Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Report 01
PARTIES Of RECORD IKENNYDAlE APARTMENTS LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H Todd Sherman Development Project Manager Conner Homes 846 108th Avenue NE ste: #200 Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 646-4448 eml: todds@connerhomes.com (party of record) Howard & Beatrice Seelig 6(gO/I)' PO Box ~ ~5"1.. Bellevue, WA 9899~ ,\sooZ tel: (425) 746-9780 (owner / applicant) Brad Faulkes PO Box 4248 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Tim McGruder Eastside Autobon PO Box 370 Kirkland, WA 98083 (party of recprd) Douglas Pomeroy 7714 111th Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 tel: (425) 999-6058 (party of record) Updated: 01/1.0/12 Kennydale Neighborhood Association Attn: Darius Richards PO Box 3115 Renton, WA 98056 eml: dariusvicki@msn.com (party of record) June Houson 11030 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 (party of record) Brad Faulkes 7711 111th Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 (party of record) Susan R. Irwin 7701 111th Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 (party of record) Hiro & Yuka Tojo 11103 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 tel: (425) 765-6941 (party of record) Carl Pirscher CDA Architects 20011 Ballinger Way NE ste: #200 Shoreline, WA 98155 tel: (206) 368-9668 eml: carlp@cdaarch.com (contact) Joyce & John Parente 11129 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 eml: jepiip@comcast.net (party of record) Rita Mayeaux Apartment Insi9hts 16030 E Tumbleweed Drive Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 (party of record) John Murphy 4314 148th Street SE Bothell, WA 98012 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) ~ 0 M '1J _. J> '" R-,0 c:: :::l'< '"' 2. 0 § M ..... rE-= ... 0::0 ~ ~ = <' ('!l :: (ii' ::I M _ ...... ©J o 0 :::l :J LANDSCAPE ANAL YSTIS TOTAl... 51TE 5;=, 205,%5 Sf' (AFTER R.Olli. DEDICATION) FOOTPRINT t.REA, 44,612 SF EXISTING. IMPERvIOUS AREA: IZ) 5F PROPOSED IMFEFMOUS AREA: 140.016 SF LAND5CAp= AREA (INT:.RIORJ: 6,1"'''' Sf LANDSCAPE A~A (PERIMETER), 5~)14 SF F!:RCENTA6E OF LOT COvERED SY E'.llILDING5 OR STRUCTURES, 21% BUILDING ARE;:A, FARKINC. REQUIRED: RESIDENTIAL BLoc. FLOORS 1-3 FLOOR 4-;' FLOOR b TOTAL 5F FI PARKING F2 PARKING TOTAL SF COM"1ERCIAL TOTAL SF !-lOse Y I INCUSAT OR TOTAL SF APARTMENTS: MIN, I PER L-"'l11 230 X I : 23051 AlL5 RETAIl! OfFICE. MIN, ') PER lZ~ 5f 3??3 SFI1;ZY.OlO x 2 ' 1 SiAl!..S ~05B"'/INCUBATQR ~06BY SPACE: 1 PER I.S,*, SF OFFICE: 2 FER 1000 SF 41}11Zi (,,3)= 123.810 SF 35,28~ (x2). 1/Zl?18 Sf 26,128 SF r-nl,lIb SF 41,IZlSS SF 38::I&S 5F OO,ZJ28 SF 2)% SF • 1258 SF 3?53 SF 4"~1ZI SF "0$100 SF '30% HOBBY SPAC<=:· 3b~ SF ' 24 SiALLS t/Zl'" OFFICE, 4.000 SF • 8 STALLS FARl(IN(:, PROVIDED, TOTA!...· I 26S STALLS REOJIRED I AT C:::<:ADE PARJ<.INC: (EA5! LOT). 1& ,;rALLS (110 STANDARD .. ':I'-IZ)')< 23'-@') City of Renton Planning Division AT GRADE PAR!<.INC: (WEST LOiS) • 113 STAI...L.S (10':1 STANDARD .. ':I'-IZ)")< 20'-0") (4 ACCESSIBLE" a'-IZ)")< 20'-0") PI PARKING LEVEL· 12l STANDARD STALLS (113 STANDARD '" ':1'-0")< 1~'-0"} ~UG 1 2 1011 [g{~~[E~~~lQ) (4 ACCESSIBLE" ':1'-0")< 16'-0") PI PA~ING lEv::L • 13b SiANDARD SiALLS (1310 STANDARD Ii) e'-0")< 1.,'-0') TOiAL, I 3~ STAllS PROVliJ~D I rn:m iL!Y I , ! ! ! "' ,q ., I ! .-. -. --- ~ '" z ;;; W~ >:ill r ~ill ~ Il'll' ~ ~~ Z IL'" ~ ~" ~ ill W~ IL :::t~ "'l ~~~-g~ ~ -.:. § 5i~ ~ ~ ~ ~!:3 ~:PIRH"I __ •. 13~ ~:-:~';;,.- Icu~ ~ 101001 ~ I I ! I l '.11 ' !II 1'1 ' , I I ! I I· f---'----'------tl I I! I I ' dl2 {jjjj] -0(') !fd; > or ;:;. c: "''< {jjjj] ,,"", '" -5' 0 = "" '0 ..... ~ 8 o;:x, ;;;' ('0 (ii' ::l IQJ -, .... go ,:, z ~() ~o ;z -n am 'll ~--j c l> r r l> Z \J (j) n l> II m II r l> z )' ----------- C j'H' 1'::01 -NE 48T~ STREET m'llUll KENN'rDALE APARTMENTS ---u ~ I q ~:! RENT(;N. UJA ,£ !:: :::...., .... <> Ic:r. I ;: Ig CONCEFTUAl LANDSCAPE PLAN ---------------"-- I I I / I I 1/ Iii" I / I ( I , I Ii Ii i ! Ii I ; II I ; ,i I (~ i~ '\,1 i~ ~\ ,1,\,0 ~ \ i ~I ~ '. I 'I r \ ttl ~ JI· ~ /' I ' I I I , , , i : , , , ";/ ,--JI • (1/1 I' /J \ ~r 1./ II ~ 1 I" i , , \ , , \ \ ... I ,1::;1 ! II" I " \ , \ , , , i , i ! , \ i i i ! : \1) : I " '. I I \: I 1\ \ I 1\ \1 .1 \ \ I i, 1\ , : I) I : '1 I i ' II ': Ii ! I I"i i I "I ,', , 1\, " , , , , -- ---- --+-.;.. I i _(_"-__ L __ _ ---1--- I i m l> (f> --< (f> () I m :::r l> --< () m r m < l> --< ~ (f> ~ iil (f> \J m z --< l> r UJ c r \J ~ ~ ~ !fifil ~ ffi = ~ ffi ©l ". co co ..... to<> '-' ~ z ~ll :;;1> .!U .. 7\ ~z %\ r m <: m r C'> "'0 _. -.... g;,< ;2. 0 ::l ..... en lJ 0 <' CIl vi" ::l o· ..... 0 ::l :l I -~ -- ® -- -- --------------i I I . I @ I ~0e- g[ - --------=-U.J~ -! G' -- ® ® (p--=----I- 1>-- r--,_ - (Jl_ - ---- ---- -J;; - - -,C--~ --'-.. ,~. c I II : KENNYDALE APARTMENTS I':lZlI -NE 48TI-l STREET RENTON.IL'A m'III' lJ ! 'll! EI' l' s" ~, .. " 1 ~ ~ CONCEPTUAL PARKING GARAGE PLANS (PI l P2) z h :~ 1:> .!U '7\ ~z ~G\ r rn <: m r r----- I I I , I , , I I , I , , , 'L ____ _ "8 ;~; !i----l--, '" 11--1--' -' ~I--I--~ (Jl i---j---.~ -I . __ lIt:::==' 1> -1:= (Jl z 0 ~/U \~ rJl C(f> "-:, D ~ rll ~Z -I 1> .- "11 .- 0 0 ill ~ "II ,- Cl Cl /1J ~, ~ i I KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 1';101 -NE 48TI-: STREET z 0 ~/U r;,m :'(j) ~D Qm 6z "-1 1> .- ." .- 0 0 ill , ~ ." r Cl Cl /1J .t. , \J1 ~ RESIDENTIAL FLoOR PLANS z ~/1J ~m ~(j) ~D C!fT] 6Z "-1 1> ~ ~ .-r 8 ." ~ .-0 I 0 [F ~ 0 /1J [] I~ ~ ." .- 0 !:!=5 ~ 0 /1J , '" ~ ~ IFiiiJ :t>- (f?) = "" IFiiiJ -.,. = ~ _. ~ IFiiiJ g 'Z ~(j\ ~o .1) ~m 01> 'z I> r ~ (j\ (j\ 1) r I> '1J ill .:t '" '" 0 S' .... (Q :II 0 <' ('p Vi' ::I 0' ..... '" 0 ::l I''ili~'" • '. 1 •• 5 i ... l ' m • ! l> , I Z ! /! i -< '" a; \ , \ '. , \ '\ \ \ , \ \ \ I 1 I, \,1 \, \1 , z ,~ ~ \ ~ KENNTDALE APARTMENTS 1901 • NE 46TI-l STREET !O£NTO>!, UJA ~ -~. SLOPE ANAL YSI& PLAN §"'I=] ~ ." 0 --l /U rn rn -I () OJ rn (j) l> < 111 IJ () c 1) -n --------7-' I z ~-j ~AJ em ,: m ~AJ om '::{ CI < J> r (, lJ ' ' r 'b J> z KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 1901 -NE 4BT~ STREET RENTON, \iJA TREE REMovAL PLAN i I ________ ---L-_ '---=--------oc-----~-_____ \ , \ ' \ .! , , \ F ! , .1 0 , \ " oj! " I" '·1 '.1 "j I ; I ·Ii .!j 'I \ ' / ( , " / / Ii I / i ! il " /1 / [I / i I , , \, \ I \ \1 1 \ 'i, ., \ " I ' , '. " ~' \ I 'I \ I "I , , , , , , , , , , , , J , .,/ I....) " // l' J ( /1 1/1 \ I !>'~ I, ' I li! i (' , , : , ! i , \ \ \, , " \ \ , I : , I ! " I,' I \1 i \ I ) I I :1 \ 1 ' \ 1 1 \ I 1\ \1 I' ": '1 ' '" 1 \, , : I:' I Ii .I /1 ! I i I \1 ,\ I \,, \ § ! \ \ " _\ ~" I ""'0' \=i:jt 0 - -\ \ \ \ \ \ , ' , ' , ' ~.%~ I!IJ.~ 151 :iQJ lJiiiI (0) lJiiiI = ~ ©I "'-<= ""' 0- "" ~ KENNYDALE APARTHENTS I~ZlI • NE 48T~ STREET RENTOI.I1IA ~ .. " ... TOPOClRAPI-IIC PLAN (flZ Om l>-r(;\ miji = G II IU -r ~ G ~G 1 \J ~ = \J m --t l> r :l l> 1) 29 M tD) M = ~ M ©J -00 J> or;:> co :J'<: co :J ...... -·0 ~ cB .... ~ o:x:l =: <. (j) iii· d -...... g 0 :l ~(j) F- 111---1 ;rn ,,'- "(jJ ~r ~O GI (P III () -j 0 Z -' / / / I I I , , I ' I .1 i -t-l~----- KENN'rDA!..E APARTM:;:NT5 1'3@1 -NE 48T~ STREET RENTON.1l:A I I" I , , , , i I I I I , , , , , , I I I , , I , , , , I , 6C~EMATIC SITE! BUILDING SECTIONS (j) -j III '- r o GI (j) rn () -j o Z il' ! / --r-'-~ --- --- , I " I ; I , , , , , , (j) -j III '- (jJ ,- 0 GI (j) rn () • -j 0 Z U' j h ) -'f--"~-'---- - - (j) --j m "-tJJ r \J G\ (j) m \I -. ~ ."" ~ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I h ! B H ,I , . • • II i ~ KENN,DALE APARTMENTS 1901 -NE 48T~ STREET RENTON,I1M (j) --j m "-tJJ r \J G\ (j) m \I --j 0 Z \)J ,I 11 H H-; ! i· .' Ii ~ t ------ (j) -I m OJ r \J G\ (j) III \I -, ~ 5C~=MATIC SITEI BUILDING SECTION5 ! • l! i ! " , , ~ ~l ') ~ ~ .. I ~ .1 , . ,- Ii B (j) --j m "-tJJ r \J G\ (j) m \I -, 0 Z • 1 1 1 1 , ~ .. '. ~ " I ~ .1 I , . I " I I' ~ ~ L I! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ! t I , 1 ~ 1 ------ :JQ] INiJ -00 tn ". gr~ c: .,., INiJ :J ---0 = "" <5 .... ~ ~ 0:0 =:: ;::. (j) iii :l © -..... g 0 :J ;," . . ,_ .... :,-,·~ ..... ,==De_~;~,;,:;,,~:.a:w :l!il¥!!!!I';SJ .• ~~' .····.·.i; •• • •• r~~~ "March 11;2014 " 'Howard &,BeatriceSeelig " PK Eriterpris~s' '",' "'" '" ,23035·SE 2~3'd S!reet " 'Mapr~Valley;WA 98038 , ,'DepartmeritofCommunityand Ec~nomkDev~l~prnent ", ' , ",' (E:C:hip'Vincent,Administrator '.'. -,' . Sl,IBJECT: ' ',ReqUestfur Exterisil'ln, Ken,;ydaleAp~rtme!its(lUAll:069, ECF,CU'H; SA-~) , -.. -. 'Dear,Mr.Seelig;' ' .. : , 'we~ave received ,and;evi~wed your request,datedJanuary ~0,:W14; to extend the period of.' validitY for the Kennydi.le Apar,t~entS Conditional Use and Site Pia n Review Permits. The site , plan w~sappro~ed on Fel:)ruary 13, 201i andwasvalidfor"twbyears, ,RMC4~7-070J,1:bailows fdr the',granting,of one extension for two additional yearsofapprO\i~liProvided the'request is' made pribrt6 the expirntion,'volJr,request meets requirementS of R~nton Mtinicipal Ccideand ' ','qualifies for ~b~e;timeextknsi9n Of tV;~ y'~ars, Therefore, the requested extension'Dfth~' " " period,ofyalidity forthesitl' planlsapp~ove(i. ' ,', , " , , , " ,YOUshpuldbe ii;";arethat this i~ the 6~ly'extel1si~n ,that will begr~~ted, lta bUilding,perrj,itis "', , , ,': notis5ued prior to Februafy 1{ 2016 thesif" plati,'dpprovai wilJ'e;'p(reand cCl~notbe exteiid~d, ' ' , ,ogain.,Please,col1tact Rocale Tirnmons,SeMiorPlannerat (425) 430c7219 if you have any , " 'questionsregarding~hi5IerteL ' ' . . , Sin~ereiy, " '. : \ . ." Q)~ {Ud{L(-0W cf' :, . : jennlfe~ T. -~~~'ning, AI~'p:: .' PI?nning Direct'or, . cc.: .' Chjpvincent; tED'A&ninjstr~tor' Neil'Watts;'Oevelopment Services Director' . ". '\/an,essa ~Ibe~,' curre!1t·.j>'an.~i.ng Manager'· ... . ~ocale Timm~Hl.i,· ~enior PlannN . : . ~Sa·Mc~I~~~~ ~e<;.retary·· . . .. Parties 9f R.eco~.d .;. ,', , .... " .. . : ~ RentonCityHall ~ '055 South Gradyl'(aY • Rer\ton,washi~gton Q8057; rentonwi>:g~v " :-. '" .' .. '-' '. '. " ..... . "'- "', , • C-, -CF PlANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M) -MITIGATED Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to the Kennydale Apartments by the City of Renton (LUAll-069) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Memo: June 6, 2014 Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: February 4,2012 Proponent: Howard & Beatrice Seelig; PO Box 1925; Bellevue, WA 98009 Project Number: LUA11-069, SA-H, ECF, CU-H Project Name: Kennydale Apartments Location of Proposal: 1901 NE 48th St Lead Agency: City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit approval, for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as hobby/incubator space. The primary residential structure would range -in height from 12 feet to 68 feet with an average height of approximately 62 feet. The mid-rise five-and partial six-story mixed use building would total 219,609 square feet of space over a basement level parking garage and an additional partial sub-basement parking floor containing a total of 263 structured parking stalls. The applicant is proposing a 129 surface parking stalls of which 16 parallel stalls would be located to the east of the mixed use structure and 109 stalls to the west of the mixed use structure. The proposed hobby/incubator building would be located beneath surface parking stalls west of the mixed use building. The proposal would have an approximate density of 50 dulac. The subject site is located on the south side of NE 48th Street, just east of Lake Washington Blvd N. The eastern property line is bordered by the City of Newcastle. The property is located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning classification. The site is currently vacant. Access to the site would be provided off NE 48th St via two driveways resulting in a private loop road on-site. The easterly 86-foot portion of the site would be set aside as open space and would be used as a buffer for the proposed mixed-use structure. The site is located within a High City of Renton Department of Communit\ :onomic Development Addendum to Environmental Review LUA11-069, SA-H, CU-H, VAR, MOD Page 2 of4 Kennydale Apartments June 6, 2014 Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. Protected slopes, which exceed a 40 percent grade, are also located on site but would not be impacted as part of the proposal. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on February 13, 2012, the City's Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Kennydale Apartments (Exhibit 6). The DNS-M included 9 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on February 17, 2012 and ended on March 2, 2012. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Aerial Photograph Site Plan Transportation Impact Analysis (dated 5/25/11) PURPOSE: A traffic study prepared by Popp and Associates, dated May 25, 2011, was submitted with the site plan application which included recommendations and mitigation measures addressing driveway locations, traffic circulation to and from the site, site distance issues and extension of the center turn lane in NE 48th St to the east. The study also included impacts to the intersections of Lake Washington Blvd and NE 48th St, and Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44th St with consideration being given to pipeline projects such as the Port Quendall site. The Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street/I-405 SB Ramp intersection is currently operating at LOS F whereas the Lake Washington Boulevard /NE 44th Street//1-405 NB Ramps intersection is estimated to be currently operating at LOS D. In order to not exacerbate the Levels of Service at these intersections, the following mitigation measure was issued as part of the original DNS-M: 7. At the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/I-405 Northbound Ramp's intersection and the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/I-405 Southbound Ramp's intersection there shall be signalization of the intersection as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis, dated May 25, 2011 (Exhibit 8) prior to building permit approval. Since the time of the approvals, in 2011, there is now uncertainty about the timing of pipeline development projects and the potential traffic they would generate. And while the signalization of the Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street/I-405 southbound ramps would improve the level of service conditions at the respective ramp terminals, they would significantly degrade the level of service northbound of Lake Washington Boulevard. Until such time as Lake Washington Boulevard is improved west of the 1-405 southbound ramps, in addition to the improvement of the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and Sea hawks Way, the signalization of the 1-405 southbound ramp intersection is no longer recommended. In lieu of this improvement staff recommends the original mitigation measure be revised to read: 7. The applicant shall provide monetary contribution to the City of Renton towards intersection improvements at the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/I-405 Northbound Ramp's intersection and the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/l-405 Southbound Ramp's intersection prior to building permit approval. The amount of contribution is estimated at $26.210, based on the traffic study prepared by Popp and Associates, dated May 25, 2011. The applicant shall City of Renton Department of Communit. =onomic Development Addendum to Environmental Review LUAll-069, SA-H, CU-H, VAR, MOD Page 3 of4 Kennydale Apartments June 6,2014 also be required to extend the eastbound right turn lane at the intersection of NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard/I-405 NB ramps. The eastbound right turn lane will need to be stop controlled and the layout approved by the WSDOT and the City of Renton. The construction of this additional stacking capacity should insure that time of travel eastbound thru the ramp terminus intersections is not degraded as a result of the subject project. All other Mitigation and Recommendations (1-6 and 9) identified in the June 6, 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis on pages 22-24 shall remain unchanged and the applicant will still be required to pay Traffic Mitigation fees in addition to improvement costs. ANALYSIS: It has been determined that the environmental impacts of the proposal were adequately addressed under the analysis of significant impacts contained within the previous DNS-M. However, the mitigation prescribed was not.appropriate for addressing the impacts. Based on WAC 197-11-600(4) c, the addendum process may be used if analysis or information is added that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The proposed change in mitigation will not change the analYSis or impacts in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review. However, this addendum will modify a single mitigation measure of the DNS- M issued on February 4, 2012 to eliminate the requirement for a traffic signal and allow for a monetary contribution towards the required intersection improvements. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor information not included in the original Determination and there no environmental impacts related to inclusion ofthe new information. DECISION: The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-600. Mitigation #7 shall be revised to read: 7. .o.t tile bal\e WaslliRgteR 1l1'la/N!; ~~tll st/l ~QS ~lertllI:Je~Ra RaR1j3'S iRterseetieR aRa the Lal(e 'A'asRingten 81¥eI/~JE 41tR ~t/I 4Q§ §el:JtAee~IREI RaFRJ3's interseetisn there sRalll3e signalizati9R af tRe intersectioA as s)3€eifiea in tAB TraUie IFR)33et Analysis, elates May 2§, 2Ql1 (!;lIlliI:Jit 8) flrier teI:J~ilaiRg flerR1it aflflreval. The applicant shall provide monetary contribution to the City of Renton towards intersection improvements at the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/I-405 Northbound Ramp's intersection and the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/I-405 Southbound Ramp's intersection prior to building permit approval. The amount of contribution is estimated at $26.210. based on the traffic study prepared by Popp and Associates. dated May 25. 2011. The applicant shall also be required to extend the eastbound right turn lane at the intersection of NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard/I-405 NB ramps. The eastbound right turn lane will need to be stop controlled and the layout approved by the WSDOT and the City of Renton. The construction of this additional stacking capacity should insure that time of travel eastbound thru the ramp terminus intersections is not degraded as a result of the subject project. City of Renton Department of Communit\ Kennydale Apartments June 6, 2014 ;onomic Development Addendum to Environmental Review LUAll-069, SA-H, CU-H, VAR, MOD Page 4 of 4 There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated June 6, 2014 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. SIGNATURES: ~~~~~ ____ rC~~y __ __ Date Date Date ~~~==-~-I I, //4- C.E. "Chip" incent, Administrator ~ Department of Community & Date Economic Development RENT~ .10 ...... ' '''~ "".~. ,1 J i. , ... , ~ ... II'! ; : S -, 399.2 .. ',~ 6. ~' . ! l>1, " Cily 01 Renton. WashIng!on lUA 11-069 Kennydale Apartments !EXHIBIT 1 user generated static output from an InIamet mapping site and e only. Oata layers that appear on IhI:s map may or may not be accurate, QJI'Ilttlt, or otherwise reIlabIe. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVlGAnON 0 Parcels Street Names Rights of W11f Streets Roads Jurisdictions Cl ....... 0 Ca_ e: '-' G .... 0 ..... CauoIr 0 --0 ......... 0 RENTON 0 SooToc 0 ---0 T_ Aerial (MarcI12010) 0 R.i: Bm::I_1 0 ~Ban('-2 CJ BIta Bend_3 1:2.395 @8.5",,11· o I=~~_I I ~ II.~II'I'III ~ : :;;iii1i£ ~II! L __________ ~~~::'!..~:::!:'!::::'. Cl It! o ---l o U William Popp Associates . Transportation Engineers/Planners. (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com TRAJFJ81C IMPACT ANALYSIS for Kennydale lResidentiaVCommercial Mixed-Use Development !EXHIBIT 3 Prepared/or: Seelig Family Properties Prepared by: . William Popp Associates 14-400 Building, Suite 206 14400 Bel-Red Rd Bellevue, W A 98007 June 16, 2011 14-400 Building. Suite 206 • 14400 Bel-Red Road. Bellevue, WA 98007 Todd Sherman Development Project Manager Conner Homes 846 108th Avenue NE #200 Bellevue, WA 98004 Howard & Beatrice Seelig PO Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Brad Faulkes PO Box 4248 Renton, WA 98057 Tim McGruder Eastside Autobon PO Box 370 Kirkland, WA 98083 Douglas Pomeroy 7714 111th Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Kennydale Neighborhood Association Attn: Darius Richards PO Box 3115 Renton, WA 98056 June Housen 11030 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Brad Faulkes 771111lth Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Susan R.lrwin 770111lth Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Hiro & Yuka Taja 11103 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Carl Pirscher CDA Architects 20011 Ballinger Way NE #200 Shoreline, WA 98155 Joyce & John Parente 11129 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Rita Mayeaux Apartment Insights 16030 E Tumbleweed Drive Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 John Murphy 4314 148th Street 5E Bothell, WA 98012 ." William Popp Associates Transportation Planners & Engineers MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECf: REFERENCES: Background Doug Jacobson, P.E. Bill Popp, Sr., P.E. November 20, 2013 (425) 40 I-I 030 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com Kennydale Apartments Traffic Mitigation -All-way Stop Option for 1-405 SB ramp intersection 1) Neil Watts Memorandum re Kennydale Apartments Signalization Requirements 3/22/2012 2) HEX Project Findings and Recommendations 4/11/2012 3) Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines The above referenced HEX conditions stipulated installation of a signal at the 1-405 SB ramp terminal and addition of a southbound right turn lane on the north leg of the 1-405 NB ramp terminal. The conditions were based on a traffic analysis that assumed a substantial amount of traffic from both Hawk's Landing and Quendall Terminals developments. The Hawk's Landing developer has subsequently abandoned the project and the site plan has expired, but the master plan is still in force. However there is no formal alternative development for that site such that a background traffic assumption with horizon year can be currently specified. And Quendall Terminals is still involved with the "brown-fields" site remediation process with an EPA Record of Decision scheduled for late 2014 or early 2015. This means that their development is considerably farther off in the future than the likely horizon (full-build out) year for Kennydale Apartments. The above delays in major background developments should allow a major revision in the project horizon year traffic conditions and the resulting need for the improvements. As I understand it the city has the ability to redefine the traffic mitigation requirements should it choose to do so without further public or HEX process. Policy understanding The condition requiring signalization of the 1-405 SB ramp intersection is derived from the policy expressed in the March 8 staff report to the HEX page 25 which says " In order to not exacerbate the Level of Service (F) at the intersection, a SEPA mitigation measure was issued reguiring .... signalization ... ". This and other conditions of course were heavily influenced by the substantial amount of projected traffic generated by the delayed projects discussed above, butin any case it does not rule out not exacerbating the delay within the LOS F range as a measure of compliance with requirements. The City's Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analyses, Section F. Condition Analysis says "the developer is expected to maintain with their development the same level of service that would be anticipated in the horizon year if the site were not developed. (Unless the horizon year service level is C or above.)" 14-400 Building 0 Suite 206 014400 Bel-Red Road 0 Bellevue, WA 98007 •• • There is nothing in the Guidelines that indicates that LOS 0, E, or F are unacceptable and is silent on the possibility of improving sayan LOS F condition while still remaining within LOS F. In other words silent on the possibility of having a better or worse LOS F (or E, 0) which the delay basis for LOS grading permits one to do. Also with-project LOS C ratings or better do not require mitigation even though the LOS may be lower than the pre-project LOS. The Guidelines also say that traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for the project horizon year. Analysis This analysis focuses on project mitigation consisting of an all-way stop configuration for the Lk Wa Blvd/NE 44th StjI-405 SB ramps intersection. Current as well as prior analyses indicate the AM peak hour is the critical condition for the ramp terminal mitigation issue so this limited scope analysis is only for that period of time. Current traffic count data was not collected for the Lk Wa Blvd/NE 44th St/I-405 NB ramps intersection as re-analysis of that location and its prior mitigation requirement will follow given agreement that a revised project traffic analysis as suggested herein is acceptable to the City. The analysis assumes the full 230 unit apartment project per the application. It should be noted the developer is considering a much smaller project in the apparent absence of market acceptance of the current project. In the latter event the traffic hurdles would be even lower. Traffic Volumes To quantitatively measure the effectiveness of this all-way stop proposal we updated the AM and PM peak period traffic counts for the 1-405 SB ramp intersection and the background traffic growth estimate for a project horizon year of 2015. We also factored up 2010 count data from the Quendall Terminals OEIS for the Hazelwood Lane intersection. Delau/LOS analusis tools We then conducted delay analyses for future conditions with and without project using the micro-simulation tool Sim Traffic. We initially were working with Synchro's HCM based module and that yielded some extreme delay values for the SB off-ramp that were dramatically reduced with the all-way stop -this is what originally piqued my interest in the all-way stop solution and later this memo. But those results are sometimes substantially at odds with micro- simulation estimates. For instance, the HCM estimate of existing (2013 volumes) ramp delay for left turns was 430 seconds which suggests very long queues, but our count persons did not report that and we have heard similar confirmation from others of that non-event. The Sim Traffic estimate ofleft turn ramp delay is 41 seconds - a huge difference but more believable. The HCM methodology was used for all prior studies for this project and essentially for all traffic impact studies we conduct. However, because of your stated concern re impacts on Hazelwood Lane with the all-way stop recommendation at the ramp terminal, the simulation method of analysis was necessary to replicate queuing conditions on the major street, and thus it was selected for the ramp terminal analysis to maintain data comparability. The merits of one ramp terminal solution versus another are usually not as dramatic with micro-simulation, but we are more comfortable with our findings and conclusions using this tool even though the work is more time consuming. Page 2 of5 [-405 SB ramp intersection analysis For horizon year conditions without project, the estimate of average delay for the left turning ramp traffic is 42 seconds/vehicle (LOS E) and the overall intersection delay is 6 seconds/vehicle (LOS A). With the project traffic plus the all-way stop improvement, ramp delay for left turns improves significantly with a drop to 6 seconds (LOS A). The overall intersection delay increases to 24 seconds but still remains in the acceptable LOS C range. Therefore the improvement in the critical ramp left turn movement exceeds the City's policy guidelines of maintaining the same level of service with the development that would be anticipated in the horizon year if the site were not developed. And while the overall intersection LOS has dropped to C it still meets the guidelines. Signalization of this intersection per the HEX conditions results in 24 seconds (LOS C) of overall intersection delay which is also acceptable and coincidentally equal to the all-way stop LOS. So it could be said the all-way stop is equal in terms of LOS at this intersection to a signal installation for the given 2015 traffic volume conditions. Hazelwood Lane analyses For the nearby Hazelwood Lane intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard, the increased eastbound queues on Lake Washington Boulevard from all-way stop improvement at the ramp terminal result in significantly increased left turn delay on the Hazelwood Lane approach leg (from 13 seconds or LOS B, to 86 seconds or LOS F). It should be noted that the SimTraffic software does not account for the tendency of major street motorists to wave-in side street traffic under the slow moving conditions observed in the simulation, so we believe the 86 second estimate is significantly overstated. Above argument notwithstanding, the obvious option to consider for reducing the Hazelwood Lane delay caused by the all-way stop at the ramp consists of addition of an all-way stop at Hazelwood Lane. This action would lower the Hazelwood Lane left turn out delay to 9 seconds (LOS A), but it would cause significantly more delay for eastbound Lake Washington Boulevard traffic (from 4 seconds or LOS A, to 62 seconds or LOS F) and result in an overall intersection delay of 47 seconds (LOS E). The latter is versus 4 seconds for the unstopped horizon year background traffic condition. By comparison the HEX conditioned signal alternative for the SB ramp terminal results in some 99 seconds (LOS F) of Hazelwood left turn delay, versus 13 for the horizon year background condition, and an overall intersection delay of 14 seconds (LOS B) versus 4 seconds for the background condition. To sum up: 1) the ramp all-way stop substantially increases left turn-out delay for Hazelwood Lane -the ramp signalization alternative does it even more so; 2) the left turn out delay estimates are likely to be overstated for the slow moving conditions related to the ramp all way stop or the signal; 3) the all-way stop option at Hazelwood Lane substantially degrades through traffic LOS. In light of the above and the low volumes on the Hazelwood Lane approach leg, a no-action solution at this location is recommended for the 2015 horizon year traffic conditions and mitigation associated with Kennydale Apartments. Since a major development with access to Hazelwood Lane is contemplated for ilie longer range future, the solution for the potential Page 3 of5 Hazelwood intersection deficiencies will undoubtedly be a signal and of course the major development will drive that need. Stop sign and signal warrant analyses The all-way stop configuration meets MUTCD multi-way stop sign warrants using 2011 WSDOT 24 hour traffic volumes. But the intersection does not meet the MUTCD traffic volume warrants for signalization. Safety Considerations All-way stops are empirically the safest form of intersection control. Thus the signalization alternative, as well as the existing operation, are theoretically less safe. At some point in the future however, motorist delay takes over as the prime consideration and drives the need for the signal, but that event is not within the project horizon year and is likely to extend even a few years after that. Analysis using Ouendall Terminals and Hawks Landing traffic from prior study If one feels compelled to deal only with the HEX condition re the SB ramp terminal, the 2015 AM peak background condition (without Kennydale Apartments) results in an amazing 55,000 seconds of delay/vehicle (LOS F) for left turning ramp traffic and the overall intersection delay is 611 seconds (LOS F). With the project traffic added and mitigation consisting of the all-way stop, the left turn delay incredibly reduces to 13 seconds and the overall intersection delay reduces to 344 seconds -the latter still way into LOS F range. Nonetheless, it can be said that the developer has not exacerbated LOS F at the intersection, in fact he has improved it by significantly reducing the delay below the non project condition. The operation of the intersection however would be considered unacceptable for east -west motorists. With respect to the Hazelwood Lane issue, the addition of the Quendall Terminals traffic and resulting delay on that link are of such a magnitude that signalization of the intersection and approach widening will be essential, and the action would clearly be the responsibility of that developer whose direct access to the roadway created the problem. Timing wise his mitigation would obviously come much later than the all-way ramp stop improvement by Kennydale Apartments. Findings and Conclusions: 1. Background horizon year traffic conditions since the March 2012 hearing on the Kennydale Apartment project have changed substantially with the termination/suspension of the Hawk's Landing project and the continuing delays with the Quendall Terminals project. A 2015 horizon year for Kennydale Apartments or a lesser project is realistic -it is not a realistic target year for the other two major development locations and thus traffic impacts and improvements, if any, should derive from the reduced traffic demand. 2. Any mitigation that reduces an impacted intersection's delay to a level that is equal to or below the project horizon year background condition would be consistent with the City's traffic impact mitigation policy regardless of whether the delay falls in the LOS F range. Mitigation is not required if the LOS is C or above. Page 4 of5 " 3. The all-way stop improvement at the 1-405 SB off ramp satisfies (actually exceeds) the City's policy guidelines of maintaining the same level of service with the development that would be anticipated in the horizon year if the site were not developed. 4. The all-way stop improvement at the SB off ramp creates eastbound queuing on Lk Wa Blvd that results in significantly increased delay for the nearby Hazelwood Lane approach to its intersection with Lk Wa Blvd. But since 1) the Hazelwood approach volumes are quite low, 2) other options have more undesirable delay impacts, and 3) the queue estimates are believed to be overstated; no action is deemed appropriate. 6. The all-way stop configuration meets MUTCD multi-way stop sign warrants. But the intersection does not meet the MUTCD traffic volume warrants for signalization. The City's Guidelines say that traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet MUTCD warrants. Additional Rationale/Points o This all way stop proposal is not an outlier --in a different venue it would be considered a valid short range traffic improvement action, especially since the intersection meets all-way stop sign warrants and does not meet the major signal warrants. o This action preserves the City's traffic mitigation fees for more worthwhile projects - recall that the staff recommended a 50% credit toward the impact fee for the ramp terminal improvements' construction cost. o Also the action could be done very early to start realizing benefits for today's motorist. Note that our 2005 study of the Seelig Kennydale site identified the need for all-way stop control at the eastside ramp terminal and in that same year WSDOT implemented it. o Considering the fact that the adopted 1-405 Master Plan will completely rebuild the whole interchange and that action is likely in the not too distant future, a new signal installation at this location and improvements at the other ramp terminal might be considered a wasteful endeavor, especially if there is little new development traffic to utilize the improvements, if even for a short while. o This all-way stop action would also be consistent with Watt's memo statements that the interchange "does not have sufficient capacity for additional traffic without some level of improvements"; and "the first projects will only be required to install the first level of improvements ..... The all-way stop solution meets the "some level of improvement", "sufficient capacity for incremental increased traffic volume" and "first level of improvements" requirements. The difference between this dialogue and the LOS discussion above is Watt's use of the term "sufficient capacity" which can be considered interchangeable with "reduced delay" as the primary measure of intersection LOS improvement. Attachments I. 2015 AM Peak Hr Intersection Delay / LOS results 2. Stop Sign and Signal Warrant Analyses -NE 44th StlLk Wa Blvd/l-405 SB Ramps Page 5 of5 Attachment 1 2015 AM Peak Hr Intersection Delay! LOS Results Condition I Intersections Approach Delay LOS Control A Background Traffic with existing conditions 1-405 SB Ramp Terminal All 6 A SBL 42 E Stopped EBT A Hazelwood Lane/Lk Wa Blvd All 4 A SBL 13 B Stopped EBT 4 A B Background Plus Project with existing conditions 1-405 SB Ramp Terminal All 8 A SBL 54 F Stopped EBT 1 A Hazelwood Lane/Lk Wa Blvd All 3 A SBL 12 B Stopped EBT 3 A C Background Plus Project with All-Way Stop condition at SB Ramp 1-405 SB Ramp Terminal All 24 C all-way stop SBL 6 A Stopped EBT 40 E Stopped Hazelwood Lane/Lk Wa Blvd All 18 C SBL 86 F Stopped EBT 22 C D Background plus Project with All-Way Stop condition at SB Ramp and Hazelwood Lane 1-405 SB Ramp Terminal All 18 C all-way stop SBL 7 A Stopped EBT 24 C Stopped Hazelwood Lane/Lk Wa Blvd All 47 E all-way stop SBL 9 A Stopped EBT 62 F Stopped E Background plus Project with Signals at Ramp Terminals 1-405 SB Ramp Terminal All 24 C signalized Hazelwood Lane/Lk Wa Blvd All 14 B SBL 99 F Stopped EBT 14 B MUTeD 2009 MULTI-WAY STOP WARRANT ANALYSIS --NE 44TH ST/LK WA BLVD/I-405 SB RAMPS LOCATION: 1-405 SB RAMPS let NE 44TH ST fLAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NE Site: 405747ELWB DIRECTION: EASTBOUND & WESTBOUND MILEPOST: 7.47 (405 LX 00747 MP 0.01) COUNTER # 0433 Channel: NE 44TH ST WB EB BOTHWAYS NE 44lh SI (Lk Wa Blvd) Interval Mon -Fri Mon -Fri Mon -Frl Aug-2011 Mon-Fri Begin Average· Average Average Major St --both ways 12:00 AM 35 10 45 7:00 AM 1185 1:00 AM 28 8 36 6:00 AM 1058 2:00 AM 18 6 24 8:00 AM 856 3:00 AM 18 20 38 4,00 PM 759 4:00 AM 50 79 129 3:00 PM 724 5:00 AM 123 286 409 5:00 PM 699 6:00 AM 254 804 1058 1:00 PM 651 7:00 AM 396 788 1185 12:00 PM 639 8:00 AM "405 451 856 2:00 PM 625 9:00 AM 350 274 624 9:00 AM 624 10:00 AM 313 281 594 11:00 AM 608 11:00 AM 329 279 608 6:00 PM 601 12:00 PM 365 274 639 10:00 AM 594 1:00 PM 367 284 651 7:00 PM 457 2:00 PM 314 311 625 5:00 AM 409 3:00 PM 357 366 724 8:00 PM 391 4:00 PM 387 373 759 9:00 PM 270 5:00 PM 421 278 699 10:00 PM 153 6:00 PM 401 200 601 4:00 AM 129 7:00 PM 299 . 159 457 11:00 PM 76 8:00 PM 216 176 391 12:00 AM 45 9:00 PM 177 93 ,270 :. 3:00 AM 38 10:00 PM 107 . 46 153 1:00 AM 36 11:00 PM 56 19 '76 2:00 AM 24 max, max max . 421 804 1185 Hour Rank 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LOCATION: 1-405 SB RAMPS let NE 44TH ST fLAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NE . Site: 405747NLSB DIRECTION: NORTH LEG -SOUTHBOUND (1-405 SB OFF RAMP) MILEPOST: 7.47 (405 LX 00747 MP 0,01) COUNTER # 0432 Channel: 1-405 SB OFF RAMP 1-405 S9 Off-Ramp Aug-2011 Mon-Fri Minor 8t --off ramp Hour Rank 7:00 AM 184 6:00 AM 138 2 8:00 AM 161 3 4:00 PM 326 4 3:00 PM 324 5 5:00 PM 364 6 1:00 PM 261 7 12:00 PM 280 8 2:00 PM 290 9 9:00 AM 157 10 11:00 AM 208 11 6:00 PM 364 12 10:00 AM 172 13 7:00 PM 222 14 5:00 AM 50 15 8:00 PM 192 16 9:00 PM 161 17 10:00 PM 123 18 4:00 AM 11 19 11:00 PM 61 20 12:00 AM 31 21 3:00 AM 10 22 1:00 AM 16 23 2:00 AM 14 24 1 Bhravg .1 . 255 MUTCD 2009 MULTI-WAY STOP WARRANT' MUTCD 2009,MULTI-\yAY STOP WARRANT .'. WSDOT COUNTS.xls, EB-WB ' 1111812013 Section 28.07 Section 26.0.7 Min Thresdhold == . (average for any 8 hours of avg day) ·1 • .~ ," .300 vph ¥ajor SI Warrant Met? YES . (821 > 300 min) Min Thresdhold = (average for any' 8 hours of avg day) (same 8 h.ours.as major sl) 200 vph Mil'JOr SI Warrant Met? YES (255 > 200 inin) ".", William Popp Associates ~-' 10\ MUTCD 2009 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS -NE 44TH ST/LK WA BLVD/I-405 S8 RAMPS SIGNAL WARRANT 1: EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT1A WARRANT 1: CONOmON A Major Street Minor Street Major Street NE 44th St -Lk Wa Blvd 1-405 S8 Off Ramp >500? Yr2015 Yr 2011 and Hour Both Approaches LeftfThru only Minor Street;' End EBlWB SB >150? 1 51 14 NO 2 41 7 NO 3 27 6 NO 4 43 5 NO 5 146 5 NO 6 461 22 NO 7 1191 62 NO 8 1333 83 NO 9 964 73 NO 10 702 71 NO 11 669 78 NO 12 684 94 NO 13 719 126 NO 14 732 117 NO 15 704 130 NO 16 815 146 NO 17 855 147 NO 18 786 164 YES 19 677 164 YES 20 515 100 NO 21 441 86 NO 22 304 73 NO 23 172 56 NO 24 85 28 NO No. of hours when conditions met: 2 13116 1856 >=8? Warrant 1; Condition A met?f NO USING ADJUSTED SB RAMP VOLUME: REDUCE 60% FOR NO RrS: 1 LN MAJOR, 1 LN MINOR WARRANT1B WARRANT 1: CONDITION B Major Street Minor Street Major Street NE 44th SI -Lk Wa Blvd 1-405 S8 Off Ramp >750? Yr2015 Yr 2011 and Hour Both Approaches LeftlThru only Minor Street ~ End EBlWB SB >75? 1 51 14 NO 2 41 7 NO 3 27 6 NO 4 43 5 NO 5 146 5 NO 6 461 22 NO 7 1191 62 NO 8 1333 83 YES 9 964 73 NO 10 702 71 NO 11 669 78 NO 12 684 94 NO 13 719 126 NO 14 732 117 NO 15 704 130 NO 16 815 146 YES 17 855 147 YES 18 786 164 YES 19 677 164 NO 20 515 100 NO 21 441 86 NO 22 304 73 NO 23 172 56 NO 24 85 28 NO No. of hours when conditions met: 4 13116 1856 >=81 Warrant 1; Condition B met?1 NO VOLUME FORECAST: 2015 based on WSDOT 2011 tube counts increased at 3%1yr for each approach. I Assumes major street speed does not exceed 40 mph nor is the area within an isolated community with a population of less than 1 0,000 ~ Based on 1 lane approach for Major Street; NE 44th SI· Lake Washington Boulevard 3 Based on 1 lane approach for Minor Street; 1-405 S8 Qff·Ramp signal warranl westside.)(Js, $WI speciall rt 11/1812013 William Popp Associates • • t ---~. MUTCD 2009 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS -NE 44TH ST/LK WA BLVD/I-405 SB RAMPS COMBINATION OF CONDITIONS OPTION (WARRANT 1A & 1B) WARRANT 1; CONDITION A ' WARRANT 1; CONDITION B 1 Major Street Minor Street Major Street 2 Major Street Minor Street Major Street 2 NE 44th St -Lk Wa Blvd 1-405 S8 Off Ramp >400? NE 44th SI· Lk Wa Blvd t-405 SB Off Ramp >600? Yr 2015 Yr 2011 and Yr2015 Yr 2011 and Hour Both Approaches LeWThru only Minor Street;'; HOUf Both Approaches LeWThru only Minor Street CJ End EBlWB SB >120? End EBlWB SB >60? 1 51 14 NO 1 51 14 NO 2 41 7 NO 2 41 7 NO 3· 27 6 NO 3 27 6 NO 4 43 5 NO 4 43 5 NO 5 146 5 NO 5 146 5 NO 6 461 22 NO 6 461 22 NO 7 1191 62 NO 7 1191 62 YES 8 1333 83 NO 8 1333 83 YES 9 964 73 NO 9 964 73 YES 10 702 71 NO 10 702 71 YES 11 669 78 NO 11 669 78 YES 12 684 94 NO 12 684 94 YES 13 719 126 YES 13 719 126 YES 14 732 117 NO 14 732 117 YES 15 704 130 YES 15 704 130 YES 16 815 146 YES 16 815 146 YES 17 855 147 YES 17 855 147 YES 18 786 164 YES 18 786 164 YES 19 677 164 YES 19 677 164 YES 20 515 100 NO 20 515 100 NO 21 441 86 NO 21 441 86 NO 22 .304 73 NO 22 304 73 NO 23 172 56 NO 23 172 56 NO 24 85 28 NO 24 85 28 NO No. of hours when conditions met: 6 No. of hours when conditions met: 13 13116 1856 >-8? 13116 1856 >",8? W~rrant 1; C0l"!dition A me!?1 NO Warrant 1; Condition B met?1 YES Combination of Condition A and B met?L -NO VOLUME FORECAST: 2015 based on WSDOT 2011 tube counts increased at 3%/yr for .each approach. 1 Assumes major street speed does not exceed 40 mph no"r is the area within ~n isolated community with a population ~i less th'an 10,000 .!. Based on,flane approach for Major Street; NE 44th SI -Lake Washington Boulevard 3 Based on l' la':1e approach for Minor Street; 1-405 SB Off-Ramp signal warrant westside.xls, swl speciall rt 1111812013 .. ;'. WIlliam Popp Associates ~, • 2009 MUTeD SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS --NE 44TH ST/LK WA BLVDII-405 SB RAMPS Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume SBRT VOLUMES ELIMINATED FROM CALC Major Street a Minor Street b NE 44th St -Lk Wa Blvd 1-405 SB Off Ramp one lane Vr 2015 lefts plus Minor Street Hour Both Approaches no rights Threshold Warrant C End NB/SB exiting (out) per Figure 4C·1 Met? 1 51 14 >350 No 0 2 41 7 >350 No 0 3 27 6 >350 No 0 4 43 5 >350 No 0 5 146 5 >350 No 0 6 461 22 279 No 0 7 1191 62 80 No 0 8 1333 83 80 Ves 1 9 964 73 110 No 0 10 702 71 183 No 0 11 669 78 194 No 0 12 684 94 189 No 0 :,3 719 126 177 No 0 14 732 117 173 No 0 15 704 130 182 No 0 16 815 146 149 No 0 17 855 147 138 Ves 18 786 164 157 Yes 1 " 19 677 164 191 No 0 20 515 100 254 No 0 21 441 86 >350 No 0 22 304 73 >350 No 0 23 172 56 >350 No 0 24 85 28 >350 No 0 13116 1856 3 I < yes occurrences >=47 Warrant 2 met?1 NO VOLUME FORECAST: 2015 based on WSDOT 2011 tube counts increased at 3%/yr for each approach. a Major Street four hourly volumes for the same 4 hours as the Minor Street four highest hourly volumes b Minor Street four highest hourly volumes C Per Figure 4C-1 (assumes major street speed does not exceed 40 mph nor is the area within an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000) and based on a 1 lane approach for Major Street (NE 44th St): and 1 lane approach for Minor Street (1-405 SB Off Ramp Lt-Th) signal warrant westside.Kls, signal warranl2 1111812013 William Popp Associate. 2009 MUTeD SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS --NE 44TH ST/LK WA BLVDII-40S SB RAMPS Warrant 3: Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition B SBRT VOLUMES ELIMINATED FROM CALC Major Street II Minor Street b NE 441h SI -Lk Wa Blvd 1-405 SB 011 Ramp one lane Yr 2015 Lefts plus Minor Street Hour Both Approaches NO RIGHTS Threshold Warrant C End NB/SB exiting (out) per Figure 4C·3 Met? 1 51 14 >475 No 0 2 41 7 >475 No 0 3 27 6 >475 No 0 4 43 5 >475 No 0 5 146 5 >475 No 0 6 461 22 441 No 0 7 1191 62 149 No 0 8 1333 83 114 No 0 9 964 73 214 No 0 10 702 71 311 No 0 11 669 78 326 No 0 12 684 94 319 No 0 13 719 126 304 No 0 14 732 117 298 No 0 15 704 130 311 No 0 16 815 146 266 No 0 17 855 147 251 No 0 18 786 164 276 No 0 19 677 164 322 No 0 20 515 100 406 No 0 21 441 86 >475 No 0 22 304 73 >475 No 0 23 172 56 >475 No 0 24 85 28 >475 No 0 0 < yes occurrences >::1? Warrant 3 met?1 NO VOLUME FORECAST: 2015 based on WSDOT 2011 tube counts increased at 3%/yrfor each approach. II Major Street peak hour volume for the same hour as the Minor Street peak hour volume b Minor Street peak hour volume C Per Figure 4C-3 (assumes major street speed does not exceed 40 mph nor is the area wit"hin an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000) and based on a 1 lane approach for Major Street (NE 44th St); and 1 lane approach for Minor Street (1-405 SB Off Ramp U-Th) signal warrant westside.xls, signal warrant 3 llf1812013 William Popp Associates .Gynlhia Moya From: Sent: Phil Olbrechts [olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:45 PM To: 'Steve Meacham' Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Cynthia Moya; Bonnie Walton; Lany Warren; hirotojo@comcast.net Subject: Attachments: Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-11-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Order Denying Reconsideration --Seelig. pdf Order attached. From: Steve Meacham [mailto:smeacham@peelbrimley.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:06 AM To: Phil Olbrechts Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Cynthia Moya; Bonnie Walton; Larry Warren; hirotojo@comcast.net Subject: RE: Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Thank you for your email. I'm disappointed to learn of the City's decision not to confirm the accuracy of the representations made by the developer prior to commencement of construction. I'm not sure why the City it reluctant to perform the simple task requested by the Tojos and obtain the confirmation requested by the Tojos. Hopefully, the height of the new structure will be more that 19' below the elevation of the Tojo's deck as represented on the drawings and to the Tojos. If not, this issue will no doubt result in litigation involving the parties and the reasonable fulfillment of their obligations and the reliances relied upon by the Tojos. Steven Meacham PEEL BRIMLEY LLP 2014 E Madison Street, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98122 Phone: 206-770-3339 Fax: 206-770-3490 E-mail: smeacham@peelbrimley.com .• __________ . ___ . From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@qmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:03 AM To: Steve Meacham Cc: 'Rocale Timmons'; 'Jennifer T. Henning'; 'Stacy Tucker'; 'Cynthia Moya'; 'Bonnie Walton'; 'Larry Warren' Subject: Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) . Mr. Meachem, Below is a communication I received from Larry Warren, the Renton City Attorney on the Kennydale Apartments matter. I'm told there will be no further response from the City on your May 7,2012 letter. Your May 7 letter does not follow the terms of my reconsideration order and the City's communication may not have been intended to serve as a formal response to your letter. Nonetheless it is an ex parte contact and I need to share it with you prior to issuing my ruling on Thursday. From: Larry Warren [mailto:LWarren@Rentonwa.qovl Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:53 AM To: Bonnie Walton; 'phil olbrechts' Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Cynthia Moya Subject: RE: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) 1 The.e);aminer was correct in not givinc consideration, no matter what the code u, ,taff said. There is an administrative 'I:Ietermination that there isn't a right to reconsideration and a draft ordinance in the GMA docket to make the code change. From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:47 AM To: 'phil olbrechts' Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Larry Warren; Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Attached is a response received today to the Reconsideration Order for the Kennydale Apartments decision. I have also attached the HE's Order on Reconsideration for reference purposes. Bonnie Walton City Clerk 425-430-6502 From: Mel Frazier [mailto:mfrazier@peelbrimley.coml Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:28 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Good morning. Attached is a letter from Steven Meacham regarding the above-referenced matter. Have a good day. Melanie A. Frazier Peel Brimley LLP 206-770-3339 2 5/11/2012 This letter is to serve as a response to Garbage Service Code Violation SR12 0018 I know more about garbage and recycling than most people. I am a master recycler com poster. This means I have attended about 40 hours of classes where I learned about garbage and recycling. I share this information with my friends, my tenants and as a volunteer with the King County Department of Natural Resources. I know more about garbage to that property than anyone. For two years I had "minimum garbage service" this was a 20 gallon insert picked up every 2 weeks I supplemented service with a dump run every Monday morning at 7 AM. At that time I would resort the blue recycling bins and the gray yard waste bin to ensure the recycling bins were not contaminated. Two years of sorting garbage and recycleables gives me intimate knowledge of much garbage is generated from this address. I had a change of tenants in February 2012. My rental agreements read that failure to recycle is grounds for lease cancellation and I enforce this provision, but recycling is a learning process so I wasn't entirely sure how much garbage would be generated with the new tenants. The following dates are approximate: About Feb 22, 2012 I received a notice from COR saying I must increase the garbage service and a March 6'h inspection would be made. I had been planning on increasing the garbage service anyway so I believe that same day I called WMR and increased the service from the 20 gallon can to a 96 gallon can. I thought that would be adequate service. I believe the service change was to take place on the next pickup date February 27th. On March 2nd I checked the property and the 96 gallon can had not been delivered so I took another trip to the dump (Receipt attached) and called WMR to see what happened. I believe on or about March 2nd, I also called Donna Locher to tell her this there was a mixup at WMR. I think the 96 gallon can was delivered before March ls'h. I took another trip to the dump March l1'h, receipt attached. In 2009 when I started making the dump runs WMR told me miniJ)lum service to this property was the 20 gallon can. This was pretty tricky. I was making dump runs for 5 properties and I had them all on minimum garbage service and was told one thing with one call and another thing with the next call. I finally learned not to care about consistencies with WMR reps, just do what I am instructed with that particular rep with that particular call. This setup took some trial and error too. Each property had to have tags to pick up no extra garbage, so I wouldn't be charged with extra bags or furniture pickup. I set out regular garbage cans (not WMR type cans) to collect overflow garbage. It was these cans that I hauled to the dump. On February 22, 2012 after receiving the notice from Donna Locher I queried WMR again as to what is the minimum service. At that time I was told there is no such thing as minimum service. We were just dealing with what I thought that I needed. I decided on one 96 gallon can for $49.61. I was told that I \ . had the option of weekly service that for the same $49.61 per month I could have one 45 gallon can picked up every week. She recommended I not do this because those routes start at 3AM and really not suitable for neighborhoods. I live across from an apartment building where garbage is picked up at least every other day, usually about SAM and I find this extremely annoying and I agreed with the WMR rep. Maybe Donna Locher does know more about garbage than I know. But I do not believe she knows as much as I know about garbage service to this building. We had some heavy winds in early March 2012. Maybe Donna Locher made an inspection the morning after one of these wind storms. I have included the wind printouts from a weather website as an attachment. I drive by this building several times a week to specifically look to see if there is any overflow. I get out ofthe car and inspect the bins at .Ieast once every two weeks but usually once each week. So far this 96 gallon can is adequate garbage service to this property. I will continue monitoring this situation because WMR is still instructed to not pick up extras. Should a tenant put out a mattress I would be charged $56 for removal. I own a truck. I can take five mattresses and a load of garbage to the dump for $20. Garbage is an economic thing to me but I still pay a lot of attention to how the garbage collection area looks to my residents and the neighbors. I am including dump receipts for three March dump runs .. It is very rare that a dump run for any reason does not include a drive by every property that I own in downtown Renton. The wind print out is attached. I am including a printout from my money management program that shows between January 1 2011 and January 31,2012, that is a total of 56 weeks I made 56 dump runs. I have receipts for at least 99% of these instances. I have adequate garbage service to this property and have always had adequate garbage service to this property. One last thing. About two years ago I had a dispute with my banker, when it was all said and done it took me a few weeks to really understand what was going on. I think she should have been helping me better understand what I should be doing rather than disciplining me for not conforming to her (new) regulations. That understanding being only two years old it is fresh in my mind and I can readily liken it to Donna Locher's actions. Even if her job is disciplinary in nature Idon't believe she has treated me as a valued concerned Renton citizen. Mary Ryan 5/11/2012 J F'IWl\I THE DESK OF: STEVEN D. MEACHAM smcacham@peelbrimley.com Bonnie L Walton, City Clerk lOSS South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 A LIMITEI) LIAIIILlTV LAW PARTNERSHIP 2014 EAST MADISON STREET. SUITE 100 SEATrLE. WASfllNGTON 98122·2965 (206) 770·3339 + FAX: (206) 770·3490 May 7, 2012 Re: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration Kennydale Apartments (LUA·II·069. ECF, CU·H, SA-H) Dear Ms. Walton: CITY OF RENTON MAY 08 2012 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE The Tojos are in receipt of your letter dated May 1,2012 regarding the above referenced matter. They have requested me to review the matter and respond to your letter. The Tojos reassert their request for reconsideration based upon the information presented at the hearing and their subsequent survey. On April 19, 2012, Rocale Timmons informed the Tojos that they could make a written application for review of the' examiner' s decision ifit is based upon errors of fact or the discovery of new evidence. The Tojos relied upon those representations and have requested reconsideration based upon the representations made on the drawings made available to them at the hearing. These drawings specifically identify a deck elevation of 180.82', It was represented to the Tojos that this was the elevation of their deck. They were also told that Site/Bldg Section I is the section directly west of their home which shows the height of the structure being below the Maximum Allowable Building Height of 161.88'. As set forth in the Tojos prior correspondence, they have obtained a survey showing the elevation of their deck at 165', not 180,82' as shown on the developer's drawings. It is unreasonable to believe that the Tojos would be obtaining an independent survey prior to the hearing and obtaining the details of the project. After receiving the survey, there have been indications that the surveyors may have used different datums in doing their surveys. Regardless of the datum used, the critical issue for the Tojos is that the top of the new structure west of their home is at least 19' below their main floor deck elevation as represented to them. Given the information provided by the developer to the Hearing Examiner showing the relative differences in elevation between the adjacent deck elevations and the building heights and the survey information obtained from the Tojos, it would be imprudent for the City to allow the project to proceed without assurances from the developer that the height of the structure located west of the Tojos is at least 19' below the Tojos main'floor deck elevation, It does not seem reasonable to allow the project to proceed based upon these apparently inconsistent surveys without the matter being addressed before commencement of construction. ./ .. , Page 2 If construction commences without the developer clearing up this apparent discrepancy, it could lead to costly corrections or litigation in the event the top of the structure is not 19' below the Tojos deck as represented to the Tojos and as indicated on the drawings. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. My preferred method for receiving and exchanging information is via email. My email address is smeacham@peelbrimley.com. Very truly yours, PEEL BRIMLEY LLP cg Steven D. Meacham SDM:mel 9999073 hd240201 ~ PEEL BRIMLEY LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY L"\\~PARTNERSillP 2014 EAST MADISQ:-.J STREET. SUITE 100 SEA,TTLE. WASHINGTON 98122·2965 .. , .. ~ ,.~:;,·~*.;T .'·n.?' ,·}·'t~ .... ¥ .. :;~~7YC1. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 02 1P 0001676981 MAY 07 2012 MAILED FROM ZIPCODE98122 Cf1r 0" "1iIfrO/i M4Y 0020/2 "~C~/Ifl:O cf1rc'S 'lrk'sOFFlce 98G57$3232 I;,;,,;, ,I,ll",,;,;, j",;, ,i i" ,;,;, ,ii",;,;, I,;, ,i,;"" iii Cynthia Moya From: Sent: Phil Olbrechts [olbrechtslaw@gmail.comj Tuesday, May 08,20128:59 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Re: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-11-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) I'm good, I was just trying to figure out what letter Tojo's attorney was referencing in his response, I'll let you know next time I mail out something directly so we don't duplicate effort. On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Yes, I did. I can send you the mailing list, if you would like. Bonnie From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 8:26 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Re: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Hi Bonnie, I had mailed the Tojo reconsideration order directly to the parties of record. Did you also mail a copy? On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@rentonwa.gov>wrote: I can pass this information on to Mr. Frazier, if you would like. Or should he hear this directly from you, Larry, or Phil? I assume there is no option for them to appeal, either, correct? Bonnie, x6502 From: Larry Warren Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:53 AM To: Bonnie Walton; 'phil olbrechts' 1 Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Hen, d; Stacy Tucker; Cynthia Moya Subject: RE: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) The examiner was correct in not giving reconsideration, no matter what the code or staff said. There is an administrative determination that there isn't a right to reconsideration and a draft ordinance in the GMA docket to make the code change. From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, May 07,20128:47 AM To: 'phil olbrechts' Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Larry Warren; Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) . Attached is a response received today to the Reconsideration Order for the Kennydale Apartments decision. I have also attached the HE's Order on Reconsideration for reference purposes. Bonnie Walton City Clerk 425-430-6502 From: Mel Frazier [mailto:mfrazier@oeelbrimley.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:28 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Good morning. Attached is a letter from Steven Meacham regarding the above-referenced matter. Have a good day. Melanie A. Frazier 2 • Cynthia lllioya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Phil Olbrechts [olbrechtslaw@gmail.coml Tuesday, May 08,20127:40 AM Bonnie Walton Larry Warren; Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Cynthia Moya Re: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-11-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) My reconsideration order still stands. I'll wait until the May 9, 2012 deadline (the date anamended reconsideration request is due) passes to see if the Applicant submitted anything responsive to the order. I am not considering any comments beyond those authorized by the reconsideration order. The admissability of the letter from the Tojo's attorney and the City Attorney's response will be addressed once the May 9, 2012 deadline passes. On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@rentonwa.gov> wrote: I can pass this infonmation on to Mr. Frazier, if you would like. Or should he hear this directly from you, Larry, or Phil? I assume there is no option for them to appeal, either, correct? Bonnie, x6502 From: Larry Warren Sent: Monday, May 07,20128:53 AM To: Bonnie Walton; 'phil olbrechts' Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Cynthia Moya Subject: RE: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) The examiner was correct in not giving reconsideration, no matter what the code or staff said. There is an administrative detenmination that there isn't a right to reconsideration and a draft ordinance in the GMA docket to make the code change. From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:47 AM To: 'phil olbrechts' Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Larry Warren; Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Attached is a response received today to the Reconsideration Order for the Kennydale Apartments decision. 1 • , - I have also attached the HE's Orde. _,} Reconsideration for reference purpO'vo. Bonnie Walton City Clerk 425-430-6502 From: Mel Frazier [mailto:mfrazier@oeelbrimley.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:28 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Good morning. Attached is a letter from Steven Meacham regarding the above-referenced matter. Have a good day. Melanie A. Frazier Peel Brimley LLP 206-770-3339 2 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Larry Warren Monday, May 07, 2012 8:53 AM Bonnie Walton; 'phil olbrechts' Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Cynthia Moya Subject: RE: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-11-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) The examiner was correct in not giving reconsideration, no matter what the code or staff said. There is an administrative determination that there isn't a right to reconsideration and a draft ordinance in the GMA docket to make the code change. From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:47 AM To: 'phil olbrechts' Cc: Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Larry Warren; Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Attached is a response received today to the Reconsideration Order for the Kennydale Apartments decision. I have also attached the HE's Order on Reconsideration for reference purposes. Bonnie Walton City Clerk 425-430-6502 From: Mel Frazier [mailto:mfrazier@oeelbrimley.comJ Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:28 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Good morning. Attached is a letter from Steven Meacham regarding the above-referenced matter. Have a good day. Melanie A. Frazier Peel Brimley LLP 206-770-3339 1 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Bonnie Walton Monday, May 07,20128:49 AM Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-11-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) fyi. .. bw From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:49 AM To: 'Mel Frazier' Subject: RE: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) I am in receipt of your letter and have passed it on to the City project person and the Hearing Examiner. Bonnie Walton City Clerk 425-430-6502 From: Mel Frazier [mailto:mfrazier@peelbrimley.comJ Sent: Monday, May 07,20128:28 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Good morning. Attached is a letter from Steven Meacham regarding the above-referenced matter. . Have a good day. Melanie A. Frazier Peel Brimley llP 206-770-3339 1 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Bonnie Walton Monday, May 07,20128:47 AM 'phil olbrechts' Rocale Timmons; Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Larry Warren; Cynthia Moya FW: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-11-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) scan0071.pdf; Tojo Letter to City of Renton. pdf Attached is a response received today to the Reconsideration Order for the Kennydale Apartments decision. I have also attached the HE's Order on Reconsideration for reference purposes. Bonnie Walton City Clerk 425-430-6502 From: Mel Frazier [mailto:mfrazier@peelbrimley.coml Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:28 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration -Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Good morning. Attached is a letter from Steven Meacham regarding the above-referenced matter. Have a good day. Melanie A. Frazier Peel Brimley LLP 206-770-3339 1 , . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 " 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Howard and Beatrice Seelig Conditional Use and Site Plan LUAII-069, SA-H, ECF, CU-H ) ) ) ORDER ON RECONSLDERA nON ) ) ) ) ) ) By letter dated April 25, 2012 Hiro Tojo, a party of record in the above-captioned matter, has requested reconsideration of the decision approving the application for the above-captioned matter, Mr, Tojo's request for reconsideration is largely based upon a survey he had prepared after the close of the hearing, Any new evidence presented by Mr, Tojo after the close of the hearing is barred from consideration, including Ills survey, If Mr, Tojo chooses, he may re-submit Ills request for reconsideration based solely on evidence already contained in the record, The consideration of new evidence after the close of a hearing is strictly prohibited by state law, The Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW, only allows local regulations to authorize one open record hearing per application. RCW 36.70B.050(2). An open record hearing is dcfined to set the administrative record for a permit application, RCW 36,708.020(3). "Limited new evidence" may be considered outside of the one open record hearing, see RCW 36.708.020(1), but this is generally considered to be highly restricted and limited to the evidence that a court would be authorized to consider outside the administrative record by RCW 36,70C.120(2). RMC 4-8- 100(G)(4) does authorize the consideration of "new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing", but tills language must be harmonized with the much stricter standard set by the Regulatory Reform Act, wlllch supersedes locally adopted regulations, At the hearing, Mr. Tojo did not request that the record be left open for Illm to verifY the height measurements of the Applicant and he did not question the validity of those measurements, Mr. Tojo had a reasonable opportunity to request additional time to prepare Ills arguments and therefore it must be concluded CONDITIONAL USE AND SITE PLAN - 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ' .. 25 26 that the evidence he wishes to present after the close of the hearing was reasonably available at the hearing, Mr. Tojo may re-submit his arguments for reconsideration based solely upon the evidence already in the record. No new survey work or elevations based upon evidence outside the record will be considered. Any amended request for reconsideration must be received by Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, by 5:00 pm,' May 9, 2012. It is preferred that the request be emailed to Ms. Walton at Bwalton!@Rentol1wa.gov. In the alternative the request must be received at Ms. Walton's Office at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. A response from the Applicant and City staff (should either party choose to respond) will be due by 5:00 pm May 14,2012 and a reply from Mr. Tojo by 5:00 pm May 16, 2012. DATED this 1st day of May, 2012. ~c:;p-e= Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner CONDITIONAL USE AND SITE PLAN - 2 FROM THE DESK OF: STEVEN D. MEACHAM smeacham@peelbrimley.com Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk lOSS South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP 2014 EAST MADISON Sma,.. SUITE 100 SEATILE, WASHINGrON 98122-2965 (206) 770-3339 + FAX: (206) 770-3490 May 7, 2012 Re: Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration Kennydale Apartments (LUA-II-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Dear Ms. Walton: The Tojos are in receipt of your letter dated May 1,2012 regarding the above referenced matter. They have requested me to review the matter and respond to your letter. The Tojos reassert their request for reconsideration based upon the information presented at the hearing and their subsequent survey. On April 19, 2012, Rocale Timmons informed the Tojos that they could make a written application for review of the examiner's decision if it is based upon errors of fact or the discovery of new evidence. The Tojos relied upon those representations and have requested 'reconsideration based upon the representations made on the drawings made available to them at the hearing. These drawings specifically identify a deck elevation of 180.82'. It was represented to the Tojos that this was the elevation of their deck., They were also told that SitelBldg Section 1 is the section directly west of their home which shows the height of the structure being below the Maximum Allowable Building Height of 161.88'. As set forth in the Tojos prior correspondence, they have obtained a survey showing the elevation of their deck at 165', not 180.82' as shown on the developer's drawings. It is unreasonable to believe that the Tojos would be obtaining an independent survey prior to the hearing and obtaining the details of the project. After receiving the survey, there have been indications that the surveyors may have used different datums in doing their surveys. Regardless of the datum used, the critical issue for the Tojos is that the top of the new structure west of their home is at least 19' below their main floor deck elevation as represented to them. Given the information provided by the developer to the Hearing Examiner showing the relative differences in elevation between the adjacent deck elevations and the building heights and the survey information obtained from the Tojos, it would be imprudent for the City to allow the project to proceed without assurances from the developer that the height ofthe structure located west of the Tojos is at least 19' below the Tojos main floor deck elevation. It does not seem reasonable to allow the project to proceed based upon these apparently inconsistent surveys without the matter being addressed before commencement of construction. Page 2 If construction commences without the developer clearing up this apparent discrepancy, it could lead to costly con'ections or litigation in the event the top of the structure is not 19' below the Tojos deck as represented to the Tojos and as indicated on the drawings. Please let me lmow if you have any questions or need additional information. My preferred method for receiving and exchanging infonnation is via email. My email address is smeacham@peelbrilnley.com. Very truly yours, PEEL BRIMLEY LLP _'3~ Steven D. Meacham SDM:mel 9999 073 hd240201 " . " . :",', Den;'s Law' Mayor: .I',. ' May 1, 2012 , , , Hiro ,& YukaTojo 11103 SE76th Street , 'Newcastle,wA98056--. ..; -, .. Re: 'Dear Mr.&lVlrs,Toljo: '" ,: '. :. ','>, " .. ,.' '" . ~' ;, ,; " . '.", " . . - -" : " ,":. . -, ~ '/. -. ' ','. . -' .' . . ...,.... . , Attached is 'lour copy, of the Hearing Exam'irier's response to the Requestfor Reconsideration - filed o~ April 25, 20i2.PI~ase note the timelines onp~ge2. oftheOrder,; ,-'-, ,.' '--If I c~n provide further irifor:r;ation, please feel freeto contact me, >-" ' .. ,. . " , ... " 'Sincerely, •• '-. .... ' . -'. " ."; - , ",Bonni,e LWalton City Clerk -' '-" , ' Ene::: . '~e'ari'ng Exa~'i~~r's O~de'~ o~ Re_~onsiden3tio~ .' -'. ',' .' . . , ~: ,,' 'cc:" " ',H"eari'rig Ex~~i~er',' 'Larry Warren, 'City Attorney .' . .' ". Rocale "rimmons"Associate 'Planner , ':" ~enn!f~r Hennin& C~rr~nt 'Pla'nning Manager." .. Neil, Watts, Development seniices Director ' StacyTucker, Development serviCes' ,-'- Parties oi Record (13) - ' .. '.' -',~ -1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057. '(425) 430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentori;"'~.goV-. ".. . , '-. -. , " ',. ' :' . Todd Sherman Development Project Manager Conner Homes 846 108th Avenue NE #200 Bellevue, WA 98004 Howard & Beatrice Seelig PO Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Brad Faulkes PO Box 4248 Renton, WA 98057 Tim McGruder Eastside Autobon PO Box 370 Kirkland, WA 98083 Douglas Pomeroy 7714 11Uh Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Kennydale Neighborhood Assoc. Attn: Darius Richards PO Box 3115 Renton, WA 98056 June Houson 11030 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Brad Faulkes 7711 11Uh Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Susan R. Irwin 7701 11Uh Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Hiro & Yuka Tojo 11103 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Carl Pirscher CDA Architects 20011 Ballinger Way NE #200 Shoreline, WA 98155 Joyce & John Parente 11129 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Rita Mayeaux Apartment Insights 16030 E Tumbleweed Drive Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 John Murphy 4314 148th Street SE Bothell, WA 98012 " I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BEFORE TIffi HEARING EXAMINER FOR TIIE CITY OF RENTON RE: Howard and Beatrice Seelig Conditional Use and Site PlaJi LUA11-069, SA-H, ECF, CU-H ) ) ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERA nON ) ) ) ) ) ) 14 By letter dated April 25, 2012 Hiro Tojo, a party of record in the above-captimied matter, has 15 requested reconsideration of the decision approving the application for the above-captioned matter, Mr. Tojo's request for reconsideration IS largely based upon a survey he had prepared after the close 16 of the hearing. Any new evidence presented by Mr. Tojo after the close of the hearing is barred from consideration, including his survey. If Mr. Tojo chooses, he may re-submit his request for 17 reconsideration based solely on evidence already contained in the record. 18 The consideration of new evidence after the close of a hearing is strictly prohibited by state law. 19 The Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW, only allows local regulations to authorize one open record hearing per application. RCW 36.70B:050(2). An open record hearing is defined to set 20 the administrative record for a pennit application. RCW 36.70B:020(3). "Limited new evidence" may be considered outside of the one open record hearing, see RCW 36.70B:020(l), but this is generally considered to be highly restricted and limited to the evidence that a court would be authorized to consider outside the admini'ltrative record by RCW 36.70C. I 20(2). RMC 4-8- 100(G)(4) does authorize the consideration of "new evidence that could not be reasonably available 21 22 23 at the prior hearing", but this language must be harmonized with the much stricter standardse! by the Regulatory Reform Act, which supersedes locally adopted regulations. At the hearing, Mr. Tojo 24 did not request that the record be left open for him to verifY the height measurements of the 25 Applicant and he did not question the validity of those measurements. Mr. Tojo had a reasonable opportuIrity to request additional time to prepare his arguments and therefore it must be concluded 26 CONDITIONAL USE AND SITE PLAN -1 --~-----------------.'.-'--. 1 that the evidence he wishes to present after the close of the hearing was reasonably available at the hearing. 2 3 Mr .. Tojo may re-submit his arguments for reconsideration based solely upon the evidence already in the record. No new survey work or elevations based upon evidence outside the record will be 4 considered. Any amended request for reconsideration must be received by Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, by 5:00 pm; May 9, 20l2~ It is preferred that the request be emailed to Ms. Walton at 5 Bwaltonfai.Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative the request must be received at Ms. Walton's Office at 6 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. A response from the Applicant and City staff (should either party choose to respond) will be due by 5:00 pm May 14, 2012 and a reply from Mr. Tojo by 7 5:00 pm May 16, 2012. 8 9 ]0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DATED this 1st day of May, 2012. ~GO<. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner CONDmONAL USE AND SITE PLAN - 2 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Phil Olbrechts [olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Tuesday, May 01,20128:21 AM Bonnie Walton; Rocale Timmons Kennydale Apartments Order on Reconsideration scan0071.pdf I'm mailing out the attached to Mr. Tojo today. Rocale, I'm assuming you have the email address for the Applicant. Could you email him the order along with Mr. Tojo's request for reconsideration? Thank you. 1 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: See attached. bw Bonnie Walton Tuesday, May 01,20128:25 AM Cynthia Maya Jennifer T. Henning; Stacy Tucker; Rocale Timmons FW: Kennydale Apartments Order on Reconsideration Kennydale Apartments Order on Reconsideration 1 ... • cnv OF RENTON APR25 201~ RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Request for Reconsideration RE: Kenneydale Apartment Project L!'(A-t 1-0 b? 25 April, 2012 Dear Honorable Hearing Examiner, My wife and I have reviewed the "Report to the Hearing Examiner" on the Kenneydale Apartment Project and attended the related hearing at the City of Renton Council Chambers on March 15th, 2012 where we were able to learn additional details. We also had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Seelig, the owner of the project and Mr. Pirscher of CDA Architects at the hearing, and appreciate the time they spent providing answers to our questions. At the hearing, Mr. Pirscher stated that the highest point of the proposed project would be lower than our main floor deck, only resulting in the partial obstruction of our view in the downward direction. Given the large scale and scope of the project, we took it upon ourselves to hire an independent surveyor to take measurements and assure us that the statement presented at the hearing was accurate. The critical findings produced by our surveyor, listed below, are concerning to us and we believe that they merit further action on your part before allowing the project to proceed: 1. The elevation of our deck is 165 feet; about 16 feet lower than 180.82 feet that was presented at the hearing. This is not a small discrepancy. 16 feet is almost 2 stories high. If the number our surveyor came up with is accurate, it means our main floor deck is significantly lower than the proposed structure and, thus, the view from our house will be completely obscured. This was confirmed by a general contractor, who performed a quick GPS measurement and he calculated 163 feet. 2. Our house is located at the south end of the property, about 73 feet away from NE 48th Street (SE 76th Street.) As you can see from the aerial picture, we have a long driveway and our property should be considered adjacent to "SECTION2" of the project as shown in the drawing in Exhibit 5, and not "SECTION1" according to current documents. The height of SECTION 1 is a lower (7 stories) than of SECTION 2 (8 stories). If this is in fact the case, our house will be directly facing a higher section of the structure to the west when it is completed, and the straight westwardly and southwestwardly views that we currently have from our house will be lost, significantly diminishing the value and enjoyment of our property. Therefore, we humbly and respectively ask you to take the following actions: 1. require Mr. Pirscher to submit a statement that once again certifies that his surveyor's measurements are accurate and/or (more preferably) 2. require a neutral party to re-measure the elevation and make an assessment of the impact of the project on views from surround houses as conditions for approval, and .. 3. not to render a decision until reliable results of (1.) above are available and are accepted by both parties and the Hearing Examiner, or whatever other relief measures both parties deem appropriate are discussed and agreed upon. Please note that we are not acting in total opposition to the project. We honor and respect the owners' right to develop their property as long as it does not damage our property value and ability to enjoy it. We are already losing the downward view from our property if the project proceeds for which we are not being compensated. We are hopeful that the Seeligs will be able to produce a project that will become a great asset to the surrounding community and that we can mutually realize a solution that can address our concerns, as well. We express our deep appreciation to you in advance for your kind reconsideration in this matter. Sincerely, Hiro Tojo 425-227-7408/425-765-6941 AI Arnett, Surveyor 10325 -126th Ave. SE Renton, WA 98056-3257 Phone 206-778-4440 Mr. Hiroaki Tojo and Mrs. Yukari Tojo: 11103 SE 76th St. Newcastle, WA 9806 RE: Establish the elevation of main floor deck on the Westside of the house Dear Mr. & Mrs. Tojo: This is to inform you that we have conducted the necessary survey work required to establish the record of elevation of your deck based on the City of Renton baseline data to be 165.0 feet and the front of the house is 73 feet south of NE 48th Street (SE 76th Street.) The attached sketch shows the reference details. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me anytime. Sincerely, Surveyor License Number: PLS 10702 , '~--~~~~~;~}~~~--.~-~-~;-=t-\: • '~ , , \--1 '() 1 ,- \ "\ \ \ \ " \ \ I \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \' , '\ ~-/,...,.., r--, " "/ I I "'\ l: lilt , I I ,,\1 I I I , . . \ \ \ rr-:n In I \ ""'., \ I \ '1J',", \ I, -.. .. ", \ 0', '. April 12, 2012 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) BONNIE L WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 12th day of April, 2012, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record a Final Decision from the Hearing Examiner in the Kennydale Apartments (LUA-ll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H) Bonnie L Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 12th day of April, 2012. 11 1111/1'/",." 1II'_J~TH/.q '---_ II cj' ......... I:l -::.. " , "'::,\I.\SSIO~:"· A _-::.. It: • o~· .,. . --;! -"'::'-.--~=~\-..i~~="-----l'~' ---f':"-o' "'::.-!:!NO 7' ~ "'~\ ~ '\ Cyn hia R. oya ~ en: .... ')-iii:" ~ :::~:;! \ ~"..... to f ~ Notary Public in and for the State of ;...I '. <1' qLJe _. ~ ~ ", '--' ',' Washington, residing in Renton O'···~?-14 ...... ~ II -:..:»~ .• ,., .. " ,,:\0 " My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 --__ ·"ASH\\'I(.; ",11 """/"//11111 1 -. Todd Sherman Development Project Manager Conner Homes 846 108th Avenue NE #200 Bellevue, WA 98004 Howard & Beatrice Seelig PO Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Brad Faulkes PO Box 4248 Renton, WA 98057 Tim McGruder Eastside Autobon PO Box 370 Kirkland, WA 98083 Douglas Pomeroy 7714 111th Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Kennydale Neighborhood Assoc. Attn: Darius Richards PO Box 3115 Renton, WA 98056 June Houson 11030 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Brad Faulkes 7711 111th Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Susan R. Irwin 7701 111th Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Hiro & Yuka Tojo 11103 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Carl Pirscher CDA Architects 20011 Ballinger Way NE #200 Shoreline, WA 98155 Joyce & John Parente 11129 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Rita Mayeaux Apartment Insights 16030 E Tumbleweed Drive Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 John Murphy 4314 148th Street SE Bothell, WA 98012 ,.!,-. Denis Law , Mayo~ /ity, Clerk-'Bonnie I. Walton: -" '. " " A'pril12, 2012 . - ~arl Pirsch~r, eM _ " '-. . -.' . .... '. 20011 Ballinger Way NE #200 'Sl1ori~lirie;vilA98155 ,. ," .' .~ Re:, Decision for the KenriydaleApartm~hts (LUA~1l-069/ECF,'CU-H, SA-H) ,,' , '.-'. -. ,-.' ' . ',' - .:.' . . , ,DearMr"Pirsctie~:: .. ' .. Attached'isyour copy of the Hearing Examiner;s Decision dated Aprilll,201i, in the above- " , , ,reterencedinatter... : " . ... . ,If Ic~n provide furtherinformation~ Rieasefee,l freeto contact me" ~ ".-. . . -. '.,' .. -. ~ .',' Sincerely, ~:J.tJ~' ':BonnieLWalton , city, Clerk " Hearing Examiner. . . ' .. .. Larry Warren, CityAHoiney , 'Rocale.TimmOl;S, Associate.Planner " ", , -;,' jennifer H~nning, C~'rrentplanning Manager , Nei'l WaHS, De~elopmerit Services Diredor Sta~yTucker:'D~velopmentSeivices' " , " , Parties of Record (13) ',c," .. ; "", . . . : "."" . '," " , : . ~ . . , "! '" . " .', . . 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 .. (42S) 430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6516. rentonwa:gov, " .... , . . . .".' ' ' , ' .. " , ' -, ' .~ .. " " '.' .'. ';" ..... - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23, 2012 TO: FROM: Rocale Timmons \ f ,/ Neil Watts, Development Services Director N~ I() Kennydale Apartments SUBJECT: Signalization Requirements The Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) included a condition related to signalization improvements at the intersections on the on-off ramps at Exit 7 of 1-405. The project proponent has requested clarification of the application of this condition for their project. The project proponent has asked for three clarifications related to the required improvements at the Exit 7 interchange. These questions are: 1. What level of improvements will be physically required for the project if building permit applications are made prior to building permits for other projects using the limited capacity at the interchange? 2. When do the improvements need to be permitted and constructed relative to the building permit approval and building occupancy process? 3. Will the City grant a credit toward the project's required SEPA/lmpact fees for the interchange improvement costs? The Exit 7 interchange does not have sufficient capacity for additional traffic without some level of improvements. There are currently three proposed developments that would require improvement to the interchange to be able to proceed to construction. These projects are the Kennydale Apartment project, the Hawks Landing hotel development, and the Quendall Terminals mixed use development. The City has determined that it will approve building permits for these projects based on the capacity of the interchange remaining at the time of building permit submittal for the project. The first level of improvement to create additional capacity is construction of a signal on the west side (southbound) ramps and channelization improvements on the east side (northbound) ramps. This first level of improvements would provide sufficient capacity for the proposed Kennydale Apartment project and Hawks Landing Hotel project. Development of additional projects beyond these two projects would require an additional signal on the east side ramps, and further channelization improvements. The signalization of both ramps would not provide sufficient capacity for full build out of the three previously mentioned development projects.' The full interchange and adjacent freeway will need to be revised to provide sufficient capacity for the full build scenario. Kennydale Apartments -Signalization In':provement Clarification Page 2 of 2 March 23, 2012 The City's approach to issuing building permits for the three projects is to require only the level of improvements to the interchange necessary to provide sufficient capacity for their incremental increased traffic volumes. The early projects will only be required to install the first level of improvements, which are for signalization of the west side ramps and additional channelization improvements on the east side ramps. When building permits are submitted for the later projects, which requires additional capacity, the project will be required to provide the second level of improvements, including Signalization of the east side ramps and further channelization for both ramps. Finally, there will be a point where no further building permits can be approved until the WSDOT improvements for this section of 1-405 and new interchange are completed to provide sufficient capacity for full build out of all three projects. The developer constructing capacity related improvements may elect to request a latecomers Agreement prior to installation of the improvements. If approved, this may provide for partial repayment to the developer from future developments. The entire Exit 7 interchange, including both ramp intersections, are within the WSDOT right-of-way. Any improvements constructed at these two intersections must be approved by WSDOT, and constructed to their construction standards and requirements. The second question was what actual construction of improvements is required for the building construction process. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the project applicant must have approved permits for construction of the capacity related improvements required for the building permit. This includes posting a performance bond for the improvements. The capacity related improvements must be constructed and accepted by the City prior to any occupancy of the building. The third question is whether the City would consider the cost of the improvements as credit toward required transportation SEPA or impact fees. The Public Works Department has agreed to allow for up to 50% of the cost of the improvements to be credited toward the SEPA or impact fees for the project, unless otherwise prohibited by adopted city code. The credit would not exceed the amount of the transportation SEPA or impact fee for the project. The City will also consider adding these improvements to the TFP list to avoid possible conflicts with pending impact fee legislation. In summary, the project will be required to provide the level of signalization and related improvements to the 1-405 Exit 7 ramps needed to provide sufficient capacity for existing conditions and the additional traffic from the subject project, at time of building permit application. The improvements will need to be permitted and bonded prior to issuance of the building permit, and completed prior to occupancy of the building. Up to 50% of the cost of the improvements will be considered as credit toward transportation SEPA or impact fees, unless otherwise prohibited by city code. This credit shall not exceed the amount of the transportation SEPA or impact fees for the project. Cc: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Chip Vincent, Interim CEO Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Fire Chief L AA-I/-o it> '1 William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers/Planners MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: FILE NUMBER: SUBJECT: REFERENCE: INTRODUCTION (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com Neil Watts, Development Services Director; City of Renton Department of Community and Econo~'lot\ Development 0\ ~e . \0'(1 Bill Popp, Sr., P.E. C\'CIl \I"\~ 0\\1\5 March 27, 2012 f?\'a.I"\fI LUA11-069, SA-H, ECF, CU-H '1 '1 '\.'II\'\. Kennydale Apartments V-\>.~ ~ Signalization Requirements \\~~'Q; Your Memorandum of March 22, 2012 ~~©~\ Thank you for the well reasoned and partially helpful solutions to an otherwise difficult problem. Regarding WSDOT, you may be right, simple is likely not in their lexicon. Also we learned in a March 20 meeting with you that we cannot easily avoid inclusion of Port Quendall in our solution as it is a vested project with a binding site plan, even though its horizon year is considered indeterminate. But we have a new take on the westside ramp terminal intersection solution: RATIONALE What if we simply provide mitigation that reduces the intersection delay to a level that is equal to or even significantly below the background condition? This would be consistent with policy expressed in the March 8 HEX report page 25 which says "to not exacerbate the Level of Service (F) at the intersection ...... ". In addition the City's Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analyses, Section F. Condition Analysis says "the developer is expected to maintain with their development the same level of service that would be anticipated in the horizon year if the site were not developed".' And in Section G. Mitigating Measures it says "if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary to insure that horizon year levels of service without the project are maintained, the analysis should ..... ". There is nothing in the Guidelines that restricts the discussion to letter LOS grades. Technically roadway level of service is defined by vehicle delay measurements; the letter grades simply bracket the measurements with LOS F having no upper limit. There is nothing in the Highway Capacity Manual that would suggest there cannot be varying degrees of worse once one enters LOS F. In fact there have 14-400 Building. Suite 206 • 14400 Bel-Red Road. BeIIevue, WA 98007 been proposals in the traffic engineering fraternity for use of LOS G-l, -2, etc. The micro simulation models estimate LOS delays that can be quite extreme as we find for the unmitigated westside ramp intersection. So it is possible to meet the "maintain pre development level of service" requirement by lowering delay (seconds) and still be in LOS F letter grade status. PROPOSAL We are therefore proposing to mitigate the project's impact on the existing LOS (delay) at the west side intersection by providing stop control on all legs. Currently only the off ramp is stopped and that leg of course generates the lion's share of the intersection delay. This proposal is not an outlier --in a different venue it would be considered a short range traffic improvement action. This action would also be consistent with your memorandum statement page 1 that the interchange "does not have sufficient capacity for additional traffic without some level of improvements", and with the theme on page 2 of providing "sufficient capacity for their (the three projects) incremental increased traffic volumes", and "the first projects will only be required to install the first levelofimproverrients .. ". The all-way stop solution meets the "some level of improvement", "sufficient capacity for incremental increased traffic volume" and "first level of improvements" requirements. The difference between this dialogue and the LOS discussion above is your use of the term capacity which has essentially been replaced using delay as the primary terminology for LOS and capacity discussions. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS To conservatively check on the all-way stop concept, we conducted a micro- simulation analysis with the PQ EIS development, plus Hawk's Landing full development proposal (Hotel = 180 units, rest = 9.5 ksf, 314 apts), plus Kennydale full development; and all for a 2015 horizon year. The Kennydale project traffic is included in both analyses for each intersection but technically should be excluded from the first analysis in each since that would be the no- build condition. The Kennydale Apartment volumes are small so the impacts are minimal although it is more pronounced at the eastside intersection. This can be corrected for the record, if necessary, if you agree with this approach. Following are the results of this solution: . 2015 PMPK* with Kennydale Apts Hawks Landing Full Build PQ Alt 1* Lk Wa Blvd/NE 44th Stll-405 SB Ramps w/existing intersection configuration LOS overall intersection delay F 3714 secs/veh w/all-way stop F 183 secs/veh Lk Wa Blvd/NE 44th SUI-405 NB Ramps w/existing intersection configuration LOS overall intersection delay F 154 secs/veh wI SB RT lane F 59 secs/veh SUMMARY of RECOMMENDATIONS and CONCLUSIONS 1. Convert the Lk Wa Blvd/NE 44th St/I-405 SB ramps intersection to an all-way stop configuration. This action results in a huge reduction in . total intersection delay (3531 sees) and thus constitutes improvement in LOS versus what would be anticipated in the horizon year if the site were not developed and the improvements were not made. 2. Install a southbonnd right turn lane at the Lk Wa Blvd/NE 44th St/I-405 NB ramps intersection. This action results in substantial reduction in total intersection delay (95 sees) and thus constitutes improvement in LOS versus what would be anticipated in the horizon year if the site were not developed and the improvements were not made. 3. The recommended actions preserve the City's traffic mitigation fees for more worthwhile projects. 4. The stop sign action could be taken at an early phase to start realizing benefits for existing motorists. 5. Considering the short shelflife of anything that gets built at either ramp terminal intersection, one might suspect that even WSDOT would wince at a new signal installation at this location, and at the other ramp terminal as well. * An important issue associated with our TlA study that I do not think we discussed in our March 20 meeting --the Port Quendall traffic that we were directed to use was based on a 2006 study for the City of Renton which provided an assessment of the site's development potential as limited by system capacity (1.1 msf office, 1500 apartments, 200 ksf retail). However, the 2010 PQ EIS, which we only became aware of several weeks ago, has substantially less .- development proposed in the preferred alternative (Alt 1 = 800 apts, 22ksf retail, 245 ksf office, gksf restaurant). And that is what is used in the above analysis. Also the PQ horizon year of 2015 is used since background traffic for that was readily available from the PQ EIS traffic study along with trip generation and traffic distribution. Backing down to 2013 (the Kennydale Apartments horizon year) would produce more favorable results but would require arbitrary phasing assumptions for PQ. , , CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: March 8, 2012 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M 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: Kennydale Apartments LUA (file) Number: LUA-11-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H Cross-References: AKA's: I Project Manager: Rocale Timmons Acceptance Date: August 23, 2011 Applicant: Howard & Beatrice Seelig Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Carl Pirscher, CDA Architects PID Number: 3343300820 ERC Decision Date: February 13, 2012 ERC Appeal Date: March 2, 2012 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: March 15, 2012 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPAl Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional I single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artistLincubator space. I Location: 1901 NE 48th Street Comments: STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the JReJrn 11:0 lIll JR e pO r1l:er a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public No1l:ice was published on February 17,2012. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $129.50. ~7/!~ Uriaa M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscrib€d and swom,to me this 17th day of February, 2012. Ka'thy Dalsell/Notary Public f. in Covingtol, Washington P. O. Number: tate of Washington, Residing ;\'OTICEOF E;'<IVIRO~I\IENTAL DETERMI/iATIOI' E~VIRO~i\lENTAL REVIEW CO,\II\llrn:E ANI) PUBLIC IIEARII'G RENTO~, WASHII'GTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Detemi- nation of Non-Significance-Mit· igated for the follo\""lng projC1:1 under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Kennydalc Apartments LUAII·069 Location: 1901 NE 48th SI. The applicant is requesting HEX Site Plan Review. Condi- tional Usc Permit approval, and SEPA to construct a 6-StOfv mixed-use building containing 230 apartments, 2,500 SF of commercial space and an addi- tional single story, 40,000 SF, artist/incubator sstructure. The tallest point of the structure would be approximately 68 fect and 10 inches. The vacant 4.8 acre site is located in the CA zone. Access would be provid- ed off NE 48th S1. A total of 392 parking spaces are pro- posed. The site is located with- in a High Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. Critical slopes are also located on site. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 2, 2012. Appeals must be filed in "Titing together with :\\\\\\\ the required fee with: Hearing ...... ,""'''v 0""'1" Examiner, City of Renton, \055 $" :"\,",, 1 ~ I"" South Grady Way, Renton. WA .#'~",,,,"'''''''Sld~'''''''~~ II~ 98057. Appeals to .the ~xaminer = $~S f.I S'l!.111. Q t. are governed by City of Renton ; g~ OT~ ~ ~ Municipal Code . Section i ~8 ~ J.. i~ ~ 4·8·110.8. Additional mforma- ::: ~ (D~ ~ tion regarding the appeal process :::: ~ A\ E:; may be obtained from the Renton ~ ~\ VS\.\V § g City Clerk's Ollice. ~., 'II,TO ,'.I §r! = (425)430·6510. ~, ~ "'1,,"'9 ... ~, ...... .s;.".A\. E A i>ublic Ilearing will be held by 1I111 Of: I\\\\",~.\: \~...., .#' the Renton Hearing Examiner in "Ih, VV~~~............... the Council Chambers. City lIall. I"t~t~-on March 15.2012 at 1:00 pm. to consider the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review. If the Environmental Determination is appeaJcd, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hear- ing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing Published in the Renton Reporter on February 17, 2012. #586075 o CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 8th day of March, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Hearing Examiner Agenda and Report to the Hearin Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing See attached Parties of Record Carl Pirscher Contact Howard & Beatrice Seelig Owners ~ 111 ~ """"\\\'"'It . (Signature of Sender): ~:"I' ""~Ot, "ATE OF WAS",",,"' : " (;~ I", COUNTY OF KING) ~ \;:rJ-fI ~~J ~ ~~Q.2t., E I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker ii~1 "i?~ It,,,,,,, !!Ii ~~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary al!!l(or~~~a purposes . . . fI'III\\\,,"" mentioned In the Instrument. Dated: mon), ~ QI Q! "2.. Notary Pu iC in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print):. ___ ..:.!-I.!.....:A...:...:..., _&:::.'..:.r:::...k~(!..-____________ _ My appointment expires: .A. A rI, , "'\J ~ 04~J OI.OG Project Name: Kennydale Apartments Project Number: LUAll-069, ECF, CU-H, SA-H • Todd Sherman Development Project Manager Conner Homes 846 108th Avenue NE #200 Bellevue, WA 98004 Howard & Beatrice Seelig PO Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Brad Faulkes PO Box 4248 Renton, WA 98057 Tim McGruder Eastside Autobon PO Box 370 Kirkland, WA 98083 Douglas Pomeroy 7714 lilth Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Kennydale Neighborhood Association Attn: Darius Richards PO Box 3115 Renton, WA 98056 June Houson 11030 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Brad Faulkes 771111lth Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Susan R. Irwin 770111lth Place SE Newcastle, WA 98056 Hire & Yuka Taja 11103 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Carl Pirscher CDA Architects 20011 Ballinger Way NE #200 Shoreline, WA 98155 Joyce & John Parente 11129 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 Rita Mayeaux Apartment Insights 16030 E Tumbleweed Drive Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 John Murphy 4314148th Street 5E Bothell, WA 98012 , ' : Qenis Law Mar or , , , Marcn 8, 2012 Carl Pirscher CDA Architects Department of Comrnunity and Economic Development , Alex Pietsch, Administrator 20011 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Shoreline, WA 98155 SUBJECT: Kennydale Apartments LUAll-OG9, ECF, CU-H"SA-H , ' Dear Mr. Pirscher: This letter is to inform' you that the appeal 'period ended March 2, 2012 for the, Environmental Review Committee's (ERC)Determinati~n of Non-Significance Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed ~n the ERC determination therefore, this decisioois final. The applicant must comply with all ERe Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and , Decision dated February 13, 2012. ,Also, a !:leafing Examiner Public Hearing has been . scheduled for March 15, 2012, where Site PI~ln Conditions may bedssued. The applicant ' or representative(s) of the applicant ~re required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Report to the HearingExaminer foryourreview~ , , if yo~ hive any questions, plea;e feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. , '!jFo~th, e~Env" iroi1m~ntal Re.v,iew cO,m, mittee, -. '. . . . .... .: . '", ,~ , Roc ',' Timmons ' " ,'. ' ,.': AssoCiate Planner Enclosure cc: . ~oward & Be~tiice Seelig I Dwner(s) . . . . :' . . Todd Sherman, KennydaJe Neighborhood Association":' Darius Richards, June Houson, Joyce &)ohn Parente, . Brad Fciulkes, Rita Mayeaux, Tim McGruder, Susan R. Irwin; John Murphy, Douglas P.omeroy, Hlro, & Yuko . 'rajo / Party(ie,) of Record " . Renton City Hall 0 "055 South GradyWay ,~ Renton. Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING March 15, 2012 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 1:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(sl listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Apartments PROJECT NUMBER: LUAU-OG9, ECF, CU-H, SA-H PROJECT LOCATION: 1901 NE 48th Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPAl Review for the construction of a G-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40/000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. HEX Agenda 3-15-12.doc <·;w_:~~ ... :::: .. _ .. .; ..... ' .. .:< -.~.'.' :i·;·: .~-.. , .... -'.'~' •.......... ". :'.: .. :, .••. ,: ".' ,,-;: ,.~ .. :: ~"i~ ,'. '.' -•. : .~:: .... 0,' <.,~ .. ':. ... 0 boU ":"; 10lB ~~: . ',r; 1',,' .. ~ .S ;':€:::: -.,,' .'. , ~~ ~, ~ .. ! .• ~ :--::,~~; ~"~' .~': ~ tl flJ' (:' 1:,:.,-, '" iL):; l '-~ ::::> t .... ~ <:f.: ." .... ~' ~U~[: f) (l 'Dr I C\ I • N 1= 1=1 I:tI 1=1 ::t: >< w • ; r; 8ID 0 i;t ® CB Op ~ ~ 1=1 W ~ W II I ! I ! I Iii I II ! I ! I I II I , . I I I! I ! i i I I : I I I I! ! ! I ! . • Ii . ;; j I' I • • • 1 _I ! I I I : I 1:1 ~ I! I I I .: Ii , . , i Ii I l i .' • I o e 0 • 0 • 0 . II 'I! I I ! I I I I ! ! ! I i I I II I ! I' i ! I I I ! I ,I I I I 1 , q 'i ,-F ,-J .~ .r I H~H 'i ii Ii I.l .!I !, . . ) ,) I , , " I 'I ! i I I 'lf~~:~I; ~Oj ~.-rnn \0J L1ifl ~ -s:' "-"" {J1JJ IgJ ! II , I , , ; • "" C GC >-< t ... ~ <=. I J I ; , lJ ! Ill:" I I ' i I j , , i i I ! ~O ~~ ~~ ~ . ~o 6~ o~ ~l) lf2 ~ c ~ I 1 I KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 1'301 . NE 48T~ STREET RENTa.'.1tIA --_. -------j-' me il'li~-. 11 'i v:; I ~ CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAFE FLAN ______________ ...l..-_ 1:1:l:1:~c I ~ 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I ~HHI~H ---1 :::J III ---1 « I-z w o I-« L w I as I- d) « ""-=~c------- - - i - --_1 ____ '-" __ ---1 W I Ii o z ~ ~ 0 I-« Il1 ::J '<i' 0 ~ t= "-I=l )-m Il1 1-=1 c Il1 J: 0 • ~ T )( <l) ~ !.Y '" z <l) 0 ~ , I-« I- 0 > « D W > -1 W W ~ 0 • I-0 • « l- I: « W I: To W' • O~ :r~ ill' 0' 1-< <l)~ <l)~ • 1-- ~ W· <l),;; 3~ ~ 3~ • " ------c: c @ 0 ji I or!'_.' 0 [lJ!)] j I ,~ .:£: , II I '" >-, (!\ S i "' I 0 ~ ~ !~ c:.:: = I "" (L&D 'I """ C'l ~ -L 0 Q) • , , c '"" I . , :;,., c =:> ~ tJ -s:> .. ~ .. (\; <! ~jlJi z H"" O~ () () far: f- 0 W <ll (l a • ..I .' 11l~ ~" We f-W -<i <ll~ " , ---------- ! i! I ! II 1ft H , 'j ~ I , l. II • "I F , I • ! . I ! I , I 'I I=;l ! 1 ! L m . i .' i i !l I=;l . , ~ tJ 1 ~ tJ ::!:: , >< , LY , , , , I , , r , U\ I Z , () Z () , f-, 0 f-I 0 , W , <ll W <ll , (l , (l , a a I ..I , I1l ..I , ~ I1l , W ~ , f- W I <ll f-, <ll I ~ II.II:IID'I'I'III SNOIl~3S 9N'01l[19/31'S ~'H>'::: ~ I **~ :11 ! L-_____ -:;-________ s_1N_~_z:'_~_~S_d_~l_~_i~_~_~:_:_,~_b_', ~ i ; , i • ! • • ~ , I I I , I' 1 PI 1l&7 '.::.;, ~ '" "" = -ildJd) '-0> ((j1 =0 -q ~~ Wi foP --':=:: ------ ii • ! , I, I jl I il H 1; , I , I , , z () t- U ill <f) <Cl Q ..J co " w l- <f) i i! I '. h -! ! II i L ,. I •• ~ 1; , , , I , I , I I , , , I I , , , , , I , , i , " I I . , I il ! I • • • I ! I ~ (S I- U W <f) <Cl Q ..J "-W I- <f) il '! I. II ! I .. " 1; ----• i il I 'I , I, i i . , I' I I 'I I L i H i ~ 1; 1 , I , , I , I , , jl '" z () I- U ill <f) <Cl Q ..J co "- W I- <f) lfi l=- 1=1 00 1=1 ::I: >< I.Y Denis Law Mayor j February 15, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) on February 13, 2012: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: . Kermvdale Apartments PROJECT NUMBER: LUAll-OG9, ECF, SA-H, CU-H LOCATION: 1901 NE 48th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPAl Review for the construction of a G-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 2, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by 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. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~ Roc e Timmons Ass ciate Planner EXHIBIT 6) Renton City Hall· 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Washington State Departme Page 2 of 2 February 15, 2012 Enclosure Ecology cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshaot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region . Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers 334330082002 621 COMPANY PO BOX 1925 BELLEVUE WA 98009 323900002003 BOURGUIGNON JEAN M+JOANNE 7611 11lTH PL SE RENTON WA 98056 334330114003 DEITCH MICHAEL J 4613 LK WASH BLVD NE KIRKLAND WA 98033 323900006004 FAULKES BRADLEY HKATHY 7711 11lTH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330084206 HUSON JUNE OLJVE+HOOF KATRI 11030 SE 76TH ST NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330110001 KIEWIT CONSTRUCTION CO %R J 1000 KIEWIT PLAZA OMAHA NE 68131 323900015005 PARENTE JOHN J & JOYCE E 11129 SE 76TH ST NEW CASTLE WA 98056 334330074108 SHARAM FAMILY TRUST I PO BOX 2401 KIRKLAND WA 98083 323900009008 WYATT RICK & LINDA 7728 11lTH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 323900011004 ANDERSON TOD D 7702 l1lTH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330078000 BROTMAN SUSAN T PO BOX 677 MEDINA WA 98039 334330112007 E & J INCORPORATED 4710 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NE RENTON WA 98056 323900004009 FUNG BILL S K +HELLEN C 12520 SE 72ND ST RENTON WA 98056 323900005006 IRWIN SUSAN R 770111lTH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330110506 KIM BARO 4800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NE RENTON WA 98056 323900010006 POMEROY DOUGLAS S+CHERYL Y 7714 l1lTH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330112502 SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS DEPT PT WA 08170 PO BOX 25025 GLENDALE CA 91201 334330074207 YUEN HENRY N 3600 24TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98144 323900001005 ATZBACH JOHN WILLJAM 11103 SE 76TH ST NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330080006 CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL NST C/O AIMCO{fRPTS PO BOX 111397 CARROLLTON TX 75011 323900008000 EPLER WILLIAM E+SUSANNA W 7729 l1lTH PL SE RENTON WA 98056 323900007002 GODDARD RUTH M 7721 l1lTH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 323900014008 KARRELS WILLIAM HSUK CHA 7610 l1lTH PL SE NEW CASTLE WA 98056 323900012002 KO ALVIN L+EVELYN L 7626 l1lTH PL SE ' NEWCASTLE WA 98056 323900003001 ROLLJNS BENJAMIN A 7617 l1lTH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 323900013000 SUERO JAMES A 7618 l1lTH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUI\IIIY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H APPLICANT: Howard & Beatrice Seelig PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) ,Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space, An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space, LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 1901 NE 48 th Street The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. Earthwork shall be limited to the drier summer months of May 1st through September 30 th or as approved by a Geotechnical Engineer or the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall comply with ~ of the recommendations included within the "Geotechnical Engineering Study", prepared by GEO Group Northwest, Inc., dated May 27, 2011. 3. The applicant shall contract with a Geotechnical engineer in order to verify that the earthwork, foundation and other recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and engineering plan documents. Geotechnical monitoring services shall also be provided during construction covering inspections as recommended in the geotechnical report. 4. If the ospreys return to the nest site in 2012, the applicant will do no clearing or construction within a , 5,000 square foot area closest to the nest site until after the offspring fledge from the nest, which is typically sometime in early August. 5. The applicant shall be required to construct a new osprey nesting platform as deemed acceptable by the Current Planning Project Manager and the City of Renton Community Services Department prior to construction permit approval. 6. The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton MuniCipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Build,ing Permit application. EXHIBIT "] ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 2 7. At the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/I-40S Northbound Ramp's intersection and the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/I-40S Southbound Ramp's intersection there shall be signalization of the intersection as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis, dated May 2S, 2011 (Exhibit 8) prior to building permit approval. 8. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. 9. The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 2 of 2 \ CITY OF'RENTON " '. ..,. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN!TY & ECON9MIC DEVELOPt'!ENT -PLANNIN'G-DI\(!SION, ,:,. . -, AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 23rd day of August, 2011, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application, Environmental Checklist, & Site Plan reduced copy documents, This information was sent to: 1,---" --', .,--.~~. "-"7-" :;;:-. _ ~~- I::~_, ,_. .., ,,' ,,'_', "Name Agencies See Attached Dept. of Ecology (SEPA Registry) Agency -email Todd Sherman Pa rty of Record Kennydale Neighborhood Assoc. -Darius Richards Party of Record Carl Pirscher Contact Howard & Beatrice Seelig Owners 300' Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only See Attached (Signature of Sender): /~ 1I1~-v' ~~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ff~ ~ ) ss ff <I( #,V, COUNTY OF KING) % $ fl,~ ~ J ~ Qf~; I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker '1,.....0 or signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary ac{1rqflt~Il$O ~cMf:rposes mentioned in the instrument. II",,\\\\ ... ~·" Dated: ;/'"" ... 1::13 dOli '-.\ ! Notary ~ and for the State of Washington Notary (Print):, ____ .:..:I-1_A~,..J("_~L("'c-.:lIc,~~r:..... ___________ _ My appointment expires: AV-4~~"--~ ~o\3 ~ I . . _~?-,','" or' ".'" --~,:! "C, Project Name:', " Kennydale Apartments "'./.'~'IIi' ~~~ ... ,.....,.~ . .,.--".- f)PJ.i?j~£i:'&~T-~~ii LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H IEXHIBIT 8 template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology· Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region· Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers· Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers· Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, 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 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LEITER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept .• 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172" Avenue SE 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 Preservation- Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City o!Tukwila Municipal liaison Manager Steve lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jalnga 6200 South center Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 "'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, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing ~ City of Renten, Washington LUA 11-069 Kennydale Apartments IEXIHIIBIT 9l n an Internet mapping sfte and In this map mayor may net be , current, or otherwise renable. BE USED FOR NAVIGATION t;'IIU Lakes and Rivers Parcels street Names Rights of Way Streets Roads Jurisdictions &; ""->;'; oa. Moi"leJ C Issaquah ~;: """ 0 ~gCOmty ~ Mcreerlslllnd ~~ -(II) RENTON "' ',-"'T« <l! s_ 'a T ...... Aerial (March 2010) .. Red: BllncU " Grwen: Bard_2 C Blue: BamL3 1: 2,395 @8.5"x11" ~~ A .. : II II ~. j I :.," .~!f: " '.' .;:: ::: ® :{ :"." September 5,2011 Rocale TImmons City of Renton Associate Planner 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 CitY of Renton . . ng DiVISIOIl p\aJIIlI .. Re: Kennyda\e Apartments, lUAll'{)69, ECH,SA-H, CU-H I am writing to express my opposition to the referenced project. While I am not a resident of Renton, and hence not able to vote for Renton's public offiCials, I am nonetheless hopeful that my comments will be given serious consideration. My property immediately abuts the proposed development. Priorto purchasing my home, I made certain to familiarize myself with existing restrictions for the land in question. Currently, my property is considered view property and I purchased it only after verifying that existing building restrictions would not allow for construction that would ultimately impact my view. If Renton grants the requested Conditional Use Permit, that will no longer be the case. Moreover, and of greater concern, the site for this proposed development is within a High Erosion Hazard area and landslide Hazard Area, as noted in the materials. If you contact the City of Newcastle, you will learn that this is a very real and on-going problem. Two landslides have already occurred immediately adjacent to my property. The land on which this development is to occur has many visible cracks running along the surface where land is on the verge of sliding. If the Ctty of Renton ·approves this development, with notice of the existing erosion and landslide issues, and any of my property is lost due to construction, the City will be a party to the resulting lawsuit. Finally, the traffic impact of this proposal is significant. Allowing 392 vehicles to have ongoing ingress/egress to SE 76th (NE 48th) will make it extraordinarily difficult for residents of l11th Place S.E. to exit our street. Given the limited site distance from lllth down SE 76th, it is already difficult to safely turn onto SE 76th. If the traffic is increased exponentially by the proposed additional vehicles, the probability of traffic collisions is significantly increased. I would think the City of Renton would wish to avoid the liability of creating an easily anticipated traffic hazard. For all of these reasons, I am asking that the City of Renton deny the requested construction and building permits, as well as the conditional use permit. Please continue to provide me with any information on this proposed project. Very truly yours, Susan R. Irwin n0111lth PI. S.E. Newcastle, WA 98056 \EXHIBIT 10 r ! Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Greetings Rocale, Tim McGruder [tmcgruder@gmail.comJ Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:54 PM Rocale Timmons .;, ...•. ,:. Kennydale Apartments, LUA 11"()69, ECF, SA-H, CU-H GoogleEarth_lmage.jpg As board member and representative of Eastside Audubon Society (EAS), I'd like to comment on the above referenced project Attached is a GoogleEarth Image and GPS location of an active Osprey nest. Osprey is classified by Washington State Department of Wildlife as a Monitor Specie. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 3, 050 , Subsection K, 1, A Habitat Conservation indicates that some regulation is involved, but unclear what. Further, it's unclear how the current proposed development would impact the birds using the nest. EAS recommends that the City of Renton contact Chris Anderson of the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Mill Creek office to discuss the proposal and if needed, a consulting biologist finn engaged t6 develop a plan to mitigate any impact to the birds. Sincerely, Tim McGruder Eastside Audubon Society Cell 425-457-0465 EXHIBIT lID 1 " i. ":'.; ... Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: John Parente UepDp@comcast.net] Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:20 PM Rocale Timmons Re: Kennydale Apartments (Builing Sections -Elevations) .,'" ,:{. ~~~~© Rocale -thanks for all of the schematics. As far as I can tell, the top of the building will 'f ~~ the same height as the top of the house with the flat roof that is adjacent to the Northeast comer of the site. (Please confirm.) When I try to project that to the middle of the site, it looks like we MIGHT be OK, but is very difficult to get the complete perspective. I can say, however, that if the building stayed within the 60 foot limit, we would definitely be OK as far as our view is concerned. Our biggest hang-up now is the traffic on SE 76th St. We are asswning that the kids there will be going to Hazelwood since it is closer (and still a Renton school, 1 believe) than Kennydale. We also assume that most of the shopping will be up the hill to the Newcastle Shopping district. So we are convinced that traffic up the hill will significantly increase and some traffic revision will be necessary. Please remind your environmental team about the water problem that has plagued this hill for quite some time. The builder of Hemingson Terrace trapped the water in wells and piped it into the storm sewer. We acrually had enough water to water our laWns during the year that no watering was allowed. As I stated on our phone call, the apartments just to the North could not move aoyone in for about a year because of the water problem. The pressure of the water in the ground actually pushed down their retaining wall into the parking lot. The problem was taken care of by digging a ditch halfway up the hill to catch the water aod dump it into the streelto the North of that property, aod by building a much stronger retaining wall with steel girder pilings aod large timbers. It was my understanding that, as a result, the builder went baokrupt. For your information, Joyce and I are not against your project; we just want it to be completed properly, safely, aod with consideration for those ofus that have been here for many years. Who knows, if the units are nice -we might be tempted to sell and move in to one of the top floors. We are getting to that age (both in our 70s.) Thanks again for the info. Do you still waot a letter, or is this email enough. John aod Joyce Parente f&tWp.ri:~~Nr~gQii~~~~t&;~~ii~~~~{w&1lli~tt1&~~~~~~~1}w,tfffi~l~m~tt~~~f~l$f&.Jr~~it~~~~f~~~~~ To: 'jepiio@comcast.ner Sent Tuesday, August 30,20119:47 AM Subject Kennydale Apartments (Builing Sections -Elevations) Hello Mr. and Mrs. Parente, Attached you will find the cross sections for the building elevations. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Rocale TImmons City of Renton -Current Planning Associate Planner 105S South Grady Way EXHIBIT 10 1 RE: Kennydale Apartments (Project Number: LUA11-069, ECF, SA-G, CU-H) 6 September, 2011 Dear Sirs and Madam: CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED SEP 06 LOll BUILD!NG D!ViSION We would like to register our comments regarding the proposed Kennydale Apartments project at 1901 NE 48th Street (SE 76th Street), which is adjacent to our property. We have grave concerns about potential impact that this project may have as noted in the following three points: 1. Unreasonable Size and Scope The proposed project isnot consistent with other structures for similar usage in the neighborhood. While most neighboring structures adjacent to the project are 2 to 3-story single family houses, commercial or multifamily dwellings with an exception of the 4-story apartment complex to the south, the proposed structure will be a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space, as well as an additional single story, 40,000 square-foot structure. That is definitely much too big for the community which is no way meant to be an urban setting or a hub where people gather. Our preliminary research on the buildings surrounding the project is as follows: North of the proposed project: Condominium Complex 3-story structures 108 rooms 140 parking spaces South of the proposed project: Apartment Complex 4-story structures 104 rooms 192 parking spaces Northwest of the proposed project: Public Storage 1-, 2-story structures Southwest of the proposed project: Motel 2-, 3-story structures 129 rooms 106 parking spaces East of the proposed project: Residential Houses 2-, 3-story structures EXHIBIT 10 ---=-1iJ{~:ffillt(0lDl0 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTA.L DETERMINATION AND PUBUC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A OETERMINAnON OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE. MmGATEO (ON$-M) POSTIDTO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIIIONMENTALI\CllON ~OJ(cr NAME, ~.Myd.1e ""'._ .... "rOJECT NUMIfII: WAU.o6t,ta, SA-H, CU-H ~CATlOft' 001 HI .... S_I ESCRIPllON' TIl •• pplfnl'll)' .... u •• t/nt: H .. rl". wrnlnl' sa. ~H ... ,mtt 'PP_~ Ind fnvl"",mlntll' ISEPAlllevllw lor Ih, conslnlctlon of pr,n 1IavWN, CondrUgnl1 C.nhllnr.., ua __ III """"""'" 1,.5(IO ........ ,Nt of _rd.I lpace. An ~:..~ boI~Id"", ~...toot. _ 1s.1Io ptOpoH1I_'tl ...... '"111" be ... 0<1 at .rtlst/lncubl!Dr ,_. IOfy..ooo THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERe) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HJ,VE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON TIlE ENVIRONMENT. Appa'S d Ih .... wlronmlnt.1 dol_ln,Uon must b, 111M In wrilin. "" or IHofot. 5'00 II M <;h 2 2011,. Appn', muot b. fliid In wrltJn. I",.thor with th_ .. quire<! In wllh-H ri r:;' ~n It • R,nton, 10S5 SCluth a,.dy Wwy, Rlnton. WA '1057. Appal1 10 th, blml~ ::. ~m:n:; ~~ :: hnlDn Municipal C ..... SldIDn ...... 111) .•• AddItl_llnformatl"n rdl til oblllnHl from tltl Renton CltyCl,rk's Office, {425) ofJ0.6S10. ... III I Ippill pl'OCau may b~ A PUBUC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY ~E RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGUlAlI MEETING IN ~E CooNOl CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF aTY HALt., lOSS SOUTH GRAOV WAY RENTON WASHINGTON ON MARCH 15. 1012 AT 1:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE IF THE ~:'~~~~.MENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEAlED. THE APPEAL WilL BE HEARD AS PART OF nilS PUBUC CERTIFICATION I, kocale Tim rn ~ ns ,hereby certify that .s copies of the above document were posted in ~. conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date.: __ 2..::...1..-1:....,/ 7l..f/~2'-"t2:li,/~~_- STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OFKING ) ) SS ) 1 certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that 1\.OCCL\ ..... y, ro IflN2A.S signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ~:I."\\*tll Date,9-'''g',!ta \] .?lot 2.. 11. ,A ~rf4 #' . 31Ji~ J ---N-o-ta-ry!:..l...p...Ju;':b~li-cJ,;iTand~alon"'d!"Jf:e.o4r-t-he-St-a-t-eo-f-W-a-s-h-in-gt-o-n-- = ~ = ~ !l.C>O~' ~~ i Z a.. ~ %'i,J,..... ~... H. A. 6ro.-heC '\ .... ....?-"d. • g My appointment expires: A'AIa' +s f--::Lq q10 G ~ ........... ,..:...... : ' __ <=(]"'f'.bl.L--""'-'-+j-"''''''-'--"------ "'11,-T4 rr.: Of ~'i',fl': It, ,,~ 11,,,\,,,,,,,'" r · . CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT· PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 15th day of February, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Carl Pirscher Contact Howard & Beatrice Seelig Owners June Houson POR Joyce & John Parente POR Brad Faulkes POR Rita Mayeaux POR Tim McGruder POR Susan R. Irwin POR John Murphy POR Douglas Pomeroy POR Hiro & Yuko Tojo POR Todd Sherman POR Kennydale Neighborhood Assoc -Darius Richards POR (Signature of Sender): dt/U~//h~ £~o STATE OF WASHINGTON )0 i .$>' ~~~~" \ ' ••• 0 ) SS .~ COUNTY OF KING ) ~ ~\..Q.~.)' J ~ I "rtf, "" I ,"OW" h'" "'''''00" ~Id,"" 'hoi , .. " M. ,,,',, ~1fi .. J signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act ~~s and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: £4NM~~ lo;; ;;tQ\2- Notary P blic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): __ ......,:(,j~. A~,.....!<6~r~ak!CZlOle/ ____________ _ My appointment expires: A""fiv..S!r: 02Q) a.O.!3 Project Name: Kennydale Apartments Project Number: LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H template -affidavit of service by mailing , . , • • Dept. of Ecology·· Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region· Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers· Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers· Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Oev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -larry Fisher· Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept .• 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office· Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program· 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division· Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation· Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 2015. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 *Note: Ifthe Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. "Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template· affidavit of service by mailing .. .. OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Kennydale Apartments LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H 1901 NE 4Stll Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental {SEPAl Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building .... containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure Is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/Incubator space. 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 of the enVironmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 2, 2012. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 980S7. 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. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, lOSS SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 15, 2012 AT 1:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE, IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200, DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Indude the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. · , Denis Law Mayor FebruarY '15, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator CarlPirscher CDA Architects, ' k '20011 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Shoreline, WA 98155 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPAl DETERMINATioN Kennydale Apartments, LUAll-OG9, ECF; SA-H, CU-H Dear Mr. Pirscher: .. , This letter is written on'behalf oftheEnvironmental Review Committee (ERe) 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 re'fer to the enClosed ERe Report and Decision, Part 2, SectionB for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals ofthe environ~ental determination must bi!filed in writing on or before 5:00 p;m. onMarch2, 2012. Appeais mu~t be filed in writing together with the required fee , with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton~ WA 98057. ' Appeals tothe EiGiminer are goverJiedby City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-' 110.B. Additionalinformation regarding',the appeal process may b~ obtainedfrom the Renton City 'Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. " , Also, a Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washingto~, ,on March 15, 2012 at 1:00' p.m. ioconsiderthe Site Plana~d Conditional Use. The'applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the , public hearing~ A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Deterrriinationis appealed, the appeal will be heard aspart of this , public hearing., :rhe pre~eding information will assist you inplan~ing forimplement~tion of your project and enable you tei exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you ~hoose to do so. If you , have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425)430-7219~ .' .' . . Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • .Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa,gov :,', Carl ~irscher_· Page lof 2 . -.' . February. 15, 2012 .For the Environrne'ntal R~iliew'Cornmitt~~, ..•. ~~~ •..... . As'; ciatePlimnei'" .'. •... ..... .".. .. ; . . .-. ", ,'I. '.' . '. ~, '" .. ',' .. EnClosure; :,,1 . . .-. . :. cc; . H'~ward & 'BeatriceSeelig'/ Owner(,)': .' ·Todd.shermani,Ke'nnYdale Nelglibqrhood Association -7 Qariu'~ ':Richards,,'June 'HpUson, 'j~yC,~. &_ John P~uerite; ',Brad Faulkes, Ri,ta Mayeaux,Tim Mc~ruder, Susan R. Jrwj~,·j'ohrdviurphY~ Dougla~ POITleroy,:Hlro,&,Yuko' . .. roje /PariVlies) "fRecord . . -.. ' . -.' ..' ". ...... .. .', ' " "I ~ '".. ' , " .,:' ,". ",; . " ~ ':,' " "",' " . .... , 1 : ' , .': " .'.'. ,': ,,' ',~ , " "',' ... .. :;.' . , , , ~, ,:" "," ."" ,";., .1.' .,., , :' .~ ERCDeieimination Ltr DNS-M 11-069:doc ~. , ,-,' , .," . , ',,' ,; , Denis Law Mayor February 15, 2012 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on February 13, 2012: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Keimvdale Apartments PROJECT NUMBER: LUAU-OG9, ECF, SA-H, CU-H LOCATION: 1901 NE 48 th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a G-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 2, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by 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. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~~ Roc e Timmons Ass date Planner Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov .. Washington State Department of Ecology Page 2 of 2 february 15, 2012 Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region larry fisher, WOfW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers .. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H APPLICANT: Howard & Beatrice Seelig PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) ,Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 1901 NE 48 th Street The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. Earthwork shall be limited to the drier summer months of May 1st through September 30 th or as approved by a Geotechnical Engineer or the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant shall comply with ill! of the recommendations included within the "Geotechnical Engineering Study", prepared by GEO Group Northwest, Inc., dated May 27,2011. 3. The applicant shall contract with a Geotechnical engineer in order to verify that the earthwork, foundation and other recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and engineering plan documents. Geotechnical monitoring services shall also be provided during construction covering inspections as recommended in the geotechnical report. 4. If the ospreys return to the nest site in 2012, the applicant will do no clearing or construction within a 5,000 square foot area closest to the nest site until after the offspring fledge from the nest, which is typically sometime in early August. 5. The applicant shall be required to construct a new osprey nesting platform as deemed acceptable by the Current Planning Project Manager and the City of Renton Community Services Department prior to construction permit approval. 6. The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Building Permit application. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 2 7. At the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/I-40S Northbound Ramp's intersection and the Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St/I-405 Southbound Ramp's intersection there shall be signalization of the intersection as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis, dated May 25, 2011 (Exhibit 8) prior to building permit approval. 8. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. 9. The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton MuniCipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 2 ef2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H APPLICANT: Howard & Beatrice Seelig PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 1901 NE 48 th Street The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicont: The /ol/owing notes are supplemental in/ormation provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as in/ormation 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 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Water: 1. Available fire flow is 4,000 gpm. The Fire Department has calculated preliminary fire flow for this project to be 4,000 gpm. Applicant will be required to extend the 12-inch water main in NE 48 th Street to the easterly property line and provide a 12-inch looped water main around the building on site. Connection to the existing 12-inch main near the southwest property line will also be required. See City water drawing W- 0885. 2. Due to site constraints and limited fire department access, seven hydrants will be required. Location of hydrants will be subject to fire department approval. Any existing hydrants counted as fire protection shall be retrofitted with a Storz fitting if not already in place. 3. A reduced pressure backflow assembly will be required to be installed in line of the 2-inch domestic water meter proposed to serve the site. 4. Water system development fees will be based on the size of the water meters that will serve the site. This is payable prior to issuance ofthe construction permit. ERe Advisory Notes Page 1 of 3 5. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies (DDCVA) for fire sprinkler systems. All DDCVA installations shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. For DDCVA installations inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location, installation, and standard detail of the backflow assembly inside the building. The 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. 6. 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. Sewer: 1. Interior floor drains shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. 2. Sewer service will be provided by Coal Creek Water and Sewer District. Drainage: 1. A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required. A SSWP plan with recommendations for erosion control will be required to be submitted to Department of Ecology. 2. Five feet of frontage will be required to be dedicated to the City for right-of-way to accommodate the road cross section design requirements. 3. No driveway slope shall exceed 8%. Driveways exceeding 8%, but not greater than 15% grade, are subject to City approval. Applicant shall submit a request in writing justifying the request. Driveways exceeding 15% requires application to the City for a variance of City code. 4. Surface water system development fees will be based on the square footage of the new impervious surface area. The rate is $0.405 times the new square footage after final design. Proposed new impervious surface area is 139,217 square feet. Estimated fee is $s6,383.00.This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. See attached fee schedule. Fire: 1. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout all buildings. Dry standpipes are required in all stairways. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within ls0-feet of all points of the building. Fire lane signage required for the on-site roadway. Required turning radius are 2s-feet inside and 4s-feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. An approved hammer head type turnaround is required near the southwest corner of the site on the lower access level. 3. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire planning purposes. 4. All buildings equipped with an elevator in the City of Renton are required to have at least one elevator meet the size requirements for a bariatric size stretcher and car width shall be a minimum of 80-inches wide with a center opening door. 5. The building shall comply with the City of Renton Emergency Radio Coverage ordinance. Testing shall verify both incoming and outgoing minimum emergency radio signal coverage. If inadequate, the building shall be enhanced with amplification equipment in order to meet minimum coverage. Separate plans and permits are required for any proposed amplification systems. ERe Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 Transportation: 1. The city would support cost sharing (on a pro-rata basis) of improvements at the NE 44th St j 1-405 Southbound Off Ramp and NE 44th St j Lake Washington Blvdjl 405 Northbound Off Ramp intersections to address this development's and other future developments (Le., Hawk's Landing, Quendall Terminals) impacts on these intersections. ERe Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .. ----====~~©1ffi ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H APPLICANT: Howard & Beatrice Seelig PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1901 NE 48th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable. significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). 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 p.m. on March 2, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 11O.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: Gregg Zi m r n, A ministrator Public WorRs Department ,)'1.-.... ~J------- Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department February 17, 2012 February 13, 2012 Date .?h:/( 2 7 ( Date Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Fire & Emergency Services Administrator Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator FROM: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager MEETING DATE: TIME: LOCATION: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:00 p.m. Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Kennyda/e Apartments (Timmons) WAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H Location: 1901 NE 48th St. Description: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. cc: D. Law, Mayor l. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director· R. Perteet, Deputy PW Administrator -Transportation C. Vincent, CED Planning Director· N. Watts, Development Services Director· L. Warren, City Attorney· Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal· J. Medzegian, Council ~. City of Renton, Washington LUA 11-069 Kennydale Apartments IEXHllIBlIT 2 from an Internet mapping stte and ~r on this map mayor may not be rate, current, or otherwise reliable. TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Parcels street Names Rights of Way Streets Roads Jurisdictions " .;::; ".~ g Des Molno, r:: IUIIC(UlIh !;i Kon\ Q Kin" CoL81ty it: Men:erlsillfllJ 1:.~ """''''. {Ii RENTON r.~ "'T~ Q; s_ ~ T~kwf\a Aerial (March 2010) C Red: Dal'ld_' [J Green; Band _2 [] Blue: Sanct3 1: 2,395 @8.5"x11" r--NoI9s Enter Map D~ptJon ---- ..::: .; . . -,: o :-." .:.; ..... , ... ; .. , ...... ~. C 'r~ ,r:· .9 bJJ /: ~j n .. ~rl I ~~:..~I <' .. ~.~ l~.~.>~ .:'-::0 .' . ~ .. , ~~~.;. . , •... ~ "'.~ . .;:..:, i.Vl.B . ~ ~ . ..' "." (~;:} S :=> --1: ~U1.f: u ..:..~ (L r(lT o 1 ~ 1IIIIIIIIIIII11'I1'Ilii I.IOJlli'l\IiI13 JOlo":) ( j1JoN'1'''3 IiJo(;jW&llWO? ~ ,;;;rifel II L ____________ --=.l:::N~=3=3>ll::.~~::.~l_=~~~.:..:~=7:..:1.::~:::., I I I I I I I I I I I I UHHH ~ ~ o -1 :::J ill -1 <! I- Z ill o <l) ill ll:'. '"' <l) ~ I- ~ ill -1 ill .\,) I- <! l: ill =r o <l) I- <l) <! ill """'~ ,--- ---- -- ! I - --~ - - --'--'.-- !!-'\'--+-- ---- - - ~ I- ~ ill -1 ill =r l- ll:'. o z Ii ~ I --------~,.- ~ <f) w II ~ <:( 19 !l ~ <f) a oc -1 0 ::) I-I'll <:( -1 I'll ::) '<t <:( II i= ~ F z w "-I=l a >-00 <f) I'll toot W I'll :J: c 0 oc ):( ~ :r • ~ LY <f) z <f) ~ ~ z ~ I-0 <:( I- 0 > <:( w > 0 -1 W W -1 W ~ II 1l l-• <:( l-• 1: <:( w 1: :r. w' • ll"-:r~ <f)" ll" f-~ <f)~ < <f) .. 1-- WW Q)w 3~ w~ 3~ • - ... ' ... ~ .. :: .::;,., ;.L--i-. -I-Jb~tJ=t.t:~ ; /.1- I I ! \ i \ ij(' \ \ ,lsI-~-I·.!·f.-'--:h! , I ' I \ 0 '\0 ( \ I: I I I: \ h· i.li' ) \ \ I 1. j \ \ ': jill' ~ . .Il·t : ..•. ', t A~ ,H ':" If (I I . \, \ : \ I 1 \ I' :i' .,' !I. "'1. ,. I II ! ,I \ \ ' I!rl·ft r\ \: I... ,I \ , I ~ \ ~ Q \ \ ~ I 11f-'1----+----f' : Ii I I I, \ I • , ' . , \ .\ .:: ••• , .... : .' .• > :......... ;: •••.•• f' --. I I I i"i· ~ "1\\ '-,-.-J--1\ \ . , '. , \ , '. \ • 0 , .-\; \ \. \ ~ D ill > -<t: <I) ill III 0 I- ill ill O!: 6 1 : ::.~.;.::.:. U\ t; !::a 1=4 ~ )( J!,! . "':: ... '.' ..... . ..... : :-.-............ : ... .;.: '.,'~,.: . ".':' -:.': :" . "-:'. .;. ... :-........ , ' .. .;: .... ~ .'.~ ... , ...... -... ,.,:::._;:. Wetland Science Wildlife Ecology . i November 28,2011 To: From: RE: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Mr. Bob Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC Joel W. Merriman, Raedeke Associates, Inc. Richard W. Lundquist, Raedeke Associates, Inc. Seelig Kennydale -Osprey Habitat Assessment (RA!. No. 2011-040-001) Landscape Architecture c· . Ity of Renton P1anmng Division . DEC -1 ~Ol1 (0) rf'>. At your request, Raedeke Associates, Inc. bas prepared the following report documenting the results of our osprey (Pandioll haliaetus) habitat assessment for the Seelig Kennydale property in thc City of Renton, Washington. Specifically, this report addresses an osprey nest located at the top of a cellular tower above a storage unit on the adjacent parcel to the west. This evaluation was required by the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development (2011) in an October 3, 2011 letter, which stated that the applicant must provide an evaluation of" ... the extent, function, and value of the [osprey] critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements inRMC 4-8-120D .... " . SITE LOCATION The project site consists ofTax Parcel No. 3343300820, located within the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M. This places the site on the south side ofNE 48th Street, just east ofInterstate 405 in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). Parcel maps retrieved on-line from King County (2011) iMap depict the approximate property boundaries. BACKGROUND The osprey is a large fish-eating raptor that is found near relatively largc, calm, clear, freshwater or marine waterways that bear surface-swinuning fish. They can be found on every continent but Antarctica at some point during the year, and in the United States their distribution encompasses the coasts, the mountain west, and the boreal forest across Alaska and Canada (Ferguson-Lees and Christie 2001). Ospreys breed in suitable habitat throughout Washington State, though they are uncommon in the Columbia Basin (Seattle Audubon Society 2011). These birds are migratory inWashington, typically arriving in late March to early April and departing in August or September. 9510 Stone Avenue N. EXHIBIT {; -526-8122 www.raedeke.com September 5, 2011 Rocale TImmons City of Renton Associate Planner 10S5 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 CitY of Renton . ·119 DivIsIon Pla nf11 Re: Kennydale Apartments, LUA11-{)69, ECH,SA-H, CU-H I am writing to express my opposition to the referenced project. While I am not a resident of Renton, and hence not able to vote for Renton's public officials, I am nonetheless hopeful that my comments will be given serious consideration. My property immediately abuts the proposed development. Prior to purchasing my home, I made certain to familiarize myself with existing restrictions for the land in question. Currently, my property is considered view property and I purchased it only after verifying that existing building restrictions would not allow for construction that would ultimately impact my view. If Renton grants the requested Conditional Use Permit, that will no ionger be the case. Moreover, and of greater concern, the site for this proposed development is within a High Erosion Hazard area and Landslide Hazard Area, as noted in the materials. If you contact the City of Newcastle, you will learn that this is a very real and on-going problem. Two landslides have already occurred immediately adjacent to my property. The land on which this development is to occur has many visible cracks running along the surface where land is on the verge of sliding. If tlie City of Renton ·approves this development, with notice of the existing erosion and landslide issues, and any of my property is lost due to construction, the City will be a party to the resulting lawsuit. Finally, the traffic impact ofthis proposal is significant. Allowing 392 vehicles to have ongoing ingress/egress to SE 76th (NE 48th) will make it extraordinarily difficult for residents of Hlth Place S.E. to exit our street. Given the limited site distance from 11lth down SE 76th, it is already difficult to safely turn onto SE 76th. If the traffic is increased exponentially by the proposed additional vehicles, the probability of traffic collisions is significantly increased. I would think the City of Renton would wish to avoid the liability of creating an easily anticipated traffic hazard. For all of these reasons, I am asking that the City of Renton deny the requested construction and building permits, as well as the conditional use permit. Please continue to provide me with any infonmation on this proposed project. Very truly yours, Susan R. Irwin 7701111th PI. S.E. Newcastle, WA 98056 !EXHIBIT "1 A ,.-., .. ',.' .... '. '" ... '-." . ', .. -;.; --; ;; ~.:----. .--.. : :.; ." ,," ... ' -- Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Greetings Rocale, Tim McGruder [tmcgruder@gmail.com) Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:54 PM Rocale Timmons Kennydale Apartments, LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H GoogleEarth_lmage,jpg As board member and representative of Eastside Audubon Society (EAS), I'd like to comment on the above referenced project Attached is a GoogleEarth Image and GPS location of an active Osprey nest. Osprey is classified by Washington State Department of Wildlife as a Monitor Specie. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Chapler 3, 050 , Subsection K, 1, A Habitat Conservation indicates that some regulation is involved, but unclear what. Further, it's unclear how the current proposed development would impact the birds using the nest. EAS recommends that the City of Renlon contact Chris Anderson of the Waqhington Department ofFish and Wildlife Mill Creek office to discuss the proposal and if needed, a consulting biologist firm engaged to develop a plan to mitigate any impact to the birds. Sincerely, Tim McGruder Eastside Audubon Society Cell 425-457-0465 !EXHIBXT 7fS 1 :-'.» ............ ,._ .. : ··'.'i Rocale Timmons From: John Parente Oepjjp@comcast.netl Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:20 PM .' To: Rocale Timmons IRI Subject: Re: Kennydale Apartments (8uiling Sections -Elevations) ~~~~\QJ Rocale -thanks for all of the schematics. As far as I can tell, the top of the building will ~!~ the same height as the top of the house with the flat roof that is adjacent to the Northeast corner of the site. (Please conf1Illl.) When I try to project that to the middle of the site, it looks like we MIGHT be OK, but is very difficult to get the complete perspective. I can say, however, that if the building stayed within the 60 foot limit, we would definitely be OK as far as our view is concerned. Our biggest hang-up now is the traffic on SE 76th St. We are assuming that the kids there will be going to Hazelwood since it is closer (and still a Renton school, I believe) than Kennydale. We also assume that most of the shopping will be up the hill to the Newcastle Shopping district. So we are convinced that traffic up the hill will significantly increase and some traffic revision will be necessary. Please remind your environmental team about the water problem that has plagued this hill for quite some time. The builder of Hemingson Terrace trapped the water in wells and piped it into the storm sewer. We actually had enough water to water our lawns during the year tjlat no watering was allowed. As I stated on our phone call, the apartments just to the North could not move anyone in for about a year because of the water problem. The pressure of the water in the ground actually pushed down their retaining wall into the parking lot. The problem was taken care of by digging a ditch halfway up the hill to catch the water and dump it into the streetto the North of that property, and by building a much stronger retaining wall with steel girder pilings and large timbers. It was my understanding tbat, as a result, the builder went bankrupt. For your information, Joyce and I are not against your project; we just want it to be completed properly, safely, and with consideration for those ofus that have been here for many years. Who knows, if the units are nice -we might be tempted to sell and move in to one of the top floors. We are getting to that age (both in our 70s.) Thanks again for the info. Do you still want a letter, or is this email enough. Jobo and Joyce Parente !~ffl1t~~~~~tfniij;t~~~:i~,g~~~Jffii~~~l~~ITi!~~mit~~~';f,i~~!f;biW.£~~2i~ii~~J£ilU~11~1:~j~~i8:;!1[~[:~%];:i.~~j~hl;~:~~lt~~~tti~f~1~1Jm~B To: 'jepiip@comcast.ner Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:47 AM Subject Kennydale Apartments (8uiling Sections -Elevations) Hello Mr. and Mrs. Parente, Attached you will find the cross sections for the building elevations. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Associate Planner 1055 South Grady Way \EXHIBIT 1C- 1 .t RE: Kennydale Apartments (Project Number: LUAU-069, ECF, SA-G, CU-H) 6 September, 2011 Dear Sirs and Madam: CITY OF RENTON RECE!VED SEP 06 2011 BUILD!NG DIViSION We would like to register our comments regarding the proposed Kennydale Apartments project at 1901 NE 48th Street (SE 76th Street), which is adjacent to our property. We have grave concerns about potential impact that this project may have as noted in the following three points: 1. Unreasonable Size and Scope The proposed project isnot consistent with other structures for similar usage in the neighborhood. While most neighboring structures adjacent to the project are 2 to 3-story Single family houses, commercial or multifamily dwellings with an exception of the 4-story apartment complex to the south, the proposed structure will be a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space, as well as an additional single story, 40,000 square-foot structure. That is definitely much too big for the community which is no way meant to be an urban setting or a hub where people gather. Our preliminary research on the buildings surrounding the project is as follows: North ofthe proposed project: Condominium Complex 3-story structures 108 rooms 140 parking spaces South of the proposed project: Apartment Complex 4-story structures 104 rooms 192 parking spaces Northwest of the proposed project: Public Storage 1-, 2-story structures Southwest ofthe proposed project: Motel 2-, 3-story structures 129 rooms 106 parking spaces East of the proposed project: Residential Houses 2-, 3-story structures EXHlrllUT "1 D I , William Popp Associates " I Transportation Engineers/Planners (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassot.AIDm . '-'1--' -Y of I':'" ", ,', .01-,' --.. ,I);) dl1niriQ ty .. ;:;) t H/lSIGn AUG 1 2 LUiI TRAFFIC KMlPACT ANALYSIS for Kennydale Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Prepared for: Seelig Family Properties Prepared by: William Popp Associates 14-400 Building, Suite 206 14400 Bel-Red Rd Bellevue, W A 98007 May 25, 2011 EXHiBiT 8 14-400 Building. Suite 206 .14400 Bel-Red Road'. Bellevue, WA 98007 Denis Law ." Mayor Department of Community and Economic Development 'Alex'Pietsch, Administrator, ' December 2,2011 Hiro 'and YukaTojo ' 11103 SE 76 th St 'Newcastle, WA 98056 , ' SUBJECT: Kennyd<ile Apartments! LUAll-069,ECF, SA-H, CUcH " ' DearMr. and Mrs. Tojo: Thank you for' your comments ,regarding the Kennydale Apartment proposal; dated September 6,,2011. Your letter has been included 'in the official project file. Your comments will be considered by the reviewing official before making a decision on this project. If you have any further questions regarding this project fee'l free to C~ritact me at (425) 430-7219: Sincerely, ' --f?~~ '.' "'Rjal~ Ti~moris ' ,". " ' Associate Planner cc: File LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H' Carl Pkscher-CDA Architects / Applicant Renton City Hall 0 i 055 South Grady Way 0 Renton, Washington,980S7 0 rentcnwa.gov ••• JohnsMonroe MitsunagaKolousko:y~ Robert D. Johns 0 Michael P. Monroe 0 Darrell S. Mitsunaga 0 Duana T. Kolouskova Ms. Rocale Timmons, Planner November 30. 2011 Department of Community and Economic DevelopmenC't Renton Citv Hall J y of Renton 1055 S. Gr;ldy Way Planning Division Renton, W A 98057 Re: Seelig Kennydale Apartments LUA 11-069 Requested Osprey Study Dear Ms. Timmons: DEC - 1 LUll In response to your letter request of October 3, 2011, the applicant hereby submits the requested study regarding the osprey nest that is located in a cell tower west of the subject property. We believe this report and the mitigation measures proposed in it should adequately address the issues related to the osprey nest. It is our understanding that, upon submission of this report, the City will resume processing the Seeligs' application. If there are any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ~ !!jJ ~ (signed cler..:tronically to avoid delay) Robert D. Johns Direct Tel: (425) 467-9960 Email: johns@jmmlaw.com Enclosure cc: Howard and Beatrice Seelig (with enclosure) 1901-811r to Ronlie Timmons 11-30-2011 T: (425) 451-2812· F: (425) 451-2818 1601 114th Ave. SE. Suite 110· Bellevue, WA 98004 ®loo®}k\® &~~KID@5I!lU@~Q OOO@o Date: To: From: Project: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL November 29, 2011 Mr. Bob Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 I 14th Avenue SE, #110 Bellevue, W A 98004 Richard W. Lundquist, M.S+"..A· Associate/Wildlife Biologist RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 9510 Stone Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98103 Seelig Kennydale -Osprey Nest Evaluation (RAI No. 2011-040-001) Please find enclosed: Three copies of the following: Wetland Science Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture f5)[E~[E~~[E [U~ 30 mn JOHNS MO!~rW[ MITSUNAGA & IIOlOUSKOVA pile CityOfR P/annin en tOn 9 DIvISion DEC -1 201/ o Seelig Kennydale -Osprey Habitat Assessment, dated November 28, 20 II Remarks: Per your request, enclosed is one copy for submittal to the City of Renton, plus one copy each for you and Howard. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 206-525-8122 or via e-mail at rwlundguist@raedeke.com. 9510 Stone Avenue N. Seattle, W A 98103 206-.525-8122 www.raedeke.com I . ~m®Ik® R,[;i[;\<Jl)(fOill UI]"[;\Q 0 1l!J(f 0 November 28,2011 To: From: RE: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Mr. Bob Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC Joel W. Merriman, Raedeke Associates, Inc. Richard W. Lundquist, Raedeke Associates, Inc. Seelig Kennydale -Osprey Habitat Assessment (R.AJ. No. 2011-040-001) Wetland Science Wildlife Ecology Landscape Architecture c· Ity of Renton . Planning Division DEC -1 lOll At your request, Raedeke Associates, Inc. has prepared the following report documenting the results of our osprey (Pandion haliaetus) habitat assessment for the Seelig Kennydale property in the City of Renton, Washington. Specifically, this report addresses an osprey nest located at the top of a cellular tower above a storage unit on the adjacent parcel to the west. This evaluation was required by the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development (2011) in an October 3, 2011 letter, which stated that the applicant must provide an evaluation of" ... the extent, function, and value of the [osprey] critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-8-120D .. ,," SITE LOCATION The project site consists of Tax Parcel No. 3343300820, located within the Southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M. This places the site on the south side ofNE 48th Street, just east of Interstate 405 in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure I). Parcel maps retrieved on-line from King County (2011) iMap depict the approximate property boundaries. BACKGROUND The osprey is a large fish-eating raptor that is found near relatively large, calm, clear, freshwater or marine waterways that bear surface-swimming fish. They can be found on every continent but Antarctica at some point during the year, and in the United States their distribution encompasses the coasts, the mountain west, and the boreal forest across Alaska and Canada (Ferguson-Lees and Christie 2001). Ospreys breed in suitable habitat throughout Washington State, though they are uncommon in the Columbia Basin (Seattle Audubon Society 20 II). These birds are migratory in Washington, typically arriving in late March to early April and departing in August or September. 9510 Stone Avenue N. Seattle, W A 98103 206-525-8122 www.raedeke.com Mr. Bob Johns November 28, 2011 Page 2 Ospreys nest on the flat tops of tall structures that are isolated or otherwise as tall or taller than surrounding trees, and prefer nest sites where there are additional perch sites within view of the nest (WDFW 1991). Historically, this structure was typically a snag or live tree with a broken or otherwise flat top, but they also nest on cliffs in some parts of their range. In the modem world, nest structures also include man-made structures including utility poles, pilings for docks, buoys, and radio or cellular towers, and they readily use artificial nest structures. Ospreys show strong site fidelity, returning to the same nest for multiple years (WDFW 1991). From 1972 to 1981, the osprey was included on the Audubon society's Blue List of declining species. In the mid-1980's the U. S. Forest Service classified ospreys as "ecologically sensitive," and the species also received special conservation status in 15 states. Declines were likely due to persistent pesticide usage (especially DDT) that could still affect osprey populations in some areas, as well as excessive human disturbance or declining fishery stocks (Johnsgard 1990). In contrast, populations have increased in Washington since the 1960's. In Washington, breeding bird survey data show a significant population increase of 11.7% increase from 1982 to 1991 and an increase of 10.2% per year from 1966 to 1991 (Smith et al. 1997). Ospreys are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, by Washington State (RCW 77.15.130; WAC 232-12-011), and by many local jurisdictions, including Renton. Ospreys are considered a state monitored species by Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW 201Ia), which are species that are "managed by the Department, as needed, to prevent them from becoming endangered, threatened, or sensitive." Because they are listed as state monitored species, habitat for ospreys is regulated as "critical habitat" under the City of Renton (2011; RMC 4-3-050(K» code. METHODS We visited the site on October 17,2011 to observe the osprey nest on the property adjacent to the Seelig Kennydale property, document the wildlife habitat conditions on the Seelig Kennydale site, and assess the osprey habitat on the study site and in the general vicinity. Based on our field investigation and our understanding of the proposed site plan, we will evaluate probable impacts to osprey habitat and assist the applicant in proposing minimization measures and mitigation for probable impacts to the nest site. Prior to our site visit, we reviewed information available from the WDFW (20 II) online Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database for the occurrence of wildlife species of concern, their habitat, or other important habitats that may be found on or in the vicinity of the study site. Literature referenced for this study included National Wildlife Federation (1987), Poole (1989), Johnsgard (1990), Rodrick and Milner (1991), Ferguson-Lees and Christie (2001), Poole et al. (2002), and Seattle Audubon Society (2011). Mr. Bob Johns November 28, 2011 Page 3 RESULTS Background Information and General Observations The WDFW online PHS (2011) database showed no occurrences of priority habitats or species on the Seelig Kennydale property. A wetland is mapped approximately 300 feet west of the property, but otherwise no other priority areas or points are mapped within 0.25 miles. However, osprey nests are mapped approximately 1,750 west and 2,450 feet west-southwest of the property. The former of these is located near the south end of the Seahawks training facility and was transferred to an artificial platform in 1993. The latter of these was on the old Barbee Mill site and has been replaced with an artificial nest platform near the mouth of May Creek, approximately 3,550 feet southwest of the Seelig Kennydale property. During our field visit, we observed the osprey nest structure on top of the cellular tower on the adjacent property, and due to the time of year it was clear that the birds had left to migrate to their wintering grounds. A discussion with employees of the business on the adjacent property indicated that two young ospreys hatched in this nest during the 2011 breeding season, but only one of these successfully fledged. Habitat Conditions and Functions The Seelig Kennydale property is entirely covered by second-growth deciduous forest (Figures I and 2), with scattered conifers, that has developed over time since past logging. The overstory was dominated by Oregon ash (Fraxinus lalifolia), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and red alder (Alnus rubra). Some of these trees, particularly the Pacific madrone, black cottonwood, and some Douglas fir, are fairly large [25 to 30 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) or larger]. The understory layers of shrub and low cover herbaceous vegetation varied in density and composition across the site. The shrub layer consisted of varying amounts of common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), salal (Gaultheria shallon), English ivy (Hedera helix), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), Cascade barberry (Mahonia nervosa), young Oregon ash, redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea) and Pacific willow (Salix lucida). The invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) was common near the forest edge, as well as under more open portions of the forest canopy. Herbs varied in density throughout the site, and the most common species was western swordfern (Polystichum munilum), though creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), the invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and other herbs were prevalent in places. The site had relatively few snags (standing dead or partially dead trees), and none of those observed appeared to be remnant dead trees from the previous forest stand prior to past logging. We found several snags scattered across the site in several locations, Mr. Bob Johns November 28,2011 Page 4 mostly Pacific Madrone and Douglas fir, including four that were 20 to 30 inches dbh, as well as a few logs and other woody debris. While on-site, we documented large, oblong holes in the snags on the site, which is typical sign of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) foraging and/or nesting/roosting. We could not determine whether any snags had been used by this species as nest or roost sites, but found no definitive evidence of such use. Some of this sign was weathered, and some was recent. We also detected a pileated woodpecker on the site, flying below canopy from the southeast to the northwest portion of the site. Pileated woodpeckers are listed as candidate species in Washington State (WDFW 201Ib). The second-growth deciduous forest on site likely provides nesting, foraging, and cover for a variety of wildlife species common to the Puget Sound Lowlands, including birds, mammals, and reptiles and amphibians. We observed a number of resident bird species during our field investigation, including American robin, American crow, black-capped chickadee, winter wren, dark-eyed junco, Steller's Jay, song sparrow, golden-crowned kinglet, and spotted towhee. During the spring and summer breeding season, we would expect additional bird species to occur on site, including various warblers, vireos, wrens, and others common to deciduous forests in the area. The suitability of the site for some species, such as wider-ranging birds and mammals, is limited by the relatively small size of the site and the habitat fragmentation in the area. The site is surrounded by residential or commercial development on all sides, with a narrow connection at the southeast corner to additional forest habitat to the southeast. Another patch of remnant forest northeast of the site is separated from it by NE 48 th Street. Consequently, although the forested habitat on site constitutes a patch of habitat between other forested patches, the linkages are somewhat fragmented. We found no distinct evidence of use of the site as part of a movement corridor by any species (e.g., game trails), although such evidence could be difficult to detect. The site could be used as a "stepping stone" by migratory birds or those species with larger home ranges moving among forest patches. The site currently provides some foraging habitat and cover for pileated woodpeckers. We observed a pileated woodpecker on site, and found some evidence of foraging use. There are a few snags on the site that are large enough to be used by this species for roosting or (less likely) nesting, though as noted above, we did not see any clear evidence of such use. Breeding pairs of pileated woodpeckers typically excavate a new nest cavity in the trunks oflarge trees (typically at least 25 inches dbh) every year, and we did not see any recently used cavities in snags on the site that would indicate breeding activity. We would expect the Seelig property to provide only a small portion of the habitat area required for a single bird or pair, as this species typically occupies home ranges of between I and 2 square miles. Mr. Bob Johns November 28,2011 Page 5 The Seelig property currently provides no nesting or foraging habitat for ospreys. The active nest is located on a cellular tower on the adjoining property approximately 25 feet west the western property boundary. The site contains no habitat for fish, and we would expect ospreys to forage in Lake Washington and other fish-bearing tributaries in the area. The trees on site within view of the nest may provide alternate perches for ospreys, and the forest currently provides screening from adjacent residences upslope of the nest. IMPACTS ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to construct an apartment building and associated parking and landscaped areas on the site. The site plan would remove most of the forest habitat on site. The eastern approximately 80 feet of the site would not be cleared under the proposed site plan, except to provide some landscape improvements. No development is proposed at this time for this eastern portion of the site under the current application. Removal of the deciduous forest would further fragment remnant forested habitat in the vicinity. To the extent that the forest canopy is retained in the eastern portion of the site, however, the existing connection to the forested habitat to the southeast, as well as the proximity of additional forested patches to the northeast of the site, would remain. Removal of forested habitat from the majority of the site likely would reduce the local populations of native wildlife species, and some species may be eliminated from the site. However, the small size of the site and the proximity of urban uses under current conditions likely make the site less suitable for species adapted to interior forest environments. The on site forest has a high degree of urban edge habitat from these surroundings. To the extent that some snags and large trees would remain in the eastern portion of the site, pileated woodpeckers may continue to use the site as foraging habitat and forest cover. We do not expect pileated woodpeckers to be eliminated from the general vicinity, as this site is only a small portion of the existing forest habitat in the area. The proposed project (Figure 2) would have no direct impacts to the osprey nest or the birds that use it. The nest structure would likely remain on the cellular tower on the adjacent site, barring unforeseen circumstances. However, the proposed project would have temporary and permanent indirect effects on this pair of nesting ospreys. Temporary effects would include noise and visual disturbance (heavy machinery, human presence) during site clearing and construction activity. Permanent effects would include removal of the native forest screening adjacent to the tower and nest structure, increase of the degree of urbanization, and the noise, traffic, and visual disturbance of the new apartment complex. Human presence, particularly close to the nest site, is often more disturbing for birds than more regular disturbance such as traffic. With human habitation comes an increased possibility for harassment of nesting birds, as well as the presence of domestic cats and dogs, the latter of which can be visually disturbing to nesting birds, as well as dangerous to young that may fledge prematurely. Without mitigation, these indirect effects could result in nest Mr. Bob Johns November 28, 20 II Page 6 failure or abandonment. On the other hand, ospreys using the nest site on the adjacent property are habituated to current levels of human activity, and could continue to nest in this location once construction is complete. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS The City of Renton (20 II) regulates properties containing critical habitat, which is defined as "habitats associated with the documented presence of ... species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority ... " The City (20 II) further requires a "habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation ... " The City code does not include specific protection or management guidelines for ospreys. Although not required under state law for state monitor species, the WDFW (1991) has provided management recommendations and guidelines for ospreys. These include a 200-foot radius "no-cut" zone around active osprey nests, as well as a 660-foot radius zone in which all human activity would be restricted from April I to October I, and retention of some potential nest or roost trees. DISCUSSION AND PROPOSED MITIGATION The ospreys using the nest site on the property adjacent to the Seelig Kennydale site are likely to use Lake Washington as their primary foraging area. No foraging habitat is provided by the Seelig Kennydale property. Thus, the function of the Seelig Kennydale site for these birds is as visual screening, to a lesser extent auditory screening, possibly providing alternate perch sites, and the absence of visible human activity and disturbance to the east of the nest site. Individuals of some diurnal raptor species, including ospreys, can become habituated to human presence and associated disturbance when they select a nest site in proximity to humans (National Wildlife Federation 1987, WDFW 1991), such as the storage facility next to the Seelig Kennydale site or the old Barbee Mill site west ofthis project site where a nest was previously located on the active sawdust collection tower. In such instances, it is reasonable to assume and has been documented in other cases that such birds will potentially be tolerant of additional human activity, though this may vary from pair to pair and in different locations. It is typical in these instances that ospreys become habituated to regular or otherwise fairly continuous disturbance, whereas disturbance that is sporadic or of certain types (e.g., researchers or maintenance crews climbing the nest structure, people stopping near the nest to talk and look at the nest, etc.) are more likely to be bothersome. Mr. Bob Johns November 28, 20 II Page 7 Within wildlife populations, different individuals have differing levels of sensitivity to disturbance. The WDFW (1991) guidelines may be more suitable in more remote (i.e., less urbanized) settings where birds are less habituated to human activity than this pair likely is, given their chosen nest location on an artificial structure on a developed site. In addition, these guidelines are not readily applicable to the Seelig property without precluding practical use of the property consistent with existing zoning. Per the City's (2011) code requirements to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts to critical habitat, no direct impact to the nest structure or cellular tower are proposed. Given the location of the nest in a developed setting, with some forest screening to the east under current conditions, the greatest disturbance to the nest from the proposed project would likely occur during construction, with its clearing, grading, and associated noise and human activity. Once the project is built, the noise and human activity would be greater than under current conditions, but would likely be reduced to more normal urban levels. Thus, the following measures are proposed as impact minimization measures and mitigation for probable impacts to the nesting ospreys. We do not have any reliable information on when the subject osprey nest was first occupied, and whether or not the ospreys will re-use the nest site in 2012 or later is unknown. Ospreys form strong pair bonds and tend to return to the same nest year after year as long as they are breeding. Ospreys typically start breeding at 3 or 4 years of age and have been documented to breed to at least 10 to 17 years old (in rare cases to 25 years old) in populations where such data are available (Poole 1989), but this can vary among different individuals and populations for many reasons. Under these circumstances, the applicant proposes the following mitigation measures: 1. If the ospreys return to the nest site in 2012, the applicant will do no clearing or construction within a 5,000 square foot area closest to the nest site (approximately 100 feet long in the north-south direction and 50 feet wide in the east-west direction) until after the offspring fledge from the nest, which is typically sometime in early August. 2. The applicant will pay a mitigation fee of $1 0,000 to the City of Renton to be used to construct a new nesting platform in an acceptable location. The applicant suggests that the north part of Coulon Park would be an excellent choice for location of such a structure. Alternatively, a site closer to the subject property could be chosen, if a suitable location is available. These measures should help reduce potential disturbance of the existing nest during construction and provide a potential alternate location, should the current nest be abandoned. Mr. Bob Johns November 28, 20 II Page 8 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC. No other person, company, or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from them. The determination of wildlife species presence/absence and wildlife habitat suitability is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this document should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any management activities. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field and is prepared substantially in accordance with then-current survey protocols, guidelines, and technical criteria. The conclusions of this letter represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponents and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this information for you. If you have any questions regarding this report, we are available at (206) 525-8122. LITERATURE CITED City of Renton. 20 II. Renton Municipal Code. Available online at: http;//www.codepublishing.com/walrentonl. Last accessed November 2, 2011. City of Renton, Department of Community and Economic Development. 20 II. "On hold" notice -Kennydale Apartments / LUAII-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H. October 3, 2011 letter to Mr. Carl Pirscher, CDA Architects, Shoreline, . Washington. Ferguson-Lees, J., and D.A. Christie. 2001. Raptors of the world. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. National Wildlife Federation. 1987. Raptor management techniques manual. Edited by Pendleton, B.A., B.A. Millsap, K.W. Cline, and D.M Bird. Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Bob Johns November 28, 20 I I Page 9 Poole, A.F. 1989. Ospreys - a natural and unnatural history. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. Poole, A.F., R.O. Bierregaard, and M.S. Martell. 2002. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). The birds of North America online (A.F. Poole, editor). Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Rodrick, E., and R. Milner. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats and species. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Seattle Audubon Society. 2011. BirdWeb. Available at: http://www.birdweb.org/birdweblbird/osprey#. Last accessed October 31, 2011. Smith, M.R., P. W. Mattocks Jr., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding birds of Washington State. Volume 4 In Washington State Gap Analysis -Final Report (K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith, and K.M. Dvornich, eds.). Seattle Audubon Society Publications in Zoology No. I, Seattle, Washington. 538 pp. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 2011a. Washington State monitored list. Available at: hltp:llwdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/lists/search.php?searchbv=State Status&search=SM. Last accessed October 31, 2011. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 2011 b. State candidate species. Available at: h Itp:1 Iwd fw. wa. go v 1 conservation! endan gered/l i stsl search. php ?search by=S tate Status&search=SC&orderby=AnimalTypc%20ASC. Last accessed November 3, 2011. · . Seelig Kennydale Osprey Habitat Assessment PROJECT SITE Lake WUhington VICINITY MAP SEELIG KENNYDALE RENTON, WA 1 I I I I I 0 ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ C/l ~ -I Z Z Z G> G> G> () () 0 0 ~ m Z () b "T1 0 m C C ::0 0 ::0 -I C C/l ::0 C/l m -I m ::0 m m I I 1 1) ::0 ~ m ~ r- Z m I m G) m z 0 / ~ '" ~ o o NE 48TH ST~EET \ \ --------------------------~.,---~------------------------------- PROJECT Ll:',..,11:069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H Kennydale Apartments (Mixed Use) City of Renton Department of Planning 1 Building 1 Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENTAL APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) POLICE RELATED COMMENTS 191 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually CONSTRUCTION PHASE Theft from construction sites is one of the most commonly reported crimes in the City. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site should have security lighting, and any construction trailer or storage area should be completely fenced-in with portable chain-link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective criminal and will demonstrate that the area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should be fitted with heavy-duty deadbolts with a minimum 1-1/2" throw when bolted. Glass windows in construction trailers should be shatter-resistant. Toolboxes and storage containers should be secured with heavy-duty padlocks and kept locked when not in use. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted on the property during the construction phase. These signs allow officers, upon contact, to provide a verbal warning to trespassers that should they be contacted on the property again, they could be cited and/or arrested. COMPLETED COMPLEX All exterior doors should be made of solid metal or metal over wood, with heavy-duty dead bolt locks, latch guards or pry-resistant cylinders around the locks, and peepholes. If glass doors are used, they should be fitted with the hardware described above and additionally be fitted with a layer of security film. Security film can increase the strength of the glass by up to 300%, greatly reducing the likelihood of breaking glass to gain entry. Access to the back of the buildings should be limited, preferably with security fencing, as these areas could be vulnerable to crime due to the lack of natural surveillance by business customers or tenants. It is recommended that the commercial areas be monitored with recorded security alarm systems installed. It's common for businesses to experience theft and/or vandalism during the hours of darkness. An auxiliary security service could be used to patrol the property during those times. It is important to direct all foot traffic into the main entrance of the building. Any alternative employee entrances should have coded access to prevent trespassing. Security Survey Page 1 of 2 11-069 Payphones are not recommended for this mixed-use building. It there are payphones in the business complex, it is recommended they be outgoing use only. Public payphones tend to attract drug traffic and having only the ability to call out on payphones severely hinders this type of activity. All areas of this project need to have adequate lighting. This will assist in the deterrent of theft from motor vehicle (one of the most common crimes in Renton) as well as provide safe pedestrian travel for customers of the complex. The structure should have a building number clearly posted with numbers at least 6" in height and of a color contrasting with the building. Unit numbers for the dwellings should also be illuminated so that they are easily located. This will assist emergency personnel in locating the correct location for response. A clear delineation between public and private spaces is especially important for mixed-use building, such as this one. Landscaping should be installed with the objective of allowing visibility -not too dense and not too high. Too much landscaping will make customers, employees, and tenants feel isolated and will provide criminals with concealment to commit crimes such as burglary. It is key for a business complex to have appropriate lighting and signage. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted in conspicuous locations throughout the property, including entrances to the property and parking areas. I highly recommend that the developer have a Renton Police Crime Prevention Representative conduct a security survey of the premises once construction is complete. Security Survey Page 2 012 11-069 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 2011 APPLICATION NO: DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 2011 APPLICANT: Howard PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: acres EXISTING BLDG AREA '0"'00" LOCATION: 1901 NE 48'" Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA feet SUMMARY Of PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impocts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impocts Impocts Necessary Earth HDusim Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use ~ Animals Environmental Health , Energy/ UstDric/Cu/tural Natural Resources I <OOOF;~; 1<1\ 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. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Denis Law ,Mayor October 3, 2011 Carl Pirscher ' CDA Architects -" 20011 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200, Shoreline, WA 98155 SUBJECT: .110 n Hold" Notice Department of Community and Economic Development , Alex Pietsch, Administraior . . '. KennydaleApart~ents j LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H DearMr. Pirscher:, The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on 'August 23, 2011., During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be submitted before November 1, 2011 soth~t we may ~ontinue the review of the above subject application: • 'It 'was bro'ught to the City's attention' the location of an Osprey nest on the property abutting the ~ubje~t property to the south. Osprey are considered a sensitive species by the Washington State Department ~f Fish and Wildlife. Per RMC 4-3-050K2, due to·the, habitat species present; tlie applicant is required to provide an' assesment in order to ' determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat aJid potential for impacts and mitigation 'consistent with report requirements inRMC 4c8-120·D. This review would be paid atthe applicant's expense. . ' At, t'his ,time, your' project, has been placed "on hold" pending' receipt of the requested information. Pleas'e contact me at (425) 430-.7219 if you have any questions. cc: Beatrice & Howard Seelig / Owner(s) Todd Sherman, Conner Homes; Darius Richards, Kennydale Neighborhood Association; June Houson; Joyce & John Parente; Brad Faulkes; Rita Mayeaux, Apartment Insights; Tim McGruder, Eastside Autobon;Susan R: Irwin; Bob Johns /Parties of Record Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady '!'lay 0 Renton, Washington 9~057 0 rentonwa.gov DenisLaw Mayor Department of Community and Economic Development. Alex Pietsch,Administr~tor September 15, 2011 Susan Irwin 7701 ~ ll1th PI SE . Newcastle, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Kennydale Apartments / LUAll-OG9, ECF, SA-H, CU-H Dear Ms. Irwin:' Thank you for your comments regarding the Kennydale Apartment proposal; dated September 5, 2011. Your letter has been included .in ·the official project file:· Your comments will be considered by the. reviewing official before making a decision on this. project. . . . .... .. If you have any further questions regarding this project feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, 'fj:~~ Ass~ciate Plat-mer cc:· . File LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H . . Carl Pirsche,-CDA Architects / Applicant Renton City Hall 0 1 0"55 S~:)Uth Grady Way 0 Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov Denis Law . Mayor Department of Community arid Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator September 15, 2011 Tim McGruder . Eastside Autobon . PO Box 370 Kirkland; WA 98083 SUBJECT: . Ken,nydale Apartments I LUAll-OG9, ECF, SA-H, CU~H Dear Ms. Irwin: Thank you for yo~r .comments· regarding the Kennydale Apartment. proposal; dated September 7, 2011. Your email has been. included in the. official project file. 'your comments will be considered by thereviewingofficial before making a decision on this project. . . 'If youhave any further questions regarding this project feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219, . Sincerely, ··1:~~ Associate Planner' cc; File LUAll-069, ECF,SA-H, CU-H Carl Pirscher-CDA Architects / Applicant Renton City Hall 0 1055 SO'-;lth Grady Way '0 Renton, ~ashington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor =--~-. Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator September 15, 2011 John and Joyce Parente . 11129 SE 76 th St· Newcastle,WA 98056 SUBJECT: Kennydale Apartments / LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H Dear Ms. Irwin: Thank you for your comments regarding the· Kennydale Apartment proposal; dated August 30, 2011. Your email has been included in the official project' file. Your comments will be considered by the reviewing official before making a 'decision on this , project. If you have any further questions regarding this project feel free. to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, '-f?4~ ..• ' RJaleTimmons . . .... Associate Planner cc: File LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H,CU-H Carl Pirscher-CDA Architects / Applicant· Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way o. Renton, Washingt9n 98057 0 rentonwa.gov Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Greetings Rocale, Tim McGruder [tmcgruder@gmail.com] Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:54 PM Rocale Timmons Kennydale Apartments, LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H GoogleEarthJmage.jpg As board member and representative of Eastside Audubon Society (EAS), I'd like to comment on the above referenced project. Attached is a GoogleEarth Image and GPS location of an active Osprey nest. Osprey is classified by Washington State Department of Wildlife as a Monitor Specie. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 3, 050 , Subsection K, I, A Habitat Conservation indicates that some regulation is involved, but unclear what. Further, it's unclear how the current proposed development would impact the birds using the nest. EAS recommends that the City of Renton contact Chris Anderson ofthe Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Mill Creek office to discuss the proposal and if needed, a consulting biologist firm engaged to develop a plan to mitigate any impact to the birds. Sincerely, Tim McGruder Eastside Audubon Society Cell 425-457-0465 1 ""f, I,!, " ", .,,' , '~" " "'I'" ' _ '~I" ", ,,~, ",\' '" '~, ,,,,'! ',,\..;' j :'_1 '/ ~f , 1'1' r '"' Il' .,,), ,'t" , " '" 'I';, II" .x,," ';'\ 'ii": , ,v ":"'!"I,""!.; d " '~ ,,\~ .... ':i."~.','-' .. ,_, or'"~ ","/' -:::<1' If ;,;"', ,t:,. -',' , .y-' '. Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: John Parente Oepjjp@comcast.netl Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:20 PM Rocale Timmons Re: Kennydale Apartments (Builing Sections -Elevations) '\ ~'. ,~ 'Y{J '"J " ~\~~\9) Rocale -thanks for all ofthe schematics. As far as I can tell, the top of the building will ~!~ the same height as the top of the house with the flat roof that is adjacent to the Northeast comer of the site. (Please confirm.) When I try to project that to the middle of the site, it looks like we MIGHT be OK, but is very difficult to get the complete perspective. I can say, however, that if the building stayed within the 60 foot limit, we would definitely be OK as far as our view is concerned. Our biggest hang-up now is the traffic on SE 76th St. We are assuming that the kids there will be going to Hazelwood since it is closer (and still a Renton school, I believe) than Kennydale. We also assume that most of the shopping will be up the hill to the Newcastle Shopping district. So we are convinced that traffic up the hill will significantly increase and some traffic revision will be necessary. Please remind your environmental team about the water problem that has plagued this hill for quite some time. The builder of Hemingson Terrace trapped the water in wells and piped it into the storm sewer. We actually had enough water to water our lawns during the year that no watering was allowed. As I stated on our phone call, the apartments just to the North could not move anyone in for about a year because of the water problem. The pressure of the water in the ground actually pushed down their retaining wall into the parking lot. The problem was taken care of by digging a ditch half way up the hill to catch the water and dump it into the street to the North of that property, and by building a much stronger retaining wall with steel girder pilings and large timbers. It was my understanding that, as a result, the builder went bankrupt. For your information, Joyce and I are not against your project; we just want it to be completed properly, safely, and with consideration for those of us that have been here for many years. Who knows, if the units are nice -we might be tempted to sell and move in to one of the top floors. We are getting to that age (both in our 70s.) Thanks again for the info. Do you still want a letter, or is this email enough. John and Joyce Parente ----Original Message ---- f[~'ITl'1'm~'-~~, ,=m-rr~r::7"'1~ffJ:1-7n-""jl';';'''"l·~-''~·If'I-... ,--,.,,_--...,......,...~n''r'''''''''-'---~~-r--.. ''-''·''''M''"'·--''''~·'--:':I-...... "~ ... r ...... .,~ ..... lJr~I--':"] \f..r.Q.m: ~ R ocal e',i:r:im mon s fJ~iJJHwim!ljillii~Ifu!~li!.'ii!:il1!J:J~JjjI1!tJ.J!1!1!iJ,1fjjihjjJlitJ~l.J~,%btJjIJJiil;1JJIlI;iJb&'!~,~!I~,J~~~IJjlj,;;...;3~~~~,J~~.~l.j:~;,~j:..,;":":.;;', ... :;.~:u..:;:' !. : ;',1' " :' '. ~' To: 'jepjjp@comcast.net' Sent: Tuesday, August 30,2011 9:47 AM Subject: Kennydale Apartments (Builing Sections -Elevations) Hello Mr. and Mrs. Parente, Attached you will find the cross sections for the building elevations. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Associate Planner 1055 South Grady Way 1 Renton. WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 Fax: (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov 2 September 5,2011 Rocale Timmons City of Renton Associate Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Kennydale Apartments, LUAll-069, ECH,SA-H, CU-H I am writing to express my opposition to the referenced project. While I am not a resident of Renton, and hence not able to vote for Renton's public officials, I am nonetheless hopeful that my comments will be given serious consideration. My property immediately abuts the proposed development. Prior to purchasing my home, I made certain to familiarize myself with existing restrictions for the land in question. Currently, my property is considered view property and I purchased it only after verifying that existing building restrictions would not allow for construction that would ultimately impact my view. If Renton grants the requested Conditional Use Permit, that will no longer be the case. Moreover, and of greater concern, the site for this proposed development is within a High Erosion Hazard area and Landslide Hazard Area, as noted in the materials. If you contact the City of Newcastle, you will learn that this is a very real and on-going problem. Two landslides have already occurred immediately adjacent to my property. The land on which this development is to occur has many visible cracks running along the surface where land is on the verge of sliding. If the City of Renton approves this development, with notice of the existing erosion and landslide issues, and any of my property is lost due to construction, the City will be a party to the resulting lawsuit. Finally, the traffic impact of this proposal is significant. Allowing 392 vehicles to have ongoing ingress/egress to SE 76th (NE 48th) will make it extraordinarily difficult for residents of ll1th Place S.E. to exit our street. Given the limited site distance from ll1th down SE 76th, it is already difficult to safely turn onto SE 76th. If the traffic is increased exponentially by the proposed additional vehicles, the probability of traffic collisions is significantly increased. I would think the City of Renton would wish to avoid the liability of creating an easily anticipated traffic hazard. For all of these reasons, I am asking that the City of Renton deny the requested construction and building permits, as well as the conditional use permit. Please continue to provide me with any information on this proposed project. Very truly yours, Susan R. Irwin n01111th PI. S.E. Newcastle, WA 98056 RE: Kennydale Apartments (Project Number: LUA11-069, ECF, SA-G, CU-H) 6 September, 2011 Dear Sirs and Madam: CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED SEP 06 2011 BUILDING DIVISION We would like to register our comments regarding the proposed Kennydale Apartments project at 1901 NE 48th Street (SE 76th Street). which is adjacent to our property. We have grave concerns about potential impact that this project may have as noted in the following three points: 1. Unreasonable Size and Scope The proposed project is not consistent with other structures for similar usage in the neighborhood. While most neighboring structures adjacent to the project are 2 to 3-story single family houses, commercial or multifamily dwellings with an exception of the 4-story apartment complex to the south, the proposed structure will be a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space, as well as an additional single story, 40,000 square-foot structure. That is definitely much too big for the community which is no way meant to be an urban setting or a hub where people gather. Our preliminary research on the buildings surrounding the project is as follows: North ofthe proposed project: Condominium Complex 3-story structu res 108 rooms 140 parking spaces South of the proposed project: Apartment Complex 4-story structu res 104 rooms 192 parking spaces Northwest of the proposed project: Public Storage 1-, 2-story structures Southwest of the proposed project: Motel 2-, 3-story structures 129 rooms 106 parking spaces East of the proposed project: Residential Houses 2-, 3-story structures As you can see, a 6-story structure is clearly out of place. (Even the Reserve, the apartment complex in the landing, is, we believe, 6-or 7-story at most.) It should be noted that a condominium complex adjacent to the north and the apartment complex to the south which are also sitting in similar sized lots (although they look slightly smaller than the proposed project), they are less than a half of the size in terms of the number ofthe rooms. 2. Anticipated Traffic Congestion It is certain that this gigantic project will bring a greatly increased number of people into the area which is already congested by the sprawling developments over the past decades. NE 48th street (SE 76th Street) which is presumably the only outlet of the project has only 2-lanes and no sidewalks. It is so tiny that no cars can park on the street. lake Washington Blvd. NE which is a major outlet from the project to the freeway is also in exactly the same situation. The condominium on the other side of the street, which is less than a half of the proposed project, has two exits so that the traffic is directed to either NE 48th Street (SE 76th Street) or lake Washington Blvd. NE. The apartment complex to the south, also half the size of the proposed project, is facing a much larger street, NE 44th Street, which has much easier access to the freeway. It would be a nightmare if those who live in the 230 units in addition to the customers who would use the retail shops of the project overflow into 48th Street (SE 76th Street) and other surrounding residential streets. 3. Mudslide Concerns The proposed project is on a hill side area which is prone to mudslides. A development of this magnitude is at risk of triggering a mud slide. The east side of the condominium complex to the north and the apartment complex to the south are undeveloped or underdeveloped and are wooded areas, thus are not prone to soil erosion. The east side of the proposed area (the upper side ofthe hill) however, is fully developed as a residential area. Many properties have already installed retaining walls but if the new development is allowed without appropriate measures taken, it could cause mud slides and potential law suits in the future. Therefore we would like to request the following points to be considered or reconsidered. 1. Size Please keep the height of the project as low as possible. A 6-story building is way too tall considering the neighboring structure is 4-story at most and is already inconsistent with the surrounding structures. 2. Traffic improvement It is totally unrealistic to think that such a tiny street, NE 48th Street (SE 76th Street) can handle the additional influx of people who would live in the 230 apartment units and patrons of the new proposed retail shops in the project. Again, this is strongly related to the issue of the project size. Even if the project is scaled down, there should be at least two or three outlets from the lot to ease the congestion on the streets in the area. The sidewalks for pedestrians and bicycles would also need to be installed. In the current situation, no pedestrians can feel safe when they walk on the street. 3. Measures to avoid the mudslide The proposed project is on the hill side area which is prone to mudslides. The development would need to take this into account before removing the trees and other foliage which prevent soil erosion and mudslides. We would greatly appreciate it if you could consider the aforementioned points before proceeding any further with this project. We look forward to the established local residents and their future neighbors to be able to co-exist by finding the solutions to these issues. Most sincerely, Hiro and Yuka Tojo 11103 SE 76th Street Newcastle, WA 98056 425-765-6941 Cc The Honorable John Dulcich, Mayor, City of Newcastle The Honorable Steve Buri, Councilmember, City of Newcastle The Honorable Lisa Jensen, Councilmember, City of Newcastle The Honorable Caro Simpson, Councilmember, City of Newcastle The Honorable Sonny Putter, Councilmember, City of Newcastle The Honorable Rich Crispo, Councilmember, City of Newcastle The Honorable Bill Erxleben, Councilmember, City of Newcastle Mr. Steve Roberge, Director of Community Development, City of Newcastle Reference http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=5458 • PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: LUA'u-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H Kennydale Apartments ", i", ','" Ap"Pii,~~on; reque~ingHearl~g ,Examill~r Siteip!~n.ReView~conditlonal !':,: ! """',"" ,:'i i' I,:,' 1J~~'~~f!lJtapprQl(aVandE";vlroninell~al(S~"ArRe)li~wf9rthe" " !:"", ,',: ii, li8r~t~l\ptit)~ Ofia:~-stpry:n,I~ed~~~e'~uil~ing~o~t~Ii)lhgi;2'~o;apartm~nt ' , ':' i,', I ,:',': ~~rts,~nd:~,50d square feet of c6mmerci,al spac~"Ari additional single "'" sto;y, 4,0;000 square~foot; structure isalsopr'op6sedbn-site and would • • be Jse!l as artist/incub~torspace. The mixed~tisestructure would have Description: " ~na~erage height of 59 feet and, 6 inches.' However, the tallest point of " ~he~ructure would be'approximately 66 feet and,10 inches. Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit is required in order to increase the height, for certain portions of the structure, beyond the 60 foot maximum. The vacant 4.8 acre site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation on the southside of NE 48th Street, just east of Lake Washington Blvd N. The easterly 86-foot pbrticm of the site would be set aside as open space and would be used , ';, : ',' asabufferforthe proposed mixed-~se structure,iAccess to the site , ,', 'i', ,,' I'~i' wo~I~,b~ ~royi~ed offNE 48thStree~ via two~r!vewaYSres~lting i~ a Ii":"",'"" ii, i:li;:,i~ prl)1~t~li)pe!r!,~d?n-sl~~.:,~t!>ta"of~92,p"rklngsp"ceswould be "r,,' " :::' '!,' i , I"~ "~I; ,~~~*!d,ed~f wl1ich'263 stilIiSWol!ld:b~ lo<:ate~ iwithln a, ~ub-grade ' , " " ,'i' parking garage. The remaining129 stalls would be located within '" 'r' " s~rface'parking surroundingthe'twb proposed structures. The site is , located within a High Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified Landslide Haz~~d 'Area. Critical slopes, which exceed a 40% grade, are also located on site but would not be impacted as part of the proposal. General Location: 1901 NE 48th Street Zone: Commercial Arterial (CA) Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Public Approvals: Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit ~roject Manager: IRocal~fimmons;tel:425~430-7219, email: rtimmons@rentonwa.gov I Applicant/Project Carl Pirscher, CDA Architects; 20041 Balliger Way NE, Suite 200; Contact Person: Shoreline, WA 98155; email: carlp@cdaarch.com I" , ,,' INotice of IIAugust 23 2011 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM September 9, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Planner Jan lilian, Plan Review ~ Utility and Transportation Comments for Kennydale Mixed Use 1901 NE 48'h Street LUA 11-069 I have reviewed the application for the Kennydale Mixed Use building located at 1901 NE 48'h Street and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER There is an existing 12-inch water main in NE 48'h Street. The proposed project is located in the 320 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Static pressure in the area is approximately 100 psi. De-rated fire flow available in NE 48'h is 4,000 gpm. SEWER Sewer service is available; however, sewer service will be provided by Coal Creek Water and Sewer District. Please call 42S-23S-9200. STORM There is a storm conveyance system in NE 48'h Street. STREETS There is no sidewalk, curb, gutter, or street lighting fronting the site. CODE REqUIREMENTS WATER 1. Available fire flow is 4,000 gpm. The Fire Department has calculated preliminary fire flow for this project to be 4,000 gpm. Applicant will be required to extend the 12-inch water main in NE 48'h Street to the easterly property line and provide a 12-inch looped water main around the building on site. Connection to the existing 12-inch main near the southwest property line will also be required. See City water drawing W-088S. 2. Due to site constraints and limited fire department access, seven hydrants will be required. Location of hydrants will be subject to fire department approval. Any existing hydrants counted as fire protection shall be retrofitted with a Storz fitting if not already in place. 3. A reduced pressure backflow assembly will be required to be installed in line of the 2-inch domestic water meter proposed to serve the site. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PROJECTS/ll-069.Rocale/Plan Review Comments LUA 1l-069.doc 4. Water system development fees will be based on the size of the water meters that will serve the site. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. See fee schedule attached. 5. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies (DDCVA) for fire sprinkler systems. All DDCVA installations shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. For DDCVA installations inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location, installation, and standard detail of the backflow assembly inside the building. The 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. 6. 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. SANITARY SEWER 1. Sewer service will be provided by Coal Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. Interior floor drains shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. SURFACE WATER 1. Surface water system development fees will be based on the square footage of the new impervious surface area. The rate is $.405 times the new square footage after final design. Proposed new impervious surface area is 139,217 square feet. Estimated fee is $56,383.00.This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. See attached fee schedule. 2. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted with the site plan application. The report addresses compliance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. After preliminary review ofthe TIR, a few comments are noted below. o Enhanced basic WQ treatment is required unless a covenant restricting the use of leachable metals is recorded with King County. o If the 100-yr peak flow rate from the upstream areas is greater than 50 percent of the 100 year developed for the project, then the off-site runoff must bypass the new facility. If not, then off- site runoffs shall be routed through the facility. o Per the Geotechnical report by GEO Group NW, onsite soils are unstable with the upper 10-15 feet of the soil weathered and fractured with clay soils subject to creep. There is concern regarding the potential for instability if water seepage is allowed on the slope both during and after construction. Under these conditions, the only BMP available to the project is the reduced impervious surface BMP. o The conveyance system for the frontage improvements shall be analyzed per section 1.2.4 of the SWDM with consideration of all tributary areas. o Connection from the existing system (for off-site areas) to the new 12" SO shall be via a structure. 3. A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required. A SSWP plan with recommendations for erosion control will be required to be submitted to Department of Ecology. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PROJECTS/ll·069.Rocale/Plan Review Comments LUA 1l-069.doc TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. The transportation mitigation fee of $133,875.00 will be assessed in accordance with the current rate. The rate is $75.00 x 1,785 additional daily trips as provided by the traffic generation analysis. See Transportation Mitigation Fee sheet included. 2. A traffic study prepared by Popp and Associates, dated June 16, 2011, was submitted with the site plan application and has been reviewed. The analysis is acceptable as submitted. The engineer has provided recommendations and mitigation measures addressing driveway locations, traffic circulation to and from the site, site distance issues and extension of the center turn lane in NE 48 th 5treet to the east. The study also includes impacts to the intersections of Lake Wash. Blvd. and NE 48th Street, and Lake Wash. Blvd. and NE 44th with the development of the Port Quendall site. The city would support cost sharing (on a pro-rata basis) of improvements at the NE 44th Street! 1-405 Southbound Off Ramp and NE 44th/ Lake Washington Blvd/I 405 Northbound Off Ramp intersections to address this development's and other future developments (i.e., Hawk's Landing, Quendall Terminals) impacts on these intersections. The city would consider participating in the cost of off-site signal improvements through granting credit toward the project Transportation Mitigation fees. 3. Frontage improvements including a 5-foot sidewalk, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip, storm drainage, and street lighting is required to be constructed in the right-of-way fronting the site in NE 48'h Street. Existing right-of-way width in NE 48 th street is 60 feet. Half street improvements including 18 feet of pavement, an 8-foot planter, and a 5-foot sidewalk are required along the project side. Total pavement width of 36 feet is required to a point where the center turn lane begins to taper to the east. This has been shown on the plans. 4. Five feet of frontage will be required to be dedicated to the City for right-of-way to accommodate the road cross section design requirements. 5. No driveway slope shall exceed 8%. Driveways exceeding 8%, but not greater than 15% grade, are subject to City approval. Applicant shall submit a request in writing justifying the request. Driveways exceeding 15% requires application to the City for a variance of City code. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Separate permits and fees for domestic water meter, irrigation meter, storm connection, and any backflow devices will be required. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT 1. Design and construction of the project shall include and comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. 2. Design and construction of the project shall comply with the recommendations of the Traffic Study. 3. Dedication of the additional 5-feet of frontage or such width as required for the final approved design is to be completed prior to occupancy. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PROJECTS/U-069.Rocale/Plan Review Comments LUA 1l-069.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ni 1", <12-/ n, . ' nar I 'I IOV ICM..J COMMENTS DUE, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 23,2011 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES vII I u, "~,, APPLICANT: Howard Seelig PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Apartments PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian AUG t 3 ZIl11 SITE AREA: 4.80 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A ."'=-~ LOCATION: 1901 NE 48'" Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 298,379 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Mojor In/ormation Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor MoJor In/ormation Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Culturol Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 C?r areas where add; . nal information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1Wtl Date S# 882 TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE Project Name: Kennydale Apartments Project Address: 1901 NE 48 th Street Contact Person: Howard Seelig Permit Number: LUA11-069 Project Description: 230 Apartment units, 2500 sf retail 40,000 sf incubator/artist office or work space Land Use Type: X Residential X Retail X Non-retail Calculation: 1825 ADT total all uses 40 ADT internal trip credit 1825 -40 = 1,785 ADT 1785 x $75 = $133,875.00 Transportation Mitigation Fee: $133,875.00 Method of Calculation: X ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 th Edition X Traffic Study o Other Traffic Study by William Popp Associates May 25, 2011 Calculated by: _K~.~K~i~tt~ri~c~k ________________________ Date: 8/24/2011 Date of Payment: City of Rellton Department of Community & Economic De'velopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 A~~~~~~~~~~~ ___ ~~~~!Q:...~~~!!.!:!..-=D-=-E.-JECruG1"tE..ruC:tric)blICES --.!'PPLICATION NO: LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 23,2011 APPLICANT: Howard Seelig PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Apartments PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 4.80 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1901 NE 48'h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 298,379 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Impacts Impacts Necessary Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Environment Minor MoJor Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans artatian Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet l{OOOFeet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATEO 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 c Ity 0. Iton Department 0 ommuntty Ie . & E conomil Ie oQ..ment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPL~/ON REV~HEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ /(\11 I ~c. W, COMMENTS { UE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 \ APPLICATION NO: LUA11·069, ECF, SA·H, CU-H DATE CIRCULA\o: AUGUST 23, 2011 / APPLICANT: Howard Seelig PROJECT MANAGE~ ..--- PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Apartments PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 4.80 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1901 NE 48th Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 298,379 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space:-An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure IS also proposed on-site and would be uset:t:!Sartist/incubator space. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Element of the Environment Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water ~ Plants Land/Shoreline Use ~ Animals Environmental Health Energy/ .. , Natural Resources T~~~eet B. POLICY-RELA TEO COMMENTS ~#l-~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.rl.rl/IA/ Mv~ We have reviewed this application with particular attention or areas where additional in/ormation is needed to properly as DatT ' Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS "It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354.51 per each new multi family unit to address these potential impacts." Parks Mitigation Fee2 • Terrence J. Flatley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: HI, Terrence J. Flatley Wednesday, August 31,2011 12:10 PM Rocale Timmons Jan lilian; Leslie A Betlach; Kelly Beymer; Terry Higashiyama; Peter Renner; Timothy Williams Review of Landscape Plans and Tree Protection -Kennydale Apartments 1901 NE 48 Street image003.png Street trees -there are overhead electrical transmission lines along the south side of NE 48 Street. Red maples as street trees are not permitted due to conflicts with their mature height and the electric lines. Please select a tree species that matures at 20 feet or less. Contact the electric utility for approval on the species. Landscape plans should include all utilities. Tree Protection Plan -doesn't show trees to protect along the east property line. Plan is listed as the Tree Removal Plan and should be the Tree Retention Plan. Trees shown to be retained on the site plan are too close to proposed improvements, move improvements away to outside of the dripline of trees. Terry Flatley Urban Forestry & Natural Resources Manager City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 TFlatley@RentonWa.Gov 425-766-6187 ---------l-tp~j~I-to-J-j~~ 1 City oJ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Iton Department of Community & Economic Jelopment & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 23, 2011 APPLICANT: Howard Seelig PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Apartments PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 4.80 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A SHEET LOCATION: 1901 NE 48th Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 298,379 square fee SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment MinOI Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glore Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Naturol Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. COOE-RELA TEO 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 in/armatio seeded to properly assess this proposal. 'k-.3(-1/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • . -" CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: August 31,2011 TO: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Comments for Kennydale Apartments Environmental Impact Comments: 1. Fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $388.00 per multi- family unit and $0.52 per square foot of commercial space. No charge for covered parking areas. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4,000 gpm. Due to site topography and fire department access at various levels, approximately seven fire hydrants will be required. It appears fire flow is available at the same maximum rate of 4,000 gpm. A minimum of a 12-inch looped fire main is required around the buildings. 2. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout all buildings. Dry standpipes are required in all stairways. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150-feet of all points on the building. Fire lane sign age required for the on site roadway. Required turning radius are 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. An approved hammer head type turnaround is required near the southwest corner of the site on the lower access level. 4. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire planning purposes. 5. All buildings equipped with an elevator in the City of Renton are required to have at . least one elevator meet the size requirements for a bariatric size stretcher. Car size shall accommodate a minimum of a 40-inch by 84-inch stretcher and car width shall be a minirnum of 80-inches wide with a center opening door. 6. The building shall comply with the City of Renton Emergency Radio Coverage ordinance. Testing shall verify both incoming and outgoing minimum emergency radio signal coverage. If inadequate, the building shall be enhanced with amplification equipment in order to meet minimum coverage. Separate plans and permits are required for any proposed amplification systems. CT:ct kennydaleapts ~ --.. City oJ .. _nton Department of Community & Economic v"vefopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: F i (e..-COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 23,2011 APPLICANT: Howard Seelig PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Apartments PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 4.80 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NjA SHEET LOCATION: 1901 NE 48'h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 298.379 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6·story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Woter iii Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals ~' Environmental Health I Energy/ Natural Resources I . . }§.~~;;; 8. POLICY-RELA TEO 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 nee d to properly ssess this proposal . . ~ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ,ton Department oj Community & Economic elopment City a ENVIRONMENTAL 6c DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: .Ai (Our+- I APPLICATION NO: LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H APPLICANT: Howard Seelig PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Apartments SITE AREA: 4.80 acres LOCATION: 1901 NE 48th Street COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 23,2011 PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 298,379 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS / Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable prObable/ ' !"~.'C_ Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor MoJor Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Earth lausin " Air r.~,are_ Woter Plants ~. Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ pre~ Natural Resources A:r~~,.· .;';';' c~:y B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C7'~M'~ We hcive~d this applicafpnJ{ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas he ;d~ n is needed to properly assess this proposal. /3() /;1 Signatu e o~ recto'\)ittrized Representative Date ~ 7 City of ~~nton Department of Community·& Economic Ct.'ve/opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: i1ofr'1fihl t)/C~ COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 APPLICATION NO: WAll-OG9, ECF, ~A-H, CtJH DATE CIRCUlATED: AUGUST 23,2011 APPLICANT: Howard Seelig PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Apartments PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 4.80 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NjA LOCATION: 1901 NE 48th Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 298,379 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a G-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Impacts Impocts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Impacts Impocts Necessary Earth Housino Air Aesthetics Water LJaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals TranSDortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 0/ probable impact or oreas where additional informatio is-needed to properly assess this proposal. \ . \ __ B~J~2~~=+~~?=o~(~\ ____ __ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 08-25-11; 01: 07PM; ;4252044465 • Denis law Mayor ~ID, -,",,--============--- , August 23; 2011 ' Department of Community and Economic Development , , 'Alex Pietsch,Administrator ' , Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation. Reiiton School District , ,420 Park Avenue N ' , Renton, WA 98055 , Subject: Kennydale Apartments LUAU-OG9, ECF, SA-Hi CU-H ~he City of Renton's Departme 'f Community and Economic Development (CED) has· , received an appfication for a 230 ' it inulti~family project located at 1901 NE4S'h Street. Please see the enclo ed'" 'ce of Application for further details. ' Inorder to process this application; CED needs to know which:Rentoh schools' would be , attended by children living in' residences at the, location indicated above. ,Pl,ease fill in the apPropriate schools' on the list below and return this letter to my attention, City or Renton, c'ED, Plannirig Division, 1055 'South Grady Way, RentOll,'was-hiiigton980S7 by -. . . . . . September G, ,2011. , ' , Elementary School: _' _-,' ~""'l~.,.. ...... ,,-'cX1:=;, ""-'_' __ ---'-: ______ ~ ___ -,--_~ Middle School: ___ ",-,m,~-'" ~',""" ,I-::",'-=t' "F,'o::,,-,-' __ ~ ______ -,--___ _ High School: --'------'--"'~"'7!>J'<OL::----'-----'------'----':---------,-- , Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact ~f the apditional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes V " No,-,-,_' __ Any Comments:-', _______ ----~--'-_,_-'------"-----,---'- . . , . . '. . ',.', ~-','-: -.":' :: .' :;, .. .... Renton Ot)! Hall • , 055 Souih Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov # 1/ 2 08-25-11; 01: 07PM; ;4252044465 '. . ' Nancy Rawls Page 2 of2 August 23, 2011 , . Thank you for providing this important information, If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact meat (425) 430-7219" ' .~~~ .. ~o~le Timmons ' ," , Associate ,Planner Enclosure # 2/ 2 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) PRO)(CT NUMB!!!' W.ll1.069. ea, SA·H, Cl.I-H NOnC! 01' COMP\m "'PI'UI;A1ION' "'~PUCANT/P!lOJlCT COf'/TACT '[It$OII, Plrml"/II, ..... R.~u .. tod, /lulu.lll,20U carl PI""hlr: en ........ hll.<t.;·2oo11I.lIInl •• w.v Ill, SuIt. 20C1: $"0,,11.1. W""!!5: lml: •• rlpCllcd .. ,th.com En" ..... "",nt.1 ISIi,..,) R •• I_. Ilu"'", bo",I ... , SIt. PI,n 110""'''1 H •• ~nl bomlnor Condltlon,1 V •• ,.rm/t 'pprovo! tooto<ru<tlonl""..,lldlnlp.rmlt> rran'p" ... tIGn t.n,..:t AM!ys1 .. 6_0<",,1 .. 1 ~.""rt. 1M O""1 .... bpOrt of r.cord to "OIlive fUrt"'" "form,tlon'" \hl. pI'OIIOMCi prolKt, comp-'to IhI. ~:'U'~~.!"l: : O;:;::n~:~D _ Plonnln, Oivk!.lcn, lOSS So. G,..tr W.y, IIlnt ... , WA taOS7. N ..... /fl .. No., ':'""vda" "".I1",."\o/1.U"11-069, ECF, !.l·H, OJ'H r.wUNGMlDRESS: ______________________ _ T£lt:PliONEIIO.' ________ _ I.Dation w"" .ppllto.lon ",IV b. ,Ivl,wld, pUIUC Hl,u,NG, CONSl5TENcy OVUVIEW, Zanlnc/l.ond UII, tn¥l",nm.n~1 Ooc\I .... ntlll>ol E ..... t. tl>o ""'pond ProjKt: Do .. lo_nt ~."".II"",, Uled , ... ProJtcI 1>11t1,.lIon, ~ .... """'nt afCommunlty. E<onomIt.O .... lop..,.M ICUI)-PlIM1"IW,l, OI.hIOI\ $1>Ih floor bnton CIty Mall, lOSS Soutlo Grady W'V. R..,,",,,, '8057 Tho subJtcI ott.1s dnla ..... d Commltdol Corrid", ICC] on I~. CIty 01 Ronton Comp<.~.nl". \..otld UI ...... ~ .ncr Commlfdal 4r1lrlll (tAlon lho Oty'. ZanlnlMop. Th. p",locl will bl .~bIK\ It> tt>o cttv'1 SliPA ord .... ".,., ~MC '·'·12OA oM Ol~" Ippllublo a,doo ,nd '.I .... ,ion> ... W"'"....t •. ""'posed M/(Iptlon Mo"u_: ~~:~'~!:: =:::~~~:u: ~~~~ .=r:~o<~:::;'~:~ _.ed by .>lstlt1l cad •• Inc! ,",ulotlcn$" c~.d ,'''''". /1'10 .pj>llcanr will bo requited ra fJrI'f Ih. ~I. T'OtIJpo;-{Ollan MllI~o!l"" fr.; alld T/I, appilCOlllwlNb. r<qul",dramolr oPlf'"t1tlrla .. ~ lm_monD;,,"" 11>0 ~I will be 'fllui<~ 10 pa~ tho approprilli' Flrl MItIgoIiotl Fn: a<Id /1'1. opp/konr will bo requited ra fJrI'f 1M ~tt Pot~. MltIQ.tk>" f'~. bo ,."nmtod In wrltlnl ra R .... '" Tlm_. Auodo .. P\aIInor, aD_ CemlP>ontl "" tl>o 0"""" 'ppllut\oll mu'I not1 5000 1'J'o1 .... Soptem~" lOlL ml, ..... 1tO. 11.1,0 "aMI"1 DlYlllon. 1055 South G.adY!OY'=:::.~I, lOli'~'I'OO o.m~ Coundl Chombef1. S ..... ftlh fIoof. ~.nlon lO.IotlY.IV 1C~.""'ed ..... publl< ho nc Inl.' .,.d In Iltondl". tho h •• r\nI. ""'>e canla<t the Pia ........ at'! HI". 1055 Sout~ Grm W'Y. Aenlan. If you "~d~ 01 (.nl .»n8l. If ......." ... t. <:lInnot.1 ","mlttod In D ........ to .n ..... thot tho hO.,lnl hll not bo.n rOO Ilk hurint Ind p, ... nt yO"' <Ommen,. on tho prepayl .... 'lUna by I~. dlte IndlcOltd olloft. y<:IY m.y .tIII.~po: "t tn," p"'I"l'" o. with to bo m_ , potty 01 record """ ~.I.," the H"<I"'In~:~:;' ~ v,:~'I";:';~:·~~:'"n..u prel~ m.....;,'. A"""," wI>o ,ubmiU ...-Ilten wmmenU ~~'·::~:::~'bocom •• pOr'l'/ 01 "~'d ,nd w<II be notll'led of ""Y d.d .... n OR tnl, P'oJI<L CONTACT PERSON: RocaleTlmmons, Associate Planner; Tel: (425)430-7219; Eml: rtlnimons@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUM8~R WHEN CAWNG fOR PROPER FILE IDENTIfiCATION CERTIFICATION I, j?oc """"1-6 -r, """-~'b'-fhereby certify that :s copies of the above document were posted in .3 conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date:,_--=-1?-I-/-=z,-1L.f/-,:z._O~1 ( __ STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) SS ) Signed: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that K'? CoM... T~""""C>,",5" Signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 4-t vA Wo--la"'Y Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): \-I A G ra)o-er ------~------------------My appointment expires:-__ -'-'--A_"4~,""-"-_.,,_\-_::2._q_"__=d'__D_13.:::... _______ __ • .. ' CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 23rd day of August, 2011, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application, Environmental Checklist, & Site Plan reduced copy documents. This information was sent to: . Name Representing Agencies See Attached . Dept. of Ecology (SEPA Registry) Agency -email Todd Sherman Pa rty of Record Kennydale Neighborhood Assoc. -Darius Richards Party of Record Carl Pirscher Contact Howard & Beatrice Seelig Owners 300' Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary \JlJiiCiIl and for the State of Washington Notary (Print):.-'-___ ....!I-\~A~ . ..l.&l..L("'-~bc::!..u~ ____________ _ My appointment expires: A.~ "'-'i-l-:8I 1 ::LO 13 Project Name: Kennydale Apartments Project Number: LUA11-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H template -affidavit of service by mailing , < ... , .. · .. Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region· Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. serv., Ms-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers· Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers· Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, 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 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -larry Fisher· Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept .• 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172" Avenue sE 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 Preservation- Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 South center Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 "'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, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing ~" .. '" .. 334330082002 621 COMPANY PO BOX 1925 BELLEVUE WA 98009 323900002003 BOURGUIGNON JEAN M+JOANNE 7611 111TH PL SE RENTON WA 98056 334330114003 DEITCH MICHAEL J 4613 LK WASH BLVD NE KIRKLAND WA 98033 323900006004 FAULKES BRADLEY HKATHY 7711 l11TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330084206 HUSON JUNE OLIVE+HOOF KATRI 11030 SE 76TH ST NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330110001 KIEWIT CONSTRUCTION CO %R J 1000 KIEWIT PLAZA OMAHA NE 68131 323900015005 PARENTE JOHN J & JOYCE E 11129 SE 76TH ST NEW CASTLE WA 98056 334330074108 SHARAM FAMILY TRUST I PO BOX 2401 KIRKLAND WA 98083 323900009008 WYATT RICK & LINDA 7728 111TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 323900011004 ANDERSON TOD D 7702 111TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330078000 BROTMAN SUSAN T PO BOX 677 MEDINA WA 98039 334330112007 E & J INCORPORATED 4710 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NE RENTON WA 98056 323900004009 FUNG BILL S K+HELLEN C 12520 SE 72ND ST RENTON WA 98056 323900005006 IRWIN SUSAN R 7701 111TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330110506 KIM BARO 4800 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NE RENTON WA 98056 323900010006 POMEROY DOUGLAS S+CHERYL Y 7714 111TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330112502 SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS DEPT PT WA 08170 PO BOX 25025 GLENDALE CA 91201 334330074207 YUEN HENRY N 3600 24TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98144 323900001005 ATZBACH JOHN WILLIAM 11103 SE 76TH ST NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334330080006 CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL NST C/O AIMCO/TRPTS PO BOX 111397 CARROLLTON TX 75011 323900008000 EPLER WILLIAM E+SUSANNA W 7729 111TH PL SE RENTON WA 98056 323900007002 GODDARD RUTH M 7721 l11TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 323900014008 KARRELS WILLIAM HSUK CHA 7610 111TH PL SE NEW CASTLE WA 98056 323900012002 KO ALVIN L+EVELYN L 7626 111TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 323900003001 ROLLINS BENJAMIN A 7617 111TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 323900013000 SUERO JAMES A 7618 111TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: August 23, 2011 PROJECT NUMBER: LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU-H PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Apartments PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 230 apartment units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space. An additional single story, 40,000 square-foot, structure is also proposed on-site and would be used as artist/incubator space. The mixed-use structure would have an average height of 59 feet and 6 inches. However, the taUest point of the structure would be approximately 66 feet and 10 inches. Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit is required in order to increase the height, for certain portions of the structure, beyond the 60 foot maximum. The vacant 4.8 acre site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation on the south side of NE 48th Street, just east of Lake Washington Blvd N. The easterly 86-foot portion of the site would be set aside as open space and would be used as a buffer for the proposed mixed-use structure. Access to the site would be provided off NE 48th Street via two driveways resulting in a private loop road on-site. A total of 392 parking spaces would be provided of which 263 stalls would be located within a sub-grade parking garage. The remaiqing 129 stalls would be located within surface parking surrounding the two proposed structures. The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified landslide Hazard Area. Critical slopes, which exceed a 40% grade, are also located on site but would not be impacted as part of the proposal. PROJECT LOCATION: 1901 NE 4S1k Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, 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.ll0, the City of Renton is using the Optional ONS-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: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: August 12, 2011 August 23, 2011 Carl Pirsct'ler; CDA Architects; 20011 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200; Shoreline, WA 98155; Eml: carlp@cdaarch.com Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site plan Review; Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit approval Construction and Building Permits Transportation Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Report, and Drainage Report 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, CED -Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Kennydale Apartments/LUAll-~69, ECF, SA-H, CU-H NAME: ______________________________________________________________________ __ MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: 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: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Department of Community & Economic Developl'T!ent (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 18. 2011 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 100 p.m. on the ~th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) on the City of Renton Comprehensive land Use Map and Commercial Arterial (CA) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental {SEPAl Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-120A and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to make appropriate transportation improvements; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant wi!! be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, CED - Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on September 6, 2011. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on October 18, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the He9ring Examiner. if you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please 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: Roc.ale Timmons, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219; Eml: rtimmons@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION Denis Law Mayor' August 23, 2011 'CarlPirscher , CDA Architects' 20011BallingerWay NE, Suite,200 Shoreline, WA 98155 Subject: Notice of Complete Application Ke'nnydale Apartments, LUAll-069, ECF, SA-H, CU:H Dear Mr. Pirscher: The Planning Division oftheCity, of Renton 'has determined that the subject appliCation is complete according to subniittal requirements and/therefore, is accepte<;l for review. Itis tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on 'September 19, 2011. Prior' to ,that' review, you will be' notified if, any' additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this' matter is tentatively schedule'd for a public Hearing onCictober 18;2011 ", .'", • J ' .• '.... '", . , at 1:00 p.m.,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to bepreserit at the public hearing. A copy oqhe staff rep9rt will be mailed toyouprior to the scheduled , heariflg· • Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 ify~u have any, qUe~tions. Sincerely, ' .. f!.:t;/~ , ~~t~ate Planner " cc: , ' Beatrice & Howard Seeiig / Ownerls)", , ,,', Todd Sherman, Kennydale" Neighborhood Associati~n -Daril:l,s Rich,ards / ,Party of Record Renton City Hall .. 1055 South Grady Way 0 Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov .. . , , %.m~lQ jd! 5N¥I!3 ;§±!.'h*.".ibDI&Ak@M'F@!ljs\\' " -.... ,fy City of Renton f:>/Cl OF~ Ol}ir} f!!1} .lAf'!DUSE PERM~l· 4uqI2~D/~iSI!~1} MAS1ERAPPUC;,ATI~<b'~ "" .. '1F:fh. PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATIc)'N . J$EATRICt: S£EUt!f PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: 1\ t\tl AY'-.t;> s Z 'L LI 9 . \L.~N~'fPAL'" ,41" At..TI1\ !:II.\TS ADDRESS: P.o.6o)C l4'LS- PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: I,DIN'i.. 46+t.., ST~U . .:I· . CITY: &HLl.VV t I WA . liP: i~ \)\l '\ g..~NTo,.:l /#A 9<005'" KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): TELEPHONE NUMBER: iiI)) -1'110 -11 'Do ~'"l;.'i 31"0 -OS '1.-0 APPLICANT (if other than owner) . EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: YAc:.A ~ r ( """ Y'" ..-.. L '-'-11' L-) PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY (if applicable): 12 'Z C; \ 'b t: /.l n;4 '-J V> \'\\ II\.ll'(. IA L- EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: . ADDRESS: Cfo W\ VV\ i:.i2. t. I A L c,.;,(t~\t;)O~' (c,-") PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: G O\N\ V\'\ 't..IU..I A 1-A~,:n:'~IA L (q) CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NAME: PI 11. S qU./2..... SITE AREA (in square feet): (fi'P.. L "2.. 0 ~ J..jeot, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): LDA AR(.~ rf<t,L 'TS DEDICATED: 3,51:" . ,"~ .. r'. ("-, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADPR~~S:i':i\to;j:t f6AU I,.J 9 [f.... WA7 ~~ SV(T{ ," ",.I "I/:~! ;1.;,.-t' I '2,.4fD ::-f')".,,~ :!I! 'J_'_ .~ •. i.,",:,," ~;~.~ · ... i·ti .. ..,..,;~~,..~ q'b\~ PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN (ITS PER NET ClTl':! f S ~ b il tt-iI~ ~ ZIP: WA ACRE (if applicable) SD ~ . ~ 1.\ .• ~:.:> ' .~. ~: ;' . V(I' $ ;l(..( E:..- ~_ • ~'. "' I I:'·' .' I .' • NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) .TEt.:E~HONE t'!UM[lER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: ~t:iG,:;,i~ ~ ~'1 (, to b l.At..L-f e.. CbAAra.~, c"oVV'. NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): -z. '!>O Ii" I-t-.S" H:\CED\Data\Fo~s.Templates\Self.Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp,doc ·1 4 06109 P ROJ~T I N FORMA T,.:..:IO::...:N-,,--,-=c=..:..:;== t aD; PROJECT VALUE: NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (f applicable): 'f " SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): ·UI...)oS"0 ~t SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDEN;AL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if. applicable): \L:'IS~, ~f' SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): ¢ NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): o AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. 0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. 0 SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. 0 WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY JAttach legal description on separate sheet with the foliowin(linformation included) SITUATE IN THE ~<i. QUARTER OF SECTION ~, TOWNSHIP 1::i, RANGE S-, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land u.se applications being applied for: c;.1~ e LVI 1. ~vi\. -h II Ad \ V'..e. pgr~lt / 3. re.,YI ~\fI/ . 2. SV~ 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Prinl Name/s) , declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of Ihe Siale of Washington that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property Involved in this application or_ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are In aU respects true and correct to the b f knowledge and belief. ----~- (Signal I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that -;::-"""""""'-"---':-7-- signed this Inslrumenl and acknowledge 1110 be hlslher/their free ~I,\~~"nlary act for the uses and purposes mentioned In the Instrument. .... , ... ,"... CI ""t", .----i.~ A Q '~I, ~ " .t1! P -r ".' ~~~ 'ml!l"" ~:'\ ~<!l.Ul) ~ :t~ 14 .:-OT,q 'It\''?. ~ Notary Public In and for the State of Washington ' ., CJi ... -9", 0 i ~i . ~ (}) ::. ~lJ. .. -= " " ... \ 0 "8L~ II = Nolary(Prlnl) 1=/l!Jre.hc,la. G 5"fvtos \"'I,~·05.\~, ... {cf> ! ~',.. Ih\\"\\,,,''I; 6 ..::- .. wl\ Sl-l\~ /.-- My appolnlmenl expires: -.:;:0:...::2=--:...:D=5_-_" :...:13:::::... __ H:\CED\Data\Fonns~Tcmplates\Self-Hclp Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc -2-06109 [P>lR{lEffi\[P>IPILXCCAl'X(»~ IMHEEl'tNG f~~f Rento: '. Planning OI\lISIO KIENMYDALE APARTMENTS PREAPPLICA TION t>,\JG 12 IU'I\ 1901 NE 48TH ST CXTY Of IRIE~TON 10 e III al rt m e Il1l it 1[])1f C I[]) m m II.JIIl1l nity alll"il dI IE CI[]) II"ilI[]) m 0 C 10 eve i I[]) III m e R1l it Co.nll"ll"ell"ilit i?ialll"illl"ilill1lg lOivosil[])lI"il PREll-ala April 21,2011 Contact Information: Planner Rocale Timmons Phone: 425-430-7219 Public Works Reviewer: Jan IIlian Phone: 425.430.7216 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430.7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430.7290 " Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the propos~1 will be formally reviewed under the regulations in. effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works . Administrator and City Council). II CITY OF RENTON • FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: April 21, 2011 TO: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments for Kennydale Apartments 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4,000 gpm. Due to site topography and fire department access at various levels, approximately seven fire hydrants will be required. It appears fire flow is available at the same maximum rate of 4,000 .'l'pm. A minimum of a 12-inch looped fire main is required around the buildings. ver1e.q-? 'i),1; fY'B\fI\\J~. 2. Fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $388.00 per multi- family unit and $0.52 per square foot of commercial space. No charge for covered parking areas. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ~ Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout all buildings .. Dry standpipes are required in all stairways. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150-feet of all points on the building. Fire lane signage required for the on site roadway. Required turning radius are 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. An approved hammer head type turnaround is required near the southwest corner of the site on the lower access level. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire planning purposes. See attached sheet for the format in which to submit your plans. All buildings equipped with an elevator in the City of Renton are required to have at least one elevator meet the size requirements for a bariatric size stretcher. Car size shall accommodate a minimum of a 40-inch by 84-inch stretcher and car width shall be a minimum of 80-inches wide with a center opening door. The building shall comply with the City of Renton Emergency Radio Coverage ordinance. Testing shall verify both incoming and outgoing minimum emergency radio signal coverage. If inadequate, the building shall be enhanced with amplification equipment in order to meet minimum coverage. Separate plans and permits are required for any proposed amplification systems. CT:ct kennydaleapts . '1. Renton Fire Department I PRE-FIRE PLANNING I 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 YISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy. ABC F1owcharter.af3 ABC Flowcharter.af2 Adobe Illustrator File.ai AutoCad Drawin2.dw2· AutoCad Drawinp.dQn Comouter Graohics MetafIle.c!?lD Corel ClipartFonnat.crnx Corel DRAW! Drawin. File Fonnat.edr Corel Flow.cfl Encaosulated Postscriot File.eos Enhanced MetafIle.emf IGES Drawin2 File Format.i2s Graohics Interchange Format.gif Macintosh PICT Format.oct Micrografx DesiQner Ver 3.l.drw Micrografx Designer Yer 6.0.dsf Microstation Drawing.dgn Portable Network Graohics Format.onf Postscript File.ps Tag image File Fonnat.tif Text.txt Text.csv YISIO.vsd Windows Bitrnap.bmp Windows Bitrnao.dib Windows Metafile.wmf Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitrnao:ocx • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M 0 R A. N DUM April 19, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Planner Jan lilian, Plan Review ~ Kennydale Apartments 1901 -NE 48'h Street PRE 11-010 NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and' non- binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision-makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. , I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced proposal. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. Water 1. There is a 12-inch water main in NE 48'h Street. Modeled fire flow available is 4,000 gpm. This development is in the 320-water pressure zone. Static water pressure is 100 psi at street level. A pressure reducing valve will be required to be installed at each domestic meter. 2. The Fire Department has calculated preliminary fire flow for this project to be 4,000 gpm. Applicant will be required to extend the 12-inch water main in NE 48 th Street to the easterly property line and provide a 12-inch looped water main on site. A connection to an existing 12-inch main near the southwest property line will also be required. See City water drawing W-0885. 3. All new construction must have fire hydrants capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm. One primary hydrant must be located within 150 feet of the structure and three additional hydrants within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within the required distance to the nearest corner of the building. Existing hydrants to be counted as fire protection will be required to be retrofitted with a quick disconnect "Storz" fitting if not already installed. 4. Due to various fire personnel access constraints, the Fire Departm'ent is requesting a total of seven hydrants to be installed. 5. Water system development fees will be based on the size. of the domestic water meter(s}, fire service line and irrigation meter(s}. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. See fee schedul~ alached'l r:.. ~ {,~ VI be;[ Clt'bd rt 1'0/ TW.,.. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PREAPPS/11-010.Rocale/Plan Review Comments -: PRE 11-010 Kennydale Apartments -PRE ll_r Page 2 of 3 April 19, 2011 6. Buildings exceeding 30 feet in height require installation of a reduced pressure backflow assembly inline of all domestic water meter(s). 7. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies for fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Civil plans should note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required." DCVA installations outside the building shall bein accordance with City of Renton Standards. For DDCVA installations inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location, installation, and standard detail of the backflow assembly inside the building. 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. 8. 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. Sanitary Sewer 1. Sewer service is available; however, sewer servlcp will b~vided by Coal Creek Water and Sewer District. Please call 425-235-9200. De,ub/4 ~ Tit .... · -&V /pI" ~ev", 2. Applicant shall provide a Sewer Availability Certificate from Coal Creek at site plan application. 3. Applicant proposes underground parking garages. The building department will require floor drains, which will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer through an approved oil/water separator located outside the building, if feasible. Flows shall be directed through floor drains that are installed in accordance with the UPC to an exterior oil/water separator. Storm Drainage 1. There isa drainage conveyance system in NE 48 th Street. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the report. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The drainage report will need to follow the area specific flow control requirements under Core Requirement #3. 3. A geotechnical report for the site is required. Information on the water table and soil permeability, with recommendations from the geotechnical engineer for appropriate flow ~~~tr~ ~M~. o.£'y'on~ with typical designs for the site, shall be submitted with the application.l4fey "l1ry ~tI1 f::J£td(~. 4. Surface Water System Development fees of $:40S per square foot of new imP:'nii1uS surface will apply. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. ;.N. bkf b~ ~ ~~, S. Applicant will be required to submit separate structural plans for review and approval under a building permit for the proposed underground storm water vault. Special inspection from the building department is required. H:jCEDjPlanning/Current PlanningJPRE~pPSj11-010.Rocale/Plan Review Comments -PRE 11-010 Kennydale Apartments -PRE 11-010 ~ Page30f3' • April 19, 2011 Transportation/Street 1. A traffic analysis will be required to be submitted with the site plan application. The analysis will need to identify potential traffic issues and provide recommendation of necessary improvements to insure safe and efficient traffic circulation to and from the site. The traffic analysis shall include addressing the traffic operations at the proposed driveway(s) and identify any site distance problems. The center turn lane in NE 48th will be required to be extended to the east. The study should also include potential traffic impacts at the intersections of Lake Wash. Blvd. and NE 48 th Street and Lake Wash. Blvd. and NE 44th In addition, the cumulative impacts of this project along with the approved and in-process projects (e.g. Hawk's Landing, Port Quendall) on the intersections with the ramps serving both sides of 1-405 must be included in the impact analysis for consideration of future traffic signal participation or trigger. 2. Traffic mitigation fees of $75 per nt[W, addft)onal generfed daily trip !jhall pe assessed as determined from the ITE trip generation manual. /"d~f7ICU 4()/HG l,(I{-e ~Hd tiVly r 3. Frontage improvements including a 6-footsidewalk, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip, storm drainage, and street lighting is required to be constructed in the right of way fronting the site in NE 48th Street. Existing right of way width in NE 4S thstreet is 60 feet. Five feet (5') of frontage will be reguired to • be dedicated to the City for right-at-way. 4. Driveway slope shall not exceed 8%. Driveways exceeding 8%, but not greater than 15% grade, are subject to City approval. Applicant shall submit a request in writing justifying the request. Driveways exceeding 15% requires application to the City for a variance of City code. General Comments 1. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 'Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PREAPPSj11-010.RocalejPlan Review Comments -,PRE 11-010 · . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT M E M 0 RAN 0 U M DATE: April 21, 2011 TO: Pre-Application File No. 11-010 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Kennydale Apartments General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The foliowing comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application' submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property is located on,the south side of NE 48'h St just east of Lake Washington Blvd. The vacant 4.8 acre site is located within the Commercial Arterial zoning designation and is bordered on the south and east by the City of Newcastle. The pre-application packet indicates the proposal is develop the western 2/3'·" of the site with a 5-6 story mixed use building with basement and at grade structured parking along with a single story, 40.000 square foot, structure devoted to artist studio/incubator space. The mixed use building would contain 230 attached residential units, to be used as apartments, and 2,500 square feet of space dedicated to commercial uses, the massing of the structure is broken up with the appearance of two separate structures, varying roof profiles, and articulation of the facades. The building would have an average height of 60 feet above grade plane with a height of 73 feet at the tallest point of one of the pitched roof elements. A total of 386 parking stalls are proposed in order to serve the development including 120 surface parking stalls. The eastern 1/3" of the site, approximately 80-feet in width. Access to the site would be provided by three separate curb cuts, of which two would be used to create a fire access loop around the larger structure. The third access point would serve as access for the artist studio/incubator space. The topography of the subject site slopes from east to west at an average slope of 30 percent and contains some localized areas where the slope exceeds 40 percent meeting the definition of a Protected Slope. Current Use: The property is currently vacant. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-01O.rocale\11-010 (ca kennydale aptsl.doc Kennydale Apartments, PRE1. Page 2 of 8 April 21, 2011 Zoning: The property is located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) land use designation and the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. Retail, office, studio, arts and crafts uses are outright permitted within the CA zone. Attached residential units are only permitted within a structure containing commercial uses on the ground floor. Commercial space must be reserved on the ground fldor at a minimum of 30 feet in depth along any street frontage. Residential uses shall not be 'Iocated on the ground floor, except for a residential entry feature linking the residential portion of the development to the street. The proposal appears to comply with the requirements for commercial space therefore attached residential units are permitted. The property is also located within Urban Design District 'D', and therefore subject to additional design elements. Proposals should have unique, identifiable design treatment in terms of landscaping, building design, signage and street furniture. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-120A, "Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "CA standards" herein). Densitv -The minimulT1j1ensJ!y~ermitted in the CA zoning designation is 10 units/net acre and the maximum density'is 60 units~cre for buildings with mixed commercial and residential use in the same buildingc The-si~e~ears to contain protected slopes; therefore sloped areas exceeding 40% would need to be deducted from the gross square footage of the site for the purposes of calculating density. The applicant did not indicate the amount of area within critical slopes; therefore the net density could not be calculated. The proposal for 230 units on the 209,468 gross square foot site (4.8 acre) arrives at a gross density of 47.97 dulac (230 units / 4.8 acres = 47.91 dulac). The applicant would be required, at the time of formal land use application, to provide net density ca/tulations foiling with the allowed range of the CA zoning designation. Minimum Lot Size, Width and Depth - There are no minimum requirements' for lot size, lot width or depth within the CA zone at this location. Lot Coverage -The CA zone allows a maximum building coverage of 65 percent, or 75 percent if parking is provided within a building or within an on-site parking garage. The applicant did not provide calculations for the footprint of all structures on site, therefore staff could not confirm compliance with the lot coverage requirements of the zone. The applicant would be required, at the time of formal land use application, to provide a lot coverage analysis. Setbacks -Setbacks are the distance between the building and the property line or any private access easement. Setback requirements in the CA zone are as follows: 10 feet minimum for the front yard but may be reduced to zero feet through the Site Plan Review process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback; a 15 foot maximum front yard setback; and no rear or side yard setbacks unless the property abuts a residential zoned property. The subject property's eastern property abuts single family residential properties within the City of Newcastle. The applicant would be required to maintain at least a 15 foot, sight obscured, setback. The proposal appears to comply with the setback requirements o/the zone. Gross Floor Area -There is no minimum requirements for gross floor area within the CA zone. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-01O.rocale\11-010 (ca kennydale apts).doc .. Kennydale Apartments, P('-1-010 Page 3 of8 ,. April 21, 2011 Building Height -The maximum building height that would be allowed in the CA ZOne is 50 feet and 60 feet for mixed use structures. The maximum height in the CA zoning designation may be increased through a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed elevations depict an average height of 60-feet, with a height of 73-feet at the tallest point of the structure. Therefore, the applicant would be required to request and have approved a Conditional Use Permit. The reviewing official would consider the following when reviewing the request for a conditional use permit: a. Location Criteria: Proximity of arterial streets which have sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the development. Delielopments are encouraged to locate in areas served by transit. b. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plan, program, map or regulation of the City. c. Effect on Adjacent Properties: Building heights shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. When a building in excess of the maximum height is proposed adjacent to or abuts a lot deSignated R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14 or RM- F, then the setbacks shall be equivalent to the requirements of the adjacent residential zone if the setback standards exceed the requirements of the Commercial Zone. The applicant has provided an 80-foot buffer between the proposed structure and the single family residential properties abutting to the east which also creates a transition in grades. The applicant has used the elevation changes along with breaks in the massing of the structure in an attempt to mitigate impacts on the single family residences. Additionally, the applicant has ensured the average height of the structure meets the height requirements of the zone. While staff is in support of the proposed height deviation in concept the opplicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with the above criterio specifically related to traffic generation and effects an adjacent properties at the time of formal land USe application. Screening -Screening must be provided for all surface-mounted and roof top utility and mechanical equipment. The site plan application will need to include elevations and details for the proposed methods of screening. Refuse and Recvcling Areas -Refuse and recycling areas need to meet the requirements of RMC 4-4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards" (enclosed). For multi-family developments a minimum of 1 Y, square feet per dwelling unit is required for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 3 square feet per dwelling unit is required for refuse deposit areas. For retail developments a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas with a total minimum area of 100 square feet. Landscaping -All portions of the development area not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The minimum on-site landscape width required along street frontages is 10 feet, except where reduced through the site plan development review process. Additionally, a h:\eed\planning\eurrent planning\preapps\11-D1O.roeale\11-010 (ea kennydale apts).doe • Kennydale Apartments, PREll<=>1 Page 6 of 8 April 21, 2011 ~ . ) o The number of driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized, so that pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk is minimally impeded. o Amenities such as outdoor group seating, benches, transit shelters, fountains, and public art shall be provided. o All mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide common opens space and/or recreation areas. Amount of common space or recreation area to be provided: at minimum fifty (50) square feet per unit. o All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian- oriented space. The pedestrian-oriented space for buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses shall be provided according to the following formula: 1% of the site area + 1% of the gross building area, at minimum. o All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). o Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet (2') deep, sixteen feet (16') in height, and eight feet (8') in width. o On any facade visible to the public, transparent windows and/or doors are required to comprise at least fifty percent (50%) of the portion of the ground floor facade that is between four feet (4') and eight feet (8') above ground (as measured on the true elevation). o Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. o Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Critical Areas The topography of the subject site slopes from east to west at an average slope of 30 percent and contains some localized areas where the slope exceeds 40· percent. All sloped areas exceeding 40 percent are considered "protected slopes." Such areas are prohibited from land clearing or development. An Exception through Modification must be requested and approved to modify the Protected Slopes on the site. The area is also designated as "high" on the City's Erosion Hazard and Slide Hazard Sensitive Areas Maps .. A current geotechnical report would be required to be submitted with a formal land use application. An update to an existing study may be allowed at the discretion of the Building and Development Services' Divisions. In addition, the property may contain a stream, which bisects the property within the northern third of the site. The applicant will need to provide a preliminary reconnaissance/stream report, and if a stream is present, delineation will also be required. In addition, if impacts are proposed to the stream or its buffer the applicant would need to provide a conceptual mitigation plan. The City's approved consultant list is enclosed in the information packet. An update to an existing study may be provided if the situation has not changed. iJpd4e:J Jetfw'{j", ~n . h:\eed\planning\current planning\preapps\11-010.rocale\11-010 (ea kennydale apts).doe Kennydale Apartments, P 1-010 Page 5 of 8 April 21, 2011 feet x 12 feet; a stall with greater than a 45 degree angle must be 7)1, feet x 13 feet. Compact structu'red parking spaces shall not account for more than 50 percent of the spaces in the structured parking areas. Structured parallel stall dimensions have a minimum of 9 feet x 23 feet also. ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. The appropriate amount of ADA accessible stalls based on the total number of spaces must be provided. Surface parking lats with mare than 100 stalls shall pravide a minimum of 35 square feet of landscaping per parking space. "Based on the total number of surface parking stalls the applicant would be required to provide interior landscaping in the amount of 4,200 square feet of landscaping in order to buffer the "parking. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070 and RMC 4-4- 080F.7) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). Additionally, the proposal would need to be revised in order to provide bicycle parking based on 10 % of the required number of parking stalls. Access -Driveway widths are limited by the driveway standards, in RMC 4-40801. Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and thereby improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking opportunities. Joint use driveways are be encouraged when feasible and appropriate. Staff recommends the applicant revise the site plan in order ta reduce the number of curb cuts from three to two. Pedestrian Access -A pedestrian connection shall be provided from all public entrances to the street, in order to provide direct, clear and separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and internally from buildings to abutting properties." Signage -Only one freestanding business sign (restricted to monument/ground signs only) is permitted per street frontage, however pole signs are not permitted within the CA zone. Each sign shall not exceed an area greater than one and one-half square feet for each lineal foot of property frontage that is occupied by the business. In no case shall the sign exceed a total of 300 square feet (150 square feet per face). The ground/monument sign is limited to 5 feet in height. In addition to the permitted freestanding sign, wall signs with a copy area not exceeding 20% of the fa~ade, to which it is applied, are also permitted. Building Design Standards -Compliance with Urban Design Regulations, District 'D', is required. See the attached checklist and Renton Municipal Code section 4-3-100. The following bullets are a few of the standards outlined in the regulations. All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals af no more than forty feet (40'). • A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. • Parking shall be located so that no surface parking is located between a building and the front property line, or the building and side property line, on the street side of a corner lot. • Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the building frontage width. • Parking garages at grade shall include screening or be enclosed from view with treatment such as walls, decorative grilles, trellis with. landscaping, or a combination of treatments. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-010.rocale\11-010 (ca kennydale apts).doc • Kennydale Apartments, PRE1. Page 6 of 8 April 21, 2011 o The number of driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized, so that pedestrian circulation along the s'idewalk is minimally impeded. o Amenities such as outdoor group seating, benches, transit shelters, fountains, and public art shall be provided. o All mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide common opens space and/or recreation areas. Amount of common space or recreation area to be provided: at minimum fifty (SO) square feet per unit. o All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian- oriented space. The pedestrian-oriented space for buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses shall be provided according to the following formula: 1% of the site area + 1% of the gross building area, at minimum. o All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). o Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet (2') deep, sixteen feet (16') in height, and eight feet (8') in width. o On any facade visible to the public, transparent windows and/or doors are required to comprise at least fifty percent (50%) of the portion of the ground floor facade that is between four feet (4') and eight feet (8') above ground (as measured on the true elevation). o Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. o Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Critical Areas The topography of the subject site slopes from east to west at an average slope of 30 percent and contains some localized areas where the slope exceeds 40' percent. All sloped areas exceeding 40 percent are considered "protected slopes." Such areas are prohibited from land clearing or development. An Exception through Modification must be requested and approved to modify the Protected Slopes on the site. The area is also designated as "high" on the City's Erosion Hazard and Slide Hazard Sensitive Areas Maps .. A current geotechnical report would be required to be submitted with a formal land use application. An update to an existing study may be allowed at the discretion of the Building and Development Services' Divisions. In addition, the property may contain a stream, which bisects the property within the northern third of the site. The applicant will need to provide a preliminary reconnaissance/stream report, and if a stream is present, delineation will also be required. In addition, if impacts are proposed to the stream or its buffer the applicant would need to provide a conceptual mitigation plan. The City's approved consultant list is enclosed in the information packet. An update to an existing study may be provided if the situation has not changed. iI,J4r:J ~1W ~n . h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-0l0.rocale\11-010 (ca kennydale apts).doc .. Kennydale Apartments, PI-OlD Page 7 of 8 April 21, 2011 It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain whether additional critical areas are present on the site. If so, the proposal would need to be revised accordingly. Environmental Review The proposed project would be subject to Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as it exceeds several thresholds. An environmental checklist is a submittal requirement. An environmental determination will be made by the Renton Environmental Review Committee. This determination is subject to appeal by either the project proponent, by a citizen of the community, or another entity having standing for an appeal. Permit Requirements The proposal would require Hearing Examiner Site Plan Approval, a Conditional Use Permit and Environmental (SEPA) Review. The purpose of the Site Plan process is the detailed arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with . the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. General review criteria includes the following: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; rlIIk'nb ~'I d<.eeed b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; HertJri fft1f~ ~ c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; ,,~. d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; e. Conservation of areawide property values; f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmfuf or unhealthy conditions; i. Availability of public services and facilities; and j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. The applicant will also be subject to Design Review as part of the Site Plan Review and a Design Checklist shall be completed and submitted as part of the application materials. All applications can be reviewed concurrently in an estimated time frame of 12 weeks once a complete application is accepted. The Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review application fee is $2,000. The application fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is $1,000 and the Conditional Use Permit fee is $2,000. The Lot Consolidation application is a free process. There will also be a technology fee, of 3 %, based on the total land use application fees for the project. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction, building and sign permits would be required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods. Impact Mitigation Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Impact fees. which would replace mitigation fees. may be adopted prior to construction. Those fees are to be determined. The following are currentfees: ~ A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per new daily trip attributed to the development; and h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-Q10.rocale\IHJ10 (ca kennydale apts).doc Kennydale Apartments, PRE1.0 Page 8 of 8 ~ April 21, 2011 ~ A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot of new comm'ercial building area and $388.00 per multi-family unit; and ~ A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new multi-family unit. Expiration: Upon site plan approval, the site plan approval is valid for two years with a possible two-year extension. Phasing For development proposed on only a portion of a particular site, an applicant may choose to submit a site development plan application for either the entire site or the portion of the site. In the latter case, the application shall state clearly the area of the site and the proposed development, including phases, for which site development plan approval is being requested. In every case, the site development plan application and review shall cover at least that portion of the site which is directly related to or may be impacted by the actual proposed development, as determined by the Environmental Review Committee. The Reviewing Official may grant site development plan approval for large projects planned to be developed or redeveloped in phases over a period of years exceeding the normal time limits of subsection L of this Section. Such approval shall include clearly defined phases and specific time limits for each phase. If the time limits of a particular phase are not satisfied, then site development plan approval for that phase and subsequent phases shall expire. The Hearing Examiner shall also determine if such a phased project will be eligible for any extensions of the time limits. As long as the development of a phased project conforms to the approved phasing plan, the zoning regulations in effect at the time of the original approval shall continue to apply. However, all construction shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations in force at the time of building permit application. h:\ced\plann·rng\current planning\preapps\lHllO.rocale\11-010 (ca kennydale apts).doc .. PLANNING DIVISION WAIVE:K. OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS City of 0 .. p nenton fanning o· .. IVISlon AUG 1 2 ZOI1 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: f= eN'" Y 04L-E: API£" 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Planning Section , DATE: __ ---"-f)-./~/-"'2::....:f)=---<!---'Z'-O-'--'/J'-- Q:IWE8IPw\DEVSERIAFormsIPlanninglwalverofsubmiltalreqs.xls 02}08 . " PLANNING DIVISION • WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Applicant Agreement Statement Inventory of Sites Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 of View Area Photosimulations This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section PROJECT NAME: J~y ~J..E:" A-p;-S .. DATE: S:/Zo-/z.oll 4. Planning Section Q:\WEB\Pw\OEVSERv\Fonns\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs,xls 02/0S DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton. WA 98055 -."" on Planning Divis n AUG 1 2 lUi, Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 . 1 "l.-09/-/6~ (-ltr bA'C.:ltl~(\' 1. Gross area of property: 1. l.()S J 1 c; '1 <l: square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets" square feet Private access easements" square feet Critical Areas' SJl.'1 '\ square feet Total excluded area: 2. lJ to tl J square feet 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 3. '1...\)°1 "LS (p square feet 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. Lj.\oO acres 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 5. 1..) 0 units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. 5 () -dwelling units/acre 'Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded . •• Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. R:\Pw\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\dcnsity.doc Last updated: II!OSn004 City of Renton l~[EE RETENTION WOR~SH[EEl City of Rent( ~ Planning Divisio AUG 1 2 LUll 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter 1 on project site: 1. ---=1:.:3:..:5:...-___ trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous 2 Trees in proposed public streets Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers Total number of excluded trees; 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 3. ____ trees ____ trees ____ trees ____ trees _----'0"--___ trees _-=.1:..3:..5 ___ trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4 , multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones Re, R-l, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. _-=-6..:. . .::.8 ___ trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger'trees that you are proposing 5 to retain 4 ; 5. 9 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. ___ -.::.2..:.. -=-2 __ trees (If line 6 is les5 than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. ______ inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. _______ inches 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 ; (if remainder is.5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) per tree 9. ______ trees 1. Measured at chest height. 2. Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3. Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Aenton Municipal Code (AMC). 4. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a 6. Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. I I :\CED\Oata \Forms-T cmp lates\Sel f -Ilelp H andoll ts\Plann ing\TreeRetention Worksheet. doc 12/08 P I ~(HER AR[HITECTS ARC H TEe T 5 Aug 4, 2011 Planning Division ATTN: Rocale Timmons 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 PROJECT: Kennydale Apartments CDA# 10027 SUBJECT: PROJECT NARRATIVE PROJECT NAME, SIZE AND LOCATION: N T E R o R 5 P LAN N E R 5 The proposed project, Kennydale Apartment project, in Renton, WA, is located at a vacant lot (Jot 167), on the South side ofNE 48" Street, east of 1-405, west of II'" PL SE. The City of Newcastle borders the site's south and east boundaries. The lot description is "Lot 167 Hillmans LK WN Garden of Eden #3, and the legal is QSTR SE 29 24 05E. This project lies within the City of Renton Corporate Limits. The site is approximately 4.8 acres. The property directly east of this site is Hemmington Terrace. REQUIRED LAND USE PERMITS: (note: this site was submitted for and received full zoning approval in 2006 for a multi-story office project of approximately 124,604 (see attached Hearing Examiner Approval). Site Plan Review SEPA Detertnination Conditional Use Permit ZONING DESIGNATION: CA (Commercial Arterial). ZONING DESIGNATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: Residential zone to East and South. Commercial zone to West. CURRENT USE OF SITEIEXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: Site is vacant. SITE FEATURES and CONTEXT: F;'JOB$\10027 Kcnnydale ApB\ACAD\CUP\CUP 6 100:27 projcI.:1narrati"i.! OS-25M ll.doc Carl F. Pirscher, AlA principal 20011 Ballinger Way NE Suite 200 PO BOX 55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 Tel: (206)-368-9668 Fax: (206)-368-9558 The site is westw":d facing and offers territorial as well as distant. views. The site is bordered on the west, in po oy a commercial 'mini-storage' facility an~Jlllti-story hotel. The site is bordered on the south by a low-rise multi-family housing project. The site is bordered on the east by a single family plat and on the north by a single family residence and a low rise multi-family project. The site has a gradual upward slope of 30% from west to east across the entire length of the property, with a slight slope down in the north/south direction. The site has several small "pocket" areas at the southeast portion of the site that meet or slightly exceed a 40% slope. The site is currently vacant and is heavily vegetated. The site exhibits signs of past human activities such as grading and the cutting in of an access road possibly for timber harvesting. There are several maturing second or third growth trees on the site and a thickening growth of Alder and Maple understory. Seasonal water enters the property through a 12 inch concrete pipe tight line from a residential development at the eastern property line conducted across the site generally in an east to westerly direction approximately bisecting the north half of the property and determined not to qualify as a "stream" or "creek" and is not subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations. The flows, to be re-directed for proposed development, do not support any fisheries upstream of the outfall into Lake Washington. SOIL TYPE & DRAINAGE CONDITIONS: The site appears to be underlain with lacustrine (lake deposited) silty clays and some interbedded lenses of dense sand. Some superficial fill soils are present in the western portion of the site. Please refer to soils analysis prepared by GEO Group Northwest, Inc. included in this submittal. PROPOSED USE AND SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Architectural Description The site development will consist of substantially re-grading the western 2/3"'s of the site to prepare for the structures as described below and as shown in the attached drawings. Approximately the eastern 1/3" of the site will be left largely undeveloped under this application. The site work will include road widening of NE 48th , on site utility and drainage extensions, paving, landscaping, and construction of retaining walls. The proposed primary structure consists of the construction of a mid-rise five (5) and partial six (6) story mixed-use building totaling approximately 219,609 sf of occupied space over a basement level parking garage and an additional partial floor sub-basement parking floor. This mixed use structure presents two separated apartment "blocks" separated at the 'waist' at the upper three stories and then linked together at the lower three stories with additional units and a landscaped common plaza. The building will total 298,379 square feet. Both buildings are six story structures located over one level of a shared at-grade parking structure. The at-grade parking level has access to a sub-grade parking structure on the south portion of the site below the southern building. F:'JUBS\J O(l27 Kennydak A[Jl.~\AC'AD\Cl.JP\c{JP 6 1 O()27 proje-ct narrative 05-2S-11.doc Carl F Firscher, AlA principal 20011 Ballinger Way NE Suite 200 PO BOX 55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 Tel.' (206)·368-9668 Fax.' (206)-368-9558 An additional single story structure is proposed westerly of the primary structure. This building will be devoted to artist studio/incubator space uses consistent with the zoning code. This structure will total approximately 40,000 SF. Under the subject application, approximately 80 feet of the easterly area of the property shall largely retain the existing natural growth it presently enjoys. In this approximately 80 feet, the work anticipated is limited to such as enhancement, modification or improvements to landscaping, drainage and slope stability. In addition, the placement of the buildings at a significantly lower elevation than that associated with the residential development to the east will ensure that the roof elevations of the proposed structures are below the primary floor elevations of the residential structures along the easterly property line thus minimizing potential view obstructions for the adjoining residences (please see attached site section drawings). Primary building materials will consist of site cast architectural and high quality exterior fmish materials. The Apartment Building is a 219,609 SF six-story, all or part fireproof construction over two levels of concrete garage. The proposed at-grade and sub-grade parking garages will be constructed of concrete. The Hobby / Incubator Building is a 40,000 SF one story concrete construction and located on the lower west side of the property. All structures will be fully sprinklered. A continuous driveway through the site ties the upper and lower parking areas and provides fire truck access. Please refer to sheet A-O.l for additional project data. There are two driveways shown from NE 48"' Street. The west driveway leads to a 97' elevation level accessing the apartments and parking garage. This same driveway splits off within the site leading to a 80' elevation level which accesses the artist studio spaces. The east drive will function primarily as a fire lane and secondary egress/access for the primary structure. Provisions for employee, client and resident parking are ample for the type of occupancies envisioned for this project however to minimize the appearance and impacts of large blocks of surface parking much of the parking developed for this project is located below the occupied building structures. This allows for much greater areas of the site to be retained for landscaping purposes. A total of 385 parking spaces will be provided with most of them (70%) hidden from view. The primary structure's average building height, as shown on drawings, is at or below 60' above the grade plane which has been calculated as 101.88'. Please refer to sheet's A-1.2 and A-5.1 for calculations. Anticipated Building Occupancies The apartment building consists of a total 230 units (I -bedroom, 2-bedroom, and studio apartments) and amenities such as a meeting room, lobby area, and exercise rooms. The primary structure will also contain approximately 2,500 SF of commercial space located along the north building frontage adjoining NE 48"'. The lower hobby / incubator building will provide spaces for atelier or work shop space for various craftsmen, artists, or similar occupations and accessory storage. F:'J()BS\l OO:2i Kl:nnydale AptS\i\CAD\CUP\ClJP 6 10027 project n3rr~tive 05·25-11.doc Carl F. Pirscher, AlA principal 20011 Ballinger Way NE Suite 200 PO BOX55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 Tel: (206)-368-9668 Fax.· (206)-368-9558 · . ACCESS: The site will be accessed by two (2) proposed curb-cuts along the frontage with NE 48 ili St. The western curb-cut will access the apartment buildings as well as their associated parking garages. This drive will also split off in the westerly direction to the lower portion of the site, serving the hobby I incubator spaces. The easterly drive will be used as a secondary egress for the primary structure and also the fire department. PROPOSED OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: New curb, \j.utter and sidewalk per city standards will be constructed along the property's frontage with NE 48 St. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE: Not yet determined. ESTIMATED OUANTITIES OF CUT AND FILL: Estimated cut quantity: 39,500 CY Estimated fill quantity: 13,000 CY NUMBER. TYPE AND SIZE OF REMOVED TREES: 126 trees to be removed. See attached for exact type and size. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, CDA + PIRSCHER ARCHITECTS, INC. Michael DeMarco Associate Architect enclosure cc F;\JOB$\lOO:?7 Kennydale Apts\i\CAD\CLJP\CIW 6 1 0027 pn~jcct narrlltivt: 05-25-II.doe Carl F. Pirscher, AlA principal 2001 J Ballinger Way NE Suite 200 PO BOX55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 Tel: (206)-368-9668 Fax: (206)-368-9558 · . Tree Count Alder 8" 2 9" 1 10" 8 13" 5 1411 1 Ash 9" 1 Cascara Buckthorn 13"-1 Cottonwood 6" 1 12" 3 1411 1 Fan Maple 9" 1 Fir 1011 1 1111 1 14" 1 18" 1 20t! 1 Madrona 11" 1 13" 3 14" 2 20" 1 2211 1 26" 1 Maple 6" 3 7" 1 9" 1 1011 3 11" 2 12" 1 13 11 1 · . PIRSCHER ARCH I TEeTS ARC H TEe T S July 5, 2011 Planning Division ATTN: Rocale Timmons 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 PROJECT: Kennydale Apartments CDA# 10027 SUBJECT: CUP Justification Dear Rocale: N T E R o R S P LAN N E R S City of Rent p. on fanning Division AUG I 2 lUll On behalf of the owner, Mr. Howard Seelig, I am submitting a project for City review that while conforming to or exceeding the stipulated minimal development standards for a mixed use project in the Arterial Commercial Zone (CA) is, in my professional opinion, enhanced by exceeding the allowable height limit of 60' above the average grade plane for certain portions of the building and holding other portions below the allowable height. The average height is below the allowable height. In proposing this deviation from the 60' height limit it is my understanding that we must request approval through a Conditional Use Permit application. The following discussion presents an outline of ideas that I believe justify the request for Conditional Use Approval to exceed the height limit of portions of the proposed structures. THE DESIGN ARGUMENT PROJECT GOALS I. To design a mixed-use project consistent with City of Renton development standards that achieves a residential density of approximately 220 + units and minimizes physical impacts to the adjoining properties. 2. Organize the building structures to orient to the western view corridors and maximize the number of units that have views to the west, southwest, and northwest. 3. Provide a minimum of one stall per residential unit of structured parking and additional parking as required for the commercial occupancies. F:\IOBS\!u027 "~llnyJak AP1S\ACAD\CUI;\Cup 7 LETTER 0n .Iu:.!ification.doc Carl F. Pirscher, AlA principal 20011 Ballinger Way NE Sufie 200 PO BOX55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 rei: (206)-368-9668 Fax: (206)-368-9558 . , It should be noted that the unit density this project proposes (at 230 units) is significantly below the allowable density for this site (276 units) that is described and determined elsewhere in the application. The design of the structures responds to the three project goals expressed above, which are in part the driving motivation for our request for a design departure from a strict adherence to a 60' height limit. . If you will note on the CUP Drawing 16 -Elevations, the main structure consists of a multistory residential facility over a floor of basement parking and related amenities. Included in this structure is the arterial- oriented commercial facility. As the architect of record I have explored over a dozen alternative concepts for client review (and as you may recall many were reviewed with City staff). I have attempted to balance the project goals expressed above with City development standards for modulation and most particularly the calculation of allowable building height. As you know, the placement of the buildings on a sloping site (as this is) is particularly critical in the calculation of Average Grade Plane elevation and the resultant determination of allowable building height. A great many issues have to be considered and brought into "balance" in the determination of an acceptable site plan. The design/ownership team reviewed extensively such issues as driveway location (for safety, emergency vehicle access, ease of use etc.), constructability (cost of construction, suitability of soils etc.), site grades (drainage, cost ofimportlexport of materials, calculation of building height), zoning requirements (setbacks, density, height, allowable uses etc.), development guidelines (modulation, landscaping, tree retention, etc.), and of course the owners program and goals for his project. In our studies, the design/ownership team prepared and examined a number of building and site planning alternatives attempting to identify the best 'fit' as a physical expression of site and structure design between the ownership goals and the host of planning and practical requirements identified above. For example, we examined several options for splitting up the buildings and shifting them around the site to take better advantage of small existing grade deviations on site. While this concept maximized the number of units with westerly views for the proposed development and could be accomplished with building height at the allowable limit of 60', it severely impacted western views for the 8 houses along our east property line. It rneets code, but it required structures at higher base grade elevations than indicated in our proposal. It also diminished the setback between our project and the single family residential area to the east. The proposed site plan for the new development mitigates the impact on the 8 houses by moving the proposed development down the slope, a benefit to the neighbors at the cost of less view for the proposed development. We also examined taller building concepts than that we are proposing. If you will recall, we presented for staff review an eight (8) story concept that had very compact footprints which would have facilitated views for the residents to the east 'around' the structures, provided a greater number of comer units (very desirable for views and ease of two bedroom design considerations) and most likely resulted in reduced construction costs. Unfortunately, some views to the west would have been blocked for 'our neighbors to the east, and it was felt that that such an 'aggressive' request for a design departure (it would have required a request to go from a 60' height to almost 84') would be difficult to justify. Lastly, we also reviewed several possible building concepts that presented a uniform height building (five stories of residential) that was just slightly under the allowable 60' limit. This reduced the unit count below 220 units, reduced the number of desirable comer units, and presented a much more massive 'blockish' appearance, with little of the modulation in roofforms that our proposal expresses. This 5 story concept placed close to our east property line would be legal, but causes the most adverse view impact for adjacent neighbors, far more than will the proposal now submitted. As a result of our studies, we are proposing a project that expresses two six (~) story apartment blocks separated by a three (3) story connecting 'saddle'. The resulting building forms/elevations depicted on CUP F:\I!)BS\! 0027 K.:nnydale Ap{s\ACAD\CUP\Cup 7 l.ETTER on Juslification.c\oc Carl F. Pirscher, AlA principal 2001 J Ballinger Way N£ Suite 200 PO BOX55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 rei: (206)-368-9668 Fax: (206)-368-9558 Drawing 16 represent a 'distillation' of our analysis, placing the structures at a position on site that minimizes the impacts to view corridors enjoyed by properties to the east. This is more fully conflrmed by a series of site sections shown on CUP 16B that express the main floor decks of the adjacent single family residences to the east and their physical relationship to our proposed calculated roof height both in terms of placement and elevation (the location of the decks and the elevation of the SF decks were established by survey). Please note that the calculated rocifheights in our proposal (even with the requested increase from 60' to 67.8' over a portion of the structure) are at an elevation that is well below that oflhe main and upper floors of the single family residences to the east. It also should be noted that our east property frontage contains existing tree specimens that already provide greater view blockage than our proposed . development, and these trees have not yet grown to their maximum height. I want to reiterate that we are not requesting approval of a height increase over the entire mass of our proposed structure. We are indeed only requesting a height increase of6.8' above the 60' allowable for a portion of our proposed building forms. We have, through building placement and evaluation of building forms been able to maintain an average building height that is slightly less than the allowable height of 60' (the calculations of average building height are located on CUP 16C). Signiflcant portions of the building structure are well below the 60' limit. It should also be mentioned that if our proposal were located on a 'flat' site, the six (6) stories of residential occupancy that we are proposing would be well within the allowable 60' height limit and would not require a request for a departure, although it would completely block the neighbors' views. The proposed building is placed at a far greater distance from the east property line than required by code. This is view impact mitigation, the reason being that it moves the new development further down the slope to mitigate the impact on the 8 houses to the east at the cost of view height for the new development. Additional elements to the design argument are as follows: o While certain segments of the proposal exceed the height which triggers the need for conditional-use approval (60 feet limit), the proposed height is below 60 feet on average. The architect has created view corridors, which reduce view interference overall. Using the allowable height throughout, which would circumvent the need for conditional-use approval, would actually increase overall view interference. o Other than for 8 houses along the shared property line to the east, the proposed development will not impact views. The next row of houses to the east is too far uphill to be affected at all. o Decks of the 8 houses which are near the shared property line are above the highest basic structural element of the proposed development. Eye level of persons on decks can be assumed to be higher than the decks. o The up-scale proposed development improves value for nearby owners of property compared with standard product which is allowed. o There is precedent for approval of height increases under conditional-use code provisions to the extent it (that the Seahawks facility) exceeds otherwise permitted height by far more than is requested for the subject proposed building. o The Public Beneflt will be served by increases in tax revenues for Renton o Sales tax on construction. o Increase in real estate tax due to the new ratable buildings. F:\JOBS\!(J(l27 Kl!r\J1ydal~ Ap(s\ACAD\CUP\Cup 7 LETTER on Justification.doc Carl F. Pirscher. AlA principal 20011 Ballinger Way NE Suite 200 PO BOX55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 rei: (206)-368-9668 Far: (206)-368·9558 o Sales taxes to be collected from spending at Renton Retail outlets because of the proposed development's attractiveness to persons with substantial disposable incomes. o Sales tax on probable future conversion to condominiums. • Widened range of economic diversity in population of Renton will ensue. Presently Renton has not attracted higher income multi-family residents to the subject vicinity. • Naturally, native volunteer trees are already at heights of 60 and more near the subject east lot line. These trees are of course ecologically desirable as the best privacy screening. These trees now present more view interference than by the proposed development. They will become denser and continue to grow higher until they reach their natural limit. • Prospective view interference is fortuitously reduced by the topography which slopes significantly down and away from properties to the east. The architect voluntarily sited the development to use the topography to mitigate view interference. In the way of explanation, the architect sited the development at a much greater distance down the slope than is required by code. Such siting sacrifices view height for the proposed development for the benefit of neighbors. • The topography could have been flat in which event view blockage would be total without conditional-use required. • Two types of fa9ade designs are included with this 'application, one contemporary and one classic in character. The purpose is to improve prospects for obtaining financing for the development by affording flexibility to mitigate the reluctance of investors to commit to new development in the present adverse economic climate. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARGUMENT The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the project property is Commercial Corridor (CC). The intent of Commercial Corridor areas are to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities, and boulevard treatment. The zoning designation for the project property is Commercial Arterial <CAl. ' The Kennydale Apartment project proposes a mixed-use development that combines arterial-oriented commercial space, interior site business occupancies and multifamily residences. Approximately 230 units of market rate apartments are proposed that will be designed for and provided with such amenities <as meeting rooms, lobby area, exercise rooms, and outdoor plaza areas) that will facilitate the conversion to single family condominium ownership as market conditions improve. The arterial commercial spaces will serve the wider neighborhood as well as the on-site residents. The 'hobby/incubator business facility' will provide employment opportunities, live/work opportunities and start-up placement. The proposed uses are appropriate for the underlying zoning for this site, and, within its surroundings, fit within the context of adjacent properties. Through compact site planning, careful building placement and an emphasis on structured parking the project is able to preserve open space, protect neighborhood views, provide ample site amenities and contribute to the development of a neighborhood context that is consistent with guidelines established by the Comprehensive plan: "Current policies of the Comprehensive Plan direct future growth to the Urban Center, the core of an economically healthy, working city, and to mixed-use areas created outside of the downtown. F:\I{)BS\]u027 K.:tmyua!e Apts\ACAD\CUP\Cup 7 LETTER on .1uslifi,:ation.doc Carl F. Pirscher, AlA principal 20011 Ballinger Way NE Suite 200 PO BOX 55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 . Tel .. (206)-368-9668 Fax.-(206)-368-9558. Although densities of development are based on user preference and market factors, policies encourage maximum land efficiency, even outside the Urban Center, and strive for development that is more intense than typical "suburban" prototypes. Ideally, the mixed-use areas will result in a reduction of transportation impacts within the City by allowing residents to work and shop close to where they live, in both new and well-established neighborhoods, thereby providing alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, and maintaining a balance between parking supply and demand." Again, the Comprehensive Plan envisions the type of mixed-use project we ar~ proposing: "To foster the balance of urban rather than suburban development patterns, the City will encourage higher density mixed-use development in selected areas of the Commercial Corridor designation. These selected areas are to function as living / working / entertainment nodes for the smaller community areas of the City they are within. To this end, the City has a responsibility to ensure availability of adequate land capacity so that both the employment and economic base can be expanded and diversified." Subject development targets upscale customers who prefer urban residential features. Such a product is not presently offered in the subject vicinity of Renton. This project proposal is consistent with zoning code requirements, the objectives and standards of the comprehensive plan and is a sensitive response to the existing neighborhood context as well the developing context of anticipated projects within the neighborhood. THE COMMUNITY NEED ARGUMENT The City of Renton is a vibrant, growing community with a population base increase that between 2000 and 2009 increased by approximately 18% (according the Demographic Summary Profile -DSP-published by the City of Renton). Between 2009 and 2114 the City of Renton's population is expected to continue to increase by an additional 1.5% per year (DSP). With a housing unit vacancy factor that is averaging less than 4% according the same report it is clear that the need for additional housing units for this increasing . population is current and will extend into the middle of the second decade of the 21" century and quite possibly beyond. While this is true for the City of Renton as a whole it also specifically true for the Northeastern District of the City. In fact because of the Kennedale neighborhoods proximity to freeway access and close links to the adjoining communities of Bellevue and Kirkland the NortheasternlKennydale neighborhood is expected to show slightly higher population growth and lower housing unit vacancy factors than other areas of the City. This project clearly fills a need for the additional housing units that are expected to be needed to satisfy the growing population the City of Renton will experience into the future. The Kennydale neighborhood is also expected to grow commercially over the next couple of years as two large scale mixed use projects -Port Quendall and Hawks Landing -move to completion. The residential component of the Kennydale Apartments will provide the housing proximity important to maintaining the vital neighborhood association of living and working environments. In addition to the increase in hOllsing availability that this project will provide, the commercial component of our proposal will be instrumental in increasing the opportunities for start-up businesses serving both the immediate neighborhood and the larger community. THE MINIMIZA nON OF EFFECT ARGUMENT As noted in the first section of this analysis, the ownership/design team has, through careful site design and . creative building form analysis, made extraordinary efforts to minimize any impacts this project may have F:\JOBS\IU027 1\.~t1nydale Apls\.ACAD\CUP\CuP 7 LETTER on Justification,doc Carl F. Pirscher, AlA principal 2001 J Ballinger Way NE Suite 200 PO BOX55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 Tel: (206)-368-9668 Fax: (206)-368-9558 " • • on adjoining properties. We have significantly modulated the vertical building forms to reduce the apparent bulk at the cost of additional unit count. We have set the building footprints over 80' from our eastern property line to provide a green buffer between our project and the single family residences to the east that far exceeds the setback requirements of the zoning code. We have placed the commercial uses proposed for our project and the activity centers of the project between the western building fa9ade and the western property line to minimize the potential effects of noise and glare of these activities on the residential properties to the east and south. In short, through modulation of building forms, zoning of on-site activities, provisions for enhanced setbacks and the general improvements to the street frontage and neighborhood utility distribution, we believe that this project shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent properties (please review CUP Drawing 7 for additional information). This concludes my discussion regarding the appropriateness of granting this project a Conditional Use approval to increase the height limit over a portion of the building from 60' above grade plane elevation to 65.37' above grade plane elevation. It is my professional opinion that the granting of such a Conditional Use Approval will result in a project of superior design and will not increase the impacts of this project on the adjoining properties. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincer ly, CDA PIRSCHE ARCHITECTS, INC. enclosure cc F:\IORS\Jt)027 K~!myJa1e ApIs\ACAD\CUPI,Cup 7 LETTER on ,Iustification.doc Carl F. Pirscher, AlA principal 2001 J Ballinger Way NE Suite 200 PO BOX55429 Shoreline, Washington 98155 Tel: (206)-368-9668 Fax: (206)-368-9558 PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTcitJloFr ~============================================================~~~~2"t City of Renton Planning Division ''''rlning I'" On )'~'I'" . "iOn 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 4U612 ~/Jit PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: 1f?l1Ert;1E#'Wl~' The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmenta'ls;;g)) 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 NON PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT 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. - 1 -06/09 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale AptsIACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst 05·25·11.doc A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Kennydale Apartments 2. Name of applicant: Howard Seelig PO Box 1925, Bellevue, WA 98009 (425) 746-9780 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant/Owner: Howard Seelig PO Box 1925, Bellevue, WA 98009 (425) 746-9780 Contact: Carl Pirscher CDA + Pirscher Architects 20011 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Shoreline WA 98155 (206) 368-9668 4. Date checklist prepared: May 16, 2011 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction will begin as soon as applicable permits and financing are approved. Estimated start of construction is 2012. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No expansions or additions are anticipated. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. This SEPA checklist -CDA+Pirscher Architects Inc, May 25, 2011 Soils Analysis -GEO Group Northwest, Inc., August 17, 2004 Drainage Report for Fisheries Conditions -Poggemeyer Design Group, June 14, 2000 Traffic Analysis -William Popp Associates, see attached report . 3 . 06109 F:IJOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAo\CUP\POFS FOR CUP\SEPA\1Q027 envchlst 05-25-11.doc Stream Analysis -Associated Earth Sciences, Inc October 11, 2000 Wetlands Report -Celeste Botha-November 29, 2001 Steep Slope Analysis -Goldsmith and Associates, September 18, 2002 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. None known. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA Review Site Plan Approval Building Permit Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit Electrical Permit Clearing/Grading Permit R.O.W. Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The proposed project consists of (2) six story market-rate apartment structures containing a total of 230 units oriented in the North-South direction with its main entry fronting NE 48th St. Two levels of below grade parking sit below the residential superstructure. On the lower portion of the site are below grade hobby/ incubator spaces of approximately 40,000 sf with access to them from a dedicated drive to the west. The site is approximately 4.7 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). ·4 . 06/09 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\POFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst OS·25·11.doc 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 on the south side of NE 48 th Street, east of 1-40S, west of 111 th PI SE. The City of Newcastle borders the site's south and east boundaries. The lot description Is "Lot 167 Hillmans LK WN Garden of Eden #3", and the legal is QSTR SE 29240SE. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______ . The site has a gradual average upward slope of 30% from west to east across the entire length of the property, with a slight slope in the north / south direction. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) According to the City's Slope Atlas there are several small areas of approximately 30-40% slope at the eastern side of the property. The limits of the new construction that the applicant is proposing do not appear to impact the majority of the 40%.areas on site that have a rise of more than 15 vertical feet. One 40% slope is affected for a rise of approximately seven feet. A slope analysis was completed in September of 2002 finding the steep slopes in the area of the work were created by the construction of an old road on site. 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. Based on the subsurface explorations previously conducted, the site appears to be underlain with lacustrine (lake deposited) silty clays with some interbedded lenses of dense sand. Some surficial fill soils are present in the western portion of the site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Portions of the property are designated as "high" on the City's Erosion Hazard and Slide Hazard Critical Areas Maps. -5-06/09 F:IJOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst OS·25-11.doc e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Site grading will be required to create level benches for parking and building pads. Approximately 39,500 cy of on site material will be excavated and removed from the site. Approximately 13,000 cy will be imported as structural fill. Compacted fills will be about 13,000 cy. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Some erosion may occur during construction, such as surface run-off during a rainstorm. All such erosion will be controlled on site. A temporary erosion sediment control (T.E.S.C.) plan will be a part of the permit and construction drawings. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 70%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR We will have a temporary erosion sediment control plan which will meet the city's requirements. 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. Short-term emissions are expected to consist of truck and construction equipment exhaust and dust generated during construction. long-term emissions will be generated by customer and employee vehicles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Primary off-site emissions will be from NE 48th St. but this will not affect our proposal. -6-06/09 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale AptsIACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\$EPA\10027 envchlst 05-2S-11.doc c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Vegetation buffers will surround the entire site. This buffer will help minimize off-site impacts of airborne particles. Also, the general contractor will use dust control measures during construction. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. An existing gully was observed on the property. Water enters the property through a 12 inch concrete pipe tightline. This surface water feature, which bisects the north end of the site has been determined to be a drainage ditch that does not qualify as a "stream" or "creek" and is not subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations. The flows do not support any fisheries upstream of the outfall into Lake Washington per "Drainage Report for Fisheries Condition" prepared by Poggemeyer Design Group. 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. Surface water enters the site as sheet flow and discharges from a concrete culvert. This inflow will be intercepted by an intercept swale along the undeveloped portion of the site. The sheet flow and channel flow will be conveyed via storm sewer system on site and combined with on -site drainage. The storm drainage will be treated for water quality. The on-site component of storm drainage will be attenuated by on-site detention to moderate the discharge rate to a pre-developed discharge rate in accordance with City of Renton (King County Surface Water Design Manual) runoff time series analysis. The surface water will be handled in accordance with Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control during construction. 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. No standing water exists on the site, nor any wetland. The site has an average . 30% slope from east to west. Excavated material may be used in compacted fills on site to create level benches for parking lots and building floor pads. • 7 • 06/09 F:UOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAo\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\$EPA\10027 envchlst 05-25·11.doc 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No dewatering or ground water impacts are expected. The area is primarily compact glacial till with shallow forest litter. The excavations are not expected to impact water supply sources or to increase ground water supply. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. The proposed site is not within a 100 year flood plain. 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. The site will be serviced to sanitary sewer in accordance with city standards and connected to an existing sanitary sewer collection system. 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. Yes. We propose that storm water will be collected, conveyed and treated per local standards. Infiltration may be used. 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. None. 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. Preliminary analysis of the upstream and downstream impacts have been determined. The site is within the Gypsy Basin. The upstream limit is approximately 200' east of 116'h Avenue SE. The tributary sheds runoff to the west crossing 116'h Avenue SE. Sheet flow, channel flow, and subdivision -8-06109 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst OS·2S-11.doc drainage collection systems convey the runoff primarily due west to the east boundary of the site. The offsite basin contains approximately 25.2 acres. Surface water enters the site as sheet flow, and discharges from a concrete culvert. The inflow will be intercepted by an intercept swale along the undeveloped portion of the site. The sheet flow and channel flow will be conveyed via storm sewer system on site and combined with on-site drainage. The storm drainage will be treated for water quality. The on-site component of storm drainage will be attenuated by on-site detention to moderate the discharge rate to a pre-developed discharge rate in accordance with the City of Renton (King County Surface Water Design Manual) runoff time series analysis. The surface water will be handled in accordance with Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control during construction. The site discharge flow control structure will be divided proportional to existing flow conditions and discharged to the two existing intake structures on the east side of the property as follows: 1. Intake from concrete flume at northeast corner of Shurgard Storage site. 2. Intake from concrete flume collecting runoff from subject property and located along the east perimeter of the motel parking lot (abutting property south of Shurgard Storage site.) These site discharge collection points serve the subject property and the systems have been installed as engineered systems with the permitted commercial developments. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. There is a potential for waste materials to enter the ground water from within the development; pollutants from automobiles, roadways, driveways and parking areas. The above measure listed in Sectiori C.l above will help to reduce or eliminate this possibility. Also, we will provide floor drains in the parking garage areas to be connected to the sanitary sewer through an approved oil/water separator located outside the building, if feasible. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Sub surface drainage blankets will be installed in conjunction with retaining walls on site to create the level parking areas and building pads. These drains relieve hydrostatic pressure behind the retaining walls. Parking areas will be curbed and sheet flowed to catch basins. The catch basins will be conveyed to water quality treatment facilities in accordance with City Standards. -9-06109 F:IJOBS\10027 KennydaJe AptsIACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst 05-2S-11.doc Site runoff will be piped into the existing underground collection systems offsite to eliminate surface flows and the risk of overflowing the concrete flumes that presently collect surface water as sheet/channel flow. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _x_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _x_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _x_ shrubs _x_ grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bull rush, 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? Sparse patches of grass, shrubs and trees will be removed from the site during construction, mainly in the new areas of asphalt and buildings. We will try to preserve all trees and vegetation just east of the easterly limits of our east parking lot, and any existing trees within new landscaping areas. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: We will provide landscaping in all areas not covered by the building and adjacent paving. A landscape plan will be submitted as part of the site plan application drawings. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle 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 _______ _ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other ;---:-;-__ -;--:-___ _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other rodents b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. . 10· 06/09 F:IJOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\sEPA\10027 envchlst 05-25-11.doc c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Do not know. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The installation of new landscaping in designated areas and the preservation of existing vegetation along the eastern portion of the property. 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. Gas for heating, electricity for cooling in the hobby/ incubator spaces. The apartments will use electricity for heating and appliances. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, 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: The project will meet or exceed the State of Washington's Energy Code. 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. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Police, fire and emergency medical services may be required. 2) Proposed mea syres to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: -11 -06/09 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAo\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst OS·25-11.doc Sanitary and storm water drainage systems will meet or exceed local requirements. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Vehicular traffic from NE 48 th St. and Interstate 40S 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. Short-term noise will come from construction activity between 7:00 a.m. and S:OO p.m. on weekdays only. Long-term noise will come from an increase in traffic between approximately 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction noise will be temporary and limited to certain hours. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant. The adjacent properties to the south and east fall within the City of Newcastle limits and are zoned residential. The properties to the north and west are zoned commercial. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No •. c. Describe any structures on the site. None are on site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. • 12 • 06/09 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAo\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst 05-25-11.doc e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial Arterial (CA) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation ofthe site? 'EhrployllieRt Area COiilmerclal (EAt) g. . If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? This site is not subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program and does not have a Shoreline designation. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, based on the City's Slope Atlas, there are slopes present on the east side of the subject site, and this area is also designated as "high" on the City's Erosion Hazard and Slide Hazard Critical Areas Maps. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Reside: Work: Approximately 250 residents Approximately 5 employees j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed development will comply with existing zoning regulations. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. -13 -06109 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale AptsIACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\sEPA\10027 envchlst 05·25-11.doc 230 middle-income apartment units. 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: None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(sl, not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. From grade plane, the height will be 66'_0" at the highest roof deck. The average building height will not exceed 60', which is the maximum allowed height for this zone. Elements such as parapet walls and horizontal roof projections will exceed the height limit by a maximum of 7'-0" but this is allowed by Renton's zoning code. Building materials will most likely consist of metal siding, fiber cement board siding in flat panel and lap siding finishes, masonry and concrete. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Only territorial views. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The proposed project will meet all local height and set back requirements and will incorporate architectural features and color to present an aesthetically pleasing development. Proposed project will meet the City of Renton's design and landscaping standards. Also, because the Comprehensive Plan of the site (Employment Area) classifies the property as a gateway to the city, the applicant will enhance the western facades of the structures using "creative and sensitive" design features. Retaining a large portion of the existing vegetation and locating the majority of the parking below grade will soften the visual impact of the proposed project. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? • 14 -06/09 F:\JOBS\1 0027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst 05-2S-11.doc Light from the parking lot and vehicular traffic will occur between dusk and dawn. Light from building lighting would occur during business hours in the early to late evening. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Parking lot lighting will be designed to focus only on the proposed site by the use of cut-off diffusers. Also, light levels will be per current energy code allowances. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Recreational areas are as follows: Gene Coulon Memorial Park is located approximately 2.9 miles from this site. Newcastle Beach Park is located approximately 3 miles from this site. Park & Ride Bus Stop is approximately 2.3 miles from this site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If 50, 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. 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. . 15· 06/09 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\POFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst 05-25-11.doc Do not know. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Do not know. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Do not know. 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. Access to the site will be from NE 48 th St which connects to Lake Washington Blvd. NE and SE 76 th St. See attached site plan and vicinity maps. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The applicant does not believe that the site is served by bus stops closer than the Park & Ride Bus Stop which is approximately 2.3 miles from this site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will add 384 new stalls. None eliminated. 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 new roads. NE 48th St. frontage improvements adjacent to the north edge of this property will be provided. Frontage improvements will include 2 new driveways and curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscaping. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate Vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Train tracks run parallel to Lake Washington Blvd. N. No public train station is located near this property. • 16 • 06/09 F:IJOB$\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst 05·2S.11.doc f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See traffic study. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The public will access this site at points approved by the city. 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 increase the demand for fire and police protection for the new buildings, tenants, customers, and employees. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. All Safety and Code Regulations will be met or exceeded .. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water. 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. Gas: Telephone Power: Water: Washington Energy QWest Washington Energy Coal Creek Utility District. An existing 12" dia water line is located in NE 48 th St. and along the western property line. San. & Storm Sewer: San. Sewer will be provided by Coal Creek Water and Sewer District. There is an existing 12" dia. sanitary sewer along the western property line of the proposed project. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of • 17 . 06/09 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAo\CUP\POFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst 05·25·11.doc non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation 0 willful lack disclosure on my part. Proponent Signature: --l--IJlA..4a::::J~~y.A;=====::.. Date: _May 24,2011 ___________ ---, __ -18 -06/09 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst 05·25·11.doc D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and ro rams. You do not need to fill out these sheets for rO'ect actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? -19 -06109 F:UQBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\SEPA\10027 envchlst 05-25-11.doc • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, 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 disclosure on my part. Proponent Signature: _______________ _ Name Printed: Date: -20-06/09 F:\JOBS\10027 Kennydale Apts\ACAD\CUP\PDFS FOR CUP\$EPA\1Q027 envchlst 05-25-11.doc .~ -~--.. P I SCHER CDA AR(HITECTS ARC H TEe T 5 May 25, 2011 Planning Division ATTN: Rocale Timmons 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 PROJECT: Kelmydale Apartments CDA# 10027 N T E R SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION o R 5 P LAN N E R 5 C·t 'Yof RamO P/annin D'" n 9 IV/S/on AUG 1 2 IOn Proposed construction will begin prior to the expiration of the SEPA and Site Plan Approval Permits, and after all other applicable permits are secured, as required by the City of Renton, It is preferred that construction begins late summer, early fall of2011 with site work such as slope stabilization, grading, installation of utilities, erosion control, and temporary drainage measures. Construction duration is estimated at 14 months. Hours of operation will be normal business hours of7am to 5pm. Hauling/Transportation during construction will be limited to the hours between 7 am and 5 pm on weekdays only, With a proximity to Interstate 405, construction materials will be brought directly to the site, All hauling and transportation access to the site during construction will be from NE 48 th St. with limited construction activity to the east. We will have a temporary erosion sediment control plan to meet city's requirements. Short term emissions are expected to consist of truck and construction equipment exhaust and dust generated during constrllction. Long term emissions will be generated by customer and employee vehicles. Short term noise will come from construction activity between 7 am and 5 pm on weekdays only. When the project is complete, long term noise will come from an increase in customer and tenant traffic between approximately 7 am and 6 pm. This project is still in a preliminary state and no traffic control plans have been prepared. Once a general contractor is chosen, a plan will be submitted by them prior to a pre-construction meeting. This project proposes two new curb cuts along NE 48 th , and a traffic analysis was submitted with the SEPA application to illustrate new and existing impacts. Sincerely, CDA + PIRSCHER ARCHITECTS, INC. Michael DeMarco Associate Architect I::\I( llIS\1 0017 I:::'-'Ililydale :\p!~\,\( 'A))I( 'IJI'\I'I lFS I;L}){ C! J)'\ 1 OU27 ('(IllSII' ,\'1 i!ig:lliull ))c~L:l'ipli, III 1):"-25-1 I.d()(· Carl F. Pir.~chcr, AlA prillcipal 20011 Ballinger Way NE SlIite 200 PO BOX55429 .''J'/ioreiine, Wm-hinglOn 98155 Tel.' (206}-368-9668 Fax: (206)-368-9558 cJP 6&/6&/2611 15:42 42574&3986 ,. Ii) Ocllneltdon <:) Re(lonn;,IIIIIaru:re O'Yo',luo'ItiC'If,,, o Ponnlt ... ltu,no& and .per eoordlnatlan G Pro'-~,,'onltl "&port prep:lrliltlcn o Impact IInalYldfl and ItOCIUI:II1clnr .lune 6,2011 Howard SeeIig See lig Propertie$ P.O. Box 1925 Bellevue, W A 98009 SEELIG WUlJ\NP PERMJ1TING SERVICES PI10"C; (~) j28-777S c.U, ('106) :l.404f11 -?.ol~p.t:.m PAGE 82 Mit.lgar.l<m ptlln,dnr and monltorlnr & . 1.1.""1\1' prolecce (ro,dl, power .nd gAil II1\fll) 0 Bilv{n)nment:l' oornpU:uu:\II liuri'rl'g" ~".t'nlCti.on 0 PlI:c:lt" rC'Vlow imd pr:onlt -.nndlclonl"lC' Ii) Wetland ln~ntorltll'l G City of Renton Planning Division AUG 1 2 flill RE: Wetland Reeonn.ai.ssance at Kcnnydale Property l..ocated East ufLake Washington Blvd. SE, North ofNE 44'h Street, City of Renton, Washington on Parcel 3343300820 Dcar Mr. Seelig: At your request, I conducted a reconnaissance-level investigation 011 JUIlC 6, 2011 to confirm findings described in a letter rcport dated Scplcmber 10,2005. No changes tl) the vegetation, soils or hydrology were observed within thc study mea described in that repolt. Thank you for llsing the ~ervices of WPS on this project. Plcase don't hesitate to call WIth any questions. Sincerely, /' ) .,.-,.," .... , .",(" I' ,-, (\ r ,\..~."""." /' \. .. J .. V:~~-"'· ,_.< .. J ::~.;~ ., : •• !~., ..... >(,,,., Ccleste 80tha . __ .. ------. ,,-------_ .. _ .... , ... _-_._-_ ........ _-----_. __ .. _ ............................... --_._ ... -.. -... "-'-'- tosa IO."U h Jlfnrm ... SU"C'Ot •.... , .... ,~_~rc.le. w~.tnl~~~.t .... '" .. ~" ! , / L. November 29,2001 Howard Seelig Seelig Properties P.o. Box 1925 Bell<;we, WA 98009 a logy Phone: (206) 328-7775 Fax: (206) 320-7779 Email: Cboth.l!!.cables.p •• d~ .. m RE: Wetland Investigation of Property Located East of Lake Washington Blvd. SE, North of NE 441h Street, City of Renton, Washington . . Dear Mr. Seelig: -At your request, I conducted a wetland investigation on your property in Renton, Washington (Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East) on November 21,2001. The objective of the investigation was to detennine whether or notthe channel cutting from east to west through the site has any associated wetlands, as defined in the Washingtop. Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1991) (which descnocs the 1987 Corps of Engineers wetland identification methodology), as required by the City of Renton Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). The manual requires the exainination of characteristics and indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Positive indicators of all three characteristics must normally be present to malce a positive wetland determination. The study area of this investigation was confined to the vicinity of the channel. The site is on a hillside sloping down towards the west The channel is incised and WIlIer was flowing briskly on the date of the site visit, during a period ofheavy rainfall. The banks of the channel, as well as the balance of the site, is comprised of a deciduous forested plant community dominated in the overstory by red alder (Alnus rubra). Black cottonwood (populus balsamifera), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and choke cheny (Prunus marginata) are also present !n the overstory in trace amounts. The understory is nearly monotypic Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus), though some salmonberry is also present The groundlayer, where present mostly along the toe of the slope, is comprised of Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), brackenfern (Pteridium aqui/inum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolia), and EngIish ivy (Hedera helix). This is a noo- hydrophytic plant community. . 2025 S, Norman Street Seattle, WA 98141 I I Pas;'! ofl . Ntwcmber 29. 2001 . Seelig Renton Property . Soils on the site are mapped in the Soil Swyey of King County Area as Kitsap silt loam 8 to 15% slope and Kitsap silloam 15 to 30% slopes. The Kitsap series is a very deep, moderately well drained soil on terrace escarpments. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown silt loam about 6 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is dark brown silt loam about 14 inches thick. The lower part is olive brown silty clay loam about 13 inches thick. Permeability of the Kitsap soil is slow; available water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is limited by a seasonal perched water table that is at a depth of 18 to 30 inches from December to May. Seep areas or springs are co=on. The Kitsap series is a non-hydric soil (S.C.S., 1985). Exposed soil along the incised channel matched the soil description. In summ.;ry, none of the three wetland criteria, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetlands hydrology, are met within the study area on the subject site. Thank you for using the services of Celeste Baths Wetlands Ecology on this projectl would be bappy to meet with someone from the City of Renton to conduct a site verification visit if necessary. To arrange a meeting time, or with any questions, please call (206) 328-7775. Sincerely. Celeste Botha 07/05/2005 22:28 42574G3~80 PAGE 02 State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE . Ragion <I Offlce: 16018 Mill Craelt Boulovard· MHI Creek. W •• hinglon 98012· (425) ns.~~tlf of Renton' Planning Oi I;~;ion December 17.2001 Howard Seelig Post Office Box 1925 Bellevue. Washington 98009 l-/pw ........ J. Dear MP..seeUg· AUG 12 lull SUBJEcr: Lot 167. Hillman's Lake Wuhington Carden of Edel!. Addition No.3. Unnamed Creek, Tributary to Lake Washington, King County, WRIA OS.LKWA The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) has been fortunate to have an opportunity to work with you regarding the smail stream which flows through the above- referenced property you own in the City of Renton. WDFW has accepted 12 coniferous trees, primarily western red.cedar, with a minimwn diameter at breast height of20 inches as mitigation for placing this stream in a culvert when the property is developed. These trees have already been delivered to a stomge area operated by the King County Department ofNaturaI Resources, which intends to use them sometime iil2002 in a fish habitat restoration project in Peterson Creek, tributary to the Cedar River. in Maple Valley. Amy Stonkus is the: manager of this project and can be reached at 206-296-8385. You or your successor property owner can work with Tony Oppermann ofWDFW to obtain a Hydraulic Project ApprOVal wh,en the property is developed. '. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this mitigation. If you have any questions, please contact me at 42S-6'!9-7042 or Tony Oppeonann at 425-379-2309. Sincerely, -1..----. --0-~-l·- Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist LF:lf:SEEUG.G cc: WDFW, Oppermann KCDNR. Stonkus City of Renton, Nishihim c uf~} ,03/11/2005 21:32 o Dcllnc:oltlon (;) JleooI\N;~ 'l!l'VA11II[lono -'Pc:nJ1lt uoU-t4noe aM ~ I;DO(d.l.nar.tlob ~n.ol report propara,i.m ' Q Imp""" .... I,...._~' September 10; 2005 Howard Seelig Seelig Properties P.O. Box 1925 Bellevue, W A 98009 WJn"lANJ> PBJlMITTING sa VICES -('06) l"'-ms .... (>o6):p>-rm GoIL(Io6)_ ~'I'-- PAGE 112 Mldradon p~ mol """'I .... "" a u".,...I""i«'" ( .... <10, _or .nd .. ,.1_) ~ Environmenmt ooJnptLt.hO!t ddrirtr OOMCnJcdOl\ (!) Poer =-lew .nd permit oondldonln .. e WtI[bnd lnventorieo e RE: Wetland and Drainage Determination ofKennYdale Property . Located East of Lake Washington Blvd. SE, North ofNE «tb Street, City of Renton, Washington Dear Me. Seelig: At your request; I cOnducted a wetland and stream investigation on your property in Renton, Washington (Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East) on November 27, 2001; a follow-up visit occurred on September 8, 2005. The site is on a hillside sloping down towards the west. An incised channel begins aloDg the mid-point of the east property line and cuts through the site to the west. Water was flowing briskly on the date of the site visit in 2001, during a period of heavy rainfall. The objective of the investigation was two fold: to determine the classification of the drainage channel cutting from east to west through the site as defined in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC); and to determine whether or not this water course has any associated wetlands, as defined in the Washington Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). The study area of this investigation was confined to the vicinity of the channeL 'Dminage Determination Three documents, all of which have been submitted to the city with the application package. were reviewed to arrive at the determination regarding the classification of the watercourne on the Kennydale site. The primary focus of this synthesis of these documents is to determine wbetJier or not the water that disCharges into the channel onto the Seelig property derives from a natural source or is an entirely manmade feature. The reports were: 1. Fisheries value of drainage on property -part of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage, Proposed Kennydale Business Parle, prepared by Michele McGrady. Senior Staff Biologist, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc .• dated October 11,2000. 2. Technical Information Report, Kennydale Business Park. prepared by Poggemeyer Design Group, dated July 2004, including a report entitled "Drainage Report fur Fisheries Conditions". prepared by Poggemeyer Design Group. dated June 14.2000. ' 09/11/2005 21:32 • -.;0----- 4257453980 PAGE 03 Seelig Kcnnydale Wetland and S!rCaJ" ">ctermimllions , S~Ptember J 0, 2005 3. Letter from Larry Fisher, Area Habitat Biologist, Washing10n Department ofFish and Wildlife, regarding Lot 167, Hillman's Lake Washington Gaxden of Eden Addition No.3, Unnamed Creek, Tributary to Lake Washington, King County, WRIA 08. LKWA, dated December 17,2001. Both studies 1 and 2 cited above are consistent in cbaracterimlg the channel as artificially created and not derived from a relocated nalUral channel. The Drainage Report for Fisheries Conditions indicates that the water that is discharged onto the Seelig Kennydale property collects ground water through a series of perforated pipes between 11111> Avenue SE and 11311> Avenue SE, as well as from catch basins ' that collect most of the runoff from 11311>. The letter prepared by Associated Earth Sciences indicates that ''no evidence of a lIlI1ural <irai.naSe was located upstream of the site ... ,. Therefore, the series of stonndrains above the site would not be classified as a creek." Moi:eovcr, the report states, the subject dxainage does not ofter any direct value to fisheries. The report concludes that, "if the on-site drainage flow WBS placed in a pipe, it would result in 00 direct 1088 of fisheries habitat." RMC 4-11-190 and RMC 4-3-050 L.1.a.5, define Stream and Lake Classes. The subject drainage, . according to the reports cited above, meets the definitional criterion 5 a, i.e.: 5. Class 5: Class 5 wa1ers are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria:' . Ii. Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel bad previously existed. Artificial channels are defined in RMC as: A stream channel that is entirely manmade but does not include relocated natural channels. Thus, by definition, the drainage is not regulated by RMC4-3-050. Mr. Seelig coordinated with WDFW in December 2001 regarding the pwposai to place the sucf"ace waters flowing onto the pwperty into a culvert. As stated in the letter from Mr. Fisher dated December 17, 200 1, mitigation was provided in the form of participation in a fish habitat restoration project in Patterson Creek: in Maple Valley. Thus, any mitigation requirements that may be imposed by the City of Renton pursuant to the prpposed culvert have been fully addressed in advance of the current application. Wednnd Determinotion The Washington Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual requiJes the examination of three cbaracter:istics and indicators ofwet1ands: bydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Positive indicators of all three characteristics must normally be present to make a positive wetland determination. The banks of the channel, as well as the balance of the site, are comprised ofa deciduous forested plant community dominated in the overstory by red alder (Alnus rubra). Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and choke cherry (Pnmus marginala) are also Pfesent in the overstory in tmce amounts. The understory is oearly monotypic Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus), though some salmonberry is also present. The gwundlayer, where present mostly along the toe of the slope; is comprised of Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursinus). sword foro (Polystichum munitum), brackenfem (Pteridium aqullirrum), saIal (Gaultheria shaJ/on), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquijolia), and English ivy (Hedera helix). This is a non-hydrophytic plant community. B9/11/2005 21:32 4257463980 rage.J 01 J PAGE 04 Stttlig J:'mnyd.ale Wetland and Stttar 1erminations , Sqrtombcr 10, 2005 Soils on the site are mapped in the Soil Survey ofIGng County Area as Kitsap silt loam 8 to 15% slope and Kitsap silt IOIlm, 15 to 30010 slopes. The Kitsap seties is a VeIY deep, moderately well drained soil on teJ:tace escaIpIIlents. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown silt 10IIm about 6 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is dark brown silt loam about 14 inches thick. The lower part is olive brown silty clay loam about 13 inches thick. Permeability of the Kitsap soil is sloW; available water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is limited by a seasonal perched water table that is at a depth of 18 to 30 inches from December to May. Seep areas or springs are common. The Kitsap series is a non- hydric soil (S.C.S., 1985). Exposed soil along the incised channel matched the soil description. On the Kennydale site, no areas of seeps, springs or saturated soils were observed during either site visit In summary, none of the three wetland criteria, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetlands . hydrology, is met within the study area on the subject site. Thailk you for using the services ofWPS on this project. Please don't hesitate to ca\l with any questions. Sincerely, ~~ Celeste Botha B8/22/2005 17:04 4257463980 (.)01 (.t., ... tmJ 1.0. ,,';:1 ... ..::o'+~· -.,~" October 11. 2000 Howard Seelig P.O. Sox 1925 Associated Earth Sclencu, In~. 911Uevue, Washington 98009 Subject: Fisheries value of drailJAge on property -pan of th<:' Gypsy 5ubbMin Drllil'lllge PropoSild K=ydaJe 9usm<:ss Park Renton. Washington lklu Mr. Seeli~, PAGE 03 t'A(;t;;. ~l I have completed a salmonid suitability and functional habitat assessrn.tmt of H drainage on your lUldeVeloped 4.57-acre propert)' loeated in the 1800 block of NE 48 th Street in Renton •. Washington (Figul'e I). It is the un~ding of Ass<Jciated Earth Sciences Inc. (AESI) the drainage on the property is propos¢4 to be tight!ined for its length on the site as part of the proposed KenndycIa1e Business Park. This letter-report as oo.:n prepared in response to the City ofRentoo's request for an. indepeliaeIit consultant to assess the existiDj?; condition of the subject drainage. The objective of the assessment WlIS to evaluate acneral Wroonid habitat sui1lWillty on lite property. if any, and any functiona\ value lite cltainage may provide to the downstream fISheries resource. You indiClllteG Letty Fischer of WDFW !l.$sessed the site and determined the drainage does n()t support s.almonids at any time of tile year. My site survey and review' of eltisting literarure .mpport~ that as~essment. As described below. the stream is contained in a series of pipes upstream and dowl1lltream of the subject property. In addition, the cut na= ufthe banks and conveyance of flow 011 the property via a concrete pipe with no evidence of a defined channel upw"dienl suggest the channel is IlO'l ne.tw:al. MEmODS On September 11,2000, the subject drainage was waJ.ked fOJ: its approximately 330·-fool length on thl. property where vegetation permitted. The drain.ase also WM assessed upstream and downmei\lll. of the property for a dlSlmlce of approxitruLlcly SOO feet in ",,"el, direction. Photographs were taken of features of interest and III't 011 file at Associated Earth Sciences in Kirkland. Washington. Fisheries habitat quality was assessed based on cbann~l type, channel complexity. substrat"'. channel stability. evidence of flow, lIp$trel\m passage barriers, larg!! WO()dy debris (t WD) or any othet features of benefit to salmonids. Any functional vaJue provided by the subject drainage to the do~wn fisheries resource was based on the existing riparian coru:lition on the property; The riparian area WQ:i evolualed for bank stability, shade. organic nutrient delivery, course !!e<liment deliv«y. L~ •. ancl filtering of pollutants. publi&hed $ciontific research on riparian fun,'1:!ons sUPPO!'ll.ni fish habitat was l.ISed in this analysJ$ (Knutson and Naef 1997). C:0tp0J" .. ~ om.:. .... 91 ( Filth A~. Suite 100 • KIfl:Land. INA IJIO.'lJ • P~Oht ~u a:7-nOI • ~~ "25 8~1-S~1~ WI!« $Ql,ofId ORiCI! ~ i79 McdrQrICl ~ NGrth • &inbrql! lslu!d.WA 98110" Phor.c 206 7~·'170 ~ F".:.. ~ 786.9-.tla 08/22/2005 17:04 4257463980 08/22(2005 lS:3e 4254~"0a3 SE;E;UG PROPERT PAGE 04 PAGE: 02 RESULTS $I\lmonid Habitat ~ujtabj!jty and Draipage Clas&ifiCl).tioQ The origin of the dJ:ltinage on the p~operty is a 12-inch concrete pipe located along the ~fern property boundary. TM pipe is perched approximately 12-inches above a channel lined 'Io'Iith quiury spaU" For the first approxiroatcly 70 feet, the drainage is contained within a defuled channel with an approximately 40 percent gradient. For the remalnder of the dral.na.ge length on 1he property, the gradient is gmtlcr at about 3 percent. Riparian vegetation was dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rub,,: dj;gcolor), illlnUltw:e red alder (Alnus 11Ibr.v and $~attered willow (Salix spp). During the site visit, flow was about 0.05 cubic reel per second (cfs). Averll8e channel width at the otdinary high W8Ier mark (OHWM) was approximat=ly 2.S fcet. Average wetted width was about 1 foot. The drainage Bvel'llged 3 feet at the bankfull width. A vet'age bankfLlll depth averaged 2 feet with a range between about OJ feet and 3 feet. BUlks were mostly silt and gelll!lrally WlSta111e. Erosi.on was occurring along the banks for the ml\iority of the approxlmlltdy 330 foot length of the drainage on the property. The channel bed was dominated by silt. Channel type was riffle. No pools, gravel suitable fot $Illlllonid spa\\o1ling. large WQody debris or other feat\ll'ell ofbcmut to salmonid, _ observed. The drtIinas:e exiu the property at tbe western property boundary. The flow empties into a smooth conetete fl1U\lo me..s1llin8 Ifool wide and 0.5 feet deep_ This feature runs north to south on the adjacent prollerty (ShW'gUal'd). For its approximately 300 foot length. the concrete flume u; mostly covered by reed canary grass. The gradient was estimated to be about 1 percent. The water then drops into a $tormdrain pipe beneath II parking lot (Traveler's rnn). The flow then passes through approximately 500 feet of pipe before daylighting in a SIOIlnWlltCI quality detention pond. The pond is located along the "lISt shoulder of Lake Wash.ington Blvd SE and the e.cce5$ row:.l to Trllveler' $ Inn. VeiCtlltion surrounding the pond is dominated by cattail (1'ypha lati/olia), willow, and reed canary grass (Fha/arts anll'ldinac«a). Water from Ihe pond then exits beneath Lake Washington Boulevard via a 48-inch culvert and continues under 1-405 and railroad tracks eventually emptying into Lake Washington. Drainage srudies in this vicinity indicate this draina.ge is pnl't of the Gypsy Subbasin drainage (not to be: conJilsed with Gypsy Creek which is a neEll'by tributary to May Cfeek). The majority of tile watercourse downstream of the Bl.lbject property is contained within pipes (Entranco 1995), No nidencc of a natural drainage was located upstream of Ihe site. Therefore, salmonid use upstream of the drainage is non-existent. It appem the origin of the water is a series of stonnwafer catchbllBins collecting surfacewater runoff from SE 76 th Street and 111 III Place SE. A natul'll.l .pring l1lJIy abo contribute to the flow (Poggewneyer 2000). Acconiin" to Renton MuniCipal Code (RMC) (4-11-030), creeks arc deftned as "tholu areas where sur/ace water flows sufficiently (0 produce a defined channel Or bed. A dcfiMd chan"el or bed iJ 1M/cared by hydraulically soned sed/me'lfS 01' rh. removal of vegetative litter or loosely rooled vegetation by the action of moving wat~r. The channel or bed need nor contain . wilIer ;>ew-roulld This definition is not meant 10 Illelude stormwater runoff devices or olnu 2 08/22/2005 17:04 4257453980 I.JUf ':"L.,' ,,:,u~.,J J.D •.. nJ '1~O/;lOJ.t:;"'Q·.:s PAGE 05 ~A(:jt: e~ rntirel)! artificial lO'QterCQilrses Wlless they art! used to slpre and/or coml/)' pass-through stream flows na/IH'Cllly occurring prior to COM,",cti,m of suclr dllvlces." 'fht.rcfore. the series of stOnndrains above the site would not be c\anified as a creek. Although the drainage 011 the property is con~ within II defined channel lind conlalns some of me characteristics of .. natural stream, it is simply the remtlt of II sIornlwater pipe release onto the property. Since there is no evid<:!lcc a rnuural stream WI1$ ptCl!IC!lIt prior to the cons~tion of the pipe. tM draillllge on the property would not be classified as 1\ creek accordini to the RMC. Moreover. tho sllbject drninage docs not offer any direct value to fisheries. Salmonicis cannot assess the site. Salmollid passage from downstrellIn waters i. extremely unlikely given the considerable distance between the soorrowater pone! and the stream on the rubject propc:rty. A sal.monid could not negotiate the series of undergro\lnd pipes. vertical elevation betw= th~ underground pipe and stot\ll dnrin grate. and a narrow concrete chute to enter the property. In Ilddltion, the ~ubjcct drainage is generally devoid of conditions supportive of salmonids. The habitat type is 1\ homogeno~ riffle). No pools were observed. No gravels tuitable fOI' spawning we!'e observed. No LWD or01her features of benefit to salmonids were observed. In conclusion, if the on".ite dl'8inaB~ flow was placed in a pipe. it would result in no direct lOllS offisherie$ habitat. . Functl08pll!tloodBD OOitat: 6wymel1ifo[ DOWlutrmm Bepefit 1'be> cI.rlIina8co on the property was ~ssed for fun~tional value in the form of providi.!lS baW<; stability, shade. organic nutrient delive/')', course sediment delivery, Illfge woody debris, Md filtering of pollutants that could benefit downstream fish habitat In my opinion, placing the drainage in a pipe would not significantly alter the value of the Gypsy Creek Subhasm drainage downstream. The reasons for that conclu.ion Are prl'vidcd below. Bank atablH'Y , In general. the roots from woody vegetation along and nellf nalUrlll streams help SUlbitize soils and reduce erosion. On thi! .ite the ripllriM vegetation is dominated by Himalayan blackberry with sCllttered willow IUld inunatllM red alder md occasional big leaf maple (Acer macropyllum). The relatively shallow root systems of the majority of the riparian vegetation does not providl:' much bank stability. In fact, the existing \Illjlilble silt banks found along the majority of thl:' channel on the property contribute fme sediment In twn. the transpot'!t.tion of suspended sediment may be ddeterious for fisheries downstream because fine sediment generally reduces iI4\lmonid spawning quality. TightlininB the creek could result in less sediment Ir1Ul&pOrted dOWllst:ream and slightly improve the general condition ot fisheries downmellltl. However. it should ~ noted that the majority of this sediment would be trapped in tho pond located downstream. 08/22/2005 17:04 4257463980 U~n2!2[J05 16: 36 4254~' q'~~3 Sbod. SEELIG PROPER'" PAGE 06 PAGE 0~ Canopy cover along narura! streaIn4 affects water quality by preventing an influx of selar radiation and II. resuluml 1nc1'ell$C in Wl.tor temperature (Beschta tt. at 1987; Sullivan ~t. aI. 1990). The eliminlltion of shade I.IIld subsequent increlliled tempera~ may alter 5alnlonid ptoductlon, metabolism, ifOwth, survival. behavior lUld habitat utiliatiOI'1. Under the tOOsting conditiOIlll, shade of the subject dr&inasl: is mO$t1y provided by overhanging !iinlalayan blackberry. Tightliniog the stream is not expected te signifiC&lltly alter the water temper8turc delivered to downstream W\I1erS. Or&mllc Nutrient DeJMry Vegew.lon and pJant material falling into natural B1Jeams I'lmIribute to the aquatic I;CQsystem food chain. Addiiionally. the particulate matter delivered diJ:eCtly or lnd.irectly provides nutrient!! for organil!ll1S which evelllually are easy pt"l;J' for fish .. The draillBge e\lt"rolt!y contributes :rome orsllllic material to the dOWlUtream syst.c:t.t\ but it likely is intercepted in the Slormdrllin 8Ild dttenti01l. J)Qnd downstream.. Therefore. tlghtlining the drainage on the propmy would have no or very little impact !O organic: nutrient delivery downstream. . Large Wo04!y ~brig (LWD) Large woody debris in a natural stream system provides channel struct=. helps trap and .tabili:i:;~ come eravel deposits. and provides seour which develops pools. L WD also provides ove:mead and stream velocity c\lver for fi$l} and influences strellm bank chllIUCterisncs (Bisson et. al1987; Besehta et Ill. 19117; Bilby and Ward 1991). The drainage is not of sufficient size or energy 10 CJIt'hlI'e trees or Il)(>VI' the material downrueam. Furthermore, stonndrains preclude tho tnlnsfer of L WD dOWll$tream. any woody lJIllUrial would b: captured in the pond located downstream of the property. and ~ \lft.he of Gypsy Subbasin Drainage is in pipes (Entranco 1995). Therefore. no change to L WO from tightiining the strea.m on the property is expected. PoUutont FiltratJon Undisturbed riparian buffers in natural streams intercept sediment and mllrient!l, and help improve water qllality of runoff O:ow the adjacent landscape. Additionally, /lJ Surlilce flow percolates through the riparian area, veBcta!i\ln and soil$ filter and biodegrade organic debris and environmental pollutants. . Tishtlining the dralnase will eliminate this functional value in the drainage. However. this drainAge was crellled 811 a conveyance tOUte for fllre~t runoff lind n'='ll"ly all water PIillSing tbrough it enters from the upstream culvert, not from the site. Therefore no water quality diffi:rence would result from tightlinill8 the drainage. 08/22/2005 17:04 . ~8!22(2fJa5 15: 38 SUMMAltY 4257453980 4254f" -"63 . ' , -, . '.- S£E.L.I i;i PROPERT , ' :', " PAGE 07 PAGE 65 .' ~. '. ~. In sll!llDlary', the 4alnag;c on the .pwpem.' is llll$UiUlble for sallnonid$ and no salmoruds are c:xpc:cted IQ be found on the propaty at 8!lY time of the YCIII' WlIkr 1lIIY flow condition, No signifiCWIt direct or indir8et impact 10 fisheries on site or within. the Gypsy Creek Subbasin Dtainage would raul! fi'om from tlghtliDing this dminase, This drainage would not be classified as a crock accoOOing to City of Renton Code, Please feel free to contac'Utte ~ith questlOt1$ or for turther BBSlstanoe. Sinomly, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC. Kirldalld. W lI$hing1on ~ Senior Staff Biologist G'9/22/2B05 17:04 4257463980 ~~/LL/~(j~~ l~; J~ 4£Jq~""~~ SEEl,l G PF:QPERT PAGE B8 PAGF. 0& . . . . . .' .' , REFERENCES Be:schll1, R.i., Bilby, R.E., Brown, O.W., Holtby, L.B., and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Strtam temperatUre SlId aqllAlic habitat: Fisheril!ll lind forestJy intera.ctiQllS. in Salo, E.O. and T. W, Cundy (eds.] Streamside Man"llc:=t: Fol'C:my and Fishery Interru::tioWi. University of WaJlhingtOn, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, WasJIinston. 471p. Bilby, R.E. and I.W. Wacd-. 1991. Cbaracteristics and ftmction of large woody debri$ ,.in stIeams dralclng old growth, c1car-i:U1, and sc:cond growth fol'e$tS of southwestern WasbinetoQ. Can. 1. of Fish. AqWlt. ScI" 43: 1·1 O. Bisson. P.A., RE. Bilby, M.D. Byrant, C.A. Dolloff, O.B. Gretre, R.A. Home, M.L. Muzphy, K.V. Koski and I.R. Sedell. 1987, p. 87·94. In Salo, E.O. and T.W. Cundy (eds.l Streamside Marul.g1!Jtnent: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington., College of FoJrCSt Resources, Seattle, Washing1on. 471p. Knutson. K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. M~ment I'CCQ!Il!D.endatiODS for W~n'9 priority Mbitab: riparian. Washington Department of Fish IWd Wildlife, Olympia, W A- lSip. . Pogeenmeycr Design Group. 2000. Draillllge for FiJhc:ries Condition Report. Kennydale Bll.joess Park:, Renton, Washington. June 7, 2000. 2 pp. Entranco. 1995. Oypsy Cree.\c Bubbasin Dtainllge improvements Dl!sign Mcmonmdwn (DRAFn. I'repared fOf City ofReritou. December 15, 1995. 14 pp. 6 Geotechnical Engineering • Water Resources _ ~ Solid and Hazardous Waste Ecological/Biological Sciences Geologic·Assessments Associated Earth Sciences, -·-Dlmeo October 11, 2000 Howard Seelig P.O. Box 1925 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. ;Bellevue, Washington 98009 Subject: Fisheries value of drainage on property -part of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Proposed Kerinydale Business Park Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Seelig, I have completed a salmonid suitabiiity and functional habitat assessment of a drainage on your ' undeveloped 4.57-acre property located in. the 1800 block of NE 48 th Street in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). It is the Understanding of Associated Earth Sciences Inc. (ABSI) the drainage on the property is proposed to be tightlined for its length on the site as part of the proposed Kenridydale Business Park. this letter-report as been prepared in response to the City of Renton's request for an independent consultant to assess the existing c.ondition of the, subject drainage. The objective of the assessment was to evaluate general salmonid habitat suitability on the property, if ariy, and any functional value the drainage may provide to the downstream fisheries resource. ' You indicated Larry Fischer of WDFW assessed the :Sit~ and determined the drainage does not support salmonids at any time of the year. My site survey and review of existing literature supports that assessment. As described below, the stream is contained in a series of pipes . upstream and downstream ,of the subject property. In addition, the cut nature of the banks and conveyance of flow on the property via a concrete pipe with no evidence of a defined channel upgradient suggesfthe channel is not natural, ' METHODS On September 11,2000, the subject drainage was walked for its approximately 330-foot length on the property \Vhere vegetation permitted. The drainage also was assessed upstream and downstream of· the property for a distance of approximately sob feet in each' direction. Photographs were taken of features of interest and are on file at Associated Earth Sciences in Kirkland, Washington: Fisheries habitat quality was assessed based on channel type, channel complexity, substrate, channel stability, evidence of flow, upstream passage barriers, large' woody debris (L WD) or any other features of benefit to salmonids. Any functional value provided by the subject drainage to the downstream fisheries resource was based on the existing riparian condition on the property. The riparian area was evaluated for bank stability, shade, organic nutrient delivery, cOl)1'se' sediment delivery, LWD, and filtering of pollutants. Published scientific research on riparian functions supporti~g fish habitat was used in this analysis (Knutson and Na'ef 1997). C~rporate Office' 911 Fifth Aven~e, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-770 I' • Fax 425 827-5424 West Sound O~ce' 179 Madrone Lane North,' Bainbridge Island. WA98 1'1 0 ' Phone 206 780·9370 ' Fax 206 780·94]8 RESULTS Salmonid Habitat Suitability and Drainage Classification The,origin of the drainage on the property is a 12-inch concrete pipe located along the eastern property boundary. The pipe is perched approximately 12-inches above a channel lined with quarry spalls. For the first approximately 70 feet, the drainage is contained within a defmed channel with an approximately 40 percent gradient. For the remainder of the drainage length on the property, the gradienfis gentler at about 3 percent. Riparian vegetation was dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), immature red alder (Alnus rubra) and scattered willow (Salix spp). During th~ site visit, flow was about 0.05 cubic feet per second (cfs). Average channel width at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) was approximately 2.5 feet. Average wetted width was about 1 foot. The drainage averaged 3 /feet at tlie bankfull width. Average bankfull depth , , averaged 2 feet with a range between about 0.3 feet and 5 feet. Banks were mostly silt and generally unstable. Erosion was occurring along the banks for the, majority of the approximately 330 foot length of the drainage on the property. The channel bed was dominated by silt. Channel type was riffle . .No pools, gravel suitable for salmonid spawning, large woody debris or other features of benefit to salmonids were observed. , The'drainage exits the property at the western property boundary. ' The flow eJl1pties into a smooth concrete flume measuring Ifoot wide and 0.5 feet deep. This feature runs north to south on the adjacent property (Shurguard). For its 'approximately 300 foot length, the concrete flume is mostly covered by reed canary grass. The gradient was estimated to be about I percent. The water'then drops into a stormdrain pipe beneath a parking lot (Traveler'S Inn). The flow then passes thiough approximately 500, feet of pipe before daylighting in a storm water quality detention pond. The pond is located along the east shoulder of Lake Washington Blvd SE and the access road to Traveler's Inn. Vegetation surrounding the pond is dominated by cattail (Typha latiJolia), willow, and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Water from the pond then exits beneath Lake Washington Boulevard yia a 48-inch,culvert and continues u~der 1-405 and railroad tracks eventually emptying 'iNto Lake Washington. Drainage studies in this vicinity indicate this drainage is part of'the Gypsy Subbasin'drainage (not to be confused with Gypsy Creek which is a nearby tributary to May Creek). The majority of the watercourse downstream of the subject property is contained within pipes (Entrqnco 1995). ' No evidence of a natural drainage was located upstream of the site. Therefore, salmonid use, upstream of the' drainage is non-existent. It appears the origin of the water is a series of stormwater catchbaSins collecting surfacewater runofffrom ~E 76'" Street and III th Phlce SE. A natural spring may also contribute to the flow (Poggenmeyer 2000). According to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) (4-11-030), creeks are defined as "those areas where surface water flow:;; sufficiently to produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is indicated by hydraulically sorted sediments or the removal of vegetative litter or loosely rooted vegf!fation by the action of moving water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round This definition is not meant to include stormwater runoff devices or other 2 entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used to store' and/or convey pass-through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices." Therefore, the series of stonndrains above the site would not be classified as a creek. Although ,the drainage on the property is contained within a defmed channel and contains some of the' characteristics of a natural stream, it is simply the result of a stonnwater pipe release onto the property. Since there is no evidence a natural stream was present prior 'to' the constniction of the pipe, the drainage on the property would not be classjfied, as a creek according to the RMC. ' Moreover, the subject dra4Iage does not offer any direct value to fisheries. Salmonids cannot assess the site'. S~lmonid passage from downstream waters is extremely unlikely given the considerable distance between the stonnwater pond and the stream on the subj~ct property. A , salmonid could nqt negotiate the series of underground pipes, vertical elevation between the underground pipe and storm drain grate, and a mm-ow concrete chute to enter the property. In addition, the subject drainage is generally devoid of conditions supportive of salmonids. The habitat type is a homogenous riffle. No pools were observed. No gravels suitable for spawning were observed. No L WD or other features of benefit to salmonids were observed. In conclusion, if the on-site drainage flow was placed in a pipe, it would result in no direct loss offisheries habitat. Functional Riparian Habitat: Assessment for Downstream Benefit The drainage on the property was assessed for functional value in the fonn of providing , bank stability, shade, organic nutrient delivery, course sediment delivery, large woody debris, and filtering of pollutants that could benefit downstream fish habitat. In my opinion, placing the drainage in a pipe would not significantly alter the value of the Gypsy Creek Subbasin drainage downstream. The reasons for that conclusion are provided below. Bank stability In general, the roots from woody vegetation along and near natural streams help stabilize soils and reduce erosion. On this site the riparian vegetation is dominated by Himalayan blackberry with, scattered willow and inunature red alder and occasional big leaf maple (Acer macropyllum). The relatively shallow root systems of the majority of the riparian vegetation does not provide much bank stability. ' In fact, the existing unstable silt banks found along the majority of the channel on the property contribute fine sediment. In tum, the transportation ,of suspended sediment may be deleterious for fisheries downstream because fine sediment generally reduces salmonid spawning qUality. Tightlining the creek could result in 'less sediment transported downstream and slightly improve the general condition of fisheries downstream. However, - it should be noted that the majority of this sediment would be trapped in the pond located downstream. 3 I, Shade Canopy cover along natural streams affects water quality by preventing an influx of solar radiation and a resultant increase in water temperature (Beschtaet. al. 1987; Sullivan et. al. 1990). The elimination of shade and subsequent increased temperatures may alter salmonid production, metabolism, growth, survival, behavior and habitat utilization. Under the existing conditions, shade of the subject drainage is mostly provided by overhanging Himalayan blackberry. . Tightlining the stream is noi expected to significantly alter the wat~r temp~rature delivered to downstream waters. Organic Nutrient Delivery Vegetation and plant material falling into natural streams contribute to the aquatic ecosystem food chain. Additionally, the particuj~te matter delivered directly or indirectly provides nutrients for organisms which eventually are easy prey for fish. The drainage currently contributes some organic material to the downstream system but it likely is intercepted in the stormdrain and detention pond downstream. Therefore, , , tightlining the drainage on the property would have no or very little impact to organic nutrient delivery downstream. Large Woody Debris (LWD) Large woody debris in a natural stream system provides channel structure, helps trap and , stabilize coarse gravel deposits, and provides scour which develops pools. L WD also provides overhead and stream velocity cover for fish and influences stream bank characteristics (BIsson et. a11987; Beschta et al. 1987; Bilby and Ward 1991). The drainag~ is not of sufficient size or energy to capture trees or move the material downstream. Furthermore, stormdrains-preclude the transfer of LWD downstream, any -,woody material would be captured iri the pond 'located downstream of the property, and much of the of Gypsy Subbasin Drainage is in pipes (Entranco 1995). Therefore, no change toL WD from tightlining the stream on the property is expected. Pollutant Filtration Ulldisturbed riparian buffers in natural streams intercept sediment and nutrients, and help improve water quality of runoff from t~e adjacent landscape. Additionally, as surface flow percolates through the riparian area, vegetation and soils filter and biodegrade organic debris and environmental pollutants. Tightlining the drainage will eliminate this functional value il\-the drainage. However, this drainage was created as a, conveyance route for street runoff and nearly all water p~sing through it enters from the upstream culvert; not from the site. Therefore no water quality difference would result from tightlining the drainage. . 4 SUMMARY In surnmary,' the drainage on the property is unsuitable· for salmonids and no salmonids are expected to be foimd on the property at any time of the year imder any flow condition. No significant direct or indirect impact to fisheries on site or within the Gypsy CreekS,ubbasin . Drainage would result from from tightlining this drairiage. This drainage would not be claSsified as a creek according to City of Renton Code. Please feel free to co~tact me with questions or for ~er assistance. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC. Kirkland, Washington ~,ltk~(~,----+-~~ Miche e McGrady Senior Staff Biologist 5 REFERENCES Beschta, R.L., Bilby, R.E., Brown, G.W., HoItby, LB., and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. In SaIo, E.O. and T.W. Cundy Jeds.] Streamside Management:, Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. 471p. Bilby, R.E. and J.W. Ward. 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams draining old growth, clear-cut, and second growth forests of southwestern Washington. Can, J. ofFish. Aquat. Sci., 48:1-10. . Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Byrant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House; M.L. Murphy, K.V. Koski and J.R. Sedel!. 1987, p. 87-94. In Salo, E.O. and T.W. Cundy [eds.] Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. 471 p. . Knutson,K.L. and'V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. , 181p. Poggenmeyer Design Group. 2000. Drainage for Fish<;:ries Condition Report. KennydaIe Business,Park, Renton, Washington. June 7, 200Q. 2 pp. Entranco. '1995. Gypsy Creek :Bubbasiti Drainage Improvements Design Memorandum (DRAFT). Prepared for City of Renton. December 15, 1995. 14 pp. 6 Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment Face Page File No.: NCS-461400-WAI COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY First American Title Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable conSideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." First American Title Insurance Company By: Attest: A7J~· President /J1 ~ I-~. Secretary By: ~7 ~ Countersigned First American Title Insurance Company 88/11/2811 11:46 4257463980 SEELIG PAGE 81 " Fonn No. I~02.06 AlTA Owne", PoIi<y (6-17-06) SCHEDULE A. Poll<y Pilll' 5 Policy Numtle:r: NCS41400-WAl First American Title Insurance Company Name and Address of the issuing Title Insurance Company: First American Title Insurance Company S18 Stewart Street, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98101 File NO.:NCS-4614OD-WAl Policy No.: NC5-461400-WAl Address Reference: Kennydal~ Property, (Partnership Distribution), Renton, WA Amount of Insurance: $74S,lB3.00 Date of Policy: June 1, 2011 at 2:21 p.m. 1. Name of Insured: Howard seelig and Beatrice seelig 2. The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy Is: Fee Simple 3. Title is vested In: Howard Seeflg and Beatrice Seelig, husb~nd and wife . • , 88/11/2811 11:45 4257453988 SEELIG PAGE 82 '. Form NO. 1402.06 POII<y Pogo 6 Policy Nurrber: NC5-46140D-WAl All,., Owner's Policy (6-17-06) 4. The, Umd referred to in this policy is descnbed as follows: Real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: TRACT 167, C.O. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHIJ'lGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO sEAmE. DMSION 1'10. 3, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED 11'1 VOLUME 11 OF i'CATS, 'PAGE 81, IN KING COUN1Y, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED COUNlY ROAD NO. 34 REFERRED TO IN KING COUNTY RECORDING 'NOS. 6403413 AND 6401991 RECORDEO SEPTEMBER 9, 1968. APN: 334330-0820-02 '" Fir~ American T1tle Insyrance Company Fonn WA-S (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B -SECTION 1 REOUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: File No:: NCS-461400-WAI Page No.3 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (8) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 8. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. E. (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement \ charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electriCity. H. 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 of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA·S (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS File No.: NCS·461400·WAI Page No.4 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 2152 For all transactions recorded on or after July 1, 2005: o A fee of $10.00 will be charged on all exempt transactions; o A fee of $5.00 will be charged on all taxable transactions in addition to the excise tax due. 2. Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, if any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the plat of C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle, Division No.3 recorded in Volume 11 of Plats at Page 81, in King County, Washington. 3. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: September 5, 1968 under Recording No. 6401991 In Favor of: Hugo Victor Johnson, as his separate estate For: Water pipe Affects: as described therein 4. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: July 13, 1979 under Recording No. 7907130614 In Favor of: King County Water District #107 For: Affects: Construction, operation, repair and maintenance of sewer pipe \ as described therein 5. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Stipulation and Order Establishing Receivership and Appointing Receiver" filed November 21, 2008 as Case No. 08·2·40440·4 of Official Records. By and between Martin A. Seelig, et al and John P. Rader 6. This item has been intentionally deleted. 7. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal property and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. 8. General Taxes for the year 201l. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: $ $ $ $ $ 334330·0820·02 10,257.96 5,128.98 5,128.98 837,800.00 0.00 First American Title Insurance Company Fonn WA-S (6/76) Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES File No.: NCS-461400-WAI Page No.5 A. 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. B. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. C. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. Tract 167, C.O. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Add., to Seattle, Oiv. No.3, Vol. 11, Pg.81 . APN: 334330-0820-02 O. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NCS-461400-WAl Page No.6 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of Policy or Policies committed for, -and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the Policy or Policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment The First American Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information File No.: NCS-461400-WAI Page No.7 In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such Information particularly any personal or financial informatlon. We agree that you have a right to know how we wilt utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal Information. Applicability ThiS Privacy Policy governs our use of the Information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use Information we have obtained from any other so~rce, such as Information obtaIned from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal Information regardless of its SOurce. First American caUs these guidelines its Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firstam.com. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpubllc personal information that we may collect include: • Information we receive from you on appllcatlons, forms and In other communications to us, whether in writing, In person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, OUf affiliated companies, or others; and' • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate bUSiness purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your Information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such Information Indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such Information may be used for any Internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of non public personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies Include financial service providers, such as title Insurers, property and casualty Insurers, and trust and Investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the Information we collect, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even If you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We wlll use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpubllc personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that Information to provide products or servIces to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your Information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maIntain physical, electroniC, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your non public personal information. c 2001 The First American Corporation -All Rights Reserved A'rst American 77t/e Insurance Company " ~ l, , :Jf) 'rf) ; .... .,) i-"' i'~ h ,. r I I t --- .12th."'~f. !Ht_ HUGO VICTOR JOID130N, as his eeparci te est.ate.' '. ./ ...... . ~!!i'1".~ .. !dI!I;l l~~"AI,.~)sWI~ ,,:n.d,S.A44lIAR.B&l.$W~, ._, ~i£e. : :.~~~~+JT:·~ ~" . .f! ;;.4'.,1 ':~;~ I.'t·~~ ftY.t:,:b !i~ 1.~"ltJ.,.vu.:~~, •. ~l/.:B~c.i· j_:),~;CGC ,hif~ ~~1 c. ,.I..dJ .......... ,k .".;,J. ...... 1.C.\e_~ .. , .1.-.", ,{,I.J.l:;'J a,~ Co .an .. ,'t'i~~vtuetl lj ... 1:f,t i.nb.,I.,,=-, .. f:., krda..hn a1Itd Ih "pI.rrlt,YI'.~ WlTNES5ETlt: Tb~1 the Klier _;;feu It. KIlIII tblt purdlau<' Me!. the pureb~!" _,rae ll; plUch~ t...,..:tq MilotI' tb~ IbUo",,1n1 dc..:rio.d lui Hlat~, 'lr'lIb tb~ apprtntru;=, in Kil1Q CoQilty, Sz..a.. ,,' Wl6blnlia .. : The north half of Tract 167 of C. D. Hillman' Lake W&shiD&ton GSl:"tlC"11 of Edell Adciitioyl. tq Seattle. Division Uo. 3, aa"PE nfat/re;c'o'J:'ded :In Volume 11 of Plats. pa~e 81. records of· King Coun~Y. ,:-.......... , TOOETIiER Wll1l that portion of vBcated COUilty Road.-No. ~Q. .. lyW. South of the extended North line of said Lot 16-7· and North of. .el1e. S"Quth linea of property· herein. described;. Situate i~· the COUl1ty Ef King, State of Hashi~ton • • L.LSO. :~(.'servil1(; unto t.he seller> hi:; heirs, executors and assigns, an ellseme:lt for water pipe, HOW existin-.; over, under and through the south portion of t:i.l~ c.-,rantors pr .... perty, said eo.semcnt to include the r~ht co repair, tusintaill <lnd replace the cxistin::; p:i.pel ille by ttlC sctle:r hereil1 and said cascl"Il(.H}t bi!ii1.:.; appurtenant to tIll! lan<.i nm" owner:! by the seller, bein~' m.:lre lJ4rtl.collarly ** (Continued belm·,) . ~ TN unu ud CllIld!tlIlf\S of this conlr:r.ellR " follow.: Tbe purcblw: prlu " TWENTY TWO 'l'HOUSAND ~\ND ~~O/lOO-"---"-~--------------------"-----------(, 22,000.00 ) Do\1..."01 ~I(h TWO THOUSAND, FlV£ RU"rW;u:n AND NO/lOO------------" 2,500.00 '!>.>'"n .... bH. pNi, Ibl m:tlp( wbmol b l:~~br ItlUlu'lerJ,:td, w.nd the: bll:II'-' o{ 1I11l IIUfel1l:1O price ,hI-II be paid &.I folln .. a: 01£ HUNDRED FIFTY AND NG/lOO-----------------------" 150.00 IIr IaO~.t pILrcbaM'r', OpIiOIl, 'lfl or bcloru the 4th dI)' ~J A)lguot ) D~J~n, "'" ·ONZ HlJNDllZlJ FIFTY AND 1101100--------------------11 150.00 or mOTe al p.lrtW",', IIPIIoIl, 011 or btfl)rt; the 4th dl)" of urn lul;(tedinr uknd.ar Dlcnlh un!!1 tbe I».Llllcr 01 ... Id pl.lrcbUl pricz wn hn't bmL fully p.li1I, 11It pinmuu f\lf1.hc-r 'I:r~r. 10 pay irltrrnl 00 Ibl: dllDillbl:iln. bllatlcc of uld pUldtalt prl(t It abe nIt III 7)1n" ""l f"-C'r lI-DAUIIl frOID t',· 4th II:.r of September. , 19 68. • which Int~ .lh>.1J De drductc4' frolll ~<I~. jnll~Umc"1 p.lyrJltfll ud the bs~"~ oj .. ,..11 PQ),lDrnl applied in fC"d1:uiOll of prllKl,,;,1 .. W piIIYIr..t:llu til be ...:... hr:under IIh~U be made Zl _ _ . _ .•.•. ____ . ____ _ or .. t :IOtb ol.ller pI.ae.:aslbe _Drt IU)' 41rcc1 In "'film;. -:"-:.':(continued from above) t:les:-:r1bed as follows: 'tract (Jne Hundred ?i";hty-Two (1132) C. D. HilllLu"hlts Lake Washhltton Garden of Edell D:Lvil:li.o11. 1'10. 3, Acldit10n 1:0 3eattle, 1 .us the dominant teU.B.rnent. . Seller aC:;r.'e::e& to remove ,V'ater eaSt!mcn.t frOlIi tir,le of property when watq't' se~·vi.co is ava'ilable· fro", S.E. 76th near Tr.J.ct: 1e2.· k. rd"'r".cd to 1n c..II.b contna, "dollc oj doloirn;" ~gU 1Ic ___ · . _____ •. _______ _ (II The purchiu·r IUlolftin In~ ",ca w PlY before cklillQutnr), ~It Ulf~ alld "~llU"otl Ibat rn..)' II inlwctll .:rantot Ind .IIr~"lf~ Mrtlfter become I 11m on Sl'.ld rcll nt~lci and Jf by tilt 1011111 of Ibis contr .. ,1 tb .. ,",urch;,,,r hu JlIJUlIlfl! JlO\ymUil of .nf m"fl,n~, tontr.lct or oth(r cnevm.brutf, t>f hu alwrJlrd paym~nt uf or IJ:ltrcd to purch.,.., sub/t'rl lv, lin), lues or I~limclli. now I Uell on nid ~aJ eJ:.,I", tbe purcilutl l(te:tII 10 pi.)' tbe S.l/1lt" belon: .Wi!IIqIlNltl'. . iZI The purrll3~r z~.e~J, untilth .. I'urchaae pric" u hllll' JUid, 10 k«p Ibe uUllcllolPlllGW Ilnd herr.:r.lttr plllt"lid 010 Aid ~al rll.,tc illlurtd to Ihe ilClm.l c.:Ish '111u: thcl~of i",h\.~1 lo.s Gr dun~;e U)' both nn: :lJlrl wlruhturm In :l COIIIJXlb), IIt«ptable til Ihe .ellrr and ior, tIIa JCIlu'l bcn.ofil, U bls Intc'cil lIIay a~.lIr, IDd to p..:I)' III ptrmium. tberrfor :md to tk!il'tr III pollrks nd ~n~I\I:l1I therrof 10 th~ .tlkr. ' . IJ\ T~ purdllM:r alt('re, tb~1 11111 l,uf\«tl~.11 tor ":110./. rt;oI ... latt bat. I> ... n ",~d. _"tilb .. 1 "~""e. lhe .. lIer .... , 1>1 • .lnlp ... _hllil .... heW to Any (O,·cnlnt RloPCellllr. the Oomdiliun uf onr illlprD....,II~IIU. Iherron ,.or .ban the purch~lj" .r Jl'lk'r ", tb, oqll. ,C rirher bl' heW '(I ""W (OYrnlIlI ot IOfJrr_nt lor .I~r .. tlo .... iml,roVl'nltnl.J or Rp.lin VRtt~~ ,he rOn"l\Ilnl ur ~grn:ml"nt nUrd on .It (O/I"tnN he",/o or i.. in wrili~t snd aH:t.cbtd to Ind mlde a p.an 01 ttLli cOllll.d. (' ~ Tt\t "".,-hue!" /l.UU/tlCl all IIzzucb of d.:om.aJ;e Ie. or deUunilln 01 :1.11)' hn/II"O\'C1DC1I1J lib .... 011 ... Id 191 tlll.1r OT Ir.ernltl'T ph.wl LhITLIOII, and of tbe IsUnll of ~Id JC~ ",lJ,le 1>. Iny pi,L Llu, ...... 1 fet ~'k U!oe; .... .a "F'""r .• 'h~llIo ,lid! dlllL:1.J:t, dnlnKtlon or ta!.;nu: 1Ih~1I (G,o.\ihdc.\ bllure ell (Qnsjol~"Llon III ut<: .ny part 01 ,aId rul rtlal(: 11. laken IDr 11Ubik u~, Ibe .pa.,iUJI oE 110. ~"nd:;mr.:l:ion IU·..\I.1 .tllul"thll" Ilin p:aymcnt at r'':I'OMble upcno.!ll of pToturlllJ; th .... nlt Jhnll be ~k!. 1" Ihr .coiler IlIri ~pllfd II paymc"l on tbe purchail.' pmc berMn unlQl the .. Ut. ,1.C1~ I" aUo ... Ihe SJ\Ir(llllu, 10 ~pplr alt "r a po.ll"n of Wlch conm-\IlIIIlloa 1 .... "UtI to the IIbvildinll or ,n"'".. lion uf any improvcml'nb daU\;'~~<I h>' lu(h "'klnl:. III ( .. 'II.' of d3n·'A~~ ot Ik!tfu~tlnl\ I,.(om Il,~ril III~LLJtrl .uiNt, Ih~ IlIoc~C"dJ of IUcb ilU\l~"<' ..... ~iniTIJ, .lLer p~ymrnl of the ", .. ,:mallle u~." •• 01 ptocu,.IRjllh. '~IM ,h..o.ll br·d\'v4Lrtflo tht H'~tl)r.UOll o( nhurrdllll: olluth i .... II ... '· .. :I\tn .... whhln :r. nt1l-<01I:lb!e time, ulllta.\ purd\a",r flNU Ih'l :.:1111 ..,.."crtds .hall be paid to th~ KIk, ter appliulk-n "" IhI' pur(h~,c ~:u ht .. ;n . .. ' IS) Tb .. ...:l:er bu d~U"e,..d, or .n~ .... to.ckUvcr .nlbln I$" clay, 01 tbe ~to .1 d0ll1n". Il pvrdlllJc.'. t'O~i 01 till. Inn,ralt( .. I .. ·Mand~.d f<lnn. or .I enram.ilment th'"for, u..o.mi by 1,.-_k_ """ .... _ ( ..... 11" insutin,,;" :bl: P",dlUCf til tilt full .mounl nl ,;lid purdl~'" prier IIp.!n:.r 10 .. Of dllDlt;f by rUjOn of .dcfcer. in lellcrfl· tllill to lILid rell CILIM U 01 lhe dUf of elollnjt alld containlnr: no u(.:plJonl oLbrr th~n tbt 1,,110"';"11: . •. PrizLtcd ,e.enl eAcrptionm. 'pptlliL1lin Wd paGe)' lorta; I,. Lltlll or tIICumbrllL(C1 wbltb b)l the terml of Ihb contrlct tht pvrdluer b 1O .saUtDe, o~ U to wbiell lb. COII\'fyaliU IItrrundrt i~ In be ZIIIck lI<!""J~rl; Ind e. Iuoy a1.Mtlioi c:a.AI.r:r..:~ 01 conlnel, ILtwit!, _hl.cb ..u.r ill pwdla.ll.D« .ud real r.~" u.d IA1 mortpalll or OIN,. obtI.allclI, ... ·bld, arlltr by this .:ont,.,,! .Srf~ Ill' p3)', none of wbkl! f¥r th~ purpo.oc! uf tlt'-p .... =~::lP~ !S) I~~q be dmDrd delettl In "'lin'. tlllr -.......... ". '.' Ii ,:,.< ., (,\1 I'n;'~ iL dAI!tfUli :U\, ~ l)rovi.kd '(H'" btrdn, W pun:hUC'f ~!laJl·bc ~1f<Jcd to ~D ot Aid '1:,II\,C:!t.ate" .. Aa(lr ti( d,"~I .. , :.".: i., n·'.,n ;,ClWotHiOIl ~.I~II' U flIIechutr ia not in dtl.1I111 htfftInckl. '%lit puitb.utr {PYiJu,nl, \0 it«p It", bu.lldlnlH &lid o~ jmPfOY~. r;:,-,:b nlO ~~id u.! r.ta't In',ood :cp&l.r and I'IQ~ III pennit ... u,c·:.n<1 P<it to ")C:. Or ~""~ Ibt' u.., of, the real utate ~r any IUtl:.l! ,';:'1'''..-1'hr p:,m;JU.lrr rO~'fhllll1J lei~.,..all Mrvkt, In~ull.llkm Ql conJ1:l\Icuon dlup:) lor "'alfl", ~~w"r, ,I,'clri,ily, K4rb~~(' or alt.r. uIUi:~ ""n','" '''ITIi.:.b~d IQ ~jd. .... ..;. ut.occ ... :Itr 11j.a,~~" ~"S'tl' b enlllloM\ to JI'l"""",,.1. :" III ~ ... '< th. p\ll :!-.&otr 111!.lo lIl:.k. ... In), p')'1Il~1!1 h~t~l .. pro\'1dciI lit \1.1 m:oinu.il'dr"'U;;ln~e. lJ hel'tm ",Qulrt< tbt lCUcr mar rn~l.t .",: 1'--' '''''1'1 or (!jut lUI A UlJUr"net, :Iud .In~· .. moU"I~ !>!. jlJ.I .. by thl wllu •. toKttl.et ""th iAl~'rr~t It$ rbr I"ll" .1 10· ... ~r JIn/U.un Ihcr~"', I~";" ~~,~" OJ! I>JYIT!~r;1 u_,lIil "J1iJll. ,1\.:1.11 L..:-'tl'~Y:lI ,r by V,mb.:utr 1)0 ",lkr'6dCQhd,.n wltbo\lt prrjlJdicc III a"r ollirr ,i,lll Ihe \.-11,·, I; .. f~:,r I,;.·.·: 1,,' [·;n~" "I ~1,Irb dell\.IIL . ::. Tar,c h,..1 III!: rs~.cfl(t of Ihll cnK ~. "Id h l:. all,'leu! thai \.n CIlloC Ih~ pl'ft'hlltr Jhll! hi! 10 'omrir with (If perloT", any '. '"J;.; .. " ," ';!L~"",~"t h.,u,1 or til :::l\.:~ ~,,;.' .:c\ ·r.l~nt r~(to<ir,tI h~ltundcr p<'Omf';!l d lh .. dIM' ""II in the manlltr'br,r,hl rn/ulnd. !l1~ ·,'IIL'! ''':1,'; flUI Il' d~cw, .. ;,11 Ib~ purd,,,, .... r', r1llbt .. ~.r'·;1I1d.,' t~l"1IIlnilled!, .",11 u!,(in hi. tl"inll ...... ill J;~;:Ir;t:lt~ ~.!,de l>~ the 1)11,,-11:. .... ·, [,,~rn;·,';'·, 011.0.1 .. n im:'rn~'tn:.:r,1J. P!..Ud Ut''';'' Ih: rul ".~ ' ..• h~1I l~ IDrfrlt&d 111 lb_ iIIllI~r u Il(l\lld~t"11 dolllJltJU, and thl .. dlq ~hJn f=~H· ..:.,';1 :11 Il",rnt,r ,.noJ t.<c IJO)«1,(on III Ih~ r~:ll tJt:rlt; ,nd ItII "'· .. it':f by the IoCJI", uJ lin)' .:dlllil (In Ihf part or Ibr {ll.Iftll:t.,h HI,,11 I,,· "·".<:n;nl::~ l I/i·ll~·'·r ~I 1111." JUbll'lU"nt o.ld;IIl>L 1:",: •• ~l)(l:l IJ\j"~'.,!,·r I/!"lll ,jen'."HI' .. n',ti ..... .> "r ~th"r 11:1]Xr~ ·.ritlt re~l<1"t Itl 'urftitille -1-nd Ir:l1linJliOn vI ;)\lrdI'lCr'~ rir.hl' r,.t\ I", ·,J,Jr ,.: I,"~ ~,J :i'II'"1.\t:liJ, IKI.I~~" ILr"-lu~l. Rillrn r~Hrllt rt'lUnl~d, dlunell lalla l,u,,:.I1:I)('r ~I "~~'\dl'tn la..t lYH>"'·U \n tl,,. ... "" . 11. 1:10(,;\ :,·,:d. drrtl"n to brill\: 6ui; \0 ~n!ul\'l: ~"Y rUVl:n.111l ul IHs eflnu.rt. illdl.ldinp; ~Illt tl> clIl~.:~ '111 P-'lm"nl rqllllr,! hrr ... :r.(~r!. Ihe' 1"'rr!~l,r.r ;r..t:r~, .... IO Po\}' 11 r'-":.<,,,~ht~ "'lnl ~~ altorney\ fl'ts a."l(i.lJ cost, II.tId nP<'n~rl In ~(Jhnfujl>1\ "'itlt III,h Mil, ,,1,,:1, ';"",,-,II':: \.><: II1t\l.Idrti'h ~t, ,iud/o:mrn: ": ,k(f~e l-utfrru I" ,urb sail. H IllI" ~d!"r .hall brin!: IllIt \(.0 pw(;m':111 :.djudlllliull IIf Ib,< I~rlnln~tj"n o! Ill, p"rth~ler', ril!"hl' harun'.'r. '/ld luoJ;:mmt b '" .'.'t'·lrd. lb~ II;tr~h»fr :..~rre~ to P~)'" l~J\ ,n·,lIJ~ 5UIQ a_~ ~lIm~·y'.\ het· \lnQ III f-"Jt5 ;-,nd Urll:nM'~ 1'1 f(I]Ult~tlol'l with .uch mit, \ntl :,1,0 (h~ r':;."",'~b:~ (I}'.t 01 1rolrthlhC Icr~'''I~ I" d~tc'mir'" I~ (lIbllllmn of 'tllf III the II'llI.' "lIeh .Ull i~ f"'\llI~~~'1. ""bj~h IUnll oJ,~u I,,· ,I .• "l,!'·.1 Jr. ijll)' ll1d':r:lrnt (It u~rlce ";)I! I~II ,n ~1Ie1; ",It, ' ei WIT:.IU>S Wn~;lUl)f-'. Ibr p,t'ic'S iJr"'to h:lVe cUC\llrd 'lib • I" :11~ !.:.nowr. to bt tlte.lndillitlul.l descrlkd In and whll c~utcd t~ wi,lllr Jnrl iuregoiJIn InstnllnUlt, :lbd ac::k.nowltdJ/Id lIu.l t;:, ;l~cd :he ume u b!D 1m: IIDd \'t.dllnt.,r,. a:l "no:! d~fd, for 'b~ U~ and PUIPol.'.' ill EO tOr 0 IRA.NSAIri:'li:.;iJrd al RQ SEAT~'i IlhE I~~est 0/ -, WASH. ,CO. TRANS.'\M ERICA TITLE INSURIa.NCE C~MPANY k \:'\ '. 'V\'~ "-"'~ Filed for Record 01 Requesf of ... , "', ~CIJ,:. I<-lkUkl, 1 .. 1 ''''''!. ""~, ..,. .~ ;A:-"~AMERtCA l"iiT5 .. ".,,~ .......... , ......... := ;··f fli.hNttl'"'COMPi',N'Y' .... ······· ...................... .. ·~;(;il.OW NO. IftJ 6 3 S F!.d .. ··:;th··i:! r;',.';Tj'.:,\'ll'.;':::~~'1J'&.15ft·~ .. ·-,,-····· '-\Jdr ... s~ ... ..... " .... " ........ -, .. , .. ··'-·l-'··"····:~-(;··· * -- 19118. ':::': ,'.", '.'.SMer ns!2'iU) 'OR 'H!OIOU'5 U~!, ~1"'9. d .. ~I..\(lr; <-.s.-;.,..... . .... • " r·,_ ;,;~~; v, i .. ! 1 i 1- iV.'. c, " , i (j , ., c\( ;I .~':\ J o I AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made Ir, the City of Sellevue. State of ij",_ ington , on Ju:.,y 2 I 1979,.by ,cartin A. Seelig, grantor, residing at Bellevue, Washington, and the King County Water District #107, located at Renton, Washington, grantee: WHEREAS the grantor represents and warrants that he Owns and has tee simple title to that certa~n parcel or real est&te located in the City of Renton, County or King, State of WasHing- ton, more particularly bounded and described h8 follovs: Lot 167 Hillman's Lake WaBhln~ton Oard~n ot .E~~n '3, South 1/2 and Vae. Co. Rd. ~lthl0. R~cords of King C:>unty J VOlt..:-:-.e 11, pap;e 81. HHEREAS_t~e grantee desires to use said property tor: Construct1on, OPeration, repair and maintenance of an eight-Inch diameter Be~er pipe located approximately six teet below the existing surface ~f the land and running generally east an~ weat the length of the southerly property line within a stretch ot land the maximum width of which shall be ter. teet. HOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration. it is mutually B~~ed ae follon: The grantor does hereby grant, assign and 8et over to the grantee a non-exclusive easement aa descrIbed In Appendix A which Is attached hereto and Is hereby incorporated by reference, which Appendix A deacribes the non-eXclusive easement 88 be1ng a ten-root wide strip running ,enerally east to west along the length ot the southerly boundary so that the southerly boundary of the property forms the southerly edge of the easement. tor the purpose of installing, constructln~. operating, repa1rln~ and mall1talnl~ a sewer pipe, the maXimum diameter (j) c(t1lOlWl1t!t OA' J\.I. n 9 l2 ~M '1~, lE~t~HI& I I ,. f I , .. to bp e1ght inches. which sewer pipe 1s to be located approli- mattly ah teet below the existing BUf'face or the land. Thlt easement 1s granted subject to and conditioned upon the following terms, condItions and covenants which grantee hereby promises to faithfully and fully observe and perform. 1. COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE. The grantee shall bear the full responsibIlIty for and the eost or construc- tion, operation, repair and maintenance of the sewer system. 2. WORK STANDARDS. The grantee agree. to install the pipe 1n a way that wll1 not hinder uaes or the real oroperty by the grantor, and grantee further agrees to lnatall the pIpe 1n a way that will cause the minimum possible disturbance to the surrounding 8011. 3. DATE 0' COMPLETION. Grantee shall complete all construe- ticn on tbe project by Dece~ber 31, 1979. •. USE OF EASEMENT AREA. Gr8F.~Le has been advised and 1s aware that grantor shall continue to have the full use and en- Joyment ot the property whieh is the subject of this agreement including the qurface ar~a above the pipe and that part ot the easement space not occupied by the pipe. 5. RELOCATION OF SEWER SYSTEM. Grantee i. avare and agree. that grantor at his 80le discretion may relocate all or any part of the se~er pipe at grantor's elpense or with other funding available. In auch event grantee shsll expedite and assist 1n obtain1ng need~d permits and approvals tor auch relocation and shall arrange tor interruption ot sewer services to any and all parties that may be affected. 6. DURATION OF EASEMENT, TEHMINATrON. Tne grantee shall have and hold this easement so 10n8 as the easement shall con- tinue to be used as a sewer system. Any dlrrerent use, or any abandonment ot this sewer system for a period ot rIve successive ( 2) =-.~~==== --..;;;.;;;;;;: <.) yearD. ahall caule this easement to be revoked and the proptrty interest to automatically vest 1n the grantors or their assigns and successors. 7. RESTORATION. Grantee agrees that should inspection, maintenance, repair or rEmoval by grantee, of the sewer system require or cause any injury or distruction to gr&;tor'a property, including treea or structures on the easement, grantee shall ~t his expense restore such property to its or1ginal condition or. fully compen8at~ grantor for any 10B8 including lost renta. 8. RELEASE AND INDE~lTY. Grantee doe. hereby r.le .... indemnify and promise to defend ~id save hi:~le8a grentel: £TOIl and against any and alt liability, 10s8, dmaage. expenae, actions and claims. including costs and reaso:lab!e attorneys I fees in- curred b, grantor in defense thereof, asserting or arising di- rectly or indirectly on accoUnt of or out of acts or OII1ssion,1IJ of grantee and grantee's servants, agents, employees and con- tractors io the exercise of the rights granted herein. 9. SUCCESSORS. The rifht. and obligations of the partie. shwll inure to the benefit of Bnd be binding upon their respective aucceasors and assigns. (3) .-.:~ , u EKQC~tod a. of the date heretoabove let forth. /;7lLt v7 k~ Hartin A. Seelig, G~~:~~~" .. 'J- StATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) 8. County of ling ) On this day personally appeared before me Martin A. See11g to me known to be the individual described u.cuted tho .n.thln and foregoing instrlJllent, and aClma.l'iog,.O that ho .igned the .ame a. hls free and voilun.ta:<Y for the uae. end purposes therein mentioned. G.i;~e~C~od;;;t·,iit.S.,,, .. ! ... ,,. hand end official s .. l this h/ day of ... ' " , " ., ! '.', .':-"., . Accepted by __________________ .:. on behalf of Water District #107. 1979. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN ro before me this __ day of ___ _ Notary PUbi[c in and tor the State of WAshington I residing at ___ . (4) . ~. i I ! ~-~---._-_.---.~ I( i • 11 ------- f! PPEA,/DI)( H I. I' '! t, J '" _--I-\J -. -~~. ~r-~RE~N~TO~N __ ~t~IT~Y __ l~I~MI~T~5 __________ ~ ~ ... ~ \", I~ '" I .. IIZTII ' " JJ'-r ....1)-S' \ , ! ,E, i _. _______ V'I W -- .. ' --=:t-'~---:~ -J=~-.u.--,,-:-.--. 1~S"~ r ~ = : ' .'..-', ... ','" Iii" I\~ I ', . Printed: 08·12·2011 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA 11-069 08/12/2011 01:37 PM Receipt Number: CitYOfR Plann' enton Ing DiVision AUG 1 2 lUll R1103150 Total Payment: 5,150.00 Payee: BEATRICE J DEELIG HOWARD SEELIG Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 2809 5,150.00 Account Balances Amount 150.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 3954 650.000000.000.237 Special Deposits 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/waivers 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Horne Parks 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/ErS/Copies 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .' . "' ...... ,.:, .. William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers/Planners, (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for Ke:nn.ydale Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Prepared for: Seelig Family Properties Prepared by: . William Popp Associates 14-'400 Building, Suite 206 14400 Bel-Red Rd Bellevue, W A 98007 June 16, 20ll 14-400 Building 0 Suite 206 0 14400 Bel-Red Road 0 Bellevue, WA ,98007 Traffic Iml?~ct Analysis Kennvdale Apartments TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... , ................................... 1 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... ~ ............... 1 1. SITE SERVICES INVENTORy ................................................................................................................ 1 2. ACCIDENT DATA, LAST 3 (AVAILABLE) CALENDAR yEARS ................................................................... 2 Table 1 Three Year Accident liistory ...................................................................................................... 3 3. TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................................................................................ 3 4. LEVEL·OF·SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... ..4 Table 2 Intersection Level-of-Service Criteria .......................................................................................... 4 Table 3 Existing Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2011) .................................................................... 5 5. SIGfITDISTANCE ................................................................................................................................ 6 Table 4 Sight Distance Requirements ...................................................................................................... 7' ·6. PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED iMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................. 9 B. FUTURE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 9 1. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................................................................................... 9 Table 5 Background Growth Projections (Year 2013) ............................................................................ 10 2. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................. 11 Table 6 Project Vehicular Trip Generation ............................................................................................. 1 J Table 7 Vehicular Trip Generation -Internal Capture ........................................................................... 12 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................... 13 Table 8 AM and PM Peak Hour Distribution Percentages ............... ; ..................................................... 13 4. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................................................. 13 Table 9 2013 AM and J;lM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 14 5. LEVEL·OF·SERVICE (2013 WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT) ................................................................ 14 Table 102013 Future Intersection Level-of-Service (AM and PM Peak Hour) ............................ : ....... 15 Table II Mitigated Interchange Intersection Level-of-Service ............................................................... 17 Table 12 Interim Interchange Intersection ,Level-of-Service .................................. :: .............................. 18 6. SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 18 Table 13 Site Access Level-of-Service and Queuing (Year 2013 with Project) ..................................... 19 C. CONCLUSIONS ................... ~ ............................................................................................................... 19 1. PROJECT DETAILS ............................................................................................................................. 19 2. ACCIDENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 20 3. SIGHT DISTANCE .............................................................................................................................. 20 4. PROJECT VEHICULAR iMPACT ........................................................................................................... 20 5. LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................................................................................. : ........ 21 6. SITE ACCESS ...................................................................................................................... ; .............. 22 D. MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDA TIONS .................................................. , ............................... 22 Page i • j '. " . . Traffic Impact Analysis (6//6// l) Kennydale Apartments . INTRODUCTION The following report was prepared in order to address the traffic related impacts of the proposed residentiallcomni.ercial building located in the city of Renton. This study evaluates the project's AM and PM peak hour impacts at selected intersections. Tbe intersections include: ,; Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 48th St (aka SE 76tb St) ,; Lake Wasbington Boulevard NEINE 44tb StJIA05 NB Ramps ,; Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StJI-405 SB Ramps ,; SE 76 th St/116th Ave SE (City of Newcastle) Tbe study addresses the typical City of Renton traffic impact analysis guidelines of project impacts at year of estimated full occupancy. Project Identification The proposed project known as the Kennydale Apartments is located on the south side of NE 48th St just east of Lake Washington Boulevard NE, as shown in Figure 1. The proposed project design includes 230 apartments, 2,578 gsfretail, 7,625 gsf office, and 22,875 gsf warebouse. Access to tbe site is proposed with two driveways to NE 48th SI. The site plan is presented in Figure 2. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Site Services Inventory Roadways Key roadways serving the site are discussed below. NE 48th St (aka SE 76th St) is a two-way east/west residential street that connects from Lake Wasbington Boulevard NE in the city of Renton to 116th Ave SE in the city of Newcastle. The roadway grade bas a steep downhill grade east to west of approximately 16% to 20% in the project vicinity. In the city of Renton liinits, the roadway is three lanes wide (two tbiougb lanes and one center left turn lane) with curb, gutter, sidewalks on botb sides. On-street parlting is prohibited. Trafficccintrol includes a stop and yield sign at the Lake Washington BoulevardINE 48th St intersection. In the city of Newcastle, the roadway is two lanes wide. witb narrow paved and gravel sboulders on both sides. There is an all-way stop at the I 16th Ave SE/SE 76th St intersection. The posted speed William Popp Associates Page / .. • ~==============~--------------------------~~ WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel-Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 iofo@wmpoppassoc.com VICINITY MAP North Kennydale Apartments Figure 1 " . , -------)-' WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel-Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 inf0Ci!'wmpoppassoc.com North SITE PLAN Kennydale Apartments Figure 2 Traffic Impact Analysis (6116111) Kennydale Apartments li!llit is 25 mph. There is also a posted 20mph warning side for steep downhill grade westbound (near 113 th Ave SE). Lake Washington Boulevard NE is a two-way nortb/south minor arterial that runs parallel with 1-405 between the NE 44th St interchange and. the 112th PI SE interchange to the north. In the city of Renton limits, tlie road varies between 2 and 3 lanes. Between NE 44th. St and the commercial/retail driveway to the north (which is approximately at the . 46th block) Ehe road is 2 lanes wjde with an 6-8 foot paved shoul(ler on the west side and extruded curb and walkway on the east side. North·of the 46th block, the road is 3 lanes wide (two through lanes and a center left tum lane), with curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the east side and a 6-8 foot paved shoulder on the west side. On-street parking is prohibited, , Traffic control consists of a stop sign at NE 44th St. The southbound approach to NE 48th St includes a left tum lane. For vehicles tum left from NE 48 th St to Lake Washington Boulevard, there is a center storage refuge area where the two-way left tum lane begins. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. NE 44th St is an east/west collector arterial that is .the continuation of Lake Washington Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue N and crosses over 1-405. NE 44th St has two travel lanes in each direction with left tum pockets at both ramp intersections. The east side ramp terminal intersection is an all-way stop control configuration whereas the west side ramp terminal intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the off-ramp. The bridge has small sidewalks on both sides and limited paved shoulders on each side of the structUre. The roadway widens to five lanes just east ofI-405 as it transitions to Lincoln Avenue NE. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the site include limited sidewalks on selected roadways. There is a crosswalk on the east leg at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEt NE 48th St intersection. Transit Service Transit service in the region is provided by the King County Department of Transportation (Metro Transit). There is, however, no transit' service in the vicinity of the site including Lake Washington Boulevard, NE 48th St, or NE 44th St. The nearest transit service is Route 925 on 116th Ave SE, and the nearest Park & Ride Lot is the Newport Hill P&R at the 1-40511 12th PI SE interchange. 2. Accident Data, last 3 (available) calendar years. A summary of the three-year accident data at the analysis intersections was obtained from' the City of Renton. Dat~ for all City intersections was for the period of January 1, 2008 William Popp Associates Page 2 , : , , Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) Kennydale Apartments through December 31, 2010 for the three intersections in R'enton. A summary of available accident data is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Three Year Accident History a Number of Accidents by Year Accident , Intersection Control 2008 2009 2010 Total Rate b Lake Washington Blvd NEI side-street stop 3 2 6 0.67 NE 48th St (aka SE 76th St) Lake Washington Blvd NEt all-way stop nI, 8 5 13 1.29 NE 44th StlI-405 NB Ramps Lake Washington Blvd NEI . side-street stop 0 0 0,08 NE 44th StlI-405 SB Ramps a Data period is 111108 through 12/31110 unless otherwise noted. b Accid~nts per million entering vehicles (acc/mev). As shown in Table I, the number of accidents occurring at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEfNE 48 th St intersectionis 6 over the period 'of 3 years. The accident rate is 0.67 for that period which suggests adequate safe operation at this intersection. The typical standard threshold is 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles (acc/mev). The number of accidents and accident rate at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th St/l-405 NB Ramps intersection is 13 over a 2 year period with an accident rate of 1.29 acc/mev, This is slightly higher than the typical threshold of 1.0, Twelve of these . accidents were right-angle accidents, The number of accidents and accident rate at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th St/l-405 NB Ramps intersection is lover a 3 year period with an accident rate of 0.08 acc/mev. This rate suggests that there is not a safety concern at this intersection assuming that all data was made available. 3. Traffic Volumes Existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected at the four subject intersections during various times'. Counts at Lake Washington BoulevardINE 48 th St and at the NE 44th St/l-405 NB Ramps intersection were conducted in March. 2009, and were adjusted up to 2011 utilizing a growth rate based on past trends. Historical traffic counts at the Lake Washington BoulevardINE 44th St/l-405 NB Ramps intersection between 2001 and 2009 indicate a growth rate of approximately 3% per year, The City indicated that these 2009 counts would be acceptable for use. Counts at the SE 76 th StlI16th AveSE intersection were conducted in early February 2011, arid counts at the NE 44th St/l-405 SB Ramps intersection were ~onducted in May 2011. A summary of William Popp Associates· Page 3 Traffic Impact Analysis (611611 I! 'Kennydale Apartments the existing 2011 AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis intersections are presented in Figure 3. 4. Level-of-Service Level-of-service (LOS) is a term defined by transportation and traffic engineers as a qualitative and quantitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of these conditions by motorists and/or passengers. There are several quantitative indices utilized depending on the type of intersection control present. There are six levels-of-service that are given letter designations from "A'.' to "F", with "A" being the best, or minimum delay conditions, and "F" being the worst, with maximum delay or jammed conditions. LOS "C" or "D" is generally considered acceptable for planning and design purposes, while LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near capacity with freedom to maneuver being extremely difficult. Level-of-service for the existing condition was calculated using Trafficware's Synchro software. This software replicates the analytical procedures specified in the Highway Capacity Manual. Thelevel of service criteria are shown in Table 2. Level-of-service for signalized and non-signalized intersections is quantified in terms of vehicular delay. Delay, measured in terms of time (seconds), also represents driver discomfort, frustration, excess fuel consumption and lost travel time. Table 2 Intersection Level-of-Service Criteria Level of Service A B C D E F Definition Little ,or no delay Short traffic delays Average traffic delays Long traffic delays Very long traffic delays Extreme delay 1 Delay; seconds per vehicle Stopped Delay Per Vehicle! signalized non-signalized Less than 10.0 sec 10.1 to 20 sec 20.1 to 35 sec 35.1 to 55 sec 55.1 to 80 Sec Greater than 80 sec Less than 10.0 sec 10.1 to 15 sec 15.1 to 25 sec 25.1 to 35 sec 35.1 to 50 sec Greater than 50 sec Note that for signalized intersections, the delay presented represents the overall operation of the intersection, whereas the delay presented for un signalized intersections represents the delay for the critical approach or movement. The results are presented in this manner since the overall intersection delay at a non-signalized intersection is generally quite good because the major througb street maneuvers are not impeded and for th.e most part carry . the majority of the traffic. It is also important to note that the level of service results from the Synchro output do not fully take into consideration the queue spill back from William Popp Associates Page 4 .. :. -N- 1 CD IL PMPK ® " "'''''' ('1")NI.D JIL 59-' 149- 28, PMPK ® 00 ~ ~ "''''~ JIL 191- .; G) 27, PMPK PMPK L5 Ir L38 -·171 ,76 llr 000 ~ ~ '" " N~ -220 ,279 . "" ,. . .. w z ~ ~ i ~ L w z ~ § ~ . L8 j 1_ ,202 .. §..E 68th 8L f--..-'--t---'c---==---j Ir AMPK w .<J) ® L66 -147 ,193 267 -' ll' 142-I 257 --. "" '" 1 ,...... ........ 0'\ ~ AMPK I 00 a " -or- JIL ® SE 88th St xx -2011 AM and PM PK HOUR WILLIAM POPP ASSOClo\. TES 14400 Bel-Red Rd #206· Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com AMPK EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Kennyda1e Apartments Figure 3 Traffic I mpacl Analysis (6/16/11 ) Kennydale Apartments ujJstream or downstream signalized intersections and th7 additional congestion that may . occur. The existing level of service at the analysis intersections is presented in Table' 3 . . ~ Table 3 Existing Intersection Level-of-Service (Year 2011) Traffic Intersection Control LOS Delat Comments AM PEAK HOUR Lake Washington Blvd NEINE 48th 51 side 51 stop C 20 westbound left turn· stop (aka 5E 76th SO A 8 southbound left tum -yield Lake Washington Blvd NEINE 44th Stl all-way stop D 31 overall intersection delay 1-405 NB Ramps We Washington Blvd NEINE 44th St/ two-way stop F 407 off-ramp left -stop 1-405 SB Ramps B 12 westbound left turn,-yield 5E 76 th Stll16th Ave SE' all-war stop A 9 overall intersection delay PM PEAK HOUR Lake Washington Blvd NEINE 48th SI side 51 stop C 23 westbound left tum -stop (aka SE 76th St) A 8 southbound left tum -yield Lake Washington Blvd NEINE 44th 5t/ all-way stop D 32 'overall intersection delay 1-405 NB Ramps Lake Washington Blvd NEINE 44th Stl two-way stop P 194 off-ramp left -stop 1-405 SB Ramps A 9 westbound left tum -yield SE 76th Still 6th Ave SE all-way stop A· 9 overall intersection delay a delay values "represented in seconds per vehicle As shown in Table 3, the critical movement at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 48th Street intersection, which is the westbound left turn, is estimated to operate at LOS . C for either peak hour. This level of service estimate does NOT assume use of the two- way left turn lane for interim siorage. The Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StreetlI-405 NB Ramp intersection is estimated to operate at LOS D for either peak hour. In the morning period. the EB approach operates at LOS E, and in the evening peak hour, the northbound and southbound approaches are estimated to operate at LOS E. William Popp Associates Page 5 Traffic Impact Analysis (6//6/11) Kennydale Apartments The critical movement at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StreetlI-405 SB Ramps intersection is the southbound approach, estimated to operate at LOS F for either. peak hour. The SE 76th Stll16th Ave SE intersection is estimated to operate at LOS A in either the AM and PM peak period. 5. Sight Distance A sight distance analysis was conducted for both of the proposed driveways to NE 48 th St. The roadway grade fronting the site is approximately 18% sloping down from the east to thewest. The roadway is relatively level east of 113 th Ave NE. The posted speed limit is 25 mph, however, in the westbound direction near the 1 13 th Ave NE intersection there is a downhill grade warning sign accommodated with a recommended 20 mph speed sign. A pilot car speed study was conducted in the westbound direction for five vehicles (light traffic) and determined the vehicle speeds ranged between 25 mph and 30 mph .. " Therefore, based on the speed warning sign and the observed speed of traffic in the westbound direction, it was concluded that the an appropriate design speed would be 30 mph. While not measured, it is likely that the.traffic speed in the eastbound direction due to the steep upgrade is considerably less. But for consistency with design practice only a single design speed is used. NE 48 th St varies in geometry along the site frontage. At the west site access, which is located approximately 20 feet from the west property line (property line to center of . . driveway), accesses to a 3-lane 36' wide section that includes a center two-way left turn lane. The east site access, which is located approximately 101 feet from the east property line (property line to center of driveway), accesses to a 2:larie 24' wide section. Sight Distance Standards A sight distance analysis for both the Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) and the Intersection Sight Distance (rSD) was evaluated at each of the project access points. The SSD is the distance needed for a vehicle traveling at design speed on the major road to stop before reaching a stationary2' high object in its' path (equivalent to the taillight . height of a passenger car). This criteria of course applies continuously along the roadway and the measured SSD generally ·indicates the design speed of the roadway. The minimum acceptable values for stopping sight distance are shown in Table 4. These . values are the national standards from "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" 2004, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). In computing and measuring stopping sight distance, the height of the driver's eye is assumed to be 3.5 ft and the height of the object to be seen by the driver is 2.0 ft. William Popp Associates Page 6 Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) Kennydale Apartments The other sight distance considered is Intersection Sight Distance. ISD is based on an entering vehicle eye height of 3.5 feet, and an approaching vehicle height of 4.25 feel The setback distance was assumed to be 14.5 feet back from edge of traveled way (in this case the face of curb). ISD deals with the ability of side street entering, and mainline left- turning, motorists to see oncoming vehicles with sufficient time to make entering, crossing, or exiting maneuvers without significantly impeding the' speed of the mainline traffic or creating hazardous conflict conditions. Intersection sight distance thresholds are highest for the condition that allows a vehicle to enter the major street and attain 85 percent of the design speed before being overtaken by an approaching vehicle. As a result, the intersection sight distance for this condition relates more to driver comfort and roadway capacity rather than safety. Design Speed (mph) 30 at grade noted > . '" -. Design Speed (mph) 30 Per 2004 AASHTO Table 4 Sight Distance Requirements a STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (SSD) b We~t Driveway East Driveway Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound 290 -18% 170 +18% 345 -22% INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE (lSD) West Driveway or East Driveway Left Out' Right Out d 335 290 165 +22% . b Calculated values with grade adjustments noted. . . t Calculated values (rounded) for left tum out, no multi lane adjustment required for crossing single lane westbound traffic. Sight distance required in both directions for left out. ie., looldng left as well as right. .' d Calculated values (rounded) for right tum out (looking west). Sight distance required only looking left for a right tum exit. Assuming a design speed of 30 mph in both directions, the minimum stopping sight distance requirement based on a -18% grade westbound and +18% grade eastbound (both approaching the westerly site access) is 290 feet in the westbound direction and 170 feet in the eastbound direction. At the easterly site access the minimum stopping sight distance requirement based on a -22% grade westbound and +22% grade eastbound is 345 feet and 165 feet respectively. For the intersection sight distance, the minimum based on 30 mph design speed is 335 feet for a left tum oui and 290 feet for right turn out. Grade on the mainline is not a factor for ISD since both vehicles are ultimately traversing the same grade. The driveway .landings are assumed to be relatively level, less than 3%. . . William Popp Associates Page 7 " Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/1 I) Kennydale Apartments West Site Driveway Sight Distance The available SSD for a vehicle approaching from the east and viewing an object in the roadway in the vicinity of this site access is estimated to be approximately 510 feet. The SSD is limited by the vertical curve at the III th Ave NE intersection. The required minimum SSD based on a 30 mph design speed and a grade of -18% is 290 feet thus the available SSD is adequate. The available SSD for a vehicle approaching from the west is approximately 445 feet, and is only limited due to the tee-intersection at Lake Washington Boulevard NE. The required minimum SSD based on a 30 mph design speed and a grade of +18% is 170 feet thus the available SSD is adequate The ISD for a vehicle exiting the site looking east is estimated to be approximately 551 feet. . The available sight distance extends past the vertical curve at the III th Ave SE intersection. The required minimum ISD based on a 30 mph design speed is 335 feet thus the available ISD is adequate. It is important to note there is a center two-way left tum lane which would allow vehicles exiting the site to store before entering the westbound thru lane. The ISD for a vehicle exiting the site 100king west turning right is approximately 445 feet· and is only limited due to the tee-intersection at Lake Washington Boulevard NE. The required minimum rSD based on a 30 mph design speed is 335 feet thus the available rSD is adequate. . It is assumed that all existing vegetation and any proposed landscaping would be mitigated accordingly such that the sight line will not be obstructed. The SSD and ISD evaluation (to the east) is shown in Attachment I of the technical appendix. East Driveway Access Sight Distance The available SSD for a vehicle approaching from the east and viewing an object in the roadway in the vicinity of this site access is estimated to be approximately 272 feet. The SSD is limited by the vertical curve at the III th Ave NE intersection. The required minimum SSD based on a 30 mph design speed and a grade of -22% is 345 feet thus the available SSD is defiCient per the design speed. Per the posted speed the minimum SSD requirement for this grade is 260 feet. William Popp Associates Page 8 Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) Kennydale Apartments The available SSD for a vehicle approaching from the west is approximately 645 feet and is only limited due to the tee-intersection at Lake Washington Boulevard NE. The required minimum SSD based on a 30 mph design speed and a grade of +18% is 170 feet thus the available SSD is adequate ' The available lSD for a vehicle exiting the site looking east is estimated to be approximately 290 feet. The available sight distance extends to III th Ave SE intersection. The required minimum lSD based on a 30 mph design speed is 335 feet thus the available lSD is less than adequate. The minimum distance based on the posted speed is 280 feet. The available lSD for a vehicle exiting the site looking west turning right is approximately 645 feet and is only limited due to the tee-intersection at Lake Washington Boulevard NE. The required minimum lSD based on a 30 mph design speed is 335 feet thus the available lSD is adequate. It is assumed that all existing vegetation and proposed landscaping would. be mitigated accordingly such that the sight line will not be obstructed. The SSD and lSD evaluation (to the east) is shown in Attachment 3 in the technical appendix. 6. Planned and Programmed Improvements According to the city of Renton's current Capital Improvement Program -Transportation Projects, there are no immediate (near term) roadway project improvement projects within the study area vicinity. The 1-405 Mast Plan however has considerable improvement modifications at the interchange and the Port Quendall project has also recommended improvements to the ramp terminal intersections for short and long term consideration. Despite this, due to the uncertainties of both projects, any future road improvementslinterchange improvements are not considered in this study since what is presented here are relatively short term transportation impacts and findings. B. FUTURE CONDITIONS 1. Background Traffic Volumes Background traffic volumes are estimated by factoring the existing traffic volumes by historical traffic growthrate(s) to the project's horizon year and adding in known pipeline development proposals. . William Popp Associates Page9 " Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) Kennydale Apartments Historical traffic counts at the Lake Washington BoulevardfNE 44th StJI-405 NB Ramps intersection between 2001 and 2009 indicate a growth rate of approximately 3% per year. Therefore, this rate was applied to all existing count data to assist in the estimate of future year conditions. It was assumed that this project would be occupied in 2013 thus the horizon year is 2013. In addition to the background growth, the City identified two pipeline projects, Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall, that need to be included in the background traffic forecasts. Table 5 below identifies the intersection volumes for existing and future background conditions including background growth, and the two major pipeline developments. Table 5 Background Growth Projections (Year 2013) 2yr Port Total 2011 Background Quendall b Hawk's Background % lntersectionlPeak Hour Existing Growth I (near tenn) Landing Volume Increase Lake Washington BlvdlNE 48th St AM 847 52 50 3 951 12% PM 821 50 70 3 944 15% Lake Washington BlvdINE 44th StlI-405 NB Ramps AM 1,688 103 796 46 2,633 56% PM 1,382 84 1,019 48 2,534 83% Lake Washington BlvdINE 44th StII-405 S8 Ramps AM 1,286 78 1.394 82 2,840 121% PM 1,104 67 1,976 87 3,234 193% SE 76th St/116th Ave SE AM 511 31 22 0 564 10% PM 477 29 33 0 539 13% a 3% growth based on historical records, from 2011 to 2013. b Near Term: 1.1 msf office space, 1,500 apartments, 200 ksf retail. As shown in Table 5, the Port Quendallproject has a significant impact on the two ramp terminal intersections; the vehicles from that project result in volume increases between 56% and 83% for the AM and PM peakhours respectively at the Lake Washington BoulevardfNE 44th StJI-405 NB Ramps intersection, and 121 % and 193% increase for AM and PM peak hours respectively at the Lake Washington BoulevardfNE 44th StJI-405 SB Ramps intersection. Hawk's landing has a relatively low impact at each of the two ramp intersections. Year 2013 PM Background Volumes AM and PM peak hour turning movements at the four analysis intersections are presented in Figure 4. William Popp Associates Page 10 I -N- I Ir \0'" ",,,, PMPK N 0-1 L40 -218 r-81 107 -.-J ll' 218-I 475, PMPK '" '<t -r--o V)V) ...... J I L -750 r-296 753- 743, _/ 'PM_PK--L-.____ t4' \V 8::1: --'" L 2 JIL r-f PMPK xx -2013 AM and PM PK HOUR WILLIAM papp ASSOCL< rES w ·2 ~ ~ .!l , : L9 ..§.E 681h St ~ __ ~~r-L-~22~9~ - Ir ® \0 IDO~ L70 "''''''' JIL -200 r-205 302~ llr 176- 458, O'I..,.;V"J "",0 "'--w AMPK 2 ~ I ® 1 0 '" '" '<tOr-- JIL -727 r-401 AMPK 14400 Bel-Red Rd 41206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.eom BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES Kennydale Apartments . Figure 4 Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) Kennydale Apartments 2. Project Trip. Generation Trip generation for the proposed project was calculated using rates obtained from the Eighth Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report, 2008. For the proposed uses, the following categories were used:· . o o o o For the apartments, trip generation rates associated with Land Use Code (LUC) 220, Apartments, were used. For the small retail element of the project, trip rates from LUC 814, Specialty Retail, were used. For the' office portion of the project trip generation rates associated with LUC 710, . Office, were used. For the warehouse portion of the project, trip generation rates associated with LUC 150, Warehouse, were used. The results of the trip generation analysis' are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Project Vehicular Trip Generation ITE Land Use AM Peak PM Peak Code Size AWT Total In Out Total In Out APARTMENTS I 220 230 unit Rate 6.72 0.510 0.200 0.800 0.620 0.650 0.)50 Vol 1.546 117 23 94 143 93 50 RETAU.. • 814 2.578 ksf Rate 44.32 1.090 0.660 0.)40 2.710 0.440 0.560 Vol 114 3 2 1 7 3 4 OFFICE b 710 7.625 ksf Rate 11.01 1.550 0.880 0.120 1.490 0.170 0.830 Vol 84 12 11 11 2 9 WAREHOUSE b 150 22.875 hi Rate ·3.56 0.300 0.790 0.210 0.320 0.250 0.750 Vol 81 7 6 7 2 5 TOTAL 1,825 139 42 97 168 100 68 ApartmentIRetail subtotal 1,660 120 25 95 150 96 54 Office!Warehouse subtotal 165 19 17 2 18 4 ·14 a Upper Building and parking area, utilizes both east 8!ld west access driveways b Lower building and parking area, utilizes westerly access only. As shown in Table 6, the proposed project is estimated to generate 1,825 average weekday daily trips, 139 AM, and 168 PM peak hour trips. However, since the project is a multi-use development, a vehicle trip capture estimate was made for each based on the William Popp Associates Page ]] Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) Kennydale Apartments information presented in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The trip rates for each of the individual land uses typically reflect stand alone sites. Whereas, when residential, office/warehouse, and retail are all located on the same site, it is assumed there will be some trip interaction (internal capture} between the separate land uses. Thus, some of the trips shown in Table 6 will remain on site between uses, in this case most likely as a non- motorized trip end. The methodology used to identify the potential trip capture associated with multi-use site development was per the ITE Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 7; Table 7.1 - Unconstrained Internal Capture Rates for Trip Origins within a Multi-use Development, and Table 7.2 -Unconstrained Internal Capture Rates for Trip Destinations within a Multi-use Development. These tables identify the various internal capture percentages by use for PM street peak and daily conditions. The AM peak percentages were assumed to be the same as the PM. The results of the arialysls are shown in Table 7 below as well as included in the Technical Appendix. . Table 7 Vehicular Trip Generation -Internal Capture Period Gross Percent Captured External Proposed Land Use Trips R Capture Trips Trips DAILY TRIP GEN SUMMARIES Specialty Retail 8]4 114 16% 18 96 Apt; LUe 220 1.546 1% 14 1,532 Office LUC 710 84 5% 5 79 Warehou§;c!J.!~ 1 ~Q 81 ~~ 4 11 Total 1,825 2% 40 1,785 PM PK TRIP GEN SUMMARIES Apt; LUC 220 143 1% I 142 Specialty Retai1814 7 14% I 6 Office LUC 710 11 9% I to Warehou~e L!.!!:; l50 1 Q% 0 1 Total 168 2% 3 165 AM PKTRlPGEN SUMMARIES Specialty Retail 8]4 3 33% I 2 Apt; LUC 220 117 0% 0 117 Office LUC 710 12 0% 0 12 Warehouse L!.!C 15Q 1 Q% Q 7 Total 139 1% I 138 a' sec Table 6. As shown in Table 7, the internal capture is assumed to be very small between uses. The estimated daily internal trips is 40 trips or 2% of the total trips estimated. Therefore, it is estimated the site would generate 1,785 daily trips to the surrounding street system. The internal trips for the PM peak hour is only 3 trips (2%) thus the total trips generated to the William Popp Associates Page 12 '. Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) Kennydale Apartments surrounding street system is 165 trips. Similarly for the AM peak hour, the intermil trips is only I trip (1 %) thus the total trips to the surrounding street system is 138 trips. 3. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment Trip distribution percentages were applied to the project-generated AM and PM peak hour trips: In general, the distribution percentages to/from the site were based on existing traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway infrastructure, existing vehicle patterns at the nearby office building to the north, as well as from general knowledge of residential and populated development in the surrounding area. The distribution patterns are shown in Table 8. Table 8 AM and PM Peak Hour Distribution Percentages OriginiDestination 1-405 to/from the north 1-405 to/from the south Lake Wa Blvd to/from the north Lake Wa Blvd to/from the south SE'68th St to/from the east SE 88th St to/from the east . Total Office 30% 35% 5% 5% 15% 10% 100% As presented in Table 8, the majority of the project generated traffic (65%) given the location is oriented to and from 1-405. North and south traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard is estimated to be 5% each way. Twenty-five percent of the traffic is estimated to be oriented to the east, split between SE 68th St and SE 88th St. It is estimated that the assignment of project trips across the two driveways will be heavily weighted to the westerly driveway. The AM and PM peak hour trip distribution and assignment for the project is presented in Figure 5. 4. Background Traffic Plus Project Traffic Volumes Year 2013 PM peak hour with-project traffic volumes were developed by adding project trips to the year 2011 background traffic volumes. Table 9 shows the impact of project traffic at the four study area intersections. William Popp Associates Page 13 ~=======----------.-----4-.. -N- t 30%-~ Lake Washington WILLIAM POPPASSOCIATES 18 (27) -~A--... 30(9)-~-+~ 25 (40) 34 (10) 5% 22 (35) 34 (13) SE S8 h 15 (9) 10 (14) 5% ~ .< "--4 (5) iii 5 (2) 10 (14) 15 (9) 15%----' 1/ f.....:.;":::,..,.,,.,.,.,--"'::::c..:::'---j SE 76lh 51 17 (23) ~ ~2(2) ! 2 (2) ~ 9 (5) SE 60th 51 7 (9) 10%--..... 7 (9) LEGEND xx -PM Peak Hour Trips (99 in, 66 out) (xx) -AM Peak Hour Trips (41 in, 97 out)" XX% -Project Distribution Percentage 35% J 4400 Bel·Red Rd ~206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com . TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT Kennyda\e Apartments Figure 5 '. Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) KennydaZe Apartments Table 9 2013 AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes' 2013 without' Project 2013 with Project Internection Project only b Project hnpact (%) Lake Washington BlvdINE 48th St AM 951 101 1052 10% PM 944 124 1068 12% Lake Washington BlvdINE 44th StlI-405 NB Ramps AM 2.633 94 2,727 3% PM 2,534 115 2.649 4% Lake Washington BlvdINE 44th StlI-405 S8 Ramps AM 2.840 50 2.890 2% . PM 3,234 34 3.268 1% SE 76th Stll16th Ave SE AM 564 37 601 6% PM 539 41 580 7% a b Total AM or PM peak hour vehicles entering intersection. Includes 3% growth based on historical records, Hawk's Landing, and Port Quendall near term development (1.1 msf office space, 1,500 apartments, 200 ksf retail) KennydaJe Apartments (plus retail, office, and warehouse), . As shown in Table 9, the impact of project traffic at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 48th St intersection is 101 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 124 vehicles during the PM peak hour, which equates to a 10% and 12% impact respectively of the total entering traffic. The impact of project traffic at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StJI-405 NB Ramps intersection is 94 AM and 115 PM vehicles, which equates to a 3% and 4% impact respectively of the total entering traffic. The impact of project traffic at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StJI-405 SB Ramps intersection is 50 AM and 34 PM vehicles, which equates to a 2% and 1 % impact respectively of the total entering traffic. The project traffic at the SE 76'h St/1l6,h Ave SE intersection is 37 AM and 41 PM vehicles, which equates to a 6% and 7% impact respectively of the total entering traffic .. Year 2013 AM and PM peak hour with project volumes are shown in Figure 6. 5. Level-of-Service.(2013 with and without Project) 1evel,of-service for the 2013 with-andwithout-project conditions was calculated for the .4 analysis intersections. The results of the analysis are presented 'in Table 10. For comparison purposes, level-of-serviCe values for 2011 is also presented. All of the future level of service calculations assume existing geometric and intersection control conditions unless otherwise noted, William Popp Associates Page 14 IL PMPK ® 0 "''''''' ...-... '" JIL 141 -.J 21S- 475, PMPK ® '" ... ~ r--VlVl_ JIL 757- 743, PM PK PMPK ® 215- 65, PMPK LIO ,235 II '" Vl ",'0 NN L42 -21S ,SI III ~oo'" '0-Vl ... '" ~ -753 ,31S - . ' , " " -20S ,12 215-l' 10, I 0-r-- PMPK . ~ 0 1 I -N- I no-li 5, ...-0 AMPK I 'CD co c::l ... LI4 IL ,29S ~ II 000-",r-- AMPK C".- ® Ln -200 ,205 312-.J ll' 176-I 458, ~~~ Vl~- 0 VlCO -; V'lrf') JIL 29 -.J 1-- 106-, AMPK L4 -3 ,ll III 'O"'~ ... co - xx -2013 AM and PM PK HOUR WILLIAM POpp ASSOCl.o\. TES 14400 Bel-Red Rd '206 Bellevue, W A 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppnssoc.com BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES . Kennydale Apartments Figure 6 · . Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/1 I) Kennydale Apartments Table 10 2013 Future lutersection Level-of-Service (AM and PM Peak Hour)' Intersection AM PEAK HOUR Lake Washington Blvd NEJNE 48th St (aka SE 76th St) Lake Washington Blvd NFJNE 44th St/ 1-405 NB Ramps Lake Washington· Blvd NEJNE 44th St/ 1-405 SB Ramps SE 76th Stl116th Ave SE PM PEAK HOUR Lake Washington Blvd NEINE 48th St (aka SE 76th St) Lake Washington Blvd NEJNE 44th Stl 1-405 NB Ramps Lake Washihgton Blvd NEJNE 44th Stl 1-405 SB Ramps SE 76tlJ Stll16tlJ Ave SE 2011 b Ex.isting C 20 A 8 D 31 F 407 B 12 A 9 C 23 A 8 D J2 F 194 A 9 A 9 2013 c 2013 Background wlProject Comments D 25 E 41 westbound left tum -stop C 24 WBLT; TWTL Storage Ii 8 A 9 southbound left tum -yield F 252 F 266 overall intersection delay F>999 F>999 off-ramp left -stop D 29 D 35 westbound left tum -yield A 9 A 9 overall intersection delay D 34 E 39 westbound left tum -stop C 22 WELT; TWTL Storage A 9 A 9 southbound left turn -yield F ·344 F 362 overall intersection delay F>999 F>999 off-ramp left -stop D 35 E 35 westbound left tum ~ yield A 9 A 10 overall intersection delay a LOS and Delay; delay represented in seconds per vehicle. LOS at side-street stop cOfltrolled intersection applies only to the side- street approach. Intersection and control are based on existing configurations unless otherwise noted. b Existing count dates range between 2009 and 2011. 2009 counts adjusted to 2011 using the historical growth rate of 3%/year. c The background traffic forecast includes 3% growth based on historical records, Hawk's Landing, and Port Quendall neartenn development (1.1 msf office space, 1,500 apartments, 200 ksf retail). As shown in Table 10, the level of service conditions both AM and PM are a severe LOS F at both ramp terminal intersections in the future without the project traffic. The NE 44th St/I-405 SB Ramps intersection is also estimated to operate at LOS F for current conditions. With the project traffic the conditions worsen slightly however, the primary culprit to the severely congested ramp terminal intersections is the traffic estimates associated with the "near-term" projects for the Port Quendall project. A traffic simulation test for both the future AM and PM peak hours (utilizing SimTraffic) indicates there would likely be severe queuing and near gridlock conditions on NE 44th St at the two ramp terminal intersections. The queuing is estimated to extend all-ways including north up Lake Washington Boulevard and beyond NE 48th St as well as east on NE 48 th St past the project frontage. Therefore, the LOS reported in Table 10 above for William Popp Associates Page 15 Traffic Impact Ana/ysis (6/16/1 I) " Kennydale Apartments the Lake Washington BoulevardfNE 48 th St intersection may be artificially high without major improvements at the ramp terminal intersections. The SE 76 th Stll16th Ave SE intersection in the City of Newcastle is not estimated to be significantly impacted by the interchange queue spill back thus the LOS reported is estimated to be accurate. Recommended Interchange Improveme"!ts The Port Quendall Access Options traffic impact analysis dated July 7,2006 identified "near-term" roadway infrastruciure improvements to correct LOS deficiencies prior to the 1-405 master plan interchange modification. Based on the analysis as part of this study, those improvements have been modified somewhat. ---i) At the Lake Washington BoulevardfNE 44'h St/l-405 NB Ramps inter;ection, the following improvements are recommended: signalization of the intersection (with protected-permissive left turn phasing for north and south approaches, and permissive left turn phasing for east and west approaches), plus roadway widening to include a relatively short eastbound right turn pocket with taper opening after bridge structure, widening of the off-ramp to include a long left turn pocket, and widening of the southbound approach to include a short left turn pocket and a channelized right turn island with yield control. --)", At the Lake Washington BoulevardlNE 44th St/l-405 SB Ramps intersection, the following improvements are recommended: signalization of the intersection (with protected-permiss"ive left turn phasing fof the west approach), plus roadway widening to include a full length eastbound right turn lane with a channelized island that continues through the on-ramp with ultimate yield merge to a single lane prior to the mainline, and a long southbound right turn pocket on the off-ramp. The estimated level of service with the recom~ended improvements are shown in Table 11 below. William Popp Associates Page 16 Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/1 I) Kennydale Apartments Table 11- Mitigated Interchange Intersection Level-or-Service (year 2013 with project plus backgronnd growth and all known pipeline development) Intersection AM PEAK HOUR Lake Washington Blvd NEINE 44th SIl 1-405 NB Ramps Lake Washington Blvd NEINE 44th st/ 1-405 SB Ramps PM PEAK HOUR , Lake Washington Blvd NE/NE 44th SIl 1-405 NB Ramps Lake Washington Blvd NFJNE 44th Stl 1-405 SB Ramps delay values represented in seconds per vehicle Traffic Control Signal Signal Signal Signal LOS Delat Comments D 36 Signal plus EBRT, NBLT, SBLT and SBRT channelized island (yield) D 42 Signal plus EBRT channelized island with 2L on ramp. and SBRT C 21 Signal plus EBRT. NBLT. SBLT and SBRT channelized island (yield) C 31 Signal plus EBRT channelized island with 2L on ramp, and SBRT As shown in Table 11, the level of service at the two ramp intersections is estimated to be LOS D for AM conditions and LOS C for PM conditions. The 95 th percentile queue lengths extending north on Lake Washington Boulevard towards NE 48 th St is estimated to be approximately 600 feet for the AM conditions and 300 feet in the PM condition, whereas the distance between NE 44th St and NE 48 th St is approximately 900 feet. Suggested Interim Interchange Improvements A review of traffic operations was also conducted for the likely scenario without any of the Port Quendall project traffic, only background growth and Hawk's Landing. This analysis was conducted for just the two ramp terminal intersections and was conducted for only the PM peak hour. The estimated level of service with suggested interim improvements are shown in Table 12 below. Willia,m Popp Associates Page 17 Traffic Impact Analysis (61I6iI 1) Kennydale Apartments Table 12 Interlnl Interchange Intersection Level-or-Service' 2013 2013 Intersection Background I PM PEAK HOUR Lake Washington Blvd NElNE 44th Stl I~405 .NB Ramps Lake Washington Blvd NEINE 44th Stl 1·405 SB Ramps a delay values represented in seconds per vehicle F 53 F 367 with Project F 74 C 21 B 12 F 598 B 14 Comments all·way stop, overaIJ int delay with SBRT lane with signal, no widening existing off ramp stop, LOS is for side st with signal, no widening b future background volumes include only the 3% per year annual growth plus HaWk's Landing. They DO NOT include Port Quendall traffic. As shown in Table 12, the level of service for the PM peak hour at the two ramp intersections is estimated to be LOS F in the future with or without the project, without. Port Quendall traffic, and under existing intersection configuration and operations. The level of service is estimated to improve to LOS B at both intersections with installation of a traffic signal at each, with minimal widening or channelization modifications. 6. Site Access Analysis Level-of-service for the 2013 AM an PM peak hours for the site access driveways is summarized in this ;;ection along with queue estimates for the left turn entering movements (95 th percentile queue). Table 13 below summarizes the level of service and queue findings .. William Popp Associates Page 18 -- " Traffic Impact Analysis (6116111) Kennyda/e Apartments Table 13 Site Access Level-of-Service and Queuing (Year 2013 with Project) Traffic 95th Intersection Control LOS Delay" Queue Comments AM PEAK HOUR NE 48 th St/West Site Access Side St Stop 30' wide commercial driveway NBexit B 12 n/, single lane exit. WB Left In A 8 10' Two-way left tum lane NE 48111 StlEast Site Access Side 8t Stop 30' wide commercial driveway NBexit B 11 n/, single lane exit. . WB Left In. A 8 10' Two-way left tum lane PM PEAK HOUR .. ' NE 48 th st/West Site Access Side SI Stop 30' wide commercial driveway NBexit B 12 n/, single lane exit. WB Left In A 8 25' Two-way left tum lane NE 4St/l StlEast Site Access Side SI Stop 30' wide commercial driveway NB exit B 11 n/, single lane exit. WB Left In A 8 9' Two-way left tum lane , delay values represented in seconds per vehicle As shown in Table 13, the level of service operations for both exiting vehicles and entering vehicles is estimated to be adequate with the configuration assumed for both the AM and PM condition, Both driveways would be 30' wide with a IS' entry lane and IS' exit lane. The estimated 95 th perceritile queue for vehicles turning left into the site was calculated to be 25' max at the west site access and 10' max at the east site access, C. CONCLUSIONS 1. Project DelaUs The proposed project is located on the south side of NE 48th St between an existing mini- warehouse use to the west and single family residential to the east. The project's eastern property line is also the City of Renton/City of Newcastle boundary, The project includes 230 apartments, 2,578 gsf retail, 7,625 gsf office, and 22,875 gsf warehouse, Access to the site is proposed with two driveways to NE 48th St. William Popp Associates Page 19 Traffic Impact Analysis (6//6/111 Kennydale ~partments 2. Accidents Based on accident records, the Lake Washington BoulevardINE 44th StII-405 NB Ramps intersection is currently experiencing a slightly higher than typical level of accidents relative to the number of vehicles entering the intersection. The predominant accident occurrences are right angle type accidents from vehicles heading westbound thru colliding with vehicles heading northbound tbm. The accident rate for the 2-year period of record is 1.29 accidents per million vehicles entering. The typical standard threshold is 1.0 acc/mev. The accident occurrence and rate at the other two intersections in the City of Renton suggests adequate safe operations. 3. Sight Distance The stopping sight distance as well as the intersection sight distance measurements were determined to be adequate at the west site access but substandard at the east site access. The east site access sight distance was determined to be substandard based. on a design speed of 30 mph, however, it is adequate per the posted speed limit of 25 mph. The stopping sight distance as well as the intersection sight distance at the easterly site access could be mitigated with extension of the center two-way left turn lane to the approximate full length of the project frontage. The center turn lane would allow refuge outside the through lane for vehicles stopped entering the site as well as for vehicles exiting the site turn left. The proposed landscaping shall be designed such that it does not restrict the ISD sight lines looking east or west from the driveway. The stopping sight distance at the westerly driveway is estimated to be adequate in both directions. The intersection sight distance is also estimated to be adequate, however, existing vegetation must be removed to the west of the site in order to obtain the minimum requirement looking west and the proposed landscaping along the project frontage shall be designed such that it does not obstruct sight lines. 4. Project Vehicular Impact The project is estimated to generate 1,785 average weekday daily trips, 138 AM, and 165 PM peak hour vehicle trips to the surrounding street system. The project vehicular percentage impact at the study area intersections ranges between 1 % and 12%. The project's heaviest impact is at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 48th Street intersection; 101 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 124 vehicles in the PM peak hour. The project's vehicular impact at the Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE . 44th Street intersectionlI-405 NB Ramps is 94 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 115 vehicles during the PM peak hour. William Popp Associates Page 20 " Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) Kennydale Apartments The background traffic volume forecasts include Hawk's Landing as well as the "near- term" projections for the Port Quendall project. The Port Quendall development traffic is estimated to double and triple the existing traffic volumes at the two ramp terminal intersections. That project accounts for approximately 90% of the new growth estimates at those two intersections. 5. Level of Service The results of the level of service analysis indicate the following: o The critical approach movement at the Lake Washington BoulevardNEINE 48 th St intersection, the westbound left turn, is estimated to operate at LOS E in the future AM and PM peak hour with the project. However, this finding is based on the assumption that those vehicles. turning left from NE 48 th St do not make use of the center two way left turn hme due to the fact it is not quite striped for that use even though there is adequate width. Assuming vehicles turning left from NE 48 th St make use of the center lane, the LOS is adjusted to C for both peak hour conditions. o The Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StJI-405 NB Ramps intersection as well as the SB Ramps intersection are estimated to operate at sevete LOS F conditions in the future with the pipeline development projects included herein. The conditions are estimated to be so severe that vehicle queues will spill back beyond all outlying intersections including the Lake Washington BoulevardINE 48 th St intersection. Traffic simulations analysis indicate near gridlock conditions. o With signalization and widening at both ramp terminal intersections, the level of service improves to LOS D at both intersections during the AM period and LOS C during the PM period . .,/ At the northbound ramps intersection, widening would ,include a southbound left turn pocket and a southbound right turn channelized island with yield control, a northbound left turn pocket, and an eastbound right turn pocket. .,/ At the southbound ramps intersection, widening would include a southbound right turn pocket, an eastbound right turn lane that would include a channelized right turn island free movement onto the southbound on-ramp with a widened 2-lane on-ramp ultimately merging to a single .lane . .,/ The available storage on the overpass shall be rechannelized to maximize left turn pocket storage. - o The estimated future level of service (analyzed just for the PM peak hour) without the Port Quendall traffic impacts, was estimated to be LOS F at both intersections without the KennydaleApartment's project. With installation of a signal at both ramp terminals, the level of service at both intersections is estimated to improve to LOS B. o/illiam Popp Associates Page 21 . ,. Traffic Impact Analysis (6116111) Kennydale Apartments o The SE 76th Stl116th Ave SE intersection (City of Newcastle) is estimated to'operate at LOS A with project conditions for either peak period, o The proposed project driveways are estimated to operate at LOS AlB. ' 6. Site Access , The property frontage along NE 48'h St is approximately 325' in length. Per Renton code, a maximum of two driveways are allowed. There are two driveways proposed, each driveway would be 30' wide. It was not feasible to align either driveway with the opposite'side of street condominium driveway, therefore, both driveways were spaced as far as practical from it. The centerline of the west driveway is located 20' from the west property line and would be approximately 100 feet from the condominium driveway. The east driveway is located,approximately 100 feet from the east property line due to steep hillside site development. The spacing between the two driveways is about 200 feet and the distance from the east driveway to the condominium driveway is also about 100 feet. The traffic operations analysis for each driveway indicates that the level of service will be adequate (LOS AlB) at each for either peak period with the configurations assumed. One concern to note is the queuing for vehicles westbound (from the east) tum left into the site, either driveway. The 95'h percentile queue for this movement was calculated to be 25' at the west site access and 10' at the east site access. There is a center two way left tum lane on NE 48 th St however it extends from Lake Washington Boulevard easterly and teiminates just east of the condominium driveway. It is recommended this center two- way left tum lane be extended east'beyonci the easterly site access. D. MITIGATION and RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing traffic impact analysis for the Kennydale Apartments project, the draft mitigation recommendations are suggested: 1. The two driveways proposed for access to NE 48'h St shall be offset as much as possible from the existing condominium driveway on the north side of the street. The current design allows for approximately 100 feet either direction (centerline to centerline) which should be adequate given the-relatively low volumes at each of the driveways. ' 2, Due to the fact there is substandard sight distance at the 'easterly site access (based on a 30mph design speed) it is recommended that the center two-way left tum lane on NE 48'h St be extended beyond the east site access to allow for left tum ingress and egress storage. The estimated 95'h percentile queue for the west-to'south left turn is 10 feet. Given this ca1culatedqueue, it is recommended that the two-way left tum William Popp Associates ,Page 22 Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/11) KennydaZe Apartments lane be extended 50 feet east of the easterly site access east side curb to allow for speed reduction and 1 vehicle storage. After 50 feet, the center tum lane would taper back to existing lane geometry east 180 feet based on the WS2/60 taper rate formula. This design is shown in Figure 7. 3. Vegetation within the right-way to the west of the project shall be cleared accordingly to accommodate the lSD sight line looking west from the west driveway. 4. Any landscape design within a possible future landscape planter shall be designed such that it does not interfere with the lSD sight lines at either driveway. 5. The building plan includes a large wall along the project frontage on NE 48 th S1. In order to prevent and/or minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts it is recommended that the sidewalk be located at the curb line where it crosses both driveways. This would allow maximum visibility between ingress/egress motorists and pedestrians walking along the sidewalk. It is recommended that the sidewalk be !"xtended ata minimum 20 feet in either direction of the dri veway and could angle back behind a planter strip from that point. 6. At the Lake Washington BoulevardINE 48 th St intersection, the two way left turn striping could be modified on the south leg to include a more formal opening to encourage westbound left turns from NE 48 th St to utilize the center storage lane as refuge as part of a two staged left tum maneuver. 7. With the inclusion of the Port Quendall project, both of the 1-405 ramp terminal intersections would have serious operations problems (severe LOS F) in the future. The Lake Washington BoulevardINE 44th StJI-405 SBRamps intersection is currently estimated to be operating at LOS F whereas the Lake Washingtoh BoulevardINE 44th StJI-405 NB Ramps intersection is estimated to be currently operating at LOS D. The most recent (2006) cost estimates available (from the Port Quendall study) unadjusted for inflation indicate a cost of $788,000 for the SB Ramp terminal intersection fix, and $1,545,000 for the NB Ramp terminal fix. 'This TIA identified minor enhancements to the Port Quendall study including an exclusive channelized right tum lane onto the SB on-ramp, and a channelized SB right tum island at the NB nimp terminal intersection. The costs however have not been updated. If full development of the Port Quendall project is assumed (and built prior to the 1- 405 Master Plan Reconstruction), a typical allocation of traffic improvement costs would have nearby developments' pay in proportion to their impact (generally based on PM peak hour volumes). Based on total entering volume forecasts and project traffic, the Kennydale Apartments project is estimated to have a 1.8% impact at the SB Ramps intersection, and a 4.3% impact at the NB Ramps intersection. William Popp Associates Page 23 . I ~ II ~ City of Renton ~ __ I ~ City of Newcastle : \~ ; ,- , ~ , , ( i -1;' ! " ~ I I o . , l ~ I GJPHlCSCAlE' j E tension or Two·Way Left-Turn lane ~: I I ,198' , a 25.~ 50 100 ! I -""",~E;_-.--+~--. _-.-.--.. -:t=-ra.~s~ffg~_t~per __________ _ _ .. _ .. -.l_ .. _ .. _ .. _ .. --'j-'±' _.1_ .-.--. ___ r-._. ____ J NE 48TH ST I ::::::::::::;::.-.-.. __ ==. _______ _ ______ .......... __ . ___ ...... L. ______ =-.-= _________ . __ ....... ___ .... . -. .iJ'yf'---. :~.:L.~~-...-r--'~ . . ,-' S~76T~ST --. ~ I iV ~ .~ W::.::-,," .• , :::; --1-I .. f .. ~ ~.~.--.. ~.~ ..... ~-~.~ ... ~.~---.. ~ .. --.. ~.~-----~-.. --.. ---------- -----, ---------l : ~i II i' ~ ~ . I .'1 . ~J-o'---101' . <n -~ • • I ~ W . :m 00 c '" o u 'E ~ &' z . KENNYDALE APARTMENTS SITE ~ ; o 0 I 325' I WlLLIAMPOPPASSOCIATES Center Turn Lane Extension KennydaleApartrnents 14400 BoI·R,d Rd #206 . h S' S' F I B,lI,,~.WA 98007 NE 481 1 --lIe ron age 425.401.1030 FIgure 7 ' info@wmpoppassoc.com , . Traffic Impact Analysis (6/16/1 I I KennydaleApartments However, due to the uncertainties associated with.the Port Quendall project's size and timing, as well as the 1-405 Master Plan timing uncertainty, a more rational traffic impact condition assessment was considered, The foregoing analysis indicates that a southbound right turn lane on 44th Ave SE at the northbound ramps intersection and simple signalization of the southbound ramps intersection (with no significant widening) would improve level of service conditions to LOS C and B at the respective ramp terminals, This finding assumes no Port Queildall traffic impacts at time of full build-out of the Kennydale Apartment project. A planning level cost estimate at each intersection suggests a cost of $330,000 for the southbound ramp terminal intersection signal fix, and $160,000 for the southbound right tum lane at the northbound ramp terminal intersection. Based on total entering volume forecasts (without Port Quendall) and project traffic, the Kennydale Apartments project is estiinated to have a 4,5% impact .at the SB Ramps intersection, and a 7.1 % impact at the NB Ramps intersection, Given the construction cost estimates noted and the project percent ~ a pro-rata share basis, the Kennydale Apartments would contribut~~oward the identified improvements to bring the ramp terminal intersections up to an acceptable LOS, However, it should . be re-iterated that the timing of any interim improvements be considered against the larger ultimate interchange reconfiguration as part of the 1-405 Master Plan, That improvement will completely reconstruct these two intersections. 8, The City of Renton has adopted a transportation mitigation fee of $75 per net new average daily trip (ADT). Using the ITE based trip generation estimate of 1,785 ~DT the 1eQuired mitigation fee for the Kennydale Apartment project would be \i133;875. If the $751ADT fee basis includes improvements at this interchange or either of these ramp terminal intersections, it is standard practice to adjust direct mitigation accordingly. 9, With respect to frontage improvements, the project will locally benefit the transportation system by virtue of the required perimeter street lighting, curb, gutter and sidewalk.construction, William Popp Associates Page 24 ----------------------------- William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers/Planners (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com TECHNICAL APPENDIX for JKenltlydlaRe Apartments Mixed Use Development SECTION 1: SIGHT DISTANCE DETAILS AND SKETCHES SECTION 2: INTERNAL TRIP GENERATION CAPTURE ANALYSIS SECTION 3: AM AND PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES· INCLUDING DRIVEWAYS SECTION 4: AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES June 16, 2011 14-400 Building. Suite 206 • 14400 Bel-Red Road. Bellevue, W A 98007 , , \ Technical Appendix Kennydale Apartments SECTION 1: SIGHT DISTANCE DETAILS AND SKETCHES At Site Access Driveways to NE 48 th St Wlllzam PoppAssoclates ,I , , 1 " ,I 1 , MAINTAIN SIGHT DIStNCt REiI-=1--l~n , ,-- I i I I , 1 I , 'I , i I j 'j I I I , ,I , I : 'I 1 , i ! I I I , I " Cc 51= i~f ISO SIGHT LINES FROM BOTH DRIVEWAYS --PLAN VIEW If:VEP. T, D~RI¥.E.VIIAY ISQ lOO~lr'E~ST' SSO.' ,. 1=' , I ,I I" I I I I \ I I I I I I I I ----lI8eKIN --\)'\JES::r:-: --, ;--,---,--f--;---r--r--+-i--i---,-y-t--i--j--i T-' -T'-, . '1 I ~r I ! I I Ii: I I I I I I I -.--.T--~; --t-!'t-T; ~-: : ; --~'--:-; I I 1--~--T i I i, i~'-"-' - I I ~-1 : I iii ilnjer Jji~.n.Sig~!l~JbR.ri~.Lc;!rlg9JlceJ I I I--L-J--; I I I I I I I .I,! i i • I '55~' " ! I i I ~ __ :_ I 1_.4-i : ! ..l--~ ~-R! I' :.:: I. I t--,_ I ----1_~ __ _ , ,-r--: I' , , I , I , , V"'I h' 'H'( 1, ' , '1IS'O)=Rk" , ~ , H .1 I'! I : I I e~lc e I elg It 3.5) certer 9f ro~d (i j I I I 1 _2.0'~'-'--_ -1'--' -,--r---G-'-'..:..-j , , " i -'-1-'-r--L-,--r---- I I I: I : I ' I I I I I I ' I I I 'I I I _...195 ' -'-iLl-.-l ~ , _~---I--~YLHTejgb _MLq~'l1mTOI roa~JSSO) -'-.1---: _'_, __ !.I. '_L __ _ I .1. I I I I : I I I I I I I J I I I --"'''t--i--t-+-,!t'-,''--r--L-I I I j I I : I I I I I +-_ 185 Ii , I---.J, , _, ,_LJ_ " , , , , I IL' 'l ' " "I' I I I . I,' I I I : I ' I: ---18~----'----r-1 'i -'r-~~-;--I I~-r----'-I--r'-+-";'--';--o~~"~"--TI )'1", ' ,: ,509' _1I~ -----'--1-1-' --' -..J.-.-.L_~ __ '_Stopp'ng Sl9ht-Distance-(10Rzontal.d,stance)_'1 I t. ,II' I Ii: I j I I I \ _.~ZQ' ' __ I.,' , , , '" '" -'+--r-~-;'--r--+---r--T-- ., ., I I -,-, , I ' i! ~-~ -U I -.l-' '---J-l.--'--o'{-h."-_-'---'-'-+_-!--W._.l.-+_'---' __ , II, I ' , " .-16J . I I. i I I , . , "_...;._+_.;'_...;.' __ -, rr-, [" --.J..'lttt, 1 -c-i I : :-' cl---'--:'-t~-.l-+-I--l.-- , ,. , 1 ' :, I 'i' , __ 15.01 I I-j.. I I i I I _.! I I I :! i II I , I I __ , 'I I 'I I, 1 "l I 'I I I I I I , 1~5 ~ I ; I,: I_:_! I ! I ~""I L--L ___ ~ __ : __ ~~_L __ l __ L __ I I I I-Iii I --r I 326' I "~,,. I: I I I I [ I II i -r' , "" '+-.1' -+-' , J,.': I ~+ i I I I I I I i I I I I I I -~h-I :-q : ; I :~Je;w:ro:tad--r-, ;f, ~-I \ I i : : : r I 6tr: :;r--J--r--;-- 13~ -:+I-!r-~--~I -: ; : --~..,:ll~I-----..--wt--i~ ; ; I: :I-t-I-~--t--!---:----~---- ] 3'" 'J I !, I' /:~ I i ~::i_~ I I I I I I-I" I 1_ I : ---"r-~-----'--" --,-,---,-" ,--,--;:"---,-:;::0 -,--r-----,---,.--, ~--,-'-r --,,---,-,--r----, ' , L II ' ' , , , ' ~:~" tel" ,,":' I' , I ' , ~29--~--+ --I -I~--:--~--:---t -; -~ -) ;~--~---~--rl--~--:-i--I---~--~;---rtT--t-~-t--tl-t-~--- 120f I I w, ,E I I I I '/:; : I I 0 1 I I I I I ii' I Hi' I --;; --sr-l~--i--i-i --T--I /::~ -l-;----r-r-[r-:--i--T-r-:: I :?Tli-I I -~--- __ Ll.5!-_-l-____ j9. __ 1 m_ ~---,--_1_ -" ---;,: '----l---+-_L-_ j -.ill, --~_'_ __ --l--L-+-j ___ o:;::) __ " ' _h_--1---_ j I a:' ,(},) Ii! I /:r ~ \ ! I t:1 I I I 1 I ! OCI • I I I I --11D~---i-----~1---~~--:--:--}---,,:::!. ,\ -I ---~ ~--+-+ -~t---i--: ~::: ~oT-!-~--}---:--;.: -- -1D I ! _[~_hL __ .L_L_ ~,;:;:,}._ i ! I : J_~_l __ ~ I I I I I: I I I I " Wi I" , '/;' , I " I" ' i -' I ' __ 1.0.~ __ ~_ --~"-i·L-i~,/:/' --I·_----:-·-±::r:-I----+-i--I: -~ I i·--.la...\--. i I. ~--- .5) !-' J-1,../': I , N~48tl,Sticenterlin~profie) I I I I :' I~ '! : ! :. : __ .9 ,--, ----b'll--j. /-, "---~-T-1__:_-f--lI-r-~~--,-7-"I ;:::, I, , , , , . __ ~~-~ ~:-.-,;L: i -+-+--~ : : i ~ ( : !: : ~-j 9~+--~ I : ~}--- 85 ' _ . eye heJht (~5') <in driyewa~ (IS~ __ J_J 1_L-i_J ~ cr,-: 1 ~ ~~_:_.l ____ _ , ' !F ; oblect ,eigh\ (2.0') ce~.ter 01 roa~ (SS;D) : --I: : : --:---: -: I j--:--:: -H' :: --Bij--i n ~---r-T " ,-'-T.....J-'---'--' '--'-'--'-'---'''--1'---,-,--'--'-- __ .J..: __ J. .---l--ir==:--i.....l. _._:_.l_:~ ___ i ___ l __ .l_~ ___ .,I __ ,L ___ .!,, __ . ___ ._l--,' -~,'--,~i--.. __ .,-+,I-i'--I,I ___ ~,~ .' I_._.!_-.-.. ~--.-~-- I I I. I I [ Ii· i j : I I I I I I I -_.-;-r--~'~-~I' --~+-L-t-'-~'i-'--' i---~'-'--1-~1 ---!-'-~'-'i'-----i·----~---r-·~I ----~-!t-·-·~-·~f-fi-t--_.!-.---.-.. -'-_4-_"'-' _-\' "I, 1 ., 1 '" " ,...!~ '1' 1 1 ~ , . , , --1---1'-,---,---1-, ,., --;-,,--T 1 - I , , ; i i;-,-Ii· i I ,---,--- \. I 'I I! . I Ii: I I I I I I I' 1 I I' \ .. \ I I ~--r-T---1'---, --1'---~I-I -"-r-r----;:: i--iil j ; :Ti-:-i~-'--'--'-'- ___ l __ -L:-'_'~----u. ____ ._~_J __ J.___ i~ .. -L~----i_'--'f-, --.1,-'--_!,---', ,I ' 1-,-17, _'--, _.L 1 _---L-4 __ _ I I I I I i I : I ! j I • I I I I I I· I I i '1 I i -+ I I +--~ I I I I :-:~~~ =Fi ~! H-~ ni-iiNE48thS': : [~-:-I-l,i- I : Iii I I .! I I I: I I I I I I !.I ' I I! ~ 1 i 2+00 3+00 4+00 6+00 WEST DRIVEW'AY SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION EAsT DRIVEWAY ISO BOTH WAYS, SSD BOTHWAYS , , , ....205' , ~-' --I--~ ---:--~-~ I-~-~-~----I---~---~--!-----~-:----~ __ L --~~-l--tttl ~ : -----~--~-- I I ' : I I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----L I I lntersectlo Sight Dista~D~'@! dlstanceL L.... ~.-l , I I I I I 1 I I I I 29()' , I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I i I r I I I '_I--~~. I I 1 " "., ---+ ~~-+--, , t---: 'I: ,--t----t- I I , : 1 I I I I I' I I I I [ i I r I, I I' i " I I I I 1 I I I I I! I I I I I, ~ ... I L-..L I i I I I I I I I I. I. 'I' iii I I I I I! I I I I i'i I I I I I 1 vEflhlcl~ height (3 5) center: of r9ad (I$D)~ I; I I / I I " "j--r---1 , ' , . , ' ' "/(, -j- 199 : J ! : J i :: i i: eye ;he iT3f ci nter rf raid (SrD)~ ~-Wf: : /: ,i ......J..a..5.----! i I ! I I j I I j Iii ! I I I I i 1")1:"1 I I I I " I, " I' I I" I;:!:: j i,)lr /I : i, " ~~ i'i ! i I j StOPPiri9-Si9hl-DiStanqe.~hdrizoTrilal.distande)-~~IV iii j-! I I ! ' i I: . I I I 1 I I i 272,1 I I /:;'.1L1 I I ) I I I ,,0 , ii' !, '" '" _J ' , , i ' ... -:';:U' '," , I ~-i-;-i-l'-r;-r-r-'i I Ii; :-I--r-:-~-· r1~~---~---i·;----r-I i----tz'i---+---}-"--~I--l'-"-'-l---~"'-------t-·-···l···--··_+-···--·--!,--t-·--r·---··~---t·--: --t---+/-/~/~-+.:---f-*-~--~-+- , " ,'" I" '", t 'I ! , { , "I ',!' I' _16h-i·-·--~-·-·-t---r--r-·--f--i-:----r-·----·-·! ---i'·----i-----1-;7P --r~---i ,"-----i-n--i---r-;- .. ~-6q--+-+--+-·-f-·-+--+------·r·---J-···--+--·-·-!··--+··--+----.L--i ..... -.-+~7'.:::---t-}· .. ··-1-···_+J ---+-:+-+----T-'+- ! I i I I ! I ! I I 1·!. I I y *' I I : I I ! I I ! I --l5T-r-----: -i-r--r-:------r---r---t------ir-r----;-_ .. -r-r~~J.·* -i----r--:---·---T'···-r:--"~-!-'i-r-------r--i- __ J~ ; ; : ! ---; --:-: : -j---~--:-{--I-:<J~' r--:-----II--t---·t·--·-·:-··~------1"-',:----1---' -_._---:---:-' ~~t~ir-I--~-~-~----i-;--;---~~i--r---j -/;~:/' r ---r-i---j ---~-_:---r-,-------: -:T--1 ------i--:-- J4D1 : :--+-+-t-}--I : -+-+---~1--: -bi't-'Y -! --T--+--rl'--+--r---t-!---6o'~--1+--+-------}-----t-J3~~ , I ey~ he'~h~~r~~SD)-h ~} __ :_£'_~ , __ I ___ :-L_ i---~-'. i __ ~~~ __ ~ ___ ----i----~ , I object height (2.0') center of rOad'(SpD\-~' X/, I, I II ' I I I 'I" " _130 I '" I :J:.'.\-1_ .;,( _.l. r-UT~L-..LII I I , ___ L __ L-L-__ 1_1... " I I I I I I I / I ,I! I I 1, I ,I I I I -'125 Iii I I I I I -' '~ I 51: I I I I I I, I I I I , >---t, ,,,. >-' I' , I " I I 'I I I I I \'). // I I I-~ I I I , I I 1 I I .....12Q I ! I ii' / ---.' 0:1 I I I I , I I , , ,! '" " _1\/ I· " ~il' I' I I " I I " , I ! w' j I I 1 1,/0. ! I .~.! . I I I I I I I I __ U~ ,r-'2 " 94 ---l~ ~, I t- I I I -ll I I I i;/" I I I I r:l.\ I I I I , :': I I: -119 : : ~, : :: / ' .J --I -f-!-t-+--~t: I 1 : I I 1 I : I HI' I 'ffi ' , I , / It " I" 00, I I I , , 'I" I , , I , 0' I I I)' /, " I " ~I' I I I ! L I," " -~-~"'-J----j-1-\,:" " II-r", --t------j-" 1 --1D,il'.. I 'It-'-----L-__ L_)f' A, i , r--i---1 I '" I I j , I I ---.L. ii, I I Ii' i I -' ~ '\.. ! I 1, I, I I i I I I I, I II I I I ! I i ~ L I ,,~' i ! -----:-N,E 48 h St Acent,erline, prof Ie) iii I j I, I, I I I J ~'h--r-'~-, --r,7~r-7i---;i-i-r-j--r--:--,ii-' --r-l-r--~JT l-r --sn, ': : ~;/, i-t---+-t-+-c---!--fJt;~-----:--+--~-----, I " <::!-~, , --t-t-- __ 8.~ .. _~_;~.L_._. -i-·--~·-_+----·+--~--~-~--!·-~·--tn---I-·-=1---\.---J.-----·~·-"-·-~----~I·---a;-.. ~-.-.-.~--.----!.-.-.-.:- I I /( I I I I I Ii! I \ i I I I I,' uJ II J I I -81" /'r L_;-_ n-·:·:----t-t------;-~~2t-~-!--·--~---t-I -!---t--.:-··_···t·--··-:---i-r-' ,··-~--·-:-··t·----!---n __ .. ::._. ;/~ ~~ -'r---j :_ : I --iEroJejct-Errtaf,e-!--'---:--T-i-;--r----r----;--:-:---QI--!r---i -'i--r' ~/~' :~-+----, --: -+-+--: : +----l.---r--+-(---j---+---~--"--1---: -,t-t---~~·I··:--: ---t--t-- ~ ~ -335' I . --1 I I \ I I I I I, .....,. I! I I -:' fnters~cltor SJg1if()iStanc~-orfianlardlttanc-e)---1-;-'--:--~--i---t·----.---!--t-:-T----"'l'".::):-,-I-;---t-------·-t--t--- i ~ight line cpn e*end~ a! wer objeq\ (tre;e canapYJ.:.~s higher ine) I : :____.: : : I TI 'L_L..-L.......L_:l. ! ! I ' I I I I I I I I I i I ) ! I I, III I ' ! I i I I I I· I I I! i I I i I I I --t--i---1 "=20' H --t---: t--t--;----;--t---j--t--~t---t--I-----r----j--- i , 1"=5' V " " I " I 'NE 48th St' "'I I I __ 1-1_ I I I ..l __ ...l_-.-.L..._ ---1 I~ I ! ..... L.: __ .L_.J._ I I : I 1_ I I I) I 1 I I I I I ! I ---~--~--~----~-;-l ::: __ !-~ __ .~_ ~. I ~ : : :. ___ ~ __ ~+_~_ : " ,i I j',' jl. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' i! --i---, -,---t-i I I:: -t---f---1---r-j--+-+ : ~-I I I I : I 1 I Iii 1 I J 1 ,I Iii J I L' I' j I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I! I I I :! !.! I I I I I 1 1+00 2+00 4+00 5+00 7+00 EAST DRIVEWAY SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION /. Technical Appendix Kennydale Apartments SECTION 2: INTERNAL TRIP GENERATION CAPTURE ANALYSIS ITE TRIP GENERATION HANDBOOK SOURCE DATA DAlLY TRIP CAPTURE WORKSHEET PM PEAK TRIP CAPTURE WORKSHEET AM PEAK TRIP CAPTURE WORKSHEET Wdham Popp ASSOCiates INTERNAL TRIP CAPTURE BASIS liTE Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 7 Table 7.1 Unconstrained Internal Capture Rates for Trip Origins within a Multi-Use Development PM PKHR of Adjacent Street Traffic Daily from OFFICE to Office 1% 2% to Retail 23% 22% to Residential 2% 2% from RETAIL to Office 3% 3% to Retail 20% 30% to Residential 12% 11% from RESIDENTIAL to Office n/a n/a to Retail 53% 380/0 to Residential n/a n/a Table 7.2 Unconstrained Internal Capture Rates for Trip Destinations within a Multi-Use Development to OFFICE from Office from Retail from Residential to RETAIL from Office from Retail from Residential to RESIDENTIAL from Office from Retail from Residential Kennydale Internal Trip Calc.xI1.Kls, Capture 512412011 PM PK HR of. Adjacent Street Traffic 6% 31% 0% 2% 20% 9% 2% 31% n/a Daily 2% 15% n/a 4% 28% 9% 3% 33% n/a William Popp Associates =- I I Emor from External 501 Internal """"" Enter ~ 7 50 Elrtemal Exit 10 " 471 Tot. ~k @ '#l Balance CI:J Damll.nd Des!' 1'l'I31%\", I 240';fl'. 11. 18 " Demand (Des!) 1~5C:ll!l'!:l:";'-"~! BalenciJ c::::cJ Demand(Orig) 410 I 53% Size _ 230 Rate_ Enter from External 1 7651 Internal Enter ~ 8 External Ed n3 S' I 76BI Total 154& 14. External '" '" 1532 c~,c," .. , '" ~ Relall .... 221J External Enler External Exit T otal E~ternat Trips Internal TJl>I; Gross Trips OvlIraH AVerage Internal Capture Rate Pass-by Rale PasS-byTrips non-pas~by Kenrrj'd'" htemaiToll Clle.Jdl • .!s 50 " " 17.7 11. 0% e " '" 768 1532 13.6 1546 1532 0%1 LUC 710 40 '" " .~ " <w, e " Demand (Dest) PROPOSED SITE -DAILY TRIPS Multi-use Development DAILY Internal Trip Calculation Wi!i3~';l1 I{OrIQ) c::c:J Balance I/Orig) 10 I. 21_%_1 ~-r 31% Demand /Dest) 01"" 'i'i'E""[;: Size ~ Enlsr &. §_______ ______ Balance Demand ([)est) Demand(Origl ----:::: c::::I:::J 0 I 0%' ' I 1 % I 0 Balance Balance Balanc:~ C!:J 1 I o~ . . Demand(OrIQ) DemandJDest) b, __ -::;::;::;::::..-~ Balance' ~ !JW\9&l:.i!~'J23%W! tfgfflilt:'A#Ed 7.B:!5kJl '-:-.-42- " B4 22.875U/ Rate. Internal ""~. 2 40 2 40 , 79 Demand (Dest) 3 I' 6% ... ~ CI:J DemandlOrlg) i3!Oo~IIl'.j~\!Owl Rate. 0.32 Internal External Enter from ElO:1emai I 401 Ex~ 10 External I .01 Exit to External I 38! 0% 1 Dernand(Orig) c::::cJ MrtO:~!dfi~1 Dema(Desl) Enter ~ "'" 2 " Enter from Exlerna! 2 38 I 381 seLUC 38 38 n .~ " <w, e 71 Total '" .., 1785 40.3 18" '" 1785 Balance Source: 2001 ITE Tr\! Generation Handbook Methodology Data SOuI'l:e: 7th Edll.lon Trip Generation Report Total " • 71 --- PROPOSED SITE -PM PEAK HOUR Reta~ Multl~use Development PM peak Internal Trip Calculation """, EnUIf from External I 31 ITE ~::,=vse2~:m tel SpecBlly Re!aa 814 ITt:. ~.,use;~25'<11 Oll:,~u .. v 710 1.49 Rata_ 2.71 Demaoo Jue$IJ oall!l1Ce U8ITHlf101LKI!ll ,'2% ... I ..... o· .. ·! CI:J , I '''' Internal External , "",,.,. &<,,.,. Entlll' J91@ 0 , Enter .. , 0 , Ed 3 $¥3%nlr;;;op:: I CI:J , I "" Ed , 0 , Tot;; 7 , Demend{Orlgl Baiaoci Demand (Dest) To'" " " &<=" I 31 Enter from E>:1e-rna1 ! 2! Exltto External I 9/ ~ " """ Demlltld (Oest) OemarJd{Orlg) % 100% I. "2%'·;::1, :0 ."'.:,1 0 '" o.m em ~- ~ Demand~ll 3% • "~' J.-:::--""~ Demand IDes!) Oemandl9:!!!l Demand !Qestl Jt:":\O .'. ~O "!It 1 __ 9%,.1 CO 0 ! 0% '" ! 0 ! 0 ! '" Oem; M~IQtj1 BetarlC8 B"""" ~ --::::----Balance Balal\Ce CI:J CI:J ~ ~~ CO CI:J ~ Demandl~l Oemero }DeSI) ----:;::::::-CI:J Demend(O!ig) 1,:-r;~a1t~t!<, ~ Dema~OriQJ : P~:,29;~ " ! 53% Balance I":! 1. ~_' 1~123%1 I-d D:s' -~ .... ci';:' .. ' :2%'-~ 2 •. Demlll !-"'-31%-" ~!p~:,29;~1 Exft to External Dema • 'Residential CAl ~'" ~) _, 1, ~--c '31, ents) Warehouse IITEUnd~. Apt; lUC220 o.sl I 0% I --lITE Larod Use.. Warehouse lUC 150 SIza.. 230 ""', . SIze. ~ led Rele _ n~'l2 Enter Imm External I DemandJDest) Balal'lC8 Demand(Or~ I II 51 I 921 Internal &tarnal 1""~'2"'T_'!~n<'Fj! c:I:J 1:::1',-0., "J.~-.:21O.4,.p,1 Internal Extemal EnIM ~ 92 Enter ~ 0 2 Enler from External External Ex1\ 50 ·so t "Ed ~ 0 5 I @ I soj Tf>'... 1"'~ 1'" rl'L r-;r---, I""-",m . -l'iS n~\ T,,'ml 7 n ., ~_~maI Enter External Exk Total E:<1ema1Tr¢ . InlemalTtips Ovoran AVllra~ Internal C::!-:: Pass-by Rate Pass-byT~ non-pass·by • __ fIIIoe...n· ....... _ Edernal Trip Rebl~'J "I'~ " 3 " 3 " ,., 7 0% o " 50 '" '.0 '" '" LUC710 seLUC , 9 " 0,5 " 0% o " , , 7 0.4 7 0% o 7 Total .. " '" " '" '" o '" Source: 2001 rYE Trip Generation Handbook Methodology Data Sourt:e: 7UI EdItloft T ~ Generation Report WIIn .... Pr>pp A.-.r.. En!&!' trom &lernal I 2\ Eldemal ! 11 ~) EJ\1 . _.d Balaroce c:o Demand (Oest) 1~31"'u:IIm7P.f'1"I Demand (Oest) !~~0"-~'1~9%"","1 Balance c:o Oemand(Orlg) 50 1 53% _ I PROPOSED SITE -AM PEAK HOUR Multl~use Development AM peak Internal Trip Calculation @'\'3!1'r~":$lfrJ DemandlOri!l) c:o "',~ (Orlg) \ 23~1 c=r=r:-:I1 % Demand (Dest) 'ID Balance Demand (Oest) Demand(Orig) o==J 'O"! 0'\"0·,·1 1% 1 0 Balance Balance c:o~ . "Bllance.J ~ c:o Demand (Oest) 1 I 6% Balance c:o Enter from Eldemal 1 111 Exn to External I 1\ ~-O Slze_ "" Rate _ Enler tram Eldernal ! 231 ,,,,,",, E>I~' Enter ~ 23 External &, 94 " ! 94' Tolal 117 117 EXternal frlps Relll~;'J '" LUC710 External Enter 2 23 11 Eldernal Ex~ 1 " 1 Total Eldemai Trips 3 117 " Internal Trips M ,. '.1 Gros.s Trips 3 117 " Overall Average Inlernal Capture Rale Pass"by Rate "'" "'" Pi1Ss--by T r1>S , 0 0 non-pass-by 117 " e)(\ernall101l-Pass~ Specialty RetaiiSl. Api; lUG 220 Office lUG 710 Warehouse LUG 150 ExftIrnalTo!al{norrplss--by only) ---... ~ ...... - sBLue Total • " 97 '" 0.1" 1.' 7 '" 1% "" 0 "B 'N OUT , 1 " 94 " 1 • 1 " 97 TOTAL 2 117 12 7 "B c:o tf, i:ib'Ult JdTS3l1 BallllCfI Source: 2001 rTE TflJ Ganeretlon Handbook Methodology Oala Source: 7th Edition Ttl> Genera1ion Report Slze_ 22.e7541 Rala _ 0.32 EKn to Eldemat Internal Extemai ! H ""~ m , • E,' Enter from ExtamaI , 1 ! ., To'" 7 , 7 -"'''-~ Technical Appendix Kennydale Apartments . SECTION 3: AM AND PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES INCLUDING DRIVEWAYS • Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 48th St (aka SE 76th St) o AM Peak Hour; 2011 Existing, 2013 without Project with Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall pipeline traffic and background growth, 2013 with Project o PM Peak Hour; 2011 Existing, 2013 without Project with Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall pipeline traffic and background growth, 2013 with Project • Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th SUI-405 NB Ramps o AM Peak Hour; 2011 Existing, 2013 without Project with Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall pipeline traffic and background growth, 2013 with Project o PM Peak Hour; 2011 Existing, 2013 without Project with Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall pipeline traffic and background growth, 2013 with Project • Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th SUI-405 SB Ramps o AM Peak Hour; 2011 Existing, 2013 without Project with Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall pipeline traffic and background growth,. 2013 with Project o PM Peak Hour; 2011 Existing, 2013 without Project with Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall pipeline traffic and background growth, 2013 with Project o SE 76 th SU116 th Ave SE (City of Newcastle) o AM Peak Hour; 2011 Existing, 2013 without Project with Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall pipeline traffic and background growth, 2013 with Project o PM Peak Hour; 2011 Existing, 2013 withou\Project with Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall pipeline traffic and background growth, 2013 with Project o NE 48 th SUW est Site Access and East Site Access o AM Peak Hour; 2013 with Project o PM Peak Hour; 2013 with Project wtZliam Popp Assoczates " KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 230-UNITS MIXED USE AM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENTS 1 d EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT Lk Washington Blvd/NE 48th St 2011 2013 Port extg Background Quindall AMPK " Growth near term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 12 14 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 309 19 10 138 8 8 2 0 0 187 11 18 0 0 0 847 52 50 Hawk's Landing trips 0 0 0 "0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 2013 Background AMPK 0 0 0 229 0 9 0 338 154 2 i18 0 951 12% 2 Lk Washington Blvd/NE 44th SIII-405 NB Ramps d "EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 2011 '-extg AMPK 267 ·142 257 193 147 66 14 114 99 48 29 313 1688 2013 Background Growth 16 9 16 12 9 4 1 7 6 3 2 19 103 KENYDALE.Xl7AM Turns Port Hawk's Quindall Landing ncar term trips 18 1 23 2 175 11 0 0 42 2 0 0 506 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2 796 46 2013 Background AMPK 302 176 458 205 200 70 549 121 IDS 51 30 366 2633 56% Kcnnydalc Apartments 230unit + 0 0 0 69 0 5 0 0 25 2 0 0 101 Kcnnydale Apartments 230unit + 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 0 2 27 40 94 2013 with Project AMPK 0 0 0 298 0 14 0 338 179 4 218 0 1052 11% 2013 with Project AMPK 312 l76 458 205 200 72 549 134 IDS 53 57 406 2727 4% 2011 extg AM PK 189 317 0" 211 0 140 389 447 2013 Background AM PK 221 347 0 238 0 157 447 493 2013 Wlth Project AM PK 223 352 0 312 0 184 516 518 2011 extg AM PK 389 447 474 407 666 289 478 226 2013 Background AM PK 447 493 1115 475 936 332 693 774 2013 with Project AM PK 516 518 1155 477 946 334 720 787 William Popp Associates . KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 230-UNITS MIXED USE . AM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENTS 3 Lk Washington Blvd/NE 44th 5111-405 SB Ramps EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 2011 extg AMPK 0 604 14 378 108 0 0 0 0 74 0 108 1286 2013 Port Background Quindall Growth near term 0 0 37 216 1 281 23 0 7 580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 o· 0 0 7 317 78 1394 4 SE 76th St/116th Ave SE EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT. WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 2011 March AMPK 10 0 89 10 2 4 34 178 1 3 55 125 511 2013 Background Growth 1 0 5 1 0 0 2 11 0 0 3 8 31 KENYOALE.XL7AM Turns Port Quindall neartenn 4· 1· 3 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 8 22 ~awk's umding trips 0 14 18 0 32 0 0 0 0 o. 0 18 82 Hawk's Landing, tiips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 2013 Background AMPK 0 871 314 401 727 0 0 0 0 79 0 450 2840 121% 2013 Background AMPK 15 1 97 11 3 4 41 189 1 3 58 141 564 10% K,ennydale Apartments 230unit + 0 1 0 35 5 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 50 Kennydale Apartments 230unit + 14 0 9 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 9 37 . 2013 with Project AMPK 0 872 314 436 732 0 0 0 0 88 0 450 2890 2% 2013 with Project AMPK 29 1 106 11 3 4 46 189 1 3 58 150 601 7% 2011 extg AM PK 182 0 216 486 618 678 392 0 2013 Background AM'PK 5280 1176 1128 1185 949 7150 2013 wIth Project AM PK 537 0 1181 1168 1186 959 7500 2011 March AM PK 183 192 161 16 99 4 154 213 2013 Background AM PK 202 208 185 18 113· 5 166 231 2013 Wlth PrOject AM PK 211 222 199 18 136 5 175 236 William Popp Associates KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 230-UNITS MIXED USE AM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENTS 5 NE 48th StlWesterly Site Access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 2011 AMPK 0 140 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 2013 Port Background Quindall Growth neartenn 0 0 9 8 0 0 0 0 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 22 6 NE 48th StlEasterly Site Access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 2011 AMPK 0 140 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 2013 Port Background Quindall Growth near term 0 0 9 8 0 0 0 0 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 22 Hawk's Landing trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 o Hawk's Landing trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 2013 Background AMPK 0 157 0 0 238 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 394 12% 2013 Background AMPK 0 157 0 0 238 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 394 12% KcnnydaJe Apartments 230unit + 0 5 22 7 14 0 60 0 13 0 0 0 121 Kennydale Apartments 230unit+ 0 . 13 5 7 7 0 14 0 '10 0 0 0 56 2013 with Project AMPK 0 162 22 7 252 0 60 0 13 0 0 0 SIS 31% 2013 with Project AMPK 0 170 5 7 245 0 14 0 10 0 0 0 450 14% 2011 AM PK 00 211 140 00 2013 Background AM PK 00 238 157 00 2013 with Project AM PK 00 312 184 29 73 2011 AMPK 00 211 140 00 2013 Background AM PK 00 238 157 00 2013 WIth Project AM PK 00 259 175 i224 211 140 238 157 259 175 211 140 238 157 252 180 KENYDALE.XL7AM Turns WlIIiam Popp Associates 1 EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 2 EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT· SBT SBRT KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 230-UNITS MIXED USE PM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENTS Lk Washington Blvd/NE 48th St 2011 2013 Port extg Background Quindall PMPK Growth near tenn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 10 13 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 200 12 23 165 10 20 10 1 0 274 17 14 0 0 0 821 50 70 Hawk's Landing trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 2013 Background PMPK 0 0 0 190 0 6 0 236 195 10 307 0 944 15% Lk Washington Blvd/NE 44th 5111-405 NB Ramps 2011 2013 Port extg Background Quindall PMPK Growth near term 59 4 43 149 9 58 28 2 431 76 5 0 171 10 35 38 2 0 10 1 425 268 16 0 143 9 o .. 0 63 4 0 24 1 0 354 22 27 1382 84 1019 Hawk's Landing trips 1 2 15 0 2 0 26 0 0 0 0 2 48 2013 Background PMPK 107 218 475 81 218 40 461 284 152 67 25 405 2534 83% Kennydale Apartments 230unit + . 0 0 0 45 0 4 0 0 70 5 0 0 124 Kennydale ~partments 230unit + 34 0 0 0 0 2 0 34 0 2 18 25 115 2013 with Proj~t PMPK 0 0 0 235 0 10 0 236 265 15 307 0 1068 13% 2013 with Project PMPK 141 218 475 81 218 -42 461 318 152 69 43 430 2649 5% K!::NYDAlE.XL7PM Turns 2011 extg PM PK 284 205 0 172 0 174 441 365 2013 Background PM PK 317 242 0 196 0 205 497 431 2013 h P w,t to eel PMPK 322 246 0 245 0 280 542 50t 2011 extg PM PK 441 365 535 285 235 355 128 421 2013 Background PM PK 497 431 1084 340 800 436 582 897 2013 wlth Project PM PK 542 501 1109 342 834 438 600 931 William Popp Associates 3 EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 4 EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRY KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 230-UNITS MIXED USE _ PM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENTS - Lk Washington Blvd/NE 44th Stll-40S SB Ramps 2011 2013 Port May Background Quindall PMPK Growth near term 0 0 0 191 12 532 27 2 691 279 17 0 220 13 487 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 10 0 5 0 0 218 13 266 1104 67 1976 SE 76th St/116th Ave SE 2011 2013 Port lanIFeb Background Quindall PMPK Growth near term 109 7 11 3 0 1 37 2 8 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 18 1 5 71 4 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 136 8 0 94 6 7 477 29 33 Hawk's Landing trips 0 18 23 0 30 o _ 0 0 0 0 0 16 87 Hawk's Landing trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 2013 Background 0 0 753 743 296 750 0 0 0 0 174 5 513 3234 193% 2013 Background PMPK 127 4 47 1 2 2 24 75 2 3 144 107 539 13% Kennydale Apartments 230unit + 0 4 0 22 3 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 59 Kennydale Apartments "230unit + 10 0 7 0 0 0 9 0 0 - 0 0 15 41 2013 with Project 0 0 757 743 318 753 0 0 0 0 204 5 513 3293 2% 2013 with Project PMPK 137 4 54 1 2 2 33 75 2 3 144 122 580 8% KENYDALE.Xl7PM Tums 2011 May PM PK 387 0 -438 499 218 355 311 0 2013 B k dO ac groun 6930 I 1264 1046 1495 927 1044 0 2013 with Pro·eel 0 7230 1267 1071 1499 961 10660 2011 lanIFeb PM PK 233 182 113 4 149 8 174 91 2013 Background PM PK 254 204 1j3 5 178 9 193 102 2013 w"th Pro"eet PM PK , , 269 214 157 5 195 9 200 III William Popp Associates 5 EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NELT NET NERT SBLT SBT SBRT 6 EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 230-UNITS MIXED USE PM PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENTS NE 48th StlWesterly Site Access 2011 2013 Port Hawk's Background Quindall Landing PMPK Growth near term trips 0 0 0 0 174 11 20 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 347 21 33 o NE 48th SVEasterly Site Access 2011 2013 Port Hawk's Background Quindall Landing PMPK Growth near term trips 0 0 0 0 174 11 20 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 347 21 33 o 2013 Background PMPK 0 205 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 16% 2013 Background PMPK 0 205 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 16% Kennydale Apartments 230unit + 0 10 65 12 9 0 40 0 10 0 0 0 146 KennydaJe Apartments 230unit+ 0 10 10 12 12 0 9 .. 0 7 0 0 0 60 2013 with Project PMPK 0 215 65 12 205 0 40 0 10 0 0 0 547 36% 2013 with Project PMPK 0 215 10 12 208 0 9 0 7 0 0 0 461 15% KENYDALE.XL7PM Turns 2011 PM PK 00 172 172 174 174 00 2013 Background PM PK 00 196 196 205 205 00 2013 WIth Project PM PK 00 245 217 280 225 77 50 2011 PM PK 00 172 172 174 174 00 2013 Background PM PK 00 196 196 205 205 00 2013 wah Project PM PK 00 217 220 225 222 22 16 William Popp Associates Technical Appendix Kennydale Apartments SECTION 4: AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES Analysis Periods: o 2011 AM and PM Peak Hours (Existing Conditions) o 2013 Future Background (includes non-attributable background growth plus known pipeline project's Hawk's Landing and Port Quendall) o 2013 with Project; AM and PM Peak Hours (including mitigated scenarios) Analysis Intersections: o Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 48th St (aka SE 76th St) o Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StJI-405 NB Ramps o Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StJI-405 SB Ramps o SE 76 th Stl1l6th Ave SE (City of Newcastle) o NE 48 th StlWest Site Access and East Site Access Wzllzam Popp Associates ---------------------------------------------- Technical Appendix Kennydale Apartments 2011 AM AND PM PEAK HOURS (EXISTlNG CONDITIONS) Analysis Intersections: • Lake Washington Boulevard NEfNE 48th St (aka SE 76th St) • Lake Washington Boulevard NEfNE 44th St/I-405 NB Ramps • Lake Washington Boulevard NEfNE 44th St/I-405 SB Ramps • SE 76 th Stll16th Ave SE (City of Newcastle) W,zLzam Popp Assoczates HeM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 48th St & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 lb.t~r§EfcJLQrilSUmh1~atX§k.~'i!1~~M~#.kc~~mll&t~i'l~~#~~1 > Average Delay 4.9 !fi;ei~Ei~t\6~'£~pr;:~ity".l.)tilf~~\!9fi;intln,"1~.~~W9··j;~;i~U;lgl.)·.·LEiv~IJ§i!~EiiYi~El\);::(;fjgH'{·?·\;;*if!1H;:(i~%t~J;;'Zii£i!.O]:l.! Analysis Period (min) 15 E:i;V;~t~~{~AE:gf~ff,i:~t~:ti~~+EY{~~m!fk¥:;B~~t\~:t,i!:*/~::ii1+\7t..:~(;:":~\\:r.:,;. ·::;!i;::;~;~;r;t;Y\~:\~~~;,~;~G!::,:,~~;:~ " _~S :<":.~' t'~', -~;,' (i' __ ~~;: .. ~;. ;lE~t(Y; ~?irisl~1.~~m1t~'TII!illr c:~tj.r~ Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2011 AM PK --Existing Conditions Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th 8t & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 &'1ovei;r1~M; .. ,i~~!l&EB~EBtiE:BBb1\lY!\!ili&'6!!3m~fll~Liir&!2.~~~$aIli'i'.5$J~jjj~;.mIDl! Lane Configurations It 1> It t r 4+ . 4' r .$Tg~-~~!~~l:~~ 7~:F~~~.·:·:i:·;'; i~: ;~~_;f:?~~: ~~~t6~L~i~ /~}~~f;~p~:~~ru:.;?~.! ;$.~~p~:1-.\·:~::t{~E5 ~ITi~~E;l: §t§~lD,~~!-(8~):!;.~:-:;;f)T:~~r~~f§pj~Y~I::~B ~ Volume (vph) 267 142 257 193 147 66 14 114 99. 48 29 313 .~~~~:~:o~r:Fiicj~:r~)i;::;;;·':::Q;~if:';'ii:~Q:,:o}iQ;1~ii;~Q;PjJ;~Q;:C6JJfl2;@:~(f);;:;~Q~§ii'<Eg;$:9;i;,'Sj;9g~[6i~Q;r;i~,Cf§_Q Hourly flow rate (vph) 297 158 286 214 163 73 16 127 110 53 32 348 ~irec\ioD,:L!ane,# ~" .. ;)~'EBI.t:::· ;.:EB, 2 ,.'WEl~1B"W B!2f.:&v.B~3j.':I'iIB~'1!'~.$qB~1.~mS.Eir2L~~§f:!i&."1Idl'!iiMll Volume Total (vph) 297 4,43 214 163 73 252 86 348 V cil~iiiele:~.(vptii;·:.·.·.~ •. : •..• 29? \[;";9: ·.,·:2{~.:; ••.•.• ·:0 'ii.6:; (1.6::(':\[:5:3;:', ;;;:QT;·;U;:~j,j;,;\:;;;;f}H;i;:;i';;.:~:~:;: Volume Right (vph) 0 286 0 0 73 110 0 348 H?9j'(if';;r;; ,<:~"'/. ,,6$'3;, :o3?,:'0§~ ",·Q(j~,:':9.,61?:q~22,;'·O,~~';:':9.·~t;: Departure Headway (5) 8.7 7.7 9.2 8.7 3.2 8.5 8.9 7,9 ,Degree Qtiiizaiioi'i;'x(~; ,.' : o. il :Q;~2::0:?5: .b:3~J ~::Q:<i7 ·'6:~9·';b21~i .'i 6,?~:i :;t:;;;::;:!:;i~:;:}:;:i3:Z:;':;~'~',; Capacity (veh/h) 404 461 379 407 1121 410 396 443 C6iitroiDelaY(s)f r '~" . '.29:4';562 •. :'21 :1 •• ·.16:0:'.·5:2::23::1' ,"i3'f':30'if;: '::!~ii:,i;';:iiiIii~;i?l~F~F,2:~ AppiciachD'e;'ay(;{ "45,4 ...... '" ·'i''7.6'· "" .. ' .. 2:i:t'2i:j" , . t,ippro.ac~L.9.$~l})!;:~:.i:;.S,E:l;.· ::, •.. :,::.' .' :,"S> i: i,,':' }:t'iP';:o> :.: t~:i;;;·B~:~;.m:C;~i,;;:;;lny;. :i;~:;,; I Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2011 AM PK --Existing Conditions Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 44th St & 1-405 SB Off-Ramp" 5/23/2011 Int\ir~·e.Ctiprjl.Stlli1matYm~",'!it.iif.lMB!i\jlii\:i:@111wit~Ai~\ii!~~_M..~Jm;~!a~1i!6·1i.t_~~ Average Delay 61.5 " I~!~£~¥()i]~6'8}rp~9iW;8t!i"i.~<;t!9ri~F;ci/F~r§1:!'r~h;fi'~'"·IC:;.V.·~~Ve.I;§C~e.ryIS~:c:;;'~:i;;;!i~i:m&:(:2ifig;0}Jt;ji~::gf';{Y'}; Analysis Period (min) 15 t;2,N;~;:dX\I:: :{C[CfBB~lt.~;:}};:(;:i~:(inp&± ~:t:iU;Ui~:2~i:~~LS~~ ~'~:sl\!8'E&2~;D~:~:~.<~ -<~, ~ ", ' ~L ,~,~~, ;~: ,,~,~ ;~~;~ ;:; ~-~:';r}~(}~';~~i -;2:'::';:G:~~~\+:r'~:':~~'~ ~:~; ~:;~< '~'!. Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2011" AM PK -, Existing Conditions Synchro 6 Report Page 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SE 76th ST & 116th Ave SE , t 5/23/2011 to,QQ'(trii'~ijf,5..L5t:Mgi..!'dtEJ3JkiiEBq_,;.'_.~!lJi1lh;J'l\'iJl.lkii..tiB~ElIil8.l&a~f"JBJB~15$~<!,j$Bm;:!sBiil Lane Configurations 4> 4>, 4> ,4> ~~~~}~~njrC?f ;~:~J)}.t,:~~~~~\ :;i~t:'::3~~\]:$:f~p~~:~~ :~3.;.'~;~'~:-:;r·;?~:~~;~~~$!Q'p~::::::::~m.::.I~i.;i~1Ym~~)t~t9Jqp:~j~~,?:--~(~:·i·;~~~~~}jjlr¥\~~~~fqp.;::tt:~i~~!.~1";; Volume (vph) 10 1 89 10 2 4 34 178 1 3 55 125 e~?K89.gf,'~~cj-'?I:~;',"~.i';Q.,~iy:J;iQ;,96~:rO)Q::"Q·;~:~;::iQ'9~(n!gQ:~Ji:'!\Tg;,9,9S::TI(9:96::S;:q':$'9!7r:Q:[Qjii~Q\:$Q;.itIt9,O Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 1 99 11 2 4 38 198 13 61 139 Jjirectibrr'EQa'fjef #E~ EJ:':f l. ;p!3i~1Ji1W_B¥'_~!."_ ,~~~t1;::1Satiw~::~;lt1!t~:'\->.,tii· ~I,§t·,u ~"~i!l~~;},~l!.~ga~~.A<i&J Volume Total (vph) 111 18 237 203 Volylii~~~ft(;,phi,;::!:/,;) i, .J( ,; ,3~" ";;:'3, ' Volume Right (vph) 99 4 1 139 8~dj:(~j.:::: .~y;;!: .;:;,;;:,;:b'1~ ;:::P;9t', ::p,.66' ~9;37., Departure Headway (s) 4.4 5.0 4.5 4.1 begie,nJiillzaijohiiiWi1~>6;14:"i;(i:62. ,'6:'29' ":0:23;," Capacii)i(vehifij"i40 '638i75' a3S ¢6niroiDela{ (5)'.":':::/>8'\ ',.',;~8.2'" 9.3; ," ,8:3:., Approac'fiOelay (5)8.18','2 9.3 ii.3 ' !ippl:oaS:~{9S~:";::'?!::;;;;'::·. A?:~,:",:':i:, i"A,' ",:i{ \ Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2011 AM PK"-Existing Conditions Synchro 6 Report , Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 48th St & Lk Wa Blvd Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2011 PM PK --Existing Conditions 5/23/2011 SynChro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized.lntersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & Lk Wa Blvd t 5/23/2011 Mo}eJfientt<i:Lg:.it\.EB~'i;:1E6T:::1EBRt,;.IwBil:0W~S~8~\t",1!!Jl!illt'i1N8~S8~$,e:JtiS8§ Lane Configurations . '. \'j . f>. ...... .. \'j. t f. 4+... . 4+ 9 fg ~::9~nJf.q t~_::~ ~ :"; ::tn~~\{1t~~: /;·~~:T.S~~~;~.t,c~ R ,,"} 'j ~i:~ :~!-~:~';':2~':, ,:~:. ~ 'l ~)!'9fqR:~r~ (';,: '::,_·b\\~itr~f·.:::!i~<~,:~r~I?:~Z~~gT ~,::~~:; ;J}z:l:IfC~f9PI:.f{~;~f~~;~ Volume (vph) 59 149 28 .76 171 38 10 268 143 63 24 354 A~1~;~~fgX-~~~~0~~r;;:-i]d:g~H:-'~~~'.:;:P:~~;:':'o:~r:~;;.~~·~r;;':9.1F;]ji:{l;";'%~~:)j;b{~R::-'ii:~~i;;jq;~~t~~~~~ pjte6tiotii~6aHalt;!;: -G;·l,~~E~E~~2')·.W,B31C·:,.W;8~2i.:~WB~;3t_j~8lJb;:1SB§1I;JJ,~~~~1~~.&·~~~'~1 Volume Total (vph) 64 192 83 186 '41 458 479 ~~~T;'-~jr;~~~8_i:~<'~;;~-:~~;,o'ir:·i Q.;:i-:, ,iO'~~::. ::o:;~~':: ;,dJ~· •• '~jl~';~;:,:'~::;::,:;:;, i,i :t'i 'J::~l"~:,JJ;~;T;~:::'},; " Departure Headway (s) 9,1 8.5 9,1 8,5 3,2 6,9 6,7 Degres'Utilizatioiir;t>; "O'i16 ':0:45 ';: 0'~'2 f;['OA4'i: 0,04:0,88' ""b',8s';,: ;:', T., Capaciiy (vell/ii) " 380' 399 381'395 1121' 503 '528'" 99rti,Oi,QeifiY(sl:'i,'{,'2:12:7!'i1tt:,'" 1 :i'f')li9, ." 5:1'/ 4,2:,2'42:q,';; ;';:;,'}' ,';' . Approach Delay (s) 16,0 14.4 42,2 42,0 ~ppio,aii.fiLb$~.'t'~'~'<:,:(;f;.i;;'::,,:, 8"i' '(,"i"' .• --",".;,':''''::: Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2011 PM PK " Existing Conditions Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HeM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 44th St & 1-405 S8 Off-Ramp 5/23/2011 Y.nl~(S?'9Jt9t1lS_u_nrr],aryl~%i~~]1~Sfu.~ti;&~~$lgf,fh~~_~J,~~~~~~~kl\~)t~~?r~~~~~~olr~~$tj Average Delay 70.0 I !pt.%rs.~C;jigHg~ii!{citY';Qiiii.~~i[i>il;[!;;';i;:;:.!··4~\5%'.r"';:{lg,g·Pfj~~I)~\.$~rvisf~;:::;"E'·:;if}:.t1Ki:\:t~Ecfin;;[~!};ifT:;2N;;fJD! Analysis Period (min) 15 fg{~-~fm~T~,~,¥i,V2fEiL::~?~fffrri ;!lH~:m:~'i>.j :' },~j"r\;:; ,·;h~~/m:/::\;::!~~l/}~:::~z:nj;:~;~~\::.;:mfrtI:;:S:.t~;~;PT:fI~~:2?E1f:ZTnS:l~;i~'d:T~T)-D:DT~~2f:;{r;~{}~j:3\~·~?cl~1'UFEUj'; Kenriydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2011 PM PK --Existing Conditions Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 8E 76th 8T & 116th Ave 8E Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2011 PM PK--Existing Conditions t 5/23/2011 Synchro 6 Report .. Page 1 -- Technical Appendix Kennydale Apartments 2013 FUTURE BACKGROUND (INCLUDES NON-ATTRIBUTABLE BACKGROUND GROWTH PLUS KNOWN PIPELINE PROJECT'S HAWK'S LANDING AND PORT QUENDALL) Analysis Intersections: o Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 48th St (aka SE 76th St) o Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StJI-40S NB Ramps o Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th StJI-40S SB Ramps o SE 76'h Stll16'h Ave SE (City of Newcastle) Wzlham Popp Assoczates HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 48th 8t & Lk Wa Blvd Lane Configurations ¥ 1> "i t 8.iiiii'Ciintr6F,::';a;. ·~S.iejJ." ;L, . fr.~e<.:·,;;; ~;';. ·C.;~·):= r~e;;: Grade 0% 0% 0% Y. ~~:ijf ~ : (Y.~~~lfir. ~,:~.~ ;'~.': Ti~';~ :,~~ E??~~;''1';~;::~ : : J:~~ ;~:: )~§[~~:.:~ ;j.; ~~~ ;';, {i~ i" ~~ ~;:~ ~·~~~:n~~;~·jf:J):'~~ ;jl'li:r~~ ~ ;i;~1;\N}J:~~lA:ti . Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 fio,u!.!y: fl~W'raf~ '\vph)T.:i244:;r;::.· .iCc c :; :'3~iF~-;)'64 :;:·:··'·'·.~.1:~2~2::~ Pedestrians l:a'ne)'JIdiii(ttj· , Y,., vVall<ing Speed (Ws) PercerifSlockage; Righttu'ii'i Ila'iEi (vefij ." ~. fv1edi~ ritYJ'le.:L. '.-,' ',' .,;. :.~9!1e; ;"". :;" ;:. Median storage veh) '",' . Up'strearD slgnai (tt)<. pX, pla:!oclnunblocked' vC;corillietlngvolume -;;:6?§; .•• ~~ j . vci,iiage'1' conf vol' ijC2;stage 2confyo[. .. ,.,," . vCu,uiiblockedvoi '678 441 tc::,S!6gJi:(~)<; ;., ·6A;./ 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) iF,(S)c'.:}:: ~':':f , .. ,''::.' .).?3.3· ..... . pO queue free % 42 98 523, 523 '4:) . F~ :~apil~ijy(&e,h!h ).';>;~:~4, 1_~;d:61 ~. '" ': /:;.. '. 1 048" 5/23/2011 " JDimctionr lkarie<#"~ ~_':~ ;'., W·a:~1!~·\ '~B::1~· . S8'~1:··Z!'IS8',2,-.t.;..~ .. J~JfJ;,'" 1;-}~j~.:.,j.:;;itv!~t·;*;~~~tt!::&:t:.tL,;~~t~:,fu~::~~~;fj i{ o.lu!1J ~ JIgtal ,,':,;, ~::. ,;, :g ?3~:S;::'!~~~ i; :.:] ".Ai?:3?: ,; .':.: ~\ ::: .:;' ·,:J'·;,··,;',,!,L·':C;;, .,;;<{/,;.)·,h:?; :;:':"::';"J,i,':L';; .: Volume Left 244 0 2 0 VolilrTjeF.ji91i(t,.'" ·;UO\'.; 16A,(")li":;(:\,i;O,, ';i ';. ':;;i .. cSH 424 1700 1048 1700 yoIH[iii)qc::ap~C:iiY:;· . ,'o;¢q:: :o:~iJ;'" 0,.00<0)4, C . '. Queue Length 95th (tt) 95 0 0 0 . 86n.tr~![')elaYl s).;;:.i·:~;. ?!)'~L~:;Q·O •.•. ':[1i'1,;.;_ ;6:91 Lane LOS 0 A ~~~i~~~g:f~~'';(S)J: '. :2~:6:):;::!:o ,9>' ·9] "X:;':' " . 6,4 ' .. 4 '7J %:+S:i:i'. iCU·.l:eveI6j~eiYiq~:.,:rjj:':';;:;i;:;~~Crf.:,;)r,:P;;i,';;::· .. 15 KennydaJe Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --Background plus pipeline' Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & Lk Wa Blvd . 5/23/2011 Mbiii!itl'il"'~W:iMllili~_Bmli~J!F,ltfi~mJ~.illi'I\~~EtF.ii'.mI1!§~~~~~i_$.t,{~ Lane Configurations 'l.To.. .. 'i t. ." .. 4> 4> eJ~1~9ii~£mii~EJ~U:~:~~:ft~~W;~j~:';:~;~h\m'~4J~!:~p.:_~A:.iI:;1~~~:;~\~~I:1~{~'~~~i~;i:·~~~p.:'i%~~{~;'G.lE!~~{~,Hf~m~~(~tI§!9R~'~11}9~~}~JJ~}THI~~l¥f:l~I9'e~:~~~}I~iJ~f~ Volume (vph) 302 176 458 205 200 70 549 121 105 51 30 366 g~~E:E~gr;fa';i~LHtij;i2t;,b·~~je~:9;~§:~lm,Q;~[fi;;g:~§11(·;:(J..,~§:;kAq;~.$:R;;\d~~.~!!tl\{g'~§~H~-g;~~fiFKg;g$,~,:;:L@~~t;!Ko.·~~ Hourly flow rate (vph) 318 185 482 216 211 74 578 127 111 54 32 385 !)ljte1:b>ih~'lJf8'Qe't#'.i!ll(tiJ:El~1li®EI3}2'la.W.Bhl~iVY,ElI'?.iiiV':lBreliili\ll3~!i!!!I.£t~~.~ Volume Total (vph) 318 667 216 211 74 816 471 y:ol§fii~~:g~H~{yp.6)1~.f;;,~,:~':~.:;;,;~:,~~~)~'?~:;::;i~:\~);~(9:((.~~.:~C~I~;;~:~~~Y~IC9~:r;~};7XQ}:ff;,:!X§~~~W~Ff§~;?m:t~]~:U·~~~~~}G'~(;}~~H~m:~~~%~:~~:)1YklC::::'·~:;!£~~5/ Volume Right (vph) 0 482 0 0 74 111 385 B ~f.Jj .~'( ~ )';~~f~·;'r-X1?i:~i~i?~XT:,:~)~r,9: ~.$~t~!;~,~Q} ~;?ifk:f,9:';:§~ :':~~~~~ qJ?~~(:i:f.~J?::€7Ti:yr:':Q·~6g!',~f~~.q:::1.$.:n;,;E?E_E2ifit~,~1:t~~?~~I;BfD~:~;~:~E?~it:l rr~~%TI] 9. Departure Headway (s) 9.8 8.8 10.2 9.7 3.2 9.1 8.6 pE!~ie~:~ji)I~align(;<7il)\\; 6,'8~;·.~(:'1.;1l3J"'Q··~J1ilFQ1~?:(i1:Q'·9i.iY'?i9·§\~'!'·f1?('5;'1~;;'Ei'{:i':%!~mil':;i:"12t1H;:t?~2f;;!;:~g!·. Capacity (veh/h). 356 414 '. 346 .362 1121 . 403. 433 .. ..' ~o'nfi()T\f5~i'?IY/(~)\:;·~i,;· •• ~!r49·.~f·~I.{1:;.X?·Ei;6:;r·?~)W:ii~2·;:i$0~j.f;1 Q8~:'";]·.j';'i!,:;:i,~:·!,!jttIl:t'm!)/~;i;?:i&[:;':1:"i·'?:c%' Approach Delay (s) 229.2 22.0 ~ 504.3· 108.8 ~p·pf,9~~?~~~J;g:?J:~;~B:.~E:nX~'::f~::.~(~10_:.f,;~:;:JI ;~Em\~::!;R,~':;::::,i~}~,:1~~B~¥tt:::;;~1~Wfi,*.N)};/~i<f;,[;';;,:{"; ~'~Et:.;~(~i~j.n~B~~?t0;~~JJ~::{ttsJ;tm}c,~H~1tl~~;}%j~(8': Kennydale Apartments (mixed u~e) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --Background plus pipeline Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 44th St & 1-405 SB Off-Ramp 5/23/2011 !!I1b~eriter1t:;;.;';' ;;1'.;11 ;:.>'i;l3iL.-,!, EB.'f[l~EB!'C,W Bi'f\(W,i3[Jli.:.'WS8.'i.: ~!!IB\l\gllti1sitiE'jt:JB B~"B.t1irg;'K$.a;T~.s1l.!i.j Lane Configurations 1> 'i t 4' r $Tg~~~~.9i1jf.qt~~.; :",:~._::~~~; 'r~'0·'-,~.L';-::\T~~~·-~\~f i.~:~~::; ~~:,{ :;};2~~:': ·:·~K:~{·s.~~~:j:h;~·1 :';'~~~.~;~t:.T~:~ ~:!~~I~Jp~~~~':ll~;;~l:;~I;t~~~D·,G"lt:~~;}~ ~;§e:_T::;lji;I;1~; Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Si~lu .iii~:fve.61h f~i~' :j;; ;;~.:;;;:;Q:7,·' 8 t j, :;;"3,11";'Z,;': 19 f .' ::;';:t?'~,;i '.:::: (:;;gi :';'[ ,,'(j~;!!;.':\ Q;~(:':@, .;r:i'fi;!9:\f;~';;;;;;1r:(ITi;'!!ill Peak Hour Factor 0,95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0,95 0,95 .89,Y.[IY}i§"iIa:!e.3,!phj':;;'.i;::;g';!,9.'fl1;;:::·,3~}i:;Ak?ii. t~9!E_i:;:o,~:',!;/Q:;~;:~'~;3i;ik,i;:('~Q5~ifT:~3,i'L!~UJ:~:<t~7.~ Pedestrians gioi6~Wid!~.(fiL\'U::;,': . Walking "peed (Ws) perceMBiockagil"!." . ~;.'\' "" Righi turn' flare (veh)" .... , Meaian"type :,-.,i,:'.;-,,;,;:';, _.,.],';: Median'storage vehr-"" l}j':lsl'~a.rTl~ig~al(ft):; : .. pX, platoon unblocked tg\~~i~ci~\i~~~~~flv~~: :.:': !El5;::,X::i:;i;iE~~,;,:J?1I' ',: '., '., )it:; ?;sfag e?G.9 ~f YEI,: ,i:, c.:. ::::;: )'ii ::: L ;';:;~:; ~\'c,L:': :,: :: :. ~::~; vCu, unblocked vol 765 1247 i.9',"single(s):";:i:::/4:r, .. ":>, . .4.\ .. c:, " tC, 2 stage (s) [F:(s);, .'~::. :,,;. _ •..•. : . "';:];;;,?X, .:.'.:', . ':;':'?c? . ' ..•. ·C' ·:i!:ii.} i'4LQ'i';;,~Xf;;:2;1i~:5:TJ;_{6:;;;!T3:~ pO queue free % 100 24 0 100 100 0 74 0 ~.rvi~a~acitY .(ve.6ih),'·;.SM: :f:;··. ". ,; :.':.:.::. ·.".: ... 5~a: ,:").~ i:,·.' :",: .. : ';~' 'rO ':':.: /0~: :;;:!?~~.':')~U~:? :;( •• 4.::J4li~ Average Delay 1868.1 lilt,,'rsectiqt1 CapaCity Utilj:ia:tion.::;';;10)~6oj., Anaiys'is 'Period (min)' . .... 15 ~~:;":.~_~);,,;' ~;~::;{', ,,~,.~'~ ~-: ;, ... ::~t!_~~t:,·~ l'~;/>:' ,';.;, .•.. -, -',,'., Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --Background plus pipeline Synchro 6 Report Page 1 , ' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SE 76th ST & 116th Ave SE -I> <I-. 5/23/2011 t Mo.M'rl\"e-ljJtt~_~~t't'if~;!;LE:BmJ~B.i!.>@@!i\k%';XJ~m'4t~~\\@Plti'JBiMit~Il!~@Jil1'f.i1§@JlIli!ii(El.Bj1ifJ§mi! Lane Configurations 4> 4> 4> . 4> . BJgDit?9blt9JZm;,f~;.~zE£~K;2}&i~';I~i~gF~~§J.28I{D:£~;:Ji:~~~tq{;~i]Yii~4;~§§}~m~.ji}~1'j£iI~(~;mj~I~~:'!~{~!§'~;1~_t~{~:t~~;!~~;!;~!K0:~I9.1i:~t~~~1~:i;1~:· Volume (vph) 15 1 97 ·11 3 4 41 189 1 3 58 141 fJ~~giH9Yr;:~~Pl9t;;if;i)';;';~:5~~o~l\;;;q:gQi~::R:~<igli·;9j~,g~;!;6}!q:;m:qi~!I~~~g~:~Or0j:9;~R;l;;;spii@i.z:a,[~9JrH:il.;$Qg;;KQ~9,6 Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 1 108 12 3 4 46 210 1 3 64 157 j)i[eCtiQb'~i!faTh·er#~~\11'''1I!!E:B.!iaw.BJiliti.i!lila;t!MS!3g1~~~~~ Volume Total (vph) 126 20 257 224 w~J.mn~~:~~~fl·~(YP~}_~~~;;~ff};n?1;fAt\~~;~f~~'~\;i..;J~?.~f~~:::;:i~~::4Ji~·;(:]i.f:,"~;i~j~tl';'_~~1~~:fl;.~~,~;;~~,~};·~iH\:%:· :{~!:?~~~,';-!~~tir:~~§J~~g~;:i~i,t.~iWnLi~:,~;,{~~f,~·~:~:J~0~~~~{UF~0 Volume Right (vph) 108 4 1 157 B .~~)J ~ )ITij"!,J [~a:,)J~~;';',:~:F;::~:i~t :}~fQ~i? ~:~':g: q [Q~.~!~:};_,.Q~~Q.7;ht ~~.Q;.$~ :jII~fj i~';IH ir\~ :,::t:g~~:l ~\f):~Tf{}ir:'pr;l'm:'Y:~Ht;gf;Z~ t:10::~~;;Efl~~~j~::,,}t:;I~12~c~~;~I~x:i Departure Headway (s) 4.5 5.2 4.6 4.2 peQ ~~~:'iq.\i J ~~~~Jq~n.' r~ ~~F-;i~fi_9 }~,:,:~:3:{Q,;9 ~:1t)~: Q ~~~ :,~{~;, 9 ;g~:i~?:~~~':!;ff:·i !}:~;fl}~~itt~/~e?f&:~}~~~:~:~]!:!~,(~~t?:!~{N ~~!;~W~~:~Z:?~".~·~.~~;.!..~t:fifln?~r:t~;-.:; Capacity (veh/h) 715 614 759 820 cl5'"riff9i:',t),~'1 ay' ,;( $) :';j{ -',?t ;-': [;<:):~:§A{1~~;~\~~.: ?'i:[ :y::;I~,~ij.~:t;i(:§ ~.6}~r~~~~,;:,t~i:;r;~~?:ns!":~Ski;t);\· ~:\~{;t~;l\fsi; !,,:t~jj:~jjL··\;'Bj{ltl~:'~:0J~Iii~~~jJ.~{rg~::L~~{~\i~.:' Apiiroac-Ii Delay (s) 8.4 8.3 9.7 8.6 ~PP'?'C?~9,~~:4P~_~;-Egt~~:~<fi:~~';:;~f~n~~~Hf:/~~;tA-::\JF~_IT?}~::~j,2ltt'~:/f<~f-~.f:t~~_::1;;~~',;,;:,~{:':T;~~~~:'::: ;~~Vt:;~!~~t;,~;;~!ttr~~~nm:~1'\;i1:':~m~~~~1~?tJxtf}S&~;£:7X~{Y~.U~ Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --Background plus pipeline . Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 48th St & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 . f;1$Ye(iiEfi,j),;,:L~tiFij,W.BIl,.l1.\V\lBB'.;~J~I3J!'i$ltilI3Jijr:;'j§B.WS]:lit't:il:ii:V Jli;f¥;i'W'~~..:i:idtE:&;%i£l Lane Configurations ¥ fo I>j t ~!g~~·:~~r~Tf:9r~~:~JL~~t;1~;;l~:~:/~f~p.,:.f~'t:·;;;:~ ?~\ ~ff~.~::~·'~':~j;~~;~~:}~t~~:?~i?L"_ft?~~r':;';~:~'il:~~':~~;~~:~;::t:?L LS~~':::::{!~X~;:i;<:~i:f;~',t~Sr;E}-; :~/[f~2jf . Grade 0% 0% 0% ~9ii:rw~ejye~i~I~};::":.·c;;.jj·,~p; :;3:; ·':;6i1 .• {?3EiY;?h~5·\I>:fg;f1;,:}ot;:!;!'~t:;~?T;'~rG·:(~t;;~;;::i~j;F~~;·:::;';;;~;,~rf";! Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Bp:Y.t!y,;!!§SYJ~!~; (:yp~~ h~~:,~~~~:~'~g, ·,::,~L::_,~~?·~\~: ?~~;~. :.'.~:?~~$-';;·J.J.~~~~:-~',~~?:!:~.\:'~~~;lI {:J>::'.\r~<·lit~Et{:·:.i:t':{~~~~~~.,~j'~-:S~~~2j~::f~,~: Pedestrians ~a.n.e).yk!t~(ft)i ',."., Walking Speed (It/s) PercentBlockage'; 'co.,: .•. ':":.:.,, Righi turn tiare(veh; t"fedian.type, ,,: ';", •.•..• ,·.N~r~.,( . Median stor~ge~~h) .. lJP.sFe§·0sig~~J (ft).:;i:; ;;",;): pX, platoon unblocked vC: ciirillictingvolume' '( :865 ::407,T ~C:i.s·iage i' conivo[ . '" , .. : ,. ...'< ,"', . ~gj:jiag~:~?~:~~(::ypJL~'::~~~;i:i;; .~:~~. ·'·~~?ii~\:5a ~~~;,'~'~:~:~i:~0~:~~{~~:_~~·~·~ if: >~~ >:':'~~~~~~~_ --~:. \:.~~~,<:: : .. ~i,: .~: ~!.~;::': 4-::~:~,,~. ~.(<'.:~~ ~:~~~~~:~ vCu, unblocked vol 805 407 526 iC;'sIngie:(sj :/:;:.0:' ,:i ':6.4 ' s-,2:· .::":;: >." .4.1 iC:2stage(s) ...... .. ., . ... ,,... .... ... . .fn~fE'(';;::'·' .. ';::'3,§.::;~;1:t3 ..,:f::', .:)'.?f::;: pO queue free % 34 99 99 f:fA. c,,~~cityJV~h(hf<;:i~9:1'j,:64~J/'\i:'::L /.::10<\6 'c""":::"."," ,; .. JP.i(ectlo{1'Y.;t!c;lf(e~#t. ,<. t, :~: ~.~Bf~f:; r::J B,Jl :' .. ~~al:: 1~-;;_ Qa I 22l:;l .. : :~.i\~ ;;t,":iT:I.:':'~ i:il~ ,~_;~~!f~<; ,,~~~~:tt;j~~"Sf;,:t~i&'~~:J~~1-Ji~ --;,~'Jk~~\j~ ,. y6Iu.rile.'!9t~17:;;;/.i<;239.'.526 . O:1,2.:': .. "n~,' i,e Volume Left 232"""'''6' 12 0 ~~~m~l;1ight:;>.;~;ti5J;Ci ~~~;)~;g~r '/+6f:><·;"· YO,I~:r)1~tq .capa~iiy: .. !}: (f68·~6.3I';i.O·.br· 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 118 0 1 0 .c~ntroID~jaY:($).i;;:'.}' 34.q,· ','; Q.ti>r':i,.~.5 /}:M" Lane LOS D A ~~~~~~~gfd~YJsr:;·.. ,34;g.;;<:;:ir.O::':',9)· . )i1i"Iirsectitiii.SLJ m'rh-ary' 't,:: ,"iI' ,;It. ,~ 'r,;<"" "".~;j' •. ,.\,ib;?t,,~.';G' .. :~ . i;~~,.;I;': ','Y~:P4i;:f".,.':)rJ!...i\f;~Id';"il'·';~.""i~·::;"~i1i:l Avera~e Delay ini~fSeCii6n·tapaciiy.lJtiliiaHQn:, iiriaiysis Period (min) .... ". E~::{it:,;;;-~:'~( ':~ :;).2~: :'~ ;:: ~:~ :,'V< :: 7.1 ,,'41:9%>;',,(,;; ICU, ~evelofS,ef\ilte:;~, . ... 15 Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --Background plus Pipeline -... -_. - Synchro 6 Report Page 1 , > HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th 81 & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 M§!IlJlat\liM&'i~1$11l111$£iEi:ljIJ~$lEZElfiI;BIilJlfJ.WBM.'@J\ililmVJ?mll!m!!iJM13J!l!'J'!liij!!!.U.@.IASffi'-i$eit1 Lane Configurations, "i, To "i ,t f 4+ ' .. 4+ §J§DI.g~9:Q!f9.I~:;f~):r~;:E~;$}~(~~:~~I~1;B~,i~~~~l~;\s§fCiR~1jI~St~{j~2:'~~Y!'ilTIjf~~5{2f§p]~;}i~::~~;Ii}?:~;f:~j;jJTI~~~I~~~1Rf.§~f~}lt]}~~i~iDiR~~:~}'2rr2f9~£tlill~7.;) Volume (vph) 107 218 475 81 218 40 461 284 152 67 25 405 1(~l[~.E~y:r:s~cloi::;,i'i)1':;·;i~(),~~1·,),::b.;~:~jfW.Qi~~F;'1'g~$.5.~,¥~9:~-§fi\'iQ:9$ji;f.Q}i,§§'l)t(j;~!?;~g;p;~§w:'P;~~iRtJlig§l~ 91.9,$ Hourly flow rate (vph) 113 229 500. 85 229 42 485 299 160 71' 26 426 !!1if~ctiqb·~l?aWe!#M$t!iEBJJ.1~1.E:SJ2f!'i\N,~1liiY>LBl2laWBl3.WiiilB!i!§l'l$S11~$t,.~ Volume Total (vph) 113 729 85 229 42· 944 523 &?~1~~~::~~~~ 3YR~)~';~:~~:~;W;:(~(i.n~{;J.j ,.~.:!;;~"i:in ~-~.Q}:~;' ~:';W;?$:;'~: :,:C !~Y~{9Jl\~~t~!:'~i9-~ \lk~§~s.}~tGf~-7J TJ;:~!:~;f·~:~~:~ iF,f-:~~:W?r~5fmi~W)~~if~~~~~~~~~:~¥~~~~;:~~~:~ Volume Right (vph) 0 500 0 0 42 160 426 B~~]·~(~F}5~nt~nSifES;};;;(f::,:;:}~;,t::s;r$~·;?:'~}-9.1,~§~1-,~;:~f9~:~~fL~~~Q;q.~.TJ:,i,;g.,:,6c1f;:L': '.9 :91:~V;~9J1~·;:;:;:,:~rr.I~:st;~·)':;\1P\~f~~{li~iIfEt~1:&1Tl1Ettl-mrWj,i1; Departure Headway (s) 9.5 8.6 10.2 9.7 3.2 8.7 8.3 J~H[g:f~~:;.qJjn~~~i~~}~; ~'},;;'\\{f,.9: :-~Q?:;;~},;J~7.4 ~~ :,~tQ ;'?~:~~ i;~::'q'; ~.?~;~t1~·P:.p·4Efr~?;g~;f~f~~' t:?:9:;T~~-;':~~;~'~,~s~{~~i,~t31~~:li~:;X[(1:{iJ;t[iE;~i~;.?~~n;i'B\~ Capacity (veh/h) 373 425 350 364 1121 421 441 ~2:@2.iQ~I.a.\l(§))ZS::FJ;\·\!;~'$D~§O."§:;{;1:§,i{;l~5',~,'\,~:~-;:E{$Q~·Q;!,li.3tg;'·'Kli'''<Iti;;;,iliG~ili;;£)]'f{Ujt{:+t!i:B1;~\' Approach Delay (s) ,314.4 20.8 606.0 137.2 ~'lfpr:'q,~.2.q:gQ9qi]j£;'Ej'~j};a:~c;:r~~~2;~;,~n:!if:~~:~1~:itFt:::9_::1~ :;:;:.~::;;J':~_~f:tt ~RiJEH)H-}5il~~~~~:::~:~~:If~~:~:j_;j;;E~)l;t~;:~~~l1h::~t~JJ.ill~~}:il;~;~~~J~~1~{t~t{~P: Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --Background plus Pipeline Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HeM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis, , 3: NE 44th 8t & 1-405 8B Off-Ramp , 5/23/2011 rv;bv.'eii:ie8tL'3'?,~',;.r; '§:;}E!3t'i[EBjFl·,,3E:j3W""WBll:'.LW,SllJ'J.!W.JlBji,\'4f!:JB~j)J!3l!Dl'Js"lM1IQa.Iii.lt$.~['l1![$B§ Lane Configurations ",to "I t "",' <t, rt §j§~D~Q9 tl !f.91~ L:~~l: i~~T-H~: 3~t:{: "~: ~,.;j:~~ ~_~.~:~~:.~; i:1 (2~ ~)j( ;,~ ~~:~~}1r.r.~~~~~:,T .;_~",.~D ;: . ,:;;E~': ':;;1ISj:~~~,~JI? ·~~.~I.:t ;,~~~: ~EJ;ilif~E7~i~!§R;~:Kj~1) Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% [o[u'IT)ii,lY~:h.!hr:;:;;;':ifh;:';','6~~;r;75'~:",:;1,4~:J;';~~(E,i:i7,§6"i,;:·;t(f';:;;i::,Qrm~':r'p:w'Tf::oia::,:j:Zii':!i~;i'~;:~~;iE~)] Peak Hour Factor 0,95 0,95 0.95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0,95 0,95 H~:U:~ly:t!9_~T;j;(~:(vp.ii)E~5,:Q' ."~ .1,~~:. ~:7.~2:~ C)3J?:',:: :7~§~: :.~:' ~(L:,:s,;:;'O :i;_~6';::1!l:F:Q~iDT~E:G~::;)?~tl:;::~.!Hj Pedestrians Lane' W idih';(hj">, i::,::, ; .• , ,;,':;::~, ,<:,:,:' Walking Speed (itis) ,' •. '.. ' PerceritBlockage i ,' Rigtiiturnilare (veh) , , ,-" M.~~ia~:t0i~.~;';.;:~; ;':,': :"LLL,);:-- .... " ' .. ~' .. ;~: -.'.:' .. ,. Median storage veh) ~pstr~~,01sig rial (tt); , pX, platoon unblocked lit:;; i:,o.Q!li.C!i~Q '{c)!~ITi~:-_",?:~~,,:;;i::!n'DU;ro;;:J,?J~>,','( :,,'i,' ,;:'~;?$~~.::,:i2@i)!:j~§'1L?5,@:,~~:2.il:$t'5Si'?g vC1, stage 1 cont vol ve 2 I:' sfage· 2-' coh f' vol ;:: '.:,";' .·L::·~~'~~~ ~~ :'~~~:"2:~-~ Li ~:: :r~ :~~:i:':Lt~~i :~'::\ f~t-?; ~', "'~:~ ~~ ~~ :~~:~ ~:~~i~':'~~;:;~~~sf~~2:~;~'~~~-:~S~: ;~t::{~~'~;ELj:~ti~~;~~I'} ~J:; vCu:'unblockedvoi' ,-789 1575 2599 2596 1184 ,2596 2987 789 it, 'si ngiei' (iij.;' _,,(1 ,; ~\T:':\: .,' ':;':;';( -Lei,::;:: ';:c':. ';,;,; :E,71"'IU~:}i);:",Ef:?:::~3Ef~i':~;~:~_TL~;'? ic:2stage,(sj' " , IF '(5); ",:' ".", :.'2,2 pO qu~~~'fr~~ ~); ;"j(io ct0t~pii~itY(v~JiibL::' ',830 J:!h:ectioiW~~a~)8~#i:~)" ~:::",~ _ EB;·1 . ,~W.B! V. JWB. _2~. ~~SB:c1,-,."! ,;'~. c}'!f,t_,;' -:.fl.:·-3¥;:'i.f~'1~2~@-::':JC'~~~~J:\'~~;i§:t.t~&~!~\~~:w.-~a t~}~~:{2~'t:: .• ···· \,:"1.~?3:·"·~i~···;:'jaff,:m.":,:";::';·:····'···;?·V.':~:;::(it:';;,,2: ;.,,~?;',0ii:~;t::0;:, .• s\::"1hi y oiufu~)~Jg ~~:·~i.;:::.:·:-·;:·~t···;: :'~, ~:;;?$~:';: ~:;::§ ::,9::· ~;; ~'(;i9~~: :".-:9'49,';;~ :'(~-:, .... ~y.;:/; :;;r:;~F'i(; :;: ':,: n~_;~:H{;f}i;(i,.~::·: .;;,t;:~:: ('. ·"~~-5:·::~~,D;·:;,~(;J~f; ~,:; ~~W~i,:{ .~~~ cSH 1700 418 1700 23, Vi:iI.4rnfii2,C;ap~CitV;~·.;::O::g~:··::Q,~i;;;Q3$;·\~1,.j~::~" ,.",.','."'" Queue Length 95th (tt) . 0 151 0 Err COiitrol:[Jeliii(s)\ . "·,;o.b; 34,S;; '"',, ':Cr,"-. LariaT.os·" ......... .-.. ,,_. , ... "·· ...... 0 .. Approach,D,eiii}l(sf .•••••...• ';":::9:6: '9,g(].'"t::.,:.f):'!':rr··! Approach LOS F Average Delay 2142,7 iiiie-;sect;ontiipacliyUtiiiZaiiol).: ••..• :·':::f2:1:1Y.?+::~·: •. iCQ·Ui,vel,oi.S~fyic::e·r~;:.Jr:::n;'.;.,}!}·:·i~r ii.naiysls·period (min) ... ,', .. 15 f:,·:;[:CJ:>,,;i[?·· -:.~~':,:,': .. _ .... Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 .2013 PM PK --Background plus Pipeline Synchro 6 Report Page 1 " . HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 8E 76th 8T & 116th Ave 8E <I- 5/23/2011 f;1.Cl@!'jjjeht~m>Ji51I;~.~!ljjj;!M~!3F.l~~WLB~M~WBF.!!iIlrslJ~~j)lBMNEllll§s~~BmsB!lj Lane Configurations 4t. 4t 4t 4t ~1~'6L ~§~t~§(:;~;:; ;]:i;~hLIj.I;'fJ?~&rlff3~i;iT:§J§R:J;~:;; ;'~;;~:{r;?:\~';~'~:i~~H~:{{~:~~pi;:T}~i;~!;};-;j}j~~&~;::~:;\~:}\:~',~t.9p:}f~;}9j~,~I?tl~~.;;J\~'::~;: dl.L~E#B?:Iil"-::iB t\ Volume (vph) 127·' 4 47 1 2 2 24 75 2 3 144 107 E1'§I<c80Qfff,:~E!.iiZJ;0i!;l~~:B;;§ql{;k5!.[6);~;L<@q.:;4i.Q;~Q;·;rr:@~:il)Lq;§I);::';l?~gQ;\:1::o·~~l?;f:!9:M".,1,();99:Hi.;d·:~b;;i!;.b)9 Hourly flow rate (vph) 141 4 52 1 2 2 27 83 2 3 160 119 i'lrre"ctlQnl\lIl!<\@ei.#.~EB,"illi.;\/'l!3MliifijJSIE\6i~&:SI2~1~~~~~~~~ Volume Total (vph) 198 6 112 282 ~q I~Q'~ii~ l:e.~:·:·( vRb) ~·:;j.':S.):~~fh':_~.j;~I2<~;·~:~0:L~:t<T1: ~:: {~Z~: l'i~Qi:l~~~~;:~l{: /~{~~{n::E0~ j)~S:l :~~:r::':i~~f.~~.i:{;;~,·;~;Ir:;:~~:i~2&5}J.C?{~lj:r}~&i'~;}t::{~IJjt,;T~;~ti;\;~:'~;::,~ Volume Right (vph) 52. 2 2 119 H 3,91.; (~L r:,',~,;,~/: Tn'~::;-:';(r;J.} '~~;~:~Ep)g?~r::~9:~1 :~\};:::~ ~>:::Q.Z 5-T~9. :?~~GEI:~'~]~:~::tm~;'T,:~~'Fi;~rt~:'}{r;~:;xny:~ ::'r::~r: ':~~' [~;;;~9;,{!~:t:\~i:t i;,i:~i-'i~t> fi;~'~:i ';'n:; ;{r~'~-f:~; Departure Headway (s) 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.3 p~'g~~~?WJJ!,f~~~.i~:~\:¥~,,;~~~;J'{~:QI?,~:)~:::":/9'~Q~!~,}?1~tT~:'~m~t~~t<;~H-f~;/~;f:'~K:~,{:;~:~~t; ;;:,(;::E:"~;;:'h\i:;r~/~:~";';-~;'~':,~':~~;';::~b ::;i *;;t:, ~~ ,,~,~;! ~> , «.'. S, r, Capacity (veh/h). 693 648 704 788 C;o~[\Vol·DelaV.(s)·'.:'·';:i,.·: •. ·jf6';·.·,: .. il,6J;'2'.··8:7ij;t:·:~:6c}··:i:':'X/;\F'·· .· .•..•. ';.,;:~:i,·t.!i; •. ::··';\:i"H>!.ii.:;)!\':;:jlA;./i:?~.:i~' Approac'ti6'eiay (sf" 9.6 s:0·8.7 9:6 .. .. ,. ~RR~§~:9'-~,~~Q,$ };:,;~ ; ;tt: ;~'}_/;-<!::}Eir ~~;~~', '~;'.:}]}; :}r;t/;~~~~ ~~:-,~_~~'f';:: '~;'t;;:'::f.::~' \:~;~')f: :~r~~n~,' };F:~;;~/::): t,'~:~'~\~;; :,' ' ,~)~~'4,,~Fh ;i;)J}~;~j:~/:;,i~t:_i¥~~{;1::~i;::.~:;r~\ \~,;~t: I jiTIersectiori·Cap·acity·Util1iiltion·,. ·;'·:d3;$%riL:.>,,:I<;:I,JJ~)i~19t$~&ic.e;,L.;,U; Analysis Period (min)' ... ,. 15 '.: ..... "./.' :\"""""'~-'.':-' ':;:,'~ "'-";;·:,V'~· '~,"~~',:. '., ,: ~,,:~;,,~-:,~ ":' ~>'::';·'~'''',:.;':'',F,,:i' _ \' '--';,' .. :; ",~ ;,,", ,':":, "-','; <-';:-'l,,~:.'./'· :;,;:-: .:: '\ :'/ 'l' , -,~,~,;;' :~,; ;,"", ~';':~ "<~:\ ":,;~,·'I:;:,~,·~':;;-,,,;:,:'::-;:r, '_-:«:: :;~';-'_,:,~I" " ' •... '\-, ,~:, 'f:S'''/~.~~ :t'';'':,:,:, ~:'>\~~~i\::·\Ui.<~(:;:!.;\'~>.:~:':-/i;":?: ~" _', ~,',' , '-:"~,'..--,~;,,, .'2::":';:.,,/~;:~:'{~(~~:·/{/~~: ',:-(·,-=.t-'('l ,;\ ,{;-~\;h~f:-<.f!~ d~t.:;~-'.~d~?}_~::'~t~-;:;-3:~,':i \~<,,' ~ Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --Background plus Pipeline Synchro 6 Report . Page 1 Technical Appendix Kennydale Apartments 2013 WITH PROJECT; AM AND PM PEAK HOURS (Including Mitigated Scenarios at the two Ramp Terminal Intersections) Analysis Intersections: o Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 48th St (aka SE 76th St) o Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th St/I-405 NB Ramps o Lake Washington Boulevard NEINE 44th St/I-405 SB Ramps o SE 76tiJ StlI16th Ave SE (City of Newcastle) o NE 48 th StlWest Site Access and East Site Access Wzlham Popp Assoczates. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 48th St & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 IljteT~M6JiQn'isOrrl'!1la:ty&~~ifii\1_Wi!\1~iil'-s~~~"!tl~'i.if~'& Average Delay 12.1 EH~~[~.~.q1!R.a:L~~~p?~~ny.~:Qf!fL~~~·(f9B:f{Er:)H~r~?~·t·~(~~f;iJ}2:~r;;i£·~gJf[~·i~r9(,~~'f.Yrq~?,~:\:~!~U~::Dff.~f~i;~~};~f;~~;;;:;~~: :~~f~{~~f~)~tl?:;};~y) ;:Ifi:fIm Analysis Period (min) 15 r;J!(~~:m~I~{~:}fu~I:TIIr03~:;:GIX~ii'm~~iEs~[: g:~-11 ~'~~m:~ft:G)';-~~ ~;" ,::,,-~:;{:i:B};ii~J)~t, ;~),i1f0~:~.2~g:;mlt?Im~lYi2m;HIE0j~H~:: ~;ii1:}\~~ ,L;~:2I.:_ .~:~ i.-~. ~ ~:~;~_ : h Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --with project. Synchro6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 48th St & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 M6_v.e.rii:(3nt.;t4·'it;,C"¥·i1>':.'NjE3(h;,':oWBf.L,..li\JBi!bdN~Bffr!:lsal€"~Si3't;;lilkv'".Wln.~~~~~~~1 Lan!3 Configurations ¥ To ~ 1- ~!gB);;§~f(~Li~:::~~:rr.\~;: ~;~:-Stop ':', "\,,"" Fre~:: ~~' ': -'~~-I:i;:\:'~t :Jfr~fj,: ~.~'" ; " . "'.':' <: :,~' ~~~~ .~. />' -." ~ ~ ~ ': _ :"~~l ':~~': ':'2<'~ Grad!3 0% 0% 0% Yci@ije:(y~ft!BF;;::;\H:Li:?'~§:.,i::Ji:::·:)~~··~;}!.9:n~·.;1::S;;~;i~;r;:',';i:;}?;:H;)l::a(;·.5~£5~}':~:W;!;!(~;;;;~!D!; P!3ak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.940.94 .ijq'~ r!y :!j~t~?raf~~'( Yp'~)i)' ~:'~: ~.:~ ~-~f n ' ~~ ":; 1 :~ ~ ~ > ; '3~q:~;';\;:i ~:Q": ~'; : ',:; ;:1"· ~:~,{?~~: ~ ::~ ,;; ~,: :~~ )' ::-3'),:'j:,::·;,;K~:~5!~,:n:~,;f~S~;~}~I:~~·: L ~:~,~ :';: ;n~;m ~;~ -. P!3d!3strians ~aii!3Wiilif((it)'::.':..·,:; '.:." ..... Walking Sp!3!3d (fils)' 'Percent S'I.Dckag'e'!"':':"-:':. ;;: Rigtii'tun;flar!3 (v~h) Mediariiws';":"':TWj::tt: ;., :;.; M!3dianstorag;i'~eh) . "1' Ups\iearrisignal(ft); . C",.:'.":> pX, plaioonunbiocked vCi c6rifHCiin'g volume'; :;695':> 455 ,; iicl, s'tage 1 coni'vo'l "455' "' .. , . vC2,stage2'conf'iiol';:240 ' .. ' ::: veL., unblocked vcr ·········695·· 455" ic', single (8).');:;.:'.;';.'6.4:,,:6:2: .", ,,";;. it! 2stage(si. .' " .. , .. 5' .. 4. . ... t~i(S), ':, .. '.:.Li.(·.)~··; ~.?.t::~,3 .. ' .. ,' > .. '" :;'!:\: pO qU!3U!3 fm!3 % 37 98 t:iy1 :~~pa~ityJ~,~bih ):: ,;¥;::i:·'~96..;:i:·.~ci? 550 :~?:?: 100 ~iirersSectit,.ft":;SLiffi"mary;~:>;'j.h:~~{·J~~~~r,,; ... ;$~(&'~·{ttti~*"~t~~:J.t~jd,.i. '~.!it?':_fil,.'I~ii.t!~itiit~utiat4:ilJt'~~;::atiJ AV!3rag!3 D!3lay . 7.3 f[\t.",r!\~Sjf§)j:qapil9fiX.Utiir~aiionj,;::;~::.:Y§~,7!; .. ';ll;!if'Lic;Q .. C~vel,q($'ilr\ll(:e:;;.~;:;:i!~:'[!:(;:;;(tEA?:};,;;:E;:~:;W~i1?i;f'~m1 Analysis P!3riod (min) 15 f:~;~);~:;E;~? ~;·:;;:F~RfcE.!i·· ~~I~::r~'::~~ia~J ;~~~·~i. __ ' ;,,::/:j},:'l \r-1F'~:~~2i1 :\m'\D!~'~';S~1JH~{ 2"~t :ij;{::{,l~EFY;~:~,~.i~~;{;:~;}~-gt~}E;;;G/;Y:~Jj:::i ;K~Jj~j.;t,~;2'fi»{t:~'6~{2:Ti K!3nnydal!3 Apartm!3nts (mix!3d US(3) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK _. with proj!3ct Synchro 6 R!3port Pag!3 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 t0qveJii'El'h11§l.tli:.~~E!.~BM:EE!~E!IDJ3_W;sJl!it$.!WI3!il1li!t\!!'!lT<'£it~tsJilfM$.~i!ii\ifSJ~jOO,)lBii! Lane Configurations Ij f> Ij '?-fT 4+ . 4+ §19~~~g91ij!Q~E~1~~n~y,~(m:i?~;f~;N-Vn.iE~d:;{~J.~_p:m'-:~J::r}g,n~1JL:l';i~;gb~.~~~~~~§.;[~;i~;J}~~E~tl~~rr~'~~~~;ft:;r~~9'p.:1ii~':SJ;B~~'Bll~Eifh~lt}';t:~'~qp}~}~AillRt;. Volume (vph) 312 176 458 205 200 72 549 134 105 53 57 406 B~~~~8oi!~-~a~i9.r,ii;;'~),A'i;9-§§mK.ti}~~i;>i.6~~~t'@;~§5~j,@5.§lN;Q;9.$~1;;i9,:9.5.~~~:Q1§§!Bi~g;~SH[\:(Q;~§;;I\ii2;[5,:Jii;Q;lls Hourly flow rate (vph) 328 185 482 216 211 76 578 141 111 56 60 427 tlireclitilil!'~anet#lil,,,'"fJf;!lilEB~tiE:E3'~1l'l13J1I.'RWE!I?illW;1il13~NB~100~~M~~~-ii! Volume Total (vph) 328 667 216 211 76 829 543 . ·g~!Pi~'~¥.~~ :(yp~jj~~'}Y/C·~:;~~'~.~,~?~::~*~::~W;,~~,9.'::~q;(?).$,~X::f\~(ffQ,:i{?~}:\~t:~JIa;}~1~·\{ifE~§7n:~~r~TfJP:~-i~~~~S"1t~)~}m~~;fj;jllI~::ii,;1I{n1g}J_K{: Volume Right (vph) 0 482 0 0 76 111 427 B![~r{~): ;'~;~;;i ~'~';I: '( ~;:'A';~~·Y>}::r:~'r::::, :b.';§~·~''-i}oA.?:"i ,i·:~;P)$~h~,::~{9 ;q:3:'~:~~:,:,~:R,:;~ 7\: -i}:;(~Ep'§-~;,~~,i~Q ::~?]:;\~:q:iS~1¥~~:t1{\~~';';:7,'~<n~~~;~~f~Nt;m'mEl mt~~~t~~/ Departure Headway (s) 9.8 8.8 10.2 9.7 3.2 9.1 8.6 ~grefQlj1j~~ti<?"nj·~i':!;·;·9;~~r'~\t'~~·~.·;.·.·0.6)-ifib;~~,;;:!;p"o'7;l.;:2!b~9;1~tE?9'!t2H)!E~·?iij~ir:·[1li;~;i!b:El~?!;H;'~-i';~:;~;tf?t Capacity (veh/h) 358 414 346 362 1121 404 428 9il~jipi .. D~!lIY(s.f;\;;·;li?t$4.:6:!:.31 £t:E.~6:§.;\:'';2~)i:;'f5:?5$.j.9!4:t;:.t7,A;1.j:l::rr&i)jXr~~tii;i;;?i!:IB)i⁢:~m::2jgi.rd~i·;JJ.·· Approach Delay (s) 228.9 22.0 519.4 174.1 ~RJ?t,§~~.9hr~9.,~_mfUf?::J',M?~£~~~~;r.F};~r~~ ,:,;;,~~~:i;~~:·~;Y;5N,9W~~;1N.('~;j:: ::~t:T~}S~~B'l~:j~_j~t,I~:\,E~PU;~r~r:;::E:t~~~it,~~.}Jl,:R~j::~m;]),i~jYl~SJJEJ~~!~{~'uL~I?:TI5f:i:::;'; ~~~~:i~fl~~rfuW(~if~:Qtiliiafi§n,;:t:;g(l,Ci~$\91°~;';:J;:i;··I.qlJ.('eY~!;9(S:~iYic~)';(:·i T:n;i;(r,j~(iii::'t,rin;;r~~T51SmrXli;'j{! FjE;~t,ti;'I~:}~-;f{; }·~i j~;~~:J,~~~" ;':"~'~ ~·:it?{ !t;::~·:.:~}Jl_@~~J\~(ii'liii:H~::~:'1 i~~{~lj;d:~;{::;'::;J;l'f:RF{~ {j;~n~:::,_~~~Sy;g;"J:l:;:;:lf,I%;J.G:~L~t~?,~-~:;:AKH~;i:~~~'~;{'~~'J;:;{ifm{:~ltiW~~l jr~t~fui~~~·;H;~i·~ Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --with project .,.., ".'" .""7" Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HeM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 44th St & 1-405 SB Off-Ramp t 5/23/2011 /Y16yem elk ~ ." :'::t'" ~ ~!,: ;[~EElI'i2' ~:EB:r::'~EBF,!L!WBL1-!;>W El~~W,BF,l[l, '.Jf'jBlW~N,ElrrNt)JBJil~SBlkti$.I?§;JJ ... $Bli!' Lane Configurations to l'j t 4' r §)~"~=~g~nJf9J?:NJH=:;g:'l:f{d~ ~;j:;:;~~~:j:~re.~-., ,:.'~::':; \~~l;~~hi ;L·:~JF~~~~~}~· .' :~::~~E£~:.~~SJ~Jep' ~.rIV :}r:~f: ,;E~3~.~[;E~::;,ti·~$jS>-R'~,;(~T;:;~·~~·.,~-,.' Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% .v91ume(veliifiF"_::i:~-i;i •• ':. ,;d:'i~i8i2. ·"',~31;t:7'.l;~3:S:) "~7:~2c~;;' ','d'~ '~; :(j:::~,;:}6-:;;tf,,:(j,r,Y88'~i:hi,f':1450 'PeakHour Factor' ""0,95-6:950,95' 'O:95iJ:95 "6:950,95 '6,95'--'0,95 '0\156:95 ,', 6:95 '~Z~~~t;f~tsr~te,(YI?,ii)::;' '~,9:,:,)!'~,:: ~",3.jI,::::~~( '.~?7t:,; ,":~6,' ::,:;~'tL:::' ':rrT :;~:;;:q:'::t~'9~ , .•. I:;':;,;'4.14 Lane Width (iiY;,:':", ,: " wilkin'ii'speed (ius)" , ",' , Percent 9'lo:ckage 'f:;'.\,:: :., ';,,',: .;' Righi turn flire(veh) '''' M_ediiif;tyi:H3)~',:>:"i;!::,: :\~ X:,: ,.,:i,.·: ";,:_:; Median storage veiiY" ..... , "--'.,,,:,.,,",, :,,,' URstr~"-fT1'sig6'?I:(fJ);;;,' : ,l' .:~; , .. pX, platoon unblocked , '---... '::._.'" yt, cQniliciing,volume:::Y'771·.·.':\:;':,!·:':'J::i48i:::::; '. ,i,;:~??2'_??72);)iJ~,~;:.::?:t7,gi:;:?!i~1:'.:i(Wl) vC1, stage i coni yoi' '''' , ., , ",,' "C~'''''''' .. " ""'f':"'''I~''' -'-','.,' ,'''' ',---,.,,,,. ,. "',' ... ~ ... " :'_.'.';c~.: .. '.!,--.~ ... -..• ...,.' .. '<"",. •• '.''',',.'., Y,-_. ?,~.~t~g~.~? ~ <:.9n. 2-!9,3,;~":i~: :~~:~,~~;, ~.~::>J" .-:::' :·;·U·~;: . ~ :':';_~ :':';: '3. ;~::'~"i:: ,,:. ".~ _~ : .:':.::'" '. ~: __ .~ .. , .... _~,~. ~l : .... ".+:.~:.,., ;~~.~_,L.~.~i:-~:.~:~·~,:.::/::~ ~ vCu, unblocked vol 771 1248 2772 2772 1083 2772 2937 771 tC 'single (8)'" . /", " '41 .. , ""41 ." . • ;""'7;1 :",::6.,5;::·i~,?,';:;x:·n:;x6:~.s';t~:,@ Ie: 2 stage (~i: ";" ,,,,,r,,.',; ." """, ' .... ' f~,(s):.", ~!.:~+;1;2,,'tt'.),: ,:' "~;~/,;:i,;l2,'~3'; .. ':.' pO queue free % 100 18 ~M :~a:ria~!tyXy~h!tiff«;~44:·;-';:;;;;ir5j;7;,i: r, .:i:"}··~··~':':':;t§3Ef6B;:;F;'3.:~!2f;{~~;,~¥,~'~ :'.ii':j;:g':; ,;r::~3' j~if26Al;;;}LAA:'·; ';;';~);;;AqQ fji(&ctionV ~~de:,#~t·. i!.)! :}~:~EB: 1i':t· W,J3f1~<.~ Vj8;2_:~;:_S.E.r;1f:t~t't~:'!:4·tl$c", ~'0 ~h~~Jt~~t:§!fi't:~,<x~i~§~hgail:'~f~"I'~~~~a i{Q~~:m¢rr 9!~)L':~.:V~;:_;}.: ;,:,_X'~~,;{:i ·g4.?;'-~~; . ~ ~~?~." :;::~::;??.t:?~;~:_?.$.Z,}~{~1._:~,?'. ~,/.; ;.~~ '.: \' ); ',; ,'?_".~'_ .L';;f_i·ir.;.:-:U':';:; :~~:~~,3i_t~{{~~;'~~,}:~nY}l~:~ ~ ;.; \\:: .. ' ;.;: Volume Left 0 459 0 93 Y9Jl[iJ\e.~ Right" .~;:: ~3r<" .(): · ..... ::~.\;:0~yA'Z~:nY>1:8'. cSH 1700 557 1700 22 ypiurfl~ t9,e;~R~cifV,," . ,Qf:j '. :' 0:82 ·r6,42':~$§jj)j;;·~iH;; Queue Length 95th (It) 0 208 0 Err fo~i?61,p~f?y( s.) •••. iX::, '.'.: .9:0.; . '.34'7, ",6:0 .':i.:~~i[;":A:;·'\~,· . Lane LOS D F 6ppio.~~tiq:eLa)i@!,~.· '\' (6 c9';')3,Ci'T'" • ';·!{$te\';'·:'{'\ .',;., Approach LOS F Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SE 76th ST & 116th Ave SE 5/23/2011 MbfElll1ejat&t.'t;;~'m'iJ.£i!'l~'ltiE!3JT~':;\il;E\I[lJi!:\NB~W;!'lllP.tW;BF,lMlJriJJ!~B_I)IBll~~~}! Lane Configurations 40. 40 . 40 40 ~lg.:or~~~E~F&Um:~}5~~:~{~,~~m~i£~~K~J§,p~trsft0t§,~~i~~~:~·;·;}im·j(~1E91QP.~~~::-~;.t1~~:~~:'{h)~H4ig~}J~i§t§g::fj1H~+q~~~~t.f~1,;-~~~~}1~~:f~!fJ?~P.t;~.¥lX\{R::~ Volume (vph) 29 1 106 11 3 4 46 189 1 3 58 150 !l[~g;;H9~r:@~I9:~?1,qi~\~J:j!;o:~qAEf6;.~)Y;1:{@tUf;';Q;~gi'!~;(j;~pm:KQ;~g;~i~pI~Q};'~;;g,9.P:\tW(j,~9}r:io:~jii\:Ep:9O:~(E9.i~p Hourly flow rate (vph) 32 1 118 12 3 4 51 210 1 3 64 167 0iFitctj6h\~@arie:'#k~EBJ!1!ll!!WB .• 1~~B,!;1~SB11!tC;~~~~ Volume Total (vph) 151 20 262 234 M.~! QIi1:~';'~,~~j yp~)}.;~,:.~~'i;(;i;r {~A;~?.":~~2{~fX?·;~;5~~~\:-$T~t~~;~;:1 ~ :'?':: ::;, ~:t:~;f:~'::'? ~~:!Z;f·1}:}~ /-,:~;~~?W~l~::::i."~':t:{;;:~~~?t~:':;~ :;)~~~gc·}a~JKt~~.l~X~;}1;t11yg~~~J~B Volume Right (vph) 118 4 1 167 H~I~~'~'r,~~? {f~~IE ~~~E~;t~~~tl:t!~ &P:i~~jt~tf ;Q; R?:-i?tffp.~9 ts::·E9.f~§h;:~l :~;T:Y~,~ ~r~,:~~~~:~t~;;t :I-:~?~;~~-\3;~;'\EPf~~, :;-: ?:!~~.;\~:::~f\:~[~eyt~~~*N?:~~m~:It;:0$ Departure Headway (s) 4,7 5.3 4.7 4.2 P. &~ft~~:::Vtm¥.~t,'§:Q:;.~g:;::~'W\T 9'_~ ?q!;,?(Q.r9~-:!~~~·I9::"~,4:~f~~~_;~Q ~,?:~:::::, :~-:·:·:H·i:H:,j!r !~J)'~~'~:;~;i:~;:~':~~,::~,~J~f:;~:~; ~"~~.~; ?~,<~,~r~!: F;,i~~: ~<,: f:~U?W~~j:~~(i:~:f{~r1Br[f~:r~? Capacity (veh/h) 699 599 742 802 f21i@bi;f:ie,liY'i ~);"·;;i.:'~ ',r~8:~:;:t"'8:!i':::;1'9 ·ci··· ~rn8'~);;·':;''';;t.\:;·}·+'i);:~i':'')3i;::·i·':;f i');'C:;:i! ,;'}Y:;\;l:tt;;] 2E ~~{~: Approach Delay (s) 8.8 8,4 10.0 8.9 ~p.1'9:~~~2·~9'S :~:tiA:~:/; ;;;E:(t3;:I:;i:f)I;Y)}),'~~:~H;~:A::~({;:,;jJ;:~:;, :~~l~}~{,;tA;::):~i :;J?~~:lF~:,;):_:·:\\t:f:; :j:;:E::':;,):z;'1}':lf :'JtJ{~: 2:-:";;'iW;~:~~;:~:L~:2t~~1;'~~' d-} iT ·;~·~J~;:t~/~~';~2'~IT~~n;1:E jntersectiQ!\I$l)"i'i\"nja1Y~~'lit~Al€~~<$!:r';k~}'W!¥R£~~iiit!t.,;&!&'t\~~;[k~~~?,;tiI!lr~ ,p el.~Y:~~Pj_ii?l~i~~~':y~':; ~k~:\a.';:ii'~;r~'~h1.:9}~~i'·fl~H~ :;PiE~.; ~.5tf!~i~~i~~~~:t:~~ i/\'!';t;,~r~{i;,~~d,!?:.?:,)_~-:.~,;j~; {('~!~~i~::'~ ·~~:-:;::~?i!A:i~·!,;f:~!;\:,i: ~:~i~t::;1~~ J~~jttfYd:Hi~l~~h'(~~ HCM Level of Service, A j ~i~T~~.Stii~:9.a.P:~~[f}':l.Ji[l@i§Qi)D';:;it:f1?:2Y~I};1E!t,W'.·L~~~r9t;$~&i~~G,'F;iii'\2{V·/t&;;:1~::/P·;;"~1K~;i'i;\;:;~g;;m'ig'" Analysis Period (min) 15 nFi~}'~;@~r~~~~,::t'}Ff:ITj:11~;~ki;tlt:j·~~t~Htlt~?~,~~;~?rH.~}m:j: :'::'·:Mt ;:!: ;,:~\:;~~}~::('!,:l:~-!-~:lt~ E~i~i'~; ;--; .-;~ ;;~,:~. :~, :r~l,~T!0::}',~,_;1 ~:~~f'j'ili,;t~:~~~~~{c~ :·;·;~.';~1V::E:::§E~;:r:}{~~~~~t;<i'nt; Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 48th St & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 MoyerniFJit;::;';",_'ftiit-'jtt:'iiBl,.'i!:\fjIBF.!:'~;~BJji}t:JJ3JBfu:5§BL!.iP!!S6Xa\t,,*.bLlWJ;...~;;;t!,;S~~jJ;~ Lane Configurations . V 1+ "'i 1- ~lQ~:';g.Qfitf9_f :::-~;'~:~E~'::~T'\\; ,~:'r?f§p~~~;,~,j:.:~;:;{~~l ~ -: y~ ~~'§.'~: .~·~t~;~~.;!:~1}:~ \:;)}'-;}; f.~·~~~,·iF6;:; :'.:;;~;;I~t ~\~~;':';~~;,::i;-n ;~Jj,r;; ~;~C j,; {j}~;j~r:::; J·;l! :~1r~~; K ~~S~D} Grade 0% 0% 0% Y:9J~fo:~-'(Y~~}~rr':!;!;~;~;f::1:-iig~~:~,:~};':~:1~9~':~'~~ .?~§~·~~~·,"~:?~-~,jF~-~)~,}i,~~~F;~~~qt~':~~{:~:::;~~~~~;~;;~~}6;f:·i;~.Ig~n;'~I(GiKff~I;~:j.S~;Eg:'~;~~f;:ri'~ Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 8.6.llr[y'jIQiJ;r:a\~·(Y~lii:'~iiJ2.~:1;:,;'·:,):ir,:::2:§2\···,?~~:!::.~:::t~,,:E'·~4.r!-~+:i:;:::;,;j;\,';:::,lij!,·:;r:':i~:;N:~'!:i;:;;;;~'r;':!iI;:. Pedestrians LaneWidth (it) .:':., .•. walking Speed(iiisi 'Perceni Blockage: " ' •. FiigH iurn'ilare (vah) MediafitYPe'-;~. ·.Nob~> ; .... ," ... ",' Mediansi6rageveh)' .lJPstream signaJ(ft) ••• px~ platoc,iiuriblocked ". '.';' vC, c'o'nflictiiiifvoluiiiei ...•• ";t8~:;' .'109 ,:::Y:,L",: ;;i;.$,$,Z:,/'·; ;::. '::';"''''';;:,'1., vci, 'stage 1 coni vol- ~g~L~t~g~. g-c.9.6J ,y~.c~~ ._~ ~':'~'/l t ~:-;~:~~'L: ~:',:~ L;~:~: ,,~:~.:' ~i ti~; ; L~ :;.:-:Z;;:L~,:~:. :'{:'~'~F~:Li ::";:{: :;~~;.~;~~ L':,::: ;,;~',:t~,r :;, :~.;. ,~:~:~.~,~~i:, E~~;~~:,~i~ ~~ :,i, ~'f~::'~':}'~{~ii;~ ~~,:'Z' .~~~ vCu, unblocked vol 784 409 557 fC,single-(sj .. ';:·,;: ." i;·'6.4~:::E;:2·. i . ie; 2' stage'(s) ,:.--,... . iP'(sj':: :,~: '. .:.'3}'2::':>,:3;3:. pO queue freeo/~ 27 98 i::.ficap.acitY (veb/ti)t,f~,5Z{::\6.4r;, ",:,,>",';~:~J~;:~;;~:;;;;.,1~q~:lg~:~8.;;;;;;;,:.;,;:;~;;,;~,;;;,;,:;~~~:;;;;;~~ Directi_on'" Eaiie'#\, ~ ':~ ;,. W Bf 1!tkNBfi0SBf1~t;· 8B;2::: 'tt:;.;'9r(-'_.~_:c:'·.~"f.~}\::%t:~J~JfdFi4f?t.).t~\·;p51"!~i~~'t'?!if~~' Y9 1umg T.otal·::;:,'\: 272 ····~?7.,·.·.··!]::,::.3~t, i ..... < ,,:,,::::':'}';,·;.X.:\~:;~Z:1{:;:;::t'3'll'~;::,<;;!.:. Volume Left 261 0 17 a I/cilumeRight' .r"". ;"fF::,:,.1 li:i 294,:'L." 0.""/'6~,! ,;:~".,:,::' csH-.. .. 36417Cio"lOis' 1'100" YilluitJe. toCap~~ity: .>i;i6:~~ : ,q.~:i:,. ': b:g2To2q,t: ..• (I'ci':'< ,;}:"_. Queue Length 95th.(ft) 147 a 1 a 9.6ntr~l_p~lay (~)'}i;;;:;r39)/,:, 0;0 ,~:~, ,. Lane LOS' E A A.pprb~dlDelay(s)'.:';·?39.1.: .::0:0 Approach LOS . . .. .. E···· .... -. Average Delay 9,1 I~j~(section -q~pa6ityUii.li~aii96' '.>t.:·4S:9% •. ·. ;'\;;}<::U;~e~~lp:C9~ry!¢e.~',..:;; ... ·.:·\f;~ri;,;~:;1,.0iYrj!:H:;;: Analysis Period (min) 15 [:J~'·,:i!~:}~:~:r ~:~'_~~', :J'(:~ '!:~' :: (:'~;;:;~~:i'" ':, ~:: ~_~.~' '_t Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report 'Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE 48th St & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 !otets1tGtiph1StIrjitnarwll~~jll!!ii~~.c.'W'I;;;~,£",,\\1jji~*,.&..~~,,"~:<i.'~~~~~ Average Delay 5.2 151~~~~qM~;QlfR~§ifyfgijJT~aiii)·!1)2;;L\::ir:f4.8:~~r~(;:l+rm¢q·.~~!i§IC;!~~ryji)e:{::·.}t;'\Fr!·';U,;r~;;·i~::;t~e3::Sj!:;;';';;1 i£ :; Analysis Period (min). 15 fiI;:{lli;X}~Ih:~':~1r~nrf::;?:.l1]_llIr(; I:;~~::~f~l~iJ~::'1Q~~G~!~:~1{:.Hi:fJ:i\'l~Ni·U:~W:~{;~'};S:Ifdt:i~{m}~ .. /:i;":: il~Mi'~;-~';fj~6:~_~:tr i~;El~~Rir:Z(:th~~~~~i0~~::?B~?~;:}2:}~;i~: 'h8-~:~ Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & Lk Wa Blvd t 5/23/2011 /"- M6)teriie~tK,;~~ ~ ,,: •... ·cEBL~ . ..;EBx ..• ;J;;138;::.:W.l3lp\W.Bf.EWB8U~EJBlf'~NBaJ~BIRM§.sa.~~JSI3,R Lane Configurations ." 't. 10. .'t .. ' t. . '(' 4-. 4- ~!g~}~§~ lt~i;:.'l ::{,~ :';~::~:~~ ~ 1:'"',; .... ~?~ iT:::-i_~ ~ .$.l~p~:: ~. '-i (:~'~"E:, ;~:~f:} .~~ ,~\-~~~ ',$SPl5;. X \~;' :.-~2;· E;~I~~:~:·; £5,: T§~~p:~,~;~~~: ;::-~ ';i{~~'f}~~;~ ;[·:i.'{~~JP~~:Tj~;~~? ;," Volume (vph) 141 218 475 81 218 42 461 318 152 69 43 430 peak 'Hour: Factoi' .:;:' •• /6:95; i ,o'gs'" 0:95:'T)j95'" 6, 95;'{':d:§5;?"6II5;;:O:95·.:S:O·.95;:;6·95i}::O;95·:~.:6:95' Hourly fiowraie (vpli)' 148229" 506 ,. 85"229 44"4SK'33S' "160·'7:3""45 '453 Direction, L:arW#'"L1; '·,'EB!I·· .EBr2 . WB ,1,','lYB 2~~WB!3!{';NB(~r::f.SB~~tt<;51t~?i'?;idd~:4:.1 Volume Total (vph) 148 729 85 229 44 980 571 ,voluirie Leli (vph).· .;' WI' :;."9: ",'.85' .~Q;::.,;O :.:.48~,27.~~':,<2 ·,:~:i.; Volume Right (;'ph) 0 500 0 0 44 160 453 Hadj'{s)'/, ';":'::;:":0.53 ':OA5:, . (),53,b,6:i,:;.~q)3~}:'O.04 ,:Q:42 .' Departur~ Head;V'ay(s) 9,5 8.6'10.2 9.7 3,2 8,7 8,3 Degree LiiilizatiOii;X-:6:39 1.74 "0.24'O'62,;;9,:0~:,,?$7.1::j'1.· ,- capaciiy'(vehJIi) ... . 374 . 425 350 364 1121 422 443 66iiiiol Delay (~l>::;: :)14'3606:',1 5,1 '25,~)'>5)) ~1f'~.1 80,3';':'j .' ~:; Approach'Oeiay (s)' -. 302,5 ..... '20) 644.6 180,3 !lppt9~ch i,<)S :::,;i,r "1"-.'" TC'-; <:'" -.;'!~;·F:''';}~: Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK .. with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 44th St & 1-405 S8 Off-Ramp Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --with project 5/23/2011 Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity' Analysis 4: 8E 76th 8T & 116th Ave 8E 5/23/2011 ,'i5TreCfion?~tanE(#;.'·.~ .",1,. "'~/EB;1,~:f_WBfJ' ~:. NBi:t"-'u 'SB~1~i~l!.t~;'~;~-. ~ '.;,-~~ ~ t!J ~ .iif.t:?tsrE·,t;;. ~~;~;~: !~~~~J1J;;r#~;~i],it.t1 Volume Total (vph) 217 6 122 299 Volume Lefi(vph).:::· ;,'';.~9~:;~''' .. 1:'37 ... ". '.3' VolumeRlght '(vph) 60 2 2136 ,,-.. ", ,'" (. , .. ) Ha~j (sf T-: :.':.:~:':·O:Ol>O.17.. 0.9.8.' .,0.24." .,.' Departure Headway (5) 4.9 5.0 4.9 4,4 " ~ ',-"' ~--.. -,.-,...<~"-.-''','';' "'. ,.e' ... ;.;;;::_.: ;-::;':_._1 ±,~~::..; f. DegreeUtilizatio-";',(,',: 0.29'0.01.". 'd'.17 :6:37" .: .. ' :\." --'..". ',;;;:;::;:-':.;:' CapacitY(vehifij "684' 629 '689 778 .... '. (:;ont[~1 Delay (5) .,9.9 .' s: 1; -8;.9.'9.9 Approach Delay (5) 9.9 8.1. 8.9 9.9 . Appr6ai:h~ci$. :.';'.":';:'ft.':;'A"\''A,:' A;···· .1?el~y.:J, ..•.. " .' "ce,. .,; .• 97':" HCM Level of Service A I nferseCti6ricapaciiy Utilization .•. Analysis Period (min)"" '.'" " . . ,:,-~ '.'," ,",: .~. :<~,~.:::.:;,,:,E.:.~_:~ .;'-.. " ",,: --. ",:' . ;,.,,' .... ' .. ' -'. '_. Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & Lk Wa Blvd t .. 5/23/2011 ¥olljiTie: {Vph r ;;:\.';j::·/kY;312:::,:: 1.76;;;:S458i;;;·205~\k200~niI;72'~"::~49>'~11·34/::}::;1 05F;fji!5:f:P;ii:57l::.,~i406 Peak~iiouriactor;PHF ····0.95· '0:95""0':95 'O:9S'''O:95 "'ii:9S'-'O,S5"'if95 "-'0,95" '0:95"'0:95""0:95 ~9ji:f;I~Y'E(vj:Jh),i:;;?~\N~~i{::3?§;;';K!!_~.~'h~/4$?';?i';:?:t6"}};'2,1.,ti~,;,<t.6.~ilj5:t!j}E\\;;Ei;.E-j:jjji;;";S~6M4;t0j6"QiW~";4?,~ RTOR Reduction (vph)' 0 0 347 0 0 59 0 31 0 0 278 0 . ~aiie;Group;·F.i6w:(vpti)·:\~:;328.j".;l'85:\I;)~·35"':'!;:2jiL+':k-2,i1~;-:1;:}[%;,i;:,'578':;m22f,:,:;'!!;'-O:');*;'~513}}i'26ei2;:',iJj:fd Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt . pm+pt . p[21,~§t~~.:,~.ti~~:~.$.:·~'E.~','~:~;.f.i};'.~n~J,$,;-:,:,:~~,~,~~E?EJr:/}fff\fm::~~W,::;t}~:~:+:-~;~]:l,$~{~.m'mX~]':~~TI~Ir{f~;f);iE:l{~;,;,n,;. i~t.f~:;~,;~:{~~jn~:?i·t;>~,;;}tI~;~~f1,U~}~:~\ Permitted Phases 2 2' 6 6 8 4 ~ci~a,i~'(jCc3W.e.r~\Cl.:(sr:k;~~)!li'?~:~iHi@:6,)~;';~~:i)riYc~1.;5jh'g1:~);Xi~~;~;g;\4:f:'Z:F(\f\"YDX{;iIHj_;jWi!·5:~ii;~'{Kilii! Effective Green, g (s) 38.1 26.6 26.6 29.0 21.5 21.5 48.9 41.7 18.8 15.6 Ac@\i@·g7.(;!F@ili;;;-;;:O~O;i.;Q[~~iJ,;:6'@'::(6.:~1'(::;iq;g~ti;;.q:?~;jj[9Ajj;);:i(O::44°ii!;,':;;g:;?!·9:;gQ;D\fQj:§iriU({)i!i.; Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 /Ji3fild<i;i::xtensioii'( 5 I :'''::;:;:-3' b;:'-na,b >;';i~.3:i5':.:; .;;:31o'~i!;3'(ji;3·3:d~\r:l!3;if12:G3:tCi:;;;·?r!;·<,~0I6I\f5C,;3;(')!':'fJ.;W;; Lane Grp Cap (vph) 428' 522 443 410 422 358 624 764 244' 266 ~2~i~~tl§:'p:·i.qm'?:E ;~;;;?;,g.~';.:, A:,~Q1LQZD:'Q)'Qt\ZY:)f~:!:'E': XR~Q4:]~:AJ.:Q}1·)j~!~~:i~g~T:~E!~~~9.~~?:g,~~~~t:9.~J~::;,I~~1,'m:~;~{~~\',:;\~';fQ~Q~)1DK9>l~~~~1N'@t{1f! vis Ratio Perm cO.21 0.09 0,12 0.01 cO.19 0,04 YJ~,;B~t!q]·:;{~.n!.~;I~j:':},n'.\::':}~i:\]}:,Q.:tl:;~.;:;;,~r?~§~:E~,i.rQ:~~:Q~\;;;<9T§~Z\Kq::.§'9}:}£\f:91:9$jXD:Q'~g$:·{(:0}~gi?g)<;})\:t{;J;1~;i~:k~i:;g-;.??2}j~j;Q~?§tU:8ij:~~}t~ Uniform Delay, d1 21.8 27.3 26.9 26.2 32,1 28.7 23.6 17.1 31.6 38.1 BlQW~~§i~Q;f~~tor;:t;"U~Q'~$.';Bjjl:i!K('!<tt,~:.i'mQQ·\i(;iA:gQu:,:'E.99E[;J.l0g-!)iji1;:Q.(l1;jii':iii.'X;;i\L1l99:: l'(j'QQYi{(ijid!{l; Incremental Delay, d2 2,7 0.6 0.6 1.2 4,2 0.3 19.8 0.2 0,5 14,0 g@la%(~m:;;;,;r;::;';Xi;?';;i'\;i;12;5!;:;·i1_?i6,;tm;4.~;?';i!:??!13t;;~,~:?i;";~;,?~)();~n~~,:4.'fr·,;'n:~w~~;.!,¥-,,{"',3.?:Q,, ,ij§f;1;2::W;:!t~:; Level of Service B B D CDC D BCD AI?p'Y,g?~,~:Lg~)~\/·;(~);;~(i.':i::)t1:~if~:J:~·~:Hi~:;~~g~;j.i~,~i'1'i~!it~j·~.k1~~~·i~i·~:~Jt~i~:i:~~q·.k~:~ti;}f~;i.i'i;~td:mtif).~~i~:~j:~t~k~i:P::;(T;\2;J:~~i~iMK;~~\?§.g]:'~~!;~~j'~fU~'~ji Approach LOS C C D D I 't'~ L. r <"'S' .... 4""""""*,~'<"i£;"'1ii'ifr4'",,,-"'W1~Z:ZZS:;;;:;~""'~-"''''''i'''';'i'''~ .1} ~r~_~G._I.on..! __ .!JITl.fD~r;y,~i'B:""it\.'"":-;~~~'t~~~~."...,..~~~~~~~w.~~\HIj/:~~~~~~~j\..:;!.g.~~~", HCM Average Control Delay 35.6 HCM Level of Service D B[¢'~~N~9!Y~rll~;1f{¢~~R§§ify~[~!tq~~}~~7:';~;::~:t;~'}~~L(r~~fj,.{.j'~:~if~·:\tTD0{iE~~~~:~t:;};:~;niJf;g~tSS:~~V~t;:::~:6~'~~U,TI!~?}~1%~~l:~~,::;fl;,t0If~\~~~:~t~)~r.tlT{~:,~,:,~i Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 lf1,t~:f§-~£~:~:~,J';?P~~I,tY:~Q~,!.i!?~jRD:m~:,{:,,~,E~~;?~~~~:~r.~;'~]:~:l%::;~il_qP/,~~Y.~t:"Qf;:$~&~~.~'~t::~m.~~');:§1r:·sQ~;~:~::n~:.~t:t~~':~~;:HEH~§i\~mr:;:i~1§f[';:-~~i;~1;\, . Analysis Period (min) 15 . E,?~,~J~-trjl.~,?,U.h~~:~:; ~,tPPp ;:t~,~~~iE~I~2::~;,t~91: gmt[:;~ai,~·t~i~~~~{{/ti~Ht{U./,1,~1·,~g~ftd:,j:1: ft~:~fF!; tt~H';'iH!~2~t:\~Zi,:,~::,t7,:~ ;,i):!:~'({~'~f~;;l;!~~f,::ta~!:~;;:G;)~K;:tr~:~t~:l Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis · 3: NE 44th St & 1-405 SB Off-Ramp 5/23/2011 ~., Movem'ei)t,~ :;/~··.'::;:;,l~EBt!.~; EBJ':lEsF,l:; "Ws~:)yy,!3WWtlB(l>;i!:'JB.~_SjFl.6lli!3F,lJl~!,$!'lti$BiJ!~SJ3l! Lane Configurations t '. f1 \1 t. .. ". •. ..... .' 4' iT !~~ii(~I§i.\((\lphplr:·.-i:i::~ ~19pt2~r:1.~@[ :5~q9>.;~; i[iOQ;"J?,QQ:;?f~Q(r::'I9Q~g;;J@~'::;J~6b,:;ij~(iQ~t19if.QCi.1}iQQ Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ~~n~'8j1Q::~ctor:;~.;;:.· ••. ::';:: •. jo;. '1.)59: ;.?1 •. gQr;~::j':qo}(LoQ.,i(;:;:·':·'?;i,;;;;:;;:F;;;~;i;~;;Lmit:xf;~ ;~;i&,::i;T,o,6;";~:r5.Q Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 i"ii 'Pri:iiici'ed'" c' : ': . ··:-C.: 1. :9if';rQQ: ~Q.~$'~') :-0[-;::' i~'f(t;;;;:;i;:::s, :':: . i";~·:;::;:iI5.:'~$;:i:;~';9q Satd.i=iow{proti· 1863 1583 1770 1863 1775 1583 F.lfperfft!~~d ';:;3'; i'e' \'.~: .... fd6''-;i1:lio~:. ;:O·O~],'·~.oii":. :' '.'~:" '.:. :':~' ~ ·'.'T(}(:JI c:r;';::,';;,: 'O;95,<1:0g Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 148 1863 1775 1583 Volur'rie(vph),': •.•• ... '/.:.,9', . ·872.···31'4· .• 436· '.';.732:' :.0·:.:: b ;;'. :;0':::;' 0,., .:::88 ':";'C f.:;".·450 Peak-houriactor,PHF 0.95'0.95' 0.95'" '0:95' . ('i.95 '6.950.95 . b:95"'O:'95 o:9if'ii:95 0:95 Adj. FIi?v~Jvph[,; i. '. " ... ,Q',91:a;; 3~f;::'4.!J9:."'7?E: ;~:o: ';:i:sL':·.Q·<:"':iW;j'[~t~}jiW(l:r{~t'£ RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 a 149 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 239 Lane Grciup 'Flow (vph): ,.ii',· 0·\"918:'.182.'( 459.",(7.F'·· '0 :;:!,:'~O,,< '0";< O}·J~O: \;'94<::'2~-5 Turn Type Perm pm+pt Perm Perm RioieCted phases., ·';'·":·;·':'};F ';; ·6'\,· " .. :,~:;i';!{:;~:;:)'r';;i);;. Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 ActuateifGreen',G(s) .... J6,~;\~6::i, ;}1,if:··=n :fi,./:,:':,·;;:;'g.,,51SJ';15.2 Effective'Green, 9 (s) 46.3 46.3 71.8 71.815.2 15.2 iiciU'aIedgiCRatio '::::, . '.::, ::~ •. ~;;: io~r::if49~,:;;:o:7§;?:Qj~-~ •. ~· ., .:C~:;hiJ5J6;Zj?-;f§ Clearance Time {s'j .' . . 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ,ve hide' EXtensloii( s)" ',: :·::T~~\:.:\.:f6\' c:Fo-"":': 3: 5'.~. "3-:1):;;: ,,:;j:;:': :.;:;',,::; '.Ei r,.:,.,' :;' :;:hI'::;i§·;'j;\':i:3:'O'::;3:Q Lane Grp Cap (vph) 908 772 479 1408 284 253 Yiff{at!Q~~~.r~r :=>~;:~:'::: ~F :'?[:·\t1 ,: "::~; 1( )rcQ .. 4~':~~ ;:~,:'~:~:~ ~:;;::! c9 ~?:? '! :;;~ Q ~~4i n::::·;:,:_G!;::·.\i:~:;?:~_ ';; ~:;~:~:;{:-~:'>Ff':~~'~V;r(;E L~'::'~::. ~~~~~Y·~;~n:[~2iFg~IVJ!~~:'Si1~!: vis Ratio Perm 0.11 0.51 0.05 cO.15 vic Raila; "t:':: ' '. '" ::',::/';:;;:.:'.1.01::""0,2'4::;'0.96; ::",'0 :5'5':S;1;i't::,l~"',:'·: ·:'XY";H;:':::':i:;:·/:r£!l':.;;;5':33;:~:5:'9:3 uiiiformbelay; iii' "'24.4--14.1'38.4 4.8'-'" .., ,', ""'35.4"39.4 :~i:99~~~~J~ij::·~.~~io'r/:-':': ::'·::,-Y;':.::,~i'::i:~~,:r:~,j·~(YQ ::'~},J~9,9:,~:,·,;';1-·:It~:J~~_~·.9 :,~j:~i"?r·:·.r::~:;' :,:' ~:;::'.;)·::t·:~::'~:/}\::-:tl';·:;~';\[W:·:':di~Y;T;tj~~(:::·~fjJl9f~rT1fQ Incremental Delay, d2 32.6 0.7 19.7 0.8 0.7 37.1 [)elaY(~r:;.;;:~i,;;:, ..... :::.:~:}';F.·:·5.t6.::,{1T~,z;::;62.,?;~.:.·3jr:?t~i,':';;;:;:tl;l:;';:;i;'»L::(';:;:i:;:F:::~:·;'3Ei:.1;"1W.S:~ Level of Service E B E A D E · ~jjpi9~ftJQei~Y( 5)) ':,':i"":;'~ :'.:.4~,8,·;: ·J:':,:;;J':::',;2§.~~;;' ::;:;;::;t~ .;; :;2;:~:;:.Q: q:;Hi\:,::::;1}j~·~S§~;:@F~;i:,ii Approach LOS DCA E J.'Of8fS~cti5b:,s'Qiil rrtafY;...!, f~.',,~~.~~·~d:.t.B( L\.,:jltki~,~,,:t',..fz(~~~,;.:f!.~2:Jlt#~~':~§i,~itEf,£,~'r1-~,~(~l.i;.~J~:~JH HCM Average Control Delay 42.0' HCM Level of SeNice D · R:G-~~l}/p] ~ [15~ _:.t9.~ g~R-~S lfy:, r~~l ~';':' ~,i," ::~:~ : ~:}'( :~.-,~;;:.9~;~?'·:';" ):;::,~: :.\:: ';i::~ : '.l'~~:~~: ;,;.\, !'::i' ';; TD~';; ,: !:~~,~, J'f :~,;; !r;,~,~ .:;;~i\~~;.~~\~~~'F. r··: -::~', ;.·:~~fti(: ;;:,'~;;:;~,n:~;~: Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 .ljli~t~~,9!(?r.,:9~~P~9ijY~·Mt.iJl~~f!§:n .?~~6~%::) -'I,Gq;~~~~~tAf$~6'J.~§,~~~,;:T~~,::V::~~;-E(;I~~E~~'~:~f}2~;'1~,£;·:?~~i;:U\~]1]\2~J Analysis Period (min) 15 f':; (';ii)ical ~i\e: Qfou R • iii,· )/i>;;;;;;; .;'c;;'i;i\S':;·}.:'· :1;:: Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE 44th St & Lk Wa Blvd 5/23/2011 y ~!.~ i11.~, (vph )'ii0"; :iiij,i i;;,~;1 A),j~r:;;, ?1 §;: ;'i;4? 5,{;i?;' §.1 :,'~:.t?1 8.~:; i'·.A? i .':.~.6.~J;S:} f~ :!;:j 1/'.:2: ~i;'~·.~~;::i;m'il.3 i~l,A~o Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95· 0.95 ~(jJ:~~i§~lyp~j (i::'.fl?'i';;;~::.1'~~;H2.:?g9,::':r5,~q???i,?~r;::'??~i:;rr~'1.~L;jfft:~~'1li.~~~;;E;1.~0t:::·l~:1$JA{!'j~4.~,;rf)L1§~ RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 335 0 0 30 0 29 0 0 221 0 'L'" · .. ,,·G·,····· · .. ···F-I···"·':'( ,.' ·h···)··;;··1·4·S"····2· '2' 9' """'>"1"'6"5' '. ·,;·····S·· 5 .. ·····'···2···2·9· ." '\': '1' 4""""\'4'8"5"""')'4" '6' ·6···········'···'0· "'''.' ... ' "7." '3",,:';<'2"'7"7' .''':. """0 .,'ane, __ roup! -,OW. vp. t;,:!"., .},-;:;".' .. ,",':".,., -',:!)'-.": .. ,:...~.;:~ ;j~;~\-,.;. ,,;j.~.' .•.. _ ,:"";'" ,.:~:-n7::-.,,":<:'/"/, :;;~,~_ " -"';;,~-K:{~j. Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt f?JBt~.>4~'~~--:pha.~~e,§~~~,:~;'1~;~.~!:1,~~1r~/s,;·J~:~~~~:~:~L?_{:~r~hT;\·:'"L;:E~;,!,a'i;-~.·~~.~,~E~,~~1~i:~.:'.9~g~/\~~i?r\m~FB}~':'{~l:j.,~-~/.:~~~::~:,~n;~:~~)ci'~t}~\t:~~:~1,Ul~~ftJ;U·,i:Z4-ngf~iBl{i Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6 S 4 ~£tJia.t~,~G,):e~.h:;c3;;(Sj':~,:.2~·:4;;r'~):~.Un2.1:~:3,~f4 .. :;,·2f~.;::?1·'~·~';@~ .• ,~'idL2,~:~;';)ii{iY;iiU:1.Z,Z:Lii{I(\:,:5~;~:ji,jt) Effective Green,g (s) 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 35.6 28.4 17.7 14.5 ~~il.L<lt~c!:g/:gf@i6,:~!,';i!:·R:~~~(;,O;,3.~.ZJ.9),3; .. :i'O ;~~.))\[·9'~A~<0,3.~!'1.g~~~.:~'Q.;1£:52:':illU;:'f9L2ZiiIh;Q;??'.i{~%i';:·i Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 R,ehicie'ExterisI6n·(sjh;".±:?13;Ci·;1''::';·3;6~r;!ji3:0;~;.V)3.0F.\',;f3'b.;·'·.F/3;0/:;"';;3.0):;P!;:3;o!§\'iC;'h'/;3n)'~ij!0'3:(H8W;1;)?i Lane Grp Cap (vph) 336 613 521 336 613 521 580 774 288 359 ~';B~~~(g;~pBi!~'!i!',[::'i~:~:i:;~i,2i:t')'Fd}jBJrtG;~QiX?IJ-;.,~5~EE:;-:~0rf::;'mirm~:~t?',;~P{~;tl1;'::~~tE9~<i::gg.J1L~p.~g§::~:r;:(~;t~t::~:~;t~·R':~q))f.~itbJ'1ktf~~l':~~11~] vis Ratio Perm cO.15 0.10 O.OS 0.01 cO.24 0.06 ~f.CjjJ~t~,!!p~:;fjXdi,~:~~W~~i}2S~;Hl;:~.q.i¥.,~~~K~f,~t,t~~~r9'~~:!T1}:9,::??;~;j;f',q~~7j~~~9IQ~':;~~1:Q;~1?g~tQ:!§q:mhf~~~,mtU:tT·9~~:§~:t{fQ:,tZ{~~:~~~fZ2~ Uniform Delay, d1 17.1 16.7 16.3 16.0 16.7 14.8 24.3 14.0 18.0 23.7 f'Bi!·@}r~i9,6.· .. fagtqr:i.;;;':([1~Q:6?::;:;;Qi§f.1i@;?3::!f;i.1:QQ~,\\1·bQE}'f;1::QQF;)i0L9}LI)\1U.9.9ii'iU:i?'':(;"(QQ'0I:si},QPJb\)i£ij;.i; Incremental Delay, d2 1.S O.S 0.7 l.S 1.7 0.1 10,1 1.3 0.5 9.8 lff.eii:iYJ~)r.~iHi):in;i)~m,'.m(1.?:~';:;l\}~ :.0.N;i·,1·?'1(j;;.:;t !:.~\";l;1.8,~:;~'ft~;~::;',~1:~~~*[t$;§'i~i;~:;;;~:;iHi?i~;lg~.~I5;!t;~}hWt; Level of Service B B B B B B C B B C ~pp.t.~gf:6~;;P~J~YJ~ ).!:i~g~' ~~'~f'~lE::;:,~Sl-~t:::;t:g~ It~:~.t,~t~(;?~:f?J,:;,~·(;~::~::jJEtic:~A'~t ;-:¢.;I-;:htt:j U~:;:::~~f~~ft~t,I-~~:f,t ~·:?'4:;§-:'.n,~~:: ~:;,~~,~~'\;f::~~~~),~:~i::;;)(,~:~~) 1~:r~?i~t;r?;lt,~ Approach LOS B B C C 0ie'i'S)3ctiQolSTIm~~_~;.I;l~t:1lWff.NM£""",j,i%"$l'f~&'li'~~~~~~'!if,jQ HCM Average Control Delay 21.3 HCM Level of Service C H.QM·,~Y~J~_~>f;.tq~}~;~Rf:l¢.\t'y'~r?,~~,Q .. )~;~S;}~::~}~~,:X@L(;L~'~t:.::~\,%jX~\fi-(;~~:~;i~:~';.:~}:1~~f;m~~\:}tn~m(~~;ifi1t;.~mi~g>~~~~!rYIT~~(~!~2J)H~~\;t~~~~i~H4f:~1:HftinE· Actuated Cycle Length (s) ·65.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 iilt~ r~~\ifl~3:;~i?iic~Y;:,Qfli!~@R~·;!?;mH;:?7,QY~;i'T':'~:~f~Q:L~.y'~I:RL~~~iiie.:jiil!;;;t:;':~E;i;i~;;;XEf,Ei;;~:jjX;,8'::it;;i;~!~i'j;:l .Analysis Period (min) 15 ~:,;;;r~g£w.~~t:K~fl~~.~:t:p:qp~iI~~~.~I: ~ Y;Qtt\~'~}F~~iX:~ i~'~~~{' ~'~\~{~}};;l~mih{9;?~zj~~:' I,~~rt~:]'fiHm~,m ~~~t,l~f{~:m";{~~{'~-{i~j~~:\;~~;,}t~;}:~~gf~~ijt1l~}i~~¥~J:~~ Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 44th St & 1-405 S8 Off-Ramp <I- 5/23/2011 Mo;7enier'lt.~'j';::·~·'~:".''1EBL.<2:EBJ: "EBF,l'· ·"W.BI:>J/"WBJ.0WBBt-;J)NEll!\f~i!l!:lTI!MiiJ':i!31ill~Em.Bt~!3Jl:r~{)B!il Lane Configurations " .. " .... .+ ...... l.'l... :t, ........ "_"'" ....... : ',' ... _ ............ ,_ .... ~ "c-_. f ~!t{~t1\~;~~;L:' 1900L 1~J:~:;:J,91:g:~:.1 ~4~~ ' .. 1 ~~" .! .999 j;~~9R;j 1999,.t;.)~QQ,;19goi;t~2g ;),194~g ~~ne, ptir J':~pjo(~' ;:;·;'''':'T'Cgo' :~. ,1;;iio,: :Ti:;Q((:'ji·:gQ~".:T/;;". . .... ':'ii(';: ·1:;;;\'.:Q.q:;):j::9J~ Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit ·prbteCiiia.~':r: ,::::; •• : r: :"', ;~:·.f6·6'./FbO·:. "6~95':, ::1'. Qij::::::' '~':~:;."::~";::": ·c'. T:·;·. ':;';"'i ':;:i.6:9S"\,:rOO Said.Fiow(proi) ·····'1863 1583'1"1701863' ,.... ,."',...." ,'" , 'i'776'1'583 FItPe~ml~ed '.::~ . .:: ':':/.' .,.;,i1 :00 !';;I.c50 ::'0;12': :Hf:oqT;:'· .• ::::. ; .• ·.n.':'.: l.: '!0"iiK':X:';:~; : ;':' ,;:;;{.:O;~5:'.');:(jg Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 232 1863 1776 1583 YolurTle(vph) '"'''' ",. ::"0 ;.,75T'';. 0743 .";:296.' 750':'~:'O~ ... '''-(.:0 ... ··'0>:.: '.'.0,,',':'204/:,,:.';'5 7 \513 Peak·hour factor,PHF .'. 6:95' 'b:95 , 6.95' ... 0.950.95"0:95'0.95'0.95" 0.950.95"0:95' '0:95 AdLFfo\l((iiplif": ;;-" i .. '9" ; . 797 '.'; :?8,t:;~1.2 ,<78.~'<:.,'(r:<:X9-;;;: ":,9';::;;;1 9~·::.':i!1:5;(;;Z5,,': M.11 RTOR Reduction (vph) a a 416 a a a a a 0 0 0 161 Lane Group' Flow (vph), . :.0.:: '. '791. : '.366'.31.2"'789:" .',,' 0: .,:,: a ::i:jj"';:\'b::\;'~'6::\:220:':"':;379 Turn Type Perm pm+pt Split Perm . p'[pt~cre~Pha~~s':) ..... :::; .. ~.' 2,.'" :·:~T.:;i'.:::'L:::· ,,6;:" ·"-:,:ii~~:::E;F:::;){4~;jS~r. Permitted Phases . 2 6 4 Aciuated G'ieer, G (s). . ':.'28.1."'-2.8:1'.::'04 to.':A.l :6, ;·i·':,16'.(lf';;J5:Q Effective Green, g(s) 28.1 28.1 41.0 41.0··1S.i:i ·i6.0 Actuatedg/CRatio' . ·:·;;.:O'!I::rO'! b.~~ \' ::g:§3';; .•.• O. 53:::;:: .i?:.>,,: 'co '.' :.,'Xi ::;<~':;' ;~,,;;'c, .'d::~5\:O:25 Clearance Time (8) . 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0"4:6';1':6 Vehicle Extenslcin' (S) /, .:".,'".;;;; ',: 3.0·'C:' ;:3:6 +,; ::;'3: b:: "3. iF,,": !,:::;:Ti:;: ',,':-' '<C( .,; :';: :'i?:\:':, :;,:;':,;, (::::3'.0':'<': 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 805 684 357 1175 437 390 (j/~;~:a~i)prRi··?:\ '.' ...... . ::'. ,:;! S()·4~:;';i ;;;('T:'·:.fo:·'f2:::,0 .42;: ;::::;~:;~T;i ':~~:,n':;~';;2E/:r(::Tj:::';;;R,f?~7z;j:}::2 vis Ratio Perm 0.23 0.43 cO.24 ~~ii~f~o d~l:a~:Xl~?': ", :-~t~',:,~~~5~:((:~!.r·;;9cg:' JD,·,.:';';!L'~';r::i~i~r;;T~1."; Progression F.actO(,/': :.' .\.~}1;96··:;':td9,YfJ5, :::";·9: 74~·;. i:: ;:"1\:;. '. ;;:}{;~\':.:};,:; i'.?(;)\~{ii:f~:~}jQ::I'DJiQ Incrementai Delay, d2 29.4 3.0 13.7 1.9 0.9 38.2 belay(s j;' ',. ,: "," .. ?'.' <I 7-?,i/l:6§ 1i~.7.1,:') 7;'~:/!"lc'lil~"C<';;\";';}Ei'{;;i";;C :·::"S.r;;22·Q!f~~i§ [evel'ofS~Ni~'~' 0 BOA C E ApproacilJJelay'( sj .,' ·,.::,c':. ~ .. ,.';' :~?::i';;::;;;; i:; ',::';::;:;.,,16))':(. ,,; ;;;!;';,l:~:;~\;< q;O;·;.i!"·;::' :;'i::i:i':~M;gj~;j~) Approach Wi> . C 8 A 0 KennydaJe Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/20112013 PM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 l HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE 48th St & West Site Access Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --with project 5/24/2011 Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 48th St & East Site Access <l-. 5/24/2011 /i!1Qye!nent :";;'. iJ;'·:.:.li:...t.iE !IT;:~~l;lft::,.V!. BIt·\"WI3i12,;.SNJllt~I)j&R~ 11fJ','it!':;:;;g;,.11l§'}.l::.t,;,'i!!'"*l'~·fi. ~Yl Lane Configurations ...... :r. .'1 "'. ¥ !3ignq:oritj'olO'·. . .'cF[~~ ";':~';igFree}: §t~P;;:::'C;i:,i;.,~", ;. Grade 15% -15%. 0% .. ...•.. ",; .. ' .• ;.' •.•.•.• ", . ~: .•.• '.:;: •. -.; '."Jo";::··.T. , . ".'.1' ','.!,',';'.:.'. yoiliri>e_(vel1iH) . <:'1,70:: ':;~1:'~ :·X::~.::t ::\215;,;;,i};:r~;):i,"K6 ':i:T;;:j:S:S""';Hi,:r;;i:",,':;:;;'?;':;:, .. '''''", Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ~~~2~tr!~~sr?'i~(vp.hi:·:·· 01?~:;:·' ';,6::? .' ··~.::":212;1.::T6·:::·: 'f1;'E::' :;':?';:UU.' ::. "";::" ,. LaneWidti'{(ft)'.>...;...·,' ',::, " Walking Speed (Ws) ~etc~iitBlockage'>" cr: Right'turn flare(vehf Mediailtype' :::.: Medianstorageveh) Lips~rea(ii,signaJ(ft) , •. pX, platoon unblocked yS;,:i:'6i!fHcli~g YOlu.':iJe··· vC 1, stage 1 conf vol yCi,"stage'"2 cont vol .c o ' vCu,tinblochdvoi ... ~~>~higle (sY ~,,'--.;"" ,\ ~. ie, 2 stage (sj . iF(Sj,."':' • ijei queue free o/~ i'~sapa§W (vsh!h)" , '" -".' ;194 ,'," 'j'" '""': ".' : 194" .,. 4'79 192" 'c' ;:4~1:."}:: )6:4',,:6:2' . ,3c5':~:.~ :··,i .. ,; 97 99 ,:: .. ;:?2;2 99 . '/1391- •. '>.", ",.-. .. ;',: .... 54.6:.,§~?::;~;::;:; Pit.~.t:tiQ:fi:.~l!;aIT~,tlt.-;:!~~. ·;;t:::~e~t ... ; \1:/8:,1 .. }lyBl2'-JJ~.B·I·~~~}·::=:-~tl tt .J'_.: ~:+~'f~,'t!l:' ~ ft :Zt,?~:.1}ti k~·,:·~:~c:Jt..rJg,~.{.~ltP~{j ){qtu, I]! 8:Tiital; ;'3.:;:~.,I91'L/ '~/jHU: 'LiZ ":<.,,;rr,' ... ; '? : ;::.y 2~.: .:' ,;;:;:;, ; ,:;:'.:" ·····'·;?;0L:AE;:~:;1' Volume Left 0 8 0 16 yolu';'~Right:·~ .. ~ F';' ,;,'f'i::;;6 f' .. :. 6,:~::Q' ,:;;.1(: \:1;};:'0,) cSH 1700 1391 1700 643 VOlume1o .capaCiiY: > :\:lfj 1'.· ·,o.oi"(i:16 ',(0:04'; ···• •• :;'FCF:!)<:-: ':.,;,:.:;;:.:';.iiV\:'· Queue Length 9sih(ftj '0 .' 6 '(r 3 fo~tiol~Qel~y(sf~h;:··:T·Q;0:, •• ,t6:'.·.·.6&:;in 9:87;" Lane LOS A B A'pp'iqact\''ci~lay (sf',' ... iO:(ji .···o.~:,:):?';;\16:8> ...• Approadi Los .. '., . . . . ,. . .. '6 . . .. _ 'rlt?r.se·cHorlLSlim·hiar:Y:::-~:-''' .. ~·':::'~ "":.'::. ~;; ./}:: ~",,:'.. ~:.;:~! ... _~~~~~-r,t-'~~}:)"::~~~.~j lM.":;z's~~~:~~·-:'?;~~t1~~~,t:~:~,t~~~~~t:~p.it4:~1}1 Average Delay 0.7 . ! ~t_~rS:~'qt(9~ :'G·~p~:~)tV.qtj.!!~-~f!q~::,<,·;·, ~~, ·:-·r;?~··~,%.'~)t ~~); ~:::)9 Q -~e.\!~r~t· ~:~rY.I~-~; ::-_;:>::-~{'?:·i·,·:~h:~ .. ·:;···r:~A\'; ~~~ " Analysis Period (min) 15 ~{~;~'::~, )t~~:\":':~F, ~;;·'\l/;r·;:·:: : :;~~,;. """':":';,:' ' .• ; ":/ il;C-' ii:' "(i'c':: .';,.;:3.:,;(' .:,iC· Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 AM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HeM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity A'nalysis 5: NE 48th St & West Site Access 5/24/2011 'QtE!ISgctli:1QlStlm'"m.iI~Th~~&'ti.'!t~jj~,'@\j\*~_~~ Average Delay 1.3 !ill~~fCgD:~:y~~@qlty::q!![[~~n~~q~r;lUfF~ti':~;~iR~.f~%%~NiY;~~Ii:;~l~:Q~~~;Y~L9I§:~tyfq~}li;~m:1Igi{~lJ~X~fI£]+\1f~:;f~~1~E;l~~n:t}~n;~~f~~Yt~S;}~~~j~~\i Analysis Period (min) . 15 . m~~;gi?I~~~}ftrl~:{~~1m![\i%:~F2i1W:?!mEN:f{1gkm1~tT&~~r23~:~i~:f~~~~sg2~~~~~IA;.!'t~{~~i~;B1tTr~iW~lIT.{~~anrttV(%~TIrt!~~~1~,\~:n:e:,~l~;j}j1~Jfi~Uft~~IiTI~rt~~!: Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --with project Synchro 6' Report Page 1 J •.. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 48th 8t & East Site Access 5/24/2011 Moyei'h.e~t'f""::;":~'l;,!'}: ·1;.B;rc;,I"E.BR,,~~W.Bf;,;&f'-e)ll:iir'.!.B@.;.:t;I.BI.;!~::;i;~;jjr'l~~~t';;f~~1I~'1#"] Lane Configurations .. i> \"j. t . ¥ ~i~~~ii~ir9L:':;::';X::j::' .·~~~1 ;,:,::;;:'~;:':'::::';;::X~~t;:$~~':>'! :!. ".,.". ,," v.~!ufri~: (veNhi::":, 'C;; f; ::?).~:;. :::1"6':,·:;;; i g';:;:2.W;)j~>i::'::,'.·.1. .i;'~:il':;;:;!:;::U~;':':: ;;:, i2'f.:<':" .~;:;l;};7>;"·." Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 R6u'riyti~;:/iiiteJ(vp6)·~i?23~;':.;f1.:' .'13::";' 231'. Pedestrians Lane Widiii'(ftj''- Walking Speed (fils) Percent Blockage::,' Rightiurn liare (veh) Median typii, ". :.\,," Median storage veh) . Upstreamsigri~1 (ti) ':.', pi, platoon unblocked ~C'i:i,iniii.cfl~g;)!jilurn~:~ .. vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage2 c·onf"'·ol.... ,., lieu, unblocked vol . )<:;:'5i6gle. (5)" tC, 2 stage (s) . -:~ ', .... .. "_.,' ', ... ', ,. t"." .. , ··.··;::t-.!o.nf .•..• ,-•.•... ,r, " :.:.-~' :.', .:' ,;'-": :.;~:<:.~ .~'>: , ... '" ,.'.,' ... , .. ,:: .. ' ~>:>' 250 502 244 ii,i: .. 4j;<.::'.{ ,:~.6.~<· 6:2 :".:.;;. ! iF (s);:"::':':," ':::' ":':'" "2:2,:Y,ijj'Y:':r3;! pO queue iree 0/0' 99 98 99 9Mcap'a9h(y~WIi).::'/;,,/ " . ,·I~?i,':·:>f"·),52t";.799'),;;:'I:}t;";:;;);j Average Delay 0.6 ir1t~rsecHiii)¢'apacftyUiili?atio~:i;!<;.· :":?"1; 9~~j;;:·tj';I¢u:~ey~( 9i.:SeiYjc"ey~:;;: C;(D;;+;,,'~A~.':;':·;'ia~~/t i})j; i,{: Analysis Period (min) 15 ,. ~ (;r~/;lF: :} ~i~;T '_:;:--~::.~ 2-.:~;::} ~~~~~ ·~"Y::A·~:-... i ... ,. e,' -" . ...... . "r ;1~[~.t~1 X:;-/ ~~~~ ,:,./ ,i}:cfli";: :;iJi.;::.:,;;'i~' i;.~'!i:i:', :.;';;{ ,,,V. ;'i;'" ,:.':, •• Kennydale Apartments (mixed use) 5/20/2011 2013 PM PK --with project Synchro 6 Report Page 1 fjijiijjWi· Taylor U-l-lMl-f1 Engineering Ll!W.bmlJ Consultants PREUM~NARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for the Kennyda/e Apartments Project Parcel # 334330-0820 Site Location: NE 48th Street (aka SE 76 th Street) between 11 th PI SE & Lake Washington Blvd NE Renton, Washington c· ,~ of Rel1ton PIa . . nnll1g DivisiOn AUG 1 2 lUll Prepared by: Lorna M. Taylor, P.E. TEC Project #: 542-HS Date: June 2, 2011 485 Rainier Blvd N, Ste #102, P.O. Box 1787 • Issaquah, Washington 98027 • telephone (425) 391-1415 • fax (425) 391-1551 · Preliminary Technical Information Report Kennydale Apartments Section 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 09. 10. Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Project Overview ....................................... .. Conditions and Requirements Summary .......... . Off-Site Analysis ......................................... . Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design .................................... . Conveyance System Analysis and Design ...... .. Special Reports and Studies ........................ .. Other Perm its.. . .... .. ... .. ... .. ........................ .. ESC AnalYSis and Design.. .. ....................... . Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant ............. : ................ .. Operations and Maintenance Manual .............. . Figures (10 pages) 1. TIR Worksheet (5 pages) 2. Site Location Map (1 page) Page Number 1 1 2 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3. Drainage Basins, Subbasins & Site Characteristics (1 page) 4. NRCS Soils Map (3 pages) Declaration of Covenant for Maintenance and Inspection of Flow Control BMPs and Maintenance Requirements for Privately Maintained Drainage Facilities (pending) Bond Quantities Worksheet (pending) Offsite Analysis (3 pages) Area Take-ofts and Calculations (6 pages) TEe · Preliminary Technical Information Report Kennydale Apartments SECTION 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW This Technical Information Report (TIR) is submitted to the City of Renton in accordance with the City-adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Renton Amendments thereto (Renton Amendment), dated February, 2010. The 4.81-acre project site is located south of NE 48th Street, east of Lake Washington Boulevard NE, and west of 111 th Place SE, immediately adjacent to the City of Newcastle. The project proposes to construct 230 apartment units in two buildings separated by a common space plaza. Parking will be underground beneath the buildings and in open parking lots east and west of the proposed buildings. The site slopes down to the west, and the steepest portions on the eastern side of the site will not be disturbed. The project is required to undergo Full Drainage Review in accordance with Figure 1.1.2.A of the KCSWDM & Renton Aniendment. Appendix A contains a TIR worksheet for the project (Figure 1), as well as a Site Location Map (Figure 2), a Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics figure (Figure 3), and a Soils map (Figure 4). SECTION 2 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The following summary describes how this new project will meet the "Core Requirements" and "Special Requirements" that apply according to Table 1.1.2.A in the Renton Amendment: Core Requirements 1. Discharge at the Natural Location: The "developed" system will discharge collected and detained runoff to the piped downstream drainage system, which currently collects runoff from the entire site and which replaced the natural drainage paths when the properties to the west were developed. 2. Off-Site Analysis: A Level 1 offsite analysis was conducted for this project as detailed in Section 3 of this report. 3. Flow Control: This project proposes to provide flow control in a detention vault as described in Section 4. 4. Conveyance System: Conveyance features for this site include 1) pipes conveying runoff from roof drains and catch basins in the exposed parking lots and entrance driveway to the detention vault, 2) bypass piping conveying runoff from uphill around the developed portions of the site, 3) pipes from the detention vault to the downstream drainage system, and 4) pipes conveying roadway runoff along the south side of NE 48 1h Street. Sizing and design of conveyance features (pending) is described in Section 5. 5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control: Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be provided as described in Section 8, as shown on the ESC plan, and described in Appendix D of the KCSWDM (pending). The TESC facilities will only be removed once all exposed site surfaces have been stabilized. 6. Maintenance and Operations: The drainage facilities must be inspected and maintained regularly. The City's Declaration of Covenant for Inspection and Maintenance of Storm water Facilities and BMPS form is included in Appendix B, which also includes pertinent excerpts from the KCSWDM Maintenance Requirements for Privately Maintained Drainage Facilities (pending). 7. Financial Guarantees and Liability: The project Bond Quantities Worksheet is included in Appendix C (pending). TEe 'Preliminary Technical Information Report Kennydale Apartments B. Water Quality: Basic Water Quality Treatment is proposed in a Basic Combination Detention and Wet pool Vault as described in Section 4. Special Requirements 1. Other Adopted Area·Specific Requirements: According to City mapping, the property includes an Erosion Hazard area, an Unclassified Landslide Hazard area, and Steep Slope areas between 15% and 25% on the western portion of the site and between 25% and 40% on the eastern portion of the site. The entire property is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) area, and Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment is be required as a result of the proposed multi·family land use -except that the exception described in Section 1.2.B.1.A.3 of the Renton Amendment applies to this project because the pipe and channel system downstream to Lake Washington has been determined to be non-fish·bearing (Poggemeyer, June 14, 2000). 2. FloodplainlFloodway Delineation: Not Applicable. 3. Flood Protection Facilities: Not Applicable. 4. Source Controls: Source controls are required for this multifamily residential project, in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. 5. Oil Control: Not Applicable. SECTION 3 OFF·SITE ANALYSIS A detailed off·site analysis was conducted for this parcel in June of 2000 (Poggemeyer, June 2000). Since that time, the only significant change in the vicinity of the site is the construction of the Seahawks training facility approximately 1,400 feet downstream of the site along the downstream drainage path. This level 1 off·site analysis verified the previous study findings and updated it as necessary for changed conditions as described below. Task 1. Study Area Definition and Maps The Offsite Drainage System Map in Appendix D shows the extent of the study area. The downstream analysis extends all the way to Lake Washington, a receiving body, so no calculation of the site's area relative to the basin area tributary to the point Y. mile downstream from the project was made. Figure 3 in Appendix A shows the surrounding local topography, and the civil plan drawings show even more detailed topographic information on the project site. Task 2. Resource Review Agency (King County and City of Renton) mapping was reviewed. There are no drainage complaints in King County's file along the downstream drainage path. The City's mapping shows that the property includes an Erosion Hazard area, an Unclassified Landslide Hazard area, and Steep Slope areas between 15% and 25% on the western portion of the site and between 25% and 40% on the eastern portion of the site. The entire property is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) area, and Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment is be required as a result of the proposed multi-family land use -except that the exception described in Section 1.2.B.1.A.3 of the Renton Amendment applies to this project because the pipe and channel system downstream to Lake Washington has been determined to be non·fish-bearing (Poggemeyer, June 14, 2000). The USDA, NSRC soils map identifies site soils in the proposed development area as Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam, 5 -15 percent slopes as shown on Figure 4 in Appendix A. 2 TEe · Preliminary Technical Information Report Kennydale Apartments Task 3. Field Inspection In accordance with the KCSWDM and the Renton Amendment, the existing on-and off-site drainage systems were inspected on April 5, 2011, and again on May 26, 2011. The first time, the weather was rainy and cool; the second was sunny and warm. Task 4. Drainage System Descriptions and Problem Descriptions The site is forested with a mixture of second growth deciduous and evergreen trees. Rainfall onto the site flows in a dispersed manner to the west, with localized concentrations throughout the site. There is a significant drainage path through the middle of the site, which begins at a 12" pipe outfall from the neighborhood to the east. This drainage swale has eroded significantly and is depositing sediment in the channel and concrete swale at the west side of the property. Downstream: Runoff from the site is collected and conveyed in a southerly direction in a 12- inch wide concrete swale along the west property line. Midway along the west property line, the swale drains runoff from the north half of the property, and the upstream tributary areas, into a 12-inch pipe system that conveys runoff to a regional drainage pond just west of the adjacent storage unit property. The south half of the property drains similarly into another south-flowing 12-inch concrete swale, which discharges into a separate 12-inch pipe system, at the southwest corner of the property, and which conveys the runoff around the south and west sides of the adjacent hotel, joining the previously described 12-inch pipe just upstream of the regional pond. From the pond, runoff is conveyed across Lake Washington Boulevard and Interstate 405 in multiple pipes ranging in size from 24-inch to 48-inch diameter. West of Interstate 405, runoff flows in a short section of open channel, and then a pipe system all the way to Lake Washington on the west side of the new Seahawks training facility. The Offsite Drainage System Map and Offsite Analysis Drainage System Table in Appendix D describe the downstream drainage path. Upstream: Upstream, a residential area of about 8.5 acres drains to the 12-inch pipe outfall in the middle of the property. This area is sketched on the King County GIS Contour Map Figure 3 Appendix A, as well as on the Offsite Drainage System Map in Appendix D. As mentioned previously, runoff from this area is causing erosion to occur on the proposed Kennydale Apartments property. What remains of this erosion sensitive area will be stabilized during construction and the offsite runoff will be routed safely around the proposed development to the base of the hill and a constructed drainage system. SECTION 4 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The project proposes 136,662 square feet of new impervious surface on the project site, 70,439 square feet of which is traffic pavement (PGIS), as shown on the Figure in Appendix E. The frontage improvements will be limited to two driveway entrances and new sidewalks and landscaping along NE 48 th Street, which will add an additional 2,555 square feet of impervious surface, 920 square feet of which will be traffic pavement (PGIS). Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) The existing site is entirely forested with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen second growth trees. The entire site slopes down in a westerly direction, with slopes between 15% and 20% on the western half of the site and between 20% and 25% on the eastern half. The Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (see Figure 4 in Appendix A) shows the entire site to be underlain by Kitsap Silt Loam. 3 TEe · Preliminary Technical Information Report Kennydale Apartments Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) The developed site drainage system will discharge detained site runoff to the existing drainage system to the west. The developed site conditions identified for this project and used in the preliminary detention sizing are as follows: Developed Site Conditions used for Preliminary Detention Sizing (Ac) Site Frontage Total Building 1.02 0.00 1.02 Conc. Walks 0.50 0.04 0.54 ~~~p.b~[fE?~~i!i~:~C::::::: :::=::::::::I§.Q::::::::::::::: :::::::::==::IQQ::===:~~: ':::==::.1JI~~= PGIS Concrete 0.02 0.02 0.04 'ImperVious-Subtotar··_·· ············T1·4-············· ················0:·06·····_···_··· _·· __ ·-3:"20-_·- Landscaping 0.35 0.05 0.40 Forest· 1.24 0.00 1.24 ·p-Br\IiouSSU5tC;taT"·········· -_··--···1·:-5·9·····-_······ ····_···-0:05-·_·····-r--1.64- Total 4.73 0.11 4.84 'Forested areas will bypass detention and treatment and were not Included in sizing calculations. Performance Standards (Part C) Detention must meet the Conservation Flow Control Standards established in the KCSWDM, which in this case means Level 2 flow control assuming historic forested site conditions for peak flow and duration matching. Treatment is required because the PGIS area is increasing more than 5,000 square feet. Runoff treatment facilities must meet Basic Water Quality Treatment parameters established in the KCSWDM and Renton Amendment, because the site meets the criteria set forth in the Renton Amendment Section 1.2.8.1.A.3. The entire downstream drainage path has been determined to be non-fish bearing (Poggemeyer, June 14, 2000). Conveyance features must be able to convey the predicted 25-year flows without flooding. The 1 ~O-year flows will also be modeled to be sure that significant flooding will not result under extreme runoff conditions. Flow Control System (Part D) Flow control will be provided in a detention vault. Preliminary KCRTS detention sizing requires 66,240 cubic feet of storage volume. A 36-foot wide by 230-foot long detention vault is proposed, with 8 feet of variable storage depth. The vault will include additional dead storage for water quality treatment as described in Part E below. See Appendix E for preliminary detention sizing calculations. Water Quality (Part E) The area of new asphalt and concrete pavement subject to vehicle traffic totals 71,359 square feet, so water quality treatment is required. Basic treatment can be provided in a wet pool (combined detention/treatment vault) located below the variable detention storage in the vault. Preliminary sizing of the wetpool, predicts a total dead storage volume requirement of 15,163 cubic feet. This volume is proposed within the 36-foot wide combination detention/treatment vault. The treatment volume will be 4 feet deep and is divided into two cells; the first is 32-feet long and the second is 76 feet long. Sizing calculations for the wetvault are included in Appendix E. 4 TEe · Preliminary Technical Information Report Kennydale Apartments SECTION 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Pending. SECTION 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Pending, available under separate cover. SECTION 7 OTHER PERMITS Pending. SECTION 8 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Pending. SECTION 9 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT Pending. SECTION 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Pending. 5 TEe Preliminary Technical Information Report Kennydale Apartments REFERENCES City of Renton Public Works Department Surface Water Utility, Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual, February 2010. Geo Group Northwest, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Kennydale Business Park, Prepared for Mr. Howard Seelig, August 17, 2004. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Surface Water Design Manual, 2009 Poggemeyer Design Group, Technical Information Report, Kennydale Business Park, Prepared for Seelig Family Properties, July 04. Poggemeyer Design Group, Drainage Report for Fisheries Conditions, Kennydale Business Park, Prepared for Seelig Family Properties June 14, 2000. TEe APPENDIX A FIGURES 1. TIR Worksheet (5 pages) 2. Site Location Map (1 page) 3. Drainage Basins, Subbasins & Site Char. (1 page) 4. NRCS Soil Map (3 pages) KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Fi 4 UI~':' .:L Project Owner i-luWova. Sed\j Phone '-12.12-J'1("-'l1BD Address PO Go" 19<-') iSel kol,,-e. I WI'! q)! D09 Project Engineer Lori!l441 ",.. Company :tl"", \ >'I , "~r'~-: ,~;\'L{' -~'~i/:'.\_.:, '. ,:_ ""~' -i -,. \_:; j':' :i ;' :;t·,: j"', '~~'r'·,iZri.1 ': ',_ ; ;J>';(::.'~;0);. :';~':;" -;.1>i.t·~',~t\,:'<\:$jl:< " 'Part'3" ];YPE 'OF'PERM IT'I1'PP~1 CAwl ONi"" i,""":~:'i'>'" f}P ,,~~4.: ~'.':~';~'_:.' ,:; (I.,:, :~_<;:.., :·-;'~:,!"$;:~:'~'Y.\1;<~:; ~-'.~:"~:~"":.,1~,.".<,::-;~ .~;; -.-.s£',,_:~:'}., "c.?';. o Landuse Services Subdivison 1 Short Subd, 1 UPD Building Services Com me rica I 1 SFR o Clearing and Grading o Right-of-Way Use o Other Location Township ___ 2=-'+'-__ _ Range _.25'---___ _ 0::;'; ZCl o COE404 o DOE Dam Safety o FEMA Floodplain o COE Wetlands o Other Shoreline Management ~ Structural RockeryNauIV __ o ESA Section 7 p:i2:~~~hrii~~~~~~R;;ep~0i,rt~::::::!!.~2rTS1:~sTtite;i;lm~p~r~0;vement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review (circle): Date (include revision dates): '. ",' tFu'Ji\1 Targeted Type (circle one): @/ Modified 1 'i:frge Site Small Site Date (include revision dates): Type (circle one): Standard 1 Complex 1 Pre application 1 Experimental 1 Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of 2009 Surface Water D:esign Manual 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET . '.','-,'. Monitoring Required: Yes / No Start Date: . Compleflon Date: Community Plan: ____________ _ Special District Overlays: ____ ~-----------'--------- Drainage Basin: ~. lal~ vJt>-~j....'~hVl-!3ell(WL s;'"fL. Stormwater Requirements: . ''''/' ~River/Stream d ... a..:"s Mi5khotk!lQd .tt, (AI~ • o Lake ~ Steep Slope ________ _ ~ Erosion Hazard _______ _ o Wetlands __________ _ ~ Landslide Hazard ______ _ o Closed Depression _______ _ o Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ o Floodplain _________ _ o Seismic Hazard _______ _ o Other _____ -----o Habitat Protection ______ _ o Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential l<pC 11 -1$ 15-30 o High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) o Sole Source Aquifer o Other o Seeps/Springs Additional Sheets Attached Ste a-li...h,d. r{llC 5 ""aM .• 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 119/2009 2 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET REFERENCE LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT ~ Core 2 -Offsite Analysis ~ Sensitive/Critical Areas sir,. slope\ I I o SEPA o Other 0 __________ _ Additional Sheets Attached P~iti2 TIR· SUMMARY SHEET .. .·(provid~one,TIR·Su";111a~:She~t~~;:fh~~~~6Id'Di~6~·~·~~~ Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: I Offsite Analysis Level: (j// 2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 /P/ 3 or Exemption Number (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contact Phone. After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: ~ivate J Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required. Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Cjes J No Liability - Water Quality Type: (llasic)/ Sens, Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. 1.1.. ~.I 8.:3: Landscape Management Plan: Yes / No Special Requirements (as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac, / None Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / None 1 DO-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control Describe landuse: (commJindustriallanduse) Describe any structural controls: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 3 KING C,OUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Drainaae Structures Describe: Part 13\',EROSJON 'AND,SED I MENTCONTROl, REQU IREMENTS")'.' K:S,,;,;'. !"}', :, >,~ MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION r:8l Clearing Limits Ilil Stabilize Exposed Surfaces ~ Cover Measures ~ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ~ Perimeter Protection ~ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure ~ Traffic Area Stabilization Operation'of Pemnanent Facilities (2g Sediment Retention 121 Flag Limits of SAO and open space ~ Surface Water Collection preservation areas o Other 1]1 Dewatering Control ~ Dust Control ~ Flow Control ''Part ,14 SIORMWATER,FACILlTY,DESCRIPIIONSl'Nbte: Include Facilitv SiJrnrnarY aildS!(etchJ:':\",:'Y-' Flow Control Type/Description Water Qualitv Type/Descriotion 1.&1 Detention Valli:!: o Biofiltration o Infiltration ~ Wetpool Co....b,'",d VaJl- o Regional Facility o Media Filtration o Shared Facility o Oil Control o Flow Control o Spill Control BMPs o Flow Control BMPs o Other o Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 119/2009 4 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET D Drainage Easement D Covenant D Native Growth Protection Covenant D Tract D Other lEI Cast in Place Vault 1:81 Retaining Wall D Rockery > 4' High ~ Structural on Steep Slope D Other I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided i accurate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 5 Lake Wa.sllitlgton 47· 32' 14" 47· 31' 50" N A Soil Map-King County Area, Washington (Figure 4 -Kennydale Apartments Site) t.Aap Scale: 1 :3,520 /I prnted on A size (8.5" x 11") shee!. Meiers a 30 60 120 180 ;"'=';':=::;=.:;====""=-====:;'Feel a 100 200 400 600 USDA Natural Resources ,.. 7] Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/4/2011 Page 1 of 3 47· 32' 13" 47· 31' 49" ~DA = Soil Map-King County Area, Washington (Figure 4 -Kennydale Apartments Site) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (ADI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features '" Blowout II(! Borrow Pit * Clay Spot • Closed Depression X Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot @ Landfill A Lava Flow ... Marsh or swamp " Mine or Quarry @ Miscellaneous Water ® Perennial Water v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot -=-Severely Eroded Spot 1> Sinkhole 9 Slide or Slip " Sodie Spot :; Spoil Area I) Stony Spot Natural Resources Conservation Service ro Very Siony Spot t Wet Spot .. Other Special Line Features ~' GuOy ~ Short Steep Slope ~ ""'" other Political Features C> Cities 0 PLSS Township and Range 0 P LSS Section Water Features a Ooeaos ."..,--" Streams and Canals Transportation m Rails ...... Interstate Highways ~ US Routes ~ Major Roads ~ ""'" Local Roads Map Scale: 1 :3,520 if printed on A size (B.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24.000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Survey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 6, Sep 22. 2009 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7124/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soif lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result. some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/412011 Page 2 of 3 Soil Map-King County Area, Washington Figure 4 -Kennydale Apartments Site Map Unit Legend ! --.-.--+-~.,.-.---~----... --.. -.-.. ------.---II' .--.--.-~-----j'-'~-'-~.------I I Area of Interest Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 4/4/2011 Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX D OFF-SITE ANALYSIS (3 pages) OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL, CORE REQUIREMENT #2 Basin: East Lake Washington/South Bellevue Subbasin Name: Subbasin Number: Swale, concrete, I Flows south all along ~l 0' Silt from Flooding due Should work fine wI regular 12" wide, 12" deep the west border of site, hillside erosion to silt maintenance. This project approx. 360' long accumulation should alleviate the silt problem by eliminating most of the sediment source. B-C I Pipe, 12" diameter I Flows SW from I ~20 I 0' -100' I None noted I concrete channel above comer of parking lot to CB in middle of ( D Pipe, 12" diameter Flows west from CB ~10 100' -260' None noted to SDMH B' -C' Swale, concrete, Flows south all along ~l Silt from Flooding due Should work fine wI regular 12" wide, 6" deep the west border of site, hillside erosion to silt maintenance. This project approx. 250' long accumulation should alleviate the silt problem by eliminating most of the sediment source. C' - D I Pipe. 12" diameter I Flows west, then north I ~10 10' -260' I None noted I from concrete channel at southwest comer of site to SDMH D-E I Pipe, 12" diameter I Flows west from ~2 I 260' -370' I None noted SDMH to detention 119109 E-F Detention pond Regional pond also 0 370' -480' collects runoff from south and slightly north F-G Pipe, 24", Pipe 42" Multiple pipes flowing ~2 480' - or 48" diameter north and west, 1,280'± . crossing Lk. Washington Blvd and 1-405 G-H Pipes, 24" Multiple pipes flowing ~ 1,280' - NW, crossing Ripley 1,340' Lane H -1 Pipe, 24" Flows west 1,340' - 1,363 ' I -J Pipe, 36" FlowsSW ~2 1,363' - 1,463' J -K Pipe, 60" FlowsNW ~2 1,463' - 1,932' K-L Pipe, 72" FlowsNWand ~2 1,932' - discharges into Lake 1,999' Washington 1/9/09 ....... -....... ----.. -~.~ APPENDIX E CALCULATIONS (11 pages) ~~~~i~~L~~~~~¥~~~¥$ COMMON BUILDING EXISTING (sF): SITE: FOREST: 205.955 (4.73 AC) FOREST PROPOSED (sF): SITE: BUILOINGS: 44.571 (1.02 AC) CONC. WALKS: 21.652 (0.50 AC) ASPH. PVMT: 69.498 (1.60 AC) PGIS CONC. PVMT: 941 (0.02 AC) LANDSCAPE: 15.163 (0.35 AC) FOREST: 54.123 (1.24 AC) TOTAL: 205.948 (4.73 AC) ASPHALT FRONTAGE: CONC. WALKS: 1.635 (0.04 AC) PGIS CONC. PVMT: 920 (0.02 AC)) LANDSCAPE: 2.053 (0.05 AC) TOTAL: 4.608 (0.11 AC) MAIN BUILDING LANDSCAPING . zE9 o 50 100 I I I SCALE: 1" = 100 ft. ~ Summary 01 KCRTS-Generated Flows (Historic, Developed, Bypass) 6/1/11 Historic (Existing) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:exisUsl Project Location:Sea-Tac Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.060 StdDev= 0.233 Skew= -0.137 0.287 0.252 0.217 0.172 0.162 0.137 0.088 0.058 100.00 0.990 (Peak 100-year flow) 50.00 0.980 25.00 0.960 10.00 0.900 8.00 0.875 5.00 0.800 2.00 0.500 1.30 0.231 Int Size = [0.252-0.5(0.088)]/36-1 = 0.0059 1st Int. = 0.5(0.088) = 0.044 Omax = 4/3(0.044) -02 bypass = 0.05867 -0.018 = 0.04067 cis Oril2 Ht = 3/4(d) = 3/4(8) = 6' Developed (Undetained) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsl Project Location:Sea-Tac Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Bypass (Frontage) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:bypass.tsl Project Location:Sea-Tac Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks Computed Peaks LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -0.083 StdDev= 0.098 Skew= 0.528 1.52 1.40 1.27 1.11 1.08 0.991 0.810 0.693 100.00 0.990' (Peak 1 DO-year flow) 50.00 0.980 25.00 0.960 10.00 0.900 8.00 0.875 5.00 0.800 2.00 0.500 1.30 0.231 LogPearson III Coefficients Mean= -1.735 StdDev= 0.114 Skew= 0.403 0.037 0.033 0.030 0.026 0.025 0.023 0.018 0.015 100.00 0.990 (Peak 1 DO-year flow) 50.00 0.980 25.00 0.960 10.00 0.900 8.00 0.875 5.00 0.800 2.00 0.500 1.30 0.231 KCRTS Program ... File Directory: -/I\.lPVT Po~ (C.(.(.fJbF"F l1M1:;. ~IE:'- C:IKC SWDMIKC DATAl -..J [C] CREATE a new Time Series ST 3.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 exisus! F 1.0000 T 0.000000 Till Forest 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.000000 Wetland 0.000000 ImpeNious [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies exisusl exist.pks [R] RETURN to Previous Menu [C] ~REATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.14 dev.ts! F 1.0000 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 Outwash Forest 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.000000 Wetland 0.000000 ImpeNious [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies dev.ts! dev.pks [R] RETURN to Previous Me.nu [C] CREATE a new Time Series ST 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 bypass.ts! F 1.0000 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.000000 Till Pasture. 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 OutWash Forest 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.000000 Wetland 0.000000 ImpeNious [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies bypass.ts! bypass.pks [R] RETURN to Previous Menu [X] eXit KCRTS Program Kennydale Apartments KCRTS Output Retention/Detention Facility 6/1/11 Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 230.00 ft Facility Width: 36.00 ft Facility Area: 8280. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 8.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 66240. cu. ft Riser Head: 8.00 ft Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches Number of orifices: 3 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 0.83 0.053 2 4.77 1. 21 0.071 4.0 3 5.60 1. 35 0.077 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 0.00 O. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 0.01 83. 0.002 0.002 0.00 0.02 0.02 166. 0.004 0.002 0.00 0.03 0.03 248. 0.006 0.003 0.00 0.04 0.04 331. 0.008 0.004 0.00 0.05 0.05 414. 0.010 0.004 0.00 0.06 0.06 497. 0.011 0.005 0.00 0.07 0.07 580. 0.013 0.005 0.00. 0.23 0.23 1904. 0.044 0.009 0.00 0.38 0.38 3146. 0.072 0.012 0.00 0.54 0.54 4471. 0.103 0.014 0.00 0.70 0.70 5796. 0.133 0.016 0.00 0.85 0.85 7038. 0.162 0.017 0.00 1. 01 1. 01 8363. 0.192 0.019 0.00 1.17 1.17 9688. 0.222 0.020 0.00 1. 32 1.32 10930. 0.251 0.022 0.00 1. 48 1. 48 12254. 0.281 0.023 0.00 1. 64 1. 64 13579. 0.312 0.024 0.00 1. 7 9 1.79 14821. 0.340 0.025 0.00 1. 95 1. 95 16146. 0.371 0.026 0.00 2.11 2.11 17471. 0.401 0.027 0.00 2.27 2.27 18796. 0.431 0.028 0.00 2.42 2.42 20038. 0.460 0.029 0.00 2.58 2.58 213 62. 0.490 0.030 0.00 2.74 2.74 22687. 0.521 0.031 0.00 2.89 2.89 23.929. 0.549 0.032 0.00 3.05 3.05 25254. 0.580 0.033 0.00 3.21 3.21 26579. 0.610 0.033 0.00 3.36 3.36 27821. 0.639 0.034 0.00 3.52 3.52 29146. 0.669 0.035 0.00 3.68 3.68 30470. 0.700 0.036 0.00 3.83 3.83 31712. 0.728 0.037 0.00 3.99 3.99 33037. 0.758 0.037 0.00 4.15 4.15 34362. 0.789 0.038 0.00 4.30 4.30 35604. 0.817 0.039 0.00 4.46 4.46 36929. 0.848 0.039 0.00 4.62 4.62 38254. 0.878 0.040 0.00 4.77 4.77 39496. 0.907 0.041 0.00 4.78 4.78 39578. 0.909 0.041 0.00 4.80 4.80 39744. 0.912 0.042 0.00 4.81 4.81 39827. 0.914 0.044 0.00 4.82 4.82 39910. 0.916 0.046 0.00 4.83 4.83 39992 . 0.918 0.049 0.00 4.85 4.85 40158. 0.922 0.052 0.00 4.86 4.86 40241. 0.924 0.053. 0.00 4.87 4.87 40324. 0.926 0.054 0.00 5.03 5.03 41648. 0.956 0.062 0.00 5.18 5.18 42890. 0.985 0.068 0.00 5.34 5.34 44215. 1. 015 0.073 0.00 5.50 5.50 45540. 1. 045 0.078 0.00 5.60 5.60 46368. 1. 064 0.080 0.00 5.61 5.61 46451. 1. 066 0.081 0.00 5.63 5.63 46616. 1. 070 0.083 0.00 5.64 5.64 46699. 1.072 0.085 0.00 5.66 5.66 46865. 1. 07 6 0.088 0.00 5.67 5.67 46948. 1.078 0.092 0.00 5.68 5.68 47030. 1. 080 0.096 0.00 5.70 5.70 47196. 1.083 0.098 0.00 5.71 5.71 47279. 1. 085 0.100 0.00 5.73 5.73 47444. 1. 089 0.101 0.00 5.88 5.88 48686. 1.118 0.114 0.00 6.04 6.04 50011. 1.14 8 0.123 0.00 6.20 6.20 51336. 1.179 0.132 0.00 6.35 6.35 52578. 1.207 0.140 0.00 6.51 6.51 53903. 1. 237 0.147 0.00 6.67 6.67 55228. 1. 268 0.154 0.00 6.82 6.82 56470. 1. 296 0.160 0.00 6.98 6.98 57794. 1. 327 0.167 0.00 7.14 7.14 59119. 1. 357 0.172 0.00 7.30 7.30 60444. 1. 388 0.178 0.00 7.45 7.45 61686. 1. 416 0.183 0.00 7.61 7.61 63011. 1. 447 0.189 0.00 7.77 7.77 64336. 1. 477 0.194 0.00 7.92 7.92 65578. 1. 505 0.198 0.00 8.00 8.00 66240. 1. 521 0.201 0.00 8.10 8.10 67068. 1. 540 0.666 0.00 8.20 8.20 67896. 1. 559 1. 510 0.00 8.30 8.30 68724. 1. 578 2.610 0.00 8.40 8.40 69552. 1. 597 3.910 0.00 8.50 8.50 70380. 1.616 5.380 0.00 8.60 8.60 71208. 1.635 6.810 0.00 8.70 8.70 72036. 1. 654 7.340 0.00 8.80 8.80 72864. 1.673 7.830 0.00 8.90 8.90 73692. 1. 692 8.300 0.00 9.00 9.00 74520. 1. 711 8.740 0.00 9.10 9.10 75348. 1.730 9.160 0.00 9.20 9.20 76176. 1. 74 9 9.560 0.00 9.30 9.30 77004. 1.768 9.940 0.00 9.40 9.40 77832. 1. 787 10.310 0.00 9.50 9.50 78660. 1. 806 10.660 0.00 9.60 9.60 79488. 1. 825 11.010 0.00 9.70 9.70 80316. 1.844 11. 340 0.00 9.80 9.80 81144. 1.863 11 . 670 0.00 9.90 9.90 81972 . 1. 882 11. 980 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.81 0.20 7.97 7.97 66029. 1. 516 2 0.89 0.19 7.52 7.52 62253. 1. 429 3 1. 27 0.18 7.34 7.34 60814. 4 0.90 0.16 6:77 6.77 56072 . 5 0.80 0.14 6.34 6.34 52509. 6 1. 08 0.11 5.81 5.81 48092. 7 0.69 0.07 5.25 5.25 43502. 8 0.72 0.07 5.38 5.38 44518. Hyd RID Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow Outflow Inflow Inflow 1 0.20 0.02 ******** 2 0.19 0.02 ******** 3 0.18 0.03 ******** 4 0.16 0.02 ******** 5 0.14 0.02 ******** 6 0.11 0.02 ******** 7 0.07 0.02 ******** 8 0.07 0.02 ******** ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf poe Time Series File:dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 1. 36 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.200 Peak Reservoir Stage: 7.97 Peak Reservoir Elev: 7.97 CFS CFS Ft Ft Target 0.29 ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* at 6:00 at 20:00 Peak Reservoir Storage: 66030. Cu-Ft 1. 516 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Calc 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.07 0.08 on Jan on Feb 1. 396 1. 287 1.205 1.104 0.999 1.022 9 in 1990 9 in 1951 Peak Summed Discharge: 0.208 CFS at 18:00 on Feb 9 in 1951 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probablllty CFS % % % 0.003 163126 37.243 37.243 62.757 0.628E+00 0.008 57112 13.039 50.283 49.717 0.497E+00 0.014 51680 11.799 62.082 37.918 0.379E+00 0.020 51579 11.776 73.858 26.142 0.261E+00 0.025 43639 9.963 83.821 16.179 0.162E+00 0.031 32621 7.448 91. 269 8.731 0.873E-01 0.036 22649 5.171 96.440 3.560 0.356E-01 0.042 11864 2.709 99.148 0.852 0.852E-02 0.048 210 0.048 99.196 0.804 0.804E-02 0.053 291 0.066 99.263 0.737 0.737E-02 0.059 586 0.134 99.397 0.603 0.603E-02 0.065 569 0.130 99.526 0.474 0.474E-02 0.070 514 0.117 99.644 0.356 0.356E-02 0.076 493 0.113 99.756 0.244 0.244E-02 0.081 332 0.076 99.832 0.168 0.168E-02 0.087 68 0.016 99.848 0.152 0.152E-02 0.093 37 0.008 99.856 0.144 0.144E-02 0.098 32 0.007 99.863 0.137 0.137E-02 0.104 69 0.016 99.879 0.121 0.121E-02 0.109 65 0.015 99.894 0.106 0.106E-02 0.115 66 0.015 99.909 0.091 0.909E-03 0.121 59 0.013 99.923 0.077 0.774E-03 0.126 53 0.012 99.935 0.065 0.653E-03 0.132 32 0.007 99.942 0.058 0.580E-03 0.137 44 0.010 99.952 0.048 0.479E-03 0.143 45 0.010 99.962 0.038 0.377E-03 0.149 34 0.008 99.970 0.030 0.299E-03 0.154 30 0.007 99.977 0.023 0.231E-03 0.160 26 0.006 99.983 0.017 o . 171E-03 0.165 17 0.004 99.987 0.013 0.132E-03 0.171 17 0.004 99.991 0.009 0.936E-04 0.177 13 0.003 99.994 0.006 0.639E-04 0.182 8 0.002 99.995 0.005 0.457E-04 0.188 8 0.002 99.997 0.003 0.274E-04 0.193 5 0.001 99.998 0.002 0.160E-04 0.199 5 0.001 100.000 0.000 0.457E-05 Flow Duration from Time Series File:dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.003 163213 37.263 37.263 62.737 0.627E+00 0.009 59890 13.674 50.937 49.063 0.491E+00 0.015 52436 11.972 62.908 37.092 0.371E+00 0.020 51125 11.672 74.581 25.419 0.254E+00 0.026 43671 9.971 84.551 15.449 0.154E+00 0.032 30910 7.057 91.608 8.392 0.839E-01 0.038 23715 5.414 97.023 2.977 0.298E-01 0.044 8677 1.981 99.004 0.996 0.996E-02 0.050 765 0.175 99.179 0.821 0.821E-02 0.056 418 0.095 99.274 0.726 0.72 6E-02 0.061 608 0.139 99.413 0.587 0.587E-02 0.067 586 0.134 99.547 0.453 0.453E-02 0.073 509 0.116 99.663 0.337 0.337E-02 0.079 460 0.105 99.768 0.232 0.232E-02 0.085 267 0.061 99.829 0.171 o . 171E-02 0.091 76 0.017 99.846 0.154 0.154E-02 0.096 40 0.009 99.855 0.145 0.145E-02 0.102 49 0:011 99.866 0.134 0.134E-02 0.108 71 0.016 99.883 0.117 o . 117E-02 0.114 64 0.015 99.897 0.103 0.103E-02 0.120 71 0.016 99.913 0.087 0.865E-03 0.126 58 0.013 99.927 0.073 0.733E-03 0.131 44 0.010 99.937 0.063 0.632E-03 0.137 31 0.007 99.944 0.056 0.562E-03 0.143 46 0.01l 99.954 0.046 0.457E-03 0.149 44 0.010 99.964 0.036 0.356E-03 0.155 31 0.007 99.971 0.029 0.285E-03 0.161 33 0.008 99.979 0.021 0.210E-03 0.167 20 0.005 99.984 0.016 0.164E-03 0.172 19 0.004 99.988 0.012 0.121E-03 0.178 17 0.004 99.992 0.008 0.822E-04 0.184 10 0.002 99.994 0.006 0.594E-04 0.190 8 0.002 99.996 0.004 0.4llE-04 0.196 8 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.228E-04 0.202 4 0.001 99.999 0.001 0.137E-04 0.207 5 0.001 100.000 0.000 0.228E-05 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: exist.tsf New File: dsout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New %Change Probability Base New %Change 0.044 0.99E-02 0.10E-01 0.6 I 0.99E-02 0.044 0.044 0.3 0.059 0.51E-02 0.64E-02 25.4 I 0.51E-02 0.059 0.065 9.5 0.074 0.29E-02 0.31E-02 8.9 I 0.29E-02 0.074 0.076 1.8 0.090 o . 17E-02 0.16E-02 -10.4 I 0.17E-02 0.090 0.084 -5.9 0.105 o . 11E-02 o .l3E-02 16.8 o . 11E-02 0.105 0.112 6.4 0.120 0.66E-03 0.S5E-03 29.0 0.66E-03 0.120 0.129 7.7 o .l35 0.44E-03 0.59E-03 33.0 0.44E-03 0.135 0.144 6.2 0.151 0.30E-03 0.33E-03 9.0 0.30E-03 0.151 0.153 1.6 0.166 0.21E-03 0.17E-03 -20.7 0.21E-03 0.166 0.161 -3.2 0.lS1 o .l1E-03 0.73E-04 -36.0 o . 11E-03 0.181 0.173 -4.2 0.196 0.59E-04 0.23E-04 -61. 5 0.59E-04 0.196 0.184 -6.1 0.212 0.32E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.32E-04 0.212 0.192 -9.2 0.227 0.68E-05 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.68E-05 0.227 0.206 -9.2 0.242 0.23E-05 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.23E-05 0.242 0.208 -14.0 Maximum positive excursion = 0.006 cfs ( 10.0% ) occurring at 0.057 cfs on the Ba,se Data:exist.tsf and at 0.062 cfs on the New Data:dsQut.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.034 cfs (-14.0%) occurring at 0.242 cfs on the Base Data:exist.tsf and at 0.20S cfs on the New Data:ctsout.tsf l o • 0 o g o o o o ~ '7 0 ~ r-------_+--------+-------~--------_+--------+_------_4--------~--------~~o g(o ~~·o edo 9 ·0 00· ~ OJ " c: OJ "0 OJ Q) " ill ~ :0 '" .0 e a. • WETVAULT SIZING WORKSHEET METHODS OF ANALYSIS (see 6.4.2) Step 1) Determ ine volume factor f, Basic size f: _....;3,--_ Consult WQ requirements(Sectio'n1.2.8) Step 2) Determine rainfall R for mean annual storm. Rainfall (R) e.O~~ (feet) Required from Figure 6.4.1.A Step 3) Calculate runoff from mean annual storm V,: (O.9A,+ O.25A,,+ O.10A".O.01 A"g) X R A,: tributary area of impervious surface 1'3~ 21=1 (sf) Determine now A,,: tributary area of till grass 11,21 " (sf) Determine now Atf: tributary area of till forest (sf) Determine now tributary area of outwash grass (sf) rainfall from mean annual storm O.oM (tt) volume of runoff from Step 4) Calculate wetpool volume Vb = fV, mean annual storm S; 059 (cf) Determine now From Step 2 f = Volume factor 3 (uniUess) From Step 1 V,: volume of runoff, mean annual storm'S DS'! (cf) From Step 3 I Vb: Volume of the wetpool IS I/"3 (cf) } Step 6) Determine wetpool dimensions a) Determine geometry of first cell lIQ.li (cf) 'i:! (tt) b) Volume in first cell Depth h 1 st cell (minus sed. star.) Determine horizontal xs-area at surface • Atop: II'} S (sf) Find top dimensions by adjusting for shape geometries Dimension of 1 st cell: width :5 b (tt) length 32. (tt) Determine geometry of second cell Volume in second cell 10,v1Ll (cf) Depth h of 2nd cell !::i (tt) Determine xs-area at surface Atop: g,1/)"L\ (sf) Dimension of 2nd cell: width 3"" Must be 25 -35% See Section 6.4.1.2 Must be 65 -75% See Section 6.4.1.2 10/ III Dimension of 2nd cell: length ----'T_'1.1.-_(ft) If rectangular, short side = 24 ft to match cell 1 Geometry check: overall pond L : W at mid depth = 3 : 1 Cell 1 length (mid-depth) Cell 2 length (mid-depth) Vault length = cell 1 + 2 Vault width 32 (ft) '=1LJ IJ (ft) lOr.. (ft) Lmid: Wmid = 3Ce (ft) 2.11£ : I -Add k+ -Iv c..chlfV~ Step 6) Design rest of vault (Section 6.4.2.1) Internal baffle Inlet & Outlet Access ~: I -'7 Ma.ke (ell Z- .. ?~ I Ib"1 Effective area (3.2.2.1 ) Note 5'X 1 0" access, grating and corner vent holes Other Design Details (Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.3, and 6.2.4) . Sequence of Facilities Setbacks Sideslopes, fencing, embankment SIZE SUMMARY: Surface area, change in elevation. Va u It width ;;G. (tt) (tt) 3,SSP.. (sf) Vault length lOB Surface area Elevation change needed: • ___ (ttl til II "' -, ; ,. 5: !II, ~l ~. ::~ 1) , " ~ ~ " t) ~ " ~ D ~ " ~ ~ " .' D ~ '. :!'" ~ ) , , ~ ~ DRAINAGE REPORT FOR FISHERIES CONDITIONS Kennydale Business Park Renton, Washington June /4, 2000 ',' Prepared for Seelig Family Properties 1309-114'h Ave. SE, Suite 107 P.O, Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 /-',2 i ,-".. .. .... 1 DESIGN GROUP J -'~~~~~;J~~;"";;;;~;""-'I I I , J i I '---, ----,,-_ ... _-,_._--' Prepared by ~~~~ Poggemeyer Design Group . . Project Engineer . Poggcrncycf DL:siqn Group, lIlt . . __ .-..... -.. _ ...•..... -.~.-.. ._ .. _ 512 ~l~th Str~e! S'OU[/), ~uHe 202 Kirkland, WA 9B033 14251827.5995 --_ ....... _-•....•..... ", .. __ .... , .. - , • , \ ;" ,~ .. -, .~ • • ....... ,' , .................... ,. , .... , .... ,' IJ ..... ."J J. UI" ... ~::JO.c:;O""O~1::J DRAINAGE REPORT FOR FISHERIES CONDITIONS' Kennydale Business Park Renton. Washington June 14, 2000 " LEGAL DESCRIPnON: Tax Lot # 167. C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No.3 Project Description Kennydale Business Park is a development being proposed for property located in the 11000 block on the south side of SE 76th Street, east of 1-405. The site is 4.75 acres, with slopes. varying from 5% to 40%. Second growth trees with considerable brush and blackberry bushes cover the lot. . A gully runs approximately east to west across the middle of the property. Water· probably flows in the gully most of the year, and the City of Renton requested it be determined if the condition supports fisheries. On May 9, 2000, the site was visited to observe the condition of the gully along its length. Several subsequent visits have been made to determine the upstream and downstream routes and conditions. Existing On-Site Drainage . The subject gully within the property has very steep side slopes, with top of bank' width varying from 6 to 12 feet and up to 4 feet deep. The water enters the property through a 12-inch concrete pipe tightline. No sediment deposition was evident near the outfall into the gully. Considerable erosion is evident, particular where the slopes are steepest. Sediment from the local erosion is observable on the bottom where slopes become shallower. Also, several old plastic and steel-wrapped pipes were observed in the bottom of the gully. About 50 feet before the water exits the property on the west side, the gully flattens out and the water flowing in it enters the adjacent property as sheet flow. POGGEMEYER , Kennydale Business Park Drainage' Evaluation June 14, 2000 Existing Upstream Conditions I~· 'Ir" In Appendix C, the Hemmingson Terrace Drainage Plan shoWs the upstream system. The 12-inch concrete outfall pipe extends upstream approximately 200 feet to a catch basin. Inflow into this catch basin comes from a series of 6-inch and'12-inch perforated pipes between 111th Avenue SE (shown as 11 ih on the Drainage Plan) , and 113th Avenues SE, which ap~ear to pick up ground water at a fairly constant rate. Also, catch basins on 113 h collect most of the runoff from this street and conveys the water to the catch basin immediately upstream of the gully. , , Runoff from 111th Avenue is diverted both north and south. That portion flOwing to the north enters a roadside drainage ditch that runs west along the south side of SE 76th Street. That portion flowing to the south enters two (2) catch basins which outfall on the south edge of the subject property. The Hemmingson Terrace Drainage Plan shows the system as it appears to exist at this time (the Utilities Map 84, in Appendix A, does r]ot match this and seems to be in error). : Existing Downstream Conditions The property adjacent to the west has 8 concrete trench (12"x12") running north- south the length of that property. According to the owner of the adjacent property, the trench conveys water abo,ut nine months of the year. The water flows southward in the open trench approximately 180 feet where it is routed underground to a 12" pipe and a standard catch basin in an adjacent parking lot. From there, the water flows through two more catch basins and three manholes for approximately 400 feet until it reaches an existing detention pond. The detention pond is a part of a regional system that is then routed through a 48-inch culvert (and , two more manhole structures) to the west side of 1-405. On the west side of 1-405, the water flowS into, another pond and then is routed through two more catch basins and an open channel (for about 100 feet) before entedng a corrugated metal pipe (24-inch diameter). the outfall of which flows directly into Lake Washington. See Appendix A for a more detailed deSCription. Conclusion Taking into consideration the source of flows upstream of the site, the nature 'Of the downstream route, and the times when water flows in the gully on the subject property. the flows do not support any fisheries upstream of the outfall into Lake Washington. POGGtMEYER ...... , ............. ~ .... ,~· ..... 'rl'l Kennydale Business Park Drainage Evaluatiim .. '. June 14', 2000 . .' ~ '. APPENDIX A OFF-SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE STORMWATER SYSTEM, City of Renton Map B4, Utilities. Division, 12/03/99 P.S POGG£MEYER nt:(1~~' t:.Dl""lilt) '/\',... >. D t. ~~ ... Poggemeyer Design Gro~p, Inc; . Northwest Division OFF-SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE' Kennydale Business Park Structure Drainage Component Description Slope Item (approx) 1 concrete trench 12" wide, 12" deep -1% 2 12" pipe trench to CB -20% 3 catch basi'; comer of parking lot 4 12" pipe -10% 5 catch basin City #1, H9-20 6 12" pipe -10% 7 catch basin City #1 ,H9-8 8 12". pipe -10% 9 manhole City #1 ,G9-15 . 10 12" pipe -2% 11 manhole . City #1,G9-16 ·12 12" pipe -2% 13 manhole City #1 ,G9-17 14 pipe -2% 15 detention pond City #1. G9-13 (?) 16 48" pipe CMP -crossing road -1% 17 manhole? City #1, G9-14 (n.f.) 18 pipe not found (nJ.) -2% 19 manhole? City #1. G9-11 (nJ.) 20 pipe crossing 1-405 -2% 21 pond/channel 22 24" pipe under Lk Wash Blvd -2% 23 catch basin City #1,G9-18 24 .24." pipe -2% 25 catch basin City #1.E9-1(?) 26 24" pipe under RR tracks -2%' 27 open channel City #1 ,E9-2 (?) 28 24" pipe City#1,E9-3 -1% 29 outfall Lake Washington ..... 0 . .! Project No.00045C 6/16100 Approx. Distance from Site Discharge 0' -180' 180' -200' 200' 200' -300' 300' 300' -400' . 400' 400' -430' 430' 430' -450' 450' 450' -520' 520' (not found) 520' -550' 550' -700' 700' -820' 820' 820' -1100' 1100' 1100' -1300' 1300' -1350' 1350' -1400' 1400' 1400' -1470' 1470' 1470' -1500' 1500' -1600' 1600 -2100' 2100' !!!' . I ....... ~.",.~ .. ," ...... " "' ... .~----~---- . " • -... '.:.'l"> ", .. -.. -"' -.-, / ...... ":'," . ' . ... -" .... r. , o ... . ....... -.-'.. ~ .. '" ," .,' -':'O>:"";··r~-~:"~"~~:;·::~··I'·· r;.::::::::;·· ::::. ¥;::"'::';'..2J N ~ o . ',-/ "" \,,/ \ '1-.. ·_ .... ·· .... ,-- o o CO " · . --.............. ,., .... , ..... ~ I·'·· .......... "r~ .......... · ____ . _. _.' __ ............. ' ~ _ ................................... -'u Kennydale Business Park ' Drainage Evaluation' June 14, 2000 APPENDIX B 1999 AERIAL PHOTbGRAPH, Approx. 1 "=500' PHOTOGRAPHS OF DOWNSTREAM FEATUR,ES j. POGGF..MfYtR 1'"'-'OJr I"' ."nUI'1 f-'.11<1 , P, CTURE.I4E '1' . b Walker and Associates photo y . 9 , . 1" __ 0"' ........ , Kennydala Business Park Drainage .Evaluation June 14, ;;1000 ------,,_. '-,. ~,-,-, ... ,-,,~ -............ '-' ..... '-' ..... '-' ..... ~ 1-'. I I Pictures, Page 1 POGGEMEYER 1 1 "_11'1 ... KennydaJe Business Park Drainage ev~Juatioll June 14, 2000 Pictures, Page 2 P.12 POGG£M£Y£R 01=,/r,1\/ f.ir7f1, /P 1f'..lr Kennydale Business Park Drainage Evaluation '.' June 14, 2000 .' . ;.~I~.t,~ Pictures, Page 3 POGGEMEYER bE:SIGN GROUP INr Kennydale Business Park Drainage Evaluation. June 1.4, 2000 Pictures, Page 4 r. ,4- ... POCiGEMEYER f"Ir::('Jr;", r:nl""\/ In ''''''- Kennydale Business Park Drainage Evaluation • June 14,2000 APPENDIX C UPSTREAM DRAINAGE PLAN, HEMMINGSON TERRACE Roy L Gardner & Associates, rev. Jan. 11, 1961 DOWNSTREAM Map from HYDRAULICS CALCULATIONS Sea-Belle Properties (SP-402-79), December 1979 HYDRAULIC REPORT, SR40S, MP 7.68 WSDOT, Feb. 24, 1986 Culvert Construction Drawing Culvert System Profile and Layout I-"'.Ib POGGEMEYER ,.0;...·-.::.,... .. 1 , ,. \ °0 , , ............. , , ....... '\. , ,. " . 'r .'~ , \ , , ) I ) , ':8 , 1 / /. . '/ ... ... ,,:. ..... I " -~ I .... .' \;. ~. , ;1. I , I , .~ ·/~ , . , , , tC v~ . l· "' ... ,.~ ,. , I , I I I , , , , , , I' J~ : , , ,'::. co N " , , P. 16 ,,' I , , I'if , I I , , , t-'. r I -~--..... , ......... , , ----------/. VICINITY Mark ~/~V. 41.';'2 ~J,.,':""/R~·"l!r'" ~h/dr. OI!r'·A.,"p 7;) 4-! """'. ·tlL""· .... ~ . .y.-I-r~. MAP P.20 --.JJl.c_ ---__ 1_.,. 1==--= '" \ 1.-' ~;' I\!~ I .. I· ~ I . ::: ..... . . , . ---------------------------... ely . ---"""---.-- . ~ .... ~., ',.I ~",:: . I . --' / I , , . JJ ,.. ....... '~ .......... "-'''-' 1..:;..· ..... 'rl·1 P.22 . '. t" .. I J • rJ •• ... . ..... . \ ~ ~ ~. >.,:. ' ... I. i S,If. 4os-I Gy~sr C~' ClI/v-e ,.--1- tU/r/4r-.2 -/~ -86 H!jdra~I,~, G",,~,~"+ ~~r,J 25.7'S"" -2/ 4.75' ~oo ' @ -.5~f/~n 41-38 @J -5fr:?f,;,..., 3'1-83 @ -..5fot~ 2~o.o . @ ~sfQIL;"'CN()O I I I I 18.3 ' I I I 'S-I \ ~O' op 2. "1-" @>o"o~4-' \ ) ," S- rA.~ ",- . , , I /1-5' I ::<4 ¥@;O.024- ~~ .\0 Dr--_ ... k' '-oJ ..so v+1-. fr-/'j D€ -te. Ydo. L.C1-" Pond A:ssv r11 ed If,! d. £; I.e V. ..:: .2 S;.7S1 I i i i I I I .I / , . . ! / I; GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 1901-SE 48 TIl STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON G-0570-3 Prepared for Mr. Howard Seelig PO Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 May 27, 2011 By GEO Group Northwest, Inc. 13240 N .E. 20th Street, Suite 10 Bellevue, W A 98005 Phone: (425)649-8757 I, • ,Ue 1 ' • oW Li,;j) • May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page ii A report by Earth Consultants, for the adjacentShurgard site west of the project site, including their test pit logs and laboratory testing of soil samples; • Area geologic map This report has been prepared to address the site conditions, site stability; site preparation, grading and erosion control, fill and drainage recommendations; foundation design criteria, building settlement estimates, retaining wall design criteria, and parking lot subgrade preparation. Based on the subsurface site exploration conducted by others, the site is underlain with lacustrine (lake deposited) silty clays with some interbedded lenses of dense sand. Some surficial fill soils are present in the western portion of the site where the proposed buildings are to be located. Based on the subsurface soil conditions described by Golder Associates, Inc., it is our professional opinion that the proposed buildings can be supported on a conventional spread footing foundation bearing on the undisturbed stiffto hard native silty clay. Local areas of unsuitable bearing soils may exist that will require over-excavation and replacement with' structural fill or lean-mix concrete, or deepening the foundation footings. We recommend earthwork occur during the drier summer months due to the presence of moisture sensitive soils and a weathered, fractured, upper zone of soil that may be susceptible to sloughing and small slides. Our recommendations, along with other geological and geotechnically related aspects of the project, are discussed in more detail in the text of the attached report. We appreciate the opportunity to perform this study and look forward to working with you in the construction phase of the project. If you or your design team have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. ~:!:::::p~ , Principal GEO Group Nortbwest, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS G-OS70-3 1.0 INTRODUCTION PAGE l.l Project Description ........................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Services .......... ,................................................. 1 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 2.2 Geology ........................ : ........................................ , .. 2 2.3 Subsurface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 2.4 Groundwater .................................... , .......................... " 4 3.0 SEISMICITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 4.2 Slope Stability Evaluation ...................................................... 5 4.3 Site Preparation and General Earihwork ............................................ 6 4.4 Structural Fill, Compaction and Soil Amendment ................................... 7 4.5 Excavations and Slopes ...................................................... 10 4.6 Permanent Basement & Retaining Walls ......................................... 11 4.6.1 Tiebacks .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . . .... 13 4.6.2 Soil Nailing ............................................................. 14 4.7 Foundation Design Criteria ..................................................... 14 4.8 Slab-on-grade Floors ......................................................... 16 4.9 Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 4.10 Rockeries.................................................................. 17 4.11 Pavements... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 5.0' LIMITATIONS ............................................................ 20 6.0 PLAN REVIEW & CONSTRUCTION MONITORING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate I - Vicinity Map Plate 2 -Topographic Plan (S-I) Plate 3 -Schematic Site Plan (A-1.l) Plate 4 -SitelBldg Sections (A-I.3) Plate 5 -SitelBldg Sections (A-IA) Plate 6 -Schematic Building Elevations (A-5.1) Plate 7 -Wall and Footing Drain Detail Plate 8 -Tieback Wall Detail Plate 9 -Braced Wall Detail Plate 10,-Cantilever Wall Detail Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Boring Logs By Golder Associates Test Pit Logs By Earth Consultants (Neighboring Shurgard Storage Site) Proctor Test Results GEO Group Nortbwest, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 1901 NE 48 TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON Project No. G-0570-3 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject project site is located south ofNE 48 th Street, east of SR 405 in the Kennydale area of Renton, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate I. The property is rectangular in shape and 4.8 acres in size, as shown on the Topographic Plan, Plate 2 (S-I). The property . slopes down to the west at an average gradient of about 30 percent. Based on the plans provided by CDA Architects, site development will consist of two residential apartment buildings with a two-story parking garage under the buildings (Parking Levell). A connected two-story parking garage structure (Parking Level 2) with at-grade parking is proposed on the west side of the south apartment building. The bottom floor below Parking Level 2 and the western portion of Parking Levell are identified as hobby/incubator space. The apartment buildings will have up to six . floors of residential units. The proposed site development layout is illustrated on the Schematic Site Plan, Plate 3 (A-I. 1), with sections illustrated on the SitelBldg Sections, Plates 4 and 5 (A- U and A-1.4) and on the Schematic Building Elevations, Plate 6 (A-5.l). The proposed development will step up the slope to accommodate the grade change across the site. The east basement wall of the parking garage below the buildings is anticipated to have a height of up to 23.5 feet (±). The retaining wall for the fire lane, east of the apartment buildings, is anticipated to have a height up to 24 feet (±). Retained fills up to 12.5 feet (±) are anticipated along the west property line to accommodate the lower plaza, parking and ramps. A detention vault may be located along the west property line. The vault details were not provided for our review. 1.2 . SCOPE OF SERVICES GEO Group Northwest, Inc. conducted a site reconnaissance, collected and analyzed soil samples to evaluate the site soils for use as structural fill. We reviewed the geologic map for the project site area and reviewed the referenced 1989 geotechnical engineering study prepared by Golder Associates for the subject site and thel988 geotechnical report for the neighboring Shurgard Storage site to the west prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. We also reviewed two geotechnical engineering studies dated 1996 and 2004 prepared by GEO Group Northwest, Inc., for a previously proposed business park on the subject site. We reviewed the current schematic plans GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27,2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 2 for the apartment complex, prepared by CDA Architects, and discussed the project plans with the developer, Mr. Howard Seelig. The site exploration was conducted by Golder Associates in 1989 and soil analysis was performed by Earth Consultants in 1988. Based on our review, the subsurface exploration and soil analysis was found to be adequate for the preparation of this report. This report addresses the following: Surface and subsurface site conditions; Site stability; Site preparation, grading and earthwork procedures, including recommendations for structural fill materials, placement and compaction; Foundation support, including soil bearing design criteria and expected building settlements; Subgrade preparation recommendations for slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, driveways and paved parking areas; Retaining wall design criteria; and, Surface and subsurface drainage recommendations. 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 SURFACE The subject property is 4.8 acres and measures 635.2 feet in the north/south direction by 329.2 feet in the east/west direction, as shown on the Topographic Plan, Plate 2 (S-I). The subject property slopes moderately down to the west at an average gradient of 30 percent. The project site is bounded to the west by Shurgard Storage, to the north by NE 48 th Street, to the east by single family residences and to the south by the Cedar Rim Apartments. An existing storm sewer is located in the roadway ofNE 48th Street. A 12" diameter culvert empties onto the site in the middle of the east property line. Vegetation on the property consists of deciduous trees, underbrush and blackberry vines. 2.2 GEOLOGY According to the "Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity. Washington," by Howard H. Waldron, et aI., dated 1962 and published by the Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, the surficial soil unit covering the subject parcel is classified as "Older clay, till and gravel", (Qc). Accordingly, deposits of Older clay, till and gravel consist ofsil!, clay, GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments fine sand and till, very compact, and locally contains lenses of sand and gravel. G-0570-3 Page 3 Stratigraphically overlying the Older clay, till and gravel (Qc) is Vashon till, (Qt). Vashon till is described as consisting of compact, concrete-like mixture of silt, sand, gravel and clay. Vashon till covers the upland areas above the subject site. Soils at the base of the hill are mapped as Alluvium (Qa) which are recent deposits of sand and silt, including lenses of clay and peat, that are typically found in low land areas such as river valleys. 2.3 SUBSURFACE Golder Associates drilled nine (9) exploratory. borings on the subject property to a maximum depth of 49 feet below the ground surface, referenced report dated October 1989. Their boring logs and test data are included in Appendix C at the back of this report and the approximate location of the borings are illustrated on the Topo&raphic Plan, Plate 2. Golder performed Atteiberg limits test and three triaxial consolidated undrained shear tests. A report by Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (GCI), dated May 23,1989, for the site included ten test pits, however, the report was not available for our review. Based on the boring logs (Appendix A), the subsurface soils are characterized as consisting of glacially consolidated lacustrine silty clays with some interbedded lenses of dense sand. The lacustrine material is characterized as consisting of primarily very stiff to hard silty clay with a trace of sand and gravel. The upper 10 to 15 feet was described as a weathered, fractured variety of the silty clay. The deeper sections of the silty clay, below approximately elevation 80 feet, were reported to have occasional sand lenses that appeared wet. Up to 7 feet of surficial fill soil consisting of sandy silt and silty clay was encountered in Borings B-7, B-8 and B-9 in the western third of the site. The sandy silt fill soil is medium dense to dense and the silty clay is medium stiff according to the standard penetration test (SPT) information recorded on the boring logs. The Gel report and test pit logs were not available to us, however the results of a portion of their findings were presented in the 1989 Golder report. Reportedly, a 2-foot thick deposit of post glacial, soft, gray, silty volcanic ash was encountered at a depth of 8 feet in Test Pit TP-5 located in the west central portion of the property. The volcanic ash unit was apparently preserved by being covered by a small landslide. The volcanic ash deposit was not reported as being encountered in the borings by Golder Associates. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 4 Earth Consultants, Inc. performed a geotechnical study dated August 30, 1988 for the site immediately to the west of the subject site for the Shurgard Self Storage development. The site was explored with 13 backhoe test pits and included four plasticity index soil tests. The test pit· logs by Eiuih Consultants are included in Appendix B of this report. The plasticity index tests indicated the presence of high plasticity clays (CH). High plasticity clays were not noted in the 1989 Golder report for the subject site as they did not conduct the plasticity index tests on their soil samples. It is our opinion that clays present on the subject site are of the high plasticity variety, based on the analyses conducted by Earth Consultants. 2.4 GROUNDWATER Stand-pipes were installed in three of the nine borings by Golder Associates, Borings B-3, B-6 and B-9. Very little water accumulated in the stand-pipes based on the water level data recorded on the boring logs. Zones of perched water were reportedly encountered in the coarser sand lenses within the lacustrine silty clay deposit and some perched water seepage, limited in volume, should be anticipated in excavations that intercept the sand lenses. Preparations should be made prior to excavation to intercept and collect the water .seepage in sumps. It should be noted that perched water seepage levels fluctuate seasonally,"depending on rainfall, surface runoff, surface water infiltration and other factors. 3.0 SEISMICITY Based on the presence of glacially consolidated soils the site is seismically classified as Site Class D (stiff soil profile), in accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International Building Code (!BC). The potential for liquefaction and/or lateral spreading is interpreted to be low based on the presence of stiff to hard cohesive soils, the dense nature of the sand lenses, and the lack of a high groundwater table underlying the site. The site is located within the Seattle Fault Zone between two of east-west trending fault structures mapped within the zone, based on our review of the USGS web site for active faults (fig. 6) in the Seattle Fault Zone. The risk of surface rupture, as a result of a large magnitude seismic event, is unknown, but is interpreted to be low based on no visible expression of past surface rupture on the site. We recommend the addition of design criteria for seismically induced dynamic soil loads on permanent basement walls and retaining walls as a geotechnical seismic mitigation measure. GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27,2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 5 Soils on slopes will be susceptible to erosion if disturbed and exposed to weather. Concentrated water should be directed away from the slopes or collected and tight-lined to below the slope or to the city storm drain system. It is recommended that site construction occur during the dry season. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDA nONS 4.1 GENERAL The main geotechnical considerations for the development of the site include the existence of moisture sensitive clay soils, anticipated water seepage, the height of the proposed cuts, the presence of a weathered and fractured upper soil zone and associated risk of shallow soil movements, potential impacts the existing fill soil in the western portion of the site could have on construction, the need for adequate foundation support, proper slab and driveway subgrade preparation, structural fill placement and compaction, using the site soils as structural fill, erosion control and drainage considerations. The upper 10 to 15 feet of the site soil is weathered and fractured and clay soil is subject to creep. As a result, the site soils may be susceptible to creep, sloughing and small surficial slides. The potential for instability will increase if water seepage is encountered. Cuts will require monitoring by the geotechnical engineer during site excavation. Retaining walls will need to be designed for a lateral soil pressures that account for the presence of clay soil. To limit the total wall pressure and to reduce the risk of cut slope Instability during wall installation, all cuts need to be supervised by a geotechnical engineer or geologist from our office. Specific recommendations regarding the proposed site development are presented in the following sections. 4.2 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION Hillside movement forced the replacement of about 60 feet of the sewer line in Lake Washington Blvd NE, just south of the intersection ofNE 50th Street, based on past discussions with Mr. Larry Jones of the Coal Creek Utility District, Mr. Jason Fritzler with the City of Renton, and Mr. Mike Mengelt with the geotechnical firm Golder Associates. In general the area of instability appears to be located north of the Kiewit office building property. No known slope instability is located at the project site. GEO Group Nortbwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 6 Fracturing is reported in the upper portion of the clayey site soils which may indicate past shallow slope movement and/or shrinkage of the soils. No recent slope movement was apparent based on our site reconnaissance, such as scarps, slumps, slides, or tension cracks. In general, the site soils are very stiff to hard and appear to be stable with minimal groundwater seepage encountered in the borings and minimal water accumulation in the monitoring wells installed by Golder Associates. GEO Group Northwest performed a slope stability analysis across two eastlwestsections of the site in 2005 using soil parameter assumptions based on triaxial compression test results by Golder Associates. The results of our analysis indicated the factor of safety across the site was 3.1 to 3.5. A factor of safety of 1.0 indicates that a slope is failing. A slope stability analysis was also performed for a proposed I O-foot cut in the south half of the east parking lot (near the current proposed location of the fire lane). The calculated factor of safety for the cut was 4.2. At that time we concluded that the site is stable both in its current configuration and with the planned cuts for the parking lot. The very stiff to hard clays at the site are glacially consolidated and are stable. No weak layers were found at depth to suggest a potential failure surface. It is our current opinion that the previous conclusions are still valid and taller cuts will be stable. 4.3 SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK The fine grained site soils are highly moisture sensitive and will be difficult to work with during wet weather. With the moderately sloped site conditions and the existence of a upper weathered and fractured zone, there is an increased risk for sloughing and small slides if construction takes place during the wet winter months. Therefore, we recommend that the earthwork related construction activities be limited to the drier summer months. Silt fences should be installed along the downslope/west property line to prevent sediment-laden surface runoff from being discharged off-site. A rock construction entrance should be used to mitigate tracking onto streets. The building, sidewalk, driveway and parking areas should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation. During wet weather exposed soils, subject to erosion, should be compacted to prevent moisture penetration and covered with plastic sheeting if . possible. Prior to placing fills, the site should be prepared by cutting benches. Structural fill should be placed on very stiff or denser soils. Soft soils below driveways and exterior parking areas should be removed prior to placement of fill soils to achieve final site grades. To identify soft or GEO Group Northwest, Ioc. May 27, 201 I Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-OS70-3 Page 7 disturbed subgrade soils we recommend proof-rolling with a loaded dump truck under the supervision of the geotechnical engineer. Soft or disturbed soils thus detected should be replaced with compacted structural fill or crushed rock. Ifwet soil conditions are encountered, we recommend that a woven geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi SOOX, or equivalent, be used to provide soil reinforcement and separation of the import material from the underlying fine grained soil. Permanent erosion control consisting of planting and mulching should be incorporated into the design. Permanent slopes should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. 4.4 STRUCTURAL FILL, COMPACTION AND SOIL AMENDMENT Prior to placing fills, the site should be benched to key the fill into the site soil and allow fill placement and compaction to occur on a level surface. Structure fills should be placed on very stiff or denser soils. All fill material used to achieve the site design elevations below building foundations, slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, driveways and parking areas should meet the following requirements for structural fill shown in the table. However, the onsite clay soil only needs to be compacted to 90 percent of the material's maximum dry density, due to the difficulty in compacting clay soil. Import pit-run should be compacted to 95 percent when 95 percent compaction is required. 1. Be free of organic and other deleterious substances; 2. Have a maximum size of three (3) inches; 3. The natural moisture content should be close to the optimum moisture content; and, . 4. Compaction should meet the following specifications: GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 8 STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTION SPECIFICATIONS APPLICATION MINIMUM COMPACTION % of Maximum Dry Density ASTM 15570 (Modified Proctor) Under Pavements, Sidewalks, Patios 90% Onsite Soil 90% for Pit-Run, except 95% for the top foot Under Foundation Footings 95% for Pit-Run (Do not use the onsite soil as fill under footings) Under Slab-On-Grade Floors 90% for Onsite Soil 95% for Pit-Run Behind Basement and Retaining Walls 90% Onsite Soil and Under Parking Areas 90% for Pit-Run excent 95% in the ton foot 90% with 95% for the top l2-inches Utility Trenches -Below Pavement (The local Water District or other agencies may require 95% compaction for the entire utility trench backfill. If so, then a granular import material will be required) Moisture Content To achieve the compaction specifications, structural fill should be placed at or near the material's . optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is the water content in soil that enables the soil to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. Onsite Soils The onsite soil consists principally of clay, which generally is a difficult material to use as structural fill and achieve the compaction specifications. Achieving the compaction specifications will require the use of a sheepsfoot compactor, provided the moisture content of the soil is near optimum and the material is compacted in appropriate lift thicknesses. Compaction specifications generally can not be achieved with a vibratory roller compactor when compacting clays. The sheeps-foot compactor should be self-propelled in order to work in tight areas. In February 20 II, GEO Group Northwest conducted a laboratory Proctor analysis (ASTM D 1557) on two shallow soil samples from the site and evaluated the samples for use as structural GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 9 fill. The following table contains the results of the Proctor analysis and demonstrates the relationship between the optimum moisture content and maximum moisture content for compaction purposes. Sample Dry Density Natural Optimum Theoretical Theoretical Ma?'. Theoretical Max. No. Max. (pet) Moisture Moisture Maximum Moisture Content to Moisture Content to Content Content Compaction Achieve 90% Achieve 95% (%) ('!o) ('!o) Compaction (%) Compaction (%) 1 112.5 30.6 17.0 81.3 24.3 21.2 2 \09.4 33.6 18.5 80 24.6 22.1 The above table shows that the soils analyzed had a high natural moisture content of30.6 to 33.6 percent. The optimum moisture content for compaction purposes was determined to range from 17 to 18.5 percent, based on the Proctor test results, Appendix C. Based on the natural moisture content, the maximum compaction that could be achieved with these soils was calculated to be approximately 80 to 81 percent. We conclude the soils analyzed would not be suitable for use as structural fill as the material has too high a moisture content to achieve the compaction specifications. From a theoretical perspective, we calculate that the moisture content of the soil would need to be below about 24 percent to achieve 90 percent compaction. To achieve 95 percent compaction the moisture content of the soil would need to be below 21 to 22 percent. Available moisture content for the onsite soils was limited on the Golder boring logs, Appendix A. Recorded soil moisture content ranged from about 20 to 24 percent. The moisture content of the soils on the neighboring Shurgard site ranged from about 15 to 47 percent, based on the test pit logs by Earth Consultants. Cement Treatment If the onsite soil exceeds the optimum moisture content, one method of reducing the moisture content is to cement treat the soil. Cement treatment consists of tilling in dry powder Portland cement prior to compaction. The tilling is usually performed by a large self-propelled machine, such as an asphalt grinding machine, to breakup the soil and thoroughly mix the cement into the soil. The amount of Portland cement required to reduce the soil moisture content is dependent on the soil type, natural moisture content of the soil, and optimum (target) moisture content. We anticipate a 5 to 8 percent ratio by weight would be required to amend the clay site soil. Laboratory testing to determine the Portland cement ratio is recommended . . GEO Group Nortbwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments Import Soil G-0570-3 Page 10 We understand the onsite clayey s'oil is planned to be used, as much as possible, as fill to achieve the final site grades. If the site soil can not achieve the compaction specifications, we recommend structural fill consist of an imported granular material. During wet weather, we recommend the granular material consist of a free-draining pit-run sand and gravel type material with less than 5-percent fines. Granular structural fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not . exceeding ten inches in loose thickness. When filling a narrow void such as betWeen a wall and cut face we recommend the material consist of 2-inch crushed rock with no minus, or washed rock, if equipment access is limited and the material can not be compacted. The cut face should be lined with a woven geotextile such as Mirafi l40N, or equal, prior to backfilling with the crushed or washed rock. Braced walls should be not be backfilled until after the wall is restrained (braced) with the floor framing. 4.5 EXCA VA nONS AND SLOPES Proposed Cuts and Fills The parking garagelhobby area located directly under the apartment buildings will be primarily constructed on a cut, with some minor fill required below portions of the west side of the bottom floor slab, based on the proposed finish elevations and the existing site topography (SitelBldg Sections, Plates 3 and 4 (A-I.3 and A-IA) The parking garage located west of the south apartment building will be constructed on cuts and fills and the lower level at-grade parking area along the west property line will be constructed on fill. A retaining wall up to 25 feet (±) in height is anticipated along the fire lane east of the proposed buildings, with the maximum wall height occurring near SitelBldg Section 5, Plate 5 (A-I A). At this location the elevation of the existing grade is about 131 feet at the wall and the propohed finished grade of the fire lane is 108 feet. A sloped open cut will result in the actual cut height being greater than 25 feet as the top of the cut will be further up the slope. The east basement wall of the parking garage below the buildings has an estimated height of up to 24.5 feet (±), with the largest cut occurring under the south building where the proposed finished grade of the bottom floor ofthe parking garage is 87.5 feet and the proposed finished grade of the fire lane isl08 feet, as illustrated on SitelBldg Section 3, Plate 4 (A-1.3). GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-OS70-3 Page II Retained fills up to about 12.S feet (±) will be required along the west property line to construct the lower at-grade parking lot, with the largest fills occurring along the southern third of the west property line. Cut and Fill Recommendations Under no circumstances should temporary excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. The following recommendations are for cuts to be retained by walls: Soft to stiff soils (surface and fractured soil to a depth of about 10 to IS feet (material with SPT blow counts below N=lS, as recorded on the boring logs) should be cut at an inclination of no steeper than 1 H: 1 V (Horizontal:Vertical). The hard clay soil may be cut near vertical. Cuts should be monitored by the geotechnical engineer during the excavation process. If temporary open cuts cannot be constructed due to property line or other restraints, temporary shoring may be required or a temporary easement should be acquired. from the adjacent property owner. Criteria for the design of temporary shoring can be provided by GEO Group Northwest, . Inc., if required .. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2.SH:1V. Steeper fill slopes may be constructed with the use of geogrids for soil reinforcement. Criteria for the design of geogrid soil reinforcement can be provided by GEO Group Northwest, Inc. if required. 4.6 PERMANENT BASEMENT & RETAINING WALLS Permanent walls restrained horizontally are considered unyielding and should be designed for a rectangular lateral soil pressure. Cantilever walls free to rotate on top should be designed using a triangular equivalent fluid pressure (EFP). In addition to the lateral soil pressure, a rectangular pressure of 6H should be added to the lateral soil pressure to account for seismically induced dynamic soil loads on all permanent walls. The following table provides the recommended lateral soil design pressures for the anticipated wall types: GEO Group Northwest, Iuc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments Wall Type· Earth Pressure Braced Walls & Rectangular Tieback Walls (At Rest) Cantilever Triangular (Active) Lateral Soil Design Pressure 20H + 6H Seismic 30H + 6H Seismic . 40 pef EFP + 6H Seismic 60 pcf EFP + 6H Seismic G~0570-3 Page 12 Slope Condition Above Wall Level Up to 45% Level Up to 45% Lateral soil pressure diagrams illustrating the above wall design parameters are provided on Plates 9 and 10. Traffic Surcharge The above design pressures do not include the effects of traffic surcharges. Traffic and construction equipment may be considered as a uniform surcharge of 100 psf acting over the full depth of the active pressure. This is equivalent to 0.7 feet of soil with a unit soil weight of 140 pcf. Passive Earth Pressure and Base Friction The available passive. earth pressure that can be mobilized to resist lateral forces may be assumed to be equal to 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for both undisturbed soils and engineered structural backfill. The base friction that can be generated between concrete footing and undisturbed bearing soils or engineered structural backfill may be based on an assumed 0.35 friction coefficient for granular fill, or 425 psf for the stiff to hard silty clay. Wall Backfill & Drainage Braced walls should be not be backfilled until after the wall is restrained (braced) with the floor framing. Wall backfill material should consist of free-draining granular pit-run sandand gravel or crushed rock to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure. In narrow zones the backfill material should consist of 2-inch crushed rock with no minus, or washed rock, where equipment access is limited and the material can not be compacted. Since water seepage is anticipated, installation of a vertical drain mat (Miradrain 6000 or equal), on the back of the wall is recommended to facilitate drainage and installation of a geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equal) is recommended on the cut face to keep the drainage zone rock GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 13 clean, as illustrated on the Wall and Footing Drain Detail, Plate 7: The flat side of the vertical drain mat core is placed againstthe wall with the filter fabric side facing the backfill. The drain mat should extend from the finished surface grade down to the footing drain pipe. Footing drain and other drainage recommendations are discussed in the Drainage section of this report. If a drain mat can not be installed, such as in a tight, narrow zone between the wall and cut face, then we recommend lining the cut face with a woven geotextile such as Mirafi 140N, or equal, prior to backfilling with the crushed or washed rock. 4.6.1 Tiebacks Retaining walls with heights greater than about 14 feet typically require tiebacks for lateral restraint. We recommend permanent walls laterally supported with tiebacks be designed to resist a rectangular pressure distribution of twenty (20) (H + H,) psffor a level slope condition above the wall. For slopes with gradients up to 45 percent above the wall, we recommend a rectangular design pressure of thirty (30) H be used. A rectangular pressure of 6H psf should be added for dynamic seismic loads on permanent walls .. Tieback anchors should extend beyond the no load zone. The no load zone is defined by a line extending a horizontal distance of Hl4 from the base of the excavation, where H is the excavation depth, and extending upward at an inclination of 60 degrees from the horizontal to intersect the surface as shown on the Tieback Detail, Plate 8. Tiebacks derive their capacity by the soil-grout strength developed in the soil behind the no load zone. We reconllnend that the anchor tendons within the no load zone be covered with a plastic pipe or sheath to prevent load pick-up within this area. As an alternative, a low strength grout can be used in the no load zone. Preliminary design of the anchor may use an anchor friction value of one thousand (1,000) psf, to be confirmed with the 200 percent anchor tests as discussed below. The ultimate frictional resistance should be verified through field testing. We recommend that all tiebacks be. proof-loaded to a minimum of 130 percent of the design load. Five percent of the total number of anchors (2 minimum) should be performance tested to 200 percent of the design load. Duringtesting, any noticeable creep or anchor movement should be monitored. All anchors should exhibit no more than 0.05 inches of creep during the first five minutes of load for (he 130 percent anchors or 0.1 inches of creep for the 200 percent anchors. All anchors should exhibit less than three inches of movement relative to the soil during testing. Movements in excess of six inches should be considered failures requiring anchor replacement. Following proof-loading, each anchor should be "locked-off' at 80 to 100 percent of its design loading. GEO Group.Northwest, Inc. May 27,2011 G-0570-3 . Proposed Kennydale Apartments Page 14 4.6.2 Soil Nailing Soil nailing may be used to retain permanent cuts. A friction value of one thousand (1,000) psf may be used for the design, provided the anchors are installed into the stiff to hard silty clay (N value greater than I 5). A design unit soil weight of 140 pcfmay be used. Wall drainage should be incorporated into the design. Soil nailing is installed with a '!top-down" construction procedure that includes three principal steps: excavation, installation of nails, and placement of a steel wire mesh and application of shotcrete for facing the wall. The excavation proceeds in steps that are generally 4 to 6 feet deep depending on the stability of the unsupported vertical cut. In each excavation step, a row of boreholes are drilled at designed locations and inclinations. A nail, usually steel bar, is placed in the center of each drilled hole and grout is pumped into the hole. Inunediately after nail installation, the excavation face is covered with shotcrete that is reinforced with welded wire mesh. The shotcrete face protects against soil erosion and provides structural continuity to resist earth pressures exerted against the facing between the nails. The nails are connected to the facing by bolting each steel bar to a square bearing plate. Excavation then continues for·another 4 to 6 feet and the procedure is repeated until the bottom of excavation is reached. The nail spacing and length of the nail for the design are a function of type of material being faced. Generally, for each soil unit a verification design load test is performed with the test load determined by multiplying the nail bond length by the design pullout resistance. Verification test nails are incrementally loaded to pre-specified allowable design loads, and held for specified times. Verification test nails are monitored for creep during the maximum load increment period and the nail movement measured at specified time intervals. Proof testing of production nails is generally performed on about 5 percent of the production nails. 4.7 FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA Building structures maybe supported on conventional spread footing system, with individual spread footings for columns and strip footings for walls. Footings should bearing on the hard undisturbed site soil or on structural fill or lean-mix concrete that extends down to the hard clay. The soil bearing capacity should be verified by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction, due to the presence of fill soil and a surficial zone .of weathered, fractured soil. Soft to stiff soils will require over-excavation and replacement with structural fill or lean-mix concrete. To properly transfer building loads to the suitable bearing stratum, structural fill placed GEO Group Nortbwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments 0-0570-3 Page IS below footings should create a prism that extends out and below the footing at I H: I V. Lean-mix concrete may extend vertically below footings provided the width of the lean-mix is as wide as the footing and the footing is centered over the lean-mix. The lean-mix concrete should have a minimum design strength of 2,000 psi. Due to the presence of high plasticity clays at the site, swell pressure tests should be performed on the clay soils to determine if a minimum bearing pressure is needed to prevent uplift of foundations due to swell pressures. Our recommended design criteria for the convention spread footing foundations are as follows: Allowable bearing pressure, including all dead and live loads Undisturbed, hard silty clay, or lean mix concrete. Structural Fill Existing Fill, Soft to Stiff Clay, and Volcanic Ash Minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footing below adjacent final exterior grade Minimum depth to bottom of interior footings below top of floor slab Minimum width of wall footings Minimum lateral dimension of column footings Estimated post-construction settlement Estimated post-construction differential settlement across building width = 4,000 psf = 2,000 psf Unsuitable = 18 inches = 12 inches = 18 inches = 24 inches = 114 inch = 114 inch A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressures can be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 16 foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing undisturbed soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. Our recommended parameters are as follows: -Passive pressure: 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for stiff soil and structural fill Allowable friction below footings: 42S psf for very stiff to hard clay -Allowable friction below slab: 70 psf 4.8 SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS Some settlement may occur where deep fills and slabs are supported by medium stiff to stiff surficial site soils (material with SPT blow counts belowN=IS, as recorded on the boring logs). We recommend slab-on-grade floors be reinforced and be doweled into the foundation walls. In preparing the subgrade, soils disturbed by construction activity should be replaced with compacted, well-draining, structural fill, or crushed rock. Prior to placing the capillary break, the subgrade should be proof-rolled with a piece of heavy construction equipment. Soft spots detected should be replaced with structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors should be placed on a capillary break to prevent wicking of moisture through the slab. The capillary break should consist of a minimum of six (6) inch thick free- draining layer of I.S-inch minus gravel or 2-inch size crushed rock containing no more than five (5) percent fines passing the No.4 (I/4-inch) sieve. To reduce water vapor transmission through the slab below living space or dry storage space, we recommend installing a 10-mil reinforced • vapor barrier between the capillary break and concrete floor slab, such as Moistop® by Fortifiber Corporation. Two to four inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction (optional). 4.9 DRAINAGE Surface water from the street has been routed onto the project site in ditches. Diversion of the surface water will be required prior to construction. A 12-inch concrete culvert discharges surface water onto the property near the middle of the east property line. This should be addressed by the civil engineer and the water routed away from the subject property, such as to the storm sewer. GEO Group Northwest, Iue. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 17 During construction, water should not be allowed to stand in areas where footings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. Loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration. Final site grades should provide.drainage away from the building, such that surface water is collected and tight-lined to the storm sewer. We suggest that the ground be sloped at a gradient of three (3) percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the building except in areas that are to be paved. Some surface water seepage is anticipated from the hillside. We recommend that surface water runoff above the buildings/retaining walls be collected in shallow trenches and routed to the storm sewer. Footing drains and wall 'drainage should be installed around the building foundation perimeter, and retaining walls. Footing drains should consist offour (4) inch diameter, perforated or slotted, rigid drain pipe laid at or just below the invert of the footing with a gradient sufficient to generate flow. Drain lines should be bedded in washed drain rock and the drain rock wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi l40N, or equivalent, as illustrated on the Wall and Footing Drain Detail, Plate 7. The drain rock should connect to the wall's vertical drain mat, Mirafi 6000 or equal. The filter fabric should also be used to line the cut face. Once the drains are installed, walls should be backfilled with a free-draining material, as previously discussed. The top twelve (12) inches of the fill should consist of relatively impermeable soil if the surface is not sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. The cap material should be separated from the underlying granular backfill by a layer of geotextile fabric. Surfaces should be sloped to drain away from the building or the surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. Roof downspout drain lines should not be connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts should be separately tight-lined to discharge. We recommend that sufficient clean- outs be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tight -line systems. . 4.10 ROCKERIES Cuts in the very stiff to hard clay soils at the site will be stable and the clay soils will impart very little load on the rockery. From a geotechnical viewpoint, rockeries can be utilized to face cuts GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments G-0570-3 Page 18 instead of other types of retaining wall systems. Clay soils can tend to creep over time, however, the rockery batter would continue make the rockery aesthetically pleasing even if the wall experienced some creep. Tiered rockeries are an option along the east side of the fire lane and would break up the cut into smaller cuts that are more aesthetically pleasing. We recommend a maximum rockery wall height of 10 feet. Rockeries are not engineered retaining walls. Their construction is to a large extent an art not entirely controllable by engineering methods. It is therefore imperative that rockeries be constructed by contractors with a proven capability in rockery construction .. During construction, we recommend periodic construction monitoring by GEO Group Northwest to verify that subgrade soils will provide proper support and that the cut slopes are stable. We also recommend that the rockery walls be constructed in accordance with the "Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines" specified by the Association of Rockei)' Contractors. A rockery wall facing a cut slope face is not intended to function as an engineered structure to resist lateral earth pressures, as an engineered reinforced concrete retaining wall would be, however rockeries retaining fill soil may be laterally reinforced with geogrid to provide lateral reinforcement to the retained soils and wall structure to prevent its movement. Rockeries over 4 feet tall facing fill soil should be engineered. Engineering and geogrid design, including geogrid specifications, length, spacing, and soil compaction requirements can be provided by GEO Group Northwest. When constructing a rockery against an exposed stable cut face the primary function of the rockery is to cover the face and retard the erosion process. However, some lateral support is provided by virtue of the weight of the rock. Therefore, the larger the rock the greater the mass and the more lateral load resistan~e available. However, since this support depends on the contact areas and characteristics between individual rocks, it is virtually impossible to predict or provide a specific lateral resistance value. The stability of the cut slope protected by the rockery face should be inherently stable with no water seepage. Soft areas encountered may be replaced with quarry spalls, subject to the geotechnical engineers review. The rock used to construct the wall should be hard, sound, durable, free of seams and cracks, and broken in generally tabular to cubical shapes. Preferably, the rock density should be at least one hundred sixty-five (165) pef, although rock densities will vary from source to source. GEO Group Northwest, Ioc. May 27, 2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments Tiered Rockeries G-0570-3 Page 19 Tiered rockeries should be designed so the upper wall does not surcharge the wall below. We recommend the base of the upper wall extend below a 1 H: 1 V line projected up from the face of the base of the lower wall. Keyway and Drainage The base coarse of rock should be set in a "keyway." The keyway width should be detennined by the rock size. The keyway depth should be about 2 inches deep for each foot of wall height or a minimum of 8 inches. The keyway should be slightly inclined back toward the cut slope so the' wall face can be battered (inclined) at IH:6V. The soil supporting the rockery should be stiff to . hard undisturbed native soil that will provide proper support and stability for the wall. If the base soil is not dense the conditions should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Good drainage behind the wall is essential for soil and wall stability. A footing drain should be installed at the base of the cut consisting of a four-inch diameter perforated rigid PVC pipe bedded in free-draining crushed rock protected with filter fabric. The footing drain should be directed to a positive and pennanent discharge location at the end of the wall. A minimum 12 inch zone of free-draining angular quarry spalls should be installed behind the rockery as the wall is constructed. The cut soil face should be covered with a geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent, to keep the quarry spalls clean. Rock Size and Placement For wall heights less than six feet, facing stable cut slopes, rockeries may be constructed of small four-man rock for the base and progressive smaller rock sizes toward the top of the wall. The following recommendations are for wall heights up to 10 feet facing stable cut slopes. Rockeries greater than 10 feet facing stable cut slopes should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Wall Height 8 feet to 10 feet 6 feet to 8 feet Up to 6 feet Basal Rock Size Large 5-man Large4-man Sma1l4-man (*): Rock size decreases toward the top of the wall. Remaining Courses· 5 to 2-man 4 to 2-man 3 to 2-man The first basal layer of rock should be carefully "slammed" into place. The basal rocks should be placed in as close contact with each other as possible. Each row ofrock should be well seated GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27,2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments 0-0570-3 Page 20 and thoroughly tamped and driven into place having as few voids as possible. Since the rockery derives its support partially from friction between individual rocks, point contact of rocks should be avoided wherever possible. Succeeding layers of rock should be placed' so that rocks overlap each other. 4.11 PAVEMENTS Pavement performance is related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. If this is inadequate, no matter what pavement section is constructed, settlement or movement of the . subgrade will be reflected up through the paving. In order to avoid this situation, we recommend the subgrade be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. Areas of soft, wet, or unstable subgrade identified by proof-rolling may require over- excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill or crushed rock. We recommend parking and driveway pavement section designs consist of the following: MINIMUM PAVEMENT SECTION HEAVY TRAFFIC AREAS Class "B" Asphalt Concrete (AC) Crushed Rock Base (CRS) LIGHT TRAFFIC AREAS Class "B" Asphalt Concrete (AC) Crushed Rock Base (CRS) 3-inches 6-inches 2-inches 4-inches If the pavement section construction is performed during wet weather, reSUlting in soft or unstable subgrade, it may be necessary to separate and confine the base materials. The geotechnical engineer should review the site conditions and provide subgrade stabilization recommendations. 5.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the specific application to the subject project site, for the exclusive use of Mr. Howard Seelig and the project design team. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site soils conditions recorded by others, our engineering analyses, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27,2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartinents G-0570-3 Page 21 professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Soil, groundwater and slope stability conditions may vary from those anticipated. If variations appear, GEO Group Northwest, Inc. should be notified and the recommendations herein re- evaluated, and where necessary, be revised prior to proceeding with the construction. 6.0 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITOR.J:NG It is recommended that GEO Group Northwest be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verifY that the earthwork, foundation, and other recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and engineering plan documents. It is recommended that we be retained to provide geotechnical monitoring services during construction. This will allow us to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those described in this report and allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. It will allow us to evaluate whether the erosion control, earthwork, and foundation construction activities conform to the intent of the contract plans and specifications. While on the site during construction, we will not direct or supervise the contractor or the contractors work, nor will we be responsible for providing or reviewing on-site safety or dimensional measurements. INSPECTIONS The following items should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer during construction: • Erosion control • Excavations • Soil bearing verification, building and wall foundations • Installation and testing of tieback anchors and soil nails • Structural fill placement and compaction testing • Verification of allowable bearing conditions for foundations • Placement of capillary break material GEO Group Northwest, Inc. May 27,2011 Proposed Kennydale Apartments • Utility trench backfill and compaction testing • Installation of subsurface drainage 0-0570-3 Page 22 • Subgrade preparation for pavements, proof-rolling, and subgrade ·stabilization . The contractor should provide us with a minimum of24 hours advance notice to perform the above inspections so that we can arrange to have personnel available. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this geotechnical engineering study. If you or your design team have any questions regarding this report or need additional information, please call us. Sincerely, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. Wade J. Lassey Engineering Geologist ·ZJ~~~ William Chang, P.E. Principal GEO Group Northwest, Inc. ILLUSTRATIONS 0-0570-3 GEO Group Northwest, Inc. - - --- --&E-~F'L:Jmj PLEASURE POINT SCALE As Shown DATE 5/27/11 MADE WJL Approximate Scal.: 1 locb = 1500 feet '"' ---tw7 "-.-.rr: -- '" VI CINXTY MAP ~~ U'(t' fi "-:',,: I' Ii '. . - I Sl I ----~! I"~ I~ PROPOSED KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 1901 -SE 48TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON CHKD we JOB NO. ,G-0570-3 PLATE I LEGEND , ~ , , , , I 9d-, , , , , , , , : : )~~tl:~:::~~ i~; _____ eq , , , , , , , , , , , , , , i I 0 0 I· •• . I ------- '" .... m .... ~ ~w ..... oclli Il.. <t .... u ~~ l .... w"' ........ ~ i5~;! i~ >-, ~ ~U ~I~ r~' 1= -. TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN .. "". Boring Number & Approximate PROPOSED KENNYDALE APARTMENTS ~-1 Location, Golder Associates, 1989 1901 -SE 48TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON This Site Plan adapted from Topographic Plan (Sht S-I,by CDr.E~W;;'.;-;J;-!,_-.r-;C~H::'K:::D~W:;-;;:C:-r-"":":,--~~=,,,..,,..,..---...,,--1 _ JOB NO. G-0570-3 PLATE 2 , " . ~ '. .. --~-. " ~ _. " ". "'- '. '. "----, ... - ... -" / " " ,90 , -' , Iii IDII Ii l!!-,! ' i [:. j, A-LJ PLATE 3 ....I~----- SITE/BLD( &GALE: I" s 2"'-0" •· ............. ..-IIII.OCi ... Go<T' .I·,~""""''''''T~",, P" ... I 1 I.. 1 -v--__ -_ w • I , -- '" C5 ;:: u w '" SITE/BLDG SCALE: I" • 20'-0" '""""'-0 I f l' ., 1 1 I B' i:..:i~~J~ A-1.3' 3~' PLATE 4 ! I I I ~ I e:1"=60' 4-1.4 PLATE 5 .. +-;vr". - - - - .U· ~---- ...:r..---- ..;;:.---- ...;m---- .;;,---- .u .." ~ -.. -----w ID ~-. ~.~ ... ~~,---. .... ____ ""''-' •• ''<10'''" ............ _I NORTf-I SCf-IEMATIC EION SCALE, I" • 2f>'-~" .u ~ ?4 ~ +;;;"ii +-rrt -~ BLDG ~EIG~T CALCULATIONS ""fUv"""" ........ __ CI'Igt....., EM· ___ A ..... .. __ .. _ .. a.n. .......... -'1!D ...... " '<"TAU _ ........... .".-' ----............. 1 .. '00 IIU)Q"_ az,.. ?¥l ~s· ..... _ ...... CJI""'''I., -.....-.-ta/TW ......... """ ~J ...... _ .. >O,,""....., l ...... ~-:.-~-:.:..l _1n~"·!J ___ -"'-UI.Q caJe: 1" = 60' -. !~II .... Ul G ;:: ~ W ..J '" W .... ~ it .... z ~w is oc&! ..J <I .... S (1..'" ID <I:I .... U w'" ... '" ;:: <lW;} .<! Q Z f 1: )-• ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~I § p . -. A-S.I PLATE 6 Slope 10 drain Basement Wall , . Water-Proofing On Wall Face o o , o & Vertical Drain Mat (Maradrain 6000 or equivalent) OR Clean Free Draining Backfill (See Report) Soft to Stiff Clay (IH:IV) WALL BACKFILL o <> o o o 0 o , o o o Very Stiff To Hard Clay (Near Vertical Cut) o • SLAB • " ' o CAPILLARY BREAK GEOTEXTILE FILTER F 1>Dlr""'==----+ (Mirafi 140 N, or equivalent) WASHED DRAIN 1)r>I"V-~~ FOOTING DRMN-~ 4-inch diameter rigid perforated P VC pipe NOTES: NOT TO SCALE FOOTING I.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexiible corrugated plastic pipe. 2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge. 3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains into the footing drain line system. 4.) Backfill should be compacted to 90% of maximum dry density based on Modified Proctor (ASTM 01557-91). The top 12-inches to be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density if backfill is to support sidewalks, driveway, etc. WALL AND FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL SCALE NONE DATE 5127111 MADE WJL PROPOSED KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 1901 -SE 48TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON CHKD WC JOB NO. 0-0570-3 PLATE 7 I Notes: LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE DIAGRAM PERMANENT WALL WITH GROUTED TIEBACK ANCHORS AND SLOPE ABOVE H Assume Hinged At --- I I It )1 , , Rectangular Lateral Soil Pressure 30(H) psf + 6H Seismic NOT TO SCALE I. A rectangular soil pressure of 30(H) psf includes the slope surcharge for slopes up to 45 percent. A rectangular soil pressure of20 H should be used for level slope conditions above the wall. 2. The No-Load-Zone is defined as the zone enclosed by a line extending a horizontal distance of hl4 from the base of the excavation then upward at an inclination of60 degrees from the horizontal. 2. An allowable skin friction (I) of 1000 psf in the very stiff to hard clay may be used on grouted anchors. J[nc. Et'Ivironrrentai Scientists SCALE NONE DATE 05127/2011 MADE WJL TIEBACK WALL DETAIL PROPOSED KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 1901 -SE 48TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON CHKD we JOB NO. G-0570-3 PLATE 8 Building LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE DIAGRAM PERMANENT WALL -BRACED CONDITION· 100 pst Traffic Surcharge Jlllll I~ L.. L.. L.. Building· H L.. \ Level Condition Above Wall Rectangular Lateral Soil Pressure H = 20H pst + 6H Seismic + 100 psfTraffic Surcharge Sloped Condition Above Wall Rectangular Lateral Soil Pressure = 30H pst + 6H Seismic NOT TO SCALE Notes: 1. A traffic surcharge of 100 psf equates to 0.7 feet of soil at 140 pcf. To account for traffic surcharge the design lateral soil pressure can include 1 foot (20H psf + 6H seismic + 1 foot). Northwest Inc. Environmental Scientists SCALE NONE DATE 05127120 II MADE WJL BRACED WALL DETAIL PROPOSED KENNY DALE APARTMENTS 1901 -SE 48TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON CHKD we JOB NO. G-0570-3 PLATE 9 LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE DIAGRAM PERMANENT WALL -CANTILEVER CONDITION 100 psfTraffic Surcharge ,J;:JJJJJ,. H H I~I:( ):1 I~I I 6H 40 pet EFP Level Condition Above Wall Triangular Lateral Soil Pressure 14---+,1:( ): I I I I 6H 60 pet EFP = 40 pef EFP+ 6H Seismic + 100 psI Traffic Surcharge Sloped Condition Above Wall Rectangular Lateral Soil Pressure = 60 pcl EFP + 6H Seismic NOT TO SCALE Note: I. A traffic surcharge of 100 psf equates to 0.7 feet of soil at 140 pcf. To account for traffic surcharge the design lateral soil pressure can include I foot (40 pcf EFP + 6H seismic + I foot). 2. EFP = Equivalent Fluid Pressure SCALE NONE DATE 05/2712011 MADE WJL. CANTILEVER WALL DETAIL PROPOSED KENNYDALE APARTMENTS 1901-SE 48TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON CHKD we JOB NO. G-0570-3 PLATE 10 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS & TRIAXIAL SHEAR TESTS BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES 0-0570-3 GEO Group Northwest, Inc. J J L' Unified Soil Classification System I Soil Clossificotion Criteria (or Assigning Croup Symbols ond Nomc~ Generoliud Croup Oe~erjptions I COARSE-eRAlNEO SOilS CRAV(lS Ct(AN CRAV(tS CW 'WeII-\lraded eta"ct. 1010'1 tna., 5O;C Wo,e thon '0' 01 lo .. Ihon 5X I;,-,e' 'etain.d em eoer.e /toction CP Poorly-9rodcd 9'0 ... 1, No. 100 '~I 'Itoined 0<'1 No. 4 Si .... CAAvtlS WIT" FINeS C" ;::;-;.:no ;»011 WOf". lhon 12!l linll ~~uc:.:"" Cloy I CC ... OS ClCAH SIoHOS SW weil-v,odld Sond. SOX' Of" morl ,. Len Ihon 5:C 'it"tll COO," I,action SP Poorly-V,od.d Sand. PO"" No. 4 Sil", I SANDS wITH rlHES S. Sond ,nd Silt "'illu,,, lroIatl thon 12% litI •• S' Son. , .. C10y "'i,h" .. FlN(-CRAINEO SOilS SILTS "",0 CLAYS CL Lo .. -pta.ticity CIO)'. 50% Of ",o'e po"" Liquid limit INORGANIC Non-pto.he and Lo __ I the No. 200 ., .... I ... thGn 50 ML Plcfllicily Sin. Non-plo.bc Ond. l~.- ORCANIC OL Pta.licity Dr9ontc: CICJYI Non-plo.tic Ond Lo __ Plo.Uca,. Or90nic: Silt. I SILTS AND ClAYS CH Hi9h-plo.ticity CIoyt liq"id limit INORCNIIC greater lrIon ~ "" Hiih-plo.tieil, Sfll. ~19h-PtO'IIC'I, 0"","" "" O,vonic Cloy. I Hi9l'-plO'licity Orvonic Silts HIGHLY OReAl«: SOILS p,ima,a, orVa'*: o,vonic odor moll.,. don In coloi-. and PT Plot Relative Density or ConSistency Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Values I COhesionl." Soils (g) Cohesive Soils Cbl Density (e) N, blow./ft.(c) Relotive N, blows/ft. (c) Undrained (d) Density Consistency Shear St)englh I (X) . (p.' I v.ry 100,1 o to ... 0-U v", .o,t a to 2 <:zoo Coo .. -... to 10 15 -35 So" 2 I •• 250-500 Compact 10 to JO lS-U f"~ • I, • ~-I00a I 0._ JO 10 50 15 -as Stiff a to " 1000-2000 Vlry 0.",. -, '" , .. V.,., Stiff 15 to 30 2000-4000 .... .... ., 30 >4000 (a) Soil. cenci.tine) of V,avct. tGnd. 0I'td .ilt. lilhl' IlpOI""tCIy fK in combinot.ion. ~,. .. ain; na chanoclcn.tiCI of plalticity. oncI uhlbitin;! drain" betw:l";or. (b) So;a. po ... uinq the chot'oc'IriIlic. of plcu,tic:ity. arid •• hibitJn9 ,,"dl"Gincd blhO\<iOf". (e) Refer to t .. t 0; ASTW 0 15811-84 10( .. d.rinitior\ of N: In nOtTTlol1y ean.olldot" coh .. ionl ... aoiI. R,Iau..1 D.nsity 'trm. are boud 0<'1 N vol"u conectld lot o..,rlklraen .p"UII"I. Cd) UNltalnld ."1Ot .trlfl9ih -1/2 "nconflnld compnnion .trlnvu\' Descriptive Terminology Denoting Component Proportions Descriptive Terms Rang_ 0' Proportion Troe. 0-5% Uille 01' Mjectiw. (0) 5-12% ...... 11-)OX .... 30-50% Component Definitions by Gradation Component 80ul6l" CobtM:r Cr."e. Coo, •• 9rov.1 r_ 9f-1 Son' Abo ... 12 in. 3 in. to 12 in. J In. 10 No .... (4.16"",,' J in. to 3/4 In, 3/4 in. to No.4 (4.15mm) N,. 4 (4.76nvn) I, N,. 200 (0.014nvn) Coo,. ... ond Wlolum .ond fino ,and N,. 4 (4.1Invn) I, .,. 10 (2.0mm) N,. '0 (2.0~m) I, N •. 40 (0 . .f2mmJ Ho. 40 (0.41mm) 10 No. 200 (O.D14",m) Silt and Cloy Smontr Iha" No. 200 (O.D74mm) Samples 55 SPT So",pl.,. (2.a" 00) HO H.a.., Out, Spill S,_ SH Shllby TUM P Pitd\., Somp~, • .... C Corld Unl ... ot".,...i .. notlc!. dn..1 .omple. octYal'lCed with 140 lb. hamm.r .ith JO ~ drop. Laboratory Tests TlISt Desiqnation WoI,tutI (1) Oen,tt, 0 Croln SIz. e Hydrometer H At'''''rg Umit. (1) Con-alidoUott C UncO<'lflnld U UU Trio, W CU T"" CU CO T,... CO "1""lObilit}o P (1) ~slu'. and AUlrblrs Umit. plotted 0<'1 lot. Sill and Clay Descriptions Description Typicol Unified Designation ,.. loll. (non-pIo..uc) Cloy .. SlIt a.-NL (to. pIo.Ucily) Silt, Clay CL Cl..,. CH PIa.tIc SlIt MH Otvonic Soila OL.OI<pt (0) Un c.-cr.<JfIy. SanOy 01" S"lIty a. apptoptiall. l----------------__ ----J o Golder Asso~iales Figure SOIL CLASSIFICATION/LEGEND rJ-IOI4/FORIrol ~7J PROJECT: SUNS"-~HEIGHTS RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-1 SHEET: 1 OF 1 ~ .' PROJECT ~OCAil..J RENTON, WA BORING DATE: 5-14-89 DATUM: REl.'.TIVE PROJECT NUMBER: .93-1119 BORING LOCATION: .. SAMPl£S PENETRA TlC)N AES.tST ANCE ~m ~ ~ BLOWSiFT 0 .. .. lID 80 PIEZOMETER El.EV ffi t: , , OR :I ~ '" i DE""""""'" ~ I ~ Blaws/ N ~ WATER CCINiENT. PERCENT STANDPIPE' § eo. ';.1 40 r:!" eo I" INST AU:A noN ~ 00 GO f-• I ~~= ~~;ri.TY ~ .. ... I ciAv,-,AOAO I, ..... , as ••• " ' "/10 0 !-• .... • as .,32' .. '01'0 - Hatd, r~ht brown. monied. --SILTY l.'.V • as • 17" " ,,, .. • SH -'!.. -,. • as .'0" "" '01"- become:S dark grey f-.. • os ",...-.. 'a/'. '0 - 7 as 101825 .. I,,,,, 10 - > .. • as .'8" ., 1'01'. C . -.. a. ,. OS """ .. ,,, .. 0 -:>0 II ss . ",." . ". 1'01-,' C . f-.. 12 ss 17 ..... .. 1'01" P -_ f-.. ,. ss , ...... 72 ~ C -.. .. " so .. 0" " . '0/'. 0 1-'" I~~nba. 10148.5 48. .. - - f-.. . - f-eo .. ... -70 f --.. too - .. l.OGG£I>. .....-ORU. R:O: Wob8o I 1><1JJNI1~ D.LL O<EOCEI> CCL . ~ Todd Golder Associates DATE: .. 22·85 PROJECT: SUN( -'!-fEIGHTS ," PROJECT LOCATio,,: RENTON, WA. PROJECT NUMBER: 893-1119 - ~ 0 0 h ~ " !l I'l I< iii f-• . , -. I Soft 10 atilt. light brown SILTY CLAY ,. I wI .... organ1co and g ..... . Hard, dark grey. SILlY CLAY, .. lIace I1n • sand and 911Mll --.. 1-.. ;; m - 30 -~ ,. f-All - f-.. 1-00 Boring lermlnated Pl48.D feet 8/221119 1-00 reo -.. 70 ;,. loo .. I ORU. RIO: MoOIkt DfQ1.NJ CCHTRACTOA: o.u. DRlJ.St T .... RECORD OF BOREHOLE B·2 BORING DATE: 8·22·89 MH a. a. BORING LOCAnON: 0. ... , SS 2 as 117." 0.'" • SS • as I "'.02 • sa , .... '7 sa • as • ,. ss " SS ',' ss -Ii ss ,"'." ,. ss ..... BlOWS I ,In II. 22. 12' '5O , 4"2' ,., ... ..... , .... '2 .... , ..... H .... " .... N • , , ,. I .. ., .. All .. .. I .. .. Golder Associates h.,,, I,.,,, """ I'"'' h.11O h.,,, ,.". .PUSJ 1 "'10 ,,0/,. ,0/,. ,,0/,. '0/'. 0 0 0 SHEET: 1 OF 1 0'" TUM: ReI.Iiv. PENETAATlON RESISTANCE BlOWSiFT a ~. 40 10 co WATER CONTENT, PE1CENT ~I '40 rJ! 80 1""80 a D e 0 <f----l a 0 0 - · · · · · · · · · -. - _. - - PROJECT: SUN('-""EIQHTS t " .• ./' .-PROJECTLOCATION: RENTON. WA. PROJECT NUMBER: 893-1119 ~ ~~ § r 0 f-• -I. " '" 2S 30 f-35 1 00 os ,. ,. 8 :z: Iii " " z 1< 0 m .t SOOLPAOFlLE 0ESCAM10H I~!~~-=:- I ~i,Jy ":l'Jr";i' .=!\i! sand ~;:,~:;:,:= ~~,~~Y Boring lenniru:Lled at 49.0 reet 8123189 RECORD OF BOREHOLE B·3 BORING DATE: BOAING LOCATION: Renton, Wa. """.f'LES :~ ruv ffi I: 11 m w r-~ ~ BI..OW9/ H ~ !! .~ O€PTH z I 1'." 0.00 r:- 8M F::', "".e' I ss •• 13 I. 1,01,. -150 CI. "20 ... 2 sa " ,ill 30 1,01,. ~50 3 os I."" .. 1"",". 4 SH ,.~ . -, ss " ... , .. I,B"8 • SH "'IJS 7 os .. 233 ' .. 110118 • as "427 .. '10/11 CI. I. ss .. 4 .. 137 I'~ 11 ss "23" , .. 110110_ 1,._ ,2 ss 122'" .07 110/,. ,. ss ·'2 .... I .. I'~", ".00 Golder AssocIates SHEET: 1 OF 1 @) DATUM: Helallv. PENE:TRA.TlON RESlSTNCE 8I.OWSiFT a .. '" '? 10 I'IEl<lME1EI\ , OR BT...,."". WATER CONTENT, PERCENT ~I 40 rft eo I'" INSTAUA.TICIH eo I- a " " - , " .... - - - .,PROJECT: SUNCIEIGHTS RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-4 SHEET: 1 Of 1 (@ PROJECT LOCATION: RENTON. WA. BORINO CATE: 8-23-811 CATUM: Relative PROJECT NUMBER: 893-1119 BORING LOCATION: Renton. Wa.. ~m 0 -.o..PfOO.e ........... PEHETRAllON RESISTANCE 0 BlOWSIFT D ffi ~ 20 ... eo .. PIEZOMETER ElEV 15 1= DR :I ~ .. ~ . WATER """"'NT. PERCENT ST ..... DPIPE ~ 11 0ESCRI'110H I--~ BlOWS/ N ~ I 0El'1l' lin ~I <1' Iv. INSTAUAl10H ~ z " .. eo ao 0 a:oo SdII~r~ and brown. SIt.: C Y. wI trace sand and gravel a. i -;;-1101 •• rw.a t f-, 17.:12 • a ... •• Ii!iiO .'" c H8Id. dart< grey. SILlY CLAY ~I trace fine sand • .. ... •• • <> •• c -f-•• • .. '" .. •• 1.8". D .. • .. ..... .. ~ D -i liS " •• 23 .. ilii • D -20 -. liS ,"17 .. "iW t - wi trDCe 10 Utile gravel and cobb&es f-.. a. - f-,. • .. ... , .. Ii", •• D - 1-" 1-.. " as 2'_' . 70 11111' D 1-.. ..-SO ,,, .. .. I .. ", t <3.32 ... '" .. Boring tennina&ed at 48.0 I"," 8i23I88 1-" . f-oo -.. ,. -,. -10 LOOGEI>. ..... -OR:U.RG: ...... O<OO<EI>. oa. Cf1:UHJ """"""'" o.u. 0RUJlJt T .... Golder Associates OATE: o..n-a -~ '~IGHTS RECORD OF 80REHOLE 8-5 PROJECT: SUNS: SHEET: 1 OF 1 (@ , -', ./ I . PROJECT LOCATION: RENTON. WA. BORING DATE: 8-17·89 DATUM: Relative PROJECT NUMBER: B9J..1119 BORING LOCATION: Renton, W .. · ~ .. ~.". SAMPlE' PENElRATION A£SISTANCE w 0 1m ~ BlOWSlfl D ~El£V 20 "" eo eo PIEZOMETER Ili ~ OR " DESCAIPTlON 11 m w BLOWS I STANIlPIPE · " Ii f--~ ~ N ~ WATER CONTENT. PERCENT ~ Z !l .~ ... 1 d!J. I'" INSTAUATlOH !i l~ IOEPTH 20 "" eo eo m I-• ~S':71,~""" ~ .. · I sandY w/linle grav" .... • M 1212. ,. 11/10 ...... '-. I Flrm. oflV. ~ .,!:L.::JLAY 100 -. 59 ,,. • II/I' a - ;:.VeJ C1. •. D1." -. SS 235 • '1/'. 0 .... • 59 31' 11 12115 a •• Very stitt, brown SilTY CLAY w/lrace fine sand and trace · grave! • SH il"PUS ,p.-. I-•• • 59 30'. •• i .1/'. a - · C1. '1 ss .'~ .. II .1/ •• 0 • os 31' •• .8/'. 0 20 • SH II"PUS · .. : ! •. ,., ..... Hard. dark Jrsy Hlldy SILTY CLAYw/li _gravel .. 55 . ..... I .. 1,"\1 a --1-.. wI traces of dry ,lit and 11 ss 132'25 .. ,.8/ •• 0 SOlId -· ~ 30 CH .2 ss 15,.., ,. ;0". · I-.., 13 55 ...... 1--I .. ,,· - 1-'-- ~~" •• ss 71'20 33 i.8/\I D ..... - -50 Boring termlnaled al 49.0 'Ml · 8/25/89 50 .. - 1-00 '-os - 70 ,. I-DO lOGGED: SI_ ..... OftU.RXI: ...... 0iECKED: ca. 0RU.tI0 CXlNT1W:'ICf' D.lL Golder' """"'" T .... DAre ... 24-811 PROJECT: SUN'----'IElaHTS RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-6 SHEET: lOF 1 ~ ,. , I PROJECT LOCATIOi'f: RENTON, WA BORING DATE: 11-18·89 OAruM: RelalMt PROJECT NUMBER: 89:1-111. BORING LOCATION: Renlon, WL . 0 .~, D~"< .....Pl£S PENE'TRATlON RESISTANCE ~~ ~ BlOW!l/FT 0 i '" '" ':' 00 PIEZOMETER ElEV ffi I: OR 2 11 -CESCAIf'11ON I-m w BlaN9l H ~ WATER COHTENT, f"£R:ENT srANOPlPE § ~ !l ~ ~ .~ INST AU.A T10N iC 10EPT> z '" ~I CJ1 I" Ii! . '" eo 10 -f-0 I ~fcfv ~i.A~ wi .... "'oooleo 0.00 • as .. " •• 1.0/ •• f-• • S9 .... .. ,,,,t. 10 - • S9 • ,.0 .7 .0/ •• 0 •• Q. • SH II'f'US -• as ••• ' .. 1.0/ •• C . f-.. • S9 • 1217 .. 1.0/18 C -'. 7 S9 .728'. ... I.", •• 8UlCI C •• 00 ........ -.. Comb"" brown COOlH IlI1y SAN SP * -Hasd, brown sandy SIL'N CLAY • SS .... ---53 .0/ •• C : wi Uble to IOmo gravel f-" Q. 71.00 .0 as ...... .. 1.0/ •• 0 .. ".00 f-.. Hard, fractured brown rr19 tt1ed SIL'N CLAYw/1raCe grovel -. " S9 ...., .. •• 1.0/ •• - os Iz SH 15'I'US Q. -t-.. · . 1<; : •• SS ..... ',. 1.0/11 C .... w/ltace dry ,lit and fino · . -.. sand · . I:::::: 01.00 •• SS .... .., .. 1.0/18 0 ~r...:..;;.;... ".00 f-'" Boring Ierminaled at 49.0 feel _. 0/2'/69 0/25lO1I .. . f-oo . "as -. -70 f -7B t . - '00 I CRURXJ: ...... LOGGEI> ..... ..... CR1.LJ1G """"""'" D.LI. CHECI<EI> co.. IlI<UBO __ Golder Associates CAre .. :I ..... -I-.. 1-.. - ... ,0 RECORD OF BOREHOLE BORING DATE: il-15-a9 BORING LOCATION: Renton. We. SAMI't£S ~ gruv ffi w f--m BlOWS I IO£PT> ~ ~ lin % I: .': ··0.00 . B-7 I: N ~ SHEET: 1 OF 1 DATUM: Relative PENETR.f.TJON RESISTANCE BLOWSIFT C 20 ..0 eo eo , , ~[: ~~~~-----+~~~ 1----------+-[:.: ".'" • SS .0" .,1.0110 o Hard, dark grey SILTY CLAY wI laminae of dry ,ill Boring lenninated at -49.0 'eeL ....., I-!..+'-=-SSI--":' '''~''-+.!!....t ..I~ "", D --. -SS ". " ',"", D • SH a. • SS •• .! .. It,/I' D • SS ... '3 I.B/" D 50.'" a. ".'" • 'ss ,.""'" I .. I,,,;. f:-".W !::: ". • 0 59 34",,",-.. ItB/II :. OM ,:::: :::: : ::: ".'" " -SS 3'''''' I 13 I.VI. a.1 ~.a> .. 59 " •• 32 .. ItB/II """ 13 -59 12 21 .. .. 11.11. ".a> Golder Associates o o 10 D D PIEZOMETER OR STANOf'IPE INSTAl.1.A TlON _. - - · · · · - - · - ~"-. SUNOIGHT RECORD OF BOREHOLE 8-8 -\ rROJECT: SHEET: • OF ~ ,..-/ : PROJECT. LOCATION: Ren.on, W .. BORING DATE: 6-.6-89 DATUM: Relative PROJECT NUMBER: 1193-11.9 BORING LOCATION: Renton. Wa. - ~ 8 SO\. pROfllE s.;.;.uu. . PENETRATlON RESISTANCE h ~ Bl.CW!IIFT n ~ ':' 40 eo eo PIEZOMElUI EL£V 15 S CIA '" " ~ -CESCAIPT10N u I--.. BUJWSI N WATER CONTENT, PERCENT STAHIlPIPE ~ " !'! ~ ~ INST ........ TIOH z ... ... , c1' I'" if 0Ef'1H z 0 .. 40 10 10 .. f-0 ~Pf"~o;;t.!";".,.'~'t(~~l) \-: . ~~ -(:; • os ,,'17 •• .11'. " ... r • (: z OS • 15'. I .. , "',, . n . .. -I: :-: 71.00 v~ still, brown mottled 7.00 • sa 7.'. ... 'n SIL CLAY wI traco grovel .'015 .0 • OS .. '4/'. n • OS ..... .. ~ 0 •• wI tr::fOVel and IhIn IaVenI 01 medium to fine • .. 0 •••• I .. laliO " a. 7 .. ." I .. f\W " -- f-zo • ... Z • •• lay .. 01 sII1y grovel • so IZ •••• .. 1.1111 - 20 ;; ".00 .. Very den .. , ~Il. brown f:-: -"'00 •• sa ...... , .. It./iO , silty Rne to meet SAND wI :> -aomogravd r'" ::- -... 1:-:-. : .. sa " .... : .. 1.81 •• " :::: .. ,. ::: ,. 48.00 Hard. dark.3rev, SILTY CLAY wI ".IX) IZ 59 20'''. .. 1aI •• P Interbedd sequence of wet silty IIno sand a. - 40 42.00 ""'''' •• SS • 13'. I .. r.8I •• 0 Ha<d. darlc grey SILTY CLAY - .. f-.. a. SO 102032 .. 1.11 ••. n ".~ 48.00 1-00 BorIng terminated I!d .9.0 (eel B/23I89 - 1-.. - 80 - f-.. - ,.70 r" 1-80 LOGGm --ORU RIO: MobIIo O1ECI<EI> = 0R11JNQ """"""'" o.u. Ilf<l.I.B< Todd Golder Associates DATE: .zs.aa . .!'ROJE~T: SUNOEIGHTS RECORD OF BOREHOLE B-9 SHEET: 1 Of~) (@ : PROJECT LOCATION: REIfTON. WA. BORING DATE: 6-11!-B9 DATUM: RelaUv. PROJECT NUMBER: Bll3-111B DORING LOCATION: Renton,Wa.. ~ 0 np;;;f"" ---.;.;rus PENETAATION RESISTANCE ~ BlOWSiFT 0 ~m II~ 20 .. .. co PIEZOWElV' 15 I: OR :I ~ ~ i i 0ESCfV'T10H D ~ BlOWS I N ~ WATER CONTENT, PERCENT 8TANtlf'IPE ~ ... ~I .eo r:J1 110 I'" IH9T Al.1.AllOH ~ 00 r • ~\f,y"b~ 'w/lr"! ~ IfILLl 0.00 a. 1 SS .i4 7 118". 0 .... M .. C-• Stiff 10 ~ Illlf, brown 4.00 • SO .iI " 1,./10 a monied SI TY CLAYW/lIDCe gravel • SS .11 11 .. 01'. b r ,. • sa '30" ,. 11111' a I wI_'ilde "rav. and fino a. • SS . ... ' ., 1'01'. -I' sand • os .,;;0 .. 1'0110 a 7 SS .... .. 111"8 a ...-. .., ... .., Very dense, brown .Ilty SAND 1:-. '22.00 , SO ,8,'>2 103 1'01'. C i wi IinSo graY. f:- " (" "'[::: . • SO . "" 32 !til'. 0 Wet. .Uty medium 10 Ono [ :-'. .. sand '.: '.: . :':. ~'.M ,. SS ..,.. 50 151'. C 31li) Hard. brown SILlY CLAY w/ .. .1110 sand I!ecomeo darlc gray a. 11 SS " .... I ., 1,11,8 roo ...... I>· Very denaoJcey medium 10 -.uiO ,. SS ........ '08 I,v,. 0 : -: : : JIno oiIIV 0 ..... ::: .. 8M [ . I>' r-:: _.no .. SS , ....... I .. l'v1O 10 ..lZ. I>::: : roo 1-hUB.OI_ --..:00 -.,..,.. -.. -... rca ,. 1-70 .. lOGGED! ..... -CR1l FICl: Mob6:I 0iECKEO: co. 0A1lJNQ CONI1W:TtlA< D.U. 0R:UEt T_ Golder Associates ~TE: 1-23-48 -'I STRESS-STRAIN CURVES 2. -r----r--~,---.-r---~~' ,. I ' I. :--. ," ---t 1 1-00 ' i -_. ~-oo:·q,-,o--O·9L •. _C) I> 100 0 _ --iq--o--O-~ 0 ; ~ i"· .. r--. •• + ___ o~ : _, ___ ,. __ 1 -! :: .,-V T:_-\' '.-~'~ __ ~:~_--, .. !--[--- r----._--,-_..' -I-"-~'---'"1'--"-+-- ~--+- ---r-- • t ;-r: .. : --.,..--, .. c' r • 2 • • • I. C PT 1 ·;nw;T(~)· O' PI. ': PORE PRESSURE CHANGE VS. STRAIN :::o=-c-C 1 .. _ !-.-LTJ~ h .... ' . ; , I I • .-:---i ::~;.L---_,~'; ~": '" "--;'-~:-1 I.~: .-~ ~ V' ; --.:-.. +-_ _ :___ -L---.J ++ : 0: : : i I + + o· , 15 I C :D+~··-·p-·-··;-~-o·l·-·· __ L.. •••••• ---.-~ _.'. "i---" --:---1 I i ,°0 : ' I , ; '. ' I o a ~.-t-.~-6" _.~ , I l °o! . I '. -~: ~-'--'-~iJI":f----\-----\-----\-----1 • 2 C I'T 1 • STlWH (a) + l'T2 • 0 I. • I'T' ~ " ~) Failure Sketch a c • b c d Borehole No. 2 2 2 Sa"ll!e No. • • • $arJll18 Depth, It. Specimen Diameter. Inches 1.855 I 2.065 Specimen Haight. Inches 5.-980"15.911 b d ~ Cell Pressure~, psi 70.0 80.00 100.0 Back Pressur ••. 'p_.1 60.0 60.0 6'0.0 EJleell .... Confining Pressur., 03', psi 10.0 ZO.O 40.0 Water Content b.tor. lest, % 11.4 16.6 16.)· Water Content alter test, % 16.6 16.) 16.0 Ullt Weight, Y n, IbJ cu_ It. ltl.) 11).B 114.5 Avorage Rat. of Strain, InJmln. .00]1 .OO~ .0037 P-Q PLOT .o~----r--r~.~r.r-~~ ..~p~.,r. \' .y_ ' , " '.2 P~ --+-+-i---t _+-~ _~-:.j · ... 1··# -:.-·I· .... · ... '-u '0 , , , I A·- a "1 31 '; I I i , • I I 4Q I -,1.5 P~~1----~--. --t--------- sin II ..I UnO i i c": I/sin Ii:', I Q _" .;. __ .!-___ .. ;SO i ----i----!--'--;-----; -i ; i' 0 1 20J---~-·-1--~--i---r·-"+--i-- 1 I :. I , ! I I : I ~ 1_-1-_1 I +---~--+---i--i---l 10 I J>4 ... ---r I. I 1.. a + I TO 0 20 C .. "" I 00 ,. (pal) + "" 2 CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED STAGED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST ,. ... C.I LINCOLN PROPERTIES/SUNSET HEIGHTS&A ... .;.-Cl .... BIJ]-1119 D ••• 9lZ1/B9 t"'I"'-"~ App<_..,. KRB eo 100 120 • PT. ((lb> Golder Associates --j STRESS-STRAIN CURVES ::l=F_+-~-T--=T-:--.T --r--r --I' ----T l~ . I! 1 . I i DO, . ~.!... ,-'. \ \ __ ':-- 10. ___ .___ _,~ •• -!_-;-.-... :.. .L ... ;" _.~ 1 -, ! -......J 70 . J ____ I I '. 0 10>; 0 0 0 <0 i ;. : : 0 : ,~~: ;~o_:~ ---::_:~; {_ =--:~~~~_~ _ a I . + + + ... , ;. I .. -r-+~ ----~ --,----~-1--r --:----··E' -" i.-'';-'I,,-O-'O ,,-Ic--r--"=1--' '---1- + C'Cc" -, ttl ':--W,----r-H_' -'---,-- • • D POT 1 • STlWN (II) + PT. • B OPT, PORE PRESSURE CHANGE VS, STRAIN :: [ ~ --l--'-:! ''''": F'=q~'~T:~~F~:' ,. I L 0 o-'j-'hi'I--,.1. __ r'--~'-I---'l'-' -- II! <0 0 ~ ___ .~~:. ~_ :L~. ~_ ~_r_. _ "--l.-.. J. ," __ nl. ______ L.,-,. __ t. __ -! ! -'I-: : i J' I i! . I I • o ++f++j++i I ! i I I I ,. ,. gr--'-+ -i--'j----,f---!, --T'--1----1- a 0 0 0 ~ ~--'1-'---f-'---r--""'-1"" '-'-~:----T-----""""-,---- • ? I _--t---~-f--c'~-'~-f,:-L--j-----I--~ , L I I 'Lil' i I ,.1 I -'J"---]" -L ,I - -'1 ' ,-.-- • I '---,--L-I--I ~ • • • • ,. D fOr 1 SlllAIH (15) . + I"T 2 OPT. . j a --, Failure Sketch • c • b c d Borehole No. , , , - Sa~le No_ -, , , Satq)le Depth. IL Speel"*", Diameter. inches Z.B6S . I 2..919 I 2..808 ~.elmen Haight. Inches S.B90 I S.62.4 I 6.011 b d Q Cell Pressure (h, psi 10.0 BO.O 100.0 Back Pressure, psi 60.0 60.0 60.0 Elfecllve Confining Pranura. 0'\', psi 10.0 2.0.0 40.0 Water. Content balora test. '" IB.8 11.6 17 .1 Water Content aller lest. % 11.6 11.1 16.S Ullt Weight. In. Ib,/cu. It. Ill.1 114.1 llS.4 Average Rale 01 Strain, Inimin. .• 0038· .0038 .00lB P-Q PLOT ...@"'~----'~--T---'r---r-•• ,.".-,~----,--L ___ '_'I'_' ___ ' __ I -,--/1' '-:-' c • O. I •. I I j , I • I .0 I :.: :': ;*Q~'-+-d_ -1-----j-----~ . I ! i <>, .... ,-----,--I---,--,i-,,,~--;-'--, -'''~--'-~'--I "~ ... -'--";' . . . I. 00 ; 2~ ~,_-1 ,.-_ .. -J -___ ,j__ - -•. ---; ... -.--.. I ! ;' 0 -~~ , --~~ -I -'-'----j I "-j-----t-'" ! J , ----1 , ! ~ .. , 1 i "-ID J .-;"' ... ~.'-.• !.---'+~~----- I ' ,0 I -I, --, +-.... --i------t _ .... .1. 1 ! . v,.I=Tj .. _e_L:. I .. .+--- o 20 c PT , ._ .. __ •. ~ .. ...2 __ •. ..., ~ (paT) + .,-2 CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED STAGED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST ... .... linCOLN PROPERTJES/SUtlSET HEIGffTSOIA .... .;.d _m=..u19 0.,. ,1211B9 t ...... ~~ ........ _ .... _ICRB DO ... .. .,-» . ~. Golder Associates STRESS-STRAIN CURVES "OH-T-' --r--r--r---f'" r-._,. ---) 110 --._ _ _ •. , '_'. I ....•. _ , .. _ ", •. "__ _ I I ' .; : 100 -i-----1 -.-~ . -...... --:--. ----' ". I •.... J. __ :: -!-'-L_ -~ -,-~~~: --j~~--j..:-.:.t-~ .~-~: :"--~-~-1 :: r'----,u -~---:-~ ~--'.~ .. -r·-·---~ J..:-_:~--ij I . ,.' l I l! , .0 I I. I' +--,--: ---'1 . 1----~ <> <> " .. I 1 -+--- . ---~. .. -, ---1--~----1--.. .:... O+++~. 1 :; ; , 30 O"~ C-·-~ -~ ... -• 0_--t----t-·--i " ... L ---,-- , 'I fr :: ~: t-t].-~:t:--t1~:l"-~-.~.~~~~ o a • • • •• D "". · :nw~{~-• PTO PORE PRESSURE CHANGE VS. STRAIN 30 I ""-T--T"-r-1---T--'I-'T--r-~ 25-f--I'Q,O. 1.·. __ 1 __ " ........ _-_ ............ -~ --",.- o· 01 !!!.; a. :0': j __ : .. --•. J .J.. _ ... : ... .-J "C-'-.. ~ + + -+' + ' 10 . <> ',- 1+0 00 0 II-ta--;- ,-, • "i • _. -~. I , · , , . {--- , , , 1 ! "---r- . , -'--c. , ! !._ ._i._. __ ~ .. , i °Ei~ :--. -~: ---1 . : JI i : -1'-.1--. -~ -L---l--• a D "". • S11WH (II) + /'T, • • /'T 3 i , __ .....J --.--.'----, I --1 , i "--7--~ 1 1 i I I · . i-I .... --~ • •• ~ a Borehole No. SarTlllll No. .:J SaR1>le Depth, 11. I SpecillWl Dlametef, inches l ~ecimen Height. Inches Cell Pressure~. psi Back Prenula, psi Eijectlv.--Contlillng'Pressur., ~ psi Waler Content belor. test, " Water Content al1er test, '" Lhll Welghl~ YD. Ibjcu. ft. Average Rat, 01 Strain, InJrnin. • I b \ :C 1 8 • • 8 2.818 2.82l Z.Bll S,936 s.agO 5.795 70.0 80.0 lOO.~ 60.0 60.0 . 60.0 10.0 20.0 40.0 40.1 lB.' 38.5 lB.' lB.' J7.8 83.4 83.B 84.6 1.0032 .0032 .0032 P-Q PLOT' d \ 11 Failure Sketch \ ~~! S5~ b d ,.. --f -:~:-:----,,-. c ---·..,:-t.~---... - - -----. --I 3. -r=-==---i--T--r-----1--g :: :: :~;3;'='ru~ ~'_u~~I~~ :...:-:~:-L~'~:-~:~":~~l~~~---:--:"E~~~--.-J I o· ]0' ! " I 20·---'_'"""T" ,---I c·. psi • 00 "' ,. -+----".. ... .. -----_.------! u I . . ..... 1._ ,. I lin I;. ~a!,._~.L. .. '- ..." . -----. --t-c;:-./5in it ' 12 I ... _. ~ .. -.--it-_ 10 1 __ .:0. I _.~ -~ '--. . I . I : t--~--a-"~ d~--'-:,---~--. _0, .. ". u --.-J T: ,t if' :.. .-.. -L'i-'--.-. '''li ~-"j~. '~ -.. I: ~-~ ...L. _____ _____ -+--__ ~ • •• c PT. .. (p-I) + ..... CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED STAGED TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST ".;'~I LINCOLN PROPERTIES/SUNSET HEIGHTS/VA ..... ;.~I " ... ....!!11:.l.!l!ll 0.,. 'JIll {59 I .. ' ... ., -.l!.f.II...-........ .-.. ~ .., .,. o ....» lAB :Q;, Golder Associates APPENDIXB TEST PIT LOGS BY EARTH CONSULTANTS 0-0570-3 GEO Group Northwest, Inc. S.E. 76th STREET ~ ... ..---..-:r------ F"", • lP'ID ) 0===0\-, "/ . F I , r i ~ \ '7Z:~I"1 ... -~ 1 -I \ I .,J A B~~ B~ C .~~ lP'3 1",_ "~" \ " r~ f\! / ~r~~~' ~lP-5 \ ~ " \ ____ ~~ \"J lP-ffi ]1',. " 1Ir l\j AppfaIi:rnmIt ScaR o . "cD «r" , tritt. LIZ~I'4D ffi lP-1 Approximole Locoticn of ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. E-4OQ2 , July 1988 o Proposed Buiid n9 ~ Approximate Locotion of Sprirg I Seepcge 10"" Ref.,..".:a ~ .km r-tl. 88 -730 s;,. Pbn By R\I1I-Porr-a l\ssQC.imrs CaRd 7/14/88 *."-~ " . . ~.~ RIIIl<ll. . ...-~ lesr Ml Location Pion Shunp"d Self Sb'tlge King County, Woshinglon Pnoj. No. 4002 IDato Ju~ • .. / ... ID 2 MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Coarse Grained S9!!S More Than 50'" Material larger Than No. 200 Sieve Size Fine Grained Soils More Than 50"4 Malenal Smaller Than No. 200 Sipve Size Gravel And Gravelly SoHs Well· Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixlures. lillie Or No Fines Clean Gravels J&'~::;.,,:=a;"4-~=---=-;'j--:==':'::':=:":::"':::"':"::'::':"'---------l (little or no lines) Poorly' Graded Gravels, Gravel- More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Retained On No " Sieve Gravels With Fines ( appreciable amo,unl of lines) Sand Mixlures, little Or No Frnes Silly Gravels, Gravel-Sand- Silt Mixtures Clayey Gravel$, Gravel -Sand- Clay Moo;lures Well· Graded Sands, Gravelly Sand And Sandy Sods Clean Sand Sands, Lillie Or No Fmes (little or no lines) r.';;~~';"',::f-:::::---7+------------:""'------..,...j Poorly' Graded Sands. Gravelly More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Passing No." Sieve Sands With Fines (appreCiable amount 01 lines l Sands, lillie Or No Fines Silly Sands. Sand -Sill Mixtures Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay MI xtures Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock FIOlor ;Silty- Clayey Fme Sands; Clayey Silts wf Slight Plasticity Sills And Clays Liquid Limit Less Than 50 InorganiC Clays Of low To Medium PlasticIty. Gravetty Clays. Sandy Clays, Silty Clays. lean Organic Silts A.nd Organfc Silty Clays 01 Low Plasticity SillS, Micaceous Or DiatomaCeous Fine Silts And Clays liquid limit Greater Than 50 TOpsoil ... ." . . " '" "" FIll ~ Peal. Humus. Swamp SOils With HIOh Organic Contents Humus And Duff layer Highly Variable Constituents The Discussion In. The Text 01 ThiS Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding 01 The Nature 01 The Material Presented In The Attached logs I IT P 4- .2 ~ Notes: Dual symbols lire used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper case letter symbols designate sample classifications based up.on lab- oratory testing: lower case letter symbolS designate classifications not verifted by laboratory testing. 2-0.0. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING. tsl 2.4-1.0. RING SAMPLER OR qu PENETROMETER READING. tsl SHELBY TUBE SAMPlER SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight SAMPL~ NOT RECOVERED pel DRY DENStTY,poundsper cubic ft. WATER LEVEL f DATE I LL LIQUID LIMIT. percent WAHR OBSERVATION WELL PI PlASTIC INDEX Proj. No. 4002 Date Aug' 88 Plate 3 Loggad By STL Date _...;.7"-/=.;210.:/....;:8",8_ Elev. 74'± ~~ w (ft.) uses Soil Description (%) o --rrnTnr--m~l-,-TTL~n~~,n~~~"~~pt~g~r~a~y~s~an~d~y~SCI~L~T~W~1<·t~h~'-s~c~a~t~t~e~r~e~d~g~r~a~v~e~1-,~m~o~i~s~t~'1~7r-------' - - -- 15 o - - - 5 - - - - 10 - - - - - 15 ml CH Logged By Brownish gray SILT, low plasticity, moist, ,soft Brownish gray CLAY, moist, medium stiff to stiff Gray and brown mottled at 8 feet Gray and stiff below 9 feet 15 24 31 33 Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excav.ation. qu=1.25 tsf LL=53 PL=25 qu=1.5 tsf qu=2.S tsf qu=1.5" STL Elev. 70'± Datil 7/21/88 TEST fl~T NO. 1111 ml Grayish brown SILT, low plasticity, moist, soft 21 ~ cl/ Gray and brown mottled silty CLAY/clayey SILT, 23 qu=2.25 ml moist, stiff, with scattered cobbles tsf cl Gray and brown silty CLAY, moist, stiff 32 qu=2.5 tsf Test pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 8ub:urb:o CCIrIdItiora ct;:p;c.t:d ~ our ......... odic:= c:l1ft) ItIIa end kx:dion at Ihb ccp!orc:::ofy -=. t=::l. Cft:ttOO. £:tid ~. Tq ... NIl ~ ~ GlGZtIOf t:lftc:Jcnd tDc:diOI'Q. ~ cannat ~ c:;sca , .... a.c:.CGcr.=p . ... .....,.... TEST PIT LOGS SHURGARD SELF STORAGE KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No, 4002 Data Aug' 88 Plate 4 Loggad By STL Date __ ...;4"-1""21,,,,/...:8;.::8_ Elev. 67'±" ~~ W (~')-'77.~U_S~C~S-r~~~~~~~~S~O~il_D_~ __ r~ip~ti~o_n ____________ ~~-r~(%~)~ ______ , 5 10 cl Dark gray silty CLAY cl Gray and brown silty CLAY, moist, stiff 25 qu=2.5 tsf 27 qu=2.0 tsf 47 qu=1.75 Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during e~cavation. 15~--------------------------------------------------~ 5 Logged By STL Data 7 (21(88 TEST f>~T NO. ml CL Gray brown SILT, low plasticity, moist, medium stiff Gray brown mottled silty CLAY, moist, stiff Elev. 19 19 23 57'± 1. 75 tsf 2.5 tsf 31 2.5 tsf 10 -4~U----L ____________________________________ ~ __ L-__ ~ 15 Test pit terminated at 10 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. TEST PIT LOGS SHURGARD SELF STORAGE KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4002 Date Aug' 88 Plate 5 TEST [P>~T NO. {5) Loggad By STL Date _....:.7,-,/2:..:l:.!-/.:::;88::.... Elev. 45'± Depth W (ft.) uses Soil Description (%) O~~r--'~~--~~----~~--~----------~~r---~ Fill: Light brown silty SAND with gravel, sm moist, loose 4 -concrete rubble at 3 feet 5 -f~~--~------------------------------------; 20 10 15 cl 2-inch grass layer Gray silty CLAY, moist, medium stiff Gray and brown mottled below 7 feet 31 Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. qu=l. 75 tsf Logged By STL Data 7/21/88 TEST [P>~T NO. Elev. 36' ± o~~r---r---~----------------------------.---r---~ 5 10 15 ml CH cl Fill: Light gray sandy SILT with organic matter, i.e. roots, wood pieces, concrete rubble Gray CLAY, moist to wet, soft -slow seepage at 4.5 feet -gray-brown mottled below 5 feet Dark gray silty, CLAY, moist to wet, soft 100 <J qu=O. 75 LL=69 PL=32· 26 ---;---------- qu=.75 tsf .75 tsf cl Gray-blue silty' CLAY , moist, soft 31 .0 tsf Test.pit terminated at 13 feet below existing grade. Ground- water encountered 4. Bub::IuI1cco COI"IdIbon:I ct::PcCId ~ IU otJw; udic:cc a oa tIzta end kIcaICIn GlIt'IO c::cp!arc:Dry tca=, ftIOdiIi:d br = .... ==_" t::::::l, c:n::tpi::&. end ~, Ttq-c:ro noI n:c:c::=arIIr' 'epe=ciUJiw d 0Ih:)r tMe::s end boI:::Dn:I. ~ ccnnaiI CCICCPI cc;: t:01ItIrel, IDr tM I0OI or ==F • ..,. o::honI r:II ~Pf'=ICII"C:XIOr'IIhbIDg. TEST PIT LOGS SHURGARD SELF STORAGE KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4002 Oats Aug' 88 Plate 6 TEST IP~T NO. 71 Loggad Bv STL Date _.....!..7 L.,I 2G..l1.LIS82.8 Elev. 37' ± Depth W (~.}---..,......, ....... U_S_C_S...,.... _________ S_O_il_D_esc_riP:...t_io_n ________ ..,....;(:...%;;..}...,.... __ ---. m1 Fill: Light gray SILT 17 5 -<IU.s cll ml Gray and brown clayey SILT, moist, very stiff --1---------- cl Brown and gray silty CLAY, moist, soft 23 31 qu=4.0 tsf 10 ~az4----L------------------------------------L---L-~~ Test pit terminated at 10 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 ~--------------------------------------------------~~ Loggad BV STL Oat. 7/21/88 TEST [P>~T NO. Elev. 45' ± o--~~--~--~--------------------------------~--~--~ ml Light gray SILT with gravel and cobbles in upper 20 CH cl 1/2 foot Brown and gray silty CLAY, moist, stiff ~u=2.5ts 40 ~L=74 PL=31 Dark gray silty CLAY, moist, soft 255 Test pit terminated at 10 feet below eXisting grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. u=I.5ts TEST PIT LOGS SHURGARD SELF STORAGE KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4002 Date Aug' 88 Plate 7 TEST f?~l NO. ~ Logged By STL Date 7~21,88 Elev . 45'± . Depth W (ft.) uses Soil Description (%) 0 ml Light gray -sandy SILT with gravel, moist, loose 8 sc Gray and brown clayey SAND, moist, soft 2E 5-I -III 41 cl Gray and brown silty CLAY, moist, medium stiff qu~l. 5 -II tsf -- 10 I I - Test -pit terminated at 10.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. -- 15 Logged By SII, m 57'± TEST f?~T NO. Elev. Oats U2WlB 0 Light -ml gray sandy SILT, moist, loose 11 ~ -I 40 . m I cl Gray and brown silty CLAY, moist, medium stiff qu~1.5 I tsf 5-: III II ~I . I II!II I 11111 --Test pit terminQted at 7 feet below eXisting grade. No 10 - groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. - - - - 15 0ub:Iurb:0 ~ ct::piccd rc:pcconI _ oIIcot tdICi ... a tho ~ c:rid Iac:cbcIn of Ih!:J ~ .... ....s:A:Id Dr =4P=="ij ~, ~, end ~. Th:Jr crv not ~ ~ til Cdhor I!n= end toc:diorO ~ CCMCIt ~'C::;:U b/::I, lOr IJD u= or 1rCtip: • br a::tor. 01 ~px:::::..:::ICIOfI~IOg. TEST PIT LOGS (]fJf) IE&!l"~1lll SHURGARD SELF STORAGE " ,.... .' ~!lB$tmR~1il!l'i!~m II!l1l~. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON GeotechDk:D1 EnslneerinS Clad GeoIoru lr Datil Aug' 88 Proj. No. 4002 Plata 8 'fIEST l?r1r NO. 1J] Logged By STL Date 7'::21'::88 Elev. 55'± --Depth W (ft.) uses Soil Description (%) 0 ~ rnl Fill : Light ~ gray sandy SILT, moist, loose 16 -grn Fill : Gray sandy GRAVEL S-cI Brown and gray silty CLAY, moist, stiff 29 qu=2.0 tsf - - - -Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. No 10 - groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. - - -- 15 Logged By SIl, :iL~ Elev.55 '± TEST P~T NO. Date ZWiBB 0 i99 rnl ~ Dgfit gray·saiidY SILT, mDist, 17 sc Brown and gray clayey SAND, moist, soft l=Ju=l. Ots - 23 5 I I -I ml Gray sandy SILT, moist, loose - ! I I ! - 10 -Test pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. No -groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. - - - 15 ~ aIftCJItiono d::picbd ..-. our oto:N ClOG a I't:t tim:I and IcIcdD'I altha ~ ha::I, mcdi:d tit' cng:ncoring t:=Ia, andyM. ond jr,IGg::ImorI.l'IIcoy en,. ~ ...... ===dd: 0 (II cdt'or Crtt:o CftCIIoca __ c:crwd C\ICICICIPI ccp ......., b' IhIIICIII Of IoCJip; '""On br CIIhDrI DI ~~OI'Ittalag' TEST PIT LOGS f:IJf) IEmff'~Dn SHURGARD SELF STORAGE . ..' . ©IDIlU$unll~mIlU~$ IlR1l<!!. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Ea&inee-rlns: Gild GeoJoc~ Proj. No. 4002 ~ Date Aug'SS Plate 9 lEST [p>~T NO. Loggad By STL Date 7/21 /88 Elev. 56' ± Depth W (~. '.....,.,......nr-=USC:.S:,. _______ ..:S:..:o:..:..il..;D:;.:e:..:sc.:;r.::;iP:.:t;.;io..:n ________ .,....:.(%;;:.:...' .,---, ~ sm Fill: Brownish gray silty SAND, moist, loose B2S - - 15 4 sc Gray and brown clayey SAND, soft moist to wet, very 27 <J qu=O.S tsf cl -light seepage at 5 feet . -light seepage at 7 feet <J ---- Gray and brown CLAY, moist to wet, soft Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 5 and 7 feet during 0' '~"'ltion 8uDsur1cc:o CICIndiIlcnI d:picbd ~ our ~ III tt» tirno end locUiotI alihO a:qI6oro!ory hob. fnCdIfcd bf Oiy ....... iilQ t=m~ ~. end JUCIgomefI:. ThcIy 1»'0 naI ~ ~ at CIChoJ limoS onc:IlI:IcaXInI. WlI conncl o:c:opt rosporoibIIIIty b 1M u» 01 ~1On by aIhotI '" irdotTnI::aion ~ on IhO Ic9- TeST PIT LOGS SHURGARD SELF STORAGE KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4002 II Date Aug' 88 Plata 10 APPENDIXC PROCTOR TEST RESULTS G-0570-3 GEO Group Northwest, Inc. ~J Job ~lJmber ~570---,-3",-:-_ Proj ec t ILEtlN'IdAIE~--P±JL Samp Ie d Bv _:.cA,-,W..:,---;-__ Date Sampled zlly /11 Material Source __ ~~ .. , - MAXIMUM DENSITY & MOISTURE CURVES .';0 i 1 Type SAo..ll:>)' sIq W IT" ClAY Soil Description ___ _ SAMPLE. *1 Sample Location "I£A~ B-b Tested By AA~ -MB Date T t d 2../17/11 es e /(J II'.'-e. . ;r,"tITH ~'-3' G ~ E )<°i",a'-'-D~. E -..-(rx~~XQ()O-~)~ I I Is iEVE J I" 140 " 1\ 200 \ TOTAL I \ I' . \ 1\ 130 1\ . , 1\ 1\ ." 120 \ 'AK. ~ 1/, ~2 ~~ I£I~ I . 110 Ii! 1";% 1..- If IV l" I I pC I+-/ : I • i 1~ t ~ ~ ", ~ i 100 I I I I .3~t-.~ Pc J+ !(II v.r.s V 90 o .to \.IT RETAINED " TNF '" PASSED TOTAL -J/4 'TQ.TAL -J/4 TOTAL --1/" . TOTAL REi:AlNW ; , • , • , , . . ! , compact ion ~ Size 4-'1 Test Standard D IS-S7 -OL(A ~old Test No. I 2 J 4 Wgt. H20 Added I Wgt. Soil & Mole I Wgt. Mold Net I'et Wgt. Soil Net Dry 'Igt~ V.; . ",.>; ii1Jd ih.,J~,:,_e joe; C. 1:\ -I DryDen .lb(CU. ft MOISTURE DET~~~iNAIION Wet Wgt.Soil/lar , ' Dry Wgt:So"il/Tar 1\ Wgt. -Iare ,\ Net Loss-Mo2'..t. \ Nee Wgt.Drv 5.;[1 \ Moist. % Dry Wge (; 112, r; pc f V Max. Dry Den. 1.'. Adj.Max.Dry Den. 112,r;~f I\, I\') Cl·D :'-." Opt. Moisture " \\ \\ Adj .Opt .Moist. /7.0 " l \. ..!), I 1,\ 1:>\ If, f\ I' 1\, r.c ~ h ~ Yi ··I~ I. r-.: :>0 40 A B c D E F ~ ** AASHO T224-67I MOISTURE .% OF DRY WfIGHT COMPACTION TEST REPORT 115 --f---\ I ----i I i , ! i \ ! I I ---c---<.-_. 113 \ --- J' .... \ / " ~ --~ '~\ ~ '\ 111 ~ I '0 let' -----c. ;i, -iii 1\\ c " '0 ~ Cl " 109 ~ I)), r\ -----\ 107 r-. 1\ I ZAV for \ Sp_G_ = 105 2_68 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Waler conlent, % Test specification: ASTM D 1557-02 Procedure A Modified Oversize correction applied to each point Elevl ClassIficatIon Nat. Sp.G. LL PI %> %< Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200 30_6 2_68 ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density '" 112_5 pcf 112.5 pef Gray monIed sandy silt wi clay Optimum moisture = 17.0 % 17.0% Project No. 11-120 Client: Geo Group N. W Inc Remarks: Project: Seelig G-0570 Tested/Calculated by M.Blackwell Reviewed by M.Blackwell- o Source: B-6 @ 2-3'BGS Sample No.: 1 sampled on 2114111. ran on 2/17/11. COMPACTION TEST REPORT Specific Gravity of 2.68 is assumed. A.A.R; Tes~ull1~ laboli"a~ouy, ~Il1C. Plata 016 M .... ""' ---'" '" ....l >< .... >-< '" z "' Cl >< '" Cl 140 130 120 100 90% 90 ** AASHO Job ~lImber ~S7D~ Proj ect Ke ... oJ;t]:ljl.,,~ Ap'T' Sampled By -2A~~~ __ ~ __ __ MAXIMUM DENSITY & MOISTURE CURVES .'oi 1 Type SA>JDY. Sll..l WIT~r:..uo.-.r Soil Description Date Sampled Z./I'1/11 , 3' Material Source DE.?nl :2,- ON!>I II" tJATll/e. SAMPL.E. ~Z- Sample Location 1<£Jt1t 5-'} Tested By AA.I:.. ~E. Date Tested :J../I7/11 G= IS )( 0 .0 0 !,:z.<>~ e -:. (lXooJ xQClO-h1) f ilL RETAINED -, RETA [NED "';. PASSED TOTAL I \ SIEVE -J/4 TOTAL .-J /4 : TOTAL -J /4 , TOTAL RETAINED J/4 , , 4 , , 200 , 1\ ": 1\ TOTAL , ; I 1\ Compactlon A ~ze 1f'/ 1\ Test Standard _SrH D.ISS'7-oZ Id 1\ Test No. 1 2 J 4 \ ligt. H20 Added ligt. Soil & Mold 1\ Wgt. -Mold 1\ 1\ Net ~.Jet Wgt. Soil Net Dry \.Jgt.Soil '. VOiK".," "Jj' /I'lolcl 0,0'" 2!' osc. r.\ - 1 f 1 ; Dry Den.lb/cu. ft , ~ lc MOISTURE DET<~~jNATION '\ Wet Wgt.Soil/lar I . '. Dry Wgt.Soil/Tar '\ Wgt. ~Tare .\ Net Loss Moist. , .\ Net Wgt.Dry Soil .. Moist. % Dry 'Wgt Max. Dry Den. L.o'l, ~ pcf -IdJ' III I ... irl , bl\ Adj.Max.Dry Den/",,'.st;;f I k-/~.S-I " Opt. Moi.sture '\, 1\ IS.S;-, I 1\ Adj .Opt-Moist. '\, , 1 F-' . , ,\ ; i I , I I I'Z IA' i I , ~ II-. .~ Ie:. lCl I I> K 1 Ie; p b \\ I r" ; 1 i 1', , I IC-: I 1 " o 10 -88 % / q J.,'!$ pc-F T224-67I 70 MOISTURE .% OF DRY lifIGHT 30 40 A B c D E F ~ H r J l"- t.. M COMPACTION TEST REPORT 113 \ i I \ 111 I 1 \ I i 1 : \ } I -1 \ -V ..... I\. 109 ~ , \ -V " 0. ~ "' 1\ ;!-.... i\ 'u; 0' -\ c: ., ." 1\ \ ~ 0 \ 107 ,\ \ , ---1\ 1\ t 105 \ 1 \ , \ ZAYfor \ Sp.G.= . 103 1\ 2.68 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Water con lent, % Test specification: ASTM D 1557-02 Procedure A Modified Oversize correction applied to each Doinl Elev/· Classification Nat %> %< Sp.G. LL PI Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200 33.6 2.68 ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density = 109.4 pcf 109.4pcf Gray mottled sandy silt wi clay Optimum l1loisture.= 18.5 % 18.5 % Project No. 11-120 Client; Geo Group N.W Inc Remarks: Project: Seelig G-0570 Tested/Calculated by M.Holtz Reviewed by M.Blackwell o Source: B-9 @ 2-3' BGS Sample No.: 1 sampled on 2114111, ran on 2118111. COMPACTION TEST REPORT specific gravity of 2.68 is assumed. A.A.R. Testing labolratoll'Y, ~nc. Plate 017