The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 1~ Jj i12'S,Ct<UWC'a;{'i0 <cl''.'11•9/iCJl '.<2S;/;O S,,O l ! ' ' i :•'-'i"' ""'" "''-._.._._.....'""'"--· ,,, ....... ,. '"""'---"-,,_,, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' R ' ! ! l I ij l 1 ' l ! 1 I ! ? 3 rn I~ !! • ' ' l I ! i I ' ' ~ ' 1 1 ! I ~ ~ ,EN lH' """"" 15711 152ND AVEN..E SE. IBIT(« WA 98058 ~ ::·1 ~ > >1 ~ ~ > i 0 " ~ J r m ~ ~ ;~ 0 0 i :~ i m !F .a ~ > ! • m t ~ m " Ii i~ ij .. -- _.,,... __ I ---_,,,_ ' --.. ; ~".~!~",~(.''7:"f~ f't -C}~.:~~-=i~ h1ft t;; i C""'1 SHEET FOR NEW LIFE CHUR.CH WEST SIDE IMPROVEMENTS ij z m ~ r "TI m () I C :IJ () I 0 ~ "Tl m o:o :o~ m m -I :M.IH.N!'""'""','[.-.:; ,,_,N, C,,,,,.-..., .. """""' ta, LIFE """°" J5711152f,O AVE~ S.E. RENTON WA. 96058 ,.. PHELMNARY DIENSIONED SITE PLAN FOA NEW LIFE ClWRCH WEST SIDE IMPROVEMENTS -u :c m r s:: z ~ g s::: m z (I) ~ m 0 (I) ::j m -u r J> z 11706 3 -' c .... ,....,_, -~--~_ .. .._,.-,.,, ... .,, NEW LFE CHLflCH 157f1152f,O AVENlE SE RENTON, WA. 98058 -PAEl..l.1NAAY -AfO STClffJ ~GE PLAN NEW UFE CHURCH WEST SIDE IMPROVEMENTS 1•.11,; 'l•DA<t.,vc,,c,,,,;u "!t,l.'IIAS9il" •-+:'\)151-,,2,, \4,Si,,, •O'o) FM ""''""'"""""'"~--,,,.,,..,..._,.....,_,,,_:.,"""" ., ... ,,.,,,-,:.,,,- ,, v;,,r..,,;«))o>.C NEW LJSe CHJRCH 15711152ND AVEM.E SE FENTON, WA 98058 ,,. SCI-EMA TIC WA Tel AND SEWEA PLAN NEW UFE CHURCH WEST SIDE lMPROVEMENrS ;i '' !i ! i ·~1·; ''·'' Wc>;vS sw,,· KtMl, W• ~b:J/ (•?1)1>1 "~' (<;,()1Sl-,),'ll, "' C"-"'"'*"""'·-""',,,_.,..,.., """"""'''""""""'"""""'" ·~. NEW LFE CHU'lCH 157tl 1521'D AVENI.E SE FENTON. WA. 98056 -TREE NVENTORY PLAN FOR NEW LIFE CHURCH WEST SIDE IMPROVEMENI'S ··y . ;", . /-·; :il m m 'I : ,,, 'i!1 ;~···.'. i 1, I · ' ; • '"~····.'· !} -' t• ., ! : '.' 'ti~ l 'I!:.:: 11706 J.l _2 f~ s,.•,, ... i .. .-····' ' ! / ; j / / ..... ;>-; /. / / P.,,',,Js,,\'iHVf. •£1<'. w, ,1.,i1 ,•2>):o, CL11 ,,,,:,a,-a,a;,,, / ; I ; I i'· ' ! ' ; ; ; I ! ! ' i ! ' i i i i i i ; i i ' i i i ; i ' ; i i i i i i t'EW LFE CHl.f!CH '15711152ND A¥ENlE s.E RENTON, WA. 98058 P!RMINAAY WIIJSCAl'1e PLANTNG FUN NEW LIFE CHURCH '''"''"'· "''· ~· ,,,;:,s, t'/))J<• ..,._ ,_.,, . .,,__ -~--""""""' """""""'~"""""'" / ! I i ' J i I j J., I ' ' i I 1 /' j ' NEW L.FE ClUlCH 15711152K.l AVENUE SE. AENTOO. WA. 98058 Pffi..MNARY l.AJOSCAf'E PLANrnG FLAN NEW IJFE CHURCH ' i i i ! ' ! ' i ! } ' i i i "/ ~ ....... ' i i ; i ! i ; ; i ' ' ; -------~r-----~ / / \ r...:.--"~--.... ..__ L~---"""•·~·""'' +- Virtually indestructiblel Integrated foundation slab of 7• steel reinforced concrete Minimizes maintenance cost •Faster & more thorough wash down •Sloped floors with convenient floor drains •Non-absorbency chemical used to seal concrete & reduce odors Increased life-span •No complex floor structure to deteriorate •Seamless deck eliminates moisture penetration Faster installation • Slab allows for building to be 99% complete upon arrival on site reducing completion time to hours vs. weeks • Decreased site work minimizes site disruption •Building can be placed directly on ground with minimal site preparation Concrete and steel reinforced block exterior walls • Split face concrete block looks great and is virtually indestructible •Various decorative low maintenance concrete exterior finishes available •Exterior surface sealed to reduce maintenance and vandalism damage •Choice of interior paint or epoxy finishes to seal and protect block Stainless steel wall mounted fixtures •Heavy gauge stainless steel sink and Blowout Jet toilet are extremely durable •Toilet flush valve provides superior flushing pressure but consumes only 1.6 gal •No exposed fasteners on plumbing fixtures for superior corrosion and theft resistance •Fixtures designed for easy cleaning and wall mount design facilitates wash down •Valuable plumbing apparatus contained within secure utility chase to prevent damage Meets DSA, ADA and Title 24 code compliance DSA ffitf: AvailatWervfliJ~Wrative Purchase Agreement (Piggyback) JUL 15 1009 M ..,...- Manufacturlng end Construction I M•B.A ..... ,. --------- ~ \IILIIIII.A:lQI M•RC 1 ~ > < 11·1 · I· I ll'1IINAl • -- llllllMll . • QIIJI • IIZ -, I I ~~ r I I I I I I I I I I I I I M•B.B -Ill -m 23 '3' -IIZ -l!I MoDTECH Manufacturing and Construction 1-888-929-0998 www.modtech.com ---, "' '-: C:2007 Modtech Ho ldings, Inc. CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: June 17, 2014 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: New Life Church Phase II LUA (file) Number: LUA-09-076, ECF, SA-A Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee Acceptance Date: July 27, 2009 Applicant: New Life Church Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. PID Number: 2323059021 ERC Determination: Date: Anneal Period Ends: Administrative Decision: Date: Anneal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Anneal Period Ends: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of 45 additional parking stalls west of Madsen Creek, 194 parking stalls east of Madsen Creek, the completion of the fire lane (which was required by LUAOS-081 for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 associated parking stalls), a vehicle bridge of Madsen Creek, athletic field, and a 2,000 square foot restroom/storaae/concessions bu ildina. Location: 15711 152nd Avenue SE Comments: Canceled due to inactivity. ERC Determination Types: DNS -Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated; DS -Determination of Significance. Ir U1 f'" "' ::r D D D D rn "' .-'I U.S. Postal Service,., CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; Ne Insurance Coverage Provided) Postage $ Certified Fee v Return Receipt Fee Postmark (Endorsement Required) Hera Restricted Oeflvery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ ~ sentTO;~-----·· CJ Street, MJ)t. No.: r-or PO Box No. City, State, ZIP+4 ••• •• ••• •• •• • •• PS Form 3800 August ?006 Sr,e Re-verse tor lnstruct1ons UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE I li, \,, l, ,\, II, I"\,\ Ii" ,\11 H, I I l. l,' Ii I 11 I, I, I, I. I\, l,, 11 Ill First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1 , 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Del!vety i$ desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY B eceived by ( Printed Name) C. (7';i, · lv, I/ i ,,,...,,..,- 0. Is del!very address different from item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: D No 3.filrvtce Type Certified Ma:11 egistered D Insured Mail D Express Mail D Return Receipt for Merchandise oc.o.o. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) D Yes 2. ~Number (To!nsfer from service labe~ 7008 1830 0004 8759 1917 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ~ f;µ}!J~~ 01-010 Denis Law --c·t f -_:Mayo:...r ---------·11 [) /~~ _2y_ol.·~/\((.i/c--~bl, I ... ! ·. : ! I i I : c:,;,..1\. \ . --· ; _j ' __I j .J .. I ·_ June 24, 2013 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Jrrc. 18215 72"d Avenue S Ken_t WA 98032 SUBJECT: Null and Void Notice New life Church Phase II/ LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A Dear Ms. Halvorsen: The Planning Division ofthe City of Renton has determined that the above subject . application is expired. According to RMC 4-8-lOOC.4-Expiration of Complete Land Use Applications, the application submitted on July 15, 2009 has been inactive for ninety (90) days or more and an administrative decision has not been made and/or has not · been reviewed by the Hearing Examiner in a public hearing. According to our records, an "On-Hold" notification (enclosed) was mailed on, September 1, 2009 stating additional information was necessary in order to continue processing the submitted application. A letter dated July 25, 2012 was sent notifying you that it was your final notice and if the City of Renton Planning Division did not receive a· written request to continue processing the application and the requested information within six (6) months of the date of that letter, the application would be null and void. Such information was not received by January 25, 201'/, and,therefore this project is now null and void. · · _ • · · If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, #~dkz_. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner· Rento.n City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov July 25, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Irie. 18215 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 · C.E."Chip"Yincerit,Administrator SUBJECT; "Final" Notice . . New Life Church Phase II/ LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A Dear Ms. Halvorsen: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the above subject application is expired. According to RMC 4-8-lOOC.4.-Expiration of Complete Land Use Applications, the application submitted on 07/15/2009 has been inactive for ninety (90) days or more and an administrative decision has not been made and/or has not been reviewed by the Hearing Examiner in a public hearing. According to our records, an uon+Jold" notification ·(enclosed) was mailed on .. September 1, 2009, stating additional information was necessary in order to continue · processing the submitted application. As of the date of tnis. letter, the requested . . information has not been received. Therefore, this is your final notice, ifthe City of · · Renton Planning Division does not receive a written request to continue processing the .· application and the requestecUnformation within six (6) months of the date cif this letter the applicatlon shall be null and void. . . . If you have any questions, please contact me at (425)430-7314 .. Sincerely, Vanessa D,olbee Senior Planner Enclosed: "On-Hold" Letter-dated: September 1; 20.09 cc: . New Life Church/ Owner(s) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION NO: LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A APPLICANT: New Life Church PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church Phase II SITE AREA: 2,468,364 s uare feet LOCATION: 15711152'' Avenue SE PLEASE RETURN T COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 10, 2009 DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 27, 2009 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian EXISTING BLDG AREA ross : 130,000 s uare feet ross 2,000 s uare feet DER NO: 78083 RRENT PLANNING 5TH FLOOR SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The appli t is requesting an Environme I (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of 45 additional parking st west of Madsen Creek 4 parking stalls east of Madsen Creek, the completion of the fire lane (which was required by LUA08-081 a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 associated parking stalls), a vehicle bridge over Madsen Creek, a c ,eld, and a 2,000 square foot restroom/storage/concessions building. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) du/ac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. Access to the site would be via the existing driveways off of 152nd Avenue SE. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report The applicants are proposing to remove five trees for the new parking spaces. Stormwater would be collected in a new proposed stonmwater facility. The proposed project would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading. A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g, Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinn Air Aesthetics Water Liaht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services ,._,,,. Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particulaJ. •. a//ention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informati ·s needed to prop rly assess this proposal. J Signature of Director or Authorize Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REv1Ew1NG DEPARTMENT: Eccnc.,m ti' . 't:},v. COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 10, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-076. ECF. SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 27. 2009 APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church Phase II PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 2,468,364 souare feet EXISTING BLDG AREA lorossl: 130,000 sauare feet LOCATION: 15711152°d Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA lnross\ 2,000 sauare feet I WORK ORDER NO: 78083 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of 45 additional parking stalls west of Madsen Creek, 194 parking stalls east of Madsen Creek, the completion of the fire lane (which waS required by LUAOB-081 for the consUUction of a 36,000 square toot Church auditorium with 264 associated parking stalls), a vehicle bridge over Madsen Creek, athletic fielQ,_ and a 2,000 square foot restroom/storage/concessions building. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley f'lignway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56 ~~ acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) du/ac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also cona,ns a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. Access to the site would be via the existing driveways off of 152nd Avenue SE. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove five trees for the new parking spaces. Storrnwater would be collected in a new proposed stormwater facility. The proposed project would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinrr Air Aesthetics Water Linht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ H1storic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POUCY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Denis Law Mayor September 1, 2009 Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue 5 Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Department of Community & Economic Development New Life Church Phase II, LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A Dear Ms. Halvorsen: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on July 27, 2009. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be submitted so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • Please provided the required studies and plan set updates as requested in the attached Memorandum of Utility and Transportation Comments, the City will need a minimum of five copies of any new plan sets and/or studies provided. • As discussed in the attached Memorandum of Utility and Transportation Comments, a portion of the subject development proposal is located within the 100-year floodplain for the Cedar River. Because development is proposed within the floodplain, the applicant will need to address the issues raised in the attached publication Final Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation and propose mitigation for any anticipated impacts as it would relate to the referenced publication, in an updated SEPA check list. Please provide 5 copies of the updated SEPA checklist. Once your evaluation is complete, the City will forward the SEPA checklist on to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for their review and comment. At this time, your project will remain "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, c~-1]/k Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner encl: Final Biological Opinion And Ma nu son-Stevens Fisher Conser_vation and Management Act Essential Fish ~abita_t ~ ? consultation_ -ht\-p: Vpc..+s. nmts, (\0"-A., :J'" /pl5/p<:,'ls-ps.:,o/pc.i:s,_vp \oo.c\. ~"'r-;;"~-1 ,s'r _ b,op · P- Memo: Utility and Transportation Comments 1<l~ 2.9 'o cc: New Life Church/ Owner(s) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: August 17, 2009 Vanessa Dolbee TO: FROM: Rick Moreno ~ SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for LUA09-076 New Life Church -Phase II The following Utility and Transportation comments concern the Environmental and Development Application review for the subject project. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER -The site is within the Cedar River water service area. The site is outside of the modified zone 1 of the Aquifer Protection Area. Fire flow and static water pressure available to the site to be determined through the Cedar River Water District through a letter of water availability. SEWER -The site is within the Cedar River sewer service area. A letter of sewer availability shall be obtained to determine available flow capacity through the district. STORM -The surface water drains to the Maplewood sub-basin. This project is within the FEMA 100 year flood plain via Madsen Creek. STREET-The project site fronts the Renton-Maple Valley Highway on the northern perimeter of the project site. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. In accordance with the Fire Department requirement, at a minimum, one hydrant within 150 feet and 2 additional hydrants within 300 ft. is required to sustain the necessary established minimum demand of 1,500 gpm for the site. 2. Where water pressure is 80 psi or above, Uniform Plumbing Code requires a pressure reducing valve be installed "downstream" of the water meter. The PRV shall be installed, operated and maintained at the owner's cost and expense. LUA 09-076 PR Comments.doc 3. The extended 8-inch main shall have a fire hydrant at its ending point. All fire sprinkler systems and water meter(s) shall be connected to the new 8-inch main. SANITARY SEWER 1. A separate side sewer to the new building shall be in accordance with the sewer district requirements. SURFACE WATER 1. Surface Water System Development Charge is $.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area, but not less than $1,012.00. This fee is due with the construction permit. 2. Drainage requirements must meet the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 3. Since the project is located within the FEMA 100-yr floodplain as delineated by the most current Flood Insurance Rate Map (see link to FEMA website with revised map Panel #984), the applicant must conduct a flood study of Madsen Creek as required under Special Requirement No. 2, of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The flood study shall be conducted per the requirements in Section 4.4.2.4 of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant shall develop a HEC-RAS model for both the main channel of Madsen Creek and for the high flow bypass channel. The model shall include appropriately spaced cross-sections for each channel beginning at the upstream side of SR-169 and just downstream of the sedimentation pond diversion structures. For both the main channel of Madsen Creek and the bypass channel, a tail water elevation of 102.00 (NAVO 88) shall be used. This elevation is based off of the flood elevation shown on the revised map Panel #984 for Cross Section AW. The flows for the HEC-RAS model shall be based on the 100-yr future condition unmitigated flows developed as part of the Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report, dated April 1993 which is 382 cfs. This flow, which is representative of the total tributary flow to the Madsen Creek Sedimentation Pond located just upstream of the project site, will need to be split proportionately between the two channels based on the hydraulic design characteristics of the sedimentation pond diversion structures which includes the 36" pipe discharging the main channel and a box culvert metering out flows to the bypass channel. This analysis will require determining the stage-discharge relationship for each diversion structure and proportioning out the flows for each structure until the combined flow equals the total flow of 382 cfs. Once correctly proportioned, the flows will be routed through the HEC-RAS model to determine the 100-yr flood elevations. 4. Based on modeled 100-yr flood elevations of Madsen Creek and the revised FEMA flood elevations for the Cedar River, the engineer will need to determine if the proposed project will result in any fill within in the 100-yr floodplain. Per City code, any fill within the 100-yr floodplain will require compensatory storage or excavation of material equal to the amount of fill being placed in the floodplain as part of the project. The excavated material at each 1-foot increment shall be equivalent to the volume of material being filled. 5. Any structures being constructed in the flood plain shall have the finished floor elevated 1 foot above the 100-yr flood elevation. 6. The drainage report is missing conveyance design calculations for the bridge/culvert crossings over Madsen Creek and the bypass channel. To give the City the most flexibility in designing future improvements, the engineer will need to include hydraulic analysis of both crossings demonstrating that each crossing has sufficient capacity to convey the 25-yr (The 25-yr future condition unmitigated flow is 302 cfs) and 100-yr future condition unmitigated design flows per section 4.3 of the 2005 KSWDM. The bridge must be designed with 3- feet of free board between the lowest cord of the bridge and the 100-yr future condition design flow elevation. The high flow bypass culvert crossing must be designed such that the head water elevation upstream of the bridge does not exceed 1.5 times the diameter of the culvert (Per Section 4.3.1.1 of the KCSWDM). 7. The project must comply with the City's zero-rise requirement which prohibits an increase in the 100-yr flood elevations. To meet this requirement, the engineer shall model the Madsen Creek main channel and high flow bypass channel before project improvements and with project improvements and show that there is no increase in the 100-yr flood elevations. Both crossings, whether a bridge or culvert must not result in an increase in the 100-yr flood elevation determined above to be in compliance with the City's zero-rise requirement. 8. Plan set is missing cross-sections, plan view and details of bridge/culvert crossings. 9. Design plans are missing pond plan view, cross-sections, profiles and details. 10. I'm unable to review and comment on the KCRTS pond sizing analysis as there are no pond design plans and details to compare against the model. 11. Assuming the bridge across Madsen Creek will have a high point at the creek crossing, the east half of the bridge approach (about 2,200 sf) will drain east and enter the parking lot conveyance system serving the east side of the site. Does the existing pond serving the eastside of the site which includes the church building and parking lot account for the runoff from the bridge approach? If not, the existing pond will need to be redesigned to provide flow control and water quality treatment for the additional 2,200 sf of pollution generating impervious surface. TRANSPORTATION l. The traffic mitigation fee has been paid from Phase 1 of this project. No further traffic mitigation fee is due. 2. All new electrical, phone and cable services must be underground. Construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording of project. 3. Street improvements including curb gutter and sidewalk currently exist within the property. The proposed location for new bridge access and parking lot driveway approach is approved with no additional driveways required. FIRE DEPARTMENT l. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 150 feet of the new structure. Available fire low is limited to what the Cedar River Water District availability for the site is. A minimum of 1,500 gpm is required. 2. Fire department turnarounds are required for roads over 150-foot in length. 3. All building addresses shall be visible from a public street. 4. The fire apparatus access road shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions oft he exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building facility. 5. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards and staff review. 2. Access to the will be limited to152nd Ave SE. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT Plan .:Re111e~ APPLICATION NO: LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A APPLICANT: New Life Church PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church Phase II SITE AREA: 2,468,364 souare feet LOCATION: 15711 152'd Avenue SE COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 10, 2009 ·--•••;cm DATE CIRCULATED JULY 27, 2009 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian EXISTING BLDG AREA lnross\: 130,000 souare feet PROPOSED BLDG AREA lnross\ 2,000 souare feet WORK ORDER NO: 78083 '1 '1 " .-..; · ,_,_ "='ON .. ~-· .. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of 45 additional parking stalls west of Madsen Creek, 194 parking stalls east of Madsen Creek, the completion of the fire lane (which was required by LUA08-081 for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 associated parking stalls), a vehicle bridge over Madsen Creek, athletic field, and a 2,000 square foot restroom/storage/concessions building. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) du/ac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. Access to the site would be via the existing driveways off of 152nd Avenue SE. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove five trees for the new parking spaces. Stormwater would be collected in a new proposed stormwater facility. The proposed project would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e,g, Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnortation Environmental Health Public SeNices Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B, POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST APPLICATION NO: LUA09-076, ECF. SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 27, 2009 APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church Phase 11 PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 2,468,364 s uare feet EXISTING BLDG AREA LOCATION: 15711152"' Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA ross 2,000 s uare feet WORK ORDER NO: 78083 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of 45 additional parking stalls west of Madsen Creek, 194 parking stalls east of Madsen Creek, the completion of the fire lane (which was required by LUA08-081 for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 associated parking stalls), a vehicle bridge over Madsen Creek, athletic field, and a 2,000 square foot restroom/storage/concessions building. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) du/ac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. Access to the site would be via the existing driveways off of 152nd Avenue SE. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove five trees for the new parking spaces. Stormwater would be collected in a new proposed stonmwater facility. The proposed project would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water Liaht!G!are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans""rfation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic!Culturaf Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 7 /J."/jcJ()O'J B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 -172"0 Avenue SE• Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 City of Fl P!ann· enton mgo·. · ,v,sion August I 0, 2009 AUG 1 2 2DD9 RE: New Life Church, Phase II, LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Dear Ms. Dolbee: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the environmental checklist and the Revised Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report ( dated July 13, 2009) for the above referenced project. We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty protected fisheries resources. Madsen Creek Impact Concerns I. The physical, chemical, and hydrologic impacts of the parking expansion on Madsen Creek and the Cedar River are not sufficiently avoided or mitigated, and therefore continue to be of concern. Based on the materials reviewed, an analysis is required to demonstrate that this project is following mitigation sequencing requirements per WAC 220-110-020(66). This analysis should include a description of actions that are being taken to avoid permanently and temporally avoiding Madsen Creek and its riparian buffer. 2. In terms of need, the new project has not sufficiently justified the need for 239 parking places to add to the existing 834 stall parking lot, particularly for a church located along a major bus route. 3. We recommend that the project be modified to eliminate the proposed 50+ parking spaces along the east side of Madsen Creek. These parking spaces are the reason given by the applicant for the proposed buffer reduction to 75 feet from the I 00 foot regulated stream buffer. Such a reduction would create a total of I 0,980 square feet of permanent riparian habitat loss. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to the New Life Church, Phase II, Notice of Application August 10, 2009 Page 2 4. The proposed vehicle bridge and the foot bridge should be combined into one structure to avoid an additional stream crossing and the adverse impacts associated with stream crossings, including but not limited to: • The direct loss of riparian habitat due to construction activities for the new bridge; • The bridge abutments replacing the native streambed/bank material; • The potential disconnection between the stream channel and its adjacent banks, floodplains, and riparian areas due to filling and bridge abutments. • The potential limitations of the bridge to sufficiently pass wood needed for downstream areas. • The bridge construction and location of the abutments may also require the removal of trees and woody debris at the site, thus eliminating the function of channel structure, pool formation, channel stability, food production, and instream cover. • In addition, road maintenance activities at bridges can adversely affect salmonids by removing trees on the streambank; removing spawning sized gravels from adjacent streambeds through dredging; and removing wood from bridge abutments and adjacent stream banks due to concerns for blockages and flow conveyance; all to the potential detriment of downstream habitat. As described in the Revised Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report for this project (July 2009), the new bridge will be 30 feet wide with a 5' wide sidewalk on one side. As a result, the trail and footbridge are no longer needed and should be removed and revegetated as a result. 5. The project may result adverse impacts to Madsen Creek and its stream buffer due to the proposed sewer and water utilities needed for the proposed west side improvements. The potential for these adverse impacts is not fully disclosed or discussed in the environmental checklist and notice of application materials. Unless these pipelines can be bored underneath the stream and avoid construction and operational impacts to the stream buffer (i.e. tree planting restrictions), then the potential adverse impacts due to these pipelines need to be disclosed and sufficient mitigation provided, potentially including additional stream buffer mitigation. 6. If the proposed removal of 5 trees for the new parking spaces will involve trees that are equal to 4 inches in diameter (at breast height) and within 200 feet of Madsen Creek, then these trees need to be replaced and the removed trees themselves placed into Madsen Creek as partial mitigation for their removal and the temporal loss of future wood recruitment. 7. The west side of Madsen Creek should also be required to be enhanced as part of this project in order to provide a vegetated buffer along the western stream corridor to protect the stream from the adjacent parking lot, restrooms and soccer field facilities that will likely be lighted and create noise and human disturbance to salmonids in Madsen Creek. Outdoor lighting can have harmful effects on fish including increasing predation by birds or other fish, and should be minimized to those required for safety. All light fixtures should point light downward and be shielded to prevent sky glow. ( See www.wildlandscpr.org/bi b lio-notes/ effects-artificial-lighting-wildlife). Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to the New Life Church, Phase 11, Notice of Application Stormwater Quantity and Water Pollution Concerns August 10, 2009 Page 3 8. The project should be required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as proposed, including demonstration that the existing stormwater facilities can sufficiently discharge the site's stormwater without causing increases in peak flow discharges and flow durations compared to forested (i.e. pre-developed) conditions. 9. We are concerned about potential adverse impacts from stormwater including increased peak flows and polluted runoff on salmonids and fish habitat in Madsen Creek and the Cedar River. Please note that the Level 2 standard from the 2005 KCSWDM, or the stream protection standard, is designed to protect the stream channel from erosion and channel aggradation, and does not necessarily protect aquatic life, including salmonids. Additional information is needed including an impact analysis that considers the condition of Madsen Creek and its limited ability to receive additional stormwater in its current condition without impacts. Madsen Creek is not in a "predeveloped condition"; rather it has been modified, channelized, impounded, and disturbed from above the project site all the way to its confluence with the Cedar River. As a result, there may be adverse impacts to aquatic life even with the proposed detention facilities (i.e. a pond and a vault), as a result of changes in water volumes and velocities. These changes may cause adverse impacts by increasing water velocities over longer periods oftime that exceed the swimming speeds of juvenile salmonids compared to the pre-developed condition. Madsen Creek is used by coho and cutthroat trout and would be important for spawning and rearing habitat. However, since Madsen Creek is channelized and piped and receives partially and unregulated stormwater from various sources, it should be expected that the stream is currently limited in juvenile refugia habitat. As a result, the stormwater from the project may cause an adverse impact to refugia habitat that requires mitigation. The project proposes to add 54 pieces of small woody debris ( 4 inches in diameter and 7 feet in length). This wood as well as the large woody debris should be placed within the ordinary high water mark of Madsen Creek onsite as partial mitigation for additional stormwater discharges. 10. The proposed project needs to include more effective measures to protect stream water quality and prevent pollution than what has been proposed thus far. The applicant currently proposes to use the Basic treatment for its water quality treatment of stormwater. The project should be required to provide enhanced water quality treatment to mitigate for impacts to Madsen Creek and receiving waters (Cedar River and Lake Washington) water quality caused by runoff from existing and additional parking areas and proposed soccer fields. These impervious surfaces will all create pollution that will further degrade Madsen Creek water quality. Automobile-related metals, oils and other pollutants running off of parking lots and roadways to streams are an increasing matter of concern in the Puget Sound Region. Some of these pollutants are implicated in sublethal effects and prespawning mortality of coho salmon in Puget sound streams (see www.ecy.wa.gov/puget sound/S4 mar2008/NatScholz S4.pdf.) 11. The project should be required to use Low Impact Development techniques to address the stormwater concerns identified above. These techniques include, but are not limited, to pervious Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to the New Life Church, Phase II, Notice of Application August 10, 2009 Page 4 pavement and materials, infiltration trenches for downspouts, etc. A list of these techniques can be found at http://www,psp.wa.gov/downloads/LID/LID manual2005.pdf. Cedar River Floodplain Concerns 12, As noted in the environmental checklist and King County's IMAP, a portion of the site in the north being within the 100 year floodplain of the Cedar River. There is no discussion about this issue in the Stream/Wetland report, If this project will result in additional filling of the Cedar River floodplain, then this impact will need mitigation, We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and look forward to the City's written response to these comments. Please call me at 253-876-3116 should you have any questions. Sincerely, ry~\AJ\lL ... ·· Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Lori Lull, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Randy McIntosh, NMFS Larry Fisher, WDFW, Region 4 Rebekah Padgett, WDOE, NW Region ,.~ ... ~-. -~ . ,'s'cct lncian 1rio, --: ·r;: '.k.::·~ic:i ; . ..,1s u2r1!_: !c,,J,.' s:. f[\ 98C.'J2 Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton CED-Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ,( y\\'.3 ~·i >t;~ _ :_:;x ·;,:,._ !:_~- ;, 1•,il.i', l'.,•'_'/!· $ 00.61° ·-1 J ' ;._..-: :·i;:· (;C·[A: City of Renton Planning Di'visfon AUG J 2 ,:Ou9 !Ri~r;~UY~© 9Ei057$3232 LUI::!-:, 11, I,,/., I, II,,,, I ,I, I,,, I .. If.,,/,/,, 11,,, I, I, I, 1,, I, I,,,, Ill City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 10, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 27, 2009 APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church Phase II PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 2,468,364 s uare feet EXISTING BLDG AREA ross: 130,000 WIN.G DIVISION LOCATION: 15711 152'' Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA ross 2,000 s uare feet I WORK ORDER NO: 78083 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of 45 additional parking stalls west of Madsen Creek, 194 parking stalls east of Madsen Creek, the completion of the fire lane (which was required by LUAOB-081 for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 associated parking stalls), a vehicle bridge over Madsen Creek, athletic field, and a 2,000 square foot restroom/storage/concessions building. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) du/ac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. Access to the site would be via the existing driveways off of 152nd Avenue SE. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove five trees for the new parking spaces. Stormwater would be collected in a new proposed stormwater facility. The proposed project would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housino Air Aesthetics Water Licrht!Gfare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environmen( 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS CODE-RELATED COMMENTS c. :Bv i / o{, v,1· rc~f <ooiM. I 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. JO 07 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Rick, Vanessa, Daniel W Carey Wednesday, August 05, 2009 01 :56 PM Richard Moreno; Vanessa Dolbee Ronald Straka SWU Comments: New Life Church West Side Improvements Follow up Flagged My comments on the New Life Church plans and how they affect the Madsen Creek Sediment Basin and overflow channel on the west side of the property are below. This is not meant to be a review of the surface water plans and calculations for the entire project. 1 -The references on the plans to "Creek Easement 7201040324" should be deleted. The recorded document is not a legal easement ( as reviewed by the City Attorney). 2 -The reference to "Ex. Creek Easement 9905190312" should be deleted. The recorded document is a sewer easement located south of the sediment basin, it is not located where shown on the plans. 3 -The Surface Water Utility is in the process of obtaining a new SO-foot wide easement for the Madsen Creek sediment basin and overflow channel. After the new easement is signed by the property owner it should be shown on the plans along with its' recording number. The city will have the new easement recorded with King County. The recording number will be available after the recorded document is returned by King County. 4 -The new easement will have a condition allowing the property owner to install a road crossing and culvert over the bypass channel in the new easement. The property owner will be required to be responsible for all maintenance, repair, and replacement of any road crossing and culvert installed. Future plans shall include a note that the property owner is responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacement of the road crossing and culvert. NOTE: The condition in the new easement does not obligate the City to approve a road crossing and culvert. 5 -Any culvert across the overflow channel must be sized for the peak flow from the 100-year storm event, future conditions, from the entire upstream drainage basin. A drainage analysis and backwater calculations will need to be submitted to show that the culvert will not cause runoff in the overflow channel to backwater and flood adjacent properties. 6 -The outfall location for the 18-inch pipe from the detention pond (sheet 3, northwest corner of the property) shall be revised so the outfall is not located within the new easement for the Madsen Creek sediment basin. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Daniel 1 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REV REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A APPLICANT: New Life Church PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church Phase 11 SITE AREA: 2,468,364 s uare feet LOCATION: 15711152'' Avenue SE COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 10, 20 DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 27, 2009 PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian EXISTING BLDG AREA ross PROPOSED BLDG AREA ross I WORK ORDER NO: 78083 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of 45 additional parking stalls west of Madsen Creek, 194 parking stalls east of Madsen Creek, the completion of the fire lane (which was required by LUA08-081 for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 associated parking stalls), a vehicle bridge over Madsen Creek, athletic field, and a 2,000 square foot restroom/storage/concessions building. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) du/ac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. Access to the site would be via the existing driveways off of 152nd Avenue SE. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove five trees for the new parking spaces. Stormwater would be collected in a new proposed stormwater facility. The proposed project would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mora Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino Air Aesthetics Wafer Liaht/G!are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans rlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ~/U_,{2,1_Q_ /LO // B. C. FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPAR_T_M_E_N_T __ .... ---1_F{~fili~@fill MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 29, 2009 Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer Bill Flora, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal ,t; r New Life Church LUA 09-076, ECF, SA-A A review of current plans and material, previous pre-application material and an on-site review have disclosed additional Fire Code and policy-related issues and concerns that need to be addressed for approval to be granted. 1. FIRE LANE ACCESS: Fire lane access shall be 20-feet of surface capable of supporting Fire & Emergency Services Department apparatus. The access lane and bridge over Madsen Creek must be able to sustain the weight loads of any of our apparatus. 2. FIRE HYDRANTS: A minimum of one fire hydrant is required on the west side of Madsen Creek. 3. FIRE ALARM SYTEM: An addressable alarm system will be required for each building. Separate plans and permits will be required by the Fire & Emergency Services Department for this installation. 4. FIRE MITIGATION FEES: Fire mitigation fees shall be $0.52 per square foot and shall be paid prior to final plat recording. In addition, while not fire-code related, I noted that the proposed 42-inch culvert across the drainage channel on the west side of the property appears to be inadequate, based upon observations of the flooding in that area from pervious storms. BF/kc c: Vanessa Dolbee, Planner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 10, 2009 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 27, 2009 APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church Phase II PLAN REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 2,468,364 snuare feet EXISTING BLDG AREA lnrossl: 130,000 snuare feet LOCATION: 15711 152"d Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA lnrossl 2,000 souare feet I WORK ORDER NO: 78083 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of 45 additional parking stalls west of Madsen Creek, 194 parking stalls east of Madsen Creek, the completion of the fire lane (which was required by LUAOS-081 for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 associated parking stalls), a vehicle bridge over Madsen Creek, athletic field, and a 2,000 square foot restroom/storage/concessions building. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) du/ac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. Access to the site would be via the existing driveways off of 152nd Avenue SE. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove five trees for the new parking spaces. Stormwater would be collected in a new proposed stormwater facility. The proposed project would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin" Air Aesthetics Water Lmht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transporlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND use NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: July 2?. 2009 LUA09-076. ECF. SA-A New Life Church Ph,.se II PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesling an Enwonmental (SEPA) Review arnJ Adrn1rnslra\ive Site Plan Review lo, lhe construction of 45 addHional parlrn1g stalls west of M;,dsen Creek, 194 parkrng stalls east ol Madsen Creek. the completion of the fire lane (which was required by LUA06-081 for the construe lion of a 36,000 square foot Church audi1orium with 264 assoc,aled parking slalls) a veh,de bridge over Madsen Creek, a!hletic field. and a 2,000 squara foot restroomls\o<age/concess.:ins buiiding The si!e ,s located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway al 15711 -152r.d Avenue SE, and is compnsi,d of 56.65 acres The subject parcel 1s zoned Residenlial 14 (R-14) du/ac and 1s w.rrenlly the location of the New L,fe Ch~rch, which al~o con\a1ris a private school. Th~ <,x1\irig church an_d school building is 8.'..l,000 square feet w1lh 599 assoc1aled parkrng stalls. which are proposed to remain Access to lhe s,te would be via lhe e~1st1ng drivewa~s of! ol 152nd Avenue SE The suo1ect site contains many cnto:al areas, wh,ch include, Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes. LaMslide Hazards Areas, Eros~n Ha2ard Area. Slreams. and Wetlands. As such. 1he apt:lhcant has provided a Strea-n and Wetland study and a Geote<:hmcal report The applicants are proposing lo remove five trees for the new parking spaces. Stormwater would be collected in a new prorosed storrnwater facility The proPOsed prajecl would require approx,malely 5.000 cuh:c ~anJs of grading PROJECT LOCATION: 157'.1 152"" Avenue SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE. MITIGATED (DNS•M) As lhe Lead Agency, tne C1ly ol Renton has determined that signH1cant enoironmenlal ,mpacts are vnl,~ely to resul: from !he proposed pro1ect. The.re/ore, as pe'."'1lled under 1he RCW 43.21C 11 0, lhe City of Renlon 1s using ;he Op1101al ONS-M µrocess to give notice that a DNS· M 1s ljkely to tJ.e issued Comment p2ri0Cs lo, th~ prOJecl and the proposed DNS-M are 1nlegrated into a single comment period. There will be no cornrnenl periOC fellowing the 1ssuan~e of lhe Threshold Del~cmrnatron o( Ncn-S,qni11cance. Mitigated (DNS·M). A 14--day appeal period w,11 follow 11,~ ,ssuance of the ONS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE J,Jly 1S, 200~ NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 27, 200~ APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON Ivana Halvorsen, 8argl1ausen Consulting Engineers. Inc.; Address: 18215 72"' Avenue S -Ken!, WA 980n Email: Jhalvorsen@barghausen.com Pennits/Revlew Reques!ed Environmental (SEPAi Review. Administrative Sile Plan approval Other Permits which may be rnqv1red: Construct,on and Building Permits Requesled St1.1dl2s: Stream & Wetland Study. Drainage Report, Traffic Study, Geotechnkal Report, and Secondary Review of the provided Stream & Welland Study Location whero applica!ion may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning Qjvis,on. Sidh Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 90057 PUBLIC HEARING: NIA CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Propos2d Project Oevelopmeot Regulailons Used For Project Mitigation The sub1ect site 1s des1gn<0<H<! Resadent1al Medium Density [RMD)lRes,dent·al Low Dens1i)' (RLD1 o~ the C,ty of l<enton Comprehensive L~nd Vse Map and Res1denl1al 14 (R-14)/Reso,,rce Co,1servaC1on (RC) on ll1e C1ty"s Zonmg Map E11wonmeatal (SEP~.I Checklist The pro1ect will b<; suo1ec1 lo \he C1!y's SCPA ordinar,ce RMC 4-9-200, RMC 4-9- e?O. RMC 4-3-050, RMC 4-7-1 I OF and other applicable codes and regulations as ~µwopr,ate I, -1--..l.£.<'l..&I-~~~~~ were posted by me Proposed Mitigation Measures The following M1t1gal1oc r,..•,eas1,res .,,,11 likely be imposed on the proposed prqe.;t Tcese recommendec M1t1gat1on Measu,es address prowct imn~c:t~ no\ covered b1· e>1st1ng codes and regulal1on$ as cited above , The applican/ w,II be requ,·eo lo pJy /he apprcpnale Transpor/ar10n Mit,)a.':"" Fee The applicant w,1/ be reqwrecJ !o pay /he apprcpnale Fire 1,M1ga/1on Fee: a,,d The applicant shall be roqwred ro comply wilh the rewmmenda/ians mc/uded 1n the prov,oe geokc.~11,ca/ report The applicant shall be requ!fed lo comply with the recommendariuri inc/urJ&d wilhm the pro,·,rJerJ srream and weNand study, 1n aOd1/ion lo tile recommendations in 11,e indep,mdenl secondary revlt!w of lhe prov<de stream and wetland study The appl,cant shall install and mamta,n Temporary Erosion Crm/ro/ measures in accoraan<:e w1/h Iha latest Depatlmenl of Eootogy Sl"ndards, which sl'la/1 be r&vrf/Wed and approv&d by th<, Doipartme"/ of Community & Econom11; D&valopmant. Plan R&Vl'ii'W pro1ect manager Madsen Creak. Wal/and A. We(iand B, Wetland C. and all the assoc,arad buffers shall be placed withrn a Native Growth Pro/eel/on Area /NGPA) using a method of cm a lion idantifiad wirl,in Ren Ion Mem11;,pal Cod,; 4-3-050£.4.c prior to building occupancy. The project shall comply with lhe 20{l5 King County Surface Water Design Manuel If eny Na rive American grave/s) or archaeo/og1calku//(lral ,,;sources /Indian arllfacls/ are founo, all ccnstruc/iot> aclivify shall slop and the owrn•rld~•aioper shall immedia/eiJ' nor,/y rhe City of Renton p/annmg deparlmem concerned Tribes· cultur.il wmmitteas. and !he Washing/on SI are Department of Archeologica/ and Historic Preservarion The applicant shall be reQu.red le comply ,,.,lh the rewmme.,da/1<,r,s rncludeu· 1n the Traff11; Impact Analysis Comments on th~ above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolb", Associate Planner, CED - Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on August fD, 2009. If you have questions about ttiis proposal, or wish to be made a par1y of recor<.: and receive add1t1onal no(if1cat1on by mail. contact Inf' Proj2ct Manager. Anyone who submits wri'.ten comments w,11 aulomJt1ca1:y become a party Q! record and will ba nolif1ed of any decision on this pro,ect CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7314; Eml: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov If you would like lo be made a party of record to receive further i'l(ormalion on this proposed project, complete! this form and return lu: City of Renton, CED-Planning Division. 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Name/File No New Life Church Phase IULUA09-076, ECF, SA-A NAME: --------- MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO.: DATE: f / 1-,.., ,r t2 °( ATTEST: Subsc,bed and Lorn before me, a Notary Publtc, m and for the Stat CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 27th day of July, 2009, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist, & Site Plan PMT documents. This information was sent to: Name Reoresentlna Agencies -NOA, Env. Checklist, & PMT See Attached New Life Church Owner/Applicant Ivana Halvorsen Contact Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only See Attached DOT -TIA only State Agency (Signature of Sender): M, ;/ mr..·~1//ltv .- STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING u ss . . . '''"""''• I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker ~''\. 'fNN ~~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary ac~~~\\_'_'~. purposes mentioned in the instrument. f~i•~TA.$,_.,,.lfi/~ Dated: ) /;7 /07 C-~ -: l0 -• -.! : for the Sate oP.W!ithi fJ §~t: 1 ..,J!!,, ,19_,()_,...-;.;: E L t' n () '111,1~ ~'!_hl'"'"'°''~~$° Notary (Print):_l'j....,__,im;"""""u'-..i..---',r--=L,,_'l,....._n'-'n'-'--'-'CT.~O~~~~t'YV!-~~r-~---'-'''ttl'j"'"~W~A""S"''~~lli"",::.*~ My appointment expires: 11111"~ ;> .. l~-\D Project Name: New Life Church Phase II Project Number: LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology • Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region • Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 LJS Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office • Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program • 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Gretchen Kaehler 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 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 232305914102 ADAMS PEGGY J 15115 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 680610059007 BAEZRODRIGUEZ EMILIO+BAEZ 14565 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 680610060005 BASAK SUMAN+DIPA DAS 14571 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 232305902800 BNSF PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH TX 76161 680610029000 CHILKOWICH ANDREW A 15352 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430068008 CON NOT LOREN D & JEAN M 15706 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610068008 DO TUAN A+THANH HANG NGUYEN 14552 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610014002 DRAMMEH ADAMA+CEESAY DAWDA 14549 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610030008 EXZEOKEKE GLADYS C 15344 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305908609 FRENCH DOUGLAS F 15258 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305921107 AQUA BARN RANCH 115 GARFIELD ST #4139 SUMAS WA 98295 232305913708 BARDEN ERIC & SIR! PO BOX 307 FALL CITY WA 98024 232305917709 BERGERON DONNA PO BOX 6265 KENT WA 98064 232305903204 BRENDEN MARSHALL M LOONEY WILLIAM A 18225 SE 128TH RENTON WA 98059 680610033002 CHULICK JOSEPH Ill 15320 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430079005 CUDIAMAT MAGDALENA 14237 SE 157TH PL RENTON WA 98058 231430081001 DOI DURAND & LANA S 14225 SE 157TH PL RENTON WA 98058 231430102005 ELLIOT FARM HOMEOWNERS ASSO 16915 SE 272ND ST #100197 COVINGTON WA 98042 231430065004 FITZGERALD KEVIN & KARLA PO BOX 6113 BELLEVUE WA 98008 231430062001 FRISCH NICHOLAS R+MARSHA H 15749 142N D PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610039009 ARGUDO JOEL L+SHRACK SARAH 14572 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 680610034000 BARTON KELLY J+LA'EISHA HOW 14614 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 222305913907 BERGSMA MARK 14810 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 232305912304 CAWLEY BRENT 15247 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305913203 CLARK JULIE+ TATLEY JEFF 15120 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430063009 DECKARD DARON+CATHERINE 15741 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610035007 DOMINGO JENNIFER T +COLT G 14608 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 232305913302 EMERSON WILLIE 724 OLD HY 9 CLINTON AR 72031 231430064007 FLASCK FRANK A+DOROTHY L 15729 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430090002 GAMPONIA GRACE B 15725 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430069006 GEYER MARK D+MARIA E 3616 36TH AVE W SEATILE WA 98199 232305912106 GRIM ELIZABETH L PO BOX 566 RENTON WA 98055 231430086000 HONNAWARKAR RAJESH V+KAMATH TRUPTI 15756 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305907007 HYNES ELSIE M 15214 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 247335131006 JACKSON STEVEN B 14434 SE 162ND PL RENTON WA 98058 232305902008 KC HOUSING AUTHORITY 600 ANDOVER PARK W SEATILE WA 98188 231430073008 KIUCHI SHUNICHI+MARIKO SHIM 15740 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610015009 LARSON BROCK E+REARDON MATI 14555 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610023003 LEE RHONDA H 15430 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430075003 LENNON BRIAN ]+SHANNON M 15754 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430071002 GILBERT MICHAEL J+ BARBARA L 15726 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610036005 HAI PAULEEN C+PHANG CHAN R 14336 SE 4TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98007 231430094004 HUTCHINSON SHAWN M+WHITNEY H 15759 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 222305915506 HYNES RONNIE & CHERYL 15109 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610024001 JUNTUNEN MICHAEL S+SARAH M 15424 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430074006 KEIL DAVID C+JOYCE A 15748 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 232305911801 KOLCSEY STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER 14937 SE MAPLE VALLEY HWY RENTON WA 98058 680610016007 LE HUNG T +CAM GIANT T 14561 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 232305901000 LEHMANN TYLER L 15202 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430061003 LIBUTAN ANTONINO M III+ROSA 15757 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305901307 GILSTRAP DANNY R 15241 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 680610022005 HAILE AIDA 15431 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610018003 HUYNH QUYEN+HONGHANH TRAN 14573 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610062001 INTON HERMOGENES & MILDRED 14583 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430091000 KAUR GURDEV+GILL AJEET S 15735 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 272305902301 KING COUNTY 500 4TH AVE #500 SEATILE WA 98104 680610025008 KONNO NOBUHIKO 15416 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610031006 LEE KYUNG S+GOWOON HAN 15336 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610021007 LEI CHENG JUN 15423 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430092008 LUU ANH 15743 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 232305917808 MADDEN FRANCES C 15209 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305906306 MILES DALE A 15023 SW JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 247335132004 MOORED S 14428 SE 162ND PL RENTON WA 98055 680610017005 NEGRING TROY R+SARAH E 14567 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610037003 NGUYEN DIEM P+DONG VAN+NGUY 14584 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430089004 OBRIEN RICHARD L+ANDREA L 15709 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610040007 PHAM HOANG Q 14566 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 680610019001 QUADRANT HOMES PO BOX 130 BELLEVUE WA 98009 231430087008 ROBERSON WILLIAM C+M GALE 15750 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430078007 SAELEE OUCHIO+NOUANTHONGME 14243 SE 157TH PL RENTON WA 98058 231430060005 MAI THANH VAN+NGUYEN DIANE 15765 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610057001 MILLER SUSAN A+DONALD P 14553 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430093006 MUNOZ MICHAEL L 15751143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 232305902107 NEW LIFE CHURCH @ RENTON 15711 152ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98057 680610027004 NGUYEN LAMMINH 15402 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610038001 PARTRIDGE KEITH B 14578 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430070004 POSTMA JAMES+MISHELL 15720 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430084005 RAUCH DAVID C+YOON THERESA 15768 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430095001 ROCCA DAVID B 15767 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430058009 SALDANA TEODORO B SALDANA CARMELITA 15781142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430082009 MARTIN SHAWN L+MARTIN JERI LYNN 512 TACOMA PL NE RENTON WA 98056 231430076001 MIRVIC RAMIZ ET AL 4850 156TH NE #335 REDMOND WA 98052 231430083007 MYERS LISA TAN 15772 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610066002 NGUYEN DANG H+MYVI T 14564 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610020009 NOLAN JOHN E+LORNA G 14585 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 232305912700 PENNER DELLA 331 VALLEY MALL PKWY #273 E WENATCHEE WA 98802 231430072000 PRIOR DALE R+DEBRA L 15732 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430066002 REVENIG H ALLAN HANDELAND NANCY K 15713 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305909805 ROSENBAUM LL 15059 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 680610063009 SANCHEZ ERNEST+YANA 14582 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 • 231430059007 SANTOS MARIO 15773 142ND PL SE RENTOI\ WA 98058 232305912205 SHIREY RILEY L+DONNA M 1042 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY BELLEVUE WA 98008 680610026006 TABOR DEAN l+SUSAN L 15410 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610067000 TOWNSEND JOEL D+KARINA M 14558 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 231430085002 UNDISCLOSED RECIPIENT 15762 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610061003 WANDY ALI+EVANGELINE W 14577 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430080003 WICK ROBERT D & ANDREA L 14231 SE 157TH PL RENTON WA 98058 232305901406 SAYLOR DAMON+KNIGHT MARK 15224 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 680610028002 SIRIYA SOM 15360 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 247335130008 TAYLOR ROBERT R 16200 145TH SE RENTON WA 98055 231430057001 TRAFICANTE RANAN B+KALENDAR 15789 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305920901 VALLEY SPRINGS APARTMENTS LLC 11624 SE 5TH ST #200 BELLEVUE WA 98005 680610058009 WANG QUAN XIN+KRISTINA J 14559 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 680610065004 WIITANEN ERIK K+MICHELLE T 14570 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 232305914201 SHERWOOD JENNIFER 15005 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 232305920505 SOULES STUART P 15013 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 231430088006 THONGDEE KHAMPHONG+LA 15734 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610064007 TRAN HA+ TU GIAM 14576 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610032004 VU PETER D 15328 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610042003 WESTERGREEN DAMIEN J 14554 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430067000 WORKMAN JAY+GAIL E 15707 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: July 27, 2009 LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A New Life Church Phase II PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant 1s requesting an Env1rorimental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of 45 additional parking stalls west of Madsen Creek, 194 parking stalls east of Madsen Creek, the completion of the fire lane (which was required by LUAOB-081 for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 associated parking stalls), a vehicle bridge over Madsen Creek, athletic field, and a 2,000 square foot restroom/storage/concess1ons building. The site 1s located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.GS acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) du/ac and is currently the location of the New Life Church. which also contains a private school The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parkmg stalls, which are proposed Lo remain. Access to the site would be via the existing driveways off of 152nd Avenue SE The subject site contains many critical areas, which include: Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazan: Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such. the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove five trees for the new parking spaces Stormwater would be collected in c new proposed storrnwater facility. The proposed project would require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading PROJECT LOCATION: 15711152"u Avenue SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, tho2 City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the rroject and the rroposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Deiermination of Non-Significance- Mitigated {DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period wrll follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 15. 2009 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 27, 2009 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.; Address: 18215 72nd Avenue S -Kent WA 98032 Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Email: ihalvorsen@barghausen.com Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Site Plan approval Construction and Building Permits Stream & Wetland Study, Drainage Report, Traffic Study, Geotechnical Report, and Secondary Review of the provided Stream & Wetland Study. Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 N/A The subject site is designated Residential Medium Density (RMD)/Res1dential Low Density (RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential -14 (R-14)/Resource Conservation (RC) on the City's Zoning Map Env1ronmentai (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance. RMC 4-9-200. RMC 4-9- 070, RMC 4-3-050 RMC 4-2-110F and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following M1t1gation Measures wtl' likely he imposed on t!1e proposed proJect Tf'ese recomrner,c·ec rvlitiga(ion Mcas~ucs c1cld'ess pro,:ect 1'.npc-Jcts .101 ccverec by ex1st1ng codes and reDulator1s as c1tecl above The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee The applicant wt!/ be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; ond The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the provide geo/echnir:af report. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendation included within the provided stream and wetland study, in addition to the recommendations in the independent secondary review of the provide stream and wetland stucly The applicant shall install and maintain Temporary Erosion Control measures in accordance with the latest Department of Ecology Standards, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Plan Review project manager. Madsen Creek, Wetland A. Wetland 8, Wetland C, and all the associated buffers shall be placed wifhin a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) using a method of creation identified within Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050E.4.c. priur to building occupancy The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeo!ogical/culturaf resources (Indian artifacts) are found, aif construction activity shall slop and the owner/developer shall imrnedmtely notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes· cu/tum/ committees. and fhe Washington Stafe Department of Archeo/ogical and Historic Preservation. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact 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 August 10, 2009. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail. cont8ct the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of 81ly decision on this project CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7314; Eml: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ,, N If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project. complete lhis form and return to: City of Renton, CED -Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: New Life Church Phase II/LUAD9-076, ECF, SA-A NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: Denis Law Mayor July 27, 2009 Ivana Halvorsen Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Department of Community & Economic Development Subject: Notice of Complete Application New Life Church Phase II, LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A Dear Ms. Halvorsen: 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. When New Life Church originally submitted for Land Use entitlements (LUA08-081) for the construction of the 36,000 square foot Church auditorium, a secondary review of the provided stream study was required in a letter dated December 18, 2008. Prior to the City receiving the secondary review, the applicant voluntarily changed their submittal to avoid impacts on the Critical Areas; as such, the City completed review of the application without the secondary review. Although, based on this determination in LUAOS-081 .the City is requesting that Secondary Review is conducted on the provided Stream and Wetland Study. Per RMC 4-3-0SOF7, when appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat, species present, or project area conditions; the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to fund analyses including evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's submitted analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, and to include any recommendations as appropriate. This review would be paid at the applicant's expense. Due to the project area conditions, secondary review of the submitted wetland report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. is required. Attached is a list of Wetland/Stream Consultants, compiled by the City of Renton, pre-qualified to: conduct a secondary review of wetland/stream studies; supplemental stream studies; and mitigation plans for the City. The applicant must use a Consultant from this roster to conduct the required secondary review. The review shall be submitted to the City before the project can be scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee. Please submit three (3) copies of the results of the secondary stream and wetland review to the City. Once the secondary stream and wetland review is received, your project will be scheduled Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Notice of Complete Application New Life Church Phase II/ LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A Page 2 of 2 for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. At this time, your project will be placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~-IJok Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Encl: Wetland Consultants Roster cc: New Life Church/ Owner(s) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT City of Renton Wetland/Stream Consultant Roster For project sites with wetlands, streams, and/or their associated buffer areas, a wetland and/or stream study is required, prepared by a qualified professional. Per RMC 4-3- 050F7, when appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat, species present, or project area conditions, the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to fund analyses including evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's submitted analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations as appropriate. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and the Reviewing Official shall select the secondary review professional. The following is a list compiled by the City of Renton in alphabetical order of Wetland/Stream Consultants that are pre-qualified to prepare the initial critical areas studies and conduct a secondary review of wetland/stream studies, supplemental stream studies and mitigation plans for the City. 1. A.C. Kindig & Co. 4. Otak 12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road, Suite 110 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Bellevue, WA 98005-2509 Kirkland, WA 98033 Telephone: (425) 638-0358 Telephone: (425) 822-4446 2. ESA Adolfson 5. Steward and Associates Contact: lion Logan 120 Avenue A, Suite D 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Snohomish, WA 98290 Seattle, WA 98107 Telephone: (360) 862-1255 Telephone: (206) 789-9658 3. Herrera Environmental Consultants 6. The Watershed Company Contact: Kittie Ford 750 Sixth Street South 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (425) 822-5242 Telephone: (206) 441-9080 Denis Law Mayor July 27, 2009 Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15 700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: Dear Sirs: New Life Church Phase II LUA09-076, ECF, SA-A ·"__ r-_ -_ ----_--Ln---... _ --. _ . c-. ' ' ' ' ' . . ' ' ' ! ',_ : t j _ ": Department of Community & Economic Development 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. I would appreciate your comments prior to the Environmental Review Committee meeting, preferably by August 10, 2009, if possible to incorporate any comments into the staff report. Sincerely, ~-Doi~ Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosures cc: Jan Illian, City of Renton -Plan Review Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov City of Reni Pianriina IJr·vr·s. " · ron .JUL 1 ? .. CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING fRi {ff;; CC~ ll W' I~ rn1 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton -Planning Department 105 5 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: New Life Church -Phase 2 (LUA09) Quantity Date 1 Each PMT Reductions of Plan Set For your use as requested. cc: Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants DATE: July 17, 2009 SENT VIA: Courier Delivery OUR JOB: 11706 -------------~ Description Signed: \{~ ~ Ivana Halvorsen @ Senior Planner 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX I I 706t.034.doc BRANCH OFFICES + OLYMPIA, WA + TACOMA, WA t CONCORD. CA + TEMECULA CA www.barghausen.com '0 17ti1110 r,-~,,ro City of Renton C --'/1;/o ->IO() LAND USE PERMIT Jur 1 s2eo9 MASTER APPLICATIOtf~©~fffY@!n) PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: New Life Church PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: New Life Church ADDRESS: 15711 -152nd Avenue SE PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98058 15711 -152nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( 425) 226-0880 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR"S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 232305-9021 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Same as owner EXISTING LAND USE(S): Church & School COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): h h C urc & School ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RMD/RSF CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): RMD/RSF TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: R-14/UR CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-14/UR NAME: Ivana Halvorsen SITE AREA (in square feet): 2,468,364 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): DEDICATED: None ~arghausen Consulting Engineers., Inc SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: None 18215 -72nd Avenue South PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: ZIP: Kent, WA 98032 ACRE (if applicable): None NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: Not applicable (425) 251-6222 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): ihalvorsen@barghausen.com Not applicable Q:web/pw/devserv/fonns/planning/ma.sterapp.doc 09/19/05 PROJECT INFORMATION /continued} ;..:..-=---:c:...==-===-=-='------------~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: $450,000 (estimated) None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): None IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): +/-2000 s.f. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 128, 000 s.f. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): +/-130,000 s.f. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): Zero new IJ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE IJ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ~ FLOOD HAZARD AREA ~ GEOLOGIC HAZARD IJ HABITAT CONSERVATION IJ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES ~WETLANDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. /Attach leaal descriotion on seoarate sheet with the followina information includedl SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 23 , TOWNSHIP23 , RANGE~. IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. SEPA 3. 2. Site Plan 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namefs) Troy Jones, Senior Past or , declare that I am (please check one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or XX 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 kno'Nledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pw/devserv/fonns/planning/masterapp.doc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evldence,t.J::wt: Troy Jones signed this instrument and acknowledged it to bel!:l!!lhernheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington D--e a hr--et At k: r--Notary (Print) _____________ _ ;/_ · 'J..Cf · Id-. My appointment expires.:_---------- 2 09/19/05 ; ! """1 I", I" ' ' f i...J 1.(-J PREAPPLICATION MEETING F<aRot!-lenton Planning D\vis\or-: NEW LIFE CHURCH EXPANSION ILIL J G Zi;U9 15711152ND AVE SE CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Current Planning Division PREOB-054 June 05, 2008 Contact Information: Planner: Vanessa Dolbee Phone: 425.430.7314 Public Works Reviewer: Jan Illian Phone: 425.430.7216 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430. 7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430. 7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Development Services Director, Department of Community Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). FIRE DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 6/2/08/08 TO: Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer CC: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner FROM: STAFF CONTACT: David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal 9J / David Pargas -425-430-7023 SUBJECT: PRE-APPOS-054 New Life Church Expansion Review of the plans and material regarding New Life Church Expansion has been conducted and completed. Please review the following Renton Fire & Emergency Services Fire Code and Policy comments and concerns. The Fire Department comments are as follows: 1. FIRE FLOW: A calculation of the fire flow for this structure of 36,000 square feet of Type VA construction shall require a fire flow of2750 for 2 hours. A water availability certificate shall be required from your local water purveyor. 2. REQUIRED HYDRANTS: As in accordance with Renton Fire Department Structures over 3600 square feet and that require a minimum fire flow of 1500 gallons per minute shall require a minimum of2 hydrants. The number of hydrants that may be required shall also be based on spacing, which shall be in accordance with sound engineering practices. Hydrants shall be equipped with 5- inch Storz fittings on the main ports. I am aware of existing hydrants that are located throughout this complex. 3. HYDRANT SPACING: Commercial Spacing- A) Primary Hydrant shall be located within 150 feet to the front of the building B) All other Hydrants shall be no greater than 300 feet to the front of any structure. C) Due to this structure requiring a Fire Sprinkler System a Hydrant shall be required within 50 feet of the Fire Department Connection. D) Hydrant spacing shall be in accordance with Appendix C, Table Cl 05. I of the 2006 International Fire Code. i:\city memos\08 pre app reviews\pre·appOS-054 new life church expansion.doc 4. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: A) The minimum Fire Apparatus Access -shall be within 150 fed of all exterior portions of the building. B) The minimum Fire Apparatus Road Access Width & Surface -shall be no less than 20 feet wide and on a surface capable of sustaining the weight of a Fire Apparatus. C) Fire Lane signage -Shall be required along one side of the road where the road width is 20 to 28 feet wide. Signage shall he placed on the same side in which the hydrants are located. Signage shall be as in accordance with section 503 of the 2006 International Fire Code and City of Renton Ordinance 4-4-80-6 A-G. 5. DEAD END STREETS: Street Standards Section 4-6-060-G A) Access of Dead End Streets from 150 or greater shall require an appropriate turnaround. 6. F1RE SPRINKLER & F1RE ALARM REQUIREMENTS: Fire Sprinklers and Fire Alanns shall be applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits shall be required. 7. F1RE MITIGATION FEES: Fire mitigation fees shall be $.52 per square footage of project shall be required. Fee shall be paid at time of securing building pennits. 8. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: _Please feel free to contact the Assistant Fire Marshal at 425-430-7023 if you have any further questions or concerns regarding the pre-application review comments for this project. i:\city memos\08 pre app reviews\pre-appOS-054 new life church expansion.doc DEPARTMENT OF COJVIJVIUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUJVI DATE: June 2, 2008 TO: FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Jan Illian, Plan Review SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for New Life Church PRE 08-054 15711 -152 Ave SE NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non-binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision- makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. WATER I. Water service is provided by Cedar River Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted with the building permit application. 2. Existing hydrant(s) to be counted as fire protection will require a 5" storz quick disconnect fitting if not already in place SANITARY SEWER 1. Sewer service is provided by Cedar River Water and Sewer District. A sewer availability certificate will be required to be submitted with the building permit application. SURFACE WATER l. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. TI1e report shall address detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the report. If preliminary calculations show detention will be required under the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual, staff will recommend a condition that the project comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation flow control - a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. 2. Surface Water System Development Charges (SOC) will be assessed at a rate of $0.405 times the square foot of the new impervious area. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 3. Erosion control shall comply with the 2005 Department of Ecology's Stormwater Manual. Nt:\V Life Church Expansion Page 2 of2 Jm1e 2, 2008 TRANSPORTA TJON l. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 times the number of new additional daily trips will be assessed for the nnv expansion. Dedication of right of way may be required along 152 Ave SE. Mimmum right of way width per City code is 50 feet. It is not clear as to the existing right of way width. Dedication of a 25-foot radius at the intersection and SR 169 will be required. Dedication along SRl69 may be required. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks.(along the project side), curb and gutter, storm drainage, landscaping, street lighting, and street signs will be required fronting the site along SR 169 and in 152 Ave SE, All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utiliti~aite l~e~ 'fterground-. -~~~ ;~ 0 _'::_l.'i;_ Staff will not support any new vehicle access iom SR 169. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards 2. When approval .is granted and utility plans are complete, please submit permit application, three (3 J copies of drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 6% of the first SI 50,000 of the estimated construction costs; Costs over $150,000.00 but less than $300,000, fee is $9,000.00 plus 5% of cost over $150,000. Costs of $300,000 and over is $16,500.00, plus 4% of cost $300,000.00 and over. Half the fee must be paid upon application. 3. The applicant is responsible for securing all necessary private utility easements prior to the recording of the short plat. 4. Separate permits and fees for storm drainage connections are required. Kayrcn Kituick i:\prc--.1.pps\new life church.doc CITY OF RENTON Community & Economic Development 1"IEJ\,10RANDUM DATE: June 5, 2008 TO: Pre-Application File No. PRE 08-054 FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Planner (425) 430-7314 SUBJECT: New Life Church Expansion --------------------------------~. -~- 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, Zoning Administrator, Development Services Director, Community & 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 $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or on the City's website www.rentonwa.gov. Project Proposal The subject property is located on the south side of Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) at 15711 152nd Avenue SE. The site is currently developed with a 93,000 square foot stmcture that houses the New Life Church. The proposal is to redevelop the existing New Life Church site in 2 phases that would be constmcted over a 4-year period. The first phase would involve the construction of a 36,000 square foot one-story building, 330 additional parking spaces and pedestrian connections utilizing pervious concrete. The second phase would involve the constmction of a 4,000 square foot Athletic Facility (track and soccer field) to be located on the west portion of the parcel. This phase would also include the addition of 144 parking spaces and new storm drainage facilities, along with enlarging the existing bridge crossing of Madsen Creek. Access to the property is currently, and would remain in the future, off of 152nd Avenue SE. The applicant should note that the proposed project area is currently outside of the Renton City limits and is located with the New Life Aqua Barn annexation area. The zoning proposed on the subject site once annexed into the City is Residential-14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) and Resource Conservation (RC). The approximate timeframe for the approval of the annexation is mid..Jnne 2008. No land nse applications within the annexation area will be processed until the proposed annexation area has been approved. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-11 OF, "Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-14 standards" herein). A copy of these standards is included herewith. New Life Church Expansion Pre-Application Meeting June 5. 2008 Page 2 of5 The R-14 development standards specifically address residential, civic, and commercial uses but do not specifically address religious institutions or other community facilities. In order for the City to determine which development standards to apply to the subject project, we looked at LUA96-061. LUA96-061 was an application for the construction ofa temple (religious institution) in the R-14 zoning district; in this case, the City applied "Civic" development standards. Due to the similarity ofLUA96-061 and the subject proposal, the City will apply "Civic" development standards. The following development standards are for civic uses within the R-14 zone. Building Standards The R-14 zone allows a maximum building coverage of50% of the total lot area and building height is restricted to 2-stories for Civic uses. As proposed, it appears there is e11ough lot area to comply with building coverage requirements and a one-story building would be within the maximum height requiremellt. qj!\ Building Design The bui [ding structure shall be designed to serve as a focal point for the . 'M4,<-:i ·f . residential community; and be compatible with architectural character and site features of ~ Cl!i~:. · r/' surrounding residential development and characteristics. The design should also include a ,i>' ;r:,-.1' common motif or theme and be pedestrian oriented through such measures as pedestrian ?Jr..-..fi.f. walkways, pedestrian amenities and improvements, which support a variety oftransp_ortation ~ modes (e.g., bicycle racks). - Setbacks Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line or private access easement. The required front yard setbacks for Civic Uses in the R-14 zone is 10 feet except when abutting or adjacent to residential development then 15 feet is the required setback; there is no required side or rear yard setback for Civic Uses except when abutting or adjacent to residential development then a 15-foot setback is required. The New Life Aqua Barn An11exatio11 pre-zo11e map indicates that the majority of properties surrounding the subject parcel would be within residential zoning designations. 111 the north east corner there is a small parcel pre-Zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). According to the King County Zoning Atlas Map properties surrounding the subject parcel witlti11 King County also have residential zoning designations; as such, the subject proposal would require 15-/oot setbacks along tlte front, rear, and sides. Tlte site plan did not include the entire parcel therejore; staff was u11able to verify rear setbacks. As proposed, the 11ew building com.e!Jes with setback requirements for fro11t and side yards. --·---· - Project Size Limitations -The maximum lot area dedicated for civic uses shall be limited to I 0% of the net developable area of a property. Building size shall be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, except that by Hearing Examiner Conditional Use permit Civic Uses may be allowed to be a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. for all uses. The subject project proposal does 1101 comply witJ, this require111e11t; in order to achieve the proposed square footage a modificatio11 from the ~ developme11t sta11dartls would be required. At official project submittal, i11clude within the l( application materials writte11 justificatio11 for such modification. The following shall be J.,'1 ~'f:Jf, addressed within the written modification justification: v {,::{f ~'\' ';(6') How the proposed project: ..j .'j JI/ l. Substantially implements the policy direction of the pohcies and objectives of the b-()j l)'I -. IA Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the ~ I}-{;~ ·\~,(IL ~ ~ ,,Proposed modification is the mini~iyp adjustment necessary to implement these )11 , ..\i.,\ • ? ,.:;policies and Obje<;QVeS; • .(\ 61 (WV'} 1.1,V ~oJ '/J.L o~~ '\ ~v)P: (f},&.(;-.P ~ A.,., r,,{'U', ~~'Ji-1'\'J\;. -' \:t\jif..\'(::,~l.j.l, c)!LD( .,.J, New Life Church Expansion Pre-Application Meeting June 5, 2008 Page 3 of 5 2. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; 3. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; 4. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; 5. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and 6. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Access -Street improvements, including, curbs, gutter and sidewalk, may be required along the frontage of the property. Street improveme11ts alo11g Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) a11d 152"' Ave SE may be required. Parking -Parking requirements for Religious institutions: is one space for every 5 seats in the main auditorium; however, in no case shall there be Jess than 10 spaces. The subject project proposes 474 new parking spaces. Staff was u11able to verify complia11ce with parki11g requireme11ts because the 11umber of seats i11 the auditorium is u11k11ow11. Maximum slopes for parking lots shall not exceed eight percent (8%) slope. Public Works Administrator or his/her designee may allow a driveway to exceed eight percent (8%) slope but not more than fifteen percent (15%) slope. Please refer to parking, loading and driveway regulations (RMC 4-4-080) for further general and specific parking requirements. Parking areas abutting residential development shall be screened with a solid barrier fence and/or landscaping. Refuse and Recycling Areas -Refuse and recycling areas need to meet the requirements ofRMC 4-4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards" ( enclosed). ~ -Any proposed signagc shall comply with RMC 4-4-100 Sign Regulations, and will require a separate sign permit. "Sign Regulations" ( enclosed) Landscaping Except for critical areas, all portions of the development not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The development standards require that all pervious areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. A 10 ft. minimum on-site la11dscape strip is required alo11g Maple Valley Highway. Lots abutting residential property(ies) zone RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10 or R-14 shall be improved along the common boundary with a minimum 15 ft. wide landscaped setback and a sight-obscuring solid barrier. A 15 ft. wide la11dscape setback and sight-obscuring solid barrier is required alo11g the east property li11e. Street trees, conforming to city of Renton recommendations are required when projects front public streets. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for further general and specific landscape requirements ( enclosed). A co11ceptual landscape plan a11d la11dscape a11alysis meeti11g the requireme11ts ill RMC 4-8- 120D.l 2, shall be submitted with the la11d use permit application. Fences Permitted fence height is 48" in the front yard and side yards along a street, and 72" in the rear yard and interior side yards. Fences cannot exceed 42" in height in the clear vision area of comer lots. Please see enclosed handout on fences for specific details. If the applicant intends to New Life Church Expansion Pre-Application Meeting June 5, 2008 P:1gc 4 ofS include a fence as part of the landscaping, please submit conceptual fence details along with the landscape plan. Critical Areas The subject site contains a stream, two wetlands, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and regulated slopes. The City's critical areas map identifies the stream as a Class 2 stream, which requires a 100-foot buffer. A wetland and stream report was submitted with the pre-application materials. The report was prepared in accordance with the King County Critical Areas Regulations. A report prepared in accordance with the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations shall be submitted with the formal land use application. Pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-0501) the applicant will be required to obtain a geotechnical report stamped and signed from a Geotechnical Engineer stating that the site is suitable for development and addresses soils, geology and other key elements. The analysis should also assess soil conditions and detail construction measures to assure building stability. In addition, the report will need to address any special construction requirements deemed necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Through the site plan review process; the City may condition the approval of the development in order to require mitigation of any potential hazards based on the results of the study. In addition, pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.J.3, the geotechnical report submitted with the application may be required to undergo independent secondary review by a qualified specialist selected by the City at the applicant's expense. Environmental Review Environmental Review would be required for the subject proposal because the proposed structure exceeds 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and the parking area exceeds 20 spaces. Tree Retention A tree inventory and a tree retention plan shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least I 0% of protected trees [those with a minimum diameter 6-inches when measured four and a half feet above grade], and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that will be retained. As per RMC 4-4-130D tree removal or land clearing shall not be permitted withi11 Critical Areas a11d/or a native growth protection easement. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The existing development is located within the Residential Medium Density and Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The following proposed policies are applicable to the proposal: Objective LU-X: Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner that provides convenient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy L U-104: When locating in predominantly residential areas, religious facilities should be on the periphery of the residential area rather than the interior. Policy LU-105: Parking should be provided on-site and buffered from adjacent uses. New Life Church Expansion Pre-Application !\llceting June 5, 2008 Page 5 of5 Policy LU-106: Large-scale facilities should be encouraged to locate contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. Policy LU-107: Religious facilities should be located on and have direct access to either an arterial or Collector Street. Permit Requirements The project would require Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental Review (SEPA). With concurrent review of these applications, the process would take an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. After the required notification period, the Environmental Review Committee would issue a Threshold Determination for the project. When the required two-week appeal period is completed, the project would go before the Hearing Examiner for a decision on the Site Plan Review. The Hearing Examiner's decision would be subject to a two-week appeal period. The application fee would be $2,000 for the Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Y, of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which would be $500.00. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. Once Site Plan Review approval is obtained, the applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications, as well as satisfy any conditions of the approval before a building permit may be obtained. Fees *Once the application materials are complete, the applicant is strongly encouraged to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the 6'• floor front counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Please contact me at (425) 430- 7314 to schedule a time for the pre-screen. In addition to the fees for review of the land-use, construction and building permits, the following fees would be required prior to issuance of building permit. • A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, calculated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (JTE) Manual, Fifth Edition. • A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per Building square foot. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Expiration Once an application has been approved, the applicant has two years to comply with all condition of approval and to apply for any necessary permits before the approval becomes null and void. The approval body that approved the original application may grant a single one-year extension. The approval body may require a public hearing for such extension. The Hearing Examiner may approve an extended time frame for the 4 year phased plan requested. cc: Jennifer Henning -.~"':!!!._~, -~ -··-··-··-··-~ _,,-'---~ · ...__ u7 JS--"°. ff:,~ ~.-L_ . -. . •. ~ .... '_S'-.. ' -..o/, .... -·. >./7. -:·· -. -:,;; . --, .. -Y:.V). ' ' '() .. -. --. .,._ --r~. :-. -.· 63,«;s,;.).' g". --.> ~ir ~l{,f;"'""".o.":s.,,,J~ l:U .-·-.---~ '~· -~Ec,\6i2ndif''lJ/. --.· . ( "'~,.:;_. \' . , ; '.~.Jrd!St· ~ Department of Community ~ '<· 0 ' • ~ • & Economic Development ;.1l ~ . Alex Pietsch. Administrator N Adriana Johnson, Planning Technician l',u , ,, o,i ,-," c,,, ,,I Re.sin" <ei ?M7 1t,e C I~ ,,r ,i,1nl"'1.,1 r,;'us t/,S~N"~,< , . ., ,•,c>'·,,•,1•,;s ~' ;in~ •;c,, ,n,,,.1.-,~ 0,.,1 ""' ,,nw,-< In ar, wa, I '·'""'<"' nvciwa;,b·-'•lv /Oc,:m,;ia<itll\lS!l"'~"cl Legend CJ New Life -Aqua Barn Boundary~ R-14 Residenlial 14dulacre Parcel D R-4 Residential 4du/acre Aqua Barn Zoning D R-8 Residential Bdu/acre Zoning Designation ii.Ill RC Resource Conservation E}2] CA Commercial Arterial D RMH Residential Menufactured Homes i~i·.t> ·8. I __ • i' .. IP.!S.-_· ,--' ~1 -• I ' \ , , . ! t- ~) : !-, : , f' . -.. -se;1;16th,~i~-~u-.I . 1 • ' I I\ , , ' , ~ , .. 'u·.·--··· .. ~ . ; I r .. -/ -. --i .,1,...__._..· ~~'n,s·r~· .. ·· ... -.·.·•.·I .. · .. _· .. c::'.±;::::'.J .. ' -"'. I • --=i. ·. ,,. ···._-· -s, I" -~.· . ' ·. '.G'·.<~--:.=--t(ii;_ ~·, .. 'cl· ·-I ·; .i::: .I . i -. S~c ' -. ;;; / ..... -_. , . -,-.-i' .r . ~ _; •• I ·/ ~. 1 t·.·.' ... -...... n.~·.···-.' ... ·· .. __ '·· -· . .--: ~ ~.·-----• ,-~; ~ ~ :::::--.c· .. ------------. )_}~/ . ' -. ._,__ UJ.'"'--. v~rrrl~ ;_,' 1 : ' • __..---~.... - ~~Oth'PI~ I.. . . , . _ ... \~ --o I~ ,,, -,. "' "' New Life Aqua Barn Annexation Zoning April 22,2008 0 250 500 1 ,000 Feet 1:12,000 $ File Name H;lECNSP\GIS_rrcJec:s\new_hte __ aqua_.':larn\ rnxds\new _li/e_aqua_barn_zoning_ i'!pril06 mxrl DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Density Worksheet 4 Dr~ln~1e~q~(tqf'f'if~o~j1···; 1 Legal Description, :W~11{~urhlo;)~,;;ii!~r&iiiirii:Qwn1t~~itiiJill:X:tf1tir;• •'l'J Mailing Labels for Property Owners, M~p.ofE~ti~g.~ftli.¢lS!icl,!i§ilsiii•''dl. Master Application Form, Neighborhood Detail Map , This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section PROJECTNAME: n:CJ\r\/ L~~ C'bu(t:J\ DATE: l'I l 5/<H' O:\WE0\PW\DEVSERV\F()(ms\Planning.\waiverofsubmiltatreqs_9-06.xl$ 09106 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Sti?~or ij1{ll3/!)~yJi(\)J,1!jf\w"i~rn:it1t::xj;;~;ft:,/;~;t;;0;' Stream or lake Study, Supplemental, ~trim?iitii~iJ~~!lRhi~~J~Wii~;t\i:1c;I;!frlJJ~: Street Profiles 2 Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan , Q1§J@I0iiawn~~1~~:t1lili¥i~~E,lm~i!1!\'!f£1ittI2 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND, lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND, Photosimulations 2 AND, This requirement may be waived by: 1 . Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: ..... ~.,.,_}f',.__\=.,.,_J ~L~,-(~c~· ~Ul=· ~er,~-~ffi~-~-- 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section DA TE: __.l(?"'4/!-''c="J,_..,,j 6"-"•(,?._· ____ _ Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSER\I\Forms\Planning\waiverofsubmiltalreqs _ 9-06.xls 09/06 ,,,,, ----------- Renton City Limits Parcels ' · -Seismic Hazard Areas r;&I Renton Aerial ::oo C Renton SCALE 1 . 7.180 500 1.000 1.500 FEET http://rentonnet.org/MapGuidelmapslParcel.mwf N Wednesday, May 28, 2008 09:52 AM Renton Renton City Limits Parcels Landslide Hazard Areas ~High =Moderate ~UNCLASSIFIED [:]Very High ~9.uifer Protection Zones : \.:zone 1 t'.;JZone 2 i?±~ Zoning :?~i~Resource Conversation Residential 1 du/ac Residential 4 du/ac Residential 8 du/ac Residential Manufactur .. Residential 1 Odu/ac Residential 14 du/ac __ _Residential Multi-Family Residential Multi-Famil Residential Multi-Famil --Center Village Urban Center North 1 Urban Center North 2 ·center Downtown [}f3Commerc1al/Office/Re .. Commercial Arterial Commercial Office · 'commercial Ne,ghborh. J,-.,,..j, .... i ... ; .... 1 L.J,-.,--., "' SCALE 1 : 7.889 500 0 500 1.000 Ff.ET http://rentonnet.org/MapGuidelmapslParcel.mwf i .500 N Wednesday, May 28, 2008 09:51 AM Renton City Limits Parcels Erosion Hazard Areas !Bil Renton Aerial 500 0 Renton SCALE 1 : 7,172 500 1.000 1.500 FEET http://rentonnet.org/MapGuide/maps/Parcel.mwf Wednesday, May 28, 2008 09:51 AM Renton City Limits Parcels t:lii!il Renton Aerial ~----.--.-:.- 500 0 Renton SCALE 1 • 6.932 500 1.000 1,500 FFET http)lrentonnet.org/MapGuide/maps/Parcel.mwf N Wednesday, May 28, 2008 09•52 AM Renton City Limits Parcels _ Regulated Slopes >15<=25 25 <= 40 Reg .. => 40 <= 90 Reg =::> 90 Regulated ~ Renton Aerial SCALE1 ·7.317 ....;,,,_:_~ ---------------- 500 0 500 FEE: T http://rentonnet.org/MapGuidelmaps/Parcel.mwf Renton N 1,000 1.500 Wednesday, May 28, 2008 09:52 AM City of Renton Wetland/Stream Consultant Roster For project sites with wetlands, streams, andior their associated buffer areas, a wetland and/or stream study is required, prepared by a qualified professional. Per RMC 4-3- 050F7, when appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat, species present, or project area conditions, the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to fund analyses including evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's submitted analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations as appropriate. This shall be paid al the applicant's expense, and the Reviewing Official shall select the secondary review professional. The following is a list compiled by the City of Renton in alphabetical order of Wetland/Stream Consultants that are pre-qualified to prepare the initial critical areas studies and conduct a secondary review of wetland/stream studies, supplemental stream studies and mitigation plans for the City. I. A.C. Kindig & Co. 4. Otak 12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road, Suite 110 I 0230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Bellevue, WA 98005-2509 Kirkland, WA 98033 Telephone: ( 425) 638-0358 Telephone: (425) 822-4446 2_ ESA Adolfson 5. Steward and Associates Contact: lion Logan 120 Avenue A, Suite D 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Snohomish, WA 98290 Seattle, WA 98107 Telephone: (360) 862-1255 Telephone: (206) 789-9658 3. Herrera Environmental Consultants 6. The Watershed Company Contact: Kittie Ford 750 Sixth Street South 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (425) 822-5242 Telephone: (206) 441-9080 H : \F onru IPJannmg\ W etl an dC onsultan tRostcr. doc 01/08 Receipt of Application Approx. 7 -14 Days CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEARING EXAMINER REVIEW PROCESS Detennination of Complete Application & Notice of Application and Optional DNS* And Tentative Public Hearing Date Mailed and Posted 14 Days Public Comment Period Ends Threshold Environmental Determination Staff Report Due 7 Days Before Environmental Determination 7 Days Enviromnental Decision Published, Mailed and Posted Appeal Period** 14 Days** Appeal Period Ends Public Hearing Total Processing Time Approximately 12 weeks Hearing Examine Decision Appeal Period Ends Appeal Period 7-14 Days IO Working Days 14 Days City Staff or other agencies may request additional information during the review and decision making process. It is important that the applicant submit the requested material quickly to avoid delays in the process. Any time spent gathering data and/or additional city review period is not included in the above chart and will increase the time required to process the application. * ** For projects not requiring an environmental impact statement If the Threshold Environmental Determination contains different mitigation conditions than those included in the optional DNS notice, this time is increased to 29 days to accommodate an additional 15 day period in advance of the appeal period. H :"Di vision.s\Develop sel'\fJev&plan.ing\Admi11 Docs\Manuals\Plan.ner Manual\Chapter l 4.doc 0412612007 14 -7 Master Application Form• DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ~h4Q{ijhf:~)t~~ffifi~h~~R;m~h~t,%Jiij}}lif0l!::ttI;[ilfff:~B'.; Neighborhood Detail Map 4 .HJ! -, [" . '' This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: n/Q\A} Li-f e Chc(c(\ 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section DATE: UI 15){) Y ' Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs_9-06.xls 09/06 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 \l~Jr,~~il~tlitli!~i~U!Zlffltr:.:~ij;·/~11!i~!tif~1J~tt!~1~ Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary , Wireless: Appticant Agreement Statement , AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites , ANO 3 Lease Agreement. Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2AND, Photosimurations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section PROJECT NAME: ..... f\¥Je ..... \ .... A._/ .,.L1'--'{'--'e'-Cb~· "----'--=rnj\~· ~-- DATE: ___,.{f>~/'-'6""-·· ,_,,/ 6e:..:.· <.?<-·----- 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiverofsubmlttalreqs_9-06.xls 09106 City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET lec: U ~ Ill {!SJ 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. ___ ,,_n ____ trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased ordangerous2 o Trees in proposed public streets o Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts o Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers s11 trees trees trees trees Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. ___ s1_: ___ trees 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. ___ o_.c_, ___ trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain 4: 5. () trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 6 ° 5 trees ·------ 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. ___ 6_ ___ inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caiipe, trees required) 8. ___ 2 ____ inches 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6: (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 1 · Measured at chest height per tree 9. ___ J ____ trees 2 · Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, regjslered landscape ardlitect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 · Critical Areas, such as weUands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined ln Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4. Count only Uiose trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 · The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4~130H7a e. Indies of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement H:Division./Formsff reeReteotion Worksheet I l/07 PROJECT NARRATIVE NEW LIFE CHURCH IMPROVEMENT ATHLETIC FIELD, RESTROOM, 239-ST ALL PARKING LOT Prepared by: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. June 2009 Our Job No. 11706 The following is a project narrative discussing the proposed new athletic field, restroom, and parking lot project for New Life Church, located at 15711 -152nd Avenue S.E. In 2008, the site was annexed into the City of Renton with zoning designations of R-14 (in the development area) and Resource Conservation (south of the improved areas of the site). Site Description: The project site is a single 56.65-acre parcel that is currently developed with a 93,000-square-foot church that also contains a private school serving children from Kindergarten -8th Grade, a parking lot with 599 existing parking stalls, a storm water system, two children play areas, and an outdoor multi-purpose playfield. Earlier in 2009, a new 36,000-square-foot church building and 299 additional parking stalls were permitted for construction, and construction per the prior permit is underway. The New Life Church site has a distinct set of topographic and natural features. The area of the site that is currently developed is generally flat with moderate localized slopes of up to approximately 10 percent. The north end of the site currently contains multiple church buildings, a parking lot, a grass play area, and a flat field west of Madsen Creek. The central area of the site, south of the development area is a regulated steep slope that is characterized as a Seismic Hazard Area, a Steep Slope, a Landslide Hazard Area, and an Erosion Hazard Area. Based on the 1973 Soil Survey for King County, the soils on the site consist of Urban Land (UR), Newberg Silt Loam (NG), and Alderwood Kitsap, very Steep (AkF). The central area of the site also contains Madsen Creek, several wetlands, and a high-water diversion for Madsen Creek along the west property boundary. The site drains to the north into an existing stormwater facility that outlets to the west and ultimately drains to Madsen Creek and a network of pipes and open ditches to the Cedar River. The surrounding properties are developed with residential uses, although the specific development type is different in each direction. East of the site are the existing Valley Springs Apartments and "River Valley" Condominiums (R-14 zone), as well as a planned commercial/retail shopping area across 152nd Avenue S.E. at the site's north cast comer (CA zone); west of the site is the Wonderland Estates Mobile Home Park (RMH zone); and south of the site is single-family detached housing (King County R-4). To the north are more single-family residential homes across SR-169. Project Description: The proposed project will add (I) 45 additional parking stalls west of Madsen Creek utilizing stream buffer averaging; (2) additional 194 parking stalls east of the Madsen Creek buffer utilizing buffer averaging; (3) completion of the fire lane at the recently permitted new church building; (4) relocation of the play equipment currently in the central area of the previously approved parking lot; (5) a new vehicle bridge over Madsen Creek; (6) a new multi-purpose athletic field, sized to meet high school soccer field requirements and other uses; (7) a restroom/storage/concessions building; (8) a 239-stall parking lot to serve the athletic field and church uses; and (9) a new storm water facility. Access to the west side of the site will be though the existing parking lot that is accessed from existing driveways on 152nd Avenue S.E. -]-11706.032.doc Permits Required: • City of Renton Site PJan Review • City of Renton SEPA Determination • City of Renton Clearing and Grading Permit • City of Renton Right-of-Way Use Permit (ifrequired) • WSDOT Access/Drainage Discharge Permit (if required) • NPDES Permit • City of Renton Commercial Building Permit for Restroom Construction/Grading: The fair market value of the project is approximately $500,000. The new athletic field and associated parking area will be graded and the cut and fill is expected to be balanced on the site. A limited amount of grading is necessary in the wetland and stream buffers that will create temporary impacts that will be mitigated per City regulations. Stream and Wetland Buffers: As allowed be RMC 4-3-050L.c.ii, the project proposes a 25 percent stream buffer reduction on the east side of Madsen Creek to reduce the JOO-foot buffer to 75 feet lo accommodate 45 parking stalls. The remaining 75-foot stream buffer on the east side of Madsen Creek will be enhanced with native plants and riparian habitat materials -see the mitigation plan by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. Stream buffer averaging is proposed to offset the impact from the new perpendicular vehicular transportation crossing (bridge) to the west side improvement area (athletic field and parking lot). Temporary impacts from grading will result from the bridge construction. The bridge footings will be located outside of the ordinary high water line of Madsen Creek to minimize sediment transport as required. The location of the bridge was selected to ensure that no tree removal is needed for the bridge construction. Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for a small area of wetland buffer impact associated with the required fire lane for the recently permitted 36,000-square-foot church building. The 50-foot buffer for Wetland B will be reduced in one area to 25 feet, and replacement buffer is provided next to Wetlands B and C. The remaining buffer will be enhanced with native plants and any invasive vegetation will be removed. Tree Retention: Five (5) significant trees will be removed in the outer 25 percent of the Madsen Creek buffer, in the proposed reduction area, to accommodate the east parking addition and relocated children's p]ay equipment. No other significant trees wiH be affected in the riparian area of Madsen Creek or the onsite wetlands. Code Modifications: Expected requests for modifications include: • RMC 4-3-050L.5.c.iv: Stream buffer reduction from I 00 feet to 75 feet with buffer enhancement along the east side of Madsen Creek; • RMC 4-3-050L.8: Stream buffer averaging is proposed to offset impacts from construction to occur over Madsen Creek to accommodate the vehicle bridge; • RMC 4-3-050.M.6! Wetland buffer averaging to accommodate a required fire lane west of the previously permitted church building. Utilities and piping: Water to the site for the proposed fire hydrant, potable use, and for irrigation will be extended from the existing Cedar River Water and Sewer District main under the athletic field. A new -2-11706.032.doc sewer extension is proposed to connect from the restroom to the lvfetro sewer main that exists along the west property line. Stormwater: Stormwatcr will be collected and routed to the proposed stormwater facility located on the west side of the new parking area. The pond facility provides detention (Level 3 Flow Control) and Basic Water Quality prior to discharging to Madsen Creek consistent with City of Renton requirements. Streets and Rights-of-Way: No new public streets or street improvements are required for this project. One new access stub is provided to the west property line to facilitate an opportunity for future access and connectivity between the New Life site and the neighboring property. -3-11706.032.doc CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION NEW LIFE CHURCH Prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. July l, 2008 Our Job No. 11706 City ot Henton Planninq D\\ii:::;\ot, \i 11 1 ;:, ;i:): ;,) . ;_ ,_, --~~. The New Life Church expansion is expected to initiate construction in late summer or fall of 2008 and continue site work into late fall/early winter of 2009. Building construction is expected to begin in early 2009 and be completed prior to the end of 2009. Hours and days of operation will be based on City of Renton guidelines and are expected to be between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Special hours of construction and hauling are not anticipated. Hauling and transportation routes will be from SR-169 to 152nd A venue S.E. and onto the site. Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control (TESC) measures consistent with City of Renton requirements and NPDES requirements with a SWPPP will be provided onsite. Expected TESC measures include street sweeping, sediment control ponds, drainage interceptor swales with rock check dams, slit fencing, straw mulch, construction access road, and other measures as may be required. Traffic control may be necessary on 152nd Avenue S.E. during the period for construction of frontage improvements. Traffic control is expected to be limited to narrow two-way traffic or potentially one-way traffic with the closure of the southbound lane on 152nd Avenue S.E. with the use of flagging personnel. If frontage improvements are required on SR-169, they include partial closure of the south side of the eastbound lane to accommodate construction. A complete traffic control plan will be submitted with the civil construction plans if required. construction mitigation description.doc DATE: July 15, 2009 TO: FROM: RE: Vanessa Dolbee Ivana Halvorsen New Life Church Phase 2 landscape calculations Our Job No. 11706 City Of R.<, p ,, aa-llton lannino .'I.. . . .. .:· , .. ·J./1s1on JUL I C . ' New Life Church Phase 2 includes the increase of the provided parking by 239 stalls. Code requires 35 square feet of landscaping per parking stall (8,365 square feet). The project provides far in excess of the required parking lot landscaping within the end landscape islands and parking at the front of the parking stalls. Perimeter landscape requirements are met by the provision of 15 landscape areas at the perimeter of the new parking lot on the west side of Madsen Creek. Much of the west side perimeter landscaping is existing vegetation that will remain. Along SR-169, existing vegetation will remain, and mitigation plant materials will make up more than the required 15-foot landscape buffer that is required. The remainder of the site was previously reviewed and found to be consistent with parking lot and perimeter landscape requirements. -1-I I 706im.006.doc PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLr$;fn~en L..----------------------------""""•~n City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: JUL , 1; .1 . { •.-i..Ui/5' 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. 11706.029.doc -1 -02108 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: New Life Church -Phase 2 parking lot and sport field 2. Name of applicant: New Life Church 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: New Life Church 15711 -152nd Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98052 Contact Person No. 1 Church Development Consultants Contact Person No. 2 Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., ( 425) 226-0880 3623 324th Ave. SE Fall City, WA 98024 l 821 5 -72nd A venue South Kent, WA 98032 4. Date checklist prepared: June 2009 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton ( 425) 788-9892 Contact: Kathi Bresler 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): (425) 251-6222 Contact: Ivana Halvorsen Construction of improvements is expected to begin in 2009 and 2010. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Future additions and expansion may be considered at a future date. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following environmental documents have been prepared related to this proposal: • Subsurface Exploration and Final Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated August I, 2008 • Geotechnical report Addendum prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated October 30, 2008 • Technical Information Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated May 5, 2009 • Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by The Transpo Group, Inc., dated July 2008 • Wetland Report and Mitigation Plans prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated July 2009 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. 11706.029.doc -2-02108 At this time there are no applications pending government approval affecting the subject property. Penn its for phase I arc complete. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. if known. • Renton Site Plan Review • Renton SEPA Determination • Renton Commercial Grading Permit/Commercial Site Development Permit • Renton Commercial Building Permit(s) • Cedar River Water and Sewer Developer Extension Agreements • King County METRO sewer connection (through Cedar River Water and Sewer District) approval • WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval for bridge crossing • DOE NPDES Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The proposal is to construct one new restroom and storage building and additional parking and utilities on the west portion of the developed New Life Church property located at 15711 - 152nd Avenue S.E. The new building will be located adjacent to a new sport field and parking lot. The new building will contain women's and men's restrooms and storage for athletic and/or maintenance equipment. The fire lane along the south side of new church building will be paved. Additional parking areas will be created along the west side of the existing parking lot (east of the Madsen Creek buffer) and on the west side of Madsen Creek. The project proposes wetland and stream buffer reductions with enhancement along the east side of the Madsen Creek buffer, as well as around the existing pond identified as Wetland C. Two existing crossings of Madsen Creek will be restored with this proposal as well, including the existing vehicular bridge and roadway near the north property line and the existing foot bridge and path near Wetland C in the central area of the site. New or replacement utilities on or off site, including water, sewer, and storm, may require installation of pipes exceeding 12 inches in diameter. Approximately 239 new parking stalls will be added to the existing 834-stall parking lot. The total parking proposed on the site will be 1,073 stalls. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The property is located at the southwest corner of 152nd Avenue S.E. and Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). The site address is 15711 -152nd Avenue S.E., Renton, WA 98057, located in Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 11706.029.doc • 3 -02/08 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one);~. rolling, hilly, [sleeii:slope~ (not in project area), mountainous, other _____ _ The development area is flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The slopes in the project are flat, ranging from O to 5 percent. The central portion of the site south of the existing and proposed buildings contains steep slopes with grades exceeding 40 percent. At the south most limits of the subject property is a relatively flat bench of land with grades approximately IO percent. 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. Agricultural soils are not known to be on the property. Soils per the 1973 King County Soils Survey include UR (Urban Land), NG (Newberg silt loam), and AkF (Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The slope in the central/south area of the property is classified as a landslide hazard area, a seismic hazard area, and a steep slope hazard area. Instability has been documented in the past for localized areas on the steep slope. The development area in the northern and central areas of the site has not experienced unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 5,000 cubic yards of grading will be necessary for stormwater pond excavation and site leveling for the sport field and new parking lot. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could result from clearing and construction. Erosion including sediment-laden stormwater as well as wind dust could result when the earth is bare for the proposed parking area. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The site consists of approximately 56.65 acres. After construction of the new parking areas and the new building, approximately 469,795 square feet of the site will be impervious, which results in a calculation of 19 percent of the site being impervious. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: l 1706.029doc The project will install erosion control measures and will employ Best Management Practices in accordance with the City of Renton and Department of Ecology erosion . control requirements. Erosion control measures are expected to include silt fencing, sediment ponds, drainage swales with check dams, construction access entrance, straw mulch, hydroseeding, and other measures as may be appropriate. A project-specific Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan and a Stormwater Pollution -4 -02108 2. AIR Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be provided with the site engineering drawings for approval prior to initiation of grading and construction activities. 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. Emissions including diesel exhaust and dust emissions are likely to occur during the construction of the proposed project. Upon project completion, minor vehicle emissions and exhaust from natural gas heating will occur from the project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of em1ss10ns include vehicular traffic on Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). Existing off-site emissions will not affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The project will comply with applicable federal, state, and local requirements governing air quality and emissions releases during and post-construction. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The site contains a reach of Madsen Creek, an overflow from Madsen Creek, and several wetlands. The site is also located within 1 mile of the Cedar River. 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. Construction will occur within 200 feet of Madsen Creek and on-site wetlands, including the following: • Grading and paving • Parking lot construction • Storm drainage facilities • New restroom building • New bridge crossing for vehicular travel • Expansion of relocated play area • Landscaping 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. 11706.029.doc -5 -02/08 Neither filling nor dredging of streams or wetlands is proposed with the project. The improvements to the existing vehicular and pedestrian bridges are planned to be designed to span the hydraulic limits of Madsen Creek. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Surface water withdrawals and diversions are not proposed with the project. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. The site contains a portion of the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The project will release stormwater from the existing church and parking area as well as the new church building and additional parking areas. As required by Renton Municipal Code, the project will treat and detain its stormwater as required prior to release into the ditch along Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) that flows to the Cedar River. 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. Groundwater will not be withdrawn by the proposal. 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. Waste material will not be discharged into the ground, as the project will utilize public sanitary sewer provided by Cedar River Water and Sewer District. 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. Additional runoff from the existing condition will be generated from the newly paved areas and the proposed new building. Runoff from the existing improvements on the site is currently collected and routed to a storrnwater bioswale and stormwater pond located in the northeast area of the site. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code, the project will install new catchment systems for the new building and new asphalt associated with the new parking areas. The new catchment system will be routed to the storrnwater facility located at the northeast property comer, which will be enlarged with the project to accommodate the additional stormwater with water quality and detention meeting Renton Code requirements. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 11706.029.doc The new parking area is a pollution-generating impervious surface; however, this will be collected and routed to the stormwater facility, which will provide water quality consistent with current codes prior to release into surface waters. -6 -02/08 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The enlarged stonnwater facility at the northeast property comer will accommodate the drainage from the existing building and parking area, as well as the new building and parking area to provide water quality and detention in accordance with Renton requirements. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other -X-evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other -X-shrubs -X-grass __ pasture crop or grain -X-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? Grass and trees will be removed to accommodate the new parking area and the expanded play area. No trees will be removed in the permanent wetland or stream buffers. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant species are known to exist on site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The buffer of Madsen Creek will be enhanced with the project, adding native plant species or habitat. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ®ongbirdsj, other ________ _ Mammals:~. bear, elk, beaver, other 0 r"'o"'d"'e"'nt,,s'-------- IFishl: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _____ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered animal species are known to exist on site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain The site may lie within the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The enhancement of Madsen Creek buffers will increase habitat for wildlife. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 11706.029.doc -7-02108 \ 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. The new church will use electricity for heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances. If available, natural gas may also be used for heating, cooling, and small appliances. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No effect on solar use will result from the project. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The project will comply with Washington State energy requirements for glazing, insulation, etc. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL TH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services are expected. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No environmental health hazards will result from the project, so this item does not apply. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Existing noise is primarily from SR-169 (trucks and traffic), but the noise is not expected to affect the proposal. 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. During construction machinery noises from diesel equipment, back up beepers, and construction activities will increase noise over existing conditions on a temporary basis. After construction is complete, noise will return to existing levels. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction will occur during allowed periods as dictated by Renton codes. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? 11706.029.doc -8 -02/08 The site is currently developed with church and school facilities and associated parking and play areas. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Prior farming included hay production and dairy more than 20 years ago. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are a large church building, a new church building under construction, several portable offices, a pump house, and two bridges on site ( one for pedestrian use and one for vehicular use). d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The existing bridge will be demolished and removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-14 and RC. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? RMDandRLD. 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. Yes. The site contains regulated steep slopes (which are also classified landslide hazards, erosion hazards, and seismic hazards), wetlands, and Madsen Creek. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This phase of improvements will not increase or decrease employment on the site. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: This item does not apply. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The new bridge over Madsen Creek, parking areas, landscaping, and stormwater improvements comply with local, state, and federal codes. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. 11706.029.doc -9. 02/08 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: This item does not apply. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The new restroom building will be approximately 20 feet in height. 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? Parking lot lighting is proposed, which will be visible during evening hours. The soccer field may also be lighted to accommodate evening games. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Site lighting will not impact views. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No off-site I ight sources will impact the proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Light shed will be kept on site and within Renton requirements. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Cedar River Trail runs along SR-169 north of the site. 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: 11706.029.doc -10 -02/08 The new sport field is designed to meet High School soccer field dimensional requirements. The field is planned for use by the New Life School, and may in the future be available for other users. 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. There are no known listed places or objects on the site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no known landmarks of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance on the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 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 served by SR-169 and 152nd Avenue S.E. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. Public transit travels on SR-169. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The site will have 1,073 total parking stalls, including 239 new stalls and 834 existing stalls. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No new streets are required. SR-169 improvements will involve installation of pipes exceeding 12 inches in diameter and unavoidable impacts to critical areas and/or buffers that will be mitigated consistent with City codes as required. A new driveway stub is proposed to extend to the west property line to accommodate a future connection to SR- 169 through the Wonderland Estates property (subject to potential future agreements with the owners of Wonderland Estates). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. l l 706.029.doc -11 -02108 The sport field and parking areas will not increase traffic to the site during AM or PM peak hours. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The applicant will pay required impact fees, construct required improvements, and improve the existing driveways to the site. 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. Public fire, emergency, and police services exist for the site, so no increased need is expected. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Payment of mitigation fees and conformance to City codes. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: kilectricitvl. !natural gazj, ~-!refuse servicij, ~elephonij, !sanitary sewerj, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utilities will be installed on site (water, sewer, and storm mains) and off site (storm mains, if required) to include pipes exceeding 12 inches in diameter if impacts to critical areas result on-or off-site from utility installations the impacts will be mitigated consistent with City codes. 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. Proponent: Name Printed: ') Ivana Halvorsen Date: 11706.029.doc -12 -02/08 @ 0 ·'" .375 Jrlles 1 in. -1900 ft. 656 > 1--z -0 -> -~ft"" ~:.~; .. ,, SITE SW 23-23-05 ,u. c---,,--....., ,,-r· -«r; ....... '°'·'""' --,,....~----------~- tu ill I a: (J) 0 a: LJ.. ill ~ 0 I 0 a: => I 0 w LL _J 3: w z S-LN31'13110Nd1YI j S3M HJ'8DHJ 3417 /H3N ~, z :5 n. ~ 0 w ~ U) in ::a i5 >-a: <( z ~ :J w a: 0.. ''·z...: / I /~!i ' r ---~.;-,,:-;:,;.1 ,, -r; ---._ -!~- p / / ----'- --.--.[-' J z <( _J !L w ('.) <( z <i: cc 0 :::; cc 0 to 0 z <( ('.) z 0 <( cc ('.) >-cc <( z :a :J w cc 0.. ·-c:;---. ·-~r·, ~ L: -i I //~!! I ----~ I ,)' /,' I : ii S.I.N3W3AONJWI .LS'3A1 HJHnlO :.un M3N 8!rOS6 ·vM 'NO.JJB:I 3'S ="'13/,¥ ml<;! UL<;! N'fl,,' !BM3S ON ~VM ::itl.Vi"B-08 !--O;l('H) 3:::11 ~ .,.,_J __ _:="'_J ___________ L_--"-c . -,..._ -------. ------·-------------~ i -+--- ~;w,.,;, _ .. '.~~,-;;< Ji: . -i! ;, ) ·----, -,,.,.-, ·----= ---"·------~~~ :~ ' --1 /,~~:~j I -.'("i_'T1 , r S.LN3J'i3AOHd.Wl 31 ZM H;JHflH;) ':ii.In M~ 00d ,I·---·--.... __ ---- 8S086 VM "NO.vaJ 3"8 ::rN3/IV ON?;S\ ~ HOITT-<> 3,fi Na< "--·---- / H:JHI1H:J~JI7i·---·--~086 -;~--=~"- NYld ()NUNV"'od 3-S 3flN3AV OilSI lU.51 3d\l~l A1:1'1"NN131Jd l--Oll(lH:) 3::lrl ~ ->--------~----' , .. ! ! : ii,/ ,,, ----..._ ---- ---- ----. i i ; i i ; ; ; i ; ; i ; ·----- ' //- ; ; f // ; i ; i ; ; ; i j i -----, ________ _ ' i I fl I ,, f 1' '/ I Ji l // j I I l I ,, s,_.. . cc~ =·~-- I I I .f '( /-·· I / I I I I .t I I I i -\ \ } . ! \ \ / SOIL SURVEY King County Area Washington UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with WASHINGTON AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Issued November 1973 ' New Life Church Soil Survey Excerpt BCE# 11706 Py. ~-· I u SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL LEGEND The first copilol letler \s The ir.lHal one of the soil nome. A sth'.:ond copltol ktter, A, B, C, D, E, 0< F, indicates the do,;" of slnpe. Sy..,l,ols without o sk>pe M!ne, ore !hose of neorly level soils. SYMBOL NAME AgB Alden<oood 9'<1velly sandy loom, 0 t-0 6 percenr slopes AgC Alderwood 9fOV<:tlly sandy loom, 6 to I5 p,et"cent slc1pes AgD Alderwood gro~lly sooc:ly 100111, l.5 to 30 perce,o,t slop,,s AkF Alderwood or,d Kitsop ,s.oils, very steep AmB Arents, Aklerwood maleriol,O fo 6 perc .. nl slopes* AmC Ar,ents, Alder.vood materJol, 6 to 1.S peccenl slOJ>f!s* An /1.fents, Everett moteriol* e.c BoD s.r Bh a, Bo. Cb Eo Ed ... hC hD EwC .... lnC lnD K,,8 KpC KpD K,C Mo ljeC Beo.ts.te gro ..... lly sandy loam, 6 lo 15 percenl slopes Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 pet'l::"'nt slope.,, B«coVsit,;, !Jf-'v•I:;-~·.:;.o<!'~ :~,.,, -!C t.:..7!: 1;.;,.;,::,.,tc .;-1->i:,,a. ... Bellingholrl silt loam "Brlscot sllt lo,un Bocl<ley sih-loom Coastal Beod,..,s Eorlm«1t silt loam Edge-wick fine sandy loom . l:=n•tt gruvelfy sandy loam, Oto 5 percent slopes Everett grnvelty 5-0ndy ioom, 5 to -15 percent slopes E-rett grove!ly sandy loom, 15 to JO percent slopes Everett-Ald:-ood grovelly sandy loams, 6 to 15 percent sl,:,ptn lndi<ll"IOlo 'loo my r;.,.. sond, 0 Jo 4 percent s l"f'<!,s lndiooolo loamy r1ne sond, 4 to 15 percent slopes lndioo','la .loamy fino, sor.d, 15 lo 30 percent slopes Kit,:;:,;,p s.ilt loom, 2 ro 8 percent slopes Klt5(>J> ,;ilt looRl, 8 lo 15 parcent slopes Klttop silt loom, 15 to 30 pen:eRt slopes Kfcn.1s 9fiN'elly loomy sand, 6 to 15 perctmt slopes Mixed olluvlol land ;:>Ng Nk No Neilt"" very gro~elly Joomy Sond, 2 to 15·i\:c_.,, ~loPes Newberg sih loom - Nooksock silt loom Nonno sondy loom °' a. Doc Do0 DoF P< Pk "' ;:,, Py RoC RoD RdC RdE "" Rh So SI, Sk Sm So So s, Su Orcos pe,gl Oridic silt b:tm O,..ll gro~lly 100111, Oto 15 percent slopes O,,oll grovelly loom, 15 to 25 perc<ent slopes Ovoll gn:,v.,fly loo..,, 40 to 75 pe.-<:ent slopes Pilchuck loomy fole-sond Plkhuck flne sondy loom Puget silty dcy loom Puyallup fin., sondy loom Rag nor fK>e sandy logm, 6 le> 15 Pff<:enl slopes Rcgnar-fma scndy lcom, 15 to 25 per<:ent slofX!""S Rcgnm--lndionolo ossoeKltloo. sloping* Ragncr-!ndione>lo ossoclcrion. moderately steep·• RentO<I sill loc,.., Rtverwash S<llol srh J<>0m Sommo1rtbf> sllt Ii.om Sedftle muck Shokor rPVCk Si sUt. IOOffl Snc>homish slh-loam Snooot¥11sh s llt k.:,m, d-.ldc surfoee vorlont Sultan sllr loom TU Tub-<_ilo mvck We Woodinvll.le sllt k.om • Tl>e .c:oa,pos1tb\ of "-• l#nlt$ b. JACn-VGriable thon that of th. ot,._• In the ~ but "it NS beeit contn:,U.J -4l enough to lnt..-,i-.t few tha -pec:t.d use cl~ sotl:s. KfNli WUN If Ar<tA, ' s s n () are Oto I percent. 1he annual precipitation is 35 to 55 inches. and the mean annual air temperature ·s about 50° F. 'lhe frost-free season is about 190 days. Elevations range from 10 to 650 feet. In a representative profile, the soil is domi nantly mottled dark grayish-brown and grayish-b silty clay loam to a depth of about 4S inches. substratum is gray silty clay that extends to depth of 60 inches or more. Puget soils are used for row crops ~get silty clay loam (Pu) .--Puget nearly round OT elongated tracts that rang to 110 acres irt size. Slopes are less th cent. per- loam, corner Representative profile of Puget silty in pasture, 800 feet east of the west q of sec. 21, T. 2S N., R. 7 E.~ (2.SY 3/2) dry; mod- ard, fin, All--0 to I inch, very dark grayish-b silt loam, grayish brown (lOYR erate, thin, platy stnicture; slightly sticky, slightly pla medium acid; abrupt, smooth tic, many roots; undary • I to 2 inches thick. AI2--l to 7 inches, dark grayish- silty clay loam, light gra corrimon, fine, prominent, rk-brown (7.SYR 4/4) mottles; moderate, v ry coarse, prismatic structure; hard, finn, s icky, plastic; many roots; mediun acid; cle , smooth boundary. S to 7 inches thick. 82lg--7 to 17 inches, dark ayish-brown (2 .SY 4/2) silty clay loam, ligh gray (2.SY 7/2) dry; coJJ1Don, medium, pro· ent, strong-brown (7.SYR ·s/6, S/8) mottles; derate, medium, prismatic structure; hard, fi , sticky, plastic; many i:-oots; slightly ac· ; clear, smooth boundary. S to 12 inches t.h" k. 822g-~17 to 2S inches, ayish-brown (2.SY S/2) silty clay loam, ight olive gray (SY 6/2) dry; many, medium, p ·nent, yellowish-red (SYR 5/8, 4/8) mottl s; strong, very coarse, pris- matic stnictur; very hard, firm, sticky, plastic; co roots; slightly acid; abTUpt, smooth bound 6 to 12 inches thick. B23g--25 to 26 1/2 inches, dark-gray (SY 4/1) medium sand, light grayish brown (2.SY 6/2) dT)'; few, medium, p inent, yellowish-red (SYR 5/8) mottles; s ngle grain; loose~ nonsticky, non- plastic; ew roots; slightly acid; abnipt. smooth b ndary. I to 2 inches thick.. B24g--26 1/2 31 inches, grayish-brown (2.SY 5/2) silty cay loam, light gray (SY 7/2) dry; maey, medillB. prominent, yellowish-bro~n.(lOYR 3/6) mottl · ; moderate, mediWI, angular blocky stru ure; hard, £inn, sticky, plastic; root ; mediUIR acid; abrupt, wavy bounda to inches thick. B25g--3I o 40 inches, grayish-brown (2.SY 5/2) 24 si ty clay loam, light gray (SY 7/1) dry; com- n, fine, prominent, yellow, brownish-Yellow OYR 7/6, 6/6\ and strong-brown (7.SYR 5/8) mottles; strong. very coarse, prismatic stru< ture; hard_. firm, sticky, plastic; few root medium acid; clear, smooth. boundary. 8 to 10 inches thick. Clg--40 to 45 inches, greenish-gray (5GY S i 1 t~ clay loam, light gray (SY 7/1) dry; , . .ion, /6) fine, prominent, strong-brown (7 .5YR mottles; massive; hard, firm, stick • pla.sti< medium acid; clear, smooth bounda 4 to 6 inches thick. C2g--45 to 60 inches, gray (SY 5/1) s lty clay, light gray (SY 7/1) dry; few, edium, promi- nent, yellowish-red (SYR 4/ , 5/8) mottles, yellowish brown (lOYR 5/8) 8ry; and connon~ medium, dis·tinct, light ive-brown (2 .SY S/1 mottles, light yellowis brown (2.SY 6/4) d:r, massive; very hard, f' , sticky, plastic; medium acid. The A horizon ranges rom silty clay loam to s i: loam. 1he 8 hoTizon · dominantly silty clay loam stratified with silt oam, silty clay, and fine sand. are up to 10 percent inclusi01 Snohomish soils. is slow. "Ihe Seasonal high water near the surface. In drained areas te with difficulty to a depth of 60 re. In tmdrained areas the effective pth is restricted. 1he available water is high. Runoff is slow to _ponded. and ti hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a se· azard. is soil is used for_row crops and pasture. pability unit IIIw-2; woodland group 3w2" Puyallup Series The Puyallup series i_s Jnade up of well-drained soils that formed in alluvium, tmder grass, hard- woods, and conifers. lbese soils are on the naturo levees adjacent to streams in the river valleys. Slopes are Oto 2 percent. 'Ihe annual precipitati< is 35 to 60 inches, and the ·mean anriual air temper- ature is about 50° F. lhe frost-free season range! from 160 to 200 days. Elevation ranges from 20 to 500 feet. In a representative profile~ v~ry dark grayish.- brown and dark grayish-brown fine sandy loam and very fine sandy loam extend to a depth of about 34 inches. The substratum, at a depth of 60 inches 01 more, is very dark grayish•brown, dark grayish- brown, and dark-brown mediIBD sand, loamy sand, and sand. Puyallup soils are used mostly for row crops all( pasture. They are among the soi_ls that are well suit.ed to farming. Urban development is occurring Puyallup fine s·andy loani (Py) .--This nearl)'. levt soil is on natural levees in the valley bottoJDS. Areas are long and narrow or souiewhat rounded and 1 1 I i ., ' l I ) range from 2 to about SO acres in size. Slopes are less than 2 percent and are slightly convex. Representative profile of Puyallup fine sandy loam, in pasture, 1,030 feet east and 1,000 feet north of center of sec. 21, T. 21 N., R. 5 E.: All--0 to 8 inches, very dark grayish-brown (10YR 3/2) fine sandy loam, brown (IOYR 3/3) dry; weak, fine, granular st-ntcture; soft, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; many roots; neutral; clear, smooth boundary. 6 to 10 inches thick. Al2--8 to 14 inches, very dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) very fine sandy loam, brown (lOYR 5/3) dry; moderate, medium and coarse, granular .structure; soft, very friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many roots; neutral; abrupt. smooth boundary. 4 to 8 inches thick. Cl--14 to 34 inches, dark grayish-brown (IOYR 4/2) very fine sandy loam, brown (IOYR 5/3) dry; weak, medium, platy structure; slightly hard, very friable, slightly sticky, slightly plas- tic; many roOts; slightly acid; ab-rupt, wavy botmdary. 18 to 24 inches thick. C2--34 to 45 inches, very dark grayish-brown and dark grayish-brown (lOYR 4/2 and 3/2) medium sand, grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) dry; single grain; loose, nonsticky, nonplastic; plentiful roots; neutral; gradual, smooth boundary. 9 to 13 inches thick. C3--45 to 51 inches, dark-brown (lOYR 3/3) loamy sand, brown (lOYR 5/3) dry; massive; soft, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; slightly acid. 4 to 7 inches thick. C4--51 to 60 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.SY 4/2) sand, dark gray and gray (lOYR 4/1 and 6/1) dry; single grain; loose, _nonsticky, nonplas- ·tic; few roots; neutral. • lhe A horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown to very dark brown and from fine sandy loam to vecy fine sandy loam and silt loam. The C horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown to olive brown. The upper part of the C horizon is dominantly very fine sandy loam. Commonly layers of sand, fine sand, and loamy fine sand are in the lower part of the C horizon. Mottles occur below a depth of 30 to 40 inches in places. Some areas are up to 15 percent inclusions of Briscot, Newberg, Nooksack, Oridia, and Renton soils; and some are up to 10 percent the poorly drained Woodinville and Puget soils. Penneability is moderately rapid. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. The seasonal water table is at a depth of 4 to 5 feet. Available water capacity is moderately high. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. Stream overflow 1s· a slight to severe hazard, d~pending on the amount of flood protection provided. 1his soil is used for row crops and pasture and for urban development. Capability unit Jiw-1; wood- land group 2ol. Ragnar Series 'lhe Ragnar series is made up of well-draine. gently sloping to strongly rolling soils on d·ssec- ted glacial outwash terraces. The vegetatio mostly conifers. Slopes are 2 to 2S percent annual precipitation is 35 to 65 inches, an mean annual air temperature is about 50° F. frost-free season is 150 to 210 days. Ele ation ranges from 300 to 1,000 feet. In a representative profile, very dark grayish- brown, dark yellowish-brown> and yellowi fine sandy loam extends to a depth of a inches. 1be substratum is olive-brown It extends to a depth of 60 inches or Ragnar soils are used for timber development. Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 (RaC).--1bis undulating to rolling glacial terraces. It is in irregu tracts that range from 5 to more siz.e. Representative profile of Rag loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, i north and 230 feet east of the 21N.,R.5E.: in sandy 300 feet sec. 3, T. 01--1 1/2 inches to 0, black lOYR 2/1) leaves and twigs; abwulant roots; brupt, smooth bound- ary. 1 to 2 inches thi k. Al--0 to 4 inches, very dar grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) and very dark-gE y (IOYR 3/1) fine sandy loam, grayish brown lOYR 5/2) dry; massive; slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky, non- plastic; many root , medium acid; abYUpt, wav) bom1dary. 3 to 9 nches thick. B21--4 to 17 inches, da yel]owish-brown (lOYR 4/4) and yellowish-hr (lOYR S/6) fine sandy loa1 brown (lOYR 5/3) dry; massive; Slightly hard, very friable, n sticky, nonplastic; many roots; mediun id; clear, smooth boundary. S to 13 inches tick. B22--17 to 27 inche, yellowish-brown (IOYR 5/4) fine sandy l , brown (lOYR 5/3) dry; massive slightly har , very friable, nonsticky, non- plastic; co on roots; medium acid; clear, smooth bo ary. 6 to 12 inches thick. IIC--27 to 60 in hes, olive-brown (2.SY 4/4) loamy ish brown {lOYR 5/4} _dry; massive; soft, ve friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; very few roots; medium-acid. Material similar to this orizon extends downward many feet and rous, very thick silty layers. The A ho~ zon ranges from black to very dark grayish b The B horizon is sandy loam and fine sandy loa.JR at is dark yellowish brown to brown. 11le IIC h izona below a depth of 20 inches, is very dark gray sh brown to olive brown. Lenses of loam and silt oam occur below a depth of 36 to 40 inches in many laces. Any one horizon can be as much as IS perc nt gravel. S0° F. days. feet. The frost-free season ranges from 145 to 21 Elevation ranges from about sea level to SO In a representative profile, the -brown and dark yellowish-brown very gravelly lo pand to a depth of about 18 inches. The sub- \· /stratum is dark grayish-brown very gravelly sad a depth of 60 inches and more. Neilton soils are use<l for timber development. Neilton very gravelly loamy sand. 2 to l slopes (NeC).--This undulating and rolling in irregularly shaped areas that range fr to about 200 acres in size. Representative profile of Neilton ve loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes, in 1,100 feet east and 150 feet north of coTI1er of sec. 28, T. 21 N., R. SE.: 01--1 to 1/8 inch, tu1decomposed orga c matter; abrupt, smooth boundary. It 2 inches thick. 02--1/8 inch to 0, black (lOYR 2/1) decomposed organic matter. 1/8 to 1/4 ch thick. B21ir--O to 6 inches, dark-brown OYR 3/3) very gravelly loamy sand, brown IOYR 5/3) dry; massive; soft, very friabl • nonsticky~ non- plastic; many roots; stro gly acid; clear, smooth boundary. 6 to 8 "nches thick. B22ir--6 to 18 inches) dark y lowish-brown (lOYR 3/4) very gravelly lo sand, yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4) dry; massiv ; soft, very friable, nonsticky) nonplastic roots; medium acid; abrupt. wavy 10 to 14 inches thick. JIC--18 to 60 inches, dar very gravelly sand 6/2) dry; single Plastic; few roo ) grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) light brownish gray (2.SY ain; loose) _nonsticky) non- ; medium acid (pH 5.6). Many feet. thick. The B horizon ran from dark brown to dark yellowish brown. Th ranges from gray- ish brown to dark yish brown. Soils included th this soil in mapping make up no more than 25 pe cent of the total acreage. Some areas are up to 5 percent Alderwoo:I soiis, on the more rolling and dulating parts of the landscape; some are about percent the deep, sandy Indianola soils; some are up to 1 percent the poorly drained Nonna soils; s e areas are about l percent the poorly draine Seattle soils in depressions; and 20 percent Everett very gravelly ity 1$ very rapid. 1he effective root- ·s 60 inches and more. The available Runoff is slow to mediwn, osion hazard is slight to moderate. oil is used for timber and for urban devel- Capability unit VIs-1; woodland group 3£3. Newberg ·series e Newberg series is made up of well-drained that foTIRed in alluvium in the stream valleys, under grass, hardwoods, and co ifers. Slopes are O to 2 percent. The annual pre ipitation is 35 to 45 inches) and the mean annual ir temperature is about 50° F. The frost-free seas is about 200 days. Elevation ranges from abou sea level to 500 feet. In a representative pro ile, the surface layer is very dark grayish-browns lt loam and very fine sandy loam about 20 inch s thick. It is underlain, to a depth of 60 inches or more, by stratified very fine sandy loam) loamy ery fine sand, loamy sand, and silt loam. Newberg soils are used for row crops and are among the best soils in the Area for that use. They are also used for pasture and for urban development. Newberg silt lQam (Ng) .--This soil is in Jong, narrow areas that range from S to more than 100 acres in size. Slopes are less than 2 percent and are mostly convex. Representative .profile of cultivated Newberg silt loam~ 500 feet west and 57S feet north of the east quarter corner of sec. 36, T. 23 N., R. 4 E.: Ap--0 to 10 inches) very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) silt loam, grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) dry; moderate, fine) granular structure; slightly hard, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many roots; medium acid; abrupt, smooth boundary. 8 to 10 inches thick. Al--10 ~o 20 inches, very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) very fine sandy loam, grayish brown (lOYR 5/2) dry; massive; soft, very friable, non- sticky) nonplastic; common roots; slightly acid; clear, smooth boundary. 9 to 12 inches thick. Cl--20 to 36 inches, very dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) and dark grayish-brown (2-5Y 4/2) very fine sandy loam and loamy very fine sand, grayish brown (lOYR 4/2) dry; massive; soft, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; common roots; neutral; abrupt, wavy boundaiy. 12 to 16 inches thick. C2--36 to 46 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.SY 4/2) and gray (SY S/1) very fine sandy loam, light brownish gray (2.SY 6/2) dry; conunon, large, prominent, strong-brown (7.5YR 5/6 and 5/8) mottles; massive; soft, veTY friable) non- sticky, nonplastic; common roots; neutral; abrupt) wavy boundary. 10 to 13 inches thick. C3--46 to 47 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.SY 4/2)7 yellowish-brown (!OYR 5/4), yellowish-red (sYR 4/6), and dark reddish-brown (5YR 3/3) loamy sand and silt loam, Jight gray (2.SY 7/0), reddish brown (5YR 4/4). and yellowish red (SYR 4/8) dry; massive; very hard. very fri- able to very firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few roots; neutral; abntpt, wavy boundary. I to 2 inches thick. C4--47 to 60 inches) gray (SY S/1) very fine sandy loam, light gray (SY 7/1) dry; many, fine, prominent. yellowish-brown (lOYR 5/4) mottles and few, fine, prominent, yellowish-red (SYR 4/8) and red (2.sYR 4/6) mottles, light yellow- ish brown (lOYR 6/4) and yellowish red (SYR 4/8) 19 dry; massive; slightly hard, very friable; non:stick.y, nonplastic; few roots; neutral. The A hor_izon ranges from very dark gTayish brown ·~ to very dark brown. The C horizon consists of layers { ,of silt loamt very fine sandy loam, sandy loam, ·-. ., loamy sand, and sand; the thickness of each layer varies. Mottles occur at a depth below 30 to 40 inches in some places. Some areas are up to 25 or 30 percent inclusions of somewhat poorly drained Briscot, Oridia, and Wood- inville soils; and some are up to IO percent the poorly drained Puget soils. Total inclusions do not exceed 30 percent. Permeability is moderate. The effeCti ve rooting depth is 60 inches or more. A seasonal water table is at a depth of 3 to 4 feet in places. Available water capacity is high. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. 1he hazard of stream over- flow is slight to severe, depending on the amount of flood protection provided. This soil is used mostly for row crops-. Capabil- ity llllit llw-1; woodland group 2ol. Nooksack Seri.es The Nooksack series is made up of well-drain d soils that for•ed in alluvil.lJ!l in river valleys lUlder a cover of grass. conifers~ and hardwo Slopes are O to 2 percent_ The annual preci is 3~ to 55 inclles. and the mean annual air ture is about 50° F. 'lhe frost-free seaso 190 days. Elevation ranges from about se 500 feet. ( ~) In a representative profile, the soil is very dark grayish-brown, dark grayish-brown, nd grayish- --._ brown silt loaJR to a depth of 60 indle or more. Nooksack so_ils are used for row c s and pasture and for ~ban development. level soil 5 to about Nooksack sHt loam (Nk) .--This n is in long, narrow areas that rang 300 acres in size. Slopes are le Representative profile of cul silt loam, 1,800 feet east and 2 percent. vated Nooksack west quarter corner of sec. 4, 0 feet south of the . 24 N., R. 7 E.: Apl--0 to 2 inches, very dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam, grayis brown (IOYR 5/2) dry; few, fine, faint, dar yellowish-brown (IOYR 4/4) mottles; weak, in, platy structure; slightly hard, very iab.Je, nonsticky, non- plastic; many root ,. slightly acid; abrnpt, . smooth bou.ndary. to 3 inches thick. Ap2--2 to 11 inches, ve dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam, rayish brown' (lOYR 5/2) dry; weak, coarse, p ismatic structure; .slightly hard, very fri le, nonsticky, nonplastic; coJDD1on roots; lightly acid; abrupt, smooth boundary. 8 o -IO inches thick. B2--ll to 29 incite , dark grayish-brown (2.SY 4/2) silt loam, ight brownish gray (2.SY 6/2) dry; weak, medi m, prismatic stn.1cture and weak, )20 medium, subangular blocky stnicture; hard, friable~ slightly sticky, slightly plasti common roots; medium acid; clear, smooth botmdary. 17 to 21 inches thick. Cl--29 to 42 inches, dark grayish-brown and grayish-brown (2.SY 5/2) silt loam 1 thin lenses of very fine sandy loam~ 1 ght brownish gray (2.SY 6/2) dry; massive slight- ly hardJ very friable, nonsticky, no lastic; conunon roots; slightly acid; clear, mooth boundary. 10 to 15 inches thick. C2--42 to 60. inches, grayish-brown (2.SY 5/3) silt lo~m. light brownish gray (2~5Y 6 2) dry; massive; hard, friable, sticky, as tic_; com- mon roots; medium acid. TI-ie Band C horizons arc mostly s It loam and very fine sandy loam and have lense· of silty clay loam and fine sandy loam. The Ch izon is dark grayish brown, grayish brown, or rk brown. Some areas are up to 5 percent included poorly drained Puget soils; and some_ar 10 to 15 percent the somewhat poorly _.drained Ori ia and Briscot soils. Also inc;:.luded with this soil i mapping_ are areas of the poorly drained Woodinvi le silt loam and a few areas of a Woodinville si ty clay loam. Included soils make up no mo_re than 1 percent of the total acreage. Penneability is depth is 60 inches is at a depth of 3 water capacity is high. erosion hazard is sligh erate to severe hazard~ This soil is used .f: for urban development land group 2o 1. 'Jhe effective rooting A seasonal water table in places. Available noff is slow, and the Stream overflow is a mod- r row crops .and pasture and Capability unit IIw-1; --~)i- i 1he Norma serie is made up of poorly drained soils that fonned in alluvitun, under sedges, grass, conifers, and ha dwoods. Tilese soils are in basins on the glaciate uplands and in areas along the -stream bottoms. Slopes are Oto 2 percent. The annual precipi ation is 35 to 60 inches, and the mean annual a r temperature is about 50° F. The frost-frees son is 150 tO 200 dais. Elevation ranges from bout sea level to 600 feet. In a rep esentative profile, the Surface layei is black sand loam about 10 inches thick. 11te subsoil is dark g ayish-brown and dark-gray sandy loam and extends a depth of 60 inches or more. Norm soils are used ma"inly for pasture. If they are used for row crops . a Sandy loam (No).--This soil occurs as strips 25 300 feet wi e. Slopes are less than 2 percent. Area are level or concave and range from 1 to about 100 acres in size. epresentative profile of Norma sandy loam, in a ture, 725 feet east and 50 feet north of the th quarter corner of sec. 31, T. 2o N., R. E.: ( ', If drained, this soil is used for row crops. It is also used for pasture. Capability unit Ilw-3; no woodland classification. Urban Land Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. In the Green River Valley the fill ranges from about 3 to more than 12 feet in thickness~ and from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam in texture. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate. No · capability or woodland classification. Woodinville Series The Woodinville series is made up of n and gently undulating, poorly drained so· formed tmder grass and sedges, in all uvi bottoms. Slopes are Oto 2 percent. precipitation ranges from 35 to 55 inc mean annual air temperature is about frost-free season is about 190 days. ranges from.about sea level to about 5 _. and. the ~ F. The Elevation 85 feet. In a representative profile_.. gra silty clay loam~ and layers of peat a depth of about 38 inches. This greenish-gray silt loam that exte 60 inches and more. silt lo·am_. JDllck extend to underlain by to a depth of Woodinville soils are and urban developIQent. row crops, pasture_. --· . ( ) Woodinville silt loam (Wo). -This soil is in elo~- ·--_ gated and blo_cl(y shaped areas that range from 5 t'? nearly 300 acres in size. I is nearly le-Tel.and gently undulating. Slopes e less than 2 percent. Representative profile o Woodinville silt loam_. in pasture_. 1,700 feet s~u and 400 feet west of the north quarter f sec. 6, T. 25 N., R. 7 E.: Apl--0 to 3 inches, gr.a .brown (lOYR S/2) dark reddish-b (SYR 5/4) mottl structure; har ,. many fine boundary. (SY 5/1) silt loam, grayish ry;·common_. fine_. prominent_. (SYR 3/4) and reddish-brown ; moderate, medhDR_. crumb friable,_ sticky,. plastic; medium acid;_ clear_. smooth o 4 inches thick. Ap2--3 to 8 inches, gray (SY 5/1) silt light brownish gray (2.SY 6/2) d ; many, fine, prOJDinent_. dark reddish-b wn (SYR 3/3 and 3/4) mottles and common, fie, prominent mottles of strong brown (7.SYR 5/6) and r dish yellow (7.SYR 6/6) dry; oderate, , and very fine, angu!ar blcicky structure; hard, friable, sticky, plastic; co on fine roots; medil.Ull acid; abrupt, wavy bo ndary. 4 to 6 inches thick. B21g--8 to 38 inches, gray (SY 5/) silty clay loam. gray. (SY 6/1) dry; common. fine, prominent, brown (7.SYR 4/4) mottles and medium, promi- nent -.ottles of brownish ellow (lOYR 6/6) dry; 25 percent of matri)!: is enses of very d_ark brown (lOYR Z/2) and dar yellowish-brown (IOYR 3/4) peaty muck, rown (7.SYR 4/2) dry; massive;.hard, £inn _ _. s cky 1 plastic; few fine -roots; medium acid; cl ar, smooth boundary. 30 to 40 inches thick B22g--38 to.60 inches, g_ree ish:-gray (SBG 5/1) silt loam. gray (SY 6/1) ry; few, fine, prominent mottles of brownish ellow (IOYR 6/6) dry; massive; hard, very friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; rong.ly acid. The A horizon ranges brown to gray and from silt lo to silty clay loam. The B horizon ranges from gr y and grayish brown to olive gray and greenish gra and from silty clay loan to· silt_ loam. In places there are thin lenses of very fine sandy lOcilBl-and oamy fine sand. Peaty .lenses are common in the B_ orizon. 1bese lenses are thin, and their combined ickness_. between depths.of 10 not exceed 10 inches. ith this soil in m?pping mal- cent of the total acreage. ..c areas percent Puget soils; some are up to 10 percent Sn omish soils; and. some areas are up to 10 percent Or dia, Briscot, Puyallup, Newberg, and Nooksack so ls. Perme.abilit is moderately slow. There is a sea- sonal high wat r table at or near the surface. In d~ained areas the effective rooting depth is 60 In undrained areas, rooting depth is restricte . The available water capacity is high_. is slow_. an_d the haz:ard of .erosion is slight. Steam overflow is a severe haz:ard unless flood prot tion is provided (pl. III. top}. This so l is U.Sed for row crops. pasture. and urban dev lopment. Capability unit Ilw-2; woodland group 3w. _, Metro Route 143 Timetable, WeeKday 143, 149 Weekday: Sept. 24, 2005 thru Feb. 10, 2006 • Be sure to read the Special Service Info for thts route. To RENTON, BLACK DIAMOND (Weekday): Route 14 9 14 9 149 149 149 149 14 9 149 149 143 143 143 143 4th Av & Lenora 4:03pm 4:32pm 4:50pm 5:05pm 2nd Av & Pike 4:07pm 4:37pm 4:55pm 5:10pm S 2nd Maple Valley Maple Valley & Hwy & Hwy & Burnett Av S 149th Av SE Cedar Grove 4:58am 5:23am 5:49am 6:26am 8:05am 9:45am 11:45am 1, 4 5pm 3,30pm 4:41pm 5: 11pm 5: 29pm§ 5: 44pm 5:05am 5:30am 5: 56arn 6:36am 8: !Sam 9: 54 am 11:54am 1:54pm 3:39pm 4:53prn§ 5:23prn§ 5:56pm§ 5:10am 5:35am 6:01am 6: 43am 8:22am 10:02am 12:02pm 2: 02pm 3:48pm 5:04prn§ 5:34pm§ 6: 06pm§ To RENTON, DOWNTOWN SEATTLE (Weekday): 3rd Av & Route Baker 14 3 5:37am 143 6:02am 143 143 6:27am 143 149 7:08am 149 8:50am 149 10:35am 149 12:45pm 149 2:35pm 149 4:15pm 149 5c37prn 149 6:07pm 149 6, 40pm ------------- Timetable Symbols §-Estimated time. Special Service Info SR-169 & SE 231st 5:51am 6:19am 6:14am 7:21am 9:04am 10: 4 9am 12:59pm 2:49pm 4:29pm 5:51pm 6,19prn 6:52pm Maple Valley Maple Valley S 2nd Hwy & Hwy & & Cedar Grove 149th Av SE Burnett Av S 5:58am 6: 27am 6:52am 7:31am 9: 11am 10:56am 1:06pm 2,56pm 4,36pm 5:59pm 6,26pm 6,59pm 6:06am 6,37am 7c02am 7: 39am 9:18am 11 :03am 1: 13pm 3:03pm 4,45pm 6,08pm 6,33pm 7,06pm 6:17am 6:50am 7,05am 7:17am 7:37am 7:54am 9: 29am 11 : ] 4 am L 24prn 3,14pm 4: 57prn 6,19pm 6:44pm 7: 17pm http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/bus/schedules/sl 43 _ O _.html Page I of2 SR-169 & SE 231st 5: 14am 5:39am 6:06am 6:48am 8:27am 10:09am 12:09pm 2:09pm 3:55pm ·5:14pm§ 5:42prn§ 6:12pm§ 4th Av & Univ 6c42am§ 7: l 6am§ 7:31am§ 7:43am§ 8,04am§ 1/19/2006 Routes 143 149 SEATTLE 8 (see detail map) ~ r\!t .... ~ Ve•,, ···: .. ,, . 'l>0 • 'kiA.,_ '··~·"·,~ S\ '•,, ';, i all ,...., ··,. .. s 19]· ... .. _ --~ ···., ... ...... ', Tt.tnslt Center 101 140 :W2 ::'<., 105 148 $60 , i.i-106 153 664 ~ t,o 101 1,, Gtei J" , .. '\V ~<v.. 110 240 toa 0:,"'t ..,\~~=--~ ·-~ ..... -... ~::··· ' \.:.i(c ~'/;J,.~· ··T.'\.,.. ~~·· '• k1.., ~· •,.,.~Jr1,-Yys .~~ ·,.}~ • ....,.h,lf1,~,. •·, ~~\<lr.,,..,.,;·:;t:~i;\\ _ ..... ~···fi··· MAP LEGEND -OUIIIH Makes 1111 reg.ila-stops Makes imiled or no stops TQ.Rento,l ,•' f,."'v ~~ ti> [<;'>' ~ ..~ w " RENTON ! • 0 /1:INTQN E $ 2m;l--ca , 1/1 :in•u••o••on,,1,,'I!.., ... '!"_.,,,.. ___ .., ! : ""~r.-1c, ... , "" ~ "'""~ '1'0 O"""• i ~ r 1G1 111) iH 5U } C:J .§: ~:: ~~: ~i m i;~e. ~·Ti o&r,• (EB~: 101153 WO tOO 1""'[ n...,.,m u••utw~••tn ••••n•••••• • Ill 53r<I-l";uicS,Rid,111/ Mllb"oOQlt,an ~~1:, ~ • TIM: POINT: Straet inler$ection U!i,Od ror lime: sd'lea.lle Nlfe191'1Ce poinl laled et the IOp of ~me GQlumns to e$'liml!lte lxls aiivel &nel trip time~. .,:enron • Afapre V4119y ~c:I -- ~ -i~ i) TIM: POINT/TRANSFER POINT combined. Sl"AAE ZONE Additional Jere req.ii~d. mm PARK & RIDE: 0Mi~eteci fret PM(ing na ¥.1th direct bus service to m!4Qr c:ommeroiel oenters D LANDW..RK: A signifk:Ellt geographical rererenoe point. • BUS STOPS: 2nd Ave . http://ttansit.metrokc.gov/cftemp!ates/show _ map.cfm?BUS _ROUTE=\ 4J&DA Y _ NA V=W WlLDIRN£S.S VIUME SHOPPING CENT&R ~ BLACK DIAMOND ~\ 1/! 9/2006 Traffic Impact Analysis NEW LIFE CHURCH AT RENTON Prepared for: New T .ifc Church at Renton July 2008 Prepared by: The Transpo Group, Inc. 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425.821.3665 Fax: 425.825.8434 www. tht:tnrn s n< itT() up. corn © 2008 The Transpn Group New Life Church at Renton . Juiv 200s Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... I Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1 Study Scope ................................................................................................................................. 1 EXISTING & 2009 WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................. .4 Roadway Network ..................................................................................................................... 4 Planned 1mproyements ............................................................................................................. 4 Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 4 Traffic Operations .................................................................................................................... 5 Traffic Safety .............................................................................................................................. 8 PROJECT IMPACTS ............................................................................... 9 Trip Generation ......................................................................................................................... 9 Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................................................ 10 Traffic Volume Impact ........................................................................................................... 10 Traffic Operation Impact ....................................................................................................... 13 Traffic Safety lmpact ............................................................................................................... 13 MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................................... 14 Traffic Impact Fees ................................................................................................................. 14 Frontage Improvements ......................................................................................................... 14 Access Drivcu..-ays .................................................................................................................... 14 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 1 5 APPENDIX A: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS APPENDIX B: Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. f'igure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Figures Site Viciniry .............................................................................................................. 2 Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................. 3 Existing (2008) Sunday and Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........ 6 2009 \,'ithout-Project Sunday and Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................... 7 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ....................................................... 11 2009 With-Project Sunday and Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 12 Tables Existing and 2009 Without-Project Intersection Operations .......................... 5 Summary of Three-Year Accident Records ........................................................ 8 Trip Generation Summary .................................................................................... 9 Traffic Volume Impacts at Studv Intersections ............................................... 10 2009 Without-and With-Project Intersection Operations ............................. 13 The Transpo Group I \J,'1'<i .. d<:Cl1urci1 ... R.1~v:5-0d ·~;;1,.dcr-. New Life Church at Renton July 2008 Introduction The purpose of this traffic impact analysis rrL\) is to identify potcntjal traffic-related impacts associated with the proposed new development at the existing New Life Church at Renton site. As necessary, mitigation measures arc identified that would offset or reduce significant impacts. Project Description Figure 1 illustrates the project site and surrounding vicinity. New Life Church, an existing church located at 15711 152nd Avenue SE in the City of Renton is proposing to construct a new church building totaling up to 36,000 gross square feet. The new church building would be used for worship services, adult Christian education, and associated ministries. With the completion of the new building, the existing church building will continue to be used for children's ministries on Sundays. Youth ministries will continue to use the facility throughout the week. Offices in the existing church building will continue to be used as offices. It is anticipated that the proposed project would be completed and generating traffic br 2009. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. The two existing driveways off of 152nd Avenue SE located approximateh· 400 feet south of SR 169 will remain as the access to the property. Direct vehicular access is not proposed via SR 169. lt is important to note that in addition to New Life Church, Renton Christian School (a private K-9 school) and Sunshine Learning Center (daycare facility) also operate on-site. Use of the new church huilding would be limited to New Life Church and would not be used by the school or daycare. Study Scope The scope of the analysis follows requirements set forth in the CitY of Renton's Policy Gmdeline }Or 'J 'ra..[fic Impact Ana!J·sis far 1\'eu_,1 Development. Intersection operations are evaluated during the Sunday peak hour, the one-hour period in which the proposed project ,vould generate the greatest amount of traffic an<l haYe the greatest potential impact on off-site intersections. The Citv's TIA guidelines require the study area include all intersections that \VOuld experience a five percent or more increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed <le,,elopment. Based on this requirement, the study area includes SR 169/152nd 1henue SE and SR 169/140th Wav SE intersections as project traffic at these locations would increase total Sunday peak hour traffic volumes by about five percent or more. Project traffic during the weekday PM peak hour would not increase total intersection volumes by five percent or more; however) the SR 169/152nd Avenue SE intersection \Vas evaluated since it would serve all ne\.v traffic volumes generated by the proposed project. The TIA describes conditions in the project site ,·icinity, induding the roadway network, planned improvements, existing and future peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Future with-project conditions are evaluated by adding sitc-generatec.1 traffic to future \vithout-project volumes. Site-generated impacts arc identified based on the difference between forecasted with-and without-project conditions. The Transpo Group I 04435.03\NewlifeChurch_Revised TIA.doc Page 1 I SITE • N NOTTO SCALE Reprnd11('ed with perm1s.1·1on gnmrnl by THOJ!AS BROS. MAPS This mop iY coprn~~h1ed by Tl!OJIAS BROS .\1APS. /1 ir un/m,:f11/ 10 copy nr rr!prod11ce all 01 any pa11 lh<!rcrf, ll'helhl!r [or pl'r.wmal use or rt·-~a!e, wi1hm11 permission. All nihr.1· rescn·t'd. I Figure 1 Site Vicinity New Life Church at Renton M:\04\04435 New Life Chruch at Ren1on\Giaphics\new life graphic01 <A> lindak 11117/05 11 :20 li The ra~ Group • ··-···--._ J ---! --·--·--·i- i I I I :t ~ I I I l. __ _ ··---.............._ i / ------' , _,..._____ ! --·----------L ,-111 I L ____________________ .l_-!!i ' I ... Figure 2 ·•. Proposed Site Plan ': New Life Church at Renton M:104\04435.03 New Life Church Revision\Graphics\new life graphic01 <B> robertm 07/01/08 09:33 ------· New Life Church at Renton July 2008 Existing & 2009 Without-Project Conditions This section of the report describes both existing and 2009 without-project conditions within the identified study area, including the adjacent roadway network, planned improvements, existing and future traffic Yolumes, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Roadway Network Existing roadway characteristics and intersection channelization are described below. Renton-Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) is a five-lane principal arterial with posted speed limits from 40 to 50 miles per hour (mph) within the study area. I .cfr-and right- turn lanes exist at the signalized intersections of 140th Way SE and 152nd Avenue SE. A jersey-barrier median replaces the two-way left-tum lane to the west of140th \'v'ay SE, and continues until the roadway crosses the Cedar River. 152nd Avenue SE is a two-lane local road with an unposted speed limit of 25 mph. Traffic at the intersection of SE 156th Street/152nd Avenue SE is uncontrolled. Northbound traffic is controlled with a stop sign. The northbound approach at SR 169 includes one left-tum lane and one shared through/right-turn lane. 154th Place SE is a two-lane minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. In the third quarter of 2005, a new bridge connecting 154th Place SE to the SR 169 /152nd Avenue SE intersection was opened to replace the Elliott Bridge to the west. The southbound approach at SR 169 includes one left-tum lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. 140th Way SE is a five-lane principal arterial with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. The northbound approach at SR 169 includes two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane. Planned Improvements Within the study area, the Washington State Department of Transportation (\'v'SDOT) and City of Renton are planning to improve the intersection of SR 169/140th Way SE. SR 169 will be widened to provide a westbound transit bypass lane and an eastbound transit queue-jump lane as well as implementing transit signal priority. This improvement is scheduled to be phased over time between 2008 and 2011, and would not be fully completed prior to the proposed church development. Therefore, evaluation of future without-and with-project intersection operations docs not include this improvement. Traffic Volumes figure 3 illustrates existing Sunday peak hour traffic volumes at SR 169/152nd Avenue SE and SR 169/140th Way SE as well as existing weekday PM peak hour volumes at SR 169/152nd Avenue SE. Traffic volumes were based on data collected on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 and Sunday, September 11, 2005. Existing 2008 traffic volumes were estimated by applying an average annual growth rate of 4.1 percent per year to the 2005 --_,_ ___________________________ " _____ -----·-·-··-----------·----------·- The Transpo Group I 04435.03\NewUfeChurch_Revised TIA.doc Page 4 New Life Church at Renton July 2008 traffic counts. Peak hour traffic volumes were rounded LO the nearest fin? YchJclcs since traffic volumes fluctuate day-to-Jay. This is the same growth rate published in the F.lliott ll,ir(g, R,placmm1/ Project 'Ju1 (INCA Engineers, November 2001) and used to forecast future traffic volumes at SR 169 / 152nd A ,·cnue SE Although this annual growth rate is reflective of weekday Pi\! peak hour traffic, it was assumed that weekda,· l',\l peak hour and Sunday peak hour traffic will increase at approximately the same rate in the coming years. This same method was used to estimate Future (2009) without-project traffic Future without-project Sunday peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 4. This figure also illustrates 2009 without-project weekday PM peak hour volumes at SR 169 / 152nd Avenue SE. Similar to existing traffic volumes, these volumes were rounded to the nearest fi\'e vehicles. Traffic Operations The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the intersection's level of service (LOS). The intersection as a whole and its individual turning movements can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (1\ through F), with LOS A indicating free-flow traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. LOS is measured in average control delay per vehicle and is typically reported for the intersection as a whole at signalized intersections. Control <lelay is defined as the combination of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delav, and final acceleration delay. 1\ppendix 1\ provides a more detailed explanation of intersection LOS. Existing and 2009 without-project levels of service, delays, and volume-to-eapacitv (,·/c) ratios were calculated at study intersections based on methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity 1Wanllal (fransportation Research Board, 2000). Synchro (version 6.0) was used for these calculations. The results are illustrated in Table 1. Appendix B contains detailed LOS worksheets for both existing and 2009 without-project peak hour conditions. Table 1. Existing and 2009 Without-Project Intersection Operations Existing (2008) Intersection LOS 1 Delay2 V/C' Weekda~ PM Peak Hour SR 169/1 52nd Ave SE C 29.8 0.70 Sunda~ Peak Hour SR 169/l 52nd Ave SE C 25.3 0.61 SR l 69/l 40th Way SE B 18. l 0.62 T. Level of service, based on 2000 Hi9hway Capaciry Manual me1hodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume-to-capacity ratio. . ------·-··---------·---_____________ ,. _________ ,. The Transpo Group I 04435.03\NewlifeChurch_Revised TIA.doc 2009 Without-Project LOS Delay V /C C C B 31.7 25,8 18.8 0.73 0.62 0.65 Page 5 580- 310 1 -, 565 --670 ( 205 ,- 265 (20) 65 1520) 150 I 601235) _, ''-(280) 200 J l 5o ( 105) (1,185)385--515(445) (100) 180 1 ( 45115) -, t ,- (85) 140 25 (20) 30 (10) SITE LEGEND .. N NOTTO SCALE X = SUNDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUME (X) = WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME I Figure 3 Existing (2008) Sunday and Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes New Life Church at Renton M:\04\04435.03 New L~e Church Revision\Graphics\new life graphic01 <C> robertm 07101/08 10:33 605- 325) -, 590 -695 ( 215 r- 275 (20) 65 1540) 165 I 601245) _./ t '-- (290) 210) \_ 50 (110) (1,235) 400 --535 (465) 110011so I r 451151 -, tr-(85) 140 25 (20) 30 (10) I SITE • N NOT TO SCALE 1------------------------------------' 1 LEGEND i I - I X = SUNDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUME l (X) = WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME I• Figure 4 ,_ !009 Without-Project Sunday and Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ; New Life Church at Renton Tra~ Group M:\04\04435.03 New life Church Revision\Graphics\new life graphic01 <D> robertm 07/01108 09:08 New Life Church at Renton July 2008 The City of Ren ton's LOS standard is based on a city-wide transportation performance indicator and it is not Jirectly related to specific intersections. The study intersections are located on SR 169. Based on \XiSDOT's Intersection Standards, LOS Dor better is considered an acceptable operation. As illustrated in Table 1, SR 169/152nd Avenue SE operates at LOS C: today, and will continue to operate at LOS C during both the Sunday and weekday PM peak hour. During the Sunday peak hour, SR 169/140'" Way SE currently operates at LOS B and will continue to operate at LOS Bin 2009. Therefore, both stud\' intersections operate acceptably under existing conditions and will operate acceptablv under 2009 without-project conditions. Traffic Safety ln 2005, traffic accident records at study intersections were reguested from the WSDOT for the three-year period between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004. Accident records at stlldy intersections are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of Three-Year Accident Records Intersection SR 169/1 SZnd Ave SE SR l 69/140th Way SE I. Million entering vehicles. Number of Reported Accidents 2002 0 13 2003 2 7 2004 7 Annual Average 1.0 9.0 Accidents per MEV1 0.07 0.49 A traffic safety hazard may exist at any location experiencing more than one accident per one million entering vehicles (!\,!EV). Based on this threshold and the accident data summarized in Table 2, neither study intersection has a traffic safety hazard. The Transpo Group I 04435.03\NewlifeChurch_Revised TIA.doc Page 8 New Life Church at Renton July 2008 Project Impacts This section of the TIA documents proicct-gcncrntcd impacts on the surrounding roadway net\vork and at study intersLctions. First, Sunday and Pi\1 pLak hour project traffic volumes are estimated, distributed, and assigned to study intersections. Next, future with-project peak hour traffic volumes are projected and potential impacts to traffic volumes, intersections operations, and traffic safetv are identified. Trip Generation Estimates of existing vehicle trips were calculated based on traffic Yolumes at site access driveways collected on Tuesday through Thursday,July 12-14, 2005, and Sunday,July 17, 2005. Since existing weekday P;\1 peak hour trips at site access drivc\Vays are associated with New Life Church, Renton Christian School, and Sonshine Learning CLnter, an on- site trip survey \Vas conducted to establish how many trips were exclusively church- generated. A survey \Vas not conducted on Sunday as it was assumed that all vehicular ttips are associateJ with New Life Church. Based on this approach, it was Jetetmined that the church generates an average of approximatelv 45 trips during the weekday PM peak hour and approximately 375 trips during the Sundav peak hour. The survey results were used to calculate a trip rate per 1,000 square-feet. The existing church is approximately 93,000 square-feet and generates approximately 45 trips during the weekday PM peak hour and approximately 375 trips during the Sunday peak hour. Therefore, the church trip rate based on the existing traffic data is approximately 0.46 trips per 1,000 sguare-feet Juring the weekday PM peak hour anJ approximately 4.04 trips per 1,000 square-feet during the Sundav peak hour. The trip generation of the proposed church development was calculated based on the church size of 129,000 syuare-feet (i.e., the existing 93,000 syuare-foot church plus the 36,000 square-foot addition), anJ the calculateJ trip generation rate baseJ on the existing data. Trip generation for the proposed church development is summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Trip Generation Summary Size Trip Future Existing Net New Land Use (1,000 sf) Rate' Trips (in/out) Trips (in/out)i Trips (in/out) Weekda~ PM Peak Hour Church 129 0.46 60 (32/28) 43 (23/20) 17 (9/8) Sunday_ Peak Hour Church 129 4.04 522 (258/264) 376 (186/190) 146 (72/74) l. Average trip rates based on existing church trip generation survey conducted the week of July 12, 2005 and Sunday July 17, 2005. 2. Existing trips based on traffic counts collected the week of July 12, 200S and Sunday, July 17, 2005. As illustrated above, the proposed 129,000-gsf church huilding would generate approximately 60 trips during the weekJay PM peak hour anJ approximately 522 trips during the Sunday peak hour. However, not all of these trips would be new trips as New Life Church is an existing church and currently generates traffic during both peak hours. Therefore, the church's existing trip generation was subtracted from the future trip The Transpo Group I 04435.03\NewlifeChurch_Revised TIA.doc Page 9 New Ufe Church at Renton . July 2008 gcnerntion to estim;:lte the number of net new trips the proposed church deYelopment \Vcmld likely generate. As discussed previously, the church currently generates an average of approximately 45 trips during the weekday P;\1 peak hour and approximately 375 trips <luring the Sun<lay peak hour. Subtracting these trips~ it is estimated that the new church building would generate approximately 17 net new Pivl peak hour trips and 146 net new Sunday peak hour trips. Trip Distribution and Assignment As reflected by the existing peak hour traffic volumes at SR 169/152nd 1\venue SE and SR 169/140th Way SE, net new vehicle trips were distributed and assigned at study intersections based on general travel patterns at these two locations. Trip distribution percentages and peak hour trip assignments are illustrated in Pigure 5. It is estimated that 75 percent of project traffic would be oriented to/from the west on SR 169, 15 percent to/from the north on 154th Place SE, and 10 percent to/from the east on SR 169. Traffic Volume Impact Project-generated Sunday and weekday Pivl peak hour traffic volumes were added to 2009 without-project volumes at study interseccions. The resulting 2009 with-project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 6. Table 4 summarizes the anticipated increase in total entering traffic as well as the percent of 2009 with-project volumes attributable to the proposed church development. Table 4. Traffic Volume Impacts at Study Intersections Peak Hour Total Entering Volume (TEV) 2009 Without-Project-2009 With-Percent Attributable to Intersection Project Generated Project Project !f~_ekdar_ PM Peak Hour SR l 69/l 52nd Ave SE 3,135 17 3,152 0.5% Sunday_ Peak Hour SR l 69/l 52nd Ave SE 1,905 146 2,051 7.1% SR l 69/l 40th Way SE 2,710 110 2,820 3.9% As illustrated above, increases in traffic attributable to the new church building would be approximately 110 Sunday peak hour trips at SR 169/140th \v'ay SE and approach 150 Sunday peak hour trips at SR 169 /152nd Avenue SE. Project traffic would represent approximately 4 and 7 percent of 2009 with-project traffic volumes at these two locations, respectively. In contrast, during the weekday Pi\! peak hour, church-generated traffic would increase traffic volumes at SR 169/152nd Avenue SE by 17 trips (representing about 0.5 percent of total peak hour traffic volumes). Therefore, the proposed project would have the greatest traffic volume impact at SR 169 /152nd 1\venue SE during the Sunday peak hour as all net new traffic would travel though this intersection. The Transpo Group I 04435.03\NewlifeChurch_Revised TIA.doc Page 10 29--30 ( 26 r- 25 11 i (7)54) (7(2) ~tr-(6) 56 7 (2) 11 SITE II Figure 5 !!•• Project Trip Distribution and Assignment i New Life Church at Renton M:\04\04435.03 New Life Church Revisian\Graphics\new life graphic01 <E> robertm 07101/08 09:08 LEGEND • N NOT TO SCALE X SUNDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUME = WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME Tra~ Group 634- 325) "" 590 -725 ( 241 ~ 300 (20) 76 15401165 I 6012451 _, t '- (290) 210) \. 50 (110) (1,235) 400 --535 (465) (107) 234 y ( 52 (17) ""t ~ (91) 196 32 (22) 41 (10) I SITE LEGEND • N NOT TO SCALE X = SUNDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUME (X) = WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME I,, Figure 6 .. j 2009 With-Project Sunday and Weekday PM Hour Traffic Volumes_._ ,tt New Life Church at Renton li The ~ Group M:\04\04435.0J New Life Church Revision\Graphics\new life graphic01 <F> robertm 07/01/08 09:07 New Life Church at Renton July 2008 Traffic Operation Impact Future wfrh-projcct intersection operations were calculated for both study intersections; the rc~ults are shO\\·n in Table 5. These calculations used the s:ame intersection variables as were used in eYaluating 2009 ,vithout-project conditions. Future \Vithout-project levels of serYices, delays, and ,, / c ratios are also shown in this table for comparison purposes. I ,OS worksheets for 2009 with-project conditions are included in Appendix B of this report. Table 5. 2009 Without-and With-Project Intersection Operations 2009 Without-Project 2009 With-Project Intersection LOS 1 Delayi V/C' LOS Delay V/C Weekda~ PM Peak Hour SR l 69/l 52nd Ave SE C 31.7 0.73 C 32.0 0.73 Sunday_ Peak Hour SR l 69/l 52nd Ave SE C 25.8 0.62 C 30.1 0.68 SR l 69/l 40th Way SE B 18.8 0.65 B 19.6 0.67 l. Level of service, based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Volume-to-capacily. With or without the proposed church development, SR 169/152nd Avenue SE would operate at LOS C during the weekday PM and Sunday peak hours. SR 169/140th Way SE would operate at LOS B during the Sundav peak hour both with and without the proposed project. Given WSDOTs Intersection Standards (LOS Dor better), no significant impact to study intersection operations is expected during the Sunday and weekdav PM peak hours. Because of the unique traffic characteristics of the church (that is, the anticipated surge in traffic associated with back-to-back worship servkes), outbound traffic at both site access driveways would likely experience greater-than-normal delays during the Sunday peak hour. To minimize vehicle delav during this time period, New )jfe Church could utilize traffic control police officers to temporarily stop traffic on 152nd Avenue SE. This would allow motorists turning onto 152nd A,-enue SE to exit the site safelv and minimize delays and on-site yueuing. In addition, New Life Church could schedule more rjmc between Sunday worship services and not schedule services back-to-hack. This too would improve traffic operations at both site access driveways. Traffic Safety Impact New church-generated traffic would likely result in a proportionate increase in the probahility of traffic accidents. It is unlikely, however, that this traffic would create a safety hazard or significantly increase the number of reported accidents. This is especially true considering that increases in traffic would primarily be limited to Sundays and not throughout the week. New church-generated traffic would not exacerbate an existing traffic safety hazard. ________ ,,,_ .. ___ ------·--- The Trans.po Group I 04435.03\NewlifeChurch_Revised TIA.doc Page 13 New Life Church at Renton July 2008 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential traffic-related impacts generated br the proposed church development. Mitigation is summarized below in the form of traffic impact fees, frontage improvements, and measures to ensure safe and efficient operations at both site access drive\vays. Traffic Impact Fees Project impacts to the City's road system would be mitigated by required participation in the City's Development Fees. This system was developed for the purpose of ensuring that finandal commitments are in place so that adequate transportation facilities are available to serve new growth and development. To this end, new development is required to pay $7 5.00 per each new average daily trip generated by the proposed project as calculated by Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) Trip Generation (7'h Edition, 2003). Based on !TE, tbe 36,000 square-foot addition would generate 328 daily trips; therefore, the estimated transportation development fee is $24,600. These fees are payable prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The City of Renton will ultimately calculate the required transportation fee based on the number of net new average daily mps. Frontage Improvements The City of Renton rcguires that, if needed, new developments construct improvements to roadways abutting tbe project site. Tipically, frontage improvements include curb, gutter and sidewalk. 1f required, these improvements would be made on the west side of 152nd Avenue SE and tbe south side of SR 169 along the property lines. Access Driveways During the Sunday peak hour, outbound traffic at both site access driveways would likely experience greater-than-normal delays due to the anticipated surge in traffic associated \Vith back-to-back worship services. To minimize vehicle delay <luring this time period) New Life C.hurch could utilize traffic control police officers to temporarily stop north- south traffic on 152nd Avenue SE. This would allow motorists turning onto 152nd Avenue SE to exit the site safely and minimize delays anJ on-site gueuing. In addhion, New Life Church could schedule more time between Sunday worship services and not schedule services back-to-back. This too would improve traffic operations at both site access driveways. Page 14 New Life Church at Renton July 2008 Summary and Conclusions • The proposed project would generate approximately 17 net new Pi\I peak hour trips and 146 net new Sundas· peak hour trips. • Depending on location, project traffic would represent 4-7 percent of future \Vith-project Sunday peak hour traffic Yolumes at study intersections. • Both study intersections would operate at LOS C or better during the Sunday peak hour and SR 169 /152nd Avenue SE would operate at LOS C during the weekday P1vI peak hour. Therefore, no significant impact to study intersection operations is expected. • New traffic generated by New T .ifc Church would likely result in a proportionate increase in the probability of traffic accidents. It is unlikely, ho\vever, that this traffic would create a safety hazarJ or significantly increase the number of reported accidents. • The church would be required to pay Renton's Development Fees for transportation to off-set potential traffic impacts generated by the number of net ne,v daily trips. • The project may be required to construct frontage improvements along the west side of 152nd Avenue SE and south side of SR 169. • Outbound traffic at both site access driveways would likely experience greater- than-normal delays during the Sunday peak hour. To improve operations, the church could (1) utilize traffic control police officers to temporarily stop traffic on 152nd Avenue SE and/or (2) schedule more time between Sunday worship services and not schedule services back-to-back . .. -·" --------·--------------________________ ,, __ _ The Trans po Group I 04435.03\NewlifeChurch_Revised TIA.doc Page 15 Appendix A: Level of Service Definitions Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in tenns of the a,Tragc total \Thiele delay of all mfwements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a method of guantifying se,·eral intangible factors, including driYer discomfort, frustration, and lost tnffcl timc. Specifically, LOS criteria arc stated in terms of average delay per Yehicle during a specified time period (for example, the P"!\f peak hour). Vehicle delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing (i.e., progression of mo,·ements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and rraffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. Table 1 shows LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the H1ihwq;' Capacity A1a11ual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000). Table 1. Level of Service A B C D E F Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay (sec/veh) 5:l 0 > 10 -20 >20 -35 >35 -55 >55 -80 >80 General Description (Signalized Intersections) Free Flow Stable Flow (slight delays) Stable flow (acceptable delays) Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) Unstable flow (intolerable delay) Forced flow Uammed) Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into t\vo intersection types: all-,vay stop-controlled and two-way stop-controlled. All-way, stop-controlleJ intersection LOS is expressed in terms uf the average vehicle delay of all of the movements, much like that of a signalized intersection. Two-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average \'ehicle delay of an individual movcment(s). This is because the performance of a t\vo-way, stop-controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance onTall. Fur this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is defined in terms of its indiYidual movements. \Xiith this in mind, total a\Terage Yehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a tv.·o-way, stop-controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections (both all-way and two-way, stop- controlled). Table 2_ Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) A 0-10 B > 10 -l 5 C > 15 -25 D >25 -35 E >35 -so F >50 Appendix B: Level of Service Worksheets Timings 2: SR 169 & 152ndAveSE Exi$1ing Weekday PM Peal<. Conditions (2008) ~ -• f ---' ..._ t '. j. ~ Mmf!l'illHffi ·1gg· JtS!lR~i!!!!S:lfflmSlliS\zNm~P%iSALbSi!i!f.lrtl!l!000! Lane Configuration$ ~ H ' ~ H ' , t, ~ t ' Volumi>{Yph) 2,0 1185 100 15 445 105 85 10 235 20 520 Turn Type Prnl Perm Prat Perm Pro! Prnl Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 a 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Detector Phases 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 1 ' ' Minimum Initial (s} 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15,0 15.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Mlnlrnumspm(s} 10.0 3L5 31.5 tO.O 32.5 32.5 10.0 39.0 10.0 39.0 39.0 Total Split (s} 26.0 48.5 48.5 10,0 32.5 32.5 16.0 39.5 22.0 45.5 45.5 Total Split l%) 21.7% 40.4% 40.4% 8.3% 27.1% 27.1% 13.3% 32.9% 18.3% 37:9% 37.9% Yellow Time (s) 40 45 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Al-Red Time (s-) 1.0 1,0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag L~d,,Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None None None None Min None M>c Aoi: Effel Green (s) 20.0 42.4 42.4 6.1 21.5 21.5 ,., 13.1 17.3 23.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.48 0.48 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.15 0.20 0.26 vie, Rauo 0.74 0.74 0.13 0.14 0.56 0.24 0.45 0.12 0.71 0.04 Control Delay 46.9 24.3 6.7 50.6 33.5 7.8 48.8 19.4 49.0 28.8 Que1,1e Delay o.o Q,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o Total Delay 46.9 24.3 6.7 50.6 33.5 7.8 48.8 19.4 49.0 28.8 Los·, D C A 0 C A 0 • D C Approach Delay :27.3 29.2 41.0 25.3 Approacti LOS C C D C ~ @1 fuW!hJB!ffITflff!irF:ffilllif§'.'¥¥2!?".V~~\R Cycle length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 88.5 Nan;i!"m.Cycle: 115 Con1rol Type: Actua1ed-Uncoordinated Maidmum_v/c Ratio: 0.74 Jntersect1on Signal Delay: 27.6 Intersection LOS. C lnte1Wctlon C.ipacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Lswl of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2. SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE '. ,1 I f.2 ~ .. 3 .-:+ e4 n, BJ9.5t "' ',, ..._ " 1i " u-,7 [+-,e M:\04',04435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro files1exist1ng PM.sy7 The Transpo Group ' 4.0 1.0 Lag Min 23.3 0.26 0-74 14.4 0.0 14.4 • %i¥J,iHJHW4 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE Existing Weekday PM PeaK Conditions (2008) / -. f ---' ..._ t I" '. j. ~ ~Jf;:i@~!!Yfil\ifflilJUtl,HKESfB!rr!IW!Yli!ll:i;'llm&~4 '.N8TW:1N'ef:ltt'.1'$Bi.i ', ·seT" 'SBR Lane Configurations ' tt r ' tt r , I, Ideal flow (Yphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90 Flt'.Pf(rleeti,d 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (pro\) 1770 3539 1583 1719 3438 1538 1805 1713 FH Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1719 3438 1538 1805 1713 Volume (vptt) 280 1185 100 15 445 105 85 10 20 Peal<.-hour factor. PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 AdJ •. f!JQW''(Vpl'I) 295 1247 105 16 468 111 89 11 21 RTOR Reduct,on (vph) 0 0 46 0 0 81 0 18 0 Lane Grt;,OP:Flow(Vph) 296 1247 59 16 468 30 89 14 0 Hea!'.i'. Vehicles (%J 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% Tum Type Prot Porn, Ptol Perm Prnt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actualed Green, G (s) 19.0 40.8 40.8 1.7 23.5 23.5 7.4 13.4 Effec;llve.Green, g (s) 20.0 42.3 42.3 2.7 25.0 25.0 6.4 14.4 Actualed g/C Ratio 0.22 0.46 0.46 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.16 Clear;mce Tiiw (s) 5.0 5.5 5.5 5,0 5.6 ,., 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 L;ine Grp cap (vph) 382 1617 723 so 928 415 164 266 vis Ratio Prat c0.17 c0.35 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.01 VIS Ratlo Perm 0.1)4 O.D2 vie Ratio 0.77 0.77 0.08 0.32 0.50 0.07 0.54 0.05 Uniform Oelay, d1 34.2 21.1 14.2 44.1 28.6 25,2 40.3 33.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 2.5 0.1 3.7 0.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 Delay (s) 43.5 23.6 14.3 47.7 29.2 25.3 43.9 33.4 Level of Service D C B D C C D C Approach Delay (s) 26.6 28.9 41.1 Apl}l"Oacti LOS C C D !ai"B~~-«mili:4:' "'~' i);llifill~t!llll@illfilh11lll¥fi;f.±:\1!1i''' HCM Average Control. Delay 29.8 HCM Level of seuvice HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Acluated Cy<;le Length (s) 92.6 Sum of lost lime (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service Afwysis Penod .{min) 15 C Crilical Lane Group M:104\04435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro lileslexisting PM.sy? The Transpo Group C 8.0 C ~ t ' 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1787 1881 1599 0.95 1.00 1.00 1787 1881 1599 2'5 20 520 0.95 0.95 0.95 247 21 547 0 0 325 247 21 222 1% 1% 1% Prnt Perm 6 6 162 22.2 22.2 17.2 23.2 23.2 0.19 0 25 0.25 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 30 3.0 332 471 401 c0.14 0.01 c0.14 0.74 0.04 0.55 35.6 26.3 30.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.7 0.0 1.7 44.3 26.3 31.9 D C C 35.5 D Page 2 Timings 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE Existing Sunday Conditions (2008) Lane Configurations ~~ii·••r(,,,h> Tum Type Prol~d Phases Permitted Phases ~rPha$8S Minimum Initial (s) M{ri1rn\1rn Split (s} Total Split (s) !@~-~(%) Yellow Time (s) AIJ.'.Red Tim8 (s) Lead/Lag t,jad-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode -Ml:'Effcl Green (s) Actua1ed g/C Ratio vie Ratio Con1rol Delay Q\.,eue Delay Total Delay ,as Approach Delay ~ .. -1,,. .,. ....... ' <-' "" t '-. ! .; , tt ' , tt ' ' ), , t ' 65 160 200 385 180 45 515 50 140 30 eo Prot Perm Prot Perm Prol Prot Perm 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 4 B 7 4 4 3 a a 5.0 15.0 15.0 5,0 15,0 15.0 10.0 31.5 3'1'.5 10.0 32.5 32.5 21.0 40.5 40.5 13.0 32.5 32.5 19.1% 36.8%,.36.8% 11.8% 29.5% 29.5% 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 rn ' f,o· 1.0 1.0 1..0 1,0 Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag None 16.7 0.22 0.68 40.3 0.0 40.3 D None 35.7 0.46 0.31 15.1 o,o 15,1 B 18.9 • None 35.7 0.46 0.27 3.3 -0.0 3.3 A None 8.2 0.10 0.3' 39.9 (I,()' 39.9 0 None 22.3 0.29 0.65 27.5 0,0 27.5 C 26.7 C None 22.3 0.29 0.13 6.4 0.0 6.4 A 6 5 2 1 6 6 5.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 fO.O 39.0 10.D 39'°0 39.0 16.0 42.5 14.0 40.5 40.5 14,5% 38.6% 12.7%' 36,8% ·36.8% 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 Lead Lag lead Lag lag None Min None Min Min 12.0 15.4 8.9 9.8 9,8 0.16 0.20 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.65 0.19 0.39 0.36 0.54 45.4 0.0 45.4 0 20.1 39.6 36.3 10.8 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 20.1 39.6 36.3 10.8 C O D B 38.J 22.7 0 C qyd,e~~:O:t10 1/1!€:Trtm'I' :r Vii!Pl!!J!lg!!l!li Actuated Cycle Length: 76.9 Naj1.11J{~; 105 Control Type: Actua1ed-Uncoordinated MBJ<l"1Uril-V/c Ratio; 0;55 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.1 lr:)tet$e¢ij.Ofl C,i1pile;ity Utilita1ion-49.7% Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection LOS: C ICU le\19tof Service A ~",,"d"Ji': 2SR169&1S2adA~sel' 03 :~~ 0 ~' I \:.~ ::: .: •• :~'' J;;,~ M:104104435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro fileslexis1ing Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group ~ Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE .,. ....... ' -'"" n . 'AlffifflR Lane Configurations ""i Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s} 4.0 Lane Util. factor 1.00 Frt 1.00 Flt Pl'o1~1!td 0.95 Said. Flow (pro!) 1770 Flt Permitted o:95 Said. Flow (perm) 1776 · Voluma·(vph) 200 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.76 Adj. FJQw'(\JPhl 263 RTOR Reduction (vph) O Lane Gl"OUP.Ffow (vph) 263 Heavy Vehicles(%} 2% Tum Type Prot Protected Phases 7 Per111ii:led. PhMes Aciuated Green, G (s} E:ffiici~e Green,~ (s} Actuated g/C Ratio Clear~ Time($) Vehicle Extension hl 15.7 16.7 0.21 5.0 3.0 --ll!W'~?ffllffl tt ' , tt ' 1900 1900 .1.900 1900 1900 4,0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1787 3574 1599 1.00 1.00. 0;95 1.00 1.00 3539 1583 1787 3574 1599 ·385 'tao· 45 sHi" ·so 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 507 231 59 618 66 0 131 0 0 46 507 106 59 678 20 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4 34.2 35.7 0.45 6~5 4.0 Pemi Prot Perm 4 34.2 35.7 0.45 5,5 4.0 3 4.5 5.5 0.07 5.0 3.0 23.0 24.5 0.31 5.5 4.0 8 23.0 24.S 0.31 5.5 4.Q lane Grp Cap (vph} vis Ratio Prat v/s;',Ratio Perm 369 1sn c0.15 0.14 706 123 1093 0.03 c0.19 489 0.01 0.04 19.5 1.00 0.0 19.6 vie Ratio Uniform De!sy, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Qelay, d2 Delay (s) Level ofSeivice Approach Delay (s) Appn;i.ictrLOS 0.71 29.5 1.00 .. , 35.9 D 0.32 14.4 1.00 0:2: 14.5 e 19.8 •• 0.07 0.15 13.2 1.00 0;1 13.3 e 0.48 35.9 1.00 2.9 38.9 0 0.62 23.8 1.00 '1-.3 25.1 C 25.6 C • ~ 1900 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.95 1805 140 0.76 184 0 184 0% Prot 5 11.0 12.0 0.15 5.0 _JO 270 c0.10 0.68 32.2 1.00 6.9 39.2 0 Existing Sunday Conditions [2008) t I' '-. * .; -11iR • ~ t t 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1769 1805 1900 1615 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1769 1805 1900 1615 30 25 60 65 160 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 ~ 33 79 86 211 27 0 0 0 182 45 0798629 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 14.4 15.4 0.19 5.0 3.!;i 340 0.03 Pro! Perm 1 6 6 6.5 9.9 9.9 7.5 10.9 10.9 0.09 0.14 0.14 5.0 5.0 5.0 :rn 3.0 3.0 169 259 220 0.04 c0.05 0.02 0.13 0.47 0.33 0.13 26.8 34.4 31.3 30.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.2 2.0 0.8 0.3 27.0 36.4 32.1 30.7 C D C C 35.7 32.2 O C lillll! -111 0121: 214 +e~JpT,mmmrummHmmwn HCM Levtl cj(S(U'Vice. C HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio ACW~EKI (;yc;le Length(~) lntersecfon Capactty Utilization Analysis:f!~l;iod (min) c Critical Lane Group 25.3 0.61 80.1 49.7% 15 sum of lost.tit1'1.ii {s') ICU Level of Service M:\04104435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchra files\existing Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group 16.0 A Pege 2 Timings 3: SR 169 & 140th Wa'i. SE Existing Sunday Conditions (2008) -+ • • +-" ~ l!ljlilllffilll 11:W• 4§ #§#1/fflll --WMf*4~'i!Jful?tfiliffyyt\Yt1'J}A,~is0:;,JQtffl!ll Lane Conligurations t+ 'f" 'I tt ,, r Vphmw.(vpt,) 580 :310 205 670 565 265 Turn Type Perm Prat Perm erotected.Pllase:s 4 J 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 Detector Phases ' 4 3 8 2. 2 NiYniffium lrntral (s) 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 24.5 24.5 .. , 20.5 29.3 29.3 Total Split (s) 26.6 26.6 22.7 49.3 30.7 30.7 Tolar Split(%) 33,3% 33.3% 28.4% 61.6% 38:4%·38.4% Yellow Time (s) 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 All,,Rei:tilme (s} LO 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lag lag Lead t.a:ad-4.:ao Optimize? Recall Mode Min Min None Min None None Acl).E!'f.;.t.Green (1,1) 21.6 21,6 14.6 40.3 21,5 ,, .. Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.57 0.31 0.31 liii:A~~Jld 0~2 OA9 0.64 0.38 Q.62 0.44 Con1rol Delay 25.2 5.4 35.1 9.2 24.0 4.8 Cli:«t.u!!-~~y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 25.2 5.4 35.1 9.2 24.0 4.8 LOS C A 0 A C A Approach Deltiy 18.3 15.3 17.9 Apl)roai#j:~0$ B B B Ffff/f]fP FZ!k~~IB: '"¥''7~~~¥:~EF;0~·~ 0: 1;ps,=0:;; t!l;Lo':*Jh'i?i)a~l11!/i!!m!YHZ>filiik;4illfilsfil cvme· t;;irigttj:· ao Actuated Cycle Length: 70.1 N.ti.mal Cyckl,; 70 Control Type: Actualed-Uncoord1nated Ma~lrnum vie Ratio: 0.64 hitersec~on Signal Delay: 17.1 Intersection LOS: B Intersection capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3: SR 169 & 140th Way SE i's" ,2 ~ ,3 J-,4 ~ l®.fr I •;:.s ''"'' : M:\04\04435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro fileslexisling Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SR 169 & 140th WaY., SE Existing Sunday Cond1t1ons (2008) -+ • • +-" ~ ~§! fili1:l1filllil~~~~\il89!ill!'""-'b"'1i,ik• Lane Configura1ions tt r , tt ·-" ' Ideal Flow (vphpl} 1900 1900 1900 1eoo 1900 1900 Total Lost time {s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4,0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frl 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.S5 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. flow (prot) 3539 1583 1787 3574 3467 1599 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow ·~ 3539 1583 1787 3574 3467 1599 VolUn'l!!/. Yph} 580 310 205 670 565 265 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. f:"Jo~l(Vph) 674 360 238 779 657 308 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 248 0 0 0 213 Lane Group Flow (vph) 674 112 238 779 657 95 Hea:ti:Vehides (%l 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Perm PtOI Perm Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 PEirmltl&d Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 20.1 14.1 38.7 20.2 20.2 Effeciive·Gr'een, g (s) 21.6 21.6 14.6 40.2 21.5 21.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.58 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s} 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grµ Qip (vph) 1097 491 374 2061 1069 493 vis Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.13 0.22 c0.19 vis Ratio Perm 0.07 0.06 vie Ratio 0.61 0.23 0.64 0.38 0.61 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 20.5 17.9 25.1 8.0 20.6 17.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.5 3.7 0.2 1.2 0.3 Delay (s) 22.0 18.3 28.8 8.2 21.8 18.0 Level of Service C B C A C B Approach Delay (s) 20.7 13.0 20.6 Approach LOS C B C ITP?WWW:~Hllilf!llB!llWll&iPl~Bl1ii!1m1nm2x111111n11mm1::;1x HCM Average Control Delay 18.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Acruated Cycle Length (s) 69.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capaci1y Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis PeOOd (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group M·\04104435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro files\existing Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group Page 4 Timings 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE Baseline Weekday PM Peak Conditions (2009) ..> .... • ., -.__ " t .,. + .; lane Configurations , ff r , t+ r , f, , t r Volume-(~} 290 1235 100 15 465 t10 " 10 245 20 540 Turn Type Prot Perm Prol Perm Prot P,ot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 ' 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Oete&o'r:P.haaes 7 4 4 3 8 • 5 2 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 M""""'i~lili!.(o) •• tp.Q >-:~:Ui: 31.5 10,Q 32.5 32.5 10.0 39.0 10.0 39.0 39.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 49.0 49.0 10.0 34.0 34.0 13.0 40.0 21.0 48.0 48.0 '°"'"6illif(%) ~.8% 40.,~o/i(4Q,B% !i,3:% 28.3%'2-8.3% 10.8% 33.3% 17.5% 40.0% 40.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 AlrBed Time (s) 1.0. 1.0 1.0 1.0 LO· 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag ~1-,ag Optimize? Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Recall Mode None None None None None None None Mm ~f;fJet'.(3reen (s} 2'\.3 ..44.2 44.2 6.1 22.2 22.2 ,., 14,0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.4'1 0.48 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.15 v[q'.~\"'' ' ti'.74 . · 0."76 0.13 0.1s · o.sa 0.25 0.53 0.11 Control Delay 48.1 25.6 7.2 51.9 34.5 7.6 55.9 18.5 Ovei.11 D81&y · .. o.o o.o 0~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 To1al Delay 48.1 25.6 7.2 51.9 34.5 7.6 55.9 18.5 LOS D C A n C A E B Approach Delay 28.5 29.9 46.0 Approach· LOS C C D fiiil ~Pi ii!-J.~!IBri#lf ~-mif41!1ffii# .. Cycle Ulngth: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 91.4 Natmiii'Cycie:., 1 -1? Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated ~~4m''.vt¢:~:J).78 Intersection Signal Delay: 29.5 lntersecUon LOS. C lnte~r,,¢ap.ic;i'iy0tihzation 68.5%; ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE ~·' J f ~ $·;··· 11: ..• m •. : ~ ,3 &r. •• f" ,, -~7 J "8 l" j 3:h M:104104435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro fileslbaseline PM.sy7 The Transpo Group 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead Lag Lag None Min Min 17.5 25:4 25.4 0.19 0.28 0,28 0]5 0.04, 0.78 53.7 26.6 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.7 26.6 17.9 D C B 29.0 C E~JtMJXU 41 hli\&faMi : l Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: SR 169 & 152ndAveSE Baseline Weekday PM Peak Conditions (2009) ..> .... • ., -.__ " t ~ .,. j. .; I i .; i&§ ll!l!ll!Dl!llffl -~m1~~JS:tm1F!~ Lane Configurations , t+ r , t+ r , Ideal Flow-(vphpl) :1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total lost time (s} 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. F.,dor 1:,00 0.95 1.00 MO 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Prote~ 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1719 3438 1536 1805 FIL Pennltted O.'ilS 1.00 1.00 0.'95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Said. flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1719 3438 1538 1805 Volume (vph~ 290 1235 100 f5 465 110 85 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj...FlQW (vph).< 305 1300 105 16 ... 116 89 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 '4 0 0 85 0 Lane Gr¢1,.1p Row (vph) 305 1300 61 16 489 31 89 Heav~ Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 0% Turn Type, .... Perm .Prot Perm Prot- Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actualed Green. G (s) 20.2 42.7 42.7 1.7 24.2 24.2 6.3 Effecove Green, g (s) 21.2 44.2 44.2 2.7 25.7 25.7 ,., Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.46 0.46 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.08 Cl~19ra~ -Time (s) 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.0 Vehicle Extension \.sj 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 Lane'Qi"p Cap (vph) 393 1638 733 49 925 414 13" vis Ratio Prol cO. 17 c0.37 0,01 0.14 0.05 vis Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 vie Ratio 0.78 0.79 0.08 0.33 0.53 0.08 0.64 unlfOtm Oetay. d 1 34.9 21.8 14.3 45,5 29.7 26.0 42.8 Progression Fac1or 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 lncrBrnental Delay, d2 9:3 2.9 0.1 , .. 0.7 0.1 9.9 De!ay /s) 44.2 24.7 14.4 49.4 30.5 26.1 52.7 Li!vel of SefVlce D C B D C C D Approach Delay (s) 27.5 30.1 ,Wp'.roach·LQS C C 11 ; ! '!i.lll HQM·Avetjiliti'Contrql? Iii: V , 3J.7 HCM.Level·of Ser\rlee HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Limgth-(t;)< 85.; ··""Sum oflosl time (B) Intersection Capacity UtilizaUon 68.5% ICU level of Service Analysi$ ~-riocl (rriJnr 15 C Crilir:al Lane Group M:\04104435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro f1les\baseline PM.sy7 The Transpo Group f, , t t 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.()0 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1713 1767 1661 1599 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1713 1767 1861 1599 10 20 245 20 540 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 11 21 258 21 568 18 0 0 0 293 14 0 258 21 275 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Prot Perm 2 1 6 6 14.1 16.5 24.3 24.3 15.1 17.5 25,3 25.3 0.16 0.18 0.26 0.26 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 271 327 498 424 0.01 c0.14 0.01 c0.17 0.05 0.79 0.04 0.65 34.t 37.2 26.1 3U 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 11.9 0.0 3.4 34.2 49.2 26,1 34.6 C D C C 47.8 38.8 D D 1111gm1w1ew1:;;::: C ,.o C Page 2 Timings 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE Baseline Sunday Conditions (2009) / -+ ..... • +-.... .., t '-.. + .,, fiillli 11111,--mn-sn~s--m-. Lane Configurations , tt r , tt r , • , t r Volume (vph) 210 400 180 45 535 50 140 30 60 65 16& Turn Type Prat Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phai.eis 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 • Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Oeite¢tot Pha$e$ 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 1 • • Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ~lhirr,t,tm Sl)tit($} 10.0 3t.5 31.!;i 10.0 32.5 32.5 10.0 39.0 10.0 39.0 J9.0 Total Split (s) 22.0 41.5 41.5 13.0 32.5 32.5 16.0 41.5 14.0 39.5 39.5 T0te1Spllt(%) 20.0% 37.7% 37.7% 11..8% 29.5% 29.5% 14.5% 37.7% 12.7% 35.9% 35.9% Yellow Time {s) 40 45 4,5 4.0 45 4.5 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Tlme-(s) 1.0 t.0 1.0 1.0 1;0' 1.0 1.0 t.O 1.0 t.O 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead lag lag lead lag lag lead lag lead lag lag t:ea~Lag Optimi~·7 Recall Mode None None None None None None None Min None Min Min ~J;®t Gteen (5) 17.4 37.0 37.0 8.2 22.8 22.8 12.0 15,5 8.9 "' •. , Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.20 0.11 0.13 0.13 vl<rRatlo 0.70 0.31 027 0.33 0.67 0.13 0.67 0.19 0.40 0.36 0.55 Control Delay 40.9 15.0 3.2 40.9 28.3 6.5 47.0 20.5 40.7 37.2 11.0 Ot!eue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 40.9 15.0 3.2 40.9 28.3 6.5 47.0 20.5 40.7 37.2 11.0 LQS '.' 0 B A 0 C A 0 C 0 0 B Approach Delay 19.2 27.5 39.5 23.0 ~pproach LOS B C D C Iii ill '---1·;m1&!!!!l11;11lli!lll!-1i!lll!!l!l--llffillli- Cyple Langth: 110 Actuated Cycle Length· 78.J Natuie,l'Cyd'!I; 105- Control Type: Ac1uated-Uncoordinated MaXlmuniv/& Ratio: 0.70 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.6 Intersection LOS. C lntersa¢ion Capaeity Ulillzatior,rS0.8% ICU level c,fService A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE ,, ! t 02 • ,3 --,, .. 4: ; 13, 41. : 1-., " i / ,, .... "' ,a M:\04104435.03 New Life Church Ravision\LOSISynchro files\baseline Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE Baseline Sunday Conditions 12009) / -+ -. • +-.... .., t ~ '-.. + .,, ~!f,.lm1Ht~lfulil!~lnRsamtllWffll~!V.§!BffiffiY3!!l!Jl!l!!U!l!ltl/Jffi'.W$ll:i.:i!1 ,:set: ''St!R Lane Configurations , H r , H r , • , Ideal Flow {vphpl) 1900 1900 HIOO 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Los1 time (s} 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ~rn;i Util. Factor 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 fll P!'Qliiiiewd 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1,00 LOO 0.95 1.00 0.95 Said. Flow (pro!) 1770 3539 1Sll3 1787 3574 1599 1805 1769 1805 Flt Permitted 0.96 1,00 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 1583 1787 3574 1599 1805 1769 1805 Volume (vph) 210 400 180 45 535 so 140 30 25 60 PeaK-hour factor. PHF 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adf :Flow (vph.) 278 526 237 59 704 66 184 39 33 79 RTOR Reduction (vph} o 0 "' o o 46 0 27 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 276 526 108 59 704 20 184 45 0 79 Hea!:1 Vehicles !% l 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% O''lo 0% 0% 0% Turn Typi, Pn,1 f>errri JlJ-91 Perm Pro! Pro! Protected Phases 7 4 3 6 5 2 1 Per~· Phases 4 6 Actuated Green. G {s) 16.4 35.5 35.5 4.5 23.6 23.6 11.0 14.5 6.5 EfleCthie Gr'-een, g (s) 17.4 37.0 31.0 5.5 25.1 25.1 12.0 15.5 7.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.19 0,09 Clearance Time (s} 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 ,.o 3.0 l.;.ine Grp Cap,(vpti) 37& 1607 719 121 1101 492 266 336 166 vis Ratio Prat c0.16 0.15 0.03 c0.20 c0.10 0.03 0.04 1//9. Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01 vie Ratio 0.73 0.33 0.15 0.49 0.64 0.04 0.69 0.13 0.48 Uniform Oetay. d1 29.9 14.3 13.0 36.6 24.3 19.8 33.0 27.4 35.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 lncremenW:I Oelay, d2 7, 1 0.2 0.1 3.1 1.4 o.o 7.5 0.2 2.1 Delay (s) 36.9 14.4 13.2 39.7 25.7 19.8 40.5 27.6 37.3 Level Qf Servite 0 B B D C B D C D Approach Delay (s) 20.1 26.2 36.9 Approach LOS C C 0 iim'M!~:IB~~J!llif:;mg:z;gJ~mr2z¥1~:rn~:*1:·-h!':i!'Y' '·','".":':t; HCM Average Control Delay 25.8 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to G.Jpacity ra1io 0.62 Actuclled Cycle·Length '(s) 81.5 Sum of lo&t time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU level of Service AnalySis Period (min) 16 ' Critical Lane Group M·\04\04435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro f1les\baseline Sunday .sy? The Transpo Group C 16.0 A t r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1900 1615 1.00 1.00 1900 1615 65 165 0.76 0.76 86 217 0 188 86 " 0% 0% Perm 6 6 10.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 0.13 0.13 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 256 218 c0.05 0.02 0.34 0.13 31.9 31.1 1.00 1.00 0.8 0.3 32,7 31.3 C C 32.9 C Page 2 Timings 3: SR 169 & 140th Wat,. SE Baseline Sunday Conditions (2009) ... ~ ' +-.._ r lane Configurations tt f 605 325 Perm 4 m ~ tt 215 695 Pro! 11R3trtt7f"'?&Mll~~;rr~ ~~ r Vcii~(vph) Tum Type P~tfl'.h!U19S Permitted Phases 0.fe#(,t· Ptiases Minimum Initial (s) M!oii1iµin:SP1it {s) T-;;,Jal Split (s) T<itaf~plit (%} Yel!ow Time (s) ,;u.:Red nm.a (s) lead/Lag ~d-lag Optimize? Recall Mode ,Mt f:ffi?t oreen (s) Actualed g/C .Ratio vie.Ratio • Control Delay Queue Oaf.ay TOtal Delay LO:! Approach Delay JlliPioaoh:L:qs 590 275 Perm 3 8 2 4 2 4 4 · S 8 2 2 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 24.5 24.5' s.s 20.5 29.3 2&.3 27.0 27.0 23.0 50.0 30.0 30.0 33.8% 33.8% 28.8% 62.5% 37.5% 37.5% 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 1D 1.0 1~ 1~ 1A t~ lag Lag Lead Min Min None 21.9 21.9 15.t 0.31 0.31 0.21 o.~s o.s1 o.66 26.2 5.4 36.2 o.o 0.0 0.0 26.2 5.4 36.2 C A D 18.9 B Mm 41.1 0.57 0.39 9.4 0.0 9.4 A 15.7 B None None 22.2 22.2 0.31 0.31 0.64 0.45 24.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 24.8 4.8 C A 18.5 B Cycle Length,;BJ} i,i§M\)/k&JW?Xffi~kf:N,@j{HL~!! II &&]sfiMI Actuated Cycle Length: 71.5 N~~rap:;y·cJa; ·10 Control Type: Acluated-Uncoordina1ed ~idrnu.mi'/JC.Ratlo: 0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.7 lnteF$l!cli0ri·Capacily Utilization '55.5% Analysis Period (min) 15 S_e_lits and Phases: E 3SR169&ESE L:...:: -.,!. Intersection LOS: B ICU level of Service B ~· M:104\04435.03 New Life Church Revis1on\LOS\Synchro files\baseline Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group d Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SR 169 & 140th Wa'i. SE Baseline Sunday Cond1t,ons (2009) ... ~lllli1Pilll Lane Configurations t+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lene Util. Fedor 0.95 Fri 1.00 Flt Pt01$~ 1.00 Satd. Flow (pro1) 3539 Flt; Permitted 'LOO: , Said. Flow {perm) Volume.fvph} Peak-hourfaclor, PHF A<Jj .. FIQw (Yph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lanij,Group Flow.(i/ph) Heavy Vehicles(%) 3539 ·eos 0.86 703 0 70> 2% .. • +-.._ r ~ , tt ~, r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 O:..Ss 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1583 1787 3574 3467 1599 mo o.es .1,00 o.9s J .oo 1583 1787 3574 3467 1599 325 215 '695 590 27.S. 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 O.B6 378 250 808 686 320 262 0 0 0220 t 16 250 808 686 100 2% 1o/o 1% 1% 1% Turi, Type Perm , ProJ ' Perm Protected Phases Permitted Pha6Ets· Actuated Green, G (s) Effi:lcitiyi,, Green, !l{!l) Actuated g/C Ratro Clearan<:& Time (s) Vehi_cle Extension ill L~ Grp Cap (vph) vis Ratio Prot vis Ratio Perm 20.4 2t.9 0.31 5.5 5.0 1089 C0.20 vie Ratio 0.65 Uniform Delay, 01 21.s. Progression Faclor 1.00 Incremental DelaY, d2 1.8 Delay (s) 23.1 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 21.7 ApproJcti LOS C WW%1! r R'ilMJIIIJ/ 4 20.4 21.9 0.31 5.5 5.0 487 0.07 0.24 18.4 1.00 0.6 19.0 B 3 8 2 2 14.6 39.5 20.9 20.9 15.1 41,0 22.2 22.2 0.21 0.58 0.31 0.31 4.5 5,5 6.3 5.3 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 379 2058 10$1 499 c0.14 0.23 c0.20 0,06 0.66 0.39 0.63 0.20 25.7 8.3 21.() 18.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.3 o.:,· t.4 0.3 30.0 8.5 22.4 18.3 C A C B 13.6 21.1 B C HCM Average Cotltrol Deley HCM Volume to Capacity ra1io Acil.lated Cycle'Length (s) Jntersecbon Capacity Ut1hzatron Analygis Peri.09 (min) HUI HCM level of Seivice B 0.65 71.2 Sum of lost time (s) 55.5% ICU level of Service 15 c Critical Lane Gmup M:\04\04435.03 New Life Church Rev1sionllOS\Synchro liles\baseline Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group 12.0 B Page 4 Timings 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE With-Proiect Weekday PM Peak Conditions (2009) __,, .... • • ..... '-~ t ',. + .,, -~Wllllill!IID P~6~™8b'>2:l!i'i!iliriBRRlll'Hitjllii'Etlt:''.bU:l Lane Configurations ' ' tt r ' " ' t r Volumir(vph) 290 17 465 110 91 10 245 20 540 Turn Typa Prat Perm Prat Perm Prot Prat Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 • 5 2 1 ' Permitted Phases 4 8 6 o.tec.tor' Phases 7 4 4 3 • • 5 2 1 6 6 Minimum Initial (s} 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 Mlnlmi,!m Split·(s) 10.0 31.5 31.5 10.0 32.5 32.5 10.0 39.0 10.0 39.0 39.0 Total Split (s) 25.0 49,0 49,0 10.0 34.0 34.0 13.0 40.0 21.0 48.0 48.0 '.f'otai·Spllt (%) 20,8% 40.8% 40.8% 8.3% 28.3% 28.3% 10.8% 33.3% 17.5% 40.0% 40.0% Yellow T1rne (s} 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-,Red Tune (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Uead-Lag Optimizti? Recall Mode None None None None None None None Min None Min Min A9teff¢1 Green (s) 21.3 44.2 44.2 6.1 22.2 22,2 8.9 14.1 17,5 25.5 25.5 ~c\uated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.48 0.48 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.15 0.19 0.28 0.28 wc:Rat10 0.74 0.76 ().'14 0.17 o.~ 025 0,56 0.12 0.75 0.04 0.78 Control Delay 48,3 25.7 7.1 52.3 34.6 7.6 57.7 18.1 53.9 26.6 18.1 ~!9µ6.0elay o.o o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.3 25.7 7.1 52.3 34.6 7.6 57.7 18.1 53.9 26.6 18,1 ~$,., .. , D C A D C A E 6 D C 6 Approach Delay 28.S 30.1 47.3 29.2 ,t.;ppro~ch LOS C C D C 11!111 · if!iili1li!il lllil11~-111i!Q!illllilll !!lliti z 1m11q-1 !!!!!!J!-J;~llllllil Cycle U!t!Qth: 120 Actualed Cycle Length: 91.5 ~•tuta(.Cyclei 115 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoord1natad M~lrrii.im vie Ratio: 0.78 Intersection S1goal Delay: 29.7 Intersection LOS: C ln1'!reectio'n Capacity Utijizatf,on 68.5% ICU L&vel of SeNice C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2. SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE ~-~ L~., lt ,, : ?,' .," 1·~~ .. J;.s M:\04104435.03 New Life Church Re11ision\LOS\Synchro liles\luture PM.sy7 The Transpo Group : l Page 1 I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE W•th-ProJect Weekday PM Peak Condit1ors [2009) __,, .... • • ..... '-~ t I' ',. + .,, ~~'?:fi<~!!SmlUl'i'fll;,U~;::W$Giill~lhaffl~L'.=N$lt!1J::!l:f8Ri1' ':§§ti' '·sar :,saR Lane Configurations ' tt r ' H r ~ !, ~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 O.B5 1.00 0.90 1.00 Flt Protecl1:1d 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 S.itd. Flow {prot) 1770 3539 1583 1719 3438 1538 1805 1707 1787 Flt Permltled 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Said. Flow (eerm) 1770 3539 1583 1719 3438 1538 1805 1707 1787 Volume (vph) 2'0 1235 107 17 465 110 91 10 22 245 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. flow (vph) 305 1300 113 18 489 116 96 11 23 258 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 47 0 0 85 0 19 0 0 Lane Group Flow\vph) 305 1300 66 18 489 31 96 15 0 258 Hea~ Vehicles(%) 2% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% Tum Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 Permitted Phatee 4 8 Actua1ed Green, G (s) 20.2 42.7 42.7 1.7 24.2 24.2 63 14.3 16.5 Effective Green. g (s) 21.2 44.2 44.2 2.7 25,7 25.7 7.3 15.3 17.5 Actua1ed g/C Ratio 0.22 0.46 0.46 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.16 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 M 5.5 5.0 6.6 5.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s1 3.0 ,o ,.o 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Gap:(,.1ph) 39~ · 1635 731 48 923 413 13' 273 327 VIS Ratio Prat c0.17 c0.37 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.01 c0.14 vis. Ratio Perrii 0.04 0.02 vie Ratio 0.78 0.80 0.09 0.38 0.53 0.08 0.70 0.05 0.79 Uniform Oelay, d1 35.0 21.9 14.5 45.1 29,8 26.1 43.1 34.1 37.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 lncr•menlal OelaY,.d2 9.4 2.9 0.1 4.9 a., 0.1 14.2 0.1 11.9 Delay (s) 44.4 24.8 14.5 50.5 30.6 26.2 57.3 34.1 49.3 Level Q.f Se-Nie¢= 0 C 6 0 C C E C D Approach Delay (s) 27.6 30.3 51.2 Aj:i'pro'&en LO$ C C D Bi!li~f~~ ri,~1jfilllliiE!L!!U:":::wn< HCM Avera9:& Control.Qelay · ~2.0 HCM Levef of SeNice HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 ~ated Cycle ~ength,(s') 95.7 sum of los1 time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service Anal~is Period {min} 15 ' Critical Lane Group M:\04\04435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro files\future PM.sy7 The Transpo Group C 8.0 C t r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 188i 1599 1.00 1.00 1881 1599 20 540 0.95 0.95 21 568 0 289 21 279 1% 1% Perm 6 6 24.5 24.5 25.5 25.5 0.27 0.27 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 501 426 0.01 c0.17 0.04 0.65 26.0 31.2 1.00 1.00 0.0 3.6 26.1 34.8 C C 39.C D ;!Jfii ?age 2 i- i Timings 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE With-Project Sunday Condit,ons (2009) .> .......... f +-' .., t '. ! .,, Ill i H!E1~illNllfflMffl'.U~i!lg:rt!~3iiEi~'1§11 ~~ Lane Configurations ' tt f ' tt f ' " ' t f Vol1.1~·(vph) 210 400 234 52 535 50 19G 41 · 60 76 165 Tum Type Prot Perm Prot P,~ Pro1 Prot Perm Pr;i~d Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 • Pennitted Phases 4 8 6 ~Pl'\aM$ 7 4 4 3 • 8 5 2 1 6 • Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15,0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 M,lntm,um Split (s} 10.0 31.5 31.5 10.0 3Z:5 32.5 10.0: ·-39.0 10.0 39.0 39.0 Total Split (s) 22.0 41.5 41.5 13.0 32.5 32.5 16.0 41,5 14.0 39.5 39.5 Tola! Spit"'(%) 20.0% 37.7% 37.7% 11.S.% 29.5% 29.5% 14.5% 37.7% 12;.7% 35.9% J5,9% Yellow Time {s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red ·Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 _1_.o 1.l) 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 lead/Lag lead Lag Lag lead Lag Lag Lead Lag lead ~{.ag Optimlzl!i? .. Recall Mode None None None None None None None Min None ~Qt)J;ff~ .. Graen_ (a.} 17.4 34,6 34.6 8.3 22.9 22.9 12J 16.2 8.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.20 0.11 We;Ratlo 0.71 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.68 0.13 0.93 0.24 0.40 Control Delay 41.7 16.6 3.3 41.7 28.8 6.6 77.0 21.7 41.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0,0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.7 16.6 3.3 41.7 2a.a 6.6 77.0 21.7 41.2 Loa D B A D C A E C D Approach Delay 19.2 28.1 62.0 Approacti:LOS • C E ~mm IIBB!ml !!~!!!~~i--,~~·-1~ Cycle Length: 110 Actuated Cyc!e length: 79.1 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maidmun):Wc"Ralio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.2 Intersection LOS: C lntersecti_on Capacity Utitiza1fcn. 53.9% ICU Level ol Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 S_e_lits and Phases: 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE '. ,, I t ., f ,3 1.,.. ~4 ·,~,· • 1 $ I a.(1, .., ,s I+ ,, .> ,, r., 1 ' " M:\04104435.03 New Life Church RevisionllOSISynchro flleslfuture Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group 4.0 4.0 1,0 1.0 Lag Lag Min Min 1-0.4 10.4 0.13 0.13 0.40 0.54 37.8 10.5 0.0 0.0 37.8 10.5 D B 23.5 C ll!lll - Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: SR 169 & 152nd Ave SE W1th-Projec1 Sunday Conditions (2009) .> .......... f +-' .., t ,.. '. + .,, --llalfflll E~~,;~-g!·1· -illJHIRlilF'§§lllll9!!6 Lane Configurations ' tt f ' tt Ideal Flow{vphpl) 1900 -1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Proiected . 0.95 1.00· 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1787 3574 FftP.ermlttad 0.-SS· J.00 1,00 -0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow jparm} 1770 3539 1583 1787 3574 Volum&"(Vph) 210 400 234 32 535 Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Adi~ Flow:(v_ph) 276 526 308 .. 704 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 177 0 0 i..n• Gn;iup Row (vph) 276 526 131 .. 704 Hea'.!'.l Vehicles{%( 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% Tum Type P,ot i:itmn e.,,, Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 Pef'11iltted Phases 4 Aciuated Green, G (s) 16.4 33.1 33.1 6.0 22.7 E~live-Green.9($) 17.4 34.6 34,6 7.0 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.30 Cleii\l'arlce Time($) 5.0 5.5 · 5.5 5.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 L.ineGrp cap (vph) 379 151)6 674 154, 1064 vis Ratio Prot c0.16 0.15 0.04 c0.20 vl!JR.ltio Perm 0.08 vie Ratio 0.73 0.35 0.19 0.44 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 29.7 15.8 14,6 35.3 25.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 lrn;retneM.il Delay; d2 6.8 ·~ 0.2 2.0 1,7 Delay (s) 36.6 15.9 14.8 37.3 26.7 lovi::I of Setvice D e B D C Approach Delay (s) 20.8 27.0 Approach LOS C C f ' " 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 l.00. 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 .... 1.00 1599 1805 1775 1.00 0.95 1.00·' 1599 1805 1775 50 196 41 0.76 0.76 0.76 .. 258 54 46 0 31 20 258 65 1% 0% 0% Po= P,ot 5 2 8 22.7 11.1 15.2 24.2 12.1 16.2 0.30 0.15 0.20 5.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 476 269 354 c0.14 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.96 0.1B 20.3 34,4 27,1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 43.2 0.3 20.3 77.5 27.3 C E C 63.9 E 1000 32 0.76 42 0 0 0% ' t 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1605 1900 0.95 1.00 1805 1900 60 76 0.76 0.76 79 100 0 0 79 100 0% 0% Prot 6.5 10.6 7,5 11.6 0.09 0.14 5.0 5.0 3.0 30 167 271 0.04 c0.05 0.47 35.0 1.00 2.1 37.1 0 0.37 31.5 1.00 0.9 32.4 C 32.4 C f 1900 4.0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1615 1.00 1615 165 0.76 217 186 31 0% Perm 6 10.6 11.6 0.14 5.0 3.0 230 0.02 0.13 30.5 1.00 0.3 30.7 C Wt!iffflfflt ~!lillffiENll~WHUllii&&llffi!~#J/KTirrtH~m0rmt<'fil02'i ·1''"0.~::··.,, HCM Ave-rage Control Deltay 30.1 HCM ~vel of S~fce C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 A.ctuateid~ l.ength (s) 81.3 Sum of lost lime {s} .16.0 Intersection Capacily Utilization 53.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Perjod (mio) 15 c Critical Lane Group M:\04\04435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchm fileslfuture Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group Page 2 Timings 3: SR 169 & 140th Way_ SE W1th-Pr0Ject Sunday Cona1t1ons (2009) ...... . • -'\ ,.. ~ffiff*iftll#ilfflffls/flJffliwtffl !ltrlViliNffllihJISRiL141:~,n:;m~wlidiz&f!!4ill1Jln¥1filtn1ma Lane Configurat101'\s +t 7' "i H ~~ r 725 590 300 Volume.{vph) 634 325 241 Tum Type Perm Prat Perm Proklcted Phases 4 3 a Permitted Phases .Of!tector Pl\a$e$ Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Tot.al Split (s) Total .Split(%) YelfoW Time (s) AJi;.RedThrie'(s} Lead/Lag lead~\,.ag Optimize? Recall Mode A9( Ettct Gree'n·(s} Actua1ed g/C Ratio vtCRatlo Con!rol Delay 0UBU&0elay Total Delay LOS 4 2 4 4 3 8 2 2 15,0 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 24.5 24.5 9.5 20,5 28.3 29.3 27.0 27.0 23.0 50.0 30.0 30.0 33.8% 33.8% 28.8% 62.5% 37.5% 37.5% 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 1n 1n ,~ ,~ 1~ 1.0 Lag Lag Lead Miri M>e None M>e None None 21.9 21.9 15.9 41.9 22.6 22.6 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.58 0.31 0.31 0.69 0.51 0.72 0.41 0.64 OA7 27.6 5.4 38.7 9.6 25.0 •.9 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 27,6 5.4 38.7 9.6 25.0 4.9 C A 0 A C A Approach Delay 20.1 16,9 18.2 ApProach LOS C • • W!liWB~ISl MHiJM¥iii!&fuW9lB-Riji!JF>1t~1;1rt~l11~RJli§%1;& C)'de 'Length: 80 Actuated Cyde Length: 72.7 N~tl,J~ .Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated ~1,pdinii,ro Vic Ratio: 0.72 lntersecbon Signal Delay: 18.4 Intersection LOS. B Intersection .Capacity Utilization 57.7% ICU leve'.I of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 EcdPhases J.SR 169& ESE f-+ ,, ~ --~ Jilli M:\04104435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro ftles\future Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group ~ Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: SR 169 & 14oth War SE With-Project Sunday Cond1t1ons (2009] ...... • • -'\ ,.. -illll!!lilll!3\!!r~il!!!IIIIIBll!!!!lill~IIMl!IDl~atm111Rrnmnl dSS?',.:-'· "~""·"- Lane Configurations tt r ~ H ~~ r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost lime (s) 4.0 4 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane-urn. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Pl'Olected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1787 3574 3467 1599 Fil Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1787 3574 3467 1599 Volume (vph) 634 325 24> 725 590 300 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph} 737 378 2SO 843 666 349 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 264 0 0 0 240 Lane Group Flow (vph) 731 114 28tl 843 686 109 Hea~ Vehicles(%} 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Tum Type Pe<m Prcit Porm Protected Phases 4 J a 2 PE!rmit:ted Phases 4 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20A 20.4 15.4 40.3 21.3 21.3 Effective Green, g (s} 21.9 21,9 15.9 41,8 ,, .. 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.58 0.31 0.31 Clearance: Time ($) 5.5 5,5 4.5 5,5 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension )sj 5.0 50 3.5 5.0 40 4.0 Lane Grp' Cap (vph) 1070 4Z!t 392 2063 1082 499 vis Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.16 0.24 c:0.20 vis Ratio Perm 0.07: 0.07 vie Ratio 0.69 0.24 0.71 0.41 0.63 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 22.2 19.0 26.1 8.5 21.4 18.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.5 6.3 0.3 1.4 0.3 Delay (s} 24.6 19.5 32.4 8.7 22.7 18.7 Level of Setvice C B C A C • Approach Delay (s) 22.9 14.6 21.4 Approach LOS C B C 1;'1liil!WD'.<>''. HCM Average Control Delay 19.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actllated Cycle Length (s) 72.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% Analysis Period (min) 1,5 c: Critical Lane Group Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service M:104104435.03 New Life Church Revision\LOS\Synchro files\future Sunday.sy7 The Transpo Group 12.0 B Page 4 Printed: 07-15-2009 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA09-076 City of R ento Pian · . n ll/lJg Drvision JUL 1 5 Zl!D9 Receipt Number: R0902973 Total Payment: 07/15/2009 04:21 PM 1,500.00 Payee: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 29274 1,500.00 Account Balances Amount 500.00 1,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, 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 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00