HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-07-020_Report 1KING COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of ASSESSMENTS
, I
SW 30-23-05
u,""""' 06. 20<Je
t,~:~~·
-1,1 ,_ .. -
~ I '~~~TON I)IV. 1 I I'
I I~~--I" I I"""
I
REPlAT OF LOT 7,
I
· BLOCK 1, BURLINGlON I~ - _ ...... --;;'r,i_.
-NORTHERN ORILLIA I
INDUSTRIAL PARK 1
r~~=
ii
ii·;
I OF RENTON,.DIV. 1 : : -I
I_~ .. _ _ 'i
1,-,
INDUSTRIAL PARK OF RI TON DIV. 1 I
BURLING10N NORTHER I1ILlIA
I
J ., ~-.-.-......'-.
! il:':.~~;:, ~;;;;;:-~~
.j ~ . t L ~ ,~.~,.",,-;;,::
!i
ii
!i
j·r
ii
!i
,,_ .. -' -S-W31IHS~~r:i".i;"_·~_~_'_-__ ~_-~!1
'l~ ( -{
'
''',,' II ,I) ~:i
1;;'1
~ •• >
r' I /i:.::" ~i '
7 I !,'" ~ ____ ~ __ ." _ .. ,/ . , ill ...---'-'~-~'-"·--1 r---<·--,,--=j'~-7--;-~:...J / ... I •••
I YOUNKER NISSAN,S, I~·-J
3401 EAST VAUEY ROAD
BURLINGTON NORTHERN
INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II
I
1
.. I
~
l ijJ , ,
.......... ~I .~" ____ .. --'"-'-. __ _ -_ .... -.. ,.
I
I , I
-I· !
"
,I ..
1\'.3tA3!/ NY1d 3.J.IS
$:;rJ86 NOJ.9NiHSYht .NO.JN~
aVO",,,371VIIJSY31fh'f;
NVSSIN 1I3J1NnOA
NVki fJNlC1V?:f9
,
!' J
II 'l
zo
T 0" i!W <; ,
"'e il<i~ !~ !~ "'0 ~. ~"'i:?ii:i f-Z >:!! i~ ~ , ..
~
.1 illil III!
-I I
II
il~
!~
I~
II I
!~
liB I _--
,
\
'·'h
I \ ;t-.; , ,
, , ..... '1 '\ ,
, •
·'I-I,",A~ II¥Jd:WS ~dO,u1.:l Zo
T
, I V ~ ~""",,,M ~9086 NO.L?NIHSYM 'NDlN~
• II O~ }Ij,~ 9 •
. i ! ,~ ~ (JOOO' G77Vlll:>1'3 10K;
~: <.> -
I I IV Ntf'SSIN 1I3J1NnOA
" "'0 H~~~ t13
~-
-I 0 !I w. "r-I IV -,
, , -! .::3"-~n
I
I" _.
"! >-z u ;!~
--"""'"
~ Ii,; 0-
0:: ~.
Iv ---....,.-,
'v it£!. .... "u""'"'
NIi7d "{)'S'~'l ! ........ 1"'''' iii:
.. _JO_
Eli"" --
: i?:g.
i ~ II'I~
-~ II'Ih .~~~~
'~~i~ •. ~ ~ :;ij!Ot ~ --CI:I
" ~. ~ ;~
II
I I
i
•• 1
,f
~
~
~-
~ • ~-
~
~
1'1
u ~
!
~
~
-/ \ -
1\ .
111 l'
~
~ !
U ~ I
.~
:It
~
U)
i ~ m ~
'" ~ ~ ~
U;
~ e
i
M.=;'1~NY1C3.JJ5'
%096 "'OJ.!)f'/fHSYM 'Na1N~
ffiI(W A177\<,1 1S'fi 1Off:
NVSSIN 113J1NnOA
133HS ~3/l0:J
{
~
!'. ,
,
l' Ii I,
!
zu \!1 <0
O~ t~m ;S ,
V>" 0> "'~ ~ ~i ~~ ~ '"' w. ~zi:~);i f' >-2 ~l~n wO ! c:: , i
i Ii
!il, ~! :. i
!
I
,~
j,
!
i
j
d
! \" I I
III
! \ \ \
i ill
I
I I~ "!!'J'_~
~-. 1[" , ~ , 'V --------z.."'f.
I 9 ~ ? ---""--w;,;ij,,
1 9 -_~'l'
9 -' i 9 ." ... ~,,~ __ : ..... ;l .. _,,---
T-
NOlDNIHSYM N,,,I~ NY1d 3.J./S HOUGH dO)J.J:) fSV@6NOJ.9NIHStIM "NOJN3li
a'lO~ ",,7JY1I1SV3lfJ1'f:
N"'SSIN 113J1NnOA
S]I'rf.130aWS3.10N ":)"S"3"1.
i,
,//fi;,~ -I II -'! ~ !, ~~~~ It~ li /1 V! .. , ~ , '--I I} _~~~~ .;, ! ~"" -) ~~
1(\ r-~~:nJ' \V::~-'> ~,\:\\ /:r---~~
~~ \' i i-;~ \\}\
l' \l [\:
~,:
-~ ~
§l
~;
~ ~
• , ,
I ! ,
I p; .I, i! _
I i
!(!) ~,
I, '. il !,.1111 Il! !i! imili i II! I ,;-!!",
Ji iii ni!i:ll!! II! 'I -il'i-'" i !!i U 1;liiii!!! 'Ii '.' 1!!lf! ! II. iii '!~!II!', _~~~~~"'l~~lb
l , tl '<' 9 ~ I' A<l~~ '-'0 II ~hO! :;Qt\j
II 1~I~~ "'u -I ! ! ~~~~~
~
.!, i!t ~~ i~~ II ;;1 II' I;!; 1--;
,I -.11 ,1! Ii;
!. ,! !, Ii 'i" ill !!! II, ~ iI-~ ir h i,:1 li!i i 'h
~.§It e. Iii 'I' r ~ )!~ri '1-1;/ ". !I' ~~t . ~~ _ill _"II ~~~ ~~~~
1 I~ --.,~~ ~~ ~~= NOJ.N~cJOAila
T
~ ~ ~ ~ NOJ.f)NJHSVM·~ ZU
v ~ --------oval> ~;ny!1 .lS'fl 11»1: • .1 O~ t!ji~ <; !
I
" --=; NVSSIN 1I3J1NnOA "'c G ,. '7 -, , ~~~~ ti:i " , . ' 'I "0 ,"-~ T' ~ ! ~. lli~S ,~-~-l, f-Z ~! H I ! ~ .,.1 b --U=;= Q;; _ .. ",i~ ~-NV7d 1i3M3S ;.WlINl1S aN'If Y3J.tiM
---,----
I i :~ ~~ ~~ ; , ~ , ,~ ,; -, r I!
~S ~B: , , ,
,! H , , , ..... , .. .. . . ,
~ ~ ~ ! 1 ~ , ~ ,
I , i , , , " i, ! l ! ! !
to:,~ , , ~ I: ,
Fj , , I~ !~ I; I I !
I '; ,
:, -
I~ ~ Hili~' M,;>i-\3HNYkJ3J.1S NOlN3lJ ~,u1O
T
9,0fi6 NOl9NIHSP'/M 'N01N~ ~ ZO
I
:V ------G'o'OH ""-:'1'o'1I1.SY3 IOn: • • 0" j'm <;; ,
i
I~ -NVSSIN 1I3J1NnOA l' "'= <.> '" -,
" "'0 ~~~~~ ti3 I~ -~ • 0 !I I
_.
",'3 -~ I w. "I'" I~-~ >-z .:3"" ",.
I 'V .~,~ " , ! ~ ~~ ~~
.. I il .~-.. -NVId 3fJ'rINltnJO WWJ.S 0:: ..,....."' .. --
Ii , ;~ , ~~~ ~ ~j , ;~~ ,
~! I u, It ~~ ~;; ;~~ • 68 " M:~ : i _,11! 8M: ' ~ t k I -'--; i! III ,! ",M ,I !! ,H'" ~"';'~ ~;~l I,m ,:.:~ ~~ , ~~~ ~", ~: !. ,~ ~~j ~~ ;I,!:£ ~ 'i~" ., ~ ~~~~
~~~ ~~~ .:.b~ ~h~~ ~, ~~~ ,
.0" _ -'>m, , ~~~
-:.II!!!-
lid , • ~ • • ;~ . , ;~ . r '. , j , , • ~ • ~~'S ~,Q 1 1 I' 1 , , ! i' , 8! ,
~! ~ ~ ~ , o. R • • -, • • ,
11L'I::
~~ , 1 t ~i t , , , , .~~ , ~t , ,
l,~ , , , " , , • • , ~.., "..,
" . · . .. · . . · .. . .
lb., • [ ~ , • , : , ! • ~ , , l ,
--, , , • , , • ,
'I
, -~ ~ •
, ,
I ~ 1 , , , , , i , I i ! , i -, , • • • , , , , ,-; ~. \ , • ! , I , I , , , , , , ,
! i , , t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! t ! ! ! ! ! ~----.. . ~ i , i ! ! ! • ! ! i i i i i i
---
! !
". --' -
/ ,
!I
--,-.---:'--':'-.:::=. !
-----:=~-== I ---==::-:::...--,
,
I 1:'1 L-,... , 'l'.
I III :: I
::-~::--==-r==-.
f~:"'':':':-~~~~-:~~'-
,!
E§~~D_jJ
r;~~;-~~~: -'
I=;~~~=~--:::::::-"':":'"
r~-·--~--
1--·, :"'~;-" .. --;'--~ c--'-~ .-."
---'=-::-=-.~: ~-.~::':::: -
I
I
~
'----------------~, ~:
il
l
i
!! .. II ~
,-
r--r -
Ij
I! II I
,
!\
I '0 // \\ ~-: '--
r----
r----
I
I
I
II
!
I I I
I :..-J ,
,
I ,
I i
I .:.-"'::-;
.. r I •
-
i
...
_'-<>:'V:"' __ _.
• , ,
f
: .• 1
j . I J: ~ I
j 1;
~ i ; ~ ~;,
i I~ II
,1 i~ 1.
.~. 1.-'· j~ : '
:~ I I . ,
NlfSSIN 1::13>tNnOA
I,!
, L I
I ~i i
--..:t!t:ti ---_~ :
'~''''''d 'IF" ",o""''''-'Y ... .,OP1!!J! "1.:=
Jl1d 'S3TVIJOSSV i ~ 0
~ H3:aNV'l~) 'H A:m:..'Id3:r ..
NVld 3dy:,scfNVl A~VNI~113C1d
I!
'<;
• • ~'
~ ~
~ ,
~
1ii
~
!
~
~
, -
f1(
~
~
CI)
i " rei!! "':.: ll!~ ~'<O. 3~ ~~~ ~ ~'
e
~\
,
;
! ,>
~~=
=85 NOJ.!miHSVM 'NO~
OVO/{ A.3'77\fA 1S'0'3 j(lH;
NO~~AIXI
Ntf'SSIN 1I3J1NnOA
Nt1'1d 31.1S
\ Iti~! , ,
S~ "I 11 ~l'~ iil~! 'I ~'l~ ,
~ "'~'<S § lO:~E.'
!H i ! H~ ,!ill lIil! .'
W I!! I ~~ g~~. ~~~~':2, ~ ~ ~~i~~ ~ i!. i!I ~ ~ Ii ,,, >!"h t-:; i tot:: .. ~ " <ii t I: ~ ~ "'~;: ~~~dC' C§ 00 ... is " l:§ 1;1 {\ 0 H~ \! ~ ~ !I .. ~ 5 ~~ ,
i ~ l ! % , ifr I' ! i § , , ! ~ ~ ~ o • ~ ! ~, ~ ~ ~ ! ! ' ~ ~ " ! , ,0 ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ::::! i ~ ~ ~ §:!
: "
I I -,,'--.---:--:-:-:
ZQ l • 0" f'ii~ " . !' "'c <.> ~ .j "'0 l!i, ~ ~~ lii" I! f-Z ~~ ~~ ~o ! ~ ,
-,~'
Prepared By:
YOUNKER NISSAN
PRELIMINARY
DRAINAGE REPORT
City of Renton
January 23, 2007
Prepared for:
Younker Nissan
3820 East Valley Highway South
Renton, W A 98055
EXPIRES 03/19/07
Peterson Consulting Engineers
4010 Lake Washington Blvd. NE, Suite 300
Kirkland, W A 98033
(425) 827-5874
PCE Job No. MISC-0166
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Figure I -Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Existing Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Conveyance System Analysis and Design
Water Quality Facilities
ESC Analysis and Design
APPENDIX A -Drainage Calculations
Peterson Consulting Engineers
1
2
3
4
6
10
10
10
10
Page i
Preliminary Drainage Report for Younker Nissan January 23, 2007
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Younker Nissan project is a proposal to construct an auto dealership on a 4.51 acre parcel
located in Renton, Washington. The proposed project includes construction ofa 30,000 square
foot building containing offices, showroom and parts/service department as well as parking areas
and driveways. The proposed project is located southwest ofthe intersection ofSW 34th Street
and East Valley Road in Renton, Washington, see Figure 1-Vicinity Map and Figure 2-
Existing Site. More generally the site is located King County in the southwest 1/4 of Section 30,
Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W,M, The area immediately surrounding the site is zoned
Heavy Industrial (ill). The tax parcel number for the site is 1253600010.
The project will include parking areas and driveways. Stormwater runoff will be collected in a
network of catch basins and routed to a detention vault. Water quality treatment will be
addressed as part of the detention vault design, Grading will occur to install infrastructure and
utilities.
Peterson Consulting Engineers Pagel
Preliminary Drainage Report (or Younker Nissan January 23, 2007
FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP
Peterson Consulting Engineers Page 2
Preliminary Drainage Repgrt for Younker Nissan
FIGURE 2-EXISTING SITE
1 1-
SW 34TH STREET
----...•.
PROJECT SITE
3401 EAST VALLEY ROAD
" '. , ,
, ':
--------"\
/
, ,
\,
, ,
~~~-------------------
Peterson Consulting Engineers
January 2]. 2007
l --T 'Lr ," . .,
----.----~-
Page 3
Preliminary Drainage Report for Younker Nissan January 23. 2007
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
Calculations indicate that detention will be required under the 1990 King County Surface Water
Design Manual. Accordingly, the City of Renton will require that the project comply with the
2005 KCSWDM.
Minimum Requirement 1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans
The plans and the preliminary drainage report have been prepared in accordance with King
County Surface Water Design Manual.
Minimum Requirement 2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
A Construction Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared for the project.
In addition, a temporary erosion control plan is included as part of the plans for the project.
Minimum Requirement 3: Source Control of Pollution
Best management practices will be included the SWPPP to control construction debris, waste,
material, fuel, oil, lubricants, and other fluids from entering stormwater.
Minimum Requirement 4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls
The existing drainage pattern flows to the west and is conveyed to the City of Renton drainage
system. The proposed drainage pattern is directed to the storm drainage system located in East
Valley Road. As is noted in the off-site analysis included in this report, the pre-developed and
the post-developed downstream flow paths both discharge to Springbrook Creek, approximately
1 mile downstream of the site. This alteration of the natural drainage system is proposed because
of capacity concerns with the existing drainage swale leaving the site as well as the need to pump
the discharge to the swale.
Minimum Requirement 5: On-site Storm water Management
Runofffrom the new impervious areas is proposed to be conveyed to detention and water qu~lity
treatment facilities, prior to discharge.
Minimum Requirement 6: Runoff Treatment
A wet vault is proposed to provide water quality treatment for the proposed project.
Minimum Requirement 7: Flow Control
A wet vault is proposed to provide flow control for the proposed project.
Peterson Consulting Engineers Page 4
Preliminary Drainage Report for Younker Nissan January 23, 2007
Minimum Requirement 8: Wetlands Protection
The project does not propose to discharge directly into a wetland.
Minimum Requirement 9: BasinlWatershed Planning
It is our understanding that the project is not subject to any existing basin/watershed plan.
Minimum Requirement 10: Operation and Maintenance
Drainage facilities are proposed to be operated and maintained by the property owner,
Peterson Consulting Engineers Page 5
Preliminary Drainage Report fOr Younker Nissan January 23. 2007
OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
The off-site analysis is prepared in accordance with Core Requirement #2 of the 2005 King
County Surface Water Design Manual.
Task 1-Define and map the study area
A detailed map of the study area is shown on Figure A. An overall map of the study area is
shown on Figure B. The project site location and downstream flow path is noted. Two
flowpaths are noted: the pre-developed flow path and the post-developed flow path.
Figure A -Detailed Map of the Study Area
POST-DEVELOPED
DOWNSTREAM
FLOW PATH 1" ·'!h,",,,,,,,,,,,"",
~--"n--'
Peterson Consulting Engineers
, , ,
" ,>-<..';:'
J ,. -r'1~"'1-'"","'c~, ~:=~--"r
t!'
----_w
....... ~
Page 6
Preliminary Drainage Report (or Younker Nissan
Figure B -OveraU Map of the Study Area
Peterson Consulting Engineers
PROJJ:cr
SITE
January 23. 2007
Page 7
Preliminary Drainage Report (or Younker Nissan January 23, 2007
Task 2 -Resource Review
A resource review was conducted to obtain available infonnation on the study area, The
following resources were reviewed for the off-site analysis,
• Topographic survey by Peterson Consulting Engineers
• USGS Map
• King County !MAP research
Task 3 -Field Inspection
An initial field inspection was conducted on December 6, 2006 at approximately 1 :00 p,m, The
weather was sunny and approximately 46 degrees Fahrenheit. A trace of precipitation had fallen
within the previous 24 hours,
Task 4 -Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions
Pre-Developed Downstream Drainage:
The 4.51 acre site is very flat and the drainage patterns within the site are not easily discerned,
The existing site drainage eventually sheet flows to the south across the site and is collected in a
shallow swale along the south property line, The swale drains gently to the west and exits the
site at the southwest comer of the property, The swale continues to the west along the railroad
right-of-way and discharges into a catch basin approximately 380 feet west of the site, Flow
continues to the west through a series of pipes and catch basins and discharges into the 60 inch
stonn drain running north-south under Lind Avenue Southwest (approx. 750 feet downstream of
the site). Flow continues north in the 60 inch stonn drain to the intersection of Lind Avenue
Southwest and SW 34th Street. Flow continues west in the SW 34th Street stonn drain system
and discharges into Springbrook Creek, approximately 2400 feet downstream of the site.
Springbrook Creek flows to the north, crosses under Interstate 405, and discharges into the Green
River, approximately 3.0 miles downstream of the site. The Green River enters the Duwamish
River, continues to flow north and is discharged into Elliott Bay,
The field inspection raised several concerns about the pre-developed drainage course, The swale
that leaves the site and heads west along the railroad right-of-way is less than 5 feet wide and less
than I foot deep in a number of places, We are concerned about the capacity of the swale to
accommodate the existing flow as well as the proposed flow, In addition, the swale is shallow
and would likely require discharge from the proposed detention system to be pumped to the
swale, Because of these concerns, we recommend that the proposed project discharge to what is
noted as the "post-developed drainage course", which is described in detail below.
The post-developed drainage course intercepts the pre-developed drainage course approximately
I mile downstream ofthe site, We believe that the proposed post-developed flow path complies
with the Core Requirement #1, Discharge at a Natural Location, and is justified given the
Peterson Consulting Engineers Page 8
Preliminary Drainage Report for Younker Nissan January 23.2007
concerns noted above.
Post-Developed Downstream Drainage:
The project proposes to discharge to the east and connect to the existing 36-inch storm drain
located along the East Valley Road. Flow continues to the north in the existing storm drain
system paralleling East Valley Road. The existing storm drain system discharges into a drainage
way west ofSW 23 n1 Street and East Valley Road. Flow continues to the west in the drainage
way, flowing under Lind Avenue SW in two 8 foot culverts. Flow in the drainage way continues
to the west and discharges into Springbrook Creek, approximately 1 mile downstream of the site.
From that point, flow matches the pre-developed downstream drainage path, as is described
above.
Task 5 -Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions
No notable signs of flooding, erosion or scouring were observed during the off-site field
inspection.
The proposed project proposes to provide a detention vault for flow control. The flow control
will match developed discharge durations to the pre-developed durations for a range of pre-
developed discharge rates. Thus, the project is not expected to cause any new scouring or
erosion issues.
Our off-site analysis did not disclose any existing drainage problems. In our opinion, the
proposed project will not create any new drainage problems.
Peterson Consulting Engineers Page 9
Preliminary Drainage Report for Younker Nissan January 23. 2007
STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The drainage calculations and analysis are based on the King County 2005 Surface Water Design
Manual.
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Preliminary wetpond sizing calculations are included in Appendix A. A wet vault 60 feet wide
by 220 feet long is proposed and is shown on the design plans.
New pipe systems will have sufficient capacity to convey and contain the 25-year peak flow.
WATER QUALITY FACILITIES
Preliminary dead storage calculation for the wet vault are included in Appendix A.
ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plan has been created for the clearing and
grading phase of this site. Please reference the engineering plans for more information. Best
Management Practices (BMPs) used for the site include filter fence and catch basin inserts.
Peterson Consulting Engineers Page 10
APPENDIX A
Drainage calculations
I
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:pre.tsf
project Location:sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of peak
(CFS)
0.257 2 2/09/01 18:00
0.070 7 1/06/02 3:00
0.190 4 2/28/03 3:00
0.007 8 3/24/04 20:00
0.113 6 1/05/05 8:00
0.197 3 1/18/06 21: 00
0.166 5 11/24/06 4:00
0.328 1 1/09/08 9:00
computed peaks
pre.pks
-----Flow Frequency Analys;s-------
- -peaks - -Rank Return Prob
(CFS) Per; od
0.328 1 100.00 0.990
0.257 2 25.00 0.960
0.197 3 10.00 0.900
0.190 4 5.00 0.800
0.166 5 3.00 0.667
0.113 6 2.00 0.500
0.070 7 1.30 0.231
0.007 8 1.10 0.091
0.304 50.00 0.980
Page 1
Flow Frequency Analys;s
Time series File:dev.tsf
project Location:sea-Tac
---Annual peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak
(CFS)
0.883 6 2/09/01 2:00
0.755 8 1/05/02 16;00
1.06 3 12/08/02 18;00
0.858 7 8/26/04 2;00
1.02 4 10/28/04 16;00
0.941 5 1/18/06 16;00
1.25 2 10/26/06 0:00
1. 74 1 1/09/08 6:00
computed Peaks
dev.pks
-----Flow Frequency Analys;s-------
- -peaks - -Rank Return prob
(CFS) Period
1. 74 1 100.00 0.990
1.25 2 25.00 0.960
1.06 3 10.00 0.900
1.02 4 5.00 0.800
0.941 5 3.00 0.667
0.883 6 2.00 0.500
0.858 7 1. 30 0.231
0.755 8 1.10 0.091
1. 58 50.00 0.980
page 1
Retention/Detention Facility
Type of Facility: Detention Vault bt/ 'I. ;':J..D I/.. Facility Length: 115.00 ft UJf
Facility Width: 115.00 ft -Facility Area: :3225. sq. ft k~ 1~200 Sf Effective Storage Depth: 5.00 ft
stage 0 Elevation: 10.00 ft
Storage Volume: 66125. cu. ft
Riser Head: 5.00 ft
Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches
Number of orifices: 3
Full Head Pipe
Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter
(ft) (in) (CFS) (in)
1 0.00 1. 05 0.067
2 3.30 1. 90 0.128 4.0
3 4.10 1. 30 0.043 4.0
Top Notch Weir: None
Outflow Rating Curve: None
Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation
(ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 10.00 o. 0.000 0.000 0.00
0.01 10.01 132. 0.003 0.003 0.00
0.02 10.02 265. 0.006 0.004 0.00
0.03 10.03 397. 0.009 0.005 0.00
0.04 10.04 529. 0.012 0.006 0.00
0.05 10.05 661. 0.015 0.007 0.00
0.07 10.07 926. 0.021 0.008 0.00
0.08 10.08 1058. 0.024 0.008 0.00
0.09 10.09 1190. 0.027 0.009 0.00
0.19 10.19 2513. 0.058 0.013 0.00
0.29 10.29 3835. 0.088 0.016 0.00
0.39 10.39 5158. 0.118 0.019 0.00
0.49 10.49 6480. 0.149 0.021 0.00
0.59 10.59 7803. 0.179 0.023 0.00
0.69 10.69 9125. 0.209 0.025 0.00
0.79 10.79 10448. 0.240 0.027 0.00
0.89 10.89 11770. 0.270 0.028 0.00
0.99 10.99 13093. 0.301 0.030 0.00
1. 09 11. 09 144:'5. 0.331 0.031 0.00
1.19 11.19 15738. 0.361 0.033 0.00
1. 29 11.29 17060. 0.392 0.034 0.00
1. 39 11.39 18383. 0.422 0.035 0.00
1. 49 11. 49 19705. 0.452 0.036 0.00
1. 59 11.59 21028. D.483 0.038 0.00
1. 69 11.69 22350. C.513 0.039 0.00
1. 79 11. 79 23673 . 0.543 0.040 0.00
1. 89 11. 89 24995. 0.574 0.041 0.00
1. 99 11.99 263~8. 0.604 0.042 0.00
2.09 12.09 27640. C.635 0.043 0.00
2.19 12.19 28963. 0.665 0.044 0.00
2.29 12.29 30285. 0.695 0.045 0.00
2.39 12.39 31608. 0.726 0.046 0.00
2.49 12.49 32930. 0.756 0.047 0.00
2.59 12.59 34253. 0.786 0.048 0.00
2.69 12.69 35575. 0.817 0.049 0.00
2.79 12.79 36898. 0.847 0.050 0.00
2.89 12.89 38220. 0.877 0.051 0.00
2.99 12.99 39543. 0.908 0.052 0.00
3.09 13.09 40865. 0.938 0.053 0.00
3.19 13.19 42188. 0.968 0.053 0.00
3.29 13.29 43510. 0.999 0.054 0.00
3.30 13.30 43643. 1.002 0.054 0.00
3.32 13 .32 43907. 1. 008 0.055 0.00
3.34 13.34 44172. 1.014 0.058 0.00
3.36 13.36 44436. 1.020 0.061 0.00
3.38 13.38 44701. 1.026 0.067 0.00
3.40 13.40 44965. 1. 032 0.074 0.00
3.42 13.42 45230. 1. 038 0.082 0.00
3.44 13.44 45494. 1. 044 0.090 0.00
3.46 13.46 45759. 1. 050 0.095 0.00
3.48 13.48 46023. 1. 057 0.097 0.00
3.58 13.58 47346. 1. 087 0.108 0.00
3.68 13.68 48668. 1.117 0.118 0.00
3.78 13.78 49991. 1.l48 0.126 0.00
3.88 13.88 51313 . 1.178 0.133 0.00
3.98 13.98 52636. 1. 208 0.140 0.00
4.08 14.08 53958. 1. 239 0.147 0.00
4.10 14.10 54223. 1. 245 0.l48 0.00
4.11 14.11 54355. 1.248 o .l49 0.00
4.13 14.13 54619. 1. 254 0.151 0.00
4.14 14.14 54752. 1. 257 0.154 0.00
4.15 l4 .15 54884. 1.260 0.157 0.00
4.17 l4 .17 55148. 1. 266 0.161 0.00
4.18 14.18 55280. 1. 269 0.166 0.00
4.19 14.19 55413 . 1.272 0.168 0.00
4.21 14.21 55677. 1. 278 0.170 0.00
4.31 14.31 57000. 1. 309 0.181 0.00
4.41 14.41 58322. 1. 339 0.191 0.00
4.51 14 .51 59645. 1. 369 0.200 0.00
4.61 14.61 60967. 1. 400 0.209 0.00
4.71 14.71 62290. 1. 430 0.217 0.00
4.81 14.81 63612. 1. 460 0.224 0.00
4.91 14.91 64935. 1.491 0.232 0.00
5.00 15.00 66125. 1.518 0.238 0.00
5.10 15.10 67448. 1.548 0.553 0.00
5.20 15.20 6877J. 1. 579 1.120 0.00
5.30 15.30 70093. 1.609 1. 860 0.00
5.40 15.40 71415. 1.639 2.660 0.00
5.50 15.50 72738. 1.670 2.940 0.00
5.60 15.60 74060. 1. 700 3.200 0.00
5.70 15.70 7538]. 1. 731 3.450 0.00
5.80 15.80 76705. 1.761 3.670 0.00
5.90 15.90 78028. 1. 791 3.880 0.00
6.00 16.00 79350. 1. 822 4. 080 0.00
6.10 16.10 80673. 1.852 4.270 0.00
6.20 16.20 81995. 1.882 4.450 0.00
6.30 16.30 83318. 1. 913 4.620 0.00
6.40 16.40 84640. 1. 943 4.790 0.00
6.50 16.50 85963. 1. 973
6.60 16.60 87285. 2.004
6.70 16.70 88608. 2.034
6.80 16.80 89930. 2.065
6.90 16.90 91253. 2.095
7.00 17.00 92575. 2.125
Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak
Target Calc Stage Elev
1 1. 74 0.33 0.44 5.06 15.06
2 0.88 ******* 0.22 4.71 14.71
3 1. 05 0.20 0.20 4.46 14.46
4 0.90 ******* 0.17 4.23 14.23
5 0.94 ******* 0.07 3.38 13.38
6 0.76 0.11 0.05 3.01 13.01
7 0.57 ******* 0.05 2.92 12.92
8 0.86 ******* 0.04 2.11 12.11
----------------------------------
Route Time Series through Facility
Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf
Outflow Time Series File:rdout
Inflow/Outflow Analysis
Peak Inflow Discharge: 1. 75 CFS at
Peak Out flow Discharge: 0.438 CFS at
Peak Reservoir Stage: 5.06 Ft
Peak Reservoir Elev: 15.06 ,t
Peak Reservoir Storage: 66965. Cu-Ft
1. 537 Ac-Ft
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:rdout.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
4.950 0.00
5.110 0.00
5.260 0.00
5.410 0.00
5.550 0.00
5.690 0.00
Storage
(Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft)
66965. 1. 537
62351. 1. 431
58991. 1. 354
56007. 1. 286
44692. 1. 026
39746. 0.912
38663. 0.888
27854. 0.639
6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
11: 00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
---Annual Peak Flow Rates---
Rank Time of Peak
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
Flow Rate
(CFS)
0.238
0.053
0.198
0.043
0.052
0.082
0.175
0.438
Computed Peaks
2
6
3
8
7
5
4
1
2/09/01 20:00
1/07/02 4:00
3/06/03 22:00
8/26/04 8:00
1/08/05 5:00
1/19/06 0:00
11/24/06 8:00
1/09/08 11: 00
Flow Duration from Time Series
--Peaks
(CFS)
0.438
0.238
0.198
o . 175
0.082
0.053
0.052
0.043
0.371
--Rank Return
(ft) Period
5.06 1 100.00
4.99 2 25.00
4.48 3 10.00
4.26 4 5.00
3.42 5 3.00
3.10 6 2.00
3.03 7 1. 30
2.11 8 1.10
5.04 50.00
Cutoff Coont Frequency CCF
F~le:rdout.tsf
Exceedence
%
Probablllty
CFS % !
0.003 25250 41.177 41.177 58.823 0.588E+OO
0.010 7146 11. 654 52.831 47.169 O.472E+OO
0.0l7 7225 11.782 64.614 35.386 0.354E+OO
0.023 6355 10.364 74.977 25.023 0.250E+OO
0.030 5656 9.224 84.2C:L 15.799 O.158E+00
0.037 4216 6.875 91. 076 8.924 O.892E-01
Prob
0.990
0.960
0.900
0.800
0.667
0.500
0.231
0.091
0.980
0.043 2403 3.919 94.995 5.005 0.500E-01
0.050 1958 3.193 98.188 1. 812 0.181E-Ol
0.057 773 1. 261 99.449 0.551 0.551E-02
0.063 40 0.065 99.514 0.486 0.486E-02
0.070 15 0.024 99.538 0.462 0.462E-02
0.077 19 0.031 99.569 0.431 0.431E-02
0.083 14 0.023 99.592 0.408 0.408E-02
0.090 12 0.020 99.612 0.388 0.388E-02
0.097 23 0.038 99.649 0.351 0.351E-02
0.103 36 0.059 99.708 0.292 0.292E-02
0.110 35 0.057 99.765 0.235 0.235E-02
0.117 16 0.026 99.791 0.209 o .209E-02
0.123 11 0.018 99.809 0.191 o . 191E-02
0.130 9 0.015 99.824 0.176 0.176E-02
0.137 14 0.023 99.847 0.153 0.153E-02
0.143 14 0.023 99.870 0.130 o .130E-02
0.150 15 0.024 99.894 0.106 0.106E-02
0.157 3 0.005 99.899 0.101 0.101E-02
0.163 5 0.008 99.907 0.093 0.930E-03
0.170 4 0.007 99.914 0.086 0.864E-03
0.177 7 0.011 99.925 0.075 0.750E-03
0.183 8 0.013 99.938 0.062 0.620E-03
0.190 7 0.011 99.949 0.051 0.506E-03
0.197 10 0.016 99.966 0.034 0.342E-03
0.203 4 0.007 99.972 0.028 0.277E-03
0.210 3 0.005 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03
0.217 2 0.003 99.980 0.020 0.196E-03
0.223 4 0.007 99.987 0.013 o . 130E-03
0.230 3 0.005 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04
0.237 3 0.005 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04
----------------------------------
Route Time Series through Facility
Inflow Time Series File: dev. t s f
Outflow Time Series File:rdout
Inflow/Outflow Analysis
Peak Inflow Discharge: 1. 75 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.438 CFS at 11: 00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Peak Reservoir Stage: 5.06 Ft
Peak Reservoir Elev: 15.06 Ft
Peak Reservoir Storage: 66965. Cu-Ft
~.537 Ac-Ft
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:rdout.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates---
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak
(CFS)
0.238 2 2/09/01 20:00
0.053 6 1/07/02 4:00
0.198 3 3/06/03 22:00
0.043 8 8/26/04 8:00
0.052 7 1/08/05 5:00
0.082 5 1/19/06 0:00
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
--Peaks - -Rank Return Prob
(CFS) (ft) Period
0.438 5.06 1 100.00
0.238 4.99 2 25.00
0.198 4.48 3 10.00
0.175 4.26 4 5.00
0.082 3.42 5 3.00
0.053 3.10 6 2.00
0.990
0.960
0.900
0.800
0.667
0.500
0.175 4 11/24/06 8:00
0.438 1 1/09/08 11:00
Computed Peaks
0.052
0.043
0.371
3.03
2.11
5.04
Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf
7
8
1. 30
1.10
50.00
0.231
0.091
0.980
Cutoff Count Frequency CDF 2xceedence Probability
CFS % % %
0.003 25250 41.177 41.177 58.823
0.010 7146 11.654 52.831 47.169
0.017 7225 11.782 64.614 35.386
0.023 6355 10.364 74.977 25.023
0.030 5656 9.224 84.201 15.799
0.037 4216 6.875 91.076 8.924
0.043 2403 3.919 94.995 5.005
0.050 1958 3.193 98.188 1.812
0.057 773 1.261 99.449 0.551
0.063 40 0.065 99.514 0.486
0.070 15 0.024 99.538 0.462
0.077 19 0.031 99.569 0.431
0.083 14 0.023 99.592 0.408
0.090 12 0.020 99.612 0.388
0.097 23 0.038 99.649 0.351
0.103 36 0.059 99.708 0.292
0.110 35 0.057 99.765 0.235
0.117 16 0.026 99.791 0.209
0.123 11 0.018 99.809 0.191
0.130 9 0.015 99.824 0.176
0.137 14 0.023 99.847 0.153
0.143 14 0.023 99.870 0.130
0.150 15 0.024 99.894 0.106
0.157 3 0.005 99.899 0.101
0.163 5 0.008 99.907 0.093
0.170 4 0.007 99.914 0.086
0.177 7 0.011 99.925 0.075
0.183 8 0.013 99.938 0.062
0.190 7 0.011 99.949 0.051
0.197 10 0.016 99.966 0.034
0.203 4 0.007 99.972 0.028
0.210 3 0.005 99.977 0.023
0.217 2 0.003 99.980 0.020
0.223 4 0.007 99.987 0.013
0.230 3 0.005 99.992 0.008
0.237 3 0.005 99.997 C.003
Route Time Series through Facility
Inflow Time Series File:dev.ts:
Outflow Time Series File:rdout
0.588E+00
0.472E+00
0.354E+00
0.250E+00
0.158E+00
0.892E-01
0.500E-01
0.181E-01
0.551E-02
0.486E-02
0.462E-02
0.431E-02
0.408E-02
0.388E-02
0.351E-02
0.292E-02
0.235E-02
0.209E-02
0.191E-02
0.176E-02
0.153E-02
0.130E-02
0.106E-02
0.101E-02
0.930E-03
0.864E-03
0.750E-03
0.620E-03
0.S06E-03
0.342E-03
0.277E-03
0.228E-03
o .196E-03
o .130E-03
0.815E-04
0.326E-04
Inflow/Outflow Analysis
Peak Inflow Discharge:
Peak Outflow Discharge:
Peak Reservoir Stage:
1.75 CFS at 6:00 on Jan
0.438 CFS at 11:00 on Jan
5.06 f't
Peak Reservoir Elev: 15.06 Ft
Peak Reservoir Storage: 66965. Cu-Ft
1.537 Ac-Ft
9 in Year 8
9 in Year 8
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:rdout.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis-------
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks --Rank Return Prob
(CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period
0.238 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.438 5.06 1 100.00 0.990
0.053 6 1/07/02 4:00 0.238 4.99 2 25.00 0.960
0.198 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.198 4.48 3 10.00 0.900
0.043 8 8/26/04 8:00 0.175 4.26 4 5.00 0.800
0.052 7 1/08/05 5:00 0.082 3.42 5 3.00 0.667
0.082 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.053 3.10 6 2.00 0.500
0.175 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.052 3.03 7 1.30 0.231
0.438 1 1/09/08 11: 00 0.043 2.11 8 1.10 0.091
Computed Peaks 0.371 5.04 50.00 0.980
Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf
Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability
CFS % % %
0.003 25250 41.177 41.177 58.823 0.588E+00
0.010 7146 11.654 52.831 47.169 0.472E+00
0.017 7225 11.782 64.614 35.386 0.354E+00
0.023 6355 10.364 74.977 25.023 0.250E+00
0.030 5656 9.224 84.201 15.799 0.158E+00
0.037 4216 6.875 91.076 8.924 0.892E-01
0.043 2403 3.919 94.995 5.005 0.500E-Ol
0.050 1958 3.193 98.188 1. 812 0.181E-Ol
0.057 773 1. 261 99.449 0.551 0.551E-02
0.063 40 0.065 99.5l4 0.486 0.486E-02
0.070 15 0.024 99.538 0.462 0.462E-02
0.077 19 0.031 99.569 0.431 0.431E-02
0.083 14 0.023 99.592 0.408 0.408E-02
0.090 12 0.020 99.612 0.388 0.388E-02
0.097 23 0.038 99.649 0.351 0.351E-02
0.103 36 0.059 99.708 0.292 0.292E-02
0.110 35 0.057 99.765 0.235 0.235E-02
0.117 16 0.026 99.791 0.209 0.209E-02
0.123 11 0.018 99.809 0.191 0.191E-02
0.130 9 0.015 99.824 0.176 0.176E-02
0.137 14 0.023 99.847 0.153 0.153E-02
0.143 14 0.023 99.870 0.130 o . 130E-02
0.150 15 0.024 99.894 0.106 0.106E-02
0.157 3 0.005 99.899 0.101 0.101E-02
0.163 5 0.008 99.9C7 0.093 0.930E-03
0.170 4 0.007 99.914 0.086 0.864E-03
0.177 7 O. all 99.97.5 O. 075 0.750E-03
0.183 8 O. 013 99.93.5 O. 062 0.620E-03
0.190 7 0.011 99.949 0.051 0.506E-03
0.197 10 0.016 99.966 0.034 0.342E-03
0.203 4 0.007 99.972 0.028 0.277E-03
0.210 3 0.005 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03
0.217 2 0.003 99.980 0.020 o .196E-03
0.223 4 0.007 99.987 0.013 o .130E-03
0.230 3 0.005 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04
0.237 3 0.005 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04
Route Time Series through Facility
Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf
Outflow Time Series File:rdout
Inflow/Outflow Analysis
Peak Inflow Discharge: 1. 75
Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.438
Peak Reservoir Stage: 5.06
Peak Reservoir Elev: 15.06
Peak Reservoir Storage: 66965.
eFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
c~s at 11: 00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Ft
Ft
Cu-Ft
1.537 Ac-Ft
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:rdout.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis-------
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks --Rank Return Prob
(eFS) (eFS) 1ft ) Period
0.238 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.438 5.06 1 100.00 0.990
0.053 6 1/07/02 4:00 0.238 4.99 2 25.00 0.960
0.198 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.198 4.48 3 10.00 0.900
0.043 8 8/26/04 8:00 0.175 4.26 4 5.00 0.800
0.052 7 1/08/05 5:00 0.082 3.42 5 3.00 0.667
0.082 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.053 3.10 6 2.00 0.500
0.175 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.052 3.03 7 1. 30 0.231
0.438 1 1/09/08 11: 00 0.043 2.11 8 1.10 0.091
Computed Peaks 0.371 5.04 50.00 0.980
Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf
Cutoff Count Frequency CD? Exceedence Probability
eFS % % %
0.003 25250 41.177 41.177 58.823 0.588E+00
0.010 7146 11. 654 52.831 47.169 0.472E+00
0.017 7225 11. 782 64.614 35.386 0.354E+00
0.023 6355 10.364 74.977 25.023 0.250E+00
0.030 5656 9.224 84.201 15.799 0.158E+00
0.037 4216 6.875 91.076 8.924 0.892E-01
0.043 2403 3.919 94.995 5.005 0.500E-Ol
0.050 1958 3.193 98.188 1. 812 0.181E-01
0.057 773 1.261 99.449 0.551 0.551E-02
0.063 40 0.065 99.514 0.486 0.486E-02
0.070 15 0.024 99.538 0.462 0.462E-02
0.077 19 0.031 99.569 0.431 0.431E-02
0.083 14 0.023 99.592 0.408 0.408E-02
0.090 12 0.020 99.6~2 0.388 0.388E-02
0.097 23 0.038 99.60 0.351 0.351E-02
0.103 36 0.059 99.708 0.292 0.292E-02
0.110 35 0.057 99.765 0.235 0.235E-02
0.117 16 0.026 99.791 0.209 0.209E-02
0.123 11 0.018 99.809 0.191 0.191E-02
0.130 9 0.015 99.824 0.176 O.176E-02
0.137 14 0.023 99.847 0.153 0.153E-02
0.143 14 0.023 99.870 0.130 o . 130E-02
0.150 15 0.024 99.894 0.106 O.106E-02
0.157 3 0.005 99.899 0.101 0.101E-02
0.163 S 0.008 99.907 0.093 0.930E-03
0.170 4 0.007 99.914 0.086 O.864E-03
0.177 7 0.011 99.92S 0.075 0.7S0E-03
0.183 8 0.013 99.938 0.062 0.620E-03
0.190 7 0.011 99.949 O.OSl 0.S06E-03
0.197 10 0.016 99.966 0.034 0.342E-03
0.203 4 0.007 99.972 0.028 0.277E-03
0.210 3 O.OOS 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03
0.217 2 0.003 99.980 0.020 0.196E-03
0.223 4 0.007 99.987 0.013 0.130E-03
0.230 3 0.005 99.992 0.008 0.81SE-04
0.237 3 O.OOS 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04
Duration Comparison Anaylsis
Base File: pre.tsf
New File: rdout.tsf
Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS
-----Fraction of Time--------------Check of
Cutoff Base New %Change Probabil it Y Base
0.OS7 0.92E-02 0.S4E-02 -41. 0 I 0.92E-02 0.OS7
0.073 0.62E-02 0.4SE-02 -27.4 I 0.62E-02 0.073
0.088 0.48E-02 0.39E-02 -17.8 I 0.48E-02 0.088
0.103 0.36E-02 0.29E-02 -19.7 I 0.36E-02 0.103
0.119 0.28E-02 0.20E-02 -27.7 I 0.28E-02 0.119
0.134 0.22E-02 0.16E-02 -26.1 I 0.22E-02 0.134
0.lS0 0.lSE-02 0.11E-02 -27 .0 I 0.15E-02 0.150
0.165 0.96E-03 0.93E-03 -3.4 I 0.96E-03 0.165
0.180 0.60E-03 0.70E-03 16.2 I 0.60E-03 0.180
0.196 0.34E-03 0.38E-03 9.5 I O.34E-03 0.196
0.211 0.21E-03 0.23E-03 7.7 I 0.21E-03 0.211
0.227 0.16E-03 o .l1E-03 -30.0 I 0.16E-03 0.227
0.242 0.82E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 I 0.82E-04 0.242
Maximum positive excursion = 0.007 cfs ( 3.7%)
occurring at 0.181 cfs on the Base Data:pre.tsf
and at 0.188 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf
Maximum negative excursion ~ 0.024 cfs (-29.7%)
occurring at 0.079 cfs on the Base Data:pre.tsf
and at 0.OS6 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf
Tolerance-------
New %Change
0.OS3 -7.3
0.OS4 -2S.6
0.066 -2S.4
0.096 -7.6
0.104 -12.3
0.113 -15.9
0.140 -6.8
0.161 -2.6
0.184 2.1
0.196 0.2
0.216 2.1
0.222 -1. 9
0.232 -4.0
':s
~ ~
,> •
'-'-
:::l :::l
"0 "0
~ Q) ::J '-0 0-"0
'-
• . II'V
,.~
"
'J
o o o
)'V'
o o
:/ if
o
co
0
~
~ .
0
~
':'
0
~
"(
0
~
'" ~----+-----~-----+----~------+-----4-----~
00'0 ~ 17Z'O OZ'O so·o 170'0
Q)
() c
Q)
"0
Q)
Q)
() x w
,€
Ei
'" .a
0 '-0..
<> rdoutpks in Sea-Tac
• prepks
2
Rerum Period
5 10
po 101)
\.Ihif
20 50 100
~~ <>
R ~
000· ~ •
10-1+--------------------'----~ .
if :" 00 <> £-LD (> V v-
el>
Cl
"-«I
~ u
'" o
1 0-2
~
~ .
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Cumulative Probability
80 90 95
•
98 99
4010 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. NE/ SUITE 300
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98033
(425) 827-5874 (425) 822-9154 FAX
-]
1
- -1--.. ---·-·-·-7-
i ' , '
--J---~-t---!--
JOB No.
J08 NAME
COMPo BY
SUBJECT
I .-
1-~1~-~3-'--" vE....!.<' ...... ~r-:C:"'-c--_----+_...;..'-_--2.....
i -_'_-~
---'~'---~ ---~---------r-""':-"--I"'-"--' --;:--
D:J:f.,(-OI" DATE 'M1-boo( SHEET r OF
't'&"'IJIC.§~S V:tUW
PB< CHK. BY
WA1-6R. Q .... .tt..t.r y -0 (-i-O ST"~"'~E-
I--~'-"-~~' --L----------1 . --j ----------+-----------~--
j-I----...cl-··-··-·-·-r--;'--··--j-I--·--~~~~-C--. 1
-~---; :~~-+-, ... +.-.-.-,.-
I
. --...
---~-~-+-----,
I
-o. 11.~ !f-<.W'f. , ..L '
i ---+-+---' .. ~+-i -+~f--~+-~-~--+---'-~ :--' .~+-+--'~l__~.-l
< ~1'1' ;,... I' , .-~--I---r-"-'--".-I--l--
-.." .,. c,.. ~~, i" i I : i I_· ;~~-~!:~;~::~~;:;:~:~;~;~..c..L~-~' ·--,I_·---+f-_--' i -I ~-.---'-'---+__r~l__~~__1
.
I : ~~I-! ~4_+_~I,_I_~~+_-~~I__l-~-+~__1
_£rd' 'It_V",_;;1 k,c.ni-t ( ') (p .:>J
, • . I! I , , ,
~, .1~;<tL'--1fL+_'
f---~~'--f-~'-
_+ I' ~--L-l--'-+----+-~t_L-~-l----i-.' __ ~___ . f-
1-1--l--c.-i-.. -...... -.... ' ___ +_.~ __ , __ ._<-_ .. I _
1 I --+t ~~~-'--'--~+-.'--II_-;---CI---+-~· -,-
I-'---r---f---:"-LL -~~-j-~--:......--..
, iii,'!" i
-~! -+, ~, -~ .. -.. .......j,~r-c-+-...,I-,--~! .......l..,--I~~
----:--------7-----------;---;-, ~-"-t-t---,,--i-!----!--r-~--~-,--H--
!
--I-
I I . !c---~--··t--p -i -~
----i'-'---' -+--+-i : . i_ '-r-T~' _c._.
! ! I ! 1-t------:--;---j~~'----.
-'-C,~~~+--~ --+------,'!
I
----t-"-'~
, ,
~-~r-l ......... ·t -L-i
'. . :" . ,--' :-+-.~~~-~l__--+---'-_--I ,I , I -----:--~-~ --1-------; 1-I T----
1 ,
[---~
I '
--~---L ------,
.-..
,------~-
------~---~-,,---
i---+·----4--------+----~i---+--------+----~~~------~--~--~--+-~~~~
~-.-----.--.. ----.-.--. I· -r-----.-, -~.-,~'--I-----. ,---.. _,.-._.
(~-c. , ·. ___ t_=~~~J=~f~~---=~~-~~·-:-_-~-_· .~-. ~.--:~-=--;----+-,
, . ,
.
--~-
i ! ! I --------~--;---i--'-· f-
i---r--+--f-.
, ,
- -,------
~~_.' -~._.___l--_~_"_L_ -___ ~ ____ --~
.--+-~--_ ..
I .,-.-L......--t-
, I
1
. • . I
-___ T-i _I __ ~--~-~-~.. .1 .. ___ _
'-j-····_+l.'····_--'i~· ·'-i-_l+-_··-l-_--_-;..~_+-~-l
.... I' I , -~f---
.• i
--i----~ ..
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Younker Nissan
East Valley Road and SW 34th Street
Renton, Washington
Project No. T -3063-1
Terra Associates, Inc.
Prepared for:
Younker Nissan
Renton, Washington
. C'i'::-OPMENT PLANNING
'TYOFRENTON August 22,2006
FEB 1 ~ 2007
HECEIVED
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Mr. John Vidmar
Younker Nissan
3820 East Valley Highway South
Renton, Washington 98055
Subject: Geotechnical Report
Younker Nissan
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
East Valley Road and SW 34th Street
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Vidmar:
August 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-1
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report
presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction.
In general, the site is underlain by five to six fee! of dense granular fill overlying four to eight feet of clayey silt
or peat. The clayey silt and peat are generally underlain by medium dense to dense alluvial sands. A 6-to 8-foot
thick layer of very soft to medium stiff clayey silt was found at a depth of26 feet.
To reduce post-construction settlements to what may be considered tolerable levels, we recommend that the
building area be pre-loaded with a surcharge fill. Following successful completion of the surcharge program, the
proposed auto dealership facility may be constructed using conventional spread footings placed on the existing
fill or on new structural fill, as required. If the estimated long-term post-construction settlements of one to two
inches cannot be tolerated by the construction, you should plan for alternative foundation support consisting of
Geopiers™ or piles.
The attached report describes our explorations and explains our recommendations in greater detail. We trust this
information is sufficient for your present needs. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please call.
Since~ely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
~t~
Kevin P. Roberts, P .E.
Senior Engineer
KPR:mb
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone (425) 821-7777. Fax (425) 821-4334
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 Project Description ......................................................................................................... I
2.0 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................ 1
3.0 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Surface ............................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Soils ................................................................................................................... 2
3 .3 Mapped Soils ..................................................................................................... 3
3.4 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 3
3.5 Seismic ............................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................. 4
4.1 General ............................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Site Preparation and Grading ............................................................................. 5
4.3 Surface and Settlements ..................................................................................... 6
4.4 Excavations ........................................................................................................ 7
4.5 Foundation Alternatives ..................................................................................... 8
4.6 Slab-on-Grade Floors ......................................................................................... 9
4.7 Lateral Earth Pressures ...................................................................................... 9
4.8 Utilities ............................................................................................................ 10
4.9 Drainage ........................................................................................................... 10
4.10 Pavements ............................................................... " ....................................... 10
5.0 Additional Services ....................................................................................................... 11
6.0 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 11
Figures
Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ Figure I
Exploration Location Plan ................................................................................................... Figure 2
Typical Settlement Marker Detail ....................................................................................... Figure 3
Typical Wall Drainage Detail .............................................................................................. Figure 4
Appendix
Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ................................................................... Appendix A
CPT Logs ...................................................................................................................... Appendix B
Geotechnical Report
Younker Nissan
East Valley Road and SW 34th Street
Renton, Washington
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will consist of construction of an auto dealership facility in Renton, Washington. The proposed
facility includes construction of a 30,000 square-foot, two-story building containing areas for parts/service,
offices, and a showroom. Associated driveway and parking areas will surround the structure.
Detailed building plans are currently unavailable. Currently, the planned location of the structure is in the
southern portion of the site. Conceptual architectural design information provided by Nissan indicates the
building will likely be metal-framed with metal and ACM (aluminum composite material) exterior cladding. We
anticipate that structural loading to be light to moderate, with isolated columns carrying loads of 80 to 100 kips,
and bearing walls carrying 4 to 6 kips per foot. Floor slab loads are expected to be 200 to 300 pounds per square
foot (psf). Proposed fill thicknesses that may be required to establish finish site grades are currently unknown.
The recommendations in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of the project's
design features. We should review final design drawings and specifications to verifY that our recommendations
have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
On July 27, 2006, we advanced 2 cone penetration tests (CPTs) in the southern portion of the site. Each CPT
was pushed to a total depth of approximately 40 feet.
As part of our previous geotechnical study at t1le site, on January 10, 1996, Terra Associates, Inc. logged 2 test
borings in the site's northern location to depths of 34 feet and 36.5 feet below existing site grades. In addition,
on January 10, 1996, we observed the drilling of one test boring to a depth of 29 feet for a geotechnical study for
development of the adjacent western property (Farwest Steel site). The previous site and adjacent test boring
data were reviewed and utilized for this study.
Using the infonnation obtained from the subsurface explorations, we perfonned analyses to develop preliminary
geoteclmical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the
following:
• Soil and groundwater conditions
• Seismic considerations, including 2003 me soil site class
• Site preparation and grading
• Surcharge and settlements
• Excavations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Foundation alternatives
Slab-an-grade floors
Lateral earth pressures
Utilities
Pavements
Drainage
August 22, 2006
Project No. T -3063-1
It should be noted that recommendations outlined in this report regarding drainage are associated with soil
strength, design earth pressures, erosion, and stability. Design and performance issues with respect to moisture
as it relates to the structure environment (i.e., humidity, mildew, mold) is beyond Terra Associates' purview. A
building envelope specialist or contractor should be consulted to address these issues, as needed.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Surface
We conducted a surface reconnaissance at the site on July 13,2006. We also conducted a site reconnaissance in
January 1996 as part of our previous geoteclmical study. The site occupies the southwest corner of the
intersection ofSW 34th Street and East Valley Road in Renton, WashingtQP. The site's location is shown on the
Vicinity Map, Figure J. The site is bounded to the south and north by a retail facility and SW 34th Street,
respectively. East Valley Road bounds the site on the east. A steel products distribution facility bounds the site
to the west.
The site and vicinity are flat. An existing railroad spur track enters the northwest comer of the property and
curves in a southwestward direction to join a track leading west of the site. We noted that the track was raised
slightly above surrounding grades. Vegetation at the site consisted of sparse grasses. During our site visit in
January 1996, standing water was observed over much of the site. No standing water was noted at the site during
our recent visit.
3.2 Soils
Review of the Test Boring Logs indicates that the soil conditions at the site generally consists of fill overlying a
variably thick layer of compressible peat or clayey silt. The compressible soils were underlain by layers of
alluvial sands, silty sands, and silt.
Each test boring encountered fill soil comprised of gravelly to silty sand to depths of five to six feet. This
material was generally medium dense to dense, but became loose near the contact with the underlying
compressible strata. The compressible native soil under the fill mostly consisted of dark brown to gray brown
soft to stiff organic silt, clayey silt, and peat. Interbeds of gray to black sandy silt, silty sand, and sand that was
stiff or medium dense to very dense was found underlying the compressible layer at depths ranging from 9 to 13
feet.
Page No.2
August 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-1
At a depth of 26 feet, we encountered a 5-to 6-foot thick layer of very soft to medium stiff, brown gray to gray,
clayey silt. The clayey silt was underlain by very fine to fine-grained silty sand that was gray and medium dense.
Borings B-1 and B-2 were terminated within the medium dense silty sand.
COile Pelletratioll Tests
Review of the CPT sotmdings indicates medium dense to very dense fill consisting of gravelly sand/sand grading
with depth to silty sand/sandy silt was found to a depth of approximately five feet. The fill is underlain by
interbedded layers of soft peat and clay to depths of nine and eight feet in CPT-l and CPT-2, respectively. The
soundings show alluvial sands that are medium dense to dense underlying the peat and clay. A layer of soft clay
was encountered within the sands at a depth of approximately 28 feet in each of the CPT soundings.
3.3 Mapped Soils
The Geologic Map of Ihe Renton Quadrangle, King COl/lily, Washingtoll by D.R. Mullineaux (1965) shows that
the soils are mapped as peat (Qlp). The peat seen in Boring B-2, and interpreted from the CPT soundings
correlates with the published description of this soil unit.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) maps shows the soils in
the western portion of the site mapped as Snohomish sill/oam (So). The SCS maps show the soils in the eastern
portion of the site mapped as Tukwila muck (T1I).
3.4 Grouudwater
We encotmtered groundwater in all of the test borings at depths ranging from five to ten feet below the growtd
surface. Groundwater levels observed are recorded on the attached Boring Logs, Figures A-2 through A-4. Some
fluctuation in the depth of the groundwater wi11 occur seasonally and annually, Given that the test borings were
completed in January, the observed levels likely represent near seasonal highs.
Growtdwater levels were interpreted from the CPT soundings to be approximately at 11 feet and 9 feet in CPT-J
and CPT-2, respectively. These levels are expected to represent dry season groundwater levels at the site, due to
the CPTs being conducted in late July.
3.5 Seismic
Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology. per Section 1615 of the 2003 International
Building Code (!BC), site class "D" should be used in design of the structures.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in
water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologicany recent deposits of loose, fine-
grained sand and silty sand below the groundwater table.
Page No. 3
August 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-1
Our subsurface explorations show that the soils at the site are alluvial in origin. Analysis based on methods
outlined in Groulld Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, by H. Bolton Seed and I.M. Idriss
(1982), indicate that an approximately 5-foot thick layer of silty sand to sand found between depths of
approximately 34 and 39 feet could liquefy during ground shaking associated with a severe seismic event.
Though analysis indicates a potential for soil liquefaction, in our opinion, because of the depth of the potentially
liquefiable zone below anticipated building foundation elevations, the risk for the expression of soil liquefaction
in the fonn of ground settlements or reduction of bearing capacity at the ground surface and the associated risk of
damage to site structures are low.
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
Based on our study, in our opinion, there are no geotechnical constraints that would preclude construction of the
proposed auto dealership facility. The primary geotec1mical concern for construction at this site is the 4-to 8-
foot thick layer of clayey silt and peat at depths of 5 to 13 feet below existing grades. Consolidation of these
soils will occur when subjected to loads comparable to those expected from project construction. Our analysis
also shows that some compression of the very soft to medium stiff clayey silt layer found at a depth of 26 feet
wilJ also occur.
A filJ surcharge program implemented prior to construction will consolidate the compressible soil layers and
induce most of the primary settlements Wlder the expected loads. Once the primary settlements are complete,
lesser amounts of secondary settlement will continue throughout the life of the structure. These secondary
settlements are in addition to settlements from placement of the building's foundation.
Following completion of a surcharge fill program, buildings that are relatively settlement-tolerant can be
supported on conventional spread footings bearing on a minimum of two feet of compacted granular structural
fill. The site explorations indicate the existing fills were previously compacted to a medium dense to very dense
state. These fills will provide adequate support for foundation footings. If footing construction occurs at
elevations lower than approximately three feet below existing site grades, in order to provide adequate bearing, it
may be necessary to overexcavate to a depth of (wo feet beneath the footings, and restore footing subgrades with
compacted granular structural fill.
Analysis indicates that over a 50-year span, approximately 1.5 inches of total secondary settlement and 3/4-inch
differential settlement are expected. If the settlements cannot be tolerated by the facility, alternative foundation
types ~ll need to be considered. As an alternative, in our opinion, suitable building support can be derived from
GeopiersTM installed beneath the building. GeopiersTM are a proprietary foundation system consisting of drilled
shafts that are filled with crushed rock that is compacted in lifts. Regularly spaced GeopiersTM have the effect of
improving ground conditions, thereby increasing bearing capacity and mitigating building settlements.
Detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in
the following sections. These recOll111lendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and
construction specifications.
Page No.4
4.2 Site Preparation and Grading
August 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-1
Following stripping of vegetation, the site's fill surface should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment
prior to placement of additional fill. In order (0 achieve proper compaction of the building fill, the subgrade must
be in a relatively stable condition. If an excessively soft and yielding subgrade is observed and it cannot be
stabilized in place by aeration and compaction, stabilizing by the use of an additive, such as cement, CKD, or
lime will need to be considered. Alternatively, the unstable soils can be excavated and replaced with clean
granular structural fill. Typically, stabilization of soft yielding soils that, due to excess moisture cannot be
stabilized in place, requires amending or otherwise removing and replacing affected soils to a depth of 12 to 18
inches.
As noted, follo\ving a surcharge fill program, we reconmlend that spread footing foundations obtain support on a
minimum of two feet of compacted granular structural fill. The structural fill should extend laterally from the
edge of the footing a minimum distance of one foot. The structural fill used for this purpose should consist of
wet weather structural fill, as outlined later in this section, or equivalent granular material. Finish floor grades
are currently unavailable for our review. With competent fills underlying the site to a depth of approximately
five feet, We anticipate footing construction will occur with adequate bearing soil thickness. We recommend that
we review the building plans in order to assess the need for foundation subgrade improvement at the site.
We anticipate the existing fills will be suitable for reuse as structural fill at the site, provided it is free of
excessive organics and deleterious materials. If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, and
tlle on-site soils become too wet to achieve adequate compaction, the oWIl'er or contractor should be prepared to
treat soils with CKD, lime, or cement, or import wet weather structural fill. For wet weather structural fill, we
recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements:
U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passine
6 inches 100
No.4 75 maximum
No. 200 5 nlaximum*
"Based on the 314-inch fraction.
Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all materials to be imported to the site for use as
structural fill. If the huilding subgrade is constructed using native soils and will be exposed during wet weather,
it would be advisable to place 12 inches of this granular structural fill on the building pad to prevent deterioration
of the floor sUbgrade.
Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of
95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as detemlined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard
Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum,
as determined by this ASTM standard. In nonstructural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4
feet, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. Structural fill placed in rights-of-way must confonn
to the materials and compaction specifications set forth by the applicable jurisdiction.
Page No.5
4.3 Surcharge and Settlements
Augu~t 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-1
As discussed, for spread footing foundation support and slab-an-grade construction, we recommend placing a
surcharge fill over the building area. TIle surcharge program is necessary to limit building settlements to what
may be considered tolerable levels. Our surcharge and settlement analysis is based on an assumed two-foot thick
fill pad placed to achieve finish site grades. We should review the final foundation and grading plans in order to
better assess expected settlements.
Primary ConsolidatiOlI
The site grades should be raised using structural fill as outlined in Section 4.2 of this report. Once grade is
achieved, we recommend that an additional four feet of surcharge fiU should be placed in the building locations.
TIle surcharge fiU should extend a minimum of two feet beyond the edge of the perimeter building footing. This
surcharge fill does Iiot need to meet any special requirements oilier than having a minimum in place unit weight
of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). However, it is advisable to use a good quality fill which could be used to
raise grades in other pOrtions of the site, such as parking and driveway areas, if necessary.
We do not believe it is necessary to place a surcharge of fill within the parking and access easement areas if
grades at these areas are raised to elevations comparable to the building area. In any case, the structural fiJI
required in the pavement areas should be placed as soon as possible to allow time for consolidation of the
compressible layers and reduction of potential settlement impacts on pavement and utilities.
The estimated total primary settlements under the reconunelided surcharge range from four to eight inches across
the building area. These settlements are expected to occur 12 to 16 weeks following full application of the
surcharge loading. The actual period for completion and magnitude of the primary settlenlents will be governed
by variations in subsurface conditions at the site.
To verifY the amount of settlement and the time rate of movement, the surcharge program should be monitored by
instaUing settlement markers. The settlement markers should be installed on the existing grade prior to placing
any building or preload fills. Once installed, elevations of both the fill height and marker should be taken daily
until the full height of the preload is in place. Once fully preloadedlsurcharged, readings should continue weekly
until the anticipated settlements have occurred. Monitoring data should be forwarded to us for review when
obtained. A detail showing typical settlement marker installation is attached as Figure 3.
It is critical that the grading contractor recognize the importance of the settlement marker installations. All
efforts must be made to protect the markers from damage during fiJI placement. It is difficult, ifnot impossible,
to evaluate the progress of the surcharge program if the markers are damaged or destroyed by construction
equipment. As a result, it may be necessary to install new markers and to extend the surcharging time to ensure
that settlements have ceased and building construction can begin.
Post-Collstructioll Settlemellts
Primary consolidation of compressible soils at the site will be achieved upon completion of the surcharge
program. Secondary consolidation will continue at the site throughout the life of the structure.
Page No.6
August 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-1
During secondary consolidation, you should expect a maximum post-construction settlement of approximately I
Yo inches and differential settlement of 314-inch. These values represent expected settlements over a 50-year
period. We anticipate that most of these settlements will occur within five to ten years after completion of the
structure.
Impact of Surcharge 011 Adjacellt Roadway alld Utilities
Depending on its location, the proximity of the surcharge fill pad to the adjacent railroad spur and roadways may
resull in settlement of these structures due to soil beneath them being influenced by the pre-load fill pad. We
recorrunend placing monitoring points on the roadway curbs and pavement to record possible movements during
surcharge. A similar monitoring program should be implemented for the railroad spur if it cannot tolerate
possible settlement from the pre-load. Sufficient monitoring points should be established since some of these
points will likely be disturbed by traffic. In addition, we suggest making a photographic survey of the pavement
before placing the surcharge to document if new cracks develop during and after the area is surcharged.
We understand a fiber optic telephone transmission cable is located within a utility easement adjacent to SW 34th
Street and East Valley Road. This utility line as well as other utilities within the easement may experience
vertical andlor lateral movement as a result of the stress changes in the soil associated with the placement of the
site fill and surcharge pads. Utility organizations should be prepared to relocate utilities as required prior to
construction ofthe surcharge fill pad.
4.4 Excavations
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces such as utility trenches must be completed in
accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Washington Industrial Safety Health Act
(WISHA) regulations, the upper loose and medium dense soils at the site would be classified as Type C soils.
Accordingly, for properly dewatered excavations more than 4 feet, but less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes
should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). If there is insufficient room to
complete the excavations in this manner, or if excavations greater than 20 feet in depth are planned, using
temporary shoring to support the excavations may need to be considered. Utility trench sidewalls can be
supported by a properly designed and installed shoring trench box.
Groundwater should be anticipated within excavations extending to depths of five feet and greater below existing
surface grades. For excavations below ten feet, the volume of water and rate of flow into the excavation may be
significant and dewatering of the excavations may be necessary. Shallow excavations that do not extend more
than two to three feet below the groundwater table can likely be dewatered by conventional sump-pumping
procedures, along with a system of collection trenches. Deeper excavation may require dewatering by well points
or isolated deep-pump wells. The utility subcontractor shOUld be prepared to implement excavation dewatering
by well point or deep-pump wells, as needed. This will be an especially critical consideration for any deep
excavations at the site.
This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be
construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole
responsibility of the project contractor.
Page No.7
4.5 Foundation Alternatives
Spread F ootillgs
August 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-J
Following the successful completion oHhe surcharge program, if the above estimated settlements are considered
tolerable, the b\lilding may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on a minimum of
two feet of structural fill. Existing competent fills may be included in determining the depth of the bearing soil
structural fill. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should be at a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below
final exterior grades.
We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. For short-term loads
such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With the anticipated loads
and bearing stresses, the estimated total settlements are as discussed above.
A base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used for designing foundations to resist lateral loads. Passive earth
pressures acting on the side of the footing and buried portion of the foundation stem wall can also be considered.
We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pef. We recommend
not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because they can be affected by weather Or disturbed
by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent fill soil
or backfilled with structural fill as described in the Site Preparation and Grading Section. The recommended
lateral resistance and base friction coefficient values include a safety factor of 1.5.
GeopiersTM
As noted above, Geopiers™ would be an acceptable alternative foundation type for building support. Geopiers"M
consist of aggregate columns that are densely compacted in predrilled holes. The procedure improves the
foundation subgrade by effectively pre-stressing the soil both vertically and horizontally, and providing a
supporting column of structural fill that extends below the soft, compressible soils. Conventional spread footing
foundations and slab-on-grade floors can then be constructed on the GeopiersTM. We expect that GeopierTM tip
elevations will extend to depths of approximately 15 feet below existing site grades. Due (0 the relatively weak
nature of the alluvial soils underlying the fills, there is a potential for caving or ground loss into open shafts
drilled during Geopier™ construction. Casing of drilled shafts may be required to stabilize the soils during
construction.
Typically, GeopierTM foundations are designed by Geopier Foundation Company. Their northwest office is
located in Bellevue, Washington (phone number 425-646-2995).
Other deep foundation alternatives such as driven timber piles, driven jetted grout piles, and auger cast-in-place
concrete piles can be considered for deep foundation support of the building. We can review these alternatives
and provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations, if needed.
Page No.8
4.6 Slab-on-Grade Floors
August 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-1
Slab-on-grade may be supported on the subgrade, as Tecommended in Section 4.2 of this report. Immediately
below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer composed of clean, coarse
sand or fine gravel that has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the
potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floot
slab.
The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor
transmission. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common
practice is to place a durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a
layer of clean coarse sand Or fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing
of the concrete slab. It should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior
to pouring the slab, it will be ineffective in assisting uniform curing of the slab, and can actually serve as a water
supply for moisture transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Therefore, in our opininn,
covering the membrane with a layer of sand or gravel shnuld be avoided if floor slnb construction occurs during
the wet winter months and the layer call110t be effectively drained. We recommend floor designers and
contractors refer to the 2003 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 2, 302.IR-96,
for further information regarding vapor barrier installation below slab-on-grade floors.
A subgrade modulus (k.) value of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can b~.used for design of the project's floor
slabs constructed on grade.
4.7 Lateral Earth Pressures
The magnitude of earth pressure development on site retaining walls will partly depend on the quality of the wall
backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Wan backfill below structurally
loaded areas, such as pavements or floor slabs, should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum
dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). In unimproved areas, the
relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent.
To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, drainage must be installed behind the wall. A typical wall
drainage detail is shown on Figure 4.
With wan backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, unrestrained walls can
be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pef. For restrained walls, an additional
uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and
that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embankments, or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall.
If such conditions exist, then the imposed loading must be included in the wan design. Friction at the base of the
wall foundation and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these
parameters are provided in Section 4.5 of this report.
Page No.9
4.8 Utilities
August 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-1
Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APW A),
or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural
fill, as described in Section 4.2 of this report. As noted, native soils, when excavated, will be wet of optimum
moisture and the utility contractor must be prepared to dry the soil by aeration or amend with CKD, cement, or
lime to stabilize the moisture to facilitate proper compaction. Alternatively, or if utility construction takes place
during the wet winter months, it may be necessary to import suitable wet weather fill for utility trench
backfilling. Due to thc:.potenml for long-tenn settlements, utility pipe joints and connections should be flexible
so as to allow up to one-inch of differential movement.
4.9 Drainage
Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building areas at all times. Water
must not be allowed to pond or coUect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building area. We
recommend providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building
perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided
unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water ~¢jacent to the structure.
Subsllrface
In our opinion, with the area immediately adj acent to the structure paved, and pOSltlve surface drainage
maintained, perimeter foundation drains would not be necessary. If the grade is not positively drained away from
the structure or is landscaped, perimeter foundation drains should be installed.
4.10 Pavements
With subgrade soils as prepared as described in Section 4.2 of this report, suitable support for pavement
construction should be provided. However, regardless of the compaction results obtained subgrades must be in a
stable non-yielding condition prior to paving. hnmediately prior to paving, the area of the subgrade should be
proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verifY this condition.
The required pavement thickness is not only dependent upon the supporting capability of the subgrade soils but
also on the traffic loading conditions which will be applied. For light commercial vehicles and typical passenger
vehicle traffic the following pavement sections are recommended:
• Two inches of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRE)
• Two inches ofHMA over three inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB)
Page No. 10
For heavy truck traffic areas, we recommend the following pavement sections:
• Three inches of HMA over six inches of CRE
• Three inches of HMA over four inches of A TB
August 22, 2006
Project No. T-3063-1
Asphalt concrete should meet the requirements for Y,-inch HMA, as outlined in 2006 Washington State
Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) standard specifications. Asphalt-treated base and crushed rock base
should also meet WSDOT requirements.
If there is a potential that pavement construction will be delayed until the wet winter months, the sub grade soils
must consist of a clean granular material as described in Section 4.2 of this report. In addition, we strongly
suggest that the subgrade be further protected by placing a layer of A TB on wltich construction traffic could
access the project without excessively disturbing the subgrade soils. The ATB thickness for this purpose should
be four inches. Repair of failed A TB areas should be anticipated prior to final paving. However, the overall
integrity ofthe subgrade soils will be considerably less impacted with this protection provided.
Because of secondary compression of the clayey silt or peat layer some degree of post-construction settlement
within the pavement structure should be anticipated. This settlement will probably result in some longitudinal
and transverse cracking of the pavement. Cracks in the pavement should be sealed in a timely fashion to prevent
excessive surface water infiltration into the subgrade soils.
S.O ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design drawings and specifications in order to verify that earthwork
and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design. We also
recommend that we provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with our design
concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will anow for design changes if subsurface conditions
differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
We prepared this report in accordance with general1y accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is
intent!ed for specific application to the Younker Nissan project. This report is for the exclusive use of Younker
Nissan and its authorized representatives.
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the test borings and
cone penetration tests advanced on the site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of
which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be
requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction.
Page No. II
REFERENCE: THOMAS GUIDE CD-ROM, KiNG/PiERCE/SNOHOMISH COUNTIES, 2004 NOT TO SCALE
Terra
Associates Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineerlng
GeologyaMd
Environmental Earth Sciences
VICINITY MAP
YOUNKER NISSAN
RENTON, WASHINGTON
No. T-3063-1 Date AUG 2006 Figure 1
SW34th ST
BLDG.
l l!
.J,/;/
,~/
PARKING lor A;><'
. ~ :~~DG~' I /-'.~~«'
N~~'<' /.-:?;>,
RAILROAD TRACK ~~~0
II! 1111+1 11111'~~'----
NOTE:
THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR
REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
REFERENCE:
SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CLIENT
'''.'",7/77//..-''/ ~'/,'~' // ,..1"'77)7 /?; ".? " " / • I'
i'j
, BLDG.
,.;
,~
"
{". //,/./ //./ // ////,'////" ,.
LEGEND:
L APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION FROM TERRA ASSOCIATES T REPORT T·3063, DATED FEBRUARY 1996,
~ APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION FROM TERRA ASSOCIATES Y REPORT T·3064, DATED FEBRUARY 19S6,
• APPROXIMATE CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) LOCATION
..
sll
Ifi
CPT·2 •
B.1~
B'2~
CPT·1 •
\
Cl n:::
>-UJ
..J
..J ;;;
W
!
I
-----,
o
+ j{
~
L--__
----------..
PARKING LOT
100 200
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
,,~ Terra
Associates, Inc .
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
EnvlronmentaJ Earth Sciences
EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
YOUNKER NISSAN
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-3063·11 Date AUG 2006 Figure 2
STEEL ROD
....
, .,.. . . '.,. " ~: . .. ' :,': .... ,.
.... :.
. .
. . ' . .' " .
.' . '.'~ .. ;, : ..
. " " .. :;' '". . .
,,_ .... " ,_. ,,', .,
.' .. '
. ...
. ....
HEIGHT VARIES . .~. '. . .. ...
. . :..' . .
SURCHARGE ... (SEE NOTES)
" " .-'
... OR FILL .~ .
.-,' .... ,
. ~. :', .. ',; .. ,'
'" ..
, . , .
,'.,,' .
',:. ,,-"r " " ",
,,' .
',-, .' ' .. :: "
'; ,' ..
:," .
PROTECTIVE SLEEVE
',: . . .... . ;'". . .. \ ,', . .. . . ..... ,'.: . '. ~. '.' . .; :. " : '.,' .. . . ", .
: ," ';' ':. .. ' .' ,', '"
.,; .. '". ". ", " .. "';,',
. ~ ., .' ''"', ,':', . . , .
',' .
. '. '
, .....
.. .. '. ',:" ',.,. ":'" , .
:'. '.' ..... '
", ..... . SURCHARGE ... :.' .
OR FILL ... :
.; '. :-:., . ..... .... . .......
. • '. .', .," '" . '.' • -.1;',
• '" !. :., -:::' '. '.' ',.' . -'\ ,'... '. ..... , .' .~ .. ' ... :", ....
-::. .: " ...
.. :: ,-"'.
"',' ' .~.'",
r· '::. ... ::.;. ·-':'.:..l.-C---'"-r=::~=:L·::"· . .::. .. .....::.:.....:...~-.:::.."i ;,' .... ' .' :' ' . . : ,'. .' '.; .' ... ,' '.
~. , ' .. ...
" ;:: " .-".. .' ...... .
. . ' . :. :. " .' ", . • ,. '. , I
"'. ", '. "."
::' ...... , ,'.
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1. BASE CONSISTS OF 3/4" THICK, 2')(2' PLYWOOD WITH CENTER DRILLED 5/8" DIAMETER HOLE.
2. BEDDING MATERIAL, IF REQUIRED, SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN COARSE SAND.
3, MARKER ROD IS 1/2" DIAMETER STEEL ROD THREADED AT BOTH ENDS.
4. MARKER ROD IS ATIACHED TO BASE BY NUT AND WASHER ON EACH SIDE OF BASE.
5. PROTECTIVE SLEEVE SURROUNDING MARKER ROD SHOULD CONSIST OF 2" DIAMETER
PLASTIC TUBING. SLEEVE IS NOT ATTACHED TO ROD OR BASE.
6. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF STEEL ROD CAN BE CONNECTED WITH THREADED COUPLINGS.
7. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE CAN BE CONNECTED WITH PRESS-FIT
.PLASTIC COUPLINGS.
8. STEEL MARKER ROD SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 6" ABOVE TOP OF PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE.
9. PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 1" ABOVE TOP OF FILL SURFACE.
Terra
v-----' Associates, Inc.
l...L..!~ Consullants In Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL
YOUNKER NISSAN
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj, No. T-3063-1 Date AUG 2006 Figure 3
12" MINIMUM 3/4" --""\
MINUS WASHED
GRAVEL
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE
12" OVER PIPE
3" BELOW PIPE
EXCAVATED SLOPE
(SEE REPORT TEXT
FOR APPROPRIATE
INCLINATIONS)
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
MIRADRAIN G100N PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS OR SIMILAR
PRODUCT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE 12-INCH WIDE GRAVEL
DRAIN BEHIND WALL. DRAINAGE PANELS SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM
OF SIX INCHES INTO 12·INCH THICK DRAINAGE GRAVEL LAYER
OVER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE.
Terra
~~~ Associates (nc.
Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineering
Geology and
TYPICAL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
YOUNKER NISSAN
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-3063-1 Date AUG 2006 Figure 4
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Youuker Nissan
Renton, Wasbington
On January 10, 1996, we perfonned our field exploration using a truck-mounted hollow stem auger drill rig. We
explored subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site by drilling 2 hollow stem auger test borings to a
maximum depth of 36.5 feet below existing grade. An additional test boring was drilled on the neighboring site.
Tbis log is attached as Figure A-4. The test boring locations are shown on Figure 2. The Boring Logs are
presented on Figures A-2 through A-4.
On July 27, 2006, we advanced 2 cone penetration tests (CPTs) at the southern portion of the site. Each CPT was
pushed to a total depth of approximately 40 feet. The CPT soundings are attached in Appendix A. The locations
of the CPTs are shown on Figure 2.
An engineer from our office maintained a log of each test boring as it wa.s drilled, classified the soil conditions
encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System shown on Figure A-I.
Representative soil samples were obtained from the test borings using saiiJpling procedures outlined in ASTM
Test Designation D-1586. The samples were placed in jars or tubes (ring samples) and taken to our laboratory
for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the
Boring Logs. Plasticity characteristics of the fine-grained soils were determined by conducting Atterberg limits
tests. A consolidation test was perfonned on a sample of the peat obtained during drilling of Boring B-2. Grain
size analyses were performed on three of the samples. The results of the grain size analyses and consolidation
test are presented as Figures A-5 and A-6. Consolidation test data are shown in Figure A-7.
Project No. T-3063-1
MAJOR DIVISIONS LETIER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
... GRAVELS Gravels fines.
(/) (I) (less than Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or ::::! ~(I) GP 0 .!!!N More than 5% fines) no fines .
(/) .~.: 50% of Goarse ) GM SIII¥ gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic
Cl fraction is Gravels fines.
(I» larger than No. W ~(I) with fines Z 01·-4 sieve GC E'" Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
~ 0 :,go Clean (') ON 8W Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. LD c:i SANDS Sands w <:z (less than Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no (/) 01 8P a:: .E:<: More than 5% fines) fines. « ~ro 50% of coarse (I).E:
0 ....... fraction is 8M Silty sands, sand-slit mtxtures, non-plastic fines. 0 Sands 0 ::;; smaller thlm
No.4 sieve with fines 8C Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
(/) m ML Inorganic slils, rock flour, clayey sills with slight
....J "i: 0 SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity.
0 (1)0 CL tuN Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). (/) Ec:i(l) Liquid limit is less than 50%
Cl '#. Z.~ OL Organic slits and organic clays of low plasticity. W o <: '" Z LD 01 (I)
~ c::;; a; MH Inorganic sills, elastic. rn ,-.-
(') .E:(I)'" SILTS AND CLAYS -=
w e:'" CH Inorganic-· clays of high plastiCity, fat clays.
Z oE liqUid limit is greater than 50% u: ::;;'" OH Organic clays of high plastiCity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
(/) Standard Penetration I 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT (/) Densit~ Resistance In Blows/Foot w SPOON SAMPLER ..J
Z Very loose 0-4 I 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER a
1ii Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
w Medium dense 10-30 :r: Dense 30-50 ~ WATER LEVEL (DATE) a u Very dense >50 TORVANE READINGS, Isf Tr "-_ .. -
Standard Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, lsI
Consistency Resistance in Blows/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot w ~ Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent (/)
W Soft 2-4 :r: Med ium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX a Stiff 8-16 U Very sllff 16-32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
Hard >32
~ Terra. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
YOUNKER NISSAN ~ .. '.':' .. ASSOCiates, Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON
Consullanls In Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Proj. No. T-3063-1 Date AUG 2006 Figure A-1 Envlronmenlal Earth Sciences
Boring No. 8-1
L ogged by: KPR
D ate: 1/10/96 Approximate Elev. 20
OJ
Relative Depth
'0. ) Water
Soil Description E Content
Density (ft.) ttl
(j) foot (%)
Very Dense I 50+ lOA
5 :t: ± :t: 5 11.9
Medium Stiff 5 74.9
10
Stiff I 8 41.3
15 ••.. ,------+ •• --+
Black SAND, as above but fine Medium Dense I 11 30.9
to medium grained. 20
Black SAND, as above. Very Dense I 59 26.2
25 ----_.--------------------.. -._.---------------------
Brown-gray clayey SILT, low I plasticity, saturated. Soft 3 47.6
30
Gray silty SAND, wilh
Medium Dense very fine to fine-gralned, I 14 26.2
Test boring terminated at 34 feel.
Groundwater encountered at 5 and 7 feet.
Hole plugged with 1 bag of bentonite chips mixed with cutUngs.
~ .. ~,-:. . . . .. . . .
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
GeoteChnical ConSUltants
BORING LOG
YOUNKER NISSAN
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. Date AUG
LL:83
PL:44
PI:39
Bentonite slurry
added to hole
control heave
LL:54
PL:34
PI:20
A-2
Boring No. B-2
Logged by: KPR
Date: 1f10/96 Approximate Elev. 20
Q)
Relative Depth 0. ) Water
Soil Description E Content
Density (ft.) It! (%) en foot
Dark gray sandy, gravel with silt.
FILL cuttings, wet. Medium Dense I 24
-----------------_.--------------.--_._---. -------------5
Dark brown PEAT, fibrous, Medium Stiff I 7 204.4
wet.
10 y
Medium Stiff I Black SAND with slit, fine-
33 29.8
grained, saturated . Dense 15 . -.. ----------------_.--_. - ---------.-----
Black SAND, flne to medium I grained, saturated, 3 inch thick Medium Dense 17 34.3
layer of brown, silty very fine-20 grained sand at 18 feel
Black SAND, as above but fine-Very Dense I 64 23.7
and Without silty sand 25 0-______________________ • ______
Gray clayey SILT, low plasticity. Medium Stiff
saturated. I 6 45.6
Gray clayey SILT, as above. Very Soft 30 I 2 47.9
------.------------------------._ -0, ____________ •
Gray silty SAND with clamshells.
fine-grained. saturated.
Medium Dense 35
Test boring terminated at 36.5 feet.
Groundwater encountered at 10 feet.
Hole plugged with 1 bag of bentonite chips mixed with cuttings.
~ ....
.... ;0 ;0 .. . .
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
BORING LOG
YOUNKER NISSAN
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-3063-1 Date AUG
e,-4.46
c.'=2.47
unit wt=67.8pcf
LL=46
PL=32
PI=14
LL=37
PL=28
PI=9
Figure A-3
Bori ng No. B-3
Logged by: KPR
Date: 1/10/96 Approximate Elev. 20
Graphl
USCS Soil Description
Brown, medlum-grained sand
FILL cuttings with few gravel,
wet.
FILL: As above but saturated.
FILL: As above but gray.
Dark gray, silty SAND, very
fine to fine-grained, saturated.
Black SAND, with thin interbeds
Relative
Density
Medium Dense
Loose
Soft
Medium Stiff
Medium Dense
of dark gray silty SAND, fine Medium Dense
to medium-grained, saturated.
;\ ------_ .. -------_ .. _------_. -_. ----_._-_.
Dark brown-gray silty SAND,
very fine-gralned, saturated.
Black SAND, fine to medlum-
grained, saturated.
Black SAND, as above.
Test boring terminated at 29 feet.
Medium Dense
Medium Dense
Dense
Groundwater encountered at 1.5 feet and 7 feet.
Depth
(ft.)
5
10
15
20
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water
Blo1ws/l Content
foot (%)
18 16.9
4 27.0
5 69.1
19 33.7
17 33.2
16 31.5
36 24.6
Hole plugged with 1 bag of bentonite chips mixed with cuttings.
~ ... .. ~ . . .. . . .
TERRA
ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
BORING LOG
YOUNKER NISSAN
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-3063-1 Date AUG
Bentonite
added to
to control
LL~73
PL~64
PI~9
A-4
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ..J
IL
0 l'! ~ !i 0 0 R 0 0 8
100,0 ~ "' "" <0 '" ~100' -
:::l
WOO WO°
U)
i roo' coo·
'* ~ ~OO' toO' ~ -2 -,~ .§
« iil: 900' 900' ::08 Ir !Sl 000' 900' en w w 10' W' :z
Iii U) u:: iil:
~ ~ 0 Cl (;0' zO' Ir
~ £0' 1':0'
I to' I to'
90' 90'
00(; eo'
c -I'
~ 001 U)
~ Ir w Z' w ~ ~
09 Iii 0
'"
~ 1':' :; Cl.
::0 '~
,; t' ::::; u
~ ID
0 :::! C-c 0 ;;:: 9' ~
a: z
w g' ~ ::0'"
IL 01: W ::0'"
:I: I ~ 6
ffl ill U) ::0 l! ::;:
~ z ~ 01 Z ~ 'w = !Q a: '§
i w I': (!) ~ ~ 0 !:i
t ~ z lii ::0 '" z t ~ '" ~ « -til 9 '" ~ = m
W " " [ij B
9/£ 01 w z iii '" 1:/1 u: '" 0 ::;: ...J w ~~f ...J U) ::;: :I: ~ '" 0 OZ :::>
;1; I I-
;1; DC wCl =-0
Cl III ~ '" I ~ til Cl. .. N iil: a: (!;-~ ~
z l '" w 09 IL 0 " 0 r 09 o ~
u. I--'" " 0 t 001 I!! .D ~ ~
.Q § III cD
!Sl ~ e-z
'" 9 w
-DOl III
(;1 0 00 £
8 ~ g • 0
0 0 liS 0 0 0 0 ~ 52 '--0 0> .... u-.. ... ..,
~
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
~Terra GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
0;; Associates, Inc.
YOUNKER NISSAN
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical EngIneering
Proj, No. T-3063-11 Date AUG 2006 I Geolog~and Figure A-5 Envlronmenla Earth SClsnces
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT --' Q..
0
0 ~ ~ lij! 0 0 g '" 0 0
100"'" -"' '" '" en -100' r--
--' ,..J
!!2 WO' ZOO'
~ roo' roo' ....
~ tOo' tOO' ~ -
~ " --<:
.!1l " ;;; 0-
900' 900' fa :; 6
0:: ~ 900' 800'
()
~ z
II) 10' 10' u:: z
::!: o? ~ Cl
Cl 1:0' ZO'
~ £0' 1'0'
to' VO'
90' 90'
ADZ 80'
0 I' ~ 001 Ii! uJ ~ .w z
z' Iii iI <:
II) 0 = II) 09 ::!: f :0 £' ,: :::; ~
() at -v' ::::! 0
;;; :2i 0
c:: ~ z
w 9' :;"
Q.. S' w :0'"
:I: OZ N 2i
(J) I ii) w
w :;
:; z ,
u. ~ !!2 0 01 Z iii c::
(() w (!) (J)
~ ~ £ 0: 0 " z
~ :0 t ~f-;li z
<I: -t i'
~ t/I 9
w 9/r
9 !t!
ii) I 01 iI II)
::J Z/I t.l ::;; ..J II) '" 0 ~~f I f-~ :0
;;; OZ
;;; I wCl t""=" on
!i or (J) !:i G/I 0: .. '"
Z I Ot 15 o-
w
Q.. Z t.l c:
0 09 ~ G;
u. .£ f-I!!'" ~
0 OS J2 S • IIJ
W t 001 ({) !1:z
!:>I -W
<fl ...J W
aI
9 aI
001: 8 ~ -• ZI oDor '"
'" <=> 0 g 0 0 0 0 ~ 0
~ '" 00 ~ on ..,. o<:J -
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
Terra GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
YOUNKER NISSAN
Associates, Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Proj, No, T-3063-11 Date AUG 2006 I GeOIOgr and Figure A-6 Envlronmenta Earth Sciences
4.00
3.50
~
0 • :::<
~
::2 .g.
3.00
2.50
2.00
.1 .5 5 10 50
Pressure (tsl)
Key BON ring D(eftPth USCS Soil Description Cc G. eo ~ Mpis ur~!! ofn~!y r-__ ~~o~·~~··J~ __ -+ ____________________________ +-__ ~ __ -+ __ ~~eruo~After Inm)
B-2 7.0 PT PEAT 2.47 .024 4.46 204.4 126.8 22.1
Cc '" Virgin Compression Index
c;. '" Coefficient of Secondary Compression (at 0.83 tsf)
eo '" Inplace Void Ratio
r:::~~ Terra
~ 07 t~!~n~!:!~~!d~e~~
Geology and
Environmental Earth ScIences
CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA
YOUNKER NISSAN
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T -3063-11 Date AUG 2006 1 Figure A-7
APPPENDIXB
CPT LOGS
Terra Associates
Depth
(ft)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
Operator: Nowak
Sounding: CPT-1
Cone Used: DSG070B
Tip Resistance
QcTSF
250
-! 1--I ---l
I I I
I
I
" I I
I I-I
T--
" I
.' I I
I 1 I 1
~L -~----:--- -T ---~----
\ : I :
>
I I
I
r---J~._ --:.. ---~ ---~ ---I -. I I
I ) 1 I
I
f-:.\~_~ ____ ' ---r---~---
I I I I
I I
I
'-I t
- --,--,,'-,-- - -1---~----
I
I I I
1---I----:----~--t~---
1 I I I
I : \ t ,-
I
I I
I I
I 1 I I
1 I I I
I 1 , I j----, - - --r - - -t - - -..., ---
\
I I
I~
1/
I
I
{, I
----f::: ---,----t ---.----
I
I
I
I
" (:
I I i I
Friction Ratio
Fs/Qc(%)
o 4
I I
-1=-,-
I I
I I
I I I
I-~'-_.J __ .l __
\: : :
~ I
~
~
, I
':-( , I
L_:i"l~ __ ~--
,'., I
I ,
(. I
: ·rl ,
~ ,
I -1-, f-_f(_,_-,_ -.!. __
I J 1
~ : " ,
it' I , r-r ,--~--
I' 1-I
"4 -1-,
~
1 'S 1
--:--~~ -~--
I _'1
.-1:-
{:..-q:: y (: :
): 1
..!::_y:---:----
\ I
) :
\
i
Maximum Depth = 40.19 feet
senshive fine grained
organic material
clay
silty clay 10 clay
clayey silt to silty clay
sandy silt to clayey slit
·SeD behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-19B3
CPT DatefTlme: 7127/2006 5:38:50 AM
Location: Younker Nissan
Job Number: T-3063-1
Pore Pressure
PwPSI
Soli Behavior Type'
Zone: UBC-1983
SPTN'
60% Hammer
-10 50
-! ! ! !
I ...,}--:-
~
, ,
" , f-I-_I-I :
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I_Lr_
I
1_ ~ _l._ , , ,
I • , -~-~-~-, , , , ,
\
-f\-'---1-"-
1\' , I' , , ,
I
1 1 'I -"l :-~-~-
\-:._1 , : :\
1 I , 1 : : : ~ -r-I-'-1""'.f-
I I , ~o:::!~
I ~ ..... ,
: l~
\-
I_~ ,-'"
-1-W--J-
I: : :) :
I \ I '1
'\
, ,
-t -
o 12
, " III I
I I I
I III
o 50
~~~..,.,.., !! !-! !!,!!!
I I 1 , , 1 1 I I
I I I I , I
: 1 , : : :,-I)~"
, I 1 , I of I I I
I I I 5i I I I I I
1 I 1)1 , , 1 , I
1,,1'11 I I ,
, ~~ I I I I I I 1
If!!. 1 J J_'_'_' I
'I 'I I to" III
J: :: I::
, I I II
I I I I I
1" I"
I I 1 I I
f., I I I I
I I 1 I
~I' 1 I
I LL: I' ~~~~~ : : : (~Il: : : : : .-~ : :
I
I , ,
I_'_~ , ,
I~ : t J' I I II
1 ~~ I 1
~J 1-': I 1 : t
11 , I' I ,! ~~'T""1 ,-,-,--i-
I' 1 , 'I ,
1'1'1 I 1 I t
Ii, , 1 , 'I I
I' , 1 , 1 1 :'j'It: : I
I I I 'f\1 I
I I I 1 ~f
: : : ,: b:
I I I~I I I 1 j
-+t~i~-:-:-'-:-
1 I I r' 1 , , ,
I I Idt.! I I I I
I I I I I" II' ,
I I "1'1 I ::~ I:
1 1 , , I ~, 1
I I I I I
I I I_III
I I 1 , I '/' , , ! I t I I to! 1 !
..... .t ~ -I-I-I-Ir '--
I I I I I I 1"
I 1 1 , 1 I ~ , ,
III I I I I 1
II I 1 1 I I I
II' 1..r!J.-·'"
1
',1-: I: : : : : ,
III I I I I ,
1111' I I I I
1111' , , I I
, I I 1 I I 1 , ,
{.I I I" I I.~ ~; ~ ~ ~-'-:-:-I
"111 I I I
1 I 1 r' I II
I' I t I 'I I
II" 1 I ,
'1' 1 I I 'I I
I I I I 'I I
_j I I '"
It' I 'I I : ~:: :::
-l-.!L!..f-'--'-'-' :): :: : :
'~I I I I I : ':!: :
I Iq~, 1 I I 1
1 I I 1
i : rl
1 I f 1
Depth Increment = 0_164 feel
117 only sand 10 sandy sill r· 8 sand to silly sand
9 sand
Northwest Cone Exploration
• 10 gravelly sand to sand
1111 velY stiff fone grained rJ
• 12 sand to clayey sand (')
Terra Associates
Deplh
(II)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
Operator: Nowak
Sounding: CPT-2
Cone Used: DSG070B
Tip Resistance
QcTSF
I --I l-I-, , , ,
, I I -
__ : ,I -__ I ,
I I I 1
j I , I I
1-.--J __ --'----r---,---,
)
~-<:-.~----
~ , ,
J
, ___ .1-__ _
250
,
r--f"~----t
I, ,
,
---t---~---, , , , -,
I':: I
, 1
1 ,
,I ,
" ,
1
~~-~----:----t---1---~
/' I I
"-'I t
1--::::>
-~-,--, ., , '
{ ,
, , • 1 - - _ -I ____ 1 ___ \; .I-___ ..J __ _
, 1 ,I ,
I(--i' ,
, ,
.-t-
I ,
(' 1 I:. , ;
,I
~--~----~---~---~---
\ : : : :
, I 1 I
. 1 I I t , ,
J ,
, , ,,-,
(' I I I I
--::t~--_: ____ I_-_-: __ --
I) t I r:: '
( , : '
:; .,
:j
I'
Friction Ratio
FslQc (%)
l
,
--'--+--
Maximum Depth ~ 40,03 foet
senslUve fine grained
organic malerial
clay
• 4 silty clay 10 clay
• 5 clayey slit to silty clay
• 6 sandy silt to clayey silt
·son behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC~19B3
CPT Date/Tlme: 7127/20066:08:57 AM
Location: Younker Nissan
Job Number: T·3063-1
Pore Pressure
PwPSI
Soli Behavior Type'
Zone: UBC·1983
SPTN'
60% Hammer
-10 50 :::-1
, , , , , , ,
1 .-'-1-i--, , ,
il
"
, , , , , , , , , , ,
~_I I_~_!" _
\
: :: , , , , , ,
t
' ::: , , , , , , , , ,
~ -1--;-'-1"-
r
!\
, , , , , ,
, , , ,
I \1 I 1
I" I , ~t~:--:-~ -r-,> I I I I
'(' I t I I I I I I
,. J I
!\! : I J , , ,
I I I 1 ,
I I I , I f-"1'-"'·"-I I I I I , ,
: I'
, , , , , " , " I -..,J I
I , I 1"'/
, , I I 1\ -;"-,-,-,-""-
I t I i\
I 'i , ,
, v'
I ,_ (,
: (~
l' ,
" , 1\ I I
-~-j.:-'-:-~---, ,
~. : :
'" , , ) ,
~:
:'\: , ,
o 12 o 50
! ! ! !C!-!-H+
I I I I I I t I
I It' , r
I I 1 I I I
I 1'1' , 1 I I
, , ~1"T1T'
I' , I , I
, f' -1 , I , I I I I L , , ,
1/ I I I I , I
_L~l"!J_I_I_'-1
: t ' 'I " ~ I , I' I'
1'1 I I I
I 1'1 I "
I 1'1 I I I
I ... II I I I
III I , I 1 I
\
111 I J
, I I I I
I t I I I I
, I I I I '~' I I , ~ .. LJ.J..J __ I_~
I 1'1 I , ")' , I I I I
'~' , I I I I I
1 I I I If'; I hi, , ;r I "
I 1., I I I
I Ilb I I
~.r! 'I I I r.-,1'; ""'''-I-I""~ ,..I, : : : I :
,1",' I , I I
, , ~1 I ' , ,
, I I I,"!.,! I
, , I , '.?
1'1 1,111
I , t.' I " ~i: : : : :
~JI I , I I
HH 1 ~ -:-:-:-,-:
, I t I I I I I I
,I.,~" I I I I , 1
, I 1.1" I I'
I "1 I , I , I
I I', "-t...: I 1
II I I ; 1 '
I : : : : ~):
I I I I l.r I'
I I I I If I I I
'III~"' ~.1.1-1..J...J_I_I-~
I I II ,,-1 I t
'III~" , I I I j I I I
I I I' I I I
: : : : l' :
1111'7' : J : :f~ , : :
r. ii' It' I I
I I 1 1 I 1'1 i' I 1 I I , I_~
1
1 ~' ~ -, -,-:-:-
I I I I I
I I I I' 1\': :: I I' I'
1 I I I
I t I I I
~~~, tJl
Itt I
, I I 1
~ I' I r: : : : ~ , , I
'u): : : , , ,
~I ,
Depth Increment ~ 0.164 feet
• 7 silty sand to sandy slit r: 8 sand 10 silty sand
t'"g sand
Northwest Cone Exploration
• 10 gravelly .and 10 sand
• 11 very sliH flne 9rainecl (')
• 12 .and to clayey sand (")
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR
YOUNKER NISSAN
January 29, 2007
Prepared by
GARRY STRUTHERS AsSOCIATES, INC.
3150 Richards Road, Suite 100
Bellevue, W A 98005
(425) 519-0300
f:12006 proJeCt$\00Q.006.123 younker I1Issan\repol1·final\2·tia-co .... er.doc\m
Traffic Impact Analysis Younker Nissan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTNE SUMMARy ............................................................................... .i
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION .................. , ....................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 1
EXISTING
CONDITIONS ............................................................. , ............................... 1
Roadways ............................................................................................. 1
Transit. ................................... , .................................................................. 5
Non-motorized Facilities .............. , ............................................................ 5
Traffic Volumes ...................... , ............................................................... 6
Level of Service ...................................................................................... 8
Traffic Safety ........................................................................................ 9
Planned and Programmed Improvements ........................................................ 9
FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT ................................................... IO
Background Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... .1 0
Level of Service ..................................................................................... l 0
FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT .................................................... 12
Traffic Volumes ...................................................... , .............................. 12
Project Trip Generation ............................................................................ 12
Trip Distribution/Traffic Assignment. ........................................................... 12
Level of Service ..................................................................................... 12
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 15
APPENDICES
Traffic Count Data ............................... , .................................... Appendix A
Traffic Impact Analysis Younker Nissan
Capacity Analysis ....................................................................... Appendix B
-Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions
-Capacity Analysis Future Conditions without Project
-Capacity Analysis Future Conditions with Project
Trip Generation ......................................................................... Appendix C
LIST OF FIGURES Page
Figure I Future Younker Nissan Location ..................................................... 2
Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map ........................................................................................ .3
Figure 3 Preliminary Site Plan ...................................................................... .4
Figure 4 Transit Service Routes in the vicinity of Younker Nissan ......................... 5
Figure 52004 Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 6
Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................... 7
Figure 7 Future Traffic Volumes without Project.. ........................................... ll
Figure 8 Project Traffic Assignment. ........................................................... 13
Figure 9 Future Traffic Volumes with Project.. .............................................. 14
LIST OF TABLES Page
Table I Level of Service Criteria ............................................................. 8
Table 2 Existing PM Peak-Hour Level of Service .......................................... 9
Table 3 Three Year Accident History Data ................................................... 9
Table 4 2007 PM Peak-Hour Level of Service without Project. ......................... l0
Table 5 Project Trip Generation .............................................................. 12
Table 62007 PM Peak-Hour Level of Service with Project. ............................. 15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this analysis is to analyze the traffic impacts of commercial development
proposed to be constructed on the comer of East Valley Road and SW 34th Street in
Renton. The current site plan calls for the development of a Younker Nissan car sales,
automobile part sales and car servicing. Younker Nissan is currently located on the east
side of East Valley Road, south of new proposed site. This study was prepared in order to
evaluate the traffic impacts of the proj ect and to address access needs for the proposed
development.
The proposed development plan consists of a 29,458 square feet facility, which will
include new car sales, used car sales, automobile part sales and car servicing.
Access for the Younker Nissan Site is provided by three driveways, two on East Valley
Road and one on SW 34 th Street.
The capacity analyses were conducted for the existing traffic volumes and total projected
traffic volumes at the completion of Younker Nissan project. The results of these
analyses indicate that the intersection within the study area will operate at a good level of
service and will satisfy standard requirements.
This study was prepared in accordance with City of Renton Policy Guidelines For Traffic
Impact Analysis For New Development in order to evaluate the traffic impacts of the
project and to address access needs for the proposed development.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed Younker Nissan site will not create any significant adverse conditions on
the surrounding transportation network. The new site will generate approximately 830
daily, 69 AM peak and 80 PM peak hour new vehicle trips to the transportation network.
Since the existing Younker Nissan site generates approximately 590 daily, 50 AM peak
and 56 PM peak hour trips the net impact of the new site will be approximately 240 daily,
19 AM peak and 24 PM peak hour trips.
The analyzed intersections will operate at acceptable level of service (B, B and C) in the
2007 PM peak hour with project volume scenario. The King County level of service
standards is E.
The accident rates at intersections in the vicinity of Younker Nissan location are below
the statewide Average Accident Rate for similar intersections.
Based on the analysis presented in this study, no off site roadway improvements will be
needed to mitigate the traffic impacts of this project.
f:\2006 prqects\OOO-OO6.123 younker nissanV"eport-Hnal\execlJtlve summary.doc\m
Traffic Impact Analysis Younker Nissan
INTRODUCTION
The following report was prepared to address the traffic impact analysis guidelines of
City of Renton for the proposed Younker Nissan facilities located between East Valley
Road and SW 34th Street in the southwest area of the City of Renton. The future location
of Younker Nissan is shown in Figure I; a vicinity map is presented in Figure 2.
The City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development
requires a traffic analysis of the project when estimated vehicular traffic generated from
proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 -9:00) or
PM (3 :00 -6:00) peak periods. The proposed Younker Nissan facility is estimated to
generate 24 new PM peak hour trips.
This report summarizes the process, findings, conclusions and recommendations of the
traffic analysis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed location of Younker Nissan is currently 4.51 acres of undeveloped
property. The new facility will have a 29,458 SF. The new location is expected to be
fully occupied by the end of 2007, which for the purposes of this analysis is assumed to
be the horizon year.
The proposed site plan indicates three access points to the existing streets with all project
trips generated by Younker Nissan accesses East Valley Road and SW 34th Street. A
preliminary site plan is presented in Figure 3.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Existing Conditions analysis provides a statement of the traffic-related conditions
within the study area at the time of the writing of this report. The statement includes a
discussion of the existing Younkers Nissan, existing roadway, transit, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities serving the site; identification of existing peak hour traffic volumes and
accident history at the analysis intersections; and identification of proposed transportation
improvements in this area.
Existing Facilities
The existing Younkers Nissan site is located on the eastside E. Valley Road and south of
SW 41 st Street. The existing facility is 15,249 SF acres. The trip generation of this
facility is 56 PM peak hour trips.
Roadways
The roadways directly impacted by the proposed development include East Valley Road
and SW 34th Street. The roadways indirectly impacted by the proposed development
include SW 41 st Street and Lind Avenue SW. These roadways are discussed in the
following sections.
1
Traffic Impact Analysis Younker Nissan
East Valley Road
East Valley Road is a collector arterial running east-west from SW 16 th Street to SW 43'd
Street. In the vicinity of Younker Nissan East Valley Road has three lanes with one lane
in each direction and a center two-way left tum lane, which converts into a designated
left tum lane at the major intersections. There is a five-foot sidewalk on the west side of
the road extending from SW 43'd St north through the limits of this site. The pavement is
in fair condition.
Traffic control along the East Valley Road includes a traffic signal at the intersection of
East Valley Road and SW 41 st Street/On-Off SR 167 Ramps and has stop sign control on
the west side of the intersection of East Valley Road and SW 34th Street. The posted
speed limit on the adjacent streets is 3Smph.
Figure 1 Future Younker Nissan Location
SW 34th Street
SW 34th Street is collector arterial running east-west from Oakesdale Avenue SW to East
Valley Road. In the vicinity of proposed Younker Nissan site SW 34th Street is a four-
lane roadway. At the intersection with E. Valley Road one lane converts to an exclusive
left tum lane. Traffic control along this street includes stop signs at intersection with East
Valley Road and intersection with Lind Ave SW.
2
Traffic Impact Analysis
Figure 2. Vicinity Map
Sw.2.!ItIl 51
.5Y1 34th St
Sw 39th St
YOUNKER NISSAN
SW 41" Street
S~St
SP!hSt
Younker Nissan
H II.
SW 41 st Street is a collector arterial running east-west from Oakesdale Avenue SW to
East Valley Road. In the vicinity of the proposed Younker Nissan site SW 41 st Street has
five lanes with two lanes in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane, which
converts into a designated left turn lane at the major intersections. There is a five-foot
wide sidewalk on the south side 0 f the road with a five-foot landscaping median
separating the sidewalk from the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
Lind Avenue SW
Lind Avenue SW is a minor arterial running north-south from SW 7th Street to SW 43'd
Street. In the vicinity of the proposed Younker Nissan site Lind Avenue SW has five
lanes with two lanes in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane, which converts
into a designated left turn lane at major intersections. There is a five-foot wide sidewalk
on the east side of the street separated from traffic by a five-foot wide median.
3
Tramc Impact Analysis
~AMY 9TAUTHEM ASSOCIATES, INC.
• 31110 ............. _$0.11 .. "10 __ ..... WAIW!IiOO_
,,-.e, (.25)519--0301)
• ,,_ r.n) 611, .. 03I;III
~-""""......ou-_c.cam
1>tIp:-.-"""~,,,,"""'"
EAST V ALLEY ROAD
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 3
Younker Nissan
L
,\
~~
NOT TO SCALE
YOUNKER NISSAN
4
Traffic Impact Analysis Younker Nissan
Transit
King County Metro provides transit service to within approximately Y, mile of the
proposed site. Three routes (153,161 and 247) provide transit service along Lind Avenue
SW. King County Metro route # ISS travels east-west on SW 43 rd Street and Carr Road.
Transit service routes in the vicinity of Younker Nissan are presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Transit service routes in the vicinity of Younker Nissan in Renton
Route 163 was recently discontinued. Segments of this route were incorporated into the
new Route 161, which provides five morning runs northbound during the AM peak and
five evening runs southbound during the PM peak. Route 161 serves North Meridian
Park, Glencarin, East Hill, Tukwila Sounder Station, Tukwila Park and Ride and
downtown Renton.
The nearest park and ride lot to the site is the South Renton Park and Ride, located at 205
S 7'h Avenue, S. in downtown Renton.
Non-Motorized Facilities
Five-foot wide sidewalks are provided on all the roadways surrounding the proposed site.
There are no bike lanes in the vicinity of project site.
5
Traffic Impact Analysis Younker Nissan
Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes in the vicinity of Younker Nissan were obtained from the City of Renton
Department of Publics Works. 2004 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5.
Oakesdale Ave SW
E Vallev Rd.
Lind Ave SW
SW 41". SI
SW 43'" St
Figure 5. 2004 Traffic Volumes -Vehicles per Day
(Source: City of Renton, Department of Public Works)
SR-167
105,400
Existing P.M. peak-hour turning movement traffic volumes were collected on January 7,
10 and 14,2007 from 4:00 PM -6:00 PM at the following intersections:
• East Valley RoadiSW 41 st StreetlSR-167 On-Off Ramps
• East Valley RoadiSW 34'h Street
• SW 34th StreetlLind Avenue SW
The count at the East Valley Road I SW 41 ,t Street intersection was adjusted to account
for the fact that the count was taken during a major snow storm and the intersection was
impacted by adjacent construction in the area and on the streets/interstate. Existing P.M.
peak-hour volumes are presented in Figure 6.
6
•
ARRY STRUTHERS ASSOCIATES.INC.
• 3160FI_~.S""200 _ ..... WA.~
I'hanoo: 14M) 511-0300
" .. : (425) 51i1-030S
• E ...... ~: gHOguuoc-lt'IC.com
"1\I):Nwwvf.g~com
3:
Ul
W ::> z
~
0 z
:J
sw 34TH ST.
~
'" ~
-' -' ;l'
~
SW 41ST ST.
EXISTING
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 6
167
-., --•
jl
'5~ II
110, ~:8
"
42.-J
315-'03,
L88
-128 ,43'
ll(
L XX -PM PEAK HOUR TURNING
MOVEMENT VOLUMES
YOUNKER
NISSAN
Traffic Impact Analvsis Younker Nissan
Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) is used to qualify the degree of traffic congestion and driver
comfort on a street or at an intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
describes the methodologies for calculating level of service on street segments and at
signalized and unsignalized intersections. According to the 2000 HCM, there are six
levels-of service by which the operational performance of the roadway system may be
described. These levels range from LOS A, which indicates a relatively free-flowing
condition to LOS F, which indicates operational breakdown. The LOS criteria are
presented in Table I.
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria
Level of Service Expected Delay
A LittlelNo Delay
B Short Delays
C Average Delays
0 Long Delays
E Very Long Delays
F Extreme Delays
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Report 209, Fourth Edition
The LOS for a two-way stop controlled intersection is determined by the computed or
measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for
the intersection as a whole. Average control delay less than or equal to 10 seconds per
vehicle is defined as LOS A. For LOS F, the average control delay is greater than 50
seconds per vehicle.
The LOS for an all-way stop controlled intersection is defined in terms of average control
delays per vehicle. LOS is defined for the intersection as a whole. An average control
delay ofless than or equal to 10 seconds per vehicle is defined as LOS A. For LOS F, the
average control delay is greater than 50 seconds per vehicle.
The LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average control delay per
vehicle. The criterion for LOS A is an average control delay of less than or equal to 10
seconds per vehicle. The criterion for LOS F is an average control delay of greater than
80 seconds.
The City of Renton has adopted a level of service E as the city road capacity standard.
According to Ordinance # any development that impacts an intersection with 20 percent
of the peak hour project generated trips and 30 project generated peak hour trips must
provide a level of service E with full development of the project. If the level of service is
below LOS E for the without project condition, the developer is responsible to maintain
the existing level of service.
Level of service for the analysis intersection was calculated using SynchroTM 5.0
computer software program based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The result of
the existing condition level of service analysis is shown in Table 2.
8
Traffic Impact Analvsis Younker Nissan
Table 2. Existing P.M. Peak-Hour Level of Service
Intersection Existing LOS Renton LOS Standard
East Valley RoadiSW 41" St. D E
East Valley RoadiSW 34'" St. B E
SW 34'" Street/Lind Ave. SW C E
Traffic Safety
Traffic safety is measured in terms of accident history. Often times a roadway may
appear unsafe because of specific physical features in the road such as restricted sight
distance, reduced radius curves, and narrow lanes. However, a significant accident
history may not result as alert drivers respond to the "unsafe conditions" and drive
accordingly and reduce the potential for accidents. In some situations, the conditions may
be such that driver is not alert to the hazard and crash result. These locations must be
evaluated to determine necessary safety improvements.
The latest three-year accident history at the analysis intersection was obtained from the
City of Renton Transportation Systems Division. The latest three-year crash history
included the period from January I, 1994 to December 31, 1996. A summary of the
three-year accident history is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Three-Year Accident History Data
Accident Average Accident
Intersection 2004 2005 2006 Total Rate' Rate'
East Valley RoadiSW 41" St. 3 7 2 12 0.51 0.90
East Valley RoadiSW 34'" SI. 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.90
SW 34'" StreetILind Ave. SW 1 2 0 3 0.23 0.90
1 -Accidents per million entering vehicles
2 -Average Accident Rate for similar intersections per WSDOT
As shown in Table 3, the accident rates at the three analyzed intersections are below the
statewide Average Accident Rate for similar intersections.
Planned and Programmed Improvements
The following transportation and related improvement projects are planned within the
next five years in the vicinity of the Younker Nissan development site:
• WSDOT/City of Renton Wetland Project. This involves enhancement of
existing and creation of new wetlands. Anticipated completion date is spring
2008. Will require considerable volume of large truck movements to and from
various wetland bank sites west of Land Avenue SW. Primary truck haul routes
will be SW 27'h Street via Oakesdale Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW.
• SW 34 th Street Culvert Replacement Project. This project is located at the
Springbrook Creek crossing of SW 34 th Street west of Lind Avenue SW.
9
Traffic Impact Analysis Younker Nissan
Anticipated completion date is December 2007. Project will involve full closure
ofSW 34 th street west of Lind Avenue SW
• SW 27th Street/Stander Boulevard Connection. Project involves new roadway,
with grade separated crossing of the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa
Fe railroad tracks, between Oakesdale Avenue SW in Renton and West Valley
Highway in Tukwila; and HOV improvements on SW 27th Street between
Oakesdale Avenue SW and East Valley Road. Relocation of UPRR and BNSF
tracks required for grade separation anticipated to be completed by 2008. New
roadway and HOV improvements anticipated to be completed by 2013.
• Lind Avenue SW Improvement Project. Involves widening of Lind Avenue
SW to five lanes, where required, between SW 16 th Street and SW 43 n1 Street.
Anticipated project completion date is 20 I O. However, short sections may be
completed sooner if abutting private development projects warrant widening as
traffic impact mitigation.
• SR 167 @ SW 41"/SW 43 rd Interchange Improvement Project. WSDOT
project involving HOV improvements at SW 41't/SW 43 r interchange.
Anticipated completion date is spring 2007.
FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT
The future conditions without project analysis provide a discussion of the traffic·related
conditions in the horizon year without the proposed project. This section includes a
discussion of background traffic volumes and level of service at the analysis intersection.
The new Younker Nissan location is expected to be fully occupied by the end of 2007.
Therefore, 2007 for the purposes of this analysis is considered to be the horizon year.
Background Traffic Volumes
Background traffic volumes for the 2007 without project condition include the 2004
existing traffic volumes presented in Figure 4, existing P.M. turning movement traffic
volumes plus area-wide traffic growth. A growth of 1.8 percent per year was used based
on the area-wide historical growth provided by WSDOT's Annual Traffic Report. The
future traffic volumes without project are presented in Figure 7.
Level of Service
The 2007 background without project PM peak hour level of service is shown in Table 4.
The existing level of service is shown for comparison purposes.
Table 4. 2007 P.M. Peak-Hour Level of Service without Project
2007 LOS LOS
Intersection Existing LOS Without Project Standard
East ValIey Road/SW 41" St. D (53.3.) D (59.3) E
East Valley Road/SW 34" St. 3(15.1) B (15.8) E
SW 34th StreetILind Ave. SW C (22.0) C (23.2) E
x x -Maximum delay at the intersection approaches in seconds
10
~~ It(
113,
~
'" '" :::l
Z
'" ~
Cl z
:J
SW 34TH ST.
~
'" ~
j
;l:
§
sw 41ST ST.
2007 FUTURE
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITHOUT PROJECT
FIGURE 7
167
16.-1 I t
43.-1
321-
135,
L XX -PM PEAK HOUR l\JRNING
MOVEMENT VOLUMES
YOUNKER
NISSAN
Traffic Imvact Analysis Younker Nissan
FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT
The future condition with project analysis provides a statement of what traffic related
conditions will be like in the horizon year with the Younker Nissan project. The analysis
simply adds anticipated project impacts to the horizon year background conditions. The
analysis defines anticipated project trip generation and evaluates impact through a level
of service analysis at each of the analyzed intersections.
Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for 2007 with project condition include 2007 without project volumes
discussed above plus expected traffic to be generated by Younker Nissan.
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation for Younker Nissan was calculated using the trip generation formulas for
New Car Sales, Land Use Code 841 presented in the Seventh Edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (Page 1478, Volume 3 of 3). The formula for
calculation AM. peak hour trip generation is adjusted according to the ratio of AM. and
P.M. average trip generation rate. A summary of the anticipated trip generation for
Younker Nissan is presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Hour PM. Peak Hour
Land Vse Total In Out Total In Out
Proposed 69 51 18 80 31 49
Existing 50 37 13 56 22 34
Net Impact 19 14 5 24 9 15
As shown in table 5, Younker Nissan is estimated to generate 69 AM. peak-hour and 80
P.M. peak-hour trips. The net impact of the project, calculated by deducting the existing
site trips generated from the existing Younker Nissan site from the total project trip
generation is 19 A.M. peak-hour and 24 P.M. peak-hour trips in 2007
Trip Distributionffraffic Assignment
Trip distribution percentages for Y OLlllker Nissan were based on the turning movement
counts collected at the analysis intersection. The trips that will be generated by the new
Younker Nissan site were added to the roadway system using the directional distribution
shown in Figure 8. A summary of the 2007 with project PM peak hour volumes are
presented in Figure 9.
Level of Service
The 2007 with project PM peak hour level of service at the analysis intersection is shown
in Table 6. The existing condition and 2007 without project PM peak hour level of
service are provided for comparison.
12
.. L(3%) .., -(2~) l ,(5~)
( ..
'"
•
ARRY STRU.THERS ASSOCIATES. INC.
• J,5D Ro::nBrdIr. R""". SuiI<o 200
a..1 ..... uu. WA 9800~6
P_~_(.~)5'~300
• Fa. (425) St9-ll309
E-maiI.gt.aAgsa!l.SOC-In<: com
hll;l:llwww gsasso<-,r,c.=m
SW 34TH ST.
~
VJ
'" ::l
Z
'" ~
<> <> Z «
::J 0
'" ~
-' -' :;
Iii
is
sw 41ST ST.
PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
FIGURE 8
167
....
00
JI
('O~)--I it
'O~), ....
00
.. ..
00 ....
JI
it ....
00
NN
~ll
"'''' JI
('O%~ it
(""~)' ....
~g
XX~ -ENTER
(XX:!) -EXIT
YOUNKER
NISSAN
~~~ L34 .. -17
Jll ,'2
40.-1 itr '5-
113, "",,, ---..,
3<
VI ...
::> z ...
::=
0 z :::;
-27 ,5
132-i r " .., ~
SW 34TH ST.
0
<l
'" ~ -' ;;
~
SW 41ST ST.
2007 FUTURE
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITH PROJECT
FIGURE 9
167
"'''' -'" ..
JI
17.-1
121 -..,
'" J
2 .-I
12 -..,
-..,
21.-1
368-
156,
II
0..,
"'0> '"
i1
<00 .,
it
"'0 --..,
L 92
-130 ,'39
itr
L XX -Pid PEAK HOUR TURNING
MOVEMENT VOLUMES
YOUNKER
NISSAN
Traffic Impact Analysis Younker Nissan
Table 6. 2007 P.M. Peak-Hour Level of Service with Project
2007 LOS LOS
Intersection Existing LOS With Project Standard
East Valley RoadiSW 41" SI. D (53.3) E (69.0) E
East Valley RoadiSW 34"' SI. B (15.1) C (15.9) E
SW 34"' StreetILind Ave. SW C (22.0) C (23.0) E
Site Access I-East Valley Rd. -C (22.5) E
Site Access 2 -East Valley Rd. C (18.4) E
Site Access 3 -SW 34"' SI. -A (9.1) E
xx -Maximum delay at the intersection approaches in seconds
OTHER ISSUES
The proposed site has three driveways providing access from the street network. The
number and location of these driveways were developed with the uses of the site to
minimize conflicts both the access points and within the site. The service area is
separated from the car sales area to provide safer access for people dropping off their
vehicles. The car sales area provides for the flow of the public to enter the site without
competing with these more directed trips to the service area. The driveways are also
located away from the intersection to minimize their impact on the operations of the
intersection while still providing the desired flow patterns within the site.
CONCLUSIONS
The new Younker Nissan site will not create any significant adverse conditions on the
surrounding transportation network. The new site will generate approximately 830 daily,
69 AM peak and 80 PM peak hour new vehicle trips to the transportation network. Since
existing Younker Nissan site generates approximately 590 daily trips with 50 AM peak
and 56 PM peak hour trips, the net impact of the new site will be approximately 240
additional daily trips with 19 AM peak and 24 PM peak hour trips.
The analyzed intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service in the 2007 PM
peak hour with the projected volume scenario. The City of Renton level of service
standard is E.
The accident rates at the intersections in the vicinity of Younker Nissan location are
below the statewide Average Accident Rate
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis presented in this study, no off site roadway improvements will be
needed to mitigate the traffic impacts of this project.
15
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
Location: East Valley Rd and SW 41 st St
Checker: DLN & JCN Weather: Cold and snow
Date: 10-Jan-07 Start Time: 4:00 PM
15 Min. Adj Factor; F(adj)= 1.0714 (15 min/# of minutes counted)
END
TIME
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
-
RIGHT
12
15
10
7
9
8
4
1
FROM: NORTH
THRU LEFT
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
TOTAL TRUCKS RIGHT
12 11 4
15 9 2 f-------g 10 8
7 1 4
9 4 4
8 6 3
4 0 4
1 1 3
CilylTown: Renton
Job: Younker Nisl;an
Pk Hr: I 4:30 PM 5:30 PM
FROM: EAST
THRU LEFT TOTAL TRUCKS
57 54 115 5
56 47 105 2
59 52 120 4
70 56 130 6
80 84 168 3
78 70 151 3
62 37 103 3
45 33 81 1
PK HR 34 0 0 34 19 20 287 262 569 16
A~HR L-~3~6~~ __ 0~~ __ ~0~-L __ 3~6~-L~2~0 __ ~-=2~1 __ L-~3~0~8~L-~2~81~~_6~1~0~L-~17~~
END
TIME
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
PKHR
Adj HR
FROM: SOUTH
RIGHT THRU LEFT
95 66 7
--~~----------
95 75 7
90 66 1
-----------.~-.
81 69 14
~.".------~ --,----.
100 80 7
91 91 10
73 74 4
70 60 3
362 306 32
388 328 34
END 15 Min
TIME TOTALS
16:15 437
16:30 434
16:45 443
17:00 455
17:15 520
17:30 513
17:45 369
18:00 304
TOTAL TRUCKS
168 3
-----
177 5
157 2
-
164 3
----
187 3
-----
192 5
151 4 --
133 3
700 13
750 14
Time
Start -
16:00
1615
16:30
16:45
17:00
FROM: WEST
RIGHT THRU LEFT TOTAL TRUCKS
28 76 9 113 5 ---
34 65 9 108 3
34 90 2 126 0
33 83 8 124 1
35 84 2 121 1
41 81 6 128 3
25 58 3 86 2
13 54 2 69 0
143 338 18 499 5
153 362 19 534 5
End hr vol pk hr?
17:00 1769 no
17:15 1852 no
17:30 1931 YES
17:45 1857 no
18:00 1706 no
ON Traffic Enterprises
INTERSECTION:
PEAK HOUR:
DATE:
SOURCE:
19
I 534 362
153
Peak Hour Factors:
Percent Trucks & Buses:
Easl Valley Rd and SW 41 sl SI
4:30 PM 5:30 PM
10-Jan-07
DN Traffic
PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL LEG VOLUMES
36 368
378 610
534 750
434 750
PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME MOVEMENTS
36
36 0 0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
LEFT NORTH RIGHT
THRU WEST EAST THRU
RIGHT SOUTH LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT
34 328 388
750
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS DERIVED FROM COUNT
From North:
From South:
From East:
From West:
Total
From North:
From South:
From East
From West:
0.84
0.91
0.85
0.97
0.93
55.6%
1.9%
2.8%
0.9%
SB
NB
WB
EB
SB
NB
WB
EB
21
308 610 I
281
DN Traffic Enterprises
Location: E Valley and SW 34th St
Checker: DLN Weather: Cludy
Date: 14-Jan-07 Start Time: 4:00 PM
15 Min. Adj Factor; F(adj)= 1.0714 (15 min/# of minutes counted)
END
TIME
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
RIGHT
2
3 r------.. -
4
0
3
3
1
2
FROM: NORTH
THRU LEFT
68 a --_.
68 a
115 a
80 a
115 a
77 a
88 a
67 a
TOTAL TRUCKS RIGHT
70 a a
71 4 0
119 5 a
80 1 a
118 6 r--0
80 4 0
89 3 a
--.~.-.-.--
69 1 a
City/Town: Renton
Job: Younker Nissan
Pk Hr: I 4:30 PM 5:30 PM
FROM: EAST
THRU LEFT TOTAL TRUCKS
0 a a a
0 a a a
a 0 a ~ 0 a a a
0 0 a a
0 a a a
0 a a a
0 0 a a
PK HR 10 387 a 397 16 a a a a a A~HR r--1~1~'-~4~15~'-~0~-r~4~2~6-'r-~1~7~'-~0~-r--~0r--'--~0--'-~0~-'--~0r-,
END
TIME
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
RIGHT
a
a
0
a
a
a
a
a
FROM: SOUTH
THRU LEFT TOTAL
52 3 55
66 4 70
61 6 67
71 5 76 --
61 1 62 •.. _----
74 6 80
63 6 69
62 7 69
FROM: WEST
TRUCKS RIGHT THRU LEFT TOTAL TRUCKS
8 16 a 3 19 3 --
4 10 a 2 12 0
4 19 0 3 22 3
--------------0-3 10 a 1 11
6 46 a 7 53 3 .. ----.~.-
6 28 a 3 31 3
6 r--12 a 2 14 1
6 10 a 1 11 1
PK HR a 267 18 285 19 103 a 14 117 9
A~HR ~~0 __ ~~28~6~~~1~9 __ L_~3~0~5~~~2~0 __ ~~11~0 __ L_~0 __ _L __ 1~5~~~12~5~L-~10~~
END 15 Min
TIME TOTALS
16:15 154 Time
16:30 164 Start -End hr vol pk hr?
16:45 223 1600 17:00 720 no
17:00 179 16:15 17:15 816 no
17:15 250 16:30 17:30 857 YES
17:30 205 16:45 17:45 818 no
17:45 184 17:00 18:00 799 no
18:00 160
DN Traffic Enterprises
INTERSECTION:
PEAK HOUR:
DATE:
SOURCE:
15
125 0
110
Peak Hour Factors:
Percent Trucks & Buses:
E Valley and SW 34th St
4:30 PM 5:30 PM
14-Jan-07
DN Traffic
PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL LEG VOLUMES
426 301
30 0
125 0
525 305
PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME MOVEMENTS
426
11 415 0
RIGHT THRU LEFT
LEFT NORTH RIGHT
THRU WEST EAST THRU
RIGHT SOUTH LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT
19 286 0
305
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS DERIVED FROM COUNT
From North:
From South:
From East:
From West:
Total
From North:
From South:
From East:
From West:
0.84
0.89
nfa
0.55
0.86
4.0%
6.6%
nfa
8.0%
SB
NB
WB
EB
SB
NB
WB
EB
0
0 0
0
DN Traffic Enterprises
Location: Lind Ave & SW 34th St
Checker: DLN Weather: Cludy
Date: 7-Jan-07 Start Time: 4:00 PM
15 Min. Adj Factor; F(adj)= 1.0714 (15 minl# of minutes counted)
END
TIME
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
RIGHT
4
7
6 f------.-.
3
3
2
2
2
FROM: NORTH
THRU LEFT
114 7
77 9
102 7
99 2
126 5
84 6
91 4 ---..
80 2
TOTAL TRUCKS RIGHT
125 9 7 -
93 4 0
----
115 2 4
104 2 6
134 4 15 _.
92 6 3
97 2 4
84 6 1
------
CityfT own: Renton
Job: Younkers Nissan
Pk Hr: I 4:30 PM 5:30 PM
FROM: EAST
THRU LEFT TOTAL TRUCKS
2 3 12 4
1 1 2 0
1 4 9 2
4 1 11 0
6 2 23 1
2 2 7 0 -
1 1 6 0
2 1 4 0
PKHR 14 411 20 445 14 28 13 9 50 3
A~HR L-_1~5~~~44~0~~~2~1 __ ~~4~7~6~ __ ~1~5 __ ~~3~0 __ ~~14~~~1~0 __ ~~5~4 __ ~~3 __ ~
END
TIME
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
6:00 PM
PKHR
Adj HR
RIGHT
0
4
1
4
3
4
0 -----;;c--
3
12
13
END
TIME
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
FROM: SOUTH
THRU LEFT
62 3
46 4
77 5
56 3
90 4
" "----
63 1
57 5
47 6
286 13
306 14
15 Min
TOTALS
246
195
263
229
332
234
207
179
TOTAL TRUCKS
65 4
54 4
83 4
63 7
97 1
68 3 . _ .
62 6 .----
56 1
311 15
333 16
Time
Start -
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
FROM: WEST
RIGHT THRU LEFT TOTAL TRUCKS
12 9 7 28 4 f---9 8 33 6 16 -
22 7 9 38 2
17 6 13 36 4 -_ .. _._.-
35 14 7 56 0
30 14 7 51 3
20 2 6 28 2
9 7 7 23 2
104 41 36 181 9
111 44 39 194 10
End hr vol pk hr?
17:00 933 no
17:15 1019 no
17:30 1058 YES
17:45 1002 no
18:00 952 no
DN Traffic Enterprises
INTERSECTION:
PEAK HOUR:
DATE:
SOURCE:
39
194 44
111
Peak Hour Factors:
Percent Trucks & Buses:
Lind Ave & SW 34th St
4:30 PM 5:30 PM
7-Jan-07
DN Traffic
PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL LEG VOLUMES
476 375
43 54
194 78
561 333
PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME MOVEMENTS
476
15 440 21
RIGHT THRU LEFT
LEFT NORTH RIGHT
THRU WEST EAST THRU
RIGHT SOUTH LEFT
LEFT THRU RIGHT
14 306 13
333
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS DERIVED FROM COUNT
From North:
From South:
From East:
Fl'Om West:
Total
From North:
From South:
From East:
From West:
0.83
0.80
0.55
0.81
0.80
3.2%
4.8%
5.6%
5.2%
SB
NB
WB
EB
SB
NB
WB
EB
30
14 54
10
DN Traffic Enterprises
APPENDIXB
CAP ACITY ANALYSIS
END 2007-PM-EXISTING
3: SW 41 st St. & East Valley Road 1/29/2007 -t
Lane
Volume (vph}
pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Prot pm+pt Perm
.... ; . 7 4: 38, . 5' 2 ·J;g;~?:';,:;'tf;V:\:':;S
4 48 82 6 6
,"-:,1': .~. 4 -:. '"4 3 :;:::::;,;!f;?;]-\';f~J;.',af-):;:,~I;\S:>;': . _2;;'~;_~~~:.,t:~:·':~::~lt~1~~2iti~~~~~'y;,'::t::-:}:;~6,
4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
8.0 20.0.~0 8.0 4g';!),:<~(jW ·8:0 . 2(W11};Q:;;"~;;i.'~1l:2,::~t}.,O
8.0 20.0 20.0 23.0 35.0 35.0 8.0 21.0 21.0 16.0 29.0 29.0
.1Q,O"At25.0% '25.0;% 28.8% 43$%~3~8%.·.1.(J;Q% 26.3%'4?;~%O.4P'X~~~:~~;$Il;.3%
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Turn Type
Pro,tected Phases
Perrnitted Phases
DeteCtor Phases
Minimum Initial (5)
MinImum Split (s)
Total Split (5)
TotaJSPlit (%) .
Yellow Time (s)
p.,Il~Red Time Is')
Lead/Lag
. C; i;·'F};O~$.,,(j.5 .,,(1:5 0.5 :~~,;~iIf'~,:0';5' ·'a1!if!j:£Y'ib!5::,~'t~1Si\~~~~('.,\J'~
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/cRatlo
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Appro<lch LOS
e
Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
. Y!!s"Yes . "Ills Yes Y~S;;~~::'i"6sf .Yes Y"$;:;,yes~'::ye,s:~~~';.:;~i$
None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max
19~6 15,.6:,115.6 38.6 33.B. .. 3l.8 21,0 17.0. ;:xt .. (j;",¥~;t~~6f.!1!,{~:?&.7
0.24 0.20 0.20 0,48 0,42 0,42 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.41 0.34 0.l4
',0:13 &10;8$0',32 1.00 0.1;9:\ OM ···0'24.0;94tlf;B.2If':!!i1f1)~~q~,;;1~16
14.5 55,4 7.6 61.5 16.3 4.2 17.8 66.6 7.7 82.1 41.0 7.0
O.o.' , 0.0' 0.0 0.0 (LO'.'<"'O.OOcO 0.0' 0.0' 0.0'·"0.0"';:0.0
14.5 55.4 7.6 61.5 16.3 4.2 17.8 66.6 7.7 82.1 41.0 7.0
B EA E ,B; .AB E!<~'~t,i;Fffj;.B<ft,,~;; ;II!
39.0 44.7 l4.5 53.3
e 'n ~,'
Actuated Cycle Length: 79.6
Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
MaXimum vic Ratio: 1.00 .
Intersection Signal Delay: 42,4
Intersection Capacity UtiliZatfon82. 7%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
GSAI
3: SW 41st st. & East
.2
Intersection LOS: D
ICULevel of Service E
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-EXISTING
4: SW 34th SI. & East Valley Road
J
Lane Configurations
SignCon.lrol. . Stop
Grade 0%
Volume(vehJ~X., 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.55
ftourlyflowtate (vpn,~. ZT
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft) ....
Walking Speed (ft/s)
PercentBl.qckage ..
Right turn flare (veh)
Medianlype . ·,1})})MOile.
Median storage veh)
Upstream ~if)na[{ftt';;~~.
pX, platoon unblocked
ve, confliciiligvohlmEii"823 .....
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stag·.e:2;Conf'\iil1&'!1i~i ' "~"_"{A~' ,,',' {f1l,,,,,,,·,v,',
vCu, unblocked vol 823
tC, single (S}0\' 6.5
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF(s). 3.6
pO queue free % 92
eM capaeity{lIetil9);lf,,:~i ;'329
~.
Volume
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to CapacitY .
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7
Control Delay (s) 16.9
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (5):·. 15.1
Approach LOS C
110
0.55
200
494
494
6.3
. 3.4
64
563
0
.200
563
0.36
40
14.9
B
.19
0.89
.21
507
507
.4.1
2.2
98
1058
2
8.5
A
.0,6
Average Delay 3.5
IntersectionC~paclty):Jtilization 35.3%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
GSAI
·:'~;;l;f:::-;~~\T~t.~~~:jih"< ,~
t
Free
0%
286
1.00
286
Free
0%
4.15
0.84
494 .
'r,">
0
0
1700
0.29
0
0.0 .
0.0-
11
0.84
.13
0
13
1700
·0.01'
0
0.0
-,,:' .'
. '" ' .
',---.',j
ICU Level of Service.: A
1/29/2007
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-EXISTING
3: SW 34th St. & Lind Ave SW
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Grade
-
1'lo
Stop
0%
Volume (veh/h) 39' 44 111
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
0.81 0.81 0.81
~a,·. 54;"1.37
Lane Width(ft}
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage.'
Right lurn flare (veh)
Median-typeJ·'···..·
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) .
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume .'
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 contvol .'
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (5)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
pO queue free %
cM capl'lCity (veh/h)
Volume
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
1075
:. "
1075
7.2
.3:5,'
70
158'
48
(},
158
0.30
30
37.4
E
22.0
C
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
Baseline
GSAI
1024
1024
6.6
4.0
76
224:
a
0
224
0.16
14
24.2
C
539
539
6.2
.· .. 3.3
74
·.·.537
0
·f37
461
0.34
37
16.7
C
5.8
39.6%
15
1/29/2007 -t
~ + r ~ + r ~ lo
10
0.55
18
1162
1162
7.2
3.6
82
99
16
49.3
E
21.2
C
Stop .Fte¢' Free . ,-I
0% 0% 0%
14 30 14' 30613, 21 44Qtl.~,y~~Z~5l
0.55 0.55 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.83 0.83
25 55 JR, .. 3!l2:i~~z,~;.2:$ '5;1l!\:5;~18
None. , x,"
101S' 382 ·54.8 c
1016 382 548
6.6 6,3' . 4.1
4.1. 3.4 2.2
89 92 98
22.5 65f)' 1006
55 18
a a 18
0 55 O·
225 656 1006
0.11 0.08 0.02
9 7 1
23.0 . 11.0 8.6
C B A
0.4
IC U Level of Service.
• ; ~;~'-:
0
0
1700
. 0:23
0
0 .. 0
399
····'kl
.,
98
~~~~;:~>~t~LJJ~-
a 25 a
16 .• : ' .. 0,:.·, 18. ' . _.' -(:/'O .. ' :,,->2<\ ;
1700 1154 1700
a:qf .
0
0,0
A
0.02 0.32
2 a
<8.2 0.0
A
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-FUTURE WIO PROJECT
3: SW 41 st St. & East Valley Road --1/29/2007
t
~",,~,~}~jJ""ilf:!ill'E''''~''>:,EBR WBL W~~d'~~-i'ri3 ~""t~,.""e:§_i:f!F'3"",~~~g
Lane Configurations 'I t r' 'I t r' 'I t r' 'I t r'
Volume (vph) 43' 321 135 439 130.90 ·68 '348. 374 200 273'53
Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Prot pm+pt Perm
ProteclEl.d Phases 7 4 3 8 5 '.2' . 2 1· 6"
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 6
Oetector Phases. 7.< 4.. 4 3 8,;\ ';8";'1,,; ,£2'>2: ;*f'~];,!i/ik;~~'::'.)l
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) .. . . 8.0.·2():020.0 8.0 2OJ); ··2p.:O>'S.0.. 20';020.0 ,:i'8,ir20,02~O
Total Split (s) 8.0 20.0 20.0 27.0 39.0 39.0 8.0 24.0 24.0 19.0 35.0 35.0
Total Split(%) 8.9% 22.2% 22.2% 30.0% 43.3%43:3o/b",8.9%2g:.7o/~,26'7o/<r2:t.1~i'3~,9%38.!'lC%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
AllcRedTime (s) ·,(}.5' Q.5fr.5 0.50$, \J.S •. i 0:5.'0.5,'(k~,'~f''fO.5(,;;,~.\l.5';.''O,$
LeadlLag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead~Lag.Optimize? Yes.. Yes Yes Yes Yes. Yes(;~Yes '.' YE!$',;,~;·V.,;s}yes.i~~'(EIs;Xe;s
Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None Max Max
Act EffctGfeen{s)' ':";20,0 16.0 16.0 43.0 38.2' ,38~Z,:·,:;!4,0',20',O;':'20.0. ,39.0.,',,32.6 .... 32.6
Actuated glC Ratio 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.48 0.42 0.42 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.43 0.36 0.36
vic Ratio '.' ';;':~('i045.< 0.99 0.35 0.97 0:20~,;;P.;t5;;:},):24%:,O'·92i; o.6f,Q:~s: {0:'740;;15
Control Delay 17.3 86.2 8.6 57.5 18.2 4.3 19.2 64.6 7.6 74.2 37,8 6.6
Queue Delay 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '''O:U';':;'',g,O' ·0:0 0,0 . 0.0 0.0 . 0.0
Total Delay 17.3 86.2 8.6 57.5 18.2 4.3 19.2 64.6 7.6 74.2 37.8 6.6
LOS 6 F A EEL' ;A<,·.,B."E AE D·.A
Approach Delay 59.3 42.5 33.7 48.5
Approach .. LOS , E P '., D
Natural.
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum vic Ra/il): 0,99
Intersection Signal Delay: 44.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.9%
Analysis Period (min) 15
and Phases:
Baseline
GSAI
; ,
·':,'h,
'.--"
Intersection LOS: D
I C U Level of Service I:::
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-FUTURE WIO PROJECT
4: SW 34th St. & East Valle~ Road
~
Lane Configurations
Sign Conttol Stop
Grade 0%
Volume (veh/h) 16
Peak Hour Factor 055
Hourly flow rate (vph) 29
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Nledian type !:J\lolle.
Med ian storage veh)
Upstreilm signal (ft} .-.,:,,:., .
pX, platoon unblocked
vC,collilicting.Yolume.·· .83&
vC 1 , stage 1 conf vol
vC2,.stage 2confilClE ..
, --
vCu, unblocked vol 838
tC, single (s) 6.5'
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF(s} 31$
pO queue free % 91
cM capacity (veh/h) <;~21
Left 29
Volume Right .'0
cSH 321
Volume to Capacity 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft) 7
Control Delay (s) 17.3
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 15.8
Approach LOS C
Average Delay
I ntersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
Baseline
GSAI
"
.,. "\
120 20
0.55 0.89
218· .22
502
502
6.3
3..4
61
557
.5'17
517
4.1
'2.2
98
.1Q49
2
8.5
A
0.6
3.8
36.3%
15
t +
Free Free.,'!
0% 0%
291 42~':. 12
1.00 0.84 0.84
291 50~'.~. 14·
, ,'-<': -,
;,,"
O·
1700 1700
0.30 0.01
0 0
0.0 0.0
0.0
I C U Leyel of Service .A
1/29/2007
. ...
,,;:, ,
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-FUTURE WIO PROJECT
3: SW 34th St. & Lind Ave SW
Lane Configurations
Sign Control.
Grade
Volume (vehlh) . -".,
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly IlDw rate (vph)'
Pedestrians
LalJeWidth (ft)
Walking Speed (fils)
i"ercentBtockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median!jpe.
Median storage veh)
Upstre<;lfn. s.ig~t (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol
ve2, stage 2conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s) .
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF {s}
pO queue free %
cMcap~city (vehlh)
I Left
Volume~ight '
cSH
Volume 10 Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
ApprC)aGh Delay (s) .
Approach LOS
40
0,81
4,liI'
-
113
0.81
,',,140
-
stoP.
0%
111.6"31 .
0.55 0.55 0.55
20 2"", '.·:".5'" ,~-_' '''*:J/,,,: v
1101 1047 549 1188 1040 390
7,2 6.6 '::6.2 7.2 6eE>' 6.3'
3.5 4.(}, '3.3 3.6 4.1' 3.4
67 74 74 78 87 91
148 216 :,529 93 2107: ,:650
.-"."'",,,~, .
37 20 29 4,
49 0 0 20 0
0 0::;,,'!'~i40 0 0: 56.
148 216 452 93 217 650
0.33 0.17 9)5 0.22 0.13 0.09
34 15 39 19 11 7
40.9 25.1 . 1(.2 54.2 24.1 11.1
E D C F C B
23.2 22.8
C C
Average Delay 6.2
t
'I
Free
0%
45 at2
0.80 0.80
19 ·390
'559·,'
::";~~.->'---\;;::j -'
559
, 4.1'
2.2
98
997
19
O·
997
0.02
1
8.7
A
0.4-
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.4% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
GSAI
0
/1i~
1700
0.01
0
0.0
A
1/29/2007
4.1'
1146
. 0,02 ..... O::m:;:':-~:ii,
2 0
.8.2' . ·O.O·c"
A
0.4';',· .
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-FUTURE WITH PROJECT
3: SW 41st St. & East Valley Road
Lane Configurations
Volume (liph)
-1/29/2007
t
Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt pm+pt Perm
Pratecte(!Phases 7 .4\. • 3 6'., . 5. 2 1 ." ..
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 6 6
DefecfoLF'hases .. ·4 ..•.. A 3 ., 8.,8';.;5{:~~;~;;;:~;i;,tL2,Yi!l
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Mini.mumSplit (5) 8;021);0.,20,0 8.0 20.0;' .2fr.08'()C;~;~~~Y:i,:~~iOW};P
Total Split (5) 6,0 23.0 23,0 32.0 47.0 47.0 18,0 33.0 33.0 22.0 37,0 37,0
Total$pilt(%) 7.3%~a.9%,~O.9% 29,1% 42,7% .. ,42J%16A%:.3)j.0"4:'~til'.O%20.0%5i~3.,6%~3:~%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3,5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3,5 3.5
Alk-RedTlme. (s)'Z";~';' OJi ','O,S, ;' .. 0.5 0.50.51."''',51, '.; '!fJ;,5:1.",;:o;.6!,'jiAtS·· ·.";tOig·,, • O\5',:",'o1e
LeadlLag J'Lead L~g Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead'Lag<"Lag t~ad' Lag"L~g
LI.lad_Lag Optimize? '. c,"r.Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes.Y~SW'1;.'f;~~;~~;.i'i(eS:~'(i'JYes,i~'Yes ';'Yes
Recall Mode .. ,.,' None None No~e None None N'one' None'~Max'" Max None' Max' Max
Act Effct Green,(s)' . 23.0.'1.g(0" 19;0 51.0 44.644.643'U;:·':·29.0i:~~2g:0i;,\i~*;()·};33.0';·33;tl
Actuated glC Ratio 0.21 0,17 0.17 0,46 0,41 0,41 0,39 0.26' 0.26 '0,46 ' 0.30 '. 0.36
vic Ratio' ;'0.161.(0;2''';'0.36 1.01 0.20 ,1);,15" 1.00>:O;?~;,lllO. tlf;.;:a.95;O.Q1"!£')O'~6
Control Delay 21.5 100.5 9,4 72.0 22.6 4.7 71.1 50,3 6.1 72.1 67,4 8,4
Queue Delay 0.0 aiO 0.0 0,0 0.0 o.a·o.a·;' 0'.0",,' '0;0:;'0.0 .. o:GO,a
Total Delay 21.5 100.5 9,4 no 22.6 4.7 71.1 50.3'" 8.1 72.1 67,4 8,4
LOSC " ,', ,;/F>,··A E C A " 1:., ]~" .A
Approach Delay 69.0 53.0 63.2
";pproach ~()S .",1: D
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Natural Cycle: HO, , . > "
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum vic Ratio: L02
Intersection Signal Delay: 59.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.0%
Analysis Period (min) 15
and Phases: 3: SW 41st SI. & East
Baseline
GSAI
.2
Intersection LOS. E
ICU Level of Service E
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-FUTURE WITH PROJECT
4: SW 34th St. & East Valley Road
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop
Grade 0%
Volume (vehln) 17
Peak Hou r Factor 0.55
H0I.Jrly floW rate'(vPh} 31'
Pedestrians
Lariew ii!lIl(ft) ",
Walking Speed (fVs)
PercentSrocKage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type. . , , __ -~'_ i None
Median storage veh)
upstream sigrial(ftY. '
pX, platoon unblocked
vb, conflicting volume 842
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage.2 confvol
vCu, unblocked vol 842
tC, single (5) 6.5
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 3.6
pO queue free % 90
cM capaci!;' (veh/Il)· 320
Volume
Volume Left 31
Volume, Right 0
cSH 320
Volumet() Capacity 0.10
Queue Length 95th (tt) 8
Control Delay (s) 17.5
Lane LOS C
Approacl) Oelay (s) 15.9
Approach LOS C
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
Baseline
GSAI
121 20
0.55 0.89
220· ,>:22
504
504
5.3
3,.4
60
556
519
519
4.1
2;;2
98
1047
22
0
1047
Jf.02
2
8.5
A
0.6
3.8
36.4%
15
Free
0%
293
1.00
293
0
0
1700
0.17
0
0.0
Free -, ~
0%
42.3 " .13
0.84 0.84
50'[;" ~"15
0 0
0 15 ' "--
1700 1700
0.30 0.Q1
0 0
0.0 0;0
0.0
I C U Level of Serllice
' '
A
1/29/2007
Synchro 6 RE;'port
Page 1
END 2007-PM-FUTURE WITH PROJECT
3: SW 34th St. & Lind Ave SW
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Grade
Volume (veh/h)
Pea k Hou r Factor
Hourly flow rate (vphl
Pedestrians
LaneWidth(ft) .
Walking Speed (tus)
Percent Blockag¢
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Med ian storage veh)
Upstream signaJ(ft)
pX. platoon unblocked
vC.conflicting volume
vC 1. stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vot
vCu. unblocked vol
tC. single (s)
tC. 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
pO queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h) ..
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
40
0.81
49
1093
1093
7.2
3.5
67
150
49
49
.0,
150
0.33
33
40.4
E
23,0
C
.1037
1037
&.6
4.0.
75
220
0
".0' .'
220
0.17
15
24.6
C
.1.13
0.81
'-140
1553
553
"'~,2
3.3
74
527
0
'NO
453
0.35
39
17.1
C
Average Delay 6.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41:.6%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
GSAI
12
0.55
22
1173
1173
7.2
3.6
77
96
22
22
0
96
0.23
20
53.4
F
23.0
C
-
N~.ne
1032
:;-" ,-
1032
6;6
4:1
86
221'
0
0
221
0.14
12
23.9 '
C
32
0.55
§a
390 .
390
6.3
3.4
91
.650
15
0.80
.1.9
566
566
4.1
2.2
98
991
1
8.7
A
0.4
ICU Level of Service
1/29/2007
t
0% 0%
312 14<1~;;":<448 .. ;~
0.80 0.80 0.83 '0.'83 0.83
3S.O:L' 1~t~.·.,1'S1i,%!Rr~?1~~~~if1
• -' <
0 0 a ~.18;.
1700 1700
0.23 ();(If
0 0
0.0 0.0
A
19 0
;C:;:~::i;,~1i~~~,:cZti:-i:};Atf~:
1146 1700
0.~{r0:33·
1 0
8.2 0.0
A
·.m3
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-FUTURE WITH PROJECT
4: Acces-1 & East Valley Road
t
Lane Configurations
Sign' COntrol Stop Free Free
Grade
VolurTle (vehlh}
Peak Hour Factor
IrlQtJt!Y. floW rate <yph}
Pedestrians
Lant;i.Width(ft),
Walking Speed (fils)
r=reoimt .BIQ¢J(age
Right turn flare (veh)
0%
20
0.55
36
4 12
0.55 0.89
7 ,·· .. ·13
Medlari!YiJe-':<Jt " . Ni)fte ,
Med ian storage veh)
Upstre:am signal (fI).
pX, platoon unblocked
vC/conflic!ing vOlume 1028 327 .655
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vb?, :$"tag.8,2eon,· vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1028
tC, single (s) , 7.0
tC, 2 stage (s)
tFts) ,c 3.6
pO queue free % 83
cflll.,capacity(vetilh) 217
~ ~~, .. ~
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay(s)
Approach LOS
36
o
217
0.17
15
24.9
C
22.5
C
IpfijrSeciIOij';Suii'imll'o/'!';:' .::
Average Delay
Intersection. Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
Baseline
GSAI
327
7:1.
.3.4
99
6!i1
651
0.01
1
10.6
B
, "·"i
655
4.1
2.2
99
,928
1
3
13
0
928
i·0.01
1
8.9
A
iO.3
1.0
26.3%
15
0% 0%
310 546 ''.4
0.89 0.84 0.84
348 650" .', .. :'5,' '
..
NB2
348
0 0 0
0 .0 .5'
1700 1700 1700
0.20 0.25 '0.13
0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0:0 .
0.0
ICU Level of !?ervice
;;;
A
1/29/2007
-'.',",
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-FUTURE WITH PROJECT
4: Acces-2 & East Valley Road
Lane Configurations
Sign Controt . , . sto(i,
Grade 0%
Volume (vetilh:) 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.55
HoiJrl¥ fIll""/at~(VpIl>.:f,,~:i ~8 .
Pedestrians
LaneWidth;!f!) ~;
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage ,'.' "",;,~,;;" .
Right turn flare (veht'·'···'
Media[):type,'~'c;}~~;,None "',
Median storage veh)
Upstream. $i!lr:ii:\I(~~1t~·. i~' ,
pX. platoon unblocked
5. 6
0.55 0.B9
9 7
vC.conflictiijgvol\.lrnet';~t004 323. 646
vC 1. stage 1 conf vol
vC2. stagez:~nf.voli~:\~~·' . .' '.,
vCu. unblocked vol 1004
tC. sihgle(s) 7.0
tC. 2 stage (s)
tF (S)y",.,'". '. ;3.6
pO queue free % 92
cM ,capac;~'Jv~hlh r,"~:(;<22!l
Volume
Volume Rigl:\f . . ","
cSH 226
Volume to CapacitY .. O.OB
Queue Length 95th (It) 6
Control Delay (s) 22.3
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay JB.4
Approach LOS C
323
7.1
3,4
99
655
9
0
9
655
0.01
1
10.6
B
646
4.1
,2.2
99
·935
7
7
0
935
0.01
1
8.9
A
0.2
Average Delay 0.5
Intersection Capacityll!ilization 26.2%
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
GSAI
-~ . .'-ji:.~ ;:_f~'~:~~J,)~;,~;; '.'_
t
Free
0%
30B
0.89
346
1700
0.20
0
0.0
Free.··· .
0%
540 .3
0.B4 0.B4
643 4.
429
0 0
0 <.:.., :4
1700 1700
0.25 0:13
0 0
0.0 0:0 .
.0:0
ICU Level of Service
1/29/2007
_i_~
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
END 2007-PM-FUTURE WITH PROJECT
3: SW 34th St. & Access-3
Lane Configurations
Sign Control··
,Grade
Volume (vehlh)
Peak Hour Factor
liiourlyflow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lall~Width eft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
PerCElnl Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Medianlype
Median storage veh)
Upstreinp signal (ft}
pX. platoon unblocked
vC,cpnflicting volume.
vC 1. stage 1 conf vol
vC2lstage 2 conl vol
vCu. unblocked vol
fC, single (s)
tC. 2 stage (s)
tF(s}
pO queue free %
eM capacity (vehlh)
Total
Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Free
0%
132, 15
0.84 0.84 0.89
157' ·,.f·,' ,'6
0
0 ' ty,
1700 1700
O.OEi '.0.03
0 0
0.0 0.0
0.0
158
4.1
2.2
100
1419
6
6
0
1419
0.00
0
7.5
A
1.2
Average Delay 1.0
-
Free
0%
27
0.89
30
Stop':::!""~' " '
0%
,·3>
0.55 0.55
"5' .13,: '" .
0·, ':13
768 965
0.01 0.01
1 1
9.7 8.8
A A
jl,1 '
A
Intersection Capacity UtiliZl;!tio[l 14.2% ICU ,L.evel.ofService
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline
GSAI
A
112912007
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
APPENDIXC
TRIP GENERATION
TRIP GENERATION
YOUNKER NISSAN
Existing Site -15,249 Square Foot
Proposed Site -29,458 Square Foot
Use ITE Land Use Code 841
PM Peak-Hour Traffic
T = 1.72 (X) + 29.61
Existing -1.72 (15.249) +29.61 = 56 In = 22, Out = 34
Proposed -1. 72 (29.458) + 29.61 = 80 In = 31, Out = 49
AM Peak-Hour Traffic
T = 1.34[1 1 (X) + 29.61
Existing -1.34 (15.249) +29.61 = 50 In = 37, Out = 13
Proposed -1.34 (29.458) + 29.61 = 69 In = 51, Out = 18
[1] Adjusted according to the AMlPM Peak-Hour trip generation rate
AM Trip Generation Rate = 2.05
PM Trip Generation Rate = 2.64
AMlPM Trip Generation Rate = 2.05/2.64 = 0.78
T = 0.78 x 1.72 = 1.34
f:\2006 prQJects\000-«)6.123 younker nissanlsupportlng matenaJ\appendicesllnp generaliOll.doc\m
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING / BUILDING I PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 5, 2007
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Stacy Tucker
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office
Project Name: Younker Nissan Relocation
LUA (file) Number: LUA-07-020, SA-A, ECR
Cross-References:
AKA's:
Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins
Acceptance Date: February 23, 2007
Applicant: Younker Nissan C/o John Vidmar
Owner: Younker Nissan -(Penny Church) C/o John Vidmar
Contact: Jeff Brown, Peterson Consulting Engineers
PID Number: 1253600010
ERC Decision Date: March 19, 2007
ERC Appeal Date: April 9, 2007
Administrative Approval: March 20, 2007
Appeal Period Ends: April 9, 2007
Public Hearing Date:
Date Appealed to HEX:
By Whom:
HEX Decision: Date:
Date Appealed to Council: .
By Whom:
Council Decision: Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: Development of a 4.5 acre site, currently vacant, into a vehicle showroom
and sales lot for an automobile (Nlssan) dealership. The property is located in an industrial zone.
The proposed project requires Site Plan review and Environmental review.
Location: .. 3401 East Valley Road
Comments:
PARTIES OF RECORD
YOUNKER NISSAN RELOCATION
LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
Jeff Brown, P.E.
Peterson Consulting Engineers
4010 Lake Washington Blvd NE
ste: #300
Kirkland, WA 98033
tel: (425) 827-5874
eml: jeff@pcecivil.com
(contact)
Updated: 03/02/07
c/o John Vidmar
Younker Nissan (Penny Church)
3820 E Valley Hwy S
Renton, WA 98055
tel: (425) 251-8100
(owner / applicant)
Robb Walther
CFO Lanphere Enterprises
12505 SW Broadway
Beaverton, OR 97005
tel: (503) 526-2103
eml: rwalther@buybob.com
(party of record)
(Page 1 of 1)
June 5, 2007
Jeff Brown, P.E.
Peterson Consulting Engineers
4010 Lake Washington Blvd NE #300
Kirkland, W A 98033
SUBJECT: Younker Nissan Relocation
LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
Dear Mr. Brown:
CITY F RENTON
Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Departmem
Gregg Zimmermim P.E., Administrator
This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended April 9, 2007 for the Environmental
Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the above-
referenced project.
No appeals were filed on the ERC detem1ination, therefore, this decision is final and application
for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with ail ERC
Mitigation Measures and Site Plan Conditions of Approval outlined in tlieReport and Decision
dated March 19, 2007. . .
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7382.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Elizabefli Higgins, ArCp
Senior Planner
Enclosure
co: Younker Nissan / Owner
Robb Walther / Parties of Record
~.
-------::--10-5-5 -So-u~th-Grad-.. -·.7'Y-W-a-Y-_-R-en-(O-n-. W-as-h-in-gro-n-98-0-S-7 -~-:---'--'--R EN TON . *' This paper~tains 50"k> recycled matenal. ,30% J)O;StCOllSumer
AHEAD O'P THE CURVE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING}
AFFlDA VIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising
Representative ofthe
Renton Reporter
a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington, The
Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact fonn annexed was published in regular issues of the
Renton Reporter (and not in supplement fonn) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on March 24, 2007,
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of$117.60.
~rton
! L"egiil Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
Subscribed and sworn to me this 26~ day of March, 20QilllIl" II
\,\ 1/ ,_\ <0 0 C~ I"" .... ' •••••••• I\t./'-""; .... ..-:.t-.'lSS,O·.' A\. " &n.. '. '0"' ", •• ,:,... ... , 'r ."0 <:;0'"0' '6 "-J ~/1!2l ,'1! ,yo~ ~\ :z~ t .:-,..,., fAr-. :Do _
B D Cantelon :: :.~ : ~Ull ""7)--!:i: =
Notary Public for the State of Washington, Re.siilih!t:W Kent!<Washjligto't .-0'::"--; ..... P. O. Number: .~" , ...... 0 • .0,/..., .0-~ ~ ~ ~' '. <010 .' 0 "-" IA ........... -~ " /, 'V>i SU \~\0 " 'r~ \. n \~ \"
';;illIlH\\\
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION
ENVlItONMENTAL REVIEW
COMMlTI'EE
RENTON, WASffiNGTON
The Environmental Review
Committee has issued a
Determination of Non-Significance-
Mitigated for the following project
under the authority of the Renton
MunicipaJ Code.
Younker Nissan Relocation Site
Development
LUA07-02ll, SA-A, ECF
I.ocatiooo 3401 East Valley Road,
The applicant is request.ing
Environmental (SEPAJ Review
and Administrative Site Plan
approval of a proposed new
automobile dealership sal€'s
showroom, outdoor vehicle
display area, service department,
and associatc>d clU;tom('l" and
employee parking. The 4.51 ~i('re
site is located on East Valley
Road in the Green River Valley
area of South Renton. The
property, which is currently
vacant, is zoned Heavy
Industrial (IH) and has a
Comprehensive Plan designation
of Employment Area -VaHey.
Appeals of the environmental
detRnnination must be filed in writing
on or before 5:00 PM on April 9, 2007.
Appeals must be filed in writing
together with the required $75.00
application fee with: Hearing
Examinet~ City of Renton, 1055 South
Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed
by City of Renton Municipal Code
Section 4-8-110,B. Additional
infonnation regarding the appeal
process may he obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430·
6510,
Published in the Renton Reporter
March 24,2007. #863110
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATeO (ONS-M)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME, Younker Niss3n Relocation $'le Development
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA01.020, SA-A, ECF
LOCATION: 3401 East Valley Road
DESCRIPTION: The ~pplicant is requesting Enylronmental {SEPAl Review and Admlnlstratlye SIte Plan
approval of • proposed new automobil" dealership sales showroom, outdoor Yehiels display aNla, service
department, and n$Qciated custom .. , and employee parking. The 4.51 lie" aile I. located on East Valley Road In
the Green River Valley .re. of South Renton. The p.aperty, which Is currently vacant, is zoned Huvy Industrlll
(\H) and has a Comprehensive Plan de5ignA\ion or Employment Area· Valley.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT
THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT
",PPN\" of the environmental determination must be "led In writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 9. 2007. Appelli.
muat be me-!! in writing togelher with the required $75.00 application lee with.' ...... Ing Examine., City of Renton,
1055 Soulh Grady Way. Renton. WA 9B055. Appuls tn the Exami"'" are governed by City of Renton Municipal Coda
SKtlon 4-8·110.e, Acldltlonal Information regarding the ~ppO!lal procass may be obtained from tlie Renton City
Clerk's Office, (4251430-G~10.
IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETF'RMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND
ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED
I""'I"~,
" l' "
N
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 4:;'0·7200
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
Please inclucl.ltI. project NUMBER when rpre,.r Identlflcetion,
CERTIFICATION
I, >t=vt Gets@Z.. , hereby certIfy that 2 copies of the above dOCUI~.~\.~~\\\\4
were posted by me in --1--conspicuous places or nearby the descnbed proper::~~~~IJ~
~ ...... ~,'"')>I ~ ~
DATE: Z-Z'2.-or SIGNED: .:. c 1 "").~ \
., ~u IPt ~
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington resldi~ jill j i
"" ~.l: ;t=
-:. ' . . t"1. ~~, ~~".F '9A1'& ,onthe Q'1 day of (V\cwch A ~-~ Ie SIG ''''''''' ....
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: Younker Nissan Relocation Site Development
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
LOCATION: 3401 East Valley Road
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan
approval of a proposed new automobile dealership sales showroom, outdoor vehicle display area, service
department, and associated customer and employee parking. The 4.51 acre site is located on East Valley Road in
the Green River Valley area of South Renton. The property, which is currently vacant. is zoned Heavy Industrial
(lH) and has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area -Valley.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT
THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT.
Appeals ofthe environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on AprilS, 2007. Appeals
must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code
Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City
Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND
ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIVI
TION
Kathy Keolker. Mayor
March 21, 2007
Jeff Brown, P.E.
Peterson Consulting Engineers
4010 Lake Washington Blvd NE #300
Kirkland, WA 98033
CIT~F RENTON
PlanninglBuildingiPublic Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P .E., Administrator
SUBJECT: Younker Nissan Relocation Site Development
LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
Dear Mr. Brown:
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you
that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold
Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the
enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM
on April 9, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application
fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98057.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B.
Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City
Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties
notified. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your
project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you
have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382.
For the Environmental Review Committee.
E¥7Ah-d:LJ~~
Elizabeth Higgins, AICP
Senior Planner
Enclosure
cc: Younker Nissan IOwner(s)
Robb Walther I Party(ies) of Record
-------------IO-S-5-S-0U-fu-G--rn-dy--W-ay---R-e-n-to-n-.\-V-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-S-0S-7--------------~
~ This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% posl consumer
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Kathy Keolker, Mayor
March 21, 2007
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, W A 98504-7703
CITAlF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P,E" Administrator
Subject: Environmental Determinations
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by
the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 19,2007:
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Younker Nissan Relocation Site Development
LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
3401 East Valley Road
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is reqnesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and
Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new automobile
dealership sales showroom, outdoor vehicle display area, service
department, and associated customer and employee parking. The 4.51
acre site is located on East Valley Road in the Green River Valley area of
South Renton. The property, which is currently vacant, is zoned Heavy
Industrial (IH) and has a Comprebensive Plan designation of Employment
Area -Valley.
Appeals ofthe environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April
9, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing
Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are
governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-IIO.B. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
!fyou have questions, please call me at (425) 430·7382.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
l3/;7~.d7:-J~
Elizabeth Higgins, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division
WDFW, Stewart Reinbold
David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources
WSDOT, Northwest Region
Duwamish Tribal Office
Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance)
--E-nc-l-os-u-re------10-5-5-S-0U-fu--G-ra-dY-W--aY--.R-e-n-to-n-,W--as-h-in-g-to-n-9-8-05-7--------------~
(i) This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30"10 postoonsumer
AHEAD OF THE. CURVE
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED
MITIGATION MEASURES
APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
APPLICANT: Jeff Brown, PE; Peterson Consulting Engineers
PROJECT NAME: Younker Nissan Relocation Site Development
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and
Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new automobile dealership sales showroom, outdoor vehicle
display area, service department, and associated customer and employee parking. The 4.51 acre site is located
on East Valley Road in the Green River Valley area of South Renton. The property, which is currently vacant, is
zoned Heavy Industrial (IH) and has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area -Valley.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
MITIGATION MEASURES:
3401 East Valley Road
The City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Pub~c Works
Development Planning Section
1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in "Geotechnical Report, Younker Nissan," by Terra
Associates, Inc., dated August 22, 2006.
2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed
pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of
the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. The project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention and water
quality improvements.
4. The applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee, based on $75 for each average weekday trip attributed to the
project. The fee is estimated to be $$62,250.00. Payment of the fee shall be required prior to issuance of building
permits.
5. The applicant shall pay a fire impact fee, based on $0.52 per square foot of new building area. The fee is estimated
to be $15,883.40. Payment of the fee shall be required prior to issuance of building permits.
ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED
ADVISORY NOTES
APPLICATION NO(S}: LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
APPLICANT: Jeff Brown, PE; Peterson Consulting Engineers
PROJECT NAME: Younker Nissan Relocation Site Development
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and
Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new automobile dealership sales showroom, outdoor vehicle
display area, service department, and associated customer and employee parking. The 4.51 acre site is located
on East Valley Road in the Green River Valley area of South Renton. The property, which is currently vacant, is
zoned Heavy Industrial (IH) and has a Comprehensive Plan deSignation of Employment Area -Valley.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
3401 East Valley Road
The City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Developmem Planning Section
Advisory Notes to Applicant:
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination,
Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not Subject to the appeal process for
environmental determinations,
Planning
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the
approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received.
2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work. the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground
cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will
occur within ninety (gO) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the
current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed
between the dates of November 1 st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of
this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit.
3. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the
hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays
shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be
permitted on Sundays.
4. All landscaping shall be irrigated by an approved irrigation system prior to final occupancy permits.
Water System
1. There is an existing 12-inch water main fronting the site in SW 34th St and a 12-inch water main in East Valley Road.
There is also a 12-inch main in an easement at the SW corner of the site.
2. Available derated fire flow in the area is approximately 5,500 gpm. Pressure available is approximately 75 psi. The
proposed project is located in the 196 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone.
3. Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.273 x the site's gross square footage of 196,485.
Estimated fee based on the site plan is $53,640.01. This fee is payable prior to issuance of the utility construction
permit.
4. Preliminary fire flow required by the fire department is 3,500 gpm. Four hydrants are required for this project. One
hydrant is required within 150 feet and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of all structures.
ERC Advisory Notes Page 1012
5. Extension of a 1O-inch water main onsite, providing a looped system, and installation of hydrants will be required to
serve the site, as shown on the site plan.
6. Fire sprinkler systems are required. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of
the double detector check valve assembly to the fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed shall be per the latest
Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Civil plans show location of device and should
note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required". For DDCVA
installations inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and
installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of
Renton's requirements. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor
slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only.
7. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device is
required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required.
8. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device is required to be installed on domestic water meter.
Sanitarv Sewer System
1. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SW 34th Street and a 12-inch sewer main in East Valley Road.
2. Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.142 x the site's gross square footage of 196,485.
Estimated fee based on the site plan is $27,900.87. This fee is payable prior to issuance of the utility construction
permit.
3. A 6-inch sanitary side sewer extension is required to serve the site. It has been shown on the plans.
4. If finished floor elevation is below 25 feet, a "tideflex" or similar backfiow device will be required to be installed.
5. Side sewer shall have a minimum of 2% slope.
6. Floor drains shown in the vehicle service areas shall be connected to the sanitary sewer via an exterior oil/water
separator. Installation will be in accordance with the UPC. The separator shall be sized to meet a minimum 15-minute
retention time for peak flows anticipated in the garage area, but in no case will. be less than 200 gallons of storage
capacity. The type of interceptor shall be as manufactured by Pipe Inc., Utility Vault Inc., or approved equa/.
Surface Water System
1. Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.265 x the total square feet of the new
impervious surface area of 149,652. Estimated fee based on the site plan is $39,657.78. Fee is payable prior to
issuance of the utility construction permit.
2. If filling or grading on the site is below elevation 13.5, compensatory storage will be required to be provided. Additional
information will be provided at site plan application.
3. Proposed vaults for detention will require a separate building permit for structural review. Special inspection is also
required.
Plan Review -General
1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.
2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City
of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer.
3. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, water meters, landscape irrigation meters, and any backflow devices will
be required.
4. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and
application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to
preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system.
5. Applicant shall be responsible for securing easements for public utilities.
ERe Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
(MITIGATED)
APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
APPLICANT: Jeff Brown, PE; Peterson Consulting Engineers
PROJECT NAME: Younker Nissan Relocation Site Development
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and
Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new automobile dealership sales showroom, outdoor vehicle
display area, service department, and associated customer and employee parking. The 4.51 acre site is located
on East Valley Road in the Green River Valley area of South Renton. The property, which is currently vacant, is
zoned Heavy Industrial (IH) and has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area -Valley.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
3401 East Valley Road
The City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Planning Section
The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse
impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).
Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of
Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified
during the environmental review process.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 9, 2007.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code
Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's
Office, (425) 430-6510.
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services
March 24, 2007
March 19, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL REV1EWCOMMITTEE
MEETING NOTICE
March 19,2007 ,
.... . )i .
To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief
Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator
From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning
t.II~tirl9Date: Monday, March 19, 2007
, , ,.
Time: ,;, 3;00 PM ;'.; > ... , > . ... >
I..iQcatiQn: Sixth Floor Cooference Room #62Qi ;;" »
>
Agenda listed below.
THE FOLLOWING IS CONSENT AGENDA
Younker Nissan Relocation Site Development (Higgins)
LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a
proposed new automobile dealership sales showroom, outdoor vehicle display area, service department,
and associated customer and employee parking. The 4.51 acre site is located on East Valley Road in the
Green River Valley area of South Renton. The property, which is currently vacant, is zoned Heavy
Industrial (IH) and has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area -Valley.
cc: K. Kooiker, Mayor
J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
S. Dale Estey. EDNSP Director ®
J. Gray, Fire Prevention
N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ®
F. Kaufman. Hearing Examiner
L. Rude. Fire Prevention ®
J. Medzegian, Council
P. Hahn. PIB/PW Transportation Systems Director
R. Lind, Economic Development
L. Warren. City Attorney ®
REPORT
&
DECISION
DATE:
Project Name:
Applicant:
Owner:
File Number:
Project Manager:
Project Summary:
Project Location:
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
Site Area:
Proj ect Location Map
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND
ADMINISTRA TlVE LAND USE ACTION
March 19, 2007
Younker Nissan Relocation Site Development
Jeff Brown, PE; Peterson Consulting Engineers; 4010 Lake Washington Blvd
Kirkland WA 98033
Penny Church; Younker Nissan; 3820 E. Valley Hwy S; Renton, WA
98055
WA-07-020, SA-A, ECF
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner
The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative
Site Plan approval of a proposed new automobile dealership sales showroom,
outdoor vehicle display area, service department, and associated customer
and employee parking. The 4.51 acre site is located on East Valley Road in
the Green River Valley area of South Renton. The property, which is currently
vacant, is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH) and has a Comprehensive Plan
designation of Employment Area -Valley.
3401 East Valley Road
N/A Proposed New Building Area: 30,545 nsf
196,485 sf 14.51 A Total Impervious Area on site: 3.4 A (75.3%)
ERe and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Review & E,
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL_, .•. ENT
REPORT OF MARCH 19. 2007
EXHIBITS
mental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020, SA-A, ECF
Page 2of13
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication,
environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request.
Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3: Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 4: Zoning Map
Exhibit 5: Site Plan
Exhibit 6: Landscape Plan
Exhibit 7: Building Elevations
II PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONfBACKGROUND
The proposed project is a new Nissan dealership showroom, offices, and parts and service
department for new and used automobile sales and service. This would be a relocation of this
business from its current location, south of the proposed project site, on the east side of East Valley
Road.
The project site is located on the west side of East Valley Road south of SW 34 th Street (Exhibit 2).
The property has the Employment Area -Valley land use designation on the City of Renton
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Commercial Arterial. The property is vacant, but
nearby properties are either developed for industrial-type use, such as warehouses, or vacant and
being used for large vehicle parking. A motorcycle retail sales facility (former Home Base store) is
abutting on the south side of the property (Exhibit 3).
There is a 30 foot wide Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way easement and railroad tracks on
the property abutting the west boundary of the property. The property is an irregular shape due to
the curve of the railroad tracks on the west. The railroad tracks are used by the Farwest Steel
Company, which distributes steel products from their location immediately west of the site.
The property is within the Employment Area -Valley land use designation of the Comprehensive
Plan and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH, Exhibit 4). Vehicle sales, service, and repair are allowed
uses in the IH zone.
The rectangular, metal-framed building would be located south of the center of the property (Exhibit
5) with the short side fronting on East Valley Road.
Access is available from SW 34 th St and from 2 curb cuts at East Valley Road.
Parking for 142 vehicles on display would be on the north portion of the site and 156 display spaces
south of the building. There would be 37 spaces for customer parking on the south side and in front
of the building. Twenty-one employee spaces would be in back of the building. A 20 foot fire lane
would be available for emergency access around the building. A "future expansion area" is indicated
on the site plan abutting the service department. If this addition is constructed, approximately 18
employee parking spaces could be eliminated to accommodate the relocated emergency access.
Spaces for vehicles on display may need to be converted to employee parking in the future.
Landscaping has been proposed around the perimeter and within the parking area (Exhibit 6).
Street trees, specified as 'Bowhall' red maples would be spaced 30 feet apart in mown lawn along
East Valley Road and SW 34th Street. Western red cedar and Himalayan whitebark birch, spaced
40 feet apart, would be planted along the south property line. Entryway and parking lot trees would
be 'Amanogawa' and 'Kwanzan' ornamental flowering cherry. Shrubs and groundcover would be a
wide variety of herbaceous and broad-leaf evergreens and ornamental grasses. Smooth "Bandera"
ERC and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Review & E Imental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020, SA-A, ECF YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL ..•. ENT
REPORT OF MARCH 19. 2007 Page 30f 13
granite boulders, placed 1/3 their height below grade would be located strategically, for vehicle
security purposes, throughout the perimeter landscaping on the north, east, and south sides of the
property.
The proposed building would be approximately 30,545 gross square feet, with 23,828 sf on the
ground floor and a mezzanine of 6,717 sf.
The building would be 24 feet 6 inches in height, with a new car delivery canopy at 27 feet above
grade. The future expansion, located at the rear of the building, would be approximately 31 feet
above the ground elevation. The light gray metal roof would be flat.
The building exterior would be metal in a variety of finishes (Exhibit 7) including, on the fa~ade
facing East Valley Road, silver metallic horizontal ribbed steel panels, silver metallic aluminum
composite cladding (with wall-mounted Nissan logo), silver metallic louver fascia (with business
name and dealership signage) above a wall of clear anodized aluminum-framed storefront glass,
and light gray vertical grooved metal siding. The glass entry doors would be framed in a wide
surround of red aluminum composite material cladding. Both the customer entry and vehicle doors
to the service area would be glass.
The fa~de facing SW 34'h Street would be primarily light gray vertical grooved steel siding with
silver metallic aluminum composite cladding, and silver metallic louver fascia behind the silver
metallic steel new car delivery canopy. A dealership sign would be mounted at the top of the
canopy, facing 34'h Street.
The west (back of building) and south sides would be a combination of the same light gray vertical
grooved steel siding and silver metallic horizontal ribbed steel panels. These sides would have
vehicle doors of either light gray steel or framed glass. The south fa~ade, facing the indoor
entertainment center would also have, at the southeast corner of the building, silver metallic
aluminum composite cladding the full height of the building and anodized aluminum storefront glass
windows.
II PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A. Environmental Impacts
In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only
those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and
environmental regulations.
Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible
Officials make the following Environmental Determination:
DETERMINA TlON OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Issue DNS with 14-da A eal Period.
DETERMINA TION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED.
X Issue DNS-M with 14-da A eal Period.
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.
ERC and Site Plan Review Report 07·020.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Review & E,
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL ... ENT
REPORT OF MARCH 19, 2007
.mental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020, SA-A, ECF
Page 4 of 13
The ERC review identified the following probable impacts from the proposed project:
1. Earth
Impacts: As is typical of land throughout the Green River Valley, the project site is flat with a
maximum slope of approximately 2 percent Railroad tracks, within a right-of-way along the
west property line, are somewhat elevated.
USDA Soil Conservation Service mapping indicates that soils on the western portion of the
site are Snohomish silt loam and the soils to the east are Tukwila muck. Borings were
consistent with the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, by D,R Mullineaux (1965),
The applicant submitted a study, "Geotechnical Report, Younker Nissan," by Terra
Associates, Inc., dated August 22, 2006. Results of the study are based on 2 cone
penetration tests, to 40 feet, at the site, Previous on-site investigation consisted of 2 test
borings at the northern portion of the site, to depths between 34 and 36,5 feet Information
from a 29 foot deep boring on the abutting Farwest Steel site was also utilized for this study,
The on-site tests indicate a layer of medium dense to dense fill comprised of gravelly to silty
sand at depths of 5 to 6 feet across the site, This material is underlain by a compressible
layer of native peat, organic silt, or clayey silt at varying thicknesses, A 9 to 13 foot layer of
alluvial sands, silty sands, and silt underlie the native soil layer. At about 26 feet a 5 to 6 foot
layer of very soft to medium stiff clayey silt was encountered, Borings terminated in medium
dense silty sand beneath the silt layer.
Susceptibility to liquefaction during seismic events is typical of the area. The moderate to
lightweight building that as been proposed is appropriate for this condition and no additional
mitigation is recommended.
Approximately 6,000 cyof select fill and base course material would be required to prepare
the site for construction and paving.
The geotechnical report provides detailed recommendations related to site preparation and
grading, surcharge and settlement, excavation, foundation specifications, slab-on-grade
floors, utility placement, building drainage, and pavement Staff recommends that the
applicant follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report as a mitigation
measure.
It is antiCipated that temporary onsite erosion and offsite sedimentation from stormwater
flows leaving the site can be expected during the construction period, which will involve site
grading, This work will potentially occur during the rainy season (October-March). For these
reasons, staff recommends a condition of environmental approval that the applicant comply
with the Washington State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control
Requirements for temporary erosion control.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in
"Geotechnical Report, Younker Nissan," by Terra Associates, Inc" dated August 22, 2006.
The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval
of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits,
ERC and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Review & EI
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL_ ..•. ENT
REPORT OF MARGH 19. 2007
Imental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020, SA-A, ECF
Page 5 of 13
Nexus: RMC 4-4-060, "Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations;" SEPA
2. Air
Impacts: There would be temporary negative impacts to air quality caused by dust and
equipment exhaust during site and building construction. Following construction, exhaust
from automobiles and trucks would be expected. Such emissions are controlled by state and
federal regulations.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended.
Nexus: N/A
3. Water
Impacts: There are no known critical areas related to groundwater or surface water on the
site. The Geotechnical Report indicates groundwater was encountered at depths between 5
and 10 feet at the north part of the property and between 9 and 11 feet to the south. These
are probably seasonal high levels due to the fact that tests occurred in January.
There are existing stormwater facilities in both SW 34 th Street and East Valley Road.
Springbrook Creek is located approximately 1500 feet west of the site. Springbrook Creek
flows to the Green and then Duwamish Rivers and ultimately into Elliott Bay. The site
currently drains east to Springbrook Creek by an east-west running swale from the southwest
corner of the property.
Due to potential lack of capacity in the existing swale from the site, surface water from the
project site would be transported via the existing storm system in East Valley Road to a
location at Springbrook Creek approximately one mile downstream (to the north).
The applicant submitted a study, "Younker Nissan, Preliminary Drainage Report," by
Peterson Consulting Engineers, dated January 23, 2007. The report is based on the
standards of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design manual. Staff recommends that
the project be designed to comply with the 2005 SCSWDM.
Mitigation Measures: The project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water
Design Manual to meet both detention and water quality improvements.
Nexus: Not applicable
4. Vegetation
Impacts: The property is sparsely covered with mixed grasses.
All pervious areas of the site must, by Renton Municipal Code, be landscaped appropriately.
Parking area landscaping is also required. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan
that would meet these requirements.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended.
Nexus: N/A
5. Noise
Impacts: Although elevated noise levels during construction can be antiCipated, they would
be temporary. It does not appear that the industrial uses surrounding the property would be
noise-sensitive.
ERG and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Review & Er
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL .... ENT
mental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020. SA-A. ECF
REPORT OF MARCH 19. 2007 Page 60f 13
No long-term or permanent noise is expected from the future use of the site.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation recommended.
Nexus: N/A
6. Light and Glare
Impacts: The project would require parking lot and building lighting. There are no adjoining
uses that would be negatively impacted by such lighting.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation recommended.
Nexus: N/A
7. Transportation
Impacts: The project would be accessed from existing roads. East Valley Highway and SW
34th Street. There is a complete interchange with SR 167 at SW 43'" Street. to the south.
There are curbs and street lighting on East Valley Road and SW 34th Street, but
improvements would be required along both roads, including sidewalks and additional
paving.
Transportation impact fees would be assessed for the project at the rate of 830 trips per
average weekday and $75.00 per trip. The total assessed impact fees would be $62,250.00.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee of $$62,250.00.
Payment of the fee shall be required prior to issuance of building permits.
Nexus: SEPA
8. Emergency Services
Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to
the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides required
improvements and fees. A fire impact fee would be required based on $0.52 feet per square
foot for the proposed building. The fee would be $15,883.40.
Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a fire impact fee of $15,883.40.
Payment of the fee shall be required prior to issuance of building permits.
Nexus: SEPA
B. ERe Mitigation Measures
Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation
measures are recommended for the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance:
1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in "Geotechnical Report, Younker
Nissan," by Terra Associates, Inc., dated August 22,2006.
2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
(TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater
ERC and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Departmer Administrative Site Plan Review & E,
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL~ •••• ENT
mental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020. SA-A. ECF
REPORT OF MARCH 19, 2007 Page 70113
Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits.
3. The project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both
detention and water quality improvements.
4. The applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee, based on $75 for each average weekday trip
attributed to the project. The fee is estimated to be $$62,250.00. Payment of the fee shall be
required prior to issuance of building permits.
5. The applicant shall pay a fire impact fee, based on $0.52 per square foot of new building area.
The fee is estimated to be $15,883.40. Payment of the fee shall be required prior to issuance of
building permits.
/[PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION -REPORT & DECISION
This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental
determination,
A. Type of Land Use Action
xx Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Conditional Use Binding Site Plan
Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Determination
B. Staff Review Comments
Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify
and address site plan issues regarding the proposed development. All of these comments are
contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the
appropriate sections of this report and the Decision at the end of the report.
C. Consistency with Site Plan Approval Criteria
In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31-
33(0) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental
Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers:
(1) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map deSignation for the site is Employment Area -Valley (EA-
V). The following Comprehensive Plan objectives and poliCies are applicable to the proposal:
Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Employment Area-Valley designation is to allow the
gradual transition of the Valley from traditional industrial and warehousing uses to more intensive
retail service and office activities. The intent is to allow these new activities without making industrial
uses non-conforming and without restricting the ability of existing businesses to expand.
Objective LU-AAAA: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses. including commercial, office,
and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton.
ERe and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
City of Renton PIBJPW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Review & EI
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL ..•. ENT
mental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020, SA-A, ECF
REPORT OF MARCH 19. 2007 Page 80'13
The project would provide space for expansion of an existing Renton business and allow it to remain
in the City. Younker Nissan would provide continued employment to approximately 30 to 40 people
in a range of positions including administrative staff and automotive sales and service.
Policy LU-444: Develop the Green River Valley ("The Valley") and the Black River Valley (located
between Sunset Blvd and SW Grady Way) areas as places for a range and variety of commercial,
office, and industrial.
The proposed commercial use would be compatible with this policy.
Objective LU-CCCC: Ensure quality development in the Employment Area -Valley.
The attention to architectural detail and extensive landscaping indicate the applicant's intention to
provide high quality development of this project.
Policy LU-455: Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development within the
Valley to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses (Refer to
the Community Design Element).
Both street trees and landscaping would be provided at this project site. The project would be
required, by Renton Municipal Code, to landscape all pervious areas of the property. The site is
currently vacant, but for a surface cover of weedy grass.
Policy LU-459: New development, or site redevelopment, should conform to development
standards that include scale of building, building fac;:ade treatment to reduce perception of bulk,
relationship between buildings, and landscaping.
The project must conform to development standards for the zone (see below).
(2) Conformance with existing land use regulations
The subject site is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). The IH zone implements the Employment Area -
Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The purpose of the IH zone is to provide a district
for uses that require a large outdoor area in which to conduct operations. Vehicle sales, service,
and repair are allowed uses in the IH zone. The site plan and structure must meet the development
standards of the IH zone.
Development Standards
There are no standards of the IH zone applicable to minimum or maximum lot size, lot coverage by
buildings, rear and interior side yards, or building height. Renton parking regulations (RMC 4-4-
080F) do not apply to this use in the zone.
Setbacks -The minimum building setbacks required in the IH zone are front and side yards of 20
feet along a principal arterials and 15 feet side yard along other streets.
East Valley Road and SW 34th Street are both classified as "collector streets" by the City of Renton
Transportation Division. Therefore, the minimum front and north side yard building setbacks would
be 15 feet. The Younker building would have a gO-foot front setback from East Valley Road and
would be set back from SW 34th Streel approximately 235 feet.
Landscaping -All pervious areas of the site must be landscaped in accordance with Renton
Municipal Code landscaping requirements (RMC 4-4-070).
ERG and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Review & EI
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL _ ..ENT
REPORT OF MARCH 19. 2007
mental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020, SA-A, ECF
Page 90t 13
(3) Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses
Development of the property is subject to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
recorded (#9206302702) with the Glacier Park I Burlington Northern Binding Site Plan
(#9206302696), as approved by the City of Renton in 1992. The CC&Rs, which were not required
by the City, are intended to reduce impacts on and by the subject site (Lot 1) and property abutting
to the south (Lot 2) and other lots in the Binding Site Plan (3-4 and 6-7). These private restrictions,
in addition to those of the City of Renton. include limits on use, access, building location, and
parking on all or some of the lots that are part of the Binding Site Plan.
Enforcement of CC&Rs is generally not within the purview of the City. It should be noted, however,
that the following restrictions appear to have a potential impact on the project:
1. The location of a building on this site is required to be "on the northerly half' of the
property (Lot 1 of the Binding Site Plan) according to Article 3.1.e of the CC&Rs. The
proposed building would primarily be on the south portion of the Lot.
2. Any building constructed ... with a gross building area, including mezzanine and
basements, of twenty thousand square feet (20,000) or more, must be constructed with
an automatic sprinkler system for fire protection (Article 3.2). The proposed building
would exceed 20,000 feet in size. Sprinklers have been planned for the structure.
3. Reciprocity among and between developed lots for access to roadways, walkways,
ingress and egress, parking of vehicles (Article 4.1). Curb cuts shown on CC&R exhibit
between Lots 1 and 2 would not exist with the proposed plan.
4. Signs are limited to one on Lot 1 in the location designated (southeast corner of the
property) on the Site Plan (Article 4.6). The proposed project site plan indicates a
"temporary sign" at the allowed location and a second sign at the corner of East Valley
Road and SW 24th Street.
5. Outdoor merchandising is prohibited in the area fronting the building, including selling
displaying, or merchandising of goods (Article 4.7). The proposed use requires the
display of vehicles in this area.
The amount of traffic generated by the new use could impact access to the abutting property to the
south by slowing travel speeds and increasing congestion on East Valley Road. The possibility
exists, however, that the side-by-side uses (motorcycle sales center and automobile sales) may
benefit one another to a higher degree than any potential negative impact.
There are no blank walls or other aspects of the proposed project that would have a negative
aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties.
(4) Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site
The site has been vacant and covered with weedy grasses. Development of the property would
ensure landscaping and street trees along East Valley Road and SW 34th Street.
(5) Conservation of area-wide property values
Development of the property, from a weed-covered vacant lot, would improve area-wide property
values.
ERG and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Review & E,
YOUNKER NtSSAN SITE DEVEL .. .ENT
Imental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020, SA-A, ECF
REPORT OF MARCH 19, 2007 Page 10 of 13
(6) Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation
The proposed project would increase traffic in the vicinity, but the access points, 2 on East Valley
Road and 1 on SW 34th Street would reduce back-up of turning vehicles. Sidewalks would be
constructed along the north and east sides of the property. No adverse safety conditions for
pedestrians or vehicles are anticipated by the project.
(7) Provision of adequate light and air
The 2 story structure would not limit access of light and air to the site.
(8) Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions
Noise and odor impacts associated with motor vehicles, including the running of engines and vehicle
service activities would occur. Most service activities would occur inside the service department of
the building. The size of the property would limit impacts off-site.
(9) Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use
[See Environmental Review, above, and Advisory Notes to Applicant, below]
(10) Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight
The proposal would result in development of a vacant lot with a new building. The design and
landscaping of the new construction would ensure that the new facility is adapted to its location in a
warehouse neighborhood.
xx Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File.
Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report.
D. Findings
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following:
1. Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for
development of an automobile dealership on East Valley Road at SW 34th Street.
2. Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public
notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered herein as
Exhibit No.1.
3. Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for
information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered
as Exhibits 2 -7.
4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land
use designation of Employment Area -Valley (EA-V).
5. Zoning: The subject proposal complies with the zoning requirements and development
standards of the Heavy Industrial (I H) Zoning designation.
ERe and Site Plan Review Report 07~020_doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Review & En
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL_ •••. ENT
REPORT OF MARCH 19, 2007
mental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020. SA-A, ECF
Page 11 of 13
6. Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site are warehouse, entertainment
center, and outdoor storage. The zoning on the north and west is Heavy Industrial, on the south
is Medium Industrial, and Commercial Arterial to the east, across East Valley Road.
E. Conclusions
1. The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton provided that the
applicant complies with the condition of approval contained in this Report and Decision.
2. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area -Valley
(EA-V), and the zoning designation of heavy Industrial (IH).
F. Decision
The Site Plan for Younker Nissan, File No. LUA·07·020, is approved as proposed.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURES:
! . / ..--.t-+.
A/t<--{ U./ali/ •
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
TRANSMITTED this 2rt' day of March, 2007 to the owner:
Penny Church
Younker Nissan
3820 East Valley Road
Renton, WA 98055
TRANSMITTED this 2tfh day of March, 2007 to the applicant:
Jeff Brown, PE
Peterson Consulting Engineers
4010 Lake Washington Blvd. NE, Suite 300
Kirkland WA 98033
TRANSMITTED this 2tfh day of March, 2007 to the parties of record:
John Vidmar
Younker Nissan
3820 East Valley Road
Renton, WA 98055
Robb Walther
CFO Lanphere Enterprises
12505 SW Broadway
Beaverton OR 97005
ERC and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
date
City of Renton PIB/PW Departmer Administrative Site Plan Review & EI
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL_ ... lENT
REPORT OF MARCH 19, 2007
TRANSMITTED this 2ft" day of March, 2007 to the following:
Lany Meckling, Building Official
Lany Rude, Fire Prevention
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Renton Reporter
mental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA.Q7-020, SA-A, ECF
Page 12of13
Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the Environmental Determination must be
filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 9, 2007 (14 days from the date the appeal period begins),
Land Use Decision Appeal Process: Appeals of the land use decision must be filed in writing on or
before 5:00 PM on April 9, 2007 (14 days from the date appeal period begins),
If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together
with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional
information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-
6510.
Advisory Notes to Applicant:
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination.
Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental
determinations.
Planning
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to
rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received.
2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground
cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work
will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in
the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be
proposed between the dates of November 1 st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's
approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit.
3. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to
the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on
Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work
shall be permitted on Sundays.
4. All landscaping shall be irrigated by an approved irrigation system prior to final occupancy permits.
Water System
1. There is an existing 12-inch water main fronting the site in SW 34th St and a 12-inch water main in East Valley
Road. There is also a 12-inch main in an easement at the SW corner of the site.
2. Available derated fire ftow in the area is approximately 5,500 gpm. Pressure available is approximately 75 psi.
The proposed project is located in the 196 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone.
3. Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.273 x the site's gross square footage of 196,485.
Estimated fee based on the site plan is $53,640.01. This fee is payable prior to issuance of the utility construction
permit.
4. Preliminary fire ftow required by the fire department is 3,500 gpm. Four hydrants are required for this project. One
hydrant is required within 150 feet and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of all structures.
ERC and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
City of Renton PIB/PW Departme, Administrative Site Plan Review & EI
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE DEVEL •.• IENT
REPORT OF MARGH 19, 2007
Jmental Review Committee Staff Report
LUA-07-020, SA-A, ECF
Page 13 of 13
3. Extension of a lO-inch water main onsite, providing a looped system, and installation of hydrants will be required
to serve the site, as shown on the site plan.
4, Fire sprinkler systems are required, A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation
of the double detector check valve assembly to the fire sprinkler systems, All devices installed shall be per the
latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices, Civil plans show location of device
and should note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be
required". For DDCVA installations inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan
showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in
accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has
passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only.
5. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device
is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required.
6. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height. a backflow device is required to be installed on domestic water meter.
Sanitary Sewer System
1. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SW 34th Street and a 12-inch sewer main in East Valley Road.
2. Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.142 x the site's gross square footage of 196,485.
Estimated fee based on the site plan is $27,900.87. This fee is payable prior to issuance of the utility construction
permit.
3. A 6-inch sanitary side sewer extension is required to serve the site. It has been shown on the plans.
4. If finished floor elevation is below 25 feet, a "tideflex" or similar backflow device will be required to be installed.
5. Side sewer shall have a minimum of 2% slope.
6. Floor drains shown in the vehicle service areas shall be connected to the sanitary sewer via an exterior oil/water
separator. Installation will be in accordance with the UPC. The separator shall be sized to meet a minimum 15-
minute retention time for peak flows anticipated in the garage area, but in no case will be less than 200 gallons of
storage capacity. The type of interceptor shall be as manufactured by Pipe Inc., Utility Vault Inc., or approved
equal.
Surface Water System
1. Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.265 x the total square feet of the new
impervious surface area of 149,652. Estimated fee based on the site plan is $39,657.78. Fee is payable prior to
issuance of the utility construction permit.
2. If filling or grading on the site is below elevation 13.5, compensatory storage will be required to be provided.
Additional information will be provided at site plan application.
3. Proposed vaults for detention will require a separate building permit for structural review. Special inspection is
also required.
Plan Review -General
1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.
2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to
City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer.
3. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, water meters, landscape irrigation meters, and any backflow devices
will be required.
4. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate
and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but
prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit
system.
5, Applicant shall be responsible for securing easements for public utilities.
ERG and Site Plan Review Report 07-020.doc
KINGCQUIfT'{
O£PARTMENT of ASSESSMENTS
! i .,
, I'
, i
1 ,
'\ ! j: i 'I . -lU
! f¥
J !Ii ..
I i
!
;;:
.... ·t:
BURLINGfON NORTHERN
INI;IUSTf\IAl PARk RENTON" ._M .
~,
i
;"',, i. ---,,-I '-' -'. l~--~~----~'-'--------~'"::~ _...... ;I.:t
.. -... --.-.. -~!...-.. ... r--"~"-"
i
i
i , ,
i'
I'·
j,
!.
,
i ,
I • .. ,
I
. i
, ,
." ;ii
Ii.
"
!
, ,
i
." ,
SW 30-23-05
o:c 1(7
~ :1~;f~~¥ir~·
" ~~ ll· '7-
t ~ ,.~;." '.. -
i ~M'''''_
. : 1"-, ... ~.'
H
l' \ t
I
~""' .. ,.5, ... ':...t
!
I,
I
j
1 . .'-
". I. ,.
;'
EXHIBIT
2
Renton City Limits
Parcels
~ ~ ~
200 0
SCALE 1 : 2,690
200
FEET
http://rentonnet.org/MapGuide/mapsiParcel.mwf
Renton
I I
400 600
• • ~VIL.v
~"
EXHIBIT
3
A
Monday, March 12, 2007 9:03 AM
RC
S ~Oth st.
i Ili "' .. -------.. ;
--. -_~ • _, _.J.. • __ •
34th St i
S'W 34th st.
IL It
lrI " / ",,/Y··i
/ IL :.:cJ
/
[0Sl)V39th st.
/ IL I
1M
1st St. 1M
1M
SW 29th St.
IH
$W 34th Stu
i T
-
,. . ..
IH /
L ,,~
?ITE J~ ;::::::
1M ~
f
......... el
•
~
-... ,., .. ~
CA ~
. .. ............ ... t>1
167 5
......... ---\:.J
I'<'l ..... ..
......... r--
/
1M 1M .. , .. , ...
SW 41st t. leA
<[
U
CA
R-l
I emf!)
I3 • 31 T23N RSE W 112
o :00 po ~ WNING o := DCIIlOOAL SBVICIS 30 T23N R5E
EXHIBIT
4
1
NOJfJNIHSYM """",,,,,,,.us ~ """ ffiJ96Mll~ 1«)1N3tJ
(N()¥ E7'1'f$'Il5"3 j(ll'r «I NtI'SSIN 113J1NnOA
N>'kI3J.)S
_i
)
"\ '( .l'I' ~
L
] -=-:
~ ..
~ ~
~
•
~
~
~ fn s i iii
'" ~ '!: ~ t~ s:
! '"'" ~~~ :<
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 't
~ ~. '"
~
0\ ~ ......
to ...... ...,
. ,. .", , '" .. ··liOIIIU· . P " J".t!ll Hi' !I •• '1!!r' ,. ''1.[1' tUn' 'I' 11 .-;f .tt'!Tf .... r· --a ,J '111 " ,11'l "! ~ ~ i:II" r ':<i!-Iff r I~' lilll• 1,;\ , ""II.j I" I ,. ,~,1{ -I! 1,,' I i! I' "Ii f I!.'! !i "I" 'I" 'a I!j ",' f "I' • 10 ~,; " I!"";;~! ll~:' ,'.I . I'!!! '! 1~:III:11 ,: i~!j f!H! min 11"::~lh'!!llllll:il!lijf
Ii !,nil l!! ,; 1 ! ijl II q:q if \ill: hlH II , I H. ~-l I' ", ,: r. ·1' 1"11'[ , " f "'11111 j In j ,I.!.! n~", pi I I'!i ii, l ~ i~ ji i 1,'\ I,!! l il!!! i! ' II 'I p II' 1 1 11' ". 1I"j~l, , I 'i" I t/ ":, '.11 , Iql' If!:n '1'1'", ill i' '1'1,1,1 I: , , "f "" i d' I'
H ~!jjlii ~
t, ~;ni:'1 0
i' ""'I ~ ,"'1'1,1 ~ ,I 11 r rl m " ,d"l'i if !l':.j', I' ::!li 1 '.t oJ:!!l' i! Ili:lij
• 11'1 1-i 1:111:1
, i' <Iii
! )i1I!!i t :[h'll pl'!-! 'ijl,tJ l' ~ i I
i 'II' "U
f;
o
:c
£
I: ~,~, , ,1'1 '" ., -/, ;11 , ~ Ili GlII~I'l!ii § :1;\ Ii I ~ ~ :~Ij',. '!' !
• l' I
"!It d. 1m'" : :r.~i :
i,l"~'/~~' Po
". II!"::: 1
, , ! ~ .',
." ! 1 .; "1ll1 ~! "il ,~! ;i!
I, ",
LI LII ,,~
, ~" r iT i II/ lI,!JJlI II I ,
--'-'j .~-<-~!:! ,---'----I
PRELIMINAR:~~~N~~CAPE PLAN
~roN, WASHINGTON
YOUNKER NISSAN
'\ "" KM B. GLANDER I< I ~ ~ ~ ; lli<~"~L~J~~ P~L..C PlPm.... .....1
.,." ..
~-----.; ..... ,.,,,
, ' ~
~ 7\ >-I , : '
II \ .. , : : i
I'
, , ,
l -~l -
-i
\ =-=:
i J 'I I.
l -
'\ ,
!
! , ,
"-
,
, : h"' ,
I i
,
!
\ !}
11
, , i ;, : , : ,
,-l ,
f~ II : I II J
: , , ! ! ' .-~: , ,
, .... , , , ! I ,
I'
" : ~ :
I: I
Cit] nton Department of Planning / Building / f Vorks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
DUE: MARCH 2007
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development of a 4.5 acre site, currently vacant, into a vehicle showroom and sales lot for an
automobile (Nissan) dealership. The property is located in an industrial zone. The proposed project requires Site Plan Review and
Environmental Review.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
E8J1h
Air
Water ~
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use fflities
Animals
Environmental Health 'ublic Services
Energy/
Natural Resources
:~:ggg~:~
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where add' 'n 'nformation is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Date
C;~ 'nton Department of Planning / Building / f ,",orks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: lliv ~" COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2007
APPLICATION NO: LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 2007
APPLICANT: Pennv Church -Younker Nissan PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hiqqins
PROJECT TITLE: Younker Nissan Relocation PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian
SITE AREA: 4.51 acres BUILDING AREA (aross): 30,545 SQuare f.Qet '<::8 ,'(:;:0
LOCATION: 3401 East Vallev Road WORK ORDER NO: 77727 -v,fjl/): nA . <T <'1717.>
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development of a 4.5 acre site, currently vacant, into a vehicle showroom and -;~~~_ an
automobile (Nissan) dealership. The property is located in an industrial zone. The proposed project requires Site Plan R ~
Environmental Review. 7C~ e
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable Mo," Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts NeceSS81}'
Earth
Air
Wafer
Plants ~
LandlShoreline Use Utilities
Animals
Environmental Health Public SeNices
Energy/
Natural Resources
:~:ggg~:
78/bvlX5.t
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
~ CVZA.-/U) ~~ /() kk
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have idenUfied areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is eded to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
Cit] 'nton Department of Planning / Building / I Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: U::Jl'1S4ruc;;htll
APPLICATION NO: LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
APPLICANT: Penny Church -Younker Nissan
PROJECT TITLE: Younker Nissan Relocation
SITE AREA: 4,51 acres
LOCATION: 3401 East Valley Road
COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2007
DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23,2007
;0' '-V!_HtN'V-'"
PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth HiQQRsE eEl V E 0
PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian ~[:",., 'J 'I .. _~
,. • L-U ... 'UUI
BUILDING AREA (aross): 30,545 sauare feet
I WORK ORDER NO: 77727 BUILDING DIVISION
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development of a 4,5 acre site, currently vacant, into a vehicle showroom and sales lot for an
automobile (Nissan) dealership, The property is located in an industrial zone, The proposed project requires Site Plan Review and
Environmental Review,
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e,g, Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mare
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major InformaUon
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
LandlShoreline Use ~
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
:~:~g~:~
B, POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C, CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
C V rre."1 I-
r ~~ a __ c:-..... ..{ a..-l-ra~
r c pc> r f-\
Date
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
February 27, 2007
Elizabeth Higgins
Jan Illian x 7216
YOUNKER NISSAN RELOCATION
3401 -East Valley Road
LUA 07-020
I have reviewed the application for the Younker Nissan Relocation located generally at 340 I-E. Valley Road
and have the following comments:
EXISTING CONDITIONS
WATER
SEWER
STORM
STREETS
There is an existing 12-inch water main fronting the site in SW 34th Street and a 12-inch water
main in East Valley Road. There is also a 12-inch water main in an easement at the SW comer
of the site. Available derated fire flow in the area is approximately 5,500 gpm. Pressure
available is approximately 75 psi. The proposed project is located in the 196 water pressure
zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone.
There is an 8-inch sewer main in SW 34th Street and a 12-inch sewer main in East Valley Road.
There are existing storm drainage facilities in SW 34th Street and East Valley Road.
There is curb and street lighting fronting the site in East Valley Road and in SW 34th Street.
CODE REQmREMENTS
WATER
1. Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.273 x the site's gross square footage of
196,485. Estimated fee based on the site plan is $53,640.01. This fee is payable prior to issuance of the
utility construction permit ..
2. Preliminary fire flow required by the fire department is 3,500 gpm. Four hydrants are required for this
project. One hydrant is required within 150 feet and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet
of all structures.
3. Extension of a lO-inch water main onsite, providing a looped system and installation of hydrants will be
required to serve the site. It is shown on the site plan.
4. Fire sprinkler systems are required. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the
installation of the double detector check valve assembly to the fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed
shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" ofBackflow Prevention Devices. Civil plans
Younker Nissan Relocation
03/06/2007
Page 2 of3
show location of device and should note; "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCV A installation
for Fire Sprinkler System will be required". For DDCVA installations inside the building, applicant
shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly
inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements.
DDCV A shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab.
Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only.
5. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow
device is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required.
6. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device is required to be installed on domestic water
meter.
SANITARY SEWER
I. Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.142 x the site's gross square footage of
196,485. Estimated fee based on the site plan is $27,900.87. This fee is payable prior to issuance of the
utility construction permit..
2. A 6-inch sanitary side sewer extension is required to serve the site. It has been shown on the plans.
3. If finished floor elevation is below 25 feet, a "tideflex" or similar backflow device will be required to be
installed.
4. Side sewer shall have a minimum of2% slope.
5. Floor drains shown in the vehicle service areas shall be connected to the sanitary sewer via an exterior
oil/water separator. Installation will be in accordance with the UPe. The separator shall be sized to meet a
minimum IS-minute retention time for peak flows anticipated in the garage area, but in no case will be less
than 200 gallons of storage capacity. The type of interceptor shall be as manufactured by Pipe Inc., Utility
Vault Inc., or approved equal.
SURF ACE WATER
1. Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.265 x the total square feet of the
new impervious surface area of 149,652. Estimated ree based on the site plan is $39,657.78. Fee is payable
prior to issuance of the utility construction permit.
2. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted with the site plan application.
Detention and water quality will be required for this site. The report addressed detention and water quality
requirements as outlined in the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual.
3. If filling or grading on the site is below elevation 13.5, compensatory storage will be required to be
provided. Additional information will be provided at site plan application.
4. Proposed vaults for detention will require a separate building permit for structural review. Special
inspection is also required.
TRANSPORTATION
1. Installation of sidewalk and additional paving will be required fronting the site in E. Valley Road and in
SW 34th Street. A traffic study has been submitted and reviewed. Preliminary review indicates there will be
2
Younker Nissan Relocation
03/0612007
Page 3 of 3
no major traffic impacts, however there are several discrepancies in the report that needs to be addressed in
the TIA prepared by Gary Struthers Associates.
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be
submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued.
2. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development
Services Division.
3. Rockeries or walls to be constructed greater than 4 feet in height will require a separate building permit
and the following note shall be added to the civil plans:
"Rockeries greater than 4 feet in height will require a separate building permit. A licensed engineer with
geo-technical expertise must be retained for proposed rockeries greater than four feet in height. The
engineer must monitor rockery construction and verify in writing that the rockery was constructed in
general accordance with ARC standards and with hislher supplemental recommendations, in a professional
manner and of competent and suitable material. Written verification by the engineer must be provided to
the City of Renton public works inspector prior to approval of an occupancy permit or plat approval for the
project."
PLAN REVIEW -GENERAL
I. AIl plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.
2. AIl required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared
according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer.
3. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, water meters, landscape irrigation meters, and any backflow
devices will be required.
4. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction
estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for
your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as
generated by the permit system.
S. Applicant shall be responsible for securing easements for public utilities.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
I. Traffic mitigation fees of $ 62,250.00 are owed. See mitigation fee sheet. Fee is based on 830 daily trips x
$75.00.
2. Erosion control shall comply with Department of Ecology's current edition of the Stormwater
Management Manual
3. StaffwiIl recommend a SEPA condition that the project comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water
Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality
improvements.
cc: Kayrcn Kittrick
3
Ci tenton Department of Planning / Building / . Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pnn ~V\Cc ' R ;:!';"U~H."~!O!:_ COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2007 C l. " I v .. n
APPLICATION NO: LUA07 -020, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23,2007 r:r:n 'I
APPLICANT: Penny Church -Younker Nissan PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hi'l'lins • ... u .. 0 I.WI
PROJECT TITLE: Younker Nissan Relocation PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian BUILDING DIVISION
SITE AREA: 4.51 acres BUILDING AREA (oross): 30,545 s'luare feet
LOCATION: 3401 East Valley Road I WORK ORDER NO: 77727
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development of a 4.5 acre site, currently vacant, into a vehicle showroom and sales lot for an
automobile (Nissan) dealership. The property is located in an industrial zone. The proposed project requires Site Plan Review and
Environmental Review.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable Mo.-e Element of the Probable Probable Mo.-e
Environment Mino,. Major Information Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shorefine Use
~ ~
Animals
Environmental Health Pub/;c SaNicas
Energy/
Natural Resources
~;;;V';;" K.I
';';';' C;
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Date
Project Name:
Project Address:
Contact Person:
Permit Number:
Project Description:
Land Use Type:
D Residential
%Retail
D Non-retail
Calculation:
~QI)\,)'Lf?f?. b1, ~s.p').)
?,I..\o \ EJl.Sl Iftsl&e'(
we oJ-OZQ
Method of Calculation:
D ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7'" Edition
;(rraffic Study
D Other ~JJ.~""1 S,-e.u'fl\e."1l.S M.~oGIA'!lOS1 1""-
1/~Cj/i1OO7
~o {l.OT flJI.'I ~
£JW '(. ~ 15 -:.. dl.q~l d.SO.<f1)
~\-r VYLo\.\ ~I~;np(") SI"{"!;A5> --WI& I.S tv6tLl ~~0l~~
C~\~ (<;'10) ~A.lt..) WI1<\-€)l.s.n~ ~-;Slhf'
Transportation
Mitigation Fee: j} lR 'Z. > 'ZSQ.; (1tI
Calculated by: 4WIM . -6.11~ Date: 3/elnm;::p-
Date of Payment: __ ~~~ _______________________________ ~ __ ~I __________ __
Ci ~enton Department of Planning / Building / c Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: IrM~(J~9sh'0i'\ COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 20Q], YuH«",u"
APPLICATION NO: LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 2r.zSaY E I V E D
APPLICANT: Penny Church -Younker Nissan PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth HdiiliiB 2 3 71V17
PROJECT TITLE: Younker Nissan Relocation PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian
SITE AREA: 4.51 acres BUILDING AREA (Qross): 30,545 square feet' ."
LOCATION: 3401 East Valley Road I WORK ORDER NO: 77727
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development of a 4.5 acre site, currently vacant, into a vehicle showroom and sales lot for an
automobile (Nissan) dealership. The property is located in an industrial zone. The proposed project requires Site Plan Review and
Environmental Review.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor MoJO( Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housi
Air Aesthetics
Water Li hVG/are
Plants Recreation
Land/Shoreline Use Utilities
Animals Transportation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
We have f9viewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
P :RTY SERVICES FEE REVIEW #2007
o
o
PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP
OTHER l /CI~
RECEIVED FRO~I-' I~ .
WON (date)
GREEN #, _____ _
o SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION, o LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Ott SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED o SQUARE FOOTAGE o VICINITY MAP
o NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES o FRONT FOOTAGE o OTHER
o VESfED 0 NOT VESTED
o This fee review supersedes and cancels fee review # _______ dated ------.0;----;00=== o PARENT PID# (subject to changeL
o King Co. Tax Aoctil (new) SUBJECT PROPERTY PIN, [2.?.34o 0 -00 I 0"
Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current Cit)' ordinances and detennined by the applicable Utility Section. Final fees will be based
on rates in effect at time of BuHding Permit/Construction Permit application. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w
permit fees or the cost of water meters.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL MEmODOF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT
DISTRICTS NO. NO.
Assessment DistrictlW
DistrictlW ASTEW A TER
WATER SDC FEE
Never Pd
Ji 3111200 T-
DATE
~ '" • 0
" 0
-J
" • tJ < e-
O •
If subject property is within an LID, it is developer's responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status .
** If an additional water meter (or hydrant) is being installed for fire protection or an additional water meter is being installed for private
•
landscape irrigation, please advise as above fees may change. ,
0
EFFECTIVE: January 2. 2007
Cit !enton Department of Planning / Building / . Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pm ..1. -I C' j.£ S COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2007 .. __
APPLICATION NO: LUA07-020, SA-A:ECF J DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 2007 Ht.\.it.1 V t:.LI
APPLICANT: Pennv Church -Younker Nissan PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth HiQQins r:n, I) ~ ',107
PROJECT TITLE: Younker Nissan Relocation PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian
SITE AREA: 4.51 acres BUILDING AREA (Qross): 30,545 square feet UTILITY SYSTEMS
LOCATION: 3401 East Valley Road I WORK ORDER NO: 77727
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development of a 4.5 acre site, currently vacant, into a vehicle showroom and sales lot for an
automobile (Nissan) dealership. The property is located in an industrial zone. The proposed project requires Site Plan Review and
Environmental Review.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts ImpaCf$ Necessary
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housin
Ak Aesthetics
Water UghtJGlare
Plants Recreation
LandlShoreline Use utilities
Animals Transportation
Environmental Health Public SeNices
Energy/ Historic/Cu/tural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MITIGATION ITEMS:
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
February 26, 2007
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner rl!v
James Gray, Assistant Fire Marsha
Younker Nissan Relocation, 3401 st Valley Road
I. A fire mitigation fee of$15,883.40 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the
building square footage.
FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS:
I. The preliminary fire flow is 3500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the
structure and three additional hydrants arc required within 300 feet of the structure.
2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler, fire alarm
systems and flammable or combustible tank installations.
3. Fire department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the
building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45
feet outside and 25 feet inside.
4. Fire Department dead end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have
an approved turnaround.
5. Provide a list of flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used
or stored on site.
6. A site plan for Pre-fire planning is required to be submitted for your project. This shall
be submitted prior to occupancy in one of the attached formats.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
i;\younkemissanerc.doc
I PRE-FIRE PLANNING I
RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
In an effort to streamline our pre-fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of
your construction project in one of the following formats which we can then convert to
VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy.
ABC Flowcharter.aD
ABC Flowcharter.af2
Adobe Illustrator File.ai
AutoCad Drawing.dwg
AutoCad Drawing.dgn
Computer Graphics Metafile.cgm
Corel Clipart Format.cmx
Corel DRAW! Drawing File Format.edr
Corel Flow.cfl
Encapsulated Postscript File.eps
Enhanced Metafile.emf
IGES Drawing File Format.igs
Graphics Interchange Format.gif
Macintosh PIeT Format.pct
Micrografx Designer Ver 3.l.drw
Micrografx Designer Ver 6.0.dsf
Microstation Drawing.dgn
Portable Network Graphics Format.pnf
Postscript Filc.ps
Tag Image File Format.tif
Text.txt
Text.csv
VISIO.vsd
Windows Bitmap.bmp
Windows Bitmap.dib
Windows Metafile.wmf
Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitmap.pcx
Ci !enton Department of Planning / Building / ' Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fire-COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 9, 2007
APPLICATION NO: LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 2007
APPLICANT: Penny Church -Younker Nissan PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins
PROJECT TITLE: Younker Nissan Relocation PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian
SITE AREA: 4.51 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): 30,545 square feet
LOCATION: 3401 East Valiey Road I WORK ORDER NO: 77727
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Development of a 4.5 acre site, currently vacant, into a vehicle showroom and sales lot for an
automobile (Nissan) dealership. The property is located in an industrial zone. The proposed project requires Site Plan Review and
Environmental Review.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS
Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More
Environment Minor Major Information
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Environment Minor Major Informstlon
Impacts Impacts Necessary
Earth Housing
Air Aesthetics
Water LighfIGlare
Plants Recreation
Land/Shore/ina US9 Utilities
Animals Trans ation
Environmental Health Public Services
Energy/ Historic/Cultural
Natural Resources Preservation
Airporl Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
_ 'I
B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS
fJA
C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS
c:: ~ l:kll ~lf1m(1115 <1 'icL /.
'th particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
eded to properly assess this proposal. J...P6 i1
Date I I
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M)
DATE: Febr"a,) 23, 2007
LAND USE NUMBER: LUAC7 ·020, SA·A, ECF
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DeV€lopment of a 4 5 acre s,te. currently vacant, ;nlo 3 veolcle snG"'rGG'" ~.
salas tot for an automobile (Nlssan) dealelshlp The property IS located In an Ind'Jstnal ~~nE Tll~ I"'Opc~~'~ ~[('.e
requires Slle Plan Rev,ew and EnVironmental Review
PROJECT LOCATION' 340', Easl Valley Road
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATEO IDNS-M): As Ihe Lead Ageno'l, ,~le C11~ ~I Pr·,t.
h3S determined lhat Slgnlficanl environmental Impact~ are unlikely to resuk Imm the pmposed "rolect Toere'ore 2
pef1T1ltted under the RCW 43 21C 110 the City of Renton ,s using the Optional DNS·M pmcess:o g',e nollce tOBt 3 m,~
M 's likely to be Issued Comment p""ods lor the project and \he proposed DNS_M are Inlegrated 1110 ~ s ngle cammer
penod, There woIl be no cornmanl penod follOWing \he Issuance 01 the Threshold Determlna:IOO J~ Nor,·SIJ""'C3n~,
MI\lgated (DNS·M) A 14-day appeal penod Will 10 low \he ossuance of the DNS·M
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: Februarv 14. 2007
NOTICE OF COMPLETe APPLICATION: February 23, 2007
PropoHd Mitigation Measures: The lollowlng Mlt'gatlon Measures wllIlll<ely De ,mposed on the proposed project
Thesa recommended Mil'9atlon Measures address project Imp~cts not covered
by e",sting codes and regulations as Cited above
The applicant Will 00 r~u,rad to pay the appmpnata Transportatron MlllgiJ/lon Fee
Tne applICant wIIJ tl8 rall"iffid ro pay Ill" I<ppropriale Flro lI.lJtrgarron Fee, and
Comments on thll' above application mue\ be submitted m wriling \0 Eliubeth Higgins. S'ltnior Plann.r.
D.yelopment S ..... Ic.s Dlvil!ion. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055. bV 5:00 PM on March 9. 2007. If YOLI
rave questions about thiS proposal, or Wish 10 toe mada a party of record and race,va addltlonaf no\lkaMn by mall, contact
:he PrOl"ct Manager Anyone whO submits wnUen ~ommenl~ Will au\omatlcally become a party o~ record and 'MIl be
notilled 01 any decislOr, en Ihls project
CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tei: (425) 430-7382;
Eml: ehlgglns@<:i.renton.wa.us
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUM6ER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
APPLICANTIPROJECTCONTACT PERSON: ~~:~:W@P::i:~.~:;Onsultlng Engin"",; Tel: (4251827.5874; t-.
PermitMRovlew Requested:
Other Permits which may be required:
Requested Sludin:
Location where appllcatton may
be reviewed:
PUBLIC HEARING'
CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW:
ZoninglLand Uee:
Environmental Documents that
Evaluate th. Propoud Prolect:
Davelopment Regulations
Us.d For Pro~t Mitigation:
EnvlronmentallSEPAI Review, Admlnislr8ti~e Sile Plan approval
Construct,on and Bu.lding Permits
Geotechnical Report. Traffic Impact Analysis. and Drainage Report
PlannlngfBulldinglPublic Works Department. Development Se ... "ces
Diylslon, Silcth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA
98051
NIA
The 5UI.»ecl 5,'e IS designaled Employment Area -Valle'/ :E".-'v I ,,,, Ihe e,l), 01
Rento~ Comprehensive Lan.:! Use Map and Heavy Indusl"al iIH', 0" lIle e,l) S
Zoning Map
EnVifonmemal (SEPA) Checklist
The prOject Will be subject to the City's SE?A ordinanCE RMC 4·2·1 30A '!:~C 4
9.200, RMC 4·2·0700 and other appllcable codes and rq.l'~tlons ~$ 3:)propr 3t~
i ' • I
1. . .A ,.: -"~< <
\ ~'
If you would like to be made a party of record 10 receive furthsr mformat,on on this proposed projecl, complete
Ihis form and return to' City of Renton, Development Planmng. 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
NBmelFlle No Younker Nlssan RelocatlonILUA01·020, SA-A, ECF
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NO
CERTIFICATION
I, .5E-rtt Sist£:B , hereby certify that ....:.3 __ copies of the above document
were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on "_':-""\\\\\\\11,
~ ~~,:, \:-{~lf'! !'O "I"
SIGNED .. _~~::t:;7:-_~::.;t:.;Z::::;"L-___ -"'=:jJ(l:'t'-.·~':'';;t.<"",·;~;·;·i l,~;:i<)'I" _ ~~ -~. " ,~.' .. _.~''t'" ~ ;; =~:It, .·..J"~"c·rA1?, ·,'1:1;.,,0.~ ::1" .-:o,"{ -.;:-' ~'-',,~ .. ~_<
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public. in and for the State of Washington residing i~ >'j ;"'i ~ ;: . ~ ~ E ~ "'t; \,,,1.) . .;~=
1.1_ " fi1 . , "n:
V ~i;;~:L;~r
11111\\\\\'"''
DA TE:-,=z,--Z""-oi!3,-,,-U"f::.L __ _
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 23'd day of February, 2007, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, PMT's & Environmental Checklist documents. This information
was sent to:
Name
Agencies -Env. Checklist, NOA, & PMT's See Attached
Younker Nissan (Penny Church) Owner/Applicant
Jeff Brown -Peterson Consulting Engineers Contact
Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only See Attached
(Signature of Sender): ~ 4«/;,-<.1./'
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker
Representing
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Notary (Print): Arnil'C LtD'" bb~,Y'C<"
My appointment expires: ':} -\ 'i -\ [;
Project Name: Younker Nissan Relocation
Project Number: LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
template -affidavit of service by mailing
. .
Dept. of Ecology'
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703
WSDOT Northwest Region'
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240
PO Box 33031 0
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers •
Seattle District Office
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
PO Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124
Jamey Taylor'
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olvmoia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Servo
Attn: SEPA Section
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
Metro Transit
Senior Environmental Planner
Gary Kriedt
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERG DETERMINATIONS)
WDFW -Stewart Reinbold' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. •
clo Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
3190 160'h Ave SE 39015 -172°' Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092
Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program'
4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172" Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic
Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation"
Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343
Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343
City of Newcastle City of Kent
Attn: Me. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director
13020 SE 72,d Place 220 Fourth Avenue South
Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895
Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila
Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd.
201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188
Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology
Real Estate Services NW Regional Office
Title Examiner 3190 160'h Avenue SE
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
PO Box 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and
cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application .•
Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send
her the ERC Determination paperwork.
template -affidavit of service by mailing
125360001007
CHURCH PENNY R
3820 E VALLEY RD
RENTON WA 98055
125380003009
LECUYER EAST VALLEY LLC C/O
C/O JSH PROPERTIES
555 S RENTON VILLAGE PL #100
RENTON WA 98055
125380021100
FARWEST STEEL CORPORATION
PO 80X 889
EUGENE OR 97403
125360002005
LAMPHERE PROPERTIES LLC/ATIN:
JON WALSH
12505 SW BROADWAY ST
BEAVERTON OR 97005
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M)
DATE: February 23,2007
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA07 -020, SA-A, ECF
PROJECT NAME: Younker Nissan Relocation
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of a 4.5 acre site, currently vacant, into a vehicle showroom and
sales lot for an automobile (Nissan) dealership. The property is located In an industrial zone. The proposed project
requires Site Plan Review and Environmental Review
PROJECT LOCATION: 3401 East Valley Road
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-5IGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton
has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as
permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton 'IS using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-
M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment
period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance-
Mitigated (DNS-M), A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M.
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 14, 2007
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 23.2007
APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Jeff Brown, Peterson Consulting Engineers; Tel: (425) 827-5874;
Eml: jeff@pcecivil.com
Permits/Review Requested:
Other Pennits which may be required:
Requested Studies:
Location where application may
be reviewed:
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW:
Zoning/Land Use:
Environmental Documents that
Evaluate the Proposed Project:
Development Regulations
Used For Project Mitigation:
Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Site Plan approval
Construction and Building Permits
Geotechnical Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, and Drainage Report
Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services
Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057
N/A
The subject site is designated Employment Area -Vattey (EA-V) on the City of
Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Heavy Industrial (IH) on the City's
Zoning Map.
Environmental (SEPA) Checklist
The project witl be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-130A, RMC 4-
9-200, RMC 4·2·0700 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate.
Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.
These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered
by existing codes and regulatiOns as cited above.
The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transpottation Mftigation Fee;
The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,
Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on March 9, 2007. If you
have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact
the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be
notified of any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins. Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7382;
Eml: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us
I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete
this form and return to: City of Renton. Development Planning. 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
Name/File No.: Younker Nissan Relocation/LUA07-020. SA-A. ECF
NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO.:
~y ~@ ~~; Kathy Keolker, Mayor
~~NifO
CIT )F RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Gregg Zimmerman P,E" Administrator
February 23, 2007
Jeff Brown, P,E.
Peterson Consulting Engineers
4010 Lake Washington Blvd NE #300
Kirkland; WA 98033
Subject: Younker Nissan Relocation
LUA07-020, SA-A, ECF
Dear Mr. Brown:
The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the
subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is
accepted for review.
It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on
March 19,2007. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is
required to continue processing your application.
Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
!3J7;J.;.d£J~r--
Elizabeth Higgins, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Penny Church -Younker Nissan I Owner
-------------------------~
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057 *' This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
City of Renton
LAND USE PERMIT
MASTER APPLICATION
. PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION
.. ,
NAME:
f6,., \J 1 GflV~(/H c;~ (f~~
ADDRESS: :382o~. VALL£-Y HW1· .5.
..
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
'{outJK'.6fZ., N I SSIlN
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)lLQGATIONAND ZIP CODE:
CITY: Rr:"'1'O"l I w4 ZIP, <f80:>5
TELEPHONENUMBER: CNr~c(: ilq~N VIJ:>t11\tI.
. (ltl~) 25/--8/00
. '. '" .
APPLICANT (if other than owner) . .
34-01 e,+)'-fI{A L-l61 ~l7ky
J2.!StJ;?"-I I 4/t\ 18O~5
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
1'253Gooo 1007
NAME: JeFf Gli!Dw-J / P·t, EXISTING LAND USE(S):
. VA t-A"-J1' .'
COMPANY (if applicable): p€-~50tl O"~Ul:'rlNff
PtJ~IN~S .
PROPOSED LAND USE(S):
AlI11'm~Ij..E. 'VSAL.~Sklr
.
4D/O LA~f. WI\SIIIII6't1N StJ'p,/ ADDRESS:
N~ I 5VI1'f. 509
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
t:'MPL.o11t1fr-l1 A~ VAL.L.~t Cilttlf PLAt-l
.
I(I~\{ l...,wpJ WA zIP:Qgo3'? CITY: . PROPOSED. COMPREHENSiVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
(napplicable): ~",p.AlZ-eli V'1}j.L~ C"1"l9 PLAII
. .:-C
TELEPHONE NUMBER (42.~) ~l7-~g14-
EXISTING ZONING: HEAV1 INDV$'f1lIltL, (11f)
CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): ,(~:i t"'PV5"1l1M-
NAME: .sU A Pf'j.. I u,Jf SITE AREA (in square feet): 1'16, 485 ~.f.
. -
COMPANY (if applk:abl8l:
SQUARE FOOTAGE J; PUBUCROADWAYS TO BE
DEDICATED: N .
,
ADDRESS: "
SQUARE FOOTAG;f~F PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ",A
. .
CITY: ZIP:
PROPOSED RESIDENTIA~ENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable): 'fA .
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS:
NUMBER OF PROP0l.ED LOTS (if applicable):
/'oJ ,q
jef.f' e f'c.ec.i";{' CO"1 NUMBER OF NEW ~7ELLING UNITS (if applicable):
JJ 4
Q:weblpw/devserv/forms!pLanningfmasterapp.doc 07129105
PnvJECT INFORMATION continued
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWE~I/~ UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: .:tt 6 J 000, 000
.
N II
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): '" r A ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDE/ITIAl
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): N / A
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): tJ A '0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL o AQUIFERPROTECTION AREA TWO
BUILDINGS (if applicable): :z.~ I 62.& 51' fflJ'( f~.J.( o FLOOD HAZARD AREA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
sq. ft.
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): o GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft.
NEr FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if ' o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft.
applicable): I~ fL(l,: Z~, SZ9 $l' z.~tLt..: 6~11 Sf o SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft.
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BYTHE o WETLANDS sq. ft. NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 30-'40 ",'
, ,,~E!lALPESCRIPTI()N OFPFiOPERTY_{Se6 fkt~ l. "
, (Attac:hlegal desc:riptlonon separate sheet.w,ith thefoHowing information Inc:luded), "
, SITUATE IN THE ' ,", SW' "QUARTEROF SECTIONJo" T,bWN$HIP 23~, RANGE'5G, INTHECITY
OF RENTON, KINGCOUNTY,WASHINGTON. " " . " ' ,
, '
. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
, ,
List all land use applications be'ing applied for:
vt'lvl'1 ffl¢ll\l'f 1. a"'VI~DtJ~~D.L-(UoVIW 3. CUfJ 5"'" 0fl'1tJ
2. :511l! e~, (2$V,'P'toJ 4. ' 0~1L.1)IN~ PI5!2t1rf
" "
StafHviH calcUlate applicable fees arid postage: $
,
, " . ,,' • , ·AFFIPAVITOF OWNERSHip
"
" .
I, (Print Nrimels) PenlJi )2 Ch vrc.h . ' . declare that I am (PI_echeck one) ,; the current owne<Oftlle property
involved, in this apprlCalion or _,_ the authorized representatlvO, to act fou co,poratlon (pI __ a)tach pro¢ Of authorization) and lhattha foregoing
statements and answelll herein contained and tha infonnation herewith ara in an respects true and correct to tha best of rnykncwtedge andbeli9f. '
• I, certify that I,know or haVe, satisfactory, avid, ence, that, Pn ntKi 12 , Ch.ute k
signed this instrument and a_edged tt to be-hlslherllheir free vofuntary act for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the ,lnsIrumenl '
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
My appcinbnenl expires: S z:;;." / 2 ' z.aoJ
Q:weblpw/devserv/formsipIaDoinglmasterapp.doc 2 07129105
,
,
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
YOUNKER NISSAN SITE
3401 EAST VALLEY ROAD
RENTON, WA
LOT 1 OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN BSP -BSP NO. 014-92 SITUATE IN THE
CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
SITUATE IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23N,
RANGE 5E, W.M.
'ELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
his requirement may be waived by:
Property Services Section
Public Works Plan Review Section
Building Section
Development Planning Section
PROJECT NAME: (D U V\ ~ N is <; b-p
DATE: Nl!v 2-2-12,004
•
Q;\WEB\PW\DEVSERv\Forrns\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs_9-06.xis 09106
EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
. FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS.
Wireless:
Agreement Statement
of Existing Sites
Lease Agreement. Draft 2 AND 3
Map of Existing Site Conditions 2ANe 3
of View Area
Photosimulations 2 AND 3
,
This requirement may be waivlid by:
1. Property Services Section
2. Public Works Plan Review Section
3. Building Section
4. Development Planning Section
PROJECT NAME: y()U'{\J~ tsi'.7~ ClJL}
DATE: tJO V '2-'L '2.00 fs:,
Q:lWEBIPWlDEVSERVlFonnslPlanninglwalverofsubmitialreqs_9-06.xls 09106
YOUNKER NISSAN
3401 East Valley Road
Parcel No.: 1253600010
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Landscape Analysis, Lot Coverage, & Parking Analysis
Site Area: 196,587 SF (4.51 Acres)
Impervious Surface Area: 149,652 SF (76.1%)
Building Footprint Area: 23,828 SF (12.1%)
Building Area: 30,545 SF
Floor 1: 23,828 SF
Floor 2: 6,717 SF
Parking Stalls Required by City Code: 55-58 stalls
Office: 2,248 SF@3-4.5/1,000SF = 7-10 stalls
Sales: 5,694 SF Building + 50,063 SF Lot = 55,757 SF @ 1/5,000 SF = It stalls
Service: 13,434 SF @ 0.25/100 SF = 34 stalls
Storage: 4,623 SF @ 1/1,500 SF = 3 stalls
Parking Stalls Provided:
Standard
Compact:
ADA:
On-Site Landscaping Area:
Right-of-Way Landscaping Area:
Railroad Easement (Existing):
58 stalls
55 stalls
o Stalls
3 Stalls
27,588 SF
10,619 SF
19,347 SF
(298 display stalls)
(9'x18' plus 2' front overhang)
(8' x18' plus 2' front overhang)
(14.1%)
23.9% Pervious Area
(9.8%)
Landscaping Area/Stall Required: 58 stalls @ 25 SF/stall = 1,450 SF landscaping
Landscaping Area/Stall Provided: 27,588 SF on-site -17,475 SF buffer = 10,113 SF landscaping
January 30, 2007
YOUNKER NISSAN
3401 East Valley Road
Parcel No. 125360001007
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Construction Mitigation Plan
Proposed construction dates:
Construction is to commence immediately following the City of Renton review and
permitting processes (estimated to be J nne, 2007). Construction is estimated to be
completed by March, 2008.
Hours and days of operation:
Hours and days of construction operation are expected to conform to that allowed by the
City of Renton.
Proposed hauling/transportation routes:
It is envisioned that construction inress/egress from the site would be via a stabilized
construction entrance off of SW 34' Street. Hauling and transportation routes have not
been clearly defined at this time.
Measures to be implemented to minimize dust, erosion, mud, noise, etc.:
During construction, the contractor will follow an approved erosion control plan that will
likely include silt fences, temporary construction entrances, storm inlet protection and
other temporary erosion control features. Minimizing soil disturbances during rainy
months will also reduce the potential for erosion. Dust control will also be implemented
during construction.
Special hours proposed for construction:
None.
Preliminary traffic control plan:
A traffic control plan will be developed prior to commencement of construction.
YOUNKER NISSAN
3401 East Valley Road
Parcel No. 125360001007
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Project Narrative
Project Name: Younker Nissan
Site Area: 4.51 acres
Location of Site: 3401 East Valley Road; Renton, W A
Land Use Permits Required: Environmental Review, Site Plan Review, Utility
Construction Permit, Building Permit
Zoning Designation: Heavy Industrial (lH)
Current Use of Site: Vacant
Special Site Features: Not Applicable
Soil Type: Soils in western portion of the site mapped as
Snohomish silt loam (So). Soils in eastern
portion of the site mapped as Tukwila muck (Tu.)
Proposed Use of Site: Automobile dealership
Scope of Proposed Development: Automobile dealership: 2 story building with
approximately 23,800 s.f. footprint including
office areas, sales, service and storage; and
parking area.
Access: Site will be accessed by driveways from both
SW 34th Street and East Valley Road.
Proposed Off-Site Improvements: Sidewalks will be constructed on public right-of-
way along both street frontages.
Total Estimated Construction
Cost:
Estimated at $6,000,000. Estimated fair market
value is unknown.
f'Kl.rC1t(. CVfl~ 1'Y1iQ1t?"IL,Kl1t0 Q6QlI'GfT~: cv5~ j11vu.5
ftll'fVSfiO q'VV )(. 1'0' 1-.
YOUNKER NISSAN
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Project Narrative
Page 2
Estimated Fill Quantities: Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of fill material,
comprised of select fill, base course and pavement.
Number of Trees to be removed: None.
Land to be Dedicated to tbe City: None.
Proposed Job Shacks, etc.: Dnring construction, construction office trailers will
be located on the site.
..
Pre-application meeting for the
Younker Nissan
3401 East Valley Road
PRE06-130
City of Renton
Development Services Division
November 22,2006
Contact information
Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, AlCP, (425) 430-7382
Public Works Plan Reviewer: Jan lilian, (425) 430-7216
Fire Prevention Reviewer: James Gray (425) 430-7023
Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, (425) 430-7290
Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a
reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects
and contractors who work on the project.
Pre-screening: When you have the project ready for submittal, have
it pre-screened before making all of the required copies.
The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments
provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of
review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly
amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect
at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is
subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing
Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Public Works Administrator, and City Council). .
· -"
t,..1 \ '( ut HI:Pi! UI~
R E C F r 1/ f' 0
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM.
DATE: ~ od-a;;
TO: Consfruction SerVj~s, Rre Prevention, Economic Development,
Plan Review~ p~ojectPlar!ner .
FROM: Neil Watts, Developmenl Services Division Director
SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: ftJMb,or h,}:&q' It7
LOCATION: 3,{o I Et.sf ~'&:J I
PREAPP NO. 0<0-1J.;b
A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled for !().' () 0 , Thursday,
-=sO AJ()YX , in one of the 6111 floor conference rooms. If this
meeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO
11:00 AM to allow time to prepareforthe 11:00 AM meeting.
Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the
applicant. You will not need 10 do a thorough "permit lever review at this tine. Note
only maJor Issues that must be resolved pliorto formal land use and/or building permit
application submittal.
Plan Reviewer assigned is -~-l""<Ll..---V 3 ( -0vV1 e
Please submit your written comments to _:--_______ (Planner) at
least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you.
H:lDivision.slDevelop.serlDev & PJan.inglTemplatelPreapp2 Revised 1·05
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
November 1,2006
Valerie Kinast, Associate Planner
James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal-. J ~
Younker Nissan, 3401 East valley~.
Fire Department Comments:
1. The preliminary fire flow is 3500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the
structure and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure.
2. A fire mitigation fee of$15,318.16 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the
building square footage.
3. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation ofsprink1er and fire alarm
systems.
4. Fire department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the
building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45
feet outside and 25 feet inside.
5. Fire department dead end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have
an approved turnaround.
6. Provide a list of flanunable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used
or stored on site.
7. A site plan for Pre-Fire planning is required to be submitted for your project. This shall
be submitted prior to occupancy, in one ofthe attached formats.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
i:\younkemissan.doc
I PRE-FIRE PLANNING I
RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
In an effort to streamline our pre-fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of
your construction project in one of the following fonnats which we can then convert to
VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy.
ABC Flowcharter.aD
ABC Flowcharter.af2
Adobe Illustrator File.ai
AutoCad Drawing.dwg
AutoCad Drawing.dgn
Computer Graphics Metafile.cgm
Corel Clipart Format.cmx
Corel DRAW! Drawing File Fonnat.edr
Corel Flow.cfl
Encapsulated Postscript File.eps
Enhanced Metafile.emf
IGES Drawing File Fonnat.igs
Graphics Interchange Fonnat.gif
Macintosh PICT Format.pct
Micrografx Designer Ver 3.l.drw
Micrografic Designer Ver 6.0.dsf
Microstation Drawing.dgn
Portable Network Graphics Fonnat.pnf
Postscript File.ps
Tag Image File Format.tif
Text.txt
Text.csv
VISIO.vsd
Windows Bitmap.bmp
Windows Bitmap.dib
Windows Metafile.wmf
ZsoffPC Paintbrush Bitmap.pcx
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Elizabeth Higgins
Janlliian
November 21,2006
CITY OF RENTON MEMO
UTILITY PLAN REVIEW
SUBJECT: PREAPPLICATON REVIEW COMMENTS
YOUNKER NISSAN
PREAPP NO. 06-130
3401 -E. Valley Rd·
NOTE ON PRELlMlNARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN TillS REPORT:
The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals
made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this
summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing
Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also
need to be revised based on site planning aud other design changes required by the City or made by the
applicant.
WATER
1. There is an existing 12-inch water main fronting the site in SW 34ih Street and a 12-inch water main in East
Valley Road. There is also a 12-inch water main in an easement at the SW corner of the site. Available
derated fIre flow in the area is approximately 5,500 gpm. Pressure available is approximately 75 psi.
2. Preliminary fIre flow requirement is 3,500 gpm. All new construction must have fire hydrants capable of
delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm. Four hydrants will be required to serve this site. One hydrant is
required within 150 feet of the buildings and three additional hydrants are required to be within 300 feet of
the nearest corners of the building.
3. There are fIre hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the flIe protection of this project, but are
subject to verification for being within the required distance. Existing hydrants counted as fire protection
will be required to be retrofItted with a quick disconnect Storz fItting if not already in place.
4. Extension of a water main onsite providing a looped system is required. Additional hydrants will be
required to be installed to serve this site.
5. The proposed project is located in the 196 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone.
6. If applicant proposes a buildmg, which exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device will be required on the
domestic water meter.
7. A Water System Development Charge (SDC) of $0.273 per square foot of gross site area will apply. This is
payable at the time the utility permit is issued.
Younker Nissan
Page 2 of3
8. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department. A separate no-fee utility permit and separate
plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for fire sprinkler line.
All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approyed List" of Backflow Prevention
Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and
utility permit for DDCV A installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required". DDCV A
installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards.
For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the
mechanical plan shOwing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical
room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. DDCVA shall be installed
immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the
horizontal position only.
SANITARY SEWER
I. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SW 34th Street and a 12-inch sewer main in East Valley Road.
2. If finished floor elevation is below 25 feet, a "tideflex" or similar backflow device will be required to be
installed.
3. A Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) of $0.142 per square foot of gross site area will be
apply. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued.
4. Service shop will require floor drains and shall be connected to the sanitary sewer through an oil water
separator.
5. Washing of vehicles will need to be addressed. How is that proposed?
SURFACE WATER
I. There are existing storm drainage facilities in SW 41" Street.
2. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report
shall address detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990 King County Surface Water
Manual. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the report. If preliminary calculations
show detention will be required under the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual, staff will recommend
a condition that the project comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Desigo Manual to meet both
detention (Conservation Flow control-a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements.
3. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected
in the fmal desigo. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage by $0.265. This is
payable at the time the utility permit is issued.
4. Separate structural plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval under a building permit
for proposed vault. Special inspection from the building department is required.
5. Erosion control needs to comply with the Dept of Ecology's most current Stormwater Manual.
TRANSPORTATION/STREET
I. Half street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb & gutter, storm drain, sigos
and streetlights are required if not already in place.
Younker Nissan
Page 3 of3
2. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed as determined by the
ITE trip generation manual.
3. A traffic study will be required with the site plan application. Channelization and striping may be required
in E. Valley Road and SW 34th Street. .
4. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If
three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities
shall be placed underground.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. All construction utility permits for utilities, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan
submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a
licensed Civil Engineer.
2. When the utility plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the
drainage report, permit application and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the
counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but
prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to ca11425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the
permit system.
3. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated
construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over
$200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application.
4. Any proposed rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building
permit and will require special inspection.
5. Separate permits and fees for water meter (s), side sewer (s), landscape irrigation meters and backflow
devices are required.
cc: Kayren Kittrick
CITY OF RENTON
PlanningiBuilding/Public Works
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 22,2006
TO: . Pre-Application File No. PRE06-130
FROM: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, (425) 430-7382
SUBJECT: Younker Nissan, 3401 East Valley Road
General: We have completed a preliminary review of the above-referenced development
proposal. The following comments ou development and permitting issues are based on
the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes
in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this
summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g.,
Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Development Services Director,
PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Administrator, and City Council). Review comments may
also need to be revised based on site plmming and other design changes required by City staff
or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the
Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00
plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall and are available on the City
of Renton website (www.renton.ci.wa.us).
Project Proposal: The proposal is to develop a 4.51 acre property into an automobile
dealership. The project site is zoned Heavy Industrial (TIl) in the Employment Area -Valley
Comprehensive Plan designation. The property is located at 3401 East Valley Road.
Current Use: The 196,485 +1-square foot parcel is vacant.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: The property is located within the
Employment Area -Valley Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed development
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use policies for this designation.
Zoning: The property is located in the Heavy Industrial (lli) zone. In the IH zone vehicle
sales are a permitted use.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is not exempt from Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review due to the size of the proposed building and future
building expansion area. Therefore, an environmental checklist is a submittal requirement.
An environmental determination will be made by the Renton Environmental Review
Committee. This determination is subject to appeal by either the project proponent, by a
citizen of the community, or another entity having standing for an appeal.
Younker Nissan Preapplication Meeting
November 22, 2006
Page2of3
Site Plan Review: Projects that are located in the Employment Area -Valley land use
designation are subject to Site Plan Review, Based on project size, the review and approval
will be administrative, with no public hearing required. The submittal requirements and
criteria for the Administrative Site Plan review are included in the preapplication package
provided at the preapplication meeting.
Critical Areas: The site is located in an area of susceptibility to liquefaction during seismic
events, but is otherwise not located in or near known critical areas. Due to subsurface
conditions, a geotechnical report would be required as a condition of obtaining a building
permit. It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain whether critical areas, such as wetlands,
are present on the site. If so, the proposal would need to be revised accordingly.
Development Standards: RMC 4-2-130A, "Development Standards for Industrial Zoning
Designations" apply to new development on the site. A copy of the development standards
can be found in the packet given to the applicant at the pre-application meeting.
Setbacks -Setbacks are the distance between the building and the property line or any private
access easement. Setbacks are different for the front, side, and rear yards. The fa9ades
fronting on the East Valley Road would be considered the front. The front yard setback is
required to be a minimum of 15 feet.
The minimum required side yard setback is 10 feet from SW 34th St on the north side. There
would be no setback along the south side, unless a public street is planned.
There is no minimum rear yard setback.
Building height -There is no limit to building height in the zone.
Refuse and Recycling Areas: Refuse and recycling areas need to meet the requirements of
RMC 4-4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards."
Landscaping: The development standards require that all pervious areas within the property
boundaries be landscaped. The 15-foot front setback must be landscaped. All landscape
areas are to include an underground irrigation system. Refer to landscape regulations (RMC
4-4-070) for further general and specific landscape requirements.
A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements in RMC 4-8-
120D.12, shall be submitted at the time of application for Site Plan Review.
Permit Requirements:
Site Plan Review and Approval (see above), Environmental Review (see above), Utility
Construction, and Building permits would be required for the project. Please contact the main
counter of the Development -Services Division at (425) 430-7200 for building permit
information including fees.
Fees: Impact fees and fees for building and utility construction permits would be charged.
The following mitigation fees would be required prior to utility construction permit issuance
or building permit issuance:
06-130 Younker Nissan (IH, SPR).doc\
Younker Nissan Preapplication Meeting
November 22, 2006
Page 3 00
• A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average
daily trip attributable to the project.
• A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building area
• A Water System Development Charge (SDC) of$1525.00 per unit.
• A Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) of$900.00 per unit.
• A Surface Water Development Charge (SDC) of $715.00 per unit.
Please see the comments from the Fire Prevention plans reviewer and Public Works plans
reviewer for a breakdown of the fees. A handout listing all of the City's Development related
fees is also attached for reference.
In advance of submitting the full application package, applicants are strongly encouraged
to bring in one copy of each application item for a pre-screening to the customer service
counter to help ensure that theapplicatioll is complete prior to making all copies.
cc: Jermifer Henning
06-130 Younker N;ssan (JH, SPR).doc\
i
1HI
i ,
17th 1St
r: ,I
!I
G3 • 19 T23N R5E W 112
CO SW 23rd Stl
/ ---,
___ / IL
SW 27th St.
r il
iI
1/ 1M
\
-R-=1-
CA
--------
1/
Ii RC s:-------Ii SW 2~h st. II
, I r-----it-I ~-=-----'j----------~
--I \
___ ... J _____ .,. ______ .. _
I II
1>'1 I II
1>'1,11
~ J S ~Oth st.
z Ih-r~_ ~ I i ----I f-t, ! I ~! ,Ii I , ]' . IC'r----r--1 r, ,
N I I ' / ILL ::c ii,------r---i -j ,I ~J--St ) S~ 3Jth st.
IL
----,----
1M
tlst st. 1M
I ~-~~--
----I I /L___---------~
-=-i il e: I I Hi j' --I-__ C_A___ :
----]1 I t= ''i61" j, I ilJI /-------~
,W 34th Sti
"<:f
~
>-.
Q)
~ -ct! :>-
~
1M
I>-., co ---is:-
Q)
Q)
;t
~
--'"
~I ---
----j
-----
CA
I R-I ~
ICD~r
/ It\\ r n I ',,-
<:]
~ ZONlNG
I3 • 31 T23N R5E W 112
o 200 toO H3
1:.U10D o = TICBNICAL SlRVlCBS
- - - -Renton City LlmIt,!I
30 T23N RSE W 112
5J3O
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Renton Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to
consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the
quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the
agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be
done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most
precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases,
you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need
to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write
"do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary
delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can
assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal
or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your
answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant
adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS:
Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not
apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the
checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal,"
"proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
F':"i c ..
M:\Reports Correspondence and Calculations\MISC-O 166\Reports\SEPA Checi<list\envchlst-final.doc01/22107
· -
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Younker Nissan.
2. Name of applicant: Younker Nissan
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant: Contact Person:
John Vidmar Jeff Brown, P.E.
Younker Nissan Peterson Consulting Engineers
3820 East Valley Hwy S 4010 Lake Washington Blvd NE, #300
Renton, WA 98055 Kirkland, WA 98033
(425) 251-8100 (425) 827-5874
4. Date checklist prepared: January 22, 2007
5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Construction to commence immediately following the City of Renton review and permitting
processes (estimated to be June, 2007).
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected
with this proposal? If yes, explain,
No.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal.
Environmental checklist, geotechnical report, drainage report, traffic report.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain,
No.
10, List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known,
Environmental Review, Site Plan Review and Approval, Utility Construction Permit and
Building Permit.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and site.
The proposal is to develop a 4.51 acre property into an automobile dealership. The project
site is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH) in the Employment Area -Valley Comprehensive Plan
designation.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and
range if known, If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries
of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if
reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this
checklist.
The project Is located at 3401 East Valley Road in Renton, Washington. More generally,
the site is located in the Southwest'!. of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,
West Meridian.
M:IReports Correspondence and CalculationslMlSC-0166lReportslSEPA Checkllstlenvchlst-final.doc 2
• r
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1, EARTH
a, General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other ______ '
b, What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)
2% maximum.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any
prime farmland,
The USDA Soil Conservation Service maps show the soils in the western portion of
the site mapped as Snohomish silt loam (So). The SCS maps show the soils in the
eastern portion of the site mapped as Tukwila muck (Tu).
d, Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe,
The site is located in an area of susceptibility to liquefaction during seismic events.
e, Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of material, comprising select fill, base course,
and paving, will be imported to achieve finish grade.
f, Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Erosion could occur on the site when vegetation is removed. Water and wind
could erode exposed soils on the site.
g, About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
After project construction, the site will be comprised of approximately 12%
buildings, 69% impervious parking areas and drive aisles, and the remaining 19%
of the site will be pervious.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
During construction, the contractor will follow an approved erosion control plan
that will likely include silt fences, temporary construction entrances, storm inlet
protection and other temporary erosion control features. Minimizing soil
disturbances during rainy months will also reduce the potential for erosion.
M:\Reports Correspondence and Calculations\MISC-0166\Reports\SEPA Checklist\envchlst-final.doc 3
, .
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile,
odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
During project construction, heavy equipment operation and worker's vehicles
would generate exhaust emissions into the local air. Construction activity on the
site could also generate dust and particulate matter into the local air. After the
project is complete, vehicles would generate exhaust emissions into the local air.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
State Route 167 is located several hundred feet to the east of the site. Traffic on
the highway and adjacent streets would generate exhaust emissions into the local
air.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Dust control during construction and permanent landscaping for the completed
project.
3. WATER
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type
and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
Springbrook Creek is located approximately 1500 feet west of the project site.
Springbrook Creek flows into the Duwamish River, which flows into Elliott Bay.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Not applicable.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from
surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
Not applicable.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not applicable.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 DO-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
M:\Reports Correspondence and CalculationslMISC-0166lReporlslSEPA Checklistlenvchlst-final.doc 4
b. Ground Water:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other
sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of
such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Not applicable.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water
flow into other waters, If so, describe.
The source of storm water runoff will include the roof of the new building, parking
areas and drive aisles. Storm water runoff will be collected in a network of catch
basins and routed to a water quality/detention system. Discharge from the
detention system will be conveyed to the storm drain main in East Valley Road.
The flow in the main will be conveyed north along East Valley Road and discharged
into a drainage way at SW 23'd Street. The drainage way conveys flow to the west
and discharges into Springbrook Creek.
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Urban pollutants from automobiles and landscaping activities could enter the
proposed storm water drainage system.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if
any:
Water quality treatment facilities will be provided to treat the storm water runoff. In
addition, a detention system will be provided to release the flows at a rate no more
than the pre-developed runoff rates.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
__ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
__ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X __ shrubs
X~rass
__ pasture
__ crop or grain
__ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
__ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
__ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
The project would require removal of a significant portion of the site's existing
vegetation for the construction of access driveways, buildings, and other
infrastructure.
M:lReports Correspondence and CalculationslMISC·0166lReportslSEPA Checklis~envchlst·final.doc 5
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Not known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
An approved landscape plan will be prepared by a professional landscape
architect.
5. ANIMALS
a. Gircle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known
to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other _geese, _____ _
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other ..,---.,., _______ _
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _____ _
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Not known.
c. 15 the site part of a migration route? If 50, explain
Not known.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None proposed.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Electric and natural gas will be used for heating and lighting associated with the
project.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If 50,
generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Compliance with the Washington State Energy Code, utilizing efficient lighting and
HVAC equipment, possibly using a cool coated metal roof, and providing windows
with an appropriate shading coefficient.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk
of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this
proposal? If so, describe.
No hazardous materials are expected to be stored, handled or disposed of on-site.
M:\Reports Correspondence and Calculations\MISC·0166\Reports\SEPA Checklist\envchlst·finaJ.doc 6
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
None.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Not applicable.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Traffic noise from adjacent streets and State Route 167.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Construction equipment on a short-term basis. Since this business is currently in
operation across from and south on East Valley Road, there really won't be a long-
term increase of noise from what currently occurs in the existing business.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
None proposed.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is currently vacant. A retail recreational vehicle business is located south
of the site. A steel manufacturing facility is located west of the site.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Not known.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
None.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Heavy Industrial (IH).
f. What is the current comprehensive plan deSignation of the site?
The property Is located within the Employment Area -Valley Comprehensive Plan
designation.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Not applicable.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
The site is located In an area of susceptibility to liquefaction during seismic events,
but is otherwise not located in or near known critical or environmentally sensitive
areas.
M:IReports Correspondence and CalculationslMISC·0166lReportslSEPA Checklistlenvchlst·final.doc 7
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Approximately 30 to 40 people would work at the proposed facility.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None proposed.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
Comply with City of Renton Municipal Code.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.
None.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed.
The tallest part of the structure will be the parapet at about 25 feet. The primary
exterior building materials will be aluminum composite panels, painted horizontal
metal siding, painted vertical metal siding, and aluminum framed glass.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Only views onto the site would be altered by adding the building and associated
site Improvements.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
The building design will blend with the industrial neighborhood.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
The lighting will focus only on the building and site for nighttime safety and
display. The selection of the lighting will be such as to limit any direct glare
leaving the site.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
M:IReporis Correspondence and CalculationslMlSC-0166lReporlslSEPA Checklistlenvchlst-final.doc 8
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Existing street lighting exists along the adjacent streets.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Lighting will be directed onto the building and parking/display lot only.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Thomas Tinsdale Park, Cleveland Park, Springbrook Park and Fort Dent Park are 1
mile, 1·1/2 miles, 1·1/2 miles and 2 miles from the project site, respectively.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None proposed.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
Not known.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None proposed.
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The site will be accessed by driveways from SW 34" Street and East Valley Road.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
King County transit routes operate on Lind Avenue SW, approximately 1000 feet
west of the site.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
The project will have approximately 340 total stalls due to the nature of the
business being an automobile dealership; 40 stalls are for employees,
approximately 22 stalls are for customers, and the remainder are for display. The
project does not eliminate any existing parking spaces because the site is an
existing vacant lot.
M:IReports Correspondence and CalculationslMlSC·0166lReportslSEPA Checklist\envchlst-finaLdoc 9
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private?
No.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so, generally describe.
An existing rail road spur exists directly west of the site.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
A traffic analysis has not yet been completed for the project. Once the analysis is
completed, this information will be available.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Provide adequate parking on site to serve the intended use.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
The project will require service from both fire and police.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
General increase in land value will produce revenue from increased property taxes.
These taxes will provide revenue to the City of Renton which can be used to fund
these public services.
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, ~, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
ElectriCity and Natural Gas -Puget Sound Energy
Refuse Disposal-Waste Management
Water and Sewer -City of Renton
C. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and
complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance
that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or
willful lack of full diSC~?art.
Proponent: ~
Name Printed: ~ 13a."wu IS' .fL
Date: \ (lllcr:t
M:IReports Correspondence and CalculationslMlSC-0166lReportslSEPA Checklistlenvchlst-final.doc 10
,
PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY
OF 'IJASHINGTON, INC.
215 Columbia Street
Seattle, Washington 98104-1511
Senior Title Officer, LaVonne Bowman (lavonnebowman@pnwt.com)
Assistant Title Officer, Daisy Lorenzo (daisylorenzo@pnwt.com)
Assistant Title Officer I Kathy Turner (ka thyturner@pnwt. com)
Unit No. B
Key Bank
FAX No. (206)343-8403
Telephone Number (206)343-1328
3004 Auburn Way South
Auburn, WA 98002
Attention: Ramona Schrader
Your Ref., CHURCH
Title Order No., 645470
Effective Date,
A. L. T. A. COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
January 30, 2007, at 8:00 a.m.
1. Policy lies) to be issued,
~~TA Loan Policy
Standard ( ) Extended (X)
Amount
Premium
Tax (8.8%)
COMMERCIAL/REFINANCE/PRIOR DISCOUNT RATE
Proposed Insured: KEYBANK
$ 6,000,000.00
$
$
3,524.00
310.11
2. The Estate or interest in the land described herein and which is
covered by this commitment is fee simple.
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Commitment
vested in:
PENNY R. CHURCH, as her separate estate
4. The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the State of
Washington, and described as follows:
As on Schedule A, page 2, at~ached.
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
Page 2
Order No. 645470
The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the State of
Washington, and described as follows:
Lot 1, Burlington Northern, a Binding Site-Plan, according to the
plat thereof recorded in Volume 161 of P.lats I pages 8 through 11,
inclusive, in King County, Washington.
END OF SCHEDULE A
NOTE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY,
The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the
documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. Said abbreviated
legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description
within the body of the document.
Lot 1, Burlington Northern, a B.S.P., Vol. 161, pgs. 8-11
.J,
PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC.
A.L.T.A COMMITMENT
Schedule B Order No. 645470
I. The following are the requirements to be complied with:
A. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be
insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly filed
for record.
B. Payment to or for tne account' of the 9.rantors or mortgagors of
the full consideration for the es.tate or interest to be
insured.
II. Schedule B of the Policy or Policies to be issued (as set forth in
Schedule A) will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the
same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company:
A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters,
if any created, first appearing in the public records or
attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to
the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the
estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment.
B. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the
public records.
2. Public or private easements, or claims of easements! not
shown by the public record.
3. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other
matters which would be disclosed by an accurate surveyor
inspection of the premises.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or
material heretofore or hereafter furnished! imposed by law and
not shown by the public records, or Liens under the Workmen's
Compensation· Act noc shown by the public records.
5. Any title or rights asserted by anyone ·including but not
limited to persons, corporations, governments or other
entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or
bottoms of navigable rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or sound, or
lands beyond the line of the harbor lines as established or
changed by the United States Government.
6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or
exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance
thereofi (c) water rights, claims or title to water.
7. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance,
capacity, or construction charges for sewer, water,
elect.rici ty or garbage removal.
8. General taxes not ~ow payable or matters relating to
special assessments and special levies, if any, preceding the
same becoming a lien.
9. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or
aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or
equitable servitudes.
C. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, As on Schedule B, attached.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS,
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE B
Page 2
NOTE FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY,
I
Order No. 645470
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1997, AND PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT OF WASHINGTON
STATE STATUTES RELATING TO STANDARDIZATION OF RECORDED DOCUMENTS,
THE FOLLOWING FORMAT AND CONTENT REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET. FAILURE
TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE DOCUMENT BY THE RECORDER.
FORMAT,
MARGINS TO BE 3" ON TOP OF FIRST PAGE, I" ON SIDES AND BOTTOM -I"
ON TOP, SIDES AND BOTTOM OF EACH SUCCEEDING PAGE. RETURN ADDRESS IS
ONLY ITEM ALLOWED WITHIN SAID 3" MARGIN. NOTHING WITHIN 1" MARGINS.
FONT SIZE OF 8 POINTS OR LARGER AND PAPER SIZE OF NO MORE THAN
8 1/2" BY 14".
NO ATTACHMENTS ON PAGES SUCH AS STAPLED OR TAPED NOTARY SEALS;
PRESSURE SEALS MUST BE SMUCGED.
INFORMATION WHICH MUST APPEAR ON THE FIRST PAGE,
RETURN ADDRESS, WHICH MAY APPEAR WITHIN THE UPPER LEFT HAND 3"
MARGIN.
TITLE OR TITLES OF DOCUMENT.
IF ASSIGNMENT OR RECONVEYANCE, REFERENCE TO RECORDING NUMBER OF
SUBJECT DEED OF TRUST.
NAMES OF GRANTOR(S) AND GRANTEE(S) WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITIONAL
NAMES ON FOLLOWING PAGES, IF ~~Y.
ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION (LOT, BLOCK, PLAT NAME, OR SECTION,
TOWNSHIP, RANGE AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION FOR UNPLATTED) .
ASSESSOR'S TAX PARCEL ~0MBER(S).
(continued)
:it'.
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE B
Page 3
Order No. 645470
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (continued:,
1. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS. AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED THEREIN, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING,
GRANTEE,
PURPOSE,
AREA AFFECTED,
RECORDED,
RECORDING NUMBER,
Burlington Northern Railroad
Company I a Delaware corporation
Railroad right-oE-way
The westerly and southerly portions
of said premises
October 21/ 1981
8110210541
Said easement was partially released as to the southerly portion
of said right-af-way by instrument recorded under Recording
Number 9203200273.
2. RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF,
BY,
RECORDED,
RECORDING NUMBER,
REGARDING,
Powell Development Company HeWA
Realty Corp., a Washington
corporation
June 30, 1992
9206302702
Reciprocal easements and covenants,
conditions and restrictions
First Amendment to Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded under
Recording Number 960208l3.99.
3. EASEMENT AS DELINEATED AND/OR DEDICATED ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT,
PURPOSE, Utilities
AREA AFFECTED, Hesterly portion of said premises
4. EASEMENT AS DELINEATED AND/OR DEDICATED ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT,
PURPOSE,
AREA AFFECTED,
Landscape and utilities
Northerly and easterly 10 feet of
said premises
( continued)
•
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT
SC'lEDULE B
Page 4
5. NOTES CONTAINED IN SAID PLAT AS FOLLOWS,
Order No. 645470
Development or construction of any improvements upon the real
property herein described shall be in accordance with the binding
site plan approved by the City of Reriton on May 21, 1992, and the
(final pl:'t") (final planned unit devel~pment) approved by the City
of Renton.
This binding site plan and all of its requirements shall be legally
enforceable on any purchaser or other person acquiring an interest
in the within described Leal property and all portions of the
property in this bindi~g sire plan and subject to setback
requirements of City of Renton Subdivision Ordinance.
6. Right of the public to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon
said premises in the reasonable original grading of streets,
avenues, alleys and roads, as dedicated in the plat.
7 . GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES .lIND CHARGES, FIRST HALF DELINQUENT MAY 1,
IF UNPAID, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT NOVEMBER 1, IF UNPAID,
YEAR:
TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER:
LEVY CODE,
2007
125360-0010-07
2110
CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE, Land, $1,473,600.00
~mprovements: $0.00
AMOUNT BILLED
GENERAL TAXES, $16,182.59
SPECIAL DISTRICT: $163.09
$1.95
$9.99
TOTAL BILLED: $16,358.02 PAID: $0.00 TOTAL DUE, $16,358.02
8. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS )"\ND CONDITIONS THEREOF:
GRANTOR,
TRUSTEE,
BENEFICIARY,
Eugene T. Church and Penny R.
Church, husband and wife
Pacific Northwest Title Company of
Washington Inc.
Keybank National Association
(continued)
AMOUNT,
DATED,
RECORDED,
RECORDING NUMBER,
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE B
Page 5
I
$1,900,000.00
May 5, 2000
May 11, 2000
20000511001886
Order No. 645470
The amount now secured by said Deed of Trust and the ter.ms upon
which the s~e can be discharged or assumed should be ascertained
from the holder of the indebtedness secured.
DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF,
RECORDED,
RECORDING NUMBER,
June 22, 2005
20050622001966
9. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CERTIFICATS AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT AND THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF,
RECORDED,
RECORDING NUMBER,
May 11, 2000
20000511001887
10. Unrecorded leaseholds, if'anYi rights of vendors and holders of
security interests on personal property installed upon said property
and rights of tenants to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of
the term.
11. Matters relating to ALTA Extended Policy coverage and/or Homeowners
Endorsement coverage: The results of our inspection will be
furnished by supplemental report.
NOTE 1: A search of the records has disclosed nothing derogatory
against the vestee(s) herein.
NOTE 2: Upon notification of cancellation, there will be a minimum
cancellation fee of $50.00 plus tax of $4.40.
END OF SCHEDULE B
Title to this property was examined by:
Rob E. Chelton
Any inquiries should be directed to one of the title officers set forth
in Schedule A.
can/20000511001885/20040521001019
Burlington Northern
PCL.A
IS?378_79
92441001
'10 ,
I , ,
I , ,
"
I~
,:;; 1' ... ~
( _____ : __ ~~B __ _
, ,
Ii , ,
I
",\!
PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE
Company of Washington, Inc_
161/8-11
" ~ I1_S -I W
s.w. 34THST--------=>leo
, -,
,
I
I
I
LOT1
Order No.
'"
11I'IS SI
UII 'C ..,
645470
IMPORTANT: This is not a Plat of Survey. It is furnished as a
convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to
streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance
hereon.
N
Printed: 02-14-2007
Payment Made:
CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Land Use Actions
RECEIPT
Permit#: LUA07 ·020
02/14/2007 10:09 AM Receipt Number:
Total Payment: 1,500.00 Payee: YOUNKER NISSAN
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Trans Account Code Description
5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review
5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
Payment Check #055183 1,500.00
Account Balances
Amount
500.00
1,000.00
Trans Account Code Description Balance Due
3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee
5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees
5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers
5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat
5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees
5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review
5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat
5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat
5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD
5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees
5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment
5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks
5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone
5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt
5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline subst Dev
5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval
5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review
5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees
5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee
5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend
5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies
5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable)
5954 650.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits
5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage
5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
R0700627