigation is being proposed. However, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development (or designee), may request that the non-native, invasive blackberry currently growing within the May Creek Trail Park along the Site's southern boundary be removed and replaced with native trees and shrubs. 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page ii DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................. v List of Appendices ........................................................................................................... v Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of Accuracy ........................................................................ 1 1.3 Qualifications ....................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Property Description .................................................................................. 1 2.1 Property Location ................................................................................ 1 2.2 Existing Site Development. .................................................................. 2 Chapter 3. Methodology .............................................................................................. 2 3.1 Background Data Reviewed ................................................................ 3 3.2 Field Investigation ............................................................................... 3 Chapter 4. Results ....................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information ........................................................... 4 4.1.1 FEMA Floodplain Map ......................................................................... 4 4 .1.2 National Wetland Inventory ................................................................. 5 4.1.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service ............................................ 5 4.1.4 King County GIS Database ................................................................. 5 4.1.5 City of Renton GIS Database .............................................................. 5 4.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ............................................................ 5 4.2.1 Analysis of Existing Conditions -Streams .......................................... 6 4.2.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions -Wetlands ......................................... 6 Chapter 5. Regulatory Review ..................................................................................... 6 5.1 Federal and State Regulations ............................................................ 6 5.1.1 Washington State Regulations ............................................................ 6 5 .1.2 Federal Regulations ............................................................................ 7 5.2 City of Renton Municipal Code -Wetlands ......................................... 7 5.3 City of Renton Municipal Code -Shorelines ....................................... 7 Chapter 6. Proposed Site Redevelopment .................................................................. 7 6.1 Multi-Family Residential Development ................................................ 7 6.2 Retail Space ........................................................................................ 8 Chapter 7. Assessment of Project Impacts .................................................................. 8 7.1 Development within Shoreline Zone .................................................... 8 7 .2 Development within Vegetation Conservation Buffer ........................ 18 7.3 Analysis of Mitigation Requirements ................................................. 22 Chapter 8 . Summary ................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 9. References .............................................................................................. 25 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page iii DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2 -Site Parcel Map Figure 3 -USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 4 -Existing Conditions Map Figure 5 -Proposed Site Development Figures are found at the end of the report. APPENDICES Appendix A: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Data Forms Critical Areas Report Appendix B: Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Forms for Western Washington. Appendix C: Federal Emergency Management Agency , Letter of Map Amendment Determination Document (Removal) 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page iv Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report This report is the result of an existing conditions study for the property located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North , known as Kennydale Gateway (referred to hereinafter as the "Site"). The Site is located in Renton, Washington (Figure 1 ). The Site is a single tax parcel, approximately 7.2-acres in size (King County tax parcel number 3224059049) (Figure 2). This report has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-120.D .19.S -Stream or Lake Study , Standard , RMC 4-8-120.D .19 .W -Wetland Assessment , and RMC 4-8- 120D2.B -Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study. In addition, this report addresses the evaluation requirements of the City of Renton 's Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090) (Code Publishing Company 2019a ; 2019b). This report will provide and describe the following information: • General property description ; • Methodology for critical areas investigation; • Results of critical areas background review and field investigation; • Existing site conditions; and • Regulatory review . 1.2 Statement of Accuracy Stream and wetland characterizations and ratings were conducted by trained professionals at Talasaea Consultants , Inc., and adhered to the protocols, guidelines, and generally accepted industry standards available at the time the work was performed . The conclusions in this report are based on the results of analyses performed by Talasaea Consultants and represent our best professional judgment. To that extent and within the limitation of project scope and budget, we believe the information provided herein is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. Talasaea does not warrant any assumptions or conclusions not expressly made in this report, or based on information or analyses other than what is included herein. 1.3 Qualifications Field investigations and evaluations were conducted by Bill Shiels , Principal ; and David R. Teesdale, PWS. Bill Shiels has a Bachelor's Degree in Biology from Central Washington University and a Master's Degree in Biological Oceanography from the University of Alaska . He has over 40 years of experience in wetland delineations and mitigations. David Teesdale has a Bachelor's Degree in Biology from Grinnell College, Iowa , and a Master's Degree in Ecology from Illinois State University . He has 21 years of experience in wetland delineations and biological evaluations. CHAPTER 2.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2.1 Property Location The address for the Site is 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in the City of Renton , Washington . The project will take place on a single parcel , approximately 7 .2 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 1 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report acres in size (King County Parcel number 3224059049). The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is the NW¼ of Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East , Willamette Meridian. The topography of the Site is generally flat and level. The Site is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, by May Creek to the south , by Lake Washington Boulevard North to the west, and by an existing access road on Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) property to the north . The WSDOT access road provides vehicular access to the Site. May Creek, which is designated as a Shoreline of the State , flows east to west adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site. The Site is within the Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District of the May Creek Shoreline jurisdiction (City of Renton 2015) 2.2 Existing Site Development The Site is currently developed with five (5) light industrial buildings. The buildings are constructed of prefabricated steel on concrete slabs. The Site is accessible via the WSDOT access road, which becomes unpaved as it enters the Site. A stormwater pond was constructed in the southwestern corner of the Site to collect and treat stormwater runoff from both the Site and Lake Washington Boulevard N . This pond appears to discharge into May Creek near the Site's southwestern corner. Vegetation in the stormwater pond includes red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea). The Site is bordered on the east side by 1-405 and on the west side by Lake Washington Boulevard N . The May Creek Trail Park (City of Renton) is located along the Site's southern boundary. The Site is mostly impervious surfaces with scant vegetation along its periphery. The vegetation in the Site's northwestern corner contains red alder (A/nus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with an understory consisting of mowed grass. A small "island" of vegetation existing near the Site 's northern end . Vegetation on this island consists mostly of grasses and scattered landscape trees. CHAPTER 3.METHODOLOGY The critical areas analysis of the Site involved a two-part effort . The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the Site and the immediate surrounding area using published environmental information . This information includes: 1) Wetland and soils information from resource agencies; 2) Critical Areas information from King County and the City of Renton ; 3) Orthophotography and LIDAR imagery; and, 4) Relevant studies completed or ongoing in the vicinity of the Site . The second part consisted of a site investigation where direct observations and measurements of existing environmental conditions were made. Observations included plant communities, soils, hydrology, and stream conditions . This information was used to help characterize the site and define the limits of critical areas onsite and offsite for regulatory purposes (see Section 3.2 -Field Investigation below). 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 2 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information from the following sources was reviewed prior to field investigations: • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wetlands Online Mapper (National Wetlands Inventory) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2019) (www.wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html); • Natural Resources Conservation Service , Web Soil Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service , 2016)(www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda .gov/app/); • King County GIS Database (King County, 2018); • City of Renton GIS Database (City of Renton , 2019); • Orthophotography from USDA's National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP 2017), Earth Explorer (USGS), and Google Earth . • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Mapper; • USFWS listed species data; and • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 3.2 Field Investigation Talasaea Consultants evaluated the Site, including the May Creek Trail Park, on 11 November 2018 . The purpose of our evaluation was to locate any critical areas (wetlands or streams) on or in the vicinity of the Site. During our investigation, we delineated the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of May Creek . The OHWM was initially mapped using a mapping-grade GPS receiver (Arrow 100) and later surveyed for accuracy by CORE Design . No wetlands or streams were identified on the Site . Wetland delineation within the shoreline zone of May Creek utilized the routine approach as described in the Washington State Wetland Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology 1997), as required by the City of Renton's Shoreline Management Code . Ordinary high water marks (OHWM) were evaluated based on the methodology described by the Washington State Department of Ecology's (WDOE) Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson et al. 2016). Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (Hitchcock and Cronquist 2018). Taxonomic names were updated and plant wetland status was assigned according to The National Wetland Plant List, Version 2.4 .0 (Lichvar et al. 2016). Wetland classes were determined using the USFWS system of wetland classification (Cowardin et al. 1979). Vegetation was considered hydric if greater than 50 percent of the dominant plant species had a wetland plant indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e ., facultative, facultative wetland , or obligate wetland). Wetland hydrology was determined based on the presence of hydrologic indicators listed in the Corps ' Regional Supplement. These indicators are separated into Primary and Secondary Indicators. Confirmation of wetland hydrology requires the 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 3 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report demonstration of at least one Primary Indicator or two Secondary Indicators . Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: • Drainage patterns; • Drift lines; • Sediment deposition ; • Watermarks; • Stream gauge data and flood predictions; • Historical records; and • Visual observations of saturated soil conditions or inundation . Soils on the site were considered hydric of one or more of the hydric soil indicators listed in the Corps' Regional Supplement were present. Indicators include: • The presence of organic soils; • Reduced, depleted, or gleyed soils ; or • Redoximorphic features in association with reduced soils . An evaluation of patterns of vegetation, hydrology, and soil was made along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information and marked with wire flags or surveyor tape . Appendix A contains data forms prepared by Talasaea for representative locations in both upland and wetland locations . Wetlands were rated using the Washington Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington in accordance with City of Auburn Shoreline Management code requirements (Hruby 2006). Data forms used in rating the wetlands are provided in Appendix B. CHAPTER 4.RESUL TS This section describes the results of our in-house research and field investigation. For the purpose of this report, the term "vicinity" describes an area within ¼ mile of the Site. Field investigation included an assessment of environmental conditions within 300 feet of the Site. No privately-owned properties were accessed without specific landowner permission. Under those circumstances , our evaluation was limited to what could readily be seen from public properties. 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information The following sources provided information on site conditions based on data compiled from resource agencies and local government. 4 .1.1 FEMA Floodplain Map . The floodplain for May Creek was initially mapped as extending onto the Site at the southern boundary (affected map panel 53033C0664F, prepared on 16 May 1995). However, a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA, attached to Appendix C) was prepared on 22 May 2012 that removed the property from the mapped floodplain. The map 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 4 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report panel, itself, has not been revised. Rather, the LOMA serves the interim purpose of revision without having to update an entire map panel. In summary , the property is not within the floodplain of May Creek . 4.1.2 National Wetland Inventory The National Wetland Inventory does not map any wetlands on the Site (Figure 3). It does map five wetlands offsite within a ¼-mile. Three of the wetlands are identified as palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands that are seasonally flooded (PSSC). May Creek is characterized as a lower perennial riverine wetland with an unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded (R2UBH). Finally, Lake Washington is mapped to the west of the Site as a lacustrine limnetic wetland with an unconsolidated bottom that is permanently flooded , but diked or impounded (L 1 UBHh). The latter modifier (diked or impounded) refers to the Hiram M . Chittenden Locks , which directly control water elevations in Lake Washington. 4.1.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service The NRCS maps one soil on the Site: Normal sandy loam. Norma loam is a very deep, poorly drained soil in depressional areas of outwash plains and till plains . It is formed in alluvium. Typically, the surface area is very dark gray loam to about 10 inches. The subsoil is dark grayish brown sandy loam to about 18 inches . The substratum is dark gray sandy loam to about 60 inches. Norma loam is listed as a hydric soil by the National Technical Committee on Hydric soils. 4.1.4 King County GIS Database King County GIS does not map any critical areas on the Site . It does map one stream on the parcel south of the site. The stream is identified as May Creek; a Shoreline of the State . 4.1.5 City of Renton GIS Database In addition to May Creek, the City of Renton's critical areas GIS database maps one wetland south of the Site's southeast corner and north of May Creek. No other critical areas (outside of Lake Washington) are mapped by the City of Renton in the vicinity of the Site. 4 .2 Analysis of Existing Conditions Talasaea Consultants reviewed the existing environmental conditions on the Site on 11 November 2018, which included an evaluation of offsite environmental conditions associated with May Creek. No areas exhibiting wetland conditions were identified on the Site. One wetland was identified landward of the right bank of May Creek (the area of the May Creek park adjacent to the Site). The boundary of this wetland was not flagged in the field . It is shown in Figure 4 based on GIS data from the City of Renton (2019). We did identify the OHWM of May Creek, which was initially located and mapped using an Arrow 100 GPS receiver (no flags or surveyor tape was used). The OHWM of May Creek was later flagged for survey by CORE Design . The surveyed boundary of the OHWM of May Creek was used to determine the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction and 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 5 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report required 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer for May Creek as it extends onto the Site. 4.2.1 Analysis of Existing Conditions -Streams May Creek is identified as a Shoreline of the State. It is not a Shoreline of Significance , however. The shoreline jurisdiction zone is identified by the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan as "Shoreline: High-Intensity' (City of Renton 2015). This zone is measured landward from May Creek 's OHWM. In addition to the shoreline management zone, May Creek also has a 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer. No reach of May Creek flows onto the Site. Rather, the parcel it flows through is identified as May Creek Trail Park; a City of Renton-owned property. This parcel is mostly forested and shows signs of restoration and enhancement plantings. A soft surface trail (May Creek Trail) extends onto Lake Washington Boulevard near the Site's southwestern corner across the northern portion of the park. The trail forms a loop at the park 's eastern end around a City-mapped wetland . The trail does not cross May Creek or continue under 1-405 to more City-owned open space associated with May Creek . 4.2.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions -Wetlands No wetlands were identified on the Site . Two areas of evident surface water were observed in the southern portion of the property. These areas are the result of soil compaction resulting from trailer and equipment storage , as well as vehicular traffic over many years. Puddles are not regulated under the Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2015). One wetland is mapped within the May Creek Trail Park. We evaluated and flagged the existing limits of this wetland and found it to be smaller than presented on the City 's GIS database. We rated the wetland based on RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ii. The wetland rated 12 points for Water Quality Functions, 10 points for Hydrologic Functions, and 15 Points for Habitat Functions. The Total Score for Functions is 37, which qualifies the wetland for a Category Ill rating. Category Ill wetlands located within a shoreline jurisdiction having a Habitat Score less than 20 have a 75-foot standard buffer. Applying this buffer to the wetland boundary as mapped by the City of Renton (not Talasaea's smaller wetland boundary) clearly shows that the buffer does not extend onto the Site. CHAPTER 5.REGULATORY REVIEW 5.1 Federal and State Regulations 5.1.1 Washington State Regulations Critical areas on the Site, such as wetlands and streams , are subject to regulation at the State level primarily by the following statutes : • State Water Pollution Control Act (administered by DOE); • Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (administered by DOE); • Hydraulic Code of Washington (administered by WDFW); • Forest Practices Act (administered by WDNR). 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report DOE uses Section 401 of the State Water Quality Certification (WQC) as the primary mechanism for implementing the provisions of the State Water Pollution Control Act. Section 401 WQC is typically issued in conjunction with Section 404 permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Any impacts to streams would also be regulated under the Hydraulic Code of Washington as part of the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit process. Land clearing activities that remove more than 5,000 board feet of timber are subject to a Forest Practices Act Review by WDNR (or by the local jurisdiction per agreements with WDNR). 5.1.2 Federal Regulations Critical areas on or adjacent to the Site may be subject to Federal regulations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Register 2002). The US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is responsible for administering compliance with Section 404 via the issuance of Nationwide or Individual Permits for any fill or dredging activities within wetlands or streams. It should be noted that no critical area meeting the definition of a Water of the United States is present on the Site. There will be no requirement to apply for any Federal Permits associated with the Clean Water Act for this project. 5.2 City of Renton Municipal Code -Wetlands Wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline zones within the City of Renton are currently regulated under the RMC 4-3-090.D.2 .d (Code Publishing Company 2019b). Waters meeting the definition of a Shoreline of the State are regulated and the Shoreline Management Program (RMC 4-3-090). 5.3 City of Renton Municipal Code -Shorelines The City of Renton regulates Shorelines of the State both by the City of Renton 's Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090). CHAPTER 6.PROPOSED SITE REDEVELOPMENT The Site will be redeveloped with three apartment buildings providing 378 units of apartments (Figure 5). Access to the Site will be provided by a new round-about constructed off Lake Washington Boulevard N at the northwestern corner of the multi- family residential development. Access to the Sound Transit park and ride facility will be provided by a drive aisle across the retail development. 6.1 Multi-Family Residential Development The multi-family residential development (Residential Development) will consist of a three-story "wrap" apartment development with courtyards (Figure 5). The development will occupy approximately 255,379 sf (5.9 acres) of the total Site area (approximately 7.76 acres). A multi-story concrete cast-in-place parking garage will be wrapped by a wood-framed apartment construction. The purpose of this particular design is to "hide" the parking structure to be more aesthetic visually from Lake Washington Boulevard N. 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 7 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report The Residential Development will provide approximately 378 units of studio , one- bedroom , and two-bedroom configurations. Access to the apartments will be provided by air-conditioned corridors . The upper floors of the apartments will have elevator access. The Residential Development will also "wrap" around a central courtyard area. Five additional courtyards will be provided around the periphery of the apartment complex: two will be associated with Building 1 (northernmost proposed building), one associated with Building 2 (southeastern corner of the site, and three associated with Building 3. An access road along the eastern and southern portions of the proposed development will provide parking stalls as well as fire and emergency access to the eastern and southern portions of the complex. The access road will connect to the main entrance off of Lake Washington Boulevard N and will terminate at the Site 's southwestern corner also off of Lake Washington Boulevard N. Access to this road will be restricted by removable bollards . 6.2 Retail Space The retail space will be provided at the southwestern corner of Building 1. The retail space is approximately 1,550 sf in size. Access to the retail space, including fire and emergency services, will be provided by the main access road off of Lake Washington Boulevard. Eight parking stalls will be provided for the retail space. CHAPTER 7.ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPACTS 7.1 Development within Shoreline Zone A portion of the Residential Development will occur within the 200-foot shoreline zone for May Creek . The area of impact to the shoreline zone on Site is approximately 55 ,854 sf. The shoreline zone is identified as a Shoreline High-Intensity Overlay District. The objective of this overlay district is to allow large-scale office, commercial, multi-family residential, and public service uses while protecting existing ecological functions , or restoring ecological functions of areas that have been previously degraded (City of Renton 2015). Management policies suggest that water-oriented development activities be considered . However, the City recognizes that properties within this overlay district are likely to have existing developments that are not water-oriented. Therefore , non-water-oriented development should be permitted where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water-oriented uses , or where direct access to the shoreline is not currently provided . Public access is a priority , as well as ecological restoration and aesthetics. The general development standards within the Shoreline High-intensity Overlay District are provided by RMC 4-3-090.0 1 . The items to be addressed within this section of the shoreline master program are: 1 Applicable code text is provided verbatim in this report to the best of our ability . Any differences between City of Renton 's published code and the text provided herein is due primarily to transcription errors and does not constitute an attempt to modify the original code . 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 8 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 1) "Applicability: This Section shall apply to all use and development activities within the shoreline. Items included here will not necessarily be repeated in subsection E of this Section , Use Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation of all shoreline permits. Renton Municipal Code provisions in Title IV , Development Regulations, Chapter 4 , City-wide Property Development Standards (chapter 4-4 RMC) contain regulations and standards governing site development of property City-wide, such as parking , landscaping, fencing , and others. Such provisions shall apply within shoreline jurisdictions unless there is a conflict with the standards set forth by the Shoreline Master Program. In case of conflict, the standards set forth in the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. 2) Environmental Effects: a . No Net Loss of Ecological Functions i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical , any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include , but are not limited to , fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance . Shoreline processes that shall be protected include , but are not limited to, water flow ; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery , transport , and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input ; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance . The Site is currently developed with impervious surfaces comprising nearly 82-percent of the Site 's total area. Stormwater is currently collected onsite and discharged to a stormwater treatment pond located at the Site 's southwestern comer. The proposed project will include required landscaping and open space. Based on the current development plans, the amount of impervious surfaces will be reduced from 82-percent under current conditions to approximately 76 percent of the total Site area . In addition , enhanced stormwater treatment will be provided to further improve the removal of toxic metals and organic compounds, as well as sediments, trash , and other debris . ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions and processes , project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on-or off-site. The purpose of this report is to evaluate any potential impacts to the shoreline environment resulting from the proposed site development. 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 9 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts . (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating , or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action . (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing , or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. It will not be possible to completely avoid impacts to the shoreline on the Site . The portion of the site within the shoreline jurisdiction is currently approximately 84 percent developed with impervious surfaces and buildings. The proposed development plan will increase the area of impervious surfaces within the shoreline jurisdiction by approximately 5 percent. However, stormwater collected on the proposed impervious surfaces within the shoreline jurisdiction will be cleansed using enhanced stormwater treatment technologies before release into the existing stormwater detention pond. It is anticipated that the use of enhanced stormwater treatment technologies will substantially improve the quality of water discharged. No untreated stormwater will be released into the portion of the May Creek shoreline zone south of the Site . b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act , including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions . The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance with the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Renton. By providing the text of the applicable code , we can directly demonstrate how the proposed project is in compliance . 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 10 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report c. Critical areas within the Shoreline Jurisdiction: i. Applicable Critical Areas Regulations: The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations , adopted by reference except for the provisions excluded in subsection D2c11 of this Section . Said provisions shall apply to any use, alteration or development within the shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required . Unless otherwise stated , no development shall be constructed, located , extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full compliance with the provisions adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program . Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most restrictive provisions shall prevail. (a) Aquifer protection areas. The Site is not located within an aquifer protection area. The City of Renton 's water comes from the Cedar Valley aquifer and Springbrook Springs. The Site is not located within either of these areas. Additionally, the Site is outside of the ten-year capture zone for Well 5A , based on the City of Renton 's GIS database. (b) Areas of special flood hazard . A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) was issued on 22 May 2012 that removed the Site from the special flood hazard area. (c) Sensitive slopes , twenty five percent (20%) to forty percent (40%), and protected slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater. The Site 's topography is generally flat and level throughout. Sensitive slopes do not exist on the Site. (d) Landslide hazard areas. The Site is not located within a landslide hazard area as mapped by the City of Renton 's GIS database . (e) High erosion hazards. The Site is not located within a high erosion hazard area as mapped by the City of Renton's GIS database (f) High seismic hazards. The Site is located within an area mapped as a high seismic hazard area. 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report Issues involving development within a high seismic hazard area are an engineering question and outside of the scope of this Critical Areas Report. (g) Coal mine hazards. The Site is not located within a coal mine hazard area as mapped by the City of Renton's GIS database . (h) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Critical habitats. The Site contains a portion of the May Creek Reaches Shoreline jurisdiction. The portion of this conservation area within the Site 's boundaries is currently developed with impervious surfaces. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces. The portion of the May Creek Reaches shoreline jurisdiction adjacent to the Site is contained within a City-owned open space that is well vegetated and protected from further development. (i) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas: Streams and Lakes: Classes 2 through 5 only. This provision is not applicable . The Site does not contain , nor is it adjacent to, any Class 2 through 5 fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. ii. Inapplicable Critical Areas Regulations: The following provisions of RMC 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations, shall not apply within the shoreline jurisdiction: This provision is not applicable since no alterations or variances will be necessary for the proposed development plan. iii. Critical Area Regulations for Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas: Environments designated as Natural or Urban Conservancy shall be considered Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas. Regulations for fish habitat conservation areas Class 1 Streams and Lakes are contained within the development standards and use standards of the Shoreline Master Program, including but not limited to subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation, which establishes vegetated buffers adjacent to water bodies and specific provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and are scientifically supported by specific studies performed by qualified professionals. The shoreline zone contained within the boundaries of the Site is identified as Shoreline High Intensity. The shoreline designation for the May Creek Trail Park area is Urban Conservancy. The vegetation conservation buffer required for this project is 100 feet measured landward from the OHWM of the regulated shoreline of the state (May Creek). This vegetation conservation 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report buffer extends onto the Site at two locations near the Site's southwestern corner, totaling approximately 5,347 sf d . Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction: i. Wetland Identification: Wetlands shall be identified in accordance with the requirements of RCW 36 .70A.175 and 90 .58.380 . Unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter, all areas within the City meeting the criteria in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication No. 96-94) regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. One wetland, Wetland A , was identified within the shoreline jurisdiction of May Creek. The wetland, nor its required buffer, extends onto the Site . ii. Wetland Rating System: Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington , revised August 2004 (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025). We rated the wetland in accordance with the Shoreline Master Program. The wetland satisfied the criteria as a Category Ill wetland with a low habitat score (less than 20 points). iii . Wetland Review and Reporting Requirements: A wetland assessment study shall be required. This Existing Conditions Report includes an assessment of the off site wetland. iv. Wetland Buffers: This provision describes the required protective buffer for wetlands based on their rating and their habitat score . Wetland A is a Category Ill wetland with a low habitat score (less than 20 points). The required buffer width is 75 feet measured landward from the surveyed boundary of the wetland. As stated previously in Section 4.2.2 of this report, the buffer for Wetland A (as measured from the edge of the wetland as mapped in the City of Renton 's GIS data and not the smaller Talasaea delineation) does not extend onto the Site at any point. There will be no need to modify (decrease or increase) the required buffer width as a result of the proposed development plan. (a) Buffer Required: Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer requirement for the category of the created, restored or enhanced wetland . All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Buffers shall not include areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 13 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with used characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions. As previously stated, the required buffer for Wetland A does not extend onto the Site. The buffer, itself, is generally well vegetated with native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species. (b) Buffer May Be Increased: The buffer standards required by this Chapter presume the existence of a dense vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect the wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation , the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may increase the standard buffer planting or enhancement, and/or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging. The buffer currently is well vegetated, albeit bisected by a soft-paved public trail. Increasing the buffer width would not provide any additional protections to the wetland due to the existence of the trail and the disturbance that occurs by its use. (c) Minimum Buffer Width: The minimum buffer width provided by Subsection (c) is 75 feet. We are measuring this buffer from the edge of the wetland based on the City of Renton 's GIS database rather than our much smaller delineation to illustrate that the buffer does not extend onto the Site at any point. v. Provisions for Small Isolated Wetlands: All wetlands shall be regulated regardless of size ; provided that the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall assure that preservation of isolated wetlands and associated buffer of less than ten thousand (10 ,000) square feet of combined wetland and buffer shall maintain effective wetland functions , or be mitigated as provided below. This provision is not applicable . No wetlands meeting the definition provided above exist on or adjacent to the Site. vi. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may average wetland buffer widths on a case-by-case basis when the applicant demonstrates through a wetland study to the satisfaction of the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that all of the following criteria are met: This provision is not applicable. The buffer for Wetland A does not extend onto the Site. Buffer averaging will not be required. 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 14 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report vii. Reasonable Use : Wetland buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following are met: The buffer for Wetland A does not extend onto the Site, thus does not constrain the potential development of the property. Reasonable use will not be addressed for the proposed development. viii . Wetland Buffer Increase Allowed: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may increase the width of the standard buffer width on a case-by-case basis , based on a critical area study , when a larger buffer is required to protect critical habitats as outlined in RMC 4-3-050K, or such increase is necessary to: (a) Protect the function and value of that wetland from proximity of adjacent land use , including noise , light and other disturbance, not sufficiently limited by buffer provided above; The 75-foot standard buffer for Wetland A does not extend onto the Site. The existing vegetation within the May Creek Trail Park is sufficient to protect the wetland from disturbances emanating from the proposed development. It should be noted that increasing the width of the buffer for Wetland A will not provide any additional protection from human disturbances since a public trail surrounds the wetland. Any benefit that might be provided by a larger buffer width would be nullified by human-related disturbances from the use of the public trail. (b) Maintain viable populations of priority species of fish and wildlife; As stated in our response to RMC 4-3-090 .O2 .d. viii.a above, increasing the buffer width would not provide any additional protection to listed priority fish and wildlife species due to the presence of a public trail that surrounds the wetland. The wetland does reside within City-owned property, which will prevent future development around this reach of May Creek. Protections to priority species, therefore , are provided by the May Creek Trail Park. (c) Protect wetlands and other critical areas from landslides, erosion or other hazards. The wetland and the Site are not in areas identified as landslide or erosion hazard. ix. Allowed Activities in wetlands and buffers: The following uses and activities may be allowed in wetlands or buffer areas by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee subject to the priorities , protection , and mitigation requirements of this Section: 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 15 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report This provision will not need to be addressed. There will be no direct impacts to Wetland A or its required buffer resulting from the proposed development. x . Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect wetlands and/or wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland function and values in accordance with subsection D? of this Section. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alteration and shall re-establish, create, rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent functions and values. This provision will not be necessary since there will be no direct impacts to Wetland A or its required buffer occurring as a result of the proposed development. xi. Development Standards Near Wetlands: Development standards for adjacent development shall minimize adverse effects on the wetland , and shall include: (a) Subdivision of land shall assure that each lot has sufficient building area outside wetlands and buffers. Lots in subdivisions shall be oriented whenever feasible to provide a rear yard of at least twenty feet between the buffer area and buildings; The proposed development is not a subdivision. Nevertheless, the proposed development will provide more than the required 20 feet of setback between the buffer area and buildings. (b) Fencing shall be provided at the perimeter of residential development to limit domestic animal entry into wetlands and buffer areas ; The Site is currently segregated from the May Creek Trail Park by a chain- /ink fence . The existing fence may be replaced with a two-rail fence or a similar fence type. Currently, there is no protective fencing around Wetland A that would prevent pets from intruding upon the wetland from the existing public trail. (c) Activities that generate noise shall be located as far away from the wetland and buffer as feasible. Roads, driveways, parking lots, and loading areas , mechanical or ventilating equipment shall be located on the sides of buildings away from the wetland, or separated by noise attenuating walls; The only potential noise-generating activity, as described by this provision, is the emergency access road around the perimeter of the proposed development. This road will be infrequently used by emergency vehicles only and will likely not require any noise attenuating practices to protect the wetland or its buffer. (d) Light penetration into buffer areas and wetland shall be limited by locating areas requiring exterior lighting away from the wetland boundary, or 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 16 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report limiting light mounting heights to a maximum of four feet (4). Windows that will be lit at night should be minimized on the side of buildings facing wetlands and buffers, or screened as provided below; A sufficient depth of dense vegetation exists within the May Creek Trail Park to adequately protect the wetland and its buffer from light intrusion. Lighting will be located on the north side of the drive aisle adjacent to May Creek Trail Park. (e) Runoff should be routed to infiltration systems, to the maximum extent feasible , to provide groundwater interflow recharge to wetlands and/or water bodies and to limit overland flow and erosion. The draft geotechnical report for this development plan does not recommend stormwater infiltration onsite due to a relatively shallow groundwater table (estimated to be two to five feet below ground surface). All stormwater will be collected onsite, treated with enhanced stormwater treatment technologies, and released into an existing stormwater detention pond located in the Site 's southwestern comer. Untreated overland flow leaving the developed site will be prevented. The proposed development will not cause any local increase in erosion hazards. (f) Surface and piped stormwater should be routed to existing conveyances or to other areas, wherever hydraulic gradients allow. Where stormwater is routed to wetlands, system design shall assure that erosion and sedimentation will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable; No stormwater will be routed to Wetland A. All stormwater will be captured onsite and directed towards an existing stormwater detention pond for gradual release directly into May Creek. (g) To prevent channelized flow from lawns and other landscaped areas from entering the buffer, and prevent washing of fertilizers , herbicides and pesticides into the buffer, if slopes adjacent to the buffer exceed fifteen percent (15%), a ten feet [sic] (10') wide swale to intercept runoff or other effective interception facility approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall be provided at the edge of the buffer; This provision does not apply to the project. Required curb and gutter on the emergency access road will effectively prevent any runoff from lawns or landscaped areas from impacting Wetland A or its required buffer. (h) Adopt and implement an integrated pest management system including limiting use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides within twenty five (25) feet of the buffer. An integrated pest management plan will be prepared for this project. It is 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 17 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report unlikely that any fertilizers , herbicides, or pesticides (properly applied by a licensed applicator) would impact the vegetated portion of the buffer since the edge of the buffer for Wetland A (as measured from the map of the wetland in the City of Renton 's GIS database) is approximately 30 feet from the edge of the Site. 7.2 Development within Vegetation Conservation Buffer RMC 4-3-090.D .7 provides guidance for density, setbacks, and height standards . Subsection (a) of this section provides a table indicating shoreline bulk density standards by shoreline jurisdiction. The required setback, or vegetation conservation buffer for May Creek is 100 ft measured landward from the stream's OHWM. None of the buildings will be located within this 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer. RMC 4- 3-090.D . 7 .a specifies the allowable shoreline bulk standards for development within shoreline zones. The maximum building height within the High Intensity overlay is 35 ft. However, Table note 8 allows for additional building height, stating: 8. "Additional height may be allowed if essential to the function of a water- dependent use . Height up to that established in chapter 4-2 RMC, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, may be allowed for non-water-dependent uses in the following reaches: Lake Washington Reaches C, H, I, and J; Cedar River Reaches A, B, and C; Black River Reach A; May Creek Reach B; and Springbrook Creek Reaches B, C, and D: a. For buildings landward of one hundred feet (100') from OHWM, the maximum building height shall be defined by a maximum allowable building height envelope that shall: 07 July 2021 i. Begin along a line lying parallel to and one hundred feet (100 ') from OHWM at a height of either thirty five feet (35') or one-half (1/2) the maximum height allowed in the underlying zone , whichever is greater; The underlying zoning for this project is Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR). The maximum allowable building height for this zoning is 250 feet. Therefore , the maximum allowable height starting at 100 feet from the OHWM should be 125 feet. The height of the proposed apartment building within the shoreline zone is approximately 50. 5 feet. and ii. Have an upward landward transition at a slope of one vertical to one horizontal from the beginning height either (a) until the line at which the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning in chapter 4-2 RMC is reached (from which line the height envelope shall extend landward at the maximum height allowed in the underlying zoning), or (b) to the end of shoreline jurisdiction, Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report whichever comes first." This item does not apply since there will be no need to increase building height beyond the 50. 5 feet currently designed. RMC 4-3-090.F.1 provides guidance on vegetation conservation and shoreline modifications. RMC 4-3-090-F.1.a states: 1. "Vegetation Conservation a . Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer Width: Except as otherwise specified in this Section, water bodies defined as shorelines shall have a minimum 100 foot (100') vegetation management buffer measured from the OHWM of the regulated shoreline [sic] of the State. Where streams enter or exit pipes, the buffer shall be measured perpendicular to the OHWM from the end of the pipe along the open channel section of the stream. A minimum 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer is shown in Figure 4 of this report. Approximately 6,592 sf of vegetation conservation buffer extends onto the Site at its southwestern comer. The area of the buffer extending onto the Site is not well vegetated. Rather, it is disturbed and mostly impervious surfaces. Consequently, the value of this vegetation conservation buffer area on the Site is poor. b. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Widths by Reach: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may apply the following vegetation buffers provided for in Table 4-3- 090F1 i. Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach , as an alternative to the standard vegetation conservation buffer for sites for development that implement water-oriented use and public access as provided in the table for each reach . This section does not apply since water-oriented use or public access is not part of the proposed development. The 75-ft buffer, based on the map of the wetland provide in the City of Renton's GIS database c. Alternative Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single Family Lots: This section does not apply. There are no single-family lots on the Site . d . Reduction of Vegetated Buffer or Setback Width: 07 July 2021 i. Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or Designee May Reduce: Based upon an applicant's request, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks where the Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report 07 July 2021 applicant can demonstrate compliance with criteria in the subsection below. Buffer enhancement shall be required where appropriate to site conditions, habitat sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. It will be necessary to reduce the vegetation conservation buffer as it extends onto the Site to accommodate the proposed development plan, which includes parking spaces and required emergency access to buildings along the south side of the development. The area where the vegetation conservation buffer will be reduced currently consists of impermeable surfaces with little to no natural vegetation. ii. Water-Dependent Uses: This subsection is not applicable. The proposed redevelopment of the Site does not include any water-dependent uses. iii. Vegetation Conservation Standard Table Applied: Vegetated buffers specified for areas enumerated in Table 4-3-090F1 i, Vegetation Conservation Standards by Reach, shall be applied in accordance with those provisions. This subsection does not apply. The Site currently contains no single-family lots. iv. Buffer and Setback Reduction Standards: Based upon an applicant's request, and the acceptance of a standard stream or lake study , the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may approve a reduction in the standard buffer widths/setbacks by up to fifty percent (50%) if within the High Intensity Overlay or by up to twenty five percent (25%) in all other shoreline overlays except when the buffer widths/setbacks are established by Subsection F1 c of this Section, Alternative Vegetated Buffer Widths and Setbacks for Existing Single Family Lots, where the applicant can demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria in the subsections below: (a) The proposal complies with either of the following two (2) criteria: (1) The area of the proposed reduced-width buffer is already extensively vegetated with native species , including trees and shrubs, and has less than five percent (5%) non-native invasive species cover; The vegetation conservation buffer for May Creek Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 20 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway 07 July 2021 Critical Areas Report extends onto the Site in two locations near the Site's southwestern comer. These two areas are currently covered by impermeable surfaces and are generally unvegetated. The remaining vegetation conservation buffer on the May Creek Trail Park property is well vegetated with native trees and shrubs. It appears that vegetation management to enhance the existing buffer habitat and remove non-native invasive species occurs occasionally. or (2) The area of the proposed reduced-width buffer can be enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non- native species ; A dense growth of Himalayan blackberry exists along the fence line along the Site 's southern boundary. This growth of blackberry is on City-owned property and can be removed and replanted with native vegetation , pursuant to City of Renton approval. and (b) The proposed project, with width reduction, will result in no net loss of ecological functions as consistent with subsection D2a of this Section, No Net Loss of Ecological Functions; The proposed reduction of the vegetation conservation buffer where it currently extends onto the Site will not cause a net loss of ecological function. The area of proposed buffer reduction is currently devoid of native vegetation (no trees, shrubs, or desirable herbaceous species) and provides no ecological functions to May Creek. The proposed development, however, will install curb and gutter along the edges of the parking aisles and emergency access road. The proposed curb and gutter will prevent untreated and undetained stormwater from flowing offsite and into the vegetated portion of the buffer. In essence , the prevention of undetained and untreated runoff will help improve some of the functions of the vegetation conservation buffer in terms of protecting the water quality of May Creek. and (c) Reduction of the buffer/setback shall not create the need for rigid shoreline stabilization as described in subsections F4aiii(d) and (e) of this Section, Shoreline Stabilization Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 21 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report Alternatives Hierarchy; The proposed reduction in the buffer/setback will not require any shoreline stabilization. No work will occur within the May Creek Trail Park property. and (d) The reduction shall not create any significant unmitigated adverse impacts to other property in the vicinity. It is unlikely that the reduction in buffer/setback width will create any significant unmitigated adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity of the Site. There will be no increase in the amount of unvegetated buffer resulting from the proposed development plan. Furthermore, required stormwater management will help prevent the release of undetained and untreated stormwater runoff into the May Creek Trail Park property (e) Review Procedures: (1) Buffer reductions in the High Intensity Overlay shall be approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee as part of a Substantial Development Permit. Buffer reductions in all other shoreline overlays shall be processed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to RMC 4-9-1901, Variances and Conditional Uses. The proposed development project is located within the High Intensity Overlay and, therefore, shall require a Substantial Development Permit. (2) Written findings shall be made to demonstrate that the buffer reduction substantially implements the criteria of this Section . The preceding discussion of Development within the vegetation conservation buffer serves to fulfill the purpose of this subsection. 7.3 Analysis of Mitigation Requirements It is our understanding of the Shoreline Development code and the proposed development plan that substantial mitigation for reducing the vegetation conservation buffer will not be necessary for this project (City of Renton 2015). There will be no direct impacts to existing vegetation within the vegetation conservation buffer on the Site, nor will there be any impacts to May Creek or Wetland A. The proposed site 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 22 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report development will not reduce the existing level of ecological functioning of the vegetation conservation buffer. Rather, we anticipate that required stormwater management for this project will help prevent untreated and undetained stormwater from exiting the Site and impacting May Creek. We do envision that the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development (or designee) may require the infestation of Himalayan blackberry along the Site's southern boundary to be removed and the area along the southern property line replanted with a variety of native trees and shrubs. Further mitigation is not warranted based on existing conditions both onsite and offsite. CHAPTER 8.SUMMARY The address for the Site is 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in the City of Renton , Washington. The project will take place on a single parcel , approximately 7.2 acres in size (King County Parcel number 3224059049). The Public Land Survey System location of the Site is Section 32, Township 24 North , Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. The topography of the Site is generally level. The Site is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, by May Creek to the south , to the west by Lake Washington Boulevard North , and by an existing WSDOT access road to the north . The WSDOT access road currently provides vehicular access road to the Site. May Creek is designated as a Shoreline of the State , Urban Conservancy, as it flows east to west adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site. The Site is currently developed with five light industrial buildings , constructed of prefabricated steel. Approximately 82 percent of the site is impervious surfaces. A Shoreline of the State (May Creek) is located on a parcel adjacent to the south of the Site. This adjacent parcel is owned by the City of Renton and is used for public recreation and open space . The right bank ordinary high water mark of May Creek is sufficiently close to the Site to place part of the site within a 200-foot shoreline management zone . The Site is designated as Shoreline High Intensity Overlay by the City of Renton. Outside of the 200-foot shoreline management zone , only a portion (approximately 5,347 sf) of a required 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer off of May Creek extends onto the Site (a small wetland is located southeast of the site within the May Creek Trail Park, but its standard 75-foot buffer does not extend onto the Site at any point). The proposed development plan meets the general requirements for development within the High Intensity Overlay. No building will be located within the 100-foot vegetation conservation buffer on the Site. Therefore, height restrictions for development within the vegetation conservation buffer do not apply. Additionally , the portion of the vegetation conservation buffer that extends onto the Site may be reduced by up to 50 percent , or 50 feet. This reduction provision is easily met since the maximum extent of the vegetation conservation buffer onto the Site is no greater than 40 feet. 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 23 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report For the most part, no mitigation will be required for the proposed development or reduction in the vegetation conservation buffer. The area of proposed buffer reduction is currently covered with impervious surfaces and provides no ecological function or value in protecting May Creek or providing useful habitat. The proposed development will not increase this lack of functioning buffer. However, it may be required that the dense growth of Himalayan blackberry along the Site's southern boundary be removed and the boundary replanted with native trees and shrubs . 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 24 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report CHAPTER 9.REFERENCES Anderson, Paul S., Susan Meyer, Patricia Olsen, and Eric Stockdale. 2016 . "Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State."# 16-06-029 . Lacey, WA: Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelines & Environmental Assistance Program. City of Renton . 2015 . City of Renton Comprehensive Plan . Code Publishing Company. 2019a. Renton Municipal Code. Title IV Development Regulations. Vol. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlays. --. 2019b. Renton Municipal Code . Title IV Development Regulations . Vol. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts. Cowardin, Lewis M ., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T . LaRoe. 1979. "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States." In Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service . Washington , DC . Federal Register. 2002. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S. C 1251 et Seq.). United States Senate . Hitchcock, C. Leo, and Arthur Cronquist. 2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual. University of Washington Press. Hruby, T. 2006. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington - Revised, Publication #04-06-025 . Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology. Lichvar, R.W ., D .L. Banks , W .N . Kirchner, and N . C . Melvin. 2016 . "The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings." Phytoneuron 2016: 1-17. U .S . Army Corps of Engineers . 2015 . "Clean Water Rule: Definition of 'Waters of the United States."' Federal Register Volume 80 (No. 124): 75. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997 . Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology. 07 July 2021 Copyright © 2019 Talasaea Consultants , Inc . 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway 07 July 2021 FIGURES Figure 1 -Vicinity Map and Driving Directions Figure 2 -Site Parcel Map Critical Areas Report Figure 3 -USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 4 -Existing Conditions Map Figure 5 -Proposed Site Development Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Page 26 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report APPENDIX A U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2019 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Appendix A DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-9B6D-D48F19435899 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site : TAL-1779 Kennydale Gateway City/County: ~R=e~nt~o~n __________ Sampling Date :6 -10-2019 Applicant/Owner: ..,_V..,,u"'lc"'a-'-'n _________________________ State: Washington Sampling Point: ..,_T-'--P....,-A...,_1.,__ __ _ lnvestigator(s): =D-'--R'""'T ______________________ Section , Township , Range : Section 32, T24N, R5E ,W .M. Landform (hillslope , terrace, etc.): =te~rr=a=c=e ___________ Local relief (concave , convex , none): ~C=o~n=ca=v~e~----Slope(%): _1 __ Subregion (LRR): ~A~-------------Lat: 47° 31" 44" Long : 122 ° 11"55" Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name : Norma sandy loam NWI classification : ~P=S=S _______ _ Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes [gl No D (If no , explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes C8l No D (If needed, exp lain any answers in Remarks .) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Att h ·t -ac s1 e maps h owmg sam :>1mg pom r . t I f oca ions, t t ransec s, 1mpo an ea ures, e c . rt tf t t Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes C8l No • Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes • No • within a Wetland? Yes [gl No • Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes C8J No • Remarks: Dominance of wetland vegetation mostly aggressive FAC species. Hydrology indicators were geomorphic position and FAC neutral test. These constitute a weak indication of wetland conditions. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Sgecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Coci}us cornuta 15 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW , or FAC: 4 (A) 2 . A/nus rubra 15 Yes Et&.__ Total Number of Dominant 3. Poeulus balsamifera var. trichocarea 5 Et&.__ Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. ---Percent of Dominant Species 35 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW , or FAC : 80 (A/B) Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15 ft) 1. Acer macroeh'>t,llum 10 FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 . Lonicera involucrata 30 Yes Et&.__ Total % Cover of: Multigly by : 3 . Rubus seectabilis 15 Yes Et&.__ OBL species X 1 = 4 . A/nus rubra 5 Et&.__ FACW species x2 = 5 . Oemleria cerasiformis 10 FACU FAC species x3= 70 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5 ft) UPL species x5= 1. Po/'>£_gonum sachalinense 15 FACU Column Totals : (A) (B) 2 . Ranunculus reeens 80 Yes Et&.__ 3 . Eeilobium ciliatum 5 FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 . Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: --- 5 . C8J Dominance Test is >50% --- 6 . • Prevalence Index is s3.0 1 --- 7 . • Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8 . ---• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ ) 1. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must --- 2. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. --- 30 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes [gl No • Remarks: Dominant species are greater than 50% FAC , FACW , or OBL. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains , Valleys , and Coast-Version 2.0 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 SOIL Sampling Point: TP-A1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) __x_ Color (moist) ____%__ ~ -1QL Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/3 ~ 10YR 3/4 10 C _M __ Sandy loam 12"+ 2.5Y 4/4 Sand ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Type: C=Concentration , D=Depletion , RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininq , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: • Histosol (A 1) • Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) • Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) • Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) • Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks • Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) • Thick Dark Surface (A 12) • Redox Dark Surface (F6) • Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) • Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and • Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) • Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes • No [8J Remarks: Hydric soil indicators are not met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that aggly) Secondary Indicators (2 or more reguired) • Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA 1, 2, D Water Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)) • High Water Table (A2) • Salt Crust (B 11) • Drainage Patterns (810) • Saturation (A3) • Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) • Dry-Season Water Table (C2) • Water Marks (81) • Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) • Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) • Sediment Deposits (82) • Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) [8J Geomorphic Position (D2) • Drift Deposits (83) • Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) • Shallow Aquitard (D3) • Algal Mat or Crust (84) • Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) [8J FAG-Neutral Test (D5) • Iron Deposits (85) • Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1 )(LRR A) • Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) • Surface Soil Cracks (86) • Other (Explain in Remarks) •Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes • No • Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes • No • Depth (inches): >20" Saturation Present? Yes • No • Depth (inches): >20" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes [8J No • (includes capillary frinqe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge , monitoring well , aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Test plot location meets two Secondary Indicators . However, we believe that these constitute a relatively weak indication of wetland hydrology US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains , Valleys , and Coast-Version 2.0 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-9B6D-D48F19435899 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site : TAL-1779 Kennydale Gateway City/County: ~R=e~nt~o~n __________ Sampling Date :6 -10-2019 Applicant/Owner: ..,_V..,,u"'lc"'a-'-'n _________________________ State: Washington Sampling Point: ..,_T-'--P....,-A...,,2=------ lnvestigator(s): =D-'--R'""'T ______________________ Section , Township , Range : Section 32, T24N, R5E ,W .M. Landform (hillslope , terrace, etc.): =te~rr=a=c=e ___________ Local relief (concave , convex , none): ~C=o~n=ca=v~e~----Slope(%): _1 __ Subregion (LRR): ~A~-------------Lat: 47° 31' 44" Long : 122° 11'55" Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Norma sandy loam NWI classification : _________ _ Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes [gl No D (If no , explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances " present? Yes C8l No D (If needed, exp lain any answers in Remarks .) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Att h ·t -ac s1 e maps h owmg sam :>1mg pom r . t I f oca ions, t t ransec s, 1mpo an ea ures, e c. rt tf t t Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes • No [gl Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes • No [gl within a Wetland? Yes D No [gl Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes • No [gl Remarks: Indicators of wetland vegetation , hydrology, and hydric soil were not met. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size : 30 ft) % Cover S12ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Pseudotsuqa menziesii 5 FACU That Are OBL, FACW , or FAC : 3 (A) 2 . A/nus rubra 30 Yes Et&__ Total Number of Dominant 3 . Poeutus balsamifera var. trichocarea 10 Yes Et&__ Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4 . ---Percent of Dominant Species 45 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW , or FAC : 50 (A/B) Sa12ling /Sh rub Stratum (Plot size : 15 ft) 1. Co[Y.lus cornuta 10 FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 . Acer macroehyllum 60 Yes FACU Total % Cover of: Multi12ly by : 3 . Rubus seectabilis 10 Et&__ OBL species X 1 = 4. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Yes FACU FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3= --- 100 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species x5= 1. Galium aearine 60 Yes FACU Column Totals : (A) (B) 2 . Ranunculus reeens 20 Yes Et&__ 3 . Polyqonum sachalinense 10 FACU Preva lence Index = B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: --- 5. • Dominance Test is >50% --- 6. • Prevalence Index is :S3.0 1 --- 7 . • Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting ---data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. ---• Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 90 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: __ ) 1. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must --- 2 . be present, unless disturbed or problematic . --- 30 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes • No C8J Remarks : Dominant species not greater than 50% FAC , FACW , or OBL US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains , Valleys , and Coast-Version 2.0 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 SOIL Sampling Point: TP-A2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) __x_ Color (moist) ~ -1YQL -1QL Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/2 .1QQ__ ---Sandy Loam 6-20 10YR 3/3 .1QQ__ ---Sandy Loam 20"+ 10YR 4/2 .1QQ__ ---Sandy Loam ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1Type: C=Concentration , D=Depletion , RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininq , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: • Histosol (A 1) • Sandy Redox (S5) D 2 cm Muck (A10) • Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) • Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 (except MLRA 1)) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) • Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks • Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) • Thick Dark Surface (A 12) • Redox Dark Surface (F6) • Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) • Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and • Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) • Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes • No [8J Remarks: Hydric soil indicators HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that aggly) Secondary Indicators (2 or more reguired) • Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA 1, 2, D Water Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)) • High Water Table (A2) • Salt Crust (B 11) • Drainage Patterns (810) • Saturation (A3) • Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) • Dry-Season Water Table (C2) • Water Marks (81) • Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) • Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) • Sediment Deposits (82) • Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) • Geomorphic Position (D2) • Drift Deposits (83) • Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) • Shallow Aquitard (D3) • Algal Mat or Crust (84) • Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) • FAG-Neutral Test (D5) • Iron Deposits (85) • Stunted or Stressed Plants (D 1 )(LRR A) • Raised Ant Mounds (D6(LRR A) • Surface Soil Cracks (86) • Other (Explain in Remarks) •Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes • No [8J Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes • No [8J Depth (inches): >20" Saturation Present? Yes • No [8J Depth (inches): >20" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes • No [8J (includes capillary frinqe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge , monitoring well , aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains , Valleys , and Coast-Version 2.0 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report APPENDIX B WETLAND RATING FORM, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WETLAND RA TING SYSTEM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON (2014) 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Appendix B Doc uSign En velop e ID: AB25 9DAD-E1F4-4 927 -9 86D-D48 F1 94 35899 Wetland name or numberOffsite Wetland A WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known):T_A_L_-_1_7_7_9 __ 0_ff_s_it_e_W_e_tla_n_d_A __ Date of site visit: 11-11-2018 Rated by ______ D_R_T ______ Trained by Ecology? Yes~ No_ Date of training 10-2005 SEC: 32 TWNSHP: 24N RNGE: 5E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No~ Map of wetland unit: Figure _1 _ Estimated size 68 sf SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III ✓ IV Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III= Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOT AL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply~ 12 10 15 37 Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) B s ummary o fb .. f f as1c m orma 100 a b t th OU ti d ·t ewe an um Wetland Unit has Special Wetland HGM Class Characteristics used for Rating Estuarine Depressional ✓ Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form -western Washington l August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 Doc uSign En velop e ID: AB25 9DAD-E1F4-4 927 -9 86D-D48 F1 94 35899 Wetland name or numberOffsite Wetland A Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) SPl. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database . SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. NO ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be detennined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 2 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? ✓ NO -go to 2 YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands . If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (seep. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ✓ NO -go to 3 YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; _At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? ✓ NO -go to 4 YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), __ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __ The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). ✓ NO -go to 5 YES -The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 3 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river __ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. ✓ NO -go to 6 YES -The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO -go to 7 ✓ YES -The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ✓ NO -go to 8 YES -The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases . For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake-fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under wetland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 4 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 Doc uSign En velop e ID: AB25 9DAD-E1F4-4 927 -9 86D-D48 F1 94 35899 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? D D D D D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanentlyflowing) points = 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class , with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points= 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing") Provide photo or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface ( or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES NO points= 4 points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed , vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation >= 1/10 of area points= 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <l/10 of area points= 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes D 1 .4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points= 4 points= 2 points= 0 Points (only 1 score per box) (see p.38) Figure=---- 0 Figure~ 5 Figure ~ 0 Map of Hydroperiods ~-------------------------~~-~~~------------- D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I 6 I ---------------------------------------~----- D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? D Comments: Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft -Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland -A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas , farmed fields, roads , or clear-cut logging ✓ -Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland -Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen -Other ---------------- YES multi p Ii er is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D 1 by D2 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 5 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 August 2004 (seep. 44) multiplier 2 12 Doc uSign En velop e ID: AB25 9DAD-E1F4-4 927 -9 86D-D48 F1 94 35899 Wetland name or numberOffsite Wetland A D D D D Depressional and Flats Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 3 .1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently_flowing ") Unit ha s an uncon stricted , or s lightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently_flowing) points= 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Th e wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points= 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points= 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points= 5 points= 3 The area of the basi n is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Points ( only I score per box) (see p.46) 0 0 5 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 ------------------------------~---------- D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above I 5 I -------------------------------------------D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. -Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems -Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems ✓ -Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems -Other ----------------- YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Comments: Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Add score to table on p. 1 August 2004 (seep. 49) multiplier 2 10 Doc uSign En velop e ID: AB25 9DAD-E1F4-4 927 -9 86D-D48 F1 94 35899 Wetland name or numberOffsite Wetland A These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class is¼ acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. __ Aquatic bed __ Emergent plants __ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) _✓_Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: _✓_The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous , moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures 2 structures 1 structure H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) __ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present __ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present _✓_Saturated only 1 type present __ Permanently flowing stream or river in , or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland points= 3 points= 2 point= 1 points= 0 __ Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points __ Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2• ( different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species . Do not include Eurasian Mi/foil, reed canarygrass, purple loo sestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species List species below if you want to: 5 -19 species < 5 species points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Points (only l score per box) Figure...::__ .... Figure_:::_ 0 2 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed. " -100 m (330ft) ofrelatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 -100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 -50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 -100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 -50 m (170ft) ofrelatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above -No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 -Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 -Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields , paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points= 0. ✓ -Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads,paved roads , are considered breaks in the corridor). YES= 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO= go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide , has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2 .3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR ✓ within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? ✓ YES = 1 point NO = 0 points Figure-:____ 2 Total for page __ _ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. __ Aspen Stands : Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). __ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p . 152). __ Herbaceous Balds : Variab le size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. __ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in o ld -growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). -✓ _Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. __ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). -✓ _lnstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. __ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore . (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). __ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. __ Cliffs : Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2 .0 m (0.5 -6 .5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. -✓ _Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats= 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 4 Doc uSign En velop e ID: AB25 9DAD-E1F4-4 927 -9 86D-D48 F1 94 35899 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within ½ mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within ½ mile points = 5 3 There are at least 3 other wetlands within ½ mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetland within ½ mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within ½ mile . points= 2 There are no wetlands within ½ mile. points = 0 H 2 . TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat 1------I Add the scores.from H2 .l,H2.2, H2 .3, H2 .4 I 9 I ------TOT AL for H 1 from page 14 6 -----Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on 15 p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated, and -With a salinity greater than 0 .5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO ✓ SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES= Category I NO= Category II -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 18 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Category No Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Wetland name or numberOffsite Wetland A SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _ YES __ -contact WNHP/DNR (seep. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO _✓_not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit ( or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e . layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 ✓ No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes -go to Q. 3 ✓ No -Is not a bog for purpose ofrating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating No -go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5 .0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. J. Is the unit forested(> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species ( or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No~ Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 No No Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? lf you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height ( dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters ( dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. No YES = Category I NO _!__ not a forested wetland with special characteristics ,....._ ___ __, SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5 .1 NO_!__ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5 .1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 No Do c uSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A SC 6.0 lnterdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES -go to SC 6.1 NO __!_ not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO -go to SC 6.2 SC 6 .2 Is the unit between 0 .1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. I. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p.1 Wetland Rating Form -western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 No NA DocuSign Envelope ID: AB259DAD-E1F4-4927-986D-D48F19435899 Kennydale Gateway Critical Areas Report APPENDIXC FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) 07 July 2021 Copyright© 2019 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1779 Critical Areas Report (2021-07-07).docx Appendix C