Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA 09-060_Report 01
1- L T 41 M tow A- N Iib R a:zz 15 201P I AM - �a sa a Img d �€ ti ✓ °co aLA Z i� ,zz h o z INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405 -- A ~ ~'x k ' \§. � , z . , n a. ; � .x . ) ��. ~� q § $ ® ���,x ,. • �� 9■]. � ;■ � � § INTERSTATE HIGHWAY E k ' \§. � , z . , n a. ; � . ) oo� OA I��CQC LI \ O � z I <U = fat H rh H°R P5 z i y J► dINTERSTATE 4O5 ti �-, � � - _ N)"RS,. i q ONE AV E '9iZr FV m z b b � W h � z 11 H a rn LINCOLN AVE u � o ITY OF RENT N �r CITY OF NEWCASTLE z �z z =A o _z 4 M1 n P JW�0]� r P O m A A0= C � C �Oao 4 Z � 0 ' o o V� rr, • � w o INTERSTATE 445 u, z A J E ENE �S z a � z RIM �- v, o ., �= o M1 OF RENT N x CI71' OF NEWCASTLE G� a y Z � 0�p •z a z �a au -V EMS 17 iIG�I'IY4N a — � �p �. ] � / - - -tea - - - -V '. -:� `} � - � 1 � f-�'•/ — _ I rim 11. Jt � / 1•. � a �� r- '�_ „^µms yp y - �!•m 1y� �C -in a fly � � i 3,� � 4 �� _]v�'l, j °,� `■ kY \t,,� �f g" � �/I u •`T � +ice., � ` � � i S � •� ,' = a�� - � ..l r J' e+S' �/', - S/7 /01 Ass ago L�- L I � 'TIN J .. �i ■" d3 ad3a-R a w $$ga Ty. �• s yR Dll } gp m R� ;���_s9�F. she-• S M.A'�f $`����` °� � "� { f71 i '1-REF�fsR Ric§'R� °�r 4 ���SIR 1�S�a j0 3'?i xx� �s � � p v R 9�li'lloS'll jAjoil� I � O n @ ORR VIA: R T 8 ° F i"id• 91 Q� � i C, {2 $ I § � � ■ § all w | -�III��� ' � | §a 3 ;- $ � , •/|\ / � � tK z hal z �\ z z Dr z> 2 z d z z ii J—JI JJ.J{{ cn CJ) D • rn Q° wm m o m 'C DD m n m n Z 1- JJi iJ —J A JJJ JJ J ir..JJ ..lJ J s. mss,, i■ i i i a 0 � a Elow I A SII—..�-_��u 0 MEN ME F-7 mwin `o 71 ft. so v Big. ME I m 10.101' 103 r z x per. I !Ey! INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405 -- --�_ -1-'- —�- z 5• � i I If I I I I � g ' z '� Owner) L• L s *y § 2 5 \= • §�Mao a 0 2 / ������ �, � � _ 17! •�;_ / . . � > � | @ ■ ■ ■ I Ir IIIc I I �Ij,$Q, ■ �II1ryQ' ■ 1 1 a ■ Ilklllk � � � � F C a~ nZ N �� n � x a O T N m O z � I { I I I I I , � � � �_ � � 1��� � � ' ��, y � �� o � u+ � ��� � b :� n m Cynthia Moya irirpum�ir•u■ From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:06 PM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: Party of Record for LUA09-060 Cindy, Can you please add the following person to the Party of Record for Hawk's Landing LUA09-060_ Thank you. William Popp Associates 14400 Bell -red Road, Suite 206 Bellevue WA, 98007 Vanessa oiAee CED, x7314 PARTIES OF RECORD HAWK'S LANDING MIXED USE LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98177 tel: (206) 915-7200 eml: spencer@alpertcapital.com (applicant / contact) Greg Fawcett PO Box 402 Fall City, WA 98024 tel: (425) 466-5229 (party of record) of Attn : Steve Van Ti I Port Quendall Company 505 Union Station 505 Fifth Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 tel: (206) 342-2000 (owner) Larry Reymann 1313 N 38th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: 425-228-8511 (party of record) Rich Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 454-0566 (party of record) Updated: 08/18/09 (Page 1 of 1) Vanessa Dolbee From: Me] Maertz [mmaertz@m2architects.net] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 1:33 PM To: 'Spencer; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Hawk's Landing Vanessa, Here's my address. Mel A. Maertz, A.T.A. , Principal M2 ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 22002 64th AVENUE WEST., SUITE 2C MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043 TEL: 206.354.7100 FAX: 425.774.8219 ----_Original Message ----- From: Spencer[mailto:spencer(aalpertcapital.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:59 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: mmaertz(am2architects.net Subject: Re: Hawk's Landing Mine is 2442 NW Market St #722, Seattle 98107. Mel, please supply yours Sent from my iPhone On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> wrote: > Spence, > > Can you please send me the mailing address you would like to use for correspondence of the subject project for both you and Mel? We will update our files accordingly. > Thank you, ) > Vanessa Dolbee > Senior Planner > Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton > City Hall - 6th Floor > 1055 South Grady Way > Renton, WA 98057 > 425.430.7314 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer [mailto:s ence al ertca ital.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:27 AM 1 > To: Vanessa Dolbee > Cc: Jack McCullough; Jessica Clawson; Mel Maertz; Andreas Pericli > Subject: Hawk's Landing > Vanessa, > Besides Jack McCullough and Jessica Clawson and me, please include only Mel Maertz on all communications regarding Hawk's Landing going forward. > Best regards > Spence > Sent from my iPhone 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Spencer [spencer@alpertcapital_com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:59 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: mmaertz@m2architects.net Subject: Re: Hawk's Landing Mine is 2442 NW Market St #722, Seattle 98107. Mel, please supply yours Sent from my iPhone On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> wrote: > Spence, > > Can you please send me the mailing address you would like to use for correspondence of the subject project for both you and Mel? We will update our files accordingly. > Thank you, > > Vanessa Dolbee > Senior Planner > > Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton > City Hall - 6th Floor > 1055 South Grady Way > Renton, WA 98057 > 425.430.7314 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer[mailto:spencer@alpertcapital.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:27 AM > To: Vanessa Dolbee > Cc: Jack McCullough; Jessica Clawson; Mel Maertz; Andreas Pericli > Subject: Hawk's Landing > Vanessa, > > Besides Jack McCullough and Jessica Clawson and me, please include only Mel Maertz on all communications regarding Hawk's Landing going forward. > > Best regards > > Spence > Sent from my iPhone I 4 Vanessa Dolbee From: Spencer [spencer@alpertcapital.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:27 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: .tack McCullough; Jessica Clawson; Mel Maertz; Andreas Pericli Subject: Hawk's Landing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, Besides lack McCullough and Jessica Clawson and me, please include only Mel Maertz on all communications regarding Hawk's Landing going forward. Best regards Spence Sent from my iPhone 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Spencer [spencer@alpertcapital_com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 2:59 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Suzanne Dale Estey; Jack McCullough; Jessica Clawson; Andreas Pericli Subject: Hawk's Landing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, Hope you are fully recovered, back at it & all went well. To follow up on our previous discussion, this is to authorize you on behalf of Hawk's Landing, LLC to recognize lack McCullough, Jessie Clawson, Andreas Pericli and myself as the official points of contact for the city in regard to Hawk's Landing matters. While Dan and Dave's management company will continue to be considered as prospective managers for the hotel, until further notice all correspondence which would previously have been routed to them or other parties introduced to you as members of the Hawk's Landing team (other than as above) should be directed to me. Obviously, you will, of necessity, be asked to continue to work with the property owner Vulcan, as well as the Seahawks, in respect to certain aspects of the Hawk's Landing project Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this or any Hawk's Landing matter. We are an excellent hands with Euclid Capital, Andreas' company, in regard to project financing, and I will continue to keep the city fully informed as to progress in that regard, as well as the full roster of project team members as we move forward. Best regards, Spence Sent from my iPhone r Vanessa Dolbee�� From: Spencer [spencer@alpertcapital.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:17 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Mel Maertz; Jack McCullough Subject: Hawk's Landing Hotel - request for modification Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, Please put this matter on hold pending further notice, as we are now considering some possible further revisions to the hotel design, within the city guidelines and current approvals. Thank you, Spence Sent from my iPhone Vanessa Dolbee From: Mel Maertz [mmaertz@m2architects.net] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 1:33 PM To: 'Spencer'; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Hawk's Landing Vanessa, Here's my address. Mel A. Maertz, A.T.A. , Principal M2 ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 22002 64th AVENUE WEST., SUITE 2C MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043 TEL: 206.354.7100 FAX: 425.774.8219 -----Original Message ----- From: Spencer [mailto:spencer@alpertcapital.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:59 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: mmaertz@m2architects.net Subject: Re: Hawk's Landing Mine is 2442 NW Market St #722, Seattle 98107. Mel, please supply yours Sent from my iPhone On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.go> wrote: > Spence, > Can you please send me the mailing address you would like to use for correspondence of the subject project for both you and Mel? We will update our files accordingly. > Thank you, > > Vanessa Dolbee > Senior Planner > > Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton > City Hall - 6th Floor > 1055 South Grady Way > Renton, WA 98057 > 425.430.7314 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer [mailto:spencer@alpertcapital.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:27 AM 1 > To: Vanessa Dolbee > Cc: Jack McCullough; Jessica Clawson; Mel Maertz; Andreas Pericli > Subject: Hawk's Landing > Vanessa, > Besides Jack McCullough and Jessica Clawson and me, please include only Mel Maertz on all communications regarding Hawk's Landing going forward. > Best regards > Spence > Sent from my iPhone 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Spencer [spencer@alpertcapital.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:59 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: mmaertz@m2architects.net Subject: Re: Hawk's Landing Mine is 2442 NW Market 5t #722, Seattle 98107. Mel, please supply yours Sent from my iPhone On Jun 14, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee(@Rentonwa.gov> wrote: > Spence, > > Can you please send me the mailing address you would like to use for correspondence of the subject project for both you and Mel? We will update our files accordingly. > Thank you, > > > Vanessa Dolbee > Senior Planner > > Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton > City Hall - 6th Floor > 1055 South Grady Way > Renton, WA 98057 > 425.430.7314 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spencer[mailto:spencer(@alpertcapital.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:27 AM > To: Vanessa Dolbee > Cc: Jack McCullough; Jessica Clawson; Mel Maertz; Andreas Pericli > Subject: Hawk's Landing > > Vanessa, > Besides Jack McCullough and Jessica Clawson and me, please include only Mel Maertz on all communications regarding Hawk's Landing going forward. > Best regards > Spence > > Sent from my iPhone 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Spencer [spencer@alpertcapital.comi Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:27 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Jack McCullough; Jessica Clawson; Mel Maertz; Andreas Pericli Subject: Hawk's Landing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, Besides Jack McCullough and Jessica Clawson and me, please include only Mel Maertz on all communications regarding Hawk's Landing going forward. Best regards Spence Sent from my iPhone 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Spencer [spencer@alpertcapital,com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 2:59 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Suzanne Dale Estey; Jack McCullough; Jessica Clawson; Andreas Pericli Subject: Hawk's Landing Follow Up Flag: Fallow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, Hope you are fully recovered, back at it & all went well. To follow up on our previous discussion, this is to authorize you on behalf of Hawk's Landing, LLC to recognize Jack McCullough, Jessie Clawson, Andreas Pericli and myself as the official points of contact for the city in regard to Hawk's Landing matters. While Dan and Dave's management company will continue to be considered as prospective managers for the hotel, until further notice all correspondence which would previously have been routed to them or other parties introduced to you as members of the Hawk's Landing team (other than as above) should be directed to me. Obviously, you will, of necessity, be asked to continue to work with the property owner Vulcan, as well as the Seahawks, in respect to certain aspects of the Hawk's Landing project Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this or any Hawk's Landing matter. We are an excellent hands with Euclid Capital, Andreas' company, in regard to project financing, and 1 will continue to keep the city fully informed as to progress in that regard, as well as the full roster of project team members as we move forward. Best regards, Spence Sent from my iPhone 1 �` -- �� �\ �_...: �. c_�lc.'� � �. ` fir:`. � ' � � f � � ��� � � r � '( _�,� ;_ �_ , : � �_ � AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) } ss. County of King } Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 10th day of September 2009, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: SUBSCRIBED AND SWQJ N,Wo before me this may of _ , , 2049. y .! 1 ` 4 t � �� s, .•. �'�<'"'., ' ;� ,�� Notdy Public in and for the State o Washington Residing at �� z therein. Application, Petition or Case No.: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal LUA 09-460, ECF, SA -M, SA -H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT September 10, 2009 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: Brad Nicholson South End Gives Back (SEGB) Represented by: Keith Scully OWNER: Port Quendali Company Attn: Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Ave S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 APPLICANT/CONTACT: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: Jack McCullough 701 5t Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 RESPONDENT: City of Renton Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney File No.: LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND LAND USE ACTION: Appeal of SEPA Determination and request for Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the August 25, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Parties present: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney representing City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, Development Services Keith Scully, Attorney representing Appellant Brad Nicholson and SEGB Hawk's Landing Mixed UNe and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 2 Jack McCullough and Jessie Clawson, Attorneys representing Alpert International, LLP The following exhibits were entered into the record for the SEPA Appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA- M, SA -H containing the original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA and Staff analysis. Exhibit A: Vicinity Map -Appeal Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Ask Fred what he wrote down Exhibit No. 2: Notice of Appeal with Attachments A- L Exhibit No. 3: Notice of Supplemental Brief and Attachments Exhibit No. 4: Larger Overview of Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 5: Close-up of Vicinity Ma Exhibit D: Existing Condition of Site Exhibit E: Deconstruction Plan Exhibit F: Post Deconstruction Plan Exhibit G: Site Utility Plan Exhibit H: Grading Plan Exhibit I: Dan Mitzel Biography Exhibit J: Sound Design Group LLC Exhibit K: TIR The Examiner stated that today the Hawks Landing Land Use, LUA-09-060 hearing for a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review, and a SEPA Appeal filed by SEGS and .Brad Nicholson, who are challenging the SEPA Determination by the City would be heard. The SEPA appeal will be first followed by the Land Use. The Examiner asked for preliminary remarks: Ann Nielsen stated that in the submissions by the appellant in the initial notice of appeal, along with their supplemental brief, appellants raised an issue in regards to the Master Site Plan, the City and the applicant did respond to that issue. The Master Site Plan and the Site Plan hearing is separate and apart from the SEPA appeal, those issues raised that pertain to the Master Site Plan and Site Plan should be stricken and barred from the SEPA appeal hearing. Keith Scully stated that he did not disagree with Ms. Nielsen, his document should have been titled differently in order to separate the two hearings. It was agreed by all parties to strike the Master Site Plan and Site Plan issues from the SEPA appeal hearing. Vanessa Dolbee stated that the site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North and is a 7.8 acre parcel, however the project site is only 3.07 acres in the northern part of Renton in the COR zone just north of May Creek. It is east of Lake Washington Boulevard, and south and west of I-405. The project proposes to build a hotel on the site that would include retail space, a fitness center, a spa and a restaurant. The building would be 60 -feet high and 5 stories. It would be a total of 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms and a 124 space surface parking lot in addition to an underground parking garage. The hotel would be located in the northwestern corner of the project. I Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 3 There are two wetlands associated with May Creek, both are to the north of May Creek. One wetland is 63 feet from the property line where the development will take place. The other one is approximately 117 feet south of the property line of the developed site. The Shoreline Master Program would have different buffers depending on the use, the Shoreline jurisdiction is invoked if development is within 200 feet of May Creek, all the proposed development is outside of that 200 foot area. Keith Scully, Gendler and Mann asked to submit all the attachments to their Notice of Appeal Hearing Brief and a Notice of Supplemental Evidence. Included within the attachments are Declarations from Dr. Massmann and Mr. Nicholson. They do not need to repeat everything if the Examiner would be willing to accept them in lieu of live testimony. They are present, if there should be cross examination, they would be willing to answer any questions that there may be. Dr. Joel Massmann, 6520 E Mercer Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Dr. Massmann stated that his declaration represented his comments on this pending application. In paragraph 3 on page 2 where it states that 85% of the impervious surface was taken out of the plans leaving the assumption that there would be a potential for a reduction of 4 acres in impervious surface on this site. His analysis in his declaration was based on that potential. The impervious surface over the larger site, beyond the 3.7 acres is actually less than 85%. The assumption was that any land that was currently impervious and it became pervious the recharge onto that portion would become ground water. Rain Gardens would also infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Dr. Massmann stated that 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed and would then infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. if it would be less than 4 acres you could simply divide that ratio by the actual amount of impervious surface. A Rain Garden is a place to collect surface water runoff and store it to potentially infiltrate the water. There may be less infiltration in a Rain Garden due to the plants that would transpire, they are roughly similar to simple surface water runoff, and there would be less recharge in the Rain Gardens because of evapotranspiration. Keith Scully stated that Mr. Nicholson was also present and his Declaration was part of the record. If there were no questions for Mr. Nicholson, he would not be called to testify. There were no questions for Mr. Nichoison. It is their burden to show that there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts that clearly shows that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been ordered, rather than what did happen when the City decided that there were no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The point of an EIS is to study the exact impacts. One of those is not available, they cannot tell exactly what will happen should this project be developed. They must show that it is more likely than not that it is probable that something bad is going to happen to the environment if this plan goes forward as designed. On SEPA, they are resting on one point and that is the stormwater. it rains all the time in Washington, there is a ton of water that any site must deal with. This particular site is 85% impermeable and currently there are some old warehouses and a bunch of pavement. When you have a site like this, and you take away pavement and permeable surface that rain water can simply go through into ground water rather than landing on and flowing off. Usually that is an unmitigated good thing and usually fights over developments like this in that there is not enough ground water recharge, there would be too much water flowing off the site and flowing into water bodies like May Creek or into the drainage ditch that carries the water off the site. This site is unique and SEPA requires looking at not just how most sites would affect the environment but how this particular site impacts the environment. I - ` Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 4 The goal of SEPA is not to make things slightly better than they used to be, but to create a document that lets the decision maker really understand the environmental impacts of the proposal. The question is, is there going to be a probable significant adverse environmental impact? This is not the case of sample sites described in the Surface Water Design Manual, where more water flowing into the ground is automatically a good thing. Because of where this site is located, there are residential and commercial properties to the south, there are freeways close by, a residential development to the west and close to the site is the Quendall terminal which is loaded with chemicals and toxic soils that move via groundwater to the lake. There are hot spots of environmental contaminants in Lake Washington that have been flushed from the land. With this project, pavement will be torn out, buildings will be deconstructed, Rain Gardens will be added, which will absorb some of the water but not enough, there will be landscaping added and impervious surfaces will be dug up and replaced with a different impervious surface and permeable surfaces. The rain that currently flows on this site is channeled to a drainage ditch and on to May Creek, more of that is going to be going into the ground than previously. With this new construction, all water will now go directly to the Quendall site and add toxins to Lake Washington. An EIS would tell how much of an impact this new construction would have on existing water flow and Lake Washington. In order to begin construction on this site, they will need to dig a de -watering trench to drain the site while they use construction equipment. This ground is already saturated, there would be more ground water flow during the construction. They may need to add catch basins in order to flow water to May Creek without more toxins from the surface. The Appellant is asking for a finding of probably significant adverse environmental impact and asks that this be remanded back for a Determination of Significance and an Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Nielsen waived an opening statement, the City will present their information via a presentation by the project manager, Vanessa Dolbee. She will then join with the applicant in any specific presentation with respect to the stormwater issues. Vanessa Dolbee stated that the City did receive an application from Spencer Alpert of Alpert International, LLP for a SEPA Environmental Review, Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review for the Hawk's Landing Hotel, the applicant did provide all documents required by Renton Code. The SEPA review returned a Determination of Significance — Mitigated with 10 mitigation measures. The site is vacant, but used to be the home of Pan Abode Cedar Homes. All of the buildings on the site will be deconstructed with the exception of the one building on the south. That building does have a corner within the 200 -foot shoreline. The hotel and parking will be located in the northwest corner of the site. Mitigation measures 3 and 4 require the applicant to comply with the 2005 King County Storm Water Design Manual in addition to providing erosion and sediment control per Department of Ecology during construction. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Ms. Dolbee stated that the white space shown on Exhibit G is in general impervious surface. It is old concrete and other buildings as well as other items left on the site. Discussion was had regarding the materials left on the site, whether the hotel would face those leftover materials. The Examiner inquired as to what was going to happen to the rest of the white space. Mr. Scully continued stating that in fact, the City does not know what is going to happen with all the stuff remaining on the site. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-1I September 10, 2009 Page 5 Ms. Dolbee stated that based on the submittal documents, she believed that the areas not marked "TBR" would not be removed. There is no condition that requires them to leave that area impervious. There also has been no document issued at this point by the City regulating that space outside the development area. A permit would be required to do any type of work on the site. There is nothing in the plans that states what will happen to the soil under the buildings that are to be removed. Mr. McCullou h stated that they would defer any opening statement and called Mr. Mitzel to testify. Dan Mitzel, 1111 Cleveland Avenue, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that he was developing this site in conjunction with Spencer Alpert of Alpert International. He is the developer for the Motel and has been active in the real estate business since 1977 and active in the hotel business since 1984_ About a year ago he got together with Mr. Alpert and starting discussing possibilities of developing this site for a hotel that would work in conjunction with the Seattle Seahawks. An agreement was entered into with the Seahawks to build a hotel that would be considered the official hotel for the Seattle Seahawks, it was very important that they have a hotel that was within close proximity to the VMAC Center and training center. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr. Mitzel stated that the plan was to remove the buildings, leave the concrete slabs under the buildings and leave the asphalt that surrounds the buildings so that the impervious areas are mimicking the existing conditions in the area outside of where the hotel will occur. There will not be 4 acres of new pervious surface in the area of this new construction. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area unrelated to the hotel development. All buildings are sitting on concrete slabs. The hotel that will be built on this site will have some rooms looking to the east and southeast. Those views would be essentially of asphalt and concrete, there might be a minor amount of general cleanup that happens, the site is not a junk yard, rather a series of buildings that will be taken down, the slabs will be left, the asphalt will be left and that will be the condition they must deal with in terms of the view from some of the rooms, it is not perfect or ideal, but neither is looking at the freeway. They feel it is a condition they are willing to live with and they are willing to take that risk. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Mitzel stated that the entire site is under their control under a real estate purchase and sale agreement. It is one tax parcel. They operate hotels in many different conditions. The premium rooms will be looking at Lake Washington. At this point they have not begun to obtain their demolition permits. There have been no specific conditions about how they leave the area that does not include the project area. Nothing will be removed outside the project area. Pat Severin, Sound Development Group, LLC, 15214 Avon-Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273. Upon Questioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr. Severin identified a statement of qualifications for Sound Development Group. He has been an engineer in the Skagit Valley for 10-12 years and been practicing engineering since 1989 and licensed since 1995. Mr. Severin was contacted by Mr. Mitzel to provide engineering and surveying services for the project. They addressed storm drainage, utility designs, site layout and grading plans for the site. They worked with the project architect to develop a site plan that was aesthetically pleasing and functions from a utility standpoint. Exhibits E and G are true depictions of the existing conditions and post development conditions of the site. Rain Gardens have a two-fold function, it is a point of collection for stormwater, it provides water quality treatment and in some cases infiltration to actually dispose of stormwater runoff. This site is only using Rain Gardens for the treatment of the water, they do not intend to infiltrate any water in the Rain Garden area, The TIR for this project contained a diagram of the Rain Garden Treatment System. After the water was collected r Hawk's Landing Mixed U�,, and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 6 in the Rain Garden it flows into the drainage system and out to May Creek where it currently discharges. There would be a collection pipe at the bottom of the Rain Garden to receive all the surface water that percolates through the Rain Garden down to the drain rock below. The bottom of the Rain Garden would be lined. Per the King County Manual, they are required to treat pollution generating impervious surfaces, which is primarily asphalt and some concrete surfaces and that is what they are collecting. Hoof waters are typically considered not a pollution generating impervious surface, that water will be collected and diverted to the ditch in a separate system. Per the King County Manual, impervious surfaces are actually considered asphalt, concrete and typically graveled surfaces, even if it were all to be removed, which the applicant does not intend to do, it would still be considered impervious. Pre -development to post -development, all the water would be discharged to the ditch much as it is today. The only difference is that they are treating the stormwater runoff and the Rain Garden will provide some flow attenuation from stormwater. They are providing a better water quality than what is there today. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Severin stated that there was no water evaluation on the undeveloped portion of the site other than knowing from the grades in the standpoint that the water would continue to flow like it has done previously into the ditch. He only addressed what they currently were developing. The site slopes more from the cast to the west. The area outside of the hotel generally flows to the west and Lake Washington Blvd. and it will continue to flow that way. In the Water Quality Manual there are several menus, there is one that determines if it is a high or low use site, which is generated by average daily use traffic. This site was determined to be low volume traffic therefore, they were required to do basic water quality treatment. They chose Rain Gardens because it is a very attractive technology that is available and is promoted by a lot of the jurisdictions. There are many ways to provide basic treatment, the Rain Garden treatment actually qualifies for enhanced treatment and it does a better job of cleaning the water. Mr. McCullough stated that they have addressed the legal arguments in the briefing submitted earlier and it remains their view that the burden that the appellants face in the SEPA appeal is a burden under the applicable case law of actually producing evidence. That has not been seen today, the only evidence that has been submitted is the Declaration of Dr. Massmann and he testified here that he clearly made two fundamental assumptions to reach the conclusion that he did: 1. Four acres of the larger site would be converted from impervious to pervious surface and 2. He assumed the Rain Garden feature would be a stormwater element that would provide for the infiltration of stormwater. It has been clarified in their response/presentation that both those assumptions are absolutely inaccurate. There will be no conversion of impervious to pervious as a result of the deconstruction and the Rain Garden is a water quality treatment feature. There is no likelihood of any increased infiltration of any material amount in this ground. There is no evidence in support of this SEPA appeal. Any change would be subject to review and there are no plans to change the impervious surfaces. The appellant has failed in their burden to show error and therefore asks the Examiner to uphold the SEPA Determination. Ann Nielsen stated that the applicant more than complied with all the necessary application materials and documents in his request for a SEPA review to the ERC. The ERC had all the necessary information before them that they needed to make an adequate SEPA assessment, in doing so they came to a DSN-M with specific mitigation measures. The Appellant has done nothing to show that there was any significant adverse environmental impact that was not contemplated or could not be mitigated by the conditions that were put upon by the ERC committee. The City would request that the Examiner find that the appellant has failed in their burden to show clear error and that the SEPA determination should be upheld. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H. September 10, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Scully stated that the specific evidence they have pointed out is what happens if you do remove all the structures and impervious surfaces. They learned today on the record that they are not going to be doing that. That is not a condition of mitigation and not a part of their application. Contrary to what Mr. McCullough said the fact that it is in the record in front of the Examiner means nothing for the future. The fact that they said they were not going to do it, does not bind them from proceeding with separate projects. It does not prevent them from getting a separate permit, it also does not prevent them from doing things that do not require a permit. There is a glaring omission on what is going to happen on the majority of the site. At a minimum they ask that the Examiner require a mitigation condition that what is currently impervious outside the development area should remain impervious. Today there is not enough information as to what is going to happen to the rest of the site and an EIS should be required. The Examiner stated that if by imposing an additional condition the parties would agree to retract their appeal that is something that the Examiner is entitled to do. By taking the appellant's concerns under advisement and the applicant's willingness at this point to say they are not going to do any of that action without permitting of the City. A 10 minute Break was taken LAND USE HEARING began at 10:49 am The following exhibits were entered into the record for the Hawk's Landing Land Use Hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-064, ECF, SA- M, SA -H containing the original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA Appeal and Staff analysis. Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit No. 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit No. 4: Hawk's Landing Master Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: Hawk's Landing Site Plan Exhibit No. 6: Site Dirnension Plan Exhibit No. 7: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit No. 8: Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 9: Site Utility.Plan Exhibit No. 10: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 11: East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 12: West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 13: S & E Elevations a hic Exhibit No. 14: N & W Elevations (graphic) Exhibit No. 15: Hotel Garage Floor Plan Exhibit No. 16: First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 17: Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 18: Third and Fourth Floor Plans Exhibit No. 19: Fifth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 20: Roof Plan Exhibit No. 21: Building Sections Exhibit No. 22: Demolition Plan Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 8 Exhibit No. 23: All Exhibits entered during the SEPA Appeal for the Hawk's Landing Hotel Exhibit No. 24: Reinart Statement of Qualifications Exhibit No. 25: Traffic Impact Analysis dated 512009 Exhibit No. 26: Pat Bunting Qualifications Exhibit No. 27: Wetlands Report Exhibit No. 28: Mel Maertz Qualifications Exhibit No. 29: VMAC location Detail map showing hotel site to Exhibit No. 30: Map showing the area around the proposed site from WSDOT plans for 1-405 The hearing continued on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 10:49 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. This portion is the hearing of the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner did ask for additional time in preparing his decision due to the length of the material presented. Vanessa Dolbee stated that she is the project manager for the Hawk's Landing Hotel for the City of Renton. The applicant has requested a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review. The City of Renton did receive some Capital Improvement Funds during the 2009 Legislative Session; Staff is currently working to identify how those will be expended, although it has to be approved by City Council, which has not approved the expenditures at this time. Some of the items on the table that do have a direct relationship to this project would be a water line extension on Lake Washington Blvd and the extension of a trail along May Creek and some storm drainage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd that may include some impervious sidewalk improvements. Review and permitting of this would happen at a separate time. The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes, to the northwest is VMAC, the home of The Seahawks, to the west are Barbee Mill and Quendall Terminal and to the south is May Creek. The parcel is 7.88 acres in size and the project area is 3.07 acres. There is a small triangular parcel of land at the far north end of the site which is currently owned by the City of Renton. A vacation request has been made by the applicant to acquire that parcel under file #VAC -09-001. It has been approved with some conditions associated with the approval. The hotel is proposed to be 60 -feet tall with 5 stories, 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms, with retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. Access to the site would be from Lake Washington Blvd via two locations; first is north located in the existing vacation area, which with approval would become a part of this parcel and would be limited to right-in/right-out only, the second access is to the center of the larger parcel and would provide access from both directions. There would be parking in an underground garage as well as surface parking, with 231 parking stalls total, 107 in the garage and 124 surface stalls. This project is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, its elements, goals, objectives and policies. Lot coverage for the COR zone is 65%, the building footprint has a 22% coverage. Setbacks for the COR zone are determined through the site plan review, the applicant has proposed a 20 -foot front setback from Lake Washington Blvd, a 60 -foot setback from the north side of the property line, a 480 -foot south setback and a 129 - foot setback from the rear property line along 1-405. The COR zone requires portions of the building which exceed 50 -feet in height would include upper story setbacks at a minimum of 10 -feet from the preceding story, the building should include vertical and horizontal modulation on roof lines and facades at a minimum of two feet and an interval minimum of 40 feet. The fifth Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No_: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 9 story of this hotel would be subject to these requirements. The proposed architectural design meets the intent of the special development standard. The landscaping is determined through site plan review, perimeter landscaping has been proposed in widths from 6 -feet to 25 -feet, screening around the refuse and recycling areas, ornamental landscaping at the hotel entrance with a Koi pond and a pedestrian bridge crossing. Street trees would be planted along Lake Washington Blvd. This landscape plan further complies with the City's parking regulations. There are no specific standards for landscaping refuse and recycling for hotel developments. This proposal would improve the character of the site, new access would be provided and street frontage improvements provided. Landscaping would be provided that would screen the surface parking area from surrounding properties. The scale of the structure is larger than the Barbee Mill but smaller than the VMAC. This hotel does provide a much needed transition from the existing residential and 1-405. The hotel would be more compatible with the surrounding residential than the former industrial site and the impacts to the surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed buildings are appropriate for the site and would be compatible with surrounding properties. If and when the remainder of the site is developed, it would need to be compatible with the hotel. The proposal is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. In addition to access and parking on the site, pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks are proposed along the street frontage which would provide safe pedestrian access throughout the site. The applicant would be required to provide a 12 -foot sidewalk along the frontage of Lake Washington Blvd with a 10 -foot landscaping strip for safety. The single building would not have an impact on the site's light and air circulation. There would be minimal noise impacts from the increased traffic, although the noise would be virtually unnoticeable because of the proximity of I-405. The Fire and Police Departments for the City of Renton have indicated that their existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. Impact fees have been required as a mitigation measure of the SEPA. Redevelopment of this site would help prevent deterioration and blight of the neighborhood. It would actually increase the quality of the subject site and the project is expected to contribute to the well-being of the City in general and the neighborhood in particular. This site is located in Design District C, which is an overlay design district and it is in compliance with most of the requirements of the Design District, except for the following: The west elevation of the building has some blank walls and Staff has requested that the west side be re- designed at that portion to feature a pedestrian oriented fagade. Design District requires that all sides and top of refuse and recycling areas be enclosed. Having a top enclosure would not function well with garbage collection, they have asked for a modification to not put a top on the enclosure. The proposed surface parking lot is not intended to be built into a structured parking at future phases of potential development. This site is constrained by access off of one road and the internal circulation of the site is vital for future potential development and this parking lot would serve as that internal vehicular circulation. The applicant should submit new site plans indicating the entire pedestrian pathway throughout the parking lot as differentiating materials or texture from the adjacent paving. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use'and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 10 The applicants have proposed to provide canopies along the fagade fronting Lake Washington Blvd that exceed the minimum width standards, although they do not meet the minimum length standards they have proposed them along 38.5% of the faVade, which pertains to approximately 60 linear feet. The hotel design also provides modulation as it fronts Lake Washington Blvd, some portions of the hotel are set back and not immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. As such, the design requirement of the overhangs would not be achieving their goal in some of those areas, therefore the 60 -feet of linear canopy coverage. There are some additional requirements if the project is located in the COR zone, which this proposed project meets. Hearing was adjourned for lunch at 11:30 am... Back on record at 1:00 pm Pat Severin, 15214 Avon -Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that they had taken a look at the site with the existing conditions and constraints from elevations in the roadways and they came up with a grading plan that actually would grade the entire site towards the surface areas of the Rain Gardens from the entrance road and from all the parking areas towards the Rain Gardens. All this water would be collected in the Rain Gardens, treated, and conveyed to the discharge point down through the bottom of the ditch. Any of the water around the hotel would be picked up with downspouts and/or yard area drains directed to the same discharge location. He did not believe that any flow control would be required on this site per an exemption in the King County Manual. Some flow attenuation would happen with the Rain Garden. They do not have an approved construction document at this time, it is only a planning document. The next step would be to receive site plan approval and then proceed with the construction documents where they would finalize their design depending on comments from the City Staff. The Rain Gardens have not been approved as a design feature and in fact when the approval comes through it might not include Rain Gardens but some other feature. There are a number of features that would provide the same level of treatment to choose from. The final plan would need to comply with the City's Code. This 3.07 acre site is not within the 100 year flood plain, a portion of the south boundaryjust crosses the 100 year flood plain. Geralyn Reinart, PE, 159 Denny Way #I 11, Seattle, WA 98109 stated she is a self employed traffic engineering consultant specializing in the preparation of Traffic Impact Analyses. She was responsible for the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. The analysis included a review of the existing conditions adjacent to the project including the operations of three intersections along NE 40, the northbound and southbound ramps to 1405, along with the Seahawks Way intersection. This included a review of the number of accidents along Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44'h Street. AM and PM peak hour traffic counts completed for the project were also used in the analysis, along with a review of the site accesses at two locations along Lake Washington Blvd. Looking at the site accesses, the existing Pan Abode driveway should be limited to right turns in and out due to its close location to the ramp interchange. The main access to the site is located towards the southerly end of the hotel portion of the property. In looking at the future volumes at that intersection left turns into the site were recommended. Build out of the hotel could generate over 1400 daily trips, 97 during the AM peak hour and 102 during the PM peak hour per the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. The future trip Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page I 1 volume projections at the intersections mentioned earlier included pipeline trips from the adjacent Barbee Mill development that is ongoing currently plus a 2% annual growth rate in the traffic volumes, which is consistent with prior studies that have been completed in the area. The project trips were added into the future values to analyze the impacts from the project itself. The trip assignment for the hotel was based on prior work that was done in the vicinity and specifically the Port Quendall analysis of the 1-405/NE 44'h Street interchange project access report prepared by WSDOT. There were some adjustments made to that report since this road was going to be serving Seahawks visitors, some of that traffic was redistributed up to the Seahawks facility. The critical movement at the intersection of Seahawks Way and Lake Washington Blvd near the northerly access to the site is currently moving at Level Service D during the peak hours. Future increases would drop that level of service to E with or without the hotel. The other critical intersection operations would be the north and southbound ramps to I-405, some of the movements are operating at Level Service F during the AM peak hour and the delay on those movements would continue to increase over the next few years with or without the hotel project. All of these intersections are within the WSDOT limited access area, they are also subject to review as part of this project. Measures to raise the level of service at these intersections was reviewed by both agencies and included the installation of traffic signals for the ramps and then some restriping of lanes and construction involved with lane additions. WSDOT did concur with these measures and requesting that the applicant participate in a proportionate share of the cost of these improvements, which are being proposed by WSDOT_ Pat Bunting, 3643 Leg Road, Bow, WA 98232 stated that her firm, Graham and Bunting, is an environmental and land use service. She was one of three on the project team that was assigned to go to the site and look for critical areas that could possibly be anywhere from the site down to May Creek. They found two small wetlands off site by May Creek, they are Category 2 wetlands. There was May Creek, a Class I stream, there is also a ditch alongside Lake Washington Blvd which is a Class 5 stream. The hotel would be more than 200 feet from May Creek. The small wetlands were offsite and so are not buffered, they are well out of the range of the project site. Checking the habitat of the stream requires walking up and down the stream banks and looking for habitat including large debris, downed logs, vegetation, ripples and pools places where fish can spawn and feed, they looked at the classified ditch as well for that reason. May Creek is a habitat for fish. The wetlands were so small, their habitat value was found to be over winter when there would be water, and there might be some winter habitat. But there was not much there, the wetlands were not even wet at this time of year. Each one is less than 500 square feet. This project, as proposed, meets all requirements for the City of Renton. Mel Maertz, 16921 Larch Way, Lynnwood, WA 98037 gave a brief description of his qualifications. His role in this project was to help programming and master planning of the project. He worked on the design of the hotel. The site plan for the hotel is oriented to Lake Washington, taking advantage of the views, they planned this hotel so it would not affect the future development of the remainder of the site. They tried to accommodate the pedestrians and the traffic, it was important to look at the Seahawks facility and the connectivity between the two facilities. Parking to the back and easy access to the underground parking were very important. The hotel was designed with a Northwest Craftsman look and incorporated materials like those used in the Seahawks facility as well as the Barbee Mill community across the street. They are trying to create a sustainable building that would be a leader in the community. Vanessa Dolbee responded to an earlier question by the Examiner regarding refuse and recycling. Renton Municipal Code requires for multi -family developments one and a half square feet per dwelling unit and three square feet for recycling and three square feet per dwelling unit for refuse. The office analysis was based on two square feet per 1000 gross building square feet for recycling and four square feet for refuse for 1000 gross Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 12 building square feet, which results in for recycling the 244 square feet and refuse at 488 for the office requirement. Looking at the multi -family requirements the recycling (hotel rooms as dwelling units) 259.5 square feet for recycling and 519 square feet for refuse, which is actually an increase from the office calculations. Keith Scully, Attorney representing Brad Nicholson 1424 4'h Ave, Ste. 1015, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that they had submitted some written comments as part of the Notice of Appeal. They learned a fair amount today and so would modify some of those comments. There are some greater concerns but also some reduced concerns with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A drainage plan is required under Renton Municipal Code as part of a Master Site Plan or Site Plan application. There is an exception to that requirement which allows the City to make a determination that if the proposal will not substantially alter the drainage pattern and/or it will not adversely affect the drainage pattern, then the City can waive that requirement. There has been no formal request for that and no formal waiver made and based on what they learned today that waiver is not applicable. This proposal does substantially alter the drainage pattern. They are going to grade the entirety of the site and route it into the Rain Garden. Currently water flows into the creek, this will adversely impact water quality because of flowing over what is undeveloped impervious surface, and it will be flowing over an active parking lot. The Drainage plan is a document that is reviewed by the Examiner and determines if what is proposed is compliant with Renton's code and with Renton's incorporation with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. What you have is a conceptual outline of what they might ask the City to approve as part of their building permit. This does not comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. There is nothing for the Examiner to rule on, they don't know if they are going to be doing the Rain Garden plan or something else. They are planning to deal with flow control and toxin removal through a Rain Garden treatment system, although they disagree with them, however they do admit that they need to do something to control the toxins that will corne off the parking lot. A Rain Garden would be okay for this proposal, but what they have called a Rain Garden, includes an impermeable surface layer. A Rain Garden is something that has plants in it and lets water infiltrate the ground. There is an infiltration component to every single Rain Garden design, this impervious liner makes this not a Rain Garden. The water that is flowing off the parking lot now flows through a little bit of gravel into a pipe and straight to May Creek. What they are actually proposing is a thing called a perforated pipe collection system, which is a box with some gravel in it and a pipe at the bottom. There are no flow control credits for it, and that is because it does not work as a pollution control plan. He disagreed with the comments made by the wetlands specialist that you don't buffer something off site_ If the property line stops and there are no critters on your property, you are done with the evaluation. The habitat and the impacts on the habitat should be studied, not just the impacts on your property. There are fish in the creek, birdlife in the vegetation, and all the stuff that comes with a small conservancy designated wetland. The hotel is far from the wetlands, but the blank space in an unknown at this point. What do they intend to do with it? It appears that it is currently being used as overflow parking for the Seahawk's games, is it going to be lit with the lights shining on what may be song bird nesting habitat, what is the flow going to be like when cars are parking on it, are they going to be putting heavy equipment on it for some later project. No one knows what is going to happen. They have less of a concern on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. If any part of this one project goes within 200 feet of May Creek, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed. They have been told today that no part of this development will be within 200 feet of May Creek. If the south building is left untouched and no work done in that area, then they do not need a SSDP. They would ask for a special condition to be added that no work incur in that area within 200 feet of May Creek. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 13 Kayren Kittrick, Dev Engineering Supervisor, Community and Economic Development showed a map of tate project site, she marked the site with an "V. Directly across to the northwest is the entrance of Seahawk Way and the VMAC building, it further showed the location of Barbee Mill development. This development has triggered improvements to the intersections including stop lights. The start of LUA file is only preliminary discussions, included in those preliminary discussions is a preliminary drainage plan, it is required. The final construction plans takes in things brought in during the hearing, things added as conditions, best management practices plus changes they find on the site during construction. The Rain Garden design is very interesting, it seems closer to a bioswale design and that is one of the acceptable items. It will have to be studied to see if it works, if it does not, the applicant must find another method that is acceptable within the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The hotel and hotel parking could change anything that might affect the final calculations of what they have to treat and what has to be released. The standards are not relaxed, a preliminary design is presented, and that is what we know at this point based on specific calculations. Conditions can be made, ERC could have made a condition, plus once it gets looked into and they find it does not meet the King County Surface Water Design conditions or standards or doesn't do what they think it is going to do, the City runs their own calculations and checks on everything. Even under an EIS it is still a preliminary design subject to change. Any soils that are removed from this site would be checked for contamination and treated as deemed necessary_ Vanessa Dolbee stated that Mr. Scully had been referring to a habitat management plan, the City code does not specify a habitat management plan, and they have a habitat assessment and a habitat data report. The habitat data report was waived (which is the same thing as the habitat assessment). It was waived because there was a Fish and Wildlife habitat section within the wetland and stream study that provided sufficient information to the City to determine that the habitat assessment report could be waived. Keith Scully stated that he believed that Renton's policy is to allow a preliminary drainage plan but that is wrong and now seems like the time to fix it. RMC 4-60-0300 says that persons applying for specific permits or approvals would submit for approval a drainage plan for their application or request. Further on, drainage plan is defined in the same section 4-60-03OF stating that the drainage plan will be prepared in conformance with the department's construction plan drafting standards and contents and the design criteria contained in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. Nothing in the code section about the start of a conversation or a preliminary plan, which means the final thing and they need to make a determination that it does or doesn't that the Hearing Examiner can then repeal. Jack McCullough stated that the only lingering issues have to do with the drainage plan. The testimony from Mr. Severin and the City stated that a drainage plan was submitted. The confusion here is that the comments from Mr. Scully on behalf of his client suggest that it is the Examiner's position in this proceeding to pass judgment on approved drainage plan. That is not the case. Sub-section G of the Code section referenced by Mr. Scully, Review and Approval of Plan, it indicates that the decision on the plan is reserved to the approval of the Development Services Division, in the second sentence of sub-section Gl, it says that if no action is taken by the City after submission of the Final Drainage Plans within 45 days, then such plan is deemed approved. In Sub-section G3 it indicates under additional information that the permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his duly authorized representative. This is the process that Ms. Kittrick outlined, there is an additional submittal, it's not just a conversation, a report has been issued showing the process and treatment that is anticipated to take place. At this point it is incumbent on the Examiner in review of this information only to determine that the plan, in its current state, is feasible on the property. What has been heard from Ms. Kittrick and Mr. Severin is that there will be comments and they have not passed judgment on the acceptability under the manual or the City's Code. Mr. Severin testified that there are alternates that can easily be employed that qualify under the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 14 manual. Once the process of comment is completed then you arrive at what G 1 refers to as the Final Drainage Plan. Then the Administrator has 45 days to take final action. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2:07 p.m_ FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ON SEPA APPEAL: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The appellants, South End Gives Back (aka SEGB) and Brad Nicholson, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non -Significance —Mitigated (DNS -M) that the City issued for the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel. The appellants filed the appeal in a timely manner. 2. The applicant, Spencer Alpert, hereinafter applicant, applied for a Master Site Plan and a Site Plan review for a hotel complex that would include a 173 room hotel, retail space, a fitness center, spa and restaurant. The project would be developed on an approximately 3.07 acre portion of a larger 7.8 acre site located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. The project also includes a proposed "rain garden' which is designed to handle stormwater collected on the subject site. The subject site is located between Lake Washington Boulevard on the west and I-405 on the east and is almost directly south of the on-ramp for I-405 at NE 44th Street. 4. Lake Washington itself is located west of the subject site separated from the subject site by Lake Washington Boulevard, the Barbee Mill subdivision and the Quendall Terminals site. The new Seahawk's Training Center (Virginia Mason Athletic Center) is located a bit further north. May Creek and associated wetlands are located south of the subject site. 5. The subject site was the location of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes manufacturing site. The site is developed with old, now vacant warehouses and almost the entire site is covered with pavement. There are approximately 75,214 square feet of warehouses and impervious surface covers approximately 85% of the subject site. The applicant will be removing pavement and warehouses, "deconstructing" in terms used by the parties, from the north portion of the subject site, the approximately 3.07 acres that will be developed with the hotel and associated surface parking and landscaping. 7. May Creek and Lake Washington are both shorelines of the State and are both subject to the criteria of the Shoreline Master Program. The applicant has designed their demolition and redevelopment proposal to avoid any work within the 2.00 foot threshold of the Shoreline Master Program 8. The ERC imposed ten (10) conditions. Four of those conditions related to geotechnical issues, wetland/stream issues, in compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and erosion control under Department of Ecology regulations. Those four conditions are: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September I0, 2009 Page 15 "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study --- Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985- 2- The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. " 9. The appellant calculates that if there is 85% impervious surface that subject site will generate storm water in the amounts of 10 to 20 acre feet of water or between 900 and 1800 gallons per day.Based on the applicant's submissions the appellant calculates that there will be approximately 38,866 square feet of landscaping. They also calculated the change in impervious surfaces. From those calculations the appellants deduce that "a reduction in impervious surface would dramatically increase the rate of groundwater recharge." (Appeal page 3) 10. The appellants then explain that based on topography, measured groundwater at the site, and hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels that groundwater will flow to the west, down and toward Lake Washington through the Quendall Terminals site. Since these groundwaters are inferred to flow toward the Quendall Terminals property the appellants anticipate that these groundwaters will pick up or increase the rate of contaminant discharge from Quendall to Lake Washington. The appellants allege contaminants entering the lake will have a deleterious impact on fish and people who use the lake. it. Quendall Terminals is a Superfund site. That means it has been found to be significantly contaminated and is listed by the Federal Government due to the levels and nature of the contaminants found at the site. Past practices on the site released or produced dangerous hydrocarbons and toxic materials such as arsenic as part of the creosote and tar manufacturing and pole treatments produced on the site. 12. The appellants noted that "rain gardens are 'excavated or otherwise formed depressions in the landscape that provide storage, treatment, and infiltration of stormwater runoff. The soil in the depression is enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth."' (Notice of Appeal, Page 2). Relying on the definitions found in the 2005 King County Manual, the manual referenced by the ERC to govern stormwater management on the subject site. 13. In summary the gist of the appellants' arguments are that the applicant will be using the rain garden and or other aspects of the proposal to infiltrate stormwater into the soils under the subject site. This will recharge or supplement the groundwater which will flow toward the west and the Quendall Terminals Superfund site. This will increase the contaminants leaching to Lake Washington from beneath the Quendall site. The toxics in turn will affect the health and safety of the lake for both humans and fish and animal populations. 14. The appellants base much of the appeal on the declaration of Joel Massmann in particular, the following paragraphs: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 16 "7. A reduction in impervious surface would increase groundwater recharge at the project site. Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments, groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to 1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. 8. The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed project is approximately 4 to 8 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). This estimate was developed assuming 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. 11. Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site of Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site." (Declaration of Joel Massmann) 15. The applicant's submissions and testimony indicate that the feature called a "rain garden" will be installed. The applicant's "rain garden" is designed as a water collection system which captures and treats stormwater collected on the subject site and then conveys it to the same drainage ditch that has been conveying stormwater from the site in the past. Therefore, even if the above numbers are correct, the fact that the applicant proposes capturing most of the stormwater and conveying it to the existing ditch and then into May Creek, makes the numbers and probably the conclusions of the Massmann declaration inconsequential. If much of the stormwater is captured then it will not be entering or recharging the groundwater and will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants into the lake from the Quendall site. 16. There was some confusion or disagreement over whether the applicant's proposed rain garden installation would function to cleanse or treat pollutants. It may not meet the normal definitions for a "rain garden." If a review shows the proposed design is not suitable for its intended purpose than it should not be used. The applicant is still bound by the 2005 King County manual for detention, retention and treatment. The appellants also attempted to appeal the Master Site Plan as part of their original submission. There was no Master Site Plan decision issued when the appeal was filed. As a matter of fact, one of the land use decisions for which the SEPA appeal was filed was for a review of the Master Site Plan by the Hearing Examiner. CONCLUSIONS: The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. The appellant has failed to demonstrate error. 2. The Determination of Non -Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -1I September 10, 2009 Page 17 when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed_" Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed, The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. The appellant did not provide a basis that could be used to reverse the City's determination. The proposal will undoubtedly create impacts to the community but they are not substantial, at least, not on the issues the appellants have raised. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the ERC made a mistake. The applicant will be capturing stormwater water and conveying it in a manner similar to how it was previously conveyed from the subject site. Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be conveyed to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site. The water will be treated in the rain garden and while the phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning, infiltration will not follow treatment. The stormwater will be collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage ditch. It will not be left to percolate into the underlying soils. It will not travel the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake. The post development groundwater quantities suggested by the appellants' evidence is unsupported by the facts. The ERC did not err in its review. 7. The reviewing body has to determine if this proposal would have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. This office is not left with any doubt about the reasonableness of the underlying decision. The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC erred. The decision Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 18 below is not clearly erroneous and the decision below should be affirmed. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicant, Spencer Alpert, filed a request for a Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #l. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter_ The subject site is located 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The subject site is the vacated Pan Abode factory site located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. 1-405 is east of the site and its NE 44th Street access ramps are located north of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned COR (Commercial, Office, Residential). In addition to being located in the COR Zone, the subject site is governed by the Urban Design District "C" overlay regulations. The COR requirements also require all development to undergo both Master Plan and Site Plan review. The Master Plan review is an overview of a project to determine the overall project concept and how the project meets the City's goals. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December 1959. 9. The applicant proposes developing approximately 3 A7 acres of an approximately 7.8 acre site. The subject site is generally trapazoidal in shape. The south property line is approximately 732 feet (east to west). The western, Lake Washington Blvd frontage is approximately 800 feet long. The eastern and northeast property lines together are approximately 900 feet long. At the north end of what appears to be part of the parcel is City of Renton property abutting the 1-405 ramps. The applicant has requested a vacation of this property. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 19 10. The south portion of the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards_ The applicant proposes an estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill for construction. 11. May Creek, a Class 1 shoreline of the state, and at least two associated wetlands are located south of the subject site. Any development within 200 feet of May Creek would be subject to the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit and Shorelines Management regulations. The applicant's proposed development will be outside of the 200 foot threshold and staff determined that it is not subject to those regulations. A drainage ditch along the City right-of-way runs along the west side of the property, The ditch is a non-regulated stream with associated non-regulated wetlands. (Wetland and Stream study for the project). 12. The tree inventory showed 32 existing trees. The applicant proposes replacing those with 73 new trees and other landscaping (see below). 13. The applicant will be demolishing the existing warehouse structures that cover the 3.07 acres proposed for the hotel. The applicant will be retaining the other building on the remaining 4.73 acres. There will be no development or demolition within 200 feet of May Creek_ 14. The applicant proposes developing a 5 -story hotel on the north portion or 3.07 acres of the site. The 173 room hotel building will be 60 feet tall and contain 122,000 square feet of interior space. It will have a footprint of approximately 29,336 square feet. The complex will also contain retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. There will be underground parking. 15. The hotel's footprint will be L-shaped. The long leg of the "L", oriented north to south, will face Fake Washington Boulevard. The short leg will be oriented east to west along the north end of the parcel. A plaza with water feature will be located in the crook of the "L". Parking will generally be located east of the building. 16. The applicant will be using a variety of materials for the exterior of the building. It will contain stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding and metal roofs. There will be "northwest" style overhangs and trusses. The appearance is intended to complement the development of the Barbee Mill plat west of Lake Washington Boulevard. The COR Zone and the Urban Design District require both vertical and horizontal modulation a minimum of 2 feet at an interval of 40 feet to add interest and quality to the project. Additionally, there is to be a building setback of 10 feet for buildings over 50 feet in height. The plans show that the building does meet the horizontal and vertical modulations and that the top story observes an approximately 12 -foot setback for most of that story and varies from zero feet to 39.5 feet. Staff has suggested that does meet the intent and with the variety of eaves, trusses, bump -outs, balconies and differentiated materials it more than meets the spirit of the "guidelines." 17. The entry from the east side or parking areas will be set off by the water feature that contains a Koi pond and pedestrian bridge. The Lake Washington entry will have a canopy. 18. Landscaping in the COR zone is developed as part of the Site Plan review process but is also governed by landscape requirements for surface parking lots. Along with the 73 new trees replacing the 32 that would be removed, the applicant proposes approximately 39,000 square feet of landscaping. New landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the subject site, around the perimeter of the hotel building and in and around the parking lot. The landscaping will be confined to the 3.07 acres that the applicant proposes developing with the hotel. Street trees will be planted along Lake Washington Hawk's Landing Mixed Ua , and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 20 Boulevard and will be spaced 30 feet on center. A large variety of other landscape plants will be used throughout the site. The applicant did not submit the necessary irrigation plan. Parking lots with 100 or more stalls require 35 square feet of landscaping per stall, a minimum of 5 feet in width, 1 tree per 6 stalls, 5 shrubs per] 00 square feet and landscaping within 50 feet of parking stalls. Staff calculated that the submitted plans meet the minimum requirements. 19. Staff has calculated the required parking based on use as a minimum of 223 and a maximum of 235 stalls and the applicant proposes 231 stalls, meeting code. There would be 107 stalls in the parking garage, and 124 surface stalls including 6 ADA stalls and stalls for five Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. Staff noted that for parking lots of this size 7 ADA stalls are required. Staff noted that both parking areas meet code for dimensions and compact stalls. 20. Lot coverage permitted in the COR zone for a building with surface parking is 65 percent. The proposed 29,336 square foot building covers approximately 22 percent of the 3.08 acres proposed for the hotel complex. The setback from the freeway is a required 10 feet whereas other setbacks are determined during site plan review. The applicant proposes a 20 foot setback from Lake Washington Boulevard, its apparent front yard, 60 feet from the north property line, 129 feet from its eastern, freeway property line and 418 feet from the south property line (including the acreage outside of the 3.07 acres)_ The zone permits buildings of 125 feet or 10 stories whereas 60 feet and five stories are proposed. 21. The applicant will provide access to the subject site via two locations. One driveway will be located along the north boundary of the subject site. The second, main driveway will be a more formal, two- lane gateway driveway at Lake Washington Boulevard located south of the hotel building. 22. Garbage and recycling areas are determined by use but hotels are not specifically identified. Staff evaluated the use as an office use that would require approximately 732 square feet of space and considered the fact that the applicant will be using a trash compactor in determining that the proposed 379.52 feet was adequate. The applicant has requested that this refuge complex not contain the roof required by the minimum standards since it requires dumpsters be moved out for collection since the dumpsters cannot be raised to truck level with a roof enclosure. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 1,400 trips. There will be approximately 97 a.m. trips and 102 p.m. trips. The City's estimate of 1,413 trips matches the numbers predicted by the applicant. 24. As part of the development of the subject site the applicant proposes raising the grade of the site to match Lake Washington Boulevard. This will expose the hotel to the general public and allow the public to enter the site from surrounding sidewalks and trails. 25. Staff in its matrix chart has identified compliance, partial compliance or failure to meet the District C Design Guidelines minimum standards as well as suggested guidelines. That matrix is adopted by this office and incorporated into this report by reference. Particular reference is made to lighting for safety and not spilling off the site, facade treatment along the Lake Washington frontage lacking character elements to break up blank or rather unadorned lengths of facade, pedestrian paths in the parking areas and sufficient to provide both a trail link and pedestrian link around the site and connecting to the May Creek and King County paths and trails. 26. No Planned Action Ordinance was adopted for this site. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -I l September 10, 2009 Page 21 27. Stormwater will be collected and conveyed to what the applicant terms a rain garden for treatment and then conveyed to an offsite ditch that runs along the west side of the site. The ditch conveys water to May Creek and then Lake Washington. As discussed in the SEPA Appeal decision issued with this project, the proposal will not be using infiltration and the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State and Federal regulations regarding discharges from the subject site. 28. Sewer and water are provided to the subject site by the City_ CONCLUSIONS: 1. The project is subject to both Master Plan and Site Plan review as well as review under the District C Design Guidelines and the COR special considerations. The fact that only one building is involved in this proposal makes consideration of Master Planning for the subject site mirror the Site Plan review standards. While the building will contain a mix of uses including a restaurant was well as the much larger hotel, these various uses are included in the one facade scheme. It would make more sense to invoke the Master Plan review when the remainder of the 7.8 acre site is developed to make sure it is well coordinated with this current hotel complex. 2. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 3. The Comprehensive Plan's designation for this area is for the development of larger scale commercial, office and residential uses befitting what are some of the larger parcels in the City. Many COR parcels were used for industrial production that dedicated larger swaths of lands for those purposes. As some of those industrial uses have moved away, the land is available for larger projects. The proposed hotel, especially in conjunction with the Seahawk's training complex is such a large scale project. The hotel is a kind of mixed use - temporary residences for patrons while a commercial operation. The hotel will also integrate a restaurant and retail uses into the mix. The proposal is compatible with the goal of transforming old industrial sites into high quality development. The proposal in the main is compatible with the Zoning Code. It meets the height and setback Hawk's Landing Mixed 1— and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 22 requirements of the code. It provides the complement of parking required. It meets the design details for modulation and articulation found in the Code and in the District C Design Guidelines. The top floor does not completely abide by the suggested setbacks from lower floors but on average exceeds those setbacks and greatly exceeds those setbacks on many of the top floor's facades. Staff found it was an appropriate design. Similarly, staff found that the proposal meets the code requirements for garbage and recycling and in comparison to the overall size and bulk of the facility and it appears staff is correct. This office does have some problems with the fact that the roof required appears to conflict with actual pickup services by garbage/recycle handlers. Staff and the City need to review these issues. Compliance with actual Building and Fire Code provisions will be verified when appropriate detailed permits are submitted. The building will be taller than the former warehouse uses on the subject site but it certainly is more graciously designed. It will be taller than the residential uses west of Lake Washington Boulevard but shorter than the nearby training center. It will provide a buffer from I-405 and a transition from the freeway interchange to the residential uses located along Lake Washington Boulevard. The State has asked for mitigation and that is incorporated into the ERC's conditions. Turn lanes should mitigate impacts of traffic along Lake Washington Boulevard. The nature of the trips will also be different from the former industrial use of the site. An appeal was filed of the ERC's decision. That appeal was directed at minimizing the potential impacts of converting a large area of impermeable surface to a new hotel facility. There was a misunderstanding of how stormwater would be handled. The appeal was denied but issues raised in that appeal can be further clarified in the Site Plan review. The site will still be conveying its storm waters to May Creek and Lake Washington. Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. The proposal will replace old warehouses with a modern hotel with substantial exterior appeal. The building will use a variety of materials to break up the apparent bulk of the building and will add appreciably to the landscaping on the site as well as along Lake Washington Boulevard. The longest facade treatment along Lake Washington Boulevard has a number of horizontal and vertical breaks providing an interesting appearance. Coupled with the variety of materials, wood, hardie board, veneer treatments as well as roof trusses all add to the visual variety the building presents to the public. Staff has noted that additional opening in what are considered blank walls will be needed along this facade to comply with code and provide the visual interest of the building. There will be perimeter Iandscaping added around the hotel and around the general site. The applicant will be providing street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard for the extent of the development proposal. The applicant should provide landscaping along the remainder of Lake Washington Boulevard and along the eastern and southern perimeter of the parking areas. The Master Plan process does include "master planning" for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as on the north frontage. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SF.PA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 23 7. The redevelopment of this now underutilized site will help increase the tax base of the City and the removal of old warehouses should conserve if not increase property values. Obviously, there will be more general hubbub and traffic than a vacant warehousing site produces. These were anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan and zoning were enacted for this site and this area. Redevelopment of this site is a vital element of the City's objectives for this area. The internal circulation and the pedestrian paths seem generally appropriate. Distinctive marking to provide visual separation of pedestrian routes from vehicular crossings may need better definition. As indicated by staff, this site connects trails in the vicinity and the applicant should make appropriate provisions for trail users as well as general pedestrian traffic. Staffs recommendations on path width are appropriate. 9. While the building and bulk are larger than what is on the site, clearly the proposed 60 foot height is substantially less than permitted in the zone. In addition, the generous setbacks provided as well as the width of I-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard will aid in letting air and light penetrate the subject site as well as surrounding properties. 10. As noted, there will be more comings and goings from this site than the community is used to but development has occurred to its west and that has already introduced more urban tumult. There will be the usual but temporary construction noise and 1-405 already adds to the ambient noise levels in this area. 11. There are available urban services including sewer and water. The applicant will be paying a Fire Mitigation fee. 12. The redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site represents. The project looks very well-designed and should be an asset to the community and City as a whole. 13. The project is also required to comply with the COR Zone special review criteria as well as the District C Design Guidelines. As discussed above, this office has adopted staffs analysis and recommendations regarding compliance with those numerous criteria. Some of the thematic requirements overlap the broad review of the Site Plan criteria. Specific requirements were covered by the Staff review and are incorporated into this report. They are attached to the end of this report. 14. The special criteria for the COR zone include: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable. b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial -Office - Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. C. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems. d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable, e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; Hawk's Landing Mixed U, ,, and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 24 f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items. g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned. h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. 15. No Planned action ordinance is involved in this review. The property does not lie along Lake Washington. The height of the building should provide views of the lake and view corridors might exist between the homes on the west side of the boulevard. The project will accommodate the trail as well as retail shops and a restaurant open to the public. The Koi pond, bridge and paths as well as the prominent entry and facade features provide a focal point. Transportation fees as well as accommodations to the State and turning lanes will provide reasonable access to the subject site. At the moment, public transit does not travel this route. The applicant has expressed a willingness to accommodate such access. 16. In conclusion, the proposed use complements activity that has been occurring in this area. It is hoped that the development of the north portion of this site will spur redevelopment of the southern portion. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: I . A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, and be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4- 4-080.I.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 4. The street vacation, file # VAC -09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -oriented fagade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval_ This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. 7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager indicating 12 -foot sidewalk widths and a 10 -foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, prior to construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manager for Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 25 review and approval at the time of building permit review. 9. The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. 10. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage. ORDERED THIS I 01 day of September 2009. q�j__ ",-- FRED J. KA MAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 10'h day of September 2009 to the parties of record: Spencer Alpert Alpert international, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Greg Fawcett PO Box 402 Fall City, WA 98024 Keith Scully Gendler & Mann 1424 Fourth Ave, Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98103 Jack McCullough McCullough Hill, PS 701 Fifth Ave, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Pat Severin Sound Development Group 15214 Avon -Allen Rd. Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 Steve Van Til Port Quendall Company 505 Union Station 505 Fiiih Ave S, Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Larry Reymann 1313 N 38'h Street Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Brad Nicholson Attn: Keith Scully 1424 Fourth Ave., Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98103 Jessie Clawson McCullough Hill, PS 701 Fifth Ave, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Geraldine Reinart, PE 159 Denny Way #I I I Seattle, WA 98109 Rich Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Frank and Carrie Lord 4041 232'd Ave SE Sammamish, WA 98075 Dr. Joel Massmann 6520 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Dan Mitzel 111 Cleveland Avenue Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 Pat Bunting 3643 Leg Road Bow, WA 98232 Mel Maertz Ann Nielsen Vanessa Dolbee 16921 Larch Way Assistant City Attorney Associate Planner Lynnwood, WA City of Renton City of Renton Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.; LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 26 Kayren Kittrick Community and Economic Development TRANSMITTED THIS l0'" day of September 2009 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 .m. September 24 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 24, 2009. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private ane -on -ane) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. a i VI: H co H x W - — SOD AV/AH9JH AIVISa31NI i I � � v ^669 a 4 /r t 1, aver `4. 3 / ib uj x 3z0 R $ag SqHP agl5�Ye49�g � s Al IAR 1116H V Rg aa$��zgF is1 SIN T �B� :�� R4y6 !i -s •p®®c6 - � cGti'�j9�R r_ i d4 F� � Y a r ,h ;a a IF A 8 f &w a 56 a c6 5 e a.LSff�a D � Y 1 O J 0o La41J 2 W �C) �a�� � � � � � it � � � � ' I I ME .%m F I ' Jw (J qT H co H x W z ry • :I ° _Y....', • tai ' � � \�\ e 038� Aj - y �, QVaalrVN 1SON N213Ff*tf���� *z� - _� ,- �•. ' 3.. - ' k 'i kp a. N m x W e c p i 3 ° r :y� p152 31�Y�6�6 g��� ' 5 5i2 qqS%oai+i g`s Xs�$F� ae !i :I ° _Y....', • tai ' � � \�\ e 038� Aj - y �, QVaalrVN 1SON N213Ff*tf���� *z� - _� ,- �•. ' 3.. - ' k 'i kp a. N m x W a. Review of Compliance to District C Design Guidelines; The subject property is located within Design District 'C'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. Two categories have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. The following are the categories for compliance: M= Met I NM= Not Met I PM= Partially Met I NA= Not Applicable P A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: M M Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized For efficiency while maintaining flexibility forfuture development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials.' 13 Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) high Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to Feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private}. 2. Building Location and Orientation.- rientation:Intent: Intent:To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian -oriented streets is prohibited Minimum Standard: Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. R EJ Minimum Standard: Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they Feature of pedestrian -oriented facade Staff Comment: The majority of the facade facing take Washington Boulevard would be incompliance with this minimum standard with the exception of south half of this facade on the ground floor. Approximately 62 feet of the southern side of the facade is not designed to meet this standard. This 62 feet is designed with stone veneer and vertical siding. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant redesign the west elevation to feature o pedestrian - oriented facade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development for review and approval by the project manager prior to building permit approval. Minimum Standard: Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single -purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7b) Minimum Standard: if buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping"m between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). Guideline. Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and ,? reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents';';';. ;` P privacy. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. H1 7771 ZI Z Minimum Standard. Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Minimum Standard: Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a 74111111 DI courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least 41/2 feet wide mY over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting 717 street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. Minimum Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian - oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. 1177111-111 Guideline: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street r,,7— and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. ,, 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent, To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved, 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard; Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian 7=1 environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-10DE7e). Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090 n Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC _4-4095 Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Minimum Standard. In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall � 771 be enclosed on all sides, including the root and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100M)_ StaffComment. The proposed enclosure for the garbage and recycling collection area includes screening on all sides with the exception of roof. The applicant has indicated that if roof was provided then the dumps ters would have to be pushed or maneuvered out of the enclosure for collection because the collection trucks need to lift the dumpster to empty it into the truck. In order for the dumpsters to be directly lifted from the enclosure the exemption of the roof would be required. As such, staffrecommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: The use ofchain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. 1— n Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathWaYr or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. Guideline- Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.Ug). Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100. E7h). Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more ofthe following: EFT "m I a. Public art, b. Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment, d. Open space/plaza; e. Identifying building form; f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo), h, Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). M IN P B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: M M Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lats; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: On Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: ON (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking. No more than 60 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) On -street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. `1�. :73'�_ Minimum Standard: All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. Minimum Standard: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate<'. future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection FSa of this Section), Staff Comment: The proposed surface parking lot does not meet the minimum requirement of 1,3170 feet of perimeter area. In addition, preliminary design and discussion with the applicant indicated that this proposed surface parking Jot would remain with full build out of the subject site. Lake Washington Boulevard is the only access to the subject site, which results in the requirement to provide internal vehicular circulation for the subject parcel. In order for thereto be sufficient internal circulation at a future date, this surface parking Jot would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of the surface parking lot as proposed. Guideline. In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. Guideline: If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the buildingfayade. Guideline: When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5b). Staff Comment: See section G. "Lighting" below. Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. P Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on bath sides €MN' 2a. where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5c). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Nan -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall 77-1 be set back at least 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building_ (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1`5d). Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If i possible, locate the parking entry awayfrom the primary street, to eitherthe side or rear of the building. Guideline. Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape, ` Guideline. The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar farms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages - Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be P P P visible from the street or sidewalks. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings orfrom non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. Minimum Standard: Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian -oriented streets. ❑ ❑ ❑ Minimum Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce othervehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable i building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-10044a). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b). Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. El Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c). Staff comment: The provided plan sets indicate that portions of the pedestrian pathways within the parking lots would be different material or texture from the adjacent paving materials, although there are some portions that appear to be asphalt with striping. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a new Site piont that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Deportment of Community and Economic Development project manager. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width ??' (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RML-4-3-100.G4d). Staff Comment: The proposed sidewalk width is 10 -feet and the proposed landscape strip is 9 feet in width. As mentioned above in the project narrative, the City has received Capital lmprovementFunds, which potently would fund the extension of the May Creek Trail, which would end at the south end of the subject parcel, In order for this trial to continue to the existing King County Trial system located north of the subject site, near VMAC, the City's Parks Department requested that the sidewalk in this area have enough width to accommodate a multi -use trial in addition to a traditional sidewalk. Hotel patrons and members of the public would be using this sidewalk, in addition, trail users would be utilizing this sidewalk to connect to the grater King County trial system. Based on the anticipated number of users in this location, 10 -feet would not be appropriate sidewalk width to accommodate anticipated pedestrian traffic. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Project Manager indicating a 12 foot sidewalk width and a 10 foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, Prior to construction permit approval. (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10- 12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller 5 — 6 foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of ` walkway or sight lines to building entries, Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Guideline: Through -block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.G4e) Guideline: Between buildings of up to and includingtwo stories in height, through -block connections should be at least 6 feet in width Guideline: Between buildings three stories in height or greater, through -block connections should be at least 12 feet in width Guideline: Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum 0.25 mile apart Guideline: Asan alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than 14 feet in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per 30 lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. Guideline. Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. E Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. = r 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Sta Comment: As proposed, canopies along the fasode fronting take Washington Boulevard exceed the minimum width standards although do not meet the minimum length standards. Canopies have been proposed to be provided for approximately 38.5 percent of the fapade or approximately SO liner feet. The 60 feet of the faFade where canopies are proposed is along the portion of the building that would be the least distance (smallest setback) from Lake Washington Boulevard. Although, the proposed hotel design provides modulation along this fDgade that brings many portions of the structure back from Lake Washington Boulevard where canopies would not be achieving the desired intend of overhead weather protection. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed 60 liner feet of canopy coverage. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. - -- Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building' s entrances. Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. 4f"k MEGuideline: € E' Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade -mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground- related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets jsee illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100,G0). N D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: M Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent. Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community - Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC _4-4070 Landscaping). n� Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton, Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment Shall he as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.113a), Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1,13b. ,dun. Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet.`�� Staff Comment: As proposed the shrubs meet the minimum height but the proposed rate of planning is less then one per 20 square feet of landscaped area, The applicant has proposed to use raingardens, within these areas ornamental shrubs are not proposed to be planted. The proposed raingardens reflect the applicant's desire to provide a development that minimizes its effects on the environment and/or is 'green". The raingardens are cokufated into the landscaped area and there ore reduce the ratio of shrubs to landscaped area, • as such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the ' m landscaped area within three years of installation. Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not -3 less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number of Minimum Required Landscape Area* Spaces 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas, (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height, 777 1 of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area, Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at ?€! 371 planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. (5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous, (6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided," that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. ' Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. v Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings, Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses LIU attention to preferred views. Guideline: Use of low maintenance, draught -resistant landscape material is encouraged, �Em t Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available.' E Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly s -, accessible spaces. Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall'- s provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area - UN shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's plays aces, Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13c). Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation '" m n� and common space requirement. Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3d) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included;-• Ai (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of- way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot -candies (average) on the ground; and Stoff Comment: See comment under G "Lighting" Below. Staff was unable to determine if the applicant complies with the minimum standards at this time. (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per GO square feet of plaza area or open space. Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection; RMC 4-3-100.H3e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc-) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian -oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space. Minimum Standard: The location of public open space shall he considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so "= they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Guideline: Developments located at street intersections corners on designated pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100-H3f). Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas, N E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: M Intent. To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting - Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale ofthe building and add, _ visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15a). Minimum Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following:, -' (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; (d) Roof line features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director Minimum Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15b): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be 40 feet. (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be 15 feet. (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet or not less than two-tenths multiplied by the height ofthe structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). Guideline: Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Guideline: Buildings should be urban in character. 9 B E.( 1 Guideline: Buildings greater than 160 feet in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk<<im>; " and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15c). 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character ofthe pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Srafi Comment: See sta comment Section A.2, Building Location and orientation" above. Minimum Standard. Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the gy following (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15d): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wa11.: Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along El i F the facade's ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent ofthe linear 271 �'� frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised oftransparent windows and/or doors. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: a Building facades must have clear windows with visibility {) g into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. (b) Display windows shall be designed forfrequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must erincipally contain clear glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. > Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15e): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used .to provide ground-level detail. _ r Staff Comment: The applicant is highly encouraged to provide any and/or all of the items listed above in order to ornament the ground level of the proposed structure. Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. E Ei 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent, To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. Minlmum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. = Minimum Standard- Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC' 4-4-095E, Roof-Top Equipment. Minimum Standard: Match color of roof-mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to ' minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Guideline: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance overtime; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on AN all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. E Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding. patterns, or textural changes. Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development, i'= fls Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, im : b and cast-in-place concrete. Guideline. Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap-tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highlytextured finishes 129 ?= or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. N M F. SIGNAGE: M Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Minimum Standard. Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. s Staff Comment: At this time the applicant has not submitted a detailed sign design as such, staff cannot determine - - compliance with this standard. At the time of sign permit approval staff will review for this design standard. Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100-13a): 1910 i. Pole signs; Fi ii. Roof signs; iii- Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back- lit logo signs less than ten (14) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. (see staff comment above) Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. (see staff comment above) Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be ; limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. (see staff comment above) Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. - (see staff comment above) Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. (see staff commentabove) Guideline: Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign.'Fri 7- " 7-7 `' 29 (see staff comment above) Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on g pedestrian -oriented streets. (see staff comment above) N P G. LIGHTING: M Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-475, Lighting,MR 92 99 >a Exterior On -Site. Staff Comment: Staff recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide o lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive Blore on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt rom provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project H 2 s off-site. 7 Staff Comment: See Condition above Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. Staff Comment_ See Condition above Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. Nancy Thompson From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 3:47 PM To: Nancy Thompson Cc: Stacy Tucker; Frank Lord Subject: FW: Hawk's Landing Project Nancy, Please see the e-mail below. This is a new individual who would like to be a party of record for the Hawk's Landing Project LUA09-060. if you could please add them to the Party of Record list so that they receive a copy of the decision. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-7314 From: lordf@comcast.net [mailto:lordf@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 03:45 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: lordf@comcast.net; Carrie@carrielord.com Subject: Re: Hawk's Landing Project Vanessa, Thank you for your fast response to our request. We would like to be a party of record to this project. The following is our information: Frank and Carrie Lord 4041 232nd Ave SE Sammamish, wa. 98075 425-941-6022 (Frank's cell) 425-941-6020 (carrie's cell) 425-392-4444 (home phone) Thanks again for your assistance. Frank ----- Original Message From: "Vanessa Dolbee" <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: "Frank Lord" < lordf@com cast. net> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 7:49:21 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: RE: Hawk's Landing Project Mr. Lord, Please seethe attached site plan for the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel, this should give you some idea of what the project would look like. At this time, the SEPA Environmental Review for the project was appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner, heard the SEPA appeal and the proposal for the Master Site Plan and Site Plan land use approval on August 25, 2009 in the form of a public hearing. At this time, no decision has been issued for either the SEPA appeal or the Master Site Plan or Site Plan. If you would like to become a party of record for this project please send a response e-mail with your full name, home address (where you get mail), and phone number; if you become a party of record you will receive copies of pertinent documents as they relate to this project, which include the decision by the Hearing Examiner. Although, it should be noted that the official comment period and public hearing are completed at this time. If you are interested in seeing elevation and/or other documents in relation to this project please feel free to come to the 6th floor at City Hall, and ask for me. Or you can make an official public records request through the City Clerks office, and request specific documents. Regards, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 95057 (425)430-7314 From: Frank Lord [mailto:lordf@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 06:34 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: lordf@comcast.net Subject: Hawk's Landing Project Hi Vanessa, My name is Frank Lord and my wife and I have just recently written a contract to buy Lot #1 at Barbee Mill. This Lot is the only one currently completed which directly faces the planned development of the "Seahawk Hotel" project. We have just recently learned of the project and were wonder what type of information is available re: the project i.e. preliminary plan layout, estimated time frames for construction and completion etc. Would it be best for us to visit your office or is information available which could be emailed to us? I have read the initial proposal from the City of Renton website. Any help or guidance you could offer would be much appreciated. Thank you, in advance, for your assistance. Denis Law Mayor August 18, 2009 Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98177 SUBJECT: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Dear Mr. Alpert: City of Alk Department of Community & Economic Development This letter is a reminder that the Hearing Examiner Public Hearing for the Hawk's Landing Hotel SEPA appeal and Master Site Plan and Site Plan has been scheduled for August 25, 2009. As you are aware, the original Public Hearing was schedule for July 21, 2009 where the City's Hearing Examiner opened the hearing and continued it to August 25, 2009 with the option to continue to August 27, 2009 if the hearing cannot be completed on the first scheduled date. Please find enclosed an updated copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner for your review. This report was updated to reflect clarifications made by the applicant to the City of Renton. This report is intended to replace the original Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner dated for the July 21, 2009 Hearing date. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Attn: Steve Van U - Port Quendall Company / Owner(s) Rich Wagner, Greg Fawcett, Larry Reymann / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov y O O m x C7 O O fs?;CC'>DN .� J W v a as L G cG n Cn �K4- w ca d.r'-w cc, It }r; F ""' d G7 ... c"i e� vdi Z o° M a'� c 0 �•'u y _� a y a, :, F o G .L � m c o v ~ ++� x C O `e Oy, m� eY 3 11Q,d $ c7 9 D O C T J G `n Q o cq4 F X �,�R� W 'sF n A GO C 4 J°a pV y °^ v� c n �m a.� �.� N a �d ao� G °1r1 n GJ A �Qo-w cxN U G V d� o ci -W m x 7 v c " w a c'12. c G _ v xk [CCW 73L�p�c��° Fyri�3a�i}u.DF.�-"•���� o:�Le yp��o�y°Yo_���.�oLn Y'iasc u cz C N 'v -0 o o � -� 2 m y U � ° m U a .0 r- c txo p ab G R .. D «.. 3 �F-j�pCc°'cFo�m�na dFao zw ❑c�`v�e�`�o�G.� �� on �ca«�-•uWti�rw Go,.� y �- LY c :a•� a yw.i= ami G.d F� c� W=WWAZa K.��.�;dr.,���od o co�y�y. F�i �>aav3D�y PCQ o v OC N N �xa��3��' �mfli u��iC� i o °w' ❑ a , c ` S o �o� >.ev� ss Qv cN moo° ounarvQ�xr�y CJ�v 0 3 --� VCid ova = L, NQS Li13Ur, E: m n.a. a �A No ++rel ~' lz� ly, 03 /`!l��3ti111r�S� ityof July 21, 2009 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Hawks Landing Mixed Use, LUA 09-060 ECF, SA--MASA-H Dear Mr. Examiner: As you are aware, the above -referenced matter was scheduled for a site plan review hearing on July 21, 2009. However, since a timely appeal of the SEPA determination was filed on Friday, July 17, 2009, the July 21, 2009 hearing will have to be continued. To that end, all the parties to this matter have conferred with each other and we are requesting that the hearing be continued to Tuesday, August 25, 2009. It is our understanding that Thursday, August 27, 2009 will also be reserved if the hearing cannot be concluded on August 25th The parties have also agreed upon the following briefing schedule: Appellant's Prehearing Brief Due: Friday, July 3.1, 2009 Applicant Hawk's Landing & City of Renton Response Due: Appellant's Reply Due: Monday, August 17, 2009 Friday, August 21, 2009 if there are any further issues or problems, please feel free to contact the parties. Thank you for your patience and understanding with this matter. APPLICANTS, Alpert International LLP by Jessica Clawson Jack McCullough McCullough Hill, PS CITY OF RENTON by: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney APPELLANT, Brad Nicholson by: Keith Scully Gendler & Mann '"iTY OF ftN`tlON JUL21 X109 RECE +CITY C.LFRK'S OFFIL', r; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING August 25, 2009 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, AUGUST 25, 2009 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner, PROJECT NAME: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use & Appeal Hearing PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review a 5 - story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. HEX Agenda 8-25-09.doc City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Community & Economic development HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Hearing Date: August 25, 2009 Project Name: Hawk's Landing Owner: Port Quendall Company Attn: Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Applicant/Contact: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 File Number: LUA09-050, FCF, SA -M, SA -H planner. Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Project Description: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a 5 - story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant_ The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The warehouse structures outside of the 200 -foot shoreline area are proposed to be removed_ The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 73 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. Project Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. North City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preiirnwury Report to the Nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUDI IC "FARING 0A TF: Juiy 21, 2008 Page 2 of 38 B. EXHIBITS The following exhibits are entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review documentation, correspondence from interested parties, and other items pertinent to this request. Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit 4: Hawk's Landing Master Site Plan Exhibit 5: Hawk's Landing Site Plan Exhibit 6: Site Dimension Plan Exhibit 7: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit S: Landscape Plan Exhibit 9: Site Utility Plan Exhibit 10: Grading Plan Exhibit 11: East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit 12: West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit 13: S. & E. Elevations (graphic) Exhibit 14: N & W Elevations (graphic) Exhibit 15: Hotel Garage Floor Plan Exhibit 16: First Floor Plan Exhibit 17: Second Floor Plan Exhibit 18: Third and Fourth Floor Plans Exhibit 19: Fifth Floor Plan Exhibit 20: Roof Plan Exhibit 21: Building Sections Exhibit 22: Demolition Plan C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Port Quendall Company 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Z. Zoning Designation: Commercial/Office/residential (COR) HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City cff Renton oepartmerit of Community & Economic Oevelolament Prehminory Report to the Nearing Exominer HAwx's LANDING LVA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC )4FARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 3 of 38 3. Comprehensive Plan Commercial/Office/Residential Land Use designation: 4. Existing Site Use: Metal warehouses/structures previously occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes 5. Neighborhood Characteristics North: 1-405 right-of-way East: 1-405 right-of-way South: May Creek (vacant property), zoned Residential S dwelling units per net acre (R-8) West: Barbee Mill and Quendall Terminals (vacant property), zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) 6. Access: Via Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations 7. Site Area: Total Site: 7.8 acres; Portion to be developed: 3.07 acres 8. Protect Data: Existing Building Area: 75,214 SF New Building Area: 122,000 SF D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Annexation N/A 1804 12/16/1959 Zoning N/A 5100 11/01/2004 Comprehensive Plan N/A 5100 11/01/2004 Street Vacation VAC -09-001 N/A Pending E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Water: The project is located in the City of Renton water service area. There is an existing 12 -inch Ductile Iron (DI) pipe on the site and an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of the south property line. Sewer: There is an existing 12 -inch sanitary sewer main on the site. Surface Water/Storm Water: There are some storm drainage facilities in Lake Washington Blvd. N. 2. Streets: There is currently a paved and improved public right-of-way along the frontage of the site. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department HEX_staff_rpt. _09-060_ Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Oeprir tmeot of Community & Economic Development Preliminory Report to the Nearing Fknminer HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2099 Paye 4 of 38 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC TITLE IV): 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-120.6: Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4030: Development Guidelines and Regulations — General Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards Section 4-4-095: Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards 5. Chapter 9 Permits - Specific Section 4-9-200: Site Development Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element 3. Economic Development Element H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for the development of a 60 - foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel on 3.07 acres. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N (Parcel #3224059049), the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The 3.07 acre hotel site is located on the northerly portion of the subject parcel. The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan focus on 3.07 acres of the subject parcel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site. The subject site is located within the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) land use designation and zoning designation in addition to being located within Urban Design District "C" overlay. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, the access ramps to 1-405 to the north and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. Currently Pan HEX staff_rpt._09-060_Revised8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Communfty & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Heoring Exnrnmer HAWH'S LANDMG LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PU60C HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 5 of 38 Abode Cedar Homes is no longer operating out of this location, resulting in vacant warehouse buildings on the subject site. There are a total of 12 structures on the subject site, including storage sheds and large warehouse buildings. The existing buildings on the subject site that are located north of the 200 -foot shoreline area are proposed to be removed from the site for recycling or disposal. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way for 1-405, to the south an undeveloped parcel that contains May Creek and at least two associated wetlands, and to the west is the partially completed Barbee Mill residential development, the site of the former Port Quendall Terminals, and the new Virginia Mason Athletic Center. The proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be 5 -stories in height with an underground garage. The first floor would contain the main lobby, meeting/banquet rooms, retail space, fitness center, spa, and restaurant area, the remaining four floors would be developed as 173 hotel rooms. The building has been designed to complement the architecture of the existing Barbee Mill development across Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant has proposed to use stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding, and metal roofs in addition, to Northwest style overhangs and trusses. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls- Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. The applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition to utilizing the 4,450 cubic yards of cut materials from the subject site, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project. As identified on the City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. In addition, just south of the site is May Creek, a Class 1 water, and two Category 2 wetlands. The drainage ditch that runs along the west property line immediately adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard has been identified by the applicants provided Wetland/Stream Study as a Class 5 non-regulated stream with an associated non-regulated wetland. Currently the site is developed with warehouses associated with Pan Abode Cedar Homes; as such, minimal vegetation exists on the subject site, of which approximately 85 percent is comprised of impervious surfaces. Although 32 significant trees are located on the subject site, all are proposed to be removed. The applicant has proposed to replace the removed trees with approximately 73 new trees. In addition to the proposed new trees, the provided landscape plan indicated that approximately 38,856 square feet of new landscaped area would be provided as a part of the hotel development. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Departmew of Community & Economic Development Pichirlmory Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: luly 22, 2008 Page 6 of 38 It should also be noted that the City of Renton received Capital Improvement Funds, in the amount of 1.7 million, during the 2009 Legislative Session. At this time, City staff is working to identify the specific items this money will be spent on. Once staff has made a determination, with appropriate cost estimates, this proposal would have to be approved by the City Council. Understanding that no decision is final at this point the following projects are proposed (that have a direct effect on the subject project) for the awarded Capital Improvement Funds: 1) a City water line extension on Lake Washington Boulevard; 2) Extension of May Creek Trail; and 3) Storm drainage system along Lake Washington Boulevard, to include pervious sidewalks along southern portion of the subject site. These sidewalks would be extended to May Creek. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.210, 1971 as amended), on October 16, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non - Significance, Mitigated for the project. The DNS -M included seven mitigation measures. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on July 3, 2009 and ends on July 17, 2009. No appeals have been filed for the SEPA determination as of today July 14, 2009. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October S, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Departmefit of Community & Economic Devefopment Prehimpury Report to the Heor nq cxomrner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBOC HFARING DATE: Ady 21, 2008 Fuge 7 of 38 6. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated existing 2011 LOS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. S. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construing permit approval. 9. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 10. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. Site Development Plan Review The purpose of site development plan review is to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Rerntor; Uepprtrrlent of Community & ECOnOMiC Development Preliminary Rpport to the Hearng Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-03-060, ECF, SA -A/?, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DA i F. July 21, 2008 Page 8 of 38 As per RMC 4-9-200_13.1_b, the COR zoning of the development site requires Master Plan review. The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. in addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. The Master Plan review may occur prior to or concurrent with Site Plan Approval. The purpose of the Site Plan review is to assess the detailed arrangement of project elements to ensure their compatibility with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan review is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. 6. GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR BOTH MASTER PLANS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW The following general review criteria are required to be met through the Master Plan and Site Plan review process, consistent with RMC 4-9-200E.1: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Purpose The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation is to provide opportunities for large-scale projects developed through the master plan and site plan process. COR sites are typically transitioning from industrial uses to more intensive, non- industrial land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on lake Washington (Quendall and Southport) and/or the Cedar River (Stoneway). Redevelopment of these sites provide the opportunity to remediate the effects of past industrial activities and, although still held as private property, may offer increased access to the public to shorelines within the City. Applicable objectives and policies of the Land Use Element include: Objective LU -CCC: Development at Comm ercialloffice/Residential designations should be cohesive, high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy LU -272. Uses in Commercial/Office/Residential designations should include mixed- use complexes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, recreational and cultural HEX_staff_rpt_d9-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community 9, Economic Development HA WX's LANDING PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Preliminory Report to the Hearing r xorn;ner LUA-09-060 ECF, SA -M, SA -H facilities, hotel and convention center type development, technology research and development facilities, and corporate headquarters. Page 9 of 38 ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy LU -273. Commercial uses such as retail and services should support the primary uses of the site and be architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met ii. Comprehensive Plan Community Design Element Applicable objectives and policies of the Community Design Element include: Policy CD -20. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians through master planning, building location, and design guidelines. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD -30. Non-residential development should have site plans that provide street access from a principal arterial, consolidate access points to existing streets, and have internal vehicular circulation that supports shared access. Curb cuts and internal access should not conflict with pedestrian circulation. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD -32. Structures at intersections should not be set back from the street and sidewalk so as to allow vehicular circulation or parking to be located between the sidewalk and the building in Commercial and Centers designations. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD -43. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and intensities over time. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met iii. Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Element Applicable Economic Development Objectives and Policies include: Policy ED -5. increase the diversity of employment opportunities within the City. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy ED -26. Achieve a mix of uses that improves the City's tax and employment base. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; The subject site is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR ). The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential Zone (COR) is to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master -planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high HEX_sta#f_rpt_09-060_Revi5ed 8-18-09 City of Refiton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Prelim rwry Report ea ,he Hears g Examrner HAWK'S LANDING LILA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, 5A -N PUBLIC HEARI,VG UR rt July 2I, 2008 Page 10 of 38 economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone. The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be designed accordingly. The following Development Standards apply to uses within the COR zone (RMC 4 -2- 120B) - a_ Lot Coverage—The maximum lot coverage by buildings in the COR zone is 65 percent of the total lot area or 75 percent if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. The hotel would have an underground parking garage although, surface parking is still provided as such, the maximum lot coverage for the subject project would be 65 percent. The total building footprint is proposed to be 29,336 square feet. This generates a total building coverage of 22 percent for the development site area (3.07 acres) and 8 percent for the entire site (7.80 acres) which is well below the maximum 65 percent building lot coverage permitted. b. Setbacks — Front, side, and rear setbacks are determined through site development plan review, with one exception; the minimum setback from freeway frontage is a 10 - foot landscaped setback. The applicant has proposed to set the hotel back 20 -feet from Lake Washington Boulevard N., 60 -feet from the north side property line, 418 -feet from the south property line and 129 -feet from the rear property line along 1-405_ In addition to the existing landscaping that borders 1-405 on the subject site, the applicant has proposed an additional landscape strip to border the surface parking lot that at a minimum would be 6 -feet wide, with areas up to 25 -feet in width. Staff recommends approval of the proposed setbacks for the Hawk's Landing Hotel. c. Maximum Building Height — The maximum building height in the COR zone is 10 stories and/or 125 feet. The hotel is proposed to be 5 -stories and 60 -feet high which is below the maximum permitted height limit in the COR zone. d. Special Development Standards — In addition to the subject site being located within a Urban Design District (which will be evaluated under section k later) the COR zone requires that the portions of the building which exceed 50 -feet in height shall include upper story setbacks of a minimum of 10 -feet from the preceding story and the building shall provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of 2 -feet at an interval of a minimum of 40 -feet on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project. The fifth story of the proposed hotel is setback from the preceding four stories for the majority of the building a distance of approximately 12 -feet. Although the fifth story of the hotel is modulated in such a manner that setbacks from the proceeding four stories very from zero feet to a maximum of 39.5 feet. Furthermore, the provided elevations indicate that the building facade would be modulated horizontally and vertically in excess of the minimum requirements by providing eaves, trusses, bumpouts, balconies and differentiated materials to provide visual interest. The proposed architectural design meets the intent of the special development standards and results in a quality project. Landscaping — In the COR zone, on-site landscaping is determined through site development plan review. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application. The provided plan indicates landscaping would be provided around the HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton DepArt»rent of Community & Economic Development Preilrwnc7ry Report to the Henrmy Fxarnwer HA WK'S LANDING LUA-09-060 ECF, SA -M, 5A -H PUOLiC HFARWC, BATF: 1u)y 21. 2008 Page I 1 of 38 perimeter of the parking area in widths from 6 -feet to 25 -feet. Landscaping would also be provided around the hotel and screening landscaping would be provided around the refuse and recycling area. In addition to traditional landscaping the applicant has proposed a landscape strip in the parking lot with swale plantings which are intended to not only provide a visual interest and soften the look of the parking lot this feature would provide stormwater drainage for the site. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed ornamental landscaping at the hotel entrance facing the surface parking lot that includes a Koi pond with a pedestrian bridge crossing. The plant schedule provided indicates that the following plants would be provided: Trees - red sunset maple, jacquemontli birch, weeping Alaskan cedar, Austrian black pine, 'rosy cloud' cherry, 'chanticleer' flowering pear, and Corinthian linden; Shrubs -'karl foerster' feather reed grass, 'munstead' lavender, Mexican feather grass, fraser's photinia, 'JPM' rhododendron, unique rhododendron, rainbow knockout shrub rose, snowmound spireae, dense spreading Japanese yew, marie's doublefile viburnum, and bright edge yucca; and six different ground cover plantings. The landscape plan only provides landscaping for the site development area of 3.07 acres, which includes landscaping along Lake Washington Boulevard N.; although an irrigation plan was not submitted with the application materials; as such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. The provided landscape plan proposes street trees planted at a spacing of 30 feet on center along Lake Washington Boulevard N. for the frontage of the development site (3.07 acres). Staff recommends approval of the provided landscape plan - The City's parking regulations have additional landscaping requirements for surface parking lots. For surface parking lots with between 100 or more parking spaces a minimum of 35 square feet of landscaping is required per parking space. Landscaped areas are required to be a minimum of 5 feet in width. Within the parking area a minimum of 1 tree shall be planted for every 6 parking spaces provided, shrubs shall be planted at a rate of 5 per 100 square feet of landscape area, ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide 90 percent coverage within the first 3 years of installation, and no more than 50 feet shall separate a parking space from a landscape area. Based on the proposal for 124 surface parking stalls a minimum of 4,340 square feet (124 spaces x 35 square feet = 4,340 square feet) of landscaping is required within the surface parking lot, with a total of 21 trees. The submitted landscape plan identifies 5,687 square feet of landscaping within the parking lot with a total of 21 trees (red sunset maple, chanticleer flowering pear, and Austrian black pine) and 259 shrubs. The landscape plan complies with the minimum requirements. f. Parking — The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls be provided based on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses or the number of residential units. The following ratios would be applicable to the site: HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revfsed 8-18-09 City of Rf otoo Department of Community & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING AUBtiC NEARING DATE: )uiy 21, 2098 Prelirninary Report to the Nearing Exominer tUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Page 12 of 38 Use Square Footage Ratio Required .Spaces of Use or # —of Units Hotel 173 room 1/ guest room 187 max 21 employees plus 2 for every 175 min max 3 employees 3 employees min Restaurant 4,500 SF 1 space / 100 SF 45 742 SF 4 spaces / 1000 3 Retail Sales SF Based on these use requirements, 235 parking spaces would be required to meet code with providing spaces for the maximum number of employees of the hotel and 223 parking spaces would be required for the minimum number of employees. The applicant proposes to provide 231 spaces, which is just under the code requirement for the maximum employee proposal, as such staff recommends approval of 231 parking spaces for the subject project. Of the total 231 parking stalls proposed, 124 would be located within a surface parking lot and the remaining 107 would be located within the underground parking garage. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. For parking lots with 201— 300 parking spaces 7 ADA stall would be required per RMC 4-4-080.F.g the proposal for 6 ADA stalls does not comply with the minimum requirements as such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. All code required spaces must comply with the dimensional requirements of the parking regulations. For surface standard stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 20 feet long and a minimum of 9 feet wide, although RMC 4-4-080.F.8.e permits the reduction of parking stall length from 20 feet to 18 feet if there is sufficient area to safely allow the overhang of a vehicle. The provided parking lot landscaped areas are 9 -feet wide providing room for the overhang of parked vehicles, as such the applicant has proposed to provided 18 feet long by 9 feet wide surface parking spaces. Compact stalls are permitted in surface parking lots as long as they do not exceed 30 percent of the total parking spaces. The applicant has not proposed to provide any compact parking stalls within the surface parking lot. ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. The proposed ADA accessible stalls comply with the minimum dimensional standards. For structured standard stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 15 feet long and 8 feet and 4 inches wide and for compact stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 7 feet 6 HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Devefopment Prehrn 10(y Report to the Heorinq Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUEOC NEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 13 of 38 inches wide and 12 feet long. Compact parking stalls shall not exceed 50 percent of the structured parking. An aisle width of 24 feet is required for 90 degree parking stalls. All garage stalls meet the minimum dimensional standards for standard and compact stalls. The applicant has proposed 8 of the 107 garage parking stalls to be compact, which is less then 50 percent of the total number of stalls, and is therefore compliant with compact parking stall standards. The drive aisle for the surface lot is proposed to be 25 feet wide and the drive aisle for the parking garage is proposed to be 24 feet wide, which is compliant with the minimum dimensional standards for parking lot drive aisles. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line and the main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. There is two-way circulation throughout the project site. The northerly access point slopes down to the proposed surface parking garage. RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b indicates that the maximum slope for driveways shall not exceed 15 percent slope. The applicant did not submit with their land use application a driveway grade cross section, as such staff could not determine if either proposed access driveways were compliant with maximum driveway grades. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. g. Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas - The location and pick up of the service elements shall be approved by Waste Management. The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the hotel would be located outside of the southeast corner of the building, immediately south of the entrance to the underground parking garage. The applicants submitted screening details with the application materials, pursuant the these details the proposed refuse and recyclable deposit area would be screened on three sides by an 8 -foot high stone veneer and hardie lap siding fence and screened on the east site, where access to the receptacles is gained, with a 6 -foot high corrugated metal fence in steel frames. The RMC does not provide specific standards for refuse and recycling for hotel developments, as such staff has evaluated the required square footage under the office requirements, which are as follows. In office developments, a minimum of two square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of four square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of 100 square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas. For recyclables, 244 square feet would be required and for refuse 488 square feet would be required, which results in a total area of 732 square feet. The applicant has proposed to provide approximately 379.52 square feet of refuse and recyclable area, which is less then required based on the office requirements. Furthermore, discussion with the applicant has indicated that the refuse area would contain a trash compactor, which would reduce the area required for refuse. Staff recommends approval of the reduced HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Rewon Deportment of Community & Economic DeveloprneO HA WK'S LANDING PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Preiimit�ary Report to the Hearinq Examiner LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Page 14 of 313 square footage of refuse and recyclable area because the proposed use is not an office and would potentially produce less waste then an office development. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; The proposal would improve the character of the site, because it would replace the previously industrial site with a new hotel and restaurant. The new development would provide new access and street frontage improvements within the area that currently do not exist. In addition, landscaping would be provided along the street front and surrounding the new parking area and hotel. The landscaping provided would screen the surface parking area from surrounding properties; as proposed this landscape area would be bermed and at a minimum 6 -feet in width and wider in places. The proposed building would be 5 -stories in height with an underground parking garage. The scale of this structure is larger then across the street in Barbee Mill development but much smaller then the Virginia Mason Athletic Center (VMAC). The proposed scale provides a much-needed transition from the existing residential to 1-405 and the VMAC. Furthermore, the new hotel use would be more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood then the existing industrial site; as such, impacts to surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. It should also be noted that during training camp for the Seahawks this hotel is anticipated to be utilized by the athletes and fans, for a place to stay, while they view the Seahawks Training Camp. The Seahawks practice facility, Virginia Mason Athletic Center, is located just northwest of this site. As such, this development would be an asset to this particular property. There are potential short-term impacts to adjacent businesses and nearby residents (e.g_, noise), which would result from the construction of the project. These impacts will be mitigated by the applicant's construction mitigation plan, which limits work and haul hours to those permitted by City Code. d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; The scale, height and bulk of the proposed building are appropriate for the site and would be architecturally compatible with surrounding properties. The building would be located in the northwest portion of the project site with surface parking area located at the rear of the site, screened from Lake Washington Boulevard by landscaping and the building. Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site (3.07 acres) and within the surface parking lot. When the remainder of the parcel is developed, at an unknown time in the future, staff would determine concurrence of the proposed new building(s)'s design, scale, height and bulk with the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel and if necessary would propose mitigation and/or conditions to verify compatibility. The scale and bulk of the building is also reduced through the use of different materials on the building facades and building articulation and modulation. Multiple materials HEX _staff _rpt _09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Rernton Department of Community & Economic Development Prviirwnwy Report to the Hewing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H A081lC HFARlNG DATE: 1u!y 21, 2008 Page 15 of 38 are proposed including, stone veneer, hardie shingles, trespa vertical siding, and hardie lap siding. Furthermore, architectural details are proposed including canopies, planters, detailed windows and doors, and lighting that would enhance the buildings visual appeal. At this time, the future hotel would be located in the northern corner of a larger 7.8 - acre parcel. Currently this parcel has minimal landscaping, and has access to a significant amount of light and air. Shadows created from the new development would not have adverse impacts on the subject site and/or surrounding properties. e. Conservation of area wide property values; The proposal is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. The development of the site provides improvements to infrastructure, landscaping and lighting and additional employment opportunities Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line_ Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. This access in important for fire safety/access to the subject site, as such staff recommends as a condition of approval that the street vocation be completed prior to building final occupancy. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls_ Internal pedestrian connections to the existing public sidewalk network are proposed in order to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout the site and to other abutting sites. The proposed development is expected to maintain safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle circulation on the site. g. Provision of adequate light and air; The single building would not have a negative impact on site light or air circulation. h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. A Construction Mitigation Plan that would provide measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, was provided with the project submittal. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. There would be minimal noise impacts from increased traffic although, HEx_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Rerntor; Uepurtrnerit of C.ommurrlty & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the ilenng txaminer HAWICSLANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUAUC HEAfMG DATE: July 21, 2068 Page 16 &,98 these noise impacts would be virtually unnoticeable because of the proximity of 1-405 immediately adjacent to the site. i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; Fire and Police Department staff have indicated that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by the Environmental Review Committee, the applicant will be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee prior to the issuance of building permits. The site is served by the City of Renton for all utilities. There is an existing 12 -inch DI pipe on the subject site and an existing 12 -inch waterline about 620 feet south of the property line. In addition, there is an existing 12 -inch sanitary sewer main on the subject site. The City is looking at utilizing some of the Capital Funds awarded to the City in the 2009 Legislative Session to extend the 12 -inch water line closer then 620 feet from the subject sites' south property line. At this time, the allocation of these funds has not been approved by City Council and therefore, this improvement may or may not be completed by these funds. j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight; The proposal would result in redevelopment of a former industrial site into a four star hotel with conference faculties and a restaurant. It would therefore contribute to the well-being of the City in general and the neighborhood in particular. k. Review of Compliance to District C Design Guidelines; The subject property is located within Design District 'C'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. Two categories have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. The following are the categories for compliance: M= Met i NM= Not Met PM= Partially Met l NA= Not Applicable A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. HEx_staff_rpt_C9-o60_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Prelimoury Report to the Neonoy fxammner HAWKSLANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, $A -M, SA -I-1 PUi?LK: HEARING DATE: 10y 71, 2008 Page 17 cf 38 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in ❑ addition to public arterials_ Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized ❑ circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity_ Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall ❑ ❑ T� 0 feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-10DE7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian - oriented Streets is prohibited Minimum Standard: Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall EIEI El N contain pedestrian -oriented uses. Minimum Standard: Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent _ ❑ to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian -oriented fagade Staff Comment: The majority of the facade facing Lake Washington Boulevard would be incompliance with this minimum standard with the exception of south half of this facade on the ground floor. Approximately 62 feet of the southern side of the fagade is not designed to meet this standard. This 62 feet is designed with stone veneer and vertical siding_ As such, staff recommends a condition of HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18 09 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Prdimrrjory Report to the Heorwg Examiner HAWK'SLANDING tUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H P!ALIC HFARINC, DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 18 of 3a approval that the applicant redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian - oriented fagade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development for review and approval by the project manager prior to building permit approval. Minimum Standard: Buildings containing street -level residential uses and ❑ ❑ ❑ single -purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7b) Minimum Standard: If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades ❑ 11 El they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). Guideline: Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued ❑ availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be ❑ ❑ El 0 raised above street level for residents' privacy. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a ❑ ❑ continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Minimum Standard: Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have F7F ❑ weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. Minimum Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows E ❑El El should be oriented to a street or pedestrian -oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. Guideline: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide ❑ ❑ 17 transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. HEx_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Commurnity & Economic Development Prelirror;ory Report to the rrenring Lxamwer HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING 0A 11: luly 21, 2008 Page 13 of 38 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high- volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to ®❑ ❑ minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100E7e). Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be ®❑ E❑ enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclabies Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, ❑,❑ ® ❑ recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self - dosing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7f). Staff Comment: The proposed enclosure for the garbage and recycling collection area includes screening on all sides with the exception of a roof. The applicant has indicated that if a roof was provided then the dumpsters would have to be pushed or maneuvered out of the enclosure for collection because the collection trucks need to lift the dumpster to empty it into the truck. in order for the dumpsters to be directly lifted from the enclosure the exemption of the roof would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.LEJ ❑ 1:11:1 Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or171 F]❑ pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, Shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental Z ❑ ❑ ❑ metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked❑ with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g). Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for ® OF pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7h). Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more ® ❑ 0 El of the following: a. Public art; b. Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment; d. Open space/plaza; HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Oepartrrrent of Community & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING PUBDU HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 e. Identifying building form; Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; Preliminary Report to lkw Hearirig Exarniner LINA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); h_ Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification commercial signs are not allowed). B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: On Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking. No more than 50 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off- street parking and vehicular access. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) On -street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. Page 20 of 38 Minimum Standard: All parking lots located between a building and street or Ibl LJ r L i visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. Minimum Standard: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the [] surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection F5a of this Section). Staff Comment: The proposed surface parking lot does not meet the minimum requirement of 1,500 feet of perimeter area. In addition, preliminary design and discussion with the applicant indicated that this proposed surface parking lot would remain with full build out of the subject site. Cake Washington HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revfsed 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -N Page 27 of 38 Boulevard is the only access to the subject site, which results in the requirement to provide internal vehicular circulation for the subject parcel. In order for there to be sufficient internal circulation at a future date, this surface parking lot would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of the surface parking lot as proposed. Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. ❑ ❑ Guideline: If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a ❑ ❑ ❑ building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building fagade. Guideline: When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, ®❑ L1 ❑ parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting [] [] properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5b). Staff Comment: See section G. "Lighting" below, Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their Z ❑ El El visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, ❑ ❑ connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private 1:10 _ ❑ local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping ❑ to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian - Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses ❑ along street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5c). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. ❑ Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not ❑ featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at least 6 feet from HEX_ staff_ rpt_ 09-060 Revised 8-18-09 Laity of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Prehmowy Reporr to rhe Nearing Fxominer HAWKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF 5A -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE, July 21, 2068 Page 22 of , 8 the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can ❑ ❑ successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human ❑ [] scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or f mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1`5d). Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, ❑ ❑ ❑® not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. 1:11:1 Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building ❑ should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through El ❑ any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from ❑ ❑ ❑ the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings 0 ❑ 0 ❑ or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. Minimum Standard: Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian- ❑ ❑ ❑ oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular ❑ 1E1 1E1 HEX_staff rpt_09-060REMsed 5-18-09 City Of Renton Oepurtment of( ommonity & Eronomic Deveiopment Prehirmury Report to tree I luu iri y Exnro wer HAWK'SLAND)NG LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBNC HEARING DATF: July 21, 2008 Page 23 of 38 access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. M N P N C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: M M Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots,- and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. I. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private ®❑ ❑ streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Minimum Standard., Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be ® ❑ provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian ® ❑ circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b). Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. OR Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c). Staff Comment: The provided plan sets indicate that portions of the pedestrian pathways within the parking lots would be different material or texture from the adjacent paving materials, although there are some portions that appear to be asphalt with striping. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a new site plant that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail HEx_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & 1 conornic Development Prefiminury Report to the Hearing Examiner HAwx's LANDING tUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATf, July 21, 20ON Page 24 of 38 buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). j Staff Comment: The proposed sidewalk width is 10 feet and the proposed landscape strip is 9 -feet in width. As mentioned above in the project narrative, the City has received Capital Improvement Funds, which potently I would fund the extension of the May Creek Trail, which would end at the south end of the subject parcel. In order for this trial to continue to the existing King County Trial system located north of the subject site, near VMAC, the City's Parks Department requested that the sidewalk in this area j have enough width to accommodate a multi -use trial in addition to a traditional sidewalk. Hotel patrons and members of the public would be using this sidewalk, in addition, trail users would be utilizing this sidewalk to connect to the grater King County trial system. Based on the anticipated number of users in this location, 10 feet would not be appropriate sidewalk width to accommodate anticipated pedestrian traffic. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Project Manager indicating a 12 foot sidewalk width and a 10 foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, Prior to construction permit approval. _ (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree 1:11:1 ❑ coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. _........ ® — - .. ..... (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of ... ❑ __ 1:11:1 ........ sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10- 12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller 5 - 6 foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. ®❑ ❑ Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather ® ❑ ❑ ❑ walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Guideline: Through -block connections should be made between buildings, ❑ between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4e) Guideline: Between buildings of up to and including two stories in height, ❑ through -block connections should be at least 6 feet in width Guideline: Between buildings three stories in height or greater, through -block ❑ connections_ should be at least 12 feet in width Guideline: Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 Cityof Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preiiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'SLANDING LUA-09-050, ECF, SA -M, 5A -N PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 25 of 3t3 maximum 0.25 mile apart Guideline: As an alternative to some of the required street trees, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than 14 feet in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per 30 lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural ❑ features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. Guideline: Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between ❑ uses can be established. Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be ❑ allowed when appropriate to the situation. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the ❑ form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Staff Comment: As proposed, canopies along the fa�ode fronting Lake Washington Boulevard exceed the minimum width standards although do not meet the minimum length standards. Canopies have been proposed to be provided far approximately 38.5 percent of the fa�ode or approximately 60 liner feet. The 60 feet of the facade where canopies are proposed is along the portion of the building thot would be the least distance (smallest setback) from Lake Washington Boulevard. Although, the proposed hotel design provides modulation along this fagade that brings many portions of the structure back from Lake Washington Boulevard where canopies would not be achieving the desired intend of overhead weather protection. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed 60 liner feet of canopy coverage. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of Z I❑ durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block `❑ pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other ❑ street furniture should be provided. Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, 0 LEI ❑ and public art should be provided. Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade- ❑ mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and HEX_staff_rpt .09 -060 -Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Prehmmury Report to the Hearing Exominer HAWK'SLANDJNG LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Mage 26 of 38 at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100-G4f). D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: M N M R M N Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, ❑ '❑ Landscaping). Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the ❑ ❑ ,❑ curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees ❑ shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the [] ❑ design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13b. Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of ❑D El landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. Staff Comment: As proposed the shrubs meet the minimum height but the proposed rate of planning is less then one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. The applicant has proposed to use raingardens, within these areas ornamental HEX staff rpt.,09-060—Revised8-18-09 City of Rer*)n Deportment of Community & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING PUBLIC HEARING GATE: July 21, 2008 Prchminuty Recur t to the Hexmg Lxnnuner LVA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Page 27 of 38 shrubs are not proposed to be planted. The proposed raingordens reflect the applicant's desire to provide a development that minimizes its effects on the environment and/or is "green". The roingardens are calculated into the landscaped area and therefore reduce the ratio of shrubs to landscaped area; as such, staff_ recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to �® ❑ ❑ provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance ❑ ❑ device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: ® ❑ Total Number Minimum Required Landscape Area* of Spaces 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking ®❑ �❑ ❑ lot landscape areas. (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree ❑ ❑ ❑ species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. ❑ ❑ Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. (5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. ® ❑ (6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage ® ❑ within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. ❑ _ (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. ® Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that �® plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. 171 Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in 1❑ all landscape areas. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Ecornorrxc Development Pretimmory Report to rhe Nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING tUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PJ80C HEARING DATE: July 22, 2008 Page ?1} of 313 Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. Guideline. Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is encouraged. Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, HEx staff rpt 09-060_ Revised 848-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Devefoprnent Preliminary Report to the Heoriny Exorniner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 29 of 38 required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects ❑ ❑ 1-1 IFNI required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3c). Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open ❑ ❑ space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. 1:11:11:1 Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement_ Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square ❑ El 10 feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.H3d) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space ®❑ El E❑ Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on the ground; and Staff Comment: See comment under G "Lighting" Below. Staff was unable to determine if the applicant complies with the minimum standards at this time. (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian - LEI oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security —such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. HE X_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Devefopment HA WK'S LANDING PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Preliminory Report Co the Hearing Examiner LVA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Page 30 of 38 Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented ® ❑ ❑ ❑ space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc_) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment, Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as ❑ pedestrian -oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian - oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space. Minimum Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in FID El D relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached ❑ 0 residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Guideline: Developments located at street intersections corners on designated ❑ El El pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3f). Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of 1`71 ❑ ❑ surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's ❑ play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. IM N P N E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: M M Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. _ Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include measures to reduce the ® ❑ El F apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see HEX_stafF_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Df'Portmcnt of Community & Economic Development Preh'Tw?ory Reporr to the Heoru, , Exornmer HAWK'S LANDING tUA-09.060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HFARfNG DATE. July 21, 20OR Page 39 of 38 illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15a). Minimum Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies, - (d) Roof line features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director Minimum Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15b): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be 40 feet. (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be 15 feet. (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet or not less than two-tenths multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). Guideline: Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Guideline: Buildings should be urban in character. Guideline: Buildings greater than 160 feet in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.15c). 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Minimum Standard- Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See staff comment Section A.2. "Building Location and Orientation" above. Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection HEX_staff rpt_09-060 Revised 8-18-09 City of Rentor Deportment of Community & Economic Development Prufirrwicry Report to the Heuriny ExorrwTi HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEADING DATE July 2I, 2008 Page 32 of 38 RMC 4-3-100-15d): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other Special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Minimum Standard- Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. ❑ ❑ Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, E ❑ ❑ �E] trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall El 1:11:1 have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of❑ El El the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, E I ❑ El ZZ rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear ❑ ❑ ❑ glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are ® ❑ ❑ ❑ prohibited. Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by ® ❑ ❑ ❑ incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15e): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revlsed 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the hiearino Examiner HAWK'S LANOING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Juiy 21.200,S Page 33 of 36 (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, ® ❑ grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail. Staff Comment: The applicant is highly encouraged to provide any and/or oil of the items listed above in order to ornament the ground level of the proposed structure. Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. 3. Building Roof lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements ❑ ❑ to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. i Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so ® ❑ ❑ El that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural MEI 0 F-1 character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Guideline: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the ® ❑ building 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, ®❑ 0 parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an ® ❑ attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Minimum Standard. Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably ® ❑ maintained. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, ® ❑ brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes, HEx_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Developmernt Prciirmoo y Heporr to the Heoruiq Exominer HAWK'SLANLNNG LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUeDC HFARlNG DA TE: July 22, 2008 Page 34 of 38 Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast -in-place concrete. Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4`) above. N F. SIGNAGE: M M Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. Staff Comment: At this time the applicant has not submitted a detailed sign design as such, staff cannot determine compliance with this standard. At the time of sign permit approval staff will review for this design standard. Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.J3a). i. Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back- lit. (see staff comment above Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. (see staff comment above) Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or HEx_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Welrrninory Reporr to the Heoorq Fxominer HAWH 5 LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 35 of 38 other decorative materials as approved by the Director. (see staff comment above) j Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger ❑ i❑ ❑ ❑ development. (see staff comment above) ❑:❑ ❑'® Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. (see staff comment above) Guideline: Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type ❑ ❑ �LJ of freestanding sign. (see staff comment above) Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they ❑❑ are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets. (see staff comment above) G. LIGHTING: N M M P M N Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting ❑ i❑ I® ❑ regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Staff Comment: Staff recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety i without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but E1:] ❑ shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment: See Condition above Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety ❑ ❑ ❑ and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. Staff Comment: See Condition above Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, ❑ ❑ ❑ public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment ❑ ❑f �❑ may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Corttmunity & Economic Development Prelirrimary Report to the Heanng Examiner HAWK'SLANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N PUBLIC H&!RING DATE: July 21, 2005 Wage 36 of 38 7. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COR ZONES: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable. Not applicable, there was no Planned Action Ordinance for the subject property. b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial -Office - Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed development would result in the construction of a 122,000 square foot hotel with a 4,500 square foot restaurant, 742 square feet of retail space, 716 square foot fitness center, and 2,152 square foot spa. As proposed, each of these uses would be affiliated with the Hawk's Landing Hotel. In addition, the placement of the hotel in the northwest corner of the site provides room for future development on the remainder of the 7.8 acres. At this time, further development of the site is unknown and under existing market conditions, it is difficult to anticipate when future development may happen on the remainder of the subject site. Although, based on preliminary review of access, utilities, site design the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would not preclude future development that would create a compatible mix of uses; as such, the proposal meets the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project would implement the Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Design policy statements as mentioned above (section 6.a.). The project would result in the creation of a four-star hotel and restaurant, resulting in the transformation of an industrial piece of property into a development that provides quality and value to the neighborhood. c. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems. The proposed project would provide public open space at the hotel entrances. As designed the applicant has proposed to raise the grade of the site so that the main entrance along Lake Washington Boulevard is at street level, this provides the opportunity for a public plaza along the street frontage. In addition to the plaza area, the applicant would be required to provide 12 -foot wide sidewalks separated from the street by a 10 -foot landscape strip. At the internal hotel entrance, the applicant has proposed to provide public plaza space that includes a Koi pond that is spanned by a pedestrian bridge. Private open space includes two internal courtyards; one off the spa and the other off the conference facilities looking over Quendall Terminals and Lake Washington. In addition, an outdoor patio would be provided for the restaurant. The proposed project incorporates public and private open space that is appropriate for the occupants and users of the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel. d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-1809 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Devpiopment Preliminary Report to the Hearmg Lxarnmer HAWK'SLANDING LUA-03-060, ECF, SA -N1, SA -H PUBLIC NLARM, PATE: July 21, 1008 Page 37 of 38 Views to the Lake Washington would be available from various points on the property and from hotel rooms located on the west side of the hotel. e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; The subject site does not contain shoreline area and therefore does not provide access to water or a shoreline area. f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items. The site plan provides focal points through the use of prominent architectural features, including but not limited to canopies, modulations and variation, distinctive entrances, large open cornices supported by angled beams etc... Furthermore, the hotel's distinctive architecture would provide a much-needed gateway to the City from the 1- 405 exit just north of the site. In addition to the significant architecture, the applicant has proposed monument signage at the site entrance. g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned. The site is accessed by Lake Washington Boulevard, which is the only existing access to the site. The proposed access locations allows for the remainder of the site to be developed at a future date. h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. Currently, public transit service to the subject site along Lake Washington Boulevard is not provided. Despite the lack of Metro service the applicant has encouraged Metro to include this area as a site for a future bus rout and stop by providing the area for a bus shelter and the right-of-way for a bus pull out on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. Furthermore, they have provided five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), which further encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation. Pursuant to the provided site plan, the sidewalks along Lake Washington Boulevard would be 10 -feet wide and crosswalks would be provided from the west side of the street to the east side to provide a connection to the Seahawk's Training Facility and the future development of Quendall Terminals. In addition to these pedestrian connections, the applicant has proposed pedestrian connections from the hotel entrance throughout the parking lot by means of pedestrian paths and to the remainder of the vacant 7.8 -acre site where future development may occur_ HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Prelirxnary l;epor to the Heonny exurmaer HAWK'S LANDING LVA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEA RING OA TE: lufy 21, 2008 Page 38 of 38 H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Hawk's Landing Hotel, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H subject to the following conditions: A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, and be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 4. The street vacation, file # VAC -09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy - 5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a new site plant that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. 7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager indicating 12 -foot sidewalk widths and a 10 -foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, prior to construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manger for review and approval at the time of building permit review. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approvals (SA -H, SA -M): to RMC section 4-7-080.M. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 Five (5) years from the final approval date. An extension may be requested pursuant AN ��ti�\;�_, ice.. �: ` „or,➢. a � 1 � � e ,�`dv' �—�������y ry � � �— - � �! •� I'�;i`'____._ ."t Ito. 4., 1 -.�k� -. 44 I Al W - r - i l Owl q 1 F o •f16 � l i I IE r. { ���• �a � s✓, ��� Q i Fml \ ,I sy ' 1A,I TJ Z _ ' 0 pip l ^T 7a t M 1 b 4 My Ix 1K INE ORRMNA a ug9 ° 3 -s��a$i� 44 p �? i�.o M , 49, 1 9 Poo�� 5 0 0 Y. �r 3 1 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 445 z n� INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405 z > �!i POS _ BURLINI-ON N TbR7HERWRAILRQAI - r II I"L -ZAn T cz Lcr.. . 2 ; CIO NJ Z, S ►1 5-1 z Lnm Ix . Vi z Q 0 z A - � s r 5-1 IW �j k� r 0 ■ � z � WidelFg' a 10 d4 $� IN _ =BN Q� yQy2 �+vNe+ 22p@ ee Fy F Ff FF Fy F�Fx 0 0 F Pq4 ¢ 4 E �F N ,9 �F Ad m x 2 w co w --I h+ �A gym. D O == Al. 6 i ' � F A �A gym. D O == Al. 6 i ' � F df .M:9E 479 Bpi moi. K rmu R � I fEd: [dJ fhh --— r " "�•� n LY ppb F Eif F{ 5Ihh� � V I I --— r " "�•� n m )C H 03 N w 0 a ONO I .. Un el in who OR. �=-Wwo MON. *m r c r *m y i ? ? a y aZ Z LA • , � � �� I I I ! I I I € , � m x H 03 0o sly Z +2 �IIIIEII ''M 0 1 I c#. a^°ml K' .. .,-.. .. _4 .. — .-- xT BFlRW1 UTON 1L NORTHERN RAILROAD dae � ' . w-- '. • -.-� r i —�- �_ -'..o. amara.-a?�_,`z?"r _ �s� Zj Cb rL h. L l' n i 9 i "6a a , �g F � t 1 Fl HokCu sersacKj ` tc z 7 A g jig U 3 5kplipE AeiA�s„ed`�g�p= N.5 kg`l{i''li u �p ��9iE t'Fa j a;av+€� a��S����s s= R7� # § e,��g p? s5jaAFp p �9 4” E p• � � e i � � ii��'� �` Cly of �-ILL July 20, 2009 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Hawks Landing Mixed Use, LUA_09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Dear Mr. Examiner: As you are aware, the above -referenced matter was scheduled for a site plan hearing on July 21, 2009. However, since a timely appeal of the SEPA determination was filed on Friday, July 17, 2009, the July 21, 2009 hearing will have to be continued. To that end, all the parties to this matter have conferred with each other and we are requesting that the hearing be continued to Tuesday, August 25, 2009. It is our understanding that Thursday, August 27, 2009 will also be reserved if the hearing cannot be concluded on August 25th The parties have also agreed upon the following briefing schedule: Appellant's Prehearing Brief Due: Friday, July 31, 2009 Applicant Hawk's Landing & City of Renton Response Due: Appellant's Reply Due Monday, August 17, 2009 Friday, August 21, 2009 If there are any further issues or problems, please feel free to contact the parties. Thank you for your patience and understanding with this matter. APPLICANTS, Alpert International LLP by: Jessica Clawson Jack McCullough McCullough Hill, PS CITY OF RENTON by: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney APPELLANT, Brad Nicholson by Keith Scully Gendler & Mann cc: Alex Pietsch, Chip Vincent, Suzanne Dale Estey, Jennifer Henning, Vanessa Dolbee L Kq r Gj __t vflMhTI,S+Srrrrr Q �/ I77 b X % cn Ic �NGTON``��.=~ 'J A CD `< (7 CIQ r s C H qq E's F3 ivy CD Z5 '0 � � :13 N O fD AS UQ ru m ri cr u,o hir*co��p �CDC`� ►D O c co a`o x � .1 o�,'�7 "r 2 c CD C A.u' n� � cr C z SCI. C.., 'DC7. •� fD uad"CDCD,►tiu' �'# �Z qQ CD OUQ P v (IQ CD rj fD 'p n cm 'Q rt T� sn 0 ss A.'oa �' nr?s�A io E -r p o m o cnSc c 27 G ro ° m rc a�� p n a .f° 90 c a } —sv Dcr" V.`C ao z C rc ry m n L, C n 7 C G. [7 .@y 4 7 G "*. 7 ^Z b O A R G? 7y •b Cli ... c ii r'l7 c S O f° O to O G _. — C 7 aUO (c rn a n va O N C7 n= c °,x a p x o°° �.� o;, R@ p Q•o 4 Cn^ o w o r a�� 5 R,w ti� w m yCpaziZ o ?� �.�o�.+�.r�� _ nxo Cb p nm o ee o n m m OOCoz�C 00p m aLA5~n-• ° ° -r ��x �a asp`°aCDv �� ` �y� °° Dec^' ¢ c°°o n 8q $ M n 7� a f9. cam_ roc bis �c° wage ° e ry 2ro v C�z7�Z 7 3o port a:€ n'w�. F '�C���^? :ro c oCL Lna° sa y•?w =° c� s¢�a� o"� V c a k o F a x 00 q a m G Z Z O a ��. �'c f .� a{' .� m o c `� a ar]a':•= U� 1zo y p r%x ° a Baa c�T� m S a �y:�p�7,- D m a Hca �g s R7e n a c ryRo az �° c a�. �T c eco o r •`; c'?G CD a ,-,o r�� 0 Wn r.-ep:� c• m8 R sa4 a.� s .n 7m{ o G a a i CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 15th day of July, 2009, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Spencer Alpert Contact Port Quendall Company - Attn: Steve Van Til Owner Greg Fawcett POR Rich Wagner POR (Signature of Sender}: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) L SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the�r''r��trf purposes mentioned in the instrument.,-�,..• Dated:? lisk> Notary Public in and fort tate of Wash gtor� i I l Notary (Print): rv,�.e_r .,nn A ry cl 11 �?�1,g��;�=� My appointment expires: ������ ►r�rF Project Name: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Project Number: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Denis Law Cit � of; L of ri Mayor � ... � _ r � _ r r MEMO Department of Community & Economic Development July 15, 2009 Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLLP 10218 Richwood Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98177 SUBJECT: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Dear Mr. Alpert: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period will end July 17, 2009 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated for the above - referenced project. If no appeals are filed on the ERC determination, the decision will be final. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and Decision dated June 29, 2009. If the ERC determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of the Hearing Examiner public hearing scheduled on July 21, 2009, where Site Plan Conditions may also be issued. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure CC! Attn: Steve Van Til - Port Quendall Company / Owner(s) Rich Wagner, Greg Fawcett / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way + Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY a c�ty�F AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT O ;, HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING July 21, 2009 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, JULY 21, 2009 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Veldyke II Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-058, SHPL-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Short Plat approval for a seven -lot subdivision on a 1.57 -acre site. Hearing Examiner approval was originally granted on 8/18/2005 (LUA05- 065); however, the approval expired on 8/18/2008. Since the original approval in 2005 all existing structures were removed and all proposed infrastructure has been constructed. The site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8), single-family zoning designation. Proposed lot sizes range from 5,001 sq. Ft. to 6,655 sq. ft. Access to the lots is proposed via a new public street extending south from NE 19th Street, terminating in a cul-de-sac. A street modification was granted as part of the original approval for a reduction of right of way width and cul-de-sac radius. Tract B "open space" of this plat is reserved for future development upon consolidation with property to the south. There are no ciritical areas on-site. PROJECT NAME: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review and Site Pian Review a 5 - story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. HEX Agenda 7-21-09.doc City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Community & Economic Development HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Hearing Date: July 21, 2009 Project Name: Hawk's Landing Owner: Port Quendall Company Attn: Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Applicant/Contact: spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 File Number: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Planner. Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Project Description: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a 5 - story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. Project Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. North City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWKS LANDING LUTA-04-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 2 of 38 B. EXHIBITS The following exhibits are entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review documentation, correspondence from interested parties, and other items pertinent to this request. Exhibit Z: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit 4: Hawk's Landing Master Site Plan Exhibit 5: Hawk's Landing Site Plan Exhibit 6: Site Dimension Plan Exhibit 7: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit 8: Landscape Plan Exhibit 9: Site Utility Plan Exhibit 10: Grading Plan Exhibit 11.: East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit 12: West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit 13: S. & E. Elevations (graphic) Exhibit 14: N & W Elevations (graphic) Exhibit 15: Hotel Garage Floor Plan Exhibit 16: First Floor Plan Exhibit 17: Second Floor Plan Exhibit 18: Third and Fourth Floor Plans Exhibit 19: Fifth Floor Plan Exhibit 20: Roof Plan Exhibit 21: Building Sections C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. owner of Record: Port Quendall Company 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 2. Zoning Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 3 of 38 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics North: Fast: South: West: 6. Access: 7. Site Area: 8. Project Data: Existing Building Area: New Building Area: D. HISTORICALJBACKGROUND: Action Annexation Zoning Comprehensive Plan Street Vacation E. PUBLIC SERVICES: Commercial/Office/Residential Metal warehouses/structures previously occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes 1-405 right-of-way 1-405 right-of-way May Creek (vacant property), zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8) Barbee Mill and Quendall Terminals (vacant property), zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Via Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations Total Site: 7.8 acres; Portion to be developed: 3.07 acres 75,214 SF (to be deconstructed) 122,000 SF Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A VAC -09-001 Ordinance No. 1804 5100 5100 N/A Date 12/16/1959 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 Pending 1. Utilities: Water: The project is located in the City of Renton water service area. There is an existing 12 -inch Ductile Iron (DI) pipe on the site and an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of the south property line. Sewer: There is an existing 12 -inch sanitary sewer main on the site. Surface Water/Storm Water: There are some storm drainage facilities in Lake Washington Blvd. N. 2. Streets: There is currently a paved and improved public right-of-way along the frontage of the site. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department HEX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: My 21, 2008 Page 4 of 38 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC TITLE IV): 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-120.6: Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations — General Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards Section 4-4-095: Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards S. Chapter 9 Permits - Specific Section 4-9-200: Site Development Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element 3. Economic Development Element H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for the development of a 60 - foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel on 3.07 acres. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N (Parcel #3224059049), the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The 3.07 acre hotel site is located on the northerly portion of the subject parcel. The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan focus on 3.07 acres of the subject parcel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site with the exception of the deconstruction of the existing warehouse buildings and site clean up work. The subject site is located within the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) land use designation and zoning designation in addition to being located within Urban Design District "C" overlay. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, the access ramps to 1-405 to the north and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for HEX—Staff—rpt-09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE; July 21, 2008 Page 5 of 38 manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. There are a total of 12 structures on the subject site, including storage sheds and large warehouse buildings. All the existing buildings on the subject site are proposed to be removed, which would result in a total of 75,214 square feet of buildings to be deconstructed and removed from the site for recycling or disposal. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way for 1-405, to the south an undeveloped parcel that contains May Creek and at least two associated wetlands, and to the west is the partially completed Barbee Mill residential development, the site of the former Port Quendall Terminals, and the new Virginia Mason Athletic Center. The proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be 5 -stories in height with an underground garage. The first floor would contain the main lobby, meeting/banquet rooms, retail space, fitness center, spa, and restaurant area, the remaining four floors would be developed as 173 hotel rooms. The building has been designed to complement the architecture of the existing Barbee Mill development across Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant has proposed to use stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding, and metal roofs in addition, to Northwest style overhangs and trusses. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (N EV) stalls. The applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition to utilizing the 4,450 cubic yards of cut materials from the subject site, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project. As identified on the City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. In addition, just south of the site is May Creek, a Class 1 water, and two Category 2 wetlands. The drainage ditch that runs along the west property line immediately adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard has been identified by the applicants provided Wetland/Stream Study as a Class 5 non-regulated stream with an associated non-regulated wetland. Currently the site is developed with warehouses associated with Pan Abode Cedar Homes; as such, minimal vegetation exists on the subject site, of which approximately 85 percent is comprised of impervious surfaces. Although 32 significant trees are located on the subject site, all are proposed to be removed. The applicant has proposed to replace the removed trees with approximately 73 new trees. In addition to the proposed new trees, the provided landscape plan indicated that HEX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -N PUBLIC NEARING DATE: July 2I, 2008 Page 6 of 38 approximately 38,866 square feet of new landscaped area would be provided as a part of the hotel development. It should also be noted that the City of Renton received Capital Improvement Funds, in the amount of 1.7 million, during the 2009 Legislative Session. At this time, City staff is working to identify the specific items this money will be spent on. Once staff has made a determination, with appropriate cost estimates, this proposal would have to be approved by the City Council. Understanding that no decision is final at this point the following projects are proposed (that have a direct effect on the subject project) for the awarded Capital Improvement Funds: 1) a City water line extension on Lake Washington Boulevard; 2) Extension of May Creek Trail; and 3) Storm drainage system along Lake Washington Boulevard, to include pervious sidewalks along southern portion of the subject site. These sidewalks would be extended to May Creek. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.210, 1971 as amended), on October 16, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non - Significance, Mitigated for the project. The DNS -M included seven mitigation measures. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on July 3, 2009 and ends on July 17, 2009. No appeals have been filed for the SEPA determination as of today July 14, 2009. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume Il of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. 5. if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify HEX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 7 of 38 the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. 6. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated existing 2011 LOS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. 8. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construing permit approval. 9. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 10. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. Site Development Plan Review The purpose of site development plan review is to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-064, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBUCHEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 8 of 38 As per RMC 4-9-200.B.l.b, the COR zoning of the development site requires Master Plan review. The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. The Master Plan review may occur prior to or concurrent with Site Plan Approval. The purpose of the Site Plan review is to assess the detailed arrangement of project elements to ensure their compatibility with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan review is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. 6. GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR BOTH MASTER PLANS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW The following general review criteria are required to be met through the Master Plan and Site Plan review process, consistent with RMC 4-9-200E.1: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Pian, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Purpose The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation is to provide opportunities for large-scale projects developed through the master plan and site plan process. CDR sites are typically transitioning from industrial uses to more intensive, non- industrial land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on Lake Washington (Quendall and Southport) and/or the Cedar River (Stoneway). Redevelopment of these sites provide the opportunity to remediate the effects of past industrial activities and, although still held as private property, may offer increased access to the public to shorelines within the City. Applicable objectives and policies of the Land Use Element include: Objective LU -CCC: Development at Commercial/Office/Residential designations should be cohesive, high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity. V' Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy LU -272. Uses in Commercial/Office/Residential designations should include mixed- use complexes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, recreational and cultural HEX staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Deport to the Nearing Examiner NAwx'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N PUBLIC NEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 9 of 38 facilities, hotel and convention center type development, technology research and development facilities, and corporate headquarters. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy LU -273. Commercial uses such as retail and services should support the primary uses of the site and be architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met ii. Comprehensive Plan Community Design Element Applicable objectives and policies of the Community Design Element include: Policy CD -20. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians through master planning, building location, and design guidelines. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD -30. Non-residential development should have site plans that provide street access from a principal arterial, consolidate access points to existing streets, and have internal vehicular circulation that supports shared access. Curb cuts and internal access should not conflict with pedestrian circulation. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD -32. Structures at intersections should not be set back from the street and sidewalk so as to allow vehicular circulation or parking to be located between the sidewalk and the building in Commercial and Centers designations. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD -43. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and intensities over time. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met iii. Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Element Applicable Economic Development Objectives and Policies include: Policy ED -5. Increase the diversity of employment opportunities within the City. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy ED -26. Achieve a mix of uses that improves the City's tax and employment base. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; The subject site is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR ). The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential Zone (COR) is to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master -planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING tUA-09-060, ECF; SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 10 of 38 economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone. The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be designed accordingly. i. The following Development Standards apply to uses within the CDR zone (RMC 4 -2- 120B) - a. Lot Coverage—The maximum lot coverage by buildings in the COR zone is 65 percent of the total lot area or 75 percent if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. The hotel would have an underground parking garage although, surface parking is still provided as such, the maximum lot coverage for the subject project would be 65 percent. The total building footprint is proposed to be 29,336 square feet. This generates a total building coverage of 22 percent for the development site area (3.07 acres) and 8 percent for the entire site (7.80 acres) which is well below the maximum 65 percent building lot coverage permitted. b. Setbacks —Front, side, and rear setbacks are determined through site development plan review, with one exception; the minimum setback from freeway frontage is a 10 - foot landscaped setback. The applicant has proposed to set the hotel back 20 -feet from Lake Washington Boulevard N., 60 -feet from the north side property line, 418 -feet from the south property line and 129 -feet from the rear property line along 1-405. In addition to the existing landscaping that borders 1-405 on the subject site, the applicant has proposed an additional landscape strip to border the surface parking lot that at a minimum would be 6 -feet wide, with areas up to 25 -feet in width. Staff recommends approval of the proposed setbacks for the Hawk's Landing Hotel. c. Maximum Building Height—The maximum building height in the COR zone is 10 stories and/or 125 feet. The hotel is proposed to be 5 -stories and 60 -feet high which is below the maximum permitted height limit in the COR zone. d. Special Development Standards— In addition to the subject site being located within a Urban Design District (which will be evaluated under section k later) the COR zone requires that the portions of the building which exceed 50 -feet in height shall include upper story setbacks of a minimum of 10 -feet from the preceding story and the building shall provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of 2 -feet at an interval of a minimum of 40 -feet on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project. The fifth story of the proposed hotel is setback from the preceding four stories for the majority of the building a distance of approximately 12 -feet. Although the fifth story of the hotel is modulated in such a manner that setbacks from the proceeding four stories very from zero feet to a maximum of 39.5 feet. Furthermore, the provided elevations indicate that the building fagade would be modulated horizontally and vertically in excess of the minimum requirements by providing eaves, trusses, bumpouts, balconies and differentiated materials to provide visual interest. The proposed architectural design meets the intent of the special development standards and results in a quality project. e. Landscaping— In the COR zone, on-site landscaping is determined through site development plan review. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application. The provided plan indicates landscaping would be provided around the HEX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBOC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 7 7 of 38 perimeter of the parking area in widths from 6 -feet to 25 -feet. Landscaping would also be provided around the hotel and screening landscaping would be provided around the refuse and recycling area. In addition to traditional landscaping the applicant has proposed a landscape strip in the parking lot with swale plantings which are intended to not only provide a visual interest and soften the look of the parking lot this feature would provide stormwater drainage for the site. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed ornamental landscaping at the hotel entrance facing the surface parking lot that includes a Koi pond with a pedestrian bridge crossing. The plant schedule provided indicates that the following plants would be provided: Trees - red sunset maple, jacquemontii birch, weeping Alaskan cedar, Austrian black pine, 'rosy cloud' cherry, `chanticleer' flowering pear, and Corinthian linden; Shrubs -'kart foerster' feather reed grass, 'munstead' lavender, Mexican feather grass, fraser's photinia, 'JPM' rhododendron, unique rhododendron, rainbow knockout shrub rose, snowmound spireae, dense spreading Japanese yew, marie's doublefile viburnum, and bright edge yucca; and six different ground cover plantings. The landscape plan only provides landscaping for the site development area of 3.07 acres, which includes landscaping along Lake Washington Boulevard N.; although the landscape strip along Lake Washington Boulevard N. does not continue the entire length of the property along the street frontage; as such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan indicating landscaping along the entire frontage of the property adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard N. be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional and an irrigation plan be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. Furthermore, staff recommends approval of the provided landscape plan with the addition of landscaping along the entire Lake Washington Boulevard N. frontage. The landscape plan proposes street trees planted at a spacing of 30 feet on center along Lake Washington Boulevard N. for the frontage of the development site (3.07 acres). Per RMC 4-4-070E street trees are required when project front public streets. As proposed, street trees are only provided along a portion of Lake Washington Boulevard N. the applicant shall provide street trees along the entire frontage of the parcel along Lake Washington Boulevard; as such staff recommends a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan indicating street trees along the entire frontage of the property adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard N. be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. The City's parking regulations have additional landscaping requirements for surface parking lots. For surface parking lots with between 100 or more parking spaces a minimum of 35 square feet of landscaping is required per parking space. Landscaped areas are required to be a minimum of 5 feet in width. Within the parking area a minimum of 1 tree shall be planted for every 6 parking spaces provided, shrubs shall be planted at a rate of 5 per 100 square feet of landscape area, ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide 90 percent coverage within the first 3 years of H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Prekminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 12 of 38 installation, and no more than 50 feet shall separate a parking space from a landscape area. Based on the proposal for 124 surface parking stalls a minimum of 4,340 square feet (124 spaces x 35 square feet = 4,340 square feet) of landscaping is required within the surface parking lot, with a total of 21 trees. The submitted landscape plan identifies 5,687 square feet of landscaping within the parking lot with a total of 21 trees (red sunset maple, chanticleer flowering pear, and Austrian black pine) and 259 shrubs. The landscape plan complies with the minimum requirements. f. Parkin — The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls be provided based on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses or the number of residential units. The following ratios would be applicable to the site: Use Square Footage Ratio Required ot Use or # of spoces Units Hotel 173 room 1/ guest room 187 max 21 employees plus 2 for every 175 min max 3 employees 3 employees min Restaurant 4,500 SF 1 space / 100 SF 45 Retail Sales 742 SF 4 spaces / 1000 3 SF Based on these use requirements, 235 parking spaces would be required to meet code with providing spaces for the maximum number of employees of the hotel and 223 parking spaces would be required for the minimum number of employees. The applicant proposes to provide 231 spaces, which is just under the code requirement for the maximum employee proposal, as such staff recommends approval of 231 parking spaces for the subject project. Of the total 231 parking stalls proposed, 124 would be located within a surface parking lot and the remaining 107 would be located within the underground parking garage. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. For parking lots with 201— 300 parking spaces 7 ADA stall would be required per RMC 4-4-080.F.g the proposal for 6 ADA stalls does not comply with the minimum requirements as such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. All code required spaces must comply with the dimensional requirements of the parking regulations. For surface standard stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 20 feet long and a minimum of 9 feet wide, although RMC 4-4-080.F.8.e permits the reduction of parking stall length from 20 feet to 18 feet if there is sufficient area to safely allow the H Ex_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Devefopment Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE., July 21, 2008 Page 13 of 38 overhang of a vehicle. The provided parking lot landscaped areas are 9 -feet wide providing room for the overhang of parked vehicles, as such the applicant has proposed to provided 18 feet long by 9 feet wide surface parking spaces. Compact stalls are permitted in surface parking lots as long as they do not exceed 30 percent of the total parking spaces. The applicant has not proposed to provide any compact parking stalls within the surface parking lot. ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. The proposed ADA accessible stalls comply with the minimum dimensional standards. For structured standard stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 15 feet long and 8 feet and 4 inches wide and for compact stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 7 feet 6 inches wide and 12 feet long. Compact parking stalls shall not exceed 50 percent of the structured parking. An aisle width of 24 feet is required for 90 degree parking stalls. All garage stalls meet the minimum dimensional standards for standard and compact stalls. The applicant has proposed 8 of the 107 garage parking stalls to be compact, which is less then 50 percent of the total number of stalls, and is therefore compliant with compact parking stall standards. The drive aisle for the surface lot is proposed to be 25 feet wide and the drive aisle for the parking garage is proposed to be 24 feet wide, which is compliant with the minimum dimensional standards for parking lot drive aisles. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line and the main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. There is two-way circulation throughout the project site. The northerly access point slopes down to the proposed surface parking garage. RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b indicates that the maximum slope for driveways shall not exceed 15 percent slope. The applicant did not submit with their land use application a driveway grade cross section, as such staff could not determine if either proposed access driveways were compliant with maximum driveway grades. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. g. Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas -The location and pickup of the service elements shall be approved by Waste Management. The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the hotel would be located outside of the southeast corner of the building, immediately south of the entrance to the underground parking garage. The applicants submitted screening details with the application materials, pursuant the these details the proposed refuse and recyclable deposit area would be screened on three sides by an 8 -foot high stone veneer and hardie lap siding fence and screened on the east site, where access to the receptacles is gained, with a 6 -foot high corrugated metal fence in steel frames. The RMC does not provide specific standards for refuse and recycling for hotel developments, as such staff has evaluated the required square footage under the office H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner NA WKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: My 21, 2008 Page 14 of 38 requirements, which are as follows. In office developments, a minimum of two square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of four square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of 100 square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas. For recyclables, 244 square feet would be required and for refuse 488 square feet would be required, which results in a total area of 732 square feet. The applicant has proposed to provide approximately 379.52 square feet of refuse and recyclable area, which is less then required based on the office requirements. Furthermore, discussion with the applicant has indicated that the refuse area would contain a trash compactor, which would reduce the area required for refuse. Staff recommends approval of the reduced square footage of refuse and recyclable area because the proposed use is not an office and would potentially produce less waste then an office development. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; The proposal would improve the character of the site, because it would replace the previously industrial site with a new hotel and restaurant. The new development would provide new access and street frontage improvements within the area that currently do not exist. In addition, landscaping would be provided along the street front and surrounding the new parking area and hotel. The landscaping provided would screen the surface parking area from surrounding properties; as proposed this landscape area would be bermed and at a minimum 6 -feet in width and wider in places. The proposed building would be 5 -stories in height with an underground parking garage. The scale of this structure is larger then across the street in Barbee Mill development but much smaller then the Virginia Mason Athletic Center (VMAC). The proposed scale provides a much needed transition from the existing residential to 1-405 and the VMAC. The applicant has indicated that for the entire parcel (7.8 acres) the existing industrial buildings would be deconstructed, the removal of these industrial buildings remove an eyesore from the existing neighborhood. Furthermore, the new hotel use would be more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood then the existing industrial site; as such, impacts to surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. It should also be noted that during training camp for the Seahawks this hotel is anticipated to be utilized by the athletes and fans, for a place to stay, while they view the Seahawks Training Camp. The Seahawks practice facility, Virginia Mason Athletic Center, is located just northwest of this site. As such, this development would be an asset to this particular property. There are potential short-term impacts to adjacent businesses and nearby residents (e.g., noise), which would result from the construction of the project. These impacts will be mitigated by the applicant's construction mitigation plan, which limits work and haul hours to those permitted by City Code. H Ex_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Exominer HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 15 of 38 d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; The scale, height and bulk of the proposed building are appropriate for the site and would be architecturally compatible with surrounding properties. The building would be located in the northwest portion of the project site with surface parking area located at the rear of the site, screened from Lake Washington Boulevard by landscaping and the building. Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site (3.07 acres) and within the surface parking lot. The existing industrial buildings are proposed to be deconstructed and removed from the remainder of the parcel as these structures would not be compatible with the change in use. When the remainder of the parcel is developed, at an unknown time in the future, staff would determine concurrence of the proposed new building(s)'s design, scale, height and bulk with the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel and if necessary would propose mitigation and/or conditions to verify compatibility. The scale and bulk of the building is also reduced through the use of different materials on the building facades and building articulation and modulation. Multiple materials are proposed including, stone veneer, hardie shingles, trespa vertical siding, and hardie lap siding. Furthermore, architectural details are proposed including canopies, planters, detailed windows and doors, and lighting that would enhance the buildings visual appeal. At this time, the future hotel would be located in the corner of a larger 7.8 -acre parcel. Currently this parcel has minimal landscaping, and has access to a significant amount of light and air. Shadows created from the new development would not have adverse impacts on the subject site and/or surrounding properties. e. Conservation of area wide property values; The proposal is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. The development of the site provides improvements to infrastructure, landscaping and lighting and additional employment opportunities. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. This access in important for fire safety/access to the subject site, as such staff recommends as a condition of approval that the street vocation be completed prior to building final occupancy. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 147 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls. H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Prefiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H POBLIC HEARING DATE, July 21, 2008 Page 16 of 38 Internal pedestrian connections to the existing public sidewalk network are proposed in order to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout the site and to other abutting sites. The proposed development is expected to maintain safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle circulation on the site. g. Provision of adequate light and air; The single building would not have a negative impact on site light or air circulation. h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. A Construction Mitigation Plan that would provide measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, was provided with the project submittal. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. There would be minimal noise impacts from increased traffic although, these noise impacts would be virtually unnoticeable because of the proximity of 1-405 immediately adjacent to the site. i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; Fire and Police Department staff have indicated that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by the Environmental Review Committee, the applicant will be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee prior to the issuance of building permits. The site is served by the City of Renton for all utilities. There is an existing 12 -inch DI pipe on the subject site and an existing 12 -inch waterline about 620 feet south of the property line. In addition, there is an existing 12 -inch sanitary sewer main on the subject site. The City is looking at utilizing some of the Capital Funds awarded to the City in the 2009 Legislative Session to extend the 12 -inch water line closer then 620 feet from the subject sites' south property line. At this time, the allocation of these funds has not been approved by City Council and therefore, this improvement may or may not be completed by these funds. j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight; The proposal would result in redevelopment of a former industrial site into a four star hotel with conference faculties and a restaurant. It would therefore contribute to the well-being of the City in general and the neighborhood in particular. k. Review of Compliance to District C Design Guidelines; The subject property is located within Design District `C'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As HEX—Staff—rpt 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S L4NOINC LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 17 of 38 demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. Two categories have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. The following are the categories for compliance: M= Met I NM= Not Met I PM= Partially Met I NA= Not Applicable HEx_staff_rpt_09-060 M N IP N IGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: FIntent: M M ensure thatbuildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate HEx_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 18 of 38 transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian - oriented streets is prohibited Minimum Standard: Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. Minimum Standard: Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent IA N El to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian -oriented fagade Staff Comment: The majority of the fogade facing Lake Washington Boulevard would be incompliance with this minimum standard with the exception of south half of this facade on the ground floor. Approximately 62 feet of the southern side of the fagade is not designed to meet this standard. This 62 feet is designed with stone veneer and vertical siding. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian - oriented fagade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development for review and approval by the project manager prior to building permit approval. Minimum Standard: Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single -purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7b) Minimum Standard: If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). Guideline: Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). d Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be F � F raised above street level for residents' privacy. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Minimum Standard: Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 19 of 38 or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from eet. um Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have r er protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar or of access. um Standard: Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from El property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. Minimum Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian -oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. Guideline: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing ne borhoods are preserved. S. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high- volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100E7e). Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4--4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self- closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7f). Staff Comment: The proposed enclosure for the garbage and recycling collection area includes screening on all sides with the exception of a roof. The applicant has indicated that if a roof was provided then the dumpsters would have to be pushed or maneuvered out of the enclosure for collection because the collection trucks need to lift the dumpster to empty it into the truck. In order for the dumpsters to be directly lifted from the enclosure the exemption of the roof would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or HEX staff—rpt-09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE. July 2I, 2008 Page 20 of 36 pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g), Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7h). Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the following: a. Public art; b. Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment; d. Open space/plaza; e. Identifying building form; f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification mmercial signs are not allowed). M N P N G AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: r1ntent: M M provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center g;orporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: On Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking. No more than 60 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off- street parking and vehicular access. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on HEX -staff -rpt -09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Prekminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2009 Page 21 of 38 use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) On -street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. Minimum Standard: All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. Minimum Standard: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the M El surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection F5a of this Section). Staff Comment: The proposed surface parking lot does not meet the minimum requirement of 1,500 feet of perimeter area. In addition, preliminary design and discussion with the applicant indicated that this proposed surface parking lot would remain with full build out of the subject site. Lake Washington Boulevard is the only access to the subject site, which results in the requirement to provide internal vehicular circulation for the subject parcel. in order for there to be sufficient internal circulation at a future date, this surface parking lot would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of the surface parking lot as proposed. Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. Guideline: If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building facade. Guideline: When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, M El parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. Z. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5b). Staff Comment: See secion G. "Lighting" below. Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, 7771 connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal HEX_5taff_rpt_09-064 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWKS L4NDiNG LLlA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 22 of 38 aisles. line: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping arate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. pStructured Parking Garages: more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use red parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian - Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses Lj along street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5c), (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at least 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can Li N successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d). Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. HEX -staff -rpt -09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDW6 LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N PUBLIC NEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 23 of 38 ine: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. ine: The design of structured parking. at finished grade under a building r minimize the apparent width of garage entries. ine: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of wails, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with ❑ adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from ❑ the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. Minimum Standard: Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian- 0 1:11:1 oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular ❑ access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. M N P N C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: M M Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, HEX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 24 of 38 subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b). Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100,G4c). Stoff Comment: The provided plan sets indicate that portions of the pedestrian pathways within the parking lots would be different material or texture from the adjacent paving materials, although there are some portions that appear to be asphalt with striping. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a new site plant that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail El buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see 77 illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). Staff Comment: The proposed sidewalk width is 1Q feet. As the proposed development is not indented to be for retail use, a 1Q foot sidewalk would be sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10 - 12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller 5 — 6 foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather Z El walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Guideline: Through -block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection H EY(_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner HA WKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE; My 21, 2008 Page 25 of 38 -3-100.G4e) line: Between buildings of up to and including two stories in height, h -block connections should be a# least 6 feet in widthline: Between buildings three stories in height or greater, through -block ctions should be at least 12 feet in width r line: Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a um 0.25 mile apart line; As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than 14 feet in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per 30 lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. Guideline: Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the 1:1 ZEI form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Staff Comment: As proposed, canopies along the fagade fronting Lake Washington Boulevard exceed the minimum width standards although do not meet the minimum length standards. Canopies have been proposed to be provided for approximately 38.5 percent of the facade or approximately 60 liner feet. The 60 feet of the fagade where canopies are proposed is along the portion of the building that would be the least distance (smallest setback) from Lake Washington Boulevard. Although, the proposed hotel design provides modulation along this fagade that brings many portions of the structure back from Lake Washington Boulevard where canopies would not be achieving the desired intend of overhead weather protection. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed 60 liner feet of canopy coverage. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWKSL4NDING LUA-09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING RATE: lufy 21, 2008 Page 26 of 38 furniture should be provided. Landscaping). ine: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, r Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the blic art should be provided.ine: curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. - Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facadeZ Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees El mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and 4-3-100.H3a). at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the 3-100.G4f). design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed M N 11 P N D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: M JJJM Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the nPcthPtir Pninvment of the area by the community. Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-O8OF7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b. Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal 0 El El LJ feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S L4NDINC LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2048 Page 27 of 38 Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. Staff Comment: As proposed the shrubs meet the minimum height but the proposed rate of planning is less then one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. The applicant has proposed to use raingardens, within these areas ornamental shrubs are not proposed to be planted. The proposed raingardens reflect the applicant's desire to provide a development that minimizes its effects on the environment and/or is "green". The raingardens are calculated into the landscaped area and therefore reduce the ratio of shrubs to landscaped area, as such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number Minimum Required Landscape Area* of Spaces 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. (5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. (6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 28 or 38 (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is encouraged. Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, D Z Di particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner HAW1f S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 29 of 38 (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects El El El X required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13c). Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.1-13d) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on the ground; and Staff Comment: See comment under G "Lighting" Below. Staff was unable to determine if the applicant complies with the minimum standards at this time. (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian - oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the HEX—staff _rpt -09-460 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Prefiminary Report to the Nearing Exominer HAWWSLANDING LUA-09-060, ELF, SA -M, SA -N PUBLIC NEA RING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 30 of 38 pedestrian -oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented ZID El El space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian - oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space. Minimum Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Guideline: Developments located at street intersections corners on designated pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-104.H3f). Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and g areas. N M P N G ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: M M encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, rintent: e on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are r the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: H EX_staff_rpt_p9-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HA WK'S LANDING CUA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBVC HEARfNG DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 31 of 38 Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visuallv interesting. Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include measures to reduce the El N apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include ri modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15a). Minimum Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; (d) Roof line features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director Minimum Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building El Ll 0 modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15b): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be 40 feet. (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be 15 feet. (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet or not less than two-tenths multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). Guideline: Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets E10 El Z should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Guideline: Buildings should be urban in character. Guideline: Buildings greater than 160 feet in length should provide a variety ofEl El techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.15c). 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, El N sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including ri building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square H EX_staff_rpt_09-460 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 32 of 38 feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See staff comment Secion A.2. "Building Location and Orientation" above. Minimum Standard: Where blank wails are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15d): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear elazine. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15e): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'SLANULNG LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 33 of 38 (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail. Staff Comment: The applicant is highly encouraged to provide any and/or all of the items listed above in order to ornament the ground level of the proposed structure. Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent, To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of district. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements NEI El I to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Guideline: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance overtime; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, 0 [Ell parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. M EX—staff_rpt-09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWKS LANDING LUA-09-060, £CF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 34 of 38 um Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an ive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. r um Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably ined. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with ISTJ :1 El more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast -in-place concrete. Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. M N P N F. SIGNAGE: M M Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. Staff Comment: At this time the applicant has not submitted a detailed sign design as such, staff cannot determine compliance with this standard. At the time of sign permit approval staff will review for this design standard. Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.J3a): i. Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back- lit. (see staff comment above) Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S L4WONG LUA-119-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PU80CHEARING DATE; July 2I, 2008 Page 35 of 38 (see staff comment above) E El Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. (see staff comment above) Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. E10 Z El (see staff comment above) Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent El El colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. -71 (see staff comment above) I Guideline: Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type Ful of freestanding sign. (see staff comment above) Guideline: Slade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets. (see staff comment above) M N P N G. LIGHTING: M M Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and nicht. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lightingEl E El regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site, Staff Comment: Staff recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but E10 Z El shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment: See Condition above Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety El El and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. -71 FE E X_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Heoring Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE. July 2T, 2008 Page 36 of 38 Staff Comment: See Condition above Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. 7. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COR ZONES: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action ordinance, if applicable. Not applicable, there was no Planned Action Ordinance for the subject property. b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial -Office - Residential Comprehensive Pian designation. The proposed development would result in the construction of a 122,000 square foot hotel with a 4,500 square foot restaurant, 742 square feet of retail space, 716 square foot fitness center, and 2,152 square foot spa. As proposed, each of these uses would be affiliated with the Hawk's Landing Hotel. In addition, the placement of the hotel in the northwest corner of the site provides room for future development on the remainder of the 7.8 acres. At this time, further development of the site is unknown and under existing market conditions, it is difficult to anticipate when future development may happen on the remainder of the subject site. Although, based on preliminary review of access, utilities, site design the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would not preclude future development that would create a compatible mix of uses; as such, the proposal meets the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project would implement the Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Design policy statements as mentioned above (section 6.a.). The project would result in the creation of a four-star hotel and restaurant, resulting in the transformation of an industrial piece of property into a development that provides quality and value to the neighborhood. c. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems. The proposed project would provide public open space at the hotel entrances. As designed the applicant has proposed to raise the grade of the site so that the main entrance along Lake Washington Boulevard is at street level, this provides the opportunity for a public plaza along the street frontage. In addition to the plaza area, the applicant has proposed 10 -foot wide sidewalks separated from the street by a 9 - foot landscape strip. At the internal hotel entrance, the applicant has proposed to provide public plaza space that includes a Koi pond that is spanned by a pedestrian bridge. Private open space includes two internal courtyards; one off the spa and the HEX -staff -rpt -09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S L4NDiNG LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -fl PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 37 of 38 other off the conference facilities looking over Quendall Terminals and Lake Washington. In addition, an outdoor patio would be provided for the restaurant. The proposed project incorporates public and private open space that is appropriate for the occupants and users of the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel. d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable. Views to the Lake Washington would be available from various points on the property and from hotel rooms located on the west side of the hotel. e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; The subject site does not contain shoreline area and therefore does not provide access to water or a shoreline area. f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items. The site plan provides focal points through the use of prominent architectural features, including but not limited to canopies, modulations and variation, distinctive entrances, large open cornices supported by angled beams etc... Furthermore, the hotel's distinctive architecture would provide a much-needed gateway to the City from the I- 405 exit just north of the site. In addition to the significant architecture, the applicant has proposed monument signage at the site entrance. g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned. The site is accessed by Lake Washington Boulevard, which is the only existing access to the site. The proposed access locations allows for the remainder of the site to be developed at a future date. h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. Currently, public transit service to the subject site along Lake Washington Boulevard is not provided. Despite the lack of Metro service the applicant has encouraged Metro to include this area as a site for a future bus rout and stop by providing the area for a bus shelter and the right-of-way for a bus pull out on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. Furthermore, they have provided five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), which further encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation. Pursuant to the provided site plan, the sidewalks along Lake Washington Boulevard would be 10 -feet wide and crosswalks would be provided from the west side of the street to the east side to provide a connection to the Seahawk's Training Facility and the future development of Quendall Terminals. In addition to these pedestrian connections, the applicant has proposed pedestrian connections from H EX_staff_rpt_09-060 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 38 of 38 the hotel entrance throughout the parking lot by means of pedestrian paths and to the remainder of the vacant 7.8 -acre site where future development may occur. H. RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of the Hawk's Landing Hotel, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H subject to the following conditions: A detailed landscape plan indicating landscaping along the entire frontage of the property adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard N. be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional and an irrigation plan be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. A detailed landscape plan indicating street trees along the entire frontage of the property adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard N. be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 4. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 5. The street vacation, file # VAC -09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy. 6. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -oriented fagade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit a new site plant that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approvals (SA -H, SA -M) to RMC section 4-7-080.M. HEX, staff_rpt_09-060 Five (5) years from the final approval date. An extension may be requested pursuant rn �a is f ��n �Omp! o=I n` I II li I i b 0 Q r� Z '° o INTERSTATE 405 9 L Q m O � 7 � ANT RS � Foo� rn os J E E NE A R z I+ T Will ILLLLEJ uE n� o A - i a a Gn TY OF RENT N yy CITY OF NEWCAWSnF FF -TF I � s $� -- �� z o p z` a � a O a. M� x 03 C: ON �5;4 r C1R C� 4N NOR-rH-F- RAILROAD - — — — - -v f' C IN t I - 1 -4 - �o�9 j � tl :17 •`6_� ^�.— -_ �'' � _=� Y 21 5• .111.. 1 1y S7� „1� •,C � ►�I '" � �I I. _� X11. - Y - q� y. �f ,=E� ''��l } Nil 4 F f,•a -r� � Z ' 2 � m R x e O u ONE, ` dj° 3 F? �' nirgg R MIA! nNM -W pap 1 m. in, HUM, y f MINIH "PIl 11 5poN'p OWN) or. ... ... I -1� INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405 rk INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405-�--�-- -�-� li I LI aid Rn � I� Z 4 z a I LI �q . �yl�vocvplppa D nm \�� -., �` tee, � � � � � • � � a ., � cn M z� �CO _Z z [z7 M I I rg TIP P 1A z c 4'1 ��Ml jj € is �c�>����E z Q %gg ,J 10, 915,11���O�� �Jq p Milz In, ggig, R €.gg gmm$ 3t z�g s a m� u: 5 ON N-pgj—��� a � A I � wtultl�r 0 cn pC rN I f � Y O IIj d g=�i A � rn ` as �T s� / a�i 93 .. . xrrlo f n ,� i z y Z I� Y P i z A z1 O C)l+ p woe N �p6 9� A LU z A z1 O C)l+ p woe N �p6 9� A cn(n A m m WM N m om 'C Dy r wa oz �C/) m Ln m q 0 Z z z m —.a _ Wr o =a cn(n A m m WM N m om 'C Dy r wa oz �C/) m Ln m q 0 Z 9 =11 Masi MAN awl IW I'm noel 4� ��TT � *m ° ! E r _C3It T a LU L�� W m x 2 v0 00 0i-� ■ ■ ■ 1 i 1 I *2 •• * i � l � �+ 1 1 I I g 4i I'll m x W N O *m ■ � •11!1111 City of Renton Planning Division JUL 0 8 aq July 611, 2009 MID EQE6 Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Hawks Landing I own the parcel of land (tax lot # 322405-9043) adjacent to and directly south of Hawks Landing. My three concerns are: 1 _ Because Hawks landing is in a basin (bowl) surrounded by higher ground, the runoff will back up onto my property. The contour of the entire vicinity slopes downhill to the north and to the west of Hawks Landing. The only correct way to deal with the runoff is to boar a drainage pipe North under Lake Washington blvd_ and drain into Lake Washington. Keeping the existing drainage discharge directly into May Creek along Lake Washington Blvd. should be corrected as May Creek is not designated currently to receive direct discharge (per staff plan review). Now is the time to upgrade the drainage so is done properly. 2. Should the City decide to keep the existing drainage (put in the 50's) where the existing culvert drains into May Creek; I would ask that the culvert be designed so that future access to my parcel from Lake Washington Blvd. will not have to be re -engineered to support the weight and size of a fire engine. If the City finds that this is not practical then perhaps an easement should be granted through hawks landing to allow for access, and utilities as a condition of permit approval. 3. The Parks Department has expressed an interest in my parcel for future acquisition. I would ask that the Parks Department review Hawk's Landing with the concept of dovetailing my parcel in conjunction with Hawks Landing for mutual benefit of both the City and Hawks Landing. Specifically I think foresight should be given to addressing future access and parking to my parcel so as to enhance the entire area. Currently the area is underserved with little park, open space, or recreational opportunities Sincerely, Greg Fawcett Rob -Clarissa Partnership P.O. Box 402 Fall City, WA 98024 /0 Cu /�/ OD � \ � � a .�, . CD IF Fu f \(D . = e = ? \0 \- e _ e/& / %\/ w \ \ 2 g < m \ \ } z \ 3 \f _ 5 ± =� City Of =3 NO)TI`�E OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME. Hawk's Landing M'mad Use PROJECT NUMBERS LUADD-060, ECF. SA -M, SA -H LOCATION, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The development of a 60high, 122,000 SE, 173 -room hotel at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. IN with parking for 236 vehicles, Apprx. 4,459 cu, yd. cut and 15,600 cu. yd. fill. Access woWd be at two locations along Lake Washington Blvd. N. May Greek and its associated 100 -yr flood plain is located south of the site by more then 200 feet Seismic Hazards AN identified on site THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERCT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON -HE- ENVIRONMENT HEENVIRONMENT Appeals of the ohviroomental determination must he filed in writing on or before 5 00 PM cn July 17 2009. Appeals —'at he filed in writing together with the required $75 00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appears to the Examiner are governed by City M Renton Municipal Code Section 4-e-11013 Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained cram the Renton City Clerk's Office, {4251 430-fi$1 D_ A FUBLIC HEARING WILL. RE HELD BY THE R'cNTON HEARING EYAVINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, VifASHINGTON, ON JULY 21, 2049 AT 9:07 Av. TO CONSIDER TI fP I`,1;11,S-FR SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMEN'T'AL OFTERMINATION iS APPEALED, THE APPEA.- WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF REN'TON, DEPARTMENT OF C0Iv1A1lJNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 4K-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, 5\ll, hereby certify that were osted by me in7 conspicuous places or art DATE: 4 SIG D:/ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the A ) , on the day of :s of the above document iesc ' operty gg.:,`)(NEIII Washington residinoit 40t C.0 411 Y PUBLIC SIGN h CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 30th day of June, 2009, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Spencer Alpert Contact Port Quendall Co - Attn: Steve Van Til Owner Rich Wagner POR Greg Fawcett POR {Signature of Sender}: STATE OF WASHINGTON } ) SS COUNTY OF KING } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. `,,\\\'A % % k I I I lot Notary Public in and for/We Sate of VITa Fi7gi�n Notary (Print): b�.r My appointment expires. D-Lq-t C) Project Name: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Project Number: LUA09-060, EGF, SA -M, SA -H template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology' WDFW - Larry Fisher' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept, Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region ` Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev, Serv„ MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172r"' Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing 'W'C ty Of C r._,_13. r OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-060, ECF. SA -M, SA -H LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The development of a 60' high, 122,000 SF, 173 -room hotel at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. with parking for 236 vehicles. Apprx. 4,450 cu. yd. cut and 15,000 cu. yd. fill. Access would be at two locations along Lake Washington Blvd. N. May Creek and its associated 100 -yr flood plain is located south of the site by more then 200 feet. Seismic Hazards are identified on site. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on July 17, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JULY 21, 2009 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. Denis Lawli� Of., l Mayor y% JgJININ Department of Community & Economic Development June 30, 2009 Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLLP 10218 Richwood Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98177 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Dear Mr. Alpert: A 32 —N VO This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 17, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on July 21, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Attn: Steve Van TO - Port Quendall Company / Owner(s) Rich Wagner, Greg Fawcett / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov June 30, 2009 �""� "" ' "" — w — Department of Community & Economic Development Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determination Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on June 29, 2009: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The development of a 60' high, 122,000 SF, 173 -room hotel at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. with parking for 236 vehicles. Apprx. 4,450 cu. yd. cut and 15,000 cu. yd. fill. Access would be at two locations along Lake Washington Blvd. N. May Creek and its associated 100 -yr flood plain is located south of the site by more then 200 feet. Seismic Hazards are identified on site. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 17, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure cc: King County wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources tarry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa_gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D city Of OC_'AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NOBS): LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert, Alpert International, LLP PROJECT NAME: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SERA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985, 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume it of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager, S. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 2 6. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WS€?OT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: a. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. b. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. c. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated existing 2011 LDS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. S. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construing permit approval. 9. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 10. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0,52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 2 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D City of <, ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert, Alpert International, LLP PROJECT NAME: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -roam hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards ,of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1_ RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7.00) a.m. and eight o'clock (5:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 5 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. Plan Review — Water: 1. Additional water main improvements will be required to provide the required fireflow demand for the development. 2. Installation of a 12 -inch water along Lake Washington Blvd N along entire property fronting the roadway and extending to and connecting to an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of south property line. 3. New fire hydrants along Lake Washington Blvd about 300 feet apart. 4. Installation of a portion of 12 -inch water line inside an existing steel casing within the May Creek bridge structure. 5. Installation of on-site looped water main (10 -inch to 12 -inch), with fire hydrants around the proposed hotel. The size and location of water main within the site will be determined based on the fire flow demand of the development. 6. Civil plans for water main extension will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. 7. Backflow prevention assembly (DDCVA) required for fire sprinkler system (refer to City Standard Details for external DDCVA in vault or for special requirements for DDCVA inside building). 8. Domestic water meter required for each building (meter sizing per Uniform Plumbing Code). 9. Pressure reducing valve required downstream of each domestic water meter since static pressure is above 80 psi. 10. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind each domestic water meter for each building. RPBA shall be installed in an aboveground "Hot -Box". 11. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) required for landscape irrigation meter due to proposed use of recycled stormwater for irrigation. 12. A portion of the existing 12" watermain thought the site will need to be abandoned. The abandonment can only occur after the completion of the new water lines. A partial release of the existing easement will be required. 13. System Development Charges are based on the size of any and all water meters. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. 14. Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, the submittal did not include sufficient information to determine a preliminary fire flow for the proposed development. 15. An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for the development. 16. The maximum available capacity (in .GPM) at 20 -psi residual pressure from the existing City's water systems in vicinity of development site is 4,000 GPM. Plan Review —Sanitary Sewer: 1. A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how this site will be served with commercial sidesewer. 2_ Any use in the building subject to oils or grease shall require the installation of a grease interceptor or oil/water separator per the current UPC as determined at the time of plan review. 3. The Parking garage will require an oil water separator. 4. System Development Charges based on the size of the domestic water meter are required. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 5 Plan Review —Storm Drainage: 1_ The project will need to provide flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance system improvements. Any offsite runoff will need to -be accounted for in the drainage analysis. Direct discharge is not allowed from this site. The site drains to May Creek, which is not designated as a major receiving water body where direct discharge is allowed. 2. The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalk, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than 0.1 cfs between the sum of the developed 100 -year peak flows and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flows using the KCRTS hydrologic model. This information is needed in order to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. 3. Since the project is a redevelopment project proposing more than 5,000 square feet of new and replace impervious surface, the project is not exempt from core requirement #3 of the 2045 KC SWDM. The project falls under Conservation Flow Control Area, the flow control requirement is waived if there is no more than 0.1 cfs difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow for the same project site area. For the purpose of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in table 1.2.3,0 of the 2005 KCSWDM. If after applying the sizing credits, the difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow is less than 0.1 cfs, the LID alternative will mitigate for flow control. If the difference is greater than 0.1 cfs, a flow control facility per chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM such as a bioswale, detention pond, etc; will need to be provided in combination to mitigate runoff control. The proposed roadway improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard shall be taken under consideration to calculate the post development site condition and, to size the water quality and flow control facilities. 4. The Hawks Landing Hotel is the first phase of a of a larger common development plan that will eventually occur on the rest of the total area associated with the Pan Abode site. The Phase II NPDES permit prohibits the phasing of projects in a manner that allows for the granting of exemptions and avoidance of the need to provide flow control or water quality treatment that would be required if the project is looked at as a total project (all phases). The Hawks Landing Hotel phase of development on the site could be granted the exemption from flow control, if the difference between the developed 100 -year peak flow and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flow is less than 0.1 cfs (following City review and approval of the analysis), but the remaining phases of development on remaining area on the Pan Abode parcel will not be able to utilize this the 0.1 cfs exemption. It is recommended that the full development plan be analyzed for the total site, including any off-site improvements to demonstrate that the project is exempt from flow control. Otherwise, future phases of the project will be required to provide flow control, since the 0.1 cfs exemption can only be applied once to a phase of development that is part of a larger common plan of development. 5. Appendix C of the 2005 KCSWDM only applies to small projects, the Rain Garden cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. A water quality facility as specified under chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM shall be provided. 6. Does the project has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM? If yes, the enhanced water quality menu shall be used. 7. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2005 KCSWDM. ERC Advisory Notes Page 3 of 5 It appears that a portion of this site is located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. The applicant will need to show on the site plan the location of the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. Any buildings constructed in the 100 -year floodplain will need to have their finished floor elevation place at 1 -foot above the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. FEMA Elevation Certificates will be required for any building constructed in the floodplain prior to any occupancy being granted (Ideally immediately following completion of construction of the finished floor and before additional building construction to verify that the finished floor has been constructed to the correct elevation). 9. The phase of the site development or later phases of development will need to document how the project satisfies the requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. 10. The Surface Water SDC fees are $0.405 (but not less than $1012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Plan Review —Street Improvements: 1. Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. Projects that are more than 10,000 square feet in size are required to provide full pavement width per standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the project side. A minimum 20' pavement and pedestrian walkway to the arterial will be required to be installed by the applicant. Street lighting is required to be installed on the project side. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting (including PSE) is not allowed. Plan Review — General: 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. 3. Additional information regarding detailed plan review will be provided at the time of formal application. 4. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. Building Department: 1. The soils report should be brought up to date for consistency with IBC Parks Deoartment: 1. 5 -foot bike lanes along both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard would be required. Fire Department: The preliminary fire flow cannot be determined at this point. Additional information is needed such as total ground floor square footage, number of stories, and type of construction. An additional question I have is the 58,000 square feet for the restaurants part of the 180,000 square feet or is it separate square footage amount. The minimum fire flow for structures in excess of 3,000 square feet is 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours. 2. The number of required hydrants is based on the size of the structure and the size of the required fire flow. At this time, the Fire Department cannot determine the required number of hydrants as additional information is needed. The minimum number of hydrants for structures in excess of 3600 square feet is 2. However, additional hydrants may be required based on spacing, which is based on sound engineering practices. All hydrants for this project shall be required to be equipped with a 5 -inch Storz fitting. ERC Advisory Notes Page 4 of 5 The primary hydrant shall be located within 150 feet to the front of the structure. All other hydrants shall be located within 300 feet to the front of the structure. A Hydrant shall be required to be within 50 feet of the Fire Department connection. Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table 0105.1 or the 2006 International Fire Code_ 4. Fire apparatus access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide on a surface capable of sustaining the weight of a fire apparatus. The turning radius shall be 45 feet to the outside and 25 feet to the inside. S. Fire Sprinklers are applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Sprinkler system. 6. The fire Sprinkler Riser Room shall be accessible through a dedicated exterior door, The Sprinkler Riser Room shall be located with heat and lighting. A Class III Standpipe with a valve and a single 2 Y,. inch fitting located on each floor landing may be required should the building exceed 3 stories. A total coverage Addressable Fire Alarm system shall be required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Alarm system. Building exceeding 30 feet in height shall be provided with approved fire access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the fire department aerial apparatus access roadway. 10. High rise requirements as set forth in the 2006 International Building, Fire Code and Local Fire Code amendments shall be applicable tot his building if 7 stories or greater. 11. in buildings where a required accessible floor is four or more stories above a level of exit discharge, at least one required accessible means of egress shall be an elevator complying with Section 1007.4 of the 2006 International Fire code. It is requested that this elevation have an interior dimension capable of accommodating a standard size emergency medical services patient stretcher in the laid flat configuration. ERC Advisory Notes Page 5 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City Of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert, Alpert International, LLP PROJECT NAME: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writin on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 17, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required 175.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: July 3, 2009 June 29, 2009 SIGNATURES: e(./ G� [,�' f�� � 2 lJ Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Date Public Works Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Community Services Department I. David Daniels, Administrator Fire & Emergency Services Alex Pietsch, Administratof Department of Community & Economic Development 6' Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY p cty°F AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT t M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 25, 2009 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner SUBJECT: LUA09-060 Hawk's Landing Comments have now been received from WSDOT (attached). Staff has had an opportunity to review the additional proposed mitigation measure with the applicant and WSDOT. The following proposed additional mitigation measure is agreeable to the applicant as well as WSDOT: The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: a. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44`6 Street/1-405 Northbound Damps. b. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on take Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. c, Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44 t6 Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated existing 2011 LOS 'T' condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. hAcedlplanninglcurrcnt planning\proJects\09-060.vanessalmemo to erc.doc Adw Washington State T% Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation June 22, 2009 Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed -Use LUA09-060, EGF, SA -M. SA -H SR 405 MP 7.47 (NE 44'h Ramps vicinity) Dear Ms. Dolbee: Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Aveme wo•th P C Box 330310 Seattle %NA 98133-9710 206-440-4000 r Fax 206-409-7250 TTY, 1-800-83:3-6385 www wsdot wa.gov City of planning 0 �ntoh i��on JuN 2,9 �ooy Thi Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted for the above referenced project. The development is located in the SW quadrant of 1-405/NE 44" St interchange and proposes to construct a 173 -room hotel and other amenities. The following are our comments: Traffic Accidents — Page 6: to be consistent with WSDOT terminology, please change the word "accident" to "collision". 2. Traffic Analysis methodology including traffic volume projections and LOS calculations are acceptable. The provided data are sufficient for showing the project's level of impacts. As stated in the Conclusion, part of the Project Impacts/Mitigation, the development will: a. Participate in the construction of additional lanes at the 1-405/NE 44`h St northbound ramps b. Share with the cost of the traffic signal installation at the 1-405/NE 44`h St southbound ramps The mitigation proposals are acceptable- Details relating to the mitigations will be further reviewed and specifically determine when the subject locations are planned for construction. Note that WSDOT is planning for signalizing both northbound and southbound ramps at I-405/NE 44`h St interchange - 4. There is a crosswalk shown across Lake Washington Blvd at the northern approach (Site Plan); this would not be allowed at an unsignalized intersection within Limited Access (LA) SR 405 (NE 44th vicinity) Hawks' Landing Page 2 of 2 5. The Executive Summary portion of the TIA recommends restricting the existing access location to right-inlright-out only; this recommendation should be included in the Conclusion/Recommendations portion of the report as well. 6. The proposed project is located within WSDOT limited access (see attached ROW plan) and there is an existing access break. Depending on the terms of the original access break, compensation to the State may be necessary due to the change in land -use. PIease note that this compensation is different from the mitigation measures discussed on #3. 7. Referring to comments #5 and #6 — Our preference would be to close the existing driveway within LA since there are other alternate access to the development. Restriction to a right-in/right-out condition would need to de done with some type of restrictive median treatment, hydraulics consideration and attendant maintenance. Based on the trip generation, there are only 5 AM exits and 5 PM exits with no entries at this location; hence, the impact to the project would be minimal and compensation to WSDOT (#6) would not be necessary. We have not received the comments from our I-405 team and we could forward you those once received. If you have any questions, or require additional information please contact Felix Palisoc of our Developer Services section by phone at 206-440-4713, or via e-mail at palisof@wsdot.wa.gov. Sin r ly, On mtn Pazo Local Agency and Development Services Manager RP:fsp cc: Day file / Project File R. Roberts, MS 120 C:lPeIIX_Gev&er NSFPA,.ResponseSsepaRENTQN__SR445MP747HawksLandirig _TIAMIydoc THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA Bob Sinah Preliminary Plat (Reconsideration) (Dolbee) LUA09-050, ECF, PP King Co. #L07SO053) Location: 19029 120 h Avenue SE. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review of a 2.14 -acre site located at 19029 120th Avenue SE. This application is vested to King County Development Standards and is located within King County's R-6 zoning designation. The applicant proposed to subdivide the lot into 9 lots for single-family residential development and one Tract for drainage and recreation. Lots 1-8 range in size from 5,696 to 5,800 square feet. Lot 9 is proposed as a future development tract and is 28,370 square feet. All buildings on site are to be removed. Access to the lots would be via SE 191st Street. The site was graded prior to application submittal; as such, 42 replacement trees are required at 3 -inch caliper. The applicant has proposed to install a drainage vault in Tract A, in addition to street frontage improvements along 120th Avenue SE and 191st Street. Hawk's Landina Mixed Use (2"d Review) (Dolbee LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshall N. Watts, Development Services Director F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, Transportation Systems Director C. Vincent, CED Planning Director L. Warren, City Attorney 11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE June 29, 2009 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator 1. David Daniels, Fire & Emergency Services, Administrator Alex Pietsch, GED Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, CED Planning Manager Meeting Date: Monday, June 29, 2009 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA Bob Sinah Preliminary Plat (Reconsideration) (Dolbee) LUA09-050, ECF, PP King Co. #L07SO053) Location: 19029 120 h Avenue SE. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review of a 2.14 -acre site located at 19029 120th Avenue SE. This application is vested to King County Development Standards and is located within King County's R-6 zoning designation. The applicant proposed to subdivide the lot into 9 lots for single-family residential development and one Tract for drainage and recreation. Lots 1-8 range in size from 5,696 to 5,800 square feet. Lot 9 is proposed as a future development tract and is 28,370 square feet. All buildings on site are to be removed. Access to the lots would be via SE 191st Street. The site was graded prior to application submittal; as such, 42 replacement trees are required at 3 -inch caliper. The applicant has proposed to install a drainage vault in Tract A, in addition to street frontage improvements along 120th Avenue SE and 191st Street. Hawk's Landina Mixed Use (2"d Review) (Dolbee LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshall N. Watts, Development Services Director F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, Transportation Systems Director C. Vincent, CED Planning Director L. Warren, City Attorney 11 ERC City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: June 29, 2009 Project Name: Hawk's Landing Owner: Port Quendall Company Attn: Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Applicant/Contact: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 File Number., LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. Project Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. North Exist. Bldg. Areo SF: 75,214 SF (to be Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 29,336 SF demolished) Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 122,000 SF Site Area: Total Site: 7.8 acres Total Building Area GSF: 122,000 SF Portion to be developed: 3.07 acres STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com Ty & Economic Development L nmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -14 Report of lune 29, 2009 Page 2 of 16 ERC REPORT 09-060 Project Location Map City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development E inmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 3 of 16 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA), Master Site Plan Review, and Site Plan Review for the development of a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N (Parcel #3224059049), the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The 3.07 acre hotel site is located on the northerly portion of the subject parcel. The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan focus on 3.07 acres of the subject parcel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site for the exception of the deconstruction of the existing warehouse buildings and site clean up work. The subject site is located within the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) land use designation and zoning designation in addition to being located within Urban Design District "C" overlay. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, the access ramps to 1-405 to the north and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. There are a total of 12 structures on the subject site, including storage sheds and large warehouse buildings. All the existing buildings on the subject site are proposed to be removed, which would result in a total of 75,214 square feet of buildings to be deconstructed and removed from the site for recycling or disposal. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way for 1-405, to the south an undeveloped parcel that contains May Creek and at least two associated wetlands, and to the east the partially completed Barbee Mill residential development, the site of the former Port Quendall Terminals, and the new Virginia Mason Athletic Center. The proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be 5 -stories in height with an underground garage. The first floor would contain the main lobby, meeting/banquet rooms, retail space, fitness center, spa, and restaurant area, the remaining four floors would be developed as 173 hotel rooms. The building has been designed to complement the architecture of the existing Barbee Mill development across Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant has proposed to use stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding, and metal roofs in addition, to Northwest style overhangs and trusses. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. The applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition to utilizing the 4,450 cubic yards of cut materials from the subject site, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project. As identified on the City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. In addition, just south of the site is May Creek, a Class 1 water, and two Category 2 wetlands. The drainage ditch that runs along the west property line immediately adjacent to Lake Washington ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development E inmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, 5A -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 4 of 16 Boulevard has been identified by the applicants provided Wetland/Stream Study as a Class 5 non-regulated stream with an associated non-regulated wetland. Currently the site is developed with warehouses associated with Pan Abode Cedar Homes; as such, minimal vegetation exists on the subject site, of which approximately 85 percent is comprised of impervious surfaces. Although 32 significant trees are located on the subject site, all are proposed to be removed. The applicant has proposed to replace the removed trees with approximately 73 new trees. In addition to the proposed new trees, the provided landscape plan indicated that approximately 38,866 square feet of new landscaped area would be provided as a part of the hotel development. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. 6. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development E mmentol Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 5 of 16 existing 2011 LDS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. 8. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construing permit approval. 9. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 10. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Existing Conditions Exhibit 3 Overall Site Plan Exhibit 4 Master Site Plan Exhibit 5 Site Dimension Plan Exhibit 6 Landscape Plan L-1.0 Exhibit 7 Site Utility Plan Exhibit 8 Grading Plan Exhibit 9 Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit 10 East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit 11 West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit 12 East and South Elevations Graphic Exhibit 13 West and North Elevations Graphic Exhibit 14 Lot Coverage Landscape & Parking Analysis Exhibit 15 First Floor Plan Exhibit 16 Wetland/Stream Study Attachment A Exhibit 17 Wetland/Stream Study Attachment B C. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: With the project application the applicant submitted two Geotechnical Reports; "Geotechnical Engineering Study" (1991 Report) prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991 and "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" (2009 Report) prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009. The 2009 Report references two historic Geotechnical Reports, the previously mentioned, 1991 Report and the "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study— Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared for the Rainer Fund, by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., Dated October 8, 1985 (1985 Report). The 2009 Report indicated that the subject site is relatively level, increasing in elevation from 30 to 38 feet from north to south. Steeper slopes occur along road embankment fills along the periphery of the site adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard, the north entrance driveway and adjacent to 1-405. Pursuant to the 1991 Report the subsurface conditions on site comprised mainly of loose ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Com ty & Economic Development E nmentol Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SAW, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 6 of 16 to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill. Below the asphalt surface and fill, a saturated silty sand with soft seams of sandy silt and organic silt was encountered to depths of about 12 to 16 feet below the ground surface. This report also indicated that the soils on-site do have the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. The 2009 Report concluded that the recommendations contained in the 1985 Report for pile foundations are applicable to this phase of the project. The 2009 Report concludes that the loads for the proposed hotel structure would be between those contained in the 1985 Report and the 1991 Report. The 2009 Report concludes that the applicants proposed aggregate piers for soil improvement in conjunction with spread footing foundations may be a viable solution for this site. The 2009 Report indicated that ground water and perched groundwater seeps were observed at all test pit locations during their investigation. The report indicated that ground water infiltration would affect construction in even shallow excavations on this site. The 2009 Report approved of a proposed dewatering trench as an appropriate means to mitigate for the dewatering problems that may be encountered during and after construction. Furthermore, the 2009 Report references the 1991 Report and the 1985 Report for recommendations and information about the site. Based on the potential for seismic and geological impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant complies with the recommendations within all three geotechnical reports, the 2009, 1991, and 1955 Reports. In the SEPA checklist the applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, lakes Impacts: The applicants submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009. The submitted study identified two streams, and two wetlands within the vicinity of the project site. The first stream is May Creek, which is a Shoreline of the State regulated under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). May Creek is located on the parcel to the south of the subject site; from there it flows into Lake Washington approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the subject property. The provided Wetland/Stream Study identified that no salmonids or resident fish species were observed during their site investigation, although May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook and Sockeye salmon. Furthermore, winter steelhead and cutthroat trout are also known to utilize the creek. The setback for a commercial building from May Creek, as established under the SMP, is 50 -feet. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends 200 feet landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be located a minimum of 248 feet landward of the OHWM; as such, the subject project would not be subject to SMA or SMP regulations at this time. In addition, the proposed development is compliant with the required minimum 50 -foot setback as identified by the SMP. Although, if/or when future development occurs on the subject site within ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development E nmentol Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 7 of 16 200 feet of the OHWM of May Creek, additional SEPA review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit May be required. The second stream, which is also a drainage ditch located along Lake Washington Boulevard, was identified to be a Class 5 stream. This drainage ditch is located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard. Pursuant to the provided Study, flows for this stream are maintained by stormwater runoff from the north and the subject site. The City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations identify Class 5 waters as "non-regulated non salmonid -bearing waters...". GBA also met with the Area Habitat Biologist from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 2009 to provide guidance and further observations of this ditch. WDFW concluded that the ditch was a man-made feature, and that work within the trench would not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Work on the outfall of the ditch to May Creek would require an HPA, and proposed improvements to the outfall should prevent entry of fish to the ditch. Based on the consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist and observations gathered during the site investigation GBA determined that the drainage ditch is a non -salmonid bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicated that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from 1-405, Lake Washington Boulevard, and the existing Pan Abode facility. As such GBA concluded that Criterion (a) of RMC 4-3-050.L.1.a.v. Streams and Lakes Class 5 waters is satisfied and therefore the subject Class 5 water would not be regulated. Within the drainage ditch, GBA also identified wetland characteristics. Based on the City's definition of Regulated and Non-regulated Wetlands GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a non -wetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a non- regulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. It should be noted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) may assume jurisdiction over the wetland. No comments were received from DOE indicating an interest in taking jurisdiction over this wetland. The provided study also investigated wetland it two locations; 1) The subject property and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard and; 2) The floodplain south of the subject property to the right (north) bank of May Creek. GBA identified two wetlands during their investigation, identified as Wetland A and Wetland B herein. Both Wetland A and B are small wetland located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas of 433 and 481 square feet respectively. These wetlands receive their hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek. GBA categorized both Wetland A and B as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands require a standard buffer of 50 -feet. These wetlands are located off the subject site by 117.4 feet (Wetland A) and 63.8 feet (Wetland B). Based on these distances the subject development would be outside of the required buffer area. Overall the provided study concludes that the subject project proposal would avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setback/buffers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and the Shoreline Master Program. Based on the potential for indirect impacts to the steams and wetlands within the vicinity of the subject site, as a result of the project, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to complies with the recommendations within the provided "Wetland/Stream Study". Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations b. Storm Water Impacts: A Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Sound Development Group, LLC, dated April 28, 2009 was submitted with the application materials. Pursuant to the provided TIR the project is located in the May Creek watershed basin. Under current conditions stormwater ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development E inmentol Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING ZUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 8 of 16 from the project site sheet flows to the north and west. The water is captured within the roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or within an existing on-site storm system and then discharged into the ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater south to an existing 24 -inch culvert, which discharges to May Creek. Discharge from the developed site is proposed at approximately the same location within the existing roadside ditch and then through the existing culvert to May Creek. The existing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) drainage system onsite would be relocated to the public Right-of-way of Lake Washington Boulevard, while the existing private systems would be demolished and/or removed. The provided TIR has indicated that flow control would not be required because the project site within the work limits is currently, almost completely impervious surfaces; approximately 85 percent impervious. The TIR contends that the developed project would provide a maximum of 85 percent impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed conditions would be equal or less than that of the existing site conditions. Although, comments received from the City's Surface Water Utility Division indicated that there was not enough information within the provided TIR to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. The applicant shall be required to provide and complete the TIR with the submittal of the civil engineering plans that includes all the information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Rain gardens have been proposed as a part of the site development plan to treat stormwater runoff. The TIR has indicated that the rain gardens would meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Although, comments received from the City's Surface Water Utility Division indicated that Rain Gardens cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. Furthermore, comments from the City's Development Services Division indicate that flow control, water quality treatment, and conveyance system improvements would be required. Storm water impacts are anticipated for the proposed development as such, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The provided TIR indicated that an erosion/sedimentation control plan would be provided to prevent sediment -laden runoff. In addition, to an erosion control plan the applicant has indicated that maintaining the existing surfaces on the site, where construction would allow, would help to reduce erosion during construction. Based on the potential for erosion and sediment runoff during construction, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. Pursuant to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) a small portion of the overall parcel, the 7.8 acres site is located within the 100 -year floodplain. Although, the proposed development located on the northern edge of the 7.8 -acre site is not located within the 100 -year floodplain. Pursuant to the FIRM the 3.07 acres proposed for development is located in zone X, which is associated with areas know to be outside of the 500 -year floodplain. Mitigation Measures: 1. The project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com ty & Economic Development E .-nmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2409 Page 9 of 16 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, DOE Stormwater Management Manual 3. Wildlife Impacts: The applicant submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009. This report also evaluated wildlife within are vicinity of the subject site in addition to wetlands and streams. Minimal wildlife exists on the 3.07 acres site to be developed with the Hawk's Landing Hotel, although located south of the project site within the riparian area of May Creek, small mammals and birds were observed. The submitted report indicated that such wildlife as voles, blacktail deer, short tailed weasel, and a pair of Osprey were observed within this area. In addition to common species such as song sparrow, house finch, American crow and gull species were also observed within the riparian area. As mentioned above under Wetlands, Streams, and lakes, the proposed development would be no closer then 248 feet to edge of this area as such, impacts to the habitat for the above mention species is not anticipated as a part of this development. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: N/A 4. Aesthetics Impacts: The highest point on the 5 -story, 60 -foot high proposed hotel would be approximately at an elevation of 98.833 Mean Sea Level (MSL). 1-405 is built at the approximate elevation of 44 feet MLS and the nearest single-family neighborhood, east of the project site, within the view corridor of the proposed hotel starts at an approximate elevation of 160 feet MLS. As such, staff does not anticipate aesthetic impacts as a result of the proposed hotel. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: N/A 5. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: Historically the Lake Washington and May Creek areas are more likely to be sites where significant historic and/or cultural resources would be found, and the subject development has indicated that site grading would be conducted. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant and/or developer to stop work and immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found. Mitigation Measures: If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 6. Transportation Impacts: Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Cam ty & Economic Development E inmental Review Committee Report HA WK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 10 of 16 structured parking lot and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the Hawk's Landing project by Geralyn Reinart, P.E., dated May 2009. The provided TIA assumed 2011 for the completion year for the proposed Hotel. This year was utilized throughout the study in order to evaluate traffic impacts resulting from the hotel's development. The TIA concluded that build -out of the Hawk's Landing could potentially generate just over 1,400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM peak hour trips. The intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and Seahawks Way are currently operating at a level of service (LOS) "D" or better during the peak hours, although the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the proposed hotel. The 1-405 ramps at NE 44th Street currently operate at a LOS "F" during the AM peak hour, and the delay on these ramps may increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. The provided TIA recommends six mitigation measures for traffic impacts, which are as follows: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. 4. Installation of 100 -foot southbound left -turn storage lane (or two way left -turn lane) on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main hotel access. 5. Construction of frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. 6. Right-in/right-out only access at the northerly proposed site access point (the existing Pan Abode access). The TIA concludes that the above measures mitigate not only impacts associated with the hotel, but also pre-existing conditions. Comments received from the City's Transportation Division indicated that the provided study is acceptable. In addition, comments were received from WSDOT that indicated that the mitigation measure proposed by the TIA are acceptable. Although, it should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures "1.-3." (above) are not within the City of Renton's jurisdiction, but are within WSDOT's jurisdiction. The recommended mitigation measures "1.-3." not only mitigates for the proposed development but also existing conditions. The anticipated existing LOS "F" condition for the development completion year of 2011 should be resolved by WSDOT not the applicant, as such the terms "participation and share" shall be defined in a quantitative manner to determine what percentage of the impacts the proposed development shall be mitigating for. As such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant coordinate with WSDOT and the City of Renton to determine the applicants contribution for the recommended mitigation measures "1. —3." By means of a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, that can quantify the applicant's impacts to the existing LOS "F" condition. Proposed mitigation measure number "5." (above) is required by Renton Municipal Code, for commercial developments within the City of Renton. The applicant would be required to provide street frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. With regard to the recommended mitigation measure number "4." (above), the City's Transportation Division would prefer the two-way left -turn lane over the left -turn storage lane. The proposed hotel is anticipated to increases traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard, as such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Menton Development Services Division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construction permit approval. The last proposed mitigation measure (number "6." above) to permit only right-in/right-out access at the northerly site access point shall be a mitigation measure for the subject project; because of this access points' spacing from the 1-405 southbound ramps. A right-in/right-out restriction for the northerly access point would increases safety along Lake Washington Boulevard. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Com ity & Economic Development t nmentoi Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 11 of 16 Comments received from the City's Parks Department, indicated that bike lanes would be required along both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard. Currently there is an existing bike lane located on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard. In addition, it is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to issuing the building permit, which is estimated to be $105,975.00. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: a. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. b. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. c. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated existing 2011 LOS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services Division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construction permit approval. 3. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 4. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3100 7. Fire & Police Impacts: The proposal would add new commercial square footage to the City that would potentially impact the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $0.52 per commercial building square foot (excluding the square footage of the parking garage) prior to building permit issuance. The fire mitigation fee is estimated to be $63,440.00 (122,000 sq. ft. x $0.52 = $63,440.00 Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 2913 D. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com ty & Economic Development E nmental Review Committee Report HAWKS LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 12 of 16 Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, July 17, 2009. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. Plan Review — Water: 1. Additional water main improvements will be required to provide the required fireflow demand for the development. 2. Installation of a 12 -inch water along Lake Washington Blvd N along entire property fronting the roadway and extending to and connecting to an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of south property line. 3. New fire hydrants along Lake Washington Blvd about 300 feet apart. 4. installation of a portion of 12 -inch water line inside an existing steel casing within the May Creek bridge structure. 5. Installation of on-site looped water main (10 -inch to 12 -inch), with fire hydrants around the proposed hotel. The size and location of water main within the site will be determined based on the fire flow demand of the development. 6. Civil plans for water main extension will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. 7. Backflow prevention assembly (DDCVA) required for fire sprinkler system (refer to City Standard Details for external DDCVA in vault or for special requirements for DDCVA inside building). ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com 'ty & Economic Development E amental Review Committee Report HA WK'S LANDING L UA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 13 of 16 8. Domestic water meter required for each building (meter sizing per Uniform Plumbing Code). 9. Pressure reducing valve required downstream of each domestic water meter since static pressure is above 80 psi. 10. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind each domestic water meter for each building. RPBA shall be installed in an aboveground "Hot -Box". 11. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) required for landscape irrigation meter due to proposed use of recycled stormwater for irrigation. 12. A portion of the existing 12" watermain thought the site will need to be abandoned. The abandonment can only occur after the completion of the new water lines. A partial release of the existing easement will be required. 13. System Development Charges are based on the size of any and all water meters. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. 14. Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, the submittal did not include sufficient information to determine a preliminary fire flow for the proposed development. 15. An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for the development. 16. The maximum available capacity (in GPM) at 20 -psi residual pressure from the existing City's water systems in vicinity of development site is 4,000 GPM, Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer: 1. A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how this site will be served with commercial sidesewer. 2. Any use in the building subject to oils or grease shall require the installation of a grease interceptor or oil/water separator per the current UPC as determined at the time of plan review. 3. The Parking garage will require an oil water separator. 4. System Development Charges based on the size of the domestic water meter are required. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. Plan Review—Storm Drainage: 1. The project will need to provide flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance system improvements. Any offsite runoff will need to be accounted for in the drainage analysis. Direct discharge is not allowed from this site. The site drains to May Creek, which is not designated as a major receiving water body where direct discharge is allowed. 2. The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalk, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than 0.1 cfs between the sum of the developed 100 -year peals flows and the pre -developed (existing)1O0-year peak flows using the KCRTS hydrologic model. This information is needed in order to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. 3. Since the project is a redevelopment project proposing more than 5,000 square feet of new and replace impervious surface, the project is not exempt from core requirement #3 of the 2005 KC SWDM. The project ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com ty & Economic Development E �nmental Review Committee Report HAWK'5 LANDING L UA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 14 of 16 falls under Conservation Flow Control Area, the flow control requirement is waived if there is no more than 0.1 cfs difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow for the same project site area. For the purpose of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in table 1.2.3.0 of the 2005 KCSWDM. If after applying the sizing credits, the difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow is less than 0.1 cfs, the LID alternative will mitigate for flow control. If the difference is greater than 0.1 cfs, a flow control facility per chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM such as a bioswale, detention pond, etc, will need to be provided in combination to mitigate runoff control. The proposed roadway improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard shall be taken under consideration to calculate the post development site condition and, to size the water quality and flow control facilities. 4. The Hawks Landing Hotel is the first phase of a of a larger common development plan that will eventually occur on the rest of the total area associated with the Pan Abode site. The Phase 11 NPDES permit prohibits the phasing of projects in a manner that allows for the granting of exemptions and avoidance of the need to provide flow control or water quality treatment that would be required if the project is looked at as a total project (all phases). The Hawks Landing Hotel phase of development on the site could be granted the exemption from flow control, if the difference between the developed 100 -year peak flow and the pre - developed (existing)100-year peak flow is less than 0.1 cfs (following City review and approval of the analysis), but the remaining phases of development on remaining area on the Pan Abode parcel will not be able to utilize this the 0.1 cfs exemption. It is recommended that the full development plan be analyzed for the total site, including any off-site improvements to demonstrate that the project is exempt from flow control. Otherwise, future phases of the project will be required to provide flow control, since the 0.1 cfs exemption can only be applied once to a phase of development that is part of a larger common plan of development. 5. Appendix C of the 2005 KCSWDM only applies to small projects, the Rain Garden cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. A water quality facility as specified under chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM shall be provided. 6. Does the project has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM? If yes, the enhanced water quality menu shall be used. 7. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2005 KCSWDM. 8. It appears that a portion of this site is located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. The applicant will need to show on the site plan the location of the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. Any buildings constructed in the 100 -year floodplain will need to have their finished floor elevation place at 1 -foot above the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. FEMA Elevation Certificates will be required for any building constructed in the floodplain prior to any occupancy being granted (Ideally immediately following completion of construction of the finished floor and before additional building construction to verify that the finished floor has been constructed to the correct elevation). 9. The phase of the site development or later phases of development will need to document how the project satisfies the requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. 10. The Surface Water SDC fees are $0.405 (but not less than $1012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com 'ty & Economic Development L nmental Review Committee Report HA WK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 15 of 16 Plan Review—Street Improvements: 1. Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. 2. Projects that are more than 10,000 square feet in size are required to provide full pavement width per standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the project side. A minimum 20' pavement and pedestrian walkway to the arterial will be required to be installed by the applicant. 3. Street lighting is required to be installed on the project side. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting (including PSE) is not allowed. Plan Review—General: 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. 3. Additional information regarding detailed plan review will be provided at the time of formal application. 4. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. Building Department: 1. The soils report should be brought up to date for consistency with IBC Parks Department: 1. 5 -foot bike lanes along both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard would be required. Fire Department: 1. The preliminary fire flow cannot be determined at this point. Additional information is needed such as total ground floor square footage, number of stories, and type of construction. An additional question I have is the 58,000 square feet for the restaurants part of the 180,000 square feet or is it separate square footage amount. The minimum fire flow for structures in excess of 3,000 square feet is 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours. 2. The number of required hydrants is based on the size of the structure and the size of the required fire flow. At this time, the Fire Department cannot determine the required number of hydrants as additional information is needed. The minimum number of hydrants for structures in excess of 3600 square feet is 2. However, additional hydrants may be required based on spacing, which is based on sound engineering practices. All hydrants for this project shall be required to be equipped with a 5 -inch Storz fitting. 3. The primary hydrant shall be located within 150 feet to the front of the structure. All other hydrants shall be located within 300 feet to the front of the structure. A Hydrant shall be required to be within 50 feet of the Fire Department connection. Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table C105.1 or the 2006 International Fire Code. 4. Fire apparatus access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide on a surface capable of sustaining the weight of a fire apparatus. The turning radius shall be 45 feet to the outside and 25 feet to the inside. 5. Fire Sprinklers are applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Sprinkler system. 6. The fire Sprinkler Riser Room shall be accessible through a dedicated exterior door. The Sprinkler Riser Room shall be located with heat and lighting. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com 'ty & Economic Development E, nmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Rage 16 of 16 7. A Class Ill Standpipe with a valve and a single 2'/2 inch fitting located on each floor landing may be required should the building exceed 3 stories. 8. A total coverage Addressable Fire Alarm system shall be required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Alarm system. 9. Building exceeding 30 feet in height shall be provided with approved fire access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the fire department aerial apparatus access roadway. 10. High rise requirements as set forth in the 2006 International Building, Fire Code and Local Fire Code amendments shall be applicable tot his building if 7 stories or greater. 11. In buildings where a required accessible floor is four or more stories above a level of exit discharge, at least one required accessible means of egress shall be an elevator complying with Section 1007.4 of the 2006 International Fire code. It is requested that this elevation have an interior dimension capable of accommodating a standard size emergency medical services patient stretcher in the laid flat configuration. ERC REPORT 09-060 INTERSTATE 405 mmm ffE NE NE `6 CITY OFINEWCASTLE - ORTbER NRA!LRQAD iAk 4 ab in,13 50 -71 co n _ II , l r r r" f a =Ys � rn qE a aaaa�, ¢ 1' g �S3 i 1f1 �I � $ R 8 �Fl�Sg r C .� gjail,# 70 s 8_8, li 6 % e8 a A C , § "Ri ` ER s �: R "R 6q6q ���� 11, ��� g, 6q �+° S R Q! 8� 8y5� F§�aalA g 55� R 4..- Xi 9� W 44 ' INMSTATE HIGHWAY 405 ■ ■ f f � t � rI Vf y N { I� i� m I Z i I o o1 m 0, s > I# 11 I f > J 5 }i a z •% N { I� i� m I Z i I o o1 m 0, s > � > x Ln b s. SCG' C� __-- sURIINCFbW NORTHERN RA11RpAp -_ _.- 0 k M a �-- >e a°+gad�V�NUeg-CO Q 1► n 0 \ z F CO 1► r_ a z zo i1lJ!L # v ®0 BOG�)Q- 0 m -;,q lq InginNI, 4o i Y �% ► Y A � �4 4 A � R sq 0 g _j;l ; 0FR I ffi ynw- a = 53 € � MR i � F4 � 9 s 4 ala I n 0 r_ a z zo i1lJ!L # v ®0 BOG�)Q- 0 m -;,q lq InginNI, 4o i Y �% ► Y A � �4 4 A � R sq 0 g _j;l ; 0FR I ffi ynw- a = 53 € � MR i � F4 � 9 s 4 ala I Y� (n Ion b " � 1 ` - t Ri -INC;TON t1DR7 RA. 0 K HERfV R AD - - - '— son sill, — llax agow - - �, ��` i f x I - '." � tiV not, ' Y � W s k yr a- l •"4 � +� j �A �/ ;ll I �+ a x a j its` 4 :CIO z a° y j 1 � 4 HHP 4� b T A $ z A m C jq j!2 z R IE IV mTr z O 14 z i' - nnrr 7 � : f nNIN MINE J-7 MONO S tAE:r 1 I I= Ulm 1 1 1 � INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405 LA -wo 2S m o� Ul �^ n ..i CO _ U i R L v o =lb— s` U o — z _ - _ HERN RAILROAD �- -- - AS Z Ll r b F F c /��f I -` - I{1i. ��f���/ �Fti�� 1,�•I '° �f 7Q fel [.) ts ! CC^^ 4S� Y • V T- T I _ u z sTz CC r 3�c A fi b LA m r h t—n1 , z rn n z o _ � � A x �n z o A � 4M1 FSSFs Admbk Washington State ro Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation June 22, 2009 Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed -Use LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H SR 405 MP 7.47 (NE 44t1i Ramps vicinity) Dear Ms. Dolbee: Northwest Region 15700 Dayic7n Avenue North PC Box 330310 5ea'tle %NA 98133-9710 2G6-440-4000 r Fax 206-409-7250 TTY 1-800-833-6388 www wSdoiwa,gov citif of fa0nin9 %D ,?to 's'Qn JUN e Tho Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted for the above referenced project. The development is located in the SW quadrant of I-405/NE 44`'' St interchange and proposes to construct a 173 -room hotel and other amenities. The following are our comments: Traffic Accidents — Page 6: to be consistent with WSDOT terminology, please change the word "accident" to "collision". 2. Traffic Analysis methodology including traffic volume projections and LOS calculations are acceptable. The provided data are sufficient for showing the project's level of impacts. 3. As stated in the Conclusion, part of the Project Impacts/Mitigation, the development will: a. Participate in the construction of additional lanes at the 1-405/NE 40' St northbound ramps b. Share with the cost of the traffic signal installation at the I-405/NE 44`'' St southbound ramps The mitigation proposals are acceptable. Details relating to the mitigations will be further reviewed and specifically determine when the subject locations are planned for construction. Note that WSDOT is planning for signalizing both northbound and southbound ramps at I-405/NE 44" St interchange. 4. There is a crosswalk shown across Lake Washington Blvd at the northern approach (Site Plan); this would not be allowed at an unsignaiized intersection within Limited Access (LA) SR 405 (NE 44th vicinity) Hawks' Landing Page 2 of 2 5, The Executive Summary portion of the TIA recommends restricting the existing access location to right-in/right-out only; this recommendation should be included in the Conclusion/Recommendations portion of the report as well. 6. The proposed project is located within WSDOT limited access (see attached ROW plan) and there is an existing access break. Depending on the terms of the original access break, compensation to the State may be necessary due to the change in land -use. Please note that this compensation is different from the mitigation measures discussed on #3. 7. Referring to comments #5 and #6 — Our preference would be to close the existing driveway within LA since there are other alternate access to the development. Restriction to a right-in/right-out condition would need to de done with some type of restrictive median treatment, hydraulics consideration and attendant maintenance. Based on the trip generation, there are only 5 AM exits and 5 PM exits with no entries at this location; hence, the impact to the project would be minimal and compensation to WSDOT (#6) would not be necessary. We have not received the comments from our 1-405 team and we could forward you those once received. If you have any questions, or require additional information please contact Felix Palisoc of our Developer Services section by phone at 206-440-4713, or via e-mail at alisof@wsdot.wa. gov. Sin ly, ( Id 44A -v a, mtn Pazooki 70 Local Agency and Development Services Manager RP:fsp cc: Day file / Project File R. Roberts, MS 120 0-%Reiix_DOVSSer NSEPA_Responses%epaRENTON_SR405MP747HawksLantling_TIA20ty.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY o City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 00�r����4�4 " M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 15, 2009 TO: Vanessa Doibee // FROM: Arneta Henninger 4W SUBJECT: HAWK'S LANDING MIXED USE LUA 09-060 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N I have completed my review on the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use application located in Section 32, Twp 24N, Rng 5 E and have the following comments. The application submitted proposes a 173 -room 60 -foot high hotel. The hotel would include retail space, spa, restaurant and a parking garage. Existing Water: This project is located in the City of Renton water service area. This project site is located in the 320 Water Pressure Zone. The static pressure is approximately 123 psi at the street level. Pressure reducing valves shall be installed at the domestic meter if the pressure exceeds 80 psi. There is an existing 12" DI pipe on the site. See City of Renton water drawing W-0400 for detailed engineering plans. There is also an existing 12" water line about 620 feet south of the south property line; see City of Renton water drawing W- 0941. This proposed development site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 12" sanitary sewer main on the site. Storm Drainage: There are some storm drainage facilities in Lake Washington Blvd N. REQUIREMENTS Water: Additional water main improvements will be required to provide the required fireflow demand for the development. 1. Installation of a 12 -inch water along Lake Washington Blvd N along entire property fronting the roadway and extending to and connecting to an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of south property line. 2. New fire hydrants along Lake Washington Blvd about 300 feet apart. 3. Installation of a portion of 12 -inch water line inside an existing steel casing within the May Creek bridge structure. 4. Installation of on-site looped water main (10 -inch to 12 -inch), with fire hydrants around the proposed hotel. The size and location of water main within the site will AH 09-032.doc Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Page 2 of 5 be determined based on the fire flow demand of the development. 5. Civil plans for water main extension will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. 6. Backflow prevention assembly (DDCVA) required for fire sprinkler system (refer to City Standard Details for external DDCVA in vault or for special requirements for DDCVA inside building). 7. Domestic water meter required for each building (meter sizing per Uniform Plumbing Code). 8. Pressure reducing valve required downstream of each domestic water meter since static pressure is above 80 psi. 9. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind each domestic water meter for each building. RPBA shall be installed in an aboveground "Hot -Box". 10. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) required for landscape irrigation meter due to proposed use of recycled stormwater for irrigation. 11. A portion of the existing 12" watermain thought the site will need to be abandoned. The abandonment can only occur after the completion of the new water lines. A partial release of the existing easement will be required. • System Development Charges are based on the size of any and all water meters. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. • Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, the submittal did not include sufficient information to determine a preliminary fire flow for the proposed development. • An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for the development. • The maximum available capacity (in GPM) at 20 -psi residual pressure from the existing City's water systems in vicinity of development site is 4,000 GPM. Sanitary Sewer: • A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how this site will be served with commercial sidesewer. • Any use in the building subject to oils or grease shall require the installation of a grease interceptor or oil/water separator per the current UPC as determined at the time of plan review. • The Parking garage will require an oil water separator. • System Development Charges based on the size of the domestic water meter are required. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. Storm Drainage* • A drainage control plan designed per the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual is required. The project shall comply with the 2005 KCSWDM standards as a condition of SEPA. AH 09-032.doc Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Wage 3 of 5 • The project will need to provide flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance system improvements. Any offsite runoff will need to be accounted for in the drainage analysis. Direct discharge is not allowed from this site. The site drains to May Creek, which is not designated as a major receiving water body where direct discharge is allowed. The following are comments on the Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel TIR dated April 28, 2009. 1. The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalk, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than 0.1 cfs between the sum of the developed 100 -year peak flows and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flows using the KCRTS hydrologic model. This information is needed in order to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. 2. Since the project is a redevelopment project proposing more than 5,000 square feet of new and replace impervious surface, the project is not exempt from core requirement #3 of the 2005 KC SWDM. The project falls under Conservation Flow Control Area, the flow control requirement is waived if there is no more than 0.1 cfs difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow for the same project site area. For the purpose of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in table 1.2.3.0 of the 2005 KCSWDM. If after applying the sizing credits, the difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow is less than 0.1 cfs, the LID alternative will mitigate for flow control. If the difference is greater than 0.1 cfs, a flow control facility per chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM such as a bioswale, detention pond, etc; will need to be provided in combination to mitigate runoff control. The proposed roadway improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard shall be taken under consideration to calculate the post development site condition and, to size the water quality and flow control facilities. AH 09-032.doc Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Pagc 4 of 5 3. The Hawks Landing Hotel is the first phase of a of a larger common development plan that will eventually occur on the rest of the total area associated with the Pan Abode site. The Phase II NPDES permit prohibits the phasing of projects in a manner that allows for the granting of exemptions and avoidance of the need to provide flow control or water quality treatment that would be required if the project is looked at as a total project (all phases). The Hawks Landing Hotel phase of development on the site could be granted the exemption from flow control, if the difference between the developed 100 -year peak flow and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flow is less than 0.1 cfs (following City review and approval of the analysis), but the remaining phases of development on remaining area on the Pan Abode parcel will not be able to utilize this the 0.1 cfs exemption. It is recommended that the full development plan be analyzed for the total site, including any off-site improvements to demonstrate that the project is exempt from flow control. Otherwise, future phases of the project will be required to provide flow control, since the 0.1 cfs exemption can only be applied once to a phase of development that is part of a larger common plan of development. 4. Appendix C of the 2005 KCSWDM only applies to small projects, the Rain Garden cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. A water quality facility as specified under chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM shall be provided. 5. Does the project has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM? If yes, the enhanced water quality menu shall be used. 6. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements In the 2005 KCSWDM. It appears that a portion of this site is located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. The applicant will need to show on the site plan the location of the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. Any buildings constructed in the 100 -year floodplain will need to have their finished floor elevation place at 1 -foot above the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. FEMA Elevation Certificates will be required for any building constructed in the floodplain prior to any occupancy being granted (Ideally immediately following completion of construction of the finished floor and before additional building construction to verify that the finished floor has been constructed to the correct elevation). * The phase of the site development or later phases of development will need to document how the project satisfies the requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. AH 09-032.doc Hawk's Landing 'Mixed Usc Page 5 of 5 V • The Surface Water SDC fees are $0.405 (but not less than $1012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Street Improvements: • Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. • Projects that are more than 10,000 square feet in size are required to provide full pavement width per standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the project side. A minimum 20' pavement and pedestrian walkway to the arterial will be required to be installed by the applicant. • Street lighting is required to be installed on the project side. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting (including PSE) is not allowed. • Traffic Mitigation fees are $105,975. Transportation Comments_ Transportation has the fallowing comments. Site flan • The northerly proposed site access (the existing Pan Abode access) location and operation as a right-in/right-out access is acceptable. • Regarding the proposed main hotel access location, we prefer that this access was located so that it aligned with the existing intersection of the Barbee Mill public access road with Lake Washington Blvd. Previous Port Quendall site access studies propose sharing the Barbee Mill access road which would result in a considerable increase in traffic volumes on Lake Washington Blvd at this location which in turn could compromise, in the future, the safe and efficient traffic operation at both the proposed main hotel access and the Barbee Mill access. • Regarding the proposed southbound left -turn lane in Lake Washington Blvd serving the main hotel access, we prefer installation of a two-way left -turn lane. A conceptual layout of a two-way left -turn lane is provided (hand carried) for use during preparation of the frontage improvement plans. • The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is acceptable. General: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. • Additional information regarding detailed plan review will be provided at the time of formal application. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Haff of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. AH 09-032.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REV}EWING DEPARTMENT: of 1 4 J COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 11, 2009 . APPLICATION NO: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 28, 2009 APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 133.729 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washin ton Blvd N PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 122,000 square feet plants WORK ORDER NO: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. In addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area: as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction. The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable Minor Major Impacts Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Aesthelics Air Recreation Water Utilities plants Public Services LandlSlxrciiov Use HistoricX Ultural Preservation Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natwal Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Hoasin Aesthelics Li hl/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistoricX Ultural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Fee! J.ex- tllz�( Cz&� We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas where additional intorr,4ion is nej�cjbd to properly assess this, Signature of Director or in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or r Date Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: Project Description: Land Use Type: ❑ Residential ❑ Retail ❑ Non -retail Calculation: _# 9-5'/ ZCa-e1 / 13 4 �- / � -/� (LL Transportation Mitigation Pee: Calculated by: Date of Payment: Method of Calculation: C13 2 008 V3 ITE Trip Generation Manual, 70" -Edition © Traffic Study ❑ Other 7/A Date: /Y aim- z & 0 9 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: r( ? COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 11, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M.. SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 28, 2009 APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee MAY 29 20,09 PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 133,729 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NIA 1 =•'y LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross)_1 22,000 square feet Plants WORK ORDER NO: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review. Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N. the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. In addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction. The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable Minor Major Impacts Impacts More Information Necessary Earth An Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environrnenlat Health Energy/ Natural Resources Ai, port Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment probable Probable Minor Major Impacts Impacts More Information !Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htlGiare Recrealion Utilities Tran sportatinr, Public Services Nisluric/Cultural Preservaticr' Ai, port Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular lattention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is nj led tiorpperiy assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Vanessa Dolbee From: Bob Mahn Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 03:00 PM To: Arneta J. Henninger Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Jim Seitz Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Development Review of the materials provided as part of the "Green Folder" submittal has resulted in the following comments: Site Plan - The northerly proposed site access (the existing Pan Abode access) location and operation as a right-in/right-out access is acceptable. - Regarding the proposed main hotel access location, we prefer that this access was located so that it aligned with the existing intersection of the Barbee Mill public access road with Fake Washington Blvd. Previous Port Quendall site access studies propose sharing the Barbee Mill access road which would result in a considerable increase in traffic volumes on Lake Washington Blvd at this location which in turn could compromise, in the future, the safe and efficient traffic operation at both the proposed main hotel access and the Barbee Mill access. - Regarding the proposed southbound left -turn lane in Lake Washington Blvd serving the main hotel access, we prefer installation of a two-way left -turn lane. A conceptual layout of a two-way left -turn lane is provided (hand carried) for use during preparation of the frontage improvement plans. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) - The TIA is acceptable. Assume the TIA has been provided to WSDOT for review. Bob Mahn Transportation Systems Planning Section X-7322 June 11, 2009 Vanessa Dolbee From: Karen Walter [Karen.Walter@muckleshoot,nsn,us] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 03:07 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated (DNS -M) Attachments: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use LUA-09-060.jpg Vanessa, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Notice of Application materials including the environmental checklist and the Wetland/Stream Study for the above referenced project. Thank you for sending the Wetland and Stream study as it facilitated our review. Based on the materials that we have reviewed, we have some questions about this project. 1. The environmental checklist indicates that the project is not within the 100 year floodplain of May Creek. However, it appears that a small portion of the site may be within the 100 year floodplain per King County's IMAP (See attached map). Please clarify if this project is within the 100 year floodplain. If it is, please clarify if there will be filling within the 100 year floodplain and if so, what is the proposed mitigation for this fill. 2. In item 3.c.1, the environmental checklist indicates that treated stormwater from the rain gardens will be routed to the site's historic discharge location in the southwest corner. Does this mean that there will be no detention of this stormwater? Please clarify. 3. The checklist in section 3.c.1 also describes a portion the stormwater from non -pollution generating surfaces will be routed to a vault and used for on-site irrigation. How much stormwater is estimated to be used for irrigation and how much will be treated and discharged without detention? 4. Where will the proposed 83 trees be planted? The checklist references a conceptual landscape plan but it was not included in our packet of materials. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses to the questions above. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172"' Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 W Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering * Materials Testing O Special Inspection • Environmental Consulting June 4, 2009 Mr. Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing, LLC P.O. Box 188 Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report Hawk's Landing Lake Washington Blvd. N and 1-405 Renton, WA Project No.: 09BO44 Dear Mr. Mitzel: Lokq-w JIB N �L�aa� . tr b§ sem. ; � `�� v. In accordance with your request, Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. (MTC) has conducted a soils investigation and geotechnical engineering analysis for the referenced project. The results of this investigation, together with our recommendations, are contained in the following report. To investigate the site, we excavated seven test pits, obtained soil samples for laboratory testing, conducted one ground water inflow measurement and performed geotechnical engineering analysis. In addition, we reviewed two previous geotechnical engineering reports by others. Water levels were measured in the test pits. We plan to return to the site and measure water levels a second time this corning winter when water levels are estimated to be near their highest levels. An addendum to this report will be submitted with the second set of water level readings at that time. Questions related to soil conditions often arise during design and construction of a project. We would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical consultants during the project planning and construction. We also have a keen interest in providing materials testing and special inspection during construction of this project. We will be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these services. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any questions concerning the above items, the procedures used, or if MTC can be of any further assistance please call us at (360) 647-6061. Respectfully Submitted, MATERIALS TESTING & CONSULTING, INC. Corporate — 777 Chrysler Drive % Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980 NW Region -- 2126 East Bakerview Rd., Suite #10[ • Bellingham, WA 98226 • Phone (360) 647-6061 . Fax (360) 647-8111 SW Region — 21 [8 Black Lake Blvd. SW • Olympia, WA 98512 • Phone (360) 534-9777 + Fax (366) 534-9779 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net Hawk's Landing Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.: 09B444 June 4, 2009 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Scope......................................................................................................................................... ................ 3 2.0 Project Description..............................................................................................................4 3.0 Site Description...................................................................................................................4 3.1 General Description.............................................................................................. .....4 4.0 Field Exploration.................................................................................................................4 4.1 Excavation & Sampling Procedures...............................................................................................................4 4.2 Laboratory Testing................................................................................................................................... 5 5.0 Subsurface Conditions.........................................................................................................5 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................................6 6.1 General Suitability for Planned Development................................................................................................ 6 6.2 Suitability of Existing Soil for Re -Use as Structural Fill................................................................................ 7 6.3 Recommended Changes to Previous Recommendation by Others................................................................. 7 6.4 Grading...........................................................................................................................................................7 6.5 Groundwater Control...................................................................................................................................... 8 7.0 Additional Services and Limitations...................................................................................9 AppendixA. Site Plans.............................................................................................................10 Appendix B. Logs of Test Pits..................................................................................................12 Appendix C. Laboratory Results..............................................................................................20 Appendix D. Limitations and Use of This Report....................................................................23 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 1.0 Introduction Oaterials'Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 This report presents the results of a soils investigation for the proposed Hawk's Landing complex to be constructed south of the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard North and Interstate 405 in Renton, WA. This investigation was conducted for Hawk's Landing, LLC, who provided written authorization to proceed on May 5, 2009. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to review existing geotechnical reports by others, determine the various soil profile components, determine the suitability of re -using existing soils for structural fill, provide additional ground monitoring points, and provide estimates of ground water inflow for design of a dewatering trench. 1.2 Scope As detailed in our proposal for geotechnical services dated January 22, 2009, the scope of services included: Subsurface Ex loration • Excavate 6 test pits • Log the soil and ground water conditions • Obtain representative grab samples of the soils • Measure water levels • Conduct ground water pump -down and record rebound volume vs. time Laboratory Testing • Gradation • Moisture content Geotechnical Report • Subsurface soil conditions • Ground water • Suitability of re -using the existing soil for structural fill • Estimate of ground water inflow rate • Review existing soils reports and amend recommendations if necessary We were not requested to provide an environmental site assessment for this property. Any comments concerning on-site conditions and/or observations, including soil appearances and odors, are provided as general information. Information in this report is not intended to describe, quantify or evaluate any environmental concern or situation. 3 Hawk's Landing _Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.: 09BO44 June 4, 2009 2.0 Project Description The project will consist of a 120,000 square foot, five story hotel. The hotel will be of conventional wood frame construction with a cast -in-place concrete parking garage basement with a post -tensioned roof slab. Structural loads had not been developed at the time of this report, however, we understand a similar project you developed in Marysville, WA was designed with shallow spread footings utilizing allowable bearing pressures of 2500 pounds per square foot (psf) and column footings measuring up to 14 by 14 feet in plan dimension. The ground floor elevation will be at elevation 38 feet; the parking garage finish floor grade will be at elevation 28 feet. The existing elevation of the site is about elevation 30 feet. Development plans include a permanent dewatering trench at the site perimeter to allowable excavation for site grading and excavation of footings without ground water intrusion. Two previous geotechnical engineering investigations have been conducted on this site by others. The first report is: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Dice Building, prepared for the Ranier Fund, by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., October 8, 1985. The second is: Geotechnical Engineering Study — May Creek Business Park, prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., February 6, 1991. Detailed descriptions of area geology, seismicity and subsurface soil conditions are contained in these reports and will not be repeated here. 3.0 Site Description 3.1 General Description The project site is located on a property measuring approximately 800 feet along Lake Washington Boulevard North 960 feet along I-405 and about 730 feet along the south property line. The site is currently occupied by wood and metal framed industrial warehouses and support structures and a wood frame administrative and sales office for pre -fabricated homes. Much of the site is paved, but includes gravel surfaced areas and limited brush and trees in peripheral areas along a portion of the northwest property line. A small lawn fronts the sales office and landscaping borders the entry drive accessing the north corner of the site. The site is relatively level, for the most part, increasing in elevation from 30 to 38 feet from north to south. More abrupt topography occurs as road embankment fills along the periphery at Washington Boulevard, the north entrance driveway and Interstate 405. A 13 foot -high fill forms the entrance driveway. 4.0 Field Exploration On January 4, 2009, our geologist visited the site and conducted a subsurface exploration of the soil and groundwater conditions. The field investigation included excavation of seven geotechnical test pits, ground water flow measurements in a perforated casing and measurement of water levels in two existing monitoring wells installed by others. A site plan supplied by the project engineer was used to position the test pits. Test pits were located by pacing and sighting off of existing buildings and landmarks and are presumed to be accurate to within a few feet. 4.1 Excavation & Sampling Procedures Test Pits were excavated using a track -mounted excavator and operator supplied by the client. Grab samples representative of each soil type were obtained from each test pit. The samples were classified in the field in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS, see Appendix B), identified according to test pit number and depth, placed in plastic bags to protect against moisture loss 4 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 daterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 and transported to the laboratory for testing. The Logs of Test Pits are shown in Appendix B. To measure the ground water inflow rate, we installed a 6 inch diameter PVC pipe into Test Pit 5 to a depth of 7.0 feet below the ground surface or 3.4 feet below the water level. The pipe was slotted with numerous saw cuts and wrapped with filter fabric. The annular space around the pipe was backfilled with soil excavated from the test pit and four inches of gravel was placed in the bottom of the pipe. The time required to re -fill the casing is summarized in Table 2, below. The pipe was removed at the end of the test and the hole was backfilled. Table 2. Water Table Recovery Rate Elapsed Time (Minutes) Depth Below Ground Surface Feet 0 6.67 15 5.00 25 4.25 38 3.75 65 3.50 The results of the water level recovery test indicate a ground water inflow rate of 4.3 gallons per hour. 4.2 Laboratory Testing Upon demobilizing from the field, laboratory testing was conducted on selected samples to determine pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. The laboratory testing included supplementary visual classification, moisture content (ASTM D2216), and Grain Size Analysis (ASTM C 117, C136). The results of these tests are presented in Appendix D. 5.0 Subsurface Conditions Soil profiles were somewhat variable across the site. Three distinct soil units were observed in the test pits. The identified units are as follows with increasing depth below the surface: Table 1, Observed Soil Units with Decreasing Depth Topsoil (OL, SM) Dark brown organic silt and sandy silt encountered in Test Pit 1, 2 and 4 and 5 to depths of 0.6 to 1.5 feet. The topsoil was overlain by 0.3 feet of gravel fill in Test Pit 4. Uncontrolled Fill (UF, GP, ML, SPSW, SM -ML) Encountered in Test Pits 3, and 5 through 7, Varying from sandy gravel as crushed surfacing top course to sawdust. The fill ranged in thickness from 1.4 to 3.3 feet thick. The sawdust (Test Pit 3) and organic silt (Test Pit 4) and was 2.8 and 1.2 feet thick, respectively. Hawk's Landine Jot i Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. > No.: 098044 lune 4, ZL Alluvium (GW, GP, SW, SP, SP -SW, SM, ML, OL) Encountered in all test pits to the depths explored (4.5 to 11.2 feet). Encountered as layers 0.5 to 4.4 feet thick with thin interbeds within the layers. Granular soils were loose to dense and fine grained soils were medium stiff to stiff. Naturally occurring wood debris in the form of fine organics, roots and branches was encountered in Test Pits 3 through 6. 109 The water table was encountered in all test pits at depths ranging from 2.1 to 7.5'. Two water level monitoring wells had been previously installed by others, one in front of a warehouse building near the east property line and one in a parking area in the north west corner of the property as shown on the site plan. The water level in the warehouse well was measured at 3.4 feet below grade and in the parking area at 1.2 feet. During a previous site visit on January 28, 2009, we measured the water level in these wells at 3.8 feet and 1.3 feet, respectively. We plan on returning to the site in early June in order to hand auger through selected test pit backfills and measure water levels again. 6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 6.11 General Suitability for Planned Development Based on the results of our field investigation, laboratory tests and review of the two previous geotechnical reports, we conclude that the recommendations contained in the Hart Crowser report for pile foundations are applicable to this phase of the project. We conclude the loads for this structure lie somewhere between those contained in the Hart Crowser report (7 to 8 story, cast -in-place concrete building with column loads of 220 to 1250 kips) and the Earth Consultants report (2 story warehouse/office buildings with 150 kip column loads and 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot perimeter footing loads). The Earth Consultants report recommended pre -loading the site and providing shallow spread footing foundations for support. The Hart Crowser report recommended auger -cast concrete piles of about 50 feet deep. We conclude that the loads for your structure will be on the order of 500 kips per column and that foundations gaining their support from denser soils at depth will be required to limit differential and total settlements to tolerable levels. This is especially true because of the variable nature and density of the fill and alluvial soils, the relatively shallow water level, the presence of organic material in the soil and the design ground floor elevation of the structure. We understand that for deep foundations, you are considering aggregate piers for soil improvement in conjunction with spread footing foundations. Aggregate piers may be a viable solution for this site. These systems are typically designed by specialty contractors based on soils information supplied by others. They may be able to design a system based on the existing reports cited above. However, it will be beneficial if additional geotechnical information specific to this site and project were obtained for design of deep foundations. MTC would be keenly interested in providing you and your aggregate pier contractor with additional subsurface information at this site. We would be pleased to meet with you and your aggregate pier designer to plan the additional geotechnical investigation. z Hawk's banding ilaterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.: 0913044 June 4, 2009 6.2 Suitability of Existing Soil for Re -Use as Structural Fill The soil encountered in at 1.8 feet in Test Pit 1 and 4.5 feet in Test Pit 2 consist of sandy gravel and silty sand, respectively. These soils are suitable for re -use as structural fill provided the recommendations presented below are followed: Native soil used as structural fill should be near optimum moisture according to the modified Proctor test method (ASTM D1557) and as determined by MTC. Soils not meeting optimum moisture content should be moisture conditioned by wetting or drying prior to placement. Soil with a moisture content exceeding 3% of optimum should be spread in thin lifts or wind rows, aerated, and turned over until it reaches near -optimum moisture conditions. The shallow soils encountered in the remaining test pits vary considerably in makeup from very organic fill to sand. Some of these soils may be suitable for re -use as structural fill, but since the deposits appear to be isolated selective excavation will be required during grading if any are to be re -used as structural fill. 6.3 Recommended Changes to Previous Recommendation by Others Because the building pad will be in about two feet of cut, no surcharge fill is required. However, prior to placing the floor slab, MTC should check the condition of the exposed subgrade to check for the presence of unsuitable, soft or deflecting soils. Where these soils are encountered, they should be removed down to firm unyielding soils and replaced with compacted structural fill. The recommendations for grading and fill placement presented in the previous reports should be followed with the exception that all structural fill should be compacted to 95% of maximum density in accordance with the ASTM D 1557 modified compaction test method. 6.4 Grading Excessively organic and loose soils generally undergo high volume changes when subjected to loads. This is detrimental to the behavior of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills and foundations placed upon them. Therefore, excessively organic and loose soils should be stripped from these areas and wasted or stockpiled for later use. If very loose soils are encountered underlying the recommended stripping depths, these soils will need to be re -compacted or replaced with structural fill. Table 2. Stripping Depth Test Location Reference Location Stripping Depth (Feet) TP -1 820' N, 270' W of SE Property Corner 1.0 TP -2 835' N, 325' W of SE Property Corner 0.6 TP -3 275' N, 385' W of SE Property Corner 3.3 TP-. 110' N, 60' W of SE Property Corner 1.5 TP -5 240' N, 40' W of SE Property Corner 0.3 TP -6 390' N, 25' W of SE Property Corner 0 TP -7 690' N, 10' W of SE Property Corner 1.0 Exact depths of stripping should be adjusted in the field to ensure that the entire root or loose zone is removed. The final exposed subgrade should be inspected by MTC to verify that all organic material has been removed. Any soft spots or deflecting areas should be removed to firm unyielding soils and replaced with structural fill. Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 6.5 Groundwater Control laterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 As described above, ground water and perched groundwater seeps were observed at all test pit locations during this investigation. Flow measured in Test Fit 5 averaged 43 gallons per hour. Ground water in the Earth Consultants report was measured at 2.0 to 3.5 feet deep in February, 1991. The Hart Crowser report indicated water levels of 5 to 9.5 feet deep in August 29, 1985; water levels measured in two of the borings on September 5, 1985 indicated water levels higher by 1.3 and 2.4 feet. Ground water infiltration will affect construction in even shallow excavations on this site. Water level will vary seasonally. We understand the project civil engineer will be designing a dewatering trench in order to draw down the water level on this site in order to mitigate dewatering problems during and after construction. Hawk's Landing Job No.; 498044 laterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 7.0 Additional Services and Limitations We recommend that MTC be engaged to review the plans and specifications to check that the recommendations presented in this and previous reports are adhered to. MTC should also test and evaluate the exposed subgrades before placing slabs or structural fills to determine that the soils meet the required bearing capacities and that unexpected conditions are not present. Monitoring and testing should be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for structural fills and that they are properly placed and compacted. MTC should be present during foundation installation to check that the expected bearing soils are as described in the previous soils reports and assumed by the designer and to make recommendations for modifications if necessary. The work described in this report is considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the site development. MTC should be notified of any revision in the plans for the proposed structure from those presented in this report so that we may determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If deviations from the noted subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, they should also be brought to our attention. MTC warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained in this report, have been developed after being prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional practice in the fields of soil mechanics and engineering geology. No other warranties are implied or expressed. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Hawk's Landing, LLC and their retained design consultants. Findings and recommendations within this report are for specific application to this site and proposed project. s 7/14/10 Randolph R. Ross, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer 9 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 095044 faterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Appendix A. Site Plans t !�q J, )p ;h4e 51 U Asf hon 10 inpp:W Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09$044 Iaterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. .tune 4, 2009 NI 100 200 300 �'~.. Seale Feet Y. r ' � Test Pit Location (Typ.) I i is �u�«llL i I f 1 ;+Pik, N '44- 40 r �. •� Existing Monitoring Well (Typ.) y' z 6 oc P , "l w f+f •i ir P 7 ZI '' : I 3 4 Scale : Feet lr 4 Ref: Grading Plan By: Sound Development Gmup Dated: May, 2009 Hawk's Landing laterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.: 09BO44 June 4, 2009 Appendix B. Lags of Test Pits ilnified Snil Claccilication Svstem Chart Major Divisions Graph USCS Typical Description Coarse Grained Sods Gravel Very Loose ° '�• a :p•a GW Well -graded Gravels, Gravel-SardMix- tures Loose More Than 50% of Coarse Frac- tion Retained Clean Gravels 2-4 GP Poorly -Graded Gravels, Gavel-Sartd Mixtures Firm a aGi GM SiltyGravek. Gravel-Sard-Sill Mixtues More Than 50% On No. 4 Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 15-30 Retained On Na 200 SieveGC Sieve Gravels With Fires I > 30 Fare Clayey Gravels, Gravel -Sand -Clay Mix- tures 0.0029 - 0.017" Flour to Sugar Fines passing #204 Spy Well -graded Sands, Gravelly Sands Sand - • More Titan Clean Sands SP Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands 50% of Coarse Frac- Lion Passing SM Silty Sands, Sand -Silt Mixtures No. 4 Sieve Scolds With Fines SC Clayey Sands, Clay Mixtures Fine Grained MI- lmrganc Silts, tock Flour, C layey S ills Soils With Low Plasticity Silts & Clays Liquid Limit Less Than 50 f CL Inorganic Clays of Low To Medium Plasticity More Than 50% Passing The Na 200 Sieve OL Organic Silts and Organic Silty Clays of Low Plasticity MIl Inorganic Silts of Moderate Plasticity Silts Clays Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays of High P lasticity Greater Than 50 CFH Organic Clays And Silts ofMedium to Hi hPhsticity Highly Organic Soils Peal, Humus, Soils with Predominantly Organic Content Organic Cnil ('nncistpnry Grariul or Soils Fine-grained Soils Density SPT Blowcount Cortsishrrcy SPT Blowcoum Very Loose OA Very Soft 0-2 Loose 4-10 Soft 2-4 Medium Dense 10-30 Firm 4-8 Dense 30-50 Stiff 8-15 Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 15-30 Medium #40 - #10 Hard I > 30 (:rain .G'i7P Sam ler Symbol Description % Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ® Shelby Tube ® Grab or Bulk ® California (3.0" O.D.) 3 - 12" Modified California (2.5" O.D") StratiQraphic Contact Distinct Straligraphic Contact Between Soil Strata Gradual Change Between Soil Strala ------ Approxirmlelocation of stratagraphic change I Groundwater observed atlifreof exploration Measuurd groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer Perched water observed at true of exploration Description % Trace >5 Sotnc 5-12 With 712 DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE GRAIN SIZE APPROXIMATE SIZE Boulders > 12" > 12" Larger than a basketball Cobbles 3 - 12" 3 - 12" Fist to basketball Gravel Coarse 314 - 3" 3/4 - 3" Thumb to fist Fmc #4 - 314" 0.19 - 0.75" Pea to thurrb Sand Coarse # 10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19" Rock sah to pea Medium #40 - #10 0.417 - 0.079" Sugar to rock salt Fare #240 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017" Flour to Sugar Fines passing #204 < 0.0029" Flour and srrnller 12 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 laterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 1 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started :5-M9 Renton, WA Date Completed : 5-8-09 Sampling Method : Grab sampling Location : 820' N. 270'W of SE Property Corner Logged By :A Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation u_L v a� � L Elev. d DESCRIPTION n E m 0 34 ( m 3 0 34 Dark brown organic SILL' (Topsoil) OL 1 ss is: Grey GRAVEL with sand, medium dense to dense, wet, rounded gravel to 3" diameter Well defined rust line 5" thick at 1.5' with heavy mottling below 2 32 El with interbedded sandy layers at 2-3' Seepage at 2.4' GW 3 3t Moderate seepage at 3.4' Stabilized water level at 3.3' 4 30 Bottom of boring at 4.5'. Pit walls cave readily below 2'. 5 29 fi 28 7--27 B 2tS g 25 1024 11 23 12 13 Hawk's Landing Job No.; 09BO44 laterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 2 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing pate Started "-D9 Renton, WA Date Completed :5-8-09 Sampling Method : Grab sampling Location : 835'N, 325'W of SE Properly Corner Logged By A. Isle Geotechnical Site Investi ation m m m LL c Surf. m Q Elev. v a DESCRIPTION Q 30.5 rn N � 0 Dark brown organic SILT (Topsoil) DL 30 Grey brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist, with some gravel, light mottling throughout 1 SM I i 29 Sp Grey SAND, medium dense, wet, with some silt and trace gravel, light mottling throughout 2 Gray sandy GRAVEL, medium dense to dense, saturated, sandy upper 0.2', rounded to subrounded gravel to 3" diameter, with moderate mottling throughout With sandy (SW) layers throughout 1 ❑ 28 With interbeds of heavily mottled silty sand throughout. Root zone to 2-2.0 GW Seepage at 2.0' 3 27 4 Grey to blue gray fine SAND, medium dense, wet, with silt/clay interheds, mottling to 3.5' 28 ❑2 5 SP 25 24 Bottom of boring at 6.5'. Pit walls cave readily below 1.3'. 7 23 8 22 9 21 10 20 11 19 12- 14 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 098044 'Iateriats Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 3 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started 5 8 09 Renton, WA hate Completed 5-8-09 Sampling Method Grab sampVng Location : 275' N, 385' W of SE Property Corner Geotechnical Site Investigation Logged By A. Isle m LL U as m Eev a DESCRIPTION E EL 33.5 j l} GP rt Grey brown sandy GRAVEL, dense, moist 33 Uncontrolled FILL, with gravel and construction debris (wood, brick, plastic), matrix soil is brown silty sand, loose 1 32 Sawdust layer at 15, i' thick on south side of pit and 1.8' an north side 2 OF 1 ❑ 31 3 30 j ! Green grey silty SAM7, loose to medium dense, moist with trace roots and fine organics to 5.6' 29 2e I I Ill I Perched seepage at 5.9' IRI SM 27 7 26 8 25 24 10 23 11 22 12 Very slow seepage at 7.5' all sides of pit; 1" accumulation of water in bottom of pit after 5 minutes Bottom of boring at 9.3'. Pit walls cave readily below I.T. 15 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 'Iaterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 4 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Slarted 5 804 Renton, WA Dale Completed :5-8-09 Sampling Method Grab sampling Location 110' N, 60'W of SE Property Corner Logged By A. Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation m m U. N J C Surf. a Elev, _ DESCRIPTION � m o� 35 c� �n 3 0--35 GP r "'. ,,1 Sandy GRAVEL (Crushed Surfacing Top Course) Brown sandy organic SILT, soft, moist, with roots to 114" diameter (Topsoil) i 34 OL Grey SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist to saturated, rounded gravel to 1" diameter, with sandy and silty sand layers throughout 233 SP water level at 2.8' t ❑Perched 3 32 Brown SILT, medium stiff, moist, with trace organics 4 3r ML 5 30 F1 lihi ill Ill kt ;fir?, Grey sandy GRAVEL, medium dense, saturated 6 29 GP' 4i�it ira; �'r Grey to brown SILT with sand, medium stiff, moist, large naturally occuring wood debris north side of test pit from 6.5' to 7.5' 7 28 ML 8--27 IIS i 9 26 �I Brown organic sandy SILT with Clay, medium stiff, moist, with some wood debris and roots to B" 3 ❑ diameter 1025 OL 11 24 Sp Grey SAND, medium dense, moist Bottom of test pit at 11.2'. Pit walls cave readily at 5W 12 16 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 laterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 5 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started : 58-09 Renton, WA Date Completed :5-8-09 Sampling Method : Grab sampling Location : 240' N. 40'W of SE Property Corner Logged By :A Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation m m LL .5 Surf. U _ m d, m -i Y Elev. a DESCRIPTION a E 0 34 W 0 34 SM Dark brown silty SAND (Topsoil) Brown crushed surfacing TOP COURSE, with roots to 1', plastic at 1' OL 1 33 Dark brown sandy SILT, medium stiff, moist, with trace gravel ML !I 2 32 Red silty SAND medium dense to dense, wet, with gravel (Uncontrolled Fill) SP Grey SAND, medium dense, wet SP 3 31 Brown silty SAND, medium dense, heavy mottling decreasing at 3.7' Sparse roots to 3.5' 1 ❑ 4 30 SM 5 29 1 { Blue grey SAND with some gravel 2 Becomes coarser with depth SP -SW 6 28 Bottom of test pit at 6.5'. 7 27 8 28 9 25 10 24 11 23 12 17 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 6 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started :5-"g Renton, WA Date Completed :5 -Mg Sampling Method : Grab sampling Location : 390'N, 25' W of SE Property Corner Logged By : X Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation m m m LL U n c Suri. = y Elev U o DESCRIPTION E m CL �y 34 j M 0 34SM ASPHALT PAVEMENT Brown gravelly SAND, dense, moist SW 1 33 ML Brown SILT with some sand, medium stiff, moist, with some roots throughout, with trace gravel Grey brown SILT, medium stiff to stiff, moist, heavily mottled throughout 2 32 it 3 31 ML 4 30 Brown to grey brown SAND, medium dense, moist to saturated, with gravel to 2' diameter, heavily mottled throughout 5 29 SW 6 26 ML Dark grey brown SILT, stiff to medium stiff, moist, with some sand, with small roots to 118' diameter throughout, with small pockets of organic debris (partially decomposed wood) 3 7 271 Bottom of test pit at 7.0'. 8 26 9 25 10 24 11 23 12 18 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log Of Test Pit 7 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started 5-8-09 Renton, WA Date Completed, 5-8-09 Sampling Method : Grab sampling Location : 690' N. 10' W of SE Property Corner Logged By :A Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation LL Suri. U 2 N m J a Elev, U a DESCRIPTION E O 32 ? (9 to 0-32 ASPHALT PAVEMENT Brown sandy SILT, soft, moist, mottled with roots throughout (Fill) SM -ML 1 31 Grey sandy SILT, soft to medium stiff, moist, heavily mottled throughout, trace small roots (Fill) SM -ML l ? i Light brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist, heavily mottled, with trace gravel 2 30 ! k �!I l Pit walls cave readily below 2' 1 ❑ 3 29 at 3.0', small interbeds of sand, slow seepage SM 4 28 5 27 I 6 26 SP Grey SAND with trace gravel, medium dense, saturated, sand fine grained 3 Bottom of test pit at 6.5'. 7--25 8--24 923 10 22 11 21 12 19 ' Hawk's Landing daterials 'Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.: 09BO44 June 4, 2009 Appendix C. Laboratory Results Sieve Report Project: Hawks Landing Date Received. 8 -May -09 ASTM D-2487 Unirwd Soils Classification System Project #: 09B044 Sampled By: A. Isle GW, Wel I -graded Gravel with Sand Client: Hawks Landing, LLC Date Tested: 15 -May -09 Sample Color: Source: TP -1 [a] 1.8 Tested By: T. Baggerman Brown Sam lets: 090061 D,f,= 0.218 mm % Gravel = 66.01/6 Coef. .. of Curvature• C, = 0.32 Specifications 1)c10l=0.318 mm %Sand -32.3% Coeff.ofUniformity,CI, =0.02 No Specs D,,,,)-2.660 mm %Silt& Clay- 1.7% Fineness Modulus- 5.62 Sample Meets Specs ? Yes D,.61= 11.178 mm Fracture %= Wa Liquid Limit - 0.0% D„m,=14.603 mm Moisture%, assampled= n/a Plastic Limit =0.0% DI.: -34.920 mm plasticity Index =0,0% Actual Interpolated Grain Size Distribution Cumulative Size Percent Cumulative Percent Sieve Specs Specs US Metric Paninx P111155inE Max Min 100% � rrr g y g R re � Q a u d �- •�*•�'+' s r�k l-� 4 Ak7#rM=��M rl 7 r - r - 100.0% 6,DT, 150.00 100% 1DO. 0% 0.0% 4.00•' 100.00 100% 100.0% 0.09/0 u 1 1 IIr 1 I I 'IIII I I I i r 3.00" 75.00 1001/0 100.0% 0.0% 90% I I I I 1 1 I . 1 1 1 1 1 I I I ' l l_I_r _ n l_I _I _ _ _ I , I_I _r _ _ _ t l l l I W.0% 2.50" 63.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% r[I I r l 1 'IIII I I 1 I I I I I I I I 2.00" 50.00 100% I M. 0% 0.0°ra r IIII I I I I 1.75" 45.00 100% IQ0.0°1a 0.0% 111% 4111 1 1 1 , .. _ Lllu 1 1 - _ 8D.0% 1.50" 37.50 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 1 I I* 1 IIII I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I :III r l I III I I 11 I1 I I r r 1 r 111E I, 1 , r I I I I I I 1 l i l l l I * l l l l E 1 1 1.25" 31.54 100% 100.0% 0.0% 70% 1 1, I IIII I I I n n 1 - - . n I-1 7 -1- r - - 7,t I -I I n I 1 r r I.1 I r - r - 70.0% 1.1000" 25.00 79% 79% 1000.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 1 r l t u 1, 1 1 1 I r 1 r I 1 1 1 1 1 r r I I I r E 710.1 22.40 76% lD0.f 0 /° 00% 1 r r 1 r 1 : pi1 r I 314" 19.00 72/ 72/ 1000% V/ - 60.0% 518" 16.00 64% 100.0% 0.0% 1 1 r 1 1 1 1I �60170 r !1 UT' 12.50 54% 54% 100.0% 0.0% m 50% I I LI_t _i_ 1 _ �J IS i_I� _I- L - - it l l l .I .J _ L _ _ lI LIJ 1 J _ _ 50.0% rp 318" 9.50 44% 44% 100.0% 0.0°"/ rr, I I I 1111 I I -111 I I r I I rill 11 1 tL 114" 6.30 37% 100.0% 0.0% 111 I I I I I I I I IIII I I I III 1 1 1 I #4 4.75 34% 34% 100.0% 0.0% 40% r'II'I-7 -1-I -I-t-- I1II1 I rl rl_7�-r- 40.0% #8 2.360 29% 100.0% 0.0% 11 l I 1 l 111 r 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 r E 1 i r_1 n r r 1 I I_E i 1 1 ,-. #10 2.000 29% 29% 100.0"/° 0.0% 30% _I _ _ _ - - i _ i _ _ _I _r _ -_ - 30.0% t n i1 I I • n 1 1 #16 020 1.180 0.850 26% 27% 26°/a 1110.0% 1n0n0.D% O.Da/o 0.0°/poi t I 1 1 1 11 11 11 t 1�•� l l r l 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l I I 1 1 1 #30 0.600 20% 100.0% 0.0% 40.0% r r I l r I I I l l 1 1 1 I I III r I #40 0.425 16% 16% 100.0°/R 0.4% E r E I I I 'IIII I I I IIII I t IIII I I 1 1 1 1 t 1 l 111 1 1 l I 1 11, 1 l 1 t 1 1111 I I 1 1 #50 0.3Q0 9% 100.0% 0.0%100/ nr17 1 I nl�rl-1-I-r--71rn •-t n -r- 10.0% 460 0.250 6% 6% 100.0% 0.0%;•: I I I IIII r l 11 1 1 I I� I IIII r l l I I 1 I I 1 #80 0.180 4% 100.0% 0.0% 096 i 0.0% #IDO 0.150 3% 3% 100.00/o 0-0°!0 100-00 10.00 100 0.10 0.01 #140 0.106 2% 100.0% 000/0 #170 0.090 2% 100.0% 0.0% Panicle Slxe (mm) #200 0.075 I.7% 1.7% 100.0% 0.0% { si- Six. * - hb. spaQ Cc . rn ait A I whu ml Srs-s P5 1996-99 Ali sam14 apphr N* 10-110 tim: aid =kris 13 rsmd. M, m alr-IwIm10 dxnL%ttep kufdov Naell mp"1, ulxrdrord m16-nbd"W promly of d-taand Ilutlr h-, forpubbI off" r,ls. mnctniom orcxbwl rmmnr rrgr0.o�n.-pons is --d pmdap-wrI ppi 1, Comments: Reviewed by:-� 20 Hawk's Landing Job bio.: 09BO44 Sieve Report Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Project: Hawks Landing Date Received: 8 -May -09 ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System Project #, 09B044 Sampled By: A. Isle SM, Silty Sand Clicnt: Hawks Land mg, LLC Date Tested: 15 -May -09 Sample Color: Source: TP -2 C 4.5 Tested By: 1'. Baggerman Gray Sample#: 090063 D,."= 0.013 mm % Gravel - Q.0% Coefi. of Curvature. Cr = 0.72 Specifications 4101= 0.027 mm %o Sand - 722% Coef7. of Uniformity. C1; = 0.28 No Specs 4 1„= 0.088 mm %Silt & Clay= 27.8% Fineness Modulus- 0.89 Sample Meets Specs ? Yes I� ..= 0.191 mm Fracture %- n/a Liquid Limit - 0.0% DI&,1=0.232 mm Moisture%,assampl ed -nla Plastic Limit -0.0% D,,y,,,= 0.519 mm 11 I I Jill I I I I IIII I I l l l 3 I , I I i111_1_ _l_ III1I _ _ �f III_I _I_I __'111111 I_ _ f 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 l l I I I I I I I I I I Plasticity Index = 0.0% Sieve Size Us Metric 6.00" 150.00 4.00" 100.00 3.00" 75.00 2.50" 63.00 2.00" 50.00 1.75' 45.00 1.5011 37.50 1.25' 31.50 1.0011 25.00 7/8" 22.40 314" 19.00 518" 16.00 112" 12.50 318" 9.50 1/4" 6.30 #4 4.75 #8 2.360 #10 2.000 #16 1.180 #20 0.850 #30 0.600 #40 0.425 #50 0.300 #60 0.250 #80 0.180 #100 0.150 #140 0.106 #170 0.090 9200 0.075 Cumulative Percent 100% 100% 95% 65% 40% 27.8% Percent Passing 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 95% 73% 65% 47% 40% 33% 30% 27.8% jq!a 35, 14A5 -0A rc•s&rr raor dl ier«nca pmdinp ror ,wiam.»Prowl. Comments: Specs Max 100.0% 100.0%a I W J 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0"/ 100.0°/ 100.0% 100.0% 100,0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%v 100, 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reviewed by: - z- - - Specs Min 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% O.On/o 0.0% 0-0% 0A% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0°/i, Ol 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21 no fsbkmmlx wnclnion orextraclr fm mor Grain Size Distribution 100% afi..7!*f:�i•,• a. ti.A'FYsI'Ta•:��.�7fr#w-�re► I, 7 7 - r - 100.0% 1 lull I I I III.#� .I 1111 I 1 90% 11 I I Jill I I I I IIII I I l l l 3 I , I I i111_1_ _l_ III1I _ _ �f III_I _I_I __'111111 I_ _ f 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 l l I I I I I I I I I I 90.0% 80% I I I l I I I Jill I I I I 11 i l 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 00.0% I l l I I 1 1 I I I I I, x I Jill 1 I I ! i 70% 11 1 I I I Ilii I I [ 1 11 1 1 1 1 , I I I I I I I I nr1`l�r--rrrni -I -r - 70.0% 1111 I I I 1111 r l l I III I I I I 1 11111 I I I %I � I 60% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I• 1 I I I I I l l I 1HI_1_1_I_ Irl11_1_I_I_I 1111_11 j I IIIIP I j_1-- 60.0% I I 1 1 1 I I I I l l i l I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I . 1 1 1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I 1 1 I r 1 I 1 I 1. •� Jill I I I I it I I 1 r I illi r l I I M p 50% u a -11 J a _ rL I I .. 1 1 1 1 1 I � I a 'III I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I r l l 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 111111 1 1 ,1111 I I I 11111 I I I 11111 1 I l 40°%a nn1-I-T-Iliil1 I r i11i111 I• 11.1-,1 r I- 40.0% 1 1 1 I I ,111 1 1 I I 'III r l l I I 1111 1 1 30%_ �� l r I - I I -I -- I-- 11 1 1-1 -I -I - I I I -� I I -I I 3D DY 20% I I I I I I l i I 1 1 1 1 1 1. I 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 it _I t- 11-11-1-I 1- 1 fill l 1 i 1 1 -Ill I r I I I i 1 1 10% 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I .111111 I I 11111 I I I .111 I 11111 I I I nnn-rY -7nr17 1-r 7-r riIII r7 r- 11111, I I ,11111 1 1 111111 I I ...II 1 1 10.0% 0°/a t1rlrrll ,II I I I I Ii II I I I I '1111 I r IIII I I r 0.0% 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 Particle Size (mm) + Sielesime -Maxw. -1 -Min W. -•-S-R-h, 21 no fsbkmmlx wnclnion orextraclr fm mor Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 4aterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Moisture Content - ASTM C-566, ASTM D-2216 & AASHTO T-265 Sample ID Location Tare Wet + Tare dry+ Tare Wgt. Of Moisture Wgt. Of Soil % Moisture 090061 TP -1 @ 1.8 912.4 3502.7 3300.2 202.5 2387.0 8.5% 090062 TP -2 2.2 918.6 3024,0 2805.5 218.5 1886-9 11.6% 090063 TP -2 @ 4.5 849.4 2601.0 2326.0 275.0 1476.6 18.6% 090064 TP -7 @ 2.0 747.5 2698.6 2281.0 417.6 1533.5 27.2% rcentei p.•ainp oor wrl xe �preW. Reviewed 6y: rr�vn.n NOrmeaxth �oTda,ryl pmpvi, ordimliM 22 6r pbbatroe eF W te2e4 cnzWairn• rt art-nr Bem er rgyd�g n.r iryorh 'e Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Appendix D. Limitations and Use of This Report The following is adapted from "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report" provided by ASFE The Best People On Earth; www.asfe.org; and "The Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Services Standards of Care with Respect to Mold Potentials 1998 --- 2003" by ASFE The Best People On Earth. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. (MTC) services are structured to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, prepared solely for the client, no one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. This report may not be applied to any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors The scope of study for which this geotechnical report was prepared considered several unique, project - specific factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: the clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless MTC specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: not prepared for you; not prepared for your project; not prepared for the specific site explored; or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can reduce the reliability and application of this report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure; elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; compositions of the design team; or project ownership. Changes made to the project following completion of this report should be made known to MTC so that MTC can assess the potential impact of such changes and make any necessary modifications to our interpretations and recommendations in writing. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report may be affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. MTC should always be contacted to determine if the report is still reliable. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration utilizes test borings and/or test pits that are widely spaced over ground area relevant to a unique scope of work; additionally, soil samples are taken at variable spacing over the depth of exploration. The variability of subsurface conditions may exceed that of the site investigation program. MTC reviews field and laboratory data and then apply professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual site subsurface conditions may significantly deviate from those indicated in this report. Retaining MTC to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. 23 R ` Hawk's Landing laterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.. 09BO44 June 4, 2009 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over -rely on the construction recommendations included in this report. The recommendations in this report are not final; they are developed principally from the judgment and opinion of MTC staff. MTC's recommendations are contingent upon observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. MTC cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if MTC does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Report May be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the project design team not employed by MTC can result in costly problems. This risk may be reduced by having MTC confer with appropriate members of the design team after submittal of this report. MTC should be retained to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. To avoid misinterpretation of this report by contractors, MTC may be retained to participate in pre-bid and pre -construction conferences, and by providing construction monitoring. Do Not Redraw The Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproductions are acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors A Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposed of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with MTC and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific type of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Limitations Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering and engineering geology are far less exact than other engineering disciplines, This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have lead to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, MTC includes limitations in this report. Read the limitations closely and contact MTC if you have any questions regarding these provisions. Environmental Concerns Are Not Addressed In This Report The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental site assessment study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations. 24 Vanessa Dolbee From: Ronald Straka Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 09:36 AM To: Arneta J. Henninger Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Hebe Bernardo Subject: Hawks Landing Below are the Surface Water Utility review comments on the Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel TIR dated April 28,2009, please incorporate these comments into the draft comments that you provided to us for review: 1. The project shall be required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) standards as a condition of SEPA. 2. The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report doesn't include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalk, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than 0.1 cfs between the sum of the developed 100 -year peak flows and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flows using the KCRTS hydrologic model. This information is needed in order to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. 3. Since the project is a redevelopment project proposing more than 5,000 square feet of new plus replace impervious surface, the project is not exempt from core requirement #3 of the 2005 KC SWDM. The project falls under Conservation Flow Control Area, the flow control requirement is waived if there is no more than 0.1 cfs difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow for the same project site area. For the purpose of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in table 1.2.3.0 of the 2005 KCSWDM. If after applying the sizing credits, the difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow is less than 0.1 cfs, the LID alternative will mitigate for flow control. If the difference is greater than 0.1 cfs, a flow control facility per chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM such as a bioswale, detention pond, etc; will need to be provided in combination to mitigate runoff control. The proposed roadway improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard shall be taken under consideration to calculate the post development site condition and, to size the water quality and flow control facilities. 4. The Hawks Landing Hotel is the first phase of a of a larger common development plan that will eventually occur on the rest of the total area associated with the Pan Abode site. The Phase II NPDES permit prohibits the phasing of projects in a manner that allows for the granting of exemptions and avoidance of the need to provide flow control or water quality treatment that would be required if the project is looked at as a total project (all phases). The Hawks Landing Hotel phase of development on the site could be granted the exemption from flow control, if the difference between the developed 100 -year peak flow and the pre -developed 3 (existing) 100 -year peak flow is less than 0.1 cfs (following City review and approval of the analysis), but the remaining phases of development on remaining area on the Pan Abode parcel will not be able to utilize this the 0.1 cfs exemption. It is recommended that the full development plan be analyzed for the total site, including any off-site improvements to demonstrate that the project is exempt from flow control. Otherwise, future phases of the project will be required to provide flow control, since the 0.1 cfs exemption can only be applied once to a phase of development that is part of a larger common plan of development. 5. Appendix C of the 2005 KCSWDM only applies to small projects, the Rain Garden cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. A water quality facility as specified under chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM shall be provided. 6. Does the project has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM? if yes, the enhanced water quality menu shall be used. 7. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2005 KCSWDM. 8. An elevation certificate is required for any building constructed in the FEMA 100 -year floodplain following construction to document that the building finished floor was constructed 1 -foot above the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. The phase of the site development or later phases of development will need to document how the project satisfies the requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. Ronald J. Straka, P.E. City of Renton Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor Renton City Hall - 5th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-7248 (PH) 425-430-7241(Fax) rstraka@rentonwa.gov "NEW EMAIL ADDRESS" 2 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Land SITE AREA: 133,729 square feet LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washinat Mixed Use Blvd N COMMENTS DUE: .JUNE 11, 2009 DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 28, 2009 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee EXISTING BLDG AREA N/A PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 122,000 re feet ! WORK ORDER NO: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. in addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction. The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. A_ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Neagh Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Nousin Aesthetics Li ht./Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14, 000 Feet C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Cv r r r vit Bu i l d i oc Ca ctz. 2-oo6 I?t' CaP01 sL SA0V1 it b" (ern .7k( V� of a� r� We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: &I/ j& COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 11, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 28, 2009 APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 133,729 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 122,000 square feet Animals WORK ORDER NO: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requestingMa hoite Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review fora 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room tel. The Note would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed devefbp`ment would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. In addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed includin fives aces for Nei hb ood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north is e -year lood p an an as een identified to be wit to a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction. The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 8383 ne�ees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth "UUIsm Air Water Plants Light/Glare LandiShorelime Use Animals Environmental Health Utilities Energyl Natural Resources Transportation Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable More Major Information Impacts Necessary "UUIsm Aestt�elics Light/Glare Recrealion Utilities Transportation Public Services NistorirlCultu al Preservatlua Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS �e�� G -M `s ec-oriom'rc_ C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal, City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 11, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 28, 2009 APPLICANT: S enter A€ ert PLANNER: Vanessa Doibee PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Ameta Henninger SITE AREA: 133,729 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 122,000 square feet Water WORK ORDER NO: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel_ The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. In addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area: as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction. The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Aesthelics Air Light/Glare Water utilities Plants Transportation LandShoreliw Use Pubkc Services Animals Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet Environmental Health E=nergy/ Natural Resoufces /lcritcaf�ay� Q,a�arJ-fwru�ics 7yJu� Gru.K .�Sea'�W urh!t�J B. POLICY -RELATED Element of the Environment Probable Probable Minor Major Impacts Impacts More Information Necessary Housrn Aesthelics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Pubkc Services Historic/cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet !tea¢ Iza 7�••wr�fde��.- C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS �� ave- ".,r�-�jo� 7b I��C We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information 4 needed to properly assess this proposal. SignaturJ of birectoi or Authorised Represents Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: i -e— COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 11, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-060, ECF. SA -M, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 28, 2009 APPLICANT: S encerAl ert PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 133,729 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 122,000 square feet Plants 1 WORK ORDER NO: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -feat high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard IN, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. In addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report; wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction. The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable Minor Major Impacts Impacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/shoreline Use Animals ErivircmrnvrnIui Health Erwrgyi Natural Resources Airport Environment 10,060 Feet 14, 000 Feet B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable More Major Information Impacts Necessary HOUSirl Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recrewion UNIties Transportation Pubhc Servirws Historic/Gulf ural Preservation Airport Environment 10,060 Feet 14, 000 Feet 1V t111 1�10D/ 771,�11111YL C S We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date - � City of � t� NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) OATS May 28 2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUACiJ-000. ECF SA.M SA -H PROJECT NAME H;re,k's Lardinq Mlr:ed J PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 'he 'Pit -cant is n queshn4 1do5ler Sae Plan Renew. Silo plan Review, and SEPA Enviranmenlel Revlew 'or a 80 -foul IN 122,000 s e font 173 -room holei. The Hotel w ,ldrlc ode rz:ait space, fill -111* spau and a reslaarau: The subject site is ll of 43X Lake %Nashirl Boulevard iv, The former site of Par, AheIn, Cedar Homes Thal is approximately 7.8 acres ir. si the applicant hag proposed to remove the exishnq xari Stri-di s on the sublen the propoeed dere:oPlnent vrould be cssa ed from Lake Lake 4Vhi asn9k, Baulevard N a: two locat.on_. In addition to a parkln4 garaget 121. solace pa,k,ng spa.eS ! e propesec inclvdinn h'ae SpaCds for NeiUtiber ori Ec!echn ':'ehales The Sdnject Pile is nao!ed north of inlay Creek antl its a5' iated X -year flu OC plan ar•d Ila$ been den"�h-� In ae wlln,rt in 1,n[anl area; a5 su-h, Iht: arnl'u nit S'Jbm l::od a report. wetland and sbcam s udy. and flood hazard ;� d-iuu wo, ire appllcatioi: The app leant aS]malac 4 anU cubo yards of rw and 15 DK ci vans of fill m to I s f « Ia. ierl CoISniiCtio, TPP 9 ers!mq tree o, 11 onjecl sae ould he replaced -.F E? ne'+. t-ees. T'1C pp - rh f P -"-de orain q.. Irl sirii frartage hra tte.1 Iti „S a pari of proiecl. PROJECT LOCATION. 4357 L.,az :V' In:�;�,r B vy rd OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED IDNS-MI: Al tre Leaa Ar encu We Ci:, las delzrmr, ;ndt slignI 1 rn I -1p -Ik ly to rey,ll Iron, h I 'sed P'c rc' Ther f e as Permitted ander In, RCii 47 21-_110 rlheht of k rtrr.r - y 1!re'.lpl-dna. DNS M F 1;1 g v� nal CC Ilia, a -'JNS- M 15 hrtely Ia J, syn ed. t, ritmenl PPr art, for IPE Finj r:: r anC 11,e pr�`rtl5ed L:N'S M ore 1eg'alPd into a srclu c er11 period. lYerce :vitt be ro cnmr err period r�llc-yy+•,S 1!1e is _ ,., of r7'.e Threahod Geterminat:ui of bion-Si_nnificance- 6lingoted (C)l A 14-d2v apl period wih the ssuanaF of IPP Dr.3-i PERMIT APPLICATION DATE May 2f �l NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICAT'iONt I'a, 25. 200 APPLICANT(PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Spencer Alport, Alpert International, LLLP; Tel: (276) 9157201); Emr spencefCaalpertoapital..ro Perm ltslil low Requested: Edv)ronmen!nl ($EPA) Review, Master Site Plan and Hearing Fxarniner Sne Plan approvals Other Permits which may he reyuirri Con h1a.1iur, and building Pcrmi!s Requested Studies. Geotechnical Repent Drainage, Wetland, Stream and Traffic Slodies Lacalion where apphcalion rosy be reviewed: Doti cf Community & Ecor c DevelopleIi ICEDI - P!annin9 Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Pau 1055 South Grariy way, Renton, WA 9H057 PUBLIC HEARING'. Pul,,C hwmr.; is IPnt2tcsrheduled for July 21.2x799 beforr 'Fe P.enlo i 1'car'iaa Eaen,F „ Rgecr f;ounce Cham- _ Heannos Ueg'w a: 9 00 Ar�1 on the L'h floor of tl e I— f2erlen Cdv Hall located al I USS South G'ady Wry CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW ZonirglLand use: Tke SLhjeal site Is detayna!en Commnrcla:109icN'RPr;rderhal ICOR) an th< G:y of Heir— Cur li rte ,vel iso Map and : ua ;in'.eToial;0'flcclRzs,denl:al ;COW on the ly s 7.aniuj vole. Environmental Documents thal Evaluate the Proposed Preterit Lit,ionmeelsl I 5EPp.1 Crecilist Developmem Regulations Used For Project Mlligationt The prcjeit - f 1:e subiecl to the Co.'s SPPA urdman_e. HMC g-2110, Rh1C 4-3 150 FMC 4-2-1 2'.l1? and other appli:ald' codes and regulations ds dpprbpr�ale. Proposed Mltiyafion Measures TI fol b.,.rq f,11:.gal- r Ica II ill be in'he p,,,, -j ]ruled. he C race C d 11 f J 1 - - M d J 's ]ro ec mparls rat �t,. crcd 6 I rG cat s . Irl reylld,.r.ru ns .:fled atoye. Ths aParrcanl ;.-irI l,e rPvr: •erf io ,"r f he dpl ropr aft i r arsporla!kr, +L{'lr;align Fcc, ar n the acphoanf wdi he rspa;red to pay 0'. apjs rip aft Fire fdib,abrnr .'ee. • The xppliuonl Shill curnoly wlln she recomme-,dations nc!a,id ruthrI'he t^.'eli 11 3 514 ill Slcdv • 1 he If phcall shat! Co,dl% wild it -:c it, con mznilnhau inrlLted '.+,thin tare Geotechr-Ical RepC,t • Th. app N _I'i shA ,,_ reply wnh lite reCa'nmeneallpn Indodcc wr[,nin the-'a!1ic impart Anal ., Comments on the above application mutt be s.brniUed in writing to Vanessa Dolbce, Assaciate Planner, CED - Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 96057, by 5.00 PM an June 11, 2099 This matter is also lentatively scheduled for a public hewing on July 21, 2009, al 9'00 a -m., Criprel Chambers 5etl lh Floor. Rroi Clly Hall, 1055 Seulh Grady guar- Renton If you are inlerea!Pu in the near.ng. Please cdntncl the Develo.,- 'I Services Di to ensure that the hearing has no! Sean regnhd edulfal 1425 3:ic 12a2 If comments Carncl he subtri In writing by the date indicatad bo-. yrou may grill -,pear at 're nearing and present lour conmc is on 11-e proposal be'ole the Hear -ng Exam Per If you hz`e put+lions ml•o l Iris orpposal o• w�si In be -'.ado a pan` o` racn'd and receive addlllor'21 rnfofmalio,, b•y marl_ oleasa conl'a n' In, rairlect rnua! er. Anyore woo 5, rbnfits :,JtlF l , euro , will au!omzeezl'y become a part-; of fccord and e,11 he nobhcC cf any or this profed. CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, Tel: (425} 430-7374; En lr vcolbeeClareintonwa.c3ov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like !o be.. rolr,8 8 party of recu,J to lecew- former inlorrnalior on !his nroposed project cempieta this form antl return to: Glty-of RI;ii CEO- Planning Divsic-rl, 1055 So. Grady Vday_ Renton, WA 98f:57 Name/T=he No.: Hawk's Landing Lllxed USII UAIJ9-760, CCL SA -M- SA H NAME pAAILING ADDRESS'. TELEPHONE NO.. CERTIFICATION I, Vanes_<4""`a1�i , hereby certify that copies of the above docum�\\\l t I. i t I were posted by mein 3 conspicuous places or near b the described ra erty s��tk,k�ar!r', DATE: ' SIGNED: 1d ` �'�, r ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing i� H.,fhv 1`0 fit on the �_ day of L4.,Iiiii NO ARY PUBLIC S1GNA CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 28th day of May, 2009, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist, & Site Plan PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies — NOA, Env. Checklist & PMT's See Attached Spencer Alpert Contact/Ap pi i cant Port Quendall Company Owner Surrounding Property Owners — NOA only See Attached (Signature of Sender)_ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for th��t es and purposes mentioned in the instrument. '`'`� `°', Dated: (i 11105 Notary (Print): My appointment expires: Project Name: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Project Number: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 — 172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office " Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172 nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing L 292405900500 BNSF PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH TX 76161 292405900203 QUENDALL TERMINALS PO BOX 477 RENTON WA 98055 051850075006 CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL 846 108TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 322405908102 ROBCLARISSA PARTNERSHIP LL PO BOX 402 FALL CITY WA 98024 322405904903 PORT QUENDALL COMPANY 505 5TH AVE S #900 SEATTLE WA 98104 "City of NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) DATE: May 28, 2009 LAND USE NUMBER: LUAC)9-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PROJECT NAME: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa. and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations In addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north. of May Creek and its associated 100 -year flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area, as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction. The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project PROJECT LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS -M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore.. as permitted under the RCW 43.21 CA 10, the City of Renton is using the Optional Di process to give notice that a i M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DN5 M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M}. A 14 -day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DN5-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: May 21, 2009 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: May 28, 2009 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Spencer Alpert, Alpert International, LLLP; Tel: (206) 915-7200; Eml: spencer@alpertcapital.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Master Site Plan and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approvals Other Permits which may be required: Construction and Building Permits Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report, Drainage, Wetland, Stream and Traffic Studies Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for July 21, 2049 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: ZoninglLand Use: The subject site is designated Corn mercial/Officel Residential (COR) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-9-200, RMC 4-3- 050, RMC 4-2-120B and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project These recommended Miligation Meas -ares address project impacts not covered �y existing codes and regulations as cited above. • T'ie applicant will be required tc pay the appropriate Trartspodulion PVlitigotion i=ce, and • The applicHol will he required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. ■ The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included within the Wetland & Stream Study The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included within the Geotechnical Report. • The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included within the Traffic: Irnoact Analysis, Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, CED — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on June 11, 2009. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on July 21, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Fluor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Rentor. If you are interested in attending the hearing. please contact the Development Services Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282_ If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project CONTACTPERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7314; Ell vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project. Complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED — Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Hawk's Landing Mixed USeiLUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H NAME: MAILING ADDRESS- TELEPHONE NO.: Denis Law lop Mayor21 City 0 G a. r 4 Department of Community & Economic Development May 28, 2009 Spencer Alpert alpert International, LLLP 10218 Richwood Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98177 Subject: Notice -of Complete Application Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H Dear Mr. Alpert: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on June 15, 2009. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on July 21, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner cc: Port Quendall Company - Attn: Steve Van Til / Owner(s) Renton City Hail 0 1055 South Grady Way 0 Renton,Washington 98057 9 rentonwa.gov May 28, 2009 Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: Hawk's landing Mixed Use LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy of the TIA for the subject land use application along with a copy of the proposed site plan. If you have additional comments or concerns, you may either send them via mail or email them to me at vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. The Environmental Review Committee is scheduled for June 15, 2009. 1 would appreciate your comments prior to the meeting, preferably by June 11, 2009, if possible to incorporate any comments into the staff report. Sincerely, feuw�—D a.. Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosures cc: Project File Arneta Henninger, City of Renton — Plan Review Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 + rentonwa.gov City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: PORT QUENDALL COMPANY Attn: STEVE VAN TIL ADDRESS: 505 UNION STATION, 505 FIFTH AVENUES, SUITE 900 CITY: SEATTLE ZIP: 98104 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 342-2000 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: SPENCER ALPERT COMPANY (if applicable): ALPERT INTERNATIONAL, LLLP ADDRESS: 10218 RICHWOOD AVE NW CITY: SEATTLE ZIP: 98177 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-915-7200 CONTACT PERSON NAME: SAME AS ABOVE COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: spencer@alpertcapital.com PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: HAWK'S LANDING PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. N KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 3.07 acres of the 7.8 acre site known as 3224059049 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Manufacturing, warehouse, and sales office for Pan Abode Cedar Homes PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Hotel, restaurant, retail, and spa uses in one building EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: COR — Commercial/Office/Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N/A EXISTING ZONING: COR — Commerical/Office/Residential & Urban Design Overlay District "C" PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A SITE AREA (in square feet): 133,729 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: N/A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): N/A 08107 JECT INFORI NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 122,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 122,000 IAA TION con aed NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 60-70 PROJECT VALUE: $38 million IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): * AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO C] FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. O HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft_ U SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) I SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24, RANGE 5, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for; 1. Land Use Permit Master Application I Site Plan Review 5. SEPA 2. Master Site Plan Approval 4. Street Vacation AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) ^ 5 j� C -v* C-« X\ f �"�� , declare that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that '.-t' • /4f 4,i •- t signed this instrument and acknowledged it to b 461terit it free and vol un ary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument (signature of wrlRepresentative) L CJ Not Public in and for the State of Washington 9 (Signature of Own eflRepresentative) Notary (Print) —11 C=Y, d' ? L11 My appointment expires: -2- ,`,'`,F W 09/07 Form WA -5 (6176) Cnmmltment EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: File No.: NCS-377730-WAl Page No. 2 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF VACATED NORTHEAST 44TH STREET (SOUTHEAST BOTH STREET), IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 88° 47' 36" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, 797.2 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO HIGHWAY ENGINEERS STATION 4+65.6 AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 4210056 AND 7811221071; THENCE SOUTH 01° 12' 24" WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID VACATED S.E. 80TH STREET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 01° 12'24" WEST 256.50 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 204 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE X -LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 590 02' 16" EAST 1,115.92 FEET, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 880 47'36" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 2-A AS CONVEYED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4664242; �— THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO PAN -ADOBE INC., BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4856255; THENCE NORTH 620 59'05" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4210056; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4210056 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF VACATED 44TH STREET NORTHEAST (SOUTHEAST 80TH STREET), IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5; THENCE NORTH 01� 12' 24" EAST 30.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88" 47' 36" WEST 563.68 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 30° 21' 54" EAST 35.21 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5; THENCE NORTH 88° 47' 36" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 342.24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 44° 14' 51" EAST 1,115.92 FEET, SAID POINT BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID ARC 201.65 FEET TO THE R -A LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 811221071; THENCE SOUTH 320 59'47" EAST, ALONG SAID LINE, 11.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF First American Title Insurance Company -3 - 09/07 Form WA -5 (6/76) Commitment F44e No.: NCS-377730-WAI Page No. 3 180.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 68.23 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 58.06 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED S.E. 80TH STREET WHICH IS NORTH 88° 47'36" WEST OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 880 47' 36" EAST 77.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. First American Title Insurance Company PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION DATE: May 20, 2009 TO: City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 FROM: Port Quendall Company 505 Union Station 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Steven Van Til Telephone: (206) 342-2119 Facsimile: (206) 342-3119 RE: Proposed project known as Hawk's Landing with respect to the property described on attached Exhibit A (the "Property") To Whom It May Concern: Owner is the current fee title owner of the Property. The Property is currently subject to a Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") between Owner and Alpert International, LLLP ("Buyer") pursuant to which Buyer has a contractual right to purchase the Property, subject to satisfaction of the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement. Owner hereby authorizes Buyer to sign and submit the following (collectively, the "Development Approvals"): (1) a City of Renton Land Usc Permit Master Application, (2) a City of Renton Planning Division Environmental Checklist and (3) a City of Renton Street Vacation Package with respect to the Property, subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) prior to Buyer becoming the fee title owner of the Property, Owner shall receive prior written notice of and have the right to participate at any city staff meetings or other meetings relating to any of the Development Approvals or any other proposed actions by the City relating to the Property; (b) prior to Buyer becoming the fee title owner of the Property, any Development Approvals or any other proposed actions by the City relating to the Property shall be non-binding on Owner and/or the Property and may be fully and unconditionally withdrawn, terminated and/or voided by the unilateral act of Seller without payment of any fee, penalty or other amount or any liability; (c) Owner shall never be liable for, and, prior to Buyer becoming the fee title owner of the Property, the Property shall not be subject to any lien or encumbrances for, the payment of any costs, fees, deposits, penalties, or other amount or any liability in connection with any of the Development Approvals or any other proposed actions whatsoever relating to the Property (Buyer being solely liable to the City for all such amounts and liabilities); and (d) Buyer is not a partner or agent of Owner and Buyer may not bind Owner or, prior to Buyer becoming the fee title owner of the Property, the Property. PORT QUENDALL COMPANY By:4, ., L4 Name: Its: rr�! Its:` - 50964846.1 EXHIBIT A Description of the Property Parcel A: That portion of Government Lot 1, Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, and of vacated Northeast 44th Street (Southeast 80th Street), in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast comer of said Government Lot 1; Thence North 8847'36" West, along the North line thereof, 7972 feet, more or less, to Highway Engineers Station 4+65.6 as described under Recording Nos. 4210056 and 7811221071; Thence South 01612'24" West 30.00 feet to the beginning of a curve on the Southerly margin of said vacated S -E. 80th Street, the center of which bears South 01'12'24" West 256.50 feet; Thence Westerly and Southwesterly, along the arc of said curve, a distance of 204 feet, more or less, to the xline right- of-way line as described under Recording No, 7811221071 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Northeasterly, along the are of said curve to the right, the center of which bears South 59'02'16" East 1,11592 feet, to the North line of said Government Lot 1; Thence South 88647'36" East along said North line to the Westerly line of Secondary State Highway No. 2-A as conveyed under Recording No. 4664242; Thence Southerly along said Westerly line to the Southwesterly line of a tract of land conveyed to Pan -Adobe Inc., by deed recorded under Recording No. 4856255; Thence North 62°59'05" West along said Southwesterly line to the Southeasterly line of Lake Washington Boulevard described under Recording No. 4210056; Thence Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line and the Southeasterly line of a tract of land conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No. 4210056 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING_ Situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington Parcel B: That portion of Government Lot 5, Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, and of vacated 44Th Street Northeast (Southeast 80th Street), in King County, Washington, described as follows= Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Government Lot 5; Thence North 01612'24" East 30.00 feet; Thence North 88°47'36" West 563.68 feet to the Easterly line of a tract as described under Recording No. 7811221071 and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the tract herein described; Thence South 30°21'54" East 35.21 feet to the South line of said Government Lot 5; Thence North 88°47'36" West, along said South line 342.24 feet to a point on the are of a curve to the right, the center of which bears South 44°14'51" East 1,115.92 feet, said point being on the Westerly line of said tract described under Recording No. 7811221071; Thence Northeasterly along said arc 201.65 feet to the R -A line of said tract described under Recording No. 7811221071; Thence South 32°59'47" East, along said line, 1 ] _60 feet; Thence Southeasterly along said line on the are of a curve to the left having a radius of 180.00 feet a distance of 68,23 feet to a point of reverse curve; Thence Southeasterly along said line on the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 120.00 feet a distance of 58.06 feet to a point on the Northerly line of said vacated S.E. 80th Street which is North 8864736" west of the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 88°47'36" East 77.13 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington 50989846.1 PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR Hawk's Landing 4350 Lake washington Boulevard North PRE 08-082 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development - Current Planning August 28, 2008 Contact Information: Planner: Gerald Wasser, 425.430.7382 Public Works Plan Reviewer: Arneta Henninger, 425.430.7298 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas, 425.430.7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425,430,7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre -application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). CITY OF RENTON Community and Economic Development MEMORANDUM DATE: August 25, 2008 TO: Pre -Application File No. 08-082 FROM: Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Hawk's Landing General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above - referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of'review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Development Services Director, Planning Director, Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for 550.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www,rentonwa.pov Project Proposal: The subject property is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The subject site is approximately 3 acres in area and is within the Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR) zone as well as Urban Design Overlay District "C". The proposal is to construct a three- story, approximately 180 room hotel with approximately 150,000 square feet of floor area. and two associated restaurants with approximately 55,000 square feet of combined floor area.. The project narrative submitted by the applicant states that the hotel proposal would be the first phase of a 7.24 acre, multi -phased mixed use development which would include residential, retail, office and restaurant uses in addition to the currently proposed hotel/restaurant project. Current Use: The property is currently developed with a 74,000 square foot metal warehouse building and two wood -frame office buildings with a total of 3,600 square feet. The existing buildings would be demolished to accommodate the proposed project, Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is zoned Commercial/Office/Retail (COR) and is within Urban Design Overlay District "C". The COR zone allows hotel and eating and drinking establishments_ The COR zone also allows the uses described by the applicant as future phases on the larger 7.24 acre site (it should be noted, however, that residential uses within this zone must be attached units)_ Minimum residential density is 30 dwelling units per net acre and maximum density is 50 dwelling units per net acre. The same area used for commercial and office development may be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. The area ofpublic and private streets and critical areas would be deducted from the gross site area to determine the "net" site area prior to calculating density At the time of formal application for projects which include a residential component a density worksheet is required so that an accurate density calculation is submitted. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-120E, "Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations" and RMC 4-3-100 "Urban Design Regulations" effective at the time of complete application. A copy of these standards is included herewith_ Minimum Lot Size. Width and Depth — No minimums are specified for the COR zone_ Lot Coverage — 65 percent of the total area or 75 percent if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. Site data submitted at the time of application must indicate site coverage by buildings and by impervious area. Setbacks — Setbacks in the COR zone are determined at the time of site development plan review. Building Hci zhthi --The maximum building height in the COR zone is 10 stories and/or 125 feet. .Design Standards: For development within the COR zoning designation, projects shall be designed to the standards of the Urban Design Regulations for District C, as provided in RMC 4-3-100 (see Urban Design Regulations below). Screening — Screening must be provided for all surface-mounted and roof top utility and mechanical and equipment, loading, repair, maintenance, storage and work areas per RMC 4-4- 095 (enclosed). Refuse and Recycling Areas — Refuse and recycling areas need to meet the requirements of RMC 4-4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards" (enclosed). In office developments, a minimum of two square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of four square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of 100 square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas. Landscaping — On-site landscape requirements are determined through site development plan review. A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements in RMC 4-8- 120D.12, shall be submitted at the time of land use permit application. Fences — if the applicant intends to install any fences as part of this project, the location must be designated on the landscape plan. A fence detail should also be included on the plan as well. Access/Parking: The proposal does not indicate how parking will be accommodated, that is, the number of parking stalls, their location on the site and whether parking would be provided in a structure or open surface level. Driveway design standards are specified in RMC 4-4-0801 which, in part, states that there shall be a minimum of 40 feet between driveway curb returns where there is more than one driveway on property under one ownership or control and used as one premises. Parking standards are specified in RMC 4-4-080. One parking stall per guest room and two parking stalls for every three employees are required for hotels and motels. The parking requirement for eating and drinking establishments is one space per 100 square feet of net floor area. Minimum standard parking stall size is 9 feet by 20 feet for surface lots and 8 feet, 4 inches by 15 for structured parking. Minimum compact parking stall size for surface parking is 8 %z feet by 16 feet for surface parking and 7 I/z feet by 12 for structured parking. The maximum number of compact spaces for designated employee parking cannot exceed: 40% for structured parking 50%and 30% for all other uses. Urban Design Regulations: The subject site is located within the Urban Design District 'C' and would be required to comply with the requirements within RMC 4-3-100 (enclosed). The purpose of District `C' is to create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center — North (District `C') that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center — North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks_ The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. Pedestrian Oriented Streets - Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk. Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. i. Parking between the building and pedestrian -oriented streets is prohibited. ii. Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. iii. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. iv. If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building_ Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk. Buildin Entries i. On pedestrian -oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. ii. On non -pedestrian -oriented streets, entrances shall be prominent, visible from surrounding streets, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. iii. All building entries adjacent to a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings with frontage on designated pedestrian - oriented streets. iv. Weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-112') wide and proportional to the distance above ground level shall be provided over the primary entry of all buildings and over any entry adjacent to a street. v. Pedestrian pathways from public sidewalks to primary entrances or from parking lots to primary entrances shall be clearly delineated. Location of Parking i. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets (Park Avenue N.): (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking_ No more than 60 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall he occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. (c) On -street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. ii. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building, see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. iii. Surface Parking Lots: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking tot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. Structured Parking Garages i. Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75 percent of the frontage width. (b) The entire facade must feature a.pedestrian-oriented facade. ii. Parking Structures Fronting Non -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at least 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels, (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (S) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials. Vehicular Access i. Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. ii. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian -oriented streets. iii. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. Pedestrian Environment Pathways through Parking Lots: i. Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. ii. Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart. Pedestrian Circulation: i. Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties - ii . Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. iii. Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials. iv. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to acconvnodate anticipated numbers of users. v. Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. vi. All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Pedestrian Amenities i. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets (Park Avenue N.), provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet (4-1i2') wide along at least seventy five percent (75%) of the length of the building facade facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street, a maximum height of fifteen feet (15') above the ground elevation, and no lower than eight feet (8') above ground level. ii. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time_ iii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. Landscaping i. Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton_ ii. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets (Park Avenue N.), street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton. iii. The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. iv. The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. v. Standards for planting shall be as follows! (a) Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty five feet (35'). Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet (S') or two inch (2") caliper (as measured four feet (4') from the top of the root ball) respectively. (b) Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least twelve inches (I2") tall at planting and have a mature height between three feet (3') and four feet (4'). (c) Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent (90%) coverage of the landscaped area within three (3) years of installation. (d) The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three (3) years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. (e) Surface parking with more than 100 stalls shall require a minimum of 35 square feet per parking space of landscaped area. Perimeter parking lot landscaping shall not be included within the calculations for parking lot landscaping. In addition, one tree is required to be planted w=ithin the parking lot landscaping for every 6 parking spaces and shrubs are required at a rate of 5 per 100 square feet of landscape area. v. Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. vi. Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Recreation Areas and Common Ogen Space i. All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space according to the following formula: 1 % of the lot area + I% of the building area — Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space. ii. To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground; and (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. Building Character and Massing i. All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows. ii. Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Significant Tree Retention: A tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 30 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. if the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. Critical Areas: The project site is within a Flood Hazard Area (the southern portion of the site) and a Seismic Hazard Area. A geotechnical report, drainage report, and an erosion control plan would be necessary at the time of formal application. Environmental Review: SEPA review would be required. As part of the SEPA review a geotechnical study, drainage report and an erosion control plan would be required. Permit Requirements: Master Plan Review is required for all development within the CDR zone. The purpose of the Master Plan process is to guide phased development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site. The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. MasterPlan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. A public hearing before the Hearing .Examiner is required for Master Plans. Where a Master Plan is approved, subsequent Site Plans submitted for future phases may be submitted and approved administratively without a public hearing. The fee for a Master Plan Review would be $2,000.00, and the Environmental Review would be an additional S500 00. A demolition permit for the existing structures would also be required. With concurrent review of these applications, the process would take an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. // Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction permit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the issuance of building pennits. A Transportation. Mitigation Fec based on S75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project; and, A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot of commercial space (this would include hotel and office/ retail uses). For future multi -family uses the Fire Mitigation Fee would be based on $388.00 for each multi- family unit. A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.50 for each multi -family unit, A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is included for your review. Expiration: For a non -phased Master Plan or a non -phased Master Plan/Site Plan combined approval the Hearing Examiner shall determine an appropriate expiration date for the Master Plan which may exceed two years, but shall not exceed five years. An applicant shall submit a complete Site Plan application for development within the specified time frame if a Site Plan was not combined with the Master Plan application. A one-year time extension may be granted. cc: Jennifer Henning �y DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND C) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M ©ATE: August 25, 2005 TO: Jerry Wasser, Planner FROM: Arneta Henninger, Plan Review SUBJECT: UTILITY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS FOR HAWKS LANDING HOTEL PRE 08-082, 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non-binding and may be subject to modification andlor concurrence by official city decision -makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. 1 have reviewed the pre -application for this 180 room hotel located in the vicinity of NE 43rd St and Lake Washington Blvd N, all in Section 32-24-5 and have the following continents: WATER: • This project is located in the City of Renton water service area. • This project site is located in the 320 Water Pressure Zone. * There is an existing 12" DI pipe on the site. See City of Renton water drawing W-0400 for detailed engineering plans. • Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. • Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, there is insufficient information to calculate the preliminary fire flow at this time. • Per the City of Renton code when the required fire flow is over 2500 GPM the fire hydrants shall be served by a main which loops around the building or complex of buildings and reconnects back into a distribution supply main. ■ Any new construction must have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. The number of additional hydrants required is dependent on the calculated fareflow of the new commercial building. Existing fire hydrants shall be retrofitted with a quick disconnect Stortz fitting if not existing. • Buildings that exceed 30 feet in height shall install backpressure devices at the back of each domestic water meter. One meter is required per building. • The Water System Development Charge fees are based on the total number and size of any and all water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. • This proposed development site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. SEWER: • There is an existing 12" sanitary sewer train on the site. • A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how this site will be served with commercial sidesewer. • Any use in the building subject to oils or grease shall require the installation of a grease interceptor or oil/water separator per the current UPC as determined at the time of plan review. • The Parking garage will require an oil water separator. • System Development Charges per lot based on the size of the domestic water meter are required, The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued STORM DRAINAGE: • There are some storm drainage facilities in Lake Washington Blvd N. • A conceptual drainage plan and report is required to be submitted with the fbrmal application for a commercial project. A drainage control plan designed per the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual is required. • The Surface water SDC fees are 50.405 (but not less than 51012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: • Construction of commercial building will trigger a separate review. • Projects that are more than 10,000 square feet in size are required to provide full pavement width per standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the project side. A minimum 20' pavement and pedestrian walkway to the arterial will be required to be installed by the applicant. • Street lighting is required to be installed on the project side. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting (including PSE) is not allowed • A Traffic Study will be required for this project to be submitted with the formal application. The study needs to include the new driveway locations and at the intersection of NE 36th St and Lake Washington Blvd N. • Traffic Mitigation fees will apply. These fees are calculated per the ITE Manual, 7th edition. GENERAL: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. • Additional information regarding detailed plan review will be provided at the time of formal application. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. CC:: Kayren Kittrick FIRE DEPARTMENT +="■ + M E M Q R A N D U M DATE: 8/25/08 TO: Arneta Henninger, Plan Reviewer CC: .ferry Wasser, Planner FROM: David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal STAFF CONTACT: David Pargas — 425-430-7023 SUBJECT: PRE-APP08-082 Hawks Landing Hotel Project Review of the plans and material regarding The Hawks Landing Hotel Project has been conducted and completed. Please review the Renton Fire & Emergency Services Fire Code and Fire Policy comments and concerns. The Fire Department Fire Code & Fire Policy comments are as follows. I . FIRE FLOW: The preliminary fire flow cannot be determined at this point. Additional information is needed such as total ground floor square footage, number of stories, and type of constniction. An additional question I have is the 58,000 square feet for the restaurants part of the 180,000 square feet or is it separate square footage amount. The minimum fire flow for structures in excess of 3500 square feet is 1500 gallons per minute for 2 hours. 2. REQUIRED HYDRANTS: The number of required hydrants is based on the size of the structure and the size of the required fire flow. At this time I cannot detennine the required number of hydrants as I am in need of additional infonnation. The minimum number of hydrants for structures in excess of 3600 square feet is 2. However additional hydrants may be required based on spacing which is based on sound engin practices. All hydrants for this project shall be required to be equipped wit inch Storz fitting. 3. HYDRANT SPACING: Com ercial Spacing -- A) Primary hydrant shall be located within 150 feet to the front of the structure. B) All other hydrants shall be located within 300 feet to the front of the structure. C) A hydrant shall be required to be within 50 feet of the Fire Department Connection. D) Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table CI05.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code. 4, FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: A) Fire Apparatus access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide on a surface capable of sustaining the weight of a fire apparatus. The turning radius shall 45 feet to the outside and 25 feet to the inside. 5. FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: Fire Sprinklers are applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Sprinkler system. 6. SPRINKLER RISER ROOM ACCESS: The fire sprinkler riser room shall be accessible through a dedicated exterior door. The Sprinkler Riser Room shall be located with heat and lighting. 7. STANDPIPE SYSTEM: A Class III Standpipe with a valve and a single 2'h inch fitting located on each floor landing may be required should the building exceed 3 stories. 8. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS: A total coverage Addressable Fire Alarm system shall be required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Alarm system. 9. LADDER/AERIAL ACCESS: Buildings exceeding 30 feet in height shall be provided with approved fire access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the fire department aerial apparatus access roadway. 10. HIGH RISE REQUIREMENTS: High rise requirements as set forth in the 2006 International Building, Fire Code and Local Fire Code amendments shall be applicable to this building if 7 stories or greater. 11. ELEVATOR: In buildings where a required accessible floor is four or more stories above a level of exit discharge, at least one required accessible means of egress shall be an elevator complying with Section 1007.4 of the 2006 International Fire code. It is requested that this elevator have an interior dimension capable of accommodating a standard sized emergency medical services patient stretcher in the laid flat configuration. 12. FIRE MITIGATION FEES: Fire Mitigation fees shall be 50.52 cents per square foot and shall be paid prior to construction permits being issued. 13. ADDITIONAL COiNIMENTS: Please feel free to contact the Assistant Fire ,Marshal if you have any further questions or comments regarding the pre - application review comment for this project. 17 ..roil I Ir + }li� ♦1i� '1 t4 i yf F yq+�.f"{ - _ IF,��r VIII 1�.. , rIr `rII Ir L `f If rr. r ! �k 4Cd u,{ I ti. ,ll r11 it ` � ✓3' II IIIc Irl I �� 4 r I E Ali, Iry � r 111 err rrl { Ir 1 1 at r10,f" 1' �si- 111 flr I a CL !r'r `�1 € nr 1 In - r11 m. All .w_. 111 „'.' �m W LU IM lot 7, �II ,r, sooYa�z/s' a�.o AM loin'Pl 30 .ti6v If+ A66 =Illy^T6AIeBQNdiMi°ati6ui-O p,IPOOl1lJeeu164,-Ad inX 311d City of Renton TREE RETENTION,4y WORKSHEET :o 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site:1. 07:�7— trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 trees Trees in proposed public streets -- �' trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts trees Trees in critical areas and buffers trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. 7 trees 3. Subtract fine 2 from line 1: 3. trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained 4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. trees 5. list the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5 to retain`': 5. - trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. trees (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches.- 7. nches 7. c7'7" inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: r/ (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees: (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. trees ' Measured at chest height. s' Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. ' Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) - Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. s' The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a e Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areaslbuffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are Jess than 6' but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. H.DivisioniFormsrrroeRetentiouWorlcsheet 11/07 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ' I aNi[1 P�HMiI'i ��Bpili'[TAL Parking. Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 'fan t teeia(Itis?f , P"at AR ,n gayonr�ltinn . I-reappiication iuieeuny Su!!!r!!d!y 4 f?t�ftc 1vt±lbul Rehabilitation Plan 4 LJ rte .. Site Plan 2AND 4 +roamrir}�k'A'Stud'.St�ndard� ' Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 �.11�cllkkIJl S�[lG�{Y71L1!j R4!3t1 iPi 4,... Street Profiles 2 Ttie ..epO #rhtCOOPOelt A: Topography Map Trap CuttinalLand Clearina Plan. Litt�an'i ent r p$¢ rt CSt Mar District Repan utf 10 a rCany ur.r �ca w-1 I.....0 Y INt~f W M�ttg; tt r la.:.... al 4. Wellands Mitigation clan, vreiiminary 4 UU�I`��rid� R�pt3:r�/Qsl�ns�tlrt�rK:e Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2AND 3 `.. A~r amnnf, nrnff _ Map.of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2MD3 PhotosimulationS 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: i 6rnrnrhr Ctanrirnr Corfinn 2_ Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Planning Section k aForms%Planning%waiveroisubm ittalrogs.zls r� { t er [!777 t i -0�. k.. '•l PROJECT NAME: ©ATE: PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS iAi�Ip U A RMIT!SgPMITTAL i3 lhiiCtnfFI D MiINTS ; Calculations, f;rariinnrplarr. 'r?aEailf3 �,'' .,, _ Construction Mitigation Description 2,Waq F1 UDR UV CI IJGI LI IsIGICl11,4l ;, ..::..:', '-' _, y S - • � '- ! Irrigation Plan q Density Worksheet 4 Drainage.I i Pfz: '}'. i' Drainage Report z t_andscap Pl�h;: Detaliii F r E1 vatav sFAr0 . ..c... " ' ; � I� . 3 f t, y,� Y i 777.7 77-77 7777777 � _ � ti Gnvirnnmc/syn■4fl}l�.f�`.Mhan4yy..l�(i(o��fµ, List of Suouriciirfg t�rgprty Cwri�ers: y�� Vrf Kil�'�I�rW�LIWyi`'.�d*� i�xfstlnS f ` F , 5 cxisang Easements thecorded Gopy) 4 L; Master Application Form, Mood. Hazartt'D.af�� � ;f I '" 6� Floor Plans 3 me t i r This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME:4Lk' �Orldi 4e' 1 3. Building Section DATE:.—f tQ 4. Planning Section H:lFormslPlanninglwaiveroisubmittafregs.xis pypg Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 f;rariinnrplarr. 'r?aEailf3 �,'' .,, _ Habitat Data Report q F1 UDR UV CI IJGI LI IsIGICl11,4l ;, ..::..:', '-' _, y S - • � '- ! Irrigation Plan q Kirlg'Cvuntyessvt'ula itdarit�g:S�t� i' Landscape Plan. ConceptuaN t_andscap Pl�h;: Detaliii F r Legal ❑escrintion. List of Suouriciirfg t�rgprty Cwri�ers: \A_.'I _. r _6_6_ t__ I'l�_�_ I1....�_.. I V401 Iv "42kiVI0 rvF 1 1UJAW ly VYYI IC154 Map ofxistirig.i(e Cairdfl�lo�a>; L; Master Application Form, Monumeb. �s Sorge t monutne.ri#} INeighborhood Detail Map 4 i r This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME:4Lk' �Orldi 4e' 1 3. Building Section DATE:.—f tQ 4. Planning Section H:lFormslPlanninglwaiveroisubmittafregs.xis pypg -7oq r o57 LUA.0 - OLC HAWK'S LANDING Proiect Narrative The hotel to be located at Hawk's Landing is situated on a 3.07 acre site located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N. E. 44`h St. exit. This site is part of a larger 7.8 +!- acre parcel commonly known as Pan Abode being purchased from current owner, Port Quendall Company, by applicant, Alpert International LLLP. The site, zoned 'Commercial/Office/Residential' (COR) and Urban Design Overlay District `C', consists of four metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storage purposes for Pan Abode Cedar Homes. The only adjacent property (located south of the site) is zoned R-6 (residential 6 units per acre). The proposed development would cost approximately $33 million to build and create a 122,000 square foot, 173 -roam full service hotel comprised of: (i) one level of underground parking with 107 stalls; (ii) a ground floor hotel lobby area with meeting/banquet rooms totally 5,850 square feet (sf), a 742 sf retail space, a 716 sf fitness center, a 2,152 sf spa, a 4,500 sf restaurant area, a 2,300 sf combination banquet and restaurant kitchen area along other typical first floor public and employee only areas; and (iii) four levels of guestrooms featuring a wide variety of standard room types and suites . A total of 124 surface level parking stalls will be provided (including five spaces designated for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs)), along with two access points along Lake Washington Blvd. Preliminary designs show the hotel reaching a maximum of 60' that will not significantly obstruct any views of neighboring properties. The site is made up of a combination of gravel sand and silt soils that are stable and buildable with no extraordinary foundation support. A temporary construction trailer will most likely be placed on site during construction. Land use permits needed for the project include a Master Site Pian Review, Site Plan Review, SEPA, and Street Vacation. Proposed Offsite Improvements Offsite improvements are to be determined pursuant to an anticipated Master Development Agreement between applicant and the City of Renton. Quantities of Materials It is estimated that there will be a total of 4,450 cubic yards of excavated materials that will be used for onsite grading and fill. The estimated amount of imported aggregate materials required for the project is 15,000 cubic yards. Tree Impacts Though few, nearly all of the trees will be removed because of their location in relationship to the planned improvements. As shown on the attached Landscaping Plan, the number of trees to be planted significantly exceeds the number of trees that will be removed. Distance from Sionificant Streams The 3.07 acre project is not within 200 feet of May Creek. HAWK'S LANDING Construction Mitigation Qesc6ption Construction activity is estimated to be from February, 2010 to April, 2011 and will work typical construction hours from 7:00 am — 7:00 pm. Exact transportation routes are to be determined but it should be assumed that most traffic will use the 1-405 and NE 44th St. interchange. Construction of the project will, at all times, (i) comply with city codes and ordinances and (ii) use best management practices in relation to erosion, mud, noise etc. y m E do m_ u �LTea E p CD �q8 ca w w g N co cc Q m G w U. W d� p o d�C.0CL W Cba Pi U'7 Q = -cc H= memm V o C DC h m€ E ELL �s � p x __ CC 6Ld = aiyLU Co w O LL 211, .21 TLL V V c L li CIL d E. o � � E C:, u�o Ln m LL 2S 10e�$E G E a LU a ON 3nN3AV Mor 0 n ktl' 3S 3nN3Ay HIDIt X Z o •L_' P 3N 3nN3AV NIOD1411 HliiON � � 3f7N3A'C M0073W o Q o F w cc r w zw 21 z ` LU z Q V) 2 T T F ua M � z occ x d LL O � o w Z o �`� z 2 H1HLU DN 3fiN3Ab w o= in r w w S N M r 0 z 27 z z N BON3AV Nbdd = w 22 ` ' a F w cc S O 21 z ` z Q T F ua z occ x d LL V) � o w Z o �`� z _I� C LL \ [L r w w S N M r 0 z 27 z z N BON3AV Nbdd PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 rJ Phone: 425430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231a PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. C:%Users\TreylDesktoplHawk's Land ing\City,County lnfolApplicationslRenton - SEPA Application.doc - 1 - 02108 A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: Hawk's Landing Name of applicant: Alpert International LLLP 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Spencer Alpert 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle WA 98177 4. Date checklist prepared: April 28, 2009 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is anticipated to commence in Spring 2011. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. See attached Wetland/Stream Study from Graham Bunting and Associates. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any govemmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Master Site Plan, Site Plan, SEPA, Construction Permit, Building Permit and Street Vacation 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The 3.07 development site, a portion of a larger 7.8 +/- acre parcel, is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44"' St. exit. The site is currently zoned `Commercial/Office/Residential' (COR) Urban Design Overlay District 'C'. The proposed development would create a 122,000 square foot, 173 -roam hotel comprised of: (i) one level of underground parking with approximately 107 stalls; (ii) a ground floor hotel reception area with meeting rooms and approximately 742 square feet (sf) of retail, 716 sf for a fitness center, 2,152 sf spa, a 4,500 sf restaurant area, a 2,300 sf combination banquet and restaurant kitchen area along other typical first floor public and employee only areas; and (iii) four levels of guestrooms. A total of 124 surface level parking stalls will be provided, including five spaces designated for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs). 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not C:WserslTreyOesktoplHawk's LandinglCity,County Info\ApplicationslRenton - SEPA Application.doc - 2 - 02108 required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The development site, approximately 3.07 acres of the 7.8 acre parcel known as King County tax parcel number 3224059049, is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N. E. 44"h St. exit. The address is 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. B. ENVIRONMENTAL. ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle ane)8 rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) 1-5% C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Gravel sand and silt combination. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe, No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill and 4,450 cubic yards of cut will be used for filling the site. The fill source is undetermined at this time. See attached Grading Plan drawings. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion will be controlled by using best management practices per city of Renton and King County standards. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with Impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? See attached Technical Information Report (TIR). h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion. or other impacts to the earth, if any: The project will implement best management practices per City of Renton and King County standards. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? if any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Some emissions will occur during construction, quantities are undefined at this time. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. CAUsers\Trey\Desktop\Hawk's Land inglCity,County InfolApplications\Renton - SEPA Application.doc - 3 - 02108 Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Dust control measures will be implanted at all times during construction. All equipment will be equipped with proper emission control devices. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. May Creek, a class I salmon bearing stream that flows into Lake Washington, is located south of the site. New development will not occur within 200 feet of May Creek. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected, Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Surface water will be diverted and the WSDOT storm drainage system will be relocated — both a part of the storm water management system throughout the site. Water will discharge at the same historic location at the southwest corner. See attached (TIR) report. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. B) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Some diversion of groundwater may occur as a result of the construction of the underground parking structure. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. CAUsersMey\Desktop\Hawk's Land ing\City,County tnfolApplications\Renton - SEPA Application.doc - 4 - 02108 C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Pollution generating impervious surfaces will sheet flow across asphalt areas to the rain gardens for treatment. Storm water treated from the rain gardens will be conveyed through a pipe network leading to the site's historic discharge location in the southwest corner. Non -pollution generating impervious surfaces will be connected through a separate conveyance system and routed to a vault to be utilized for on-site irrigation. Excess storm water will be collected in a separate system, connecting to the non -pollution generating impervious surfaces system downstream. See attached TIR report. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. None is expected. Best management practices will be followed during construction to minimize potential risks. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The proposed development will reduce the amount of surface water runoff due to decreased impervious surface as a part of this redevelopment. Water quality will be dramatically improved, as the existing site currently does not have any storm water treatment. See attached TIR report. 4. PLANTS Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Q deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Q evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site is fully developed. Minimal removal of existing vegetation along Lake Washington Blvd. frontage will take place. See attached Tree Inventory Plan. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known at this time. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See attached Conceptual Landscape Plan. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: haw , §heronl, a I on birds, other Mammals: , bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, on, trout, herring, shellfish, other Ci%UsersMey\Desktop\Hawk's Land ing\City,Counly InfolApplicationslRentan - SEPA Application.doc - 5 - 02108 List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Salmon. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain All of western Washington is a migrating route for a variety of bird species. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. S. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be the primary sources for lighting, heating, and other energy requirements of the hotel. b, Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: We intend to apply for LEER Silver certification. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Interstate 405 traffic and Lake Washington Blvd. traffic. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. There will be short term impacts from construction activity to the immediate neighborhood. Long term noise from the project will be associated with additional traffic generated by the hotel, spa, retail and restaurant guests. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activity associated with the project will comply with all noise level regulations. C:Wsers\Trey\DesktoplHawk's LandinglCity,County, 1nfo\ApplicationslRenton - SEPA Application.doc - 6 - 02108 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of the site is for manufacturing and storage for Pan Abode Cedar Homes. Adjacent properties include Lake Washington Blvd., Interstate 405, and undeveloped property to the south. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. C. Describe any structures on the site. The site has four steel frame buildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All existing buildings will be demolished. No demolition will occur within 200 feet of May Creek. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commerical/Office/Residential & Urban Design Overlay District "C" f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commerical/Office/Residential & Urban Design Overlay District "C" g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 60 — 70 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units. if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. CAUsersMeylDesktop%Hawk's LandinglCity, County lnfolApplicationslRenton - SEPA Application.doc - 7 - 02108 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. 6Q' maximum b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light typically associated with a hotel and parking lot will be created. All parking lot lighting will be designed to minimize off site light impacts. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: The project will use fixtures designed to minimize off-site lighting and glare impacts. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Lake Washington and the Virginia Mason Athletic Center. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. CAUsers%Trey%Desktop\Hawk's LandinglCity,County Info\ApplicabonslRenton - SEPA Application.doc 8 02108 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is located at the southeast corner of the Interstate 445 and Lake Washington Blvd./NE 44'" St and will have two access points along Lake Washington Blvd. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The nearest park and ride is located at 3005 Park Ave N. C, How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will not eliminate any parking spaces, but will create approximately 231 parking spaces. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? See attached Site Plan. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached Traffic Impact Analysis. g, Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See attached Traffic Impact Analysis containing recommended mitigation measures. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities current/ available at the site: lectricit , natural a ate , refuse service, ele hono, �sanitary sewed, septic system, other: able & interne . b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See attached Utilities Plan for details of new utilities to be constructed and/or relocated. CAUserslTrey\Desktop\Hawk's Landing\City,County WolApplicationslRenton - SEPA Application.doc - 9 - 02!08 C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, + 0-- , LC.L7 fa � `Cjr pts C 1 Cs.n-; Proponent: Y Name Printed: Date: 5 _ i s- to q D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs, You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general: terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? CAUsers\Trey0esktoplHawk's Landing\City,County InfolApplicationslRenton - SEPA Application.doc 10 - 02108 Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7_ Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6198 C:\UsersMey\Desktop\Hawk's LandinglCity, County Info\ApplicationslRenton - SEPA Application doc - 11 - 02/08 Prinked: 05-21-2009 Payment Made: CITY OF PENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA09-060 05/21/2009 10:32 AM Total Payment: 3,500.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Receipt Number: Payee: RENTON HI LLC Trans Account Code Description Amount ------ 5010 ------------------ 000.345.81.00.0007 ------------------------------ Environmental Review ---------------- 500.00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 3,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 1023 3,500.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0404 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/'Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00-0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.OD16 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 Balance Due .O0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .DO .D0 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 R0902066 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HA WK1 LANDING RENTON, WASHINGTON May 2009 Prepared for: Hawk's Landing, LLC GERALYN REINART, P.E. 159 DENNY WAY, # I I I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 285-9035 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM May 11, 2009 TO. Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing, LLC FROM: Geralyn heinarf, P.E. SUBJECT. Hawk's Landing - Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction/Executive Summary The purpose of this analysis was to summarize the traffic -related impacts associated with the construction of a hotel at the Hawk's Landing development in the City of Renton. The proposed Hawk's Landing .development is located in the southwest quadrant of the 1-405/NB 441h Street interchange in the City of Renton. NP 44th Street/Lake Washingfon Boulevard border the north and westerly side of the project site and the 1-405 southbound on --ramp borders its easterly side. The proposed hotel would have 173 rooms and include typical support services provided by full service hotels including a lounge, restaurant, spa, banquet facilities, and conference space.. The assumed build-out/completion year for the hotel is 2011. Access to the site would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line, with the main access located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Based on future volume forecasts, a two-lane cross --section would accommodate the future traffic using the main access. Leff -tum storage on Lake Washington Boulevard is recommended at the main access in order to provide safe egress. The existing Pan Abode driveway across from Seahawks Way is recommended to operate as a right--in/right-out access due to its close location to the 1-405 Southbound Ramps. Build -out of the hotel could potentially generate just over 1400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM peak trips. The critical movements at the adjacent Lake Washington Boulevard/Seahawks Way intersection are currently operating at level of service "D" or better during the peak hours, but the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the hotel. Other critical intersection operations include the 1-405 ramps at NE 44th Street, where some movements are currently operating at level of service "1=" during the AM peak hour, and the delay on these movements will increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. Specific details on the hotel project and the analysis of its impacts can be found in the subsequent sections. In general, the project will have a limited impact on the transportation system. The proposed transportation improvements will mitigate not only the project's impacts on the transportation system, but existing deficiencies. Referenced herein are prior analyses completed in the area including the "Port Quendall Access Options" technical memorandum, the Barbee Mill traffic impact analysis, and the Seahawks Headquarters traffic impact analysis. Background/Project Description The proposed Hawk's Landing development is located in the southwest quadrant of the 1-405/NE 44th Street interchange in the City of Renton. NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard border the north and westerly side of the project site and the 1.405 southbound on-ramp borders its easterly side. The proposed action evaluated in the analysis is for a 173 -room hotel that would include typical support services provided by full-service hotels including a lounge, restaurant, spa, banquet facilities and conference space. The parcel upon which the project is located is the existing 7.8 -acre Pan Abode site. Access to the site would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first of these accesses is from the existing Pan Abode access at fhe northerly property line with the main access located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. A build- out/completion year of 2011 is assumed for the hotel. Currently, Pan Abode occupies the site with multiple buildings, and storage and parking facilities. Immediately to the south is a wooded undeveloped site, with new residential construction on-going at the former Barbie Mill site 2 to the southwest. The new Seahawks training facility is located to the northwest along Seahawks Way (formerly Ripley Lane) and 1-405 is located immediately to the east, with miscellaneous commercial development immediately east of the freeway. Further south, residential development borders Lake Washington Boulevard. The parcel is currently zoned "COR" (Commercial/Office/Residential) which allows a mix of uses such as retail, office, or commercial space. A vicinity map of the area is shown on Figure 1 and a preliminary site plan for the project has been attached. Existing Conditions The subsequent sections describe the existing conditions in the project vicinity. 1. Streets The following describe the streets near the site that will be the most critically impacted by the project: Lake Washington Boulevard is a collector arterial that extends southerly from the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramps to N. Park Drive. The street is striped for two lanes in each direction and includes left -tum storage at select intersections. The street is relatively fiat with some horizontal curvature and includes a shared bike lane/walkway on the west side of the street. The adjacent land use is primarily single family residential south of the project site and the posted speed is 25 mph. Lake Washington Boulevard transitions into NE 44th Street at the 1-405 €nferchange and then continues northerly on the east side of the freeway interchange. NE 44th Street is a collector arterial that provides access to 1-445 and connects Lake Washington Boulevard on the west side of the freeway to Lincoln Avenue and Lake Washington Boulevard on the east side of the freeway. The street consists of one lane in each direction plus left -tum storage at the ramp intersections. The southbound ramp is controlled by a stop sign in the southbound direction, whereas the northbound ramp intersection is controlled by an all -way stop. The posted speed is 25 -mph. Seahawks Way (formerly Ripley Lane) is a two-lane local access street extending north from Lake Washington Boulevard just southwest of the 1-405 interchange and dead -ends several hundred feet north thereof. The street consists of two lanes with some gravel shoulder installed along the Seahawks facility frontage and is relatively flat and straight with a horizontal curve present on the approach to Lake Washington Boulevard. The posted speed is 25 -mph. 1-405 is a north -south freeway facility bordering the east side of the project site. 1-405 provides access to Bellevue and Kirkland to the north, eventually connecting with 1-5 in Lynnwood and to Tukwila to the south where it also connects to 1-5. The freeway consists of two lanes in each direction plus high -occupancy lanes. 2. Transit/Non-Motorized Facil' 'es Metro Transit is responsible for providing bus service in Renton. Currently, no routes are provided adjacent to the project site. Non -motorized facilities are limited in the area. As noted in the previous section, a shared walkway/bike lane is present on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard, south of the project site. Otherwise, sidewalk is not present along Seahawks Way or Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street west of the freeway. Urban improvements have been installed along the east side of the freeway and include sidewalk. 3. Lrafflc Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic counts were conducted at three locations for this analysis. Counts at these locations were updated from those conducted by the City of Renton in 2008 in order to capture traffic associated with the SFC (Sounders FC) headquarters that are located in the Seahawks training facility, along with full operation of the Seahawks facility. Furthermore, the City of Renton provided average weekday volumes for streets adjacent to the project site. The average weekday volumes and intersection count locations are summarized on Figure 2 and include the following: 1. 1-405 Northbound Ramps/N. 44'h Street 2. 1-405 Southbound Ramps/N.441h Street 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard A summary of the AM and PM peak hour volumes for these intersections is shown on Figure 2A. 4 A comparison of the counts completed for this analysis with those completed in prior years, shows a decrease in the commuter volumes (i.e., eastbound in the AM peak and westbound in the PM peak), likely the result of the decreasing employment levels that are currently occurring. 4, tevei of Service Capacity analyses for the peak hours were conducted at the intersections noted in the previous section in order to determine the current level of service/operating conditions. All of the intersections are stop sign controlled. More specifically, the 1-405 Northbound Ramp is stop sign controlled in all directions, whereas the 1405 Southbound ramps and the Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection operate with side street stop control in the north -south directions. "Level of service" (LOS) is a common term used in the Traffic Engineering profession that is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and its perception by motorists and/or passengers. These conditions are usually described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are designated, ranging from "A" to "F", with level of service "A" representing the best operating conditions and level of service "P the worst. Calculations for the level of service analysis were conducted using the Mcirans Hiahway Capacity Software version 4.1 d/e based on the 2000 tj hwa Capacity acity Manual. The following table shows the current levels of service for these intersections using the traffic volumes shown on f=igure 2A. Calculations for the level of service analyses have been attached. 5 TABLE I EXIS77NG PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE N.A. - not applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific onalysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) - Where: LOS Delay AM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- > 15 & a 25 seconds D > 25 & < 35 seconds BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound LOS C LOS F LOS F LOS C LOS F Ram /NE 441h Street 19.9 sec. 53.6 sec. 86.4 sec_ 20.0 sec. 58.0 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS F LOS B Ram /NE 4-41h Street N.A. X99.9 sec. N.A. 14.9 sec. N_A_ Seahawks Way/Lake LOS B LOS D LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 13.7 sec. 29.9 sec. 8.0 sec_ 9.2 sec. N.A. PM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST. WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1,405 Northbound LOS E LOS 1D LOS C LOS C LOS D Ram /NE 44th Street 44.6 sec. 28.4 sec. 17.4 sec. 152 sec. 29.4 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS C LOS A Ram /NE 441h Street N.A. 19.8 sec. N -A. 8.1 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS A LOS C LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 9.5 sec. 16.8 sec. 8.6 sec. 7.5 sec. N.A. N.A. - not applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific onalysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) - Where: LOS Delay A < 10 seconds B n 10 & < 15 seconds C > 15 & a 25 seconds D > 25 & < 35 seconds rFE > 35 & < 50 seconds > 50 seconds (tor unsignafized intersections) Table i shows the level of service results for the peak hours, indicating that during the AM peak hour, two of the intersections have movements operating level of service "1=", i.e., the southbound movement at the 1-405 southbound ramp and the southbound and eastbound movements at the 1-405 northbound ramps. During the PM peak hour, all movements are operating at level of service "E" of better. 5. Traffic Accidents Traffic accident data for the Lake Washington Boulevard/NLS 44th Street corridor between Burnett Avenue/N. 36th Street and the 1-405 Northbound Ramps were provided by the City of Renton. The City accident data are from January 2006 through December of 2008. The following table R• summarizes the accident frequency and severity along the corridor for this period. The accident history shows a limited number of accidents, for the most part, along the corridor. The exception is at the 1-405 Northbound Ramps where an average of four collisions per year occurred (a total of 12 collisions over the three-year period). The majority of these twelve collisions consisted of right angle accidents (six of the 12 accidents). The remaining accidents included left -tum (two of the 12 accidents), sideswipe (two of the 12 accidents), rear -end (one of the 12 accidents), and fixed object (one of the 12 accidents). Two accidents were reported at the Southbound Ramps - the first of these was a lett-turn collision, and the second was a right angle collision. The remaining five accidents along Lake Washington Boulevard included two rear -end collisions at Burnett Avenue, a rear end collision at N. 36th Street, a fixed object collision north of N. 40th Street, and a right angle collision at Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Injuries were reported in eight of the nineteen collisions; no fatalities were reported. 7 6. Roadway Improvement Protects Limited street improvement projects are listed in the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The City of Renton has no street improvement projects listed in its most recent TIP. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to widen 1-405 between NE 44th Street and 112th Avenue SE. This project would construct two northbound and southbound general purpose lanes thereby increasing capacity by 100%. The environmental assessment for this project has been completed and construction funding is listed for 2015. Future Conditions Without Project The streets adjacent to the project site were the subject of a recent analysis completed by HDR Engineering/CH2M Hill with respect to redevelopment of the Port Quendall site. The Port Quendall analysis evaluated both.a pre - 2015' (near-term condition) and a 2015 ("ma)imum capacity with improvements") condition. The pre -2015 near-term development condition analyzed a total of 1600+ new AM peak hour trips and 2300+ new PM peak hour trips, and the 2015 condition analyzed a total of 2000+ new AM peak hour trips and 3000+ new PM peak hour trips. The Port Quendall analysis also included an assumption that the Pan Abode property would generate 10% of the total trips. As noted earlier, the hotel at Hawk's Landing would be completed prior to 2015, which coincides with the near-term Port Quendall analysis.. Consistent with recent traffic impact analyses completed in the area, the evaluation completed herein assumed a 2% yearly growth rate in eAsting traffic volumes. Also included in the background traffic volume projections is the completion of the housing development on the Barbee Will property, which is currently under construction. Given the current downturn in economic conditions and the resulting decrease in traffic volumes that has been noted, this increase is likely to result in an over-estimate of actual conditions, thus representing a conservative analysis. Other incidental development may occur over the next few years; however, specific projects in the vicinity would be subject to further analysis to identify their impacts. 8 The following describes the future base conditions for the horizon year (2011). 1. Traffic Volumes As noted above, 2011 is the designated horizon year for the build -out of the hotel. The 2% annual growth was applied to the volumes shown on figure 2A with. the Barbee Mill trips further added into the volumes. Trip assignment data for the Barbee Mill project was available from the TIA submitted, and modified to reflect the use of the access from Lake Washington Boulevard south of Seahawks Way. Originally, trips from Barbee Mill would have been routed further north and then used Seahawks Way; however, this is no longer the case. This change results in less traffic using Seahawks Way, and more through traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard past the Seahawks Way intersection. Figure 3 shows the projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the year 2011 for the base conditions. A summary of the pipeline trips and intersection volumes are shown in Appendix A-1. 2. Levet of Service Level of service calculations were conducted again for the intersections previously reviewed. It was assumed, for purposes of analysis, that no changes in the geometric conditions or traffic control at the intersections would occur in order to.provide a comparison to current conditions. (Note: the proposed near-term improvements noted in the Port Quendall analysis will be referenced in subsequent analyses as pant of the project impact mitigation measures.) The results of the future base conditions are shown in Table 3. E TABLE 3 2011 PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERV(CE 18ASEC C[]Nffi tic) N.A. - not applicable (i.e.. calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) Where: LOS Dela AM PEAK HOUR < 10 seconds B NORTH- SOUTH- EAST - WEST > 25 & < 35 seconds E > 35 &:5 50 seconds BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-4-5 Northbound LOS C LOS F LOS F LOS C LOS F Ram /NE 44th Street 2T.6 sec. 68.9 sec. >99.9 sec. 21.6 sec. 81.5 sec. k405 Southbound LOS F LOS C Ram /NE 441h Street N.A. >99.9 sec, N -A. 17.3 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS B LOS E LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 14.6 sec. 36.6 sec. 8.0 sec. PM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound Ram /NE 441h Streef LOS F 70.8 sec. LOS E 42.7 sec. LOS C 21.0 sec. LOS .0 17.1 sec. LOS E 43.1 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS C LOS A amp/ NE 44th Street N.A. 23.3 sec. N.A. 8.2 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS A LDS C LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 9.8 sec. 18.7 sec. 8.8 sec. 7.5 sec. N.A. N.A. - not applicable (i.e.. calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) Where: LOS Dela A < 10 seconds B > 10 & < 15 seconds C > 15 &-:S 25 seconds D > 25 & < 35 seconds E > 35 &:5 50 seconds F > 50 seconds (for unsignalized intersections) Table 3 shows the 2011 level of service results for the peak hour base conditions, indicating that two of the three of the intersections would have movements operating level of service "F" during the AM peak hour, i.e., the southbound movement at the 1-405 southbound ramp, and the southbound and eastbound movements at 1-405 northbound ramps. (This is the same as the existing conditions.) During the PM peak hour, the northbound movement at the 1-405 northbound ramp would drop to level of service "P. The southbound movement at the Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection would drop to "E" during the AM peak hour from its current level of service "D" condition. 10 Future Conditions With Project The subsequent sections describe the likely potential impacts fhat will occur with the hotel development. The proposed hotel would construct 173 rooms plus support facilities. The following information summarizes the impacts associated with its construction. 1. Tri Generation The development of the hotel will generate new traffic onto the adjacent street system. The trip generation for the hotel has been estimated using the most recent values in the ITE ir_ ip Generation (8m Edition, 2008). Five different lodging facility options are listed in the Trip Generation manual (i.e., hotel, all suite hotel, business hotel, motel, and resort hotel). Based on discussions with the project applicant, ITE Land Use 310 - Hotel, best represents the proposed facility. The ITE descripfion of Land Use 310 - Hotel is as follows. Hak "Hotels are places of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations and supporting fac'Tlties such as restaurants; cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreational facilities (pool fitness roorn); andlor other retail and service shops. Some of the sites included in this land use category are actually large motels providing the hotel facifities noted above," The following table summarizes the estimated trip generation associated with the hotel using number of rooms as the independent variable. ITE Land Use 310 - Hotel* * - 173 rooms TABLE 4 ES71MATL-D WEEKDAY TRIP . Trip Rate Daily/AM Peak/ PM Peak 8.17/0.5810.59 11 Peak Hour Trips AM PM In/Out fn/Out Dally Trigs ata (Total) 59138 54/48 1413 (47) 11021 2. T17�sMbufion/Assignment The trip distribution/assignment for the hotel has been shown on Figure 4. The trip assignment shown on Figure 4 for the hotel is based on the trip generation patterns used for the Port Quendall analysis, which used the distribufion assumed in the 1-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Project Access Point Decision Report. One modification was made to the noted distribution, i.e., an assignment of traffic to and from the Seahawks facility, since the proposed hotel is intended to serve visitors associated with the facility. Otherwise, the trip distribution was the some and included the following: • 48% of the trips using 1-405 to/trom the south. • 30% of the trips using 1-405 to/from the north. • 10% of the trips to/from the south of the project site along Lake Washington Boulevard.* • 5% of the trips to/from the Seahawks facility via Seahawks Way + 4% of the trips to/from the southeast via NE 44th Street and Lincoln Avenue • 3% of the trips to/from the northeast via NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard. - Note. a percentage of the gips to/from the south on Lake Washington Boulevard were re- _ assigned to Seahawks Way. The above described distribution is primarily oriented to and from 1-405 since the majority of both employees and visitors would likely be using the regional transportation system. Figure 4A shows the AM and PM peak hour trip assignment through the three intersections (1-405 Northbound Ramps/ NE 44th Street, 1-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street, and Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard) that are included in this analysis. 3. Traffic Volumes Figure 5 shows the projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the year 2011, with the hotel trips. The project trips were added into the 2011 "base volumes" shown on Figure 3 to produce the volumes shown on Figure 5. These volumes are also summarized in Appendix A-1. 4. Jeyel of Service Level of service calculations were conducted again for the intersections previously reviewed. Again, no changes in the geometric conditions or traffic control at the intersections were assumed for purposes of 12 comparison to the existing and 2011 base conditions. The results of the future conditions with the hotel project trips are shown in Table 5. TABLE 5 2011 PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVJCE IWM4 unTor i N.A. - not applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop, controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) Where: LOS AM PEAK HOUR A NORTH - SOUTH BAST- WEST > 15 & < 25 seconds ,D BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1,405 Northbound LOS D LOS F LOS F LOS C LOS F Ram /NE 44th Street 25.2 sec. 79.4 sec. >99.9 sec. 22.4 sec. 92.3 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS F LOS C Ram /NE 44th Street N.A. >99.9 sec. N.A. 18.5 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS C LOS E LOS A LOS A Washin ton Blvd. 15.2 sec. 43.0 sec. 8.2 sec. 9.5 sec. N.A. PM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL I -4D5 Northbound LOS F LOS E LOS C LOS C LOS F Ram /NE 44th Street 96.2 sec. 46.0 sec. 228 sec. 17.5 sec. 53.3 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS D LOS A Ram INE 44th Street N.A. 26.9 sec. N.A. 8.4 sec. N.A. Seahawis Way/Lake LOS A LOS C LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 9.3 sec. 20.7 sec. 9.0 sec. 7.6 sec. N.A. N.A. - not applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop, controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) Where: LOS Delay A < 3 0 seconds B > 10 & < 15 seconds C > 15 & < 25 seconds ,D > 25 & < 35 seconds E > 35 & < 50 seconds F > 50 seconds (for unslgnalized intersections) The additional traffic associated with development of the hotel results in further increases in delay from the base conditions. As with the 2011 base conditions, two of the three intersections would have movements operating level of service "F" during the AM peak hour, i.e., the southbound movement at the 1-405 southbound ramp and the southbound and eastbound movements at I-05 northbound ramps. During the PM peak hour, the northbound movement at the 1-405 northbound ramp would operate at level of service "F" and the overall level of service would 13 drop to "F". The southbound movement at the Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection would remain at level of service "E" during the AM peak hour, as noted for the base conditions. 5. Parldna Parking for the hotel will be provided on-site, in the hotel garage and in surface stalls located on the easterly side of the building. The parking garage would include 107 stalls and 124 surface stalls would be constructed including five NEV (neighborhood electrical vehicles) with plug4n facilities for charging. Information from both the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation (3rd edition - 2004) and the Urban Land Institute (ULQ Shared Parking guidelines (second edition - 2005) has been reviewed to determine if the proposed supply will meet peak demand. Both publications provide peak parking demand for hotels. ITE provides parking demand data based on number of rooms for both average peak demand and the 85th percentile demand. ULI parking demand is based on number of rooms and lounge and conference room areas. The following weekday parking ratios were noted: ITE parking demand per room • Average peak: 0.91 spaces per room = 157 stalls • 85th percentile peak: 1.14 spaces per room = 197 stalls UU garldn-cy demand • Peak demand: 1.15 spaces per room + 10 spaces per thousand square feet of lounge + 30 spaces per thousand square feet of conference room = 331 stalls* *[(1.15X 173)+(10X4)+(30X3.07)]=331 The proposed number of surface and garage stalls is less than the ULI recommended value, but adequate per the ITE values. Since the ITE values are met, it is likely that the proposed parking is adequate to meet peak demand. Furthermore, in the event that demand exceeds supply, hotel management could implement valet parking which would increase supply. 14 6. Site Access/Design As noted earlier, access to the site would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line, with the main access located approximately midpoint along the westerly property line. These two accesses would be connected internally through the surface parking area located on the easterly side of the hotel An estimate of potential volumes at the main access for the AM and PM peak hours is shown on Figure 6. (Figure 5 shows the estimated volumes for the northerly access across from Seahawks Way.) Full access was assumed at the main access with the existing Pan Abode access limited to right -turns in and out due to its closeness to the 1-405 Southbound Ramps. Located between these two accesses is the northerly access to Lake Washington Boulevard for the Barbee Mill development. The need for left -turn storage for the main access (southwest -bound) on Lake Washington Boulevard was reviewed using Fgure 910-12a from the WSDOTDesign Manual (figure has been attached). Based on the anticipated volume of left -turns from Lake Washington Boulevard, 100 feet of turn storage is recommended. (Note: Storage lengths based on an unsignalized intersection condition as noted on Figure 910-13a.) A level of service analysis at the Lake Washington Boulevard main access was conducted to determine the expected operating conditions upon completion of the hotel. A single through lane in each direction plus a separate southwest -bound left -turn lane on Lake Washington Boulevard, and separate northwest -bound left- and right -tum lanes on the main access were assumed, along with stop sign traffic control of the exiting movements from the hotel. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 6. TABLE 6 2011 LEVELS OF SERVICE LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARQ MAIN SITE ACCESS N.A. - nor applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) 15 NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- Epew BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL LOS C LOS A 16.2 sec. N.A. N.A. 9.8 sec. N.A. PM peak hour LOS B LOS A 10.0 sec. I N.A. N_A. 1 7.6 sec. N.A. N.A. - nor applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) 15 Note: Lake Washington Boulevard considered the east/west street and the hotel access the northbound movement in the above table. The capacity analyses indicate that the new access should operate at good levels of service with level of service "C" or better present during the peak hours. 7. frollect Im acts Miff anon The proposed hotel could potentially generate just over 1400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM peak trips. The critical movements at the adjacent Lake Washington Boulevard/Seahawks Way intersection are currently operating at level of service "D" or be#ter during the peak hours, but the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the hotel. Other critical intersection operations include the 1-405 ramps at NE 44m Street, where some movements are currently operating at level of service "F" during the AM peak hour, the delay on these movements will increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. Lake Washington Boulevard, adjacent to the site, is striped for one lane in each direction and includes left -tum storage at select intersections. The street has not been upgraded to urban standards, i.e., curb, gutter and sidewalk have not been constructed. Three arterial intersections were reviewed in this assessment, all of which are currently controlled by stop signs. The capacity analyses for the existing levels of service indicate that during the AM peak hour, two of the intersections have movements operating level of service "F".' The increase in traffic volumes over the next couple of years would further increase delay at the intersections, with or without the hotel. Both near-term and long-term roadway/intersection improvements for the NE 44th Street corridor/interchange were identified in the Port Quendall analysis. Interim measures to mitigate the impacts associated with the hotel were reviewed to decrease the intersection delay until further corridor improvements can be funded and constructed. The following summarizes these measures. 1-405 Northbound Ramp/NE 44ph Street- the level of service analyses indicate an overall level of service (LOS) "F" condition during the AM peak hour with or without the hotel and an LOS "F" condition IR during the PM peak hour with the hotel. Additional lanes on the west, north and south legs of the intersection were reviewed to determine the improvement in operating conditions. These improvements would include construction of a third lane on the west leg such that a separate lane would serve the left, through and right -tum movements and the addition of an exclusive left -turn lane on both the north and south legs of the intersection. An all - way stop would still control the intersection. The overall level of service during both the AM and PM peak hours could be improved to LOS "D", although some individual lanes or movements could continue to operate at LOS "E" or "F". The installation of a traffic signal to control the intersection would further decrease the overall delay and improve all legs of the intersection to LOS "D" or better. (Note: both the lane and traffic signal installations were noted in the Port Quendall near-term improvements.) 46 I-405 Southbound Ramp/NE 44th Street -the southbound left -turn from the ramp is currently operating at LOS "F" during the AM peak hour due to insufficient gaps in traffic. The only reasonable means of correcting this deficiency is the installation of a traffic signal in order to create artificial gaps in traffic. This installation would result in LOS "D" or better during the peak hours. (Note: the traffic signal installation was noted in the Port Quendall near-term improvements.) Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard - the southbound movement at this intersection would drop to LOS "E" by 2011 during the AM peak hour without the hotel, with increasing delay to this movement upon completion of the hotel. This condition is the result of increased through volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard and a decrease in gaps in traffic. As noted in prior studies in the area, the close location of this intersection to the 1-405 southbound ramps allows for limited improvements. The installation of a short center merge/acceleration lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between the intersection and the 1-405 southbound ramps to mitigate the LOS "E" condition was reviewed. The results of the analysis indicate that the southbound left -tum movement could operate at LOS "C" with this installation. The final critical issue is the operation of the site accesses. A southwest - bound left -tum lane on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main access should be constructed in order to serve traffic from the north that would be 17 entering the site. The main hotel access would include a center landscaped island and a separate lane for left- and right -turning vehicles exiting the site. As noted earlier, the northerly access (the existing Pan Abode access) is recommended to operate as a right-in/right-out access due to its close spacing to the 1-405 southbound ramps. The main access is expected to operate acceptably upon completion of the hotel. Although this access will be located fairly close to the northerly access serving the Barbee Mill development, conflicts between the left -turns entering the two opposing sites are expected to be minimal due to the low volume of left - turns projected at the Barbee Mill site and minimal queue lengths at the hotel entrance. The above measures mitigate not only impacts associated with the hotel, but also pre-existing conditions. Conclusions/Recommendations The development of the hotel at Hawk's Landing would generate additional traffic onto the existing transportation system. Both near-term and long-term roadway/ intersection improvements for the NE 44th Street corridor/interchange were identified in the Port Quendall analysis. Interim measures to mitigate the impacts associated with the hotel to decrease the intersection delay until further corridor improvements can be funded and constructed were discussed in the prior section. The following improvements/actions are recommended for consideration by Staff for the project: • Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the -NE 44tn Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. • Installation of 100 -foot southbound left -tum storage lane (or two- way left -tum lane) on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main hotel access. • Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. • Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. • Construction of frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. 18 • Payment of the City's traffic mitigation fee; credit for the existing Pan Abode trips should be allowed as well as any costs associated with the above mitigation measures. Besides the above mitigation considerations, the Applicant has met with representatives of Metro Transit to ensure that the future site configuration is designed to accommodate bus turnaround through the project site for future transit service. No other mitigation measures are recommended for consideration at the present time. Ri ATTACHMENTS 20 Appendix APPENDIX A -i SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AT CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS AM Peak Hour Volumes I. 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street 2. 1-405 SB Ram ps/NE 44fi, Street EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Exisfing volumes 281 108 351 164 165 140 10 94 91 29 27 344 With 2% annual growth 292 112 365 171 172 146 10 98 95 30 28 358 Pipeline trips: Barbee Miil 21 5 16 - l - - - - - - 3 2011 volumes w/out project 313 117 381 171 173 146 10 98 95 30 28 361 Pro ct tris1 - 2 11 - 2 - 28 - - - - 2 2011 volumes with roecf 314 119 392 171 175 146 1.38 - 98 95 30 28 363 2. 1-405 SB Ram ps/NE 44fi, Street 3. Seahawks Way/lake Washington Boulevard EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Usfing volumes - 665 5 394 133 - - - - 54 1 117 With 2% annual growth - 692 5 406 138 - - - - 56 1 122 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill - 42 1 - 4 - - - - - - 4 2011 volumes w/out project - 734 6 486 142 - - - - 56 1 126 Project tri 5 - 14 18 - 32 - - - - -' - 18 2011 volumes with Project - 748 24 406 174 - - - - 56 1 144 3. Seahawks Way/lake Washington Boulevard * - revised trip assignment through intersection to reflect current occess layout " - total includes deleted Pan Abode trips EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NSR SBL SBT SBR EAsling volumes 15 636 3 4 192 64 0 0 2 32 1 3 With 2% annual rowth 16 662 3 4 200 67 0 0 2 33 1 3 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill* - 43 - - 8 - - - - - - - 2011 volumes w/out O eCt 16 705 3 4 208 67 0 0 2 33 1 3 Project tris 2 27 - - 50 - - - 5 - - 3 2011 volumes with project 1$ 732 0""` 0"* 258 67 0 Q 15** 33 0** 6 * - revised trip assignment through intersection to reflect current occess layout " - total includes deleted Pan Abode trips PM Peak Hour Volumes 1. 1-405 N8 RamPs/NE 4,P Street 2- 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Existing volumes 67 144 67 76 138 83 10 269 167 54 22 287 Wiith2%annual growth 70 T50 70 79 144 86 10 280 174 56 23 299 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill 37 10 3 - 6 - 1 - - - - 9 2011 volumes w/out prRIect 73 160 73 79 150 86 11 280 174 56 23 308 ject tris 1 2 15 - 2 - 26 - - - - 2 1volumes with ked 74 162 88 79 132 86 37 280 174 56 23 310 2- 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington 8nuleygm * EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR E)dsffng volumes - 145 24 2111 287 - - - - 128 3 256 With 2% annual growth - 151 25 220 299 - - - - 133 3 266 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill - 16 2 - 16 - - - - - - 22 2011volumes w/out o ecfi - 167 27 220 315 41 1 0 b 133 3 288 Project MIDS - 18 23 - 30 - - - - - - 16 2011 volumes with project - 185 50 220 345 - - - - 133 3 304 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington 8nuleygm * EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SSR Existing volumes 4 125 0 3 519 39 1 0 6 31 0 4 With 2% annual growth 4 130 0 3 540 41 1 0 6 32 0 4 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill* - 18 - - 38 2011volumes w/out project 4 148 0 3 578 41 1 0 b 32 Q 4 Project tris 2 36 - - 46 - - _ 5 - - 3 2011 volumes with project 6 184 0 0** 624 41 0*' 0 5""" 32 0 7 -revised tip assignment through intersection to reflect current access layout "* - total includes deleted Pan Abode trip Site Plan/Figures z � 1 a� z — e cn m.-- -- — -- — --- -- -- __ z ON—RAyp n x INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405~ r rn Q i r' � amou dVlN AllN101A 109M' ld YM is is D - r*7 — Pl£k 30 — — 'IS TOB 3S -- - 'Ed `Id g49L 3S — — — -�- 'IS 4l9L 35 'IS 4)OS 3N — — — -- -- -. 'IS PUZL 3S — — — ---- — — — — ------ _ airs loaroid S ' 2�/ m r mA SE 76th St. N.T.S. r �g [8763] T � 4478 Protect site / 49 92987 Jc C 0 U J rN. 44th St_ r r / N. 38th SL I / i � m - r m as m - Peak hour covert locations (see Figure 2A for volumes) m )0= - 2008 City of Renton Average Weekday Traff o POCXX] - 2005 City of Renton Average Weekday Traffic E-4DS EXISTING AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES & PEAK HOUR COUNT LOCATIONS Geralyn ReinarL P.E. FIGURE 2 9 59 Denny Way. #111 HBWW2 Landing - Hotel Page SeatHe, WA. 989179 Renton. WA, F-2 H.Fs. #1 Lake Washington Blvd./ Seahawk's S11lay 64 36 32260 192 3 1 4 15 0 2 0' 2 3 1 Lake Washington Blvd/ 5eahawks Shay 39 35 31 561 519 4 0 4 0 5 129125 0 1' 7 AM Peau Hour 2 1 NE 44th St./1-405 SB Ramp // '172 117`54 i 7 33 —T 623 870 865 390 5 PM Peak Hour J NE 44th SLA -405 SS Ramp 3a7 256 -1,--128 3 287 —T498 169 145 211 24 NE 44h Stll-405 NB Ramp 4,,,0{{{0 344 29 740 27 281 195 469 740 106 Y 1 4 164 351 104— 91 195 l #3 J NE 44h St_11-405 NB Ramp �� 363 287 . 54 83 g7 22 738 297 7 278 144 76 zEW 67 104-187 446 EXISTING AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 2A N.T.S. #1 Laka Washington Blvd./ Ssahawk's Way 67 37` �33 ! 279 Jf;� 3 4 1s 0 2 705 R 724 i ❑ +r 2 3 #t Lake Washington BIvdi Seahawk's Way 41 36 � 32 622 578 D 4 "N, ` 148 0 6 192)k0 1 7 AM Peak Hour 2) NE 44th St.11-405 SB Ramp 183 126 56 1 142 � b48 740 734 406 8 PM Peak Hour 2 J NE 44th St11-405 SB Ramp 424 288 -..t- 133 � 315�fi3b 194 -T167 220 27 J NE 44h SLl1-405 NB Ramp 419 361 30 1146 28 I 313 173 490 811 11798 17, 381 10 95 203 { #3 1 NE 44h St14-405 Na Ramp 387 308 ---f'--66 Y Be 73 23 ISO T 315 305 160 280 73 11 174 485 2011 ESTIMATED AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES EASE CONDITION'S 1ei,-.P.1r FIGURE 3 (iy) [151 I309E (y) 424 Ell 3% (y$) 42 I (2) [2] SE 76th St f � N.T.S. I(z) rom [21 5% NF (3) 70 St [31 J 121 Project site 4% [g1 57 � [21 / 1096 /// 142 J (4) N. 40th St. (26)` [261 45 678 / / 18 I 2 3)) N. 36th St, 9 I i Q C � o E m m roc% - percent distribution xaac -daily trips x (xa) - AM peak hour Lips ar J [qac] - PM peak hour trips 1-4.05 ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTIONIASSIGNM ENT Ger*n Rainart, P.1` FIGURE 4 159 Danny Way, #111 i wWo Lending - Hotel Page Seattle, VVA 98109 Renton. WA F-4 N.T.S. #1 Lake Washington Blvdd SeahaWs Way 50 \\y 9 2 5 27 # Lake Washington Slvtl_/ SeahawWs Way 46 3 2 5 ' �36 • AM Peak Hour ME 44th St.11-tO5 SB Ramp is 32 -T -T 14 18 PM Peak Hour NE 44th St./1-405 SB Ramp 16 30—T �18 23 NE 44h St/1-405 NS Ramp 2 d1 2 I �2 Z1 28 NE 44h St/1-405 NB Ramp 2 1 2 2 1S 26� ! ` ESTIMATED TRIP ASSIGNMENT AT INTERSECTIONS nR�sarkP.E FIGURE 4A N.T.S- #1 Lake Washington BMd.1 SeahawWs Way 67 39 33 '-, 328 258 a 18 750�� 732 5 { 0 5 0 #7 Lake Washington Blvd./ SeahawWa Way 41 39 32 665 624 7 0 s o s ` 184 990 0 0� 5 AM Peak Hour 2 J NE 44th StA-405 SB Ramp 201 144 56 1 174-7580 772 -T748 406 24 PM Peak Hour 2 1 NE 44th St/I-.05 Sa Ramp 440 304 133 3 345 585 23b 186 220 50 J NE 44h St/1-406 N8 Ramp 421 303 � 30 146 344 28 175 4492 825 119 # 88 171 382 38 4— 95 2443``1 Eta 1 NE 44h SUI -405 NB Ramp J 369 310� 58 88 23 7-4 152 317 324 182 79 28}0 37 174 491 2011 ESTIMATED AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Rain,%Af , 41 FIGURE 5 r llLh.r �!A 4 9 N.T.S. Sae "Figure 5" for iniersection volumes. Hotel AM peak hour PM peak hour 261 � 604 2U8 � 555 ` 'tib 53 49 688 28 144 38 694 1< 4 33 t49 — 5 43 B 5 2011 ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AT SITE ACCESSES Geralyn Remark P.E. 159 Denny Way, f#111 FIGURE RE Hawk's Landing - HotW Page Seattle, WA 98109 Renton. WA. F-6 Turn Cane Storage Requirements lnfersecdons At Grade KEY: Below curve, stone not needed for capacity. Above curve, wry/ fu ther analysis �v recommended. XV 0 IA 50 fiPh 171 25 20 15 10 U % Total DHV Turning Left (single fuming movement) Notes: [1] DHV is total volume from both directions. [2] Speeds are posted speeds. 1000 VSs 900 800 �. ca 4 700 600 Sao 400 300 0 left Tarn Storage Guidelines: Two -ane, Unsignalized Figure 910-723 Chapter 910 Page 9711-26 Desr'gn Manua) M 22-01.02 November 2007 Intersections At Grade 40 mph posted speed 300 200 100 0 Left tums one direction ❑DHV Left -Turn Storage Length: Two -Lane, Unsignaiized figure 810-93a Chapter 910 Page 990-28 Design Manuaf M 22-01.02 November 2007 1400 1300 1200 1100 a m 0 1000 n m 0 z 0 900 soa loo Boo 40 mph posted speed 300 200 100 0 Left tums one direction ❑DHV Left -Turn Storage Length: Two -Lane, Unsignaiized figure 810-93a Chapter 910 Page 990-28 Design Manuaf M 22-01.02 November 2007 Level of Service Calculations MY of Renton Planning Division JUL 0871109 - July 6111 M R ECEOVED Department of Community and Economic Development 1053 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Hawks Landing I own the parcel of land (tax lot # 322405-9043) adjacent to and diwectly south of Hawks Landing. My three concerns are: 1. Because Hawks landing is in a basin (bowl) surrounded by higher ground, the runoff will back up onto my property. The contour of the entire vicinity slopes downhill to the north and to the west of Hawks Landing. The only correct way to deal with the runoff is to boar a drainfage pipe North under Lake Washington blvd. and drain into Lake Washington. Keeping the existing drainage discharge directly into May Creek long Lake Washington Blvd_ should be corrected as May Creek is not designated currently to receive direct discharge (per staff plan review). Now is the time to upgrade the drainage so is done property. 2. Should the City decide to keep the existing drainage (put in the 50's) where the eAsting culvert drains into May Creek; I would ask that the culvert be designed so that future access to my parcel from Lake Washington Blvd. will not have to be re -engineered to support the weight and size of a fire engine. If the Oty finds that this is not practical then perhaps an easement should be granted through hawks landing to allow for access, and utr'1fies as a condition of permit approval. 3. The Parks Deportment has expressed on interest in my parcel for future acquisition. I would ask that the Parks Department review Hawk's Landing with. the concept of dovetailing my parcel in conjunction with Hawks Landing for mutual benefit of both the City and Hawks Landing. Specifically I think foreslght should be given to addressing future access and parking to my parcel so as to enhance the entire area. Currently the area is underserved with little park, open space, or recreational opportunities Sincerely. Greg Fawcett Rol -Clarissa Partnership P.O. Box 402 Fall City, WA 98024 Washbgton State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Paula J. Hammond, P.E. P.O. Box 330310 Secretary of Transportation Seattle, WA 96133-9710 20640-40001 Fax 206-409-7250 TTY' 1-800.833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov C June 22, 2009 Of plain 017t077 ��ron Vanessa Dolbee J(JN 2 Z City of Renton Development Services Opy 1055 South Grady Way ri Renton, WA 98055 ria Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed -Use LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H SR 405 MP 7.47 (NE 44`h Ramps vicinity) Dear Ms. Dolbee: The. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted for the above referenced project. The development is located in the SW quadrant of I-405/NE 44h St interchange and proposes to construct a 173 -room hotel and other amenities. The following are our comments: 1. Traffic Accidents — Page 6: to be consistent with WSDOT terminology, please change the word "accident" to "collision". 2. Traffic Analysis methodology including traffic volume projections and LOS calculations are acceptable. The provided data are sufficient for showing the project's level of impacts. 3. As stated in the Conclusion, part of the Project ImpactvMitigation, the development will: a. Participate in the construction of additional lanes at the I-4051NE 44`h St northbound ramps b. Share with the cost of the traffic signal installation at the I-4051NE 44`h St southbound ramps The mitigation proposals are acceptable_ Details relating to the mitigations will be further reviewed and specifically detemaine. when the subject locations are planned for construction. Note that WSDOT is.planning for signalizing both northbound and. southbound ramps, at I-405INE 44`h St gterchange. 4. 'T'here is a crosswalk shown across Lake Washington Blvd at the northern approach (Site Plan); this would not be allowed at an unsignalized intersection within Limited Access (LA) SR 405 (NE 44th vicinity) Hawks' Landing Page 2 of 2 S. The Executive Summary portion of the TTA recommends restricting the existing access location to right-in/right-out only; this recommendation should be included in the Conclusion/Recommendations portion of the report as well. 6. The proposed project is located within WSDOT limited access (see attached ROW plan) and there is an existing access break. Depending on the terms of the original access break, compensation to the State may be necessary due to the change in land -use. Please note that this compensation is different from the mitigation measures discussed on #3. 7. Referring to comments #5 and #6 — Our preference would be to close the existing driveway within LA since there are other alternate access to the development. Restriction to a right-inlright-out condition would need to de done with some type of restrictive median treatment, hydraulics consideration and attendant maintenance. Based on the trip generation, there are only 5 AM exits and 5 PM exits with no entries at this location; hence, time impact to the project would be minimal and compensation to WSDOT (#6) would not be necessary. We have not received the comments from our 1-405- team. and we could forward you those once received. if you have any questions, or require additional information please contact Felix Palisoc of our Developer Services section by phone at 206-440-4713, or via e-mail at Pali sof 9wsdot.wa.gov. 5i ly, , t4iL� Pazooki Local Agency and evelopment Services Manager RP: fsp cc: Day file / Project File R. Roberts, M5 120 ClVFg1i;LDevSeMSEPFL{issponseslepaRENTON SR405MP747H&wksLandng_TFA2Gity,dx DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY �ity of ��� ,�, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: lune 15, 2009 TO: Vanessa Dolbee FROM: Arneta Henninger 4W SUBJECT: HAWK'S LANDING MIXED USE LUA 09-060 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N I have completed my review on the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use application located in Section 32, Twp 24N, Rng 5 E and have the following comments. The application submitted proposes a 173 -room 60 -foot high hotel. The hotel would include retail space, spa, restaurant and a parking garage. i tln Water: This project is located in the City of Renton water service area. This project site is located in the 320 Water Pressure Zone. The static pressure is approximately 123 psi at the street level. Pressure reducing valves shall be installed at the domestic meter if the pressure exceeds SO psi. There is an existing 12" DI pipe on the site. See City of Renton water drawing W-0400 for detailed engineering plans. There is also an existing 12" water line about 620 feet south of the south property line; see City of Renton water drawing W- 0941. This proposed development site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 12" sanitary sewer main on the site. Storm Drainage: There are some storm drainage facilities in Lake Washington Blvd N. REQUIREMENTS Water: Additional water main improvements will be required to provide the required fireflow demand for the development. 1. Installation of a 12 -inch water along Lake Washington Blvd N along entire property fronting the roadway and extending to and connecting to an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of south property line. 2. New fire hydrants along Lake Washington Blvd about 340 feet apart. 3. Installation of a portion of 12 -inch water line inside an existing steel casing within the May Creek bridge structure. 4. Installation of on-site looped water main (10 -inch to 12 -inch), with fire hydrants around the proposed hotel. The size and location of water main within the site will AH 09-032.doc Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Page 2 of 5 be determined based on the fire flow demand of the development. 5. Civil plans for water main extension will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. 6. Backflow prevention assembly (DDCVA) required for fire sprinkler system (refer to City Standard Details for external DDCVA in vault or for special requirements for DDCVA inside building). 7. Domestic water meter required for each building (meter siting per Uniform Plumbing Code). 8. Pressure reducing valve required downstream of each domestic water meter since static pressure is above 80 psi. 9. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind each domestic water meter for each building. RPBA shall be installed in an aboveground "Hot -Box'. 10. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) required for landscape irrigation meter due to proposed use of recycled stormwater for irrigation. 11. A portion of the existing 12" watermain thought the site will need to be abandoned. The abandonment can only occur after the completion of the new water lines. A partial release of the existing easement will be required. • System Development Charges are based on the size of any and all water meters. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, the submittal did not include sufficient information to determine a preliminary fire flow for the proposed development. • An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for the development. • The maximum available capacity (in GPM) at 20 -psi residual pressure from the existing City's water systems in vicinity of development site is 4,000 GPM. Sanitary Sewer: • A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how this site will be served with commercial sidesewer. • Any use in the building subject to oils or grease shall require the installation of a grease interceptor or oil/water separator per the current UPC as determined at the time of plan review. The Parking garage will require an oil water separator. • System Development Charges based on the size of the domestic water meter are required. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. Storm Drainage: • A drainage control plan designed per the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual is required. The project shall comply with the 2005 KCSWDM standards as a condition of SEPA. AH 09-g32_doc Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Page 3 of 5 The project will need to provide flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance system improvements. Any offsite runoff will need to be accounted for in the drainage analysis. Direct discharge is not allowed from this site. The site drains to May Creek, which is not designated as a major receiving water body where direct discharge is allowed. The following are comments on the Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel TIR dated April 28, 2009. 1. The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalk, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than 0.1 cfs between the sum of the developed 100 -year peak flows and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flows using the KCRTS hydrologic model. This information is needed in order to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. 2. Since the project is a redevelopment project proposing more than 5,000 square feet of new and replace impervious surface, the project is not exempt from core requirement #3 of the 2005 KC SWDM. The project falls under Conservation Flow Control Area, the flow control requirement is waived if there is no more than 0.1 cfs difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow for the same project site area. For the purpose of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BM Ps per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in table 1.2.3.0 of the 20105 KCSWDM. If after applying the sizing credits, the difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow is less than 0.1 cfs, the LID alternative will mitigate for flow control. If the difference is greater than 0.1 cfs, a flow control facility per chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM such as a bioswale, detention pond, etc; will need to be provided in combination to mitigate runoff control. The proposed roadway improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard shall be taken under consideration to calculate the post development site condition and, to size the water quality and flow control facilities. AH 09-032.doc Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Page 4 of 5 3. The Hawks Landing Hotel is the first phase of a of a larger common development plan that will eventually occur on the rest of the total area associated with the Pan Abode site. The Phase 11 NPDES permit prohibits the phasing of projects in a manner that allows for the granting of exemptions and avoidance of the need to provide flow control or water quality treatment that would be required if the project is looked at as a total project (all phases). The Hawks Landing Hotel phase of development on the site could be granted the exemption from flow control, if the difference between the developed 100 -year peak flow and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flow is less than 0.1 cfs (following City review and approval of the analysis), but the remaining phases of development on remaining area on the Pan Abode parcel will not be able to utilize this the 0.1 cfs exemption. It is recommended that the full development plan be analyzed for the total site, including any off-site improvements to demonstrate that the project is exempt from flow control. Otherwise, future phases of the project will be required to provide flow control, since the 0.1 cfs exemption can only be applied once to a phase of development that is part of a larger common plan of development. 4. Appendix C of the 2005 KCSWDM only applies to small projects, the Rain Garden cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. A water quality facility as specified under chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM shall be provided. 5. Does the project has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM? If yes, the enhanced water quality menu shall be used. 6. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2005 i'MITA11 & It appears that a portion of this site is located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. The applicant will need to show on the site plan the location of the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. Any buildings constructed in the 100 -year floodplain will need to have their finished floor elevation place at 1 -foot above the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. FEMA Elevation Certificates will be required for any building constructed in the floodplain prior to any occupancy being granted (Ideally immediately following completion of construction of the finished floor and before additional building construction to verify that the finished floor has been constructed to the correct elevation). * The phase of the site development or later phases of development will need to document how the project satisfies the requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. AH 49-032.doc Hawk's banding Mixed Use Pagc 5 of 5 The Surface Water SDC fees are $0.405 (but not less than $1012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Street Improvements: • Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. + Projects that are more than 10,000 square feet in size are required to provide full pavement width per standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the project side. A minimum 20' pavement and pedestrian walkway to the arterial will be required to be installed by the applicant. Street lighting is required to be installed on the project side. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting (including PSE) is not allowed. • Traffic Mitigation fees are $105,975. Transportation Comments: Transportation has the following comments. Site Plan The northerly proposed site access (the existing Pan Abode access) location and operation as a right-in/right-out access is acceptable. Regarding the proposed main hotel access location, we prefer that this access was - located so that it aligned with the existing intersection of the Barbee Mill public access road with Lake Washington Blvd. Previous Port Quendall site access studies propose sharing the Barbee Mill access road which would result in a considerable increase in traffic volumes on Lake Washington Blvd at this location which in turn could compromise, in the future, the safe and efficient traffic operation at both the proposed main hotel access and the Barbee Mill access. Regarding the proposed southbound left -turn lane in Lake Washington Blvd serving the main hotel access, we prefer installation of a two-way left -turn lane. A conceptual layout of a two-way left -turn lane is provided (hand carried) for use during preparation of the frontage improvement plans. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TJA) is acceptable. General,: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. • Additional information regarding detailed pian review will be provided at the time of formal application. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. AH 09-032_doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT.Pkm Rey1 COMMENTS DUE. JUNE 91, 2009 DEVED r; r'-� . APPLICATION NO: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 28, 2009 CITY G) RENTON APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee MAY 29 PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Lailiking Mixed Use 2ffW- PLAN REVIEWER: Ameta Henninger SITE AREA: 133,729 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NIA RECEIVED LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washin on Blvd N PROPOSED BLDG AREA rose 122,000 square feet Wdor WORK ORDER Na: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -roam hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size_ The applicant has .proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. in addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site 7s located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and food hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development constniction_ The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g- Non -Code) COMMENTS Elementofthe Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major impacts More Information Necessary Earth hVGlare Air UNiltles Wdor Public Services PIMIS Airport Environment 70,000 Feer 74.000 Feet Land/Sharefine Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics hVGlare Recreation UNiltles Trans anon Public Services f-1 stork, CLAzar Preservation Airport Environment 70,000 Feer 74.000 Feet C. CODE -RE" TED COMMENTS J_e� YP--P( CZ4-_� We have reviewed this application with particular attenfion to those argas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additlonal infoan Is ne to properly assess thi osal. 17-1 - --�--0 _441� - Signature of Director or Auttforized *PmAntaflve Date CES i Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: Project Description: ,I, i/� ��/ IF / PH OF Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: C1 OO'q El Residential UITE Trip Generation Manual, Ta'lEdition ❑ Retail VTraffic Study ❑ Non -retail ❑ other Calculation: -rl A • I I3 4-/ / 0'� rl �- Transportationp Mitigation Fee: Calculated by: Date: /5- d Date of Payment: City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: .JUNE 99, 2009DEVFLOPMENT SERVII APPLICATION NO. LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H 011 Y OF HEN 10 DATE CIRCULATED, MAY 28, 2009 APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee MAY 2 9 ZQQ PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Ameta Henninger EN SITE AREA: 133,729 square Feet EXISTING BLDG AREA ross : N/A MCCENM LOCATION: 4,350 Lake Washington Blvd N PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 122,000 square feet WORK ORDER NO: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. In addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of out and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction. The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Enviranmerrt Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Aesthefres Air L' ht/Glare water Utilities Plants Tran tion Land/ShoreAne Use Pubik Services Anirrrals Airport EnvirDament f 0 0 reef f 4, qpp Fast Environmental Heakh Energy` Natural Resources B. POLIO Y-RJELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable Minor Major Impacts Impacts Mane Information Necessary HouSLn Aesthefres L' ht/Glare Recreation Utilities Tran tion Pubik Services Histoda Curtura! Preservation Airport EnvirDament f 0 0 reef f 4, qpp Fast We have reviewed this application with particular ganfion to those areas in which we have expertise and have idenfified areas of probabie impact or areas where additional inhumation is nJeA dt j4perly assess this proposal. Signature of Directer or Authorized Representative hate 3ES Vanessa Dolbee From: Bob Mahn Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 03:00 PM To: Arneta J. Henninger Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Jim Seitz Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Development Review of the materials provided as part of the "Green Folder" submittal has resulted in the following comments: Site Plan - The northerly proposed site access (the existing Pan Abode access) location and operation as a right-in/right-out access is acceptable. - Regarding the proposed main hotel access location, we prefer that this access was located so that it aligned with the existing intersection of the Barbee Mill public access road with Lake Washington Blvd. Previous Port Quendall site access studies propose sharing the Barbee Mill access road which would result in a considerable increase in traffic volumes on Lake Washington Blvd at this location which in tum could compromise, in the future, the safe and efficient traffic operation at both the proposed main hotel access and the Barbee Mill access. - Regarding the proposed southbound left -turn lane in Lake Washington Blvd serving the main hotel access, we prefer installation of a two-way left -turn lane. A conceptual layout of a two-way left -turn lane is provided (hand carried) for use during preparation of the frontage improvement plans. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) - The TIA is acceptable. Assume the TIA has been provided to WSDOT for review. Bob Mahn Transportation Systems Planning Section X-7322 June 11, 2009 Vanessa Dolbee From: Karen Walter (Karen. Waiter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 03:07 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated (DNS -M) Attachments: Hawk's Landing Minced Use LUA-09-060.jpg Vanessa, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Notice of Application materials including the environmental checklist and the Wetland/Stream Study for the above referenced project. Thank you for sending the Weiland and Stream study as it facilitated our review. Based on the materials that we have reviewed, we have some questions about this project. 1. The environmental checklist indicates that the project is not within the 100 year floodplain of May Creek. However, it appears that a small portion of the site may be within the 100 year floodplain per King County's IMAP (See attached map). Please clarify if this project is within the 100 year floodplain. If it is, please clarify if there will be filling within the 100 year floodplain and if so, what is the proposed mitigation for this fill. 2. In item 3.c.1, the environmental checklist indicates that treated stormwater from the rain gardens will be routed to the site's historic discharge location in the southwest corner. Does this mean that there will be no detention of this stormwaler? Please clarify. 3. The checklist in section 3.c_1 also describes a portion the stormwater from non -pollution generating surfaces will be routed to a vault and used for on-site irrigation. How much stormwater is estimated to be used for irrigation and how mach will be treated and discharged without detention? 4. Where will the proposed 83 trees be planted? The checklist references a conceptual landscape plan but it was not included in our packet of materials. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and cook forward to the City's responses to the questions above. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muctdeshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 f td A ve SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS [General Information -_ Ite Information 44th of F Time rage 1 01 d suvv�t 0treeL IVC 44U ,Weer NorVVSouth Street: 1-403 NB Ram WB - olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound avement L T R L T R olume 281 108 351 164 165 0 %Thrus. Left Lane 50' sn nsveelietit I L I I R I L I T -- R oiume10 94 91 29 1 27 344 °/oThrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 onfiguration L TR L I T L TR L TR HF 0-66 0..86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.86 ow Rate 326 533 190 191 206 1 463 Heavy Vehides 2 2 2 2 10 2 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 eometry Group 5 51 2 2 oration, T 0.25 aturation Head wa Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right -Tums 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 rap. He* Vehicle LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adi -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed e arture Head 8.84 8.84 8.84 and Service Time 8.84 8.84 8.84 d, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 , initial 0.29 0.47 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.41 d, final value 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 final value 0.80 1.15 0.49 0.47 0.50 0.94 ove-up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 6.5 5.5 apacity and Level of Service Eastbound 6.5 5.5 Westbound 6.5 5.5 Northbound fi.5 5.5 Southbwnd L1 L2 Li - L2 Ll L2 L1YA L2 L-XLL— YY 42Y uovy %.vuuvirur�a 11t G - i HCS2000r m Copyright ® 2003 UniversAy of Florida, All RwhU Reserved Version 4.ld i I ll� apadty 407 533 375 397 401 492 Delay 38.78 115.58 20.93 19.15 19.94 53.56 Los E F C C C F Approach: Delay 86.43 20.04 19.94 53.56 LOS F C C F Intersection Delay 1 58.03 Intersection LOS F HCS2000r m Copyright ® 2003 UniversAy of Florida, All RwhU Reserved Version 4.ld i I ll� .. 1 ......r, ti,,,-- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY beneral Information 01te Information 90 'ol 'e .H to fe ro ah I .T an 0 lin Performed sis Time Period j ect Description Hawks'Landing urly edian n s# ;t/West Street: NE 44th Street wseetion Orientation: East-West hicle Volumes and Ad'ustments for Street Eastbound vement 1 2 existin L T Ume vehlh 0 665 ik-hour factor, F 1.00 0.82 Flow Rate h!h 0 810 portion of hearty isles, PHV 0 -- e 0.82 Channelized? 0.88 es 0 1 figuration 151 ream Signal 0 or Street Northboun r tgc t ut z Intersection E 44th Street/I-405 8 B Ramps Jurisdiction City of L enton/WSDOT nal sis Year existin olume veh/h) Westbound lovement 7 8 North/South Street: 1405 SB Ramps IStudy Period (M;): 0.25 T" L T R L olume veh/h) Westbound 0 3 4 5 6 R 1. T R 5 390 133 0 0.82 0.88 0.88 1.00 6 443 151 0 ared approach 4 N Undivided Storage 0 0 0 11 1 0 lovement 7 8 9 10 T" L T R L olume veh/h) 0 0 0 54 eak-hour factor, HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 ourly Flow Rate eh1h 0 0 0 66 roportion of heavy :hicles, P� 0 D 0 3 arcent grade (%) 0 ared approach N Storage 0 T Channelized? 0 Ines 0 0 0 0 onfiguration i I LT X p,, - 3 T 0 Southbound 11 12 T" R 1 117 0.81 0.81 1 144 3 3 2 N 0 0 1 1 R . YYV- TV LIPw1i %-%JAI I%J1 raga, L w L Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane onfi urafion L LT R olume, v v h 443 67 1,44 Capacity, cm (vph) 803 36 893 !c ratio 0.55 1.86 0.16 Queue length 95% 3.43 7.31 0.57 Control Delay S/ 14.9 647.0 9.8 LOS B F A pproach delay slveh _ 212.1 roach LOS -- -- F HCS2000rt" i Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved -g Version 4.ld I i A _V f • ".7 V LVkI 1J V11LL Vl E ar'o x Vi L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst gr Intersection 5eahawks Wa 2 WB Agency/Co. Jurisdiction City of Renton Date Performed =009 Analysis Year existing Analysis, Time Period am peak Project Description Hawks'Landing EastlWest Street: Lake Wash. Blvd/NE 44th North/South Street Seahawks Wa Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a or Street Eastbound Westbound overnent 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 15 636 3 4 192 64 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate veh1h 17 739 3 5 252 84 Proportion of hearty vehicles, P HV 1 1 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Confi uration L TR LTR Upstream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 2 32 1 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 Hourly Flow Rate Vehlh 0 0 4 46 1 4 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHS 0 0 0 11 11 11 Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ontrol Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound XA _-t�_- 1 yr v- rr CLJ 0tvv 4VtSLI VI ragozVlL. Movement 1 4 7 S 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR LTR L TR Volume, v (vph) 17 5 1 4 51 Capacity, cm (vph) 1229 870 420 195 /c ratio 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.26 Queue length 0.04 0.02 0.03 1.01 5% ontrol Delay hrehOS 1S1pproach 8.0 9.2 13.7 29.9 A A B D delay sfveh _ _ 13.7 29.9 J�pproach LOS -- _ B D HCs200dm Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, Alt Rights Reserved Version 4. t d ALL WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Information Eta Infonnation Ienst r ntersection lCo.urisdiction e Performed 812009 a sis Time Period M eak 44th .Ld.6G 1 VlL rasuwest Street ►vim 44th 5treeC orth/South Street: 1-405 N6 Ram WB Adjustments and Site Characteristics R roach Eastbound Westbound t'�olume ement L T R L T R me 67 144 67 76 138 0 rus Left Lane 50 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R plume 10 269 167 54 22 287 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 ontiguration L TR L T LTR LTR HF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.88 low Rate 72 226 84 153 483 412 Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 1 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 ometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet rop. Left Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 rop. Right -Tums 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 Prop. Heavy Vehicle - LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 Hv-adj 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 LL 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 dj, computed 6.81 6.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 Departure Head wa and Service Time d, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.06 0.20 0.07 0.14 0.43 0.37 final value 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 ld, final value 0.18 0.51 0.21 0.36 '0.90 0.77 ove-up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 6.5 1 5.8 6.5 5.8 6.5 5.8 6.5 5. $ a aci and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 rur n uy uw�r vVJAULPi rage L 0I L apacity 322 417 334 390 527 516 elay 13.36 18.70 14.08 115.87 44.55 28.37 C B C B C E p i proach: Delay 17.42 15.24 44.55 28.37 LOS c C E D Intersection Delay 29.38 Intersection LOS D 3 HC52000� Copyright ®2003 University ofMrida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 1- 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY neral Information ite Information FA al st r Intersection enc fCo. ate Performed 6/2009 al sis Time Period m peak 'ro'ect Description Hawks'Landing East/West Street: NE 44th Street ntersection Orientation: East-West Jehicle Volumes and Adjustments 44th iction City of Rentor ;is Year xistinc South Street: 1-405 SB Period (hrs): 0.25 rage t 01'z DOT a'or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 0 145 24 211 287 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate vehlh 0 172 28 299 298 0 roportion of heavy e PHV 0 _ -- 1 -- -- edian e Undivided T Channelized? 0 0 o nes 0 1 0 9 1 0 Ghicles, o uration TR L T Unfi stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 126 3 256 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate vehlh 0 0 D 931 3 263 Proportion of heavy Vehicles, P 14V 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%} 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 7 Configuration LT R � -3 n •.v •. u) uW✓ vv4lY VA rage 2 02 L onuoi ijemy, ttueue Lenth Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane onfi uration L LT R plume, v (vph) 219 134 263 Capacity, cm (vph) 1378 253 746 /c ratio 0.16 0.53 0.35 ueue length 95%)2.84 0.56 1.59 ontrol Delay s/veh $ 1 34.2 12.4 LOS A D B proach delay s/veh _ 19.8 jApproach LOS -- C HC: OOOJ" Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All lights Reserved Version 4.1d -,�p-4� TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ite information Fkri-al st 1gr Intersection rd9c 1 Vl /- 5 a wks 5awks WaAWB of Renton 6ate Performed 009 nal sis Year existin al Time me Period m eak ro"ect Description Hawks' Landin East(West Street: Lake !Nash. Blvd/NE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Wa Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments alor Seat T FacfK^11ndq I 1AI— i6._.. -J Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh1h 4 125 0 3 519 39 eak-hour factor, 0 Minor Street Northbound HF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 ourly Flow Rate 9 10 11 12 veh/h 4 131 0 3 535 40 Proportion of heavy 1 0 6 31 0- ehicles, PHv-- Peak -hour factor, HF 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 1 p 1 D rIc %AI[711 LYFU VnUIVICte RT Channelized? n Length, Level of Service EB I WB I— nd i Southbound 1 1 0 0 1 0 uration L L TR LTR am Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 1 0 6 31 0- 4 Peak -hour factor, HF 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 1 p 1 D 4fi p 5 Proportion of heavy vehicles, P� 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade (°/a) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 D 0 0 1 0 0 onfi uration LTR LTR Length, Level of Service EB I WB I— nd i Southbound i rru— r• u.T a.swtr L.V11LIV1 rage z of /- Movement 1 4 7 g 9 10 11 12 Lane onfi ura#ion L L TR LTR L TR Volume, v v h 4 3 11 51 Capacity, cm (vph) 1003 1460 804 356 !c ratio 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 Queue length 95% 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.50 ontrol Delay s/veh 8.6 7.5 9.5 16.8 LDS A A A C Approach delay s/veh — -- 9.5 16.8 roach LOS -- - A C HCS2000'-m Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved X �� Version 4.1 d rago i vlL ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS kenerall Information ite information wknaims Year 12011- base conditions II EastlWest Street: NE 44th Street - t"/South Street: /-405 NB Roar VI/B oiume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R oiume 313 117 381 171 173 0 /oThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R Volume 10 98 95 30 28 361 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguraiion L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.86 ow Rate 363 579 198 201 215 485 a Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 2 o. Lanes 2 2 1 1 eometry Group 5 5 2 2 oration, T 0.25 aturation Head Prop. Left -Tums Adjustment Worksheet 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 rap. Right -Tums 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 Prop. Heavy Vehicle LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed I eadwa,y d, initial value 9.11 9.11 9.11 and Service Time 3.20 3.20 3.20 9.17 3.20 9.11 3.20 9.19 3.20 , initial 0.32 0.51 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.43 d, final value 9.1 i 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 final value 0.92 1.29 0.53 0.51 0.53 1.00 ave -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 6.8 1 5.7 6.8 5.7 6-8-- 1 5.7 6.8 5.7 apacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L9 L2 L9 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L •..- rl Uy L7CVY %.-VLILLVI Page z of 2 HCS2000� Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Capacity 396 579 373 394 399 485 elay 57.50 170.55 22.51 0.69 21.59 68.91 os F F c c c F Pproach: Delay 126.98 21.59 21.59 68.91 SOS F c c F ntersection Delay 8148 ntersection LOS F HCS2000� Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d rUgU 1 UI L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site information Intersection E 44th Street// -405 SB Ram s st r enc /Co. lnal Jurisdiction City of Renton/INSDOT ate Performed 3/71109 al sis Time Period am eak nal sis Year 12011 - base condition Project Description Hawks`Landin East/West Street: NE 44th Street NorMouth Street: 1-405 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East-West[Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh1h 0 734 6 406 142 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 895 7 461 161 0 Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHV 0 4 - -- edian type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 onfi uration TR L T U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 56 1 126 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate Gehl h 0 0 0 69 1 155 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 7 1 onfi uration LT R f-;._ . IT v— I uy a.. cvr vvuu 41 ti rage z or 2- 'ontrol Delay, Queue Len th Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane configuration L Li R Volume, v (vph) 461 70 155 Capacity, cm (vph) 745 26 881 Ic ratio 0.62 2.69 0.18 ueue length 95°Ja 4.34 8.56 0.64 ontrol Delay s/veh 17.3 10$3 10.0 OS C F A pproach delay s/veh — — 343.9 roach LOS -- — F HCS2000Lm Copyright 0 20Q3 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version Ud i i •1-- .• _T vwr. w.uaxvr. 1 Q.r'G A Vi G TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information al st gr Intersection Seahawks Wa /LWB enc /Co. Jurisdiction City of Renton ate Performed 43/11/09 Analysis Year 2011 - base condition nal sis Time Period am peak Project Description Hawks'Landing EastlWest Street: Lake Wash. Blvd/NE 44th Orth/South Street: Seahawks Wa Intersection Orientation: East-West [Study Period hrs : 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments Street Rolor Eastbound Westbound ement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 16 705 3 4 208 67 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 18 819 3 5 273 88 Proportion of heavy vehicles, P HV 1 -- -- ? -- -- Median e Undivided T Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (yeh/h) 0 0 2 33 1 3 Peak -Dour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 4 47 1 4 Proportion of heavy vehicles, Pku 0 0 0 11 11 11 Percent grade (°/Q} 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR I —t LTR Control DelaX, Queue Length, Level of Service ,Aperoach I EB I WB Northbound Southbound s TV - rf uj -F V4JL1 L 1 0.r'G 1 Ul G TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information al s# gr tersection Seahawks Wa 2WB lAnalysis enc /Co. Jurisdiction Ci of Renton ate Performed 03111109 Year 011 - base condition a sis Time Period m peak ro'ec# Description Hawks'Landing EastNWest Street: Lake Wash. BlvddNE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Way Intersection Orientation: East-West JStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments 'or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh1h 16 705 3 4 208 67 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h i8 819 3 5 273 88 Proportion of heavy vehicles, P HV 1 _ -' 1 Median a Undivided T Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream 5i nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume vehth 0 0 2 33 1 3 eak-hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 4 47 1 4 Proportion of heavy vehicles, P � 0 0 0 17 11 11 Percent grade 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 1 0 T Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 JL 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration LTR I I LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Levet of Service roach I EB I :W:B= Northbound Southbound Z wy v- TT fl' L'Y AILF ju Oji s i Movement 1 4 7 S 9 14 11 12 Lane anfi urabon L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 18 5 4 52 Capacity, cm (vph) 1203 812 378 165 !c ratio 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.32 Queue length L5% 0.05 0.02 0.03 1.27 Control Delay r,Neh B-0 9.5 14.6 36.6 OS A A B E Approach delay slveh 14.6 36.6 roach LOS — — B E HC82000''d Copyright 02003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ISUP lnferrnatien Falyst r en /Co. ate Performed 03/11/09 a sis Time Period PM peak roiect ID Hawks` Landin Year z agc t ui z - 44th 71 -,base condition East(West Street: NE 44th Street ortfmmlSouth Street i-405 NB Ram " - ofume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound rovement L T R L T R olurne 73 160 73 79 150 0 hrus Left Lane 50 50 roach VV Northbound Southbound ement L T R L T R me 11 280 174 56 23 308 %Thrus Left Lane 50 1 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1' L2 L1 L2 L9 L2 Configuration L TR L I T LTR LTR PHF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.88 Flow Rate 78 250 87 166 504 439 k Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 ? o Lanes 2 2 1 1 ometry Group 5 5 2 2 )uration, T 0.25 aturation Head Adjustment Worksheet sop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 rop. Right -Tums 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.$ rop. Hea► y Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31, 9.31 9.31 e arture Head ay and Service Time d, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.07 0.22 0.08 0.15 0.45 0.39 d, final value 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 final value 0.20 0.59 0.23 0.42 1.01 0.88 love -up time, r 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 7.0 6.3 7.0 6.3 7.0 6.3 7.0 6.3 a aci and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L9 L2 L1 L2 X-�'[A- YT Qy V'LVp �,Vuukjl rage .z or 1 HC 0001M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d i N r apacity 328 407 337 389 504 496 flay 14.35 23.02 15.14 98.08 70.78 42.88 oS 8 C C C F E proach: Delay 20.96 17.07 70.78 42.65 LOS C C F E ntersection Delay 43.05 ntersection LOS E HC 0001M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d i N r -w— Ty cal as WF vaau tit -rage 1 Oz z TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information lte Information Intersection E doth Street/! -405 1. nal st r �� ream s Jurisdiction City of enton/IMSDOT enc /Co. Date Performed 3/11/09 nalysis Year 011- base nal is Time Period m eak v--P-� Vf 14ffM VI IV Pro'Description Hawks'Landing EastNWest Street: NF 44th Street orth/South Street: 1-405 SB Ram s Intersection orientation: East West tud Period hrs : 0.25 ehlcle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 167 27 220 315 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 198 32 229 328 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, P HV 0 - Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11" 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 133 3 288 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 137 3 296 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 v--P-� 2" •r ny v&vy %—uur.cul rage l or L 1 4 A 'onfi urabon LT R on'Delay, Queue Len #h Level of Service ach EB WB Northbound Southbound ment 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 uration L LT R e, v v h 229 140 296 ity, cm (vph) 1344 225 718 Ic ratio 0.17 0.62 0.41 ueue length 95 °!0 0Control 0.61 3.67 2.03 Delay slveh 8.2 44.2 93.5 OS A E B proach delay (slveh _ _ 23.3 roach LOS -- -- C HCS2000 m Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d i _ a e _..v .. 1 ..,.,....j.. L-..—.,. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ral Information Site Information na! st r enc /Co. Date Performed 311112009 al sis Time Period m eak Intersection urisdiction t nalysis Year F 1 ay'o i Ux �-' hawks Wa 1LWB of Renton f - base Pro'ect Description Hawks'Landing 0 0 Minor Street Northbound ast(West Street: Lake Wash: BivdNE 44thNorth/South Street: Seahawks Wa Intersection Orientation: East -Wass - IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 9 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments 11 12 L a"or Street Eastbound L T R Westbound 1 ovement 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 0.58 L T R Hourly Flow Rate veh/h L T R olume veh1h 4 148 0 0 3 578 41 eak-hour factor, HF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 0.97 0.97 0.97 ourly Flow Rate veh/h 4 955 0 3 595 42 roporfion of heavy vehicles, PHu 1 "- Lanes 1 -- -- Median type Configuration Undivided LTR RT Channelized? 0 0 anes 1 ? 0 0 1 0 onfi uration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 1 0 6 32 0 4 Peak-houi factor, PHF 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 1 0 10 47 0 5 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade%) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ontrol Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service i YYV- Yr µy UkV.I 4 W-1 LLVi rage L oI L Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane onfE oration L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 4 3 11 52 Capacity, cm (vph) 951 1431 762 314 We ratio 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.17 eue length% 0.01 a_o1 0.04 0.58 ntrol Delay FO 8.8 7.5 9.8 18.7 vehS A A A C Approach delay s/veh 18.7 Approach LOS — — A C HCS200OTM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version4.1d. rage i Vi L ALL WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS eneral Information ite Information a! st r enc /Co. Date Performed 03/11/09 Analysis Time Period M peak rq'ect ID Hawks'Landin E 44th Street17-405 NB Intersection Ramps urisdiction Ci of Renton/WSDOT An al sis Year 011- wlhotel component Street NE 44th Street orth/South Street: 1405 NB Ram /t.WB Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound t r1%'/.ihrus L T R L T R 314 119 392 171 175 0 eft Lane 50 50 Northbound Southbound L T R L T R Volume 38 98 95 30 28 363 /oThrus left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.86 Flow Rate 365 593 198 203 245 488 /a Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 2 o. Lanes I-eometry 2 2 1 1 Group 5 5. 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Prop. Right -Tums 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 Prop. Heavy Vehicle LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 e arture Head ay and Service Time initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.32 0.53 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.43 hd, final value 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 final value 0.94 1.35 0.54 0.52 0.61 1.04 ove-uptime, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 7.0 5.9 7.0 5.9 7.0 5.9 7.0 5.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 I L2 L1 I L2 L1 I L2 L1 L2 A -&- rr uy ULVY %-uAAtA VA rage /- or z HUY2uuuI— Copyright 0 2UU3 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Capacity 388 593 366 387 396 488 elay 63.06 195.85 23.22 21.53 25.22 79.38 os F F C C D F proach. Delay 145.25 22.37 25..22 79.38 LOS F C D F Intersection Delay 92.28 intersection Los I F HUY2uuuI— Copyright 0 2UU3 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved Version 4.1d .— ., ..J _sur .,-.v.... _. i u6u x v1 L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information E 44th Streetq-405 Intersection ,,,, nal s# r 00 rtams Jurisdiction Cit' of Renton/WSDOT2011 Agency/Go- Date Performed 03/11/09 Analysis Year - w/hofel mmnnnnnt Analysis Time Period am peak roject Descri tion Hawks'Landr'nas#/West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: !•-405 SB Ram s I tersection Orientation: East-West[Study Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments dor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h 0 748 24 406 174 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate vehfi 0 912 29 461 197 0 ropordon of heavy vehicles, P � 0 4 Median a Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 uration TR L T Vonfi UV U stream Signal 0 0 Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11- 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 56 1 144 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 69 1 177 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHU 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade°/Q) 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 i rrv- rr "Y L,.wF t-ulruvj 16 rage L or /- uration LT R ranti antrol Dela Queue Len th, Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane ration � LT R , v (yph) 461 70 177 y, cm (vph) 720 22 842 0.64 3.18 0.21 ength Laa 4.67 8.94 0.79 Delay18 1349 10.4 C Fh delay 389.8 h LOS -- -- F HCS2000' A Copyright 0 2043 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d — ..... .. ) ..—I, —-a..a+...a TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information I a st r enc /Co. te Performed 03/11/09 a sis Time Period m peak !T ect Description Hawks' Landing astlWest Street: Lake Wash. Blv&7VE 44th ntersection Orientation: East-West lehicle Volumes and Adjustments !&2 Street Eastbound Aovement 1 2 L T (glume vehlh 18 732 leak -hour factor, 'HF 0.86 0.86 iouriy Flow Rate veh/h 20 851 'roportion of heavy ehicles, PHv 1 -- 4edian type 258 :T Channelized? 0.86 i Qr'c i ul �e. Intersection hwks Wa /LWB Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year w/hotel nent rom 0.25 - Lanes 1 1 lorth/South Street: Seahawks Way study Period (hrs): 0.25 - L TR LTR Westbound Upstream Signal 3 4 a 6 R L T R 0 0 258 67 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 0 0 339 88 -- 1 T R Undivided T R 0 0 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 orf oration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 1 0 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 5 33 Q 6 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 ourty Flow Rate veh/h 0 Q 10 47 Q 8 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 11 11 11 Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach N 1 N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiuration LTR LTR ontrol Delay, Queue Length, Levet of Service A VY W- 1V CLy 0LV.l %�VI.0 Ua rage i or L roach EB WB Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 1© 11 12 ane onfi uration ICL L LTR LTR LTR plume, v (vph) 20 0 1 10 55 Capacity, cm (vph) 1138 792 363 148 /c ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.37 Queue length 95°/a 0.05 0.00 0.08 1.56 Control Delay s/veh 8.2 9.5 15.2 43.0 OS A A C E Vpproach delay v"eh -' `_ 15.2 43.0 J�pproqch LOS -- — C E HCS20001M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. id ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information 11 T A C r,%, 1 V1 L 44th Streetq-4o.5NB rips of RentonMiSDOT 1- w/hotel comDonei mm Street: st ntersection en /Co. V3111109 urisdiciion te Performed , rn at sis Yearal sis Time Period peak A C r,%, 1 V1 L 44th Streetq-4o.5NB rips of RentonMiSDOT 1- w/hotel comDonei mm Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street 1-405 NB Ram WB 0.90 Ad ustments and Site Characteristics 0.92 0.68 Flow Rate 79 Eastbound 87 168 Westbound 441 L T R L T R rEas 74 162 66 79 152 0 ft Lane 50 1 50 eornetry Group 5 Northbound 2 Southbound 2 L T R L T R 37 280 174 56 23 310 %Thrus Left Lane 50 rap. Left -Tums 50 0.0 1.0 0.0 Eastbound Westhound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Li I L2 L1 L2 Li I L2 Configuration L TR L T L TR L TR PHF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.68 Flow Rate 79 268 87 168 533 441 Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 1 o. Lanes 2 2 1 eornetry Group 5 5 2 2 uration, T 0 25 a#uration Head Adjustment Worksheet rap. Left -Tums 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 rap. Right Tums 0.0 0-4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 rop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 e arture Head wa V. and Service Time initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial OA7 0.24 0.08 0.15 0.47 0.39 d, final value 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 - 9-37 5.37 final value 0.21 0.64 0.23 0.43 1.10 0.90 ave -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 20 ervice Time 7.1 6.3 7.1 6.3 6.3 7.1 6.3 Capacity and Leve! of Service -7.1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound FSI. lrllT ni.�a Li •nle...-. L2 Ll .. L2 - L1 _. L2 L1 LZ rage L of L �1_-!7l1.1T C:opyrlght 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d s apacity 329 407 337 378 533 488 lay 14.47 25.25 15.33 18.54 96.24 46.00 Los B D C C F E Approach: Delay 22.80 17.45 96.24 46.00 LOS G D F E Intersection Delay 53.26 intersection Los F �1_-!7l1.1T C:opyrlght 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d s TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information Intersection nlst r en /Co. 0erfored 3 11/09 alysis Time Period m peak Loect oescri tion Hawks'Landing ast(West Street: NE 44th Street tersection Orientation: East-West ehicle Volumes and Adhj_AtmPn+c 1 0.b'G 1 Uj G 44ih Street17-405 Jurisdiction City of enton/WSDOT Analysis Year 011 - wJhotel component North/South Street: 1-405 SB Ramps Study Period (hrs): 0.25 'or Street Eastbound Westbound vement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L roeak-hour T R L T R lume veh/h 0 185 50 220 345 0 factor, 0 0 933 3 304 HF 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 7.00 ourly Flow Rate 1.00 9.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 veh1h 0 220 59 229 359 0 rportion of heavy 0 0 937 3 313 ehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 9 — vehicles, P 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (°!o} 0 2 Flared approach N Uicx'' L l-"-- I Undivided - RT Channelized? I I I n 0 l 0 1 1 0 klanes nfi uration TR L T stream §janal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11- 12 L T R L T R Volume veh1h 0 0 0 933 3 304 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 9.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 oudy Flow Rate vehlh 0 0 0 937 3 313 Proportion of heavy I vehicles, P 0 HV 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (°!o} 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized? 0 0 anes 0 r 0 0 0 1 1 1 +.v .+...) uwr L,v "i I X ar'u L Vi .. LT R ration Dela , Queue Len fih Level of Service h EB WB Northbound Southbound nt 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane ons uration L LT R Volume, v (vph) 229 140 393 Capacity, crn (vph) 1289 203 690 Ic ratio 0.18 0.69 0.45 ueue length 5% 18 0.64 4.39 2.37 Control Delay s/veh 4 54.8 14.5 LOS A F B Approach delay s/veh 26.9 roach LOS -- -- D HCS2000m Copyright C 2043 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 4 S _tl �5 A 4--1...!!!-AT1_______--._n I nn__ An/ nnn _..,.- L . . . .� ....�.. _ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information al st - enc /Co. Date Performed 311112009 J al sis Time Period pm peak Pritersection Jurisdiction C Analysis Year 2 ic 1 rage i or z of Renton 17 - w/hotel EastlWest Street: Lake Wash. Blv&NE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks !Lay Intersection Orientation: Fast-West[Study Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments M-0 Street Eastbound Westbound Ma'or m oveent 1 2 3 4. 5 6 L T R L T R [Volume veh/h factor,0.95 Furly 6 184 0.95 0 0.95 0 0.97 624 0.97 41 0.97 [eak-hour Flow Rate 6 193 0 0 643 42h/hportion of heavy ehicles, PHV 1 — — 1 — — Pedian type Undivided 17 Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 onfi oration L TR LTR U stream Signal I0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 5 32 0- 7 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 .0.67 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 8 47 D 10 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHS 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade N 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Confi urabon II LTR -ontrol Delay, Queue Len th Lepel of Service Page 2 oft Epproach EB WB Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 Lane onfi uration L LTR LTR LTR plume, v (vph 6 0 g 57 Capacity, cm (vph) 913 1386 854 286 lc ratio 0.01 0.00 0.01 0-20 Queue length 95% 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.73 Control Delay slveh 9.0 7.6 9.3 20.7 OS A A A C pproach delay slveh) 9.3 20.7 roach LOS -- -- A C Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information =iteinformation nal s# r en/Co. Date Performed 4/6/2009 nal sis Time Period am peak ro'ect Description Hawks Landing Hotel ast/West Street: Lake Washington Blvd. tersection Orientation: East-West ehicle Volumes and Adie_qtmantc Yage i of 2 Intersection Lake Wash. lvd./Main Access Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year2011 4 5 6 L T North/South Street: Main Access Studv Period Mrs): 0.25 or Street Eastbound Westbound vement 1 ro 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R lume veh/h 0 688 6 53 208 0 Peak -hour factor, U stream Signal 0 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 1.00 lPHF Hourly Flow Rate southbound ovement 7 8 9 veh/h) 0 799 6 69" 273 0 Proportion of heavy L T R olume veh/h 4 vehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 7 -- -- ae_r:__ 1.00 0 0.80 3B 1.00 0 9.00 0 7.00 0 11"W .116111 lYL = 1 1 /l7/YII Ifel-4 I RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Confi uration TR L T U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street: Northbound southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 4 0 29 0 0- 0 Peak hour factor, HF Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0.80 4 1.00 0 0.80 3B 1.00 0 9.00 0 7.00 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized? 0 0 [Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 onf uration L LR ontroi Delay, Queue Len th Level of Service V, Page L of 1. roach ES WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Confi uratian L R plume, v (vph) 69 4 36 apacity, cm (vph) 824 186 387 Ic ratio 0.08 0.02 0.09 ueue length % 0.27 0.07 0.31 ntrol Delay veh [piproach 9.8 24.8 15.3 5 A C C delay [sg/veh) 16.2 roach LQS — — C HCS200O L M Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved .0 1 ... !fry t ri n i .... ........ a• Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY keneral Information ISite.Information Analyst 9T Agency/Co. Date Performed 41612009 [Analysis Time Period rn peak roject Description Hawks Landinci Hotel rage i oI /. Intersection Lake Wash. Blvd.Main Access Jurisdiction Renton nal sis Year 2011 11- astlWest Street: Lake Washington Blvd. North/South Street: Main Access rsection Orientation. East-West ttud Period hrs : 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments Fje or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 144 5 49 555 0 Peak -hour factor, 1.00 0-95 0.95 0.97 0.97 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 751 5 50 572 0 Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHV 0 than type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 onfi uration TR L T U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 5 0 38 0 0- 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 6 0 47 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHW 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Conf uration L R ,Control Delay, Queue Length, Leel of Service �ilo.llf'�,1Tt........._,..�._ar�n.._.7oi-►nc+_.�---i • s__:_:...�_,._..�r ,..,.,,... .. L YY V- rr ay U LVIJ L+VJILL Vi rage,z or L HCS.200O LDA CopyriOt C 2003 Univers' of Florid All University a, Rights Reserved Version4.ld -Flo•f/!`.ITS.-.,.,,..,...a.,«�,o�7n,...aoi-ina-'-�---s x �--=--=-�--.. �,r ,n....,., .. ,... _, ...-._ .... EB WB Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Confi uration L L R lpoach olume, v (vph) 50 6 41 Capacity, cm (vph) 1.430 333 897 /c ratio 0.03 0.02 0.05 ueue length 95°fb 0.19 0.05 0.17 Control Delay slveh) 7.6 16.0 9.2 LOS A C A Approach delay (s/veh _ 10.0 Aeproach LOS — — g HCS.200O LDA CopyriOt C 2003 Univers' of Florid All University a, Rights Reserved Version4.ld -Flo•f/!`.ITS.-.,.,,..,...a.,«�,o�7n,...aoi-ina-'-�---s x �--=--=-�--.. �,r ,n....,., .. ,... _, ...-._ .... a ++� •• � vrvAJ 44.L1[.i Vl ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS rage i of 2 eneral Information ts Information I s# r en /Go. ate Performed151711109 M peak 14M ro'ect ID Hawks' Landin 14nters ect!on risdiction alysis Year NE Nam4t StreetA-405 NS Ci ofRenton/WSDQT 011 - w/hotel component- ompone t - EastlWesi Street NE 44th Street INorOVSouth Street: 1-405NBRamp1LWB olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound vement L T R L T F R olume 314 1 119 392 171 175 0 oThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R olume 38 98 95 30 28 363 /oThrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 11 L2 Ll LZ L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration L T L T L TR L TR PHF 0.86 0.86 0.66 0.86 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.86 Flow Rate 365 138 198 203 40 205 34 1 454 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 10 2 1 2 No. Lanes 2 2 2 2 eometry Group 5 5 5 5 uration, T 1 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 keomputed 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 Headwa and Service Time e 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 0.32 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.98 0.03 0.40 d, final value 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 x. final value 0.86 0.31 0.48 0.46 0.10 0.48 0.08 0.93 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 6.2 5.7 6.2 j 5.7 1 6.2 1 5.7 1 6.2 5.7 Caeacitg and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound c i — V ur 0LVF t-VJJ.LL Vl Page 1 of 2 wc:S2u ,— UopyngUt 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d L1 L2 LI L2 L1 L2 L9 L2 apacity 422 388 401 424 290 414 284 487 elay 44.66 94.12 19.20 17.82 12.94 18.41 11.94 51.27 05 E B C C B C B F pproach: Delay 36.28 18.50 - 17.51 48.53 LOS E C C E Intersection Delay 32.77 intersection LOS 0 wc:S2u ,— UopyngUt 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 4 - .. ! -..-I, w.i A dgl-, i U1 G ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS 6eneral Information gite Information NB on [City of Year 0, Ir-- ro ect i© Hawks'Landing stalest Street: NE 44th Street NorMouth Street: 1-405 NB Ramat" olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound ovement L T R L T R olume 74 162 88 79 152 0 oThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R olume 37 280 174 56 23 310 oThrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 onfiguration L T L T L TR LTR PHF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 ow Rate 79 174 87 168 40 1 493 63 378 o Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 No. Lanes 2 2 22 ometry Group 5 5 5 5 uration, T 0.25 Saturation Head Ad'ustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 rop. Heavy Vehicle LT adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0:5 0.5 0.5 0.5 RT adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1,7 1.7 adj, computed 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 e arture Head and Service Time d, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.07 015 0.08 0.15 0.04 0.44 0.06 0.34 , final value 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 final value 0.78 0.38 0.20 0.37 0.08 0.93 0.14 0.70 Move -Up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 6.1 1 5.6 6.1 1 5.6 1 6.1 1 5.6 6.1 5.6 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 2111- •V -.y 4 V"Pp L J.LLLk Vl rage L of Z HCS2LW 1' n Capyri& C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 apacity 329 424 337 418 290 525 313 530 lay 13.03 15.47 13.27 15.20 10.99 50.30 11.70 23.12 OS B C B C B F B C proach: Delay 14.70 14.54 47.35 21.49 LOS B B E c Intersection Delay 28.44 intersection LOS p HCS2LW 1' n Capyri& C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld rasrI V1 J r vra�rrrM [4908 l nR/HAy 481MU4, HCS200C DETAILED REPORT General Information 10.0 0.0 Site Information Analyst gr . Agency or Ped I Bike ! Intersection 1405 IVB Ramps/NE SB A 44th St. o. RT Area Type AU other areas Date 3/19/2009 LT Jurisdiction WSDOT/Renton . Performed Time Period am peak TH Analysis Year 2011 - wlhotel - mit. c� r 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Pro'ect ID � S' Hawks'Landin {I I. _. -rr__ _ r r vra�rrrM [4908 l nR/HAy 481MU4, Pretimed (P) or 0.0 EB 0.0 10.0 0.0 UVB - Ped I Bike ! NB SB A LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Number of lanes, 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking 1 Grade / 2.0 2.0 .N 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 .1 0 1 1 effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane group L T R L T R L TR 3 L TR Volume, V (vph) 314 719392 3 171 175 146 38 98 95 30 28 % Heavy 13.0 UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 10.86 0.86 0.86 10.86 0.86 0.86 10.94 10.94 10-94 10.86 0.86 Pretimed (P) or 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped I Bike ! ctuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking 1 Grade / 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ZO 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1Unit extension, 13.0 13.0 UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 !!! I!! !ff !f1 !!f Ift !!I !!f _ f!! Ill, Initial unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped I Bike ! TOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking 1 Grade / 'arking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 1 0 _J "�i�a•i%�•1Tinm�v�-,d..tn0%7(innr�6f_'7 i1 Lz ..mow.-..�..5 A A�.�,.�..+�..a.. l7 -_-ininnn .. ,.., � ... ,..... ...�...��-- ✓v�WAVV. 1WflLl � .rage L of s Parking aneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only TRT & 04 Excl- Left TRT & 07 08 Timing 4.0 FG, = 4.0 4.0 G= G = 5.0 26.0 G= G= Y= 4.5 1 Y= 4.5 Y= 4.5 Y JY= 4 Y= 4.5 Y JY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane GroupCa aci br, Control Dela . and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow ate, v 365 138 456 199 12033 170 40 205 35 455 Lane group capacity, c 469 493 596 292 1307 261 97 489. 104 491 v/c ratio, X 078 0.28 0.77 0.68 10.66 065 041 0.42 10.34 0.93 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.26 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.31 0.06 0.31 Uniform delay, 28.9 24.8 P3-2 33.4 33.3 33.2 38.6 23.5 38-4 28.6 1 Progression actor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.33 0.11 0.32 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.44 Incremental delay, d2 8.9 0.3 5-9 6.4 5.2 5.7 2.8 0.6 1.9 123.8 Initial queue slay, d3 . Control delay 37.1 25.1 29.1 39.8 8.5 138.9 41.4 24.1 PO.3 52.4 Lane group LOS D C C D D D D C D D Approach slay 31.6 39.1 26.9 51.5 C D C D -_,._- „r...-. Approach LOS Intersection delay 37.3 C = 0.81 Intersection LOS D HCS2000"'" Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 e r1 rim I— - wI-. aw....... . . . . . .vvwua..n.a t_:VWA.. vvrume anu JIM in ur HCS200C DETAILED REPORT General Information WB Site information Analyst gr Intersection 1-405 N8 Ramp&NE Agency or TH I RT 44th St Co. RT Area Type All other areas Da#e 371912009 0.0 Jurisdiction WSDOT7Renton Performed Ped I Bike 1 Analysis 2011 - w/hotel - mit. a-r��- + Time Period pm peak Year - i 1 1 1 Project ID Hawks'Landing vvrume anu JIM in ur EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH Number of lanes, 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped I Bike 1 N 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 74 162 88 79 152 186 37 280 174 56 23 % Heavy 0 N N 0 ehides, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 Pear -hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 10.88 0.86 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 , Extension of effective green, e 2-0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, E 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1.000 11.000 11.00.0 11,000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 1 11.000 11.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped I Bike 1 RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking 1 Grade I Parkina N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 rz Parking aneuvers, Nrn Buses stopping, o a a o o a a a a o B Min. time for edestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left SRT ru & 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & 07 08 RT Timing 0.0 16.0 0= G- GW 7'0 4.0 G= 0- Y= 4.51Y = 4. ly JY= 4.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 1 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 75.0 Lane Group CapaE& Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 80 174 95 88 169 96 40 493 64 378 Lane group capacity, c 238 401 586 238 401 586 165 562 167 518 v!c ratio, X 0.34 0.43 0.16 0.37 0.42 .16 0.,24 0.88 0.38 0.73 Total green ratio, g/C 0.13 0.21 0.37 0.13 0.21 0.37 10.09 0.32 0.09 0.32 Uniform delay, 29.5 25.6 16.0 29.6 25.5 16.0 1.5 24.1 32:0 22.6 1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0-11 .11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.11 0.29 Incremental 10-13 slay, d2 0.8 .S 0.1 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.8 14.6 1.5 5.2 Initial queue slay, d. Control delay 30.3 126.3 16.1 30.6 26.2 16.1 32.3 38.7 133.4 27.8 Lane group LOS C C B C C B C D C C Approach slay 24.5 24.6 36.3 28.6 C C D C i,t.Lauc,u L-�VPVIL rage j or j 3 I Approach LOS Intersection elaya.o X T 0.64 G Intersection LOS C HC$20001�m Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved i � S�1 A .3___. Version 4.1e L v a- A Fl L sarc s vic HCS2000DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst gr NE 44th StA-405 S8 Agency or Intersection Ramps Go. Date Area Type All other areas Performed 3/1912009 Jurisdiction WSDOT i Time Period am peak Analysis Year 2011 - wlhotel - mit.�,��°� Project ID Hawks' Landing t Volume and Timing 1n ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group T R L T LT R Volume, V (vph) 748 24 406 174 56 1 144 % Heavy vehicles, HV 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.82 10.82 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.81 0.81 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A. A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 _ 11.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q Ped 1 Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking !Grade 1 Parking N 0 N N 0 N h! 1V N 2 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, N. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for 1-f6.LLU1V,I TtCFVLL rageZofz pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= G 49.0 G G- G= 15.0 IY= G- G= Y= 4.5 Y= 5 Y= Y= 4.5 Y- Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = Cycle Length, C = 100.0 a25 Lane Group Ca a ity, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, 912 29 461 198 70 178 Lane group capacity, c 922 784 463 9407 261 233 v/c ratio, X .99 A4 1.00 0.14 0.27 0.76 Total green ratio, g/C 0.49 0.49 0.75 0.75 0.15 0.15 Uniform delay, d1 5.2 13.2 32.9 3.4 3 7.6 40.8 Progression factor, F 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.49 0.19 0.50 0.11 0.11 1 0.32 Incremental delay, z 26.9 a.o 4a.& o.o o.s 14.0 Initial queue delay, 3 Control delay 52.1 13.3 73.5 3.4 . 38.2 54.8 Lane group LOS D I B E ,4 p p Approach delay 50.9 52.5 50.1 Approach LOS D D D Intersection delay 51.4 X = 1.94 Intersection LOS D HCS2000T M Copyright ® 2004 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved Version 4.1e HCS2000DETAILED REPORT Genera! Information Site Information Analyst gr Agency or Intersection NE 44th St./l-405 S8 Ramps Date Area Type All other areas Performed 3/1912009 Jurisdiction WSDOT � Time Period pm peak Analysis Year 2011- w/hotel _ mit. ` Project ID Hawks` Landing Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH I RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group T R L T LT R Volume, V (vph) 185 50 220 345 133 3 304 % Heavy vehicles, % HV 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.84 10.84 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A Start-up last time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped I Bike I RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade ! P Parking N 0 N N 0 N N IIT N 2 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, Ng 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for v V Lua;a.µ dtlrJvl 4 Pedestrians, G 1 3.2 Phasinq IVUB_Only EW Perm 03 G= G= Timing 18.0 G= 23.0 Y= 4,5 Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 359 Lane Group Ca aci , Control Dela EB rage /. of z 3.2 3.2 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= GG= G= G= 5.0 Y= Y= 4.5 Y= Y= iy= tCycle.Length, C = 80.0 and LDS Determination WB I NR ICIS LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, 220 60 229 359 140 313 Lane group capacity, c 541 460 688 1070 560 500 plc ratio, X 0.49 10.13 0.33 0.34 0.25 0.63 Total green ratio, 1C 0.29 10.29 0.57 0.57 0.31 0.31 Uniform delay, d1 23.0 21.1 9.0 9.2 0.5 23.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 9.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k Incremental delay, 2 0.19 10.11 0.5 0.11 0.1 0.3 0.11 0.2 P-11 0.2 0.21 2.5 Initial queue delay, 3 Control delay 23.5 21.2 9.3 9.4 0.7 26.0 Lane group LOS C C A A C C Approach delay 23.0 9.4 24.4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection delay 17,4 X = 0.54 intersection LOS ' C B rswtuvu - c.:opyngnt Q ZUUU university of Florida, All Rights Reserved t -4 Version 4.1e x rry—.r uy U�vkr wue.cut rap 1 01 L Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 18 732 0 0 258 67 Peak -hour factor, 11 . 12 L T I 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate 5 33 0- 6 Peak -hour factor, PHF veh/h 20 851 0 0 339 88 Proportion of heavy 0 0 10 47 0 ehicles, PHV 1 _ -- 1 0 11 11 11 ercent grade (%) Iv 2 RttZUlal l t:! Two Way Left Tum Lane Channelized? 0 i0 s Configuration ream Signal kinor 1 L 1 0 .0 TR 0 LTR 1 0 0 Street Northbound Southbound ement 7 8 9 10 11 . 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 5 33 0- 6 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 O.G9 0.6g Hourly Flow Rate eh/hj 0 0 10 47 0 8 roportion of heavy ehicles, P- 0 0 0 11 11 11 ercent grade (%) Iv 2 0 lared approach N N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes0 1 0 0 1 0 Confi uration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service iVVU-yray L3LVP I..Vuuut rage .4 or .4 roach EB VVB Northbound Southbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ne Configuration rCc L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 20 0 10 55 Capacity, cm (vph) 1138 792 363 263 /c ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.21 Queue length ��% 0.05 0-00 0.08 0.77 Control Delay (sfveh 8.2 9.5 15.2 22.3 LDS A A C C proach delay veh ks/ 15.2 22.3 roach LOS-- — I C C HMOOOTM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Traffic Counts RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOG# 01A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. Bax 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficotint@msn.com (360)491-8136 Greuns Printarl.. Primtwu File Name : GRT05501A Site Cade : 00000001 Start Date ; 2/24/2009 Page No ; 1 1-405 NB ONIOFF RAMOS From North I INE 44tk"ST Frpm East 1 1 1.405 NB ONIOFF RAMPS From South � Ri�rt N£ 44TH ST From West Thru Left 7nck ,e,pp, Tafrl�,�,� I _ 7rn �,� TotaW w _ Start Time , Rldht7 Thr--. Left Truck r�r, roe' Rlght I Thru q ,T..' At t Tf-- Left Truck . Twu 07:00 AM 87 7 4 2 98 10 54 18 0 82 25 25 4 0 54 49 22 54 3 125 5 359 364 07,15 AM , 91 3 6 2 1 34 31 34 3 99 28 19 1 5 48 105 22 77 5 204 15 451 466 07:30 AMI 101 8 8 0 441 49 47 40 3 135 20 22 2 2 44 102 35 T7 4 214 9 511 820 _ 07:45 AN 81 _ 5 9 _ 5 67 38 40 51 2 iZ9 20 26 6 4 51 78 24 72 $ 174 16 449 466 Total 360360 23 27 9 4410131 36 172 143 8 4461 93 91 13 11 197 334 103 280 17 717 45 1770 1855 08;00 AMI 71 11 6 1 as 19 47 39 0 105 23 28 1 9 52 fib 27 55 4 148 1 14 393 407 08:15 AMI 74 7 9 3 90 22 39 40 6 101 21 48 3 6 72I 63 33 63 4 159 19 422 441 0$:30 Wig ! 92 10 1.0 3 112 16 44 40 4 100 36 27 4 6 67 64 30 54 3 1138 16 417 433 08:46 AMI 75 7 10 2 92 10 29 36 5 75 26 27 4 3 156 40 22 40 7 107 1.7 330 347 Tool 312 35 35 9 382 67 159 185 IB 381 105 L30 12 24 247 228 112 212 16 552 66 1562 1628 Grand Total 1 672 58 62 19 7921 198 331 298 23 8271 158 221 25 35 444 562 215 492 35 1269 1.11 3332 3443 Apprch 16 ! 64,8 7.3 7.6 1 23.9 40 36 1 40.6 49.8 5,6 44.3 16.9 38.8 Tota % 20.2 17 1.9 23.8 1 5.9 9.9 8.9 24.8 5.9 6.6 aS 133 16.9 8.5 14.8 383 3.2 982 1-405 NB 0WOFF RAMPS i NE 44TH ST 1445 NB ONIOFF RAMPS NE 44TH S1 From North J From East From South From West e ! ! StartTlmRight r Th. Left Total I R g t Thr. LeR Total Rlg Tt+r- � Total ( Right Thru Left Peak HourAnalgt s From 07:00 AM to 0$:415 AM -Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire intersection Begins at 07.15 AM 07:15 AM $ 91 3 6 100 1 34 31 34 99 07:30 AM i 101 8 8 117 1 49 47 40 136 07:45 AM 81 5 QB-:0071 9 95 ' I 38 40 51 129 AMS f 1 _ - 6 _ 88 1.9 47 39 _ 106 Total Volume I 344 27 29 400 140 186 164 469 y % App. Total 6.8 7.2 27 29.9 35.2 35 91....... PHF 1 .851 _,..fi14 .8Q6 .556 . _.714 351 .878 _ .804 262 Peak How Anafisis From 07:00 AM to 08:46 AM - Peak t of i 46.7 48.2 51 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins az 14.6 38 i Total Int Total 28 19 1 48 I 106 22 77 2134': 451 20 22 2 441 102 35 77 214 I 511 20 23 25 28 6 1 51 52 { 78 24 72 174 449 52 72 _ 67 56 247 lob 102 I 78 _ 66 351 47.4 ..10. __.196 66 27 55 __ S48 -- 393 91....... 94 351 10$ 281 740 1804 46.7 48.2 51 47.4 14.6 38 i 07:00 AM 07:30 AM �- _ 08:00 AM 07:15 AM -- +0 mics , 87 +i5 mYu !1 91 +30 mini ` 1o1' +45 mfis. al Total Vohrme I 360 % APP. TOW ! 87.8 _ --'- PHF I -_891.719. 7 96 8 5 23 5,6 _, 4 8 9 --i7-416 5.5 ..75o 98 100 117 96 .876 49 38 19 22 128 27.2 .653 47 40 47 39 173 36.7 _Eld 40 S1 39 40 170 36.1 .833 136 129 1w lOi 471 .6681 23 21 306 25 105 425 28 48 27 27 130 52 5 1 3 4 4 12 4 9 52 72 _ 67 56 247 lob 102 I 78 _ 66 351 47.4 22 35 24 27 -139-281 14.6 77 T7 72 55 38 204 214 174 1" 740 .729 .677 .750 .85$ .836 _771 .912 .864 i RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 01A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.Q. BOX 2608 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05501A Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 2 S i-405 NB QNIOFF 0 P6-1 - — NE 44TH ST 1405 N8 ONIOFF F ' From West From North i From East Right Thru From South Start Time Rlglt 1'hru left I Total , __ Right I Thru Lek Total Right Thru Left Peek Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 0&45 AM - Peak:L of 1 44 102 35 77 2141 511 51 78 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begie$ at 07:15 AM 1741 449 52 66 27 55 1481 393 07:15 AMI 9i 3 6 100 I 34 31 34 99 i 28 19 1 07:317 AM 1 141 8 8 117 I 49 47 40 136 20 22 2 07:45 AM 81 5 8 95 38 40 51 129 20 26 6 08100 NMI 71 11 a 88 I i947 39 105 23 28 1 _ W Total Volume _ — 344 27 29 140 165 164 469 91 94 - 10 _ % App. Toth 86 6.8 T_2 29.9 36.2 35 45.7 48.2 0.1 PHF 1 .851 _ •514 ,806 -885 .714 378 .804 .662 1 .893 -939 .417 File Name : GRT05501A Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 2 S NE 44TH ST From West APIX Right Thru Left TottIntTo., 48 105 22 77 204 451 44 102 35 77 2141 511 51 78 24 72 1741 449 52 66 27 55 1481 393 196 361 108 281 740 1604 47.4 9A-6 38 .. -... -. .... ..--- --- 1 F RAMPS ort In Total 15 400 915 I I 344 27 29 Right Thru Left t 14 Peak Hour Data ro F C I�m j Northrr —~ s ► Peak Hour 8891.at 07:15 AIA — L11 2 m m W �r Prpi79 a m4 41 iE Left I Ri ht 10 94• —911 IJJJJ 1 542 0 L 19 7871 In Total j 1.405hBQN/QFFRAMIRS I RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 41 P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 I IP'nrrnc 0.f -#-A_ oa....,... File Name : GRT05501 P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2124/2009 Page No : 1 05c00 PM 1 65 1-405 NB ONlOF RAAAPS .I- _ From North 12 NE -44TH Si` From East 941 f 1-405 N8 ONIOFF RAMPS i From South NE 44TH 5T From West 17 1 79 45 Start Time Ftl�w'- Thru Left I Truck ,q, T. RW j Thmu Leo I Tluda rrr RWM IThar I Lok Trunk Ayp Oral ' �r Tiles, Leit Truck M. -Torr -- - ---- uxrar �' enu wa j InL 04.00 PM 1 84 4 7 2 95 12 39 8 2 59 32 71 0 4 703 21 26 20 0 67 B324 37 332 04:15 PM I 1 90 2 14 2 106 6 32 18 4 56 40 57 0 1 97 I 15 36 18 2 68 9 327 336 04.30 PM 04:45 PM 1 100 6 i4 2 120 13 37 20 2 70 31 53 6 1 89 115 356 32 12 J. 59 6 336 344 8B 363 53 5 10 0 98 7 37 11 0 55 32 58 6 1 95 10 52 12 1 74 2 322 324 Toted 357 174r, 6 419 38 145 57 8 240 135 239 10 7 384 5i 145 82 4 268 25 11411 1-41A 05c00 PM 1 65 7 12 3 941 20 42 17 1 79 45 63 3 1 111 20 42 13 0 75 5 349 354 05c15 PMI 84 7 12 0 103 23 35 25 2 83 36 57 3 1 96 16 37 18 1 71 4 353 357 0,;x30 PM j 72 6 12 1 90 19 34 24 1 77 43 73 2 1 118 15 36 21 2 71 5 356 361 0646 PM I 68 Total 287 2 -42-54-4 18 0 _ 8B 363 21 83 27 10 0 6$ 43 76 2 5 121 16 30 15 0 51 5 326 33i 76 297 167 269 10 446 138 76 4 297 I 167 269 10 8 446 I 67 144 57 3 278 1 19 1384 1403 Grand Total 1 646 39 99 SA 782 j 121 283 133 12 S37 302 608 20 16 830 I 128 289 129 7 646 44 2695 2739 Apprch % I $2.4 5 127 1 22.5 52.7 24.6 36.4 612 2-4 23,4 52.9 23.5 1 Tota! % , 23.9 1-4 3.7 29 f 4.5 10.5 4.9 193 112 18.8 0.7 30.8 4.7 10.7 4.8 20.3 1.6 98.4 ...........w ! -15"k 41" I L II rot01 l MV[ I Inru I LBM Peak Hour Analysts From 04--00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 349 83 36 Pank Hour for Entire Inter$*Wcn Begins at 0500 PM ' 16 37 16 71 05:00 PM I 65 7 12 84 I 20 42 17 OM14 PM i 84 7 12 103 I 23 35 25 M30 PM 72 6 12 90 1 19 34 24 - - OFX45 Prd _ 86 2 7S 86 l 21 27 10 Total Volume 287 22 54 363 _ 23 136 - _ 76 °6 Ap Total 79.1 6.1 14.9 .833 279 46.5 26.6 ----_-.... PHF .854 .736 .750 .861 1 .902 r .821 .760 Peak Hour Analysts From 04:00 PM to Ox45 pM - peak 1 of 1 P.wk 14- fnr P.rh 6n.. --h ate... - 79 43 63 3 1111 20 42 7.3 751 349 83 36 57 3 96 ' 16 37 16 71 353 77 43 73 2 118 2.5 35 21 71 356 58 43 75 2 121 iG 30 15 61 i 326 297 167 269 ,- 10 44667 _ �- 144 67 278 1384 74 _ 37A 60.3 2-2 14 24.1 518 24.1 I 77 X05 _ 928 .885 .833 LL.921 .838 .857 .796 .927 1 .972 04:00 PM 1 05:00 PM- 0&00 PM --- 04:45 PM +0 mins. 84 4 7 95i 20 42 17 79 45 63 3 11! iO 52 12 74 +16 m1n,% 90 2 14 1.061 23 36 25 83 36 57 3 9e 20 42 13 74 +30 mMs. 100, 5 14 12111 19 34 24 77 43 73 2 118 16 37 18 711 _.W. +45 mins. 83 6 10 98 1 21 27 Ill 58 43 76 2 in 15 35 21 71 TotalVukime 357 17 45 419 83 ( 139 76 297 167 269 10 446 61 166 64 291 774 App. Total 852 4.1 10.7 27.9 46.8 25.5 37.4 60.3 2.2 21 57 22 PHF 893 .108 .604, 873 902 821 .760.895 .925 -885 833 .923 .763 .798 .762 _ .970 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST E_OC# 01 P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.C. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05501 P Site Cade : 00000001 Start Date ; 2/2412009 Page No : 2 Peak Hour tar Enure intereectien apol— at ns -nn aiu 0&W PM 1-405 NB ON/OFF RAMPS NE 44TH ST - 1-405 NB QNIC-iFF A-NFFFS- --- 'lIE 44TH ST 64 20 From Horth From Bast From Sauth From West 411 Start Time Right Thru L8ft Topp. Right Toru Left 42 Right Thru I.Aft 0&15 PM AtgYit Thru Left AW _ tot Total 23 35 25 83 TAI 67 3 96 Total 37 iS 71 353 Peak Hour tar Enure intereectien apol— at ns -nn aiu 0&W PM 65 7 12 64 20 42 17 79 411 83 3 114 j 20 42 13 7.51 349 0&15 PM 54 7 22 103 23 35 25 83 36 67 3 96 Z 37 iS 71 353 0x30 PIM 72 6 12 90 19 34 24 77 43 73 2 11S 15 35 21 71 356 05c46 PM 88 2 7.8 68 21 27 10 58 43 76 2 321 lfi 30 15 61 326 Total volume 287 22 54 363 83 138 7t3 297 167 268 10 - 446 _ 87 144 67 278 _ 9384 %App. Total 791 &1 14.8 27.9 46-5 25.6 37A 60.3 22 24.1 51.8 241 PHF 1 -854 .7RG .750 .881 .902 .821 -760 .895 1 ,928 .885 .833 .921 .83$ ,857 .798 .927 1972 1-405 NEI KAmn Out In Total 419 F 363 782 21371 Z21 541 M TfUU l L Peak Hour Data aL m J I u �p _m �RI �IM V L r- / I Peak How Begltu at 05;U0 M — 1-2 ni 5 m $ t PAmary 0 9E r I 4 - Left Th RI Fd 101 2691 167 OLI617 ® In Total RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST I_OC# 02A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (364)491-8116 Grnllnc prsntorl_ RrF—v File Name : GRT05502A Site Cade : 00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : I ' I Start 71me I 1-405 SB OFF RAMP From North I' j rhpk NE 44TH ST From East That Left I Tnlair .�rw R� 1405 5B ON RAMP From South Ttru [stt Trek Tar MF ipr R t NE 44TH 5T From West Thnr Left 7ruaq —� hm. Tool _ 0 0 08:15AM I 26 _ . RI(ht Thr- r Left Truk T e.sT.ei ww rem — ln. Tadl 07:00 Al 14 0 11 0 25 1 D 16 104 1 122 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 133 0 4 133 5 260 285 07.15AN 33 0 11 4 44 0 22 104 3 126 0 0 0 0 01 1 187 0 3 166 10 356 368 07:30AM 37 D 13 1 50 0 47 101 1 1.49 0 0 0 0 D 3 201 0 3 204 5 402 407 07:46 AM 33 1 19 1 53 0 46 81. 5 127 0 0 0 0 D 1 144 0 0 145 1 6 325__ 331 Tata) 117 1 54 6 172 ❑ 133 390 10 523 0 0 0 0 0 5 656 0 10 670 26 11 365 139 08.00 Ail 22 0 18 1 37 I 0 18 91 1 1A9 0 0 0 0 08:15AM I 26 0 23 1 49 0 27 101 4 126 0 0 0 0 08:30 AM 16 0 14 jj 2 301 0 30 113 ii 143 0 0 0 0 _ 05:45 AN 10 1 i6 1 27 ' 0 '15 82 8 97 0 0 0 0 Totai7� 1 68 8 143 0 90 3BT 19 477 0 0 0 0 Grand Total ' 191 2 1.22 11 315'! 0 223 777 29 1000 0 0 0 0 Apprch % 60.6 0.6 387 172 ; 0 22.3 77.7 523 I 0 0 0 TOtal % 7.7 03 49 127 D 9 31.4 0 40.4 i 0 0 0 0I 2 132 0 3 134 5 280 266 0 4 134 0 3 138 8 315 323 0 1 124 0 2 1251 iS 298 313 0 4 89 0 3 931 7 217__ 224 D 11 479 0 11 490 11--- 35 111.E 114$ D i6 1144 0 21 1160 1 61 2475 2536 1.4 98.6 0 0 13 60 0 47 0I 0.6 46,2 D 0 0 0 0 46.91 2.4 97.6 19 l - — - 1 -:SB OF RAMP -F '---- -- NE 44TH ST 0 D 133 0 1331 1-405 38 ON RAMP 0 1 187 0 168: 358 From 402 0 1 144 0 145'. From East a 5 865 D 570 1365 From South startTlme i L_..�--- i Right I i Thru LeftP' Totai Right Thr- Left TSI Right 77tru Lett Peak H-urAnalysis From 07:00 AM to 08;45 AM - Peak i of 1 0 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM I 07:15 AMI 14 33 0 0 ' 11 11 25 44 0 0 1B104 22 122 0 1 D 0 07:30 AM I 37 0 13 60 0 47 104 101 126 148 0 D 0 0 0 0 07:45 AM 33 1 19 a3 0 46 81 127 0 0 0 Tatai Velums 117 1 54~ 172 ; 0 L33 390 523 0 0 0 – % App, Total 68 0.6 314 0 25.4 74-6 0 0 0 . PHf .791 290 .711 .811. ., .000 .707 .938 .883 .000 000 000 Peak Hour Anatysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak i of 1 Peak Hou? for Each Awroach &&n at: 0730 AM 07,00 AM 07DOAM +D mins 37 0 13 50 0 18 104 122 ' 0 0 0 +15 mina 33 1 19 63 0 22 104 126 0 0 0 +3O mko, 22 0 15 37 I D 47 101 148 I D q 0 +45 mhss. 26 0 23 49 i 0 46 81 127 1 0 0 0 TotalvaWma 1HR� 1 TO 0 133 3B0 623 O D 0 % App. Total 624 0.6 37 1 0 25.4 74.6 O q 0 _ PHF 1 .797 _ .250 .761 -892.[ ..000. .707 9 38 .3 68 .000 .500 A M �— NE 44TH ST� From West 7hnt LBft I ` - - Int To tel al� Total ; 0 D 133 0 1331 280 0 1 187 0 168: 358 0 3 201 0 2D4 402 0 1 144 0 145'. 325 a 5 865 D 570 1365 0.7 99-3 0 145 01 .417 .827 .000 .821 1 R4c, 0736 AM 0 1 187 0 188 0 3 201 0 2041 0 1 _ 144 0 145 0 2 132 0 1341 0 7 664 0 673 1 99 0 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02A GRT09040M TRAFFMCOUNT, INC. P.O. Bax 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trofficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 F_-1-405 SB OFF RAMP' Site Code :00000002 Start Date 'I Page No From north From Bast Start Time L— Right Tiw Lett T��' Tota! Right Thru wt Peak Hour Analysts From 07:90 AM to 48:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 122 1 00 Peak Hour for Entire Intersetttoa 8eglns at 07:00 AM 0 0 133 0 12S 07-W AM { 14 0 11 251 0 18 104 07:15 AM 33 . . 0 11 44 1 0 22 104 07:30 AM , 37 -0 13 50 0 47 3A1 OT:45 AM ( 33 1 19 53 I 0 46 81 70tal4oluma 117 1 54 1T2 0 133 390 %app. Total fib —.250 0.6 31.4 .D00 0 25.4 74.6 PHF 1 -781 .711 811 .000 .707 938 File Name : GRT05502A Site Code :00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No .2 — 1-403 SB ON RAMP — _Nt: 44TH Sl _ From South From West A,*'Right rnlal Thru Lett T��' Rlght Thru Left 122 1 00 D 0 0 133 0 12S D 0 0 a 1 387 0 149 a 0 0 0 a 201 0 127 0 0 0 0 1 144 0 623 0 0 0 0 5 565 0 0 0 0 0.7 99.3 0 883 ADO .wo .000 .D00 .417 .627 rM Out In Tata] 11721 ' 172 s 117 1 Right Thai 'jJ I L/ i Peak Hour Data NI 0 a I t 1 10 North t w � �-- --k lPeak BegEns 810 :00 AM — 2 u � 'a G1 r Prima a'n ,g—; 0 a _ �o N — 41 T F+ Lett Thru _ftht 0 0 0 396 0 386 Ort In Total Int Total 1331 2So 3.86 358 204 I 402 146 i 325 .849 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. Box 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 r—.— 0A .fad- 0.i ... -w. File Name : GRT05502P Site Cade : 00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page Na : 1 I 1.445 S8 OFF RAMP i - .Nf 44TH ST 33 4 1-445 S8 QN RAIUI0 ---- 7 -- NE 44TH ST —7 1 431 1 2S9 260 From North 153 0 From East 1.75 — s7 From South 101t3 01 48 From West I 2 334 I 13 $tali nn -w Right Ti Left Tnrck oop.rarrI Rl Thru Left Trudy I +p T.M Right I Ttpu I Left I Truck Appjang R169 Thru j Loft I Trtm* sr.Um a T" ' e.eatawT� 04.-00 PM 55 3 26 0 94 0 65 60 1 125 0 0 0 0 0 j 7 33 0 0 40 1 259 260 0415 PM 67 0 30 0 97 0 74 52 2 126 0 0 0 0 0, 5 39 0 1 40 1 3 263 266 04e30 PM 63 1 27 0 91 0 74 64 0 126 0 0 0 0 0 7 32 0 0 39 # 0 236 258 V. 0445 PM 67 1 32 0 100 0 77 53 1 130 0 0 0 9. _ 0 7 32 1 0 40 I ' 270 271 Taal Tata) 262 5 115 0 362 0 290 PJS 4 S09 0 _0 __ . -- 0 0 25 132 _t i -159 1 __1 _ 5 _ _ 1050 _ 3095 amwPM 1 59 1 39 0 99 0 52 52 2 114 0 0 0' 0 05c15 PM 1 59 2 30 1 91 0 60 55 0 115 0 0 0 0 (M30 PMI 60 0 34 1 94 0 55 51 3 106 0 0 0 0 06:45 PM { 72 0 _ 43 0 115 0 46 55 0 101 0 0 0 0 Total 250 3 146 2 399 0 223 213 6 436 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 1 612 8 281 2 781 0 613 432 9 945 0 0 0 0 Appreh % 165.6 1 33-4 0 54.3 45.7 0 0 0 Total % 1 24.9 0.4 12.7 37.9 , 0 24.9 21 45.9 0 0 0 0 1 5 45 0 0 50 2 263 265 0 7 42 0 0 49 ! 1 255 256 0 5 2B p 0 33 4 233 237 From 38 0 1 431 1 2S9 260 0045 22 153 0 1 1.75 — s7 j= 101t3 01 48 285 2 2 334 I 13 2080 2073 !! 14.4 85.3 0.3 04;15 PMI 67 0 30 97 I 0 74 52 0 1 2.3 13.8 0 04:30 PM 63 1 27 16.2 } 0.6 99.4 54 I I 1-405 SB OFF RAMP 1 2 0 0 - - NE 447H ST 1-405 SB ON K -A From North rOtal' Right Thru I Left From East 0 0 0 0 0 0 iI 0 D From South Time Right 7hru ! Left I L --- Tatal j Right i Thru I Left T� i F9ght Thru Lest Peak Hour Analysis From 041)0 PM to 05;46 PM- peak 1 of 1 45 0 50I 263 4 24 L44 1 169 1064 Peak Hour for Entire Intarslra0on 9eglrs at 04:15 PM 85.2 0.8 151 84.8 1 0.6 178 PHF l .868 .375 .849 ,000 ,000 .000 .0001 929_ .839 ASO 04;15 PMI 67 0 30 97 I 0 74 52 126 0 0 p 04:30 PM 63 1 27 91 i 0 74 54 128 0 0 0 04:45 PM 67 1 32 100 0 77 53 130 0 0 0 MIX) PM 59 1 39 99 0 62 82 114 0 0 0 Total Volume 256 3 128 387 0 287 211 498 0 0 0 Tow 661 0.8 33,1 0 57.6 42A 0 0 0 PK F ,955 --- .750 .821 - .956 .000 .932 .977 .956 -0130 A00 .000 Peak Hour Analysk From 04;00 PM to 0&46 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hots for e" Rporoach BeEins at ' 105:00 PM 40 mins, . 59 +15 mirm ' 59 +30 mtn& 60' +d5 i - mns. ' 72 _ 1 2 0 0 KE 44Th ST 9i 94 iL6 From West 65 74 74 77 rOtal' Right Thru I Left T Pal I Int Total — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iI 0 D 0 5 35 0 401 263 0 7 32 0 39I 258 0 7 32 1 401 270 0 5 45 0 50I 263 4 24 L44 1 169 1064 14-2 85.2 0.8 151 84.8 105:00 PM 40 mins, . 59 +15 mirm ' 59 +30 mtn& 60' +d5 i - mns. ' 72 _ 1 2 0 0 39-99T 30 34 43 9i 94 iL6 04:00 PM 0 j 0 0 0 65 74 74 77 60 S2 54 83 - - 126 126 128 130 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iI 0 D i 0430 PM ' 7 7 I 8 _ 7 32 32 45 42 0 1 0 0 39 40 5p 49 1 Total Volume 1 260 _ %App. T4lal I W-7 3 46 1464z3866973.0013 36,6_0 0 _ 290 57 .942 219 _43 ..913 608 .979 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 14.6 151 84.8 1 0.6 178 PHF l .868 .375 .849 ,000 ,000 .000 .0001 929_ .839 ASO .890 I RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2808 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@rnsn.com (360)491-81 16 File Name : GRT05502P Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 2 ; -- - I�a5 58 OFF RA�11P Left Thru Rs ht 0 0 p 23B 0 NE 44TH ST —� 1-405 SB ON RAMP {Qws SB CM RAMP NE 44TH Si From North From East From South From West StBRTIme Right Thru Left gyp' Right Thru Left Ate' R Thnl 1.�t APP• Right Thru Left -- i int. Total Tota! Total ; Total Total Pik Hour AnelpLs From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM -Peek 3 d J. Peak Hour for Fntlre IntameMon Beglns at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 67 0 30 97 1 0 74 52 126 q D 0 0 6 36 0 263 04:30 PM 63 1 27 91 I 0 74 64 128 0 0 0 0 7 32 9 34901 258 04:45 PM 67 1 32 100 0 77 53 13p 0 4 0 0 T 32 1 40 270 MOO PM 59 1 39 99 1 0 62 52 114 0 0 0 0 6 45 0 50 268 Natal Volume 256 3 128 7T87 0 2B7 211 498 0 0 0 0 24 144 1 169 1 1054 %App. Total 661 0.8 33.1 0 57.54Z4 0 0 0 14.2 85.2 0.6 - PHF .955 .750 .821 68 .9 .000 .932 .977 .959 1 .000 .000 .000 .000 957 900 .250 .845 1 976 1-405 SB Uzi- mAuF Out In Total I� 387 25$ 3 128 Right Ttw Left 1J J Ll, F Peak Hour Data O � C F– Y Peak liodir Begins—fe 04:15 PM 0 rc Left Thru Rs ht 0 0 p 23B 0 238 ott in Tate) {Qws SB CM RAMP RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOC# 03A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 r3Yhfrnn Prinforl_ IPA - File Name : GRT05503A Site code : 00000003 Start Date :2124/2009 Page No : I 08:DO AM f I SEAHAWKS WAY _._...I.._.-... 08:15 AM i _NE 0 15 1 08:30 AMI 1 LAKE WASHINGTON -7 5 0 08:45 AAI 3 0 �I (RIPLEY LN) 5 0 44TH 5T 7DRIVEWAY 9 1 62 7 Apprch % 1 12.5 14 661 - Total % , 0.6 0-1 3.8 From North 85 ; 8 From East 130 2 From South 453 13 ELS 489, 23 680 703 6 3 1097 28 20 1128 41 1821 1662 {nL total Fram West 97.3 2.5 Start Tkne Rlsht 7i Loft Truck P p T� Right Thru LeR TrU k aw -ww Right Thru I Left I Ttudt AM T.W RiPt Tlnu I LehTpxk ; yy76d r xer _ t� tam hit 7ety t77ADAMAM 1 0 3 0 4 6 25 1 0 32 2 0 0 2 2 0 127 2 2 129 , 4 167 171 0745 0 0 5 1 5 11 45 1 1 57 1 0 0 0 1 1 182 4 3 1875 250 255 07:30 AM 0 0 90 1 10 12 74 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 2 4 191 5 287 292 07;45 AM 2 1 5 1 8 19 53 3 _2 75 1 0 0 0 1 0 146 7 1 153 I 4 237 241 Total { 3 f 23 3 2T 48 197 5 3 250 4 0 0 2 4 1 $44 L6 1.❑ 660 1 iB 941 959 08:DO AM f J. 0 12 1 08:15 AM i 1 0 15 1 08:30 AMI 1 0 5 0 08:45 AAI 3 0 7 2 Total 5 0 39 4 Grand Total ; 9 1 62 7 Apprch % 1 12.5 14 661 - Total % , 0.6 0-1 3.8 13 ! 22 20 0 0 iG 22 30 0 0 6 I 13 31 1 7 10 9 17 0 2 45 66 98 1 9 72 1114 295 6 12 #` 27.5 71,1 1.4 4,4 ; 7 18.2 0.4 42 0 0 0 0 52 1 0 0 0 45 1 0 0 ❑ as 0 0 0 0 165 2 0 0 0 49.5 6 0 0 2 to 100 0 0 28.6 0.4 0 0 0 j 2 11.9 2 1 123 I 2 178 180 1 0 123 3 2 9,26 3 198 998 1 0 129 4 3 133 I to 185 995 0 -.-2 0 82 4 4 85 ; 8 122 130 2 453 13 10 489, 23 680 703 6 3 1097 28 20 1128 41 1821 1662 {nL total 0 3 97.3 2.5 0.4 0.2 67,7 1.7 69.6 25 97.5 -SE,4HA1NK5 WAY (RIPLEY rrnT NE 44TH ST DRIVEWAY LAKE WASHINGTON BEND _ From North From East From South From WestAPP- 5tart Time Rtgnt ;T Thru t TotaE RIS Thi . Left T p� Rtght Toru I.. J Left Tom! I Ripa 7hra Left { i Ap' Tolal {nL total Peak HOurAnal)s Form 07.00 AM to 0$:45 AM -Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection 8e iihs at 07:15 AM 07:15 AMI 0 0 5 5 11 45 1 57 1 0 0 1 1 182 07:210 AMII 0 0 10 10 12 74 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 1B9 4 2 187 141 I 250 287 07:45 AM f 2 1 5 08:00 AM 1 8 19 53 3 75 1 0 0 3 0 146 T 1531 237 ,1 _ 0 92 7otel Valumr 3 1 32 13 36 22 64 20 192 0 4 42 260 0 2 0 0 0_ 2 119 2 123 I 178 % App. Total 8.3 2.8 88.924.5 73.8 1.5 100 Q a 0 p 2 3 0.6 am 97.2 1b 2-3 654 982 ..- PHI: 376 .250 .667 .692.727 .849 .333 .756 i MO .000 .000 .500 I 375 .g41 .5.38 .856 1 .829 Peak HOW A113"19 From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of i _ Peak Hour for Each Approach eegtns at 07:3p AF9- - I' 07:15 AM07:OQ AM 07:00 AM +0 milts. 0' 0 1.0 +1.6 10# 11 45 1 5T 2 0 0 2 1 0 - 127 2 929 mins. 2 1 5 +30 mina• 1. 8 I 12 74 0 86 1 0 0 1 3 182 4 1371 0 9.2 13 1 19 53 3 75 0 0 0 0 0 189 2 191 1 +45 mine. 11 1 0 1 e Total Ydume - - 4 15 22 20 0 42 1 0 0 _ 1 0 148 7_ 153 1 1 42 4T 64 192 4 260 4 0 0 4 1 644 1.5 6607 "% ARP• TotalPHF 8-5 2.1 89-4 14.6 _ 73.8 SS 100 0 0 I Q2 97.6 _ .._� PI{F 500 .250 .700 .734 f .72T .649 _333 .756 .600 .000 .000 .500 1 .250 362 .SRR 9�ra RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOG# 03A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com {360}499-8116 File Name : GRT05503A Site Code :00000003 Start Date : 2124/2009 Page No :2 SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY ! NE 44TH S7 ---- DRIVEiIVAY —^� LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LN} ____.._�._.....__ From North From East Fromou South From West Start Time Rtg1rt Tllrtt Lett �P' Total Right Thru Left I APA• Total I t Th APP• { _ Rpt i'Mu t App -- lnt.7otal _ >♦ Arra F 0 - -f TOM Total aur trek mm 7— AM to 08:45 AM - Peek 1 of J. Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 0773 AM f 0 0 5 5{ 11 45 1 57 1 0 D 1 1 182 4 187 I 250 07:36 AM 0 0 10 LO 12 74 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 189 2 191 397 67;45 AM 2 1 6 8{ 19 53 a 75 i 1 0 0 1 0 14B 7 159 237 0806 AM 1 0 12 13 f 22 20 D 42 _ D a 0 0 2 119 _ 2 123 ! 178 Total Volume 32 35 3 1 - ' 64 192 4 250 2 0 0 Y-- 2 3 536 15 S6 ii g52 ApR• Total = a3 2.8 68.9 24.6 73.8 1.5 106 0 0 0.6 97.2 2.3 FHF .375 .250 .567 .692 1 ,727 .649 .333 .758 .500 .000 .000_ .500 .375 —J341.536 S5B I .829 RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOC# 03P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUVT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, INA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 Groups Printed- Primary � SEAFiA1Nf(S WAY ---_- - (RIPLEY LN) NE "TH ST DRIVEWAY I From North From East From South Start Time afghr ITru Left Tull ,rar,.lar Righ[ Tfru Left Truek A .T. RW Thru Left Truro p4130 PM 1 0 0 8 0 8 7 127 2 1 1.36 3 0 0 0 04:16 PMI 0 0 6 0 6 9 135 0 1 144 1 0 1 0 04:30 PM 3 0 5 1 "%3 -�'T 126 1 1 140 2 0 0 0 04:45 PM 1 0 12 0 13 10 131 Cl- 0 141-1 0 0 0 0 TWO 4 0 31 1 35 39 519 3 3 66.1 6 0 J. 0 05:00 PMI 8 0 20 1 281 4 127 135 0 2 119 I 3 0 0 0 05:15 PM 4 0 10 0 14 6 111 0 0 117 1 0 0 1 0&30 PM 3 0 15 1 101 5 109 0 2 fi 114 0 0 0 0 05:45 PMI 2 1 13 0 15, 5 114 0 0 119 0 1 0 0 T I 1- 96 2---- 79-T-20 449 0 4 469 4 1 0 1 Grano Total j 21 1 89 3 111 � 59 958 3 7 1030 10 1 1 1 Appruh % Total 18.9 0.9 80.2 5-7 94 0.3 83.3 8.3 113 % 1-5 01 6.4 7.9 I 4-2 692 0.2 73.7 0.7 01 01 -- i SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEYN 0 3 Peek Hort forEachApproerh B II LN) 331 BLVD I" 44TH ST 05;00 PM 1 From North 04:00 PM 33 From Erik +0 mirm a' 0 _ i 7 _ APR _ -�'T . 9 336 0 APR 'tartTme Right Thru Left 125 1 Right Thru Lett I 10 131 0 m Total4alue 17 1 .-- Total I 699 3 Total Peak Hour Aneyrsfs From 04130 PM to 05:45 PM - peak i of 1 92.5 0.5 95,4 0 Peek Hour for Entire Inter3ertlon Begins at 04:00 PM 28 .883 182 192 7 04:00 PM 0 0 8 8 7 127 2 136 0415 PM : 0 0 6 6 9 135 0 146 04:30 PMI 3 0 5 8 13 126 1 140 D4;45 PM I 1 0 1213 0 10 131 0 141 Total Vdume 4 0 51---- 35 39 599 3 S51 %AM Total 11.4 0 BS.B 168 7 926 0.5 119 PHF .333 .000 .848 .673 .75D .9B1 .375 -974 Peak Hour Analp is From 04:00 PM to 0&45 PM - Peak i of 1 LAKE WASHINGTON 0 3 Peek Hort forEachApproerh B res at 0 331 BLVD 1 05;00 PM 1 2 04:00 PM 33 FromFro m West +0 mirm a' 0 20 28 7 127 2 +1.6 mins ° 4 0 1014 9 336 0 +3D mins, 3 _ 0 18 18 13 125 1 +45 mkt9, 2 1 13 l6 10 131 0 m Total4alue 17 1 .-- SB .--- 76 - 39 699 3 % App. Tafel 22.4 1.3 76.3 7 92.5 0.5 Pile Name : GRT05503P Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 1 DRIVEWAY LAKE WASHINCTQN BLVD r From South I From West App- Right PR - I--'---- Right Thru Left T4tai Right.; Thru f Left I APP- Int Total 3 LAKE WASHINGTON 0 3 0 33 0 331 BLVD 1 0 1 2 0 33 FromFro m West f I 188 2 0 nW Right Thro L 't TrueN rte, Tarr e�.r.m _ n,w ryy ht iaW 3 0 33 0 D 33Li 2 180 1812 6 0 33 1 1 34 x28 186 188 2 0 33 1 0 34 ❑ 184 1860 95,4 0 26 2 0 28 .883 182 192 7 0 126 4 1 129 5 732 737 3 0 28 1 0 29 ! 3 179 182 1 1 37 1 0 39 1 171 172 0 0 is 1 0 16 3 3.49 151 1 0 29 3 1 32 1. 168 169 5 1 119 6 1 116 8 666 674 12 1 234 10 2 245 13 1396 1411 I 0.4 95-5 4.1 0.9 �01 16.7 0.7 17.E 0.9 991 DRIVEWAY LAKE WASHINCTQN BLVD r From South I From West App- Right PR - I--'---- Right Thru Left T4tai Right.; Thru f Left I APP- Int Total 3 0 0 3 0 33 0 331 190 1 0 1 2 0 33 1 34 188 2 0 0 2 0 33 1 34 194 - 0 D -- 0 - 0 026 141 1 0 2 28 1_ 182 6 0 1 7 0-- x28 4129 1 732 85.7 0 14.3 88.7 ❑ 96.9 31 95,4 3-8 ,500 .000 150 .883 -000 947 sin onw acn 04:00 PM 04:30 PM 136 3 0 0 3 0 - 33 1 34 144 1. 0 1 2 0 26 2 28 140 2 0 0 2 0 28 3 29 141 1 0 0 0 0 1 37 1 39 GSI. 6 0 1 7T 1 124 -� 5 130 88.7 0 14.3 0.8 95,4 3-8 RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOC# 03P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 M File Name : GRT05503P Site Code :00000003 Start Date : 2/2412009 Page No :2 DMVEWAY — LN)�- NE 44TH ST f i From North j Rl�tt From East Start Time Rlght F Th- F LApp. REBht Th -Lett e! int TotalTotal Ot Tate! Peak Hour Ana"IS From 04.0 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak J. of 1 135 3 0 0 Peak Hour for Entlre Intersection Beglns at 04.fi0 PM 33 0 331 7HD 144 D4-00 PM . 0 0 $ 8 f 7 127 2 04:15 PM 0 0 B 6 9 135 �} 04:30 PM i 3 0 6 8 13 726 1 04:46 PMI 1 D 1-2 13 10 131 0 Tofel VOkrme 4 0 3135 39 69.9 3 K p. Tolal 114 88. 7 92.5 0.5 PkF 333 0 .646 .673 .000 .76 50 _961 .RTA M File Name : GRT05503P Site Code :00000003 Start Date : 2/2412009 Page No :2 Out in Total E-7-3-1 35 = i. F41 OT --371 41 1 L► Peak Hour Data North 08fC f4t; reg�ns at 1 � Primary 1- i Left TtVlf jZjQtrl 1 ' 0 6i 31 © E Od In Total DMVEWAY LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD From South From West App. j Rl�tt Thru et ��RltTu Total et e! int TotalTotal Ot 135 3 0 0 3 0 33 0 331 7HD 144 1 0 1 2 0 33 1 341 158 140 2 0 0 2 0 33 1 34 164 141 0 0 0 0; 0 26 2 28 7.B2 561 6 0 1 7, D 125 4 129 732 88.7 0 14.3 0 96.9 31 .974 ,600 .000 X50 .583 ADO .947500 .549 .954 Out in Total E-7-3-1 35 = i. F41 OT --371 41 1 L► Peak Hour Data North 08fC f4t; reg�ns at 1 � Primary 1- i Left TtVlf jZjQtrl 1 ' 0 6i 31 © E Od In Total Printed: 05-03-2012 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT 07 1=1 GIRILILIXIDD M-1 05/03/2012 03:36 PM Total Payment: 103.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Receipt Number: Payee: Dan R. Mitzel Trans Account Code Description Amount ---------------- ------ 3080 ------------------ 503.000000.004.322 ------------------------------ Technology Fee 3.00 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 100.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 1504 Account Balances A 103.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 3021 ------------------ 303.000000.020.345 ------------------------------ Park Mitigation Fee --------------- .00 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology .00 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation es .00 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/iver .00 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding rs rite/Short Plat .00 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat .00 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD DO 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone .00 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954 .00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.000000.000.231 Tax .00 I.TiE 21V%+1& Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 city of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 10, 2012 TO: Arneta Henninger, Plan Review and Corey Thomas, Fire FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner SUBJECT: LUA09-060 Hawk's Landing Site Plan Modification Please find attached a modification request for the Hawk's Landing Hotel Master Site Plan and Site Plan. Please provide comments on the proposed modification by May 251 2012,to Vanessa Dolbee. hacedlplanninglcurrent planninglpraje=\2009 projccts109-060.vanessalsite plan mod. memo 09-060.doc Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 9:53 AM To: Palisoc, Felixberto Cc: Suzanne Dale Estey Subject: Hawk's Landing Hotel Site Plan Modification Attachments: 5-3-12 Site Plan Mod. Plan Set.pdf Felix, City project number LUA09-060 Hawk's Landing Hotel, has submitted to the City of Renton for a Site Plan modification. Please find attached a PDF of the modified plan sets. The modification is considered to be a minor modification therefore no official comment period and/or public hearing is required. However, do the project's proximity to 1-405 the City wanted to provide you an opportunity to review and provide comments on the project. If you have comments please send them to Vanessa Dolbee by 5:00 pm on May 25, 2012. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 RECLIVEn C LEERK'S .)FFIGE IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF SEGS, a WASHINGTON NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, AND BRAD NICHOLSON., W INDIVIDUAL AND CITIZEN OF RENTON LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H r1l LuA-Oq-d�0 DOCUMENT DATE 1 Demolition Plan Sheet 2 Site Dimension Plan 3 ERC Report - DNS Mitigated 6/29/2009 4 Master Site Plan/Site Plan Report to Hearing Examiner 8/25/2009 5 Appellant Nicholson Notice of Appeal to Hearing Examiner 7/17/2009 6 Appellant Nicholson Hearing Brief 7/31/2009 7 Appellant Nicholson Notice of Supplemental Evidence 8/4/2009 8 Applicant Hawks Landing Response Brief 8/17/2009 9 City of Renton's Response Brief 8/17/2009 10 Hearing Examiner Report and Decision 9/10/2009 11 Appellant Nicholson Motion for Reconsideration* [with I Massman Decl.] 9/24/2009 12 Applicant Hawks Landing Request for Reconsideration* 9/24/2009 13 Applicant Hawks Landing Response Brief & Motion to Strike 10/1/2009 14 Appellant Nicholson Response to Renton & Hawks Landing 10/1/2009 15 Appellant Brad Nicholson Reply 10/5/2009 16 Applicant Hawks Landing Reply 10/5/2009 17 Hearing Examiner Reconsideration Decision 10/9/2009 18 Applicant Hawks Landing Amended Appeal to City Council 11/2/2009 19 Appellant Nicholson Amended Statement of Errors and Request for Relief 11/2/2009 20 Appellant Nicholson Amended Notice of Appeal to City Council 11/4/2009 *Both Applicant and Appellant filed simultaneous Motions for Reconsideration and a "placeholder" appeal to City Council within the requisite appeal period. The appeal to City Council was held pending the Reconsideration Outcome. 1� M�v T�i 01� in� "i lab I ,54 day Eli-5 Z, o3V ce cn co Zo 2 I z rn na �j w= 4e k4Gd�' F x 3 THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA Bob Sinah Preliminary Plat (Reconsideration) 1Dolbee LUA09-050, ECF, PP King Co. #L07SO053) Location: 19029 120"Avenue SE. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review of a 2.14 -acre site located at 19029 120th Avenue SE. This application is vested to King County Development Standards and is located within King County's R-6 zoning designation. The applicant proposed to subdivide the lot into 9 lots for single-family residential development and one Tract for drainage and recreation. Lots 1-8 range in size from 5,696 to 5,800 square feet. Lot 9 is proposed as a future development tract and is 28,370 square feet. All buildings on site are to be removed. Access to the lots would be via SE 191st Street. The site was graded prior to application submittal; as such, 42 replacement trees are required at 3 -inch caliper. The applicant has proposed to install a drainage vault in Tract A, in addition to street frontage improvements along 120th Avenue SE and 191st Street. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use (2nd Review) (Dolbee) LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. CC: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshall N. Watts, Development Services Director F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, Transportation Systems Director C. Vincent, CED Planning Director L Warren, City Attorney ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE June 29, 2009 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire & Emergency Services, Administrator Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, CED Planning Manager Meeting Date: Monday, June 29, 2009 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA Bob Sinah Preliminary Plat (Reconsideration) 1Dolbee LUA09-050, ECF, PP King Co. #L07SO053) Location: 19029 120"Avenue SE. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review of a 2.14 -acre site located at 19029 120th Avenue SE. This application is vested to King County Development Standards and is located within King County's R-6 zoning designation. The applicant proposed to subdivide the lot into 9 lots for single-family residential development and one Tract for drainage and recreation. Lots 1-8 range in size from 5,696 to 5,800 square feet. Lot 9 is proposed as a future development tract and is 28,370 square feet. All buildings on site are to be removed. Access to the lots would be via SE 191st Street. The site was graded prior to application submittal; as such, 42 replacement trees are required at 3 -inch caliper. The applicant has proposed to install a drainage vault in Tract A, in addition to street frontage improvements along 120th Avenue SE and 191st Street. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use (2nd Review) (Dolbee) LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. CC: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshall N. Watts, Development Services Director F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, Transportation Systems Director C. Vincent, CED Planning Director L Warren, City Attorney ERC City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE. June 29, 2009 Project Name: Hawk's Landing Owner: Port Quendall Company Attn: Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Applicant/Contact: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 File Number: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the .subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. Project Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. North Exist. Bldg. Area SF: 75,214 SF (to be Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 29,336 SF demolished) Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 122,000 SF Site Area: Total Site: 7.8 acres Total Building Area GSF: 122,000 SF Portion to be developed: 3.07 acres STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION. Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). ERC REPORT 09-0610 City of Renton Deportment of Com) ity & Economic Development E; inmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N Report of June 29, 2009 Page 2 of 16 ERC REPORT 09-060 Project Location Map City of Renton Department of Com+ ity & Economic Development E, inmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 3 of 16 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA), Master Site Plan Review, and Site Plan Review for the development of a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N (Parcel #3224059049), the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The 3.07 acre hotel site is located on the northerly portion of the subject parcel. The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan focus on 3.07 acres of the subject parcel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site for the exception of the deconstruction of the existing warehouse buildings and site clean up work. The subject site is located within the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) land use designation and zoning designation in addition to being located within Urban Design District "C" overlay. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, the access ramps to 1-405 to the north and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. There are a total of 12 structures on the subject site, including storage sheds and large warehouse buildings. All the existing buildings on the subject site are proposed to be removed, which would result in a total of 75,214 square feet of buildings to be deconstructed and removed from the site for recycling or disposal. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way for 1-405, to the south an undeveloped parcel that contains May Creek and at least two associated wetlands, and to the east the partially completed Barbee Mill residential development, the site of the former Port Quendall Terminals, and the new Virginia Mason Athletic Center. The proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be 5 -stories in height with an underground garage. The first floor would contain the main lobby, meeting/banquet rooms, retail space, fitness center, spa, and restaurant area, the remaining four floors would be developed as 173 hotel rooms. The building has been designed to complement the architecture of the existing Barbee Mill development across Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant has proposed to use stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding, and metal roofs in addition, to Northwest style overhangs and trusses. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. The applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition to utilizing the 4,450 cubic yards of cut materials from the subject site, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project. As identified on the City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. In addition, just south of the site is May Creek, a Class 1 water, and two Category 2 wetlands. The drainage ditch that runs along the west property line immediately adjacent to Lake Washington ERC REPORT X19-060 City of Renton Department of Comp ity & Economic Development E, onmentol Review Committee Report HAWKS LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N Report of June 29, 2009 Page 4 of 16 Boulevard has been identified by the applicants provided Wetland/Stream Study as a Class 5 non-regulated stream with an associated non-regulated wetland. Currently the site is developed with warehouses associated with Pan Abode Cedar Homes; as such, minimal vegetation exists on the subject site, of which approximately 85 percent is comprised of impervious surfaces. Although 32 significant trees are located on the subject site, all are proposed to be removed. The applicant has proposed to replace the removed trees with approximately 73 new trees. In addition to the proposed new trees, the provided landscape plan indicated that approximately 38,866 square feet of new landscaped area would be provided as a part of the hotel development. PARTTWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009, 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume Il of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. 6. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comp ity & Economic Development E, onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 5 of 16 existing 2011 LOS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. S. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construing permit approval. 9. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 10. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Existing Conditions Exhibit 3 Overall Site Plan Exhibit 4 Master Site Plan Exhibit 5 Site Dimension Plan Exhibit 6 Landscape Plan L-1.0 Exhibit 7 Site Utility Plan Exhibit 8 Grading Plan Exhibit 9 Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit 10 East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit 11 West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit 12 East and South Elevations Graphic Exhibit 13 West and North Elevations Graphic Exhibit 14 Lot Coverage Landscape & Parking Analysis Exhibit 15 First Floor Plan Exhibit 16 Wetland/Stream Study Attachment A Exhibit 17 Wetland/Stream Study Attachment B C. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: With the project application the applicant submitted two Geotechnical Reports; "Geotechnical Engineering Study" (1991 Report) prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991 and "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" (2009 Report) prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009. The 2009 Report references two historic Geotechnical Reports, the previously mentioned, 1991 Report and the "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared for the Rainer Fund, by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., Dated October 8, 1955 (1985 Report). The 2009 Report indicated that the subject site is relatively level, increasing in elevation from 30 to 38 feet from north to south. Steeper slopes occur along road embankment fills along the periphery of the site adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard, the north entrance driveway and adjacent to 1-405. Pursuant to the 1991 Report the subsurface conditions on site comprised mainly of loose ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comr ity & Economic Development E inmental Review Committee Report HAWK'SLANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 6 of 16 to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill. Below the asphalt surface and fill, a Saturated silty sand with soft seams of sandy silt and organic silt was encountered to depths of about 12 to 16 feet below the ground surface. This report also indicated that the soils on-site do have the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. The 2009 Report concluded that the recommendations contained in the 1985 Report for pile foundations are applicable to this phase of the project. The 2009 Report concludes that the loads for the proposed hotel structure would be between those contained in the 1985 Report and the 1991 Report. The 2009 Report concludes that the applicants proposed aggregate piers for soil improvement in conjunction with spread footing foundations may be a viable solution for this site. The 2009 Report indicated that ground water and perched groundwater seeps were observed at all test pit locations during their investigation. The report indicated that ground water infiltration would affect construction in even shallow excavations on this site. The 2009 Report approved of a proposed dewatering trench as an appropriate means to mitigate for the dewatering problems that may be encountered during and after construction. Furthermore, the 2009 Report references the 1991 Report and the 1985 Report for recommendations and information about the site. Based on the potential for seismic and geological impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant complies with the recommendations within all three geotechnical reports, the 2009, 1991, and 1985 Reports. In the SEPA checklist the applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, takes Impacts: The applicants submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009. The submitted study identified two streams, and two wetlands within the vicinity of the project site. The first stream is May Creek, which is a Shoreline of the State regulated under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). May Creek is located on the parcel to the south of the subject site; from there it flows into fake Washington approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the subject property. The provided Wetland/Stream Study identified that no salmonids or resident fish species were observed during their site investigation, although May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook and Sockeye salmon. Furthermore, winter steelhead and cutthroat trout are also known to utilize the creek. The setback for a commercial building from May Creek, as established under the SMP, is 50 -feet. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends 200 feet landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be located a minimum of 248 feet landward of the OHWM; as such, the subject project would not be subject to SMA or SMP regulations at this time. In addition, the proposed development is compliant with the required minimum 50 -foot setback as identified by the SMP. Although, if/or when future development occurs on the subject site within ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Comr ity & Economic Development E, onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 7 of 16 200 feet of the OHWM of May Creek, additional SEPA review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit May be required. The second stream, which is also a drainage ditch located along Lake Washington Boulevard, was identified to be a Class 5 stream. This drainage ditch is located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard. Pursuant to the provided Study, flows for this stream are maintained by stormwater runoff from the north and the subject site. The City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations identify Class 5 waters as "non-regulated non salmonid -bearing waters...". GBA also met with the Area Habitat Biologist from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 2009 to provide guidance and further observations of this ditch. WDFW concluded that the ditch was a man-made feature, and that work within the trench would not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Work on the outfall of the ditch to May Creek would require an HPA, and proposed improvements to the outfall should prevent entry of fish to the ditch. Based on the consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist and observations gathered during the site investigation GBA determined that the drainage ditch is a non -salmonid bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicated that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from 1-405, Lake Washington Boulevard, and the existing Pan Abode facility. As such GBA concluded that Criterion (a) of RMC 4-3-050.L.1.a.v. Streams and Lakes Class 5 waters is satisfied and therefore the subject Class 5 water would not be regulated. Within the drainage ditch, GBA also identified wetland characteristics. Based on the City's definition of Regulated and Non-regulated Wetlands GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a non -wetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a non- regulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. It should be noted that the U -S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) may assume jurisdiction over the wetland. No comments were received from DOE indicating an interest in taking jurisdiction over this wetland. The provided study also investigated wetland it two locations; 1) The subject property and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard and; 2) The floodplain south of the subject property to the right (north) bank of May Creek. GBA identified two wetlands during their investigation, identified as Wetland A and Wetland B herein. Both Wetland A and B are small wetland located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas of 433 and 481 square feet respectively. These wetlands receive their hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek. GBA categorized both Wetland A and B as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands require a standard buffer of 50 -feet. These wetlands are located off the subject site by 117.4 feet (Wetland A) and 63.8 feet (Wetland B). Based on these distances the subject development would be outside of the required buffer area. Overall the provided study concludes that the subject project proposal would avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setback/buffers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and the Shoreline Master Program. Based on the potential for indirect impacts to the steams and wetlands within the vicinity of the subject site, as a result of the project, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to complies with the recommendations within the provided "Wetland/Stream Study". Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations b. Storm Water Impacts: A Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Sound Development Group, LLC, dated April 28, 2009 was submitted with the application materials. Pursuant to the provided TIR the project is located in the May Creek watershed basin. Under current conditions stormwater ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comp . 'ity & Economic Development F onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 — Page 8 of 15 from the project site sheet flows to the north and west. The water is captured within the roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or within an existing on-site storm system and then discharged into the ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater south to an existing 24 -inch culvert, which discharges to May Creek. Discharge from the developed site is proposed at approximately the same location within the existing roadside ditch and then through the existing culvert to May Creek. The existing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) drainage system onsite would be relocated to the public Right-of-way of Lake Washington Boulevard, while the existing private systems would be demolished and/or removed. The provided TIR has indicated that flow control would not be required because the project site within the work limits is currently, almost completely impervious surfaces; approximately 85 percent impervious. The TIR contends that the developed project would provide a maximum of 85 percent impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed conditions would be equal or less than that of the existing site conditions. Although, comments received from the City's Surface Water Utility Division indicated that there was not enough information within the provided TIR to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. The applicant shall be required to provide and complete the TIR with the submittal of the civil engineering plans that includes all the information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Rain gardens have been proposed as a part of the site development plan to treat stormwater runoff. The TIR has indicated that the rain gardens would meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Although, comments received from the City's Surface Water Utility Division indicated that Rain Gardens cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. Furthermore, comments from the City's Development Services Division indicate that flow control, water quality treatment, and conveyance system improvements would be required. Storm water impacts are anticipated for the proposed development as such, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The provided TIR indicated that an erosion/sedimentation control plan would be provided to prevent sediment -laden runoff. In addition, to an erosion control plan the applicant has indicated that maintaining the existing surfaces on the site, where construction would allow, would help to reduce erosion during construction. Based on the potential for erosion and sediment runoff during construction, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. Pursuant to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) a small portion of the overall parcel, the 7.8 acres site is located within the 100 -year floodplain. Although, the proposed development located on the northern edge of the 7.8 -acre site is not located within the 100 -year floodplain. Pursuant to the FIRM the 3.07 acres proposed for development is located in zone K, which is associated with areas know to be outside of the 500 -year floodplain. Mitigation Measures: 1. The project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. ERC REPORT" 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comr, ity & Economic Development Er. onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 9 of 16 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, DOE Stormwater Management Manual 3. Wildlife Impacts: The applicant submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009. This report also evaluated wildlife within are vicinity of the subject site in addition to wetlands and streams. Minimal wildlife exists on the 3.07 acres site to be developed with the Hawk's Landing Hotel, although located south of the project site within the riparian area of May Creek, small mammals and birds were observed. The submitted report indicated that such wildlife as voles, blacktail deer, short tailed weasel, and a pair of Osprey were observed within this area. In addition to common species such as song sparrow, house finch, American crow and gull species were also observed within the riparian area. As mentioned above under Wetlands, Streams, and Lakes, the proposed development would be no closer then 248 feet to edge of this area as such, impacts to the habitat for the above mention species is not anticipated as a part of this development. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: N/A 4. Aesthetics Impacts: The highest point on the 5 -story, 60 -foot high proposed hotel would be approximately at an elevation of 98.833 Mean Sea Level (MSL). 1-405 is built at the approximate elevation of 44 feet MLS and the nearest single-family neighborhood, east of the project site, within the view corridor of the proposed hotel starts at an approximate elevation of 160 feet MLS. As such, staff does not anticipate aesthetic impacts as a result of the proposed hotel. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: N/A 5. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: Historically the Lake Washington and May Creek areas are more likely to be sites where significant historic and/or cultural resources would be found, and the subject development has indicated that site grading would be conducted. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant and/or developer to stop work and immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation if any Native American gravels) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found. Mitigation Measures: If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 6. Transportation Impacts: Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the ERC REPORT09-060 City of Renton Department of Comr. ity & Economic Development E . ' onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H_ Report of June 29, 2009 Page 10 of 16 structured parking lot and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the Hawk's Landing project by Geralyn Reinart, P.E., dated May 2009. The provided TIA assumed 2011 for the completion year for the proposed Hotel. This year was utilized throughout the study in order to evaluate traffic impacts resulting from the hotel's development. The TIA concluded that build -out of the Hawk's Landing could potentially generate just over 1,400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM peak hour trips. The intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and Seahawks Way are currently operating at a level of service (LOS) "D" or better during the peak hours, although the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the proposed hotel. The I-405 ramps at NE 44th Street currently operate at a LOS "F" during the AM peak hour, and the delay on these ramps may increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. The provided TIA recommends six mitigation measures for traffic impacts, which are as follows: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. 4. Installation of 100 -foot southbound left -turn storage lane (or two way left -turn lane) on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main hotel access. 5. Construction of frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard_ 6. Right-in/right-out only access at the northerly proposed site access point (the existing Pan Abode access). The TIA concludes that the above measures mitigate not only impacts associated with the hotel, but also pre-existing conditions. Comments received from the City's Transportation Division indicated that the provided study is acceptable. In addition, comments were received from WSDOT that indicated that the mitigation measure proposed by the TIA are acceptable. Although, it should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures "1.-3." (above) are not within the City of Renton's jurisdiction, but are within WSDOT's jurisdiction. The recommended mitigation measures "1.-3." not only mitigates for the proposed development but also existing conditions. The anticipated existing LOS "F" condition for the development completion year of 2011 should be resolved by WSDOT not the applicant, as such the terms "participation and share" shall be defined in a quantitative manner to determine what percentage of the impacts the proposed development shall be mitigating for. As such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant coordinate with WSDOT and the City of Renton to determine the applicants contribution for the recommended mitigation measures "1. —3." By means of a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, that can quantify the applicant's impacts to the existing LOS "F" condition. Proposed mitigation measure number "5." (above) is required by Renton Municipal Code, for commercial developments within the City of Renton. The applicant would be required to provide street frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. With regard to the recommended mitigation measure number "4." (above), the City's Transportation Division would prefer the two-way left -turn lane over the left -turn storage lane. The proposed hotel is anticipated to increases traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard, as such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services Division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construction permit approval. The last proposed mitigation measure (number "£." above) to permit only right-in/right-out access at the northerly site access point shall be a mitigation measure for the subject project; because of this access points' spacing from the 1-405 southbound ramps. A right-in/right-out restriction for the northerly access point would increases safety along Lake Washington Boulevard. ERC REPORT 04-060 City of Renton Department of Comp ity & Economic Development E, onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 11 of 16 Comments received from the City's Parks Department, indicated that bike lanes would be required along both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard. Currently there is an existing bike lane located on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard. In addition, it is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to issuing the building permit, which is estimated to be $105,975.00. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: a. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. b. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. c. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated existing 2011 LOS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services Division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construction permit approval. 3. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 4. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3100 7. Fire & Police Impacts: The proposal would add new commercial square footage to the City that would potentially impact the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $0.52 per commercial building square foot (excluding the square footage of the parking garage) prior to building permit issuance. The fire mitigation fee is estimated to be $63,440.00 (122,000 sq. ft. x $0.52 = $63,440.00 Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 2913 D. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comr ty & Economic Development Ev inmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 12 of 16 Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, July 17, 2009. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes ore provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays_ 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. Plan Review —Water: 1. Additional water main improvements will be required to provide the required fireflow demand for the development. 2. Installation of a 12 -inch water along Lake Washington Blvd N along entire property fronting the roadway and extending to and connecting to an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of south property line. 3. New fire hydrants along Lake Washington Blvd about 300 feet apart. 4. Installation of a portion of 12 -inch water line inside an existing steel casing within the May Creek bridge structure. 5. installation of on-site looped water main (10 -inch to 12 -inch), with fire hydrants around the proposed hotel. The size and location of water main within the site will be determined based on the fire flow demand of the development. 6. Civil plans for water main extension will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. 7. Backflow prevention assembly (DDCVA) required for fire sprinkler system (refer to City Standard Details for external DDCVA in vault or for special requirements for DDCVA inside building)_ ERC Rk"PORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comi ity & Economic Development E, -amental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 13 of 16 8. Domestic water meter required for each building (meter sizing per Uniform Plumbing Code). 9. Pressure reducing valve required downstream of each domestic water meter since static pressure is above 80 psi. 10. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind each domestic water meter for each building. RPBA shall be installed in an aboveground "Hot -Box". 11. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) required for landscape irrigation meter due to proposed use of recycled stormwater for irrigation. 12. A portion of the existing 12" watermain thought the site will need to be abandoned. The abandonment can only occur after the completion of the new water lines. A partial release of the existing easement will be required. 13. System Development Charges are based on the size of any and all water meters. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. 14. Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, the submittal did not include sufficient information to determine a preliminary fire flow for the proposed development. 15. An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for the development. 16. The maximum available capacity (in GPM) at 20 -psi residual pressure from the existing City's water systems in vicinity of development site is 4,000 GPM. Plan Review — Sanitary Sewer: 1. A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how this site will be served with commercial sidesewer. 2. Any use in the building subject to oils or grease shall require the installation of a grease interceptor or oil/water separator per the current UPC as determined at the time of plan review. 3. The Parking garage will require an oil water separator. 4. System Development Charges based on the size of the domestic water meter are required. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. Plan Review —Storm Drainage: 1. The project will need to provide flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance system improvements. Any offsite runoff will need to be accounted for in the drainage analysis. Direct discharge is not allowed from this site. The site drains to May Creek, which is not designated as a major receiving water body where direct discharge is allowed. The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalk, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than 0.1 cfs between the sum of the developed 100 -year peak flows and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flows using the KCRTS hydrologic model. This information is needed in order to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. Since the project is a redevelopment project proposing more than 5,000 square feet of new and replace impervious surface, the project is not exempt from core requirement #3 of the 2005 KC SWDM. The project ERC RETORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comi ity & Economic Development Ei � mental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING [UA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 14 of 16 falls under Conservation Flow Control Area, the flow control requirement is waived if there is no more than 0.1 cfs difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow for the same project site area. For the purpose of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in table 1.2.3.0 of the 2005 KCSWDM. If after applying the sizing credits, the difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow is less than 0.1 cfs, the LID alternative will mitigate for flow control. If the difference is greater than 0.1 cfs, a flow control facility per chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM such as a bioswale, detention pond, etc, will need to be provided in combination to mitigate runoff control. The proposed roadway improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard shall be taken under consideration to calculate the post development site condition and, to size the water quality and flow control facilities. 4. The Hawks Landing Hotel is the first phase of a of a larger common development plan that will eventually occur on the rest of the total area associated with the Pan Abode site. The Phase II NPDES permit prohibits the phasing of projects in a manner that allows for the granting of exemptions and avoidance of the need to provide flow control or water quality treatment that would be required if the project is looked at as a total project (all phases). The Hawks Landing Hotel phase of development on the site could be granted the exemption from flow control, if the difference between the developed 100 -year peak flow and the pre - developed (existing) 100 -year peak flow is less than 0.1 cfs (following City review and approval of the analysis), but the remaining phases of development on remaining area on the Pan Abode parcel will not be able to utilize this the 0.1 cfs exemption. It is recommended that the full development plan be analyzed for the total site, including any off-site improvements to demonstrate that the project is exempt from flow control. Otherwise, future phases of the project will be required to provide flow control, since the 0.1 cfs exemption can only be applied once to a phase of development that is part of a larger common plan of development. S. Appendix C of the 2005 KCSWDM only applies to small projects, the Rain Garden cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. A water quality facility as specified under chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM shall be provided. 6. Does the project has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM? If yes, the enhanced water quality menu shall be used. 7. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2005 KCSWDM. 8. It appears that a portion of this site is located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. The applicant will need to show on the site plan the location of the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. Any buildings constructed in the 100 -year floodplain will need to have their finished floor elevation place at 1 -foot above the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. FEMA Elevation Certificates will be required for any building constructed in the floodplain prior to any occupancy being granted (Ideally immediately following completion of construction of the finished floor and before additional building construction to verify that the finished floor has been constructed to the correct elevation). 9. The phase of the site development or later phases of development will need to document how the project satisfies the requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. 10, The Surface Water SDC fees are $0.405 (but not less than $1012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. ERC REPORT 09--060 City of Renton Department of Com, ity & Economic Development E, anmentol Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 15 of 16 Plan Review—Street Improvements: 1. Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. 2. Projects that are more than 10,000 square feet in size are required to provide full pavement width per standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the project side. A minimum 20' pavement and pedestrian walkway to the arterial will be required to be installed by the applicant. 3. Street lighting is required to be installed on the project side. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting (including PSE) is not allowed. Plan Review — General: 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. 3. Additional information regarding detailed plan review will be provided at the time of formal application. 4. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. BuildinjR Department: 1. The soils report should be brought up to date for consistency with IBC Parks Department: 1. 5 -foot bike lanes along both sides of lake Washington Boulevard would be required. Fire Department: 1. The preliminary fire flow cannot be determined at this point. Additional information is needed such as total ground floor square footage, number of stories, and type of construction. An additional question I have is the 58,000 square feet for the restaurants part of the 180,000 square feet or is it separate square footage amount. The minimum fire flow for structures in excess of 3,000 square feet is 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours. 2. The number of required hydrants is based on the size of the structure and the size of the required fire flow. At this time, the Fire Department cannot determine the required number of hydrants as additional information is needed. The minimum number of hydrants for structures in excess of 3600 square feet is 2. However, additional hydrants may be required based on spacing, which is based on sound engineering practices. All hydrants for this project shall be required to be equipped with a 5 -Inch Storz fitting. 3. The primary hydrant shall be located within 150 feet to the front of the structure. All other hydrants shall be located within 300 feet to the front of the structure. A Hydrant shall be required to be within 50 feet of the Fire Department connection. Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table 0105.1 or the 2006 International Fire Code. 4. Fire apparatus access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide on a surface capable of sustaining the weight of a fire apparatus. The turning radius shall be 45 feet to the outside and 25 feet to the inside. 5. Fire Sprinklers are applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Sprinkler system. 6. The fire Sprinkler Riser Room shall be accessible through a dedicated exterior door. The Sprinkler Riser Room shall be located with heat and lighting. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comi ity & Economic Development E, onmental Review Committee Report NA WK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N Report of June 29, 2009 Page 16 of 16 7. A Class III Standpipe with a valve and a single 2 % inch fitting located on each floor landing may be required should the building exceed 3 stories. 8. A total coverage Addressable Fire Alarm system shall be required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Alarm system. 9. Building exceeding 30 feet in height shall be provided with approved fire access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the fire department aerial apparatus access roadway. 10. High rise requirements as set forth in the 2006 International Building, l=ire Code and Local Fire Code amendments shall be applicable tot his building if 7 stories or greater. 11. In buildings where a required accessible floor is four or more stories above a level of exit discharge, at least one required accessible means of egress shall be an elevator complying with Section 1007.4 of the 2006 International Fire code. It is requested that this elevation have an interior dimension capable of accommodating a standard size emergency medical services patient stretcher in the laid flat configuration. ERC REPORT 09-060 lit J rA V � C�� =Ov• apYQ. X00. a�QO' CEJ I W �nl �QN NORiJ-IERN RAILROAD - goo AMY Az I z� i/ � I I I I _f'•_ it I R��� �h g � s ' / ' ,= D1 3 If T )•�� I�Iyam✓ _ Y 'men n ( 5 � Y�� •��� � � P z 3 YCq �RS ,R �RF���xyM 131 c; to-, 7 10010 IN Q; Tllli Eve low A �.• `� xRR vT�e€Re x &3 €�n� Fpd i7 p ` 0 2�RS as s4Ag;�€ p'�goC�ax 6 9 R AR �F i 7 8�V IA- PSN\ NO All- \ l %4N,z d N � - z ¢ y o� —-- ---- — n jo _ GMSTATE HIGHWAY 405 coo z ff [[ffffff t MA 3 149'-7" - --- - 0 m IftlINSTATC rR6HWAY 405 — fl r At ON .Pq w --------- _ f3URUMNC 6N NbkTkERN _ OAD r O 1 ` � 1 \ Z O \ 'rm ' i I 0 z x r V n r� ®J?'. Lsf `7lTT rj c 0 z x r X TT2 W F-41 m c Lo m z D � fj)n =z z O r b Hip ekg� �S3islip ��� d` � e =g M F s�gSp �f# Raglip #i 'T gal '�g � rw 'g '�g'� g RA U MP g qpm - pQ o' 1 2 � y B l Pq 4 =g M F s�gSp �f# Raglip #i 'T gal '�g � rw 'g '�g'� g RA U MP g qpm - pQ o' 1 2 � y rn '77 gn � b T C om 0 ♦ i �y 74 '4 Z! 0 c I §^ƒ^�� �^ CD � |§ ([\/[ \ � 7m 2 \ , � \(/ ga . �� zj ;--t) �� /( nQ . ` „[ }� I §^ƒ^�� �^ � |§ ([\/[ \ � \/ 2 \ , � \(/ ga . �� �� /( nQ . ` „[ }� a • 3 � e 9 J i P%.Y 'ri {'t 1;; =_ x}s Cpm § rn • 3 � e 9 E1 C rj Tj st! M m o m o C 7 L sum ft Ow not �7.1 r ^ j�j 3bm saft -.M` L sum ft Ow not �7.1 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405 M, +t Iti rGti 1;R N" X INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405 M, a +t Iti a 1 1 1 1! 1 1 4 $ IS � • iw.� � Z Ji y� � � i g � � yE � f�j1 3N �Y� pal Qj� ' A�. qvL 3333`rP-loop n _ �'�� _-� N _ NOR7FiERN RAIL RQAD _ y P s tts A - MIT m r low p Q 1 logor the rk (.. L_S' � lam.✓ %�1�' ., L �, '� nY z ? A On K � ZQAD 1 ' lion — _ .-_ E n s F W- n C 0 o 0 Yo rt db Q o� Mill W m. 4 City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Community & Economic Development HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST. Hearing Date: August 25, 2009 Project Name: Hawk's Landing Owner: Port Quendall Company Attn' Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Applicant/Contact: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 File Number: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H planner: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Project Description: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a 5 - story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The warehouse structures outside of the 200 -foot shoreline area are proposed to be removed. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 73 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. Project Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd_ North E —ZP PROJECT E43fjlT'L z„ j z City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Exomine( HAWK S LA ND)NG LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC NEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 2 of 38 B. EXHIBITS The following exhibits are entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review documentation, correspondence from interested parties, and other items pertinent to this request. Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit 4: Hawk's Landing Master Site Plan Exhibit 5: Hawk's Landing Site Plan Exhibit 6: Site Dimension Plan Exhibit 7: Tree inventory Plan Exhibit 8: Landscape Plan Exhibit 9: Site Utility Plan Exhibit 10: Grading Plan Exhibit 11: East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit 12: West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit 13: S. & E. Elevations (graphic) Exhibit 14: N & W Elevations (graphic) Exhibit 15: Hotel Garage Floor Plan Exhibit 16: First Floor Plan Exhibit 17: Second Floor Plan Exhibit 18: Third and Fourth Floor Plans Exhibit 19: Fifth Floor Plan Exhibit 20: Roof Plan Exhibit 21: Building Sections Exhibit 22: Demolition Plan C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Port Quendall Company 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 2. Zoning Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential {COR) HEX_ staff_ rpt_ 09-060 Revised 8-18-09 City of lemon DepOrtrnent of Community & Economic Development P; chm oury Report to the Nearing Exarniner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N PUBLIC HEARING 04 IL: Jujy 21, 2008 Page ? or 38 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: Commercial/Office/Residential Metal warehouses/structures previously occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes 5. Neighborhood Characteristics North: 1-405 right-of-way East: 1-405 right-of-way South: May Creek (vacant property), zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8) West_ Barbee Mill and Quendall Terminals (vacant property), zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) 6. Access: Via Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations 7. Site Area: Total Site: 7.8 acres; Portion to be developed: 3.07 acres 8. Project Data: Existing Building Area: 75,214 SF New Building Area: 122,000 SF D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Annexation N/A Zoning N/A Comprehensive Plan N/A Street Vacation VAC -09-001 E. PUBLICSFRVICES: Ordinance No. Date 1804 12/16/1959 5100 11/01/2004 5100 11/01/2004 N/A Pending 1. utilities: Water: The project is located in the City of Renton water service area_ There is an existing 12 -inch Ductile Iron (DI) pipe on the site and an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of the south property line. Sewer: There is an existing 12 -inch sanitary sewer main on the site. Surface Water/Storm Water: There are some storm drainage facilities in Lake Washington Blvd. N. 2. Streets: There is currently a paved and improved public right-of-way along the frontage of the site. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department HEX_staff_rpt_09-050 Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Herring Fxominer NA WK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, 5A -H PUBLIC NEARIN6 GATE: July 21, 2008 Page 4 of 38 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC TITLE IV): 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-120.B: Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations —General Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards Section 4-4-095: Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards 5. Chapter 9 Permits - Specific Section 4-9-200: Site Development Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1- Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element 3. Economic Development Element H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for the development of a 60 - foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel on 3.07 acres. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N (Parcel #3224059049), the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The 3.07 acre hotel site is located on the northerly portion of the subject parcel. The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan focus on 3.07 acres of the subject parcel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site. The subject site is located within the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) land use designation and zoning designation in addition to being located within Urban Design District "C" overlay. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, the access ramps to 1-405 to the north and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes- Currently Pan HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18 09 City of Renton Deportment of Cornmujmty & Economic Development PrebrMnary Report m the Hennriq txorwrwr HAWKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, $A -M, SA -H PUBLIC HFA HING OA TE: July 21, 2008 Page 5 of 3fJ Abode Cedar Homes is no longer operating out of this location, resulting in vacant warehouse buildings on the subject site. There are a total of 12 structures on the subject site, including storage sheds and large warehouse buildings. The existing buildings on the subject site that are located north of the 200 -foot shoreline area are proposed to be removed from the site for recycling or disposal. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way for 1-405, to the south an undeveloped parcel that contains May Creek and at least two associated wetlands, and to the west is the partially completed Barbee Mill residential development, the site of the former Port Quendall Terminals, and the new Virginia Mason Athletic Center. The proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be 5 -stories in height with an underground garage. The first floor would contain the main lobby, meeting/banquet rooms, retail space, fitness center, spa, and restaurant area, the remaining four floors would be developed as 173 hotel rooms. The building has been designed to complement the architecture of the existing Barbee Mill development across Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant has proposed to use stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding, and metal roofs in addition, to Northwest style overhangs and trusses. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to S Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. The applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition to utilizing the 4,450 cubic yards of cut materials from the subject site, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project. As identified on the City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. In addition, just south of the site is May Creek, a Class 1 water, and two Category 2 wetlands. The drainage ditch that runs along the west property line immediately adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard has been identified by the applicants provided Wetland/Stream Study as a Class 5 non-regulated stream with an associated non-regulated wetland_ Currently the site is developed with warehouses associated with Pan Abode Cedar Homes; as such, minimal vegetation exists on the subject site, of which approximately 85 percent is comprised of impervious surfaces_ Although 32 significant trees are located on the subject site, all are proposed to be removed. The applicant has proposed to replace the removed trees with approximately 73 new trees. in addition to the proposed new trees, the provided landscape plan indicated that approximately 38,866 square feet of new landscaped area would be provided as a part of the hotel development. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING PUBLIC NEARING PATE: July 21, 2008 Preliminary Report to the Heorioq Exometer L UA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Page 6 of 38 It should also be noted that the City of Renton received Capital Improvement Funds, in the amount of 1.7 million during the 2009 Legislative Session. At this time, City staff is working to identify the specific items this money will be spent on. Once staff has made a determination, with appropriate cost estimates, this proposal would have to be approved by the City Council. Understanding that no decision is final at this point the following projects are proposed (that have a direct effect on the subject project) for the awarded Capital Improvement Funds: 1) a City water line extension on Lake Washington Boulevard; 2) Extension of May Creek Trail; and 3) Storm drainage system along Lake Washington Boulevard, to include pervious sidewalks along southern portion of the subject site. These sidewalks would be extended to May Creek. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on October 16, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non - Significance, Mitigated for the project. The DNS -M included seven mitigation measures. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on July 3, 2009 and ends on July 17, 2009. No appeals have been filed for the SEPA determination as of today July 14, 2009. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc_ dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. HEX staff rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & ECO110MX DPvebprnenf Preliminary Report to the Hearmq Fxommer HAWKS (ANDING CUA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUEDCHFAFONG DATE July 2I, 2008 Page 7 of 38 The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated existing 2011 LOS "F" condition- The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. 8. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construing permit approval. 9. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 10. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. Site Development Plan Review The purpose of site development plan review is to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. HEX_staff _rpt_09-060_Revi5ed 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development HA WK'S LANDING PUBLIC HEARING DATE: lufy 21, 2008 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H Page 8 of 38 As per RMC 4-9-200.B.1.b, the COR zoning of the development site requires Master Plan review. The Master Pian is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. The Master Plan review may occur prior to or concurrent with Site Plan Approval. The purpose of the Site Plan review is to assess the detailed arrangement of project elements to ensure their compatibility with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan review is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. 6. GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR BOTH MASTER PLANS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW The following general review criteria are required to be met through the Master Plan and Site Plan review process, consistent with RMC 4-9-200EA: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies. i. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Purpose The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation is to provide opportunities for large-scale projects developed through the master plan and site plan process_ COR sites are typically transitioning from industrial uses to more intensive, non- industrial land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on Lake Washington (Quendall and Southport) and/or the Cedar River (Stoneway). Redevelopment of these sites provide the opportunity to remediate the effects of past industrial activities and, although still held as private property, may offer increased access to the public to shorelines within the City. Applicable objectives and policies of the Land Use Element include: Objective LU -CCC: Development at Commercial/Office/Residential designations should be cohesive, high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy LU -272. Uses in Commercial/Office/Residential designations should include mixed- use complexes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, recreational and cultural HEX_staff_rpt_09-0G0_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Comintmity R Fconornic Deveicipment Pr C'+Tm:7ry Report to the 11e0rinq Exummer HA WKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC NFA RING DA Tc; July 21, 20099 Page 9 of 38 facilities, hotel and convention center type development, technology research and development facilities; and corporate headquarters. ✓ Policy Objective Met Ll Not Met Policy LU -273. Commercial uses such as retail and services should support the primary uses of the site and be architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met ii. Comprehensive Plan Community Design Element Applicable objectives and policies of the Community Design Element include Policy CD -20. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians through master planning, building location, and design guidelines. ✓ Policy Objective Met 1-1 Not Met Policy CD -30. Non-residential development should have site plans that provide street access from a principal arterial, consolidate access points to existing streets, and have internal vehicular circulation that supports shared access. Curb cuts and internal access should not conflict with pedestrian circulation. ✓ Policy Objective Met 1.1 Not Met Policy CD -32. Structures at intersections should not be set back from the street ondsidewalk so as to allow vehicular circulation or parking to be located between the sidewalk and the building in Commercial and Centers designations- ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD -43. Consider placement of structures and parking areas in initial redevelopment plans to facilitate later infill development at higher densities and intensities over time. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met iii. Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Element Applicable Economic Development Objectives and Policies include.- Policy nclude: Policy ED -5. increase the diversity of employment opportunities within the City. ✓ Policy Objective Met Ll Not Met Policy ED -26. Achieve a mix of uses that improves the City's tax and employment base- ,' Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; The subject site is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential (COR ). The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential Zone (COR) is to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master -planned development that is integrated with the natural environment, Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high HLX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18 09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preiiminory Peport to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEAf?ifVG DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 10 of 38 economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone. The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be designed accordingly. i. The following Development Standards apply to uses within the COR zone (RMC 4-2- 12013): a. Lot Coverage — The maximum lot coverage by buildings in the COR zone is 65 percent of the total lot area or 75 percent if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. The hotel would have an underground parking garage although, surface parking is still provided as such, the maximum lot coverage for the subject project would be 65 percent. The total building footprint is proposed to be 29,336 square feet. This generates a total building coverage of 22 percent for the development site area (3.07 acres) and 8 percent for the entire site (7.80 acres) which is well below the maximum 65 percent building lot coverage permitted. b. ,Setbacks — Front, side, and rear setbacks are determined through site development plan review, with one exception; the minimum setback from freeway frontage is a 10 - foot landscaped setback. The applicant has proposed to set the hotel back 20 -feet from Lake Washington Boulevard N., 60 -feet from the north side property line, 418 -feet from the south property line and 129 -feet from the rear property line along 1-405. In addition to the existing landscaping that borders 1-405 on the subject site, the applicant has proposed an additional landscape strip to border the surface parking lot that at a minimum would be 6 -feet wide, with areas up to 25 -feet in width. Staff recommends approval of the proposed setbacks for the Hawk's Landing Hotel. c_ Maximum Building Height —The maximum building height in the CDR zone is 10 stories and/or 125 feet. The hotel is proposed to be 5 -stories and 60 -feet high which is below the maximum permitted height Limit in the COR zone. d. Special Development Standards — In addition to the subject site being located within a Urban Design District (which will be evaluated under section k later) the COR zone requires that the portions of the building which exceed 50 -feet in height shall include upper story setbacks of a minimum of 10 -feet from the preceding story and the building shall provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of 2 -feet at an interval of a minimum of 40 -feet on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project. The fifth story of the proposed hotel is setback from the preceding four stories for the majority of the building a distance of approximately 12 -feet. Although the fifth story of the hotel is modulated in such a manner that setbacks from the proceeding four stories very from zero feet to a maximum of 39.5 feet. Furthermore, the provided elevations indicate that the building facade would be modulated horizontally and vertically in excess of the minimum requirements by providing eaves, trusses, bumpouts, balconies and differentiated materials to provide visual interest. The proposed architectural design meets the intent of the special development standards and results in a quality project. Landscaping— In the COR zone, on-site landscaping is determined through site development plan review_ A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application. The provided plan indicates landscaping would be provided around the HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Ec000mir Development 1'r e7,minury Repari !o the Heunng Fxominer HA WK'S LANDING LUA-09-OGO, ECF, 5A -M, 5A -H PUBLIC NEARING DATE: Juiy 21, 2008 Page 11 of 38 perimeter of the parking area in widths from 6 -feet to 25 -feet. Landscaping would also be provided around the hotel and screening landscaping would be provided around the refuse and recycling area. In addition to traditional landscaping the applicant has proposed a landscape strip in the parking lot with swale plantings which are intended to not only provide a visual interest and soften the look of the parking lot this feature would provide stormwater drainage for the site. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed ornamental landscaping at the hotel entrance facing the surface parking lot that includes a Koi pond with a pedestrian bridge crossing. The plant schedule provided indicates that the following plants would be provided: Trees - red sunset maple, jacquemontii birch, weeping Alaskan cedar, Austrian black pine, 'rosy cloud' cherry, 'chanticleer' flowering pear, and Corinthian linden; Shrubs -'kart foerster' feather reed grass, 'munstead' lavender, Mexican feather grass, fraser's photinia, 'JPM' rhododendron, unique rhododendron, rainbow knockout shrub rose, snowrnound spireae, dense spreading Japanese yew, marie's doublefile viburnum, and bright edge yucca; and six different ground cover plantings_ The landscape plan only provides landscaping for the site development area of 3.07 acres, which includes landscaping along Lake Washington Boulevard N.; although an irrigation plan was not submitted with the application materials; as such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. The provided landscape plan proposes street trees planted at a spacing of 30 feet on center along Lake Washington Boulevard N. for the frontage of the development site (3.07 acres). Staff recommends approval of the provided landscape plan. The City's parking regulations have additional landscaping requirements for surface parking lots. For surface parking lots with between 100 or more parking spaces a minimum of 35 square feet of landscaping is required per parking space. Landscaped areas are required to be a minimum of 5 feet in width. Within the parking area a minimum of 1 tree shall be planted for every 6 parking spaces provided, shrubs shall be planted at a rate of 5 per 100 square feet of landscape area, ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide 90 percent coverage within the first 3 years of installation, and no more than 50 feet shall separate a parking space from a landscape area. Based on the proposal for 124 surface parking stalls a minimum of 4,340 square feet (124 spaces x 35 square feet = 4,340 square feet) of landscaping is required within the surface parking lot, with a total of 21 trees. The submitted landscape plan identifies 5,687 square feet of landscaping within the parking lot with a total of 21 trees (red sunset maple, chanticleer flowering pear, and Austrian black pine) and 259 shrubs. The landscape plan complies with the minimum requirements. f. Parking — The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls be provided based on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses or the number of residential units. The following ratios would be applicable to the site: HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_. Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic development Prelimjnory Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -111, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING t -)ATE lafy 21, 2008 Page 12 of 38 Use Square Footage Ratio T Required Spaces of Use or # of Units Hotel 173 room 1/ guest room 187 max 21 employees plus 2 for every 175 rein max 3 employees 3 employees min 4,500 SF Restaurant 1 space / 100 SF 45 Retail Sales 742 SF 4 spaces / 1000 SF 3 Based on these use requirements, 235 parking spaces would be required to meet code with providing spaces for the maximum number of employees of the hotel and 223 parking spaces would be required for the minimum number of employees. The applicant proposes to provide 231 spaces, which is just under the code requirement for the maximum employee proposal, as such staff recommends approval of 231 parking spaces for the subject project. of the total 231 parking stalls proposed, 124 would be located within a surface parking lot and the remaining 107 would be located within the underground parking garage. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. For parking lots with 201— 300 parking spaces 7 ADA stall would be required per RMC 4-4-080.F.g the proposal for 6 ADA stalls does not comply with the minimum requirements as such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. All code required spaces must comply with the dimensional requirements of the parking regulations. For surface standard stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 20 feet long and a minimum of 9 feet wide, although RMC 4-4-080.F.8.e permits the reduction of parking stall length from 20 feet to 18 feet if there is sufficient area to safely allow the overhang of a vehicle. The provided parking lot landscaped areas are 9 -feet wide providing room for the overhang of parked vehicles, as such the applicant has proposed to provided 18 feet long by 9 feet wide surface parking spaces. Compact stalls are permitted in surface parking lots as long as they do not exceed 30 percent of the total parking spaces. The applicant has not proposed to provide any compact parking stalls within the surface parking lot. ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. The proposed ADA accessible stalls comply with the minimum dimensional standards - For structured standard stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 15 feet long and 8 feet and 4 inches wide and for compact stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 7 feet 6 HEx_stalf_rpt_09-06Q_ Revised 8-18-09 City of Renipn Deflortmrent of Community & I:mnorrnr Develop rnent PrOirwrory report is the Hearing Exammer HAWK'SLANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H P[)BLIC HEARING DA rE: lu,'y 21, 2008 Page 13 of 313 inches wide and 12 feet long. Compact parking stalls shall not exceed 50 percent of the structured parking. An aisle width of 24 feet is required for 90 degree parking stalls. All garage stalls meet the minimum dimensional standards for standard and compact stalls - The applicant has proposed 8 of the 107 garage parking stalls to be compact, which is less then 50 percent of the total number of stalls, and is therefore compliant with compact parking stall standards. The drive aisle for the surface lot is proposed to be 25 feet wide and the drive aisle for the parking garage is proposed to be 24 feet wide, which is compliant with the minimum dimensional standards for parking lot drive aisles. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line and the main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. There is two-way circulation throughout the project site. The northerly access point slopes down to the proposed surface parking garage. RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b indicates that the maximum slope for driveways shall not exceed 15 percent slope- The applicant did not submit with their land use application a driveway grade cross section, as such staff could not determine if either proposed access driveways were compliant with maximum driveway grades. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. g. Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas - The location and pick up of the service elements shall be approved by Waste Management. The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the hotel would be located outside of the southeast corner of the building, immediately south of the entrance to the underground parking garage. The applicants submitted screening details with the application materials, pursuant the these details the proposed refuse and recyclable deposit area would be screened on three sides by an 8 -foot high stone veneer and hardie lap siding fence and screened on the east site, where access to the receptacles is gained, with a 6 -foot high corrugated metal fence in steel frames. The RMC does not provide specific standards for refuse and recycling for hotel developments, as such staff has evaluated the required square footage under the office requirements, which are as follows, In office developments, a minimum of two square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of four square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of 100 square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas. For recyclables, 244 square feet would be required and for refuse 488 square feet would be required, which results in a total area of 732 square feet. The applicant has proposed to provide approximately 379.52 square feet of refuse and recyclable area, which is less then required based on the office requirements. Furthermore, discussion with the applicant has indicated that the refuse area would contain a trash compactor, which would reduce the area required for refuse. Staff recommends approval of the reduced HEX staff rpt 09-060 RPvised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic DevelopmPrnt Preiim;nary Report to the gearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-03-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PLIROC HEARING OATL July 21, 2008 Page 14 of 38 square footage of refuse and recyclable area because the proposed use is not an office and would potentially produce less waste then an office development. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; The proposal would improve the character of the site, because it would replace the previously industrial site with a new hotel and restaurant. The new development would provide new access and street frontage improvements within the area that currently do not exist. In addition, landscaping would be provided along the street front and surrounding the new parking area and hotel. The landscaping provided would screen the surface parking area from surrounding properties; as proposed this landscape area would be bermed and at a minimum 6 -feet in width and wider in places. The proposed building would be 5 -stories in height with an underground parking garage. The scale of this structure is larger then across the street in Barbee Mill development but much smaller then the Virginia Mason Athletic Center (VMAC). The proposed scale provides a much-needed transition from the existing residential to 1-405 and the VMAC. Furthermore, the new hotel use would be more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood then the existing industrial site; as such, impacts to surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. It should also be noted that during training camp for the Seahawks this hotel is anticipated to be utilized by the athletes and fans, for a place to stay, while they view the Seahawks Training Camp. The Seahawks practice facility, Virginia Mason Athletic Center, is located just northwest of this site. As such, this development would be an asset to this particular property. There are potential short-term impacts to adjacent businesses and nearby residents (e.g., noise), which would result from the construction of the project. These impacts will be mitigated by the applicant's construction mitigation plan, which limits work and haul hours to those permitted by City Code. d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; The scale, height and bulk of the proposed building are appropriate for the site and would be architecturally compatible with surrounding properties. The building would be located in the northwest portion of the project site with surface parking area located at the rear of the site, screened from Lake Washington Boulevard by landscaping and the building. Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site (3.07 acres) and within the surface parking lot. When the remainder of the parcel is developed, at an unknown time in the future, staff would determine concurrence of the proposed new building(s)'s design, scale, height and bulk with the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel and if necessary would propose mitigation and/or conditions to verify compatibility. The scale and bulk of the building is also reduced through the use of different materials on the building facades and building articulation and modulation. Multiple materials HUstaff_rpt 09-060 Revised 8-18-09 City Of Roll tort DepartmP7r Of CO(nr77unity & Economic Development Prefiminnry Repurt to the nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Pt1811C HEARING DATt July 21, 2005 Page 15 of 38 are proposed including, stone veneer, hardie shingles, trespa vertical siding, and hardie lap siding. Furthermore, architectural details are proposed including canopies, planters, detailed windows and doors, and lighting that would enhance the buildings visual appeal. At this time, the future hotel would be located in the northern corner of a larger 7.8 - acre parcel. Currently this parcel has minimal landscaping, and has access to a significant amount of light and air. Shadows created from the new development would not have adverse impacts on the subject site and/or surrounding properties. e. Conservation of area wide property values; The proposal is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. The development of the site provides improvements to infrastructure, landscaping and lighting and additional employment opportunities. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. This access in important for fire safety/access to the subject site, as such staff recommends as a condition of approval that the street vocation be completed prior to building final occupancy. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot- The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls. Internal pedestrian connections to the existing public sidewalk network are proposed in order to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout the site and to other abutting sites. The proposed development is expected to maintain safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle circulation on the site. g. Provision of adequate light and air; The single building would not have a negative impact on site light or air circulation. h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. A Construction Mitigation Plan that would provide measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, was provided with the project submittal. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. There would be minimal noise impacts from increased traffic although, HEX_st6ff_rpt_09-060 Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nerving Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H P(MDC HFARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 16 of M these noise impacts would be virtually unnoticeable because of the proximity of 1-405 immediately adjacent to the site. L Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; Fire and Police Department staff have indicated that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by the Environmental Review Committee, the applicant will be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee prior to the issuance of building permits. The site is served by the City of Renton for all utilities. There is an existing 12 -inch DI pipe on the subject site and an existing 12 -inch waterline about 620 feet south of the property line. In addition, there is an existing 12 -inch sanitary sewer main on the subject site. The City is looking at utilizing some of the Capital Funds awarded to the City in the 2009 Legislative Session to extend the 12 -inch water line closer then 620 feet from the subject sites' south property line. At this time, the allocation of these funds has not been approved by City Council and therefore, this improvement may or may not be completed by these funds. j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight; The proposal would result in redevelopment of a former industrial site into a four star hotel with conference faculties and a restaurant. It would therefore contribute to the well-being of the City in general and the neighborhood in particular. k. Review of Compliance to District C Design Guidelines; The subject property is located within Design District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. Two categories have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. The following are the categories for compliance: _]:M= Met NM= Not Met PM= Partially Met NA= Not Applicable J A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. HEX _staff _rpt 09-060 Revised 8-18-09 City of Rentor? Department of Comrmjmty & Fconorrric Development Prali]ninnry Report to the Heormy ExUminer HAWK'S LANDING LVA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21; 2008 Page 17 of 3F? 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian - oriented streets is prohibited Minimum Standard: Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. Minimum Standard: Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian -oriented facade Staff Comment: The majority of the fo�ode facing take Washington Boulevard would be incompliance with this minimum standard with the exception of south half of this facade on the ground floor. Approximately 62 feet of the southern side of the facade is not designed to meet this standard_ This 62 feet is designed with stone veneer and vertical siding. As such, staff recommends a condition of HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City Of Rentor) Deportment of Community & Economic Development Preiirninary Report to the Nearing Fxommer HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 18 of 38 approval that the applicant redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian - oriented facade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development far review and approval by the project manager prior to building permit approval. Minimum Standard: Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single -purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7b) Minimum Standard: If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades ELI L1 EJ they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). Guideline: Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued _ZE1 El El availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be El F 17711:1 VIIA raised above street level for residents' privacy. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate _ landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Minimum Standard: Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the [] _ street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. _ Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have 0 weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from IVRIJ Q Di property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. Minimum Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows E F7771 ZI El should be oriented to a street or pedestrian -oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. Guideline: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City Of Per? too Deportment of Corn munity & Economic Development Preliminary Report b the Heanrrg Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H PUBPCHEARING DATE, July 11, M)8 Page 19 of 38 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high- volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas - Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100E7e)- Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self- closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7f). Staff Comment: The proposed enclosure for the garbage and recycling collection area includes screening on ail sides with the exception of a roof. The applicant has indicated that if a roof was provided then the dumpsters would have to be pushed or maneuvered out of the enclosure for collection because the collection trucks need to lift the dumpster to empty it into the truck. In order for the dumpsters to be directly lifted from the enclosure the exemption of the roof would be required- As such, staff recommends approval of this modification - Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited_ . Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked :23 El with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g). Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7h). Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or moreVIIJ of the following: a. Public art; b, Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment; d. Open space/plaza; HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Deeelopmeat Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'SLANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 20 of 38 e. Identifying building form; f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: On Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking. No more than 60 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off- street parking and vehicular access. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) On -street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. Minimum Standard: All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. Minimum Standard: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection F5a of this Section). Staff Comment: The proposed surface parking lot does not meet the minimum requirement of 1,500 feet of perimeter area. In addition, preliminary design and discussion with the applicant indicated that this proposed surface parking lot would remain with full build out of the subject site. Lake Washington HEXstaff_rpt 09-060_Revised8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Cornrnunity & Economic Deveiopment HA WKS LANDING PUBLIC NEARING t?ATE: luiy 2:, 2008 P(chmmory Report !o the Neormg Examiner LUA-09-050, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Boulevard is the only access to the subject site, which results in the requirement to provide internal vehicular circulation for the subject parcel. in order for there to be sufficient internal circulation at a future date, this surface parking lot would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of the surface parking lot as proposed. Paye 21 of 38 Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. L] [J Guideline: If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a ❑ 0 PZ building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the i building facade_ i Guideline: When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. INEu U FU 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting 0 [] 0 properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5b). Staff Comment: See section G. "Lighting" below. Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their Z visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, 00 EY11 connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private [] ❑ '0 local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping El0 E to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting designated Pedestrian - Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5c). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Nan -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at least 6 feet from HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Prehminary Report to the Hearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N PUBLIC NEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 22 of 38 the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d). Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. _ Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. Minimum Standard: Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian - oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular HEX_staH_rpt _09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Cummunity & Economic Development PrvIrrrirnory Report ro the HPoonq Exomrner HAWK'S LANDING L.UA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBbC HFARiNCi Nrr; )uly 21, 2008 T Page 23 of 38 access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas_ Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a). Z. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b). _ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall he raised above the level of vehicular travel. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c). Staff Comment: The provided plan sets indicate that portions of the pedestrian pathways within the parking lots would be different material or texture from the adjacent paving materials, although there are some portions that appear to be asphalt with striping. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a new site plant that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. ecificall (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail HEX_staff_rpt_09-0b0_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Deportment of Commoiiity & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09.060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N PUBLIC NEARING DATE July 21, 2008 Page 24 of 38 buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). Staff Comment: The proposed sidewalk width is 10 feet and the proposed landscape strip is 9 -feet in width. As mentioned above in the project narrative, the City has received Capital improvement Funds, which potently would fund the extension of the May Creek Trail, which would end at the south end of the subject parcel. In order for this trial to continue to the existing King County Trial system located north of the subject site, near VMAC, the City's Parks Department requested that the sidewalk in this area have enough width to accommodate a multi -use trial in addition to a traditional sidewalk. Hotel patrons and members of the public would be using this sidewalk; in addition, trail users would be utilizing this sidewalk to E connect to the grater King County trial system. Based on the anticipated number of users in this location, 1D feet would not be appropriate sidewolk width to accommodate anticipated pedestrian traffic. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Project Manager indicating a 12 -foot sidewalk width and a 10 foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, Prior to construction permit approval. (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree ❑ ❑ !❑ V coverage_ adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of Z ❑ ❑ sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10-12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller 5 — 6 foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather Z 0 El walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Guideline: Through -block connections should be made between buildings, El ❑ El Z between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces, Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4e) Guideline: Between buildings of up to and including two stories in height, 1:1 El through -block connections should be at least 6 feet in width Guideline: Between buildings three stories in height or greater, through -block ❑ 0 connections should be at least 12 feet in width Guideline: Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 Oty of xer,tor? Depurtment of Community & Economic Development Yrelrninary Report to the Heorinr Fxom;ner !-HAWK'S LANDING WA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA.k PUBLIC HEARM; DA 7L: July 21, MJY Page 25 of 38 maximum 0.25 mile apart Guideline: As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than 14 feet in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per 30 lineal fee_ t of the required walkway should be provided Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. Guideline: Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation - 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Staff Comment: As proposed, canopies along the fagade fronting Lake Washington Boulevard exceed the minimum width standards although do not meet the minimum length standards. Canopies have been proposed to be provided for approximately 38.5 percent of the facade or approximately 60 liner feet. The 60 feet of the fo�ode where canopies are proposed is along the portion of the building that would be the least distance (smallest setback) from Lake Washington Boulevard. Although, the proposed hotel design provides modulation along this fagade that brings many portions of the structure back from Lake Washington Boulevard where canopies would not be achieving the desired intend of overhead weather protection. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed 60 liner feet of canopy coverage. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade - mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and HEX- staff rpt 09-060 Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Deveopment Preiiamury Report to the Nearing Exominer HAWK'S CANDtNG LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC NEARING DA TE: July 21, 2008 Page 26 of 38 at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.G4f). D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: M N M P M N _ Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations,- and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community_ Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, NO El Landscaping). Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the 10 curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. Minimum Standard. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees 90 Er shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC f 4-3-100.1-13a). Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed El 0 landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, i reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, �Q Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b. Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of El El VM El landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. Staff Comment: As proposed the shrubs meet the minimum height but the proposed rate of planning is less then one per 20 square feet of Icrndscaped area. The applicant has proposed to use raingardens, within these areas ornamental HEX staff_rpt_09-06ORevised 8-18-09 City of Renton 07 !pwtrnenr of Cornmor lty & Lconomic Develooroerit Pre+m;oory Report to -h,, NParinq Exominer NA WK'S L4NDiNG LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PL)BLIC HEARINGUA t E: A;iy 21, 2008 Page 27 of 38 shrubs are not proposed to be planted. The proposed roingordens reflect the applicant's desire to provide a development that minimizes its effects on the environment and/or is "green". The raingordens are calculated into the landscaped area and therefore reduce the ratio of shrubs to landscaped area; as such, staff recommends approval of this modification. ®!❑ El El Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Z El El Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. _ Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: �] �❑ ` Total Number __._..--_ Minimum Required Landscape Area* of Spaces 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. i (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking [] lot landscape areas. [] (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. � [] El (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. Z,0 ®''0 El :.. (5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. (6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. M 0 [] El El EJ El Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. FA 9 Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in[] all landscape areas. HEX staff rpt 09-060 Rev}sed 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preiimirinry Report to the Nearing Examiner HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -14 PUBLIC NEARING DATE: luiy 21, 2008 Page 28 of 38 Staff Comment: An irrigation plan Was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of 0 - buildings. Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either 1:11:1 El screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is N El El encouraged. Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will M El El be available. �E] Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, ❑ Q [] particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments ❑ ❑ F1 M of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more i than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development,- evelopment;(c) (c)Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, EQ 0 HEx_staff_rpt_09-060_Re0sed 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preiimincry Report to the Heurmg Lxarrurwr HAWK'S LANDING LUA-09.060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 20OR Page 29 of 38 required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3c). _ Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.H3d) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of edestrian-oriented space Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on the ground; and Staff Comment: See comment under G "Lighting" Below. Staff was unable to determine if the applicant complies with the minimum standards at this time. (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space._ Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian - oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.113e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seatin HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Fconomir Development Preinnmory Report to the Hearing Exominer HAWK'S LANDING 1UA-03-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 30 of 38 Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian - oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of edestrian-oriented space. Minimum Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. _ Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached El 0 E10 residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Guideline: Developments located at street intersections corners on designated 0 Q 0 '14233 pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3f). Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of Q surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's EILIJ play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 N M City of Renton Department of Coma) tit) ity & Er on Devefopmerit Prel+ nmory Report ro the Heoriny Exon ner HAWK'S LANDING LVA -03-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEAMNG DATE: luly 21, 2008 � Page 31 of 38 illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15a). Minimum Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; (d) Roof line features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director Minimum Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15b): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be 40 feet. (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be 15 feet. (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet or not less than two-tenths multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). Guideline: Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Guideline: Buildings should be urban in character - Guideline: Buildings greater than 150 feet in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.15c). 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See staff comment Section A.2. "Building Locotion and Orientation" above. Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection HEX staff rpt 09 -060 -Revised 8-18-09 City of Rentoo Department of Comm, unity & Economic Development Preliminary Report to tete He000g Exominer HAWK'S LANDING CUA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -N PU8LICNEARiiVG DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 32 of 38 RMC 4-3-100.15d): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building_ However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing_ (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15e): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community ,� Froriomfc Development Preirminary Report to rhe HParir,q Fxnminer HAWKS LANDING tUA-03-060, ECF, sA40, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: !Wy 21, 2008 Page 33 of 38 (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street_furniture (benches, etc.). Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail. Staff Comment: The applicant is highly encouraged to provide any and/or all of the items listed above in order to ornament the ground level of the proposed structure. Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district - Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices, - (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural ,0 D D character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Guideline: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the buildine P Pq 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same auaiity. Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Oevelopment Preliminary Report to the Nerving Examiner HAWK'S LANOING LVA -09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBbC NEARING DATE: Jury 21, 2908 Page 34 of 38 Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast -in-place concrete. Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. �M N F. SIGNAGE: M Intent, To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to RE the building. Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. Staff Comment: At this time the applicant has not submitted a detailed sign design as such, staff cannot determine compliance with this standard. At the time of sign permit approval staff will review for this design standard. Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.J3a): i. Pale signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics an a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back- lit. (see staff comment above) _ Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. see staff comment above) Minimum Standard. Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, HEX_ staff_ rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 or City of Renters Department of Community & Economic Development Prelin,ir❑ry RF-pnrr ro rhe Henrrnrr Examiner HA WKS LANDING LUA-09-060, ECF, SA,M, SA -H PUBLIC NEARING DATE July 21, 2008 page 35 of 38 other decorative materials as approved by the Director. see staff comment above, Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. (see staff comment above) Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. (see staff comment above) Guideline: Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. (see staff comment above) Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets. see stoff comment above G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Staff Comment: Staff recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment: See Condition above Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. Staff Comment: See Condition above Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. HEX_stif#_rpt_09 060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Preliminary Report to the Nearrrry Exarnmer !-HAWK'S LANDING LOA -09-060 ECF, SA -AR, SA -H PU6LICHEARiNG DATE: July 21, 2068 Page 36 of 38 7. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COR ZONES: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable. Not applicable, there was no Planned Action Ordinance for the subject property. b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial -Office - Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed development would result in the construction of a 122,000 square foot hotel with a 4,500 square foot restaurant, 742 square feet of retail space, 716 square foot fitness center, and 2,152 square foot spa. As proposed, each of these uses would be affiliated with the Hawk's Landing Hotel. In addition, the placement of the hotel in the northwest corner of the site provides room for future development on the remainder of the 7.8 acres. At this time, further development of the site is unknown and under existing market conditions, it is difficult to anticipate when future development may happen on the remainder of the subject site. Although, based on preliminary review of access, utilities, site design the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would not preclude future development that would create a compatible mix of uses; as such, the proposal meets the vision of the Comprehensive Plan- The proposed project would implement the Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Design policy statements as mentioned above (section 6.a.). The project would result in the creation of a four-star hotel and restaurant, resulting in the transformation of an industrial piece of property into a development that provides quality and value to the neighborhood. c. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems. The proposed project would provide public open space at the hotel entrances. As designed the applicant has proposed to raise the grade of the site so that the main entrance along Lake Washington Boulevard is at street level, this provides the opportunity for a public plaza along the street frontage. In addition to the plaza area, the applicant would be required to provide 12 -foot wide sidewalks separated from the street by a 10 -foot landscape strip. At the internal hotel entrance, the applicant has proposed to provide public plaza space that includes a Koi pond that is spanned by a pedestrian bridge. Private open space includes two internal courtyards; one off the spa and the other off the conference facilities looking over Quendall Terminals and Lake Washington. In addition, an outdoor patio would be provided for the restaurant. The proposed project incorporates public and private open space that is appropriate for the occupants and users of the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel. d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable. HEX_ staff_ rpt_ 09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Uepurtroent of Community & Economic Development Pruhrmnary Report to the Nearing Examiner HAWK'SLANDING LUA-03-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PWP IC HFARI NG DATE July 21, 2008 Paye 37 of 38 Views to the Lake Washington would be available from various points on the property and from hotel rooms located on the west side of the hotel. e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; The subject site does not contain shoreline area and therefore does not provide access to water or a shoreline area. f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items. The site pian provides focal points through the use of prominent architectural features, including but not limited to canopies, modulations and variation, distinctive entrances, large open cornices supported by angled beams etc... Furthermore, the hotel's distinctive architecture would provide a much-needed gateway to the City from the 1- 405 exit just north of the site. In addition to the significant architecture, the applicant has proposed monument signage at the site entrance_ g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned. The site is accessed by Lake Washington Boulevard, which is the only existing access to the site. The proposed access locations allows for the remainder of the site to be developed at a future date. h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. Currently, public transit service to the subject site along Lake Washington Boulevard is not provided. Despite the lack of Metro service the applicant has encouraged Metro to include this area as a site for a future bus rout and stop by providing the area for a bus shelter and the right-of-way for a bus pull out on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. Furthermore, they have provided five spaces for !Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV), which further encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation. Pursuant to the provided site plan, the sidewalks along Lake Washington Boulevard would be 10 -feet wide and crosswalks would be provided from the west side of the street to the east side to provide a connection to the 5eahawk's Training Facility and the future development of Quendall Terminals. In addition to these pedestrian connections, the applicant has proposed pedestrian connections from the hotel entrance throughout the parking lot by means of pedestrian paths and to the remainder of the vacant 7.8 -acre site where future development may occur. HEX_staff_rpt_09-060_Revised 8-18-09 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Deveiopment HAINK'S LANDING Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 21, 2008 Page 38 of 38 H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Hawk's Landing Hotel, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H subject to the following conditions: 1. A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, and be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-080.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 4. The street vacation, file # VAC -09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of f=inal Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -oriented fagade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a new site plant that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. 7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager indicating 12 -foot sidewalk widths and a 10 -foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, prior to construction permit approval. S. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manger for review and approval at the time of building permit review. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approvals (SA -H, SA -M): to RMC section 4-7-080.M. HEX_staff_rpt 09-060 Revised 8-18-09 Five (5) years from the final approval date. An extension may be requested pursuant 4i Ln 7 v I w g0. t Q �oc0in =O� LIZEE vi F— H x W If i tae I �� SeagS�X e�eq�l a g Y !1 s v NLE 6 aIglgq q� I s`a H@I 9 §99x91 �q 8jipppp OadygE=3gP,�i�g �-;a 9$ g�ypa g �yy j�ip.�Yc1 �i.� qEy � �6€ l '-- — SOb AVA11i9fH 31V13i131tv1 1 Y W W � Qt SSM s E^MW WQ f I 71, zags d"®R all lost SPU NS •4 f'� � f -� � ii i,�s ��� � _ Y I �j'. � i- y�s� o f �� -O �^�S ArAliTj not ON — � �� _•� T -f`-- _�x , _ - -� ��� � — � � . � If- sem•„_ -1 —� --C E�:Z __��- . Qb'Q2l7fb'�1�N2f37-1�210N N6 r _ - - 11� 47 y _V z0a u ! •� ,\t .7M1•., ' - _ -� - foto 7 H m y o gi w 10 W � Qt SSM s E^MW WQ f I 71, zags d"®R all lost SPU NS •4 f'� � f -� � ii i,�s ��� � _ Y I �j'. � i- y�s� o f �� -O �^�S ArAliTj not ON — � �� _•� T -f`-- _�x , _ - -� ��� � — � � . � If- sem•„_ -1 —� --C E�:Z __��- . Qb'Q2l7fb'�1�N2f37-1�210N N6 r _ - - 11� 47 y _V z0a u ! •� ,\t .7M1•., ' - _ -� - foto 7 H m toot �� s Palo 1P 5S:e o inn m. eh a -got € 01911 N Ind �3 `ri K a __.. -- If ,agoisto OD toe0 err QQz CL J W CL Q Q J M m H X W fPw I� m x W G X s2 I y i i i a fPw I� m x W il y7J <71 O L � O J_ rL rL Q 4 w LU �72 w _ 4 cn u 2,7 Q= x W vz, . z O 11 r4 F- m H x W Ln `q F— f L H X W CYCE Ln `q F— f L H X W FJj 1 1 i 1 II I ■ ■ ■ FJj K. H W H xZ W r W H H 2 x W Ln (7E \ , -�, < (� / 2 - \ z ({ ? .!\ 1 5 .§/ !\ E'l Is Ch � � � I � Z x W K, f4 K, ce P) 5PUR, HL INIX Uj Lr) CID CO 4 1 J, LU N C� A 66 7, rV'-.4 CrVo'dllV�l NWJH-LSON No - - - - - - - - -- - LD 11) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMTN-ER CITE' OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a I1!ashington non -probit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, TO Mr. hied Kaufman I fearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF-NT01I9 ,'JUL 17 ?(lli� CITY � EC&� LE R K 8 OF! --k; At ! l �I v (1, oC(✓�J Case No. I1JA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H NOTICE OF APPEAL I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS South End Gives Back (SEGB) and Brad Nicholson hereby file this Notice of Appeal of the MDNS and Master Site Pian issued by the City of Renton. The decision should be reversed by the Hearing Examiner under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.210, and the City's Ordinance for review of Administrative and GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 96101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - I Phone: 1206) 621-8868 ORIGINAL Fax: {206) 621-0512 «ec 1 Environmental determinations, RMC 4-8-110 (7) (b.) (v.) The Master Site Plan should be 2 reversed because the application failed to include a stormwater drainage plan or a habitat management plan, and because the City failed to evaluate whether the Shoreline 4 Management Plan for the City was violated. The MDNS should be reversed and an EIS 5 6 ordered because there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts from 7 increased stornnvater flow to May Creek, and/or increased groundwater .flow to the g Quendall Terminals Superfund site, leading to increased toxin migration to Lake 9 Washington. In the alternative, the NIDNS should be reversed for completion and 1.0 consideration of a storn-lwater management plan and consideration of the impacts of 11 12 increased surflce water and/or groundwater flow. 13 Applicant Spencer Alpert (Applicant) has applied for a Master Site Plan for a five - 14 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a fitness 15 center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton./ 16 Parking would be providcd both below the hotel, and on 124 new surface parking spaces. 17 1$ lit constructing the new hotel, the Applicant plans to prove 4,450 yards of cut soil, and 19 place 15,000 cubic yards of fill soil. Thirty-two existing trees would be cut, and 20 unspecified drainage and street frontage improvements would be provided. The proposal 21 also includes a rain garden. Rain gardens are "excavated or otherwise formed depressions 22 in the landscape that provide for storage, treatment, and infiltration of stormwater runoff. 23 24 The soil in the depression is enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth." Att J, 25 26 Facts regarding the proposed development have been drawn from the MDNS and 27 ERC Report. Page references are not provided for brevity. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 2$ 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 88101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2 Phone: 12061621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 excerpts from the 20(6 King County Surface Nater Design Manual, App, C. at C-56. This rain garden will increase rain flow to the groundwater. Id. The site on which the hotel is proposed (site) is the former Pan Adobe cedar homes site, and includes 75, 214 square feet of existing warehouse structures. The existing site is 85% impervious surface, and surface water flows from the site to a large ditch, and then to May Creek. ERC Report at Ex. 16. Stormwater flow froze this site is massive. With 85% 1lllper� ions surface, approximately i (i to 20 acre-feet of water flows from the property yearly, meaning that avcrawe runoff is bet«'een 9,0100-18,000 per day. July 17, 2009, Declaration of Joel Massman (illassman Dec.) at 1[ 4. The applicant appears to have provided no information on total impervious surface for the new development. Appellants IMve retained hydrogeologist Joel Massman to opine cm the probable effects ozi Urourrcl and surface \ :ter flow of the project. Massnian Dec. The applicant proposed deconstnrctinLr �i k1rge nzmlber of existing buildings, and in addition to the rain garden, the applicant proposes 38, 866 of new landscaped area. ERC Report; Massman Dec. at 12-3. A reduction .111 imper-Vious surface area would dramatically increase the rate of groundwater recharge. Nlassman Dec. at jj 7. Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments, groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of imperious surface that is deconstructed. Massman Dec. at Zj T This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to 1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. Id. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1o15 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: X2061621-8868 Fax: {2061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed project is approximately 3.5 to 7.0 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). Massman Dec. at � S. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington, This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, h_ydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quendall Terminals site located between the project site and Lake Washington. Massman Dec. at 9, Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property is contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (13T.EX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area round water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet, The groundwater in this zone blows to Lake Washington- The samc contaminants detected in soils and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lame Washington. Massman Dec. at 11 10. Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. Massman Dec. at � 11. Quendall Terminals is a Superfund site. Att. F, Washington Dep't of Ecology, Quendall Tenninals lnfor-mation; Att. G, U.S. EPA Environmental Fact Sheet. Quendall Terminals operated as a creosote and tar product manufacturing facility from 1916 to 1969, and vas then used as a fuel storage and log sort yard until the 1990s. Id. NOTICE 4F APPEAL - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: {206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 l ( I`lm-c is no mention of this adjacent Superfund site in the description of the project, the ? 1IR or the decision from the City of' Renton. Aft. F, Washington Dept of Ecology 3 information, Of key importance to water management at the up-slope dcvAopjnent site 4 considered here, Quendall Terminals' groundwater flows to Lake Washington, and toxic 5 Goficmicals have been found in the surface grater of the Lake. Aft. l_, Washington Dep't of .. 7 Ecology information; Att. L photograph of-seepage. S Each of the toxic substances found at Quendall Terminals carries a significant 9 human health and safety risk. Aft. 11, ATSDR, Public Health Assessment for Quendall I C} Terminals. The toxins travel through groundwater; the existing impact on wells in the arca 11 12 has not been studied. Id, at 6. Further, they damage the already fragile ecosystem of Lake 13 Washington, home to endangered salmon and other endangered and threatened species. hl. 1 of at 3-4. The toxins can be absorbed through h direct contact, drinking contaminated water. or 1 thraugh consuming fish that have been exposed. ]'here is massive public and I government ]6 ' concern over the ongoing inipact of these toxins on the health of boaters, anglers, 17 18 swinviiers, and the wildlife of the Lake and surrounding area. 19 Although it was initially a state-run cleanup, the Washington State Department of 20 Ecology gave up on the project, citing the costly and complex nature of managing the 21 cleanup, providing oversight, and trying to consider alternatives to the cleanup given the 22 23 changing nature of the proposed Iand uses in the area, Id. The future of Quendall 24 Terminals is dependent on not only what happens directly on the site, but how development 25 proceeds around it. As Ecology noted in turning Quendall Tenninals over to the EPA, 26 "current zoning of the properties adjoining this site are planned for a mix of residential and 27 28 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 5 Rhone: {2061 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 I business uses. Cleanup alternatives will need to consider future possible uses of this 2 property." Att. G, EPA Fact Sheet. 3 Directly to the south of the site is May Creek, a Class One Salmon Stream. 4 Although the applicant has reportedly provided a study claiming that there are no 5 6 salmonids in the strearn,2 other studies have stated that the creek is commonly inhabited by 7 Sockeye, and that Chinook, Coho, and Cutthroat trout have been seen. Att. A, King g County Salmon YFatcher Program, May Creek. Neighbors have observed steelhead in May 9 Creek, Nicholson Dec. at 1 3. The Puget Sound Steelhead has had its status recently 10 upgraded to "Threatened" by the National Marine Fisheries Service; salmon are 11 endangered. 12 13 The existing site has 32 existing trees, all of which would be removed and replaced 14 with 73 new trees. ERC Report at p. 4 of 16. The species, location, and size of the 15 replacement trees have not been specified. Trees can have a massive impact on water flow; 16 some studies suggest a single tree can absorb up to 290 gallons of rainwater annually. Att. 17 18 B, Shade Crusade: W11y City Trees Are Good Medicine. Each of those 290 gallons per tree 19 will flow either through the ground, or via surface water to May Creek once the trees are 20 removed. 21 The soil underlying the site includes a surface layer of medium dense silty sand and 22 sandy silt 611, followed by a saturated silty sand layer with soft seams of sandy silt and 23 24 organic silt to depths of about 12-16 feet below ground. ERC Report at p. 6 of 16. Water 25 falling or pooling on exposed soil of this nature quickly infiltrates the ground. Att. C, 26 27 2 City Staff claimed not to have a copy of the study for review. GENIXER & MANN, LLP 28 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 6 Phone: [2061621-6868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 Infiltrat10 -n 7hro)rgh Cotnpactcd 1.,`rhan .Sails and Effects on Biofiltration Design. The 1 - - 2 4rou11(I on the site is already saturated. Test pits throughout the site showed that 3 groundw=ater infiltration Would affect construction in even shallow excavations on the site. 4 ERC Report at p. b of 16, 5 fi In 2009, the applicant completed a "Geotechnical Investigation Report." Att. D, 7 2009 Geotechnical Report. The Report analyzed existing soil and groundwater conditions g on the site, but provided no analysis of stormwater management or an evaluation of the 9 impacts on ground and surface water of the proposed development. The 2009 10 Geotecimical Report found a very high water table and almost totally saturated gound 11 throughout the site,irr one test pit, the groundwater seep was at a rats of 4.3 gallons per 12 13 hour. 2009 Geotechnical Report at L�. Among other recommendations, the Report 14 suggested a "deWvatcmig trend-€" to rumm,,e excess groundwater during construction. Id. 15 This trench would increase surface watcr Iloxv to Nla_y Creels. The need to dewater will not 16 stop once construction is complete; a 1991 Geotechnical Engineering; Study submitted by 17 the Applicant suggested installation of "subfloor capillary break and perimeter footing 18 19 drains" along with other dewatering measures. Att. E, 1991 Geotechnical Engineering 20 Study, at P. 4. 21 Also in 2009, the Applicant completed a Technical Information Report, purportedly 22 addressing stormwater. Att. K, Technical Information Report. The technical information 23 24 report states that the only flow control measure that will be imposed is rain gardens. Att. K. 25 There is no discussion of groundwater infiltration impacts, nor any detail on how 9,000- 26 18,000 cubic feet per day of surface water will be handled. Instead, the report erroneously 27 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 28 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF AJ`PEAL - 7 Phone: 12061621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 �1 M1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 concludes that drainage need not be controlled based upon a mistaken belief- that an exemption applies. Att. K at 7. On June 29, 2009, the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee met, and adopted the City staff recommendation to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS), and published its Environmental Review Committee Report (ERC Report). On July 3, 2009, the City of Renton published a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS). The MDNS contains 10 mitigation measures. Only four are related to water, and only require the applicant to comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical reports created and the wetland/stream study, and comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. MDNS at 1). 1 of 2. Pointedly, the Technical hiformation Report is not made a mandatory mitigation condition. Neither the geotechnical reports nor the Surface Water Design Manual have any requirements discussing or mitigating when groundwater flow may increase toxin flow from a Superfund site. The ERC Report also contains Advisory Notes. Those recommendations are not mitigation, and are non-binding. The recommendations contain a suggestion that the applicant complete a drainage analysis, and note that "the project will need to provide flow control, water duality treatment and conveyance system improvements." MDNS Advisory Notes at p. 3 of 5. Although the applicant claims that there will be no increase in surface water runoff, the Advisory Notes correctly observe that there has been no hydrologic analysis performed, and that the applicant may utilize the LID alternative for flow control only if the increase in surface water flow is at or less than .I cubic feet per second (CFS). NOTICE OF APPEAL - 8 GFNDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 1() 11 , 13 t4 15 1 f� I7 18 19 20 211 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iti1DNS Ads isor-�' Dotes at p. 3 of 5. The notes also observe that the rain garden is not a water duality facility, and that other facilities roust be constructed if the project will increase water floe= by more than . l CFS. Irl. The EPA has riot completed studies on groundwater migration patterns at Quendall J Terminals. Changing the recharge or discharge conditions of groundwater on the Quendall Terminals site may change the migration status and irnl7act the feasibility and remediation plans for Quendall Terminals. Renton, unfortunately, does not have a coordinated plan for management of stormwater in the area. Water that ends up infiltrating the &round on the site flows downhill to Quendall Ter-main<ds. ]Massman Dec. at 111 9. Currently, the surface of the development site at issue here is S?°o impernrcable, and covered in either str-ucimres or asphalt. Thus, curz-ently, little water in{tltrates the ground. Massman Dec. at 1jji 4-7. Surface water flows from the do elopmerrt site into a large ditch, and thence south to N -lav Creek and then to the Lake. This flow pattern bI)asses the Quendall Terminals site, meaning that the development site currerrtl}- contributes little or no groundwater to the toxin migration front Quendall Terminals to the Lake, and the surface water currently bypasses it. The deconstruction of impervious -surface warehouses, construction of rain gardens and increased pen nous -surface landscaping proposed by the applicant will increase groundwater flow, as will the dewatering measures during and after construction. Massman Dec. at ¶ 7. If calculations show that surface water flow is increased by more than .l efs, their additional stormwater management rrteasures may further increase groundwater infiltration. Id. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 9 GENTLER & rNANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1075 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (20616211-8868 Fax: 1206)621-0512 1 11. STANDING 2 A. SEGB Standing 3 Appellant SEGB is a legally established and operating Washington nonprofit 4 corporation serving the interests of the Citizens of Renton to protect Renton's 5 6enviro)nriental quality. July 16, 2009 Declaration of Brad Nicholson (Nicholson Dec.) at ` 7 S. SEGB's membership is made up of Renton citizens who are directly impacted by the g loss of environmental quality in their city. Nicholson Dec, at 8. The members of SEGB 9 have exclusive control of the corporation. Nicholson Dec. at S. SEGB has an adopted 10 corporate policy that envisions committing all of its resources to efforts such as this appeal. 1.1 12 Nicholson Dec. at 11 8. No outside influences have any control on the direction of the 13 corporation. Nicholson Dec. at 8. 14 SEGB has standing to file this appeal, under the standards in RMC 4-8-110E. 15 (3.)(a )(b )(c) because its memhers' interests are within the zone of interests to be 16 protected or regulated by the City's SEPA ordinance, and its members are suffering and 17 18 will suffer the following injury in fact. SEGB has one or more members that enjoy the 19 wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, frequently walk, boat, fish, or 20 swim or desire to stivim and observe the areas surrounding the proposed project, and will be 21 impacted by the loss of water quality and wildlife habitat associated with this project. 22 Nicholson Dec. at ii 9. The improper review and construction proposals that fail to improve 23 24 the situation will impact them, using outdated or inadequate methods to enhance the 25 natural systems and water quality will impact therm, and SEGB will be impacted by the 26 27 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 28 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 10 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 degradation to lvatcr quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water 2 runoff to either Lake Washington or Nlav Creek. Nicholson Dec- at JC 9. 3 SEGB has one or more members who are residents ofRenton with an active interest 4 in the integrity of City of Renton's land use and environmental review processes, who have 5 6 actively participated in past land use processes including appeals relating to Clean Water,3 7 who seek to ensure that the City abides by SEPA policies and procedures and conducts all g project reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and who are negatively impacted by 9 the improper processing and lack of environmental considerations in connection with this 10 project. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 10. 11 12 SEGB has one or more rnerrabers who wish to have their community planned and 13 development consistent %vith 111e prOVIS10ns of the Renton Comprehensive Plan 14 Envirowlrerlt Elelzaent and City code. and Who will he injured by the City's denial of their 15 rights to such a coanmunitY because of the ER.C's actions. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 11. 16 B. Nichoisou StaIrohtlt 17 18 Appellant Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton and member of SEGB 19 who lives a very short distance up hill from the site, (less than one mile) and uses the May 20 Creek and Lake Washington waters bodies adjoining the site. Nicholson Dec. at 11 1-3. As a 21 result of the unanalyzed and unmitigated in3pacts caused by the project, Nicholson will 22 suffer harm (horn increased damage to the environmental quality envisioned by the 23 24 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Element and SEPA, specifically decreased water 25 3 In the recent Lanolin appeals, in the UC -N designation Landing ppea( of Renton) Brad 26 Nicholson was instrumental in securing use of the most current version of the Department 27 of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western. Washington. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 28 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 11 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 I quality in May Creek and Lake Washington, loss of visual and recreational amenities, and 2 harm to Steelhead Trout and other Salmonids that use these Neater bodies that he enjoys. 3 Nicholson Dec. at 11 3-4. Nicholson declares that he enjoys the fish that presently make 4 May Creek and Lake Washington their habitat. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 1. 5 6 Nicholson also has a longstanding interest in the land use decisions of the City of 7 Renton and has made and participated in appeals concerning water quality in the past. g Nicholson Dec, at ¶ 2, 10. He has worked to protect the environment in the past. 9 Nicholson Dec. at 112, 10. AS a result of the City's improper processing w-ith regard to 1(} issuing the DNS and failure to require the correct processes and procedures, Nicholson is 11 12 already suffering harm from an inability to consider the quantifiable environmental effect 13 of the project or propose alternative measures envisioned by SEPA. Nicholson Dec. at 12- 14 3. 15 Ill. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 16 A. Standard of Review 17 18 The hearing examiner reviews the City's approval of the Master Site Plan and the 19 determination of the Environmental Review Committee to issue an MDNS for clear error. 20 RMC 4-8-110 (E)(7)(b); Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Assn v. Ding County 21 Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 275, 552 P.2d 674, 679 (1976). A decision is clearly erroneous 22 when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body is left with a definite and 23 24 firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Glasser- v. City of Seattle, 139 Wn. App. 25 728, 744, 162 P.3d 1134, 1139 (2007). Although the City's detennination is entitled to 26 27 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 28 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 12 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax; (206 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 substantial weight, that deference stops if clear error is found. RUNIC 4-8-110 (E)(7}(a); Glasser, supra, B. The Master Site Plan must be reversed For completion of a stormwater drainatie_plan _ lZenton requires a stomawater drainage plan prior to issuance of a permit. RAW 4- 0-030((') governs drainage plans, and provides in pertilnent part: 1. When Required: All persons applying for am, Of the following permits and/or approvals shall subunit for approval, unless expressly exempted under subsection C2 of dais Section, a drainage plan tivith their application and /or request: Site plan approvals; k. Any other development or pci-mit application which ll affect the drainage in any way. This is a master site plan, and a drainage plan was required. Renton excnipts from this requirement only projects that the City determines will not affect water qL1a11ty: 2. When Plans Not Required: The plan requirement established in subsection C1 of this Section shall not apply when the Department determines that the proposed permit and/or activity: a. Will not seriously and adversely impact the water quality conditions of any affected receiving bodies of water; and/or b. Will not substantially alter the drainage pattern, increase the peak discharge and cause any other adverse effects in the drainage area. c. Additionally, the plan requirement established in subsection C1 of this Section shall not apply to single family residences when such structures are less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, unless the subject property is in a critical area as detennined under subsection D of this Section - NOTICE OF APPEAL - 13 GENaLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-6868 Fax: f2061621-0512 I RMC 4-6-030(Cj. fn this case, the Department has not made any determination regarding 2 the impact on water quality. instead, rather than making a determination that there were no 3 adverse impacts, the City noted that infonnation is incomplete: 4 The applicant contends that detention is not required due to 5 not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is 6 proposed, but the report sloes not include any information 7 about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. 8 9 MDNS Advisory Notes at p. 3 of" 5. 10 Renton incorporates sections of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. I 1 RMC 4-6-030. This incorporation, though, does not affect RMC 4-6-030(C)'s requirement 12 to create a drainage plan whenever a site plan is proposed. Moreover, even if King I3 County's standards applied, a drainage plan would still be required. A drainage plan is 14 15 required for projects that disturb more than 7,000 square Feet of soil; this project willll 16 remove 4,450 cubic yards of soil, and add 15,000 cubic yards of fill. Att. I, excerpts from 17 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, App. C, at 1-9. A drainage plan is 18 further required if the project will modify a 12 -inch or greater drainage pipe, or is more 19 than $100,000 in improvements on a high -use site, This project meets each of those 20 criteria. 21 22 A drainage plan is especially important given the nature of this site. Currently, 23 there is a massive amount of stormwater flowing from the site — between 9,000-18,000 24 gallons per day, Massman Dec. at T 4. Stormwater leaves the site in one of two ways: 25 either it flows as surface water into May Creek, and thence to the Lake in a southerly 26 27 direction, or it infiltrates the ground and moves to the Lake via groundwater seepage to the GENDLER & MANN, LLP 28 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 14 Phone: (2061621.8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 I (-,ast. IMassinan Dec. at Ii 5. f:ach direction carries very different environrnental 2 implications. If the storn-iwater plan were to concentrate rain and other flow over the 3 surface to May Creek, then the impacts on the creek of increased drainage and increased 4 toxins from the parking lot and other development must be evaluated - 5 G If, by contrast, the stormwater plan focuses on rain gardens, retention ponds, vaults, 7 and other methods that cause increased infiltration of the groundwater, then the stormwater g will flow east, through the ground, and cause increased outflow from the Quendall 9 Terminals site. Massman Dec. at 1' 8, If this is the plan, then the impacts on the toxic 10 outflow from the Quendall Terminals site, and the impact of increased groundwater flow 11 12 on remediation efforts., must be evaluated and mitigated. Id. at �J 10-11. 13 The ERC Committee Report references a "Preliminary Technical Information 14 Report.' LRC Report m 7 of 16. But (his document has not been made a mitigation 15 condition does not evaluate the impact on the groundwater, and moreover, erroneously 16 concludes that no surface water controls other than rain gardens are required due to a 17 1.8 misreading of King County's Surface 'Vater Design manual. The report notes that 19 "The site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3-1.A, due to 20 the decrease of impervious area after development. " Att. K at 7. But KCSWDM 21 1.2.3.1 provides: 22 23 Basic Exemption 24 A proposed project or any threshold discharge area within the site of a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: 25 a) Less than 2,0000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added, AND b) If the project is a redevelopment project, less than 5,000 square feet of new 26 plus replaced impervious surface will be created, AND 27 c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface will be added. GENDL.ER & MANN, LLP 28 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101! Seattle, WA 88101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 15 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: {206h 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 261 271 • 41 (emphases added and removed; "AND" emphasis in original). Although the project meets criteria (a), it fails (b) and (c). A proper drainage plan, applying KCSWDM standards, must be created- A proper drainage plan — with flow analyses, and tecimical data - will answer the question of where water will flow, and how much will get there. RMC: 4-060-030(F) govems drainage plan design criteria, and provides: The drainage plan shall he prepared in conformance with the Department's construction plan drafting standards and contents, the City's Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction and Standard Detail documents; and the design criteria, construction materials, practices, and standard details contained in chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. The approval of the Master Site Plan should be reversed until a drainage plan is complete and can be evaluated. C. A Habitat Management Plan is Required Similarly, the Master Site Plan should be reversed until a habitat management plan has been created. The City allowed the applicant to avoid creating a habitat management plan because the development is outside of the buffer area for May Creek. ERC.: Report at 9 of 16. But buffer areas and the need to create a habitat management plan are separate requirements. RMC 4-3-050 governs habitat plans, and provides; I. Applicability: The habitat conservation regulations apply to all nonexempt activities on sites containing or abutting critical habitat as classified below. a. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: i. Habitats associated with the documented presence of non -salmonid (see subsection Ll of this Section and RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Prograin Regulations, GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 16 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (2061621-0512 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cor salmonid species) species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of %Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitivc, monitor, or priority; and.'or ii. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection M1 of this Section for classification criteria). 2. Il`abitat Assessinent Required: Based upon subsection K1 of this Section, Applicability, the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located Within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-5-120D. In cases where a proposal is not likely to significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with su[isection Dob of this Section. In this case, NIay Creek contains endangered and threatened species. Aft, A, King Count)' Salmon ff"archer; Nicholson Dec. at 3. Although the applicant completed a " wildlife study," no habitat management plan pursuant to RMC 4--5-120(D) has been created. D. The SMP Governs Development On the Site May ('reek is a Shoreline of the State, governed by Renton's Shoreline Master Prograin. RMC 4-3-090 (E). The portion of May Creels on the site is designated as "conservancy" by the City, meaning that activities are severely curtailed, and the impacts of any activity on water quality must be mitigated- RMC 4-3-090(G)(I)(3). The City has erroneously concluded in its FRC Report that because the development is outside of the NOTICE OF APPEAL - 17 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (246) 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 I buffer zone, "the subject project would not be subject to SMA or SMP regulations at this 2 tune." ERC Report at 6 of 16. But RMC 4-3-090 (K)(2)(a) unequivocally provides that, 3 The potential effects on water quality, water and land vegetation, water life and 4 other wildlife (including, for example, spawning areas, migration and circulation habits, natural habitats, and feeding), soil quality and all other environmental 5 aspects must be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility which 6 may have detrimental effects on the environment. 7 The property is subject to SNIP regulations, and the project must be evaluated by City staff for compliance. Moreover, the Applicant has completed a wetland/stream study, 9 which is referenced in the MDNS and ERC Report. However, City staff advised 1.0 Appellants that they "did not have" the study, and could not provide it for review. 11 12 Appellant requests a copy of the study, and a continuance of the portion of the hearing 13 rcler ant to it in order to review and provide informed comment. 14 1 � E. An EIS is Required 15 The MDNS should be reversed and an EIS required. if a development proposal is M "likely to have probable significant adverse environmental impacts," SEPA mandates that 17 18 the reviewing agency "shall issue a determination of significance requir-ng that an EIS be 19 11 prepared." RCW 43.2 1 C.030(2)(c); RCW 43.21C-031; WAC 197-11-360. Where there is 20 11 doubt whether a probable significant adverse impact exists, the SEPA threshold 21 determination must be in favor of preparing an environmental impact statement: 22 The policy of the act, which is simply to assure via "a 23 detailed staternent" a full disclosure of environmental information, so that environmental matters can be given 24 proper consideration during decision making, is thwarted 25 whenever an incorrect "threshold determination" is made. 26 27 28 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 18 GENIXER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone! 12061621-8868 Fax_ (246) 621-0512 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .Mor wzv Hill Prescrrution and Protection Assoc_ v. King Counly, 87 Wn.2d 267, 273, 552 Ptd 674 (1970). A "probable significant adverse effect" exists whenever more than a "moderate effecl on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability." Id. at 287. According to the SEPA rules: Significance involves context and intensity — The context may vary with the physical setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of' the impact. The severity of an impact should be vreighcd along with the likclihood of its accurrerlcc. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe- if it occurred. WAC 197-11-794(2). As one SEPA commentator has noted: SEPA ultimately strives to avoid crlvironnaental degradation, to preserve and c� en enhance environmental quality by requiring the actions of state and locai government agencies to be basad on sufficient env-ironmcntat information and to be in accord with Sl-PI`A's substantive policies. Settic, Richard, T'hc 14 a.shv7gton Staw Enr,ironinenlal Policy Act, § 14.01, p- 1.4-2 to 14-3 (Release 15, 200 3) citing RCW 43.21 C.0 t 0, .026, and .030. While SFPA itself sloes not compel environmentally wise choices, its ultimate purpose, and the purpose of an EIS, is to provide decision -makers with all relevant mfomiation about the potential envirorunental consequences of their actions and to provide a basis for a reasoned judgment that balances the benefits of a proposed project against its potential adverse effects- Citizen Alliance to Protect Our Wetlands v. City of Auburn, 126 Wn-2d 336, 362, 894 P.2d 1300. Consistent with this purpose, SEPA mandates governmental bodies consider the total environmental and ecological factors to the fullest in deciding major matters." NOTICE OF APPEAL - 19 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax; (206) 621-0512 �9 sr 6 8 9 1.0 11 12 13' 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Eastlake (.omni'ty Coun. v- Roanoke Assocs., 82 Wn.2d 475, 490 (1.973). These considerations must be integrated into governmental decisiotunaking processes so that "presently unquantified enviromnental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical consideration." RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(b); Eastlake, at 492. The environmental impact statement (EIS) must "accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes" so that officials Will use it in making decisions, RCW 43.21C.030(2)(d), WAC 197-11-655. SEPA's ultimate quest has been described as ensuring "environmentally enlightened governinent decision making. Settle, Richard; The fflashington State I Tzviromnental Policy Act, § 14.01(2)(b), p. 14-48 (Release 15, 2003). At least two relevant factors must be considered: (1) the extent to which the action will cause adverse cilvironnlentat effects in excess of those created by existing uses in the area, and (2) the absolute quantitative adverse environmental effects of the action itself, including the cumulative harm that results from its contribution to existing adverse conditions or uses in the affected area_ Norivay Hill, 87 Wn.2d at 277, 552 P.2d at 680. A governmental action is "major," for purposes of RCW 43.210.030 if it is discretionary and nonduplicative. ASARCO v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 701, 601 P.2d 501, 512 (1979). The Master Site Plan proposal for Hawk's Landing satisfies the criteria in ASARCO. The plans approval and issuance of the MDNS is a "Major Action," since it is discretionary, and nonduplicative of any other approval_ RMC 4-9-200(E). An argument that an EIS is unnecessary because there is no change in the amount of impervious surface on the site will fail. Action which results in the continuance of GENTLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattfe, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621.8868 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 20 Fax: (2061621-0512 1 7 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1� 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 envrironlnciltal degradation froth existing pollutant sources will require an impact statennent on the same basis as actions resulting III a change in the status quo. ASARCO v. Ai1- Oualiq, Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501, 515 (1979). 111 ASARCO, a smelter requested a variance that would allow it to continue operating. The court held that even 0101-Igh there was no change in the status quo of pollutants emitted, the action still required all I:1S. In this case, even if there were no changes in water flow, allowing stormwater to continue to enter n1,ay Creek, and groundwater to infiltrate into Quendatl Terminals, continues the pace of pollutant emissions. The impacts must be studied. There are probable, significant adverse environinental impacts to the project. I11Lreflslniy. perVious surface and constructing a rain garden will significantly increase groundwater infiltration -- up to a rate of 3,570-7,140 gallons per day, Massman Dec. at 11 S. Groundwater flows downhill to the Quendall 'Terminals site- Ic1_ at 119. QUendall Terminals J7ot]utes Lake 1Vashington through groundwater flow. Att. F, Washington Dept of Ecology III fornlation; Massman Dec. at J� 10. The human and wildlife health impacts of increased 1'olvcyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Benzene, Toluene; Ethyl I3etlzene, and Xylene in the Lake and potentially affecting nearby wells and public swvlmrning beaches are significant. Att. H, ATSDR Report. . Moreover, there is a significant change in the character of' surface water flow. Currently, the site is an abandoned lumber mill. Water flows across clean pavement and into May Creek. Once the site is developed, 240 cars every day will be depositing oil, rubber, and other toxins onto the parking lot. Waste from the kitchens of the restaurant, and runoff from pesticides and fertilizer from landscape maintenance, and other debris from 'TOTICE OF APPEAL - 21. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 28141 Phone: (206( 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 pressure washing, painting, concrete scaling, and other construction and maintenance activities will be added to May Creek. F, In the Altcrnative the MDNS Should Be Reversed For Completion of the Stomiwater Management Plan To reach a threshold deters-nination that a proposal will not significantly affect the quality of the enviroornent, Renton "must consider the various enviromnental factors even it if concludes that the action does not significantly affect the environment and therefore does not require an EIS." Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn,2d 78, 83, 569 Ptd 712 (1917). Ari incorrect threshold determination, made in the absence of complete information, thwarts SEPA's purpose to ensure that the full disclosure of environmcntal information infonxls the government's decision-making process. Id. at 84. Consequently, an agency that issues a DNS must demonstrate "that environmentat factors were considered in a manner sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Juanita Bay Valley Cnity. Ass'n v. Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73, 510 P.2d 1140 (1973). In this case, the City has acknowledged that stormwater must be controlled, and has noted that: The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary [of] the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalks, plazas) and pervious area {grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks banding Hotel is NOTICE OF APPEAL - 22 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8668 Fax: {2061621.0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no snore than .1 cfs bcM een the suer of the dcvelopcd 100 -year peak flows and the pic-developed {existing} 100 -year peak flows using the KCRTS niodel. 4117NS Advisory Notes at p. 3 of 5. On any development site, the failure toconsider storinwater in anything more than a cursory fashion would merit reversal. This site is located next to a Superf1111d site " ith toxins oozing via groundwater directly into Lake Washington, and the failure to consider the impacts of increased and differently -located pervious surface. area, lh,e removal of groinldNvater-absorbing mature trees, and the addition of a rain garden plus an unspecified number and amount of drainage control features has deprived Renton's decisionrnakers of the opportunity to fully consider the environmental implications of approving the NI—ister Site Plan and issuing the MDNS. Storrrlwater mitigation mcasul , vary dramatically in scope and effect on groundwater. Att. 1, excerpts from 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Depending on the type of storinwatcr management measurc chosen, the impacts to groundwater can vary from slight, i f- a surface -flow measure such as a pipe to May Creek is chosen, to significant, if an infiltration measure such as a vault is chosen. Applicant's argument to the City that no stormwater drainage plan is required because stor nwater flow will not be changed is unsupported by the record. First, as described above, both Renton's code and the King County Surface Water Design Manual require a storrnwater plan. Moreover, as the ERC Report notes, "comments from the City's Development Services Division indicate that flow control, water quality treatment, and conveyance system improvements would be required." ERC Report at p. 8 of 16. Further,. during construction a massive "dewatering" plan will be in place to drain the site, GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 23 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: 1206)621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1-� 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and dewatering will continue post -construction, Att. D, 2009 Geotechnical Report; Att E, 1991 Geotechnical Report; ERC Report at 6 of 16. Each of those activities will affect surface flow to May Creek, and increase or otherwise alter groundwater flow to the adjacent Superfund site. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons argued herein, the MDNS and Master- Site Plan should be reversed. Dated this 17th day of July, 2009. S0011 F.nd Gives Back(Den)1Notice of,lppeal 7 17 09 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 24 Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: _ Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax. 12061 621-0612 a 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 C) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2.3 24 25 26 27 28 A B C D Index of Attachments ,:iM C01.0711' S'ah?zon lValchel-Program, ,'flay C?-eck Shade 0-usade: If7iy City Trees .4re Good llfcdicinc Infiltration Through Compacted Urhan Soils and Effects ori Binfrltratio11 Design 2009 Geotechnical Report 1991 Ceoteclimcal Engineering Study Washington Dept of Ecology, Quendall Terminals hif conation U.S. EPA Enviroll.rIlental Fact Sheet ATSDR, Public Health Assessment for Qriendall Terminals Excerpts from 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manua] Excerpts fS-OCn the 2005 King County Surface Wager- Design Manual, App. C Technical lnforniation Report Photograph of chernical seep NOTICE OF APPEAL - 25 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: {2061621-8866 Fax: 12061621-0512 ATTACHMENT A ►J I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUL 3 12009 �118til l:, BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } Case No, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H } SFOR, a Washington non-profit ) Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an ) HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT individual and citizen of Renton, ) Petitioners, ) I. INTRODUCTION South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) provide this hearing brief to suppleincnt the legal argument in the Notice of Appeal filed in this matter. Appellants adopt the Notice of Appeal by reference. The matter should be reversed for the reasons argued therein, and because a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required but has not been sought. II, SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF PACTS AND ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT A. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is Required in the Notice of Appeal, SEGB raised as an issue that Renton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applied to the site, and requested that City staff review the project for HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 1 GENOLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061621-886B Fax: (206) 621-0512 (C(alpy 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 141 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 compliance. A closer review reveals that an SSDP is required, and that the applicant should be required to provide additional information on the applicant's earth movement and landscaping plans next to Conservancy -Shoreline designated May Creek. The applicant has completed a Technical Information Report (T1R), and a Wetland and Stream Study. Both of those documents demonstrate that an SSDP is required, and show that further information is needed to determine if the applicant's plans comply with Renton's SMP. Applicant Spencer Alpert (Applicant) has applied for a Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. The proposal would involve constructing new buildings approximately 248 feet from May Creek, but would also involve demolishing existing structures, and disturbing earth, within a short distance of the Creek's Ordinary High Water Mark (DHWM), See Att. A, Technical Information Report (TIR), at 4; Att. B, WetlandfStreain Study, at 3. Renton's Shoreline Master Program requires an SSDP whenever substantial development is proposed within 200 feet of the OIIWM of May Creek, RCW 90.58,140; SIv1P § 2.02, 9.38. "Substantial development" is that costing greater than $2500 to construct.SMP § 2.02, 9.38, RCW 90.58,030, In this case:, although the hotel structure is planned for slightly farther than 200 feet from the OHWM, the existing site consists of "four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated landscaping." Att. A at 5; Figure A-7. Currently, buildings, debris, and other impervious surface comes to within a few feet of May Creek, Att. A, TIR, HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suitt, 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phane: 12061 621-8868 Fax: t206) 621-0$72 t i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181 19 20 21 22 23 PAR 25 26 27 28 Figure A-7; Ex. 16 to Envirorunental Review Committee Report (ERC Report). During construction, the "existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/reused and removed from the site." Att. A, TIR, at 5; Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 3. There is no detail on what wil l happen with the Site once the buildings are removed — no detail on whether impervious surface will be left, whether the site will be left in bare earth and thus subject to erosion, and whether and what type of landscaping will be provided right next to May Creek. See Att. A, TIR, at Att. A-4, showing blank space next to May Creek:. Since the applicant proposes a hotel, it is unlikely that the concrete and debris will remain in view of guest rooms. Instead, it is probable that the applicant will be landscaping; the applicant's Technical Information Report discusses "hydroseeding" among other landscape activities. Att. A, TIR, at 16. Thus, although the buildings will be located greater than 200 feet from the Creek, the "substantial development" extends nearly to the water's edge- The applicant's landscaping must preserve May Creek in "essentially [its] native state." RMC 4-3- 090(I)(1). La .dscaping "should be representative of the indigenous character of the specific type[] of waterway." SMP § 6.05.01. May Creek is a Renton Shoreline, designated as "conservancy" for the portion passing next to the development site. RMC 4-3-090(I). Neither the TIR nor the Wetland/Stream Study have any information on the type of landscaping, other than a mention of hydroseeding. Hydroseeding suggests that the applicant intends to use entirely inappropriate non-native lawn grass, right up to the edge of May Creck. HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 3 GENOLER & MANN, LEP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061621-8868 Fax: 1206)621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Knowinn what the applicant proposes to do on the banks of May Creek and ensuring that it is in keeping with Renton's SMP is key to preserving this shoreline of the City. Decreasing water flow through removing surface water flow and planting the shore of May Creek with an invasive non-native grass, subject to pesticides and fertilizers which will flow unobstructed into the waterway, could have disastrous consequences for the shoreline's health. Landscaping must be "representative of the indigenous character of the specific type of waterway." Renton SMP § 6.06.01. The applicant provides no detail on what type of plants will be placed; its reference to "hydroseeding" makes it probable that the applicant plans to spray golf -course style non-native grass onto this sensitive environmental area. The SSDI' must address numerous areas of concern under Renter's Shoreline Master Program. In addition to native plants, stream flow must be addressed. Currently, storrnwater flow runs to May Creek over impervious surface. Although unclear, it is probable that the development project will decrease flow to May Creek based upon the increase in pervious surface and subsequent decrease in surface water flow. As the SMP provides, "[s]tream alteration is the relocation or change in the flow of a river, stream or creek." SMP § 7.16.01, Stream alteration is only allowed if it is designed by an appropriately Sate licensed professional engineer, and "will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic life." SMP 7.16.03. In this case, the applicant has blown Off any impacts on May Creek by noting without analysis that the impervious surface will be less than before, and that the new buildings will be more than 50 feet away from the OHWM. But even the applicant admits the importance of this creek to wildlife in Renton; it is reported to be used HEARNG BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fuu(lh Avenue, Suite 1015 Searle, WA 96101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 by Chinook and Sockeye salmon, winter steethead and cutthroat trout. Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 6. Terrestrial species benefit Froin May Creek, too., according to the applicant, "[t]he riparian area provides excellent feeding an cover habitat for birds, including woodland hawks and passerine species." Irl., at 7. Similarly, a variety of mammals use May Creek — and are adapted to and dependent on its current flow and vegetation. An SSDP should be required, describing and limiting the impacts of this massive project on May Creek. I11. CONCLUSION For the reasons argued herein and in the Notice of Appeal, the MDNS and Master Site Plan should be reversed, and an SSDP required. Dated this 31" day of July, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GEND LER & MANN, L P lrF f 1yA�j ti `'� 6 �p By, Keith P. Scully. WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants \South End Give; Sack(Den)Aleaeing Brief of Appellant FTNA[- 7 3109 HEA -RING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 5 GENALER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seavle, WA 98141 Phone: 12061621-8865 Fax: 12061 621-0512 a'7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, } SA -H SEGB, a Washington non-profit } Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL individual and citizen of Renton, } EVIDENCE Petitioners, } I. NOTICE South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) provide this notice and attaclunents of additional evidence to be introduced at the hearing in this platter. The evidence consists of five newspaper articles discussing Quendall Terminals, and is offered in support of Section III (B) and (E) of SEGB's Notice of Appeal. Dated this 4th day of August, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attomeys for Appellants GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1415 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE - I [ED Phone: 1206) 1-05168 nn'�x: (2461 627 0512 ATTACHMENT A L A Chemical Stew That Has Been Brewing For Years By Keith Ervin Seattle rm?r 's Eastside Bureau -The most extensive contamination at Port Quendall is on the Quendall Terminals property where, from 1916 to 1969, Reilly Tar and Chemical barged in wastes from the Lake Union gas works and converted them into creosote and tar for roofing and paving. Residues from chemical vats were routinely dumped on the ground, and a 1937 barge spill reportedly sent more than 30,000 gallons of cancer-causing chemicals into the sediments of Lake Washington. In 1955, J.H. Baxter & Co. set up shop next door. For the next 26 years, the Baxter plant used creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat wood products. In addition to the chemicals spilled at the Reilly property, contaminants at the Baxter site include an extremely toxic group of PCP byproducts known as dioxins and furans (but apparently not the worst dioxin of all, 2,3,7,8, - TCDD). In the most -polluted lake sediments at the Baxter property, scientists found one kind of sponge in unusual numbers - and an abnormally low number of other invertebrate species. When researchers exposed shrimpiike amphipods to the polluted muck, all of the animals died. Although ground water continues to carry toxic chemicals into Lake Washington, state Department of Ecology officials believe the site can be cleaned up enough to ensure the safety of humans and of fish and other species in the lake. The department classifies Port Quendall in the most -hazardous category of contaminated industrial sites. Cleanup could entail removing some of the most -contaminated material to a hazardous -waste iandtill, covering other pollutants and treating polluted ground water. Men's environmental consultants have told Ecology officials they hope to limit cleanup costs to $12 million by doing "twofers" - two-for-one measures that isolate chemicals in the course of doing paving or landscaping that would enhance development. ��;�,•,�;,€�� .tit ��t' ::>euttit: s�it�:� �;oiy�p�,np ATTACHMENT B P-s�3-_,i1 artier. 5 Print view Paul Allen's Renton Deal: A Familiar Style And Scope By ,lames Vesely Times Associate Editorial Page Editor PAUL Alien's other large project is still a fallow field on the shores of Lake Washington, close to southbound 405 as the land slopes to the water that forms the channel between Renton and Mercer Island. This place has the perfect imagery for a novelist or historian_ On one of the last local sites where Northwest logs are boomed together and floated to market, Allen is planning a $500 million office campus for the region's high-technology boom. On 60 acres, partially occupied by the Barbee Lumber Company of Renton, Allen's planning and development companies are scoping out Port Quendall, where - if things mesh - 8,000 people will go to work each day. Lots of obstacles can make the project stall - lack of government road money, lack of environmental permitting, lack of time and cooperation from a covey of departments and agencies. A preliminary EIS by the city of Renton partially funded by Allen is not on schedule; in fact, it's at least six weeks behind. But the Allen group has the perseverance of lava. The project also has all the earmarks of an Allen endeavor, in some ways the Eastside equivalent to the Seahawks stadium project. if the scale is different, the methodology is much the same. For those not acquainted with the Eastside's introduction to the Allen vision, Port Quendall is a plan for a modular office complex which will be the home hive for a variety of Allen companies. One easy Eastside reference is that Port Quendail will be three and half times larger than Kirkland's Carillon Point, Like Carillon Point, Port Quendall will have a central plaza and buildings terraced down to the water's edge overlooking a small marina. It's an expression of current Northwest workstyle - a place where it's hard to distinguish between a work office and office at home. Where now the waters lap at log booms the size of helicopter pads, the shoreline will be returned to pedestrians and May Creek restored to salmon runs. The Reilly Tar and Chemical Co. which operated from 1900 to 1970 is being replaced by the information age. Hard work will be done here, but no more by calloused hands. The development plan calls for over two million square feet of rentable office space, accommodating 10,000 cars but with a relentless timetable. Allen's developers say they need to secure their land options by November, start construction by July of next year and occupancy in 1999. The real beauty of the plan is that parts of the site are hideously dirty. For decades, these quiet snores on Lake Washington have been awash in polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons left over from creosote, the stuff they use to coat railroad ties and telephone polls. In a less illuminated time, the tar residue from Seattle's gas works at the north end of Lake Union was shipped to Renton and there put on fresh logs and into the ground beneath them. Allen's role in Port Quendall becomes one of benefactor-deveioper, in many ways a mirror to his image as benefactor -buyer of the Seahawks. The posture of the Allen group toward the Renton development has the ring of recognition to it: enormous benefits in exchange for prompt governmental action. In the case of Port Quendall, somebody must improve the exits from 405 for $30 to $40 million and build a 50 -foot high overpass crossing into the property. The Paul Allen companies are willing to pay a share, but right now, the state's Department of Transportation has no money set aside for its share "The current transportation studies can lead to four or five funding sources, including the Paul Allen group," said Jeffrey Graves of Vulcan Northwest Inc. But no expedited transportation money means no development, no 8,000 jobs, no coal tar cleanup. Local governments have almost no resistance to such a message. Renton's economic development director Susan Carlson said Part Quendall "literally changes the face of Renton. It's pivotal." In hot pursuit, Renton is asking the state legislature to approve $500,000 for a study required before federal transportation funds start flowing. An increase in the state gas tax would also be extremely beneficial to the project, which adds to the momentum for the tax. To further make their point, Allen's group added a turn of the vise by buying 20 acres in Issaquah as a back-up site in case the permitting is unavailable in Renton. Perhaps this portrait casts Paul Allen and his managers in too cold a light. Without Allen, the Port Quendall piece of Lake Washington shoreline would remain a low -rung lumber operation condemned by environmental slime to a twilight of industrial use. Allen can fix that by infusing top-notch talent into planning and building a gem of a project. The Allen companies can, and do, present a product as friction free as anything produced by long -gone Reilly Tar. There is a smoothness to their presentations that calms all doubt. A walk across May Creek shows a clear -running stream with tire and other junk in the water. Allen's engineers will clean all that up, and are working with the Muckleshoots on salmon restoration for the tribe's fishing rights just offshore. It's always a case of a bird in the hand, isn't it? And if this bird should fly, Renton may never get its own Carillon Point. All it takes is to give Paul Allen the money. James Vesely's column focusing on Eastside issues appears Mondays on editorial pages of The Times. acp+rr it ai h-,) '1997 Suttle Times Company, All Rights Reserved ATTACHMENT C A Dream Site Or A Nightmare? -- Port Quendall Toxic Cleanup May Be Too Much, Even For Paul Allen By Keith Ervin Seattle rimes Eastside Susiness Reporter RENTON - In many ways, Port Quendall is a developer's dream. Nestled along a mile of shoreline, its fib acres are zoned for just about everything - offices, homes, stores, hotels, a marina - on a big scale. But the largest developable property left on Lake Washington is also one of the most contaminated sites in the state, one that has dashed the dreams of a string of developers over the past 22 years. For more than six decades, the site was the center of creosote production, and residues from chemical vats were routinely dumped on the ground. Now, the latest and wealthiest developer - multibillionaire Paul Allen - may also walk away from the site. Allen's options to buy the land expire Nov. 4, and he is expected to decide soon whether to move ahead with his mega -project at Port Quendall or move his companies' headquarters to a more modest backup site in Issaquah "It's going to be difficult for anybody to do it if he can't," says Renton's economic -development director, Sue Carlson. "We don't want it to sit for another 50 years spilling oil." If Allen walks, it would be a disappointment to Carlson and other city officials who view him as their best hope for developing this troubled property and transforming blue-collar Renton into a world-class technology center. It also would be a blow to the state Legislature and Department of Ecology, which have spent more than a decade streamlining procedures for cleaning up toxic wastes and redeveloping industrial "brownfields" like this. What a difference a year has made. Allen electrified Renton and neighboring Newcastle last year with the announcement that he had optioned four large properties in the Kennydale area for a corporate campus ranging from 2 million to 3 million square feet. His plans envisioned a $500 million to $700 million development with up to 10,000 workers in offices, a hotel and conference center, restaurants and stores, along with trails and public open space between Interstate 405 and Lake Washington. As the months passed, however, the difficulty of developing the land has become apparent once again. Alien's number crunchers determined the cost of environmental cleanup and road improvements ',vis too'high 10 support the original plan. They went back to the drawing board to see if they could eiirninate $40 million of new freeway interchanges by replacing many of the pla,,hned offices with multifamily housing. Allen could become the latest in a parade of developers who have walked away from the property. The Skinner Corp., which built Kirkland's tony Carillon Point, nearly bought the Port Quendall site in 1989 or 1990, but backed away because of uncertainties about what kind of environmental cleanup the Department of Ecology would require. "Not only could they not tell you what the cost would be, they couldn't tell you when they would know what the cost would be," says Judd Kirk, who developed Carillon Point in Kirkland for Skinner and who now is president of Port Blakely Communities. "That's a double whammy. When you invest that kind of money, you have to be able to project what your costs are." Kirk envisioned Port Quendall as "another Carillon Point," but much larger and with a mix of more homes and fewer offices. The vision of a large waterfront development dates to 1972, when the Cugini and Baxter families formed a partnership to buy the Quendall Terminals property, where the Reilly Tar and Chemical Co. had produced creosote for 63 years, Each family owned a property adjacent to Quendall Terminals. The Cuginis operate the Barbee Mill, the last sawmill on Lake Washington, and sort logs on the former Reilly property. J.H. Baxter & Co. ran a wood -treatment plant on the other side of Reilly. Combining their three properties, the Cugini and Baxter families assembled a remarkable 60 -acre tract of lakefront property zoned for a mix of uses. (Allen's plan would enlarge the property to 68 acres by adding the Pan Abode Cedar Homes property.) "It's a beautiful site," says Robert Cugini, vice president of the company and grandson of its founder. "There are not any like it in the area." With the property's panoramic view of boats in the Lake Washington East Channel, the forested hillsides of Mercer Island and the southern tip of Seattle, it's hard to argue with him. Two developers - Don Koli Northwest followed by James Schuler's Port Quendall Development - started working on plans for a megadevelopment in 1976. Schuler won approval from the Renton City Council in 1982. But the plan was stalled by the toxic -contamination problem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency didn't decide until 1986 whether the cleanup would be supervised by the federal or state government. The state assumed jurisdiction, but contamination continued to be a stumbling block for developers. Carlson's description of contaminants as "oil" is a charitable term. Two industrial plants operating between 1916 and 1981 left a legacy of cancer-causing chemicals in the soil, groundwater and lake sediments. After such a long history of failed development attempts, it's no surprise that state and city officials are eager to see the toxic mess cleaned up by a developer with pockets as deep as Paul Allen's. No one yet knows just how much it will cost to clean up the contamination or improve 1-445 access to the site. Nor is it known just how much public money might be thrown into the pot along with a developer's capital. Cost estimates range upward of $20 million to deal with the chemicals and $40 million to $84 milfron for road work and a transit center. The Legislature has tried to speed up redevelopment of industrial "brownfields" by allowing officials to strike deals with developers who, like Allen, don't yet own the property. Cleaning up contaminated, idle land like the Reilly and Baxter parcels is exactly what the Legislature had in mind when it modified the Model Toxics Control Act's brownfields provisions last year, notes Assistant Attorney General Tanya Barnett. City officials likewise see opportunities for economic growth and transportation improvements. A development the size of Part Quendall would hasten construction of a regional -transit center and direct -access ramps to car -poo! Panes on 1-405 - at far less cost than in fully developed areas, according to Renton's transportation planning manager, Lee Haro. The Port Quendall transportation plan also calls for bike and pedestrian trails along the waterfront, possible ferry service and shuttle buses around the campus. "We think this is an exciting regional opportunity to do a demonstration of land use and transportation working together to support the transit system," says Haro. It might seem that those most concerned about the possibility of an Allen pullout would be the property owners, Not so, according to Cugini. He would like Allen to develop the property. But if Allen doesn't, the Cugini and Baxter families are prepared to complete the environmental studies they've been funding for years - and then Cugini expects them to do the cleanup. "I've always envisioned, and it was always my plan," he says, "to slowly develop the site ourselves. Mr. Allen approached us, not the other way around." Publicity about Allen's project has brought other potential development partners to his door, Cugini says. With the valuable land already in hand, most of the environmental surveying completed, Ecology officials clearer about what they expect, a continuing revenue stream from the sawmill, and developers interested in the property, Cugini is biding his time. Robert Gugini figures Paul Wen's lass might just prove to be his family's gain. Keith Ervin's phone message numbcr is 206-515-5632. His e-mail address is: kerv- new@seatimes.con i----------------------------------------------------------------- Port Quendall; a difficult site to develop Eighty years of pollution to clean up Until now, efforts to redevelop the industrial site known as Port Quendall have failed because of the highly cost of cleaning up toxic, Likely transportation improvements The latest would-be developer, Paul Allen, has found that transportation costs will be high if the site is developed. Among necessary changes, 1-405 would have to be widened to accommodate a transit stop and direct HOVE access. ATTACHMENT D EPA proposes Lake Washington shoreline in Renton for Superfund U,f (A otjiicl �c{sing;ss journal (Seattle) print • �f`1�11 ■ ;:_:; Fee�f Related News • Cordish partners with Blazers on Portland development • Seattle Symphony's Schwarz chosen as 2048 First Citizen Ati eo names ex -M s ace Vulcan execs to board • Paul Allen's philanthrop'sc philosophy is driven by intense interests in discovery and Icarninq. Retailers say interest rernains strong in high-end stones- Costco sells $225,000 diamonds The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed adding Quendall Terminals, a former creosote formulating plant on the Lake Washington shoreline in Renton, to its Superfund National Priorities List. The list contains the nation's most seriously contaminated hazardous waste sites. The EPA said the listing proposal is designed to spur active cleanup of the site. "We believe Superfund is an effective legal tool in getting seriously contaminated property cleaned up," said Dan Opalski, director of EPA's Superfund cleanup office in Seattle. "Experience has shown that by simply proposing or listing a site on the NPL, amazing progress can be made to move site cleanup forward." The EPA said preliminary investigations show extensive contamination of the soil, groundwater and nearby lake sediments v rith cancer-causing chemicals. The chemicals are concentrated "well above cleanup levels for both industrial and residential sites," the EPA said. "Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington -- a popular recreation spot for both residents and tourists -- are of particular concern." Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp. and its predecessors made creosote at the 23 -acre site from 1917 to 1969. In 1971, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals, a joint venture of J.H. Baxter and Co. and Altino Properties Inc. Ownership remains the same loday, despite interest in recent years in redeveloping the site by the city of Renton and Vidcan Inc., Paul Allen's investment and development company. The .EPA said a 6o -day public comment period has started and will end Nov. 14. After that, and assuming the site is listed, the agency's first step is to e -valuate all previous ent-ironmcntal studies done at the site to determine whether an appropriate cleanup alternative is available. ATTACHMENT E Renton project may collapse amid squabbling By Luke Timmermair Seattle Times Eastside business reporter Paul Allen is used to doing pretty much as he wishes, but he has not been able to fulfill his vision for an immense office and residential development in Renton on Lake Washington's shore. After four years of studies and complex maneuvering, a Renton official and a key landowner say Allen's idea to build the $500 million mixed-use development at Port Quendall is in jeopardy. Allen's people don't use such bleak language, but a volatile situation clearly has emerged since June. That's when the city of Renton abandoned an option to buy and clean up a chunk of the site that's highly contaminated with industrial waste - a move that shifts liability for the estimated $20 million cleanup back onto the private landowners. Although the city still could end up paying for the cleanup through state or private grants and loans, it is now in a serious squabble with one of the current owners, the Cugini family. Tensions escalated further this week when the family, which owns the Barbee Mill on the site, sued the city for passing an emergency ordinance July 24 prohibiting the family from building on its 23 -acre property without approval from adjoining landowners. Robert Cugini says the ordinance knocks millions of dollars of value off the property, assessed at $16 million. Renton economic -development administrator Sue Carlson says the emergency ordinance is just a technical clarification of a 7 -year-old master -planning ordinance that encourages cooperative land -use planning. " 1 don't think this will stop anybody from developing; we just want to make sure it's done correctly," Carlson said. Cugini contends the city is trying to force him to acquiesce to Allen, who he said has offered him less than market value for his land. "This significantly reduces the value of our property," Cugini, vice president of Barbee Mill, said in a statement. "We feel it's an attempt to force us into a certain action." This latest round of saber -rattling around Port Quendall amplifies what had already been a delicate situation. The next steps are unclear. Cugini said he will still negotiate with Allen, and Allen's surrogates say they're continuing to work on the project for the "long term," while the city is still trying to shepherd the project along, Since June, city officials have told the landowners and Allen they want assurances before they pay for the cleanup. They want to be sure a development group such as Allen's will follow through on plans to build a $540 million gem of office. retail, residential and park space on 68 acres of Lake Washington shore. If the plans are fulfilled, the development could turn Renton from an industrial working-class town into a member of the Eastside glitterati. "Certainly the project we're envisioning is m Jeopardy," said Jay Covington, chief administrative officer for the city of Renton. "From our standpoint, we're waiting for a good word. a unified ^on rnitment from the property owners. If that happened, we cauld pick rip the baton." Whether that will happen is questionable, as the varied Port Quendall interests haven't meshed for 30 years. Allen's visfon generated some excitement in Renton four years ago, with plans for more than 1 million square feet of office space, hotels, more than 1,200 homes, and more than 650,000 square feet of retail space. To do that, Allen or another developer would need to purchase the remaining 40 acres of the 68 - acre property currently owned by the Cuginis and J.H. Baxter & Co. But before any development can happen, the land needs a serious cleanup. The contamination in the soil stems from when it was home to Reilly Tar and Chemical from 1916 to 1969. In those years, the land was used for refining coal tar for paving and preserving logs. Former workers at the site have told Department of Ecology officials of massive spills, underground pipe leaks and dumping of chemical residue on the ground. Although state Department of Ecology officials have tried to get the polluters to clean up their mess, Reilly's attorneys have successfully used a sale agreement from the early 1970s as a shield from responsibility, The Baxter company and the Cugini family argue they shouldn't be held responsible because they didn't create the mess or know the extent of the contamination when they bought the sand. Through the years since, numerous developers have ffirted with projects, but none has ever put a shovel in the ground. Part of that is because of a tangled web of interests. The Cugini family wants what it considers fair market value for the land, assessed at $16 million, but in need of a $7 million cleanup. If the price isn't right, they say they have a smaller development of their own in mind. The city already has rejected an application for that development. Much bigger pians are on the minds at Allen's Vulcan Northwest and a consortium of other companies it is working with. But the group doesn't want to pay for the brunt of the cleanup, or too much for the land, or for a new freeway interchange at Northeast 44th Street that could cost $60 million to $80 million. On the public side, the city of Renton has said it wants Allen to develop the property, and it wants the mile of shoreline for a new park. It doesn't want to commit to a cleanup and then watch him back out and allow a lesser development to swoop in. The state Department of Ecology has wanted the property cleaned up for decades, but it doesn't want to keep holding money for it forever while denying other deserving projects_ And the Legislature has been lobbied extensively by the city and by Allen's people for the expensive interchange, which may be a tough sell in the post -Initiative 695 era. Stiff, preliminary design work for the interchange is moving forward. Though no interested parties show signs of budging from their positions, Vulcan Northwest insists it will keep trying to make a deal happen, and it hasn't set any deadlines. "We want to provide more public access to the lake and a real mixed-use development in an urban area," said Larry Martin, vice president of real estate for Vulcan Northwest. "That is an appealing package of public and private benefits. Paul Allen and Vulcan Northwest are really motivated to make it happen." Some of that motivation could be seen in May, when Allen bought the northern 20 acres of the land, and agreed to pay for $6 million to $7 million for its cleanup. That move piqued some interest among Renton citizens, many of whom hadn't paid much attention since a series of public meetings four years ago. Neighbors who live near Port Quendall generally agree the place should be cleaned up --the state has given it a ranking as the highest risk to human health and the environment --but many are patient with the slow progress. Cugini said talks likely will break out of a holding pattern by the end of this year. "It's like a big weight about to tilt," Cugini said. "All of the parties have had enough time to examine the issues. There's been a ton of work done. It will either go or fall apart, I think, sometime fairly soon." Lake Timmerman`s phone message number is 206-515-5644. His email address is: Itif7?f??em7an@seattletin7es.com. wol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 I3 I4 Is 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal oI- SEGB and BRAD NICHOLSON frown a decision of the .Department of Cominimity and Economic Development. --- i I - () Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF I. INTRODUCTION There is one issue in this appeal: whether- the City of Renton's decision ("City's decision") to issue a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") with conditions for I' the proposal under review was clearly erroneous and requires the preparation of a full environmental impact statement ("EIS"), or requires remand back to the City for further study. The appellant, SEGB and Brad Nicholson ("appellant"), faces a heavy burden in showing that the City's decision was clearly erroneous. The appellant must overcome the substantial weight that is accorded the City's decision. The appellant must prove with affirmative evidence that the proposal will have a probable, significant adverse environmental impact. The appellant MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSF BRIEF - Page 1 of 11 701 Fifth Avenue, SLllLe 1,220 Seattle, Wnshiiigton 98104 206.812.3388 20012.3389 fax I must prove that the City of Renton ("City") has the authority to mitigate or deny a proposal for t any such impacts. And, the appellant must overcome the presumption that any adverse 3 environmental impacts are sufficiently mitigated by applicable City regulations. 4 As the evidence to be offered at the hearing will demonstrate, the appellant cannot meet 5 6 its burden. The appellant's appeal must be decried, and the City's decision must be affirmed. 7 It. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8 The facts contained in this section will be further established and supplemented by 9 evidence presented at hearing in. this matter. 10 On July 17, 2009, appellants South End Gives Back ("SEGB") and Brad. Nicholson filed 11 12 an appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued by the City of 13 Renton ("City") in connection with a .Master Site .Plan. Review and Site Plan Review for a five - 14 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel ("project"). The project would include retail space, a 15 fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant. The project site, consisting of 3.07 acres, is located at 16 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, the former site of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes. The 17 site is located north of May Creek (outside its 200 -foot shoreline buffer), west of 1-405, south of 18 19 all on -Tamp to 1.-405, and east of the Virginia Mason Athletic Center. The pralect would include 20 107 parking stalls in a parking structure below the hotel, and 124 SUI-facc parking spaces 21 The project proposes to demolish some portions of the existing buildings currently on the 22 project site, which include storage sheds and large warehouse buildings. No construction or 23 demolition will occur within 200 feet of May Creek. Access to the project would be provided 24 25 from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The main access to the site would be 26 located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. A secondary access 27 would be from the existing Parr Abode driveway at the northerly property lime of the project site 28 MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 2 of 11 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Mishington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1p ' 11 12 13 Em 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The project is located in the Commercial/Office/Residential ("COR") zone, and is within the Urban Design District "C" overlay. All development in a COR ;cone requires the submittal of a Master flan_ RM.0 4-9-200.B.1 _b. Master Plan review may occur prior to or concurrent with Site Plan approval. Id. The applicant decided to submit applications for both Master Plan and Site Plan approval. Both applications require a public hearing and approval by the Hearing Examiner. Approval by the Hearing Examiner for the Master Plan and Site flan has not yet occurred. As part of the Master Plan and Site Plan applications, the applicant was required to submit, and did submit.. the following documents; • Neighborhood detail leap • Existing conditions leap • Haw=k's Landing Master Site Plan • I-Iawk's Landing Site Plan • Site Dimension Plan • Tree Inventory Plan • Landscape Plan • Site Utility Plan • Grading Plan • East and Soutb Exterior Elevations and Graphics • West and North Exterior Elevations and Graphics • Hotel Floor Plans • Building Sections • Wetland/Stream Study/Habitat Assessmeat • Geotechnical Study • Drainage Control Plan/Drainage Report • Traffic Impact Analysis • Construction Mitigation Description • Deed of Right -of -Way .medication • Density Worksheet • Envirortniental Checklist • Existing Covenants and Easements • Flood Hazard Data • Conceptual and Detailed Grading Plan • Irrigation Plan APPLICANT'S RESPONSE .BPJE : - Page 3 of I I MCCULLOUGH HILL. PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WC tshington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fins 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 €5 16 17 Is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 • Improvement Deferrai • List of Surrounding Property Owners and Mailing Labels and Postage • Master Application Form • Assessor's Map and Legal Description • Monument Cards • Parking, Lot Coverage, and Landscaping Analysis • Plan Reductions • Preapplieation Meeting Summary • Screening Detail • Street Profiles • Title Report • Topographical Map • Urban Center Design Report The project required environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). RMC 4-9-070.G.3 requires that the City's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") issrae written comments for the City prior to the iSSLIance of a threshold determination under SEPA. The ERC issued its written comments for the project on Rune 22, 2009. Among other things, the comments included a recommendation that the project comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. On June 30, 2009, the City issued the MDNS for the project. The MDNS inco>iWrated all of the ERC's conditions, including compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 1111. ISSUE PRESENTED The only issue before the Examiner is whether the appellant has satisfied its burden to demonstrate that the City's issuance of the MDNS was ctearly erroneous. IV. ARGUMENT A. The standard of review is deferential. SEPA and the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") require the Hearing Examiner to give MCCULLOUGH HILL• PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BR1EF - Page 4 of 11 701 FiFth Avenue, Siete 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 W 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 substantial weight to the City's decision to issue an MDNS_ RCW 43.21C.090; RMC 4-8- 11 O.E.7. -8- 110.E.7. The burden is on the appellant to overcome the deference that the City's decision must be given. Brown v. Tacoma, 30 Wn. App. 762, 764, 637 P.2d 1005 (1981). Courts have interpreted this statutory mandate to require the application of the clearly erroneous standard when reviewing an agency's decision to issue an. MDNS. Murden Cove Preservation Assn. v. Kirsal7 County, 41 Wn. App, 515, 523, 704 P.2d 1242 (1985); Cougar iWountain Assn. v. King Count) 1 1 1 Wn.2d 742, 747-719, 764 P.2d 264 (1988); Indian Trail Property Owner'sAss'n. v. City of'Spokane, 76 Wn. App. 430, Y31, 886 P.2d 209 (19941), Under the clearly erroneous standard, reviewing bodies do not substitute their judgments for those of the agency and may invalidate the decision only when left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Cougar Mountain, supra, 1 11 Wn.2d at 747; Polygon Corp, v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 69, 578 P.2d 1309 (1978); Ass'n of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, 141 Wn.2d 185, 4 P.3d 115 (2000). B. The appellant ;must demonstrate that the project will have probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The appellant claims that the MDNS is inappropriate and a full EIS must be prepared, or the MDNS should be remanded for further study, because the project allegedly has significant adverse impacts on the environment. The appellant has thrown inconsistent claims at the applicant and at the City, hoping that one of its claims will stick. However, the appellant bears the burden of producing affirmative evidence of any such impacts. .Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711, 719-720 (2002); Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wu. App. 6, 31 P.3d 703 (2001). In Boehm, the Court rejected a challenge to an MDNS for a gas station associated with a Fred Meyer store. The appellant in that case argued that the project had significant adverse MCCULLouGH HILL. PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 5 of 11 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 Fax 1 2 3 2M 5 6 7 A 9 10 11 12 13 14 1i 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2s cumulative impacts. The Court rejected this claim, stating: "[w]hen the Boeluns complain of a failure to adequately identify or mitigate adverse impacts, they have produced no evidence that such impacts exist." Thus, the Court found the claimed impacts w be speculative, and rejected the appellant's claim. Boehm, 11 Wn. App. at 719-720. Similarly, in Moss, the Court upheld the issuance of a MNDS for a 79 -acre, 172 -lot subdivision. The Count emphasized the specific burden of proof borne by the appellants, stating that "[A]Ithough appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite to any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS." 109 Wn. App. at 23- 24. Boehm and Moss require an appellant to present affirmative evidence demonstrating the existence of a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Mere comiplain:s arc insufficient to satisfy an appellant's burden of proof in a SEPA appeal as a platter of law. As the evidence presented at the hearing will show, the appellant in this case cannot meet its burden. It cannot present affirmative evidence demonstrating the existence of a probable significant adverse environmental impact resulting from this Project. The appeal must therefore be denied and the City's decision must be affirmed. C. The appellant has failed to present affirmative evidence demonstrating the existence of a probable significant adverse environmental impact resulting from the project. The appellant claims that the MDNS should be reversed because impacts of the project will result in significant adverse stormwater and groundwater impacts. However. the appellant cannot cite to any evidence showing that such impacts will occur. Mere complaints o1' questions, without the production of affirmative evidence proving that the Hearing Examiner's Decision MCCULLOUGH HILL PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 6 of 11 741 Fifth Avenue, St&e 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 6 6, 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 was clearly erroneous, are insufficient to satisfy an appellant's burden of proof in a SEPA appeal as a natter of law. Boehm, I 1 Wn. App. at 719-720; Moss, 109 Wn, App. at 23-24. Appellant cannot satisfy its burden. It does not point to any evidence, or site -related studies or analyses, demonstrating the project has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Notice of Appeal, pp. 21-24. But merely raising questions about the City's review does not constitute `'evidence" or in any way demonstrate the likelihood of significant adverse impacts from the project. In this case, all substantial evidence contained in the record, and the supporting evidence to be submitted by respondents at hearing, show that applicant demonstrated foil compliance with SEPA and the Renton Municipal Code. The City reviewed the technical studies submitted by the applicant, and properly imposed conditions to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. At hearing it will remain clear that the project is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts to groundwater or from stormwater runoff. The appellant will not be able to meet its burden of proof. D. Appellant trust rebut the legal presumption that the project's adverse environmental impacts, if any, are already mitigated through compliance with applicable provisions of City, state and federal lay. SEPA specifically permits a jurisdiction to rely on its development regulations,. developed under the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), to address impacts under SEPA. In 1995, the State Legislature passed the Integration of Growth Management Planning and Environmental Review Act, Laws of 1995, ch. 437, recognizing GMA development regulations could, and should, be used to mitigate potential environmental impacts that were previously addressed through the SEPA process. This Act was intended to "avoid duplicative environmental analysis and substantive mitigation of development projects by assigning SEPA a MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 7 of 11 701 Fifth .Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 981014 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 12 13 14 15 16 rm 18 [9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 secondary role to ... systematic mitigation of adverse envirorunenial impacts thraugh local development regulations and other local, state, and federal enviroaunental laws." R.icharci L. Settle, The Washington Slate Environmental Policy,1a A Legal and Policy.4nalysis, App. E at 505(2006)- RM 05(2006)-RM 43.210.240, as implenlentcd by WAC 197-11-158, streamlines the enviromnental review process for cities and counties planning under the GMA by authorizing the SEPA official to rely on. existing plans, laws, and regulations in meeting SEPA requirements: In reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and freaking a threshold determination, a GMA county/city may, at its option, determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the GMA county/city's development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all of the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project. WAC 197-11-158(l). Similarly, the focal Project Review Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW, authorizes local governments to "determine that the requirements for environmental a«alysis and mitigation measures in development regulations and other applicable laws provide adequate mitigation for some or all of the project's specific adverse environmental impacts to which the requirements apply." RCW 36.70B.030. Thus, the Legislature has recognized it is sufficient, as a matter of law, for a SEPA document to rely on local, state or federal laws that address potential impacts. See Moss, 109 W n. App. at 22. Here, several conditions mitigating environanental impacts require compliance with existing local laws and regulations that have been adopted to address environmental impacts MCCr LLOUGH HILL. PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 9 of I l 701 IµiEth Avenue, Stene 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax n 1 2 3 a 5 6 8 9 to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 relating to eiements of the environinent at issue in this appeal. In particular, the project is required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual, which specifically addresses mitigating potential impacts regarding stormwater. Thus, not only must applicant demonstrate the project will have probable significant adverse impacts on the envirotunent. but it must also overcome the legal presumption that applicable regulations are already sufficient to mitigate such impacts. Moss, 109 Wn. App. at 22. As will be demonstrated at the hearing, the appellant cannot meet this burden. E. Several issues briefed and presented by the appellant are not properly before the Examiner. The appellant has brought claims in this appeal that are not properly before the Examiner. The appellant has requested reversal of the "Master Site Plan" (Notice of Appeal, p. 13).' As the Examiner knows, the applications for a Master Plan and Site Plan Approval are considered by the Hearing Examiner following the close of the open record public hearing required for these applications. RMC 4-9-200.D. The only decision that has been appealed by the appellant is the issuance of the MDNS. Thus, any issues connected to the Master Plan or Site Plan Approval are not properly before the Examiner in this appeal and must be disregarded. In addition, the appellant has alleged that the applicant did not submit all of the items required for approval of a Master Plan or a Site Plan Approval (Notice of Appeal, pp. l 3, 16). Again, the appellant's claims regarding the ]Master flan and Site Plan Appi,cival aro ;;oi in this proceeding: no decision has been made on these applications, and the only decision under ' The appellant has Enistakenly called the required application a "Master Site Plan." In fact, individual applications for both a Master Plan and a Site Plan Approval have been subcnitted by the applicant, to be considered by the Examiner following the close of the open record public hearing. MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 9 of 11 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.$12.3388 206.812.3389 fax I appeal here is the MDNS. Such issues must be disregarded by the Examiner.2 In fact, all '- evidence presented at the open record public hearing will show that the Master Plan and Site 3 Plan Approval applications comply with all applicable approval criteria. 4 F. Allegations regarding a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit are not properly before the Examiner. 6 The appellant has alleged that the project should have obtained a Shoreline Substantial 7 Development Permit ("SSDP"), because the project allegedly involves work within 200 feet of s 9 the shoreline of May Creels. This is simply not the case_ All evidence to be presented at the 10 hearing will show that no work will occur within 200 feet of the shoreline of May Creek. I I Nevertheless, whether an SSDP should be required is not an issue that is properly before 12 the Examiner in this proceeding. The appellant alleges that the project faits to comply with 13 Renton's Shoreline Master Program ("SMP"). (Hearing Brief, p. 1). However, the Hearing 14 Examiner has no jurisdiction to consider this claim in this SEPA appeal proceeding. In this 15 16 appeal Proceeding, the only issue properly before the Examiner is the City's determination to 17 issue a MDNS for the project. 18 Irl the event that the City requires an SSDP due to development in the shoreline (which I9 will not be necessary for this project since it is outside of the shoreline), the applicant must 20 2t comply with the SMP. But compliance with the SMP is not at issue in this proceeding. In 22 addition, if the built project does not comply with the SMP, the City of Renton has an established 23 process to deal with such a scenario. If the City determines that a landowner has violated the 24 SMP, an enforcement action may be initiated against a landowner. See RMC 4-9-190.P. 25 26 22 ' In addition, the applicant will show at the open record public hearing for the Master Plan and Site Plate Approval that it meets the approval criteria. 28 MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 10 of I l , .01 [=ift1) Avenue, Saute 7220 Seattle, Washhlgton 9810=4 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 ,1 5 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The SMP does not provide for citizen enforcement actions brought before the Hcaring Examiner as part of an appeal of an MDNS. Thus, issues regarding the SMP are not properly before the Hearing Fxamine.r in this proceeding. V. CONCLUSION The appellant has the burden of producing affirmative evidence demonstrating that as conditioned, the project will have significant adverse environmental impacts. The appellant is required to produce substantial evidence showing that the City's decision to issue the MDNS was clearly erroneous. The appellant cannot do SO. Substantial evidence in the record proves that :11C City had sufficient information on which to base its decision, and it appropriately unposed SEJ'z� conditions on the project that are reasonable and capable of being accomplished. As a result, the project will have no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The appeal must be denied, and issues that are not properly before the Examiner in this SEPA appeal proceeding must be disniisscd. DATED this day of August, 2009. APPLICAN'T'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page I I of 1 lvMcCULLOUGH HILL, P.S. . McCullough, WSBA 412740 Jes i M. Clawson, WSBA 936901 Att eys for Applicant Alpert International MCCUILLOUCH Hr1Lt_.. PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.8 t 2.3389 fax 1 7 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 t6 17 t8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE TNF HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB and BRAD NICHOLSON from a decision of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, LAUR.Y1 COUNLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am employed with McCullough Hill, PS, attorneys for Alpert International. Applicant. On the date indicated below, I caused an executed copy of the APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE to be served via hand delivery and electronic mail on: Keith Scully Gendler & Mang, LLP 1424 Fourth Ave, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 ke itli@gel-idlerr►ualin.co ni and via electronic mail on: CER'T'IFICATE OF SERVICE - Palge I of 2 MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS ?O1 Fifth AVeMLV, Suite ?220 Seattle, Washington '981114 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 Fas S 1 2 3 e; 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber & Fontes, PS 100 South 2°d Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 aneilsen wrentonwa_gov DATED this M day of August 2009, at Seattle, Washington. Lagar . Coun�ey CERTIFICATE. OF SERVICE - Page 2 of 2 M.CCULLOUGI-I HILL. PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Scattic, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.8123389 fax 9 3 4 11 12 13 14 G. 16 17 16 19 20 2_ 22 23 24 1 25 1 Ic) - 17-09 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY Of RENTON, STATE OF WASHINGTON In re: Hawks Landing Mixed Use SEPA Appeal by SEGS, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton. NO. LIJA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF I. RELEVANT FACTS Applicant Albert International, LLP, submitted an application for development of a 5 - story, 60 -feet high, 122,000 square feet, 173 -room hotel (which would include a restaurant, spa, fitness center and additional retail space) to be located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in Renton. This subject site is bordered by 1-405 to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to west and the access ramps to I-405 to the north and an undeveloped parcel to the south. It is also located north of May Creek, a class 1 stream, and its associated 100 year floodplain, which are both part of a larger area identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes (which is non operational and CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 1 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.355.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 3 4 5 6 8 10 15 �s 17 ' 16 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 empty) and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. Applicant requested a SEPA Environmental Review along with a Master Site Plan and Site Plan review for the project. As part of their application submittal package, Applicants submitted a Wetland/Stream study, two Geotechnical Engineering Studies ("Geotech Studies"), and a Technical Information Report ("TIR"). The TIR included stormwater drainage information, For the SEPA review, the City's responsible SEPA official, the Environmental Review Committee ("ERC') reviewed the project and issued a Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated, on June 29, 2009. The ten mitigation measures were set out in the ERC Report dated June 29, 2009, and included specific requirements to comply with recommendations found in both the Geotech Report and the Wetland/Stream study along with compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements. SEGS, a Washington non-profit Corporation and Brad Nicholson, in his individual capacity ("Appellants") filed a timely appeal of the City's SEPA determination_ In their appeal, Appellants argue that the "MDNS should be reversed and an EIS required." Appellants' Notice of Appeal, pp. 18, In. 15. In this same appeal notice, Appellants challenge the Master Site Plan seeking its reversal "for completion of a stormwater drainage plan." Appellants' Notice of Appeal, pp. 13, Ins. 3-4. I CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 2 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd 5t PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98457-0626 Phone: 425.265.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 1 3 4 5 15 i10 17 18 i9 2C 21 22 23 24 2 J The hearing regarding this SEPA appeal along with Applicant's Master site plan and site plan review is scheduled to be heard before the Hearing Examiner on August 25, 2009. During this hearing, the City staff is expected to present the project in detail, including all aspects regarding the ERC conditions along with compliance with the City's development standards. The Applicant, along with any members of the public, including proponents and opponents will I be given an opportunity to voice their concerns at this open record hearing. Although held together, the appeal of the SEPA determination and hearing on the Master site plan and site plan are two separate proceedings. II. ISSUES 1. Are the issues raised by Appellants regarding Master Site Plan and Site Plan premature and improper within the context of a SEPA appeal, when the Master Site Plan and Site Plan hearing has yet to occur? 2. Can the City waive a Habitat Assessment when there is no showing of habitat impacts? 3. Does the City require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ("SSDP") when there is no activity within 200 feet of the shoreline? 4. Was ERC able to sufficiently identify the necessary stormwater drainage impacts for SEPA review? Ili. ANALYSIS I. The issues raised by Appellants regarding Master Site Plan and Site Plan are premature and improper within the context of a SEPA appeal, when the Master Site Plan and Site Plan hearing has yet to occur. I CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 3 Renton City Attorney 190 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 48057-0676 Phone. 426.266.8678 Fax: 426.255.5474 2 3 4 6 I6 I I./ 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RMC 4-9-200D states in relevant part: "A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be required in the following cases;" and includes within this realm, master plans and site plans. RMC 4-9-200D.1 and 2. Within this same section, subsection G.12 notes that "the Hearing Examiner shall take action on the proposed site development plan following the hearing process..." Though they are two distinct proceedings with different standards and burdens of proof, per state statute and code requirements, one hearing will be For both the SEPA appeal and the Master site and site plan review. That hearing is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. So while Appellants raise issues regarding the Master Plan in their Notice of Appeal of the SEPA determination, those issues regarding the Master Plan are improper in the context of a SEPA appeal. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner can not reverse the Master Site Plan as Appellants request, prior to even having held a hearing regarding the same. Appellant Nicholson, as well as any other members of the public will be given an opportunity to testify during the public hearing portion regarding the Master site and site plan review. That is the proper forum to raise issues pertaining to the Master Site Plan. As such any issues relating to Master Site plan review should be precluded from the SEPA appeal. 2. The City properly waived a Habitat Assessment where there is no showing of Impacts to habitats. RMC 4-3-050A.5 governs habitat conservation and establishes that "the primary purpose of habitat conservation regulations is to minimize impacts to critical habitats and to restore and enhance degraded or lower quality habitat." As Appellants point out on page 17, CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF— Page 4 Renton City Attorney 700 S 2nd St Po Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8878 Fax: 425.255.5474 V Ins. 7-14 of their Notice of Appeal, RMC 4-3-050K.2 sets out the basis for requiring a Habitat 1 Assessment: 3 ...the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a 4 critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent 6 with report requirements in RMC 4-8-120D. In cases where a proposal is not likely to significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department Administrator in e accordance with subsection D4b of this Section. (emphasis added.) 9 Appellants focus solely on the first half of that section and conveniently eschew the latter half of the provision. The evidence at the hearing will show that Applicants submitted .1 sufficient information within its Wetland/Stream Study for the City to assess any potential i 3 significant impacts to a critical habitat. Having found none, the City properly waived the 4 requirement. 5 3. The City does not require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit f "SSDP" j when there is no activity within 200 feet of the shoreline. 1 1, The City is well aware of the applicable laws and regulations governing RCW 90.58, the 19 Shoreline Management Act as well as its own RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program ("SMP"). 19 Accordingly, the City reviews and evaluates all applications for conformance with both aspects. 20 Having done so, the City does not dispute that May Creek is subject to the parameters of the 21 SMP. RMC 4-3-090E.4, The City further concurs with Appellants that its SMP "requires an 22 SSDP whenever substantial development is proposed within 200 feet..." Nearing Brief of 2 24 Appellant, at pp. 2, Ins. 18-19. CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 5 2 � Renton City Attorney 104 S 2nd St Po Box 826 Renton, WA 98057-0625 Phone: 425.155.5$78 Fax: 425.255.5474 L 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appellants draw snippets of general summary information from the City's ERC report and Applicant's TIR to insinuate that exacting detail and specification is lacking which must then imply that some sort of impact within the 200 feet must be inevitable. Nonetheless, the City reviewed Applicant's submission documents for compliance with both SMA and SMP, and found no "substantial development" within the 200 feet buffer to trigger a SSDP. Therefore, the City has no basis to require a SSDP. 4. ERC was able to sufficiently identify the necessary stormwater drainage impacts for SEPA review. Applicant submitted all requisite documents as part of its SEPA review, included among those documents was the TIR, which included stormwater drainage information_ The City's ERC clearly contemplated the stormwater drainage issues in that the June 29, 2009 report contains ten (10) specific notes regarding "Plan Review -Storm Drainage" as well as a two (2) specific mitigation measures pertaining to stormwater management. See City's ERC Report, dated lune 29, 2009, "B. Mitigation Measures" No. 3 & 4 at pp. 4. These notes and specific requirement "to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual" (Mitigation Measure no. 3) contradict Appellants' assertion that the SEPA determination should be reversed due to stormwater drainage issues. IV. CONCLUSION The City will not belabor the points regarding burden of proof and standards of review for overturning a SEPA determination. The Hearing Examiner is well aware of the applicable laws and standards governing such a review. Obviously, the Master Site Plan cannot be CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 6 Renton CIty Attorney 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 2G- 21 22 23 24 25 reversed prior to a hearing being held on the matter. As to the other issues raised by Appellants, they are either based on incomplete and incorrect information, or mere unsubstantiated allegations. In either respect, Appellants fall far short of their burden to show that the ERC determination of a mitigated DNS should be reversed. Accordingly, the City of Renton requests that the Hearing Examiner uphold the SEPA determination and affirm the mitigated DNS of Hawk's Landing. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 17th day of August, 2009. CITY OF RENTON: CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — page 7 Ann Nielsen, WSBA #31425 Assistant City Attorney Renton City Attorney 100 5 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 \o I' Septcmber 10, 2009 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: Brad Nicholson South End Gives Back (SEGB) Represented by: Keith Scully OWNER: Port Quendall Company Attn: Steve Van Tit 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Ave S,, Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 APPLICANT/CONTACT: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: .lack McCullough 701 5t Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 RESPONDENT: City of Renton Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney File No.: LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND LAND USE ACTION: Appeal of SEPA Determination and request for Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearin,, and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the August 25, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall_ Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Parties present: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney representing City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, Development Services Keith Scully, Attorney representing Appellant Brad Nicholson and SEGB Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 2 Jack McCullough and Jessie Clawson, Attorneys representing Alpert International, LLP The following exhibits were entered into the record for the SEPA Appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA- M, SA -H containing the original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA Appeal and Staff analysis. Exhibit A: Vicinity Map Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Ask Fred what he wrote down! Exhibit No. 2: Notice of Appeal with Attachments A- L Exhibit No. 3: Notice of Supplemental Brief and Attachments Exhibit No. 4: Larger Overview of Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 5: Close-up of Vicinity Ma Exhibit D: Existing Condition of Site Exhibit E: Deconstruction Plan Exhibit F: Post Deconstruction Plan Exhibit G: Site Utility Plan Exhibit H: Grading Plan Exhibit Y: Dan Mitzel Biography Exhibit J: Sound Design Group LLC Exhibit K: TIR The Examiner stated that today the Hawks Landing Land Use, LUA-09-060 hearing for a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review, and a SEPA Appeal filed by SEGS and Brad Nicholson, who are challenging the SEPA Determination by the City would be heard. The SEPA appeal will be first followed by the Land Use. The Examiner asked for preliminary remarks: Ann Nielsen stated that in the submissions by the appellant in the initial notice of appeal, along with their supplemental brief, appellants raised an issue in regards to the Master Site Plan, the City and the applicant did respond to that issue. The Master Site Plan and the Site Plan hearing is separate and apart from the SEPA appeal, those issues raised that pertain to the Master Site Plan and Site Plan should be stricken and barred from the SEPA appeal hearing. Keith Scully stated that he did not disagree with Ms. Nielsen, his document should have been titled differently in order to separate the two hearings. It was agreed by all parties to strike the Master Site Plan and Site Plan issues from the SEPA appeal hearing. Vanessa Dolbee stated that the site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North and is a 7.8 acre parcel, however the project site is only 3.07 acres in the northern part of Renton in the COR zone just north of May Creek. It is east of Lake Washington Boulevard, and south and west of I-405. The project proposes to build a hotel on the site that would include retail space, a fitness center, a spa and a restaurant. The building would be 60 -feet high and 5 stories. It would be a total of 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms and a 124 space surface parking lot in addition to an underground parking garage. The hotel would be located in the northwestern corner of the project. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 3 There are two wetlands associated with May Creek, both are to the north of May Creek. One wetland is 63 feet from the property line where the development will take place. The other one is approximately 117 feet south of the property line of the developed site. The Shoreline Master Program would have different buffers depending on the use, the Shoreline jurisdiction is invoked if development is within 200 feet of May Creek, all the proposed development is outside of that 200 foot area. Keith Scully, Gendler and Mann asked to submit all the attachments to their Notice of Appeal Hearing Brief and a Notice of Supplemental Evidence. Included within the attachments are Declarations from Dr. Massmann and Mr. Nicholson. They do not need to repeat everything if the Examiner would be willing to accept them in lieu of live testimony. They are present, if there should be cross examination, they would be willing to answer any questions that there may be. Dr. Joel Massmann, 6520 E Mercer Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Dr. Massmann stated that his declaration represented his comments on this pending application. In paragraph 3 on page 2 where it states that 85% of the impervious surface was taken out of the plans leaving the assumption that there would be a potential for a reduction of 4 acres in impervious surface on this site. His analysis in his declaration was based on that potential. The impervious surface over the larger site, beyond the 3.7 acres is actually less than 85%. The assumption was that any land that was currently impervious and it became pervious the recharge onto that portion would become ground water. Rain Gardens would also infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Dr. Massmann stated that 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed and would then infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. If it would be less than 4 acres you could simply divide that ratio by the actual amount of impervious surface. A Rain Garden is a place to collect surface water runoff and store it to potentially infiltrate the water. There may be less infiltration in a Rain Garden due to the plants that would transpire, they are roughly similar to simple surface water runoff, and there would be less recharge in the Rain Gardens because of evapotranspiration. Keith Scully stated that Mr. Nicholson was also present and his Declaration was part of the record. If there were no questions for Mr. Nicholson, he would not be called to testify. There were no questions for Mr. Nicholson. It is their burden to show that there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts that clearly shows that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been ordered, rather than what did happen when the City decided that there were no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The point of an EIS is to study the exact impacts. One of those is not available, they cannot tell exactly what will happen should this project be developed. They must show that it is more likely than not that it is probable that something bad is going to happen to the environment if this plan goes forward as designed. On SEPA, they are resting on one point and that is the storm -water. it rains all the time in Washington, there is a ton of water that any site must deal with. This particular site is 85% impermeable and currently there are some old warehouses and a bunch of pavement. When you have a site like this, and you take away pavement and permeable surface that rain water can simply go through into ground water rather than landing on and flowing off. Usually that is an unmitigated good thing and usually fights over developments like this in that there is not enough ground water recharge, there would be too much water flowing off the site and flowing into water bodies like May Creek or into the drainage ditch that carries the water off the site. This site is unique and SEPA requires looking at not just how most sites would affect the environment but how this particular site impacts the environment. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 4 The goal of SEPA is not to make things slightly better than they used to be, but to create a document that lets the decision maker really understand the environmental impacts of the proposal. The question is, is there going to be a probable significant adverse environmental impact? This is not the case of sample sites described in the Surface Water Design Manual, where more water flowing into the ground is automatically a good thing. Because of where this site is located, there are residential and commercial properties to the south, there are freeways close by, a residential development to the west and close to the site is the Quendall terminal which is loaded with chemicals and toxic soils that move via groundwater to the lake. There are hot spots of environmental contaminants in Lake Washington that have been flushed from the land. With this project, pavement will be torn out, buildings will be deconstructed, Rain Gardens will be added, which will absorb some of the water but not enough, there will be landscaping added and impervious surfaces will be dug up and replaced with a different impervious surface and permeable surfaces. The rain that currently flows on this site is channeled to a drainage ditch and on to May Creek, more of that is going to be going into the ground than previously. With this new construction, all water will now go directly to the Quendall site and add toxins to Lake Washington. An EIS would tell how much of an impact this new construction would have on existing water flow and Lake Washington. In order to begin construction on this site, they will need to dig a de -watering trench to drain the site while they use construction equipment. This ground is already saturated, there would be more ground water flow during the construction. They may need to add catch basins in order to flow water to May Creek without more toxins from the surface. The Appellant is asking for a finding of probably significant adverse environmental impact and asks that this be remanded back for a Determination of Significance and an Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Nielsen waived an opening statement, the City will present their information via a presentation by the project manager, Vanessa Dolbee. She will then join with the applicant in any specific presentation with respect to the stormwater issues. Vanessa Dolbee stated that the City did receive an application from Spencer Alpert of Alpert International, LLP for a SEPA Environmental Review, Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review for the Hawk's Landing Hotel, the applicant did provide all documents required by Renton Code. The SEPA review returned a Determination of Significance — Mitigated with 10 mitigation measures. The site is vacant, but used to be the home of Pan Abode Cedar Homes. All of the buildings on the site will be deconstructed with the exception of the one building on the south. That building does have a corner within the 200 -foot shoreline. The hotel and parking will be located in the northwest corner of the site. Mitigation measures 3 and 4 require the applicant to comply with the 2005 King County Storm Water Design Manual in addition to providing erosion and sediment control per Department of Ecology during construction. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully,Ms. Dolbee stated that the white space shown on Exhibit G is in general impervious surface. It is old concrete and other buildings as well as other items left on the site. Discussion was had regarding the materials left on the site, whether the hotel would face those leftover materials. The Examiner inquired as to what was going to happen to the rest of the white space. Mr. Scully continued stating that in fact, the City does not know what is going to happen with all the stuff remaining on the site. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 5 Ms. Dolbee stated that based on the submittal documents, she believed that the areas not marked "TBR" would not be removed. There is no condition that requires them to leave that area impervious. There also has been no document issued at this point by the City regulating that space outside the development area. A permit would be required to do any type of work on the site. There is nothing in the plans that states what will happen to the soil under the buildings that are to be removed. Mr. McCullough stated that they would defer any opening statement and called Mr. Mitzel to testify. Dan Mitzel, 1111 Cleveland Avenue, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that he was developing this site in conjunction with Spencer Alpert of Alpert International. He is the developer for the hotel and has been active in the real estate business since 1977 and active in the hotel business since 1984. About a year ago he got together with Mr. Alpert and starting discussing possibilities of developing this site for a hotel that would work in conjunction with the Seattle Seahawks. An agreement was entered into with the Seahawks to build a hotel that would be considered the official hotel for the Seattle Seahawks, it was very important that they have a hotel that was within close proximity to the VMAC Center and training center. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr_ Mitzel stated that the plan was to remove the buildings, leave the concrete slabs under the buildings and leave the asphalt that surrounds the buildings so that the impervious areas are mimicking the existing conditions in the area outside of where the hotel will occur. There will not be 4 acres of new pervious surface in the area of this new construction. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area unrelated to the hotel development. All buildings are sitting on concrete slabs. The hotel that will be built on this site will have some rooms looking to the east and southeast. Those views would be essentially of asphalt and concrete, there might be a minor amount of general cleanup that happens, the site is not a junk yard, rather a series of buildings that will be taken down, the slabs will be left, the asphalt will be left and that will be the condition they must deal with in terms of the view from some of the rooms, it is not perfect or ideal, but neither is looking at the freeway. They feel it is a condition they are willing to live with and they are willing to take that risk. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Mitzel stated that the entire site is under their control under a real estate purchase and sale agreement. It is one tax parcel. They operate hotels in many different conditions. The premium rooms will be looking at Lake Washington. At this point they have not begun to obtain their demolition permits. There have been no specific conditions about how they leave the area that does not include the project area. Nothing will be removed outside the project area. Pat Severin, Sound Development Group, LLC, 15214 Avon -Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr. Severin identified a statement of qualifications for Sound Development Group. He has been an engineer in the Skagit Valley for 10-12 years and been practicing engineering since 1989 and licensed since 1995. Mr. Severin was contacted by Mr_ Mitzel to provide engineering and surveying services for the project. They addressed storm drainage, utility designs, site layout and grading plans for the site. They worked with the project architect to develop a site plan that was aesthetically pleasing and functions from a utility standpoint. Exhibits E and G are true depictions of the existing conditions and post development conditions of the site. Rain Gardens have a two -fold function, it is a point of collection for stonnwater, it provides water quality treatment and in some cases infiltration to actually dispose of stormwater runoff. This site is only using Rain Gardens for the treatment of the water, they do not intend to infiltrate any water in the Rain Garden area. The TIR for this project contained a diagram of the Rain Garden Treatment System. After the water was collected Hawk's Landing Mixed Usv and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 6 in the Rain Garden it flows into the drainage system and out to May Creek where it currently discharges. There would be a collection pipe at the bottom of the Rain Garden to receive all the surface water that percolates through the Rain Garden down to the drain rock below. The bottom of the Rain Garden would be lined. Per the King County Manual, they are required to treat pollution generating impervious surfaces, which is primarily asphalt and some concrete surfaces and that is what they are collecting. Roof waters are typically considered not a pollution generating impervious surface, that water will be collected and diverted to the ditch in a separate system. Per the King County Manual, impervious surfaces are actually considered asphalt, concrete and typically graveled surfaces, even if it were all to be removed, which the applicant does not intend to do, it would still be considered impervious. Pre -development to post -development, all the water would be discharged to the ditch much as it is today. The only difference is that they are treating the stormwater runoff and the Rain Garden will provide some flow attenuation from stormwater. They are providing a better water quality than what is there today. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Severin stated that there was no water evaluation on the undeveloped portion of the site other than knowing from the grades in the standpoint that the water would continue to flow like it has done previously into the ditch. He only addressed what they currently were developing. The site slopes more from the east to the west. The area outside of the hotel generally flows to the west and Lake Washington Blvd. and it will continue to flow that way. In the Water Quality Manual there are several menus, there is one that determines if it is a high or low use site, which is generated by average daily use traffic. This site was determined to be low volume traffic therefore, they were required to do basic water quality treatment. They chose Rain Gardens because it is a very attractive technology that is available and is promoted by a lot of the jurisdictions. There are many ways to provide basic treatment, the Rain Garden treatment actually qualifies for enhanced treatment and it does a better job of cleaning the water_ Mr. McCullough stated that they have addressed the legal arguments in the briefing submitted earlier and it remains their view that the burden that the appellants face in the SEPA appeal is a burden under the applicable case law of actually producing evidence. That has not been seen today, the only evidence that has been submitted is the Declaration of Dr. Massmann and he testified here that he clearly made two fundamental assumptions to reach the conclusion that he did: 1. Four acres of the larger site would be converted from impervious to pervious surface and 2. He assumed the Rain Garden feature would be a stormwater element that would provide for the infiltration of stormwater. It has been clarified in their response/presentation that both those assumptions are absolutely inaccurate. There will be no conversion of impervious to pervious as a result of the deconstruction and the Rain Garden is a water quality treatment feature. There is no likelihood of any increased infiltration of any material amount in this ground. There is no evidence in support of this SEPA appeal. Any change would be subject to review and there are no plans to change the impervious surfaces. The appellant has failed in their burden to show error and therefore asks the Examiner to uphold the SEPA Determination. Ann Nielsen stated that the applicant more than complied with all the necessary application materials and documents in his request for a SEPA review to the ERC. The ERC had all the necessary information before them that they needed to make an adequate SEPA assessment, in doing so they came to a DSN-M with specific mitigation measures. The Appellant has done nothing to show that there was any significant adverse environmental impact that was not contemplated or could not be mitigated by the conditions that were put upon by the ERC committee. The City would request that the Examiner find that the appellant has failed in their burden to show clear error and that the SEPA determination should be upheld. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Scully stated that the specific evidence they have pointed out is what happens if you do remove all the structures and impervious surfaces. They learned today on the record that they are not going to be doing that_ That is not a condition of mitigation and not a part of their application. Contrary to what Mr. McCullough said the fact that it is in the record in front of the Examiner means nothing for the future. The fact that they said they were not going to do it, does not bind them from proceeding with separate projects. It does not prevent them from getting a separate permit, it also does not prevent therm from doing things that do not require a permit. There is a glaring omission on what is going to happen on the majority of the site_ At a minimum they ask that the Examiner require a mitigation condition that what is currently impervious outside the development area should remain impervious. Today there is not enough information as to what is going to happen to the rest of the site and an EIS should be required. The Examiner stated that if by imposing an additional condition the parties would agree to retract their appeal that is something that the Examiner is entitled to do. By taking the appellant's concerns under advisement and the applicant's willingness at this point to say they are not going to do any of that action without permitting of the City. A 10 minute Break was taken LAND USE HEARING began at 10:49 am The following exhibits were entered into the record for the Hawk's Landing Land Use Hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-064, ECF, SA- M, SA -H containing the original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA Appeal and Staff analysis Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit No. 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit No, 4: Hawk's Landing Master Site Plan Exhibit No. S: Hawk's Landing Site Plan I Exhibit No. 6: Site Dimension Plan Exhibit No. 7: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit No. S: Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 9: Site Utility Pian Exhibit No. 10: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 11: East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 12: West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 13: S & E Elevations (graphic) Exhibit No. 14: N & W Elevations (graphic) Exhibit No. 15: Hotel Garage Floor Plan Exhibit No. 16: First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 17: Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 18: Third and Fourth Floor Plans Exhibit No. 19: Fifth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 20: Roof Plan Exhibit No. 21: Building Sections Exhibit No. 22: Demolition Plan Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 8 Exhibit No. 23: All Exhibits entered during the SEPA Appeal for the Hawk's Landing Hotel Exhibit No. 24: Reinart Statement of Qualifications Exhibit No. 25: Traffic Impact Analysis dated 512009 Exhibit No. 26: Pat Bunting Qualifications Exhibit No. 27: Wetlands Report Exhibit No. 28: Mel Maertz Qualifications Exhibit No. 29: VMAC location Detail map showing hotel site to Exhibit No. 30: ro osed site from Map showing the area arOLmd the WSDOT plans for I-405 The hearing continued on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 10:49 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hail. This portion is the hearing of the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Master Site Pian Review and Site Plan Review. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner did ask for additional time in preparing his decision due to the length of the material presented. Vanessa Dolbee stated that she is the project manager for the Flawk's Landing Hotel for the City of Renton. The applicant has requested a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review. The City of Renton did receive some Capital Improvement Funds during the 2009 Legislative Session; Staff is currently working to identify how those will be expended, although it has to be approved by City Council, which has not approved the expenditures at this time. Some of the items on the table that do have a direct relationship to this project would be a water line extension on Lake Washington Blvd and the extension of a trail along May Creek and some storm drainage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd that may include some impervious sidewalk improvements. Review and permitting of this would happen at a separate time. The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes, to the northwest is VMAC, the home of The Seahawks, to the west are Barbee Mill and Quendall Terminal and to the south is May Creek. The parcel is 7.88 acres in size and the project area is 3.07 acres. There is a small triangular parcel of land at the far north end of the site which is currently owned by the City of Renton. A vacation request has been made by the applicant to acquire that parcel under file #VAC -09-001. It has been approved with some conditions associated with the approval. The hotel is proposed to be 60 -feet tall with 5 stories, 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms, with retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. Access to the site would be from Lake Washington Blvd via two locations; first is north located in the existing vacation area, which with approval would become a part of this parcel and would be limited to right-in/right-out only, the second access is to the center of the larger parcel and would provide access from both directions. There would be parking in an underground garage as well as surface parking, with 231 parking stalls total, 107 in the garage and 124 surface stalls. This project is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, its elements, goals, objectives and policies. Lot coverage for the COR zone is 65%, the building footprint has a 22% coverage. Setbacks for the COR zone are determined through the site plan review, the applicant has proposed a 20 -foot front setback from Lake Washington Blvd, a 60 -foot setback from the north side of the property line, a 480 -foot south setback and a 129 - foot setback from the rear property line along 1-405. The COR zone requires portions of the building which exceed 50 -feet in height would include upper story setbacks at a minimum of 10 -feet from the preceding story, the building should include vertical and horizontal modulation on roof lines and facades at a minimum of two feet and an interval minimum of 40 feet_ The fifth Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 9 story of this hotel would be subject to these requirements. The proposed architectural design meets the intent of the special development standard. The landscaping is determined through site plan review, perimeter landscaping has been proposed in widths from 6 -feet to 25 -feet, screening around the refuse and recycling areas, ornamental landscaping at the hotel entrance with a Koi pond and a pedestrian bridge crossing. Street trees would be planted along Lake Washington Blvd. This landscape plan further complies with the City's parking regulations. There are no specific standards for landscaping refuse and recycling for hotel developments. This proposal would improve the character of the site, new access would be provided and street frontage improvements provided. Landscaping would be provided that would screen the surface parking area from surrounding properties. The scale of the structure is larger than the Barbee Mill but smaller than the VMAC. This hotel does provide a much needed transition from the existing residential and 1-405. The hotel would be more compatible with the surrounding residential than the former industrial site and the impacts to the surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed buildings are appropriate for the site and would be compatible with surrounding properties. If and when the remainder of the site is developed, it would need to be compatible with the hotel. The proposal is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. In addition to access and parking on the site, pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks are proposed along the street frontage which would provide safe pedestrian access throughout the site. The applicant would be required to provide a 12 -foot sidewalk along the frontage of Lake Washington Blvd with a 10 -foot landscaping strip for safety. The single building would not have an impact on the site's light and air circulation. There would be minimal noise impacts from the increased traffic, although the noise would be virtually unnoticeable because of the proximity of 1-405. The Fire and Police Departments for the City of Renton have indicated that their existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. Impact fees have been required as a mitigation measure of the SEPA. Redevelopment of this site would help prevent deterioration and blight of the neighborhood. It would actually increase the quality of the subject site and the project is expected to contribute to the well-being of the City in general and the neighborhood in particular. This site is located in Design District C, which is an overlay design district and it is in compliance with most of the requirements of the Design District, except for the following: The west elevation of the building has some blank walls and Staff has requested that the west side be re- designed at that portion to feature a pedestrian oriented fagade. Design District requires that all sides and top of refuse and recycling areas be enclosed. Having a top enclosure would not function well with garbage collection, they have asked for a modification to not put a top on the enclosure. The proposed surface parking lot is not intended to be built into a structured parking at future phases of potential development. This site is constrained by access off of one road and the internal circulation of the site is vital for future potential development and this parking lot would serve as that internal vehicular circulation. The applicant should submit new site plans indicating the entire pedestrian pathway throughout the parking lot as differentiating materials or texture from the adjacent paving. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2409 Page 10 The applicants have proposed to provide canopies along the fagade fronting Lake Washington Blvd that exceed the minimum width standards, although they do not meet the minimum length standards they have proposed them along 38.5% of the facade, which pertains to approximately 60 linear feet_ The hotel design also provides modulation as it fronts Lake Washington Blvd, some portions of the hotel are set back and not immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. As such, the design requirement of the overhangs would not be achieving their goal in some of those areas, therefore the 60 -feet of linear canopy coverage. There are some additional requirements if the project is located in the COR zone, which this proposed project meets. Hearing was adjourned for lunch at 11:30 am... Back on record at 1:00 pm Pat Severin, 15214 Avon -Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that they had taken a look at the site with the existing conditions and constraints from elevations in the roadways and they came up with a grading plan that actually would grade the entire site towards the surface areas of the Rain Gardens from the entrance road and from all the parking areas towards the Rain Gardens. All this water would be collected in the Rain Gardens, treated, and conveyed to the discharge point down through the bottom of the ditch. Any of the water around the hotel would be picked up with downspouts and/or yard area drains directed to the same discharge location. He did not believe that any flow control would be required on this site per an exemption in the King County Manual. Some flow attenuation would happen with the Rain Garden. They do not have an approved construction document at this time, it is only a planning document. The next step would be to receive site plan approval and then proceed with the construction documents where they would finalize their design depending on comments from the City Staff. The Rain Gardens have not been approved as a design feature and in fact when the approval comes through it might not include Rain Gardens but some other feature. There are a number of features that would provide the same level of treatment to choose from. The final plan would need to comply with the City's Code. This 3.07 acre site is not within the 100 year flood plain, a portion of the south boundary just crosses the 100 year flood plain. Geralyn Reinart, PE, 159 Denny Way 9111, Seattle, WA 98109 stated she is a self employed traffic engineering consultant specializing in the preparation of Traffic Impact Analyses. She was responsible for the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. The analysis included a review of the existing conditions adjacent to the project including the operations of three intersections along NE 44"`, the northbound and southbound ramps to I-405, along with the Seahawks Way intersection. This included a review of the number of accidents along Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44'h Street. AM and PM peak hour traffic counts completed for the project were also used in the analysis, along with a review of the site accesses at two locations along Lake Washington Blvd. Looking at the site accesses, the existing Pan Abode driveway should be limited to right turns in and out due to its close location to the ramp interchange. The main access to the site is located towards the southerly end of the hotel portion of the property. In looking at the future volumes at that intersection left turns into the site were recommended. Build out of the hotel could generate over 1400 daily trips, 97 during the AM peak hour and 102 during the PM peak hour per the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. The future trip Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page I1 volume projections at the intersections mentioned earlier included pipeline trips from the adjacent Barbee Mill development that is ongoing currently plus a 2% annual growth rate in the traffic volumes, which is consistent with prior studies that have been completed in the area. The project trips were added into the future values to analyze the impacts from the project itself. The trip assignment for the hotel was based on prior work that was done in the vicinity and specifically the Port Quendail analysis of the I-405/NE 44'h Street interchange project access report prepared by WSDOT. There were some adjustments made to that report since this road was going to be serving Seahawks visitors, some of that traffic was redistributed up to the Seahawks facility. The critical movement at the intersection of Seahawks Way and Lake Washington Blvd near the northerly access to the site is currently moving at Level Service D during the peak hours_ Future increases would drop that level of service to E with or without the hotel_ The other critical intersection operations would be the north and southbound ramps to 1-405, some of the movements are operating at Level Service F during the AM peak hour and the delay on those movements would continue to increase over the next few years with or without the hotel project. All of these intersections are within the WSDOT limited access area, they are also subject to review as part of this project. Measures to raise the level of service at these intersections was reviewed by both agencies and included the installation of traffic signals for the ramps and then some restriping of lanes and construction involved with lane additions. WSDOT did concur with these measures and requesting that the applicant participate in a proportionate share of the cost of these improvements, which are being proposed by WSDOT. Pat Bunting, 3643 Leg Road, Bow, WA 98232 stated that her firm, Graham and Bunting, is an environmental and land use service. She was one of three on the project team that was assigned to go to the site and look for critical areas that could possibly be anywhere from the site down to May Creek. They found two small wetlands off site by May Creek, they are Category 2 wetlands. There was May Creek, a Class 1 stream, there is also a ditch alongside Lake Washington Blvd which is a Class 5 stream. The hotel would be more than 200 feet from May Creek. The small wetlands were offsite and so are not buffered, they are well out of the range of the project site. Checking the habitat of the stream requires walking up and down the stream banks and looking for habitat including large debris, downed logs, vegetation, ripples and pools places where fish can spawn and feed, they looked at the classified ditch as well for that reason. May Creek is a habitat for fish. The wetlands were so small, their habitat value was found to be over winter when there would be water, and there might be some winter habitat. But there was not much there, the wetlands were not even wet at this time of year. Each one is less than 500 square feet. This project, as proposed, meets all requirements for the City of Renton. Mel Maertz, 16921 Larch Way, Lynnwood, WA 98037 gave a brief description of his qualifications. His role in this project was to help programming and master planning of the project. He worked on the design of the hotel. The site plan for the hotel is oriented to Lake Washington, taking advantage of the views, they planned this hotel so it would not affect the future development of the remainder of the site. They tried to accommodate the pedestrians and the traffic, it was important to look at the Seahawks facility and the connectivity between the two facilities. Parking to the back and easy access to the underground parking were very important. The hotel was designed with a Northwest Craftsman look and incorporated materials like those used in the Seahawks facility as well as the Barbee Mill community across the street. They are trying to create a sustainable building that would be a leader in the community. Vanessa Dolbee responded to an earlier question by the Examiner regarding refuse and recycling. Renton Municipal Code requires for multi -family developments one and a half square feet per dwelling unit and three square feet for recycling and three square feet per dwelling unit for refuse. The office analysis was based on two square feet per 1000 gross building square feet for recycling and four square feet for refuse for 1000 gross Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 12 building square feet, which results in for recycling the 244 square feet and refuse at 488 for the office requirement. Looking at the multi -family requirements the recycling (hotel rooms as dwelling units) 259.5 square feet for recycling and 519 square feet for refuse, which is actually an increase from the office calculations. Keith Scully, Attorney representing Brad Nicholson 1424 0' Ave, Ste. 1015, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that they had submitted some written comments as part of the Notice of Appeal. They learned a fair amount today and so would modify some of those comments. There are some greater concerns but also some reduced concerns with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A drainage plan is required under Renton Municipal Code as part of a Master Site Plan or Site Plan application. There is an exception to that requirement which allows the City to make a determination that if the proposal will not substantially alter the drainage pattern and/or it will not adversely affect the drainage pattern, then the City can waive that requirement. There has been no formal request for that and no formal waiver made and based on what they Iearned today that waiver is not applicable. This proposal does substantially alter the drainage pattern. They are going to grade the entirety of the site and route it into the Rain Garden. Currently water flows into the creek, this will adversely impact water quality because of flowing over what is undeveloped impervious surface, and it will be flowing over an active parking lot. The Drainage plan is a document that is reviewed by the Examiner and determines if what is proposed is compliant with Renton's code and with Renton's incorporation with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. What you have is a conceptual outline of what they might ask the City to approve as part of their building permit. This does not comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. There is nothing for the Examiner to rule on, they don't know if they are going to be doing the Rain Garden plan or something else. They are planning to deal with flow control and toxin removal through a Rain Garden treatment system, although they disagree with them., however they do admit that they need to do something to control the toxins that will come off the parking lot. A Rain Garden would be okay for this proposal, but what they have called a Rain Garden, includes an impermeable surface layer. A Rain Garden is something that has plants in it and lets water infiltrate the ground. There is an infiltration component to every single Rain Garden design, this impervious liner makes this not a Rain Garden. The water that is flowing off the parking lot now flows through a little bit of gravel into a pipe and straight to May Creek. What they are actually proposing is a thing called a perforated pipe collection system, which is a box with some gravel in it and a pipe at the bottom. There are no flow control credits for it, and that is because it does not work as a pollution control plan. He disagreed with the comments made by the wetlands specialist that you don't buffer something off site. If the property line stops and there are no critters on your property, you are done with the evaluation. The habitat and the impacts on the habitat should be studied, not just the impacts on your property. There are fish in the creek, birdlife in the vegetation, and all the stuff that comes with a small conservancy designated wetland_ The hotel is far from the wetlands, but the blank space in an unknown at this point_ What do they intend to do with it? It appears that it is currently being used as overflow parking for the Seahawk's games, is it going to be lit with the lights shining on what may be song bird nesting habitat, what is the flow going to be like when cars are parking on it, are they going to be putting heavy equipment on it for some later project. No one knows what is going to happen. They have less of a concern on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. if any part of this one project goes within 200 feet of May Creek, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed. They have been told today that no part of this development will be within 200 feet of May Creek. If the south building is left untouched and no work done in that area, then they do not need a SSDP. They would ask for a special condition to be added that no work incur in that area within 200 feet of May Creek. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 13 Kayren Kittrick, Dev Engineering Supervisor, Community and Economic Development showed a map of the project site, she marked the site with an "X". Directly across to the northwest is the entrance of Seahawk Way and the VMAC building, it further showed the location of Barbee Mill development. This development has triggered improvements to the intersections including stop lights. The start of a LUA file is only preliminary discussions, included in those preliminary discussions is a preliminary drainage plan, it is required. The final construction plans takes in things brought in during the hearing, things added as conditions, best management practices plus changes they find on the site during construction. The Rain Garden design is very interesting, it seems closer to a bioswale design and that is one of the acceptable items. It will have to be studied to see if it works, if it does not, the applicant must find another method that is acceptable within the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The hotel and hotel parking could change anything that might affect the final calculations of what they have to treat and what has to be released. The standards are not relaxed, a preliminary design is presented, and that is what we know at this point based on specific calculations. Conditions can be made, ERC could have made a condition, plus once it gets looked into and they find it does not meet the King County Surface Water Design conditions or standards or doesn't do what they think it is going to do, the City runs their own calculations and checks on everything. Even under an EIS it is still a preliminary design.subject to change. Any soils that are removed from this site would be checked for contamination and treated as deemed necessary. Vanessa Dolbee stated that Mr. Scully had been referring to a habitat management plan, the City code does not specify a habitat management plan, and they have a habitat assessment and a habitat data report. The habitat data report was waived (which is the same thing as the habitat assessment). It was waived because there was a Fish and Wildlife habitat section within the wetland and stream study that provided sufficient information to the City to determine that the habitat assessment report could be waived_ Keith Scully stated that he believed that Renton's policy is to allow a preliminary drainage plan but that is wrong and now seems like the time to fix it. RMC 4-60-030C says that persons applying for specific permits or approvals would submit for approval a drainage plan for their application or request. Further on, drainage plan is defined in the same section 4-60-03OF stating that the drainage plan will be prepared in conformance with the department's construction plan drafting standards and contents and the design criteria contained in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. Nothing in the code section about the start of a conversation or a preliminary plan, which means the final thing and they need to make a determination that it does or doesn't that the Hearing Examiner can then repeal. Jack McCullough stated that the only lingering issues have to do with the drainage plan. The testimony from Mr. Severin and the City stated that a drainage plan was submitted. The confusion here is that the comments from Mr. Scully on behalf of his client suggest that it is the Examiner's position in this proceeding to pass judgment on approved drainage plan. That is not the case. Sub -section G of the Code section referenced by Mr. Scully, Review and Approval of Plan, it indicates that the decision on the plan is reserved to the approval of the Development Services Division. In the second sentence of sub -section 61, it says that if no action is taken by the City after submission of the Final Drainage Plans within 45 days, then such plan is deemed approved. In Sub -section G3 it indicates under additional information that the permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his duty authorized representative. This is the process that Ms. Kittrick outlined, there is an additional submittal, it's not just a conversation, a report has been issued showing the process and treatment that is anticipated to take place. At this point it is incumbent on the Examiner in review of this information only to determine that the plan, in its current state, is feasible on the property. What has been heard from Ms. Kittrick and Mr- Severin is that there will be comments and they have not passed judgment on the acceptability under the manual or the City's Code, Mr. Severin testified that there are alternates that can easily be employed that qualify under the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 14 manual. Once the process of comment is completed then you arrive at what G1 refers to as the Final Drainage Plan. Then the Administrator has 45 days to take final action. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2:07 p.m. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ON SEPA APPEAL: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I . The appellants, South End Gives Back (aka SEGB) and Brad Nicholson, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non -Significance —Mitigated (DNS -M) that the City issued for the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel. The appellants filed the appeal in a timely manner. 2_ The applicant, Spencer Alpert, hereinafter applicant, applied for a Master Site Plan and a Site Plan review for a hotel complex that would include a 173 room hotel, retail space, a fitness center, spa and restaurant_ The project would be developed on an approximately 3.07 acre portion of a larger 7.8 acre site located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. The project also includes a proposed "rain garden' which is designed to handle stormwater collected on the subject site. 3. The subject site is located between Lake Washington Boulevard on the west and I-405 on the east and is almost directly south of the on-ramp for 1-405 at NE 44th Street. 4. Lake Washington itself is located west of the subject site separated from the subject site by Lake Washington Boulevard, the Barbee Mill subdivision and the Quendall Terminals site. The new Seahawk's Training Center (Virginia Mason Athletic Center) is located a bit further north. May Creek and associated wetlands are located south of the subject site. 5. The subject site was the location of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes manufacturing site. The site is developed with old, now vacant warehouses and almost the entire site is covered with pavement. There are approximately 75,214 square feet of warehouses and impervious surface covers approximately 85% of the subject site. 6. The applicant will be removing pavement and warehouses, "deconstructing" in terms used by the parties, from the north portion of the subject site, the approximately 3.07 acres that will be developed with the hotel and associated surface parking and landscaping. 7. May Creek and Lake Washington are both shorelines of the State and are both subject to the criteria of the Shoreline Master Program. The applicant has designed their demolition and redevelopment proposal to avoid any work within the 200 foot threshold of the Shoreline Master Program The ERC imposed ten (10) conditions. Four of those conditions related to geotechnical issues, wetland/stream issues, in compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and erosion control under Department of Ecology regulations. Those four conditions are: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February b, 1991; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 15 "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume 11 of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager, " 9. The appellant calculates that if there is 85% impervious surface that subject site will generate storm water in the amounts of 10 to 20 acre feet of water or between 900 and 1800 gallons per day.Based on the applicant's submissions the appellant calculates that there will be approximately 38,866 square feet of landscaping. They also calculated the change in impervious surfaces. From those calculations the appellants deduce that "a reduction in impervious surface would dramatically increase the rate of groundwater recharge." (Appeal page 3) 10. The appellants then explain that based on topography, measured groundwater at the site, and hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels that groundwater will flow to the west, down and toward Lake Washington through the Quendall Terminals site. Since these groundwaters are inferred to flow toward the Quendall Terminals property the appellants anticipate that these groundwaters will pick up or increase the rate of contaminant discharge from Quendall to Lake Washington. The appellants allege contaminants entering the lake will have a deleterious impact on fish and people who use the lake. It. Quendall Terminals is a Superfund site. That means it has been found to be significantly contaminated and is listed by the Federal Government due to the levels and nature of the contaminants found at the site. Past practices on the site released or produced dangerous hydrocarbons and toxic materials such as arsenic as part of the creosote and tar manufacturing and pole treatments produced on the site_ 12. The appellants noted that "rain gardens are 'excavated or otherwise formed depressions in the landscape that provide storage, treatment, and infiltration of stormwater runoff. The soil in the depression is enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth."' (Notice of Appeal, Page 2)_ Relying on the definitions found in the 2005 King County Manual, the manual referenced by the ERC to govern stormwater management on the subject site. B. In summary the gist of the appellants' arguments are that the applicant will be using the rain garden and or other aspects of the proposal to infiltrate stormwater into the soils under the subject site. This will recharge or supplement the groundwater which will flow toward the west and the Quendall Terminals Superfund site. This will increase the contaminants leaching to Lake Washington from beneath the Quendall site. The toxics in tum will affect the health and safety of the lake for both humans and fish and animal populations. 14. The appellants base much of the appeal on the declaration of Joel Massmann in particular, the following paragraphs: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 16 "T A reduction in impervious surface would increase groundwater recharge at the project site_ Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments, groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to 1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. 8. The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed project is approximately 4 to 8 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). This estimate was developed assuming 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. 11. Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendail Terminals site of Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site." (Declaration of Joel Massmann) 15. The applicant's submissions and testimony indicate that the feature called a "rain garden" will be installed. The applicant's "rain garden" is designed as a water collection system which captures and treats stormwater collected on the subject site and then conveys it to the same drainage ditch that has been conveying stormwater from the site in the past. Therefore, even if the above numbers are correct, the fact that the applicant proposes capturing most of the stormwater and conveying it to the existing ditch and then into May Creek, makes the numbers and probably the conclusions of the Massmann declaration inconsequential. If much of the stormwater is captured then it will not be entering or recharging the groundwater and will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants into the lake from the Quendall site. 16. There was some confusion or disagreement over whether the applicant's proposed rain garden installation would function to cleanse or treat pollutants. It may not meet the normal definitions for a "rain garden." If a review shows the proposed design is not suitable for its intended purpose than it should not be used. The applicant is still bound by the 2005 King County manual for detention, retention and treatment. The appellants also attempted to appeal the Master Site Plan as part of their original submission_ There was no Master Site Plan decision issued when the appeal was filed. As a matter of fact, one of the land use decisions for which the SEPA appeal was filed was for a review of the Master Site Plan by the Hearing Examiner. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. The appellant has failed to demonstrate error. 2. The Determination of Non -Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 17 when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. in this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278)_ Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (I) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ... Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. S. Also redefined since the Nonvay decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). The appellant did not provide a basis that could be used to reverse the City's determination. The proposal will undoubtedly create impacts to the community but they are not substantial, at Ieast, not on the issues the appellants have raised. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the ERC made a mistake. The applicant will be capturing stormwater water and conveying it in a manner similar to how it was previously conveyed from the subject site. Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be conveyed to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site. The water will be treated in the rain garden and while the phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning, infiltration will not follow treatment_ The stormwater will be collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage ditch. It will not be left to percolate into the underlying soils. It will not travel the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake. The post development groundwater quantities suggested by the appellants' evidence is unsupported by the facts. The ERC did not err in its review. 7. The reviewing body has to determine if this proposal would have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. This office is not left with any doubt about the reasonableness of the underlying decision. The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC erred. The decision Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 18 below is not clearly erroneous and the decision below should be affirmed. 8. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS_,CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicant, Spencer Alpert, filed a request for a Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The subject site is the vacated Pan Abode factory site located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. 1-405 is east of the site and its NE 44th Street access ramps are located north of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned COR (Commercial, Office, Residential). In addition to being located in the COR Zone, the subject site is governed by the Urban Design District "C" overlay regulations. The COR requirements also require all development to undergo both Master Plan and Site Plan review, The Master Plan review is an overview of a project to determine the overall project concept and how the project meets the City's goals. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December 1959. 9. The applicant proposes developing approximately 3.07 acres of an approximately 7.8 acre site. The subject site is generally trapazoidal in shape. The south property line is approximately 732 feet (east to west). The western, Lake Washington Blvd frontage is approximately 800 feet long. The eastern and northeast property lines together are approximately 900 feet long. At the north end of what appears to be part of the parcel is City of Renton property abutting the I-405 ramps_ The applicant has requested a vacation of this property. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SENA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 19 10. The south portion of the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. The applicant proposes an estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill for construction. 11. May Creek, a Class 1 shoreline of the state, and at least two associated wetlands are located south of the subject site. Any development within 200 feet of May Creek would be subject to the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit and Shorelines Management regulations. The applicant's proposed development will be outside of the 200 foot threshold and staff determined that it is not subject to those regulations. A drainage ditch along the City right-of-way runs along the west side of the property. The ditch is a non-regulated stream with associated non-regulated wetlands. (Wetland and Stream study for the project). 12. The tree inventory showed 32 existing trees. The applicant proposes replacing those with 73 new trees and other landscaping (see below). 13. The applicant will be demolishing the existing warehouse structures that cover the 3.07 acres proposed for the hotel_ The applicant will be retaining the other building on the remaining 4.73 acres_ There will be no development or demolition within 200 feet of May Creek. 14. The applicant proposes developing a 5 -story hotel on the north portion or 3.07 acres of the site. The 173 room hotel building will be 60 feet tall and contain 122,000 square feet of interior space. It will have a footprint of approximately 29,336 square feet. The complex will also contain retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. There will be underground parking. 15, The hotel's footprint will be L-shaped. The long leg of the "L", oriented north to south, will face Lake Washington Boulevard. The short leg will be oriented east to west along the north end of the parcel. A plaza with water feature will be located in the crook of the "L", Parking will generally be located cast of the building. 16. The applicant will be using a variety of materials for the exterior of the building. It will contain stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding and metal roofs. There will be "northwest" style overhangs and trusses. The appearance is intended to complement the development of the Barbee Mill plat west of Lake Washington Boulevard. The COR Zone and the Urban Design District require both vertical and horizontal modulation a minimum of 2 feet at an interval of 40 feet to add interest and quality to the project. Additionally, there is to be a building setback of 10 feet for buildings over 50 feet in height. The plans show that the building does meet the horizontal and vertical modulations and that the top story observes an approximately 12 -foot setback for most of that story and varies from zero feet to 39.5 feet. Staff has suggested that does meet the intent and with the variety of caves, trusses, bump -outs, balconies and differentiated materials it more than meets the spirit of the "guidelines." 17. The entry from the east side or parking areas will be set off by the water feature that contains a Koi pond and pedestrian bridge. The Lake Washington entry will have a canopy. 18. Landscaping in the COR zone is developed as part of the Site Plan review process but is also governed by landscape requirements for surface parking lots. Along with the 73 new trees replacing the 32 that would be removed, the applicant proposes approximately 39,000 square feet of landscaping. New landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the subject site, around the perimeter of the hotel building and in and around the parking lot. The landscaping will be confined to the 3.07 acres that the applicant proposes developing with the hotel. Street trees will be planted along Lake Washington Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, F,CI', SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 20 Boulevard and will be spaced 30 feet on center_ A large variety of other landscape plants will be used throughout the site. The applicant did not submit the necessary irrigation plan. Parking lots with 100 or more stalls require 35 square feet of landscaping per stall, a minimum of 5 feet in width, I tree per 6 stalls, 5 shrubs per 100 square feet and landscaping within 50 feet of parking stalls. Staff calculated that the submitted plans meet the minimum requirements. 19. Staff has calculated the required parking based on use as a minimum of 223 and a maximum of 23 5 stalls and the applicant proposes 231 stalls, meeting code. There would be 107 stalls in the parking garage, and 124 surface stalls including 6 ADA stalls and stalls for five Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. Staff noted that for parking lots of this size 7 ADA stalls are required_ Staff noted that both parking areas meet code for dimensions and compact stalls. 20. Lot coverage permitted in the COR zone for a building with surface parking is 65 percent. The proposed 29,336 square foot building covers approximately 22 percent of the 3.08 acres proposed for the hotel complex_ The setback from the freeway is a required 10 feet whereas other setbacks are determined during site plan review. The applicant proposes a 20 foot setback from Lake Washington Boulevard, its apparent front yard, 60 feet from the north property line, 129 feet from its eastern, freeway property line and 418 feet from the south property line (including the acreage outside of the 3.07 acres). The zone permits buildings of 125 feet or 10 stories whereas 60 feet and five stories are proposed. 21. The applicant will provide access to the subject site via two locations. One driveway will be located along the north boundary of the subject site. The second, main driveway will be a more formal, two- lane gateway driveway at Lake Washington Boulevard located south of the hotel building. 22. Garbage and recycling areas are determined by use but hotels are not specifically identified. Staff evaluated the use as an office use that would require approximately 732 square feet of space and considered the fact that the applicant will be using a trash compactor in determining that the proposed 379.52 feet was adequate. The applicant has requested that this refuge complex not contain the roof required by the minimum standards since it requires dumpsters be moved out for collection since the dumpsters cannot be raised to truck level with a roof enclosure. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 1,400 trips. There will be approximately 97 a.m. trips and 102 p.m. trips. The City's estimate of 1,413 trips matches the numbers predicted by the applicant. 24. As part of the development of the subject site the applicant proposes raising the grade of the site to match Cake Washington Boulevard. This will expose the hotel to the general public and allow the public to enter the site from surrounding sidewalks and trails. 25. Staff in its matrix chart has identified compliance, partial compliance or failure to meet the District C Design Guidelines minimum standards as well as suggested guidelines. That matrix is adopted by this office and incorporated into this report by reference. Particular reference is made to lighting for safety and not spilling off the site, facade treatment along the Lake Washington frontage lacking character elements to break up blank or rather unadomed lengths of facade, pedestrian paths in the parking areas and sufficient to provide both a trail link and pedestrian link around the site and connecting to the May Creek and King County paths and trails_ 26. No Planned Action Ordinance was adopted for this site. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 21 27. Stormwater will be collected and conveyed to what the applicant terms a rain garden for treatment and then conveyed to an offsite ditch that runs along the west side of the site. The ditch conveys water to May Creek and then Lake Washington. As discussed in the SEPA Appeal decision issued with this project, the proposal will not be using infiltration and the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into Lake Washington_ The applicant will be governed by City, State and Federal regulations regarding discharges from the subject site_ 28. Sewer and water are provided to the subject site by the City. CONCLUSIONS: The project is subject to both Master Pian and Site Plan review as well as review under the District C Design Guidelines and the COR special considerations. The fact that only one building is involved in this proposal makes consideration of Master Planning for the subject site mirror the Site Plan review standards. While the building will contain a mix of uses including a restaurant was well as the much larger hotel, these various uses are included in the one facade scheme. It would make more sense to invoke the Master Plan review when the remainder of the 7.8 acre site is developed to make sure it is well coordinated with this current hotel complex_ 2_ The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself, C. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan's designation for this area is for the development of larger scale commercial, office and residential uses befitting what are some of the larger parcels in the City. Many COR parcels were used for industrial production that dedicated larger swaths of lands for those purposes_ As some of those industrial uses have moved away, the land is available for larger projects. The proposed hotel, especially in conjunction with the Seahawk's training complex is such a large scale project. The hotel is a kind of mixed use - temporary residences for patrons while a commercial operation. The hotel will also integrate a restaurant and retail uses into the mix. The proposal is compatible with the goal of transforming old industrial sites into high quality development. 4. The proposal in the main is compatible with the Zoning Code. It meets the height and setback Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 22 requirements of the code. It provides the complement of parking required. It meets the design details for modulation and articulation found in the Code and in the District C Design Guidelines. The top floor does not completely abide by the suggested setbacks from Iower floors but on average exceeds those setbacks and greatly exceeds those setbacks on many of the top floor's facades. Staff found it was an appropriate design. Similarly, staff found that the proposal meets the code requirements for garbage and recycling and in comparison to the overall size and bulk of the facility and it appears staff is correct. This office does have some problems with the fact that the roof required appears to conflict with actual pickup services by garbage/recycle handlers. Staff and the City need to review these issues. Compliance with actual Building and Fire Code provisions will be verified when appropriate detailed permits are submitted. The building will be taller than the former warehouse uses on the subject site but it certainly is more graciously designed. It will be taller than the residential uses west of Lake Washington Boulevard but shorter than the nearby training center. It will provide a buffer from 1-405 and a transition from the freeway interchange to the residential uses located along Lake Washington Boulevard, The State has asked for mitigation and that is incorporated into the ERC's conditions. Turn lanes should mitigate impacts of traffic along Lake Washington Boulevard. The nature of the trips will also be different from the former industrial use of the site. An appeal was filed of the ERC's decision. That appeal was directed at minimizing the potential impacts of converting a large area of impermeable surface to a new hotel facility. There was a misunderstanding of how stormwater would be handled. The appeal was denied but issues raised in that appeal can be further clarified in the Site Plant review. The site will still be conveying its storm waters to May Creek and Lake Washington. Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. 6. The proposal will replace old warehouses with a modern hotel with substantial exterior appeal. The building will use a variety of materials to break up the apparent bulk of the building and will add appreciably to the landscaping on the site as well as along Lake Washington Boulevard. The longest facade treatment along Lake Washington Boulevard has a number of horizontal and vertical breaks providing an interesting appearance. Coupled with the variety of materials, wood, hardie board, veneer treatments as well as roof trusses all add to the visual variety the building presents to the public. Staff has noted that additional opening in what are considered blank walls will be needed along this facade to comply with code and provide the visual interest of the building. There will be perimeter landscaping added around the hotel and around the general site. The applicant will be providing street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard for the extent of the development proposal. The applicant should provide landscaping along the remainder of Lake Washington Boulevard and along the eastern and southern perimeter of the parking areas. The Master Plan process does include "master planning" for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as on the north frontage. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No_: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 23 7_ The redevelopment of this now underutilized site will help increase the tax base of the City and the removal of old warehouses should conserve if not increase property values. Obviously, there will be more general hubbub and traffic than a vacant warehousing site produces. These were anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan and zoning were enacted for this site and this area_ Redevelopment of this site is a vital element of the City's objectives for this area. The internal circulation and the pedestrian paths seem generally appropriate. Distinctive marking to provide visual separation of pedestrian routes from vehicular crossings may need better definition. As indicated by staff, this site connects trails in the vicinity and the applicant should make appropriate provisions for trail users as well as general pedestrian traffic. Staffs recommendations on path width are appropriate. 9. While the building and bulk are larger than what is on the site, clearly the proposed 60 foot height is substantially less than permitted in the zone. In addition, the generous setbacks provided as well as the width of I-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard will aid in letting air and light penetrate the subject site as well as surrounding properties. 10. As noted, there will be more comings and goings from this site than the community is used to but development has occurred to its west and that has already introduced more urban tumult. There will be the usual but temporary construction noise and 1-405 already adds to the ambient noise levels in this area. it. There are available urban services including sewer and water. The applicant will be paying a Fire Mitigation fee. 12. The redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site represents. The project looks very well-designed and should be an asset to the community and City as a whole. 13. The project is also required to comply with the COR Zone special review criteria as well as the District C Design Guidelines. As discussed above, this office has adopted staffs analysis and recommendations regarding compliance with those numerous criteria. Some of the thematic requirements overlap the broad review of the Site Plan criteria. Specific requirements were covered by the Staff review and are incorporated into this report. They are attached to the end of this report_ 14. The special criteria for the COR zone include: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable. b. The pian creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial -Office - Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. C. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems. d_ The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable. e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 24 The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items. g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned. h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. 15. No Planned action ordinance is involved in this review. The property does not lie along Lake Washington, The height of the building should provide views of the lake and view corridors might exist between the homes on the west side of the boulevard. The project will accommodate the trail as well as retail shops and a restaurant open to the public. The Koi pond, bridge and paths as well as the prominent entry and facade features provide a focal point. Transportation fees as well as accommodations to the State and turning lanes will provide reasonable access to the subject site_ At the moment, public transit does not travel this route. The applicant has expressed a willingness to accommodate such access. 16. In conclusion, the proposed use complements activity that has been occurring in this area. It is hoped that the development of the north portion of this site will spur redevelopment of the southern portion. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: I . A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, and be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4- 4-080.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 4. The street vacation, file ## VAC -09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. 5. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building perinit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. 7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager indicating 12 -foot sidewalk widths and a 10 -foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, prior to construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manager for Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 25 review and approval at the time of building permit review. 9. The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch_ The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. 10. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage_ ORDERED THIS 10`h day of September 2009. i FRED J. KA MAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS I O`h day of September 2009 to the parties of record: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Greg Fawcett PO Box 402 Fall City, WA 98024 Keith Scully Gendler & Mann 1424 Fourth Ave, Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98103 Jack McCullough McCullough Hill, PS 701 Fifth Ave, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Pat Severin Sound Development Group 15214 Avon -Allen Rd. Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 Mel Maertz 16921 Larch Way Lynnwood, WA Steve Van Til Port Quendall Company 505 Union Station 505 Fifth Ave S, Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Larry Reymann 1313 N 38`h Street Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Brad Nicholson Attn: Keith Scully 1424 Fourth Ave., Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98103 Jessie Clawson McCullough Hill, PS 701 Fifth Ave, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Geraldine Reinart, PE 159 Denny Way #I 1 I Seattle, WA 98109 Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Rich Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Frank and Carrie Lord 4041 232rd Ave SE Sammamish, WA 98075 Dr. Joel Massmann 6520 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Dan Mitzel 1 1 1 Cleveland Avenue Mt_ Vernon, WA 98273 Pat Bunting 3643 Leg Road Bow, WA 98232 Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 26 Kayren Kittrick Community and Economic Development TRANSMITTED THIS 10 day of September 2009 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must -be 1"eled in writine on or before 5:00 p.m., September „24, 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m_, September 24, 2009. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. LY) z C) 1� 7 6PI CN CDP 6PI CN KtI F- 1 --i m N x W db 3 E , to IF Up R�c�3i @" cI113 tea P ���i F�F: :. KtI F- 1 --i m N x W to IF -H-11 KtI F- 1 --i m N x W .......... Et .......... r.^y3 0 �f ui W H N UD V 0— F- c-: L � Rt F- 1-4 H x W cl� ;qp Tyffi R5 e j� II--ga 11 -it I 'N.. 0!1 11J. ; 9 1 , � zi i IN! : I I i 6,pf, Vil . I ML N co �2 a. Review of Compliance to District C Design Guidelines; The subject property is located within Design District 'C'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. Two categories have been established: fa) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. The following are the categories for compliance: M= Met I NM= Not Met I PM= Partially Met J NA= Not Applicable M N P N A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: M M Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility forfuture development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. �€ 4, „r Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades' and dear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian -oriented streets is prohibited Minimum Standard: Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. Minimum Standard: Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a ; -_- ED pedestrian -oriented facade Staff Comment: The majority of the facade facing take Washington Boulevard would be incompliance with this minimum standard with the exception of south half of this facade on the ground floor. Approximately b2 feet of the southern side of the facade is not designed to meet this standard. This 62 feet is designed with stone veneer and vertical siding. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian - oriented fagode. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development for review and approval by the project manager prior to building permit approval. Minimum Standard: Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single -purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7b) Minimum Standard: If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping 3„E between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk - (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). Guideline: Sting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character ofthe district. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Minimum Standard: Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. -- Minimum Standard: Secondary access (notfronting on a street) should have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. 71 Minimum Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian- s 4 oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. Guideline: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public streetFlo ��" and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similarfeature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. S. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts an the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100Ue). Minimum Standard; Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, - Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095. Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Minimum Standard: in addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors (see illustration, RMC 43-100E7f). Staff Comment: The proposed enclosure for the garbage and recycling collection area includes screening on all sides with the exception of a roof. The applicant has indicated that if o roof was provided then the dumps ters would have to be pushed or maneuvered out of the enclosure for collection because the collection trucks need to lift the dumpster to empty rtinto the truck. !n orderfor the dumpsters to be directly lifted from the enclosure the exemption of the roof would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.. gat: Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped°'', planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall he located on 3 sides of such facility. Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City, provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g). Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7h), Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the following, 77_'_ a. Public art; b- Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment; d. Open space/plaza; e, Identifying building form; f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); h- Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). N P B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: M M Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard; On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets:Fe l (a) Parking small be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street parallel parking. No more than 60 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. (b) On-street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) On-street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. 1 Minimum Standard: Alt parking lots located between a building and street orvisible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. _ Minimum Standard: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,540') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection FSa of this Section). Staff Comment: The proposed surface parking lot does not meet the minimum requirement of I, 500 feet of perimeter area. in addition, preliminary design and discussion with the applicant indicated that this proposed surface parking lot would remain with full build out of the subject site. take Washington Boulevard is the only access to the subject site, which results in the requirement to provide internal vehicular circulation for the subject parcel. In order for there to be sufficient internal circulation ata future date, this surface parking lot would be required- As such, staff recommends approval of the surface parking lot as proposed. Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. Guideline: If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and lul pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building fagade. Guideline: When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian-oriented, parking lots should be located on the ' interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection >-E' RMC 4-3-100.FSb). Stoff Comment: See section G. "Lighting" below. Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4 4-08OF7, Landscape Requirements). Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides "rmsEr._�`, where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. - -- - Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking, encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of P 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5c). -P (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. e Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall ❑ `. ❑ be set back at least 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. high visibility streets. M (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the P C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: M landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. with the architectural design of the building: 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. (1) Ornamental grillwork (otherthan vertical bars); areas. Minimum Standard: within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable (2) Decorative artwork; building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: (3) Display windows; environment. (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSd). Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. x Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, matprinlc andInr riotad, to onhanro varaap[. Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be P visible from the street or sidewalks, -P 4. Vehicular Access: 9 Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. ❑ ❑ ❑ Minimum Standard: Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian -oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. M N P C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: M M intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Minimum Standard: within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4bl. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. g Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c), Staff Comment: The provided plan sets indicate that portions of the pedestrian pathways within the parking lots would be different material or texture from the adjocen t paving materials, although there are some portions that appear to be asphalt with striping. As such, staff recommends as o condition of approval that the applicant submit anew site plant that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacen t paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Depurtment of Community and Economic Development project manager. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees {see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). Staff Comment: The proposed sidewalk width is 10 -feet and the proposed landscape strip is 9 feet in width. As mentioned above in the project narrative, the City has received Capital Improvement Funds, which potently would fund the extension of the May Creek Trail, which would end at the south end of the subject parcel. In order for this trial to continue to the existing King County Trial system located north of the subject site, near VMAC, the City's Parks Department requested that the sidewalk in this area have enough width to accommodate a multi -use trial in addition to a traditional sidewalk. Hotel patrons and members of the public would be using this sidewalk, in addition, trail users would be utilizing this sidewalk to connect to the grater King County trial system. Based on the anticipated number of users in this location, 10 -feet would not be appropriate sidewalk width to accommodate anticipated pedestrian traffic. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide on updated site plan to the City of Renton Project Manager indicating a 11-footsidewolk width and a 10 -fast wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, Prior to construction permit approval. (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10 -12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller 5 -- 6 foot pathwaywill accommodate two individuals. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of Ei walkway or sight lines to building entries.% Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Guideline: Through -block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks ) -; with public spaces. Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.G4e) Guideline: Between buildings of up to and including two stories in height, through -block connections should be at least 6 Er feetin width �' Guideline: Between buildings three stories in height or greater, through -black connections should be at least 12 feet in m width° Guideline: Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum 0.25 mile apart 9 0 Guideline: As an alternative to same of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fig. fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than 14 feet in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per 30 lineal feet ' of the required walkway should be provided Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat PIE walls, or similar treatment. Guideline: Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or €-R' building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Stoff Comment: As proposed, canopies along Che fogade fronting Luke Washington Boulevard exceed the minimum width standards although do not meet the minimum length standards. Canopies hove been proposed to be provided for approximotely 38.5 percent of the fagode or approximately bo liner feet. The 60 feet of the facade where canopies are proposed is along the portion of the building that would be the least distance (smallest setback) from Lake Washington Boulevard. Although, the proposed hotel design provides modulation along this fa�ade that brings many portions of the structure back from Lake Washington Boulevard where canopies would not be achieving the desired intend of overhead weather protection. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed 60 liner feet of conopy coveroge. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building r. entrances. - Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. a Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade -mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground- round related related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4f). N P D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATiONAREAS/COM MON OPEN SPACE: M Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic en'o mens of the area by the community. Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070. Landscaping). �;l''' Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined N J by the City of Renton. Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.1-13a). Minimum Standard; The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. - Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant d; material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from m. streets (see RMC 44-080f7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feetm width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13b. 4' a Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet- Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top ofthe root ball) respectively. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least '09' 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. 2Loff Comment: As proposed the shrubs meet the minimum height but the proposed rate of planning is less then one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. The applicant has proposed to use rain gardens, within these areas ornamen to shrubs ore not proposed to be planted. The proposed raingardens reflect the applicant's desire to provide a development that minimizes its effects on the environment and/oris "green'. The raingardens are calculated into the landscaped area and therefore reduce the ratio of shrubs to landscaped area; as such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the ry EJ 'i landscaped area within three years of installation. - - Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: {1) Required Amount: BED Total Number of Minimum Required Landscape Area* Spaces 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area 'TR E shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open spate shalt be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or [e) Children's play spaces. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, = N- parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in - dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall note m " count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi private (from abutting or adjacent properties} courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.113c). Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common , %� 5 Et space/recreation area requirement. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive x ; area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space ` Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. `tEd D (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. f4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at 7 planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. (5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous, } 'a (6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided,?: that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. {7} Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. i' -,i - :1 '. Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and thatA dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas, N[o Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. Guideline: Use of law maintenance, draught -resistant landscape material is encouraged. Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. e{, Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publiclyM,s accessible spaces. Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made =;a? of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. ry , - Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area 'TR E shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open spate shalt be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or [e) Children's play spaces. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, = N- parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in - dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall note m " count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi private (from abutting or adjacent properties} courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.113c). Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common , %� 5 Et space/recreation area requirement. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive x ; area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes " parking garage floorplate areas)shall providepedestrian-oriented space(see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.113d) according to the following formula: 1% ofthe lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of- way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average} on the ground; and Staff Comment: See comment under G "Lighting" Below, Staff was unable to determine if the applicant complies with the minimum standards at this time. fd) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. Minimum Standard. The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space - (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented spate: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space. However, c where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian -oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space. Minimum Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions, Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Guideline: Developments located at street intersections corners on designated pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13f). Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas- M N E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: M Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen bythe public, are visually interesting. Minimum Standard. All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100-15a). Minimum Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; (d) Roof line features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director Minimum Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration,, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15b): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be 40 feet. (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be 15 feet. (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet or not less than two-tenths multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). Guideline: Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street j edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Guideline: Buildings should be urban in character.��� Guideline: Buildings greater than 160 feet in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk" and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15c). 2. Ground -Level Retails: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways areEs 19 o prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See staff comment Section A.2. 'Building Location and Orientation" above. Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the fallowing {see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15d): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines: (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facades ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. = " (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the JR, rt following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-10015e): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (S) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used i { E.. to provide ground -level detail. Staff Comment: The applicant is highly encouraged to provide arty and/or ail of the items listed above in order to ornament the ground level of the proposed structure. Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged, z - 3. Building hoof lines: intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within r ,r 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 9; 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to��i,_, _ minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations.�� Eau Guideline: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance overtime; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on :;. vMinimum all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. a Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. ZZ Ell " Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, Appropriate and cast -in-place concrete. Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes =' or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. N P M F. SIGNAGE; M M Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and ofappropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. B Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall he sized appropriately for their location. Staff Comment: At this time the applicant has not submitted a detailed sign design as such, staff cannot determine compliance with this standard. At the time of sign permit approval staff will review for this design standord. Minimum Standard. Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.)3a): :, a. :,. �; ':a`` L Pole signs; _ ii. Roof signs; iii. Back-ht signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back- lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back-lit. (see staff commen t above) Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. k (see staff comment above) - Minimum Standard. Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. (see staff comment above) Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. pop (see staff comment above) Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, ° & ' although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. sj„ (see staff comment above) Guideline: Front-lit, ground-mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign.t (see staff comment above) Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian-oriented streets. - (see staff comment above) G. LIGHTING: M N M Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior li-ghting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting"k' Exterior On-Site. -- -a:fst -- Staff Comment: Staff recommended, as o condition of Approval, the applican t be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively oris specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior Qn-Site, Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project' Ur 1 off-site. Staff Comment: See Condition above Minimum Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at r primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian-oriented spaces. Staff Comment: See Condition above Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape f.7,7 features Such as specimen trees. - Guideline. Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building 17 XA facades, awnings with down-lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. i GE"LER & MANN, LLP ArroNNEYS-AT-LAW Michael W. Gendler* David S. Mann Keith P. Scully Brendan W. Donckers *Also admitted in Oregon Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7' Floor Renton, WA 98057 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 SEATTLE WA 98101 September 24, 2009 RE: File No. LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Dear Clerk: Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal to the Renton City Council. CITY OF RENTON { SEP 2 4 2009 )`. 541 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (246) 621-8868 Fax (206) 621-0512 keithggendlermann. corn www.gendlermann.com We are also filing today a Motion for Reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner. We respectfully request that no action be taken on the appeal until we've received a response to our motion. KPS:der1 Enclosure CC" Client C:C -- F,rcj K�ar►na.v+. Very truly yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP —W.w Keith P. Scully 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } SEGB, a Washington non-profit ) Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an ) individual and citizen of Renton, ) } Petitioners, } CITY OF RENTON SEP 2 4 2009 134, CITY CLERK s OFFICE Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I. AGREED BRIEFING SCHEDULE The parties have conferred, and agree that any response shall be due by 5 p.m. on October 1, 2009, and any reply due by 5 p.m. on October 5, 2009. IL MOTION South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) move the Examiner to reconsider his decision denying the Appeal of SEPA Determination, and approving the Master Site Plan and Site Plan in this matter based on new information regarding water flow on the subject property. This new information was uncovered as a result of testimony from the applicant and city staff at the hearing, and subsequent investigation, and was not reasonably available before the hearing. Because the site's design will concentrate all or virtually all of the site's surface water into a ditch, and information presented at the hearing GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 Phone: 12161 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 ORIGINAI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19i 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and investigated by Appellant's expert after the hearing indicates that the ditch is an infiltration feature, the Examiner's decision is based on an error of fact. Moreover, the Examiner erred in law, with or without the new inforn3ation, and erred in judgment in limiting stormwater treatment options to dumping water in to a ditch that fails to convey water offsite. III. EVIDENCE CONSIDERED - The September 23, 2009 Second Declaration of Joel Massman (Second Massman Dec.) (attached). - The files, pleadings, and evidence presented at the hearing in this matter. IV. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS 1. The Hearing Examiner erred in finding as a matter of fact that: Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be conveyed to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site. The water will be treated in the rain garden and while the phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning, infiltration will not follow treatment. The stormwater will be collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage ditch. It will not be left to percolate in to the underlying soils. HE Decision at p. 17, � 6. 2. The Examiner erred in lav by finding that: The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC erred. The decision below is not clearly erroneous and the decision below should be affirmed. HE Decision at p. 17, � 6. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: 12061621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11I 12 13. 141 15' 16' 17 18', 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The Examiner erred in concluding as a matter of law that the ERC did not err in its review of the DNS because the project "will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17, T 6. 4. The Examiner erred in judgment by approving the Master Site Plan and Site Plan with the following condition: The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. Decision at p. 25, � 10. V. ARGUMENT A. Standard for Reconsideration RMC 4-8-100(G) provides for reconsideration: Any interested person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written application for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. 1. The Decision rests on an error of fact. At the hearing, Appellant SEGB presented expert testimony regarding potential groundwater infiltration on the site based upon the Applicant's description of its proposal in the application materials, which appeared to indicate that a significant portion of the site would be left as either bare earth or hydroseeded. The Applicant responded at the hearing by clarifying its plan, stating that it intended to leave the impervious surfaces throughout the site either intact or replace them with new impervious surfaces. The Applicant stated that it intended to grade the development area and route all water flow to a "rain garden," GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101E Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 Fax: [206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 with water then flawing to a drainage ditch. New information presented at the hearing included a drawing of the "rain garden," which had an impermeable liner, meaning that no infiltration would occur onsite. This "rain garden" is simply a conveyance measure, not a treatment measure. Second Massman Dec. at T¶ 1-3. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that the flow of water would be through the ditch and to May Creek. Although not reflected in the summary of testimony, City staff testified that the ditch had standing water and "orange scum" in it, and that City staff had difficulty or were unable to maintain it. A site visit by hydrogeologist Joel Massman revealed that there is water standing in the ditch, even though this is dry weather. Second Massman Dec. at 116, The design of the ditch includes a higher inlet elevation than the culvert, meaning that water flowing into the ditch will stand in a pond, rather than flow to May Creek. Id. Dr. Massman notes that: A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek. Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the aroundwater recharge from this ditch is significant. Second Massman Dec. at ¶ 7 (emphasis added). As the Examiner correctly found, the City must conduct an EIS if there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Decision at p. 17, ¶ 4. The Examiner correctly noted that uncontroverted testimony established that groundwater flows from the development site to Quendall Terminals, and conveys pollutants to Lake Washington. Decision at p. 15, 11 14; Second Massman Dec. at � 11. The new information from the Applicant that all ston-nwater will MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Faurth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206j 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 flow to the ditch, and from the City and Joel Massman that the ditch ponds, and thence infiltrates the ground, means that the same arguments raised regarding increased permeable surface apply to the use of a ditch that serves as an infiltration feature. Second Massman Dec. The appeal should be granted and an EIS must be ordered. 2. Deming the SEPA appeal rested on an error of law. In addition to the new information regarding groundwater infiltration, the Examiner's decision should be reversed because it rests on an error of law. The Examiner concluded that the ERC did not err in its review of the DNS because the project "will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17, 116. But SEPA does not require that a project exacerbate environmental issues. The threshold determination for an EIS is whether the development proposal is "likely to have probable significant adverse environmental impacts." RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c); RCW 43.21C.031; WAC 197-11-360. That the proposal causes new impacts is not dispositive of whether an EIS is required; nor is it necessary that the proposal increase environmental impacts. ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501 (1979). In ASARCO, a smelter requested a variance that would allow it to continue operating. The court held that even though there was no change in the status quo of pollutants emitted, the action still required an EIS. As the ASARCO court noted, SEPA "aims not only to prevent further environmental degradation but to reverse, where possible, ecological damage already done." Id. In this case, uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that groundwater flow carries toxins from Port Quendall into Lake Washington. Decision at p. 15, T¶ 10-11. Infiltration MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: {206► 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from the site will maintain or increase groundwater flow. Decision at p. 14, IJ 15. Because the ditch does not convey all water offsite, but instead allows infiltration, the ongoing harm of toxin flow via groundwater provided from the site will be continued. Like ASYIRCO, an EIS is required to study the impacts and evaluate alternatives. An EIS would provide substantial information to the decisionmaker on how best to handle the project's impacts on the adjacent Superfund site. Unlike a threshold determination, an EIS requires consideration of alternatives. There are numerous options available for how stormwater is handled on the project. Some options, like the use of the infiltrating ditch, increase or at best maintain the flow of groundwater to Quendall Terminals. Another option, the BAS option, would be to channel the grater the other way, towards May Creek, and thence to an infiltration feature on the other side of the property. Second Massman Dec. at T� 11-12. An HIS would quantify the impacts of the project as submitted, a no -action alternative, and other means of handling stormwater, and allow Renton to make an informed decision on whether to allow this project as proposed or require stormwater management more tailored to the unique circumstances of the site. 3. The Examiner erred in ordering that water be dumped in the ditch. The Examiner ordered that "[t]he applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch." Decision at p. 25, T 9. But the new information regarding the infiltration of water from the ditch means that this condition will not prevent pollutants from entering Lake Washington. As Dr. Massman opines, the Best Available Science for handling stormwater on the site is not to use the ditch: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 88101 Phone- 12061621-8868 Fax; (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terns of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Tenninal site. Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site would represent the best available science in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flow to May Creek. Second Massman Dec. at Tj 11-12. While undoubtedly well-intentioned, the Examiner's decision thus improperly limits the stormwater treatment options to a system that makes no sense, given the unique topography of the site and the presence of Quendall Terminals downslope from a "ditch" that actually serves as an infiltration pond. Dated this 24th day of September, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants \South End Gives Back(Den)1Motioa for Reconsideration FINAL 9 24 49 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7 GENDLER & MANN. LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101E Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: [2061621-8868 Fax: 12061621.0512 I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows; 1. I am a civil engineer and have been retained by Brad Nicholson and South End Gives Back to assist in addressing stormwater and other site development issues related to the proposed land use at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. 2. I provided a previous declaration related to this praiect dated July 17, 2009. 3. My educational and work experiences are described in Items 1 through 3 in my First Declaration, dated July 17, 2009. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 22"' day of September 2009, Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E. ORIGINAL I have reviewed the Report and Decision from the Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton dated September 10, 2009. This document includes minutes from the August 25, 2009 hearing held in the Council Chambers of the Renton City Hall. These minutes include the following information that was not previously provided to me: 1. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area related to the hotel development. 2. The rain gardens that have been proposed as a component of the stormwater plan for the site will be lined and will not be used to infiltrate storm water. 3. The applicant states that rain gardens are required, "per the King County Manual," to treat storm water from pollution generating impervious surfaces. Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of the September 10, 2009 Report and Decision and on my review of documents identified in my first declaration dated July 176, 2009 include the following: Rain gardens are listed in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as flow control best management practices (BMP's). They are not listed as a water quality treatment BMP or option. 2. The efficacy of rain gardens as a water quality treatment technology has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 3. The efficacy of rain gardens that are lined with impermeable liners has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 4. The subject site is approximately 7.8 acres in size and is currently developed with warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces. 5. Under current conditions, stormwater from the project site flows along the ground surface to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation and runoff from impervious surfaces, it is estimated that the total stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces at the site may be in the range of 20 to 25 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. 6. Stormwater runoff is currently directed to a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or to an existing on-site storm system that discharges to the ditch. Based on information included in the April 28, 2009 report prepared by Sound Development Group LLC entitled "Technical Information Report for Hawk's Landing Crown Plaza Hotel," The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. 7. A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek. Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the groundwater recharge from this ditch is significant. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals site located between the project site and Lake Washington. 9. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone [lows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. 10. Groundwater recharge from the existing roadside ditch likely contributes to the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site. 11. Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terms of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site. Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek. 12. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site would represent the best available science in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Tenninal site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flow to May Creek. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION I, KEITH P. SCULLY, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for petitioners/appellants SEGB and Brad Nicholson in the above -captioned action. I make this declaration in order to satisfy the requirements of GR 17(x)(2). 2, The document to be filed is the Second Declaration of Joel Massman. 3. I have examined the document, determined that it consists of five (5) pages, including this declaration and excluding exhibits, and that it is complete and legible. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - I GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated this 24th day of September, 2009, at Seattle, Washington. KEITH P. SCULLY, WSBA No. 28677 1Sooth End Gives Back(Den)1Dec Scully FAX 9 24 09 DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206► 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25' 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, STATE OF WASHINGTON } } COUNTY OF KING } ss. Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Motion for Reconsideration, and Second Declaration of Joel Massman to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 .ORIGINAL GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone; (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206)621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Itenton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2'd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [ ] By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Flectronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen(cirentonwa. gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [ ] By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), j es si ca[;mhs Batt le. com DATED this 29F" day of , 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington, a TA COAKL South End Givcs Rack(Den)'"Dcc sery GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 Fax: {2061 621-0512 \11,0L MCCULLOUGH H ILL, PS September 24, 2009 Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Applicant's appeal to City Council/request for reconsideration LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Hawk's Landing Hotel Dear City Clerk: Enclosed with this letter is a request for reconsideration, as well as an appeal to City Council, along with the $75.00 appeal fee, for the Hawk's Landing Hotel. We are simult<lneously filing the request for reconsideration and the appeal, to City Council, because the Renton Municipal Code is not clear as to whether filing a request for reconsideration tolls the time period for filing an appeal to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, ]es, a M. Clawson 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 - Seattle, Washington 98104 - 206.812.3388 - Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattle.corn APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATI(ON APPLICATION NAME �tAWVS I AVLA FILE NO. bt The undersigned interested party hereby files its Noti of (Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated. .& `t - i el V D I _.._. L IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELL k REPRESENTATIVE Name: Y1 irYlGt� i -.GA Name:G--� _ Address: E o ( t G� }�"r L Address: I. Phone Number: Phone Number: Email: Email: 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are. the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the ,Examiner's Report) No. Error:. Correction: r ` Conclusions: No. Error: Correction: Other: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) - Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: � �_ ! C Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Pi -ea 411 f T Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: 6 � P_S� � 7 Appe ep ntative Signature Type/Printed Name Da e NOTE: Please refer to Title 1V, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 48-110F, for specific appeal procedures. MCCULLOUGH H ILL, PS September 24, 2009 The Honorable Fred J. Kaufman City of Renton Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Applicant's request for reconsideration LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Hawk's Landing Hotel Dear Mr. Examiner: We are writing on behalf of the applicant for Hawk's Landing Hotel to respectfully request reconsideration of two conditions placed on the Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review approvals granted by you on September 10, 2009. RMC 4-8-100 allows an interested person to make a written application for reconsideration of the Examiner's decision when the person feels that the decision is based on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing. The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding landscaping were a result of an error of law, fact, and judgment. The applicant requests reconsideration of the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10: Conclusion 6. "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking axeas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as on the north frontage." Condition 10; "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 - www.mhseattle.com Page 2of5 remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage_" The applicant requests reconsideration of this conclusion and this condition because: • The applicant is already significantly improving the site by redeveloping it and landscaping it, See Conclusion 12: "Redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site represents," The property to which this condition applies lies outside the boundaries of the subject master site plan and site plan application, and the applicant has proposed no development on this section of the site. Therefore, this condition is not within the scope of the application and may not properly be imposed under this application. When the applicant proposes development in this portion of the site as part of a site plan and master site plan approval for the remainder of the larger property, street trees would be required by code. In addition, requiring street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard when there is no plan for redevelopment may interfere with the future redevelopment of this portion of the site—trees may need to be removed or relocated in order to accommodate the future development (construction access, sidewalks, driveways, etc.). • The City of Renton has received an appropriation from the State of Washington for improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard associated with the redevelopment of the entire area (including the Hawk's Landing site, the Barbee Mills site, the Quendall Terminals site, and the Seahawks site). These facts were not reasonably available at the time of hearing as the appropriation was still in process at the time. It is our understanding that the appropriation includes funds for street trees and other street improvements on the southern portion of the Hawk's Landing site. As the City has already taken responsibility for this improvement, the improvement cannot be part of this approval. The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10 should be revised to read; Conclusion 6 "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. , The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will -reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. , e site nQt p=osedFor development with this application will tecluire consistency with City of Renton landscaping xe�uiretinents. including the glan of street trees,' Page 3 of 5 Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. a, The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding stormwater were a result of an error Qflaw, fact. and judgment. The applicant requests reconsideration and clarification of the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9: Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May creek and/or Labe Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." Condit a9: "The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." The applicant requests reconsideration of this conclusion and condition because: + The City of Renton has not adopted "best available science" as a standard for stormwater treatment, The Hearing Examiner is therefore without jurisdiction to impose such a standard. The City of Renton has adopted the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual as its accepted method for treatment of stormwAter, which includes the use of "best management practices (BMPs)". The applicant will comply with these standards, including the use of best management practices in its stornn-water system design. The City of Renton has determined, through adoption of this manual, that compliance with the manual is sufficient to properly treat and convey stormwater. Thus, compliance with these adopted standards will ensure that "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." The factual record, including the Hearing Examiner's own findings of fact, does not support this conclusion or condition. There was no evidence submitted into the record for the Site Plan/Master Plan hearing showing that the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to May Creek or Lake Washington (see hearing record page 12—no evidence was submitted into this application's record by Mr. Scully showing any stormwater impacts warranting the Page 4 of 5 use of best available science). The Hearing Examiner found that "The proposal will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State, and Federal regulations ,regarding discharge from the subject site." (Site Plan approval, Finding 27). In addition, the Hearing Examiner concluded as part of the SEPA appeal that the stormtvater "will not travel the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington_ It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake." (SEPA Appeal, conclusion G). As such, the facts of the case do not support conclusion 5 or condition 9. The conclusion and condition are vague and may be implied to establish a new, non - regulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality (i.e., that the "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas").. No impacts are shown to warrant such a neer standard, and the Hearing Examiner does not have authority to create or impose such a standard in the absence of such impacts. The law presumes that compliance with the City's applicable stormwater regulations will adequately address issues of stormwatett quality, so this regulatory standard should suffice. We assume that it was not the Hearing Examiner's intention to establish a new standard for water quality separate and apart from, the City's stornnNvater regulations, so we are seeking reconsideration and clarification of this issue. The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9 should be revised to read: ConclusiQn_5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant must comply with the CitXof Renton's standards regarding` storrrwatu(the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual). There is no evidence in the record that would suggest May Creek or Lake Washington would be jeoW c zed as a result of theap4 ication. The Condition 9: "The applicant shall camplywith the 2005 Ding County Surface Water Design Manual in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. 2thedkf-h 01 , 014 P49 " Schedule for res on nse. We understand that the other party involved with this matter, Brad Nicholson, may respond to our request for clarification. We have spoken with Ivx. Nicholson's attorney, Keith Scully, and have settled upon the following response schedule: Page 5 of 5 Response due: September 30 Reply due. October 5 We hope that this schedule is acceptable to the Hearing Examiner. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this request for reconsideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or requests for additional information. Sincerely, n C. McCullough cc: Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson ,f 1 3 4 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Is E9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB and BRAD NICHOLSON from a decision of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Case No. LUA-09-060, EGF, SA -M, SA -H APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE Al RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION South End Gives Back ("SEGB") and Brad Nicholson (collectively,"Appellant") have tiled a Motion with the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration of his decision to deny the Appellant's SEPA appeal, and to approve the Site Plan and Master Plan applications. The Appellant's motion should be denied_ IL ARGUMENT A. The Massman Declaration is outside of the record and must be stricken. The Appellant is attempting to submit new evidence (the Declaration of Joel Massrrian) into the record. The Declaration should not be allowed into the record. As stated below, the APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TO MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 701 Fifth avenue, Suite 7220 Page 1 of 6 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fas 1 3 4 5 6 s 9 10 It 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 stormwater system was fully explained both prior to and during the hearing. The Appellant was free to visit the site prior to the hearing to took at the existing ditch, and present these facts at the hearing. It chose not to do so, and the past -hearing submission of the Massman Declaration is untimely. It must not be allowed into the hearing record_ B. The Motion is an attempt by the Appellant to flip-flop its arguments after its previous arguments were without evidentiary support and were rcJeeted by the Examiner. The Appellant bases its Motion for Reconsideration upon "new information regarding water flow on the subject property." Appellant's Motion, p. 1. The Appellant alleges that this "new information" was uncovered as a result of hearing evidence and "subsequent investigation." In fact, this "new information" was not only presented at the hearing, but was available to the Appellant prior to the hearing. The Motion is simply the Appellant's attempt insert new arguments post -hearing, now that its previous arguments have been shown to be without evidentiary support, and have been wholly rejected by the Examiner. The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied. As the Examiner remembers, the Appellant's arguments regarding stormwater were based on an erroneous assumption that the entire site would be converted from pervious surface to impervious surface. Hearing Examiner's Decision, pp. 3-4. This assumption. was found to be untrue•, the pervious surfaces of the site will remain pervious. Hearing Examiner's Decision, p. 5 (Testimony of D. Mitzel). The Appellant argued at the appeal (without doing studies or basing the arguments upon any facts in the record) that infiltration of on-site groundwater would "likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington." First Massman Declaration, p. 3. APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TO MCCULLOUGH HILL PS APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Page 2 of 6 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.8] 2.3388 206.812.3389 flax r 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 is II 12 13 14 11) 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Now, the Appellant is attempting to assert a completely opposite argument: that infiltration of groundwater actually constitutes "best available science." (See Second Massman Declaration, p. 3: a "groundwater infiltration facility... would represent the best available suierlce in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site." Not only is this the exact opposite of what the Appellant previously argued, it is a new argument being made post -hearing, based on evidence that was readily available both before and during the hearing. The Heating Examiner must disregard this new argument, and must deny the Motion for Reconsideration. RMC 4-8-100.GA allows an interested person to make a Motion for Reconsideration based on "the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing.." (emphasis added). Here, the Appellant admits that it learned that the stormwater system would convey water to the roadside ditch "at the hearing." Appellant's Motion, p. 4. See also Hearing Examiner Decision, p. 7 (Testimony of P. Severin). Both the Appellant and Dr. Massnlan were present for the hearing, and were free to present evidence and make arguments retarding the stormwater conveyance system. The fact that stormwater is conveyed to the roadside ditch was also stated in the stormwater report submitted to the City (See Technical Information Report, p. 6), which was made available to the Appellant prior to the hearing. 'Thus, this is not "new information" under RMC 4-8-100.6.4, as the Appellant knew this information both prior to the hearing and at the hearing itself. The Appellant may not make new arguments on "old" evidence, after the hearing has been closed. The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied. APPLICANT'S MOTION 'I'O sTRIKE AND RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 3 of 6 MCCULLOUGH HILL. P5 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Eb 17 Is 19 74 71 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. The Appellant has not proven significant adverse impacts that would require the preparation of an EIS. Even i€'the Massman Declaration could be allowed into the record, its inclusion does not constitute affinnative evidence that the proposal will have a probable, significant adverse environmental impact which would require the preparation of an IDIS. The Appellant's motion must be denied. As stated in the Applicant's previous briefing to the Examiner, the Appellant bore the burden of producing affirmative evidence of significant adverse impacts on the environment. Mere complaints are insufficient to satisfy an appellant's burden of proof in a SEPA appeal as a matter of Iaw. IBoehrn v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711, 719-720 (2002); Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 31 P.3d 703 (2001). The Massman Declaration and the Motion for Reconsideration wrongly state that uneontroverted tcstimony establishes the groundwater patterns in the area. In fact, the First and Second Massman Declarations were not based on any actual studies of the site's groundwater by Dr. Massman himself, which is what is required by the law. Boehm, 111 Wn. App. at 719; Moss, 109 Wn. App_ at 6. Dr. i4lassman himself admits that the declarations were not based on any study, but were instead based an estimates, assumptions, and inferences (Second Massman Declaration, Para. 7; First Massinan declaration, Pam. 11). Thus, the declarations arc insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof in this SEPA appeal. The Examiner's decision did not constitute an error of law. The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied. APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSI~ TO APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 4 of MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS Tat Fifth .Avenue, suite 7220 Seartle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax r It r 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D. All evidence in the record shows no impact to the environment. The Appellant argues that SEPA requires reversal of "ecological damage already doge." Appellant's Motion, p. 5. The Appellant's argument is not supported by the law.I SEPA requires that an EIS be prepared when a proposal has been determined to have a probable significant adverse environmental impact. RCW 43.21C.031(1). An "impact" is defined as the effect or consequences of the project action. WAC 197-11-752. In this case, the stormwater system wil I have no impact to the environment, as it will convey the storm runoff to the salve location that it ends up in today. All testimony and evidence in the record shows that the shows that the on-site stormwater currently flows from the site into the roadside ditch. After development, stormwater from the site will be filtered tlu•ough a "rain garden" system, and a pipe "conveys it to the same drainage ditch that has been conveying stormwater from the site in the past ... [making] the conclusions of the Massman declaration inconsequential." Hearing Examiner's Decision, p. 16. Thus, all evidence in the record shows no change to the ultimate water flow, and therefore no significant adverse impact to the cnviromnent as a result of the stormwater system.z To state that the project should somehow be responsible to rectify conditions that are not a result of the project's impacts is not supported by the law (see Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309, t29 L. Ed, 2d 304 (1994)). The Motion for Reconsideration is not supported by the law. It must be denied. The Appellant cites to the ASARCO case in support of this allegation. The ASARCO case was decided before the SEPA regulations were enacted. In addition, Mr. Scully stated at the hearing that "the goal of SEPA is not to make things slightly better than they used to be..." (Hearing Examiner Decision, p. 4). APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TO MCCULLOUGx HILL PS APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 701 Fifth _Avenue, Suite 7220 Page 5 of 6 Seatde, Washington 98104 g 206.812.3388 246.812.3389 1 as 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 78 V. CONCLUSION The Appellant has attempted to assert new arguments and new evidence into the closed record to support its Motion for Reconsideration. The Appellant has failed to show any errors of fact or judgment on the part of the Examiner, and has failed to show that any information relied upo11 now was not reasonably available at the hearing. Thera is no evidence in the record showing that the proposal will create significant adverse impacts on the environment. The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied, and the Examiner's decisions must be upheld. DATED this 4day of October, 2009. McCULLOUGI-L HILL, P.S. lohz cU-ulTough; WSBA #12740 Jessi M. Clawson, WSBA #36901 Atto M. for Applicant Alpert International Z The stormwater system will improve the quality of runoff, however. The project must comply with the 20105 King County Surface Water Design Manual MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TC) 701 Fifth avenue, Suite 7224 APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Seattle, Washington 98104 Page 6 of b 206,812.3388 206.812.3389 fax ti \L\ l OCT -01-20 9 03:52PM FROki- 206-621-0512 T-794 P H2/006 F-725 I 2 3 4 5 b 7 S 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23I 241 ?5 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } Case No, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S individual and citizen of Renton, } MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Petitioners, I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant asks the Examiner to reconsider several portions of his decision, and -remove several conditions. SEGB responds only to arguments raised regarding stormwater and protection of May Creek and Lake Washington_ The motion should be denied because the Applicant either provides no basis for reconsideration; or erroneously argues That the Examiner has no jurisdiction to impose conditions. 11. ARGUMENT A. The Applicant Fails to Idendfj a Basis for Recon-ideration. The Applicant argues that the Examiner erred as a matter of fact in Conclusions S mid. 9 when imposing conditions on stormwater management, because there was no basis to believe that the "the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to comply with the 2005 King GENDLER & MANN, LLP RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S Zaza ss rnAwa 58101$ gots p MOTION' FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 Fax: 42061 621-05$28 QCT-01-2lg 03:52PM FRU- 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 8 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 206-621-0512 T -7M P.0031006 F-725 County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to May Creek or Lake Washington." Applicant's Motion at p. 3 of 5. But the Examiner did not conclude that the Applicant's as -yet undisclosed plan would cause harm, and there is no requirement that a showing of harm be made prior to the Examiner imposing conditions to protect the environment. In this case, the Applicant has pointedly refused to complete a stormwater plan. The Applicant points to no section of Renton's code requiring any finding of harm; requiring a finding of hart when the conditions merely guide the creation of an as -yet uncompleted plan would be absurd. There was no error of fact, because there is no plan to factually consider. B. The Examiner has Jurisdiction to Ixn ose Conditions on Stormwater Mana gement. The Applicant next argues, in a confusing smorgasbord of concepts and without citation to any legal authority, that the Examiner had no jurisdiction to require that May Creek and Lake Washington be protected from ham, or to require Best Available Science rather than just the 2005 Stormwater Manual. But in reviewing a Master Site Plan and Site Plan, the Examiner has jurisdiction to '`review and act upon" site plan reviews requiring a public hearing. RMC 4-5-070(H)(1)(n). In reviewing and acting upon a master site plan, the Examiner is required by RMC 4-9-200(E)Mto ensure: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plant, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city --wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and use GENDLER & MANN. LLP 281424 Founh Avonuc, Surto 1916 RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S Seattle, WA 90101 Priam: [2061521-88&B MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 Fax: (206162 1 _051 2 s nCT-O1-V-09 03:52PM FROW 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 FAI 206-921-0512 T-794 P.004/006 F-725 d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the Site The Applicant's argument — that because the code requires compliance with the Stormwater Manual the Examiner has no jurisdiction to impose any additional requirements — would write out of existence the Examiner's authority to require mitigation of impacts under RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)(c-d), and instead make the Examiner merely a rubber stamp checking to see if the code's minimum requirements were met. Similarly, the Applicant's argument that the Examiner's order to not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington "would establish a new, nonregulatory standard for storruwater discharge duality" is absurd. Motion for Reconsideration at p. 4 of 5, Renton's code provides that the purpose of the Critical Areas Regulations is to "[mjanage development activities to protect environmental quality." IMC 4-3-050(.A)(1)(a). The Examiner's statement properly summarizes this intent section of the Code; the requirement in the Examiner's order to use BAS provides the regulatory means to do so. if the Applicant is seriously arguing that they should be allowed to jeopardize May Creek and Lake Washington with their hotel, then perhaps the City should reconsider the decision to approve these plans at all. Dated this 1st clay of October, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: --� Keith P. Scully, WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants %Sough 1=nd Give f :jck(Den)\Responae to Motion 10 0109 RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 GENTLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattl9, WA 98101 Phone: IZO61 621 -8863 Fax: S2a91 621 -0612 6CT-01-V09 03:52PM FROM- 208-021-0512 T-794 P 005/006 F-725 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of ) } SEGS, a Washington non-profit ) Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an ) individual and citizen of Renton, ) } Petitioners, ) } STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) Case No, LUA-09-050, ECF, SA -M, S A -H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Marin, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein- Oa the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Response to Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - I GENQLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Arenuo. S.i1n 1016 Seatita, WA 98101 PhDnp,- 12051 621-8868 Fos_;206) 621-04712 OCT-0'-2"�9 G3;52P64 FROM - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton Cary Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2" a Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail I ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen(aDrentonwa-gpv 206-EZI-0512 T-794 P.006/ooh F-725 Jessica. Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), 'essica mhseattle.com DATED this . I f day of 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington - 0 A COAKLEY 1SOuiji F-nd Giyca 84ck(Dta)1D@c sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 GFNPLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Faur:h Avanue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 phone! (2061821-8868 Far: (206) F21-0512 \ 100) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant urges the Examiner to strike the Second Declaration of Joel Massman, and deny the motion for reconsideration.' For the reasons noted herein, the motion to strike should be denied, and the motion for reconsideration granted. II. ARGUMENT A. The.Applicant Misunderstands the Motion for Reconsideration. The Applicant correctly notes that the facts presented in the application (that the buildings on site would be deconstructed and the area hydroseeded), and at hearing (that i The City, evidently forgetting its duty to remain impartial, joins with the Applicant in the Applicant's request to the Hearing Examiner to write out of RMC 4-9- 200(E)(1) the Examiner's authority to mitigate impacts, yet objects to SEGB's request to have a complete record. Because the City adds only hyperbole to the Applicant's arguments, the City's briefing is not separately addressed herein. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 88101 RECONSIDERATION - l Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 ORIGINAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8'. 9 10 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 impervious surface would remain) were vastly different, and that SEGB had to re-evaluate its concerns. The Applicant then mistakenly argues that SEGB is now "assert[ing] a completely opposite argument." Response at 3. The Applicant misunderstands SEGB's motion for reconsideration. Groundwater infiltration throughout the site as SEGB believed would occur prior to the hearing, would lead to increased groundwater flow to Quendall Terminals. But what has been proposed as BAS is a detention facility on the side of the property opposite Quendall Terminals, constructed so that stormwater infiltrates the ground and flows to May Creek, rather than the current proposal, which uses a malfunctioning ditch and leads to groundwater infiltration on the Quendall Terminals side of the property. See Second Massman Dec. B. The Information About the Malfunctioning Ditch was not Reasonably Discoverable. Information should be admitted after a hearing if it "could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." RMC 4-8-100(8). In this case, the information about the malfunctioning ditch was only discovered as a result of comments made by City Staff at the hearing regarding the presence of "orange scum" standing in the ditch. SEGB is a citizen's group with limited resources. The Applicant, by contrast, has conducted numerous studies on the site, and presented a range of information regarding the site and the Applicant's construction plans. SEGB reasonably relied on the application, which claims that the water would flow through the ditch, and thence to May Creek. Technical Information Report, at 7. The application is inaccurate — as subsequent investigation determined, the ditch does not "convey[] the stormwater south to an existing 24" culvert, which discharges to May Creek" as claimed. TIR at 7; contrast Second Massman Dec. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101E REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 RECONSIDERATION - 2 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Applicant's contention that it is too late to rectify the misinformation presented ill its own application because it was only discovered during the hearing process is disingenuous; the precise reason a motion for reconsideration exists is to manage situations like this one. The Applicant's argument that because the information was uncovered "at the prior hearing" we were free to present rebuttal evidence is similarly disingenuous. The hearing lasted one day. There was no opportunity for Dr. Massman to visit the site. Moreover, presenting the information at this juncture allows the Applicant time to evaluate and respond, rather than presenting it at the hearing without any notice. Tellingly, the Applicant has no factual response to Dr. Massman's conclusions, but instead argues only that the Examiner must "see no evil" and ignore the actual condition of the ditch. C. The Examiner Must Consider the Project's Location Next to a Su erfi>nd Site. The Applicant argues that, because they assert that stormwater flow will not be changed, they are exempt from SEPA review. Response, at 5. First, stonnwater flow may increase, because the Applicant is now re -grading the site to cause all water to flow to a lined ditch (the Applicant's "rain garden") and thence to the ground via the malfunctioning ditch. Second, SEPA requires consideration of the impacts of a project on the environment if there are adverse environmental consequences, even if the project only maintains the status quo. ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501 (1979); WAC 197-11-752. The Applicant inexplicably argues that "the ASARCO case was decided before the SEPA regulations were enacted," but fails to explain why this matters. Response at 5. ASARCO is a SEPA case, and has not been overruled by either statute or the courts. GENaLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 RECONSIDERATION - 3 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Further, the Applicant's citation to WAC 197-11-752 does not aid its case. The "effect or consequences" of the project action, in this case, is to continue the harmful flow of groundwater to Quendall Terminals. WAC 197-11-752 and ASARCO are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, Applicant's passing reference to Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) is inapposite. Response at 5. Dolan is a takings case. SEGB is not arguing that the Applicant must clean up Quendall Terminals, or dedicate its entire site to the public good. But the Applicant wants to develop a location right next to a Superfund site. The impacts of development must be studied in an EIS, just as if the Applicant had purchased a site next to a steep slope and was proposing activity that might destabilize (or continue to destabilize) the area. The EIS will tell the decisioninaker whether this development should be approved at all, and what can be done to minimize impacts on the downslope toxins. Arguments about Dolan come later. Dated this 5th day of October, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By:• _77�� Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants \South End Gives Back (Den)1Reply to Applic Response 10 05 09 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 GENDLER $ MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone_ 12061621.8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 If G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28' BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of ) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, } SA -H SEGB, a Washington non-profit ) Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an ) individual and citizen of Renton, ) DECLARATION OF SERVICE } Petitioners, } STATE OF WASHINGTON } ss. COUNTY OF KING } I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Reply to Applicant's Response to Motion for Reconsideration to he served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 ORIGINAL GENTLER & MANN, LLF 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (2061621-0512 1 2 3 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2'd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), ani el s en(c_r�.,rentonwa. gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), 'essica mhseattle.com DATED this day of 011e—T" \south End Gives Back(Den)\Dec sm DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington, ITA COAKL GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206)621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 I i \b \1 Denis Law, Mayor October 19, 2009 Keith P. Scully Gendler & Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste_ 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Jack McCullough Jessica M. Clawson McCullough Hill, PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 South Frid Gives Back Brad Nicholson c/o Keith Scully 1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015 Gendler & Man, LLP Seattle, WA 98101 Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Re: Hawk's Landing Request for Reconsideration Dear Attorneys, Applicant and Appellant: Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This office has received two Requests for Reconsideration on the Ilawk's Landing Master Site Plan, Site Plan and Environmental Appeal decisions. The original appellants, South End Gives Flack (SEGB) and Brad Nicholson and the underlying applicant for the Hawk's Landing Hotel have each sought changes to the original decision. The original appellants have suggested that this office consider new information about the manner in which stormwater is managed by the applicant. In the original appeal, the appellants maintained that the "rain garden" used to collect stormwater would permit infiltration into the ground and that groundwater would flow toward the Quendall Superfund site. The appellants argued ground flow would potentially leach additional contaminants into Lake Washington. The record reflected and continues to reflect that the rain garden would actually convey stormwater through a closed system to a ditch running along the west side of the property. The main thrust of their current request is that stormwater will be conveyed to the ditch and that ditch permits infiltration into the groundwater. They argue that the plans to use the ditch and that the ditch's conditions (pond scum) were not known prior to the hearing. The record shows that the original plans demonstrated the proposed functions of the rain garden and conveyance system. Further, the ditch had been conveying stormwater from a site that is covered almost entirely with impermeable surfaces in the same manner as when the site was actively used and has been conveying stormwater in its current inactive state. There is no reason to consider the evidence as new and unavailable at the time of the hearing. 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515 0 The underlying applicant for Hawk's Landing had two major objections to the decision. It suggests that this office went beyond the scope of the original Master Plan's boundaries when requiring additional landscaping. The first objection had to do with additional landscaping to screen the proposed development from the unsightly portions of the site generally east of the parking areas and to plant street trees along Lake Washington boulevard continuing the planting pattern for the site south of the main site. The applicant introduced evidence that the City has funds to address those areas along Lake Washington Boulevard covered by the condition. That specific evidence was not available at the public hearing. The second objection was to using "best available science" to manage stormwater so that contaminants from the site do not reach May Creek and Lake Washington, ]'his office believes that the Master Plan should not have ignored those areas outside of the immediate hotel redevelopment parcel. Doing so leaves visually unappealing pavement as a dominant feature from the hotel and its grounds. in other words the applicant's limiting of the Master Plan site probably should have been initially rejected by staff. Frankly, when coupled with an immediate Site Plan review, Master Planning adds very little. There is nothing to coordinate the hotel's site plan with in this case -- it stands alone. But rejecting the Master Plan would be inappropriate at this stage in the process since in the main it is well-designed. Therefore, in order to give some weight and meaning to the Master Plan review, the additional screening to hide or soften the impacts of the unsightly eastern parcel appears reasonable. The condition for landscaping along Lake Washington Boulevard south of the project confines will be modified to allow the City to install the landscaping. The condition to require the use of "best available science" appears reasonably related to the critical areas intended to be protected, namely May Creek and Lake Washington. The subject site will be developed with large parking areas and landscaping. The parking areas will collect contaminants from automobiles including oils, solvents, gasoline and anti -freeze and road grime. The landscaping will more than likely be treated with fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Stormwater will capture these various contaminants. The site's stormwater runoff will feed a ditch that almost immediately feeds into May Creek which then almost as quickly empties into Lake Washington. Both May Creek and Lake Washington are shorelines and waters of statewide significance. They are also critical areas. ACW 36.70A.172 provides the following language: "Critical areas — Designation and protection ---- Best available science to be used. (1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries." The standards already exist in state law and should be used to protect both May Creek and Lake Washington. The standards imposed in this decision are no more uncertain than they are in state law_ to conclusion, Condition #10 will be modified. The full list of conditions made a part of the decision are found below. "DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A derailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, and be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall he submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section if?dicating compliance with RMC 4-4-080. L 6. b to he submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 4. The street vacation, file # VAC -09-001, shall he completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy. S. The applicant shall redesign lire west elevation to feature a pedestrian-orieiiteel fet�.acle. The new elevation drawings shall he submitted to the Department of Community titre/ Economic Development project managerfor review and approval prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a new site plait that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture front the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall he reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. 7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager indicating 12 foot sidewalk widths and a 10 -foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, prior to Construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall he required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of huilding permit review. 9. The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention or "rain garden " feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek andlor Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. 10. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east of the parking areas. Additionally, in the event that the City does not plant street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage then the applicant shall plant such trees at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage. " This office recognizes that appeals of the underlying decision have already been filed. This decision may change one or more of those appeals or appeal issues_ The parties may appeal this decision within 14 days of this new decision Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Es MCCULLOUG H H i LL, l's November 2, 2009 Renton City Clerk Renton Cite Hili 105 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 City of Renton Planning Division NOY 0 2 2099 RL: .Applicant's amended appeal to City Council ECOVED LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Hawk's Landing Hotel Deat City Clerk: We filed an appeal regarding this matter on September 24, 2009, asking for review of the Rearing Examiner's September 10, 2009 decision. This letter amends our previous appeal to respectfully request that the City Council review the Hearing Examiner's decision, and the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the applicant's request for reconsideration. RMC 4-8-100,3;.7 allows the City Council to modify a decision of the Examiner if it deterrnines that a substantial error in fact or la -w costs in the record. Here, the Heating Examiner's conclusimis and conditions regarding landscaping and stormwater were a result of a substantial errors in fact and/or law. The Heating Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding landscaping were a result of A substantial error of lav and fact. The applicant appeals the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10: Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' For the cntire subject site. While the applicant is trying to co.nftne its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract From what appears to be a quality image_ Therefore, the remaitung acreage should be incorporated at least minimally. The Nfaster Plan cannot escape tliat there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with soine larger trees to screen or breakup the view of die background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as on the north Frontage." Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with soiree larger trees to screen or 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3358 - Fax 206,812.3389 • www,inhseattle.com Page 2 of 5 breakup the ;View of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, in the event that the City does not plant street trees along the remaining .Lake Washington Boulevard frontage then the applicant shall plant such trees at die same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage." The applicant appeals this conclusion and this condition because: • The applicant is already significandy improving the site by redeveloping it and landscaping it. See Conclusion 12: "Redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site represents." The property to which this condition applies lies outside the boundaries of the subject master site plan and site plan application, and the applicant has proposed no development on this section of the site. Therefore, it is an error of law to impose this condition --this condition is not within the scope of the application and tria), not properly= be imposed under this application. When the applicant proposes development Li this portion of the site as part of a site plan and master site plan approval for the reinainder of the larger property, street trees -would be required by code. In addition, requiring street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard when there is no plan for redevelopment may interfere with the future redevelopment of this portion of the site— trees may need to be removed or relocated in order to accommodate die future development (construction] access, sidewalks, driveways, etc.). The applicant therefore requests the City Council to revise portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10 to react as follows: Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include `plaster planning' for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the rernauning site Nvill detract from what appears to be a duality iunage. , the The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers From old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that acconvnodatcs additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with soti-ie larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Adtlitionally, Future redevelopment of the southern pottion of the site not Proposed for development with this application will require consistency .yith City of Renton Iandscaping requirements, including the planting of street trees " Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping Nvithin the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas, Page 3 of 5 The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding stortnwaterwere a result of a substantial error of law and fact. The applicant appeals the followitng portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9: Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and app.topriately treated by whatever seater retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." Condition. 9: "The applicant shall use best available science in treating stornnvater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention, or "rain garden" Feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas_" I'he applicant appeals rl-us conclusion and condition because: • The City of Renton has not adopted "best available science" as a standard for stormwater treatment. The Hearing Examiner is therefore without jurisdiction to impose such a standard. The City of Renton has adopted the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual as its accepted method for treatment of storrnwater, -which includes the use of "best management practices (MvIPs)". The applicant -will comply with these standards, including the use of best management practices in its storrnwater system design. The City of Renton has determined, through adoption of this manual, that compliance with the manual is sufficient to pxoperly treat and convey stormwater. Thus, compliance with these adopted standards will ensure that "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." • The factual record, including the Hearing Examiner's own Fundings of fact, does not support tivs conclusion or condition. There was no evidence submitted 'into dne record for the Site Plan/Master Plan hearing showing that the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to May Creek or Lake Washington (see hearing record page 12—no evidence was submitted into this application's record by Mr. Scully showing any stormwater impacts warranting the use of best available science). The Hearing Examiner found that "The proposal will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharguag into Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State, and Federal regulations .regarding discharge from the subject site." (Site Plan approval, Finding 27). In addition, the Hearing Examiner concluded as part of the SEPA appeal that the storrmvater "will not travel Page 4of5 the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils into the hake_" (SEPA Appeal, conclusion 6). As such, the facts of the case do not support conclusion 5 or condition 9. The conclusion and condition are vague and may be implied to establish a new, non - regulatory standard for storrnwater discharge quality (i.e_, that the "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas").. No impacts are shown to warrant such a new standard, and the Hearing Examiner does not have authoritl, to create or impose such a standard in the absence of such impacts. The law presumes that compliance with the City's applicable stormwater regulations will adequately address issues of stormwater qu-,thq,, so this regulatory standard should suffice. We assume that it was not the Hearing Examiner's intention to establish a new standard for water quality separate and apart from the City's stormwater regulations, so we are appealing this issue. The Hearing Examiner responded to the applicant's request for reconsideration regarding storint,vater by essentially arguing that both May Creek and Lake Wasltitgton are critical areas, so "best available science" should be used as a standard in this permit decision. The Examiner then cited RCW 36.70A.172, the definition of best available science under the Growth Management Act, as die standard that should be used in this permit decision. The Examiner's reasoning regarding this matter is a substantial error of late. RCW 36.70A.172 requires jurisdictions to use best available science in developing comprehensive plan policies and development regulations to protect critical areas. The permit decision in this case does neither—instead, the Examiner is required to apply the exit policies and development regulations that already been adopted by the City of Renton to this permit application_ The Examiner does not have the jurisdiction to create new regulations, and has limited jurisdiction to "review and lrnplement land use regulations" in the City of Renton. See RMC 3-1-5. Thus, the Exarnuter's introduction of a new standard, not adopted by the City Council and outside of the City's already -adopted policies and regulations, is a substantial error of lav that trust be remedied. The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9 should be revised to read: Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. Thea licant must comply with the Ci!,y of Renton's standards regarding stormwater kthe 2005 King County Surface Water- Design Manuall There is no evidence in the record that would suggest Mai Creek or Lake Washington would be ieonardiaed as a result of the aw3lication. The Condition 9: "The applicant shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual-tige bei, t a -,-P ftble in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. a I'agc:--�ofa We appreciate the opportunity to provide this appeal to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact us witli any cluestions or requests for additional information. Sincerely, Jessi , NI. Clawson cc: Anil Nielsen, Renton City .Attorney Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson Michael W. Gcndier, David S. Mann Keith P. Scully Brendan W. Uonckers *Aisa admitt�-1 m Oregon GENDLER & MANN, LLP ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 SEATTLE WA 98101 November 2, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (206) 625-8863 Pax (206) 6'25-0512 kei(h@gendltrmanrL.com www.gendlermann.com City of Renton Planning Division NOV 0 2 7009 Clerk�!! City of Renton I EC; I YEI 1055 South Grady Way, 7" Floor Renton, WA 98057 RE: Amended Notice of Appeal in Hawk's Landing Hotel application, No- LLA -09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -II Dear Clerk: Attached please find an amended notice of appeal in this matter. We filed a notice of appeal on September 24, 2009, asking for review of the Hearing Examiner's September 10, 2009 report and decision. This amended notice asks for review of the Hearing Examiner's October 19, 2009 denial of the motion for reconsideration, as well as the September 10, 2009 report and decision. Very truly yours, GENDLER &. MANN, LLP Keith P. Sculty KPS:den Enclosure cc: Ann. Nielsen, City of Renton Jessica Clawson, Attorney for Applicant Client bMCtit}C� APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISEONIRECOMIENDATION APPLICATION NAME, _ 1 r h 15 � `-"`r'� � / (^ FILE NO. 6� The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the q Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated 20Q-5, c�, �j i ✓ 'f � f 61"� Lva II7ENTIFICATI0N OF PARI Y APPELLANT - Name: Address: Phone Number: Email: REPRESS ATIVJ✓ (IF ANY): nc Nae: _E� GUS 1) --- 1 Address: � JGI Phone Number: 2_ SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based-. Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error_ `r C- 5c S C C G'Etc- C_LcC d - - Correction, Conclusions: No_ Error Correction: Other: No. Error: Correction: G' 3. SCJMMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Cr_ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: Dom} �IRepresentative Signature Type/Printed Name Da] Z r NOTE: Please refer to Title TV, Chapter 8. of the Benton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific,. appeal procedures. AMENDED STXI-EMENT OF ERRORS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF Motion for Reconsideration Conclusions Page 1, denial of motion to admit new evidence and reconsider ruling. SEPA Appeal findings 15, p. 16. Error of fact in finding that stormwater will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants. Error of fact in finding that probable significant adverse environmental impacts were not present. Conclusions �¶ 6-8, pp. 17-18. Errors of law in finding that the Appellant did not provide a basis to reverse the City's determination, and in finding that the Appellant must prove that environmental harm will be "exacerbated" by the project. Errors of fact by finding that water would not percolate into the underlying soils and exacerbate pollutants. Error of law in not reversing the determination of the ERC for a Determination of Significance, or additional mitigation. Master Site Plan 1<indings 'Ii 27, p. 21. Error of fact in finding that the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants_ Decision Error of law in not requiring a stormwater plan and habitat management plan prior to approval of the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. ¶ 10, p. 25. Error of law and judgment in requiring that the applicant use a particular roadside ditch to convey stormwater, rather than requiring other stormwater control measures. Remedv Reverse the SEPA determination of the Hearing Examiner with directions to the ERC to issue a Determination of Significance. Reverse the approval of the Master Site Plan and Site Plan with directions to require a stormwater plan and habitat management plan utilizing BAS to treat stomiwater on site_ VC, N GENDLER & MANN, LLP ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW Michael W. Gendler* David S. Mann 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 Keith P. Scully SEATTLE WA 98101 Brendan W. Donckers •AISO admixed in Ornm November 4, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE AND US. MAIL Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7'h Floor Renton, WA 98057 RE: Amended Notice of Appeal in Hawk's Landing Hotel application, No. LUA-09-060, ECF SA -M, SA -H Dear Members of Council: (200 621-8868 Fax (206) 621-0512 keithOgerxilermann. com www.gcndlermam.com This case involved voluminous briefing. We ask that you review all of the briefing provided to date, but also provide this letter to summarize and guide you through it as you consider whether to grant our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal. This site has unique challenges. Uncontroverted evidence shows that the hotel proposed here is upslope from the Port Quendall Superfund site. Port Quendall is contaminated with extremely toxic substances, and the Department of Ecology and EPA have information that these toxic substances move via groundwater flow to Lake Washington. For more information, see Appellant Nicholson Hearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2049, and the attached Declaration of Joel Massman. Groundwater flow must be controlled, or infiltration will make the toxins flowing from Port Quendall to Lake Washington worse. An EIS should be ordered. Uncontroverted evidence in the record shows that groundwater flow transmits toxins from the contaminated soil at Port Quendall into Lake Washington. And water that infiltrates the ground from the site flows downslope to Port Quendall. Although the Applicant argues that it will channel stormwater to May Creek through its as -yet incomplete stormwater management plan, and not infiltrate the ground with it, evidence uncovered after the hearing indicates that the drainage ditch relied upon by the Applicant actually will infiltrate the ground, leading to Clerk November 4, 2009 Page 2 increased groundwater and toxin flow to Lake Washington. An Environmental Impact Study should be performed to evaluate how much water is infiltrating the ground through the ditch, how much of an impact it has on Lake Washington, and what the best means of dealing with the impacts may be. SEGS asserts that this problem can be resolved simply by changing the direction of stormwater flow on the site to move it away from Port Quendall, and through the installation of a stormwater detention pond on the May Creek side of the site. An EIS will answer critical environmental questions about this project and the adjacent superfund site. For more information, see Appellant Nicholson Motion for Reconsideration and Declaration of expert Joel Massman, filed with the Hearing Examiner on September 24, 2009. We need a stormwater management plan before the site is approved to know if stormwater will be adequately managed. A stormwater management plan is required in order to complete the conditions of the approval on this project - but we don't know what will be in it, or what the Applicant will propose as their final solution to the stormwater problems on site. The public does not have an opportunity to comment on the stormwater plan when it is eventually completed, and there is no mechanism for the Hearing Examiner or the Council to review it. The Hearing Examiner and Council have broad authority to impose conditions on a development proposal. While most development sites can safely wait to complete their stormwater plan after approvals have been received, this site is unique. We should know 'in advance how the Applicant will handle stormwater, and the public should be allowed to comment. For more information see Appellant Nicholson Hearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2009, and the attached Declaration of Joel Massman. The Examiner reasonably imposed the condition of Best Available Science on stormwater management at the site. The Examiner has been granted authority by the Renton Code to impose conditions on developments. In this case, the Examiner, understanding the unique nature of this site and the challenges to the long-term health of the region, imposed a requirement of Best Available Science on stormwater management on the site. Best Available Science is a commonly -used standard in Washington law to protect critical areas, and means what it says: that the Applicant does not need to create any new methods, but must choose the best scientifically -valid method available to manage stormwater. See RCW 35.70A.172. The Applicant asks you to impose a "Best Management Practice" requirement instead of the Examiner's Best Available Science requirement. But "Best Management Practices" are defined by the Renton Municipal Code as measures pertaining to wetlands protection or short-term construction methods, not long-term stormwater solutions. RMC 4-11-020. The Examiner's discretion should be left undisturbed on this issue. For more information, see Appellant Brad Clerk November 4, 2009 Page 3 Nicholson Response to Renton & Hawks Landing Requests for Reconsideration, filed on October 5, 2009 with the Hearing Examiner. For the reasons sununarized here and presented more fully in our briefing to the Examiner, we urge you to grant our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal. Very truly yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP Keith P. Scully KPS:den cc: Ann Nielsen, City of Renton Jessica Clawson, Attorney for Applicant Client July 20, 2009 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Hawks Landing Mixed Use LUA 09-0E0 ECF SA -M, SA -H Dear Mr. Examiner: Pla'^ As you are aware, the above -referenced matter was scheduled for a preliminary. , hearing on July 21, 2009. However, since a timely appeal of the SEPA determination was filed on Friday, July 17, 2009, the July 21, 2009 hearing will have to be continued. To that end, all the parties to this matter have conferred with each other and we are requesting that the hearing be continued to Tuesday, August 25, 2009. It is our understanding that Thursday, August 27, 2009 will also be reserved if the hearing cannot be concluded on August 25tH The parties have also agreed upon the following briefing schedule: Appellant's Prehearing Brief Due: Friday, July 31, 2009 Applicant HawWs Landing & City of Renton Response Due: Appellones Reply Due: Monday, August 17, 2009 Friday, August 11, 2009 If there are any further issues or problems, please feel free to contact the parties. Thank you for your patience and understanding with this matter. APPLICANTS, Alpert International LLP by Jessica Clawson Jack McCullough McCullough Hill, PS CITY OF RENTON by: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney APPELLANT, Brad Nicholson by Keith Scully Gendler & Mann cc: Alex Pietsch, Chip Vincent, Suzanne Dale Estey, Jennifer Henning, Vanessa Dolbee July 21, 2009 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Hawks Landing Mixed Use LUA 09-050 Eci= SA -M, SA -H Dear Mr. Examiner: As you are aware, the above -referenced matter was scheduled for a site plan review hearing on July 21, 2009. However, since a timely appeal of the SEPA determination was filed on Friday, July 17, 2009, the July 21, 2009 hearing will have to be continued. To that end, all the parties to this matter have conferred with each other and we are requesting that the hearing be continued to Tuesday, August 25, 2009. It is our understanding that Thursday, August 27, 2009 will also be reserved if the hearing cannot be concluded on August 25th. The parties have also agreed upon the following briefing schedule: Appellant's Prehearing Brief Due: Friday, July 31, 2009 Applicant Hawk's Landing & City of Renton Response Due: Appellant's Reply Due: Monday, August 17, 2009 Friday, August 21, 2009 If there are any further issues or problems, please feel free to contact the parties. Thank you for your patience and understanding with this matter. APPLICANTS, Alpert International LLP by: Jessica Clawson Jack McCullough McCullough Hill, PS CITY OF RENTON by: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney APPELLANT, Brad Nicholson by: Keith Scully Gendler & Mann CITY OF KEATON JUL 21 2009 RPCEMD CITY CLERKS OFFICE: z 71 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405 z z J! o MQ LR ";.-) I INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 405 z z J! o MQ LR w W� Z O as o A 0. _ o � -o b M1 --- d N o a via o ::I3URLINGT -- Z O as o A 0. En -o b M1 >4 2 d N o a o a= � � tz w cion. \ i' q, 2,02. .. • i. l � k-IJ�l12�LCTQN N- _ — — _ LU RN RAILROAD r..M x 2 03 in k Iisl ` miss j d • - = ��s-`tcr -fir ,�=�- k h o l., A a rn gin j•--� r� gni - - ,,ir`-`�'--� � ^` �; //� i u. �`°� � •9� _-�' -�.. Via° , �� O f I n A z z 1, A p �` i /3R, pg[����yp•��6 ����gpFgp^ �5 A �QyF II" & ��� � •i���e7�i� F��ai'�F ��� � fR 9 RX aP R aRPea� Ra � aP9�-• ti k Oar n�Oil II $C7{tilNl ,-T V NORTHERN RAILROAD — y1 gin j•--� r� gni - - ,,ir`-`�'--� � ^` �; //� i u. �`°� � •9� _-�' -�.. Via° , �� O f I n A z z 1, A p �` i /3R, pg[����yp•��6 ����gpFgp^ �5 A �QyF II" & ��� � •i���e7�i� F��ai'�F ��� � fR 9 RX aP R aRPea� Ra � aP9�-• ti k m o� m m cu --I L ' '-aVk INGTO�'; t40-r""N RAILROAD P lz� F- m x LIJ Geralyn Reinart, PE 159 Denny Way, #111 Seattle, WA. 98109 . . MS Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1985; BS, Civil Engineering, Iowa State University, 1979 • . - - Geralyn Reinart has over 25 years of experience in the traffic and transportation engineering field primarily specializing in the preparation of traffic impact analyses for development related activities as part of the SEPA process. She also provides on-call technical services to the Cities of DuPont and Sultan, and has been involved in the daily traffic engineering operations for both small - and moderate-sized cities. • . Licensed Professional Engineer (PE), Civil Engineering, State of Washington License No. 232-01 22588 • ' • Self-employed Traffic and Transportation Engineer, 2002 to present " • - Traffic and Transportation Engineer, David I. Hamlin & Associates, 1986 to �- - 2002 Traffic Operations Engineer, City of Bellevue, 1982 to 1986 Traffic Engineer, City of Kennewick, 1979 to 1981 1 .. American Planning Association and the Planning Association of Washington, Honor Award, Partnering Plans Category "City of Sultan Industrial Park Master Plan from Timber Dependent to Economic Independence", 2003 . - • Institute of Transportation Engineers i . . . - - - Responsible for the start-up and management of the neighborhood traffic control program for the City of Bellevue. Responsible for the research, development and composition of the ordinance regulating the kinds and classes of traffic on certain street within the City of Bellevue. Responsible for the operation of the Bellevue computerized traffic control signal system. Responsible for the design and operation of all traffic control devices for the City of Kennewick. On-call traffic engineering services for the City of DuPont since 1995. On-call development review services for the City of Sultan since 2003. Preparation of over 450 traffic impact analyses and studies for various projects and developments. Examples of work on the Transportation Element of prior EISISEPA documents include the following: • Boeing Frederickson Site • Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort • Squaxin Island Tribe Little Creek Golf Course • Snohomish County 2002 Consolidated Docket SEIS • City of DuPont Civic Center TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HAWK'S LANDING RENTON, WASHINGTON May 2009 Prepared for: Hawk's Landing, LLC GERALYN REINART, P.E. 159 DENNY WAY, # r 11 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 285-9035 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM May 11, 2009 TO: Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing, LLC FROM: Geralyn Reinart, P.E. SUBJECT: Hawk's Landing - Traffic impact Analysis Introduction/Executive Summary The purpose of this analysis was to summarize the traffic -related impacts associated with the construction of a hotel at the Hawk's Landing development in the City of Renton. The proposed Hawk's Landing .development is located in the southwest quadrant of the 1-405/NE44th Street interchange in the City of Renton. NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard border the north and westerly side of the project site and the 1-405 southbound on-ramp borders its easterly side. The proposed hotel would have 173 rooms and include typical support services provided by full service hotels including a lounge, restaurant, spa, banquet facilities, and conference space.. The assumed build-out/completion year for the hotel is 2011. Access to the site would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line, with the main access located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Based on future volume forecasts, a two-lane cross-section would accommodate the future traffic using the main access. Left -tum storage on Lake Washington Boulevard is recommended at the main access in order to provide safe egress. The existing Pan Abode driveway across from Seahawks Way is recommended to operate as a right-in/right-out access due to its close location to the 1-405 Southbound Ramps. Build -out of the hotel could potentially generate just over 1400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM peak trips. The critical movements at the adjacent Lake Washington Boulevard/Seahawks Way intersection are currently operating at level of service "D" or better during the peak hours, but the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the hotel. Other critical intersection operations include the 1-405 ramps at NE 44th Street, where some movements are currently operating at level of service "F" during the AM peak hour, and the delay on these movements will increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. Specific details on the hotel project and the analysis of its impacts can be found in the subsequent sections. In general, the project will have a limited impact on the transportation system. The proposed transportation improvements will mitigate not only the project's impacts on the transportation system, but existing deficiencies. Referenced herein are prior analyses completed in the area including the "Port Quendall Access Options" technical memorandum, the Barbee Mill traffic impact analysis, and the Seahawks Headquarters traffic impact analysis. Background/Project Description The proposed Hawk's Landing development is located in the southwest quadrant of the 1-405/NE 44th Street interchange in the City of Renton. NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard border the north and westerly side of the project site and the 1-405 southbound on-ramp borders its easterly side. The proposed action evaluated in the analysis is for a 173 -room hotel that would include typical support services provided by full-service hotels including a lounge, restaurant, spa, banquet facilities and conference space. The parcel upon which the project is located is the existing 7.8 -acre Pan Abode site. Access to the site would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first of these accesses is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line with the main access located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. A build- out/completion year of 2011 is assumed for the hotel. Currently, Pan Abode occupies the site with multiple buildings, and storage and parking facilities. Immediately to the south is a wooded undeveloped site, with new residential construction on-going at the former Barbie Mill site 2 to the southwest. The new Seahawks training facility is located to the northwest along Seahawks Way (formerly Ripley Lane) and 1-405 is located immediately to the east, with miscellaneous commercial development immediately east of the freeway. Further south, residential development borders Lake Washington Boulevard. The parcel is currently zoned "COR" (Commercial/Office/Residenfial) which allows a mix of uses such as retail, office, or commercial space. A vicinity map of the area is shown on Figure i and a preliminary site plan for the project has been attached. Existing Condifions The subsequent sections describe the existing conditions in the project vicinity. 7. Streets The following describe the streets near the site that will be the most critically impacted by the project: Lake Washington Boulevard is a collector arterial that extends southerly from the NE 44th Street/1-405 Soufhbound Ramps to N. Park Drive. The street is striped for two lanes in each direction and includes left -tum storage at select intersections. The street is relafively flat with some horizontal curvature and includes a shared bike lane/walkway on the west side of the street. The adjacent land use is primarily single family residential south of the project site and the posted speed is 25 mph. Lake Washington Boulevard transitions into NE 44th Street at the 1-405 interchange and then continues northerly on the east side of the freeway interchange. NE 441h Street is a collector arterial that provides access to 1-405 and connects Lake Washington Boulevard on the west side of the freeway to Lincoln Avenue and Lake Washington Boulevard on the east side of the freeway. The street consists of one lane in each direction plus left -tum storage at the ramp intersections. The southbound ramp is controlled by a stop sign in the southbound direction, whereas the northbound ramp intersection is controlled by an all -way stop. The posted speed is 25 -mph. Seahawks Way (formerly Ripley Lane) is a two-lane local access street extending north from Lake Washington Boulevard just southwest of the 1-405 interchange and dead -ends several hundred feet north thereof. The street 3 consists of two lanes with some gravel shoulder insfalied along the Seahawks facility frontage and is relatively flat and straight with a horizontal curve present on the approach to Lake Washington Boulevard. The posted speed is 25 -mph. 1-405 is a north -south freeway facility bordering the east side of the project site. 1-405 provides access to Bellevue and Kirkland to the north, eventually connecting with 1-5 in Lynnwood and to Tukwila to the south where it also connects to 1-5. The freeway consists of two lanes in each direction plus high -occupancy lanes. 2. Transit/Non-Motorized Facilities Metro Transit is responsible for providing bus service in Renton. Currently, no routes are provided adjacent to the project site. Non -motorized facilities are limited in the area. As noted in the previous section, a shared walkway/bike lane is present on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard, south of the project life. Otherwise, sidewalk is not present along Seahawks Way or Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street west of the freeway. Urban improvements have been installed along the east side of the freeway and include sidewalk. 3. Traffic Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic counts were conducted at three locations for this analysis. Counts at these locations were updated from those conducted by the City of Renton in 2008 in order to capture traffic associated with the SFC (Sounders FC) headquarters that are located in the Seahawks training facility, along with full operation of the Seahawks facility. Furthermore, the City of Renton provided average weekday volumes for streets adjacent to the project site. The average weekday volumes and intersection count locations are summarized on Figure 2 and include the following: 1. 1-405 Northbound Ramps/N. 44th Street 2. 1-405 Southbound Ramps/N.44+h Street 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard A summary of the AM and PM peak hour volumes for these intersections is shown on Figure 2A. 4 A comparison of the counts completed for this analysis with those completed in prior years, shows a decrease in the commuter volumes (i.e., eastbound in the AM peak and westbound in the PM peak), likely the result of the decreasing employment levels that are currently occurring. 4. Level of Service Capacity analyses for the peak hours were conducted at the intersections noted in the previous section in order to determine the current level of service/operating conditions. All of the intersections are stop sign controlled. More specifically, the 1-405 Northbound Ramp is stop sign controlled in all directions, whereas the 1-405 Southbound ramps and the Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection operate with side street stop control in the north -south directions. "Level of service" (LOS) is a common term used in the Traffic Engineering Profession that is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and its perception by motorists and/or passengers. These conditions are usually described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are designated, ranging from "A" to "F", with level of service "A" representing the best operating conditions and level of service "F" the worst. Calculations for the level of service analysis were conducted using the McTrans Hi hwa COP-acity Software version 4.1 d/e based on the 2000 KahwaZ Capacitz Manual. The following table shows the current levels of service for these intersections using the traffic volumes shown on Figure 2A. Calculations for the level of service analyses have been attached. 5 TABLE I EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE A AM PEAK HOUR > 10 &:s 15 seconds NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- E > 35 & < 50 seconds BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound LOS C LOS F LOS F LOS C LOS F Ram /NE 44th Street 19.9 sec. 53.6 sec. 86.4 sec_ 20.0 sec. 58.0 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS F LOS B Ram /NE 44th Street N.A. >99.9 sec. N.A. 14.9 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS B LOS D LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 13.7 sec. 29.9 sec. 8.0 sec. 9.2 sec. N.A. PM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound LOS E LOS D LOS C LOS C LOS D Ram INE 441h Street 44.6 sec. 28.4 sec. 17.4 sec. 15.2 sec. 29.4 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS C LOS A Ram NE 44th Street N.A. 19.8 sec. N.A. 8.1 sec. N.A. Way/Lake LOS A LOS C LOS A LOS A uWseahawks ashin ton Blvd. 9.5 sec. 16.8 sec.8.6 sec. 7.5 sec. N.A. N.A. - not applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) v Where: LOS Delay A < 10 seconds B > 10 &:s 15 seconds C > 15 & < 25 seconds D > 25 & < 35 seconds E > 35 & < 50 seconds F > 50 seconds {for unsignalized intersections) Table 1 shows the level of service results for the peak hours, indidating that during the AM peak hour, two of the intersections have movements operating level of service "F", i.e., the southbound movement at the 1-405 southbound ramp and the southbound and eastbound movements at the 1-405 northbound ramps. During the PM peak hour, all movements are operating at level of service "1=" of better. 3. Traffic Accidents Traffic accident data for the Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street corridor between Burnett Avenue/N. 36th Street and the 1-405 Northbound Ramps were provided by the City of Renton. The City accident data are from January 2006 through December of 2008. The following table D summarizes the accident frequency and severity along the corridor for this period. The accident history shows a limited number of accidents, for the most part, along the corridor. The exception is at the 1-405 Northbound Ramps where an average of four collisions per year occurred (a total of 12 collisions over the three-year period). The majority of these twelve collisions consisted of right angle accidents (six of the 12 accidents). The remaining accidents included left -tum (two of the 12 accidents), sideswipe (two of the 12 accidents), rear -end (one of the 12 accidents), and fixed object (one of the 12 accidents). Two accidents were reported at the Southbound Ramps — the first of these was a left -tum collision, and the second was a right angle collision. The remaining five accidents along Lake Washington Boulevard included two rear -end collisions at Burnett Avenue, a rear end collision at N. 36th Street, a fixed object collision north of N. 40th Street, and a right angle collision at Ripley Lane (Seahawlxs Way). Injuries were reported in eight of the nineteen collisions; no fatalities were reported. 7 6. Roadway Imorovement Prollects Limited street improvement projects are listed in the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The City of Renton has no street improvement projects listed in its most recent TIP. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to widen 1-405 between NE 44th Street and 112th Avenue SE. This project would construct two northbound and southbound general purpose lanes thereby increasing capacity by 100%. The environmental assessment for this project has been completed and construction funding is listed for 2015. Future Conditions Without Project The streets adjacent to the project site were the subject of a recent analysis completed by HDR Engineering/CH2M Hili with respect to redevelopment of the Port Quendall site. The Port Quendall analysis evaluated both a pre - 2015 (near-term condition) and a 2015 ("maximum capacity with improvements") condition. The pre -2015 near-term development condition analyzed a total of 1600+ new AM peak hour trips and 2300+ new PM peak hour trips, and the 2015 condition analyzed a total of 2000+ new AM peak hour trips and 3000+ new PM peak hour trips. The Port Quendall analysis also included an assumption that the Pan Abode property would generate 10% of the total trips. As noted earlier, the hotel at Hawk's Landing would be completed prior to 2015, which coincides with the near-term Port Quendall analysis._ Consisteni with recent traffic impact analyses completed in the area, the evaluation completed herein assumed a 2% yearly growth rate in existing traffic volumes. Also included in the background traffic volume projections is the completion of the housing development on the Barbee Mill properly, which is currently under construction. Given the current downturn in economic conditions and the resulting decrease in traffic volumes that has been noted, this increase is likely to result in an over-estimate of actual conditions, thus representing a conservative analysis. Other incidental development may occur over the next few years; however, specific projects in the vicinity would be subject to further analysis to identify their impacts. The following describes the future base conditions for the horizon year (2011) . 1. Traffic Volumes As noted above, 2011 is the designated horizon year for the build -out of the hotel. The 2% annual growth was applied to the volumes shown on Figure 2A with the Barbee Mill trips further added into the volumes. Trip assignment data for the Barbee Mill project was available from the TIA submitted, and modified to reflect the use of the access from lake Washington Boulevard south of Seahawks Way. Originally, trips from Barbee Mill would have been routed further north and then used Seahowks Way; however, this is no longer the case. This change results in less traffic using Seahawks Way, and more through traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard past the Seahawks Way intersection. Figure 3 shows the projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the year 2011 for the base conditions. A summary of the pipeline trips and intersection volumes are shown in Appendix A-1. 2. Leel of Service Level of service calculations were conducted again for the intersections previously reviewed. It was assumed, for purposes of analysis, that no changes in the geometric conditions or traffic control at the intersections would occur in order to.provide a comparison to current conditions. (Note: the proposed near-term improvements noted in the Port Quendall analysis will be referenced in subsequent analyses as part of the project impact mitigation measures.) The results of the future base conditions are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 2011 PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE BASE CONDITIONS N -A. - nor appifcanie (i.e., calculation not provfded for specific anarysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) Where: LOS Dela X AM PEAK HOUR < f Q seconds B NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- 25 & � 35 seconds 1-405 Northbound Rare /NE 44th Street BOUND LOS C 21.6 sec. BOUND LOS F 68.9 sec. BOUND LOS F X99.9 sec. BOUND LOS C 21.6 sec. OVERALL LOS F 81.5 sec. 1-405 Southbound Ram /NE 44th Street N.A. LOS F >99.9 sec. N.A. LOS C 17.3 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Blvd. LOS B 14.6 sec, LOS E 136.6sec. LOS A 8.0 sec. LOS A 9.5 sec. N.A. PM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL I-405 Northbound Ram /NE 44th Street LOS F 70.8 sec. LOS E 42.7 sec. LOS C 21.0 sec. LOS C 17.1 sec. LOS E 43.1 sec. 1-405 Southbound Ram /NE 44th Street N.A_ LOS C 23.3 sec. N.A. LOS A 8.2 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake Washin ton Blvd. LOS A 9.8 sec. LOS C 18.7 sec. LOS A 8.8 sec. LOS A 7.5 sec. N.A. N -A. - nor appifcanie (i.e., calculation not provfded for specific anarysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) Where: LOS Dela X A < f Q seconds B > 10 & < 15 seconds C > 15 & < 25 seconds D> 25 & � 35 seconds E > 35 & < 50 seconds F > 50 seconds (for unsignalized intersections) Table 3 shows the 2011 level of service results for the peak hour base conditions, indicating that two of the three of the intersections would have movements operating level of service "I=" during the AM peals hour, i.e., the southbound movement at the 1-405 southbound ramp, and the southbound and eastbound movements at 1-405 northbound ramps. (This is the same as the existing conditions.) During the PM peak hour, the northbound movement at the 1-405 northbound ramp would drop to level of service "P. The southbound movement at the Seahawks Way/Lake Washingfon Boulevard intersection would drop to "E" during the AM peak hour from its current level of service "D" condition. t0 Future Conditions With Project The subsequent sections describe the likely potential impacts that will occur with the hotel development. The proposed hotel would construct 173 rooms plus support facilities. The following informafion summarizes the impacts associated with its construction. 1. Tdp Generafiion The development of the hotel will generate new traffic onto the adjacent street system. The trip generation for the hotel has been estimated using the most recent values in the ITE TP Generation (8m Edition, 2008). Five different lodging facility options are listed in the Trip Generation manual (i.e., hotel, all suite hotel, business hotel, motel, and resort hotel). Based on discussions with the project applicant, ITE Land Use 310 - Hotel, best represents the proposed facility. The ITE description of Land Use 310 - Hotel is as follows: Hotel: "Hotels are places of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreational facilities (pool, fitness room); and/or other retail and service shops. Some of the sites included in this land use category are actually large motels providing the hotel facilities noted above." The following table summarizes the estimated trip generation associated With the hotel using number of rooms as the independent variable. TABLE 4 ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION Trip Rate Daily/AM Peak/ Peak Flour Trips AM PM ITE Land Use PM Peak Daily Trips In/out /o In/OutIn/O 310 - Hotel* 8.17/0.56/0.59 59/38 Total 54/48 Per room 1413 97 102 " - 173 rooms 11 2. Trip_Dlstribufion/Assiionment The trip distribution/assignment for the hotel has been shown on Figure 4. The trip assignment shown on Figure 4 for the hotel is based on the trip generation patterns used for the Port Quendall analysis, which used the distribution assumed in the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Project Access Point Decision Report. One modification was made to the noted distribution, i.e., an assignment of traffic to and from the Seahawks facility, since the proposed hotel is intended to serve visitors associated with the facility. Otherwise, the trip distribution was the some and included the following: • 48% of the trips using 1-405 to/from the south. • 30% of the trips using 1-405 to/from the north. • 10% of the trips to/from the south of the project site along Lake Washington Boulevard.* + 5% of the trips to/from the Seahawks facility via Seahawks Way • 4% of the trips to/from the southeast via NE 44th Street and Lincoln Avenue * 3% of the trips to/from the northeast via NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard. "- Note. a percentage of the trips to/from the south on Lake Washington Boulevard were re- assigned to Seahawks Way. The above described distribution is primarily oriented to and from 1-405 since the majority of both employees and visitors would likely be using the regional transportation system. Figure 4A shows the AM and PM peak hour trip assignment through the three intersections (I-405 Northbound Ramps/ NE 44th Street, 1-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street, and Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard) that are included in this analysis. 3. Traffic Volumes Figure 5 shows the projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the year 201 1, with the hotel trips. The project trips were added into the 2011 "base volumes" shown on Figure 3 to produce the volumes shown on Figure 5. These volumes are also summarized in Appendix A-1. 4. Level pf Service Level of service calculations were conducted again for the intersections previously reviewed. Again, no changes in the geometric conditions or traffic control at the intersections were assumed for purposes of 12 comparison to the existing and 2011 base conditions. The results of the future conditions with the hotel project trips are shown in Table 5. 1.1 %. - I Ivr uppllt-uuiC It -U., caicuiaflon nor provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) Where: IAS Del A < 10 seconds B > 10 & < 15 seconds C > 15 & < 25 seconds D > 25 & < 35 seconds E > 35 & < 50 seconds F > 50 seconds (tor unsignalized intersections) The additional traffic associated with development of the hotel results in further increases in delay from the base conditions. As with the 2011 base conditions, two of the three intersections would have movements operating level of service "F" during the AM peals hour, i.e., the southbound movement at the 1-405 southbound ramp and the southbound and eastbound movements at 1-405 northbound ramps. During the PM peak hour, the northbound movement at the 1-405 northbound ramp would operate at level of service "F" and the overall level of service would 13 drop to "I'". The southbound movement at the Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection would remain at level of service "E" during the AM peak hour, as noted for the base conditions. 5. Parldng Parking for the hotel will be provided on-site, in the hotel garage and in surface stalls located on the easterly side of the building. The parking garage would include 107 stalls and 124 surface stalls would be constructed including five NEV (neighborhood electrical vehicles) with plug-in facilities for charging. information from both the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation (3rd edition - 2004) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking guidelines (second edition -- 2005) has been reviewed to determine if the proposed supply will meet peak demand. Both publications provide peak parking demand for hotels. ITE provides parking demand data based on number of rooms for both average peak demand and the 85th percentile demand. ULI parking demand is based on number of rooms and lounge and conference room areas. The following weekday parking ratios were noted: ITEap ddn demand per room • Average peak: 0.91 spaces per room = 157 stalls • 85th percentile pear: 1.14 spaces per room = 197 stalls UL(Padldnu demand • Peak demand: 1.15 spaces per room + 10 spaces per thousand square feet of lounge + 30 spaces per thousand square feet of conference room = 331 stalls* 't(1.15X 173)+(IOX4)+(30X3.07))=331 The proposed number of surface and garage stalls is less than the ULI recommended value, but adequate per the ITE values. Since the ITE values are met, it is likely that the proposed parking is adequate to meet peak demand. Furthermore, in the event that demand exceeds supply, hotel management could implement valet parking which would increase supply. 14 6. Site Access/Design As noted earlier, access to the site would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line, with the main access located approximately midpoint along the westerly property line. These two accesses would be connected intemally through the surface parking area located on the easterly side of the hotel. An estimate of potential volumes at the main access for the AM and PM Peak hours is shown on Figure 6. (Figure 5 shows the estimated volumes for the northerly access across from Seahowks Way.) Full access was assumed at the main access with the existing Pan Abode access limited to right-tums in and out due to its closeness to the 1405 Southbound Ramps. Located between these two accesses is the northerly access to Lake Washington Boulevard for the Barbee Mill development. The need for left -turn storage for the main access (southwest -bound) on Lake Washington Boulevard was reviewed using Figure 910-12a from the WSDOTDesi n Manual (figure has been attached). Based on the anticipated volume of left -turns from Lake Washington Boulevard, 100 feet of turn storage is recommended. (Note: Storage lengths based on an unsignalized intersection condition as noted on Figure 91.0-13a.) A level of service analysis at the Lake Washington Boulevard main access was conducted to determine the expected operating conditions upon completion of the hotel. A single through lane in each direction plus a separate southwest -bound left -tum lane on Lake Washington Boulevard, and separate northwest -bound left- and right -turn lanes on the main access were assumed, along with stop sign traffic control of the exiting movements from the hotel. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 6. TABLE 6 2017 LEVELS OF SERVICE LAKE WASHINGTON BDULFVdun»ueM crrc emcee N.A. -- not appiicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) 15 NORTH- SOUTH- —EAST-._ r. WEST- Epeakur BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL LOS C LOS A 16.2 sec. N.A. N.A. 9.8 sec. N.A. PM peak hour LOS B LOS A 10.0 sec. N.A. N.A. 7.6 sec. N.A. N.A. -- not appiicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) 15 Note: Lake Washington Boulevard considered the east/west street and the hotel access the northbound movement in the above table. The capacity analyses indicate that the new access should operate at good levels of service with level of service "C" or better present during the peak hours. 7. Prosect Impacts/Mitigation The proposed hotel could potentially generate just over 1400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM peak trips. The critical movements at the adjacent Lake Washington Boulevard/Seahawks Way intersection are currently operating at level of service "D" or better during the peak hours, but the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the hotel. Other critical intersection operations include the 1-405 ramps at NE 44th Street, where some movements are currently operating at level of service "F" during the AM peak hour, the delay on these movements will increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. Lake Washington Boulevard, adjacent to the site, is striped for one lane in each direction and includes left -tum storage at select intersections. The street has not been upgraded to urban standards, i.e., curb, gutter and sidewalk have not been constructed. Three arterial intersections were reviewed in this assessment, all of which are currently controlled by stop signs. The capacity analyses for the existing levels of service indicate that during the AM peak hour, two of the intersections have movements operating level of service "F The increase in traffic volumes over the next couple of years would further increase delay at the intersections, with or without the hotel. Both near-term and long-term roadway/intersection improvements for the NE 44th Street corridor/interchange were identified in the Port Quendall analysis. Interim measures to mitigate the impacts associated with the hotel were reviewed to decrease the intersection delay until further corridor improvements can be funded and constructed. The following summarizes these measures. • 1-403 Northbound Ramp/NE *P Street -- the level of service analyses indicate an overall level of service (LOS) "F" condition during the AM peak hour with or without the hotel and an LOS "F" condition 16 during the PM peak hour with the hotel. Additional lanes on the west, north and south legs of the intersection were reviewed to determine the improvement in operating conditions. These improvements would include construction of a third lane on the west leg such that a separate lane would serve the left, through and right -turn movements and the addition of an exclusive teff -turn lane on both the north and south legs of the intersection. An all - way stop would still control the intersection. The overall level of service during both the AM and PM peak hours could be improved to LOS "D", although some individual lanes or movements could continue to operate at LOS "E" or "F". The installation of a traffic signal to control the intersection would further decrease the overall delay and improve all legs of the intersection to LOS "D" or better. (Note: both the lane and traffic signal installations were noted in the Port Quendall near-term improvements.) 1-405 Southbound Ramp/NE 441h Street -the southbound left -turn from the ramp is currently operating at LOS "F" during the AM peak hour due to insufficient gaps in traffic. The only reasonable means t of correcting this deficiency is the installation of a traffic signal in order to create artificial gaps in traffic. This installation would result in LOS "D" or better during the peak hours. (Note: the traffic signal installation was noted in the Port Quendall near-term improvements.) Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard - the southbound movement at this intersection would drop to LOS "E" by 2011 during the AM peak hour without the hotel, with increasing delay to this movement upon completion of the hotel. This condition is the result of increased through volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard and ❑ decrease in gaps in traffic. As noted in prior studies in the area, the close location of this intersection to the 1-445 southbound ramps allows for limited improvements. The installation of a short center merge/acceleration lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between the intersection and the 1-405 southbound ramps to mitigate the LOS "E" condition was reviewed. The results of the analysis indicate that the southbound left -turn movement could operate at LOS "C" Wth this installation. The final critical issue is the operation of the site accesses. A southwest - bound left -turn lane on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main access should be constructed in order to serve traffic from the north that would be 17 entering the site. The main hotel access would include a center landscaped island and a separate lane for left- and right -turning vehicles exiting the site. As noted earlier, the northerly access (the existing Pan Abode access) is recommended to operate as a right-in/right-out access. due to its close spacing to the 1-405 southbound ramps. The main access is expected to operate acceptably upon completion of the hotel. Although this access will be located fairly close to the northerly access serving the Barbee Mill development, conflicts between the left -turns entering the two opposing sites are expected to be minimal due to the low volume of left - turns projected at the Barbee Mill site and minimal queue lengths at the hotel entrance. The above measures mitigate not only impacts associated with the hotel, but also pre-existing conditions. Conclusions/Recommendations The development of the hotel at Hawk's Landing would generate additional traffic onto the existing transportation system. Both near-term and long-term roadway/ intersection improvements for the NE 44th Street corridor/interchange were identified in the Port Quendall analysis. Interim measures to mitigate the impacts associated with the hotel to decrease the intersection delay until further corridor improvements can be funded and constructed were discussed in the prior section. The following improvements/actions are recommended for consideration by Staff for the project: • Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the -NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. • Installation of t 00 -foot southbound left -turn storage lane (or two- way left -turn lane) on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main hotel access. • Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. • Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. Construction of frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. 18 • Payment of the City's traffic mitigation fee; credit for the existing Pan Abode trips should be allowed as well as any costs associated with the above mitigation measures. Besides the above mitigation considerations, the Applicant has met with representatives of Metro Transit to ensure that the future site configuration is designed to accommodate bus turnaround through the project site for future transit service. No other mitigation measures are recommended for consideration at the present time. 19 ATTACHMEMS 20 Appendix APPENDIX A-1 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AT CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS AM Peak Hour Volumes I. 1-405 NS Ramos/NE 441ft Street 2. 1-405 SB Ramos/NE 44th Street EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SSL SBT SBR Existing volumes 281 108 351 164 165 140 10 94 91 29 27 344 With 2% annual growth 292 112 365 171 172 146 10 98 95 30 28 358 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill 21 5 16 - 1 - - - - - - 3 2011 volumes w out project 313 117 381 171 173 146 10 98 95 30 28 361 Project tris 1 2 i 1 - 2 - 28 - - - - 2 2011 volumes with ro'ect 314 119 392 171 175 146 38 98 95 301 28 363 2. 1-405 SB Ramos/NE 44th Street 3. Seahawks WdylLake Washinaton Boulevard ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ExistIng volumes - 665 5 390 133 - - - - 54 1 117 With 2% annual growth - 692 5 4061 138 - - - - 56 1 122 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill - 42 1 - 4 - - - _ - - 4 2011 volumes w out project - 734 6 406 142 - - - - 56 1 126 Project trips - 14 18 - 32 - - - - - - 18 2011 volumes with o ect - 748 24 406 174 - - - - 56 1 144 3. Seahawks WdylLake Washinaton Boulevard - revised trip assignment through intersection to reflect current access layout ** - total includes deleted Pan Abode trips EBL EBT EBR WBL W8T WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Existing volumes 15 636 3 4 192 64 0 0 2 32 1 3 With 2% annual growth 16 662 3 4 200 67 0 0 2 33 1 3 Pipeline trips: Barbee MITI* - 43 2011volumes w1out prolect 16 705 j 3 4 208 67 0 0 2 33 1 3 Project tris 2 27 - - 50 - - - 5 - - 3 2011 volumes wlth ro ect 18 732 0** 0** 258 67 0 0 5** 33 0*" 6 - revised trip assignment through intersection to reflect current access layout ** - total includes deleted Pan Abode trips PM Peak Hour Volumes 1. 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 4,Vh Street 2. 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44fh Street BBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Existing volumes 67 144 67 76 138 83 10 269 167 54 22 287 With 2% annual growth 70 150 70 79 144 86 10 280 174 56 23 299 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill 3 10 3 - 6 - 1 _ _ _ - 9 2011volumes W/out ro Oct 73 160 73 79 150 86 11 280 174 56 23 308 Project tris 1 2 15 - 2 - 26 - _ _ _ 2 2011volumes with project 74 162 88 79 152 86 37 280 174 56 23 310 2. 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44fh Street 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Soulaverm EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL S8T 38R Existing volumes - 145 24 211 287 - - - - 128 3 256 With 2% annual _growth - 151 25 220 299 - - - - 133 3 266 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill - 16 2 - 16 _ _ _ _ - - 22 2011 volumes w out project - 167 27 220 315 - - - - 133 3 288 Project trips - 18 1 23 1 - 30 - - - - - - 16 2011 volumes with ro ect - 185 50 720 345 - - - - 133 3 304 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Soulaverm - revisea mp assignment through intersection to reflect current access iayrout ** - total includes deleted Pan Abode trip EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR -Exlsffng volumes 4 123 0 3 319 39 1 0 6 31 0 4 With 2% annual rowth 4 130 0 3 540 41 1 0 6 32 0 4 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill* - 18 - - 38 2011voiumes _w/out project 4 148 0 3 578 41 1 0 6 32 0 4 Project tris 2 36 - - 46 - - - 5 - - 3 2011 volumes with ro ect 6 184 0 0:. 624 410""' 0 5"` 32 0 7 - revisea mp assignment through intersection to reflect current access iayrout ** - total includes deleted Pan Abode trip Site Plan/Figures W �f 5. Project site b OE 43rd N 40th St N 38th St Q� SE 72nd St, NE 50th St. SE 76#h 5t. 5E 777t�Pl.li SE 3 C SE 80th St. 63 PROJECT VICINITY MAP FIGURE I n 40th St Q SF RRth 1 m SE 76th St. N.T.S. r / 16763] 3 2 NE �tl� St `7 4478 1 Project site -- ---� 12987 U I / N. 40th St. J N. 36th St. o !✓ d m ro - Peak hour count locations (see Figure 2A for volumes) m XXXX 2006 City of Renton Average Weekday Traffic 1 1XXXX] - 2005 City of Renton Average Weekday Traffic 1-405 EXISTING AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES & PEAK HOUR COUNT LOCATIONS Garalyn Relnart P.E. FIGURE 2 159 Denny Way, #113 Hawk's Landing - Hote1 Page Seattle, WA. 98'149 Renton_ WA. t=-2 N_T_S. GLake Washington Blvd-/ Seahawk's way 64 Yll32 260 �3 4 15 0 2 036 BSA o 2 3 #1 Lake Washington Blnd.I Seahawk's way 39 3531 561 le 519`" 4 yyyfff s 0 4 0 8 ��, 125 129 xo 1 7 AM Peak Hour 2) NE 44th SUI -405 SB Ramp 172 117 54 1 733 7523 670 665 390 s PM Peak Hour NE 44th SLA -405 $8 Ramp /// 387 256 —1,--.- 128 3 287 _T498 189 X145 211 24 I NE 44h St.l1-405 NB Ramp 400 344 _ � 29 740 27 281 165 469 740 108 Y 94 164 351 104— 91 195 t #3 1 NE 44h St.11-105 NB Ramp �J 36�3 287 � jj _ 54 IY B3 67 22 138 297 278 144 7 269 76 67 90157 446 EXISTING AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES �. FIGURE 2A �a, N.T.S. #1 Lake Washington Blvd./ Seahawk's Way 67 37 33��279 2011 \ 3 1 �4 16 2 724 y 02 i 3 #1 Lake Washington BIvdJ Seahawk's Way 41 3e r 32 R-622 678 s y '3 4 . 0 4 0 6 'N � 148 � f 162 00 7 AM Peak Hour NE 44th St -A-405 SB Ramp 183 126 Be 1 142 —,548 740 T734 406 6 PM Peak Hour NE 44th St./1-465 SB Ramp 424 288 133 3 315 7536 194 T167 220 27 -MD M 1 NE 44h St./1-405 NB Ramp J 419 361 30 148 313 28173 490 811 117 171 96 391 10-4- 0 95 203 tNE 44h St.A405 NB Ramp 387 308 66 Y 88 23 73 1511-T315 306 ) 180 280 79 73 11 174 465 2011 ESTIMATED AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES EASE CONDITION'S zeinart P.E.FIGURE 3 IAF-.,-1F-f i i Lkau4I nn.11w.. 1-405 ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTIONIASSIGNMENT einart, P.E. IAl.... -A. I FIGURE 4 f17) \11 159) 30% (i ) I 424 Ell ' 3% (18) 42 I (2) [21 5E 76th S CO f [2] Ngo o [3] [2] Project site f 4% 57 [s] d (z) 10% $ [2] 142 � (4) [5] N. 44th St. / (28) [26] ' 878 878 � (18)x• % l23] N_ 36th $t. / f � l I I17 Q d C m E CO xx% - percent distribution xxx -daily trips (xx) - AM peak hour trips Cur �+ pa] - PM peak hour Lips 1-405 ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTIONIASSIGNMENT einart, P.E. IAl.... -A. I FIGURE 4 N.T-S. #� Lake Washington Blvd./ Seshawk% Way 3 2 27 5 t # i Lake Washington Blvdd SeahawWs Way 48 3 2 5 q 38 AM Peak Hour NE 44th St./1-405 SB Ramp 18 32 7 14 18 PM Peak Hour NE 44th St./I-4d5 SB Ramp 18 3Q7 �18 23 NE 44h SLA -408 NB Ramp 2 -'_ 1 2 l -� 2 11 28 NE 44h SLA -408 NS Ramp -1 2 b - �2 15 26 ESTIMATED TRIP ASSIGNMENT AT INTERSECTIONS R�art P. FIGURE 4A Inv Wav �Ei I i N.T_S, #1 Lake Washington Blvd./ Ssahawk's Way 67 39 33 328 258" 6 ' O �0 78 0 5 73Z 750 0 X5 0 Lake Washington Blvd./ Saahawk'S Way 41 3932 885 :��' fi24 7 0 60 5 N� 154 190 kp 0 5 AM Peak Hour 2) NE 44th St -A-406 SB Ramp 201 144 � 66 1 174 -T 5811 772 748 406 24 PM Peak Hour NE 44th St/1-406 S13 Ramp 440 304 133 3 345 WS 235 7185 220 50 113 i NE 44h St/1-405 NS Ramp / 421 383 --J\� 33 148 28 314 175 492 825 119 171 98 392 237 NE 44h St./1-405 NB Ramp 389 310—tso — efi 74 23 152 317 324 182 79 280 88 37-+� I} —174 494 2011 ESTIMATED AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES i P.E. jWFIGURE 5 a., x'11 u.,,w. i _..a:..... e� 3 3 N.T.S. —_See "Figure 5" for intersection volumes - Hotel a v AM peak hour PM peak hour 25'1 604 208 N 555 "e� 53 49 9568 29 144 r SB 894 _4 4 33 749 14 'k 6 43 S 6 2011 ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AT SITE ACCESSES Geralyn Reinart, P -E. FIGURE 5 159 Denny Way, #111 Hawk's Landing - Hotel Page Seattle, WA 98109 Renton. WA_ F-6 Turn Lane Storage Requirements Intersections At Grade 25 20 15 10 5/U 5P % Total DHV Turning Left (single turning movement) dotes: [1] DHV is total volume from both directions. (21 Speeds are posted speeds. Chapter 910 1000 ')5s; 900 800 2 fl 0 F 700 600 M Ir' 300 0 Left -Turn Storage Guidelines: 7Wo-Lane, Unslgnalized Figure 970.12a page 910-26 Design Manual M 22-01.02 November 2007 lntersectionsAt Grade Page 910-28 1400 1300 1200 1100 C 4 0 1000 0 0 T n 900 800 700 .11 40 mph posted speed 250 ft 200 ft 150 ft 100 tt 300 200 100 0 Lett turns one direction ODHV Chapter 910 Left -Turn Storage Length: Two -Lane, Unsignalized Flgure 910-13a Design Manual M 22-01.02 November 2007 Level of Service Calculations CriY of Renton Planning Division JUL 48W July 61h 2009 W L`ryC u V ELS! Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Hawks Landing I own the parcel of land (tax lot # 322405-9043) adjacent to and directly south of Hawks Lcinding. My three concerns are: 1. Because Hawks landing is in a basin (Fowl) surrounded by higher ground, the runoff will back up onto my property. The contour of the entire vicinity slopes downhill to the north and to the west of Hawks Landing. The only correct way to deal with the runoff is to boar a drainage pipe North under Lake Washington blvd. and drain into Lake Washington. Keeping the existing drainage discharge directly into May Creek along Lake Washington Blvd. should be corrected as May Creek is not designated currently to receive direct discharge (per staff plan review). Now is the time to upgrade the drainage so is done property. 2. Should the City decide to keep the existing drainage (put in the 50's) where the existing culvert drains into May Creek; I would ask that the culvert be designed so that future access to my parcel from Lake Washington Blvd. will not have to be reengineered to support the weight and size of a fire engine_ If the City finds that this is not practical then perhaps an easement should be granted through hawks landing to allow for access, and utilities as a condition of permit approval. 3. The Porks Department has expressed an interest in my parcel for future acquisition. I would ask that the Parks Department review Hawk's Landing with the concept of dovetailing my parcel in conjunction with Hawks Landing for mutual benefit of both the City and Hawks Landing. Specifically I think foresight should be given to addressing future access and parking to my parcel so as to enhance the entire area. Currently the area is underserved with little park, open space, or recreational opportunities Sincerely. Greg Fawcett Rota -Clarissa Partnership P.O. Box 402 Fall City, WA 98024 A Washaw ,jtoState Departo of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation June 22, 2009 Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed -Use LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H SR 405 MP 7.47 (NE 44`4 Ramps vicinity) Dear Ms. Dolbee: Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 206-440-40001 Fax 206-409-7250 TTY: 1-500.833-6386 www.wsdot.wa.gov fi_ 1`Y of P417n 9 D; unto SUN 2Z 1 u?f� Belk Thi. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted for the above referenced project_ The development is lobated in the SW quadrant of I-405/NE 440' St interchange and proposes to construct a 173 -room hotel and other amenities. The following are our continents: Traffic Accidents — Page 6: to be consistent with WSDOT terminology, please change the word "accident" to "collision". 2. Traffic Analysis methodology including traffic volume projections and LOS calculations are acceptable. The provided data are sufficient for showing the project's level of impacts. 3 4 As stated in the Conclusion, part of the Project Impacts/Mitigation, the development will: a. Participate in the construction of additional lanes at the I-405/NE 44th St northbound ramps b. Share with the cost of the traffic signal installation at the I-4051NE 44`' St southbound ramps The mitigation proposals are acceptable_ Details relating to the mitigations will be further reviewed and specifically determine when the subject locations are planned for construction. Note that WSDOT is planning for signalizing both northbound and. southbound ramps. at I-405/NE 44`h St.irlterchange. There is a crosswalk shown across Lake Washington Blvd at the northern approach (Site Plan); this would not be allowed at an unsignalized intersection within Limited Access (LA) SR 405 (NE 44th vicinity) Hawks' Landing Page 2 of 2 5. The Executive Summary portion of the TIA recommends restricting the existing access location to right-in/right-out only; this recommendation should be included in the Conclusion/Recornrnendations portion of the report as well. 6. The proposed project is located within WSDOT limited access (see attached ROW plan) and there is an existing access break. Depending on the terms of the original access break, compensation to the State may be necessary due to the change in land -use. Please note that this compensation is different from the mitigation measures discussed on #3. 7. Referring to comments #5 and #6 — Our preference would be to close the existing driveway within LA since there are other alternate access to the development. Restriction to a right-infright-out condition would need to de done with some type of restrictive median treatment, hydraulics consideration and attendant maintenance. Based on the trip generation, there are only 5 AM exits and S PM exits with no entries at this Iocation; hence, the impact to the project would be minimal and compensation to WSDOT (#6) would not be necessary. We have not received the comments from our 1-405 team and we could forward you those once received. If you have any questions, or require additional information please contact Felix Palisoc of our Developer Services section by phone at 206-440-4713, or via e-mail at pWisof@wsdot.wa.gov. Si ly, (IAnocw ATHIn Pazooki 70Local Agency and evelopment Services Manager RP:fsp cc: Day file / Project File R. Roberts, MS 120 C_%Fdi x-D&vSeMSEPA_ RespmmsNse pe RFNT ON_SR405 MP747 HM W%Landn 0-T IAZCi ty. doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY p e �ryoe AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CLU�Q� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 15, 2009 TO: Vanessa Dolbee pp��ff FROM: Arneta Henninger'T�" SUBJECT: HAWK'S LANDING MIXED USE LUA 09-060 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N I have completed my review on the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use application located in Section 32, Twp 24N, Rng 5 E and have the following comments. The application submitted proposes a 173 -room 60 -foot high hotel. The hotel would include retail space, spa, restaurant and a parking garage. Existln Water: This project is located in the City of Renton water service area. This project site is located in the 320 Water Pressure Zone. The static pressure is approximately 123 psi at the street level. Pressure reducing valves shall be installed at the domestic meter if the pressure exceeds SO psi. There is an existing 12" DI pipe on the site. See City of Renton water drawing W-0400 for detailed engineering plans. There is also an existing 12" water line about 620 feet south of the south property line; see City of Renton water drawing W- 0941. This proposed development site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 12" sanitary sewer main on the site. Storm Drainage: There are some storm drainage facilities in Lake Washington Blvd N. REQUIREMENTS Water: Additional water main improvements will be required to provide the required f':reflow demand for the development. 1. Installation of a 12 -inch water along Lake Washington Blvd N along entire property fronting the roadway and extending to and connecting to an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of south property line, 2. New fire hydrants along Lake Washington Blvd about 300 feet apart. 3. Installation of a portion of 12 -inch water line inside an existing steel casing within the May Creek bridge structure. 4. Installation of on -Site looped water main (10 -inch to 12 -inch), with fire hydrants around the proposed hotel. The size and location of water main within the site will AH 09-032_doc Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Page 2 of 5 be determined based on the fire flow demand of the development. 5. Civil plans for water main extension will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. 5. Backflow prevention assembly (DDCVA) required for fire sprinkler system (refer to City Standard Details for external DDCVA in vault or for special requirements for DDCVA inside building). 7. Domestic water meter required for each building (meter sizing per Uniform Plumbing Code). S. Pressure reducing valve required downstream of each domestic water meter since static pressure is above 80 psi. 9. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind each domestic water meter for each building. RPBA shall be installed in an aboveground "Hot -Box". 10. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) required for landscape irrigation meter due to proposed use of recycled stormwater for irrigation. 11. A portion of the existing 12" watermain thought the site will need to be abandoned. The abandonment can only occur after the completion of the new water lines. A partial release of the existing easement will be required. • System Development Charges are based on the size of any and all water meters. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. • Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, the submittal did not include sufficient information to determine a preliminary fire flow for the proposed development. • An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for the development. • The maximum available capacity Jin GPM) at 20 -psi residual pressure from the existing City's water systems in vicinity of development site is 4,000 GPM. Sauiitary Sewer: • A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how this site will be served with commercial sidesewer. • Any use in the building subject to oils or grease shall require the installation of a grease interceptor or oil/water separator per the current UPC as determined at the time of plan review. • The Parking garage will require an oil water separator. • System Development Charges based on the size of the domestic water meter are required. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. Storm Drainage: • A drainage control plan designed per the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual is required. The project shall comply with the 2005 KCSWDM standards as a condition of SEPA. AH 09 -032 -doe Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Page 3 of 5 i The project will need to provide flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance system improvements. Any offsite runoff will need to be accounted for in the drainage analysis. Direct discharge is not allowed from this site. The site drains to May Creek, which is not designated as a major receiving water body where direct discharge is allowed. The following are comments on the Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel TIR dated April 28, 2009. The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalk, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than 0.1 cfs between the sum of the developed 100 -year peak flows and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flows using the KCRTS hydrologic model. This information is needed in order to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. Since the project is a redevelopment project proposing more than 5,000 square feet of new and replace impervious surface, the project is not exempt from core requirement #3 of the 2005 KC SWDM. The project falls under Conservation Flow Control Area, the flow control requirement is waived if there is no more than 0.1 cfs difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow for the same project site area. For the purpose of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in table 1,2.3.0 of the 2005 KCSWDM. If after applying the sizing credits, the difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow is less than 0.1 cfs, the LID alternative will mitigate for flow control. If the difference is greater than 0.1 cfs, a flow control facility per chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM such as a bioswale, detention pond, etc; will need to be provided in combination to mitigate runoff control, The proposed roadway improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard shall be taken under consideration to calculate the post development site condition and, to size the water quality and flow control facilities. AH 09-032.doc Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Page 4 of 5 3_ The Hawks Landing Hotel is the first phase of a of a larger common development plan that will eventually occur on the rest of the total area associated with the Pan Abode site. The Phase 11 NPDE5 permit prohibits the phasing of projects in a manner that allows for the granting of exemptions and avoidance of the need to provide flow control or water quality treatment that would be required if the project is looked at as a total project (all phases). The Hawks Landing Hotel phase of development on the site could be granted the exemption from flow control, if the difference between the developed 100 -year peak flow and the pre -developed (existing)100-year peak flow is less than 0.1 cfs (following City review and approval of the analysis), but the remaining phases of development on remaining area on the Pan Abode parcel will not be able to utilize this the 0.1 cfs exemption. It is recommended that the full development plan be analyzed for the total site, including any off-site improvements to demonstrate that the project is exempt from flow control. Otherwise, future phases of the project will be required to provide flow control, since the 0.1 cfs exemption can only be applied once to a phase of development that is part of a larger common plan of development. 4. Appendix C of the 2005 KCSWDM only applies to small projects, the Rain Garden cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. A water quality facility as specified under chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM shall be provided. 5. Does the project has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM? If yes, the enhanced water quality menu shall be used. 6. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2005 KCSWDM. • It appears that a portion of this site is located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. The applicant will need to show on the site plan the location of the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. Any buildings constructed in the 100 -year floodplain will need to have their finished floor elevation place at 1 -foot above the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. FEMA Elevation Certificates will be required for any building constructed in the floodplain prior to any occupancy being granted (ideally immediately following completion of construction of the finished floor and before additional building construction to verify that the finished floor has been constructed to the correct elevation). • The phase of the site development or later phases of development will need to document how the project satisfies the requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. AH 09-032.doc Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Page 5 of 5 The Surface Water SDC fees are $0.405 (but not less than $1012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Street Improvements: • Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. • Projects that are more than 10,000 square feet in size are required to provide full pavement width per standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the project side. A minimum 20' pavement and pedestrian walkway to the arterial will be required to be installed by the applicant. Street lighting is required to be installed on the project side. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting (including PSE) is not allowed. Traffic Mitigation fees are $105,975. Transportation Comments: Transportation has the following comments. Site Plan • The northerly proposed site access (the existing Pan Abode access) location and operation as a right-in/right-out access is acceptable. Regarding the proposed main hotel access location, we prefer that this access was located so that it aligned with the existing intersection of the Barbee Mill public access road with Lake Washington Blvd. Previous Port Quendall site access studies propose sharing the Barbee Mill access road which would result in a considerable increase in traffic volumes on Lake Washington Blvd at this location which in turn could compromise, in the future, the safe and efficient traffic operation at both the proposed main hotel access and the Barbee Mill access. Regarding the proposed southbound left -turn lane in Lake Washington Blvd serving the main hotel access, we prefer installation of a two-way left -turn lane. A conceptual layout of a two-way left -turn lane is provided (hand carried) for use during preparation of the frontage improvement plans. The Traffic Impact Analysis (M) is acceptable. General: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. • Additional information regarding detailed plan review will be provided at the time of formal application. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. AH 09-032_doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT;L �evi COMMENTS DUE. .JUNE 11 � 2009 DE -s t; , APPLICATION NO: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 28, 2009 QTY ()r- REf [1 QN APPLICANT: Spencer Alpert PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee MAY 2 9 PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use 2009 PLAN REVIEWER: Ameta Henninger SITE AREA: 133,729 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA ross : NIA RECEI al LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N I PROPOSED BLDG AREA ross 122,000 square feet I WORK ORDER NO: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel_ The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size_ The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. in addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creels and its associated 100 -year flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction. The 9 existing trees on the sub''ect site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project_ A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandlShoreline Use Animals Enalronmental Hwith Energy/ Nalural Resources Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistonoCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those s in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional info toms neiel, d to property assess thl poral, Signature of Director or Auttforized pre tative Date ICES Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: Project Description: 5 nY Qr a E n E i r1 a AVE400" f / / Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: I00'q ❑ Residential +L� ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7"IEdition ❑ Retail 53Traffic Study ❑ Non -retail ❑ Other Calculation: -;rl A /gai/ �l E / /-3 r � Transportation Mitigation Feer Calculated by: Date: Date of Payment: City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: ,TUNE 11, 20090EVELOPMENT SERVi, APPLICATION NO: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 28, 2009 APPLICANT: S enter At ert PROJECT TITLE: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use PLANNER: Vanessa Doibee MAY 2 9 200 PLAN REVIEWER: Ameta Henninger SITE AREA: 133,729 square feel EXISTING BLDG AREA (Rross): NIAin Elft so am "IFOLIft LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washi ngton Blvd N I PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 122,000 s uare feet WORK ORDER NO: 78067 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar domes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing warehouse structures on the subject. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard N at two locations. In addition to a parking garage, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Eclectic Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year Flood plan and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant submitted a geotechnical report, wetland and stream study, and flood hazard information with the application. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill materials for development construction_ The 9 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Neeessary Earth Air Water Plants LandlShoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energyl Nalural Resources 0. VULIt: Y-MLLA TED GOMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS Element of the Probable probable More Environment MJrror Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthehcs L' nlare Rscreailon Utilities Trans tion Pubiic Services I ft1c rrcicultufal Presarv91= Afrport Zrnvironment 10.000 Feel 14,000 Feel We have reviewed this application with particular tten6on to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is ire ati p dy assess this proposal. Zo c? Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date CES Vanessa Dolbee From; Bob Mahn Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 03:00 PM To: Arneta J. Henninger Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Jim Seitz Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Development Review of the materials provided as part of the "Green Folder" submittal has resulted in the following comments: Site Plan - The northerly proposed site access (the existing Pan Abode access) location and operation as a right-in/right-out access is acceptable. - Regarding the proposed main hotel access location, we prefer that this access was located so that it aligned with the existing intersection of the Barbee Mill public access road with Lake Washington Blvd. Previous Port Quendall site access studies propose sharing the Barbee Mill access road which would result in a considerable increase in traffic volumes on Lake Washington Blvd at this location which in turn could compromise, in the future, the safe and efficient traffic operation at both the proposed main hotel access and the Barbee Mill access. - Regarding the proposed southbound left -turn lane in Lake Washington Blvd serving the main hotel access, we prefer installation of a two-way left -turn lane. A conceptual layout of a two-way left -turn lane is provided (hand carried) for use during preparation of the frontage improvement plans. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) - The TIA is acceptable. Assume the TIA has been provided to WSDQT for review. Bob Mahn Transportation Systems Planning Section X-7322 June 11, 2009 Vanessa Dolbee From: Karen Walter [Karen.Welter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 03:07 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated (DNS -M) Attachments: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use LUA-09-060 jpg Vanessa, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Notice of Application materials including the environmental checklist and the W etland/Strearn Study for the above referenced project. Thank you for sending the Wetland and Stream study as it facilitated our review. Based on the materials that we have reviewed, we have some questions about this project. 1. The environmental checklist indicates that the project is not within the 100 year floodplain of May Creek. However, it appears that a small portion of the site may be within the 100 year floodplain per King County's IMAP (See attached map). Please clarify if this project is within the 100 year floodplain. if it is, please clarify if there will be filling within the 400 year floodplain and if so, what is the proposed mitigation for this fill. 2. In item 3.0, the environmental checklist indicates that treated stormwater from the rain gardens will be routed to the site's historic discharge location in the southwest corner. Does this mean that there will be no detention of this stormwater? Please clarify. 3. The checklist in section 3.c.1 also describes a portion the stormwater from non -pollution generating surfaces will be routed to a vault and used for on-site irrigation. How much stormwater is estimated to be used for irrigation and how much will be treated and discharged without detention? 4. Where will the proposed 83 trees be planted? The checklist references a conceptual landscape plan but it was not included in our packet of materials. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses to the questions above. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 f 72" d Ave SE Auburn, WA 08092 253-876-3116 . �. .. -jr . k, rage i or /, ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Information ISite information of ro"ect ID Hawks' Landi►r ast/West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street 1 -Z -5 -NB Ram iNB oiume Ad'ustments and Site Characteristics �Eproach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 281 108 351 164 165 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50' 50 ikpproach Northbound Southbound Movement L I T R L T R Volume 10 1 94 91 29 27 344 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Li L2 L1 L2 configuration L TR L T LTR LTR 3HF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.86 =low Rate 326 533 190 191 206 453 16 Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 2 Jo. Lanes 2 2 1 1 3eometry Group 5 5 2 2 )uradon, T 0.25 saturation Headwa Adjustment Worksheet 'rop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 "rap. Right -Tums 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 'rop. Hearty Vehicle LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 le acture Head and Service Time J, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.29 0.47 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.41 J, final value 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 final value 0.80 1 1.15 0.49 0.47 0.50 0.94 love -up time, m 2.3 2.31. 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 6.5 1 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 1 5.5 a act and Leel of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 II YA-l L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 rs11" rray �wr %-VnuUt rt1gG L Ul L HCS2006M Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Capacity 407 533 375 397 401 492 Delay 38.78 115.58 20.93 19.15 19.94 53.56 LOS E F G C C F Approach: Delay 86.43 20.04 19.94 53.56 LOS F C C F ntersecdon Delay 58.03 Intersection LOS I F HCS2006M Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d � ••.. .. .-1 ..�vr vvuuasi TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY keneral Information ISite Information Intersection E 44th Streefll-405 8 Ram s urisdiction City of Renton/WSDOT nal is Year xisfin 133 TR Date Performed 1212612009 Analysis Time Period m eak —A 11 � 'ro'ect Description Hawks'Landing East: West Street: NE 44th Street rtydy orth, ntersection Orientation: East-West Jehicle Volumes and Adjustments ala"or Street Eastbound Aovement 1 2 3 L T R lolume veh/h) 0 665 5 'eak-hour factor, 1.00 0.82 0.82HF ' Sourly Flow Rate 0 810 6 veh/h 'roportion of heavy ehicles, PMV 0 -- -- +ledian type t ,T Channelized? In anes 0 1 p :onf uration 390 133 TR I stream Signal 443 0 linor Street Northboundm loveent 7 8 g L T R blume veh/h) 0 0 0 oak -hour factor, HF 1.00 1.00 1.00 ourly Flow Rate Leh/h 0 0 0 roportion of heavy Dhicles, PHV 0 0 0 ercent grade (°/Q} 0 fared approach N Storage 0 T Channelized? 0 Ines 0 0 0 onfiquration )< ~ 3 Street: 1-405 SS Mrs): 0.25 Westbound 4 5 L T 390 133 0.88 0.88 443 151 4 12 R —17- 0.81 70.81 144 k A VVV- VT aJ u1.V11 %-wile Vl a rttgu L 01 L Control Delay, Queue Len th Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound South -bound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane uration L LT R oiume, v (vph) 443 67 144 1onfi Capacity, cm (vph) 803 36 893 Tc ratio 0.55 1.86 0.16 Queue length 95% 3.43 7.31 0.57 Control Delay s/veh 14.9 647.0 9.8 LOS B F A Approach delay s/veh _ �' 212.1 Epproach LOS -- -- F RCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d I YV u- " y..7 1 ,WF W'Aµ w, TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 6eneral Information Site Information ate Performed 13=009 nal sis Time Period km p2ak Project Description Hawks' Landis East/West Street: Lake Wash. BIvd/NE 44th Intersection Orientation: East-West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Eastbound I ary i vA 4 Intersection Seahawks Wa /LWB Jurisdiction QV of Renton Analysis Year existing 6 South Street: Seahawks K Periodhrs): 0.25 Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 15 636 3 4 192 64 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 17 789 3 5 252 64 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV-------------- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 nfi uration L TR LTR Ustream Si nal i 0 0 nor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume .veh/h 0 0 2 32 1 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 4 46 1 4 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 11 11 11 Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTRntrol tonfiguration Delay, Queue Length, Levet of Service roach I EB I WB Northbound Southbound XA _ JL rrv— yr ar �a�vy 4VtJu Vl C[LC G U! G i Movement 1 4 7 g 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v_(vphl 17 5 4 51 cm (vph) 1229 870 420 195 ratio 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.26 [apacity, eue length 0.04 0.02 0.03 1.01 ntrol Delay$0 vehS 9 2 93.7 29.9 A A B D Approach delay slveh 13 7 29.9 Approach LOS g D HCS2000m Copyright C 2003 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d I arV 1 Vl G ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS eneral information its Information a st r ntersection E?a' 44th Street/1-405 NB s enc lCo. urisdiction of Renton/WSDOT to Performed 6/2009al sis Year tfi alysis Time Period M Doak treet: NE 44th Street Eastbound Westbound North/South Street: 1-405 NB Ram INB Southbound djustments and Site Characteristics L1 I LZ L1 I IL2 L1 I ' L2 Eastbound L2 Westbound L T R L T R V00V,r,eU0n 67 144 67 76 138 0 Lane 50 NorthboundSouthbound 50 L T R L T R 10 269 167 54 22 287 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration L TR L T L TR L TR PHI= 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.88 low Rate 72 226 84 153 483 412 Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 1 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Prop. Left -Turns Adjustment Worksheet 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right -Tums 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed De arture Head 6.81 8.81 8.81 and Service Time 8.81 8.81 8.81 id, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 c, initial 0.06 0.20 0.07 0.14 0.43 0.37 id, final value 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 c, final value 0.18 1 0.51 0.21 0.36 '0.90 0.77 Vlove-up time, m 2.3 2.L::::4 2.0 2.0 Service Time 6.5 5.8 6.5 6.5 5.8 6.5 5.8 'apacity and Level of Service p Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 I LZ L1 I IL2 L1 I ' L2 L1 L2 p x111— 7/ "; iiaVIJ t/V11L1V1 irage G UT L H(MM01 M Copynght C 2003 University of F'Iorik All Rights Remyed Version 4.Id. apacity 322 417 334 390 527 516 elay 13.38 18.70 14.08 15.87 44.55 28.37 Os B C B C E D proaeh- Delay 17.42 15.24 44.55 28.37 LOS C C E D Intersecton Delay 29.38 Intersection LOS D H(MM01 M Copynght C 2003 University of F'Iorik All Rights Remyed Version 4.Id. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General information Site Information Intersection E 44th StreetJl--405 SB Ramps nal st r enc /Co. Jurisdiction City of RentvNWSDOT Date Performed 212612009 nal sis Time Period Lom peak al sis Year xistin Project Description Hawks'Landing ast/1Nest Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 145 24 211 287 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 172 28 219 298 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 -- — 7 — -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T U stream Signal 0 0 N Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 128 3 256 Peak -hour factor, PHF 100 1.Q0 7,00 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 131 3 263 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%} 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT R � - 3 rage z ox z nimotueta w 01.10 ten th Lewel of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound vement fLa 1 4 7 g 9 10 11 12 nenfi oration LT R Volume, w (vph) 219 134 263 Capacity, cm (wph) 1378 253 746 ratio?g 0.53 035 eue length0.56 2.84 9.59 ntrol Delayweh [s/AVI 8 ? 34.2 92.4 S q Droach delay eh -- _ 19.8 roach LOS -- C H(:.5'LUUU— Copyiript ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d . .. --1 _....r - --- .,_ r ugu 1 01 G TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 'eneral Information Site Information knal st r Seahawks Wa /LwB Intersection en fCo•I Jurisdiction Citv of Renton )ate Performed 009 nal sis Year existina Lnal sis Time Period m 12eak ro'ect Description Hawks' Landin ast(West Street: Lake Wash. B1vd/IVE 44th9.2-ER50iriod uth Street: Seahawks Way itersection Orientation: East-West hrs : 0.25 'ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a or Street Eastbound Westbound overnent 1 2 3 4 i 5 6 L T R L T R )lume veh/h) 4 125 0 3 599 39 Bak -hour factor, IF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0,97 surly Flow Rate, eh/h) 4 131 0 3 535 40 'oportion of heavy chicles, PHv i-- sdian type Undivided C Channelized? 0 0 rues 1 1 0 0 1 0 )nfi uration L TR LTR )stream Signal 0 D nor Street Northbound Southbound wement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R plume veh/h) 1 0 6 39 0. 4 ak-hour factor, IF 0.58 0.58 0.58 Q.67 O.G7 0.67 surly Flow Rate ,h/h) 1 0 10 46 5 )portion of heavy iicles, PMV 0 0 0 3 3 3 rcent grade (%) 2 0 red approach N N Storage 0 0 Channelized? 0 0 les 0 1 0 0 1 0 nf€ uration LTR _ LTR ntroi Delay,Queue Length, Level of Service a )roach Ep__j WB Northbound Southbound i rrv— rr eft ,.ywp ti.vuuvt rage L 01 L avement 1 4 7 g g 10 11 12 ane onf uration L L TR LTR L TR olume, v (vph) 4 3 11 51 apacitY, cm (vph) 1003 1460 804 356 Ic ratio 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 ueue length 95% 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.50 Control Delay s/veh 8.6 7.5 9.5 16.8 LOS A A A C Approach delay s/veh 5 16.8 roach LOS — -- A C HCS200011" Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Versian 4.l d rnp,G i u1 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS I Information Site Information r ntersection E 44th .o ms'orrned 111Og jci ofh r..,.... „n_:-- , . , _ _ _ naiysis Year Oil - h 44th Street ,i, nts and Site Characteristics Eastbound -.-. L T R L T R glume 313117 381 171 j 173 0 Thrus Left Lane 504 50 Northbound Southbound nt F L TR L T R 10 98 95 30 28 361 eft Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Ll L2 L9 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.66 Flow Rate 363 579 198 201 215 1 485 Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 2 o. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 aturation Head Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 rop. Neatly Vehicle LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.19 Departure Head av and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.32 0.51 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.43 hd, final value 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 K, final value 0.92 1.29 0.53 1 0.51 0.53 1.00 Move -up dme, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 6.6 5.7 6. $ 5.7 6.8 5.7 6.85.7 Ca act and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Sou4i� L1 L2 L7 L2 L1 L2 L1 L •..- !• [L,' 11LvY k.UUU VI Page 2 of 2 HCZ;2000`— COPYzight 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved version 4. Id apacity 396 579 373 394 399 485 Delay 57.50 170.55 22.59 20.69 21.59 68.99 Los F F C C C F Approach: Delay 12&.9827.59 29.59 68.91 LOS F C G F Intersection Delay 81.48 ntersecfion LOS F HCZ;2000`— COPYzight 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved version 4. Id raga 1 Ul L I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY LGeneral Information ISite Informatinn Intersection E 44th Street/1-405 B Ramps l st r nc /Co. [Date Jurisdiction City of entonlWSDOT Performed 03/11109 l sis Time Period am peak Analysis Year 12011- base condition Project Description Hawks' Landis East/West Street_ NE 44th Street NorthiSouth Street: 1-405 S8 Ram Intersection Orientation: East-West __IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 6 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 0 734 6 406 142 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate eh/h 0 895 7 461 161 0 oportion of heavy rrehicles,PHV 0 �- -- 4edian type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 S.onfiguration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 56 1 126 Peak -Dour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 69 1 155 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 2 Flared approach N H Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 onfi uration LT R A Y.V- .• 7 -LWJF '-VIAuvA 1. rage L or L 'ontrol DeIaV, Queue Len th Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane onf: uration L LT R plume, v (vph) 461 70 155 Capacity, cm (vph) 745 26 881 /C ratio 0.62 2.69 0.18 Queue length 95 % 4.34 8.56 0.64 Control Delay 17.3 1083 10.0 C F A delay LsIveh) ---343.9 L4S -- -- F HCS2000'm Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d I "v- ,• u.y v y vWa ;4 Vi 14:%Q 1 Vi G TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst r Intersection Seahawks Wa iLWB enc /Co_ Jurisdiction City of Renton ate Performed 03/11/09 naf sis Time Period m peak Project Description Hawks' Landing Analysis Year 2011 - base condition orth/South Street: Seahawks Way East/West Street: Lake Wash_ BWNE 44thItudy Intersection Orientation: East-West Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments a or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R I_ T R oiume veh/h) 16 705 3 4 208 67 eak-hour factor, PHF 0.66 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate vehlh 16 Big 3 5 273 88 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV i - -- 1 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes ? 1 0 0 1 0 onfi uration L TR LTR U stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound IlMovernent 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 2 33 1_ 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h p 4 47 7 4 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 11 11 11 Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach N N age 0 0 annelized' 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 uration b LTR LTR l Dela Queue Len th Level of Service ch EB WB Northbound Southbound t Wr - "Lay U4Vt/ %—V.LLUVl ruga z ul 4 Movement 1 4 7 g g 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v v h 18 5 4 52 Capacity, cm (vph) 1203 812 378 165 Ic ratio 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.32 ueue length 95% 0.05 0.02 0.03 1.27 ontroi Delay Slveh 8.0 9.5 14.6 36.6 OS A A B E pproach delay slush _ — 1`� 6 36.6 roadl LOS B E HCS2006 M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld `Z-- P, - tip _ - .. _J -V ......._..+ - r arc i vi a ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS eneral Information ISIte Information 44th ,ofF ' 'ect ID Hawks` Lan! .ast(West Street: NE 44th Street rth/South Street: 1•-405 NB Ramp& KO ►olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 43proach Eastbound Westbound iovement L T R L T R olume 73 160 73 79 150j 0 Mrus Left Lane roach 50 Northbound 50 Southbound lovement L T R L T R olume 11 280 174 56 23 308 )Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration L TR L f T LTR LTR HF 0.93 0.93 0.90-1 0.90 0.92 0.68 low Rate 78 1 250 87 166 504 439 Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 o. Lanes 2 2 1 7 eometry Group 5 5 2 2 uration, T aturation Headwav op. Left Tums Adjustment Worksheet 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.25 0.0 0.0 0.1 op. Right -Tums 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 'op. Heady Vehicle .T -ad! 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2T-adJ -0.7 -0.7 1 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 W-adi 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 idi, computed e arture Headwa 9.31 9.31 9.31 and Service Time 9.31. 9.31 9.31 I, Initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 1 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.07 0.22 0.08 0.15 0.45 0.39 1, final value 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 final value 0.20 0.59 0.23 0.42 1.01 0.88 eve -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 .rvice Time 7.0 6.3 a aci and Level of Service Eastbound 7.0 6.3 Westbound 7.0 6.3 Northbound 7.0 6.3 Southbound L1 L2 L1 t' _.1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Illi- TT 4..7 li LVp %.-qJ. 1LIVA Yage L of 1 HCS2000"N Copyright 0 2043 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d apacity 328 407 337 381 504 496 Delay 14.35 23.02 15.74 18.08 70.78 42. fib LOS B G C C F E Approach: Delay 20.96 17.07 70.78 42.68 LOS C C F E Intersection Delay 43.05 ntersection LOS E HCS2000"N Copyright 0 2043 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d L yv. - IT (Lr villlj S.VAAUAJI TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information K r/Co. erformed 3/11/09 s Time Period m eak Landing .rage 1 vz E Intersection NE 44th Streetli-405 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments SB Ramps urisdiction City of Intersection ovement entonfWSDOT Analysis Year 1- base 4 Fditions g EastlWest Street: NE 44th Street orthiSouth Street: 1-405 SB RaMps Odenta#ion: EastWest tud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a or Street Eastbound Westbound Intersection ovement 1 2 3 4 5 g L T R L T R olume veh/h) 0 167 27 220 315 0 eak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate vehlh 0 198 32 229 328 0 Proportion of heavy eicles, PH 0— edian a Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 onfi oration TR L T U stream Si nal 0 0 Inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11- 12 L T R L T R Volume veh1h 0 0 0 133 3 288 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate h/h 0 0 0 137 3 296 Proportion of heavy ehicles, Pw 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%} 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0-1 0 anes 0 0 0 0 1 1 li-7-t1-__; yV- ., ".Y LVF %-V"UvjL rage 1 or G i mk LT R rnhiration Dela Queue Len th Level of Service h EB WB Northbound Southbound nt 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R lume, v (vph) 229 140 296 cm (vph) 1344 225 718 ratio 0.17 0.62 0.41 Queue length 95% 0.69 3.67 2.03 Control Delay -eh 6.2 44.2 93.5 VS/MS A Eproach delay23.3 veh _ -` roach t.QS -- _ C HCS20001m Copyright 0 2043 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d i .....J ....-r +-.......wv. 1 0-6G i VL /- TWO-WAY TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General information Isite information Project Description Hawks` Landin EastNVest Street: Lake Wash: Bhrgl/NE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Way nal st r Intersection Seahawks Wa WB or Street enc /Co. Jurisdiction C' of Renton ovement Date Performed 3111/2009 Analysis Year 011- base conditions 3 nal sis Time Period Vrnpeak 5 Project Description Hawks` Landin EastNVest Street: Lake Wash: Bhrgl/NE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Way Intersection Orientation: East-West JStudy Period hrs : 0.25 - _ ehicle Volumes and Adjustments or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 4 148 0 3 578 41 eak-hour factor, HF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 ourly Flow Rate veh/h 4 155 0 3 595 42 Proportion of heavy ehicles, PMv 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median a Undivided T Channelized? 0 0 anes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 1 0 6 32 0 4 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 1 0 10 47 0 5 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade (%j 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length. Level of Service F-' -.- a nv- rr uy OWF vvuuva rage L OI 1 i Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 g 10 11 12 Fane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR olume, v (vph) 4 3 11 52 apacity, cm (vph) 951 1431 762 314 !c ratio 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.17 ueue length 95% 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.58 ontrol Delay sh 8.8 7.5 9.8 18.7 OS A A A G pproach delay slveh _ 9.8 18.7 roach LOS — -- A G HCS200OT M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d I 0 i I F ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS eneral Information k ifin Jnf~m!nff^n 1- w/how T Project ID Hawks' Landr'nr Ma Street NE 44th Street orth/South Street 1-405 NB Ram ILINB Adjustments and Sits Characterisfics Eastbound Westbound rThrus L T R L T Fi 314 119 392 171 175 0 ft Lane 50 50 Northbound Southbound L T R L T R Volume 38 98 95 30 28 363 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Li L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onflguration L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.86 Flow Rate 365 593 198 203 245 488 Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 2 No. .Lanes 2 2 1 1 eometry Group 5 5- 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 aturation Head Adjustment Worksheet rop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 Prop. Heavy Vehicle LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 e arture Head and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.32 0.53 0.18 0.18 4.22 0.43 id, final value 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 . final value 0.94 1.35 0.54 0.52 0.61 1.04 ove-up dme, m 2.3 2.3 2.0�:r_ 2 $ervi�e Time 7.0 5.9 7. D 5.9 T.0 .0 5.9 7.0 5.9 Cagacity and Leel of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 s "c— ,. uy U cvp %—%jllu vl rage z or z HCS2000 `m Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d w Capacity 388 593 366 387 396 488 Delay 63.06 995.85 23.22 21.53 25.22 79.38 os F F C C D F pproach- Delay Itersection 145.25, 22.37 25.22 79.38 LOS F C D F Delay 92.28 Intersection LOS I F HCS2000 `m Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d w s ur,%, i ut c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information rInter%P&inn E 44th Street// -405 nal st r lntciion Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ;b Kam s enc /Co. Jurisdiction City of RentonlWSaOT ate Performed 03/11109 nalysis Year 079 - w/frate! I'+nM7 ri/1 f9A n i. nal sis Time Period ampeak .— vrrr yrrPl li11 Project Descrii)tson Hawks` Landincr est Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 SB Ram s Me - lntciion Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Eastbound Westbound FqorSii"t t 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R eh/h 0 748 24 406 174 0 Peale --hour factor, HF 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 1.00 ourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 992 29 469 197 0 Proportion of heavy les, P� 0 - 4 -- -- an a Undivided hannelized? 0 0 s L 0 1 0 1 9 0 uration TR Lr T eam Sr Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 56 1 144 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.89 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 69 1 177 Proportion of heavy ehicles, P 0 0 0 3 3 3 ercent grade (%) 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 i —u- TT c ,Y V Cup 4,"LLLL VI rage G or z vnn uration LT R ontrol Dela Queue Len th Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane ons urafion L LT R Volume, v (vph) 461 70 977 Capacity, cm (vph) 720 22 842 /c ratio 0.64 3.18 0.21 Queue length 95% 4 67 $ 94 0 79 Control Delay slv eh 18.5 1349 10.4 OS C F B pp roach delay yslveh -- '- 389.8 [Approach LOS -- -- F HCS20001fa copyright 02003 university of Florida, Ail Rights Reserved Version 4. Id i L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY lGeneral Information Site Information "alyst r en/Co. ate Performed 3/11/09 nal sis Time Period m eak Description Hawks` Year I asu 1 U1,4 y of Renton TT-wfttel EastlWes# Street: Lake Wash. Blv&NE 44th-North/South Street: Seahawks Wa Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 5 L T R L T R glume vehlh 18 732 0 0 258 67 Peak -hour factor, HF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate vehm 20 851 0 0 339 88 roportion of heavy ehicles, PHV-- edian a Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 T 0 0 T 0 onfi oration L TR LTR stream Signal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound evement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h) 0 0 5 33 0 6 Peak -hour factor, HF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 TO 47 0 8 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 11 11 11 Percent grade (°/v) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT nn Chaelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 T 0 0 1 0 Confi uration LTR LTR ontrol Dela Queue Length, Level of Service r ..:` D + ry V- •r 4y' 0LVk/ \..VLLLL Vl rage.z or L roach EB WB Northbound Southbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ne nfi uration ra L LTR LTR LTR lume, v (vph) 20 0 10 56 Capacity, cm (vph) 1938 792 363 948 /c ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.37 Queue length s� io 0.05 0.00 0.08 9.56 Control Delay s/veh 8.2 9.5 15.2 43.0 OS A A C E pproach delay s/veh __ 15.2 43.0 roach LOS HCS20011"" Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version Ud ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS eneral Information Site information lyst r ntersection 'sly Time Pe A IDS Vest Street: i- 4 Cij'%, 1 Vl G Volume Ad ustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R 74 162 88 79 152 0 rThrust Lane 50 Northbound 50 Southbound L T R L T R 37 260 174 56 23 310 t Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration L TR L T LTR LTR HF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.88 OW Rate 79 268 87 168 533 441 /o Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 1 o. Lanes eometry Group 1 2 5 2 5 1 2 7 2 uration, T aturation Head rop. Left -Tums Adjustment Worksheet 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.25 0.0 Q.1 0.1 rop. Right -Tums 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 Prop_ Heavy Vehicle - LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT adj -0.7 -0.7 1 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adl, computed De arture Head d, initial value 9.37 9.379.37 and Service Time 3.20 3.20 3.20 9.37 3.20 9.37 3.20 9.37 3.20 initial 0.07 0.24 0.08 0.15 0.47 0.39 d, final value final value 9.37 9.37 0.21 0.64 9.37 0.23 9.37 - 0.43 9.37 1.10 9.37 0.90 ove-up time, m2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 7.1 6.3 a act and Level of Service Eastbound 7.16.3 Westbound 7.1 6.3 Northbound 7.1 6.3 Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Li L2 Li L2 . - • M.7 -.4 .p VV114 Vl rage .z ai c H02000" .=, - . 11!1 ., 1T Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d a w apacity 329 407 337 378 533 488 lay 14.47 25.25 95.33 98.54 96.24 46.00 Los B D C C F E proach: Delay 22.80 9?.45 96.24 46.00 Los rersecUon C C F E Delay 53.26 Intersection LOS I F H02000" .=, - . 11!1 ., 1T Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d a w TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ral informationp1rinfew—ex- ite Information nal st r enc ico. Date Performed . 03111109 al sis Time Period pm peak h t Descri tion Hawks'Landinest Street: NE 44th Street ction Orientation: East-West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Eastbound ovement 2 L T Volume veh/h0 185 Peak -hour factor, PHF 100 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate 0 220 veh1h Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 ~ Median lype RT Channelized? Year 1ab'r+1 V1G 44th Street/! -405 I Ramps y of �ntonl!MSDOT 71- w1hotel forth/South Street: 1-405 SB Rat >tudy Period hrs): 0.25 Westbound 3 4 5 R L T 50 220 345 0.84 a96 0.96 59 229 359 R 1 0 Lanes 0 7 0 - onfi uration TR U streams nal 0 inor Street i Northbound ovement 7 g L T R olurn veh1h 0 0 0 eak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1 00 Hourly Flow Rate0 veh/h 0 0 roportion of heavy ehicles, PHv 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? 0 Lanes f 0 D 0 •nn , 1 L 10 L 133 0.97 137 0 M X 466; L. VL 4, onfi uratian I I I I LT R Control Delay. Queue Lenth Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Conti uration L LT R Volume, v (vph) 229 140 313 Capacity, cm (vph) 1289 203 690 /c ratio 0.18 0.69 0.45 Queue length 95%)0.64 4.39 2.37 Control Delay s/veh 8.4 54,8 14.5 LOS A F B Approach delay s/veh _ 26.9 roach LOS I D HCs200dm Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information of st r Intersection V eras 1Co. Jurisdiction C rage i or z ehawks Way/LWB Y of Renton _ Date Performed 319912009 Analysis Year u19 - w1hotel al sis Time Period IMMpeak-- om anent Project Descri tion Hawks'Landing East/West Street: Lake Wash. Blvd,1VE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Wa Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a"or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R oiume veh/h 6 984 0 0 624 41 eak-hour factor, HF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 ourly Flow Rate veh/h 6 193 0 0 643 42 Propor ion of heavy ehicles, PHv 7 --— 1 -W ..- Median type Undivided T Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 nfi uration L TR LTR stream Signal 1 p L 1 0 Inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 g 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R oiume veh/h) 0 0 5 32 0- 7 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.67 oudy Flaw Rate Leh/h) 0 0 8 47 0 10 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade (%} 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 LVnes 0 1 0 0 1 0 nfi urationntrol Del!y, Queue Length, Level of Service a --- ♦. -, +wk' `+-A-- rage z of 2 Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 6 0 8 57 Capacity, cm (vph) 993 1386 854 286 Ic ratio 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.20 Queue length. 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.73 elay 9.0 7 fi 3 20.7 A A A C delay `� 9.3 20.7 I,OS ,q C RG 2000'' Copyright 0 2003 university of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4_Id i _ r .0 ..,. rage ! of L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information ED f st r Intersection Lake Wash. n ICo, lvd/Main Access e Pertarmed 4/6009 Jurisdiction enton l sis Time Period m peak Analysis Year 201 Descri tion Hawks Landis Hotel est Street: F Lake Wasl�in on Blvd. North/South Street: Main Access ction Orientation: East-West Scud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments a or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 0 688 & gL 208 0 eak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.78 0.76 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate vehlh 0 799 6 69' 273 p Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 1 -- Median tve2 Undivided RT Channelized? 0 Lanes 0 9 0 1 ? 0 0 onfi uration TR L T U stream S' nal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 g 10 12 L T R L T R olume veh1h 4 0 29 0 0- 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80 1.00 0.8Q 7.00 9.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate vehfh 4 0 36 p p 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 ercent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 onf uration L R ontrol Delpy, Queue Length, Level of Service rage z of 1 xcsuaoo.— Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d EB WB Northbound Southbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ne nt uration L L R [apacroach lume, v v h 69 4 36 ity,cm (vph) 824 186 387 ratio 0.08 0.02 0.09 eue length 96% 0.21 0.07 0.31 antrol Delay SNeh 9.8 24.8 15.3 LOS A C C Approach delay s/veh -- 16.2 roach LOS I C xcsuaoo.— Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISIte Information V t r /Co. erformed /6/2009 is Time Period 1pm peak ro-ect Description Hawks LanqLng Hotel astMest Street: Lake Washington Blvd itersection Orientation: East-West ehicle Volumes and Ad ustments a'or Street Eastbounc ovement 1 2 572 L T glume veh/h) 0 144 yak -hour factor, L T IF 1.00 0.95 surly Flow Rate ah/h) 0 151 'oportion of heavy Northbound chicles, PHV 0 — 9dian type 7 Year 12011 4orth/South Street: Main Access stud Period hrs : 0.25 Westbound 3 4 5 R L T 5 49 555 0.95 0.97 0.97 5 50 572 1 rage i or z Access 1 Unanneiizea-t Lanes 0 7 0 1 1 0 onfi uration TR L T U stream Si nal 0 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 17 '12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 5 0 38 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h B 0 47 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PRV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R ontrol Delay,Queue Length, Leel of Service {'.Ta.1/!+.,ri, ..� �s o�'1n.. .lob ►nc�_u- --1 w r_----:�-AT _-e- I YY V- r.ciy L-7LuIJ Ll7i4uul rage 1 oz z ach EB WB Northbound Southboument 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 uration r L L R e, v v h 50 6 47 apacity, cm (vph) 1430 333 897 !c ratio 0.03 0.02 0.05 Queue length 95°!0 0.11 0.05 0.17 Control Delay slveh 7.6 16.0 9.2 LOS A C A Approach delay sfveh -- 10.0 Approach LOS — — g HCS2000'm Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d -91a-HOA 1'1.,..,,.., _4 ;___% A _J__:___-� _. %V ,n...e.r. _• �. s- r. J vavr �.vL.aivi rage i ol ;L ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS enera l information ISM Information Year FT; Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics M Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R 314 119 392 171 175 0 50 50 Northbound Southbound L T RLTR 38 98 95 30 28 363 /aThrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 11 L2 L1 L2 Li L2 L1 L2 guration L T L T L TR L TR LH 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.86 Rate 365 138 198 203 40 205 34 454 eavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 10 2 2 o. Lanes 2 2 2 2 eometry Group 5 5 5 5 uration, T 0.25 aturation Head Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Tums 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Tums 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 Prop. Heavy Vehicle LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 RT-adj -0,7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 1 -0.7 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 De arture Head ay and Service Time initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.32 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.18 0.03 0.40 d, final value 6.46 8,46 8,46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 final value 0.86 0.31 0,48 0.46 0.10 0.48 0.08 0.93 ove-up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2-3 Service Trme 6.2 5.7 6.2 5.7 6.2 5.7= 5.7 Em acu and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ur L-7 LwF % rVilli VA rage 2 or 2 Hc.J2(lU0 `... CI__!lry IT c:opyrgnt 0 2UU3 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d A e 9 i I L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 apac4 422 388 401 424 290 414 284 487 elay 44.66 14.12 19.20 17.82 12.94 18.41 11.94 51.27 OS E B C C B C B F pproach: Delay 36.28 18.50 17.51 48.53 LOS E C C E Intersecton Delay 32.77 Intersection LOS p Hc.J2(lU0 `... CI__!lry IT c:opyrgnt 0 2UU3 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d A e 9 i I . a.. .. -j v.vr w..x", rapt; 1 ul L ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Information ite Information ion FVE 44th Street4-405 Ni Paws on 19fly ofRenton/WSDQT Year Vt f 1/;! w/hotei compons asymst Street: NE 44th Street orth/South Street 1-405 NB Ram plume Ad ustments and Site Characteristics proach Eastbound Westbound ovement L T I R L T R Diume 74 162 88 79X52 0 Thrus Left Lane 50 50 voiume 1 37 1 280 1 174 1 56 1 23 310 %Thrus LeftLane I 1 150 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration L T L T L TR L TR HF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 Flow Rate 79 174 87 166 40 493 63 378 Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 2 7 1 No. Lanes 2 2 2 2 eometry Group 5 5 5 5 Duration, T 0.25 aturation Head Ad ustment Worksheet rop_ Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1 0.0 rop. Right -Tums 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 rop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 RT adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 Departure Headway and Service Time d, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.04 0.44 0.06 0.34 hd, final value 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 final value 0.18 0.38 0.2a0.37 0.08 0.93 0.14 0.70 ove-up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 ervice Time 6.1 5.6 6.1 5.6 6.1 5.6 6.1 5.6 apacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 3 A L1L- Y• µ.I VLVAl % lU LLL1V1 rage 2 of 2 HCS20001M Copyright 0 2003 University of l±loridi, Ali Rights Reserved Version 4.ld L1 L.2 LT L2 L1 L2 L1 !2 Capacity 329 424 337 418 290 525 313 530 Delay 13.03 15.47 13.27 15.20 10.99 50.30 11.70 23.12 OS 8 c 8 C B F 8 C proach: Delay 14.70 14.54 47.35 21.49 LOS B B E e Intersection Delay 28.44 Intersection LOS p HCS20001M Copyright 0 2003 University of l±loridi, Ali Rights Reserved Version 4.ld General Information Analyst gr Agency or Date 3erformed 3/19/2009 Time Period am peak Volume and 1"i1gC 1 Vl a HCS2000�' DETAILED REPORT Site Information Intersection 1-405 NB RampslNE 44th St. Area Type A!1 other areas Jurisdiction WSDOTIRenton eaalysis 2011- w/hotel - mit. Project ID Hawks`Landina��� �i2a•i�i�•�Tlnn,�...a„+mai?n�,,,ta}Ana ,,+;_n a A d.......:..+-.. __%T EB WB NB 1 SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT I TH RT JLT TH Number of lanes, N 7 7 1 1 1 7 9 1 0 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 314 119 392 171 175 146 38 98 95 30 28 % Heavy ehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 10 90 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.86 Pretimed (P) or mated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up last time, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.o 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE ao 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet mend, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 d / BikeOR LP volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 92.0 12.0 112,0 12.0 Parking /Grade Parking N4 N TN 0 N N 0 N N 0 �i2a•i�i�•�Tlnn,�...a„+mai?n�,,,ta}Ana ,,+;_n a A d.......:..+-.. __%T u V..a+IIVV l�Vf,/VtL rage z of .3 Parking aneuvers, NM Buses stopping, N B 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 PhasingExcl. Left EB Only Thru & Thru & Y RT 44 Excl. Left 47 48 RT Timing 14.0 G= 4'0 140 G= G= 5.0 6.0 G= G= Y= 4.5 Y= 4.5 Y= 4.5 JY= JY= 4 Y= 4.5 IY= Y= Dura5 tion of Analysis, T0. = Cycle Length, C = 85 0 Lane Group apacKy, control DelaV. and LOS Detenninatfon EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow ate, v365 138 456 199 203 170 40 205 35 455 Lane group capacity, c 469 493 596 292 1301 261 97 489. 104 491 vic ratio, X 0.78 0.28 0.77 0.68 0.66 0.65 10.41 0.42 10.34 0.93 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.26 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.16 .06 0.31 0.06 .31 Uniform delay, 28.9 24.8 23.2 33.4 33.3 33.2 38.6 23.5 38.4 28,6 1 1 1 Progression actor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay � - _ calibration, k 0.33 0.11 0.32 0.25 0.24 .23 10.11 0.11 0.11 0.44 Incremental delay, d2 8.1 0.3 5.9 6.4 5.2 5.7 2.8 0.6 1.9 23.8 Initial Queue eiay, d3 . Control delay 37.1 25.1 29.1 39.8 8.5 38.9 41.4 24.1P 52.4 Lane group LOS D C C D ❑ D D C D D Approach delay 31.6 39.1 26.9 51.5 C D C D fi1P•//C'•117nr»mPntv�/'Sf3ar�4/'7lleaf+:.,...,1 A �IT:.��..s....i__�r �n�nnn ra.gu 1 tit 1 Approach LOS Intersection delay 37.3 x = 0.$7 Intersection LOS D HCS2000`m Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e leV Lµ4aVµ ,L,LV�JVAL X agu !. Vl J HCS2000r" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst - gr 1-405 NB Ramps/NE Agency or Intersection 44th St Co. Area Type All other areas Date 3/19/2009 Jurisdiction WSDOT/Renton Performed Analysis 2011 - wlhotel - mit. ` l &n e.s + Time Period pm peak Year -mak( l r Project ID Hawks Landfn Volume and Tlmin Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 1 1 7 ! 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 74 162 88 79 152 86 37 280 174 56 23 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, E 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTGR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N !V p r"\ ragc G UA a Parking aneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, 0 0 o a a 0 0 0 0 0 B Min. time for edestdans, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left TRT & 03 Excl. Left 04 ETRT & 07 08 Tming G= 10.0 G= 16.0 G= G= G= 7.0 G- 4.0 G= G Y= 4.5 JY= 4.5 Y= Y= JY= 4.5 Y= 4.5 1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C 75.0 Lane Grou Ca ac' Con&ol Delay. and LDS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 80 174 95 88 1169 96 140 493 64 378 Lane group capacity, c 238 1401 586 238 401 586 165 562 1167 598 v/c ratio, X 0.34 0.43 0.96 _37 0.42 0.16 10.24 0.88 0.38 0.73 Total green ratio, g/C 0.93 0.29 0.37 0.13 0.29 0.37 10.09 0.32 0.09 0.32 Uniform delay, 9.5 25.6 16.0 29.6 25.5 16.0 1.5 24.1 32:0 22.6 1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 9.000 1.000 9.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k .11 _11 0.11 0.71 0.11 0.11 .7 7 0.40 0.91 0.29 Incremental slay, d2 0.8 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.8 94.6 1.5 5.2 Initial queue slay, d3 Control delay 30.3 26.3 16.1 30.6 26.2 16.7 32.3 38.7 33.4 27.8 Lane group LOS C C B C C B C D C C Approach slay 24.5 24.6 38.3 26.6 C C D C i.JL1. u1r.0 A",.rP I L rage j oI 3 Approach LOS Intersection slay 30.0 c ` 0.60 Intersection LOS C HCS20001aa Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e eta•lir.�n,,.,.,...,..,*.,oi�n,..,aoi�nc..+..:_�..� . �.-- ,T ��,,,..., .. ,.... -• -..- - .. _ .. . --w .-- -.F. r HCS2000'm DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst gr Agency or Intersection NE 44#h StJI-405 SS o. Ramps Date Area Type All other areas Performed 3/19/2009 .Jurisdiction WSDOT � Time Period am peak Analysis Year 2011- w/hotel - mit. -, { i.N, ) Project ID Hawks` Landing Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LTI TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Lane group T R L T LT R Volume, V (vph) 748 24 406 174 56 1 144 % Heavy vehicles, % V 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.81 0.81 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped 1 Bike I RTOR plumes 0 00 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking 1 Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 2 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for JJOLd1AGu 11 FUIL r gezOIG : a pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only_06 07 08 Timing G= G= 22.0 49.0 G= G= G= 15.0 G= G= G= Y= 4.5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 4.5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = Cycle Length, C = 100.0 0.25 Lane Groyp Ca a 1W, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, 912 29 461 196 70 178 Lane group capacity, c 922 784 463 1407 [261 233 vlc ratio, X 0.99 0.04 1.00 .14 .27 0.76 Total green ratio, C 0.49 0.49 0.75 0.75 10-15 0.15 Uniform delay, di 25.2 113.2 32.9 3.4 7.6 0-8 Progression factor, PF 1.000 9.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 7.000 Delay calibration, k 0.49 0.71 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.32 Incremental delay, 2.0 6.9 0.0 40.6 0 0.6 14.0 Initial queue delay, 3 Control delay 52.1 13.3 73.5 3.4 36.2 54.8 Lane group LOS p B E A D D Approach delay 50.9 52.5 50,1 Approach LOS D D D Intersection delay 51.4 X� = 0.94 Intersection LOS D HCS2000'm Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. le iJ1r N.LLlvµ Y.tiVklVi4 ragGxvic HCS20007" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site lnformatfon Analyst gr Agency or NE 44th St.II-405 SB Intersection Co. Ramps Date Area Type All other areas Performed 311912009 Jurisdiction WSDOT Time Period pm peak Analysis Year 2011- wlhotel - mit. Project ID Hawks' Landing Volume and Timing fn ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group T R L T LT R Volume, V (vph) 185 50 220 1345 133 3 304 % Heavy vehicies, % V 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A Start --up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, b 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike f RTQR plumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking / Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 2 N Parking maneuvers, M Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for r- t L b1.LLL " A1' Ful i gage z of z pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasin-q WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G- 18.0 G= 23.0 G- G= G= 25.0 G= G= G= Y= 4.5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 4.5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Lane Group Ca a & Control Dela and LOS Determinadon Cycle Length, C = 80.0 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT1 TH RT Adjusted flaw rate, 220 60 229 359 140 313 Lane group capacity, c 541 460 688 1070 1560 500 vlc ratio, X 0.41 0.13 0.33 0.34 10-25 0.63 Total green ratio, IC 0.29 0.29 0.57 0.57 10.31 0.31 Uniform delay, d1 23.0 21.1 9.0 9.2 20.5 23.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 .11 0.21 Incremental delay, 2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.5 Initial queue delay, 3 Control delay 23.5 21.2 9.3 9-4--O .7 26.0 Lane group LOS Approach delay23.0 C C A A 9.4 C C 24,4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection delay 17,4 X = 0.54 Intersection LOS B HCS20004m Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e � vrv— rr ca> �w}i wuuVa 1"i1gG' 1 UI L I VVV- YY Ry L:)LkJF 'L VJILi V1 rage z 01 z Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v NO) 20 0 10 55 Capacity, cm (vph) 1138 792 363 263 /c ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.21 Queue length g5% 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.77 Control Delay s/veh 8.2 9.5 15.2 22.3 LOS A A C C Approach delay s/veh _ _ 15.2 22.3 jApproach LOS — — C C HCS2000r'4 Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 3 Traffic Counts RENTON, WASHINGTON 1--405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 01A GRT09040M TRAFFTCOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn,com (360)431-811$ Gmuna P inl-A- 0.4 - - File File Name : GRT05501A Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 1 1405 NS OWOFF RAMPS I NE 44Th ST 1-405 NB ONIOFF RAM'S 9 1 66 --N-E-4-4-TI-H4 ST 47 39 0 106 23 From North _ 08:15 AM From East From South 9 3 From West 22 I 40 6 Start Time RI/il: Thra- Irft hark 48 1714E+! _�� T1ru- Left I Trunk app-rm RW 7hru l.stt Trod. 04p. TOW Right Thu Loft T-1* Awl -w wmr. _ rmrt«w 40 07:00 AM 87 7 4 2 96 10 54 18 0 82 25 25 4 0 54 49 22 54 3 125 5 359 r,r.rveai 364 07:15 AM 91 3 6 2 100 34 31 34 3 99 29 19 1 a 48 108 22 77 5 2D4 15 461 466 07:30 AM , 101 8 a 0 117 49 47 40 3 136 20 22 2 2 44 102 35 77 4 214 9 511 520 _07:45 AM I 91 - 6 9 5 95 _ 38 40 61 2 12E 20 25 8 4 51 78 24 72 S 174 16 449 466 Total 360 27 27 9 410 131 172 143 8 446 93 91 13 11 197 334 103 280 17 71T 46 1770 1818 08:00 Am ,71 1 1 6fi 11 9 1 66 19 47 39 0 106 23 28 1 9 08:15 AM 74 7 9 3 90 22 39 40 6 101 21 48 3 6 08:30 AM ! 92 10 10 3 112 16 44 40 4 100 36 27 4 6 0&46 AM 76 7 10 2 92 10 29 36 5 75 25 27 4 3 TOS 312 36 35 9 382 57 159 158 16 381, 106 130 12 24 Grand Total 1 672 68 62 1B 792 I 198 331 298 23 627 I 198 221 26 35 Appn:h X 94.$ 7.3 7.8 1 23.9 49 38 6 47 44,6 49.9 6.6 Total % 1 20.2 1.7 i9 _ 4.46 �1 hw I ffi Tetaf VOlUn"" 360 23,8 1 6.9 9.9 9,9 39 373 24.9 1 5.9 8,6 0.8 1.405 NB ONIOFF RAMPS 1 6fi Nf 44TH 5T �- ^ -- _ From North J 14 From East I StartTimal night I _m Thru� App' � _ 33 63 '4 La(t J� Tote! I Rlgftt Thr I Lett Peak Hour Analyafc From 07:00 AM to 08:4E AM -Peak 3 d 1 _ 3 198 Peak Hour for Entire Inter MUM B69i nS K 07:15 AM 417 433 581 45 07:15 AM 1 91 3 6 100 1 34 31 34 07:30 AM 101 S 8 11.7 I 49 47 40 07:46 AMI 81 5 9 go! 38 40 51 08 OM Total VdD ALM _ 71 344 _ li 6 68 . - -- 29 - --� 400 - 27 19 47 39 a,ap --- 166 -- 164 -- X A .7atel 86 6.8 7.7 14.6 29,9 35.2 36 ,._,... , ... _ PHF j .85I _...814 .806 7W-11-11870 y . _ .604 Peak Haar Arglyaia From 07-00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Beghta at, 0700AM AM `- +0 mho , 87 +19 mkm 91 7 4 [07:3'1 98 6 47 40 4.30 mins. ( 101 3 8 e 8 100 117I 36 19 40 47 51 39 _ 4.46 �1 hw I ffi Tetaf VOlUn"" 360 5 9 - 23 27 _ 96 410 -` 22 128 39 373 40 170 T %. TA�p . ataSTA 6.6 6.6 27.2 36.7 - 36.1 _ _ .719. .750 .979 , _ .663 .920 -933 62 1 6fi 27 68 4 148 14 393 407 72 63 33 63 '4 159 19 422 441 67 54 30 84 3 198 16 417 433 581 45 22 40 7107 449 17 330 347 247 228 112 2 1,2 18 552 66 1862 1626 444 130 216 492 38 1269 111 3332 3443 �662 44.3 16.9 38s 48.2 14.6 38 47.4 1I 13.3 16.9 6.5 14,8 .936 39.1 3.2 96.8 - f-445 TNS RAMPS -` --- NE 4d f 5T - From South From WestA0p_ Tate! nlght Thru LeR Totel , Rtght Thru Left w - Total Int. Total 991 W= AM 28 19 1 461 106 22 77 204 461 136 52 20 22 2 44f 102 36 77 2141 611 129 ; 20 25 6 51} 78 24 72 174 - 449 105' 174 23 28 1 52, 66 27 55 148 393 466 T38 105 130 -_ ...� .----'196 391 ._-. -- 2- - --- 1604 52,6 49 48-7 48.2 14.6 38 47.4 1I .729 i W= AM 0715 AM 136 23 28 1 52 106 22 77 204 129 21 48 3 72, 102 w 77 22A, 108 36 27 4 67 78 - 24 72 174 101 25 27 4 86 66 27 65 148 471 105 130 12 24T 391 108 281--- 740 425 52,6 49 41.4 14.6 38 SM .729 -877 .750 .658 .936 .711 917 C- i RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 01A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC, P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05501A Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2124/2009 Page No ; 2 t 1405 rid ONfOFF FjWfig - NE 44Th! ST 1.405 NB ONIOFF RAMPS NE 44TH ST From North From East From South From West 11me Right Thru AppStart La}t Right Thru Left App. MIKThru 100 Left Right Yhru Le}t TSI I int Totsl E 28 19 1 48 145 22 77 204 45.1 07:30 AMI 101 S a Tcftl 49 47 PoOk Hour for Entire IntefSeCtlon aegina at 07:15 AM 0715 AMI 91 3 6 100 34 31 34 99 I 28 19 1 48 145 22 77 204 45.1 07:30 AMI 101 S a U7 I 49 47 40 1 39 20 22 2 44 102 35 77 214: 511 01.45 AM61 5 9 I 98 i 38 40 51 L20 20 26 6 51 78 let 72 174 449 06A0 AM -- 71 i1 8 — 88 i_ i9 _ 47 39 10S 23 28 1 82 66 27 55-- 148 i 393 Tota)Volume 944 27 29 400 140 166 164460 '� 91 94 to _ 196 381 10a 281 740 - 1804 7t App, Total 88 6.8 7.2 _ 29.9 9ti2 98 49,7 48.2 8.1 47A 14.6 38 __— PHF 851 614 808 868 .714 878 .804 .862 .813 .839 417939 836 _ 771 912 8647— ...883 Out In Tote1 18 400 8i5ry i 3"1 271 29 Thru UAI L Peak Hour Data q NI Ia2 r0 Narth L �lh I � �m C + f Peak Hour Bag Tno of 7-95 /SIT- 1 A 'M a - ► 7g m J heft I Right ' 10 94 971 I ® 195 7371 Qul In Talal ; From North -Rlghtj- 42 13 TRAFFICOUNNT, INC. 349 96 I From South StartTimeThrti 71 363 7.18 SS 38 21 P.O. BOX 2508 3106 121 16 "--� -if-- Lack T, Peak Hour Ana" From 04:00 PM to 05A5 PM, Peak i of i Right Thru Left T TOW Right Thru Loft OLYMPIA, WA 98507 24.1 518 24-1 921 ,763 RENTON, WASHINGTON -762 05:D0 PM I 55 7 12 0&16 PM 1 94 I trafficount@msn.com 42 17 79 46 63 3 84 7 12 103 j 23 35 (360)491-8116 83 36 67 3 File Name : GRT05501 P 1-405 NB RAMPS 34 24 77 43 73 2 05;45 PM 66 2 111 . Total Yahane -287 22 54 -- %Ap Fatal 79-1 6.1 14.9 THF 1 .786 .750 88 383 -- .961 23 - 83- 27.9 .902 - 27 10 138 - - 138__-'76 _.-... 46.5 25.6 .621 .760 58 29T .895 43 167 31.4 76 269.....-. 60.3 2 10- 2.2 Peak Hour Analysis From 0&oo PM to ORAS PM - Peak 1 of 1 Site Code : 00000001 NE 44TH ST Peak Hour for Each APPraach 9 ns at: __ 0400 PM 0800 PM 050 PM' +0 atlas. - 4 7 95 Start Date : 2l241�009 LOC# 01 P GRT09040M 79 45 63 3 +16 mina. 90 2 14 106 j 23 35 29 83 35 57 3 +30 mats. 100, 6 14 120 I 19 34 24 77 Page No : 1 1 05 NB ONIOFF RAMPS -- +46 mhts. S3 5 io _ x NE 44TH ST Grou s Printed- Prima 27 _ NE 44TH sT j 58 43 1-405 N8 ON/OFF RAMPS ! 2 From North Tlma f let Thne Left F uak �qy rm Rlptt From East Thru Len Trask 138 From South 297 167 Frain WestStar! 10 04:00 PM 84 4 7 2 96 12 3H 8 2 pw-- 69 R Left Fruak �4057 arw RIdf70 Thry Last Truk 04:13 PM 90 2 14 2 106 i 6 32 16 4 58 D 4 0 1 103 97 21 15 28 39 2D 18 D 67 2 58 B 324 332 9 04;30 PM 100 6 14 2 1'10 04;45 PMI 83 4 10 0 98 13 7 37 37 20 2 11 0 70 31 53 5 1 89 1B 32 12 1 59 327 336 6 336 344 Tet61357 17 46 6 419 38 146 67 8 55 240 32 58 6 1 136 239 10 7 95 384 10 61 52 145 12 62 1 74 2 322 324 4 268 25 1311 1336 0&00 PM 6S 7 1.23 64 I 05:15 PMI 84 7 12 0 103 20 23 42 35 17 1 2a 2 79 83 4E 63 3 1 111 20 42 13 0 75 5 349 354 M30 PMI 72 6 ] 2 } 90 19 34 24 1 77 X 57 3 1 43 73 2 1 96 1.1- 11 .16 36 37 36 18 21 1 71 2 71 4 363 357 06;46 PM 66 2 18 0_ 86 Total 261 22 54 4 21 27 10 0 58 43 76 2 5 121 16 30 is 0 61 5 386 361 5 328 331 363 83 138 76 4 297 187 259 10 6 448 67 144 67 3 278 19 1384 1403 0randTvtall 644 39 99 10 782 Apptch % 82.4 5 1.2.7 Ui 22.8 283 52.7 133 1.2 24.8 537 302 S09 20 18 83111 128 2119 129 7 646 I 44 2695 2738 Total 4b 23.9 L4 3 .7 291 4.6 10.6 4.9 19.9 36.4 612 2.4 11.2 18.8 0.7 30.8 23.4 4.7 52.9 10.7 2&S 4.8 !I 20.3 1.6 98.A From North -Rlghtj- 42 13 From East 349 96 I From South StartTimeThrti 71 363 7.18 SS 38 21 71 I 3106 121 16 "--� -if-- Lack T, Peak Hour Ana" From 04:00 PM to 05A5 PM, Peak i of i Right Thru Left T TOW Right Thru Loft Pack Hour for Entire IntetseCUM Bagtns at 06= PM 24.1 518 24-1 921 ,763 .798 -762 05:D0 PM I 55 7 12 0&16 PM 1 94 I 20 42 17 79 46 63 3 84 7 12 103 j 23 35 25 83 36 67 3 0&30 PM 72 6 12 90 1 is 34 24 77 43 73 2 05;45 PM 66 2 111 . Total Yahane -287 22 54 -- %Ap Fatal 79-1 6.1 14.9 THF 1 .786 .750 88 383 -- .961 23 - 83- 27.9 .902 - 27 10 138 - - 138__-'76 _.-... 46.5 25.6 .621 .760 58 29T .895 43 167 31.4 76 269.....-. 60.3 2 10- 2.2 Peak Hour Analysis From 0&oo PM to ORAS PM - Peak 1 of 1 .928 - .885 .933 Peak Hour for Each APPraach 9 ns at: __ 0400 PM 0800 PM 050 PM' +0 atlas. - 4 7 95 20 42 17 79 45 63 3 +16 mina. 90 2 14 106 j 23 35 29 83 35 57 3 +30 mats. 100, 6 14 120 I 19 34 24 77 43 73 2 -- +46 mhts. S3 5 io 98 21 27 10 58 43 76 2 _ Total Volume 367 17 4B 41$ B3 138 76 --- 297 167 269 10 76 Ap .Total Stu 4.1 10.7 --- 27.9 46.6 26 8 37.4 80,3 2.2 From West Right Thru Left i ARP Int Tnlsl 1111 20 42 13 751 349 96 I 37 18 71 363 7.18 SS 38 21 71 I 3106 121 16 "--� -if-- 30 15 61 326 4411 144 - 67 278 3384 24.1 518 24-1 921 111 i 10 62 12 74 90 20 42 13 75 118 16 _ 37 is 71 121 15 35 21 71 448 61 166 64 _ 291 21 67 22 921 ,763 .798 -762 970 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 01 P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8118 File Name ; GRT05501 P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No :2 1-405 PB ONUFF KpjAtb out In Total 4i 287 2Z 54 M to Left tir Peak Hour Data C � T F -c—/ eak5our9o9fiait 05:00#!T_ it Prima a� I 4Ldt Thru RI tt 1GI 2MG91 107,I i9 X811] Out In iota)j:Agj NE 0WOFF RA PS 1-406 NB 4NIOFF RAMPS NE 44TH 5T I-405 Nt3 QNIQFF RAMPS NE 44TH ST From North From East From South West Start 711rre RI9i1t TIYrV Lett TOM Right Thru Left Total' Rlgnt Thru Left AppFrom Total Right Thru Left InL Total Peak Hour Maly& From 04:00 PM to 0&4S PM - Peak i or i 7�lal Peak Hour 10 Entire Intersectlon Begins at 015,0 PM G&W PM fib 7 12 84 20 42 17 79 45 63 3 114. 20 42 13 78 I 349 06:1.5 PM 84 7 12 103 23 35 2t5 83 36 57 3 96 16 37 i8 73 363 O&W PM 72 6 12 90 19 34 24 77 43 73 2 118 i6 35 21 71 366 01•x46 PM a8 2 i6 86 21 27 30 ES 43 76 2 12. SB 30 i6 61 326 Totalvoluma 2a7 22 84 363 93 138 76 297 387 209 10 446 87 _ 144 67 278 _ _ 1384 % App.Total I 79.1 8.i 14.9 27.9 46.8 26.6 37A 80.3 22 24.1 6L8 24A PHF I 854 .789 .7150.881 1 .902 .821 T60 .BBE .528 .886 .833 .921 .839 .857 .795 .927 .972 1-405 PB ONUFF KpjAtb out In Total 4i 287 2Z 54 M to Left tir Peak Hour Data C � T F -c—/ eak5our9o9fiait 05:00#!T_ it Prima a� I 4Ldt Thru RI tt 1GI 2MG91 107,I i9 X811] Out In iota)j:Agj NE 0WOFF RA PS RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.400 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafFicount@msn.com (360)491-8116 f."�na- 0.4..6..., n -- File Name : GRT05502A Site Carle : 00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 1 - - OFF RAAIEP 5 .B OF RAM-. 146 From North j .N.-E--44.71.ST _ From East �- From .-. 1-4105 3181 ON MP From South TH . 5T From West From East ! StartTw- f� i, Might I Thru Left i start Tima . Riot Thru ' Left TmN n p„r, T" R j_ Thru LuR Truek „gyp, T w mom Thry Laft hwk A.. T.m Not Thru I Loft Truck ;q T. 491 30 0 0 276 30 07:00 AM L4 0 11 0 25 O 18 104 1 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 0 4 133 5 280 285 07:15 AM 33 0 11 4 44 0 22 104 3 126 0 0 0 0 0 1 187 0 3 18B 10 358 368 07:30 AM 37 0 13 1 50 0 47 101 1 3A8 0 0 0 0 0 3 201 0 3 204 a 402 407 07:45 AM33 82 _ 1 19 1 83 0 46 81 5 127 0 0 0 0 0 1 144 0 0 1451 6 325 332 Total 117 1 54 6 172 0 133 390 10 823 0 0 0 0 0 5 665 0 3A C70 26 __ 1365 1391 - - OFF RAAIEP - -� IVE 44TH 51 �- From North 122 From East ! StartTw- f� i, Might I Thru Left P' flight Thru I left - ---- -1 i TOta! Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM W OBAS AM - Peak i of i 1 0 0 08:15 AM 0880 ANI 26 18 0 0 23 14 1 2 491 30 0 0 276 30 101 4 128 0 0 0 0 0 I 4 134 0 3 1381 a 315 280 323 19 E3 0 46 Bi Total Volume 3.17 1 54 113 it 143 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 724 0 2 126 15 296 313 ... 08:45 AM 10 i 16 1 27 ' - 0 '10 82 3 97 0 0 0 0 4 4 69 0 9 S31 7 21T} fi0 TOWN 4 1 68 6 3.43 0 go 387 is 471 0 0 0 0 01 11 479 0 11 - 4901 _ 95 1110 1185 Grand 7otel ' 191 2 122 11 318 ' 0 223 777 29 1000 0 0 0 0 0 I 3.6 1144 0 21 1180 61 2475 2536 Aplrrch % . 60.5 0.6 38.7 0 22.3 77.7 I 0 0 0 1.4 98.6 0 I Total % 7.7 0.1 4.9 12.7 0 9 314 40.4 i 0 0 0 0 0.8 46.2 0 46.9E 2.4 97.6 - - OFF RAAIEP - -� IVE 44TH 51 �- From North 122 From East ! StartTw- f� i, Might I Thru Left P' flight Thru I left - ---- -1 i TOta! Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM W OBAS AM - Peak i of i 1 0 0 3 Peak Haurfar Entire IntersecUan Begns at 07:00 AM 204 1481 0 0 07:00 AMI 07:16 AM 1A 0 33 0 ' 11 11 25 44 0 0 3.8 104 07:30 AM 37 0 13 60 0 22 47 104 101 07:45 AM 33 _ 1 19 E3 0 46 Bi Total Volume 3.17 1 54 _ 1721 0 133 390 _ !LAE- Total 65 0.6 31.4 1 0 26.4 74.6 . PHF , .791 .250 .711 .811 .000 .707 .938 Peak Hour Analysis Fram 07M AM to 08:45 AM. Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach 9egins aL 07.30 AM 07:00 AM +0 mine, 37 0 Ia fi0 0 18 104 +15 mins. ! 33 3 19 63 0 22 104 +30Min& E 22 0 19 37 j 0 47 101 �. +45 mirm ' 26 023 49 - 0 46 81 Total voku-01 18 a 70 IB9 I.. 0 133 390 w_ % App. Total 62,4 0.5 37 0 25.4 74.6 -- PHF ; 797 .250 .7&1 .8921 .000 .707 .938 From SOutft From West r'] R1 ht Ttuu Left Tetal i Right' Thru Lath a Eno Total 122 0 0 0 0 0 133 0 133 280 126 0 0 0 0 1 187 0 L88' 358 148 0 0 0 0 8 201 0 204 402 127 0 0 0 01 1 144 0 145i 325 623 0 0 0 --6T 5 665 - 0 670 1386 0 0 0 0.7 99.3 0 .883 .000 .000 ,000 .0001 .417 .927 .nnn a13t I ado 07DO AM -- 0735 AM 122 0 0 0 0 1 187 0 186 126 0 0 0 0 3 201 0 204 1481 0 0 0 0 1- 144 0 145 1271 0 0 0 0 2 132 0 134 6231 0 0 0 0 7 664 0- 671 --- - Q 0 a - .._. 99 0 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P_O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficourlt@msn.com {360}491-8116 File Name : GRT05502P Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 2/2412009 Page No .2 Peak Hour for Entire lelersecdon Begins at 07:00 AM 07 -DO AAI i 14 0 11 260 12 104 122 07:15 AM 33 0 11 44 f 0 22 1.04 126 07:30 AM , 37 4D 13 60 0 47 101 148 _ 07:46 AM 33 1 i9 63 I 0 46 81 127 TotalVeHente 117 1 54 172 0 133 990 023 % 4 Total 68 _ _ 0.6 314 0 28.4 74.6 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 --- PHF .791 ..Z60 .711 .811 1 .000 .707 :938 .863 f 000 _000 .000 Out In Total =1 117 54 Thru Left +� 1 Lr 0 0 133 0 1331 260 0 1 187 0 188 3418 0 a 201 0 204 402 0 1 144 4 148 325 D 5 wi 0 6701 1366 0.7 99.3 0 .D00 AV .827 .000 .621 .849 E I � I Peak Hour Data Nonh � as ^- o I ae�k t�fouraeeTns � �o7:U4 AM r rj` N 4� T r► Left Tlru _Nit o D D 386 0 3901 Qut In Total RENTON, WASHINGTON I-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafricount@Msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05502P Site Code : 00000002 Start Dante : 2/24/2009 Page No : 1 i 1-405 SB OFF RAAII0 From North _ - NE 44TH ST From East 1408 S8 ON RAIIQP �- 1-405 SB ON It,4N P - From South - NE "TH 5T from West -- '-� NE 44Th ST �- From North Start Time Rlrkt Ttw L.7nrek aparew RIM Thru LeftTnmk aaarma Rlpht I 7ryru Laft-I Tmak Iµe mea ; Right I Thru I Left Tr+rdr r� tory 1 Righ{ Thra 04-00 PM 66 3 26 0 94 1 0 65 60 1 126 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 33 0 0 e�r.nl mnra� Yrr Taer 04:1.5 PM 67 0 30 0 97 0 74 52 2 126 0 0 0 0 0 5 35 0 1 40 40 1 3 259 260 04.30 PM 63 1 21 0 91 0 74 54 0 1,28 0 0 0 0 0 7 32 0 0 I 74 263 266 04.45 PM 67 1 32 0 100 Q 77 53 1 130 0 0 p 7 32 1 Q 39 40 0 288 270 268 271 Total 262 5 iib 0 382 0 290 219 4 609 0 _0 _0 0 0 0 _ 0 28 _ _ 132 1 1 _ i59 _1 _ 6 _ _ iol50 1066 05c00 PM Be 1 39 0 99 ' 0 62 52 2 L14 0 0 0 0 0 5 45 0 0 50 ; 2 203 268 05c15 PMI J19 2 34 1 91 0 60 56 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 7 42 0 0 49 1 1 2555 256 0&30 PM i 60 0 34 1 94 0 55 61 3 1w 0 0 0 0 0 II 5 26 0 0 33 4 233 237 0&4S PM , 72 0 43 _ 0 115 0 46 55 0 101 0 0 0 0 01 8 36 0 1 43 _ 1 259 290 Fatal 260 3 146_ 2 399 - 0 223 213 6 436 0 0 0 0 -' a� 22 183 tl 1 176 B i010 1018 Grand Total i 612 B 281 2 791 ' 0 513 432 9 946 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 46 286 O.J. 2 334 I 13 2060 2073 Apprch % ' Me 1 33.4 � 0 543 46.7 j 0 0 0 il! 14.4 85.3 3 Total % 24.9 ❑.4 12.7 37.9 0 24.9 21 46.9 jjj 0 0 0 Q 2.3 13.8 0 18.2 1 0.6 99.4 - --r 1.405 SB OFF RAMP � 1408 S8 ON RAIIQP �- NF 44TH ST - 1 NE 44Th ST �- From North From East _ From South _ �_ From West yry -Start7fine R1gM �Th_��I 1 Righ{ Thra Lit-Ap 1 RIS Thro � Thi Rtght Thru � I Left Peak Hour Ana"Is From 04:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 _ - Peak Hour for Eadre InterseMon Begins at 04:16 PM 04:15 PM i 67 0 30 97 0 74 52 126 0 0 0 0 6 36 0 40 263 04:30 PM 63 1 27 91 0 74 54 128 0 0 0 0 7 32 0 39 266 04.45 PM 57 1 32 100 0 77 63 130 0 0 0 0 7 32 1 40 I 270 -- 05;00 PM 89 1 39..99 -� --- 0 62 52 114 0 0 0 0 5 45 0 50 I 263 Total Volume 236 3 128 387 0 287 211 4138 0 0 0 0 24 944 1 169 1054 _- % App .Tetel 66.1 0.8 331 0 57.6 42A 0 0 0 14.2 86.2 0.6 1 .988._. •750..-. .82! -966 .000 .932 .977 ,968 .000 .000 -000 .000 .657 .800 - .250 -.8451 .976 Peak Hour Analpid From 04:00 PM to 0e.46 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for 6aeh A prase! Begins at . 06:00 PM _ --- - 04:00 PM 04.00 PM _ __.---.- ..--- 04 3❑ PM - � 1 +0M 59 1 39 99 0 65 80 126 0 0 0 0 ' 7 32 0 39 1 +15 M ns. i b9 2 30 +30 milts. 60' 31 1 0 74 62 126 0 0 0 0 7 32 1 40 ' ❑ 34 i 94 0 74 64 128 0 0 0 0 5 46 ❑ 50 _ +45 mire' 72 0 43 iib 0 77 53 130 0 0 0 0 _ 7 42 0 49 TqW Volume 260 3 146 3991 0 290 219 W9 ----,6-0 00 26 1'31 1 170 % App. Tafel 52.7 0.8 36.6 - 0 _ 57 0 0 0 14.6 84.6 0.6 _�_. _�. PHF -666 .375 .649 .367 .000 .942 _43 .913 979 .000 .000 .000 .000 .929 An 250 89tl 7 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficaunt@msn. cram (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05502P Site Code ; 00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No ; 2 { . 1.405 S_ OFF RAMP NE 447Fi ST_ --1-- I-4�5 SB ON RAMP �- – — NE 441 FI ST `l Ir From Norah From East ` Fram South From West I steel in --T Flight Thru Right Thra Left atPjr Right Thru Left Right Thru Left gyp' Int total Peak Hpur pnalyais From 04:00 I'M to 05:45 PM -Peak 1 at i Total Total Peak Hour for Entire Intersecum Ilegins at 04:18 PM 04:15 PMI 67 0 30 9T 0 74 52 128 I 0 0 0 0 B 36 0 40 04:30 PM 63 1 27 91 0 74 54 126 0 0 0 0 7 32 0 39 263 26$ 0445 PM 67 1 32 100 0 77 133 130 0 0 0 0 7 32 1 40 = 270 0&00 PAI 69 1 39 �TotW 99 0 62 e2 !14 0 0 0 0 5 46 0 BO 263 Volume 266 3 128 387 0 297 211 498 0 0 0 0 24 144 ! 189 10!54 %App. Total 061 0 8 331 0 67.6 42.4 0 0 0 342 85.2 0.6 PHF 1 .955 .750 ,821 .988 1 .000 .932 .977 958 .000 ,000 000 .0001 .867 .800 .260 .846 .978 9L 4 cA Out In Total 0� 388°. � 258 3 928 RightLeft ,-1 I LI, i i 3 3 Peak Hour Data Nol 1h -Peak Maur BapTna et 04: 6-PW� Prima t +1 I r► Left Thru RI ht a 0 o f �w Opt In T L406SBCNSNI TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 RENTON, WASHINGTON trafficount@msn_com SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) (360)491-8116 Pile Name : GRT05503A : LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD site Code 00000003Start Date :212412009 LOC# 03A GRT09040N! Page No : 1 Grou 9Printed-Prima . 2.a 88.9 SEAHAWKS WAY 1 24.6 j -- NE 44TH ST .260 .667 DRIVEWAY --- - - LAKt Y$ASHINGT N'� Peak HOUr Analysts Fram 07:00 AM fa 08:45 AM • peak 1 of 1 0.6 .378 972 .841 I .858 1 {RIPLEY LNj 07v15AM 129 0730 AM -- *0 mim ' 0' 0 to 10 11 45 +15 intm 2 1 5 a ' 74 +30 mine. 1 0 12 13 I From North $3 +46 mine. , 1 From East 16 16 - From South 20 T -t-1 Yplp- -_.... -:f--1 0 BLVD 47 e4 ifil- %Mg. Total_ 9.9 Stan TlnterRiOt ihru Left Truck Right Thru Left rrmk ea,TaW Not .734 .72T .849 0 From West 02 97.62.3 Thru Left Truck �varwx Right Ther EAR Torok Mare.+ .000 00 AM .504 0 3 0 4 6 25 1 0 32 2 D 0 2 2 0 127 , a�.TwntrotNI07 67;16 AM 0 5 1 5 11 b6 1 1 87 1 0 2 2 129 4 167 171 07:30AM 0 10 1 16 12 74 D 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 L92 4 3 im 8 250 239 07:45 AM Totall 3 1 9 1 I 23 3 9 27 19 48 53 197 3 5 2 3 79 250 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0I49 199 2 4 7 1 191 163 $ 4 287 237 292 ZQ 1 0&00 AMI 1 0 12 1 13 ! 22 20 0 0 42 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 00 4 I 1 2 844 119 l5 1A 2 1 880 1231 1a 2 941 969 08:25AM i 1 0 15 1 16 I 22 30 0 0 62 1 0 0 0 1 0 123 3 2 178 180 08:30 AM , 08 46 AM 1 1 _ 3 0 5 0 0 7 2 6 1 10 93 9 31 V 1 0 7 2 45 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 jf 1 0 0 0 129 62 4 3 4 =6 . 133 1 I 3 10 198 18lS 196 195 Teta! 6 0 39 4 45 96 96 1 4 86 9 122 130 9 165 2 D 0 0 2 2 463 13 to 458 23 GOO _ 763 Grand Total 9 1 62 7 72 114 295 6 12 415 fI B 0 0 2 6 3 APPreh % 12-5 1.4 89.1 27.5 711 14 1D0 0 0 IMST 29 20 1128 41 1621 1662 Tete! % 6.6 0.1 U0 ; 7 1&2 0.4 28.8 I 0.4 0 0 0.4 0.3 0.2 97.3 25 j 67.7 1.7 69.6 I 2.5 97.5 j.-SEAHAWKS IWAY (RIPLEY ..r From North 3tartTimn Right= �TtIiB Left Total Peak Peak Hour Analysis From 0700 AM 14 09 45 AM •Peak lot 1 Peak FlourforEndre Inters%tlon Begins at 07:15 AM 07:16 AMI 0 0 5 5 07:30 AM 0 0 10 SO 07:4'3 AM 2 1 5 6 0&00 AM i 1 0 12 13 NE 44TH ST From East Right Tlt . Left 11 45 12 74 !9 53 22 20 % App. Total 1 8,3 2.a 88.9 4 2 7 2 1 24.6 73.8 __- PHF .378 .260 .667 .692 -.727449 _ Peak HOUr Analysts Fram 07:00 AM fa 08:45 AM • peak 1 of 1 0.6 .378 972 .841 Peak Hour for EachApproach 91fte at: .858 1 .629 07v15AM 129 0730 AM -- *0 mim ' 0' 0 to 10 11 45 +15 intm 2 1 5 a 12 74 +30 mine. 1 0 12 13 I 19 $3 +46 mine. , 1 0 16 16 - 22 20 T -t-1 Yplp- -_.... -:f--1 0 42 47 e4 ifil- %Mg. Total_ 9.9 2.1 �4 - 0._.� 24.8 73.9 PHF 600 ,250 .700 .734 .72T .849 DRIVEWAY LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD From South From West j RightThy Left APp' Right Thru Lek I_ ApP' I Int Tota11 J Total I Tata) 1 57 1 0 0 1 0 Be 0 0 0 0 8 76 ! 0 0 1 0 42 0 0 0 0 4 294 2 0 D 2 1 0 0 2 182 189 146 Sig 4 2 7 2 187 1911 183. 123178 250 2B7 237 S am is ssa _. 992 6 3 .736 ' 100 .600 0 .000 0 .000 _ .300 0.6 .378 972 .841 13 .535 .858 1 .629 U r:a0 AM 07:00 AM 1 57 2 0 0 2 0- 127 2 129 0 B6 1 0 0 1 1 182 4 187 3 79 0 0 0 0 0 199 2 191 0 42 1 0 0 1 0 148 7 4 260 4 0 - 0._.� 4 1 a" 15 153 890 1.6 100 0 0 02 97.62.3 f33 .756 .800 .000 .000 .504 .250 _ .862 _536 .884 RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOC# 03P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. Box 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 rrsuufu- rnmary i SEAHAiN1{5 11IIAY - --r-- .-------------•----- ._ { (RIPLEY LN) f NE 44TH ST DRIVEWAY 1 From North I From East From South Start Tlme ttlghtTTlqu. LaTr TruaN µProv Rppn Thru LaR Trek Am Tem Rl�t Tnru LeR rnral 04:00 PM I-µ 0 0 B 0 8 7 127 2 1 136 3 0 0 0 04:16 PM ! 0 0O 6 9 136 0 1 144 1 0 1 0 04:30 PM 3 0 5 1 8 13 126 1 1 140 2 D 0 0 04:45 PM 1 0 12 0 13 io 131 0 D 141 0 0 0 0 Total 4 0 31 -13s 39 619 3 3 =r7-, 81 6 0 1 0 06:00 PM ! 8 0 20 1 28 4 115 0 2 119 3 0 0 0 MIS PM 4 0 10 0 141 6 in 0 117 1 0 0 1 Os:30 PM i 3 0 16 118 5 109 0 2 114 0 0 0 0 OIx45 PMI 2 1 73 _ 0 $6 I 5 174 _ 0 0 119 0 1 0 0 Toti 88 2 76 ( 20 449 0 4 469 4 -,0 1 Grand Total j 21 1 89 3 ],],1 I 69 968 3 7 10$0 10 1 1 7. Apprch % 1185 0.9 80.2 6.7 94 0.3 83.3 8.3 8.3 Total % I 1.5 0.1 6.4 7.91 4,2 89.2 0.2 73.7 I 0.7 0.1 fl.i C - i SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY 0 0 - -- *0mins, LN) 0 NE 44TH ST 28 From North 4 From East j StertTlme I Right I Thr Left A RlghtTOW f Thru Left - _ +45 MIOR I 2 0 13 18 Tats! VWume Peak Hour Anellsis From 04;00 PM to 0G:46 PM. Peak 1 of 1 ..-- -- 6876.3 76 - 76 App. Total Peak Hour for Entire intemewon Begins at 04:00 PM .984 _ 0i41 3- 04:00 PM j 0 0 6 6+ 7 127 2 04:15 PM ; 0 0 6 6 9 136 0 04.30 PM i 3 0 5 6 13 126 1 04:45 PMI 1 0 12 1.3 10 131 0 al lume Vo1= 4 0- 31 66.7 619 3 -- %Tot0. , f M4 0 88.6 --- 7 92.6 0.6 Peak dour Analysis From 114M PM k, 06:46 PM - Peak 1 of i Peak Hour for tach Appmach Bagina at 1 05:00 PM 0 0 - -- *0mins, 8, 0 20 28 +15 mins. ' 4 0 10 14 +30 mina. I 3 0 15 18 - _ +45 MIOR I 2 0 13 18 Tats! VWume 7 ---224 _�1 1 ..-- -- 6876.3 76 - 76 App. Total .947 .500 1.3 .984 _ 0i41 3- File Name : GRT05503P Site Code ; 00000003 Start Date : 212412009 Page No ; 1 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD From West T" RW Thru tit Trek --T- r a,T.e.r - -;;; her Tow 3 0 33 0 0 33 1 i80 16i 2 0 33 1 1 34 2 186 im 2 0 33 1 0 34 2 164 186 0 0 26 2 0 281 0 182 182 7 0 125 4 1 129 I 6 732 737 3 0 28 1 0 291 3 179 1.82 2 1 37 1 0 39 1 171 172 0 0 1$ 1 0 16 3 148 151 1 0 29 3 1 32 1 168 168 S 1 109 6 1 118 8 688 674 12 1 234 10 2 246 13 1398 1411 0 .4 95.6 4.1 0.9 0.1 16.7 0.7 17.5 0.9 89.1 DRIVEWAY From South TSI 1 Right I Thr- Left 136 3 0 0 144 1 0 1 140 2 0 0 _141 4 � 0 0 661 e 0 1 0 0 33 1 26 2 0 14.3 7 127 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 3 0 0 From West ; _ 33 �p Righty 7hrugyp' Luft I - I Tata Int.Total J 3 2 0 0 33 0 33 1 33 34 180 188 2 0 0 0 33 1 26 2 34 28 184 162 7 0 0 125 4 90.9 31 _ 129 - 732 .38 3 .000 .947 .500 .948 .984 7 127 2 136 3 0 0 3 - -- D ... _ 33 1 341 9 136 0 144 1 0 1 2 0 26 2 28 13 126 1 140 2 0 0 2 0 26 1 29 iQ 131 39 619 _ 0i41 3- 0 0 0 --__ 0 - 1 37 1 --5--1-3-0-11 39 I 681 6 0 1 7 1 124 5---13p-11 T 92.15 0.6 66.7 0 14.3 0.6 98.4 3$ 60 961 .375 .974 .500 .000 250 .563 .250 _ RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOC# 03P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, YNC. P.O. Box 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 ,- -� �T SEAHAWK3 WAY (RiPLElf DRIVEWAY j I LN} NE 44TH 5T ' From North � . _ ..------- -- From From East StertTlme Right Thru RaR APP. Right Thru Left firu Left Talel Rlght Thru !eft ' I I int Total i Peak hour Analpis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM • Peak 1 of 1 Peak Flour for Endre Intersection 9agEns at 04.00 PM �t 136 3 04:00 PM 0 D 8 8 I 7 127 2 04:15 PM 0 0 6 6 9 7.36 0 04 30 PM 3 0 6 8 13 126 1 04-45 PM 1 0 12 i3 10 131 0 TotalVokane 4 0 31 36 39 519 3 % App. Total 11.4 0 88.9 7 92.8 0.5 PHF .333 .000 .646 .673 1 _780 1961 .376 Fife Name : GRT05503P Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No :2 DRIVEWAY LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD From South From West Right firu Left Fatal Rlght Thru !eft ' I I int Total i I Total �t 136 3 0 0 3 0 33 0 33 184 144 1 0 1 2 0 33 1 34 i88 140 2 0 0 2 0 33 1 34 984 141 0 0 0 0 0 26 2 28 182 561 6 0 1 7 0 126 4 129 732 88.7 0 54.8 1196.9 3.1 974 AM .000 _ .. -250 .683 - .947 ,500 .9491 .984 Statement of Qualifications Graham -Bunting Associates Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road Bow, WA 98232 Phone: 360.766.4441 Fax: 360.766.4443 Email: gbafidalgo.net Graham -Bunting Associates Prospectus Graham -Bunting and Associates (GBA) was established in 1996 by Oscar Graham and Patricia Bunting as an environmental and land use services business. The genesis for this firm. lies in the recognition that today's complex regulatory environment frequently requires the property owner to seek reliable technical assistance. This understanding is reflected in our mission statement: Graham -Bunting Associates are committed to providing accurate, reliable and affordable technical services to assist property owners in successfully meeting their regulatory needs. Graham -Bunting and Associates draw upon a collective thirty years experience in private and public sectors performing regulatory assistance, shoreline inventories, wetland, fish and wildlife site assessments, landscape restoration mitigation designs and associated permits. GBA does not provide legal assistance but rather a full range of technical and environmental analysis and land use services. GBA provides site analysis services and assistance in the preparation of environmental documents including: Environmental • Shoreline Inventories, Classifications and Rankings • Certified Wetland Reconnaissance/Delineation • Impact Assessment/Mitigation Proposals/Monitoring • Biological Assessments for federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance • Federal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • Fish and Wildlife Site Assessments for local Critical Area Ordinances Permitting GBA provides assistance and support with: • Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Variance Permits • Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Applications, Hydraulic Permit Approvals « Zoning Approvals « Boundary Line Adjustments, Short Plats, Subdivisions Mitigation Design • Marine Shore Defense and Restoration Strategies • Mitigation design for specific wildlife species • Landscape/mitigation, restoration and enhancement designs • Bio-Engineering/Vegetative Erosion Control Associate Support GBA works cooperatively with qualified fish and wildlife biologists capable of providing biological assessment services and the preparation of habitat management plans. Project Team/Statement of Qualifications Oscar Graham (Co-Principal/Environmental Planner) Mr. Graham holds a Bachelors Degree in Urban Studies and Land Use Planning from the University of Puget Sound and a Certification from the National Wetlands Science Training Cooperative for Jurisdictional Delineation of Wetlands in the Pacific Northwest. He spent two years in Juneau, Alaska as the Planning Supervisor and Interim Director for the City and Borough of Juneau. While there he managed large scale projects such as a controversial golf course and projects related to cruise ship tourism and waterfront planning. More recently he has worked as Deputy Director of Skagit County Planning and Development Services in Northwest Washington where he managed regulatory programs for the County. He has also worked as a Senior Planner/Shoreline Administrator with Skagit County. As Senior Planner he was responsible for the administration of the Skagit County Land Use Code, contributed to the drafting of the Environmental Element of the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan and was principal author of the County Critical Areas Ordinance. As Shoreline Administrator he coordinated the shoreline permit process and prepared amendments to the shoreline Master Program. While at Skagit County, he published Coastal Zone Disaster Mitigation, Skagit County, Washington (1993). Mr. Graham assisted in the establishment of GBA and became co -principal in 1996. Patricia Bunting (Co-PrincipnVWetland Ecologist/Professional Wetland Scientist) Ms. Bunting holds a Bachelors Degree in Landscape Architecture from the University of Washington (1990), has been certified as a Professional Wetland Scientist from the Society of Wetland Scientists, and holds a certificate from the Wetland Training Institute for the completion of training in wetland delineations using the same methods as the Corps Wetland Delineation Certification Program. She is responsible for project management, performs wetland delineations, wetland ratings, mitigation and monitoring plans, shoreline inventories for updating ordinances, fish and wildlife assessments and biological assessments to fulfill local, state and federal permitting requirements. She prepares third -party review regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance for the City of Sultan. She has worked in the private sector as a restoration ecologist, wetland ecologist and environmental planner since 1990, specializing in the assessment and management of aquatic areas. She has managed large contracts with local and state agencies regarding wetlands, fish and wildlife reports for permitting on road construction projects. She has worked for Alaska Department of Fish & Game division of Wildlife Conservation collecting data for wildlife management, administering regulations, permitting, and education for human animal conflicts. While employed at the University of Washington, she conducted research at the Center for Urban Horticulture relating to the effects of soil saturation on poplar species. Rone Brewer (Associate/Ecologist) Mr. Brewer has a Bachelors and Masters Degree in Environmental Science with an emphasis on Environmental and Wildlife Toxicology from Western Washington University. Since obtaining his Master's Degree in 1990, he has worked for several national environmental consulting firms, with diverse project work in areas from Barrow, Alaska to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He has conducted ecotoxicological research, numerous ecological risk assessments at hazardous waste sites including abandoned mines, Phase I and Phase Il Environmental Site Assessments for real estate transfers, riparian and in -stream habitat surveys, and wetland delineations. As part of these projects Mr. Brewer has conducted environmental sampling (soil, water, sediment, vegetation, and tissue), wildlife trapping and handling (small mammals, hawks, owls, pheasant, quail, and passerines), stream electro -shocking and fish sample collection, radio -telemetry monitoring, bird surveys, fish -presence surveys, stream invertebrate sampling and assessment, data handling, data analysis, and reporting. Graham -Bunting & Associates 2004 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Roar4 Bow. WA 98232, Phone (360) 766-4441, Fax (360) 766-4443 Project Team Statement of Qualifications (Continued) Jerome Waddell (Associate/Ecolop-ist) Mr. Waddell holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science with an emphasis in Terrestrial Ecology and has completed the Wetland Delineation and Management Training following the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). Mr. Waddell has nine years of experience conducting terrestrial and aquatic resource studies with project work experience in Georgia, Colorado, California, Oregon, and Washington. He has played a primary role and served as Principal Investigator for studies investigating bat issues including conducting detailed site evaluations, assessments of essential habitat features, and is trained in bat trapping techniques. His other work has encompassed investigations of reptiles, amphibians, raptors, nocturnal owls, waterfowl, and small mammals; His aquatic experience has principally focused on instream flow incremental methodology (IF'IM), presence and quality of fish habitat, and fish species identification. He has also participated in field investigations to characterize habitat types and document wildlife use in forested, shrub -steppe, riparian, and wetland ecosystems. Mr. Waddell has also served as Principal investigator for surveys for northern spotted owl and has been involved in many levels of the investigations including literature review, data collection and analysis, report writing, and editing. In addition, Mr. Waddell is experienced using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) resources, interpreting habitat cover types from aerial photos, using a variety of GPS systems, and conducting ground truth surveys. Graham -Bunting c& Associates 2009 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road Bow, WA 98232. Phone (360) 766-4441, Fax (360) 766-4443 Oscar Graham Education: Bachelor of Arts in Urban Studies: Land Use Planning University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA (1977) Certification: National Wetlands Science Training Cooperative for Jurisdictional Delineation of Wetlands in the Pacific Northwest (1990) Work History: (1996 -Present) Graham -Bunting & Associates, Land Use and Environmental Services Owner/Environmental Planner/Co-Principal: Responsible for working with property owners, businesses, agencies, tribal entities and local governments in the preparation of environmental documents and aquatic resource plans required under federal, state and local regulations. Provides direction and assistance to professional biologists and ecologists in the completion of work products ranging from biological assessments, shoreline inventories, jurisdictional wetland delineations, baseline inventories, restoration plans and amendments to local shoreline management programs. Prepares proposals, grants, bids and budgets_ Makes presentations to citizens groups and review authorities including planning commissions and local legislative bodies. (2004-2007) Skagit County Department of Planning and Development Services Deputy Director: Responsible for management and supervision of County regulatory programs including zoning, land division, environmental review (SEPA), shoreline management, critical areas and code enforcement. Worked with citizen groups, agencies, tribes and elected officials in the development of local ordinances and plans under the mandates of the Growth Management Act. Assisted with re -organization of planning and building functions into a team based program emphasizing customer service and enterprise based funding. (2000-2002) City and Borough of Juneau Alaska, Community Development Department Planning Supervisor/Interim Director: Responsible for supervision of six planning staff members. Provide guidance and support to professional level staff in the review of major land use proposals including City initiated harbors and cruise ship infrastructure development projects. Provide direct supervision and technical guidance for coastal zone and aquatic resource management programs. Worked on a cooperative basis with state and federal agencies (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, National Marine Fisheries Services, Corps of Engineers) in the review of multi jurisdictional projects. Also served as Interim Community Development Director (July — October 200 1) responsible for supervision of a stall' of thirty and 2.5 million dollar annual budget. (1988-1996) Skagit County Department of Planning and Development Senior Planner Su ervisor Responsible for supervision of the Current Planning Section including shoreline management, environment, grant administration and code compliance functions. Provided support and direction for six professional staff planners. Presented staff analysis and recommendations to Planning Commission and Board of county Commissioners. Drafted and coordinated adoption of plans and ordinances including Skagit County Critical Areas Ordinance, Environmental Element of the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan, Aquaculture and Hydropower Sections of the Skagit County Shoreline Management Master Program. Published Coastal Zone Disaster Mitigation, Skagit County Washington (1992) through a cooperative agreement between Skagit County, Washington State Department of Ecology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A discussion of mitigation measures associated with coastal flooding, erosion and slope failure. (1981-1987) Washington State Department of Ecology Environmentalist 2 (Crew Chief? Responsible for the super vision of conservation projects including stream enhancement, flood control, oil spill response and marine data collection. Prepared environmental reports and assessments documenting baseline environmental conditions associated with the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Published Utilization of Conservation Corps Crews in the Rehabilitation of Oiled Birds Washington State Department of Ecology, (1986). Graham -Burning & Associates 2009 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road Bow, WA 98232, Phone (360) 766-4441, Fax (360) 766-4443 Patricia Bunting, Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) Education: Bachelors in Landscape Architecture University of Washington, Seattle, WA (1990) Additional courses for Masters Degree (Aquatic Ecology) Skagit Valley Community College (2006-2008) Certifications: Wetland Training Institute, Wetland Delineation Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) Workshops: Stream Bank Protection Using Vegetation, Bioengineering, Dept. of Ecology Training: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification Wetland Rating, Wetland Mitigation, Stream Restoration Memberships: Society of Wetland Scientists, Skagit Fisheries Enhancement, Skagit Land Trust Work History: (1996 - present) Graham -Bunting & Associates Land Use and Environmental Services Owner/Wetland Ecologist: Responsible for all aspects of business operations. Field and office tasks include; permitting, wetland delineations and reports, fish & wildlife site assessments and biological assessments as required by the Endangered Species Act and Critical Areas Ordinances. Develop mitigation plans and monitoring programs for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats to comply with local, state and federal requirements including federally funded projects or projects on federal, state and county owned lands_ Prepares baseline document reports, permits for federal, state and local compliance and shoreline inventories for updating jurisdictional shoreline policies. (2000-2002) Alaska Fish and Game, Wildlife Conservation Field Office Assistant working directly under the supervision of the South East regional area biologist. Responsible for preparing and issuing permits, direct public assistance regarding wildlife issues often on an emergency basis, data collection of wildlife species, wildlife education and management assistance. Assisted the public and the staff biologist with code interpretation and rewriting of the code for approval. ( 1992-1996) Skagit County Planning and Community Development: Assistant Planner Participated in the development of the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Drafted the Mineral Resource, Utility and Open space elements of the Plan and coordinated the citizen participation process. Assisted in the development of the draft Skagit County Critical Area Ordinance. Compiled and coordinated the draft critical area map resources. Assisted in watershed mapping and water quality testing for the Samish Bay Watershed Plan and participated on the committee for the Padilla Bay Watershed Plan. (1989-1991) Harvard and Associates, Landscape Architecture, Seattle, WA : Restoration Ecologist Project manager and project designer for sensitive areas located in planned residential developments, subdivisions, stream restoration/relocations, and slope erosion planting designs. Wetland reconnaissance and delineation by identifying vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology consistent with the Army Corps of Engineers 1987 & 1989 Wetland Delineation Manuals. Site analysis, site design and mitigation design for housing projects included the determination of the condition of on site trees as possible hazard trees to be selectively removed. Designed open space areas with passive recreation. Supervised removal and installation of plants and stream restoration projects. (1986-1989) Center for Urban Horticulture, University of Washington Plant Technician and Assistant Researcher Flood study research plant technician in the Plant Physiology Lab. Cultivated and propagated poplar trees. Produced experiments for research on flood stress of trees. Graham -Bunting & Associates 2009 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232, Phone (360) 766-4441, Fax (360) 766-4443 Rone Brewer Education: Bachelors in Environmental Science, Minor: Chemistry Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA (1987) Masters in Environmental Science, Emphasis: Wildlife Toxicology Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA (1990) Training: 40 Hr. OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations Training Wetlands Training Institute: Wetland Delineation Certification Trimble GPS and Ecological Risk Assessment Certified Water Operator and Cross Connection Control Specialist Work History: Joined GBA in 2006 for various projects/ Owner (2004 - Present) Sound Ecological Endeavors; Stanwood, WA Field and office tasks include ecological risk assessments, wetland/critical area delineations and reports and permitting, fish & wildlife site assessments and biological assessments as required by the Endangered Species Act and Critical Areas Ordinances. Develop mitigation plans and monitoring programs for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats to comply with local, state, and federal requirements. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for real estate transfers. Prepare proposals, budgets, baseline document reports. (2001-2004) Landau Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA; Senior Project Ecological Risk Assessor/Ecologist Project/Task manager for conducting ecological risk assessments, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for real estate transfers, terrestrial and aquatic ecological surveys, and wetland/critical area delineations and permitting in Washington and Oregon. Responsible for marketing, planning, proposals, budgeting, project/task management, field data collection/delineation, data handling, data analysis, and reporting. Developed ecological risk assessment guidance for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality's hazardous waste site Voluntary Cleanup Program. (1997-2001) Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Seattle, WA: Senior Ecological Risk Assessor Project/Task manager for conducting ecological risk assessments. Conducted field work and environmental sampling for Washington and remote Alaskan sites, including fish and stream invertebrate surveys and reporting. Developed ecological risk assessment guidance for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). (1996-1997) EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. Bellevue, WA: Scientist VI Program Manager USFS Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) Environmental Services Contract. Project Manager Ecological Risk Assessment at sites in Alaska and across the U.S. (1993-19%) Ecology & Environment, Inc., Seattle, WA: Environmental Scientist III Ecological Risk Assessment task manager for superfund hazardous waste sites across the United States. For the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, provided technical review of superfund ecological risk assessments. Developed ecological risk assessment guidance for the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory. (1992-1993) Roy F. Weston, Inc., Seattle, WA. Scientist II Ecological Risk Assessor for sites superfund hazardous waste sites across the United States. (1992-1993) Clemson University; Washington Field Station, Oak Harbor, WA: Biologist 1/111 Field site supervisor, responsible for implementing all aspects of an ecotoxicological demonstration project at the Naval Air Station on hazardous waste sites for remediation. Graham -Bunting & Associates 2009 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road Bow, WA 98.232, Phone (360) 766-4441, Fax (360) 766-4443 Jerome Waddell Education: Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science with Terrestrial Ecology emphasis and Chemistry minor. Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA (1999) Certification: Wetland Delineation and Management Training, Richard Chinn Environmental, 2001; Bat Management and Conservation Workshop, Bat Conservation International, 2002; Geographical Information Systems (GIS), Skagit Valley College, 2004. Work History: (200&Present) Graham -Bunting Associates Terrestrial Ecologist: Joined the GBA team as a part time biologist performing tasks that include; fish and wildlife site assessments including stream, flora and fauna surveys; wetland investigations, assessments and delineations, and development of written products as required by and in compliance with local Critical Area Ordinances and associated state and federal requirements where applicable. 1999-2007 Devine TarbeH & Associates, Bellingham, WA Terrestrial Ecologist Principle role included preparing and conducting terrestrial resource surveys and assessments for wildlife and habitats. Study investigations included reptiles, amphibians, waterfowl, raptors, nocturnal owls, waterfowl, small mammals, and bats; rare, animals groups typically included rare, threatened, and endangered species. Specific work tasks generally involved drafting study plans, implementing studies, managing field data, and development of written and visual work products. Commonly used GIS for map development and data analyses for study preparation and presentation of findings. 1998-1999 Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA; Data Technician Primary responsibility was to create and implement databases to track students' use of campus recreation facilities and equipment. Collected, stored, and analyzed student usage Graham -Bunting & Associates 2009 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Roan Bow, WA 98232, Phone (360) 766-4441, Fax (360) 766-4443 data to moister support and justification for expanding campus recreation facilities for Western Washington University. Selected Records of Past Performance Graham Bunting & Associates (GBA) has conducted numerous site assessments addressing wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and associated permitting for local, state and federal jurisdictions since 1996. Locally we have collective project experience in Skagit, Whatcom, San Juan, Snohomish, Island, King and Douglas Counties. GBA has also produced shoreline inventories, wetland delineations and mitigation plans, marine biological eelgrass/macro-algae surveys, and biological site assessments to comply with local, state and federal regulations. Following are representative examples of projects performed. Skagit County Public Works FEMA Funded Road Repair Projects (Skagit River) GBA was contracted to prepare environmental documents for wetlands, fish and wildlife, shoreline and associated permits to repair damage to numerous roads around Skagit County. This involved preparing local, state and federal permit applications to rebuild road banks below the OHWM of the Skagit River, a designated shoreline. Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Department of Ecology, (Skagit County) GBA was contracted with Department of Ecology to perform a wetland delineation at the Padilla Bay Research Reserve to be utilized for on-site long term planning. Wetlands were mapped with GPS and incorporated into the Reserves data base for future planning. City of Mount Vernon Shoreline Inventory (Mount Vernon, WA) Graham -Bunting & Associates were contracted by the City of Mount Vernon to conduct a shoreline inventory and ranking system of existing environmental baseline conditions along an eight mile portion of the Skagit River. This inventory was grant funded by the Dept. of Ecology to assist the City with developing the City's Shoreline Master Program which is intended to contribute to the long-term recovery of proposed, threatened and endangered species. The inventory was initiated by convening a technical support review group. Inventory and ranking protocols were established by GBA for environmental baseline conditions for the functional criteria of the physical, biological and land -use features. Stream Inventories for Fish Passage Projects associated with various Skagit County Roads GBA contracted with local engineers and Skagit County to perform wetland delineations and stream data collection in support of local, state and federal permitting requirements to remove fish barriers created by historical road building practices. Town of Concrete Critical Areas Ordinance (Skagit County) GBA has been contracted with the Town of Concrete to assist with the preparation of their Critical Areas Regulations and public meetings. City of Sultan Third Party Review (Snohomish County) GBA conducts third party review on wetlands and fish and wildlife reports for compliance with the City's critical areas ordinance on proposed projects. Graham -Bunting & Associates 2009 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232, Phone (360) 766-4441, Far (360) 766-4443 Heronry Reconnaissance (Oak Harbor, WA) GBA in conjunction with WDFW, prepared a reconnaissance report for a housing development located within 500 feet of a potential heronry. Edison Slough Drainage Improvement Project (Skagit County) GBA worked under sub -contract with Montgomery Water Group, Inc. to produce a fish and wildlife site assessment, wetland delineation, impact analysis and mitigation plan as required by local and federal jurisdictions. Mitigation included the state's first self-regulating tide gate. Avon Allen Road Improvement Project (Skagit County) GBA contracted with Skagit County Public Works Department to conduct a Biological Assessment. A thorough analysis of project effects on endangered flora, fauna and fish listed by the Endangered Species Act was produced and submitted for approval by National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish & Wildlife Service pursuant to ESA under the Federal Highways Environmental Classification Summary Checklist. Island County Public Works, Wetland Site Assessment East Camano Drive/Cross Island Road/Arrowhead Road Intersection improvements in the year 2000. GBA conducted field delineation and prepared a report addressing jurisdictional wetlands associated with the road improvements. Presseutin County Park (Marblemount, WA) GBA contracted with Skagit County Parks and Recreation Department to conduct a Critical Areas Site Assessment addressing wetlands, fish and wildlife and cultural resources. The subject property is located in an area adjacent to the Skagit River which contains productive fish habitat wetland systems and archaeological resources. GBA worked cooperatively utilizing community input, federal funding sources and The Nature Conservancy in identifying mitigation measures designed to avoid critical area impacts and allow for park development. Upon completion of the site assessments, GBA prepared a draft Environmental Assessment pursuant to the requirements of NEPA. Dike District #3 (Skagit River) Fish Enhancement Project GBA prepared baseline document report, wetland delineation and Corps permit to assist the Dike District in moving back a portion of the Skagit River Levee, south of Mount Vernon. This project was funded with Salmon Recovery Funds. The project included moving three residences out of the floodway of the Skagit River. Dike District #1 and #22 (Skagit River) GBA contracted with the dike districts to conduct Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Site Assessments inclusive of mitigation plans and Shoreline Permit Approvals. Permit approvals were needed for levee repairs and enhancement. City of Mount Vernon Parks and Recreation (Mount Vernon, WA) Graham -Bunting & Associates 2009 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Box, WA 48232, Phone (360) 766-4441, Fax (360) 766-4443 GBA performed a wetland delineation, prepared a mitigation plan and prepared permits for the proposed Kiwanis Park at I Sth and Broadway streets. The project involved permitting for a .90 acre wetland fill and over three acres of proposed mitigation and monitoring plan. The mitigation plan has been approved by federal and state agencies. GBA is currently contracted with Mount Vernon Parks and Recreation department to perform five years of monitoring. Marine Biological EelgrasslMacro Algae Survey and Associated Permits (Flounder Bay) GBA conducted a SCUBA assisted marine biological survey for proposed residential dock impacts as required by the state Department of Fish & Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife and the City of Anacortes for shoreline permitting and ESA impact analysis. Reservation Road Improvement Project (Turners Bay) GBA contracted with Skagit County Public Works Department to conduct a Shoreline Permitting and Critical Areas Site Assessment, which included wetland, fish, wildlife and cultural resource elements. These investigations were conducted in association with a proposed road improvement project located in an area of documented freshwater and estuarine wetlands, salmon and eagle habitats, and archaeological resources. Local, state, federal and tribal permit approvals were obtained. GBA worked collectively to minimize impacts and develop a mitigation plan, which restored fish passage and tidal action to an eight acre salt marsh. Marine Biological Eelgrass/Macro Algae Survey, Deception Pass GBA conducted a SCUBA assisted marine biological survey at Deception pass to meet the requirements of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife for a residential marine dock proposal. GBA prepared a report and processed applications required by the Army Corps of Engineers, state and local jurisdictions including SEPA checklist. Ducks Unlimited "Barley for Birds" Program GBA contracted with Ducks Unlimited to conduct a Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Site Assessment on the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife's land on the Samish Flats. This project assisted Ducks Unlimited (a non-profit organization) in satisfying the permitting requirements of the County Critical Areas Ordinance for waterfowl enhancement. Salish Estuary Monitoring (Fidalgo Bay) GBA developed and conducted a monitoring program for three years on a sensitive shoreline area that was the subject of an enforcement action by EPA. Fifteen monitoring sites were inspected every 3 months. Flora, fauna and fish data were recorded and sent to EPA as a requirement of the enforcement action. Wetland Delineations and Fish & Wildlife Assessments (Bellingham, Ferndale, Everson, Whatcom County) Graham -Bunting Associates has performed wetland delineations and mitigation plans on a variety of sites including but not limited to; 5 acre site in preparation of a commercial building proposal, 30 acres of an old golf course for the proposal of a housing development, a ten acre site for commercial complex a commercial building proposal on a 3 acre site and various single family residential and short plat projects. The commercial delineations and mitigation proposals were reviewed and approved by the local jurisdictions, State Department of Ecology and Army Corps of Engineers. Graham -Bunting & Associates 2009 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road Bow, WA 98232, Phone (360) 766-4441, Fax (360) 766-4443 Shoreline and Environmental Assessments on the Columbia River Assessments performed by GBA on the Columbia River include wetland, ordinary high water mark and riparian boundary identification for determining regulatory setbacks and appropriate mitigation measures associated with residential developments. These assessments document threatened, endangered and priority wildlife species and habitats along with their potential impacts and mitigation proposals. These assessments met the requirements of the National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department of Fish and Wildlife for approval of permits. Graham -Bunting & Associates 2009 Environmental and Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232, Phone (360) 766-4441, Fax (360) 766-4443 Wetland/Stream Study: Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel Prepared for: Prepared by - Graham -Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road Bow, WA 98232 Ph. 360. 766 4441 Fx 350.766.4443 May i 2, 2049 Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC 1 I l.1 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Akk 21V io3 E c 41 1 i J. r„ k ;t K � t _ Prepared by - Graham -Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road Bow, WA 98232 Ph. 360. 766 4441 Fx 350.766.4443 May i 2, 2049 Table of Contents SectionlSubsection Page Project Summary --- -------------------- ------- —------------------- ----- I.0 Introduction ---_---- ---------------------------- -------------------- 2.0 Existing Conditions 3.0 Project Description ----------------_-----__- ---------------- 3 4.0 Existing Information --- ----- _---- _-,--- ---------------�- 3 4.1 National Wetland inventory -----____-__--_--_---� 3 4.2 Soil Survey of King County ------------_—_--_-__- 4 4.3 May Creels Basin Action Plan -----__-----______-_,_- 5 4.4 Barbee Mill (BA) ------------------- ----- ------ _------ 5 4.5 Fawcett Property Wetland Delineation -------_--- 5 4.6 Forest Practice Activity Map ----__- ----__--_-_-_ 5 5.0 Stream Study --------------------------_- 5 5.1 Riparian Functions ------------------ -------------_�--- 5 5.2 Ordinary High Water Mark 7 5.3 Stream Classification and Regulations ---------------- 8 6.0 Wetland Study _____---.--------------- 9 6.1 Methodology ------------__�_�______ -- - - 9 6.2 Findings ---------------------_-- -------- ----------- - ----- 10 6.3 Data Summary Table ------__------_. ______w`__--- 11 6A Data Digest -------_-- w- ____ � ____ ._---___-------- 11 6.3 Wetland Classification and Regulations -------__—_____ 12 7.0 Regulatory Summary and Mitigation Measures --------------_ 13 7.1 May Creek ---------__---------_ .�------.�13 7.2 Drainage Ditch (Class 5 Water) ----------_______________ 14 7.3 Wetlands A and B 14 7.4 Drainage Ditch (nonregulated wetland) ---------- --- 14 7.5 Water Quality ----- -- ---- —----_--_------- __----------- 14 8.0 Closure---------�____�__Y._____i n 9.0 References---____..------__�__r ________ �—________15 Attachments Wetland Delineation and Stream Study Existing Conditions Site Plan ---- Attachment A Proposed Conditions ---- ----- —---------- __-----__---_---_----`----__-- Attachment B Wetland Field Data Forms ---- ---------- --------- -_-------,___---- Attachment C 6rahann-Bunn 4g Associates r Environmental &Land Qg Semces flan=ks Landing Alan 2009 PROJECT SUMMARY Pr. oiect: Construction of a 3 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel including underground parking and ground level parking. Project Site: The project site is a 3.06 -acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7.8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south. Project Location: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44'x' Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, WA. King County Parcel Number: 3224059049. Project Proponent: Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC I l I 1 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Methods: Wetland — Routine On -Site Methodology, 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-97- 1) - Corps Interim Regional Supplement, April 2008 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, Ecology Publication #96-94 City of Renton Critical Area Regulation: RMC 4-3-050 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program: RMC 4-3-090 Field Dates: March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009 Streams & Wetlands: May Creek -- Class I Water, Shoreline of the State Drainage ditch — Class 5 Water/Nonregulated Wetland Wetland A -- 433 square foot Category 2 Wetland Wetland B — 481 square foot Category 2 Wetland Proposed Mitigation; Subject proposal will avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setback/bufrers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program. Proiect Staff_: Patricia Bunting, Wetland Ecologist PWS Oscar Graham, Wetland Ecologist Graham-Bunring,Issociates ii Fnvirvnmental eke Land Use 5enqces 11awks Landing Afav 2009 1.0 Introduction At the request of Hawks Landing LLC, Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA) have conducted a site investigation and prepared the following report addressing streams and wetlands within and adjacent to the site of the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza. Hotel. The report addresses the stream and wetland study requirements established under the City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The report includes a characterization of existing conditions, project description, summary of existing information sources and a narrative description of our investigative procedures and findings. The report includes pian sheets prepared by Sound Development Group depicting existing and proposed site conditions. 2.0 Existing Conditions The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44"' Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, WA. King County Parcel Number: 3224059449. Figure 1-Terraserver; USGS The project site is a 3,06 -acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7, S acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Labe Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south, The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. An administrative office is also located on the site. The buildings am constructed on a fill pad surfaced with crushed rock and asphalt. The site has been fully developed for industrial purposes. Graham -Bunds Associates I Environmental &1L La Use Services Hawks Landing assessment 5112/09 Graham -Bunting Associates May 12, 2009 Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232 Dan Mitzel Ph. 360.766.4441 Fx. 360.766.4443 Hawk's Landing LLC 1 i 11 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Streant/Wetland Study (Portions of Section 29 & 32 Township 24 north, Range 5 East, W.M., Renton, WA) 1.0 Introduction At the request of Hawks Landing LLC, Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA) have conducted a site investigation and prepared the following report addressing streams and wetlands within and adjacent to the site of the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza. Hotel. The report addresses the stream and wetland study requirements established under the City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The report includes a characterization of existing conditions, project description, summary of existing information sources and a narrative description of our investigative procedures and findings. The report includes pian sheets prepared by Sound Development Group depicting existing and proposed site conditions. 2.0 Existing Conditions The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44"' Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, WA. King County Parcel Number: 3224059449. Figure 1-Terraserver; USGS The project site is a 3,06 -acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7, S acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Labe Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south, The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. An administrative office is also located on the site. The buildings am constructed on a fill pad surfaced with crushed rock and asphalt. The site has been fully developed for industrial purposes. Graham -Bunds Associates I Environmental &1L La Use Services Hawks Landing assessment 5112/09 Little native vegetation exists within the subject property itself, The eastern and western perimeters, predominantly within the right of ways of 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard exhibit a mix of native and invasive plant species. Trees consist of red alder (Alms rubra), paper birch (Betula papynfera), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Shrubs are dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubes discolor), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Indian plum (Qemleria cerasiformas), Japanese knotweed (Palygonurn cuspidatum) and sword fern (Polyshchum m mitum). An open drainage ditch located between the project site and Lake Washington Boulevard exhibits a small community of cattail (Typha latifolia) and a thick mat of reed canarygrass (Phalans arundtnacea). The parcel Iocated south of the subject property includes lower May Creek and its associated riparian corridor. The distance from the subject property to May Creek varies from 235 feet in the east (adjacent to the on-ramp to 1-405) to 58 feet in the west (adjacent to Lake' Washington Boulevard). A mature deciduous forest consisting of large black cottonwood (16"- 36" dbh), alder and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) dominates the riparian corridor. The understory includes vigorous colonies of invasive blackberry and Japanese knotweed, salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis), reed canarygrass and sword fem. A small community of slough sedge (Carex obnupta) was observed in conjunction with a wetland identified along the right bank of May Crack, Photo 1: View north along eastern right of way of Lake Washington Blvd showing perimeter vegetation adjacent to drainage ditch. The subject property is predominantly flat, however, the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the entrance of the existing pan Abode facility, resembles a bowl shaped depression designed to receive stormwater runoff from multiple catch basins located along the southbound on-ramp to 1- 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard. Stormwater runoff from the catch basins is transmitted to the northern portion of the subject property and discharged to the northern and of the open drainage ditch, located along the eastern right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard. Stormwater from the subject property is also collected and discharged to the ditch at this location. The open ditch extends approximately 500 feet to the south where it enters a buried 24 -inch corrugated Plastic pipe that flows an additional 60 Meet south before discharging to May Creek. Additional drainage enters the ditch from the subject property near the entrance to the buried pipe. May creek flows into Labe Washington approximately .25 miles southwest of the subject property. (Attachment A: Existing Conditions Site Map) CrraErarn-Buntin�z ASsociAtes 2 Environmental & nand Use Service Hawb %,arida se ent S/1 Z/a9 f - Photo 4: View west showing outfall of buried pipe at May Creep (right of figure). 3.0 Project Description The proposal is to demolish the existing structures associated with the Pan Abode facility and utilize approximately 3.06 acres of the subject property for construction of a S story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel_ The proposed Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will consist of - One level of underground parking with approximately 107 stalls • Ground floor hotel reception area with meeting rooms and approximately 742 square feet, 2,152 square feet, and 3,360 square feet for retail, spa and restaurant facilities respectively • Four levels of guestroorr s • A total of approximately 1.26 surface level parking stalls, including five spaces designated for Neighborhood Electric vehicles (NF vs)) + Two access points along Lake Washington Boulevard • Storm water facilities including rain gardens • Sanitary sewer, water and other utilities Preliminary designs indicate that the hotel will maintain a maximum height of 60 fest. Required land use permits include site plan review, environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), building permits and a street vacation. All development including required infrastructure will be located a minimum of 277 fleet landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of May Creek. (Attachment B: Proposed Conditions) 4.0 Existing Information The subject property has been addressed under a number of existing studies. These information sources have been reviewed and synthesized to assist GBA in characterizing the subject property. The sources are summarized as follow: 4.1 Nati nal Wdand Ven The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) is compiled by the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. NWI relies upon visual aerial photo interpretation of wetland indicators including hydrologic, vegetation and topographic signatures. NWI does not identify wetlands witbin the vicinity of the subject property. It should be recognized however; that the forest canopy associated with the riparian corridor of May Creek would likely obscure the indicators upon which NWI relies. GBA utilize NWI only as a generalized map indication of the possible Grab - untie Associates 3 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landing Ag X&Znent 5/12/09 presence and extent of wetlands. Reconnaissance and delineation procedures are always based on an on-site assessment. 4.2 Soil Survey of King County Area Washington The Soil Survey is compiled by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and includes mapped soil units registered to detailed descriptions of soil characteristics. The survey identifies one soil unit within the subject property boundaries. The map unit appears to include the entire floodplain associated with lower May Creek. No -Norma sandy loam is a poorly draimed soil typically found on floodplains with slopes between 0 and 2 percent. The parent material is alluviums. Minor components include Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soils. Norma sandy loam is listed as a hydric soil under criteria 1., 2. b) (3) and 3. 1, All Histosols except folists 2. Soil in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Aquisalids, Pacific subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are: b) poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either: (3) water table equal to 1.0 feet from the surface during the growing season if permeability is less than 6.0 inches/hour in any layer within 20 inches. 3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season. Figure 3 - National Wetland Inventory h ://weflaudsfws.er.us s. ov/ Figure 4 - Soil Survey http:/Iwebsoil5lnq.nres uscia gov/app 4.3 Ma Creek RMin Action Plan A ri 2001 The May Creek Basin Action Plan was funded by King County and the City of Renton outlines a set of actions addressing the threat of flooding, facilitation of stormwater conveyance to stabilize stream banks and reduce erosion, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. The plan is intended to prevent existing problems within the basin from becoming worse in the Ufabow-Bun#AgAssociates 4 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landtn Agessment 3/12109 future. The plan provides baseline information relating to conditions in the basin including a map sheet reflecting the approximate location and extent of wetlands. It is noteworthy that the wetland map identifies a small wetland in the vicinity of the drainage ditch described under existing conditions. 4.4 Biological Assessment_ Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat {August 20021 Raedke Associates, Inc. prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to evaluate potential effects of the proposed subdivision on federal and state listed species. The BA includes a characterization of May Creek and Lake Washington, documents species use, and identifies mitigating conditions to arneGorate project generated impacts to listed species. The Barbee Mill development is located just west of Lake Washington Boulevard adjacent to the subject property. 4.5 Wdland Delineation Report' Fawcett Property (December 2000) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc_ prepared a Wetland Delineation Report addressing a portion of the area located south of the subject property. While the contiguous area south of the subject Property is under the ownership of Dr. Greg Fawcett, the delineation focused only on the area south of May Creek. The report includes observations relating to May Creek and hydrology, soil and vegetation within the riparian corridor. 4.6 FQ= Practice Activity Ma The Washington State Department of Natural Resources maps and classifies waters of the state pursuant to WAC 222-16-031 on the Forest Practice Stream Type Maps. The maps were reviewed to assist in characterizing the project area, May Creek is identified as an S (Shoreline) Water of the State_ Type S waters are defined as: "All waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried as shorelines of the state' under chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including Periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands, No additional Waters of the State were identified on the Stream Type Maps. 5.0 Stream Study May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly approximately 8.6 miles to Lake Washington, The May Creek watershed drains approximately 14 square miles of residential, open space, agricultural, commercial, industrial and public infrastructure development including runoff from 1-405. The stream reach located south of the subject property lies between the 1-405 bridge crossing in the east and the Lake Washington Boulevard bridge crossing in the west. This reach of May Creek is identified as Reach B and characterized in the City of Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis as relatively unaltered (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008) 5.1 Riparian Functions Observations gathered during our site investigation, conducted during the early spring of 2009, indicate a high level of in stream and riparian corridor £unctions. The stream is low gradient (< 8%) and displays a complex of low velocity pools ruined with swifter moving riffles and runs. In stream structure is provided by naturally recruited large woody debris (LWD) consisting of native deciduous species and installed habitat features including anchored root wads and cabled logs. Riparian functions are closely linked to vegetation along the stream bank and adjacent floodplain- Graham-Bunrrng:Issociates 5 1.rrvironmental & Land Use Services ffmvks f_andin Assessment f5,42109) LWD Recruitment - While large conifers are generally the preferred source of LWD, the presence of mature deciduous species throughout the stream reach provides an ongoing source for recruitment of woody material into the stream. LWD promotes complexity within the stream and provides holding areas for salmonids and resident fish species. Bank Stability — The three strata vegetation community along the riparian corridor promotes back stability through establishment of deep root systems. The anchored roots help hold the sandy loam of the floodplain intact and minimize the forces of erosion, sedimentation and increased turbidity. Reed canarygrass, often viewed as an undesirable species, is very effective in promoting bank stabilization. Unfortunately it also may colonize aggressively reducing the diversity of native plant species. Shade - The deciduous tree canopy provides shade during low flaw summer months and helps to maintain cool temperatures and maintain dissolved oxygen levels required by salmonids and resident fish species. Water Quality - Emergent vegetation including vigorous communities of reed canarygrass contiguous to the OHWM provide for the filtering of sediments and pollutants. Reed canarygrass is viewed as an invasive species; however, its dense mat titre quality provides an excellent filtering function that helps prevent delivery of sediments and pollutants to receiving waters. Photo 5 — View upsumm (east) showing LWD and riparian vegetation south of subject prwerty. Fish and Wildlife Habitat — While no salmonids or resident fish species were observed daring our site investigation, May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon, Winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarlc) are also known to utilize the creek. (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 20081 Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon are listed as a candidate species under ESA. May Creek does not have a self sustaining Chinook run. Chinook observed in May Creek are likely strays from the Cedar River (Lucchette 2002). Coho are known to utilize Lake Washington and May Creels. Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production (Raedeke 2002). Puget Sound Steelhead have utilized May Creek on a historic basis and may remain present in depressed numbers (Salmonscape 2009). A Graham-BunfingAssodatay 6 Ermironmental & Land Ilse Services Hawks LanOn -4ssemment 5112/09 review of pertinent literature relating to Lake Washington salmonid stocks indicates a high degree of uncertainty as to the genetic origins of salmonids utilizing May Creek. It is possible that individuals from the Puget Sound and Puget Sound Strait of Georgia Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) utilize the habitat provided by the creek. The riparian area provides excellent feeding and cover habitat for birds, including woodland hawks and passerine species, Small mammals such as voles utilize uplands within the riparian area for burrowing. GBA observed blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) droppings and hoof prints within the riparian corridor. Common snipe (Capella gallinago) were flushed during several site inspections at a location near the bridge crossing at Lake Washington Boulevard. A short tailed weasel (Mistela ermines) was also observed burrowing in the rip rap new the bridge abutment. A pair of Osprey (Pandion haliatus) was observed perched on a nest platform near the mouth of May Creek. Additional species were observed during our site investigation including: song sparrow WMelospiza melodia) house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) black -capped chickadee (Poecile atricapilla) harry woodpecker (Picoides villosus) spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus) winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) mallard hen and drake (Rnas platyrhynchos) unidentified butes (Buren sp) American crow (Corvus brachyrhynehos) gull species (Lanus sp.) 5.2 Ordinary High Water Mark GBA reviewed the location of the OHWM as identified and flagged in the field by David Evans Associates (DEA) in 2006 and Sound Development Group (SDG) in 2009. The guidance contained in the statutory definition was utilized in confirming the location of the OHWM. "The Ordinary high water mark on all lakes, streams and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continues in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter, PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary lugh water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water." In addition, the definition contained in the Renton Municipal Code under 4-11-010 was also considered. Review was aided by a series of high water events occurring during the late winter and early spring of 2009. These one to two year flows generally correlated with the physical evidence observed along the bank of the creek. The OHWM was identified based on scour and drift lines, sediment deposits, topographic features and vegetation transitions located at or near the top of the right bank. it was not deemed necessary to adjust any of the flags placed previously by DEA and SDG. The OHWM as flagged was surveyed and is depicted on the map sheets accompanying this report. Graham-Bunting-lssociates 7 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawksi',andin .-Issessment 51-12ro9 z Photo 7 — View upstream (cast) showing the OHWM located at the landward extent of a sandbar and transition to persistent vegetation. 5,3 Stream Classification and Regulations The City's Critical Area Regulations RMC 4-3-050 classify May Creek as a Class 1 water. Class I Waters are perennial salmon bearing waters classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. Subsection L. Streams and Lakes: 1. Applicabilityn ands to Which These Regulations Apply stipulates that the City's critical area regulations do not apply to Class 1 waters which are regulated by RMC 4-3-090, ShoreEine Master Program Regulations. Subsection 4-3-090, 5, & establishes the standard setback for commercial development as follows: "A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty (50) to the ordinary high water mark; however, the Land Use Heanrtg Examiner may reduce this requirement through the variance process for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the waters edge." All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will be located a minimum of 248 feet landward of the OHWM of May Creek. The subject proposal is located outside of the 200 -foot jurisdictional area of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMF) and is therefore compliant with the required 50 -foot setback requirement. The drainage ditch located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in light of the City's Critical Area Regulations and identified as a class 5 water. RMC 4-3-050 L, Streams and Lakes: L . a, v, (a) (b) establishes the criteria for Class 5 waters as follows: `v. Class 5; Class 5 waters are non-regulated non salmonid -bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e,g, pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M. of this section." Grahwn-BuntingAssociates 8 Environmental & Lund Use Services Hawks Landing Assessment 5/12109 GBA conferred on site with the Area Habitat Biologist from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 1009 who provided the following observations and guidance: + The ditch is a man made feature • Work within the ditch itself will not require Hydraulic project Approval (HPA) from WDl~ W * Work on the outfall to May Creek .would require an HPA • Any proposed improvement to the outfall should prevent entry of fish to the ditch Based on observations gathered during our site investigation and consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist, GBA have determined that the drainage ditch is a non -salmon bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicate that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from I-405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility. GBA have determined that the drainange ditch satisfies Criteria (a) as a Class 5 Water and is therefore not regulated under the City's Critical Area Regulations. The ditch will be discussed further under the following Wetland Study. 6.0 Wetland Study The following discussion addresses the procedures and methods utilized in our wetland investigation and provides a summary of our findings. 6.1 Methodoloev = GBA utilized the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) which is a revised version of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delingafion Manual Technical Report Y-87- l in the preparation of this report. The Ecology Manual (along with the recent Corps of Engineers regional supplement, April 2008) represents the accepted standard for identifying and delineating wetlands for jurisdictional purposes under the Clean Water Act, GBA considered the new interim regional supplement in the assessment of field data. The Ecology manual has been adopted for use by the City of Renton for use in conjunction with the Growth Management Act mandated Critical Areas Ordinance. Both the Ecology and Corps manuals incorporate the Clean Water Act Definition of Wetlands as follows: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." The City's Critical Areas Ordinance stipulates additional defusing elements as follows: "Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands created from non -wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1994, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands." Graham -Bunten : Issociates 9 Environmenia! & Land Use Services Hawks Lga4a Assessment 5.-12'09 The definition requires that three interrelated defining elements or parameters be established %when identIRIng wetlands. These parameters are wetland hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland Hydrology Water is the driving force, which creates and sustains wetlands. The 1987 Manual and subsequent Corps guidance identifies wetlands as areas inhere soils are inundated or continuously saturated far a minimum of 5% of the growing season (approximately 12.5 days for Western Washington). When direct observation of the water table cannot be made, hydrology is determined by relying upon hydrologic indicators such as hydric soil characteristics, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits or drainage patterns. Hydric Soils Wetlands exhibit hydric soils. These are soils which are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions. These are conditions where no free oxygen is present in the upper soil horizons. Typical field indicators of hydric soils are the presence of a thick organic layer, or in predominantly mineral soils such as found on this site, a low chroma matrix (gray color) and/or bright mottling. Soil chroman are determined by comparing soil samples with color chips in the Munsell Color Charts. Hydrophytic Vegetation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has classified wetland vegetation according to its frequency of occurrence in wetlands: _ Obligate wetland species (OBL) occur in wetlands greater than 99% of the time. Facultative wetland species (FACW) occur in wetlands greater than 67% of the time. Facultative species (FAC) occur in wetlands 340/6-66% of the time. Facultative upland species (FACU) occur in wetlands less than 34% of the time. Upland species (UPL) occur in wetlands less than 1% of the time. Generally the hydrophytic vegetation parameter is satisfied when greater than 50% of the species present at a data collection point have an indicator status of OBL, FACW and/or FAC; when two or more dominant species have observed morphological or known physiological adaptations for occurrence in wetlands; or when other indicators of hydrophytic vegetation are present. 6.2 Findings GBA conducted the site investigation on March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2049. Observations were collected over a period of a month during weather conditions that transitioned from cold and wet to sunny and seasonable. Little plant growth was noted during our initial site visit, however, by mid April plants were exhibiting active growth. Lmhan plum, salmonberry and elderberry were rapidly leafing out and Japanese knotweed colonies along the bank of May Creek was emerging from dormant rhizomes. GBA consider the timing and weather conditions of our investigation to be optimal for the identification of wetlands. Two areas were investigated: 1) The subject property (pan Abode facility) and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. and; 2) The floodplain south of the subject property to the right (north) bank of May Creek. Both areas were traversed and visually inspected for indications of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. The ordinary high water mark of the drainage ditch was identified and flagged on site. A single data point (Dp- 7) was established along the top of the bank. A second data point (DP -2) was assessed just cast of the ditch along the southern boundary of the subject property. Three rough transects were established in an cast/west aspect between May Creek and the subject property. Six data points _Graham-Buntft.-lssociaies to Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landin assessment %x'12; 09 (DPs 1,3,4,5,6,8) were assessed in the floodplain or riparian corridor of May Creek. Soil evaluation pits were excavated to a uniform depth of 21 inches. Hydrology, soil and vegetation were assessed at each data Point_ Data collected on site was recorded on data forms and field notes. Photographs documented appropriate visual images. Data collected is summarized in the fallowing table. (Attachment C: Wetland Field Data Forms) 6.3 Data Summary Table DP H olo Soil Dominant Vegetation Status *oxidized *sandy loam 2,5Y *Populus balsamifera FAC (20%) rhizospheres — 4/2 — rhizospheres — Alnus rubra FAC (20%) 1 fac neutral — sandy redox Cornus stolonifera FACW (50%) Wet geomorphic Carex obnupta QBL (80%) position no indicators gravelly loam — *Alnus rubra FAC (20/,) 2 1OYR 4/3 Rubus discolor PACU (25%) Up Phalmis arundinacea FACW (9511/o) no indicators silt loam — 10YR i Populus balsamifera FAC (30%) 3 3/3 Rubus discolor FACU 100% U no indicators silt loam 10YR 3/3 *Populus balsamifiera FAC (10%) 4 Alnus rubra FAC (10%) Up Phalaris arundinacea FACW 100%) no indicators silty clay loam Alms rubra FAC (60%) 5 10YR 212 Rubus discolor FACU 100%) U *water table @ 8" *silty clay loam *Alnus rubra FAC (60%) 6 — saturated to 2.5Y 311 — 10% Rubus discolor FACU (60%) Wet surface mottles 7,5YR 4/6 Rubus spectabilis FAC (3Mo) Saturation @ 15" gravelly silt loam *Populus balsamifera FAC (80%) 7 10YR 212 Rubus discolor FACU (20%) Up Rununeulus re ens FACW (5%) saturation below sandy loam 2.5 Y Minus rubra FAC (201%) 8 20" 4/4 Rubus discolor FACU (20%) Up Cornus stoloni era FACW (20%) 'Wetland parameter satisfied 6.4 Data Digest Based on the above data summarized above, two regulated wetlands were identified: Wetlands A and B are small depressional. wetlands located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas o£433 and 481 square feet respectively. The wetlands receive them' hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek. The wetlands are distinguished from the surrounding uplands because they are distinct topographic features, exhibit saturated soils and are dominated by hydraphytic vegetation. Wetland A is a deep depression with observable hydrology at the soil surface. Soil displays a very dark matrix chroma accompanied by mottles. Vegetation is dominated by a mix of facultative plant species. Wetland B is a gentler depression which exhibits only secondary indicators of wetland hydrology with saturation present well below the soil surface. Soil is sandier and lighter by comparison and vegetation includes a vigorous community of slough sedge (OBL). In addition to Wetlands A and B, the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in accordance with the wetland identification/dehineation methodology. Although a data Graham -Bunten rlssociafes 11 Environmental & Land Use services Hawks Lan4ft Assessment a/] 2, 09) point was not assessed within the ditch itself, the area within the flagged OHWM was determined to satisfy wetland parameters. Standing water was present in much of the 500 linear foot ditch. Soil was silty and likely consists of stormwater sediment from surrounding development. Vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass. Data. point 7, established at the top of bank approxinikely 20 feet west of the existing Pan Abode facility was assessed to characterize the area lying between the ditch and subject property. No surface water was observed although saturation was present at a depth of approximately 15 inches from the soil surface. Soil consisted of a gravely silt loam, possibly fill from the development of the Pan Abode facility. The soil exhibited a dark matrix chroma (10YR 2/2) but was not accompanied by redoximorphic features. The subsoil was a very light silty sand (2.5Y 6/6). Vegetation was dominated by a mix of facultative trees, shrubs and herbs. Because the hydrology and soil parameters were not satisfied the data point was determined to be upland. 6-5 WdIand Classificabonand Re tions Wetlands A and B were classified in accordance with the criteria contained under Subsection 4-3- 050 M. 1. a. ii, of the City's Critical Area Regulations as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are wetlands that meet one of the criteria listed under (a) through (d). Wetlands A and B were found to satisfy criteria (d) below, "(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such a diking ditching or channelization.. , ,, The majority of the floodplain, Mcludiig Wetlands A and B, located landward of the right bank of May Creek and south of the subject property has not been subject to human related alteration, The wetlands contribute to the riparian functions discussed under the stream study earlier in this report including LWD recruitment, bank stability, shade, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. The wetlands functional value, however are limited by their small size which represents a combined area of only 914 square feet in a floodplain parcel totaling over 110,000 square feet. RMC 4-3-050 M. 6. c. establishes the standard buffer width required for Category 2 Wetlands at 50 feet. Required buffers are to be maintained in their natural condition. Buffers are required to be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Wetland A and B are located offsite 117.4 and 63.8 feet south of the subject property respectively. The area between the G am Btmtinx A s"dates 12 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Lon dfngAMMM r 0/12109) wetlands and the property line remains in a natural condition and is vegetated primarily with native species. RMC 4-3-050 M. 1. c. i. establishes the basis for regulated and non regulated wetlands as follows: "i. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands -- General: Wetlands created or restored as a part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwedand sites for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, and Iandscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. The department administrator shall determine that a wetland is not regulated on the basis of photographs, statements or other evidence." GBA followed the guidance provided above in assessing the regulatory status of the drainage ditch. The following findings were considered: * The Pan Abode facility was constructed on a fill pad during the mid 1950s + The fill pad appears to extend to a point near the road right of way at the top of ditch • The soil profile assessed at data point 7 displays rock typical of pit run commonly utilized as a fill base • The 2:1 bank profile of the ditch is typical of an excavated stormwater conveyance facility • The hydrology that charges the ditch is composed primarily of stontnwater runoff from 1- 405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility • Unaltered areas within the floodplain south of the subject property do not include natural linear features similar to the ditch • National Wettand Inventory does not identify the ditch as a wetland Based on the above findings GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a nonregulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. While the wetland may not be regulated by the City, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology may assume jurisdiction over the wetland 7.0 Regulatory SummarylMitigation Measures The following buffers and setback requirements are registered to proposed project actions. - 7. 1 ctions: 7.1 May Creek May Creek is a shoreline of the state regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. The area of jurisdictions under the SMA and SMP extends two hundred feet landward of the OI IWM. The closest point of proposed project actions to the OHWM is 277 feet. The setback for commercial buildings from May Creek is currently established under the SMP at 50 feet. The subject property itself is located entirely outside of the required shoreline setback area. The mature deciduous forest located on the parcel south of the subject property varies in width from 64 feat in the west to 235 feet in the east and provides a full range of protective functions (see subsection 5.1 Riparian Functions). Because the riparian corridor is outside of the Graham-Buntinp.lssociates 13 Environmental & Land Use ,Services Hawks Lan ftg ,4.Yyessment f511 _'.1091 subject property boundaries and is not owned by the applicant, GBA have refrained from characterizing the area as a buffer, 7.2 D ALnggc Ditch The drainage ditch is classified as a Class 5 water. It is a non regulated non salmon bearing titiater within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel previously eeisted. 7.3 Wetlands A and B Wetlands A and B are Category 2 Wetlands which require 50 foot buffers. Both wetlands are located offsite south of the subject property. Wetland A is 117.4 feet south of the subject property boundary and Wetland B is 53.8 feet south of the subject property. The area between the wetlands and the subject property consists of a mature deciduous forest. Although the uplands surrounding the wetlands are not characterized as buH'ers, the deciduous forest provides a high level of buffer functions. 7.4 Dr 'me Ditch The drainage ditch tor. a nonregulated we conveying stormwateland created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of 7 S Wateruali In addition to the distance of project actions from the regulated stream and wetlands, rain gardens are proposed in conjunction with the project's drainage plan. The site will be designed consistent with the King County Storm Water Design Manual guidelines for stormwater management. It is anticipated that the water quality of drainage leaving the site will represent an improvement over the existing conditions associated with the aging Pan Abode facility. 8.0 Closure GBA employed currently accepted methods of delineating wetlands and cha features on the site. In addition we utilized the racterizeng aquatic Area Regulations and Shoreline Master guidance provided in the City of Renton's Critical requirements. Consultation with the Washington State m in identifappropriate regulatory conducted to determine fish use of May Creels and the �� of Fish and Wildlife was hydraulic project approval drainage ditch and to determine potential p J pp requirements. The findings and conclusions rendered in this report, however, represent our best professional opinion. Concurrence should be obtained front agencies of jurisdiction prior to initiating land use actions or construction. The report will also provide a sufficient source of information in the event that a jurisdictional determination is -requested from the Corps of Engineers. Please call either Patricia Bunting or myself with any questions relating to this report. Sincerely; Oscar Graham Principal Ecologistiproject Lead c,raham- u fin :lssoerates I-lawkslan&n :Issessment S.,I�r09 Patricia Bunting Wetland Ecologist/PWS 14 Environmental & Land Use Services 9.0 References Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., December 7, 2000. Wetland Delineation Report Fawcett Property; Renton, WA. Cowardin L., V. Carter, F. Golet, E. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hitchcock C.L. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flom of tk NadifficN w University of Washington Press, Seattle, 730 pp. King County, April 2001. May Creek Basin Action Plan. Munsell Color. 1994 revised. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD, Pojar J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest !Qggg WMhb UreM Bri .igkWumbia & Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver B. C., 528 pp. Racdke Associates, Inc., August 26, 2002. Biological Assessment, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. Reed, PB, Jr. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands; Northwest (Region 9) National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9) 89 pp. Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008. Sound Development Group, LLC. April 28, 2009. Technical Information Report; Hawks Landing - Crowne Plaza Hotel. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Watland Delineation Manual; Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W.. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vepraskas, Mike. Technical Bulletin 301, 1999, Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions: North Carolina State University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences33 pp. Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Washington State Wetlands Identification aad Delineation Manual, Ecology Publication #96-94. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Activity Map, lett ;/hti« � _�lilr.t�a: 1#iisii��ssF'urmits/Tc�pictiiFnr�StPra riccs_lpp ications Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Personal Communications Fisher, Larry. Area Habitat Biologist, Washington State Department of Fisheries. On site discussion relating to drainage ditch along Lake Washington Blvd. April 24, 2009. Severin, Pat P.E. Project Engineer, Sound Development Group. Project Meetings March through May 12, 2009. _Grahmn-BunOnga4.ssocia tes 15 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landing A=,%sment 511 109 Wetland Field Data Forms Attachment C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual ProIw Sb: Hawks Landis Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: 3/23/09 Applicanuowner. Hawks Landing, LLC Sampling Point: DP -1 Investigator: 178110scar/Jerom Ran State: sty: Renton/King lrtg Seckn. Township, 9g S29 T2dt+l fi5E State: WA _ � landform (hlrislope. terrace, etc) Floodplain Slope (%) 0-1 t scar ra�f (corlrave, convex, none) GonCave Datum Soil Map Unit Name No, lYoRna NM ctassitimbon: None Are di'natidrryd►olog[c conditlons on ttre elle typical for ih� tlme a►yea� X Yea Mo (IF no, explain in nsmarka, ) Are •Nomral Ciroumstanoes" present on Ura s16a7 X Yes Na Are VeYetation ❑. Shc, Q, or tlydrobgY ❑ erQnEMcarntY disfurbed7 No Are VegstaFion ©.Soil, ❑, or t iydrobf7jr ❑ nalunrly problematic? No Of needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Atbach afte amp-ssiihoyrl aam lin nt locadons, Important katF.mes, etc. Hydroptrytic Vegetation Present? ' �g I Yes FM No Is #tis Sampling PokAw"In a wetland? LM Yes ® No Hydrtc Soils Prcesnl?IFj�. Yes No Wetland HydrlokW Presenn Yes No �i//.S rL1w?� �r;L� :. � / � �' ?yam!' et i%� �`/•::`/ r � Ir? ' 4; c� � �..t k� JJ.r • � . 721 !Y� -/ha Ertl rix , /r.'3!'�' ' ,�:r �,r., ., ,1 •F , �l %llF1 .tr��D�rt¢ �x�c r, �.c+r W.�� L �, ETATIn N — Use acientiflc naanas ofplants. Tree Stratum (Plot sire ag�g�� Absolute 16 Dominant Indicator 17ontinance lest Worksheet Status 2 Number of Dorninant Spades 3. f that are ML. FACW, or FAC: (A) 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across AN Strata: t.• Talal Cover Percent of Dorsi cant species SaOrWShnub Stratum (Plot size.QR R___) I the are OBL, FACW. or FAC: a d/ size 4. e. 1. % Sere Ground In Barb 8traturn Remeft. Ll.. q r� F� t Vfi f ;-f; ,: t,. ..� US Array Cans of Fngtneers T 95 9r3L epodes x 1 c FACW species x 2 = FAC -spades x 3 = FAC —WW= x 4 = UPL spades I X5= Prevalenoe Index = B 1 A 3. MarpmO"ftl Adaptatlon.s * iprovide supporting dit ii remarks or on a Separate sheet) VVwaanrrnIfY Ah—d—Glo..4. - ' Indicators of hydric sail and watland hydrology must be Present? c V tioa Yes No ❑ i4 S*n Mountains, VaNeys, and Coast - lnrenm Version SOIL HYDROLOGY waHand Hydrology Indicators: Profile Dascuion: Oeacrlhe 14 the de needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. P� Matrix Redox Feahoes ndre Color mala % Color mo % Loc Texture Remarks io r �' GT7 —1 rB1 144 Aquatic lnvwWWatea (B13) Hydrogen Dry-Saeaon Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (CO) Drift Deposks {133) Sulfide Odor (CI) Oxlditad Rhizoepherea along Living Rasta (C3) Geomorphic Poalfiw (D2) Shallow Aqurmd (03) Algal Mat ar Croat (84) frun Deposits (B5) 'Type: C=Concentro0on, D=Depletion, RIA -Reduced Matrix, CSuCOvered or Coaled Sand Grains 'Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Metrix roc 80111n4cators: (AppftpMo to all 11-11Ps rlfess odwrwAe nofad_) HWosol pndkruWm for Pmbkwmxflc Hydric Softs � Muck l Hist cc Fpl�2cm ppadw (A2) Stripped Mebix (S9) Red PwentMaWal (rF2) Black Hhft (A8) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except 11111.11A tA f) Other (eaplafn in marks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Glayed Matrix (F2) Imagery (B7) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick park Surlece (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (61) D Depleted Dark Surface (FT) 3Indicator of hydmptryiic vegetation and wetland hydroka must be present unless dialrlml or problemadc Sandy Cloyed Moot (S4) Radox Depressions (FS) Restictive Lever lit WeSentl: No Depth (iny r / No Depth (in): 7 20 Typo. Hydric soil P Yes Depth (Inchee): Remarks t ��liG: ��'�'trtl'.r2 Grp frYt: r � Ij'71fi1I)' , C aX c1/c;: k.'E'C 4 �/1%I,�� r`}�..�--' L7 [G �-1 `t�1� �tJkii° ��arJ E'w �Y//[� C�JlaJ'/•f.�. Describe Reoarded Date (stream gouge, mornitortup! Well, aerial phDhm, previous Inspectlons), ifavailalle: = jr 11 etc) �< HYDROLOGY waHand Hydrology Indicators: Prbrarywvabm (mhl am of ar+e raquked: check am thatSAMY).-awrrdery lndkatbrs (2 or mora mqukeW. - uftm we* B) Sir `t ° corr�va surface (99) water ah I eawea (e9) (INI.FrA 1. z, 4n a slay hWater r (A2) Saderatforr (A3) SaHCrust(B11) water Sialrled�aayes (except AFLRA 1.2, 4A a 40) (99)jftoat-� Drains:: Patterns (910) Water Mpaka {87) � � (02) Aquatic lnvwWWatea (B13) Hydrogen Dry-Saeaon Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (CO) Drift Deposks {133) Sulfide Odor (CI) Oxlditad Rhizoepherea along Living Rasta (C3) Geomorphic Poalfiw (D2) Shallow Aqurmd (03) Algal Mat ar Croat (84) frun Deposits (B5) Presence of Reduced Iran (C4) Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Solis (0a) FAC Neotal Test (b5} Raised Arra Mounds (DO) JLRR. A) Surface Solt cracks (Be) Inundation Vialblo on Aerial Stunted or Strewed Plants (01) {.RR A) Ofieer (explain in remaft) Hurnmoc s Imagery (B7) Field Observataiorus Surface Water Pmsew = yes Water Taws PrWWO rill Yea No Depth (iny r / No Depth (in): 7 20 waters ftdmdoW ftemV[No [] Saturation Preseni7 r&j Yes {includes capNfery fringe) No Depth {in): Z, Describe Reoarded Date (stream gouge, mornitortup! Well, aerial phDhm, previous Inspectlons), ifavailalle: = etc) �< . � 1« >- r , ►,� r � US Army Corps of ngbwers Western iifountalrA Valleys, and Coast— #*vim version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site; Hawks Landin . Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: 418109 _ Applicantlowner: Hawks Landing, LLC Sampling Point: DP -2 investigator Patl0scartierom Gity—unty_ Renton/King Section, Township, Range: S29 i24N R5E State: WA Landform (ttlllslope, terrace, etc) , • . < ; �c t' �. slope96 t ) Local rolief (concave, convex, none) l I 5utxegion (LRR) A Let 47,5338 Lang _122 i9d87 Qetum Solf Map Unft Name No, Norma N1NI ciassification: None Aro'Normdlrycprns cos* present on 84e typical for title time of year? x Yes Na If no, Are'Norrnal Circumstances" present on lite siteT { explain In remarks.) X Yes Are VegetatQn ❑ Sw, ❑, or Hydrotogy ❑ significantly distubed? No No Aro Vepelstion 13:Sot , , 11. of Hydrology C1 naturally problornatic? Na (If needed, explain any anwmm In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site ng marnming point locations, transacts, lme2ftnt features, etc. ydrophytc Vegetation Present? Hydric 5otls Present?rwrnYes Q No Is tits Sampling Point within a Weiland? ®Yes No Yes No Wetland Hy0rokgy Rveerd? rM yes No v=%PC 1 Al IVN – Use sclanHi€c names of Tree Svm*m (Plot size Stratum (Plot aim IlLft R� 9. it °!. awe Ground in Herb Stra um RBmarJrs.' US Army Corps of Engineers Absowts % Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Workshsot COQ ? Status Number of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant(A) Spades Across All Strata: ° TOW cowPamant of Dominant Speoias �) '-6 UW are L. FACW, or FAC:„ (Are) �. Prevalence Index Worksheet UBL spades x 1 : mumw 4Y FACW species x2= FAC species X3= = Tolal CorBr FACU species x4= U L epeclas x S= Prevalenoo Index = B 1 A 7knn-V�f"' on Indicators Dais a so% Pl ais s 3.Mordaptations " (Provide supportingdator on a separate sheet) Wefiand der Pry .b Indicators of hydric solt and wetland rydrology must be = Tnrsl Cover p ydruphym Vin yen No ❑ W&Stem Mcunlains, Vdweya• and coast — fnferim Yarsmn SOIL 4"MMi— Cni..F n , HYDROLOGY WafJand HydrohM Indicators: Profile t]escd n: Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm Me absence of Indicators. Dept' Matrix Redox Features inches Color moist % Color molat % Type, Loc Teidure Rertiarks Water Marks (31) Aquatic Irn ilabrelas (313) Dry-Sesson Mier T" (C2) Saturatlon VtWe ah Aerial Imagery (C9) W Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) tAddaad Rhiznspheres d -g Ll,dng Roots (C3) nt Algal Mat or Crust 184) Presence of Reduced iron (C4) FAC -Ne" Test (DIS) Iron Deposits (B5) Su faw SOIL Cracks (36) ''type: C=Concentratlon, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Metria, CS -Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Uning, M --Matrix Sol! Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRS rrrrtoss othwwfse retied. j Indicators for Problematic hydro SONS' Nlstosol (Ai) Seedy Redox (85) 2Cm Muck (AID) Histo Fpipedon (A2) Supped Meft (S6) 0 1 Red Parent Mab rial (TF2) Blank HIM (A3) Loamy Mucky Mnaral (Ft} (amept IIALRA 1) tither (explain In remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surfaca (Al 1) Depleted Matrix (F9) Thick Dark SUrl*m (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (61) Redox (lark Surface (F8) 9 lrrdi :010 of hydrophytk: vegstation and welland hydrology must Depleted Dark Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Redox Depressions (Fe) Restrictive Lever fit oresenD: rW No Depth art): } Type: Depth (includes capillary fringe) am PreampYes No (Irches): Describe Recorded Data (siream gauge, monitaring wolf, aerial phoioa, previous Inspections), If available: Renrerks: �I?! C'� S e l / !!1 .r r" ale, u HYDROLOGY WafJand HydrohM Indicators: !'rrnsry radlcafors fmlrilrnum or one required: tyrack as Met apply)_ Sulfam water (All Spersely Vegetated Concern Surtaoe (BB} Secnrtdary W Oft" (2 Or mare requiter!): Weber -Stained leaves (BB) (ititRA 1, 2,4A A 46) High Water Tante (A2) Saturation (A3) Water -Stained Leaves (excepit MLRA 1, 2,4A A 48) (69) Sall Cnst (811) Drainage Pattama (810) Water Marks (31) Aquatic Irn ilabrelas (313) Dry-Sesson Mier T" (C2) Saturatlon VtWe ah Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (133) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) tAddaad Rhiznspheres d -g Ll,dng Roots (C3) Caomorphic Poebon (02) 8ha11awAquftard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust 184) Presence of Reduced iron (C4) FAC -Ne" Test (DIS) Iron Deposits (B5) Su faw SOIL Cracks (36) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (G3) Stur W Or Stressed Plants (DI) (LRR A) Raised AM Mounds (DO) (LRR A) FrosNieave Hummocks Inundation Visible on Aerial tither (explain In remarks) Imagery (B7) Fled f?bsarvatlorra Surface WeW Present? Yes Water Table Promwe Yes NO Depth {In): No Depth On): 7 ZO Watand v Yea p L o 1 Satursdon Present? Yes rW No Depth art): } (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (siream gauge, monitaring wolf, aerial phoioa, previous Inspections), If available: R*wnark&//�� 1 / /�//j �'t/ "l�t.T � �vj. �� �j / r �% • �y,� /� +Iri�Qij'�� 4��LC���• f.` 1– � �/! � f US Army Corps ofl=ngkwr3 VYesfem MYourttahrs. Valleys, andCoast – fntelirtr Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: HaHAcs Landin , Crowne Plaza Hotel Applicant/owner. Hawks Landing,LLC Sampling Date: 4181t)9 Investigator: Patl�scar/Jerorn Sampling Point: DP -3 OF-�, TO"II Range: 829 T24N RSE Cky/County: tton—Xkin State- yyA Landrorm (mmope, terrace, etc)be f . a Slope (95) + SUhre9lon {LRRJ A Local reilef(ooncave, convex. none) Lat47.5338 Lone -122.19487 Dake Soll Mee Unit Name mo, Norma Are cfmpticjhydrobg,c condldons art 1111 site typicar for 1111111111111, e of NYyI dassificatlon: Atone Are "Normal Circumstances' present on the site? 1+�r7 X Yes No (IF no, explain in ranarks. ) Are Ilepu tioa ❑. SoB. ❑, or Hydrology 0 stnikantly dis4xbed7 No Yea No Aro Veeetsaon ❑. Soil, 0, or HydrofoDy ❑ natuaily probmm kl No ER needed. eoeln any enawero in Rerrlerks.j SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site am shownaatnWing point iogtions transact: Important t HAMphytic vegetation Present? aft. Hydric Some Present? ® Yea Ab is this 9ampiino Paint withki a Yll9tlend? ® Yes ® No wetland H! 210W Present? Yes No Rsrrns►kr. . - — 1— - use selaenttc names of Tree abatum (Plot &W ZUL&—`J Sb'ausn (Pict alms B n R -_p Herb Stratum (Plot size m AbWuts "6 Dominant kKkato r Dominance Test Worksheat Carer Akrriber of DorrNnaM Species that we 08L, FACW, or FAC: I Total Number of Dominent (A) Species Across AN Strafe: a Taal Coyer Peme nt of Oondrwnt Species (8) that are GBL, FACW, or FAC: LL (AA3) Pravatenee Index Worksttaet 0BL spades ,1 Wifloly by IIII species X2- Tadd Com FAC species FACU species x 3 m UPL species x 4 a X5= Prevalence Index = B /A = dropMc Vegetation !n, I Darmrrence t w is > ra data In mmwks or on a Taal Gover " Irndicatars or hydric soil and wetland ihydratogy muel be m Taal Cover P� a Vin Yes ❑ No % Bare Ground/ ini��Jwb Stjf/Datum TO171 r /�•S .l.jr.lL,,���f_'. �4p'�4�/1.��{�7G. L .'gar if/kf_�J4�Y„/ �Mil �+.r. ��� l 1j4 C I Vii / ri f US Army COW of Engineers "slam MounlaJns, Valleys, and Coast - lntenm Version SOIL 3Amnline Point DP_3 14YOROLOGiY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Profile Deac on: Deacdbe to the depthneeded to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features High Water Table (A2) inches Color moist % Calor mods % TI I Loe T rig Remarks 6-11 V0 -f ,' /f4- JE7 Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Position (02) Drift Deposita (133) Oddbed Rhizospheres along Living Roots (Cs) Shallow Aquimud (03) Algal tUlet nr Ortet (B4) Presence of Reduced Yen (C4) FAC40K*al Test (D6) Iron Depoeft (1215) 'Type: C=Conoentratlon, D-Deplefion, RW -Reduced Matrix, CS --Covered or Coaled Sand Grains zLoc: PL=Pom Lining, M- -Matrix rix soft Irrdicatols: (Applicable to all LRRa unless odrerwfp noted.) Hislosol (Al) Sandy Redox (58) indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' 2cm Muck (440) H1stiC F,_plpedon (A2) Bieck HhWc (A3) Stopped Max (SB) Lowny Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA 1) Red Parent Material (M) Other (expfetn hn remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (M) Loamy GleyW Maft (F2) Ima"Y (97) Depleted Below Dark Surtace (All 1) depleted Matrix (F3) Field Observadoes Surface Water Preaem7 = Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (31) Sandy Gleyed Iuabix (S4) Redox Dak Surface (FB) Depleted Dark Surface (177) Redox Depressions (F8) ' Wcators of hydrophyk vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive laver (if oresentl: Depth Jin): r t No Depth pn):`v/ NO Depth (in): Wetland ttydrobgy Prsserrt7 Type: Depth (ice): El Yes No Hydric ear present? f I 14YOROLOGiY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary fndlcatars (mmhnum ofone requTisd• aheolr aff that ap*) SecandwyIndkatars (2 or me required): surface water (A1) speraely Vegetated Concave Surfece (88) Water-Sfabned Leaves (69) (MILRA 4, 2, 4A R dB) High Water Table (A2) Wshir4tained Leaves (except Nt_RA 1, 2,4A 6 46) (06) Drainage Peltems (B10)' SaluratiOrt (AS) Salt crust (Bi l) Dry -season water Table (C2) Water Marks (01) Aquatic Irmoebiates (913) Saturation Visible on AwW Irnagery (CO) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Position (02) Drift Deposita (133) Oddbed Rhizospheres along Living Roots (Cs) Shallow Aquimud (03) Algal tUlet nr Ortet (B4) Presence of Reduced Yen (C4) FAC40K*al Test (D6) Iron Depoeft (1215) Recent Iron Reduction In Treed Soils (Ca) Raised Ant Mounds (De) (LRR A) Surteoe Soil CMCM (06) Stunted or Stressed Plante (D7) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hunrnudxs Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (e*40n in rernarke) Ima"Y (97) Field Observadoes Surface Water Preaem7 = YesNo Water Table Present? FCQYes 3aturafion Present? Yee Depth Jin): r t No Depth pn):`v/ NO Depth (in): Wetland ttydrobgy Prsserrt7 r ��r Vera ❑ i rro Ad El (Includes capllkq trines) Describe Recorded Dela (steam gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous lnspecdons), If avallable: & �fi /9 hk l yj l4ke I14 ry ;s ale US Amry Corps of Engineers Wesiem Mountains. V&Ws, and Coast - interim Veam WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1887 COE Wetlands Dellneation Manuai ct Site: Hawks Landin , Crowne Plaza Hotel cantlowner. Hawks Landin LLC Sampling Date: 4/8/{79 , Investigator pat/OscarJerom Sampling Point: DP -4 n, Township, Range: 529 T24N RSE CitldCourity: RentonlKi rm (hitlsiope, terrace etc) Stats: V1►A Iow S t) ion {LRR} A2;— pVegefttbn Local relief (cnrr�ve, comrex, noire} i�flll, All p Unit Noma No, Ncntta Let 47 Long-122.1907 J}atum rlaffohydrolais typic,! for this dme f X Yes rmal Ciroumstanoes' No ication: None N5any present on the site? ©, Soll, ❑, or Hydrobgy ❑ s[gniticantly dlahahad? NoX Yes Nogelatipn (lf na, explain ingefauon [�. 8W. D, or Hydrology ❑ net miy P Mblematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site Of needed, expinswers In Remarks.) ahowin suampli nd locations bawllsecps. imennt Features etc. 1•iYdrnphyfic Vegelatiorl Present? No Is tllthisSampling Pott wRwn a Wetland? ® Yes Hydric Sops Present? Yes Yes WOUand hydrobgy Nr�ertt7 No M Am Yea No Rernarits. VEGE'I'A770N - Lin ecle dfic nemes o t rite. Tr" titraqum (Plot SIM Absolute % Dominant Cover $ 7 indicator t.Vilf Dominance Test Worksheet °Qmr Status 'en,!it, Numtler of Dominant Spedea 3. that era OBL, FAC W, or FAC: 4' TOM Namber of Dominant (A) Species Across At Simla; ?sial Cover tseroerlt of Dominant Spades A t3apNn@rShnrb >straprrn {Plot eine 1�R R� that are OBi, FACW, or FAC; x. 3. Prevalence Index Worksheet 4. 5.xt° 08L FACW spades x2= �� = Toted Cam FAC spades FACU X3- ap9das Herb 9tragrm (Plot &Ize _ _ ) x4= UPL species x S = Prevalence Index e: 8 / A s 4, S. B' ro c V on rndicaton; 7 t)arrdrrertce test is 60% Prevalence test ra s 9,0 " t Adalxatkuls ' WMVIde eupparl 10. data In remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetiond Nuri Vascufar Planta " " Problemade HydroOr?* Vegetation • {axplair ane Sfrat+anhydric size 7 • Indf-tpra of soil and wdiand hydrolagyr must be Bnt, unless disturbed er rbobtemaur I oral Cover % Bare Ground in Herh SmFn Remarirs. �,: orf, etl r, .l �c tele?, � cis xlri?c��1 c� US Army Qvps ofEngtneerS 7rac YegabNo 7 n Yes 1/ No ❑ W28rafn Mount"S, Vei%yS, Wd Coast- Intenm Verslart SOIL Samolina Point DP4 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pfimary malice(ors fhbhnum of one requi+erx shack al that apply): Profile Desert on: Wascribe to the depth, needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators. Swfaco weler (A7) Depth Matrix I Redox Features HIM Water Table (A2) Water43talned Leaves (except UL.RA 1, 2,4A 6 415) (89) Inches Cobr moil % Color(moist) % TLce I Texture Remarks S Aquatic Invertebrates (1513) 1h Sediment Deposits (152) Hydrogen SuWde Odor (Cl) 70l yep Drift Depoalr (153) Oxidized Rhtnospheras song Living Roots (C3) 1 17 F i Algal Motor Gnat (B4) Presence of Reduced iron (C4) FAC -Neutral Test (135) Iron Depoells (55) WTI Recant Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (CO) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (L.RR A) Sudaos Soil Cracks (156) Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) (LRR A) Frost•Hesve Hurrtrrtocks Inundation Visible an Aedal Other (explain In remarks) 'Type: C=Concentration, D -Depletion, RM --Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains '!x: PL =Pore Lining. M=Mabix Imagery (67) Hrft Soil krdlodors: (Applicable to all LRR Histosol (At) rayless ntirarwise noted.) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicafors for Problematic HydrW Solls' EM 2cm Muck (A10) Kok Epipedan (A2) Stripped Matrix (SB) Lal Red Peron MaWrW (TF2) No Depth (in): No Depth (in): Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mtnerat (Fl) (except MLRA 1) FM Other (explain In remarks) No Depth {in): Hydrogen Sulfide 04) Loamy Gleyed Mah (F2) (Includes capillary fflnge) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) Depleted Matrix (F3) Describe Recordeldktomor (*earn gouge, ltaring well, earful pholos, previcous lrrepedw. lona), if avaliw. Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (H) s Indicators of h0aphyti0 vegetation and wationd hydrology must © Sandy Mucky h4neral (Si) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gteyed Matrix (84) Redox Depressions (179) Rest iGtve Laver O} oresenfi: Type: Hydric son prosew Yea No Depth (Incites): lar: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pfimary malice(ors fhbhnum of one requi+erx shack al that apply): Secondary indlaakwa (2 or mora requhec): Swfaco weler (A7) Sparsely vegetated Conca" Surface (Ba) WaterSlained Leaves (159) (ULRA 1, 2,4A & 4B) HIM Water Table (A2) Water43talned Leaves (except UL.RA 1, 2,4A 6 415) (89) Drainage Patterns (131 0) Saturation (A3) Safi Carat (Bt i) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (91) Aquatic Invertebrates (1513) Saturation Visible on AeHat Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (152) Hydrogen SuWde Odor (Cl) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Depoalr (153) Oxidized Rhtnospheras song Living Roots (C3) Shallow AgWtard (D3) Algal Motor Gnat (B4) Presence of Reduced iron (C4) FAC -Neutral Test (135) Iron Depoells (55) WTI Recant Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (CO) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (L.RR A) Sudaos Soil Cracks (156) Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) (LRR A) Frost•Hesve Hurrtrrtocks Inundation Visible an Aedal Other (explain In remarks) Imagery (67) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yee No Depth (in): No Depth (in): Yes ❑ Na Saturation Present? Yes No Depth {in): 1lYetlarrd (Includes capillary fflnge) Describe Recordeldktomor (*earn gouge, ltaring well, earful pholos, previcous lrrepedw. lona), if avaliw. . t1amark US Amer Corps of Engineers Westem Adourtains, Valreys, and Coast — inloom Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 Cpl; Wetlands Delineatlon Manual Project Site; Wawks Landi . Crowne Plaza Hotel APPlL-arrvowner: Wawka Landin , LLC Sampling Date: 4049 investigator: Pat/Oscar/Jerom Sampling Point: DP -5 Section, Township, Ramps: S29 T24N R5E City/County- _l;enton/King Landform (NIfWape, lemaoe, etC) State. yyq Subregion (LRR) A Slaps {9°} Local relief (concave, convex, �n-m} tat 47.5338 Long -122,19487 Sail Atap Unit blame No, Norma Datum Are dfmatlalh.1 iglc conditions on the ails typical for dAi6 yrne pf VeeR N Wl dasalrrcation; None Are 'NWtiyl L instancar Present on the ane? Yes Fb (If no, explain in } Are Vegetation ❑, Sod. ❑ or Horology ❑ � X Yes No ntmarlcs. Are Vegehayon ❑, Soil, ❑, or ffydmtW ❑ gl' diemal r � No ��V pmniematic7 No � needed � SUMMARY OF FINDt any anwners In Remarks,) AtGS — Atte ,A site showin sem IF rtt locations Fransects, ifn t feahuras Hydricstn. Hydtophytic Vegetation Present? �� 1uT�� WetlanYes dHydrologylis P� 1 1711 Yea Is tlris 8smpling Paint within a WWand7 ©Yes No P►eaextt7 rr Yes Nc i4errrarks: -- - PIN - Use SON, FflC names of Tree stratum (Plot size a I S!arhm (Plot size jQit R_ j "orb 81111efum (Plot size 1. 2. 8. E Absolift C % Dominant Domina es Test Wont hast Status Number of Daminarrt Species that ars OBL, FACW, Or FAC; Total Number of OOrttMtertt (A) SPedes Across All Strata: Ti Aw Cvwr Per0ent Of Dominant (B) that ere OBL, FACW, or FAC: � (A16) e� Pravatence lndea Wtarksheet OBL spades x 1 = MtlN by FACW specI x2- � specim X3= 11PL species x4= Prevalence Index =13 /A wnrarertce test to >• 6C Pre►raisr's last is 5 3.t MOrpholvml Adapted data In relne to or on a IndicaWrs of hVdric soil and wetland hydrology must be Toler CesarYac Vegetatbn Yea �^ ❑ Ila °% Sam Ground to Herb Strahrm � Remarrra: US Amry arEngrneers INestern Mowttam$, va#eys, end Coast - Inrerlm Vetslon snu Sampling Point D11-5 M.Mor u f1f-%v wmdauad Hydrology IndlcaWm: Pdroary kmftabm (n**mm m of ane rnquftd.• dxx* as /hat apply) us Secondary lndlc&Ws (2 or mare regr kW): Surface water (Al) Profile Deac Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the IR—Ince of indlcator9 Depth Matrix Inches Color m Redox Features 9� Color motet % r ra Remarks �r o -- Dry -Season Water Table (C2) r i c: Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen SulOde Odor (Cl) Geomorphic Position (D2) Ddit Daposits (83) Qddined Rhlzospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow AWthud (03) Algal Mat or Crust (54) Preamme of Reducad Iron (C4) FAC -Na" Test (Dr3) `Type: C -Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Ffttrix, CS --Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL --Pore Lining, MzMatrix rte Sol lndleators: (/lpplcalsla to all Histosoi (Al) Hisfic Fpipedon (A2) Black HIMc (A3) LRRs unless othieMse noted.) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped WIFIx (SB) Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA 1) fndfaatora for Problernatic Hydric Salts' 2cm Muck (Ai U) rM Red Parent Material (TF2) rM Other (woaln In remarks) Hydrogen Suiflde (A4) Loamy GlWW Matrix (F2) LM Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (31) Depleled Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F8) Depleted flask Surface (F7) 31rMicafors of trydrophytic vegetation and wedmld hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or probkmw is Sandy G*W Matrix (S4) Redox Deprembrua (Fe) Field Observatlons Restrictive Laver Of oresenti: Type: Hydric call P�e Yes No Depth (inches): YesNo Depth (In): Yea No Depth (tn): f/ Hydrok9y Rerna►dcs:��:TlF�..�c�a �i�.�i: �7�c'j'g -Grp J'7G-�' , fiehsatlon Present? M.Mor u f1f-%v wmdauad Hydrology IndlcaWm: Pdroary kmftabm (n**mm m of ane rnquftd.• dxx* as /hat apply) us Secondary lndlc&Ws (2 or mare regr kW): Surface water (Al) sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Be) water -Stained Leaves (09) (IaLRA 1, 2,41A b 413) High Water Table (A2) Waler-&tamed Leaves (exempt MLRA 1, 3, 4A A 46) (139) Dream Panes (B10) Saturation (A3) $all Crust (611) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Wafer uar ka (B7) Aquatic Ir vartebrales (913) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen SulOde Odor (Cl) Geomorphic Position (D2) Ddit Daposits (83) Qddined Rhlzospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow AWthud (03) Algal Mat or Crust (54) Preamme of Reducad Iron (C4) FAC -Na" Test (Dr3) loon Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sans (CB) Ralsed Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Sol Cracks {aa) Stapled or Siressiad Plants (D1) (LRR A) Frost4isave Hummocks Inundation Vielble on Aerial OVw (explain In remarks) Imagery (B7) Field Observatlons Surface Water Present? Present? YesNo Depth (In): Yea No Depth (tn): f/ Hydrok9y -WoVYalerTable Presertl� Yes ❑ FNo fiehsatlon Present? Yes No Depth on): I prndudes capillary fnnga) Describe R Data (Wean gauge: monitoring well, cental photos, prevlous Inspections), If waifatale: Remarks. - Army Corps of Engineers Westem Atountakm VeDeya, and Coast - lnierrm Yetsbm WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, arra Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation tlllanual Project Site_ Hawks Landin , Crowne Plaza Hotel ApplicanyOwner: Hawks Landin LLC Sampling Date: 4/8109 investigator. Pa/Oscartie Sampling Pant: bP-d 0nTawnahlp, Rte: S20 T24N R5E City/County: Renton/Kin Larxifamhltla State -WA ( lope, tBRaCa, etc} pe .; ; r,^ ,t Slo(9�} _ Subregion (LRRj A L=t ww Nmmve, Convey, none) Let 47.5338 Long -122.1948T Sal �P unit Name No, Homs Datum Are dfmatlogiyndrolCgtC Carrdltlons on the elle typic l for Urie tlme of n NWI cl-N—w-won: None Are "Normal Cfrcum5bwcet' present on the site? Y� Yes No (9 no, explain In remarks.] Are Vega ❑, Sal, ❑ or Ht° y 0 alpniRwoy dlstuMed? No R Yes ❑ MO Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, �, Or Hytlrdogy D n8durally 13rotderrratlC7 No (If headed, explaln any answers fn Remarks.) t3tJM1>NARY OF FlFIDIHG3 -Attach site Innap showinttattt li IocationR, tranncks, im ret Ieatures, etc. Hytlrophytic VegelaUpn Present? HYd& sone Paisew Yes es o is this SampgMftw ng Point +riMW a Wee ww? Yes ®No gk Present?Yes �'-J I 1! L�-+,J NO 1 Renra/trs. !/,f'{ •ar:'� Ji'.r.�'`�, � �. _-�" 0 1, - /�.�: 1 � { r —'21"N -2869010--t! tic nafnYs, e1� lams. Tree Stratum (Plot elze 2Qga-----j Absolute 96 Dominant Intlicetar tDomin ancs feat Worksheet t. �, Cover S ? Suis 2 Number of Dominant Speuea 3. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4' TOtal Number or Danmark (A) S1590188 AMU All SUate: r.{ s Taal cover Peroerrt of Dominark Spsxdas f (g) SnpllrtgM"b Shatr m (Plat alae ]QR R`j are DBL, FACW. or FAC: that PneValsncer Index Worirsheet 4' DBL species s' apeciea x f FACW x2== FAC Tam Gover U apecias x 3 = FA Herb Stratum (Plot etre 5�g }_ UPL apedes x4= f _ Column totals X5= 2, (A) g 3. 4. Prevalence Index = 8 / A = WWWWWUon Indicators 7. s. Oaminarroe test fe a 5046 6 - ----. .•-•-n^a �wyneuunS - iprc"m supp"M data in rernarla Or On a separate street) 1D Wetland Non Vascular Ptallts Probieffulk Hydrophy6C Vegetation ' (explain) = coral cover Vlen Stratum Plot alze ' ku atom of "ric sOt and wettrrd hydmo must be f unbaa dlahrrbed orw0c 2. a Tatai aver Hydropft Vagatetlon % Hare Ground in Herb SheWm �� P►erset? Yes No ❑ Remarira. r do, w,11,4-"nLE ..Ar /S(YLr: % ! l US Army Carps ol,&V eers Weftm Mountahrs, valleys. aRV Coast - interim Version Cnt l Sampling Point DP -6 ravnonr r% --v ttYetlend Hydrokey Indicetors: Primary !►xWok ►s (mtrxnwm of ons raqulre0' cfreak err drat appy)_ Prefile Desk on: Deecdba to floe depth needed to document the indicator or contbm the absence Of indkatnrs- Depth Matrix Indms Color (molso Redox Features Color moiS % T Texture Remarks Witter-Slalned Leaves (B9) (RIMA 1, 2,4A i 4B) igh Water Table (A2) Water-Stalned Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2,4A i 481) (BO) r•7, S Y P G i Drainage Patterns (8119) aturabon (A3) t sell Crust (611) DrySeason Water Tarble (C2) ater Marks (Bt) Aquaft Invertebrates (B13) 'Type: C=Concentr Gn, D -Depletion, RMI=Reduced Matrix, CS -Covered or Coated Sand Grains 'Loc: P!_=Pore Uning, M=Matrix 1.11cSoUlIndicidow(Applicablatooll LIiRa unless otherwise MOW.) Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (85) Histic Epfpedon (A2) Sttippsd Matrix (S6) Black Hstic (A3) Loamy Mucky IlAneral (Fi) (except MLRA 1) Indicators for Problernatte Hydric Soils' 2cm Muds (AID) Red Parem Materiel (TF2) Other (explaln In remarks) R Hydrogen SuNWa (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Geomorphic Position (D2) Depleted Beiow Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) s Indicators of hydrophytic vagelalim and wetland hydrokW must be pteeeM, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depresslans (F8) lgal Mat or Cruel (814) Restrictive Laver frf oresenll: Tom• Pmsartce of Reduced Iron (C4) Hydric soil p"OrtP Yea Depth (InctkeS): on Deposits (85) Remarks:,{,� ' f f'i ; [" 0•7 p, f ravnonr r% --v ttYetlend Hydrokey Indicetors: Primary !►xWok ►s (mtrxnwm of ons raqulre0' cfreak err drat appy)_ Secondary kdkef m (2 or mare nsqulmd): - urtacewalw (Ai l Sparsely vegetated Coneava Srrtace (130) Witter-Slalned Leaves (B9) (RIMA 1, 2,4A i 4B) igh Water Table (A2) Water-Stalned Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2,4A i 481) (BO) Drainage Patterns (8119) aturabon (A3) sell Crust (611) DrySeason Water Tarble (C2) ater Marks (Bt) Aquaft Invertebrates (B13) Saluratlon Visible on Aerial Imagery (C8) ediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ct) Geomorphic Position (D2) rift Deposits (t33) t Oxldlaed RhizoWhares along Living Roots (C3) Shelley AgWtard (D3) lgal Mat or Cruel (814) Pmsartce of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) on Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction In Titled Sola (CB) Raised Ant Mwnds (DB) ¢RM A) urface Sail Cracks (814) Stunted or Stressed Pkm (Di) (LRR A) FrostHeave Hummocks undeft Visible on Aerial Other (explain inremarks) agery (67) Field Qgsarvail" Surface Water Present?Yea FV1 waer TaW Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (in) No Depth On),: q No Depth On): Wiz, j �it i Weiland Present? Yes No ❑ pndudes capillary fringe) DescribeRWordatl tate (Mam gaugue monitoring Well, aerial photos. previous Insped mus), tf available- Rerttarft�'/�}r`T �. o r w'f�ti ' 0^ US Army CoW of Engineers item AftunteMs, Valleys, and Coast - tnterfm Vwslon WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Westem Mountains, valleys, and Coast Suppleent to the 1887 COE Wetlands m Delineation IYlanual Project Site: Hawks Landin Crpwne Plaza Hotel i4PPl�art/Owner: Hawks Landin , LLC Investigator. Sampling Date: 411 A39 Pal/Qsaar/Jerom Section, Township, Range: S29 T241y R5E Sampling Point: DP -7 Cityr-ounty: Renton/Kin Landform (hi✓tq�pe, ferrate, etc) State; WA Subregion (LRR) A Sipe i"�� Lord relief (Comm, convex, none) Soil Map Unit Name iYo, Norrna Lat 47.56 L9 -122.1l)487 t7atum Are UcYliNdrolapie Conditiana an the alta typical for this liras of Ars 'N4rmal Circumstances• � X Yes NO NW1 tlassCkatian: None Present on the site? X Yes Na Are Vapetetion ❑. SoU, ❑, or HyNrotogyr ❑ sl�dfioamiy disturbed? (Q no, explain in remarks.) No vegetation ❑, SOII, !�, ar Hydrobgy13rtrrhrratly Pnobirrrnetic? Na SUMMARY OF FIND S - Attach sib (If needed, sugxain satyr anarvars In Remarks•) m tsht>n sans 1Int locallons, " mPhYde Vagetaflon Present? 1�r r r''��--, Hydric d Hylts Present? yes No Is this Sarrrpling Polrrt within s Wstlend? r u 1 Yes N0 weMand Hydrology Preaent7 L,l Yes No f- R9artrark, 4r„o-.;'. !s �!:_''r7! ''�:�•, . i �r� , ."i VEGETATION - Use sdendit names of ants. Tree Stratum (Blot alas Absolute % Dominwd 1. Cover ? � Do►Mnance Test Worksheet 2' a Number of Dornfnant SperJea 4. that are OBL. FAC W, or FAC -- TOW Number of Dominani (A) SPsdea Across All Strata: = Total Cawr tiapl Stratum I�otaire>QR Percent of Oonrinanl (B) that are OBL,FACW. or FAC: �`, � !,� - 3. Preva fencelndex YVwksheat 4.r, r. .i ���y��,�" b. 013L species X1- FACW x2: r Taal coyer FACU species x 3 w Herbrrr (Plot size �� ) x4c �pL aPs x d = Prevalence index = B I A = wrrurrerlLB east !S > 50°/. 7. Prevalence test is 5 3.Q ' B, 9. lrlsrptlobyfral AdepteUon data !n remarks or an a & t Q' VveBand Non-Va,erXrlar Pt Indfcetom of hydric sail and wetland hyrd,okW must be �� + Tom, paver p t vagefa;lpn Yes No Q % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum Remarks: rLf r rnfT IC�r7; l+.''�. US Array Cprpb Qt anptneers tWasfern MorrnlalnS, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version 'Type: C=Concantratlon, D --Depletion. RM --Reduced Matrix, C& --Covered or Casted Send Grains Loc: PL -Pore Uning, IM+Maft tc 8011 Indicators: (Applicable to aY LRRs unless otirerwfse noted.) Hisbsol (Al) Sandy Radox (SS) Hlstic Epipednn (A2) SuftHigh a (Alble Stripped Matrix (Sd) Black Histic (A3) ter T High Weber Table (A2)9 Loamy Murky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Seluratlon Wig] Loamy Gisyed hilahiu (F2) Uispleted Bak w Dark Surtace (Al 1) Water Marks (131) Depleted Matrix (F8) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Deposits (82) SedOM Redox Dark Surface (FB) Sandy Murky Nneral (S1) Dent Drill Deposita Depleted Dark Swfaoe (F7) Sandy G*W Matrix (S4) rust Algal Mat or Cost (134) Redox UepressWo (F6) rikxive Laver i",f oresentl: Iron Deposits (B5) Type: Depth (Ondm):: Point DP -7 w Indicators for Problamade Hydric Soils' [711 2cm Muck (A14) EM Red Parent Material (fF2) Other (explain in remarks) 3lndkators of hydrophytk vegetation and wetland hydrology moat be present, unless disturbed or problematic Ygg Na Hydric soli peasant? VM&nd Hydrology Irrdicaiors: Prbnery fndkebm (minimum of one raqufred: checit am met a"): SuftHigh a (Alble 11,2, ter T High Weber Table (A2)9 WalafStshied Reaves (except ML.RA 4A & 48) (89) Seluratlon Wig] Saft CNet (811) Water Marks (131) Aquatic invertebrates (1313) Deposits (82) SedOM o7d� � Dent Drill Deposita Rhyl her�es(dong uving Roota (C3) rust Algal Mat or Cost (134) Presanoe of deduced hon (C4) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (Ce) Surface Solt Cracks (08) Stunted or Stressed Plants (101) OAR A) Inundation visible on Aerial Other (explain In numrks) Imagery (07) Secondary fndkoldra (2 jar more mWlrod). WaterSVIned Learns (139) (INLRA 1, 2, 4A A 48) Drainage Pettems (811) Dry Season Water Table (C2) Seturatlon Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Positlan (D2) Shallow Aqultard (D3) FAC -N utral Test (05) Raised Ant tMound9 (D9) (LRR A) Frost Heave Hummocks Surface Wabar Prasmrt7 Yes = No Depth On): WaterTabfe Present? YesHo Depth (in): pq Yes p No Saturation Prasant9 Yes I+io Depth (in): (includes capillary fringe) Recorded pia (stream gauge, monitoring �s�a11, aerial photos, previous Irapections), if available: W,"f, 1 1 I RaHrrarfrs: F � /�: 44iz lee J' , 1 wile,.","i ,i .CGS., Pict "o"r US Array Corps of EMmeers Waslam Mountakrs. Valleys. and Coast — 8nfarfm Verafon SOIL NYbROLmV tfyatland Hydrology Indicators: Profile dPtlon. jDascribe to the depth needed to document the Indicator er confirm the sbsance of Indfaetore. Secondary Indcalora (2 armors required}: Depth Matrix Redox Features sparsely VegetaMd Concave Surface (BB) Water4takied Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,4A & 48) (inches) Color mol % Color moist % T Loc Texture Remarks Saturation (M) r Dry -Season Water Table (02) Water Marks (81) Sediment Deposits (62j Aquatic MvertabraMs (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (01) Salutation Visible on Aerial frnagery (CO) GWrnorphic PosiBon (132) Drift Depoeb (83) O*d(aed Rhimspheres along Ewing Roots (C3) Shallow Aquilard (133) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-Nautral Teat (D6) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Raised Ant Mounds (DS) (LRR A) 'Type: C=Conoentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Cavemd or Coated Send Crain xLo¢ PL=Pore Untrrg, M=Matrix Soil India t .' (Applicable to,11 LRRs unless otherwise noted.) Mallcators Ibr Problematic Hydric Solls' Inundation Visible on Aerial Histosol (Al) sandy Redox (S5) 2ran Qluck (At 0) Imam (87) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped M8trix (SS) Rad Parent Material (TF2) f=ield Qbawvatlone Btaok Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA 11 Other (explain In remarks) Surface water Present? = Yes WafeaTaMe Present? Yes ,W*lc HydroW Sulfide (A4) LMMY Gigyed Illletrbt (F2) Present? Yea No (Includias Prete Yes (IndtrOea fl DePtetsd BOW Dark Surface (Al i) Depleted Matrix (FS) ca nge) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redux Dark Sw(ace (Fe) 3Indk elors of hydkophyHc v%et3hon and wetland hydrology must Sandy Mud3ry, Mimes (31) >}ePleled Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless dhdudx d or problematic � 1, dF. tf 7 � %' ,�` -fife .:� �'.' . � , Sandy (3layed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FS) . Restrictive Low (if cresenn: Type: Hydric soil present? yes1J � � Depth (frxYres): Remarks•�r r . i ' �• , f !fr.'iIL!''�'. •%� _'+-d �lr"�{���f%:':, , � r•; ;"f•'r'�t: `, _ � fJcr'."!!� �.``,-. t�:r-; � NYbROLmV tfyatland Hydrology Indicators: PrAnary lndfcafars (mktenum of me rawh d. cBack all ilial 0A*) Secondary Indcalora (2 armors required}: Surface water (A1) sparsely VegetaMd Concave Surface (BB) Water4takied Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,4A & 48) High Water Table (A2} WNW -Stained Leaves (OMpt MLRA 1, 2, 4A a 49) Mg) Drainage Patpams (810) Saturation (M) Salt cruet (Bl l) Dry -Season Water Table (02) Water Marks (81) Sediment Deposits (62j Aquatic MvertabraMs (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Oda (01) Salutation Visible on Aerial frnagery (CO) GWrnorphic PosiBon (132) Drift Depoeb (83) O*d(aed Rhimspheres along Ewing Roots (C3) Shallow Aquilard (133) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-Nautral Teat (D6) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Raised Ant Mounds (DS) (LRR A) Surface Sol cream (86) SWnted or SbvssW Plants (01) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hum.. & Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain in remarks) Imam (87) f=ield Qbawvatlone Surface water Present? = Yes WafeaTaMe Present? Yes No Depth (in): No Depth (in}: �! y emww Hydrology Present? Yea No (Includias Prete Yes (IndtrOea fl No Depth (in)_ > Zo ca nge) Descfa Recorded DAM (stream gauge, monilming urea, aerial ph *h6 Vw4bus inspections), If availet9w Remarks: LG/�. • � �� 'y' r �, +�'J � 1, dF. tf 7 � %' ,�` -fife .:� �'.' . � , l �j . f ; I l , j . US Army Corps eEnglneara Western MwnUft. Vaffeys, and Coe& - lnW" Version MEL A. MAERTZ A.I.A. Education: University of Idaho Bachelor of Architecture 1983 Registration: Architect, State of Washington, 1993 Architect, State of Colorado, 2000 Architect, State of Oregon, 2002 Certification: NCARB, 2001 Affiliation: American Institute of Architects, A.I.A. Experience: 2009 — Present M2 Architects Mountlake Terrace, Wa. Owner Relevant Projects*: Hawks Landing Hotel, Renton, Wa. Auburn Junction, Auburn, Wa. Experience: 2006— 2009 Olympic Associates Company Seattle, Wa. Senior Architect Managed Building Envelope consulting group and lead planner and designer for architectural group. Reference: Mr. Dan Chandler 206-285-4300 Relevant Projects*: Hawks Landing Hotel, Renton, Wa. Bay Vista Village, Bremerton, Wa. Bay Vista Medical Office Building, Bremerton, Wa. Bay Vista Club House, Bremerton, Wa. Oyster Bay Avenue Fire Station, Bremerton, Wa. Hawks Pointe Retail Center, Lacy, W a. Experience: 1993— 2006 Connell Design Group, Inc. Mountlake Terrace, Wa. Vice President for Architectural Services. Managed architectural group. Lead planner and designer for architectural and tenant improvement projects. Reference: Mr. Alan Lambert 425-670-6706 Relevant Projects': Northshore Health & Wellness Center, Bothell, Wa, Sumner Landing, Sumner, Wa. Pacific Willows Retail Center, Fife, Wa. dab, Resume: Vel Viae-nz Auburn Nissan Dealership, Auburn, Wa. Clock Tower at Mill Creek, Mill Creek, Wa. Canyon Clock Center, Frederickson, Wa. Chdstilla Square, Happy Valley, Or. Silver Lake Medical Pavilion, Everett, Wa. Premera Blue Cross -Building 1, Mountlake Terrace, Wa. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Mount Vernon, Wa. SOG Specialty Knives, Inc., Lynnwood, Wa. Experience: 1991-1993 JPC, Inc. Redmond, Wa. Associate Principal Project planning and design for corporate interiors and tenant improvements. Relevant Projects*: Microsoft Corporation — Corporate Headquarters Buildings 16,17,18, 24 and 26, Redm ond, Wa. Experience: 1983— 1991 Callison Partnerhiip Seattle, Wa. Architect Shell & core design and construction documents for office and retail facilities. Relevant Projects*: Microsoft Corporation — Corporate Headquarters Buildings 1 through 16, 16,17 and 18, Redmond, Wa. South Center Nordstrom, Tukwilla, Wa. Personal Data: Date of Birth May 7, 1958 E-mail mmaertz@m2architects.net Married to Doris Ann for 29 years and have 4 chit dren and two grand daughters. Interests: Hunting, fishing, golf and model railroading. *See attached Project Descriptions ti,. :lrr rfr db rr.. a+34�'" 7 f 'V �!r +r /t, /1 r � // ++ r / 9M rr 4. '4, r!r ! l4 s ,F17 z !R+ � • ,, ' ,fie � � \i ('�♦I +r + jr, � k ,.. lit fit `r }! R �l 7 i : CO rrr LD 41 T 1 1 ! } r 1 rrr L(Cn V J co fit fit CN cr) rF!f 1 r 1 f C rr! i< s�•r - * t LA ilk If) n.' - - If 11 1f .. 1 _ J ow ?• � 11 LLI111 Irl 11 Ninrfr 1 if, JK cr— - 1 t f I F / 1 i fit r r r ~ 1 .1 J + it i / { ♦� F lot /l rt r r� t �1 ...t F tr1 0#1 f 1 #t1 f. �•� ;�� 1 t i l fit � 1 l I 1+ r rP '�► � 1 4 �'- 1 1 1 1 fit 1 Ali 1 1 1_ ' of r" # > :. r R � �F 1 f [S'J 111 1 ! f �� �..� �� � � 1 Ifil IEI •V K f 1� � ''.Y'i°:�i-'1 .h'_ fit lif r ! It1 1!! O IL QU77 '� 7r O ! vJ N}}L a"• j 111 III 7 @@II, 1 11 I 1 f 1 W D ?w J (n fmC l 1 IQI,r Y [7 D. m Q a !li t Q% f I �� 5> � 1 (,� 1 ! r � � � ,•:� i�'Rr y �' 7 � ? is tiJ � a ill rl l ._J x cuW f I $ c M3 03110-1d 111 Ill 900Z/bZ/S 3ivn Wd i0t85tbl 3wI1 ,i16P' Jaau16u3\tMd 3NVN AII3 E\�w6lr 30 I. k 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HAWK'S LANDING RENTON, WASHINGTON3'' May 2009 Prepared for: Hawk's Landing, LLC GERALYN REINART, P.E. 159 DENNY WAY, # 1 11 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 285-9035 A. 22566 �IONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HAWK'S LANDING RENTON, WASHINGTON May 2009 Prepared for: Hawk's Landing, LLC GERALYN REINART, P.E. 159 DENNY WAY, # 1 1 I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 (206) 285-9035 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM May 1 i , 2009 TO: Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing, LLC FROM: Geralyn Reinart, P.E. SUBJECT., Hawk's Landing - Traffic Impact Analysis Introduction/Executive Summary The purpose of this analysis was to summarize the traffic -related impacts associated with the construction of a hotel at the Hawk's Landing development in the City of Renton. The proposed Hawk's Landing development is located in the southwest quadrant of the 1-405/NE 44th Street interchange in the City of Renton. NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard border the north and westerly side of the project site and the 1-405 southbound on-ramp borders its easterly side. The proposed hotel would have 173 rooms and include typical support services provided by full service hotels including a lounge, restaurant, spa, banquet facilities, and conference space. The assumed build-out/completion year for the hotel is 2011. Access to the site would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line, with the main access located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Based on future volume forecasts, a two --lane cross-section would accommodate the future traffic using the main access. Left -turn storage on Lake Washington Boulevard is recommended at the main access in order to provide safe egress. The existing Pan Abode driveway across from Seahawks Way is recommended to operate as a right-in/right-out access due to its close location to the 1-405 Southbound Ramps. Build -out of the hotel could potentially generate just over 1400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM peak trips. The critical movements at the adjacent Lake Washington Boulevard/Seahawks Way intersection are currently operating at level of service "D" or better during the peak hours, but the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the hotel. Other critical intersection operations include the 1-405 ramps at NE 44th Street, where some movements are currently operating at level of service "F" during the AM peak hour, and the delay on these movements will increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. Specific details on the hotel project and the analysis of its impacts can be found in the subsequent sections. In general, the project will have a limited impact on the transportation system. The proposed transportation Improvements will mitigate not only the project's impacts on the transportation system, but existing deficiencies. Referenced herein are prior analyses completed in the area including the "Port Quendall Access Options" technical memorandum, the Barbee Mill traffic impact analysis, and the Seahawks Headquarters traffic impact analysis. Background/Project Description The proposed Hawk's Landing development is located in the southwest quadrant of the 1-405/NE 44th Sfreef interchange in the City of Renton. NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard border the north and westerly side of the project site and the 1-405 southbound on-ramp borders its easterly side. The proposed action evaluated in the analysis is for a 173 -room hotel that would include typical support services provided by full service hotels including a lounge, restaurant, spa, banquet facilities and conference space. The parcel upon which the project is located is the existing 7.$ -acre Pan Abode site. Access to the site would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first of these accesses is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line with the main access located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. A build- out/completion year of 2011 is assumed for the hotel. Currently, Pan Abode occupies the site with multiple buildings, and storage and parking facilities. Immediately to the south is a wooded undeveloped site, with new residential construction on-going at the former Barbie Mill site 2 to the southwest. The new Seahawks training facility is located to the northwest along Seahawks Way (formerly Ripley Lane) and 1-405 is located immediately to the east, with miscellaneous commercial development immediately east of the freeway. f=urther south, residential development borders Lake Washington Boulevard. The parcel is currently zoned "COR" (Commercial/Office/Residential) which allows a mix of uses such as retail, office, or commercial space. A vicinity map of the area is shown on Figure i and a preliminary site plan for the project has been attached. Existing Conditions The subsequent sections describe the existing conditions in the project vicinity. 1. Streets The following describe the streets near the site that will be the most critically impacted by the project: Lake Washington Boulevard is a collector arterial that extends southerly from the NE 44th Streef/1-405 Southbound Ramps to N. Park Drive. The street is striped for two lanes in each direction and includes left -turn storage at select intersections. The street is relatively fiat with some horizontal curvature and includes a shared bike lane/walkway on the west side of the street. The adjacent land use is primarily single family residential south of the project site and the posted speed is 25 mph. Lake Washington Boulevard transitions into NE 44th Street at the 1-405 interchange and then continues northerly on the east side of the freeway interchange. NE 44111 Street is a collector arterial that provides access to 1-405 and connects Lake Washington Boulevard on the west side of the freeway to Lincoln Avenue and Lake Washington Boulevard on the east side of the freeway. The street consists of one lane in each direction plus left -turn storage at the ramp intersections. The southbound ramp is controlled by a stop sign in the southbound direction, whereas the northbound ramp intersection is controlled by an all -way stop. The posted speed is 25 -mph. Seahawks Way (formerly Ripley Lane) is a two-lane local access street extending north from Lake Washington Boulevard just southwest of the 1-405 interchange and dead -ends several hundred feet north thereof. The street 3 consists of two lanes with some gravel shoulder installed along the Seahawks facility frontage and is relatively flat and straight with a horizontal curve present on the approach to Lake Washington Boulevard. The posted speed is 25 -mph. 1-405 is a north -south freeway facility bordering the east side of the project site. 1-405 provides access to Bellevue and Kirkland to the north, eventually connecting with 1-5 in Lynnwood and to Tukwila to the south where it also connects to 1-5. The freeway consists of two lanes in each direction plus high -occupancy lanes. 2. Transit Non -Motorized Facilities Metro Transit is responsible for providing bus service in Renton. Currently, no routes are provided adjacent to the project site. Non -motorized facilities are limited in the area. As noted in the previous section, a shared walkway/bike lane is present on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard, south of the project site. Otherwise, sidewalk is not present along Seahawks Way or Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street west of the freeway. Urban improvements have been installed along the east side of the freeway and include sidewalk. 3. Traffic Volumes Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic counts were conducted at three locations for this analysis. Counts at these locations were updated from those conducted by the City of Renton in 2008 in order to capture traffic associated with the SFC (Sounders FC) headquarters that are located in the Seahawks training facility, along with full operation of the Seahawks facility. Furthermore, the City of Renton provided average weekday volumes for streets adjacent to the project site. The average weekday volumes and intersection count locations are summarized on Figure 2 and include the following: 1. 1-405 Northbound Ramps/N. 44th Street 2. 1-405 Southbound Rarnps/N_44rh Street 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard A summary of the AM and PM peak hour volumes for these intersections is shown on Figure 2A. 4 A comparison of the counts completed for this analysis with those completed in prior years, shows a decrease in the commuter volumes (i.e., eastbound in the AM peak and westbound in the PM peak), likely the result of the decreasing employment levels that are currently occurring. 4. Level of Service Capacity analyses for the peak hours were conducted at the intersections noted in the previous section in order to determine the current level of service/operating conditions. All of the intersections are stop sign controlled. More specifically, the 1-405 Northbound Ramp is stop sign controlled in all directions, whereas the 1-405 Southbound ramps and the Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection operate with side street stop control in the north-soufh directions. "Level of service" (LOS) is a common term used in the Traffic Engineering profession that is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and its perception by motorists and/or passengers. These conditions are usually described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are designated, ranging from "A" to "F", with level of service "A" representing the best operating conditions and level of service "F" the worst. Calculations for the level of service analysis were conducted using the McTrans Highway Capacity Software version 4. ] d/e based on the 2000 HiphwaX Capacity Manual. The following table shows the current levels of service for these intersections using the traffic volumes shown on Figure 2A. Calculations for the level of service analyses have been attached. 5 TABLE I EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE A AM PEAK HOUR B NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- > 25 & < 35 seconds E BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound LOS C LOS F LOS F LOS C LOS F Ram /NE 44th Street 19.9 sec. 53.6 sec. 86.4 sec. 20.0 sec. 58.0 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS F LOS B Ram INE 44th Street N.A. >99.9 sec. N.A. 14.9 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS B LOS D LOS ALOS A Washington Blvd. 13.7 sec. 29.9 sec. 8.0 sec. 9.2 sec. N.A. PM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound LOS E LOS D LOS C LOS C LOS D Ram INE 44111 Street 44.6 sec. 28.4 sec. 17.4 sec. 15.2 sec. 29.4 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS C LOS A Ram INE 44'h Street N -A. 19.8 sec. N.A. 8.1 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS A LOS C LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 9.5 sec. 16.8 sec_ 8.6 sec. 7.5 sec. N.A. N.A. - not applicable li.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) Where: LOS Dela A < 10 seconds B > 10 & < 15 seconds C > 15 & < 25 seconds D > 25 & < 35 seconds E > 35 & < 50 seconds F > 50 seconds (for unsignalized intersections) Table 1 shows the level of service results for the peak hours, indicating that during the AM peak hour, two of the intersections have movements operating level of service "F", i.e., the southbound movement at the 1-405 southbound ramp and the southbound and eastbound movements at the 1-405 northbound ramps. During the PM peak hour, all movements are operating at level of service "E" of better. 5. Traffic Accidents Traffic accident data for the Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street corridor between Burnett Avenue/N. 36th Street and the 1-405 Northbound Ramps were provided by the City of Renton. The City accident data are from January 2006 through December of 2008. The following table no summarizes the accident frequency and severity along the corridor for this period. TABLE 2 ACCIDENT HISTORY LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD/NI: 44TH STREET CORRIDOR Location/Date Accident Type Property Damage Injury Fataitty Total At Bumett Avenue 2006 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 2008 2 0 0 2 At N. 361h Street 2006 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 2008 1 0 0 1 Between N. 40th Street and Ripley Lane 2006 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 2008 0 1 0 1 At Ripley Lane Seahawks Way) 2006 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 2008 0 1 0 1 At 1-405 Southbound Romps 2006 0 0 0 0 2007 1 0 0 1 2008 0 1 0 1 At 1-405 Northbound Ramps 2006 5 1 0 6 2007 1 3 0 4 2008 1 1 0 2 The accident history shows a limited number of accidents, for the most part, along the corridor. The exception is at the 1-405 Northbound Ramps where an average of four collisions per year occurred (a total of 12 collisions over the three-year period). The majority of these twelve collisions consisted of right angle accidents (six of the 12 accidents). The remaining accidents included left -turn (two of the 12 accidents), sideswipe (two of the 12 accidents), rear -end (one of the 12 accidents), and fixed object (one of the 12 accidents). Two accidents were reported at the Southbound Ramps - the first of these was a left -turn collision, and the second was a right angle collision. The remaining five accidents along Lake Washington Boulevard included two rear -end collisions at Burnett Avenue, a rear end collision at N. 36th Street, a fixed object collision north of N. 40th Street, and a right angle collision at Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Injuries were reported in eight of the nineteen collisions, no fatalities were reported. 7 6. Roadway Improvement Projects Limited street improvement projects are listed in the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The City of Renton has no street improvement projects listed in its most recent TIP. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to widen 1-405 between NE 44th Street and 112th Avenue SE. This project would construct two northbound and southbound general purpose lanes thereby increasing capacity by 100%. The environmental assessment for this project has been completed and construction funding is listed for 2015. Future Conditions Without Project The streets adjacent to the project site were the subject of a recent analysis completed by HDR Engineering/CH2M Hill with respect to redevelopment of the Port Quendall site. The Port Quendail analysis evaluated both a pre - 2015 (near-term condition) and a 2015 ("maximum capacity with improvements") condition. The pre -2015 near-term development condition analyzed a total of 1600+ new AM peak hour trips and 2300+ new PM peak hour trips, and the 2015 condition analyzed a total of 2000+ new AM peak hour trips and 3000+ new PM peak hour trips. The Port Quendail analysis also included an assumption that the Pan Abode property would generate 10% of the total trips. As noted earlier, the hotel at Hawk's Landing would be completed prior to 2015, which coincides with the near-term Port Quendail analysis. Consistent with recent traffic impact analyses completed in the area, the evaluation completed herein assumed a 2% yearly growth rate in existing traffic volumes. Also included in the background traffic volume projections is the completion of the housing development on the Barbee Mill property, which is currently under construction. Given the current downturn in economic conditions and the resulting decrease in traffic volumes that has been noted, this increase is likely to result in an over-estimate of actual conditions, thus representing a conservative analysis. Other incidental development may occur over the next few years; however, specific projects in the vicinity would be subject to further analysis to identify their impacts. 8 The following describes the future base conditions for the horizon year (2011). 1. Traffic Volumes As noted above, 2011 is the designated horizon year for the build -out of the hotel. The 2% annual growth was applied to the volumes shown on Figure 2A with the Barbee Mill trips further added into the volumes. Trip assignment data for the Barbee Mill project was available from the T1A submitted, and modified to reflect the use of the access from Lake Washington Boulevard south of Seahawks Way. Originally, trips from Barbee Mill would have been routed further north and then used Seahawks Way; however, this is no longer the case. This change results in less traffic using Seahawks Way, and more through traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard past the Seahawks Way intersection. Figure 3 shows the projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the year 2011 for the base conditions. A summary of the pipeline trips and intersection volumes are shown in Appendix A-1. 2. Level of Service Level of service calculations were conducted again for the intersections previously reviewed. It was assumed, for purposes of analysis, that no changes in the geometric conditions or traffic control at the intersections would occur in order to provide a comparison to current conditions. (Note: the proposed near-term improvements noted in the Port Quendall analysis will be referenced in subsequent analyses as part of the project impact mitigation measures.) The results of the future base conditions are shown in Table 3. E TABLE 3 2011 PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE BASE CONDITIONS < 10 seconds AM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- > 25 & < 35 seconds E > 35 & < 50 seconds BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound LOS C LOS F LOS F LOS C LOS F Ram /NE 44th Street 21.6 sec. 689 sec. >99.9 sec. 21.6 sec. 81.5 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS F LOS C Ram /NE 44th Street N.A. >99.9 sec. N.A. 17.3 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS B LOS E LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 14.6 sec. 36.6 sec. 8.0 sec. 9.5 sec. N.A. PM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound LOS F LOS E LOS C LOS C LOS E Ram /NE 44th Street 70.8 sec. 42.7 sec. 21.0 sec. 17.1 sec. 43.1 sec. 1-445 Southbound LOS C LOS A Ram /NE 44th Street N.A. 23.3 sec. N.A. 8.2 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS A LOS C LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 9.8 sec. 18.7 sec. 8.8 sec. 7.5 sec. N.A_ N.A. - nor appitcaDle (i.e., calculation not provided for specitic analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) WhPrp• LOS Dela A < 10 seconds B > 10 & < 15 seconds C > 15 & < 25 seconds D > 25 & < 35 seconds E > 35 & < 50 seconds F > 50 seconds (tor unsignalized intersections) Table 3 shows the 2011 level of service results for the peak hour base conditions, indicating that two of the three of the intersections would have movements operating level of service "I=" during the AM peak hour, i.e., the southbound movement at the 1-405 southbound ramp, and the southbound and eastbound movements at 1-405 northbound ramps. (This is the some as the existing conditions.) During the PM peak hour, the northbound movement at the 1-405 northbound ramp would drop to level of service "P. The southbound movement at the Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection would drop to "E" during the AM peak hour from its current level of service "D" condition. 10 Future Conditions With Project The subsequent sections describe the likely potential impacts that will occur with the hotel development. The proposed hotel would construct 173 rooms plus support facilities. The following information summarizes the impacts associated with its construction. 1. Trip Generation The development of the hotel will generate new traffic onto the adjacent street system. The trip generation for the hotel has been estimated using the most recent values in the ITE Trip Generation (8th Edition, 2008). Five different lodging facility options are listed in the Trip Generation manual (i.e., hotel, all suite hotel, business hotel, motel, and resort hotel). Based on discussions with the project applicant, ITE Land Use 310 - Hotel, best represents the proposed facility. The iTE description of Land Use 310 - Hotel is as follows: Hater: "Hotels are places of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities; limited recreational facilities (pool, fitness room); and/or other retail and service shops. Some of the sites included in this land use category are actually large motels providing the hotel facilities noted above." The following table summarizes the estimated trip generation associated with the hotel using number of rooms as the independent variable. TABLE 4 MIMATM WFFKr}aY TRIP CFAIFOATICIN FITEnd Trip Rate Peak Hour Trips AM PM Daily/AM Peak/ In/Out In/Out Use PM Peak Daily Trips Tota! Total 310 - Hof el* 8.17/0.56/0.59 59/38 54/48 per room 1413 97 _J 02 - i i,j rooms 11 2. TrIp Distribution/Assignment The trip distribution/assignment for the hotel has been shown on Figure 4. The trip assignment shown on Figure 4 for the hotel is based on the trip generation patterns used for the Port Quendall analysis, which used the distribution assumed in the 1-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Project Access Point Decision Report. One modification was made to the noted distribution, i.e., an assignment of traffic to and from the Seahawks facility, since the proposed hotel is intended to serve visitors associated with the facility. Otherwise, the trip distribution was the same and included the following: • 48% of the trips using 1-405 to/from the south. * 30% of the trips using 1-405 to/from the north. 10% of the trips to/from the south of the project site along Lake Washington Boulevard.* • 5% of the trips to/from the Seahawks facility via Seahawks Way 4% of the trips to/from the southeast via NE 44th Street and Lincoln Avenue • 3% of the trips to/from the northeast via NE 44th Street/Lake Washington Boulevard. * - Note: a percentage of the trips tolfrom the south on Lake Washington Boulevard were re- assigned to Seahawks Way. The above described distribution is primarily oriented to and from 1-405 since the majority of both employees and visitors would likely be using the regional transportation system. Figure 4A shows the AM and PM peak hour trip assignment through the three intersections (1-405 Northbound Ramps/ NE 44th Street, 1-405 Southbound Ramps/NE 44th Street, and Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard) that are included in this analysis. 3. Traffic Volumes Figure 5 shows the projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the year 2011, with the hotel trips. The project trips were added into the 2011 "base volumes" shown on Figure 3 to produce the volumes shown on Figure 5. These volumes are also summarized in Appendix A-1. 4. Level of Service Level of service calculations were conducted again for the intersections previously reviewed. Again, no changes in the geometric conditions or traffic control at the intersections were assumed for purposes of 12 comparison to the existing and 2011 base conditions. The results of the future conditions with the hotel project trips are shown in Table 5. TABLE 5 2011 PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE (WITH HOTEL < 10 seconds AM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- > 25 & ¢ 35 seconds E > 35 & < 50 seconds BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound LOS D LOS F LOS F LOS C LOS F Ram /NE 44th Street 25.2 sec. 79.4 sec. >99.9 sec. 22.4 sec. 92.3 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS F LOS C Ram /NE 441h Street N.A. >99.9 sec. N.A. 18.5 sec. N.A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS C LOS E LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 15.2 sec. 43.0 sec. 8.2 sec. 9.5 sec. N.A. PM PEAK HOUR NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL 1-405 Northbound LOS F LOS E LOS C LOS C LOS F Ram /NE 44th Street 96.2 sec. 46.0 sec. 22.8 sec. 17.5 sec. 53.3 sec. 1-405 Southbound LOS D LOS A Ram /NE 441h Street N.A. 26.9 sec. N.A. 8.4 sec. N -A. Seahawks Way/Lake LOS A LOS C LOS A LOS A Washington Blvd. 9.3 sec. 20.7 sec. 9.0 sec. 7.6 sec. N.A. N.A. -- not applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volume on subject movement) Where: LOS Dela A < 10 seconds B > 10 & < 15 seconds C > 15 & < 25 seconds D > 25 & ¢ 35 seconds E > 35 & < 50 seconds F > 50 seconds (for unsignalized intersections) The additional traffic associated with development of the hotel results in further increases in delay from the base conditions. As with the 2011 base conditions, two of the three intersections would have movements operating level of service "F" during the AM peak hour, i.e., the southbound movement at the 1-405 southbound ramp and the southbound and eastbound movements at 1-405 northbound ramps. During the PM peals hour, the northbound movement at the 1-405 northbound ramp would operate at level of service "F" and the overall level of service would 13 drop to "F". The southbound movement at the Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard intersection would remain at level of service "E" during the AM peak hour, as noted for the base conditions. 5. Parking Parking for the hotel will be provided on-site, in the hotel garage and in surface stalls located on the easterly side of the building. The parking garage would include 107 stalls and 124 surface stalls would be constructed including five NEV (neighborhood electrical vehicles) with plug-in facilifies for charging. Information from both the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation (3rd edition - 2004) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking guidelines (second edition - 2005) has been reviewed to determine if the proposed supply will meet peak demand. Both publications provide peak parking demand for hotels. ITE provides parking demand data based on number of rooms for both average peak demand and the 85th percentile demand. ULI parking demand is based on number of rooms and lounge and conference room areas. The following weekday parking ratios were noted: ITE rmrkina demand joer room • Average peak: 0.91 spaces per room = 157 stalls • 85th percentile peak: 1.14 spaces per room = 197 stalls ULI parking demand • Peak demand: 1.15 spaces per room + 10 spaces per thousand square feet of lounge + 30 spaces per thousand square feet of conference room = 331 stalls* *j(1.15X 173)+(10X4)+(30x3.07))=331 The proposed number of surface and garage stalls is less than the ULI recommended value, but adequate per the ITE values. Since the ITE values are met, it is likely that the proposed parking is adequate to meet peak demand. Furthermore, in the event that demand exceeds supply, hotel management could implement valet parking which would increase supply. 14 6. Site Access/Design As noted earlier, access to the site would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line, with the main access located approximately midpoint along the westerly property line. These two accesses would be connected internally through the surface parking area located on the easterly side of the hotel. An estimate of potential volumes at the main access for the AM and PM peak hours is shown on Figure 6. (Figure 5 shows the estimated volumes for the northerly access across from Seahawks Way.) Full access was assumed at the main access with the existing Pan Abode access limited to right -turns in and out due to its closeness to the 1-405 Southbound Ramps. Located between these two accesses is the northerly access to Lake Washington Boulevard for the Barbee Mill development. The need for left -turn storage for the main access (southwest -bound) on Lake Washington Boulevard was reviewed using Figure 910-12a from the WSDOT Design Manual (figure has been attached) . Based on the anticipated volume of left -turns from Lake Washington Boulevard, 100 feet of turn storage is recommended. (Note: Storage lengths based on an unsignalized intersection condition as noted on Figure 910-13a.) A level of service analysis at the Lake Washington Boulevard main access was conducted to determine the expected operating conditions upon completion of the hotel. A single through lane in each direction plus a separate southwesf-bound left -turn lane on Lake Washington Boulevard, and separate northwest -bound left- and right -turn lanes on the main access were assumed, along with stop sign traffic control of the exiting movements from the hotel. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 6. TABLE 6 2011 LEVELS OF SERVICE LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD/MAIN SITE ACCESS NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND OVERALL AM peak hour LOS C LOS A 16.2 sec. N.A. N.A. 9.8 sec. N.A. PM peak hour LOS B I LOS A 10.0 sec. N.A. N.A. 7.6 sec. N.A. N.A. - nat applicable (i.e., calculation not provided for specific analysis, such as at stop - controlled intersections, not a critical movement, or no volar -e on subject movement) 15 Note: Lake Washington Boulevard considered the east/west street and the hotel access the northbound movement in the above table. The capacity analyses indicate that the new access should operate at good levels of service with level of service "C" or better present during the peak hours. 7. Proiect Impacts/Mitigation The proposed hotel could potentially generate just over 1400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM pear trips. The critical movements at the adjacent Lake Washington Boulevard/Seahawks Way intersection are currently operating at level of service "D" or better during the peak hours, but the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the hotel. Other critical intersection operations include the 1-405 ramps at NE 44th Street, where some movements are currently operating at level of service "F" during the AM peak hour; the delay on these movements will increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. Lake Washington Boulevard, adjacent to the site, is striped for one lane in each direction and includes left -turn storage at select intersections. The street has not been upgraded to urban standards, i.e., curb, gutter and sidewalk have not been constructed. Three arterial intersections were reviewed in this assessment, all of which are currently controlled by stop signs. The capacity analyses for the existing levels of service indicate that during the AM peak hour, two of the intersections have movements operating level of service "F". The increase in traffic volumes over the next couple of years would further increase delay at the intersections, with or without the hotel. Both near-term and long-term roadway/intersection improvements for the NE 44th Street corridor/interchange were identified in the Port Quendall analysis. Interim measures to mitigate the impacts associated with the hotel were reviewed to decrease the intersection delay until further corridor improvements can be funded and constructed. The following summarizes these measures. 1-405 Northbound Ramp/NE 44th Street - the level of service analyses indicate an overall level of service (LOS) "F" condition during the AM peak hour with or without the hotel and an LOS "F" condition 16 during the PM peak hour with the hotel. Additional lanes on the west, north and south legs of the intersection were reviewed to determine the improvement in operating conditions. These improvements would include construction of a third lane on the west leg such that a separate lane would serve the left, through and right -turn movements and the addition of an exclusive left -turn lane on both the north and south legs of the intersection. An all - way stop would still control the intersection. The overall level of service during both the AM and PM peak hours could be improved to LOS "D", although some individual lanes or movements could continue to operate at LOS "E" or "F". The installation of a traffic signal to control the intersection would further decrease the overall delay and improve all legs of the intersection to LOS "D" or better. (Note: both the lane and traffic signal installations were noted in the Port Quendall near-term improvements.) • 1-405 Southbound Ramp/NE 44th Street - the southbound left -turn from the ramp is currently operating at LOS "F" during the AM peak hour due to insufficient gaps in traffic. The only reasonable means of correcting this deficiency is the installation of a traffic signal in order to create artificial gaps in traffic. This installation would result in LOS "D" or better during the peak hours. (Note: the traffic signal installation was noted in the Port Quendall near-term improvements.) • Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard - the southbound movement at this intersection would drop to LOS "E" by 2011 during the AM peak hour without the hotel, with increasing delay to this movement upon completion of the hotel. This condition is the result of increased through volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard and a decrease in gaps in traffic. As noted in prior studies in the area, the close location of this intersection to the 1-405 southbound ramps allows for limited improvements. The installation of a short center merge/acceleration lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between the intersection and the 1-405 southbound ramps to mitigate the LOS "E" condition was reviewed. The results of the analysis indicate that the southbound left -turn movement could operate at LOS "C" with this installation. The final critical issue is the operation of the site accesses. A southwest - bound left -tum lane on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main access should be constructed in order to serve traffic from the north that would be 17 entering the site. The main hotel access would include a center landscaped island and a separate lane for left- and right -turning vehicles exiting the site. As noted earlier, the northerly access (the existing Pan Abode access) is recommended to operate as a right-in/right-out access due to its close spacing to the 1-405 southbound ramps. The main access is expected to operate acceptably upon completion of the hotel. Although this access will be located fairly close to the northerly access serving the Barbee Mill development, conflicts between the left -turns entering the two opposing sites are expected to be minimal due to the low volume of left - turns projected at the Barbee Mill site and minimal queue lengths at the hotel entrance. The above measures mitigate not only impacts associated with the hotel, but also pre-existing conditions. Conclusions/Recommen dations The development of the hotel at Hawk's Landing would generate additional traffic onto the existing transportation system. Both near-term and long-term roadway/ intersection improvements for the NE 44th Street corridor/interchange were identified in the Port Quendall analysis. interim measures to mitigate the impacts associated with the hotel to decrease fhe intersection delay until further corridor improvements can be funded and constructed were discussed in the prior section. The following improvements/actions are recommended for consideration by Staff for the project: + Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. • Installation of 100 -foot southbound left -turn storage lane (or two- way left -turn lane) on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main hotel access. • Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. • Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. • Construction of frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. 18 • Payment of the City's traffic mitigation fee; credit for the existing Pan Abode trips should be allowed as well as any costs associated with the above mitigation measures. Besides the above mitigation considerations, the Applicant has met with representatives of Metro Transit to ensure that the future site configuration is designed to accommodate bus turnaround through the project site for future transit service. No other mitigation measures are recommended for consideration at the present time. 19 ATTACHMENTS 20 Appendix APPENDIX A-1 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AT CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS AM Peak Hour Volumes 1. 1-405 NB Ramps/NE 44th Street 2. 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Existing volumes 281 108 351 164 165 140 10 94 91 29 27 344 With 2% annual rowth 292 112 365 171 172 146 10 98 95 30 28 358 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill 21 5 16 - 1 - - - - - - 3 2011 volumes w/out project 313 117 381 171 173 146 10 98 95 30 28 361 Project trips 1 2 11 - 2 - 28 - - - - 2 2011 volumes with ro'ect 314 119 392 171 175 146 38 98 95 30 28 363 2. 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 44th Street 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard EBL EBT EBR I WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SSL S8T SBR Existing volumes - 665 5 390 133 - - - - 54 1 117 With 2% annual rowth - 692 5 406 138 - - - - 56 1 122 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill - 42 1 - 4 - - - - - - 4 2011 volumes w/out prpject - 734 6 406 142 - - - - 56 1 126 Project trips - 14 18 - 32 - - _ - - - 18 2011 volumes with ro'ect - 748 1 24 406 174 - - - - 56 1 144 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard * - revised trip assignment through intersection to reflect current access layout ** - tato) includes deleted Pan Abode trips EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Existing volumes 15 636 3 4 192 64 0 0 2 32 1 3 With 2% annual growth 16 662 3 4 200 67 0 0 2 33 1 3 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill* - 43 - - 8 - - 2011 volumes w/out project 16 705 3 4 208 67 0 0 2 33 1 3 Project trips 2 27 - - 50 - - - 5 - - 3 2011 volumes with project 18 732 0** 0** 258 67 0 0 5** 33 0** 6 * - revised trip assignment through intersection to reflect current access layout ** - tato) includes deleted Pan Abode trips PM Peak Hour Volumes 1. 1-405 NO Ramps/NE 44th Street 2. 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 401 Street EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Existing volumes 67 144 67 76 138 83 TO 269 167 54 22 287 With 2% annual growth 70 150 70 79 144 86 10 280 174 56 23 299 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill 3 10 3 - 6 - 1 - - - - 9 201Tvolumes w/out project 73 160 73 79 150 86 11 280 174 56 23 308 Project tris 1 2 15 - 2 - 26 - - - - 2 2011 volumes with project 74 162 88 79 152 86 37 280 174 56 23 310 2. 1-405 SB Ramps/NE 401 Street 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard * EBL EBT I EBR WBL WBT WBR I NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR .-Existing volumes - 145 24 211 287 - - - - 128 3 256 With 2% annual growth - 151 25 220 299 - - - - 133 3 266 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill - 16 2 - 16 - - - - - - 22 2011volumes w/out project - 167 27 220 315 - - - - 133 3 288 Project tri s - 18 23 - 30 - - - - - - 16 2011 volumes with project - ' 185 50 220 345 - - - - 133 3 304 3. Seahawks Way/Lake Washington Boulevard * EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Existing volumes 4 125 0 3 519 39 1 0 6 31 0 4 With 2% annual rowth 4 130 0 3 540 41 1 0 6 32 0 4 Pipeline trips: Barbee Mill* - 18 - - 38 - - - - - - - 2011 volumes w/out project 4 148 0 3 578 41 1 0 6 32 0 4 Project tris 2 36 - - 46 1 - - - 5 - - 3 2011volumes with project 6 184 0 0** 624 41 0** 0 5** 32 0 7 -revised trip assignment through intersection to reflect current access layout ** - total includes deleted Pan Abode trip Site Flan/Figures N.T.S. Project site - -- - - -- -- SE 72nd St. NE 50th St. ag '1 - - -� t, SE 76th 5t. -._ i n — 5E 76kh Pl. — 5E 77 PI. SE 80th 5t. OE 43rd I 63 - Q - ' - N 40th St NE 46th St N 38th StOrr v _ n SF of> h i ! PROJECT VICINITY MAP Geralyn Reinart, P.E. FIGURE 1159 Denny Way, #111 Hawk's Landing - Hotel Page Seattle, WA. 98109 Renlon, WA. H-1 f! m2� a� Pi SE 76th St. �y Ias j87s3] 3 2 NF 44th St. j 760 X78 / 1 I Project site - — - -% — I99 I -12987 Q c 0 U C J f / N. 40th St. N_ 36th St. I� _ > Y a CL 2 C 0) 3 _C m L y - Peak hour Count locations (see Figure 2A for volumes) x XXXX - 2008 City of Renton Average Weekday Traffic M �f [XXXX] - 2005 City of Renton Average Weekday Traffic 1-405 EXISTING AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES & PEAK HOUR COUNT LOCATIONS Geralyn Reinart, P.E. FIGURE RE 2 159 Denny Way, #111 Hawk's Landing - Hotel Page Seattle, WA. 98109 Renton. WA. F-2 #1 Lake Washington Blvd I Seahawk's Way 64 3632 260 192 15 p 2 636 654 L�.. 0 r" ` 2 3 #1 Lake Washington Blvd./ Seahawk's Way 39 35 1131 r 561 519 4 ,0 3 4 p 6 ,125 1290 t'v 7 ` AM Peak Hour J NE 44th StIl-405 SB Ramp 172 ,t. 117 —/I -x-54 ,I, 1 133 523 r 670 x=-665 Y 390 y 5 PM Peak Hoar NE 44th St./1-405 SB Ramp 1 387 1, 256 _--'�'�-128 3 287 - ---- 498 i 169 145 � 211 r 24 a`3 1 NE 44h St./1-405 NB Ramp 400 344 .ter 29 140 27 281 165 -_ 469 740 4---108 164 94 351 195 kt NE 44h St./1-405 NB Ramp ✓✓/// 363 28754 54 83 Y i 22 67 138--` 297 I 278 =—s-144 76 269 t, 67 10---,, —167 167 446 EXISTING AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES I FIGURE 2A N.T.S. #1 Lake Washington Blvd./ Seahawk's Way 67 3733 e, -_ 11,279 F' 206 1.c 3 1 4 16 0 2 705 / 724= 0 �2 3 #1 Lake Washington BIvd.1 Seahawk's Way 41 36 ,32 ,622 578 4 � 3 0 4 0 6 148 1,527 AM Peak Hour NE 44th St.11-405 SB Ramp 183 126 �� 56 1 142 - f 548 I 740 � :. 734 406 'r 6 PM Peak Hour NE 44th St_/1-405 S8 Ramp 424 F 288 133 3 315 ;—r 535 194 -7=-167 220 r 27 FJ NE 44h St./1-405 NB Ramp 419 361 r—/ 30 146 r A, 28 313 173 '490 b 811 \_-117 1 j 9$ 71 381 1O 95 203 KJ NE 44h SLA -405 NB Ramp 387 i 308 __—=v----56 86 23 l 73 150.. 315 306 --160 280 79 t S 73 11 -,_. :.Y 174 465 2011 ESTIMATED AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES BASE CONDITIONS , PA . I.FIGURE 3 _. Hawk's I anNinn. T -, f 1 f � 3% �Q7 '(18 42 Q? [1fij% l (2) [2�1 SE 76th St. ma /01 N.T.S. Im (2) 1 sm �,12 ]� /1 15% 70 2] / / Project site — -- i 40/, 151 10% o ��� 142 � � J , (4) N. 40th St. 1 48 ' 878 N_ 36th St. d ! � Ul Q ¢ a D L m r 0 xx% - percent distribution xxx - daily trips .X (xx) -AM peak hour trips {xx) - PM peak hour trips 1-405 ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT Geralyn Reinart, P.E. FIGURE 4 159 Denny Way, #111 Hawk's Landing - Hotei Page Seattle, WA. 98109 Renton. WA. F-4 N.T.S. #� Lake Washington Blvd./ Seahawk's Way Jr 50 \ ti 3 2 h 27 k� f.5 #� Lake Washington Blvd./ Seahawk's Way J 46 6 A 2 h 36 n 5 AM Peak Hour NE 44th St./I-405 SB Ramp 18 �� a r 32 - 14 18 PM Peak Hour #2 NE 44th St./1-405 SS Ramp ;l { 30- 18 0-18 { 'r 23 NE 44h St./I-405 NB Ramp 2 Y ,I� 1 2 -�2 11 28 NE 44h St./11405 NB Ramp 2 h -. 1 2 - r yl 15 26--,Y-3 ESTIMATED TRIP ASSIGNMENT AT INTERSECTIONS f— k{s nR.... Jnr.... A,P. FIGURE 4A ,� i � Hawle'< I anclinn _ FinFa.l N.T.S. #1 Lake Washington Slid./ Seahawk's Way 67 39 33 �,y 325 258'`r 1 � 0 0 18 0 5 g,, 'e 732 71, 750 0 y �5 0 #1 Lake Washington Blvd./ Seahawk's Way 41 39 ., 32 665 624 i 7 1 ,y 0 0 6 0 5 184 j i 1900 5 ` 0 AM Peak Hour 2) NE 44th St./1-405 SB Ramp 201 144—/ `--3- 56 1 174 r� 580 it 772 -K�748 406 24 PM Peak Hour ? 1 NE 44th St./1-405 SB Ramp // 440 304=' 133 3 345 565 235 �-185 220 50 tt NE 44h St./1-405 NB Ramp 421 --} 30 146 28 314 175 492 1 I} + 825-r 119 171 96 392 38, 4"-95 231 3 / NE 44h StJI-405 NB Ramp 389 310 _ -¢ 56 86 � 4 74 23 152-_-.-. ` 317 324 T 162 ' 280 79 1� 88 37\ 174 491 2011 ESTIMATED AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ,PSE. . 1.1— FIGURE 5 I 1-k.w4'¢ f -linn . m 3 r N.T.S. m qj See "Figure 5" for intersection volumes. Hotel i i i oc day m r 1 AM peak hour PM peak hour 261 604 7 f;i il 268 555 'f 53 49 ,29 38 688 > 144 694 -" `• 433 149 r 5 43 6 5 2011 ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AT SITE ACCESSES Geralyn Reinart, RE- FIGURE 0 159 Denny Way, #111 Hawk's Landing - Hotel Page Seattle, WA. 98109 Renton. WA. F-6 Turn Lane Storage Requirements Intersections At Grade KEY: Below curve, storage not needed for capacity_ Above curve, dry/ further analysis �j recommended. 1A 50 mPh 0 60 mPh tz� 25 20 15 10 5 0 % Total DHV Turning Left (single turning movement) Notes: [1] DHV is total volume from both directions. [2] Speeds are posted speeds_ 1000 �5s Left -Tura Storage Guidelines: Two -Lane, Unsignalized Figure 910-12a M 800 Q 0 700 •!6 500 400 300 Chapter 910 Page 910-26 Design Manual M 22-01.02 November 2007 Intersections At Grade Chapter 910 1400 1300 1200 1100 c a w 0 1000 l4 0 o 900 OSTI7 700 40 mph posted speed I ' I - i 250 ft i 200 ft I� I f 150 ft i i r 1 100 ft I j i E { iE _ E 300 200 100 0 Left turns one direction ODHV Left -Turn Storage Length: Two -Lane, Unsignalized Figure 910-13a Page 910-28 Design Manua! M 22-01.02 November 2007 Level of Service Calculations ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ISite Information Analyst gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 2/26/2009 nal sis Time Period _AMpeek rage i or Intersection NE 44th Street/t-405 NB Ram - s Jurisdiction City of RentonJWSDOT Analysis Year existing Project ID Hawks' Landin East/West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 NB Ram /L WB Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 281 108 351 164 165 0 /oThrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 10 94 91 29 27 344 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.86 Flow Rate 326 533 190 191 206 463 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 2 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Head ay Adjustment Worksheet Prop_ Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 Departure Head ay and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.29 0.47 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.41 hd, final value 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84 final value 0.80 1.15 0.49 0.47 0.50 0.94 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 6.5 1 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 1 5.5 1 6.5 5.5 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 file: HC:1Documentq%20and%2OSettinuclAdminic#ratnr\T.n0.al0/ 0",PifincTc1T.-mn%1171.417 t 7/7�1�llrlo x111" YY Uy UlVtf %-V11L1V1 I126CGV1L. HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Capacity 407 533 375 397 401 492 Delay 38.78 115.58 20.93 19.15 19.94 53.56 Los E F C C C F Approach: Delay 86.43 20.04 19.94 53.56 Los F C C F Intersection Delay 58.03 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information Analyst gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 2/26/2009 nal sis Time Period am peak .r d8c A Vl G Intersection NE 44th Streetfl-405 Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 SB Ram s Jurisdiction City of Westbound Renton/WSDOT Analysis Year lexistinE 3 4 Project Description Hawks'Landing EasWVest Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 665 5 390 133 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 810 6 443 151 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 4 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 54 1 117 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 66 1 144 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV D 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 10 0 0 1 1 1 Configuration I I LT I R X., . E file://C:1Documents%20and%20SettinRslAdministratorlLocal%20 SettineslTcmb1u2k92D.t... 2/26/2009 X yr v- T uy "wY t.v"L'vi rdgG i 01 'L Control Delav, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 u Lane Configuration L LT R Volume, v (vph) 443 67 144 Capacity, cm (vph) 803 36 893 Ic ratio 0.55 1.86 0.16 Queue length 95% 3.43 7.31 0.57 Control Delay SIve h 14.9 647.0 9.8 LOS 8 F A Approach delay lveh212.1 KspproachLOS -- -- F HCS2000Tm Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld ;etratnrlT i „v- „ u: vivy �UAILA"I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst gr enc /Co. Date Performed 312/2009 [Analysis Time Period am peak 1 Q64..: L 471 G Intersection Seahawks Wa 1LWB Jurisdiction City of Renton Analysis Year existing Westbound Movement Project Description Hawks' Landin East/West Street: Lake Wash. BIvd1NE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Wa Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 15 636 3 4 992 64 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 17 739 3 5 252 84 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median tyee Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 2 32 1 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 4 46 1 4 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 91 11 11 Percent grade (%} 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach I EB I WB I Northbound Southbound ;,, ninictratnrV X yr v- YT ay 13 SUP %-VULL vl raga G m /- Movement Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L TR L TR L TR Volume, v (vph) 17 5 4 51 Capacity, cm (vph) 1229 870 420 195 /c ratio 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.26 Queue length 95% 0.04 0.02 0.03 1.01 Control Delay S/veh 8.0 9.2 13.7 29.9 LOS A A B D Approach delay s/veh 13.7 29.9 J�pproach LOS -- -- B D HCS20007M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. 1 i ar,c t ")c ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information NE 44th Street/! -405 NB Analyst 2r Intersection Ramps Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Cit.y of Renton/WSDOT Date Performed 2/2612009 Analysis Year existing Analysis Time Period PM peak Project ID Hawks'Landin East[West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 NB Ram 1LWB Volume Ad'ustmen#s and Site Characteristics ApEroach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 67 144 67 76 138 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 10 269 167 54 22 287 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.88 Flow Rate 72 226 84 153 483 412 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 1 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 'RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 I'hLT-adj hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 8.81 8.81 8.81 8. $1 8.81 8.81 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.06 0.20 0.07 0.14 0.43 0.37 hd, final value 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 final value 0.18 0.51 0.21 0.36 0.90 0.77 Move -up time,m7_1 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 6.5 1 5.8 6.5 5.8 6.5 5.8 6.5___j 5.8 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 t file_//C:1Documents%20and%2OSetting,;lAdminiStratorll.ncal%?.(),qettincy.clTemnl>>?k9'?7_t L2 r IA- rr uy 0k -U ./ l,VllLl ul rage LwL I I Capacity 322 417 334 390 527 516 Delay 13.38 18.70 14.08 15.87 44.55 28.37 LOS BI C B C E D Approach: Delay 17.42 15.24 1 44.55 28.37 LOS C C I E D Intersection Delay 29.38 Intersection LOS D HCS200OTM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information Analyst gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 2/2612009 nal sis Time Period km peak rage 101L Intersection NE 44th Streebi-405 SB Ramps Jurisdiction City of RentoniWSDOT Analysis Year lexisting Westbound Movement Project Description Hawks'Landing EastlWest Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 145 24 211 287 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) 0 172 28 219 298 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHS 0 -- -- 1 -- -- Median e Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Confi uration TR L T U stream Signal 0 0 Min or Street Northbound Southbound dMovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 128 3 256 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 131 3 263 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%} 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Configuration I LT R file :/IC :1Documents%20arid%24 S ettin2 s\Admi ni stratorl T ,n _ - - - -.7 -'-.F rage z or z �on-Em ueia , queue Len th Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) 219 �T 134 R 263 Capacity, cm (vph) 1375 253 746 /c ratio 0.16 0.53 0.35 Queue length 95% 0.56 2.84 1.59 Control Delay s/veh 8.1 34.2 12.4 LOS A D 8 Approach delay s/veh �- �- 19.8 roach LOS -- -_ C HCS2000'm Copyright C 2043 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d rdg'C 1 Vl L I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Analyst gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 3/212009 Analysis Time Period 1pm peak ite Information Intersection Seahawks Wa /LWB Jurisdiction City of Renton Analysis Year existing 3 4 Proiect Description Hawks'Landing EastNVest Street: Lake Wash. Blvd/NE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Way Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 4 125 0 3 519 39 Peak -hour factor, PHF Q 95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 4 131 0 3 535 40 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 1 ,- -- 1 -- -- Median e Undivided RT Channelized? 0 Q Lanes 1 7 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 1 0 6 31 0 4 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 1 0 10 46 0 5 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 Q 10 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Confi uration LTR r I LTR ontrol Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service roach _ I EB I WB I Northbound Ct-rntc%r\T.AC Southbound x ..v- r. cad' �J L%JP L.- VA All V1 rage /. of Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 4 3 11 51 Capacity, cm (vph) 1003 1460 804 356 Ic ratio 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 Queue length 95% 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.50 Control Delay 5/Veh 8.6 7.5 9.5 16.8 LOS A A A C Approach delay s/veh _- 9.5 16.8 roach LOS -- -- A C 71 HCS2000T A Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS neral Information Site Information Analyst gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 03/11/09 Analysis Time Period AM peak Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year rage 1 01 /_ 44th Streetlt-405 N1 MPS y of RentonlWSDQT 17 - base conditions %Thrus Left Lane 50 1-- 50 I Project ID Hawks' Landin Eastbound Westbound Northbound East/West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 NB Ram /LWB L1 Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics L1 L2 L1 Approach Eastbound L TR L Westbound LTR Movement L T R L T R Volume 313 117 381 171 173 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 198 201 50 485 Approach Northbound 2 2 2 Southbound 10 Movement L T R L T R Volume 10 98 95 30 28 361 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.86 Flow Rate 363 579 198 201 215 485 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 2 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 1 0.25 Saturation Head Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0,0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 --0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.19 9.11 9.11 Departure Head ay and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.32 0.51 0.18 0.18 0.19 10.53 0.43 hd, final value 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 9.11 final value 0.92 1.29 0.53 0.51 1.00 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 6.8 1 5.7 6.8 J 5.7 6.8 5.7 6.8 5.7 CapacityCapaci!y and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 I L2 L1 I L2 L1 I L2 L1 I L2 file://C:1Document.,;%20and%20',�ettina.a1 A c1minictratnrli . "I- r, uy vLvP v1111v1 Page 2ot2 HCS20001m Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d �ri•nfvr.+.�r�r nn Capacity 396 579 373 394 399 485 Delay 57.50 170.55 22.51 20.69 21.59 68.91 LOS F F C C C F Approach: Delay 126.98 21.59 21.59 68.91 LOS F C C F Intersection Delay 81.48 Intersection LOS F HCS20001m Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d �ri•nfvr.+.�r�r nn TATO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information P Analyst r enc 1Co. Date Performed 03111/09 nal sis Time Period am peak intersection Jurisdiction C F IlAnaivsis Year 12 .ragr, 1 ui 'E 44th Street/1-405 B Ram s ity of 'enton/WSDOT D 11 -base condition 11 7 Y Y7 i C{T�] ter Project Description Havvks` Landin East/West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 734 6 406 142 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 895 7 461 161 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 4 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 56 1 126 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 69 1 155 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade (°/a) 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes Configuration 0 0 0 t 0 1 LT 1 1 j R 7 Y Y7 i C{T�] ter -- - ".7 `wF �-vlluul rage /- or 2 Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R Volume, v (veh) 461 70 155 Capacity, crn (vph) 745 26 881 1c ratio 0.62 2.69 0.18 Queue length 95% 4-34 8.56 0.64 Control Delay slveh 17.3 1083 10.0 LOS C F A Approach delay s/veh -- '- 3`13 Kpproach LOS -- -- F HCS2000'M Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d TT 11T -F -l "A TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst gr enc /Co. Date Performed 03/11/09 Analysis Time Period am peak I n6%, I vl Z' intersection Seahawks Wa /LWB Jurisdiction City of Renton Analysis Year 2011 - base condition Westbound Movement Project Description Hawks' Landin East/ West Street: Lake Wash. Blvd/NE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Way Intersection Orientation: East-West tStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 16 705 3 4 208 67 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 18 819 3 5 273 88 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHu 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 2 33 1 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 4 47 1 4 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 11 11 11 Percent grade°/p) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service _ Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound A dmini ctrntn I VV%j- yY µi' oLkip t+Vllll Ul rage /- (rt /- Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR L TR LTR Volume, v (vph) 18 5 4 52 Capacity, cm (vph) 1203 812 378 165 /c ratio 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.32 Queue length 95% 0.05 0.02 0.03 1.27 Control Delay 8.0 9.5 14.6 36.6 s/veh LOS AA 8 E Approach delay s/veh -- -- 14.6 36.6 roach LOS I B E HCS2006'm Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d I arc t o t t, ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information ISite Information Analyst gr ?l/CCU7-4V� fVd Intersection lVr= #-+I!!Ram s enc /Ca. Jurisdiction Cit of RentonlWSDOT Date Performed 03/T 7/09 nal sis Year 2011 -base condition nal sis Time Period PM eak file://C:1Docnrnentg°/n?nnnd`110NQ4-.1 tin aclAdminictratnr\T 'Ill 1 /,)()no Project ID Hawks'Landin EastMlest Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 N8 Ramp Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 73 160 73 79 150 0 %Thrus Lett Lane 50 50 :Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 11 280 174 56 23 308 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.88 Flow Rate 78 250 87 166 504 439 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 1 No. Lanes 2 2 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.3 0,0 0.0 0.4 0.8 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 Departure- Head ay and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.07 0.22 0.08 0.15 0.45 0.39 hd, final value 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 9.31 final value 0.20 0.59 0.23 0.42 1.09 1 0.88 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 7.0 1 6.3 7.0 T6.3 __7_0__T 6.3 1 7.0 6.3 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 file://C:1Docnrnentg°/n?nnnd`110NQ4-.1 tin aclAdminictratnr\T 'Ill 1 /,)()no LZli- 77 CLJ' iJ SVP V Vuu Vt Page 2 of z HCS2000TM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Capacity 328 407 337 381 504 496 Delay 14.35 23.02 15.14 18.08 70.78 42.68 LOS B C C C F E Approach. Delay 20.96 17.07 1 70.78 42.68 LOS C C I F E Intersection Delay 43.05 Intersection LOS E HCS2000TM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d l YYV- f1 Uy i LV_F l VAIL1l/L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 03/11/09 nal sis Time Period m peak rage i oz z Intersection NE 44th Street/1-405 Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 SB Ramps Jurisdiction City of Westbound RentonlWSDOT Analysis Year 2011 - base 3 conditions 5 6 Project Description Hawks' Landin East/West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 167 27 220 315 Q Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 198 32 229 328 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV Q -- -- 1 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T upstream Signal 0 D Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 $ 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 133 3 288 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate vehlh 0 0 0 137 3 296 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 F lminietrnl, 1 rrv- rT uy LJwY %-viiuvt rage L oI 2 - Configuration Confi uration LT R Control Delay, Queue Len #h, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R Volume, v (vph) 229 140 296 Capacity, cm (vph) 1344 225 718 /c ratio 0.17 0.62 — 0.4T Queue length 95% 0.61 3.67 2.03 Control Delay s/veh 8.2 44.2 13.5 LOS A E B Approach delay s/veh 23.3 Approach LOS -- - C 71 HCS2000T "' Copyright 0 2043 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal s# gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 3/11/2009 nal sis Time Period joT eak f. a ;k' .k v.i c Intersection Seahawks Wa /LWB Jurisdiction Citv of Renton Analysis Year 2011 - base conditions Westbound Movement Project Description Hawks'Landing East/West Street: Lake Wash. Blvd/NE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Way Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 4 148 0 3 578 41 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 4 155 0 3 595 42 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 1 1 - Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh1h 1 0 6 32 0 4 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0 58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 1 0 10 47 0 5 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 D 1 1 0 Configuration LTR I LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service file://C:1Documents%2.0and%2OSettin n i stratorlT ,i 1 vvu- TV U.7 tJLvy \-Vl1LLV1 rage z of 2 Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR olume, v (vph) 4 3 11 52 Capacity, cm (vph) 951 1431 762 314 /c ratio 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.17 Queue length 95% 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.58 Control Delay slveh 8.8 7.5 9.8 18.7 LOS A A A C Approach delay slveh 9.8 18.7 Approach LOS A C HCS2000"M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d - --. .-I --- -11_1.,1 r ngc i Vl /- I I ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS i \General Information ISite Information Analyst gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 03/11/09 Analysis Time Period AM peak Intersection NE 44th Streetli-405 NB Ramps Jurisdiction City of Renton/WSDOT Analysis Year 2011 - w/hotel component file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settzngs\Administrator\Local:%20Settinggl Project ID Hawks'Landin East/West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 NB Ram /AWB Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 314 119 392 171 175 0 °/%Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R olume 38 98 95 30 28 363 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.86 Flow Rate 365 593 198 203 245 488 % Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 10 2 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop_ Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Prop_ Right -Turns 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 L7a 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.32 0.53 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.43 hd, final value 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 9.29 final value 0.94 1.35 0.54 0.52 0.61 1.04 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 7.0 5.9 7.0 5.9 7.0 5.9 1 7.0 5.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 I L2 L1 I L2 Li I L2 L1 I L2 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settzngs\Administrator\Local:%20Settinggl iii- Y uX vcvp %—unu ul rage 1 or 2- HCS200drm Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d apacity 388 593 366 387 396 488 Delay 63.06 195.85 23.22 21.53 25.22 79.38 LOS F F C C D F Approach: Delay 145.25 22.37 25.22 79.38 LOS F C D F Intersection Delay 92.28 Intersection LOS F HCS200drm Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d i ��V •• , tie a.Vl_. I. lJA1�A VA TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst gr enc /Co. Date Performed 03/11/09 .Analysis Time Period am peak Intersection NE 44th Streetll-405 Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 SB Ramps Jurisdiction City of Westbound RentonJWSDOT Analysis Year 2011 - w/hotel 3 component 5 6 Project Description Hawks'Landing East/West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: I-405 SB Ramps Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 748 24 406 174 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 912 29 461 197 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 4 -- -- Median e Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 56 1 144 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 69 1 177 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV a 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 1 0 1 Lanes 0 1 0- - 6 1 i 1-- t• ".7 vLVP �Vl1LRV1 rage /- or z Configuration I I I I LT R Control Delay, Queue Leri th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R Volume, v (vph) 461 70 177 Capacity, cm (vph) 720 22 842 /c ratio 0.64 3.18 0.21 Queue length 95% 4.67 8.94 0.79 Control Delay s/veh 18.5 1349 10.4 LOS C F B Approach delay slveh -- '- 389.8 Approach LOS -- -- F HCS20001 M Copyright Ccs 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 03/11/09 nal sis Time Period am peak i aL;Q 1 V1 L. Intersection Project Description Hawks'Landing East/West Street: Lake Wash. Blvd/NE 44th Intersection Orientation.- East-West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 88 L T Volume veh/h) 18 732 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0-86 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 20 851 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 1 -` Median tvpe RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 ,Configuration L Pp -stream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h) 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate veh/n 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV D 0 Percent grade (%} 2 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? i aL;Q 1 V1 L. Intersection Seahawks Wa /LWB urisdiction City of Renton Analysis Year 2019 - w1hotel component 67 0.76 rth/South Street: Seahawks Wa idv Period (hrs): 0.25 Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service r" file :11C-\Documents%20and°/n?{)1'%etti ng -,1 A drnini cfratnr\T .nr.a Westbound 5 6 T R 258 67 0.76 0.76 339 88 A ,1 V- T, CLQ' '3L"YP t+l%il ll.VA gage z of /- Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR glume, v (vph) 20 0 10 55 Capacity, cm (vph) 1138 792 363 148 /c ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.37 Queue length 95% 0.05 0.00 0.08 7.56 Control Delay s/veh 8.2 9.5 95.2 43.0 LOS A A C E Approach delay s/veh -- -- 15.2 43.0 Approach LOS -- -- C E HCS20007M Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id I ug%., i vi Z. I ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS 1 [General information ISite Information # Anal yst r Agency/Co, Date Performed 03/11109 ,Analysis Time Period PM peak Intersection NE 44th Streetll-405 NB Ram s Jurisdiction Cif y of RentonlWSDQT nal sis Year 2011 - w/hotel component file: //C:1Documents%20anti%20Seitings\Administratorll,ocal%20 Settings\TempluR919.t... 3/11/2009 Project ID Hawks'Landin East/West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 NB Ramp/LWB Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T I R Volume 74 162 88 79 152 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approac Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 37 280 174 56 23 310 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR L T LTR LTR PHF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.88 Flow Rate 79 268 87 168 533 441 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 1 No_ Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 T 2 2 Duration, T Q.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 Prop_ Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 Departure Head ay and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.07 0.24 0.08 0.15 0.47 0.39 hd, final value 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 final value 0.21 0.64 0.23 0.43 1.10 0.90 Move -up time. m 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time 7.1 1 6.3 7.1 6.3 7.1 6.3 7.1 6.3 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 I L2 L1 I L2 L1 I L2 L1 I L2 file: //C:1Documents%20anti%20Seitings\Administratorll,ocal%20 Settings\TempluR919.t... 3/11/2009 - — - -y � kvF �MILLI vi ruge L w L HCS2000''M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file: l/C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Adrninistrator\Local%20SettinRs\Temp1u2k919.t... 3/11/2009 Capacity 329 407 337 378 533 488 Delay 14.47 25.25 15.33 18.54 96.24 46.00 LOS B D C C F E Approach: Delay 22.80 17.45 1 96.24 46.00 LOS C C F E Intersection Delay 53.26 Intersection LOS F HCS2000''M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file: l/C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Adrninistrator\Local%20SettinRs\Temp1u2k919.t... 3/11/2009 I ar'c t vx ! TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information I Analyst gr enc /Co. Date Performed 03/11/09 nal sis Time Period pm 12eak Intersection NE 44th Streetll-405 Westbound SB Ramps Jurisdiction City of 3 Renton/WSDOT Analysis Year 2011 - w/hotel cam onent T R f ro'ect Descri tion Hawks'Landinast/West Street: NE 44th Street~ North/South Street: 1-405 SB Ram s tersection Orientation: East-West IStudv Period lhrsl: 0.25 \Vehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 185 50 220 345 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate vehlh 0 220 59 229 359 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- -- 1 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume vehlh 0 0 0 133 3 304 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 0 137 3 313 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade {%) 0 2 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 file://C:lDocuments%20and%?OSettings\Administrator\Local%2OSettingslTemplu2k9l C.t... 3/11/2009 i0.g'CG V1L Confi uration I I I I LT R Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT R Volume, v (vph 229 140 313 Capacity, cm (vph) 1289 203 690 /c ratio 0.18 0.69 0.45 Queue length �5% 0.64 4.31 2.37 Control Delay slveh &4 54.8 14.5 LOS A F B Approach delay slveh -- -- 26.9 Kpproach LOS -- -- D RCS200OTM Copyright a 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file://C:\Documents%2Oand%20Settings\Admin strator\Local%2OSettings\Templu2k91C.t._. 3/11/2009 rage j or z I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY I General Information ISite Information nal st gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 3/11/2009 nal sis Time Period jpmpeak 'roject Description Hawks'Landing ;ast/West Street: Lake Wash. Blvd/NE 44th ntersection Orientation: East-West Jehicle Volumes and Adiustm¢ntc Intersection Seehawks Wa /LWB Jurisdiction City of Renton Analysis Year 2011 - w/hotel component 3 4 South Street: Seahawks Period {hrs}: 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 6 184 0 0 624 41 Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0-95 6 0.95 193 0.95 0 0.97 0 0.97 643 0.97 42 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 1 -- -- ? -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration -1—F L TR LTR Upstream Sigma 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 0 5 32 0 7 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0 58 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h 0 0 8 47 0 10 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 3 3 3 Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Confi uration LTR LTR 'ontrof Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service f le://C:LDocuments%20and%20Settings\Administrator\Local%20Settings\Ternplu2k 112F.t... 41212009 — 11 -j .�r --1 Page 2 of 2 Aeproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Confi uration L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 6 0 8 57 Capacity, cm (vph) 913 9386854 286 /c ratio 0.09 .00 0 0.01 0.20 Queue length -0, 96°l0 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.73 Control Delay s/veh 9.0 7.6 9.3 20.7 LOS A A A C Approach delay s/veh -- -- 9.3 20.7 Approach LOS -- -- A C HCS2000' m Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d file://C :\Documents%20and%20 S ettings\Adrninistrator\Local%20Settinas\Temp\u2k 112F.t... 4/2/2009 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst gr Agency/Co. Date Performed 4/6/2009 nal sis Time Period am peak 'ro"ect Description Hawks Landing Hotel astMlest Street: Lake Washin ton Blvd. ntersection Orientation: East-West [Vehicle Volumes and AdiustmPntc Page 1 or 2 Intersection Lake Wash=Access Blvd.tMain Jurisdiction Renton nal sis Year 2011 orth/South Street: Main Access tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 6 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 688 6 53 208 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 799 6 69 273 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 1 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? p j 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 4 0 29 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 4 0 36 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy Vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Confi uration L R `- ontrol Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service file.HC:lDocuments%20and%2OSettings\Administrator\Local%2OSettings\Ternp\u2k96B.tmp 4!6/2009 rage 2 of 2 Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L f? glume, v (veh) 69 4 36 Capacity, cm (vph) 824 186 387 /c ratio 0.08 0.02 0.09 Queue length ��% 0.27 0.07 0.37 Control Deiay s/veh 9.8 24.8 15.3 LOS A C C pproach delay s/veh -- -- 16.2 roach LOS -- - C HCS2000"M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 7 file:IIC:lDocuments%20and%20SettingslAdrninistrator\Local%20SettingslTennp1u2k96B.tmp 4/6/2009 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information nal st r Agency/Co. Date Performed 4/6/2009 [Analysis Time Period lem peak rage 1 or z Intersection Lake Wash. Blvd./Main Access Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2011 Project Description Hawks Landing Hotel East/West Street: Lake Washington Blvd. North/South Street: Main Access Intersection Orientation; East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 144 5 49 555 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 151 5 50 572 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 1 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 5 0 38 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 6 0 47 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 D 0 D 0 Percent grade%} 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage D 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 D 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L R ontrol Delay, Queue Length., Level of Service file:HC:1Documents%20and%20SettingslAd inistratorlLocal%2OSettingslTemp\u2k96E.tmp 4/6/2009 I vVM- Yr ay LILUJJ t.VI.LUVI gage 2 of L roach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R olume, v (vph) 50 6 47 Capacity, cm (vph) 1430 333 897 /c ratio 0.03 0.02 0.05 Queue length 95% 0.11 0.05 0.17 Control Delay s/veh 7.6 16.0 9.2 LOS A C A Approach delay s/veh -- 10.0 Approach LOS -- -- B HCS200dm Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file: HC:\Documents%20and%2 OSettingslAdministrator\Local%20S etdnP-s\Temb1u2k96E.tmo 4/6/2009 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS neral Information Site information I Analyst r enc lCo. Date Performed 03/11/09 nal sis Time Period M peak ntersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year Project ID Hawks'Landing L7 L2 East(Wes# Street: NE 44th Street N Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach 198 Eastbound Movement L T Volume 314 119 %uThrus Left Lane 50 0.0 Approach Northbound Movement L T Volume 38 98 %Thrus Left Lane 50 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 Eastbound L1 L2 Configuration L T PHF Flow Rate % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 2 5 R 392 R 95 Westbound L7 L2 L T 0.860.86 Adjustment Worksheet 198 203 2 2 Duration, T 10.25 Ll L2 L TR Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet 34 Prop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 Departure Headway and Service Time e hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.32 0.12 0.18 0.18 hd, final value 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.46 x, final value 0.86 0.31 0.48 0.46 Move -up time, m 2.3 2,3 Service Time 6.2 F67 6.2 5.7 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound 1-405 NB L 171 50 L 30 50 Northbound L1 L2 L TR 0.94 0.94 40 205 10 10 rage i of L 44th Street/1-405 NS MPS_ of Renton/WSD4T 11 - w/hotel componer't- ti I Westbound T 175 Southbound T 28 2 5 R 363 Southbound Ll L2 L TR 0.86 0.86 34 454 2 2 2 5 3.20 3.20 0.04 0.18 8.46 8.46 0.10 0.48 2.3 6.2 1 5.7 Northbound I�---- 3.20 3.20 0.03 0.40 8.46 8.46 0.08 0.93 2.3 6.2 5.7 Southbound -i file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Administrator\Local%20Settinbs\Temp\u2kl 84.t... 3/19/2009 1 / � I 1 ! • 3.20 3.20 0.04 0.18 8.46 8.46 0.10 0.48 2.3 6.2 1 5.7 Northbound I�---- 3.20 3.20 0.03 0.40 8.46 8.46 0.08 0.93 2.3 6.2 5.7 Southbound -i file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Administrator\Local%20Settinbs\Temp\u2kl 84.t... 3/19/2009 <\11'TT"J VL1JV %,-Vi1LL V1 rage 2 of 2 - HCS2000"M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file :II C :\Documents%20and%20 S ett1ngs\Administrator\Loca1%205 ettimzs\Temp\u2k l 84.t... 3/19/2009 Ll L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 422 388 401 424 290 414 284 487 Delay 44.66 14.12 19.20 17.82 12.94 18.41 11.94 51.27 Los E B C C B C B F Approach: Delay 36.28 16.50 17.51 48.53 Las E C r C E Intersection Delay 32.77 Intersection LOS D HCS2000"M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file :II C :\Documents%20and%20 S ett1ngs\Administrator\Loca1%205 ettimzs\Temp\u2k l 84.t... 3/19/2009 ragc 1 01 l ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS f [General Information Site Information f Analyst r enc /Cc, Date Performed 03/11/09 Analysis Time Period PM peak intersection NE 44th Street/! -405 NB Ramps Jurisdiction City of Renton/WSDOT 201111; w/hotel component, nalysis Year, . mit y°•;�= 1 f le://C:1Docurnents%20and%2QSettings\AdministratorlLocal%20SettingslTemplu2k94O.t... 3/19/2009 J Project ID Hawks'Landing East(West Street: NE 44th Street North/South Street: 1-405 NB Ram /LWB Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 74 162 88 79 152 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 37 280 174 56 23 310 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L T L T L TR L TR PHF 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 Flow Rate 79 174 87 168 40 493 63 1 378 % Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 No. Lanes 2 2 2 2 Geometry Group 5 5 5 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 8,43 8.43 8.43 6.43 8.43 8,43 8.43 8.43 Departure Head ay and Service Time hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.04 0.44 0.06 0.34 hd, final value 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8.43 8. 43 8.43 8.43 final value 0.18 0.38 0.20 0.37 0.08 0.93 0.14 0.70 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 6.1 5.6 6.1 5.6 6.1 5.6 1 6.1 5.6 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound f le://C:1Docurnents%20and%2QSettings\AdministratorlLocal%20SettingslTemplu2k94O.t... 3/19/2009 t ail- TT uy VLVP A—.Vllli Vl Page 2 Oi 2 HCS200OTM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file J/C:1Docunnents%20and%20SettingslAdministrator\Local%20Settings\Tetnptu2k900.t... 3/19/2009 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 329 424 337 418 290 525 313 530 Delay 13.03 15.47 13.27 15.20 10.99 50.30 11.70 23.12 LOS B 1 C B C B F B C pproach: Delay 14.70 14,54 47.35 21.49 LOS B B E C Intersection Delay 28.44 Intersection LOS I D HCS200OTM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file J/C:1Docunnents%20and%20SettingslAdministrator\Local%20Settings\Tetnptu2k900.t... 3/19/2009 rar,c 1 ui varume anar r rmrng rn ur HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information WB Site Information Analyst gr Intersection 1-405 NB Ramps/NE Agency or LT TH 44th St_ Co. TH Area Type All other areas Date 3/19/2009 Number of lanes, Jurisdiction WSD0T/Renton Performed Time Period am peak 0.0 Analysis Year 2011 - w/hotel - mit_ Project ID Hawks' Landin varume anar r rmrng rn ur EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Number of lanes, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike 1 N 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 314 119 1392 171 175 1146 38 98 95 30 28 % Heavy N 0 1 N N 1 0 vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.86 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time,. 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 Extension of affective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, JE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 I* ilteringlmetering, 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 11.000 11.000 11,000 11.000 1 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike 1 RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N D 1 N I N 0 1 N N 1 0 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Administrator\Local%20Settings\Templs2k33 7.t... 3119/2009 gage 2. of s Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, N B 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only Thru & 04 Excl. Left TRT & 07 08 RT Timing 14.0 G= 4.D 4.0 G= G= 5.D 260 G= G= Y= 4.5 JY= 4.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Y= 4 Y= 4.5 1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.0 Lane GroupCa acit , Control Dela , and LDS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 365 138 456 199 203 170 40 205 35 455 Lane group capacity, c 469 493 596 292 307 261 97 489 104 491 v/c ratio, X 0.78 0.28 0.77 0.68 0.66 10.16 0.65 0.41 0.42 0.34 0.93 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.26 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.31 0.06 0.31 Uniform delay, 28.9 24.8 23.2 33.4 33.3 33.2 38.6 23.5 38.4 28.6 1 Progression actor, PF 1.040 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.33 0.11 0.32 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.11 0.11 10,11 0.44 Incremental delay, d2 8.1 0.3 5.9 6.4 5.2 5.7 2.8 0.6 1.9 23.8 Initial queue delay, ds Control delay 37.1 25.1 129.1 39.8 38.5 38.9 41.4 24.1 40.3 52.4 Lane group LOS D C C D D D D C D D Approach delay 31.6 39.1 26.9 51.5 C D C D file://C:1Docurnents%20and%20 SettingslAdrninistratorlLocal%20 SettingslTempls2k337.t... 3/19/2009 rage -) ul -1 Approach LOS Intersection delay 37.3 X = 0.89 Intersection LOS D HCS20001M Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4-1 e i file:/IC:1Documents%20and%20SettingslAdministratorlL.ocal%20SettingslTempls2k337.t... 3/19/2009 L V 4N11�V.L 1\v� Vl l r a8Q 1 v1 j HCS200DTM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst gr Intersection 1-405 NB Ramps/NE Agency or 44th St. Co. Area Type All other areas Date 3/99/2009 Jurisdiction WSDOT/Renton Performed Analysis �.� . 2011 - uv/hotEl - mit. Time Period pm peak Year Project ID Hawks`Landin Volume and Tim ng Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Number of lanes, N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 i Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 74 162 88 79 152 86 37 1280 174 56 23 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of ffective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3-0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 errand, Q Ped I Bike 1 RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking 1 Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 file:l/C:1Documents%20and%20SettingslAdministrator\Local%20Settings\Temp1s2k33 7.t... 3/19/2009 ragr' /- ui J Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping N B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru 03 04 Excl. Left T hru 07 08 RT RT Timing 10.0 6.0 G= G= G= 7.0 4.0 G= G= Y= 4.5 Y= 4.5 Y= Y= Y= 4.5 Y= 4.5 1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 75.0 Lane Grow Ca acit , Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 80 174 95 88 169 96 40 493 64 378 Lane group capacity, c 233 401 586 238 1401 586 165 562 167 518 v/c ratio, X 0.34 0.43 0.16 0.37 0.42 0.16 0.24 10.88 0.38 0.73 Total green ratio, g/C 0.13 0.21 0.37 0.13 0.21 0.37 0.09 10.32 0.09 0.32 Uniform delay, 29.5 25.6 16.0 29.6 25.5 16.0 31.5 24.1 32.0 22.6 1 Progression actor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 10.11 0.11 0.11 10-11 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.11 0.29 Incremental delay, d2 0.8 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.8 14.6 1.5 5.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 30.3 26.3 16.1 30.5 26.2 16.1 32.3 38.7 33.4 27.8 Lane group LOS C C B C C B C D C C Approach delay 24.5 24.6 38.3 28.6 C C D C file:HC:\Documents%20and%20SettingslAdministrator\Local%20 SettingslTemp1s2k337.t... 3119!2009 J-^,LQ11GL1 1%X;PV1 L rage j or j Approach LOS Intersection delay 30.0 XC = 0.60 Intersection LOS C HCS2000T"" Copyright 102000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. le file://C:1Documents%20and°1o20SettingslAdmiilistratorlLocal%20 S ettin2slTempls2k3 3 7.t... 3/19/2009 _ -.--t,.,... 1 arc i v.L HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst gr NE 44th St.11-405 SB Agency or Intersection Ramps Co. Date Area Type All other areas 311912009 Performed Jurisdiction WSDOT Time Period am peak Analysis Year 2011 - wlhotel - mit. Project ID Hawks` Landing Volume and Timing In ut EB WB NB SB LTj TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group T R L T LT R Volume, V (vph) 748 24 406 174 56 7 144 % Heavy vehicles, % HV 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.81 0.81 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q b Ped I Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking 1 Grade 1 Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 2 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, N. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for a 'o file://C:1Documents%20and%20SettingslAdministratorlLocal%20SettingslTernp1s2k19C.t... 3/19/2009 LG L[Li1GU .L\GF1iL rage GofG pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing 22.0 49.0 G r G 5.0 = G= G= Y= 4.5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 4.5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Ca a Lty, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, 912 29 461 198 70 178 Lane group capacity, c 922 784 463 1407 261 233 v/c ratio, X 0.99 10.04 1.00 0.14 .27 0.76 Total green ratio, !C 0.49 0.49 0.75 0.75 10,15 0.15 Uniform delay, di 25.2 13.2 32.9 3.4 37.6 40.8 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.49 0.11 0.50 0.11 10-11 0.32 Incremental delay, 2 26.9 0.0 40.6 0.0 0.6 14.0 Initial queue delay, 3 Control delay 52.1 13.3 73.5 3.4 38.2 54.8 Lane group LOS D B E A D D Approach delay 50.9 52.5 50.1 Approach LOS D D D Intersection delay 51.4 Xc = 0.94 Intersection LOS D Hcnoo01j"1 Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e file://C:1Documents%20and%20SettingslAdniinistratorlLocal%20Settint7slTemD\s2kl9C.t... 3/19/2009 ll�r L[L11�LL itl+�.lVLI. r abv i vi c HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT Genera! Information Site Information Analyst gr NE 44th St.11-405 S8 Agency or Intersection Ramps Co. Date Area Type All other areas 311912009 Performed Jurisdiction WSDOT Time Period pm peak Analysis Year 2011 - wihotel - mit. ; Project ID Hawks` Landing Volume and Timin Input EB WB NB SB LT1 TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lane group T R L T LT R Volume, V (vph) 185 50 220 345 133 3 304 % Heavy vehicles, % HV 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped 1 Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 2 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for file:IIC:lDocuments%20and%20SettingslAdministrator\Local%20Setti ngs\Templs2k l B6.t... 3119/2009 L----- . A\4J.JV1 L rage L or z pedestrians, G 3.2L 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EVIL Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing 8.0 3.0 G G= 250 G= G= G= Y= 4.5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 4.5 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 80.0 Lane Group Ca a ity, Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, 220 60 229 359 140 313 Lane group capacity, c 541 1460 688 1070 560 500 v/c ratio, X 0.41 10.13 0.33 0.34 0.25 0.63 Total green ratio, IC 0.29 0.29 0.57 0.57 0.31 0.31 Uniform delay, di 23.0 21.1 9.0 9.2 20.5 23.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.21 Incremental delay, 2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.5 Initial queue delay, 3 Control delay 23.5 121.2 9.3 9.4 20.7 26.0 Lane group LOS C C A A C C Approach delay 23.0 9.4 24.4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection delay 17.4 X = 0.54 c Intersection LOS B HCS2000 M Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e file :ll C:1Documents%20and%2OSe#tings\Adrninistrator\Local%24Settings\Ternpls2k 1 B6.t... 3/19/2009 A I'M- TAu.y "L%Jp k.VALUMI TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst r Agency/Co. Date Performed 03/11/09 [Analysis Time Period jam peak rage I M L Intersection Seahawks Wa /LWB Jurisdiction City of Renton Analysis Year 2011 - w/hotel com onent - mit Project Description Hawks'Landing East/VVest Street: Lake Wash. Blvd/NE 44th North/South Street: Seahawks Way Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 18 732 0 0 258 67 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 20 851 Q 0 339 88 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median e Two Way Leff Turn Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR 'Upstream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 5 33 0 6 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 0 0 10 47 0 8 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHS 0 0 0 11 11 11 Percent grade (%) 2 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Configuration I LTR I I LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service file://C:1Documents%2Oand%2OSettings\Administr,utorl1,ocal°/`2OSettings\Temp\u2kl13b.t.., 4/2/2009 I WU- YY dy OLVP ' -Vliu Vl rage ,-, or z - roach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 20 0 10 55 Capacity, cm (vph) 1138 792 363 263 /c ratio 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.21 Queue length 95% 0.05 a.0a 0.08 0.77 Control Delay s/veh 8.2 9.5 15.2 22.3 LOS A A C C Approach delay slveh -- -- 75.2 22.3 roach LOS -- -- C C HCS200OTM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file://C:1Documents%20and%20 Settings' Administrator\Local%20 Settinp-slTemplu2k.113 b.t... 4/2/2009 Trak Counts RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 01A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.corn (360)491-8116 Groups Printed- Primary File Name : GRT05501A Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 1 1-445 NB ONIOFF RAMPS NE 44TH ST 1-405 NB ONIOFF RAMPS NE 44TH ST From North From East From South From West , Start Time Right Thru Left - Truck App. row Right -, Thru - Left Truck App, mw Right Thru ! Left ', Truck App, 7-n Right Thru Left Truck App. Todl Eadu Total 1 07:00 AM 87 7 4 2 98 SO 54 18 0 82 25 25 4 0 54 I'I 49 22 54 3 125 5� 359 364 07.15 AM 91 3 6 2 100 34 31 34 3 99 28 19 1 5 48 105 22 77 5 204 15 451 466 07:30 AM 101 8 8 0 117 49 47 40 3 136 20 22 2 2 44 102 35 77 4 214 9 511 520 07:46 AM 81 5 9 5 95 38 40 51 2 129 20 25 6 4 51 78 24 72 5 174 16 449 465 Total 360 23 27 9 410 131 1 72 143 8 446 93 91 13 11 197, 334 1 03 280 17 717 45 1.770 1815 0&NAM 71 11 6 1 88 19 47 39 0 105 23 28 1 9 52 - 66 27 55 4 148 14 393 407 08:15 AM 74 7 9 3 90 : 22 39 40 6 101 21 48 3 6 72 63 33 63 4 159 19 422 441 08:30 AM 92 10 10 3 112 16 44 40 4 100 36 27 4 6 67 54 30 54 3 138 16 417 433 08:45 AM 75 7 30 2 921 10 29 36 5 75 25 27 4 3 56 45 22 40 7 107 17 330 347 Total. 312 35 35 9 382 1 67 159 155 15 381, 105 130 12 24 247 ; 228 _ 112 212 18 552 66 1562 1628 Grand Total 672 58 62 18 792 198 331 298 23 827 198 221 25 35 444 562 215 492 35 1269 - 111 3332 3443 Apprch % 84.8 7.3 7.8 23.9 40 36 44.6 49.8 5.6 44.3 16.9 38.8 Total % 20.2 1.7 1.9 23.8 5.9 9.9 8.9 24.8 5.9 6.6 0.8 13.3 16.9 6.5 14.8 38.1 3.2 96.8 1-405 NB ONIOFF RAMPS NE 44TH ST ! 1-405 NB ONIOFF RAMPS NE 44TH ST From North From East From South From West Start Time Right -----'-----'-- Thru Left R3 h[ ,. Thru Left --. Right g _._-- Thru i Left ', ------- opal i--------�--- Right Thru Lek Tatal Int. Total J Total Total Peak Hour Analysls From 07:- AM 00 to 08:45 AM - Peaklofl --- - ---------- �------- Peak Hour for Entire Ente=-ctlon Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM : 91 3 6 100 34 31 34 99 28 19 1 48 105 22 77 204 451 07:30 AM 101 8 8 117 49 47 40 136 20 22 2 44 102 35 77 214 511 07:45AM 81 5 9 95 38 40 51 129 20 25 8 51 78 24 72 174 449 08:00 AM 71 11 6 88 19 47 39 105 23 28 1 52 66 27... 55 148 393 Tot"olume; 344 27 29 400 140 _ 165 _ 164 469: 91 94 _ i0 _ 195 351 _ 108 281 _ _ 740 _ _ _ 1804 % App. Total 86 6.8 7.2 29.9 35.2 35 46.7 48.2 5.1 47.4 14.6 38 PR : _ _ _ _ --51 ____ _ .614 .806 _--_ .855 .714 -- - .87$ -4 _. .804 .._. .. ...------------- .662 613 .839 -...------ .417 .938 836 .771 .912 .864 .883 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:00 AM 07:30 AM 08:00 AM 1. 07:15 AM +0 mins. 87 7 4 98 : 49 47 40 136 23 28 1 52 105 22 77 204 +15 mins. 91 3 6 100 38 40 51 129 21 48 3 72 : 102 35 77 214 +30 mins.', 101 B 8 117: 19 47 39 105 ''i 36 27 4 67 78 24 72 174 +45 mins. 81 5 9 95 22 39 40 101 25 27 4 56 . 66 27 55 7.48 Total Volume 360 23 27 410 128 173 170 471 ;. 105 130 12 247'i 351 108 281 740 % App, Total 87.8 5.6 6.6 - 27.2 36.7 36.1 42.5 52.6 4.9 47.4 14.6 38 PHF .891 .719 .750 .876 .653 .920 .833 .866 ' - .729 - .677 - _- - 75p --- 858 - l - 836 - _ .771 .912 .864 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 01A GRT09040M TFAFFICQUNT, INC. P.O. Box 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05501A Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/2412009 Page No :2 1-405 NB ONIOFF RAMPS NE 44TH ST I -0a5 NB DNIOFF RAMPS—- 44TH ST — From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App' RightThru I Left App Right ' Thru :Left App' Int. Total Total Total _ Total Total Peak Haur Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of J. Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM : 91 3 6 100 34 31 34 99 28 i9 1 46 105 22 77 204; 451 07:30 AM 101 8 8 117 49 47 40 136 20 22 2 44 102 35 77 214 511 07:45 AM 81 5 9 95 : 38 40 51 129 20 25 6 51. 78 24 72 174 449 08:00 AM 71 11 6 88 19 47 39 105. 23 28 1 52 66 27 55 148 393 Total Volume 344 27 29 400 140 165 164 469 91 94 10 195 351 108 28i 740 1804 %App. Total 86 _ 6.8 7.2 29.9 35.2 35 46.7 48,2 5.1 1-405 NB N7 FRAM 47.4 .14.6 38 PHF 851 .614 .806 .855 .714 .878 _ _ ,804 .862 .613 .839 .417 .938 .836 .771 .912 .864 .883 1-405 NB KAMFI�i Out In Total ;-5-15- 400 915'. T - - — 344L_ 27� _24 Right Thru Left Peak Hour Data 75 p - rN North _.. $'i m. _ Peak Hour 9egF at 07:15 AM Cni m Primes -Cn O 4, 1 --k Left Thru _Right l__710i 941 91 542 1951 7371 Out In Total 1-405 NB N7 FRAM RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 01 P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. Box 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficourlt@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05501 P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Primary 4Q5 NB ONlOFF RAMPS NE 44TH St - 1-4 05 N CONIOFF RAMPS NE 44TH ST From North From East From South From West Slart Time Right Thru Left ,Truck Apo.Tnr. Right Thru Left Truck APP loe., ;Right i7tm Lek T -. Truck er Right Thru Lek Truck AM. TOW anI.TMI mm- .w ' inv rues i 04:00 PM 84 4 7 2 95 12 39 8 2 59 32 71 0 4 103 21 26 20 0 67 8 324 332 04:15 PM 90 2 14 2 106 6 32 18 4 56 40 57 0 1 97 15 35 18 2 68 9 327 336 04:30 PM 100 6 14 2 120 13 37 20 2 70 31 53 5 1 89 15 32 12 1 59 6 338 344 04:45 PM 83 5._ -,.10--- 0- 98 ,-_.---7 37 11 0 55 32 58 5 1 95 10 52 12 1 74 2 322 324 Total! 357 17 45 6 419 ' 38 145 57 840 135 239 i0 7 384 61 145 62 4 266' 25 1311 1336 05:00 PM 65 7 12 3 84 20 42 17 1 79 45 63 3 1 111, 20 42 13 0 75 5 349 354 05:15 PM 84 7 12 0 103 23 35 25 2 83, 36 57 3 1 96 16 37 18 1 71 4 353 357 05:30 PM 72 6 12 1 90 19 34 24 1 77 43 73 2 1 118 15 35 21 2 71 5 356 361 05:45 PM 66 2 18 0 86 21 27 - 10 0 58 43 76 2 5 121 16 30 15_ 0 61 5 326 331 Total 287 22 54 4 363 $3 138 76 4 297 _ 1fi7 269 10 ---t3--446 67---144--- 67 3 278 19 136a14-0 Grand Total 644 39 99 10 782 121 283 133 12 537 302 508 20 15 830 128 289 129 7 546 1 44 2695 2739 Apprch % . 82.4 5 12.7 22.5 52.7 24.8 36.4 61.2 2.4 23.4 52.9 23.6 Total % 23.9 1,4 3.7 29 • 4.5 10.5 4.9 19.9 11.2 18.8 0.7 30.8 4.7 10.7 4.8 20.3 . 1.6 98.4 1445 NB ONIOFF RAMPS'' NE 44TH ST - � 1-405 NB ONlOFF RAMPS _NE 44TH ST From North From East From South From West Start Time RI ht Thru Left Pp' Right Thru Loft _ _ App.t Right Thru Left App. Right Thru - Lett - APP Int. Total Total Total Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 pM to 0 5: 45 PM - Peak 1 of i Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 65 7 12 84 20 42 17 79 45 63 3 111 20 42 13 75 349 05:15 PM B4 7 12 103 23 35 25 83 : 36 57 3 961 16 37 18 71 353 05:30 PM 72 6 12 90 19 34 24 77 43 73 2 118 15 35 21 71 356 --05:45 PM 66 2 19 86 21 27 10 58 43 76 2 121 16 30 15 61 326 Volume _ 287 22 � 138 167 269 10 446 - Ti 144 67 278 1384 % A App. Total 79.1 6.1 149 _ - 27.9-,W. 46.5 37.4 60.3 2.2 24.1 51.8 24.1 .854 .786 T 0 881 902 .821 _25.6 ,760- _ _Y895 .928 .885 .833 - ---- -,_ - .921 -.,--- .838 .857 --i-_-._ .798 .927 .972 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 04.45 PM +0 mins. 64 4 7 95 20 42 17 79 45 63 3 111 1.0 52 12 74 +15 mins.) 90 2 14 106 23 35 25 83 36 57 3 96 20 42 13 75 +30 mins.; 100 6 14 120 19 34 24 77 43 73 2 118 16 37 18 71 +45 76 2 121 15 35 21 71 Total Volume 357 17 45 419: 83 138 76 297 43 167 269 10 446 61 166 64 291 % App. Total 85.2 4.1 10.7 _. -- 27.9 46.5 25.6 37.4 60.3 2.2 21 57 22 PHF -_ _____ � .804 .893 .708.804---- .____ .. _ __--_ 873 .902 .825 -- _ ,760 -- ---- .895 ; .928 885 .833 - .921 '�. .763 .798 _ .762 _ _ _ .970 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 NB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 01P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05501 P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No :2 1-405 NB ONIOFF RAMPS 1405 NB UNIU-1- KAVIK; In Total NE 44TH ST 1-405 NB ON10FF RAMPS - - NE 4dTW 5T From North 287 22' $4. From East Right Thru Left From South From West Start Time. Right I Thru Left 1 ApP. Right Thru Left App, Right Thru Left -App Right - Thru Left App. Int. Total i Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 NoRh T m — Total Total vi c e 2 L ► Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Total — _- Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM rl O r Q,io Ni— 05:00 PM 65 7 12 64 20 42 17 79 45 63 3 111 20 42 13 75 349 05:15 PM 84 7 12 103 23 35 25 83 36 57 3 96 16 37 18 71 353 05:30 PM 72 6 12 90 19 34 24 77 43 73 2 1181 15 35 21 71 356 05:45 PM 66 2 18 86 21 27 10 5S '', 43 76 2 121 16 30 15 61 326 Total Volume 287 22 54 363 ! 83 138 76 297 167 269 10 _ 4466 _ 67 144 67 278 1384 % App. Total 79.1 6.1 14.9 27.9 46.5 25.6 37.4 60.3 2.2 24.1 51.8 24.1 _.- — PHF .85a .786 .750 .681. — .902 - .821 ---- . .760 ......._ ._,._.._ .895: - .— .928 .885 .833 .921 .838 -- .857 -- .798 _ - - _�-- .927 - - --- .972 1405 NB UNIU-1- KAVIK; In Total _Out 419, I 3631 782, 287 22' $4. Right Thru Left j Peak Hour Data o�n A O f NoRh T m — vi c e 2 L ► Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM — _- rl O r Q,io Ni— Thru Right _Left 10, 269 167' --'T65,. 446 611: Out In Total I-405 NB ONIOFF RAMPS RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. Box 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05502A Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 1 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM • Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:30 AM 07:00 AM Groups_ Printed- Primary 07:00 AM 0715 AM----_--- 105 SB OFF RAMP 37 NE 44TH ST 50 0 1-405 SB ON RAMP 104 NE 44TH ST 0 0 0 I 1 187 From North 188 From East 33 1 From South 53 0 22 From West 126 D 0 0 t( $taTime Right Thru ' Left Truck - Avv. Twi Right Thru Left Truck Avv. T.W __. Right Thru Left ! Truck App Tam Right Thru Left _ Truck Aov. Tom e.�,�-mr� � : raw int. Total 07:00 AM 14 0 11 0 25 0 18 104 1 122 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 133 0 4 133 5 280 285 07:15 AMI 33 0 i1 4 44 0 22 104 3 126 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 187 0 3 188 10 358 368 07:30 AM 37 0 13 1 50 0 47 101 1 148 0 0 0 0 0 i 3 201 0 3 204 5 402 407 _ 07:45 AM ; 33 ---- 1 19 1 53 — - - --- 0 ..- 46 81 S 127 0 0 0 0 0 i 1 144 0 0 145 ' 6 325 331 Total 117 1 54 6 172 0 133 3 10 -9p 523 0 0 0 4 0 S 665 0 10 - 670 — 26 1365 1391 08:00 AM 22 0 15 1 37 , 0 IS 91 1 109 0 0 0 0 0 2 132 0 3 134 ! 5 280 285 08:15 AM 26 0 23 1 49 - 0 27 101 4 128 0 0 0 0 0 4 134 0 3 138 8 315 323 08:30 AM 16 0 14 2 30 : 0 30 113 11 143 0 0 0 0 0 1 124 0 2 125 15 298 313 08:45AM 10 1 16 1 27 0 _ _15 82 3 97 0 0 0 0 0 4 89 0 3 93 7 217 224 Tatal74 1 68 5 143 ! 0 90 387 19 477 j 0 0 0 0 0 11 479 0 it 490 35 1110 1145 Grand Total 191 2 122 11 315 0 223 777 29 1000 ' 0 0 0 0 0 16 1144 0 21 1160 ! 61 2475 2536 Apprch % 60.6 0.6 38.7 0 22.3 77.7 0 0 0 1.4 98.6 0 Total % . 7.7 0.1 4,9 12.7 0 9 31.4 40.4: 0 0 0 0 0.6 46.2 0 46.9: 2.4 97.6 I-405 SB OFF RAMP _._._ -...- hh 44TH ST -�I ON RAMP - -�--- - NE 44TH ST 405 S8 From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left App' ! Right Thru ' Left App'' Right Thru, Left App' : Right - Thru T Left _ App' ! Int. Total _Total ...^--- -`-----.....-.I —_-_- Total Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak i of i ---_ Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 14 0 it 25 0 18 104 122 0 0 0 0 0 133 0 133 280 07:15 AM ! 33 0 - 11 44 0 22 104 126 0 0 0 0 1 187 0 188. 358 07:30 AM - 37 0 13 50 0 47 101 148 0 0 0 0 ; 3 201 0 204 402 _07:45A111 33 1 _ _ 19 53 - 0. _ 46 81 127 0 0 0 01 144 0 145 325 Total Volume 117 1 54 172 0 133 390 523 0 0 0 0 5 666 0 670 - 1365 % App. Total 68 0.6 31.4 - - 0 25.4 74.6 0 0 0 ! 0.7 99.3 0 PHF .791 .250 .711 B11 1 .000 .707 .938 883 .000 .000 .000 .000 .417 .827 .000 .821 .849 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM • Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:30 AM 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 0715 AM----_--- -- - +0 mins. 37 0 13 50 0 18 104 122 0 0 0 0 I 1 187 0 188 +15 mins. 33 1 19 53 0 22 104 126 D 0 0 0 3 201 0 204 +30 mins. 22 0 15 37 0 47 101 148 0 0 0 0 1 144 0 145 +45 mins.0 - 26 - - 0 -- 23 ---0 49 0 46 81 127 ;_ 0 0 D 0 2 132 0 134 Total Volume 118 1 7 189 0 133 - - 39Q 3 52 -- 0- - 0 0 — 7 _ ._�664 4--- Q- -- 671 % App. Total - 62.4 0.5 37 0 25.4 74.6 - 0 1 99 0 PHF ,797 .250 .761 .892 ,000 .707 .938 .883 .000 _0_ .000 _0 .000 .000 1 .583 .626 .000 .822 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. Box 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05502A Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 2 1-405 M OFF RAMP -� –NE 44TH ST - - 0 172' 172 !-405 SB ON RAMP — NE 44TH ST _.._ -- -RightI _From North - .'_.' --� -- From East - I 4J �► r From South Peak Hour Data From West _p SINIrr StartTime-^RightThru I . Fhru : Left APP Total Left � Right Tr-----ApR Thru Left - - -- Right �� Thru : Left APP - Int. Total _ - - — - _—. Total I Total Total Peak NoterAnaiysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM -Peak 1 of 1 . - _ ... - - —-...... _ --- Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 01- --0 —ift 0 396' Qut In Total 07:00 AM 14 0 11 25 0 16 104 122 0 0 D 0- 0 133 0 133 280 07:15AM 33 0 11 44 0 22 104 126 0 0 0 0 . 1 187 0 188 358 07:30 AM 37 0 13 50 0 47 101 148 0 0 0 0 - 3 201 0 204 402 07-45 AM 33 1 19 _ _53 : _ 0_ 46 81 127 0 0 0 0 2 144 0 145. 325 Total Volume 117 1 54 172 ! 0 _ _ 133 390 523 0 0 0 0 5 665 0 670 1365 % App. Total ! 68 0.6 _ 31.4 0 25.4 74,6 0 0 0.7 39.3 0 PHF .791 .250 .711 .611 .000 ,707 :938 :883_ .000 _0 .000 .000 _ .000 j .417 .827 .400 ,621 .849 705 5B LFF RAMP Out In Total - 0 172' 172 -541 - Right Thru Left) I 4J �► r Peak Hour Data _p SINIrr t 10 North 'Peak Haur Begins at 07:00 AM--- �- I Er ary A 47 _1 Left Thru R 01- --0 —ift 0 396' Qut In Total 1-405 56 CN RAMP RENTON, WASHINGTON I-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 tragicount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05502P Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page NO : 1 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 1.405 SB OFF RAMP NE 44TH ST 04:00 PM - 1445 58 ON RAMP -- - - NE 44TH ST Groups Printed- Prim__ary_. 04:30 PM From North _.__....._ ..... , 1 From South 99 0 From 1-405 SB OFF RAMP 125 NE 44TH ST App Right 1-405 SB ON RAMP App Right NE 44TH ST App Right Thru Left App' Int. Total From North 0 Total From East 32 Total From South +30 mins. 60 From West 34 94 0 Total Start Time Right Thru Left Truck App. Tobi Right ! Thru Left Truck Ate, rami ' Right +45 mins. Thru Left Truck Ago. ret. Right Thru Left Track ? 4ppj7 ,j r T n , rn.. int. Total 04:00 PM ' 65 3 26 0 94V 0 65 60 1 125 0 0 0 0 0 7 33 0 0 40 1 259 260 04:15 PM 67 0 30 0 97 0 74 52 2 126 0 0 0 0 0 5 35 0 1 40 3 263 266 04:30 PM 63 1 27 0 91 0 74 54 0 126 0 0 0 0 0 7 32 0 0 39 0 258 258 04:45 PM 67 1 32 0 100 0 77 63 1 130 0 0 0 0 0 7 321 %App. Total 0 40 1 270 271 Total 262 5 115 0 362 0 290 219 4 509 0 0 0 0 D: 2fi 132 1 4 1 159 ., - y 1050 _ 1055 05:00 PM 59 1 39 0 99 0 62 52 2 114 0 0 0 0 0 5 45 ❑ 0 50 2 263 265 05:15 PM 59 2 30 1 91 0 60 55 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 7 42 0 0 49� 1 255 256 05:30 PM 60 0 34 1 94 0 55 51 3 106 0 0 0 0 0 5 26 0 ❑ 33 4 233 237 0545 PM 72 0 43 0 115 0 46 55 0 101 0 0 0 0 5 38 0 1 43 1 259 260 Total 250 3 146 2 399 '�, 0 223 213 5 _ _ _ 436 ',- 0 0 - 0 _0 _ 0 0 - _ _ 22 153 0 1 175 1 B 1010 1018 Grand Total 512 B 261 2 781 - 0 513 432 9 945, 0 0 0 0 0 48 285 1 2 334: 13 2060 2073 Apprch % 65.6 1 33.4 0 54.3 45.7 0 0 0 14.4 85.3 0.3 Total % 24.9 0.4 12.7 37.9 ; 0 24.9 21 45.9 0 0 0 0 2.3 13.8 0 16.2 0.6 99.4 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 1.405 SB OFF RAMP NE 44TH ST 04:00 PM - 1445 58 ON RAMP -- - - NE 44TH ST 04:30 PM From North From East 59 1 From South 99 0 From West 125 0 Start Time Right Thru Left App Right Thru Left App Right Thru Left App Right Thru Left App' Int. Total 0 0 Total 0 7 32 Total 40 +30 mins. 60 Total 34 94 0 Total 54 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 0 0 0 5 45 0 50 +45 mins. 72 0 43 115 _ 077 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 130 0 0 0 0 7 42 0 49 Total Volume 250 3 146 399 04:15 PM 67 0 30 97 0 74 52 126 0 0 0 0 5 35 0 40 263 04:30 PM 63 1 27 91 0 74 54 129 0 0 0 0 7 32 0 39 258 04:45 PM 67 1 32 100 0 77 53 13o - 0 0 0 0 1 7 32 1 40 270 05:00 PM - 59 1 39 99 1 0 62 52 114: 0 0 0 0 5 46 0 50 253 - - Total Volume _..--.._�-_.._... 256 3 128 3B7 0 297 211 498 0 0 0 0 24 144 1 169 A05a %App. Total 66.1 0.6 33.1 0 57.6 42.4 0 0 0 14.2 85.2 0.6 PHF - --__- _ .955 --_.. --- .750 .821 -- _ .968 : � .000 Y .932- .977 ,958 ! - .000 T _ - .000 --- .000 .000 ' .857 .800 _ Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 05:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:30 PM +0 mins. 59 1 39 99 0 65 60 125 0 0 0 0 ''. 7 32 0 39 +15 mins. 59 2 30 91 0 74 52 126 0 0 0 0 7 32 1 40 +30 mins. 60 0 34 94 0 74 54 128. 0 0 0 0 5 45 0 50 +45 mins. 72 0 43 115 _ 077 53 130 0 0 0 0 7 42 0 49 Total Volume 250 3 146 399 0 290 219 509 ' 0 0 0 0 � 26 151 1 17B %App, Total _52.7_ _ 0.8 36.6 0 57 43 0 0 0 14.6 0.6 .668 .375 ,649 .867 _ .000 ,942 .913 .979 ; .000 .000 .040 .000 .929 _84.8 .639 .250 .890 RENTON, WASHINGTON I-405 SB RAMPS NE 44TH ST LOC# 02P GRT09040M TRAFFCOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05502P Site Cade : 00000002 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page Na : 2 1 405 5B OFF RAMP NE 44TH ST —_.._ 1-405 SB ON kAMP.._..__ ....__ _ . _...__ 14 44TH 5T Right Thru Left From North From East From South ice. From West Start Time ht: I Rf ht Thru Left Mg APP Right I Thru Left APP Right : i Thru Left APP -- - Right Thru Left - APP Int. Total �i 1 _ Total' — J - Total Total Left Thfu _ Rift Total j Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak i of 1 2381 10 ! 23B Out In Total 1-405 SB CN RAMP Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04;15 PM 04:15 PM 67 0 30 97 0 74 52 126 0 0 0 0 ' 5 35 0 40 263 04:30 PM 63 1 27 91 0 74 54 128 0 0 0 0 7 32 0 39 258 04:45 PM 67 1 32 100 0 77 53 130 0 0 0 0 7 32 1 40 270 05,00 PM 59 1 39 99 0 62 52 114 ' 0 0 0 0 545 0 50 263 Total volume 256 3 128 387 0 267 211 498 i 0 0 0 0 24 144 1 169 1064 %App. Total 66.1 0.8 33.1 0 57.6 42.4 j 0 0 0 14.2 $5.2 0.6 PHF . .955 .750 .821 .968 000 .932 .977 .958 j .000 _ .000 .000 .000 .857 .800 .250 .845 976 1-405 Sd Url- RAMI -1 Out in Total 1 i 37' _ 3881 I J 2661 - 3 128'• Right Thru Left 1� -1 Peak Hoerr Data ice. North cl fl ► � atI Peak Hour Be ns 04: 15 PM 9 a VI w �: L �[+l NI01 PrimaR h �i 1 — J lois Left Thfu _ Rift 0. 0 0. 2381 10 ! 23B Out In Total 1-405 SB CN RAMP RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOC# 03A GRT09040M TRAFFICO NT, INC. F.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 Groups Printed- Primary File Name : GRT05503A Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 1 SEAHAWKS WAY INE LAKE WASHINGTON 44TH ST DRIVEWAY (RIPLEY LNC BLVD From East From South From North From West ' Start Time Rf ht _ g Thru Left Truck - dac. tome . Right Thru - Left ,Truck - ' BPP. r.ni _ ht Thru Right Thru - Left � Truck � . 7mP. teed '. - Right ---- Thru �-? _ Left ' Truck I Aaa- r.�.� I' eaau ,mm i ma. rma Int. retai ' 07:00 AM - 1 0 3 0 4 6 25 1 0 32 2 0 0 2 2 0 127 2 2 129 4 167 171 07:15 AM 0 0 5 1 5 11 45 1 1 57 1 0 0 0 1 1 182 4 3 187 , 5 250 255 07:30 AM 0 0 10 1 10 12 74 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0: 0 189 2 4 191 5 267 292 07:45 AM 2 1 5 1 $ 19 53 3 2 75 1 0 0 0 1 0 146 7 1 153 :_ 4 237 241 Total 3 1 23 3 27 48 197 5 3 250 4 0 0 2 4 1 644 15 _ 10 660 18 941 9$9 08:00 AM 1 0 12 1 13 22 20 0 0 42 0 ❑ 0 0 0 2 119 2 1 123 2 178 180 08:15 AM 1 0 15 1 16 22 30 0 0 52 1 0 0 0 1 I', 0 123 3 2 126 3 195 198 08:30 AM 1 0 5 0 6 13 31 1 7 45 1 0 0 0 1 0 129 4 3 133 10 185 195 48:45 AM 3- 0 7 2 10 - --- 9 17 0 2 26 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 4 4 86 8 122 Total � 6 --- 0 39 4 45 � - -----._.. 66 98 - 1 9 165 - 2 0 0 0 _ ....-----453 2 � 2 4S3 13 13 - - 10 46$ 23 664 _ _130 703 Grand Totai 9 1 62 7 72 114 295 6 12 415 6 0 0 2 6 3 1097 28 20 1128 41 1621 1662 Apprch % 12.5 1.4 86.1 27.5 71.1 1-4 100 0 0 0.3 97.3 2.5 Total % 0.6 0.1 3.8 4.4 7 18.2 0.4 25.6 0.4 0 0 0.4 0.2 67.7 1.7 G9.6 2.5 97.5 SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LN) NE 44TH ST DRIVEWAY LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD From East From South From West From North Start Time Right : Thru Left App.', Right Thru Lett App. ! Right .._. Thru Left APP• Right Thru Lett App. Ink, Total Total : i Total Total Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 0 0 5 5 11 45 1 57 1 0 0 1 1 182 4 187 250 07:30 AM 0 0 10 10 12 74 0 86 0 0 0 0 - 0 189 2 191 287 07:45 AM 2 1 5 8 19 53 3 75 1 0 0 1 0 146 7 153 237 0$:00 AM � - 1 - 0 12 13 22 20 0 42 '' 0 0 00 2 119 2 123 178 Total Volume 3 1 32 36 64 142 4 260 , 2 0 0 2 3 635 15 654 452 ...._.__ % App. Total 8.3 2.8 88.9 24.6 73.8 1.5 I 100 0 0 0.5 97.2 2.3 PHF .375 .250 ,667 .692 .727 .644 .333 .756 ' .504 .000 .000 .500 .375 .841 .536 .S56 .829 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: : 07-30 AM :07:15 AM 07;00 AM 07:00 AM *0 mins.1 0 0 10 10 11 45 1 57 2 0 0 2 0 127 2 129 +15 mins. 2 1 5 8 12 74 0 Be 1 0 0 1 1 182 a 187 +30 mins. 1 0 12 13 19 53 3 75 0 0 0 0 0 189 2 191 +45 mins.- _1, 0. 15_- -_ ----_16 ---_ -22 20 0 42 1 0_ 1 0 146 7 153 Total Volume 4 1 42 47 64 192 4 260 4 0 _ _0 0 4 1 644 15 660 '. - % App. Total 8.5 2.1 89.4 24.6 73.8 1.5 100 0 0 0.2 97.6 2.3 PHF .500 .250 .700 .734 ', .727 .649 .333 .756 i .500 .000 ,000 .500 ' .250 .852 .536 .864 RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOC# 03A GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 traf#icount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05503A Site Code :00000003 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 2 SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY ,9EA?1AVVK6 WAY (RIPLEY L Out In Total 79; 361 L-1151: i LN) �3' 1 32: NE 44TH ST DRIVEWAY LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD From North From East Peak Hour Data From South o, m: From West _ Start Time Right PP g A— Right Thru Left APF Right g Thru --.- Left A pp. -- - - i..--., Right Thru Left - -- Abp' _ Int. Tota! - _ Total 00 t -! i Peak Hour Begins at 4715 AM Total — ~ Total I •a� Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07: AM to 08:45 AM - Peak.1 of '0= •"•IIAI -� Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07,15 AM Left Thru Right -- -o --a,— z 07:15 AM : 0 0 5 5 11 45 1 57 _ J. 0 0 1 J. 182 4 187 256 07:30 AM 0 0 10 10 12 74 0 BB 0 0 0 0 0 189 2 191. 287 07:45 AM 2 J. 5 8 19 53 3 75 1 0 0 J. 0 146 7 153 237 09.0DAM ---- - - 1 0 12 13 ------- -W -�. 22 - 20 42 -_ 0 0 0 0 2 119 2 123 178_ Total Volume 3 1 32 36 �. 64 192 _0 4 264 � 2 0 —....._. 0 - 2 ' - -- 3 -__ 636 - 15 654 --- 952 _ % App. Total 8.3 2.8 88.9 ...._ ..__ 24.6 - 73.8 i.5 100 c 6 0.5 97.2 2.3 PHF ,375 _ . - .250 667 692 _727 .649 .333 .756 .500 - .600 _ .000 .500 .375 .841 -- ---- .536 .BS6 82 -- .829 ,9EA?1AVVK6 WAY (RIPLEY L Out In Total 79; 361 L-1151: i �3' 1 32: Right Thru Left Peak Hour Data o, m: x3.._ :J North 'SILO'- t -! i Peak Hour Begins at 4715 AM — ~ c n1Oi I •a� '0= •"•IIAI -� Left Thru Right -- -o --a,— z — 8 -110 Out In Total DRIVEWAY RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOC# 03P GRT09040M TRAFFICOVNT, INC. P.Q. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 Groups Printed- Primary File Name : GRT05503P Site Code ; 00000003 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 1 SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LN) From North NE 44TH ST From East DRIVEWAY From South LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD From West Tlme Right Thru Truck I AnP tura Right �Thwj Left Truck APP. room i Right Thru Left i1 Truck APP-T.t.i Right 7hru �I Left I Truck APP. T,he e.w* v .a,.rur MI. 7otai -$tart 04:DO PM 0 -Left D 8 0 8 7 127 4 1 N 136 ~ 3 0 0 0 3 0 33 D D 33 1' 160 181 04:15 PM 0 0 6 0 6 9 135 0 1 144 1 D 1 0 2 0 33 1 1 34 ! 2 186 18$ 04:30 PM 3 0 5 1 8 13 126 1 1 140 2 0 0 0 2 F 0 33 1 0 34 2 164 186 04:46 PM 1 0 12 0 13 10 131 0 j 0 D D 0 0 0 26 2 0 28 0 182 182 _ _ _ Total 4 _ _ _ 0 31 1 35 1 39 519 _0 3 3_ _ _ _14_1 561 1 _ 6 _ _ 0 1- 0 7� 0 125 4 3 129 '�, 5 732 737 05:00 PM 8 0 20 1 28 4 115 0 2 119 3 0 0 0 3 0 28 1 0 29 3 179 182 05:15 PM 4 0 10 0 14 6 111 0 0 117 1 0 0 1 1- 1 37 1 0 39 1 171 172 05:30 PM 3 0 15 1 i8 5 109 0 2 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 16 j 3 146 151 05:45 PMI 2 1 13 0 16 5 114 0 0 119 o 1 0 0 1. 0 29 3 1 32 ! 1 168 - 169 ... -� � 7ota117 ---- 5i---2 -T6-- 1 58 2 76 20 449 0 4 469 � ..-. 4 _...__._ . 1 0 _ _.._ 1 5 - 1 109 - ---- 6 1 -- 116 i --- 8 fi66 674 Grand Total 21 1 89 3 111 - 59 968 3 7 1.030 10 1 1 1 12 1 234 10 2 245 13 1.398 1411 Apprch % 18.9 0.9 80.2 5.7 94 0.3 83.3 8.3 8-3 0.4 95-5 4.1 Total % 1.5 0.1 6.4 7.9 4.2 69.2 0.2 73.7 0.7 O.J. 0.1 0.9 0.1 16.7 0.7 17.5 0.9 99.1 SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY - - - i BLVD LN) NE 44TH $T DRIVEWAY LAKE WASHINGTON From East From South From West From North _.. App. - --- APP- App App - Start Time Right Thru ., Left :_. Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left , Total Right. Thru Left Int. Total _ Peak Hour Anal sis From 04:00 PM to -- Peak y 05:45 PM -Peak 1-�-__-. 1 of 1 _Tota_! Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 0400 PM 0 0 8 V 7 127 2 136 3 0 0 3 0 33 0 33 180 04:15 PM 0 0 6 6: 9 135 0 144 1 0 1 2 0 33 1 34 186 04:30 PM 3 0 5 8 `, 13 126 1 140 2 0 0 2 0 33 1 34 184 04:45 PM 1 0 12 13 SO 131 0 141 0 0 0 0 : 0 26 2 28 182 Total Vatume 4 0 31 35 i 39 519 3 561 6 0 1 7 0 125 A 129 , 732 %App. Total 1 11.4 0 88.6 7 92.5 0.5 85.7 0 14.3 0 96.9 PHF� - ----- ... _ _ . .333 .000 .646 673 3 .750 .961 .375 .974 ' .500 .000 .250 .583 .000 .947 ---3.1 .500 .949 9$4 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for 80th Approach Begins at: 05:00 PM ' 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:30 PM +0 mins. 8 0 20 28 i 7 127 2 136: 3 0 0 30 33 1 34 +i5 mins.. 4 0 10 14 9 135 0 144 1 0 1 2 0 26 2 28 +30 mins.: 3 0 15 18 13 126 1 140 2 0 0 2 0 26 1 29 +45 mins. 2 1 13 16 10 131 0 141: 0 0 0 0 1 37 1 39 Total Volume 17 1 56 76 39 519 3 561 6 0 1 7 1 120 5 130 %App. Total 22.4 1.3 76.3 7 92.5 0.5 86.7 D 14.3 0.8 95.4 3.8 PHF i .531 .250 ,725 .679 .750 - .961 - .375 -- .974--j- .500 .000 .250 .583 .250 838 .625 _ .833 RENTON, WASHINGTON SEAHAWKS WAY (RIPLEY LANE) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD LOC# 03P GRT09040M TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, VILA 98507 trafficount@msn.com (360)491-8116 File Name : GRT05503P Site Code ; 00000003 Start Date : 2/24/2009 Page No : 2 SEAHAWKS WAY (R[PLEY I SEARAWKS WAY (KII'LEY LN) Out In Total '—'--43:! 35 F—M L —4— 00--31 Right Thru Left NE 44TH ST DRIVEWAY LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD Peak Hour Data Worth From East From South From West Northnn From Peak Hour Begins at 0440 PM� ojr _ ---- Start Time', ---- Right Thru Left App. Right --- Thru Left - ---APP- Right Thru Lok f App. ---Right Thru - -;_ Left App.Int. Total Total L: Total Total Left Thru Right Total Peak Hour Analysls From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 - 3' 7i dpi Out In Total Peak Hour for Entire Intersection 8egtns at 04;00 PM 04:00 PM 0 0 8 8 j 7 127 2 136 3 0 0 3 0 33 0 33 180 04:15 PM 0 0 6 6- 9 135 0 144 1 0 1 2 0 33 1 34 186 13 126 1. 140 2 0 0 2 0 33 34 184 04:45 PM 5 1 0 12 13 : 10 131 0 141 0 ❑ 0 0 ; 0 26 2 2 28 '� 182 --- Tata Volume -- 4 0 31 35 ..---- 39 519 ---- ..._... 3 - ----- ...-- 561 _l ......6 - - 0 - 1 - 7 j 0 — 125 - 4 --12-9'- 129 ._ 732 °! App. Fate-.--._. al 1 11.4 0 88.6 __-_ 92.5 0.5.5 85.7 D 14.3 - 0 -- 96.9 3.1 PHIF _ .333 .000 .646 673 .750 .961 . __ .375 - _ - .974 .500 .000 .250 : .583 1 .000 .947 .500 --- .949 .984 SEARAWKS WAY (KII'LEY LN) Out In Total '—'--43:! 35 F—M L —4— 00--31 Right Thru Left 1- I -► Peak Hour Data Northnn µ 0 Peak Hour Begins at 0440 PM� ojr Primes _ Cn G'u'll 1� .�+`� 'Nidi J L: 1- _! Left Thru Right 1, 0' 6' - 3' 7i dpi Out In Total DRIVEWAY I L I I 4 MENNEN! V, TOWNSHIP 24 N. I �-A PORTION OF SECTIONS 29 & 32 N'; _4�1j LQ �KCAT A ot EX. CB 2604 RIM 33.46 -4 7 ' € F `::� �\ ` �\ ; I - , IE 24" SW 26.56 IE 24 NW 26.56 IE 24" NE 26.76 j r, V' Y ---EX. C13 3205 20' D"NAGE" X \ \ 0 RIM 42.31 EM NT TO'THE 1 V ....... . ........ ....... IE 24" N&SW 36.31 STATE 'OF .......... WA$RINGTOR 4 11 f.:, Ln IF 19 q .17 Rl RANGE 5 E., W.M. SURVEY NOTE: EXISTINq CONDITIONS WERE PROVIDED BY THE OWNER AND PREPARED BY BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. SOUND DEVELOPMENT GROUP SURVEYED LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD ALONG 9 THE PROJECT FRONTAGE. .......... /�.,, �: -LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A `E A I I '1�11 , , :. i� 5� FN 78.1001071 EX. CB 3206 RIM 41.87 A 1po PARCEL A. 7 IE 12 N 39.7 /A -1 7 OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. IN KING EX. C13 3207 TIO' % THAT P' U . T1 ,, INGTON, AND OF VACATED NORTHEAST 44TH STREET (SOUTHEAST 80TH STREET), IN KING R1po RIM 41.83 COUNTCOUNTY ASHY, WASH INGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: .0 IE 24" NE 36.73 4 �20 -.0 IE 24" SW 36.73 BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; ZV$ .. ...... ........ I E 12" NW 37.33 THENCE-,.fflRTH 88* 47' 36" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, 797.2 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO HIGHWAYI ENGINEERS STATION 4+65,6 AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 4210056 AND 7811221071; '4 EX. CB 3203 .7 n RIM 41.74 THENCE SOUTH 01# 12 24" WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN N 3 1 IE 12" N 29.69 OF •SAID VACATED S.E. 80TH STREET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 01' 12' 24" WEST 256.50 FEET; I A 1: tp THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 204 FEET, MORE 1i► Ci IE 12" S 30.14 1/ IE 18" E 29.94 OR LESS THE TO THE X -LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071 AND 4 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; -IE 6" NE 29.89 - >:. A, 'J .00. THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS EX. CB 3204 '02' 16" EAST 1,115.92 FEET, TO THE NORTH OF SAD GOVERNMENT LOT 1; SOU 59 RIM 41.70 THENCE SOUTH 88' 47' IE 24" 360 EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SECONDARY STATE N 37.00 -A AS CONVEYED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4664242; HIGHWAY NO. 2 IE 24" S 37.05 THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND -PORTION OFVACATED I CONVEYED TO PAN -ABODE INC., BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4856255; 44-TH $To -I�SEMENT TO THENCE,,NORTH 62* 59' '05" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LAKE '7? WASHINr;,TON BOULEVARD DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4210056; ......... 76022 f 901wo : /-, - - - - I �, � -11f/ Cft�. OF RENTON 6 2728'01 /K 100, i, s HENCE THEASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF 2: 60427 R=1 115. s, / / i, ,, /* T .4•. rr \ - Jl!"t. NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE AND THE SOU 9 LAND CQNVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4210056 To • L -437.58r. THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; K s s SITUATE THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON LAR ? kA PARCEL B: Koo.�- X ,4 00 P. ? jp2irr THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING /jI S(Y12'43V COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF VACATED NORTHEAST 44TH STREET.1 1 (SOUTHEAST 80TH STREET), IN KING f- le COUNTY,' WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: z A, BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER 0' SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5; r it t! X wl I THENCEINORTH 01* 12' 24' EAST 30.00 FEET• , .06P'LAR5• i f i'THENCE' NORTH 88, 47' 36" WEST 563.68 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT AS DESCRIBED UNDER s f\ 1 RECORDING NO. 7811221071 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; -s' SAI VE it•' J J• 1 THENCE SOUTH 30@ 21' 54" EAST 35.21 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF D GO RNMENT LOT 5; THENCE NORTH 88m 47' 36m WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 342.24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A .t \ 1 CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 44! 14' 51n EAST 1,115.92 FEET, SAID POINT .F i 5C i \j f f r \ j, BEING ON TdE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071; & t JUN "UH/ i' 3is r W/i/M/ tr I U I �1 THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID ARC 201.65 FEET TO THE R -A LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED UNDER ,j Ji RECORDiNG NO. 7811221071; TELE m 47" EAST, ALONG SAID LINE 11.60 FEET-, M F� THENCE 32- 59 'j •THENCE. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF V J, 180.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 68.23 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; f \ \ / THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF IV 78 /h 80, F r'V's 41 r. sun" I f t:, 47' 36" WEST OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; STREET WHIC�., IS NORTH 88 120.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 58.06 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED S.E. 80TH rj 2i THENCE "SOUTH 880 47' 36* EAST 77.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. V V, 'IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON SITUATE, # 1 i•i=t r \ A IX ? S0 V 1 } j \ I y 1 \ V 0 3 z Uj•\A 07LOMLL 415r, Ji, Flo ? It 1. . 1, K LINE LPZLMLNI Q i s r k{t.CITY OF RENTON i`r-T f PER AFN 7510080738 • A M fy ...... irrjr zf i, j: f 7� S34*.06 38 f r f .4 73 al ': , ; .' e , ; :: � s" . � '. .. .. J . 1 1 i7 to, % f s' z- ......... rep_ ............. , .................. .............. ............... ....... . ............ . . . ..... .. . .... ........... 1XI111111,11", ............................................ ............. it.................. Z-1 4 1f /r7 itf f 1�:f 's f f VA ........... ........................ I -Z. Y V . ........ ... .... ..... 259 ...... .... \7 SW3 zr 89.41 4N# WE 0 00MMMENRO.- af I x 1 4%p BUILDING/ QP A 34' J� \ 1 47, IV#: it U. U ff N` \\\��\�\ \\\ , / j' =F7.76 S . . ............ .............. ............................... ........ .......... .................... .... UY ..... ... ... ... .... �E 24" CPP // . ... ... ......... __ Z., . _ _.. 4. /Z > V X\ ............ ................. .............. ... .................................. .......... 1 1 \ \\\\ \\ X ......................... ................... .................. ........... ............. ............... ................ ........... .................................. .................................. ............ . ........... 12' . .............. u �E E ........................ .......................................................................... . o - AV, N NINE In in 0 ..... ................... .............. - - --------- ......... ..................... c6 X. ............. • in .......... ................. ...................... .. ............................ ......... .... . . ...................... ammumm"Namm M A rm 41 . .. ........ . ....... ............................. . ..... . ........ X&• 46 401., 40 ado IMEW min I iss SS SS SS SS SS SS__ SS SS S SS SS SS• ■ CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1,800,424,5555 _b / 00 Irr-i Lo IE 24" CPP=26-43 .......... . .... f/ \ ()Hwm OHWM 0Hvim REVISIONS ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE OF CREEK OHWM EXISTING 011%f WETLAND **Blf oy�481 S.F. C?/Y*,v CATEGORY 13** At EXISTING WETLAND A Yy 433 S.F. CATEGORY '3' Sound Deve%pmentGroup SHEfr DESCRIPTION ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & LAND DEVEL OPMEN T SERVICES EXISTING CONDITIONS P.O. Box 1705 * 1111 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 202 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Tel: 360-404-2010 Fax: 360-404-2013 5C4LE- DRAWN 8Y.- DESIGNED 8Y•• CHECKED 8 Y, - FIELD 800KIPAGL- DA TE - 1' -50' PLAU PSEVERIN P-,qFVFRIN PROJECT I 50 Planning Division a 16 FV U Date SCALE: 1" = 50 NORTH HAWK'S LANDING FOR HAWKS LANDING, LLC APRIL 2012 IN A PORTION OF SEC7/ONS 29&32,, TOWNSHIP 24 N.1 RANGE 5 El WM RENTON W N F WAS -7, CL 32226 ky /0 NAL ENG JOB NO. 8115 DRAWING NAME 8115EXCdwg SHEET 1 OF 5 ........... .. ZQ X ......5.:..n ... », .. A........... L A i CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1,800,424,5555 _b / 00 Irr-i Lo IE 24" CPP=26-43 .......... . .... f/ \ ()Hwm OHWM 0Hvim REVISIONS ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE OF CREEK OHWM EXISTING 011%f WETLAND **Blf oy�481 S.F. C?/Y*,v CATEGORY 13** At EXISTING WETLAND A Yy 433 S.F. CATEGORY '3' Sound Deve%pmentGroup SHEfr DESCRIPTION ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & LAND DEVEL OPMEN T SERVICES EXISTING CONDITIONS P.O. Box 1705 * 1111 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 202 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Tel: 360-404-2010 Fax: 360-404-2013 5C4LE- DRAWN 8Y.- DESIGNED 8Y•• CHECKED 8 Y, - FIELD 800KIPAGL- DA TE - 1' -50' PLAU PSEVERIN P-,qFVFRIN PROJECT I 50 Planning Division a 16 FV U Date SCALE: 1" = 50 NORTH HAWK'S LANDING FOR HAWKS LANDING, LLC APRIL 2012 IN A PORTION OF SEC7/ONS 29&32,, TOWNSHIP 24 N.1 RANGE 5 El WM RENTON W N F WAS -7, CL 32226 ky /0 NAL ENG JOB NO. 8115 DRAWING NAME 8115EXCdwg SHEET 1 OF 5 f �. I U I .1 - . . . . T . IN A PORTION OF SECTIONS 29 & 32, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, WM. I � � I , . ; ' I - I - I L I 1. z I . . 11 - - / ". � I � ; 11 .. - .1 1, ' ' 11 .. I I ' 7 �' _r I I . .. 11 -- I--- : ZI tLX - 11 . , I i: - _� I Kk;;;rA..;_ I., . � 1, - - - - - - -1-1 '� . I . . . ;?, 1% I., - cp "I , �' I ' ' I 1� - I � ,,, � ! N ,,, � ' . . I I '. 11 I % : � .' - I . I i I .' " 11 '. . � : ., . . ... I � .; : - / /� �- �' �' VA�LAT , . : : I "�" , : H: � I � - - � c ":; ; I - I I ". 11 1: -'�' :.;;"i ii .: ;1 ' ' '11��' - __11 I � LQN- - - - f '� � - : 'i . I . - .1 - . - ,. , , . " i �' " ; -' i,. I . '� ' . ... ... c I !! , I,, '�� � I '� . . 11 .� , .�-- / � " " / - - - � � 11 � � ...' � � : A��. 1 1 . / - - , , , ' ' I . I � � i ..�;-"%' (�'_.V I f : .- - -'- '- \., : ' I �..� 1� .. �. * � / - �' �. 11 . . I . N . � . ��" � ;. �. -,\ " I / - . : 5 ..��( f I -1; ! " ". I - , � � �-'�;_<.. , , .' '� " , :' .. � . N " \ '�\ z / I / / / .' 1� ' �' ; 1� 1. '. . 'f / 5-. Fl� - - - -1 - .. lw� .': '' . . , , _05� ' I t s -.:wi �' , " .11 - Izi '�� , " . 11 �\ \ %, / I - - '� 11, 11 " ' I, � ; i " . �\\\ \ � ',, / ,�p . . I . / __� - - - 11 , EX, CI3 2604 "' \ :'. " ' ! :1 : / / / - - - N-1 �' � �' � � � "I,, "', I � 11 � - - , 1% "I I ?..., .' / " - - '� , - - .". - ; % -..- ." *' i * �� \\ N\\ e ! .. / - - � i , - --.-,- . n I., ... - . - - : .. ; 1 ! I J" � 1\ \\ \\ "I " - - .1 I. ___ - , v., .,., : i - � - - \ -'f� / I .1 - !' � , . \ - '. . : -'."q'.'�' �. ��"'-" ; � S , ; ' , � ?W� ... / I - - "I 11 RIM = 33.46 " I ... .. % : , , �' \ \\ \ \ r � 11 �. .. 11 I I ' // 1p - " �" - �.'.-. % , i � 3' 11 .i �.., ; \ \\ '� \ : \ I .. z i .1 - - . f . _:., I / - - - -1 " \ \ - - - IE 24" SW = 26.56 \ '� 1z . , ,\\ '� - 11 � , 'ZI.-I ',...' . : k : � i � � � F j - � .. I I , , : . . I- ' .1' .. -1 . I . : � ."' i \ \\ \' \ �' - e " 'i'%� -".:-� - / � , � - - '� '. . J - . .. .' "I " . , � ; I >�- - - _.' - - \ , '.' , q. . / \ '� , I � - - I .".., I , %.1 . I , � ..* - , '; - , I, , I %I. '' "I 11 '� �' IE 26.56 ' . .. 1. � ; : � \\ N 1� 11 Y", 11 11 " '.1. I �. . : : .1 . al, " �' -, __�'��-<-' q... / :., I f \ � .1 %.." :1.... .. ' . - I � �. "I : , � :��' '. " NE = 26.76 � . 't I- J � ! � . .. . I � 5. .1. ' '? \ \ \\ \-, , �.�.� .1 ':f�:�, .q . j \ "I ' ' . I , : j 1 � i � I \ IK N q\ . I .�:*%'-' q" � ,::: N441". 24" NW = ,;-�� , , � . � ZC . H � 'i; i ", �"" \ \ I IP " q � �', / , _� - *'� \ \ \ \ --, -- 11 " '� *1 JE 24 . - ' ' � ' i - 12 \ \ \\ � -, N . - ",-, '% -, � � �q- .' " / -�" / I ' \ \ , , ", '- '- . . 1. � 11 ' ' ':�': , , � .�..,:::� � � I I .-:-�Y` - . 11 I ' : . ' q. � 1� 11 \ ... N N . , _'. % :. I I ' , � '. .. . % ' " \ \ "� '. '\':��'�" .. I " "', , \N%* \ \ .. ... � 'i I : , I q .'I.:' ;i!.: j".. ":-, � \ .1 �. - " / �' -, �' -, "�N " , I . I . . , , ' - \ \\ \ -'N' - \� , '� : � , \\\ \\ \ \ - . .' 'A.. , .. I � \ " .. q � ... I � - � i " I "' \ \\ .: �':-'� ", � \ � � % .1 , � \ Iq ".. 1� 1� \ \ " -, � � I % '. ..� , '� . , i � I . � , 'r , \ \ �' , : .1 -:-'� \ . ___ � .' �.�:'�� k - 11 i _ � 11 I 1 j ' .. � � _q "� '. z' �--.��..' � 1. , 11% % .'I � - * : � ." ." \ - - - , , \ " ';� � � .' I �; - 'E .' ," I : I % / " 'b . " �' � �.. " . I . / . 11 -� , 11 � 1. .1 � . � z .1 .. ` "" .. I 1. 1. : " . . � ' . . .. - " " I '%, .. . � 1:1 - , i f : \\ '��' N '\� � \ \ �\ 3 "-'::�:::-:y, : \11 �' " -, , , � � \ \ .. I , � ' '.._'-� '�' - %" ...... . .... . � , � � , .. �,"' � '! .1 . ? I �' \ \ \ '%'�'* --.�".' . �:----� �4 ' , ", , \ '1__1 \1 � � 'I, . 1� . .. . ' i I .' '. " .:. . I I k \ \ � I . I I - I ' X- - , . � .': . - . ,,,, -, '� I - I � , , 1�1 e I , .. 11 %, ,*,-- 11 - - ,.,-- � , '� � : , : I.' : J I I R! . ..' � , -, - I . . ! ,- . . . � % , � I �� \ \ \ \ \ \ .. 11 . ., . . "' 1� I .. . '.N " �.- ., .. I " I d�' � . . ; � i - ". \ el / ... . .. " -_'-'_'__i- - ... _ , - 1) \ \ \ \ \ I ... ... I ' ��'_- - - ..." '. -," -� % �. '_ , - _ - _/` IP ".. 1. ... .� : *� - Z : , z * �' \ � 0 \ X %I I // ' __.1----;1`.* .. ."..:. .", \ \ I "' ", "., q, . , . ."%'.. \ \ i I I I ' ..,' i 6s .:.... �' ..' 1, . , � �.- I : ' 1 � ' . . , J. \ \ \ NN4. \ \ 1� % , -11 I � ' 1 11" 26' DRAINAGE.' i i � "I /_ �: - - ._'b, .�... . . I .:..,. :: - , _� - \ \ \ ...� I j � : : . . \ � .. �.' '11� . : I ." %%, IN \ , . z : '. I ' " . - - - � - - I \ � ! I , ,I ,I 4 � ' / " -1 \ \ ' - �. - - - I I ') : j � - I I I I I � � \ \1 \" - - - "�. - - /; 1, I... . / .I. W . I . . , :1q'.....'> , � '\� \ \ 'po �'� . \ I \ "I I '. . . -, . - % . - 11 . . . � I - � "I � .. I 1-1.�. /'__� ", . - L I I" , !_�� .. � .. /I _." . , , ' ! ' I � : : ; ,I LAa I FIL � I 'I �\ �� " � � ' .:,. , .' , .' . . c m Lill I 1V I . �-." I ' z z �' 11 r . : \ ' ' . . ' I . ; 4 : : : ; , . ,I � \ \ ,,, \ \ \ . I '..........."_ STATE I 11 " * � :1 '......'. \.1. I % I I .........�'�': - . .. \ - . . '-,----- .. I 11 .,' . 11 z-;':.'-................ '._.:.Ii� .> \\ \ . -1 i 4,IJ - - I � ' 1 '�3 ..k -1. ..._z " ' N I � . , �.� , .,----- - ' - '\ \ '%." .' * .. - - - / ' " '_ ..' \ ' .:... . '� , ..- 'OF WASHING -TON ... �'. �: '. , """�'-.'. , i -'' , . ' �' \ I i � , � � -..... ..' . , 11 I I I � '. . , .." )1 " '. , . ,..,.-;I:. ':"�..'�' , . �.... .. , , . ' - \ \ \ CD �% . . ' .,�� / - L / % I � \ \ \ ' . . . - , '� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' � I � " " I 1-1. '."' � � : " . � � . : : � I I ..:, .. . .. - I" - -`%1P . I !:'.�:.T / '�% L% \ \ . I V) I ; . - -".�....!_i z , I . i . ! . .I .� 11 - - - - 1�1""'_ �- . / %. . \ \ \ 1% : !. . : � I ; ;I'... ... . I 11 n.__ I ,I','.,-:-.-.. \ k \ \ \ \ , I .. ' i I ; . , . .. � - - * '...'L. I ', I I it; t. e- � - - - �-"" :: .�� k . j � � � " .' . .. : ; /4/_� / �_ - --Q - � %, i I � * � - I .'�; -�...'� - ."-* * " . . . - - - 11 . �� \ 11 �. � . - ... , '. . , - - - ;i�--%-.... � 'i / I � \ \ ,_ I I . ...'. % - - '� / � - .11 .1 , 11 � � ___ __ ��:%i::".ik,,_. '4 ) , .1 '- -'\.., � \ \ � '_j .. % '.. . . %... . .". !-."':�- .1/ - - - - - - - - - - - - z , '. � \ \ \ . i . � . : " , / ' ' - " . - , -. - - - - - ' '�"'* ,-<P) , ." . � I ' I " : .1 � i, - I . . . %, ij -'. '. , . ....... /' ' ' . . , '..� 11 � - - - - �'� I : . �_'_'... PER., AFN .� X � � % . - ,� 41., 5Z ' : I I ., ? . ", - -� - . , \ _'� : I z : : : , ' - , I . . i: - f' ' i ...,r", ; Y :! I __..i�. � _.;-%".%., / , � - - -- ,:.,. % / �' �"_ \ \ : .' ; ; / I . . - - - - - - . I ' � 3 I ' ' : i '4 � . .' - - - -1 11 � - I I //I T '.. N . j� - .1 � I : . I . - '-, ", I ; � . / , ;' . - , "I... / / 11�- - - - - .l.k. - - .� "', \ I'll J... jl .'. I ' ".. _'� "' I It - �> \ - - ...., , : � �' - !!�_�_�_;_ �_� " - _�: - 11 .... . .4 .. I I - , "'. I . � . ' , ..--� . . .. 46 \ . I . : , , I I .. � � - - .I_ / / �� L: �_ m' _: - - - - - - - - - 11 "' �__ .., _'�:'; !', I " - ; ; : ; // ?, ..-% ./ " I "� � : I ' ,'. � . . , * " . V - - - - - I - ' - - ,,,%,��,:,::�,,.,,,�i�..:.�-.�f' / / // " - - - q� - - - _�� - - I - 11 I i : I ". '�"' , "o-�-"%:.' ma _� I �'. \ \1 - - � I . I � I . '' - 11 - '. " f 9b;p - - " I 1-A.N '. - I I I . '. - / �' I �' *4 . - 's � , 1 I , ' - ,� ) ... , "�' \ _ , I I I / - - :� � , % .':.... �1�1 .. I , � � .,.: , , \ \ , I � . 1/1, - : , . � '. - .. i i . : -� � ...- ..e � " - ...< , / / / 6 - - il__ _� -_ %,. \11 1� I - / "'."l -l" \"% I I 1:;.::% -��'�' ,'� / . - - - - - - ...'. �\ I . ' ' - ' '' i'� I ; ; : . : �' "". � z / / "/-....'� / / - - - � I .. """�'� "' .1 I "." . % - - ;'i.' -I / if � /11 .. /� %_ r - - --.3_ � . , I � j 'i, ;�l .1* i I I I - I : . . '44 ;j":* � .: 6 - - � . j . .'. '. ' : .. I .. �- �' . - , � � .1 11 : ? ,;;: �' �- � k I , 3 1 , � L z . , / I - _� __ ' >-.I- � " .. . :;�� , . � - ", "...." .' .. - � � ' "��..' " ;1 .* I . " -el , ;1 - / ;�"_-_ - - '*27- - �' - L' . I, ! I . : � '.' i � """.. / . - - - - " / .;Y1% - - 0 1 . I . .: . - .:,:/ / // / N -- - .- ' - % L - .. 1po ". . ; / � : : i 11 , , A . ��-. 111��; i �L:"(:! ; - - , -�" ; /'.... T-1%11 ..... - - 1�k--�' L, I - . - / _.� � '. 1W �'s . : Ilk ': � : . .1 � . :�" / ...."..' " ' \1 �__ ____ - -m � //1 . � � - .:.'.�. 11 ..'� , '� , � ...� .%_-�.'.�" : "I 11 . / / / .. \ , .":.�. " . '% i � , � "'."...' � !; .!: '-� .. i. ".. .- �� R*&Q3,410 .1' - - f , . .: -? "..' / � / / / / . _ � - - - �:.:'. , % I .' , : : - .. � . .� -,..-,,- . ". : , , �' .. .: , f -I ' . . - . .. :. ...�'- . ':' / '�. �_ - - - - . - ` ..'..' . " '�" . . � I , , . . L:-�.::' ; . I I / , . - 0 .0 \ .. lop_'� - - .'. %. '� - - - , 1% ... cp % : : : ' f ."', "'�:�'. / / , , '. % �'�� ' I . " : , " , �' '." - , " 1. .�.:.L" � i-��.�:�� . . ! . I ; ' 1"' .' .. f '�.' " / I / / '. ... 00 " - . 4, ' '� �. i � �' ". .. �� , �: i. r � - . � ..." / , . , - . � ' � � � j � / i - - ' .0 . N - - " - � - ,.. -�:;�.-' %. � : - . , - : � *� , � / ",%..... 6, ... '� ,% .% - - I ' ' . , , . " � , - .. '�. ; .. . , , � " � /.:.7;� 1 / / / / 'I . " .j" '� .' . , 11, i I I � � ," � , - '.'... I : - . .,:?,-7i� / . , / � - '�:58 . - _%,_ I I 'i �' ,I i * ;� I I ..' ... � f �_ X "j, " / : V.....-.1 .. .... .,." � - - _�_ - .... ........ - - ---!�:' . '%:... ... .% � . . . . \ I '! , : . " I . ..' �' �' / , . "'..�' � - . ... - - -�_'.... .. i ; : . '. � � I i , '. . 5'. _� � .,., / / / '..'.."'...'. ... L.... 1\ ........ ",%:- - " �...."' "% /,".... .' :� � --- .? %ill " _' .� - %, I '"" 3 11 _�-. �:.:..' .� '..-' / � "' . , .,,,% -.. - _�:;"'- __ "., _ . -:��:'_'--�-.;- _� ,I : 1 , .1 " � .. ,.:., _/ \ �.'-1'-1...'.._..'. "' ,- .". I .. _�� "' . - - 11� �:� $? / .-:-'�: . . - ". ... .':_'..'. I . 1. � . .. �' / ..::. I . , - .' 1. �� . . - . � : . � . ..- � � ' p .::� . _ -32- - t�' � . . .1 �. - ' '� 1, I . e, '.t_ , : . 1,7 i I ; ; . � I I / / "-N"--'- ... � . .... " - ..... � �" .. .� , ' ' .1 , . . .... .' ; : I � � . I 1 " � �� '�e / '&�"* / / / / / ./ 11 , � . ..' � I .. - -1 I , . J I - ,,, " I : - - _�'_ � . '.' . . ; : i i , / .-- , j I . '.... ;��-' , .�-'..::...'-..:. / . ': _. - � � .' : . i * ' " '� -','�-' / / // '.. I .... .. , .. ..,".:. .% .% � � �'.'-..;"� -,., % . - '-, / '.." ..'.."', . 1� I I ' ..' : � '10';i!-� 11 .f .' � ' . �,'.. - 1; '� / .' '�� I I ." ..;�:..' "" . . / ... .'�., , . .1 '. . � . . -.�.:':"--�'��..';�:,-...�-�-,t:!I I , " -' , .1 ." '�-';` i / � / - .., � - : I ' I : � - '. , ", - , I '.. , ." . I , ! 1 i .1 ." I � , � �"': � / .. I '. .'. � , � : , -.: ,! ..-- '�;01..i�---.11 / / � - � . � ...,'..� /*� / / '.' I : ;. . .1 "I ._'.. '. � � � f I .. - y -1 .. ' ; , . ..' __1' ..'. 1. - ' ' \ / 'I, , - , . . - I .'� I - /i: / / .11 .... . '-:"" .' . I _ . - . ... -:- � _' . � _' � .�" , .. ... . � - I I . ... - - ." . - I . ... .":.:, F 7- � RIM = 41.74 1 . � . / . xx * " . INSPECTOR. THE SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED AS REQUIRED TO : �:' � / ij '. -'�' -.'.� . . . . - io ,:.. / , - � ' .1 i' 11 , / 1/. '.. ., �.." . . Y 1 17. ...' / ..'� ......",* " 'N \ - - - .. - - ! I i i " ,"�'�:�^ . / / / '.. .....: ,.-' -, , i ... - I � � -, �K4 / I / .' � . _'�'.. - "Ill 0 '" ' ' \ '. " , " - I ; � : ) I - � '� 2 . : - - � - 1 .. 'O . , " "I '� ,", .... ', . .' PREVENT SILT LADEN RUNOFF FROM LEAVING THE SITE. SEE DETAIL : . � � � I "I I �" �'� -2 : � , /I - / I/ "/ / I I ..'...., ."', ""' N .�'� i� , , I , IE 12" N = 29.69 ---,------- ,-.-- .- � . --� ". .11, I , - . .. �_ i! '�. j� I . .. -�: �:. ..' .. ��' �� 'I.,." N -.--i. t -,-. - '�' .- I . : � i .1 11 ' ;� � p �' .11 ... :::.. .- . .'� ".... ..." I : ,..-,. " �-" ; ; � . ".) /I " .7(t & , " * ' ! 1 �- � 11 �: :� �'// � / / I 11 _' .. .� *� ! IE 12" S = 30.14 _ � , .,. - , '.�' -. I ... . �' ." .. . I ., I" ,I ,I ' I I ". : J" I / / f ... ,", � '. ..... 'a.�.' 1". . . 4�. \ '!., C/1.3 FOR SILT FENCE INSTALLATION. I . : - I . I , �' " .. . .. '._ ...... . i ? A � .-i' ' 11 I ' . , ' , ' � A. / / .' � ..:�'. '. m- .;. - �' , j . � . � . . . - jr C.� - .z - j i ; . .r':!::'.' , . - . \ / . " - ; '-' -7,': �� .. , . \ / . . .': � I :') .11 � ..: - .:�::.' I I /," - -, / � ' " - - ' �. - IE 18" E = 29.94 1 �' i , I . '��. I I �k . . ':' - �'. % / /.. I , �::."'-�!-:' ...""- - - . � . .' � - I / .I--,' . � . 1% Lo!"'. .- '�' � / ��`.` .. _ - ..' / j � / . .. ", � .. ,",*. . '. .� .-:? /..- .. .�'..'..' ) ..;�:'.;.4. . - %. P. - I ' -, :1 .. I . . .. . .% .. � . , ' �.' - � : .�i " I �.�*:' '. - �, �:-�'.�" / /.: ( / ". ' ' � , ."..;� ... -� . i " -, '. � I ? I - - - . ' ' * . '--'-'.'--'. �11 \ \ ' I - : - �. " '_ " 11 '- I I q. : ". . " , � / 11 .. ;. 1. * . '��' �/ , .. / 1. \ " .' .' z . 1:;S 1E .. /' " e ' JE 6" NE = 29.89 1 1 - i - / " .. . " �� ; . I" .. - - 1; I , I � �" -:;, -� i - //I /`.,_ .,!:, / " .,'..��. .- Z�. / , / .' -- i . : .1 I / / ... , _.__ - ' . . . I , ; '�' I" �' ": � " / , "' ,�;:' .":-Z-'* . ,,, N .' -�-:1t; I i � , . , ." � , .. .. X '�J' ' - 1!.., .,---y' , �" ". IX / : I '. 1. � ..; . ' : .. . N - ' / - ' ... " , .", A. � : .. -:.:, %�. .. , . , , 1 i ... � J".1, - �: ...�" / / .41-"�'-_-.1_`_ -1 �'_ ... __ _:'-1 , ..' ,.<',- � � / % ; I., ... - . . " ' - / / 0*"' '..i' . .- - - / / ��.j \ � '. I � . s -:?-' ?,* / / /I/ / `_!'�- .. \ ' '. ;'' � � f ". 4 ; / .. ... I . '. 1. i . / . �; \ �\ I ifi; . I 11 / - �: ; " . .. . -'! � - : �� ". �.:,' .. '\ . : : I * I I / - " - . , I � I .: .�'_ '% - - ..,-- _��__' �:. .;, .; -- 11 / / � . % EX. CI3 3204 - - � '"jjjjw:-'� '�-'... -�.'�;." I .1;1 ' ' '� 1. .1 I � ! : I - .' � . ,:m.- __ �.' - ,';' \ 1 `4 � 1 e _!i�'* X / /' - , '.:.�'_' \ , '. I : -.- '! i .1 � .� ; I . / .. .. � . .. " I _.V - / I \ . .. . ."',,.. . . . . I . , . _ .� ", TESC PLAN LEGEND . I... _ ". .. . .. '.. CODE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION I . I ".. , � . < �� " 1. � : : ' ! z : f - I '; � 11 '.. *.�7'1. 1 .-: I ; . - I .. '. : \ 11 " , �:�':' " / .i*".i* . " 'I, -1 _ %% . '�T- A " ' "�' �� , 1"* . *�' ,*i*-" .,..:y .�� ', '..�-,%, IE 24" N = 37.00 EQU ' I �� :r/ /' / /I ..'.. """ .', i:':!:'::;' /1;1 - V '. ", I ..,.,.. , , I. � ;'��.- / .." '->111"..' I.- - ,.,. "I '� 11 " \\ %. mm = 1+1./U ' 11 .. ' . ' " , "� "." - "�:�-' . ' 1: . ; I N \ ' � ;� -�.'. % : / - . . .., . , C'4 �' i � ., I I I - , . ; , . ' " I I ' / / .- -.0 1 I. ..", I '� \ \\\\ \ �. i � .. il! �' I .... - ,� , .., . . 1� . , % . i i J, . ; . 11 " ... .. . - " . � I I � . - , ' Z - -,,,:- ., -, , -� ... 0 ' '� � . � ... , ; -.4, � i � . i : ..- ,' ' . . , �: I i , ... .- .- , - � , ..I-- � ... I -1 I - .' ---�*.'.__'.-- ' . il i - . , N .--'."'/-.-'.'. , .' "� _�'./ � , ,� ..'. CONSTRUCTION S ENCE: � - , .* . . ' '*-'�-'_','o-'% m;" .. ..' ...... ...' , , * 11 \ .. � --� I , - - .:'.:. -It', ....;;'.'-_; . . '. .,.. .", � ", �'. , 1� .. . , \\ \ .' I., JE 24" S = 37.05 ' I - �' ; -, / / / / ..' , - . .rpt .' " , . � , ',,. .1 . � . '. .� .' , ; - � '* ; ; . : I 1 It \ . �. 1w 'f ..,� __ "'. ) -� '.' � .� . , �' . N - .. :? �'�/'::'�'-�' )�' / / . I ( I , I � I .'� -:"'.` /..' <V / ' � 1� 0 '-6:', . \\ \\\\ -1 � . : 0, , f ' I ' "' I .. . ..; i � " 1-/-, ' � i : - . 1� ' PORTION OF,VACATED / 1, '. .' ' :- e N �: ' '' - . .. N � 1 . INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S). - . I : .�:' .�'_- ,� / 'i I �� � - . � , - ' _ i:'--__" I / " - .. " �. .' : : I "'.- - � e ,,,, .<;�-; ,,, .- - � ,:: � � � 3 '�\ % � ;. -, i Il", i ' * . -, -- . i , / 7 .."11110 ii; / / I/ ' ' . ',.,"""', , .>--... -�.'."" 1 '2 3, " .., i... I N ! .." I _ .Ji. � ,. I �.";: I / 1. � " , %, I - .'.. , .'a:, "I .." "I I I ; .' ' ' '/ �'� / - . ,� .'.::: �: \:'.:� 11:'�71 / \ I � \\ 1. I : . : I . : - - .. " I / -, I 44TH STI " . i . � : i i . I .I- :k� .L..; /_-_;1'__"'..._. .""_'� _"' -I�SEMENT TO . , I � 1� : ��' I : k : � .��ff I`& / '11/ . ,111 .V. �':':-". " .' - � \\\ / / " �� .1 X, /.:,/ .... . 'I - - - - I �' ... � 2. INSTALL SILT FENCING. . ;:! : .- . AW � , . .. , " ': ' , 1H � �.' . ii : : i :1 � . , . .."'I", ?" 1;" , '. .�ii ! I " . / "I , - \ .�� ,K/ ' .!::�� '�%:'�! / 1\ z �; ; ; ; .7 � "' - "I I �.. %, " Y"'. ' I , - i . . . , - , ; / /:. �' " --- . /... / . ,_ .... I I : .? ill .4 1 /" � � , 1 A---2728'01 ' o / / I, .. - " '. ; . :. I '. -" �' %, --'..� - E/ MY OF RENTON tA ' 11 '�.' ", ' I '. � �� '�/' ' / ', ___ \ " '! 1, - \\ \\ '. � , . _� Y / I . �.; It 1 .11" . '� .'� .".� , I 1, :: � ; .1 �" e ;! . ;;:�_ 11-1 .1 I " -, �'C:� � ) ! I .* !- �... - / ; .'_"'.1 �' . . 'I I , �\\� ' . . ,;' 1 R= 1 1 15.92' " , . ._'�.-'�_ ,,,, : I - : / z / ."', � ..... �' . A ';�- s ��":� / I . , .. / \ \ \ "�'��t�._:"'.. "', . "I \\ 11 \11, �-. j. - � � .": � - I I,--, / 3. INSTALL CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION IN ALL EXISTING AND I ii A i '. "', ': , I / ' % '�Ic-' /'/ . .' ...�,...' z ".'7 " %,;.., � i . " . 1� \. \ . . , I . / , .:� ."! / '.� .' , " 4 (I I .. �' . � . .' " , . , - .... %, , : � , -'." I "" , "; 11 I ' i I i ...,-,* i ' . i ' I .- , �/.' / , ." " .:. %. - / � i. �� I L=437.58 I /" .'. I 1 4 I/ . '. I ,...,�.�"u, .. ...i. % , , \\ .1, i I .-' ..' - I . �' ': i. 1: - '.' ) � I -�- " I '7 ,- ,'. � ' \ I % PROPOSED CATCH BASINS WHICH MAY RECEIVE SILT LADEN RUNOFF. I .. . - � . �.'i,y,.:1 / - I � .... 1". . I � . .*�:' .,..'?:i I ' . . I - / , \\� I .' �: 0'*� : ; : * m. '. I � "' \ % , i i .. � '. i . : i . ; .:.; __� ,%.... ii-'� I '. i '. - . ''\� .% ..� INCLUDING THE EXISTING CATCH BASINS IN LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. I -- - � . J., " - I .. I �' . .",,". , �' .k Il. .11 - �\ I i : : . . . .'. "," - -�7 , - �*' .� " / � .. .. .�..'- , _ - , / I .%% ". t' , , ,� /11 . - - i . . / -1. . .' .' . � -s i 1, � ." \ " - - , I : . , -'.'F' .,.�'� ,;) 'j .. 1'11'1m' , , / .0 \\ " .1 , .' . - \ �".' .-.-��-" " \\�N \ �, : . '\ - - . : I ��: : I . '... '_;� I- � ��ji"` '� i . I I ' , \ :11 / " i / '�--' -� �:�-'�'�"` .� . \\ \ 1. . . ' ' . .� - / .""" � 11 - / ;,%. .1. - I - 'T.J'_�".;."' � 1. ;_ ':�. ,,, ".',; � ' ' .1 I I I ::� : -`,J1 I .� / 11 . -. ; � k ...,'. . ... "" .- - � � 00 ;�% I N � ' I . I . : .i� "s - 1. " .". ,. ,li.." � � \ . . I _ , . .1, . \ \ �'-. t, 4. GRADE PARKING LOT WITH PROPOSED PERMANENT STORM SYSTEM. ; - ' . I , .. .'� . ...'. : , ;-'� "/ LAR5 , J` " . . - / / , I . , : � I � ; � "'. - . I . .' � / - , ..", � ` t .. -_ ae - 11 I ; / 11 i ' '- _.-..'�z ; - j , -i J. - I s' / 'V, .. , % \� \.\,\ \ 1. : . '�-�. , --'!.':�' - , "��-"�' I / 4 ! ? '.'� .-' / -, ."/ '/ . '��" - , ___ 't \ IL_ - - ""';`�.0 .1 " .. - I / : � ""'.. 1.1ZE". ".:..-! : '. ..." - _30 x - ' __ / . ... .'� I " .. " ";��_'�._�'. � � .- " .....' I I :-� '. 1� �% 1, ." ::/ . ' " , . I . ? I" � _\� \ � , � . . '. I , .. 1), , -, �' I -..�-.'..� .. ___ I \ . - .1 ... i ; �� --- / / '� � . ; I ,,,,, 11 *11 q . . � 4 . 1. '-"',��,' % . I �' � !...-i I .. -1. 1, , --- :!�� I '� � / .' . ' �' // / I " � I . ' �-"'..'..; , .. I., I ! : . ..... ...'...", .r___� � / I . ::.' .I. .,.,: : ... �\ � � / I . I 771 . ; I ' 11 \ .... / - \ \ 5. FINISH ROAD, PARKING LOT AND UTILITIES. -.� `� ��' i �` : i 6-'-'L�'-�. "-",-,.:, . I . - . � __� � 1! ...." �':."' -_ I \\ ,_ \' ' . .1 m: 1: �F-' . ..... �'�.... ; - ' I : � 11 . . 1� , .. .1. z \ 1� , .. ' - '. , I ".. \ \ \\,\\ % � / --.----;�'-�"--'.-'..'...'- - i �: '-� . � i � .... . ... L , 1�51 "*��" / \\ , , , .. : .: � .3 I , - , ' f �'7. / i - _,_ .. .. . I ' ' . I ; . , I I �. `,.", -, \ '. 1. � / '... W'' I ; , .' I p ; .j .1 / / / e- % \\ � i. 1: � I I ". ': " .. / ' I , 11 ! A" : I ", / .'?._� 1p, - '.-.�.� '�' .-:::: ! ' \ )�'\ N\\1 N % V "I", "... ' ' .." , m . � ;.- y I - 7`'..�" - I � \ \ \ . 6. APPLY PERMANENT TESC MEASURES TO INCLUDE PERMANENT SEEDING I'll. I ; i. 'I / � I 9 . 'i:.:'� \ - .. . � ; * ' " - ' -'� .-�' -, ,"V /I ' '.." ii . " . : * ' - . , - \�' / '1�� . � :' . I '.' ! ; I .�. �' A-, / .. / -"' � I ..." - %. ..� , -�el - 1 : ' ' . .. � . � 2''- �: I ..:,., / '. ' S(Y12'43V I -- /� % . .. I . . L . . . . "', � I / / � C, j """'�' I . / .. �'.' , ' : , ; 1'... 1 / �': I / " IF 1_'.'_i-.'.-_'1_ /\ % '.�.... " \ """ , " .1 .- I . z , - / . . .' ' 1 11 -"--�.�- � \," I � I - , - I z' I , -_--� I .... ' I � N - I I ? ..- ..: iN- .� \\ .. " AND SOIL STABILIZATION BMP AS REQUIRED. - � .. � \ V ." \ A, I : __ I - . .1 .- - - ' , : . . \ - '. i : . ! ; . i�p'. I . " .. - � I / ,I � I A\ , .: , I , " , , . � , � ; � !! � , I / � IL . .. , , 11 �. I � I .,.. : * / - i I / , 11 ... �� I \ 11 1� . - I I .'. , '�-' �' �.' I -?'* Z / .''. % " , :: , '�. 1. W9.73 11 ". � � � .. 11 � ...", �' " .. :�.'.'- / I 'e'�'- I \ " '. : '.. � .1 ' .. � 1. I I. ' \\\\ \\ 11 " . I .. _�'. . : 11 � .:.' ,,':. I , ' C I \ � ; j I ' ' r- \ , . ! "' : : t : : � 1� \ � J I . F.. ,,I A . *11 ' ' -M... , . \ \\\ "I % . .1 11,11111 ... Ill . I � I / � S " : L. 5 : �" \ Ii. ..--.,.,. I � , . /::2.-, :1."'.....", \ t - � 1 ! I . I " I � '* L : . � I � I ': I / & 4A - - - � \\ I., ... , C' . ' . . I \ -&." , \ I .. . I - .1 .' \ ' 1� , \\ \ � . � '.� : : , - - I . ! - ' -' I 1/. ! I � \\ \\%, \ \\ 11 - - ... : * . - - . ' - - - . .� , . .1 1 , -1 " ' I �' .: "":% ,:. � I 1� � . ." � �.-.. , : , �" ;�' i , I '! � ,I \ �& - ,:� \'a \ \' 1_11� I .' I, ; i ��_ - � i , i . , , / � ' �. ; . I � i ' ' - � ; 1 ..--" I I � L. , ( I . 1 ,,, i i -. w .. � I 1 I 0 i i pill.i' ; I I / ... % .. - � I '. 11 ; , .. � ` " , - \\ , I - �� . , :i '."' , " . � I / .' \ \ .. ..' , . -� . :' . , / . .1 / : : / ' I i, :. ; _. .. \ \\ 1. .. . .. . ; - � � * I �' .. / / \ ' � . : : " " � :��" � '� / \ \ " (^ , 11 , , I . -f , � i �'. - 1* . �.L f, / . ". - '.. \ � \ \\\ I, "I . � .. ; : '� - ." * I . .. . � / : I - s ... . � , .,-.. I , " " i � - , I POPLARS \ '-'e � ,. � ' .'' I I .1 " .'- i � � .. � \ 1. '��' . �-.. .' / ' " ' / \\% ' 1. , .� ,. '' , I : / . � I � . 5- -1 .. : � "', �.' -.� ... �. .. : "�: --.--- � : . ". ., I '*� i.� , I. . � . 4 :. - . ,- . \\�\\ 1-1.1 .1, . I I - / - :���' I ' _ \\ \\ - I z I .. ; �' 1`;1! !:".,. / ".. : " ." . � ,::I, ,.--,-, .;, I . '.... i 1. / � t'.. ��"":'.'.'�. ,'.:' \\ '\' " � , : . Iv * I , ' ;'%) ' . .I........ L.�:..:.".�-' .' ... \\ \\\ 1. 1-1 , : I , .. ' . . - I \ % .' . , " I � . I. lk i ,I I I / .'I I / " . " . I , .:,:., f \ ... I.". : , , . . '. � .1 " . , .. �. \ \ ,4;e�mft W \�\� . , � : .... :. 11 I \ " . . - ' , - � I . 00 '.. "L \\\ I., '. ::�:: �''. . A \ \\\ .'. 11 I , , ; .... : .L il � : !.-. � I , / , , . ..' I / : 1 �5? . I A 'I.' / *Aft . . '. , � I -'�---- � SF ft* I 'L � � : . / � .1 .1 - �'q ' ' � 00 . ftft '\ � 1. .";`�"' � � , -, m i .' � .,.,, .1 . I / top . ova � . .... : .4 , � :�-'- ..:I. i � " I -" \ . too " ,'Z� , ' " . , 11 .."�' J�l S' \ ' " i . I ... " "". � , - i : ; - .. - - Jf 1� ; � . -.Mae \\\\\� I " '.." .. , . , ... ...� I % . I . �' / 00 N .. . I ' ' . �:�: I -1.11 " - m ? I � � ;11 I \�\ \\\I �.." J -.111"', i .1 �:'m!:: � . . .. I . 60, \ \ '%, . . . ." i - .1 * �'.'. " , , \\\\� .' � " ' .. '' : 111.1 , . / I i ;:: r.. ; .. . ' L � , i , . . ; 11 "I IT - f .. " 11 ". 11 11 .... , . , : . . : ��ie .X, � I L\\ I .. , . I I a & 1� . . Z'�f : � :�... ; .' � � , � I I .", -1 #0 . � " . . L \ " . \\% , : , - : 1 j .' ' f I : .1 � .:::" : " - I " 0\\' , N � , 1. 1. :" " .."', � . - \ : ' � ' - L , . � �1111 : ,-' !" � �' I ';' \ ' 400 . . ." . - - .: I - ' � . \.1 I , - .. .... . .'.. . . . 0. �' ' � I , I _'� _'� . � . . - - : . k - . .: "', . . . . . . � _" " \�)'\\N� 1-k I . .. � ' ' . I I ..."I"..." ..*" � . * ' 1. - ' I ' "" , t '. ' ' . - L ". I I . " . , . i I I I . ... - � : . , \ �' ':' .. . �' 1. 1. � .��.,',L '. - I L � I , L . : ... : :.. - � ; , , i :1, I IP , 11: V" I "I - POPLARS or _� '\� ' , . . �. . h i ,'I ' 14 1 � N\ \\ �' . . ." I .' 0 - I ' I ... ; .-i I �' i ' I I , I c I -\\ , I 1, "I I..., I '.. . $ �! , \ ' I I V'\ \\ .. I ' ; $ * - , 1: I.. I .Vi ; \ I 4e � � '.1 � '� 3, �' I ' " .' . I . .1 I " . I � ' : .. ' I. f - �':U ) 'V F� - � t / � . " ' . .. - . \ ..' I � � I I \\ \\\,\ " ) , I ' ! %" " ` . . ' .�" ' . ; ' / .. '. � ..' - I I . ;;'�� , , .:, � I I I ' � .11, - . ' .! < , - f X . \ . I ' . '.' - 1 . $ , " , J� 1 �5 'I .! \ \' \\ '. , I "; , , � L,\\\\\ 1� " .. 11, / ...'� -, .-. , . .1 \\\\\\ .. .11.� I . - I I I %�' I ', \ � .. \ \ / ..1111.1� ; ; %, , J .. 4 � , . I 1. N 11 % "..' , � : 0 .. � : � : , : I I \ 11 ' .'. �111 .-' I O.A. - I *1 .:, / / \�\ " "I ../'" " 111"' ' ; �' ., 31 � I J I 0, J ' / � .1 \\\ . I I - : ' . , ,.' � '� . ... I .", ..... �' - _____ -z' - , : I .11 � 1. .' 1w. .' : I I ' \ :L --1 �- .� ; , " I , � " I . / "I . , _- -, i . ... "' I ... \ - , . -11" .' "... ... . i : , , ' p ��\ \\ ' .., " .1 ' . '$ 1 ii -;% / % "I, ' " I ; s � .' : � . "' � .; ' '.' \' \ '.. .. I " ' I � : � '... : . . 5�� .' � :: . 1�1 . IS. . . , 4 . 11 X I . . .....� , �x : , , ' I : .. � I., 4 I I � .. . / " \\\ ,'� , -1- " .,-"".I .,',. : 's I � . , . : I .' " I I 'M I , , , . \ ' ' I \�\ \ '., I '_ . ".' , " . ' � : , . - � I T\ " I '. , . � � f - .. I i .' - I it I I .;::. " 1. I I " \ "I . -, \\ V 11 -� ,L�..'.'. ....... . , - -- : ", . ........v " I I I � - � .,.-:. ml .: - �- - - '� � . : : ".....� I : ' - .:_ ; - � �' .. ' / % . / - , - .- I . ...�. * - A, . - 14". . r . : I ii : . �i'L . I ' � : , . .' 4. � - , ,.o '. - j , I ; " '. \ I. � f - " :......" 11 . . ,,:.:'.L:..l . I .��." .' "L"'." ........ � i .1. ' * � i . ��.' , ALDERS .1 � - . \ / � 11 ' * . . " - � " � � "� i I . , : . L I . . . \\\\ '. 11 ... . ... " � H . .' \ I . .. I '. ':�':: I "" � ' , % ''., - '�i;:i' \ % / . , . ' .1 .11 , " .1 .. ... _' ." I I i,...� .1.!.." I : : . m : I � .� ,,','.'. / I.. %, _'__'_"�'� .. .. .1 "... , ' .' ; ; ; W i I . . \ ; \ I ' .,'_��',_' ..., .'..... ..,"% I .."... .", � 3 : s ". %� '� 1. � I � I � / .. / � �. . " � I : .: I i�� ,I �� .1 " , ,.!. 1. . '. - �-:� . . i m ' 11 . ." ' ; I ', 'j " , , ", 'I' '� k\\\\\\\\ / � " . .. , ; : : - - 1-1 " I m . � . ; I . ' . I � j : - .,-- -, "I "', I - �. % '�' I ::-s :1 � I I I --_�:"'---N'.".."". � �' , \ \ / %, _ "" _ . .. .. I 'i �" , -, � : 11.1 I . I I I, :',, 1 1 .1 ' s � J I mmi � �::"� , \ / / - I % � - : I : I ,'.' . . . .. '�/ "" " "' "-�.�-'- .,.;', I I i V : I', / . \ " . ,:. I , , - .. . �.� . .1 I I .. L', - I ' .... L'. SF -':�F.:: .1. 1, ,.,. '....-I I" I ' - fl*� � .1 .. ' , womm 1 1 � . L' . . � \ \ %-.1-1 ! 11 - ." '..... ... 1. , " i 1, - I . , � 11 ', ... *\ A\o 11 . . , ! ' 1:1 % / / %. . ' .� \ �\. " 1, :...-".:'_ � � .. . % .1 , �"- : : .11. .... 1. \� X ,% . '� I . / " - I . - , 11 '. "' " 11 � :' .'�.' , : .. 1 1. � .1 I . I I . \ �' \ % ' . . , ,,, � : I "' ?I , L-11- � \ \\\\\\ " : y �, ):�L. ': / L'A\\\ '. ' ' " IS . , � �*:` :! . .� - � I . ; . I I 1. I . i ' ... � 1 , : ' I � '� : - \\ \),\ , % : , : , � ..".1 � , . , --� I 11 / I I . . ... I ' . , . : IP '.' --� \ K I � L I I I � "", '.... ' .. " . 1. I " 'k -., I : ' - p ...'."', \ .. , � ; : : :., : , ..'.' .' ", I ; � :��, ..):... ;' " \ \ , .1 j :'-, i I" : � .11/ , , � �_ I , i � ' - . , , . . % \ ."""�' ; - "' .r / .....:. \\ \ _ . - '. 1. � ' i ' : \ � , . J . - I I I I 1-1 -11-1,- � 1: - - < : 0; 'I I ...' -, I,--- 1.,-1-_11_.. � - " -� * ; � '..� � ' - J"' - . ' I \\ ' � ' .". .�', : I "' , , . � ; i .1. " . .' ... , '� " ` -"' % \ /�-' 11 I . : � I .. . \\ 1. - . % ..' , " $ 1 , - ��_?- ". \\ \ / -, "I . , �� -, -, ::. , I " : , . , / , , .' � - n ��'---. - .' , I -il :' j . -' : , [--", .' , i ." , 1� .' .�; ' I , . � . , , ' . I s ._" . . , � j \ � / .1.1' " L"" , : � . : . : jw ! - . . ; .1. \ I � \ � .11, 1� ' * , : I I - :- I i ;!:.1.` ; " ' I I I % I � 0 - 0� ' "'. : : ,y ' � �.. : I ::. , ...' I . .'��" � 11 11 I " , ' I � . �.. �:�' �' -:':� --� '� ; .5'. , '� 1. " . - - - I I : , .. . � -��:�` I � I n'..." .11' � M : . � . " X 11 IL I �_L " . . . I I I � 1 4 ; �� .� I .11 I il / .� :..,. . CONSTRUCT \\ �X\o\\\' / I '� 11 .1. '-� ! :� � i i ' . � - ;': ,' / I \ I I. . I I \\ \ / I,- � . : "�� . . I$ , - \ . " . 1k , i ! ".:!�:' � i 'I., .. , . . � 0 , . � - :i; ' I .� ... '�':i!�. _."�": \ I . I '%��\ \ / '-.. . � * . : .. ..' %I', ! / ... '% �. ' ' ' �Is i . : .:.'�. � ". is . ' ; , ;.� � .1 j J;"'�".) /'.-� I ��� .\ � � I _ \\\ / 1% ..." < , .' 4 1 .. . .; �.'j : � I \ I i,"i, . 11 INTERCEPTOR DITCH I .!:. 'I" : , , � � � .1 - . '' .10' . ""," % � -.1 / i. I � '.. J .. : : P , "" ' I " "I . I � � 2 , % . -, \ . %. j � - , � ': - � .- 3 1 , ," , . \\ \ � ", I . . ' � 1 � : � I �1� , !.". ' k .._`.5.-1 \ VX / 1. �% , . . . �\ " X .I . ' ,11.1 , I 1* � � i "�' ,,, .1 I ! - I . i I P �1 - , r AS SHOWN TO "I , .� ... '� � / Ill / z I 1A 6 1 I : .1 I '. % .. \\ \ .. I . I p � \\ _. 1-1 �-'_'). \_1 �'�.. 1. . � % - � ' ' , , It . .. . * � � w � � , : ,,, I �" " 1� 1'"', 11 ..- . -1 - \\\\ 11 I .. " m ; ,' ." ... ' . DIRECT FLOWS TO � . . L ' �"' ', " - � /! N : ; ,,, ,,, , ! : / . " \ / \ , - I -11 " . /. I ' - � .1 : : : - / \ "� '*_1 '�/ . ' ' I - � - �� : : .'..' ` .1 -/ '.' \ "P .- N\ ., i I I '.'* ,' - � .' .� , S611722'101 I %1% %. ... 1� " � S 41 . I . , I .1.! f .�' \1! ' \w \ \\ \ I I \ /_11 1%, . I " � ' . I � I : . . . .;. I . I - ' I %% ".1 \ / " � � ; .1 i s I � - . .� , I �� : ::; '4 . . " 1% '. ' L � � � - ; \ I'll / .. t 1� .1% ` ' � ..'x . .. - - I .11' . 1\ I \OX .. -� 1� !� .�� f � I - .' �;\ / : I �. e: � i � � . : ; t . .; - � .' - LU I '. I,, \ ..' / 11 i - '�' : . , ..� 14.52 '�. ' 7 IN ' \ \ - . . . \ . - .'r .. : � I ... . I - \ SEDIMENT POND " �' k I * / i ��' : � � . . -1 �' : : ::': , '\ '�' �. I I \ . � 't x N / "I 2 : i 1:1 I J � I .. " t : - - - I " ." J`z � - .' w .1 � .1 �"'\ \ '� % I . � 1. I '\ \� - - 11 1. '.. / _� I i I . -, I *� -:� . . " .-:� . 45 . I . I... I \ L' : \\ \\\\\N 11 11 ,,, '. ,%11 / i / ; / � � ..':::',_ , ; - . 2 ... 1, "I t 11 , w � I : i 31,".. ' 1 * c I ,' ". ' f � .� ILI " ,,, , d -9 : � \ I �\ \\ . � - " i, -, 0 1 - " .. . . , . I � : ' �� 11 L. . . . . � . !, I ' �11 � . I %,I I . �. I � : - il �:' t \\\\ '� . I . . .' i - - " . . . , , i \� \\\ ", - I �' ; .. .4, � " mij.711. I : . , .' I � 11 % , / "I , ,,, . : ' .. � - "."i"� : : - � Iff "� . .. ... -.-J) I / 64 � . 1. I A \\,\ '\' 1". I . . . , - ' . -, , . i 'N L" NP -.1--l"', f 1 �'l � 1. -.1.5 ." I . I I " - � � $ \ % ii . X \\ , 'r 1 ': , ': i , lmwm I � �' ' I � Z:, -� i -� I I. .. 1. i : : \ I .. � : .. \ \\ I " .. - -, , j., , ; . �'? . � '\ X I - .. ; � I :1, : I E I . : � C", �o:' %. � '�.:J j.11 'Q ' \ , - " . 10/ / " 1/ 3 � ..' J , I / . .- \ , ' L / -, . . I : '_ �.`� � , " .�' , . % : .' '�� 1* :;:�. I , "I � , 11 � , . : 11 : \ \ 11 \\ \,\\\ " .' I ' ' ' * le 'i I : e � F` ;��..�".' ' , ' ' , - `:..'. .. I - .':� / \\%\\Nl. , - I . . . \ i:��----- "��.:�-;� ' 'c' .- I ,.,. . . .." �' � - -, , ; :' ..' f , .' , -c i : -'i?' . ..'.. \ V - I N'. .. '%L1 .. . : - � . \ i:,".�.'.. . 1. '�\\\ � L -' / , , --.. I _- - , L' : ! .:. I % �.'.:.�;�;L':..'; i, ':..' 51 / 74%\ ", , , %, "'. � - .11 . p - .� - CITY OF RENTON I ' .. . I I V �A � I . ;'---�i I " ' i , - 1 1 .-;o .. : . . _..4. 1 - . � - ..". \-L_ \\'�*_'�..t' " %, � i... I , � � - 1z . I -� ::L:. "! ��. '7: \ __':z . � . . ...� 1. / ---.. , . . :: i 1 ', 1% -��!'�' .,.* r ' � I , , S ".. , 'i' ,.- : , , i : : , � ". . / - r I 'V�:i . , I � �;�' ." ��.! I / . ' " I , : [ z : , 1\ :��'. _ ". �`l L 10, c I � � � ".1.. ` .1-\1 '� 1. . I S - i . . - � ........ \ -.1 - �� - v i. I . , �- � - � I � . 11 / I \ / '. \ z � .�. .L. %6 \ ` N ".. I 11 � - .. ��\\\\'\�' \\\\\\ '� I ' - " ' " I ' � , - : � J '. 1!i;;':�' i��'.'.* , ". '.' �-:� / ` / \/ .. 1, .�' I ',_ \\ \\\ 10 .00/ �,'�." - I ' i , : . . , . , . -- . \ � ' �. / I ".] I.. , " � � I I .�... .. .6 , , , I .� . \ " - , -, : .. , . , _ � *' ' ' . � : ; .,*"'i-*�f- : � - -"-' I I I, '� .,!, i:-, . . I � % �' . � ! I I ; - I I : �' . . ,I I . L. " ' . \\ \\ -, '. " I j , - - - � -� \ . 0� "'� i . , � .11 -::i�` � ' ' ' " . ': . . � - --- '_ ' ' . I ? ' . . � : ; � . .. , 1. � , / � 1:i !..,i I I . I . : . .. .' .: i ' �;;.' - .. !'.:�'�'� ,/", I . : '. \ 1, '� i . : , r. .., . � � I 1\ ��' , : �.%\ \) �\� \\, \ / " , - "', .. , : i -, .. . \ \\\ t . 040,00, -10� I . 111�1 - , , , f � \ I L L ... I , , I . � - � � - � I - - �. ...' 0 X..... .:: ; '. . \\\ "I � 1 % / �' I \� ..... �" ' .. � 1 , : I . ... � �' I . . � ! I . . I \ I ' .. I �' \ � ", . I.. - 3 - \ \\ / "' I" . '. - \ , / "I � ."?; i . -.-:-'.::�:_-'.�\� % \ i , ' , .. / ' '. . I I 1Y � , , i . \\V\\\ \ f ", -, .n., ;R: 1. : .. -:.'.:.�." .': \ / -% 11 . ' : ' ' . 73.77' 1 ' ; � ,\,\\I - ' "' : � i i I 'S i �.' \ I , .. , � 11 I It �: �'- " ,- \ I .. ."..:��"�:"' -;`�'%.��..' I I . , ` , / $ .. - , � I . � , , �!�'.� ,,, . , , - ; I .1 '�:' '� �- , '." \ -40 i . '.::::.:1'.;: , i -� i, .� . , : �. - - .� \\ \�\ '� . .e �' I I ' ' i � : * '�:O-!"' ' I " \\ V N "k, �i - I , � , . .1 1-.�.. ::�:'_-' 't � ' , ' _i'el "I', " - - . . � . ' H ' �: �"10"' ", I ,.,;.:.,. - '� :: . , 'x � \\\\ \ \ ' I , . , L'� , i . " i . \ - - .'�_-_' .- , , 0 \ I W ":';."'." X -i -i-, ;' . , L_ .-'� - - J � . I I ' I . -41 .' I., � ! f . i . \\\ . r j 0 1 .11� , .� , , � I '! j, .-' , - : I � 5' 1 �: I " :i. "'..: -.,. S34!06'38'W \ I N\ k '0� ' j:""?'n.-.:;'1L'." .;, - Z .* � I : : . . . \ � I .. , ,' : t , - , , I I I .� � . % r...".� ... , ; '; . � . /� . � , , \ I/ / \ �� i, � i '-�"----':-:.: '�' % � 4 .." % I : .� . \ \ - I .. ... / /'..' , . � % \1 I ..' . . I � .i t .' � L" , , "A' �' .. - -.,: : I .. f . � .. I :., - , - . . ..'. � . -11*1 I I.A \\\ " . I � : � 11 : I . � - . �;:.- - .. - �.. .:! �:... .. ' L.- -1 \ \' 1. � -, � ; �;�'." - i i I . . � � ; ; I �� .: .1 :�: - I I .. '. .-'� .;:':�� " -. \ .' ... \ �'\\\ \0\ z '. . . I . . ..� " 11 � ..; '�'. %-.. .. L, I ".1., A M / '� '_'� ..� '; �' * I .. k "" / .. \ '\ . 111� , � Z' : � , I I - �L' I., 1.7 . - / I I " \ � .... : ��" ': \ \\ \ I I i 1._. i � . .. "I i $ � � ", , . Z . � , . � . i. s .* , f , ; ? I : .' , % - 11 L , , - \ ' .0� . I . � I e � I % I : I, ' . s I j . �;-' - .. �:�. . - I / % � � , I I � : : . , " .� � I � � � � . L -? - .- \ \\ I., % , - '. ' f � , , � , . . I : - " -��. �e. .. '.:'� - - - - '. '.. . % , ". � . . � 1..*--'.-'�' - .. ..., -_ \ \\\\\,\ .o � "I " s . - �% I . . : : '...' " " . 00, �� , I i . � I . 11 �: ..,i% ...4 ' 00 . \ �_ :',, -77" "., \ \ \� / '�. , % . � ': 11 � .� . , . � � s : . " ' ' ' "' � I/' , : 11 ','�:�' I . I \ \\ % . . I - �. -.;� - .�j' i . I � . \\\\ / ' . �.�'. � I - - - . .' . % ' , \\-" , �-. 1. '_ ' '5 . . : ' i ! ' I . : : . ::P -� . . � , \ \ 1\ \\\ - � -'� i %� . i I i ` � � .' . I ...."..' , / N, _� X )?p - I � . oop - � ...� < , . ,_ - I . ...' , : .. N 11 ` N / / /-,., " "I I � I I - - � .. .. �. ..' '. / t " � . ; 11 - I .. 1 \\4 � " \ \ , .. I . . � I , " 'e i / I I I : .' .. i . I" : \\ \ .11 � - ; � ' : c : : . ....'.. ..�. : "I I '�� L'..' �� \ _ �� - '-.�. ., ...... L .... L" 11 ... I ......... � ............. .......... I ... 1'.".'..'.'..'.-'- ....... �-' .'.'.'-..,"".".."..........."""....�...."",,-,-,...,. 1. '.L�L "I.,". "',.' - 'y'-.- - �� .' � � I I ; : ! ' z .. ", . I.. 11 .............. ,."' ........ ..' I'll ....... I ................ � \\\\\ � � I ; I '��"o :.: " .111".......".:':: .. . ... ... '�L ................................ ... -.,- %.- - 11 ' " �--' -i I I � . L I . - -, .: . .. �A%\� .) " � � �' ' , / , 1 .1 " : I i" : � .." : , ,,, R� -' 11*0 z do . - - - - - � 11.1.'.�%'� .... � " NL ... $ !'� .F .- j ] .1 : i 'S�' I � go , - - � \\� 0 ' I . � � .L \ '� "I . - I - - ' � � ..: � .. -. '-1. I --- 5.3 ...� -.1 " ' , , j x � .. , .. , : j I - -- - - .... � - .1 - -----I-- _.- - - I __ � .. V / .' � J! ! .', , , . � ; - - --.-; ____ -.::.z % .. I � " . i - - I I x �__ - - - -,I - :. . ' N " " - - I i - I .. � � � , 11000' 1:5�111_1_ --",%* \ s � .' .' . .!' ':' , I I ' - 0*4 010 I " \ \�\ , . , - � , , oft 0� dop - - - �i\,\ � , \ " ' 1". � �' 31., : : ! I " - - 11 -T - : ..' . \ \ \\\\ / 11 1. , � . I : � . I : - - - - , . - I . � , 1. % ' i ,,, z . . ; , - � '. 00-00 " \w � . -�'_' ' f " , , , I "I ' "" -, /"-� , . .'� WAft MW 010 / .� \ � : \ , � \ N,\%\\, \ \ � I ' .r ./ " " � : � . - i; , - - . \ / \ ' � - � ; . ' � 11 - - - � . I .. I I , , ' ' - � * ' " I � '-:i :� �' \\ , \\ \\ '. / -1 "I '\ : . - __� � :.\X . : . : " , - . � I � , " - , A � \\ S" - - I ,,,, , '�..' \ I& /1"', . . ' , ..---,-"::, i, . j 4 . , I . I I - � It : ' . 1, P. ..... ; , . � / " - - I - �;"' . . . .1 11 '� . .".....': , '.. , I " . . . , � � '� I * : I ! , �' .." - - d.� - ' I .' : . . I. � - , " . , '� '. . .. I ' I , / � .""... ', . I . . �11 . : 4 ? . IP 1� I I - - - - - N /' I .. I � . , ; 11 " �� � -." ! � I I ". �' . \ %::..' , . , , .- - - . �* � - .. \ ' ' � \ \\� IL .� I '; ' I - -e r .11 ' , � - " / N\ \\ \ / % - , - � " � , i . . , � -'�'j \ , ��_ ' - .'_..' � �� .' � I I . - 1� � (�Jl .... ." I i 1'.. -O'J-'� \\ \ \ �j / . rftw \\ , \\,' A _.... ................................ 1. "! -�,: '.. v, �f .b ", j � : ,.- ;� � !---.;�- / .'* / ::::: \ '. .' .1 I . .' / � .1 . I... i .I*. - . . \ Y " ov.... ;1 i I 11 , . � � � �' : I L"'-" 11 ..... .... \ "I ..... ... ... . _ � . .. -, �' '..'.. .. - . m / . : � I I : \ �. I,/ / . -1 "I c ' / - " \ , " . .' . . . - I "I � 114 1 � ", L "I" . : . I pr\* �': s . . i I ..... / " � - 11 "I � . , " " I" " " � U / / _/ 11 -1 ��---��3` � " J.' : "I... .11 / � V -.'� V ';;�'� \\\\,\" \ / .. ' � ' ' . '. . '. , : � : .1 ..: _'. , . ; I _ - - . � �'A' - I : '. , ; '. � . I . . ... .- . . ' . I .. , � . � , L - .T 11 .. �� I � � .. . �- , � � "�% I �' . I � . . : :' f i. : .... . .. - . A / '.. 1. -i�' � s I I .. . : i I , : � �'�" t .:. ':�-. -. -r. I � ,I ��. � - I .'.. . : " * - - .< * ..' i i ..... : . '�-. % 1. . , � . 11 ;%,?, : , . � � I ' , m . � .. .. r , '�"' - / � .. - .� I , 'N ..'.:""'-" .�' s � W. - �i � I " 1i , I � . * SU"91'59 1 I/ ;' , I—.: :� .. ", N / , � . I . . .'�` * . , . I / I \ ,\\ . , - . � ; . . " '. . � I � I I j I :� � �� \ .� � . - ' , \\ N\\\\ � .. \N � r , - - e .. "I ! . 4w 1 ' '_ I ' : \ N \\\' ,\N\\\\\\ � . I . I � I . Y: I : : 000 wommumm W Af 11 41 IN is " AV 4w 1 . � '- " _' � . i I " : : k � .., I - ' , If ?'.. ... Z :_�'. "! �: , i 40p � � w _... / � ,"I"%'..." ;' I . . 11* j I " / a ..........' I \ %. � 'I., $ .' � � ' . � : / ", ? - / M \ \ \ I /., I � � �-.p �'."� - '. , � - - - " I'll , , ?I . - "..,", .; . . 7 " .� . . �1 I * :iii:�i 1"J. j #* At# 44t � 11,07 I AN I "'A \\�\ �" . I I I I ' 14k 4 1 . 11 - . J? . - ... .� : .1 V I mi / \ .. � I . . - 1 ; . - �..'_'.'L *� '# - - - I . � i ' ' � ' I . 1� 4P# 0 - ,1 STORY METAL E,UM \ \ �' . . . ! I , ; , - : - � : i I C' .? / * 00 �r � m I � I : I '� - - � 6 / . . " 1* . / S4 � `�� \ . . 4w / � e - � � . ,\\\ I I I . L' I . . / V ,\\ \ ' "\\, ; . - , -, � - . #1 " \' \ I : r " --. '! : 1* '� I .. I ,- \\ \N " .N , . . I \ ' 1-.,.,-' , f - - : � . �\ \\ . � /'. . I Z : ; ; - - 4P / .1 � . ; i .4 I 4 , I - - � / / "I � \ I . . i : I I s I � : . Ir w �' - 1\ �' ; ...' "�4 , � : : . : / �� .. 1� R.- � I �."/ 7 / -'I*'. � f ? . '. 1: - --:� ;'�i;':" ...' / � L'. I / - - - - \ .. � � " I � � f � I I I / I &I '��"_i i ::� !:�; I / I , .." 44p \� .1 J" i : :e ('� I / . � " ;/' I ' ` - z - , N 1. � . I - - I ? � I I � I . ! '� . ; � k N\-\'- . I - , - ;:7 � � : / .. I I I I : . : � ; : . � : I ! � ' - : . / \ \'\"'x\\\0\V"'\_ ' I - . , ;:, � - - ' / 4 � - , � . , '� '.�:'.'..' *;'� J." I I 11 , z / / / � , : I . . , . � " : , i : j � ", I I ..' I % .:� , - / . . i 60,0 N � -1 .1 � '. I 1. - : / I � '�. '.� � , � � . ' �' " " , " �' If / �. � --- : / / : I '% 1 %6\\ X X 1 I /-/ . s � I ji) : i i � .. .�� , 1::,", I I i - 1 / 11 - ;I ) �.' \\\\\ \\\' \\, � " I.' " '. � � � . �. : � _: L"� " I .c - % , I- , 1. .1 � I � j �; " 4 � " . '% , 11 � ...... . .... . .� 11� ' . j � . ... ...... I I t \ / 1� ? - .' '. ' . - , . �' '� , I : _ .... � ""': \\ %'\ w'v \-,N\, " , , ; � I JL " � . . ��., j .; 11 - - - 11 z ':.:.;;:.; ....... �'.'-' � L- � ....... � .................... ... ';"..-'./.'.. ........1.1 .1 .... . I .... ... I ... S .'� . , Q ".: " .", � / .. � : ! � . -1 I I .' I \'. \ � I 11 �' C.. 11 ! � : Z '.. ....[L. 1. � I `:�" I � I I .� , - . , I � ' ' .'._ I c 11 I \ N ' I .�' , 4 : : I A ' : IV ......... _ I �. ..... -1 ; ''.. % ............... .... ............ ' I X \ ... ... . I x 11 11 � ,I 27.76 � .�, � , .. 4 ' .t., �r .1 . 11 - \ '� � : I " � : " '-�-_ ..... : \ .\\ \\ V ) ; , I �-�i" . : c - / I / � I , . . . / : : . �� . / - ' � , . i 11 .. L - � \ 'i' -'N ,:,.,.,.,. . . � - � ) : ............ . ......... � .................................................... �_' - , : . \ 11 � . I . , ....' : ... .........'c' . � I -.'!.�-' * 1. ;_'."...._. �! I ? , * � / ; : 1 k : - '� ,\\.\\ . � I I . � i ,I.. ' '. " t I �.-::"! '' ' / ..1-1-14-11'. . / ... I., ..... I ... : i I . \'��"'.-"% \ \*� \\ \X\\11 '. - , , , .L,; i'; � � .1 - - \ : 2 � ..... .. __._1'.1_.'.1___/1- ... �' ..:��. - 11 J . . , . \;:." - - - � .1 I j . . ' i .", , I , �:�:? ", - . : � : � + I i I : ,..,. \ I X I I , ,\\\\ .* ' I . - : : I , \ \\ i 0 . � . :. - .-"-::�" - � ' I + � I . I \ , ' ;_ . . .. : . : : z \ N .'. ,,, , . . . : - : : : \ \\\� � . � 41 : " ... "I I %�. I � ' : .. - - � -, \" I I .' '.' ,,, I � " - i ....' k � ' (A .NI) - "' : � . I ) \' ' . � I \ : I 11 : % . . .1 _ 4 , �" . : � ; :1, � . ' " .. � .' Z .. -�'- I \.," : .' �� 11��*' - - I -��.: 1 75 - * .1 � \\ , � /. '� , ' -1 - ' .� , " - I , .-.,, - . . - � , I , .� ... -1 , , ) , % I � . I .. ... ..1. : - ']'-"Y . .. N "., -;'3' Z, 3 � : � : ' , ..' � ,. . / ! . '_ ,' � I !'.." - - .,..* . .......... � ...... I ... I ................... � ...... "I'll, ........................................................ .% ... 1%1................................., \,\\ . " " I '.1 , I � .'-�". :"� .,-:f.:. ' , " I i. . .. - � / .,#*.-,* ....................... ---'-""""'-' �:'� \ , ' . .1'. I .. : : < 11 I. . ", . - __ . 11 . "I I . � I .. - - -�""',�"�"�L-�"""""""""' / i \',t "', -, ' / ; .f " / .� / : I : ..' . - ...."........ ................ ....." �� � . ' I- I i I... ,,, : '*�Z'�' / � , , , - -- : I-- '. I f C' . .1 11 : I I " " : � I ... . / .; .I.- � ; L. :' - '." \� j .... ........ f ........ * ............ -1-1 ..... t.:�� ' : / �' j ', ... I ,"'-", I I " ' "" - _"""_ "' """""' "'__"""""_"""' ...... . . ', � i , j I � . . . . , � , � I ' '�� . 7 : I 41W i __ ". \ \ \ e ; ; . � " .." 1. 11 I I I, I I , .1 , i ? / / I ' � . /::-� , ; . : r : \ , - _* t \\ -, ? , / .* � .: : I I : : �' � ' -. � 2 . . I . � . I I / '_� \ , . I.. , , � E I " I . � , . .1 � : �_/ \ ' . . / ' . ''..' ..' ' _"""_""' - - - %""""" "' : 1� : , . � 11 � .. . , . - , . �: 1 $ : '__� - ----- I , -1 �' � I ' � ' I � " � .'I � ." : � �'� - , - i f I .'�-',".'. I . . t 1. . . , I I / i � - .. ..' 3 ,:., [ I ___� _�31*113 - - ----- '- ........................ �/ - _*_*_*_i0_ __.__ ..... . ................. I .................................. I .................... � .... L .. . . ..................... I— ........ � ................ E \ . � / " ' , �. I , . I � � - �, t . ## / . ' 7: 1 . . \ � '. - : I / I . ; �i! '_� �'� - L_� . 1, .� / '/` I '�.�� � / � I - I " j - _ . __'..............'...", : / - .I...." .......... ........................ . ....... . -11 '. \ . ! " � : �' / � ,' : � I �._ _.'....' .... .1, .............. � I / : . : I.. ; ! 11 I I � ; - 1 \ I I * / 11 _� '. I - : ; . � . �' , ' . . : I I � I - -d - "i 1� A : r .�: " \ \ I � : � '."." j "zi:., � h I I , :; � �-. - .": I t / ............ * ................. * ...... ' ... ' ... "" ....................................... ......... .. \ , . . ..' / i '. :� .,.,. - � , - I ..' . H .� . . 02.81 : . / .1 I ; . I .,., : , . ' .........,......"�,."........................ ............................ ................................... 17 � SF \ I / , ' z : : I . ",�:j:�"') 1� I 't i . : , �*'. .L�?� - If � / .............. I ........ I .... ...' : ! .1 1. . c - - ,,- �� . .1* .. I" . - . 11:'� - _� - � , " " �:'..:,"!";V �-' -,.;.:-.'-. .-:., .: � , . - .................................... *"** ..................... * ....................... �::� / ? ; j�' ' '�'.':' . ..... '4v"4* ........................ L ............. ' . ; ...... � - � ,,, _ . " / ." I .' . . - - '...' - Z, 'e : .- . " I z � � . \ , , / t 11 : � .' : .. ' I '� I .1 z - , I , . I ' . " � I . 2 ! ��:--"'%5-�'� " �'- / i , -, �'. \ .� � - I � I" .� : - ' . . : / \ \ % '? .. - / , , . . , � -� : '� , , . . ,:�i:.'.' '% �':� . � .. - - - "'-.-1.'.'.'-. I ........ .... ...................................................... 1( .... 11.1_11111.1 --------- .......; #A ft in IV a �' i 4 4 j"' . . ............ L ..... ................. � _11-- / - . F , I I -.� i , ' : , / / � / i -/ ..... � "._.-.-� r : / Is Am an to '.." .' � i i ..' , �'\ z ' � "' ' ' .1 - I I , i � ..' . - : : � ......... s ' \ / ' - - .1 , . % , , " - - ,�-..,./....,..,..'�'......,...� ......... ��..��"".-"..,,.,-,,.�,��"-,,-",-."...., I � / , % , , , / �' ! .. - 1 . I " 1. . .;...-, , . � � _� . , IT, I . ? " ,'I � \ : 0 . � �;--:. 11 .. '�..'.....� / : / � � ............ I ...... .1%.11 '? ............................. ............ / im jw IV It .... . 135- / c6 I I ' * - '. � / � I � i ' - : -.---. - Z - ..:.... I ........ � % \ ': 7. . : : " �::t.* I .1.1 / ....... .-.-%%"-.....""........'...........� .......... "..".." ...... - . . \ .: , . . '. .....".. � � - -b�- / , � " � ";�"',�.sl : : . ... 1 -� � ......... __. , " - .- �' ,�,.,.-,L,",".'.'.�.�.'.�.".".'...... -� ................................... -11 ........... ....1-11". . . ..................... .... .... .... .... " z . . I / \ , � . " . 'I \ \ f , / \ $ i / ..... - - - / I ' . , . . � - - I �. , " , ". ' I " , / \ 1� I / _. '% 11 : � : , , ' .. . '� bi, .. . - , � - . - % . � . .1 : � . i - ," 41�;' 1 ..". \� ./ ."� '... .- .� - , - �: T....1, I . � . �:.' , ! �;L I ... :\ , . . _ ;: " .. � � 2f . . ,,, ). " \� .. I . / . .iw 11 I "�. .>..�. :' � ; I .1 , / / . . . 0 . as .m.st I* z . , I . . , 11 -'-� ' ' ' - � M:' -.": � '�' , , - \ - - - , . � � f ! . " � � I � ' \' . _...'.'... I .-1. - ; � � "... .; I � !� - M. I I .- - . ; '" - � .. . / e ' 1. .i......- � " ", - .' ;�- � ' so A I to , - . i : ? '��'* :% I . \ / - . 1,11 . .. � ; I ,.?., %,-..-.. " .0 � � , %.'� i ".� .. -.1 I .�� � '' ,,, I, I * * j I . I * , _� �' . I . '..:2i�%%'___.._' ........ I ' - - �' " . z ,-..."�-.,-�.�.,."-�"..,-.---.,-��-.,.,.- - .1-111111.11 .......................................... _.........., ........... --.1-... - .. :' , .. i e i��' . , ./ - , .� - - i: 1. 11 - - - - I - � \ -351- - - " 41 0 �w � " '. � , . .-��i": - - - . .� - 11 � � . � , : " � .. : � " I" ' 41 , I I . , m I I N - -, .. I .- 11 .. , j � i :. . . . ! . , I I I I " I I �% i ", , .. I .......... � I - I _ -� \ \ .� '�, ,": : � \ .- - , . , . w �. � : Ic � � I . 30, - I 11 '� el / f - - - , �': .. a . ..... % . ", " �' e , .. . !"i . .. w A �' ' 1 $ i I ..:: .. W- ,.I 11 �' .. , -.,a,,, ...... '-�-��_�� X . . .:..-." .1 f � � I - . - --- . : . . . : � X::, �. , . 11 '� E - )F21.7 ` ZZ5 6 *E ." :' .'...:.. '� ...". "k, .. - - %" '. ... .. I . , . " - . . - I : ,- .- 1.1.1-4.4A...' -_ ,. -'��� .1 "i - '.�' I ... , '/ ..' ' � I; I I .I , ;'' ..' IP : .";� -"-"-�:i!J'.:.:�'.;I' � %1.1. - .... ."f"'... �. . k � . I . .1 I : , "%.: %'-.. ;'. -'�''.- A,� =92 , I �Q� - :'��-. :: 1. � �\ - - � '� ���� 06 � .. , e " � - -, - - ----&--------- � �', . . * .:, , , .: � � I 11 " " e i� e , I . .� . p.. '. ." � , --- �__ - - I I �' 'i I �: k i I � _�-" - : .::,..,. -, ", � ���� p � � - ��� 11 / �t . ; : : 11 ;' �';m:` :� ..' t."%; I I . � I _w --- -11 Z - . ss ."'.".... .... 1. I - : 1:11 . . ss I , I �' " I I.." ,-' � � i � I I .. � , . ., I ss ss .. .. ' ...' ' , j j " , i , . i . i , ; i E .. a - L . , .... ss ss . ... s%4? 4 I I , : I 1. , �6 n-, 'z- ss -4 � "11* I il .. " . " � -- : . , ss ss ss ss :1"...: ss NLIOR , : . . . i '. I z cl-t- : - s - I - I � . . . I . I ' . . : / //- '. � L' .... .. , , - .... � I , , : . "I �� I � � )\. f I * .' " "I f - , . j i.. L'� , - �'. , ��, .. � f . , 'e , : '. -..:,--".--I ��z . � , �' - -4"' .11 ! .41 .. .-,.I. I - .' ... . �' � . . � .. �-. 5, -:-.,::- , - � . , : i"I", / 6 " - .. ,I � � .. -". I I ".-, -" , Z�' , � : - - '..1. ..,'. -, v -�' '�' . % - . , � .. . I . , V "' i - - " ,.;,.- �' : .1 � � " �' .1 '..�-.-�t I '.- .� .. 11, " // .1 �. , " � , . , , '�'�_.'� � � . � "f: f .". --�-- - - - --- - J ;,'.� -. - / � : -. � �- , . , " : ,,, " ' I '�..'�;� � _ ".��' , : e I . - ': I ,- '. . . I " "' ' r � , . � "'.t %, .. � . , . . - - ': .:. I I .. ..' I I ! � I '.',�.- - " \ . . � I , '5 ' : 'f� 1 .I,.-,,- , I , I ti: ' :::,, //_ - - � --1 . -z-,"* .' / � ' \. 5 ': :- - - %, i I I ' . , . � : -, I / / ::'!i%"'"��'.-""*'�' '.�'. -�< 11 I . I z � , . ",.' I ��" � . . :� �'� ' . � - .1 . / _b - - ' ..'� . .� .. : I ` % , I . �. . : ; : - -1 / / - � " I . . , ." f � e, , I i .1, �1 � - , � \ . '. ,:j ! 00 00 C-) I I i Ic � : . . . I i i i T , 2 . : .. , -.- it/ , -co . � � \ . / . � ' : I I ' , : z . . . e' " , I , , \ � , r -i , r -� : :r: - -) r_ . : , ' - , . ! ' "'zc 2 �' -'�. :. k I I � - , . . .1 --� U i I.- . I .1 3 .1 . 'y . , I CD �*'-:3'i-' . I.. � I I �-,; �:�.'. 1i . ' .- - - � I . : ; Z. i... , -%. � I I ; I I q .. ..... I (�D , , . . ' . � ... . .. .% C':� �� ; I . 1) � '%'� * � � . . 4 ( � I I � � : PO ' . - . � . , , -1 ... 11�1..:W. - IE 24" CPP=26.43 :`.'::��' i I �' ,- '� I ,:.-.�.�,�.i��!,:::-,'��,.:��','-,-,�,,i.� . '�' 11�._p I � ., . � : J.._/ � ill I ..' I I . .: . ? �"!: I .�!.:�':' 1j,:*�':-, , . '. . I : " t I A.. ' -g , ': . * . - . t � � .: I . ?.'..' il ? . � _+ .'.. I,, .,_ � "' : ' " "'?, . � � ' � �:"; I I I .1 : ' I ,iI :",:"-*..":"",�.�""::�.;".:� ':'i-� * : " ' 'i ': i ".. * I - �'.' . , ; , , " I I \ '�' I tl� P� ill ......... I '��',:�'.';: ." %�-*'---:':::-." - , � " , -, - I : i . .. c? (/) . , .-�' " I "?/ . . - � , � ' I I :'; I ' '. � . i�')� ORDINARY HIGH " , .. . .. : , , - ;._.'.._.._-1 .... ..... I '[_---.:- r :4: 14, ill/ ! .' �."-�_' ..' , '' . (-'*) """ : . ..1-"....:;'. I ...j.'..'.f. : I I 11 .,....,..-. '.''."J.", .. � : �1�1 [T ' /_.", .... .. i. I I -m ".. . �' :'>�. I..", ;1�� : : '. w - .�� � ..:, , � 1. 7 I$ t: I 01�1 WATER LINE OF C) L.Q ' 1 i - - 11 . : .V 41 4, - � I "� i. / �� : : . ' - � I : : . -w ZL .. - I I : � . , � � � : . � . I I I � % ' . . " !� 1 *41 "�� m CN __' � � � I : : j I / / / I : , il� p 3 / i I i I /�\ / - ! . j : T 'V CREEK I i : i : .1 j j j j . I / I i 1;,q :. 7 : ijj -V 1,411, 1 . 'i : - I 14 X, - I � �i . f, � : '�� - I . :.'*'� I � �� 41, 1 a , / / : - J/ . () ; I - - I � , " I ,�'%':' ..�-::' : � : ; . 4 � ' ... . I/ I ,I : . "....- _�""4% , '..�' 1:: '::'1.::1.'. '-'.'�..*..1'1' ,,.I. �Ni�:;!�-: .. I . . . : --.-I.,".."... . .... �� .. I... .. . , : i 3 1 I.:_ %'..�'..' I I , 11 ! : . . 'f<"."', J--"-�:'� - � � : �� : . - , � I : z . '----- I I , I" . . � I '� / " : . . I I z . ... .' 11ww4f -----", LX: . I . ` . ; . : ". ", " / ' " ". / ; ; , . . 1� .11 " I '. � . . . I ORWM - I , �'. , / � � H 1, � Z i :� : c, , , :: / /" '.1 I'll . ,. '. , " I/ .1 I 3 . . -:� � � ': HWM (z). '.. '� ", " I I, I . . : , ( 'L : I .,k I �;' 01%'f . I , .. .1� � . . t I " .'. : - - " " . , . . '. � * " .�. j .1 . , � . I " . : , .. .' 11, I .. �_ . c ' :_. I .. . I - � ' I .� - �. : : � I :I . �0 014pae ' ' 'i... I ... . . I . . � I ' " .. %�. � . I I 'I �' '� zr_: ' - I . . '. .11.1 e I ' - N z �' _3 0 11 e .' I", -� , .,* ,.% �. ; ! � ! � , 1;? \ � : � I () C000 1� .. . I ' ; - . '� , '. . : .1 . '. '', , .; .' ; � , , � ." � : � , I I - : � i 11 .. ' 2 : , , I ! : , \ : : - - .1 , .� s : : . . - . " / , f I I ,,, " , ; . i I I . I i � ii"L �'�� OHWM ----� C)om -------- � 06*4f )000* .1 : i i '. .4 / \1 . : \ ' ..' 0"wm " ''' '' '' I ' ' � � 1: .. .1 � ; f 14 i �1�1' I '. , / I ��'��EXISTING : f, I : I � : ! 41:1��:;':. � .' el i I i* ,I -11' t I : 1 / 1. .. . . . . I . .. "" . I . I I - ''I I I ':"�" I ' ' - %./ '' "'Y4141 1 , ; � . f .. :� , , I �P\:' � '' " F, �w � !.1 i �01-� \ " � 1 11 * � : , P*** - :' � I z - � � " : .: I f : . i \ � A :\: ; WETLAND �� " � I .' I . f Bf "" ���� I ;'. '' - I . - : :Z I.' / " , i \ _� � . � , , 41 � 11 i ,C::; I . : : : : 011/*' � '. I � . .': I I % " , li: : � i I ;If < . -, � . � / .1 ; ; .1 i. � I I � : , ll ? . ; I % " I ; : ! .! I - M:' : : I" �. ." I " , -1 � 481 S.F. N__� 0"W4 It I ' � � :' : : :' ; N. . . . ; � I 1:i� ':�'c I I rt I E . �' , .. � . ; �' .: ' . ..: 3 z � I 1. � _. i � :� �' '� .. : : ! ... . . � Ir 'f Z, :1 �� " .(, I CATEGORY 3 11 � ; :I :1. � ; I .. 11 I � �' : : ' - ", i . . . - � -- , . I '� .c .� 11 I i-111 - I 1- . Q/y"_ OHWIJ - I . . . .. - -..--.-- - _....._________ - CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1,800,424,5555- . ILI qw it At . . ..- 1* a .. :-.:-t , � �-j'�:;- :.�. is m m M m :A",-',' ,�`AV p I . ,I- P.1.1 .. , � . I .. '. _ � , '...�' .�� . , , , . .1. _ . , ' *' " I'!.,- SHEET DfSCRIPTION I /An ont GroUp Sound Dev S.0411 ENGINEERING SURVEYING & LAND DEVEL OPMEN T SERVICES ' ., TESC PLAN P.O. Box 1705 a 1 1 1 1 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 202 Mount Vernon, WA 9827J x: J60-404-201,3 / \ N \ EXISTING WETLAND .*A#* 433 S.F. CATEGORY'*3" SCALE DgA WN 8r. - DESIGNED 8 r. - CHECKED 8 r. - FIELD 8 0 00A Gf- DA TE ' I . ' I I ' I I , . I. . , '. I .. I I ' - . , , - , .' ' I. . .' ' I I , . , .' .' . . , I. I , , .' I- I , , " , .. . , � . . . . . , ' % * I 11 � . . . % , '� � � � I I ' % � , I �-" ' ft 14 0 , I.. I 11 0 t - . .. ...' * of '-� . * .' SO * .... . , '% 1% ".. . 4 * 0 'w . %�'... I I I .' "I, * #4 * .. � . -, *.-,## � .. I ' ## ," � It *# I ", % I \ 'I.- #1 * , . ## .� ## , * to . . " to . % I , I I ' 11 % I .' I- I . '. .' % I % ' I I . , , I. I . . ' 11 I I I I : � . , I I ..., ' 1� � . .. , ' � � � 10 � 50'* P90JECT PLAU PSEVERIN P-,qFVFRIN I 50 NORTH HAWK'S LANDING FOR HAWK'S LANDING, LLC APRIL 2012 IN A POR 77ON OF SEC77ONS 29&32,, TOWNSHIP 24 N. RANGE 5 E,e WM RENTON, W L. S WAS 1,-,, __ "A ..." 0 Z -10 - �Z_ 32226 .,o - V_ G/S-TE �3 /ONAL e JOB NO. 8115 DRA WING NAME 8115EXCchvg SHEET 3 OF5 @ CONSTRUCTION ROAD STABILIZATION . SEE DETAIL A/1.3 - EX. CI3 3205 (�� 1 SILT FENCE. SEE DETAIL C/1.3 RIM = 42.31 IE IE 24" N&SW = 3 6.31 12" S = 37.61 (�� ,\\,% '\&" ':�W '\\"� R'%> '\N%�' STRAW WATTLES 0�_��� INLET PROTECTION (CATCH BASIN -EX. CI3 3206 INSERT) SEE DETAIL B/1.3 RIM IE = 41.87 12" N = 39.77 @ _-_W_� RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION --EX. I" CI3 3207 (@ __*_� PERMANENT SEEDING AND PLANTING I.. RIM = 41.83 � , * I 1. I. � .,: .. IE 24" NE = 36.73 (9 __O_� DUST CONTROL IE 24" SW = 36.73 . , ,: . IE 12" NW = 37.33 , NOTE: . . ..:. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED IF WARRANTED BY _- -.. EX. CB 3203 I .. SITE CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER OR THE CITY I . I ".. , � . < �� " 1. � : : ' ! z : f - I '; � 11 '.. *.�7'1. 1 .-: I ; . - I .. '. : \ 11 " , �:�':' " / .i*".i* . " 'I, -1 _ %% . '�T- A " ' "�' �� , 1"* . *�' ,*i*-" .,..:y .�� ', '..�-,%, IE 24" N = 37.00 EQU ' I �� :r/ /' / /I ..'.. """ .', i:':!:'::;' /1;1 - V '. ", I ..,.,.. , , I. � ;'��.- / .." '->111"..' I.- - ,.,. "I '� 11 " \\ %. mm = 1+1./U ' 11 .. ' . ' " , "� "." - "�:�-' . ' 1: . ; I N \ ' � ;� -�.'. % : / - . . .., . , C'4 �' i � ., I I I - , . ; , . ' " I I ' / / .- -.0 1 I. ..", I '� \ \\\\ \ �. i � .. il! �' I .... - ,� , .., . . 1� . , % . i i J, . ; . 11 " ... .. . - " . � I I � . - , ' Z - -,,,:- ., -, , -� ... 0 ' '� � . � ... , ; -.4, � i � . i : ..- ,' ' . . , �: I i , ... .- .- , - � , ..I-- � ... I -1 I - .' ---�*.'.__'.-- ' . il i - . , N .--'."'/-.-'.'. , .' "� _�'./ � , ,� ..'. CONSTRUCTION S ENCE: � - , .* . . ' '*-'�-'_','o-'% m;" .. ..' ...... ...' , , * 11 \ .. � --� I , - - .:'.:. -It', ....;;'.'-_; . . '. .,.. .", � ", �'. , 1� .. . , \\ \ .' I., JE 24" S = 37.05 ' I - �' ; -, / / / / ..' , - . .rpt .' " , . � , ',,. .1 . � . '. .� .' , ; - � '* ; ; . : I 1 It \ . �. 1w 'f ..,� __ "'. ) -� '.' � .� . , �' . N - .. :? �'�/'::'�'-�' )�' / / . I ( I , I � I .'� -:"'.` /..' <V / ' � 1� 0 '-6:', . \\ \\\\ -1 � . : 0, , f ' I ' "' I .. . ..; i � " 1-/-, ' � i : - . 1� ' PORTION OF,VACATED / 1, '. .' ' :- e N �: ' '' - . .. N � 1 . INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S). - . I : .�:' .�'_- ,� / 'i I �� � - . � , - ' _ i:'--__" I / " - .. " �. .' : : I "'.- - � e ,,,, .<;�-; ,,, .- - � ,:: � � � 3 '�\ % � ;. -, i Il", i ' * . -, -- . i , / 7 .."11110 ii; / / I/ ' ' . ',.,"""', , .>--... -�.'."" 1 '2 3, " .., i... I N ! .." I _ .Ji. � ,. I �.";: I / 1. � " , %, I - .'.. , .'a:, "I .." "I I I ; .' ' ' '/ �'� / - . ,� .'.::: �: \:'.:� 11:'�71 / \ I � \\ 1. I : . : I . : - - .. " I / -, I 44TH STI " . i . � : i i . I .I- :k� .L..; /_-_;1'__"'..._. .""_'� _"' -I�SEMENT TO . , I � 1� : ��' I : k : � .��ff I`& / '11/ . ,111 .V. �':':-". " .' - � \\\ / / " �� .1 X, /.:,/ .... . 'I - - - - I �' ... � 2. INSTALL SILT FENCING. . ;:! : .- . AW � , . .. , " ': ' , 1H � �.' . ii : : i :1 � . , . .."'I", ?" 1;" , '. .�ii ! I " . / "I , - \ .�� ,K/ ' .!::�� '�%:'�! / 1\ z �; ; ; ; .7 � "' - "I I �.. %, " Y"'. ' I , - i . . . , - , ; / /:. �' " --- . /... / . ,_ .... I I : .? ill .4 1 /" � � , 1 A---2728'01 ' o / / I, .. - " '. ; . :. I '. -" �' %, --'..� - E/ MY OF RENTON tA ' 11 '�.' ", ' I '. � �� '�/' ' / ', ___ \ " '! 1, - \\ \\ '. � , . _� Y / I . �.; It 1 .11" . '� .'� .".� , I 1, :: � ; .1 �" e ;! . ;;:�_ 11-1 .1 I " -, �'C:� � ) ! I .* !- �... - / ; .'_"'.1 �' . . 'I I , �\\� ' . . ,;' 1 R= 1 1 15.92' " , . ._'�.-'�_ ,,,, : I - : / z / ."', � ..... �' . A ';�- s ��":� / I . , .. / \ \ \ "�'��t�._:"'.. "', . "I \\ 11 \11, �-. j. - � � .": � - I I,--, / 3. INSTALL CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION IN ALL EXISTING AND I ii A i '. "', ': , I / ' % '�Ic-' /'/ . .' ...�,...' z ".'7 " %,;.., � i . " . 1� \. \ . . , I . / , .:� ."! / '.� .' , " 4 (I I .. �' . � . .' " , . , - .... %, , : � , -'." I "" , "; 11 I ' i I i ...,-,* i ' . i ' I .- , �/.' / , ." " .:. %. - / � i. �� I L=437.58 I /" .'. I 1 4 I/ . '. I ,...,�.�"u, .. ...i. % , , \\ .1, i I .-' ..' - I . �' ': i. 1: - '.' ) � I -�- " I '7 ,- ,'. � ' \ I % PROPOSED CATCH BASINS WHICH MAY RECEIVE SILT LADEN RUNOFF. I .. . - � . �.'i,y,.:1 / - I � .... 1". . I � . .*�:' .,..'?:i I ' . . I - / , \\� I .' �: 0'*� : ; : * m. '. I � "' \ % , i i .. � '. i . : i . ; .:.; __� ,%.... ii-'� I '. i '. - . ''\� .% ..� INCLUDING THE EXISTING CATCH BASINS IN LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. I -- - � . J., " - I .. I �' . .",,". , �' .k Il. .11 - �\ I i : : . . . .'. "," - -�7 , - �*' .� " / � .. .. .�..'- , _ - , / I .%% ". t' , , ,� /11 . - - i . . / -1. . .' .' . � -s i 1, � ." \ " - - , I : . , -'.'F' .,.�'� ,;) 'j .. 1'11'1m' , , / .0 \\ " .1 , .' . - \ �".' .-.-��-" " \\�N \ �, : . '\ - - . : I ��: : I . '... '_;� I- � ��ji"` '� i . I I ' , \ :11 / " i / '�--' -� �:�-'�'�"` .� . \\ \ 1. . . ' ' . .� - / .""" � 11 - / ;,%. .1. - I - 'T.J'_�".;."' � 1. ;_ ':�. ,,, ".',; � ' ' .1 I I I ::� : -`,J1 I .� / 11 . -. ; � k ...,'. . ... "" .- - � � 00 ;�% I N � ' I . I . : .i� "s - 1. " .". ,. ,li.." � � \ . . I _ , . .1, . \ \ �'-. t, 4. GRADE PARKING LOT WITH PROPOSED PERMANENT STORM SYSTEM. ; - ' . I , .. .'� . ...'. : , ;-'� "/ LAR5 , J` " . . - / / , I . , : � I � ; � "'. - . I . .' � / - , ..", � ` t .. -_ ae - 11 I ; / 11 i ' '- _.-..'�z ; - j , -i J. - I s' / 'V, .. , % \� \.\,\ \ 1. : . '�-�. , --'!.':�' - , "��-"�' I / 4 ! ? '.'� .-' / -, ."/ '/ . '��" - , ___ 't \ IL_ - - ""';`�.0 .1 " .. - I / : � ""'.. 1.1ZE". ".:..-! : '. ..." - _30 x - ' __ / . ... .'� I " .. " ";��_'�._�'. � � .- " .....' I I :-� '. 1� �% 1, ." ::/ . ' " , . I . ? I" � _\� \ � , � . . '. I , .. 1), , -, �' I -..�-.'..� .. ___ I \ . - .1 ... i ; �� --- / / '� � . ; I ,,,,, 11 *11 q . . � 4 . 1. '-"',��,' % . I �' � !...-i I .. -1. 1, , --- :!�� I '� � / .' . ' �' // / I " � I . ' �-"'..'..; , .. I., I ! : . ..... ...'...", .r___� � / I . ::.' .I. .,.,: : ... �\ � � / I . I 771 . ; I ' 11 \ .... / - \ \ 5. FINISH ROAD, PARKING LOT AND UTILITIES. -.� `� ��' i �` : i 6-'-'L�'-�. "-",-,.:, . I . - . � __� � 1! ...." �':."' -_ I \\ ,_ \' ' . .1 m: 1: �F-' . ..... �'�.... ; - ' I : � 11 . . 1� , .. .1. z \ 1� , .. ' - '. , I ".. \ \ \\,\\ % � / --.----;�'-�"--'.-'..'...'- - i �: '-� . � i � .... . ... L , 1�51 "*��" / \\ , , , .. : .: � .3 I , - , ' f �'7. / i - _,_ .. .. . I ' ' . I ; . , I I �. `,.", -, \ '. 1. � / '... W'' I ; , .' I p ; .j .1 / / / e- % \\ � i. 1: � I I ". ': " .. / ' I , 11 ! A" : I ", / .'?._� 1p, - '.-.�.� '�' .-:::: ! ' \ )�'\ N\\1 N % V "I", "... ' ' .." , m . � ;.- y I - 7`'..�" - I � \ \ \ . 6. APPLY PERMANENT TESC MEASURES TO INCLUDE PERMANENT SEEDING I'll. I ; i. 'I / � I 9 . 'i:.:'� \ - .. . � ; * ' " - ' -'� .-�' -, ,"V /I ' '.." ii . " . : * ' - . , - \�' / '1�� . � :' . I '.' ! ; I .�. �' A-, / .. / -"' � I ..." - %. ..� , -�el - 1 : ' ' . .. � . � 2''- �: I ..:,., / '. ' S(Y12'43V I -- /� % . .. I . . L . . . . "', � I / / � C, j """'�' I . / .. �'.' , ' : , ; 1'... 1 / �': I / " IF 1_'.'_i-.'.-_'1_ /\ % '.�.... " \ """ , " .1 .- I . z , - / . . .' ' 1 11 -"--�.�- � \," I � I - , - I z' I , -_--� I .... ' I � N - I I ? ..- ..: iN- .� \\ .. " AND SOIL STABILIZATION BMP AS REQUIRED. - � .. � \ V ." \ A, I : __ I - . .1 .- - - ' , : . . \ - '. i : . ! ; . i�p'. I . " .. - � I / ,I � I A\ , .: , I , " , , . � , � ; � !! � , I / � IL . .. , , 11 �. I � I .,.. : * / - i I / , 11 ... �� I \ 11 1� . - I I .'. , '�-' �' �.' I -?'* Z / .''. % " , :: , '�. 1. W9.73 11 ". � � � .. 11 � ...", �' " .. :�.'.'- / I 'e'�'- I \ " '. : '.. � .1 ' .. � 1. I I. ' \\\\ \\ 11 " . I .. _�'. . : 11 � .:.' ,,':. I , ' C I \ � ; j I ' ' r- \ , . ! "' : : t : : � 1� \ � J I . F.. ,,I A . *11 ' ' -M... , . \ \\\ "I % . .1 11,11111 ... Ill . I � I / � S " : L. 5 : �" \ Ii. ..--.,.,. I � , . /::2.-, :1."'.....", \ t - � 1 ! I . I " I � '* L : . � I � I ': I / & 4A - - - � \\ I., ... , C' . ' . . I \ -&." , \ I .. . I - .1 .' \ ' 1� , \\ \ � . � '.� : : , - - I . ! - ' -' I 1/. ! I � \\ \\%, \ \\ 11 - - ... : * . - - . ' - - - . .� , . .1 1 , -1 " ' I �' .: "":% ,:. � I 1� � . ." � �.-.. , : , �" ;�' i , I '! � ,I \ �& - ,:� \'a \ \' 1_11� I .' I, ; i ��_ - � i , i . , , / � ' �. ; . I � i ' ' - � ; 1 ..--" I I � L. , ( I . 1 ,,, i i -. w .. � I 1 I 0 i i pill.i' ; I I / ... % .. - � I '. 11 ; , .. � ` " , - \\ , I - �� . , :i '."' , " . � I / .' \ \ .. ..' , . -� . :' . , / . .1 / : : / ' I i, :. ; _. .. \ \\ 1. .. . .. . ; - � � * I �' .. / / \ ' � . : : " " � :��" � '� / \ \ " (^ , 11 , , I . -f , � i �'. - 1* . �.L f, / . ". - '.. \ � \ \\\ I, "I . � .. ; : '� - ." * I . .. . � / : I - s ... . � , .,-.. I , " " i � - , I POPLARS \ '-'e � ,. � ' .'' I I .1 " .'- i � � .. � \ 1. '��' . �-.. .' / ' " ' / \\% ' 1. , .� ,. '' , I : / . � I � . 5- -1 .. : � "', �.' -.� ... �. .. : "�: --.--- � : . ". ., I '*� i.� , I. . � . 4 :. - . ,- . \\�\\ 1-1.1 .1, . I I - / - :���' I ' _ \\ \\ - I z I .. ; �' 1`;1! !:".,. / ".. : " ." . � ,::I, ,.--,-, .;, I . '.... i 1. / � t'.. ��"":'.'.'�. ,'.:' \\ '\' " � , : . Iv * I , ' ;'%) ' . .I........ L.�:..:.".�-' .' ... \\ \\\ 1. 1-1 , : I , .. ' . . - I \ % .' . , " I � . I. lk i ,I I I / .'I I / " . " . I , .:,:., f \ ... I.". : , , . . '. � .1 " . , .. �. \ \ ,4;e�mft W \�\� . , � : .... :. 11 I \ " . . - ' , - � I . 00 '.. "L \\\ I., '. ::�:: �''. . A \ \\\ .'. 11 I , , ; .... : .L il � : !.-. � I , / , , . ..' I / : 1 �5? . I A 'I.' / *Aft . . '. , � I -'�---- � SF ft* I 'L � � : . / � .1 .1 - �'q ' ' � 00 . ftft '\ � 1. .";`�"' � � , -, m i .' � .,.,, .1 . I / top . ova � . .... : .4 , � :�-'- ..:I. i � " I -" \ . too " ,'Z� , ' " . , 11 .."�' J�l S' \ ' " i . I ... " "". � , - i : ; - .. - - Jf 1� ; � . -.Mae \\\\\� I " '.." .. , . , ... ...� I % . I . �' / 00 N .. . I ' ' . �:�: I -1.11 " - m ? I � � ;11 I \�\ \\\I �.." J -.111"', i .1 �:'m!:: � . . .. I . 60, \ \ '%, . . . ." i - .1 * �'.'. " , , \\\\� .' � " ' .. '' : 111.1 , . / I i ;:: r.. ; .. . ' L � , i , . . ; 11 "I IT - f .. " 11 ". 11 11 .... , . , : . . : ��ie .X, � I L\\ I .. , . I I a & 1� . . Z'�f : � :�... ; .' � � , � I I .", -1 #0 . � " . . L \ " . \\% , : , - : 1 j .' ' f I : .1 � .:::" : " - I " 0\\' , N � , 1. 1. :" " .."', � . - \ : ' � ' - L , . � �1111 : ,-' !" � �' I ';' \ ' 400 . . ." . - - .: I - ' � . \.1 I , - .. .... . .'.. . . . 0. �' ' � I , I _'� _'� . � . . - - : . k - . .: "', . . . . . . � _" " \�)'\\N� 1-k I . .. � ' ' . I I ..."I"..." ..*" � . * ' 1. - ' I ' "" , t '. ' ' . - L ". I I . " . , . i I I I . ... - � : . , \ �' ':' .. . �' 1. 1. � .��.,',L '. - I L � I , L . : ... : :.. - � ; , , i :1, I IP , 11: V" I "I - POPLARS or _� '\� ' , . . �. . h i ,'I ' 14 1 � N\ \\ �' . . ." I .' 0 - I ' I ... ; .-i I �' i ' I I , I c I -\\ , I 1, "I I..., I '.. . $ �! , \ ' I I V'\ \\ .. I ' ; $ * - , 1: I.. I .Vi ; \ I 4e � � '.1 � '� 3, �' I ' " .' . I . .1 I " . I � ' : .. ' I. f - �':U ) 'V F� - � t / � . " ' . .. - . \ ..' I � � I I \\ \\\,\ " ) , I ' ! %" " ` . . ' .�" ' . ; ' / .. '. � ..' - I I . ;;'�� , , .:, � I I I ' � .11, - . ' .! < , - f X . \ . I ' . '.' - 1 . $ , " , J� 1 �5 'I .! \ \' \\ '. , I "; , , � L,\\\\\ 1� " .. 11, / ...'� -, .-. , . .1 \\\\\\ .. .11.� I . - I I I %�' I ', \ � .. \ \ / ..1111.1� ; ; %, , J .. 4 � , . I 1. N 11 % "..' , � : 0 .. � : � : , : I I \ 11 ' .'. �111 .-' I O.A. - I *1 .:, / / \�\ " "I ../'" " 111"' ' ; �' ., 31 � I J I 0, J ' / � .1 \\\ . I I - : ' . , ,.' � '� . ... I .", ..... �' - _____ -z' - , : I .11 � 1. .' 1w. .' : I I ' \ :L --1 �- .� ; , " I , � " I . / "I . , _- -, i . ... "' I ... \ - , . -11" .' "... ... . i : , , ' p ��\ \\ ' .., " .1 ' . '$ 1 ii -;% / % "I, ' " I ; s � .' : � . "' � .; ' '.' \' \ '.. .. I " ' I � : � '... : . . 5�� .' � :: . 1�1 . IS. . . , 4 . 11 X I . . .....� , �x : , , ' I : .. � I., 4 I I � .. . / " \\\ ,'� , -1- " .,-"".I .,',. : 's I � . , . : I .' " I I 'M I , , , . \ ' ' I \�\ \ '., I '_ . ".' , " . ' � : , . - � I T\ " I '. , . � � f - .. I i .' - I it I I .;::. " 1. I I " \ "I . -, \\ V 11 -� ,L�..'.'. ....... . , - -- : ", . ........v " I I I � - � .,.-:. ml .: - �- - - '� � . : : ".....� I : ' - .:_ ; - � �' .. ' / % . / - , - .- I . ...�. * - A, . - 14". . r . : I ii : . �i'L . I ' � : , . .' 4. � - , ,.o '. - j , I ; " '. \ I. � f - " :......" 11 . . ,,:.:'.L:..l . I .��." .' "L"'." ........ � i .1. ' * � i . ��.' , ALDERS .1 � - . \ / � 11 ' * . . " - � " � � "� i I . , : . L I . . . \\\\ '. 11 ... . ... " � H . .' \ I . .. I '. ':�':: I "" � ' , % ''., - '�i;:i' \ % / . , . ' .1 .11 , " .1 .. ... _' ." I I i,...� .1.!.." I : : . m : I � .� ,,','.'. / I.. %, _'__'_"�'� .. .. .1 "... , ' .' ; ; ; W i I . . \ ; \ I ' .,'_��',_' ..., .'..... ..,"% I .."... .", � 3 : s ". %� '� 1. � I � I � / .. / � �. . " � I : .: I i�� ,I �� .1 " , ,.!. 1. . '. - �-:� . . i m ' 11 . ." ' ; I ', 'j " , , ", 'I' '� k\\\\\\\\ / � " . .. , ; : : - - 1-1 " I m . � . ; I . ' . I � j : - .,-- -, "I "', I - �. % '�' I ::-s :1 � I I I --_�:"'---N'.".."". � �' , \ \ / %, _ "" _ . .. .. I 'i �" , -, � : 11.1 I . I I I, :',, 1 1 .1 ' s � J I mmi � �::"� , \ / / - I % � - : I : I ,'.' . . . .. '�/ "" " "' "-�.�-'- .,.;', I I i V : I', / . \ " . ,:. I , , - .. . �.� . .1 I I .. L', - I ' .... L'. SF -':�F.:: .1. 1, ,.,. '....-I I" I ' - fl*� � .1 .. ' , womm 1 1 � . L' . . � \ \ %-.1-1 ! 11 - ." '..... ... 1. , " i 1, - I . , � 11 ', ... *\ A\o 11 . . , ! ' 1:1 % / / %. . ' .� \ �\. " 1, :...-".:'_ � � .. . % .1 , �"- : : .11. .... 1. \� X ,% . '� I . / " - I . - , 11 '. "' " 11 � :' .'�.' , : .. 1 1. � .1 I . I I . \ �' \ % ' . . , ,,, � : I "' ?I , L-11- � \ \\\\\\ " : y �, ):�L. ': / L'A\\\ '. ' ' " IS . , � �*:` :! . .� - � I . ; . I I 1. I . i ' ... � 1 , : ' I � '� : - \\ \),\ , % : , : , � ..".1 � , . , --� I 11 / I I . . ... I ' . , . : IP '.' --� \ K I � L I I I � "", '.... ' .. " . 1. I " 'k -., I : ' - p ...'."', \ .. , � ; : : :., : , ..'.' .' ", I ; � :��, ..):... ;' " \ \ , .1 j :'-, i I" : � .11/ , , � �_ I , i � ' - . , , . . % \ ."""�' ; - "' .r / .....:. \\ \ _ . - '. 1. � ' i ' : \ � , . J . - I I I I 1-1 -11-1,- � 1: - - < : 0; 'I I ...' -, I,--- 1.,-1-_11_.. � - " -� * ; � '..� � ' - J"' - . ' I \\ ' � ' .". .�', : I "' , , . � ; i .1. " . .' ... , '� " ` -"' % \ /�-' 11 I . : � I .. . \\ 1. - . % ..' , " $ 1 , - ��_?- ". \\ \ / -, "I . , �� -, -, ::. , I " : , . , / , , .' � - n ��'---. - .' , I -il :' j . -' : , [--", .' , i ." , 1� .' .�; ' I , . � . , , ' . I s ._" . . , � j \ � / .1.1' " L"" , : � . : . : jw ! - . . ; .1. \ I � \ � .11, 1� ' * , : I I - :- I i ;!:.1.` ; " ' I I I % I � 0 - 0� ' "'. : : ,y ' � �.. : I ::. , ...' I . .'��" � 11 11 I " , ' I � . �.. �:�' �' -:':� --� '� ; .5'. , '� 1. " . - - - I I : , .. . � -��:�` I � I n'..." .11' � M : . � . " X 11 IL I �_L " . . . I I I � 1 4 ; �� .� I .11 I il / .� :..,. . CONSTRUCT \\ �X\o\\\' / I '� 11 .1. '-� ! :� � i i ' . � - ;': ,' / I \ I I. . I I \\ \ / I,- � . : "�� . . I$ , - \ . " . 1k , i ! ".:!�:' � i 'I., .. , . . � 0 , . � - :i; ' I .� ... '�':i!�. _."�": \ I . I '%��\ \ / '-.. . � * . : .. ..' %I', ! / ... '% �. ' ' ' �Is i . : .:.'�. � ". is . ' ; , ;.� � .1 j J;"'�".) /'.-� I ��� .\ � � I _ \\\ / 1% ..." < , .' 4 1 .. . .; �.'j : � I \ I i,"i, . 11 INTERCEPTOR DITCH I .!:. 'I" : , , � � � .1 - . '' .10' . ""," % � -.1 / i. I � '.. J .. : : P , "" ' I " "I . I � � 2 , % . -, \ . %. j � - , � ': - � .- 3 1 , ," , . \\ \ � ", I . . ' � 1 � : � I �1� , !.". ' k .._`.5.-1 \ VX / 1. �% , . . . �\ " X .I . ' ,11.1 , I 1* � � i "�' ,,, .1 I ! - I . i I P �1 - , r AS SHOWN TO "I , .� ... '� � / Ill / z I 1A 6 1 I : .1 I '. % .. \\ \ .. I . I p � \\ _. 1-1 �-'_'). \_1 �'�.. 1. . � % - � ' ' , , It . .. . * � � w � � , : ,,, I �" " 1� 1'"', 11 ..- . -1 - \\\\ 11 I .. " m ; ,' ." ... ' . DIRECT FLOWS TO � . . L ' �"' ', " - � /! N : ; ,,, ,,, , ! : / . " \ / \ , - I -11 " . /. I ' - � .1 : : : - / \ "� '*_1 '�/ . ' ' I - � - �� : : .'..' ` .1 -/ '.' \ "P .- N\ ., i I I '.'* ,' - � .' .� , S611722'101 I %1% %. ... 1� " � S 41 . I . , I .1.! f .�' \1! ' \w \ \\ \ I I \ /_11 1%, . I " � ' . I � I : . . . .;. I . I - ' I %% ".1 \ / " � � ; .1 i s I � - . .� , I �� : ::; '4 . . " 1% '. ' L � � � - ; \ I'll / .. t 1� .1% ` ' � ..'x . .. - - I .11' . 1\ I \OX .. -� 1� !� .�� f � I - .' �;\ / : I �. e: � i � � . : ; t . .; - � .' - LU I '. I,, \ ..' / 11 i - '�' : . , ..� 14.52 '�. ' 7 IN ' \ \ - . . . \ . - .'r .. : � I ... . I - \ SEDIMENT POND " �' k I * / i ��' : � � . . -1 �' : : ::': , '\ '�' �. I I \ . � 't x N / "I 2 : i 1:1 I J � I .. " t : - - - I " ." J`z � - .' w .1 � .1 �"'\ \ '� % I . � 1. I '\ \� - - 11 1. '.. / _� I i I . -, I *� -:� . . " .-:� . 45 . I . I... I \ L' : \\ \\\\\N 11 11 ,,, '. ,%11 / i / ; / � � ..':::',_ , ; - . 2 ... 1, "I t 11 , w � I : i 31,".. ' 1 * c I ,' ". ' f � .� ILI " ,,, , d -9 : � \ I �\ \\ . � - " i, -, 0 1 - " .. . . , . I � : ' �� 11 L. . . . . � . !, I ' �11 � . I %,I I . �. I � : - il �:' t \\\\ '� . I . . .' i - - " . . . , , i \� \\\ ", - I �' ; .. .4, � " mij.711. I : . , .' I � 11 % , / "I , ,,, . : ' .. � - "."i"� : : - � Iff "� . .. ... -.-J) I / 64 � . 1. I A \\,\ '\' 1". I . . . , - ' . -, , . i 'N L" NP -.1--l"', f 1 �'l � 1. -.1.5 ." I . I I " - � � $ \ % ii . X \\ , 'r 1 ': , ': i , lmwm I � �' ' I � Z:, -� i -� I I. .. 1. i : : \ I .. � : .. \ \\ I " .. - -, , j., , ; . �'? . � '\ X I - .. ; � I :1, : I E I . : � C", �o:' %. � '�.:J j.11 'Q ' \ , - " . 10/ / " 1/ 3 � ..' J , I / . .- \ , ' L / -, . . I : '_ �.`� � , " .�' , . % : .' '�� 1* :;:�. I , "I � , 11 � , . : 11 : \ \ 11 \\ \,\\\ " .' I ' ' ' * le 'i I : e � F` ;��..�".' ' , ' ' , - `:..'. .. I - .':� / \\%\\Nl. , - I . . . \ i:��----- "��.:�-;� ' 'c' .- I ,.,. . . .." �' � - -, , ; :' ..' f , .' , -c i : -'i?' . ..'.. \ V - I N'. .. '%L1 .. . : - � . \ i:,".�.'.. . 1. '�\\\ � L -' / , , --.. I _- - , L' : ! .:. I % �.'.:.�;�;L':..'; i, ':..' 51 / 74%\ ", , , %, "'. � - .11 . p - .� - CITY OF RENTON I ' .. . I I V �A � I . ;'---�i I " ' i , - 1 1 .-;o .. : . . _..4. 1 - . � - ..". \-L_ \\'�*_'�..t' " %, � i... I , � � - 1z . I -� ::L:. "! ��. '7: \ __':z . � . . ...� 1. / ---.. , . . :: i 1 ', 1% -��!'�' .,.* r ' � I , , S ".. , 'i' ,.- : , , i : : , � ". . / - r I 'V�:i . , I � �;�' ." ��.! I / . ' " I , : [ z : , 1\ :��'. _ ". �`l L 10, c I � � � ".1.. ` .1-\1 '� 1. . I S - i . . - � ........ \ -.1 - �� - v i. I . , �- � - � I � . 11 / I \ / '. \ z � .�. .L. %6 \ ` N ".. I 11 � - .. ��\\\\'\�' \\\\\\ '� I ' - " ' " I ' � , - : � J '. 1!i;;':�' i��'.'.* , ". '.' �-:� / ` / \/ .. 1, .�' I ',_ \\ \\\ 10 .00/ �,'�." - I ' i , : . . , . , . -- . \ � ' �. / I ".] I.. , " � � I I .�... .. .6 , , , I .� . \ " - , -, : .. , . , _ � *' ' ' . � : ; .,*"'i-*�f- : � - -"-' I I I, '� .,!, i:-, . . I � % �' . � ! I I ; - I I : �' . . ,I I . L. " ' . \\ \\ -, '. " I j , - - - � -� \ . 0� "'� i . , � .11 -::i�` � ' ' ' " . ': . . � - --- '_ ' ' . I ? ' . . � : ; � . .. , 1. � , / � 1:i !..,i I I . I . : . .. .' .: i ' �;;.' - .. !'.:�'�'� ,/", I . : '. \ 1, '� i . : , r. .., . � � I 1\ ��' , : �.%\ \) �\� \\, \ / " , - "', .. , : i -, .. . \ \\\ t . 040,00, -10� I . 111�1 - , , , f � \ I L L ... I , , I . � - � � - � I - - �. ...' 0 X..... .:: ; '. . \\\ "I � 1 % / �' I \� ..... �" ' .. � 1 , : I . ... � �' I . . � ! I . . I \ I ' .. I �' \ � ", . I.. - 3 - \ \\ / "' I" . '. - \ , / "I � ."?; i . -.-:-'.::�:_-'.�\� % \ i , ' , .. / ' '. . I I 1Y � , , i . \\V\\\ \ f ", -, .n., ;R: 1. : .. -:.'.:.�." .': \ / -% 11 . ' : ' ' . 73.77' 1 ' ; � ,\,\\I - ' "' : � i i I 'S i �.' \ I , .. , � 11 I It �: �'- " ,- \ I .. ."..:��"�:"' -;`�'%.��..' I I . , ` , / $ .. - , � I . � , , �!�'.� ,,, . , , - ; I .1 '�:' '� �- , '." \ -40 i . '.::::.:1'.;: , i -� i, .� . , : �. - - .� \\ \�\ '� . .e �' I I ' ' i � : * '�:O-!"' ' I " \\ V N "k, �i - I , � , . .1 1-.�.. ::�:'_-' 't � ' , ' _i'el "I', " - - . . � . ' H ' �: �"10"' ", I ,.,;.:.,. - '� :: . , 'x � \\\\ \ \ ' I , . , L'� , i . " i . \ - - .'�_-_' .- , , 0 \ I W ":';."'." X -i -i-, ;' . , L_ .-'� - - J � . I I ' I . -41 .' I., � ! f . i . \\\ . r j 0 1 .11� , .� , , � I '! j, .-' , - : I � 5' 1 �: I " :i. "'..: -.,. S34!06'38'W \ I N\ k '0� ' j:""?'n.-.:;'1L'." .;, - Z .* � I : : . . . \ � I .. , ,' : t , - , , I I I .� � . % r...".� ... , ; '; . � . /� . � , , \ I/ / \ �� i, � i '-�"----':-:.: '�' % � 4 .." % I : .� . \ \ - I .. ... / /'..' , . � % \1 I ..' . . I � .i t .' � L" , , "A' �' .. - -.,: : I .. f . � .. I :., - , - . . ..'. � . -11*1 I I.A \\\ " . I � : � 11 : I . � - . �;:.- - .. - �.. .:! �:... .. ' L.- -1 \ \' 1. � -, � ; �;�'." - i i I . . � � ; ; I �� .: .1 :�: - I I .. '. .-'� .;:':�� " -. \ .' ... \ �'\\\ \0\ z '. . . I . . ..� " 11 � ..; '�'. %-.. .. L, I ".1., A M / '� '_'� ..� '; �' * I .. k "" / .. \ '\ . 111� , � Z' : � , I I - �L' I., 1.7 . - / I I " \ � .... : ��" ': \ \\ \ I I i 1._. i � . .. "I i $ � � ", , . Z . � , . � . i. s .* , f , ; ? I : .' , % - 11 L , , - \ ' .0� . I . � I e � I % I : I, ' . s I j . �;-' - .. �:�. . - I / % � � , I I � : : . , " .� � I � � � � . L -? - .- \ \\ I., % , - '. ' f � , , � , . . I : - " -��. �e. .. '.:'� - - - - '. '.. . % , ". � . . � 1..*--'.-'�' - .. ..., -_ \ \\\\\,\ .o � "I " s . - �% I . . : : '...' " " . 00, �� , I i . � I . 11 �: ..,i% ...4 ' 00 . \ �_ :',, -77" "., \ \ \� / '�. , % . � ': 11 � .� . , . � � s : . " ' ' ' "' � I/' , : 11 ','�:�' I . I \ \\ % . . I - �. -.;� - .�j' i . I � . \\\\ / ' . �.�'. � I - - - . .' . % ' , \\-" , �-. 1. '_ ' '5 . . : ' i ! ' I . : : . ::P -� . . � , \ \ 1\ \\\ - � -'� i %� . i I i ` � � .' . I ...."..' , / N, _� X )?p - I � . oop - � ...� < , . ,_ - I . ...' , : .. N 11 ` N / / /-,., " "I I � I I - - � .. .. �. ..' '. / t " � . ; 11 - I .. 1 \\4 � " \ \ , .. I . . � I , " 'e i / I I I : .' .. i . I" : \\ \ .11 � - ; � ' : c : : . ....'.. ..�. : "I I '�� L'..' �� \ _ �� - '-.�. ., ...... L .... L" 11 ... I ......... � ............. .......... I ... 1'.".'..'.'..'.-'- ....... �-' .'.'.'-..,"".".."..........."""....�...."",,-,-,...,. 1. '.L�L "I.,". "',.' - 'y'-.- - �� .' � � I I ; : ! ' z .. ", . I.. 11 .............. ,."' ........ ..' I'll ....... I ................ � \\\\\ � � I ; I '��"o :.: " .111".......".:':: .. . ... ... '�L ................................ ... -.,- %.- - 11 ' " �--' -i I I � . L I . - -, .: . .. �A%\� .) " � � �' ' , / , 1 .1 " : I i" : � .." : , ,,, R� -' 11*0 z do . - - - - - � 11.1.'.�%'� .... � " NL ... $ !'� .F .- j ] .1 : i 'S�' I � go , - - � \\� 0 ' I . � � .L \ '� "I . - I - - ' � � ..: � .. -. '-1. I --- 5.3 ...� -.1 " ' , , j x � .. , .. , : j I - -- - - .... � - .1 - -----I-- _.- - - I __ � .. V / .' � J! ! .', , , . � ; - - --.-; ____ -.::.z % .. I � " . i - - I I x �__ - - - -,I - :. . ' N " " - - I i - I .. � � � , 11000' 1:5�111_1_ --",%* \ s � .' .' . .!' ':' , I I ' - 0*4 010 I " \ \�\ , . , - � , , oft 0� dop - - - �i\,\ � , \ " ' 1". � �' 31., : : ! I " - - 11 -T - : ..' . \ \ \\\\ / 11 1. , � . I : � . I : - - - - , . - I . � , 1. % ' i ,,, z . . ; , - � '. 00-00 " \w � . -�'_' ' f " , , , I "I ' "" -, /"-� , . .'� WAft MW 010 / .� \ � : \ , � \ N,\%\\, \ \ � I ' .r ./ " " � : � . - i; , - - . \ / \ ' � - � ; . ' � 11 - - - � . I .. I I , , ' ' - � * ' " I � '-:i :� �' \\ , \\ \\ '. / -1 "I '\ : . - __� � :.\X . : . : " , - . � I � , " - , A � \\ S" - - I ,,,, , '�..' \ I& /1"', . . ' , ..---,-"::, i, . j 4 . , I . I I - � It : ' . 1, P. ..... ; , . � / " - - I - �;"' . . . .1 11 '� . .".....': , '.. , I " . . . , � � '� I * : I ! , �' .." - - d.� - ' I .' : . . I. � - , " . , '� '. . .. I ' I , / � .""... ', . I . . �11 . : 4 ? . IP 1� I I - - - - - N /' I .. I � . , ; 11 " �� � -." ! � I I ". �' . \ %::..' , . , , .- - - . �* � - .. \ ' ' � \ \\� IL .� I '; ' I - -e r .11 ' , � - " / N\ \\ \ / % - , - � " � , i . . , � -'�'j \ , ��_ ' - .'_..' � �� .' � I I . - 1� � (�Jl .... ." I i 1'.. -O'J-'� \\ \ \ �j / . rftw \\ , \\,' A _.... ................................ 1. "! -�,: '.. v, �f .b ", j � : ,.- ;� � !---.;�- / .'* / ::::: \ '. .' .1 I . .' / � .1 . I... i .I*. - . . \ Y " ov.... ;1 i I 11 , . � � � �' : I L"'-" 11 ..... .... \ "I ..... ... ... . _ � . .. -, �' '..'.. .. - . m / . : � I I : \ �. I,/ / . -1 "I c ' / - " \ , " . .' . . . - I "I � 114 1 � ", L "I" . : . I pr\* �': s . . i I ..... / " � - 11 "I � . , " " I" " " � U / / _/ 11 -1 ��---��3` � " J.' : "I... .11 / � V -.'� V ';;�'� \\\\,\" \ / .. ' � ' ' . '. . '. , : � : .1 ..: _'. , . ; I _ - - . � �'A' - I : '. , ; '. � . I . . ... .- . . ' . I .. , � . � , L - .T 11 .. �� I � � .. . �- , � � "�% I �' . I � . . : :' f i. : .... . .. - . A / '.. 1. -i�' � s I I .. . : i I , : � �'�" t .:. ':�-. -. -r. I � ,I ��. � - I .'.. . : " * - - .< * ..' i i ..... : . '�-. % 1. . , � . 11 ;%,?, : , . � � I ' , m . � .. .. r , '�"' - / � .. - .� I , 'N ..'.:""'-" .�' s � W. - �i � I " 1i , I � . * SU"91'59 1 I/ ;' , I—.: :� .. ", N / , � . I . . .'�` * . , . I / I \ ,\\ . , - . � ; . . " '. . � I � I I j I :� � �� \ .� � . - ' , \\ N\\\\ � .. \N � r , - - e .. "I ! . 4w 1 ' '_ I ' : \ N \\\' ,\N\\\\\\ � . I . I � I . Y: I : : 000 wommumm W Af 11 41 IN is " AV 4w 1 . � '- " _' � . i I " : : k � .., I - ' , If ?'.. ... Z :_�'. "! �: , i 40p � � w _... / � ,"I"%'..." ;' I . . 11* j I " / a ..........' I \ %. � 'I., $ .' � � ' . � : / ", ? - / M \ \ \ I /., I � � �-.p �'."� - '. , � - - - " I'll , , ?I . - "..,", .; . . 7 " .� . . �1 I * :iii:�i 1"J. j #* At# 44t � 11,07 I AN I "'A \\�\ �" . I I I I ' 14k 4 1 . 11 - . J? . - ... .� : .1 V I mi / \ .. � I . . - 1 ; . - �..'_'.'L *� '# - - - I . � i ' ' � ' I . 1� 4P# 0 - ,1 STORY METAL E,UM \ \ �' . . . ! I , ; , - : - � : i I C' .? / * 00 �r � m I � I : I '� - - � 6 / . . " 1* . / S4 � `�� \ . . 4w / � e - � � . ,\\\ I I I . L' I . . / V ,\\ \ ' "\\, ; . - , -, � - . #1 " \' \ I : r " --. '! : 1* '� I .. I ,- \\ \N " .N , . . I \ ' 1-.,.,-' , f - - : � . �\ \\ . � /'. . I Z : ; ; - - 4P / .1 � . ; i .4 I 4 , I - - � / / "I � \ I . . i : I I s I � : . Ir w �' - 1\ �' ; ...' "�4 , � : : . : / �� .. 1� R.- � I �."/ 7 / -'I*'. � f ? . '. 1: - --:� ;'�i;':" ...' / � L'. I / - - - - \ .. � � " I � � f � I I I / I &I '��"_i i ::� !:�; I / I , .." 44p \� .1 J" i : :e ('� I / . � " ;/' I ' ` - z - , N 1. � . I - - I ? � I I � I . ! '� . ; � k N\-\'- . I - , - ;:7 � � : / .. I I I I : . : � ; : . � : I ! � ' - : . / \ \'\"'x\\\0\V"'\_ ' I - . , ;:, � - - ' / 4 � - , � . , '� '.�:'.'..' *;'� J." I I 11 , z / / / � , : I . . , . � " : , i : j � ", I I ..' I % .:� , - / . . i 60,0 N � -1 .1 � '. I 1. - : / I � '�. '.� � , � � . ' �' " " , " �' If / �. � --- : / / : I '% 1 %6\\ X X 1 I /-/ . s � I ji) : i i � .. .�� , 1::,", I I i - 1 / 11 - ;I ) �.' \\\\\ \\\' \\, � " I.' " '. � � � . �. : � _: L"� " I .c - % , I- , 1. .1 � I � j �; " 4 � " . '% , 11 � ...... . .... . .� 11� ' . j � . ... ...... I I t \ / 1� ? - .' '. ' . - , . �' '� , I : _ .... � ""': \\ %'\ w'v \-,N\, " , , ; � I JL " � . . ��., j .; 11 - - - 11 z ':.:.;;:.; ....... �'.'-' � L- � ....... � .................... ... ';"..-'./.'.. ........1.1 .1 .... . I .... ... I ... S .'� . , Q ".: " .", � / .. � : ! � . -1 I I .' I \'. \ � I 11 �' C.. 11 ! � : Z '.. ....[L. 1. � I `:�" I � I I .� , - . , I � ' ' .'._ I c 11 I \ N ' I .�' , 4 : : I A ' : IV ......... _ I �. ..... -1 ; ''.. % ............... .... ............ ' I X \ ... ... . I x 11 11 � ,I 27.76 � .�, � , .. 4 ' .t., �r .1 . 11 - \ '� � : I " � : " '-�-_ ..... : \ .\\ \\ V ) ; , I �-�i" . : c - / I / � I , . . . / : : . �� . / - ' � , . i 11 .. L - � \ 'i' -'N ,:,.,.,.,. . . � - � ) : ............ . ......... � .................................................... �_' - , : . \ 11 � . I . , ....' : ... .........'c' . � I -.'!.�-' * 1. ;_'."...._. �! I ? , * � / ; : 1 k : - '� ,\\.\\ . � I I . � i ,I.. ' '. " t I �.-::"! '' ' / ..1-1-14-11'. . / ... I., ..... I ... : i I . \'��"'.-"% \ \*� \\ \X\\11 '. - , , , .L,; i'; � � .1 - - \ : 2 � ..... .. __._1'.1_.'.1___/1- ... �' ..:��. - 11 J . . , . \;:." - - - � .1 I j . . ' i .", , I , �:�:? ", - . : � : � + I i I : ,..,. \ I X I I , ,\\\\ .* ' I . - : : I , \ \\ i 0 . � . :. - .-"-::�" - � ' I + � I . I \ , ' ;_ . . .. : . : : z \ N .'. ,,, , . . . : - : : : \ \\\� � . � 41 : " ... "I I %�. I � ' : .. - - � -, \" I I .' '.' ,,, I � " - i ....' k � ' (A .NI) - "' : � . I ) \' ' . � I \ : I 11 : % . . .1 _ 4 , �" . : � ; :1, � . ' " .. � .' Z .. -�'- I \.," : .' �� 11��*' - - I -��.: 1 75 - * .1 � \\ , � /. '� , ' -1 - ' .� , " - I , .-.,, - . . - � , I , .� ... -1 , , ) , % I � . I .. ... ..1. : - ']'-"Y . .. N "., -;'3' Z, 3 � : � : ' , ..' � ,. . / ! . '_ ,' � I !'.." - - .,..* . .......... � ...... I ... I ................... � ...... "I'll, ........................................................ .% ... 1%1................................., \,\\ . " " I '.1 , I � .'-�". :"� .,-:f.:. ' , " I i. . .. - � / .,#*.-,* ....................... ---'-""""'-' �:'� \ , ' . .1'. I .. : : < 11 I. . ", . - __ . 11 . "I I . � I .. - - -�""',�"�"�L-�"""""""""' / i \',t "', -, ' / ; .f " / .� / : I : ..' . - ...."........ ................ ....." �� � . ' I- I i I... ,,, : '*�Z'�' / � , , , - -- : I-- '. I f C' . .1 11 : I I " " : � I ... . / .; .I.- � ; L. :' - '." \� j .... ........ f ........ * ............ -1-1 ..... t.:�� ' : / �' j ', ... I ,"'-", I I " ' "" - _"""_ "' """""' "'__"""""_"""' ...... . . ', � i , j I � . . . . , � , � I ' '�� . 7 : I 41W i __ ". \ \ \ e ; ; . � " .." 1. 11 I I I, I I , .1 , i ? / / I ' � . /::-� , ; . : r : \ , - _* t \\ -, ? , / .* � .: : I I : : �' � ' -. � 2 . . I . � . I I / '_� \ , . I.. , , � E I " I . � , . .1 � : �_/ \ ' . . / ' . ''..' ..' ' _"""_""' - - - %""""" "' : 1� : , . � 11 � .. . , . - , . �: 1 $ : '__� - ----- I , -1 �' � I ' � ' I � " � .'I � ." : � �'� - , - i f I .'�-',".'. I . . t 1. . . , I I / i � - .. ..' 3 ,:., [ I ___� _�31*113 - - ----- '- ........................ �/ - _*_*_*_i0_ __.__ ..... . ................. I .................................. I .................... � .... L .. . . ..................... I— ........ � ................ E \ . � / " ' , �. I , . I � � - �, t . ## / . ' 7: 1 . . \ � '. - : I / I . ; �i! '_� �'� - L_� . 1, .� / '/` I '�.�� � / � I - I " j - _ . __'..............'...", : / - .I...." .......... ........................ . ....... . -11 '. \ . ! " � : �' / � ,' : � I �._ _.'....' .... .1, .............. � I / : . : I.. ; ! 11 I I � ; - 1 \ I I * / 11 _� '. I - : ; . � . �' , ' . . : I I � I - -d - "i 1� A : r .�: " \ \ I � : � '."." j "zi:., � h I I , :; � �-. - .": I t / ............ * ................. * ...... ' ... ' ... "" ....................................... ......... .. \ , . . ..' / i '. :� .,.,. - � , - I ..' . H .� . . 02.81 : . / .1 I ; . I .,., : , . ' .........,......"�,."........................ ............................ ................................... 17 � SF \ I / , ' z : : I . ",�:j:�"') 1� I 't i . : , �*'. .L�?� - If � / .............. I ........ I .... ...' : ! .1 1. . c - - ,,- �� . .1* .. I" . - . 11:'� - _� - � , " " �:'..:,"!";V �-' -,.;.:-.'-. .-:., .: � , . - .................................... *"** ..................... * ....................... �::� / ? ; j�' ' '�'.':' . ..... '4v"4* ........................ L ............. ' . ; ...... � - � ,,, _ . " / ." I .' . . - - '...' - Z, 'e : .- . " I z � � . \ , , / t 11 : � .' : .. ' I '� I .1 z - , I , . I ' . " � I . 2 ! ��:--"'%5-�'� " �'- / i , -, �'. \ .� � - I � I" .� : - ' . . : / \ \ % '? .. - / , , . . , � -� : '� , , . . ,:�i:.'.' '% �':� . � .. - - - "'-.-1.'.'.'-. I ........ .... ...................................................... 1( .... 11.1_11111.1 --------- .......; #A ft in IV a �' i 4 4 j"' . . ............ L ..... ................. � _11-- / - . F , I I -.� i , ' : , / / � / i -/ ..... � "._.-.-� r : / Is Am an to '.." .' � i i ..' , �'\ z ' � "' ' ' .1 - I I , i � ..' . - : : � ......... s ' \ / ' - - .1 , . % , , " - - ,�-..,./....,..,..'�'......,...� ......... ��..��"".-"..,,.,-,,.�,��"-,,-",-."...., I � / , % , , , / �' ! .. - 1 . I " 1. . .;...-, , . � � _� . , IT, I . ? " ,'I � \ : 0 . � �;--:. 11 .. '�..'.....� / : / � � ............ I ...... .1%.11 '? ............................. ............ / im jw IV It .... . 135- / c6 I I ' * - '. � / � I � i ' - : -.---. - Z - ..:.... I ........ � % \ ': 7. . : : " �::t.* I .1.1 / ....... .-.-%%"-.....""........'...........� .......... "..".." ...... - . . \ .: , . . '. .....".. � � - -b�- / , � " � ";�"',�.sl : : . ... 1 -� � ......... __. , " - .- �' ,�,.,.-,L,",".'.'.�.�.'.�.".".'...... -� ................................... -11 ........... ....1-11". . . ..................... .... .... .... .... " z . . I / \ , � . " . 'I \ \ f , / \ $ i / ..... - - - / I ' . , . . � - - I �. , " , ". ' I " , / \ 1� I / _. '% 11 : � : , , ' .. . '� bi, .. . - , � - . - % . � . .1 : � . i - ," 41�;' 1 ..". \� ./ ."� '... .- .� - , - �: T....1, I . � . �:.' , ! �;L I ... :\ , . . _ ;: " .. � � 2f . . ,,, ). " \� .. I . / . .iw 11 I "�. .>..�. :' � ; I .1 , / / . . . 0 . as .m.st I* z . , I . . , 11 -'-� ' ' ' - � M:' -.": � '�' , , - \ - - - , . � � f ! . " � � I � ' \' . _...'.'... I .-1. - ; � � "... .; I � !� - M. I I .- - . ; '" - � .. . / e ' 1. .i......- � " ", - .' ;�- � ' so A I to , - . i : ? '��'* :% I . \ / - . 1,11 . .. � ; I ,.?., %,-..-.. " .0 � � , %.'� i ".� .. -.1 I .�� � '' ,,, I, I * * j I . I * , _� �' . I . '..:2i�%%'___.._' ........ I ' - - �' " . z ,-..."�-.,-�.�.,."-�"..,-.---.,-��-.,.,.- - .1-111111.11 .......................................... _.........., ........... --.1-... - .. :' , .. i e i��' . , ./ - , .� - - i: 1. 11 - - - - I - � \ -351- - - " 41 0 �w � " '. � , . .-��i": - - - . .� - 11 � � . � , : " � .. : � " I" ' 41 , I I . , m I I N - -, .. I .- 11 .. , j � i :. . . . ! . , I I I I " I I �% i ", , .. I .......... � I - I _ -� \ \ .� '�, ,": : � \ .- - , . , . w �. � : Ic � � I . 30, - I 11 '� el / f - - - , �': .. a . ..... % . ", " �' e , .. . !"i . .. w A �' ' 1 $ i I ..:: .. W- ,.I 11 �' .. , -.,a,,, ...... '-�-��_�� X . . .:..-." .1 f � � I - . - --- . : . . . : � X::, �. , . 11 '� E - )F21.7 ` ZZ5 6 *E ." :' .'...:.. '� ...". "k, .. - - %" '. ... .. I . , . " - . . - I : ,- .- 1.1.1-4.4A...' -_ ,. -'��� .1 "i - '.�' I ... , '/ ..' ' � I; I I .I , ;'' ..' IP : .";� -"-"-�:i!J'.:.:�'.;I' � %1.1. - .... ."f"'... �. . k � . I . .1 I : , "%.: %'-.. ;'. -'�''.- A,� =92 , I �Q� - :'��-. :: 1. � �\ - - � '� ���� 06 � .. , e " � - -, - - ----&--------- � �', . . * .:, , , .: � � I 11 " " e i� e , I . .� . p.. '. ." � , --- �__ - - I I �' 'i I �: k i I � _�-" - : .::,..,. -, ", � ���� p � � - ��� 11 / �t . ; : : 11 ;' �';m:` :� ..' t."%; I I . � I _w --- -11 Z - . ss ."'.".... .... 1. I - : 1:11 . . ss I , I �' " I I.." ,-' � � i � I I .. � , . ., I ss ss .. .. ' ...' ' , j j " , i , . i . i , ; i E .. a - L . , .... ss ss . ... s%4? 4 I I , : I 1. , �6 n-, 'z- ss -4 � "11* I il .. " . " � -- : . , ss ss ss ss :1"...: ss NLIOR , : . . . i '. I z cl-t- : - s - I - I � . . . I . I ' . . : / //- '. � L' .... .. , , - .... � I , , : . "I �� I � � )\. f I * .' " "I f - , . j i.. L'� , - �'. , ��, .. � f . , 'e , : '. -..:,--".--I ��z . � , �' - -4"' .11 ! .41 .. .-,.I. I - .' ... . �' � . . � .. �-. 5, -:-.,::- , - � . , : i"I", / 6 " - .. ,I � � .. -". I I ".-, -" , Z�' , � : - - '..1. ..,'. -, v -�' '�' . % - . , � .. . I . , V "' i - - " ,.;,.- �' : .1 � � " �' .1 '..�-.-�t I '.- .� .. 11, " // .1 �. , " � , . , , '�'�_.'� � � . � "f: f .". --�-- - - - --- - J ;,'.� -. - / � : -. � �- , . , " : ,,, " ' I '�..'�;� � _ ".��' , : e I . - ': I ,- '. . . I " "' ' r � , . � "'.t %, .. � . , . . - - ': .:. I I .. ..' I I ! � I '.',�.- - " \ . . � I , '5 ' : 'f� 1 .I,.-,,- , I , I ti: ' :::,, //_ - - � --1 . -z-,"* .' / � ' \. 5 ': :- - - %, i I I ' . , . � : -, I / / ::'!i%"'"��'.-""*'�' '.�'. -�< 11 I . I z � , . ",.' I ��" � . . :� �'� ' . � - .1 . / _b - - ' ..'� . .� .. : I ` % , I . �. . : ; : - -1 / / - � " I . . , ." f � e, , I i .1, �1 � - , � \ . '. ,:j ! 00 00 C-) I I i Ic � : . . . I i i i T , 2 . : .. , -.- it/ , -co . � � \ . / . � ' : I I ' , : z . . . e' " , I , , \ � , r -i , r -� : :r: - -) r_ . : , ' - , . ! ' "'zc 2 �' -'�. :. k I I � - , . . .1 --� U i I.- . I .1 3 .1 . 'y . , I CD �*'-:3'i-' . I.. � I I �-,; �:�.'. 1i . ' .- - - � I . : ; Z. i... , -%. � I I ; I I q .. ..... I (�D , , . . ' . � ... . .. .% C':� �� ; I . 1) � '%'� * � � . . 4 ( � I I � � : PO ' . - . � . , , -1 ... 11�1..:W. - IE 24" CPP=26.43 :`.'::��' i I �' ,- '� I ,:.-.�.�,�.i��!,:::-,'��,.:��','-,-,�,,i.� . '�' 11�._p I � ., . � : J.._/ � ill I ..' I I . .: . ? �"!: I .�!.:�':' 1j,:*�':-, , . '. . I : " t I A.. ' -g , ': . * . - . t � � .: I . ?.'..' il ? . � _+ .'.. I,, .,_ � "' : ' " "'?, . � � ' � �:"; I I I .1 : ' I ,iI :",:"-*..":"",�.�""::�.;".:� ':'i-� * : " ' 'i ': i ".. * I - �'.' . , ; , , " I I \ '�' I tl� P� ill ......... I '��',:�'.';: ." %�-*'---:':::-." - , � " , -, - I : i . .. c? (/) . , .-�' " I "?/ . . - � , � ' I I :'; I ' '. � . i�')� ORDINARY HIGH " , .. . .. : , , - ;._.'.._.._-1 .... ..... I '[_---.:- r :4: 14, ill/ ! .' �."-�_' ..' , '' . (-'*) """ : . ..1-"....:;'. I ...j.'..'.f. : I I 11 .,....,..-. '.''."J.", .. � : �1�1 [T ' /_.", .... .. i. I I -m ".. . �' :'>�. I..", ;1�� : : '. w - .�� � ..:, , � 1. 7 I$ t: I 01�1 WATER LINE OF C) L.Q ' 1 i - - 11 . : .V 41 4, - � I "� i. / �� : : . ' - � I : : . -w ZL .. - I I : � . , � � � : . � . I I I � % ' . . " !� 1 *41 "�� m CN __' � � � I : : j I / / / I : , il� p 3 / i I i I /�\ / - ! . j : T 'V CREEK I i : i : .1 j j j j . I / I i 1;,q :. 7 : ijj -V 1,411, 1 . 'i : - I 14 X, - I � �i . f, � : '�� - I . :.'*'� I � �� 41, 1 a , / / : - J/ . () ; I - - I � , " I ,�'%':' ..�-::' : � : ; . 4 � ' ... . I/ I ,I : . "....- _�""4% , '..�' 1:: '::'1.::1.'. '-'.'�..*..1'1' ,,.I. �Ni�:;!�-: .. I . . . : --.-I.,".."... . .... �� .. I... .. . , : i 3 1 I.:_ %'..�'..' I I , 11 ! : . . 'f<"."', J--"-�:'� - � � : �� : . - , � I : z . '----- I I , I" . . � I '� / " : . . I I z . ... .' 11ww4f -----", LX: . I . ` . ; . : ". ", " / ' " ". / ; ; , . . 1� .11 " I '. � . . . I ORWM - I , �'. , / � � H 1, � Z i :� : c, , , :: / /" '.1 I'll . ,. '. , " I/ .1 I 3 . . -:� � � ': HWM (z). '.. '� ", " I I, I . . : , ( 'L : I .,k I �;' 01%'f . I , .. .1� � . . t I " .'. : - - " " . , . . '. � * " .�. j .1 . , � . I " . : , .. .' 11, I .. �_ . c ' :_. I .. . I - � ' I .� - �. : : � I :I . �0 014pae ' ' 'i... I ... . . I . . � I ' " .. %�. � . I I 'I �' '� zr_: ' - I . . '. .11.1 e I ' - N z �' _3 0 11 e .' I", -� , .,* ,.% �. ; ! � ! � , 1;? \ � : � I () C000 1� .. . I ' ; - . '� , '. . : .1 . '. '', , .; .' ; � , , � ." � : � , I I - : � i 11 .. ' 2 : , , I ! : , \ : : - - .1 , .� s : : . . - . " / , f I I ,,, " , ; . i I I . I i � ii"L �'�� OHWM ----� C)om -------- � 06*4f )000* .1 : i i '. .4 / \1 . : \ ' ..' 0"wm " ''' '' '' I ' ' � � 1: .. .1 � ; f 14 i �1�1' I '. , / I ��'��EXISTING : f, I : I � : ! 41:1��:;':. � .' el i I i* ,I -11' t I : 1 / 1. .. . . . . I . .. "" . I . I I - ''I I I ':"�" I ' ' - %./ '' "'Y4141 1 , ; � . f .. :� , , I �P\:' � '' " F, �w � !.1 i �01-� \ " � 1 11 * � : , P*** - :' � I z - � � " : .: I f : . i \ � A :\: ; WETLAND �� " � I .' I . f Bf "" ���� I ;'. '' - I . - : :Z I.' / " , i \ _� � . � , , 41 � 11 i ,C::; I . : : : : 011/*' � '. I � . .': I I % " , li: : � i I ;If < . -, � . � / .1 ; ; .1 i. � I I � : , ll ? . ; I % " I ; : ! .! I - M:' : : I" �. ." I " , -1 � 481 S.F. N__� 0"W4 It I ' � � :' : : :' ; N. . . . ; � I 1:i� ':�'c I I rt I E . �' , .. � . ; �' .: ' . ..: 3 z � I 1. � _. i � :� �' '� .. : : ! ... . . � Ir 'f Z, :1 �� " .(, I CATEGORY 3 11 � ; :I :1. � ; I .. 11 I � �' : : ' - ", i . . . - � -- , . I '� .c .� 11 I i-111 - I 1- . Q/y"_ OHWIJ - I . . . .. - -..--.-- - _....._________ - CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1,800,424,5555- . ILI qw it At . . ..- 1* a .. :-.:-t , � �-j'�:;- :.�. is m m M m :A",-',' ,�`AV p I . ,I- P.1.1 .. , � . I .. '. _ � , '...�' .�� . , , , . .1. _ . , ' *' " I'!.,- SHEET DfSCRIPTION I /An ont GroUp Sound Dev S.0411 ENGINEERING SURVEYING & LAND DEVEL OPMEN T SERVICES ' ., TESC PLAN P.O. Box 1705 a 1 1 1 1 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 202 Mount Vernon, WA 9827J x: J60-404-201,3 / \ N \ EXISTING WETLAND .*A#* 433 S.F. CATEGORY'*3" SCALE DgA WN 8r. - DESIGNED 8 r. - CHECKED 8 r. - FIELD 8 0 00A Gf- DA TE ' I . ' I I ' I I , . I. . , '. I .. I I ' - . , , - , .' ' I. . .' ' I I , . , .' .' . . , I. I , , .' I- I , , " , .. . , � . . . . . , ' % * I 11 � . . . % , '� � � � I I ' % � , I �-" ' ft 14 0 , I.. I 11 0 t - . .. ...' * of '-� . * .' SO * .... . , '% 1% ".. . 4 * 0 'w . %�'... I I I .' "I, * #4 * .. � . -, *.-,## � .. I ' ## ," � It *# I ", % I \ 'I.- #1 * , . ## .� ## , * to . . " to . % I , I I ' 11 % I .' I- I . '. .' % I % ' I I . , , I. I . . ' 11 I I I I : � . , I I ..., ' 1� � . .. , ' � � � 10 � 50'* P90JECT PLAU PSEVERIN P-,qFVFRIN I 50 NORTH HAWK'S LANDING FOR HAWK'S LANDING, LLC APRIL 2012 IN A POR 77ON OF SEC77ONS 29&32,, TOWNSHIP 24 N. RANGE 5 E,e WM RENTON, W L. S WAS 1,-,, __ "A ..." 0 Z -10 - �Z_ 32226 .,o - V_ G/S-TE �3 /ONAL e JOB NO. 8115 DRA WING NAME 8115EXCchvg SHEET 3 OF5