HomeMy WebLinkAboutQuendallTerminals_EISAddendum_101912
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ADDENDUM
Quendall
Terminals
Renton, Washington
October 2012
prepared by
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 i Fact Sheet
FACT SHEET
PROJECT TITLE Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project PROPONENT/APPLICANT Century Pacific, L.P.
LOCATION The approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site is located in the northern portion of the City of Renton, within
the Southwest ¼ of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range
5 East, King County. The site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington, and an
approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast. PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Actions for the Quendall Terminals
Redevelopment Project include:
• Master Plan approval from the City;
• Binding Site Plan approval from the City;
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City;
• Other local, state, and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and,
• Construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/ALTERNATIVES The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund
designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation under the oversight of the EPA prior to redevelopment. Potential
impacts to the environment associated with
cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The impact analyses in this
EIS Addendum, which solely addresses impacts that may occur due to post-cleanup redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site, assume an existing/baseline condition
subsequent to cleanup/remediation.
To date, one environmental review document under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) has been issued for public review and comment by the City of Renton on
the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project: a Draft
EIS issued in December 2010. That document is available for review at the King County library system, Renton public
libraries.
This document is an Addendum to the 2010 DEIS.
According to the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-600 and 197-
11-706), an Addendum is an environmental document that is used to provide additional information or analysis that
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 ii Fact Sheet
does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in an existing environmental
document. Preparation of an Addendum is appropriate
when a proposal has been modified and the changes are not expected to result in new significant adverse impacts.
The Preferred Alternative analyzed in this EIS Addendum
reflects updates to the EIS redevelopment alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS, as summarized below.
Draft EIS – December 2010
The 2010 DEIS addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could occur as a result of the
approval by the City of a Master Plan, Binding Site Plan,
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; other local, state and federal permits; and, potential future
redevelopment activities through build-out in 2015.
Two redevelopment alternatives and the No-Action
Alternative were addressed in the DEIS.
Preferred Alternative (Subject of this EIS Addendum)
Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was voluntarily developed by the applicant and
the applicant’s technical team based on additional
agency/community input (particularly from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA), and continued
input and coordination with the City of Renton. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS, the Preferred
Alternative is intended to be a compact, urban mixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure that future
redevelopment is compatible with the environmental
remediation effort at the site that is currently underway. It is also intended to meet the applicant’s objectives (see
DEIS page 2-8 for a list of these objectives). In many respects, redevelopment under the Preferred
Alternative would be similar to that described in the DEIS
for the redevelopment alternatives, particularly Alternative 2. For example, the following full build-out (for
environmental review purposes, build-out is assumed to be
2015) redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative are similar to those described in the DEIS for
Alternative 2:
• Retail/Restaurant Uses (21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 sq. ft. restaurant)
• Office Uses (none)
• Residential Units (692 units)
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 iii Fact Sheet
• Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.)
• Anticipated Site Population (1,108 residents)
• Anticipated Site Employment (50 employees)
• Access/Parking (1,337 parking spaces)
• Landscape Design (shoreline restoration + native and ornamental plantings in the upland area)
• Grading (53,000–133,000 CY of fill)
• Utilities (sewer and water from City of Renton; stormwater per the City of Renton Amendments to
the 2009 KCSWDM)
The redevelopment assumptions under the applicant’s
Preferred Alternative that have been modified from those described in the DEIS for Alternative 2 include:
• Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. increased setback)
• Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38–95 ft.; south: 40–200 ft.)
• View Corridors (Street “B” corridor enlarged)
• Building Height Modulation (4-story buildings along
S. property line; 5- to 6-story buildings elsewhere)
• Open Space and Related Areas (10.6 acres)
• Building Design (more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete, and less metal siding)
• Emergency Access Road (in the western portion of the site)
The Proposed Actions evaluated in this EIS Addendum are the same actions as those contemplated in the DEIS.
Potential environmental impacts under the Preferred
Alternative are addressed in this EIS Addendum and compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This EIS
Addendum, together with the DEIS, comprehensively
analyze the environmental impacts of the Proposed Actions.
LEAD AGENCY City of Renton
SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL City of Renton, Environmental Review Committee Dept. of Community & Economic Development,
Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 iv Fact Sheet
EIS CONTACT PERSON Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
Dept. of Community & Economic Development,
Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Phone: (425) 430-7314 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Preliminary investigation indicates that the following permits and/or approvals could be required or requested for the Proposed Actions. Additional permits/approvals
may be identified during the review process associated with specific development projects.
• Federal
Agencies with Jurisdiction
− CERCLA Remediation (for site cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment)
• State of Washington
− Dept. of Ecology, Construction Stormwater General Permit
− Dept. of Ecology, NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit
− Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Hydraulic Project Approval
• City of Renton
− Master Site Plan Approval
− Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
− Construction Permits
− Building Permits
− Development Permits
− Binding Site Plan
− Site Plan Review
− Utility Approvals
− Property Permits & Licenses
EIS ADDENDUM AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS EIS Addendum Project Manager, Primary Author, Land Use, Aesthetics, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Parks and Recreation EA|Blumen 720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 v Fact Sheet
Critical Areas Raedeke Associates
9510 Stone Avenue N
Seattle, WA 98103 Historic Resources
Cultural Resource Consultants 710 Erickson Avenue NE, Suite 100
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Visual Analysis (Simulations)
Portico Group 1500 4th Avenue, 3rd Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
Transportation
Transportation Engineering Northwest
816 Sixth Street S Kirkland, WA 98033
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS Per WAC 197-11-620, this EIS Addendum addends the
Quendall Terminals DEIS (December, 2010). This
Addendum together with the DEIS comprehensively address the environmental impacts of the Proposed
Actions.
LOCATION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION Background material and supporting documents are
available at the office of: EA|Blumen 720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
DATE OF EIS ADDENDUM ISSUANCE October 19, 2012 DATE EIS ADDENDUM COMMENTS ARE DUE November 19, 2012, 5:00 PM
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 vi Fact Sheet
AVAILABILITY OF THE EIS ADDENDUM Copies of the EIS Addendum have been distributed to
agencies, organizations and individuals noted on the
Distribution List contained in Appendix A to this document. The EIS Addendum is also available for review
on the City of Renton website at http://www.rentonwa.gov/
and at the following King County Library system Renton public libraries:
Renton Main Library 100 Mill Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057 Renton Highlands Library
2902 NE 12th Street Renton, WA 98056
A limited number of printed copies may be purchased at the City of Renton’s Finance Department (1st Floor of City
Hall for $25 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus any
postage (if mailed).
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 vii Fact Sheet
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FACT SHEET ........................................................................................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................... 1-1 SUMMARY CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................... 2-1 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................... 3-1 UPDATED INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS 3.1 Critical Areas .................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Aesthetics/Views .............................................................................................. 3-3
3.3 Relationship to Plans and Policies ............................................................... 3-16 3.4 Transportation ................................................................................................ 3-18 3.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 3-32 CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................... 4-1 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.1 Earth
Affected Environment ................................................................................ 4.1-1
Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.1-1 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.1-2
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.1-2
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.1-2
4.2 Critical Areas
Affected Environment ................................................................................ 4.2-1 Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.2-1
Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.2-3
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.2-3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.2-3 4.3 Environmental Health Affected Environment ................................................................................ 4.3-1
Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.3-1 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.3-2
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.3-2
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.3-2
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 viii Fact Sheet
4.4 Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Affected Environment ................................................................................ 4.4-1
Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.4-1 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.4-2
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.4-3
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.4-3 4.5 Land and Shoreline Use Affected Environment ................................................................................ 4.5-1 Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.5-1
Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.5-4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.5-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.5-4
4.6 Aesthetics/Views
Affected Environment ................................................................................ 4.6-1
Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.6-1 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.6-3
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.6-4
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.6-4
4.7 Parks and Recreation
Affected Environment ................................................................................ 4.7-1 Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.7-2
Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.7-3
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.7-4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.7-4
4.8 Transportation Affected Environment ................................................................................ 4.8-1
Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.8-2 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4.8-4
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.8-4
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.8-5
4.9 Cultural Resources
Affected Environment ................................................................................ 4.9-1 Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4.9-1
Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 4.9-2
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................. 4.9-2 REFERENCES APPENDICES
A. EIS Addendum Distribution List & Parties of Record
B. Letter from EPA C. Critical Areas Memo
D. Greenhouse Gas Worksheets E. Updated Transportation Report F. Cultural Resources Report
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 ix Fact Sheet
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
2-1 Comparison of 2010 DEIS Alternatives and 2012 Preferred Alternative ...... 2-4
3.2-1 Viewpoint Locations ..................................................................................... 3-3
3.4-1 Existing 2009/2010 Peak Hour Intersection LOS ....................................... 3-20 3.4-2 2015 Intersection LOS – With and Without DEIS Alternative 1 Without
I-405 Improvements ................................................................................... 3-22
3.4-3 2015 Intersection LOS – With and Without DEIS Alternative 1 With I-405 Improvements ................................................................................... 3-25
3.4-4 2015 Queues – DEIS Alternative 1 ............................................................ 3-28
3.4-5 2015 Queues – DEIS Alternative 1 With I-405 Improvements ................... 3-28 3.4-6 2015 Intersection LOS – DEIS Alternative 1 With Proposed Mitigation,
Without I-405 Improvements ...................................................................... 3-30 4.4-1 Estimated GHG Emissions – Preferred Alternative ................................... 4.4-2 4.5-1 Site Area Breakdown ................................................................................. 4.5-3
4.7-1 On-Site Open Space and Related Areas Comparison .............................. 4.7-3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
2-1 Regional Map ............................................................................................... 2-7 2-2 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 2-8
2-3 Site Plan – Preferred Alternative ................................................................ 2-10
2-4 Ground Level Plan – Preferred Alternative ................................................. 2-11 2-5 Representative South Building Elevations – Preferred Alternative ............ 2-15
2-6 Representative West Building Elevations – Preferred Alternative .............. 2-16
2-7 North and West Building Elevations – Preferred Alternative ...................... 2-17 2-8 Conceptual East View from Lake Washington – Preferred Alternative ...... 2-18
2-9 Conceptual West View from Central Roundabout – Preferred Alternative . 2-19
2-10 “Green Wall” Façade Section – Preferred Alternative ................................ 2-20 3.2-1 Viewpoint Location Map ............................................................................... 3-4
3.2-2 Illustration of Perspective in Simulations ...................................................... 3-6
3.2-3 Viewpoint Location 1 .................................................................................... 3-8 3.2-4 Viewpoint Location 4 .................................................................................... 3-9
3.2-5 Viewpoint Location 7 .................................................................................. 3-11 3.2-6 Viewpoint Location 8 .................................................................................. 3-12 3.2-7 Viewpoint Location 9 .................................................................................. 3-14
3.2-8 Viewpoint Location 11 ................................................................................ 3-15 3.4-1 Existing 2009/2010 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................... 3-19
3.4-2 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Without I-405 Improvements) .................................................................... 3-23 3.4-3 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(Without I-405 Improvements) .................................................................... 3-24
3.4-4 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With I-405 Improvements) ......................................................................... 3-26
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 x Fact Sheet
3.4-5 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With I-405 Improvements) ......................................................................... 3-27
3.4-6 Lake Washington Boulevard Conceptual Channelization Improvements –
Without I-405 Improvements ...................................................................... 3-31
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 xi Fact Sheet
ACRONYMS
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AOC Administrative Order of Consent BMP Best Management Practice
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act COR Commercial, Office, Residential Zoning Designation
CY Cubic Yards DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DNAPL Dense, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
EB Eastbound
ECOLOGY Washington State Department of Ecology EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FS Feasibility Study GHG Greenhouse Gas
IBC International Building Code
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LOS Level of Service MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
MTCO2e Metric Ton Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
NB Northbound NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
PSE Puget Sound Energy
R-10 Residential, 10 Units per Acre Zoning Designation RI Remedial Investigation
RMC Renton Municipal Code
ROD Record of Decision SB Southbound
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SMP Shoreline Master Program TDM Transportation Demand Management
TESCP Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
TIP Transportation Improvement Program WAC Washington Administrative Code
WB Westbound
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
CHAPTER I
SUMMARY
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-1 Chapter 1
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a summary of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project EIS
Addendum. It briefly describes the project history and the Preferred Alternative, and provides an overview of probable significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum
for a more detailed description of the Preferred Alternative; Chapter 3 for updated information and analysis; and, Chapter 4 for a comparison of potential environmental impacts, mitigation
measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts under the Preferred Alternative to those
under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
This document is an Addendum to the Draft EIS (DEIS) that was prepared for the Quendall
Terminals Redevelopment Project (December 2010). According to the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-600 and 197-11-706), an Addendum is an environmental document that is used to provide
additional information or analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant
impacts and alternatives in an existing environmental document. Preparation of an Addendum is appropriate when a proposal has been modified and the changes are not expected to result in
new significant adverse impacts.
The DEIS evaluated two redevelopment alternatives and their environmental impacts and
associated mitigation measures. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred
Alternative was developed by the applicant based on additional agency/community input (particularly from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA), and input and continued
coordination with the City of Renton. Many of the redevelopment assumptions under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described in the DEIS for the redevelopment alternatives, in particular Alternative 2. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred
Alternative is intended to be a compact urban mixed-use development with a mix of residential, retail, and restaurant uses, and would be planned to ensure that future redevelopment is
compatible with the environmental remediation effort that is currently underway at the site. The
Preferred Alternative is intended to meet the applicant’s objectives (see DEIS page 2-8 for a list of these objectives).
Despite these similarities, certain redevelopment assumptions under the Preferred Alternative have been modified from those described in the DEIS. Based on those redevelopment
assumptions, the following environmental analyses in the DEIS largely would not change.
• Earth • Land and Shoreline Use
• Environmental Health • Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described above, many of the redevelopment assumptions would remain the same under the Preferred Alternative, and as a result, the environmental analysis associated with those
assumptions would also remain the same. However, for those assumptions that have been
modified under the Preferred Alternative, an updated analysis for the associated environmental elements is provided in this EIS Addendum, including the following:
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-2 Chapter 1
• Critical Areas • Transportation
• Aesthetics/Views • Cultural Resources
• Parks and Recreation • Relationship to Plans and Policies
1.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on information provided in the DEIS, as well as comments from EPA, and input and
continued coordination with the City of Renton, the applicant has voluntarily developed a Preferred Alternative for analysis in this EIS Addendum.
Many aspects of the Preferred Alternative would be similar to Alternative 2 in the DEIS, including the following areas:
• Retail/Restaurant Uses (21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 sq. ft. restaurant)
• Office Uses (none)
• Residential Units (692 units)
• Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.)
• Anticipated Site Population (1,108 residents)
• Anticipated Site Employment (50 employees)
• Access/Parking (1,337 parking spaces)
• Landscape Design (shoreline restoration + native and ornamental plantings in the upland area)
• Grading (53,000–133,000 CY of fill)
• Utilities (sewer and water from City of Renton; stormwater per City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM)
The following redevelopment assumptions have been modified from those described in the
DEIS under Alternatives 1 and 2, based on the comments from EPA, and input and continued
coordination with the City of Renton:
• Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. increased setback)
• Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38–95 ft.; south: 40–200 ft.)
• View Corridors (Street “B” corridor enlarged)
• Building Height Modulation (4-story buildings along south property line; 5- to 6-story buildings elsewhere)
• Open Space and Related Areas (10.6 acres)
• Building Design (more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete, and less metal
siding)
• Emergency Access Road (in the western portion of the site)
See Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum for further details on the Preferred Alternative.
1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The following list summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable
adverse impacts that would potentially result from the Preferred Alternative analyzed in this EIS
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-3 Chapter 1
Addendum. “Proposed” mitigation measures are those actions which the applicant has proposed at this point in time (and could become part of the Mitigation Agreement with the City)
and/or are required by code, laws or local, state and federal regulations. “Possible” mitigation
measures are actions that could be undertaken, but are not necessary to mitigate significant impacts, and are above and beyond those proposed by the applicant.
Earth
Impacts
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential earth-related impacts that would be similar to those analyzed in the DEIS, including impacts associated with
construction (i.e. erosion/sedimentation and ground settlement associated with site clearing and
grading, installation of utilities and construction of building foundations), disturbance of geologic hazards, and interception of groundwater. No additional earth-related impacts would be
anticipated.
Mitigation Measures
Proposed Mitigation Measures During Construction
• A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control, would be
implemented, per the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) adopted by the City of Renton. This plan would
include the following measures: - All temporary (and/or permanent) devices used to collect stormwater runoff would
be directed into tightlined systems that would discharge to an approved stormwater facility.
- Soils to be reused at the site during construction would be stockpiled or stored in such a manner to minimize erosion from the stock pile. Protective measures could
include covering with plastic sheeting and the use of silt fences around pile
perimeters.
- During construction, silt fences or other methods, such as straw bales, would be
placed along surface water runoff collection areas in proximity to Lake Washington and the adjacent wetlands to reduce the potential of sediment discharge into these
waters. In addition, rock check dams would be established along roadways during
construction.
- Temporary sedimentation traps or detention facilities would be installed to provide erosion and sediment transport control during construction.
• A geotechnical engineer would review the grading and TESCP plans prior to final plan design to ensure that erosion and sediment transport hazards are addressed during and
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-4 Chapter 1
following construction. As necessary, additional erosion mitigation measures could be required in response to specific design plans.
• Site preparation for roadways, utilities and structures, and the placement and
compaction of structural fill would be based upon the recommendations of a
geotechnical engineer.
• Temporary excavation dewatering would be conducted if groundwater is encountered during excavation and construction activities. Such dewatering activities would be
conducted in a manner that would minimize potential impacts due to settlement.
• Structural fill would be placed to control the potential for settlement of adjacent areas;
adjacent structures/areas would be monitored to verify that no significant settlement occurs.
• Deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) would be installed and/or
ground improvements would be made to minimize potential damage from soil settlement,
consolidation, spreading and liquefaction.
• If deep foundation systems (such as piles or aggregate piers) are used to support structures, the following measures would be implemented:
− Measures would be employed to ensure that the soil cap (should it be installed) would not be affected and that installation of the piles/piers would not mobilize
contamination that would be contained by the cap. Such measures could include: installation of surface casing through the contaminated zone; installation of piles
composed of impermeable materials (steel or cast-in-place concrete) using soil
displacement methods; the use of pointed tip piles to prevent carry down of contamination; and, the use of ground improvement technologies, such as in-place
densification or compaction grouting.
− A pile vibration analysis and vibration monitoring would be conducted during pile
installation in order to ensure that impacts due to vibration do not occur.
− Suitable pile and pile hammer types would be matched to the subsurface conditions to achieve the required penetrations with minimal effort to reduce
potential vibration. Potential pile types could include driven open-end steel pipe
piles, driven closed-end steel pipe piles, or driven cast-in-place concrete piles. Potential hammer types could include percussion hammers or vibratory hammers.
− Suitable hammer and pile cushion types would be used for the specific conditions
to reduce potential noise. A typical hammer employs the use of a heavy impact
hammer that is controlled by a lead, which is in turn supported by a crane.
− Pile installation would occur during regulated construction hours.
• Fill soils would be properly placed and cuts would be used to reduce the potential for landslide impacts during (and after) construction.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-5 Chapter 1
• The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be
addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control requirements overseen by EPA (see Section 3.3, Environmental Health in the DEIS, for
details). Following Construction
• A permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with the City of
Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM adopted by City of Renton.
• Offshore outfall locations for stormwater discharge from the permanent stormwater control system would be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to
prevent erosion of the lake bottom.
• All buildings would be designed in accordance with the 2009 IBC (or the applicable design codes that are in effect at the time of construction) to address the potential for seismic impacts.
• The majority of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces following
redevelopment. Permanent landscaping would be provided to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation with redevelopment.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Flexible utility connections could be employed to minimize the risk of damage to the lines
due to differential settlement between structures and underground utilities.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There would be a risk of ground motion impacts and landslides beneath Lake Washington adjacent to the site during a seismic event; however, such impacts would occur with or without
the proposed redevelopment. There are no significant unavoidable earth-related impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Critical Areas
Impacts
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would have a slightly smaller development footprint, but similar features to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (particularly DEIS Alternative 2). This
alternative would maintain a 100-foot minimum setback from the Lake Washington shoreline, as
compared to the 50-foot minimum setback under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As a result, The Preferred Alternative would be anticipated to have slightly less impacts on wetlands and wildlife
habitat than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As the restored habitat along the lakeshore develops
over time, this area would provide slightly more potential screening of the wetland and lakeshore habitats from impacts from operation of the project, including lighting impacts, as
compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. However, given the urban context of the area, impacts
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-6 Chapter 1
from noise, lighting, and other disturbance would not likely be substantially different than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
Mitigation Measures
Proposed Mitigation Measures
During Construction
• A TESCP, including BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control, would be implemented during construction, per the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County
KCSWDM adopted by the City of Renton (see Section 3.1, Earth in the DEIS, and
Appendix D to the DEIS for details). Implementation of this plan would prevent or limit impacts to the lake and shoreline wetlands from erosion and sedimentation.
Following Construction
• Proposed redevelopment would avoid direct impacts to the retained/re-established/expanded wetlands onsite.
• Re-established/expanded wetlands would be retained in an open space tract that
includes required buffers and a riparian habitat enhancement area.
• Proposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the ordinary high
water mark (OHWM), consistent with the City of Renton’s 2011 Shoreline Master Program. The shoreline area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers
and setbacks. Final, detailed plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers
onsite will be developed in coordination with EPA prior to redevelopment
• A permanent stormwater control system would be installed consistent with the requirements of the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM adopted by the
City of Renton. The system would collect and convey stormwater runoff to Lake
Washington via a tight-lined system. Water quality treatment would be provided for runoff from pollution-generating surfaces to prevent water quality impacts to the lake and
shoreline wetlands.
• Native plant species would be included within landscaping of the redeveloped upland
area on the Main Property to the extent feasible, and could provide some limited habitat benefits to native wildlife species.
• Introduction of noxious weeds or invasive species would be avoided to the extent
practicable in areas re-vegetated as part of the proposed redevelopment. Together with
the native species planted, this would help limit the unnecessary spread of invasive species that could adversely affect the suitability of open space habitats on site and in
the vicinity for wildlife.
• A publicly accessible, unpaved trail is proposed through the shoreline area that would
include interpretive wetland viewpoints.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-7 Chapter 1
• The proposed redevelopment would include design elements to minimize the potential
adverse affects of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. These include
directing lighting downward and away from these habitats or adjacent properties, and could include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, or minimizing the use
of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible. Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Trenching for utilities and stormwater outfalls could be incorporated into site grading associated with remediation efforts to limit or prevent later disturbance of re-vegetated
areas.
• Upland areas on the Main Property could be temporarily re-vegetated following site
remediation, depending on the timing of redevelopment.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to critical areas that cannot be mitigated.
Environmental Health
Impacts Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential environmental health-
related impacts that would be similar to those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, including potential impacts associated with exposure to contaminated soils during project construction, as
well as exposure to potential vapors from volatile contaminants in the subsurface during project
operation. No additional environmental health-related impacts would be expected.
Mitigation Measures
Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process, and would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the final cleanup remedy
selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated institutional controls.
• The appropriate management of contaminated soils that could be disturbed and
groundwater that could be encountered during redevelopment of the site would be addressed through the cleanup/remediation process and by institutional control
requirements overseen by EPA. As necessary, lightweight fill materials, special capping
requirements, vapor barriers and other measures would be implemented to ensure that unacceptable exposures to contaminated soils, groundwater, or vapors would not occur.
• Institutional controls would be followed to prevent the alteration of the soil cap without EPA approval, and to prevent the use of on-site groundwater for any purpose.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-8 Chapter 1
• An Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan would be implemented to prevent the
excavation of soils, installation of utilities, or other site disturbances without prior EPA
approval.
• As necessary, personal protection equipment for workers would be used and special handling and disposal measures followed during construction activities to prevent
contact with hazardous materials and substances.
• Living/working areas on the Main Property would be separated from soil/groundwater
contaminants by under-building garages; institutional controls would also be implemented to prevent exposure to unacceptable vapors.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Planned utilities (including the main utility corridors) could be installed as part of the
planned remedial action so that disturbance of the soil cap and underlying contaminated soils/groundwater would not be necessary subsequent to capping of the Main Property.
• Personal protection measures and special training should be provided for City of Renton
staff that provides inspection during construction and maintenance following construction in areas of the site that could generate contaminated soils or groundwater.
• Buried utilities and public roads serving the site development could be placed in clean fill material (with the utilities in a trench with sufficient width and depth of 3 to 4 feet below
the invert of the utility), along with an acceptable barrier to prevent recontamination of
the clean fill material, in order to protect the utility from contamination and to allow future maintenance of the road or utility lines.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no significant unavoidable adverse environmental health-related impacts that cannot
be mitigated.
Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential energy and greenhouse
gas (GHG)-related impacts that would be similar to or less than those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. No further energy/GHG-related impacts would be anticipated.
Mitigation Measures
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Development could incorporate low-impact/sustainable design features into the design of proposed buildings on the site to reduce the demand for energy and reduce the amount
of GHG emissions. Such features have not been identified at this time, but could include
architectural design features; sustainable building materials; use of energy efficient
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-9 Chapter 1
products; natural drainage/green roof features; use of native plants in landscaping; and/or, other design features.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development on the Quendall Terminals site would result in an increase in demand for energy
and an increase in GHG emissions relative to existing conditions, similar to any major development. The proposed redevelopment would include features that would reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts (i.e. the compact, mixed-use nature of the proposed
development would reduce vehicular trips). Therefore, the direct and indirect impacts of GHG emissions and energy use under the Preferred Alternative would not be expected to be
significant.
Land and Shoreline Use
Impacts
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential land and shoreline use-
related impacts (i.e. height/bulk/scale and increased activity-level impacts on adjacent land
uses) that would be similar to or less than those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (in particular DEIS Alternative 2) Impacts on the shoreline would be less than under the DEIS redevelopment
alternatives, as the shoreline setback would be increased. No further land or shoreline use
impacts would be anticipated. Build-out of the project could occur in phases, in accordance with market demand. An extension of the 5-year time limit for non-phased projects could be
requested by the applicant (i.e. via the Master Plan approval process [RMC 4-9-200J.2.a]).
Mitigation Measures
Proposed Mitigation Measures
• New driveways, landscaping, surface parking areas and proposed building setback
areas would provide a buffer between proposed buildings and adjacent land uses.
• Proposed landscaping, particularly along the north and south boundaries of the Main Property, would provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent
uses (see Figure 2-7, Preliminary Landscape Plan - Alternative 1 in the DEIS).
• Architectural features (i.e. roof slope, façade modulation, building materials, etc.) would
be incorporated into the design of each building and are intended to enhance the compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding land uses (see
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 for representative architectural elevations of the Preferred
Alternative, and Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Views in the DEIS and Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum, for further information on proposed building and site design).
• Building heights would be modulated to reduce potential height/bulk/scale impacts on
adjacent development (i.e. Barbee Mill). The buildings located adjacent to the southern
property lines would be 4-stories high; those in the northern portion of the site would be 5 stories high; and, those in the western, eastern, and central portions of the site would
be 5 to 6 stories high.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-10 Chapter 1
• A fire mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of
building permit issuance or as required by the Renton Municipal Code to help offset the
impacts of the project on the City’s emergency services.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in the conversion of the approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site from a vacant, partially vegetated area to a
new mixed-use development with an associated increase in building density and activity levels.
There are no significant unavoidable adverse land use-related impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Aesthetics/Views
Impacts Under the Preferred Alternative, proposed redevelopment would alter the existing visual
character of the site from a predominantly open, vegetated landscape to a more densely developed mixed-use development, similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the
proposed building modulation across the site would provide lower building heights on the north
and south edges of the site (particularly adjacent to the Barbee Mill development) and would also provide enhanced view opportunities towards Lake Washington as compared to the DEIS
Alternatives. The larger view corridor (Street “B”) would also provide for greater views of Lake
Washington and Mercer Island. Therefore, potential aesthetic and view-related impacts would be anticipated to be similar to or less than those under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives,
and no further aesthetics or view-related impacts would be anticipated.
Mitigation Measures
Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Building design would include a variety of details and materials that are intended to create a human scale and provide a visually interesting streetscape and façade, such as
horizontal plan modulation, projecting vertical elements, and alternating façade materials
and details.
• Street-level, under-building parking areas would be concealed from sidewalks and streets by retail and offices uses along certain façades. Where this parking extends to
the exterior of the building, elements, such as architectural façade components, trellises,
berms and landscaping, would be used for screening.
• Public view corridors toward Lake Washington are proposed along the main east/west roadway onsite (Street ”B”) and along the private driveways at the north and south ends
of the site. Public views of the lake would also be possible from the publically accessible
trail in the shoreline restoration area in the western portion of the Main Property. Additional views of the lake would be provided for project residents from semi-private
landscaped courtyard areas between the new buildings onsite.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-11 Chapter 1
• New landscaping would be provided in the upland area of the Main Property that is
intended to enhance the visual character of the site. Landscaping would include new
trees, shrubs, and groundcovers of various sizes and species.
• A landscaped edge along the north and south boundaries of the site would provide a buffer and partial visual screen between new development on the site and adjacent
properties.
• The natural vegetation in shoreline restoration areas on the Main Property and on the
Isolated Property would be retained with proposed site development.
• Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting would be directed downward and away from surrounding buildings and properties to minimize the impacts
to adjacent uses.
• Building setbacks would be maximized adjacent to Lake Washington and along the
south site boundaries, to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain views of Lake Washington.
• Building height modulation would be provided across the site to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain some views of Lake Washington.
• No surface parking would be located at the terminus of Street “B” in order to enhance
the aesthetic character of the development, particularly from the shoreline trail.
• During final building design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake
Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the COR zone (125 feet allowed height x ½ = 62.5 feet),
consistent with the City of Renton’s 2011 Shoreline Management Program, which would help maintain views toward the lake.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• The amount of required parking could be reduced, relocated or redesigned (i.e. though
implementation of transportation demand management measures or other means) so that additional areas of the street-level, under-building parking could be setback from the exterior of the building, particularly along Streets “A”, “C” and the lake side of the
development. This would allow other uses, including retail, restaurant, commercial and residential uses, and plaza areas to occupy these areas and potentially enhance the aesthetic character at the ground level.
• Reflectivity of glazing materials, as well as the use of shading devices, could be
considered as part of the façade design in order to minimize the potential glare impacts to surrounding uses.
• Design features such as: public art, special landscape treatment, additional open space/plazas, landmark building form, special paving/pedestrian scale lighting, or
prominent architectural features could be provided as part of development to further enhance the gateway/landmark features on the site.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-12 Chapter 1
• Vertical and/or horizontal modulation should be provided along the west or lake side of
the buildings to provide a human scale and breakup the larger structures which would be
adjacent to the shoreline area and pedestrian environment.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would change the site from its existing open, partially vegetated condition to a new mixed-use development. The proposed building height
and bulk would generally be similar to surrounding uses (Seahawks Headquarters and Training
Facility and proposed Hawk’s Landing Hotel), but greater than other uses in the area (Barbee Mill development). However, with proposed building setbacks, landscaping and building
modulation across the site, no significant impacts would be anticipated. Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be obstructed
under the Preferred Alternative. However, the proposed larger view corridor and proposed building modulation would provide for some views across the site, and significant impacts would
not be anticipated.
Parks and Recreation
Impacts
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential impacts to parks and
recreation facilities that would be similar to or slightly greater than those under DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2. The Preferred Alternative would provide approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related area (including natural public open space areas comprised of a shoreline trail
and associated natural areas; and, other areas comprised of street level landscaping
landscaped courtyards, sidewalks, paved plazas, and the natural areas in the Isolated Property; see Table 4.7-1 for details). The Preferred Alternative would provide approximately one acre
less of open space and related areas than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; however, the
Preferred Alternative would provide slightly more shoreline restoration areas than the DEIS redevelopment alternatives. No additional impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be
anticipated.
Mitigation Measures
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Public Open Space and Related Areas/Fees1
• A parks mitigation/impact fee would be paid for each multifamily unit in the proposed
development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the
project on City parks and recreation facilities. Park mitigation/impact fees would be determined at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of
Renton Municipal Code.
1 Hours of public access would need to meet park standards of sunrise to sunset to count toward public recreation.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-13 Chapter 1
• Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related areas would be provided on the site
that would be visually and physically accessible to the public, including the shoreline trail
and natural open space areas along the shoreline.
• Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, would be provided along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N along the site. These sidewalks could
connect to sidewalks to the north and south, which connect to other pedestrian facilities
in the area.
• Public parking for the proposed shoreline trail would likely be provided in the same general area as the retail/restaurant parking; the applicant would specifically identify this
parking prior to site plan approval.
• Signage, detours, and safety measures would be put in place to detour bicyclist from
using the Lake Washington Loop trail at the time of construction.
• The connection between the proposed shoreline trail and Lake Washington Boulevard would be enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (i.e. 15-foot wide) that are part of
public rights-of-way along the Street “B” corridor. Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents
• Semi-private landscaped courtyards on top of the parking garages would be provided as shared open space for residents of the site. These areas would help to meet the demand
for passive recreation facilities from project residents.
• Street level landscaping, plazas and sidewalks would be provided. These areas would help meet the project’s demand for passive recreation facilities.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures Public Open Space and Related Areas2
• The hours of use of the proposed shoreline trail could be extended to sunrise to sunset and public parking could be provided, consistent with other City of Renton parks, in order
to meet the requirements for public access.
• Additional open space could be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e. frisbee, softball, etc.). A portion of the proposed surface parking on site (i.e. adjacent to the shoreline) could be converted to facilities for active recreation.
• A lighted crosswalk across Lake Washington Boulevard could be provided in order to
connect to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard.
• The proposed shoreline trail and other recreation areas could be enhanced with site amenities, such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage, etc.
2 Ibid.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-14 Chapter 1
• The proposed shoreline trail could connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to
the south.
Measures to Improve Semi-Private Recreation Access for Residents
• Shared roof gardens and indoor amenity space (i.e. gyms, common rooms, etc.) could
be provided as part of the project.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Residents of the proposed development would use nearby parks and recreation facilities,
including Gene Coulon Memorial Park and Kennydale Beach Park, which are already at or exceeding capacity in the summer. Demand from project residents would contribute to the
existing capacity issues at these parks.
Transportation
Impacts
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would generate new vehicle trips on and in the
vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site, including a net total of approximately 5,656 daily, 435 AM
peak hour, and 530 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full-build-out in 2015. The Preferred Alternative would result in approximately 128 fewer daily trips, 8 fewer AM peak hour trips, and
11 fewer PM peak hour trips than DEIS Alternative 2. As a result, transportation impacts
associated with the Preferred Alternative would be anticipated to similar to, but less than those analyzed for DEIS Alternative 2.
Mitigation Measures
Based upon the results of the transportation analysis of future intersection operations, general
key findings include:
• There exists today and will be in the future a moderate to high level of background traffic
that travels in the vicinity of the site area given approved and other planned pipeline projects.
• The existing transportation network with and without I-405 Improvements would
adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build-out in 2015, with the
additional required/proposed transportation improvements (listed below)
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Level of Service / Queuing
With I-405 Improvements – Preferred Alternative
The following improvements (in addition to the planned I-405 Improvements) would be
necessary under the Preferred Alternative to mitigate off-site impacts:
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-15 Chapter 1
• Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and Ripley Lane N. Extend the planned eastbound and westbound through lanes by WSDOT
beyond and through the Barbee Mill access intersection. This would result in two through lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Boulevard from the I-405 interchange past
the Barbee Mill access (NE 43rd Street). Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the
best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private
development.
• Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington Boulevard. Construct a
southbound left-turn lane at this signalized intersection (signal assumed as an I-405 Improvement).
Without I-405 Improvements – Preferred Alternative
Without the planned I-405 Improvements, the following improvements would be necessary
under the Preferred Alternative to mitigate off-site impacts:
• Install Traffic Signals. Install traffic signals at the intersections of the I-405 NB and SB ramp intersections, as well as at the intersection of Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington
Boulevard.
• Intersection #1 - I-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street. Widen the southbound and
northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of the intersection
with the additional widening improvements would be coordinated with WSDOT.
• Intersection #3 - Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington Boulevard. Widen the westbound
approach to include a separate right turn-only lane.
• Lake Washington Boulevard between Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and I-405 SB Ramps. Construct additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill
access and the I-405 SB ramps. Alternatively, additional eastbound and westbound
lanes could be constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals required at the SB ramp and Ripley Lane along Lake Washington Boulevard.
Ultimately, the City of Renton will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (owner
of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent private development.
See Appendix H to the DEIS for detailed level of service worksheets for the mitigation measures
outlined above to meet the City of Renton and WSDOT standards. Non-Motorized Transportation
• Infrastructure improvements within the site would include full curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, as well as frontage improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the west
side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N in front of the project site.
Provisions for safe pedestrian circulation could encourage future transit usage when planned public transit becomes available.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-16 Chapter 1
• A pedestrian trail is proposed onsite along the shoreline that would be accessible to the
public and would connect to Lake Washington Boulevard through the internal site
sidewalk system.
Lake Washington Boulevard Corridor Impacts
• To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the
development, the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to
utilize the I-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic
management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but are
not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments,
speed tables, and speed humps. City of Renton Mitigation/Impact Fees
• In addition to the project-specific mitigation measures described above, a traffic
mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City’s roadways. Traffic
mitigation/impact fees would be determined at the time of building permit issuance and
in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code. Parking
• The proposed parking supply under the Preferred Alternative would meet the minimum
off-street parking requirements of the City of Renton. Fire Apparatus Access
• A fire access road is proposed to be located in the western portion of the site. This road
would be approximately 20 feet wide, and would be surfaced in crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire apparatus.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
Level of Service/Queuing
• Implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures could reduce
the number of vehicle trips and thus provide some benefit to improving LOS and queuing
impacts at study intersections.
Public Transportation
• In order to promote a multimodal transportation network, redevelopment on the Quendall
Terminals site could include site amenities (i.e. planting strip, street lighting, etc.) and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the I-405/NE 44th
Street interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access in the
future (future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-17 Chapter 1
Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange).
Non-Motorized Transportation
• A paved bicycle lane could be provided along the east side of Ripley Lane to mitigate
potential conflicts between bicycles and the Quendall Terminals site access point on
Ripley Lane.
Parking
• Shared parking agreements between on-site uses and implementation of transportation
demand management (TDM) measures for proposed residential uses could be implemented to potentially reduce parking demand during peak periods, thereby
reducing the necessary parking supply.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no significant unavoidable adverse transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Cultural Resources
Impacts
Under the Preferred Alternative, certain construction activities onsite (i.e. clearing and grading of the upland area, construction of deep building foundations, and excavation of utilities) could
require excavation into the soil cap (should it be installed) and could result in an inadvertent
discovery of cultural resources. While it is unlikely that cultural resources would be encountered as part of construction activities on the site, a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan
would be implemented for the Preferred Alternative in the event that any cultural resources are
encountered (see the Mitigation Measures discussion for further details). As a result, no significant impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated with redevelopment under the
Preferred Alternative.
Mitigation Measures
Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Limited and focused cultural resource monitoring would be conducted during
construction activities on the site (clearing and grading of the upland portion, construction of deep building foundations, excavation of utilities and establishment/expansion of wetland and riparian areas). A monitoring plan and
inadvertent discovery plan would be developed as part of the Preferred Alternative (see Appendix F for a copy of the proposed monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan).
• In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities do result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, construction activities would be halted in the
immediate area and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 1-18 Chapter 1
Preservation (DAHP) would be contacted. Work would be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded.
• In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, construction would
be halted in the area, the discovery would be covered and secured against further
disturbance and contact would be made with law enforcement personnel, DAHP and authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural resources that cannot be
mitigated.
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-1 Chapter 2
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This chapter of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project EIS Addendum provides: 1) a
summary of the environmental review documents (Washington State Environmental Policy Act -
SEPA documents) issued for the project to date; 2) a summary of the Proposed Actions analyzed in the December 2010 Draft EIS (DEIS); 3) a listing of the elements of the environment
analyzed in the DEIS; 4) a summary of the process to define the applicant’s Preferred
Alternative; 5) a brief description of the Preferred Alternative and how the Preferred Alternative relates to the redevelopment alternatives in the DEIS; 6) discussion of the intent of an
Addendum under the SEPA and why it is being prepared; 7) discussion of the environmental
review and ongoing planning and decision-making process after this EIS Addendum; and, 8) a detailed discussion of the features of the Preferred Alternative. Key concepts related to this EIS
Addendum are presented below in question and answer format.
2.1 Background
Q1. What environmental review documents have been issued for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project to date? A1. To date, one environmental review document under SEPA has been issued for public
review and comment by the City of Renton for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project: a DEIS issued in December 2010.
DEIS - A DEIS for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project was issued by the
City of Renton in 2010. The DEIS addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could occur as a result of approval by the City of Renton of a Master Plan, Binding
Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; approval of other local, state, and federal permits; and, potential future redevelopment activities through build-out in 2015.
At the time the DEIS was prepared and issued, a preferred Master Plan for the site had not been determined. Accordingly, two redevelopment alternatives and the No-Action
Alternative were addressed in the DEIS: Alternative 1 - mixed-use redevelopment,
including 800 multifamily residential units, 245,000 sq. ft. of office space, 21,600 sq. ft. of retail space, and 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space; Alternative 2 - mixed-use
development, including 708 multifamily residential units, 21,600 sq. ft. of retail space,
and 9,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space (no office uses would be provided under this alternative); No Action Alternative - no new mixed-use development would occur on the
site at this time, cleanup/remediation activities associated with the site’s status as a
Superfund site by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would still occur.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-2 Chapter 2
Q2. What are the Proposed Actions analyzed in the DEIS and in this EIS Addendum?
A2. The applicant (Century Pacific, L.P.) and the City of Renton (City) identified the following
Proposed Actions for the site in the DEIS that would be necessary to implement the redevelopment:
• Master Plan approval from the City;
• Binding Site Plan approval from the City;
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City;
• Other local, state, and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and,
• Construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project.
The Proposed Actions evaluated in this EIS Addendum are the same actions as those
contemplated in the December 2010 DEIS. Q3. What elements of the environment were evaluated in the Draft EIS?
A3. The Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project DEIS (December 2010) contained
environmental analyses of the elements of the environment listed below; based on the
public scoping process conducted February-April 2010. Technical reports were prepared for several of these elements and are appended to the DEIS.
• Earth
• Critical Areas
• Environmental Health
• Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Land and Shoreline Use
• Relationship to Plans, Policies, and Regulations
• Aesthetics/Views
• Parks and Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic
Q4. What was the process to define the Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in this EIS Addendum?
A4. On December 10, 2010, the Quendall Terminals DEIS was issued. Following the
comment period(s) on the DEIS, preparation of the FEIS commenced. On March 4,
2011, the City of Renton placed the Quendall Terminals EIS process “on hold”, pending receipt of a letter from EPA clarifying their comments on the environmental baseline
(post-clean up conditions) assumptions presented in the DEIS. On March 13, 2012, the
City received a letter from EPA clarifying their comments on the environmental baseline assumptions (see Appendix B). In the letter, EPA indicated that they (EPA) can require
more stringent environmental standards (i.e. mitigation ratios, and larger shoreline and
wetland buffers and setbacks) if they are in place at the time the Record of Decision (ROD) is developed for the site cleanup/remediation. EPA said that the more stringent
requirements do not need to be articulated in the Quendall Terminals EIS, because they
are not specifically known at present. Based on current regulations and standards (i.e. the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program, 2011), the wetland buffers and shoreline
setback areas would be larger than assumed in the DEIS under the EIS alternatives.
EPA suggested that the City identify a 100-foot area from the Lake Washington
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-3 Chapter 2
shoreline, extending along the entire site shoreline, which would be designated as an area for future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks.
In response to the letter from EPA, comments from other agencies and the public, and input and coordination with the City, the applicant voluntarily created a new
redevelopment alternative (their Preferred Alternative). This alternative would be similar
to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, but would maintain a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline onsite (the ultimate plans for the shoreline restoration area will be developed in
coordination with EPA). This alternative is also intended to address height/bulk/scale, view, and other design concerns identified by public comments received during the DEIS public comment period.
Q5. What is the Preferred Alternative and how does it relate to the redevelopment alternatives in the 2010 Draft EIS?
A5. As indicated above, based on information provided in the DEIS, as well as comments
from agencies and the public, and input and coordination with the City, the applicant
prepared a Preferred Alternative for analysis in this EIS Addendum. Similar to the redevelopment alternatives described in the DEIS, the Preferred Alternative is intended
to be a compact, urban mixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure that
future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental remediation effort at the site that is currently underway. The Preferred Alternative is intended to be consistent with the
applicant’s (Century Pacific’s) objectives listed on DEIS page 2-8; see Question 2 in this
Chapter for a list of the Proposed Actions.
In many respects, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to the
redevelopment alternatives in the DEIS (particularly DEIS Alternative 2), including the following areas:
• Retail/Restaurant Uses
• Office Uses (none)
• Residential Units
• Maximum Building Heights
• Anticipated Site Population
• Anticipated Site Employment
• Access/Parking
• Landscape Design
• Grading
• Utilities
The following redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative have been
modified from those described for Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS:
• Shoreline Setback
• Setbacks from Adjacent Properties
• View Corridors
• Building Height Modulation
• Open Space and Related Areas
• Building Design
• Emergency Access Road
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-4 Chapter 2
Table 2-1 compares the characteristics of assumed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative with redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
Table 2-1
COMPARISON OF 2010 DEIS ALTERNATIVES & 2012 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2010 DEIS - Alternative 1 2010 DEIS – Alternative 2 2012 EIS Addendum- Preferred Alternative
Retail/Restaurant Uses 21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000
sq. ft. restaurant
21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000
sq. ft. restaurant
21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000
sq. ft. restaurant
Office Uses 245,000 sq. ft. 0 0
Residential Units 800 units1 708 units1 692 units1
Open Space & Related Areas2
11.7 acres2 11.8 acres2 10.6 acres2
Parking Approx. 2,171 spaces3 Approx. 1,364 spaces3 Approx. 1,337 spaces3
Shoreline Setback 50 ft. min. 50 ft. min. 100 ft min. Shoreline Restoration Area
3.4 acres 3.5 acres 3.7 acres
Setbacks from Adjacent Properties North: 40–310 ft.4
South: 45–95 ft.4
North: 144–192 ft.4
South: 40–380 ft.4
North: 38–95 ft.4
South: 40–200 ft.4
Maximum Building Height 77 ft. 67 ft. 64 ft.
Site Population 1,300 residents
1,132 residents 1,108 residents
Site Employment 1,050 employees 50 employees 50 employees
Grading 53,000–133,000 CY fill 53,000–133,000 CY fill 53,000–133,000 CY fill
View Corridors View corridors along Street “B,” and
driveways/parking areas at N. and S. ends of site
View corridors along Street “B” and
driveways/parking areas at N. and S. ends of site
Larger view corridors along Street “B”; view
corridors along driveways/parking areas at N. and S. ends of site
Utilities Sewer and water from City; stormwater mgmt. per 2009 KCSWDM
Sewer and water from City; stormwater mgmt. per 2009 KCSWDM
Sewer and water from City; stormwater mgmt. per 2009 KCSWDM
Emergency Access Road No No Yes
Source: Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project DEIS, 2010 and Lance Mueller, 2012 Note: For environmental review purposes, full build-out of the project is assumed to occur by 2015. However, actual build-out will be subject to the timing of cleanup remediation of the site, and market conditions. 1 Residential data represents the total number of residential units on the site. 2 For purposes of this EIS Addendum, open space includes: paved plazas, sidewalks, natural areas, landscaped areas, and unpaved trails. These areas may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. 3 Parking data represents the total number of parking spaces on the site.4 Setbacks are measured from the property line to the nearest proposed structure.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-5 Chapter 2
Q6. What is an EIS Addendum and why is it being prepared?
A6. According to the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-600 and 197-11-706), an Addendum is an
environmental document used to provide additional information or analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in an existing
environmental document. Preparation of an Addendum is appropriate when a proposal
has been modified and the changes are not expected to result in any new significant adverse impacts. An Addendum may be used at any time in the SEPA process. WAC
197-11-625 identifies the procedures that shall be followed during the preparation of an EIS Addendum, including the following:
• An Addendum shall clearly identify the proposal for which it is written and the environmental document it adds to or modifies.
• An agency is not required to prepare a draft Addendum.
• An Addendum for a DEIS shall be circulated to recipients of the initial DEIS under
WAC 197-11-455.
• Agencies are encouraged to circulate an Addendum to interested persons.
Unless otherwise provided in these rules, however, agencies are not required to circulate an Addendum.
An EIS Addendum is being prepared for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project because the Preferred Alternative includes relatively minor modifications to the
redevelopment alternatives described and analyzed in the DEIS. These minor
modifications are not anticipated to result in any new significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Q7. What will occur after the issuance of this EIS Addendum? A7. Although not required, a 30-day public comment period will follow issuance of the EIS Addendum; written comments can be submitted during this 30-day period (see the Fact Sheet in this EIS Addendum for more information). Public and agency comments
received on this EIS Addendum, as well as the comments received during the previous comment periods on the DEIS, will be included in a FEIS. Responses to all applicable
comments will be provided in the FEIS. Q8. What will occur after the issuance of the FEIS?
A8. The DEIS, this EIS Addendum, and the FEIS will be used as tools by the City (along with other considerations, analyses, and public input) in their decision-making process on the
Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. This process is summarized below.
Subsequent to the issuance of the FEIS, City staff will review the proposed project and
associated information/analysis, and issue recommendations related to the proposed
Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A public hearing before the City’s Hearing Examiner will be held to consider the proposed
plans and shoreline permit. Decisions will be rendered by the City of Renton on the project. The shoreline permit will be filed with the Washington State Department of
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-6 Chapter 2
Ecology. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(E)(4), appeals of an FEIS shall be made within 20 days of the publication of the final decision.
2.2 Site Description
The approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site is located in the northern portion of the
City of Renton. The junction of Interstate Highways 405 and 90 is located approximately 3.5
miles to the northeast of the site (see Figure 2-1). The site includes the approximately 20.3-acre Main Property, located adjacent to Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated
Property, to the northeast of the Main Property, across Ripley Lane N (see Figure 2-2). The
Main Property is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard and is generally bounded by Lake Washington on the west; a Puget Sound Energy easement and the Seahawks Headquarters
and Training Facility on the north; railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley
Lane N on the east; and, the Barbee Mill residential development on the south. The adjacent Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N on the north and west; and, the
southbound Interstate 405 off-ramp on the south and east. The site is presently vacant.
Background
The Quendall Terminals site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility and has been contaminated with coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other hazardous chemicals (see the following sections in the DEIS for details: Chapter 2 – Site History, Section 3.3, Environmental
Health, and Appendix D). As a result of this prior contamination, cleanup of the site is required under federal and state law.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) initially served as the lead regulatory agency for overseeing cleanup of the site. An earlier remedial investigation (RI) report and a
draft risk assessment/focused feasibility study (FS) were completed for the site, under the
oversight of Ecology in 1997 and 2004, respectively. In 2005, Ecology requested that EPA take the lead for overseeing further cleanup activities at the site. EPA subsequently assumed the role
of lead agency, and in 2006, the site was added to EPA’s Superfund1
National Priorities List. In
September 2006, the property owners entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA, which set forth the requirements for completion of an RI/FS and risk assessment. The
RI/FS and risk assessment reports, which are currently being prepared by the property owners
and EPA, characterize the nature and extent of contamination and potential risks associated with exposure to site contamination, and evaluate alternative remedies that could be
implemented to mitigate contaminant exposures. After the updated RI/FS and risk assessment
reports are developed, a Proposed Plan identifying the steps to be taken to ensure that the Quendall Terminals site will be protective of human health and the environment will be provided
for public review. After EPA reviews all public comments, it will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) specifying the final cleanup and mitigation plan for the site. EPA currently anticipates that
1 Superfund is the name given to the federal environmental program established to address sites requiring cleanup under Federal law. It is also the name of the fund established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, that can be used by EPA to perform site cleanup work. The Superfund program allows the EPA to compel responsible parties to perform cleanups or to perform cleanups itself and then seek reimbursement from responsible parties for EPA’s cleanup costs.
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: Google Maps, 2010 Figure 2-1
Regional Map
North Not to Scale
Quendall Terminals
City of Renton Boundary
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: EA|Blumen, Google Maps, 2010 Figure 2-2
Vicinity Map
North Not to Scale
City of Renton City Limits
SITE
(Isolated Property)
SITE
(Main Property)
LAKE WASHINGTON
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-9 Chapter 2
the ROD will be issued in 2014; EPA and the responsible parties will subsequently enter into an agreement for implementation of the remedy.
The Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project DEIS (2010) briefly summarized the history of the site and the site’s current conditions; referred to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process and its regulatory requirements;
and, discussed protocols and institutional controls that will ultimately set out requirements and compliance methods for construction and long-term redevelopment. The DEIS impact analyses
assumed an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation (that is, the condition of the site after remediation has been accomplished). Therefore, only the probable significant environmental impacts and applicable mitigation measures related to redevelopment
of the site under Alternatives 1 and 2 were addressed in the DEIS; potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process (see DEIS Section 3.3, Environmental Health, and Appendix D for details).
Similar to the DEIS, the analyses in this EIS Addendum assumes an existing/baseline condition
subsequent to cleanup/remediation. The probable significant environmental impacts and
applicable mitigation measures related to redevelopment of the site with the applicant’s Preferred Alternative are addressed in this document, and compared to the impacts/mitigation
measures with the DEIS redevelopment alternatives. Based upon the March 13, 2012 letter
from EPA (see Appendix B), EPA considers that the baseline assumptions from the DEIS are reasonable give the expected general outcome of the ROD, with the exception of those related
to the shoreline setback and wetland buffers. The baseline assumptions used in the DEIS were
based on the Renton Shoreline Management Plan (1983) in place at the time complete applications for the project were submitted to the City, and other relevant information described
in Appendix E to the DEIS. In 2011, the City’s Shoreline Management Plan was updated, and
more stringent shoreline setbacks and wetland buffers established. EPA has indicated that final mitigation/restoration requirements will be based on the regulations in place at the time EPA
issues their ROD for the cleanup.
According to current regulations and standards, the wetland and shoreline restoration areas
would be larger than those assumed in the DEIS. As suggested by EPA, a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline is assumed in this EIS Addendum under the Preferred Alternative; all
other baseline assumptions are the same as those represented in the DEIS (see the following
section on Shoreline Setbacks, and Chapter 3 – Critical Areas and Environmental Health for further details).
2.3 Preferred Alternative
Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, the applicant formulated their Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is based on information provided in the DEIS, comments from agencies
and the public, input and continued coordination between the applicant and the City, and, additional analysis and master planning. The Preferred Alternative is based on relatively minor modifications to the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (see Figure 2-3 and 2-4 for an illustration
of the proposed site plan and ground level plan under the Preferred Alternative). Under the Preferred Alternative, the majority of the development assumptions would be similar to those
analyzed under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (particularly DEIS Alternative 2), including:
• Retail/Restaurant Space (21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 sq. ft. restaurant)
• Office Space (none)
Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Figure 2-3
Site Plan—Preferred Alternative
Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Figure 2-4
Ground Level Plan—Preferred Alternative
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-12 Chapter 2
• Residential Units (692 units)
• Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.)
• Anticipated Site Population (1,108 residents)
• Anticipated Site Employment (50 employees)
• Parking/Access (1,337 parking spaces)
• Landscape Design (shoreline restoration + native and ornamental planting in the upland
area)
• Grading (53,000–133,000 CY of fill)
• Utilities (sewer and water from City of Renton; stormwater per City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM)
The following redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative have been modified from those described for Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS:
• Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. increased setback)
• Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38-95 ft.; south 40-200 ft.)
• View Corridors (Street “B” corridor enlarged)
• Building Height Modulation (4-story buildings along south property line; 5- to 6- story buildings elsewhere)
• Open Space and Related Areas (10.6 acres)
• Building Design (more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete, and less metal
siding)
• Emergency Access Road (in western portion of the site)
Below are further descriptions of the modifications under the Preferred Alternative.
Shoreline Setback
In response to the May 2012 letter from EPA, comments from Ecology and the public, and input
and continued coordination with the City, the applicant voluntarily created a new redevelopment alternative (their Preferred Alternative) that maintains a 100-foot minimum/150-foot maximum
setback from the shoreline onsite (versus the 50-foot minimum/225-foot maximum shoreline
setback under the DEIS alternatives). The minimum setback is consistent with EPA’s recommendation and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (2011). The shoreline
restoration area under the Preferred Alternative would total approximately 3.7 acres, versus the
3.4 to 3.5 acres under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks, similar to under the DEIS alternatives (see DEIS
figures 2-6 and 2-11). The ultimate, detailed plans for the shoreline restoration area under the
Preferred Alternative will be developed in coordination with EPA.
Setbacks from Adjacent Properties
Building setbacks from adjacent properties under the Preferred Alternative would vary
somewhat from those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Setbacks from the northern property line
under the Preferred Alternative would range from approximately 95 feet adjacent to the five-story building in the northwestern portion of the site to approximately 38 feet adjacent to the
one-story parking structure in the northeastern portion of the site. The minimum setback along
this property line would be similar to DEIS Alternative 1, but less than DEIS Alternative 2. The maximum setback would be less than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Setbacks from the southern
property line under the Preferred Alternative would range from approximately 40 feet adjacent to
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-13 Chapter 2
the one-story parking garage in the southeastern portion of the site to approximately 200 feet adjacent to the four-story building in the southwestern portion of the site. The minimum setback
along this property line would be similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; the maximum setback
would be greater than DEIS Alternative 1, but less than DEIS Alternative 2 (see Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3).
View Corridors Several comments on the DEIS related to impacts on views to and from Lake Washington and
Mercer Island with redevelopment under Alternatives 1 and 2. With the applicant’s Preferred Alternative, certain view corridors through the site (i.e. along Street “B”) would be larger than
under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; others would be similar to under DEIS Alternative
2.
The view corridor along Street “B”, the main east/west street proposed through the site, would
be approximately 74 feet wide under the Preferred Alternative (including the 44-foot wide street and two 15-foot wide sidewalks on either side of the street within an 80-foot dedicated public
right-of-way; see Figure 2-3). This corridor would be 8 feet wider than the approximately 66-foot
wide corridor under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (see DEIS Figures 2-4 and 2-9). Chapter 3 contains visual simulations from a new viewpoint on Lake Washington Boulevard through this
corridor and Section 4.7, Aesthetics/Views, provides additional analysis of potential impacts to
views with the Preferred Alternative.
The view corridors along the southern boundary of the site would be maximized under the Preferred Alternative, similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. Surface parking areas proposed in the
southwestern portion of the site would help maintain existing views toward Lake Washington and Mercer Island from the Barbee Mill development to the south. As noted above, building setbacks from the southern property line under the Preferred Alternative would range from 40 to
200 feet along the southern property line. Under DEIS Alternative 1, building setbacks from the southern property line would range from 45 to 95 feet, and under DEIS Alternative 2 they would
range from 95 to 380 feet. Chapter 3 contains visual simulations from viewpoints in the Barbee
Mill development and Section 4.7, Aesthetics/Views, provides additional analysis of potential impacts to views with the Preferred Alternative.
Building Height Modulation Concerns about potential height, bulk and scale impacts of the Quendall Terminals project on
adjacent uses (particularly on the Barbee Mill development to the south) were raised in the comments on the DEIS. To address these comments, building heights have been modulated
across the site under the Preferred Alternative. The buildings in the southern portion of the site
would be 4-stories high (3 stories over one story of parking). Buildings located in the northern portion of the site would be 5 stories high (4 stories over one story of parking); and, those in the
western, eastern, and central portions of the site would be 5 to 6 stories high (4 to 5 stories over
one story of parking). The maximum building height would be approximately 64 feet, slightly less than under DEIS Alternative 2. During final design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the
Lake Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be reduced to one half of the
maximum height allowed by the COR zone (125 feet allowed height x ½ = 62.5 feet), consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (2011); maximum building height in this
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 2-14 Chapter 2
area under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would be 77 and 67 feet, respectively (see Figures 2-5, 2-6 and 2-7 for representative building elevations).
Open Space and Related Areas
Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related areas would be provided under the
Preferred Alternative, as compared to approximately 11.7 to 11.8 acres under DEIS Alternatives 1 and Alternative 2, respectively. This reduction in open space and related areas under the Preferred Alternative is primarily due to the elimination of one of the semi-private courtyards
located above the parking structures. The courtyard area was removed in order to accommodate additional building area proximate to Lake Washington (see Figure 2-4 and
Section 4.8, Parks and Recreation, for details).
Building Design
The design of the buildings in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project has
continued to evolve under the Preferred Alternative, based on input from the City and community, as well as changing market conditions. Ten buildings ranging in size from 46,200 to
88,000 square feet are proposed under the Preferred Alternative, versus 9 buildings ranging
from 94,600 to 209,000 square feet under DEIS Alternative 1, and 9 buildings ranging from 77,000 to 112,800 square feet under DEIS Alternative 2. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2,
proposed redevelopment with the Preferred Alternative would represent a compact, urban form,
with a consistent design concept throughout the site (see Figures 2-5 through 2-9 for conceptual elevations and renderings of the Preferred Alternative).
The proposed design of the buildings is intended to be coordinated through a variety of details and materials, and provide a human scale with visually interesting streetscapes and facades
(see DEIS pages 3-15 and 3-16 for details). Exterior building materials would resemble those under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; however, more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast
concretes, and less metal siding would likely be incorporated into the buildings under the
Preferred Alternative (see Figures 2-5 through 2-9). The bases of the parking structure are also proposed to have grids to support vines to create “green walls” (see Figure 2-10 for a
representative section including the proposed “green walls”).
Emergency Access Road
Based on comments from the City of Renton Fire Department on the DEIS, an emergency
access road is proposed to be located in the western portion of the site under the Preferred Alternative that is intended to meet the City’s requirements for fire access (see Figure 2-3). This
road would be approximately 20 feet wide, and would be surfaced in crushed rock or grass-
crete to support emergency vehicles. The road would also serve as a pedestrian facility that would be accessible to the public during reasonable hours (anticipated to be from 10 AM to
dusk). Similar to under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, interpretive wetland viewpoints would be included in the design of the emergency access road/pedestrian facility. The road/trail would also meet ADA guidelines, and would link to the site’s upland internal circulation system
(sidewalks), which would connect to Lake Washington Boulevard.
Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Figure 2-5
Representative South Building Elevations—Preferred Alternative
Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Figure 2-6
Representative West Building Elevations—Preferred Alternative
Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Figure 2-7
North and West Building Elevations – Preferred Alternative
Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Figure 2-8
Conceptual East View from Lake Washington – Preferred Alternative
Source: Lance Mueller & Associates, 2012
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Figure 2-9
Conceptual West View from Central Roundabout – Preferred Alternative
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: Lance Mueller and Associates, 2012 Figure 2-10
“Green Wall” Façade Section - Preferred Alternative
Residential Above
1st Floor—Typical
Parking at 1st Floor
Sidewalk
4’ Strip Planter 4’ Tree Well
x6’ Long
3rd Floor
2nd Floor
7
CHAPTER 3
UPDATED INFORMATION AND
ANALYSIS
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-1 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
CHAPTER 3
UPDATED AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the EIS Addendum summarizes updated and additional information and analyses prepared since publication of the Draft EIS (DEIS) in the following areas: Critical
Areas, Aesthetics/Views, Relationship to Plans and Policies, Transportation, and Cultural
Resources.
3.1 Critical Areas
Comments were received from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the general public on the environmental (post-clean up)
assumptions presented in the DEIS. On March 4, 2011, the City of Renton placed the Quendall
Terminals EIS process “on hold”, pending receipt of another letter from EPA clarifying their comments on the environmental baseline assumptions. On March 13, 2012, the City received a
letter from EPA clarifying their comments on these assumptions (see Appendix B).
In response to the letter from EPA, comments from Ecology and the public, and input and
coordination with the City, the applicant voluntarily created a new redevelopment alternative
(their Preferred Alternative) that would maintain a 100-foot minimum/150-foot maximum setback from the shoreline onsite (versus the 50-foot minimum/225-foot maximum shoreline setback
under the DEIS alternatives). The minimum setback under the Preferred Alternative is
consistent with EPA’s recommendation and the City’s 2011 Shoreline Master Program. The shoreline restoration area under the Preferred Alternative would total approximately 3.7 acres,
versus the 3.4 to 3.5 acres under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. This area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks, similar to under the DEIS
alternatives (see DEIS figures 2-6 and 2-11). Final, detailed plans for the shoreline restoration
area under the Preferred Alternative will be developed in coordination with EPA.
Lighting Impacts
In response to agency and public comments on the DEIS regarding potential lighting impacts on wetland and riparian habitat along Lake Washington, additional critical areas analysis was conducted for this EIS Addendum. Potential human-disturbance related impacts to wildlife
associated with wetland and riparian habitats would include increased artificial lighting, particularly during morning and late afternoon/evening hours during the winter.
Although the topic has received increased research attention in recent years, understanding the effects of artificial night lighting on ecological systems, such as wetlands and lakeshore habitats,
is still limited. It is acknowledged that increases in ambient light can alter the behavioral ecology
of a variety of organisms, from changes in orientation, as well as attraction or repulsion from the altered light environment. These in turn may affect foraging, reproduction, migration, and
communication.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-2 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
Potential impacts from artificial lighting from the proposed redevelopment should be considered
in the context of the urbanized setting along this portion of Lake Washington, as well as the
longer term land use history of the Quendall Terminals site. Residential development currently extends south from the project site, including the relatively recent Barbee Mill development to
the south of the site, as well as more established residences along the shore further to the
south. The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is immediately north of the project, and additional residences line the shoreline further to north for a considerable distance.
Therefore, the impacts of artificial lighting from the proposed redevelopment would represent an incremental addition to lighting along the shoreline in this area and would not be considered a significant impact.
Moreover, cleanup and remediation work on the site would involve the removal of existing wetland and upland communities that are impaired by past contamination and capping of the
site. Following remediation, wetland and riparian communities along the shoreline of the site would be newly established prior to redevelopment. Impacts to the developing wetland and
riparian habitats would be minimized with implementation of appropriate mitigation. In addition,
as the buffer areas develop, they would help screen the wetland and shoreline habitats from the development and associated lighting (see Appendix C for further information).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential impacts to critical areas; for
the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. The following
additional mitigation measure would be provided to minimize potential impacts of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of critical area-
related mitigation measures.
• The proposed redevelopment would include design elements to minimize the potential adverse affects of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. These include directing lighting downward and away from these habitats or adjacent properties, and
may include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, or minimizing the use of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no significant adverse impacts on critical areas from artificial lighting that could not be mitigated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-3 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
3.2 Aesthetics/Views
Several comments on the DEIS questioned the methods used and visual simulations generated
for the DEIS visual analysis. Other comments on the DEIS related to the specific impacts on
views to and from Lake Washington and beyond with redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. In particular, views from the Barbee Mill residential development and Mercer Island to
and through the site were of concern. This section provides further description of the methods
used to prepare the visual simulation. The section also includes visual simulations of the Preferred Alternative from six key viewpoints, and analyses of the visual impacts of the project
on views from these viewpoints.
Visual Analysis Methods
Viewpoints
Six key viewpoints were selected for the visual analysis in this EIS Addendum. These
viewpoints consist of public locations, including public streets, sidewalks, and a public park, and represent the views that were mentioned most frequently by commentators on the DEIS. Five of
these viewpoints were also analyzed in the DEIS (Viewpoints 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9); Viewpoint 11 is
a new viewpoint from Lake Washington Boulevard N. The viewpoints are listed in Table 3.2-1 and shown in Figure 3.2-1.
Table 3.2-1 VIEWPOINT LOCATION
Viewpoint Description
Viewpoint 1 Clarke Beach Park, Mercer Island - Looking East
Viewpoint 4 Southbound I-405 Off-Ramp – Looking West
Viewpoint 7 Lake Washington Boulevard – Looking Northwest
Viewpoint 8 Barbee Mill Residential Development - Looking Northwest
Viewpoint 9 Barbee Mill Residential Development – Looking North
Viewpoint 11 Lake Washington Boulevard – Looking West
Source: EA|Blumen, 2012
Building Massing
Based on the selected viewpoints, visual simulations of proposed site development under the Preferred Alternative were prepared using the same methods employed in the DEIS (see DEIS
page 3.7-3 for details on these methods). For purposes of the visual analysis, preliminary
building massing concepts are portrayed in the simulations, based on information provided by the applicant’s architect. These simulations are expected to be representative of the building
location, massing, and form that are proposed to occur on site. They do not represent the exact
details of the proposed buildings (i.e. roof lines, façade modulation, building materials, fenestration, etc.) or proposed landscaping, as the specific design of the project has not been
determined at this stage of the evaluation process.
Source: The Portico Group, 2012
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Figure 3.2-1
Viewpoint Location Map
Not to Scale
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-5 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
The visual simulation show dashed yellow lines, which represent the maximum development envelope which could be built on the site under the site’s current Commercial/Office/Residential
(COR) zoning classification. These dashed lines represent the site’s maximum allowed building
height (125 feet) and required building setbacks. Based on the current (2011) SMP and comments received from the EPA, a minimum shoreline setback of 100 feet is assumed.
Several of the DEIS comments raised questions about the building heights assumed in the visual analysis. These building heights were based on building elevations provided by the
applicant’s architect. The elevations showed a maximum building height to the roof level of 77 feet for DEIS Alternative 1 and 67 feet for Alternative 2, taking into account an approximately 31.5-foot ground elevation. The same approach was used for building heights used in the visual
analysis for this EIS Addendum; a maximum building height of approximately 64 feet is assumed for the Preferred Alternative. Photographic and Simulation Methods
The photographic and simulation methods used to prepare the visual simulations for this EIS
Addendum are similar to those used for the DEIS. A rigorous process was followed to ensure the accuracy of the simulations of the Preferred Alternative, as briefly described below (see DEIS page 3.7-3 for details).
Photographs of existing views of the Quendall Terminals site were taken from the selected
viewpoints. Digital files were set up in Adobe Photoshop to build the views from the selected
viewpoints. The foreground of each photograph was then separated into different “layers” from the background. Based on the building massing concepts described above, simulations of the
buildings under the Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternative were generated for each viewpoint
using Autodesk 3D Studio Max software. Camera locations of each simulation were registered using a combination of field measurements, existing terrain and survey data, and GIS
information. Lens types and field of view settings were matched within the software to the type
used for each viewpoint. Proportions of building massing concepts were adjusted to the proportions of the photographs. The resulting simulations, which represent the proposed
building massing, were then inserted into the prepared existing condition photograph between
the foreground and background layers.
As mentioned above, comments on the DEIS questioned the accuracy of the visual simulations,
in particular indicating that the heights of the proposed buildings under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 appeared to be too low relative to surrounding buildings (i.e. in Barbee Mill). To address these
comments, the accuracy of the existing 3d model and camera’s alignments were reconfirmed. A perspective illustration was also created to demonstrate that the simulations accurately depict views from the selected viewpoints (see Figure 3.2-2). This illustration shows the view of the
proposed development from Mercer Island (Viewpoint 1) and incorporates a 125-foot high scale, broken into 10-foot increments, that extends along the shoreline, through the center of the site,
and along the site’s rear property line. As shown by the illustration, the massing of buildings in
Barbee Mill (assumed to be 36 feet) coincides with floors 3 and 4 in the Preferred Alternative. Thus, while it may appear that the proposed buildings under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and the
Preferred Alternative are out of scale, perspective-wise they are not.
Source: The Portico Group, 2012
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Figure 3.2-2
Illustration of Perspective in Simulations
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-7 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
Visual Analysis
Following is a description of the existing views to the site from the viewpoints selected for the
visual analysis. Descriptions of the views from these viewpoints with redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative are also provided.
View Point 1 As described on DEIS page 3.7-8, from Viewpoint 1 – Clarke Beach Park, City of Mercer Island
– Looking East, the existing view includes Lake Washington in the foreground and mid-ground,
and the Quendall Terminals site, Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, and Barbee Mill residential development in the background. Additional views of residential development and
forested areas in the Kennydale Neighborhood and the City of Newcastle are available in the
background, on the hillside beyond the Quendall Terminals site (see Figure 3.2-3).
With the Preferred Alternative, the developed view would include new 4- to 6-story mixed use
buildings on the Quendall Terminals site. Proposed development would be located in the central portion of the background view and would be lower in height, but greater in overall scale than
the adjacent Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, and greater in height and scale than
the Barbee Mill Residential development. Views of the Kennydale Neighborhood and City of Newcastle would remain in the background. The visual character from this viewpoint would
reflect a continuation of existing development along the shoreline area, and a more densely
developed environment (see Figure 3.2-3).
Views toward the site with the Preferred Alternative would be similar to DEIS Alternative 2 in terms of building density/view preservation. However, with the Preferred Alternative, the proposed building heights would be stepped across the site; lower buildings would be located
adjacent to Barbee Mill (4 stories) and to the Seahawks Headquarters (5 stories), and higher buildings (5 to 6 stories) would be located elsewhere onsite.
View Point 4 As described on DEIS page 3.7-13, from Viewpoint 4 – Southbound I-405 Off-Ramp – Looking
West, the existing view includes Ripley Lane N, existing vegetation in the City of Renton right-
of-way, railroad tracks, and existing trees and vegetation on the Quendall Terminals site. Views of Mercer Island and partial views of Lake Washington are also available in the background
from this location (see Figure 3.2-4).
With the Preferred Alternative, proposed 6-story mixed-use buildings, associated roadways,
landscaping, and landscaped courtyards on the Quendall Terminals site would alter the existing
view. The character from this viewpoint would change from predominantly open, vegetated landscape to a more densely developed mixed-use development. A portion of the existing views
of Mercer Island and Lake Washington would be blocked by proposed development; however, some views of the island would be possible over the buildings (see Figure 3.2-4).
Views toward the site with the Preferred Alternative would be similar to DEIS Alternative 2 in terms of building density. However, slightly more of Mercer Island would be visible due to the
building height modulation under the Preferred Alternative.
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: The Portico Group, 2012 Figure 3.2-3
Viewpoint Location #1
Existing Conditions
Preferred Alternative
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: The Portico Group, 2012 Figure 3.2-4
Viewpoint Location #4
Existing Conditions
Preferred Alternative
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-10 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
View Point 7
As described on DEIS page 3.7-16, from Viewpoint 7 – Lake Washington Boulevard – Looking
Northwest, the existing view contains vegetation in the City of Renton right-of-way adjacent to
Lake Washington Boulevard, the existing railroad tracks, a residence located in the Barbee Mill residential development, and a street light pole in the foreground and mid-ground. Existing trees
on the Quendall Terminals site are located in the background, beyond the Barbee Mill residential development (see Figure 3.2-5).
With the Preferred Alternative, proposed 4-story buildings on the Quendall Terminals site would be located prominently in the field of view, and would alter the visual character from a
predominantly open site to a densely developed area. Proposed buildings would be located in
proximity to the existing Barbee Mill residential development (ranging from approximately 40 to 200 feet from the property line, and would be substantially greater in density, and somewhat
greater in height than the existing residential buildings - existing buildings at Barbee Mill are up
to 3 stories high (see Figure 3.2-5).
Views toward the site under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to DEIS Alternative 2 in
terms of density of development and building setbacks. However, the Preferred Alternative would include lower buildings (4 stories) than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (7- and 6-story
buildings, respectively) adjacent to Barbee Mill.
View Point 8
As described on DEIS page 3.7-19, from Viewpoint 8 – Barbee Mill Residential Development –
Looking Northwest, the existing view includes a vacant lot associated with the Barbee Mill residential development, street light poles, and sidewalks in the foreground and mid-ground.
Residences in the Barbee Mill development are located in the background; existing trees on the
Quendall Terminals site and partial views of Mercer Island are located further in the background, beyond the existing residences (see Figure 3.2-6).
With the Preferred Alternative, proposed 4-story development on the Quendall Terminals site would be visible in the mid-ground, and would frame the view with more dense development.
Proposed buildings would be located adjacent to existing residential development on the Barbee Mill site. Development on the Quendall Terminals site would partially obstruct the view towards Mercer Island; however, the majority of the view between the Quendall Terminals and Barbee
Mill sites would remain (see Figure 3.2-6).
Views toward Mercer Island would be better preserved under the Preferred Alternative than
under DEIS Alternatives 1. This would largely be due to the currently proposed building height modulation, and building setbacks. However, views toward Mercer Island would be best
preserved under DEIS Alternative 2, as little alteration in existing views from this viewpoint
would occur under this alternative.
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: The Portico Group, 2012 Figure 3.2-5
Viewpoint Location #7
Existing Conditions
Preferred Alternative
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: The Portico Group, 2012 Figure 3.2-6
Viewpoint Location #8
Existing Conditions
Preferred Alternative
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-13 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
View Point 9
As described on DEIS page 3.7-19, from Viewpoint 9 – Barbee Mill Residential Development –
Looking North, the current view is comprised of the Barbee Mill residential development access
roadway, sidewalks, street light poles, and a currently vacant lot at Barbee Mill in the foreground and mid-ground. In the background is a fence/wall located on the existing property line and
existing trees on the Quendall Terminals site; partial views of Mercer Island are available in the background between the existing trees (see Figure 3.2-7).
With the Preferred Alternative, proposed mixed-use development on the Quendall Terminals site would dominate the field of view from this location. Proposed development would change
the character from this viewpoint and would reflect an increase in development density.
Proposed buildings would be located in proximity to the Barbee Mill site. Partial views of Mercer Island would continue to be provided from this location (see Figure 3.2-7).
Views to the site under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to under DEIS Alternative 2 in terms of building density, setbacks adjacent to Barbee Mill, and view blockage. However,
building heights would be lower in this portion of the site with the Preferred Alternative. View Point 11
From Viewpoint 11 – Lake Washington Boulevard – Looking West, the existing view includes
the guard rail, power pole, and existing vegetation in the foreground. The Quendall Terminals site is visible through the vegetation in the mid-ground. Filtered views of Lake Washington and
Mercer Island are available in the background (see Figure 3.2-8). For this EIS Addendum, views with the Preferred Alternative are shown with and without the
vegetation in the Lake Washington Boulevard right-of-way. Vegetation would likely be removed with planned improvements to this street (see DEIS pages 3.9-5 and 3.9-6 and Appendix H for
details on these improvements). With the Preferred Alternative, proposed 6-story mixed-use
buildings, associated roadways, landscaping, and landscaped courtyards on the Quendall Terminals site would alter the existing view. The character from this viewpoint would change
from filtered views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island to a more densely developed mixed-
use development. Views along the proposed Street “B” corridor would be preserved with proposed development (see Figure 3.2-8).
Views to the site under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to under DEIS Alternative 2 in terms of development density and building heights. However, under the Preferred Alternative,
the proposed Street “B” corridor would be wider than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2
(approximately 74 feet wide versus 66 feet wide), which would provide greater opportunities for views of the lake and island.
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: The Portico Group, 2012 Figure 3.2-7
Viewpoint Location #9
Existing Conditions
Preferred Alternative
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: The Portico Group, 2012 Figure 3.2-8
Viewpoint Location #11
Existing Conditions
Preferred Alternative (vegetation removed)
Preferred Alternative (vegetation retained)
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-16 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
3.3 Relationship to Plans and Policies
Shoreline Master Program
The 1983 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was in effect at the time that
complete applications were submitted to the City of Renton for the Quendall Terminals project.
DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would be consistent with the 1983 SMP.
In November 2011 (subsequent to issuance of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project DEIS), the Washington State Department of Ecology approved Renton’s updated SMP and the plan went into effect. The Lake Washington shoreline along the Quendall Terminals Main
Property is designated as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and is in the Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District in the 2011 SMP. The objective of this overlay district is to:
…provide opportunities for large-scale office and commercial employment centers as well as multifamily residential use and public services. This district provides
opportunities for water-dependent and water-oriented uses while protecting existing
ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. Development may also provide for public use and/or community
use, especially access to and along the shoreline. The 2011 SMP also requires a minimum building setback of 100 feet adjacent to the shoreline in
this overlay district. Discussion: Although the 1983 SMP was in effect at the time complete applications were
submitted on Quendall Terminals, the proposed redevelopment would meet the objectives of the
current Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District. The Preferred Alternative would consist of a large-scale, mixed use development including multifamily residential and commercial uses.
Cleanup and restoration of the site, a Superfund site, would occur prior to redevelopment. It is
the applicant’s intention that the Preferred Alternative would adhere to the minimum shoreline setback requirement in the 2011 SMP. A 100-foot shoreline setback has been established along
the entire shoreline onsite in which future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks, would be
established (see Figure 2-3). A public trail is proposed in the shoreline area to provide opportunities for access along the shoreline. Final, detailed plans for the shoreline restoration
area will be developed in coordination with EPA.
Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan
The City of Renton’s 2003 Park, Recreation and Open Space Implementation Plan and the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element were in place at the time complete
applications were submitted for the Quendall Terminals project. In November 2011 (subsequent
to issuance of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project DEIS), the City of Renton adopted the City of Renton Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan. This plan provides a 20-
year vision for parks, recreation facilities and programming, and natural areas; and, identifies policies, implementation strategies, and an investment program to enhance and sustain parks, recreation and natural areas as critical elements of a livable community.
As part of the City of Renton Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan, the City also completed
a Community Needs Assessment (May 2011) that was intended to identify system-wide
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-17 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
recommendations for improvements to parks, recreation facilities, and natural areas. As part of the assessment, LOS calculations were conducted based on the existing LOS standards at the
time and existing park system inventory. According to these calculations, the City had a total
park and open space deficit of approximately 555 acres and an existing LOS of 13.95 acres per 1,000 population. By 2030, the City would have a deficit of approximately 1,093 acres. As a
result, the City determined that there was a current and projected future deficit in park and open
space areas based on the existing LOS standards.
The 2011 Plan includes updated proposed park acreage standards for the city-wide park system. These standards represent overall levels of facilities that the City seeks to achieve on a city-wide basis and are not intended to be implemented on a project-specific basis. The 2011
plan proposes a minimum total of 11.21 acres of parks and natural areas per 1,000 population as the standard. This updated standard represent a reduction from the prior adopted standard in the 2003 Park, Recreation and Open Space Implementation Plan, which totaled 18.58 acres
per 1,000 population. The 2011 Plan recognizes that most of the largest natural area sites are already within public ownership and additional acquisitions within the city limits are likely to be
smaller targeted purchases.
In addition, the 2011 Plan includes recommendations for each community planning area.
Following are the recommendations for the Kennydale Community Planning Area, in which the
Quendall Terminals site is located:
• Expand access to the May Creek Greenway.
• Enhance the existing park sites in the area, including Kennydale Beach Park and
Kennydale Lions Park.
• Provide two additional neighborhood parks in the area, including one on the west side of
I-405 and one on the east side of I-405 and north of the May Creek Greenway.
Discussion: Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative would include open
space and related areas onsite to help meet the demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees, but not the demand for active recreation facilities. Approximately 10.6
acres of open space and related area would be provided. The open space and other areas may
or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. A public trail is proposed in the shoreline area to provide opportunities for access along the shoreline. The
applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees, in accordance with the provisions of
the 2011 Plan or as required by the City of Renton Municipal Code, to help offset the impacts of the project on park and recreation facilities, open space, and trails (see Section 4.8, Parks and Recreation, for further information).
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-18 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
3.4 Transportation
In response to transportation-related comments on the DEIS, an Updated Transportation Report was prepared for this EIS Addendum, including the following additional information and
analysis:
• New traffic counts at Study Intersection #3 (Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street), and revised traffic analysis at this location and adjacent study intersections based on the traffic counts that indicated increased demand on discrete intersection movements.
• Updated level of service (LOS) analysis at Study Intersection #9 (Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue N (Garden Avenue) that reflects planned improvements by the
City of Renton.
• A LOS summary table that illustrates the affects of the potential mitigation measures.
• A figure which illustrates the conceptual channelization improvements that would be required along Lake Washington Boulevard as a result of the project, if the project is built
prior to regional improvements within the I-405 corridor.
The potential transportation impacts under the Preferred Alternative are assumed to be similar
to the impacts under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, as described in the Impacts section below (see Appendix E for details).
Affected Environment
The DEIS included a discussion of existing transportation conditions at the time that document
was published (December 2010), including: existing traffic volumes, intersection LOS, public
transportation services, non-motorized transportation facilities, and planned transportation improvements (see DEIS Section 3.9, Transportation, and Appendix H for details). Following
issuance of the DEIS, updated traffic counts were taken at Intersection #3 (Ripley Lane/NE 44th
Street) in June 2012 to calibrate historical data. The updated existing peak hour traffic volumes for Study Intersection #3 (as well as the 2010 counts for the other study intersections) are
illustrated in Figure 3.4-1. Based on the new traffic counts for Study Intersection #3, the existing peak hour intersection
LOS analysis was updated for affected intersections. As shown in Table 3.4-1, the existing LOS levels would remain as described in the DEIS (see DEIS Table 3.9-1); however, the average
delay would change at certain intersections (i.e. a slight increase in delay at Study Intersections
#2 and #3, and a slight decrease in delay at Study Intersection #1).
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, 2012 Figure 3.4-1
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-20 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
Table 3.4-1 EXISTING 2009/2010 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS
AM Peak Hour
Int.# Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St E 48 -
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St SB-F >100 2.32
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th St SB-D 26 0.20
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th St B 11 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 -
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N B 13 -
Int.# Signalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park Ave N B 17 0.66
PM Peak Hour
Int.# Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St C 18 -
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St SB-C 22 0.61
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th St SB-C 18 0.32
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th St A 10 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 -
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N A 10 -
Int.# Signalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C
9 Lake Wa Blvd (Garden Ave N)/Park Ave N C 26 0.81
Source: TENW, 2012.
In addition, following issuance of the DEIS, further clarification was provided regarding the City
of Renton’s planned transportation improvement project for a portion of Lake Washington Boulevard. The City of Renton’s 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
identifies the Lake Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue N (Garden Avenue N) intersection (Study Intersection #9) project in the vicinity of the site. This project includes minor widening and reconfiguration to provide dual eastbound left turn lanes. The improvements to Study
Intersection #9 are included in the updated analysis of transportation impacts under DEIS Alternatives 1, as described below.
Impacts
Following is an updated transportation impacts analysis with the Quendall Terminals DEIS Alternative 1. This section describes the LOS impacts, traffic queuing, and site access and circulation assumed at the 2015 build-out. The public transportation, non-motorized
transportation and parking impacts for DEIS Alternative 1 are expected to be the same as described in the DEIS (see DEIS Section 3.9, Transportation, and Appendix H). As part of the
updated analysis, all trips from the City’s 2015 EMME Travel Model were removed from the
roadway network except for trips under the Without I-405 Improvements scenario, which assumed a 15 percent background growth. Turning movements of trips from Barbee Mill, Hawks
Landing and the Kennydale Apartment projects were added to the roadway network at each off-
site intersection under both scenarios to determine the 2015 baseline forecasts as projected in original traffic studies prepared for these entitled developments.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-21 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
As described on DEIS page 3.9-6, DEIS Alternative 1 was used in the transportation analysis as a conservative “worst-case” scenario due to the fact that this alternative would include higher
density development (more residential units and office space) and would generate more
vehicular trips than DEIS Alternative 2. DEIS Alternative 1 is also used in the analysis for this EIS Addendum in order to provide a conservative “worst-case” scenario and consistency with
the DEIS. The Preferred Alternative would result in approximately 128 fewer daily trips, 8 fewer
AM peak hour trips, and 11 fewer PM. peak hour trips than DEIS Alternative 2. As such, the relative impacts to traffic operations within the study area from the Preferred Alternative would
be very similar, but slightly less than those under DEIS Alternative 2 (see Appendix E for details).
Intersection LOS Impacts
As a result of the new traffic counts that were taken for this EIS Addendum, as well as the
associated updated calculations for existing LOS conditions and clarifications on the planned
improvements to Study Intersection #9, updates to the LOS analysis for DEIS Alternative 1 were conducted. Table 3.4-2 summarizes the updated LOS in 2015 with and without the DEIS
Alternative 1, without I-405 improvements. Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3 illustrate the traffic volumes
in 2015 with and without DEIS Alternative 1, without I-405 improvements.
As shown in Table 3.4-2, Study Intersection #1 and #2 (southbound) would continue to operate
at LOS F under Alternative 1 in 2015 without I-405 improvements. Operations at the following intersections would change relative to the analysis for the DEIS Alternatives (see DEIS Table
3.9-2 and 3.9-3 for further details on the DEIS Alternatives):
• Study Intersections #3 and #5 delay would slightly decrease; however, the LOS levels at
both of these intersections would continue to remain the same as analyzed in the DEIS.
• Study Intersection #9 would improve from LOS D (AM peak hour) and LOS F (PM peak
hour) to LOS C (AM peak hour) and LOS D (PM peak hour). Table 3.4-3 summarizes the updated LOS impacts in 2015 with and without DEIS Alternative 1,
with improvements to I-405. Figures 3.4-4 and 3.4-5 illustrate the peak hour traffic volumes in 2015 with and without DEIS Alternative 1, with the I-405 improvements.
As shown in Table 3.4-3, based on the updated analysis, Study Intersection #9 would improve from LOS F in the DEIS to LOS C (AM peak hour) and LOS D (PM peak hour); all study
intersections would be anticipated to operate at LOS D or better in 2015 under the Preferred Alternative with improvements to I-405.
Queuing Analysis
An update to the queuing analysis along Lake Washington Boulevard was conducted for this
EIS Addendum. As shown in Table 3.4-4, queues would increase as compared to the DEIS analysis, and excessive southbound queues would continue to be expected at the stop-controlled Ripley Lane intersection without I-405 Improvements in 2015. However, no queuing
conflicts would be expected on Lake Washington Boulevard.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-22 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
Table 3.4-2 2015 INTERSECTION LOS - WITH AND WITHOUT DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1
WITHOUT I-405 IMPROVEMENTS
2015
Without Project
(Baseline/No Action)
2015
With DEIS Alternative 1
Int.# Intersection LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C
AM Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE
44th St F >100 - F >100 -
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St SB-F >100 - SB-F >100 -
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th St SB-E 36 0.42 SB-F >100 -
4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee Mill Access SB-C 20 0.04 SB-D 28 0.59
5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing
Access NB-C 16 0.10 NB-C 19 0.13
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th St B 12 - C 18 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 - A 8 -
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N B 11 - B 13 -
Signalized Intersection
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park
Ave N C 27 0.68 C 29 0.68
PM Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE
44th St F 65 - F >100 -
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th St SB-F >100 - SB-F >100 -
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th St SB-D 27 0.50 SB-F >100 -
4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee Mill Access SB-B 15 0.01 SB-C 25 0.57
5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing
Access NB-B 10 0.06 NB-B 12 0.09
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th St B 11 - C 21 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 - A 9 -
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N B 12 - B 14 -
Signalized Intersection
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park
Ave N D 49 0.95 D 55 0.92
Source: TENW, 2012. Notes:
1. Analysis based on Synchro results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS with optimized phasing/ timing systems for signalized intersections. 2. Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44th Street assumed to be east-west.
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, 2012 Figure 3.4-2
2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(without I-405 Improvements)
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, 2012 Figure 3.4-3
2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(without I-405 Improvements)
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-25 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
Table 3.4-3
2015 INTERSECTION LOS - WITH AND WITHOUT DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1 WITH I-405 IMPROVEMENTS -
Int.#
2015
Without Project
(Baseline/No Action)
2015
With DEIS
Alternative 1
Intersection LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C
AM Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee Mill Access SB-C 16 0.02 SB-D 32 0.53
5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing
Access NB-C 21 0.02 NB-D 25 0.03
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street A 10 - B 11 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N Not Analyzed Under With I-405 Improvements
Scenario 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N
Signalized Intersection
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB
Ramps)/NE 44th St A 10 0.42 B 18 0.59
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street B 15 0.39 C 22 0.53
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street B 20 0.61 C 26 0.66
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park
Ave N C 23 0.62 C 24 0.67
PM Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee Mill Access SB-C 16 0.02 SB-D 25 0.46
5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing
Access NB-C 17 0.02 NB-C 21 0.02
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street A 10 - B 11 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N Not Analyzed Under With I-405 Improvements
Scenario 8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N
Signalized Intersection
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB
Ramps)/NE 44th St B 13 0.20 B 17 0.40
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street B 13 0.19 C 24 0.47
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street B 17 0.51 C 26 0.76
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park
Ave N D 39 0.86 D 39 0.87
Source: TENW, 2012. Notes: 1. Analysis based on Synchro results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS with optimized phasing/ timing systems for signalized intersections.
2. Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44th Street assumed to be east-west.
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, 2012 Figure 3.4-4
2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(with I-405 Improvements)
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, 2012 Figure 3.4-5
2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
(with I-405 Improvements)
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-28 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
Table 3.4-4 2015 QUEUES - DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1
WITHOUT I-405 IMPROVEMENTS
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
Intersection Movement AM PM
Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Left 25 25
SB Left/Right 800 900
Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd St) / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Left 25 25
SB Thru 100 75
Hawks Landing Access / Lake Washington Blvd.
WB Left 25 25
Source: TENW, 2012 As shown in Table 3.4-5, with I-405 improvements, queues would generally decrease in 2015, as compared to the DEIS analysis. However, southbound queues would still be expected at the
Ripley Lane intersection, and queues on Lake Washington Boulevard at the Ripley Lane intersection are expected to extend beyond adjacent intersections. Table 3.4-5 2015 QUEUES - DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1
WITH I-405 IMPROVEMENTS
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
Intersection Movement AM PM
I-405 SB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Thru 125 125
Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Left 25 25
EB Thru 250 225
WB Thru 125 400
WB Rt 50 25
SB Left/Right 350 450
Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd St) / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Left 25 25
SB Thru 50 50
Hawks Landing Access / Lake Washington Blvd.
WB Left 25 25
Source: TENW, 2012
Site Access and Circulation
No changes to the DEIS site access and circulation analysis for Study Intersection #4 would be anticipated. Updates to the site access and circulation analysis for Study Intersection #3 are
summarized below.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-29 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
2015 Without I-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing
Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington Boulevard. Under DEIS Alternative 1 at site
access Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane N at Lake Washington Boulevard, the 95th percentile
queue for the southbound left/right movements are estimated to be approximately 800 to 900 feet during the AM and PM peak hours in 2015 (as compared to 700 to 800 feet in the DEIS).
Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not expected to conflict with adjacent intersections. The LOS for the stop-controlled southbound approach would be expected to be LOS F.
2015 With I-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing
Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane N/Lake Washington Boulevard. Under DEIS Alternative 1 at site
access Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95th percentile queue for the westbound through movement is estimated at approximately 400 feet during the PM peak hour.
This estimated queue on Lake Washington Blvd would likely extend through the adjacent
intersection. In addition, the southbound queue on Ripley Lane is estimated to be 350 feet during the AM peak hour and 450 feet during the PM peak hour in 2015, assuming I-405
improvements. With the proposed mitigation of providing an additional southbound approach lane on Ripley Lane, this queue is estimated to be reduced to 200 feet or less during either the
AM peak or PM peak hours. The LOS for the signalized intersection is expected to be LOS C/D.
Preferred Alternative
As described in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative would be similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2- particularly DEIS Alternative 2 – in terms of development assumptions. Based on the proposed land use breakdown, the Preferred Alternative is estimated to generate a net total of
approximately 5,656 daily, 435 AM peak hour (104 entering, 331 exiting), and 530 PM peak hour (340 entering and 190 exiting) vehicular trips. This alternative would result in approximately
128 fewer daily trips, 8 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 11 fewer PM peak hour trips than DEIS
Alternative 2. As such, the relative impacts to traffic operations within the study areas under the Preferred Alternative would be expected to be similar to, but slightly less that under DEIS
Alternative 2. Proposed mitigation to address traffic and parking impacts identified in the DEIS
would also apply to the Preferred Alternative.
Mitigation Measures
The DEIS identified transportation mitigation measures that would be necessary to mitigate potential transportation impacts under Alternatives 1 and 2 with and without planned I-405
improvements. Based on the updated analysis provided in this EIS Addendum, the mitigation
measures identified in the DEIS would still apply, with the following additional proposed mitigation measure and clarification to the mitigation measure for Study Intersection #1, without
I-405 improvements (strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have
been eliminated; underline indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of transportation-related
mitigation measures):
• To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the
development, the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-30 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
Boulevard south of N 41st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to utilize the I-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic
management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create
either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but are not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments,
speed tables, and speed humps.
• Intersection #1 - I-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street. Widen the southbound and
northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of the intersection
with the additional widening improvements would be coordinated with WSDOT.
(See Chapter 1 of this EIS Addendum for the complete list of transportation-related mitigation
measures.) In addition, an analysis was conducted to illustrate the LOS differences under Alternative 1 in
2015 with and without the proposed mitigation described above, without I-405 improvements. As shown in the Table 3.4-6, study intersections forecast to operate at LOS F would improve to
LOS E or better with proposed mitigation outlined above.
Table 3.4-6
2015 INTERSECTION LOS - DEIS ALTERNATIVE 1 WITH PROPOSED MITIGATION, WITHOUT I-405 IMPROVEMENTS
2015
DEIS Alternative 1,
without Mitigation
2015
DEIS Alternative 1,
with
Mitigation
Int.# Intersection LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C
A.M. Peak Hour
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St F >100 - C 28 1.03
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - E 78 1.03
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - B 12 0.61
P.M. Peak Hour
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St F >100 - B 17 0.62
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - C 25 0.86
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - B 14 0.77
Source: TENW, 2012.
Notes: 1. Analysis based on Synchro results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS with optimized
phasing/timing systems for signalized intersections. 2. Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44th Street assumed to be east-west.
A conceptual channelization exhibit was also created to illustrate the improvements that would be required along Lake Washington Boulevard as a result of the project, if the project is built
prior to regional improvements within the I-405 corridor (see Figure 3.4-6).
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Source: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, 2012 Figure 3.4-6
Lake Washington Boulevard Conceptual Channelization
Improvements (without I-405 Improvements)
Lak
e
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
B
l
v
d
Proposed Channelization
Existing Channelization
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-32 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
3.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources was not included as an element of the environment analyzed in the DEIS, because during scoping of the EIS, construction and operation of the proposed Quendall
Terminals redevelopment was not anticipated to result in significant impacts on such resources. Comments were received from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) on the DEIS indicating that the Renton area has a history of
archaeological finds during construction projects, and requesting that an analysis of cultural resources be included in the Quendall Terminals EIS. This section summarizes existing cultural
resource conditions on and in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site, evaluates potential
impacts to these resources under the Preferred Alternative, and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. The section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment (June 2012) prepared
by Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. (see Appendix F).
Affected Environment
Site History
The Quendall Terminals site is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. The shoreline
area has fluctuated over the past 7,000 years as a result of large earthquakes and associated
landslides, including a large area, which includes the project site, which was uplifted approximately 1,000 years ago during an earthquake. Intact pre-earthquake cultural deposits,
protected from erosion by the cap of landslide debris and silts, could lie inland of the modern
shoreline.
Historic maps show that the site area was either inundated or subject to periodic flooding and
scouring prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and also subject to the erosional effects of the meandering southward of the May Creek channel. The 1864-1920 May
Creek meanders would have cut through the site City Water Line Easement; south of the Quendall Pond and immediately east and south of the South Detention Pond (see DEIS Figure
2-3). Historic newspaper accounts also describe archaeological remains exposed at the mouth
of May Creek in 1917 following the post-Ship Canal drop in lake levels. In 1917, the May Creek channel would have cut through the south portion of the site and the creek delta would have
been located approximately 35 meters east of the modern shoreline.
Numerous named geographic features are located in the site area, including descriptive names
for geographic features, resource procurement sites, villages, and names associated with
mystical events. May Creek is recorded as sbal’t (“a place where things are dried”), which referred to a fish processing station. Until around 1855, the Subaltuabs, a coastal Salish group,
inhabited this village, which consisted of two to three houses; however, no houses are noted in
this location on the 1865 survey maps.
The area was later named “May Creek” for an early homesteader, and the project site was part
of a homestead patented to Jeremiah Sullivan in 1874. The May homestead was located on a parcel that was later part of Colman’s property immediately north of the Barbee Lumber
Company, which may place the homestead within the site. Prior to1916, a shingle mill occupied the upland area of the site. Quendall Station (named for Lake Washington Mill owner William Kendall) was established in 1916 as part of the Lake Washington beltline, and is shown on the
Northern Pacific Railway roster in 1922 and 1947.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-33 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
From 1917 to 1969 the site area was used by Republic Creosoting Company (later Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation) to process creosote. Tar feedstock was typically transported to the
facility onsite from Lake Union and unloaded from tankers or barges at a t-dock that extended
out into Lake Washington. The feedstock was unloaded into two two-million gallon above-ground storage tanks. The remnants of this dock and wharf are located onsite within the Area of
Potential Effect (APE) along the Lake Washington shoreline.
In the early 1970s, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals and has been used intermittently to
store diesel, crude and waste oils, as well as a log sorting and storage yard. A small brick building, a sewer pump station and a shack were located on the site. The brick building (the Quendall Station house) was reportedly used as an office building for the logging company.
Much of the project site is presently covered with fill, which generally consists of a mixture of silt, sand, gravel, and wood debris with scattered foundry slag and brick and metal fragments (see DEIS Section 3.1, Earth and Appendix D for details). Known fill events occurred west of the pre-
1916 shoreline following the lowering of Lake Washington; between 1920 and 1936 associated with the diversion of May Creek and backfilling of its former channel; and, in 1983 when
approximately three feet of sawdust was placed over the entire site.
Cultural Resource Investigation Results
Previous Investigations
A landform subject to periodic flood events and channel drift would not be assumed to contain
intact, significant cultural deposits. However, intact, pre-earthquake cultural deposits, protected
from erosion by the cap of landslide debris and silts, might lie inland of the modern shoreline.
In 1997, a cultural resource survey was conducted on and in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. Archaeologists dug 12 shovel test pits in the upland area, one of which was located within the current Quendall Terminals site boundaries. All of the shovel tests were
negative for cultural deposits, although an item tentatively identified as fire-modified rock was recorded in a shovel test excavated to the east of the site on the Pan Abode Cedar Homes
property. One of the shovel tests identified a small charcoal deposit at 90-100 centimeters
below the surface. Soils in the eastern portion of the site were interpreted as remnant alluvial deposits from May Creek, while those in the western portion were described as beach deposits
associated with the Lake Washington shoreline.
Current Investigation
Field investigations were conducted as part of the cultural resources assessment for this EIS Addendum. A pedestrian survey was conducted based on maps of the site; no subsurface
testing was undertaken due to known soil contaminants. Ground exposures, cut banks and
cleared areas were inspected as available. All examined areas showed signs of disturbance. Upland areas are covered with a mixture of wood debris and gravels, while the shoreline had
push piles of fill, wood chips, gravels and riprap, and large sections of armoring over fill. A
series of low canals or ditches, ponds and cobble dikes radiate from the northeastern portion of the site to the western shoreline. In addition to the remnant log beds, log piles, ruins of a
structure interpreted to be truck scales, monitoring wells, concrete pads, and plywood sheds,
collections of waste barrels were observed. No evidence of the pre-contact deposits, homestead, shingle mill, or creosote storage tanks was identified.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-34 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
Based on background information, the areas of the site with higher probability to contain intact archaeological deposits include the margins of the old channels of May Creek, the delta of the
1920 channel, the margins of the 1920 marsh, and areas adjacent to the 1864 shoreline.
Cultural deposits in these locations may include items or features associated with the following:
• Pre-contact fisheries (weirs, traps, smokehouses, and drying racks);
• Pre-contact habitation (fire-modified rock, charcoal, post molds, depressions, lithic
debitage – sharp-edged waste material left over from stone tool creation, and formal processing and hunting tools);
• Historic industry (wharves, piers, docks, pilings, and machinery), historic habitation (house foundations and household refuse), and/or historic transportation (rail line,
trestles, road bed and bridge foundations).
Due to the type and intensity of site modification conducted in the historic era and the geologic
history of the landform, intact pre-contact deposits would not be expected to be at or near the
surface, but would be anticipated to be several meters below ground-level. Intact historic-era deposits related to early homesteading would not be expected to be visible on the surface within
the site for the same reasons. However, background research indicates that late historic-era
deposits related to creosote production, the lumber industry and railroads are likely to be present onsite
As part of the current cultural resources assessment, three structures on the site were recorded, including two wooden dock/wharf features (presumed to be associated with the creosote plant,
and the Quendall station house (a small, flat-roofed brick structure). None of these structures is
considered to be architecturally remarkable or a significant cultural resource (see Appendix E for a copies of forms that have been submitted to DAHP).
Impacts
Site cleanup and remediation activities on the Quendall Terminals site is expected to include the placement of a sediment cap over the upland portion and shoreline of the Main Property. As
part of redevelopment activities associated with the Preferred Alternative, the sediment cap could be disturbed by construction activity on the site, including:
• Clearing and grading activities in the upland portion of the Main Property;
• Construction of deep building foundations (i.e. piles) and other ground improvements
required for structural support;
• Excavation activities for underground utilities; and,
The construction activities identified above would result in excavations below the sediment cap
and could result in the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. While it is unlikely that
cultural resources would be encountered as part of construction activities on the site, a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be prepared for the Preferred Alternative
in the event that any cultural resources are encountered (see to the Mitigation Measures section
for details).
In addition, required/proposed institutional controls would be enforced to prevent alteration of the sediment cap (beyond the items indicated above) during redevelopment of the site. These
institutional controls would also limit the possibility for further inadvertent encounters with
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 3-35 Updated/Additional Information and Analysis
potential cultural resources. As a result, no significant impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated with redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative.
Mitigation Measures
The following proposed measures have been identified to mitigate any potential cultural resource impacts that could occur with construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals
project. They are underlined, as they are new measures identified since issuance of the DEIS.
Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Limited and focused cultural resource monitoring would be conducted during construction activities on the site (clearing and grading of the upland portion,
construction of deep building foundations, and excavation for utilities). A monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be developed and implemented for the Preferred Alternative (see Appendix F for the proposed monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery
plan).
• In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, construction activities would be halted in the
immediate area, and (DAHP) would be contacted. Work would be halted until such time
as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded.
• In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, construction would be halted in the area; the discovery would be covered and secured against further
disturbance; and, contact would be made with law enforcement personnel, DAHP and
authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no significant unavoidable adverse cultural resource-related impacts that cannot be
mitigated.
CHAPTER 4
COMPARISON OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4-1 Chapter 4
CHAPTER 4
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This document is an Addendum to the Draft EIS (December 2010) that was prepared for the
Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. The Draft EIS (DEIS) evaluated two development
alternatives, their environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures. Information contained in that document is hereby incorporated by reference.
According to the SEPA Rules1, an Addendum is an environmental document used to provide additional information or analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant
impacts in the existing environmental document. The DEIS alternatives and Preferred Alternative need not be identical, but must have similar elements that provide a basis for comparing environmental consequences2
.
The overall level of development under the Preferred Alternative is no greater than that
identified under the DEIS Alternatives and the potential for environmental impacts would be
similar in level and type to those identified in the DEIS. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts in the DEIS and the DEIS
provides the basis for comparing environmental conditions.
Scope of the EIS Addendum
As described in Chapter 2, many of the redevelopment assumptions under the Preferred
Alternative would be similar to those described for the DEIS redevelopment alternatives
(particularly DEIS Alternative 2). Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative is intended to be a compact, urban mixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure
that future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental remediation effort at the site that
is currently underway. The Preferred Alternative is intended to be consistent with the applicant’s (Century Pacific’s) objectives, as defined in the DEIS.
However, despite these similarities, certain redevelopment assumptions under the Preferred Alternative have been modified from those described in the DEIS (see Chapter 2 for details).
Based on those redevelopment assumptions that are similar and those assumptions that have
been modified under the Preferred Alternative, the following environmental analyses in the DEIS largely would not change:
• Earth • Energy/Greenhouse Gases
• Environmental Health • Land and Shoreline Use
1 WAC 197-11-706 2 RCW 43.41C.034
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4-2 Chapter 4
This EIS Addendum provides an updated environmental analysis for those environmental impacts that have changed as a result of the Preferred Alternative redevelopment assumptions,
as well as new analysis for cultural resources. The following environmental elements have been
updated as part of this EIS Addendum (see Chapter 3 for the updated analysis of each environmental element):
• Critical Areas • Parks and Recreation
• Relationship to Plans and Policies • Transportation
• Aesthetics/Views • Cultural Resources
Each element of the environment analyzed in this chapter contains information on the following:
a description of existing conditions; a brief summary of environmental impacts identified in the
DEIS; a comparison of environmental conditions under the Preferred Alternative with those identified under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; a list of any additional/modified mitigation
measures for the Preferred Alternative (compared to those identified in the DEIS); and, a
comparison of significant unavoidable adverse impacts identified for the Preferred Alternative with those identified in the DEIS.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.1-1 Earth
4.1 EARTH
This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant earth-related impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate, new/modified
mitigation measures are identified.
4.1.1 Affected Environment
The topography of the Quendall Terminals site is relatively flat with a gentle slope from east to
west of 0 to 5 percent; slopes increase along the shoreline area of the site, adjacent to Lake Washington. Fill soils range from one to ten feet thick across the site and are the thickest in the northwest corner of the site. Alluvium deposits are located below the fill layer. Lacustrine
deposits underlie the Deep Alluvium. Three aquifer zones are located beneath the site: a Shallow Aquifer (two to ten feet below the
ground surface), a Deep Aquifer (35 to 140 feet below the ground surface), and an Artesian Aquifer (180 feet below the ground surface).
The site has been mapped as an area of high seismic hazard and moderate to high liquefaction hazard. Potential hazards at the site could include ground motion response, liquefaction,
seismically induced landslides and lateral spreading.
4.1.2 Impacts
2010 Draft EIS
Proposed redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would require approximately 53,000
to 133,000 cubic yards of fill). Site disturbance during construction activities could result in
increased potential for erosion and sedimentation of on-site wetlands and Lake Washington; however with implementation of a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan per City of
Renton requirements, no significant impacts would be anticipated. Redevelopment would require limited cut and fill for installation of underground utilities. This
grading could impact the integrity of the soil caps that will likely be installed during site cleanup/remediation efforts. Institutional controls will be defined in the final remediation plans to ensure that the soil caps would remain intact during excavation for the redevelopment.
Potential impacts to on-site structures could also occur during seismic events due to ground
motion, liquefaction and lateral spreading. All structures would be constructed to the most
current International Building Code (IBC) to address potential effects of seismic events and significant impacts would not be anticipated.
Redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface area onsite, as well as an associated increase in stormwater runoff rates,
which could result in erosion at proposed stormwater outfalls at the lake. Outfall locations would
be equipped with energy dissipation structures or other devices to prevent erosion of the lake bottom. The increase in impervious surfaces on the site would also decrease the potential for
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.1-2 Earth
infiltration of rainwater to underlying aquifers. However, the majority of the recharge for these aquifers is from off-site sources to the east and significant impacts would not be anticipated.
2012 EIS Addendum
Construction activities for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those described for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and would require approximately 53,000 to 133,000 cubic yards of fill
during site preparation activities. Grading activities and the installation of underground utilities
could impact the integrity of the soil cap installed during site cleanup/remediation; however, institutional controls will be defined in the final remediation plans to ensure that the soil cap
would remain intact during redevelopment. Site disturbance during construction could also result
in increased potential for erosion and sedimentation of onsite wetlands and Lake Washington. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP would be implemented during
construction per City of Renton requirements, and no significant impacts would be anticipated.
Potential impacts from geologic hazards would be similar to those described for DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2, including potential erosion hazards, landslide hazards, and seismic
hazards. Mitigation measures such as the implementation of TESCP, design of buildings in accordance with the most current IBC, and the implementation of deep foundation systems
would reduce potential impacts from geologic hazards. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, under the Preferred Alternative, the majority of the site
would be covered with impervious surfaces and limited infiltration would occur on the site. As a result, recharge of the shallow aquifer would be reduced at the site; however, the majority of the
recharge originates from off-site sources and no significant impacts to aquifer recharge would
be anticipated.
4.1.3 Conclusion
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in earth-related impacts that would
be similar to those analyzed in the DEIS, including impacts associated with construction (site clearing and grading, installation of utilities and construction of building foundations), geologic
hazards and groundwater. No additional earth-related impacts would be anticipated.
4.1.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential earth-related impacts;
these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Because no additional significant
earth-related impacts were identified with the Preferred Alternative, no changes to the DEIS mitigation measures would be necessary. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of earth-related
mitigation measures.
4.1.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There would be a risk of ground motion impacts and landslides beneath Lake Washington
adjacent to the site during a seismic event; however, such impacts would occur with or without
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.1-3 Earth
the proposed redevelopment. There are no significant unavoidable earth-related impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.2-1 Critical Areas
4.2 CRITICAL AREAS
This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant impacts to critical areas from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate,
new/modified mitigation measures are identified.
4.2.1 Affected Environment
Prior to remediation and cleanup, the Quendall Terminals site is generally comprised of existing
vegetation (trees, shrubs, grasses, etc.), as well as wetlands and riparian habitat. Shrub and forested areas are primarily located along the western portions of the site. Riparian habitat is
present along the shoreline of Lake Washington.
Ten existing wetlands, totaling approximately 0.9 acres, have been identified and delineated on
the site, including eight on the Main Property and two on the Isolated Property. Four of the wetlands on the Main Property are slope and/or lake-fringe wetlands associated with Lake Washington. The remaining four wetlands are depressional wetlands which are not associated
with other surface waters and were originally constructed as wastewater and/or stormwater control facilities. Wetlands on the Isolated Property are depressional and slope wetlands that were created through grading and road construction and receive stormwater from adjacent
impervious surfaces. Per the City of Renton, the existing wetlands on the site are classified as Category 1 (two wetlands), Category 2 (three wetlands), and Category 3 (five wetlands).
As part of site cleanup/remediation, the entire Main Property would likely be capped with soil, which would result in the fill of all existing wetlands and elimination of riparian habitat on the
site. The two wetlands on the Isolated Property would not be impacted by cleanup/remediation.
Certain wetlands on the Main Property would be re-established/expanded and riparian habitat would be re-created/enhanced through the implementation of a Shoreline Restoration Plan.
Three wetlands along the shoreline would be re-established, and two of those wetlands would
also be expanded to mitigate for wetland fill on the remainder of the site. Wetland/riparian buffer areas would also be re-vegetated along the Lake Washington shoreline following remediation.
4.2.2 Impacts
2010 Draft EIS
Proposed redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in any direct impacts
to re-established/expanded wetlands on the site. A portion of buffer of Wetland D would be
reduced to 25 feet; however, other portions of the buffer would be expanded to provide compensatory areas as allowed by the City of Renton. New buildings would be setback a
minimum of 50 feet from the shoreline, as required by the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (1983). With the proposed redevelopment, the Shoreline Restoration Area would largely remain intact. A publically accessible trail with interpretive viewpoints would be included
within a portion of the shoreline area. The upland portion of the Main Property would be covered
in buildings, paved areas and landscaping, providing habitat for certain wildlife species adapted to urban environments.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.2-2 Critical Areas
Three stormwater outfalls would be constructed within the shoreline areas. These outfalls would be located to avoid direct impacts to wetlands and would be designed to prevent
erosion/siltation during construction and operation. The stormwater system would be designed
in accordance with the City of Renton amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual adopted by the City of Renton, and would contain and convey the 25-year peak
flows from developed conditions for on-site tributary areas. No upstream tributary areas would
drain to the project site or the proposed stormwater control system, and therefore no severe flooding or erosion would be expected from potential overflow from a 100-year storm event. As
a result, no significant impacts to the on-site wetlands from erosion or sedimentation deposition would be anticipated.
Proposed construction and redevelopment could cause indirect impacts to on-site wetlands, riparian habitat, and lake habitat related to hydrologic conditions (in the case of the wetlands) and potential for erosion and sediment deposition (particularly during construction). Significant
impacts, including to salmonid fish in the lake, would not be expected with implementation of a TESCP during construction activities and the installation of a permanent stormwater control
system, as required by the City of Renton.
2012 EIS Addendum
Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any direct
impacts to re-established/expanded wetlands on the site. The Preferred Alternative would
maintain a 100-foot minimum setback from the shoreline onsite (versus the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback under the DEIS alternatives). The minimum setback would be consistent with
the EPA’s recommendations and the City’s 2011 Shoreline Master Program. The Shoreline
Restoration Area under the Preferred Alternative would total approximately 3.7 acres, as compared to the 3.4 to 3.5 acres under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. This area would
accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks. The final, detailed plans for the
Shoreline Restoration Area will be developed in coordination with EPA. With the proposed redevelopment, the Shoreline Restoration Area would largely remain intact. An emergency
access road/public trail would be located in this area.
Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, stormwater outfalls would be constructed within the
shoreline area. These outfalls would be located to avoid direct impacts to wetlands and would
be designed to prevent erosion/siltation during construction and operation.
Proposed construction and redevelopment could cause indirect impacts to on-site wetlands,
riparian habitat, and lake habitat related to hydrologic conditions, and potential for erosion and sediment deposition. With installation of temporary and permanent stormwater control systems
similar to under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, no significant impacts to these critical areas would
be expected.
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would have a slightly smaller development
footprint and similar site features to the DEIS Alternatives (particularly DEIS Alternative 2) and would be anticipated to have slightly less impacts to wetland and wildlife habitat than DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2. As the restored habitat along the lakeshore develops over time, the added shoreline setback would provide slightly more potential screening of the wetland and lakeshore habitats from lighting impacts as compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. However, given the
urban context of the area, impacts from noise, lighting, and other disturbance would not likely be significantly different from those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.2-3 Critical Areas
4.2.3 Conclusion
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential impacts to critical areas that would be similar to those analyzed in the DEIS, including impacts associated with
construction (site grading) and operation (hydrologic conditions, noise, lighting, and other disturbance). No additional impacts to critical areas would be anticipated.
4.2.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential impacts to critical areas; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Following are
changes to the “Proposed” mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates
those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1
for the complete list of critical area-related mitigation measures.
• Wetland buffer areas would meet or exceed the minimum City-required buffers for
Wetlands A, D and H (the Wetland D buffer would meet the City’s requirement through buffer averaging). Wetland I and J would also be provided with buffers that meet or
exceed City requirements.
• Proposed buildings would be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the OHWM consistent
with the current City of Renton’s Shoreline Master Program (2011). The shoreline area would accommodate future wetlands, as well as buffers and setbacks. Final, detailed
plans for the re-establishment of wetlands and their buffers onsite will be developed in coordination with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to redevelopment
• A publicly accessible, unpaved trail would be provided is proposed through the shoreline area that would include interpretive wetland viewpoints.
• The proposed redevelopment would include design elements to minimize the potential
adverse affects of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. These include directing lighting downward and away from these habitats or adjacent properties, and
could include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, or minimizing the use
of reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible.
4.2.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no significant unavoidable impacts to critical areas that cannot be mitigated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.3-1 Environmental Health
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant environmental health-related impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As
appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified.
4.3.1 Affected Environment
From 1916 to 2008, various industrial activities, including creosote manufacturing, petroleum
product storage, and log sorting/storage, occurred on the Quendall Terminals site and have resulted in the release of various contaminants into the soil and groundwater. From the 1980s through 2005, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) provided oversight for the
remediation/cleanup of the site under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). In 2005, Ecology requested that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assume the responsibility for directing and overseeing the remediation and the property was added to EPA’s
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).
In September 2006, the property owners (Altino Properties and JH Baxter and Company)
entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA that required them to complete a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS). The RI/FS is intended to
comprehensively evaluate environmental conditions on the site and review various remediation
options, from which EPA will choose a preferred cleanup remedy.
According to the Draft RI, contamination on the site consists of chemicals of potential concern
that are adhered to soil particles, dissolved into water, or concentrated as dense, non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in the subsurface. Large areas of soil contamination are located on the
east side of the site. Groundwater contamination in the Shallow Aquifer beneath the site
underlies a majority of the site, while contamination of the Deep Aquifer primarily occurs under the western portion of the site.
4.3.2 Impacts
2010 Draft EIS
Prior to redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Quendall Terminals site will likely
be capped with soil during site cleanup/remediation, which will limit the potential for exposure to
underlying contaminants. Redevelopment of the site is being coordinated with the cleanup/remediation process and would be conducted consistent with the requirements in the
final cleanup remedy that is selected and overseen by EPA, and with any associated
institutional controls.
Redevelopment on the site, including the installation of deep foundations (i.e. piles) and utilities,
could generate contaminated soil and/or groundwater to which workers and City staff inspectors could be exposed. City staff that maintains utilities could also be exposed to contaminated
soils/groundwater. Volatile contaminants in the subsurface could generate vapors that could
intrude into utility trenches and above-grade structures. With separation of living/working areas from contaminants by the soil cap and under-building parking, as well as the implementation of
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.3-2 Environmental Health
institutional controls specified during site remediation, no significant impacts would be anticipated.
2012 EIS Addendum
Construction activities under the Preferred Alternative are assumed to be similar to those described for DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and deep foundation supports (such as piles) would
likely be required. The construction of deep foundations, as well as excavations for utilities,
could generate contaminated soils or groundwater to which workers could be exposed. Personal protection equipment for workers would be utilized, as well as special handling and disposal
measures following constructions activities to prevent contact with hazardous materials and
substances. Personal protection measures and special training could also be provided to City of Renton staff that provides inspections and maintenance following construction activities.
Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, there would also be the potential for volatile contaminants in the subsurface to generate vapors that could intrude into utility trenches and above-grade
structures. The separation of living/working areas from the contaminants by the soil cap and
under-building garage, as well as the implementation of potential institutional control measures would ensure that future building inhabitants would not be exposed to unacceptable vapors, and
no significant impacts would be anticipated.
4.3.3 Conclusion
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential environmental health-
related impacts that would be similar to those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, including
impacts associated with construction/excavation exposure to contaminated soils, as well as potential vapors from volatile contaminants in the subsurface. No additional environmental
health-related impacts would be expected.
4.3.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential environmental health-
related impacts; these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Because no
additional significant environmental health-related impacts were identified for the Preferred Alternative, no changes to the DEIS mitigation measures would be necessary. See Chapter 1
for the complete list of environmental health-related mitigation measures.
4.3.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no significant adverse environmental health-related impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.4-1 Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.4 ENERGY – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant energy – greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
As appropriate, new/modified mitigation measures are identified.
4.4.1 Affected Environment
GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are emitted by both natural
processes and human activities, and trap heat in the atmosphere. In turn, the accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. One source of GHG emissions is fossil fuels used to produce power used by consumers for electrical power and home heating needs.
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is one of three electrical service providers for the City of Renton and provides service to the Quendall Terminals site and vicinity. The majority of PSE’s power comes from hydro-electric and natural gas sources. The Quendall Terminals site is currently vacant
and does not contain any structures or facilities that would consume energy or emit GHG emissions.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) provides guidance for calculating and analyzing GHG emissions for projects. In June 2010, Ecology issued guidelines, including
guidance regarding the types of GHG emissions that should be calculated; a description of how
to determine if emissions surpass a threshold of “significance”; and a description of different types of mitigation measures. After closure of the public comment period on the guidelines,
Ecology issued a statement indicating that significant changes would be required to the
guidelines before they were issued. The revised guidelines were not available at the time of the issuance of the 2010 DEIS.
4.4.2 Impacts
2010 Draft EIS
Proposed redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in an increase in GHG emissions relative to the existing conditions due to the increase in building density and site
population. Redevelopment under Alternative 1 would result in an estimated 1,297,536 MTCO2e in lifespan GHG emissions, and redevelopment under Alternative 2 would result in an estimated
860,434 MTCO2e in lifespan GHG emissions.
New development under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would utilize energy in the form of electricity
for heating, cooling, lighting and other energy demands, and natural gas for heating and
cooking. New development would result in an increase in energy usage when compared to existing conditions. However, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building
techniques and other energy conservation methods could be incorporated into the design of the
development which would lower the energy demands associated with the site.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.4-2 Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2012 EIS Addendum
For the purposes of comparison, GHG emissions for the Preferred Alternative have been calculated using the King County GHG Emissions Spreadsheet Model that was utilized in the
DEIS. Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would
result in an increase in GHG emissions when compared to the existing conditions. Table 4.4-1 provides a summary of the potential estimated GHG emissions that could result from the
construction and operation with redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative.
Table 4.4-1
ESTIMATED GHG EMISSIONS – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Source Square Footage Embodied Emissions MTCO2e
Energy Emissions MTCO2e
Transportation Emissions MTCO2e
Lifespan Emissions MTCO2e
Residential 692 22,836 247,044 530,072 799,952
Office 0 0 0 0 0
Retail 21,600 842.4 12,463.2 5,335.2 18,640.8
Restaurant 9,000 351 17,946 5,049 23,346 Estimated Total GHG Emissions
24,029.4 277,453.2 540,456.2 841,938.8
Source: EA|Blumen, 2012 1 Indicates the total number of residential units
* The numbers in this table differ slightly from the GHG Emissions Worksheet (see Appendix D) due to rounding. As shown in Table 4.4-1, GHG emissions under the Preferred Alternative would be lower than under the DEIS Alternatives (841,938 MTCO2e lifespan emissions under the Preferred
Alternative versus 1,297.536 and 860,434 under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively). A majority of the emissions would be from residential development on the site. These calculations
have not taken into account any potential effects to reduce the carbon footprint of the
redevelopment, such as LEED building techniques, vehicle trip reductions through building a walkable community, or other energy conservation measures.
Energy usage under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, and would primarily include electricity and natural gas. Electricity would be used for heating,
cooling, lighting, and other energy demands; natural gas would be used primarily for heating
and cooking. PSE would continue to provide electricity and natural gas service to the site. LEED building techniques and other energy conservation measures could be incorporated into the
final development and would lower the energy demands associated with redevelopment.
4.4.3 Conclusion
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential energy and GHG-
related impacts that would be similar to or less than those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. No
further energy/GHG-related impacts would be anticipated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.4-3 Energy – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.4.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential GHG emissions and energy usage; these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Because no
additional significant GHG/energy-related impacts were identified with the Preferred Alternative, no changes to the DEIS mitigation measures would be necessary. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of GHG/energy-related mitigation measures.
4.4.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Development on the Quendall Terminals site would result in an increase in demand for energy and an increase in GHG emissions relative to existing conditions, similar to any major
development. However, the direct and indirect impacts of GHG emissions and energy use under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to or less than those analyzed for the DEIS Alternatives (particularly Alternative 2) and would not be expected to be significant. The
proposed redevelopment would include features that would reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts (i.e. the compact, mixed-use nature of the proposed development would reduce
vehicular trips).
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Land and Shoreline Use/ October 2012 4.5-1 Relationship to Plans and Policies
4.5 LAND AND SHORELINE USE/RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS AND
POLICIES
This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant land and shoreline use
impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate,
new/modified mitigation measures are identified.
4.5.1 Affected Environment
The Quendall Terminals Main Property is currently vacant and unused, and includes two small
buildings, a sewer pump station, a wharf, and a dock. The site was historically used for industrial operations dating back to 1917, including creosote manufacturing, diesel fuel and oil
storage operations, and log sorting and storage. As described in Section 4.3, Environmental Health, historic industrial operations on the site have resulted in a variety of contamination issues, and cleanup of the site is currently being overseen by the EPA.
Land uses in the vicinity of the Main Property include the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and multifamily/single family residences to the north; Seahawks Way/Ripley Lane, the
Isolated Property, I-405 and the site of the Hawk’s Landing potential hotel/retail/restaurant
development to the east; the Barbee Mill residential development to the south; and, Lake Washington to the west.
The Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for the Main Property is Commercial/Office/Residential (COR), which is intended to provide opportunities for large-scale
commercial, office, retail, and multifamily residential projects. The Lake Washington shoreline
along the Main Property is classified as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, and is in the Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District in the 2011 SMP. The objective of this overlay district,
in part, is to provide opportunities for large-scale office and commercial employment centers as well as multifamily residential use and public services.
The Quendall Terminals Isolated Property is vacant and generally comprised of existing vegetation and wetlands. Similar to the Main Property, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
designation for the Isolated Property is COR.
The zoning of the properties surrounding the site is also COR, with the exception of the Barbee
Mill property to the south, which has been rezoned to R-10 (residential, 10 dwelling units per
acre).
4.5.2 Impacts
2010 Draft EIS
Redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur in nine buildings on the site with
approximately 708 to 800 residential units, 21,600 square feet of retail uses, 9,000 square feet of restaurant uses, and 1,364 to 2,171 parking spaces; DEIS Alternative 1 would also include
approximately 245,000 square feet of office uses (see Table 2-1 for a summary of
redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2).
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Land and Shoreline Use/ October 2012 4.5-2 Relationship to Plans and Policies
Site preparation and construction of buildings and infrastructure would result in temporary construction-related impacts to adjacent land uses over the build-out period, including air
emissions, noise, and increased traffic from construction vehicles/equipment. Due to the
temporary nature of construction and required compliance with City of Renton construction requirements, no significant impacts would be anticipated.
Redevelopment under the DEIS Alternatives would convert the site from its current vacant, vegetated state to a new mixed-use development, and would restore a Superfund site to a
productive new use. New development would result in increased on-site population and associated increases in activity levels onsite (i.e. noise and traffic). In general, these activity levels would be greater than the adjacent residential uses to the south (Barbee Mill), but similar
to commercial uses to the north (Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility) and existing and planned commercial and hotel uses to the east (proposed Hawk’s Landing hotel and commercial uses east of I-405). Activity levels would generally be consistent with the existing
urban character of the area and no significant impacts would be anticipated.
The proposed buildings on the site would be up to approximately 67 feet (Alternative 2) or 80
feet (Alternative 1) in height and would range from approximately 77,000 to 112,800 square feet (Alternative 2) or 94,600 to 209,000 square feet (Alternative 1). The proposed height and bulk
would be greater than adjacent development to the south; however, they would be generally
similar to the surrounding commercial and planned hotel buildings to the north and east. Existing off-site features (i.e. roadways and PSE easement), as well as proposed on-site
features (i.e. building setbacks, driveways, parking areas, and landscaping) would provide
buffers between proposed buildings and adjacent land uses. Architectural features would be included that would be intended to enhance the compatibility with surrounding uses. The
proposed development would also be consistent with the type and size of development
contemplated in the COR land use/zoning classification and the current Shoreline High Intensity Overlay District. As a result, no significant land use compatibility impacts would be anticipated.
2012 EIS Addendum
As described in Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum, the majority of the redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those analyzed under DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2 (in particular DEIS Alternative 2), including the types of land uses and
general level of development on the site such as number of residential units, restaurant and retail space, parking, site population and maximum building heights. Certain redevelopment
assumptions have been modified from those described for the DEIS Alternatives, including shoreline setback, setbacks from adjacent properties, view corridors, building height modulation, open space and related areas, building design, and emergency access road/pedestrian facility
(see Table 2-1 for a summary and comparison of the Preferred Alternative and DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2).
A 5-year time limit is typically required by the City for non-phased Master Plan projects. Build-out of the Quendall Terminals project could occur in phases, in accordance with market
demand, and an extension of the 5-year time limit could be requested by the applicant via the
Master Plan approval process (RMC 4-9-200J.2.a). The extension would require identification of clearly defined phases and specific time limits for each phase and a determination of eligibility
for any extension of the time limits.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Land and Shoreline Use/ October 2012 4.5-3 Relationship to Plans and Policies
Construction
Due to the similar levels of redevelopment, construction-related impacts under the Preferred
Alternative would generally be similar to under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Redevelopment would result in temporary construction-related impacts to adjacent land uses over the build-out
period and could include emissions from construction vehicles and equipment; increased dust
associated with construction activities; vibration associated with construction; increased noise levels; and, increased traffic associated with construction vehicles and workers. No significant
land use impacts would be anticipated due to the temporary nature of construction and the
compliance with applicable City of Renton regulations.
Operation
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would restore the Quendall Terminals site to a
productive use subsequent to cleanup/remediation. The site would be converted from its current
vacant, partially vegetated state to include a mixture of residential, retail, restaurant and open space uses, and associated infrastructure. The Preferred Alternative would include a similar
level/mix of redevelopment to the DEIS Alternatives (particularly Alternative 2). Table 4.5-1
provides a summary and comparison of the site uses under the Preferred Alternative and DEIS Alternatives.
Table 4.5-1 SITE AREA BREAK DOWN
Site Uses DEIS Alternative 1 (acres) DEIS Alternative 2 (acres) Preferred Alternative (acres)
Built Areas (Impervious Areas)
Building footprints 5.0 4.1 4.3
Paved rights-of-way, roads, pedestrian/bike paths 4.2 3.9 4.0
Surface parking areas 1.4 2.7 3.33
Paved plazas 0.2 0.1 0
Subtotal 10.8 10.8 11.6
Vegetated Areas (Pervious Areas)
Natural areas1 4.41 4.41 4.51 Landscaped areas 6.0 6.1 4.9 Unpaved trails 0.2 0.3 0.5 Subtotal 10.6 10.8 9.9 Total 21.52 21.52 21.5
Source: Lance Mueller Architects, 2010, 2012 1 Includes the adjacent 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast that is part of the site. 2 Totals differ from sums of subtotals due to rounding. 3 Includes approximately 1.3 acres of parking deck area (2-level parking structure).
Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in an increase in activity levels (i.e. noise, traffic, etc. associated with increased site
population) on the site. Overall activity levels would be generally consistent with the existing urban character of the site area, and no significant land use impacts would be anticipated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Land and Shoreline Use/ October 2012 4.5-4 Relationship to Plans and Policies
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would be similar in height and bulk to DEIS Alternative 2, since the maximum building height would be approximately 64 feet. However,
modifications have been made to the Preferred Alternative to enhance the compatibility with
adjacent uses. For example, building heights would be modulated to include 4-story buildings at the southern portion of the site, 5-story buildings at the northern portion, and 5-6-story buildings
in the western, eastern and central portions of the site.
Proposed building setbacks from adjacent properties have also been modified under the
Preferred Alternative and would vary somewhat from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. Setbacks from the northern property line under the Preferred Alternative would range from approximately 95 feet adjacent to the five-story building in the northwestern portion of the site to approximately 38
feet adjacent to the one-story parking structure in the northeastern portion of the site. The minimum setback along this property line would be similar to DEIS Alternative 1, but less than DEIS Alternative 2. The maximum setback would be less than DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
Setbacks from the southern property line under the Preferred Alternative would range from approximately 40 feet adjacent to the one-story parking garage in the southeastern portion of
the site to approximately 200 feet adjacent to the four-story building in the southwestern portion
of the site. The minimum setback along this property line would be similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; the maximum setback would be greater than DEIS Alternative 1, but less than DEIS
Alternative 2 (see Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3). The proposed height, bulk, and setbacks of the
Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the existing urban character of the area and applicable City of Renton requirements, and no significant land use impacts would be
anticipated.
Due to the similar level and mix of redevelopment on the site, it is anticipated that potential
indirect/cumulative impacts would be similar to those described in the DEIS for Alternatives 1
and 2. These impacts would include a contribution to cumulative residential and employment growth, a cumulative increase in traffic in the site vicinity (see Section 4.9, Transportation, for
further details), and an increased demand for retail goods and services. Overall, no significant
indirect land use impacts would be anticipated.
Proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would generally be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations, particularly with the increased building setbacks and
building height modulation that have been incorporated into this alternative relative to DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2. As part of the permit review process, further evaluation would be performed by the City to determine whether the Preferred Alternative is fully consistent with all
of the COR land use/zoning classification goals and requirements, including those regarding
project design.
4.5.3 Conclusion
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential land and shoreline use-related impacts that would be similar to or less than those under the DEIS Alternatives (in particular DEIS Alternative 2). No further land or shoreline use impacts would be anticipated.
4.5.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential land use impacts; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Following are changes
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum Land and Shoreline Use/ October 2012 4.5-5 Relationship to Plans and Policies
to the “Proposed” mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline indicates new or
portions of new measures included as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for the
complete list of land use-related mitigation measures.
• Building heights would be modulated to reduce potential height/bulk/scale impacts on
adjacent development (i.e. Barbee Mill). The buildings located adjacent to the southern property lines would be 4-stories high; those in the northern portion of the site would be
5 stories high; and, those in the western, eastern, and central portions of the site would
be 5 to 6 stories high.
4.5.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in the conversion of the approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site from a vacant, partially vegetated area to a
new mixed-use development with an associated increase in building density and activity levels.
There are no significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-1 Aesthetics/Views
4.6 AESTHETICS/VIEWS
This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant impacts on aesthetics and views from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate,
new/modified mitigation measures are identified.
4.6.1 Affected Environment
The aesthetic character of the Quendall Terminals Main Property is open and partially
vegetated. An existing, brick-clad structure, a shack, and a sewer pump station are located along the western edge of the site and a wooden wharf and dock are located along the western edge. The remainder of the site is comprised of existing natural vegetation, including trees,
grasses, shrubs and herbs, as well as unpaved roadways. Subsequent to cleanup/remediation activities (which would occur with or without the project), the existing vegetation and structures would be removed, with the exception of the sewer pump station. A soil cap would be likely
placed on the upland and shoreline areas and would raise the property approximately two- to three feet. The Isolated Property is generally comprised of existing trees, vegetation and
wetlands, and would remain in this condition with site cleanup/remediation.
The visual character of the area to the north of the Quendall Terminals site is primarily
characterized by the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, which includes three
football fields and an approximately 200,000-square foot training facility building. The area further to the north is primarily comprised of low-rise multifamily and single family residences.
The area to the east is characterized by Ripley Lane, vegetated areas and I-405; further to the
east are commercial and multifamily residences, as well as the site of a proposed hotel. To the south of the site is the Barbee Mill residential development which includes two- to three-story
single family residences; further to the south are additional single family residences. The area to
the west of the site is characterized by Lake Washington.
The site contains no existing sources of light and glare. Shadows on the site are primarily cast
from mature trees located in the western and southern portions of the site. Lighting and glare conditions in the site vicinity are typical of an urban environment and generally include
interior/exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, street lighting and vehicular headlights.
4.6.2 Impacts
2010 Draft EIS
Proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site would change the aesthetic character
from an open, partially vegetated property to a new mixed-use development with nine buildings, roadways, parking areas, and open space/landscaping. Buildings would range from 94,600 to
209,000 square feet under Alternative 1 and from 77,000 to 112,800 square feet under
Alternative 2. Building heights would be seven stories under Alternative 1 and six stories under Alternative 2. Redevelopment on the site is intended to be aesthetically pleasing and high
quality, and would represent a compact, urban form with a consistent design concept throughout
the site. Buildings on the site would be greater in height and bulk than the adjacent Barbee Mill
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-2 Aesthetics/Views
development, but would be similar to the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and the planned Hawk’s Landing development.
View corridors and viewing areas are proposed onsite, consistent with the City of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan policies. View corridors would be provided along the main east/west public
roadway (Street “B”) and along private driveways at the north and south ends of the site.
Additional views towards Lake Washington would be provided for residents on the site in the semi-private courtyards. The proposed trail along the shoreline would also include viewing
areas for residents and the community. Visual simulations were prepared as part of the DEIS. As shown by the simulations,
redevelopment on the Quendall Terminals site would block or partially block views toward Lake Washington from certain viewpoints. View corridors would be provided along the east/west roadway and at the north and south end of the site. In general, visual impacts under Alternative
2 would be less than under Alternative 1.
Proposed redevelopment would add new sources of light, glare, and shadows at the site. New
light and glare sources would be similar to existing sources on adjacent uses (i.e. building lighting, street lighting, and vehicular lighting); however, the general light and glare levels would
be higher. Proposed buildings on the site would also create shadows that would extend onto
certain on-site outdoor areas; however, these shadows would not impact off-site uses.
2012 EIS Addendum
As described in Chapter 2 of this EIS Addendum, the majority of the redevelopment
assumptions for the Preferred Alternative would be similar to those analyzed under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (in particular DEIS Alternative 2). Proposed mixed-use buildings,
associated roadways, landscaping, and landscaped courtyards on the Quendall Terminals site
would alter the existing visual character of the site similar to DEIS Alternative 2. However, certain redevelopment assumptions have been modified from those described for the DEIS
Alternatives, including, view corridors, building height modulation, and building design (see Table 2-1 for a summary and comparison of the Preferred Alternative to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2). These modified redevelopment assumptions would generally improve aesthetic and
view conditions when compared to the DEIS Alternatives.
Building heights under the Preferred Alternative have been modulated across the site, as
compared to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The buildings in the southern portion of the site would
be 4-stories high (3 stories over one story of parking). Buildings located in the northern portion of the site would be 5 stories high (4 stories over one story of parking); and, those in the
western, eastern, and central portions of the site would be 5 to 6 stories high (4 to 5 stories over one story of parking). The maximum building height would be approximately 64 feet, similar to
under DEIS Alternative 2. The modulated buildings heights under the Preferred Alternative
would place the shortest buildings adjacent to the south property line (and adjacent Barbee Mill development), while the tallest buildings would be placed centrally on the site to minimize any
potential impacts to adjacent uses. During final design, maximum building heights 100 feet from
the Lake Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the COR zone (125 feet allowed height x ½ = 62.5 feet), consistent
with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (2011); maximum building height in this
area under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would be 77 and 67 feet, respectively.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-3 Aesthetics/Views
The proposed design of the buildings in the Quendall Terminals Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project has also continued to evolve under the Preferred Alternative, based on input from the
City and community. Ten buildings ranging in size from 46,200 to 88,000 square feet are
proposed under the Preferred Alternative, versus 9 buildings ranging from 94,600 to 209,000 square feet under DEIS Alternative 1, and 9 buildings ranging from 77,000 to 112,800 square
feet under DEIS Alternative 2. Similar to the DEIS Alternatives, the Preferred Alternative would
represent a compact, urban form, with a consistent design concept throughout the site. The proposed design of the buildings is intended to be coordinated through a variety of details and
materials, and provide a human scale with visually interesting streetscapes and facades (see DEIS pages 3-15 and 3-16 for details). Exterior building materials would resemble those under the DEIS redevelopment alternatives; however, more brick, stucco, masonry, and precast
concretes, and less metal siding would likely be incorporated into the buildings under the Preferred Alternative (see Figure 2-4). The bases of the parking structure are also proposed to have grids to support vines to create “green walls.”
New sources of light, glare, and shadows with the Preferred Alternative would be similar to with
DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2.
Visual Analysis
Several comments on the DEIS related to impacts on views to and from Lake Washington and
Mercer Island with redevelopment under Alternatives 1 and 2. With proposed redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative, certain view corridors through the site would be larger than
under the DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. The view corridor along Street “B”, the main east/west
street proposed through the site, would be approximately 74 feet wide under the Preferred Alternative, 8 feet wider than under the DEIS Alternatives. View corridors along the southern
boundary of the site would also be maximized under the Preferred Alternative, similar to under DEIS Alternative 2. These larger view corridors under the Preferred Alternative would allow for greater views through the site towards Lake Washington versus those included as part of the
DEIS Alternatives. Building height modulation is also proposed under the Preferred Alternative that would increase view opportunities.
Viewpoints
Six key viewpoints were selected for the visual analysis of the Preferred Alternative in this EIS
Addendum. These viewpoints consist of public locations, including public streets, sidewalks, and
a public park, and represent the views that were mentioned most frequently by commentators on the DEIS. Five of these viewpoints were also analyzed in the DEIS (Viewpoints 1, 4, 7, 8,
and 9); Viewpoint 11 is a new viewpoint from Lake Washington Boulevard N (see Table 3.2-1
and Figure 3.2-1 for further details on the viewpoint locations).
In general, under the Preferred Alternative, proposed mixed-use buildings, associated
roadways, landscaping, and landscaped courtyards on the Quendall Terminals site would alter views to and through the site, similar to DEIS Alternative 2. However, the larger view corridor at
Street “B” and proposed building height modulation would allow for greater views of Lake Washington and Mercer Island from certain viewpoints (see Section 3.2, Aesthetics/Views, for
a further description of the visual analysis for each individual viewpoint).
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-4 Aesthetics/Views
4.6.3 Conclusion
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential aesthetic and view-related impacts that would be similar to or less than those under the DEIS Alternatives (in
particular DEIS Alternative 2), due in part to the larger proposed view corridor, building height modulation, and building design measures. No further aesthetics or view impacts would be anticipated.
4.6.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential aesthetic and view-related impacts; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative.
Following are changes to the “Proposed” and “Other Possible” mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part of the
Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of aesthetic and view-related mitigation measures.
Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Exterior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian lighting would be directed
downward and away from surrounding buildings and properties to minimize the impacts to adjacent uses.
• Building setbacks would be maximized adjacent to Lake Washington and along the
south site boundary, to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain views
of Lake Washington.
• Building height modulation would be provided across the site to enhance the aesthetic character of development and retain some views of Lake Washington.
• No surface parking would be located at the terminus of Street “B” in order to enhance
the aesthetic character of the development, particularly from the shoreline trail.
• During final building design, maximum building heights 100 feet from the Lake
Washington ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be reduced to one half of the maximum height allowed by the COR zone (125 feet allowed height x ½ = 62.5 feet),
consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Management Program (2011), which would
help maintain views toward the lake.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• Vertical and/or horizontal modulation should be provided along the west or lake side of
the buildings to provide a human scale and breakup the larger structures which would be
adjacent to the shoreline area and pedestrian environment.
• Building heights along the shoreline could be reduced to maintain views of Lake Washington.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.6-5 Aesthetics/Views
4.6.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Similar to the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (particularly DEIS Alternative 2), redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would change the site from its existing open, partially vegetated
condition to a new mixed-use development. The proposed building height and bulk would be generally similar to surrounding uses (Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility and proposed Hawk’s Landing Hotel), but greater than other uses in the area (Barbee Mill
development). However, with proposed building setbacks, and building height modulation across the site, no significant impacts would be anticipated.
Certain views across the site towards Lake Washington and Mercer Island would be obstructed under the Preferred Alternative. However, the proposed provision of view corridors and building
modulation would allow for some views through the site, and significant impacts would not be
anticipated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-1 Parks and Recreation
4.7 PARKS AND RECREATION
This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant parks and recreation impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate,
new/modified mitigation measures are identified.
4.7.1 Affected Environment
The Quendall Terminals site is currently vacant and contains no park or recreation facilities,
including shoreline access. The City of Renton is the primary provider of parks and recreation services within the City. For park planning purposes, the City of Renton is divided into ten planning areas and the Quendall Terminals site is located at the north end of the Kennydale
Community Planning Area. Existing park and recreation areas that are provided in this area include: Kennydale Beach Park, Kennydale Lions Park, and May Creek Greenway. Two parks in the site vicinity (Gene Coulon Memorial Park and Kennydale Beach Park) are already at or
exceeding visitor capacity in the summer time (City of Renton Parks Dept., 2010).
At the time that complete applications for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project were
submitted, the City of Renton’s Park, Recreation and Open Space Implementation Plan (2003) and the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Element (2009) were in effect. These plans
described the existing park, recreation and open space areas in the city, and established level
of service (LOS) standards for park and recreation facilities. According to the plans, the City had a park and open space deficit of 414.12 acres, as well as needs for all types of active recreation
facilities, with the exception of swimming pools. The existing total park land LOS was 13.77
acres per 1,000 population and the adopted park land LOS standard was 18.58 acres per 1,000 population. As such, there was a deficit of 4.81 acres per 1,000 population based on the
adopted standards (see DEIS Table 3.8-2 for a summary of park and recreation LOS).
There are several bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals
site, including Lake Washington Boulevard, NE 44th Street, and Ripley Lane N. Ripley Lane N
also provides a connection to the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Two new proposed trail and bicycle routes are also proposed in the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (2009) which
would serve the Quendall Terminals site: a future rails-trails corridor on the Railroad right-of-way parallel to Lake Washington Boulevard, and a pedestrian-only trail that would connected to the
May Creek Greenway.
Provisions in the 1983 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP), in effect at the time
complete applications on the project were submitted, related to public access along the
shoreline and encouraged leaving space for trails, non-motorized bike paths and/or other means of public use.
2011 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan
Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, on November 7, 2011, the Parks, Recreation, and
Natural Areas Plan was adopted by the City Council. This plan presents a 20-year vision for parks, recreation facilities, and programming and natural areas; and, identifies policies,
implementation strategies, and an investment program to enhance and sustain parks, recreation
and natural areas as critical elements of a livable community (see Section 3.3, Parks and Recreation, for further details on the 2011 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan).
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-2 Parks and Recreation
4.7.2 Impacts
2010 Draft EIS
Redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would generate increases in on-site population
and employees, which would result in associated increases in demands on park and recreation
facilities in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site. Parks and recreation facilities that would be most likely to receive the increased demand would include May Creek Greenway, Kennydale
Lions Park, Kennydale Beach Park, and Gene Coulon Memorial Park. The latter two parks are
currently at or exceeding their capacity during the summer and redevelopment under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would further contribute to these capacity issues. Additional parks and
recreation facilities could be needed in the City of Renton based on the City’s LOS standards
and the increased population on the site.
Under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, open space and related areas would be provided on the site that would help meet the demand for passive recreation facilities from project residents and employees. However, the demand for active recreation facilities would not be satisfied onsite.
Approximately 11.7 to 11.8 acres of open space and related areas would be provided on the Quendall Terminals site under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 respectively, including paved plazas, natural areas, landscape areas, unpaved trails and sidewalks. Approximately 3.4 acres of
natural open space area would be visually and physically accessible to the general public at certain times of day, including the natural shoreline area and the proposed shoreline trail.
These open space and related areas may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations and
procedures for open space.
The provision of a publically accessible trail within the natural open space along the shoreline
would be consistent with the City’s 1983 SMP regulations
The project applicant would also be required to pay park and recreation mitigation/impact fees
at the time of building permit issuance. These fees would help to offset the impacts of proposed new residential development on park and recreation facilities, open space, and trails.
2012 EIS Addendum
Similar to DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred Alternative would result in increases in on-site population and employees, which would result in associated increases in demands on park
and recreation facilities in the site vicinity, and would contribute to capacity issues at Kennydale Beach Park and Gene Coulon Memorial Park during the summer. Additional parks and recreation facilities could be needed in the City of Renton based on the City’s LOS standards
and the increased population on the site.
The Preferred Alternative would include open space and related areas onsite to help meet the
demand for passive recreation from project residents and employees, but not the demand for active recreation facilities. Approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related area would be
provided, approximately one acre less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the
Preferred Alternative would provide slightly more natural open space area than the DEIS redevelopment alternatives (see Table 4.7-1). These open space and related areas may or may
not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open space. Similar to DEIS
Alternatives 1 and 2, a publically accessible trail is proposed within the natural open space area
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-3 Parks and Recreation
along the shoreline. The applicant would also pay park and recreation impact fees to help offset the impacts of the project on park and recreation facilities, open space, and trails.
Table 4.7-1 ON-SITE OPEN SPACE AND RELATED AREAS1 COMPARISON
DEIS Alternative 1
DEIS Alternative 2
Preferred Alternative
Natural Public Open Space Areas (Proposed Public Recreation Access)
Natural Areas Along Shoreline Trail2 3.2 acres
3.2 acres 3.2 acres
Shoreline Trail2
0.2 acres 0.3 acres 0.5 acres
SUB-TOTAL 3.4 acres 3.5 acres 3.7 acres
Other Areas
Street-Level Landscaping - in proposed dedicated right-of-way
- not in proposed dedicated right-of-way
0.3 acres
1.4 acres
0.3 acres
1.8 acres
0.1 acres
1.5 acres
Landscaped Courtyards 4.3 acres
4.1 acres 2.7 acres
Sidewalks
- in proposed dedicated right-of-way - not in proposed dedicated right-of-way
0.6 acres 0.3 acres
0.6 acres 0.2 acres
1.3 acres 0.1 acres
Paved Plazas - in proposed dedicated right-of-way
- not in proposed dedicated right-of-way
0.0 acres
0.2 acres
0.0 acres
0.1 acres
0.0 acres
0.0 acres
Other – Isolated Property 1.2 acres 1.2 acres 1.2 acres
SUB-TOTAL 8.3 acres 8.3 acres 6.9 acres
TOTAL 11.7 acres 11.8 acres 10.6 acres
Source: Lance Mueller, 2012. 1These open space and other areas may or may not meet the City’s standards, regulations, and procedures for open
space. 2Hours of public access would need to meet park standards of sunrise to sunset to count toward public recreation.
4.7.3 Conclusion
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would result in potential impacts to parks and
recreation facilities that would be similar to or slightly greater than those under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 (approximately 10.6 acres of open space and related area would be
provided, approximately one acre less than under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2; however, the
Preferred Alternative would provide slightly more natural open space area than the DEIS redevelopment alternatives). No additional impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be
anticipated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-4 Parks and Recreation
4.7.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred
Alternative. Following are changes to the “Proposed” and “Other Possible” mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part
of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for the complete list of park and recreation-related mitigation measures.
Proposed Mitigation Measures
• A parks mitigation/impact fee would be paid for each multifamily unit in the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the
project on City parks and recreation facilities. Park mitigation/impact fees would be
determined at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code.
• Approximately 10.6 acres of public open space and related areas would be provided on
the site that would be visually and physically accessible to the public, including the shoreline trail and natural open space areas along the shoreline.
• The connection between the proposed shoreline trail and Lake Washington Boulevard would be enhanced by providing wider sidewalks (i.e. 15-foot wide) that are part of the
public right-of-way along the Street “B” corridor.
Other Possible Mitigation Measures
• The hours of use of the proposed shoreline trail could be extended to sunrise to sunset
and public parking could be provided, consistent with other City of Renton parks, in order
to meet the requirements for public access.
• Additional open space could be provided onsite for active recreation (i.e. frisbee, softball, etc.). A portion of the proposed surface parking on site (i.e. adjacent to the shoreline)
could be converted to facilities for active recreation.
• A lighted crosswalk across Lake Washington Boulevard could be provided in order to
connect to the May Creek Trail on the east side of the Boulevard.
• The proposed shoreline trail and other recreation areas could be enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive signage, etc.
• The proposed shoreline trail could connect to the Barbee Mill residential development to the south.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.7-5 Parks and Recreation
4.7.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Residents of the proposed development would use nearby parks and recreation facilities,
including Gene Coulon Memorial Park and Kennydale Beach Park, which are already at or exceeding capacity in the summer. Demand from project residents would contribute to the existing capacity issues at these parks.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-1 Transportation
4.8 TRANSPORTATION
This section of the EIS Addendum compares the probable significant transportation impacts from the Preferred Alternative to those from DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2. As appropriate,
new/modified mitigation measures are identified.
4.8.1 Affected Environment
Roadways adjacent to the Quendall Terminals site include Lake Washington Boulevard, Ripley
Lane N and NE 44th Street. All of these streets would be used to access potential redevelopment on the site.
As part of the transportation analysis, nine study intersections were analyzed (see Figure 3 in Appendix E for a map of the study intersections), including:
1. Lake Washington Boulevard (I-405 NB ramps) / NE 44th Street 2. I-405 SB ramps / NE 44th Street
3. Lake Washington Boulevard / Ripley Lane N
4. Lake Washington Boulevard / Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) 5. Lake Washington Boulevard / Hawk’s Landing Access (future intersection)
6. Lake Washington Boulevard / N 36th Street / Burnett Avenue N
7. N 30th Street / Burnett Avenue N (without I-405 Improvements Scenario only) 8. Lake Washington Boulevard / Burnett Avenue N (without I-405 Improvements Scenario
only)
9. Lake Washington Boulevard / Park Avenue N / Garden Avenue N
The DEIS included a discussion of existing transportation conditions at the time the document
was published (December 2010), including: existing traffic volumes, intersection LOS, public transportation services, non-motorized transportation facilities, and planned transportation
improvements (see DEIS Section 3.9, Transportation, and Appendix H for details). Following
issuance of the DEIS, updated traffic counts were taken at Intersection #3 (Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street) in June 2012.
Based on the new traffic counts for Study Intersection #3, the traffic analysis was updated for
this location, as well as adjacent study intersections based on the traffic counts that indicated
increased demands on discrete intersection movements. The existing peak hour intersection level of service (LOS) analysis was also updated for affected intersections. The existing LOS
levels would remain as described in the DEIS (see DEIS Table 3.9-1 and Table 3.4-1 in this EIS
Addendum); however, the average delay would change at certain intersections (i.e. a slight increase in delay at Study Intersections #2 and #3, and a slight decrease in delay at Study
Intersection #1).
No public transit service is currently provided in the site vicinity. The closest transit service is
available via a dial-a-ride service area and fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th Street
interchange and I-405.
Non-motorized transportation facilities in the area include striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Boulevard, as well as a 4-5 foot paved shoulder on the east and west side of the street. There are no non-motorized facilities on the site. The existing railroad corridor to the east
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-2 Transportation
of the site was recently purchased by the Port of Seattle and identified as a future “rails to trails” planned trail. A future trail is also planned along May Creek to the southeast of the site.
The DEIS also identified future planned transportation improvements in the vicinity by the City of Renton and WSDOT. As described in Appendix E and Section 3.4 to this EIS Addendum,
following issuance of the DEIS, further clarification was provided regarding the City of Renton’s
planned transportation improvement project for a portion of Lake Washington Boulevard. The City of Renton’s 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identifies the Lake
Washington Boulevard/Park Avenue N (Garden Avenue N) intersection (Study Intersection #9) project in the vicinity of the site. This project includes minor widening and reconfiguration to provide dual eastbound left turn lanes.
4.8.2 Impacts
2010 Draft EIS
The DEIS analyzed potential transportation impacts that could occur with redevelopment under
DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2, including intersection LOS impacts, queuing impacts, site access
and circulation impacts, public transportation impacts, non-motorized transportation impacts, and parking impacts. Based on the updated affected environment discussion provided in
Appendix E and Section 3.4, the analysis of the DEIS transportation impacts was also updated
as part of this EIS Addendum, including an updated analysis of the LOS impacts, traffic queuing, and site access and circulation with Quendall Terminals DEIS Alternative 1. The
public transportation, non-motorized transportation and parking impacts for DEIS Alternative 1
are expected to be the same as described in the DEIS (see DEIS Section 3.9, Transportation, and Appendix H).
Intersection LOS Impacts
Based on the new traffic counts that were taken for this EIS Addendum, as well as the
associated updated calculations for existing LOS conditions and clarifications on the planned improvements to Study Intersection #9, updates to the LOS analysis for DEIS Alternative 1 were
conducted.
As described in Appendix E and Section 3.4, Study Intersections #1 and #2 (southbound)
would continue to operate at LOS F under Alternative 1 in 2015 without I-405 improvements.
Operations at the following intersections would change relative to the analysis in the DEIS (see DEIS Table 3.9-2 and 3.9-3 for further details on the DEIS Alternatives):
• Study Intersections #3 and #5 delay would slightly decrease; however, the LOS levels at
these intersections would continue to remain the same as analyzed in the DEIS.
• Study Intersection #9 would improve from LOS D (AM peak hour) and LOS F (PM peak
hour) to LOS C (AM peak hour) and LOS D (PM peak hour).
Under Alternative 1 in 2015 with I-405 improvements, Study Intersection #9 would improve from
LOS F in the DEIS to LOS C (AM peak hour) and LOS D (PM peak hour); all study intersections would be anticipated to operate at LOS D or better.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-3 Transportation
Queuing Analysis
An update to the queuing analysis along Lake Washington Boulevard was conducted for this EIS Addendum. Queues would increase as compared to the DEIS analysis, and excessive
southbound queues would continue to be expected at the stop-controlled Ripley Lane
intersection without I-405 Improvements in 2015. However, no queuing conflicts would be expected on Lake Washington Boulevard.
Under DEIS Alternative 1 in 2015 with I-405 improvements, queues would generally decrease as compared to the DEIS analysis. However, southbound queues would still be expected at the
Ripley Lane intersection, and queues on Lake Washington Boulevard at the Ripley Lane
intersection are expected to extend beyond adjacent intersections (see Appendix E and Section 3.4 for details).
Site Access and Circulation
An analysis of site access and circulation was included as part of the DEIS. No changes to the
DEIS site access and circulation analysis for Study Intersection #4 would be anticipated based on updated analysis in this EIS Addendum. Updates to the site access and circulation analysis
for Study Intersection #3 are summarized below.
2015 Without I-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing
Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane N / Lake Washington Boulevard. Under DEIS Alternative 1 at site access Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane N at Lake Washington Boulevard, the 95th percentile
queue for the southbound left/right movements are estimated to be approximately 800 to 900
feet during the AM and PM peak hours in 2015 (compared to 700 to 800 feet in the DEIS). Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not expected to
conflict with adjacent intersections. The LOS for the stop-controlled southbound approach
would be expected to be LOS F.
2015 With I-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing
Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane N / Lake Washington Boulevard. Under DEIS Alternative 1 at site
access Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95th percentile queue for the
westbound through movement is estimated at approximately 400 feet during the PM peak hour. This estimated queue on Lake Washington Blvd would likely extend through the adjacent
intersection. In addition, the southbound queue on Ripley Lane is estimated to be 350 feet
during the AM peak hour and 450 feet during the PM peak hour in 2015, assuming I-405 improvements. With the proposed mitigation of providing an additional southbound approach
lane on Ripley Lane, this queue is estimated to be reduced to 200 feet or less during either the
AM peak or PM peak hours. The LOS for the signalized intersection is expected to be LOS C/D.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-4 Transportation
2012 EIS Addendum
Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative for
Quendall Terminals. The Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in this EIS Addendum
comprises nearly the same level and type of development as Alternative 2 – Lower Density Alternative originally evaluated in the transportation study for the Quendall Terminals
Redevelopment Project DEIS. The following paragraphs identify the program components of
the Preferred Alternative, estimated trip generation, other site elements, and the conclusions of the relative impacts of this alternative as compared to DEIS Alternative 2.
The Preferred Alternative would include construction of 692 multifamily units, 20,225 square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 1,337 vehicles. Average trip
rates for Apartments (ITE land use code 220), Shopping Center (ITE land use code 820), and
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for estimating vehicular trips that would be generated by this alternative.
A net total of approximately 5,656 daily, 435 AM peak hour (104 entering, 331 exiting), and 530 PM peak hour vehicular trips (340 entering and 190 exiting) would be generated at 2015 full
buildout conditions under the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would result in approximately 128 fewer daily trips, 8 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 11 fewer PM peak hour trips than DEIS Alternative 2. As such, the relative impacts to traffic operations within the study
area would be very similar, but slightly less than under DEIS Alternative 2 (see Appendix E and Section 3.4 for details).
4.8.3 Conclusion
Redevelopment under the Preferred Alternative would generate new vehicle trips on and in the vicinity of the Quendall Terminals site that would be similar to, but less that those analyzed in
the DEIS for Alternative 2. As a result, transportation impacts associated with the Preferred
Alternative would be anticipated to be less than those analyzed for DEIS Alternative 2.
4.8.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures were identified in the DEIS to address potential transportation-related
impacts; for the most part these measures would also apply to the Preferred Alternative. Following are changes to the “Proposed” mitigation measures listed in the DEIS. Strike-through indicates those measures or portions of measures that have been eliminated; underline
indicates new or portions of new measures that are included as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Chapter 1 for a complete list of transportation-related mitigation measures.
Without I-405 Improvements – Preferred Alternative
• Intersection #1 - I-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street. Widen the southbound and northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane
is provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of the intersection
with the additional widening improvements would be coordinated with WSDOT.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.8-5 Transportation
Fire Apparatus Access
• Fire access would be provided per Renton Municipal Code, or City approved alternative fire protection measures could be proposed by the applicant.
• A fire access road is proposed to be located in the western portion of the site. This road
would be approximately 20 feet wide, and would be surfaced in crushed rock or grass-
crete to support the weight of fire apparatus.
Lake Washington Boulevard Corridor Impacts
• To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the
development, the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to
utilize the I-405 corridor. Although the City of Renton has no adopted residential traffic
management program, arterial calming measures could include treatments that create either horizontal or vertical deflection for drivers. Such treatments could include, but are
not limited to chicanes, serpentine raised curb sections, raised median treatments,
speed tables, and speed humps. City of Renton Mitigation/Impact Fees
• In addition to the project-specific mitigation measures described above, a traffic mitigation/impact fee would be paid for the proposed development at the time of building permit issuance to help offset the impacts of the project on the City’s roadways. Traffic
mitigation/impact fees would be determined at the time of building permit issuance and in accordance with the City of Renton Municipal Code.
4.8.5 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Under the Preferred Alternative, there are no significant unavoidable transportation-related impacts that cannot be mitigated.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.9-1 Cultural Resources
4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources was not included as an element of the environment analyzed in the DEIS, because during scoping of the EIS, construction and operation of the proposed Quendall
Terminals redevelopment was not anticipated to result in significant impacts on such resources. Comments were received from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) on the DEIS requesting that an analysis of cultural resources be included
in the Quendall Terminals EIS. In response to these comments, a Cultural Resources Assessment (June 2012) was prepared by Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. for this EIS
Addendum (see Appendix F).
4.9.1 Affected Environment
The Quendall Terminals site is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Numerous named geographic features are located near the project area and these include descriptive
names for geographic features, resource procurement sites, villages, and names associated
with mystical events. Until ca. 1855, the Subaltuabs, a coastal Salish group, inhabited this village, which consisted of two to three houses; however, no houses are noted in the location on
the 1865 survey maps.
From 1917 to present day, the area was used for a variety of industrial operations, including
creosote processing; diesel, crude and waste oil storage; and, as a log sorting and storage yard.
A small brick building, a sewer pump station, and a shack were located on the site. The brick building (the Quendall Station house) was reportedly used as an office building for the logging
company. None of these structures is considered to be architecturally remarkable or a
significant cultural resource.
Based on background information, areas of the site and vicinity with a higher probability to
contain intact archaeological deposits include the margins of the old channels of May Creek, the delta of the 1920 channel, the margins of the 1920 marsh, and areas adjacent to the 1864
shoreline. Due to the type and intensity of site modification conducted in the historic era and the geologic history of the landform, intact pre-contact deposits would not be expected to be at or near the surface, but would be anticipated to be several meters below ground-level. Intact
historic-era deposits related to early homesteading would not be expected to be visible on the surface within the project area for the same reasons. However, background research indicates
that late historic-era deposits related to creosote production, the lumber industry, and railroads
are likely to be present on the site
See Section 3.5 and Appendix F of this EIS Addendum for further details on existing cultural
resource conditions.
4.9.2 Impacts
Under the Preferred Alternative, certain construction activities onsite (i.e. clearing and grading of
the upland area, construction of deep building foundations, and excavation of utilities) may
require excavations into the sediment cap and could result in an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. While it is unlikely that cultural resources would be encountered as part of
construction activities on the site, a monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan would be
implemented for the Preferred Alternative in the event that any cultural resources are
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 4.9-2 Cultural Resources
encountered (see the Mitigation Measures discussion for further details). As a result, no significant impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated with redevelopment under the
Preferred Alternative.
See Section 3.5 and Appendix F for further details on cultural resource impacts.
4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
The following measures have been identified to mitigate any potential cultural resource impacts
that could occur with construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals project. They are
underlined, as they are new measures identified since issuance of the DEIS.
• Limited and focused cultural resource monitoring would be conducted during construction activities on the site (i.e. clearing and grading of the upland area,
construction of deep building foundations, and excavation of utilities). A monitoring plan
and inadvertent discovery plan would be implemented for the Preferred Alternative (see Appendix F for a copy of the proposed monitoring plan and inadvertent discovery plan).
• In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent
discovery of archaeological deposits, construction activities would be halted in the
immediate area and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) would be contacted. Work would be halted until such time as
further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded.
• In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, construction would
be halted in the area, the discovery would be covered and secured against further disturbance and contact would be made with law enforcement personnel, DAHP, and
authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes.
4.9.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural resources that cannot be
mitigated.
REFERENCES
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 R-1 References
REFERENCES
Anchor QEA, LLC. Wetland assessment, standard lake study, habitat data report, and
conceptual restoration plan, Quendall Terminals. November 2009 report to Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter Company.
Aspect Consulting. Draft Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Quendall Terminals. March 2010 report, sections 1 through 3.
City of Renton. 2003 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Implementation Plan. Adopted May 5, 2003.
City of Renton. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. November 2004.
City of Renton. Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan. Adopted November 2011.
City of Renton. Renton Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/.
City of Renton. Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. Adopted May 11, 2009.
City of Renton. Shoreline Master Program. 2011. Climate Impacts Group. Climate Impacts in Brief.
http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/pnwc/ci.shtml.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fourth Assessment Report. February 2,
2007.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers, April 30,
2007.
King County. iMAP – Sensitive Areas (all themes) map for Parcel No. 2924059002.
http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/imap_main.htm#. Last accessed July 19, 2010.
KPFF Consulting Engineers. Drainage report, Quendall Terminals, Renton, Washington.
November 2009 preliminary report to Century Pacific, LP, Seattle, Washington.
KPFF Consulting Engineers. Quendall Terminals: land use, shoreline and Master Plan permit application tree inventory plan. November 16, 2009 plan sheet.
Manning, Jay. RE: Climate Change - SEPA Environmental Review of Proposals. April 30, 2008.
Puget Sound Energy. Power Supply Fuel Mix. http://www.pse.com/energyEnvironment/energysupply/Pages/EnergySupply-Electricity-
PowerSupplyProfile.aspx
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Priority habitats and species list. Olympia,
Washington. 2008. 174 pp.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum October 2012 R-2 References
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Priority Habitats and Species map in the vicinity of Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Section 29. August 28, 2009.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
EIS ADDENDUM DISTRIBUTION
LIST & PARTIES OF RECORD
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Quendall Terminals – EIS Addendum
Federal Agencies
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Office, Attn: SEPA Reviewer Environmental Protection Agency, Attn: Linda Priddy, Project Manager
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, Attn: Roger Tabor Tribes Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Fisheries Department, Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, Attn: Ms. Melissa Calvert Duwamish Tribal Office State Agencies
Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Section Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Attn: Larry Fisher
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Northwest Region, Attn: Ramin Pazooki Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Attn: Gretchen Kaehler
Department of Natural Resources, Attn: Boyd Powers Regional Agencies Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Attn: SEPA Coordinator
Puget Sound Regional Council, Attn: Rick Olson, Director, Government Relations and Comm. Local Agencies
King County Wastewater Treatment Division, Environmental Planning – OAP King County Department of Transportation, Attn: Harold S. Taniguchi, Director
King County Development and Environmental Services, Attn: SEPA Section Metro Transit, Attn: Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner
City of Newcastle, Attn: Steve Roberge, Director of Community Development City of Kent, Attn: Fred Satterstrom, Acting Community Development Director
City of Tukwila, Attn: Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Bellevue, Planning and Community Development, Attn: Janna Steedman
City of Mercer Island, Attn: Tim Stewart, Development Services Director Puget Sound Energy, Attn: Cody Olson, Municipal Liaison Manager
Seattle Public Utilities, Attn: SEPA Coordinator Newspapers
Seattle Times – notice of application only Puget Sound Business Journal – notice of application only
Renton Reporter – publication paper
Updated: 10/10/12 (Page 1 of 6)
PARTIES OF RECORD
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS
Winnie & Yuri Sihon
1211 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 eml: wsihon@comcast.net (party of record)
Bruce MacCaul
1246 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (949) 489-8261
eml: bgmc2@cox.net
(party of record)
Larry & Linda Boregson
1013 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 eml: borg41943@comcast.net (party of record)
Carol O'Connell 1241 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 254-2796
(party of record)
Yvonne & Gary C. Pipkin 1120 N 38th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 271-2009
(party of record)
Len & Pat Reid 1217 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 572-0474
eml: lpreid@comcast.net
(party of record)
Ronald & Vanessa Brazg
1019 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 746-7768 (party of record)
Amy & Kevin Dedrickson
1012 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 970-3799 eml: aimerdoll@yahoo.com (party of record)
Larry Reymann
1313 N 38th Street
Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 228-8511 eml: fulmen8@hotmail.com (party of record)
Janet L. & Gary R. Sanford 1102 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 276-5848
eml: garys@loziergroup.com
(party of record)
Mark Hancock PO Box 88811 Seattle, WA 98138
(party of record)
Kelly Smith 6811 Ripley Lane N Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 917-3316
(party of record)
Jim Hanken
15543 62nd Avenue NE
Kenmore, WA 98028
(party of record)
Cyrus M. McNeely
3810 Park Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
eml: cmikeathom@msn.com (party of record)
Mike Cero
8300 Avalon Drive
Mercer Island, WA 98040
tel: (206) 419-0657 eml: mscero@comcast.net (party of record)
Michael Christ
President SECO Development, Inc. 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N
ste: #50
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 282-5833
(party of record)
Roger A. Pearce
Foster Pepper LLC 1111 Third Avenue ste: #3400 Seattle, WA 98101
tel: (206) 447-4676
eml: pearr@foster.com
(party of record)
Robert & Sonya Tobeck 1003 N 41st Place Renton, WA 98056 (party of record)
Updated: 10/10/12 (Page 2 of 6)
PARTIES OF RECORD
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS
Lawrence E. Hard
Attorney at Law 4316 NE 33rd Street Seattle, WA 98105 tel: (206) 669-8686
(party of record)
Charles & Rebecca Taylor
1252 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 430-4473 (party of record)
Ross & Ava Ohashi
1018 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 890-3045
eml: taryntani@gmail.com
(party of record)
Bruce MacCaul 1246 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (949) 489-8261
eml: bmaccaul@gmail.com
(party of record)
Sally A Scott 1405 N 28th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 255-1005
(party of record)
Richard M Ferry 7414 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
tel: (206) 232-1872
(party of record)
Anne Woodley
7920 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040 eml: a.woodley@comcast.net (party of record)
Charles P Witmann
907 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056 (party of record)
Sheng Wu
1222 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056 tel: (832) 971-9396 eml: swu@bechtel.com (party of record)
Suzanne & Donald Orehek 4103 Wells Avenue N Renton, WA 98056
tel: (516) 944-8739
eml: suzywo@verison.net
(party of record)
Christine Chen 1128 N 41st Place Renton, WA 98056
tel: (206) 229-5880
eml: christineschen@yahoo.com
(party of record)
Victor Chiu 1128 N 41st Place Renton, WA 98056
tel: (626) 627-1059
eml: vchiu74@hotmail.com
(party of record)
Glen St. Amant
Muckelshoot Indian Tribe
Fisheries Division
39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 tel: (253) 939-3311
eml: glen@muckleshoot.nsn.us
(party of record)
Ronald Corbell
4113 Williams Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 572-6844 eml: rrcorbell@comcast.net (party of record)
Susan Stow
1309 N 36th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 793-5062 eml: stows@comcast.net (party of record)
Rajendra Agrawaal 1113 N 29th Street
Renton, WA 98056
eml: agrawaalr@yahoo.com
(party of record)
Tony Boydston 3920 NE 11th Place
Renton, WA 98056
eml: bonethedawgs@yahoo.com
(party of record)
Chuck & Sylvia Holden 3609 Meadow Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 226-9956
eml: sbholden@nwlink.com
(party of record)
Updated: 10/10/12 (Page 3 of 6)
PARTIES OF RECORD
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS
Mike & Sharon Glenn
8825 114th Avenue SE Newcastle, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-8351 eml: altglennmal@comcast.net
(party of record)
Pavy Thao
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #A101 Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 591-7077
eml: pavyt@hotmail.com
(party of record)
Tim Riley
3607 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 779-2021 eml: autowashsys.com
(party of record)
Amy Lietz Roberts
1006 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 444-1057
eml: amyroberts@seanet.com (party of record)
Farrell Wilson & Jonell Bitney-
Wilson
4063 Williams Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 226-1748 eml: jobitney@comcast.net (party of record)
Kim Browne
1409 N 37th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 226-7791
(party of record)
Darius & Vicki Richards 3605 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 430-4469
(party of record)
Sue & Mac Jahnke 1717 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 271-6489
eml: forsue2go@comcast.net
(party of record)
Faye Janders 2717 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-4227
eml: fayeandlorna@comcast.net
(party of record)
Connie Taylor
2425 NE 25th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 228-5436
eml: conniemtaylor@comcast.net (party of record)
Leslye Bergan
3306 Lake Washington Blvd N
ste: #2
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (206) 940-7461 eml: lesbergan@comcast.net (party of record)
Marleen Mandt
1408 N 26th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 271-1167
eml: mkmandt@comcast.net (party of record)
Chelsea Ryberg 4100 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #C201
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (206) 200-8156
eml: chelsearyberg@gmail.com
(party of record)
Trudy Neumann 922 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 227-4205
(party of record)
Dima 1815 NE 27th Court Renton, WA 98056
eml: dyma20@yahoo.com
(party of record)
Jon & Marilyn Danielson
1308 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 228-7933 eml: jonjdan@aol.com (party of record)
Mike Batin
3410 Park Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 235-8818 eml: mbattin@yahoo.com (party of record)
Sally Rochelle
3626 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 277-3159 eml: rochsjr@comcast.net (party of record)
Updated: 10/10/12 (Page 4 of 6)
PARTIES OF RECORD
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS
Susan Miller
806 N 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 228-1868 eml:
susanagrenmiller@hotmail.com
(party of record)
Bud Worley
4100 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #B203 Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 235-0825
eml: bud@nwccc.net
(party of record)
Tim Stewart
Director Development Services Group City of Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th Street
Mercer Island, WA 98040
tel: (206) 275-7600
(party of record)
Mimi MacCaul
1246 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 430-5409 eml: mimiafsc@mac.com (party of record)
Keith Preszler
3818 Lake Washington Blvd N
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 226-7987 eml: kpreszler@hotmail.com (party of record)
Campbell Mathewson
Century Pacific, L.P.
1201 Third Avenue ste: #1680
Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 757-8893 eml:
cmathewson@centurypacificlp.com
(contact)
Altino Properties, Inc. & JH
Baxter & Co.
800 S Third Street
Renton, WA 98057 tel: (425) 226-3900 (owner)
Ryan Durkin 500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
tel: (206) 623-1745 (party of record)
John Hansen 4005 Park Avenue N
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 430-1498
eml: johsamm@comcast.net (party of record)
Lance Lopes
Vice President General Counsel Seattle Seahawks | Seattle Sounders FC | First & Global Inc.
12 Seahawks Way
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 203-8010
eml: lancel@seahawssoundersfc.com (party of record)
Steve Van Til
Vulcan 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104
tel: (206) 342-2119
(party of record)
Dan Mitzel
111 Cleveland Avenue Mt Vernon, WA 98040 tel: (360) 404-2050
(party of record)
Spencer Alpert
Alpert International, LLP 2442 NW Market Street ste: #722
Seattle, WA 98107
tel: (206) 915-7200
(party of record)
Laurie Baker 3107 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206)772-6284
eml: laurieb@mvseac.com
(party of record)
Kevin Iden 5121 Ripley Lane N Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 444-4336
eml: idenkr@comcast.net
(party of record)
Updated: 10/10/12 (Page 5 of 6)
PARTIES OF RECORD
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS
Anne Simpson
3001 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 572-6344 eml: annsimpson@comcast.net
(party of record)
Jim Hanken
Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S., Inc. 1111 Third Avenue ste: 1800
Seattle, WA 98101
tel: (206) 682-3840
(party of record)
Charlie Conner
846 108th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 646-4433 (party of record)
Rich Wagner
2411 Garden Court N
Renton, WA 98056
(party of record)
Paul & Susan Siegmund
1006 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 502-5195
eml: paulrsiegmund@gmail.com (party of record)
Jessica Winter
7600 Sand Point Way
Seattle, WA 98115
tel: (206) 623-1745
(party of record)
Ronald & Sachi Nicol
1030 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 891-6169
eml: rfnucik@comcast.net &
msnicol@gmail.com
(party of record)
John Murphy
Director of Operations New Home Trends, Inc. 4314 148th Street SE
Mill Creek, WA 98012
tel: (425) 953-4719
(party of record)
c/o Brad Nicholson
SEGB 2302 NE 28th Street Renton, WA 98056
(party of record)
Patty Witt
14107 SE 45th Street
Bellevue, WA 98006
tel: (425) 890-1880
eml: pwitt55@aol.com (party of record)
Bob & Mary Becker
1007 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 970-3385
eml: mbfamily6@gmail.com & rgb@beckerarch.com (party of record)
Roy & Joann Francis
1000 N 42nd Place
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 227-7108
eml: royfrancis@msn.com (party of record)
Laura & James Counsell 1122 N 41st Place Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 203-1281
eml: yyluan@yahoo.com &
j.diddly@gmail.com
(party of record)
Ricardo & Maria Antezana 1025 N 42nd Place Renton, WA 98056
eml: ricardoadlc@msn.com
(party of record)
Nancy Denney 3818 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 226-7987
eml: nancydenney@comcast.net
(party of record)
Tom Baker
1202 N 35th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (421) 221-0631 eml: tommbaker@hotmail.com (party of record)
Linda Baker
1202 N 35th Street
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (425) 271-1251 eml: lindabak@hotmail.com (party of record)
Elisabeth Durr
1206 N 27th Place
Renton, WA 98056
eml: elisabethdurr@gmail.com (party of record)
Updated: 10/10/12 (Page 6 of 6)
PARTIES OF RECORD
Quendall Terminals
LUA09-151, SM, ECF, SA-M, BSP, EIS
Aaron Belenky
1800 NE 40th Street ste: #H-4 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 235-2651 eml: abelenky@alum.mit.edu
(party of record)
Gretchen Kaehler
Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
tel: (360) 586-3088
eml:
gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov (party of record)
Gwendolyn High
155 Yakima Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (206) 279-0349 eml: gwendolynhigh@hotmail.com
(party of record)
Chelsea Ryberg, Director
Eastport Shores Townhomes
Association 3100 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056
tel: (206) 200-8156
eml: chelsearyberg@gmail.com
(party of record)
John & Diane Haines
1014 N 27th Place
Renton, WA 98056 eml: headac1@comcast.net (party of record)
Kevin Poole
627 High Avenue S
Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 245-8956 eml: kevinpoole@mac.com
(party of record)
Richard & Kathleen Bergquist
7244 E Mercer Way
Mercer Island, WA 98040
eml: dickb@seanet.com (party of record)
Lynda Priddy
Remedial Project Manager
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Avenue ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140 (party of record)
Ramin Pazooki
Local Agency & Development
Services Manager
WSDOT 15700 Dayton Avenue N PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710
(party of record)
Barbara Nightingale, Regional Shoreline Planner
Department of Ecology
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
(party of record)
Diane Espey Jackson 2419 Talbot Crest Drive S
Renton, WA 98055
eml: dianej2419@msn.com
(party of record)
William Skilling 3814 E Lee Street
Seattle, WA 98112
tel: (206) 622-2626
eml: bskilling@msn.com
(party of record)
Jenny Manning
1205 N 10th Place ste: #2440
Renton, WA 98057
tel: (425) 283-2880 eml: jenny.manning@patch.com (party of record)
Michele Mullinaux
PO Box 2825
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (253) 569-2134 eml: mullinaux@comcast.net (party of record)
APPENDIX B
LETTER FROM EPA
APPENDIX C
CRITICAL AREAS MEMO
Wetland Science
Wildlife Ecology
Landscape Architecture
5711 N 63RD Street, Seattle, Washington 98115 206-525-8122 www.raedeke.com
Associates, Inc.
Raedeke
MEMORANDUM
July 9, 2012
To: Ms. Gretchen Brunner, EA/Blumen From: Rick Lundquist, Raedeke Associates, Inc. RE: Port Quendall — Addendum to Draft EIS: Response to Public Comments and Analysis of Preferred Alternative (R.A.I. No. 2010-014-004)
Per your request, the purpose of this memorandum is (1) to respond to public comments
on the Draft EIS for the Port Quendall re-development project relating to wetlands and plants and animals, and (2) provide an analysis of a new Preferred Alternative, compared
with project alternatives discussed in the Draft EIS. In particular, the response to public
comments will address the comment from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division (dated January 25, 2011) and the City of Mercer Island (dated January 20, 2011)
regarding lighting impacts from the proposed development on wetland and riparian habitat along Lake Washington, and recommended mitigation measures.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON LIGHTING IMPACTS
Impacts
Potential human-disturbance related impacts to wildlife associated with wetland and riparian habitats on site include those related to increased artificial light associated with
urban development. These include some artificial lighting during morning and late
afternoon or evening hours, particularly during the winter. At full build-out, ambient
light (from exterior lighting of buildings, walkways, roads, and traffic) is expected to
increase over post-remediation conditions, as well as the existing condition of the abandoned site.
Although the topic has received increased research attention in recent years,
understanding of the effects of artificial night lighting on behavioral community ecology of wildlife species and on ecological systems, such as wetlands and lakeshore habitats, is still limited. It is acknowledged that increases in ambient light can alter the behavioral
ecology of a variety of organisms, including both invertebrates and vertebrates, from
changes in orientation, as well as attraction or repulsion from the altered light
environment. These in turn may affect foraging, reproduction, migration, and communication (Longcore and Rich 2004).
Ms. Gretchen Brunner July 9, 2012
Page 2
For example, many insects, such as moths, may be attracted to artificial lighting, and they
may be subject to increased mortality. Some faster flying bat species may in turn
congregate near lights to forage on the concentration of insects. Other, slower-flying bat
species may avoid the lights, where increased food availability may be offset by increased risk of predation by owls. Similar relationships occur among other vertebrate groups, where some species may be adversely affected by artificial lighting and others
may benefit. Artificial lighting may also alter the duration of light and dark, or
photoperiod, experienced by plants. However, published information on the affects of
artificial lighting on plants in natural settings is relatively limited. In aquatic systems, artificial lighting may affect foraging patterns of invertebrates and amphibians. Some fish species are attracted to artificial lighting, whereas others avoid foraging in lighted
areas (Longcore and Rich 2001, 2004).
Impacts of artificial lighting from the proposed redevelopment should be considered in the context of the urbanized setting along this portion of Lake Washington, as well as the longer term land use history of the project site. Residential development stretches south
from the project site, including the relatively recent development adjacent to the site, as
well as more established residences along the shore farther south. The Seahawks
headquarters and training facility lies to the north of the project, and additional residences line the shoreline farther north for a considerable distance. Thus, the impacts of artificial lighting represent an incremental addition to lighting along the shoreline in this area and
are not considered significant.
Moreover, remediation work that would precede the proposed development involves removal of existing wetland and upland communities that are impaired by past contamination and capping the site. Following remediation, wetland and riparian
communities along the shore on the project site would be newly established, prior to
redevelopment. Impacts to the developing habitats can be minimized with appropriate
mitigation. In addition, as the buffer areas develop, they would help screen the wetland and shoreline habitats from the development and associated lighting.
Mitigation
The proposed development would include design elements to minimize the potential
adverse affects of artificial lighting on wetland and riparian habitats. These include directing lights downward and away from these habitats or adjacent properties, and may
include shielding of lights, use of low-pressure sodium lights, or minimizing the use of
reflective glazing materials in building design, as feasible.
ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative would entail a similar mixed-use development to that under
Alternatives 1 and 2 (particularly Alternative 2) on the project site, but would maintain a
Ms. Gretchen Brunner July 9, 2012
Page 3
larger setback from the on-site shoreline, consistent with the City’s 2011 Shoreline Master Program. The shoreline habitat restoration area, encompassing the re-
established/expanded wetlands and their buffers along the lake shore, would encompass a
larger area (approximately 128,900 square feet), as this alternative would maintain a 100-
foot minimum shoreline setback from the delineated Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), as required by the City, compared with a 50-foot minimum setback for Alternatives 1 and 2. Thus, more native habitat would develop along the shoreline of
Lake Washington following remediation.
As under Alternatives 1 and 2, no direct wetland impacts would occur under the Preferred Alternative. The wetlands along the lake would be reestablished and expanded in a similar fashion as the other development alternatives within a somewhat larger shoreline
restoration area. No development would occur within the isolated eastern part of the site
east of Lake Washington Blvd., thus no impacts would occur to Wetlands I and J, as
under Alternatives 1 and 2. The expanded riparian habitat restoration area along the shoreline would afford Wetlands
A and D a minimum effective buffer that generally exceeds a minimum 50 feet. Buffer
averaging would be proposed where necessary to compensate for buffer encroachments.
This riparian area also includes an expanded trail that can also serve as an unpaved emergency fire lane. The ultimate plans for the shoreline restoration area under the Preferred Alternative will be developed in coordination with EPA.
The Preferred Alternative is assumed to include similar temporary and permanent storm
drainage systems and erosion control features as Alternatives 1 and 2. Thus, similar to these alternatives we would not expect substantial indirect impacts to on-site wetlands and the lake under the Preferred Alternative from stormwater runoff during construction
and operation of the project.
With a slightly smaller development footprint and similar site features such as the public trail, the redevelopment under The Preferred Alternative is expected to result in slightly
less impacts to wetland and wildlife habitat as under Alternatives 1 and 2. As the
restored habitat along the lakeshore develops over time, the added shoreline setback
would provide slightly more potential screening of the wetland and lakeshore habitats
from lighting impacts, compared with Alternatives 1 and 2. Given the urban context, however, impacts from disturbance and noise would not likely be significantly different
from those under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this information. If you have any questions, comments, or need additional information, I am available at 206-525-8122 or via email at
rwlundquist@raedeke.com.
Ms. Gretchen Brunner July 9, 2012
Page 4
LITERATURE CITED
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2001. A review of the ecological effects of road
reconfiguration and expansion on coastal wetland ecosystems. The Urban
Wildlands Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA. November 14, 2001.
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(4): 191-198.
APPENDIX D
GREENHOUSE GAS
WORKSHEETS
Quendall Terminals - Preferred Alternative
Version 1.7 12/26/07
Section I: Buildings
Type (Residential) or Principal Activity
(Commercial)# Units
Square Feet (in
thousands of
square feet)Embodied Energy Transportation
Lifespan
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Single-Family Home.............................0 98 672 792 0
Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ......692 33 357 766 799741
Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ......0 54 681 766 0
Mobile Home........................................0 41 475 709 0
Education ............................................0.0 39 646 361 0
Food Sales ..........................................0.0 39 1,541 282 0
Food Service .......................................9.0 39 1,994 561 23344
Health Care Inpatient ...........................0.0 39 1,938 582 0
Health Care Outpatient ........................0.0 39 737 571 0
Lodging ...............................................0.0 39 777 117 0
Retail (Other Than Mall).......................21.6 39 577 247 18636
Office ...................................................0.0 39 723 588 0
Public Assembly ..................................0.0 39 733 150 0
Public Order and Safety ......................0.0 39 899 374 0
Religious Worship ...............................0.0 39 339 129 0
Service ................................................0.0 39 599 266 0
Warehouse and Storage ......................0.0 39 352 181 0
Other ...................................................0.0 39 1,278 257 0
Vacant .................................................0.0 39 162 47 0
Section II: Pavement..........................
Pavement.............................................0.00 0
Total Project Emissions:841720
Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet
(MTCO2e)
APPENDIX E
UPDATED TRANSPORTATION
REPORT
Quendall Terminals
EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
October 1, 2012
Prepared for:
EA|Blumen
720 Sixth Street South, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033
Prepared by:
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
Transportation Engineering/Operations ♦ Impact Studies ♦ Design Services ♦ Transportation Planning/Forecasting
Seattle Office: PO Box 65254 ♦ Seattle, WA 98155 ♦ Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 ♦ Toll Free (888) 220-7333
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page i
October 1, 2012
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................3
Project Description ......................................................................................................................3
EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................6
Roadway Conditions....................................................................................................................6
Intersection Traffic Control and Channelization...........................................................................6
Existing Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................................6
Intersection Level of Service......................................................................................................10
Public Transportation Services..................................................................................................11
Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities .....................................................................................11
Planned Transportation Improvements......................................................................................12
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS......................................................................................................12
Baseline Transportation Network Assumptions .........................................................................12
Baseline Travel Demand Forecasts...........................................................................................13
Trip Generation of Development................................................................................................17
Trip Distribution and Assignment...............................................................................................18
Site Access and Circulation.......................................................................................................31
Public Transportation Impacts...................................................................................................32
Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts.......................................................................................33
Parking Impacts.........................................................................................................................33
MITIGATION MEASURES..............................................................................................................34
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE........................................................................................................37
Appendix A – Intersection Level of Service Summary Sheets
Appendix B – Traffic Volume Forecasts
Appendix C – Parking Demand Analysis
Appendix D – Lake Washington Blvd./NE 44th Street Conceptual Channelization Exhibit
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page ii
October 1, 2012
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Site Vicinity.................................................................................................................4
Figure 2: DEIS Alternative 1 Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................5
Figure 3: Study Intersection Locations...................................................................................................7
Figure 4: Existing Intersection Channelization and Traffic Control.........................................................8
Figure 5: 2009-2010 Existing Traffic Volumes........................................................................................9
Figure 6: Pipeline Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without I-405 Improvements..................14
Figure 7: Pipeline Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With I-405 Improvements.......................15
Figure 8: Project Trip Distribution Without I-405 Improvements...........................................................19
Figure 9: Project Trip Assignment Without I-405 Improvements..........................................................19
Figure 10: Project Trip Distribution With I-405 Improvements..............................................................22
Figure 11: Project Trip Assignment With I-405 Improvements.............................................................23
Figure 12: 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without I-405 Improvements).........25
Figure 13: 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without I-405 Improvements...........26
Figure 14: 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With I-405 Improvements)..............28
Figure 15: 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With I-405 Improvements................29
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page iii
October 1, 2012
List of Tables
Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections.................................10
Table 2: Existing 2009-2010 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service.................................................11
Table 3: 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) Project Trip Generation..........................17
Table 4: 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) Project Trip Generation.......................18
Table 5: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with DEIS Alternative 1
(Without I-405 Improvements)......................................................................................................24
Table 6: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts With DEIS Alternative 1
With I-405 Improvements .............................................................................................................27
Table 7: 2015 Queues Without I-405 Improvements -– DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) 30
Table 8: 2015 Queues With I-405 Improvements -– DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application).....30
Table 9: Parking Code Requirements..................................................................................................33
Table 10: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with DEIS Alternative 1 and Project Mitigation
(Without I-405 Improvements)......................................................................................................35
Table 11: 2015 Preferred Alternative Project Trip Generation..............................................................37
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 1
October 1, 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to transportation-related comments on the DEIS, the transportation report for the
Quendall Terminals project has been updated for the EIS Addendum. In particular, the following
are included in the analysis.
¾ New traffic counts at Study Intersection #3 (Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street), and revised
traffic analysis at this location and adjacent study intersections based on the traffic
counts that indicated increased demand on discrete intersection movements.
¾ Updated level of service (LOS) analysis at Study Intersection #9 (Lake Washington
Boulevard/Park Avenue N (Garden Avenue) that reflects planned improvements by the
City of Renton.
¾ A LOS summary table that illustrates the affects of potential mitigation measures.
¾ A figure which illustrates the conceptual channelization improvements that would be
required along Lake Washington Boulevard as a result of the project if the project is built
prior to regional improvements within the I-405 corridor.
The potential transportation impacts under the applicant’s Preferred Alternative are also
discussed in this updated report.
This report documents an evaluation of transportation impacts associated with development of
the Quendall Terminals site in Renton, WA. The proposed development would consist of the
following:
¾ 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) includes the construction of 800
multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 245,000 square feet of office, 9,000 square feet
of restaurant space and parking for 2,171 vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via a
new access drive onto Ripley Lane and the extension of NE 43rd Street (existing Barbee Mill
access).
In addition to the 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 above, the following alternatives were analyzed as
part of this project:
¾ 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) includes the construction of 708
multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and
parking for 1,362 vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via a new access drive onto
Ripley Lane and the extension of NE 43rd Street (existing Barbee Mill access). Note: A
Preferred Alternative was developed by the applicant for this EIS Addendum. A separate section at the end
of this study addresses the relative impacts of the Preferred Alternative given its similarities to Alternative 2.
¾ 2015 DEIS Alternative 3 (No Action Alternative, No Development). This is the
Baseline Alternative with no development on-site.
The development alternatives were tested under a future transportation network in 2015 with
and without the planned I-405 improvements at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange. The I-
405 Improvements assumed in this analysis included:
¾ Reconfiguring the NE 44th Street interchange into a tight-diamond configuration.
¾ Relocating both NB and SB ramps with additional through and turn-lanes.
¾ Addition of traffic signals at both NB and SB ramp intersections.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 2
October 1, 2012
¾ Addition of a traffic signal at the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection.
Detailed trip generation estimates of development and transportation forecasts throughout the
study area were prepared for future baseline conditions without the proposed development and
with the proposed development in 2015 (the assumed year of buildout). Impacts were evaluated
at 9 off-site study intersections under the without I-405 Improvements future scenario and 7
off-site study intersections under the with I-405 Improvements future scenario.
Conclusions
There exists today and will be in the future a moderate to high level of background traffic that
travels in the vicinity of the site. With the existing transportation network and I-405
Improvements by 2015, the development alternatives could be accommodated; however,
implementation of some additional site access transportation improvements would be necessary.
Without I-405 Improvements by 2015, additional interchange ramp improvements would be
needed to support the development alternatives as well as site access improvements.
Additional baseline transportation improvements and project mitigation measures are identified
in the Mitigation Measures section of this report.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 3
October 1, 2012
INTRODUCTION
This study summarizes transportation impacts associated with the proposed Quendall Terminals
redevelopment project. The study documents transportation impacts associated with the EIS
redevelopment alternatives of this site, including:
¾ Assessment of existing conditions through field reconnaissance and review of existing
planning documents.
¾ Estimation of weekday vehicular a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips and daily trips generated
by the EIS alternatives.
¾ Assignment of weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour project trips onto the existing roadway
network in the immediate vicinity.
¾ Evaluation of a.m. and p.m. peak level of service (LOS) impacts at 9 off-site study
intersections.
¾ Assessment of site access and circulation issues.
¾ Analysis of public transportation and nonmotorized transportation impacts.
¾ Identification of mitigation measures to maintain acceptable levels of mobility and safety
Project Description
The project site is generally bounded by Ripley Lane to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to
the southeast, and Lake Washington to the west. A project site vicinity map is shown in
Figure 1. The proposed development would consist of the following (conceptual site plan for
DEIS Alternative 1 is provided in Figure 2):
¾ 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) includes the construction of 800
multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 245,000 square feet of office, 9,000 square feet
of restaurant space and parking for 2,171 vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via a
new access drive onto Ripley Lane and the extension of NE 43rd Street (existing Barbee Mill
access).
In addition to the 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 described above, the following alternatives were
analyzed as part of this project:
¾ 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) includes the construction of
708 multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space
and parking for 1,362 vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via a new access
drive onto Ripley Lane and the existing Barbee Mill access on Lake Washington
Boulevard, similar to Alternative 1. Note: A Preferred Alternative was developed by the
applicant for this EIS Addendum. A separate section at the end of this study addresses the relative
impacts of the Preferred Alternative given its similarities to Alternative 2 that was evaluated in the
Quendall Terminals DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement.
¾ 2015 (No Action Alternative, No Development). This is the Baseline Alternative
with no development assumed on-site at this time.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 4
October 1, 2012
Figure 1: Project Site Vicinity
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 5
October 1, 2012
Figure 2: Alternative 1 Conceptual Site Plan
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 6
October 1, 2012
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing transportation system conditions in the study area. It includes an
inventory of existing roadway conditions, intersection traffic control, traffic volumes,
intersection levels of service, public transportation services, nonmotorized transportation
facilities, and planned roadway improvements.
Roadway Conditions
The following paragraphs describe existing arterial roadways that would be used as major routes
for site access. Roadway characteristics are described in terms of facility type, number of lanes,
posted speed limits and shoulder types and widths.
Lake Washington Boulevard is classified as a collector arterial between N Park Drive and I-
405. Travel lanes are 11 feet in width with 5-foot bike lanes on both side of the street. A paved
4-foot shoulder exists on the west side of the street and is designated for pedestrians. No
parking is allowed on either side of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
NE 44th Street between the NB and SB I-405 ramp intersections is classified as a collector
arterial. Travel lanes are 13-14 feet in width. On the approaches to the I-405 overpass paved
shoulders exists on both sides of the street. No parking is allowed on either side of the street.
Ripley Lane is a local access street with two 11 foot travel lanes in each direction. A paved 5
foot shoulder exists on the west side of the street. No parking is allowed on either side of the
street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Intersection Traffic Control and Channelization
Based on estimated trip distribution under the 2015 year network scenarios (with and without
I-405 Improvements), up to nine study intersections were analyzed, including:
1. Lake Washington Boulevard (I-405 NB ramps) / NE 44th Street
2. I-405 SB ramps / NE 44th Street
3. Lake Washington Boulevard / Ripley Lane
4. Lake Washington Boulevard / Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)
5. Lake Washington Boulevard / Hawks Landing Access (future intersection)
6. Lake Washington Boulevard / N 36th Street / Burnett Avenue N
7. N 30th Street / Burnett Ave N (without I-405 Improvements Scenario only)
8. Lk Wa Blvd / Burnett Ave N (without I-405 Improvements Scenario only)
9. Lk Wa Blvd / Park Ave N / Garden Ave N
Figure 3 identifies the locations of the 9 off-site study intersections. Existing intersection
channelization and traffic control are illustrated in Figure 4 for all study intersections.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Peak hour traffic volumes represent the highest hourly volume of vehicles passing through an
intersection during a typical 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. weekday peak periods. Peak period turning
movement counts at study intersections were conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2012. Figure 5
summarizes the existing a.m. and p.m. peak period turning movements at all study intersections.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 7
October 1, 2012
Figure 3: Study Intersection Locations
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 8
October 1, 2012
Figure 4: Existing Intersection Channelization and Traffic Control
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 9
October 1, 2012
Figure 5: 2009-2010 Existing Traffic Volumes
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 10
October 1, 2012
Existing traffic counts at study intersections 1-5 were obtained from the Quendall Terminals Traffic
Impact Analysis dated November 2009. Existing traffic counts at study intersections 6-9 were
conducted in June 2010, and again at Intersection 3 in June 2012 by All Traffic Data (ATD) to
calibrate historical data.
Intersection Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) serves as an indicator of the quality of traffic flow at an intersection or
road segment. The LOS grading ranges from A to F, such that LOS A is assigned when minimal
delays are present and low volumes are experienced. LOS F indicates long delays, heavy
volumes, and increased traffic congestion. Table 1 summarizes the criteria for the delay range
for each level of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections. The methods used to
calculate the levels of service are described in the updated 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Special
Report 209, Transportation Research Board). The measure of effectiveness for signalized
intersections is average control delay, defined as the total time vehicles are stopped at an
intersection approach during a specified time period divided by the number of vehicles departing
from the approach in the same time period.
Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a
measure of driver discomfort, frustration, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a
motorist is made of up a number of factors that relate to traffic control, geometries, traffic
demand, and incidents. Total control delay is the difference between the travel time actually
experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions (i.e., the absence
of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, or as a result other vehicles). LOS F at
signalized intersections is often considered unacceptable to most drivers, but does not
automatically imply that the intersection is over capacity. Jammed conditions could occur on
one or all approaches, with periods of long delays and drivers waiting for multiple signal cycles
to progress through the intersection. The City of Renton does not have a formally adopted level
of service standard, but measures level of service on a travel time basis. For the purposes of the
traffic impact analysis, LOS E was assumed as the threshold at signalized intersections.
For unsignalized intersections, a level of service and estimate of average control delay is
determined for each minor or controlled movement based upon a sequential analysis of gaps in
the major traffic streams and conflicting traffic movements. In addition, given that unsignalized
intersections create different driver expectations and congestion levels than signalized
intersections, their delay criteria are lower. Control delay at unsignalized intersections include
deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay in waiting for an adequate gap in flows
through the intersection, and final acceleration delay.
Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
Level of Service Delay Range (sec) Delay Range (sec)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10 to ≤ 20 > 10 to ≤ 15
C > 20 to ≤ 35 > 15 to ≤ 25
D > 35 to ≤ 55 > 25 to ≤ 35
E > 55 to ≤ 80 > 35 to ≤ 50
F ≥ 80 ≥ 50
Source: “Highway Capacity Manual”, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000, Update.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 11
October 1, 2012
Synchro 6, Traffic Signal Coordination Software program was used to develop network scenarios in
evaluating level of service analysis at the study intersections. Signal cycle lengths and splits were
optimized to assume adjustments in optimum performance over time. Use of the Synchro 6
software program was consistent with the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
Table 2 highlights existing 2009/2010 a.m. and p.m. peak hour levels of service at study area
intersections. During the a.m. peak hour, Intersection #1 – Lk Wa Blvd (I-405 NB ramps) /
NE 44th Street operates at LOS E and the southbound movement at Intersection #2 – I-405 SB
ramps / NE 44th Street operates at LOS F. During the p.m. peak hour, all intersections operate
at LOS C or better. Detailed level of service summary sheets are provided in Appendix A.
Table 2: Existing 2009-2010 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
A.M. Peak Hour
Int.# Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St E 48 -
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 2.32
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-D 26 0.20
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street B 11 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 -
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N B 13 -
Int.# Signalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park Ave N B 17 0.66
P.M. Peak Hour
Int.# Unsignalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St C 18 -
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-C 22 0.61
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-C 18 0.32
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street A 10 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 -
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N A 10 -
Int.# Signalized Intersections LOS Delay V/C
9 Lake Wa Blvd (Garden Ave N)/Park Ave N C 26 0.81
Note: Analysis based on Synchro results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS.
Unsignalized intersections show LOS and control delays for the worst directional movement.
Public Transportation Services
No public transit service is currently provided in the project site vicinity. The closest transit
service in the vicinity is provided via a dial-a-ride service area and fixed route service in the
vicinity of the NE 30th Street interchange and I-405.
Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities
Nonmotorized transportation facilities in the area include striped bike lanes on Lake Washington
Boulevard. Lake Washington Boulevard also includes a paved 4-5 foot shoulder on the west
side of the street designated for pedestrians. There are no nonmotorized transportation facilities
on the project site. The existing railroad corridor to the east of the site was recently purchased
by the Port of Seattle. The City's recently adopted Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, 2009
identifies this rail corridor near this site as a future "rails to trails" planned trail.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 12
October 1, 2012
Planned Transportation Improvements
The section identifies planned transportation improvements for roadways and intersections that
would be impacted by trips generated by the proposed development. They have been identified
in planning documents for the City of Renton and WSDOT. While these improvements are
identified as “planned”, they have yet to receive full funding and therefore, timing of such
improvements is unknown at this time.
The City of Renton’s 2010-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identified the following
transportation improvement in the study area that affects study intersections:
¾ Lake Washington Blvd. at Park Ave N/Garden Ave N. This project includes minor
widening and reconfiguration to provide dual eastbound left turn lanes.
WSDOT has identified improvements to the I-405/NE 44th interchange as part of the I-405
Renton to Bellevue Project (SR 169 to I-90). The improvements to the I-405/NE 44th interchange
include:
¾ Reconfiguring the NE 44th Street interchange into a tight-diamond configuration.
¾ Relocating both NB and SB ramps with additional through and turn-lanes.
¾ Addition of traffic signals at both NB and SB ramp intersections.
¾ Addition of a traffic signal at Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Boulevard. While widening of
NE 44th Street west of Ripley Lane is identified in the latest I-405 IMPROVEMENTS drawing,
this widening assumes it extends approximately 100 feet west of Ripley Lane and therefore, no
channelization capacity was assumed to occur at this intersection.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
The following section describes transportation impacts of the 2015 buildout EIS alternatives of
the Quenall Terminals site on the surrounding arterial network. The discussion includes baseline
transportation network assumptions, baseline travel demand forecasts, new trips generated by
the alternatives, distribution and assignment of new project trips, review of intersection level of
service impacts, an evaluation of site access and circulation issues, and an analysis of public
transportation and nonmotorized transportation impacts. As a worst case scenario, the land use
associated with Alternative 1 was used in the analysis as this alternative generates the highest
number of vehicle trips.
Baseline Transportation Network Assumptions
The future baseline transportation networks were based upon consistency with planned
infrastructure in the study area. Two future 2015 baseline transportation networks were
included in the analysis. The two future baseline evaluation scenarios included with and without
planned improvements at the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 13
October 1, 2012
Baseline Travel Demand Forecasts
Baseline travel demand forecasts were prepared for 2015 using land use and travel demand
forecasting information from the City of Renton. The following paragraphs outline, in further
detail the transportation forecast and refinement process used for the Quendall Terminals DEIS.
City of Renton 2015 EMME Model
The most appropriate travel demand forecasting tool available at the time of the study was the
City of Renton 2015 EMME Travel Model. The City’s model was recently completed in May
2010 and calibrated to 2008 existing conditions. The model contained the most up to date
information on land use forecasts for the study area, the City of Renton, and surrounding
vicinity, and evaluated future networks with and without I-405 Improvements.
Model Refinement and Manual Forecast Adjustments
Two future year forecast scenarios were reviewed by TENW as generated by the City of Renton
2015 EMME Travel Model. The specific transportation analysis zone (TAZ) for Quendall
Terminals within the City’s EMME model accounted for a majority of trips assigned to the
roadway network. This TAZ consisted of the following future development projects that are
planned or in the pipeline:
• Quendall Terminals,
• Barbee Mill,
• Hawks Landing, and
• Other vicinity background traffic growth.
Note: The background growth accounted for 15 percent of all trips assigned to this TAZ (which assumes a 2 to 3
percent annual background growth rate between 2009/2010 to 2015).
Under both future scenarios (with and without the I-405 Improvement projects), all trips from
the City’s EMME model were removed from the roadway network except for trips under the
Without I-405 Improvements scenario, which assumed the 15 percent background growth.
Turning movements of trips from Barbee Mill, Hawks Landing, and the Kennydale Apartment
projects were added to the roadway network at each off-site study intersection under both future
scenarios to determine 2015 baseline forecasts as projected in original traffic studies prepared for
these entitled developments. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the trip distribution assumptions
associated with this new pipeline development without and with I-405 Improvements.
For Quendall Terminals, existing turning movement counts conducted at all off-site study
intersections during p.m. peak hours were used as “existing 2009 or 2010 conditions.”
Comparing the 2008 and 2015 assignments from the City’s EMME model assuming two future
network scenarios (Without and With Regional I-405 Improvements), Fratar approximation
factors were developed, applied, and calibrated into a Fratar spreadsheet model. The Fratar
model was then used to adjust traffic forecasts associated with the two future networks to
estimate the redistribution of future background traffic level associated with intersection and
arterial improvements. 2015 baseline forecasts under the With I-405 Improvements scenario
determined that a negative or stabilized growth between existing conditions and baseline
forecasts with a majority of traffic utilizing I-405 and traffic diminishing or stabilizing on side
streets.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 14
October 1, 2012
Figure 6: Pipeline Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without I-405 Improvements
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 15
October 1, 2012
Figure 7: Pipeline Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With I-405 Improvements
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 16
October 1, 2012
Given the shift in background traffic levels forecasted to occur on Lake Washington Boulevard
and other vicinity arterial streets with and without I-405 Improvements, no adjustments to
original traffic assignments for pipeline projects were made as regional shifts are forecast to be
significant and account for any fluctuations in distribution from these minor pipeline projects.
Intersection-Level Baseline Traffic Forecasts
At the intersection level, a Fratar growth factoring process using successive approximations was
used to forecast future interchange intersection turning movements1. First published in the 1954
Highway Research Board Proceedings, by Thomas J. Fratar, this forecasting distribution method is
recognized by the transportation planning/engineering industry as an accepted practice and has
been applied successfully on many transportation planning and engineering projects. Originally
developed to distribute interzonal vehicular trips at a regional or subarea level, the process was
later adapted for use in forecasting intersection turning movements. The objective of the
successive approximation method is to determine the most logical distribution of vehicle trips
expected through an intersection, given future conditions of regional development or
redistribution of traffic related to infrastructure investment.
The procedure is not concerned with the specific techniques and processes used in regional land
use and travel demand estimation, which must be prepared regardless of the method used for
estimating future trip distributions through an intersection. The procedure does require that
arterial-level regional or local forecasts be available to factor the relative changes in traffic
entering and leaving a particular intersection or interchange system in a future forecast year.
Steps used to estimate the distribution of forecast trips include the following:
1. Identify relative growth factors between existing and future year conditions for all
entering and exiting approaches of an intersection.
2. Distribute the total trips from each entering/exiting approach among the various
movements in proportion to the attractiveness of each movement as indicated by
variations in growth factors of each intersection leg.
3. The first distribution step produces two tentative results for each intersection turning
movement. These tentative pairs are averaged to obtain the first approximation.
4. For each intersection approach, the sum of the first approximation volume is divided
into the total volume of each intersection leg to obtain a first approximation growth
factor, which will be used in the computation of a second approximation process.
5. The original movements for each intersection leg are then distributed into turning
movements again in proportion to the turning movements and growth factors obtained
in the first approximation process. These volumes are then averaged again, and the
process is repeated until conformity or an intersection balance is reached often around 3
or 4 successive distribution estimations are completed. However, to ensure uniformity,
the spreadsheet model developed to forecast turning movements uses 10 successive
distribution runs prior to generation of a final turning movement estimate.
The resultant a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement forecasts at all study intersections in
2015 are provided in Appendix B.
1 Forecasting Distribution of Interzonal Vehicular Trips by Successive Approximations, Highway Research Board
Proceedings, Thomas J, Fratar, 1954, pages 376-384.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 17
October 1, 2012
Trip Generation of Development
Project trip generation was estimated for DEIS Alternative 1 and DEIS Alternative 2. Trip
generation rates compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th
Edition, 2008, were used to estimate daily, a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicular trip generation
with redevelopment of the site. In response to DEIS scoping comments, the City of Renton
requested that trip rates generated by residential uses be factored by 10 percent to account for
no existing public transit services or commercial businesses in the immediate site vicinity. As
such, the trip generation assumptions presented below should be considered conservative.
In addition, average pass-by rates for the proposed retail uses identified in the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook 2nd Edition, June 2004 were used. Reductions from the gross trip generation
of the proposed uses were taken to account for internal captured trips within the site. Internal
trips are made by people making multiple stops within a development without generating new
trips onto the adjacent street system. The internal trip reductions were based on the
methodology established in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Specific assumptions and
methodologies for each redevelopment alternative are summarized below.
2015 DEIS Alternative 1 –The Original Application
2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) would include the construction of 800
multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 245,000 square feet of office, 9,000 square feet of
restaurant space and parking for 2,171 vehicles. For trip generation estimation, the proposed
multifamily residential units would likely include both rental apartments and condominiums. As
the breakdown of these units is unknown at this time, the trip generation rate associated with
Apartments was used as this represents a conservative trip generation rate. As such, average trip
rates for Apartments (ITE land use code 220), Shopping Center (ITE land use code 820),
General Office Building (ITE Land use code 710), and High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
were used as the basis for estimating vehicular trips.
As shown in Table 3, a net total of approximately 9,000 daily, 865 a.m. peak hour (445 entering,
420 exiting), and 950 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (440 entering and 510 exiting) would be
generated at 2015 full buildout conditions under DEIS Alternative 1.
Table 3: 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Land Use ITE Land Use Code 1 Size 2 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Daily Trip Generation
Apartments 220 800 DU 82 326 408 322 174 496 5,320
10% Factor on Residential Uses 8 32 40 32 16 48 536
Retail 820 21,600 square
feet GLA 13 9 22 40 41 81 928
Office 710 245,000 square
feet GFA 334 46 380 62 303 365 2,697
Restaurant 932 9,000 square feet GFA 54 50 104 59 41 100 1,144
2015 Full Buildout Gross Trip Generation 491 463 954 515 575 1,090 10,625
Less Internal Trips 3 -22 -22 -44 -45 -45 -90 -1,152
Less Pass-By Trips 3 -24 -20 -44 -28 -21 -49 -491
2015 Full Buildout Net Trip Generation 445 421 866 442 509 951 8,982
1. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008.
2. DU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Gross Floor Area, and GLA is Gross Leasable Area.
3. Internal and pass-by determined based upon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 18
October 1, 2012
2015 DEIS Alternative 2 – Lower Density Alternative
2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) would include the construction of 708
multifamily units, 21,600 square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking
for 1,362 vehicles. Average trip rates for Apartments (ITE land use code 220), Shopping Center
(ITE land use code 820), and High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for
estimating vehicular trips.
As shown in Table 4, a net total of approximately 5,800 daily, 445 a.m. peak hour (105 entering,
340 exiting), and 540 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips (350 entering and 190 exiting) would be
generated at 2015 full buildout conditions under DEIS Alternative 2.
Table 4: 2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Land Use ITE Land Use Code 1 Size 2 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Daily Trip Generation
Apartments 220 708 DU 72 289 361 285 154 439 4,708
10% Factor on Residential Uses 7 28 35 28 14 42 475
Retail 820 21,600 square
feet GLA 13 9 22 40 41 81 928
Restaurant 932 9,000 square
feet GFA 54 50 104 59 41 100 1,144
2015 Partial Buildout Gross Trip Generation 146 376 522 412 250 662 7,255
Less Internal Trips 3 -18 -18 -36 -35 -35 -70 -952
Less Pass-By Trips 3 -23 -20 -43 -29 -22 -51 -519
2015 Partial Buildout Net Trip Generation 105 338 443 348 193 541 5,784
1. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008.
2. DU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Gross Floor Area, and GLA is Gross Leasable Area.
3. Internal and pass-by determined based upon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004.
2015 DEIS Alternative 3 – No Action Alternative Trip Generation
Alternative 3 (No Action) assumes no new development on the site would occur. No trip
generation adjustments or assumptions were made for Alternative 3. Alternative 3 reflects the
2015 No Action Baseline Condition.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
For the 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 without I-405 Improvements, project trip distribution was
based upon a review of a select zone assignment from the City of Renton EMME Model. Peak
hour traffic volumes generated by DEIS Alternative 1 would be generally distributed as follows
(distribution shown in Figure 8 and project-generated trip assignments shown in Figure 9):
¾ 20 percent to the south on I-405 via Lake Washington Blvd, Burnett Ave N, N 30th Street.
¾ 45 percent to the north on I-405 via NE 44th Street
¾ 15 percent to the south on Lake Washington Blvd (south of Burnett Ave N).
¾ 10 percent to the north on Lake Washington Blvd (north of NE 44th Street)
¾ 10 percent to the east via Lincoln Ave NE.
Given significant freeway/interchange congestion forecasted at the I-405/NE 44th Street
interchange without I-405 Improvements, traffic assignments to/from the south of the site are
not forecasted to utilize the adjacent interchange, but instead access I-405 at NE 30th Street and
travel on other parallel corridors.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 19
October 1, 2012
Figure 8: Project Trip Distribution Without I-405 Improvements
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 20
October 1, 2012
Figure 9: Project Trip Assignment Without I-405 Improvements
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 21
October 1, 2012
For 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 with I-405 Improvements, trip distribution was also based upon a
review of a select zone assignment from the City of Renton EMME Travel Demand Model.
With I-405 improvements, significant congestion relief is forecasted to occur on I-405 and
parallel routes, shifting site-generated traffic back onto the I-405 corridor and the NE 44th Street
interchange. Previous diversions of site-generated traffic to both parallel north-south arterials
and corridors east of the freeway are reduced to only those origin-destination pairs estimated to
occur to the Coal Creek Parkway corridor, Newcastle, and east Renton. Thus, peak hour traffic
volumes generated by DEIS Alternative 1 would be generally distributed as follows (distribution
shown in Figure 10 and peak hour project-generated trip assignment shown in Figure 11):
¾ 30 percent to the south on I-405 via NE 44th Street.
¾ 45 percent to the north on I-405 via NE 44th Street.
¾ 15 percent to the south on Lake Washington Blvd (south of project site).
¾ 5 percent to the north on Lake Washington Blvd (north of NE 44th Street).
¾ 5 percent to the east via Lincoln Ave NE.
As a result of the above-described trip distribution, Intersection #7 - N 30th Street/Burnett
Avenue N and #8 - Lake Washington Boulevard/Burnett Avenue are analyzed for the
“Without I-405 Improvements” scenario.
Intersection Level of Service Impacts
This section summarizes level of service impacts under DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original
Application) and the Baseline Condition (DEIS No Action Alternative). In addition, a
sensitivity analysis was conducted under DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) to
determine if under reduced development different transportation improvements were needed.
Given existing and future baseline transportation needs of the I-405/NE 44th Street interchange
and vicinity (i.e., limited infrastructure to support new development), baseline transportation
improvements and mitigation needs of site development under either Alternative would be the
same.
Alternative 1 (The Original Application) LOS Impacts
Table 5 summarizes level of service impacts under 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 without I-405
improvements. Figures 12 and 13 summarize peak hour traffic volumes without (Baseline/No
Action) and with the The Original Application (DEIS Alternative 1) in 2015 without I-405
improvements used in the LOS analysis. The following three intersections are expected to
operate at LOS E/F under 2015 conditions without I-405 improvements:
¾ Intersection #1 – Lake Washington Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps) at NE 44th Street (LOS F with
or without the development during a.m. and p.m. peak hours).
¾ Intersection #2 – I-405 SB Ramps) at NE 44th Street (southbound movement at LOS F
with or without the development during a.m. and p.m. peak hours).
¾ Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd (southbound movement: LOS
E/F with or without the project during the a.m. peak hour, LOS F with the project only
during the p.m. peak hour).
Detailed level of service summary sheets are provided in Appendix A for all 2015 scenarios.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 22
October 1, 2012
Figure 10: Project Trip Distribution With I-405 Improvements
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 23
October 1, 2012
Figure 11: Project Trip Assignment With I-405 Improvements
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 24
October 1, 2012
Table 5: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with DEIS Alternative 1
(Without I-405 Improvements)
2015
Without Project (Baseline/No Action)
2015
With DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original
Application)
Int.# Intersection LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C
A.M. Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE
44th St F >100 - F >100 -
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - SB-F >100 -
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-E 36 0.42 SB-F >100 -
4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee Mill Access SB-C 20 0.04 SB-D 28 0.59
5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing Access NB-C 16 0.10 NB-C 19 0.13
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street B 12 - C 18 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 - A 8 -
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N B 11 - B 13 -
Signalized Intersection
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park
Ave N C 27 0.68 C 29 0.68
P.M. Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St F 65 - F >100 -
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - SB-F >100 -
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-D 27 0.50 SB-F >100 -
4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee Mill Access SB-B 15 0.01 SB-C 25 0.57
5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing Access NB-B 10 0.06 NB-B 12 0.09
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street B 11 - C 21 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N A 8 - A 9 -
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N B 12 - B 14 -
Signalized Intersection
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park
Ave N D 49 0.95 D 55 0.92
Notes:
1. Analysis based on Synchro results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS with optimized phasing/
timing systems for signalized intersections.
2. Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44th Street assumed to be east-west.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 25
October 1, 2012
Figure 12: 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without I-405
Improvements)
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 26
October 1, 2012
Figure 13: 2015 Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Without I-405 Improvements
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 27
October 1, 2012
Table 6 summarizes level of service impacts under 2015 full buildout conditions with I-405
Improvements. Figures 14 and 15 summarize peak hour traffic volumes used in the LOS
analysis without and with the proposed development in 2015 with I-405 Improvements. All
study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better with Alternative 1 and with I-405
Improvements.
Table 6: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts With DEIS Alternative 1
With I-405 Improvements
2015
Without Project
(Baseline/No Action)
2015
With DEIS Alternative 1
(The Original Application)
Int.# Intersection LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C
A.M. Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee Mill Access SB-C 16 0.02 SB-D 32 0.53
5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing
Access NB-C 21 0.02 NB-D 25 0.03
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street A 10 - B 11 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N Not Analyzed Under With I-405 Improvements Scenario
Signalized Intersection
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St A 10 0.42 B 18 0.59
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street B 15 0.39 C 22 0.53
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street B 20 0.61 C 26 0.66
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave N/Park Ave N C 23 0.62 C 24 0.67
P.M. Peak Hour
Unsignalized Intersections
4 Lake Wa Blvd/Barbee Mill Access SB-C 16 0.02 SB-D 25 0.46
5 Lake Wa Blvd/Hawks Landing
Access NB-C 17 0.02 NB-C 21 0.02
6 Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street A 10 - B 11 -
7 N 30th Street/Burnett Ave N
8 Lk Wa Blvd/Burnett Ave N
Not Analyzed Under With I-405 IMPROVEMENTS
Scenario
Signalized Intersection
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St B 13 0.20 B 17 0.40
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street B 13 0.19 C 24 0.47
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street B 17 0.51 C 26 0.76
9 Lake Wa Blvd-Garden Ave
N/Park Ave N D 39 0.86 D 39 0.87
Notes:
1. Analysis based on Synchro results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS with optimized phasing/
timing systems for signalized intersections.
2. Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44th Street assumed to be east-west.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 28
October 1, 2012
Figure 14: 2015 Baseline/No Action Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With I-405
Improvements)
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 29
October 1, 2012
Figure 15: 2015 Alternative 1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (With I-405 Improvements
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 30
October 1, 2012
Queuing Analysis
A queuing analysis was completed along Lake Washington Boulevard between the I-405 SB
ramps (Intersection #2) and the proposed Hawks Landing site access (Intersection #5). The
queue analysis included 2015 conditions with DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) for
both with and without I-405 Improvements. The reported queue lengths are 95th percentile
queues (queuing conditions that cover 95 percent of reported conditions) based on results from
the Synchro 6 and HCS 2000 traffic software packages. The following summarize 2015 queues
without and with I-405 Improvements. As shown in Table 7, excessive southbound queues (in
the range of 800 to 900 feet that would block key site access intersections) are expected at the
stop controlled Ripley Lane intersection under the without I-405 Improvements scenario during
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, no queuing conflicts are expected on Lake Washington
Boulevard.
Table 7: 2015 Queues Without I-405 Improvements – DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original
Application)
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
Intersection Movement AM PM
Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Left 25 25
SB Left/Right 800 900
Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd St) / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Left 25 25
SB Thru 100 75
Hawks Landing Access / Lake Washington Blvd.
WB Left 25 25
As shown in Table 8, with I-405 Improvements southbound queues would still be expected at
the Ripley Lane intersection (signalized) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition,
queues on Lake Washington Blvd at the Ripley Lane intersection are expected to extend beyond
adjacent intersections.
Table 8: 2015 Queues With I-405 Improvements – DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original
Application)
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
Intersection Movement AM PM
I-405 SB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Thru 125 125
Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Left 25 25
EB Thru 250 225
WB Thru 125 400
WB Rt 50 25
SB Left/Right 350 450
Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd St) / Lake Washington Blvd.
EB Left 25 25
SB Thru 50 50
Hawks Landing Access / Lake Washington Blvd.
WB Left 25 25
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 31
October 1, 2012
Site Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the Quendall Terminals site would be provided via a new access drive onto
Ripley Lane and the extension of NE 43rd Street (existing Barbee Mill access). As part of the site
access and circulation analysis, the two intersections on Lake Washington Boulevard that would
provide access to the site (Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street) and Ripley Lane) were analyzed in
terms of LOS and queuing. The analysis assumed two scenarios: without and with I-405
Improvements.
2015 Without I-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing
The without I-405 Improvements scenario assumed existing channelization at both the Ripley
Lane/Lake Washington Blvd and the Barbee Mill access (NE 43rd Street)/Lake Washington
Boulevard intersections.
Intersection #3 - Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd
Under DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application), the site access intersection of #3 – Ripley
Lane at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95th percentile queue for the southbound left/right
movements are estimated at approximately 800 to 900 feet during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not expected to conflict
with adjacent intersections. The LOS for the stop controlled southbound approach is expected
to be LOS F.
Intersection #4 – Barbee Mill Access (N 43rd Street)/Lake Washington Blvd
Under DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application), the site access intersection of #4 –
Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street) at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95th percentile queue for the
southbound through movement is estimated at approximately 75 to 100 feet during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours. The LOS for the stop controlled southbound movement is expected to be
LOS C/D. This determination is predicated on the assumption that balance for left turn
demand from the site would occur between this egress and the signalized intersection at Ripley
Lane onto Lake Washington Boulevard. Restriction of left turns from this driveway may be
necessary to force all demand to I-405 leaving the site to exit via the Ripley Lane signalized
intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard.
Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not forecasted to
conflict with adjacent intersections; however, given demand for northbound left turns from
Lake Washington Boulevard into the Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street), a separate left turn
lane would be warranted for safety reasons. Given close proximity to the Hawks Landing access
of roughly 125 feet south of the existing Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street), a continuous two-
way left turn lane would be warranted that extends from the left turn lane at Ripley Lane south
of the Hawks Landing access driveway. Alternatively, the construction of additional through
lanes on Lake Washington Boulevard could be installed to resolve level of service issues along
this roadway segment and mitigate this conflict potential. Ultimately, the City of Renton will
determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent
interchange design, the Port of Seattle (the owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent
private development.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 32
October 1, 2012
2015 With I-405 Improvements Operations/Queuing
Under the with I-405 Improvements scenario, the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd
intersection was assumed to be signalized and the Barbee Mill access (N 43rd Street)/Lake
Washington Boulevard assumed existing channelization.
Intersection #3 - Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd
Under DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application), the site access intersection of #3 – Ripley
Lane at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95th percentile queue for the westbound through movement
is estimated at approximately 400 feet during p.m. peak hour. This estimated queue on Lake
Washington Blvd would likely extend through the adjacent intersection. In addition, the
southbound queue on Ripley Lane is estimated to be 350 feet during the a.m. peak hour and 450
feet during the p.m. peak hour assuming the I-405 Improvement scenario only. With project
mitigation of providing an additional southbound approach lane on Ripley, this queue is
estimated to be reduced to 200 feet or less during either the a.m. peak or p.m. peak hour. The
LOS for the signalized intersection is expected to be LOS C/D.
Intersection #4 – Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street)/Lake Washington Blvd
Under the DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application), the site access intersection of #4 –
Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street) at Lake Washington Blvd, the 95th percentile queue for the
southbound through movement is estimated at approximately 50 feet during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours. The LOS for the stop controlled southbound movement is expected to be LOS D.
This determination is predicated on the assumption that balance for left turn demand from the
site would occur between this egress and the signalized intersection at Ripley Lane onto Lake
Washington Boulevard. Restriction of left turns from this driveway may be necessary to force
all demand to I-405 leaving the site to exit via the Ripley Lane unsignalized intersection with
Lake Washington Boulevard.
Queues on Lake Washington Boulevard for vehicles entering the site are not forecasted to
conflict with adjacent intersections; however, given demand for left turns from Lake
Washington Boulevard into the Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street), a separate left turn lane
would be warranted for safety reasons. Given close proximity to the Hawks Landing access of
roughly 125 feet south of the existing Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street), a continuous two-way
left turn lane would be warranted that extends from the left turn lane at Ripley Lane south of the
Hawks Landing access driveway. Alternatively, the construction of additional through lanes on
Lake Washington Boulevard could be installed to resolve level of service issues along this
roadway segment and mitigate this conflict potential. Ultimately, the City of Renton will
determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the adjacent
interchange design, the Port of Seattle (the owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way), and adjacent
private development.
Public Transportation Impacts
It is assumed that the proposed development would be occupied by residents and employees
who rely primarily on personal automobiles for their means of transportation, based on its
location near the outer edge of the urbanized area. However, since the City of Renton is
growing at a relatively rapid pace, and in order to promote a multimodal transportation network,
the proponent could work with King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit to provide for
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 33
October 1, 2012
site amenities and access to future transit zones on Lake Washington Boulevard and at the I-
405/NE 44th Street Interchange to encourage and accommodate public transportation access.
Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405
planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the I-405/NE 44th Street
Interchange.
Nonmotorized Transportation Impacts
Increases in population on the site would increase the use of nonmotorized facilities within the
site and vicinity. Infrastructure improvements within the site would include full curbs, gutters,
and sidewalks as well as frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington
Boulevard and Ripley Lane in front of the development site. A pedestrian trail is also proposed
along the shoreline that would be accessible to the public.
Parking Impacts
Table 9 summarizes minimum off-street parking requirements based on City of Renton
Municipal Code for the proposed mix of land uses. As shown, a total of 2,153 stalls and 1,362
stalls, respectively, under DEIS Alternatives 1 and 2 would be required under City code. Given
proposed construction of 2,171 and 1,362 stalls, respectively, proposed parking supply by the
applicant would meet minimum City code.
Table 9: Parking Code Requirements
Land Use Size Code Rate
Required Off-Street
Parking (stalls)
DEIS Alternative 1
Retail 21,600 sf 4 stalls/1,000 sf 87
Multifamily Residential 800 units 1.75 stalls/DU 1,400
Restaurant 9,000 sf 4 stalls/1,000 sf 36
Office1 210,000 3 stalls/1,000 sf (net) 630
Total 2,153 stalls
Proposed 2,171 stalls
Surplus/(Deficit) +18 stalls
DEIS Alternative 2
Retail 21,600 sf 4 stalls/1,000 sf 87
Multifamily Residential 708 units 1.75 stalls/DU 1,239
Restaurant 9,000 sf 4 stalls/1,000 sf 36
Total 1,362 stalls
Proposed 1,362 stalls
Surplus/(Deficit) 0 stalls
DU – Dwelling unit. sf – square- feet.
1 – Parking code requirements for office is based on net leasable area not gross square footage of Office use.
In addition to review of minimum City code requirements, a parking demand analysis was
completed of DEIS Alternative 1 using ITE’s Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, (2004). As shown in
Appendix C, peak demand for parking on-site is estimated at 2,107 stalls on a typical weekday
and 1,251 stalls on a typical weekend assuming all uses have peak demands at the same time.
Parking demand for each land use however, typically peaks at different times throughout the
day. For example, peak demand for residential parking occurs during overnight hours when
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 34
October 1, 2012
most residents are on-site, while other daytime uses can peak at various times throughout
daylight hours (proposed commercial uses typically all peak around noon on a typical day). As
such, shared parking could occur between residential and commercial uses resulting in parking
demand between 350 stalls and 281 stalls less on a typical weekday and weekend day,
respectively. This demand would range between 20 percent and 55 percent less than proposed
supply on a weekday and weekend day, respectively. Similar parking relationships would occur
under the Alternative 2 buildout scenario.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis conducted for the EIS Addendum studied vehicular trip generation, impacts on
levels of service at nine off-site study intersections, public transportation services, nonmotorized
transportation facilities, and site access, safety, and circulation issues. The following measures
have been identified in order to mitigate project traffic impacts to the vicinity arterial roadway
network and provide adequate levels of circulation and mobility to the project site:
Based upon the results of the comprehensive analysis of future intersection operations, general
key findings include:
¾ There exists today and will be in the future a moderate to high level of background traffic
that travels in the vicinity of the site area given approved and other planned pipeline
projects.
¾ The existing transportation network with I-405 Improvements would adequately
accommodate the 2015 full buildout development alternative; however additional
transportation improvements (noted below) would be necessary. Under the without I-405
Improvements scenario, the 2015 full buildout development alternative could also be
accommodated with additional transportation improvements (noted below).
Level of Service/Queuing
With I-405 Improvements - 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) or 2015
DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative)
The following improvements (in addition to the planned I-405 Improvements) would be
necessary under the 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) or 2015 DEIS
Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative) to mitigate off-site impacts:
¾ Lake Washington Blvd (between Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street) and Ripley
Lane. Extend the planned eastbound and westbound through lanes by WSDOT
beyond and through the Barbee Mill Access intersection. This would result in two
through lanes in each direction on Lake Washington Blvd from the I-405 interchange
past the Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street). Ultimately however, the City of Renton
will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the
adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (the owner of the vicinity rail right-of-
way), and adjacent private development.
¾ Intersection #3 – Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd. Construct a southbound
left-turn lane at this signalized intersection (signal assumed as an I-405 Improvement).
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 35
October 1, 2012
Without I-405 Improvements - 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) or
2015 DEIS Alternative 2 (Lower Density Alternative)
Without the planned I-405 Improvements, the following improvements would be necessary
under the 2015 DEIS Alternative 1 (The Original Application) or 2015 DEIS Alternative 2
(Lower Density Alternative) to mitigate off-site impacts:
¾ Install Traffic Signals. Install traffic signals at the intersections of the I-405 NB and SB
ramp intersections as well as at the intersection of Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd.
¾ Intersection #1 - I-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street. Widen the southbound and
northbound approaches so that a separate left turn lane and shared thru-right turn lane is
provided on both legs of the intersection. The final configuration of the intersection with
the additional widening improvements would be coordinated with WSDOT
¾ Intersection #3 - Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd. Widen the westbound
approach to include a separate right turn-only lane (see Appendix D).
¾ Lake Washington Blvd (between Barbee Mill Access (NE 43rd Street) and I-405 SB
Ramps. Construct additional channelization improvements between the Barbee Mill Access
and the I-405 SB ramps. Alternatively, additional eastbound and westbound lanes could be
constructed to provide additional queue storage created by the traffic signals required at the
SB ramp and Ripley Lane along Lake Washington Boulevard. Ultimately, the City of Renton
will determine the best configuration given ongoing coordination with WSDOT on the
adjacent interchange design, the Port of Seattle (the owner of the vicinity rail right-of-way),
and adjacent private development (see Appendix D).
Appendix A contains detailed level of service worksheets of the mitigation elements outlined
above to meet City of Renton and WSDOT standards. Table 10 summarizes level of service
estimates with and without project mitigation identified above for this scenario in 2015 with
DEIS Alternative 1. As shown, study intersections forecast to operate at LOS F without project
would improve to LOS E or better with project mitigation outlined above.
Table 10: 2015 Intersection Level of Service Impacts with DEIS Alternative 1 and Project
Mitigation (Without I-405 Improvements)
2015 With Alternative 1
(The Application)
2015
With Alternative 1 with Project Mitigation
(The Application)
Int.# Intersection LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C
A.M. Peak Hour
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE
44th St F >100 - C 28 1.03
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - E 78 1.03
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - B 12 0.61
P.M. Peak Hour
1 Lake Wa Blvd (I-405 NB Ramps)/NE 44th St F >100 - B 17 0.62
2 I-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - C 25 0.86
3 Ripley Lane/NE 44th Street SB-F >100 - B 14 0.77
1. Analysis based on Synchro results using HCM 2000 control delays and LOS with optimized phasing/
timing systems for signalized intersections.
2. Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44th Street assumed to be east-west.
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 36
October 1, 2012
Nonmotorized/Frontage Improvements
Infrastructure improvements within the site would include full curbs, gutters, and sidewalks as
well as frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley
Lane in front of the development site. A pedestrian trial is also proposed along the shoreline
that would be accessible to the public. Provision for safe pedestrian circulation could encourage
future transit usage when planned pubic transit becomes available.
Lake Washington Boulevard Corridor Impacts
To mitigate traffic impacts to the Lake Washington Boulevard corridor south of the
development, the applicant would install traffic calming treatments on Lake Washington
Boulevard prior to North 41st Street to encourage primary trips generated by the project to
utilize the I-405. Although the City has no adopted residential traffic management program,
arterial calming measures could include such treatments that create either horizontal or vertical
deflection for drivers. Such treatments include, but are not limited to, chicanes, serpentine
raised curb sections, raised median treatments, speed tables, and speed humps.
Public Transportation
Since the City of Renton is growing at a relatively rapid pace, and in order to promote a
multimodal transportation network, the proponent may wish to work with King County Metro
Transit and Sound Transit to provide for site amenities and access to future transit zones on
Lake Washington Boulevard and at the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange to encourage and
accommodate public transportation access. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity
could include Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer
stop at the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange.
Parking Impacts
Proposed parking supply would meet minimum off-street requirements per City code under
either DEIS Alternative 1 or DEIS Alternative 2. Shared parking agreements between on-site
uses and implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures (for
proposed office and residential uses) have the potential to reduce parking demand during peak
periods, thereby reducing the necessary parking supply.
City of Renton Impact Fees
In addition, to project specific mitigation outlined above, the project proponent would pay
Transportation Impact Fees (Per Renton Resolution No. 3100) at the time of building permit
issuance to contribute its proportional share towards transportation system improvement needs
in Renton. Traffic impact fees paid by development would be used to proportionally mitigate
the project’s traffic impacts at planned transportation improvements in the vicinity.
Implementation of TDM measures could also reduce the number of vehicle trips, reduce project
mitigation fees, and provide some additional benefit to improving LOS and queuing impacts at
study intersections.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There would be no significant unavoidable adverse transportation impacts with the proposed
development evaluated on the Quendall Terminals site. Transportation improvements identified
Quendall Terminals EIS Addendum
Renton, WA
Updated Transportation Impact Study
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 37
October 1, 2012
above are expected to mitigate project traffic impacts to the vicinity arterial roadway and
intersection network.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, the applicant developed a Preferred Alternative for
Quendall Terminals. The Preferred Alternative described and analyzed in the EIS Addendum
comprises nearly the same level and type of buildout as Alternative 2 – Lower Density
Alternative originally evaluated in the transportation study for the Quendall Terminals DEIS. The
following paragraphs identify the program components of the Preferred Alternative, estimated
trip generation, other site elements of the Preferred Alternative, and the conclusions of the
relative impacts of this alternative in the context of impacts evaluated and disclosed for DEIS
Alternative 2.
The 2015 Preferred Alternative would include the construction of 692 multifamily units, 20,225
square feet of retail, 9,000 square feet of restaurant space and parking for 1,337 vehicles.
Average trip rates for Apartments (ITE land use code 220), Shopping Center (ITE land use code
820), and High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant were used as the basis for estimating vehicular
trips that would be generated by this alternative. As shown in Table 11, a net total of
approximately 5,656 daily, 435 a.m. peak hour (104 entering, 331 exiting), and 530 p.m. peak
hour vehicular trips (340 entering and 190 exiting) would be generated at 2015 full buildout
conditions under the Preferred Alternative. As shown, the Preferred Alternative would result in
approximately 128 fewer daily trips, 8 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, and 11 fewer p.m. peak hour
trips than DEIS Alternative 2. As such, the relative impact to traffic operations within the study
area would be very similar, but slightly less than those disclosed and evaluated under DEIS
Alternative 2.
Furthermore, as the proposed program for the Preferred Alternative (including proposed land
use mix, buildout levels, and parking supply) is similar to Alternative 2 – Lower Density
Alternative, project mitigation to address traffic and parking impacts identified in this updated
study for Alternative 2 would also apply to the Preferred Alternative.
Table 11: 2015 Preferred Alternative Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Land Use
ITE Land Use
Code 1
Size 2 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Daily Trip
Generation
Apartments 220 692 DU 70 282 352 278 150 428 4,605
10% Factor on Residential Uses 8 28 36 28 15 43 460
Retail 820 20,225 sf GLA 12 8 20 37 38 75 868
Restaurant 932 9,000 sf GFA 54 50 104 59 41 100 1,144
2015 Preferred Alternative Gross Trip Generation 144 368 512 462 244 686 7,077
Less Internal Trips 3 -17 -17 -34 -33 -33 -66 -906
Less Pass-By Trips 3 -23 -20 -43 -29 -21 -50 -515
2015 Preferred Alternative Net Trip Generation 104 331 435 340 190 530 5,656
2015 Partial Buildout Net Trip Generation 105 338 443 348 193 541 5,784
Difference in Preferred Alternative Compared to
Alternative 2 – Partial Buildout -1 -7 -8 -8 -3 -11 -128
1. Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008.
2. DU is Dwelling Unit, GFA is Gross Floor Area, and GLA is Gross Leasable Area.
3. Internal and pass-by determined based upon documented average rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004.
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
Appendix A
Intersection Level of Service Summary Sheets
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
Existing Conditions
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)280 110 350 165 165 140 10 95 90 30 25 345
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph)318 125 398 188 188 159 11 108 102 34 28 392
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)318 523 188 188 159 222 455
Volume Left (vph)318 0 188 0 0 11 34
Volume Right (vph)0 398 0 0 159 102 392
Hadj (s)0.53 -0.50 0.53 0.03 -0.67 -0.10 -0.47
Departure Headway (s)8.8 7.7 9.1 8.6 3.2 8.4 7.2
Degree Utilization, x 0.78 1.12 0.48 0.45 0.14 0.52 0.91
Capacity (veh/h)403 470 373 392 1121 404 485
Control Delay (s)34.9 103.3 19.0 17.3 5.5 20.1 47.8
Approach Delay (s)77.4 14.4 20.1 47.8
Approach LOS F B C E
Intersection Summary
Delay 48.2
HCM Level of Service E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 665 5 390 135 0 0 0 0 55 5 115
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 782 6 459 159 0 0 0 0 65 6 135
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)9
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 159 788 1932 1862 785 1862 1865 159
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 159 788 1932 1862 785 1862 1865 159
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free %100 45 100 100 100 0 82 85
cM capacity (veh/h)1427 831 21 33 396 31 32 884
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 788 459 159 206
Volume Left 0 459 0 65
Volume Right 6 0 0 135
cSH 1700 831 1700 89
Volume to Capacity 0.46 0.55 0.09 2.32
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 86 0 469
Control Delay (s)0.0 14.5 0.0 705.5
Lane LOS B F
Approach Delay (s)0.0 10.8 705.5
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 94.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)15 635 0 0 195 65 0 0 0 30 0 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph)18 765 0 0 235 78 0 0 0 36 0 6
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 313 765 1081 1114 765 1075 1075 274
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 313 765 1081 1114 765 1075 1075 274
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4
p0 queue free %99 100 100 100 100 81 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h)1247 853 193 207 406 187 208 744
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 18 765 313 0 42
Volume Left 18 0 0 0 36
Volume Right 0 0 78 0 6
cSH 1247 1700 1700 1700 210
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.45 0.18 0.00 0.20
Queue Length 95th (ft)1 0 0 0 18
Control Delay (s)7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4
Lane LOS A A D
Approach Delay (s)0.2 0.0 0.0 26.4
Approach LOS A D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.4%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 650 200 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 783 241 0 0 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 241 1024 241
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 241 1024 241
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %100 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h)1326 263 803
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 783 241 0
Volume Left 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0
cSH 1326 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.14 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 0 0
Control Delay (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)345 2 17 89 6 106
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Hourly flow rate (vph)421 2 21 109 7 129
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)423 129 137
Volume Left (vph)0 21 7
Volume Right (vph)2 0 129
Hadj (s)0.05 0.10 -0.54
Departure Headway (s)4.4 4.8 4.6
Degree Utilization, x 0.52 0.17 0.18
Capacity (veh/h)784 709 693
Control Delay (s)12.2 8.8 8.6
Approach Delay (s)12.2 8.8 8.6
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 10.9
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.7%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 10 0 20 11 20 0 59 47 18 25 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 12 0 25 14 25 0 73 58 22 31 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)12 63 131 53
Volume Left (vph)0 25 0 22
Volume Right (vph)0 25 58 0
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.12 -0.18 0.17
Departure Headway (s)4.4 4.2 3.9 4.4
Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.06
Capacity (veh/h)784 821 886 804
Control Delay (s)7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7
Approach Delay (s)7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.6
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.2%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Burnett Ave & Lk Wa Blvd 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)54 1 334 98 2 87
Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Hourly flow rate (vph)69 1 428 126 3 112
Direction, Lane #WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)71 554 114
Volume Left (vph)69 0 3
Volume Right (vph)1 126 0
Hadj (s)0.25 -0.09 0.04
Departure Headway (s)5.6 4.2 4.7
Degree Utilization, x 0.11 0.64 0.15
Capacity (veh/h)573 855 729
Control Delay (s)9.3 14.2 8.5
Approach Delay (s)9.3 14.2 8.5
Approach LOS A B A
Intersection Summary
Delay 12.9
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.5%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1687 3362 3400 3357 1427 1782 1524 1803 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.68 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1687 3362 3400 3357 1427 1708 1524 1277 1599
Volume (vph)279 352 8 208 718 90 12 88 55 98 15 204
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)303 383 9 226 780 98 13 96 60 107 16 222
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187
Lane Group Flow (vph)303 392 0 226 780 98 0 109 60 0 123 35
Heavy Vehicles (%)7%7%7%3%3%3%6%6%6%1%1%1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Perm Over Perm Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6
Permitted Phases Free 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s)15.1 24.3 6.8 16.0 51.3 8.2 6.8 8.2 8.2
Effective Green, g (s)15.1 24.3 6.8 16.0 51.3 8.2 6.8 8.2 8.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.47 0.13 0.31 1.00 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.16
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)497 1593 451 1047 1427 273 202 204 256
v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.12 0.07 c0.23 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.06 c0.10 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.25 0.50 0.74 0.07 0.40 0.30 0.60 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 15.6 8.0 20.7 15.8 0.0 19.3 20.1 20.0 18.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.1 0.9 2.9 0.1 1.0 0.8 5.0 0.2
Delay (s)17.7 8.1 21.6 18.7 0.1 20.3 20.9 25.0 18.8
Level of Service B A C B A C C C B
Approach Delay (s)12.3 17.7 20.5 21.0
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 16.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.3 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.1%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)55 165 60 75 150 65 15 230 145 50 25 280
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph)57 172 62 78 156 68 16 240 151 52 26 292
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)57 234 78 156 68 406 370
Volume Left (vph)57 0 78 0 0 16 52
Volume Right (vph)0 63 0 0 68 151 292
Hadj (s)0.52 -0.17 0.53 0.03 -0.67 -0.20 -0.43
Departure Headway (s)8.1 7.4 8.3 7.7 3.2 6.3 6.2
Degree Utilization, x 0.13 0.48 0.18 0.34 0.06 0.71 0.63
Capacity (veh/h)405 439 377 406 1121 544 541
Control Delay (s)11.1 15.8 11.9 13.4 5.2 23.3 19.3
Approach Delay (s)14.9 11.2 23.3 19.3
Approach LOS B B C C
Intersection Summary
Delay 17.8
HCM Level of Service C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.7%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 150 125 215 225 0 0 0 0 130 5 250
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 155 129 222 232 0 0 0 0 134 5 258
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)9
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 232 284 1026 894 219 894 959 232
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 232 284 1026 894 219 894 959 232
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free %100 83 100 100 100 41 98 68
cM capacity (veh/h)1348 1285 125 234 826 229 214 812
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 284 222 232 397
Volume Left 0 222 0 134
Volume Right 129 0 0 258
cSH 1700 1285 1700 651
Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.61
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 16 0 104
Control Delay (s)0.0 8.4 0.0 22.4
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s)0.0 4.1 22.4
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 9.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)5 180 5 5 410 40 0 0 0 100 0 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)5 186 5 5 423 41 0 0 0 103 0 31
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 464 191 683 673 188 649 655 443
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 464 191 683 673 188 649 655 443
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.3 6.7 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.7 4.2 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free %100 100 100 100 100 73 100 95
cM capacity (veh/h)1108 1377 324 355 817 379 381 612
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 5 191 469 0 134
Volume Left 5 0 5 0 103
Volume Right 0 5 41 0 31
cSH 1108 1700 1377 1700 415
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.32
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 0 0 0 34
Control Delay (s)8.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 17.7
Lane LOS A A A C
Approach Delay (s)0.2 0.1 0.0 17.7
Approach LOS A C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 135 500 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 139 515 0 0 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 515 655 515
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 515 655 515
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %100 100 100
cM capacity (veh/h)1061 434 563
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 139 515 0
Volume Left 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0
cSH 1061 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.30 0.00
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 0 0
Control Delay (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.6%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)107 7 83 280 4 25
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph)113 7 87 295 4 26
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)115 5 382 31
Volume Left (vph)0 0 87 4
Volume Right (vph)2 5 0 26
Hadj (s)-0.01 -0.70 0.06 -0.49
Departure Headway (s)4.8 4.1 4.3 4.5
Degree Utilization, x 0.15 0.01 0.45 0.04
Capacity (veh/h)733 847 827 716
Control Delay (s)7.5 5.9 10.8 7.7
Approach Delay (s)7.4 10.8 7.7
Approach LOS A B A
Intersection Summary
Delay 9.8
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.0%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 13 1 64 28 13 2 38 61 44 55 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 14 1 69 30 14 2 41 66 47 59 2
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)15 113 109 109
Volume Left (vph)0 69 2 47
Volume Right (vph)1 14 66 2
Hadj (s)-0.04 0.05 -0.36 0.09
Departure Headway (s)4.5 4.4 4.0 4.4
Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.14 0.12 0.13
Capacity (veh/h)758 764 868 779
Control Delay (s)7.6 8.2 7.5 8.1
Approach Delay (s)7.6 8.2 7.5 8.1
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.9
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.3%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)2 289 104 111 92 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph)2 318 114 122 101 3
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)320 236 104
Volume Left (vph)2 0 101
Volume Right (vph)0 122 3
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.31 0.17
Departure Headway (s)4.4 4.2 5.3
Degree Utilization, x 0.40 0.28 0.15
Capacity (veh/h)788 813 619
Control Delay (s)10.3 8.9 9.3
Approach Delay (s)10.3 8.9 9.3
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 9.6
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.7%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 7/2/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/5/2010 2009-2010 Existing PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3521 3433 3390 1441 1873 1599 1834 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.79 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3521 3433 3390 1441 1821 1599 1478 1599
Volume (vph)297 758 26 295 646 132 9 85 497 90 83 292
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)306 781 27 304 666 136 9 88 512 93 86 301
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244
Lane Group Flow (vph)306 808 0 304 666 136 0 97 512 0 179 57
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%2%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Perm Over Perm Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 3 6
Permitted Phases Free 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s)25.2 18.7 25.4 18.9 69.2 13.1 25.4 13.1 13.1
Effective Green, g (s)25.2 18.7 25.4 18.9 69.2 13.1 25.4 13.1 13.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.27 0.37 0.27 1.00 0.19 0.37 0.19 0.19
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)645 951 1260 926 1441 345 587 280 303
v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.23 0.09 0.20 c0.32
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.05 c0.12 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.85 0.24 0.72 0.09 0.28 0.87 0.64 0.19
Uniform Delay, d1 16.9 23.9 15.2 22.7 0.0 24.0 20.4 25.9 23.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 7.2 0.1 2.7 0.1 0.4 13.4 4.7 0.3
Delay (s)17.5 31.1 15.3 25.5 0.1 24.5 33.8 30.6 23.9
Level of Service B C B C A C C C C
Approach Delay (s)27.4 19.5 32.3 26.4
Approach LOS C B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 25.5 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.2 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
2015 Without Project (Without RTID Improvements)
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)355 120 435 175 185 150 40 130 100 30 55 440
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)386 130 473 190 201 163 43 141 109 33 60 478
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)386 603 190 201 163 293 571
Volume Left (vph)386 0 190 0 0 43 33
Volume Right (vph)0 473 0 0 163 109 478
Hadj (s)0.53 -0.51 0.53 0.03 -0.67 -0.02 -0.46
Departure Headway (s)9.1 8.1 9.6 9.1 3.2 8.8 7.8
Degree Utilization, x 0.98 1.36 0.51 0.51 0.14 0.72 1.23
Capacity (veh/h)386 452 359 377 1121 398 461
Control Delay (s)70.0 196.9 21.0 20.1 5.5 31.1 145.4
Approach Delay (s)147.4 16.1 31.1 145.4
Approach LOS F C D F
Intersection Summary
Delay 102.5
HCM Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.1%ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 730 25 515 155 0 0 0 0 140 10 165
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 793 27 560 168 0 0 0 0 152 11 179
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)9
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 168 821 2190 2095 807 2095 2109 168
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 168 821 2190 2095 807 2095 2109 168
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free %100 31 100 100 100 0 30 79
cM capacity (veh/h)1415 808 6 16 385 17 16 873
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 821 560 168 342
Volume Left 0 560 0 152
Volume Right 27 0 0 179
cSH 1700 808 1700 34
Volume to Capacity 0.48 0.69 0.10 10.02
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 143 0 Err
Control Delay (s)0.0 18.8 0.0 Err
Lane LOS C F
Approach Delay (s)0.0 14.5 Err
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1815.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7%ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)20 685 0 0 250 70 0 0 5 65 0 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)22 745 0 0 272 76 0 0 5 71 0 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 348 745 1109 1136 745 1103 1098 310
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 348 745 1109 1136 745 1103 1098 310
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4
p0 queue free %98 100 100 100 99 60 100 98
cM capacity (veh/h)1211 868 183 200 418 176 201 710
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 22 745 348 5 82
Volume Left 22 0 0 0 71
Volume Right 0 0 76 5 11
cSH 1211 1700 1700 418 196
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.44 0.20 0.01 0.42
Queue Length 95th (ft)1 0 0 1 47
Control Delay (s)8.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 35.8
Lane LOS A B E
Approach Delay (s)0.2 0.0 13.7 35.8
Approach LOS B E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 695 260 0 10 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 755 283 0 11 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 283 1038 283
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 283 1038 283
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %100 96 100
cM capacity (veh/h)1280 258 761
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 755 283 11
Volume Left 0 0 11
Volume Right 0 0 0
cSH 1280 1700 258
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.17 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 0 3
Control Delay (s)0.0 0.0 19.6
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.0 19.6
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.6%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Lk Wa Blvd & Hawks Landing Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)665 5 55 210 5 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)723 5 60 228 5 33
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 728 1073 726
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 728 1073 726
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %93 98 92
cM capacity (veh/h)880 229 428
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 728 60 228 38
Volume Left 0 60 0 5
Volume Right 5 0 0 33
cSH 1700 880 1700 381
Volume to Capacity 0.43 0.07 0.13 0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 5 0 8
Control Delay (s)0.0 9.4 0.0 15.5
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s)0.0 1.9 15.5
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.0%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)425 5 20 110 10 120
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)462 5 22 120 11 130
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)467 141 141
Volume Left (vph)0 22 11
Volume Right (vph)5 0 130
Hadj (s)0.04 0.10 -0.52
Departure Headway (s)4.5 4.9 4.8
Degree Utilization, x 0.58 0.19 0.19
Capacity (veh/h)779 697 669
Control Delay (s)13.5 9.0 8.9
Approach Delay (s)13.5 9.0 8.9
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 11.8
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 10 0 20 10 30 0 60 50 25 25 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 11 0 22 11 33 0 65 54 27 27 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)11 65 120 54
Volume Left (vph)0 22 0 27
Volume Right (vph)0 33 54 0
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.20 -0.19 0.18
Departure Headway (s)4.3 4.1 3.9 4.4
Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.07
Capacity (veh/h)789 842 887 803
Control Delay (s)7.4 7.4 7.5 7.7
Approach Delay (s)7.4 7.4 7.5 7.7
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.5
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.2%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Burnett Ave & Lk Wa Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)80 5 310 130 5 90
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)87 5 337 141 5 98
Direction, Lane #WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)92 478 103
Volume Left (vph)87 0 5
Volume Right (vph)5 141 0
Hadj (s)0.22 -0.13 0.04
Departure Headway (s)5.4 4.2 4.7
Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.55 0.13
Capacity (veh/h)603 850 728
Control Delay (s)9.3 12.2 8.4
Approach Delay (s)9.3 12.2 8.4
Approach LOS A B A
Intersection Summary
Delay 11.2
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3273 3347 3400 3357 1427 1688 1447 1698 1749 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 0.86 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3273 3347 3400 3357 1427 1601 1447 1698 1538 1599
Volume (vph)280 445 25 460 785 60 40 180 145 85 35 235
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)304 484 27 500 853 65 43 196 158 92 38 255
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159
Lane Group Flow (vph)304 511 0 500 853 65 0 239 158 63 67 96
Heavy Vehicles (%)7%7%7%3%3%3%6%6%6%1%1%1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Over Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)10.1 15.6 14.0 19.5 66.9 18.3 14.0 3.0 25.3 25.3
Effective Green, g (s)10.1 15.6 14.0 19.5 66.9 18.3 14.0 3.0 25.3 25.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.23 0.21 0.29 1.00 0.27 0.21 0.04 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)494 780 712 978 1427 438 303 76 591 605
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.15 0.15 c0.25 0.11 c0.04 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.15 0.04 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.66 0.70 0.87 0.05 0.55 0.52 0.83 0.11 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 23.2 24.5 22.5 0.0 20.8 23.5 31.7 13.5 13.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 2.0 3.1 8.6 0.1 1.4 1.6 49.7 0.1 0.1
Delay (s)28.9 25.2 27.7 31.2 0.1 22.1 25.1 81.4 13.6 13.9
Level of Service C C C C A C C F B B
Approach Delay (s)26.6 28.5 23.3 24.9
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.9 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 10/1/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)100 190 95 80 175 65 45 310 155 50 50 365
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph)104 198 99 83 182 68 47 323 161 52 52 380
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)104 297 83 182 68 531 484
Volume Left (vph)104 0 83 0 0 47 52
Volume Right (vph)0 99 0 0 68 161 380
Hadj (s)0.52 -0.22 0.53 0.03 -0.67 -0.15 -0.43
Departure Headway (s)9.3 8.5 9.7 9.2 3.2 7.8 7.4
Degree Utilization, x 0.27 0.70 0.22 0.47 0.06 1.15 0.99
Capacity (veh/h)382 412 363 375 1121 464 484
Control Delay (s)14.4 28.1 14.3 18.7 5.2 117.2 66.7
Approach Delay (s)24.6 14.9 117.2 66.7
Approach LOS C B F F
Intersection Summary
Delay 62.5
HCM Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 185 155 305 265 0 0 0 0 230 10 340
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 191 160 314 273 0 0 0 0 237 10 351
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)9
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 273 351 1353 1173 271 1173 1253 273
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 273 351 1353 1173 271 1173 1253 273
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free %100 74 100 100 100 0 92 55
cM capacity (veh/h)1302 1214 53 144 773 137 129 770
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 351 314 273 598
Volume Left 0 314 0 237
Volume Right 160 0 0 351
cSH 1700 1214 1700 282
Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.26 0.16 2.12
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 26 0 1114
Control Delay (s)0.0 9.0 0.0 545.9
Lane LOS A F
Approach Delay (s)0.0 4.8 545.9
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 214.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.4%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)15 225 0 0 520 70 0 0 5 115 0 35
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)15 232 0 0 536 72 0 0 5 119 0 36
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 608 232 871 871 232 840 835 572
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 608 232 871 871 232 840 835 572
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.3 6.7 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.7 4.2 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free %98 100 100 100 99 57 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h)980 1330 235 269 771 278 298 518
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 15 232 608 5 155
Volume Left 15 0 0 0 119
Volume Right 0 0 72 5 36
cSH 980 1700 1700 771 312
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.14 0.36 0.01 0.50
Queue Length 95th (ft)1 0 0 1 65
Control Delay (s)8.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 27.4
Lane LOS A A D
Approach Delay (s)0.5 0.0 9.7 27.4
Approach LOS A D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 185 560 10 5 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 191 577 10 5 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 588 773 582
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 588 773 582
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %100 99 100
cM capacity (veh/h)997 370 516
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 191 588 5
Volume Left 0 0 5
Volume Right 0 10 0
cSH 997 1700 370
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.35 0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 0 1
Control Delay (s)0.0 0.0 14.9
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.0 14.9
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Lk WA Blvd & Hawks Landing Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)145 5 50 515 5 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)149 5 52 531 5 41
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 155 786 152
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 155 786 152
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %96 99 95
cM capacity (veh/h)1420 351 899
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 155 52 531 46
Volume Left 0 52 0 5
Volume Right 5 0 0 41
cSH 1700 1420 1700 766
Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.04 0.31 0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 3 0 5
Control Delay (s)0.0 7.6 0.0 10.0
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.7 10.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)140 10 90 340 5 35
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph)147 11 95 358 5 37
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)151 7 453 42
Volume Left (vph)0 0 95 5
Volume Right (vph)4 7 0 37
Hadj (s)-0.02 -0.70 0.06 -0.50
Departure Headway (s)4.9 4.2 4.3 4.7
Degree Utilization, x 0.21 0.01 0.55 0.06
Capacity (veh/h)718 826 814 670
Control Delay (s)8.0 6.1 12.4 8.0
Approach Delay (s)7.9 12.4 8.0
Approach LOS A B A
Intersection Summary
Delay 11.1
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.8%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 15 0 70 30 25 0 40 60 60 55 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 16 0 75 32 27 0 43 65 65 59 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)16 134 108 124
Volume Left (vph)0 75 0 65
Volume Right (vph)0 27 65 0
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.01 -0.36 0.12
Departure Headway (s)4.6 4.4 4.0 4.5
Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.17 0.12 0.15
Capacity (veh/h)727 765 849 763
Control Delay (s)7.7 8.3 7.6 8.3
Approach Delay (s)7.7 8.3 7.6 8.3
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 8.1
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 380 185 145 95 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 413 201 158 103 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)413 359 103
Volume Left (vph)0 0 103
Volume Right (vph)0 158 0
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.26 0.20
Departure Headway (s)4.6 4.4 5.8
Degree Utilization, x 0.53 0.44 0.17
Capacity (veh/h)752 784 545
Control Delay (s)12.7 10.9 10.0
Approach Delay (s)12.7 10.9 10.0
Approach LOS B B A
Intersection Summary
Delay 11.6
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/7/2010 2015 Baseline Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3511 3433 3390 1441 1870 1599 1698 1787 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3511 3433 3390 1441 1870 1599 1698 1787 1599
Volume (vph)330 890 50 495 770 120 20 155 835 80 125 315
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)340 918 52 510 794 124 21 160 861 82 129 325
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 0 0 281
Lane Group Flow (vph)340 970 0 510 794 124 0 181 685 82 129 44
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%2%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split pt+ov Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 3 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)15.3 24.0 16.0 24.7 89.0 21.0 37.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Effective Green, g (s)15.3 24.0 16.0 24.7 89.0 21.0 37.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.27 0.18 0.28 1.00 0.24 0.42 0.13 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)590 947 617 941 1441 441 665 229 241 216
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.28 0.15 0.23 0.10 c0.43 0.05 c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.58 1.02 0.83 0.84 0.09 0.41 1.03 0.36 0.54 0.20
Uniform Delay, d1 33.9 32.5 35.2 30.3 0.0 28.8 26.0 35.0 35.9 34.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 35.6 8.9 7.0 0.1 0.6 42.9 1.0 2.3 0.5
Delay (s)35.2 68.1 44.1 37.3 0.1 29.4 68.9 36.0 38.2 34.7
Level of Service D E D D A C E D D C
Approach Delay (s)59.5 36.5 62.0 35.7
Approach LOS E D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 49.6 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5%ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
2015 With Alternative 1 (Without RTID Improvements)
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)395 160 625 175 230 150 40 130 100 30 55 485
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)429 174 679 190 250 163 43 141 109 33 60 527
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)429 853 190 250 163 293 620
Volume Left (vph)429 0 190 0 0 43 33
Volume Right (vph)0 679 0 0 163 109 527
Hadj (s)0.53 -0.52 0.53 0.03 -0.67 -0.02 -0.47
Departure Headway (s)9.3 8.2 9.7 9.2 3.2 9.0 8.0
Degree Utilization, x 1.11 1.95 0.51 0.64 0.14 0.74 1.38
Capacity (veh/h)398 443 358 380 1121 390 455
Control Delay (s)108.0 455.9 21.3 25.9 5.5 33.4 205.3
Approach Delay (s)339.5 18.9 33.4 205.3
Approach LOS F C D F
Intersection Summary
Delay 208.6
HCM Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.6%ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 1005 25 515 245 0 0 0 0 140 10 365
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 1092 27 560 266 0 0 0 0 152 11 397
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)9
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 266 1120 2696 2492 1106 2492 2505 266
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 266 1120 2696 2492 1106 2492 2505 266
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free %100 10 0 100 100 0 0 48
cM capacity (veh/h)1303 624 0 3 258 4 3 770
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 1120 560 266 560
Volume Left 0 560 0 152
Volume Right 27 0 0 397
cSH 1700 624 1700 15
Volume to Capacity 0.66 0.90 0.16 38.55
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 276 0 Err
Control Delay (s)0.0 41.2 0.0 Err
Lane LOS E F
Approach Delay (s)0.0 27.9 Err
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 2243.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.2%ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)20 705 0 0 270 335 0 0 5 320 0 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)22 766 0 0 293 364 0 0 5 348 0 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 658 766 1296 1467 766 1291 1285 476
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 658 766 1296 1467 766 1291 1285 476
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.2 6.6 6.3
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 4.1 3.4
p0 queue free %98 100 100 100 99 0 100 98
cM capacity (veh/h)930 852 135 126 406 130 154 571
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 22 766 658 5 359
Volume Left 22 0 0 0 348
Volume Right 0 0 364 5 11
cSH 930 1700 1700 406 133
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.45 0.39 0.01 2.69
Queue Length 95th (ft)2 0 0 1 809
Control Delay (s)9.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 834.6
Lane LOS A B F
Approach Delay (s)0.2 0.0 14.0 834.6
Approach LOS B F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 165.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)175 675 255 25 45 150
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)190 734 277 27 49 163
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 304 1405 291
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 304 1405 291
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %85 63 78
cM capacity (veh/h)1256 132 753
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 924 304 212
Volume Left 190 0 49
Volume Right 0 27 163
cSH 1256 1700 361
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.18 0.59
Queue Length 95th (ft)13 0 90
Control Delay (s)3.5 0.0 28.3
Lane LOS A D
Approach Delay (s)3.5 0.0 28.3
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.9%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Lk Wa Blvd & Hawks Landing Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)820 5 55 355 5 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)891 5 60 386 5 33
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 897 1399 894
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 897 1399 894
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %92 96 90
cM capacity (veh/h)761 144 343
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 897 60 386 38
Volume Left 0 60 0 5
Volume Right 5 0 0 33
cSH 1700 761 1700 286
Volume to Capacity 0.53 0.08 0.23 0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 6 0 11
Control Delay (s)0.0 10.1 0.0 19.5
Lane LOS B C
Approach Delay (s)0.0 1.4 19.5
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)490 5 105 175 10 210
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)533 5 114 190 11 228
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)538 304 239
Volume Left (vph)0 114 11
Volume Right (vph)5 0 228
Hadj (s)0.04 0.14 -0.55
Departure Headway (s)5.1 5.5 5.5
Degree Utilization, x 0.76 0.47 0.36
Capacity (veh/h)538 623 592
Control Delay (s)22.6 13.2 11.6
Approach Delay (s)22.6 13.2 11.6
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
Delay 17.5
HCM Level of Service C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 10 0 20 10 120 0 60 50 110 25 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 11 0 22 11 130 0 65 54 120 27 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)11 163 120 147
Volume Left (vph)0 22 0 120
Volume Right (vph)0 130 54 0
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.42 -0.19 0.25
Departure Headway (s)4.7 4.1 4.3 4.7
Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.19 0.14 0.19
Capacity (veh/h)701 817 800 733
Control Delay (s)7.8 8.1 8.0 8.8
Approach Delay (s)7.8 8.1 8.0 8.8
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 8.3
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.4%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Burnett Ave & Lk Wa Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)80 5 375 130 5 155
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)87 5 408 141 5 168
Direction, Lane #WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)92 549 174
Volume Left (vph)87 0 5
Volume Right (vph)5 141 0
Hadj (s)0.22 -0.10 0.04
Departure Headway (s)5.7 4.3 4.8
Degree Utilization, x 0.15 0.65 0.23
Capacity (veh/h)561 827 715
Control Delay (s)9.7 15.0 9.2
Approach Delay (s)9.7 15.0 9.2
Approach LOS A B A
Intersection Summary
Delay 13.2
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.0%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3273 3347 3400 3357 1427 1689 1447 1698 1760 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3273 3347 3400 3357 1427 1689 1447 1698 1760 1599
Volume (vph)325 445 25 460 785 65 40 200 145 90 50 275
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)353 484 27 500 853 71 43 217 158 98 54 299
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261
Lane Group Flow (vph)353 511 0 500 853 71 0 260 158 74 78 38
Heavy Vehicles (%)7%7%7%3%3%3%6%6%6%1%1%1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split pt+ov Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 3 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)10.7 18.0 14.4 21.7 72.2 14.7 29.1 9.1 9.1 9.1
Effective Green, g (s)10.7 18.0 14.4 21.7 72.2 14.7 29.1 9.1 9.1 9.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.25 0.20 0.30 1.00 0.20 0.40 0.13 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)485 834 678 1009 1427 344 583 214 222 202
v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.15 0.15 c0.25 c0.15 0.11 0.04 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.61 0.74 0.85 0.05 0.76 0.27 0.35 0.35 0.19
Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 24.0 27.1 23.7 0.0 27.1 14.4 28.8 28.9 28.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 1.3 4.2 6.6 0.1 9.1 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.4
Delay (s)34.8 25.4 31.3 30.3 0.1 36.2 14.7 29.8 29.8 28.7
Level of Service C C C C A D B C C C
Approach Delay (s)29.2 29.2 28.1 29.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 29.0 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.2 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)150 240 325 80 220 65 45 310 155 50 50 410
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Hourly flow rate (vph)156 250 339 83 229 68 47 323 161 52 52 427
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)156 589 83 229 68 531 531
Volume Left (vph)156 0 83 0 0 47 52
Volume Right (vph)0 339 0 0 68 161 427
Hadj (s)0.52 -0.39 0.53 0.03 -0.67 -0.15 -0.45
Departure Headway (s)9.5 8.6 10.2 9.7 3.2 8.5 8.2
Degree Utilization, x 0.41 1.41 0.24 0.62 0.06 1.26 1.22
Capacity (veh/h)375 428 350 364 1121 429 443
Control Delay (s)17.8 220.6 15.1 25.7 5.2 160.6 142.7
Approach Delay (s)178.1 19.7 160.6 142.7
Approach LOS F C F F
Intersection Summary
Delay 137.7
HCM Level of Service F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.5%ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 515 155 305 355 0 0 0 0 230 10 540
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 531 160 314 366 0 0 0 0 237 10 557
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)9
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 366 691 1889 1606 611 1606 1686 366
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 366 691 1889 1606 611 1606 1686 366
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free %100 65 100 100 100 0 83 19
cM capacity (veh/h)1204 909 6 70 498 63 62 684
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 691 314 366 804
Volume Left 0 314 0 237
Volume Right 160 0 0 557
cSH 1700 909 1700 172
Volume to Capacity 0.41 0.35 0.22 4.68
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 39 0 Err
Control Delay (s)0.0 11.0 0.0 Err
Lane LOS B F
Approach Delay (s)0.0 5.1 Err
Approach LOS F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 3697.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Grade 0%0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)15 250 0 5 540 335 0 0 5 420 0 20
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)15 258 0 5 557 345 0 0 5 433 0 21
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 902 258 1049 1201 258 1034 1028 729
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 902 258 1049 1201 258 1034 1028 729
tC, single (s)4.1 4.1 7.3 6.7 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 2.2 3.7 4.2 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.3
p0 queue free %98 100 100 100 99 0 100 95
cM capacity (veh/h)762 1301 180 169 746 204 227 421
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 15 258 907 5 454
Volume Left 15 0 5 0 433
Volume Right 0 0 345 5 21
cSH 762 1700 1301 746 209
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.01 2.17
Queue Length 95th (ft)2 0 0 1 884
Control Delay (s)9.8 0.0 0.1 9.9 578.1
Lane LOS A A A F
Approach Delay (s)0.6 0.1 9.9 578.1
Approach LOS A F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 160.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.9%ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMills Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)160 230 525 50 35 195
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)165 237 541 52 36 201
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 593 1134 567
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 593 1134 567
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %83 81 62
cM capacity (veh/h)993 189 527
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 402 593 237
Volume Left 165 0 36
Volume Right 0 52 201
cSH 993 1700 414
Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.35 0.57
Queue Length 95th (ft)15 0 87
Control Delay (s)4.9 0.0 24.7
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s)4.9 0.0 24.7
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 6.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Lk WA Blvd & Hawks Landing Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)350 5 50 680 5 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)361 5 52 701 5 41
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 366 1168 363
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 366 1168 363
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %96 98 94
cM capacity (veh/h)1187 207 686
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1
Volume Total 366 52 701 46
Volume Left 0 52 0 5
Volume Right 5 0 0 41
cSH 1700 1187 1700 545
Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.04 0.41 0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 3 0 7
Control Delay (s)0.0 8.2 0.0 12.2
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.6 12.2
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk Wa Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)205 10 190 415 5 125
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph)216 11 200 437 5 132
Direction, Lane #EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)219 7 637 137
Volume Left (vph)0 0 200 5
Volume Right (vph)4 7 0 132
Hadj (s)-0.01 -0.70 0.08 -0.57
Departure Headway (s)5.5 4.8 4.8 5.4
Degree Utilization, x 0.33 0.01 0.84 0.20
Capacity (veh/h)627 717 743 621
Control Delay (s)9.9 6.6 28.0 9.7
Approach Delay (s)9.8 28.0 9.7
Approach LOS A D A
Intersection Summary
Delay 21.4
HCM Level of Service C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 15 0 70 30 115 0 40 60 160 55 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 16 0 75 32 124 0 43 65 172 59 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)16 231 108 231
Volume Left (vph)0 75 0 172
Volume Right (vph)0 124 65 0
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.26 -0.36 0.17
Departure Headway (s)5.0 4.5 4.4 4.8
Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.29 0.13 0.31
Capacity (veh/h)644 750 757 712
Control Delay (s)8.1 9.3 8.1 9.9
Approach Delay (s)8.1 9.3 8.1 9.9
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 9.3
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 455 250 145 95 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 495 272 158 103 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)495 429 103
Volume Left (vph)0 0 103
Volume Right (vph)0 158 0
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.22 0.20
Departure Headway (s)4.7 4.6 6.2
Degree Utilization, x 0.65 0.55 0.18
Capacity (veh/h)737 759 509
Control Delay (s)16.2 13.1 10.5
Approach Delay (s)16.2 13.1 10.5
Approach LOS C B B
Intersection Summary
Delay 14.3
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.9%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/14/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3511 3433 3390 1441 1622 1519 1698 1787 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3511 3433 3390 1441 1622 1519 1698 1787 1599
Volume (vph)375 890 50 495 770 125 20 155 835 85 145 365
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)387 918 52 510 794 129 21 160 861 88 149 376
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 327
Lane Group Flow (vph)387 970 0 510 794 129 0 454 588 88 149 49
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%2%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split pt+ov Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 3 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)18.5 31.1 17.0 29.6 111.4 32.9 49.9 14.4 14.4 14.4
Effective Green, g (s)18.5 31.1 17.0 29.6 111.4 32.9 49.9 14.4 14.4 14.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.15 0.27 1.00 0.30 0.45 0.13 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)570 980 524 901 1441 479 680 219 231 207
v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.28 c0.15 0.23 c0.28 0.39 0.05 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.99 0.97 0.88 0.09 0.95 0.86 0.40 0.65 0.24
Uniform Delay, d1 43.7 40.0 47.0 39.2 0.0 38.4 27.7 44.5 46.1 43.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 25.9 32.3 10.1 0.1 28.1 11.1 1.2 6.1 0.6
Delay (s)46.9 65.9 79.3 49.3 0.1 66.5 38.8 45.8 52.1 44.2
Level of Service D E E D A E D D D D
Approach Delay (s)60.5 55.5 50.9 46.3
Approach LOS E E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 54.7 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 111.4 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.6%ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
2015 With Alternative 1 with Mitigation
(Without RTID Improvements)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 10/1/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak with mitigationSynchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.87
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1640 1770 1863 1583 1641 1614 1770 1612
Flt Permitted 0.59 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.51 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1105 1640 251 1863 1583 331 1614 958 1612
Volume (vph)395 160 625 175 230 150 40 130 100 30 55 485
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)429 174 679 190 250 163 43 141 109 33 60 527
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 260 0 0 0 72 0 39 0 0 358 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)429 593 0 190 250 91 43 211 0 33 229 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%2%2%2%10%10%10%2%2%2%
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s)36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9
Effective Green, g (s)36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)614 911 139 1035 879 106 519 308 518
v/s Ratio Prot 0.36 0.13 0.13 c0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.39 c0.76 0.06 0.13 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.65 1.37 0.24 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 10.5 10.1 14.4 7.4 6.8 17.2 17.2 15.5 17.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 1.7 204.1 0.1 0.1 11.1 2.4 0.7 2.7
Delay (s)14.0 11.7 218.6 7.5 6.9 28.3 19.6 16.2 20.2
Level of Service B B F A A C B B C
Approach Delay (s)12.5 73.9 20.9 20.0
Approach LOS B E C B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 28.2 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.9%ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak with mitigationSynchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1881 1599 1770 1863 1762 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1881 1599 87 1863 1762 1568
Volume (vph)0 1005 25 515 245 0 0 0 0 140 10 365
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 1092 27 560 266 0 0 0 0 152 11 397
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 354
Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1092 21 560 266 0 0 0 0 0 163 43
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%1%1%2%2%2%0%0%0%3%3%3%
Turn Type Perm pm+pt Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 3 8 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s)81.7 81.7 125.7 125.7 16.3 16.3
Effective Green, g (s)81.7 81.7 125.7 125.7 16.3 16.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.84 0.84 0.11 0.11
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1025 871 522 1561 191 170
v/s Ratio Prot 0.58 c0.29 0.14
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.61 0.09 0.03
v/c Ratio 1.07 0.02 1.07 0.17 0.85 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 34.1 15.8 51.7 2.3 65.7 61.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 47.2 0.0 60.3 0.1 35.6 3.6
Delay (s)81.4 15.8 112.0 2.3 101.3 64.8
Level of Service F B F A F E
Approach Delay (s)79.8 76.7 0.0 75.5
Approach LOS E E A E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 77.8 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.7%ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID AM Peak with mitigationSynchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 1881 1599 1644 1626 1455
Flt Permitted 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)989 3539 1881 1599 1644 1291 1455
Volume (vph)20 705 0 0 270 335 0 0 5 320 0 10
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)22 766 0 0 293 364 0 0 5 348 0 11
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 241 0 3 0 0 6 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)22 766 0 0 293 123 0 2 0 348 5 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%1%1%1%0%0%0%11%11%11%
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s)13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 18.5 18.5 18.5
Effective Green, g (s)13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 18.5 18.5 18.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.46 0.46 0.46
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)334 1194 635 540 760 597 673
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.16 0.00 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.08 c0.27
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.64 0.46 0.23 0.00 0.58 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 9.0 11.2 10.4 9.5 5.8 7.9 5.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 4.1 0.0
Delay (s)9.1 12.4 10.9 9.7 5.8 12.0 5.8
Level of Service A B B A A B A
Approach Delay (s)12.3 10.3 5.8 11.8
Approach LOS B B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & Lake WA Blvd SE 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak with MitigationSynchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.87
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1787 1719 1770 1863 1583 1787 1787 1787 1630
Flt Permitted 0.57 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.36 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1070 1719 337 1863 1583 677 1787 669 1630
Volume (vph)150 240 325 80 220 65 45 310 155 50 50 410
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)156 250 339 83 229 68 47 323 161 52 52 427
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 84 0 0 0 41 0 22 0 0 219 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)156 505 0 83 229 27 47 462 0 52 260 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%1%1%2%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s)27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1
Effective Green, g (s)27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)426 685 134 743 631 330 871 326 794
v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 0.12 c0.26 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.25 0.02 0.07 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.74 0.62 0.31 0.04 0.14 0.53 0.16 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 14.8 17.9 16.8 14.4 12.9 9.9 12.4 10.0 11.0
Progression Factor 1.12 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 3.4 8.3 0.2 0.0 0.9 2.3 1.0 1.1
Delay (s)17.1 23.0 25.1 14.7 12.9 10.8 14.7 11.0 12.1
Level of Service B C C B B B B B B
Approach Delay (s)21.8 16.6 14.4 12.0
Approach LOS C B B B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 16.7 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak with MitigationSynchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1841 1787 1881 1813 1615
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1841 502 1881 1813 1615
Volume (vph)0 515 155 305 355 0 0 0 0 230 10 540
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)0 531 160 314 366 0 0 0 0 237 10 557
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 376
Lane Group Flow (vph)0 673 0 314 366 0 0 0 0 0 247 181
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%1%1%1%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 6
Permitted Phases 8 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s)41.3 41.3 41.3 20.7 20.7
Effective Green, g (s)41.3 41.3 41.3 20.7 20.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.30 0.30
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1086 296 1110 536 478
v/s Ratio Prot 0.37 0.19
v/s Ratio Perm c0.63 0.14 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.62 1.06 0.33 0.46 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 9.3 14.4 7.3 20.1 19.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.06 1.02 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 67.5 0.2 2.8 2.3
Delay (s)10.3 82.7 7.6 22.9 21.8
Level of Service B F A C C
Approach Delay (s)10.3 42.3 0.0 22.2
Approach LOS B D A C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 24.7 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.7%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 10/25/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 Without RTID PM Peak with MitigationSynchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1805 3610 1844 1568 1405 1752 1568
Flt Permitted 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)507 3610 1839 1568 1405 1385 1568
Volume (vph)15 250 0 5 540 335 0 0 10 420 0 20
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)15 258 0 5 557 345 0 0 10 433 0 21
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 216 0 6 0 0 12 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)15 258 0 0 562 129 0 4 0 433 9 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%3%3%3%17%17%17%3%3%3%
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s)15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
Effective Green, g (s)15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.42 0.42 0.42
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)190 1354 690 588 597 589 666
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.00 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.31 0.08 c0.31
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.19 0.81 0.22 0.01 0.74 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 8.1 8.4 11.2 8.5 6.6 9.6 6.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 7.3 0.2 0.0 8.0 0.0
Delay (s)8.2 8.5 18.6 8.7 6.7 17.6 6.7
Level of Service A A B A A B A
Approach Delay (s)8.5 14.8 6.7 17.1
Approach LOS A B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 14.3 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0%ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
2015 Without Project (With RTID Improvements)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 4775 1641 1395 1395
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 4775 1641 1395 1395
Volume (vph)400 410 0 0 560 385 40 0 270 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)435 446 0 0 609 418 43 0 293 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 166 0 0 124 124 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)435 446 0 0 861 0 43 22 23 0 0 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%2%2%2%10%10%10%2%2%2%
Turn Type Prot Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s)14.0 42.8 24.8 9.2 9.2 9.2
Effective Green, g (s)14.0 42.8 24.8 9.2 9.2 9.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.71 0.41 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)801 2524 1974 252 214 214
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.13 c0.18 c0.03 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.18 0.44 0.17 0.10 0.11
Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 2.8 12.6 22.1 21.9 21.9
Progression Factor 0.53 0.09 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)13.3 0.4 8.4 22.4 22.1 22.1
Level of Service B A A C C C
Approach Delay (s)6.8 8.4 22.1 0.0
Approach LOS A A C A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 9.8 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)5110 3433 3539 1665 1679 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)5110 3433 3539 1665 1679 1568
Volume (vph)0 720 25 425 170 0 0 0 0 65 5 135
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 783 27 462 185 0 0 0 0 71 5 147
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121
Lane Group Flow (vph)0 804 0 462 185 0 0 0 0 37 39 26
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%1%1%2%2%2%0%0%0%3%3%3%
Turn Type Prot Split Prot
Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)28.3 9.0 31.7 10.7 10.7 10.7
Effective Green, g (s)28.3 9.0 31.7 10.7 10.7 10.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.15 0.53 0.18 0.18 0.18
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)2410 515 1870 297 299 280
v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.13 0.05 0.02 c0.02 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.90 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.09
Uniform Delay, d1 9.9 25.0 7.0 20.7 20.7 20.6
Progression Factor 0.37 0.67 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 19.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
Delay (s)4.0 36.1 2.0 20.9 20.9 20.7
Level of Service A D A C C C
Approach Delay (s)4.0 26.4 0.0 20.8
Approach LOS A C A C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 14.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.9%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.98
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1881 1599 1644 1611
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1881 1599 1644 1611
Volume (vph)20 670 0 0 245 70 0 0 5 65 0 10
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)22 728 0 0 266 76 0 0 5 71 0 11
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 76 0 5 0 0 9 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)22 728 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 73 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%1%1%1%0%0%0%11%11%11%
Turn Type Prot NA Split Split
Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 1 2 2
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)5.6 28.3 31.7 0.0 0.8 5.9
Effective Green, g (s)5.6 28.3 31.7 0.0 0.8 5.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.47 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.10
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)165 879 994 0 22 158
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.39 c0.14 c0.00 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.83 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 25.0 13.7 7.8 30.0 29.2 25.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 8.9 0.6 0.0 0.1 2.1
Delay (s)25.3 22.6 6.3 30.0 29.3 27.7
Level of Service C C A C C C
Approach Delay (s)22.7 11.5 29.3 27.7
Approach LOS C B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 19.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMill Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 680 255 0 10 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 739 277 0 11 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)236
pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0.93
vC, conflicting volume 277 1016 277
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 221 1018 221
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %100 96 100
cM capacity (veh/h)1251 246 764
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 739 277 11
Volume Left 0 0 11
Volume Right 0 0 0
cSH 1251 1700 246
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.16 0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 0 3
Control Delay (s)0.0 0.0 20.3
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.0 20.3
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Lk WA Blvd & HL Main Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)650 5 55 205 5 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)707 5 60 223 5 33
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)355
pX, platoon unblocked 0.98
vC, conflicting volume 712 1052 709
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 712 1053 709
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %93 98 93
cM capacity (veh/h)892 231 437
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 712 60 223 5 33
Volume Left 0 60 0 5 0
Volume Right 5 0 0 0 33
cSH 1700 892 1700 231 437
Volume to Capacity 0.42 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 5 0 2 6
Control Delay (s)0.0 9.3 0.0 21.0 13.9
Lane LOS A C B
Approach Delay (s)0.0 2.0 14.9
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)350 0 15 95 5 105
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)380 0 16 103 5 114
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)380 120 120
Volume Left (vph)0 16 5
Volume Right (vph)0 0 114
Hadj (s)0.00 0.04 -0.56
Departure Headway (s)4.3 4.6 4.5
Degree Utilization, x 0.46 0.15 0.15
Capacity (veh/h)814 737 733
Control Delay (s)10.9 8.5 8.2
Approach Delay (s)10.9 8.5 8.2
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 9.9
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 10 0 20 10 20 0 60 45 20 25 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 11 0 22 11 22 0 65 49 22 27 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)11 54 114 49
Volume Left (vph)0 22 0 22
Volume Right (vph)0 22 49 0
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.16 -0.26 0.11
Departure Headway (s)4.3 4.1 3.8 4.3
Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.06 0.12 0.06
Capacity (veh/h)799 843 912 826
Control Delay (s)7.4 7.4 7.4 7.5
Approach Delay (s)7.4 7.4 7.4 7.5
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.4
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.3%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 5 5 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 5 5 0 0 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)5 5 0
Volume Left (vph)0 0 0
Volume Right (vph)0 0 0
Hadj (s)0.00 0.00 0.00
Departure Headway (s)3.9 3.9 3.9
Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.01 0.00
Capacity (veh/h)915 916 911
Control Delay (s)6.9 6.9 6.9
Approach Delay (s)6.9 6.9 0.0
Approach LOS A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 6.9
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 6.7%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3527 3433 3390 1441 1775 1519 1698 1724 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3527 3433 3390 1441 1775 1519 1698 1724 1599
Volume (vph)250 440 10 385 850 105 20 130 115 125 20 190
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)272 478 11 418 924 114 22 141 125 136 22 207
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179
Lane Group Flow (vph)272 489 0 418 924 114 0 163 125 77 81 28
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%2%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split pt+ov Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 5 3 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)9.6 18.0 12.7 21.1 63.3 8.1 20.8 8.5 8.5 8.5
Effective Green, g (s)9.6 18.0 12.7 21.1 63.3 8.1 20.8 8.5 8.5 8.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.28 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.13 0.33 0.13 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)521 1003 689 1130 1441 227 499 228 232 215
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.14 0.12 c0.27 c0.09 0.08 0.05 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.49 0.61 0.82 0.08 0.72 0.25 0.34 0.35 0.13
Uniform Delay, d1 24.7 18.8 23.0 19.3 0.0 26.5 15.5 24.8 24.9 24.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.4 1.5 4.7 0.1 10.3 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.3
Delay (s)25.7 19.2 24.5 24.0 0.1 36.8 15.8 25.7 25.8 24.4
Level of Service C B C C A D B C C C
Approach Delay (s)21.5 22.3 27.7 25.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 23.0 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.3 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.3%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3467 3574 4879 1787 1519 1519
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3467 3574 4879 1787 1519 1519
Volume (vph)70 245 0 0 470 175 40 0 515 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)73 255 0 0 490 182 42 0 536 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 87 0 0 227 227 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)73 255 0 0 585 0 42 41 41 0 0 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%1%1%2%2%2%1%1%1%0%0%0%
Turn Type Prot Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s)13.0 42.8 25.8 9.2 9.2 9.2
Effective Green, g (s)13.0 42.8 25.8 9.2 9.2 9.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.71 0.43 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)751 2549 2098 274 233 233
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.07 c0.12 0.02 c0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.28 0.15 0.18 0.18
Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 2.7 11.1 22.0 22.1 22.1
Progression Factor 1.16 0.66 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
Delay (s)22.1 1.8 7.2 22.3 22.5 22.5
Level of Service C A A C C C
Approach Delay (s)6.3 7.2 22.5 0.0
Approach LOS A A C A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 12.6 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.20
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)4838 3467 3574 1715 1725 1615
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)4838 3467 3574 1715 1725 1615
Volume (vph)0 185 150 215 270 0 0 0 0 130 5 290
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)0 191 155 222 278 0 0 0 0 134 5 299
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 227
Lane Group Flow (vph)0 224 0 222 278 0 0 0 0 68 71 72
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%1%1%1%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Turn Type Prot Split Prot
Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)12.8 20.8 27.6 14.4 14.4 14.4
Effective Green, g (s)12.8 20.8 27.6 14.4 14.4 14.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.35 0.46 0.24 0.24 0.24
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1032 1202 1644 412 414 388
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.06 0.08 0.04 0.04 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18
Uniform Delay, d1 19.5 13.7 9.5 18.0 18.1 18.1
Progression Factor 0.59 0.41 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)12.0 6.0 10.1 18.2 18.3 18.4
Level of Service B A B B B B
Approach Delay (s)12.0 8.3 0.0 18.3
Approach LOS B A A B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 12.7 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.19
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.97
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot)1805 1900 1845 1568 1405 1721
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm)1805 1900 1845 1568 1405 1721
Volume (vph)15 225 0 0 520 70 0 0 5 115 0 35
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)15 232 0 0 536 72 0 0 5 119 0 36
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 39 0 5 0 0 21 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)15 232 0 0 536 33 0 0 0 0 134 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%3%3%3%17%17%17%3%3%3%
Turn Type Prot Perm Split Split
Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 1 2 2
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s)6.0 12.8 27.6 27.6 0.8 9.6
Effective Green, g (s)6.0 12.8 27.6 27.6 0.8 9.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.21 0.46 0.46 0.01 0.16
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)181 405 849 721 19 275
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.12 c0.29 c0.00 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.57 0.63 0.05 0.00 0.49
Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 21.1 12.3 8.9 29.2 23.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.46 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 5.8 3.4 0.1 0.1 1.4
Delay (s)24.7 26.9 11.6 4.2 29.3 24.3
Level of Service C C B A C C
Approach Delay (s)26.8 10.7 29.3 24.3
Approach LOS C B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 16.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.2%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMill Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)0 235 485 10 5 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 242 500 10 5 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)236
pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 0.78 0.78
vC, conflicting volume 510 747 505
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 376 678 369
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %100 98 100
cM capacity (veh/h)936 330 534
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 242 510 5
Volume Left 0 0 5
Volume Right 0 10 0
cSH 936 1700 330
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.30 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 0 1
Control Delay (s)0.0 0.0 16.1
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.0 16.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Lk WA Blvd & HL Main Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)195 5 50 440 5 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)201 5 52 454 5 41
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)355
pX, platoon unblocked 0.81
vC, conflicting volume 206 760 204
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 206 706 204
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %96 98 95
cM capacity (veh/h)1359 318 842
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 206 52 454 5 41
Volume Left 0 52 0 5 0
Volume Right 5 0 0 0 41
cSH 1700 1359 1700 318 842
Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.04 0.27 0.02 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 3 0 1 4
Control Delay (s)0.0 7.8 0.0 16.5 9.5
Lane LOS A C A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.8 10.3
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)115 5 85 285 5 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph)121 5 89 300 5 32
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)126 389 37
Volume Left (vph)0 89 5
Volume Right (vph)5 0 32
Hadj (s)0.01 0.08 -0.49
Departure Headway (s)4.4 4.2 4.5
Degree Utilization, x 0.15 0.45 0.05
Capacity (veh/h)799 838 712
Control Delay (s)8.2 10.7 7.8
Approach Delay (s)8.2 10.7 7.8
Approach LOS A B A
Intersection Summary
Delay 9.9
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.4%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 15 0 65 30 20 0 40 60 45 55 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 16 0 70 32 22 0 43 65 48 59 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)16 124 108 108
Volume Left (vph)0 70 0 48
Volume Right (vph)0 22 65 0
Hadj (s)0.03 0.04 -0.33 0.12
Departure Headway (s)4.6 4.4 4.0 4.5
Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.15 0.12 0.13
Capacity (veh/h)743 765 853 767
Control Delay (s)7.7 8.2 7.6 8.2
Approach Delay (s)7.7 8.2 7.6 8.2
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 8.0
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.8%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 295 115 110 90 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 321 125 120 98 5
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)321 245 103
Volume Left (vph)0 0 98
Volume Right (vph)0 120 5
Hadj (s)0.03 -0.26 0.19
Departure Headway (s)4.5 4.3 5.3
Degree Utilization, x 0.40 0.29 0.15
Capacity (veh/h)780 803 613
Control Delay (s)10.5 9.0 9.3
Approach Delay (s)10.5 9.0 9.3
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 9.8
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.5%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 Baseline - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3525 3433 3390 1441 1585 1504 1681 1756 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3525 3433 3390 1441 1585 1504 1681 1756 1583
Volume (vph)260 895 25 445 785 185 10 90 710 125 95 265
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)268 923 26 459 809 191 10 93 732 129 98 273
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238
Lane Group Flow (vph)268 949 0 459 809 191 0 329 506 111 116 35
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split pt+ov Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 3 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)15.0 25.1 15.3 25.4 87.9 20.1 35.4 11.4 11.4 11.4
Effective Green, g (s)15.0 25.1 15.3 25.4 87.9 20.1 35.4 11.4 11.4 11.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.29 0.17 0.29 1.00 0.23 0.40 0.13 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)586 1007 598 980 1441 362 606 218 228 205
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.27 0.13 c0.24 c0.21 0.34 0.07 c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.94 0.77 0.83 0.13 0.91 0.83 0.51 0.51 0.17
Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 30.7 34.6 29.2 0.0 33.0 23.6 35.6 35.6 34.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 16.3 5.9 5.8 0.2 25.6 9.7 1.9 1.8 0.4
Delay (s)33.4 46.9 40.5 34.9 0.2 58.6 33.3 37.5 37.4 34.5
Level of Service C D D C A E C D D C
Approach Delay (s)44.0 32.1 43.3 35.8
Approach LOS D C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 38.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.9 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
2015 With Alternative 1 (With RTID Improvements)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 4791 1641 1395 1395
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 4791 1641 1395 1395
Volume (vph)590 450 0 0 605 380 175 0 270 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)641 489 0 0 658 413 190 0 293 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 121 0 0 120 121 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)641 489 0 0 950 0 190 26 26 0 0 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%2%2%2%10%10%10%2%2%2%
Turn Type Prot Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s)24.0 57.7 29.7 14.3 14.3 14.3
Effective Green, g (s)24.0 57.7 29.7 14.3 14.3 14.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.72 0.37 0.18 0.18 0.18
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1030 2553 1779 293 249 249
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.14 c0.20 c0.12 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.19 0.53 0.65 0.10 0.11
Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 3.6 19.7 30.5 27.5 27.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 0.2 1.0 4.9 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)26.9 3.8 12.8 35.4 27.7 27.7
Level of Service C A B D C C
Approach Delay (s)16.9 12.8 30.7 0.0
Approach LOS B B C A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 17.8 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)5031 3433 3539 1665 1679 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)5031 3433 3539 1665 1679 1568
Volume (vph)0 950 150 425 350 0 0 0 0 65 5 335
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)0 1033 163 462 380 0 0 0 0 71 5 364
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235
Lane Group Flow (vph)0 1170 0 462 380 0 0 0 0 37 39 129
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%1%1%2%2%2%0%0%0%3%3%3%
Turn Type Prot Split Prot
Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)25.5 11.0 32.5 26.5 26.5 26.5
Effective Green, g (s)25.5 11.0 32.5 26.5 26.5 26.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.15 0.43 0.35 0.35 0.35
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1711 504 1534 588 593 554
v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.13 0.11 0.02 0.02 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.92 0.25 0.06 0.07 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 21.3 31.5 13.5 16.0 16.1 17.1
Progression Factor 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 24.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2
Delay (s)12.1 55.5 13.9 16.1 16.1 17.3
Level of Service B E B B B B
Approach Delay (s)12.1 36.7 0.0 17.1
Approach LOS B D A B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.2%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot)1770 3539 1881 1599 1644 1627
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Satd. Flow (perm)1770 3539 1881 1599 1644 1627
Volume (vph)20 710 0 0 290 405 0 0 5 380 0 10
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)22 772 0 0 315 440 0 0 5 413 0 11
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 249 0 5 0 0 1 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)22 772 0 0 315 191 0 0 0 0 423 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%1%1%1%0%0%0%11%11%11%
Turn Type Prot Perm Split Split
Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 1 2 2
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s)4.0 25.5 32.5 32.5 0.8 21.7
Effective Green, g (s)4.0 25.5 32.5 32.5 0.8 21.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.34 0.43 0.43 0.01 0.29
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)94 1203 815 693 18 471
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.22 c0.17 c0.00 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.64 0.39 0.28 0.00 0.90
Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 20.9 14.5 13.7 36.7 25.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.45 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 2.6 1.3 0.9 0.1 19.4
Delay (s)35.3 23.5 10.1 7.1 36.8 45.0
Level of Service D C B A D D
Approach Delay (s)23.9 8.4 36.8 45.0
Approach LOS C A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 22.5 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMill Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)85 660 250 50 65 70
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)92 717 272 54 71 76
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)236
pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 0.88 0.88
vC, conflicting volume 326 1201 299
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 238 1227 208
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %92 56 90
cM capacity (veh/h)1176 162 741
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 810 326 147
Volume Left 92 0 71
Volume Right 0 54 76
cSH 1176 1700 272
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.19 0.54
Queue Length 95th (ft)6 0 74
Control Delay (s)2.0 0.0 32.6
Lane LOS A D
Approach Delay (s)2.0 0.0 32.6
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 5.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.5%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Lk WA Blvd & HL Main Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)715 5 55 270 5 30
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)777 5 60 293 5 33
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)355
pX, platoon unblocked 0.94
vC, conflicting volume 783 1193 780
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 783 1205 780
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %93 97 92
cM capacity (veh/h)840 179 399
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 783 60 293 5 33
Volume Left 0 60 0 5 0
Volume Right 5 0 0 0 33
cSH 1700 840 1700 179 399
Volume to Capacity 0.46 0.07 0.17 0.03 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 6 0 2 7
Control Delay (s)0.0 9.6 0.0 25.7 14.8
Lane LOS A D B
Approach Delay (s)0.0 1.6 16.4
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)410 0 20 155 5 115
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)446 0 22 168 5 125
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)446 190 130
Volume Left (vph)0 22 5
Volume Right (vph)0 0 125
Hadj (s)0.00 0.04 -0.57
Departure Headway (s)4.5 4.8 4.8
Degree Utilization, x 0.55 0.25 0.17
Capacity (veh/h)781 718 664
Control Delay (s)12.8 9.4 8.8
Approach Delay (s)12.8 9.4 8.8
Approach LOS B A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 11.3
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.0%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 10 0 20 10 25 0 60 45 25 25 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 11 0 22 11 27 0 65 49 27 27 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)11 60 114 54
Volume Left (vph)0 22 0 27
Volume Right (vph)0 27 49 0
Hadj (s)0.00 -0.20 -0.26 0.12
Departure Headway (s)4.3 4.1 3.8 4.3
Degree Utilization, x 0.01 0.07 0.12 0.06
Capacity (veh/h)795 847 907 821
Control Delay (s)7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6
Approach Delay (s)7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 7.4
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)0 0 0
Volume Left (vph)0 0 0
Volume Right (vph)0 0 0
Hadj (s)0.00 0.00 0.00
Departure Headway (s)3.9 3.9 3.9
Degree Utilization, x 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capacity (veh/h)917 917 917
Control Delay (s)6.9 6.9 6.9
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 0.0
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID AM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3527 3433 3390 1441 1776 1519 1698 1698 1599
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3527 3433 3390 1441 1776 1519 1698 1698 1599
Volume (vph)295 440 10 385 850 115 20 140 115 135 0 260
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)321 478 11 418 924 125 22 152 125 147 0 283
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 245
Lane Group Flow (vph)321 489 0 418 924 125 0 174 125 74 73 38
Heavy Vehicles (%)2%2%2%2%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split pt+ov Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 3 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)10.2 19.8 13.0 22.6 67.4 9.5 22.5 9.1 9.1 9.1
Effective Green, g (s)10.2 19.8 13.0 22.6 67.4 9.5 22.5 9.1 9.1 9.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.29 0.19 0.34 1.00 0.14 0.33 0.14 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)520 1036 662 1137 1441 250 507 229 229 216
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.14 0.12 c0.27 c0.10 0.08 c0.04 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.47 0.63 0.81 0.09 0.70 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.18
Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 19.5 25.0 20.5 0.0 27.6 16.3 26.4 26.3 25.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 0.3 2.0 4.5 0.1 8.2 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.4
Delay (s)29.0 19.9 27.0 25.0 0.1 35.7 16.6 27.2 27.2 26.2
Level of Service C B C C A D B C C C
Approach Delay (s)23.5 23.4 27.7 26.5
Approach LOS C C C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 24.3 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.4 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: NE 44th St & 405 NB Ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3467 3574 4882 1787 1519 1519
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3467 3574 4882 1787 1519 1519
Volume (vph)300 325 0 0 535 195 175 0 550 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)312 339 0 0 557 203 182 0 573 0 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 94 0 0 228 229 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)312 339 0 0 666 0 182 58 58 0 0 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)1%1%1%2%2%2%1%1%1%0%0%0%
Turn Type Prot Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 8 2 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s)24.8 47.8 19.0 14.2 14.2 14.2
Effective Green, g (s)24.8 47.8 19.0 14.2 14.2 14.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.68 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.20
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1228 2441 1325 363 308 308
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.09 c0.14 c0.10 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.19
Uniform Delay, d1 16.0 3.9 21.5 24.8 23.1 23.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.3 0.3
Delay (s)16.5 4.0 16.6 25.9 23.4 23.4
Level of Service B A B C C C
Approach Delay (s)10.0 16.6 24.0 0.0
Approach LOS B B C A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 17.2 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.6%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: NE 44th St & 405 SB Off-ramp 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)4879 3467 3574 1715 1724 1615
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)4879 3467 3574 1715 1724 1615
Volume (vph)0 465 305 235 445 0 0 0 0 160 5 490
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)0 479 314 242 459 0 0 0 0 165 5 505
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 184
Lane Group Flow (vph)0 636 0 242 459 0 0 0 0 83 87 321
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%1%1%1%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Turn Type Prot Split Prot
Protected Phases 4 3 8 6 6 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)19.8 13.7 28.6 34.5 34.5 34.5
Effective Green, g (s)19.8 13.7 28.6 34.5 34.5 34.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.17 0.36 0.43 0.43 0.43
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)1208 594 1278 740 743 696
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.07 0.13 0.05 0.05 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.41 0.36 0.11 0.12 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 26.0 29.5 18.9 13.6 13.6 16.1
Progression Factor 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 2.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.5
Delay (s)29.8 31.6 19.7 13.7 13.7 16.6
Level of Service C C B B B B
Approach Delay (s)29.8 23.8 0.0 15.9
Approach LOS C C A B
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 23.5 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.3%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Lk WA Blvd & Ripley Ln 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot)1805 1895 1844 1568 1405 1747
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm)1805 1895 1840 1568 1405 1747
Volume (vph)15 270 5 5 510 400 0 0 5 495 0 35
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)15 278 5 5 526 412 0 0 5 510 0 36
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 1 0 0 0 265 0 5 0 0 3 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)15 282 0 0 531 147 0 0 0 0 543 0
Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%0%3%3%3%17%17%17%3%3%3%
Turn Type Prot Perm Perm Split Split
Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 1 2 2
Permitted Phases 8 8
Actuated Green, G (s)4.9 19.8 28.6 28.6 0.8 29.7
Effective Green, g (s)4.9 19.8 28.6 28.6 0.8 29.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.25 0.36 0.36 0.01 0.37
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)111 469 658 561 14 649
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.15 c0.00 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm c0.29 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.60 0.81 0.26 0.00 0.84
Uniform Delay, d1 35.5 26.6 23.2 18.2 39.2 22.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.63 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 5.6 9.3 1.0 0.1 9.2
Delay (s)36.1 32.2 27.2 12.4 39.3 32.1
Level of Service D C C B D C
Approach Delay (s)32.4 20.8 39.3 32.1
Approach LOS C C D C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 26.2 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.7%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Lk WA Blvd & BMill Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)70 230 465 75 60 90
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)72 237 479 77 62 93
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)236
pX, platoon unblocked 0.73 0.73 0.73
vC, conflicting volume 557 899 518
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 397 863 344
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %92 72 82
cM capacity (veh/h)862 221 517
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 309 557 155
Volume Left 72 0 62
Volume Right 0 77 93
cSH 862 1700 336
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.33 0.46
Queue Length 95th (ft)7 0 58
Control Delay (s)2.9 0.0 24.5
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay (s)2.9 0.0 24.5
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9%ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Lk WA Blvd & HL Main Access 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0%0%0%
Volume (veh/h)260 5 50 515 5 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Hourly flow rate (vph)268 5 52 531 5 41
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)355
pX, platoon unblocked 0.77
vC, conflicting volume 273 905 271
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 273 876 271
tC, single (s)4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free %96 98 95
cM capacity (veh/h)1284 238 773
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total 273 52 531 5 41
Volume Left 0 52 0 5 0
Volume Right 5 0 0 0 41
cSH 1700 1284 1700 238 773
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.04 0.31 0.02 0.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)0 3 0 2 4
Control Delay (s)0.0 7.9 0.0 20.5 9.9
Lane LOS A C A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 0.7 11.1
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Lk WA Blvd & N 36th St-Burnett 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)175 5 90 355 5 40
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph)184 5 95 374 5 42
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total (vph)189 468 47
Volume Left (vph)0 95 5
Volume Right (vph)5 0 42
Hadj (s)0.02 0.07 -0.51
Departure Headway (s)4.5 4.3 4.8
Degree Utilization, x 0.24 0.56 0.06
Capacity (veh/h)773 820 656
Control Delay (s)8.9 12.6 8.2
Approach Delay (s)8.9 12.6 8.2
Approach LOS A B A
Intersection Summary
Delay 11.3
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: 30th Street & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 15 0 65 30 25 0 40 60 50 55 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 16 0 70 32 27 0 43 65 54 59 0
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)16 129 108 113
Volume Left (vph)0 70 0 54
Volume Right (vph)0 27 65 0
Hadj (s)0.03 0.02 -0.33 0.13
Departure Headway (s)4.6 4.4 4.0 4.5
Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.16 0.12 0.14
Capacity (veh/h)739 766 848 764
Control Delay (s)7.7 8.3 7.6 8.2
Approach Delay (s)7.7 8.3 7.6 8.2
Approach LOS A A A A
Intersection Summary
Delay 8.0
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.4%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Lk Wa Blvd & Burnett Ave 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Volume (vph)0 365 175 110 90 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)0 397 190 120 98 5
Direction, Lane #EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total (vph)397 310 103
Volume Left (vph)0 0 98
Volume Right (vph)0 120 5
Hadj (s)0.03 -0.20 0.19
Departure Headway (s)4.6 4.5 5.7
Degree Utilization, x 0.51 0.38 0.16
Capacity (veh/h)756 775 560
Control Delay (s)12.2 10.2 9.8
Approach Delay (s)12.2 10.2 9.8
Approach LOS B B A
Intersection Summary
Delay 11.1
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.2%ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: N Park Drive & Lake Washington Blvd 8/29/2012
Quendall Terminals - EIS 5:00 pm 7/16/2010 2015 With Alternative 1 - With RTID PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Transportation Engineering Northwest Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3525 3433 3390 1441 1592 1504 1681 1756 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3525 3433 3390 1441 1592 1504 1681 1756 1583
Volume (vph)305 895 25 445 785 195 10 100 710 135 105 315
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)314 923 26 459 809 201 10 103 732 139 108 325
RTOR Reduction (vph)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 281
Lane Group Flow (vph)314 949 0 459 809 201 0 333 512 120 127 44
Turn Type Prot Prot Free Split pt+ov Split Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 2 3 6 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Actuated Green, G (s)15.0 25.1 15.4 25.5 88.6 20.1 35.5 12.0 12.0 12.0
Effective Green, g (s)15.0 25.1 15.4 25.5 88.6 20.1 35.5 12.0 12.0 12.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.17 0.29 1.00 0.23 0.40 0.14 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)581 999 597 976 1441 361 603 228 238 214
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.27 0.13 c0.24 c0.21 0.34 0.07 c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.95 0.77 0.83 0.14 0.92 0.85 0.53 0.53 0.21
Uniform Delay, d1 33.6 31.1 34.9 29.5 0.0 33.5 24.1 35.7 35.7 34.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 17.4 5.9 5.9 0.2 28.5 10.8 2.2 2.3 0.5
Delay (s)34.7 48.6 40.8 35.4 0.2 62.0 34.9 37.8 38.0 34.5
Level of Service C D D D A E C D D C
Approach Delay (s)45.1 32.3 45.6 36.0
Approach LOS D C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 39.4 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.6 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.4%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
Appendix B
Traffic Volume Forecasts
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Enter Exit Total
Quendall Project Vols 445 421 866 Alternative 1 (incudes 10% increase in apartment trips)
Quendall Passby Vols 24 20 44
Intersection:I-405 NB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:1 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 625 485 1,110 114 126 240 420 161 581 308 695 1,003
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 375 327 702 114 145 259 271 277 548 290 300 590
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.15 1.07 1.15 1.15
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 30 25 345 400 515 915 165 165 140 470 230 700 10 95 90 195 540 735 280 110 350 740 520 1,260 1,805
2015 Baseline Year 30 30 400 460 590 1,050 175 180 150 505 245 750 10 115 100 225 615 840 325 115 410 850 590 1,440 2,040
Barbee Mills 3 1 0 21 5 16 46
Kennydale Apartments 2 27 35 2 13 9
Hawks Landing 2 2 28 1 2 11 46
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 2 27 40 69 46 115 0 3 2 5 9 14 28 13 0 41 54 95 31 7 27 65 71 136 180
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 30 55 440 525 635 1,160 175 185 150 510 250 760 40 130 100 270 665 935 355 120 435 910 665 1,575 2,215
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 10%10%10%20%10%10%10%20%0%45%45%10%10%45%65%20%85%1
Project Traffic Volumes 45 45 40 85 45 45 40 85 0 190 190 40 40 190 270 90 360 360
2015 with Full Buildout 30 55 485 570 675 1,245 175 230 150 555 290 845 40 130 100 270 855 1,125 395 160 625 1,180 755 1,935 2,575
Intersection:I-405 SB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:2 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 502 0 502 695 308 1,003 0 607 607 293 575 868
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 863 0 863 300 290 590 0 555 555 283 600 883
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.62 1.15 1.15 1.01
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 55 5 115 175 0 175 390 135 0 525 720 1,245 0 0 0 0 400 400 0 665 5 670 250 920 1,370
2015 Baseline Year 130 10 145 285 0 285 480 120 0 600 805 1,405 0 0 0 0 495 495 0 675 5 680 265 945 1,565
Barbee Mills 4 4 42 1 51
Kennydale Apartments 9 35
Hawks Landing 18 32 14 18 82
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 9 0 22 31 0 31 35 36 0 71 65 136 0 0 0 0 54 54 0 56 19 75 58 133 177
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 140 10 165 315 0 315 515 155 0 670 870 1,540 0 0 0 0 550 550 0 730 25 755 320 1,075 1,740
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 45%45%0%45%20%20%65%85%0%0%0%65%65%65%130%1
Project Traffic Volumes 200 200 0 200 90 90 275 365 0 0 0 275 275 290 565 565
2015 with Full Buildout 140 10 365 515 0 515 515 245 0 760 1,145 1,905 0 0 0 0 550 550 0 1,005 25 1,030 610 1,640 2,305
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 1
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:3 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 575 293 868 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 600 283 883 1 1 2 283 601 884
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.01 1.00 FLAG 1.02
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 30 0 5 35 80 115 0 195 65 260 665 925 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 635 0 650 200 850 945
2015 Baseline Year 30 0 5 35 80 115 0 200 65 265 680 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 650 0 665 205 870 965
Barbee Mills 34 3 2 6 1 9 55
Hawks Landing 3 50 5 2 27 87
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 34 0 6 40 9 49 0 52 6 58 75 133 0 0 5 5 0 5 3 36 0 39 58 97 142
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 65 0 10 75 90 165 0 250 70 320 755 1,075 0 0 5 5 0 5 20 685 0 705 260 965 1,105
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 60%0%60%60%120%5%60%65%65%130%0%0%0%0%5%5%5%10%1
Project Traffic Volumes 255 0 255 265 520 20 265 285 275 560 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 40 560
2015 with Full Buildout 320 0 10 330 355 685 0 270 335 605 1,030 1,635 0 0 5 5 0 5 20 705 0 725 280 1,005 1,665
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Barbee Mills Access Intersection Code:4 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 601 283 884 1 1 2 283 601 884
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.02 1.00 FLAG 1.02
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 650 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 650 0 650 200 850 851
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 0 205 665 870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 665 0 665 205 870 870
Barbee Mills 9 1 3 2 0 1 16
Hawks Landing 53 29 82
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 9 0 1 10 2 12 0 56 2 58 39 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 57 87 98
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 260 0 260 705 965 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 695 0 695 260 955 965
Passby Distribution 75%25%100%100%200%25%25%75%100%0%0%0%75%75%25%100%2
Passby Traffic Volumes 15 5 20 25 45 -5 5 0 -5 -5 0 0 0 20 -20 0 0 0 20
Project Trip Distribution 5%35%40%40%80%5%5%5%10%0%0%0%35%35%35%70%1
Project Traffic Volumes 20 145 165 175 340 20 20 20 40 0 0 0 155 155 145 300 340
2015 with Full Buildout 45 0 150 195 200 395 0 255 25 280 720 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 675 0 850 405 1,255 1,325
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 2
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Hawks Landing Access Intersection Code:5 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 601 283 884 1 1 2 283 601 884
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.02 1.02 1.00 FLAG 1.02
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 650 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 650 0 650 200 850 851
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 0 205 665 870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 665 0 665 205 870 870
Barbee Mills 4 1 5
Hawks Landing 53 4 29 6 92
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 4 0 57 30 87 4 0 29 33 59 92 0 1 6 7 8 15 97
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 210 0 265 695 960 5 0 30 35 60 95 0 665 5 670 215 885 970
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%35%35%35%70%0%0%0%35%35%35%70%1
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 145 145 155 300 0 0 0 155 155 145 300 300
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 355 0 410 850 1,260 5 0 30 35 60 95 0 820 5 825 360 1,185 1,270
Intersection:N 36th St / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:6 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 324 217 541 71 250 321 223 317 540
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 432 216 648 67 169 236 241 439 680
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.17 1.15 1.22
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 89 0 106 451 557 6 0 106 112 19 131 0 345 2 347 95 442 565
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 105 0 125 540 665 10 0 120 130 25 155 0 420 5 425 115 540 680
Barbee Mills 0 4 0 1 5
Hawks Landing 1 3 1 5 10
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 8 7 15 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 6 0 6 7 13 15
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 5 5 5 10 20 110 0 130 545 675 10 0 120 130 25 155 5 425 5 435 125 560 700
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%20%15%35%35%70%20%20%20%40%15%15%15%30%1
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 85 65 150 155 305 90 90 85 175 65 65 65 130 305
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 5 5 5 10 105 175 0 280 700 980 10 0 210 220 110 330 5 490 5 500 190 690 1,005
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 3
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:N 30th St / Burnett Ave Intersection Code:7 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 216 114 330 148 226 374 52 81 133 1 1 2
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 95 76 171 77 101 178 67 67 134 1 1 2
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.15 1.15 1.01 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 18 25 0 43 79 122 20 11 20 51 75 126 0 59 47 106 45 151 0 10 0 10 11 21 210
2015 Baseline Year 25 25 0 50 90 140 20 10 30 60 85 145 0 60 50 110 45 155 0 10 0 10 10 20 230
Barbee Mills 0
Hawks Landing 1 1 2
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 25 25 0 50 90 140 20 10 30 60 85 145 0 60 50 110 45 155 0 10 0 10 10 20 230
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 20%20%20%40%20%20%20%40%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Project Traffic Volumes 85 85 90 175 90 90 85 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 175
2015 with Full Buildout 110 25 0 135 180 315 20 10 120 150 170 320 0 60 50 110 45 155 0 10 0 10 10 20 405
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Burnett Ave Intersection Code:8 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 81 52 133 283 323 606 1 1 2 322 283 605
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 67 67 134 421 521 942 1 1 2 477 339 816
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.01 1.48 1.00 FLAG 1.30
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 2 87 0 89 335 424 54 0 1 55 100 155 0 334 98 432 141 573 0 0 0 0 0 0 576
2015 Baseline Year 5 85 0 90 310 400 80 0 5 85 135 220 0 305 130 435 165 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 610
Barbee Mills 4 1 5
Hawks Landing 3 5 8
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 7 0 7 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 5 90 0 95 315 410 80 0 5 85 135 220 0 310 130 440 170 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 620
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 15%15%15%30%0%0%0%15%15%15%30%0%0%0%0
Project Traffic Volumes 65 65 65 130 0 0 0 65 65 65 130 0 0 0 130
2015 with Full Buildout 5 155 0 160 380 540 80 0 5 85 135 220 0 375 130 505 235 740 0 0 0 0 0 0 750
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 4
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Garden Ave N / Park Ave N Intersection Code:9 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:8/28/2012
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 710 683 1,393 1,291 1,726 3,017 329 209 538 1,562 1,274 2,836
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 945 601 1,546 1,615 2,412 4,027 805 576 1,381 1,862 1,540 3,402
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.09 1.29 2.34 1.17
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 98 15 204 317 457 774 208 718 90 1,016 505 1,521 12 88 55 155 231 386 279 352 8 639 934 1,573 2,127
2015 Baseline Year 85 35 230 350 515 865 460 785 60 1,305 675 1,980 40 180 145 365 520 885 275 445 25 745 1,055 1,800 2,765
Barbee Mills 1 1 2 1 5
Hawks Landing 1 1 1 1 1 3 8
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 2 2 3 7 6 13 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 4 3 7 13
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 85 35 235 355 520 875 460 785 60 1,305 675 1,980 40 180 145 365 520 885 280 445 25 750 1,060 1,810 2,775
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 1%4%10%15%15%30%1%1%1%2%4%4%4%8%10%10%10%20%0
Project Traffic Volumes 5 15 40 60 70 130 5 5 5 10 20 20 15 35 45 45 40 85 130
2015 with Full Buildout 90 50 275 415 590 1,005 460 785 65 1,310 680 1,990 40 200 145 385 535 920 325 445 25 795 1,100 1,895 2,905
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 5
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Enter Exit Total
Quendall Project Vols 442 509 951 Alternative 1 (incudes 10% increase in apartment trips)
Quendall Passby Vols 28 21 49
Intersection:I-405 NB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:1 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 625 485 1,110 114 126 240 420 161 581 308 695 1,003
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 375 327 702 114 145 259 271 277 548 290 300 590
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.15 1.07 1.15 1.15
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 50 25 280 355 350 705 75 150 65 290 360 650 15 230 145 390 160 550 55 165 60 280 445 725 1,315
2015 Baseline Year 50 30 330 410 405 815 80 165 65 310 385 695 20 275 155 450 185 635 65 180 75 320 515 835 1,490
Barbee Mills 9 6 1 3 10 3 32
Kennydale Apartments 2 18 22 2 34 30
Hawks Landing 2 2 26 1 2 15 48
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 2 18 33 53 70 123 0 8 2 10 14 24 27 34 0 61 36 97 34 12 18 64 68 132 188
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 50 50 365 465 475 940 80 175 65 320 395 715 45 310 155 510 225 735 100 190 95 385 585 970 1,680
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 10%10%10%20%10%10%10%20%0%45%45%10%10%45%65%20%85%1
Project Traffic Volumes 45 45 50 95 45 45 50 95 0 230 230 50 50 230 330 90 420 420
2015 with Full Buildout 50 50 410 510 525 1,035 80 220 65 365 445 810 45 310 155 510 455 965 150 240 325 715 675 1,390 2,100
Intersection:I-405 SB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:2 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 502 0 502 695 308 1,003 0 607 607 293 575 868
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 863 0 863 300 290 590 0 555 555 283 600 883
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.31 1.15 1.15 1.01
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 130 5 250 385 0 385 215 225 0 440 280 720 0 0 0 0 345 345 0 150 125 275 475 750 1,100
2015 Baseline Year 200 10 300 510 0 510 285 220 0 505 350 855 0 0 0 0 425 425 0 150 130 280 520 800 1,295
Barbee Mills 22 16 16 2 56
Kennydale Apartments 30 22
Hawks Landing 16 30 18 23 87
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 30 0 38 68 0 68 22 46 0 68 64 132 0 0 0 0 47 47 0 34 25 59 84 143 195
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 230 10 340 580 0 580 305 265 0 570 415 985 0 0 0 0 470 470 0 185 155 340 605 945 1,490
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 45%45%0%45%20%20%65%85%0%0%0%65%65%65%130%1
Project Traffic Volumes 200 200 0 200 90 90 330 420 0 0 0 330 330 290 620 620
2015 with Full Buildout 230 10 540 780 0 780 305 355 0 660 745 1,405 0 0 0 0 470 470 0 515 155 670 895 1,565 2,110
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 1
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:3 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:MJR 2015 to 2012 Factor:0.4286
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 575 293 868 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 600 283 883 1 1 2 283 601 884
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.01 1.00 FLAG 1.02
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2012 Existing Conditions 101 0 28 129 45 174 0 409 38 447 282 729 0 0 1 1 1 2 7 180 1 188 437 625 765
2015 Baseline Year 100 0 30 130 45 175 0 465 40 505 285 790 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 185 0 190 495 685 825
Barbee Mills 14 3 8 30 6 4 65
Hawks Landing 3 46 5 2 36 92
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 14 0 6 20 38 58 0 54 30 84 59 143 0 0 5 5 0 5 8 40 0 48 60 108 157
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 115 0 35 150 85 235 0 520 70 590 345 935 0 0 5 5 0 5 15 225 0 240 555 795 985
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 60%0%60%60%120%5%60%65%65%130%0%0%0%0%5%5%5%10%1
Project Traffic Volumes 305 0 305 265 570 20 265 285 330 615 0 0 0 0 25 25 20 45 615
2015 with Full Buildout 420 0 35 455 350 805 0 540 335 875 675 1,550 0 0 5 5 0 5 15 250 0 265 575 840 1,600
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Barbee Mills Access Intersection Code:4 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 601 283 884 1 1 2 283 601 884
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.02 1.00 FLAG 1.02
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 437 0 437 188 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 188 437 625 626
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 495 0 495 190 685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 190 495 685 685
Barbee Mills 4 1 3 8 1 6 23
Hawks Landing 49 38 87
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 4 0 1 5 9 14 0 52 8 60 48 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 44 0 45 53 98 110
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 5 0 0 5 10 15 0 545 10 555 240 795 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 0 235 545 780 795
Passby Distribution 25%75%100%100%200%75%75%25%100%0%0%0%25%25%75%100%2
Passby Traffic Volumes 5 15 20 25 45 -20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -5 0 -5 -5 20
Project Trip Distribution 5%35%40%40%80%5%5%5%10%0%0%0%35%35%35%70%1
Project Traffic Volumes 25 180 205 175 380 20 20 25 45 0 0 0 155 155 180 335 380
2015 with Full Buildout 35 0 195 230 210 440 0 525 50 575 265 840 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 230 0 390 720 1,110 1,195
6/12/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 2
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Hawks Landing Access Intersection Code:5 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 601 283 884 1 1 2 283 601 884
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.02 1.02 1.00 FLAG 1.02
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 437 0 437 188 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 188 437 625 626
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 495 0 495 190 685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 190 495 685 685
Barbee Mills 4 7 11
Hawks Landing 49 5 38 5 97
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 4 0 53 45 98 5 0 38 43 54 97 0 7 5 12 9 21 108
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 500 0 550 235 785 5 0 40 45 55 100 0 195 5 200 505 705 795
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%35%35%35%70%0%0%0%35%35%35%70%1
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 180 180 155 335 0 0 0 155 155 180 335 335
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 680 0 730 390 1,120 5 0 40 45 55 100 0 350 5 355 685 1,040 1,130
Intersection:N 36th St / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:6 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 324 217 541 71 250 321 223 317 540
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 432 216 648 67 169 236 241 439 680
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.17 1.15 1.22
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 280 0 363 132 495 4 0 25 29 90 119 0 107 7 114 284 398 506
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 335 0 425 160 585 5 0 30 35 100 135 0 130 10 140 340 480 600
Barbee Mills 1 3 2 5 11
Hawks Landing 1 4 1 4 10
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 9 12 21 0 0 3 3 2 5 0 9 0 9 7 16 21
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 340 0 430 175 605 5 0 35 40 100 140 0 140 10 150 345 495 620
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%20%15%35%35%70%20%20%20%40%15%15%15%30%1
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 100 75 175 155 330 90 90 100 190 65 65 75 140 330
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 415 0 605 330 935 5 0 125 130 200 330 0 205 10 215 420 635 950
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 3
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:N 30th St / Burnett Ave Intersection Code:7 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 216 114 330 148 226 374 52 81 133 1 1 2
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 95 76 171 77 101 178 67 67 134 1 1 2
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.15 1.15 1.01 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 44 55 2 101 51 152 64 28 13 105 118 223 2 38 61 101 120 221 0 13 1 14 32 46 321
2015 Baseline Year 60 55 0 115 60 175 70 30 20 120 135 255 0 40 60 100 125 225 0 15 0 15 30 45 350
Barbee Mills 1 2 3
Hawks Landing 1 1 2
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 2 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 3 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 60 55 0 115 65 180 70 30 25 125 135 260 0 40 60 100 125 225 0 15 0 15 30 45 355
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 20%20%20%40%20%20%20%40%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Project Traffic Volumes 100 100 90 190 90 90 100 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 190
2015 with Full Buildout 160 55 0 215 155 370 70 30 115 215 235 450 0 40 60 100 125 225 0 15 0 15 30 45 545
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Burnett Ave Intersection Code:8 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 81 52 133 283 323 606 1 1 2 322 283 605
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 67 67 134 421 521 942 1 1 2 477 339 816
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.01 1.48 1.00 FLAG 1.30
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 92 0 3 95 113 208 0 104 111 215 381 596 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 289 0 291 107 398 601
2015 Baseline Year 95 0 0 95 145 240 0 175 145 320 470 790 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 375 0 375 175 550 790
Barbee Mills 5 3 8
Hawks Landing 4 4 8
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 9 16 16
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 95 0 0 95 145 240 0 185 145 330 475 805 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380 0 380 185 565 805
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%15%15%15%30%0%0%0%15%15%15%30%0
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 65 65 75 140 0 0 0 75 75 65 140 140
2015 with Full Buildout 95 0 0 95 145 240 0 250 145 395 550 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 455 0 455 250 705 945
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 4
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
Without RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Garden Ave N / Park Ave N Intersection Code:9 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:8/28/2012
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 710 683 1,393 1,291 1,726 3,017 329 209 538 1,562 1,274 2,836
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 945 601 1,546 1,615 2,412 4,027 805 576 1,381 1,862 1,540 3,402
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.09 1.29 1.67 1.17
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 90 83 292 465 514 979 295 646 132 1,073 1,345 2,418 9 85 497 591 404 995 297 758 26 1,081 947 2,028 3,210
2015 Baseline Year 80 125 310 515 580 1,095 495 770 120 1,385 1,805 3,190 20 135 835 990 670 1,660 325 890 50 1,265 1,100 2,365 4,155
Barbee Mills 1 1 1 1 1 3 8
Hawks Landing 1 1 2 1 1 2 8
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 2 2 3 7 9 16 0 0 2 2 2 4 0 2 0 2 2 4 5 0 0 5 3 8 16
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 80 125 315 520 585 1,105 495 770 120 1,385 1,805 3,190 20 135 835 990 670 1,660 330 890 50 1,270 1,105 2,375 4,165
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 1%4%10%15%15%30%1%1%1%2%4%4%4%8%10%10%10%20%0
Project Traffic Volumes 5 20 50 75 70 145 5 5 5 10 20 20 20 40 45 45 50 95 145
2015 with Full Buildout 85 145 365 595 655 1,250 495 770 125 1,390 1,810 3,200 20 155 835 1,010 690 1,700 375 890 50 1,315 1,155 2,470 4,310
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 5
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Enter Exit Total
Quendall Project Vols 445 421 866 Alternative 1 (incudes 10% increase in apartment trips)
Quendall Passby Vols 24 20 44
Intersection:I-405 NB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:1 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 625 485 1,110 114 126 240 420 161 581 308 695 1,003
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 550 587 1,137 137 253 390 683 134 817 160 558 718
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.02 1.54 1.35 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 30 25 345 400 515 915 165 165 140 470 230 700 10 95 90 195 540 735 280 110 350 740 520 1,260 1,805
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 730 730 0 515 355 870 625 1,495 10 0 255 265 0 265 375 370 0 745 525 1,270 1,880
Barbee Mills 0 4 0 16 26 0 46
Kennydale Apartments 35 27 13 9
Hawks Landing 0 4 28 11 3 0 46
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 54 54 0 43 27 70 51 121 28 0 13 41 0 41 27 38 0 65 71 136 176
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 0 0 780 780 0 560 380 940 680 1,620 40 0 270 310 0 310 400 410 0 810 600 1,410 2,060
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%45%45%10%10%10%20%30%30%0%30%45%10%0%55%40%95%1
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 190 190 45 45 40 85 135 135 0 135 190 40 0 230 180 410 410
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 0 0 970 970 0 605 380 985 720 1,705 175 0 270 445 0 445 590 450 0 1,040 780 1,820 2,470
Intersection:I-405 SB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:2 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 502 0 502 695 308 1,003 0 607 607 293 575 868
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 279 0 279 558 160 718 0 538 538 30 169 199
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 55 5 115 175 0 175 390 135 0 525 720 1,245 0 0 0 0 400 400 0 665 5 670 250 920 1,370
2015 Baseline Year 55 5 115 175 0 175 390 135 0 525 720 1,245 0 0 0 0 400 400 0 665 5 670 250 920 1,370
Barbee Mills 4 4 42 1 51
Kennydale Apartments 9 35
Hawks Landing 18 32 14 18 82
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 9 0 22 31 0 31 35 36 0 71 65 136 0 0 0 0 54 54 0 56 19 75 58 133 177
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 65 5 135 205 0 205 425 170 0 595 785 1,380 0 0 0 0 455 455 0 720 25 745 305 1,050 1,545
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 45%45%0%45%40%40%55%95%0%30%30%55%30%85%85%170%2
Project Traffic Volumes 200 200 0 200 180 180 230 410 0 125 125 230 125 355 380 735 735
2015 with Full Buildout 65 5 335 405 0 405 425 350 0 775 1,015 1,790 0 0 0 0 580 580 0 950 150 1,100 685 1,785 2,280
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 1
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:3 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 575 293 868 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 169 30 199 1 1 2 30 169 199
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 30 0 5 35 80 115 0 195 65 260 665 925 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 635 0 650 200 850 945
2015 Baseline Year 30 0 5 35 80 115 0 195 65 260 665 925 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 635 0 650 200 850 945
Barbee Mills 34 3 2 6 1 9 55
Hawks Landing 3 50 5 2 27 87
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 34 0 6 40 9 49 0 52 6 58 75 133 0 0 5 5 0 5 3 36 0 39 58 97 142
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 65 0 10 75 90 165 0 245 70 315 740 1,055 0 0 5 5 0 5 20 670 0 690 255 945 1,085
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 75%75%75%150%10%75%85%85%170%0%0%0%0%10%10%10%20%2
Project Traffic Volumes 315 315 335 650 45 335 380 355 735 0 0 0 0 40 40 45 85 735
2015 with Full Buildout 380 0 10 390 425 815 0 290 405 695 1,095 1,790 0 0 5 5 0 5 20 710 0 730 300 1,030 1,820
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Barbee Mills Access Intersection Code:4 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 169 30 199 1 1 2 30 169 199
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 650 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 650 0 650 200 850 851
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 650 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 650 0 650 200 850 850
Barbee Mills 9 1 3 2 0 1 16
Hawks Landing 53 29 82
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 9 0 1 10 2 12 0 56 2 58 39 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 57 87 98
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 255 0 255 690 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 680 0 680 255 935 945
Passby Distribution 75%25%100%100%200%25%25%75%100%0%0%0%75%75%25%100%2
Passby Traffic Volumes 15 5 20 25 45 -5 5 0 -5 -5 0 0 0 20 -20 0 0 0 20
Project Trip Distribution 10%15%25%25%50%10%10%10%20%0%0%0%15%15%15%30%1
Project Traffic Volumes 40 65 105 110 215 45 45 40 85 0 0 0 65 65 65 130 215
2015 with Full Buildout 65 0 70 135 135 270 0 250 50 300 725 1,025 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 660 0 745 320 1,065 1,180
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 2
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Hawks Landing Access Intersection Code:5 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 169 30 199 1 1 2 30 169 199
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 650 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 650 0 650 200 850 851
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 200 650 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 650 0 650 200 850 850
Barbee Mills 4 1 5
Hawks Landing 53 4 29 6 92
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 4 0 57 30 87 4 0 29 33 59 92 0 1 6 7 8 15 97
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 205 0 260 680 940 5 0 30 35 60 95 0 650 5 655 210 865 950
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%15%15%15%30%0%0%0%15%15%15%30%0
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 65 65 65 130 0 0 0 65 65 65 130 130
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 270 0 325 745 1,070 5 0 30 35 60 95 0 715 5 720 275 995 1,080
Intersection:N 36th St / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:6 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 324 217 541 71 250 321 223 317 540
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 130 16 146 13 39 52 23 103 126
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 89 0 106 451 557 6 0 106 112 19 131 0 345 2 347 95 442 565
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 90 0 105 450 555 5 0 105 110 15 125 0 345 0 345 95 440 560
Barbee Mills 0 4 0 1 5
Hawks Landing 1 3 1 5 10
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 8 7 15 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 6 0 6 7 13 15
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 5 5 5 10 15 95 0 110 455 565 5 0 105 110 15 125 5 350 0 355 105 460 580
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%1%14%15%16%31%2%2%1%3%14%14%14%28%0
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 5 60 65 70 135 10 10 5 15 60 60 60 120 135
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 5 5 5 10 20 155 0 175 525 700 5 0 115 120 20 140 5 410 0 415 165 580 715
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 3
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:N 30th St / Burnett Ave Intersection Code:7 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 216 114 330 148 226 374 52 81 133 1 1 2
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 90 76 166 146 144 290 58 73 131 1 1 2
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 18 25 0 43 79 122 20 11 20 51 75 126 0 59 47 106 45 151 0 10 0 10 11 21 210
2015 Baseline Year 20 25 0 45 80 125 20 10 20 50 75 125 0 60 45 105 45 150 0 10 0 10 10 20 210
Barbee Mills 0
Hawks Landing 1 1 2
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 20 25 0 45 80 125 20 10 20 50 75 125 0 60 45 105 45 150 0 10 0 10 10 20 210
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 1%1%1%2%1%1%1%2%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Project Traffic Volumes 5 5 5 10 5 5 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
2015 with Full Buildout 25 25 0 50 85 135 20 10 25 55 80 135 0 60 45 105 45 150 0 10 0 10 10 20 220
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Burnett Ave Intersection Code:8 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 81 52 133 283 323 606 1 1 2 322 283 605
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 73 58 131 77 75 152 1 1 2 76 77 153
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 2 87 0 89 335 424 54 0 1 55 100 155 0 334 98 432 141 573 0 0 0 0 0 0 576
2015 Baseline Year 0 85 0 85 335 420 55 0 0 55 100 155 0 335 100 435 140 575 0 0 0 0 0 0 575
Barbee Mills 4 1 5
Hawks Landing 3 5 8
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 7 0 7 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 90 0 90 340 430 55 0 0 55 100 155 0 340 100 440 145 585 0 0 0 0 0 0 585
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 14%14%14%28%0%0%0%14%14%14%28%0%0%0%0
Project Traffic Volumes 60 60 60 120 0 0 0 60 60 60 120 0 0 0 120
2015 with Full Buildout 0 150 0 150 400 550 55 0 0 55 100 155 0 400 100 500 205 705 0 0 0 0 0 0 705
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 4
Quendall Terminals
2015 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Garden Ave N / Park Ave N Intersection Code:9 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:8/28/2012
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 710 683 1,393 1,291 1,726 3,017 329 209 538 1,562 1,274 2,836
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 882 567 1,449 1,520 2,616 4,136 704 291 995 1,744 1,375 3,119
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.03 1.32 1.73 1.09
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 98 15 204 317 457 774 208 718 90 1,016 505 1,521 12 88 55 155 231 386 279 352 8 639 934 1,573 2,127
2015 Baseline Year 125 20 185 330 480 810 385 850 105 1,340 680 2,020 20 130 115 265 415 680 245 440 10 695 1,055 1,750 2,630
Barbee Mills 1 1 2 1 5
Hawks Landing 1 1 1 1 1 3 8
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 2 2 3 7 6 13 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 4 3 7 13
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 125 20 190 335 485 820 385 850 105 1,340 680 2,020 20 130 115 265 415 680 250 440 10 700 1,060 1,760 2,640
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 2%2%10%14%14%28%2%2%2%4%2%2%2%4%10%10%10%20%0
Project Traffic Volumes 10 10 40 60 65 125 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 20 45 45 40 85 125
2015 with Full Buildout 135 30 230 395 550 945 385 850 115 1,350 690 2,040 20 140 115 275 425 700 295 440 10 745 1,100 1,845 2,765
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 5
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Enter Exit Total
Quendall Project Vols 442 509 951 Alternative 1 (incudes 10% increase in apartment trips)
Quendall Passby Vols 28 21 49
Intersection:I-405 NB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:1 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 625 485 1,110 114 126 240 420 161 581 308 695 1,003
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 550 587 1,137 137 253 390 683 134 817 160 558 718
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.02 1.54 1.35 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 50 25 280 355 350 705 75 150 65 290 360 650 15 230 145 390 160 550 55 165 60 280 445 725 1,315
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 225 225 0 450 175 625 745 1,370 15 0 515 530 0 530 50 230 0 280 465 745 1,435
Barbee Mills 0 15 1 3 13 0 32
Kennydale Apartments 22 18 34 30
Hawks Landing 0 4 26 15 3 0 48
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 36 36 0 41 18 59 80 139 27 0 34 61 0 61 18 46 0 64 68 132 184
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 0 0 265 265 0 490 195 685 825 1,510 40 0 550 590 0 590 70 275 0 345 530 875 1,620
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%45%45%10%10%10%20%30%30%0%30%45%10%0%55%40%95%1
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 230 230 45 45 50 95 135 135 0 135 230 50 0 280 180 460 460
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 0 0 495 495 0 535 195 730 875 1,605 175 0 550 725 0 725 300 325 0 625 710 1,335 2,080
Intersection:I-405 SB Ramps / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:2 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 502 0 502 695 308 1,003 0 607 607 293 575 868
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 279 0 279 558 160 718 0 538 538 30 169 199
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 130 5 250 385 0 385 215 225 0 440 280 720 0 0 0 0 345 345 0 150 125 275 475 750 1,100
2015 Baseline Year 130 5 250 385 0 385 215 225 0 440 280 720 0 0 0 0 345 345 0 150 125 275 475 750 1,100
Barbee Mills 22 16 16 2 56
Kennydale Apartments 30 22
Hawks Landing 16 30 18 23 87
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 30 0 38 68 0 68 22 46 0 68 64 132 0 0 0 0 47 47 0 34 25 59 84 143 195
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 160 5 290 455 0 455 235 270 0 505 345 850 0 0 0 0 390 390 0 185 150 335 560 895 1,295
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 45%45%0%45%40%40%55%95%0%30%30%55%30%85%85%170%2
Project Traffic Volumes 200 200 0 200 175 175 280 455 0 155 155 280 155 435 375 810 810
2015 with Full Buildout 160 5 490 655 0 655 235 445 0 680 625 1,305 0 0 0 0 545 545 0 465 305 770 935 1,705 2,105
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 1
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Ripley Lane / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:3 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:MJR 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.4286
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 575 293 868 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 169 30 199 1 1 2 30 169 199
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2012 Existing Conditions 101 0 28 129 45 174 0 409 38 447 282 729 0 0 1 1 1 2 7 180 1 188 437 625 765
2015 Baseline Year 100 0 30 130 45 175 0 410 40 450 280 730 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 180 0 185 440 625 765
Barbee Mills 14 3 8 30 6 4 65
Hawks Landing 3 46 5 2 36 92
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 14 0 6 20 38 58 0 54 30 84 59 143 0 0 5 5 0 5 8 40 0 48 60 108 157
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 115 0 35 150 85 235 0 465 70 535 340 875 0 0 5 5 0 5 15 220 0 235 500 735 925
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 75%75%75%150%10%75%85%85%170%0%0%0%0%10%10%10%20%2
Project Traffic Volumes 380 380 330 710 45 330 375 430 805 0 0 0 0 50 50 45 95 805
2015 with Full Buildout 495 0 35 530 415 945 0 510 400 910 770 1,680 0 0 5 5 0 5 15 270 0 285 545 830 1,730
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Barbee Mills Access Intersection Code:4 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 169 30 199 1 1 2 30 169 199
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 437 0 437 188 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 188 437 625 626
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 435 0 435 190 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 190 435 625 625
Barbee Mills 4 1 3 8 1 6 23
Hawks Landing 49 38 87
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 4 0 1 5 9 14 0 52 8 60 48 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 44 0 45 53 98 110
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 5 0 0 5 10 15 0 485 10 495 240 735 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 0 235 485 720 735
Passby Distribution 25%75%100%100%200%75%75%25%100%0%0%0%25%25%75%100%2
Passby Traffic Volumes 5 15 20 25 45 -20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 -5 0 -5 -5 20
Project Trip Distribution 10%15%25%25%50%10%10%10%20%0%0%0%15%15%15%30%1
Project Traffic Volumes 50 75 125 110 235 45 45 50 95 0 0 0 65 65 75 140 235
2015 with Full Buildout 60 0 90 150 145 295 0 465 75 540 290 830 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 230 0 300 555 855 990
8/28/12
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 2
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Hawks Landing Access Intersection Code:5 Count Source:TIA
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2009 Factor:0.8571
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 574 287 861 1 1 2 287 574 861
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 169 30 199 1 1 2 30 169 199
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2009 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 437 0 437 188 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 188 437 625 626
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 435 0 435 190 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 0 190 435 625 625
Barbee Mills 4 7 11
Hawks Landing 49 5 38 5 97
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 4 0 53 45 98 5 0 38 43 54 97 0 7 5 12 9 21 108
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 440 0 490 235 725 5 0 40 45 55 100 0 195 5 200 445 645 735
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%15%15%15%30%0%0%0%15%15%15%30%0
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 75 75 65 140 0 0 0 65 65 75 140 140
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 515 0 565 300 865 5 0 40 45 55 100 0 260 5 265 520 785 875
Intersection:N 36th St / Lake Washington Blvd Intersection Code:6 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 1 1 2 324 217 541 71 250 321 223 317 540
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 1 1 2 130 16 146 13 39 52 23 103 126
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 280 0 363 132 495 4 0 25 29 90 119 0 107 7 114 284 398 506
2015 Baseline Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 280 0 365 130 495 5 0 25 30 90 120 0 105 5 110 285 395 505
Barbee Mills 1 3 2 5 11
Hawks Landing 1 4 1 4 10
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 9 12 21 0 0 3 3 2 5 0 9 0 9 7 16 21
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 285 0 370 145 515 5 0 30 35 90 125 0 115 5 120 290 410 525
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%1%14%15%16%31%2%2%1%3%14%14%14%28%0
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 5 70 75 70 145 10 10 5 15 60 60 70 130 145
2015 with Full Buildout 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 355 0 445 215 660 5 0 40 45 95 140 0 175 5 180 360 540 670
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 3
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:N 30th St / Burnett Ave Intersection Code:7 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 216 114 330 148 226 374 52 81 133 1 1 2
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 90 76 166 146 144 290 58 73 131 1 1 2
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 44 55 2 101 51 152 64 28 13 105 118 223 2 38 61 101 120 221 0 13 1 14 32 46 321
2015 Baseline Year 45 55 0 100 55 155 65 30 15 110 120 230 0 40 60 100 120 220 0 15 0 15 30 45 325
Barbee Mills 1 2 3
Hawks Landing 1 1 2
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 2 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 3 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 45 55 0 100 60 160 65 30 20 115 120 235 0 40 60 100 120 220 0 15 0 15 30 45 330
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 1%1%1%2%1%1%1%2%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Project Traffic Volumes 5 5 5 10 5 5 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
2015 with Full Buildout 50 55 0 105 65 170 65 30 25 120 125 245 0 40 60 100 120 220 0 15 0 15 30 45 340
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Burnett Ave Intersection Code:8 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 81 52 133 283 323 606 1 1 2 322 283 605
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 73 58 131 77 75 152 1 1 2 76 77 153
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG 1.00 FLAG
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 92 0 3 95 113 208 0 104 111 215 381 596 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 289 0 291 107 398 601
2015 Baseline Year 90 0 5 95 110 205 0 105 110 215 380 595 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 0 290 110 400 600
Barbee Mills 5 3 8
Hawks Landing 4 4 8
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 9 16 16
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 90 0 5 95 110 205 0 115 110 225 385 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 0 295 120 415 615
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 0%0%0%14%14%14%28%0%0%0%14%14%14%28%0
Project Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 60 60 70 130 0 0 0 70 70 60 130 130
2015 with Full Buildout 90 0 5 95 110 205 0 175 110 285 455 740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 0 365 180 545 745
8/28/2012
8/28/2012
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 4
Quendall Terminals
2015 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecasts
With RTID I-405 Improvements
Intersection:Lake Washington Blvd / Garden Ave N / Park Ave N Intersection Code:9 Count Source:ATDS - 6/8/2010 Count
Scenario:Master Use Plan Analyst:JGT 2015 to 2010 Factor:0.7143
Analysis Year:2015 Checked by:MJR
Time Period:PM Peak Date of Completion:#######
Notes Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
2008 Calibration Year 710 683 1,393 1,291 1,726 3,017 329 209 538 1,562 1,274 2,836
2015 Baseline Forecast Year 882 567 1,449 1,520 2,616 4,136 704 291 995 1,744 1,375 3,119
Fratar Approximation Factor 1.03 1.32 1.36 1.09
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach
Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total Left Thru Right In Out Total
2010 Existing Conditions 90 83 292 465 514 979 295 646 132 1,073 1,345 2,418 9 85 497 591 404 995 297 758 26 1,081 947 2,028 3,210
2015 Baseline Year 125 95 260 480 530 1,010 445 785 185 1,415 1,730 3,145 10 90 710 810 565 1,375 255 895 25 1,175 1,055 2,230 3,880
Barbee Mills 1 1 1 1 1 3 8
Hawks Landing 1 1 2 1 1 2 8
Pipeline Projects-Subtotal 2 2 3 7 9 16 0 0 2 2 2 4 0 2 0 2 2 4 5 0 0 5 3 8 16
2015 Adjusted Baseline with Pipeline 125 95 265 485 535 1,020 445 785 185 1,415 1,730 3,145 10 90 710 810 565 1,375 260 895 25 1,180 1,060 2,240 3,890
Passby Distribution 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0
Passby Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Trip Distribution 2%2%10%14%14%28%2%2%2%4%2%2%2%4%10%10%10%20%0
Project Traffic Volumes 10 10 50 70 65 135 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 20 45 45 50 95 135
2015 with Full Buildout 135 105 315 555 600 1,155 445 785 195 1,425 1,740 3,165 10 100 710 820 575 1,395 305 895 25 1,225 1,110 2,335 4,025
Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Date Printed: 8/29/2012
Page 5
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
Appendix C
Parking Demand Analysis
Parking Demand Forecasts - Quendall Terminals
Alternative 1
Weekday Peak Parking Demand (ITE Rates)Weekend Peak Parking Demand (ITE Rates)
Forecast Weekday Peak Parking Demand (ITE Rates)Forecast Weekend Peak Parking Demand (ITE Rates)
LU Size ITE Parking Rate1 Demand LU Size ITE Parking Rate1 Demand
Office 210,000 3.44 722 Office2 210,000 0.25 53Restaurant (High-Turn Over Sit-Down)9,000 16.1 145 Restaurant (High-Turn Over Sit-Down)9,000 20.6 185
Mid-Rise Apt 800 1.46 1,168 Mid-Rise Apt 800 1.17 936
Retail 21,600 3.35 72 Retail 21,600 3.56 77
2,107 1,251
Proposed Supply 2,171 2,171
Surplus or (Deficit)64 920
Shared Analysis - Available space from residential units is 350 281
assumed at 30% of peak evening demand per ULI, Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, 2005.
Surplus or (Deficit) with Shared Parking Consideration 414 1,201
1 - Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, ITE, 2004.
2 - For Office uses on a weekend, no surveys were reported by ITE. However, some level of parking demand occurs at office uses on weekend periods, albeit on a signficiantly reduced level.
As such, a nominal demand for parking was assumed for these uses on a weekend period that would coincide with other peak commercial and residential uses.
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC
Appendix D
Lake Washington Blvd./NE 44th Street Conceptual
Channelization Exhibit
N
(Not to Scale)
Conceptual ChannelizationImprovements on Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th StreetApproach to I-405 InterchangeQuendall Terminals Project
APPENDIX F
CULTURAL RESOURCES
REPORT
435 ERICKSEN AVENUE NE, SUITE 103
PO BOX 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
PHONE 206 855-9020 - info@crcwa.com
TECHNICAL MEMO 1204I-2
DATE: June 28, 2012
TO: Gretchen Brunner
EA/Blumen
FROM: Glenn D. Hartmann, Principal Investigator
RE: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment
Project, Renton, King County, WA
The attached short report form constitutes our final report for the above referenced project. A
small brick building, identified as the Quendall station house, and two dock/wharf remnants were
recorded. Please contact our office should you have any questions about our findings and/or
recommendations.
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET
Author: Katherine M. Kelly
Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals
Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Date of Report: June 28, 2012
County (ies): King Sections: 29, 32 Township: 24 North Range: 05 East
Quad: Mercer Island Acres: 21.5 acres
CD Submitted? Yes No PDF of Report?
Does this replace a draft? Yes No
Archaeological Sites/Isolates Found or Amended? Yes No
TCP(s) found? Yes No
Does this report fulfill a DAHP permit requirement? Yes # No
DAHP Archaeological Site #:
Please submit reports unbound. Please be sure that any electronic version of a report
submitted to DAHP has all of its figures, graphics, appendices, attachments,
correspondence, cover sheet, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. Please check that all
digital files display correctly when opened.
REPORT CHECK LIST
Report should contain the following items:
•Clear objectives and methods
•A summary of the results of the survey
•A report of where the survey records and data are stored
•A research design that:
•Details survey objectives
•Details specific methods
•Details expected results
•Details area surveyed including map(s) and legal
locational information
•Details how results will be incorporated into the
planning process
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 2
Management Summary
Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. was contracted by EA/Blumen to conduct a review of
pertinent environmental, archaeological, ethnographic, and historical information; and relevant
correspondence between the project proponent, stakeholders and DAHP for the purposes of
developing a monitoring plan for the proposed Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project in
Renton, King County, Washington. Archaeologists conducted a brief reconnaissance of the
project area. Survey resulted in the identification of a previously unrecorded brick railroad
station house and two remnant dock/wharf structures, which are not considered historically
significant. Recommendations include focused and limited archaeological monitoring for the
project; attached is a proposed monitoring plan and an inadvertent discovery protocol.
1. Administrative Data
Report Title: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment
Project, Renton, King County, WA
Author: Katherine M. Kelly
Report Date: June 28, 2012
Location: The project is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd in Renton, King County,
Washington (Figure 1).
Legal Description: The project is located in Sections 29 and 32, Township 23 North, Range
05 East, Willamette Meridian.
USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map (s): Mercer Island, WA (1994)
Total Area Involved: 21.5 acres
Objective (Research Design): This assessment was developed with the goal of ensuring
that no cultural resources are disturbed during construction of the proposed project and to
determine the potential for any, as yet, unrecorded cultural resources within the project area.
CRC’s work was intended, in part, to assist in addressing state regulations pertaining to the
identification and protection of cultural resources (e.g., RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53), and
compliance with Section 106 of NHPA. The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW
27.53) prohibits knowingly disturbing archaeological sites without a permit from the Washington
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and the Indian Graves and
Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits knowingly disturbing Native American or historic graves.
Under Section 106, agencies involved in a federal undertaking must take into account the
undertaking’s potential effects to historic properties (36 CFR 800.16(l)(1)).
This assessment utilized a research design that considered previous studies, the magnitude and
nature of the undertaking, the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 3
likely nature and location of historic properties within the area of potential effects (APE), as well
as other applicable laws, standards, and guidelines (per 36CFR800.4 (b)(1)).
Assessment methods included a of review of the 1997 cultural resources survey report for the
project (Bowden et al. 1997), project plans, related reports, and other information, in order to
estimate the potential for as yet unidentified cultural resources.
Project Background: The developer is proposing to construct a mixed-use development located
at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd (Figure 2). The 21.5 acre project, located within the Shoreline
High Intensity Overlay District, is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential. The applicants
preferred alternative divides the project into seven lots, four of which would contain four- to six-
story mixed-use buildings with residential units, retail, and restaurant space. For purposes of this
assessment, the APE for this project is understood to be that of the mixed-use development
project described above.
The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment, under
the oversight of the EPA. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be
addressed through the separate EPA process.
Previously Unrecorded Cultural Resources Identified and Recorded: Yes [x] No [ ]
A previously unrecorded brick railroad station house and two remnant dock/wharf structures are
within the project boundary.
2. Background Research
Background research conducted in June 2012.
Archival Sources Checked:
DAHP WISAARD There are no previously recorded archaeological sites in the project
area. The DAHP files check was conducted in June 2012.
Web Soil Survey Soils mapped in the APE consist of Bellingham silt loam with 0 to
2 percent slopes and Norma sandy loam with 0 to 2 percent slopes.
Bellingham silt loam is derived of alluvium and is located in
depressions and drainage ways. Norma sandy loam is derived of
alluvium and is located on floodplains (NRCS 2012).
Library [x] Various historical, archaeological, and ethnographic references,
multiple historical records (e.g., GLO maps), and in CRC’s library.
Historical Society [x] Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association Research
Collection
Contextual Overview: As noted in Bowden et al. (1997), in the Statewide Archaeological
Predictive Model, and in a letter from DAHP staff (Appendix) the proposed project is in an area
with a high likelihood to contain intact archaeological deposits; however, the project area could
not be adequately tested due to the presence of fill, impervious surfaces, and contaminated
sediments.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 4
The following summary is derived from Bowden et al. (1997) and the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS 2010). Information provided in the following section is from these two
sources, unless otherwise indicated. This summary is intended to provide a framework for CRC’s
archaeological expectations for this project and a context for the proposed monitoring plan.
A. The geomorphology of the landform. The fill soils range from one to ten feet thick across
the entire site and are thinnest along the southern and eastern boundaries of the Main Property
and thickest in the northwest corner of the Main Property. Shallow alluvium (interbedded sand,
clay, and peat) associated with the May Creek delta lies under this fill, to depths of 25 to 40 feet;
the thinner portion of this is at the southeastern portion of the project. Deeper alluvium
associated with an older May Creek channel occurs from depths of 30 and 40 feet to 127 and 135
feet; this deposit is underlain by lacustrine sediments associated with Lake Washington.
The Lake Washington shoreline has fluctuated over the past 7,000 years (Karlin and Abella
1992, 1993; Major 2008) as a result of large earthquakes and associated landslides. A large area,
which includes the project, was uplifted approximately 1,000 years ago during an earthquake.
Bowden et al. (1997) posited that intact, pre-earthquake cultural deposits, protected from erosion
by the cap of landslide debris and silts, might lie inland of the modern shoreline.
Historic maps show that the project area was either inundated or subject to periodic flooding and
scouring prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and also subject to the
erosional effects of the meandering southward of the May Creek channel (GLO 1865; Metsker
1927, 1936; Kroll 1958; USGS 1973) (Figure 3). The 1864 - 1920 May Creek meanders would
have cut through the project’s City Water Line Easement; south of the Quendall Pond; and just
east and south of the South Detention Pond, west of a marsh indicated on the 1920 maps (see
Figure 3).
Historic newspaper accounts describe archaeological remains exposed at the mouth of May
Creek in 1917 following the post-Ship Canal drop in lake levels (Carter 1917). In 1917, the May
Creek channel would have cut through the southern portion of the project; the creek delta would
have been located south of the South Detention Pond, approximately 35 meters east of the
modern shoreline.
B. The cultural context of the landform. T.T. Waterman (2001) recorded numerous named
geographic features near the project area; these include descriptive names for geographic
features, resource procurement sites, village (or habitation sites), and names associated with
mystical events. May Creek is recorded as šbal’t (“a place where things are dried”) which
referred to a fish processing station. Until ca. 1855, the Subaltuabs, a Coast Salish group,
inhabited this village, which consisted of two to three houses; however, no houses are noted in
the location on the 1865 survey maps (Paige 1856; Waterman 1922; Duwamish et al. 1933; Lane
1975; Ruby and Brown 1992). CRC contacted local tribes for additional information about the
project area (see Attachments), which did not result in any new data.
The area was later named “May Creek” for an early homesteader (Meany 1923). The project site
was part of a homestead patented to Jeremiah Sullivan in 1874, later deeded to James Colman in
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 5
1876 (ATSDR 2006). The May homestead was located on a parcel later part of Colman’s
property just north of the Barbee Lumber Company (EHC 2012), which may place the
homestead within the project area. Prior to 1916, a shingle mill occupied the upland area of the
site; the property was deeded to Peter Reilly in 1916 (ATSDR 2006). Quendall Station (named
for Lake Washington Mill owner William Kendall) was established in 1916, as a part of the Lake
Washington beltline, and shows on the Northern Pacific Railway roster in 1922 and 1947
(NPRHA 2012).
The area was used by the Republic Creosoting Company (later Reilly Tar and Chemical
Corporation) to process creosote from 1917 – 1969. Tar feedstock was typically transported to
the facility onsite from Lake Union and unloaded from tankers or barges at a t-dock that
extended out into Lake Washington or at a shorter, near-shore pier. The feedstock was unloaded
into two two-million gallon, above-ground storage tanks. (Remnants of this dock and a wharf are
located within the APE along the Lake Washington shoreline). A notation in Washington: A
Guide to the Evergreen State describes “a huddle of black sheds and creosote tanks between the
lake and the tracks of the Northern Pacific Railway” (WPA 1941).
In the early 1970s, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals. It has been used intermittently to
store diesel, crude and waste oils and as a log sorting and storage yard. Bowden et al. (1997)
reported a small brick building, a sewer pump station and a shack on the eastern edge of the
Main Property. The brick building (the Quendall Station house) was reportedly used as an office
building for the logging company (William Parent, personal communication, June 14, 2012).
Much of the landform is presently covered with fill, which generally consists of a mixture of silt,
sand, gravel and wood debris with scattered foundry slag and brick and metal fragments. Known
fill events occurred west of the pre-1916 shoreline following the lowering of Lake Washington;
between 1920 and 1936 associated with the diversion of May Creek and backfilling of its former
channel; and in 1983, when approximately three feet of sawdust was placed over the entire site.
C. The results of the 1997 archaeological survey. A landform subject to periodic flood events
and channel drift would not be assumed to contain intact, significant cultural deposits. However,
Bowden et al. (1997) posited that intact, pre-earthquake cultural deposits, protected from erosion
by the cap of landslide debris and silts, might lie inland of the modern shoreline.
In 1997, archaeologists excavated 12 shovel tests in the upland area, one of which was located
within the current project’s boundaries (Bowden et al. 1997:16). All shovel tests were negative
for cultural deposits; however, an item tentatively identified as fire-modified rock was found in a
shovel test excavated to the east of the project on the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property. The
single shovel test excavated in 1997, which is within the 2012 project area, identified a small
charcoal deposit at 90 – 100 centimeters below the surface. Soils in the eastern portion of the
project were interpreted as remnant alluvial deposits from May Creek; while those in the western
portion were described as beach deposits associated with the Lake Washington shoreline.
D. The nature of the undertaking. Site remediation anticipates the placement of a cap over the
upland portion of the Main Property and along the shoreline. This cap could be disturbed by: a)
clearing and grading in the upland portion of the Main Property; b) construction of a deep
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 6
building foundation (i.e. piles) and other ground improvements required for structural support, c)
excavation for utilities; and d) establishment and/or expansion of wetland and riparian areas
(shoreline and/or upland). Institutional controls will be required to prevent alteration of the cap
during redevelopment. With the exception of these four instances, the undertaking is unlikely to
cause effects to intact, significant cultural deposits, should any exist within the project.
Archaeological Expectations. Based on the background information, areas with a higher
probability to contain intact archaeological deposits include the margins of the old channels of
May Creek, the delta of the 1920 channel; the margins of the 1920 marsh; and areas adjacent to
the 1864 shoreline. Cultural deposits in this location may include items or features associated
with a) precontact fisheries (weirs, traps, smokehouses, drying racks); b) precontact habitation
(fire-modified rock, charcoal, post molds, depressions, lithic debitage, and formal processing and
hunting tools); c) historic industry (wharves, piers, docks, pilings, machinery; foundations,
trash); historic habitation (house foundations, household refuse) or historic transportation (rail
line; trestles; road beds, bridge foundations).
Because of the type and intensity of landscape modification conducted in the historic era and the
geologic history of the landform, intact precontact deposits would not be expected to be at or
near the surface, but rather would be anticipated to be one to several meters below ground-level
(Bowden et al. 1997). This position is supported by the 1997 fieldwork (Bowden et al. 1997) and
the results of other archaeological studies conducted in the vicinity (e.g. Greengo 1966; Chatters
1981, 1988; Larson 1988; Lewarch et al. 1994, 1995; Forsman and Larson 1995; Lorenz 1976;
Robinson 1982a, 1982b).
Intact historic-era deposits related to early homesteading would not be expected to be visible on
the surface within the project area for the same reasons; however, background research indicates
that late historic-era deposits related to creosote production; the lumber industry and railroad are
likely to be present on the landscape.
3. Fieldwork
Field investigations were conducted by Katherine M. Kelly and Sonja Kassa; notes and
photographs are on file at CRC. The project was not staked or flagged. The survey method
consisted of a pedestrian survey using maps provided by the client. No subsurface testing was
conducted due to known soil contaminates; ground exposures, cut banks and cleared areas were
inspected as available.
The landscape was much as described in the reference documents, all examined areas showed
signs of disturbance. Upland areas are covered with a mixture of wood debris and gravels, while
the shoreline had push piles of fill, wood chips, gravels and riprap and large sections of armoring
(riprap and logs or manufactured fiber netting) over fill (Figures 4 - 8). Gravel roads and gravel-
covered clearings were found throughout. A series of low canals or ditches, ponds and cobble
dikes radiated from the northeastern portion of the site to the western shoreline (Figure 9).
Remnant asphalt surfaces are also present in this section. In addition to the remnant log beds,
archaeologists also observed log piles, the ruins of a structure interpreted to be truck scales,
monitoring wells and/or utility connections, concrete pads, plywood sheds, concrete “eco-
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 7
blocks,” collections of waste barrels, and trash scatters (Figures 10 - 13). No evidence of the
precontact deposits, homestead, shingle mill, or creosote storage tanks were identified.
Total Area Examined: 21.5 acres.
Areas not examined: None.
Date of Survey: June 14, 2012
Weather and Surface Visibility: Weather conditions were clear and mild.
4. Results
Cultural Resources Identified: Three structures were recorded: two wooden dock/wharf
features (presumed to be associated with the creosote plant); and the Quendall station house, a
small, flat-roofed brick structure (Figures 14 - 16). The dock/wharf features, which are likely
associated with the former creosote facility, are in ruin. Per prevailing DAHP guidelines, these
have been recorded as historic-era archaeological sites on Washington State archeological
inventory forms. The Quendall station house, although associated with the Northern Pacific
Railway, is not architecturally remarkable. It has been recorded on a Washington State historic
property inventory form. None of these sites is considered to be a significant cultural resource;
all forms have been submitted to DAHP.
Project Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations: Much of the proposed undertaking is
unlikely to cause effects to intact, significant cultural deposits, should any exist within the
project. There are four instances that may require excavation below the assumed cap installed
during remediation. These are:
• Clearing and grading in the upland portion of the Main Property.
• Construction of a deep building foundation (i.e. piles) and other ground improvements
required for structural support.
It is CRC’s recommendation that limited and focused cultural resource monitoring be conducted
during these activities. A proposed monitoring plan and an inadvertent discovery plan are
attached.
In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities do result in the inadvertent
discovery of archaeological deposits, work should be halted in the immediate area and contact
made with the DAHP in Olympia. Work should be halted until such time as further investigation
and appropriate consultation is concluded. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of
human remains, work should be immediately halted in the area, the discovery covered and
secured against further disturbance, and contact effected with law enforcement personnel, DAHP
and authorized representatives of the concerned Indian tribes.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 8
No historic properties affected [ ]
Historic properties affected [x]
No adverse effect to historic properties [x]
Adverse effect to historic properties [ ]
Attachments:
Figures [x]
Photographs [x]
Other [x] Copy of letter from DAHP to CED, Associate Planner
[x] Copies of letters sent by CRC to cultural resources staff at the Duwamish
Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and Puyallup Tribe of Indians.
[x] Proposed Monitoring Plan
[x] Proposed Inadvertent Discovery Protocol
[x] Historic Inventory Report, Quendall Station
[x] Archaeological Site Inventory Form, Historic Wharf Structures
5. Limitations of this Assessment
No cultural resources study can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for
prehistoric sites, historic properties or traditional cultural properties to be associated with a
project. The information presented in this report is based on professional opinions derived from
our analysis and interpretation of available documents, records, literature, and information
identified in this report, and on our field investigation and observations as described herein.
Conclusions and recommendations presented apply to project conditions existing at the time of
our study and those reasonably foreseeable. The data, conclusions, and interpretations in this
report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions described in this report.
They cannot necessarily apply to site changes of which CRC is not aware and has not had the
opportunity to evaluate.
6. References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
2006 Initial Release Public Health Assessment for Quendall Terminals Renton, King County,
Washington. EPA Facility ID: WAD980639215 September 20, 2006. Electronic
resource, accessed June 2012, available at www.epa.gov.
Bowden, B., L. A. Forsman, L. L. Larson, and D. E. Lewarch
1997 Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington. Larson
Anthropological/Archaeological Services Technical Report #97-7 submitted to CAN
Architecture. On file at DAHP, Olympia.
Carter, M. J.
1917 Lake Washington's New Beach Line Town Crier 14 April 1917.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 9
City of Renton (DEIS)
2010 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Quendall Terminals mixed use
development. Prepared by Department of Community and Economic Development, City
of Renton.
Chatters, J. C.
1981 Archaeology of the Sbabadtd Site 45KI51, King County, Washington. Office of Public
Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle.
1988 Tualdad Altu (45KI59), a 4th Century Village on the Black River, King County,
Washington First City Equities, Seattle.
Duwamish et al. Tribes of Indians V The United States of America
1933 Testimony before the Court of Claims of the United States Proceedings of the Indian
Court of Claims, No F-275.
Eastside Heritage Center
2012 Colman Diaries. In “Historic Houses”, Eastside Heritage Newsletter November 2005,
Vol. V, Issue IV. Electronic resource, accessed June 2012,
www.eastsideheritagecenter.org.
Forsman, L. and L. Larson
1995 Regional Wastewater Services Plan Cultural Resource Management Overview Draft
Technical Memorandum. LAAS Technical Report 95-12 Submitted to CH2M Hill. On
file at DAHP, Olympia.
General Land Office (GLO)
1865 Survey Plat of Township 24 North, Range 5 East. East Willamette Meridian. Electronic
resource, accessed June 2012, http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy1.php.
Greengo, R. E.
1966 Archaeological Excavations at the Marymoor Site (45KI9) A Report to the National
Park Service Region 4. Order Invoice Voucher 34-703 Sammamish Flood Control
Project Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Juell, K. E.
2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Light Lanes Project. (NADB 1339887).
Karlin, R. E and S. B Abella
1992 Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound Region Recorded in Sediments of Lake
Washington, USA Science 258 1617-1620.
Kroll Map Company (Kroll)
1958 Kroll’s Atlas of King County. Seattle, Washington.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 10
Lane, B.
1975 Identity and Treaty Status of the Duwamish Tribe of Indians Report. Submitted to US
Department of the Interior and the Duwamish Tribe. On file at Special Collections, Allen
Library, University of Washington, Seattle.
Larson, L. L.
1988 Cultural Resource Investigation of a Proposed Warehouse In Renton, King County,
Washington. Submitted to Public Storage, Incorporated. On file at DAHP, Olympia.
Lewarch, D. E.
1994 Cultural Resources Field Assessment of the Fred Meyer Corporation Building Project
Area, Renton, King County, Washington. Submitted to Fred Meyer Corporation. On file
at DAHP, Olympia.
Lewarch, D. E., L. L. Larson, and L. A Forsman
1995 Introduction In The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington, 4,000 Years of
Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound, 2 Vols, pp 1-1-1-39. Edited
by Lynn L. Larson and Dennis E. Lewarch Larson Anthropological/Archaeological
Services, Submitted to the King County Department of Metropolitan Services, Seattle.
Lorenz, T. H.
1976 Archaeological Assessment, Army Corps of Engineers, Permit Number 071-0YB-I-
002916, Phase 1- May Creek Interceptor, METRO/King County Water District Number
107 Letter report submitted to Moore, Wallace and Kennedy, Incorporated, Seattle.
Kanaby, K. M., L. N. Getz, D. F. Tingwall, and T. C. Rust
2009 Archaeological Assessment, City of Renton Hawk’s Landing Project, Renton. On file at
the DAHP, Olympia.
Major, M.
2008 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form: 45KI814. On file at the DAHP,
Olympia.
Meany, E. S.
1923 Origin of Washington Geographic Names. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Metsker, C. F.
1927 Metsker’s Atlas of King County. Metsker Map Company. Seattle.
1936 Metsker’s Atlas of King County. Metsker Map Company. Seattle.
Murphy, L. R.
2003 Letter to Jay Brueggeman Regarding Final Ripley Lane Pipeline Excavation Project (CIP
#200799) Archaeological Resources Monitoring. (NADB 1341932)
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association (NPRHA)
2012 Quendall Station. Electronic resource, accessed June 2012, available at nprha.org.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 11
Paige, G.
1856 Report to Isaac I Stevens, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Washington Territory
December 29 and 31, 1856, Fort Kitsap, Washington Territory On microfilm, U S
National Archives, Records of the Washington Superintendency of Indian Affairs, Letters
received from Puget Sound, Microcopy 5, Roll 10
Robinson, J.
1982a SR 405 Factoria to Northup Way-HOV. Prepared for Washington State Department of
Transportation. On file at DAHP, Olympia.
1982b SR 90 Bellevue Access Study. Prepared for Washington State Department of
Transportation. On file at DAHP, Olympia.
Ruby, R. H. and J. A. Brown
1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press.
Norman.
United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2012 Washington Soil Survey Reports. Electronic resource, accessed June 2012,
www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1973 Mercer Island Quadrangle, Wash. 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map (photo revised
from 1968 and 1950). Manuscript on file at the Map Collection Division, University of
Washington Libraries. Seattle, Washington.
1983 Bellevue South Quadrangle, Wash. 15-Minute Series Topographic Map. Manuscript on
file at the Map Collection Division, University of Washington Libraries. Seattle.
Waterman, T.T.
2001 Puget Sound Geography. Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir, eds. Lushootseed
Press. Federal Way.
Writers' Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of Washington (WPA)
1941 Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State. Compiled by workers of the Writers'
Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of Washington and sponsored
by the Washington State Historical Society. Binfords & Mort, Portland. Electronic
resource, accessed June 2012, www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99048612.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 12
7. Figures
Figure 1. Location of the project shown on portion of the USGS Mercer Island, WA 7.5’ USGS quadrangle.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 13
Figure 2. Proposed project applicants preferred alternative.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 14
Figure 3. Map illustrating historic geomorphology of the project vicinity (from Bowden et al. 1997:5). Bowden’s
map identifies historic shorelines (1864, 1920); May Creek channels (1864, 1920, 1997); and the 1920 location of a
Project Area
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 15
marsh. Note also the T-Dock on the shoreline in the approximate middle of the project. The white polygons indicate
the project area.
Figure 4. Ground covered with large wood chips.
Figure 5. Ground covered with gravel (former road).
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 16
Figure 6. Milled lumber in two-track road.
Figure 7. Push piles or stockpiled material, two-track road at shoreline.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 17
Figure 8. Shoreline stabilization structures. Note chained large woody debris, riprap and
gravel.
Figure 9. Example of the series of canals and retaining ponds found in the northern and
western part of the project.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 18
Figure 10. Approximately three-foot tall steel "log beds". There are at least three sets of
these on the property.
Figure 11. Structure interpreted as industrial (logging) scales, located at eastern edge of
property.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 19
Figure 12. Small structure (perhaps a pump house) located at the eastern edge of the
property near the scales (see Figure 8).
Figure 13. Plywood structure, with intact door and sliding window. Appears to have
served as an office. Located at the southern edge of the property.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 20
Figure 14. Wooden waterfront structure interpreted to be the remnants of a wharf, located
approximately 0.3 miles north of the May Creek outlet.
Figure 15. Wooden waterfront structure interpreted to be the remnants of a wharf, located
approximately 0.3 miles north of the May Creek outlet.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 21
Figure 16. The Quendall station, also used as an office by the logging company.
Table 1. Cultural resource sites recorded within one miles of the APE.
Site Number Site Name DAHP Site Type NRHP/WHR
Status
Potential
Project Impacts
KI00814 Floating Dry Docks YFD 48
and 51
Historic Maritime Properties,
Submerged Other (1948)
Potentially
Eligible
None. Docks
removed in 2008
Northern Pacific Railroad
Trestle (Burling Northern and
Santa Fe Railroad Trestle)
Transportation - Rail-Related
(1904)
Not eligible None
Table 2. Cultural resource surveys conducted within one miles of the APE.
Report Citation Author Date
Cultural Resource Assessment Jag Development. (NADB 1339768) Bowden, B. 1997
Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Light Lanes Project. (NADB
1339887)
Juell, K. E. 2001
Letter to Jay Brueggeman Regarding Final Ripley Lane Pipeline Excavation Project
(CIP #200799) Archaeological Resources Monitoring. (NADB 1341932)
Murphy, L. R. 2003
Archaeological Inventory Survey Report Lake Washington Floating Dry Docks.
(NADB 1351684)
Major, M. 2008
Archaeological Assessment, City of Renton Hawk’s Landing Project, Renton
(NADB 1353785)
Kanaby, K. M. 2009
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 22
8. Attachments
1
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION
1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, Washington 98501
Mailing address: PO Box 48343 Olympia, Washington 98504-8343
(360) 586-3065 Fax Number (360) 586-3067 Website: www.dahp.wa.gov
February 9, 2011
Ms. Vanessa Dolbee
Associate Planner
CED
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
In future correspondence please refer to:
Log: 020911-10-KI
Property: Quendall Terminals LUA09-151, EIS, ECF. BSP, SA, Draft EIS Quendell Terminals
Re: Archaeology-Draft EIS Comments
Dear Ms. Dolbee:
Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
(DAHP). The above referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation
Officer. . The Renton area has a history of archaeological finds during construction project. The Draft
EIS does not address cultural resources. Cultural resources should be addressed as part of the Affected
Environments section. There is ethnographic evidence that a precontact Duwamish village was present in
the project area and an Indian trail leading to the project area and vicinity is shown on historic maps. In
addition, the project area is depicted in the Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model as having the
highest probability for containing precontact archaeological resources. A cultural resources survey of the
project are and vicinity conducted in 1997 by Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, was
unable to adequately survey the project area because of the presence of fill and impervious surfaces.
Please be aware that archaeological sites are protected from knowing disturbance on both public and
private lands in Washington States. Both RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53.060 require that a person obtain a
permit from our Department before excavating, removing, or altering Native American human remains or
archaeological resources in Washington. Failure to obtain a permit is punishable by civil fines and other
penalties under RCW 27.53.095, and by criminal prosecution under RCW 27.53.090.
Chapter 27.53.095 RCW allows the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to issue civil
penalties for the violation of this statute in an amount up to five thousand dollars, in addition to site
restoration costs and investigative costs. Also, these remedies do not prevent concerned tribes from
undertaking civil action in state or federal court, or law enforcement agencies from undertaking criminal
investigation or prosecution. Chapter 27.44.050 RCW allows the affected Indian Tribe to undertake civil
action apart from any criminal prosecution if burials are disturbed.
We request that cultural resources be addressed, by a professional archaeologist or environmental or
cultural resources firm that has professional archaeologists on staff, as part of the final EIS. Mitigation
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 23
2
measure may consist of professional archaeological monitoring under a monitoring and inadvertent
discovery plan approved by DAHP and the Tribes, and/or further survey using heavy machinery that can
penetrate fill soils and impervious surfaces.
If further survey is the chosen mitigation, DAHP will need to see the original survey report in addition to
the summarized version of the survey that will become part of the EIS.
All survey should be completed prior to construction activities. Archaeological survey in tandem with
construction work has not proven to be an effective means of protecting cultural resources and has led to
violations of RCW 27.53 on other projects.
Complete cultural resources survey reports must be sent to DAHP and the affected Tribes prior to the
final EIS, and prior to any ground disturbing activities commencing, on any part of the project.
Archaeological site inventory forms, if applicable, must be submitted to DAHP in advance of the final
report, and Smithsonian trinomials (site numbers) must be incorporated into the final report text.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
Gretchen Kaehler
Assistant State Archaeologist
(360) 586-3088
gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov
cc. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Tribe
Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman, Duwamish Tribe
Phil LeTourneau, King County Historic Preservation Program
Dennis Lewarch, Archaeologist, Suquamish Tribe
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 24
PO BOX 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
PHONE 206.855.9020 - info@crcwa.com
June 11, 2012
Duwamish Tribe
Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman
4705 W Marginal Way SW
Seattle, WA 98106-1514
Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King
County, WA
Dear Ms. Hansen:
I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural
Resource Consultants, Inc. (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the request of EA/Blumen. The project
is located in Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East Willamette Meridian in Renton, King County,
Washington.
EA/Bluman is requesting a cultural resources assessment for the Quendall Termainals Redevelopment
Project located in the northern portion of the City of Renton, King County. The site includes an
approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated
Property to the northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered by a Puget Sound Energy easement
and the Seattle Seahawks Training Facility to the north, the Railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington
Boulevard and Ripley Lane N to the east, the Barbee Mill residential development to the south and Lake
Washington to the west. The Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west, and
the southbound I-405 off-ramp to the east and south.
CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files
search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), review of
previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and
ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo.
We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have
additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study.
Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter
and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Glenn D. Hartmann
President/Principal Investigator
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 25
PO BOX 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
PHONE 206.855.9020 - info@crcwa.com
June 11, 2012
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Laura Murphy, Archaeologist/Cultural Resources
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King
County, WA
Dear Ms. Murphy:
I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural
Resource Consultants, Inc. (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the request of EA/Blumen. The project
is located in Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East Willamette Meridian in Renton, King County,
Washington.
EA/Bluman is requesting a cultural resources assessment for the Quendall Termainals Redevelopment
Project located in the northern portion of the City of Renton, King County. The site includes an
approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated
Property to the northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered by a Puget Sound Energy easement
and the Seattle Seahawks Training Facility to the north, the Railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington
Boulevard and Ripley Lane N to the east, the Barbee Mill residential development to the south and Lake
Washington to the west. The Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west, and
the southbound I-405 off-ramp to the east and south.
CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files
search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), review of
previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and
ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo.
We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have
additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study.
Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter
and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Glenn D. Hartmann
President/Principal Investigator
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 26
PO BOX 10668, BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110
PHONE 206.855.9020 - info@crcwa.com
June 11, 2012
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Brandon Reynon, Cultural Resources
3009 East Portland Ave
Tacoma, WA 98404
Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King
County, WA
Dear Mr. Reynon:
I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Cultural
Resource Consultants, Inc. (CRC) is conducting this assessment at the request of EA/Blumen. The project
is located in Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East Willamette Meridian in Renton, King County,
Washington.
EA/Bluman is requesting a cultural resources assessment for the Quendall Termainals Redevelopment
Project located in the northern portion of the City of Renton, King County. The site includes an
approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated
Property to the northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered by a Puget Sound Energy easement
and the Seattle Seahawks Training Facility to the north, the Railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington
Boulevard and Ripley Lane N to the east, the Barbee Mill residential development to the south and Lake
Washington to the west. The Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west, and
the southbound I-405 off-ramp to the east and south.
CRC is in the process of reviewing available information. Background research will include a site files
search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), review of
previously recorded cultural resource reports, and review of pertinent published literature and
ethnographies. Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo.
We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have
additional information to support our assessment, we would very much like to include it in our study.
Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter
and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Glenn D. Hartmann
President/Principal Investigator
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 27
PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN
FOR THE QUENDALL TERMINALS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
The Project Proponent is proposing to construct a mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake
Washington Blvd in Renton. The 21.5 acre project, located within the Shoreline High Intensity
Overlay District, is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential. The applicants preferred alternative
divides the project into seven lots, four of which would contain four- to six-story mixed-use
buildings with residential units, retail, and restaurant space. The Quendall Terminals site has
received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
will undergo cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment, under the oversight of the EPA.
On-Site Monitoring
Archaeological monitoring would entail having an archaeologist present during construction
excavation below-fill to observe subsurface conditions and identify any buried archaeological
materials that may be encountered. Monitoring will be performed either by a “professional
archaeologist” (RCW 27.53.030 (8)) or under the supervision of a professional archaeologist.
Prior to any ground-disturbing project activities, construction personnel will meet with the
archaeological monitor for a brief cultural resources orientation.
The monitoring archaeologist would stand in close proximity to construction equipment in order
to view subsurface deposits as they are exposed, and would be in close communication with
equipment operators to ensure adequate opportunity for observation and documentation.
Archaeological monitoring will seek to identify potential buried surfaces, anthropogenic
sediments, and archaeological features such as shell middens, hearths, or artifact-bearing strata.
The monitoring archaeologist will inspect project excavations and the recovered sediments for
indications of such archaeological resources. The archaeologist will be provided the opportunity
to screen excavated sediments and matrix samples when this is judged useful to the identification
process. It is not expected that modern fill (e.g., imported culturally-sterile construction fill) or
glacial till sediments would be included in screening procedures. Excavated spoils may be
examined in the course of monitoring. If cultural materials are observed in spoils piles, it is
expected that these would be removed for examination and that the opportunity to screen spoil
sediments would be available.
Archaeological monitoring of construction excavation will proceed until it can be determined
with a greater level of confidence that human remains or other cultural resources are not likely to
be impacted by construction excavation of the project. The archaeologist will conduct
monitoring until native and fill deposits can be confidently isolated and identified based on
observed sedimentary exposures. Upon completion of the monitoring, the archaeologist will
prepare a report on the methods and results of the work, and recommendations for any necessary
additional archaeological investigations, illustrated with maps, drawings, and photographs as
appropriate.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 28
Contingency Plan
In accordance with RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act, RCW 27.53 Archaeological
Sites and Resources, RCW 68.50 Human Remains, and RCW 68.60, Abandoned and historic
cemeteries and historic graves, the following protocols will be followed in the event that
archaeological materials and/or human remains are discovered:
Procedures Upon Discovery of Potential or Actual Cultural Resources
1. Upon discovery of a potential or actual archaeological site, or cultural resources as defined by
RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act, and RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and
Resources, the Project Proponent, their employees, contractors and sub-contractors shall:
(a) Immediately cease or halt ground disturbing, construction, or other activities around
the area of the discovery and secure the area with a perimeter of not less than thirty (30)
feet until all procedures are completed and the parties agree that activities can resume. If
such a perimeter would materially impact agency functions mandated by law, related to
health, safety or environmental concerns, then the secured area shall be of a size and
extent practicable to provide maximum protection to the resource under the
circumstances. Project activities that are not ground disturbing may continue outside the
secured perimeter around the findings. No one shall excavate any findings and all
findings will be left in place, undisturbed and without analysis, until consultation with
DAHP and the Tribe regarding a final disposition of the findings has been completed. In
accordance with RCW 27.53.060, no one shall knowingly remove or collect any
archaeological objects without obtaining a permit.
(b) Notify the Local Government Archaeologist at DAHP and the Tribes of the discovery
as soon as possible, but in any event, no later than (24) hours of the discovery. If human
remains are found, the Project Proponent shall follow notification procedures specified
below (see “Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects”).
(c) Arrange for the parties to conduct a joint viewing of the discovery within (48) forty-
eight hours of the notification, or at the earliest possible time thereafter, the Project
Proponent or their authorized representative shall arrange for the archaeologist to attend
the joint viewing. After the joint viewing, taking into account any recommendations of
the Tribe(s), DAHP, and the archaeologist, the parties shall discuss the potential
significance, if any, of the discovery.
(d) Consult with the Tribes and DAHP on the transfer and final disposition of artifacts.
Until the Tribe has a repository that meets the standards of curation established 36 CFR
Part 79, artifacts shall be curated using an institution or organization that meets curation
standards, selected through consultation with the Tribe.
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 29
Inadvertent Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains on Non-Federal and Non-Tribal Land
in the State of Washington (RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055)
2. If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of
construction, then all activity must cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains and
the area of the find must be secured and protected from further disturbance. In addition, the
finding of human skeletal remains must be reported to the King County Coroner’s Office and
King County Sheriff’s Office in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains should not
be touched, moved, or further disturbed.
3. The King County Coroner’s Office will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains
and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the county
coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to the
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) who will then take jurisdiction
over the remains and report them to the appropriate cemeteries and affected tribes. The State
Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-
Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP
will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation,
excavation, and disposition of the remains.
4. DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation,
excavation, and disposition of the remains if there is no federal agency involved.
Confidentiality of Information
5. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative recognizes that archaeological
properties are of a sensitive nature and sites where cultural resources are discovered can become
targets of vandalism and illegal removal activities. The Project Proponent or its authorized
representative shall keep and maintain as confidential all information regarding any discovered
cultural resources, particularly the location of known or suspected archaeological property, and
exempt all such information from public disclosure consistent with RCW 42.17.300.
6. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative shall make its best efforts to ensure that
all records indicating the location of known or suspected archaeological properties are
permanently secured and confidential.
7. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative shall ensure that its personnel,
contractors, and permittees keep the discovery of any found or suspected human remains, other
cultural items, and potential historic properties confidential, including but not limited to,
refraining such persons from contacting the media or any third party or otherwise sharing
information regarding the discovery with any member of the public. The Project Proponent or its
authorized representative shall require its personnel, contractors and permittees to immediately
notify the Lead Representative of the Project Proponent or its authorized representative of any
inquiry from the media or public. The Project Proponent or its authorized representative shall
immediately notify DAHP of any inquiries it receives. Prior to any public information release,
The Project Proponent or its authorized representative, DAHP, and the Tribe(s) shall concur on
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 30
the amount of information, if any, to be released to the public, any third party, and the media and
the procedures for such a release, to the extent permitted by law.
Lead Representative and Primary Contact
8. The lead representatives and primary contacts of each party under this plan are as identified
below. The parties may identify other specific personnel before the commencement of any
particular project element as the contacts.
EA/Blumen
720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 90833
Primary Contact: Gretchen Brunner, 425-284-5401
Duwamish Tribe
4705 W Marginal Way SW
Seattle, WA 98106-1514
Lead Representative: Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman, 206-431-1582
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Lead Representative: Laura Murphy, 253-939-3311
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
3009 East Portland Avenue
Tacoma, WA 98404
Lead Representative: Herman Dillon Sr., Tribal Council Chairman, 253-573-7828
Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Lead Representative: Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer, 360-586-3066
Primary Contact: Gretchen Kaehler, Local Government Archaeologist, 360-586-3088
Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-586-3534
King County Medical Examiner’s Office
325 – 9th Avenue, Box 359792
Seattle, WA 98104
Lead Representative: Richard Harruff, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Examiner, 206-731-3232
King County Sheriff’s Office
516 Third Ave Room, W-116
Seattle, WA 98104
Lead Representative: Steven D. Strachan, Sheriff, 206-296-4155
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 31
PROPOSED INADVERTANT DISCOVERY PROTOCOL
FOR THE QUENDALL TERMINALS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
In accordance with RCW 27.44 Indian Graves and Records Act, RCW 27.53 Archaeological
Sites and Resources, RCW 68.50 Human Remains, and RCW 68.60, Abandoned and historic
cemeteries and historic graves, the following protocols will be followed in the event that
archaeological materials and/or human remains are discovered:
1. If any the Project Proponent and/or employees, contractors or subcontractors suspects the
inadvertent discovery of a cultural resource, all ground disturbing, construction or other activities
around the immediate area of the discovery shall cease. A cultural resource may include an
archaeological or historical resource.
An archaeological resource is defined in RCW 27.53.040 as:
All sites, objects, structures, artifacts, implements, and locations of prehistorical or
archaeological interest, whether previously recorded or still unrecognized, including, but
not limited to, those pertaining to prehistoric and historic American Indian or aboriginal
burials, campsites, dwellings, and habitation sites, including rock shelters and caves, their
artifacts and implements of culture such as projectile points, arrowheads, skeletal
remains, grave goods, basketry, pestles, mauls and grinding stones, knives, scrapers, rock
carvings and paintings, and other implements and artifacts of any material that are located
in, on, or under the surface of any lands or waters owned by or under the possession,
custody, or control of the state of Washington or any county, city, or political subdivision
of the state are hereby declared to be archaeological resources.
A historical resource is defined in RCW 27.53.030 (11):
... mean[ing] those properties which are listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington
State Register of Historic Places (Washington Heritage Register [WHR]) (RCW
27.34.220) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as defined in the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Title 1, Sec. 101, Public Law 89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16
U.S.C. Sec. 470) as now or hereafter amended.
Cultural resources may qualify for the WHR and/or the NRHP listing if they are intact,
aged at least 50 years old, and at least one of the following:
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
2. Upon discovery of a cultural resource, the Project Proponent shall secure the area with a
perimeter of not less than thirty (30) feet until all procedures are completed and the parties agree
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 32
that activities can resume. If such a perimeter would materially impact agency functions
mandated by law, related to health, safety or environmental concerns, then the secured area shall
be of a size and extent practicable to provide maximum protection to the resource under the
circumstances. Work in the immediate area will not resume until all procedures are completed
and the parties agree that activities can resume.
3. A qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the DAHP, will evaluate all inadvertently
discovered cultural resources that may be considered eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) and recommend whether the cultural resource is eligible for listing in
the NRHP. If the discovery is considered eligible, the DAHP and the concerned Indian Tribe(s)
will consult to determine appropriate treatment, including but not limited to, photography,
mapping, sampling, etc.
4. The Project Proponent shall ensure that its appropriate personnel, contractors and permittees
follow procedures stipulated in this protocol and treat all human remains, cultural items and
potential historic properties with respect.
Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects
5. In accordance with “Inadvertent Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains on Non-Federal and
Non-Tribal Land in the State of Washington” (RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055),
if ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of
construction, then all activity must cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains and
the area of the find must be secured and protected from further disturbance. In addition, the
finding of human skeletal remains must be reported to the King County Coroner’s Office and
King County Sheriff’s Office in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains should not
be touched, moved, or further disturbed.
6. The King County Coroner’s Office will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains
and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the county
coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to the DAHP
who will then take jurisdiction over the remains and report them to the appropriate cemeteries
and affected tribes. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the
remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the
affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the
future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains.
7. DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation,
excavation, and disposition of the remains if there is no federal agency involved.
Confidentiality of Information
8. All involved parties shall make its best efforts to ensure that its appropriate personnel,
contractors, and permittees keep the discovery of all inadvertent discoveries confidential,
including but not limited to, refraining from contacting the media or any third party or otherwise
sharing information regarding the discovery with any member of the public. Prior to any release,
CRC Technical Memorandum #1204I-2
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project, Renton, King County, WA
Page 33
the Project Proponent concerned Tribe(s), and the DAHP, shall concur on the amount of
information, if any, to be released to the public, any third party, and the media and the
procedures for such a release, to the extent permitted by law.
Lead Representative and Primary Contact
EA/Blumen
720 Sixth Street S, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 90833
Primary Contact: Gretchen Brunner, 425-284-5401
Duwamish Tribe
4705 W Marginal Way SW
Seattle, WA 98106-1514
Lead Representative: Cecile Hansen, Chairwoman, 206-431-1582
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
Lead Representative: Laura Murphy, 253-939-3311
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
3009 East Portland Avenue
Tacoma, WA 98404
Lead Representative: Herman Dillon Sr., Tribal Council Chairman, 253-573-7828
Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Lead Representative: Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer, 360-586-3066
Primary Contact: Gretchen Kaehler, Local Government Archaeologist, 360-586-3088
Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-586-3534
King County Medical Examiner’s Office
325 – 9th Avenue, Box 359792
Seattle, WA 98104
Lead Representative: Richard Harruff, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Examiner, 206-731-3232
King County Sheriff’s Office
516 Third Ave, Room W-116
Seattle, WA 98104
Lead Representative: Steven D. Strachan, Sheriff, 206-296-4155