Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 3PROJECT NARRATIVE Reserve at Tiffany Park (Revised June 9, 2014) Existing Site Characteristics: City 01 Renton Planning Division JUI. 1 6 1014 The project site is 21.66 acres in size (or 943,331 square feet). The property consists of four tax parcels (212305-9044-02,212305-9051-02,212305-9054-09, and 212305-9061-00). There are no structures on the site, which is covered with mixed deciduous/coniferous trees commonly found in the Pacific Northwest. The site generally slopes from the east to west (approximately 40 feet in elevation), with an average slope ranging from 10% to 15%; however, in a small localized area, the slope reaches 25%. (Please see the ALTA Survey prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated July 7, 2013.) The dominant on-site tree species are Cottonwood, Alder, Big Leaf Maple, Douglas fir, Western Red Cedar, and Western Hemlock that reach up to 36 inches in diameter (please see the Tree Protection Plan prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. dated November 13, 2013 and amended June 6, 2014). All significant trees on the site have been surveyed (6-inch diameter at breast height [DBH] or greater) and are shown and identified on the ALTA Survey. The understory cover is predominately Salmonberry, Vine Maple, Western Hazelnut, Sword fern, Salal, Oregon grape, and Pacific Blackberry. The on-site soils consist of approximately 1 to 1.9 feet of topsoil; with an underlying "glacial till" soil (Vashon Lodgement Till). Please see the geotechnical report prepared by Associated Earth Science, Inc. dated September 28, 2012. Glacial till soils are generally suited for residential development and are one of the more common soil types in and around the City of Renton. There are five separate wetlands located on the site that have been delineated and surveyed (please see the Wetland Report prepared by C. Gary Schulz dated October 30,2013, first amendment February 28, 2014 and second amendment June 3, 2014). These wetlands have ratings of Category 2 and Category 3. There are no threatened or endangered species of plants or animals on the site as outlined in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment for Reserve at Tiffany Park dated January 2014 (including the amendment dated February 11, 2014 and project memo dated June 12, 2014) prepared by Soundview Consultants LLC. Access to the site is via an existing public roadway stub (S.E. 18th Street), which is located at the northwest corner of the property. A second public access point is deSignated as 124th Place S.E., which is stubbed to a point near the southwest corner of the property. This public roadway is separated from the project's south property line by the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way (approximately 100 feet). An agreement with Seattle Public Utilities will be required to allow the roadway to cross the pipeline right-of- way. For further information regarding access and traffic, please see the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by The Transpo Group, Inc. dated November 2013 and amended April 2014. The project site is surrounded by existing single-family subdivisions; however, along the south property line is the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way and along the east property line is the Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way. These utility rights-of-way are cleared for the most part and include maintenance roads that are gated for security; however, the right-of-way is used by local residents for passive recreation purposes such as walking. - 1 - 16055.010.doc ,. ,/ Project Proposal: The project proposal is for a 97 ·Iot single·family detached subdivision known as the "Reserve at Tiffany Park." The average lot size is 5,399 square feet, with the smallest lot being 4,500 square feet and the largest lot being 8,456 square feet. The overall project density is 5.70 dwelling units per net acre, which is below the maximum allowed under the current zoning of R·8. For more detailed information, please reference the revised Preliminary Plat Map prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated January 28,2014 and amended June 3, 2014. The project development plan includes a proposed on·site private passive park (1.39 acres). This park will be located over the proposed storm detention vault and will include landscaping, open lawn recreation area, irrigation, benches, tables, and a walking trail. The property is zoned R·8 (as well as the adjacent properties), which requires a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots. All lots within this proposal either meet or exceed the zoning development standards. As required by City code, all single·family residences will be subject to the Residential Design Standards. Other permits required for this development include the following: • State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review • Preliminary plat approval • Construction plan approval (water, sewer, roads, storm. and grading) • Final plat approval and recording • Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Permit • Department of Ecology NPDES Permit • Residential Building Permits • Access approval from the City of Seattle across the Cedar River Pipeline • Water easement from City of Seattle across Mercer Island Pipeline Right.of·Way As designed, there are approximately 3,300 lineal feet of proposed (on site) public right·of·way, which will be 53 feet wide with 26 feet of paving, curb, gutter, planter (8 feet wide), and sidewalk (5 feet wide) on both sides. The internal roadway network has been designed to provide connectivity, grid design, hardscape to protect the adjacent wetlands, and two short cul·de·sacs (both of which are less than 350 feet in length). There are four shared private access easements that serve up to three lots each. Two access points will be used to provide access to the subdivision as required by the City of Renton for circulation purposes and for public safety (emergency services). The proposed development provides wetland buffers as allowed by City regulations and as recommended in the wetland analysis. Each of the on·site wetlands will be protected within designated sensitive area open space tracts that will be owned and maintained by the project's Homeowners' Association (HOA). In addition to the wetlands, the sensitive area tracts also include additional area for the protection of significant trees, tree mitigation, and to provide a buffer "make·up" area for the proposed buffer averaging provisions allowed by code. Additionally, a private park (passive -1.39 acres) is proposed in Tract A. The total area for all sensitive areas and native/passive open space being provided is 5.41 acres or 25% of the site. The project development will utilize and extend existing City of Renton public utilities throughout the project site (water, sewer, and storm), as well as dry utilities (power, telephone, natural gas, and cable) to ·2· 16055.010.doc ,. serve all lots, Please reference the conceptual utility plans prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. for more detailed information. The revised project will also include an underground detention vault designed to the City of Renton Storm Drainage Manual standards and will include a Storm Filter vault for water quality. The original proposal included an open-water storm pond in the same general location. Stormwater will be discharged into a new 18-inch storm pipe to be constructed in S.E. 18th Street approximately 600 feet west of the property boundary where it will connect to an existing storm line in Lake Youngs Way S.E. For more detailed information regarding the proposed storm system, please reference the preliminary storm plan and Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. In order to construct the project as generally depicted on the preliminary grading plan, approximately 17.64 acres will be cleared. Approximately 22,000 cubic yards of topsoil will be stripped and removed from the site or retained for use on site after structural grading is completed. Approximately 70,000 cubic yards of structural soil will be cut for grading the roads and lots. A majority of this cut material will be used on site to construct the project to the final design grades. Any excess structural material will be exported from the site during construction along with any excess topsoil. These figures are approximate and will be determined at final engineering design. The total cost of construction for the roads and utilities is estimated to be approximately $8.8 million (or $90,000 per lot). The estimated fair market value of the lots upon completion is estimated to be between $180,000 and $200,000. We have not yet established the location of any model homes, job shacks, or a sales office. Wetlands/Buffer Averaging: All five wetlands located on site will be protected. No wetland fills are proposed with this application. These wetlands (and their buffers) will be located within four separate permanent open space tracts. We are proposing a limited amount of buffer averaging for design flexibility in several locations around the perimeter of the wetlands, which is allowed by the City of Renton codes. However, we have also provided substantially more buffer area around each wetland than the area being reduced in each case, resulting in much larger overall buffer area than required by code. (Please see the revised buffer averaging plan and wetland report prepared by C. Gary Schulz dated February 28, 2014 and amended June 3, 2014). As indicated in the Wetland Report, the proposed buffer additions (through averaging) will continue to have the physical characteristics necessary to protect water quality and wetland hydrologic functions, including flood storage. Tree Inventory/Tree Mitigation: Based on the Final Tree Protection Plan (second amendment) prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. dated June 6, 2014, there are 1,305 significant trees on site (please see the tree retention worksheet amended June 6, 2014). As required by code, 30% of the significant trees (approXimately 188 trees) must be protected or mitigation provided (tree replacement). The revised site plan (dated June 3, 2014) proposes to retain 147 healthy significant trees. As required by code, we are mitigating the reduction of 41 significant trees by installing 246 replacement trees within the perimeter buffers/native open space and within the proposed on-site park. The actual number of replacement trees will vary dependent on the final number of significant trees to be mitigated for once the final engineering plans are prepared. This meets the requirement for mitigation as required by the City of Renton. . 3 . 16055.010.doc r----------~ ------- (jeo tecnnica{ 'Engineering Water Resources 'Environmenta{ .7!ssessments ana Remediation Sustainali{e Deve{oyment Services (jeo{ogic .7!ssessments -----l Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Serving tfie Pacific Nortfiwest Since 19B1 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report TIFFANY PARK SITE Renton, Washington Prepared for Renton School District #403 . Project No. KE120359A September 28,2012 RECEiVr::D NOV 1420.13 CITY Of RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Serving tlie'Pacific Nortliwest Since 1981 September 28,2012 Project No. KE120359A Renton School District #403 Facility Operations and Maintenance 7812 South 1241h Street Seattle, Washington 98178 Attention: Mr. Rick Stracke Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, arid Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Stracke: We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the referenced report. This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and limited geotechnical engineering studies. This report is based on a site topographic survey by AHBL. dated February 8, 2008. This report is intended to provide a general geotechnical feasibility analysis of the site. This report is not intended to be used as the sole geotechnical input for any site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 12. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions, or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCmNCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington KDM/pcfld KE120359A4 Projects\20120359\KE\WP Kirkland 425-827-7701 • Everett 425-259-0522 www.aesgeo.com • Tacoma 253-722-2992 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT . TIFFANY PARK SITE Renton, Washington Prepared for: Renton School District #403 Facility Operations and Maintenance 7812 South 124th Street Seattle, Washington 98178 Prepared by: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 5 th Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 September 28,2012 Project No. KE120359A -------------- Tiffany Park Site Remon, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION Subslllface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and limited geotechnical engineering study for the subject site. The site location is shown on the "Vicinity Map," Figure 1. The approximate locations of explorations completed for this study, along with existing site features, are shown on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2. This report is based on a topographic survey sheet that was used as a basis for Figure 2. This report should be reviewed and revised as appropriate to support any specific development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-3-050 J2. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be used to characterize the general geotechnical engineering properties of the site. Our study included a review of selected geologic literature, excavating exploration pits, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water. Geotechnical engineering studies were completed to formulate our preliminary recommendations for site preparation, site grading, construction, and drainage. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers an overview of geotechnical characteristics of the site. We recommend that we be allowed to review and revise this report before it is used to support any specific development plan. 1.2 Authorization This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Renton School District and their agents for specific application to this project. Our work was performed in accordance with our scope of work and cost proposal dated August 28, 2012. We were authorized to proceed with this phase of work by means of a consultant agreement. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KE120359A4 -Projectsl20J203591KEIWP Page 1 Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Subswface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions No specific development plan has been formulated for the site. We understand that this study may be used to assess general geotechnical feasibility of potential future uses of the property. The site is relatively flat, and we anticipate that likely development proposals might include construction of low rise structures, paving for vehicle access, and buried utilities. We anticipate that these types of structures would be constructed relatively close to existing grades without the need for deep excavations or thick structural fills. The project includes four tax parcels, with a total combined area of slightly less than 22 acres. The site slopes down to the west with typically gentle slope inclinations and has a total vertical relief on the order of 50 feet. The site contains areas that meet City of Renton definitions for Geotechnical Critical Areas. Critical areas issues are discussed in detail later in this report. At the time of our reconnaissance, the site was covered with mature trees and moderate undergrowth. A series of pedestrian trails was present on-site. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included excavation of 12 exploration pits with a tracked excavator. The locations of the exploration pits were estimated based on measurements with hand-held tools from existing site features shown on the previously referenced site survey. The locations of these explorations should therefore be considered approximate. The exploration logs are presented in the Appendix. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations completed for this study. The number, locations, and depths of our explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KEJ20359A4 -Projects\ZOJ203591KEIWP Page 2 Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington 3.1 Exploration Pits Subswface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions The exploration pits were. excavated using a tracked excavator. The pits permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by a geologist from our firm. All exploration pits were. backfilled after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification as needed. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of selected geologic literature. The general distribution of geologic units is shown on the field logs. The explorations generally encountered native materials consisting of dense lodgement till sediments. Two exploration pits on the northwest part of the site encountered zones of granular sediments with low silt content within the lodgement till which was interpreted to represent lodgement till/advance outwash transitional sediments. Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are generally consistent with the conditions shown on a published geologic map of the area. We reviewed the Geologic Map of King County, Washington, by Derek B. Booth, Kathy A. Troost, and Aaron P. Wisher, 2006. The referenced map indicates that the site is underlain by lodgement till sediments. 4.1 Stratigraphy Grass/Topsoil A surficial layer of organic topsoil was encountered at the location of each of the exploration pits. This organic layer ranged from approximately 1 to 1.9 feet in thickness. Observed topsoil thickness is shown on the attached subsurface exploration logs. Due to their high organic content, these materials are not considered suitable for foundation, roadway, or slab- on-grade floor support, or for use in a structural fill. Vashon Lodgement Till Exploration pits encountered typically medium dense grading to very dense, silty sand with gravel, cobbles, and boulders interpreted as Vashon lodgement till. The lodgement till observed in our explorations graded from medium dense and brown in the weathered zone near the surface to gray to gray-brown at depth. Lodgement till was deposited at the base of an active continental glacier and was subsequently compacted by the weight of the overlying glacial ice. Lodgement till typically possesses high-strength and low-compressibility attributes September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWG/pcl/d -KEJ20359A4 -Projecfs120120359\KEIWP Page 3 Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Project and Site Conditions that are favorable for support of foundations, floor slabs, and paving, with proper preparation. Lodgement till is silty and moisture-sensitive. In the presence of moisture contents above the optimum moisture content for compaction purposes, lodgement till can be easily disturbed by vehicles and earthwork equipment. Careful management of moisture-sensitive soils, as recommended in this report, will be needed to reduce the potential for disturbance of wet lodgement till soils and costs associated with repairing disturbed soils. 4.2 Hydrology Weak ground water seepage was observed in exploration pit EP-6 below a depth of 8 feet. Sites underlain by lodgement till sediments commonly develop a seasonal perched ground water condition where surface water infiltrates into shallow weathered sediments, then encounters dense silty unweathered sediments that inhibit further downward infiltration. Ground water then becomes "perched" and tends to move laterally above the less permeable subsurface sediments. Though we did not observe perched ground water in explorations completed for this study, we anticipate that' perched ground water conditions are likely to develop seasonally at this site. The previously referenced topographic survey depicts two possible wetlands on-site that were identified and surveyed by others. Based on subsurface data summarized in this report, it appears likely that these wetlands formed in closed depressions underlain by relatively low-permeability lodgement till sediments. 4.3 Infiltration Feasibility The site is underlain at shallow depths by lodgement till sediments that are not a suitable infiltration receptor. Deeper infiltration strategies that rely on deep injection wells or pit drains might be feasible at this site. Shallow explorations completed for this limited study were not intended to determine the feasibility of deep infiltration strategies. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARm SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KE120359A4 -Projec1s120J203591KEIWP Page 4 Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washingion Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Repon Geologic Hazards and Mitigations II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and shallow ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. References to mapped critical areas are based on City of Renton Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping accessed on line. City code makes reference to critical areas maps. We have relied on City GIS mapping with the assumption that City critical areas maps are accurately depicted in the City GIS. 5.0 STEEP SLOPE HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The site contains areas mapped by the City of Renton GIS to be Sensitive Slopes, with inclinations of up to 40 percent. Sensitive slopes trigger the requirement for a Special Study in accordance with RMC Section 4-3-050 12. The site is not mapped to contain Protected Slopes. The RMC imposes development limitations on Protected Slopes, but not Sensitive Slopes. From a practical standpoint, in our experience slopes with inclinations and heights similar to those that currently exist at the site, and which are underlain by dense lodgement till sediments, are not typically considered to be at substantial risk of slope failures. 6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS Earthquakes occur regularly in the Puget Lowland. Most of these events are small and are not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the 2001, 6.8-magnitude event; the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event; and the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this region during recorded history and was centered in the Olympia area. Evaluation of earthquake return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within a given 20-year period. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. Review of City GIS maps indicates that the site is not underlain by areas considered by the City of Renton to be Seismic Hazard Areas. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KEJ20359A4 -Projeclsl20J20359lKEIWP Page 5 Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington 6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations The nearest known fault to the project site is the Seattle Fault Zone. Recent studies of the Seattle Fault Zone indicate that it is an active fault zone capable of generating surface ruptures. The Seattle Fault Zone is not well understood, and is an area of active research. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies, the recurrence interval of movements along the Seattle Fault Zone is unknown, but is speculated to be on the order of 1,100 years. The site is south of the currently recognized limits of the Seattle Fault Zone. 6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides The site is underlain at shallow depths by lodgement till, which typically performs well from a slope stability standpoint when exposed on slopes with inclinations such as those that currently exist on-site. In its current condition the site does not appear to be at substantial risk of seismically induced landslides. 6.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a temporary loss in soil shear strength that can occur when loose granular soils below the ground water table are exposed to cyclic accelerations, such as those that occur during earthquakes. The observed site soils are very dense and silty and are not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. No quantitative liquefaction analysis was completed for this study, and none is warranted for the project as currently proposed, in our opinion. 6.4 Ground Motion Structural design of buildings should follow the current applicable building code. The applicable code at the time this report was written is the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). The lodgement till soils observed in our explorations are consistent with 2009 mc Site Class "C", as defined in IBC Table 1613.5.2. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The site does not contain areas identified as High Erosion Hazard Areas in the City of Renton GIS. The site may contain areas considered by the City to be Low Erosion Hazard Areas, though Low Erosion Hazard Areas are not mapped in the City of Renton GIS and RMC does not impose substantial development limitations on sites with Low Erosion Hazards. We anticipate that any future development project on site will comply with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requirements for Construction Storm Water General Permits. We anticipate that permit conditions will require the use of Temporary Erosion and September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclfd -KE120359A4 -Projeclsl20J 203591KE\ WP Page 6 ------------------------------- - Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington ---------------------------------------- Subsuiface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Geologic Hazards and Mitigations Sedimentation Controls (TESCs) in accordance with local standards of practice, completion of weekly TESC checklists, and monitoring of construction storm water turbidity and pH. 8.0 COAL MINE HAZARDS An area west of the subject property was developed with underground coal mines in the past. Depending on the proximity, depth, and nature of the underground workings, sites underlain by old coal mines may be at risk of ground subsidence or other adverse effects. Typically sites that are known to be at risk of damage from coal mine hazards are subjected to a detailed assessment that includes research of historical coal mine maps, and often deep subsurface explorations. The purpose of these studies is to determine if coal mine hazards are actually present, to characterize any hazards, and to formulate coal mine hazard mitigation measures. These studies require a substantial cqrnmitment of time and effort, and are warranted in cases where existing data suggests that coal mine hazards may be present. The site is located approximately 250 feet east of the limit of an area of Moderate Coal Mine Hazards identified on the City of Renton GIS. Review of King County Imap resources indicates that the County considers the limits of the Coal Mine Hazard Area to be farther from the site boundary than does the City of Renton. The City of Renton does not require a Special Study for areas that lie more than 50 feet outside the limits of mapped Coal Mine Hazard Areas. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) did not complete a coal mine hazard assessment as part of this study. September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWG/pclld -KEI20359A4 -Projecfsl201203591KEIWP Page 7 ~--------------------.------------------------- Tiffany Park Site Renton, Wasilington SubsUlface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotecilnical Engineering Report Preliminary Design Recommendations III. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is suitable for support of conventional paving, lightly-loaded structures, and typical buried utilities. Support of moderate to high foundation loads would likely be technically feasible but is not expected to be needed for a future project at this site. Any specific development plan for the site should be supported by a geotechnical engineering report written specifically for the proposed project. This report is intended to provide feasibility-level preliminary geotechnical information. 9.0 GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Site Preparation Site preparation of building and paving areas should include removal of all grass, trees, brush, debris, and any other deleterious materials. Any existing fill should be removed. Existing topsoil should be stripped from structural areas. The actual observed in-place depth of topsoil and grass at the exploration locations is presented on the exploration logs in the Appendix. After stripping, remaining roots and stumps should be removed from structural areas. All soils disturbed by stripping and grubbing operations should be recompacted as described below for structural fill. Once excavation to subgrade elevation is complete, the resulting surface should be proof-rolled with a loaded dump truck or other suitable equipment. Any soft, loose, yielding areas or areas exposing existing fill should be excavated to expose suitable bearing soils. The subgrade should then be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density, as determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):D 1557 test procedure. Structural fill can then be placed to achieve desired grades, if needed. 9.2 Temporary Cut Slopes In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, however, temporary, unsupported cut slopes can be planned at 1.5H:IV (Horizontal:Vertical) in unsaturated weathered lodgement till, and at IH: 1 V in dense, unweathered till. These slope angles are for areas where ground water seepage is not present at the faces of the slopes, which may require temporary dewatering in the form of pumped sumps or other measures. If ground or surface water is present when the temporary excavation slopes are exposed, flatter slope angles may be required. As is typical with earthwork operations, some September 28, 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. BWGlpclld -KE120359A4 -Projecfs1201203591KEIWP Page 8 ,--------------------------- Tiffany Park Site Renton, Washington Subsuljace Exploration, Geologic Hazard. and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Preliminary Design Recommendations sloughing and raveling may occur, and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times. 9.3 Site Disturbance The on-site soils contain fine-grained material, which makes them moisture-sensItive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. 9.4 Winter Construction The lodgement till sediments contain substantial silt and are considered highly moisture-sensitive. We anticipate that most of the lodgement till sediments are above optimum moisture content for compaction purposes. It appears likely that soils excavated on-site will require drying during favorable dry weather conditions to allow their reuse in structural fill applications. Care should be taken to seal all earthwork areas during mass grading at the end of each workday by grading all surfaces to drain and sealing them with a smooth-drum roller. Stockpiled soils that will be reused in structural fill applications should be covered whenever rain is possible. If winter construction is expected, crushed rock fill could be used to provide construction staging areas. The stripped subgrade should be observed by the geotechnical engineer, and should then be covered with a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X, or equivalent. Once the fabric is placed, we recommend using a crushed rock fill layer at least 10 inches thick in areas where construction equipment will be used. 9.5 Structural Fill We anticipate that cuts and fills of up to about 10 feet could be required to establish subgrades for roads and buildings. Structural fill material selection and compaction standards should be determined based on the specific site development plan that is proposed. The native sediments on-site are expected to provide adequate support for structural fill if properly prepared. Excavated site soils could be used in structural fill applications but would require that earthwork be completed during favorable dry site and weather conditions when excavated materials can be aerated to reduce moisture content prior to compaction. The reuse of excavated on-site soil in structural fill applications will also require careful planning on the part of the contractor to accommodate the extreme moisture sensitivity of the site soils and to limit site disturbance. September 28. 2012 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. BWGlpcl/d -KEJ20359A4 -Projecls\20J203591KEIWP Page 9 ------------------~- Tiffany Park Site Remon, Washington 9.6 Foundations Subswjace Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report Preliminary Design Recommendations We anticipate that natural sediments observed at shallow depths in our exploration pits will provide adequate support for lightly-loaded foundations and floor slabs with proper preparation. Typical foundation soil bearing pressures of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot (pst) are feasible. Higher foundation soil bearing pressures are technically feasible with the soils we observed on-site but are not expected to be needed.' 9.7 Pavement Recommendations We anticipate that properly prepared native site soils will be suitable to support pavement sections that are typical for the intended use. We recommend that any public streets be designed to City of Renton standards. Private driveways and parking areas should be designed to support actual expected traffic loads when a project plan has been formulated and pavement usage can be estimated. 10.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING This report is based on previously referenced topographic survey information and on our observations of subsurface conditions. We recommend that this preliminary geotechnical feasibility report be reviewed and modified as needed to support any specific future project. We have enjoyed working with you on this study. If you should have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Bruce W. Guenzler, LE.G. Project Geologist Attachments: Figure 1: Figure 2: Appendix: September 28, 2012 Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Exploration Logs BWGlpclJd -KEJ20359A4 -Projecls\20120359IKEI WP Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. Senior PrinCipal Engineer ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES. INC. Page 10 REFERENCE : USGS TOPOl Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. HQR: BLACK AND WHITE REPROOUCTION OF THIS COLOR ORKiINAL MAY REOUCE ITS EFFECTIVENESSANO LEAD TO INCORRECT INTERPRETATION . VICINITY MAP TIFFANY PARK SITE RENTON , WASHINGTON N A 0 1000 2000 I I I FEET FIGURE 1 DATE 9112 PROJ . NO . KE120359A J 0 '" ~ ~ro 0 ",= 0 -Ii! N U" 0 '0-, Z "-~ ~~ " ~ = ~ CIJ", ~ '5 C' e :::J ° ::;; ~ s. '" 0 '" , :g '" 'C " .§ (!) '" if b'~ U) J: co == Ole>O :Co(./) I W'AII.n",d.d gravel and rg;-g;~1 GIl'll elfa"'ell with sand, little to fines sand sand with gravel, little to no fines Silty sand and SM silty sand with gravel Clayey sand and clayey sand with gravel ~--~------------~ Slit, sandy silt, gravelly slit, ML silt with sand or gravel Organic clay or silt of low I Terms Describing Density and Consistency Coarse- Grained Soils Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense SPTl2 )blows/foot 0104 41010 10 to 30 30 to 50 >50 Test Symbols G = Grain Size Consistency SPTl2)blows/foot Ot02 M = Moisture Content A = Atlerberg Umlts C = Chem'leal Fine- Grained Salls Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard 2t04 4 toB B to 15 15 to 30 >30 DO = Dry Density K = Permeability Descriptive Term Boulders Component Definitions Size Range and Sieve Number Larger than 12' Cobbles Gravel Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Sand Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Send Sill and Clay 3' to 12' 3" to NO.4 (4.75 mm) 3' to 3/4" 3/4'10 No, 4 (4.75 mm) No.4 (4.75 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) No.4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm) No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm) No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm) Estimated Percentage Moisture Content Dry -Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Slightly Moist· Perceptible moisture Component Percentage by Weight Trace <5 Few 5 to 10 Utile 15 to 25 With -Non-primary coarse constituents: ~ 15% • Fines content between 5% and 15% Moist -Damp but no visible water Very Moist -Water visible bUI not free draining Wet· Visible free water, usually from below water lable Symbols Sampler Type 2.0"00 Splil-Spoon Sampler Blows/6"·or portion of 6' I .. " • Sampler Type Description 3,0' 00 Splil·Spoon Sampler (.) Cemenl groul surface seal Bentonite seal L-...jl!ll'--.,.,.,-,--..,-,,-:----l (SPl) of high plasticity, 3.25" 00 Split·Spoon Ring Sampler :. Filter pack with :": blank casing ::. seclion sandy or gravelly clay, fat Bulk sample clay with sand or gravel __ + __________ -1 Grab Sample 3.0" 00 Thin-Wail Tube Sempler (Including Shelby tube) .. : .. Screened caSing •• ' or Hydrolip ": wllh filler pack : OrganiC clay or slit of Portion not recovered ~~O-H+m~e~d~iu~m~t-o-h-i9-h----~ Percentage by dry weight 12) (SPl) Standard Penetration Test (ASTM 0.1586) Peat, muck and other highly organic soils 13) In General Accordance with Standard Practice for Description :" End cap 14) Depth of ground water !t Am = At time of drilling 41. Static water level (date) (6) Combined USCS symbols used for fines between 5% and 15% I and Identification of Solis (ASTM D'248B) i Classllicallons of solis In this report are based on visual field andlor laboratory observations, which Include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, plastlcfly estimates and should not be construed to Imply field or laboratory tesUng unless presented herein. Vlsual·manual andlor laboratory classlficallon methods of ASTM 0-2487 and 0-2488 were used as an Identification guide for Ihe Unffied Soli Classification System. ======================================== ! Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, i.~~H. EXPLORATION LOG KEY FIGURE Al D ________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ "R ., o 1 - LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1 This Jog is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESl) for the named project and should be read togett1er with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavatIon', Subsurlace conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are· a simplficatlon of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till 2 -Medium dense, moist, mottled gray and brown, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 5 - Vashon Lodgement Till I Vashon Advance Outwash Transitional Sediments 6 -Dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse SAND, with fine to coarse gravel, few silt; no stratification (SW). 7 - 8 - Very dense, moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with siit, little fine to coarse gravel; no 9 -stratification or structure (SM). 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10.5 feet No seepage. No caving. 5--~2~Or------------------------------------------------------------­N ~------------------------------------------------------------- i « " ~ ~ 13 Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6112 ~~-------------------------=====--~====~ g t o 2 - 3 - LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read toget~er with that report for complete Interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION . Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 4 ~--------'v~a~S~h~o=n'L~o~d~g7em~e=nt~Tr.lrrIl7/"v~as~h~o~n~ArdIv~a~n~c7e'O~u~tw~a~s~h~T~r=a=n7sl~ti~o=nrS~e~d~im=e~n~t7s---------­ Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray grading to gray, fine to coarse SAND, with 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13- 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - silt, little fine gravel (SM); pockets of gray, fine to medium SAND, few silt (SP). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10.5 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~--~2~Or--------------------------------------------------------------------------------w------------------------------------------------------------- ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ---------------------------------------------------- g fr o 1 - LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-3 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read togetlier with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. . DESCRIPTION Topsoil r----------------------------... W~e~a~th~e~r~ed70.V~as~hco~n'L·o-d~g~e~m~e~n7t·T~III.---------------------- 2 -Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (8M). 3 - 4 - 5 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (8M). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~--~2~O~------------------------------------------------------------ ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- j i3 ~ " ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: . Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 916112 ------------------------------------------------------------ LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-4 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read togellisr with that report for complete Interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurlace conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a slmplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION TopSOil 1 - ~---------------------"W~e~a~th~e~r~ed~V~a~shLo~n~L'o~d~g~e~m~e~n~t~T~II'I----------------------- 2 -Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - stratification or structure (SM). Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, moist, gray, fine to coarse SAND, with siit, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10.5 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~ 20 :i J ~ ~ ~ ~ t Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6112 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-5 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete Interpretation. This summary applies only to the locaflon of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. . DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till Medium dense, moist, mottled brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt (SM). 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10.5 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~--~2~O~------------------------------------------------------------ 00-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jj i 0' "! ~ g Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6112 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 - LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-6 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil ~----------------------------=~~~~~~~------~~-----------------------------Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till 2 -Medium dense, moist, mottled brown, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist to wet, mottled gray grading to gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 10 4----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 .17 - 18 - 19 - Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet Weak seepage zones below 8 feet. No caving. ~--~2~O~------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ ~------------------------------------------------------------- <i ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A ~ Approved by: I. h:f!il fI!J Iiml • ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9/6112 -------------------------------------------------------- N I 1 - LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-7 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences. Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation, Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplficatlon of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till 2 -Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 11 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Vashon lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray grading to gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine gravel, trace coarse gravel and cobbles, one boulder; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet No seepage. No caving. ~ 20 ~ ~ r Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,---------------------~------------------------------ 1 - LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-8 This log Is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read togetner with that repqrt for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till 2 -Medium dense, very moist, reddish brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt, few fine to coarse gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 5- 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles; no stratification or structure (SM). 10 ~-------------------------------- 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~-~20~--------------------------------------------------------------- 0' " ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6112 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - LOG OF EXPLORATION PiT NO. EP-9 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Scfences, Inc. (AESJ) tor the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a slmplflcatlon of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till Medium dense, moist, mottled brown, fine to medium SAND, with silt; no stratification or structure (SM). Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, little fine to coarse gravel, trace cobbles and boulders; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit al deplh 9 feel No seepage. No caving. N ~--~2~O~------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J 0: " ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6112 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 - 2 - 3 - --------1 LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-10 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the locafion of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, trace fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 4 ~--------------------------"Vcas~hco~n~L'o~dTg~e~m~e~n7t.Tmill'-------------------------­ Dense grading to very dense, moist, mottled gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, few fine to coarse gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 8 feet No seepage. No caving. N ~-~2~Or--------------------------------- ~------------------------------------------------------------- I « "! ~ § Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,----------------------------------------------------------- LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-11 g This log Is part of the report .l'repared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for tha namad wojact and should be .c read togettier with that rape for comR,ete Interpretation. this summary a~Plles only to the loea ion of this trench al the a tima of axcavallon. Subsurtaca condl ions may change at this locallon wit the passage of time. The data presented are " 0 a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 - Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till 2 -Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, trace fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 Vashon Lodgement Till 5 -Dense grading to very dense, very moist, mottled gray, fine to medium SAND, with silt, few line to coarse gravel, trace cobbles; no stratification or structure (SM). 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 -Bottom of exploration pit at deplh 8.5 feet No seepage. No caving. 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - N ~ 28 ~-------------------------------------------------------------~ i Jl " ~ ~ ~ Loggad by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ~----------~---------------------------------------- '. " LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-12 This log Is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read toget~er with that report for complete Interpretation. This summary applies only to the locafion of this trench at the time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are a slmplficatlon of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 - ~--------------------~W"e~a~thLe~re~d'V~a~shLo~n~Lo-d'g~e~m~e~n~t·T~iI·I--~------------------- 2 -Medium dense, moist, light brown, fine SAND, with silt, trace fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - Vashon Lodgement Till Dense grading to very dense, moist, mottled brown and gray grading to gray, fine to coarse SAND, with silt, few fine gravel; no stratification or structure (SM). Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet Ne seepage. No caving. N ~--~2~O~------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ~------------------------------------------------------------- ;;> ~ ~ ~ Logged by: BWG Approved by: Tiffany Park Site Renton, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Project No. KE120359A 9/6/12 ------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I : z --n . o u .. ~ . (, .' I <,., ...... I\'Q a:NG'l4o PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Reserve at Tiffany Park S.E. 18th Street and 124th Place S.E. Renton, Washington Prepared for: Henley USA, LLC 11100 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 November 12,2013 Revised February 24,2014 RECE\VED MP-R 0 320\4 City Of RENtON PLANNING DIVISION CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING Our Job No. 16055 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES. TUMWATER, WA. LONG BEACH, CA. WALNUT CREEK, CA. SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com . I • '. '. • '. I I I • I I I • • I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 -Site Location Figure 2 -Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 3 -Soils 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 11.0 APPENDIX A -Lower Cedar River Basin And Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan 16055.003.doc .--------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Project Owner Henley USA LLC Phone (425) 709-6527 Address 11100 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Project Engineer Barry J. Talkington P.E. Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers Phone (425) 251-6222 ·~I.~·~;jt~PE;cg~j~~~Nlr;1m~~I~~~i9:~~i~W@i. c.;',:'>' iii Landuse Services Subdivison I Short Subd. I UPD D Building Services M/F I Commerical I SFR lEI Clearing and Grading iii Right-ot-Way Use o Other Type ot Drainage Review (circle): Date (include revision dates): I""i=JilI Targeted I '1:iirge Site February 12; 2014 Project Name Reserve at Tiffany Park DOES Permit # _________ _ Location Township -"23,,,N.:!...... __ _ Range _--"5,,,E~ __ _ Section _--=-21-'--___ _ Site Address East of Intersection of S.E. 18th Street and Monroe Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 0 DFWHPA 0 COE404 D DOE Dam Safety D FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Other Type (circle one): Date (include revision dates): D Shoreline Management [I Structural RockeryNauIU __ o ESA Section 7 IFuiil f Modified I '"siiiiI1 Site January 28, 2014 Type (circle one): Standard I Complex I Preapplication I Experimental I Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual I 119/2009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------- KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Monitoring Required: yes~/~N~0~~~II~~~~~~~~~~~~1~11~------- Start Date: Completion Date: Community Plan: -;-___________ _ Special District Overlays: ______________________ _ Drainage Basin: Lower Cedar River Basin Stormwater Requirements: DRiver/Stream ________ _ o Steep Slope ________ _ D Lake D Erosion Hazard _______ _ D Wetlands _________ _ D Landslide Haiard -------D Closed Depression _______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ D Floodplain __________ _ D Seismic Hazard _______ _ D Other __________ _ D Habitat Protection D ------ Soil Type AgC Slopes 6-15 percent Erosion Potential High AmC D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Other D Additional Sheets Atlached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 6-15 percent 2 D Sole Source Aquifer D Seeps/Springs High 1/912009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET REFERENCE LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT o Core 2 -Offsite Analysis o Sensitive/Critical Areas o SEPA o Other 0 _________ _ o Additional Sheets Attached ... ···)idig~d~~·g~+I§§J~~~it§t(~~jg~Wfh¢~~h6Id:bi~~~~r~~Ai~~J<+ .~::-::--,--; Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET Threshold DIscharge Area: (name or description) Discharge to existing conveyance system at S.E. 18th Street and Lake Youngs Way S.E Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1 Offsite Analysis Level: (0/ 2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 ~Wsl 3 or Exemption Number (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BM s Conveyance System Spill containment located at: N/A Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: TBD Contact Phone: TBD After Hours Phone: TBD Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private / ~ If Private, Maintenance LOll Required: Yes /No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes I No Liability Water Quality Type: D~ Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemptl o. Landscape ManaQement Plan: Yes /(Nc» Special Regulrements las applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac. ~ Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption /8 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe landuse: N/A (comm.lindustriallanduse) Describe any structural controls: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 11912009 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes /~ Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / ® with whom? Other Dralnaae Structures Describe: 'Piiit13/EROSION',AND':SEDIMENTCQNTROLREQUIREMENTS:< , '-. -'--""i" /:/':':')" .::[:, 'i:,?<,~ ~·}C}':,:: '-'. -, :':'<:;i';":~':"; .;;.-.t:. ", ',.-.. -" ',"':i"' MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION I:EI Clearing Limits o Stabilize Exposed Surfaces I:EI Cover Measures 0 Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities lEI Perimeter Protection o Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure o Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities I:EI Sediment Retention o Flag Limits of SAO and open space lEI preservation areas Surface Water Collection o Other 0 Dewatering Control ~ Dust Control 0 Flow Control :Piirt:,14;STORMWA TER: FACILiTY:DESCRIPTIONSINote: :,Inchide 'FacilitV:Summiihliirid; Sketch Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Tvpe/Description [] Detention Vault o Biofiltration o Infiltration o Wetpool o Regional Facility [) Media Filtration Storm Filter o Shared Facility o 011 Control o Flow Control o Spill Control BMPs o Flow Control BMPs o Other o Other 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 119/2009 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET ~ Drainage Easement o Covenant IKl Native Growth Protection Covenant ~ Tract o Other o Cast in Place Vault lEI Retaining Wall ail Rockery > 4' High o Structural on Steep Slope o Other 'Paiti17'!SIGNATURE'OF"PROFESSIONAljENGINEER"ii"'\,i:' '" '" ",:,;<i' •• ""," "'" /Y);:'C',.:L,;:..:?'''ci\\':\,;'V/,,5' 2009 Surface Water Design Manual lied the site. Actual site conditions as observed were Technlcallnfonnatlon Report. To the best of my ~~~:---: February 12, 2014 1/912009 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Plat of Reserve at Tiffany Park is a single-family residential project consisting of 98 lots zoned R8. The project is 21.66 acres in size containing four tax parcels (212305-9044. 212305-9051.212305-9054. and 212305-9061). The site is located at the dead end of S.E. 18th Street near the intersection of Monroe Avenue S.E. in a portion of Section 21. Township 23 North. Range 5 East. W.M .• in the City of Renton. The site is polygonal in shape and ties into two existing road stubs. The first is located in the northwest corner of the site at the dead-end of S.E. 18th Street. The second road stub is located to the southwest of the site on the southern side of the Cedar River Pipeline at the dead-end of 124th Place S.E. These road stubs are to be tied into and will be extended into the site to provide public access and circulation. This site is undeveloped and is currently zoned R8; with a majority of the site being composed of second-grow1h forest. The elevations of the site range from 456 to 398. There are four wetlands located on site; three of them are Category 2. with one Category 3. For further detail please refer to the Wetland Determination Report prepared by C. Gary Schultz within section 6.0 of this report. The site is entirely surrounded by existing single family residences. Along the east property line is the Mercer Island Pipe Line RlW. Along the south boundary is the Cedar River Pipeline RlW. Access to the site from 124th Place S.E will require the developer to obtain right of way or an easement through the Cedar River Pipeline RlW. On-site soils are mapped as mostly Alderwood. with a small portion along the southern boundary mapped as Arents. Please refer to the Soils Map in this section. All drainage calculations were modeled as till soils. The project will be constructing roadways consisting of curb and gutter. sidewalk. and street trees. The site will tie into the existing roads at the dead-ends of S.E. 18th Street and 124th Place S.E. All roads for this project have been designed to be 26 feet wide. with a 7-foot planter strip at the back of curb and a 5-foot sidewalk (both sides). Overall the proposed public right-of- way is to be 53 feet in width. The topography on site is gentle and rolling. The site generally slopes from east to west from elevation 456 to 398. The project will be mass graded with cuts and fills balanced onsile. The wetland areas will remain undisturbed along with portions of their buffers. Buffer averaging is proposed. Other portions of the site will remain undisturbed in an effort to preserve as many existing trees as possible. The drainage facilities are required to meet the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The drainage design shall meet at a minimum the Conservation Flow Control and Basic Water Quality Treatment. The drainage facility located in Tract A is a detention pond sized for Level 2 Flow Control. Water quality will be met by the use of a Storm Filter for this project. The project will be discharging the drainage from the pond to the I, calculations. \\ '/ ~. existing drainage syst~ within S.E. 18th Street. Please refer to Section 4.0 for detailed drainage dJ\6~ , 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~r~~~~~_--~-~~-r- ~ .'U"T~J-!I-!l ----REFERENCE: Thomas Guide (2006) Hot1zontlJl: H. T.S . VMica/: HlA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251~222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING , LAND PLANNING. SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAl SERVICES For: Title: I P:\16000s116055\exhlbH'lgraphb\16055 Vfflap .cdr • Reserve at Tiffany Park Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP Job Number 16055 QAIf; 11/04/13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REFERENCE: King County Department of Assessments (Dec, 2011) Horizontal: N. T.S . Vertical: NlA 18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PlANNING, SURVE YING , ENVIRONMENTAL SERVI CES For: Title : I P :\16000s\16055\e.whiblr\gntphic3\16055 amap.cdr : Reserve at Tiffany Park Renton, Washington ASSESSOR MAP •• \ '" ". ..... " ~'. Job Number 16055 llAIE; 11/04/13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTHEAST SOUTHEAST 16TH PLACF.--.. I.lI\-l"i'~S':"· ----'l --______ ~A~~~~~'Urf ____ ~S~O JEFFERSON COURT SOUIHLAST ZONE X 21 KIRKLAND COURT SOUTHEAST SOUTHEAST ~ 20TH COURT m z c: m SOUTHEAST 18TH COURT CITY OF R NTON 530088 19TH COURT SE '" m SITE "123RD PLACE SOUTHEAST SOUTHEAST 128TH PLACE- SOUTHEAST LEGEND OTHER AREAS CORPOR. ZONE X A"".,. dd .. ,minf'(1 In ll<' <~It,icll' ~IM1.,'~." A,v~ll,l,lIn REFERENCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Portion of Map 53033C0983 F, May 1995) Scale: Horizontal: N. T.S. Vertical: NlA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVil ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: Title: Reserve at Tiffany Park Renton, Washington FEMAMAP Job Number 16055 JUiIE: 11/04/13 I P:116000s1 160551exhibitlgraphicsl 16055 feme. cdr - - I' \"'; ( I ,,~-I .' .... --"-"'\ ;.;'........ \\ I - y-: ............. .... \" .... .... .. \;-< I I I' I \ .. ~- I I ";.\ ..... -I'" I I' " .. J\ I ,I I I \< I I .. -- I" >0 I , \ ," , -\ . .\. .. " I I, I' ;.\' /, '-,- I I "I I -, I , _.l, \ . ,.\ \>, " , I \ : \," \ : _J. Ie' .... --.-'\ .... <\7-~-\ ... '.-. \'\. . \ , ---I ......... \-------\ \ ........ \ "I, ' , I :.:--\ , I I I I " I -'--I I "\' , I I I -- 16055 _1 _1_ ---I I I, I U ") , J , i / '-{ , I ,I '\ \. I ,...-- I I I \ ------1--- i\ // I I \ ---;1------ ': \' \l--------~ : : ,...' : ( I 'I il: I, /r",i~----~'--,', { , ' I: "-, ! ~----~--cJ /' " r, , L------J I I , I J--_ J 18215 72NO AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX ------- .• ! , , .I .. ~.' ... ,,.-,:" HENLEY USA LLC 11100 MAIN B'mEET, SUITE 100 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 - .. , ~. ---- a,. Ck<I. "AIr . PREDEVELOPED BASIN FOR '< - I I I / ..... ::--.; , ( jj m o ~ r 11° oiil :DO ~ Z ~ » '1l RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK JnlVcl AN'fI441.L .L'fI3iUl3S:inl HO.l I 1 I I d'tI'l NIS'I8 C3dOl3A30 1 I· // 1 1 1 1 I I I I I f 1 I I I I I f f f f f f /. f f f f f f f \ / I I I I -'- , I f f I f f f f f f f ~' --.. - f f f f 110086 '1M '31lA3T138 001 3JJns '1331ilS NI'ffl 00111. 011 'ISO A31N3H I f f f f .. f . f - w , , \ \ ... --- \ \ -' -~ -i---\ -",-\..--- \ \ -~ \ --, xv.:! zelB-LSZ(SZt) m9-Ig,(m) <:£096 VM '00)1 HlllOS 3nNJAV GNU Sizel I , , , , , , , I I I , I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ A 1 \ 1 \ / \ I \ I \ I \ I \ \ \ \ --, \ \ \ --- .... --- \ \ ~ '----'-_J....._ .. '-_--!...I _---'...-_"_·_·--.J..I ___ -IL-__ -- , - ..... ;. I I I ,r .. - 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (.25)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX - CMI.. ENGINEERING. LAND PLNiNIt«>. SUFNE"I'INC, EtfJIRON"ENTAL SERVICES ------- HENLEY USA Ll.C moo MAIN S I AEE I, SUITE 100 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 -- -- "-+-~'''' ,,", I I I -+-I , ~ 1-.' I -.,-- I J .... "" •• ' I ... / ....... . ::::.~:.: ... :/ -' ... . 'I. I ~ >"'f I ; / ,,~ I • " ... J. I I /'- o " • UPSTIlEAM BASIN MAP FOR RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK - / , c ~ m '11> 0:5: :0 III 6) Z :5: > "'0 -------~-~--------- --~GHACt.s> 18215 72NO AVENUE SOUTH 16055 ~"; \ KENT, WA 98032 41 " (425)251-6222 ~. ~i ... (425)251-8782 tAX -..., ~.')" .' eM.. 0I0IrtmIIfrC, lNID I"I.ANHNC, _1 1 "("It. : ... ". ..... StIM'rIC, DMIIOtrIIIOffAL S£JIM::D --""-.... --"" ........ --""-, ..... --""--_ JUI£U ". .. HeLEY USA Ll.C moo MAtl STREE f, SlKTE 100 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 - DOWNSTAEAM BASIN MAP FOR RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REFERENCE : USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Horizontal: N. T.S. VerlicoI, NlA 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251 -8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING. lAND PlANNING, SU RVEYING , ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:\ 16000 .. 1 160S5IIJxhlbJtlQraphb\ 16055 soil.cdr LEGEND ' AgC = Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6-15% slopes AmC = Arents, Alderwood material , 6-15% slopes For: Title: Reserve at Tiffany Park Renton, Washington SO IL SURVEY MAP Job Number 16055 .DAlE: 11 /04/13 I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 2.2 Analysis of the Core Requirements Core Requirement NO.1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: The storm drainage from the project will be conveyed to a detention vault that will outlet to the existing downstream drainage system in S.E. 18th Street per the City of Renton's request. This will serve as our project discharge location. A portion of the lots along the existing wetlands (Wetland A, Wetland B and Wetland C) will discharge their roof drains into the wetland areas to maintain wetland hydrology. Runoff from these wetlands will be collected and routed to the onsite drainage facility. Core Requirement No.2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: A Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis is provided in Section 3.0 of this Technical Information Report. Core Requirement NO.3: Flow Control. Response: The project is providing a detention facility which is designed for Conservation Flow Control (Level 2). Core Requirement NO.4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance and backwater analysis will be provided in final engineering. Core Requirement NO.5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: Temporary erosion control measures will be provided in final engineering. Core Requirement NO.6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: A Maintenance and Operations Manual will be provided in final engineering. Core Requirement No.7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: The project will provide a Site Imp'rovement Bond Quantity Worksheet to establish a bond amount for drainage facility restoration and site stabilization financial guarantee prior to construction. Core Requirement No.8: Water Quality. Response: This project utilizes a Storm Filter sized for Basic Water Quality Treatment. Sizing will be completed during final engineering. Analysis of the Special Requirements Special Requirement NO.1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Response: The propgsed project is not located in a designated Critical Drainage Area. 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I . ' I I I I I I I I I I I Special Requirement NO.2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: As indicated by the FEMA Map included in this report (portion of Map 53033C0983 F, May 1995), the proposed site does not lie within a floodplain or floodway or a stream, so this special requirement does not apply. Special Requirement NO.3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility or propose to modify or construct a new flood protection facility, so this special requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No.4: Source Control. Response: The project does not require a commercial building or commercial site development permit, so this special requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No.5: Oil Control. Response: This site is not classified as a High Use Site given the criteria in the 2009 KCSWDM, so this special requirement does not apply and no special control treatment is necessary . Special Requirement No.6: Aquifer Protection Area Response: The project site is located within a Zone 2 Aquifer Protection Area. Per the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual, the only requirements are to provide liners to open water drainage facilities and conveyance systems. This project proposes to provide a closed detention facility (underground vault) and closed conveyance system; therefore, this Special Requirement is not applicable. 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Task 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The proposed Plat of Reserve at Tiffany Park is a single-family residential project consisting of 98 lots zoned R8. The project is 21.66 acres in size containing four tax parcels (212305-9044, 212305-9051, 212305-9054, and 212305-9061). The site is located at the dead end of S.E. 18th Street near the intersection of Monroe Avenue S.E. in a portion of Section 21, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton. The site is polygonal in shape and ties into two existing road stubs. The first is located in the northwest corner of the site at the dead-end of S.E. 18th Street. The second road stub is located to the southwest of the site on the southern side of the Cedar River Pipeline at the dead-end of 124th Place S.E. These road stubs are to be tied into and will be extended into the site to provide public access and circulation. This site is undeveloped and is currently zoned R8; with a majority of the site being composed of second- growth forest. The elevations of the site range from 456 to 398. There are four wetlands located on site; three of them are Category 2, with one Category 3. For further detail please refer to the Wetland Determination Report prepared by C. Gary Schultz within section 6.0 of this report. The site is entirely surrounded by existing single family residences. Along the east property line is the Mercer Island Pipe Line RIW. Along the south boundary is the Cedar River Pipeline RIW. Access to the site from 124th Place S.E will require the developer to obtain right of way or an easement through the Cedar River Pipeline RIW. On-site soils are mapped as mostly Alderwood, with a small portion along the southern boundary mapped as Arents. Please refer to the Soils Map in this section. All drainage calculations were modeled as till soils. " The project will be constructing roadways consisting of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. The site will tie into the existing roads at the dead-ends of S.E. 18th Street and 124th Place S.E. " All roads for this project have been designed to be 26 feet wide, with a 7 -foot planter strip at the back of curb and a 5- foot sidewalk (both sides). Overall the proposed public right-of-way is to be 53 feet in width. The topography on site is gentle and rolling. The site generally slopes from east to west from elevation 456 to 398. The project will be mass graded with cuts and fills balanced onsite. The wetland areas will remain undisturbed along with portions of their buffers. Buffer averaging is p"roposed. Other portions of the site will remain undisturbed in an effort to preserve as many existing trees as possible. The drainage facilities are required to meet the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The drainage design shall meet at a minimum the Conservation Flow Control and Basic Water Quality Treatment. The drainage facility located in Tract A is a detention vault sized for Level 2 Flow Control. Water quality will be met by the use of a StormFilter for this project. In order to provide the necessary depth within the detention facility a new conveyance system will be constructed within S.E. 18th Street and connect to the existing storm line at the intersection of S.E. Lake Youngs Way. Please refer to Section 4.0 for detailed drainage calculations. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: Upstream of the site to the northeast is the existing Mercer Island Pipeline. This pipeline is approximately 60 feet wide. The pipeline is fully cleared with grass overgrowth and is slightly crowned along the center of the right-of-way for its full length adjacent to the project site. Due to the inability to efficiently bypass the 30-foot-wide portion that flows onto the project site, it is proposed that this region of runoff be collected and routed to the on-site drainage facility. As such, this area is being considered as part of the pre-developed site and is not part of the upstream basin. 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I There is also an upstream basin to the east of the Mercer Island Pipe Line RIW that will be bypassed through the site and around the on site drainage facilities. This basin consists of runoff from a portion of 129th Place S.E. and the 19th Court S.E. cui de sac along with the surrounding homes. Runoff from this basin is collected and routed by a series of catch basins and storm pipes to an existing ditch along the east side of the pipeline RIW. A twelve-inch culvert crosses the pipeline and discharges runoff into the on site Wetland "D". Runoff from this upstream basin and from Wetland "D" will be collected in a separate conveyance system and routed through the site. For further detail please refer to the Upstream Basin Map in Section 1.0. 16055.003.doc -------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------- TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW • Adopted Basin Plans: The site is located within the Mainstem subarea of the Cedar River Basin. The Mainstem subarea is included in the Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan. Refer to Appendix A for the portions of the basin that applies to this project. • Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable. • Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: This site is located in the Mainstem subarea of the Lower Cedar River Basin, which is covered by the Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan dated July 1997 (included in Appendix A). • Critical Drainage Area Maps: This project will not discharge to any critical areas or wetlands as it is to tie into an existing storm drain conveyance system downstream of the detention and water quality system. As a result no critical areas are to be affected. • Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the attached FEMA Map (Section 1.0) utilized for this analysis. As indicated on the map the site is located in Zone X and is outside of the 500-year flood plain. • Other Off·Site Analysis Reports: A site investigation was conducted in preparation of this Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service Map is also provided. See Figure 3 -Soils Map in Section 1.0. • Sensitive Areas Folios: Based on a review of the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folios, the site does not contain any On-Site Wetlands, Erosion Sensitive Areas, Land Slide Areas, or any Known Drainage Complaints. However, through field survey and analysis it has been determined that there are four wetlands on site. As a result a formal wetland study is included in Section 6.0. • Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable: • United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on the Soils Map (see Figure 3 -Soils Map Section 1.0) for this area, the majority of the site is located in the soils configuration known as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, and there is a small portion along the south end of the project that is classified as Arents, Alderwood material. • Wetland Inventory Map: Using the COR Maps and NWMaps applications on the City of Renton website there is no known documentation or inventory of wetlands for the project site. However, through field survey and analysis it has been determined that there are four wetlands on site. As a result a formal wetland study is included in Section 6.0. • Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable. • City of Renton Aquifer Protection Zones: Per the City of Renton's GIS Map the project site is located within a Zone 2 Aquifer Recharge Area. 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION The field reconnaissance for this Level 1 Off-Site Drainage Analysis was conducted on August 16, 2013 and November 5, 2013 for the purpose of analyzing the proposed project site and its upstream and downstream corridors. The site visit on August 16, 2013 was sunny and dry with no evidence of standing water or ponding along the ditch line north of the Mercer Island Pipeline. The visit on November 5, 2013 was cloudy with rain, with evidence of mild runoff from the cul-de-sac of S.E. 19th Court to its deSignated collection system. It should be noted that there was some evidence of flowing or standing runoff along the ditch line north of the Mercer Island Pipeline, but at the locations inspected depths did not exceed more than 1 inch. The off-site drainage system was inspected one-quarter mile downstream following the existing closed conveyance system to Tiffany Park Elementary School where the runoff is collected by a 60-inch trunk line and ultimately conveyed northwest to Ginger Creek. 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) 3.2 3.3 Conveyance system nuisance problems are minor but not chronic flooding or erosion problems that result from the overflow of a constructed conveyance system that is substandard or has become too small as a result of upstream development. Such problems warrant additional attention because of their chronic nature and because they result from the failure of a conveyance system to provide a minimum acceptable level of protection. There were no conveyance system nuisance problems observed during the August 16, 2013 site visit. Furthermore, based on a review of the drainage complaints received from the City of Renton, there is no evidence of past conveyance system nuisance problems occurring in the direct downstream drainage course, as there is a record of none having been submitted. This site will have a Level 2 Flow Control, which will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to 50 percent of the pre-developed site and will provide adequate mitigation to prevent any future drainage complaints as a result of this proposed site development. Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) Severe erosion problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the concentration of runoff into erosion-sensitive open drainage features. Severe erosion problems warrant additional attention because they pose a significant threat either to health and safety or to public or private property. Based on our site visit there and the lack of drainage complaints, there was no evidence of or potential for erosion/incision sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard downstream within the limits of the study. There are no defined drainage channels or ditches leaving the site. All runoff is either infiltrated on site or sheet flows off site where it is collected by the storm drain conveyance systems of the downstream suburban area. Stormwater runoff from the proposed roads will be collected and conveyed to a detention and water quality facility where it will then be discharged by tying into the existing stormwater conveyance system within S.E. 18th Street. As a result no future erosion problems should occur because of this development downstream. Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) Severe flooding problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems are defined as follows: • Flooding of the finished area of a habitable building for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. Examples include flooding of finished floors of homes and commercial or industrial buildings. Flooding in electrical/heating systems and 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------- components in the crawlspace or garage of a home. Such problems are referred to as "severe building flooding problems." • Flooding over all lanes of a roadway or severely impacting a sole access driveway for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. Such problems are referred to as 'severe roadway flooding problems." Based on a review of the FEMA Map (Section 1.0) the proposed site is outside of the 500- year floodplain, and there is no evidence of severe flooding problems encountered during our visit. 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS: In the pre-developed condition all downstream drainage currently flows off site onto the properties immediately adjacent to the west or onto S.E. 18th Street where it is collected by the existing stormwater conveyance system. In the developed condition stormwater being discharged from the site will be conveyed to any existing catch basin at the intersection of Lake Youngs Way S.E. and S.E. 18th Street, approximately 590 feet northwest of the site. A new conveyance system will be constructed within S.E.18th Street in order to provide adequate depth within the onsite detention facility. Upon discharging to the existing storm system at Lake Youngs Way S.E. the existing 18-inch concrete pipe turns south and conveys stormwater to the entrance of Tiffany Park. Our field investigation found that the existing storm pipe turns north and enters the parking lot. At this point we were unable to follow the exact route of the existing storm as the remodel of Tiffany Park Elementary added additional storm utilities within the parking lot. We requested as-builts of the storm within Tiffany Park from the City of Renton but were unable to obtain the information. We were able to obtain as-built information that shows a 50-inch CMP storm pipe runs along the west property line of the school. This 50-inch storm pipe continues along the rear yards of the properties on the west side of Index Court S.E. A review of the City's GIS map shows that the storm system within Lake Youngs Way S.E. ties into the 50-inch trunk line at the southwest corner of the school property. The trunk line runs northerly for approximately 1,100 feet before turning east to Lake Youngs Way S.E., approximately 150 feet west of the intersection with Index Court S.E. The 50-inch trunk line continues to flow in a northerly direction within Lake Youngs Way S.E. for approximately 1,000 feet to the intersection of Royal Hills Drive. The trunk line discharges to the headwaters of Ginger Creek at the southeast corner of this intersection. At this point we are well beyond the quarter mile downstream point from the project. Because the project will be providing Level 2 Flow Control and there is no evidence of flooding or erosion within the downstream system we do not anticipate any significant impacts due to the project. 16055.003.doc ~--...'_ .... <. .-" "-.' -"-~,'--0··--.. ---··------···-·· ... _. ,i --:~·j~4~~-3~)l---~~ ... ~;-T~""-~=-:-~04~-'-. .,--;-':-~ .-d~-;------:-~~~-l':-=-=,-~~.""7"':----. -~:~'I L-8th: i -\j . -! ... ••... ' .. -. j I {'c'", ~ :",-,} •... ..-+ .. i +', I ,i 1'-1 iu -h', cc.. 1'.--, .:;, i . _ ........... r . I:·:..··.::-r-.·--·lJt~ .. I-._.T -1--I··-(:·--f-· "'~";.~ .II ,;r, J'.j.···H_ -,+.,:..~ -, ---+-+----:-,.·f,' .,' '-: t' " f . -! 'Ii -1-o,X_ T~ --L __ J ':r cl I' : , , I .. I I II ," ' , . , 1 ' ., j'C:, l--"..1'-j-; 3;«>· -,',; i:· ·1· .... ,',-: ' , -~ ~ , ; i {'--,T It--, ---r' .. -.-I,' .~ .. --;--. :-~---i T --~-i " .---··':.!'-~I·-~,'+· -t··'·'·I:'-··,· .:, ..... j .... ; .. ;..,,;~. ~.: 'j' L·:'I·.·· --~If' .. i'·-il1 -; -I:" ,I 'I ! i i ::::" .. , ... , "'-'1' '~ -_.. . ,·1 ,"' i :'-; -. -~'? j.' ! ~~{J" I· I -I ' .• __ 0 , --~:~",-.:. "'1':;; t .• ,":: ""-':'-~--t-' -"~''i; .; 'ii.' 1.~A'd.""I';~.;=e.-~--;:! ,--:--+-~-T"-'-I'-'~T---l-'-'-'d-'-' :t" I , . t ""C" ,. . ! .. I.~ ~, , ~f., , ~,/C,R •• -l' I It· If" I -1-; ,L. --1 --1\·' ... --.. --+ '. .: ...... !. '\-':";'1'" '.' .... -C--'-'-'," ··; .. ··1 '1,8 ,,' -""7 -:l,' i ., 'I I: . : : : r".-.--.".+ : ...... '. .' , lf~!. .1 i ".<. ,... I _ ... .:. __ .. I ~/.' ,: "I '. ' L....c....._~ -. ----~-~4-'-~~--"_-jL ~", =~C_-~ '1=' ,"" ,--: I· : -i .. ~-,'T.· .. ·.' -.. ,.' I-·i .. --·;----+-rl--.. 4--:±·,----O"~-c*I'---'----...,---l'" i !: I ;,: J=bJ=: ': 'I·: '.1_ -, l 1 F i , ' '---: -!.-~ j '1 IL I'! ,T ' ' =+ -. _. ..... -j:; '360 ; .. -'. L -.-. --i,>::.:·r:=t-·'·'! . '6<,j,::',""'",;,' -Ii-'-':,' -C:-':". l' --'(3AC ""'f-Y7C"'~ : _____ j _J.---1-_' .--: , : " \. .. 1''';' : ,. . '. .. . 35~". "'4::.-~ I \ f' ;>r.E.~ -",j, ... i ! , It; -' ~'~--1---:---1" ,-'~ '1~'~;-'i .-,;'~ :.:.. :.-'-. .! ·1 . .! " ,', " .,. ,. < -"[" .:. --r 0 1-· ,... -' .... . ",~~,_c_. , .... ' . !.,-i --j . '-. j'-.. ,\ it . +' _1_ '--_ _ _ -.+ ---. ~./ : --- II·.·: o_.{,:-", <, . .p. " ',.: 0.' .! 1.= _ -L --'= _!..... j ----, ~ . .~ -'L. :, I -1~-r.J· • I, I ~~f.~ I I! '. ,. ": _ !---~~-' .. 1 --: ... _ 1_ ,~ __ ~ .. on 1 ~-1i--, ! . : /1. -. ~-;'Ir 1·-1---'. I' .. I,XLL; I .. ~·-== ~T:" --=f= i '.1' ~an' :;1 I! . , I I' [ Iii I I I, I..', '1 • .J.. ; . y': ". 1""""/·' ;: .... -.-.-'-'li 1"---1 -:-+--.---r--·I--1--:-·---·,·, " .... , ' .. : '-:,~{ltj 'I':~ i ii "l1ti:" : J; II 1 ,', ': i !: I I"~ ... : .-___ .~ _-.:i:~_t':._.:j_·_.: '. -. -1--.~:L:_ ---;-, -~::F····, -1--1: 1-' --i -j "J~-:-r:';~~'--;~. -: . .,. . i, ": i:: :' ,~. " .;! t ~ ,~4! .. Hi1£, r, .' I. 'I ". I I!". !,; L._.._. '_+_,-____ L._~. --. : ... I'" .. _1_ .... + ... ,. _______ -__ ~._.L .-:-... -.. +-, .... ..••.• -'-9::: .., :l:..-:-r' i '+ft' ~ I I '-:-,--;-. . . I j i I .1 I· .,.. ... " I I,' , I -------~-! ,-. l' 0' i I . I .. -t:-.'-!.~-~.-I-:.. I" r i i! t' !' , it " I ~.t. J I, .. I----:jj--. '---"-:'w"'-m 'C" ~.: I '; • I 1-: ,-~----; '-!-,,; ~~. -------:--. '-,-:" -·-·r-· 'i !. I . II 1 -~·I. -.-tLI,--.!J -\ il·' ..•.... _'_'! __ I,_~_ -!.J-LL-5·-:-I~~ __ }_.' L~L7.-~[1"-"-9 L ....... L-·l,' " i'--'---'---I,': . I 2 3 4 $7 1-~. 30 . I 1 .fC~L.£: HCAtFZ' /"0;40' VER7\ ,"", 4' R-'4160a , , ~ " ... ~ ! • , , ; i~.;'. ,. \ . ~'. :"; i. ._'OJ t \ f,· (I" ~ __ " r • --. "T R'C>L'[ 1-9:,0 " .....'ro . '. r-~ . FR(r11' , .... -, "~;-;O~"3~.::..~,.ln~, ,[,";~~jj.c.:;. ~·j'IC:~,S;~1~. >«~.~c~,~;/1/.~/3'. ~< 133",,£'£:;;5 .... ~. .' . ,i. ••.• " ,,"'!. ;ic'''·c.2;~E;M ".". ,.,":" '",. TE'o"'" -/~ I • .,' . " : ,. !.; ,-. '. " ', . .-._--- -"'~" , . ., -, ." : ~ ! ,',I ! 'I: . : ,i! , ." .:-+: .---i---,-:I--I ' ,:-. :.:: . ',' I ill ,. --..... , -, : , .... i -.... . , • , •• -, " ~I ~, ';1 \ "., '.~! ,. ) <, .-: .··.1··' ".~--- • , • ... , --~- -, · .,.., , .. . .... .. ;; .-:.: -.I .-1 o Itt: • ..• "i ..... - · . ··0'1 ;;,., ------------------- 3S Id p~£~ w Z I.....J O~ zZ -::J W I 0 I-eD --(f) 3S 3S Id 4a --------- - r-------- i I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. B. C. Existing Site Hydrology The site is polygonal in shape and ties into two existing road stubs. The first is located in the northwest corner of the site at the dead-end of S.E. 18th Street. The second road stub is located to the southwest of the site on the southern side of the Cedar River Pipeline at the dead end of 124th Place S.E. This site is undeveloped and is currently zoned R8; with a majority of the site being composed of second-grow1h forest. The elevations of the site range from 456 to 398. There are four wetlands located on site; three of them are Category 2, with one Category 3. The site is bordered by two pipelines. Along the entire length of the site to the south is the Cedar River Pipeline. Similarly the northeastern boundary of the site is bordered by the Mercer Island Pipeline along its entirety. The western and northern edges of the site are surrounded by single-family homes on medium-sized lots. On-site soils are mapped as mostly Alderwood, and a small portion of Arents. In the undeveloped condition runoff flows off site onto the properties immediately adjacent to the west or onto S.E. 18th Street where it is collected by the existing stormwater conveyance system. Please reference the Pre-developed Basin Map in Section 1.0 for further detail. Developed Site Hydrology The completed project will create 98 lots. The total developed area will be 21.66 acres in size and contain four tax parcels (212305-9044, 212305-9051, 212305-9054, and 212305-9061). New impervious surfaces will include roadways, driveways, and roof areas. The project will be providing landscaped pervious areas, open space/park areas, and a drainage facility. A conveyance system consisting of catch basins and storm pipe will be constructed in the roadways to collect drainage from impervious surfaces and lots and conveyed to the new drainage facility. A detention vault and StormFilter vault will be constructed in Tract A to provide water quality and flow control for the project. The vault will contain a control structure fitted with a riser overflow. Runoff will be conveyed to a proposed 18-inch pipe which will discharge runoff into the existing storm drain conveyance system at the intersection of Lake Youngs Way S.E. and S.E. 18th Street. For further detail please reference the Developed Basin Map in Section 1.0. Performance Standards The KCRTS Runoff Time Series Program was used to size the detention facility, The Detention vault was sized for Conservation Flow Control (Level 2) based on the requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Please refer to the KCRTS computations attached in this section. Based on Level 2 detention vault sizing calculations, the vault volume required is 245,850 cubic feet 16055.003.doc l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I D. E. Flow Control System Flow Control System details will be submitted during final engineering. Water Quality System A StormFilter will be utilized for water quality. Sizing of the Storm Filter will be prepared during final engineering. 16055.003.doc I I Retention/Detention Facility I Type of Facility: Detention vault Facility Length: 149.00 ft Fac il i ty Width: 150.00 ft I Facility Area; 22350. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 11.00 it Stage 0 Elevation: 398.00 ft Storage Volume: 245850. cu. ft I Riser Head: 11.00 ft Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe I Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1. 97 0.349 2 7.10 4.00 0.857 6.0 I Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None I Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 398.00 o. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.02 398.02 447. 0.010 0.015 0.00 I 0.04 398.04 894. 0.021 0.021 0.00 0.06 398.06 1341. 0.031 0.026 0.00 0.08 398.08 1788. 0.041 0.030 0.00 0.10 398.10 2235. 0.051 0.034 0.00 I 0.12 398.12 2682. 0.062 0.037 0.00 0.14 398.14 3129. 0.072 0.040 0:00 0.16 398.16 3576. 0.082 0.043 0.00 0.35 398.35 7823. 0.180 0.062 0.00 I 0.54 398.54 12069. 0.277 0.077 0.00 0.72 398.72 16092. 0.369 0.090 0.00 0.91 398.91 20339. 0.467 0.100 0.00 1.10 399.10 24585. 0.564 0.110 0.00 I 1.28 399.28 28608. 0.657 0.119 0.00 1.47 399.47 32855. 0.754 0.128 0.00 1.66 399.66 37101. 0.852 0.135 0.00 1.84 399.84 41124. 0.944 0.143 0.00 I 2.03 400.03 45371. 1. 042 0.150 0.00 2.22 400.22 49617. 1.139 0.157 0.00 2.40 400.40 53640. 1.231 0.163 0.00 2.59 400.59 57887. 1.329 0.169 0.00 I 2.77 400.77 61910. 1.421 0.175 0.00 2.96 400.96 66156. 1.519 0.181 0.00 3.15 401.15 70403. 1.616 0.187 0.00 3.33 401.33 74426. 1. 709 0.192 0.00 I 3.52 401. 52 78672. 1.806 0.198 0.00 3.71 401. 71 82919. 1. 904 0.203 0.00 3.89 401.89 86942. 1.996 0.208 0.00 4.08 402.08 91188. 2.093 0.213 0.00 I 4.27 402.27 95435. 2.191 0.217 0.00 4.45 402.45 99457. 2.283 0.222 0.00 4.64 402.64 103704. 2.381 0.227 0.00 4.83 402.83 107951. 2.478 0.231 0.00 I 5.01 403.01 111974. 2.571 0.236 0.00 5.20 403.20 116220. 2.668 0.240 0.00 5.38 403.38 120243. 2.760 0.244 0.00 I 5.57 403.57 124490. 2.858 0.248 0.00 I --- I' I 5.76 403.76 12B736. 2.955 0.253 0.00 5.94 403.94 132759. 3.04B 0.257 0.00 I 6.13 404.13 137006. 3.145 0.261 0.00 6.32 404.32 141252. 3.243 0.265 0.00 6.50 404.50 145275. 3.335 0.26B 0.00 6.69 404.69 149522. 3.433 0.272 0.00 I 6.BB 404. B8 15376B. 3.530 0.276 0.00 7.06 405.06 157791. 3.622 0.2BO 0.00 7.10 405.10 15B6B5. 3.643 0.2BO 0.00 7.14 405.14 159579. 3.663 0.2B5 0.00 I 7.18 405.1B 160473 . 3.684 0.298 0.00 7.22 405.22 161367. 3.704 0.319 0.00 7.27 405.27 1624B5. 3.730 0.347 0.00 7.31 405.31 163379. 3.751 0.3B2 0.00 I 7.35 405.35 164273. 3.771 0.421 0.00 7.39 405.39 165167. 3.792 0.521 0.00 7.43 405.43 166061. 3.812 0.53B 0.00 7.47 405.47 166955. 3.833 0.554 0.00 I 7.66 405.66 171201. 3.930 0.617 0.00 7.85 405.85 175448. 4.028 0.670 0.00 8.03 406.03 179471. 4.120 O.71B 0.00 B.22 406.22 183717. 4.218 0.761 0.00 I 8.41 406.41 187964. 4.315 0.801 0.00 8.59 406.59 1919B7. 4.407 0.839 0.00 8.78 406.7B 196233. 4.505 0.874 0.00 8.97 406.97 2004BO. 4.602 0.90B 0.00 I 9.15 407.15 204502. 4.695 0.940 0.00 9.34 407.34 208749. 4.792 0.971 0.00 9.53 407.53 212996. 4.890 1.000 0.00 9.71 407.71 217019. 4.982 1. 030 0.00 I 9.90 407.90 221265. 5.080 1. 060 0.00 10.09 408.09 225512. 5.177 1. 080 0.00 10.27 408.27 229535. 5.269 1.110 0.00 10.46 408.46 233781. 5.367 1.140 0.00 I 10.64 408.64 237804. 5.459 1.160 0.00 10.83 408.83 242051. 5.557 1.180 0.00 11.00 409.00 245850. 5.644 1.210 0.00 11.10 409.10 2480B5. 5.695 1.680 0.00 I 11.20 409.20 250320. 5.747 2.540 0.00 11.30 409.30 252555. 5.798 3.640 0.00 11.40 409.40 254790. 5.849 4.950 0.00 11.50 409.50 257025. 5.900 6.430 0.00 I 11.60 409.60 259260. 5.952 7.B70 0.00 11.70 409.70 261495. 6.003 8.410 0.00 11.80 409.80 263730. 6.054 8.910 0.00 11.90 409.90 265965. 6.106 9.390 0.00 I 12.00 410.00 268200. 6.157 9.830 0.00 12.10 410.10 270435. 6.208 10.260 0.00 12.20 410.20 272670. 6.260 10.670 0.00 12.30 410.30 274905. 6.311 11.060 0.00 I 12.40 410.40 277140. 6.362 11.440 0.00 12.50 410.50 279375. 6.414 11.800 0.00 12.60 410.60 281610. 6.465 12.160 0.00 12.70 410.70 283845. 6.516 12.500 0.00 I 12.BO 410.80 2860BO. 6.567 12.830 0.00 12.90 410.90 288315. 6.619 13 .150 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage I Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 7.51 4.77 11. 39 409.39 2544B7. 5.842 2 3.76 1.45 11.05 409.05 246968. 5.670 3 4.88 0.99 9.47 407.47 211658. 4.859 I 4 4.49 .1.01 9.56 407.56 213749. 4.907 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 4.00 0.68 7.88 405.88 6 2.61 0.28 7.05 405.05 7 3.08 0.27 6.43 404.43 8 3.36 0.22 4.39 402.39 Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Reservoir Outflow Inflow Inflow 1 4.77 0.15 ******** 2 1.45 0.08 ******** 3 0.99 0.10 ******** 4 1. 01 0.09 ******** 5 0.68 0.08 ******** 6 0.28 0.05 ******** 7 0.27 0.06 ******** 8 0.22 0.07 ******** Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:16055dev.tsf OUtflow Time Series File:160550ut POC Time Series File:16055dso Inflow/Outflow Analysis 176206. 4.045 157577 . 3.617 143604. 3.297 98121. 2.253 POC Outflow Target Calc ******* 4.83 1. 35 1.46 ******* 1.01 ******* 1. 02 ******* 0.69 ******* 0.30 ******* 0.29 ******* 0.27 Peak Inflow Discharge: 7.51 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 4.77 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 11. 39 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 409.39 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 254487. Cu-Ft 5.842 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:16055by.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 4.83 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year B Point of Compliance File:16055dso.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:160550ut.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1.45 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.267 7 1/07/02 4: 00 1.01 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.220 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.260 6 1/06/05 5:00 0.679 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.991 4 11/24/06 8:00 4.77 1 1/09/08 10:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16055dso.tsf project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1.47 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.286 7 1/06/02 3:00 1. 02 3 3/06/03 21:00 0.269 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.296 6 1/07/05 23:00 0.689 5 1/18/06 23:00 1. 01 4 11/24/06 7:00 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 4.77 11.39 1 100.00 0.990 1.45 11.05 2 25.00 0.960 1.01 9.56 3 10.00 0.900 0.991 9.47 4 5.00 0.800 0.679 7.66 5 3.00 0.667 0.280 7.05 6 2.00 0.500 0.267 6.43 7 1. 30 0.231 0.220 4.39 8 1.10 0.091 3.66 11.30 50.00 0.980 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 4.83 1 100.00 1.47 2 25.00 1.02 3 10.00 1. 01 0.669 0.296 0.286 4 5 6 7 5.00 3.00 2.00 1.30 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 I I 4.83 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.269 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 3.71 50.00 0.980 I Flow Duration from Time Series File:160550ut.tsf CUtoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS t % % I 0.021 30469 49.689 49.689 50.311 0.503E+00 0.061 8355 13.625 63.314 36.686 0.367E+00 0.101 7228 11.787 75.101 24.899 0.249E+00 0.142 5989 9.767 84.868 15.132 0.151E+00 I 0.182 4414 7.198 92.066 7.934 0.793E-01 0.223 2245 3.661 95.727 4.273 0.427E-Ol 0.263 1695 2.764 98.492 1. 508 0.151E-Ol 0.304 607 0.990 99.481 0.519 0.519E-02 I 0.344 36 0.059 99.540 0.460 0.460E-02 0.385 21 0.034 99.574 0.426 O.426E-02 0.425 16 0.026 99.600 0.400 0.400E-02 0.466 4 0.007 99.607 0.393 0.393E-02 I 0.506 7 0.011 99.618 0.382 0.382E-02 0.547 17 0.028 99.646 0.354 0.354E-02 0.587 25 0.041 99.687 0.313 0.313E-02 0.628 31 0.051 99.737 0.263 0.263E-02 I 0.668 23 0.038 99.775 0.225 0.225E-02 0.708 20 0.033 99.808 0.192 o . 19211-02 0.749 15 0.024 99.832 0.168 0.168E-02 0.789 8 0.013 99.845 0.155 0.155E-02 I 0.830 14 0.023 99.868 0.132 o . 132E-02 0.870 9 0.015 99.883 0.117 0.11711-02 0.911 11 0.018 99.901 0.099 0.995E-03 0.951 11 0.018 99.91B 0.082 0.815B-03 I 0.992 17 0.028 99.946 0.054 0.538B-03 1.03 13 0.021 99.967 0.033 0.326B-03 1.07 3 0.005 99:972 0.028 0.277B-03 1.11 4 0.007 99.979 0.021 0.212B-03 I 1.15 3 0.005 99.984 0.016 0.163E-03 1.19 6 0.010 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 1.23 2 0.003 99.997 0.003 0.32611-04 1.28 1 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 I 1.32 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 1.36 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 1.40 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 1.44 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 I Flow Duration from Time Series File:160SSdso.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probabi1ity CFS t % t I 0.021 30464 49.680 49.680 50.320 0.50311+00 0.062 8350 13.617 63.297 36.703 0.36711+00 0.103 7234 11.797 75.095 24.905 0.24911+00 0.144 6046 9.860 84.954 15.046 0.150E+00 I 0.185 4253 6.936 91. 890 B.110 0.8llE-01 0.226 2275 3.710 95.600 4.400 0.440B-01 0.267 1733 2.826 98.426 1.574 0.15711-01 0.30B 632 1.031 99.457 0.543 0.5431l-02 I 0.350 50 0.082 99.538 0.462 0.4628-02 0.391 22 0.036 99.574 0.426 0.426B-02 0.432 14 0.023 99.597 0.403 0.403E-02 0.473 6 0.010 99.607 0.393 0.393E-02 I 0.514 7 0.011 99.618 0.3B2 0.382E-02 0.555 15 0.024 99.643 0.357 0.357E-02 0.596 28 0.046 99.689 0.311 0.31111-02 0.637 30 0.049 99.737 0.263 0.263E-02 I 0.678 19 0.031 99.768 0.232 0.232E-02 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.719 23 0.038 99.806 0.194 0.1948-02 0.760 14 0.023 99.82~ 0.171 0.1718-02 0:801 11 0.018 ~~.847 0.153 0.1538-02 0.843 12 0.020 ~~.866 0.134 0.1348-02 0.884 10 0.016 99.883 0.117 O.117E~02 0.925 10 0.016 99.899 0.101 0.101E-02 0.966 10 0.016 99.915 0.085 0.848E-03 1. 01 17 0.028 99.943 0.057 0.571E-03 1. OS 14 0.023 99.966 0.034 0.342E-03 1. 09 4 0.007 99.972 0.028 0.277E-03 1.13 3 0.005 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03 1.17 5 0.008 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 1. 21 4 0.007 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 1. 25 3 0.005 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 1. 29 1 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 1. 34 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.1638-04 1. 38 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 1.42 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.1638-04 1. 46 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.1638-04 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: 16055pre.tsf New File: 16055dso.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New tChange Probability 0.298 0.948-02 0.578-02 -39.7 I 0.948-02 0.379 0.63E-02 0.448-02 -30.2 I 0.63E-02 0.460 0.49E-02 0.408-02 -1~.2 I o .49B-02 0.541 0.378-02 0.378-02 -0.9 I 0.378-02 0.622 0.298-02 0.288-02 -1. 7 I 0.298-02 0.703 0.228-02 0.218-02 -6.6 I 0.228-02 0.784 0.15E-02 0.lGB-02 10.0 I 0.158-02 0.865 0.108-02 0.12E-02 22.G I 0.108-02 0.946 0.628-03 0.918-03 47.4 I 0.628-03 1. 03 0.348-03 0.448-03 28.6 I 0.34E-03 1.11 0.21E-03 0.2GE-03 23.1 I 0.21E-03 1.19 0.16E-03 0.l1E-03 -30.0 I 0.16E-03 1.27 0.118-03 0.338-04 -71.4 I 0.l1E-03 1.35 0.16E-04 0.168-04 0.0 I 0.16E-04 Maximum positive excursion ~ 0.086 cfs ( 9.7%) occurring at 0.882 cfs on the Base Data:16055pre.tsf and at 0.968 cfs on the New Data:16055dso.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.126 cfs (-28.2%) occurring at 0.447 cfs on the Base Data:16055pre.tsf and at 0.321 cfs on the New Data:1G055dso.tsf Base New \Change 0.298 0.278 -6.7 0.379 0.291 -23.2 0.460 0.332 -27.7 0.541 0.537 -0.8 0.G22 0.G18 -O.G 0.703 0.688 -2.2 0.784 0.819 4.5 0.865 0.923 G.7 0.946 1.00 G.1 1. 03 1.05 2.5 1.11 1.15 3.4 1.19 1.17 -1.5 1.27 1.19 -G.O 1.35 1.47 B.6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16055pre.tsf project location:Sea-Tac ---Annual peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of peak (CFS) 1.35 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.367 7 1/06/02 3:00 1.00 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.036 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.595 6 1/05/05 8:00 1.04 3 1/18/06 20:00 0.876 5 11/24/06 4:00 1. 73 1 1/09/08 9:00 computed Peaks 16055pre.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - -peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 1. 73 1 100.00 0.990 1.35 2 25.00 0.960 1.04 3 10.00 0.900 1.00 4 5.00 0.800 0.876 5 3.00 0.667 0.595 6 2.00 0.500 0.367 7 1. 30 0.231 0.036 8 1.10 0.091 1.60 50.00 0.980 page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:16055dev.tsf project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 3.68 6 2/09/01 2:00 3.03 8 1/05/02 16:00 4.37 3 2/27/03 7:00 3.33 7 8/26/04 2:00 3.98 4 10/28/04 16:00 3.92 5 1/18/06 16:00 4.85 2 10/26/06 0:00 7.30 1 1/09/08 6:00 computed Peaks 16055dev.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - -Peaks - -Rank Return prob (CFS) period 7.30 1 100.00 0.990 4.85 2 25.00 0.960 4.37 3 10.00 0.900 3.98 4 5.00 0.800 3.92 5 3.00 0.667 3.68 6 2.00 0.500 3.33 7 1.30 0.231 3.03 8 1.10 0.091 6.48 50.00 0.980 page 1 r-------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:16055by.tsf project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.076 6 0.064 8 0.091 3 0.071 7 0.086 4 0.081 5 0.104 2 0.151 1 computed Peaks 2/09/01 2:00 1/05/02 16:00 2/27/03 7:00 8/26/04 2:00 10/28/04 16:00 1/18/06 16:00 10/26/06 0:00 1/09/08 6:00 16055by.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) peri od 0.151 1 100.00 0.104 2 25.00 0.091 3 10.00 0.086 4 5.00 0.081 5 3.00 0.076 6 2.00 0.071 7 1.30 0.064 8 1.10 0.135 50.00 page 1 0.990 0.960 0.900 O.BOO 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Duration comparison Anaylsis Base File: 16055pre.tsf New File: 16055dso.tsf 16055com.prn cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS Cutoff 0.298 0.379 0.460 0.541 0.622 0.703 0.784 0.865 0.946 1.03 1.11 1.19 1.27 1.35 -----Fraction of Time--------------check of Tolerance------- Base New %Change probability Base New %Change 0.94E-02 0.57E-02 -39.7 I 0.94E-02 0.298 0.278 -6.7 0.63E-02 0.44E-02 -30.2 I 0.63E-02 0.379 0.291 -23.2 0.49E-02 0.40E-02 -19.2 I 0.49E-02 0.460 0.332 -27.7 0.37E-02 0.37E-02 -0.9 I 0.37E-02 0.541 0.537 -0.8 0.29E-02 0.28E-02 -1.7 I 0.29E-02 0.622 0.618 -0.6 0.22E-02 0.21E-02 -6.6 0.22E-02 0.703 0.688 -2.2 0.15E-02 0.16E-02 10.0 0.15E-02 0.784 0.819 4.5 0.lOE-02 0.12E-02 ·22.6 0.10E-02 0.865 0.923 6.7 0.62E-03 0.91E-03 47.4 0.62E-03 0.946 1.00 6.1 0.34E-03 0.44E-03 28.6 0.34E-03 1.03 1.05 2.5 0.21E-03 0.26E-03 23.1 0.21E-03 1.11 1.15 3.4 0.16E-03 0.11E-03 -30.0 0.16E-03 1.19 1.17 -1.5 0.11E-03 0.33E-04. -71.4 0.11E-03 1.27 1.19 -6.0 0.16E-04 0.16E-04 0.0 0.16E-04 1.35 1.47 8.6 Maximum positive excursion = 0.086 cfs ( 9.7%) occurring at 0.882 cfs on the Base Data:16055pre.tsf and at 0.968 cfs on the New Data:16055dso.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.126 cfs (-28.2%) occurring at 0.447 cfs on the Base Data:16055~re.tsf and at 0.321 cfs on the New Data:16055dso.tsf Page 1 Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:160550ut.tsf project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of peak (CFS) 1.45 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.267 7 1/07/02 4:00 1.01 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.220 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.280 6 1/08/05 5:00 0.679 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.991 4 11/24/06 8:00 4.77 computed peaks 1 1/09/08 10:00 160550ut.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 4.77 11.39 1 100.00 0.990 1.45 11.05 2 25.00 0.960 1.01 9.56 3 10.00 0.900 0.991 9.47 4 5.00 0.800 0.679 7.88 5 3.00 0.667 0.280 7.05 6 2.00 0.500 0.267 6.43 7 1.30 0.231 0.220 4.39 8 1.10 0.091 3.66 11.30 50.00 0.980 page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16055dso.tsf project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of peak (CFS) 1.47 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.286 7 1/06/02 3:00 1.02 3 3/06/03 21:00 0.269 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.296 6 1/07/05 23:00 0.689 5 1/18/06 23:00 1.01 4 11/24/06 7:00 4.83 1 1/09/08 10:00 computed Peaks 160S5dso.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - -Peaks - -Rank Return prob (CFS) period 4.83 1 100.00 0.990 1.47 2 25.00 0.960 1.02 3 10.00 0.900 1.01 4 5.00 0.800 0.689 5 3.00 0.667 0.296 6 2.00 0.500 0.286 7 1.30 0.231 0.269 8 1.10 0.091 3.71 50.00 0.980 Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Conveyance system analysis and backwater calculations will be provided in final engineering. 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The following special reports have been prepared and have been submitted under separate cover. • Wetland Determination prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 22, 2014 • Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28,2012 1605S.003.doc I I I I I I I I I .' I I I I I I I I I 7.0 OTHER PERMITS This section will be completed in Final Engineering. 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This section will be completed in Final Engineering. 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT This section will be provided in Final Engineering. 16055.003.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL This section will be provided in Final Engineering. 16055.003.doc '. " .- .. "', -!. -a.,.:.." '\ . _'-~ ...... G) <', , G) I , l , L---------·-·7 -, HACK DI-.MONC ' . ~ ..... Wabhlol.. s.Ib... , Roo:kCreek Subarea .-, " oj .~: • ".~ Figure 3-' Subarea Boundaries Cedar River Basin Planning Area ____ Stream ... lak./R;vor __ Bos;n Pion Bounclory .. _, •• Subarea Boundary , •• " Subba.;n Boundary C:':::'1 Incorporated Area (0 . 01 6/98) --Urban Growth Aroo Boundary (as 016/98) ~ ~ tt.:!\\ If ''~ ®§i) 2f.Wts =I Ma, ,,04 11(" ~ ¥i NI Al C .... nIotion " 6ts UNt, MWe CMrt ~ St<I lo n ~"'''''''''ft I I. ,-. I I I I I I . • " I- I· ., .--.., p- I - I - I I I Water~hed Management Committee Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action plan * KING,COUNTY ,OIPARIMINT OF -:SR-® ~ .WAlHII18TOH STATE e , Cepartment of Natural Resources E COL 0 G Y . ;; L _. ________ _ I I I I I I. I~ I~ I L L II I I I: I I I I Watershed Management Committee Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan Adopted by Metropolitan King County ColUlcil July 1997 July 1998 Printing KlDIl Couaty Dcparlmel1t of Nlltoral Resoun:eI Wm:r and Lazid ResO\ll'CeS Division Cedlll'River Watersbed Mauagemcnt Committee Cityofllellton 700 Pifth A VCDIlfi Sui~l200 SeaUlo, WaahiDglOD 98104 (206) 29&-:6519 King Ccmservation DIstriet KiDgCounty MucIdcshaot Indian Tribe . Seat!I. Publie UtiliIic& DepilibDe4t TroutUnIimi!c:d Uni\Cd States AmJy COIps of BDginecIl Waahinpm Depatbneul ofFIsh and WlldBCe Waabinpm Deparbneut ofNBtmal Rt:Iaurces Waabinpm DeparbneDt ofTlBIISpDrtation . WaabinpmP8IDI PomIry Ass1Iciation Fu"ded In part by the Wa,htngto" State Dep4mnent of Ecology CentelJll1al Cleo" WtJ1e7 Fund I I Klnll County Euc1ltlve I OaryLocko Metropolitan KIng County Coundl Walldagton Department o(Ecology Maggi Fimia, Dislrict I ~ffy, Environmenlal Planner I CynIhia Sullivan, District 2 Gillespie, Project Mmagor Loulse Miller, District 3 Lany Pbillips, District 4 Watenbed Mlnapment Committee Ron Sims, District S David Beedle BDd Lealie Groce -Mucklesboot IDdIan I Rob McKenna, District 6 Tribe PeID von IWcbbauer, District 7 Paul Crane -Boeing Company Greg Nickcls, District 8 Nancy Davidsou, P.E. -Seattlo Public UliHties I Kent Pullen, District 9 lack Davis -Xing Conservation District Lany Gossett, District 10 Gary Engman BDd Bob Gerke • WA Departmmt of Jane Hague, District II Fish amd Wildlife Brian Derdowski, Distriet 12 Keith Hinman. King County WLRD I Christopher Vaoce, DisIrk:! 13 Kay IoImson'-Renton Chamber ofCommcrcc • (retlred), Cedar River CAe -1 DepartJIIeUt of Natural Resoureel Loujs Xahn • Washington F8IDl Forestery AsSQci&lion I Pam Bissonnette, Director Lin4a SUlith -US Army Corps ofEngineen RoII'Straka, P.B. -City ofRc:nton Surfaeo Water Utility Waler and Land Reioarces DlvWon Rex Thompson -WA Dept. of Natural Resources Nancy Hansen, Divisioo Manager Fnmk Urahcck, P.E .• Trout UnlimJtcd I Debbie AriJDa, Assistant Division Manager Bob Winter, P.B.. WA Dept. ofTnmsportation Bill Bakel, Regional Water Resources Services Maoager CI __ AIlYIsDry Co_lttee I Miki:BaIssa CODtribntlllg Staff No~ .8uDkowski Keith Himmu>, Basin PII1IlIinB Progrmn Manager Judith Fillips Rm; Glasser, ProjectMaoager RayGriftin I lean WIrite, Project Manager Bra\f Habenicbt Jolm Adams, Planner Ianice Hoon (deceased) Derek Booth, Ph.D., OcoIoglst KayJobnson I GIcon Bvaaa, P.B., SCDior BagiD= BobKarlDen David Hartley, P.B., Ph.D., Hydrologist Laure lddipgs Gino Lncchctti, Senior Ecologist BdManhew! KI\1e Rboads, Senior Water Quality Specialist Paul Szcwczykowsld I ' Ruth Schaefer, Seaior Ecologist ~ Teebaleal Advisors ' • Suppordna Stal1' Carolyn 8aa1Bman· City ofRcnlDn I Fred Beoder. P1anning'Support Tecbnlcian Mike Bonoff, Rand Little, and George Sdmelder • I AlIne Bild6, Bum Steward Seattle Public Utillties Department Rika Cecil, Resource Planner Larry Fisher and Hal Micbaol-WasbiDgton Karen Goto, P.E., Seuior BDgiDccr DcparlDWlt ofFis)I and Wildlife I Mary Jorgeuson; Resoun:o Planner Jobnatbm FIOdge, Ph.D. -KiDa County Department of ., Ted Krause, P\amtiag Sapport Tcelmician Nalllnll Resources, Wastewater Trcallllenl DMsion Mart Lampard. P.B., Engineer 'Dan Harvey, P.E. -US Anny Corps ofEnginecn I Barbara Nelson, Technical Writer. David lemlillgB, P.B. -City of Renton Laurel Preston, Graphic Teclmlcian ~g ZcDIncr· Mucklcshoot lDdian ~ Bill Priest, &o~icaI Technician David Rig\cy,l!IIgiDaer I Fran Solomon, Ph.D., Senior Bngineer Text wlU be ltIDde avaUablel1l farge print, Bmlle, or Ruoxi ZbaDg, P!mmfng Oraphic Supervisor : ; tiudlotlJpS lI8 requested. I I WMe Lower Cedar River Basin Plan Ii· r------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I 1- I Table of Contents I Page List of Figures and Tables ................................ ; ........................................................................... v I Executive Summ.ary ................................................ u .............••• u.u • .-............. u.u ......... I ...... ~ ............ uvii I Chapter 1: Introduction to the Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action PIan ....... l.1 The Major Conditions in the Cedar River Basin ................................................................... 1·1 The Major Plan Recolllmelldations ................................... u ............ u.ao •••• n .................... h ••••••• l.S The Basin PlamUng Area ................................................. : .......................................................... 1-8 About the Plan Itself .............................................................................................................. 1.15 Chapter 2: Goals and Priority Actions ................................................................................... 2·1 I In.troduction .............. u ...... : ........................................................................... , ............................ 2-1 Flood-Damage RecluctiOD ...................................................................................... n .............. ~.2·4 Aquatic Habitat Protection md Restomtion ........................... u ................................................ 2 ... 11 Protection of Water Quality from Nonpoint Source Pollution ........... : .................................. 2·16 Aquifer.Protection .................................................................................................................... 2-20 1-Cedar River Watershed Management Program .................................................................... .2·23 Relationship of Chapter 2 to Chapters 3 and 4 ...................................................................... 2~24 Chapter 3: Subarea Recommendations .................................................................................. 3-1 Introduction ............................................................. , ................................................ : ......... , ...... 3 ... 1 Cedar River Mainstertl ...................... u ••• , ................................................................................. 3-5 Nortbetn Tn"bu.taries ..................... I1 ......................... , ........................................................ , ........... 3 .. 17 1-Southern Tributarics .... u ........................................................................................................... 3 .. 27 Taylor Creek .... u ...................................................... • .. •••• .. • .. • .... ' ............................ , ......................... 3·37 II Peterson Creek ......................................................................................................................... 343 Middle Tn'butaries ....................................................................................................................... 349 Rock. Creek. .............................................................................................................................. 3-55 I Chapter 4: Detailed De4criptions of Recommendations.; ..................................................... .4-1 In.troduction ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 r Capital Intprovemcnt projects ............................................................................................. h.4-3 Basinwide Recommendations .................. "" ........................................... , ................................ 4-31 Subarea. ~grmnm.atic RecoJ:nm.CIldations ................................. , .................. " .......................... 4--83 I Cha:JJter S: lnlp1ernentation Strategy' ............................... : ....................................................... 5 .. 1 Introduction ....................................................... h ......................................................... ~ •••••••..... S-1 I. Priority Setting: Balancing CompetmgNeeds ....................................................................... 5-1 Sbarin.g Implementation Roles .................................................................................................. 5-5 Implementation Process: Long· Term Watershed Management ................................ ~ ........... 5·10 r iii Table olContents I I Appendix A:. WMC Vision, Goals, and Objectives ................................................................... A·l Plan Vision Staterrlent .................................................... , .... f ........ , ............... I ............ ~.I .... I ••••• u.A-l I Goals and Obj~ve8 .................................................................................... , ................................ .A-l Appendix B: Addendum to Bedload Transport Analysis ......................................................... .A·9 I Appen.dix. C: Hydrolog}' aM FQrest Rete:Jltion ............................................................................ A .. 11 Technical Note 1: Upland Flooding and Channel Stability .................................................. .A·ll Technical Note 2: Downstream Analysis Peterson, Rock, and Taylor Creek Ravines ....... .A·19 I Appendix D: Significant Resource Area Map, Definitiona, and List ........................................ A·29 DefinitioDS ............................ lu ............................. u .... "" ................ •••• .. • ... • .. •• ............................... A .. 29 I SigJrlficant Resource Areas (SRA.s) .................. h~ ................................................. u.~ ................ A-30 I Appendix E: Estimation of Salmonid Production Po~tial and Costs ofFish Habitat ~Ora.tiOD Opportunities ................................. ~ ...... ~ .................................... uu ................ A-3S Executive Smmnary ............................................................................................................ : .. .A .. 3S - Introduction ....................................... ,04 ..................................... 0'0 .................................................. .A-38 Backgrotm.d ........................ ~ ................................................................................................... u ••• ..A-39 I • Metllod.s .................................. " ................................. ~ .............................. ~ ..................... u •••••••••• .A-42 I Results .................................................................. ~ •• , It ..................... ~ ............... f ....................... .A-55 D · . . . .A S8 lSCusslon ............... u •• u ............................... flU .......................................... , ........... ~....... ......... .. Conclusions .......................................................................................... ~ .......................... 14 .......... .A-6S I Acb.owledgrn.eots. .................................................. ; ................................................................... .A..66 Literatme Citecl ................................................................................................. ~ ....................... A-66 List of Tables and Figures. ............................ ; ....... ;, ................. :.~ .......................... : .............. ~ .•. A-69 I Cedar River Habitat Opportunity Concept Reports ........... ; ................................................... A·89 III • Bibliography .. ~ ................................................................................................................................. A-14S I • List of Acronyms I I I I I III I I I I WAle Lower Cedar R/lIer Basin Pkm Iv I I I • I I-• , I- I., I I: [ I I I- I I I r Cedar River Mainstem INTRODUCI'ION The Mainstem subarea consists of the Cedar River valley floor and its steep walls, and the surrounding plateau areas that drain small, unnamed tributaries. The valley extends roughly 17 miles from Renton to Landsburg, varying in width from a few hundred to a few thousand feet. While the Mainstem subarea represents less than 15% of the 66-square-mile basin planning area, 'It includes the largest and most hazardous flood risk sites and is disproportionately rich in both current and potential future aquatic resources. Therefore. actions in this subarea are given very high priority . M~or human alterations to the Cedar River valley began in the late 1800s and have included logging. railroad construction, agricultura1land conversion, dam construction and water diversion, redirection of the river's outlet. construction oflev~ and revetments, dredging, and more recently. urbanization. These activities have had significant impacts both on flood risks and aquatic habitat. Channelization of the river through Renton and construction of levees and revetments along 14 of the 21 river miles in the Mainstem subarea have encouraged agricuJtural, residential, and commercial development within the. floodplain, placing more property at risk of flood damage. Flood-eontrol projects have provided limited localized flood protection at the cost of aggravating upstream and do.wnstream flood damages by removing floodplain storage and increasing.floOd depths and velocities. To date, the most significant flooding damage has occurred in the City of Renton (river mile [RM] 0.0-1.6). along lower Jones Road (RM 5.4-6.0). upstream and downstream of Cedar Grove Road (RM 10.6-12.0), along lower Bsin Road (RM 14.6), and in the neighborhood ofDorre Don (RM 15.8-16.4). Aquatic habitats within the Mainstem suban:a have been reduced significantly in both quantity and quality by logging, floodplain development. river engineering, and diversion of river flow. Large woody debris recruibnent has declined, meanders and side channels have been cut of( . riparian wetlands have been filled, the river has narrowed, and summer flows have been depleted. Generally, these changes have tended to reduce the hydraulic complexity that supports the wide variety of salinonid species and life stages that depend on the river. The Mainstem subarea recommendations consist ofespita! improvement projects (CIPs) and programs that focus mainly on the two primary. and often rell\ted, issues of flood-damage redUCtion and aquatic habitat restoration and enhanccIQent. These recommendations strive to: 1. Remove or protect occupied structures from the most hazardous areas; 2. Modify or remove certain existing levees and revetments, allowing the river access to its historical floodplains and restoring floodplain storage; 3. Protect, restore. and enhance existing aquatic habitat; and 4. Prevent siting of additional structures within hazardous areas. 3-5 . Chapler 3: Sub_ RecommirntkztlolU ,-----------------------_ .. --------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I These objectives are consistent with the goals and policies afthe King'County Flood Hazard Reduction Plan, which wss adopted by the King County Council in 1993. In fact, the Mainstem subarea recommendations follow many specific s6lutions outlined by the Flood Hazard Reduction Plan, and augment them by adding water quality and aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement components to create a more comprehensive floodplain management progrl!lD for bssin planning area. As explained in "Mainstem Recommendations," under "Recommendations to Reduce FI90d Damage" in Chapter 2, properties proposed for acquisition would be acquired only on a willing-seller basis. Landowners who choose not to sell to the County would not face any penalty or loss of existing benefit ss a result of their decision. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS See Chapter 4 for the complete text of all recommendations, the locations ofwbich are showri on Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 at the end of this section .. Capital Improvement Projects * Denotes Core Plan recommendations, which are those recommendations that would accomplish, at a minimum, the major Plan goala (see Chapter 5). * RaInbow Bend Flood-Damage ReductioaJF1oodpialn Restoration (CIP 3108): Approximately 55 mobile homes in the Cedar Grove Mobile Home Park and nine nearby pennanent houses on the right bank between RM 10.8 and RM 11.3, below Cedar Grove Road, were damaged by fast, deep flood flows. erosion, and deposits of large debris during the November 1990 flood. The permanent houses are I!ubject to hazardous flows when the Rainbow Bend levee overtops. The mobile home park, at the downstream, unlevecd end of this reach, ·experiences hazardous flooding during much smaller, more frequent events. Emergency access to and egress from all houses in this reach are frequently blocked by flooding. This area is 8 high-velocity floodway and presents serious thrests to human safety. This recommendation would purchase and remove all occupied structures from this reach and reestablish the floodplain's aquatic habitat and flood storage functiol!8. Because the mobile home park provides affordable housing to low income families, and bec~ King County policy requires relocation assistance and replacement housing when displacements from belOW-Market-rate housing are unavoidable,' the I'lan recommends offering these services. rather than 8 simple market-value buyout, to the mobile home residents. A park closure plan would ~so be developed. to include owners and tenants in the planning, design, and implementation of this recommendation. A potential relocation site is the adjacent Stonaway Sand and Gravel mine, once it hss been reclaimed. . * Dorre Don Flood.Dam8ge RednctioDlFloodplahl Restoration (CIP 31(1): Several houses, 8 County road, and a County-maintained levee in this neighborhood, located on the right bank of the Cedar River surrounding the railroad bridge at RM 16.4, have been damaged repeatedly by • King Qnmty Comprehensive Plan Policy R· 108. WMC Lower Cedm-River Bll!Iin Plait 3-6 - • I I I - I I I, I I 1- I~ I- I. t I; r -m I I I I I r debris and fast, deep tloodwatets. The Basin Plan's highest-priority tlood-damage reduction recommendation would purchase and remove the 20 houses in the most hazardous locations, eliminating the flood threat to these residents. It would also remove the upstream portion of the Lower Done Don levee and restore approximately six acres of floodplain to its historic aquatic habitat and floodwater atorage functions. In addition, approximately 600 linear feet of Lower Done Don Way would be elevated to continue to provide sale access to the remaining eight, less-severely threatened houses. • Eruot Brldge/Lower JaDes Road Flood-Damage Redocdoo (CIP 3111): BeloW Elliot Bridge (RM 5.4), two left-bank houses were inundated by water over three feet in depth during .the November 1990 flood. Upstream, to RM 6.0, 22 houses between Jones Road and the Cedar River experienced erosive, high-velocity flows as is common during large floods. Eighteen houses on 1561h Place SB are inaccessible when Jones Road floods, an approximately 2-year occurrence, and 20 additional houses are exposed to less-hazardous flooding during large events. This recommendation would purchase and remove the 24 houses in the most hazardous areas, raise approximately 2,300 linear feet of Jones Road to· ensure access to IS6th Place SB and to reduce flood damage to the less-severely threatened houses, and restore up to 16 acres of flood storage and habitat area *. RJcardI Flood-Damage Redoetion/FIoodplaln Restoradon (CIP 31.,,): Two houses subject to frequent hazardous flooding would be purchased and removed, and the area restored as open space for aquatic babitai and floodwater Bt0r8.ge. Nearly ODe-half of the estimated cost would be· paid by federal and state matching funds. * Byers BeDd/Cedar Grove Road Flood-Damage ReducdoD (CIP 3107): Frequent and severe flood damage to an entire neighborhood would be reduced or eliminated by removing up to eight houses, raising an additional eight houseS; improving the Byers Bend levee, and building an overbank conveyance channel along Byers Road to carry floodwater safely back to the Cedar River. . * Dorre Doo Court Flood-Damage ReductioDIFloodplaln Restoration (ClP 3103): Three houses subjec;t to hazardous flooding would be removed and the area would be restored as floodplain for aquatic babltat and floodwater storage. • Lower BaiD Road and Royal Arch Flood-Damage ReducdonlFloodplaln Restoradon (C1P 3104): Between three and nine houses, typically flooded at about the 10-year event and damaged by hazardous flows during the November 1990 flood, wOUld be removed and floodplain storage and habitat would be reestablished . • Maplewood Flood-Damage Redoetion (CIP 3112): Approximately 60 houses in the Maplewood subdivision that III'C threatened with severe damage during the 100-year flood would be protected by the construction of a 1.200-foot-Iong levee (to a maximum height of approximately four feet). All mitigation for this activity, a suitable project should be selected and implemented from the mainstem enhancement and restoration projects listed in basinwide reconnnendation (BW) 6 and Mainstem recommendation (MS) 4 of this Plan. • Jan Road Flood-Damage ReductloDlBabltat Restoration (CIP 3106): Frequent damage to roads and houses would be reduced and emergency access to 14 houses would be ensured by 3·7 . Chapter J: Subarea ReI!Ommemiation.r I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I ------------------------ j:ODStniCting a stable overbank conveyance channel to safely direct floodwaters overtopping the Jan Road levee back to the Cedar River. • Riverbend Mobile Bome Park Revetment Modification (CIP 3110): The rock revetment on the left bank of this constricted reach of the Cedar River would be recontoured using bioengineering techniques to provide stability and additional conveyance and aquatic habitat.· Up to 19 mobile homes nearest the river would be moved or purchased and replaced. • Dorre Don Way SE Elevation (Orchard Grove) (CIP 3101): Approximately 650 linear feet orOorre Don Way SB would be raised an average of two feet.to ensure access to 15 houses in -the Orchanl Grove neighborhood currently cut offby floodwater at about the 10-year flood event. , • Getcb.man Levee Modifications (CIP 3105): Frequent damage to the Rhode levce, which protects nearly 20 houscs, would be reduced by moving the Getchman levee back from the cedar River and strengthening the faces of both structures using bioengineering techniques. One or two houses at the downstream end oftbtRhode levee would be removed. • Penon Revetment Modifications (elP 3113): A private revetment would be reeontoured and stIengtbened using bioengineering techniques to prevent continued release of large quantities of sediment. In addition, a gravel mine-site and landslide scar would be stabilized with vegetation. • ArcadiQINoble Flood and Erosion Damage Reduction (C1P 3100): One house at the downstream end oftbis frequently damaged revetment would be removed and up to 1,600 linear feet of revetment would be modified using bioengineering techriiques. Programmatic Recommendations. * Denotes Core Plan recommendations. which are tliose recommendations that would accomplish, at a minimum. the major Plan goals (see ChaPter S). * Open Space Acquisition (BW 4): Sites in the Cedar River floodplain have been identified and prioritized fur acquisition as open space to allow protection or restoration of their aquatic habitat . value. See Tabl~ 4-1 and 4-2 in Chspter4. . * Aquatic Resource Mitigation Bank Sites (BW 6): This recommendation would anow public agencies to fulfill their mainstem mitigation oblig~tions in high-quality mitigation bank sites away from project sites, where such mitigation may be less effeCtive. * RoadlUrban Runoff Wafer Quality Reco~endatlons (BW 9): The drainage facilities of 1-405 and numerous County roads would be maint$ed and retrofitted with water quality . controls to reduce the impacts of contaminated road' runoff. . . * Water Quality Treatment Standards (BW 12): Sphagnum bog water quality treatment standards would be applied to all development in catclunent MS 16 that drsinii to Wetland 38 to • BiocugineeriDg.tecbniquea use materiala such as rock, limbers, Boil, p1aDts. and natural fabrics to reduce erosion and stabilize sleep slopes. WMC Lower Cedll1' River Barln Plan 3·8 • - • I • - I I I I- I- I I I- I. 1""1 I L· I f I ! I I I I I maintain the health oftbis wetland. Regionally significant resource area (RSRA) stream protection standards would reduce concentrations aftoxic metals in catclunents draining to river reaches atRM 9.6-10.7, RM 15.7·15.9, and wall base tributaries atRM 11.5 andRM 14.9. * Basin Plan Evaluation (BW 13): Evaluate implementation and effectiveness of Plan recommendations. * Forest Incentive Progl'8m (BW 23): An incentive program to encourage landowners to retain their forest in the rural areas of the basin will be implemented in order to ensure that the Cedar River has clean, stable streams. htcentives will include tax relief, direct technical assistance, forest stewardship classes, a small-scale forestry demonstration site, and individual recognition of good forest stewards. * Masonry Dam Operations Study (MS 1): MDSOmy Dam operations would be analyzed in cooperation with the Seattle Water Department and affected parties for the pmpose of developing flood season openiting guidelines that enhance flood control, assure power generation. and improve water supply availability for both instream and consumptive uses. * Renton Reach Cap!lcity (MS 1): The ongoing City ofRentoniAnny Corps of Engineers study of tlood-damage reduction alternatives in the lower Cedar River channel should be supported. Neighboring jurisdictions, tribes, and resource and permitting agencies would be encouraged to participate. * Seek State and Federal Funding for Flood-Hazard Reduction Measures (MS 3): King County, acting as "local sponsor," will continue to request state and federal aid to'help reduce flood damage along the Cedar River. * MaiDstem Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Program (MS 4): Where consistent with state and tribal goals, aquatic habitat and floodpl8in areas would be restored or ~nhanced. Types of projects may include construction of ponds and channels IItld removal or reconfiguration of levees and revetments. Many such sites are listed in Chapter 4, and they will be more fully desc;ibed in a separate teclmical document • Channel Migration Hazard Areas ~S 6): The risk of severe hazards to human life WQuld be reduced by the limitation of new development in areas where the Cedar River channel is most likely to migrilte in the next 100 years. * Floodplain Mapping Analysis, Revision, and DistribudoD (MS 7): Existing County and federa1. floodplain maps should be revised to reflect the latest floodplain infonnation, and gages along the Cedar River should be replaced, augmented. or recalibtated to aid in future map revisions. , • Flood Education (MS 8): Reduce flood damage by making floodplain residents more aware of safe evacuation routes and the extent of the floodplain, and by teaching them flood protection and damage reduction teclmiques. This recommendation would expand existing county and City of Renton public education programs in these areas. Chapler 3: SubDreD RecommelUlalioJJ.f " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * Debris Flow Protection for MOOUe Home Park (MS 12): Owners of a mobile home park on Tributary 0313, which is at risk of severe damage from debris flows. would be provided with a list of alternative private actions that could be taken to reduce their risk. • Salmonid Productivity (BWI 7 ad 8*): These recommendations would support an ongoing study to determine the causes of salmon decline. and would continue to support a temporary sockeye hatchery at Landsburg, and reservo the option to use County open space at RM 9.0 for possible future development as a spawning channel. A final decision to construct a spawning channel at this site will depend on results of the Lake Washington Ecological Studies and additional evaluation of the environmental impact of a spawDing channel at this &ito relative to . others, and comparison to other production methods that could produce the desired sockeye fry production with less cost. and environmental impact. The final decision will be made by the Cedar River Sockeye Spawning Channel Policy Committee. or its designee. • Stormwater Quality (MS 9, 10*,11): Extensive source control strategies for cleanup efforts and elimination of stotmwater pollutants are recommended for industrial and commercial areas (MS 10). Stannwater discharges from major highways and the Renton Municipal Airport would be addressed by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System industrial stormwater pollution prevention plans (MS 9, MS 11) and the W_gton State Department of Ecology Highway Runoft'Program. • Remove Qaallfylng Structures from Hazardous Areas (BW I): Occupied structures at high risk of hazardous flooding. and not included in tho ClPs above, would be removed from the floodplain on a wiUing-seller basis as they are identified and as funding is available. • Reduce Less-Hazardous Flood Damage (BW 1): Occupied structures at risk of . Iess-bazardous flooding. many of which are .identified in the full text of this.recommendation found in Chapter 4. may be eligible for technical and limited finaucial assistance for removal or other floodproofing. . . . • Modify Levees aDd Revetments (MS 5): Selected County-maintained levees and revetments would be modified, relocated,.or removed. to reestablish aquatic habitat an4 increase the storage volume of the floodplain. . • Aquifer ~tecUOD (BW 17): Aquifer recharge and groundwater quality would be protected as a potable drinking water source. , . . '. . ' . • Urban Stol'Qlwater. Managemellt (BW18): To promote more ~fficlcnt use ofland in the Renton Urban Growth Area. public/private partnerships would be encouraged to build regional stormwater quality· and quantity treatment facilities .. WMC Lower CediJrRtller Btlsln Plan 3-10 -' -' , • • . I • I , I I I. I I I I~ ( 1\ -'I I II I I I I I Location Mop r-= • • • • , , • • • , --. ...... '-. • • • • • • • • • .. ' •••• 1!' •••• " • • • • • • • • • • • • • • " · ---, , , • • • , " , , .( MSO ~ ........... --~ RENTON l • , , G:~':' 'fJ;r~' .' , , .. Cedar River Mainstem Reach 1 .... Cedar River Basin Planning Area Recommendations ..... i • • • '-- Programmatic Recommendations aw I BW 2 ,W6 aW7 BW9 61'1' 12 BW 13 I BW 14 , all' 15 ,Biv 16 BW 18 , BW 19 N,s J liS 2 , NSl M58 : .o\iS 9 , NS 10 'MS1I tl!lII01oll Oua1¥ng Sivcll.r;e!s 1Icim /ia;;OfriOlJS Iv ... ~tdt.a l!uHaxadruJ Hood Damoge Aqv.llic R~!OCJrCe N~Iiga/ion 'IxHll SiltJ Al/iridol SaImor!id l7o&..clSo-l N.ewvres /mprO\ldmefJIOI Woler Ova/i,.,. hoin Road P,olnogoJ or.cI Ubon AleO! Waltr GuOf,~1 Treafmenl Sbndord~, Bo5ie Tteelmer.1 a... no> f,okorion Waitt !e$Ol.r(ts Ew(lon and 1\blic /(i\'a...tment Ct!oo, R/I'C( CotN1C~ Basin 5!e>\'OI'd Program lhban Shrmwobl A'~meilllnrliot\· .. e. ~tJen~",/CM,fer.tiort S/arxhds. level 0 A/cw.ry Dam CFrorior.s Study Seel S •• oe'; f.ckal ",,<1'910' 1fo".; Ha!"," RttcLdiro N4oswe, FIoodp'olnlv'.tJj>pin9!A.r,alyS1s, li'evisiM. & Djs"j~rion FWEko,,,, NPDES h.:IvstlcJ ·Sb'rnI'.CItt Permils Sb1nWQIeI.Gt..o~ty in A-,dus~oIICommeiciol Areos TttaATltntoJ 1-J05 or.d SR-/69 Sl:.InnwelCt .------.. I: I' ( I, .. , 1-' I , 1 I 1 I. I:~ J I~ lii~ __ J 1"'1 _I I-I .' II: I I ! I , I .. , I I': r I ) Figure 3-3 Cedar River Mainstem Reach 2 Cedar River Basin Planning Area Recommendations .2~!.. Stream & Stream Number ~ _ .... -~ Unclossifi~d Stroam __ Lake/River .. • River Mile (RM) 30 _ Wedand & Wetland Number @_ ~lo .. 1 W.dand & Wetland Number ........ Subbasin Boundary .. ,. -Cotchmefl.t Boundary MS' Catchment Number --Urban Growth ""eo Boundary (as of 6/9B) C':':J Incorporahod Area (a, of 6/98) 3122 Capital I mprovement Project Location & Number I I -I I - I I I l t I t II II I I I I I \ MAPLE VAllEY a i , \ .. \" .. • ProgrammaHc RecommendaHons BW 1 F""Jovt Qdi/ylng StucAles /rom Hozard:m. Areas 8W 2 R.doc.I".&-..do". Rood IJon-oge aw 4 Prftvil~J '01 (;pta Spoc. AcqoisibO\s SW 6 Aquollc GCSIJIJf'Ce Mi/lga~on Bank SUes 8IY 7 Mlldal SoImo.Id FIod..dooIl ........ 8W 12 Wa., Gva./t frOG""'" Slor>dards. Bo,le r,_"" BW 13 Bos'n Plan f.ialualoo 8W 14 Woler itXurM Ed.m~'on aid Pul:Jtc ilV(;~.,·tmtl1t 8W 15 C.JaR .. ,C<M>ci1 8W 16 80s;" s... .. ~ l'n'9'an aw 18 Urban Slamo'\o.l!r l\o1orogemenl ililioliva 8W 19 lokIINooIil<""d", Sbnd:.d, IJI c.-=h",,,,. 1.,./ 0: Valloy FkxX W,~ Ihod o;,d"'9' 1.>,011: Iv."""DkodD~ 'BW 20 ea.ln. ~"""" Siandad ' MS 1 II""""Y 0... ~ sw., MS 3 's..I S ... a.d F""'aI W,'6 "" Rood Ha.-ard redudion MemtK~s MS" MailWem Hobibt Re1b'obJ ottd rrhoncetTW!lnr Progom A'tS 5 ModJy Le~j and te ... h".«Jb . MS 6 C/oaMelllqed,," Han7d -./Sool>bp !<good) MS 7 F1codp/a.In,vq::tpilg Andysl, R'vi,kn, oM Distibu:lcn MS 8 Rood E"""100 -• • .. " '" _# _#- _~:'L-=;. -'~ ;. .............. -"( ~ \ /~o 'C... 81 "' " .... \ Ms17 " ' I \ ....... IIt .... I. MS16 '.-, .. ..... \ ", .......... . .-.~ ".. .. .~ ..... ::, , \. --"'0-"f .... _-.. -" ....... " ' ..... ~.' .. y ,. t ... "'........ '\:>'~) \ • ... "... . .... -. . -ilt ••••• # ~.~·-~·,--------------I , , .J~-I·~-J~~~:;;~~:=j~::::-.,...X::.~.--.. KENT I Pl/atershed} LocaHon Map ~ C~da~ Ri~~rM~in;tem Reach_~ i Cedar River Ba~lh Planning Area Recommendations I " .o.:!-#_ Stream & Stream Number ----" unda"ified Stream .. lake/River U • Rive, Mile (RMI ,,~ Wetland & Wetland,Number I @-Cia" I Wetland'& Wetland No. ........ Subbasin Boundary L=,. ...... -Catchment BOundary Bl Catchment Numbe, 3122 ® Copilallmprovement Project location ::::':-'1 Incorporated Area 10. of 6/98) --Urban Growth Area Boundory (as of 6/981 Programmatic Recommendations: Q::1) MS 6: Charinel Migration Hazard Areas o t 1MB, I _prdat~_; YlUDI~t*lIGIS till!., Publ, Ottr~.,. s...1lm ............... " .... , ____ ~, ____ ~ ___ ---=-rw ____ ; ... .._..__~ __ _ I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Prepared for: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. April 2014 Prepared by: 'i/tranSpOGROUP 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 13175.00 © 2014 Transpo Group I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... Ii Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 1 Study Scope ........................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 1 Existing & Future Without·ProJect Conditions ........................................................................... 4 Roadway Network .................................................................................................................. 4 Planned Roadway Improvements .......................................................................................... 4 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 5 Traffic Operations .................................................................................................................. 8 Traffic Safety .......................................................................................................................... 9 Non·Motorized Facilities ...................................................................................................... 10 Transit Service ..................................................................................................................... 10 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 11 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................... 11 Trip Distribution and Assignment ......................................................................................... 11 Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 15 Sight Distance ...................................................................................................................... 16 Traffic/Pedestrian Safety ............ , ........................................................................................ 17 Non·Motorized Facilities ...................................................................................................... 18 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Impact Fee ........................................................................................................................... 19 Sight Distance ...................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS Definitions Appendix C: LOS Worksheets Appendix D: Vehicle Speed Report Summary Figures 1. Site Vicinity ................................................................................................................... 2 2. Preliminary Site Plan .................................................................................................... 3 3. Existin9 Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 6 4. Future (2018) Without·Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................... 7 5. Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution ........................................................... 12 6. Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment... ........................................................ 13 7. Future (2018) With·Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................ 14 8. Available Sight Distance at Edmonds Ave SE/SE 16th Street·Edmonds Way SE .... 17 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Tables Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary ....................................................... 4 EXisting and Future Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations ....................... 8 EXisting and Future Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations ....................... 9 Study Intersection Collision Data Summary ................................................................ 9 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................. 10 Estimated Project Trip Generation ............................................................................. 11 CUTtranSpOGROUP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Executive Summary This section provides an executive summary through a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Where Is the orolect located and what would be develooed? The project is located on the Renton School District Plat located east of Tiffany Park Elementary School and south of Pierce Avenue SE. The site is near the intersection of Lake Youngs Way SE and Kirkland Avenue SE. Development would include the construction of 98 single-family residential dwelling units. What exIsting public streets will servo tho prolect and where Is access proposed? The primary streets that will serve project traffic include 116th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168th Street, SE Petrovitsky Road, S Puget Drive, and 108th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. Access is proposed via two existing roadways: SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE. Is the site currentlv served bv public transit? The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within the study area. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 123rd Avenue SE, each near the project access points. How man v dailv vehicular trips would the project generate and when would peak traffic volumes occur? The project would generate approximately 1,030 daily vehicular trips. Estimated traffic volumes during the weekday AM peak hour (one-hour period between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.) would amount to 78 vehicle trips with 20 entering and 58 exiting. During the PM peak hour (one-hour period between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), the project would generate 103 vehicle trips with 65 entering and 38 exiting. What transportation impacts are anticipated. If anv? In 2018, the intersection of Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive is estimated to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under both without-and with-project conditions. The addition of AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to this intersection. The remaining study intersections will operate at LOS D or better with or without project traffic during both weekday peak hours. Limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). This limitation could create a potential traffic safety impact with increases in traffic on SE 18th Street attributable to the proposed project. What moasures are proposed to reduce or control traffic Impacts? Potential traffic safety impacts for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street could be mitigated by installing a stop sign and stop bar on Monroe Avenue SE at the intersection andlor restricting on-street parking along the north side of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE to prevent vehicles from obstructing available sight distance. 'lftranSpOGROUP ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Introduction April 2014 The purpose of this transportation impact analysis (TIA) is to identify potential traffic-related impacts associated with the proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park residential development in the City of Renton. As necessary, mitigation measures are identified that would offset or reduce significant impacts. . Project Description The project is a subdivision of single-family homes which would be located on surplus Renton School District property within the City of Renton. The project site is currently undeveloped and located east of Tiffany Park Elementary School and south of Pierce Avenue SE with access proposed via SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE. The project includes the construction of 98 single-family dwelling units. Figure 1 illustrates the project site and the surrounding vicinity. A preliminary site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. The project is anticipated to be constructed, units occupied and generating traffic by 2018. Study Scope This study evaluates existing and future 2018 weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection operations in the area surrounding the proposed development. The study area focuses on intersections near the site, as well as along 126th Avenue SE, 116th Avenue SE, S Puget Drive and Benson Road S. Study Area The analysis focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hour (between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) operations at thirteen existing study intersections. These periods represent the highest cumulative total traffic for the adjacent street system providing a conservative timeframe for level of service (LOS) analysis. The study intersections include (see Figure 1): 1. Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive 2. Benson Road SIS Puget Drive 3. Royal Hills Drive SE/S Puget Drive 4. 116th Avenue SEiSE 160th Street 5. 116th Avenue SE/SE 168th Street 6. 116th Avenue SE/SE Petrovitsky Road 7. Lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th Street 8. Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way SE 9. Kirkland Avenue SE/SE 158th Street 10. 126th Avenue SE/SE 160th Street 11. 126thAvenue SE/SE 168th Street 12. 124th Place SE/SE 158th Street 13. Edmonds Avenue SEiSE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE The TIA describes conditions in the site vicinity including roadway network, existing and future (2018) weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, non-motorized facilities, and transit. The future conditions with the project are evaluated by adding site-generated traffic to future baseline traffic volumes. Analysis of future conditions addresses cumulative impacts of the proposed project and traffic growth in the study area. Site-generated impacts are identified based on differences between with-and without-project conditions. 7I/tranSpOGROUP Page 1 ------------------- I I .. ~ N o NOTTO SCALE ... j --~ o = STUOY INTERSECTION Site Vicinity FIGURE 'i(tranSpOGROUP 1 Keserve at Tiffany Park Q:\Projedsl 131 13175.00 -Renliln School ~enley Reskientlal.Graphi:s113115-9raphi:02 -10.25-2013 <f1> jesseb 041Q3114 16:06 - -- - - , \ ' , ' \ ' \ \ ... - , ~,-'->--\ J,.-'"'\-\ \ \ -:;;)\ \ " , . , -. --," c:\: ... ~ / \ A;\~~ . .)1 \ ',";";",:' './' ; -- - - - --- - - - - '\', ' .... , ~ , , , \ " '< I , ' ).., "I , I • \ ,", '~,! ! , , V ,', ''''--~-'''-"'-.-..i.-_J.. \, II' ~"''''''''''~r-~:~.. _,,-__ ,< \" , " " -' , " , '"" " , , , , '" "'" "'~ , '-'--~-"-"",,",,,,<, ,-', '" I I \ \. (~/' " .... ~, , \ '" , ""'" , , " -" v 'y-''''..,' " : \:J" .......... / ), /""""'---'--, r-'-,." _', , '" , , " , , ' " , , ~ / ", ' , -' , , '" . , , " ',', , .(.... , ,... I ~~~ 11, ... I '\ \ .J. ____ ,' r----J,. ,; \. ( '.t... I~. \~ I ( -..... -' '" i"'\ ~ -'-, .. "~\. , , t .... --~ \ \ >v.,' " ' "'" ' " ''-: , " ". " ---'j '" V ~ ~-----~----~:l>.-..,.<"~ ___ \__ ~~<). \ /_', / \, '. ... \\ \ "IIIL'<y" A •.. -'-if \' '--, .., X , " /-..: ... ",,~ ~::"'~-, \~---< --\ ... -.... \ ;{,," ) .... _-" Y' o --' '(' '\ J.. '" .. I ,,~--• '-----\ /' >-(' -__ -/. 0' '44:' ----,<' I \ I --, II'! '" , " ., . ................ / \ /.. I ........... \ I __ ... ~. .... ~--I, ............. / \ ... "....... '. ~~,/~ __ ~> L \ ... :'{. \ \ . \ I \ ~//'~' ] _."-_,~_--"\.--'-,----.---T---,----.,p_ __'\" \," I --- dIP'" ,,'r"\ ' " \ '. " \ ' i T--~ ,,.,-'" , , " , , , ' , ' , ' ,'" "", , ,>",,' " ", ", ~C1" ,,-' "",,-'---. , \ ',"'" .......... .. -..... ", ' ",~,., \ ' ' , : ' , , ," ' ' , I \ , ' , . Preliminary Site Plan Reserve at Tiffany Pari< 1\srv-<lfs.waIMM.,projectslProjedsI13113175.00 -Renlon School Slte-lienley Resk!enlla~Graphlcsll3175..!1raphk:03 -4-16-2014 <F2> s1ephanleg 04117114 11:49 'i/tranSpOGROUP -- ~ NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Res81V8 at Tiffany Park April 2014 Existing & Future Without-Project Conditions This section describes existing and future without-project conditions within the identified study area. Characteristics are provided for the roadway network, existing traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, non-motorized facilities, and transit service. Roadway Network The existing roadway characteristics in the proposed project vicinity are described in Table 1. In addition to these roadway features, Traffic calming speed bumps are installed along 126th Avenue SE, SE 160th Street and SE 164th Street. Table 1. Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary Roadway Posted Number of Bicycle Roadwa~ Classification Speed Limit Travel Lanes Parking? Sidewalks? Facilities? 5E Pelrovitsky Rd Principal Arterial 35 mph 4 No Yes No Benson Dr 5 (5R 515) Principal Arterial 35 mph 4 No Yes No 5E 16Sth 5t Collector Arterial 30 mph 2 Yes Yes No 116th Ave 5E-Edmonds Ave 5E Minor Arterial 30 mph 2 No Yes No 12Sth Ave 5E Minor Arterial 25 mph 2 No Yes No Benson Rd 5-10Sth Ave 5E Minor Arterial 40 mph 4 No Yes No 5 Puget Dr Minor Arterial 35 mph 4 No Yes No 123rd Ave 5E Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Yes Yes No Kirkland Ave SE Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Yes Yes No Lake Youngs Way SE local Access Road 25 mph 2 Yes Yes No Royal Hills Dr SE Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Yes Yes No 5E 15Sth 5t Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Yes Yes No 5E 160th 5t Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Yes Yes No 5E 164th 5t Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Yes Yes No 5E 16th 5t Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Yes Yes No Edmonds Way 5E Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Yes No No Note: mph -miles per hour Planned Roadway Improvements Based on a review of the City of Renton's proposed Six-Year (2014-2019) Transportation Improvement Program, 116th Avenue SE is planned to be improved to provide a 3-lane roadway with bike lanes from Puget Drive SE to the south City Limits and is expected to be completed in 2019. Phase 1 which will improve the corridor from SE 168th Street to SE Petrovitsky Road is expected to be completed in 2017. These improvements are expected to enhance vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety along the corridor but would not increase intersection capacity and therefore, these improvements were not included in the evaluation of future conditions. ~ftranSpOGROUP Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Traffic Volumes This transportation analysis focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hours when the combination of project traffic and background traffic volumes on the surrounding street system are highest to capture a relative worst case condition. Existing weekday AM and PM peak period (7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) turning movement counts at all but two study intersections were conducted in late June 2013 with detailed intersection traffic count worksheets provided in Appendix A. Because the intersection counts were conducted during Tiffany Park Elementary School's summer break, traffic normally generated by the school was not present in the existing traffic count volumes. To more appropriately reflect typical weekday conditions, school traffic generated by Tiffany Park Elementary School was added to existing count volumes based on the current student enrollment of the school and average trip rates published in Trip Generation (ITE, 9th Edition) and distributed throughout the study area based on the Renton School District elementary school boundary map and the approximate distribution of homes within the school's boundary. This resulted in approximately 30 percent of the school traffic distributed tolfrom the immediate area, 5 percent tolfrom the neighborhoods directly north, 5 percent tolfrom the west, and 60 percent tolfrom the SR 169 corridor. The resulting existing condition (with school traffic) turning movement volumes are summarized in Figure 3. Existing traffic volumes at the Royal Hills Drive SE/S Puget Drive and Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street- Edmonds Way SE intersections were collected in April 2014 when public schools were in session. . Future without-project traffic volumes were estimated by growing existing traffic volumes by two percent per year to 2018 conditions. Figure 4 illustrates 2018 without-project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. 'i/tranSpOGROUP Page 5 - - 8 BENSON DRS S PUGETDR (380) 1,565 - (20)j I elOO ) (80)40) 1..365(855) (5)15 --5(5) (5)5, (20(ao) (JIC(5) 870 (1,805) • 116TH AVE SE , SE 16DTH ST (75) 240 Ie) 1..20 (35) (15(15) I e(15) 210 (195) • lAKE YOUNGS WAY SE SE 18TH ST 35(60) 1 10 (10) (7o)k,.. (5(5) 5(5) 5(10) A. 126THAVESE WSE160THST (50) 55 (lj I (5) 15) (10) 25, (25») I so (70) - - 8 BENSONRDS S PUGET DR (70) 525 - (ao) 5 ~270 (ao) j \... I.. 120 (250) (10) 25) . -200 (475) (55)480-(45(10) (5)420, \" (380) IsO \ 45(10) 145 (515) • 116THAVE SE SE 168TH ST (85) 175 (15J Il(5) (10)35 ) I.. 15(25) (35)310 --125(225) (25)4ao, (90(55) (335») I C (ao) 195 (lao) • KIRKlAND AVE SE • LAKE YOUNGS WAY SE (0) 0 (45) 15 (50) 15 5 (20) (15) 5)\ '-'" ~15(10 (10)5~,,~15(10) (15) 10 so (15) 35(45) 0 (0) e 126THAVESE SE 168TH ST (5) 5 (40)5 I e (10)60) 1..5(0) (40) 245 --105(120) (5)ao, (5(5) (20)J I c) 5 (0) -- -- - ---- • ROYAL HLLS DR SE S PUGETDR (40) 35 (lao)J I (25)125 ) (95)380 , (465)J I SO (20) 8 116THAVESE SE PETROVITSKY RD (95) 325 (SO)j 1l:(30) (70) 165 } I.. 140 (220) Note: T raflk: voomes at iltersectbns #1 • #2 and #4 -#12 were collected the week of June 24, 2013 and ilcreased to reftect c:onditkms when pubtk: schools are il sessbn. (255) 995 - -555(995) (15)80, (so (10) ~\-J-.... (45)] I C(5) 145 (235) • KIRKlAND AVE SE SE 158THST (55) 60 le 5 ) I.. 15 (SO) (5(5) I C(5) SO (75) 8 124THPLSE SE 158TH ST i:i z ~ \ I', IE 10 ~ ffi I -< > I < > m < "' m m ~ a EDMONDSAVESE ., SE 16TH STIEDMONDS WAY SE (105)(2) 250 15(30) ~ "' ~ iii ~ SE 164TH ST '" ~ '" SE 168 ~ ~ ~ - (0)0 (0)0.)..1 (25)30_ 0(0) l \..0(0) -20(45) j 145 l..L-v~~\~ll 1 '"'"r'''Fj-r j 'I '( 3(0) I ,..( 1(0) I (i ""5(7) I' 0 (I) SOl 175 (15iO) (315) Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes --.. N - NOTTOSCALE 1t2NOST x = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR ~ FIGURE 3 ReseNe at Tiffany Park Q:lProjeclSI13113175,OO' Ranlon School Stt~en~y Resijenlia~GraphIcsI13175..!lraphk:03· 4-16-2014 <F3> jesseb 04/18114 16~8 ~/tranSpOGROUP - - O BENSON DRS S PUGETDR (420) 1,730 - (20) j IC (110) (90) 45 ) \. 405 (945) (5)15--5(5) (5)5, (20(35) (JIC(5) 960 (1.995) • 116TH AVE SE , SE 160TH ST (85) 285 IC 5 ) \.20 (40) (15(15) 1(15) 230 (215) G LAKEYOUNGSWAYSE SE 18TH ST 40 (65) 1 '0 ('0) (75)4O~" (5(5) 5 (5) 5 (10) I) 126TH AVE SE I SE 160TH ST (65) . 60 (ljl (5)15) (10)30, (30))1 (75) - - 8 BENSONRDS S PUGETDR (75) 580 - (35) 5 ~ 300 (35) .) \... \. 130 (275) (10)30) -220(525) (60) 530-(SO (10) (5)485, \" (395) 165 \ SO (10) 160 (570) • 116TH AVE SE SE 168THST (95) 195 (15)J Ir(5) (10)40) \. 15 (30) (40)340 --140(250) (30) 475 , (100 (60) (370)) I C (35) 215 (145) • KIRKLAND AVE SE • LAKE YOUNGS WAY SE (0)0 (45) 15 (60) 15 5 (20) (15)5)\ V~15(10 (10)5~,,~15(10) (15) 10 SO (15) 35 (45) 0 (0) • 126THAVE SE SE 188TH ST (5) 5 (45)Jle (10)65) \.5 (45)270 --115(130) (5)35, (5(5) (20)J I Cs) 5 (0) - - • ROYAl HIlLS DR SE S PUGETDR (45) 40 (14O)j I (25) 135) (105)410, (505)J I 55 (20) 8 "6THAVESE SE PETROVITSKY RD (105) 360 - (55) j 1l:(35) (75) 180 ) . \. 155 (245) (280)1.100 --615(1.100) (15) 90 , (55 (10) (SO)) I C(5) 160 (260) • KIRKLAND AVE SE SE 158THST (60) 65 It(30) \. 15 (55) (5(5) 1(5) 55 (85) -- - - - . SE 184TH ST ~ m z z m "" \ I........ I I~ "" ~ ~ I~ ~_ I » I ~ ~ '" m m '" ~ ni :;; ~ '" SE 16ST) ~ ~ ~ - - .. 124THPlSE WSEl58THST ~ • EDMONDS AVE SE SE 16TH ST.fDMONDS WAY SE 1-1 _+_.-- (115) (0)0 (O)O)J (30)35_ 0(0) l tOtO) -20(50) 270 (2)(30) I~: 9OJ:~~\ [JL-~:J I ~ ~ 3(0) SEP::;:::::: ~ 1 (0) i i I r".:~5(1) I r 0(1) 55 ' 190 (15)(0) (340) • Future (20.18) Without-Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - - - .. N NOTTOSCAlE lt2ND ST x = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = JW. PEAK HOUR FIGURE Reserve at Tiffany Park Q:IProjects113113175.00 -Renlon School Sfte4ienley Res~enIill.Graphlcs\13175-9raphk:03 -4-16-2014 <F4> slephanleg 04/17/14 17:06 4 'i/tranSpOGROUP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Traffic Operations --------------------- April 2014 The operational characteristics of an intersection are evaluated by determining 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 (LOS A to F). LOS A indicates free-flow traffic and LOS F indicates 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 delay is defined as the combination of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. At two-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is measured in average stopped delay per vehicles for the worst movement of the intersection. A more detailed explanation of LOS is provided in Appendix B. Existing and future without-project LOS and delays were calculated at study intersections based on the methods contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The'software program Synchro 8 was used to evaluate intersection operations. Table 2 and Table 3 show the weekday AM and PM peak hour existing and 2018 without-project operations, respectively. Detailed intersection LOS worksheets are contained in Appendix C. Table 2. Existing and Future Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Existing 2018 Without-Project Traffic VIC' or VIC or Intersection Control LOS1 Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM 1. Benson Dr SIS Puget Dr Signal D 50.7 1.00 E 76.5 1.08 2. Benson Rd SIS Puget Dr Signal C 31.9 0.70 0 35.7 0.77 3. Royal Hills Dr SEiS Puget Dr Side-Street Stop A 10.0 SB B 11.0 SB 4. 116th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side-Street Stop B 10.3 WB B 10.6 _ WB 5. 116th Ave SE/SE 168th St Signal B 15.9 0.84 C 20.3 0.86 6. 116th Ave SEiSE Petrovitsky Rd Signal C 23.9 0.75 C 27.3 0.81 7. Lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th St Side-Street Stop A 9.4 WB A 9.5 WB 8. Kirkland Ave SEiLake Youngs Way SE Side-Street Stop A 9.6 NB A 9.7 NB 9. Kirkland Ave SEiSE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 9.0 WB A 9.1 WB 10. 126th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side-Street Stop A 9.1 EB A 9.2 EB 11. 126th Ave SEiSE 168th St Side-Street Stop B 10.6 NB B 10.8 NB 12. 124th Place SE/SE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 0.0 SB A 0.0 SB 13. Edmonds Ave SEiSE 16th St-Edmonds Side-Street Stop B 12.6 SWB B 13.3 SWB WaySE 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRB. 2000) 2. Avemge delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Volume-to-capaclty (VIC) ratio reported for signalized Intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled Intersections. NB = northbound approach; 5B = southbound a~proach; EB = -eastbound a~proach; WB = westbound approach; SWB = southwestbound e~~roech. All study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours for existing conditions. With growth in traffic volumes by 2018, all study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better for both AM and PM peak hours. The one exception being Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive intersection which changes from LOS D under existing conditions to LOS E under 2018 traffic volumes for the AM peak hour. 'iTtranSpOGROUP PageS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Table 3. Existing and Future Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Existing 2018 Without-Project Traffic VIC" or VICar Intersection Control LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM 1. Benson Dr SIS Puget Dr Signal C 28.9 0.71 0 39.5 0.79 2. Benson Road SIS Puget Dr Signal 0 39 .. 3 0.81 0 48.7 0.88 3. Royal Hills Dr SEiS Pugel Dr Side-Street Stop A 5.6 SB A 6.4 SB 4. 116th Ave SEiSE 160th SI Side-Street Stop B 11.2 WB B 11.6 WB 5. 1161h Ave SEISE 168th SI Signal B 19.2 0.60 B 19.8 0.67 6. 116th Ave SEiSE Petrovltsky Rd Signal D 38.1 0.89 D 43.8 0.99 7. Lake Youngs Way SEiSE 18th St Side-Street Stop 'A 8.8 WB A 8.9 WB 8. Kirkland Ave SEiLake Youngs Way SE Side-Street Stop A 9.2 NB A 9.3 NB 9. Kirkland Ave SEiSE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 8.9 WB A 9.0 WB 10. 126th Ave SE/SE 160th St Side-Street Stop A 9.3 EB A 9.3 EB 11. 126th Ave SEiSE 168th St Side-Street Stop B 13.3 NB B 14.1 NB 12. 124th Plaoo SEiSE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 0.0 SB A 0.0 SB 13. Edmonds Ave SE/SE 161h St-Edmonds Side-Street Stop B 12.8 SWB B 13.4 SWB WaySE 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRB, 2000) 2. Average delay per vehicle In seconds. 3. Volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled intersections. NB = northbound approach; S8 = southbound approach; EB = eastbound approach; WB = westbound approach; SWB = southwestbound approach. Traffic Safety Collision records at the study intersections were reviewed to identify if any patterns would highlight any existing traffic safety issues. The most recent three-year period of complete .collision data provided by the WSDOT is for January 1. 2010 to December 31. 2012. Table 4 summarizes the average annual reported collisions and three-year collision rate for each study intersection per million entering vehicles. Table 4. Study Intersection Collision Data Summary Tolal byY •• r Annual Collisions Intersection 2010 2011 2012 Average per MEV' 1. Benson Or SIS Puget Dr 9 13 19 13.67 0.96 2. Benson Rd SIS Puget Dr 6 5 3 4.67 0.53 3. Royal Hills Dr SEIS Puget Dr 0 0 0 0 0 4. 116th Ave SEiSE 160th St 2 0 0 0.67 0.34 5. 116th Ave SEiSE 168th St 2 2 2 2.00 0.33 6. 116th Ave SEISE Petrovitsky Rd 7 8 7 7.33 0.68 7. Lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th St 0 0 0 0 0 8. Kirkland Ave SEILake Youngs Way SE 0 0 0 0 0 9. Kirkland Ave SEiSE 158th SI 0 0 0 0 0 10. 126th Ave SE/SE 160th St 0 0 0 0 0 11. 126th Ave SEiSE 168th St 0 0 0.33 0.17 12. 124th Place SEISE 158th St 0 0 0 0 0 13. Edmonds Ave SE/SE 16th SI·Edmonds 0 0 0.33 0.12 WaySE 1. MEV Million anterina vehicles. 'fIrtranSpOGROUP Page 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 No fatalities have occurred at the study intersections in the past three years. An intersection with a collision rate greater than 1.00 typically indicates that further investigation is needed to determine if an adverse condition exists. As shown in Table 4, all study intersections have a collision rate less than 1.00. Non-Motorized Facilities The site is located in a single-family residential area southeast of downtown Renton. Pedestrian facilities near the site include sidewalks along both sides of Lake Youngs Way SE, Kirkland Avenue, and the majority of roadways in the project vicinity. In addition, sidewalks are provided intermittently along 116th Avenue SE, Benson Road S, Benson Drive S, S Puget Drive, and 126th Avenue SE. Crosswalks are provided at the signalized study intersections, along SE 168th Street, and intermittently along 116th Avenue SE. There are no dedicated bike facilities in the area but bicycles typically share the roadway with vehicles. Transit Service The project site is located in close proximity to transit served by King County Metro Routes 102 and 148. Route 148 travels nearest the project site with stops along Lake Youngs Way SE, Kirkland Avenue SE, and 123rd Avenue SE with the remaining routes servicing other corridors within the study area. These routes provide regional service, connecting to Downtown Seattle, the Renton Transit Center and Tukwila. Route characteristics are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. Existing Transit Service Approximate AM Peak PM Peak Headway. Weekday Period Trips Period Trips (minutes) Routes Area Served Operating Hours 102 Renton -Fairwood 4:45 AM -6:45 PM 6 PM only-15 to 30 148 Fairwood-Renton/Downtown 5:45 AM -9:30 PM 4 3 30 Seattle Source: King County Metro (October 2013). ~ftranSpOGROUP Page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Project Impacts. April 2014 This section of the report documents potential transportation impacts generated by the proposed project on the surrounding street network and at study intersections. First, estimated traffic volumes generated by the proposed site are distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system. Next, project trips are added to future without-project traffic volumes and any potential impacts to traffic operations, safety, and non-motorized facilities are identified. Trip Generation Trip generation was calculated based on the trip regression equation for a single-family detached housing (LU #210) from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Table 5 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed project. The proposed project would generate approximately 1,030 daily trips with 78 trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 103 trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Table 6. Estimated Project Trip Generation Project Trips t Slngle·Famlly Detached Housing (LU #210) Size In Out Total Daily Trips 98 units 515 515 1,030 Weekday AM Trips 98 units 20 58 78 Weekday PM Trips 98 unils 65 36 103 1. Based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook (2 4 Edition) procedures, trip regression equations were used from ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition). Trip Distribution and Assignment Vehicular trip distribution for this project is based on existing travel patterns in the study area and previous traffic studies in the area. Figure 5 illustrates the project trip distribution during the AM and PM peak periods. As shown on the figure, 60 percent of weekday site traffic is anticipated to travel tolfrom 1-405 or downtown Renton via Talbot Road S, 30 percent tolfrom SR-167 via SE Carr Road-SE 176th Street, 5 percent tolfrom the south, and 5 percent tolfrom the east. Of the 60 percent travelling tolfrom 1-405 or downtown Renton, 50 percent was distributed to SE 16th Street via Glenwood Avenue SE, Ferndale Avenue SE, Beacon Way S, or Lake Youngs Way SE, with the remaining 10 percent assigned along Lake Youngs Way SE to Royal Hills Drive SE. Project trips for the study period were assigned to the study intersections based on the travel patterns. The resulting trip assignment is shown on Figure 6. The project trips were added to the Future 2018 without-project traffic volumes to form the basis of the traffic impact analysis. Figure 7 shows the 2018 with-project traffic volumes at the study intersections. 'l(tranSpOGROUP Page 11 ------------------- • N @ = PERCENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION o = STUDY INTERSECTION Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution FIGURE Reserve at {lffany l-'arK Q:\Projeds\13\13175.oo -RenlDn School SlIe-!ienley Res!jentlal.Graphlcs\13175-9raphic02 -10-25-2013 <Fs> jesseb 04l03I14 16:13 ~JtranSpOGROUP 5 - - 8 BENSON DRS S PUGETDR - 39 (12) l • 116THAVESE , SE 160THST r \..23 (35) (8(13) 15(5) • lAKE YOUNGS WAY SE SE lSTH ST (6(2) /"r-(4(6) 38 (11) 21 (32) _. 126THAVESE WSEl60THST T (l J j (5)15 ) 1 (2) - - 8 BENSON RDS S PUGETDR (12)39- • 116THAVE SE SE 16STH ST (13) 1 - -23(35) (5(7) IC) 15 (5) • KIRKLAND AVE SE • lAKE YOUNGS WAY SE (10)33/ • 126THAVE SE ., SE 16STH ST (7) 5 (2)8 ) J 19(29) 1 2 (3) (5(1) -- • ROYAL HillS DR SE S PUGET DR (6)4 (2)6) J (10)33 ") (29)J • 116THAVE SE SE PETROViTSKY RD (20) 13 (7)23 ) J • KIRKlAND AVE SE SE 158TH ST (3) I - (11 (17) I C(6) 5 (1) • 124THPlSE SE 15STHST (17) 11 (6)18 ).J 2 (3) l i..3 (1) - Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment Reserve at Tiffany Park QjprojedsI13113175.DO· Renton School Sile-Henley Res~entia!Gl1!pht:s113175-9l1!phk:03· 4·16-2014 <F6> S1ephani>g 04117114 17~7 -- ,~ ~ ~ I --< ~ ~ m < '" m m ~ 33(10) I.-19 (29) V ~ m - - . ~ ~.VQ ."'", '(1)- .d' SE 164TH ST '" m z ::; ~ Z --< m I I ~ >-~ '" < '" m m ~ '" '" m I~ SE 16S· --- - -.. N NOT TO SCALE ~ X = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR ~ FIGURE 'i/tranSpOGROUP 6 I - -- -- - - -- - - -- - -- -- - 8 BENSON DRS 8 BENSON RDS • ROYAL HR.LS DR SE DP ~I I ~. ~~~r<:':-.. S PUGETDR SPUGETDR SPUGETDR (420) (15) (45) 1,730 580 40 N 1 20)j I CII22 ) (35)5 ~300 (35) ( 146)j I ,) '-~ 130(275) (90)45 J ~ 428(980) (10)30J -243(560) (27) 141 J (5)15--5(5) (50 110) (5)5, (20135) (12)569-(115)443 , IJlb(5) ( 5 )465, \\' (534)J I Uoa \~W( ",%",,;:) \ ~y V~""'\.''\.'_G... r '\ J A (395) 165 50(10) 960 160 55 11,995) (570) (20) .'16THAVESE • 116THAVESE • 116THAVESE ~ SE 160TH 5T SE 168TH ST • SE PETROVITSKY RD (85) (108) (105) 265 203 360 Ie ~2014O) (15)J I l(5) (10)40 J ~ 15 (30) (15)j I r (35 ) (82)203 J ~ 155(245) (40)340--140(250) (280) 1,100--615(1,100) (23 128) (30)475, (105167) (15)90 , (55110) I e(20) (370)) I C (37) (50 ))1(15) I~ 230 230 (215) (150) (260) SE 164TH ST elAKE YOUNGS WAY SE • KIRKLAND AVE SE • KIRKLAND AVE SE '" m W SE 1STHST • LAKE YOUNGS WAY SE SE 158TH ST z ::; z -< (63) m or or " 1;: 1;: 67 " I r(30 ) '" m m 40(65) (0) 0 (45)15 (60)1524149) 1;: '" '" m 1'6(12) (15)5~Vy17113) m ~ 15(55) '" SE 16STI .,; m ~ .,; ~" (9111) (10)5~,,~20111) (16 122 ) 1 ~ 00 -< I Cll1) ~ ~ or (75)40 43(16) 26(42) m m (25)43 50115) 35(45) 0(0) ~ ~ m '" 60 m (86) 41> 126TH AVE SE • 126THAVE SE • 124THPLSE eEDMONDSAVESE I SE 160THST SE 168TH ST SE 158THST SE 16TH ST.fDMONDS WAY SE (72) (5) (115) 65 5 270 (2)140) ( 23 )J I ( 52)j Ie (17)11 2(3) . I ~~ '::::0 ~ Jl (10)30 J (12)73J ~5 ~)i:~ b(1) ~3(0) I I 1 fO'l f--I x = PM PEAK HOUR (45)270--115(130) I ) -20(50) ~ 1(0) I IX) = AM PEAK HOUR (10)30 , (5)35, (515) (30))1 12O)J I Cs) 1((' 5m r 0(1) 55 ' 5 1 (15)10) (17) (340) Future (2018) With-Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 7 Reserve at Tiffany Park a_jecIl;\13\13175,OO· Renton School Sfte.+lenJey Resi:tenlfa~Graphk:s\13175.Jlll1phIt03· 4-16-2014 <n, slephanleg 04117114 17:11 'i/transpoGROUP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Traffic Operations April 2014 Future 2018 with-project study intersection operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Intersection LOS was calculated using the method described previously. The without-project conditions are compared to the with-project conditions to understand the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project. Table 7 and Table 8 summarize the 2018 without and with-project intersection operations for the weekday AM and PM Peak hours, respectively. LOS worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 7. Future Weekdall: AM Peak Hour Intersection 0eeratlons 2018 Without-ProJect 2018 With-ProJect Traffic ViC' or VIC or Intersection Control LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM 1. Benson Dr SIS Puget Dr Signal E 76.5 LOB E 79.3 1.10 2. Benson Rd SIS Puget Dr Signal 0 35.7 0.77 0 39.3 0.79 3. Royal Hilis Dr SE/S Puget Dr Side-Street Stop B 11.0 SB B 12.1 SB 4. 116th Ave SE/SE 160th St Side-Street Stop B 10.6 WB B 11.0 WB 5. 116th Ave SEiSE 16Bth St Signal C 20.3 0.B6 C 20.1 0.B6 6. 116th Ave SEiSE Petrovitsky Rd Signal C 27.3 O.Bl C 27.5 0.B2 7. Lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th 5t Side~Street Stop A 9.5 WB B 10.1 WB 8. Kirkland Ave SE/lake Youngs Way SE Side-Street Stop A 9.7 NB B 10.1 NB 9. Kirkland Ave SE/SE 15Bth 51 Side-Street Stop A 9.1 WB A 9.5 WB 10. 126th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side-Street Stop A 9.2 EB A 9.6 EB 11. 1261h Ave SEiSE 16Bth St Side-Street Stop B 10.B NB B 11.0 NB 12. 124th Place SEl5E 15Bth St Side-Street Stop A 0.0 SB A B.7 SB 13. Edmonds Ave SEiSE 16th St-Edmonds Side-Street Stop B 13.3 SWB B 13.8 SWB WaySE 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRB, 2000) 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Votume-to--<:apacity (VIC) ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled intersections. NB = northbound approach; SB = southbound approach: EB = eastbound approach: WB = westbound approach; SWB = southwestbound approach. With the proposed project, all of the study intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive intersection which operates as LOS E both without-and with-project traffic during the AM peak hour. At this intersection the addition of project generated traffic is estimated to increase average delay by approximately 5 seconds during the weekday· AM peak hour. 'j{tranSpOGROUP Page 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Table 8. Future Weekdslr: PM Peak Hour Intersection 0eeratlons 2018 Without·Project 2018 Wlth.Project Traffic VIC' or VIC or Intersection Control LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM 1. Benson Dr SIS Pugel Dr . Signal 0 39.5 0.79 0 40.7 0.79 2. Benson Rd SIS Puget Dr Signal 0 48.7 0.88 0 54.3 0.91 3. Royal Hills Dr SEiS Puget Dr Side·Street Stop A 6.4 SB A 6.3 EB/SB' 4. 116th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side-Slreet Stop B 11.6 WB B 12.3 WB 5. 116th Ave SEiSE 168th St Signal B 19.8 0.67 C 20.4 0.68 6. 116th Ave SE/SE Petrovitsky Rd Signal 0 43.8 . 0.99 0 44.5 1.00 7. Lake Youngs Way SEiSE 18th St Side·Street Stop A 8.9 WB A 9.4 WB 8. Kirkland Ave SElLake Youngs Way SE Side-Street Stop A 9.3 NB A 9.6 NB 9. Kirkland Ave SEiSE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 9.0 WB A 9.5 WB 10. 126th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side·Street Stop A 9.3 EB A 9.8 EB 11. 126th Ave SEiSE 168th St Side·Street Stop B 14.1 NB B 14.4 NB 12. 124th Place SE/SE 158th St Side·Street Stop A 0.0 SB A 8.6 SB 13. Edmonds Ave SE/SE 16th St·Edmonds Side-Street Stop B 13.4 SWB B 14.0 SWB WaySE 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TR8, 2000) 2. Average delay per vehlde in seconds. 3. Volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratio reported for signalized Intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled intersections. NB = northbound approach; S8 = southbound approach; EB = eastbound approach; we = westbound approach; SWB = southwestbound approach. 5. LOS and delal for the intersection are equal for both eastbound and southbound approaches. As illustrated in the table above, it is anticipated that all study intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or betler with the addition of PM peak hour project traffic. Sight Distance Sight distance triangles were evaluated at three intersection locations associated with the project site accesses. Major and minor streets are shown for each location. Further discussion of sight-distance at the Edmonds Avenue SEiSE 16th Street·Edmonds Way SE intersection is provided in the following section. • Lake Youngs Way SE (major)/SE 18th Street (minor) • Monroe Avenue SE (minor)/SE 18th Street (major) • 124th Place SE (minor)/SE 158th Street (major) The methods and standards used to measure the available sight distance for the sight triangles are defined in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 6th Edition produced by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Based on a 30·mph design speed, the recommended sight distance along the major roadway for a vehicle on the minor street approach is 200 feet from an intersection location. Field measurements at each of the three locations show sight distances in excess of 200 feet with the exception of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE. Currently, Monroe Avenue SE/SE 18th Street is uncontrolled and does not have any marked channelization. Sight distance to the east of Monroe Avenue SE is limited by an existing fence along the north side of SE 18th Street as well as legal on·street parking on the north side of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE. 'j{tranSpOGROUP Page 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Potential traffic safety impacts for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street could be mitigated by installing a stop sign and stop bar on Monroe Avenue SE at the intersection andlor restricting on-street parking along the north side of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE to prevent vehicles from obstructing available sight distance. Traffic/Pedestrian Safety As previously noted in the review of existing conditions, none of the study intersections have recently experienced a high rate of collisions relative to total entering traffic volumes. Traffic generated by the proposed project would likely result in a proportionate increase in the probability of collisions. However, it is not anticipated that the addition of project traffic would create a safety hazard or significantly increase the number of reported collisions. At the City's request, a comprehensive review of potential safety-related impacts was conducted at the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection. In addition to the collision history at this intersection, this included a review of sight distance for motorists on the minor streets approaching Edmonds Avenue SE, existing vehicle speeds, and consideration for a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection given increases in traffic attributable to the proposed project. As shown in the collision history summary (see Table 4), a single collision was reported at Edmonds Avenue SEiSE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE during the recent three-year period. This injury-only collision occurred in 2012 and involved a motorist traveling northbound on Edmonds Avenue SE colliding with a motorist tuming right from northwestbound Edmonds Way SE to northbound Edmonds Avenue SE; no pedestrians were involved. Relative to the total entering traffic volumes, this intersection experienced a collision rate of approximately 0.12 collisions per one million entering vehicles, a collision rate not indicative of an existing safety hazard. Available sight distance was measured on both the southwestbound SE 16th Street approach and northwestbound Edmonds Way SE approach to Edmonds Avenue SE. Sight distance was measured to determine if adequate sight distance exists enabling motorists to safely see (and yield to) pedestrians crossing at the intersection. AASHTO recommends at least 200 feet of stopping sight distance along roadways with a design speed of 30 mph. This is an appropriate distance for both SE 16th Street and Edmonds Way SE as both roadways have a posted speed limit of 25 mph. As measured and shown in Figure 8, 300 feet of sight distance exists for motorists approaching Edmonds Avenue SE from the northeast and more than 300 feet is available for motorists approaching SE 16th Street from the southeast and therefore, existing sight distances exceed the minimum standard. Figure 8. Available Sight Distance Existing vehicle speeds on SE 16th Street northeast of Edmonds Avenue SE were recorded for seven consecutive days in March 2014 (a vehicle speed report summary is included in Appendix D). In both directions of travel, average speeds were determined to be below 25 mph and 85th-percentile speeds were just above 25 mph. These speeds do not suggest excessive speeding or pose an unusually high risk to pedestrians on the northeast leg of the 'iftranSpOGROUP Page 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection as the posted speed limit of SE 16th Street is 25 mph. With respect to pedestrian safety, the City of Renton has established a policy to "provide uniform criteria for the installation of marked pedestrian crossings consistent with recognized standards and studies on peqestrian safety." The City's procedure for evaluating the potential installation of a crosswalk considers pedestrian volumes, roadway speed, visibility, lighting, general conditions, and gaps in vehicular traffic. City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. With the possible exception of gaps in vehicular traffic, the Reserve at Tiffany Park would not directly affect any of the other criteria used by the City to assess crosswalk installation and even if this particular criterion was fully met, the combination of the other criteria would not be enough to meet the City's warrant for installation. Moreover, there is not a high level of pedestrian activity at this intersection as (1) no more than six pedestrians were observed crossing SE 16th Street during anyone-hour period of the four hours during which vehicular turning movements were collected on Tuesday, April 15, 2014' and (2) an average of only 17 boardings per weekday were counted by King County Metro at the transit stop adjacent to this intersection over the course of the spring of 20132 • Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact pedestrian safety nor should a pedestrian crosswalk be installed at this intersection in conjunction with this project. Non-Motorized Facilities As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways that would connect to the existing sidewalk system. As a result, sidewalks would provide a safe walk route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. Clear and mild weather (no rain), approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit between 7:00 and 9:00 B.m. and approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. (National Weather Service. Renton Municipal Airport). 2 Summary of the most recent weekday average dally ridership provided by King County Metro Transit. ilftranSpOGROUP Page 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Mitigation April 2014 This section presents the recommended measures that could be taken to mitigate the potential impacts of the project on the adjacent roadway network. Based on the identified impacts, general increases in traffic due to the addition of project traffic to the transportation network would be mitigated by payment of the City's Transportation Impact Fee and improvements to address the potential traffic safety impact associated with limited available sight distance at the Monroe Avenue SE/SE 18th Street intersection. Impact Fee The project would be required to pay the City's Transportation Impact Fee. The current fee is $1,430.72 per new single-family residence, which results in a preliminary estimate of approximately $140,200 for 98 new single-family dwelling units. The required transportation fee for this development will depend on when permits are issued and the fee collected. Sight Distance Available sight distance on SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE is currently limited by an existing fence along the north side of SE 18th Street as well as legal on-street parking on the north side of SE 18th Street. Potential traffic safety impacts for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street could be mitigated by installing a stop sign and stop bar on Monroe Avenue SE at the intersection andlor restricting on-street parking along the north side of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE to prevent vehicles from obstructing available sight distance. ~ftranSpOGROUP Page 19 -- - Peak Hour Summary SPuoetDr G ~~ GJ 3 • , .. Approaeh PH" """ .B 0.73 2.4% WB 0.92 1.5% NB 0.94 2.0% SB 0.71 6.0% Interseetlon 0.95 2.5% - -- Benson Dr S & S Pugel Dr 7:OQ AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 ., o!; • a El • El .. I" 1,,,1,,,1 II • .. ...... 0 " . ~£ l s _ 0 • .. ~ I ' 1",,1 • I B B Volumo 85 BB8 1,814 501 3288 Count P91iod: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM - -- - .~ + .. B II 30 · l B S Puget Dr ., o!; • 0 • • .. -- - Total Vehicle Summary Benson Dr S & S Pugel Dr Tuesd.y, June 25, 1013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM .. _ ...•.• _.-... -_. 7:00 All til ':00 AM - - - ~. •• -- - . ~ 501 2.139 ~~ 71 371 III;! i: t Hi '.5'!10 ~J [E' t..:'. , .. N "I'" _ +-~ l" • .110 ~. 111 DIll IN 2.''!I, -," , " "0 I.:,. ~ ~ PMIt How SummarY 7:00 AlII flo 1.110 AlII j= .... Fs::3 . 13.1761 1. I 11 ! 2!2 1103 ! 30 ! ~ 11.o! 5 t $ 2! eo! !,,olll 22 I &.111 II " I " I Peek Hoar Summary - 7:00AM to .~ I" _ _ _ _ Ely _o.s _0.5 S Dr S Dr T_ II ~ I --~ OuIT_"""", OuIT .... HV III OOOT_ .......... OuIT......... __ E.oo _ _ UW "0 1 "~, 2T39 l • M 2a "3 1 us '" .... OJ -II 0 I :; I , ,....,. 2"-6,"'" 2. .~ 25 ... -" -:,..1 ~ I =:': I ~ -:-:-I '-J L T " _ L Til"" L Til"" l T II T_ _"1105 ....... 02'782 •• 1103230._ ---7;OOAM 10 1:00AM ---_ .. -, , , 'oo~ , ,-• "5-, ,~ , 1'30 ...... , ,-• N5 ...... , ,~ ~ , " ,_~ on on OM...,e71_1JHI O~ 0,50 7 O. oSO ,,_~, .n -;;;; . s;;; ;: _ .. -~ , , , , , ~ , , -" '" '" " .. .. , , , .. , -" , .. , '" " " " , , , .. • ~ " ~ .. ," .. , .. , , , ". n " '" . .. , , " . .. , , , ----, , , , , , , , , , , , -- - Peak Hour Summary --11O&)251-ClOO S PURetDr B o 51 .. ~~ , .. Approach PH' HV% EB 0.74 8.5% WB 0.88 0.9% NB 0.96 0.8% SB 0.80 0.8% Int.rsectlon 0.95 '.2% - -- ., IE 0 0 .. • .. . ! Benson Rd 5 & 5 Puget Dr 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday. June 25, 2013 EJ El I"H"I It ... .. ..... , • .. ' , ..... ~ ... ~ 1,,+,1,,1 0 B Volume 71 737 888 ". 1.825 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM -- -- ~~ ~ 474 B It " · ! 0 S PugetDr ., " 0: 0 0 • • .. ---- Total Vehicle Summary --(2(l6)~n<ooo Benson Rd 5 & 5 Puget Dr Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM f5-ll/srur. /nfWYaI SumtnMy 7;00 All to 9:00 A .... ----~, -, , ~ I,OOAAO " '. , , " -,a , , , -• ,~ , , ,,-" , , .00_ " n , , '-1511M • " , 80J0AAO " , 0 , .. -.. • , --~ ~ • " PNkHowSUIIVIIat)' 7:fJOAM to ';OOAM --~. , , , , " • • " • " • • • " , " • " " • • " , " • , . .. ~ • , • • • , • • , ~ -...-..- -~, -· ~ r_J Iiv -~, ~ ,-~ --" ~ 131 ". \105 -.~ .. , • " --~, -, ---~, , -.., H ro '" • " ---7:00 All to 1:00 All , , , , , , , , " • " . o. - - --- :! · ~ '" m 'I • ro a IN G."' ~.-, .J rn to .. , ~-" ........... 0 ....... m. ." .~ $. . .12 ~'A , _ 0.70 ;! ~ 'I " PM" Hour SUmmary 7:00AM to 1:00AM ---• • , • --, , ~ , , ,---• " , , , ,. " , ". , • • , , 0 , , ,. " · • , " 0 • , '" • • '" , • · 0 , " , • , • " , • " " , = 0 , , • , " , " " • , •• , , • , " " , " .. " , ~ , • , • , • " , • , m n " " ~ -" 3,UI , , , , ....... --........ -[.il~f"rl , • , • ,- ~ '-~ • ~ ,-~ -'" m • '" .~ OK 'a " --• • • • ,-, , - -" , " " .. , .' ... 0.1' .1' • • o. • --71T1 Erl 7 .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I www.idaxdata.com s::::::::. N 597 ( " 26 122 96 EDMONDS AVE SE PUGETDRSE w en ~ ~ z o ::; o w Peak Hour ~ ... .J 1 TEV: 781 J PHF: 0.96 ., ., .. CD ... ~l i ; t ~ w N en w ;;: en 0 z 0 ::; 0 w Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 Date: Tue, Apr 15,2014 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Jo Jmo- ,,~ * JO""E~~' ___ --:H.:..;V....:;%:;..: ---,-P:..::HF_ ... lJODPD~1 EB 6.6% 0.78 III NB 2.3% 0.95 A SB 3.5% 0.91 00 TOTAL 3.2% 0.96 Roiling One 755 736 658 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com - -- Peak Hour Summary --(205llS1~ Approach PH' .B 0.00 we 0.68 NB 0.74 SB 0.76 Intarseetlon 0.80 """ 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 5.1% 3.6% - -- 1161h Ave SE & SE 160lh SI :Ji ~ II ~ l Volume 0 49 207 79 335 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G B G:EJ .. .. ..... ---I ~ ~. s ---.l Peds 0 .. " ~ G G - i • :Ji ~ " ~ Count Per1od: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM - -- - -,,0 0 "0 0 SE160th St - -- - Total Vehicle Summary 1161h Ave SE & SE 160lh SI Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:00AM to 9:00AM fS4fJnurlo IntwYIII Summary 1110_ ro 1:00AM ---'".,_SE -1.00 ..... " H5No1 " NOON .. , . . ~ 1:15"'" ..~ --- PM" How Summat)' 7:00AM 10 ':OOAM , " ~ , , " -.,""' ..... • , • ,n ~ " - -BE,_a ~o .0 - fIV 0,00. -ow ;~ '! . N - ~ m ~ . " 2111 c, .. 'I ---7:00 AM ID a1lO All -BE .... St -'i:" , • .. " , • .. .. m - ~~ _0. •• " ~ --0 0 0 ~ -" -" -• ~ 1 .... 1 HV -"' .. M --.,eon SEI_a '. t_ w ,. Out T .... 19 2N lOll 0 0_ -I~I~I":"I , ... ,- ~ ,-~ . . . ~ ...::..L '''' " -" .. _se --.i -~---,.- ...... -........" 7:00 AU ID '.110 All -""-!If T f (i'_ " ,. " o -SE'_III o~ -811,_111 , .. - .' ,--• = ~ :: ' • .;""-:~...... H~M"$E HV SE ,-, 91 $10'_: w=l ~ '''''...... 13' 71 lS 0 us '015...... 12 I 74 " 33 0 J20 730"'" .".. ,. 24 0 7OS_ .. • 16 0 /I - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ... ~ :. , a i • ~ , ! ' l' Ii I I.' Ii"' .,' , I ~ 1.1 ~ I II.... , ...... " ~ as •• ~ "'9" + l! [I] II !i fr--- 3S· A VIfl9H ------- o 'PlOd I -- - Peak Hour Summary SE Petrovitslcv Rd 8 ~~ B 256 .. " .. -" PH. HV% .B 0.86 2.6% we 0.87 0.3% NB 0.80 0.0% SB 0.92 2.3% I_~ 0.93 0.8% - - -- -- 116th Ave SE & SE Petrovitsky Rd .. '" ~ " 5 ~ 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Thursday, June 27, 2013 B B· H"H It .. .. ...... " -~c ~ s ...... , ~ ... ~ H'''I'I B B Volume 341 1.222 290 17. 2,029 ~~ .. !1M EJ It • 0 l B SE Petrovltsky Rd .. '" ~ " 5 ~ Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM - - - -- Total Vehicle Summary 116th Ave SE & SE Petrovitsky Rd Thursday, June 27. 2013 7:00AM to 9:00AM 1$-Mlnute lntePIeJ Summary 7:00AM to II:OOAM ---'m_ 7.15No1 7-JG .... - ~,­.. , - ~~ " -- . ~ 116 52e 52 III 31 .. IN ~_,.. ~j m: t.:'" :IS-+ _ "'c 0 ..... '''' . -~ 10",\ • .' , >IV 2.~'" f'HF 0 .• ~; Out In ~~ ", 29(1 .. ---1:00 All' to 11:00 AM J.,.... """ ,.-I 9 I 0 I 0 I 3 - r~I~-I~l --l ......... ;t:; ........ " .. _Sf " ........ SE $I; RoI fill IT_ liT i II IT .... ~ I m-1'1_ ':. I :!~ I o_~ ~ I ;;tJ o~J O~7 2': I o~ I ~ ! 0';7 r.:a . ._M .. ". .. _'" ""'''''''''''1 7:00 AM l1li 11:00 AM -- w--.iI" S£7""rt'fr_ I T_ ~u.: ~~ J-~ ,-~ ,= , ,. '" I" ---- -- - Peak Hour Summary Lake Youngs Way & SE 18th SI f 3i • , , ~ '" : • , ~ ~ I Approach PH' HV% V~ume EB 0.00 0.0% 0 WB 0.75 0.0% 9 NB 0.67 25.0% 8 SB 0.60 16.1% 12 Interseetlon 0.73 13.8% 29 Count Period: 7:00 AM 10 9:00 AM 7:15AM to 8:15AM Tuesday. June 25. 2013 G 8 m + .. PMI. 0 , ~< , .... , ... II DGJ G 8 I .. 8 ,,0 " i • - " ~ ~ ~ .11 .:: - -- 8 - [J SE 18th SI -- - - Total Vehicle Summary Lake Youngs Way & SE 18th SI Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:00AM to 9:00AM 15-M1nute IntfIrIaI Summary ---~. -, , ~ 1:1",.M '" "" .oo~ ':15~ t, JIM -- PeP HourS...".,.". 7;15AM 10 ',fIIM ~ uo.~= -. ~ ,--. .. , -"~ , • -~ -, " -, . . ...... --7:00AM fa 1:00AM _ . --~, " 'OO~ "15 ..... J-~_ "5_ ~ • • ~ , -" -~. , ~ " u!:~:'!. · ~ ,. ~ .. • " , ,,~ I -~, · , -• • .. . " .... ~ .. ;:. , ~ • • • - - -- - • • ~ ;~ .. • 'I • · ~-_0.1'5 • J[!] \., ~. .... '*,-.... • • .. .~ "\ . .' IN O,O!I. • -= <, •• ~ 'I .. ..... _- 7:UAJI fo ,:15AM ---SE'lIIhill R ~ IN~ " --, • " " • -,:"",:::' 1":"1:.s~171 6£'.,,, ,. ~ ,. · ~ ,. ~ • • • , " • .~ .~ " --I ,. I ~. . -• " -, , 00 " ---se' .. SI SE' ... SI --" ~ ,. -• " - - - Peak Hour Summary Kirkland Ave SE - - - - Lake Youngs Way & Kirkland Ave SE 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM Tuesday, June 25. 2013 " ~ I!. § G G l! • ~ I, I· lui • ~ It ... .. ....... - - 8 + 0 0 -~ • It " . .*. " i i §~ s 8 0 • G , .. ..... , KJrlrland A ve SE .. to ~ I·I·H " ~ G 0 • " c • l! ~ ~ -" PHF H"" Volume Ee 0.00 0.0% 0 WB 0.86 6.3% 48 Ne 0.61 0.0% " se 0.63 13.3% " Internctlon 0.87 6.3% 80 Count Period: 1:00 AM to 9:00 AM - - -- - - - -- - Total Vehicle Summary ~~ ~ ~ ~~ HVI3,., -.• ~. ~, •• • J [!]' t. .. n .... "r N .... O D" . rY ~~ Lake Youngs Way & Kirkland Ave SE Tuesday, June 2S, 2013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 15-M,,",-1n,.,.,., SIII'IImaIJ' 1:rxJAII ID 1:00AM' -UIo~ -, '00_ • • 7.1S_ • • 7:30 ...... • • 70S .... • '00_ • · 1·15 .... , • ~-• , • --, , PukHourSIJIJIlDM)' ,,.00 AM Iv ,,00 AM , , , , , , , , • ...!. .. :-":.:. ---, , " • • • • • • • , • • , • • • • • • • , • , • • · • • , • , • • • • , , • • • , • , · • ~ · • · • • • ~ • • • • • • • • ~.~ ..... 0,00 ---~ " • • • , • " " , " • , , • • , • • .. ~ • • • , , , • , , ~, 00 q -'C:-:- " · • • • , • • " • • • • , • " • • , • " • · , " • • • • , ,. , , , , 1';1*1,,:,,1 ~ ~/-:-WO< ...!."":-:! oo!...!~~ ~E TOIO! I - App-. .. ~ T_ IN .. "'" T_ HV .. Ooi T_ ttY .. 0.0 T.... ......_1* 1_ _l1Q""'511282a.'OOll28UJ 10 1 5 l'ttY 00% 'lA " 1.3'I.'~ ..... 0 o. -=-1 UIo~ J l"~ J '=-::se 1 ~E I foUl lTROIoILTR_lTR_LTR .... _'1'511"~O'5DOO 38010110 ..... ,,-61 ",m 63 m 00 79 000 • II 011 ---7,ooAJI Iv I 00 AM -------~, ~ ...-,.. .. SE __ E ---, , , ~ , " ~ , , ~ , " -,---, '00_ • • • • • • • , • • • • .. • • • • • · , • 1.,SMI • • · " , • , · • • · • , , " • • , • no ...... · • • • , • , • • • • • • , · · , , H ....... , , .. • .. , • • · .. • • • , , , 00_ · · · · · , , , - --- -- Peak Hour Summary 1261h Ave SE & SE 1581h SI , , ! , ; I . i Ap-PH' """ V""_ EB 0.00 0.0'" 0 we 0.80 3.1% 32 NB 0.64 10.1"-28 SB 0.58 9.5% 21 IntarsllCtlon 0.96 7.4% 81 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 I G G ~ .. .. .... , ~ ,*. , .... , .. I ---1 ~ ~ - " rn G G ill ~ .. ~ ill ~ - -- - "G "8° - 8 SE 158th Sf - - - - Total Vehicle Summary 1261h Ave SE & SE 1581h SI Tuesday. June 25, 2013 7:00AM to 9:00AM 1$-11/nu19",,.,.,.1 Svmm8l)' 1;OOAM ID ':OOAM ---, .. ~ 'oo~ '-'5 ..... ,~~ 7.05 ..... .oo~ ,-" ..... '03(1 ..... --.. PH" Hour SUIllmlllY 7:3I)AM ,, __ IV ." .... _ ~ --,--" ~ ,--" .. -.. ~ ...:-1 ::~"": , • -" , -. . ---7:00 AM ro ':00 AM ---128In_9iE -, '00_ 0 7,15"'" " 1':10 ..... " ,.S ..... ~ , -• ~ , • • , -, .. -, " .. -'16In_SE " ~ '. " . .. OR • 1 -' __ 81'. , , , .. . .. -1 __ SE " .. " ~ ~ " , • 1 ,. , .. ~ , , , , - -,-- -SE'"'' ~ '. • • .~ ~-;_SI -SE'_'" ~ . • • 1 -00 -- - ~~ . ~ " . .. , i:: !IV )1"" _ .• j [!]. t. • ..... ~~ ~+­ "'\ . r' ." .~ IN o,~ _'00 • ;! c:: ~ ~ l ---7:30 All III 11:30 AM -,---.. " , .. " .. • '" -""_!II ,- -, • , • --" ~ ,-~ Nonn _ E ... _ " 0 .. , " • • , • , .. , .. . ~ 1 ,_ , · ,- 0 " .. - - lIE,..,,, .':;;::." -• ~ -~ " .. • .. • " • , - -- - - - - Peak Hour Summary 1261h Ave 5E & 5E 160th 51 .. ., ~ " 5 ~ :: 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM Tuesday, June 25. 2013 I G G ~ It .. SE160thSr , ... , T r G ~ 0 ~e 8" i G • s 0- 1 .... , " ... ~ G G Approach PHF 1M< Volume ES 0.54 0.0% 13 WB 0.00 0.0% 0 NS 0.69 4.0% 50 SS 0.70 6.5% 31 ,-~ 0.81 4.3% 94 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM i ill ~ ~ --- - -- -- Total Vehicle Summary 1261h Ave 5E & 5E 160lh 51 Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 1s.M111Uhl Inrwv., Summ8l)' 7:00AM Ia I:()()AiI -,'~--= -, 7.OU"'" 7,1_ " , ~ , N5AA1 , .w~ , 8: ..". , !030"'" • . ~ , --" " PH/{ IfotIr Sumtnat)' 7:f5AIf to 1:15AM ~ -• -. -" ~ ,--" " " -.~ .. ~ .L ~ -, , -" • -.. ROIUtIfI tfOU/' SIImfINII)' 7:00AM 10 .:«IAII _. -~ ,---, 1:00"'" " " Tl~"" " • .. " USN.! " .. " .. ~ , ..l -" ~ -'~A .. se , " " -,28I>_SS " ,. " • " ." :m:!~ , " · " · -, __ Sf .. • " • ~ . , " ..l ,-, . , " - -SEll1010St " -51; 1110thSt ~" . " - - . ~ " . " . - :; '! ,J .. ". ·ffi~~:~ •• .~ ~.~ F't1F O~ ~ " • • • !! '! PM" Hour SumlUl)' 7;15AM jg 1:15AM -~.--" " •• -~. " ,- -w • ~ ,-~ . ~ ,-171fl~171 , .. • • • • " . .~ ." -..l :~ d J ,-Rl_St " -,- '0 13 " " • · ---SE'8DM1II E_. ~ ~ , , • • .. • , " • • - --- Peak Hour Summary SE 168th St B ffi~ o sa .. . .. Ap"""," PHF HV% .B 0.65 3.8% we 085 3.4% NB 0.56 0.0% • B 0.57 ..... Inhlrseetion 0.82 3.4% - -- 126th Ave SE & SE 168th St '" ., ~ ~ 5 ~ :! 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G G H·I·I II + .. ,... , ~ -r*E l , .... , .. ... ~ 1,,1 ' I . I 8 G Volumo 52 ". 20 41 23' Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM - -- - ~~ .11. B II • " l G SE16Bth St '" ., ~ ~ 5 ~ ---- Total Vehicle Summary 126th Ave SE & SE 168th St Tuesday, June 25. 2013 7:00AM to 9:00AM 1s.aunvt. /nfwvaI $QIrInWy PNIr Hour SlImIlYI)' 7:00AM fo ':OOAM' ~ -I~_SE -• ~ ,-~ -• • .. ,~ .~ ~J t=: J -, , " --" . , -' __ 81: • ~ ,-.. " " ,. -'_ ..... SE , • , , " ~ · • • J -, - - -- - !. • ~ .. " 'I • ... ~'-~,~ -.~ "J rn t. • ~ .. ...... ... ' " +-111 11. In .. ~~ '. . .' IfIIU ... • -~ §~ ~ • 'I • • Pull Hour Summary 7;ooAM to ':(IOAM --.: 1171*1-:-1 ~, • !IE ,_91 ~ ,-~ ~ ,-~ .. = '" " '. n " H' --_-4 T_ SEt_51 SE'_S1 , " -• " • , n • .-.. .00 ." .. ." ." ." " n-&3 a,I<1 . .. .. .~ ." '.00 " RoI11ng How Summ..,. 700AII to 'IJOAJI -----~ -,-._st:: ' __ $10 BE'_III SE''''SI -, " ~ , " ~ , " ~ , " .-'W~ " " .. '" HSMI .. .. • " '" ", 7'lO.o.M " • .. '" , ,.~ • - - - Peak Hour Summary --12OI)l'S'_ s :>t: ltlO'rn:Of 0 08+ , " . f -- - 1241h PI SE & SE 1581h SI 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 _ 0 . ---- ~ ~£ s _ 0 It U " 0 [J [] .... _h PH' """ Volume EB 0.50 0.0% 6 we 0.75 4.2% 24 NB 0.50 0.0% 2 BB 0.00 0.0% 0 ,-O.eo 3.1% 32 Count Period: 7;00 AM to 9:00 AM . i • .. '" ii: " ~ - -- - .Bj0 .. 0 D SE 15Bth sr - - - Total Vehicle Summary 1241h PI SE & SE 1581h SI TU8Sday, June 25, 2013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM PHk HOW' Summa/')' 7:3DAII 10 ':3IIAM' ---.2<ltlPlSE • ~ ,-m -, -.~ - -I -,-, -, --, • • 00 • --......." 7:00AM 10 ':OOAlf -,2O!t>1'OS • ~ ,-• • .~ -,_A - • ,- 00 - - - - h • ~ o. • • , ! m.~ _0.7$ • j[!] t. ~. s ..... ~t .. ..... • • •• .~ '. . r' IN 0,0'lI0 • -.. ....... " -,--~ ,-w • • • • .~ •• -~,-, , -• ~ , • , .0 '! ---7:30AM to ":.1DAII' -r-:: 11~1~lw:1 ,_. ~ ,-w • • .~ 1.1 .. o. -I ,_ ,--, ,-• " " --_I_i~!:!,i_ % - I www.idaxdata.com I I ~ N I I 128 EDMONDS AVE SE SE 16TH ST Peak Hour w (I) ~ 1 i~ w ~ (I) Q Z 0 :;; ., Q C> N W ~ N ... .J I l. L Date: Count Period: Peak Hour: SE 16TH ST 153 175 I E 316 ...J TEV: 654 .... 22 E ) 16 _ PHF: 0.96 r ° ) 332 0, 48 ., t r ED 0 OS ESE I ~ ... C> w HV%: PHF (I) ~ EB 3.6% 0.94 Nl i= WB 1.7% 0.84 (I) Q NB 0.0% 0.40 z 0 SB 3.6% 0.87 :;; I I Q TOTAL 3.1% 0.96 w I Count Summaries Interval Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound I I I I I I I I I Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 Tue, Apr 15, 2014 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 1S-mln Roiling Southbound Total One HOUf 625 606 526 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com -- - Peak Hour Summary S PugetDr EJ ffi~ o 14" . " App-'" PHF HV% EO 0.65 0.0% we 0.93 1.0% NO 0.90 0.5% SO 0.94 1.1% Int_etIon 0.95 1.0% - -- Benson Dr S & S Puge! Dr 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 " Is c • • 8 8 • ~ 1 .. 1" .. 1· .. 1 II + " .... 0 " . ~. ~ s .... , & ... " 1·1 ... 1 .. 1 El B Volume 60 391 91, 2.517 3,887 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM -- - - &~ + s EJ II " 0 i • EJ S PugetDr " Is ~ • • • ~ - - - -- Total Vehicle Summary - " - . ~ 2~11 U~ 'I , .... + ... , - ~,­-.. • "J ffi t.* ~,. 1~'" ~ ~t" 0 .... ., . •• tie OUt ... ,. r zo Benson Dr S & S Puge! Dr Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM IN o,~ _ .. • ....... •• • •• . 'I ". Puk Hour SumnYl)' 4:41PM to 5;45PM ---"UPM to f145"" ~ --~r: -:: 1171~ 1":"1 _ .. _ .. • • -~ ,-~ . ~ ,-~ . ~ ,-~ ~ ,-~ -. " -2 17 1 7$ 3m • • '. '" .' 91e 1307 -.-,- ..;.,.1 -1 --_-1 ~""';~ J ,-_ .. _ .. • • , " ,---• " -om 088 .90 ""'''''IiI'nour'''~J 4:00 PII to 11:60 PII -, " ,-•• ,-• .511 " . o ~5 :~ ~;, + '.0.7 0." 9$1 ,Ut • o~ &;iii; ________ _ _ _DrS _Ors S Dr $ Dr I IT IN fR"" TRHVlTRHV 4'OOf'IIj 3 1!6 31 '0 11501 1 ~1 11 l4 q S • 0 2J 3 1W • "S_ J ~'S "" .,' 11 22" 10 e CI 25 5 _ • .:111_ . l1li1 :11 • _,!M ., ., 12 5 0 22 7 _ • .. SPN 5 _ .. 5 eM , ,. • " 20 8 • '00"'" i ., , , • " '5 6 • - - - -- -- Peak Hour Summary '" il! • 0 • ~ S Purlflt Dr B . ~i 2' " ~ B 471 + .m " Benson Rd 5 & 5 Pugs! Dr 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 EJ B 1'1"'1"'1 II + " _ 1 ~ w*' , _ 1 ~ ... " 1,,++1 El B Approach PH' """ Volume .B 0.97 1.1% 923 WB 0.90 1.'% 366 NB 0.65 0.3% 336 .B 0.67 0.6% 801 In_ 0.96 0.8% 2,426 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM -- - - ~~ + 202 8 II .. · i • El SPugetDr '" il! • 0 • • .. - - - - Total Ve~lcle Summary --(2DI)25HDXI Benson Rd 5 & 5 Puge! Dr Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 15-MJnute mtwY8I Summai)' 4:00"'" 10 .:00 ptf --:::--~. " 4.00 PM • • • • 'SPM • ":IOPIoO · " H5PM • , .w~ • » • ,,~ · " , 6:30PM • " .. ~ • , --~ = • Peak Hour SIRfIIFIMY 4'45 PIA ID 11:45 PtI --~. , , ~ ~ • , ,~ , ,. • • n. · • 'N • · , ,. , ., ,. , ,. • ~ ~ • 0 0 , . , , • , , 0 • .. - - -- - :: . ~ ~, no '! IfYl,'" , PHF 0.9(1 .1 [!] t,.'M ~w n ... o~t_ --_m .. = m~ 420. 6 r" tfY 1.'" , _ 0.$1 ~. .. ~ -'I .' ~ ---4:45 PM 10 11:45"" -- -• • '::"" ~ , • • • • , , •• 0 0 " 0 ~ , , 0 0 ,w 0 • ., , ~ , 0 , · , • , " 0 • '" '" , • • » , ., • 0 • '" , ., • •• , 0 ,. ,. , " .. • , ., 0 0 0 '" , " 0 , 0 • -m .. • --n .-, , , 0 &t == ==: ~-;; !>-S;; D< ,-II "== I """'*" ... """_IN .. """_IN ... OutT .... 1fV In OutTOIeIHV """"_E ... _ Volume J3IS 987 1 J 1 1101 1S5 10ft S i2J ~ 1 1 10 MIl n3 "~. 2.2t.i 1 I 1 I , I 0 "'-HV on; OR .,.. "'.. 0 .... '· -. r-By ::::-=-: I ~ ~ '-J 1-l T R _ L T R T .... L T R _ L T R lOla! _'''11143" 2T'5n"1'5.nuo "'202'20 ..... ....J.....O.Q 033. OJ'tL.85...1J1.B..J..J!S' O .... ......!!,.S7....J.....01It 09:'1 0_" 9' 081..L086 0 .. !III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. _._--_._------------------ www.idaxdata.com EDMONDS AVE SE PUGETDRSE e:=::::a N Peak Hour UJ (/) UJ ~ (/) o is ::;; o UJ on C'). ... C') ---,.J I 289 ( lEV: '" 124 ..J PHF: 502 378 • PUGE RS 872 0.94 ., ~ ~ '" ;1 i ~ Interval Start Count Summaries Mark Skaggs: 425 • 250 • 0777 t ~ UJ (/) UJ ~ (/) 0 z 0 ::;; 0 UJ Date: Cou nt Period: Peak Hour: HV%: EB 1.8% NB 1.1% SB 9.3% TOTAL 2.5% 0.94 Tue,Apr15,2014 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM 15-mln Total Rolling On. Hour mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com - - - -- - Peak Hour Summary 116th Ave 5E & 5E 160th 5t , , • • , , ! l ApprtlKh PH' """ Volume EB 0.00 0.0% 0 we o.n 0.0% 34 NB 0.93 0.0% 2,. SS 0.90 1.5% 273 In~on 0.93 0.7% 537 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8 B ~ • " ....... ~E , ..-. .. ~ " I m 8 B I -- -- ~0 .,0 0 , ~ G SE 160fh St lJI ~ " 5 :: - - - ---- - - Total Vehicle Summary ~! · ~ '" = '! ~ . ~-"""0.17 • --(bfZS''-' ~. •• -+ .... ' • J[B "\ . t." •• ... .~ ." ~.-• 116th Ave 5E & 5E 160lh 51 _0.00 •• .. ~ • '! = ~ Tuesd"y, Junfl25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM f'uIr Hour s-r.,y 5:DO"" 10 6:00 PM 15-11h1utJ8lnlJlWM Summary 4:00 PM to ':00 PfI -~ .~ I<V "-i-lIE se,-. """"R HY ~ • PM II<! ,., 121 ."PM 6!; 3 eo 1311 • PM 06 122 ..... . ~ PM so .. ~1 '311 SISI'M S2 I .., 1-15 PM '" 117 , "'" "2'" "'$0 12 • 1.043 13 PM/r Hour SIIInrnM)' 5:00 PIlI to 6:00 PM ~ 1:"~ -• ~ ,--= = -• • I...::... -,,~ , " -'" " -. --......." 4:00 PfI to 6:00 PfI ---" ... _11£ -, " 'W. ~, HSPM = , • • = " • -"",,_81': m . ,-m . '" = -· 'K -" ........ se -, , -= • " .. • -,' .... _SE ~ , '" .. " • , , no -8I;~ 1";",fIh·;,, SE11101h1ll ,-• ~ ,-• ~ ,-~ . . . • • " • "' I":"I~I":,,I .~ .~ .~ . " I --I ,_ ,-BE,_III -, " -" " "' • " -- - :!E'_III SEt_a --" m ,--,~ , " • -, • " " • "' " " • ~ • -- SE 168th St Approach ED we NB SB Intersection - ill • > .. ;; ~ B . ~i 35 II fI.. B 311 .. ... .. - - - 1161h Ave 5E & 5E 1681h 51 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 EJ EJ 1"1,,,1,,1 II .. .. .... , ~ ~. • P"a II ~ .. " I" H'''I El B PH' """ Volume 0." 0.6% 77' 0.83 1.3% 236 0.84 0.7% ." 0.90 1.4% 216 0.91 0.9% 1.637 Count PerIod: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM -- - - ~~ • 127 B II " N i B SE16BUr5t ill ~ " S ~ - - - - Total Vehicle Summary 1161h Ave 5E & 5E 1681h 51 TuesdlJY, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 1~ InfwwI Summary 4;00 PM to /1;00"'" ---, ..... -, 'W~ " • .,' "'" , • . ~ .. • .. ~ , , ~ " " ~_1 PM " " 5030"'" " • , ~ " .;--,. m ,...,. Hour Summary 5 00 PM to 11:00,.. " " " " " " ~ ~ , • , , , , , -" .... -~ " , • , , " • . , , • , " " , , " , , " , , • • -" ~ , · , , " • " · , • , , " , , - - -- -~,-, , • • .. , , " • '" ,,' " , ~ '" Out ZI' .~ e's · ", ~ "' ~ t 10 173 S3 .J4-.... ~~:: 111-+ 0 ~F .. ",,71 .J ttJ' t." m. "'-...,.--rat ~. .. ~ IN 0,", ~.~ , ~: , • " • , " , , 'N = .~o i: l Pwk Hour SumrNt)' 5:00 PII /lao ,:DO PM -SEI_III -, ,-. , N' N , , ., " , , ~ , • " , • ~ • • , , , '" " , ,~ , • • • • , -~ -, , , • • , " • • • • , I ~ ~ ~ :-:::: ~ T_ II --I ~ .. OuIT_..., .. OoIT_tN .. r_ ....... OuIT_1<Y __ f __ _ .,0 "... ,toO 1 2 •• 2<1 _ S 17'5 2,1 "3 ! 231 411 714 3 " 0 1 ~ 1 0 ""V o. ,. o. .3'0. G!I'II. ~I == I == I == I := I T_ LTR_lTR_lTR_lTR_ _~';+"~+'" ':. o~ ~~ o'~ 2':, ~~3 :.!:. :.:'~ o~ ;~ 0';\: ~~1 ---4:00'" 10 15:00 PM --_ 1I"'_SE 11-'_"" SE'_III "",_SO n-TRMY TRHV ..... R HXIPM 13 11~ IJ(I 25'116 ., •• 81 "7 ,5 •• PM 11o,e 3. 2fI2 IS e:no _ ".1. .PMU,tI.!SII 301!III'O :!II '4 ,0' .. "'" » ..... 8 .111 • - - - - Peak Hour Summary SE Petrovftskv Rd El ~~ 8 997 + " .. Approach PH' ItV% .B 0.82 0.6% we 0.94 0.8% .B 0.98 0.9% 'B 0.83 1.1% '''''-0.95 0.8% -- - -- - 116th Ave SE & SE Petrovltsky Rd 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 .. .. ~ " " El El :: 1,,.1·,,1,,, I It .. .. -. " . ~< . I i , • PIKI. 0 ~ ... ~ I·+·H B El .. .. ~ " " :: Volume 1,245 740 '24 730 2,939 . ~~ .. 553 B It .. El SE Petrovltsky Rd Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM - - -- - Total Vehicle Summary 116th Ave SE & SE Petrovltsky Rd Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 15-111nlb IrttrnI Summary 4;00 PM to 8;00"" --.. ~ ... "" . ~ , ~ .• ~ - W,. In 1.245 - - - . m ~ -~: 'I~"'I .. ~'::;:.::' ,.J . , ... ". II t.'11 J~l.-= LD .48 , .. ,~~ ~'K _.n • ,. •• ~ ~t PNkHolNS_", 5:00"" fill .:OOPM J-=- - ~ .... s;;:;;;jlOl_I&4I.I_I_I_I12I:13!!12,(I3II11111'11101,.-11111,,15.711 II, 131. PMllHowSI.IIIIIIIMY 5;00 PM ID ':00 PM ~ -:,~:~ se-;;--1l<I ~-:--~ ~I '-11-1*-1-1 -lI"'''''''se • ~ .-~ • w .-~ • w .-~ • w .--n' '" on ' . . , "" ~ '.' '. , >0. S 29311 0 0 0 0 -.~ , " ." .K •. K - ~ -I -I --" ... -" ....... ~ ~ .--, -, -.-. ,--'" " '" .' .' '''' 130 .' • '.~ .. = ,. • ,~ ... 010) .!IS • • • • n M' •• M • -- -- - -- -- Peak Hour Summary Lake Youngs Way & SE 18th St J ! l Approach PH' """ Volume .B 0.00 0 .... 0 we 0.50 0.0% 4 NB 0.75 9.5% " .B 0.79 13.6% 22 Intersection 0.84 10.5% 47 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G G B .. .. .... • ~ w*' s .... , ... " ~ G G ~[J . [J .[J " l G SE 18th St >-~ • ~ , !! • ~ • ~ - -- - - Total Vehicle Summary Lake Youngs Way & SE 18th St Tuesday, June 25,2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM f54finuflo ImwYIII SammM)' 4:00"" 10 8;00"" -~~ -, ~ 'm_ , , ."SPIo! , • , .~-• , • ~-,"-· 'm_ • , • 5-'5PM • , • 5030_ , , , -~5'" , --" • • ....._- 4:30 PfI 10 5:30 PM " -~. ~ -. ~ ,-~ " " " " -~. • -, , --" • , -, •• " RoIIitlfl Hour Summary 4:00 PfI to 1:00 PfI ---~. -~ " , 4.151'to1 " • •. iIO .... " , .. 51'1.0 , -~ , ~ , , • • , , . • • , , • , • , , • • " " ,. .............. - ~. • ~ ,-~ n " ~ ,,~ " -~. -" " ~.::: ~ .. , • - ~. •• -se, .. so -~, , ~ ,-• . .~ -SI;:' .. SI -• -sa:; , ... 51 - -- ;~ • ~ • " 'I " . ~.~ _o.SO • j[±] t., -+ ... '" ... " ~ "' . .' ~.~ • _.oo ~t ... .. , , , , • • • • • " . .. ~ • '! " " ,.... Hoiif' Summary 4:30"'" 10 5:~PIII -~l .. a -, , , • " • , • , • , • , • " • • • • • , • " • , • • • · • " • • • • • -~ -~ • • • • , • · • • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • -1-:-1* 1":"1 SE,III. ,- ~ '. ~ " " .~ -SE,."SI ,- " -" •• 0.'" ."" --SE, .. e. -~ , ~ ,---'M. " • " • " • • - - - -- -- -- Peak Hour Summary Lake Youngs Way & Kirkland Ave SE " ~ I!. § !! • ~ • ~ Kirkland Ave SE G " i §~ o 0 • 2 .. 4:15PM to 5:15PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G 0 10 I 0 H II + .. ..... , ~ w*. s ..... 2 ~ .. ~ 10 I, H G [8 _-PH' 1M< Volume .B 0.50 0.0% WB 0.78 8.4% " NB 0.83 0.0% 50 SB 0.58 14.3% " Intel"leetlon 0.91 4.4% '" Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM ~rn .. 0 G II " " i G Kirldllnd Ave SE " ~ • .. § !! .: • ~ -- - - --- - - Total Vehicle Summary Lake Youngs Way & Kirkland Ave SE Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 1s.MlnUhlinlwVlII Summ.uy 4cOON ID 1:00,." ---~" , , ~ '00_ • • , • .-,.PM • · " "30PN • , • • • ,,!'OJ • • " 5:OOPN • , " • s""*" · , " • 5:30PN • • " • --• • " --'""' • • • • PHil Hour Sumnury 4:15 PM 10 5:15"" ~ --~, w • ~ ,-~ -• • • • -.~ -:::,1 rnt-I '" -----.l:" ~, , ~ '00_ " .,,5PM .. '"JI)pu -'-0,5P1oO .. - · · , • • , " " --~, "" , , ~ , , , • • • • • • • , • • , • • • • • , • • , • • • · • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • , • • , --~, IM1onO A>& se ~ ,-~ ,-" . • , 1',no .~ L':eY :;;. ~ -__ SE , ,-, • " · · , ro • •• .. 'OO --~ -_. • • ~ ;~ " • , 1 IN 84'110 , PH" 0.1& ~. .J {~} t." .. . · , .... .... " ~ '. roo ON 0.", , PH!' o_~ ~~ ~ • 'I • • PNk How Summaty ".-UN fa 5:1''''' ---,,_A ... lIE -~ ~ , , ~ ,----• • , · " , , , • • • , , " • • • , • , • ~ , · , , , , , , • • • · · ~ · • • • • , • • , " • • • , • • • • " • · · • • , • , , • • • • " , '" , • • • ---,-II -== I K ....... _SE ~ ~ ,-~ .. , "3 -I;~I~! E;"' Iw;-: ." ." .1 -KotIrodA .. SE ,--, , ,- " • " , '" • .. .ro ." " . .. -----_. -cn-..;:.~ · , , ~ -• " " , ,. , 5 5 H • " " , .. , , , , , .. , , , " , '" , , I:l , - - - Peak Hour Summary -... (7OII1~I-OX1O 1261h Ave SE & SE 1581h SI " , • ~ ; , , - : -.HF HV% Volume EB 0.00 0.0% 0 we 0.81 0.0% " NB 0.75 6.3% 48 SB 0.75 3.3% 60 Intersectlon 0.80 4.1% '" Coull! Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Tuesday, Juno 25, 2013 I G B ~ .. .. .... , 4· s -, ... " i • ~~ " ~ B B .. '" f "' s ~ ::! - ~0 "u G G SE 158th St Total Vehicle Summary 1261h Ave SE & SE 1581h SI Tuesdlly, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM f5-Mlnuc. tntew., s."..,...". 4:00 PIt 1'0 8:00"" _. --' __ 910 -• • ~ • OO~ , • .-.spt,j " '-30"-.. ~ 'oo~ " e-15PM .~ s ...... -..... • " ---4:l(J PM fa 5:30 PM • -,-._se -~ ,-~ " • -12611>_se -, • -• .. - RoIfIllrJ Hour Summ.". 4:00"" to .;00 PM ----12f111> ..... SE -, • ~ .oo~ • , , ....... • • , uo_ .. , .. ~ " , -12\11h_1IE , " • • , • .. -lzw,,,,.SE • ~ ,-• • ,. ,~ -12e101 ..... S£ " " ,. •• -, __ se , .. .. .. " " " ~ • " ~ , , -sel~SI -SE'_S. ~ ,-• • ," -se'_S1 -se,_St ~. •• , .... - 00 - - - ~~ . ~ • • 41 13 ~l HVOD'JI. j m: t.::-'" .... o .. t ...... "'\ .. r 2 , ". .~ ~­PH!' 0.00 ~, , " ~ .. . • .0 'i ---4:10 PM to 5:30 PM ;~--;---~ ~ , • • • • m ......... I-:-I~I":"I eEl_$! .-~ ,-~ • • '" -""-... ...J!.!l... = ,-. .--n " '" .. --SE .!IItIS! --_ :-:'rwo • ~ .-'" H , n' " '" tf .. - - - - Peak Hour Summary '§!§"'16Oth Sf G G" G 0~ Approach PH' """ .B 0.73 0.0% WB 000 0.0% NB 0.79 5.3% SB 0.55 4.5% I_~ 0.72 3.5% - - - lJI • > " s Il ~ " i • 1261h Ave 5E & 5E 160lh 51 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 I G G rn It .. ...... , ~ r*< s l ...... • " ... ~ G 0 Volume 41 0 57 44 142 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM - i· • lJI ~ '" ~ - --- - -- Total Vehicle Summary 1261h Ave 5E & 5E 160lh 51 Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 15-11Jnu1.lnhlrnl Sumrnaty 4:00 PM II> 11:00 PII ,.... How SUmnNtY 4:45"" 10 S:oB PM ~ -,,' .. _SE -. ~ '. -" . .• -~ -"'- • = , __ Sf: -, , . "-• " , ----4:DO PIlI to 11:00"" -, __ se ~ ,. " • -....... $1'. , , .. , " ,. ~ . .. I " " ._. - -' SE""""iII ~ ,. " • .~ -$I'. ' .... 51 , " .. ~" ... ~ I • -- . ~ . " , .. - !~ 'I ":I.rn-t1r;' t. ~:: 21,,\ .--.,rt o+- • • , . ,~ ~.~ Pttf'o.n , ~~ :; ~ l • ---4:45 PIlI to 5:45"" -,. II -;-I SE'-'S. ~ ,. , , 142 :71~1 E:-l'i: .-" " -I , • SE ..... sr -~ - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ E E " fI) ~ :E ' ~ ! -In or: ;; '" ~ w In 011 W In .. ~ or: -'" N ~ ~ ~ E E II " fI), ~ ii 0 :z: '" ~ • 11. -In or: ;; '" ~ w In ~ 011 ~" r Iii .. W II)kg fA (\I., • Q) ~ 10 I ~ ~2 • = f~ I ~ l~ 0 . ~~ ~ 0-+ ~ .. ~ &-~ :<: !:j.,; .. N ~ . S ~ " " ~ . ::1 11 .:.;! 3$ 1M" '1'9~J Ii; ;; ~ ill .-- ! ;~ ! i: " l-i-!E:$ jili" -!I'· Ii· . li-!. ,I;' "- i· I- I • W'!' r' i . Il!a~ i>-l", .! r-"'. ,. I • pHU r·' I • I!' 1--_ . ., "" 0 r-,. I,' • II i 11!lll!I!I!1 • P"~ p. -. I!" !.- ., -,(:!ii1 • r-,,-lin -Ill • L....:. U • h I~ Ii; ~ ill [I] [] 1·1 ~ I-I II .. .. o .ped 3S eAVW9U ~ffi • -0 ... II • -t-o I 0 o IPld ~ ... ~ I s I ~ I ~ I [I] m -- - Peak Hour Summary --!:rotIf25'.(l3OO SE 15BthS G Gtj+ , .. Appro.eh PHF HV% EB 0.72 0.0% WB 0.81 0.0% NB 0.25 0.0% SB 0.00 0.0"- InterMctlon 0.84 0.0% - - - 1241h PI SE & SE 1581h SI 0 i • Volume 23 " , 0 37 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM Tuesday, June 25. 2013 ...... ._-- ~ ~E s p,.,. • " " Q G 0 Q Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM - -- - ·tB G It , 0 i • G SE 15BthSt .. .. li: 5 ~ - -- - -- - - Total Vehicle Summary --(208)25,-0300 1241h PI SE & SE 1581h SI Tuesday, June 25,2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM tSMlnuflo InretYaJ Summary 4.-00 PM fa 11.110 PM ~" ,. g~ , ~ • • 'I IN O,n, PHF U-" J@~ 22~" ~I' ...... 0 '. 6 .3 -.~ ~on • ..,t,.. ~, · • 00 ~ , " · · ---4:111 PM to 5:15"" ", ,,~ -----_ PI '_POSE Sl',_'" ._so _ c- ~ RHII TR"" T -... ~PM lQ 0 .'~PM T 0 ~ PM 0 .. 5"., S<IIlPM 11 '.15PM So PM -.~PM _ 010 q" fi Pu" Hour Surmnary 4:15"" fa 5:15 PM - ~ ---~-=~ 171+i;1 ... 1 -,24IhPlSE ._PlS SE15111hSl ,-, ~ .--, ~ ,-, ~ , -, ~ ,---. • 0 0 0 0 " " .. 0 . n " 0 " ~. o~ -0 ~ --._PlBE . , -• • ----4:00 PM ID 11.-00 PM ---.-.PlBE .~~ 4:15PM q"",", uSPM ~ 0 --._PlSl' •• SIIoS - - • • . , . ~ .. OM --.,.,.,"'$10 III;.-.a -, , .. " " .. O~ .~ . -.-.--• . -, .. " " n · • --$E,_SO -~ -, --, ~ .. • • • • .. " • • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I www.idaxdata.com 282 E 226 E 0 Interval Start EDMONDS AVE SE SE 16TH ST ~ Peak Hour N w '" ;1 j~ w ~ '" c z 0 ::0 ~ ... Cl II> .., .. W N ~ p j I l. L 174-1 lEV: 759 .... ) 51 _ PHF: 0.96 r 1 ., 5 E ., t r 0 II> p w '" >- ~1 j ... ~ '" Cl z 0 ::0 c w Count Summaries Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 Date: Count Period: Peak Hour: 5E 16TH 5T 83 117 31 E 3 ) 198 HV%: PHF EB 0.9% 0.76 WB 0.9% 0.77 NB 16.7% 0.50 5B 0.7% 0.92 TOTAL 0.9% 0.96 Tue, Apr 15,2014 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM 15-mln Roiling Total One Hour mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 'I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Signalized Intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors, including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay per vehicle during a specified time period (for example, the PM peak hour). Vehicle delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. Table 1 shows LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000). Tabla 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Average Control Delay General Description Service (sec/veh) (Signalized Intersections) A ~10 Free Flow B >10 -20 Stable Flow (Slight delays) C >20 -35 Stabte flow (acceptable delays) D >35 -55 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E >55 -80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F >80 Forced flow (jammed) Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000. Unslgnallzed Intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all-way stop-controlled and two-way stop-controlled. All-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of 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 vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is because the performance of a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop- controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. With this in mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-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 Unslgnallzed Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (ssc/vah) A 0-10 B >10 -15 C >15 -25 D >25 -35 E >35 -50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM -t Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1770 1786 2787 1770 3538 3303 3380 Fit Permitted 0.74 0.77 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.06 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm) 1367 1443 2787 942 3538 195 3380 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I\dj. Flow (yp.J.1) 84 5 5 32 5 900 5 1900 5 105 400 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 3 0 Lane GrouR Flow (yp.J.1) 0 93 0 0 37 824 5 1905 0 105 418 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% jl'urn TYRe Prot NA Perm NA Perm Rm+Rt NA Rm+Rt NA I Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (~) 43.0 43.0 43.0 68.8 68.0 75.2 71.2 Effective Green, gJ~) 43.0 43.0 43.0 68.8 68.0 75.2 71.2 Actuated 9/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.53 0.52 0.58 0.55 ,Clearance TIme (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 lane GrJl Cafl.Jyp.J.1) 452 477 921 503 1850 208 1851 vis Ratio Prot 0.00 cO.54 cO.02 0.12 ~/sRatio Perm 0.07 0.03 cO.30 0.01 0.28 vic Ratio 0.21 0.08 0.90 0.01 1.03 0.50 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 31.2 29.9 41.4 14.4 31.0 29.8 15.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 11.1 0.0 29.0 4.0 0.3 DelayJs) 31.5 29.9 52.5 14.5 60.0 33.8 15.5 Level of Service C C D B E C B Approach Delay (s) 31.5 51.6 59.8 19.1 ~p.Rroach LOS -C D E B ~ljJjJ~L ~~ ~. ___ ._. ___ ~ __________ ~ _________ _ HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-pa"'ct"'·ty"'ra""ti""·0....,------'1"".0;c.;0,...---.....!!=="-"'=.=""''''''------''---------' I\ctuated Cycle Leng~(~) 130.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.5% Sum of lost time (~) ______ 1~9~.0 ______ ---' ICU Level of Service F I\nalysis Period (min) _________ 1""5c....... ____________________ ---' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S -.. Lane Configurations <fJ. ;Volume (ypJ!) 10 55 5 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 . 1900 1900 jT otal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.99 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 3254 Fit Permitted 0.99 Satd. Flow (eerm) 3254 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 :t..dj. Flow (yPJ!) 11 58 5 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (ypJ!) 0 69 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 1% jTum TYRe SRlit NA SRlit Protected Phases 3 3 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 6.4 Effective Green,.g_(~} 6.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 plearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 Lane GrJ1 CapjyP.b} 268 - <ft> 475 1900 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3390 1.00 3390 0.95 500 70 704 1% NA 4 19.2 19.2 0.25 5.0 4.0 838 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 cO.21 )lIs Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.26 0.84 Uniform Delay .. dl 33.4 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 7.9 Delay (s) 34.1 35.6 Level of Service C D Approach Delay (5) 34.1 35.6 ~p.Rfoach LOS C D t l! tt> 250 360 515 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 3564 0.95 1.00 1787 3564 0.95 0.95 0.95 263 379 542 0 0 1 0 379 552 1% 1% 1% Prot NA 5 2 19.6 30.1 19.6 30.1 0.25 0.39 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 451 1382 cO.21 cO.15 0.84 0.40 27.5 17.2 1.00 1.00 13.7 0.4 41.2 17.6 D B· 27.2 C Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM l! t.t> 10 30 70 30 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 3412 0.95 1.00 1787 3412 I 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 11 32 74 32 0 0 27 0 0 32 79 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 1.9 12.4 1.9 12.4 0.02 0.16 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 43 545 0.02 0.02 0.74 0.15 37.6 28.0 1.00 1.00 50.5 0.3 88.1 28.3 F C 42.2 D ~-------------~ ----... _._------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_-::--::-___ ---'3~1:::.9'------'-'-HC:::;M=20::.::0c::.0=Le::..:v::;el-=of:...:S::.::e'-'rv"'ice"---___ --'C'--______ --' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity,...:r"'ati"'·0 ____ O"".7;.:;0c-_--;;-:-""~=_""-----___;;c""------__, :t..ctuated Cycle Leng~(~} 77.6 Sum of lost time (~) _____ __'2""0::;:.0~ _____ ----' Intersection Capacity,,.:U::.:ti:::IiZ"'ati::.:·o::.:n ____ -=:59:o:..7'-i't. ... , __ ...::IC::.:U:...:L::e~ve:o:.1 "'of..:S::::erv.::i.::ce'---_____ -=.B ______ --, :t..nalysis Period (min} _________ 1"'5~ ____________________ __' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ---~~~~~~~~~------------------------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 3: 116th Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach i\l~ _________ IIDL _~_ !l]l ___ t;jJJ______ _ _ _ _ ________ _ Denied Delay (hr) 0_0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DeniEtd.oJ;I~eh'(§) .... .~:£F~ :~{O.0?~i~0'0!!liiio;2 __ 0;0!!ilj-i¥t"'~""';i1f¥~~liM~l.1?-:r:ft;'if}ll;li\!,'!\jif".\ ·ilt{1,1#;:~ffi ·.··1 Tolal Delay (hr) 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.8 Total Zone Performance -~---~ ~----------------------~ --------~------~ ------ Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Existing 4-16-201. SimTraffic Report 4/22/2014 I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: 116th Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Directions Served L R 1 LT T R 1 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4·16·2014IAM Existing 4·16·201. SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM )(; _ ___ __ _ _ __ W ___ WEllr __ ~ _ m _ fl.@ff_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Lane Configurations V To of 35 195 15 5 75 Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 44 244 19 6 94 Hourly flow rate (~p,!1). ___ -"19,--_,-,--_.::...:..:_--,,,,-_-"._--,,~ _____________ --, Pedestrians laneWidth@~-:-____________________________ ---, Walking Speed (ftls). _____________________________ --, Pe'iCeiit Blockage Right tum flare (v=-e"h):----------------------------------' Median ty~"'e_--,-,__-------N"'o"'n"'e--------"N"'o'-"ne'---------'------------' Median storageveh)'-_____________________________ --, !,!~stream sig~lj~)-;-_____________________________ ___' pX, platoon unblocked yc. conflicting.:..voe:lu""m""e'--__ ='---"''''-_____ ~== ________________ _._J vC1, stage 1 cont vol ~C2. stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 359 253 262 359 253 262 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 97 94 100 640 790 1284 cM~~acityj~hfu) ___ ~~___"~ _____ ~~ _______________ _._J ~r.JL~ _s!&l,l)jLJ!@jI_~L ______________ . __________ _ :Volume Total 62 262 100 Volume Left 19 0 6 :Volume Right 44 19 0 cSH 738 1700 1284 :Volume to CaRacilY 0.08 0.15 0.00 Queue Length 95th (~) 7 0 0 ,Control Delayj~) 10.3 0.0 0.5 Lane LOS B A ~~~roach DelayJ~) 10.3 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS B ~~ ------------_._------------_._------------------ Average Delay 1.6 iirteiSection Ca'-Q-ac""ilY,....,-,Ut""ili-za""tio-n--------,2",,1.""2·<7-Y,---,I""CU;-,'7"Le-v'"el-ot""S,.-e-rv,.-ice--------.A--------, Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------ HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM -t Lane Configurations 11 t ., 11 To 11 To 11 To I/olume (yp.!)) 10 35 25 55 225 25 335 130 30 5 85 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 rotal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 I Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1770 1863 1583 1752 1817 1787 1829 1736 1786 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.68 1.00 Satd. Flow (Eerm) 1770 1863 1583 1229 1817 701 1829 1239 1786 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93· 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1xdj. Flow (yp.!)) 11 38 27 59 242 27 360 140 32 5 91 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 22 0 6 0 0 . 11 0 0 11 0 Lane GrouR Flow (VRh) 11 38 5 59 263 0 360 161 0 5 96 0 ----Hea~ Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 4% 4% 4% j1'um TYRe Prot NA Perm Rm+Rt NA pm+Rt NA ~m+Rt NA I Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (~) 0.6 8.1 8.1 10.3 8.9 18.0 12.4 6.5 5.9 Effective Green..Q.(§) 0.6 8.1 8.1 10.3 8.9 18.0 12.4 6.5 5.9 Actuated glC Ratio 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.21 0.42 0.29 0.15 0.14 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane GrJl Capjyp.!)) 24 355 301 315 380 478 533 196 247 vis Ratio Prot cO.01 0.02 0.01 cO.14 cO.13 0.09 0.00 0.05 y/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 cO.19 0.00 vic Ratio 0.46 0.11 0.02 0.19 0.69 0.75 0.30 0.03 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 14.2 14.0 12.6 15.5 9.3 11.7 15.3 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.3 5.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 Dela~J~) 25.8 14.3 14.0 12.7 19.9 15.1 11.8 15.3 17.0 Level of Service C B B B B B B B B Approach Delay (~ 15.8 18.6 14.1 16.9 ~proach LOS B B B B ~ ---._-------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-pa--ci':"ty-ra:7-tio-----;cO.""84;---....:..::::=.='-'="':;O:":"-==::<.....------"'---------' 1xctuated Cycle Leng!!!.(~) 42.5 Sum of lost time (~), _____ --=20"'.0::--_____ ---' Intersection Capacity,,..:U"'ti=liza=:ti:.:.·onc...... ___ -..-:46"'.9:..:'h:.-, __ .:..:IC:,::U,..::Lc;,.evc:,el:.,:o""f S:..:e""rv;.;.ice=--_____ ""A=--_____ --, 1xnalysis Period (min) ________ 1""5'--___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentia~Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 • • • • • • '. I • • • • • I • I • I • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane Configurations 'I tft 'I ;volume (ypl!) 70 255 15 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Losttime (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1752 3476 1805 Fit Permitted 0.11 1.00 0.57 Satd. Flow (~erml 199 3476 1091 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 l\dj. Flow (ypl!) 75 274 16 11 RTOR Reduction (~ph) 0 5 0 0 Lane GrouQ Flow (v~h) 75 285 0 11 Hea~ Vehicles (%l 3% 3% 3% 0% [rum TYQe Qm+Qt NA ~m+~t Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 42.1 37.1 34.1 Effective Green&(~) 42.1 37.1 34.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.49 0.45 Clearance TIme (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane GrJ1 Capjypl!) 215 1719 505 - tft 995 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3512 1.00 3512 0.93 1070 22 1285 0% NA' 8 33.1 33.1 0.44 5.0 2.0 1549 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 0.08 0.00 cO.37 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.01 vic Ratio 0.35 0.17 0.02 0.83 Uniform Delay, d1 12.3 10.4 11.2 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 Delay (s) 12.6 10.4 11.2 22.1 Level of Service B B B C Approach Delay (s) 10.9 22.0 ~p'~roach LOS B C t 'I ft 220 45 235 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1805 1894 0.95 1.00 1805 1894 0.93 0.93 0.93 237 48 253 0 0 1 0 48 257 0% 0% 0% Prot NA 5 2 3.0 14.9 3.0 14.9 0.04 0.20 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 72 376 cO.03 cO.14 0.67 0.68 35.5 27.9 1.00 1.00 16.6 9.7 52.1 37.6 0 0 39.8 0 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 'I ft 5 30 95 50 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1770 1766 0.95 1.00 1770 1766 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 5 32 102 54 0 0 27 0 0 32 129 0 0% 2% 2% 2% Prot NA 1 6 2.0 13.9 2.0 13.9 0.03 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 47 327 0.02 0.07 0.68 0.39 36.2 26.9 1.00 1.00 27.7 3.5 63.9 30.4 E C 36.1 0 ~ ---------_ ... _. ._-----------~. ----- C Intersection Capacity';-,U:.:ti~liz=ati:.:.·o:.:.n ____ ...:.7=:,2.=i2'1ci-, __ ..:.:IC:.,:U..::Lc:,ev:.;:,e;",:1 o,-f S:..:e,;,,;rv,;.:,ice:-.. _____ --'C'--_____ ---, l\nalysis Period (min) ________ :..:15C-.. ___________________ ---' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t to 5 70 5 10 Free 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 tf 60 Free 0% 0.73 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 7 96 7 14 82 ~y flow rate (yp.!J), ____ 1"'4 __ '--_""--_-'-_-"'----..:~ _____________ ...J Pedestrians lane Width@ Walking Speed"(ftI"'s-;-)------------------------------" PerCenI Blockage Right tum flare (v"=e";:;h):---------------------------------' Median lyQe None None Median sto"'ra-g-e-Ve7h);---------=~-----~~----------------.J !:!Qstreamsig~(m-;-_____________________________ ___' pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting.;.vo"'lu::;.m:;;:e'--__ ='----''''-_____ --''''''-________________ -' vC1, stage 1 conI vol 209 99 103 ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 209 99 103 6.4 6.2 4.3 !Q, sing~(~)-;-____ --"'-'-_= ______ -"''--_______________ ___1 tC, 2 stage (s) ____ ---.~___,:=-------."..,..----------------, ~(~) -3.5 3.3 2.4 pO queue Iree % 98 99 99 776 962 1400 cM~QacilyJ~h~), ____ --'-~_~'__ _____ ~"'_ ___ --' ____________ ...J /Volume Total 21 103 96 Volume left 14 0 14 /Volume Right 7 7 0 cSH 830 1700 1400 /Volume to CaQacily 0.02 0.06 0.01 Queue length 95th (ft) 2 0 1 ,Control DelaYJ~) 9.4 0.0 1.2 lane lOS A A ~p'p'roach Delat(~) 9.4 0.0 1.2 Approach lOS A ~-~-------------.. -----~------~--------- Average Delay 1.4 ~e~a~Q-aa~·ty~Uti~·li-za7.tio-n----~2~0.~4·~~--~I~CU~Le-v~el-m~S~e-N~ioo------~A--------, Analysis Period (minj, _________ .-:.:15'--____________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renlon School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 .-------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE -.. - Lane Configurations .;. .;. 1I0lume (veh/h) 10 15 15 10 20 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Hourl~ flow rate (yP.b) 11 17 17 11 23 Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walking~peed (fils) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 86 34 vCl, stage 1 conI vol ~C2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 86 34 tC, sing1!.(~) 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) ~(~) 2.3 2.2 pO queue free % 99 99 'eM CaRacityjvehlh) 1443 1590 t .;. 55 40 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0.87 0.87 63 46 0 144 158 144 158 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 94 100 793 716 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM .;. 10 40 0 15 Stop f 0% 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 11 46 0 1~ 26 138 135 55 I 26 138 135 55 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 94 100 98 1039 818 748 1018 ~I!f.riIjlW ____ ._. ~~L ____ . _ ____ _ ____ . _. 1J0lume Total 46 98 57 63 Volume Lelt 11 11 46 46 1I0lume Right 17 63 11 17 cSH 1443 1590 833 865 1I0lume to CaRacity 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 Queue Length 95th (It) 1 1 6 6 :Control Delayj~) 1.9 0,9 9.6 9.5 Lane LOS A A A A ~p.Rroach Delayj§) 1.9 0.9 9.6 9.5 Approach LOS A A ~~----------------. _. __ ._-_ .. --.. -_._---- Average Delay 5.0 ~edionCa~R-ac~ity~U~ti~·li~~tio-n-------~1~5.~6o/.~o----~IC~U~Le-ve~l~m~S~eN-i~~------------~A--------------, Analysis Period (min). _________________ 1'-"5~ ________________________________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM __ _, _____ ' J!'J~lLJllli~, W.:J1LJ-'J~L~i§l'J1_ ~ _ _ _______ __ , , ________ _ to 4' 50 75 5 25 55 Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 52 78 5 26 57 Hou~y flow rate (~P.Dl._~~--,5,--~==-~-=-=,--_~_-=_--=,,-_____________ --, Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed:-:(ftI"'s""7)-------------------------------...J Peiiiiit Blockag"-e,.-,-______________________________ --' Right tum flare (veh) Median tYR"'e_-,.,.-_______ N"'o""n"'e _____ --'-N.:,::o"'ne'--_____________ --' Median storage veh) !:!Qstream signal m)'------------------------~~-------, pX, platoon unblocked 190 81 83 190 81 83 6.4 6.2 4.2 3.5 3.3 2.3 99 95 98 782 977 1465 cMcaQaciWJveh/h), ___ ~~~~ _____ ~~_~ ____________ ~~ ~j) -~-~--------_ ... ------------- !"olume Total 57 83 83 Volume Left 5 0 26 52 5 0 955 1700 1465 !"olume Rig"'ht'--____ -=~-:-::::7---:-:-::'::___----------------------' cSH 0.06 0.05 0.02 5 0 1 9.0 0.0 2.4 A A g.o 0.0 2.4 A ~------------------- Average Delay 3.2 iiii9rSection Ca'="=R""ac:7.ity""Ut"'ili=za"'tio=-=nc----------2'"1 ."'oO;;'Y,--'I"C"U 'Le:CvC:;el-:o"f S"e-=-rv""'ice-:----------.A---------, Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjects\13\13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentiall Traffic AnalysislT raffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ----~------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane Configurations V of 10 ~olume (veh/h) 5 10 25 70 60 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hou~y flow rate (~p.N 6 12 31 86 74 Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walking Speed (IUs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !:!Rstream sig!2&@ pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 228 80 86 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~C2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 228 80 86 tC, sing~(§) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) ~(§) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 99 99 98 CMCaRacilyJvehlh) 748 985 1497 ~olume Total 19 117 86 Volume Lelt 6 31 0 ~olume Right 12 0 12 cSH 891 1497 1700 ~olume to CaRacily 0.02 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (~) 2 2 0 ,Control Delat(§) 9.1 2.1 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach Delat(§) 9.1 2.1 0.0 Approach LOS A 10 0.81 12 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM Average Delay,_~~~ _____ -=--=1.;:;c9 __ -=,.,.,.----.,.....,..,,..........,..-______ ..,-______ --; iiiieiSection CaRacilyr~U~ti~liz~at~io~n ____ -=.21!;..7!,!%~o __ ~IC~U~L~e:!!ve~1 o~I~S~erv~i~ce,--______ A~ ______ -.J Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I !I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE - Lane Configurations 4-4- /Jolume (vehlh) 10 40 5 5 120 Sign Control Free Free Prade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourly flow rate (yP.,l)) 12 49 6 6 146 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed (ltIs) PercentBiockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) !:!~stream sig~(~) pX. platoon unblocked i&.. conflicting volume 146 55 vC1. stage 1 coni vol ~. stage 2 coni vol vCu. unblocked vol 146 55 tC. sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC. 2 stage (s) !E.(~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 99 100 . eM ca~acity_(vehlh) 1423 1544 /Jolume Total 67 152 30 61 Volume Lelt 12 6 24 6 /Jolume Right 6 0 6 49 cSH 1423 1544 675 838 I/olume to Ca~acity 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.07 Queue Length 95th (It) 1 0 4 6 control Delayj~) 1.4 0.3 10.6 9.6 Lane LOS A A B A ~p'p'roach DelayJ~) 1.4 0.3 10.6 9.6 Approach LOS B A t 4- 0 20 0 Stop 0% 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 24 0 287 235 287 235 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 96 100 623 661 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 4- 5 5 5 40 Stop 0% t 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 6 6 6 49 52 241 238 146 t 52 241 238 146 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 95 1022 696 650 893 ~~---~---~ -----------------~----- Average Delay 3.4 ~eCifunCa~~~ac7.ity~Utiw.·liz~a~tio~n--------n2~0.~6%~o---'I~CU~Le~ve~l~m~S~e~N~ice~-----------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min), ________________ 1.:;:5:....... _______________________________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residential\Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchro\AM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE -+ .. - Lane Configurations 4-4- 1I0lume (veh/h) 0 25 5 0 45 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 Hourly flow rate (ypl)) 0 31 5 0 56 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking~peed (IUs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !:!Rstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~conflicting volume 56 37 vC 1 , stage 1 cont vol ~, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 56 37 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) !fj~) 2.2 2.2 pO Queue free % 100 100 'eM caRacilyjvehlh) 1561 1574 )/olume Total 37 56 5 0 Volume Left 0 0 5 0 t 4- 0 5 0 Stop 0% 0.80 0.92 0.92 0 5 0 90 90 90 90 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 99 100 894 800 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 4- 0 0 0 0 Stop 0% I 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0 0 0 0 34 90 93 56 I 34 90 93 56 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 100 100 100 100 1039 899 797 1016 5 0 0 0 1561 1574 894 1700 1I0lume Rig"'ht'--____ -=:':_--:-::::7--=":--=:'.:---------------------' cSH 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 1I0lume to Ca~acily,_=_---"''''=--'''''':_--'''"o---'~---------------------' Queue Length 95th (tt) ,Control DelayJ~) '---~--;;-;,----,;;-;;----;;-;<--------------------, Lane LOS A A 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 A A ~@!IlJ!®WL .... ________ . .... ______ . ____ _ _ _ .. _ . ____ _ Average Delay 0.5 ~ectionCa~~~ac~ily~Ut~ili~za70tio~n-----.l~3.~3°~~--'I~C~U'Le~v'el~o~tS~e~NTi~~------.A--------. Analysis Period (min), ________ -"'15'--____________________ -. C Q;IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentia~Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM ~ --~~--------------------------------- Lane Configurations V to of 315 15 35 105 Free Free 0% 0% ~0Iume~eWh) ______ ~~2~5_'~1~60~~~~~ __ ~~~~ __________ ~ ______________ ~ Sign Control Stop , Grade 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 -328 16 36 109 Hourl~ flow rate (ypl!), ____ -'2~6---'1"'67'---"~-~--~~~~-----~_:_-----------~ Pedestrians 2 LaneWidth (m~--;'= ___ --,1'72.~0 ________ ~ ______________ __, Walking Speed (ftlS)'-__ -.-.::4.i;-0 ___________________ ----, __ ---: __________ ---, PeiCeiit Blockage 0 Right tum flare (v"=e;:;h):-------=----'-------------------------' Median lYRe Median sto"'ra-g-e V-e-;-h):-'--------'-=:!C------~~-----'------------' .!!Rstream signal m)-:-:;-__ -'-___ ~_'__ ______ -------'----------' pX, platoon unblocked ~,.conflicting.:.vo::;lu""m7e'-'. ' __ --"""'-_=_-'-____ -="--__ -'-____________ __' vC1, stage 1 coni vol yC2, stage 2 coni vol· vCu, unblocked vol ~olume Total 193 344 146 Volume Left 26 0 36 ~olume Right 167 16 0 cSH 666 1700 1200 1I0lume to CaRacilY 0:29 0.20 0:03 Queue Length 95th (tt) 30 0 2 Control Delayj~) 12.6 0.0 2.2 Lane LOS B A ~p.Rroach Delat(~) 12.6 0.0 2.2 Approach LOS B Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Ca'-R-ac""ity-,;,Uti"'·liz=-=a"'ti6"'n-----, '4"6."'2%;7-----;I"CU;O;-Le,...ve"'l-,-of,..,S"'e-:-rv;-'ice----------,-A--------, Analysis Period (min<-) ___ -----.:.;15=------------------------, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Existing 4-16-201' Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street -,. - Lane Configurations to 4' V jVolume (veh/h) 50 5 0 175 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop !3rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 !:i£!!!!~ flow rate (ypl!) 52 5 0 182 10 Pedestrians 2 1 lane Width (m 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !:!Rstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked . yc, conflicting volume 58 238 vCl, stage 1 conI vol ~; stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 58 238 IC, sing~{~) 4.1 6.4 tC, 2 stage (s) !t{~) 2.2 3.5 pO queue Iree % 100 99 eM caRacityJveh/h) . 1544 754 ~olume Total 57 182 10 Volume Left 0 0 10 jVolume Right 5 0 0 cSH 1700 1544 754 !Volume to CaRacity 0.03 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (It) 0 0 1 .Control DelaYJ~) 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS A ~RRroach Delat{~) 0.0 0.0 9.8 Approach LOS A ----- Average Delay' 0.4 0 0.96 0 58 58 6.2 3.3 100 1012 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM I Intersection CaRacity,..::U"'til"'iza"'t""ion"-____ 1;.:9"',9"'%'-'-_-"'IC"'U..:L""ev"'e:..:1 0:.:.,1 S"'e::.:..rv"'ic"'e ______ -'A.!.-______ --' Analysis Period (min,-) ,..-__ -,---_-.;.;15:....----------------_------, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Existing 4-16-201' Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Lane Configurations 4- )Jolume (yp.!!) 40 15 5 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jT otal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.97 Satd. Flow (Qrot) 1819 Fit Permitted 0.83 Satd. Flow (~erml 1556 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 J\dj. Flow (yp.!!) 42 16 5 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (yp.!!) 0 60 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 1% jTum TYRe Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 24.0 Effective Green&(~) 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 tane GrJl Capjyp.!!) 414 vis Ratio Prot )"s Ratio Perm cO.04 vic Ratio 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 DelaYJ~) 25.3 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 25.3 ~p'woach LOS C - of 5 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1808 0.82 1547 0.95 5 0 26 1% NA 8 24.0 24.0 0.27 5.0 3.0 412 0.02 0.06 24.6 1.00 0.1 24.7 C 25.2 C t 'f'" , tt> 365 5 870 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 2814 1787 3548 1.00 0.14 1.00 2814 265 3548 0.95 0.95 0.95 384 5 916 282 0 4 102 5 959 1% 1% 1% Perm Rm+Rt NA 5 2 8 2 24.0 29.2 28.4 24.0 29.2 28.4 0.27 0.32 0.32 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 750 99 1119 0.00 0.27 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.86 25.1 21.8 28.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.3 8.5 25.2 22.1 37.4 C C D 37.3 D Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM lI!i_tt> 45 855 1565 95 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 3467 3544 0.12 1.00 437 3544 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 47 900 1647 100 0 0 4 0 0 900 1743 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Rm+Qt NA 1 6 6 56.0 50.2 56.0 50.2 0.62 0.56 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 1032 1976 cO.22 cO.49 0.32 0.87 0.88 23.4 17.3 1.00 1.00 8.9 6.1 32.3 23.4 C C 26.4 C "-~--z. _____ ,,____________ ___ _____ ___ _ _ _ __________ _ HCM 2000 Control Delay,_::----,,--___ ~28~.9"---~HC~M!!..2~0~00:!..!L:!':e!::ve~1 o~f~Se':!:rv~ic~e ____ ~C~ _____ .......J HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity~r~ati~·0 ___ ~0;;...7;;..1 --""""-----;-;---;--0---;--:---------,,""""--------, J\ctuated Cycle Leng\!1J~) 90.0 Sum of lost time (~) _____ ___!:19~.0~--------.J Intersection Capacity~U~ti!!!liz~ati~·on~-----.:::8=2.6_=.;"':;_o __ ~IC~U:..!:L~ev~el:..!:o::..:f S::::e::..:rv:::ice~ _____ ~E'_____ _____ __, J\nalysis Period (min) ________ ~15~ ___________________ ___l c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------------------------- ---------------------- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM -t Lane Configurations off+ of_f+ 'I t.f+ 'I t.f+ /Jolume (yp.!!) 25 480 420 45 200 120 150 145 45 270 525 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 jf otal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 I Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 3326 3377 1805 3481 1787 3569 Fit Penmitted 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (~enm) 3326 3377 1805 3481 1787 3569 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 'Adj. Flow (yp.!!) 26 500 438 47 208 125 156 151 47 281 547 5 RTOR Reduction (~~) 0 166 0 0 68 0 0 33 0 0 1 0 Lane GrouR Flow (~p.!!) 0 798 0 0 312 0 156 165 0 281 551 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% jfum Ty~e S~lit NA S~lit NA Prot NA Prot NA I Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Penmitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 23.5 13.5 10.6 12.7 16.1 18.2 Effective Green&(~) 23.5 13.5 10.6 12.7 16.1 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.21 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 Lane GrJl Capjyp.!!) 910 531 222 515 335 757 vis Ratio Prot cO.24 cO.09 0.09 0.05 cO.16 . cO.15 :,I/s Ratio Penm vic Ratio 0.88 0.59 0.70 0.32 0.84 0.73 Unifonm Delay, dl 29.8 33.6 36.1 32.7 33.6 31.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.8 2.0 10.3 0.8 16.6 4.3 Delat.~) 39.6 35.5 46.4 33.4 50.2 35.8 Level of Service D D D C D D Approach Delay (~) 39.6 35.5 39.2 40.6 ~~roach LOS D D D D ~~---------------- ------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Ca·-pa-c.".ity-r""at.,..io------'0~.8"'1:----'-'=====.:=.:.:=----..:::...---------' 'Actuated Cy_cle_L_eng!b.(~) 85.8 Sum of lost time (~)---, ____ ---,2~0"".0,--_____ ---, Intersection Ca paclty,,.:U"'ti::::liza=tio"'n ____ --'-77:..::.8:;.'ic;.-, __ .::IC",U::,:L::::e",ve:::.1 "'of..::Sc::erve,::i:::ce'--_____ ...::;,D ______ ----, 'Analysis Period (min), _________ 1"'5'--____________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach Total Zone Performance -~--------------------------------_._-- Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 De'i\iednelNeh'(s"J......"-··T';"';,it"';;'C'."'i·i·""·i·"',,i"'J""+~i "':;i""i;'''''B,,,,¥,''jQ:;;;~1'''l1t&'''li~''''' ·''j"".",#,,,,,,,,,,,~;),:,,,},,,.,,,.r •.. :'''' ... ''''{i'''7·i'''' (,"" ·?,;,-::,f"".","":j1,"':'~"",: ~>"";"'\l""'Jj""''''{:''''%''''':F''''i'''-' T" "Ci. -.... \w"'...,y...,...",.,,.,i''''i'~;--'.-, Total Delay (hrf,,) ...,-_,..,.",,,.-...,...,_....,,..'"='==~1.0===='"""'.,.,-_"""'~..,...,,....,.,_~,,.....,~,.--____ .,.,.,,,.,---, jfOIaLDeINeli,@.L" _--""ii":;",; -'2_.L·JL'.L'i':LY~"..:l·"~62~;2""·1i;""E8:j"'.;;S;.~.~,,,,·,'§,,,,1X2'§:C;:.J.·'~.L:-'-"-";:1l~s;"-,' .L'",,-.L":C' .L"''--.:L~''.L''''-,,'t:c..' '_' __ 2'>'.:.:",,---,' """L' ..J Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Existing 4-16-201· SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S ------I Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM ~®.llli!I ___ .__ __ _ ~@l_ illWl ___ Ii® __ . ..@l§_ . m ______ .. . ____ ._ Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Existing 4-16-201- SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM )l _______ J'J9]1 J'J~WL _Iilllj[ _ ~ _ ®,:.lL _~_ _ _ __ ___ _ __ _ Lane Configurations V ~~0~IU~m~e~(V~e~h/~h)~~~======~~1~5~-__ -_-=~~~_-_-~~~~ __ ~ __ ~~~~ __________________________ ~ Sign Control Stop :Grade 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 Hourly flow rate (YP.!]) ______ ---'1-"-6_--"'''----'''''''-_-=_-''''----''''''-____________ _____' Pedestrians Lane Width (~).:-;;:;~ ____________________________ __1 Walking Sp:::er:ed"'(ftI::=.S:L) _____________________________ -, PerCentBlockage Right tum flare (v'''-e"'"'h),---------------------------------------1 Median tyRe None None Median sto~ra:-:g-,-e---ve7h;-) ______________ --'-"= __________ --'="---__________________________ ----l !!Rstream sig~m).= _________________ ~ ____ __:_----------------------------' pX, platoon unblocked I&, conflicting . ...:.v=:olu"'m'7e'--____ =--=~___"':.:.._ _________ ____':..:.:... _____________________________ ___' vC1, stage 1 conI vol /!g, stage 2 conI vol 570 237 247 . vCu, unblocked vol 570 237 247 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3_3 2.2 97 97 97 473 807 1319 liJlF~ ______________ __ ______ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ ~olume Total 38 247 296 Volume Lett 16 0 38 ~olume Right 22 22 0 cSH 619 1700 1319 ~olume to Ca~acity 0.06 0.15 0.03 Queue Length 95th (tt) 5 0 2 Control DelayJ~) 11.2 0.0 1.2 Lane LOS B A ~p'p'roach DelayJ~) 11.2 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS B ~ ~~------------------------------ Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Ca':c:~:-:ca-"cityc-;-;Ut"'i1ic::cza-"tio,-:n------------.4"'0."2°&Yo-------;IO<C;-;-U'le,,-v"'e1-'-0"1 S""'e-rv"-ic-e ---------'A-----------, Analysis Period (min),~~------------'-'15'------------------------------------------, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Lane Configurations ~ t ., ~ 1-/olume (ypll) 35 310 430 90 Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jr otal Losltime (~) 5.0 . 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt ,1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) , 1787 . '·1881 ' 1599 1787 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.36 ,Satd. Flow (eerm) 1787 1881 .1599 • 673 . Peak-hour factor, PHF' 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 'lIdj. Flow (ypll) " 38 341 473 99 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 336 0 Lane GrouR Flow (ypll) 38 341 137 99 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% jrurn TYRe Prot NA Perm Rm+Rt Protected Phases 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 17.2 17.2 22.8 Effective Green&(~) 1.6 17.2 17.2 22.8 Actuated glC Ratio 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.38 pearance Time @ .5.0 .. 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 - To 125 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1852 1.00 1852 0.91 137 5 148 1% NA 4 19.2 19.2 0.32 5.0 2.0 Lane GrR CapjyRb) 48 545 463 ' 326 '599 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 cO.18 0.02 0.08 ~Is Ratio Perm 0.09 0;10 vic Ratio 0.79 0.63 0.30 0.30 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 28.7 18.3 16.3 12.3 14.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 55.5 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 84.2 19.9 16.5 12.5 14.8 Level of Service F· B B B. B Approach Delay (s) 20.9 13.9 ~p'p.roach LOS C B t ~ To 15 80 195 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 1787 1766 0.53 1.00 1000 1766 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 88 214 0 0 36 '0 88 326 1% 1% 1% Rm+Rt NA 5 2 2 20.5 16.9 20.5 16.9 0.35 0.28 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 393 503 cO.01 cO.18 0.06 0.22 0.65 13.4 18.6 1.00 1.00 0.1 2.2 13.5 20.8 B C 19.3 B Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM ~ To 135 35 175 10 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1787 1866 0.41 1.00 773 1866 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 148 38 192 11i 0 0 3 0 0 38 200 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Rm+Rt NA I 1 6 6 16.5 14.9 16.5 14.9 0.28 0.25 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 242 468 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.16 0.43 15.9 18.6 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.2 16.0 18.9 B B 18.4 B ------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay,':..-' --,,--'--::,.--.,........_'--. -:.197.2~_..-!.!HC~M!!..:!20~00~L~e:!!ve~1 o~f~Se~rv!!!ic~e ____ .-!:B,---_____ --, HeM 2000 Volume to Capacity'-'r.::;at=.io ___ ---i0:,;:..6;;.-0 __ -;:----.,,---;-,,--,-; _____ --,,""' ______ -, 'lIctuated Cy_cle_L_eng!!l(~) 59.3 Sum of losltime (~), _____ --=.20"".0:_--------' Intersection Capacity",U:.,:ti:::liz::at:::io::.n ____ -"6.::;0.:;6'1.:,;-, __ ..:.:IC;;:U:..:L::ev:..:e:..,:1 o::.,f S:.,:e::,:rv:..:ic.::;e -,--____ ---=B=--_____ ---, 'lInalysis Period (min), __ --' ___ ---"15'--------'-----------------' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report -412212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane Configurations 'i tJ. 'i /Jolume (~P..b) 165 995 80 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jT otal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1787 3534 1787 Fit Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.16 Satd. Flow (~erm) 289 3534 301 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1xdj. Flow (~P..b) 174 1047 84 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (~~) 174 1124 0 53 Hea!l: Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% jTum TYRe Rm+Rt NA Rm+Rt Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.1 30.8 28.3 Effective Green, g (s) 39.1 30.8 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.34 0.31 piearance TIme (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Gr[l Capj~p..b) 277 1209 149 vis Ratio Prot cO.06 cO.32 0.01 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.10 vic Ratio 0.63 0.93 0.36 ,Uniform Delay, dl 18.3 28.6 23.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 12.4 1.5 Delay (s) 21.4 41.0 25.2 Level of Service C D C Approach Delay (~) 38.4 ~p'p'roach LOS D - tJ· 555 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3466 1.00 3466 0.95 584 25 706 1% NA 8 25.0 25.0 0.28 5.0 2.0 962 0.20 0.73 29.5 1.00 2.5 32.0 C 31.6 C t 'i _'fo 140 45 145 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1787 1826 0.95 1.00 1787 1826 0.95 0.95 0.95 147 47 153 0 0 9 0 47 181 1% 1% 1% Prot NA 5 2 3.0 20.1 3.0 20.1 0.03 0.22 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 59 407 0.03 0.10 0.80 0.44 43.2 30.1 1.00 1.00 48.4 3.5 91.6 33.6 F C 45.1 D Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 'i 'fo 35 265 325 140 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 1796 0.95 1.00 1787 1796 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 37 279 342 141j 0 0 16 0 0 279 473 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 15.8 32.9 15.8 32.9 0.18 0.37 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 313 656 cO.16 cO.26 0.89 0.72 36.3 24.6 1.00 1.00 25.0 6.7 61.3 31.3 E C 42.2 D ~ --~---------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_:c---::-___ -':38"".I:--_--:..:.HC::..:M"'2::.:0""00::.,:L:.::e.:.,:ve""l o:,:.f""Se::.:..rv"'ic""e ____ -=D ______ ---' HCM 2000 Volume to CapacitY,...:r=at::.io ___ ~O;;:.89;;_---;;:=-==:::-;c:;-------;;;;-;,_-----___, 1xctuated Cy_cle_L_ength (~) 90.0 Sum of lost time (~) _____ -",20:.;:'O:--_____ ----, Intersection Capaclty-..:U:::ti~liza=ti::.·on:.:.... ___ ~8=0.7'-i'A,.o __ .:.::IC~U,-,=L::.ev::.el,-,=o"-,f S""e::.,:rv::.ice"--_____ -'D'--_____ ___, 1xnalysis Period (min) ________ .:.::15'--___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q;IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentia~Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t Lane Configurations V to /Jolume (veh/h) 5 5 35 5 10 Sign Control Stop Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (yp.!!) 6 6 42 6 12 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (fils) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lYRe None Median storage veh) !lRstream si9!!&m) pX, platoon unblocked ~! conflicting volume 110 45 48 vC1, stage 1 conf vol ~, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 110 45 48 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC, 2 stage (s) !E..(~) 3.5 3.3 2.3 pO queue free % 99 99 99 'eM caRacilYJveh/h) 885 1031 1486 /Jolume Total 12 48 54 Volume Left 6 0 12 /Jolume Right 6 6 0 cSH 952 1700 1486 "'olume to CaRacilY 0.01 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th (~) 1 0 1 Gontrol Delayj~) 8.8 0.0 .1.7 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach DelayJ~) 8.8 0.0 1.7 Approach LOS A of 35 Free 0% 0.84 42 None Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM ~------------_.---. Average Delay 1.7 ~e~a~R-ac"'ilY~Ut~ili~za70tio~n---------'1"9.~1°~Vo----'I~CU~Le-v~el~of"S~e~N~i~~-----------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min)'--______________ -.:..:15'--________________________________________ --, C Q;IProjectsl 131 13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentiall T rattic AnalysislT rattic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE Lane Configurations· 4-4-. /Volume (veh/h) 5 . 10 45 15 5 Sign Control Free Free :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourl~ flow rate (yp'!!) 5 11 49 16 5 Pedestrians Lane Width @ Walking Speed (ltIs) Percent Blockage . Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e ·.None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal ml . pX, platoon unblocked ~C, conflicting volume 22 60 vC1, stage 1 confvol ~, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 22 60 ' . j£, sing~(~) 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) tF (~) 2.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 99 CM cap.acityjveh/h) 1519 1556 Volume Lett 5 16 33 16 /Volume Right 49 16 16 5 cSH 1519 :1556 909 896 /Volume to CaRacity 0.00 . 0.01 0.05 0.02 Queue Length 95th (tt) 0 1 4 2 Control Delat(~) 0.6 3.2 9.2 9.1 Lane LOS A A A A ~p'p'roach Delay_(~) 0.6 3.2 9.2 9.1: Approach LOS A A 4- 15 30 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 33 0 99 102 99 102 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 96 100 859 770 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 4- 15 15 0 5 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 16 0 5 36 110 118 14 I 36 110 118 14 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 98 98 100 99 1026 850 765 1072 ------ Average DelaY=:;;::-~==-____ -:;;;-,;.;4'i;-7 ---;r;;:;O;::::;::T<'==--------.--------, fniiiiSection Cap'acity Utilization 16.3% ICULevel of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM Lane Config:T.ur~at:::io.:.:;nsO--___ V7-_.....,,---.!i::-_-.;;-_--.;"-_-i'.. ______________ ----' WOlume(veh/h) ____ ~~5~--~~~~-~-~-~~---------------~ 10 4' 15 50 10 20 60 Sign Control Stop :Grade 0% Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 19 62 12 25 75 Hourly flow rate (yp.!!), ____ --'6'--__ .!"-_---"''--_'''-_~_~~ ______________ ___.l Pedestrians 194 69 75 194 69 75 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 99 98 98 786 1000 1518 Wolume Total 25 75 100 Volume Left 6 0 25 Wolume Right 19 12 0 cSH 936 1700 1518 Wolume to CaRacity 0.03 0.04 0.02 Queue Length 95th (It) 2 0 1 .Control DelayJ§) 8.9 0.0 1.9 Lane LOS A A . ~p.Rroach DelayJ§) B.9 0.0 1.9 Approach LOS A Average Delay 2.1 iiii6rSection C·~ap.:-::a-:;city::-:-;;U""til'='iza"'tic::on::--------;2"'0~.9:;;;%----;;;IC"'U'L:cev"'el"o"f S"'e"'rv""ice-::-----------;A,---------, Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentia~Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane Configurations V 4' to /Jolume (vehlh) 15 25 20 50 55 Sign Control Stop Free Free .Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Hourl~ flow rate (ypJ]) 21 35 28 69 76 Pedestrians Lane Width !m Walking~peed (IUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) j,!Qstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked yc, conflicting volume 205 80 83 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 205 80 83 tC, sing~(§) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (§) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 97 96 98 af C8Racity_(vehlh) 773 986 1495 /Jolume Total 56 97 83 Volume Left 21 28 0 35 0 7 894 1495 1700 0.06 0.02 0.05 5 1 0 9.3 2.2 0.0 A A 9.3 2.2 0.0 A 5 0.72 7 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM ~ -------------------------------------- Average Delay 3.1 ~e~a~R~ac7.ity~Ut~iliZ~a"tio~n----~2~0.;4o/.~o--~I~CU~Le~ve~l-m~S~e~N~ice~------.A---------. Analysis Period (min)c--____________ .!..-1.:;:5c--__________________________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE -+ .. - Lane Configurations 4-4- !Volume (veh/h) 60. 245 30 5 105 Sign Control Free Free :Grade 0% . 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Houny. flow rate (ypJ]) 66 269 33 5 115 Pedestrians Lane Width(m Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None' Median storage veh) !:iRstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked yC, conflicting volume 121' 302 vC1, stage 1 conf vol ~, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 121 302 )g, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (0 !!:.(~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 96 100 tMcaRacilyjveh/h) 1467 1264 . !Volume Total 368. 126 22 44 Volume Left 66 5 11 5 !Volume Right 33 5 5 33 cSH . 1467 • 1264 456 717 !Volume to CaRacity 0.04 0:00 0.05 0:06 Queue Length 95th (~) 4 0 4 5 ~ontrol Delayj~) . 1.7; .' 0.4 13.3 10.4 Lane LOS A A B B ~p'woach Delayj~) 1.7 0.4 13.3 10.4 Approach LOS B B t 4- 5 . 10 5 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 .11 5 . 582 549 582 549 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 97 99 393 424 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 4- 5 5 5 30 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 5 5 33 286 555 563 118 I 286 555 563 118 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 96 758 421 416 939 - ~---------- Average Delay 2.5 ~e~a~R~ac~ity~UWtmili~~tio~n-~---o~'.7~o/c~o--'IC~U"L~e~ve~l7.of~S~eN~i~ce~------'A----------' Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE - Lane Configurations 4-4- /Volume (veh/h) 0 30 5 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (YPE) 0 36 6 6 18 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed (ltIs) PercentBlockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !JRstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 18 42 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 18 42 )g, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) ~(~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 100 100 CM caRacilyjvehlh) 1612 1580 t 4- 0 5 0 Stop 0% 0.84 0.84 0.84 0 6 0 68 68 68 68 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 99 100 926 823 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 4- 0 0 0 0 Stop 0% I 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0 0 0 0 39 68 71 18 I 39 68 71 18 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 100 100 100 100 1039 926 820 106~ ~-~~~----------------------- /Volume Total 42 24 6 0 Volume Left 0 6 6 0 /Volume Right 6 0 0 0 cSH 1612 1580 926 1700 /Volume to CaRacily 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (It) 0 0 0 0 ~ontrol Delayj~) 0.0 1.8 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS A A A ~RRroach Delayj~) 0.0 1.8 8.9 0.0 Approach LOS A A Average Delay 1.4 lnteffie~a~R-aa~·Iy-U~t~iIi~~tio~n---------.1·5.i2o/c~o----'IC~U~Le~~~I~m~S2e~~icce~-----------.A--------------, Analysis Period (min)'--______________ -:.:15=--________________________________________ -. C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidenliallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Exisling.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t To 90 175 50 160 Free 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 4' 250 Free 0% 0.96 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 94 182 52 167 260 HouM~ flow rate (y~) ___ -,3"-,1,----,,,,--_,,-,,,,_--,~_,,,,-_~,,-_____________ ---, Pedestrians 802 208 234 802 208 234 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 90 89 88 310 835 1339 ~olume Total 125 234 427 Volume Left 31 0 167 )lolume Right 94 52 0 cSH 587 1700 1339 )lolume to Ca~acit~ 0.21 0.14 0.12 Queue Length 95th (!9 20 0 11 Control Dela~ (s) 12.8 0.0 3.9 Lane LOS B A ~p'~roach DelaYJ~) 12.8 0.0 3.9 Approach LOS B ~~-~------. ----------- -~------------ Average Delay 4.1 iiii9rSection Cac"p.-:-ac"'ityccU"'t""iliz--a""tio--n------5"1.;;;5O/C.;.., ---;IC"'Uc;-;-Le-ve-.I""of"S;:'e:-::rv~ice:--------.A---------, Analysis Period (min), ________ -'.:15'--____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Existing 4-16-201· Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street - Lane Configurations to of V :Volume (veh/h) 195 15 5 . 115 5 . Sign Control Free Free Stop ;Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (ypJ)) . , 203 16 5 120 5 Pedestrians LaneWidth ml Walking Speed (!tis) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median IyQe None None Median storage veh) iiQstream sig~@ ,pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 219 341 vC 1, stage 1 cont vol yC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 219 341 tC, sing~(~) 4.1. 6.6 tC, 2 stag~(~) tF (~) 2.2 . 3.7 pO queue free % 100 99 'cM caQacilyjvehlh) 1357 623 5 0.96 5 211 211 . 6:4 3.5 99 793 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM ~---------------- :Volume Tolal 219 125 10 Volume Left 0 5 5 :Volume Right 16 0 5 cSH . 1700 1357 698 1I0lume to CaQacily 0.13 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (~) 0 0 1 Control Delayj~) 0.0 0.3' 10.2 Lane LOS A B ~p'p'roach Delat(~) .. 0.0 0.3 10.2 Approach LOS B Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Existing 4-16-201' Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S -+ .. Lane Configurations 4- /Jolume (ypJ]) 90 5 5 35 Ideal Flow (yphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 ~otal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.96 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1771 Fit Permitted 0.72 Satd. Flow (~erm) 1342 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 'lIdj. Flow (ypJ]) 95 5 5 37 RTOR Reduction (~ph) 0 1 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (ypJ]) 0 104 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% ~um TYRe Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.0 Effective Green, gJ~) 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane GrR CapjypJ]) 456 vis Ratio Prot y/s Ratio Perm 0.08 vic Ratio 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 . Delay (s) 35.7 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 35.7 ~p.Rroach LOS • D - <f_~" 5 945 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1784 2787 0.75 1.00 1399 2787 0.95 0.95 5 995 0 63 42 932 2% 2% NA Perm 8 8 51.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 0.34 0.34 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 475 947 0.03 cO.33 0.09 0.98 33.7 49.1 1.00 1.00 0.1 25.3 33.8 74.4 C E 72.7 E t 'I tJ. 5 1995 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1770 3538 0.47 1.00 879 3538 0.95 0.95 5 2100 0 0 5 2105 2% 2% Rm+Rt NA 5 2 2 80.8 80.0 80.8 80.0 0.54 0.53 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 478 1886 0.00 cO.59 0.01 0.01 1.12 16.0 35.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 60.2 16.0 95.2 B F 95.0 F Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM Zi~ t'fo 5 110 420 20 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 3303 3382 0.05 1.00 167 3382 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 5 116 442 21; 0 0 2 0 0 116 461 0 2% 6% 6% 6% Rm+Rt NA 1 6 6 87.2 83.2 87.2 83.2 0.58 0.55 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 180 1875 cO.02 0.14 0.36 0.64 0.25 35.3 17.2 1.00 1.00 10.4 0.3 45.6 17.5 D B 23.2 C ------------------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_,,--::-___ ---'7~6~.5:.......-~HC~M~20~0'!.0 ~Le'-!:ve!:!.l~of'-'S~e~rv~ice"_ ___ .......';E'__ ______ ..J HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity:..:.ra~r"'lo ___ .......,1;.;;.0~8:.......-_.,.~""'"""-"'-----_.."'------_, 'lIctuated Cycle Leng!!!..(~) 150.0 Sum of lost time (~) ______ 1"'9o:;;.0:....... ______ ..J Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.4% ICU Level of Service G 'lInalysis Period (min) _________ 1~5 _____________________ .....J c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ,-------------------------------- ----l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S Lane Configurations ofJ. 1I0lume (~p.))) 10 60 5 10 Ideal Flow (v~~) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.99 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 3258 Fit Permitted 0.99 Satd. Flow (Eerm) 3258 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 II.dj. Flow (yp~) 11 63 5 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (~p~) 0 74 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 1% !rum lyRe . SRlit NA SRlit Protected Phases 3 3 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 6.6 Effective Green..9.(~) 6.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 Lane GrR Capj~p~) 273 - ofJ. 525 1900 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3390 1.00 3390 0.95 553 69 784 1% NA 4 20.2 20.2 0.26 5.0 4.0 871 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 cO.23 ~/s Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.27 0.90 Uniform Dela~, d1 33.7 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 12.5 Dela~.Js) 34.5 40.7 Level of Service C D Approach Delay (~) 34.5 40.7 ~~woach LOS C D t 'I +10 275 395 570 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 3565 0.95 1.00 1787 3565 0.95 0.95 0.95 289 416 600 0 0 1 0 416 610 1% 1% 1% Prot NA 5 2 20.2 28.4 20.2 28.4 0.26 0.36 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 459 1288 cO.23 cO.17 0.91 0.47 28.3 . 19.3 1.00 1.00 21.6 0.6 49.9 19.9 D B 32.0 C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without·ProjectAM 'I t10 10 35 75 35 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 3403 0.95 1.00 1787 3403 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 11 37 79 3~ 0 0 32 0 0 37 84 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 3.4 11.6 3.4 11.6 0.04 0.15 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 77 502 0.02 0.02 0.48 0.17 36.7 29.3 1.00 1.00 4.7 0.3 41.4 29.6 D C 32.5 C ~.-.----------------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Ca'-pa-c7."ity-ra-Ct::-io----"'O.~77;---'-'=~==-"'-''''''-'=------'''-------.......J i\ctuated Cycle Leng!!!.(~) 78.6 Sum of lost time (~) _____ """"""""'2"'0c:;;.0:-_____ ___' Intersection Capacity"U"'t:.::iliz:=a"'tio"'n ____ ......::64.:.:.4:.;%i-_....c.IC::;U::.:L::::e:.:.;ve::.I"'of.:Sc:;ervc.::i::::ce:...... _____ .....::.C ______ --, II.nalysis Period (min) _________ 1"'5 _____________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01·20131AM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ----------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach ~ ______ I1W ___ ~ __ @l.:l ___ /,J ______________________ _ Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Denied Del/Yeh'@, __ ,",-..",i,>cc .• '-,;Oc;' 0:--'",-,-'~O :~0:",';·~·",:;;0~:.2:"J",y",.$~;0~:0--,,\\,,-;.;...· ~,--,,-,',-'" ""f._' ___ '",-,\",J",. ~",-i",.;---,-,---"-"",',,," 'c.." ",-'--"---'-'-'----'-----'-_~."-. '-" Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.9 jT otaIQeINeh@_''-----'--'·'''-·,'''-,· ....;4c:.::.8,--·""r!..:;'h",1r""c':",. ",·-1.1",.0",Cf·",-7i·",i'r..:}3",:S ... w',-·' .:c....-'--'-'-""'---"''''y.w·;:'''·~''';£''-:_· ~,,,-,;, "..;..'" -" ....... >_'_. ____ -'----'-'-_~'~. ',-,' Total Zone Performance ----~ --------------------------------~---~ ------------------- Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 Denied Dellileh'{'§")--.......,,-C------,-,'"'"-,....,... •.• "':0"'.2"" ""."""'ti'",, ~-""""'-"'-"';r, -,.7; "T'h"':"·"'-:: .. -·. ,.........,.",-.'""'.,,-. -".."..----,----, Total Delay (hr)' 0.9 jTotal DelNeh (S"'J-' ---,-,.....,~---='.,......3"'57;:;.2"':..,.-;f"'>7.-t-:;.-.;7/-. .,.......-..,-.,.--,~.,.._T,:;,""~;:-. -.,.....,-..,--------, Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Baseline 4-16-201 SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Directions Served ax ~. a Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Baseline 4-16-201 SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t Lane Configurations V to /Jolume (veh/h) 15 40 215 15 5 Sign Control Stop Free 13rade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourl~ flow rate (ypl)) 19 50 269 19 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking~peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None Median storage veh) !,!p'stream signal @ pX, platoon unblocked :vc. conflicting volume 397 278 288 vCl, stage 1 cont vol ~C2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 397 278 288 IC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) IF (~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue tree % 97 93 100 eM cap'acilyJvehlh) 609 766 1257 /Jolume Total 69 288 112 Volume Left 19 0 6 /Jolume Right 50 19 0 cSH 715 1700 1257 /Jolume to CaRacily 0.10 0.17 0.00 Queue Length 95th (~) 8 0 0 Control DelaYJ~) 10.6 0.0 0.5 Lane LOS B A ~p'p.roach DelaYJ~) 10.6 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS B 4' 85 Free 0% 0.80 106 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM ~-------------------------~--------------- Average Delay 1.7 lnlemSe~a=p'~ac7.ily~Ut~iliz=a7tio=n~--------2~2.~2°~~----'I~CU~Le~v~el~otnS~e=N~ice~-----------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min)c...... ______________ ~15:..... _______________________________________ ___, C Q:IProjectsl 131 13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentiall Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSyncihrolUpdate 11-01-20131AM Baseline.syn Syncihro 8 Report 412212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St -,. Lane Configurations , 11 t 'f'n--", ,Volume (~Pl!::;:) =""-~--""'10 40 30 11 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 ITotal Lost time (§) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (Qrot) 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 ,Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 !Adj. Flow (~Pl!) 11 43 32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 Lane GrouQ Flow (ypl!) 11 43 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% Prot NA Perm 3 8 jTum TYQe Protected7=::Ph-a-se-s------''-'''.:'-----''';;---'-'=- Permitted Phases 8 0.6 11.0 11.0 0.6 11.0 11.0 0.01 0.23 0.23 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 21 421 358 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1752 0.62 1138 0.93 65 0 65 3% Qm+Qt 7 4 15.6 15.6 0.32 5.0 2.0 398 - f+ 250 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1815 1.00 1815 0.93 269 7 294 3% NA 4 13.0 13.0 0.27 5.0 2.0 485 0.01 0.02 cO.01 cO.16 Y/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 vic Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.02 0.16 0.61 23.9 14.9 14.6 11.7 15.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 34.3 14.9 14.6 11.7 17.0 C B B B B 17.3 16.1 B B 30 1900 0.93 32 0 0 3% t 1I_f+ 370 145 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1787 1826 0.44 1.00 833 1826 0.93 0.93 398 156 0 13 398 181 1% 1% Qm+Qt NA 5 2 2 20.0 14.4 20.0 14.4 0.41 0.30 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 454 541 cO.10 0.10 cO.26 0.88 0.34 12.6 13.4 1.00 1.00 16.6 0.1 29.2 13.5 C B 24.1 C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM 11 f+ 35 5 95 15 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1736 1790 0.64 1.00 1161 1790 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 38 5 102 16 0 0 9 o 0 5 109 o 1% 4% 4% 4% Qm+Qt NA 1 6 6 9.9 9.3 9.9 9.3 0.20 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 243 342 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.32 15.5 16.9 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.2 15.5 17.1 B B 17.1 B ~---------------------------------------~-- HCM 2000 Control Delay_,,----;;--___ ---'2=-=0~.3:--'--"'HC""M=20::::0.=.0 .=;Le:..:.v"'el-"of'-'S::::e'-'rv:::.ice=----___ -----'C~ ______ __' HCM 2000 Volume to Ca pacity,..:r"'ati"'·o ____ 0".8;:;6c.-_"'=-=-::;c::-:-""' _____ ----;;;;;-;;-______ ---. 'Actuated Cycle Leng~(§) 48.6 Sum of lost time (§), ______ 2""0"'.0~ ______ -' Intersection Capacity,,,U:..:ti=liz:::ati::..:·0c.;.n ____ -=-50::.;,.5:.;'A .... , __ -cIC:.,:U:,cL::.::e""veO'-1 o::.;,f..=S""erv-:.cic::..:e'--______ A'--______ ---, !Analysis Period (min) _________ 1"'5 _____________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 • • • • • • • • • ,. • • • • • • • • • HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane Configurations 1Ij tJ. 1Ij 1J0lume (ypJ]) 75 280 15 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jT otal Lost time (§) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95. Satd. Flow (~rot) 1752 3478 1805 Fit Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.56 .Satd. Flow (~erm) 181 .3478 1063 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 .0.93 . 'lIdj. Flow (ypJ]) 81 301 16 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (v~h) 81 313 0 11 . Hea~ Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 0% jTurn TYRe Rm+Rt NA Rm+Rt Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 :. 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.3 40.7 38.1 Effective Green,.9.(~) 45.3 40.7 38.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.51 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0' lane GrJ1 Capjyp,b) . 192 1769 515 tJ. 1100 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3512 1.00 3512 0.93 1183 21 1425 0% NA 8 37.1 37.1 0.46 5.0 2.0 1628 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 0.09 0.00 cO.41 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.01 vic Ratio 0.42 0.18 0.02 0.88 Uniform.Delay, d1 14.3 .10.6 11.0 19.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.4 Delay (s) 14.8 . 10.6 11.1 24.8 Level of. Service B· B B C Approach Delay (s) 11.5 24.7 ~Rroach LOS B C t 1Ij to 245 50 260 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1805 1895 0.95 1.00 ,1805 1895 0.93 0.93 0.93 263 54 280 0 0 1 0 54 284 0% 0% 0% Prot NA 5 2 3.0 15.3 3.0 15.3 0.04 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 67 362 cO.03 cO.15 0.81 0.79 38.2 30.8 1.00 1.00 46.6 15.6 84.8 46.4 F D 52.5 D Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM 1Ij to 5 35 105 55 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1770 1767 0.95 1.00 1770 1767 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 5 38 113 59 0 0 24 0 0 38 148 0 0% 2% 2% 2% Prot NA I 1 6 3.0 15.3 3.0 15.3 0.04 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 66 337 0.02 0.08 0.58 0.44 37.9 28.6 1.00 1.00 7.3 4.1 45.2 32.7 D C I 34.9 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t ~, 00'r-l "'"" <'r-1ii Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM ~ =------=----=l! __ ~ ___ ~ __________ _ Lane Configurations V To of IVolume (veh/h) 10 5 75 5 10 65 Sign Control Stop Free Free 13rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 t!Q!!I!y flow rate (yP.b) 14 7 103 7 14 89 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed (ftIs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) !,!~stream sig~(~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume .223 106 . 110 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol I!g, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 223 106 110 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.3 tC, 2 stage (s) !EJ~) . 3.5 3.3 2.4 pO queue Iree % 98 99 99 CM ca~acityjvehlh) 762 954 1392 ---------- )!olume Total 21 110 103 Volume Left 14 0 14 IVolume Right 7 7 0 cSH 817 1700 1392 ",olume to Ca~acity . 0.03· 0.06 0.01 Queue Length 95th (It) 2 0 1 Control Delayj~) 9.5 0.0 1.1 Lane LOS A A ~~~roach Delayj~) 9.5 0.0 1.1 Approach LOS A Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Ca~acity Utilization 20.6% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min) C 15 Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraflic AnalysislTraflic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 .--------------------------------------~----~ ~------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE -.. - Lane Configurations 4-4- 1I0lume (veh/h) 10 15 15 10 20 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Hourl~ flow rate (yP.!l) 11 17 17 11 23 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum fiare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 92 34 vC1, stage 1 cont vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 92 34 tC, sing~(~) 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) ~(~). 2.3 2.2 pO Queue tree % 99 99 Ci..f C8RacityJvehlh) 1436 1590 t 4- 60 45 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0.87 0.87 69 52 0 147 164 147 164 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 93 100 790 711 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM 4- 10 45 0 15 Stop 0% I 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 11 52 0 1~ 26 141 138 51; I 26 141 138 57 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 94 100 98 1039 815 745 1014 ~_~_~ _rwL._@1l~ __ ~ _____ . ______________ _ 1I0lume Total 46 103 63 69 Volume Left 11 11 52 52 1I0lume Right 17 69 11 17 cSH 1436 1590 826 857 /lolume to CaRacity 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 1 6 7 'control Delat(~) -1.9 0.9 9.7 9.6 Lane LOS A A A A ~RRroach Delat(~) 1.9 0.9 9.7 9.6 Approach LOS A A ~~----------.--~-----. ---~---. ----------_. Average Delay,:--7.""Cr==:c::-____ -=;;5.;-;.2 __ ,."....,..,:=;-::-;-;=;::-______ ....-______ --, iiiierSection CaRacity Utilization 16.1% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min L) ________ ..!:15~ ____________________ ___, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-20131AM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t Lane Configurations V to 1I0lume (veh/h) 5 55 85 5 30 Sign Control Stop Free ~rade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (yp.!]) 5 57 89 5 31 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking~eed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None Median storage veh) )!Rstream signal ml pX, platoon unblocked yc, conflicting volume 216 91 94 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 216 91 94 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC, 2 stage (s) !.(~) 3.5 3.3 2.3 pO queue free % 99 94 98 eM caRacilyjvehlh) 753 964 1452 ~olume Total 62 94 94 Volume Left 5 0 31 57 5 0 942 1700 1452 4' 60 Free 0% 0.96 62 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM I 0.07 0.06 0.02 5 0 2 lIolume to caRacily-O-;::;-__ -="O=::-_=.;:---=7-____________________ ---' Queue Length 95th (ft) 9.1 0.0 2.6 A A 9.1 0.0 2.6 A ~------------------_. -------~~--- Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Ca'-::R-::-ac7.ity-,-;;Ut"'iliz=-a-o-tio:-:n-----;;2,.1.~8'Y<;7-o--'I"CU;;-;-LeC":ve"l..,.ol"S"e=-rv"'ice,.-------.A--------, Analysis Period (min). _________ 1.:.:5c...... ____________________ ------, C - Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013\AM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t of to Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without·Project AM Lane Config"'ura"'li:::.o""ns'--___ V .. "-_-,.,.,.---:,,.,..... _ _=: ~olume~ehfu), _____ ~~5~_~_~~~~--:~~-~-------------~ Sign Control Stop 10 30 75 65 10 Free Free ,Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 12 37 93 80 12 Hourly flow rate (ypl)) ___ --'6'--_!!::..._-=_--''''-_'''''''-_--'''-_____________ _' Pedestrians Lane Width @ Walking Speed;-;(ft/;:;s::;')-----------------------------..J Percent Blockage Right tum flare (v":e;:;h)---------------------------------" Median~~~e_~~----------N~o~n~e~N~o~n~e---------------_~ Median storage veh) !iRstreamsignal m)'---------------------------------, pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicling,..:v"'ol"'um"'e~ __ ='____'''''_ _ _= _____________________ _' vCl, stage 1 conI vol 1!g, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 253 86 93 253 86 93 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 99 99 98 721 978 1489 ~olume Total 19 130 93 Volume Left 6 37 0 ~olume Right 12 0 12 cSH 874 1489 1700 ~olume to CaRaci~ 0.02 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (~) 2 2 0 Control DelayJ§) 9.2 2.3 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~~Rroach DelayJ§) 9.2 2.3 0.0 Approach LOS A ~~--.~--~ ~-----------.------.... --_. ---... Average Delay 1.9 ~e~a~R~ac7.i~~Uti~·liz~a"tio~n----~2~2.~3o/c~o--'I~CU~Le~ve'l~m~S~e~N~ice~------.A--------, Analysis Period (min)~ ________ 1.:..:5 _____________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-Ol·20131AM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I· 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE - Lane Configurations 4-4- jVolume (veh/h) 10 45 5 5 130 Sign Control Free Free :Grade . 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 /:!Q.!!!!y flow rate (yp,h) 12 55 6 6 159 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking Speed (It/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e , . None None Median storage veh) !:ip'stream signal m) . pX, platoon unblocked g;-conflicting volume 159 61 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~C2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 159 61 tC, sing~(§) 4.1 A.1 tC, 2 stage (s) !E..(§) 2.2 2.2' pO queue Iree % 99 100 8ifca~acityjveh/h) 1409 1536 12 6 24 jVolume Right 6 0 6 . 55 cSH 1409 1536 649 828 jVolume to Cap'acity 0.01. 0.00 0.05 0.08 Queue Length 95th (~) 1 0 4 7 Control Delayj§) 1.3 0.3 . 10.8 9.7 Lane LOS A A B A ~p'p.roach Delayj§) 1.3 0.3 10.8 9,7· Approach LOS B A ·1 Average Delay 3.4 0 0.82 0 ',' Intersection Ca~acityUtilization 21.6% ICU Level 01 Service Analysis Period (min) C 15 t 4- 20 0 Stop 0% 0.82 0.82 24 0 311 253 311 253 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 96 100 595 646 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM 4- 5 5 5 45 Stop 0% I 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 6 6 6 55 58 259 256 159 I 58 259 256 159 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3,5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 94 1014 677 635 879 A Q:IProjectsl 131 13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTrafflc AnalysislT rafflc OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE - Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM __________ m_~ _m ______ .mL_~~__ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ Lane Configurations 4f t. V /Jolume (veh/h) 0 30 50 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop ~rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourl~ flow rate (ye!)) 0 38 62 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (tt) Walking Speed (ltIs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median !y~e None None Median storage veh) !:!~stream sig~(~) pX, platoon unblocked g,-conflicting volume 62 100 62 vC 1 , stage 1 coni vol ~C2, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 62 100 62 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) !E..(§) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue Iree % 100 100 100 ~~aci!yJvehlh) 1553 904 1008 ~_ ~~ _ J§~j _ _____ _ _ _ __ . __ .____ ____ _ /Jolume Total 38 62 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 /Jolume Right 0 0 0 cSH 1553 1700 1700 /Jolume to Ca~aci!y 0.00 0.04 0.00 Queue Length 95th (~) 0 0 0 Control DelayJ§) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A ~~~roach Delat(§) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A ~~-... --_._----_._.. . ---------_. ---_.-. -- Average Delay 0.0 frii8rSection c'::a~=a3city;:70Ut""ili;::za:;;tio=n~-----;;6.~7oi;7Yo--'I;r;CrrUTLe=v:::;el-=o"l S'-e=rv:r.:ic:-e ------'A----------, Analysis Period (min)~ ________ 1:..::5~ ____________________ _, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-20131AM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Lane Configurations V to of I/olume (veh/h) 25 175 340 15 40 115 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (yp,!1) 26 182 354 16 42 120 Pedestrians 2 Lane Width (~) 12.0 Walking Speed (fils) 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) !:!~stream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 567 364 372 vC1, stage 1 coni vol ;yg, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 567 364 372 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) !EJ~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 94 73 96 eM caRacityJvehlh) 467 680 1174 I/olume Total 208 370 161 Volume Left 26 0 42 I/olume Right 182 16 0 cSH 643 1700 1174 ,Volume to CaRacity 0.32 0.22 0.04 Queue Length 95th (~) 35 0 3 Control Delay (~) 13.3 0.0 2.3 Lane LOS B A ~Rroach DelayJ~) 13.3 0.0 2.3 Approach LOS B Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without·Project AM Average DelaY':-7."''""'-:To __ ~ __ -;-;::~4'<7-2 __ """,,.,.,.. ....... -;-; __ ,.,.,.. ______ ~ ______ -, Intersection CaRacity Utilization 49.3% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min) _________ 1:,:5 _____________________ -, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4·16·2014IAM Baseline 4·16·201 Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street -"). -Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM _______ 1fIDlT ___ illM \W:J1 __ w.w. __ J])1lL ~ ____ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ Lane Configurations fo'--_..,,--_----,,-_-,i;4': V /Jolume(veh"'/hT) =----;!55 5 0 190 1'0;;--~0;----------------' Sign Control Free Free Stop;--_______________ ----, . :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (~Rh) 57 5 0 198 10 0 Lane Width (ft) .. a,.,ng Speed (ft/s) Percent Riqht tum flare (veh) Median type Median-storage veh) I signal (ft) . pX, platoon unblocked None 2 12.0 4.0 o None 12.0 4.0 o I J I I ~conflicting.:..v0"ilu::;;m'7e'---------...:6:.:.4-----=2::::5=-9 _.....:;63"--_____________ --' vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 64 259 63 tC, sing~(~),_:_---------4~.-'-1 ___ ---"6"'.4_-'6~.2"__ ____________ __' tC, 2 stage (s)'--________ --=-=-___ -..,,.---,,-;;--____________ --, tF (~) --2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 99 100 cM~Raci~JveWh), _______ ~1~53~8'__ __ ~7~~~~1~00~5__'_ ____________ ~ ~olume Total 62 198 10 Volume Left 0 0 10 . /Jolume Right 5 0 0 cSH 1700 1538 734 /Jolume to CaRaci~ 0.04 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (~) 0 0 1 pontrol DelayJ~) 0.0 0.0 10.0 Lane LOS A ~RRroach DelayJ~) 0.0 0.0 10.0 Approach LOS A ~~---------------------------------------- Average Delay 0.4 ~eCifunCa~R~ac7.i~~Ut~iliz=a70tio~n------2~0.~6°~~--'lnCU~Le~v~el~oluS~e~N~ice~------.A--------, Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Baseline 4-16-201 Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Lane Configurations 4- I/olume (~Pl:!) 45 15 5 20 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 if otal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.97 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1818 Fit Permitted 0.82 Satd. Flow (~erm) 1537 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I\dj. Flow (~Pl:!) 47 16 5 21 RTOR Reduction (~~) 0 2 0 0 Lane GrouQ Flow (~Qb) 0 66 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 1% jrum TYRe Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 Effective Green,.g_(~) 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 lane GrR CaPJ~Qb) 409 vis Ratio Prot ~/s Ratio Perm cO.04 vic Ratio 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Dela}'J~) 25.5 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 25.5 ~p.Qroach LOS -C - of 5 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1808 0.82 1543 0.95 5 0 26 1% NA 8 24.0 24.0 0.27 5.0 3.0 411 0.02 0.06 24.6 1.00 0.1 24.7 C 25.3 C t ."." ~ tfo 405 5 960 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 2814 1787 3548 1.00 0.15 1.00 2814 279 3548 0.95 0.95 0.95 426 5 1011 312 0 4 114 5 1060 1% 1% 1% Perm pm+Rt NA 5 2 8 2 24.0 27.8 27.0 24.0 27.8 27.0 0.27 0.31 0.30 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 750 99 1064 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.05 1.00 25.2 24.5 31.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.3 26.7 25.3 24.8 58.1 C C E 58.0 E Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM Zii-+~fo 50 945 1730 105 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 3467 3543 0.12 1.00 456 3543 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 53 995 1821 111 0 0 4 0 0 995 1928 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Rm+Rt NA I 1 6 6 56.0 50.2 56.0 50.2 0.62 0.56 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 1086 1976 cO.24 cO.54 0.33 0.92 0.98 24.2 19.3 1.00 1.00 12.4 15.2 36.6 34.5 D C 35.2 D ------~~~--~ ----~---- HCM 2000 Control DelaY'--,,--;-:--~~~~39~.5,-~.....!..!:HC~M~2~0~00~L~e~ve:!-,1 o~f",Se~rv~ic~e~~~~.!:D'--____ ~---J HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity,...:ra"'ti:::.o ___ ---;:0;;...79~-__;;: ___ :_;_;_==_o_;.,,_----~_;,,_; __ -----___, I\ctuated Cy_cle_L_ength (~) 90.0 Sum of lost time (~), _____ --'.1";9.0~---~---' Intersection Ca pacity';-'U:.:ti:::liza::;ti:::·on"-___ ---=8"'9.5=;'tii-, __ .:.:IC:..=Uc::L""ev:.;:el:.;:o",f S::.:e::...:rv:.::ice=--___ ~~...:E=--___ ~~___, I\nalysis Period (min) ______ ~_'""15'--___________ ~~ ___ ~~ _ ___' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI1311317S.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro14-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S Lane Configurations 4') /Jolume (yp,!1) 30 530 465 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 iT otal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.93 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 3326 Fit Permitted 1.00 ,Satd. Flow (~erm) 3326 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 ~dj. Flow (yp,!1) 31 552 484 52 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 165 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (~p,!1) 0 902 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% j1'um TYRe SRlit NA SRlit Protected Phases 3 3 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 25.0 Effective Green, g_(~) 25.0 Actuated glC Ratio 0.29 pearance TIme (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 Lane GrJl CapjypJ)) 949 - 4'J. 220 1900 5.0 0.95 0.95 0.99 3379 0.99 3379 0.96 229 65 351 1% NA 4 14.2 14.2 0.16 5.0 4.0 547 vIs Ratio Prot cO.27 cO.10 ~/s Ratio Perm vIc Ratio 0.95 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 34.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.5 2.9 Dela}'J~) 49.2 37.2 Level of Service D D Approach Delay (5) 49.2 37.2 ~p.Rroach LOS D D t 1j tfo 130 165 160 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.95 1.00 1805 3481 0.95 1.00 1805 3481 0.96 0.96 0.96 135 172 167 0 0 33 0 172 186 1% 0% 0% Prot NA 5 2 9.0 12.4 9.0 12.4 0.10 0.14 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 185 492 0.10 0.05 0.93 0.38 39.0 34.1 1.00 1.00 46.4 1.0 85.3 35.1 F D 57.2 E Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 1j tfo 50 300 580 5 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 3570 0.95 1.00 1787 3570 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 52 312 604 5 0 0 1 0 0 312 608 0 0% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 16.0 19.4 16.0 19.4 0.18 0.22 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 326 790 cO.17 cO.17 0.96 0.77 35.5 32.0 1.00 1.00 38.1 5.4 73.6 37.4 E D 49.6 D ~-------------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_,---".-___ -=4"'8"'. 7 __ ~HC"'M"_"'20"'0"-0 ",Le:o;ve",,1 ""of...::S:::;erv"'i""ce'--___ -"D'--______ -' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity'-.!r::::at"'io ____ ~0.8;:;8;.........-_,;:___:_'7C___._e-"'-----___;;c"""'------..:., ~ctuated Cycle Leng!!!.(~) 87.6 Sum of lost time (~) _____ ---'2"'0"".0_= _____ ___' Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.1% ICU Level of Service E ~nalysis Period (min) ________ -'1"'5 _____________________ ---' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchroI4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report 4/22/2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach ~------~-~-~----------------- Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Zone Performance --------------------------------------------- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Baseline 4-16-201 SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report 4/22/2014 Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr .& Puget Dr S Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM ____ .. __ .([:l.. .Iilll._. ~._ §::L _. ~ . _ ... _ _ . _ _ .._.. _. Directions Served ij ~. j[;; R , LT T Q:IProjectsl 131 13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentiall Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Baseline 4-16-201 SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM ~ _______ WlL_ml _J"JiJLJi'IDtl __ ~~___ _ ____ _ _ ___ ~ ___ _ Lane Configurations V 'to of I/olume (veh/h) 15 20 230 20 40 265 Sign Control Stop Free Free :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 !:12!!!1~ flow rate (yP.b) 16 22 247 22 43 285 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking~eed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream sig~(~) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 629 258 269 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol ~! stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 629 258 269 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag!.(~) !E.(~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 96 97 97 eM caRacilyjveh/h) 434 785 1295 I/olume Total 38 269 328 Volume Left 16 0 43 I/olume Right 22 22 0 cSH 583 1700 1295 I/olume to CaRacily 0.06 0.16 0.03 Queue Length 95th @ 5 0 3 Control Delayj~) 11.6 0.0 1.3 Lane LOS B A ~p.Rroach Delayj~) 11.6 0.0 1.3 Approach LOS B ~~----------------~-------------------- Average Delay':-:-::-:O::-"""::-:7o' ___ ----""i,1.,;.4--o;;;,.,..,""".",..,=-:"..,---------.-------------, ii1teiSection CaRacily Utilization 42.8% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min)~ ________ 1;.;5'--____________________ __, C Q;IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchrol4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------------------------------------------- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Lane Configurations , .. ., , IVolume (yp.!]) 40 340 475 100 Ideal Flow (vphel) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jrotal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1787 1881 1599 1787 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.32 Satd. Flow !~enm) 1787 1881 1599 599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 'Adj. Flow (yp.!]) 44 374 522 110 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 374 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h) 44 374 148 110 Hea~ Vehicles !%) 1% 1% 1% 1% jrum Ty~e Prot NA Penm ~m+~t Protected Phases 3 8 7 Penmitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.5 17.1 17.1 21.8 Effective Green, g (s) 2.5 17.1 17.1 21.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.36 ,Clearance TIme (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension !s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Gr]> Capjyp.!]) 73 532 452 287 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 cO.20 0.02 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.12 vic Ratio 0.60 0.70 0.33 0.38 Unifonm Delay! dl 28.5 19.4 17.1 13.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 3.4 0.2 0.3 Delayj~) 37.7 22.8 17.3 14.0 Level of Service D C B B Approach Delay (s) 20.4 ~~~roach LOS C - to 140 1900 5.0 1.00 0.99 1.00 1855 1.00 1855 0.91 154 5 165 1% NA 4 18.2 18.2 0.30 5.0 2.0 558 0.09 0.30 16.2 1.00 0.1 16.3 B 15.4 B t , to 15 90 215 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 1787 1765 0.53 1.00 998 1765 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 99 236 0 0 36 0 99 365 1% 1% 1% ~m+~t NA 5 2 2 20.8 17.2 20.8 17.2 0.34 0.28 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 390 502 cO.02 cO.21 0.07 0.25 0.73 13.8 19.5 1.00 1.00 0.1 4.4 13.9 23.9 B C 21.9 C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM , to 150 40 195 10 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1787 1867 0.32 1.00 603 1867 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 165 44 214 11 0 0 3 0 0 44 222 0 1% 1% 1% 1% ~m+~t NA I 1 6 6 18.6 16.1 18.6 16.1 0.31 0.27 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 234 497 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.19 0.45 15.2 18.4 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.2 15.3 18.7 B B 18.1 B HCM2000 Control Delay 19.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-pa-c-::-ity-ra""'ti-o -----::0.===67=---=..:.='-'=:..=.:..="-"'''-'''==------='---------' 'Actuated Cycle Length (~) 60.4 Sum of lost time (~), _____ --=2=-:0.0=-_____ __' Intersection Capacity~U""ti:::liz:::::ati:::'o,,-n ____ .::.64.::.77'!.~. __ .:.:IC",U.::.L",ev""elc:e0c:.:f S""e::.:rv""ice"--_____ -'C=---_____ -----, 'Analysis Period (min).-:-_______ "'15'--___________________ ---' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro14-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane Configurations 'I tJo 'I /Jolume (yP.D) 180 1100 90 55 Ideal Flow (~Jlel) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (~) 5,0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1,00 0,95 toO Frt 1.00 0.99 1,00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd, Flow (~rot) 1787 3534 1787 Fit Permitted 0,14 toO 0.15 Satd. Flow (~erm) 261 3534 275 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 \\dj. Flow (YP.D) 189 1158 95 58 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (yP.!)) 189 1247 0 58 Hea:1: Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% ~urn Ty~e ~m+~t NA ~m+~t Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 41,6 32,6 31.4 Effective Green,_g_(~j 41,6 32,6 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.36 0,35 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane GI]l Capjyp.D) . 276 1280 163 vis Ratio Prot cO.07 cO.35 0.02 )lIs Ratio Perm 0.25 0,11 vic Ratio 0.68 0.97 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 17.5 28,3 22.8 Progression Factor 1,00 1,00 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 19.0 1,3 Delay (s) 23.0 47,3 24.1 Level of Service C D C Approach Delay (s) 44,1 ~p'~roach LOS --D - tTo 615 1900 5.0 0.95 0,97 1.00 3466 1.00 3466 0,95 647 24 786 1% NA 8 27.4 27,4 0,30 5,0 2.0 1055 0.23 0.74 28.2 1,00 2,5 30.7 C 30.2 C t 'I To 155 50 160 1900 1900 1900 5,0 5,0 1.00 1,00 toO 0.97 0.95 1,00 1787 1825 0.95 1,00 1787 1825 0.95 0,95 0.95 163 53 168 0 0 10 0 53 200 1% 1% 1% Prot NA 5 2 4.0 16,9 4.0 16,9 0,04 0,19 5,0 5.0 2.0 2.0 79 342 0.03 0.11 0.67 0,59 42.4 33.4 1,00 too 16.2 7,2 58.5 40,5 E D 44,1 D Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 'I To 40 295 360 155 1900 1900 1900 1900 5,0 5,Q I 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 1796 0.95 1,00 1787 1796 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 42 311 379 163 0 0 17 0 0 311 525 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 16,5 29,4 16,5 29.4 0.18 0.33 5.0 5,0 2.0 2.0 327 586 cO.17 cO.29 0.95 0.90 36,4 28.8 1,00 1,00 36,6 18,9 72.9 47.7 E D 56.9 E D Intersection Capaclty",U""ti",IiZ3:::::ti=·o:.:.n ____ ~~ __ .:.::.:::=:.::::..o::..:::::.:::"-_____ -=--______ _, \\nalysis Period (min) ________ '""'-____________________ ...J c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ~ ---------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM _______ ~_ m ~_ru,,--_~ _ _ ____ __ ___ _ ___ _ Lane Configurations V to of ~olume (vehlh) 5 5 40 5 10 40 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (YPl!) 6 6 48 6 12 48 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lYRe None None Median storage veh} !!Rstream signal m} pX, platoon unblocked yc, conflicting volume 122 51 54 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 122 51 54 tC, sing~(~} 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (~) 3.5 3.3 2.3 pO queue free % 99 99 99 eM caRacilYjvehlh} 871 1023 1478 -~~-~----------------------- ~olume Total 12 54 60 Volume Left 6 0 12 ~olume Right 6 6 0 cSH 941 1700 1478 ~olume to CaRacilY 0.01 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th (~) 1 0 1 ~ontrol Delay_(~} 8.9 0.0 1.5 Lane LOS A A ~p'p.roach Delay_(~} 8.9 0.0 1.5 Approach LOS A ~~L-_______ . _________ ,_ ,_____ _ _ _____ _ --- Average Delay 1.6 iirteiSection Ca'::-:p.c::ac""ilY""'Ut""iIi=za'"tio:c:n:------.1"9 . .;.3·'ii-Y.--'I"CU....-Le"'v"'eI~ol,-;S;-:e=rv,."ice:---------.A--------, Analysis Period (min}'--_______ --:.:15'---____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchroI4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE -" -t --------- ------~ Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM ________ m ___ fi@il __ l'!;W _~_ WJju 1'i"1M ___ W_ iW<I __ W;J;J m_ ~ __ !!m; Lane Configurations 4-4-4-4- I/olume (veh/h) 5 10 50 15 5 15 35 0 15 15 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop prade 0% 0% 0% 0% I Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 J::!Q!!!!y flow rate (~PJ:1) 5 11 55 16 5 16 38 0 16 16 0 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh} !:!~stream signal ml pX, platoon unblocked i!g, conflicting volume 22 66 102 104 38 113 124 14 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~C2, stage 2 conI vol I vCu, unblocked vol 22 66 102 104 38 113 124 14 )g, sing~(~} 4.2 4.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (~) !E..(~} 2.3 2.2 3.6 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 pO queue free % 100 99 96 100 98 98 .100 99 eM caRacityjveh/h} 1519 1549 856 767 1022 846 760 1072 ~W __ ~_~ ___________ . ______ _ I/olume Total 71 38 55 22 Volume Left 5 16 38 16 I/olume Right 55 16 16 5 cSH 1519 1549 900 893 I/olume to CaRacity 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.02 Queue Length 95th @' 0 1 5 2 Control Delayj§} 0.6 3.2 9.3 9.1 lane LOS A A A A ~p.Rroach Delayj§} 0.6 3.2 9.3 9.1 Approach LOS A A ~~--------------~------------- Average Delay'---~'"""'....,,-----_=__:;4.,;..7 __ -=,.,.,----,-,..,~,......------..,....------__, iiiteiSeCtiOnCa~acity Utilization 16.6% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min}'--________ 1~5'__ ____________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraflic AnalysislTraflic OperationsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street &. Kirkland Ave SE t Lane Configurations V t- /Jolume (veh/h) 5 15 55 10 20 Sign Control Stop Free :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly' flow rate (yQb) 6 19 69 12 25 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking~peed (It/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None Median storage veh) !!~stream sig~m) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 206 75 81 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol yC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 206 75 81 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) !!:..(~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 99 98 98 'CMca~acityjveh/h) 774 992 1510 /Jolume Total 25 81 106 Volume Left 6 0 25 /Jolume Right 19 12 0 cSH 927 1700 1510 /Jolume to Ca~acity 0.03 0.05 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 1 pontrol DelaYJ~) 9.0 0.0 1.8 Lane LOS A A ~p'~roach DelayJ~) 9.0 0.0 1.8 Approach LOS A ot 65 Free 0% 0.80 81 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM Average Delay 2.0 ~e~a=~7ac~ity~Utm,iliz=a~tio=n~-------n271.~2o/c~o--~'I~CU~Le~v~eI70f~S~e~N'-ice~-----------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min)'--_______________ 1.:.::5'--________________ ~ ______________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane Configurations V of to /.tolume (vehlh) 15 30 20 55 60 Sign Control Stop Free Free ~rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Hourly flow rate (ypJl) 21 42 28 76 83 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) .\!Rstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked yc, conflicting volume 219 87 90 vCl, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 219 87 90 tC, sing~(§) 6.4-6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) tF (§) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 97 96 98 eM caRacityJveh/h) 759 977 1486 /.tolume Total 62 104 90 Volume Left 21 28 0 /.tolume Right 42 0 7 cSH 892 1486 1700 /.tolume to CaRacity 0.07 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (It) 6 1 0 Control Delay_(§) 9.3 2.1 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach DelayJ§) 9.3 2.1 0.0 Approach LOS A 5 0.72 7 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM ~~----.--~~~--~~------_ .. -- Average Delay 3.1 ~eCtianCaLR-ac~ity~Ut~ili-za"tio-n---------2~0.~7°~~----'I~CU~Le~v~el~clNS~e~N~ice~----------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min), _____________ -'-'15'--__________________________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentlallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperatlonsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE -+ .. - Lane Configurations 4-4- 1-/olume (veh/h) 65 270 35 5 115 Sign Control Free Free prade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (~p.N 71 297 38 5 126 Pedestrians Lane Width@ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median !yjJe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream sig~m) pX, platoon unblocked g;-conflicting volume 132 335 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 132 335 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) tF (~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue Iree % 95 100 'cM ca~acityJveh/h) 1453 1230 1-/olume Total 407 137 22 49 Volume Left 71 5 11 5 1-/olume Right 38 5 5 38 cSH 1453 1230 420 707 1-!olume to Ca~acity 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.07 Queue Length 95th (~) 4 0 4 6 ,Control Delat(~) 1.7 0.4 14.1 10.5 Lane LOS A A B B ~~~roach Delat(~) 1.7 0.4 14.1 10.5 Approach LOS B B t 4- 5 10 5 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 11 ~ 640 602 640 602 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 97 99 356 394 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 4- 5 5 5 35 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 5 5 38 316 607 618 129 I 316 607 618 129 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 96 729 387 386 926 ~~--------~ ~--...... ~.-------~.- Average Delay 2.6 lnfeffie~a-R-ac~ity~U~t~iliz-a~tio-n----~36~.7=~~o--~lc~u7L~e-ve~l~m~S~eN~i~ce------~A--------' Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro14-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchroIPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE - Lane Configurations <f t-V /Jolume (veh/h) 0 35 20 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop I3rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 !:!Qt!!I~ flow rate (~p~) 0 42 24 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (IVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) .\!~stream si9!!&(m pX, platoon unblocked yC, conflicting volume 24 65 vCl, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 24 65 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 tC, 2 stage (s) !EJ~) 2.2 3.5 pO queue free % 100 100 eM ca~acityJveh1h) 1604 945 /Jolume Total 42 24 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 /Jolume Right 0 0 0 cSH 1604 1700 1700 /Jolume to Ca~acit~ 0.00 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 :Control DelaYJ~) -0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A ~~~roach Delat(~) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A 0 0.84 0 24 24 6.2 3.3 100 1059 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM -~-----------------------------------~~------~ Average Delay 0.0 iiii8rSection Ca·-p-ac""ity-U""'U"'·liz-a""tio-n-----""6.:i7'A:7-.--"""'IC'"U,.,..,..Le-ve"""'l...,ol,..,S'"""e-rv,....ice-------,-A--------, Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q;IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchroI4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM Lane Configurations V r.~0~lu~m~e~~~e~Wh~)~~~======~~3~0~-__ -_-~n~~_-_-~.;~ __ ~ __ ~~~~ __________________________ ~ Sign Control Stop f> <1' 95 190 55 175 270 Free Free :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 99 198 57 182 281 Hourly flow rate (yp.!1) ______ -=3c:..1 __ -"'~_"""_ __ ...:::.:... __ _==___=:'"'_ ________________________ __' Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking Speed·;-;(ft/:O:S"7)----------------------------------------------------------....J Percent Blockage Right turn flare (v''''e"''h)c--------------------------------------------------------------.J Median~~~e __ ~~--------------~No~n~e----------~N~o~ne~--------------------------~ Median storage veh) !:l~stream sig~@ '---------------------------------------------------------------, pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting,-'v"'ol"'um"'e=--____ -'=o.........----"'=.:..-__________ --''''''-________________________________ --' vC 1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 872 227 255 872 227 255 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 89 88 86 278 815 1316 ~MiJl. _____ . __ \!i'l]~ ____________________ __ ~olume Total 130 255 464 Volume Left 31 0 182 ~olume Right 99 57 0 cSH 557 1700 1316 1J0lume to Ca~aci~ 0.23 0.15 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 0 12 Control Delay (s) 13.4 0.0 4.0 Lane LOS B A ~p'~roach Delat(~) 13.4 0.0 4.0 Approach LOS B ------------------------------------------------------ Average Delay'--."...,"""--". __________ -=-;4.;;..3 ____ """""'..,.,---.,.....,..,~,----------~---:-------------_, iiii9rSeCtiOnCa~acity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min) _________________ 1:..:5'--________________________________________ --, C .- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 412212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street - Lane Configurations To of V /Volume (vehlh) 210 15 5 125 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop ;Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (~P.)1) 219 16 5 130 5 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median lY~e None None Median storage veh) !!~stream sig!!!!!.(~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 234 367 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 234 367 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.6 tC, 2 stage (~) tF (§) 2.2 3.7 pO queue Iree % 100 99' eM caRacilYjveh/h) 1339 602 5 0.96 5 227 227 6.4 3.5 99 777 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM ~_(;/ ~. __ J3lL~~1m)jI _. ____ ...... ~_ . _ _ __. . ._ /Volume Total 234 135 10 Volume Left 0 5 5 /Volume Right 16 0 5 cSH 1700 1339 678 !Volume to CaRacilY 0.14 0.00 . 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delat(§) 0.0 0.3 10.4 Lane LOS A B ~p'p'roach Delayj~) 0.0 0.3 10.4 Approach LOS B ~~-----.--_. -------_.. --._-----.. - Average Delay 0.4 frrtemSeCUcmCa~~a~c~ilY~U7.ti~li~~tio-n--------~22~.0~~~o----~IC~U~L~e-ve71'01~S~eN'i~ce------------~A~-------------' Analysis Period (min)'__ ______________ ~1:.::5'__ ___________________________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchrol4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Lane Configurations 4- I/olume (ypJ]) 90 5 5 35 Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jrotal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.96 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1771 Fit Permitted 0.72 Satd. Flow l~erm1 1342 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 \\dj. Flow (ypJ]) 95 5 5 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (ypJ]) 0 104 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles l%l 2% 2% 2% 2% jrum Ty~e Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 51.0 Effective Green..9.(~) 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 ,Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension lsl 3.0 Lane GrJ> CapjYPJ]) 456 vis Ratio Prot y/s Ratio Perm 0.08 vic Ratio 0.23 ,Uniform Delay, dl 35.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 DelaYJ~) 35.7 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 35.7 ~p'~roach LOS -D - of 5 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1784 0.75 1399 0.95 5 0 42 2% NA 8 51.0 51.0 0.34 5.0 3.0 475 0.03 0.09 33.7 1.00 0.1 33.8 C 82.9 F t "}' 'i tJ· 980 5 1995 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 2787 1770 3538 1.00 0.47 1.00 2787 879 3538 0.95 0.95 0.95 1032 5 2100 63 0 0 969 5 2105 2% 2% 2% Perm ~m+~t NA 5 2 8 2 51.0 80.8 80.0 51.0 80.8 80.0 0.34 0.54 0.53 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 . 5.0 947 478 1886 0.00 cO.59 cO.35 0.01 1.02 0.01 1.12 49.5 16.0 35.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 35.4 0.0 60.2 84.9 16.0 95.2 F B F 95.0 F Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM Zi~_t:'fo 5 122 420 20 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 3303 3382 0.05 1.00 167 3382 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 5 128 442 21 0 0 2 0 0 128 461 0 2% 6% 6% 6% ~m+~t NA I 1 6 6 87.2 83.2 87.2 83.2 0.58 0.55 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 180 1875 ·cO.02 0.14 0.39 0.71 0.25 35.4 17.2 1.00 1.00 15.2 0.3 50.6 17.5 D B 24.7 C ~--~------------. -----_._-------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 79.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to ca'-pa-c-;;-ity-ra-:t:-io----71.::.;10~---..!.!====~~~------=----------' Actuated Cy_cle_L_ength (~) 150.0 Sum of losltime (~) ______ 1'-'9'=.0'-----------J Intersection Capacity"'U:.:t:.::iliz::::a:::tio:::n ____ ....:l"'07'-'.6~'Ai_0 __ ..:.:IC:.:U;:..:L::ec:.:ve:::.1 :.:of..:S:.:ervc:.:i:.:oe'--______ G:::.... ______ , \\nalysis Period (min), _________ 1-'.':5'--____________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiafiTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S -+ .. Lane Configurations 4'J. /Jolume (ypJ)l 10 72 5 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 ITotal Lost time (§) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.99 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 3265 Fit Permitted 0.99 Satd. Flow (~erm) 3265 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 J\dj. Flow (yp.!1) 11 76 5 11 RTOR Reduction (~ph) 0 5 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (yp.!1) 0 87 0 0 Heav~ Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 1% jTurn TYRe SRlIt NA SRlIt Protected Phases 3 3 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 6.8 Effective Green&(§T 6.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 ,Clearance Time (§) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 Lane GrR Capjyp.!1) 281 - 4'10 560 1900 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3398 1.00 3398 0.95 589 62 827 1% NA 4 20.2 20.2 0.26 5.0 4.0 869 vIs Ratio Prot cO.03 cO.24 ~/s Ratio Perm vIc Ratio 0.31 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 33.9 28.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 19.9 Delal'Js) 34.7 48.8 Level of Service C 0 Approach Delay (s) 34.7 48.8 ~p.Rroach LOS -C 0 t l! tt- 275 395 570 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 3565 0.95 1.00 1787 3565 0.95 0.95 0.95 289 416 600 0 0 1 0 416 610 1% 1% 1% Prot NA 5 2 20.2 28.5 20.2 28.5 0.26 0.36 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 457 1287 cO.23 cO.17 0.91 0.47 28.5 19.4 1.00 1.00 22.4 0.6 50.9 20.0 0 B 32.5 C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM l! tt- 10 35 75 35 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 3403 0.95 1.00 1787 3403 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 11 37 79 3~ 0 0 32 0 0 37 84 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 3.4 11.7 3.4 11.7 0.04 0.15 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 77 504 0.02 0.02 0.48 0.17 36.9 29.3 1.00 1.00 4.7 0.3 41.6 29.7 0 C 32.5 C ~~L _ ___ _ ___ __ __ _ _ _______ _ _ _~ ____ _ HCM 2000 Control DelaY_~--"-____ 3~9:::.3,--_-,-,HC",M=20:::0c::.0.::;Le::.:v=:el-"of:...:S:::e,-,rv,,,ice=--___ --'0'--______ ---' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity'-'r'-=at::.:io'--___ -=0.;:.,79:--_ ___::~"7:'_;_:,.._"77-----___::"""""------__, J\ctuated Cycle Leng!b.(§) 78.9 Sum of lost time (§) _____ ----=2:::0"'.0 ______ ------' Intersection Capacity'r'U::.:ti::;.:liza:::t::.:io"'n ____ ~65:.:..3:.;.'!.""o __ .c.IC=-,U:...;L;:.:e-"ve,,-1 o:.:.f.:;S,.:;;erv"'i.::,:ce'--______ C-O-______ -, J\nalysis Period (min) _________ 1"'5'--____________________ ---' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach ___ J~__ i§!] _____ &:!II _____ ~_ ___ ___ _ _ ___________ _ Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deriieij:DeINeR"(§) ", ,', """,',ij",m:O 'c;(liO:0~~;,;W;02i¥.'.!t1ifo:0lj(i,'; Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 Total Zone Performance ~-------~---------------------------------- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM With-Project 4-16- SimTraffic Report 4/22/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I· I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM _ _ ______ I;® _ ~ __ 1i® ___ ~ ____ ~ _ __ __ _ . Directions Served ; i L R LT R Q:IProjectsl 131 13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentiall T rafflc AnalysislTrafflc OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM With-Project 4-16- SimTrafflc Report 4/2212014 -._-_._------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave 8E & 8E 160th 8t t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM ~ _________ ~,_mN1 ~_ ~ __ ~mL _~iJ _ _ __ _ _ _ _________ _ Lane Configurations V,,,-_.-;;-_.,..; ... _---;;;.--_-.--_~:c--------------__, ,Volume {Veh15h~)==--------,28 to 4' 40 215 20 5 85 Sign Control Stop I3rade 0% Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 50 269 25 6 106 Hourl~ flow rate {yP..!)) ____ 3"'5'------'''''-_=_--''''-_-''''_---'''''--_____________ -' Pedestrians Lane Width {m Walking Speed;-;{ftJ"'S'7)------------------------------' 'i'iiiCent Blockage Right tum flare (v'''=e7h)----------------------------------' Median~R~e_~~---------~No~n~e-----~N~o~ne~--------------~ Median storage veh) !:lRstream signal m)'---------------------------------. pX, platoon unblocked 400 281 . 294 400 281 294 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 94 93 100 607 762 1251 ,volume Total 85 294 112 Volume Left 35 0 6 I/olume Right 50 25 0 cSH 690 1700 1251 I/olume to Ca~acit~ 0.12 0.17 0.00 Queue Length 95th (It) 10 0 0 .Control DelaYJ~) 11.0 0.0 0.5 Lane LOS B A ~RRroach DelayJ~) 11.0 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS B ~~--------.----------------~ ------- Average Delay 2.0 iiii9rSection CaC:R-:-ac:7.i~""'Ut'"'iliz=a'"tio=n-------;;2:;;-3.~2o/c;;-o--'I"'CU;;-;-cLe:c:v::;el-::cof"Sce=rv~ice:-----------;A---------, Analysis Period (min) 15 Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Lane Configurations "i t ., "i /Volume (yp.!!) 10 40 30 67 Ideal Flow (~hpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1770 1863 1583 1752 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.62 Satd. Flow (~erm) 1770 1863 1583 1148 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1Idj. Flow (yp.!!) 11 43 32 72 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 0 Lane GrouR Flow (VRh) 11 43 7 72 ----Hea~ Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% jTum Ty~e Prot NA Perm Rm+~t Protected Phases 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (~) 0.6 11.1 11.1 15.5 Effective Green&{~) 0.6 11.1 11.1 15.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.32 ,Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Gr~ CapjyiJ!)) 21 422 359 394 - to 250 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1815 1.00 1815 0.93 269 7 294 3% NA 4 13.0 13.0 0.27 5.0 2.0 482 vis Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 cO.01 cO.16 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 vic Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.02 0.18 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 15.0 14.7 11.9 15.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 DelaYJ~) 34.4 15.0 14.7 12.0 17.3 Level of Service C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 17.4 16.3 ~RRroach LOS -B 8 t "i to 30 370 150 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1787 1825 0.44 1.00 829 1825 0.93 0.93 0.93 32 398 161 0 0 13 0 398 188 3% 1% 1% pm+Rt NA 5 2 2 20.3 14.7 20.3 14.7 0.42 0.30 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 457 548 cO.10 0.10 cO.26 0.87 0.34 12.5 13.3 1.00 1.00 16.0 0.1 28.5 13.5 C B 23.4 C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM "i to 37 5 108 15 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1736 '1794 0.63 1.00 1154 1794 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 40 5 116 16 0 0 8 0 0 5 124 0 1% 4% 4% 4% ~m+~t NA I 1 6 6 10.1 9.5 10.1 9.5 0.21 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 245 348 0.00 0.Q7 0.00 0.02 0.36 15.4 17.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.2 15.4 17.3 B B 17.2 8 HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-pa-ci:;-ty-ra-;:tio----70.:;;86:---'-"~=:c.::::!'-"'-'''-'''=''-------'''-------.......J 1Ictuated Cycle Length (~) 48.9 Sum of lost time {~),::__-----=-20"'.0;_--------' Intersection Capacity,,..:U"'ti::=liz::;ati:.::·onc...... ___ -C:.54"'.6:.c"A;,., __ :..:ICc:;U..::L::.;ev",elc..:o,-,f S:.:e;..:rv:.:.ice=--_____ -"-A'--_____ --, 1Inalysis Period {min) ________ 1""5'__ ___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-HenleyHesidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE - t:r. 11 o~o -"",.----;;; Lane Configurations 81 !:a 'i jVolume (yp.!)) 15 10 'i 245 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 . 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane UtiL Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 . 0.97 1.00 . Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1752 3478 1805 3512 1805 Fit Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 181 3478 1063 3512 1805 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1xdj. Flow (yp.!)) 88 301 16 11 1183 263 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 22 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (VRh) 88 313 0 11 ----0 54 1425 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% jTum TYRe Rm+pt NA i>m+Rt NA Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5. Permitted Phases .. 4 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 45.4 40.7 38.0 37.0 3.0 Effective Green, g(s) 45.4' . 40.7 38.0 37.0 3.0 . Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.51 0.48 0.46 0.04 Clearance TIme (s) 5.0 5.0 . 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane G~ CapjyR!)) 195 1769 514 1624 67 vis Ratio Prot cO.03 0.09 0.00 cO.41 cO.03 y/s Ratio Perm 0:23 0.01 vic Ratio 0.45 0.18 0.02 0.88 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 14.4 10,6 11.1 19.4 38.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.0 5.5 46.6 Delayjs) 15.0 10.6 11.1 25.0 84.8 Level of Service B B B C F Approach Delay (s) 11.6 ~p.Rroach LOS --. B 24.9 C t to 260 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1895 1.00 1895 0.93 280 1 284 0% NA 2 15.3 15.3 0.19 5.0 2.0 362 cO.15 0.79 30.8 1.00 15.6 46.4 D 52.5 D Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 'i to 5 35 105 75 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 1770 1746 0.95 1.00 1770 1746 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 5 38 113 81, 0 0 34 0 0 38 160 0 . 0% 2% 2% 2% Prot NA I 1 6 3.0 15.3 3.0 15.3 0.04 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 66 333 0.02 0.09 0.58 0.48 37.9 28.8 1.00 1.00 7.3 4.9 45.2 33.7 D C 35.6 D HCM 2000 Control Delay,_' .,---".. ____ :;.:,;:'-_-"=====""-'=..:c:= ____ -=-______ --J HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity,...:ra.::::t::::io'--___ ~;_---,; __ .,.,..,.._;";'c::_:__;::;_-----__,.;;_;;_------__, 1xctuated CycleLeng!t!.(~) Intersection Capacity Utiliz'-:a"'tioCCn----'-----:;~'f----7~;"'"~~ 1xnalysis Period (min),_"--_'--_'--'--_--"'--____________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM ___ ._. _ _ _ NID1. __ ._WiliI . R m .. i§,llif_ _ _.__ __ _ _ ._ _. to 4' 75 16 12 65 Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 103 22 16 89 Hourl~ flow rate (ypl)) ___ -=5c::.8_--"15"----""'-_...::!:._---'-''--------''-''-____________ --' Pedestrians Lane Width @ Walking Speed':-:{ftJ"'S"7)--------------------------------' PerCentBlockage::...,.,-______________________________ ---' Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median sto"'ra'-g-e-ve7h7"") -----------'-"=-------'''''-'''-------------------' !:lRSlreamsignal@,---.,--_____________________________ --' pX, platoon unblocked /&' conflicling,-'v"'ol"'um"'e'--__ ='---'-"'-______ = ________________ --' vCl, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 236 114 125 236 114 125 6.4 6.2 4.3 3.5 3.3 2.4 92 98 99 748 944 1374 ~g(fl ___ \~LLJml~_ ~.~ _ _. ____ . ____ . __ .. _____ _ ____ .. _ _ _._ I/olume Total 73 125 105 Volume Left 58 0 16 I/olume Right 15 22 0 cSH 782 1700 1374 !Volume to CaRacily 0.09 0.07 0.01 Queue Length 95th (It) 8 0 1 pontrol Delat{~) 10.1 0.0 1.3 Lane LOS B A ~RRroach DelayJ~) 10.1 0.0 1.3 Approach LOS B ~~-... -_._-_.-._._ .. _---------. -------_. -----.~- Average Delay 2.9 iiiiiiiSection ca''"'p.-:-ac";;ily'""U'"t'"iliz=-=a"tio-n-----;:2·0.;;8o/.;;...--'IC''U..,-;--,Le-ve"l""of"'S.,.erv-i""ce-------.A--------, Analysis Period {min)L-_______ --'-'15:..... ____________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE - Lane Configurations 4-4- !Volume (veh/h) 10 25 15 13 49 Sign Control Free Free :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Hourl~ flow rate (~p.!!) 11 29 17 15 56 Pedestrtans Lane Width (m Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e -None None Median storage veh) !:!~stream signal @ pX, platoon unblocked yc. conflicting volume 125 46 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 125 46 tC, sing~(~) 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) !.(~) 2.3 2.2 pO Queue Iree % 99 99 'cM ca~acityJveh/h) 1396 1575 )/olume Total 57 140 64 69 Volume Left 11 15 52 52 t 4- 60 45 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0.87 0.87 69 52 0 198 216 198 216 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 93 100 729 663 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 4- 11 45 0 15 Stop 0% I 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 13 52 0 1~ 37 194 190 91 I 37 194 190 91 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 93 100 .98 1023 750 696 972 17 69 13 17 1396 1575 772 796 !Volume Righ"'t ____ __,=c--=:=--=--=~--------------------' cSH 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.09 1 1 7 7 1.6 0.8 10.1 10.0 A A B A 1.6 0.8 10.1 10.0 B A ~~------~---------- --------~------------ Average Delay 4.7 ~e~a=~=ac~ity~Uti~·liz=a~tio=n--,----.ln8.i.3o/.~o--'I~CU~Le~ve~l=m~S~e=~~ice~------.A--------. Analysis Period (::,:mi:::n)'-_______ -.:.:15'-____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ---_ .. _-------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t Lane Configurations V To 55 86 11 30 Free 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 of 63 Free 0% 0.96 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 57 90, 11 31 66 !:!2!!.!Iy flow rate (yp,!1),_-'-'-_-'2"'3_-"'--_""'-_-'-'-_-"'----'''''-_____________ -' Pedestrians Lane Width (m,:"::C:-:----___________ --------------.........J Walking Speed (IUs) Percent Blockag=-e.,.,... __ -'-__ ~ __ _'_ _________ _'_ ___________ ....J Right tum flare (veh) Median !YQ"'e_-,-,--______ -'-, N~oe!Cn~e _____ __'.N~o~ne"_ _____________ .....J Median storage veh) !!Qstreamsignal tm--...,------------------------------, pX, platoon unblocked 223 95 . 101 223 95 101 6.4 6.2 4.2 3.5 3.3 2.3 97 94 98 746 959 1443 ' Volume Lelt 23 0 31 1-/olume Right' 57 11 0 cSH 886 1700 1443 1-/olume to CaQaci!y 0.09 0.06 0.02 Queue Length 95th (It) 7 0 2 Control Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 2.6 Lane LOS A A ~p.Qroach Delay_(~) 9.5 0:0 2.6 Approach LOS A ------------ Average Delay 3.6 Intersection ca'::Q::-ac::;.ity""'Ut'"'ili:::za:;;tio::n...,---,.-----;;2"'2.~9°;:;.Yo--'I;;:CU".TLe:-cv:::;el":'of"Sce7rv"'ice::--------.A----------, Analysis Period (min),--: _____ ---.:.:15:-.-------:-----------------. C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane Configurations V 4' To I/olume (vehlh) 10 10 30 77 72 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 !:!Q!l!:I~ flow rate (y~) 12 12 37 95 89 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) !:!~stream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 272 103 117 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 272 103 117 tC, singlt(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) !f.(~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 98 99 97 eM ca~acityJvehlh) 703 957 1459 I/olume Total 25 132 117 Volume Left 12 37 0 I/olume Right 12 0 28 cSH 811 1459 1700 1J0lume to Ca~acity 0.03 0.03 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 2 0 Control DelayJ~) 9.6 2.3 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~~~roach DelayJ~) 9.6 2.3 0.0 Approach LOS A 23 0.81 28 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM ~ ------~--~~---_._~-_.--- -. ---- Average Delay':-::-"""''"'''''==--____ ''''';2.;;,.0 ----;;;;;;;-;-cC'C:7=>==-------.--------, iirteiSeCtiOnCap.acity Utilization 22.4% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min)'--_______ -"15'--____________________ --, C Q:IProjeclsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - --------------------------------------- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE - Lane Configurations 4-'4- /Jolume (veh/h) 12 45 5 5 130 Sign Control Free Free :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 .1::!2!!!1~ flow rate (yp.N 15 55 6 6 159 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tYRe None None Median storage veh) ~Rstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked g;-conflicting volume 159 61 vCl, stage 1 confvol ~C2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 159 61 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(s) tF (~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 99 100 eM caRacity_(vehlh) 1409 1536 /Jolume Total 76 165 30 76 Volume Left 15 6 24 6 /Jolume Right 6 0 6 63 cSH 1409 1536 631 832· /Jolume to CaRacity 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 4 7 ,Control Delayj~) 1.5 0.3 11.0 9.8 Lane LOS A A B A ~p.Rroach Delayj~) 1.5 0.3 11.0 9.8 Approach LOS B. A t 4- 0 20 0 Stop 0% 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 24 0 324 258 324 258 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 96 100 576 640 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 4- 5 5 5 52 Stop 0% I 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 6 6 6 63 58 264 261 159 I 58 264 261 159 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 93 1014 671 630 879 ~~ . _._--_.----. --_._. . .. --- Average Delay 3.6 iiiiiiiSection Ca'-R-ac"""ity-U'""t"'iliz-a"""tio-n----.......,,2"""2.;;7Ofcii-, ----;IC"'U"..,-Le-ve--;l-of"S;-e-rv'"""ice--------;-A--------, Analysis Period (min), _________ 1:::5'--____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE -- Lane Configurations of to V ~olume (vehlh) 6 30 50 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop ,Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 Hourl~ flow rate (yp.!!) 8 38 62 1 4 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) !:!~stream signal tm pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 64 116 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 64 116 tC, sing~(~) 4,1 6,4 tC, 2 stag~(~ !E.(~) 2,2 3,5 pO queue free % 100 100 eM ca~acityjvehlh) 1552 881 ~olume Total 45 64 25 Volume Left 8 0 4 ~olume Right 0 1 21 cSH 1552 ' 1700 986 ~olume to Ca~acity 0.00 0.04 0.03 Queue Length 95th @ 0 0 2 ,Control Delat(~) 1.3 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A ~p'~roach Delay_(~) 1.3 0,0 8.7 Approach LOS A 17 0,80 21 63 63 6,2 3.3 98 1007 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With·Project AM ~~ -------------------------------- Average Delay 2.1 ~e~a=p.~ac~ity~U~tmiliz=a~tio~n---------.1"6.~7~~o----'IC~U~Le~~~1-,m~S~eN~i~re~----------~A--------------, Analysis Period (min) ______________ 1"'5 ______________________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175,00· Renton School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3·25-2014IAM With·Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM ~ ______ ~~ __ fH __ ~_ .. ~ ____ . ___ .. __ . ______ _ Lane Configurations V to 4' /Jolume (veh/h) 25 204 340 15 50 115 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (~P.b) 26 212 354 16 52 120 Pedestrians 2 Lane Width (~) 12.0 Walking Speed (!tis) 4.0 Percent Blockage 0:. Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !:!Rstream signaL@ pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 588 364 372 vCl, stage 1 coni vol ~C2, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 588 364 372 1.9, sing~(§) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) !E..(§) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 94 69 96 eM caRacilyjvehlh) 450 680 1174 212 16 0 644 1700 1174 )/olume to CaRacity 0.37 . 0.22 0,04 Queue Length 95th (It) 43 0 3 ,Control Delayj§) 13.8 0.0 2.8 Lane LOS B A ~RRroach Delat(§) 13.8 . 0.0 2.8 Approach LOS B ---------- Average Delay 4.8 tntersection Ca'=R::-ac::T.ity""Ut'"'iliz=a"'tio::n------.5"1."'6':;;.Y,--.'I"CU;;-;-"Le"'v"'el...,.ol"S"'e:::rv""ice:---------.A---------, Analysis Period (min),--:..-,-__ -,-_--,--_-.:.:15c... _____________________ -, C -- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM With·Project4-16- Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street -- Lane Configurations to 4' V I/olume (vehJh) 65 5 0 219 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop .Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (ypl!) 68 5 0 228 10 Pedestrians 2 1 Lane Width (m 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !:!Rstream signal ml pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 74 299 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 74 299 ).g, sing~(~} 4.1 6.4 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (~) 2.2 3.5 pO queue Iree % 100 99 eM CBRacilyJveh/h} 1524 696 /.tolume Total 73 228 10 Volume Left 0 0 10 I/olume Right 5 0 0 cSH 1700 1524 696 I/olume to CaRacity 0.04 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (!9 ° ° 1 Control DelayJ§) 0.0 0.0 10.3 Lane LOS B ~RRroach Delay_(~} 0.0 0.0 10.3 Approach LOS B 0 0.96 0 73 73 6.2 3.3 100 992 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM Average Delay 0.3 frrtElrSe~onCLaR~a~city~U~tili~za~ti~on--------~2~2.~2D~~----'1~C~U'Le~v~el~o"IS~e~~~ic~e------------·A-------------. Analysis Period (min}c-______________ 1:..:5'--_______________________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM With-Project 4-16- Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Lane Configurations 4- ~olume (yp.!J) 45 15 - Ideal Flow (~hpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 jfotal Lost lime (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.97 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1818 1808 2814 Fit Permitted 0.82 0.82 1.00 Satd: Flow (perm) 1537 1543 2814 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1\dj. Flow (yp.!J) 47 16 5 21 5 451 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 o 331 Lane GrouR Flow (yP.!l) 0 66 0 0 26 120 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% jfum Ty~e Prot NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 Effective Green&(~) 24.0 24.0 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 ,Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehide Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Gr~ CapjyP.!l) 409 411 750 vis Ratio Prot Y/s Ratio Perm cO.04 0.02 0.04 vic Ratio 0.16 0.06 0.16 ,Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 24.6 25.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 25.5 24.7 25.4 Levelo! Service C C C Approach Delay (s) 25.5 25.3 ~~~roach LOS C C 1'j 5 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.15 279 0.95 5 0 5 1% ~m+~t 5 2 27.8 27.8 0.31 5.0 4.0 99 0.00 0.02 0.05 24.5 1.00 0.3 24.8 C t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM lI~_t1o :--5;'0'---984 1730:-----"10=5 t10 960 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 I 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 3548 3467 3543 1.00 0.12 1.00 3548 456 3543 I 0.95. 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1011 53 1036 1821 111 4 o 0 4 0 1060 o 1036 1928 0 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% NA ~m+Rt NA 2 1 6 6 27.0 56.0 50.2 27.0 56.0 50.2 0.30 0.62 0.56 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 1084 1086 1976 0.30 cO.25 cO.54 0.34 1.00 0.95 0.98 31.4 24.9 19.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 26.7 17.6 15.2 58.1 42.6 34.5 E D C 58.0 37.3 E D ~-.----------. --_._-------. ------.---------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to ca·-:-pa:-:Cc:;:'ity:-::ra:-c.ti-:-o ----;;:0.""79;---'-'-='-='-==.;:::...:::;==------='----------" 1\ctuated Cy_de_L_engt!1J~) 90.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% Sum of lost time (~),,,._----~19~.0o----------.J ICU Level of Service F 1\nalysis Period (min) ________ .!.!:15~ ___________________ __' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.93 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 3335 Fit Pennitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (~ennl 3335 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1Idj. Flow tYPE) 31 593 484 52 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 155 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (vRh) 0 953 0 0 ----Hea~ Vehicles {%l 1% 1% 1% 1% !rum TYRe SRlit -NA SRlit Protected Phases 3 3 4 Pennitted Phases Actuated Green, G (5) 25.0 Effective Green&(~i 25.0 Actuated glC Ratio 0.28 Clearance Time (5) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (51 4.0 Lane G'Il Capj~PE) 947 - 0.95 0.95 0.99 3390 0.99 3390 0.96 253 57 383 1% NA 4 14.6 14.6 0.17 5.0 4.0 562 vis Ratio Prot cO.29 cO.ll y/s Ratio Penn vic Ratio 1.01 0.68 Unifonn Delay! dl 31.5 34.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Oela~, d2 30.9 3.7 Delay (5) 62.4 38.2 Level of Service E 0 Approach Delay (5) 62.4 38.2 ~p'~roach LOS E 0 t 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.95 1.00 1805 3481 0.95 1.00 1805 3481 0.96 0.96 0.96 135 172 167 0 0 34 0 172 185 1% 0% 0% Prot NA 5 2 9.0 12.4 9.0 12.4 0.10 0.14 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 184 490 0.10 0.05 0.93 0.38 39.2 34.3 1.00 1.00 48.0 1.0 87.2 35.3 F 0 58.1 E Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 3570 0.95 1.00 1787 3570 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 52 312 604 5 0 0 1 0 0 312 608 0 0% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 16.0 19.4 16.0 19.4 0.18 0.22 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 324 787 cO. 17 cO.17 0.96 0.77 35.7 32.2 1.00 1.00 39.9 5.5 75.6 37.8 E 0 50.6 0 ~-----.----.-------------------------. __ . --o c Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach g~:~~,g~:~eW1S~J---,---:,.,,·,:i;~:~·~~:·"';~~~;~~;~2;!h:S"i"';;~';';;~-,p~"'t?'8¥~~:~~:$j,.""},;-:,,,,;-, .'"" •.. ·.,.,"";I''"'<,""'''',T'''ll''''':'''';re'''".T, ~."';,."''''''i "'""''''1,'''';','''"; ","'t:~. ~·"""'",r. ~'''''';'7'';''''" I t@!i~: ~: ~([2==::::I:j1'10 :Jj~0~.1[i!fio.2 1.3 W'7::T';:;m-=~'07--=~~-r;::c---:-7C-=T"'l Total Zone Performance --------------------------- -------------------------------- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTrafficAnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM With-Project 4-16- SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S --------------------- Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM ~i _ ______ _ III]L_L'i~ ___ ~ __ ~ _ ®l ____ _ _ _ ________ _ Directions Served L R LT T R iX il! ~ Q:IProjectsI13113175_00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM With-Project 4-16- SimTraffic Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t to 20 230 35 40 Free 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 of 265 Free 0% 0.93 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM 22 247 38 43 285 Hourl~ flow rate (yQl:1) ____ 2"'5~__'~_!=:!:.. _ ___"~ _ _= _ _="_ _____________ __.J Pedestrians Lane Width (nJ Walking Speed"(ftI .. s")-------------------------------' PerCent Blockag,=.e-;-;--______________________________ ----' Right tum flare (veh) Median~R~e_~~-------~No~n~e-------'N~o~ne~-------------~ Median storage veh) !:!Rstream sig~m)'----------------------------------, pX, platoon unblocked ~! conflicting,-'v"'ol"'um"'e'--__ =_-"'''''-_____ --=== ________________ --' vC 1, stage 1 cont vol ~, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol ~O{illJ;lW ~u I@~ _ _______ _ _ __ _______ __ _ _ I/olume Total 46 285 328 Volume Left 25 0 43 I/olume Right 22 38 0 cSH 542 1700 1277 I/olume to CaRaci~ 0.09 0.17 0.03 Queue Length 95th (~) 7 0 3 Control DelaYJ~) 12.3 0.0 1.3 Lane LOS B A ~RRroach DelayJ~) 12.3 0.0 1.3 Approach LOS B ~------------------------------- Average Delay 1.5 ~e~onC~aR-a~Ci~~Uti~·li~~~tio-n----~4~3.~7'~~--~I~C~U'Le-v~el~oT.fS~e-NTi~~------.A--------. Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjecIs113113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 412212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Lane Configurations 1i t ., 1i 1>/olume (YPB) 40 340 475 105 Ideal Flow (vphel) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jr otal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1787 1881 1599 1787 Fit Penmitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.31 .Satd. Flow (~enm1 1787 1881 1599 592 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 I\dj. Flow (YPB) 44 374 522 115 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 374 0 Lane GrouR Flow (VRh) 44 374 148 115 --.-Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% jrum Ty~e Prot NA Perm Rm+Rt Protected Phases 3 8 7 Penmitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.5 17.2 17.2 21.9 Effective Greenc9.(~ 2.5 17.2 17.2 21.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.36 pearance TIme (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (sl 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane GrJl Capjypl)) 73 529 450 282 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 cO.20 0.02 ~/s Ratio Penm 0.09 0.12 vic Ratio 0.60 0.71 0.33 0.41 ,Uniform Delay, d1 28.8 19.7 17.4 14.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 3.5 0.2 0.4 Delay (s) 38.1 23.2 17.5 14.3 Level of Service D C B B Approach Delay (s) 20.8 ~p'p'roach LOS -C -t 1+ 1i 1+ 140 15 90 230 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 1855 1787 1766 1.00 0.52 1.00 1855 976 1766 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 154 16 99 253 5 0 0 35 165 0 99 392 1% 1% 1% 1% NA ~m+Rt NA 4 5 2 2 18.3 21.4 17.8 18.3 21.4 17.8 0.30 0.35 0.29 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 555 389 514 0.09 cO.01 cO.22 0.07 0.30 0.25 0.76 16.5 13.7 19.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.1 5.9 16.6 13.8 25.7 B B C 15.7 23.4 B C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With·Project PM 1i 1+ 158 40 203 10 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1787 1868 0.29 1.00 540 1868 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 174 44 223 11 0 0 3 0 0 44 231 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Rm+Rt NA I 1 6 6 19.2 16.7 19.2 16.7 0.31 0.27 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 220 510 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.20 0.45 15.2 18.4 1.00 1.00 0.2 0.2 15.4 18.6 B B 18.1 B -~.-----------------------_ .. _--------------- 'HCM 2000 Control Delay_,,--,,-___ ----;;20"".4:--_-=-:;HC"'M"-'2::.::0"'00:..;L"'ev:.-=e::.;1 o"-f""Se"'rv"'ice~ ___ -=C ______ --' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity~ra::::ti~0 ___ ~0i-.68~_-;;: __ ==-o-;:;-_____ =-;--_____ __, I\ctuated Cycle Leng!!!.(~) 61.1 Sum of lost time (s), _____ ~20"';.0~ _____ ---' Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.3% ICU Level of Service C I\nalysisPeriod (min) ________ 1:.-=5'--___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3·25-2014IPM With·Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane Configurations 'I t:f> 'I /Jolume (ypl)7) ==-----:2=03 1100 90 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1787 3534 1787 Fit Permitted 0.13 1.00 0.15 Satd. Flow (perm) 253 3534 279 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1158 95 1Idj. Flow (ypl)) 214 58 6 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1247 0 Lane GrouR Flow (ypl)) 214 58 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% NA 4 Rm+Rt 3 jTum TYRe p'm+pt Protected Phases '=7 --=.;.--- Permitted Phases 4 8 32.6 31.0 32.6 31.0 0.36 0.34 5.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 - tto."........~_-='1 615 155 50 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 3466 1787 1.00 0.95 3466 1787 0.95 0.95 0.95 647 163 53 25 0 0 786 0 53 1% 1% 1% NA Prot 8 5 27.0 4.0 27.0 4.0 0.30 0.04 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 t 160 1900 5.0 1.00 0.97 1.00 1825 1.00 1825 0.95 168 10 200 1% NA 2 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With·Project PM to 40 295 360 168 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 1791 0.95 1.00 1787 1791 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 42 311 379 177, o 0 19 0 o 311 537 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 6 16.6 29.4 16.6 29.4 0.18 0.33 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 79 0.03 1280 cO.35 163 1039 0.02 0.23 329 585 cO.17 cO.30 Lane GrJl CapjYP.b) __ ,---=2~80"--7=-___ ~"--7:=-___ ~c----,:,-34",,0 ___ "";::'=---:~_---J vis Ratio Prot cO.08 0.11 y/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.11 0.67 0.97 0.36 0.76 vic Ratio 0.76 0.59 0.95 0.92 28.3 22.9 28.5 42.4 36.3 29.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 19.0 1.3 2.8 16.2 34.9 21.7 47.3 24.3 31.3 58.5 71.1 50.9 0 C C E E 0 44.5 30.9 58.1 0 C E ~~---~ -~-- ----~---~ ----- -----~---~------ HCM 2000 Control Dela~'_::--'7."-___ --.:;44:;c.5:--_-!.!HC~M~20~00~L::!,e:!!ve",,1 o~f""Se",-rv~ic~e ____ ..!:D,--_____ --, HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 i\ctuated C~cle Leng!!!.(~) 90.0 Sum of lost time (~) _____ -=20"'i'0=--_____ ---, Intersection Capacity',..:U::,:ti:::liz;:::ati::o·o:.:.n ____ ~8~7.~5'A:o-0 __ .:..:IC",U:.::L""ev:;::e:.::1 o::.,:f S:.:e::.,:rv.:::ice=--_____ ...:E=--_____ --, ilnalysis Period (min), ________ ""15'--___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3·25-2014IPM With·Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t Lane Configurations V 1+ /Volume (vehlh) 26 9 40 43 16 Sign Control Stop Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (ypJ:l) 31 11 48 51 19 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None Median storage veh) !:!~stream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked K conflicting volume 159 73 99 vCl, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 159 73 99 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC, 2 stag!.(~) !E..(~) 3.5 3.3 2.3 pO queue free % 96 99 99 CM caRacityJvehlh) 826 994 1422 /Volume Total 42 99 67 Volume Left 31 0 19 11 51 0 863 1700 1422 0.05 0.06 0.01 4 0 1 9.4 0.0 2.2 A A 9.4 0.0 2.2 A of 40 Free 0% 0.84 48 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM ~~-------------. ----. ----------. - Average Delay 2.6 iiiierSection Ca',.,R."ac'"ity:--;-;Uti;;;;·li:cza"'tio"'n------::;1-;;9.~7·""X,--...,I""CU.,.,..Le:-:-v""el..."ol"S"'e-=-rv,-ice:--------.A---------, Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE -.. - Lane Configurations 4-4- 1I0lume (veh/h) 5 43 50 17 24 Sign Control Free Free !3rade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (ypl)) 5 47 55 19 26 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking~eed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) !,ipstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 43 102 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 43 102 tC, sing~(~) 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) !Ej~) 2.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 100 99 eM capacityjveh/h) 1492 1503 i'olume Total 108 62 60 22 Volume Left 5 19 38 16 JIIolume Right 55 16 22 5 cSH 1492 1503 841 815 JIIolume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.03 Queue Length 95th @ 0 1 6 2 Control Delay (s) 0.4 2.3 9.6 9.5 Lane LOS A A A A Z\p'proach Delayj~) 0.4 2.3 9.6 9.5 Approach LOS A A t 4- 15 35 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 38 0 163 166 163 166 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 95 100 779 708 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM 4- 20 15 0 5 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 22 16 0 5 75 180 185 35 I 75 180 185 35 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 98 98 100 99 976 759 701 1044 ~ ------.-._------------------~---.-.-. ------ Average Delay 3.9 ~e~a~p-ac"ity~U~t"'iliz~a"tio-n--------~19~.4~%~o----~IC~U'L'e-ve~I'ol~S'eN~i'ce------------~A--------------' Analysis Period (min) _________________ 1:.:5 __________________________________________ -. C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t Lane Configurations V to /Jolume (veh/h) 16 15 60 28 20 Sign Control Stop Free ~ade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourt~ flow rate (ypl!) 20 19 75 35 25 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (fils) PercentBiockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lYRe None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~conflicting volume 226 92 110 vCl, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 226 92 110 tC, sing~(§) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) !EJ~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 97 98 98 eM caRacilYJveh/h) 753 970 1474 of 67 Free 0% 0.80 84 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM ~.JiL __ lWJj ___ ~L_~j)________________________ __ _ ),tolume Total 39 110 109 Volume Left 20 0 25 /Jolume Right 19 35 0 cSH 845 1700 1474 /Jolume to Cap'acity 0.05 0.06 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 1 ,Control Delat(§) 9.5 0.0 1.8 Lane LOS A A ~Rp'roach Delay.(§) 9.5 0.0 1.8 Approach LOS A ~~y---------------------------- Average Delay 2.2 ~e~a~R-ac~ilY~Ut~ili-za"tio-n--------~2~1.~3°~~----'I~CU ... Le~v~el~ol~S~e~~~ice~----~-----.A------------~ Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane Configurations V 4' to :Volume (veh/h) 30 30 20 63 65 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Hourl~ flow rate (ypJ1) 42 42 28 88 90 Pedestrians Lane Width @ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !iRstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 242 99 108 vC1, stage 1 conf vol ~, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 242 99 108 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 94 96 98 eM C3RacityJvehlh) 736 962 1464 :Volume Total 83 115 108 Volume Left 42 28 0 ,Volume Right 42 0 18 cSH 834 1464 1700 :Volume to CaRacity 0.10 0.02 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 1 0 Control Delat(~) 9.8 1.9 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach DelaYJ~) 9.8 1.9 0.0 Approach LOS A 13 0.72 18 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With·Project PM ~~.-----.----_. _ .. _-_ ... _---_._ .. _._----- Average Delay 3.4 ~e~a~R~ac~ity~U~t~iliz~a~tio~n--------~2·1.3~o/c~,----cIC~U'L~e-ve~l~of~S~eN~i~ce~----------~A-------------' Analysis Period (min) ________________ 1~5~ ________________________________________ ......., C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3·25-2014IPM With·Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 •• • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE - Lane Configurations 40 40 .Volume (veh/h) 73 270 35 5 115 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hou~~ flow rate (~p.!1) 80 297 38 5 126 Pedestrians Lane Width ml Walking Speed (It/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !iRstream signal (m pX, platoon unblocked yC, conflicting volume 132 335 vCl, stage 1 conf vol yC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 132 335 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) !EJ~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 94 100 eM caRacityJvehlh) 1453 1230 /Volume Total 415 137 22 55 Volume Left 80 5 11 5 /Volume Right 38 5 5 44 cSH 1453 1230 405 716 ;volume to CaRacity 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.08 Queue Length 95th (~) 4 0 4 6 ,Control DelayJ~) 1.9 0.4 14.4 10.4 Lane LOS A A B B ~p.Rroach DelayJ~) 1.9 0.4 14.4 10.4 Approach LOS B B t 40 5 10 5 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 11 5 663 619 663 619 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 97 99 339 383 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM 40 5 5 5 40 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 5 5 44 316 625 636 129 I 316 625 636 129 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 95 729 375 375 926 ~~ .. ---... _-_ ...... ---------------._---_._---_ .. - Average Delay 2.7 lnfElrSe~a~p.-ac7.ity-U~t~iliz-a~tio-n--------~3~7.;4~~o----~IC~U~Le-ve~1~of~S~e-N~ice------------~A--------------, Analysis Period (min) ________________ ..:1~5 __________________________________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE --Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM II. _~_ ~ ~_ m ~~@l]j) \'ill,lTIL.wEltl @ill\ __ ~ _____ ~_ ____ _ . ___ _ _ _ Lane Configurations of 1> V /Jolume (vehJh) 18 35 20 3 2 11 Sign Control Free Free Stop :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourl~ flow rate (ypl!) 21 42 24 4 2 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed (ftJs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lYRe None None Median storage veh) !:!Rstream signal @ pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 27 110 26 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 27 110 26 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stag!.(~) !EJ~) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 99 100 99 eM caRacilYJvehJh) 1599 880 1056 ~ ___ ~ __ @IDL_I!i'lE)~~_U _________________________ _ Yolume Total 63 27 15 Volume Left 21 0 2 /Jolume Right 0 4 13 cSH 1599 1700 1025 ~olume to CaRacilY 0.01 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (~) 1 0 1 Control DelaYJ~) 2.5 0.0 8.6 Lane LOS A A ~p.Rroach Delat(~) 2.5 0.0 8.6 Approach LOS A ~oL~'L __________ ~ _______________ ~ ---------- Average Delay:..-.."...,"""'--,,-_____ -,.,-;2.;;..8 __ -="..,..---,-.,..,;---,--______ ~~-----_, frii9rSeCtiOnCaRacilY Utilization 19.5% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min)c.-________ 1:..:5c.-____________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM ~ _ __ _ \1?IDL\!i!l.l1;L~~JN _ WWl _~ __ @§\t_ _ __ _ ___ _ ____ _ Lane Configurations V to <f I/olume (veh/h) 30 114 190 55 208 270 Sign Control Stop Free Free 13rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (yp'!)l 31 119 198 57 217 281 Pedestrians Lane Width @ Walking Speed (ltIs) PercentBlockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !iRstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~C, conflicting volume 941 227 255 vC 1 , stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 941 227 255 tC, sing~(§) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag!.(~) tF (§) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 87 85 84 eM caRacilYjveh/h) 245 815 1316 ~ _______ ~_@lat _____________ ~ ______________ _ )folume Total 150 255 498 Volume Left 31 0 217 I/olume Right 119 57 0 cSH 549 1700 1316 I/olume to CaRacilY 0.27 0.15 0.16 Queue Length 95th (It) 28 0 15 .Control Delayj§) 14.0 0.0 4.5 Lane LOS B A ~p.Rroach DelayJ§) 14.0 0.0 4.5 Approach LOS B Average Delay 4.8 Intersection ca~R""ac::;;ity"""'Uti;;;;·Ii:::za"'tio::n'---------'5"'7.i8,;;-y,--'I"CU;;-;-CLe::v-:;el,.,.of"S"'e:::rv"'ice::-------------;;B---------, Analysis Period (min), ________ --'!15~ ____________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM With-Project 4-16- Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street - Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM _______ Ja:JL_@)KLWL\lj@lj _ ~ __ ID_ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ Lane Configurations t-ot V /Jolume (veh/h) 243 15 5 144 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 . 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourt~ flow rate (~I!b) 253 16 5 150 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) J:iRstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 269 421 261 vCl, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 269 421 261 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.6 6.4 tC, 2 stage (~) !E.(~) 2.2 3.7 3.5 pO queue free % 100 99 99 eM C8Racity_(vehlh) 1301 559 743 ~ _ @lllj) __ I!i@n __ ~~______ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _____________ _ /Jolume Total 269 155 10 Volume Left 0 5 5 /Jolume Right 16 0 5 cSH 1700 1301 638 iVolume to CaRacity 0.16 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (~) 0 0 1 ,Control DelayJ~) 0.0 0.3 10.7 Lane LOS A B ~p'proach DelaYJ~) 0.0 0.3 10.7 Approach LOS B ~ ------------ --------------------------- Average Delay 0.4 iiii8rSection Ca'-::Rc:-ac"'ity---,-,Ut""ili=za'"tio::-:n-----;;2"'3.~7':,;..V,---;I"CU;-;-;-Le-v-.el-::ol;-;S"'e=rv"'ice~-------;A--------, Analysis Period (min) _________ 1:.;:5 _____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM With-Project 4-16- Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 -- -- - - - - Vehicle Speed Report Summary Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE Count Direction: Eastbound 1 Westbound Date Range: Site Code: 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 01 239 1,972 184 1.6% 51 409 3,576 11,529 6,724 707 - - 18 3 o 42 3 o - - - - -- - - -w >~ d\.. DATA SOLUTIONS o o o o o 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% o o o o o o o o 23,041 0.2% 1.8% 15.5% 50.0% 29.2% 3.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% ';·'·:TotaIStudYiPercentlle:Speed.Summary, ,.ii': Eastbound 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percenble 95th Percentile Westbound 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 22.8 mph 26.2 mph 28.2 mph 23.9 mph 27.5 mph 29.8 mph rfI,:;:,,,,::!}i:'Iii."i'Total,Study,!Speedi,Statlstlcs' ',','i·';·i,'"',,.,'!! Eastbound Mean (Average) Speed 22.8 mph 10 mph Pace 17.7 -27.7 mph Percent in Pace 85.9 % Westbound Mean (Average) Speed 23.9 mph 10 mph Pace 18.8 -28.8 mph Percent in Pace 81.8 % 1 --- -- - - -- --- - - --- - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i II.I)~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Wednesday, March 12, 2014 Eastbound II Speed Range (mph) II Tolal Time II 0-10 1110-151115-201120-251125-301130 -351135-40 1140-451145-50 II SO-55 H 55-60 1160-651165-70 1170-751175-80 1180-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:02~ ____ O __ ~ ___ ~ __ ._O ___ O ___ O ___ O ____ 0 o ____ ~ ___ .~ ___ 0 ___ Jl.... ___ ~. _2 ___ 0 _._0 ____ 0 1;Oo.~_. __ L. 0 ____ -' __ ... _3_. __ .. .9 ___ .Q. ___ 0_ 0 ___ ._0 ___ 0 _____ 0 ___ 0 __ .9 0 __ 0 ___ 0 O_~ 2:00AM 0 0 1 11 0 ___ 1 ____ 0_ 0 0 .O ___ ...E.... __ !J. __ O 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 0 _1! ~:~OAM 0 0 2 4 0 0 __ O ___ O ___ O ____ Jl ____ .!!._ 0 0 0 0 0 __ 7 :00 AM .Q ___ ~ ____ 1 ___ i ____ .] __ p ____ 0 ___ 0 _____ 0 ___ Jl_ 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 ____ 8_ 5:00 AM 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 I --------.------.-----------------.. ----------------.----------.------------- ,6:00AM . _____ O __ ~ __ ...1 ____ .!2 __ .!.. __ 1. __ 0 __ o. ___ 0 0 0 0. ___ .9 ___ -.P __ .. .Q. __ ~ __ 2.. ___ 22 li:~-~-----~---~--_-'~~_--:r~--~-----~--~ci----ci---~--~---~---+-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-- ~J_OAM ______ L ___ ~ __ 8 ____ .!L_1.? ____ 2 ___ 0 ____ .0_ 0 ___ O ___ O ___ Jl. __ O ___ IL __ 1L _. __ O' ___ -.P __ 49_ 10:Po.~ _______ 0 ____ ~_. __ ~ ___ .31 7 0 0 0 0 0 O ____ O __ Q. ___ O __ O ___ o._..2! 11:0.QML _____ Q __ .1..._...1'O __ 31 _8 _____ ~ ___ O Cl __ J1_. __ ° ____ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 __ . ___ 11. ___ 0 __ 9 __ 5:t_ 12:00 PM 0 ____ 2.. __ ..!2.. ____ 3E._~3 ____ 1_. ___ 0 ____ !L ___ ....Q.. ___ O ______ !l. ___ ~ ___ ...Q. __ O ___ 9 _ 0 __ 2. ___ .14 1;QOPM _____ .. _0 ___ 1. ____ 13 __ ?? ___ .!L ___ 1L ___ 11... __ 9 ____ 0 ____ .0 ___ <L ____ IL ___ 0 ____ .9. ____ 0_ 0 0 _9JL_ 2:00 PM 0 3 14 63 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 118 --.----------,3:00PM ____ 0 __ 2 ___ 29... . !~ __ ~ ___ Q.. ____ IL_ 0 0 0 0 __ 0__ 0 0 __ O __ ..JL __ O __ ....1JI9_ !'1:00PM 0 2 29 79 ~_!... ___ O_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 5:00 PM 30 113 56 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 ,----------------_. ------------------------------- ,~OOPM _____ 0 ____ 6 __ ...2I!..._.!P!l. ___ 38 __ 3 0 0 0 0 O __ ....!! 0 __ O ____ O ___ O ___ ~ Ii:~~ ---+----~---~}---{~~--~----+---}--+--~ ~ ~ . ci ___ ci -_ ~ -~ _ ~_ ~~~i- 9:00PM 0 0 ___ 12 ___ 2L--.19 __ 1 0 0 0. ____ 11._ 0 __ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 0 _0 0 81! 1!l:00~ 0 1 10 33 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _O ____ O __ ~ 11:00 PM 2 6 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 olal II 6 II 32 II 275 II 995 II 413 II 36 II 1 II II 0 II '0-II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 1,759 Percent 0.3% 1.8% 15.6% 56.6% 23.5% 2.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dail}<Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 22.8 mph 85th Percentile 26.2 mph 95th Percentile 28.2 "'E.h Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Speed Statistics Mean (Avernge) Speed 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace 22.9 17.9 -27.9 86.9 mph mph % 2 - - -- - - -- - - - - -- --- - - Location: Date Range: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/1812014 ill.,)~ Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Wednesday, March 12, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 ·10 1110 ·151115·20 II 20·2511 25·301130.3511 35·40 II 40·451145·50 \I 50·55\1 55·60 \I 60·6511 65·70 II 70·7511 75·80 II 80·8511 85 + IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------1:00AM 0 0 0 ___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. ___ 0_ ._3_ 2:00AM 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ------- 3:00AM 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·0 0 0 0 8 ~COAM ---0--0 2 20 9--'--3-0 0 0 0 0 0---0--·--0----0--0--0-__ 34 §:90AM . ______ o. _____ ?_ 11 46 24 ___ .2.. ___ .Q. 0.... ___ !L-. ___ O_~ __ . ll. ___ iL ____ 0_. __ O __ 'L-_--"_ _.0 ___ ~ 6:00AM 1 0 20 75 52 6._-.P ____ O __ 0 ___ il. __ 0_ 0 Q... ....Q _____ 0_._0 ___ (} ___ ....1!!4 7:00AM ____ . 0 2 22 90 79 _L. __ 0.. __ -.9 ___ 0 _____ 0_. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ___ 200 8:00AM . __ !...__ 2 30 83 5~ __ 4_. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 9:00EL 0 __ 3 ____ ~ __ ~ _~_ ... _6_ .. __ L __ 0._. __ ..L __ D.. ____ 0 ___ 0__ _0 ____ .0.... ___ 0 ____ 0 ____ .0.... ___ 92 __ 10:00~ ________ 0. ____ 3_ 11 30 21 5_ .. _..!l..._..2... ___ 0 _____ 0_ . __ .. .0. ___ .!l ___ O ____ Q..... __ O ___ O ____ O ___ ..!I! 11:Q9~ _____ 0_ ... --". __ .1 0 ._§? __ 3I._ 4 __ 3 ____ ..!l ___ L_..D ___ .Q ___ ..lL. ___ O 0 _0..... __ 0 ___ .0.... __ 1_0L !.?.=!>OPM _____ ..!l. ___ o ____ ~p __ .E ___ ~~ __ ~ __ ..! ___ 0 0 __ 2. ___ O ____ O ___ Q.. ___ ..Jl.. _Q.. __ 9 ___ 0_ .Z~ LOP.!'M.. ________ O ____ 0 .. _1_1 __ 4_1 __ 3L ____ L __ 0_. __ 0_. ___ 0 ___ 0_. __ 0 ___ .9_ . __ 0.... ___ 9 0 0 ._.9_ ....J!.O __ 2:00PM ___ 1.. ____ ~ ___ ..1.?_ ~ __ ~6_ . __ 11 ___ 0 _____ Q... ___ O ___ O ___ Q.. __ 0 __ ._.!l ___ ..!l... ___ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 __ . _1~ 3:00 PM 0 3 12 73 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 ~OOPM-0 --3---';--42--38 6 -0---0----0 0 --0-'-C--"0----0----0 0 0 100- 5:00PM 1 ____ 0 ___ 21. __ 1.5 48 i!. ___ ll._. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011_0_ ~OO PM _ 0 15 58 31 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Z=90PM _!... ___ O 11 30 21 ___ I_ .. __ 0 ____ Q. ___ 0 __ ..-Jl __ D.._ 0 0 0 0 0 O--'!L.. ~OOPM_. 0 0 5 29 7 0 0 0 __ 0 ___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 l~o.OPM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM o 2 3 21 13 5 ___ 1_._0 0 0 0 __ 0 __ 0 0 0 0 0 1~5_ o 0 1 14 12 __ .Q. ___ 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2! o 0 3 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 lIotal II 5 II 28 II 235 II 861 II 615 II 88 II 5 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 1,837 Percent 0.3% 1.5% 12.8% 46.9% 33.5% 4.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daily Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 23.9 mph 85th Percentile 27.5 mph 951h Percentile 30.0 mph Mark skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdala.com Speed Statistics Mean (Avernge) Speed 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace 23.8 19.5 -29.5 81.7 mph mph % 3 - - - -- --- - -- -- - -- - - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 ill.,\~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Thursday, March 13, 2014 Eastbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 -10 1110 -151115 -20 11 20 -25\125 -301130 -3511 35 -40 1140 -45\145 -50 1150 -5511 55·601160 -6511 65 -70 \I 70 -751175 -80 \I 80 -8511 85 + IIVolume 12:00 AM 1 5 14 4 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1:00~ ______ 0 ____ 0 ___ 1 ___ 5 ___ 1_ 0 0 0. __ .. 9 ____ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 12:00AM ____ ~_. 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ 0_. 0 0 Jl 0 0 _!! 3jlO_~_. _____ 0 ___ 0 ___ 1_.~ _____ 3 ___ 0 0 __ ._0 ____ 0 ____ .0 __ 0 ___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ ~_ ~:OOAM 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5:00~ _____ .. _0 __ 9 _____ 1 __ 4 ____ ~ __ ....9 . ___ 0 __ L. _._L_. __ Q.. __ 0..... __ 0. __ . __ 0 0 0 _____ 0 ____ 0 ___ 10_ . . 6:00 AM 0 0 2 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 21 . --7:00 AM 0 0 6 31 14 2 0 0 u u u u u u u u U 53 :i:OOAM 0 11 4-3--20--'---0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0--'0 0 -'-76- ~9:.90AM _____ 0 ___ .2 ____ 11_._1.6 ___ 8 __ ._0 ___ 0 ___ 0._. 0.... __ 0 __ .Q. __ .O. ____ O ___ ..Q.. ___ O __ ..Q. O.....R..... 10:00 AM 0 0 11 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 i1:O.QAM-=-~0 __ O ___ 6 ___ ~=~-1~~~_-=-O_·~._0 __ . __ .0__ 0 0 ---0-' 0 0 0 0---0-60-- ~:QO.p~ ___ ~ __ ~ _......!!_ . ..§ll. 21 1 0 0 _ .!l..... __ O ____ O""' ___ O__ 0 0 !l. __ 0 ____ 0 __ 85._ .. !=.qQ_~~_. 0 1 7 45 20 3 0 .. __ 0 ____ 0.. ___ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ___ . 0 0 ____ 0 __ .0 __ ....9 __ ..l!._ 12:00 PM 0 1 18 73 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .L ___ ._O ___ .!l __ .....!1!I. 3:00 PM 0 3 15 88 44 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 1:.---------_·_-------------_·-· __ ·_-_·_·_----------_·_----- ... :00 PM 0 2 23 89 53 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 i!.:00 PM 0 4 33 101 41 2 0 0 0 0 ._0..... ___ 0_ 0 0 0 0 _:I!!L_ 6:00 PM 0 2 22 118 43 2 Q ___ O __ • 0 0 0 9 ___ .9. ___ 0..__ 0 0 188 ,7:00 PM 1 4 25 56 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 ,--'--'---'----_._-,----_ ... _-,-, -------,. -.------.---..... . --_._--------- 8:00 PM 7 1 24 68 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 1~~~f~M~=-=~ :-~. ~ -~---~---:{ --.-~-. ~~ -~~~--=-=F:::--r==-~=--=F-~-' --~---_.-~ =:.+-=r~. ~:- 11:00 PM 0 1 12 17 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 fTOtal II 9 II 25 II 281 II 980 II 423 II 27 II 2 II 0 II 0 \I 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 Percent 0.5% 1.4% 16.1% 56.1% 24.2% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daily Percentile Speed Summary 50th PercenUie (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Marl< Skaggs:425-250-0777 marl<.skaggs@idaxdata.com 23.0 26.2 28.4 mph mph mph Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 22.9 mph 10 mph Pace 17.7 -27.7 mph Percent in Pace 86.3 % II o II o II o II 1,747 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 --- -- - - -- - - - - --- - -- Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i II_I\~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Thursday, March 13, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0-10 1110-151115-201120-251125-30 1130-351135-401140-451145-50 /l50-551155~60 1160-651165-70 1170-751175-80 1180-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 0 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 i~OOAM·-0 ___ o ___ 1 ____ 1.. 3 0 0 0 L_ 0 0 0 0 ---0-0 _._0_ L_ I~:OOAM ._ .. _~ __ ~ ___ 0 __ .~ ___ 1.... _____ 0 0 0 ~._._O 0 0 __ 0 ___ 0 __ 0 ___ 0_ .. 4 __ _ 3:00 AM 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 ~~OOAM ··_·--0 ---0·-·-4-·-W10·--3---0--·-0 0 0--··0·--0---0--0---0--0---0_ -36 ~;Q0AM _.!!._ _ c. __ .¥ _ .39 ... 4_ ... 11. ____ L .Jl __ ._o. _.O_._.!!. ___ 0_ .. _.0 _._0 ____ 0 .. _ .. 0._ .•. 9.5 ... ,6:0Q.AM_._._. __ !!.. _._.0._. __ 19_._~. 46 ._.6 ___ 0 ___ Jl __ i1 __ ~. ___ 0 ___ 0 ...... .2._._.Q ___ .O 0 0 _15.1. i;~~·::-= -::... __ l=--=-{··.· .. _~~-·. :~ ·_~~3 -=~ .. ~::.-=~--6--_.=-~ -=-:-_~.__ ~ .=-_=6---+ -~ --t::. --b--~;: 1~:90A~._. o L ___ .!2 .• _.,,0. __ .2L . __ 9 __ ..Q. __ ._L_Jl ___ 0 ___ •. 0 __ 0. __ .0 __ ._0 __ .. ___ 0 ____ 0_. __ O_L~L __ ._.J> __ . 11 33 __ 26 0 0 O._.O __ ...Q ... _Q __ O 0 0 0 0 72 10:00 AM -----!1:00AM ___ J __ ..L. __ l_0 __ ~_I ___ ~q .. 2 0 .0_ 0 0 0 0 0 O. ___ O ____ O __ ._.JI~_ 12:00 PM ____ 0 ____ 2 ___ ..!l.. ___ !1. ___ 16 ____ 6 ___ O __ . .J> __ ._i1_._ 0 0 0._ ..Jl __ .L __ O ___ .O ____ ~ __ 49 1:00 Pfo.1.._. 0 4 12 31 33 6 0 O_Q ___ l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .....!I!i_ :2:00 PM . ____ . 3 14 3.1_._3L_} ___ 0 __ .0 ___ 0 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ .0 0 0 0 0_. ___ .8!... fs i3:00PM------0 ___ Q.._ . .1.L .. _J19_~ ___ B ___ O ___ O._o... __ .Q .• _. Q _0 __ 0 0 0 0 ._0 _"!.!II... :00 PM _____ O 0 14 52 34 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 106 ~00PM __ . __ . ..l ____ 2 __ . 12 ._.3_1_ • .1L __ 5. _._.0 __ . .lL _.0..._ ._0_. ____ 9 0 .0 __ Jl._0 __ .....Q. ___ O. _.~ ~QO~ __ ._.Jl 9 _~s.. __ ~~ __ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _.0... __ 0 __ 0 0 99 7:00.;:M.__ _ 0 __ .15. __ 33. ____ 20._._.1. __ .. ..Q .. _O.. .9 .. ___ 0_.0 ____ 0_. _.0 __ ..Jl __ .. 0. __ 0 ___ .0 ..•. .lO_ 8:00Pfo.1..._ .. ____ 0_. 0 7 22 23 1 0 0 0 .!L._O 0 0 0 _ .. .2. _ . ..Jl .. _.0 __ .~ ~_O PM ~ _ lQ. __ ~0 ___ ..17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q. __ .O ___ • 0 __ 0 ____ 0 __ §.IL.. 10:00 PM 0 1 4 11 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 11:00 PM ii 0 0 9 7 <> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 trotal 1/ 3 /I 28 II 228 /I 814 1/ ·63l' /I 89 1/ 2 1/ 0 II 0 II 0 1/ 0 /I 0 II 0 II 0 1/ 0 1/ 0 II 0 II 1,801 Percent 0.2% 1.6% 12.7% 45.2% 35.4% 4.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dally.Percentlle Speed S~m",-ary 50th Percentile (Median) 24.2 mph 85th Percentile 27.5 mph 95th Percentile 30.0 mph Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 24 mph 10 mph Pace 19.0 -29.0 mph Percent in Pace 83.1 % 5 - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - Location: Date Range: Site Code: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Friday, March 14, 2014 Eastbound \I Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0-10 1110-151115-201120-251125.301130-351135.40 1140-451145-501150· 551155-60 1160-65\165-70 1170-75\175-80 \180-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 0 8 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° ° ° ° ° 28 --.. -----~ -------_. :t.:00~_._._.0 0 2 6 2 ° 0 ° ° _0 ° ° ° ° __ 0_ ° 0---1!l 2:00AM ° 0 7 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 9 3:00AM 0 0 --'0----3----1-·--0---0 0 --0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 liio-AM-' ~_--_'_-_'~ __ -~-O"--2-' -5"--0."-0 '''0'-0-'-0' ° --'0'-"'-0--"-0-'---'0"--0'-"0--'-0-'8 ~OI\M_ ° 0 ... _-"_ .... 5 ____ 1 __ 0. 0 ° O .. _._O" __ O' ..... IL __ ..!l ... O._._.q. __ .Jl. __ .9 __ .. 8 6:00AM ° ° ._4_ .. 8 6 ° 0 __ ._Il...._.Q.. __ .O. ___ O __ 5!. __ 0. _ .. I!..._ 0 __ 0 ____ 0_._18_ ,7:00AM ______ O_._._0_._6 ____ 2,L_ . .1.L .. _O ... 0 ° ° ._L_ . ...Jl._. __ O ___ O ___ O_ .. _.O ° ° ._.i1_ .. 8_:0_0_AM ______ O 3 19 19 2 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 45 9:00 AM ° 2 12 43 20 3 0 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 80 I ----.'---.----___ 0 ___ .,------------.--,.-----.-. --- '10:00 AM ° _~.L __ 3l...... __ 19 _____ ..0.. ° ° . __ 0 __ • g ° ° ° ° ° ° ~ 11:09A~ ° ._~ __ 11 33 13 1 ° ° ° ° O ___ O ____ O __ JL ° ° ° 20_ 12:00 PM !!. .. __ 4_ . __ 8 .. -.-3!. __ 15._. I!... .. _ ° ° _.Jl. __ ._O ___ O O __ ... .Q..._ ..2 .. __ Q.. ... _O ____ O __ ~ 1:00J'I1.!. _ _ __C!.. 10. _._ 3L __ 2~ __ .1. __ ._0 ... _.....0. __ ...9_._° .. __ . .Q.. __ .Q. ___ O ___ 0_ .. _ .. _0_ ° 0. ___ 7:t_ Ij~6:~ -== ~ __ =_~ ~~:.=~~~. __ ;:. =.1_=_~ -~'."": ~ _-~ .:-.=-~ = __ ~~.-_-.1·_-~~= '~~~6'-=_~ ____ ~'" _ ~:L ~:oo PM ° 4 28 93 56 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 182 5:0~ ___ Jl...._ .. .!. ___ 24 __ 118 51 _ . ..1 __ .. l •. ___ .Q __ IL ___ O ___ O __ O ° ° 0. __ 0_. ° ~I!.L ~:Q9I'~ ___ Q. 24 81 51 5 ._0 ___ Q ° .. 0 ___ 0 ° ° ° ° _0 ___ 0_ ~. I:OO_E~. ._0 ___ 4_._19_._....£.2 __ 3Q......_3__ ° ° ° ._.9.. __ 11.. ___ .0. ° ° ° ° .-1!L 8:00 ~~ O.-!!._ 23 56 27 a. ° ° 0 0 0 ° 0 ._0 __ 0 ° 107 9:00 PM ° O. ___ !!L.._ 45 14 0 1 ° .0 0 0 0 ° 0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ____ 0_ .-ZlI_ 10:00 PM 2 0 14 52 11 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 .. _ .. 0_ ° ° Q.. __ .~ 11:00 PM ° 0 9 25 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 ° 46 otal II 3 1[' 21 II 281 II 956 II 471 II 38 II 6 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 \I 0 II 0. II 0 \I 1,776 Percent 0.20/0 1.2% 15.80/0 53.8% 26.5% 2.1% 0.3% 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.00/0 0.0% Daily Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 23.0 mph 85th Percentile 26.4 mph 95th Percentile 28.9 "'I'.h Mark Skaggs:425-2SD-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Speed Statistics Mean (Avernge) Speed 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace 23.2 mph 18.6 -28.6 mph 86.3 % 6 ----- --- Location: Date Range: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/1812014 Site Code: 01 Friday, March 14, 2014 Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com - - ---- - ----i 11_I~t DATA SOLUTIONS 18.3 -28.3 7 -- ------------ Location: Dale Range: Sile Code: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014103/18/2014 01 Salurday, March 15, 2014 Marl< Skaggs:425-250-o777 marl<.skaggs@idaxdata.com Speeij mph mph ---- - i .I."t DATA SOLUTIONS B - -- - -- - -- - - - - --- --- Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i II_I'\~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTiONS Saturday, March 15, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 ·10 \110·15\115· 20 \120·25\125·30 \I 30· 351135·40 \140 ·451145· 50 \I 50· 55\155· 601160.651165.701170.751175. 801180· 8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00AM .~. ___ !L __ 1. __ 5 __ il 5 _1_. __ 0_ .. _o ____ o ___ ~ ___ O __ _.!>. __ £.._....Q.. __ <!_. 0._0 __ ~~ 1:0.0AM .. ~ ..•..• _..i1._ . 0 ... .1_. __ .3 ... L. Q _ ~ .. Q... _~~.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O • ....!L.. 1 2:00 AM 0 0 •. _I!.... __ ~ __ 3 ____ L __ 0 ___ Q. __ !L. __ 0 ___ Il.... ___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ~;QQ.,~.r.,t ______ 0_ •. _.0_ . __ 1 ____ 3 __ .. _1_. ___ 0 ___ 0_' _.O._._Q. __ .O __ Jl_ 0 0 0 0_ .. _0 ___ 1l.... ___ 5_ :00 AM ° ° 6 3 0 0 ° ° ° 0 ° 0 0 0 ° 0 10 ------------_.- I~~~-E~~:~ . ~-~.-~~~ ~.:-: .. t _-I-·~~.-~~j·~ -t .~1".~J .. ~~ ~_~-= ~t ~ ~~~~-:~ ~-~-~.~~~-= .. -t= ~~~. 8:00AM ° 0 7 ~~ __ ~ __ 5_ ~ .. ...<!. ___ 0 ___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ 19:00AM ____ 0_ . __ 0 __ ... _9 __ ._39 __ . .....lQ. __ .6 ____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ___ .0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 O .•.• 8:4_ 10:00~_ ._. 0 _...3!L..._4~ __ E...._ 1. ___ 1_._ ... 9 ___ 0_. 0 0 .0_ 0 ° 0 ° ._0_ ~_ !J:OO~ ___ .. Q. __ .L __ 1_5 ___ 5.3 ___ 3.?_ .. ~ __ JL_ ..9 .... _0 ___ 0 __ .9 ___ . .JI_ .. 11.. ... ,_ .Il.... __ 0 ____ o ____ 0 ___ !!IL !2:Q.0£,~ ___ ... .Q._ ... _1 __ .~_ 41 _ .• ~ __ ~ __ ._.!L. ___ O_._.Q.._._O ___ Jl .. ~_9 __ .0 ____ 0 ___ 0. ._~ .. _O __ O_ 93 I~:~~:~ 0 ~ ~~ :: ~~ 1---~-~~~---~ _; __ -~--_~.~6 _~ __ ~_~ __ ~_. ::: :fO.QPM .• 0 13 ._ • .§O_ . .1L_6 .. __ 0 ___ 0 0 .• _O. __ O_~ __ O. 0 0 0 .9 0 98 :OOPM _____ 0 ___ !._._ .. I~_.~ .. _~. __ ~_._L. __ 0 __ .Q.. __ ~._2... 0 0 0 0 ° 0 90 I~OOPM_~ __ . 0 2 14 45 40 __ 8_ 0 O ____ O_. __ O~. 0 0 ._O ___ L ___ O_._.O ___ O __ llJ!1_ 6:00PM_. __ O._ 2 13 38 29 6 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. __ ~ 7:00PM 1 __ L __ L __ 2'§_~_.L __ .Q._.Jl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ L __ 0_~_~6_ 8:00PM ° _~ __ 11_._~6 __ .!Z.. __ 1 ___ 0 __ ._9. 0 0. 0 0 0 0 O __ O ____ O_.--E.. 9:00 PM . ___ 11.__ ° 9 1~ • 17 3 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~_ 10:00 PM ° 4 17 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 11:00 PM 0 0 6 17 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 ° 0 33 otal \I 3 \I 20 \I 226 II 654 \I 521 II 69 \I 3 \I 0 \I 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 1,496 Percent 0.2% 1.3% 15.1% 43.7% 34.8% 4.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daily Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 23.9 mph 85th Percentile 27.7 mph 95th Percentile 29.8 mph Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Speed Stallstics Mean (Avernge) Speed 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace 23.9 18.8·28.8 '79.9 mph mph % 9 - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 ill,\~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Sunday, March 16, 2014 Eastbound II ' ... , Speed Range (mph! ", II Total" , Time II 0 -10 1110 -151115-'20 1120-251125 -301130 -351135-40 1140 -451145-501150-551155-60 1160-651165 -70 1170-751175-80 1180-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 2 8 19 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 1:00AM ,_ 0 0 8 9 5_ 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 2:00 AM 0 0 6 10 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 3:00 AM 0 -4 2 5'1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 -.:.. 12 ' :00 AM 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ~:OOAM 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ 7_ 6:00AM 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 ___ 0_ 3 7:00 AM 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8:00 AM 0 0 3 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 ~:OO_tiM 0 0 2 13 9 0 0" -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~ 10:00 AM 0 0 4 35 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 11:00 AM 1 1 11 38 16, 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 12:00 PM 1 2 17 53 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 1:00 PM 0 1 19 54 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0 93 2:00 PM 1 0 21 68 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 '1;9.0 PM 1 2 11 49 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 :00 PM 0 1 14 50 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 5:00 PM 0 3 13 70 24 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 6:00 PM 1 2 20 61 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 7:00 PM 0 1 17 46 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 8:00 PM 0 2 16 _ 46 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 9:00 PM 0 3 17 21 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 10:00 PM 0 2 8 14 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 11:00 PM 0 0 6 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 otalll 5 II 26 II 228 II 698 II 271 II 18 II 1 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II, O· II 0,' II 0 II 0 11 0 II 0 II 1,247 Percent 0.4% 2.1% 18.3% 56.0% 21.7% 1.4% 0.1% 0.0%' 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DailY Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 50th Percentile (Median) 22.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 22.5 mph 85th Percentile 25.9 mph 10 mph Pace 17.4 -27.4 mph 95th Percentile 28.2 mph Percent in Pace 85.9 % Mart< Skaggs:425-250-0777 mart<.skaggs@idaxdata.com 10 - - -- - -- - Location: Date Range: ' Site Code: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 01 Sunday, March 16, 2014 Westbound II " - - - -- - - - - - -W )q d~ DATA SOLUTIONS Seeed Ransa ~mehJ II Total Time II 0 -10 1110-151115-201120 -251125-301130 -351135 -40 1140-451145. 501150 -551155-60 1160 -651165-70 1170 -751175-80 1180-85 II 85+ IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 1 2 1:00AM 0 0 3 2:00AM 0 0 1 3:00AM 0" _,L_ 0 ~:OOAM 0 0 0 5:00AM 0 0 1 6:00AM 0 0 4 UJOAM ____ 0 0 3 8:00AM 0 1 7 ~~OOAM 0 1 9 10:00 AM 0 1 19 , 11:00 AM 0 2 10 12:00 PM 0 1 14 tQOPM 0 0 13 2:00PM 1 1 10 3:00PM 0 0 2 14:00 PM 0 2 13 5:00 PM 0 0 7 6:00PM 0 1 10 7:00PM 0 _..JL __ 14 8:00PM 0 2 3 9:00PM 0 1 10 10:00 PM 0 3 4 11:00 PM 0 0 1 Total II 1 II 17 II 160 II ~~ent _________ 0.1% 1.4% 13.3% Daily Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 23.9 27.5 29.8 " 12 4 1 0 0 0 5,,, 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 9 5 1 1 0 0 11 17 2 0 0 0 27 21 1 0 0 0 40 31 3 1 0 0 35 36 5 0 0 0 39 35 6 0 0 0 45 30 3 0 0 0 33 3Jl 7 0 0 0 32 27 7 0 0 0 54 27 7 1 0 0 , 44 24 3 0 0 '0 39 35 2 0 '0 0 16 27 1 .' 0 0 0 28 23 1 0 0 0 - 16 20 2 0 0 0 17 8 1 0 0 0 16 7 1 0 0 0 9 2 1 .0 0 0 539 II 426 II 57 II 3 II 0 II 0 44.8% 35.4% 4.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Speed Statistics mph Mean (Average) Speed 24 mph 10 mph Pace 18.3 -28.3 mph Percent in Pace 82.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o . 5 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 __ 7 __ -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ___ 0_ --1.L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 ----0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 - 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 78 -,-- 0 0 0 0 ,--0 0 0 0 _9_1_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 '. -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.!!L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 " 0 " 1,203" 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% mph mph % 11 - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/12120.14 to 3/18/20.14 ill.,)~ Date Range: Site Code: 0.1 DATA SOLUTIONS Monday, March 17, 20.14 Eastbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 -10 1110-15/115-201120-251125-301130-351135 -40 II 40 -451145-50 II SO-5511 55-50 1160-651165 -701170 -751175 -80 1180 -8511 85 + IIVolume 12:00. AM 0. 0 3 6 3 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 12 --------------~-._---.----l:o.o.AM 0. 0. 3 6 3 9 ___ 0. __ .0. ____ 0. __ 0. ___ 0._ 0. 0. 0. 0. __ 0. ____ 0.. __ 1_2 •. I~OIlAM_ .. __ . _._9 ___ 0. ____ 2 __ 4 __ 2_ ._~ ___ !L __ .. .Jl._._ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. .0 0. 0. 8 13:0U!"~ _______ 0 ____ 1 ____ 1 ____ 5 _____ 1 _._.J _0_. _.0 __ .-9 __ .....9._. ___ 0_ 0 Q... _. __ u u u ___ '!..._. __ "- :OOAM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -.--~--~-,.------_.----~----.-- 5:Q03M_. __ • __ 11.. __ .0 _____ 1 ___ .!l ___ 2 .. ____ 0.. _. _0. ___ .0.. .0. ___ .0.. ___ 0. ___ 0 __ 11... __ 0 ___ .J!..._ _Jl ___ Q.. __ .. 1.1.._ 6:00 AM 0 4 7 -10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 30 --.-------------.-----.--~----.--------.-------- r,o.o.~_. ___ ._Q __ .0._._11.._34 __ )0. __ .• Q... __ o. ___ .!1. ___ L. _ .o. __ .L __ o. •• __ o. _0.. __ L __ L ._o.._J~~_ 8:o.o._~ ___ . __ .Q... __ 2 __ 1.~_3~ ___ 25 •. __ 1_. __ o. __ .o. __ .• P ___ Q __ Q. __ o. __ . 0. 0... ___ 0 •.. _._ 2 _____ 0. __ 17 ~Q.OAM ____ ._Q ___ o. __ .l._..J.!l. ___ lQ... ___ O _____ o. ___ Q • __ 'O ____ Q.. ___ 0 ____ 2 ____ 0. 0 ___ 0 ___ 0_ .. _ 0.. _3L. 10:00. AM 0 0. 7 25 ~0.. __ 0 __ . 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0 .. __ o._. ___ o. ____ Q_~ 11:o.~ .• ___ 0 ___ -1 ___ 5 ___ :l.L __ 2.1. __ .!._._.L __ Q. __ .9 ___ 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. _o. ___ ._o. ___ .!L_ 12:0.0. PM 0 5 13 29 16 4 0. 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 67 ---.. -----_. ------'---- hllQ..~ ___ 0. 0. 15 34 17 0. 0. 0.._ . .Jl.__ 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. _Q. ___ 6§...... 1~:Po.~~ _ 0. 9 22 ___ ~2 ____ 12... ____ L _...Q.. __ o. _____ O __ 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 93 ~J10PM ________ o._ 1 23 ___ ~!1. __ 43 ___ L._IL __ o. ___ 0 ___ ..JL 0 0. 0. o. ____ Jl... ___ 9 __ ..!L ___ 168 .Jl!lJ'M 0. 0. 23 92 59. __ 1 ____ 0. __ <>. ___ 0. __ 2.... __ 0. __ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 175 ?:o.O PM_ •..• ___ 0. 0. 30. 123 47 __ 4 ___ 2... ___ .0.___ 0. 0. ....2_ _ 0. 0. _0.. ___ 0. 0. __ 0. __ !I!.L 16:00P~ 1 5 32 90. 32 2 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. __ 0. ___ 0_ ~ r:QOPM_ .... __ .9 ___ 1 ____ ~ ___ 1!_ .. ~._ } .. ___ 1 0. 0 0. _ .. .Jl.. ____ o. 0. _0. __ .• 0. ____ 0 ___ 0 __ .. 1.11.. 8:0.0 PM 1 2 17 42 16 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0 78 . ------.--.--~-----,------.-'---'-'-----------_._--------- 19:09 __ .['101_. o. .. _L_J2... ... _~ __ 19 .. ___ 2_. __ 0. ___ 0._ .• .0 0. 0. 0. .. __ .0___ 9. ___ 0.. ___ 0. __ ...Jl_ . ..1.5 .. _ 10:00 PM 0. 0 13 27 5 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0 45 -.-----~-.-.----------- 11:0.0. PM 0. 0. 9 22 11 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 42 otal II 2 II 31 1128311906114011120 II 5 II 0 II 0 0 II o II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 1,648 Percent 0_1% 1.9% 17.2% 55.0% 24.3% 1.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dally Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 22.8 mph 85th Percentile 25.9 mph 95th Percentile 28.2 mph Marl< Skaggs:425-250-0777 marl<.skaggs@idaxdata.ccm Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 10. mph Pace Percent in Pace 22.8 17.7 -27.7 86.7 mph mph % 12 -- - -- -- - -- -- - - - - --- Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i,l. Il~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Monday, March 17, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0·10 1110-151115-201120-251125-301130-351135-40 1/40-451145-501150-551155·601160-651165-701170-751175-80 1180-8511 85+ IIVolume ~~~M ____ .~ __ ~._~ __ ~_ ... _~ __ ._L~ __ ~_.~._.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 2:0.0. AM 0. 0. 4 2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7 --_. --------------. --- 3:o.o.l\M .. __ 9 __ . 'O __ J .... _1. __ .2_. ___ 0._ ... 0. . __ L_._L_ .JL._.o. __ ._o __ .12. __ 0. .. _O ___ O ___ ..Q.. ___ 'L_ :0.0. AM 0. 0. 3 15 10. 1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 29 -----------_._-------_. __ . --------_. '._-------------------- 5'-O'O_~ .. ____ 9. __ . ! . __ .12 ___ 48. _ . .1!L __ 3_ . .0 ___ 0.___0. __ 0 ___ ._0 __ .0 ___ L_Jl ___ .Il. ___ 0 ____ .0. _. _.~ 6:00At.iI__ 0. 3 24 88 __ ..E... __ 3 __ .o. 0. 0. .!l .. __ o._ .• 0. 0. 0. 0. O. ____ o. __ ~ 7:o.o. .... t.II_ . 9 .. _ .. _3 23 87 ~_. __ 8 __ . ..Q ___ o. __ .o._._o.. __ o. ___ 9 __ ._o. ____ o. __ ._..Q. __ 0. __ .Q._ 204_. 1 8:0.0. AM 0. 21 72 .~ __ ~ __ o._._ 0. 0. ___ 0. ___ .'1..._...2 __ ...2 ___ 0. ___ 0. 0 0 163 ~o._o..~t.II ______ O __ . 8 33 lL. __ ? __ ._.o._ .. __ o.. __ Q,. _.!l __ .o. __ ._.Jl ____ o. __ .1L 0. 0 0 _6j1_ 10:0o.~. ______ 0 __ ._0 11 20 .~. __ 6 __ 9 ___ 'O ___ 0 ____ 0 ____ 0 __ Q._ 0. 0 O_..Q._ .. Q.._....B 11:0L~_. ____ .0_. ___ 1L 11 ,;J.3_ ... n ___ 6 __ .o. ___ Q ___ O_. __ O ___ O __ L._ .. 0 ___ 0 __ .1L __ 9 ___ .L.-.1L.. 12:00 PM 0 6 28 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0. o o o o o 59 --------.----------~-----------------------------_.-- l:o.9J:'.M __ .• __ .0._._ ... J.. __ l_4 ___ ~ __ .. ~8 .. _.3 __ .Jl ___ o.._ 0 0 O ___ .L __ O_. __ O ___ . 0 0 0 ~3_ 2:00 PM 0 2 18 46 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 0. _ ._0 ____ 9...._. _0.... __ 0_ • __ 0 __ . 101 3:00 PM 0 1 17 39 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 97 ~~OOPM 0 3 8 4-7 34 7 0 ·--0----0---0--::::0'·· __ 0 ___ 0-_0_ 0 _Q._ 100 5:00PM .. __ 0. __ J. __ .1? ___ 40 25 3 .0 ___ .0 0 0 0 0 __ 0 ___ 0. .. _._O ___ lL._L. ~ 6:00P~ ___ ._Q._. __ 2 __ .~ ___ ~ . __ ~.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ 0 ___ 0 __ . __ .2-_0_. __ 9_ ~ UlO.,EM ___ ._0 ___ .1. ___ 10 __ . __ ~ __ .2?_. __ L __ .O __ .11.. ___ .0_. _ 0 __ 0 ..... 0._ . .JL. __ O __ .. Q. __ IL __ o._. _~_ 8:0.0. PM 0. 0. 5 34 17 7 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 63 , ._----_. ----------------------------_. --~-------- '9.io._ll.!'t.II_. .1 __ 4 __ 2.1. __ 13 ___ 1. 0 0. 0. 0. 0 ._IL._ 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 41 10.:0.0. PM 0. 0. 4 12 12 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 28 11 :0.0. PM 0. 0. 2 8 5 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 16 I!.otal II 1 II 21 II 235 II 762 II 604 II 79 II II 0 JI 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 1,703 Percent 0.1% 1.2% 13.8% 44.7% 35.5% 4.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0_0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daily Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 23.9 mph 85th Percentile 27.7 mph 95th Percentile 29.8 mph Mark Skaggs:425·250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Speed Statistics Mean (Avernge) Speed 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace 24 mph 18.8·28.8 82.6 mph % 13 -- -- - - -- - -- - - - --- - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i 11-1"\(( Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Tuesday, March 18, 2014 Eastbound II Speed Rang. (mph) II Total Time II 0-10 1110-151115-201120-251125-301130-351135-40 1140-451145-501\50 -551155-60 1\60-651\65-70 1170-751175-80 1\80-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:D9~ ____ ..2. __ 1.. __ .3 21 9 _..Q.. __ 0. ___ .2.. __ 0. ____ 0. ___ .0 ___ 0. ___ 0 0. 0. 0. ___ 0._ .24 __ I:DD_~. ... .._ P .. _D_. ___ ~_ .. Jl. ___ L. __ .0. ____ .0 ___ . 0._. _. D. ___ IL __ 0._ ._0. ___ 0._ .. L __ 0 ____ 0 ___ L._ .13 __ 2:0.0. AM _ . __ .2. 0. 2 0 0. 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 4 3:0.0. AM 0. 1 0. 5 1 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7 1;--·----_··· __ ·· .. ----.----.-.---. -.-._--..... ---.-... ---------.-.----.. --.------.- I".!:DDAM _____ 0 ___ .0... __ 2_. 3 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0. .Jl ___ D __ Q.. ___ D ___ O 0. 0. __ 5 5:0.0. AM 0. 0. 0 6 2 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 8 ,._------_ .. _._------_.-.-. .------_ .. __ .. __ ._--_. __ . __ ._._------.-.. -. ---.-------.. -.- ,6:0.0. AM . __ 0. __ . .1__ 3 8 14 ____ 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 ___ 0 0. 0. ._2?_ 1?:D9.~ __ . __ 0. .. __ . 1 ____ .6 .. _._21. ___ .~ ___ .2_ .. __ 0.._. 9. __ .o_ .. _.P___ .0 .. ~_. __ .o. __ 0. ._0_ ... __ 9_ 0_ .. _ ~ 18~DDAM_. _____ D ___ 5_ 16 32 21 3 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. ___ 0. ___ 0._ 0. 0. 0. 77 9:~DI\M __ . __ L __ . L. 1.0 __ . __ .~. __ ~_O ____ O __ ... _O ___ . .0 ___ 0. ____ .0._ ... 0. . .0 __ .9. __ .0_. ___ 0. .. _._0._._ .. ~._ !D~Q.O AM ___ . 0. 2 6 22 17 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. • ...P_. ___ D ____ O'_ 0. 48 It.Dq~ __ . _L __ . _2 __ lP ____ ~ 10. .1 ___ Q._ .. _.0 __ . _0. ____ 0.__ _0. ____ ~ ___ 0. ____ 0. __ .Q. __ Q __ 57 __ ~. ______ o __ 5_._ J __ ..E __ ~ __ Q. .. __ 0.. _ ~ _ ._ 2._ . .!J..... __ D ___ 0. __ 2. __ D_._0 ____ D __ D_.1. 64 t.D.9J'M 2 ___ 5 ___ 18 40. 16 3 0. 0. 0. 0. L ___ 0. ___ 0. __ 0. O ___ D __ .L_~_ I~:DD PM 0. 2 21 51 12 2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0. 88 ~:~~~~-----~ ~ : -~~-:~ -~~ ---~--+--~---~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~--~~ -~~~. 5:0.0. PM .!l 2 35 126 42 3 0. 0 0 0. ..!t_ 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. ~ 1 '6:0.0 f."!._ 0. 2 19 99 44 0 0. 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. ___ . ..2. ___ 0 ___ .Q. ___ D _ 164 r:o.o PM __ . __ • 0. ___ 7 __ 29___6? __ 19. __ 1 _____ 0. _.0 ___ ." " _____ .• 0. ___ 0. ___ .L ___ lL ___ .Q ___ 0. _ .. Q.. __ .!!4 8:0.0 p.~ ___ . 21 49 24 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. ___ .2. ___ 0._. __ 9r !!:90 PM 0.___ 0. 9 39 16 2 0. 0 0 JL 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. _ ~ 10.:0.0 PM 0. 2 7 20. 12 1 0 0. 0. ___ 0. __ ...2.. ___ ...2._ 0 0 0. 0. 43 11:0.0 PM 0. 0. 13 23 10. 3 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 49 ITotal II 6 II 53 II 310 II 926 II 389 1\ 26 1\ 2 II 2 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 1\ 0 1\ 1,714 Percent 0.4% 3.1% 18.1% 54.0% 22.7% 1.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dally Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 22.6 85th Percenlile 25.9 95th Percenlile Mark Skaggs:425-25o.-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 27.7 mph mph mph Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 10. mph Pace Percent in Pace 22.6 17.4 -27.4 85.4 mph mph % 14 - -- - -- -- - - ----.-- - - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 ill.ll~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Tuesday, March 18, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0-10 1110-151115-201120-251/25-301130-351/35-40 1140-451145-501/50-551/55-60 1160-651165-70 1170-751175-80 1180-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:0g~ ____ 0 ° _3 _____ 9 ___ 4 ___ .Q.._ 0 0 _0 __ 0 __ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 tOO AM 0 0 1 __ 1 __ o ____ o_~ ____ .9 ____ L __ .0 ___ 0 ____ 0 0 0 0 4 I!:~~:----~ -----~---~----1~7---}2--~-----~----~--*~~-=~i==_~ -~---~ =~~~t=t-= ~-~~- ----------------------5:00AM 0_ 8. __ §_0 ___ 20 ___ 4 _____ L __ 0 ___ -2 ____ 0 ___ O ___ O __ L ___ O ____ O _____ O ___ Q. ____ 8_3 __ 6:00AM ______ ° 2 10 82 66 6 O __ .Q.. ___ O _____ O _____ O' ____ O ____ O ___ L_~ ____ 0 __ ~ 7:00A!!L ______ Q ___ 1 __ l1_~ ____ .7L_~ ___ 0. ___ 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ !.I!L_ 1~:00A~ ____ 0 __ .Q ___ ~Q. __ R __ 65 2 0 0 ° 0 0 ° 0 0 ° 0 0 __ ~_ ~:00Al1A ___ O ___ !L 14 15 __ --1§. __ ~ ___ Q. __ ...Q _____ J! ____ L __ O _____ 0 ___ 2_ _ _IL _Q.. ___ 0 ____ 2 ____ 9.8 ___ _ 10:00AM ____ 2-__ 1. ___ l6 ___ 2~ ____ ~ __ ~ __ . ...1 ____ 0 ___ ~ ____ 0 __ O 0 0 0 ___ O ___ Jl ___ 0 80 11:QO_AM _____ JL __ 1. ___ 8.. __ 3~ __ 31 ___ £.. ___ 0 _____ 0 __ 0 ____ 9 __ 0 ___ 9 ___ 0 0 0 _.9 0...1?_ 112:00 PM ___ Q ___ 2 ___ 11_~_ 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ Jl.-__ O ___ Q.._ ~ 1:00PM l ___ L_JL ____ ~ _____ 39 .3 __ -'--__ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 __ 0 ____ 0 _0 ___ .J1. ____ 0_~ 2:00 PM 0 1 14 41 26 4 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 ---------------------------- 3:00 PM 0 3 12 47 34 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 ~-:OOPM--------6------3----15 -4~ __ 32_= 3 ~------o-----o--__ O_ 0---0--__ 2.._ ° --0 ---0--0 -__ 100- ~,OO~"L_ _0 ___ 3 ___ 1! ___ 35 __ 2.! ___ 6 ____ 0 ___ 0 __ 0 __ ..Q __ O ___ O ____ O. 0 0 0 0 __ J!!L_ 6:00 PM ° 3 16 47 35 5 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 0 0 0 ° 106 ----------------_.--- l~cqQ.!,ty! 0 2. __ ~ ___ 2L_~ __ 1 ___ 0 ____ L __ O ___ Jl ____ O __ ..Q __ 0 0 0 ° __ .9 __ . 74 _ 8:00PM 0 9 34 15 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° O ___ L __ Q.._.Jl __ .JL __ ~ ~:9Q.PM ______ O ____ 0 ____ L ___ 1.L_ Jl __ ~ ______ O. ___ JL _____ O ____ O __ Q.._ ° __ 0 __ .Jl __ 0 ° O~_ 10:00 PM 0 2 7 11 8 ° ° ° ° ° 0 0 0 0 ° ° 29 11:001-'M o o 4 4 8 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° o o o o ·otal II 2 II 29 1/ 251 II 792 II 616 II 67 II 5 II o II o II ° II o II o II o II o 1/ o II o II o Percent 0.1% 1.6% 14.2% 44.9% 35.0% 3_8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daily Percentile S,,-eed Summ"'Y_ 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 23.9 27.5 29.5 mph mph mph Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 23.8 mph 10 mph Pace 19.2 -29.2 mph Percent in Pace 81.5 % 16 II 1,762 15 - - -- - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i .1 •• '\~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Total Study Average Eastbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 -to 1110 -151115 -20 II 20 -251125 -30 II 30 -3511 35 -40 II 40 -451145 -50 II 50 -5511 55 -60 II 60 -6511 65 -70 II 70 -751175 -80 II 80 -8511 85 + IIVolume 12:0~AM _____ o ___ ~ ___ ~ ___ '4 ___ 5 ___ ~ __ 0 _....Q_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~_ ,:OOJlM _______ L __ Q __ .l __ . .!L __ ~ __ l __ _.9 ___ 0 0 O ___ Q_ 0 0 O' ___ L __ ~L_._ 0 ....ll 2:00~ _____ ~ ____ Q _____ 3_._7 ____ 2 __ ~ __ 0 ____ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 3:00AM 0 , 5 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1;-----------------.-----------------------.--------.-.. -------- E:OOAM 0 0 2 3 0 0 ___ .9__ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ___ 6_ i?:0Q..~ _____ .Jl ___ O __ ._J _____ 5 _____ L __ 0 ____ 0 0 ___ . _0. __ ._ l ___ O _____ !L __ ..2. ____ 0 0 0 ____ 0. ___ 9 ~OO AM __ __ 0 3 7 7 0 ...Q.. __ .Jl_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 7:00Al>1 _____ 0 _____ 0_. _6 ___ 2_3 ___ 1_0 __ .1. ____ 0 ____ .0 ___ 0 ___ 0 _____ 0 ____ 0 __ . _11. __ 0 _____ 0 ___ 0_. _0 ___ ~_ ~:O'O_AM 0 2 9 29 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~:00AM. _______ 0. ___ 1. 9 2~ . __ .11 ___ 1 ___ .a ___ 0 ___ 0 _ ..9_ 0 0 __ ..D _____ O' ___ Q ____ 0 __ .Jl ____ 4!._ 10:00~ 0 9 29 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ ..!! 0 52 nOOAM _____ 0. __ 1. __ 1_' ___ ~5 __ .J3 ___ .1. ____ (2. __ 0 ____ 0. __ 0. ____ 11._. ___ 0 ____ 0 __ 0 0 0 ___ 0 ____ 61._ 12:00 PM-. 0 4 12 40 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ___ 0 0 __ O ___ O_~ 1;O.Q1'M ______ 0 ____ L ___ '5 ___ ~ ___ 21 ___ .1.. __ .0 ____ 0 ____ 0 ____ O ___ O ___ Q 0 0 0 0 __ O __ I!L fOO PM 0 3 18 62 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 ,3:00 PM 1 2 20 82 40 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 ,------------------------_. ~ -----.--. ------------------~--.------------, ---- @~~~=~ .. _____ ~ ___ ~_;1 __ ,~~ __ ~ __ ! _____ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-.--~---%---~-~ 17~ 6:00 PM 0 3 24 85 37 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 154 LOOE~ _______ 0 ___ .3 ___ ~ __ .§1 __ ._?3 ____ 1__ 0 0 _.lL ___ 0 ___ 0 __ .iL ___ 0 __ ...1l ___ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 _____ 108 8:00PM 1 2 E-...J>3 ____ 2~ __ !... __ 0 ___ 0 __ ..Q. __ 0 0 a. _O ___ Q __ O ____ O __ Q ___ 99. 9.;.o.QJ'lL ______ 0 ____ , 15 40 14 1 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9_ ....1L 10:00PM ____ 0 ____ '_ 12 31 '0 1 0 ~ __ 0. ___ 2. __ ~ ___ ..Q_ 0 0. __ .Q.. 0 0 55_ 11:00PM 0' 10 20 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 Total II 2 II 35 II 282 II 890 II 380 II 25 II 1 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 1,615 Percent 0.1% 2.2% 17.5% 55.1% 23.5% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0'10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. Total Study Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 22.8 mph 26.2 mph 28.2 mph Total Study Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 22.8 mph 10 mph Pace 17.7 -27.7 mph Percent in Pace 85.9 % 16 -- - -- -- - Location: Date Range: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/1812014 Site Code: 01 Total Study Average Westbc Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com - - ------~-'-~ - DATA SOLUTIONS 17 ~ •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Renton Planning Division JUL 1 6 1014 Revised Transportation Impact Analysis RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK Prepared for: Barghausen Consulting Engineers~ Inc. April 2014 Prepared by: 'j/tranSpOGROUP 11730 118th Avenue NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 www.transpogroup.com 13175.00 © 2014 Transpo Group .--------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... II Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 1 Study Scope .................................................................................................... , ...................... 1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 1 Existing & Future Without·Project Conditions ........................................................................... 4 Roadway Network .................................................................................................................. 4 Planned Roadway Improvements .......................................................................................... 4 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................... 5 Traffic Operations .................................................................................................................. 8 Traffic Safety .......................................................................................................................... 9 Non-Motorized Facilities ..................................................................................................... , 10 Transit Service ..................................................................................................................... 10 Project Impacts ............................................................................................................... ~ ............ 11 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................... 11 Trip Distribution and Assignment ......................................................................................... 11 Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 15 Sight Distance ........................................ : ............................................................................. 16 Traffic/Pedestrian Safety ..................................................................................................... 17 Non-Motorized Facilities ...................................................................................................... 18 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Impact Fee ........................................................................................................................... 19 Sight Distance ...................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS Definitions Appendix C: LOS Worksheets Appendix D: Vehicle Speed Report Summary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Figures Site Vicinity ................................................................................................................... 2 Preliminary Site Plan .................................................................................................... 3 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 6 Future (2018) Without·Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................... 7 Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution ........................................................... 12 Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment... ........................................................ 13 Future (2018) With-Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................ 14 Available Sight Distance at Edmonds Ave SE/SE 16th Street·Edmonds Way SE. ... 17 Tables Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary ....................................................... 4 Existing and Future Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations ....................... 8 Existing and Future Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations ....................... 9 Study Intersection Collision Data Summary ................................................................ 9 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................. 10 Estimated Project Trip Generation ............................................................................. 11 'j{tranSpOGROUP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Executive Summary This section provides an executive summary through a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs). Where Is the orolect located and what would be develooed? The project is located on the Renton School District Plat located east of Tiffany Park Elementary School and south of Pierce Avenue SE. The site is near the intersection of Lake Youngs Way SE and Kirkland Avenue SE. Development would include the construction of 98 single-family residential dwelling units. What 'x/sting DUbUc streets will serve the project and whers Is access proposed? The primary streets that will serve project traffic include 116th Avenue SE, 126th Avenue SE, SE 168th Street, SE Petrovitsky Road, S Puget Drive, and 108th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. Access is proposed via two existing roadways: SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE. Is the site cu"entlvserved bvoublic transit? The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within the study area. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 123rd Avenue SE, each near the project access points. How manv dailv vehicular trips would the protect generate and when would peak traffic volumes occur? The project would generate approximately 1,030 daily vehicular trips. Estimated traffic volumes during the weekday AM peak hour (one-hour period between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.) would amount to 78 vehicle trips with 20 entering and 58 exiting. During the PM peak hour (one-hour period between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), the project would generate 103 vehicle trips with 65 entering and 38 exiting. What transportation Impacts are anticipated. If anv? In 2018, the intersection of Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive is estimated to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under both without-and with-project conditions. The addition of AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to this intersection. The remaining study intersections will operate at LOS D or better with or without project traffic during both weekday peak hours. Limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street due to the roadway geometrics and existing obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). This limitation could create a potential traffic safety impact with increases in traffic on SE 18th Street attributable to the proposed project. What measures are proposed to reduce or control traffic Impacts? Potential traffic safety impacts for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street could be mitigated by installing a stop sign and stop bar on Monroe Avenue SE at the intersection and/or restricting on-street parking along the north side of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE to prevent vehicles from obstructing available sight distance. ~{t(anSpOGROUP ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Introduction April 2014 The purpose of this transportation impact analysis (TIA) is to identify potential traffic-related impacts associated with the proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park residential development in the City of Renton. As necessary, mitigation measures are identified that would offset or reduce significant impacts. Project Description The project is a subdivision of single-family homes which would be located on surplus Renton School District property within the City of Renton. The project site is currently undeveloped and located east of Tiffany Park Elementary School and south of Pierce Avenue SE with access proposed via SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE. The project includes the construction of 98 single-family dwelling units. Figure 1 illustrates the project site and the surrounding vicinity. A preliminary site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. The project is anticipated to be constructed, units occupied and generating traffic by 2018. Study Scope This study evaluates existing and future 2018 weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection operations in the area surrounding the proposed development. The study area focuses on intersections near the site, as well as along 126th Avenue SE, 116th Avenue SE, S Puget Drive and Benson Road S. Study Area The analysis focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hour (between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) operations at thirteen existing study intersections. These periods represent the highest cumulative total traffic for the adjacent street system providing a conservative timeframe for level of service (LOS) analysis. The study intersections include (see Figure 1): 1. Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive 2. Benson Road SIS Puget Drive 3. Royal Hills Drive SE/S Puget Drive 4. 116th Avenue SE/SE 160th Street 5. 116th Avenue SE/SE 168th Street 6. 116th Avenue SEiSE Petrovitsky Road 7. Lake Youngs Way SEiSE 18th Street 8. Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way SE 9. Kirkland Avenue SE/SE 158th Street 10. 126th Avenue SE/SE 160th Street 11. 126th Avenue SE/SE 168th Street 12. 124th Place SE/SE 158th Street 13. Edmonds Avenue SEiSE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE The TIA describes conditions in the site vicinity including roadway network, existing and future (2018) weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, non-motorized facilities, and transit. The future conditions with the project are evaluated by adding site-generated traffic to future baseline traffic volumes. Analysis of future conditions addresses cumulative impacts of the proposed project and traffic growth in the study area. Site-generated impacts are identified based on differences between with-and without-project conditions. 'j{tranSpOGROUP Page 1 ------------------- ~ I I lYE .. N o NOTTO SCALE • = STUDY INTERSECTION Site Vicinity FIGURE Reserve at Tiffany Pari< Q:IProjectsl13113175.00 -Ren10n ~ Slie-Henley Reskientlal1Graphlcsl13175-9raphk:02 -10-25;1013 <F1> jesseb IJ.W3/14 16:06 ~/tranSpOGROUP 1 - - --- . \ , \ ... - I _~ .... -~-~ .... -'"'\ \ \ \~"',' . \ \ ,,,I' ,~ , C\:-...... ~ .- .... ~.¥:. . .Y( \ .~.;:. ''';'' 't - --- - - -- - - - - \ \. " \" "'" ' ''''... '< J I \. ).. ".... / I \ ,", '~",., ' , '" ""'----'--'"'--"-. .i. ' , , , ""-" \ , '''' ....... "'.. -"< " I _'"' __ " , " " I " r r--, , ',,~, " , , • , '" '" ',--, , ',r, '",-~""""."."'," "~I 'v, ,I I .. ',....' ~I ; "-, _ ..... ~'"" , V ! , '1--, • I, :', '"'''''' r"",., y .. J , • \J. .. .... I ) r~ , " "" "" ,. .:, '" 1 ,/ /; . " : :: i " '-" ,,-'... '" • I"~ ~..... I " " , , , <, , " , ",< '" \ '.>-----, r----J, ,;, ( ...... ./. '" I ~~ .• ~, ( , --', ',' A '< , '.' .. , " , It \." X \ \ .A_, "" ....... , ' .. • , A . \ \ "(1. ",_ '\ '" " ... '" "< )" " , " ,~" -' ',-<' A '( ...:>, ',-' h----.,..<"~, __ '\, ~ <), '\ ",", , -4i... ...... :"< I-\:S, , '" , .. '<y' 'v' ~, ~~"'_ ......... if \ '\ \ .... "" '\" _.... "/,, • I , ..... "'" "'''''' '.J;;.---__ \,/ " '., -< ) • '", \, '\ ).. Y', • "'~". , '-"--",/ '>--(' -"-i. 0'''' '#<t' --'-y' " "" ~. i ..... , , \, ~ . ......... I \ I 9"; ...... .i... \' ... . / ......... \ I ;__ .....,......... ...... J1 ... -I, ............ :.. ... ././ :. L , , ---~ ........... : ..... -/ £ ~ ... --... ~.s~-, \ .. { I J ,.. \ ~ I /'/ )-.,rL ~~_/' ... _ ... -,-_ ... -.-'" --:----~ ---r - --._ ' __ --~ til i f r t I r , , Preliminary Site Plan Reserve at Tiffany Park . , '...-............ , , \\sr'Mlfs-waIMMyrojeclslProjects\13\13175.1lO -Ren10n School S_nley Res~enllanGraphics\13175.J1raphk:03 -4-16-2014 <F2> s1ephanieg 04/17114 11 ~9 'i/tranSpOGROUP - - ~ NOTTOSCALE FIGURE 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Existing & Future Without-Project Conditions This section describes existing and future without-project conditions within the identified study area. Characteristics are provided for the roadway network, existing traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, non-motorized facilities, and transit service. Roadway Network The existing roadway characteristics in the proposed project vicinity are described in Table 1. In addition to these roadway features, Traffic calming speed bumps are installed along 126th Avenue SE, SE 160th Street and SE 164th Street. Table 1. Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary Roadway Posted Number of Bicycle Roadwa~ Classification Speed limit Travel Lanes Parl<lng? Sidewalks? Facilltle.? SE Pelrovitsky Rd Principal Arterial 35 mph 4 No Ves No Benson Dr S (SR 515) Principal Arterial 35 mph 4 No Ves No SE 1681h SI Collector Arterial 30 mph 2 Ves Ves No 1161h Ave SE-Edmonds Ave SE Minor Arterial 30 mph 2 No Ves No 1281h Ave SE Minor Arterial 25 mph 2 No Ves No Benson Rd 5·1 Oath Ave SE Minor Arterial 40 mph 4 No Ves No S Pugel Dr Minor Arterial 35 mph 4 No Ves No 123rd Ave SE Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Ves Ves No Kirkland Ave SE Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Ves Ves No Lake Voungs Way SE Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Ves Ves No Royal Hills Dr SE Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Ves Ves No SE 1581h SI Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Ves Ves No SE 160lh SI Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Ves Ves No SE 1641h SI Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Ves Ves No SE 161h SI Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Ves Ves No Edmonds Way SE Local Access Road 25 mph 2 Ves No No Note: mph = miles per hour Planned Roadway Improvements Based on a review of the City of Renton's proposed Six-Year (2014-2019) Transportation Improvement Program, 116th Avenue SE is planned to be improved to provide a 3-lane roadway with bike lanes from Puget Drive SE to the south City Limits and is expected to be completed in 2019. Phase 1 which will improve the corridor from SE 168th Street to SE Petrovitsky Road is expected to be completed in 2017. These improvements are expected to enhance vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety along the corridor but would not increase intersection capacity and therefore, these improvements were not included in the evaluation of future conditions. 'i{tranSpOGROUP Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Traffic Volumes This transportation analysis focuses on the weekday AM and PM peak hours when the combination of project traffic and background traffic volumes on the surrounding street system are highest to capture a relative worst case condition. Existing weekday AM and PM peak period (7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) turning movement counts at all but two study intersections were conducted in late June 2013 with detailed intersection traffic count worksheets provided in Appendix A. Because the intersection counts were conducted during Tiffany Park Elementary School's summer break, traffic normally generated by the school was not present in the existing traffic count volumes. To more appropriately reflect typical weekday conditions, school traffic generated by Tiffany Park Elementary School was added to existing count volumes based on the current student enrollment of the school and average trip rates published in Trip Generation (ITE, 9th Edition) and distributed throughout the study area based on the Renton School District elementary school boundary map and the approximate distribution of homes within the school's boundary. This resulted in approximately 30 percent of the school traffic distributed tolfrom the immediate area, 5 percent to/from the neighborhoods directly north, 5 percent to/from the west, and 60 percent tolfrdm the SR 169 corridor. The resulting existing condition (with school traffic) turning movement volumes are summarized in Figure 3. Existing traffic volumes at the Royal Hills Drive SEiS Puget Drive and Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street- Edmonds Way SE intersections were collected in April 2014 when public schools were in session. Future without-project traffic volumes were estimated by growing existing traffic volumes by two percent per year to 2018 conditions. Figure 4 illustrates 2018 without-project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. ~ftranSpOGROUP Page 5 --- 5 PUGET DR (380) 1,565 (2O)j 1 e'oo ) (80) 40 J \. 365 (855) (5)15--5(5) (5)5, (20(30) (JIC(5) 80 (1,805) 8 "6THAVE5E ~ SE 160THST (75) 240 1 L(5) \.20 (35) (15) 35(80) 1 '0 ('0) (70)35~"" (5(5) 5 (5) 5 (10) (80) 55 (lJ 1 (5)15 J (10)25, (25)) 1 SO (70) - - ---- --------- • BENSON RD S • ROYAl HILLS. OR SE I Note: Tram: volumes alhlersectilns #1 -#2 and #4 -#12 were collected the week of 5 PUGET DR S PUGH DR June 24. 2013 and Increased to rellectcooollkms when pubIC schools are" sesskm. (70)- 525 (30) 5 \ 270 (30) .) \\... \.12O(2SO) J -200(475) (10) 25 (45 (10) (55)480- (5)420, \,' \ (380)150 \ 45(10) 145 (515) 116THAVE 5E 5E 168TH 5T (85) 175 (15Jle (10) 35 J \. 15 (25) (35)310 --125(225) (25) 430 , (90 (55) (0) 0 (45) 15 (80) 15 5 (20) (15)5)\\..;~15(10 (10) 5~ ",~15(10) (15) 10 SO (15) 35 (45) 0 (0) 126TH AVE 5E 5E 168TH 5T (5) 5 (40)51 e (10)80 J \.5(0) (40) 245 --lOS (120) (5)30, (5(5) (20)JI C) 5 (95)380 , (465)J 1 SO (20) 116THAVE 5E 5E PETROVITSKY RD (95) 325 (SO)j il:(3O) (70)185 J \. 140 (220) (255) 995 - -555 (995) (15)80, (SO (10) I---\-L-.. (45)) 1 C(5) 145 (235) • KIRKLAND AVE 5E 5E 158TH 5T (55) 80 Ir(25) \. 15 (SO) (5(5) (0)0 (O)o.)J (25)30_ C(5) 0(0) l \0(0) -20(45) 16TH (lOS) 2SO (2)(30) 1 15 145 II. 85(155) I _ .. "'('-'''17'-" I I ~V'/3O(2O) l I ,< 3(0) 1(0) (7) 0(1) .. N x = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR - ...{ Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 3 ReseNe at Tiffany Park Q:lProjeds113113175,OO -Renton School 51te-1ienley Resilentlal.Graphk:s113175-9raphIc03 -4-16-2014 <f3> jesseb 04118/14 16:08 7/tranSpOGROUP -- - 8 BENSON DRS S PUGETDR (420) 1.730 (20) j Il: (110) (90)45 ) I.. 405 (945) (5)15--5(5) (5)5, (20(35) (J1C(5) (1,995) • "6TH AVE SE ~ SE 160TH ST (85) 2ti5 Ie) 1..20 (40) (15(15) le(15) (215) • lAKE YOUNGS WAY SE SE 18THST 40(65) 1 '0 ('0) (75)40~'" (5(5) 5(5) 5(10) • 126TH AVE SE SE 160TH ST (65) 60 (ljl (5)15 ) (10)30 , (30)) I 55 (75) --- 8 BENSONRDS SPUGETDR (75) 580 (35)5 ~ 300 (35) j '-1..,30(275) (10)30) -220(525) (60)530-(50(10) (5)465, ," (395) 165 \ 50 (10) 160 (570) • "6TH AVE SE SE 168THST (95) 195 (15)J I C5 ) (10)40 ) I.. 15 (30) (40)340 --140(250) (30)475, (100(60) (370)) I C (35) 25 (145) • K1RKlAND AVE SE • lAKE YOUNGS WAY SE (0) 0 (45)15 (60)15 5 (20) (15)5~'-"~15(10 (10)5~",~15(10) (15)10 50 (IS) 35 (45) 0 (0) • 126TH AVE SE SE 168THST (5) 5 (45)jle (10)65), 1..5 (45)270 --115 (130) (5)35, (5(5) (2O)J I Cs) 5 (0) - - • ROYAL HillS DR SE S PUGETDR (45) 40 (140)j I (25)135 ) (105)410, (505)d I 55 (20) • 116TH AVE SE • SE PETROVrrSKY RD (105) 360 - (55) j IL: (35) (75)1110 ) I.. 155 (245) (280)1,100 --615(1,100) (15) 90 , (55 (10) (50))1 C(5) (260) _ KIRKlAND AVE SE VSEI58THST (60) 65 I C3O) I.. 15(55) (5(5) I C(5) 55 (85) - - - o ~ ~ 0 -< m :< -< ,. :< ~ ~ '" m m '" I I ~ I m - - SE 164TH ST " m z ::; z m I ~ ,. < " m ~ '" m '" SE 168' m • 124THPlSE SE 158THST fll • EDMONDS AVE SE SE16THSHDMONDSWAYSE 1-1 -+-r-- (115) (O)o.)(j (30)35_ 0(0) l to (0) -20(50) 270 (2)(30) 1 15 155 II.. 90(170) ~L '..: 30 (20) ~3(0) ~'(O) I (('O(~r 55 1 190 (15)(0) (340) SEPE' - - '" m "" L.. W -< I ,. < m '" m --.. N 112ND ST ~ x = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR - ....1 Future (2018) Without-Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 4 Reserve at Tiffany Park Q:\Projec1s\13\13175.QO· Renlon School Sl1e-Henley Res~en1la~Graphlcs\13175-1lraphlc03· 4-16-2014 <F4> slephani!g 04/17/1417:06 7/tranSpOGROUP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Traffic Operations April 2014 The operational characteristics of an intersection are evaluated by determining the intersection's level of service (LOS). The intersection as a whole, and its individual tuming movements, can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (LOS A to F). LOS A indicates free-flow traffic and LOS F indicates 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 delay is defined as the combination of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. At two-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is measured in average stopped delay per vehicles for the worst movement of the intersection. A more detailed explanation of LOS is provided in Appendix B. Existing and future without-project LOS and delays were calculated at study intersections based on the methods contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The software program Synchro 8 was used to evaluate intersection operations. Table 2 and Table 3 show the weekday AM and PM peak hour existing and 2018 without-project operations, respectively. Detailed intersection LOS worksheets are contained in Appendix C. Table 2. Existing and Future Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Existing 2018 Without-ProJect Traffic VIC' or VlCor Intersection Control LOSt Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM 1. Benson Dr SIS Puget Dr Signal D 50.7 1.00 E 76.5 1.08 2. Benson Rd SIS Puget Dr Signal C 31.9 0.70 D 35.7 0.77 3. Royal Hills Dr SEIS Puget Dr Side-Street Stop A 10.0 SB B 11.0 SB 4. 1 16th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side-Street Stop B 10.3 WB B 10.6 WB 5.1 16th Ave SEiSE 168th St Signal B 15.9 0.84 C 20.3 0.86 6. I 16th Ave SE/SE Petrovitsky Rd Signal C 23.9 0.75 C 27.3 0.81 7. Lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th St Side-Street Stop A 9.4 WB A 9.5 WB 8. Kirkland Ave SEiLake Youngs Way SE Side-Street Stop A 9.6 NB A 9.7 NB 9. Kirkland Ave SEiSE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 9.0 WB A 9.1 WB 10. 126th Ave SE/SE 160lh SI Side·Street Stop A 9. I EB A 9.2 EB 11. 126th Ave SE/SE t68th SI Side-Street Stop B 10.6 NB B 10.8 NB 12. 124th Place SEiSE 158th SI Side-Street Stop A 0.0 SB A 0.0 SB 13. Edmonds Ave SEISE 16th 5t-Edmonds Side-Street Stop B 12.6 SWB B 13.3 SWB WaySE I. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRB. 2000) 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratio reported for signalized Intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled Intersections. NB = northbound approach; S8 = southbound approach; EB = eastbound approach; WB = westbound aE!proach; SWB :;;; southwestbound a~proach. All study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours for existing conditions. With growth in traffic volumes by 2018, all study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better for both AM and PM peak hours. The one exception being Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive intersection which changes from LOS D under existing conditions to LOS E under 2018 traffic volumes for the AM peak hour. 7JftranSpOGROUP Page 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Table 3. Existing and Future Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Existing 2018 Without-Project Traffic V/C3 or ViC or Intersection Control LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM 1. Benson Dr SIS Puget Dr Signal C 28.9 0.71 0 39.5 0.79 2. Benson Road SIS Puget Dr Signal 0 39.3 0.81 0 48.7 0.88 3. Royal Hills Dr SEiS Puget Dr Side-Street Stop A 5.6 SB A 6.4 SB 4. 116th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side-Street Stop B 11.2 WB B 11.6 WB 5. 116th Ave SE/SE 168th St Signal B 19.2 0.60 B 19.8 0.67 6. 116th Ave SEiSE Petrovitsky Rd Signal 0 38.1 0.89 0 43.8 0.99 7. Lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th St Side-Street Stop A 8.8 WB A 8.9 WB 8. Kirkland Ave SEILake Youngs Way SE Side-Street Stop A 9.2 NB A 9.3 NB 9. Kirkland Ave SEiSE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 8.9 WB A 9.0 WB 10. 126th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side-Street Stop A 9.3 EB A 9.3 EB 11. 126th Ave SEiSE 168th St Side-Street Stop B 13.3 NB B 14.1 NB 12. 124th Place SE/SE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 0.0 SB A 0.0 SB 13. Edmonds Ave SE/SE 16th St-Edmonds Side-Street Stop B 12.8 SWB B 13.4 SWB WaySE 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRB, 2000) 2. Average delay per vehide in seconds. 3. Volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled intersections. NB = northbound approach: S8 = southbound approach; EB = eastbound approach; we = westbound approach; SWB = southwestbound approach. Traffic Safety Collision records at the study intersections were reviewed to identify if any patterns would highlight any existing traffic safety issues. The most recent three-year period of complete collision data provided by the WSDOT is for January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. Table 4 summarizes the average annual reported collisions and three-year collision rate for each study intersection per million entering vehicles. Table 4. Study Intersection Collision Data Summary Total by Year Annual Collisions Intersection 2010 2011 2012 Average perMEV1 1. Benson Dr SIS Puget Dr 9 13 19 13.67 0.96 2. Benson Rd SIS Puget Dr 6 5 3 4.67 0.53 3. Royal Hills Dr SEiS Puget Dr 0 0 0 0 0 4. 116th Ave SEiSE 160th St 2 0 0 0.67 0.34 5. 116th Ave SE/SE 168th St 2 2 2 2.00 0.33 6. 116th Ave SE/SE Petrovitsky Rd 7 8 7 7.33 0.68 7. Lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th St 0 0 0 0 0 8. Kirkland Ave SEILake Youngs Way SE 0 0 0 0 0 9. Kirkland Ave SEiSE 158th St 0 0 0 0 0 10. 126th Ave SE/SE 160th St 0 0 0 0 0 11. 126th Ave SE/SE 168th St 0 0 0.33 0.17 12. 124th Place SEiSE 158th St 0 0 0 0 0 13. Edmonds Ave SEiSE 16th St-Edmonds 0 0 0.33 0.12 WaySE 1. MEV = Million entering vehides. 'i{tranSpOGROUP Page 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 No fatalities have occurred at the study intersections in the past three years. An intersection with a collision rate greater than 1.00 typically indicates that further investigation is needed to determine if an adverse condition exists. As shown in Table 4, all study intersections have a collision rate less than 1.00. Non-Motorized Facilities The site is located in a single-family residential area southeast of downtown Renton. Pedestrian facilities near the site include sidewalks along both sides of Lake Youngs Way SE, Kirkland Avenue, and the majority of roadways in the project vicinity. In addition, sidewalks are provided intermittently along 116th Avenue SE, Benson Road S, Benson Drive S, S Puget Drive, and 126th Avenue SE. Crosswalks are provided at the signalized study intersections, along SE 168th Street, and intermittently along 116th Avenue SE. There are no dedicated bike facilities in the area but bicycles typically share the roadway with vehicles. Transit Service The project site is located in close proximity to transit served by King County Metro Routes 102 and 148. Route 148 travels nearest the project site with stops along Lake Youngs Way SE, Kirkland Avenue SE, and 123rd Avenue SE with the remaining routes servicing other corridors within the study area. These routes provide regional service, connecting to Downtown Seattle, the Renton Transit Center and Tukwila. Route characteristics are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. Existing Transit Service Approximate AM Peak PM Peak Headways Weekday Period Trips Period Trips (minutes) Routes Area Served Operating Hours 102 Renton -Fairwood 4:45 AM -6:45 PM 6 PM only-1510 30 148 Fairwood-Renton/Oowntown 5:45 AM -9:30 PM 4 3 30 Seattle Source: Kina Coun~ Metro ~October 2013). '1{tranSpOGROUP Page 10 ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Project Impacts April 2014 This section of the report documents potential transportation impacts generated by the proposed project on the surrounding street network and at study intersections. First, estimated traffic volumes generated by the proposed site are distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system. Next, project trips are added to future without-project traffic volumes and any potential impacts to traffic operations, safety, and non-motorized facilities are identified. Trip Generation Trip generation was calculated based on the trip regression equation for a single-family detached housing (LU #210) from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Table 5 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed project. The proposed project would generate approximately 1,030 daily trips with 78 trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 103 trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Table 6. Estimated Project Trip Generation Project Trips 1 Single-Family Detached Housing (LU #210) Size In Out Total Daily Trips 98 units 515 515 1.030 Weekday AM Trips 98 units 20 58 78 Weekday PM Trips 98 units 65 38 103 1. Based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook (2;:; Edition) procedures, trip regressIon equations were used from ITE Trip Generation (9 th Edition). Trip Distribution and Assignment Vehicular trip distribution for this project is based on existing travel patterns in the study area and previous traffic studies in the area. Figure 5 illustrates the project trip distribution during the AM and PM peak periods. As shown on the figure, 60 percent of weekday site traffic is anticipated to travel to/from 1-405 or downtown Renton via Talbot Road S, 30 percent toifrom SR-167 via SE Carr Road-SE 176th Street, 5 percent to/from the south, and 5 percent to/from the east. Of the 60 percent travelling to/from 1-405 or downtown Renton, 50 percent was distributed to SE 16th Street via Glenwood Avenue SE, Ferndale Avenue SE, Beacon Way S, or Lake Youngs Way SE, with the remaining 10 percent assigned along Lake Youngs Way SE to Royal Hills Drive SE. Project trips for the study period were assigned to the study intersections based on the travel patterns. The resulting trip assignment is shown on Figure 6. The project trips were added to the Future 2018 without-project traffic volumes to form the basis of the traffic impact analysis. Figure 7 shows the 2018 with-project traffic volumes at the study intersections. ~ft(anSpOGROUP Page 11 1 -------------------.. N NOT TO SCALE @ = PERCENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION o = STUDY INTERSECTION I Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution FIGURE ----_. Reserve at IIrrany l-'arK Q:\Projects\13\1317S.00 -Renlon School Sfte-Heniey Res~en1la~Graphk:s\13175..9raphIc02 -10-25-2013 <F5> jesseb 04103114 16:13 'i/tranSpOGROUP 5 - - 8 BENSON DRS S PUGETDR - 39(12) l O 116THAVE SE , SE 160TH ST r \..23(35) (8(13) 15 (5) • LAKE YOUNGS WAY SE SE 18TH ST (6(2) /,r-(4(6) 38(11) 21(32) • 128TH AVE SE SE 160TH ST (r (13)81 . J (5)15) 1 (2) - - - -- • BENSON RD S 18 ROYAl HilS OR SE S PUGET OR S PUGET OR (6)4 -23(35) I (2)6) J (12)39- 8 116THAVESE SE 168TH ST (13) i (5(7) IG) 15 (5) • KIRKlAND AVE SE • LAKE YOUNGS WAY SE 19(29) 1 2 (3) (10)33 ") (29)J 8 116THAVESE • SE PETROVITSKY RD (20)13 (7)23) J _ KIRKlANDAVESE VSEl58THST (3) I - (10)33/ (5(1) (11 (17) Ir . • 128TH AVE SE SE 168TH ST (7)5 (2)8}J 18 (6) 5 (1) a 124THPLSE WSEl58THST (17)11 (6)18 JJ 2(3) l 1..3 (1) - Weekday Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment Reserve at Tiffany Park Q:\ProjedsI13113175.QO· Renton School Sle-HenJey ResiJentlal\Gr.lpIli:s113175.$<lPhIc03: 4-16-2014 <Fa> stephanleg 04/17/14 17~7 - - ~ ~ :t :t ~ ~ m m <n <n m m 33(10) I., 19(29) V - - SE 164TH ST '" ;;; m z =< ~ z :r :r m > ~ '" < (") m m '" <n <n > m < m r SE 168 m -- - -.. N - NOTTOSCALE lt2ND ST LEGEND X = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR ....( FIGURE 7/transpoGROUP 6 -- -- - - -- - - -- - - o BENSON DRS eBENSONRDS • ROYAl HUS DR SE S PUGETDR S PUGETDR SPUGETDR (420) (75) (45) 1.730 580 40 (20) j Il: (122) (35)5 ~ 300 (35) (146)j I ) \.. ~ 130(275) (90)45 ) ~ 428 (980) (10)30) -243(560) (27) 141 ) (5)15--5(5) (50(10) (5)5, (20(35) (72)569-(115)443, (J1C(5) (5)485, \\' (534);:) I (395)165 50 (10) 160 55 (1,995) (570) (20) 8116THAVESE 8116THAVESE 8116THAVESE , SE 160TH ST SE 168THST SE PETROVITSKY RD (65) (108) (105) 265 203 360 Ie) ~20(40) (15)Jle) (10)40) ~ 15(30) (75)j 1l:(35) (82)203 ) ~ 155 (245) (40)340--140(250) (280)1,100 --615(1,100) (23 (28) (30)475 , (105 (67) (15)90 , (55 (10) lC(20) (370)J lC (37) (50)) I C(5) 160 (215) (150) (260) SE 164TH ST • LAKE YOUNGS WAY SE • KIRKlAND AVE SE • KIRKLAND AVE SE " m SE 18TH ST • LAKE YOUNGS WAY SE SE 158THST z ::; z (63) m I ~ l> 67 < (0)0 (45)15 (60)15 24 (49) I e30 ) " m 40(65) " U> 1 16 (12) (15)5)\ V~17 (13) m ~ 15(55) U> SE 158 ,; m (10)5~",~20(11) ~ ~" (9(11) (16(22) I I le(ll) ~ ~ (75)40 43 (16) 26 (42) (25)43 50 (15) 35 (45) 0 (0) U> m U> m m U> 60 m (86) 8126THAVESE .126THAVESE 8124THPLSE • EDMONDS AVE SE SE 160THST SE 168TH ST SE 158TH ST SE 16TH ST-EDMONDS WAY SE (72) (5) (115) 65 5 270 (2)(40) (23)J I (52)j I e (17)11 2(3) 1 15186 .J l l.!-109 (199) (6)18J 30(20) (10)30 ) (12)73) ~5 (.J(I) ~3(0) (45)270--115(130) (30)35_ -20(50) (10)30 , (5)35") (5(5) (1 (0) (30)) I (20)1 I G) I (r~5(7) r 0(1) 55 1 63 5 190 (15)(0) (77) (340) Future (2018) With-Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Reserve at Tiffany Park Q:lProjec1s113113175.oo -Renlon ScOOoI Ste4ienley Res~enIlallGraphk:s113175-9raphIo03 -4-16-2014 <F7> stephanleg 04117114 17:11 -- I~ ;;; -< I » < m U> m - - • N x = PM PEAK HOUR (X) = AM PEAK HOUR - ....( FIGURE 7/tranSpOGROUP 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Traffic Operations April 2014 Future 2018 with-project study intersection operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Intersection LOS was calculated using the method described previously. The without-project conditions are compared to the with-project conditions to understand the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project. Table 7 and Table 8 summarize the 2018 without and with-project intersection operations for the weekday AM and PM Peak hours, respectively. LOS worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 7. Future Weekdall: AM Peak Hour Intersection 0eerations 2018 Without-Project 2018 With-Project Traffic VIC' or VIC or Intersection Control LOS1 Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM 1. Benson Dr SIS Puget Dr Signal E 76.5 1.08 E 79.3 1.10 2. Benson Rd SIS Puget Dr Signal 0 35.7 0.77 0 39.3 0.79 3. Royal Hills Dr SE/S Puget Dr Side-Street Stop B 11.0 SB B 12.1 SB 4. 116th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side-Street Stop B 10.6 WB B 11.0 WB 5. 116th Ave SEiSE 168th St Signal C 20.3 0.86 , C 20.1 0.86 6. 116th Ave SE/SE Petrovitsky Rd Signal C 27.3 0.81 C 27.5 0.82 7. Lake Youngs Way SE/SE 18th St Side-Street Stop A 9.5 WB B 10.1 WB 8. Kirkland Ave SE/Lake Youngs Way SE Side~Street Stop A 9.7 NB B 10.1 NB 9. Kirkland Ave SEISE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 9.1 WB A 9.5 WB 10. 126th Ave SEiSE 160th St Side-Street Stop A 9.2 EB A 9.6 EB 11. 126th Ave SEISE 168th St Side-Street Stop B 10.8 NB B 11.0 NB 12. 124th Place SEISE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 0.0 SB A 8.7 SB 13. Edmonds Ave SEISE 16th St-Edmonds Side-Street Stop B 13.3 SWB B 13.8 SWB WaySE 1. LOS 8S defined by the HeM (TRB. 2000) 2. Average delay per vehicle In seconds. 3. Volume-to-capaclty (VIC) ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled intersections. NB = northbound approach; SB = southbound approach; EB = eastbound approach; WB = westbound approach; SWB = southwestbound approach. With the proposed project, all of the study intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the Benson Drive SIS Puget Drive intersection which operates as LOS E both without-and with-project traffic during the AM peak hour. At this intersection the addition of project generated traffic is estimated to increase average delay by approximately 5 seconds during the weekday AM peak hour. 'j{tranSpOGROUP Page 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park. April 2014 Table 8. future Weekda:t PM Peak Hour Intersection 0eerations 2018 Wlthout-Project 20t 8 Wlth-Project Traffic VIC' or VIC or Intersection Control LOS' Delay' WM' LOS Delay WM 1. Benson Dr SIS Puget Dr Signal 0 39.5 0.79 0 40.7 0.79 2. Benson Rd SIS Puget Dr Signal 0 4B.7 O.BB 0 54.3 0.91 3. Royal Hills Dr SEiS Puget Dr Side-Street Stop A 5.4 SB A 5.3 EBISB' 4. 115th Ave SEiSE 150th St Side-Street Stop B 11.5 WB B 12.3 WB 5. 115th Ave SEiSE 15Bth St Signal B 19.B 0.57 C 20.4 0.5B 5. 115th Ave SEiSE Petrovitsky Rd Signal 0 43.B 0.99 0 44.5 1.00 7. Lake Youngs Way SEiSE 18th St Side-Street Stop A 8.9 WB A 9.4 WB B. Kirkland Ave SEILake Youngs Way SE Side-Street Stop A 9.3 NB A 9.5 NB 9. Kirkland Ave SEiSE 158th St Side-Street Stop A 9.0 WB A 9.5 WB 10. 125th Ave SEiSE 150th St Side-Street Stop A 9.3 EB A 9.B EB 11. 125th Ave SEISE 158th St Side-Street Stop B 14.1 NB B 14.4 NB 12. 124th Place SEiSE 15Bth St Side-Street Stop A 0.0 SB A 8.5 SB 13. Edmonds Ave SEiSE 15th St-Edmonds Side-Street Stop B 13.4 SWB B 14.0 SWB WaySE 1. LOS as defined by the HeM (TRS, 2000) 2. Average delay per vehide In seconds. 3. Volume-to-capaclty (VIC) ratio reported for signalized intersections. 4. Worst movement (WM) reported for side-street stop controlled intersections. NB = northbound approach; 58 = southbound approach; EB = eastbound approach; WB = westbound approach; SWB = southwestbound approach. 5. LOS and dela~ for the Intersection are equal for both eastbound and southbound approaches. As illustrated in the table above, it is anticipated that all study intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of PM peak hour project traffic. Sight Distance Sight distance triangles were evaluated at three intersection locations associated with the project site accesses. Major and minor streets are shown for each location. Further discussion of sight-distance at the Edmonds Avenue SElSE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection is provided in the following section. • Lake Youngs Way SE (major)/SE 18th Street (minor) • Monroe Avenue SE (minor)/SE 18th Street (major) • 124th Place SE (minor)/SE 158th Street(major) The methods and standards used to measure the available sight distance for the sight triangles are defined in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition produced by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Based on a 30-mph design speed, the recommended sight distance along the major roadway for a vehicle on the minor street approach is 200 feet from an intersection location. Field measurements at each of the three locations show sight distances in excess of 200 feet with the exception of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE. Currently, Monroe Avenue SElSE 18th Street is uncontrolled and does not have any marked channelization. Sight distance to the east of Monroe Avenue SE is limited by an existing fence along the north side of SE 18th Street as well as legal on-street parking on the north side of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE. 'YftranSpOGROUP Page 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------------------------------- Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Potential traffic safety impacts for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street could be mitigated by installing a stop sign and stop bar on Monroe Avenue SE at the intersection and/or restricting on-street parking along the north side of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE to prevent vehicles from obstructing available sight distance. Traffic/Pedestrian Safety As previously noted in the review of existing conditions, none of the study intersections have recently experienced a high rate of collisions relative to total entering traffic volumes. Traffic generated by the proposed project would likely result in a proportionate increase in the probability of collisions. However, it is not anticipated that the addition of project traffic would create a safety hazard or significantly increase the number of reported collisions. At the City's request, a comprehensive review of potential safety-related impacts was conducted at the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection. In addition to the collision history at this intersection, this included a review of sight distance for motorists on the minor streets approaching Edmonds Avenue SE, existing vehicle speeds, and consideration for a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection given increases in traffic attributable to the proposed project. As shown in the collision history summary (see Table 4), a single collision was reported at Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE during the recent three-year period. This injury-only collision occurred in 2012 and involved a motorist traveling northbound on Edmonds Avenue SE colliding with a motorist turning right from northwestbound Edmonds Way SE to northbound Edmonds Avenue SE; no pedestrians were involved. Relative to the total entering traffic volumes, this intersection experienced a collision rate of approximately 0.12 collisions per one million entering vehicles, a collision rate not indicative of an existing safety hazard. Available sight distance was measured on both the southwestbound SE 16th Street approach and northwestbound Edmonds Way SE approach to Edmonds Avenue SE. Sight distance was measured to determine if adequate sight distance exists enabling motorists to safely see (and yield to) pedestrians crossing at the intersection. AASHTO recommends at least 200 feet of stopping sight distance along roadways with a design speed of 30 mph. This is an appropriate distance for both SE 16th Street and Edmonds Way SE as both roadways have a posted speed limit of 25 mph. As measured and shown in Figure 8, 300 feet of sight distance exists for motorists approaching Edmonds Avenue SE from the northeast and more than 300 feet is available for motorists approaching SE 16th Street from the southeast and therefore, existing sight distances exceed the minimum standard. Figure 8. Available Sight Distance Existing vehicle speeds on SE 16th Street northeast of Edmonds Avenue SE were recorded for seven consecutive days in March 2014 (a vehicle speed report summary is included in Appendix D). In both directions of travel, average speeds were determined to be below 25 mph and 85th-percentile speeds were just above 25 mph. These speeds do not suggest excessive speeding or pose an unusually high risk to pedestrians on the northeast leg of the 'i0ranSpOGROUP Page 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------------------- Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park April 2014 Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection as the posted speed limit of SE 16th Street is 25 mph. With respect to pedestrian safety, the City of Renton has established a policy to "provide uniform criteria for the installation of marked pedestrian crossings consistent with recognized standards and studies on pedestrian safety: The City's procedure for evaluating the potential installation of a crosswalk considers pedestrian volumes, roadway speed, visibility, lighting, general conditions, and gaps in vehicular traffic. City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SEiSE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE in 1996, 2005 and a9ain in 2007 and determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. With the possible exception of gaps in vehicular traffic, the Reserve at Tiffany Park would not directly affect any of the other criteria used by the City to assess crosswalk installation and even if this particular criterion was fully met, the combination of the other criteria would not be enough to meet the City's warrant for installation. Moreover, there is not a high level of pedestrian activity at this intersection as (1) no more than six pedestrians were observed crossing SE 16th Street during anyone-hour period of the four'hours during which vehicular tuming movements were collected on Tuesday, April 15, 2014' and (2) an average of only 17 boardings per weekday were counted by King County Metro at the transit stop adjacent to this intersection over the course of the spring of 20132 . Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact pedestrian safety nor should a pedestrian crosswalk be installed at this intersection in conjunction with this project. Non-Motorized Facilities As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways that would connect to the existing sidewalk system. As a result, sidewalks would provide a safe walk route between the project site and nearby Tiffany Park Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. Clear and mild weather (no rain), approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit between 7:00 and 9:00 8.m. and approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. (National Weather Service, Renton Municipal Airport). 2 Summary of the most recent weekday average daily ridership provided by King County Metro Transit. ilrtranspOGROJP Page 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Reserve at Tiffany Park Mitigation April 2014 This section presents the recommended measures that could be taken to mitigate the potential impacts of the project on the adjacent roadway network. Based on the identified impacts, general increases in traffic due to the addition of project traffic to the transportation network would be mitigated by payment of the City's Transportation Impact Fee and improvements to address the potential traffic safety impact associated with limited available sight distance at the Monroe Avenue SE/SE 18th Street intersection. Impact Fee The project would be required to pay the City's Transportation Impact Fee. The current fee is $1,430.72 per new single-family residence, which results in a preliminary estimate of approximately $140,200 for 98 new single-family dwelling units. The required transportation fee for this development will depend on when permits are issued and the fee collected. Sight Distance Available sight distance on SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE is currently limited by an existing fence along the north side of SE 18th Street as well as legal on-street parking on the north side of SE 18th Street. Potential traffic safety impacts for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18th Street could be mitigated by installing a stop sign and stop bar on Monroe Avenue SE at the intersection and/or restricting on-street parking along the north side of SE 18th Street east of Monroe Avenue SE to prevent vehicles from obstructing available sight distance. 'jftranSpOGROUP Page 19 - - - Peak Hour Summary S PugetDr G ~~ G 3 .. , " App<oach PHF HV% .B 0.73 2.4% WB 0.92 1.5% .B 0.94 2.0% .B o.n 6.0% Intersection 0.95 2.5% --- Benson Dr 5 & 5 Puge! Dr ~ a § • < • ~ 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 El El 1,++,1 It ... " P"," 0 ~ _ ~£ i s P,," 0 It .. ~ 1,1,,+ 1 EJ 1,11.1 Volume 85 888 1,814 501 3,288 Count Pefiotl: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM --- - a~ .. ~ B It " -l EJ S PugetOr .. a § • < • .. - - - Total Vehicle Summary Benson Dr 5 & 5 Puge! Dr Tuesday. JURe 25, 2013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 15-11lnufw /nfwnI S&ImIJW)' 7:00 AM 10 '.tIO AlII ---_ .. , " ~ 1.00 ..... 0 '" 0 · 7,'~"'" , '" , • ,.~ 0 . , ,,~ , ~ , 8:00 ..... 0 ~ , , &:15 .... 0 -• " !030 .... " . , , --• 3.115 " " PM" HouY $"""'*)' 1:00AM to I:GOAM ~ :::!..~ -~ ,- -_ .. , , " n • , " " , " '. • , • " ,. • • '" , • ,. • • ~ m " -_., ~ ,- - ~ , .. 0 .. , • " " , " · " , " , " • ,. ~ -.. 0 " .' ln9 3 "" • -, o~ -on ...::.,1 --_. _., '01-" -""4 '. ,n n , • .n .. o. n '" -- -- ~ • • , " 0 0 , , 0 , , , 0 , 0 0 , 0 • • ~ 0. ~ ,-• " -• • 0 .• o. ~n •• . ~ SOl 2,7311 :5 21 :mo '(12 " f ~'"+I "If]: 1rf~~:l' .j ' ... '. .. ~t _ ~4 : .YJ _. 'll 0uI IfVH'!Ii PHF 0.13 ~: ~ 0 • , 0 , 0 • 0 • .. , , • -n ,'::4 ~ ~ Pwiiii-Haur~ 1:00AM to ':«IAII -• • -, " ~ ,--0 '" • ... 0 0 ~ , ., 0 m · ~ 0 , , 0 , ,. , on 0 0 ,. · ,. 0 0 '. , .. 0 , 0 0 ... ,2 • Ul1 0 -~ -~ 0 0 0 0 ;~ 0 0 0 0 0 r-; 0 , -:-II":"I~I":"I • ~ ,-~ '" -" ,~ ,~ oM -'" . _~ T_ , " -." " - - - - -- - Peak Hour Summary S PuaetOr Approach EB WB .B .B Intersection '" ~ • 0 • Ii " 8 . . ". Benson Rd S & S Puge! Dr 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 B B I"H,.I It .. " -, " ~. s ~i o 57 • . " ..... , K .. " 1,,+-1,,1 G B PHF HV% VolulTHI 0.74 8.5% " 088 0.9% 737 0.96 0.8% 886 0.80 0.8% 131 0.95 1.2% 1,625 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM - - - - K~ + 474 B It " 0 i • 0 SPugetDr '" ~ • 0 • Ii " - - - - Total Vehicle Summary Benson Rd S & S Puge! Dr Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM tS-lllltllle.""""'.summ.y 7:00 Aat ttl 1:00 All ----~. -• , -'m_ " ,. , , U5M1 , . "XI ..... • oX , 0 .-" 0 .w_ " n , 0 ",SAIoI · , a,XI ...... " , .. -" • • --m -• " PMk How Summary ~ ---~. . ~ .--~ " on OR .. , --~. -• - --• · , " • " .. • " , 0 " " • 0 . 0 0 • o. " -~. ~ ,-0" n. ~ OR , -.~ ...,; , · , , 0 . • ~ -.l --, .. " • , l2 .. , -• RoIlInQ "-"""'-Y 7DOAM ID IOOAJI -----~. -~. -• , -, --". " , • " 1,SNoI ., m • • " ,--, .. -.. , • " , , · , , " · " • .. " - - -- . ~ III 71. !! , . 'I } ...• '+, , ~~:~ -• " • " 0 0 , " 0 " " " on n -• • ~ .--c, • ~~ • , " · -• • • , " , • • ~­." ,j " .. '. ~'R _0," -• ~ · , • , on M · '" " 0 0 0 • , • " " , .. " • · 0 Q " • rn - -• • ~ .-• ~ OR J ;;; . -· , " " '" n, " -• • -• " .n n, " -". ., '. ,M .. " t..nl [$]04-." ~r12 m. .~ •• 00 '! ------." , 0 0 , 0 -0 0 , • .. , 0 , -0 0 0 , ~ • 0 0 • , -0 0 0 0 0 -0 • , • • 0 0 " "" • • • , -J .---~ _____ E ... _ o~ , -.-I , • -----.--" -, , , 0 , , ,-, • , .. ,~ - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I www.idaxdata.com EDMONDS AVE SE PUGETDRSE A N w (/) ~ ~ ~ o w Peak Hour -'It .J J 597 ( -~) 26-1 122 96 ..., PUGET DR5E Interval Start Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 TEV: 781 PHF: 0.96 ., ... ~ El i ~ t -w N (/) w ~ (/) 0 z 0 :::;; 0 w Date: Count Period: Peak Hour: HV%: EB 6.6% NB 2.3% 5B 3.5% ' TOTAL 3.2% 0.96 Tue,Apr15,2014 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM 15-mln Total Roiling One 755 736 658 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com - - - Peak Hour Summary --f20512l114lOO Appl'OKh .HF EB 0.00 we 0." NB 0.74 SB 0.76 Inttlrseetion 0.80 HV% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 5.1% 3.6% - - - 1161h Ave SE & SE 160th SI 'I ill f .. ~ ~ 1 Volume 0 49 207 79 335 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 I 0 B ~ .. .. .... , " .*. , .... , ... .., " ~ G El I I I -! '" .. f .. s I~ Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM - - -- - ~0 G .eG GJ SE 160tJrSt --- - Total Vehicle Summary 1161h Ave SE & SE 160lh SI Tuesday, June 25.2013 7:00AM to 9:00AM 1!U1fnm.lntwveJ SIIIIIIIUIY ---:::-" __ SE 1, __ , , , ,.~ .. • 1.""'" " • ,.~ • 7OS_ , " ooo~ • " s-" ..... • • • -... ~ " " '" ,.."Ho .... SIlmll'l4l)' 1;ooAM to ':OOAM ~ .1 -"---; 11 __ se -. ~ ,-m . ~ ,--, " -. , = --,~ '" " ~I -I -,'QhA""SE 1181>A ... --, , , n m , , " m . -, " • n ... -,,0 RoIling Hour Summ"'l' 7fJOAAf to tooAM ----11-._SE " .. _SiE , , m ,.~ '. " n '01S..". ,n " " 7'30 ..... , . • " HS_ 0 . . - -,-- ;-;_a ~ ,-. . • -,- ~, . , I - -- - :~ · , ~ ,. m,~ j [!]' t.:-'. ~O ... ~ _ .... " M +'~ , 4' " ~ m'~ -~ ~~ :, ~ t • · .. , .. ~ " r--Pr.u Hour sWiiflgry' -1 1:00AM to 1:00AM --,---m --• , " , ," " • 0 • .. m -, • , ;-, ... '$ ': 11-;-1* 1"':"1 ~ ,-m " • • .~ ,"' -I ,_ , , - ~OO....1..950 oh~+ - ---SEl_" SEl_SI -~ , m ---.. " • ~ • , .. " • - -- - Peak Hour Summary --I2OIlftl.oD1 SE 168th St B o 33 .. ~~ " " ~ ., ~ ~ 5 ~ . I -- - 1161h Ave SE & SE 1681h SI 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 B B H"I'I It .. " ..... , ~ ~E s ..... , K .. ~ 1,,+,1,,1 B 8 Ap..-h PH' 1M< Volume EO 0.73 1.5% 61 we 0.87 2.9% 307 HO 0.86 1.2% 498 BO 0.80 3.8% 106 Interwdlon 0.93 2.0% 97B Count Period: 1:00 AM to 9:00 AM ---- K~ .. m EJ It S1 N i • 0 SE 168th Sf IU ., ~ ~ 5 ~ --- - Total Vehicle Summary 1161h Ave SE & SE 1681h SI Tuesd.y, June 25, 2013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 15-1i111rm Inrwv" Summ.". 7:00AM 10 1:00AM ---,,~ " , -7"' ...... , -.-m a'ls ...... .. • . -, --". '" " ---7:00AM fo ':OOAll' 0 -... -.. ~ ,--~ .. , --,~ oJ l~~= -, , , -., '. N _ .... - 7:00AM 10 1:00AM' " w -• • -11S<h"w.se • " , .. " • .. • .. -",.,-~ ,-w '. ~ on .n I -" ...... SE , , , -• 13 nil • .. .. .. " I .. .. - - -- ;e,!,;~ " .. .. , " .. " .. -$E'_So ~ ,- 'n ~ ,~ -$E'_$1 , , • " •• •• ~m •• . ~ 1011 '011 " . ~! 'I~"'I "0 , nr':::::-• t.u ,[$J ... m lTI .'7 .. J ... », • .~ ~,~ ~." • ~! :. t l W , H " , " , , .. ~ .. ., I -, " " ~ '" PuIi How Summary 7:00 All' 10 8:110 All' ;~:::~ -, • ., " ,M .. -" .. 1.1" -;::-- -171*171 SE ...... " ,- ~ ,-~ n .n .. ,n SE''''''-; I ,_ , , ,- m • , .. :-' ",",_BE "~-:: IfY ~'_: oN s:-'" ... '\:' ~ _ ~ _ 1<lO...... 7, 611 1S .n 3.1 2< 51 l2lI 2< OJ,, l 7.15...... ,~ 17 2t 1", 11 lIS 29 12 212 • 1'..... 100511 II _ 3 ....... ,s - j - - - Peak Hour Summary --1:zotI)2~'<lJOO SE Petrovltsky Rd 8 B 256 .. ~~ " " Approach PH' HV% .B 0." 2.6% WB 0.87 0.3% NB 0.80 0.0% .B 0.92 2.3% Intersection 0.93 0.8% - - - - -- 116th Ave SE & SE Petrovitsky Rd '" .. ~ " ~ 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Thursday, June 27, 2013 EJ 8 H"H II .. " -. ~ . ~£ I s .... , .. ... ~ H"'I'I B B Volume 341 1,222 290 176 2,029 ~~ + 9M EJ II • 0 l B SE Petrovltslcy Rd ill ~ " 5 ~ Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM - - - - - Total Vehicle Summary 116th Ave SE & SE Petrovltsky Rd Thursday, June 27,2013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM f!J.Mlnuwlnt.tv.1 SIIlrIlNfY 7.-00 AM 10 9;00 AM' --:::" 1t1tlo_SE 1.00 ..... .. " , • 7,'5 ..... " .. • • , ~ .. .. , · 7 ~s ..... · • 8:00 ..... .. U • • 8.15 ...... • .. • • . ~ • u · • . ~-.. ~ " · PHk H<Jur SIIIIIImIf)' 7:00 All 10 '00 Aif " -It""''''''se -· ~ ,-~ -~ "' ~1 -.~ , .. ...::.,1 -1161h ...... se " -'" ' .• Rolling Hour Summ.ry 7;f1() All 10 "00 AM ---ll""_SE -, , " ~ 'OO~ .. m , • "SAM .. .• • · 1:30AM .. m .. • ,.SAM • .. .. • -1161h ...... se · " • ,. .. • " , " .. • .. " • .. • .. , · . · . • • • · .. .. • .. • " .. , " • .. ." ... ... • . .. -111l1h_se ~ ,-~ • .. = = •• 2.3% -1I6lh ...... SE' , " " .. Q \76 .. on .. , 0.87 .82 •• -l1eu. ..... se • " " .. .. • .. " .. .. • .. • .. .. • .. " .. .. , .. , - --- - ~~ • ~ ... = , I S2 113 31 I1Y 0-3% PH' 0,11 • .oj rn t-21g """,092 ~ .. ~ I! co +-~ .=-,. 341 -~ 15+ ,f •• ltV 2.n. • PfIF O_III! ........ " .0 'I ---" ~ " ~ -. " .---,~ -.. • • , ~ ru · •• • • .. • • • -.. • ... • • • • ,. , , = .. • ~ • • • • · .. .. • • , .. • · •• · • • • .. " • • = • • ... , • • • .. , · · U' • • -• • • • • ~ • • ~ ,. .. .. .-~ .. ,.~ • • • , -se~Rd :-II"':"I¥I":"I " ~ ~ .-~ -~ ,-~ '092 , 33 ~ 1516 .K .~ ... -1 -" ~ SE_ R4 .-, -, " -~ .. · · -~19 1.222 • 0,81 .. , .. 0.15 0.87 0.87 .81 0.91 ~ --" ~ ~ ~ -~ • " ~ • " .---~ " • • -. .. • .= • • • • ~ .. • · ... •• , .~ • • • • .. • .. M • .. , .m · · • · . , .. • .. .. •• 1.8, • • • " . · ~ - - - Peak Hour Summary --(208I~I'-lJOO ".-" PH' .B 0.00 WB 0.75 NB 0.67 'B 0.60 Intersection 0.73 HV% 0.0"1'0 0.0% 25.0% 16.7% 13.8% -- - Lake Youngs Way & SE 18th St i ~ • i <: ~ ~ l 1 Volume 0 ·9 12 29 7:15AM to 8:15AM Tuesday, Juno 25, 2013 G 8 G:EJ .. .. -. " ~£ s , ..... ... " rn 0 8 I -i iii 3:: • .. § :e .: ,!l Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM -- - - "D 8 ,,0 - 0 SE 1BthSt -- -- Total Vehicle Summary --~1:!5'.CJOO Lake Youngs Way & SE 18th St Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:{)()AM to 9:00AM 15-M1nut. In..,..,., SIImmat)' . -----.--._----::' ~, , " 1.PU.o.M , 0 • • " ~ , 0 • , 1' ..... 0 , , 7U ..... , · · .oo~ , 0 • S15_ , 0 0 • • ~ . , , • SoU, .. • --.. . , · PH" Hour Swnmary 7:1$ AM to ':15 AM ~ --~, • ~ ,--• -• " " , " -.~ , ...::..,1 -1 ~, , " ,-, , , • -+ O~---.L03' I«Jlllflg rtCUT ~umntaIY 7:00 AM to g,OO AM -~, , . • , , 0 , , , • , , 0 " . -~, ~ ,--• " , , .. '" -1 ~., W , -• , .~ 00 . . - - - - ;! . ~ " • , ! IN 0,0'11. 0 PHF ars J[!] t., ~. "'0...-' _ .. .. •• .~ • • .' -.~ • _ .00 5~ ~ • 'I " • ---7:15 AM fO 8:15 AM --~ ~, • lIE ''''$1 -, " -,---· , · , • 0 • • , 0 0 • 0 0 , , 0 " • 0 • , • , 0 • , , • • • • , • , 0 • • • 0 0 , 0 0 • 0 0 0 , • · 0 • " • • " , 0 , • --T~II~I~!~I 5111 .. 81 ,~. ~ ,-· ~ '--0 0 · • .. • O~ .~ UK 00 .n -_I -.ru"'SI -' ,-BE 1B1nS! -, " -, , , 00 .00 O~ " " 1:;:1 rm,~1 r7r,~1 T ~,~I-;:II":",:f= - - - -- - - -- - Peak Hour Summary Lake Youngs Way & Kirkland Ave SE ,., ~ !l. § ~ .l! • ~ Kirklllnd Ave SE Q " ~ ffi~ o 0 .. , .. 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G G I, I· H II + ~ .... , • '*, , .... , ~ 1-~ 1,1,,,", G G Appro.ch PH' HV% Volume .B 0.00 0.0% 0 WB 0.86 6.3% 48 NB 0.61 0.0% 17 .B 0.63 13.3% 15 InterMctlon 0.87 6.3% 80 Count PeriOd: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM ~~ + a EJ II " · i • G K1rlclllnd Ave SE ,., ~ • .. c , ~ ! ~ - -- - Total Vehicle Summary - - ~, .. - - - ~~ '!~""I . ~ 1~ " ~..:::: .J • -+ '"\ " t.1D J~"4-' LD +~ Q • M~ Lake Youngs Way & Kirkland Ave SE TuesdllY, June 25,2013 ~.~ _ .ro ~ Q • " !~ '! 7:00AM to 9:00AM 15-MJnut./ntarnI Summ_'Y 7;()() AM 10 ':DO AM -- I ~ I I 20 ---8.'«IAM 10 1:00AM ~ -~, W -~ ,- " ., • ~ --.• , W , -" -.~ on ~l'I FfoIllntl Hour Sumnwy 1;ooAM 10 1:00AM --- -" " '. ..... -.......... .:00 AM 10 1;00 AM J~ I 0 I • I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I to I 0 I 10 I 3.1 131 IG I, -~, • ~ r .... 1 t<V • -........ KOIIIenOA ... SE "'-"_5£ "'" T""" >tv .. 0..0 ~iiii Q :If! 14 ,-~'1-;I":"1 00 ,,~ 00"4 1.301. • ---~, KImoco:IA ... SE ...-.._n ,-, ,-, -, , • • .. 00 ,ro ,ro " ro '" • , _II -= - - - - Peak Hour Summary ApprOKh PHF HV% EB 0.00 0.0% WB 0.80 3.1% .B 0.64 10.7% SB 0.58 9.5% InterHetlon 0.96 7.4% - - - - 1261h Ave SE & SE 1581h SI , , .. • t .. ; , • ~ i I Yolurn. 0 32 28 21 61 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 GJ 0 ~ .. .. ..... 0 ~ w*. s __ 0 ... " G:EJ G 0 .. 0 ,,8 :"-i • ill ~ s I~ Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM -- - 0 8 SE 158th Sf - -- - Total Vehicle Summary 1261h Ave SE & SE 1581h SI Tuesday, June 25,2013 1:00AM to 9:00AM IS-liIlnuW /nten" SumrrM.y 7:00A.M fD I~A.If -----=-,-" ,-, ~ , '00_ • • • , · 1.,,",,", , • • · NO ...... • • , , " , , • , '00_ , • , , · s's ...... · • , 830 ..... , : , , .. , • • • * ...... " , • " • Pule Hour SIIInmAr)' 7'lOAJI ro '"lOAM , . L -, __ ~ 12e11>_se -. ~ ,* ~ . ~ '* -m , " , " " " ,,~ .~ " -I --12e1h_SE ,-. ..... E , " * , -" , . .. ~ • , • , • , • , • ~ , -, ---'-' . O.~"...J...O'l W -,,-" ....... --7:«J All ro 1.110 All ---' __ $10 , 1:00 ...... m "5 ..... • ,.-,"-• -.......... K ~ , ~ , " , " , " • • - -"'- -BE 1581hSl ~ ,-. . .~ -lIE 15h\81 ~. • • - - - - ~~ · ~ " . " . ~t HV3.1'~ PH'IUO J m: t.m -+o .... r_ .... .. 6 r l • • .~ ~.~ _ 0,00 • ~. • • • , , , · , · • , • ~ • • , ,. " r-;"'k Hour Summel)' 7:20AM to 1:30AM ---,--_. " , -~=t , " • , • " • • , • " • ~=* • • " • • , , " • • ~-+ , " , • • ''''''' • , '" , • , . ~_Sl ,-li-I2pI-i ~ ,-~ • • , I, 0 G.. 1 0 '" " . . -I ,_ se,-.s. " '* , " -,,-" ' ...... G",....l!..""....L.. oM - -~ BEl_a SE.SO!IIIsr -,- " , " " " " - , - - - Peak Hour Summary ~ : .. ;; ~ ::! SE 160th St T G " D" i G • G~ - - - - 1261h Ave SE & 5E 160lh 51 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G 0 [2±] II .. P"" 0 - ~ ~£ , ..... 0 ~ ... -----j [T] G 0 Approach PH' HV% Volum. EB 0.54 0.0% 13 WB 0.00 0.0% 0 NB 0,69 4.0% 50 SB 0.70 6.5% 31 , ..... octIon 0.81 4.3% 94 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM i ~ : .. ~ - - -- - - - - - Total Vehicle Summary --(21111)2~1-03OD 1261h Ave 5E & 5E 160lh 51 Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:00AM to 9:00AM 1$-Mlnute InIwvti Summai)' 7:00AM 10 l;ooAM ---,m. , -,~~ 1.\5AA1 " no .... " ~ OO~ 1"15"'" ~~ -..., .. ~ ""/rH(IUl'S~ 715AM to a 15.411 ~ ,,::!::,,: -" ~ ,-~ -'" " • , --- I...::... -,--, , --" • -'_ ..... SE , , • , .. " ---.-._se . ~ ,- " • • n. " I ---."""' ...... SE , , m " ~ ,- " • "" o_~o ---100M 10 100M ------• __ SE ,_ ..... se , , ,~~ " " " 1:t5 .... " .. " " 1-... _ , • , .. ~ " .. " • ~ .. . , , , ~-SE 11" .. ,,81 " -$E'_SO ~ ,- " " "-"" -$E,_SI , ~" "" ~ " -10 IS 0_3t...L O~5oI -SE,_SI , ~ , " '" " - - !; . ~ " .. " m ~t I" + ~I IN 0_011. PHFU •• ; \. §! ': ~ ~ ~ ---7:15 All ID ':1S All -,---, • " .. .. , . - ~.­-.~ •• "~ ';:"".':" 'M • • • ;~:'.~ I ': II";"I~I";"I . ~ ,-• • .--~ -,--,--" -$10'_"" -,-· • • - -- - Peak Hour Summary ~ .. ~ " s ~ ~ SE 168th Sf B . ~i 10 " CI. G 38 .. . .. - -.- 1261h Ave 5E & 5E 1681h 51 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G G i00i,1,1 II .. .. ..... - ~ r*£ , P.d. 5 • ... " H-I'I GJ G ",,_h PHF """ Volume EB 0.65 3.8'" 52 we 0.85 3.4% 119 NB 0.56 0.0% 20 sa 0.57 4,9% 41 Intersection 0.82 3.4% 232 Count PeOOd: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM - - - - .~ + 11. B II , . i • B SE168th Sf ~ .. ~ " Iii ~ - - - - Total Vehicle Summary 1261h Ave 5E & 5E 1681h 51 Tuesday, June 25.2013 7:00AM to 9:00AM 15-11f/nute InNIYM Swnm.'Y 7:00AM to 1:00AM - - ~ ,. ". - - - :~ ~ " 'I )+' ~ '0, "J ... J+1~~~~ L~tl;: It. In '. ~'K _ 0.65 • ~! ~ ~l Put Hour SInIrIrMIY -I 1:00A .... to .:ooAM L"'::." .~ fr-s.....,j 21 ~ I 2 111 I 2 I :zo I .. I 1 r 1 I 1 [,. L 2 I • I 4)t II 2 I $ I 2.1 '_ PelfIt Hour Summary 7;(1)AJI to I:GOAM ~ --,-._se ~ ,--, • -.~ --1-=-1 I'Trfltil- RoIIintJ Hour Sumrrnlry 7;00 All to .:00 All _. - ... -'-._SE ~ ,-~ .. , '" -, 'oR , • -, ,. " •• ---..,--[;fER"~ set_so. SEt_iii ,- ~ ,-~ " ~ ,-~ ,. = , .. , " ,. = _L ... 2 1 '" ,,, --SEl_91 SE lA1hSt ,-• -, • n, .. , = •• . . " .. .. . . j~ - - - - - Peak Hour Summary --12OS125'_ SE 158th S; , G GJtj+ , .. -" PH' HV% .B 0.50 0.0% WB 0.75 4.2% NB 0." 0.0% ,B 0.00 0.0% InWMetion 0.80 3.1% - -- 1241h PI SE & SE 1581h SI . i ~ Volume 6 24 2 0 32 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 ..... 0 . - ~ '*, , , ... 0 " 0 " 0 8 [J Count Period: 7;00 AM to 9:00 AM ---- .~G .. 0 . l 0 SE 158th St .. '" ii: , ;; ~ - - -- Total Vehicle Summary 124th PI SE & SE 1581h SI Tuesday. Juno 25. 2013 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 15-MlmMlnlwY.' Sumnwy 7:00AM to 8:00AM ---.:14'" PI SE ~ ,ro~ • !.'SAM • , ~ ,.s"'" .oo~ e15AM • --- ""'HocIrSu..."..". TJOAM to ''''AM ~ -" -. ~ ,-~ -, , , • -.-- ".I ':;"~ -, " --, • -.~ •• ~ ---lOOAM to II 00 AM --:::-.NII ... BE ~ 'OO~ • ',5AM H5.v.1 -124.,PlSE -124>PlSE ~ ,-. . .~ I -'_PlSE -12 .... PlSE I -• - -BEl_51 , " -SEISSlhSl ~ ,-• " . ~ -SE15S1lSt • ~. •• ~ I ~ + I - -- - ~~ . • ~ • ~ t ltV 0.3 _0_1'$ j [±]: t.. , .... 0 ""r 0 +-24 '''\ 6 .0 •• .~ - ~.~ -.~ • ~~ • • ~ , • , 'I ..... _- 7::10 AM to ':JQ All ~ -';:"'::::" , - .. » " -,-II '= I BE 15!11hS! ~ ,-~ • 32 : "':'Is.::-I f:" Iw:. .~ ... -SE'-''' ,-, ~-t.' • " .. .~ --SEl-'St se'_$1 -• ~ , ~ ,- " " " .-------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I www.idaxdata.com ~ N 128 EDMONDS AVE SE SE 16TH ST Peak Hour w (j) ~ 11~ w :;; (j) 0 z 0 ::;; III 0 0 '" w ~ '" .., .J J l. L Date: Count Period: Peak Hour: SE 16TH ST 153 175 ( 316 ..J TEV: 654 ~ 22 ( ~ 16 .... PHF: 0.96 r 0 ~ 332 0., 48 E ., t r ~ t-o w HV%: PHF (j) ~ EB 3.6% 0.94 ",1 i~ WB 1.7% 0.84 (j) 0 NB 0.0% 0.40 z 0 SB 3.6% 0.87 ::;; 0 TOTAL 3.1% 0.96 w Count Summaries Interval Slart Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 -----------~~- Tue, Apr 15, 2014 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM is-min Roiling Tolal One Hour 606 526 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com -- -- - - Peak Hour Summary --!2Oe)~HQCO Benson Dr S & S Puge! Dr .. Ci & ~ ~ 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8 8 1"1,,,,1,,,1 II ... .. S PugfltDr ..... B ~ . ~£ ~i " " . , o 14" . .. P .... , ~ .. " 1,1",1,,1 8 EJ -_. PH' """ Volume .B 0.65 0.0% 60 we 0.93 1.0% 391 NB 0.90 0.5% 919 .B 0.94 1.1% 2,517 I_~ 0.95 1.0% 3.887 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM ---- ~~ • I B II " 0 i • EJ S PugetOr .. Ci • 0 • ~ .. -- - - - - - - Total Vehicle Summary Benson Dr S & S Puge! Dr Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4;00 PM to 6:00 PM '~lnur.lntwvlll Summai)' 4;00 PM 10 fI;fJO PfI ~ -- Out 101 •• . ~ :,$17 1.71$ .,,5115_ ~~ 'I~"I . ~.::::;:' , t.* -f:$] .... LIJ +20 .,j ., . " .. .,8 0.0. '. ~.~ _ .m ;;;;;;; • 5~ ,':::a I~' ~ l PuIt. HtMN Summai)' 4:.0"" 10 $;4$ PM J- ~-S1M71 I 11.1111 73 I,. 11.$11313.0701,91 I 01 I '" I :0 I '0 i 0 I " I • 1100 1,0 I 7.-II 0 I $ i 0 ~ :.--~o! HV In ::-:: HV In QuI r!. HV In ~ T:' T_ ....... ~ _ I -I _ I" l!oH ~_508 5 ~511 15 J1V2 n ~ 1(11 167 3'11 118 1301 0 I 9 I 0 I ~ "" OK --.. , • -, ,-, --,-. .n ., " , • • -, '. o. .. , .., ti o. •• • • •• ~1!i 0,", " ...... --4,00,." 10 ,:flO,.. --------_., _., • • • • _. ~ -, , ~ , " , " ~ , , ~ , -,.~ • ~ " .. ,. , , " " ., • • • " , • ". • • 0H-•.• SPM , ... • • '" ", ti • • • • -• • , '-30"" , ., " • -,= • • , • , -• .. , • ; • , ... 5 .... • • -00 " .. , " , , , ~~ , , - --- Peak Hour Summary S PugetDr El ~~ B 47' • '" " Appl'OIIch PH' HV% EB 0.97 1.1"- WB 0.90 1.1% NB 0.85 0.3'" SB 0.87 0.6% InteJseetlon 0.96 0.8% - - - Benson Rd S & S Puge! Dr ., il! li ~ .z 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 EJ El 1'1"'1"'1 II .. " ..... , ~ 0 w*~ ~ , PItd. 1 K ... ~ 1,+""",, B El Volume .23 366 336 50' 2.426 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM - -- - K~ • 202 B II .. -i El S PugetDr ., .. 0: < 0 • • .. - - - Tolal Vehicle Summary -- ~= .m - !~ 'I - . ~ •. -,= m oj [±]: 'TIl", 0 ~!" _ ~. . I1VU'll. PHI' 0-11 • - >lVI,,'!!. PHI' 0.911 t,. •• .... -r- ,. .. .. m~ Benson Rd S & S Puge! Dr Tuesday. June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM :: :s ~l '.OIJPII 1 -PM/{ How Summary 4:451't1 to 5:45,." --------------::: T "!s..... s.;-R~S..... ~::-~ ~ t<V -;:: 400_ '" ~ 1 M 92 G" fill 1M I... 2. • _ "!PM 11 2& • 107 2 0 , " ., 0 511 Z1 1 <110 • 235n.fllll0i51.110911 107103534 U''''' 10 110 • , , " 1 5' 500_ 15 9 " eo) IN '" "'01 'MI 35 2 ~1 .,."'" 'S 03 " " 7 '50 Z 1 , .,2 100 t , ., 30 " 63!i 5_30.00",42'''''2.1910. 13452\12101 • PM, " 1 ,Of! 5 " n 11 5. " 7 __ 1_ _ __ _ _ - Puk Hour SurIIIMI)' ,N'P6I to "4$"" -I. 121~ - ~ ---~, -~. -• ~ ,~ ~ • ~ ,~ "---' .m •• -.-~;;~ ~ r_ ~== I OuoT_ .. OuIr_ ..... _e ... _ 1~ 31)$ nl3 115/1 II ,_1_, I R -.~ .~ """ "... OK - I-=----~, -~, , , -... ." _ m '" ., ~ -:-:-I , .... J R L T r_ "8 4;10 oW 202 366 242'1 .. • O'LJ,..08' ,-" o ~1 11(1 OM RoIling Hour SIIIIfIMI)' 4:00 PII to ~:oo,.", I www.idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EDMONDS AVE SE PUGET DRSE ~ N Peak Hour 289 ( w en ~ en c ~ c w -~) 124...J 502 378 ~ .. ", . .-... ",."", ;e ., ., .J 1 TEV: 872 PHF: 0.94 ., ... -N ~l i ~ Count Summaries Interval Start Eastbound LT TH RT Mark Skaggs: 425 • 250 • 0777 LT t ~ w en w ;;: en c z 0 :::; c w Westbound TH RT Date: Tue, Apr 15,2014 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM HV%: EB 1.8% NB 1.1% 58 9.3% TOTAL 2.5% 0.94 LT Northbound TH RT LT Southbound TH RT 1S-mln Total Roiling On. Hour mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ E E = I ",I -G' :;:1 ~ ~ . . ! ' II· ... Il .. , ............ ! ... -.. . - I --l 0 - • II I . .. 3S fM VW9U " I , Ii;:· Ii .. t-+'-I'I'UJ I -,- I;;; I ~ ill 0 0 0 0 " .. - l .ped rn 3S e .... ,!.!- " . .. " m • ·t-0 l IT] ! " o .P"G ~ L ~ 8 ~ ci l~ - - - Peak Hour Summary --!2OII1r.l'-OlOO SE 1atJIh Sr B EJ 311 .. ~~ '" .. Approach PH' HVI< EB 0.90 0.6% we 0.83 1.3% NB 0.84 0.7% .B 0.90 1.4% Intersection 0.91 0.9% lJl ~ " s :: 0 i - - - 1161h Ave 5E & 5E 1681h 51 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Tuesday. June 25, 2013 EJ EJ 1"1,,,1,,1 II .. .. ....... ~ ~£ , ....... ~ .. ~ 1,,1,,+,1 El EJ Volume ns 236 .10 216 1.637 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM -- - - ~~ .. 121 B II 02 N l El SE168thSt lJl ~ " ~ - -- Total Vehicle Summary --(206)2n03OCl - 1161h Ave 5E & 5E 1681h 51 Tuesday, June 25,2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 1s..vsnut.1nrwvaI Summary 4:00 PM fa 1.-00 PtI - CuI 21. "no - - " ~ 2'6 241 ~~ 10 '13 3J q , .... + ... , - IN '.:no _ 0,13 ».1 @ to" 3"" co "r N +-'%7 ~" .. ~ 4:m. ' r'12 ~.ft , -.~ +".r" t. ,. .. " '! ... ,,:,:,~ ~ ::7'~"":' ~ -.-.. - T tN TR lTRtfII fR T _ E ~<IOPOo !» 21 ,~ 1 \I , ~, 61 0 .. 2S • , 2111 1 • HSPtA 1. 5:1 2... I 'eo \I 4 30 2 :I 3017 0 1 • =i " .... '36.50.10111013 1'180<00< .. $...., '" 1 \I 21 n I !~:: ~ :! :; ~ ~\ .. ~ 0 ~ ~ ,V: ~ n ~ : ~ :: ~ : -1 ."!:~ Z2 ~ U ~ ~ 41 ! 1 ~' IS ;'~ , 1 0 ~\ ~ 0 ::1 __ ,~ 310 _ 1 M 35 23 1 11 59 10 5 '79 ,.. J: I 3.082 :I 20 • • PHIl Hour Suml1W)' 5:00 PM fD 1:00 PM ~ -.- ~ - '" ... -lI-. ..... SE ~ ,- ~ ". .~ -""-A , ~ v:;-I o'~ I ~: ! ~: ~':. RoI1Ing •• __ 'R'~; 4:00"" fo fI:QO PM -""",_se ~ ,-~ '" "' ~ , ~ 1111!10 ..... SE , , " '" .. " 0.\10 D03 -SEt_SO " ~ ,-m '" ,,' ~ .~ -~,-, , • -• n, ." .~ .~ .0 '" ,. ~ . -~, • ,- ~ r_I'fji '" , .. 1,637 ,,. .~ -81;'"*,,,$1 T_ ~ [T" 1U I .7 ..... >.&37 'iiii I~l~];l -;:,-,' ... _SE " ... _SE !!E._It 15E, ... SI _ er- '-l" T >N TRIN _ 400PM 13 .1$.30 2S 'II 13 • _ ,. 111 IS b 1425 ,. • ','5PM 12 110 143 31 2C2 13 -I5:no _ n '528 l • .PM,.,6, JO ,,013'9 II 'UPM .1.].<1 12 1 ,IUS ~ .. - --- Peak Hour Summary --(2OII)251-l1lDO SE Petrovltslcy_Rd El B 997 .. ~~ " ~ Approaeh PH' HV% EB 0,62 0.6% we 0.94 0.8% NB 0." 0.9% SB 0.83 1.1% Intarseetlon 0.95 0.8% -- - - -- 116th Ave SE & SE Petrovltsky Rd ill ~ .. ~ ~ 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Tuesday, June 25. 2013 El B 1,,+,1 "'I II + ~ ''''' . ~ . ~. I s "'" . K to ~ 1·+·"" B El Volume 1,245 740 22. 730 2.939 K~ .. 553 EJ II .. . : 8 SE Petrovltslcy Rd ill ~ .. ~ ~ Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM - - - - Total Vehicle Summary -..... (2DB)251.c3iOO - 116th Ave SE & SE Petrovitsky Rd Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 15-M/nufe /n1tJl'v" Sumnwy 4;00 PM 10 6:00 PM - - - - !!:: • ~ "0 ~ ~ 'I .lIt J2.t ZIJ7 ~o~ _o~ ,.J ffi to .. ~~ 11\1' .... 0 ~r ..... w ,~. In 1_2'~ ,-~ I~" ... r~v ~OK 0 _on .... ,.. C. 0 .0 • 'I ~ ..... _- 5:00 PII to ,:00 I'll j~ .... - * 152Ilissa 12111 I 12 Im12.OOO11'Bl I '1 110 1,.oeoI27.1 11 1 S.rt. I • I ' I • I ' Put Hour Summa/)' s:oo PII 10 6:0fJ I'll ~ -11 .. _se -~ '* -,. '" -o~ • --lIMo ..... S " -• -11811>_SE ~ ~ ,-~ , ... "19 • , " 0 -1\""''''WI$~ -, " ,-• .' ,. 1'19 1:10 • •• OM .J),IL .. -fWffif~ ~ ~ ~ ,-~ 1)11 19'" m --" ~ • ~ ,--" -, . . , 12 1,245 .. ., 138 7<0 2.1I~ '.M 0,19 019 • o. nr •• M - - - - Peak Hour Summary Approach PHF HV% EB 0.00 0.0% WB 0.50 0.0% NB 0.75 9.5% SB 0.79 13.6% Int8raect1on 0.84 10.6% - --- Lake Youngs Way & SE 18th St i ;0 • • ~ j '" s i ! I Volume 0 4 21 22 47 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G 0 GEJ .. ~ ...... , , r*. s .... , ... " ~ G 0 I .. 0 ,,0 " l - ~ it • :;0 , ~ : l!l Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM - -- - 0 0 SE 18th Sf - - - - Total Vehicle Summary Lake Youngs Way & SE 18th St TuesdllY, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 15-MIn.a.~. Svmmery 4;00 PM to '-00 PM _. ---~, ~, w , ~ ~ .OO~ • '~PU . ~ .:.5~ ~:OOPM 5-'5I'M 5·» ..... .. ~ *-.. ,. " Peat Hour Summary 4::10 PM ID 5;:JO PII • --~, w ~, -~ ,-~ . ~ ,-~ -" n q ,,~ • ---~, w ~, , -,--" , -" .. RoIling Hour s~ 4:DOPM to I:OtJPfI -LoI<ev-::;' ~, ... --, ~ , ~ " • " , .',5"'" .. , , .'XI .... " , us .... , " • • - -~, -se'lIIIISI ~ '* • • .~ -se'III>$I -SE ''''$1 ~. •• - -- ;~ . " ~ .. ,. 8 0_ :q ,.J....... ~ g,!iO IN 0,1)% -.~ 1 [!]: t,., ~, ..... ..... .----V-1 "\ . .- ~ .. • • " :~ , I PMk HoUi-~ry - 4::JOPtI to 5:30PM .-,~. -" -" • , • ,. • n a " ~ --~ -• , -se ,81051 iO~ ""Ti'i"'T71 ,-I':"I~ 1-:-1 .. -SE1111hSt ..--...-.. -SE''''''st " ,-I " -,-.. " " .. -~ -~ ,~ • , • , • • - - -- Peak Hour Summary --(206j2S'-COOO - - -- - - Lake Youngs Way & Kirkland Ave SE .. ~ • .. § ~ • ~ • ~ KJrlcland Ave SE 8 " ! ffia o 0 .. , .. 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G 0 10 I 0 H It + .. -, ~ ~£ • .... , ~ .. a 10 I, H G 0 App~'" .HF HV% Volume EB 0.50 0.0% 2 we 0.78 6.4% 47 NB 0.83 0.0% 50 SB 0.58 14.3% 14 Internctlon 0.91 4.4% '" Count Perlod: 4:00 PM to 6:0(1 PM ~rn .. 0 0 It .. " ! 0 KJrlc/and Ave SE .. ~ ~ , ~ ! ~ - -- - - - Total Vehicle Summary --(2Oe)2!ll.Q3OC1 Lake Youngs Way & Kirkland Ave SE Tuesday, Juno 25. 2013 4:00PM to 6:00PM 15-11Jnm. Jntv"aI Summary 4.-00 PM to 5:00 PIlI ---~" , , 'OO~ • • .. ~ • " • . ~ • , • .. ~ , ~ · " 6.15PM • , " • ~ • • " .~ " --• . fi • PH" Hour Sum111M)' 4:1$ PAl 10 5:15 PM L..::.. -~" • ~ ,-~ -• " " • -.~ ~ --~" , , , -.-• 0 " OIl!LL9.:lI! 01~! KOIlInf1..-w ~ 4:DOPM to 1:00PM ---_. ~ .. ~_'SPM " . ~ .. -~ · · __ .. SE , , ~ , · • • • , • , • • • • • • , · • • , • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • , --~. --• ~ ,-~ · ~ ,- " ~ " , , • '" . --~. • --~ , , , -, , , .. • • .. · • O~OIJ '.00 " .00 '00 0" --~. __ SE , ~ , , " " ~. . , ~ • • • • • • • • • ~ • I -• ~ - - - - ~ • ~ " ~ ! INU. _0.11 • .1 rn ~" 0 ..... ~t .. +-0 ". ,,~ 2. ! r'JO IN 0,0'11. , PHF 0.5(1 " ,. ~ '! " PNk HtMu SumIllMY 4:11 PM 10 $:1$"" -~ ~ -, , ,. • • • " • , , , · , • • • • • · " , • , • , • , • • · • " • • • • , • , " • • • • .. · • • • • , , , • • , • '" , • • • -',: II-;-I~ 171 --· ~ ,-~ " .. ,oo 0 .. .. , -_~ T_ --, · · " , .M .00 ." " -_ .... BE -, , -• " ,oo '" - -- Peak Hour Summary i i I -- -- 1261h Ave SE & 5E 1581h 51 I 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 G 0 ~ .. " P"" , ~ ~E , P"" , ... -; 8 G 0 I K0 . ~8 ! w '" ~ .. Ii I~ Approach PH' HV% Volume EB 0.00 0.0% 0 we 0.81 0.0% 13 NB 0.75 6.3% .. SB 0.75 3.3% eo InterMctlon 0.80 4.1% ,,, Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM - - - GJ 0 SE 158th SI - --- Total Vehicle Summary 1261h Ave 5E & 5E 1581h 51 Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:00 PIA to 6:00 PM 1U1I"ut.hrt.rv. SIIlrIIJWl)' 4;fJ()M to S;(J()"" ---,-.. , , ~ 'oo~ • , • .. ~"'" " , , , ~ • , , .. s"'" " ~:OOPM " , , 5-'5",," " • , 503D''''' • , , .<5"'" · , , * .... .. .. • Peat HoIII' SUIllllNt)' 4'3D PM to 5'30 PM l..::..1 • -12W>_ft ~ ,-~ -.. ., " , .~ • -ll'Ot>~ .. SE -, " --• " , , · , , , • , .. · • I , " -,. ,. "....Lo ... RoIIIIIfI Hour SummaI)' 4:00PM to ':flO,." ---, ___ se -, " ... ~ .. • uSPlil , '"30I'l0l • " .. ~ " - ~ • .. .. , " ,. -12ft1_se , , " " , • .. • • " -128fo_se w ,- * '" ~ , -'_"""'SE , " '''-L -l1Wo_se , • .. .. · , , • , , , , , , ~ . , , - ~ , , , , - - - - - ~~ · ~ ~ * 'I n 13 ~'A _0.01 J rn to" ~, ... o ... ~ ...... ". . , "~ "l t .2 ~,- , PH' 0,00 ... tr> o. M " W . '! .. .. ,,:3DI'M to 5:30PM -r-.... ,...·-l ---SE '-'81 !IE 1581'1111 --, ,-• , • , , · , , , " , , , , , , • · , · · • , · , » • , , , , , ,. , , , , " • · , • • " • = • , . --': II-:-Iffil-:-I SE ',.,81 SElt581hSl ~ ,-. ~ ,-~ , . " " .. , ,~ ~ ." --I ,_ SEl_St SEl_81 -, " ,-, " ,~ '" m ,. O"L.!!:..,....L OlIO --r-= SE,_St se'SIIISO -~~ " ~ ,-K==F , ,. • '" , " , .. " • '" ti+ " ,. " ± --- Peak Hour Summary --(7OIi)25'-OlOO ~6DthSt G B - Approach PHF EB 0.73 WB 0.00 NB 0.79 SB 0,55 Intersection 0.72 G" G" """ 0,0% 0.0% 5.3% 4.5% 3.5% -- - 126lh Ave SE & SE 160th SI :II f "< S ~ ~ 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Tuesday, Juno 25, 2013 G G B II + .... , - ~ N i w*' , L .... , .. .. ~ G G I I Volume 41 0 57 .. 142 , ::: f "< ~ Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM - -- -- - -- -- - - Total Vehicle Summary h : ~ .. " 'I ' .. IN 0,'"" 0 -.~ t. ~" o • ~ N I' " .. --(2OII)251-030CI ... .oj [!] .~ 126th Ave SE & SE 160th SI Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:00 Pili to 6:00 PM f5-M1nuffl1nfwwI SUIMW)' 4:00 PM fa 11:00 PfI -~"':."': -, ~ .OO~ • • , .. ~ , , , .-XlPM , , 0 .. ~ · , 'oo~ • .. 0 ~,'5Pt.t 0 " , ~ • 0 50S""" , . , --• 00 • PHIl Hour Summ.". 4:4$ PIf to 5:45",. -,-M , , 0 • .. · " , , 0 • .. , • 0 , " " ~ 0 , , , 0 , , • • , , , 0 , 0 , " 27",\ • r IN 0,11'4 0 _,n .... ,. ~~ . 'I " --........" 4:45"" to ':45"" --~ SE._91 81;.-.91 -, , " · 0 0 • 0 , 0 0 0 , , 0 , , , • , , " 0 " · • • 0 .. 0 0 • • , 0 • 0 , .. 0 = • , 0 , ~ ----• __ SE • __ 11( -· ~ ,-~ . ~ ,-" " .. ," .. " .. r·---I SE._S1 SE._S1 ,_ IN 10 0uI T_ IN In Out T_~I*I_ 411364 000141 9 1 ... 0""" H -=-:::= :=::: :::= ::: l T _ T R R _ T_ .- _2037 7., 1.211 , .. 111 I 100.1 I U~ iii"" 1010 i i oe. lO,n .. -..... _-" .. -. 4:00 PII to 11:00 PM _ .~_s~ '~_SE IN se,_:: 8E.IIOa>91 ~ ~ 35.0.021 .... 0 .,5I'l0l .6 l2 35' 11 11 121 0 15 ... 0 .. ,PM 21 - --- Peak Hour Summary ::: ~ " .. ~ ::! SE168th Sf B 0 ~i .. " . B Z48 + " .. - -- 1261h Ave SE & SE 1681h SI 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Tuesday. June 25, 2013 G G H ,I·1 .. .. .. --. P ~. , --. to .. " H'I'1 G 0 Ap"""", PHF """ Volume eB 0.90 1.5% 335 WB 0.84 0.9% 111 NB 0.58 0.0% 14 SB 0.69 0."" 33 InterHetlon 0.91 1.'" 493 Count Perlod: 4:00 PM \0 6:00 PM - - -- ~~ • 104 B .. 1 0 i EJ SE 168th Sf ::: ~ " ;; ~ ::! - - -- Total Vehicle Summary 1261h Ave SE & SE 1681h SI Tuesd.y, June 25, 2013 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 15-M/1lut.lnffJIVM Summ-.y 4:00 I'll 10 1;00 PII -~;""""'~ -, , .OO~ • , .,' PM · • N , • , • N • 'OON • • • N , N • , .N , • -.... • , , ---4:45 PM ID INS"" " -12'5lIo_n -· ~ ,--.. .. .. -. ~ -12!IIhA .. -, , , -" , , . ---4;00 PII 10 1:011,.., ---12ftt1>_n , OWN " • .SPM " • N " ~ • • • • • • ~ • -.. " ~ li!!; t !';E , ~ • , , , , • , , , • , • , • , , , • , , • • • . " , -.1etI1_st; -~ ,-~ " " '00 • .--I-'~ .. , , , ,-, , a " " .. -''''_$10 "' " " " .. " " " " ". -= , " " .. " " -- - -- !! -~ • " 'I a IN G.", _0." • ~J rn t... ~,. _-+ 0 .... 0 +-,. . .. ~ -= m~ a. ' .' ~,~ • _0.116 .... ,.. ~! , -, I " .... _- 4:45 PM 10 5:45 PM -""&:._91 :;;-,--, , , , • . • , • • • • , , , , , .. • • , , , , · , · , , " • , • • • • • '" • • • .. , , , • • " • • , , · , · . , • -.. • , ~ • 0 ~ • , • , ~== -I";" I ~fih·:·1 ,--,- ~ ,-~ -~ ,-~ .. , -, '" .' , .• '" .-, --.l Jil-~ J .-§ _. , , -, , , ,--.. ,. , ,. • '" .. , .. " .. ---SEleea.St SE,_SC -~ , , ~ --, " '" • .. , • • " " , , • , .. • • , • - - - Peak Hour Summary --(2O!I)~I4lJOO :51: l!la'ln:llt G Gtl+ , " . l - - - 1241h PI SE & SE 1581h SI 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM Tuesday, June 25, 2013 .... 0 . -- F ~C , , ... 0 .. D " D GJ D Ap",..", PH' HV% Volume EB o.n 0.0% 23 WB 0.81 0.0% " .B 0.25 0.0% , SB 0.00 0 .... 0 Intersection 0.84 0.0% 37 Count PerIod: 4:00 PM 10 6:00 PM -- - - ·tB G .. . . l G SE 15Bth sr w '" 0: s :! -- - Total Vehicle Summary 1241h PI SE & SE 1581h SI Tuesday, June 25,2013 4:00PM to 6:00PM 15-11tJmih hrtwnI SIIIIImM)' 400PM to II~PII ---1_"'SE , " .oo~ , 41~PM • • · ~ • • .. ~ • · ~ , · SISPM • • , ~ • • . -• • --, • PH"HourSIIIIJIMf)' 4""".. IU '''" ..... .. --l2<lhPlSE " ~ ,--, • • -.~ ... 1 -'''''''''SE -, " -, • . ~ ." ---4:00 PM to I,'OfI"'" _. --lU1hPlSE " .00_ ,,5"'" · -.. 5"'" ~ • • • • • • • ~ • -, " ~ • • • • -,2."'PUE -'2'''''''Sf. • ~ ,-• • • .~ . 1 ,-.;;' -1:M111"'SE - - ~" ". -sel-'SO , " • • • • · • · , • • • • • , " , • -$E'-'SO • ~ ,-~ " " • • .~ 1 -1 se '511'MIt -, " -" , , 00 • " -se ISH>St , ~ " • - ~! · • - ~ • ~l , ..... + ~I , - ~.­_O_Bl j rn ~ 22", co ~l' " .... '0 ". "~ '. 6 r l ~.~ • -on ~~ ~ '! • Pulr HoIN Sumnwy .:1$ PfI to S;l$"" --SE IMO'>SI -, ~ , --~ • • • .. • • , , , · • • • , • , · " • • • • • , , • " • • • • , • • • , • • • • • , · , • • 4 I 11 • • • • • , -1-:-1*1 ... 1 se,sa..SI ,-• ~ ,-~ " " " · " .~ .~ -_I ,-I BE '_51 , , , .. " , " . .. --SE 110>51 -~ , ~ ,---,--" • • • • .. • .. • • • - I www.idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 282 ( 226 E Interval 5tart e:=:::a EDMONDS AVE SE SE 16TH ST Date: N Peak Hour Count Period: w rn ; 1 i~ w :;( rn 0 z 0 ::; ~ ~ 0 ., .., ... W N ~ ~ .J J l. 174J TEV: 759 ~ 51 _ PHF: 0.96 1 ., ., t 0 ., ~l i~ Count Summaries ,. ~ 5E 16TH 5T L 83 117 _ 31 <E(-- r 3 ) 198 w HV%: (/) >-EB 0.9% ~ WB 0.9% (/) 0 NB 16.7% z 0 5B 0.7% ::; 0 TOTAL 0.9% w Peak Hour: PHF 0.76 0.77 0.50 0.92 0.96 . Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 o 0 0 0 (1) o o 1 o o Tue, Apr 15, 2014 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM 150mln Roiling Total One Hour 7'27 759· 753 731 699 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of the average total vehicle delay of all movements through an intersection. Vehicle delay is a method of quantifying several intangible factors, including driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time. Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of average delay per vehicle during a specified time period (for example, the PM peak hour). Vehicle delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing (I.e., progression of movements through the intersection), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity. Table 1 shows LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000). Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Average Control Delay General Description Service (sec/veh) (Signalized Intersections) A S10 Free Flow B >10 -20 Stable Flow (Slight delays) C >20 -35 Stable flow (acceptable delays) 0 >35 -55 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E >55 -80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F >80 Forced flow ijammed) Source: Highway Gapacity Manual, Transportation Research Board. Special Report 209. 2000. Unsignallzed intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into two intersection types: all-way stop-controlled and two-way stop-controlled. All-way, stop-controlled intersection LOS is expressed in terms of 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 vehicle delay of an individual movement(s). This is because the performance of a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is more closely reflected in terms of its individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a two-way, stop- controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movements. With this in mind, total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection should be viewed with discretion. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for un signalized intersections (both all-way and two-way, stop-controlled). Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unslgnallzed Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/vah) A 0-10 B >10 -15 c >15 -25 o >25 -35 E >35 -50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manus', Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 2000. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalYsis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Lane Configurations 4- /Jolume (ypJ]) 80 5 5 30 Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jfotal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.96 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1770 Fit Penmitled 0.74 Satd. Flow (~enm) 1367 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ~dj. Flow (yp.J:i) 84 5 5 32 RTOR Reduction ("ph) 0 1 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (ypJ]) 0 93 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% jfum Ty~e Prot NA Penm Protected Phases 7 4 Penmitled Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 43.0 Effective Green&(§) 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 Clearance Time (§) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane GrJl CapjypJ]) 452 vis Ratio Prot ~/s Ratio Penm 0.07 vic Ratio 0.21 Uniform Delay, dl 31.2 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Delay (s) 31.5 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 31.5 ~~roach LOS -C - of 5 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1786 0.77 1443 0.95 5 0 37 2% NA 8 43.0 43.0 0.33 5.0 3.0 477 0.03 0.08 29.9 1.00 0.1 29.9 C 51.6 D t "-" 1i tt> 855 5 1805 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 2787 1770 3538 1.00 0.51 1.00 2787 942 3538 0.95 0.95 0.95 900 5 1900 76 0 0 824 5 1905 2% 2% 2% Penm ~m+~t NA 5 2 8 2 43.0 68.8 68.0 43.0 68.8 68.0 0.33 0.53 0.52 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 921 503 1850 0.00 cO.54 cO.30 0.01 0.90 0.01 1.03 41.4 14.4 31.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 11.1 0.0 29.0 52.5 14.5 60.0 D B E 59.8 E Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM li~_tt> 5 100 380 20 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 3303 3380 0.06 1.00 195 3380 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 5 105 400 21 0 0 3 0 0 105 418 0 2% 6% 6% 6% ~m+~t NA I 1 6 6 75.2 71.2 75.2 71.2 0.58 0.55 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 208 1851 cO.02 0.12 0.28 0.50 0.23 29.8 15.2 1.00 1.00 4.0 0.3 33.8 15.5 C B 19.1 B ~-------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_c--c-___ --'50",0"".7 __ ~HC"'M"_"'20"'0"_0 "'Le"'ve"'I""ofc:S"'e:.;,N""ice"-___ --=D'--______ -' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity'-!r~at~io~ __ -.,;;l.;:;OO<_---;;-=-.,...,c:_;_;cC':"7:T'-----__:;""------___, ~ctuated Cycle Length (~) 130.0 Sum of lost time (~). ______ 1",9::.;'0:-______ ...J Intersection Capacity"U::.:ti:,:::·liz:::a.:::tio"'n ____ --"97:..:.5:.;'lcic, __ .c.IC:::;U=-L::.:e:.:,:ve::,1 :::of-=sc::;eN:.:,:i::::ce=--_____ -'-F ______ ---, 1\nalysis Period (min), _________ 1"'5'--____________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentia~Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existin9·syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 --------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S Lane Configurations ott. /Jolume (ypJ)) 10 55 5 10 Ideal Flow (vph~) 1900 1900 1900 1900 rotal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.99 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 3254 Fit Permitted 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 3254 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ildj. Flow (ypJ)) 11 58 5 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (yjili) 0 69 0 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 1% rum TYRe Split NA SRlit Protected Phases 3 3 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 6.4 Effective Green..9.(~) 6.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 ,Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 Lane GrJl CapjypJ)) 268 - ·tt. 475 1900 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3390 1.00 3390 0.95 500 70 704 1% NA 4 19.2 19.2 0.25 5.0 4.0 838 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 cO.21 y/s Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.26 0.84 Uniform Delay, d1 33.4 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 7.9 Delay (s) 34.1 35.6 Level of Service C D Approach Delay (s) 34.1 35.6 ~p.Rroach LOS--C D 250 360 1900 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1787 0.95 1787 0.95 0.95 263 379 0 0 0 379 1% 1% Prot 5 19.6 19.6 0.25 5.0 4.0 451 cO.21 0.84 27.5 1.00 13.7 41.2 D t Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM +_t.~-..;-_",'i tt.:---= 515 10 30 70 30 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 I 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 ·1.00 3584 1787 3412 1.00 0.95 1.00 3584 1787 3412 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 542 11 32 74 32 1 0 o 27 0 552 0 32 79 0 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% NA Prot NA 2 1 6 30.1 1.9 12.4 30.1 1.9 12.4 0.39 0.02 0.16 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 1382 43 545 cO.15 0.02 0.02 0.40 0.74 0.15 17.2 37.6 28.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.4 50.5 0.3 17.6 88.1 28.3 B F' C 27.2 42.2 C D ~~---------------._------------ HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to ca-pa-c::-ity-ra--,ti,--o------'O~.7~O'----'-'====-"'-'~!""-------"----------1 ilctuated Cycle Length (~) 77.6 Sum of lost time (~), ______ 2,,0c;.0:--______ ..J Intersection Ca pacity;-:U::.::ti"'liz:::ati:.:·o:::.n ____ -"'59"'.7:.;.,"A,..., __ .::IC:.:U:..:L:::e.:.:ve::..lo:::f.:;::S:::erv,;c.ice=-______ B:::.... ______ --, ilnalysis Period (min)c:-________ 1"'5 _____________________ ---J c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 3: 116th Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach ~!T~ ________ L'-ffi __ E.ID __ ~ __ aru _______ ______ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ Total Zone Performance -~ --------------------------~ --------------------------- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentia~Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Existing 4-16-201· SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: 116th Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S --------------- Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM ____ _____ Iilll ___ I® __ .Wil __ i§]_@]l_____________ ______________ _ Zone Summary Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4·16·2014IAM Existing 4·16·201, SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave 8E & 8E 160th 8t t Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM .. ___ JW1 _~ .~_~ _~_ f§W ___________ ... ________ _ Lane Configurations V ft 4' ,Volume (veh/h) 15 35 195 15 5 75 Sign Control Stop Free Free ,Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 Hourly flow rate (ypJ:l) 19 44 244 19 6 94 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed (It/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) ~Rstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked K conflicting volume 359 253 262 vC1, stage 1 conlvol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 359 253 262 tC, sing~(~) 6,4 6.2 4,1 tC, 2 stag!J~) !EJ~) 3.5 3,3 2,2 pO queue free % 97 94 100 eM caRacityJvehlh) 640 790 1284 )/olume Total 62 262 100 Volume Left 19 0 6 )/olume Right 44 19 0 cSH 738 1700 1284 jIfolume to CaRacity 0,08 0,15 0.00 Queue Length 95th (~) 7 0 0 ,Control DelaYJ~) 10,3 0.0 0,5 Lane LOS B A ~~Rroach DelaYJ~) 10.3 0.0 0,5 Approach LOS B ---~---------- Average Delay 1,6 ~e~a~R~ac~ity~U~t~iliz=a7Uo=n-----o2~1.i.2o/c~o--'I~CU~Le=~~1~ol~Sce=~~ice=-------'A-----------' Analysis Period (minL) ________________ -'-15=--_______________________________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175,00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ----------------'------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Lane Configurations 'i_t ., 'i I/olume (ypJ)) 10 35 25 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jfotal Lost time~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1770 1863 1583 1752 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.67 .Satd. Flow (2erm) 1770 1863 1583 1229 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 J\dj. Flow (ypJ)) 11 38 27 59 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 22 0 Lane GrouR Flow (ypJ)) 11 38 5 59 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% jfum Ty~e Prot NA Perm Rm+Rt Protected Phases 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (~) 0.6 8.1 8.1 10.3 Effective Green&(~) 0.6 8.1 8.1 10.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.24 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane GrR CapjypJ)) 24 355 301 315 - to 225 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1817 1.00 1817 0.93 242 6 263 3% NA 4 8.9 8.9 0.21 5.0 2.0 380 vis Ratio Prot cO.01 0.02 0.01 cO.14 :v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 vic Ratio 0.46 0.11 0.02 0.19 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 14.2 14.0 12.6 15.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.3 Delayj~) 25.8 14.3 14.0 12.7 19.9 Level of Service C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 15.8 18.6 ~p.Rroach LOS -B B t 'i to 25 335 130 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1787 1829 0.37 1.00 701 1829 0.93 0.93 0.93 27 360 140 0 0 11 0 360 161 3% 1% 1% ~m+pt NA 5 2 2 18.0 12.4 18.0 12.4 0.42 0.29 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 478 533 cO.13 0.09 cO.19 0.75 0.30 9.3 11.7 1.00 1.00 5.9 0.1 15.1 11.8 B B 14.1 B Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 'i to 30 5 85 15 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1736 1786 0.68 1.00 1239 1786 I 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 32 5 91 16 0 0 11 0 0 5 96 0 1% 4% 4% 4% Rm+Rt NA I 1 6 6 6.5 5.9 6.5 5.9 0.15 0.14 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 196 247 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.39 15.3 16.7 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.4 15.3 17.0 B B 16.9 B ~ -----------~-- HCM 2000 Control Delay......:.... c---::-___ -"15"".9'--_-'-'-HC::c:M::.::o20"'00"-'L""e"'ve"'l o:::.f""Se:::.rv"'ice"'-___ -"B'--_____ ---' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity..::ra~ti~o ___ ~0.~84;---,;--~_;7,"__,_-;------"""',__------, J\ctuated Cycle Length (~)-;;-_____ :::4:;,2."'"5--...;:S"'um7:-"'0f-"lo:;::st:..;:ti;::me=-,(~)--------=:20~.0:-_____ ---1 Intersection Capacity,.:U:.::til::::iza"'ti""on'--___ ---"'46:o::.9'i,o/cO'-, __ "'IC"'U..::Le"'v""el..::of'-'S:.:e:..:.rvi""ce'--_____ ..:.A'--_____ --, J\nalysis Period (min) ________ 1"'5 ____________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE -,. 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 3476 1805 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.57 Satd. Flow (~erml 3476 1091 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1Idj. Flow (~p.N 75 274 16 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (~P.!J) 75 285 0 11 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 0% jl"umTYRe Rm+pt NA Rm+Rt Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 42.1 37.1 34.1 Effective Green&(~) 42.1 37.1 34.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.49 0.45 pearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (sl 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane GrJl Capj~p.!J) 215 1719 505 - 0.93 1070 22 1285 0% NA 8 33.1 33.1 0.44 5.0 2.0 1549 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 0.08 0.00 cO.37 'Ills Ratio Perm 0.17 0.01 vic Ratio 0.35 0.17 0.02 0.83 Uniform Delay, dl 12.3 10.4 11.2 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 Delay (s) 12.6 10.4 11.2 22.1 Level-o! Service B B B C Approach Delay (s) 10.9 22.0 ~~woach LOS -C B 0.93 237 0 0 0% t 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1805 1894 0.95 1.00 1805 1894 0.93 0.93 48 253 0 1 48 257 0% 0% Prot NA 5 2 3.0 14.9 3.0 14.9 0.04 0.20 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 72 376 cO.03 cO.14 0.67 0.68 35.5 27.9 1.00 1.00 16.6 9.7 52.1 37.6 D D 39.8 D Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1770 1766 0.95 1.00 1770 1766 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 5 32 102 54 0 0 27 0 0 32 129 0 0% 2% 2% 2% Prot NA I 1 6 2.0 13.9 2.0 13.9 0.03 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 47 327 0.02 0.07 0.68 0.39 36.2 26.9 1.00 1.00 27.7 3.5 63.9 30.4 E C 36.1 D ~------------------.- HCM 2000 Control Del~_"--;;--___ ---,2""3:::.9:..-_-,-,HC",M=20""0",-0.=:Le,,-,v,,,el-,,-of,-,S,,,,e~rv~ice~ ___ --'C'--______ ....J HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity,-,r:::at:::io ___ ~O;;. 7;.:;5;.-_--,.,=-=::0.;::::-;::;-_____ -;;;;;;;-______ --, 1Ictuated Cycle Leng!l!.(~) 75.0 Sum of lost time (~). ______ 2=.:0::,:.0~-------J Intersection Capacity,;-,U::.::ti",liz:::.at::io::.:n ____ --'-'72::::.27.o/c~o __ .::IC:.:U:.:L:::e.:.:ve::.1 o"'f.=S.:::erv.:;ic::::e'--______ c"--______ -, 1Inal~is Period (min)=-________ 1"'5 _____________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way 5E & 5E 18th 5t t Lane Configurations V to )/olume (veh/h) 10 5 70 5 10 Sign Control Stop Free :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 Hourly flow rate (ypJ)} 14 7 96 7 14 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking~peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median tyRe None Median storage veh) .\!Rstream sig~{~} pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 209 99 103 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 209 99 103 )f, sing~{~) 6.4 6.2 4.3 tC, 2 stage (~) !E..(~} 3.5 3.3 2.4 pO queue Iree % 98 99 .99 CM caRacityjveh/h} 776 962 1400 of 60 Free 0% 0.73 82 None Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM ~---~~-~ ------------~--- )/olume Total 21 103 96 Volume Left 14 0 14 )/olume Right 7 7 0 cSH 830 1700 1400 )/olume to CaRacity 0.02 0.06 0.01 Queue Length 95th (~) 2 0 1 Control Delayj~} 9.4 0.0 1.2 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach Delayj~) 9.4 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS A ~---------------- Average Delay 1.4 iirteiSection Ca'-:R-:-ac"'ity.......,Ut""iliz::-:a"'tio:-:n-------;:2:-;;:0.~4°:;;.Yo----;I"CU"'Le:-v""el..,.ol"S"e-::-rv'"'ice,-----------;A--------, Analysis Period (min) _________ 1~5:...._ ____________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE -+ .. - Lane Configurations oft oft !"olume (veh/h) 10 15 15 10 20 Sign Control Free Free ,Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Hourly flow rate (yp.!!) 11 17 17 11 23 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !:!~stream signal m} pX, platoon unblocked Iif, conflicting volume 86 34 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 86 34 tC, sing~(~} 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~} ~(~) 2.3 2.2 pO queue free % 99 99 'cM ca~acityJveh/h} 1443 1590 !"olume Total 46 98 57 63 Volume Left 11 11 46 46 !"olume Right 17 63 11 17 cSH 1443 1590 833 865 "'olume to Ca~acity 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 Queue Length 95th (It) 1 1 6 6 Control Delay (s) 1.9 0.9 9.6 9.5 Lane LOS A A A A ~~Rroach DelayJ~} 1.9 0.9 9.6 9.5 Approach LOS A A t oft 55 40 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0.87 0.87 63 46 0 144 158 144 158 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 94 100 793 716 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM oft 10 40 0 15 Stop 0% I 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 11 46 0 17, 26 138 135 55 I 26 138 135 55 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 94 100 98 1039 818 748 1018 ~ ------------------------------ Average Delay,_~~_o"-----_=.:,5.""0--""""",.,.,..__,_;_;~~------....,.....------_, iiiierSection Ca~acity Utilization 15.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min}'--_______ -.-:..:15'--____________________ -. C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t Lane Configurations V to /IIolume (veh/h) 5 50 75 5 25 Sign Control Stop Free prade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hou~y flow rate (yp.!!) 5 52 78 5 26 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median tyRe None Median storage veh) !!Rstream sig~I.,(~) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 190 81 83 vC 1 , stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 190 81 83 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC, 2 stag!.(~) !E.(~) 3.5 3.3 2.3 pO queue Iree % 99 95 98 eM caRacity.,(veh/h) 782 977 1465 /IIolume Total 57 83 83 Volume Left 5 0 26 /IIolume Right 52 5 0 cSH 955 1700 1465 /Jolume 10 CaRacity 0.06 0.05 0.02 Queue Length 95th (~) 5 0 1 Control Delay (s) 9.0 0.0 2.4 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach Delay.,(~) 9.0 0.0 2.4 Approach LOS A of 55 Free 0% 0.96 57 None Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM Average Delay 3.2 lrrt<BrSe~a~R-ac-ity~Uti~·liz-a"tio-n---------'2~1.~OO~~----'I~CU~Le-v'el-m~S'e-~~ioo------------~A--------------' Analysis Period (min), ________________ -'-'15'--________________________________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane Configurations V of To jVolume (veh/h) 5 10 25 70 60 Sign Control Stop Free Free ~rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourl~ flow rate (yp"ll) 6 12 31 86 74 Pedestrians Lane Width@ Walking.§.peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal @ pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 228 80 86 vCl, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 228 80 86 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) !E"{~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 99 99 98 CM caRacity,.{vehlh) 748 985 1497 jVolume Total 19 117 86 Volume Left 6 31 0 jVolume Right 12 0 12 cSH 891 1497 1700 jVolume to Ca~acily 0.02 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th @ 2 2 0 ,Control Delay,.{~) 9.1 2.1 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~p'p'roach Delat(~) 9.1 2.1 0.0 Approach LOS A 10 0.81 12 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM Average Delay 1.9 lnfeffie~a=p'~aQT.·ty~U~ti~·liz=a~tio=n---------o2·1.~7%~'----'IC~U~Le=ve~l~ol~S~eN=i~ce~-----------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min), _______________ -..:.:15'--________________________________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE -+ .. - Lane Configurations 4-4- lliolume (veh/h) 10 40 5 5 120 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourty flow rate (~p,!1) 12 49 6 6 146 Pedestrians Lane Width@ Walking.§peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) .':lEstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 146 55 vCl, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 146 55 tC, sing~{~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stag!.{~) !!:J~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 99 100 'CM caEacityJveh/h) 1423 1544 lliolume Total 67 152 30 61 Volume Left 12 6 24 6 lliolume Right 6 0 6 49 cSH 1423 1544 675 838 lliolume to CaEaci\y 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 4 6 Control DelayJ~) 1.4 0.3 10.6 9.6 Lane LOS A A B A 'ARRroach Delay (s) 1.4 0.3 10.6 9.6 ----Approach LOS B A t 4- 0 20 0 Stop 0% 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 24 0 287 235 287 235 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 96 100 623 661 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 4- 5 5 5 40 Stop 0% I 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 6 6 6 49 52 241 238 146 I 52 241 238 146 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 95 1022 696 650 893 ~~--------------------------------_. Average Delay 3.4 frrt,9rSeCifonCa~R~ac~ity~Ut~iliz~a7,tio~n------2~0.~6°~Yo--'I~CU~Le~v~el~muS~e~N~i~~--------.A----------, Analysis Period {min), _________ --"'15O--_____________________ --, C Q;IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ~------------------------------------------------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE - Lane Configurations 4-4- /Jolume (veh/h) 0 25 5 0 45 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.92 0.80 Hourly flow rate (ypJ]) 0 31 5 0 56 Pedestrians lane Width (~) Walking Speed (!tis) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !iRstream signal m} pX. platoon unblocked g;-conflicting volume 56 37 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 56 37 )f, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (~) --2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 100 100 eM caRacityjvehlh) 1561 1574 0 5 0.80 0.92 0 5 90 90 7.1 3.5 99 894 --------------------------- t 4- 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0 90 90 6.5 4.0 100 800 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM 4- 0 0 0 0 Stop 0% I 0.92 0.80 0.92 0.80 0 0 0 0 34 90 93 56 I 34 90 93 56 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 100 100 100 100 1039 899 797 1016 ------------- 1J0lume Total 37 56 5 0 Volume Left 0 0 5 0 /Jolume Right 5 0 a 0 cSH 1561 1574 894 1700 !Volume to CaRacity 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Queue length 95th (ft) a a a a Control Delayj~) 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 lane lOS A A ~Rroach Delayj~) 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 Approach lOS A A ------------------------------ Average Delay 0.5 ~e~a~p.~ac~ity~Ut~iliz~a70tio~n-----.1n3.~3°~~--'I~CU~le~v~el~oluS~e~N~ice~------.A--------. Analysis Period (min}, ________ .....:.:15'--____________________ -----, C Q;IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolAM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM ~ ________ W:lJ1 _~ _~ _ ~ __ iSJll1 ___ ~ _ ___ __ ~~ ______ _ Lane Configurations V to of /Jolume (veh/h) 25 160 315 15 35 105 Sign Control Stop Free Free :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (yp.!!) 26 167 328 16 36 109 Pedestrians 2 Lane Width ml 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !:!Rstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 520 338 346 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 520 338 346 lQ, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) tF (~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 95 76 97 eM caRacityjvehlh) 500 703 1200 /Jolume Total 193 344 146 I Volume Left 26 0 36 /Jolume Right 167 16 0 cSH 666 1700 1200 /Jolume to CaRacity 0.29 0.20 0.03 Queue Length 95th (~) 30 0 2 Control Delayj~) 12.6 0.0 2.2 Lane LOS B A ~RRroach Delay_(~) 12.6 0.0 2.2 Approach LOS B ~~---~-~ ~----------------- Average Delay 4.0 ~e~a~R-ac"ity'U~t"'iIi~-etio-n--------~4~6.~2%~o----~IC~U~Le-ve~1'ol~S~e-N~ice------------~A--------------' Analysis Period (min,,-) ________________ --'-15"-________________________________________ -----, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Existing 4-16-201. Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street -,. Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing AM ___ ___ _ Jllillt __ ~ ___ W J!iWiI __ @ _Q______ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ~ Lane Configurations 10 of V 1I0lume (veh/h) 50 5 0 175 10 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (yp.!)) 52 5 0 182 10 0 Pedestrians 2 1 Lane Width @ 12.0 12.0 Walking.§.peed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) .l!Rstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 58 238 58 vCl, stage 1 coni vol yC2, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 58 238 58 )g, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue Iree % 100 99 100 eM caRacityJvehfh) 1544 754 1012 1I0lume Total 57 182 10 Volume Left 0 0 10 1I0lume Right 5 0 0 cSH 1700 1544 754 1J0lume to CaRacity 0.03 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (It) 0 0 1 Control DelayJ~) 0.0 0.0 9.8 Lane LOS A ~RRroach DelayJ~) 0.0 0.0 9.8 Approach LOS A ---------------------------------- Average Delay 0.4 ~eCtionCa~R-ac~ity~Uti~·li-za7-tio-n-----.l'9.~9°~~--·I~C~U·Le-v·el-m~S~e-N~ice------~A--------. Analysis Period (min), ________ ---'-'15'--____________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Existing 4-16-201, Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Lane Configurations 4- I/olume (yp.!!) 40 15 5 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 ifotal Lost tin-Ie (~) 5.0 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.97 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1819 Fit Permitted 0.83 Satd. Flow {~erm1 1556 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 'Adj. Flow (yp.!!) 42 16 5 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 Lane GrouQ Flow (yP.ij) 0 60 0 0 Hea!l: Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 1% ifum Ty~e Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 Effective Green..9.(~ 24.0 Actuated glC Ratio 0.27 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (sl 3.0 Lane G~ CapjypJ)) 414 vis Ratio Prot ~/s Ratio Perm cO.04 vic Ratio 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Dela~J~) 25.3 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 25.3 r." C ~~woach LOS - of .,., 5 365 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1808 2814 0.82 1.00 1547 2814 0.95 0.95 5 384 0 282 26 102 1% 1% NA Perm 8 8 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 0.27 0.27 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 412 750 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.14 24.6 25.1 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.1 24.7 25.2 C C 25.2 C t 11 tJ. 5 870 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1787 3548 0.14 1.00 265 3548 0.95 0.95 5 916 0 4 5 959 1% 1% ~m+Qt NA 5 2 2 29.2 28.4 29.2 28.4 0.32 0.32 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 99 1119 0.00 0.27 0.02 0.05 0.86 21.8 28.9 1.00 1.00 0.3 8.5 22.1 37.4 C D 37.3 D Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM lI!i_tf> 45 855 1565 95 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 3467 3544 0.12 1.00 437 3544 I 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 47 900 1847 100 0 0 4 0 0 900 1743 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Qm+Qt NA I 1 6 6 56.0 50.2 56.0 50.2 0.62 0.56 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 1032 1976 cO.22 cO.49 0.32 0.87 0.88 23.4 17.3 1.00 1.00 8.9 6.1 32.3 23.4 C C 26.4 C ~ ---.-.-----------~ ~ -_. -----~-" HCM 2000 Control Delay_c--...,,-___ --'2"'8"'.9 __ -'-"HC"'M"-='20"'0"-0 "'Le"'ve""I""ofc.::S"'e"'rv""ice'---___ --"C'--______ ...J HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity~ra~ti~0 ___ ~0~.7~1:---"""-_;_;_""'""-;_;_-----__,,=_------__, I\ctuated Cycle Length (~) 90.0 Sum of lost time (~) ______ 1!-'9"".0'--______ .J Intersection Capacity.-.::U:..:ti::::liz:=;at::.::io:.:.n ____ .....::::82::.:.6:,:,%;..-_--'.:IC:..:U:.;L"'ev.:..:e::.:1 o:::.f.=:Se"'rv:.:.ic:.:e'--_____ ...:E=--______ -, I\nalysis Period (min) ________ -'1~5 _____________________ ....J c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site-Henley ResidentialITraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S -t Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 'i tt. 'i tt. !:-----..~----,1=50 145!:---4"'5---=2""'70 525!:----=5 Lane Configurations ·tt. oft. /Jolume (~P.b) 25 480 420 45 200 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 jrotal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 I Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 3326 3377 1805 3481 1787 3569 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3326 3377 1805 3481 1787 3569 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 :Adj. Flow (yp.!)) 26 500 438 47 208 125 156 151 47 281 547 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 166 0 0 68 0 o 33 0 0 1 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (~@) 0 798 0 0 312 0 156 165 0 281 551 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% jrurn Ty~e S~lit NA S~lit NA Prot NA Prot NA I Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (5) 23.5 13.5 10.6 12.7 16.1 18.2 Effective Green,.g_(~j 23.5 13.5 10.6 12.7 16.1 18.2 Actuated glC Ratio 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.21 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (5) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 Lane GfIl Capjyp.b) 910 531 222 515 335 757 vis Ratio Prot cO.24 cO.09 0.09 0.05 cO.16 cO.15 yls Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.88 0.59 0.70 0.32 0.84 0.73 Uniform Delay, dl 29.8 33.6 36.1 32.7 33.6 31.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.8 2.0 10.3 0.8 16.6 4.3 Delay (5) 39.6 35.5 46.4 33.4 50.2 35.8 Level of Service D D D C D D Approach Delay (5) 39.6 35.5 ~p'~roach LOS -D D 39.2 40.6 D D ~--------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_~'"C""----'30,,9~.3'---~HC"'M"-='20"'0.:..0 "'Le:..:.ve"'I""of'-'S"'e:..:,rv:;:,ice"-___ --=D'--______ --' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity1.Cra::::t~io:...-... ___ ~0.;.,81;,_-__,;-:-:-..,....,"'"',."..,..=_-----__,;"""------__, :Actuated Cy_de_L_ength (~) 85.8 Sum of lost time (~), ______ 2"'0"".O:--______ ..J Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.8% ICU Level of Service D :Analysis Period (min) _________ 1"'5 _____________________ ---l c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentia~Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 412212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------------- SimTraffic Performance Report -----------~-------------- Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach ~ _________ filll ____ ~ ___ ~ __ t\jJ) ____ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ Total Zone Performance --------------------------------~-----------~---- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Existing 4-16-201· SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM __ ._~J!lli..~ 1;iru_~.!m7Z_~1i@. ~§ll _ ~§ll _ ~_~ _~_~ ______ .~. _. ___ ~ Directions Served L R T L T T R Mijxim:uni\Que\Jem).;Yi:f~85_t~6.If@fflJ;74!i.:~$¥,~}j;i,~7,3_?!c;$~~';: --:;~'J;i~:ir? -/~i.wl Average Queue (ft) 40 58 0 0 25 37 95f®1l'eti~ @ _._ ;': -. ;7t;j;;'t'c\.!!W'ilJ!iilt3X:i'~;~i3t;;;~R55j#i6i(Dlili;:t~iJJI!Ii1il-i&:w:·;"i.t;n1?I:~ -'\!\';\~;I Link Distance (ft) 268 268 201 840 254 254 !:!jfs"mii'-;BlkTimer@)l!,~ -··,!it4i?ii%",~a--J.Iij;T'j;-:il.-si~",1I~;~!0~lj-t"~f( ., -~${~·x4tli 'tii';,tl I Zone Summary Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Existing 4-16-201, SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM ~ _________ I'!'IDL.WM __ ~ __ .J\'.!.llEl_m_ u. ___________________ _ Lane Configurations V to of /Jolume (vehfh) 15 20 210 20 35 240 Sign Control Stop Free Free !3rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (YI1!!) 16 22 226 22 38 258 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking~peed (IUs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lYRe None None Median storage veh) !:l~stream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked :vC, conflicting volume 570 237 247 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 570 237 247 tC, singl~J~). 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) !I.(~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 97 97 97 8if caRacityJvehlh) 473 807 1319 ~ ____ m~_m~__ _ _______ _ 1J0lume Total 38 247 296 Volume Left 16 0 38 ,Volume Right 22 22 0 I cSH 619 1700 1319 ,Volume to Ca~acity 0.06 0.15 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 2 Control DelayJ~) 11.2 0.0 1.2 Lane LOS B A ~RRroach DelayJ~) 11.2 0.0 1.2 Approach LOS B ~ _._------------------------------ Average Delay 1.3 ~e~a~R~ac7.ity~U~t~ili~~tio~n--------'4·0.~2%~o----'IC~U~Le~ve~1~ol~S~e~N~ice~-----------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min) _________ 1:..:5'--_______________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Lane Configurations 'i t ~ 'i I/olume (~p.N 35 310 430 90 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 i!"0lal Lost time (§) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (wot) 1787 1881 1599 1787 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.36 Satd. Flow (~erml 1787 1881 1599 673 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 \\dj. Flow (~P.!J) 38 341 473 99· RTOR Reduction (~ph) 0 0 336 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (~p.!J) 38 341 137 99 Hea~ Vehicles l%l 1% 1% 1% 1% i!"um TYRe Prot NA Perm Rm+Rt Protected Phases 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (~) 1.6 17.2 17.2 22.8 Effective Green&(§) 1.6 17.2 17.2 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.38 ,Clearance Time (§) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension lsI 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane GrJl Capj~p.!]) 48 545 463 326 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 cO.18 0.02 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.10 vic Ratio 0.79 0.63 0.30 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 28.7 18.3 16.3 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremenlal Delay, d2 55.5 1.6 0.1 0.2 Delay (s) 84.2 19.9 16.5 12.5 Level of Service F B B B Approach Delay (s) 20.9 ~R~roach LOS --C -t To 'i To 125 15 80 195 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 1852 1787 1766 1.00 0.53 1.00 1852 1000 1766 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 137 16 88 214 5 0 0 36 148 0 88 326 1% 1% 1% 1% NA Rm+Rt NA 4 5 2 2 19.2 20.5 16.9 19.2 20.5 16.9 0.32 0.35 0.28 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 599 393 503 0.08 cO.01 cO.18 0.06 0.25 0.22 0.65 14.7 13.4 18.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.1 2.2 14.8 13.5 20.8 B B C 13.9 19.3 B B Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 'i_To 135 35 175 10 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1787 1866 0.41 1.00 773 1866 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 148 38 192 11 0 0 3 0 0 38 200 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Rm+Rt NA I 1 6 6 16.5 14.9 16.5 14.9 0.28 0.25 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 242 468 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.16 0.43 15.9 18.6 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.2 16.0 18.9 B B 18.4 B ~------~-----------~----- HCM 2000 Control Delay,_~~ ___ --,-19"".2,-_--'.!HC",M!,-~20",00"-,L""e,,-,ve,,,1 o"'f-"'Se"'rv:.::ic"'e ____ -'B=---_____ ---' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity,~ra~t~io ___ ~0:;.6~0 __ -:----,-,---,.,,-----,-, _____ --==-=-______ --, \\ctuated Cycle Length (§) 59.3 Sum of lost time (s), _____ ----"2""0.=-0 ______ ----l Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B 'Analysis Period (min)/ ________ ...!:15~ ___________________ _._J c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ,-----------------------------------------------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane Configurations 11 t.1o 11 I/olume (YP..b) 165 995 80 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jl"otal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1787 3534 1787 Fit Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.16 .Satd. Flow (~erm) 289 3534 301 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 )l.dj. Flow (YP..b) 174 1047 84 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (yP.!J) 174 1124 0 53 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% jl"um Ty~e Rm+Rt NA ~m+~t Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 39.1 30.8 28.3 Effective Green&(~) 39.1 30.8 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.34 0.31 pearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane GrJl Capjyp..b) 277 1209 149 vis Ratio Prot cO.OS cO.32 0.01 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.10 vic Ratio 0.63 0.93 0.36 ,Unfform Delay, dl 18.3 28.S 23.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 12.4 1.5 Delay (5) 21.4 41.0 25.2 Level of Service C D C Approach Delay (s) 38.4 ~p'~roach LOS D - +_10 555 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3466 1.00 3466 0.95 584 25 706 1% NA 8 25.0 25.0 0.28 5.0 2.0 962 0.20 0.73 29.5 1.00 2.5 32.0 C 31.6 C t 11 10 140 45 145 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1787 1826 0.95 1.00 1787 1826 0.95 0.95 0.95 147 47 153 0 0 9 0 47 181 1% 1% 1% Prot NA 5 2 3.0 20.1 3.0 20.1 0.03 0.22 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 59 407 0.03 0.10 0.80 0.44 43.2 30.1 1.00 1.00 48.4 3.5 91.S 33.6 F C 45.1 D Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 11 10 35 265 325 140 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 1796 0.95 1.00 1787 1796 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 37 279 342 14~ 0 0 16 0 0 279 473 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 15.8 32.9 15.8 32.9 0.18 0.37 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 313 656 cO.16 cO.26 0.89 0.72 3S.3 24.6 1.00 1.00 25.0 6.7 61.3 31.3 E C 42.2 D ------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay--,,,.--,,---___ -"'38"'.1'--_--'-"HC""M"'2"'0"'00'-'L"'ev"'e:.o1 o,,-f ""Se"'rv""ice"-___ --"'D ______ ---' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity...:;ra:::ti::..o ___ -;0.;;:89;-_~--,.,.....,..".__,..,._-----~,----------, )l.ctuated Cy_cle_L_engt!!.(~) 90.0 Sum of lost time (5) _____ --"20"'.0"--_____ ----' Intersection Capacity~U~til~iz~ati~on~---~80~.7:...;.O/C~o __ ~IC:::U~L~ev~el~o~f S:::::e~rv~ice~ _____ -!:D~ _____ ---, )l.nalysis Period (min) ________ 1!.-"5'--___________________ ----I c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjeclsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM _ _ _ _ l!!l.'lL 9 _Wffil ll'Jll):l _ @EJl ~ ____ ~ ______ . ____ ....... _ Lane Configurations V to 4 /Jolume (veh/h) 5 5 35 5 10 35 Sign Control Stop Free Free ~rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourl~ flow rate (yp.!)) 6 6 42 6 12 42 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) .\!Rstream sig~(~) pX, platoon unblocked :-&. conflicting volume 110 45 48 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol :VC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 110 45 48 tC, sing~(§) 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC, 2 stage (~) !E..(§) 3.5 3.3 2.3 pO queue free % 99 99 99 'eM caRacityJvehlh) ___ ~85 1031 1486 ~-~~--.~--~~--------~-----------.-~-. /Jolume Total 12 48 54 Volume Left 6 0 12 /Jolume Right 6 6 0 cSH 952 1700 1486 /Jolume to CaRacity 0.01 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delat(§) 8.8 0.0 1.7 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach DelayJ§) 8.8 0.0 1.7 Approach LOS A ~~ ----_._----------------------~~--- Average Delay 1.7 iiiierSection C'-a~,-a-,cit-;-y-;-;U'"tilC"iza""tiCon,--------c1;-;;9~.1;;:,%-----;,;IC"'U·L.,.,ev,.,-el"o"l S"'e""rv"'ic--=-e------'Ac---------, Analysis Period (min)'-_______ --'-'15=--____________________ --, I Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE Lane Configurations 4-4- ,Volume (veh/h) 5 10 45 15 5 Sign Control Free Free ;Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (~P.b) 5 11 49 16 5 Pedestrians Lane Width @ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (vah) Median lYRe None None Median storage veh) ,\!Qstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 22 60 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 22 60 tC, sing~(~) 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) !EJ~) 2.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 99 CM caRacilYJvehlh) 1519 1556 IVolume Total 66 38 49 22 Volume Left 5 16 33 16 IVolume Right 49 16 16 5 cSH 1519 . 1556 909 896 IVolume to CaRacilY 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 Queue Length 95th (It) 0 1 4 2 Control DelayJ~) 0.6 3.2 9.2 9.1 Lane LOS A A A A ~RRroach DelayJ~) 0.6 3.2 9.2 9.1 Approach LOS A A t 4- 15 30 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 33 0 99 102 99 102 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 96 100 859 770 Reserve at Tiffany Park Exisling PM 4- 15 15 0 5 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 16 0 5 36 110 118 14 I 36 110 118 14 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 98 98 100 99 1026 850 765 1072 I Average Delay 4.7 ~ectionCa~R~ac7.ilY~Uti~·li~za70tio~n--------~1"6.~3°~~----'I~CU~Le~v~el~ofNS~e~N~ice~----------~A--------------' Analysis Period (min), _______________ --...:..:15O--________________________________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t ------------ Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM \li'I:ll \fi'I:]1 fi [¢]Nl "'"" §;]V _ _ ___ A~ _______________ ~ ________________________ _ Lane Configurations V To 4' 1J0lume (vehlh) 5 15 50 10 20 60 Sign Control Stop Free Free ,Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 0,80 Hourly flow rate (yp.!)} 6 19 62 12 25 75 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking~peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !,lRslream sig~ml pX, plaloon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 194 69 75 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 194 69 75 tC, sing~(~} 6,4 6,2 4,1 IC, 2 slage (s) IF (~) --3,5 3.3 2:2 pO queue free % 99 98 98 eM caRacityjveh/h) 786 1000 1518 1J0lume Total 25 75 100 Volume Left 6 a 25 1J0lume RighI 19 12 a cSH 936 1700 1518 1J0lume 10 CaRacity 0,03 0,04 0,02 Queue Length 95th (It) 2 a 1 Control Delayj~} 8,9 0,0 1.9 Lane LOS A A ~p.Rroach DelayJ~} 8,9 0,0 1.9 Approach LOS A ~~------~ ----_. _. ------- Average Delay 2,1 ~eCiWnCa~R~aQ~'ty-U~t~il~~tio~n--------~2AO,~9%~--'IC~U~Le~ve~l~ol~S~e~N~ice~---------'A-----------' Analysis Period (min}'---______________ 1.:.:5'---_____________________________________ --, C Q:IProjeclsI13113175,00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing,syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane Configurations V /Jolume (veh'7./h7) =----'15.--;;;=---;;;;----.'J of to 25 20 50 55 Sign Control Stop :Grade 0% Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 5 0.72 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 35 28 69 76 7 ~~ flow rate (ypJ:!} ___ ...;2"..,1'-----''''-_-=_---''''-_-'.::.. __ '--_____________ -.J Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walking Speed;-;(ftlb.s:7}------------------------------' PerCent Blockage Right turn flare (v":e-.:ch};--------------------------~--------' Median tyRe None None Median sto=ra:-:g-::-e:::ve:Lh,) ----------="--'-"""'-------------------' !!Rstream signal m}.-,-______________________________ -' pX. platoon unblocked 205 80 83 205 80 83 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 97 96 98 773 986 1495 ------------------------- /Jolume Total 56 97 83 Volume Left 21 28 0 /Jolume Right 35 0 7 cSH 894 1495 1700 /Jolume to CaRacity 0.06 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (It) 5 1 0 Control DelaY-W--9.3 2.2 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach Delay_(~} 9.3 2.2 0.0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 3.1 ~e~a~R~ac~ity~U~t~iliz~aT,tio-n----~2~0.7.4%~o--~I~CU~Le-v~el-of~S~e-Ncice-------.A--------. Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------------------------------- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE - Lane Configurations 4t 4t /Jolume (veh/h) 60 245 30 5 105 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (YP..b) 66 269 33 5 115 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (IUs) PercentBlockage Right tum flare (veh) Median !y~e None None Median storage veh) .l!~stream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 121 302 vC1, stage 1 coni vol ~, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 121 302 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) !.E..(~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 96 100 'cM ca~aci!yjveh/h) 1467 1264 5 0.91 5 t 4t 10 5 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 11 5 582 549 582 549 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 97 99 393 424 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 4t 5 5 5 30 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 5 5 33 286 555 563 118 I 286 555 563 118 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 96 758 421 416 939 ~~~JL_IRi!l~jL~~ ___ ~ __ ~ ________ ~_ /Jolume Total 368 126 22 44 Volume Left 66 5 11 5 /Jolume Right 33 5 5 33 cSH 1467 1264 456 717 /Jolume to Ca~aci!y 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.06 Queue Length 95th (!9 4 0 4 5 Control Delat(~) 1.7 0.4 13.3 10.4 Lane LOS A A B B ~~roach Delat(~) 1.7 0.4 13.3 10.4 Approach LOS B B ~------------~ -------- Average Delay 2.5 ~eCikmCa~~-ac7.i!Y~Ut~iliz-a~tio-n-----~~7.~7'~~----~I~CU~Le-~~1-ol~S~e-N~i~---------~A--------------. Analysis Period (min) _________________ 1~5 ___________________________________ ___, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site~Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE -- Lane Configurations 4t 4t 1I0lume (veh/h) 0 30 5 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (yp.!]) 0 36 6 6 18 Pedestrians Lane Width (tt) Walking Speed (Ws) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 18 42 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 18 42 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) tF (~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 100 100 eM caRacilyjveh/h) 1612 1580 t 4t 0 5 0 Stop 0% 0.84 0.84 0.84 0 6 0 68 68 68 68 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 99 100 926 823 Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM 4t 0 0 0 0 Stop 0% I 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0 0 0 0 39 68 71 18 I 39 68 71 18 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 100 100 100 100 1039 926 820 106~ ~~~jL_&ll_n __________________ _ 1I0lume Total 42 24 6 0 Volume Lelt 0 6 6 0 1I0lume Right 6 0 0 0 cSH 1612 1580 926 1700 1I0lume to CaRacily 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (It) 0 0 0 0 Control Delayj~) 0.0 1.8 8.9 0.0 Lane LOS A A A ~Rroach Delayj~) 0.0 1.8 8.9 0.0 Approach LOS A A ~~----_.-----_. ----_._------------- Average Delay 1.4 ~e~onCa~R~ac3ity~Uli~·Ii=za~tio=n~-------.1~5.i2°~Yo----'I~C~U'Le~v~el~0 .. IS'-e7N~ice~-----------.A--------------, Analysis Period (min) 15 lC Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolPM Existing.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Lane Configurations V to of I/olurne (veh/h) 30 90 175 50 160 250 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (YP.!1) 31 94 182 52 167 260 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking~peed (It/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) .\:!Rstrearn signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked i!.g, conflicting volurne 802 208 234 vC 1 , stage 1 coni vol ~, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 802 208 234 ~, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~l tF (~l 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 90 89 88 eM caRacilyJvehlh) 310 835 1339 I/olurne Total 125 234 427 Volurne Left 31 0 167 . I/olurne Right 94 52 0 cSH 587 1700 1339 I/olurne to CaRacily 0.21 0.14 0.12 Queue Length 95th @ 20 0 11 Control Delat(~l 12.8 0.0 3.9 Lane LOS B A ~RRroach DelayJ~l 12.8 0.0 3.9 Approach LOS B Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM ~~-._----------~----~---------~-----~- Average Delay 4.1 ~e~a~R-ac~ity~Uti~·Ii-W"tio-n-----~5~1.;5'~~--~I~CU~Le-v~el-ol~S~e-N~ice------~A--------' Analysis Period (rninl _________ l:.:5 _____________________ -, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Existing 4-16-201· Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street - Reserve at Tiffany Park Existing PM _______ @!N ___ ilIfm __ m __ ..wmr __ JmJL_~ __________________ _ Lane Configurations 1+ of V /Jolume (veh/h) 195 15 5 115 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourty flow rate (yp.!)} 203 16 5 120 5 5 Pedestrians lane Width @ Walking Speed (ftJs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh} !!Rstream signal (m pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 219 341 211 vC1, stage 1 conI vol :VC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 219 341 211 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.6 6.4 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (~) --2.2 3.7 3.5 pO queue Iree % 100 99 99 'cM caRacityjveh/h) 1357 623 793 ~------------------ /Jolume Total 219 125 10 Volume Left 0 5 5 /Jolume Right 16 0 5 cSH 1700 1357 698 1J0lume to CaRacity 0.13 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay_(~) 0.0 0.3 10.2 Lane LOS A B ~p.Rroach Delayj~) 0.0 0.3 10.2 Approach LOS B ~~-------~~-------------------- Average Delay 0.4 JnierSection Ca':-R-ac:;;ity~Uti""·liz:-:a70tio-n------2"'"1."'2°:,;.Yo--'I"CU"'le-v'el-,-ol"S"e-rvcice-,--------;A--------, Analysis Period (min)'--_______ -'-'15'---____________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Existing 4-16-201' Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Lane Configuralions 4- /Jolume (yPl1) 90 5 5 35 Ideal Flow (vphel) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jfotal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Ulil. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.96 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1771 Fit Permitted 0.72 Satd. Flow !~erm) 1342 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 'lIdj. Flow (YPl1) 95 5 5 37 RTOR Reduclion (vph) 0 1 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (YPl1) 0 104 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles !%) 2% 2% 2% 2% jfum TYRe Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.0 Effective Green&(~j 51.0 Actuated glC Ratio 0.34 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension !s) 3.0 Lane GrR Capjypl1) 456 vis Ratio Prot ~/s Ratio Perm 0.08 vic Ralio 0.23 ,Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 35.7 Level-of Service D Approach Delay (s) 35.7 ~Rroach LOS -D - 4' 5 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1784 0.75 1399 0.95 5 0 42 2% NA 8 51.0 51.0 0.34 5.0 3.0 475 0.03 0.09 33.7 1.00 0.1 33.8 C 72.7 E t 'f''f' , U· 945 5 1995 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 2787 1770 3538 1.00 0.47 1.00 2787 879 3538 0.95 0.95 0.95 995 5 2100 63 0 0 932 5 2105 2% 2% 2% Perm Rm+Rt NA 5 2 8 2 51.0 80.8 80.0 51.0 80.8 80.0 0.34 0.54 0.53 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 947 478 1886 0.00 cO.59 cO.33 0.01 0.98 0.01 1.12 49.1 16.0 35.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 25.3 0.0 60.2 74.4 16.0 95.2 E B F 95.0 F Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM Z1~_tfo 5 110 420 20 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 3303 3382 0.05 1.00 167 3382 I 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 5 116 442 21 0 0 2 0 0 116 461 0 2% 6% 6% 6% Rm+Rt NA I 1 6 6 87.2 83.2 87.2 83.2 0.58 0.55 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 180 1875 cO.02 0.14 0.36 0.64 0.25 35.3 17.2 1.00 1.00 10.4 0.3 45.6 17.5 D B 23.2 C HCM 2000 Control Delay_,,-"7' ____ 7~6~.5'---'.!HC~M~20~0~0 .':'Le,-!v!,!el~of'C:S~e!.!rv~ice,,-___ ~E=--______ ..J HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity'..:ra:::t:::oio ___ -,.1,;.:;.0c;8:-_.....,.""C"'=-:"""-,:-c'=-_____ ~""------__, 'lIctuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (~) ______ 1"'9"'.0 ______ --' Interseclion Capacity"'U:.:li:;:liz:::ati:.:·o::;,n ____ ...:1"'06::..4""'t."'o __ ..::IC::;U:..;L::::e.:.,:ve::..1 o""f..=S"'erv.:.,:ice=--______ G=-______ -, 'lInalysis Period (min) _________ 1~5 _____________________ --1 c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidenliallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperalionslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S -.. Lane Configurations ofJ. )tolume (yp.N 10 60 5 10 Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 ifotal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 3258 Fit Pennitted 0.99 Satd. Flow (~enn) 3258 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I\dj. Flow (yp.N 11 63 5 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (ypl)) 0 74 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 1% ifurn TYRe Split NA Split Protected Phases 3 3 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 6.6 Effective Green,,9.(~) 6.6 Actuated glC Ratio 0.08 ~Iearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 Lane GrJ> CaR (vph) 273 ------ - of.To 525 1900 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3390 1.00 3390 0.95 553 69 784 1% NA 4 20.2 20.2 0.26 5.0 4.0 871 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 cO.23 ~Is Ratio Penn vic Ratio 0.27 0.90 Unifonn Delay, d1 33.7 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 12.5 Delayj~) 34.5 40.7 Level of Service C D Approach Delay (s) 34.5 40.7 ~tiproach LOS C D 275 1900 0.95 289 0 0 1% t 'i tTo 395 570 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 3565 0.95 1.00 1787 3565 0.95 0.95 416 600 0 1 416 610 1% 1% Prot NA 5 2 20.2 28.4 20.2 28.4 0.26 0.36 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 459 1288 cO.23 cO. 17 0.91 0.47 28.3 19.3 1.00 1.00 21.6 0.6 49.9 19.9 D B 32.0 C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without·Project AM 'i tTo 10 35 75 35 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 3403 0.95 1.00 1787 3403 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 11 37 79 3~ 0 0 32 0 0 37 84 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 3.4 11.6 3.4 11.6 0.04 0.15 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 77 502 0.02 0.02 0.48 0.17 36.7 29.3 1.00 1.00 4.7 0.3 41.4 29.6 D C 32.5 C ~------_ .. -_._----.. _--------_.-- HCM 2000 Control Del~ 35.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-::cpa:c::c:;,-ity-ra"'t;:'io----,0"".7;:;7;----"====.::::..:""'-''''''------''---------' I\ctuated Cycle Leng~(~) 78.6 Sum of lost time (~), ______ 2"'OS.0c-______ -' Intersection Capacityc-:U:.:ti"'liz:::at:::io:;,:.n ____ -=-64.::..4"''Ic:-, __ ..:;IC::.;U:..:L:.:e:.;:ve::,.1 o"'f.;:S"'erv..:;i::..;ce=--______ C"-______ -, I\nalysis Period (min) _________ 1!-"5~ ____________________ __' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11·01·2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 412212014 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----------._----_.----------------------------- SimTraffic Performance Report ------------~ Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach _________ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ?1D__ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ ______ _ g:~::~g::~e~f'h~f:;~}"""~""-----i~;:;;:~ ... , "".';7"> -i;~:i-'~'''-''' ~,(~;.:,:~~. "'s~,--,";~.~~:~"--:-:---'--'-:;""f --,--,-:-.T_.-CC .. , --:'."'. _,--~--,--,-:-.,,;,,--,--,-:,-------,-c---'-'I Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.9 jTotalDelNeh ('~-')-_.7;<,,.-. ·~-';4"'.8-. '"".\~. ,71.'71 -,7.11';;:0;-. "";;~., ·"';3"'.8-"-~---"\"; -..,,,...,-~~~-.,.--~-------, Total Zone Performance ----------------------._-------- - --- Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 Denied __ DelNehl~:;-}~~---..,.,..---"'~;_O~~2:--:-~..,,):'-.,...· T.""-. ~---c]%"-: -."..."..~) ... :-:----:--~--------, Total Delay {hr} 0.9 ITotal DeINeh""{s'J-:---,-------""3=S7;:;i2;--".,.,.-----,.----"'k--.."...,-----,-----------, Q:IProjeclsI1311317S.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiafiTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Baseline 4-16-201 SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without·Project AM ___ . __ ._.I!® . J?I;J __ ~ _ ~ __ .~ _. ____ .__ _ _ . _ _ Directions Served L R L T T R Zone Summary Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4·16-2014IAM Baseline 4·16·201 SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM ________ W;IL ~ ____ ~_~ _®]lL _____________________ _ Lane Configurations V to <f /IIolume (veh/h) 15 40 215 15 5 85 Sign Control Stop Free Free Prade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly flow rate (ypJ)) 19 50 269 19 6 106 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ftJs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh)~ !::iRstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 397 278 288 vCl, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 397 278 288 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) tF (§) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 97 93 100 'cM caRacityJvehlh) 609 766 1257 /IIolume Total 69 288 112 Volume Left 19 0 6 )/olume Right 50 19 0 cSH 715 1700 1257 )/olume to Ca~acity 0.10 0.17 0.00 Queue Length 95th (~) 8 0 0 Control DelayJ~) 10.6 0.0 0.5 Lane LOS B A ~RRroach Delat(~) 10.6 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS B ~~-------------------------_._------------------ Average Delay 1.7 ~e~a~R~aQ~·ty~U~t~ili~~tio~n--------'2~2.i.2%~---'I~CU~Le~ve~1~m~S~e~N~ice~-----------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min), _______________ ......:c15:........ ________________________________________ --, C Q;IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraflic AnalysislTraflic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-Ol-20131AM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Lane Configurations lj t __ " lj /lolume (YP.D"")==---"""-'1;-;!0 40 30 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jfotal Lost time (§) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1770 1863 1583 1752 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.62 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1138 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 11 43 32 'Adj. Flow (yP.D) 65 0 0 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 43 7 Lane Grou~ Flow (YP.D) 65 2% 2% 2% Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Prot NA Perm 3 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 0.6 11.0 11.0 0.6 11.0 11.0 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 Effective Green,.9.(§) 15.6 0.01 0.23 0.23 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 5.0 5.0 5.0 ,Clearance TIme (§) 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 21 421 358 Lane GrJl Capjyp.D) 398 - to 250 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1815 1.00 1815 0.93 269 7 294 3% NA 4 13.0 13.0 0.27 5.0 2.0 485 0.01 0.02 vIs Ratio Prot cO.01 cO.16 'y/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 0.52 0.10 0.02 vIc Ratio 0.16 0.61 23.9 14.9 14.6 ,Uniform Delay, d1 11.7 15.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 10.4 0.0 0.0 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.5 34.3 14.9 14.6 Delay(s) 11.7 17.0 C B B Level of Service B B 30 1900 0.93 32 0 0 3% t 'I to 370 145 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1787 1826 0.44 1.00 833 1826 0.93 0.93 398 156 0 13 398 181 1% 1% pm+~t NA 5 2 2 20.0 14.4 20.0 14.4 0.41 0.30 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 454 541 cO.10 0.10 cO.26 0.88 0.34 12.6 13.4 1.00 1.00 16.6 0.1 29.2 13.5 C B Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without·Project AM lj to 35 5 95 15 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1736 1790 0.64 1.00 1161 1790 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 38 5 102 16 0 0 9 o 0 5 109 o 1% 4% 4% 4% ~m+~t NA 1 6 6 9.9 9.3 9.9 9.3 0.20 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 243 342 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.32 15.5 16.9 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.2 15.5 17.1 B B 16.1 24.1 17.1 B C B 17.3 B Approach Delay (s)'--____ --'~-------'.:.:,;_------=.:.:r-------'-""-__, ~~Rroach LOS - HCM 2000 Control Delay,_:c-"'7" ___ -;20=:;.3='-_-=.:H.=;CM:::.::;20"'00=-L::.::e"'ve"-l o"'f""Se"'rv""ice"'-___ --'C"-_____ -' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity __ ra""ti..c,o ___ ~0.;;'c86~-"""';;"...."...:'>7:"'7';;"::-:c-;,..------=_;;----------, :t>.ctuated Cycle Length (§) 48.6 Sum of lost time (§). _____ ....:.20"'.0;'-_____ -' Intersection Capacity;-:U~til:;::iz::;ati:;:;on"--___ .....::50"'.5o.;.o/.;;...o __ :..:IC:,.::U-=L::;ev:;:;el:,.::o""f S:.,:e""rv:.::,ice::...-_______ A'--_____ ---, ilnalysis Period (min), ________ .!!15~ ___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01·2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane Configurations 1i tTo 1i )./olume (yp.!!) 75 280 15 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1752 3478 1805 Fit Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.56 Satd. Flow (~erm) 181 3478 1063 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 l\dj. Flow (yp.!!) 81 301 16 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (yp.!!) 81 313 0 11 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 0% jTum TYRe Rm+Rt NA Rm+Rt Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 45.3 40.7 38.1 Effective Greenc9.(~) 45.3 40.7 38.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.51 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane GrJl Capjyp.!!) 192 1769 515 - tTo 1100 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3512 1.00 3512 0.93 1183 21 1425 0% NA 8 37.1 37.1 0.46 5.0 2.0 1628 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 0.09 0.00 cO.41 :VIs Ratio Perm 0.21 0.01 vic Ratio 0.42 0.18 0.02 0.88 Un~orm Delay, dl 14.3 10.6 11.0 19.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.4 Dela>:.J s) 14.8 10.6 11.1 24.8 Level of Service· B B B C Approach Delay (s) 11.5 24.7 ~p.Rroach LOS -B C t 1i To 245 50 260 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1805 1895 0.95 1.00 1805 1895 0.93 0.93 0.93 263 54 280 0 0 1 0 54 284 0% 0% 0% Prot NA 5 2 3.0 15.3 3.0 15.3 0.04 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 67 362 cO.03 cO.15 0.81 0.79 38.2 30.8 1.00 1.00 46.6 15.6 84.8 46.4 F D 52.5 D Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM 1i To 5 35 105 55 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1770 1767 0.95 1.00 1770 1767 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 5 38 113 59 0 0 24 0 0 38 148 0 0% 2% 2% 2% Prot NA I 1 6 3.0 15.3 3.0 15.3 0.04 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 66 337 0.02 0.08 0.58 0.44 37.9 28.6 1.00 1.00 7.3 4.1 45.2 32.7 D C 34.9 C ~~-------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_;:-----;,---___ ~~--~~='~~==----~-_,_-----.l HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity.::ra~ti:::.o ___ -;~ __ --n:=-==::::-c"' _____ --;;;;,",, ______ ----' l\ctuated Cy_cle_L_ength (~) Intersection Capacity Utiliz-ati;;-·o-n-------:;~7-------c~~~~· 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C 0.81 80.0 Sum of lost time (~) 20.0 77.2% ICU Level of Service D 15 l\nalysis Period (min) ________ -""~ ____________________ ____' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013\AM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t Lane Configurations V 10 /Jolume (veh/h) 10 5 75 5 10 Sign Control Stop Free :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 Hourly flow rate (yp.!1) 14 7 103 7 14 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking~peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None Median storage veh) !!Rstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 223 106 110 vC 1 , stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 223 106 110 tC,~g~(§} 6.4 6.2 4.3 tC, 2 stage (~) !E.!~} 3.5 3.3 2.4 pO queue free % 98 99 99 'eM caRacityjvehlh} 762 954 1392 /Jolume Total 21 110 103 Volume Left 14 0 14 /Jolume Right 7 7 0 cSH 817 1700 1392 . /Jolume to CaRacity 0.03 0.06 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 1 Control Delay'(§} 9.5 0.0 1.1 Lane LOS A A 1IRwoach Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 1.1 -, -- Approach LOS A 4' 65 Free 0% 0.73 89 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM ~----------------------- Average Delay 1.3 ~e~a~R~ac7.ity~Ut~iliz~a"tio~n----------2~0.~6°~~----'I~CU~Le~v'el~ol~S~e-N~ice~-----------.A--------------, Analysis Period (min}, _______________ --'-'15'--_____________________ --. C Q;IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE - Lane Configurations 4-4- jIIolume (veh/h) 10 15 15 10 20 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 ~y flow rate (~p~) 11 17 17 11 23 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 92 34 vCl, stage 1 conf vol yC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 92 34 tC, sing~(~) 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) !E..(~) 2.3 2.2 pO queue free % 99 99 eM caRacityjvehlh) 1436 1590 jIIolume Total 46 103 63 69 Volume Left 11 11 52 52 jIIolume Right 17 69 11 17 cSH 1436 1590 826 857 /Jolume to CaRacity 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 Queue Length 95th (It) 1 1 6 7 ,Control Delayj~) 1.9 0.9 9.7 9.6 Lane LOS A A A A ~Rproach Delayj~) 1.9 0.9 9.7 9.6 Approach LOS A A t 4- 60 45 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0.87 0.87 69 52 0 147 164 147 164 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 93 100 790 711 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM 4- 10 45 0 15 Stop 0% I 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 11 52 0 l1j 26 141 138 51t I 26 141 138 57 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 94 100 98 1039 815 745 1014 ~~.-----------------------_. ------------ Average Delay 5.2 ~ectJonCa~R~ac~ity~Ut~ili~Za~tio~n----~1"6.~I°~Yo--'I~C~UTLe-v~el~m~S~e~N~ice~------.A--------, Analysis Period (min), ________ ~15~ ____________________ ____., C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t ------------------- Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM Lane Configsur~a"'tio:::ns"-----V,._-...... -___!;_-_._-_;;;,____,~--------------___. jVolume (veh/h) 5 To of 55 85 5 30 60 Sign Control Stop :Grade 0% Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 57 89 5 31 62 Hourly flow rate (~P.!!l, ___ ---'5'--__'~_~__'_~ _ _"_'__~"_ _____________ ._J Pedestrians LaneWidth(~),~..,_------------------------------' Walking Spo..::e7'ed'-'(~ftI"'s). _____________________________ __, PerCeiitBlockage~--------------------------------' Right tum flare (veh), _______ --;;;::::-:-_____ -==-_____________ ____. Median lyRe None None Median sto"'ra-g-e -ve7"h);---------="'-------'-"'=-----------------' .\!Rstream signal m)-. ____________________________ --' pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting.:;vo"'lu""m""e'--__ =__'---''-'-______ -'''''-________________ --' 216 91 94 vCl, stage 1 conI vol !!g, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol jVolume Total Volume Left ,Volume Right cSH jVolume to CaRacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control DelaYJ~) Lane LOS ~p.Rroach Delat(~) Approach LOS 216 6.4 3.5 99 753 62 5 57 942 0.07 5 9.1 A 9.1 A 91 94 6.2 4.2 3.3 2.3 94 98 964 1452 94 94 0 31 5 0 1700 1452 0.06 0.02 0 2 0.0 2.6 A 0.0 2.6 tjJ&~------------- ---- ----------------- Average Delay 3.3 ~ectionCa~R~ac~ity~U7.t~iliz~a7tio~n----~2·1.8~%~o--CIC~U'L~e~~~I~m~S~e~~i~oo,-------.A----------. Analysis Period (min) _________ 1~5 _____________________ ____, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane config"'ura"'t=.;ioccns'--___ V,=-_-:=--_--=_---2 )/olume (vehlh) 5 4' 'J> 10 30 75 65 Sign Control Stop :Grade 0% Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 10 0.81 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM 12 37 93 . 80 12 Hourl~ flow rate (yP.!1)'--__ ---'6'---_!!o...._--"!._---''''---'---=_---'''-_____________ ---l Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed;-;(ftI;;;s::7)------------------------------' ~tEIT~.~e~ _______________________________ ~ Right tum flare (veh). ___________ -..-_---..--________________ ---, MediantyR:.=e_--;-;--__________ N'"'o"'n""e---:Nc;.:o"'ne=--_______________ ----l Median storage veh) !!Rstream Sig~@'-----------------------------------, pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting..;;vo""lu"'m"'e'--__ =_----''''---_-=-_____________________ --' vC1, stage 1 conI vol kg, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 253 86 93 253 86 93 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 tC, sing~(~)-:-____ --=.'"'--_=_-"~ ____________________ _l tC, 2 stage (s)'--____ -;;-;,---;;,.--_"" _____________________ ---, ~(~) -- pO queue Iree % 99 99 98 721 978 1489 eM caRacityJveh/h) ___ -'-""'------'=---'= ____________________ ---' ~--~ ----.---------------. )/olume Total 19 130 93 Volume Left 6 37 0 )/olume Right 12 0 12 cSH 874 1489 1700 )/olume to CaRacity 0.02 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (~) 2 2 0 Control Dela~ (s) 9.2 2.3 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~p'proach DelaYJ~) 9.2 2.3 Q.O Approach LOS A -~ ----_.--.----------._-------------. --- Average Delay 1.9 iiiiBrSection Cap.acity~U""til"'iza"'ti=on"__ ___ ____'2""2"".3;';:%:__--"'IC::::U...::L"'ev::::e'-'l 0::..1 S""e:::.rv"'ic"'e ______ ...!A.:....... ______ -' Analysis Period (min). _________ 1:..:5'--____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-2013\AM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE Lane Configurations .;. .;. lIolume (veh/h) 10 45 5 5 130 Sign Control Free Free prade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourl~ flow rate (yP.bl 12 55 6 6 159 Pedestrians Lane Width (f!) Walking Speed (fils) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) .\!Rstream signal @ pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 159 61 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 159 61 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) tF (~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 99 100 eM caRacity3vehlh) 1409 1536 lIolume Total 73 165 30 67 Volume Left 12 6 24 6 lIolume Right 6 0 6 55 cSH 1409 1536 649 828 lJolume to CaRacity 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.08 Queue Length 95th @ 1 0 4 7 ,Control Delay3~) 1.3 0.3 10.8 9.7 Lane LOS A A B A ~p.Rroach Delay3~) 1.3 0.3 10.8 9.7 Approach LOS B A .;. 0 20 0 Stop 0% 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 24 0 311 253 311 253 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 96 100 595 646 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM .;. 5 5 5 45 Stop 0% I 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 6 6 6 55 58 259 256 159 I 58 259 256 159 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 94 1014 677 635 879 ------------------------------- Average Delay 3.4 ~e~onCa~R~ac7.ity~Uti~·Ii=~~tio~n~----~2~1.~6°~~---'I~C~U'Le~v~el~o"fS~e~~~ice~-------.A---------' Analysis Period (min) _________ 1;.,:5 _______________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01-20131AM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE -- Lane Configurations of t-V lIolume (veh/h) 0 30 50 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly flow rate (~p.b) 0 38 62 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking~peed (fils) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lYRe None None Median storage veh) .\!Rstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 62 100 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 62 100 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (~) 2.2 3.5 pO queue free % 100 100 eM ca~acityjvehlh) 1553 904 i!olume Total 38 62 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0.80 0 62 62 6.2 3.3 100 1008 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without·Project AM 0 0 0 1553 1700 1700 lIolume Rig"'ht _____ :=:'---=="---c=''---____________________ ---' cSH 0.00 0.04 0.00 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A 0.0 0.0 0.0 A Average Delay 0.0 ~e~a=~~ac~ity~U~ti~·liz=a~tio=n--------6".7~%~o--cIC~U·L~e=ve~l~m~S~eN=icca~------.A--------, Analysis Period (min) _________ 1~5~ ____________________ --, I Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 11-01·2013IAM Baseline.syn Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Lane Configurations V t-4' ~olume (veh/h) 25 175 340 15 40 115 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (yp.!!) 26 182 354 16 42 120 Pedestrians 2 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 Walking~peed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) .l!~stream signal @ pX, platoon unblocked ~! conflicting volume 567 364 372 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 567 364 372 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag~~) !EJ~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 94 73 96 eM C8RacityJvehlh) 467 680 1174 ~olume Total 208 370 161 Volume Left 26 0 42 ~olume Right 182 16 0 cSH 643 1700 1174 ~olume to CaRacity 0.32 0.22 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 0 3 ,Control DelaYJ~) 13.3 0.0 2.3 Lane LOS B A ~~Rroach DelayJ~) 13.3 0.0 2.3 Approach LOS B Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without·Project AM Average DelaY~.,."-~=:;.,..,-____ ....-;;.;;4ii.2 __ ",:;-;o=o=,,.,.,,:;:-::-______ .... ______ --, Intersection CaRacity:-,U<!!ti",liz""at""io",n ____ -"'49"'.37,0/.;.., __ -"IC"-,U,-,L",e."ve,,,1 o"'I.:=.S"'erv.!!ice""-_____ -.eA'-'-______ -' Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4·16·2014IAM Baseline 4·16·201 Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street -.. -Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project AM _ _ _ _~ ____ ~ __ ~ _\'lI.lli~_ W.llIT ___ !ml1 ..10 ___ ___ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ Lane Configurations to of V 1-/olume (veh/h) 55 5 0 190 10 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (YP.D) 57 5 0 198 10 0 Pedestrians 2 1 Lane Width (tt) 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right tum flare (veh) Median lYRe None None Median storage veh) .\:!Rstream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 64 259 63 vCl, stage 1 coni vol I!g, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 64 259 63 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) !EJ~) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 100 99 100 eM caRacilYJveh/h) 1538 734 1005 1-/olume Total 62 198 10 Volume Left 0 0 10 1-/olume Right 5 0 0 cSH 1700 1538 734 I"0lume to CaRacity 0.04 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (tt) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.0 Lane LOS A ~Rroach DelayJ~) 0.0 0.0 10.0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.4 ~e~a~R-a~~·lY~Uti~·Ii-za7.tio-n--------~2~0.~6·~~----~I~C~U~Le-v~el-o"IS'e-N~i~-------------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min), ________ .....::15'---____________________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM Baseline 4-16-201 Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Lane Configurations 4- 1-/olume (YP.D) 45 15 5 20 Ideal Flow (~phel) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jfotal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.97 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1818 Fit Permitted 0.82 Satd. Flow (~erml 1537 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I\dj. Flow (yP.D) 47 16 5 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (yP.D) 0 66 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%! 0% 0% 0% 1% jfum TYRe Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 24.0 Effective Green,.g.(~) 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 ,Clearance TIme (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane GrR Capjyp.D) 409 vIs Ratio Prot ~/s Ratio Perm cO.04 vIc Ratio 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Dela)'J~) 25.5 Level of Service C Approach Delay (~) 25.5 ~RRroach LOS C - <f_"(J' 5 405 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.00 1808 2814 0.82 1.00 1543 2814 0.95 0.95 5 426 0 312 26 114 1% 1% NA Perm 8 8 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 0.27 0.27 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 411 750 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.15 24.6 25.2 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.1 24.7 25.3 C C 25.3 C t lIj tJ. 5 960 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1787 3548 0.15 1.00 279 3548 0.95 0.95 5 1011 0 4 5 1060 1% 1% Rm+Rt NA 5 2 2 27.8 27.0 27.8 27.0 0.31 0.30 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 99 1064 0.00 0.30 0.02 0.05 1.00 24.5 31.4 1.00 1.00 0.3 26.7 24.8 58.1 C E 58.0 E Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM ~!i_tJ. 50 945 1730 105 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 3467 3543 0.12 1.00 456 3543 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 53 995 1821 111 0 0 4 0 0 995 1928 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Rm+Rt NA I 1 6 6 56.0 50.2 56.0 50.2 0.62 0.56 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 1086 1976 cO.24 cO.54 0.33 0.92 0.98 24.2 19.3 1.00 1.00 12.4 15.2 36.6 34.5 0 C 35.2 0 ~~--------------------------------'- HCM 2000 Control Delay'__:;---;:-___ ~39~.5~----'.':HC~M!!.!:!20~00~L::!ee!!ve"'l o~f~Se~rv~ice~ ___ _.!:D'__ _____ ___! HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity..:;ra:::tio"--___ .;:0."'79;........._---=-_-,-,--=----....--_____ ~~-----___, I\ctuated Cycle Lengt!!J~) 90.0 Sum of lost time (~) _____ ___"19~.0~---------I Intersection Capacity.-"U:.:::til"'iza:::ti"'on~ ___ ~89~.57.%;._-~IC~U-=-Le"'v~el-"of'--'S"'erv:..::i"'ce'--_____ ~E~ _____ ___, I\nalysis Period (min)-,--_______ 1""5'__ ___________________ -..J c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchrol4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S Lane Configurations otto lJolume (yp.!J) 30 530 465 50 Ideal Flow (~Il!!P.!) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jfotal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.93 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 3326 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (Eerm1 3326 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 )l.dj. Flow (yp.!J) 31 552 484 52 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 165 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (yp.!J) 0 902 0 0 Hea:1: Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% jfum Ty~e S~lit NA S~lit Protected Phases 3 3 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 25.0 Effective Green, g.(§) 25.0 Actuated glC Ratio 0.29 Clearance Time (§) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (sl 4.0 Lane GrJ) Capjyp.!!) 949 - ·tTo 220 1900 5.0 0.95 0.95 0.99 3379 0.99 3379 0.96 229 65 351 1% NA 4 14.2 14.2 0.16 5.0 4.0 547 vis Ratio Prot cO.27 cO.10 ~/s Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.95 0.64 Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 34.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.5 2.9 DelaDs) 49.2 37.2 Level of Service D D Approacih Delay (s) 49.2 37.2 ~p.Rroach LOS -D D t 'i_tTo 130 165 160 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.95 1.00 1805 3481 0.95 1.00 1805 3481 0.96 0.96 0.96 135 172 167 0 0 33 0 172 186 1% 0% 0% Prot NA 5 2 9.0 12.4 9.0 12.4 0.10 0.14 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 185 492 0.10 0.05 0.93 0.38 39.0 34.1 1.00 1.00 46.4 1.0 85.3 35.1 F D 57.2 E Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 'i t.To 50 300 580 5 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 3570 0.95 1.00 1787 3570 0.96 0.96 0.96 . 0.96 52 312 604 5 0 0 1 0 0 312 608 0 0% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 16.0 19.4 16.0 19.4 0.18 0.22 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 326 790 cO. 17 cO.17 0.96 0.77 35.5 32.0 1.00 1.00 38.1 5.4 73.6 37.4 E D 49.6 D ~L _________________________________ _ Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchroIPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report 4/22/2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach ;\l~~<!ll~ ___ ~ .Iilll_ Wll._@ID _j;jI)~ ~ __ ~ ____ ~. _ _~ ~~~_~_~ __ ~~ __ _ Total Zone Performance -----~ -~----~ --- -- - ---------------------------------- Q:IProjectsl 131 13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallT raffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Baseline 4-16-201 SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 ,------------------------------------------------------------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report 4/22/2014 Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM ___ _ _ Iilll__ f!.® ___ ~ __ ~_ @ID _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ __ Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM Baseline 4-16-201 Sim Traffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t Lane Configurations V to /Volume (veh/h) 15 20 230 20 40 Sign Control Stop Free :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (YPE) 16 22 247 22 43 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking~peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyJ>e None Median storage veh) !!~stream sig~m) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 629 258 269 vCI, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 629 258 269 ~, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (~) --3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 96 97 97 eM ca~acityJveh/h) 434 785 1295 /Volume Total 38 269 328 Volume Left 16 0 43 4' 265 Free 0% 0.93 285 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 22 22 0 583 1700 1295 /Volume Rig"'htC-. ____ -=;--==----::=::-____________________ --' cSH 0.06 0.16 0.03 5 0 3 11.6 0.0 1.3 B A 11.6 0.0 1.3 B ~~-----------------_. ------------------- Average Delay'--.:-~'"""-----....",.,;I;;;.4--__;:;;"'_:__:;"""'"".".,.------._------__, iirteiSection Ca~acity Utilization 42.8% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min,-) ________ .:.:15=--____________________ --. C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Lane Configurations 11 +-" 11 1I0lume (~Pl1) 40 340 475 100 Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 il"otal Lost tlme (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Utll. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1787 1881 1599 1787 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.32 Satd. Flow (Eerm) 1787 1881 1599 599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (~Pl1) 44 374 522 110 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 374 0 Lane GrouQ Flow (~Iili) 44 374 148 110 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% il"um TYRe Prot NA Perm Rm+Rt Protected Phases 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (~) 2.5 17.1 17.1 21.8 Effective Green..9.(~) 2.5 17.1 17.1 21.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.36 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane GrJ> CaR.(~pl1) 73 532 452 287 vis Ratio Prot cO.02 cO.20 0.02 'y/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.12 vic Ratlo 0.60 0.70 0.33 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 19.4 17.1 13.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 3.4 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 37.7 22.8 17.3 14.0 Level of Service 0 C B B Approach Delayj~) 20.4 ~p.Rroach LOS C ---------------------------------, f> 11 f> 140 15 90 215 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 1855 1787 1765 1.00 0.53 1.00 1855 998 1765 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 154 16 99 236 5 0 0 36 165 0 99 365 1% 1% 1% 1% NA Qm+Qt NA 4 5 2 2 18.2 20.8 17.2 18.2 20.8 17.2 0.30 0.34 0.28 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 558 390 502 0.09 cO.02 cO.21 0.07 0.30 0.25 0.73 16.2 13.8 19.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.1 4.4 16.3 13.9 23.9 B B C 15.4 21.9 B C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 11 f> 150 40 195 10 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1787 1867 0.32 1.00 603 1867 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 165 44 214 11 0 0 3 0 0 44 222 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Qm+Qt NA I 1 6 6 18.6 16.1 18.6 16.1 0.31 0.27 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 234 497 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.19 0.45 15.2 18.4 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.2 15.3 18.7 B B 18.1 B ~--------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to ca"C"pa:-:-ci:;-ty-raC;;tio-:-----.;c0.S67;--....!!:""'-'='-""~"-"'''-'''''''--,----'''----------' Actuated Cy_cle_L_ength (~) 60.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% Sum of lost tlme (s) 20.0 ICU Level of Servic''-e -----=cC~--------' Analysis Period (min),::-_______ "'15'--___________________ ___' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentlallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchrol4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchroIPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 -------_._------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ·6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane Configurations 'I +to 'I jVolume (ypJ)) 180 1100 90 55 Ideal Flow (~~I?!) 1900 1900 1900 1900 i!"otal Lost Ume (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1787 3534 1787 Fit Penmitted 0.14 1.00 0.15 Satd. Flow (2erm) 261 3534 275 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 )ldj. Flow (ypJ)) 189 1158 95 58 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 Lane GrouR Flow (vJ>h) 189 1247 0 58 ----Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% i!"um TYRe Rm+pt NA pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 41.6 32.6 31.4 Effective Green,_g_(~) 41.6 32.6 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.36 0.35 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp CapjypJ)) 276 1280 163 vis RaUo Prot cO.07 cO.35 0.02 ~/s Ratio Penm 0.25 0.11 vic Ratio 0.68 0.97 0.36 Unifonm Delay, d1 17.5 28.3 22.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 19.0 1.3 Delay (s) 23.0 47.3 24.1 Level of Service C D C Approach Delay (~) 44.1 ~pproach LOS D - +to 615 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3466 1.00 3466 0.95 647 24 786 1% NA 8 27.4 27.4 0.30 5.0 2.0 1055 0.23 0.74 28.2 1.00 2.5 30.7 C 30.2 C t 'I to 155 50 160 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1787 1825 0.95 1.00 1787 1825 0.95 0.95 0.95 163 53 168 0 0 10 0 53 200 1% 1% 1% Prot NA 5 2 4.0 16.9 4.0 16.9 0.04 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 79 342 0.03 0.11 0.67 0.59 42.4 33.4 1.00 1.00 16.2 7.2 58.5 40.5 E D 44.1 D -------~ Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 'I to 40 295 360 155 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 1796 0.95 1.00 1787 1796 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 42 311 379 163 0 0 17 0 0 311 525 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA 1 6 16.5 29.4 16.5 29.4 0.18 0.33 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 327 586 cO.17 cO.29 0.95 0.90 36.4 28.8 1.00 1.00 36.6 18.9 72.9 47.7 E D 56.9 E ~~-~------------------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay_,..---,-___ --,:.:43::;:.8'--_----=-=-HC"'M"'2:::0c::;00""L"'e.:,.:ve::..:1 o"-f,:::Se:.:..rv"'ice"'-___ --=D'---_____ ---' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity,-'-ra::.:U:::.o ___ ---=0~.99~-~-..,.,..~----,--c-------~,-------__, )lctuated Cy_cle_L_eng~(~) 90.0 Sum of lost Ume (s) _____ ---=20::.:;.0:--_____ ----' IntersecUon Capacity~U~ti~liz~at~ion~---~B~6.7'i"A>-o __ .:.:IC~U'_"L:::;ev"'el:..::o~f S:c:e::..:rv:::ice"--_____ ..:E~ _____ __, )lnalysis Period (min) ________ .:.:15'---___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidenUallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM __ _.m _ ~ _ ~ __ ~_~_§.ilU ______ . _ __ _ _. Lane Configurations V to 4' /Jolume (veh/h) 5 5 40 5 10 40 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (~p.b) 6 6 48 6 12 48 Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walking~peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !:iRstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 122 51 54 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 122 51 54 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC,2 stage (~) !!:.(~) 3.5 3.3 2.3 pO queue Iree % 99 99 99 'eM caRacity.(vehlh) 871 1023 1478 /Jolume Total 12 54 60 Volume Lelt 6 0 12 /Jolume Right 6 6 0 cSH 941 1700 1478 /Jolume to CaRacity 0.01 0.03 0.01 Queue Length 95th (It) 1 0 1 Control DelayJ~) 8.9 0.0 1.5 Lane LOS A A ~p'p.roach DelaYJ~) 8.9 0.0 1.5 Approach LOS A ~~.----.--.-.. --._---. -------------.--.. - Average Delay_..,,-"""-e _____ -=-ii1.;7-6 __ ---;-;;,,-;-;-----;---;-;;--,--______ -;-______ ----, iiiieiSeCtiOnCaRacity Utilization 19.3% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min)'-_______ --"15=--____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro14·22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE - Lane Configurations 4-4- I/olume (veh/h) 5 10 50 15 5 Sign Control Free Free ;Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hou~y flow rate (~p.!)) 5 11 55 16 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walking~peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) .\!Rstream signal (m pX, platoon unblocked ~conflicting volume 22 66 vC 1 , stage 1 coni vol ~, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 22 66 tC, sing~(~) 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag!.(~) tF (~) 2.3 2.2 pO queue free % ,100 99 eM ca~acityjveh/h) 1519 1549 t 4- 15 35 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 38 0 102 104 102 104 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 96 100 856 767 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 4- 15 15 0 5 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 16 0 5 38 113 124 14 I 38 113 124 14 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 98 98 100 99 1022 846 760 1072 ~ _@@.1l.._I'.i®_~ ____ I@~ __ ~L __________ ""_~ ___ " _ I/olume Total 71 38 55 22 Volume Lelt 5 16 38 16 I/olume Right 55 16 16 5 cSH 1519 1549 900 893 IVolume to CaRacity 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.02 Queue Length 95th (~) 0 1 5 2 Control DelaYJ~) 0.6 3.2 9.3 9.1 Lane LOS A A A A ~RRroach DelayJ~) 0.6 3.2 9.3 9.1 Approach LOS A A ------------------------------------- Average Delay 4.7 ~ectJonCa=R=a~~·ty~U~ti~·li~~tio=n-----'1"6.i6o/.~o--'I~CU~~~~~l~m~Sce=N~ice~------'A--------' Analysis Period (min), _________ 1:::.5~ ____________________ ........, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchrol4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t Lane Configurations V l> )/olume (veh/h) 5 15 55 10 20 Sign Control Stop Free ,Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 ~y flow rate (yp.!!) 6 19 69 12 25 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ly~e None Median storage veh) !!~stream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked i&" conflicting volume 206 75 81 vCl, stage 1 coni vol ~, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 206 75 81 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) ~(~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 99 98 98 eM CaRacilyjvehlh) 774 992 1510 )/olume Total 25 81 106 Volume Left 6 0 2S )/olume Right 19 12 0 cSH 927 1700 lS10 )/olume to Ca~acily 0.03 O.OS 0.02 Queue Length 95th (1'1) 2 0 1 Control Delayj~) 9.0 0.0 1.8 Lane LOS A A ~~roach Delayj~) 9.0 0.0 1.8 Approach LOS A 4' 65 Free 0% 0.80 81 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM Average Delay 2.0 frii8rSection ca'-~-ac"7.ily""""Ut""iIi-za-"tio-n--------;;2"'1 . .;c2°~Yo--""'I""C;-;-U""Le-v""'e1-0;"";1 S"-e-rv'""ic-e -------,A---------, Analysis Period (min), ________ --'-'lS'--____________________ -. C Q:IProjectsI1311317S.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane Configurations V /IIolume {veh:~/h'7)='-----!15;C-------';;;;----;;;;---.=l <f to 30 20 55 60 Sign Control Stop ~ade 0% Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 5 0.72 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 42 28 76 83 7 Hourl~ flow rate {y~) ____ 2::.;1,--_=-_-=,----,-=--_-==-__ ,--_____________ _____, Pedestrians Lane Width @.:-:::-;-:----____________________________ -' Walking Speed {fVs)'-____________________________ ---, PerCent Blockage Right tum flare (v"-e;-;h)------------------------------------J Median~R~e_~~---------~N~o~ne"--~N~o~ne"-----------------~ Median storage veh) !:!~streamsignal {~)'-----------------------------------, pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting,--'v-=;olc:-um"'e'----__ .=.:'------''''-_-= _____________________ --' vCl, stage 1 conI vol ~C2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 219 87 90 219 87 90 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 97 . 96 98 !f, sing~{~)-:-____ -"'-'----"~_.:.:..:... ____________________ _' tC, 2 stage ("'s) ____ ------,;;--:o--_--,;-;;_---...--___________________ ____, !E..{~) _ _;____;;;_---_==:;-_':::;,--=~--------------------' pO queue Iree % 759 977 1486 eM ca~aci~jveh/h), ___ __'_""'___'~___'='__ ___________________ _____' /IIolume Total 62 104 90 Volume Left 21 28 0 /IIolume Right 42 0 7 cSH 892 1486 1700 !Volume to CaRaci~ 0.07 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (It) 6 1 0 Control Dela~-9.3 2.1 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~p'p'roach Delayj~) 9.3 2.1 0.0 Approach LOS A ~~ -------------------~----- Average Delay 3.1 ~eCtionCa~p.-ac7.i~~Ut~iliz~a70tio~n----~2~0.~7°~Yo--~I~CU~Le~v~el~oluS~e~N~ice~------.A--------. Analysis Period {min). ________ -.-:..:;15'--____________________ ------, C Q:IProjects\13\13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchrol4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE -.. - Lane Configurations 40 40 /Jotume (veh/h) 65 270 35 5 115 Sign Control Free Free :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 ~y flow rate (~p.!l) 71 297 38 5 126 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (IUs) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyRe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked f&." conflicting volume 132 335 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 132 335 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stag~~) tF (~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue Iree % 95 100 eM caRacilyjvehlh) 1453 1230 t 40 5 10 5 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 11 5 640 602 640 602 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 97 99 356 394 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM 40 5 5 5 35 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 5 5 38 316 607 618 129 I 316 607 618 129 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 96 729 387 386 926 ~ ___ ~Ll©L.Jl®.1~~ __________ . ____ _ /Jolume Total 407 137 22 49 Volume Left 71 5 11 5 I/olume Right 38 5 5 38 cSH 1453 1230 420 707 /Jolume to CaRacily 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 4 6 ,Control Delayj~) 1.7 0.4 14.1 10.5 Lane LOS A A B B ~RRroach Delayj~) 1.7 0.4 14.1 10.5 Approach LOS B B ~-------.----------------_. ------ Average DelaY_..,,--,=~ _____ -==-~2.6,:--_---,.:-;-;-;--..,...-,c:----,.-______ ---,. ______ -, iiiiEii'SeCtiOnCaRacily~U.!!!tili!:!za~ti~on!-___ --,3~6'-'..7~%,---_~IC~U-=L~ev~el~o~I S~e",rv~ic",-e ______ ~A!.-______ .-J Analysis Period (min) _________ 1"'5 _____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentia~Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro14-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchroIPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE - lane Configurations 4' to V )/olume (vehlh) 0 35 20 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 ~y. flow rate (Yeb) 0 42 24 0 0 Pedestrians lane Width (~) Walking~peed (!tis) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 24 65 vC1, stage 1 conI vol /iC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 24 65 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 tC, 2 stage (~) ~(~) 2.2 3.5 pO queue Iree % 100 100 eM caRacityJvehlh) 1604 945 )/olume Total 42 24 0 Volume lelt 0 0 0 )/olume Right 0 0 0 cSH 1604 1700 1700 ~olume to CaRacity 0.00 0.01 0.00 Queue length 95th (It) 0 0 0 Control DelayJ~) 0.0 0.0 0.0 lane lOS A ~pproach Delat(~) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach lOS A 0 0.84 0 24 24 6.2 3.3 100 1059 ---------------- Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM Average Delay 0.0 ~e~a~R-ac~ity-U~t~iliz~a7.tio-n-----~6.;7%~o--~I~CU~le-ve~1~ol~S~e-N~ice------~A--------' Analysis Period (min), _________ 1:::.5~ ____________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchrol4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I . ---_._-------------------- . HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without-Project PM I _ . __ .. __ 1l@1. WiJKl 1mliJ. ~ m §W _ _ _ _ __ _ __ . ____ _ Lane Configurations V t. of /Jolume (veh/h) 30 95 190 55 175 270 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (yp.!)) 31 99 198 57 182 281 Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walking..§peed (fils) Percent Blockage ~ght tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) .\!Rstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 872 227 255 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 872 227 255 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag!.(~) ~(~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 89 88 86 eM caRacityjvehlh) 278 815 1316 ~_(]) ~ __ I'A@~ __ ~~ _@]_~ ______ . __ . _________________ _ /Jolume Total 130 255 464 Volume Left 31 0 182 /Jolume Right 99 57 0 cSH 557 1700 1316 /Jolume to CaRacity 0.23 0.15 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 0 12 Control Delayj~) 13.4 0.0 4.0 Lane LOS B A ~Rroach Delayj~) 13.4 0.0 4.0 Approach LOS B ~------------------_ .. _- Average Delay 4.3 iiiierSection Ca'-R-ac""'ity,...,..,Ut""iIi-Za"'tio-n-------=54"'.""'8'''"Y,--''"'I''''C,.,U7"Le-v''"'e1-0"'1 S"'"e-rv7"ic-e -------,A--------, Analysis Period (min), ________ -'-'15'--____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro\4-22-2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street - Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 Without·Project PM _ _ _ ________ illlL_~_ \!A'm1 ~_ m __ ~ ____________________ _ Lane Configurations 10 4' V )/olume (veh/h) 210 15 5 125 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop prade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (ypJ)) 219 16 5 130 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyJ:le None None Median storage veh) .':!~stream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked 1&, conflicling volume 234 367 227 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 234 367 227 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.6 6.4 tC, 2 stage (~) !E.(~) 2.2 3.7 3.5 pO queue free % 100 99 99 eM ca~acity_(vehlh) 1339 602 777 ~.ill_~_I!®.i..Jlli.1L ____ _ _______ _ )/olume Total 234 135 10 Volume.Lelt 0 5 5 )/olume Right 16 0 5 cSH 1700 1339 678 )I0lume to CaRacity 0.14 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (It) 0 0 1 Control DelayJ~) 0.0 0.3 10.4 Lane LOS A B ~p'p'roach DelaYJ~) 0.0 0.3 10.4 Approach LOS B ~~ ------------------------------------ Average Delay 0.4 ~e~a~p.~ac~ity'U~t~iliZ~a"tio~n--------~2~2.0~o/c~o----'IC~U~~~ve'l~ol~S~eN~i~ce~-----------'A--------------' Analysis Period (min) _________________ 1!-"5:...... __________________________________ ----, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationsISynchro\4·22·2014 Updated PDFsISynchrolPM B Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.96 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1771 Fit Permitted 0.72 Satd. Flow !~erm) 1342 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 'lIdj. Flow (~p,!l) 95 5 5 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (~p,!l) 0 104 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% jTum Ty~e Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.0 Effective Green&(~) 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 Clearance Time (§) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane G'Il Capj~p,!l) 456 vis Ratio Prot y/s Ratio Perm 0.08 vic Ratio 0.23 Un~orm Delay, dl 35.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 35.7 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 35.7 ~~~roach LOS --D - 1.00 1.00 0.96 1784 0.75 1399 0.95 5 0 42 2% NA 8 51.0 51.0 0.34 5.0 3.0 475 0.03 0.09 33.7 1.00 0.1 33.8 C 82.9 F t 0.88 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 2787 1770 1.00 0.47 2787 879 0.95 0.95 0.95 1032 5 2100 63 0 0 969 5 . 2105 2% 2% 2% Perm ~m+~t NA 5 2 8 2 51.0 80.8 80.0 51.0 80.8 80.0 0.34 0.54 0.53 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 947 478 1886 0.00 cO.59 cO.35 0.01 1.02 0.01 1.12 49.5 16.0 35.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 35.4 0.0 60.2 84.9 16.0 95.2 F B F 95.0 F Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With·Project AM 1.00 0.95 3303 0.05 167 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 5 128 442 21 0 0 2 0 0 128 461 0 2% 6% 6% 6% ~m+~t NA I 1 6 6 87.2 83.2 87.2 83.2 0.58 0.55 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 180 1875 cO.02 0.14 0.39 0.71 0.25 35.4 17.2 1.00 1.00 15.2 0.3 50.6 17.5 D B 24.7 C HCM 2000 Control Delay 79.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to ca-pa-c""ity-ra-:f;-lo----l;-".l~O'---'.!=="-'='=~""-'=------=---------' 'lIctuated Cycle Leng~(§) 150.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 107.6% Sum of lost time (§). ______ .:..:19"'.0:-______ -' ICU Level of Service G 'lInalysis Period (min), ________ -'-'15~ ____________________ __' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3·25-2014IAM With·Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S Lane Configurations ott> 1J0lume (YP.D) 10 72 5 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (~) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.99 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 3265 Fit Permitted 0.99 Satd. Flow (~erm) 3265 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (YP.D) 11 76 5 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 Lane Group Flow (YP.D) 0 87 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 1% jTum TYRe SRlit NA SRlit Protected Phases 3 3 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 6.8 Effective Green&(~) 6.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 ,Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 Lane GfIl Capjyp.D) 281 - .tt> 560 1900 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 3398 1.00 3398 0.95 589 62 827 1% NA 4 20.2 20.2 0.26 5.0 4.0 869 vis Ratio Prot cO.03 cO.24 y/s Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.31 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 33.9 28.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 19.9 Delay (s) 34.7 48.8 Level of Service C D Approach Delay (s) 34.7 48.8 ji~proach LOS C D t l! tt> 275 395 570 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 3565 0.95 1.00 1787 3565 0.95 0.95 0.95 289 416 600 0 0 1 0 416 610 1% 1% 1% Prot NA 5 2 20.2 28.5 20.2 28.5 0.26 0.36 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 457 1287 cO.23 cO. 17 0.91 0.47 28.5 19.4 1.00 1.00 22.4 0.6 50.9 20.0 D B 32.5 C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM l! t_t> 10 35 75 35 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1787 3403 0.95 1.00 1787 3403 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 11 37 79 31t 0 0 32 0 0 37 84 0 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 3.4 11.7 3.4 11.7 0.04 0.15 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 77 504 0.02 0.02 0.48 0.17 36.9 29.3 1.00 1.00 4.7 0.3 41.6 29.7 D C 32.5 C ~---~-------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay----c:--..".--___ --'?39=.3c-_-'H"'C::;:M""2"'0"'00:..:L:::,ev:.,::e:..:1 o~f S"'e"'rv""ice=---___ --=D ______ --' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity~ra:::ti~o ___ ~0.~79~-__;;_-..,.,.--_,_"._____,,__-----"""',.------------, Actuated Cycle Length (~)-:;-____ _____:~7_=_8.::;_9--_.:;S="um:;:,=:of..:.:lo:;::st:.;:ti::::m::..e, (~) _____ ~20~.0~-------1 Intersection Capacity"U"'til::::iza::::ti""on-'--___ ~65~.37.o/c;-o __ "'IC::;:U-"Le"'v""el-"of"-'S"'e::IVl""·ce"--_____ ..::C:...-_____ --, Analysis Period (min) ________ 1~5 ____________________ _.l c Critical Lane Group --I Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Nelw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ,----------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach :;ru~_ __ _______ __ ®l _ ~ __ ~_ @IJ__ ___ _______ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ~:~::~ g::~t~('~-.)--,--· .---.... -. ".., -,~.,:~~,·-,,.-;c~;:.;:~;..··..,·-i!~;:;:~c.-~.,.,'l',..,· • .,;. ~;:;:~,.,·-,----..,...","·,i ----,-=---:------,-,--c---.".,7 •. -~-' Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 Total Zone Performance ---------~--------------------------- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM With-Project 4-16- SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM ~ _____ .. ___ ~ __ lID __ WL ~ __ @!)_ _ _ _ _ ____________ _ Zone Summary Q:\Projects\ 13\ 13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residential\ T rafflc Analysis\ T rafflc Operations\Synchro\Update 4-16-2014IAM With-Project 4-16- SimTrafflc Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t ------, Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM .... __ . __ m ~ _@])f .. ~_ m Wf _____ ._. __ .. . ____ _ Lane Configurations V l-ot ,Volume (veh/h) 28 40 215 20 5 85 Sign Control Stop Free Free prade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 !::!Qt!r!y flow rate (YPE) 35 50. 269 25 6 106 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking~peed (It/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal @ "'I pX, platoon unblocked g:-conflicting volume 400 281 294 vC 1 , stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 400 281 294 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) !.(~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 94 93 100 eM C8Racityjvehlh) 607 762 1251 /Jolume Total 85 294 112 Volume Lelt 35 0 6 /Jolume Right 50 25 0 cSH 690 1700 1251 /Jolume to CaRacity 0.12 0.17 0.00 Queue Length 95th (It) 10 0 0 Control Delayj~) -11.0 0.0 0.5 Lane LOS B A ~RRroach Delayj~) 11.0 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS B ~ -----------------.-_. -------~------_. --.-~------- Average Delay,--c-'7,"'""""-:70.,--____ --=~2.;;:.0--_;_;<;_;_;_,....,.,__:_;_;"'""''''''''------._------__, friteiSeCiiOnCaRacity Utilization 23.2% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 412212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St Lane Configurations 1i t ., 1i /Jolume (~.!J) 10 40 30 67 Ideal Flow (~~R1) 1900 1900 1900 1900 ifotal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1752 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.62 Satd. Flow (~erm1 1770 1863 1583 1148 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1Idj. Flow (yp,!l) 11 43 32 72 RTOR Reduction (~p.h) 0 0 25 0 Lane GrouR Flow (yp.!J) 11 43 7 72 Hea~ Vehicles (%1 2% 2% 2% 3% ifum TYRe Prot NA Perm Rm+Rt Protected Phases 3 8 7 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 11.1 11.1 15.5 Effective Green,_g.(~) 0.6 11.1 11.1 15.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.32 Clearance TIme (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (sl 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane GrJl Capjyp.!J) 21 422 359 394 - to 250 1900 5.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1815 1.00 1815 0.93 269 7 294 3% NA 4 13.0 13.0 0.27 5.0 2.0 482 vis Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 cO.01 cO.16 ~/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 vic Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.02 0.18 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 15.0 14.7 11.9 15.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 Delay (s) 34.4 15.0 14.7 12.0 17.3 Levelo! Service C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 17.4 16.3 3p.Rfoach LOS· -B B t 1i to 30 370 150 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1787 1825 0.44 1.00 829 1825 0.93 0.93 0.93 32 398 161 0 0 13 0 398 188 3% 1% 1% Rm+Rt NA 5 2 2 20.3 14.7 20.3 14.7 0.42 0.30 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 457 548 cO.10 0.10 cO.26 0.87 0.34 12.5 13.3 1.00 1.00 16.0 0.1 28.5 13.5 C B 23.4 C Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 1i to 37 5 108 15 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 1736 1794 0.63 1.00 1154 1794 I 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 40 5 116 16 0 0 8 0 0 5 124 0 1% 4% 4% 4% Rm+Rt NA 1 6 6 10.1 9.5 10.1 9.5 0.21 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 245 348 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.36 15.4 17.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.2 15.4 17.3 B B 17.2 B ~~----------------------------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-pa-c,::-'Iy-ra""'ti-o ---~0.7.86~--'-"=.c="-""-""-,,,,-,,,=,,,------,=,--------, 1Ictuated Cycle Leng!ll.(~j 48.9 Sum of lost time (s), _____ --'=2"'0.00-. _____ --' Intersection Capacily.c'U"'ti=liz""at"'ion"-___ ---"54.-".6"j'lci-, __ ccIC,-,U-=Lccev",elc.:0,-f S:c;e,;.crv"'ice:c-. _____ .c.A'--_____ --, 1Inal~is Period (min) ________ ""15'-___________________ --' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report . 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane ConfiguraUons 1j t:r. !Volume (YPJ)"") =""-------,8~2 280;;----O;-;c--.... 1j 15 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 ITotal Lost Ume~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane um. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (Rrot) 1752 3478 1805 Fit Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.56 ,Satd. Flow (perm) 181 3478 1063 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (ypJ)) 88 301 16 11 0 0 0 11 RTOR ReducUon (vph) 0 4 Lane GrouR Flow (yP..i]) 88 313 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 0% , if urn TYRe Rm+Rt NA Rm+Rt Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 38.0 38.0 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.4 40.7 Effective Green, g (s) 45.4 40.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.51 0.48 ,Clearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane GrJl CapjypJ)) 195 1769 514 tTo 1100 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3512 1.00 3512 0.93 1183 22 1425 0% NA 8 37.0 37.0 0.46 5.0 2.0 1624 vis Ratio Prot cO.03 0.09 0.00 cO.41 y/s Ratio Perm 0.23 0.01 vic Ratio 0.45 0.18 0.02 0.88 ,Uniform Delay, dl 14.4 10.6 11.1 19.4 1.00 1.00 0.0 5.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 iiiCremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 11.1 25.0 B C Delay (s) 15.0 10.6 Levefof Service B B 24.9 C Approach Delay (s) 11.6 ~p.Rroach LOS -B 1j 245 50 1900 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1805 0.95 1805 0.93 0.93 263 54 0 0 0 54 0% 0% Prot 5 3.0 3.0 0.04 5.0 2.0 67 cO.03 0.81 38.2 1.00 46.6 84.8 F To 260 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1895 1.00 1895 0.93 280 1 284 0% NA 2 15.3 15.3 0.19 5.0 2.0 362 cO.15 0.79 30.8 1.00 15.6 46.4 D 52.5 D Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 1j To 5 35 105 75 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 1770 1746 0.95 1.00 1770 1746 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 5 38 113 81 0 0 34 0 0 38 160 0 0% 2% 2% 2% Prot NA I 1 6 3.0 15.3 3.0 15.3 0.04 0.19 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 66 333 0.02 0.09 0.58 0.48 37.9 28.8 1.00 1.00 7.3 4.9 45.2 33.7 D C 35.6 D ~--------------~~ HCM 2000 Control Delay,_-::-""7' ____ :;.:27"'.5;.--,--'-'H=.CM=20"-'0"'0.=Le"'v.::;el"'0.:..;f S"-'e::..:rvc:.:ice=--___ ---'C~ _____ ~.....J HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity,.:.ra"'t"'io ___ ........;0"".8~2;-~--,;c-=-=-:77'=-=--__ ~~_....,.."' __ ~_~~--, 'Actuated Cycle Leng!!!.(~) 80.0 Sum of lost Ume (~), __ ~~~--'2"'0"=.0'---_~~~~_-' IntersecUon Capacity,,.:U~ti;;::liz=at::.:io.:.:.n __ ~_-'-'77c::.6'i;%o--~-"IC:.:U:..:L:.::e.:.:ve::..1 o:::.f-"S::.:erv.:.:ice=-=-~~ ___ ---'D"--_____ ~-, Analysis Period (min), _________ 1-"5'--__ ~ _________ ~ __ ~~~~~--' c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 ------.,.~~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t to 11 75 16 12 Free 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 of 65 Free 0% 0.73 --------------------------~ Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 15 103 22 16 89 Hourl~ flow rate (yP.!l) ____ 5"'8'---_-"'--_-'='-----''''--_-!.::._.-..:.~ _____________ ___1 Pedestrians 236 114 125 236 114 125 6.4 6.2 4.3 3.5 3.3 2.4 92 98 99 748 944 1374 ~ -------------~--- /Jolume Total 73 125 105 Volume Left 58 0 16 /Jolume Right 15 22 0 cSH 782 1700 1374 /Jolume to Ca~acity 0.09 0.07 0.01 Queue Length 95th (~) 8 0 1 Control DelayJ~) 10.1 0.0 1.3 Lane LOS B A ~~~roach DelayJ§) 10.1 0.0 1.3 Approach LOS B Average Delay 2.9 ~e~onC~aR~a~city~Ut~iIi~~70tio~n~---~2~0~.8°~~--~I~C~UTLe-v"el~o .. fS~e-NTioo~-----~A-------' Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsl 131 13175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley Residentiall Traffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE - Lane Configurations ~ 4- 1J0lume (vehlh) 10 25 15 13 49 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Hourl~ flow rate (yP.!l) 11 29 17 15 56 Pedestrians Lane Width@ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh} !.!~stream sig~(~} pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 125 46 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 125 46 tC, sing~(~} 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag!.(~) !Ej~} 2.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 99 99 CM ca~acity_(veh/h} 1396 1575 t ~ 60 45 0 Stop 0% 0.87 0.87 0.87 69 52 0 198 216 198 216 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 93 100 729 663 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 4- 11 45 0 15 Stop 0% I 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 13 52 0 171 37 194 190 91 I 37 194 190 91 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 93 100 98 1023 750 696 972 .~.----------------- /Jolume Total 57 140 64 69 Volume Left 11 15 52 52 /Jolume Right 17 69 13 17 cSH 1396 1575 772 796 1J0lume to Ca~acity 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.09 Queue Length 95th @ 1 1 7 7 Control Delay (s) 1.6 0.8 10.1 10.0 Lane LOS A A B A ~p'p.roach DelaYJ~} 1.6 0.8 10.1 10.0 Approach LOS B A Average Delay 4.7 TrrteiSection Ca'-p'-ac""ityC"70Ut'"'ili~za'"tio"'n-------'1C;<8."'3·i;TYo--""I"'C"U'Le""v-';el""o"l S"'e-:-rv",ice-------.A--------, Analysis Period (min)c.... ________ 1"'5c.... ____________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t Lane Configurations V to I/olume (veh/h) 22 55 86 11 30 Sign Control Stop Free ~rade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (yp.N 23 57 90 11 31 Pedestrians Lane Width (It) Walking.§!peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None Median storage veh) !"JRstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 223 95 101 vCl, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 223 95 101 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC, 2 stagE!...(~) tF (~) 3.5 3.3 2.3 pO queue free % 97 94 98 eM caRacityjvehlh) 746 959 1443 I/olume Total 80 101 97 Volume Left 23 0 31 I/olume Right 57 11 0 cSH 886 1700 1443 I/olume to CaRacity 0.09 0.06 0.02 Queue Length 95th (It) 7 0 2 Control DelaYTs)-9.5 0.0 2.6 Lane LOS A A ~p'p'roach Delayj~) 9.5 0.0 2.6 Approach LOS A 4' 63 Free 0% 0.96 66 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With·Project AM ~ ... _---------------.-------_. -------- Average Delay'=='7.:':''""'=-=:-____ -=-~3.'''6--'""""'';T;''''''''_:7.<::e::";:_:_------._------__, iiiierSeCiiOnCap.acity Utilization 22.9% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q;IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With·Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 160th St & 126th Ave SE t Lane Configurations V 4' to 1J0lume (veh/h) 10 10 30 77 72 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 J:IQ!!.rj~ flow rate (ypJ]) 12 12 37 95 89 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lyJle None None Median storage veh) YRstream sig~(m pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 272 103 117 vC 1, stage 1 coni vol ~, stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 272 103 117 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (5) tF (~) --3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 98 99 97 cr;r ca~acityjveh/h) 703 957 1459 1J0lume Total 25 132 117 Volume Left 12 37 0 1J0lume Right 12 0 28 cSH 811 1459 1700 ,Volume to Ca~acity 0.03 0.03 0.Q7 Queue Length 95th @ 2 2 0 Control Delat(~) 9.6 2.3 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~p'p'roach Delayj~) 9.6 2.3 0.0 Approach LOS A 23 0.81 28 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM ~-------. -----~---------~----- Average Delay 2.0 ~e~onca~~~ac~ity~Utm,ili=za~tio=n~----e2~2.~4·~~--'I~CU~Le=v~el~of~S~e=N~ice~-----------'A----------' Analysis Period (min)'--____________ -'-'15'--_________________________________ ---, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE - Lane Configurations 4-4- ~olume (veh/h) 12 45 5 5 130 Sign Control Free Free :Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Hourl~ flow rate (~P.!l) 15 55 6 6 159 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking~peed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !,!pstream signal (m pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 159 61 vCl, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 159 61 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) !E..(~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 99 100 eM caQacityJvehlh) 1409 1536 I"olume Total 76 165 30 76 Volume Left 15 6 24 6 I"olume Right 6 0 6 63 cSH 1409 1536 631 832 I"olume to CaRacity 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.09 Queue Length 95th (~) 1 0 4 7 Control DelayJ~) 1.5 0.3 11.0 9.8 Lane LOS A A B A ~RRroach Delat(~) 1.5 0.3 11.0 9.8 Approach LOS B A t 4- 0 20 0 Stop 0% 0.82 0.82 0.82 0 24 0 324 258 324 258 7.1 6.5 3.5 4.0 96 100 576 640 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM 4- 5 5 5 52 Stop 0% I 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 6 6 6 63 I 58 264 261 159 I 58 264 261 159 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 93 1014 671 630 879 ~--------_. --------------------_ .. ----_. Average Delay 3.6 ~earonca~p-ac"ity~Ut~iIi~-etio-n-------~2~2.~7°~Yo----~I~CU~Le-v~el-ol~S~e-N~ioo--------~-~A----------~ Analysis Period (min), ____________ .....:..:15'--_______________________ -. C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE -Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM _ ~_._~_. @lL.1!\!@ _~. ~ W;l.. ___ . ___ . ___ ... ______ _ Lane Configsurccat:::io"'ns'--___ .,,-_i; ~----,.-_V:--=----------------, ~0Iume(veWh) ________ ~ __ ~~~~--~--~~3--~1~7---------------------------~ Sign Control Stop :Grade 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly flow rate (yp.!]), _____ .........;~ __ ==-__ -""'---_-'1 ____ -'4 __ _=2~1 ________________________ -' Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed:-;(ftI;:-;s-:-)------------------------------~ peramtBI~~e~ __________________________________________ ~ Right tum flare (veh)'-________ -,.., ____ ,,-_____________________________ __, Median~~~e __ ~~--------~No~n~e--~No~n~e--------------------------~ Median storage veh) hl~stream sig~@'-------------------------------------------------, pX, platoon unblocked ~! conflicting..:.vo"'lu::,::m""e'---____ -"-' ______________ '-"'-__ -=-=--_______________ --' vC 1, stage 1 coni vol ~! stage 2 coni vol vCu, unblocked vol 64 116 63 64 116 63 4.1 6.4 6.2 2.2 3.5 3.3 100 100 98 1552 881 1007 ~. ______ .ill1._I'i!llli!_@!1L~~ ______________ ._. _____ _ ~olume Total 45 64 25 Volume Left 8 0 4 ~olume Right 0 1 21 cSH 1552 1700 986 ~olume to Ca~aci~ 0.00 0.04 0.03 Queue Length 95th (~) 0 0 2 Control DelaYJ~) 1.3 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A A ~woach DelaYJ~) 1.3 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A ------------------------- Average Delay 2.1 ~eCtionCa-~-ac~i~~U~t~iliz-a~tio-n----~1~6.~7o/.~o---~IC~U~Le-ve'l~of~S~eN-icce~--------.A--------, Analysis Period (min) ______________ 1;.:5'--_________________________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResideritiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IAM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Lane Configurations ¥ f> of )/olume (veh/h) 25 204 340 15 50 115 Sign Control Stop Free Free ~rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (yp.N 26 212 354 16 52 120 Pedestrians 2 Lane Width (~) 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 Percent Biockage 0 Right tum flare (veh) Median lyp'e None None Median storage veh) !!p'stream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 588 364 372 vC 1, stage 1 con! vol ~, stage 2 con! vol vCu, unblocked vol 588 364 372 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) tF (~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 94 69 96 eM cap'acityjveh/h) 450 680 1174 )/olume Total 239 370 172 Volume Left 26 0 52 )/olume Right 212 16 0 cSH 644 1700 1174 )/olume to Cap'acity 0.37 0.22 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 0 3 Control Delayj~) 13.8 0.0 2.8 Lane LOS B A ~p.roach Delay.(§) 13.8 0.0 2.8 Approach LOS B Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With·Project AM -------~--------.-~ --------~-~~----- Average Delay 4.8 iiilefSection Ca'-p.-ac"""ily,....,.,Ut"'ili-za""tio-n-------,5".1.""'6°~Yo--""'I""c'"'U.,..Le-v""'el-o""'! S'""e-rv'""ice--------.,A----------, Analysis Period (min) _________ 1:..:5'--____________________ --, r= Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4·16·2014IAM With·Project 4·16· Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street - Lane Configurations to 4' V ;volume (veh/h) 65 5 0 219 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop prade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (ypJl) 68 5 0 228 10 Pedestrians 2 1 Lane Width (m 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 Right tum flare (veh) Median !y~e None None Median storage veh) !!~stream sig~ml pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 74 299 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 74 299 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.4 tC, 2 stag~(~) ~(~) 2.2 3.5 pO queue free % 100 99 eM ca~aci!yJveh/h) 1524 696 ;volume Total 73 228 10 Volume Left 0 0 10 ;volume Right 5 0 0 cSH 1700 1524 696 ~olume to Ca~aci!y 0.04 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (~) 0 0 1 control DelayJ~) 0.0 0.0 10.3 Lane LOS B ~~~roach DelayJ~) 0.0 0.0 10.3 Approach LOS B 0 0.96 0 73 73 6.2 3.3 100 992 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project AM ~---~---~-----~------~--- Average Delay 0.3 ~e~a~~~ac~i!y~Uti~·liz=a~tio~n~--~---o2~2.~2°~~----'I~CU~Le=v3el~0IuSce=N~ice~-----------'A----~--------' Analysis Period (min), _____________ -.--:.;15'----_____________________________________ ---. C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IAM With-Project 4-16- Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Puget Dr & Benson Dr S Lane Configurations 4- /v'olume (yp.!!) 45 15 5 20 Ideal Flow (~phpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jTotal Lost time (§) 5.0 Lane UW. Factor 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 0.97 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1818 Fit Permitted 0.82 Satd. Flow (~erm1 1537 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1Idj. Flow (yp.!!) 47 16 5 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (~p.N 0 66 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles ('!ol 0% 0% 0% 1% jTum Ty~e Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 Effective Green, g.(§) 24.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 ,Clearance Time (§) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (sl 3.0 Lane G'1l Capjyp.!!) 409 vis Ratio Prot ~/s Ratio Perm cO.04 vic Ratio 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 Delay (s) 25.5 Level-of Service C Approach Delay (s) 25.5 ~~roach LOS-C - <1' 5 1900 5.0 1.00 1.00 0.96 1808 0.82 1543 0.95 5 0 26 1% NA 8 24.0 24.0 0.27 5.0 3.0 411 0.02 0.06 24.6 1.00 0.1 24.7 C 25.3 C t l!J' 'i t:lo 428 5 960 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 2814 1787 3548 1.00 0.15 1.00 2814 279 3548 0.95 0.95 0.95 451 5 1011 331 0 4 120 5 1060 1% 1% 1% Perm ~m+pt NA 5 2 8 2 24.0 27.8 . 27.0 24.0 27.8 27.0 0.27 0.31 0.30 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 750 99 1084 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.02 0.16 0.05 1.00 25.3 24.5 31.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 0.3 26.7 25.4 24.8 58.1 C C E 58.0 E Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM lI~_+_lo 50 984 1730 105 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 3467 3543 0.12 1.00 456 3543 I 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 53 1036 1821 111 0 0 4 0 0 1036 1928 0 1% 1% 1% 1% ~m+~t NA I 1 6 6 56.0 50.2 56.0 50.2 0.62 0.56 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 1086 1976 cO.25 cO.54 0.34 0.95 0.98 24.9 19.3 1.00 1.00 17.6 15.2 42.6 34.5 D C 37.3 D HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Ca-pa-c::-ity-ra""'ti-o ----70.'='79':--~""'-='-'="""'-'''-''''=~-------'''---------' 1Ictuated Cycle Length (§) 90.0 Sum of lost time (§) _____ -"19e::.0:c.-_____ --..J Intersection Capacity Utiliz""at"'ioC:-n ----""'9C'1.""4 ,;;'V. ---7.IC"'U7CL"'ev"'e""l 07f ;cSe"'rv'ice F 1Inalysis Period (min). ________ .!!15'__ ___________________ -.-l c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synclhro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Puget Dr & Benson Rd S lane Configurations <fJ. /Jolume (~P.b) 30 569 465 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 jfotallost time (~) 5.0 lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt 0.93 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rot) 3335 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm) 3335 Peak·hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 'Adj. Flow (~p.b) 31 593 484 52 RTOR Reduction (~ph) 0 155 0 0 lane Grou~ Flow (VRh) 0 953 0 0 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% jfum TYRe S~lit NA SRlit Protected Phases 3 3 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (~) 25.0 Effective Green,.g.l~) 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 Clearance Time (~) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 lane GrJ> Capjyp.b) 947 - <fJ. 243 1900 5.0 0.95 0.95 0.99 3390 0.99 3390 0.96 253 57 383 1% NA 4 14.6 14.6 0.17 5.0 4.0 562 vis Ratio Prot cO.29 cO.11 ~/s Ratio Perm vic Ratio 1.01 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 31.5 34.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 30.9 3.7 Delay (s) 62.4 38.2 levalo! Service E D Approach Delay (s) 62.4 38.2 ~p.Rroach lOS --E D t 'I tlo 130 165 160 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.95 1.00 1805 3481 0.95 1.00 1805 3481 0.96 0.96 0.96 135 172 167 0 0 34 0 172 185 1% 0% 0% Prot NA 5 2 9.0 12.4 9.0 12.4 0.10 0.14 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 184 490 0.10 0.05 0.93 0.38 39.2 34.3 1.00 1.00 48.0 1.0 87.2 35.3 F D 58.1 E Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With·Project PM 'I tlo 50 300 580 5 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 3570 0.95 1.00 1787 3570 I 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 52 312 604 5 0 0 1 0 0 312 608 0 0% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA I 1 6 16.0 19.4 16.0 19.4 0.18 0.22 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 324 787 cO.17 cO. 17 0.96 0.77 35.7 32.2 1.00 1.00 39.9 5.5 75.6 37.8 E D 50.6 D ~--------------~------- HCM 2000 Control Delay 54.3 HCM 2000 level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to ca'-pa-c-;:-ity-ra-:t.,...io----O==.9~1:--.....!.!====-"'-''''''-'-'=-----''---------..J 'Actuated Cycle leng!!!..(~) 88.0 Sum of lost time (~) _____ ____'2::.:0"::.0:--_____ _____' Intersection Capacity~U~ti::!liz~at",io::.n ____ --"'85"'.87,%;-_....:.:IC"'U:...:l"'ev.:.:e"'l o::.f-"Se"'rv.:.:ice~ _____ ........:E=-______ -, 'Analysis Period (min), ___ ------1"'5'------------------------' c Critical lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00· Renton School Site·Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3·25-2014IPM With·Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SimTraffic Performance Report Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM 3: Edmonds Ave SElRoyal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Performance by approach ~ ____ ~ ____ l'i'l __ Iml_~_ ~ ___ ~~ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _____ ~_ _ g~~:~g::&e~('--;~)--'r~._J"r;.-'-'--' .. ~:::~"" ... ~ .. "--~";1~:':::~""'·'-c-· -'-";\~;;;;~;"-l:""·;o:"":~";;~"':~;-· .--,-----,--,.,.-,------~~----------, ;~::g::&e~r(s,,,J-,---.,.,.t~;. ~.~~~:~-. T.i •. ~~:;,~ .. ,-.,:,-.,;!~;;;;;;.,-;..,,;;;7>.,;.-1~:~-,-· -~-_ -. --,c-~~~--="------_C1 Total Zone Performance -----------------_. -----~------------ -----~- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentianTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM With-Project 4-16- SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 -------~ ----~~~~~~~~~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 3: Edmonds Ave SE/Royal Hills Dr & Puget Dr S Zone Summary Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM With-Project 4-16- SimTraffic Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 116th Ave SE & SE 160th St t Lane Configurations V 10 /.tolume (veh/h) 23 20 230 35 40 Sign Control Stop Free ,Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0,93 0,93 0,93 0,93 0,93 Hourty flow rate (yp.!!) 25 22 247 38 43 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None Median storage veh) !!~stream signal (m pX, platoon unblocked )&, conflicting volume 637 266 285 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~C2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 637 266 285 tC, sing!!(~) 6.4 6,2 4,1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (~) 3,5 3,3 2,2 pO queue Iree % 94 97 97 eM caRacityJvehlh) 430 777 1277 of 265 Free 0% 0,93 285 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM ~ .. _~Iml.L~j[_____________ ~ ___ ~ ___ _ /.tolume Total 46 285 328 Volume Left 25 ° 43 /.tolume Right 22 38 ° cSH 542 1700 1277 /.tolume to Ca~acity 0,09 0,17 0,03 Queue Length 95th (~) 7 ° 3 Control DelaYJ~) 12,3 0,0 1,3 Lane LOS B A ~~roach DelaYJ~) 12,3 0,0 1,3 Approach LOS B Average Delay 1,5 ~eCiJonCa~~-ac~ity-U~t7-iliz-a"tio-n--------~4~3,~7%~o----'I~CU~Le~ve'l~m~S~e~~~ioo~----------~A--------------' Analysis Period (min)c..... _______________ 1""5c..... ________________________________________ --, C Q;IProjectsI13113175,00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 116th Ave SE & SE 168th St -t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM to , to 230 158 40 203 lane Configurations , t ." , to , Ci,Vo=;lu=-m:;'e=;{y::';;p.b~)=c.:.:...---""7.40 340 475 105 140 15 90 10 Ideal Flow (VP:::h-:;PI') ----;1-;;;9o~0-7.19~0~0 ~1~9;;;00~-;1;;;90~0--;-;19'*00~--:1~90;;;0~-;19;;;0~0-~~--;-;C~-;:=-=~-;1-;;;90~0 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 jTotallost time {~) ___ -:;:;;5.0~...=5;;;.0~-;=;5~.0_-;5~.0~---;,5;;;.0~ __ ---;,5";;;'0~---;'2-___ ~~-;=;2-_-.JI lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1766 1787 1868 1.00 0.29 1.00 Satd. Flow {Rrot) ___ -;17~8:::-7 _1788==1:---';15'=99=-...!1:'-:78o:-7_-7187.55:-___ 1::-7==87:---7:::=-__ ~7.:_-.-.!~---..l Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.52 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 1881 1599 592 1855 976 1766 540 1868 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 99 253 174 44 223 0 0 35 0 0 3 0 99 392 0 44 231 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% NA Rm+Rt NA 2 1 6 Rm+pt 5 iT urn TYRe Prot NA NA 1 Protected""P"'h-as-e-s -----'-"'3;-........::""8-'-="--4 Permitted Phases 2 6 21.4 17.8 19.2 16.7 21.4 17.8 19.2 16.7 0.35 0.29 0.31 0.27 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 514 220 510 cO.22 0.01 0.12 389 cO.01 lane GrJ> Capjyp.b) ___ -=-7=---?='=-_=_77=---?55""5'--__ ----=-7'----,~-----7'O"-----:'=-'----..l vis Ratio Prot 0.09 /lIs Ratio Perm 0.07 0.05 vic Ratio 0.30 0.25 0.76 0.20 0.45 13.7 19.7 15.2 18.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 5.9 0.2 0.2 13.8 25.7 15.4 18.6 B C B B 23.4 18.1 C B Approach Delay {s) _____ --.::""' _____ ---'-15";.7 ___ -----~ ___ ------'-"';.-----, ~p.Rroach lOS -B ~~!jjjill!fEL ___ ~ __ ~~ __ ~~~_~ _____ ~~ _____ _ Intersection Capacity.,..,U""ti",liz""at",io::,n ____ ..::6.::::6.'73"':0-, __ .:.:IC",U:.::l""ev",e:.::1 o::.:f S::::e::..:rv"'ice"-_____ -'C'--_____ ---. )\nalysis Period {min)..,-_______ ""15'--___________________ --' c Critical lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: SE Petrovitsky Rd & 116th Ave SE Lane Configurations 'I "_to 'I 1Volume (ypJ:1) 203 1100 90 55 Ideal Flow ~~e') 1900 1900 1900 1900 jrotal Lost time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (~rot) 1787 3534 1787 Fit Permitted 0.13 1.00 0.15 Satd. Flow (~erm) 253 3534 279 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1\dj. Flow (ypJ:1) 214 1158 95 58 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 Lane GrouQ Flow (vQh) 214 1247 0 58 Hea~ Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% jrumTYQe Qm+Qt NA Qm+Qt Protected Phases 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (~) 41.6 32.6 31.0 Effective Green,.g.(~) 41.6 32.6 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.36 0.34 pearance Time (~) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane GI]l CapjypJ:1) 280 1280 163 vis Ratio Prot cO.08 cO.35 0.02 y/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.11 vic Ratio 0.76 0.97 0.36 ,Un~orm Delay, d1 17.9 28.3 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.6 19.0 1.3 Delay (s) 28.6 47.3 24.3 Level of Service C D C Approach Delay (s) 44.5 ~Qroach LOS -D - "to 615 1900 5.0 0.95 0.97 1.00 3466 1.00 3466 0.95 647 25 786 1% NA 8 27.0 27.0 0.30 5.0 2.0 1039 0.23 0.76 28.5 1.00 2.8 31.3 C 30.9 C Reserve at Tiffany Park . 2018 With-Project PM t 'I_to 'I to 155 50 160 40 295 360 168 1900 . 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 1825 1787 1791 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1787 1825 1787 1791 I 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 163 53 168 42 311 379 17~ 0 0 10 0 0 19 0 0 53 200 0 311 537 0 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Prot NA Prot NA I 5 2 1 6 4.0 16.8 16.6 29.4 4.0 16.8 16.6 29.4 0.04 0.19 0.18 0.33 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 79 340 329 585 0.03 0.11 cO.17 cO.30 0.67 0.59 0.95 0.92 42.4 33.4 36.3 29.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16.2 7.3 34.9 21.7 58.5 40.7 71.1 50.9 E D E D 44.3 58.1 D E ~----.----------------------------------- HCM 2000 Control DelaY---c,--.,,-___ -.e:.:44"'.5:......_...:H"'C""M"'2"'0"'00""L"'ev""e'-'l o:.:.;f S"'e"'rv""ice"-___ ---"'D ______ --' HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity...::ra~ti::..o ___ ......,:;1.;:00~-_.,.-...--"""'.,.,...,,._-----=-.--------, 1\ctuated Cycle Leng!!!.(~)"'7.'------;=9~0.""0---::S=-:um~of.!!107st'7ti:;cme::..,(~)------=:20~.0=--_____ ......J Intersection Capacity,..:U:.::til::::iza:::ti::::on~ ___ .....::.87:.::.57.o/c;"'o __ ~IC:.::oU::::Le:::v::::el::::of:..:S:.:e:..:.rvi::::ce,-_____ ..."E=--_____ --, 'Analysis Period (min) ________ 1~5 ____________________ ........J c Critical Lane Group Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Lake Youngs Way SE & SE 18th St t Lane Configurations V to !Volume (veh/h) 26 9 40 43 16 Sign Control Stop Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (yp.!!) 31 11 48 51 19 Pedestrians Lane Width @ Walking~peed (ftJs) Percent Blockage ~ght tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None Median storage veh} !!Rstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked :&' conflicting volume 159 73 99 vCl, stage 1 conI vol ~C2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 159 73 99 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.2 tC, 2 stage (~) !E..(~) 3.5 3.3 2.3 pO queue free % 96 99 99 CMCaRacityjvehlh) 826 994 1422 !Volume Total 42 99 67 Volume Left 31 0 19 ,Volume Right 11 51 0 cSH 863 1700 1422 !Volume to CaRacity 0.05 0.06 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 1 Control Delayj~) 9.4 0.0 2.2 Lane LOS A A ~p.Rroach Delayj~) 9.4 0.0 2.2 Approach LOS A of 40 Free 0% 0.84 48 None Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM ~.~ ---~~-~----~~-----~---------~.~--~--- Average Delay 2.6 Intersection ca'::R:-:ac:;;ityC:O;ut""iIi=za'"tio::n:-----...... l"'9.~7oiiix,--'I""C"U·Le::-v:::;eI-=o"f S"e-=-rv:c:ice::---------.A---------, Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Kirkland Ave SE & Lake Youngs Way SE - Lane Configurations 4-4- jVolume (vehlh) 5 43 50 17 24 Sign Control Free Free Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (YP.b) 5 47 55 19 26 Pedestrians Lane Width @ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe None None Median storage veh) !!Rstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 43 102 vCl, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 43 102 tC, sing~(§) 4.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) ~(§) 2.3 2.2 pO queue Iree % 100 99 eM C8Racityjvehlh) 1492 1503 /Jolume Total 108 62 60 22 Volume Lelt 5 19 38 16 /Jolume Right 55 16 22 5 cSH 1492 1503 841 815 /Jolume to CaRacity 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.03 Queue Length 95th (It) 0 1 6 2 Control Delay (s) 0.4 2.3 9.6 9.5 Lane LOS A A A A ~p'woach Delayj~) 0.4 2.3 9.6 9.5 Approach LOS A A t 4- 15 35 0 Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 16 38 0 163 166 163 166 7.2 6.6 3.6 4.1 95 100 779 708 Reserve at Tiffany Park. 2018 With-Project PM 4- 20 15 0 5 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 22 16 0 5 75 180 185 35 I 75 180 185 35 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.4 3.5 4.0 3.3 98 98 100 99 976 759 701 1044 ~-.~----------------~---~---- Average Delay 3.9 ~e~a~R~ac7.ity~U~t~i1iz~a7tio-n--------~1~9.47.o/c~o----~IC~U~Le~ve~l~m~S~e~Ni~ce--------~A-------------' Analysis Period (min) ____________ 1"'5'--__________________________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SE 158th Street & Kirkland Ave SE t Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM I{ti~ _ _ __ _ _ w:n~_ ~ _ ~ @l;jL ~__ _ ____________ ~ _______ _ Lane Config,.:;,ur'7at=io"'-nsO-___ V,.z-_~,_______,!;__-_=-____,~-_=_o_-------------~ ~0Iume(~Wh), _____ ~~16~_~_~~_~_~~~~-------------~ Sign Control Stop:-__ ----'~'--------'-'i~-------------____, :Grade 0% to 4' 15 60 28 20 67 Free Free 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0_80 0_80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 19 75 35 25 84 HouMy flow rate (YP.!!l ___ -=2"'-0_-""---_=--_-=-_--=:"-------''-'--____________ ----' Pedestrians 226 92 110 226 92 110 6.4 6.2 4.1 3.5 3.3 2.2 97 98 98 753 970 1474 ~L __ w::J~ ___ ~iL_~~ _________ ~ ____________ _ ~olume Total 39 110 109 Volume Left 20 0 25 ~olume Right 19 35 0 cSH 845 1700 1474 ~olume to CaRacity 0.05 0.06 0.02 Queue Length 95th (~) 4 0 1 Control DelayJ~) 9.5 0.0 1.8 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach DelaYJ~) 9.5 0.0 1.8 Approach LOS A ~-~ ------.------------------------------------- Average Delay 2.2 ln1effiectJonCa~R~ac~ity~Uwti*·liz~a~tio~n-----n2·1.~3~~o--'IC~U·L~e~~~I~m~SceN~i~~~------.A--------. Analysis Period (min) _________ 1~5~ ____________________ ......, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Nelw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: 5E 160th 5t & 126th Ave 5E t - ------------------------, Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM ~_ _ _____ m~_m _ R_ wr __ .~ _____ .. ___ .. _ _. . _ Lane Configurations V 4' to I/olume (veh/h) 30 30 20 63 65 13 Sign Control Stop Free Free :Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 Hourly flow rate (yp.!)) 42 42 28 88 90 18 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median lYRe None None Median storage veh) !:!Rstream signal @ pX, platoon unblocked yc, conflicting volume 242 99 108 vC1, stage 1 conI vol I!g, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 242 99 108 tC, sing~(~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stag!.(~) !E.(~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 94 96 98 'eM caRacilYjvehlh) 736 962 1464 I/olume Total 83 115 108 Volume Lelt 42 28 0 I/olume Right 42 0 18 cSH 834 1464 1700 I/olume to CaRacilY 0.10 0.02 0.06 Queue Length 95th (It) 8 1 0 Control Delayj~) 9.8 1.9 0.0 Lane LOS A A ~Rroach Delayj~) 9.8 1.9 0.0 Approach LOS A ~ .------------------------- Average Delay 3.4 ~e~a=R~ac~ilY~U~ti~·liz=a~tio=n---~·-o2'1.~3%~--.I~CU~Le=~~I~ol~S'-e=N~ice=-------.A--------, Analysis Period (min) 15 C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: SE 168th St & 126th Ave SE Lane Configurations 4-4- ~otume (veh/h) 73 270 35 5 115 Sign Control Free Free 'Grade 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (~PJ:l) 80 297 38 5 126 Pedestrians Lane Width (m Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) !:Ipstream signal m) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 132 335 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 132 335 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stag~(~) tF (~) 2.2 2.2 pO queue free % 94 100 eM capacityJvehlh) 1453 1230 t 4- 5 10 S Stop 0% 0.91 0.91 0.91 5 11 S 663 619 663 619 7.1 6.S 3.5 4.0 97 99 339 383 Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM 4- S S 5 40 Stop 0% I 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 S S S 44 316 625 636 129 I 316 625 636 129 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 99 99 99 95 729 375 375 926 ~ __ .ill_~~IW.®L_~_L~L .. ____ ... ___ . __________ _ ~olume Total 415 137 22 55 Volume Left 80 5 11 5 ~olume Right 38 5 5 44 cSH 1453 1230 40S 716 I/olume to Ca~acity 0.06 0.00 O.OS 0.08 Queue Length 95th (~) 4 0 4 6 Control Delay (s) 1.9 0.4 14.4 10.4 Lane LOS A A B B ~p'proach Delat(~) 1.9 0.4 14.4 10.4 Approach LOS B B ~~--------. -_._-----~--- Average Delay 2.7 ~e~a-p.-a~7.·ty~U~ti~·,~-a~tio-n--------~37~.4~o/c~o----~IC~U7L~e-~~I~m~S~eN~i~oo------------~A--------------, Analysis Period (min), _______________ -'-'1S'---________________________________________ -. C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/22/2014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: SE 158th Street & 124th PI SE -- Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM ~_ ~ ______ IJIDL @)iJ __ millf WM. ~ _______ ~ __ .. ____ ~ __ _ Lane Configurations 4' to V /Jolume (veh/h) 18 35 20 3 2 11 Sign Control Free Free Stop !3rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly flow rate (yp.!!) 21 42 24 4 2 13 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) PercentBlockage Right tum flare (veh) Median tyRe . None None Median storage veh) .\!Rstream signal (~) pX, platoon unblocked ~ conflicting volume 27 110 26 vC1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 27 110 26 tC, sing~{~) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stag!.{~) !'J~) 2.2 3.5 3.3 pO queue free % 99 100 99 CM caRacityjvehlh) 1599 880 1056 /Jolume Total 63 27 15 Volume Left 21 0 2 /Jolume Right 0 4 13 cSH 1599 1700 1025 1J0lume to CaRacity 0.01 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 ,Control Delay_{~) 2.5 0.0 8.6 Lane LOS A A ~RRroach Delayj~) 2.5 0.0 8.6 Approach LOS A ~~--~-~-~-.-.----.~~~-------_. ~---.-- Average Delay 2.8 ~ectionCa~R-ac~ity-U~ti~·li~~tio-n~~~~~1~9.~5%~o~--~I~CU~Le-~~1-ol~S~e-N~ice------~~--~A--~~~~~--' Analysis Period {m",i",n),-__ ~ __ ~~~~----,,15,-______ ~ __ ~ __ ~~~~ ________ ~~~~~--, C- Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 3-25-2014IPM With-Project Netw Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 I '. • • • • • • • • • • • I I • • I • • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE & SE 16th Street t Lane Configurations V to of /Jolume (veh/h) 30 114 190 55 208 270 Sign Control Stop Free Free !3rade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (~P.!J) 31 119 198 57 217 281 Pedestrians Lane Width (~) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) !:!~stream sig~@ pX, platoon unblocked &f, conflicting volume 941 227 255 vC 1, stage 1 conI vol yC2, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 941 227 255 tC, sing~{~) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (~) !EJ~) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 87 85 84 eM ca~acityJveh/h) 245 815 1316 /Jolume Total 150 255 498 Volume Left 31 0 217 /Jolume Right 119 57 0 cSH 549 1700 1316 /Jolume to Ca~acity 0.27 0.15 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 0 15 control DelayJ~) 14.0 0.0 4.5 Lane LOS B A ~~Rroach DelayJ~) 14.0 0.0 4.5 Approach LOS B Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM ~--------_. --------_. ----._--------- Average Delay 4.8 ~eCifonCa~R~ac~ity~U~u~·liz~a~tio~n---------.5·7.i8~~o----'IC~U~Le~ve~l~ol~S~e~~~ice~----------~B--------------. Analysis Period {min)c--_______________ 1.:.:5'--________________________________________ --, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM With-Project4-16- Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 ,---------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Edmonds Way SE & SE 16th Street -Reserve at Tiffany Park 2018 With-Project PM __ _ _________ D __ l'lIW m \'i1l:Jii _ ~ __ ~ _ _ _ ____ _ __ _ _ ____ _ ~ Lane Configurations to 4' V /Jolume (veh/h) 243 15 5 144 5 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourl~ flow rate (yp.Dl 253 16 5 150 5 5 Pedestrians Lane Width m) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median ty~e None None Median storage veh) !:l~stream sig~(m pX, platoon unblocked ~, conflicting volume 269 421 261 vC1, stage 1 conI vol ~, stage 2 conI vol vCu, unblocked vol 269 421 261 tC, sing~(~) 4.1 6.6 6.4 tC, 2 stage (s) !EJ~) 2.2 3.7 3.5 pO queue Iree % 100 99 99 eM caQacityjvehlh) 1301 559 743 /Jolume Total 269 155 10 Volume Left 0 5 5 /Jolume Right 16 0 5 cSH 1700 1301 638 /Jolume to Ca~acity 0.16 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 ,Control Delayj~) 0.0 0.3 10.7 Lane LOS A B ~~roach Delayj~) 0.0 0.3 10.7 Approach LOS B ~~------~-----------~--~---------------- Average Delay,_..,,-"""'---,, _____ --=-=0.;;.4 __ -,;;:~__;___.;~.,__------_,_------__, iiiieiSection CaQacity Utilization 23.7% ICU Level 01 Service A Analysis Period (min)'--_______ ~15~ ____________________ __, C Q:IProjectsI13113175.00 -Renton School Site-Henley ResidentiallTraffic AnalysislTraffic OperationslSynchrolUpdate 4-16-2014IPM With-Project 4-16- Synchro 8 Report 4/2212014 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- Vehicle Speed Report Summary i .I.,'\t DATA SOLUTIONS Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE Count Direction: Eastbound 1 Westbound • Date Range: 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 Site Code: 01 II ... ',:_:"~,,, -,}\:;~;:.::~~,:,i;;: i..:';:;:~:,'-~;/',~;~:i:/; '\:~;;'. i~;'::::\',';~':':i5-:';, W,:\ ;,;.:~,:::/:-~,_:,:~': ',-;:::-. .., ""~''-:''i'' ' :':-",":-i.Sp'ti&ciiRanS'ti1(nlp'tlj':r,:·:: ":~:, ' . .'.):,:-'/ .... -:, ','1" -, :::,k~:.',:;:,,~':E:'~':,~\~~~~~~U,~(.:, -.': .:.::' .; ~~/!E':;::': ': :;:':~"":'. ::,{j;:~> :,', ,',·.11 ,'Total:: '11 0·10 '1110'.15\115'2011)20'2511.,25'"30'1130. 351135 "40 11'.40. 45iIl45 .• 50 1L50;' 55.11 55".60 1160·65;11;65 '.70'H;70;,,;75IL,75~:80118o:,,8511 .85+ IIliolum. Study Total Eastbound 35 239 1,972 6,230 2,670 184 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,351 Percent 0,3% 2,1% 17.4% 54.9% 23.5% 1.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% IWestbound 16 170 1,604 5,299 4,054 523 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,690 Percent 0.1% 1.5% 13.7% 45.3% 34.7% 4.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% ITotal 51 409 3,576 11,529 6,724 707 42 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,041 Percent 0.2% 1.8% 15.5% 50.0% 29.2% 3.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% ; , ... Total;Study Percentlle,Speed,Summary, .. '" Eastbound 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Westbound 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 22.8 mph 26.2 mph 28.2 mph 23.9 mph 27.5 mph 29.8 mph ';;'_,,;;,;;::,1;;, Total: StudwSpeed,Statistlcs, "X""'" Eastbound Mean (Average) Speed 22.8 mph 10 mph Pace 17.7·27.7 mph Percent in Pace 85.9 % Westbound Mean (Average) Speed 23.9 mph 10 mph Pace 18.8·28.8 mph Percent in Pace 81.8 % -- ---- -- - - - -- - --- - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i II_I'~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Wednesday, March 12, 2014 Eastbound II Speed Range (mph) II Tolal Time II 0-10 1110 -151115-201120-251125-30 1130-351135-40 1140 -451145-501150-5511 55-60 II 60-6511 65-701170 -751175-801180 -8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° ° 0 ------~-----,--------------._---------- 1:00 AM I 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 5 12:iio-i\M·-·-· 0 ·0··--11 .. -0---· 0 -0 0 0 0 0'-0' 0 --·0-·--0 ·0--·---13---,----,-----~'-" ------,--------'-" ---,---------,----------'.--------- 3:00AM 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 F:ooiW·o·----·o··-·---4---3' . .0. 00 0 '0-" 0 O·-~:~.o_·.-O--0"-0 ° 8 5:0.0 AM 0 ___ 1. __ 2 3 4 0 0 _.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 ~:~O.AM__ . ___ 0 __ . ..P ___ ~_.8 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 ,:OOAIL. ___ . __ 0._ .. _A ___ .. 11 _~. _17 2 .0 __ 0 0.0 __ ... 0 0 0 0 0 .. _._0. 0 6<1 I!:0o.~ . ___ 2. ___ 2 __ ._12 _47 __ .~_. .Q._ .. _Q___ 0 0 0 0 .. _0 ___ 0 0.. ___ .00 75 9:00.A~ __ . __ .L .2 __ B ___ 1.9 __ !P __ 2 ___ 0. ___ 9. . .0 .... _L ____ 0. ... 0 .. __ 0. __ d. ..0 __ ._0 __ 0 .~? __ 10:00_A~ __ . __ o... ___ ~ _._.10._ • ..2! __ .7_. ___ •. .£.. ___ 0 0 ____ 9 . d ..... .0 0 D. -> 0 0 0 51 11:00AM ___ 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00PM o I 10 o 3 I I -------, -° 13 o 3 14 31 36 56 63 8 23 18 37 2 I o o 0 o 0 __ o 0 o 0 o ° o 0 o 0 o 0 .. _._---_ •. _----_.._- 3:00 PM 0 2 20 104 43 0 0 0 0 0 ~OPP~=-=_'_.~_O_ . -2_~-.29._._'i9 ._·46:._._7 .. _..P __ ..P. _._.0 --0-- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 _._,---- o 0 . ---,-,------ o o o o o o 5:()0.~~__ )._._1._ 30 113 .. ___ 5§.. ___ 10 .0 ____ 0._ 0 __ . __ 0 __ .0._ 11... ... __ 0. _D . 6:00 PM 0 6 30 100 38 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. ------- -------. 7:00PM 8:00PM o ° 3. o 24 17 68 25 65 26 9:00y~ _ ... _ 0 __ 0 __ 12 _.57._ ... 10 I o 10:00 PM 0 I 10 33 II I -------------------------------- 11:00 PM 2 6 20 5 0 olal II 6 II 32 II 275 II 995 II 413 II 36 II Percent 0.3% 1.8% 15.6% 56.6% 23.5% 2.0% o o o o o 1 0.1% I o o o o II 1 0.1% II Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 50th Percentile (Median) 22.8 mph Mean (Avernge) Speed o o o o o o 0.0% 22.9 85th Percentile 26.2 mph 10 mph Pace 17.9 -27.9 95th Percenlile ---------. Mark Skaggs:425-250-Q777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 28.2 mph Percent in Pace 86.9 0. o .. Cl o o II 0 II 0.0% mph mph % o o o o o o 0.0% II o o o o o o 0.0% II .0 o Q.. o o o 0.0% II ° ° ° o ° o 0.0% ° o o o o o . __ 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 .0 ___ 0 o 0 o 0 II 0110 0.0% 0.0% II o o o o 52 74 90 118 o _1.6!!_. o 163 ~ --I-'~!- o o o o o o 0.0% 122 108 80 56 34 II 1,759 2 - - -- - - -- -- - - - --- -- - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 ill.ll~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Wednesday, March 12, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 ·10 1110 ·151115·20 II 20·2511 25·30 II 30·3511 35·40 II 40·451145·50 II 50·5511 55·60 II 60·651165·70 II 70·7511 75 ~ 80 II 80·8511 85 + IIVolume 12;00 AM 1;00 AM 2;00 AM 000000000000000001 0 o ___ 1 _______ 0 _______ .2_~ ___ 0 _____ 0 ___ O ___ I1. __ -'L ___ O ___ L .Jl_ 0 0 ___ ~ 00115000000000000 7 -----_. -_._----,------------------,,--------. -....... ---~-.----.-----.-------------, -' -.-. -----"--1- 3;00AM &=.oO_~ 5;00-"~M 6;00 AM _. __ .- 7;oqA/,1 8;00 AM 9:9.0 AM 10;.00 AM o o o o 2 1 0 -._ .. __ . o 2 1 2 ------, o 6 o 3 1 2 11 20 22 30 L 11 4 20 2 9 o 3 _ 0_ o 46 ____ 24 ____ 2__ _ 0_ 75 52 6 0 -------, ---------_.-,-". -- 90 83 79 56 _ ~_ 31 7 4 6 30 21 5 _.-------- o o --.9. o o o o o o o .9_ o o o .0 .0 .0 .0 o o o o .0 .0 o o .0 .0 o o o o o o o o 000 o 0 0 Jl 0 __ 0 o o o o o .0 o 0 0 o ___ 0 ____ .2 o 0 0 ------" o o o -0 __ L_ o o o _0 o .1. ___ 8 ___ _ o o o ___ q o 0 -_.----~ 34 85 154 o o 0 __ .1.200 o __ 0.. ____ .0 o o 176 92 70 1_1:!!qAM __ _ o o o ____ IQ. _ 5L_ 37 ___ "-_2_ _ __0 o o o o o Q o o o o o o o 9 _ o o 105 12:00 PM o 10 33 25 1:00 PM o 0 11 41 31 1~:Oop~ -, ._-----------_ ... _- 4 7 11 4 6 5 7 I 2 15 -------------. -33 73 46 22 38 ~8 __ 3;00 PM Fs~~~{~_-~ _ 16:00 PM 17:00 PM !8:00PM -'----- I~:O..Q..~~. ____ ,__ _ 10;00 PM 11;00 PM 1T0tai II o 3 12 o 3 11 42 1. ____ 0 _______ 21 _____ 3~ __ o o o 15 11 5 58 _30 29 31 ---- 21 7 o 0_ o o 2 ______ J. _21 _____ 13 __ 5 __ o 14 12 o o 3 10_ 4 o 5 II 28 II 235 II 861 II 615 88 II o .0 ___ _ o o o o ___ 0_ o o 0 o 0 ----- o o o o o o Q o o o o o o o o o o o __ .9_ _11.. ___ 0 ____ .9. ____ Q ____ a. _0_ o _ J ___ _ o 5 II o o o o o o Q ____ 0 __ o 0 _ .. -----o 0 o II o II o o o o o o o II o _0 _ o .0 o .0 o o o .a o 0._ _ _q ___ 9 ___ .0 __ o o o II .0 .0 o II o o o II o o o o 0 o 73 o 0 o 90 o 0 o 108 _ 0__ _ 0 _ 0 114 o 0 o 100 _0 __ 0 0_ __.:11_0 o 0 o 112 o 0 Q 64 o 0 o 42 _.L 0_ o __ '!l! _ o 0 o 27 o 0 o 18 II o II 0 II o II 1,837 Percent 0.3% 1.5% 12.8% 46.9% 33.5% 4.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dally Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-2SD-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 23.9 27.5 30.0 mph mph mph Speed Statistics Mean (Avemge, Speed 23.8 mph 10 mph Pace 19.5 -29.5 mph Percent in Pace 81.7 % 3 -- - -- - - - ----- --- - - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/12120.14 to 3/18/20.14 ill_,\~ Date Range: Site Code: 0.1 DATA SOLUTIONS Thursday, March 13, 20.14 Eastbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0. -10. 1110-151115-20. 1120.-251125 -30 1130.-3511 35-40 1140 -451145-50. 1150. -551155 -60 1160. -651165-70. II 70. -7511 75 -80. 1180.-8511 85+ IIVolume 1_2:DUAM ___________ ~ ______ 1~ __ 4 ____ 0. __ ~ ___ D_ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 25 1,DPAM 0. _L ___ 1 __ 5_ 1 ____ .0 ___ 9. Q ___ .o 0. 0. 0. ___ ...9_ 0. ____ D _D ___ 0. 7 12:DD~ 0. 0. 2 8 1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ~ ___ J!_ 0. 0. __ 0. 0. 11 3:0.0. AM 0. _Q___ _2 __ 3 ______ 0. __ 0. 0. _Il __ D_ __0._ _ 0. 0. __ Q___ 0. 0. 0. 6 I~ 0. 0. 3 0. ~ ___ ~ __ D ____ I!.. __ ~ ____ D _____ 0. __ 0. ___ 0. _____ Q ___ Il. ____ .Jl ____ .o ____ .! 5:pDAM __ .0 _____ 0. _____ 1 ___ ~ ____ ..s. ___ D __ ._D _0 ___ 0. 0. D _______ Q ____ D _____ D 0. 0. D _____ l_Q 6:DDAM ____ O __ Q.. ___ 2 __ 9 ___ 10. 0. __ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. D_.Jl. ___ 0. ___ 0. __ J! _____ D ______ 21 __ :7:0.0. AM 0. 0. 6 31 14 2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 53 I:-~_;~_~-::~-_~X:~-:-_~:-~--:-~-:~~ir~-~ll!..---~-~~T __ ~ _____ ~ __ ~ _ ~-~_~~~~ ____ ~ _____ ~-_=~ ____ ~~----~~_- !D:p~AM____ 0. 0. _11 28 9 0. 0. 0. _Il_ 0. (J 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. __ 48 11-,-DPAM _____ 0. 0. ____ 6 __ 38 16 0. _0.__ 0. 0. 0. 0. .0 0. _D ____ 0. 0. 0. 60. 12:0.0. PM 0. 2 11 50. 21 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 85 -~ -------------.-. ----------------------- 1:DQPM ________ D ____ 1 ___ .L _45 _2D _______ 3 ___ Q ____ .0 ______ 0. ____ 0. __ 0 __ .0 ___ .!L_ 0. 0. 0. 0. 71L _ 12:.oD_'p'~ ___________ 0. ________ 18 __ J3 22 _4 ______ 0._ _ 0. Q.. ___ Q __ _ 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. --_. _ .. _.--1-118 3:DO!,M_ _ _ ____ 0. _!l. I4-,-DDYM ______ Q 2. 5,QDPM ______ Q. ___ 4_ 6:0.0. PM 7:DDPM __ 0. 2 4 '8:0.0. PM 7 1 lio_Q~I:;i-::~_ --":--=~_<L_ Q 15 23 _8L 89 44 53 33 ____ 10._1 __ 4J 22 118 43 32 19 __ 0._ 5 0. _ 2 ______ 1.._ 2 1 2 0. 0. 25 24 17 56 68 45 __ J6 ____ 0. D _____ 0. _ 0. 0. 0._0. _ 0. 0. ------- 0. P 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ___ 0 0. 151 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 172 ---------__ <1.. __ 0. __ 0 ____ -.9 ___ .9 ___ 0. ____ 0 ____ 0. __ 1. 182 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ------------,-------_ _0_'--18.8._ 0. 0. 0. 0_ _ __ 0. 0. ° 0. _ 1_19 0. 0. 0. o 0 0. 121 o 0. 0. _11.. ___ .9_ __0.. ___ ~B. __ 110.:0.0. PM 0. 0. _1±-___ ~ __ ~_ 2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ____ 0. _______ Il. ___ 0. _0. 0. 0. 0. 0. o 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 63 .--,---- 11:0.0. PM 0. 12 17 4 0. -otal II 9 II 25 II 281 II 980. II 423 II 27 II 2 II 0. II 0. Percent 0..5% 1.4% 16.1% 56.1% 24.2% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0..0.% Dall Percentile 5 eed Summa Seed Statistics 5o.Ih Percentile (Median) 851h Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-25o.-o.777 mark.skaggs@idaxdala.com 23.0. mph 26.2 mph 28.4 mph Mean (Avernge) Speed 22.9 10. mph Pace 17.7 -27.7 Percent in Pace 86.3 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. I 35 II 0. II 0. II 0. II 0. II 0. II 0. II 0. II o II 1,747 0.0.% 0..0.% 0..0.% 0..0.% 0..0.% 0..0.% 0..0.% 0..0% mph mph % 4 - ----- - - - - - -- - --- -- Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i II_I)~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Thursday, March 13, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 ·10 1110 ·151115·201120.251125.30 II 30·3511 35·40 II 40·451145·50 II 50·5511 55·60 II 60·6511 65·70 II 70·751175·80 II 80·8511 85 + IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ----,~.,-----------.-... ---~ -,---¥--_._--------. __ ._------------ 1:00 AM 0 0 1 3 o o 0 1 0 ~O~ ~ 0 o 0 o I) I~OOAM-~ -. . .. ~O ~--O 0 2 1 3:00~AM. .o~._ O. _ ~.1 __ 1_ ~ _}_ :00 AM 15:00 AM 6:00AM If~~~· o 0 4 19 10 3 0 o 0 . -,,-----------.... o 1 7 44 39 4 0 .. ---_Q.~ o o 0 19 86 46 6 0 o o -------------o 2 23 81 98 12 0 O~. 0 o 3 D ~ ~ 8 000 ---'------------------------------------~--------------- 19:901\~_ ~~ __ 9~ 2 ._12~. __ 40_~. 2.s~.~~ .~9 __ ~~..Q. ~ ~O~~ ~. 0 10:00 AM 11:91) AM 12:00 PM ---._-.. _- 1:00 PM 12:OOYM o 11 33 26 1 0 0 0 1 o o 4 -------. ---_ .... - 19 41 30 2 8 17 16 6 o 12_~ _ ~ 3~L § . ~_.~O o o o o o o o O. ~ I) o o o o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 --"-,-------,------o o o o o o Q.~ o o o 0 0 -----_ .. - O.~Q.~ ~ .. Q 000 ~ O~ o o o o o o o o ---, -- 3:00PM 31 59 52 ~}~ 33 29 34 3 8 6 o 0 o o o o o o o o ~O o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o I)~­ o o o o o o o o o o o 11._ a. o 0 o 0 o 0 .0 ~O o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o WOOP~_ 5~09PM o o .. __ ~1 o 2 4 3 o o ~ 14 11 14 1~2 9 15 3L_~~_~ .. 5 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 --------11._ .. ~O~ .. __ 11.._._.0 ___ 0 _.~ ~O 6:00PM 7:00.PM 8:00PM 55 32 2 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 -------o 33 20 o 0 o o o o o 0 7 22 9:01))~M _~ ~ .o.~ .~ 10 20 -_. --- 23 17 1 2 o ~~O._~O~_.~O 10:00 PM 0 4 11 9 2 0 0 o o _o.~ ~.~. O~~._~ 0 000 ---'------------.--~------------_. --------------._-._--- 11:00 PM 000970 00 otal II 3 II 28 II 228 II 814 II 637 II 89 II 2 II 0 Ii 0 ,Percent 0.2% 1.6% 12.7% 45.2% 35.4% 4.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Dally Percentile Speed Summary SOth Percentile (Median) 8Sth Percentile 9Sth Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-2S0-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 24.2 27.S 30.0 mph mph mph Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 24 10 mph Pace 19.0 ~ 29.0 Percent in Pace 83.1 000 II 0 II 0 II 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% mph mph % . ---". --------o o _9.. o o II 0 0.0% o o O~. o o o 0.0% o o o 0 9 ___ L. o 0 o 0 II 0110 0.0% 0.0% o 6 o 4 o 5 o 36 ._--,. __ .. ,-- o 95 o 157 o 216 o 179 ~O _~ 89 o 72 o 89 o 49 o 86 o 85 o 107 o 106 ~~Q.. .. 94 o 99 o 70 o 53 o 50 --, ---_.- ~I~~ ~i II o II 1,801 0.0% S - --- - -- -- - - - -- - - - -- Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i II.I\~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Friday, March 14, 2014 Eastbound II Speed Range (mphl II Total Time II 0 ·10 1110 ·151115·20 II 20·2511 25·30 II 30·3511 35·40 II 40·451145·50 II 50·5511 55·60 II 60·651165·70 II 70·7511 75·80 II 80·8511 85 + IIVolume 12:00~ _______ 0 ___ Q. _~ __ ~ ___ 2 ___ J.. ____ Q. ___ ~ 0 0 0 0 ___ .0 ___ .0 ___ O _____ ....Q O ____ 2! 1:90AM__ _ 0 0 _2 __ 6_ 2 0 0._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 12:Q.oAM _______ ~O ___ 'O _ _ 1 _ 7_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .p 0 0 9 3"Q.OAIyI _______ 0 ____ 0 _____ 0 _____ .3 ___ 1 0 0 0_ 0 0 0_ .0 _O ____ O ___ O ____ Q 0.4 _ _ :QQ.AM _____ .1 0 __ 1._ 5!l __ .2.... 0 O_.!l.. __ 0 _.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5_:00 AM_ 0 0 2 5_ _ _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6:00A~ _______ ~O ___ O _ _ i ____ I!.___ 6 0 __ .!l.. _ 0 0 0 0 Q __ . _ 0 ___ 0_ 0 0 0 __ !II 7:00 AM 0 0 6 22 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 1-. --_. ----." ------------------------. ---------------._- 18:00~ __ _ 0 ___ 1_ 3 19_ 19_ 2 .p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 9:00AM ______ Q 2 12 ___ 43_ 2Q __ 3 0 0 0_ _..9 0 0 ___ !J ° ____ 0 _ 11. 0 80 10:00 AM 0 12 37 19 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 -------_.----_. -~------._ ... ---~--" -_. __ . ------ 11:00!IM ________ 0 2 11 ------_.-~3 ___ p __ o o o o o 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 ___ 0 0 60 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00PM-- o 4 8 27 15 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 o 1_ _19.31 o 0 18 74 3:00 PM 0 0 23 ~:OO J't.I~-:~ _ .:.~:_ O~ _~_~_~.:._--28 5:00 ff1,1__ __ _ _ ____ 9 ____ 1 24 6:00 PM 0 24 li~oo.E'~ _ 0 ____ 4 ____ 1_9. 8:00 PM 0 0 23 -------------_ .. ------- !!;OO_P~ __ _ o o __ 1_8 _ 2 0 14 81 93 118 81 62 56 45 52 2~__ 2 o __ 0 __ .Q. 11._ 0 0 0 a. 46 4 o 0 000 0 0 0 39 7 0 o _0 0 0 0_ 0 0 56 0 0 o 0 0 0 ____ Q._~O Jl _5_1 __ 7 1_ 0 __ 0_ 0 0 __ 0 ____ 0 ___ 9 .0 51 5 0 0 o 000 0 0 0 30 3 1 0 o 000 0 0 0 27 1 0 0 o 000 0 0 ---~.-- 14 0 1 0 ____ 0 __ 0 ____ 9 __ _ _9__ _0 __ 0 11 0 0 0 o 0 0 10:00 PM 11:00 PM o 0 9 25 11 0 0 o o o o o o 000 o -Q o o lIotal II 3 II 21 II 281 II 956 II 471 II 38 II 6 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 :Percent 0.2% 1.2% 15.8% 53.8% 26.5% 2.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dally Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 23.0 26.4 28.9 mph mph mDh Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 23.2 mph 10 mph Pace 18.6 -28.6 mph Percent in Pace 86.3 % II 0110 II 0 II 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% o 0 73 o 0 142 o 0 151 o 0 182 ----.---__ L 0 __ 20~ o 0 162 o 0 11~ __ o 0 107 o 0 78 o 0 79 -_.-. -o 0 46 II 0 II 0 II 1,776 0.0% 0.0% 6 -- - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - -- Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i II-.,~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Friday, March 14, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0-10 1110-151115-201120-251125-301130-351135-40 1140-451145-501150-551155-601160-651165-70 1170-751175-80 1180-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00 AM 1:00AM i2:00AM '~:OOAM ... 0._.. 0 . 4 .... _2 .... _3 .• _ .. __ .!. __ .0. .!l .0 0 0.. O. 0 0 . Q . 2.._ .. .11 o 0 0 .Q 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 000320000000000005 o 0 . .1 .. ? .... 2 .... 0 ... _.fl .. 0 O ... Q 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 5 :00 AM o 0 5 13 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0.... 0 0 0 0 34 j5:00.AM 6:00AM ?:OO~ 8:00AM 9:00AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM ---"---- 1:00.P~ 2:00 PM --- ---- o o Q- 1 o o 4 o o 3 o 0 o 3 o o 9 21 20 45 65 104 15 57 23 ... .53 14 50 9 s.~ 4 31 14 36 20 36 27 ~. o 48 4 o 71 4 0 _._---------_ .. ----- 36 ... 5.2 37 36 27 23 27 6 0 6 0 - ----- 7 0 .. 1. L 6 0 5 0 o 0. ~.O . O. 0 0 0 0 o o o o o .a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3:00 PM 0 2 .... 1~. _.~ ... 36_ 2 .0 ... J! .. o Q. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o :00 PM 0 4 17 45 30 2 2 o o o o o .------,-._-"--------- 5:00 PM 0 13. __ .33 39 . .3 .. 1.. 0 .0_ ..... 0 .. .0._._0. 6:(jQ.P!>1.. . . ..... Q.. 16 __ 4E, .... ~~ S 0._ Q ._.Q.. ___ O __ .0... 0 _._0 ___ 0. o o o o o 87 o .1 138 o . 290 7:00 PM !S:OOPM .. _.9 3 o 17 47 24 4 D.. 0 . 9 0 o. a. o. _.0 .. o. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 118 135 111 100 71 79 87 124 100 90 97 92 80 o 1!!=9.0.PM .• __ .... _J.. 10:00 PM 11:00 PM o o 10 37 28 4 o o o o o o o .!.1.2?_~Jl._. __ 3 ___ Q. ___ .Il. ... _0 ... _.Q ._ .. 0 __ .. .0 1 3 15 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------. ---------o 5 14 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 otal II 1 II 27 II 269 II 877 II 635 II 74 II 5 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 ·11 Percent 0.1% 1.4% 14.2% 46.5% 33.6% 3.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dally Percentile Speed Summary 5o.th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-25o.-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 23.7 27.3 29.3 mph mph mph Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 23.7 mph 10. mph Pace 18.3 -28.3 mph Percent in Pace 83.2 % o 0 o o o o 0.0% o o o o 0.0% . ~ --.. ~. ~ ~ ~I:-~i' II 0 II 0 II 0 II 1,888 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7 --- -- - - -- --- - - -- - -- Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 W )q d~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 Saturday, March 15, 2014 Eastbound DATA SOLUTIONS II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0-10 1110-151115-201120-251125-301130-351135-40 1140-451145-50 1150-551155-601160-651165-701170-751175-801180-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 0 3 23 11 0 0 -----_._-._-------------------------------'-- 1:00A¥ ____ 0 _____ 0_ _5 __ IS ___ } .1 0 1?:O.oA~ _________ 0. _______ ~ ___ 1.1. 4 3:00AM 0 0 8 2 0 0 1io0~M-___ O __ -~ ___ L_ :; __ ~ ___ ~O_ _ 0 5,-00A!.1 _____ 0 9 2 2 ~ __ 0 o ~D.!-M ______ .0 _____ .0 ___ 3 ___ ?_ _ _ _ _ ___ 0 o o o o o o o o 7:00AM _______ 0. ____ .1 __ 3 _9 ____ 2 ___ 9 o _0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8:00 AM 0 2 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------.~----,_.----------._-----------~-------- o o o o o o o 0 __ o o o o o o Jl _ o _9 o o o o o o o _.0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 9:00~ _______ 0 __ Q ___ 14 22 _____ ~ ______ 1_ 0 _0. __ .0 _____ 0 _____ 0 _____ 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o _0 ______ 0 __ _ 37 24 23 11 9 7 6 15 23 <15 53 000 ---~-----lO,OOAM __ ..Q _____ 2__ 15 ___ .1~ ______ 11__ __ 1.. __ o o o o 1t09~ _ _...J_ 3 __ .)8 ____ "-3 ___ .10 ___ 1 o o o 0 ___ 0 _____ 0 o o o o o o o o 2. ___ 0. _ L !6 __ _ 12:00 PM 0 7 14 46 18 0 -----------. __ ._- LOOP~ _______ 1 ___ .1. ___ 2L __ 53 12:00 PM 0 4 15 56 34 19 9 ___ 0 2 o o o _ 9 __ _0 __ o o o o o o 000 ------ 11 _ o o o o o 85 __ O_.L_1JL o 96 3:00PM __________ 0 __ 2 ____ ~1 ___ 6~ ____ 3.a_ __ ~ ____ 9 _____ ...Q __ o o _0 9 _____ I! ____ o o _0 ____ 0. ___ .o_L.1.!6 _ ~,OOPM ________ 1 __ 6_ 19 ____ 2~ ___ 2§ _ 0 0 0 0 Q __ 0 _ 0 0 0 0 5:00;:'M _______ 0 ____ .1. ___ 2~ __ ~ ____ 2L ___ L __ .9 __ 2. ____ 9 ___ 11 ___ 0 _____ 0 _____ 0 ___ .Jl ____ 0 ____ 2. ~OOP~ _______ 0_ __ 2~_ ~9_~1 4 0 0 0 0_ 0 __ O ____ () ____ 0 0 0 7:00PM __ 0_ _ 3 ___ 22 __ 54 __ .1L ____ L __ 0 0 9 __ Q ____ 0 __ 0 __ 9 __ 0 _____ 9 ___ 0_ 8:00PM 0 7 __ ~7 _47 121.. _ 0_ __ 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~90_P_!.L ____ O ____ .3 __ .1I ___ 31 ___ 7 _____ .1 ___ 0 __ 11 _ 0_ __0 _ O ____ L __ O ___ !!. ___ O __ 0 I(joOo.P":1___ 0 16 38 _6 0 D. ___ O ___ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 _.0 11;00 PM 2 13 23 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !!otal II 4 II 51 II 314 Ii 769 II 302 II 19 II 1 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II o 127 0 __ .1_ 111.7 __ o 0_ o 0_ o o o 107 97 104 _62 61 47 II 1,460 Percent 0.3% 3.5% 21.5% 52.7% 20.7% 1.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dail Percentile 5 eed Summa 5 eed Stallstlcs SOth Percentile (Median) 22_4 mph Mean (Average) Speed 22.3 mph 8Sth Percentile 2S_7 mph 10 mph Pace 17.4·27.4 mph 95th Percent~ 27.7 mph Percent in Pace 85.S % Marl< Skaggs:425-2S0-0777 marl<.skaggs@idaxdata.com 8 ---- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 w )1,7 a~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Saturday, March 15, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0·10 1110·151115·201120·251125·301130·351135·40 1140·451145·50 1150.551155·601160.651165·701170.751175·80 Ii 80·8511 85+ IIVolume 1:00AM +--~.---~_ ---}--~-o-----~--~----~ ~ ~ --~_ ~ ----~---~ ~ -~--I-.~L 12:00 AM 12:00 AM o 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 9 5 10 -----------_._--'-~--------... -.. -'--. ,----.-- ~:::----~ ---~ -----~--~ -;---~----~----~---~ ~ ~ 5~o.O~ 0 0 1 11 10 0 0 0 0 I~,o~~~ _____ ~ ____ o ______ ~ __ ~2 ___ 6 _____ 3. ___ 0 ____ . ..0 ____ 0 ____ 0 7:00. AM _0 __ . ___ 9. ___ 6 __ 13__ _25. 2 0 _ 0 ___ .0 ____ 0 I~O_qJ\M ________ Q.. __ o ___ ...!__~ __ 5~ ___ .s. _ 0. ____ .Jl . _0. _ ..0 9:0QAM _0. 0 9 ___ 39 30 6 0 0 0 ___ .0 10:00 AM __ 0 ___ .1 __ . _ .22 _. 48.}? _______ ._ 0 0 0 11:00 AM o 0._ ._1.5. _ 53_ 35 5 0 0 o o 12:00 PM 0 14 41 35 2 0 0 0 o ----. ----. -._-------' -- 1~00 PM o 2 25 48 41 4 0 0 o o o o 45 __ .2~ _____ 4 ___ 0 0 2:00 PM 1 2 _._-----------------~-- 21 '3:00 PM 1 0 13 50 38 rs:~~_~_~---_--·t--__ L 18 14 13 7 11 45 38 25 26 I~OO ~~ _____ 0._ 2 17:00~!.1_ I~OOPM •• _ 9:99 PM 10:00 PM --------11:00 PM (total II 1 o 5 2 o 0 __ ~ _ 19 o 4 17 .--------._-----.------o 0 6 17 3 II 20 112261165411 28 _6_._0 o 0 ° 28 40 29 4 8 6 14 4 17 17 3 23 10 0 521116911 o o o o 0 o o o 9 o o o -0. o 0. o o 0 --+.--- 000 0 000 0 -------" --------000 0 3 II 0 II 0 II 0 II o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o II ._ 0 __ Q o o o o o 0 o 0 -. ---- _0 0_ o 0 ----------. o o o o 9 o o o o o o o o o --~-:I:· -: o 102 o o o o o o o o o o o ~. -----~ -:._~ J~ ~ o o o o 0 o 0 ------. -'-o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0_ o o o 0 0 o II -_.' -~-~----.--o o o o o o o o II o o o o o 0 o 0 _0. . 0 o 0 --------o 0 o II 0 II o o o o o o Q - o o o o o o o II _0. . 108. _ 93 o o o 120 ____ •• _102 o 98 o 90 Jl __ L 109_ o 89 o 56 o 57 -----.. -.- 9 __ ~_ o 46 --"--_ .. o 33 o II 1,496 Percent 0.2% 1.3% 15.1% 43.7% 34.8% 4.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daily Percentne Speed Summary Speed Statistics 50th Percentile (Median) 23.9 mph Mean (Avernge) Speed 23.9 mph 85th Percentile 27.7 mph 10 mph Pace 18.8·28.8 mph 95th Percentile 29.8 mph Percent in Pace 79.9 % Mark skaggs:425·250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 9 - - -- - - ---- -- - - - - - -- Location: Date Range: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i II_I\~ Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Sunday, March 16,2014 Eastbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time /I 0 -10 /110 -15/115 -20 II 20 -25/1 25 -30 II 30 -3511 35 -40 II 40 -451145 -50 II 50 -5511 55 -60 II 60 -6511 65 -70 II 70 -7511 75 -80 II 80 -85/1 85 + IIVolume 12:00 AM ---.- 1":00AM 2:00AM o 2 8 19 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 37 _0 ____ !! ___ 9 ___ "§. __ .Q " ___ 0 _____ 0. _" _9. ___0 _______ 0 __ " 0 ___ 0 ___ 11. ____ 0 ___ .Jl__ 0 ____ 22 ___ 0 o o 6 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 24 3:00AM 0 4 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 ~:OoAM ___ ~ __ ~ __ ~ 0--__ ? __________ Q ___ ~ ___ ~ _____ Q ____ 0_ S,OO_AM ____ Q_ _11. __ ! _?_ 0 0 0 0_ 0. 6:00AM 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 _. ---- 7:00 ~ ______ " ___ 0 _____ 0. _______ 2 __ -.1 " ____ ? ____ 11. ___ g _____ p _ " ___ IL _0_ o 0 3 o o o o o o o 0_ o o o 8:00AM 9,09_AM 10:00 AM o o __ 0 2 10 13 35 3B 53 5 9 8 16 24 o 0 o 0 o 0 --.------o 4 11 17 o o 2 0 o 0 o o o 0 o _ 9 o 0 o '1-___ 0_ o o o o 0- o o o o 0 _____ 0 Q o 0 0 o 0 o 0 -------- 0_ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9. o o o o -----o o o o o 12 7 7 3 L. 18 24 _ _ ~_.:._ _() =__ 0_1 48 _ _0_ _ 0 o 0 o _1_ 68 o 99 11":Q.0 AM 12:00 PM 1:00J'M 2:00 PM _L 2 1 -._---.-19_ --~-__ 11. 25 2 o o o o o o o " 9 __ o o _9.-__ 0 ______ 9_ o (L_ o .0 ____ ._-'L __ 0 __ . __ 0 __ '-_9_3 _ o 21 68 3:00 PM 1 2 11 49 36 1 0 0 ~:ili'M=~-O----____ 1~ ~-___ ~ ___ ~_ -o_-_~ __ 5:00 PM 0 ___ ~ ______ 13 ___ ]0 24 3 Q_ 0 :6:~0 PM 1 ____ 2 __ _ 20 61 23 2 0 0 o o o 7:00 PM 0 17 1--------"---------------i6 ___ J.o_ " ___ 9 ______ L ___ 0 __ i~:09!'~ _ _ 0 2 !6 :9:90 PM -0 ___ 1 __ Y 10:00 PM 0 2 8 ----------~---"----,------.- 46 21 14 13 13 7 11:00 PM o 0 6 13 3 otal II 5 II 26 II 228 I: 698 II 271 II Percent 0.4% 2.1% 18.3% 56.0% 21.7% Daily Percentile Speed Summary o 0 0 o -_Q o o o o o o o o 0 18 II 1 o II 0 II 1.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Speed Statistics 50th Percentile (Median) 22.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 22.5 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Marl< Skaggs:425-2S0-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 25.9 mph 28.2 mph 10 mph Pace 17.4 -27.4 Percent in Pace 85.9 o o o o o o o .0_ o o o o o o o 0 __ o 0 o o o II o 0.0% 0.0% mph mph % o o o o o o o o o o o II 0.0% o o o o "IL o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o IL __ ._ .0____ 0 o o o o 115 100 _}j _:1~_ o o o 109 75 77 o o o o 0 0 I 55 _.f! ______ Q _____ 0 ____ 0 ____ 0 __ .3~_ o 0 o 0 o I 22 o 1:-0 II o II 0 II o II 1,247 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10 - ----- - -- - - - - - - - - - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/12120t4 to 3/1812014 w >~ d~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 Sunday, March 16, 2014 Westbound DATA SOLUTIONS II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 -10 1110-151115-20 II 20-251125-301130 -351135 -40 1140 -451145-50 II 50-551155-6111160 -651165-70 II 70 -751175 -80 1180-8511 85 + IIVolume ~-ri--__ .L ___ ~2 _____ ~ ____ J __ } _~ ___ ~ _~ ~ ~-_~ ____ ~ ~ ~ ~J~: 12:00 AM -" --.-- 1:00AM 12:00 AM o o 1 3:00 AM 0 0 4:00AM 0 0 ---------.-~------- 5:00AM 0 0 16:00 AM ,) -0 --,---~ ------,-----o 1 o o 2 2 3 5 2 2 2 4 9 5 -'"_.-.---.--------- 3 1.1 17 o o o 2 7 27 21 1 ------- I Z:Q9. AM 8:00AM 9,00AM. 10:00AM . o o 0. I. _ •. _9_ . _ __40._ 31 3 o 19 35 36 5 o o o o o Q o o o o 0 o . ___ 0. o 0 o o o o o 0 0 0 ----o 0 0 0 ---.--------------- 1 goo o 0 0 0 o o o o o o .----o o o ----- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o !t.0gAM ___ .. ___ .0 ___ .1 __ .. .10 _39_. ___ .3.L_.6 ... __ 0_ -.Q -(). o o o o Q .0 0 12:00 PM 1:00 PM .---------- 12:00 PM . . --- 3:00 PM rs~~ci:~ -- o o o o 1 L o 2 14 45 ----- 13 ___ 33 10 32 .2 __ 54 30 39 27 27 300 0 7 _0. 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 13 ¥ 24 3 ___ P_ .0. 0 o _0 L _39_ .~5 .2... .0_ 0 0 6:00PM 17:00 PM 8:00PM _. _____ . .!l. ___ . __ I __ 1E __ .1 6 .. __ 27 ____ . __ ~ ___ P __ O 9:QQPt.,1 __ _ 10:00 PM 11:00 PM o 0 14_ 28 23 ! 0 0 0 o 2 3 16 20 2 . Jl __ . Jl. _. _ 0. . o J_ . o 3 o 0 10 4 lL 16 8 7 9 2 1_9. o o o __ 0 o o o o o 0 o 0 ------_ .. --o 0 o 0 o o o o o o o _0. o o o o o -JI __ o -..11. o o o o 000 o 0 ----------.------o o o o o o o o o o o .0 o 0 0 0 --._------,,_. 000 0 o o Q o o o o ------o o o o o o o o o o o .0 . o o o o o o o o 'otal II 1 II 17 II 160 II 539 II 426 II 57 II 3 II o II o II o II 0 II 0 Ii 0 II o II o II Percent 0.1% 1.4% 13.3% 44.8% 35.4% 4.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dally Percentile Speed SummarY SDeed Statistics 50th Percentile (Median) 23.9 mph Mean (Average) Speed 24 mph 85th Percentile 27.5 mph 10 mph Pace 18.3 -28.3 mph 95th Percentile 29.8 mph Percent in Pace 82.3 % o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 o 0 o .0 ... o 0 o . _0_ o 0 O. 0 o 0 o 0_ o 0 o Q. 6 4 5 7 20 .31_ 57 85 96 92 93 9.2. 78 91 86 83 55 66 43 37 o o ~ I· ~{ o II o II 1,203 0.0% 0.0% Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 11 - - -- -- - -- - ---- - - -- - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i .I.I'\Z, Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Monday, March 17, 2014 Eastbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0-10 1110-151115-201120-251125-301130-351135-40 1140-451145-501150-551155-601160-651165-701170-751175-80 1180-8511 85+ IIVolume !2:0.o~ ________ .0_ .0 _3_ 6 3 _.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 __ .0 ____ .0 ___ .0 .0 _Il.. ____ 12_ 1 :.00 AM _ .0 .0 3 6 3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ____ .0 _ .0 .0 .0 12 12:.00 AM __ __ _ 0 .0 2_ 4 2 .0 .0 .0 .0 0 ° ~ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 3:.o.oAI.I ______ .0 _. ____ 5 2 ° _.0_ .0 .0 .a .0 .0 __ .0 _____ .0 ___ 0 .0 __ .11. !_. ~:.o2..A~_ .0 .0 2 2 .0 ___ .o __ ......Q. ____ Jl .0 __ .0 __ ._.0_. __ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 __ g ____ ~ . __ 5:.o.o.!-~ ________ .0_ _ _0. ___ 1.. __ ~_ _2__ .0 _____ C!.. ___ C!.. _ _.0 _.0 ____ a. ____ .0 ______ .0 _____ .0 ____ 9 ___ 0. ____ "-______ II 6:.o.oAM ______ .0 ____ 4 7 1.0 ____ 9 ______ .11._ _...!! ____ .o_ __.0 _______ .0 __ .0 ____ g _____ 0. ___ .Q.... ___ .0 ___ .0 ___ 1l..._2D_ 7:ct.o_AM ______ .o ____ .o _____ l1 ___ 31 _!9 ___ .o __ ..Q ____ .o ______ .o_ .0 ___ 0 __ 9 ___ .0 ___ .0 __ .0__ .0 ____ --'1 ____ 5.5 11l.:.o.o_~ _____ .0 2 14 __ 35 . __ 25_ .Il..._ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 _ .0_ _ .0 77 !9:9_.o MI___ .0 .0 3 .18_ 10 .0 __ .0 ___ .0 _.02 ___ .0_ .0 _C!.. __ O .0 .0 ___ .-2. ___ 31 __ l.o:.o.oAI.I ______ .o __ .0 7 25 1.0 .0 . ____ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0. ___ .0 .0 ° .0 ___ ~ 11:.0.0 AM _ _ 0 I_S__ _ _33 21_ _ _0. 0 .0 .0_ .0 .0 _.0 ____ 9__ .0 .o. _ Q_ 61 12:.o.oPM ______ .0 5 13 29 16 4_0. Q .0 .0 .0 .0 0. _____ 0 ___ .0 .0 0. 67 )_:.0.0 PM .0 .0 15 3<1 _17 .0 .. ___ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 66 1~:O.oP~ _______ Il... __ 9 ___ 22 ____ 5_2 __ 1Il.. _.0 .0 .0 <>._ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 __ 0._ 93 3,.o.oPM ______ Q._ .J ____ 2.3 ____ 99 __ 43 _____ 2_ .0 ____ .11.__ _0. 14:.0.0 PM .0 23 92 ~ .0 .0 .0 __ . .L ___ J __ .0 .0 .0 .0 __ .0 ____ ._.0 ____ .0 __ .0 .0 .0 ~ . -_. __ . .0 .0 5 1 2 .0 .. __ ., ----_. ------. ---.. "-------._.--_. ------------------_. .0 .0 I 168 _ _ _ _ Q. ___ .0 __ . ...!7_5 __ 5:.0.0 PM__ _ _ .. __ .0 . 6:.0.0 PM 7:.0.0 PM 8:.0.0 PM 9:.o.oPM ___ . 1 .0 .0 1.0:.0.0 PM .0 .0 -_._-------------- 11:.0.0 PM .0 .0 'otal II 2 II 31 _3.0_. __ 123 _ 41. _____ 4 32 9.0 32 2 12 17 15 -----._- 71 42 39 13 27 29 16 19 5 3 .0 2 .0 --------------- 9 22 11 .0 1128311906114011120 II L. ) .0 9 __ _ .0 .0 5 II _.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 o II .0 .0 .0 .0 _.0 ____ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 _ .0 ___ .0_ .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 o II o II o II .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ______ .Q.. _ _ .0 .0 .0 .0 -----... --. .0 .0 ct. .0 .0 .0 .0_ _ . ....9 ______ 2 ___ 0 __ _ .0 .0 o II .0 .0 o II .0 .0 o II .0 .0 o II .0 __ .0 __ ._29_6_ . .0 .0 163 ------.--- .0 .0 117 .0 .0 78 ° _L .15 _ .0 .0 45 .0 .0 42 o II 0 II 1,648 Percent 0.1% 1.9% 17.2% 55.0% 24.3% 1.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daily Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 85tih Percentile 95tih Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 22.8 25.9 28.2 mph mph mph Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 22.8 mph 10 mph Pace 17.7 -27.7 mph Percent in Pace 86.7 % 12 -- --- - - - Location: Date Range: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 Site Code: 01 Monday, March 17, 2014 Westbound ---- - --- - - - ill.,~~ DATA SOLUTIONS II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0.101110.151115.201120.251125.301130.351135.40 1140-451145-501150.551155.601160-651165.701170.75 1175-80 1180-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 0 -----------------~~ 1:00AM 0 0 12:00Mi-. -0-0 ~. :00_!lM.._ . :00 AM ------- 5,00 AM 6:00AM _ ___ 0._. ___ .0_ o 0 o 1 o 3 7AOAM _0_ 3 ~,OQ~ _______ 0 ___ . o 5 3 2 4 2 1 -,--- I __ 1._ _ _2 __ _ 3 15 10 _12 48 30 24 88 37 23_ 87 _8.3_ 21 72 61 ----,-- 1 o o o 1 3 3 8 8 '9:00~ __ 10:00 AM o ~_ _ 33 2~_ _2 ---------- 11 :O!lllM. 12:00 PM 1:00 PM I~,OQ. ~M 3:00PM :00 PM ----------- 5:00 PM. :6:00 PM o 0 11 20 25 6 o 0 11_ 33 29 6 o 6 28 22 2 o 1 14 27_2~ 3 3 5 7 ~ 6 o 2 18 46 32 ._---_.-_.------------_. --. o 17 39 o 3 8 47 --,~----------------------o 1 ____ 1§._40 o 2 12 30 _35 34 2§ 46 o o o __ Jl_ o o o o o o o o _ 0 __ o o o o o .!L_. !l o 0 .0 0 o 0 _0 o o o o ___ D- O .9__ 0 o 0 I~:~~;~_____=t-_--~ _~_~-~_:~~:_:;i ---~ __ :~_ ~ 19:0_0 !,M _ _ _ ___ ..J_ . 10:00 PM 0 ---._- 11:00 PM o otal II 1 Percent 0.1% o o II 21 1.2% 4 _2_1 .. 13 4 12 12 0 ----_. 2 8 5 11235117621160411 7911 13.8% 44.7% 35.5% 4.6% _0 o o 1 0.1"10 !I o o o o 0.0% o o o o 0 o .Q. o o o o o o o ----~-o o 0_ o 0 o o 9 ____ 0 __ _ __Q. __ ._ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 _______ D _ o 0 O 0 0 0 0 -- --- -_Q. . o o _ .0_ __ _ 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o D ____ O_ 0. __ .9 ___ 0. a. o Jl. o o o o o o ___ .0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o _0 o 0 o ___ 9 __ o o o o o o o o o ____ 0_ _ 0 o 0 0 o o o o o o .0_ o o o o o ___ 0 o 0 ____ 0 __ 0 _____ .0 ___ .Q. 0 . .0 o _0. o o o o o o o o 0 --------.--o 0 ---------o _0 o o o o o o o 0 o o .0 o o o 0 ___ 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------, -. o 0 0 _____ 0 ___ 0 ____ 0_ . o o o o o o o 0 0 o 0 o 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 o II 0 o II 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Dally Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percenlile Mark Skaggs:425-25.o-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdala.com 23.9 mph 27_7 mph 29_8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 24 mph 1.0 mph Pace 18.8 -28.8 mph Percent in Pace 82.6 % II o 0 o 0 o 0 O ____ D o 0 o 0 o 0 a. 0 o 0 o o o o o o _ _ IL o o o o o o o o o o o 9 _ o o o o o 7 6 7 4 29 94 155 204 163 6_9 __ 62 79 59 73 101 9_7_. 100 85 96 6~ __ 63 -~-::-~-:I--;i o II 0 II 1,703 0.0% 0.0% 13 - - ----- ---- -- --- - -- Location: Date Range: Site Code: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/1812014 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Tuesday, March 18, 2014 Eastbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 -10 1110 -151115-201120 -251125-30 1130-351135-40 1140 -451145-SO II SO-551155-60 1160 -6511 65-701170 -751175 -80 1180 -8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00Ar..1__ _ 0 _3 21 9 0 0 ~ _0 ___ o ____ .2 __ 0 __ .0 0 __ Q. 0 Q 34 :!;OO~ _ 0 _0 __ .L ___ 9_ _ __ 0_ 0 0 L ___ 0 _0_0 ____ .9 0_ 0 0 0 ____ .:'3 __ 12_:QO !oM__ 0 0 1 ____ 1 _ _ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~'~~~ ~_ ~ ~ _ ~ -i _~ ____ ~ _____ ~ _____ ~_ ~ ~ -~ ~-.:.L----~ ~-~--~ _ ~ 5:00 AM 0 0_ _ __ 0 _ 6 _ _ _? ______ 0 ____ 11. ____ 0 0 ___ 0_ _ __ Q _ __ _ 0 Q 0 0 .9 0 8 16:00 AM _0. _________ ~. ____ ~_1~_. ___0_ •. ..2. __ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 27 I;o.0.l~~L _____ 0 __ 1 ___ 6_ 2.1 14 2 _ .0 ____ 0_ 0 0 9 ____ 0 ____ 0 __ 0 ____ 0 0 _.0 SO __ ~:OO~_ __ ___ 0 5 1.632 _2.1__ 3 0 _ •. _0 __ . _0._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 9,00AM _____ 0 2 __ 1Q_ _ 34 111 __ Q._ 9 ____ 0 _L 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 56 !Oc0o..~. _____ Q. ____ ~ _ _ _6 ____ .2~ 17 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 Q _ 0 0 0 ~ 1.!:OO_A~____ 0 2 ____ 1~_ 28 __ 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .9 0 0__ O ____ SI __ ~2:QO!''-1 _ 0 5 7 37 15 0 Q 0 0 ___ 0_.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 1:09PM 2 5 18 40 16 __ 3_ 0 0 0 ___ 0 ____ 0 ___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 12:0Q.P~_ 0 ~ ____ ~!. __ !'.1_. ___ 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 ~OOP.tyl_ 3 ___ 4 _____ 2!L _.JlL ____ 40 1 __ 0__ _2 0 :00 PM 0 8 46 88 38 1 0 0 0 ------------_._------------------------- 5:00_P'M 0 2 35 _ _ 126_ _42_ 3 _0. _ _0_ _ 0 6-,00P~ _____ Q •. _l __ 1!!. ___ ~9 __ . 44 __ 0 ___ .0 __ ..2. ____ 0 r.90PM ________ L __ I __ 20 6]' ___ 19 ___ 1 _ _0_ _ _0 0 I::~~~~=-_ ~--~ __ -o--J!._:---t~-2t-:~~~ ~_ 10:00 PM 0 2 7 20 12 1 o 0 -----,-------_.------. ---------------.-_._- 11:00 PM o o 13 23 10 3 o o 0 -otal II 6 II 53 II 310 II 926 II 389 II 26 II 2 II 2 II 0 Percent 0.4% 3.1% 18.1% 54.0% 22.7% 1.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% DailY Percentile Speed Summary 501h Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 951h Percentile Marl< Skaggs:425-250-0777 marl<.skaggs@idaxdata.com 22.6 25.9 27.7 mph mph moh Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 22.6 10 mph Pace 17.4 -27.4 Percent in Pace 85.4 000 000 _9_ __ 0 __ 0_ o o o o Q_ 0 __ 9 _0. o 0 0 0 --------- __0_._ .. 0 _____ 0 _. __ 0_ o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o 0 0 0 o 0 o o o ._------------_._-J!. . __ 0 _____ 0 o o o o o o .0 ______ 0 o 0 o 0 o II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% mph mph % o 170_ o 181 9__ 208_ o 164 o _ .!IL o 97 o 66 o 43 o 49 o II 1,714 0.0% 14 - - --- - -- -- -- - -- - - - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 i II.I'~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 DATA SOLUTIONS Tuesday, March 18, 2014 Westbound II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 ·10 Ii 10 -151115 -20 II 20 -2511 25 -30 II 30 -3511 35 -40 1140 -45 1145 -50 II 50 -5511 55 -60 II 60 -6511 65 -70 II 70 -7511 75 -80 II 80 -8511 85 + IIVolume 12:00 AM 0 0 3 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 ---------------- 1:00.AM . 0 0 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 4 2:00AM 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 ----------'. --_.-.-- 3:00AM 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 li;gi~--=-::: __ -·~-o~~~~O~-:'._~-~-_ ji..~.i2·---2:----0-j_=-.o-.-:'. _9_ --·0 0 0 -0---0 0 -o::-~ ~~34-- 5:DI).AM_ . __ ~_.~D ___ .~ 1 ___ .8_. 50 20. ___ 4_ .. 0. _ . .0 _ .O~ 0. 0. 0 __ O __ . __ .o_._~_ 0 .. 0 D_~. 83 .~qQ!-~_ .. ____ D~_~ ___ .!o. __ .82 66 61 .. ~_.Cl._~_ .. _0 0 0 0. ._~O_ .. _.o 0 0 0. 167 7:0.0. AM 0. 1 21 79 79 6 0. 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 186 I--'·---·~-------------------_._. -----~------.. _-----------~-. :~:D'O_~ __ . __ ..Cl. 0. __ 30. .~l~~ __ 6.s_ .. _.2 __ 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 169 i9:D0AM. . _O .. ~ O __ ..J~_ 45 35 . ___ 4 o.. 0 __ D~ ___ o.. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 10.:00. AM __ 0. _____ ~.!6 __ ~9 ___ ._~~_4~_~_. __ 0 ____ D_._Cl. __ .Cl.. ___ ~ ____ Cl..._ 0 _~_O_ 0 11:9Cl.!IM~ __ . 0 _1 __ .~ ... _.32 ___ 3L~._2 .... 0. .~_D ____ D~.~_._ .. 9 O __ ~_Q._~_.O" __ 0 ___ D_~ __ 0 1.2:o.0~ ____ ~.Q.. ___ 2 __ ..!1..~ __ ~ _~ _ 11~ _ ~~ ___ ...Q. ___ 0 __ . ~_ 0.__ .0 _____ 0_. ____ 0. __ .. .9~_. 0 0 0 3._8. 1.8 3D __ . __ 4 1._ 0 __ . _.0_ _ _ 0. • 4 0. 0 0. 0. --.-------_.------- 1:0.0 PM li:o!)p_ri_--=-~_ .9.. __ . .. __ .. __ 14 41 o .0 __ . _O~ 0. o o 0 0. -------- o o o o ~o. ~ 98 o 80 _. . . .0 __ .75 0.. _L~ b +-::- 3:0.0 PM :0.0 PM o o 0_ 0. 3 . J2 __ .~47_ 34 _ .5 0 0. 0. o 9 .. _ o 0. 0 0 0. 102 5:0.9 Pr,1 _ 6:0.0 PM 3 3 3 15 46 18 35 16 47 32 3 1 0 0. 0. o 0. -------. --.--,---. - M 6 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. • 5 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 7:0.9 PM 0. 3 _1~. ___ 29 2?_ _~_ 0. o .0 0. 0 0. 8:0.0. PM 0. 9 34 15 0 0. o 0. 0. 0 0. --------._--------_. -------~---.,.-... ---- o 0 0 0 0. 100 -,--------,._-----------. ----o 0 0 ._O~ __ q ___ !6 o 0 0 0 0 106 o o 0. 0 o o o o o 74 o I 59 9~D_D PM~ _____ 0 __ L_ ~_5 _oiL ~_ .1.~. __ ~L._ ~D __ ~~L ___ L _ o~ ___ 0 ___ 0. ___ ~O~_ 0 ____ 0 _.~'O_._9_L3L. 10.:0.0. PM 0 2 7 11 8 0. 0 0 0 0 0 -~----~--.---------------------------------~---_._------------ 11:0.0. PM 0 04480000000 'otal II 2 II 29 II 251 II 792 II 616 II 67 II 5 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 II 0 Percent 0.1% 1.6% 14.2% 44.9% 35.0% 3.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Daily Percentile Speed Summary 50th Percentile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 23.9 27.5 29.5 mph mph moh Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 23.8 mph 10 mph Pace 19.2 -29.2 mph Percent in Pace 81.5 % o 0 _._-------._-o 0 II o II 0 0.0% 0.0% II o o o 0.0% II o o o II 0.0% o o o 0.0% 29 16 II 1,762 15 - - --- - -- -- -- - - - -- - - Location: SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EDMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/1812014 w )f;7 d~ Date Range: Site Code: 01 Tolal Study Average Eastbound DATA SOLUTIONS II Speed Range (mph) II Total Time II 0 ·10 1110 ·151115·20 II 20·2511 25·30 II 30·3511 35·40 II 40·451145· SO II so· 5511 55·60 II 60·6511 65·70 II 70·7511 75·80 II 80·851[ 85 + IIVolume 12:00 AM 0. __ ..•. ..!_ .~._5_._0 __ . .Q 0 0 . __ 0 __ . 0 0 0 ._0_ .... !l._._ .. !l._._0 ...• 24. 1:o9!\!>1_._._.o_ .... 0 ___ L ..... ~_. .2. _ 0 0 0 9 0 0 O. 0. 0 0 O .•. _0. _13 12:00 AM 0 0 3 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 ~~------------ 3:00AM 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 I.· .. --......... -....... -. -... -.--.--. --. ---._-. --.-. -. .-.. -.-. --....... -..•. -•• -•. ------.. -.. --. - r.=.Q0 AM ______ 0_. _-.2 .. __ .2. .L_._._ .. _ .. C!.._. 0 .... 0. 0 . .Q 0 0 0 0 0 O. . 0 6 !?:00.At.:1.. . 0 0 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 _0. 0 0 0 0 0 _. O. 0 .9 6:00 AM 0 3 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 -"-----~-------_. __ ._----------------- LOO.~~_._ ..... O_ 0 _ .. _6. 2.3 10.... L 0 0 ._.0_._0_ ._.9_. 0 O_.!l... __ Q ..• _0_ •. _0 .... 40._ 8:00 AM 0 2 9 29 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 ----------------------- 9:00AM. _. 0 1 9 24 11 0 0 0 .0. 0.. o 10:00 AM 0 1 9 29 12 0 0 0 0 0 o Q o o 000 o o o o 46 52 ----,_._-------._---,-------.. -------.---_._----------v _______ _ 11.:00~. .._ .. _0 1L_~_ .. 13 o 0 o o o o o o o o 12:00 PM 0 4 12 40 19 o o --. -----. -_. ._ .. _- 1:00J'M __ . ___ 0_ .. _L. J_5 __ .. 4p_. .21 Q.. ._.<>. !2:00 PM o 3 18 62 24 2 o ------ :3:09 PM . 2 .20 82 40 2 0 :00 PM 0 3 26 81 42 2 0 ------" ~--------_.-. ---------- 1 5,00.!'M ,6:00 PM 17:00 PM_ o o o 2 3 3 ... _?7. __ 1.0.0..41 .. _ 4 24 85 37 3 0 _.. -- 2.0 6.!.. . _ 2} 1 _. 0 18:00 PM 2 22 53 20 1 0 19:00 I'M __ 10:00 PM 11:00 PM otal II -----------------------a. _ .. _1... !~ o 1 12 o 1 10 2113511282 40 31 20 II 890 14 10 7 11380112511 o o o II o o 0 0 o 0 0 -- ----a. o o O. o o o o .a o 0 0 ._----------.---o .9 __ 9 o 0 0 o 0 0 o II 0 II 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o II 0 II o .. 0 0 . O. _ 0 o o 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 o 0 o o o o o o o o o o 61 76 .• 0_ L.8JL o o o o o o o o o o o __ L_ ... L o .... Q.. ...9_ 109 147 154 lI.5 .. 152 108 99 o 0 o o o o o o o 0 o 0 .. 0 ._ 0 o 0 o 0 o II 0 II o 0 0 ._---... _-- o 0 0 000 o II 0 II 0 o o o ~. t-~ II 0 II 1.615 Percent 0.1% 2.2% 17.5% 55.1% 23.5% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average onty condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. Total Study Percentile Speed Summary T olal Study Speed Statistics 50th Percentile (Median) 22.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 22.8 mph 85th Percentile 26.2 mph 10 mph Pace 17.7 -27.7 mph 95th Percentile 28.2 mph Percent in Pace 85.9 % Mark Skaggs:425-25()"0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 16 --- Location: Date Range: Site Code: -- --- SE 16TH ST NORTHEAST OF EOMONDS WAY SE 3/1212014 to 3/18/2014 01 Total Study Average Westbound - --- ---- -- - ill.,)~ DATA SOLUTIONS 1\ Speed Range (mph) II Total Time 1\ 0-10 1\10-151115-201120-251125-30 1130-351135-40 1140-451145-50 1\50-551\55-60 1160-651165-70 1170-751175-80 1180-8511 85+ IIVolume 12:00 AM o 0 1:0pAIIL __ . __ 0 '2:00AM 0 '3:00AM Fs __ .~~~~~.· I~:OOAM 7:00 AI,1 8:00AM o o _0_. o o o o o o o 2 1 1 5 3 2 . ____ 2 ___ J!. 2 2 1 2 13 2 9 3E>._ .2.2 61 66 62 37 65 50 o o 0 ---_11... ___ 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o .a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o _ o o o 0. o o o o o o . _.0 o o o o o o o o .0 o o o __ 9 o 9:00AM 10:00 AM ___ 0 __ 1 2 2 3 7. 15 17 19 12 42_ •. ~3 3 4 6 5 5 4 1 4 o o o o o o o o 1 o o o .0 o o o o o o o _0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 __ . _0 ___ .0 ._._ . D. .. _ Q. .9. o 15 35 __ .10.. _ 43 o -, ------ o 10 32 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 1 :i:oo_P,,! o ~ ____ 11 .. _3§_ 1 2 16 38 ------------~ - 3:00 PM. __ o 1 12 55 :00 PM o 2 14 45 5:00 PM 0 6:00 PM 0 2 ------ 17,0.0_ PM _ • .L. __ _ 1 8:00 P~_ .0 . 9:00 PM 0 10:00 PM 0 ----.,--._-------_._- 11:00 PM o 1 o 14. _ 3~ 13 41 13 31_ 7 28 7 __ 19 4 14 3 10 29 33 .D.. ___ 0 _. _ 0 -~---o o o o .0_ o o o 25 32 31 30 31 36. 32 21 18 14 13 6 ___ 5_ _._ 0 _ .. 0_ 0 5 0 o 0 5 0 o 0 0 0 4 1 -------.-__ D.. ___ ._Q_. __ .O __ . 0 5 5 2 2 2 o 0_ 9. Q. 000 Q .0_ 0 000 ----------o 0_. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o .Jl o o o o o o 'otal II 1 II 24 II 230 ,I 755 II 576 II 74 II 2 II o II o II o II o II o Percent 0.1% 1.4% 13.8% 45.4% 34.7% 4.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. Total Study Percentile Speed Summary 501h Percenlile (Median) 85th Percentile 95th Percentile Mark Skaggs:425-250-0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com 23.9 mph 27.5 mph 29.8 mph Total Study Speed Statistics Mean (Average) Speed 23.9 10 mph Pace 18.8 -28.8 Percent in Pace 81.8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% mph mph % II o o o o o o o _ 0_. o .0 _._._ 0 __ 0 000 o o o o .0 o _0_ o o o _.0 o 000 000 o ____ 0.____ 0 o o o o o o o II 0 II 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% II o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o _0 _ _ o o o o o o o II 0.0% o 11 o .1 5 o 6 o _ .. 5 ~.J:: o o o 0 __ . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 118 155 138 94 84 92 72 8L. 93 103 97 93 __ 93 68 56 43. 33 19 o II 1,662 0.0% 17 ry.------------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 30, 2015 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) JASON A. SETH, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 30th day of January, 2015, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail the Hearing Examiner's Order along with the Reconsiderations of the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group &Henley USA., llC. RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park (lUA-13-001572) to the attached parties of record. Jason A. Nota Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 Andreas Benson 12633 SE 158th 5t Renton. WA 98058 Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 ~;m:f;~~_I~ Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 Maxwel Ligon 2114 SE 8th Dr Renton. WA 98055 Linda Shink 12910 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 ~""'''''''''<;l''I1'/''';J!-'''''~~~''f'"~'~':'''-'~'':'7f~~&l~;;t;j , ~'1i~~2;~~~~U~:2~m'¥J.~~l Renton. WA 98058 Lynn Family 12904 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 ' ___ Ii"'fZ!I-~·~;~~~··~~~t;,&i-=: Helen Pacher 1809 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 •••••••• 'I! 7 "'W1ITWf'iallg-II.·~· . 'ill James & Mary Haber Henley USA LLC 1716 Monroe Ave SE· 11100 Main 5t, 100 Renton, WA 98058 Bellevue. WA 98032 BOBBY SENGVILAY 1701 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave 5E Renton. WA 98057 John Knutson Renton School District 300 SW 7th St Renton. WA 980S7 Barbara Yarrington HenleY'U5A 11100 Main St, Ste. 100 Bellevue. WA 98058 Belinda Calhoun Ryan & Jennifer Spencer Rachael Villa 8309 52nd St W 1708 Edmonds Way 5E 3313 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Marie Antoinette Gallardo 1832 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 Christine Wren 1831 Ferndale AYe SE Renton. WA 98058 Colleen Bowman 2600 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 June Ritualo 1633 Edmonds Way Renton. WA 980SS EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Gayle Millett 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Tracey Compton 19426 68th Ave S Kent. WA 98032 , w~a6p3 dn-dod asodxa : 0, aU!I 6uole PUiJ8 I _ Jadedpaa~ -... Gig Harbor. WA 9833S Gary Taylor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 JANE WORDEN 15624 129th PI SE Renton. WA 98058-4744 .... ,,' 'a-.WITI'WI"I".'· ~,~",;-.. ----c-',--,'-~II $I !J~:t!i:'~~:~':W"'::';~ ',~;L": ~ ; Emma Gutierrez 1802 Kirkland Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 , I I I ®09~S aleldwal ®!.JaAV asn 5laqe, ®Iaad 1\5e3 ~-r AII3JIV-09-008-L r-;:dn-dod p.loq.J .tJ.I~'~J I WO)',(JaAe'MMM I ap U!Je 9.m4Je4 el ~ zallday #fI!!II'MJ "I t;;iM:iIR\IIIll\Il* Kipepeo Brown .:nthony & Margaret Dean 1725 Edmonds Way SE 16917 114th AYe SE Renton. WA 98055 Renton. WA 98058 t ;::J.~~)::;';~~W!1?,·:~r;5;:-;rr,;~~V~ i Silvestre Cesar Michael Melonson 2524 Edmonds Ct SE 1701 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 Barbara Smith 300 SW 7TH ST 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98055 Renton. WA 98058 Dewayne Klinger 2201 Maple Valley Hwy. #86 Renton. WA 98057 EIIm~~7?~~:m.!Hfj~: Claire Jonson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Ben & Rose Depusay 3208 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Bruce Wilson 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Jay Ahlbeck Adele & Ed Harvey 3228 SE 19th Ct 3226 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 ~'=-C-'''''~illi' ... .~~'SI i' A&;itig:;"'5-;J->:~~~§;~'i:~) i~f'~) Ethel Garman Ed Baker 1816 Edmonds Way SE 3209 SE 18th St Renton. WA 980S8 Renton. WA 980S8 Barbara Owens-Smith Erik Fisher 3619 SE 19th Ct 12364 SE lS8th St Renton. WA 980S8 Renton. WA 98058 lUaW9DJel.p ap sues :Yo r ®09LS ®AII31\\f weqe6 al zas!l!~n ··~bmrm~~- -Dahlberg 'lilll!'604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 _"'"='''=-''':'''='''~!,'!::-.'''27C:*-.-' -: L~-~~ ..... '"'i~~~ .. iI!;.ttpt;!.: j Warren & Nancy McPherson 3213 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 980S8 -r n!"f:!!jS,!:~?i'\B ,,,!m! "'~ilfil 1I~~'tl1f) Heidi Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 980S8 Pamela Roberson 2114 SE 8th Dr Renton. WA 980SS William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton. WA 98056 ~.-: 'nii in" .~tg;ii:~P~-_:J Jill & Derek Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Karen Collen 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 I :-.}\jii; -:*~iIii*~it¥liif~~fi!\!&r:;; I !iI.iI1ill.IilIll!flIl.i'ii~iI Wayne Potter Marina Higgins iill-!/!' We-t~rttlik'";c~~><,-~- ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY LJONES 3624 SE 19TH CT Novastar Development Inc. 1401 Olympia Ave SE 18215 72nd Ave S Renton. WA 98058 Kent. WA 98032 Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Cynthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds AYe SE Renton. WA 98058 , wJ.a6p3 dn·dod asodxa : OJ, aUIi 6uole puas , Renton. WA 98058 Renato Santos 1815 lake Youngs Way SE Renton. WA 98058 , , , , ®09LS a~eldwal ®~Ja.~- 51aQ"l Ql)laad YVONNE BURGESS 15629 129th Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 lIahe Hamidivadeghani 3000 Royal Hills Dr SE Renton. WA 980S8 Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ~1!':~y:«.~.t r .,' "fu' " . -_" < " J , iIi.. Mike Mastro 1717 Edmonds Way S Renton. WA 98058 lynn Desmarais 15632 129th Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 ~"""'''''''''l'!!;(W·:<t:-'''''"!~~'':r''W''''~mA""r'ft-t''T'''7.'i} -b;~ik~Ja(;tj;:,,¥tfg"diir''i¥!'I\--~tL~~'fllk:kl;4ih~ "; Donna Thorkildson 2621 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 M.r ••• Albinio Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 James Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Rachael Mandv 1402 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 James Roberson 2114 SE 8th Dr Renton. WA 98055 Phil & Tammv Schaefer 3301 5E 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Asher Mill AveS Renton. WA 98057-6022 MICHAEL GARMAN 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058-4613 , " -! _;;d;;-~1':~~~i:;~,/,f-=-~~:;~:·~~, Kvleigh Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 • 'WnPTf"fM'p.ie"'j Robert & Cvnthia Garlough 3203 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Gurmit Gill 19314 138th Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 "Jmmi'.". . ,a-iC"" . .,_w:;,:-""""';~.L1X""i1O''''''ii:7"7i';', ..... ,..IfjU.IilIi1Il'iiI2'· _~F""T£,>1>n··'; :~;",;;r;.'.' \~":!8f?-I~-j~~~~'~-'~' .~I&:~ B-TI~~;---'lt'-i0': .. -',;,_.J Pat Velotta Preslev Richardson Imogene Graves 1708 Pierce Ave 5E 3113 SE 18th St 1808 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 980S8 Renton. WA 98058 DAVID & RENATE BEEDON 1725 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058,4747 r;~Di'ifii1;;··:jl7nnrw.? . LARRY GORG 1800 Lake Youngs Way SE Renton. WA 98058-3812 Eddie Rivera 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Dennis McClaughlin 1633 Edmonds Way 5E Renton. WA 98058 Aaron Brendehl 2509 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 Rachael Bell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton. WA 98058 , .. ua6p3 dn-dod asodxa : Ol aU!I 6uole pUBS o Vicki Hou 1717 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Bob & Suzanne Swanson 3307 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Dennis Anderson PO Box 58338 Renton. WA 98058 , o o o ®09~S .leldwal ®",o."tj slaqe, ®Iaad il r-~------------------------------~--~~--------------~~.---------------------------~---------­r ,.dn.dod p.loq'" "I J"I~'~J f! Renton. WA 98058 Anita & Patty Phillips 1517 Newport Ct 5E Renton. WA 98058 Laura Silbernagel Clint Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct 5E Renton. WA 98058 ··i:-'"fti'-.·'fmil!iW~"~~ • : ,. -jr.J-tiliU;$'o) -", ,;ij#;/ ,'_ "i I 5hervl Anderson 1727 Monroe Ave 5E Renton, WA 98058-3809 "ril\ill .. ,~::r;;ilI£t-''-~B'''!$5,~''¥r'ft-( I'. ""'C:"r~1l-\t%i "'); ~¥¥pLij Rav Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way 5E Renton, WA 98058 Delbert Sharp 1800 Edmonds Way 5E Renton, WA 98058 Mike Harwood 2609 Edmonds Ct 5E Renton, WA 98055 I Kilgore Edmonds Way 5E Renton, WA 98058 kKarsten Sathre 32536 36th Ave 5W Federal Way, WA 98023 Lisa CabalQuinto 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton, WA 98058-4754 nTW_J~~~iIi::Eii Diane Tavlor . 1709 Edmonds Way 5E Renton, WA 98058 Claudia Donnellv 10415 147th Ave 5E Renton, WA 98059 ~. "!~ff~WfJ!I="'~-~I'li' -i~ ~', "'S~!'*'t!-:lG;Ij: -, 't '. ,,,,It Frances Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Jan & Spero Rockas 1686 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 , fu,a6p3 dn-dod asodxa : 01, aU!I 6uole puaa r Renton, WA 98058 ALAINE IKUTA 1709 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-4747 Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Geoff & Meredith Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 _jW'~~~~i r j;;l:;' ":_(;;;;?~;~ '-r~:..:;. ~ _~: Daniel Goldman 1608 Glennwood Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Sarah Brendehl 2451 Gillette Dr 5E . Port Orchard, WA 98366 -:'_~M::,~':;~f~;:~': .:7;~··Y:I~. __ ,_ Greg & Jennv Swanson 1819 Ferndale Ave S Renton. WA 98055 f ! ! ! @09 ~s aleldwal @,ua'\f asn s19Q., @199d Asea --------------------------------------------------------------------- Denis Law Mayor January 30,2015 Wayne Potter Novastar • 18215 7ind Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC Subject: Requests for Reconsideration & Hearing Examine.r's Order Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear .Mr. Potter: I have attached two Requests for Reconsideration filed by Cairn cross & Hempelmann representing Henley USA, LLC. dated January 22, 2015, and by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group dated january 28, 2015. Also, the City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued an Order on Request for Reconsideration II dated January 29, 2015. APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision" of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing "examiner's decision." Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be .obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the" Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regardi.ng " the reconsideration" process "m"ay be o~tained from the City Clerk's Office, Rent~n "City" Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal pe~iod shall commence upon the issuance of a reconsiderationdedsion. lOSS South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057" • (425) 430-6S 1 0 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov " • I can be re'achedat (425) 430-6510 6r jseth@rentonwa,gov.: Thank you. ,!tiJ A. Seth cc: Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Direcior Vanessa Dolbee', Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division' Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Henley USA, LLC, Applicant Parti,es of Record (111) • ~. , .. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 CITY OF RENTON ~ '.IS~W'I • • JAN 292015 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) ) LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) ORDER ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION II The SEPA Appellants requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above· 18 captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was issued in response on January 22, 2015 directing the SEPA Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the 19 20 Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants have submitted a modified request for reconsideration on January 28, 2015 within the time-frame required by the January 22,2015 Order. Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a timely request for reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The reconsideration requests from both 21 22 the SEPA Appellants and the applicant will be distributed to the parties of record of this proceeding for response and reply. 23 24 It is recognized that once again the SEP A appellants are attempting to introduce new evidence in the record and that applicable legal standards only allow new evidence under very limited circumstances. 25 This places the applicant in the difficult position of arguing against the admission of new evidence 26 while at the same time having to respond to the new evidence in case the evidence is admitted. The PRELIMINARY PLAT - I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • applicant is given the opportunity to limit its response to evidence in the record and reserve the right to respond to newly presented evidence if any such evidence is admitted. If the applicant chooses this course of action, the examiner will rule on the admissibility of evidence after the submission deadlines outlined below and then provide an additional opportunity for response to new evidence by the applicant and fimil reply by the SEPA appellants before ruling on the reconsideration requests. In the alternative, the applicant may "cover all bases" and argue against the admission of new evidence while also presenting new evidence to the extent necessary to respond to any new evidence from the SEPA appellants that is admitted into the record. ORDER ON RECONSIDERA nON I. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants on January 28, 2015 and the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant on January 22 2015. Only persons who participated in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the issues raised in the requests for reconsideration. 2. The SEPA Appellants and the applicant shall have until February 9,2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses to their own reconsideration requests. 3. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner at oibrechtslaw@gmail.colll; Rocale Timmons at RTinll110ns@Rcntollwa.!!OV; Renate Beedon at renton-opposites@colllcasl.net; Nancy Rogers at. NRo!!crs@Cairncross.com and Cynthia Moya at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. DATED this 29th day of January, 2015. PhiA. Olbl1:d1lS City of Renton Hearing Examiner PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 ~. " - .: .,< CAIRNCROSS&HE~!,PELMANI~ 524 2nd Ave. SuitE.' 500 Seattle, WA 98104 www.cairncross.com January 22, 2015 VIA EMAIL • ATTOP.NEYS AT LAW office 206 587 0700 fax 206 587 2308 Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat • City File No. LUA13-001572 -Request for Reconsideration Dear Examiner Olbrechts: CITY OF RENTON (jJf' JAN 22 2011i:t..t)f RECEIVED CH~FFICE This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration ofa Hearing Examiner's Decision if a party of record believes the Decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, errors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." We originally sought review of these issues as a request for review of technical errors under RMC 4-8-1 OO(G)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request; however, we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for clarification and correction of technical errors. I. There may be errors offact or law on p. 28, line 9. Here, there is a typographical error referencing a "15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a "10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." 2. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, lines 7 -10. Here, the first portion of Examiner's Condition I.b, which revises MDNS Condition 6, reads: "The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots." As revised, this Condition also goes on to address the I 0 foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEP A Appeal. The linkage of those two issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise clarifY that there is a difference between the I 0 foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and the 10 foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. p nrogers@cairncross,com direct: (206) 254~4417 (02743372.DOCX;2 I " Hearing Examiner Phil Olbree January 22,2015 Page 2 • The record reflects that these are two separate issues, Specifically, the City Staff Report to the Examiner (Exhibit K.I.a), at p. 13, described how I O-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(1), which provides: "Ten feet (10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than ten feet (10'). In those cases, ten feet (10') of landscaping shall be required where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required 10-foot front yard landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then described the ERC determination to impose a 15 foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two things: (I) "a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots," and (2) a "IS-foot wide vegetated buffer surround the subject site ... " We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions. 3. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4 -5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line II, which text lists Lots 40, 41, 46, 47,80,82,83-90,93, and 94. Here, the Examiner's Decision text, and Examiner'S Condition l.b, which revises MONS Condition 6, calls for a 10 foot wide area of perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface, so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in the record, we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated. As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a "cut" wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line of the plat, meaning there can be no visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 -90, and 93 -94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is already wider than 10 feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised, the list of lots should include only Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, plus a note that as to Lots 83 -90, and 93 -94, the revised landscaping plan for Tract A should contirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in Tract A. Also, the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4 feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the buffering requirement. Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington, the plat design continues to evolve in the engineering process, there is the very real possibility that some walls on the perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface, meaning that an alternative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list oflots entirely and instead state that: "A 10 foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to areas where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side of the wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring property owners." (02743372.DOCX;2 ) " " " . Hearing Examiner Phil Olbre. January 22, 20 I 5 Page 3 • 4. There may be errors offact or law on pp. 28 -29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height. The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEP A Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 of the Examiner's Decision. 5. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Nancy Bainbridge Rogers NBR/kgb cc: Rocale Timmons (02743372.DOCX;2 ) To: City of Renton • Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP -Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2015 CITY OF RENTON VI '.dltf f JAN 28 2015 ~ RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a hearing examiner's decision if a party of record believes the decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. References • Letter entitled, "RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Preliminary Plat -Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals - LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE -Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts -City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scope • The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. • The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner) to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter. • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental' statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The Hearing Examiner is entitled to consider newly discovered evidence not reasonably available at the prior hearing. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 8 • • Wetland Determination, Measuring and Staking Newly Discovered Evidence Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22,2015 TPWAG removed all photographs of the wetlands taken on January 16, 2015. These photographs were simply provided to show that the wetland boundary markers and wetland buffer markers are standing in bodies of water. Photographs of this condition were not readily available at the time of the hearings because the wetland studies were performed after a 3 month draught (2013) or after unusual we seasons (2014) of the year. The photographs that have been removed show typical conditions in January and bring into question the delineation of the limits of the wetlands and suggests the boundary of Wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated. RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) provides that "any interested person feeling that the decision ofthe Hearing Examiner is based on "erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing" may make a Request for Reconsideration. Thus the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to consider this limited discovery of new evidence. TPWAG believes that the wetland photographs removed from this Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration fall into this category of evidence and should be considered by the Hearing Examiner. TPWAG requests that they be allowed to resubmit these photographs as newly discovered evidence. Problems • One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have been conducted. An EIS would clearly provide the city and all interested parties with information that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment. The original study by OTAK pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz. The OTAK study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than described in the original study submitted by Schulz. After the Applicant received the OTAK study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz and OTAK. At that on-site meeting the Applicant apparently convinced the OTAK consultants that the original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at and compare both reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of OTAK studies. TPWAG requested minutes for this meeting from the City of Renton and was told that there were no minutes because this was a "field trip" and that the two revised wetland' reports from Schulz and OTAK were record enough. Apparently, there is no written record of what was said and decided by whom during this off-site meeting in the woods. One thing the participants of the "field trip" did agree on is the addition of wetland D. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 8 .. J OTAK Secondary Review Memo -4-3-1' • • • We are providing you with a Tree Cutting/land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots (in particular lots 70, 79 and 80) appear to encroach onto the wetlands Band C. • Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland. EXHJB1Tll • These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (Date is too small to read). TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 3 of 8 • • • • The maps provided by th.plicant show that plats and streets a.y encroach onto wetland boundaries acknowledge~ the Applicant. If we, TPWAG, are co.t in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that all the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the wetland code/regulations, etc. We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development. We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again (A visit to the City of Renton Clerk's office on Monday, January 26, 2015 by TPWAG revealed that several sets of original drawings were incomplete, thus we were unable to study these drawings in conjunction with our request for reconsideration. The city planner, Ms. Timmons, told TPWAG that the drawing dated August 2014, is "old". This "old" drawing showed the presence of a storm water retention pond rather than a vault as presented during the Hearing Examiner's meetings in 2014. After Ms. Timmons left, we looked for newer drawings but could not find any. The City Clerk staff told us that they were not in possession of newer drawings.) Relief Requested • Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property) • Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time to find an expert who is willing to work with private citizens, allow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. TPWAG requests that it be invited should such a meeting take place. • Direct the Applicant and City Staff to make a complete set of original drawings available for review by the public as soon as possible to support this process. • Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable Significant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems • A 10 foot buffer around the property is inadequate, not only because of esthetic value but also because it does not provide sufficient protection from the high winds that occur regularly in our area. • During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees. Relief Requested • Require a buffer of at least 20 feet around the property • Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. • Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code compliance. • Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 4 of 8 • If trees are damaged and,. be removed, require Applicant to reae the damaged trees with equivalent "mature" tree_d prohibit them from using any of th~iginal canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water Problems • Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75% of the property's ability to process storm water. • 24" pipe (as proposed by Applicant) is barely good enough for a 10-year storm. 100-year storms are common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development. Relief Requested • Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. • Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water to pass through it) on all streets, sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns) to minimize the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled: Core Requirements #2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements #4 Conveyance Systems. The City of Renton has some added amendments for special community situations. Roof Runoff Problems • Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides used in the yard it becomes a pollutant. • Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5. • KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands. (We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.) Applicoble Laws The Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration provides that "applicable laws are not considered new evidence." The Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines are part of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Section 6.2 of the KCSWDM provides "roof runoff is subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3. Section 1.2 of the KCSWDM provides that where there is potential impact to wetland hydrology, "DDES may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology reference guidelines in TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page S of 8 Reference Section 5. Therefore tiaection is merely summarizing applicatlJilllaw and should be considered by . the hearing examiner." • Relief Requested Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines Traffic Problems • Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. However, that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet cul-de-sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day -mostly on SE 18th Street -by Applicant's own estimates). • Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a cul-de- sac is significant. • We have researched home prices on quiet and cul-de-sac streets vs. busy streets. Those findings showed that the 16 homeowners on SE 18 Street can probably each expect a $30,000 loss in property value as a result of the increased traffic on this street should the development go forward. The city has noted to that they take no responsibility for any loss sustained. More ingress and egress points to the development would certainly help to disperse the traffic. (Roenicke Testimony.) • Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but two cul-de-sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)! • We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect the applicant to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing its profit by unfairly externalizing its costs to the neighboring property owners. Relief Requested • We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. • Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. • Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to create such access). • Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. • Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. 1. Re-open the north end of Beacon Way SE to Puget Drive SE. 2. Close the intersection at SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial traffic on SE 16th Street to leave their neighborhood. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 8 • • Environmental Impact Statement Problems • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight ofthe evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention vault, drainage and retaining walls, weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requested • The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our issues. Thank you. RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov Nancy Rogers mailto:NRogers@Cairncross.com TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of 8 Figure 1-Area Map TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page B of B • Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Points Driv, . 5uil,400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phon, (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827·9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject Project No.: • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wedand Scientist (425) 739-7977 April 3, 2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wedand Delineation Review 32385.A This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar Development, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north of SE 158'h Street, and south and west of Pierce A ,'enue SE. Otak has been asked by . the City of Renton (the City) to re,-iew the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City code: • . Wetland Determination: Reseroe at Tiffany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.; signed February 27, 2014. • Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and re,-ised February 24, 2014. The Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wedands and one Category 3 wedand on the site, which are required to have 50-foot and 25·foot buffers, respectively. The report indicates that wedand buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC. K:\project\3230()\32385A \Reports\Critical.Al'eas Review Memo_2014_04fl3.doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reseroe at TifJa'!J Park Wetland Review • Page 2 April3,2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17,2014, to confIrm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the rl7ashingtol1 State Wetlands ldentijication and Delineation Manila! (Ecology 1997), as required by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31,2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17,2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March (National Weather Service); and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 -Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Washington State If7et/ands ldentijication and Delineation Manila! (Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-050.M.4.a. Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the RMC. Comment 2 -Survey Map We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags, which is necessary for con fuming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the fIeld; however, if we have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags (from June 2013 and any upcoming re\·isions). In addition, missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confumation of the wetland edges. Comment 3 -Wetland A We agree with portions of Wetland A's delineated edges. However, we could not fmd some of the flags (including Wetland A-1) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-1, A-3, A-5, and A-6. In these areas, we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (mainly inundation). On March 17,2014, in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated (flagged) wetland, inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer. Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. K:\p,"?jcct\323()O\323HSA \Rcports\Critical Arcas ReviL'W Mcmo_2014_0403.doc , • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at Tiffany Park IVelland Review Comment 4 -Wetlands Band C • Page 3 Apri13,2014 During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated' edges of Wetlands Band C. In addition, Wetlands Band C are not separated by uplapd area; they appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17,2014, inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation (mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority o'f the;e areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands Band C are connected (one wetland), the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendation: Wetlands Band C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). ConfIrm the rating and buffer size for Wetland B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5 -Wetland D We agree with the majority of the wetland flag locations on Wetland D, although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Wetland D meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early grO\'mg season (before mid-~!ay). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the rc\-ised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 6 -Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is southwest of (in 'line with) 18'h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on March 17,2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the RMC for a Category 3 wetland, which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be delineated, classifIed, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and sho~n on the plans, along with the buffer. K:\projcct\323()O\32385A \Reports\Critica! Areas Rc\'ir..'\v t>.lcmo_2014_0403.doc -._._---------- • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rue",e at Tiffony Park IFelland Review • Comment 7 -Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Page 4 April 3, 2014 Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way (northeast of the gravel access road), These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands; if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8 -Wetland in Southwest Comer of Site A wetland was observed in the southwest corner of the site, to the north of SE 18'h Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed, and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18'h Street. Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9 -Flowpath from Wetland B During our March 17,2014 site visit, water was observed flowing generally west out of Wetland B to the southwest corner of the project site (sec Photographs 3, 4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on l\hrch 17'h was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel ,vith bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water was observed along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17'h. Standing water was present at Wetland B (beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiring the wetland. No streams arc mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. K:\projcct\32300\323HSA \Reports\Critical Areas Review Mcmo_2014_0403.doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of R enton RmfVt a/ Tiffa'!J Park l/Yelland Review Comment 10 -Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) • Page 5 April3,2014 The flowpath described in Co=ent 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, t o the southwest of the southwest comer of the Tiffany Park site. Inundatio n was observed in the area, as well as FAC or wetter vegetation and potentially h ydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a wetland (see Photograph 6). Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added t o the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. Comment 11-Buffer Averaging The buffer averaging proposal in the Wetland Determination Report ha s demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-0S0.M.6.f. However, revisions to wetland edges will likel y change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposa l to be consistent \vith the any necessary revision s to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite. Comment 12 -Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that \vill result from grading and wall installation . These temporary buffer impacts are n ot discussed in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discus s all temporary impacts to wetland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and h ow re sto rati o n \vill replace those functions. A re sto ration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of 60% de sign. E ncl. Photographs K:\projecc\32300 \3238SA \Rcp o rts\Critic21 Are:lS Rc\·jC\vM cmo_20 14_0403 .doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton fum", a/ Tiffany Park IVel/and fuvi"" PHOTOGRAPHS • Photograph 1: Wetland A, near southern delineated edge (3/17/14) Page 6 April 3, 2014 Photograph 2. Offsite wetland o n Merce r I sland Pipeline ROW , facin g SE (3/17/14) K:\projcct \J2JOO \3238SA \Rep on:s\C ritic:U Ate:u: Review Mcmo_20 14_0403 .doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rtle",. 01 Tiffo'!Y Pork IIYelland Rtview • Photograph 3. Flowpath, partially in walking trail (3/17/14) Photograph 4. Flowpath, partiall y in walking trail (3/31 /14) Page 7 April 3, 20 14 • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rmn< 01 Tiffany Parle W.lland Rtview • Photograph 5. Water flowing west out of Wetland B (3 /17/14) Page 8 April 3, 2014 Photograph 6. Offsite wetland on Cedar River Pipeline ROW, facing SW (3 /31 /14) K:\PtOfCCt \J2300 \32385A \Repom \CriDol Areas Reo.·lcw Mt.'TTlo_20 14 _0403 .doc Denis Law Mayor January 30,2015 Wayne Potter Novastar 18215 72 nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC Subject: Requests for Reconsideration & Hearing Examiner's Order Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Mr. Potter: I have attached two Requests for Reconsideration filed by Cairncross & Hempelmann representing Henley USA, LLC. dated January 22, 2015, and by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group dated January 28,2015. Also, the City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued an Order on Request for Reconsideration II dated January 29,2015. APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal· to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-11O(E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding. the reconsideration ·process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City" Hall-7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence .upon the issuance of a reconsideration decision. 1055 South GradyWay. Renton,Washington 98057.. (42S) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516. rentonwa.gov l • • I can be re'ached at (425) 430·6510 or jseth@rentonwa,gov. Thank you. ' Sincerely, ,JiJ aso A. Seth City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development En'gineering Manager C;raig Burnell, Building Offieial Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division' Ed Prince, City Couneilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Henley USA, LLC, Applicant Parties of Record (111) . ~ "'.";-~ "';. 0. :{ -~ .. ' . i . " ... ~ ... ~ .. ~ .. "-. " . " 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 CITY OF RENTON 21 '.1 '5' ~W\ • • JAN 29 2015 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) ) LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) ORDER ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION II The SEPA Appellants requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above- 18 captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was issued in response on January 22, 2015 directing the SEPA Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that a~thorized by the 19 20 Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants have submitted a modified request for 21 22 23 reconsideration on January 28, 2015 within the time-frame required by the January 22,2015 Order. Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a timely request for reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The reconsideration requests from both the SEPA Appellants and the applicant will be distributed to the parties of record of this proceeding for response and reply. 24 It is recognized that once again the SEPA appellants are attempting to introduce new evidence in the record and that applicable legal standards only allow new evidence under very limited circumstances. 25 This places the applicant in the difficult position of arguing against the admission of new evidence 26 while at the same time having to respond to the new evidence in case the evidence is admitted. The PRELIMINARY PLAT - I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • applicant is given the opportunity to limit its response to evidence in the record and reserve the right to respond to newly presented evidence if any such evidence is admitted. If the applicant chooses this course of action, the examiner will rule on the admissibility of evidence after the submission deadlines outlined below and then provide an additional opportunity for response to new evidence by the applicant and final reply by the SEPA appellants before ruling on the reconsideration requests. In the alternative, the applicant may "cover all bases" and argue against the admission of new evidence while also presenting new evidence to the extent necessary to respond to any new evidence from the SEP A appellants that is admitted into the record. .ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION I. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants on January 28, 2015 and the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant on January 222015. Only persons who participated in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the issues raised in the requests for reconsideration. 2. The SEPA Appellants and the applicant shall have until February 9,2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses to their own reconsideration requests. 3. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner at olhrecillslaw@!!rnail.coll1; Rocale Timmons at RTiill1l10Ils@Rcntonwa.gov; Renate Beedon at rcnlon-oDposites@coll1Cast.nel; Nancy Rogers at. NRo£crs@Cairncross.com and Cynthia Moya at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. DATED this 29th day of January, 2015. PhlA. OlblCd1i!l City of Renton Hearing Examiner PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 .' CAIRI'>lCROSSJHElv,PELI':AN~J 524 2nd Ave. Suite 500 Seattle. WA 98104 WWW.C<llrncross.com January 22, 2015 VIA EMAIL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW office 206 587 0700 fax 206 587 2308 Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 9S057 Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat • City File No. LUA13-001572 -Request for Reconsideration Dear Examiner Olbrechts: CITY OF RENTON cJf' JAN 2 2 201hi/.lf RECEIVED CH~FF'CE This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to RMC 4-S-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-S-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration ofa Hearing Examiner's Decision if a party of record believes the Decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, errors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." We originally sought review of these issues as a request for review of technical errors under RMC 4-S-100(G)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request; however, we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for clarification and correction of technical errors. 1. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 2S, line 9. Here, there is a typographical error referencing a "15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a "10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." 2. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, lines 7 -10. Here, the first portion of Examiner's Condition I.b, which revises MDNS Condition 6, reads: "The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots." As revised, this Condition also goes on to address the 1 0 foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEPA Appea\. The linkage of those two issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise clarify that there is a difference between the 10 foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and the 10 foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appea\. nrogers@cairncross.com direct: (206) 254-4417 {0274JJ72.DOCX;2 } " Hearing Examiner Phil Olbre. January 22,2015 Page 2 • The record reflects that these are two separate issues, Specifically, the City Staff Report to the Examiner (Exhibit K,l.a), at p. 13, described how 10-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(I), which provides: "Ten feet (10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than ten feet (10'). In those cases, ten feet (10') oflandscaping shall be required where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required 10-foot front yard landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then described the ERC determination to impose a IS foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two things: (I) "a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots," and (2) a "IS-foot wide vegetated buffer surround the subject site ... " We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions. 3. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4 -5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line II, which text lists Lots 40, 41,46,47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93, and 94. Here, the Examiner's Decision text, and Examiner's Condition I.b, which revises MDNS Condition 6, calls for a 10 foot wide area of perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface, so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in the record, we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated. As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a "cut" wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line of the plat, meaning there can be no visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 -90, and 93 -94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is already wider than 10 feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised, the list oflots should include only Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, plus a note that as to Lots 83 -90, and 93 -94, the revised landscaping plan for Tract A should confirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in Tract A. Also, the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4 feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the buffering requirement. Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington, the plat design continues to evolve in the engineering process, there is the very real possibility that some walls on the perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface, meaning that an alternative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list of lots entirely and instead state that: "A 10 foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to areas where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side of the wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring property owners." {02743372,OOCX;2 } Heacing Examiner Phil Olbre. January 22, 2015 Page 3 • 4. There may be errors offact or law on pp. 28 -29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height. The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEPA Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 of the Examiner's Decision. 5. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. PL,,-I--_ Nancy Bainbridge Rogers NBRlkgb cc; Rocale Timmons (02743372.DOCX;2 ) To: -------------------- City of Renton • Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP -Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2015 CITY OF RENTON t1 ~~( JAN 2 8 2015 ()J.fi'- RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration of a hearing examiner's decision if a party of record believes the decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior , hearing." TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and here~y designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. References • Letter entitled, "RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Preliminary Plat -Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals -. LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE -Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts -City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scope • The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. • The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner) to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter. • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The Hearing Examiner is entitled to consider newly discovered evidence not reasonably available at the prior hearing. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 8 • • Wetland Determination, Measuring and Staking Newly Discovered Evidence Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015 TPWAG removed all photographs of the wetlands taken on January 16, 2015. These photographs were simply provided to show that the wetland boundary markers and wetland buffer markers are standing in bodies of water. Photographs of this condition were not readily available at the time of the hearings because the wetland studies were performed after a 3 month draught (2013) or after unusual we seasons (2014) of the year. The photographs that have been removed show typical conditions in January and bring into question the delineation of the limits of the wetlands and suggests the boundary of Wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated. RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) provides that "any interested person feeling that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is based on "erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing" may make a Request for Reconsideration. Thus the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to consider this limited discovery of new evidence. TPWAG believes that the wetland photographs removed from this Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration fall into this category of evidence and should be considered by the Hearing Examiner. TPWAG requests that they be allowed to resubmit these photographs as newly discovered evidence. Problems • One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have been conducted. An EIS would clearly provide the city and all interested parties with information that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment. The original study by OTAK pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz. The OTAK study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than described in the original study submitted by Schulz. After the Applicant received the OTAK study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz and OTAK. At that on-site meeting the Applicant apparently convinced the OTAK consultants that the original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at and compare both reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of OTAK studies. TPWAG requested minutes for this meeting from the City of Renton and was told that there were no minutes because this was a "field trip" and that the two revised wetland reports from Schulz and OTAK were record enough. Apparently, there is no written record of what was said and decided by whom during this off-site meeting in the woods. One thing the participants of the "field trip" did agree on is the addition of wetland D. TPWAG Ilevised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 8 OTAK Secondary Review Memo -4-3-1' • • • We are providing you with a Tree Cutting/land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots (in particular lots 70, 79 and 80) appear to encroach onto the wetlands Band C. • Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland. EXHIBIT 11 a ~II '" hi I • These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (Date is too small to read). TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 3 of 8 • • • • The maps provided by th~licant show that plats and streets al.y encroach onto wetland. boundaries acknowledged"lllfthe Applicant. If we, TPWAG, are cor in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that all the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the wetland code/regulations, etc. We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development. We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again (A visit to the City of Renton Clerk's office on Monday, January 26, 2015 by TPWAG revealed that several sets of original drawings were incomplete, thus we were unable to study these drawings in conjunction with our request for reconsideration. The city planner, Ms. Timmons, told TPWAG that. the drawing dated August 2014, is "old". This "old" drawing showed the presence of a storm water retention pond rather than a vault as presented during the Hearing Examiner's meetings in 2014. After Ms. Timmons left, we looked for newer drawings but could not find any. The City Clerk staff told us that they were not in possession of newer drawings.) Relief Requested • Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property) • Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time to find an expert who is willing to work with private citizens, allow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. TPWAG requests that it be invited should such a meeting take place. • Direct the Applicant and City Staff to make a complete set of original drawings available for review by the public as soon as possible to support this process. • Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems • A 10 foot buffer around the property is inadequate, not only because of esthetic value but also because it does not provide sufficient protection from the high winds that occur regularly in our area. • During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees. Relief Requested • Require a buffer of at least 20 feet around the property • Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. • Consider aSSigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code compliance. • Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 4 of 8 • .If trees are damaged and .t be removed, require Applicant to re:e the damaged trees with equivalent "mature" tree, d prohibit them from using any of th~iginal canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water Problems • Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 7S% of the property's ability to process storm water. • 24" pipe (as proposed by Applicant) is barely good enough for a lO-year storm. lOO-year storms are common. We may have a few lOO-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development. Relief Requested • Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. • Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water to pass through it) on all streets, sidewalks and drivew~ys, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns) to minimize the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled: Core Requirements #2 Off site AnalYSiS, and Core Requirements #4 Conveyance Systems. The City of Renton has some added amendments for special community situations. Roof Runoff Problems • Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides used in the yard it becomes a pollutant. • Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5. • KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands. (We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.) Applicoble Lows The Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration provides that "applicable laws are not considered new evidence." The Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines are part of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Section 6.2 of the KCSWDM provides "roof runoff is subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3. Section 1.2 of the KCSWDM provides that where there is potential impact to wetland hydrology, "DDES may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology reference guidelines in TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 5 of 8 Reference Section 5. Therefore t.ction is merely summarizing applicaQilljlw and should be conside~ed by the hearing examiner. • Relief Requested Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines Traffic Problems • Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. However, that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet cul-de-sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day -mostly on SE 18th Street -by Applicant's own estimates). • Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a cul-de-' sac is significant. • We have researched home prices on quiet and cul-de-sac streets vs. busy streets. Those findings showed that the 16 homeowners on SE 18 Street can probably each expect a $30,000 loss in property value as a result of the increased traffic on this street should the development go forward. The city has noted to that they take no responsibility for any loss sustained. More ingress and egress points to the development would certainly help to disperse the traffic. (Roenicke Testimony.) • Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but two cul-de-sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)! • We respect Applicant's right to develop their property; but we expect the applicant to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing its profit by unfairly externalizing its costs to the neighboring property owners. Relief Requested • We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. • Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. • Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to create such access). • Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. • Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. 1. Re-open the north end of Beacon Way SE to Puget Drive SE. 2. Close the intersection at SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. local traffic will be able to use the newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial traffic on SE 16th Street to leave their neighborhood. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 8 .-------------------------------------------- • • Environmental Impact Statement Problems • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention vault, drainage and retaining walls, weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requested • The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our issues. Thank you. RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov Nancy Rogers mailto:NRogers@Cairncross.com TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of 8 Figure 1 -Area Map TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 8 of 8 • Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Points Drive Suite 400 Kirkland, If? A 98033 Phone (425) 822-4446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Scientist (425) 739-7977 April 3, 2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review 32385.A This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar De\-e!opment, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north of SE 158'h Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City code: • Wetland Detennillatioll: Reseroe a/ TijJany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27, 2014. • Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and revised February 24, 2014. The Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site, which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers, respectively. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC. K: \projecr\323()O\3238SA \Reports \Critical Areas Revie-.\' !\rcmo_2ll14_0403.rJoc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve a/ TiJfony Park Weiland Review • Page 2 Apri13,2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17,2014, to confirm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the Washington State I17et/and;-Identification and Delineation Manllal (Ecology 1997), as required by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on t-.Iarch 31,2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17,2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March (National Weather Service); and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 -Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the I17ashington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manllal (Ecology 1997) is required by IUvIC 4-3-050.M.4.a. Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the 1Uv!C. Comment 2 -Survey Map We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags, which is necessary for confirming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field; however, if we have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags (from June 2013 and any upcoming re\·isions). In addition, missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges. Comment 3 -Wetland A We agree with portions of\Vetland A's delineated edges. However, we could not fmd some of the flags (including Wetland A-I) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-I, A-3, A-5, and A-6. In these areas, we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (mainly inundation). On March 17,2014, in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated (flagged) wetland, inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A ineets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer. Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-f1agged during the early growing season (hefore mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. K:\projccc\32300\323HSA \Reports\Criticai Areas Rc\'iew ML'Il10_2014_0403.doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Comment 4 -Wetlands Band C • Page 3 Apn13,2014 During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges ofWerlands Band C. In addition, Werlands Band C a,re not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the same werland. On March 17, 2014, inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated werland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation (mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas. We agree that Werland C meets the criteria oudined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Werlands Band C are connected (one werland), the area flagged as Werland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendation: Werlands Band C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Werland B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5 -Wetland D We agree with the majority of the wetland flag locations on Wetland D, although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags D-3 and D-4. We agree that Werland D meets the ctiteria oudined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the re"ised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Coinment 6 -Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite wetland adjacent to the Resen'e at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is southwest of (in line with) 18'h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic "egetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on March 17,2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the R!\IC for a Category 3 wetland, which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be delineated, classified, and added'to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans, along with the buffer. K:\proicct\-'1300\32385A \Reports\Criticai :\teas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reseroe at Tiffony Park Wei/and Review • Comment 7 -Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Page 4 Apn13,2014 Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right -of- way (northeast of the gravel access road), These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands; if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite werlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8 -Wetland in Southwest Comer of Site A werland was observed in the southwest corner of the site, to the north of SE 18'h Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On l\Iarch 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed, and water was draining from the werland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18,h Street. Recommendation: The werland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9 -F10wpath from Wetland B During our March 17, 2014 site visit, water was observed flowing generally west out of Wetland B to the southwest corner of the project site (see Photograpbs 3, 4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on March 17'h was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water was obset\'ed along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17'h. Standing water was present at \X'etland B (beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland. No streams arc mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per RMC Figure 4-3-0S0-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/ after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. K\projcct\32300\32385A \ R(.'P()rts\Critical Areas RcviL'W "lcmo_2014_(j~)3.doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton fuse"" al Tiffa'!J Park IrYellan d fuview Comment 10 -Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) • Page 5 April 3, 2014 The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest of the southwest corner of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as FAC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a wetland (see Photograph 6). Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. Comment 11-Buffer Averaging The buffer averaging proposal in the Wetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-0S0.M.6.f. However, revisions to wetland edges will likely change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with the any necessary revisions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite. Comment 12 -Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise tlle wetland documentation to discu ss all temporary impacts to wetland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace those functions . A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of 60 % design. Encl. Photographs K \projt."Ct \32300 \3238SA \Rcports \Critica l Areas Rev iew Memo_20 14_040 3.doc: • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rmrvt 01 Tiffany Pork Weiland Revitlll PHOTOGRAPHS • Photograph 1: Wetland A, near so uthern delineated edge (3/17/14) Page 6 April ),2014 Photograph 2. Offsite wetland on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3/17 /14) • Roeale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rmroe at TifJa,!), Park W .tland Rtvi"" • Photograph 3. Flowpa th , partially in walking trail (3 /17 /14) Photograph 4 . Flowpath, partiall y in walking trail (3 /31/14) K:\projcct \32300\32385 . \ \Rcpom \Cntica1 Arc:u: Reyicw ~f emo_20 14_0403 .doc Pag e 7 April3, 2014 • Rocalc Timmons, Scmor Planner, City of Rcnron Rem ... a/ Tiffa'!J Park IVt/land Revj"" • Photograph 5. Water flowing west out of Wetland B (3/17/14) Page 8 Apri13, 2014 Photograph 6. Offsite wetland on Cedar River Pipeline ROW, facing SW (3/3 1/14) K:\pro,cct \J2300 \32385A \Reports \C ntical Areas Re"iew ~h..mo_201 ·'-0403.doc .---------c---------------------------~~--~------- Denis law Mayor January 30,2015 Wayne Potter' Novastar • 18215 nnd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 City Clerk: Jason A. Seth, CMC Subject: Requests for Reconsideration & Hearing Examiner's Order Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001572, ECF, PP; CAR DearMr. Potter: I have attached two Requests for Reconsideration filed by Cairncross,& Hempelmann representing Henley USA, LLC. dated January 22, 2015, and by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group dated january 28, 2015. Also, the' City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued an Order on Request for Reconsideration II dated January 29, 2015. APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision' of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision., Appeals must be filed in writing together with -the required fee to the City CounCil, City of Renton, i055 South Grady Way, Rent~n, wA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeafprocess may be .obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall· 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding - the reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall· 7th Floor, (425) 430:6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal pe~iod shall commence upon the issuance of a reconsiderationdecision.- 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057.. (425) 430-65101 Fax (425) 430-6516. rentonwa.gov • • I can be re'ached at (425) 430-6510 6r jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you; , ',MJ aso A. Seth City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Direcior Vanessa Dolbee', Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager' Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Pianning Divis'ion ,Ed Prince, City Councilmember Jul,ia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Henley USA, LLC, Applicant Parties of Record (111) _c, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 • • CITY OF RENTON ~ '.1 ')~W'I JAN 29 2015 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat ) ) ) ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ). LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) ) ORDER ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION II The SEPA Appellants requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above- captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. An Order on Request for Reconsideration was issued in response on January 22, 2015 directing the SEPA 19 Appellants to limit the new evidence of their request for reconsideration to that authorized by the Renton Municipal Code. The SEPA Appellants have submitted a modified request for reconsideration on January 28,2015 within the time-frame required by the January 22, 2015 Order. Since the SEPA Appellant's first request for reconsideration, the applicant has also submitted a timely request for reconsideration dated January 22, 2015. The reconsideration requests from both the SEPA Appellants and the applicant will be distributed to the parties of record of this proceeding for response and reply. 20 21 22 23 24 It is recognized that once again the SEPA appellants are attempting to introduce new evidence in the record and that applicable legal standards only allow new evidence under very limited circumstances. This places the applicant in the difficult position of arguing against the admission of new evidence while at the same time having to respond to the new evidence in case the evidence is admitted. The 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 ,-----------------------_._-_._------------------------ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • applicant is given the opportunity to limit its response to evidence in the record and reserve the right to respond to newly presented evidence if any such evidence is admitted. If the applicant chooses this course of action, the examiner will rule on the admissibility of evidence after the submission deadlines· outlined below and then provide an additional opportunity for response to new evidence by the applicant and final reply by the SEPA appellants before ruling on the reconsideration requests. In the alternative, the applicant may "cover all bases" and argue against the admission of new evidence while also presenting new evidence to the extent necessary to respond to any new evidence from the SEP A appellants that is admitted into the record. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION I. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants on January 28, 2015 and the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant on January 22 2015. Only persons who participated in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the issues raised in the requests for reconsideration. 2. The SEPA Appellants and the applicant shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses to their own reconsideration requests. 3. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be emailed to the Examiner at olbrcchtslaw@gmail.com; Rocale Timmons at RTimrnons@Rentonwa.gov; Renate Beedon at renton-opposites@comcast.net; Nancy Rogers at. NRogers@Cairncross.com and Cynthia Moya at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. DATED this 29th day of January, 2015. PhiA. olblilclliS City of Renton Hearing Examiner PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 ,---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals ) ) LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) ORDER ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION The SEPA Appellants have requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned matter by letter dated January 21, 2015. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties of record who testified at the hearing and City staff will be given an opportunity to respond to the request for reconsideration before a decision on the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be based upon evidence that is already in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing or entered as an exhibit at the hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request. The SEPA Appellants do not appear to be aware that once a land use hearing is closed, no new evidence may be considered except under very limited circumstances. Their reconsideration request appears to include photographs and reports that were not admitted into the administrative record of this appeal. The restriction on new evidence arises from the Regulatory Reform Act requirement that there be no more than one public hearing on a land use permit application. RCW 36.70B.050(2) provides that city and county . land use permit review procedures only authorize one open record hearing per project permit application or consolidated project permit application. The purpose of this PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • • requirement is to provide for a more efficient permitting system by preventing decision makers from holding one new hearing after another ad infinitum as new factual issues occur and also to prevent public confusion about when to participate in an on-going series of public hearings. See RCW 36.708.0 I O. Allowing new evidence after the close of a hearing essentially creates a second hearing. Renton's land use ordinances must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the one hearing rule of the Regulatory Reform Act. The hearing on this matter was closed on December 19,2014, the last date that evidence was authorized for the hearing of this application. No new evidence is allowed after December 19, 2014, except as authorized by the Regulatory Reform Act or the Renton Municipal Code. Given that the SEPA Appellants may not have been aware of the restriction on new evidence, they will be given an opportunity to reformulate their reconsideration request so that it is properly limited to evidence that has been admitted into the record of this proceeding. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION II I. The SEPA Appellants have until 5:00 pm, January 28, 2015 Reconsideration so that it does not contain any new evidence. 12 to re-submit their Request for 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5:00 pm, February 4, 2015 to provide written comments in response to the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the SEPA Appellants in response to the January 28, 2015 deadline. Only persons who participated in the SEPA appeal may comment on the SEPA appeal issues. All comments are limited to the issues raised in the Request for Reconsideration subject to the January 28, 2015 deadline. The SEPA Appellants shall have until February 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the responses authorized in the preceding paragraph. 4. All written comments, responses and replies authorized above must be'emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw(l/)Qll1uil.coll1; Rocale Timmons at RTill1mons(a)Rentonwa.gov; Renate Beedon at renton-opposites(l/)comcast.net; Nancy Rogers at. NRogersr@.Cairncross.com and Cynthia Moya at CMoya@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner, at \055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. 5. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding. Applicable laws, court opinions and hearing examiner decisions are not considered new evidence and may be submitted if relevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's request for reconsideration. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. • • In order to prevent confusion, the City Clerk's Office is directed to not distribute this Order to the parties of record until the SEPA Appellants have submitted a revised Request for Reconsideration pursuant to the terms of this Order. When that revised Request is submitted, the City Clerk's Office should distribute the revised Request for Reconsideration along with this Order to the parties of record. The January 21, 2015 Request for Reconsideration should not be distributed to the parties of record at any time (unless of course someone makes a specific request for a copy). DATED this 22nd day of January, 2015. ~~~ , -.---._------~-------, ....... City of Renton Hearing Examiner PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Ms. Moya, Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:14 AM Cynthia Moya • renton-opposites@co~cast.net; NRogers@Cairncross.com; Rocale Timmons Order on Request for Reconsideration Tiffany Park Reconsideration Order. pdf Please distribute the attached Order on Reconsideration, along with the SEPA Appellants modified Request for Reconsideration, once the modified Request is submitted, pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Order. In order to prevent public confusion as to what document they can respond to, please do not distribute any documents until a revised Request is submitted by the SEPA Appellants. 1 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: • Rocale Timmons Thursday, January 22, 2015 10:49 AM 'Phil Olbrechts'; Cynthia Moya • Cc: renton-opposites@comcast.net; NRogers@Cairncross.com; Vanessa Dolbee; Chip Vincent Subject: RE: Order on Request for Reconsideration Hello Mr. Examiner, City Staff respectfully request that a revised order be issued, following the end of the reconsideration period. We are requesting that the order acknowledge receipt ofthe technical defect letter, provided by Henley (dated 1/22/15), and how the requests included in the letter will be handled by the Examiner in addition to what is expected from City Staff in response to their request. Additionally, the reconsideration period has not ended and there is potential for additional reconsideration requests (including a potential request from City Staff) prior to the 5:00 pm today. If filed, we would also request that you outline a format within this same order on how the Examiner's office will process any additional reconsideration requests. Hopefully, by including in one order this would communicate the process as clear as possible to all parties involved. Thank Y9u, Rocale Timmons City of Renton -Current Planning Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 Fax: (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov Rocale Timmons From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22,201510:14 AM To: Cyn~hia Moya Cc: renton-oDposites@comcast.net; NRogers@Cairncross.com; Rocale Timmons Subject: Order on Request for Reconsideration Ms. Moya, Please distribute the attached Order on Reconsideration, along with the SEPA Appellants modified Request for Reconsideration, once the modified Request is submitted, pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Order. In order to prevent public confusion as to what document they can respond to, please do not distribute any documents until a revised Request is submitted by the SEPA Appellants. 1 • .,' CAIRNCROSS& HEMP[:LMANN 524 2nd Ave, Suite 500 Seattle. WA 98104 WWW.calrncrOSS.com January 22, 2015 VIA EMAIL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW office 206 587 0700 fax 206 587 2308 Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts City of Renton lOSS Orady Way Renton, W A 98057 Re: The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat • City File No. LUA13-001572 -Request for Reconsideration Dear Examiner Olbrechts: CITY OF RENTON cJ!' JAN 22 2011V-l.lr RECEIVED CH~FFICE This firm represents Henley USA, LLC ("Henley"), the contract purchaser for the property and applicant for the above-referenced preliminary plat. Henley submits this written request pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(0)(9) and RMC 4-8-IIO(E)(13), which provide for reconsideration ofa Hearing Examiner's Decision if a party of record believes the Decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors oflaw or fact, errors in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." We originally sought review of these issues as a request for review of technical errors under RMC 4-8-100(0)(7). We are filing this request for reconsideration to ensure that these issues are reviewed as we have not yet received a ruling on our earlier request; however, we believe they should be more appropriately considered in our previously filed request for clarification and correction of technical errors, I. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 28, line 9. Here, there is a typographical error referencing a "IS foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." That should be revised to reference a "10 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement." 2, There may be errors of fact or law on p, 40, lines 7 -10, Here, the first portion of Examiner's Condition I.b, which revises MONS Condition 6, reads: "The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots. " As revised, this Condition also goes on to address the 10 foot perimeter landscaping for certain lots with retaining walls facing neighboring property owners, that resulted from the SEP A Appeal. The linkage of those two issues raises a possibility for misinterpretation. We ask the Examiner to separate the issues or otherwise clarify that there is a difference between the 10 foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code, and the 10 foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the SEPA Appeal. nrogers@cairncross com direct: (206) 254·4417 {02743372.DOCX;2 } , . .. Hearing Examiner Phil Olbra January 22, 2015 Page 2 • The record reflects that these are two separate issues. Specifically, the City Staff Report to the Examiner (Exhibit K.l.a), at p. 13, described how IO-feet of street frontage landscaping was required by RMC 4-4-070(F)(I), which provides: "Ten feet (10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than ten feet (10'). In those cases, ten feet (10') oflandscaping shall be required where buildings are not located." The Staff Report continued by noting that the code-required 10-foot front yard landscape strip was not shown on the landscape plan in the record. The Staff Report also then described the ERC determination to impose a 15 foot perimeter buffer, and then stated that City Staff was recommending a condition that would require submittal of a new landscape plan to depict two things: (I) "a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots," and (2) a "IS-foot wide vegetated buffer surround the subject site ... " We ask that the two issues be plainly separated in the plat conditions. 3. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 26, lines 4 -5, that is also repeated on p. 40, line II, which text lists Lots 40, 41, 46, 47,80,82,83-90,93, and 94. Here, the Examiner's Decision text, and Examiner's Condition l.b, which revises MDNS Condition 6, calls for a 10 foot wide area of perimeter landscaping where retaining walls are greater than 4 feet in height above the ground surface, so as to buffer the visual impact of those walls on the existing neighborhood. To reflect the evidence in the record, we request that the list of specified lots either be revised or eliminated. As noted on Exhibit K.6.a, and in the testimony of Barry Talkington, Lots 80 and 82 have a "cut" wall, meaning that the wall is not visible outside the property line of the plat, meaning there can be no visual impact of the wall to buffer. Lots 83 -90, and 93 -94 are buffered behind Tract A, which tract is already wider than 10 feet and which tract is already planned for landscaping. Thus, if revised, the list oflots should include only Lots 40, 41,46,47, plus a note that as to Lots 83 -90, and 93 -94, the revised landscaping plan for Tract A should confirm that site obscuring landscaping will be planted in Tract A. Also, the revision should note that only walls that are on the perimeter property line, over 4 feet as measured from above-ground, and visible from neighboring properties should be subject to the buffering requirement Alternatively, because as described in the testimony of Barry Talkington, the plat design continues to evolve in the engineering process, there is the very real possibility that some walls on the perimeter may drop below four feet in height above the lower level of the ground surface, meaning that an alternative approach for the Condition language on p. 40 would be to omit the list oflots entirely and instead state that: "A 10 foot wide, site obscuring landscaping buffer shall be provided adjacent to areas where retaining walls are four feet or more in height above the ground surface on the low side of the wall, and where those walls are located on the perimeter of the property and are visible to neighboring property owners." (02743372.DOCX;2 ) -------_ .. ------------'---- . 'Hearing Examiner Phil OlbrA January 22, 2015 Page 3 • 4. There may be errors of fact or law on pp. 28 -29, discussion of Retaining Wall Height. The retaining wall height issue was raised as part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEPA Appeals. Accordingly, it should fall under the preliminary plat discussion that begins on p. 30 of the Examiner's Decision. 5. There may be errors of fact or law on p. 40, Examiner's Condition 3. Condition 3 should be deleted because it was replaced and superseded by Condition 4. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Nancy Bainbridge Rogers NBRlkgb cc: Rocale Timmons {02743372.DOCX;2 } .---~~~~~~~~--~~~~---~-----l • • Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2015 To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com City of Renton CITY OF RENTON t1 ~dltfll'l ! 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 980S8 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP -Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: JAN 28 2015 ()J.P'- RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Revised and Amended Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-110(E)(13). which provide for reconsideration of a hearing examiner's decision if a party of record believes the decision is based on "an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. References • Letter entitled, "RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Preliminary Plat -Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals - LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE -Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts -City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scope • The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. • The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner) to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter. • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and ifthe responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The Hearing Examiner is entitled to consider newly discovered evidence not reasonably available at the prior hearing. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 8 • • Wetland Determination, Measuring and Staking Newly Discovered Evidence Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration dated January 22, 2015 TPWAG removed all photographs of the wetlands taken on January 16, 2015. These photographs were simply provided to show that the wetland boundary markers and wetland buffer markers are standing in bodies of water. Photographs of this condition were not readily available at the time of the hearings because the wetland studies were performed after a 3 month draught (2013) or after unusual we seasons (2014) of the year. The photographs that have been removed show typical conditions in January and bring into question the delineation of the limits of the wetlands and suggests the boundary of Wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated. RMC 4-B-l00(G)(9) provides that "any interested person feeling that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is based on "erroneous procedures, errors of law or fact, error in judgment or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing" may make a Request for Reconsideration. Thus the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to consider this limited discovery of new evidence. TPWAG believes that the wetland photographs removed from this Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration fall into this category of evidence and should be considered by the Hearing Examiner. TPWAG requests that they be allowed to resubmit these photographs as newly discovered evidence. Problems • One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have been conducted. An EIS would clearly provide the city and all interested parties with information that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment. The original study by OTAK pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz. The OTAK study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than described in the original study submitted by Schulz. After the Applicant received the OTAK study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz and OTAK. At that on-site meeting the Applicant apparently convinced the OTAK consultants that the original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not. If you look at and compare both reports, you can see Significant changes between the two versions of OTAK studies. TPWAG requested minutes for this meeting from the City of Renton and was told that there were no minutes because this was a "field trip" and that the two revised wetland reports from Schulz and OTAK were record enough. Apparently, there is no written record of what was said and decided by whom during this off-site meeting in the woods. One thing the participants of the "field trip" did agree on is the addition of wetland D. TPWAG ReVised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 8 -------------------------------------------- OTAK Secondary Review Memo -+3-1- • • • We are providing you with a Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots (in particular lots 70, 79 and 80) appear to encroach onto the wetlands B and Co • Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street_ On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland _ EXHIBIT 11 I t~ • ~II 'I' bI • I • These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014 _ (Date is too small to read), TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 3 of 8 • The maps provided by t.Plicant show that plats and streets edy encroach onto wetland boundaries acknowledged by the Applicant. If we, TPWAG, are correct in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that all the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the wetland code/regulations, etc. • We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development. • We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again· • (A visit to the City of Renton Clerk's office on Monday, January 26, 2015 by TPWAG revealed that several sets of original drawings were incomplete, thus we were unable to study these drawings in conjunction with our request for reconsideration. The city planner, Ms. Timmons, told TPWAG that. the drawing dated August 2014, is "old". This "old" drawing showed the presence of a storm water retention pond rather than a vault as presented during the Hearing Examiner's meetings in 2014. After Ms. Timmons left, we looked for newer drawings but could not find any. The City Clerk stafftold us that they were not in possession of newer drawings.) Relief Requested • Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property) • Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time to find an expert who is willing to work with private citizens, allow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. TPWAG requests that it be invited should such a meeting take place. • Direct the Applicant and City Staff to make a complete set of original drawings available for review by the public as soon as possible to support this process. • Require an Eis to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems • A 10 foot buffer around the property is inadequate, not only because of esthetic value but also because it does not provide sufficient protection from the high winds that occur regularly in our area. • During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees. Relief Requested • Require a buffer of at least 20 feet around the property • Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. • Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code compliance. • Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 4 of 8 • If trees are damaged and.t be removed, require Applicant to .ce the damaged trees with equivalent "mature" trees, and prohibit them from using any of the original canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water Problems • Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75% of the property's ability to process storm water. • 24" pipe (as proposed by Applicant) is barely good enough for a la-year storm. lOa-year storms are common. We may have a few lOa-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, it is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development. Relief Requested • Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. • Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water to pass through it) on all streets, sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns) to minimize the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled: Core Requirements #2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements #4 Conveyance Systems. The City of Renton has some added amendments for special community situations. Roof Runoff Problems • Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides used in the yard it becomes a pollutant. • Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5. • KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands. (We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.) Applicoble Lows The Hearing Examiner's Order on Request for Reconsideration provides that "applicable laws are not considered new evidence." The Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines are part of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Section 6.2 of the KCSWDM provides "roof runoff is subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3. Section 1.2 of the KCSWDM provides that where there is potential impact to wetland hydrology, "DOES may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology reference guidelines in TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 5 of 8 .-------------------------------~---------- Reference Section 5. Therefore .ection is merely summarizing applicelaw and should be considered by the hearing examiner. Relief Requested Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines Traffic Problems • Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. However, that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet cul:de-sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day -mostly on SE 18th Street -by Applicant's own estimates). • Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a cul-de- sac is significant. • We have researched home prices on quiet and cul-de-sac streets vs. busy streets. Those findings showed that the 16 homeowners on SE 18 Street can probably each expect a $30,000 loss in property value as a result of the increased traffic on this street should the delielopment go forward. The city has noted to that they take no responsibility for any loss sustained. More ingress and egress points to the development would certainly help to disperse the traffic. (Roenicke Testimony.) • Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but two cul-de-sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)! • We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect the applicant to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing its profit by unfairly externalizing its costs to the neighboring property owners. Relief Requested • We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. • Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. • Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to create such access). • Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial streets to the South (especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (i.e., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. • Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. 1. Re-open the north end of Beacon Way SE to Puget Drive SE. 2. Close the intersection at SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial· traffic on SE 16th Street to leave their neighborhood. TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 8 .---------------------------------------------------------- • • Environmental Impact Statement Problems • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention vault, drainage and retaining walls, weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requested • The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our issues. Thank you. RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov Nancy Rogers mailto:NRogers@Cairncross.com TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of B r--'-----.. ~ i I i Figure 1-Area Map TPWAG Revised/Amended Request for Reconsideration Page 8 of 8 • Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Point!' Drive Suite 400 Kirkland, W A 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827·9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wedand Scientist (425) 739-7977 April 3, 2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wedand Delineation Review 32385.A This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton LUA13-001572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar Development, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north of SE 158'" Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by tbe City of Renton (the 'City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarcling its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City' code: • We/land Determination: Rese17le at Tiffany Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27,2014. • Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and revised February 24, 2014. The Wedand Determination identifies three Category 2 wedands and one Category 3 wedand on the site, which are required to have 50-foot and 25-foot buffers, respectively. The report inclicates that werland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and oudines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC. K:\projcct\32300\32385/\ \RlT0rts\Criticai Arcas Reyiew Mcmo_2014~0403.d()c • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reseroe at Tiffa'!J Park [Felland Review • Page 2 April3, 2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17,2014, to confirm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the lV'ashington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997), as required by the 1Uv1C. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31,2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17, 2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March (National Weather Service); and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 -Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the IWashington State Wetlands Identifitation and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-050.M.4.a. Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the RMC. Comment 2 -Survey Map We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags, which is necessary for conflrming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field; however, if we have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags (from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition, missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges. Comment 3 -Wetland A We agree with portions of Wetland A's delineated edges. However, we could not find some of the flags (including Wetland A-I) in the southern part of the wetland. It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-I, A-3, A-5, and A-6. In these areas, we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (mainly inundation). On March 17,2014, in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated (flagged) wetland, inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer. Recommendation: Wetland A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. K:\projcct\32300\32385A \RLl'f)rt~\Critic:l1 Areas Re\"iew Mcm()_2()t4_0403.doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at Tiffa'!JI Park Wetland Review Comment 4 -Wetlands Band C • Page 3 April 3, 2014 During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of Wetlands Band C In addition, Wetlands Band C are not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the same wetland, On March 17,2014, inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation (mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands Band C are connected (one . wetland), the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendation: Wetlands Band C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wetland B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5 -Wetland 0 We agree with the majority of the wetland flag locations on Wetland 0, although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags 0-3 and 0-4. We agree that Wetland o meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 6 -Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is southwest of (in line with) 18'h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on March 17,2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the RMC for a Category 3 wetland, which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans, along with the buffer. K:\projcct\323()O\323HSA \Rt:port~\Critical Arcas Review MCffio_2014_04l13.Joc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reseroe at Tiffany Park Wetland Review • Comment 7 -Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Page 4 Apri13, 2014 Several offsite wetlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way (northeast of the gravel access road). These wetlands appear to be Category 3 wetlands; if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite wetlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8 -Wetland in Southwest Comer of Site A wetland was observed in the southwest comer of the site, to the north of SE 18" Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydtic soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed, and water was draining from the wetland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18" Street. Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9 -Flowpath from Wetland B During our March 17,2014 site visit, water was observed flowing generally west out of Wetland B to the southwest comer of the project site (see Photographs 3, 4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on March 17" was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water was observed along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17". Standing water was present at Wetland B (beyond the flagged wetland edge), but no £lowing surface water was observed exiting the wetland. No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/ after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area docs not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. K:\projcct\32300\32JflSA \Rt:ports\Critic:ll Areas Review MCffi()_2()14_04U3,Joc ,--------------------~----------- • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Review Comment 10 -Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) • Page 5 . Apn13,2014 The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest of the southwest comer of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as F AC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a wetland (see Photograph G). Recommendation: The wetland (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. Comment 11-Buffer Averaging The buffer averaging proposal in the Wetland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-0S0.M.G.f. However, revisions to wetland edges will likely change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with the any necessary revisions to the wetland edges and wetland buffers onsite. Comment 12 -Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets G and 7 of the plan set (preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in wetland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed in the Wetland Determination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the wetland documentation to discuss all temporary impacts to wetland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of GO% design. Encl. Photographs K:\projcct\323()()\323HSA \RL'P0rt~\Critical Areas RcviLW r-.Iem()_20t4_0403.Joc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Rmrvt at Tiffany Park IIYetland Revi,,,, PHOTOGRAPHS • Photograph 1: Wedand A, near so uthern delineated edge (3/17/14) Page 6 April 3, 2014 Photograph 2. Offsite wedand on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW, facing SE (3/17/14) K:\projcct \32300 \32385A \Rcports \Critica! Area s Review Mcmo_20 14 _0403 .doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at TifJa'!J' Park IlI'elkind Revi"" • Photograph 3. Fl owpath , partially in walking trail (3/17/14) Photograph 4. Fl owpath, partially in walkin g trail (3/31 /14) K:\proicct \32300 \32385A \Rcport s\C ritical Areas RC\'iew Memo_20 14_0403 .doc P age 7 April 3, 2014 • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at Tiffa'!J' Park Wetland Review • Photograph 5. Water £l owin g wes t out o f Wetland B (3 /17/14) Page 8 April3, 2014 Photograph 6. Offsite wetland o n Cedar River Pipeline ROW, facin g SW (3/31 /14) K:\projcct \32JOO \3238SA \Rc:pons \CritiCilI Areas Rc=vicw I\lcrno_20 14_0403 .doc • • Date: Wed, Jan 21, 2015 To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 From: Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group mailto:renton-opposites@comcast.net 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Reserve at Tiffany Park PP -Hearing Examiner Decision (LUA13-001572) Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Olbrechts: CITY OF RENTON ~ JAN 21 2015 t1.~qr' RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter constitutes Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group's Request for Reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4- 8-110(E)(13). TPWAG has elected to pursue this Request for Reconsideration Pro Se and hereby designates Renate Beedon as the designated representative. References • Letter entitled, "RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park -Preliminary Plat -Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals - LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE -Final Decision", from Phil Olbrechts -City of Renton Hearing Examiner, dated Jan 8, 2015. Scope • The Hearing Examiner's decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of Applicant's proposed development to support a DNS-M determination under SEPA. • The City of Renton has authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA, and TPWAG asks the City of Renton (via the Hearing Examiner) to exercise that authority in the areas discussed in this letter. • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. Wetlands Problems • Wetland determination, measuring and staking One of our concerns is the wetlands and the way they have been determined, measured and staked. As you can see from our comments below, we believe that the wetland depiction alone has been done incorrectly and therefore question the way other studies pertaining to this development have TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 1 of 20 ----------------- been conducted. An EIS .Id clearly provide the city and all inte.ed parties with information that is correct and fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts on the environment. The ORIGINAL study by Otak pointed out many discrepancies in the original study submitted by Schulz. Specifically, this study claimed that the wetlands are actually larger than the original study submitted by Schulz . After the Applicant received the Otak study, a meeting was held between the City of Renton, Schulz and Otak. This was an on-site meeting where apparently the Applicant convinced the Otak consultants that the original study by Schulz was correct and the OTAK study was not . If you look at and compare both reports, you can see significant changes between the two versions of Otak studies. One thing they did agree on is the additional wetland D. }. OTAK Secondary Review Memo· 4·3·1· • As you can see from the pictures taken On January 16, 2015, the wetland boundary markers and in some cases even the wetland buffer markers are standing in bodies of water. This is NOT after a record rainfall, but during a typical day in January. This is of great concern to us, as it suggests that the boundary of wetland B and possibly wetland C were not correctly delineated. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 2 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 3 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 4 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 6 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 7 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 9 of 20 • TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 10 of 20 TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 11 of 20 • • • We are supplying copy of a topographical map showing the location of trees and wetlands upon which we indicate location of photos taken on January 16, 2014 .. (Topographic Survey, Renton School District, February 2008) J. ~ ..:r~\\\.l~V".3 I'!, 2.015_ &'1(,5 -- 8t~~ 8~811 ---M·ros ------ g411 8'\8;' 3'111 ----- 81"1t> g·t14 • • • TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 12 of 20 • • • We are also providing you with a Tree Cutting/land Clearing Plan, which shows how the proposed lots are appearing to encroach onto the wetlands Band C, in particular lots 70, 79 and 80. #> , .. - EXHIB1Tll • TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 13 of 20 ----------------------------- r----------------------------------------------------- • .............., L.A>DSCAPE ........ FClfI RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK . __ ... -._--.. _ ... -.... _--..- • ~+= EXHIBIT 18 • Also encroaching onto wetland C is a street. On the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" chart it looks like the street is cutting right into the wetland. • • These encroachments appear on the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan dated in 2014. (date is too small to read). • • In addition, on the "Preliminary Cover Sheet for Tiffany Park" the wetland is encroached even more than on the previous maps. In other words, it appears that the wetlands keep shrinking to make room for proposed lots. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 14 of 20 • • • • The photos taken on January 16 clearly show that several wetland boundary and wetland buffer markers are clearly inside of the wetland boundaries and/or buffers. This is of great concern to TPWAG. The maps provided by the Applicant show that plats and streets already encroach onto wetland boundaries acknowledged by the Applicant. If we, TPWAG, are correct in our assumption that the wetlands have been marked incorrectly and that the wetlands are bigger than depicted by the Applicant, than the proposed lots and street will greatly violate the wetland buffers and therefore the wetland code/regulations, etc. • • We believe that this aspect alone should call for an EIS, since it is possible that more errors or oversights like with the wetlands have been made throughout the whole proposed development. • We hope that at least the wetland delineation will be revisited and re-staked and then reviewed again Relief Requested • Discount the one-sided testimony of Applicant's wetlands expert (because the property owner refuses to allow TPWAG to bring an independent expert on the property) • Require the property owner to allow TPWAG to bring a wetlands expert on site, allow adequate time for the expert to prepare a report, and then hold a meeting to examine the results. • Require an EIS to resolve the unanswered probable significant environmental impacts as raised by Steve Neugebauer in his testimony before the Hearing Examiner, and as are raised in this letter. Trees Problems • During the Hearing Examiner's meetings on Nov 18, 2014 and Dec 8, 2014, we witnessed public testimony from Claudia Donnelly and Jill Jones showing how the developer had apparently removed all trees from another development, even though the City of Renton requires them to retain trees. • Therefore, we request that the City of Renton ensure that the developer doesn't intentionally or carelessly damage the few trees that are required to be retained under city ordinance, and then use that as legal loophole to circumvent city ordinance and remove the "damaged" trees. Relief Requested • Consider assigning a person on site during construction hours to monitor activities to ensure code compliance. • Consider steep fines for careless or intentional damage to trees. • If trees are damaged and must be removed, require Applicant to replace the damaged trees with equivalent ·mature· trees, and prohibit them from using any of the original canopy from the removed tree for any purpose other than to allow the new tree to grow. Storm Water Problems • Per Steve Neugebauer's testimony, removing trees will remove 75% of the property's ability to process storm water. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 15 of 20 • 24" pipe (as proposed by A.cant) is barely good enough for a 10--' storm. 100-year storms are common. We may have a few 100-year storms in any calendar year. Thus, It is likely that the neighboring properties will be flooded regularly as a result of the proposed development. Relief Requested • Consider requiring a larger storm water drainpipe along SE 18th Street. • Consider requiring "pervious" pavement (that allows water through it) on all streets, sidewalks and driveways, so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • Consider requiring retention of at least 6" of topsoil on all exposed surfaces (e.g., lawns) to minimize the need for watering, and so that the storm water can be naturally mitigated on site. • TPWAG requests that storm water management studies, calculations be completed in compliance with the City of Renton Storm Water Management Requirements, as further defined by the adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual; sections which specifically address this issue are titled: Core Requirements #2 Off site Analysis, and Core Requirements #4 Conveyance Systems. The City of Renton has some added amendments for speCial community situations. Roof Runoff Problems • Although roof runoff by itself may not be a pollutant, when it is mixed with chemicals and pesticides used in the yard it becomes a pollutant. • Although roof runoff may not be a target pollution-generating surface, roof runoff is still subject to flow control per Core Requirement #3 which mandates that the City may require design adjustments per the wetland hydrology protection guidelines in Reference 5. • KCSWDM Reference 5, Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines, mandates that a wetland may not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control in Category 2 wetlands. (We have attached the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines.) Relief Requested • Applicant should comply with the Wetland Hydrology Protection Guidelines. ~ WeUand hydrology • Protection guldelines.f Traffic Problems • Applicant's expert has testified that the level of service on the roads surrounding the proposed development will be acceptable per the applicable city and state laws. • However, that analysis did not address the impact of converting SE 18th Street and 124th Place SE from quiet Cul-De-Sacs into arterials for the traffic from almost 100 new homes (over 1,000 vehicles per day -mostly on SE 18th Street -by Applicant's own estimates). • Realtors know that the difference in value between a house on a busy street and a house on a Cul-De- Sac is significant. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 16 of 20 o "Usually the differ. in pricing is someplace between 6% .16% depending on what type of traffic is traveling on your busy street and at what times." (http://www.realestateabc.com/homeguide/selling-busy-street.htm) o "For instance, you may have a stellar home, but if it's on a busy street, its value will undoubtedly be less than a comparable home on a road less traveled. Potential rezoning of adjacent areas also can affect comps: If that lovely forest behind your home is due to become a sea of condominiums, your home's value is likely to be less than a similar home that will retain its forest view." (http://www.realtor.com/home-values/HomeValuesFag.aspx) o "Nevertheless, the single obstacle to getting anyone interested in our home is the close proximity to the access road .... It needs to be priced alot less than the comps .... around here it seems a house siding a busy street sells for 10-15% less than the same house inside the subdivision." (http://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/Tips-Suggestions-to-Sell-House-Near-Busy- Street/17954/l o "How much do you think the street knocks off the price tag? ... I'd say 10-25%, depending on the street." (http://forums.redfin.com/t5/Seattle/Selling-House-on-Busy-Street/td-p/53731) • Applicant also seems to be well aware of this fact. The planned development contains not one, but two Cul-De-Sacs (instead of building adequate roads to carry traffic in and out)! • We respect Applicant's right to develop their property, but we expect them to respect the property rights of the surrounding community. We believe that Applicant is maximizing their profit by unfairly externalizing their costs to the neighboring property owners. • With this proposed development, we estimate that Applicant will effectively be taking $1,560,000 from surrounding property owners without compensation. We ask the City of Renton to intervene to ensure equal protection under the law. o Based on City of Renton Plat maps. o Based on Zillow.com for typical property values of $300k. o 14 houses along SE 18th Street with severe 15% impact. o 4 houses along 124th Place SE with severe 15% impact. o Another 50 houses on surrounding roads with 5% impact. o Thus, 18 property owners lose an estimated $45,000 each and SO property owners lose an estimated $15,000 each. o Meanwhile Applicant's preliminary plat map shows that they intend to build 26 houses along their Cul-De-Sacs, giving an estimated 26 * $45,000 = $1,170,000 in additional profit for Applicant. Relief Requested • Consider substantially reducing the number of allowable houses in the proposed development. • Consider requiring at least one more access road to the proposed development (even if Applicant has to buy existing houses to replace with. roads). • Consider removing speed bumps that are blocking arterial s.treets to the South (especially 126th Avenue SE, SE 164th Street, and SE 160th Street). This will provide less incentive for drivers from the proposed development to avoid the back entrance (Le., 124th Place SE) and for drivers coming from Fairwood to use Pierce Ave SE and SE 16th Street. • Consider street modifications to encourage traffic to use Royal Hills Drive SE instead of SE 16th Street. Royal Hills Drive SE is currently a bus snow route. It is a wide road, it has a gentle incline, it has good sight distance, and it is sanded when icy, so it is much better suited for the heavy volume of traffic than is SE 16th Street. TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 17 of 20 ------------------ 1. Re-open the end of Bea.way SE to Puget Drive SE. • 2. Close the intersection at SE16th Street and Edmonds Avenue SE. Local traffic will be able to use the newly opened Beacon Way SE, and traffic from Edmonds Way SE will no longer have to fight arterial traffic to leave their neighborhood. Sf 160th SI iji ~ ~ Sf 162nd St ::: SE 1641hSt I II Roy~, kills Or SE ". Sf 157t" 'Sf ;: ;;; ~ • t • ~ • , ICl , '" Sf t60th St . --'110 , 5f 162nd Sf Sf 161rd St iji iji \, ~ ~ r ! ~ < ~ ! , SlI64tf1St . Sf 164lh 51 Figure 1 -Area Map TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 18 of 20 Sll60th Sf SE.161st St. ~ SE 162nd St I Sf ,63rd 51 ~ ~ iji ~ " ti ~ N ~ ... _ Sf 164th 51 Environmental Impact statemen. • Problems • An environmental impact statement is justified and must be prepared whenever significant adverse impacts on the environment are probable, not just when they are inevitable. If an environmental statement is required by the weight of the evidence and if the responsible city authority does not require an environmental impact statement then the decision is clearly erroneous. • The problems raised in this request for reconsideration, together with the issues raised at the appeal hearing, coupled with Applicant's refusal to provide full documentation of environmental conditions at the site and the full extent of structural retaining walls at the site, and the piecemeal manner in which the City of Renton and the Applicant addressed problematic issues for the wetlands, detention vault, drainage and retaining walls weigh in favor of requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement. Relief Requested • The City of Renton should require an environmental impact statement for the project. Respectfully submitted by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group with the hope that you reconsider our issues. Thank you. RENATE BEEDON President cc: Rocale Timmons mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov Nancy Rogers mailto:NRogers@Cairncross.com TPWAG Request for Reconsideration Page 19 of 20 it ~iw elf, 111 uc -·S£21sISt Sf: 160th St SE 162nd 51 l:l £ !-SE 164thSI I II ----------------------------------, SE 151th St SE 160th 5t SE 162nd St SE 16lrd 51 • 1 ~ UI64thSC Sf 164th 51 Figure 2 " Area Map TPWAG Request for Reconsideration • SE l60thSt SE 1&ls1 5t Page 20 of 20 l:l 5£ 162nd 51 l SE 163rd 5t sp~ed bumps ~ l:l ~ ~ ~ ... SE 164th SI SE • Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Points Drive Suit, 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner City of Renton -Current Planning Darcey Miller, Senior Wetland Scientist (425) 739-7977 April 3, 2014 Reserve at Tiffany Park Wetland Delineation Review 32385.A 1bis review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application for the Reserve at Tiffany Park (City of Renton LUAI3-001572) submitted by the applicant, Novastar Development, Inc., to the City of Renton (City). The proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park is located generally to the east of Tiffany Park, to the north of SE 158'h Street, and south and west of Pierce Avenue SE. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas document and to provide comments regarding its applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically, Section 4-3- 050, Critical Areas Regulations. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City code: • Wetland Determination:' Reserve at Tiffal!J' Park, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, dated February 28, 2014; • Plan set for the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed February 27, 2014. • Technical Information Report, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated November 12, 2013, and revised February 24, 2014. The Wetland Determination identifies three Category 2 wetlands and one Category 3 wetland on the site, which are required to have 50-foot and 2S-foot buffers, respectively. The report indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site, and outlines the rationale for meeting the requirements for buffer averaging described in the RMC. K:\project\32300\32385A \Reports\Critical Areas Rc"ie\\' Memo_2014_0403.doc • RocaJe Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Resell'e at Tiffa'!J' Park Wetland Review • Page 2 April 3, 2014 Two Otak wetland biologists visited the site on March 17, 2014, to confirm whether the wetland delineation was consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manllal (Ecology 1997), as required by the RMC. An Otak biologist made an additional site visit on March 31,2014. Please note that the wetland delineation was performed in June 2013, whereas the rainfall amount as of March 17, 2014, was approximately 5.58 inches above the normal amount for March (National Weather Service); and on March 31, 2014 was 5.85 inches above normal for March. Comment 1 -Delineation Method The wetland determination report cites the US Army Corps of Engineers wedand delineation manuals (1987 and 2010 supplement) for the methodology used. However, the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manllal (Ecology 1997) is required by RMC 4-3-050.MA.a. Recommendation: The applicant should ensure that the wetland delineation is consistent with the methodology required by the RMC. Comment 2 -Survey Map We have not seen a survey map showing all of the wetland flags, which is necessary for confirming the wetland delineation. As discussed below, some wetland flags were not found in the field; however, if we have a detailed map and some of the flags remain, all of those missing flags may not need to be replaced. Recommendation: The applicant should submit a map showing all of the surveyed wetland flags (from June 2013 and any upcoming revisions). In addition, missing wetland flags should be replaced as deemed necessary for Otak's confirmation of the wetland edges. Comment 3 -Wetland A We agree with portions of Wetland A's delineated edges. However, we could not find some of the flags (including Wetland A-I) in the southern part of the wedand. It appears that the wetland areas extend farther out than the delineated edge, specifically near Flags A-I, A-3, A-5, and A-6. In these areas, we observed hydrophytic vegetation (if any plants at all), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (mainly inundation). On March 17, 2014, in some areas that appeared to be outside of the delineated (flagged) wetland, inundation was over 1 foot deep during our site visit (see Photograph 1). We agree that Wetland A meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer. Recommendation: Wedand A should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. K:\projcct\32300\3238M \Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc I II • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Res,ro, at Tiffa'!J Park Wetland Review Comment 4 -Wetlands Band C • Page 3 April3, 2014 During our site visits, standing water extended generally 10 to 70 feet farther than the delineated edges of Wetlands Band C. In addition, Wetlands Band C are not separated by upland area; they appear to be part of the same wetland. On March 17, 2014, inundation ranged from several inches to 1.5 feet deep in areas that may be outside of the delineated wetland edge. Hydrophytic vegetation (mainly salmonberry and red alder) and hydric soils were also observed in the majority of these areas. We agree that Wetland C meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland, which is required to have a 50-foot buffer; however, because Wetlands Band C are connected (one wetland), the area flagged as Wetland B would also be considered a Category 2. Recommendation: Wetlands Band C should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Confirm the rating and buffer size for Wetland B. Any changes to the wetlands should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 5 -Wetland D We agree with the majority of the wetland flag locations on Wetland 0, although the wetland appears to extend approximately 25 feet to the south of Flags 0-3 and 0-4. We agree that Wetland o meets the criteria outlined in the RMC for a Category 2 wetland. Recommendation: The wetland should be reexamined and any differing edges re-flagged during the early growing season (before mid-May). Any changes to the wetland should be included in the revised Wetland Determination Report and project plans. Comment 6 -Offsite Wetland (SW side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) An offsite wetland adjacent to the Reserve at Tiffany Park site was observed on the southwest side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of-way (see Photograph 2). The northwest end of the wetland is southwest of (in line with) 18,h Court SE. This linear wetland is approximately 150 to 200 feet long and contains hydrophytic vegetation (creeping buttercup, reed canarygrass, and other grasses) and hydric soils. Wetland hydrology observed on March 17, 2014, ranged from saturation at the surface to saturation at 4 inches below the surface. This wetland likely meets the criteria in the RMC for a Category 3 wetland, which is required to have a 25-foot buffer. Recommendation: If permission is granted from the offsite landowner, the wetland should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wetland Determination Report and plans. If permission for delineation is not received, the wetland location should be estimated and shown on the plans, along with the buffer. K:\project\32300\3238SA \Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0403.doc • Roca/e Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve at Tiffaf!J Park IFetland Review • Comment 7 -Offsite Wetlands (NE side Mercer Island Pipeline ROW) Page 4 April 3, 2014 Several offsite werlands were observed on the northeast side of the Mercer Island Pipeline Right-of- way (northeast of the gravel access road). These werlands appear to be Category 3 werlands; if so, they are likely far enough away so that their 25-foot buffers do not extend onto the project site. Recommendation: The applicant should confirm that buffers from these offsite werlands do not extend onto the property. Comment 8 -Wetland in Southwest Comer of Site A werland was observed in the southwest comer of the site, to the north of SE 18'h Street and southeast of the adjacent development's fence. The area was dominated by salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. On March 17, 2014, hydric soils and up to 4 inches of inundation were observed, and water was draining from the werland onto the sidewalk along the north side of SE 18,h Street. Recommendation: The wedand (if it is determined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Wedand Determination Report and project plans. Comment 9 -Flowpath from Wetland B During our March 17, 2014 site visit, water was observed flowing generally west out of Wedand B to the southwest comer of the project site (see Photographs 3, 4, and 5), then offsite into the Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-way. The wetted width of the flowpath onsite on March 17'h was approximately 3 to 6 feet, and the water depth was 1 to 3 inches. Vegetation on the edges of the stream generally consists of upland species such as Indian plum. A defined stream channel with bed and banks was not observed. Sorted gravels were observed in several small portions of the flowpath; however, these gravels were generally angular and therefore have not been subject to flow strong enough to round their edges. During our March 31, 2014 site visit, no water was observed along the flowpath that had been observed on March 17"'. Standing water was present at Wedand B (beyond the flagged werland edge), but no flowing surface water was observed exiting the werland. No streams are mapped on or adjacent to the site. The closest stream is Ginger Creek, approximately 800 feet offsite to the west. Ginger Creek is a Class 4 tributary to the Cedar River, per RMC Figure 4-3-050-Q4 (Streams and Lakes). Given the above information, it is our opinion that water flows through this area only during/ after high rainfall events, drains quickly, and that the area does not meet the definition of a stream. Recommendation: No action is necessary. K:\pmjcct\32300\32385A \ Reports\Critical Areas Rcvi.(.-'W Memo_2014_0403.doc • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Reserve af Tiffa,!)! Park Wetland Review Comment 10 -Offsite Wetland (Cedar River Pipeline ROW) • Page 5 April3, 2014 The flowpath described in Comment 9 drains into the Cedar River Pipeline ROW, to the southwest of the southwest comer of the Tiffany Park site. Inundation was observed in the area, as well as FAC or wetter vegetation and potentially hydric soils; therefore, the area appears to be a werland (see Photograph 6). Recommendation: The werland (if it is detennined to be one) should be delineated, classified, and added to the revised Werland Detennination Report and plans. Comment 11-Buffer Averaging The buffer averaging proposal in the Werland Determination Report has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-0S0.M.6.f. However, revisions to werland edges will likely change this proposal. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the buffer averaging proposal to be consistent with the any necessary revisions to the werland edges and werland buffers onsite. Comment 12 -Temporary Buffer Impacts Sheets 6 and 7 of the plan set (preliminary Grading Plan) show disturbed areas in werland buffers that will result from grading and wall installation. These temporary buffer impacts are not discussed in the Werland Detennination Report, nor are they shown on Figure 2 in the report. Recommendation: The applicant should revise the werland documentation to discuss all temporary impacts to werland buffers, including impacts to specific functions and how restoration will replace those functions. A restoration planting plan for the disturbed areas should be provided as part of 60% design. Encl. Photographs K:\projoct\32300\32385A \Repuru\Critical Areas Rc\w Memo_2014_0403.doc • Roca}e Timmons, Senior PllWDer, City of Renton RIse"" 01 TifJa'!J Park 1-P,lland Revi,,,, PHOTOGRAPHS • Photograph 1: Wetland A, near sou thern delineated edge (3/17 /14) Page 6 April 3, 20 14 Photograph 2. Offsite wetland on Mercer Island Pipeline ROW , facing SE 7/14) • Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City 01 Renton Rts_ 01 T!lfony Pork Wttland Rtv;,., • Photograph 3. Flowpath, partially in walking trail (3/17/14) Photograph 4. Flowpath, partially in walking trail (3/31/1 4) K:\pro;ect\32300 \3238SA \Rcpoct s\Crit:iol Are as Review Memo_20 14_0403 .doc Page 7 April 3, 20 14 • Roc .. /e T immon s, Senior Planner, City of R enton RmlVt at TifJa'!J Park Wetland Review • Photog raph S. Water flowing west out of We tl and B (3/17/14) Page 8 April 3, 2014 Photograph 6. Offsite wetland on Cedar River Pipeline ROW, facing SW (3/31/14) SECTION 6.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WQ FACILITIES 1/tJ/2009 runoff is unaffected by whethlT or not thc runoff is detained. Therclore. faci I ities such as wctponds. which are sized by a simple volume-based approach that does not route !lows through a detention facility. are the same size wht.:ther they precede or follow detention. Note that fadlitil!s \vhich arc sized based on volume and which include routing of no\\'s through a detention facility. such as the detailed sand tilter method. arc signilicantly smaller when located downstream ofdetention~ even though the same volume of water is treated in either situation. This is oecause the detention l~lcility routing sequence stores peaks within the pond and releases them at a slow rute. reducing the size of the sand lilter pond suhsequently Ill:edcd tthe volume needed to store the peaks need not be provided again in the sand tilter pond). Flow Volume to be Treated When water quality treatment is required pursuant to the core and special requirements of this manual. it is intended that a minimum of'95 cYo of the annual average runoff volume in the (8 year) tim\! series. as determined v.'ith the KCRTS modcL be treated. Designs using the WQ design tlow (as discussed above) will treat this minimum volume. Treatable Flows As slated in Chapter I. only runolT from target pollution-generating surfaces must be treated using the water quality facility options indicated in the applicable watcr quality menu. These surlaces include both pollution-generating imper1!ious surface and pollution-generating perviou.\· .mrjtlce. "Target" means that portion li'om which runoff must he treated using a water quality facility as specitied in Chapter I. Pollu/ion-generatillg imperl'ious sur/aus are thuse impervious surfaces which are suhject to vehicular usc or storage or erodible or kaehahlc materials, wastes, or chemicals; and which receive direct rainfall or lhe run-on or blow-in of rain fall. For subdivisions. target pollution-generatin!: impervious .mr/ace.,· typically include right-of-way impro\'ements (roads), parking areas and driveways that are notful(l' dispersed as sped tied in Section 1.2.3.2. Metal roofs arc also considered to be pollution-generating imperviou.f sUrface unless they are treated to prevent leaching. Pollution-generating pervious surfaces are those non-impervious sur/aces subject to usc of pesticides and fertilizers. loss ot'soiL ()r the use or storagc of erodible or leachahle materials. wastes, 01' chemicals. For subdivisions, target po/lution. gencmtillg pen,ious .mrface.f typically include lawns and landscaped areas that arc notful(v di.fpersed and from which there will not be a concentrated surface discharge in a natural channel or man-made conveyance system from the site. The j{)l1owing points summarize which site tlows must he treated and under what circumstances: • All runoff from targetpo/lution.gcllemting impervious sur/aces is to be treated through the water quality tacility or facilities required in Chapter I and speeitied in the Chapter 6 menus. • Runoff li'om lawns and landscaped areas generally overllows toward street drainage systems where it is conveyed to treatment !acilities along with the road runoff. However. sometimes runoff li'om backyards drains into open space or hutT!.!r areas. In these cascs~ hulfers may he used to pro\'ide the requisite water quality treatment provided ( I) runoff sheet Ilmvs into the buffer or a dispersal trench is provided to disperse !lows hroadly into the butfer. and (2) the now path through the pollution. generating area is limited to about 200 feet. • Drainage from impervious stJrlaces that arc not pollution.generating (such as most roofs) or arc not target pollution-generating surfaces may bypass the treatment lacility.11 Roof' runotTis. howcvcr~ still suhject to now control per Core Requirem!.!nt #3. Note that metal roofs are considered pollution- generating unless they arc treated to prevent leaching. 11 Available data on the Quality of roof runoff was examined. Although there are instances of polluted roof runoff. they tend to be related to galvanized roofing materials or industrial processes. There is also data that suggests the pollutant concentration of atmospheric fallout decreases with vertical elevation. See "Water Quality Thresholds Decision Paper." April 1994, King County Surface Water Management Division (now Water and Land Resources Division). 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 6-18 • • SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS . ., TABLE U.3.A ..I SUMMARY OF FLOW CONTROL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE FOR IMPACT MITIGA TlON'" IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREA-SPECIFIC FLOW CONTROL FACILITY REQUIREMENT DOWNSTREAM Basic Flow Control (Fe) Areas Conservation Fe Areas Flood Problem Fe Areas No Problem Identified Apply the Level 1 flow control Apply the historic site Apply the existing or historic Apply the minimum area-standard, which matches existing conditions Level 2 flow control site conditions Level 2 flow specific flow control site conditions 2-and 10-year standard, which matches control standard (whichever is perfonnance criteria. peaks historic durations for 50% of 2-appropriate based on yr through 50-year peaks AND downstream flow control area) matches historic 2-and 10-AND match existing site I year peaks conditions 1 OO-year oeaks Type 1 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control No additional flow control or No additional flow control or Conveyance System Hold 1 O-year peak to overflow T, other mitigation is needed other mitigation is needed Nuisance Problem peak(2)(3) Type 2 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control No additional flow control is No additional flow control is Severe Erosion Apply the existing site conditions needed, but other mitigation needed, but other mitigation Problem Level 2 flow control standard(3)(4) may be requirecjl4) may be requirecf~) Type 3 Drainage Problem Additional Flow Control Additional Flow Cont[QI Additional Flow Cgntrol Severe Flooding Apply the existing site conditions Apply the historic site If flooding is from a closed Problem Level 3 flow control standard to conditions Level 3 flow control depression, make design peak flows above the overflow 7; standard. If flooding is from a adjustments as needed to peak. If flooding is from a closed closed depression. make meet the "special provision for depression, make design design adjustments as needed closed depressions" (3)(5) adjustments as needed to meet the to meet the "special provision "special provision for closed for dosed depressions"(3)(5) depressions"(3)(S) Potential Impact to Addilional Flow Control Additional Flow Contrgl Additional Flow Qcntrol Wetland Hydrology as DOES may require design DOES may require design DOES may require design Determined through a adjustments per the wetland adjustments per the wetland adjustments per the wetland Critical Area Review per hydrology protection guidelines in hydrology protection guidelines hydrology protection guide- KCC 21A.24.100 Reference Section 5 in Reference Section 5 lines in Reference Section 5 Notes: '" More than one set of problem-specific peliormance criteria may apply if two or more downstream drainage problems are identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2. If this happens, the performance goals of each applicable problem-specific criteria must be met. This can require extensive, time-consuming analysis to implement multiple sets of outflow performance criteria if additional onsite flow control is the only viable option for mitigating impacts to these problems. In these cases. it may be easier and more prudent to implement the historic site conditions Level 3 flow control standard in place of the otherwise required area-specific standard. Use of the historic Level 3 flow control standard satisfies the specified performance criteria for all the area-specific and problem-specific requirements except if adjustments are required per the special provision for closed depressions described below in Note 5. 0' Overflow T, is the return period of conveyance system overflow. To determine T,. requires a minimum Level 2 downstream analysis as detailed in Section 2.3.1.1. To avoid this analysis, a T,. of 2 years may be assumed. '" Offsite improvements may be implemented in lieu of or in combination with additional flow control as allowed in Section 1.2.2.2 (p. 1-28) and detailed in Section 3.3.5. ,., A tightline system may be required regardless of the flow control standard being applied if needed to meet the discharge requirements of Core Requirement #1 (p. 1-21) or the outfall requirements of Core Requirement #4 (p. 1-54), or if deemed necessary by DOES where the risk of severe damage is high. ,,, Special Provision for Closed Depressions with a Severe Flooding Problem: IF the proposed project diSCharges by overland flow or conveyance system to a closed depression experiencing a severe flooding problem AND the amount of new impetvious surface area proposed by the project is greater than or equal to 1 a% of the 1 aO-year water suliace area of the closed depression, THEN use the "point of compliance analysis technique" described in Section 3.3.6 to verify that water surface levels are not increasing for the return frequencies at which flooding occurs, up to and including the 1 ~O-year frequency. If necessary, iteratively adjust onsile flow control peliormance to prevent increases. Note: The point of compliance analysis relies on certain field measurements taken directly at the closed depression (e.g .. soils tests. topography. etc.). If permission to enter private property for such measurements is denied, DOES may waive this proviSion and apply the existing site conditions Level 3 flow control standard with a mandatory 20% safety factor on the storage volume. 1/912009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1-36 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2()09 Surface Water Design Manual • • KING COUNTY, WAS[[INGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL REFERENCES WETLAND HYDROLOGY PROTECTION GUIDELINES DOE GUIDE SHEET lB: STORMWATER WETLAND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA DOE GUIDE SHEET 2B: GUIDELINES FOR PROTECTION FROM ADVERSE IMPACTS OF MODIFIED RUNOFF QUANTITY DISCHARGED TO WETLANDS 1/9/2009 --------------------- • • Guide Sheet 1 B: Stormwater Wetland Assessment Criteria Excerpted from 2005 DOE Storm water Manual for Western Washington This guide sheet gives criteria that disqualifY a natural wetland from being structurally or hydrologically engineered for control of storm water quantity, quality, or both. These criteria should be applied only after performing 'the alternatives analysis outlined in Guide Sheet I A. I. A wetland should not be structurally or hydrologically engineered for runoff quantity or quality control and should be given maximum protection from overall urban impacts (see Guide Sheet 2, Wetland Protection Guidelines) under any of the following circumstances: • In its present state it is primarily an estuarine or forested wetland or a priority peat system. • It is a rare or irreplaceable wetland type, as identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program, the Puget Sound Water Quality Preservation Program, or local government. • It provides rare, threatened, or endangered species habitat that could be impaired by the proposed action. Determining whether or not the conserved species will be affected by the proposed project requires a careful analysis of its requirements in relation to the anticipated habitat changes. • It provides a high level of many functions. In general, the wetlands in these groups are classitied in Categories I and II in the "Washington State Wetland Rating System of Western Washington." That publication is available on-line at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/sea.htmles. 2. A wetland can be considered for structural or hydrological modification for runoff quantity or quality control ifmost of the following circumstances exist: • It is classified in Category IV in the "Washington State Wetland Rating System of Western Washington". In general, Category IV wetlands have monotypic vegetation of similar age and class, lack special habitat features, and are isolated from other aquatic systems. Any functions lost through hydrologic or structural modification in a Category IV wetland would have to be compensated/replaced. • The wetland has been previously disturbed by human activity, as evidenced by agriculture, fill, ditching, and/or introduced or invasive weedy plant species. • • • The wetland has been deprived of a significant amount of its water supply by draining or previous urbanization (e. g., by loss of groundwater supply), and stormwater runoff is sufficient to augment the water supply. A particular candidate is a wetland that has experienced an increased summer dry period, especially if the drought has been extended by more than two weeks. • Construction for structural or hydrologic modification in order to provide runoff quantity or quality control will disturb relatively little of the wetland. • The wetland can provide the required storage capacity for quantity or quality control through an outlet orifice modification to increase storage of water, rather than through raising the existing overflow. Orifice modification is likely to require less construction activity and consequent negative impacts. • Under existing conditions the wetland's experiences a relatively high degree of water level fluctuation and a range of velocities (i.e .. a wetland associated with substantially flowing water, rather than one in the headwaters or entirely isolated from flowing water). • The wetland does not exhibit any of the following features: Significant priority peat system or forested zones that will experience substantially altered hydro period as a result of the proposed action; Regionally unusual biological community types; Animal habitat features of relatively high value in the region (e.g., a protected. undisturbed area connected through undisturbed corridors to other valuable habitats, an important breeding site for protected species); The presence of protected commercial or sport lish; Configuration and topography that will require significant modification that may threaten fish stranding; A relatively high degree of public interest as a result of, for example, offering valued local open space or educational, scientific. or recreational opportunities, unless the proposed action would enhance these opportunities; • • • The wetland is threatened by potential impacts exclusive of stormwater management, and could receive greater protection ifacquired for a stormwater management project rather than left in existing ownership. • There is good evidence that the wetland actually can be restored or enhanced to perform other functions in addition to runoff quantity or quality control. • There is good evidence that the wetland lends itself to the effective application of the Wetland Protection Guidelines in Guide Sheet 2. • The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runotT. Local regulations often prohibit drainage diversion from one basin to another. • The wetland allows runoff discharge at the natural location. • • Guide Sheet 28: Guidelines for Protection from Adverse Impacts of Modified Runoff Quantity Discharged to Wetlands Excerpted from 2001 DOE Stormwater Manual for Western Washington I. Protection of wetland plant and animal communities depends on controlling the wetland's hydroperiod, meaning the pattern of fluctuation oflVater depth and the frequency and duration of exceeding celtainlevels, including the length and onset of drying in the summer. A hydrologic assessment is useful to measure or estimate elements of the hydroperiod under existing pre-development and anticipated postdevelopment conditions. This assessment should be performed with the aid ofa qualified hydrologist. Post-development estimates of watershed hydrology and wetland hydroperiod must include the cumulative effect of all anticipated watershed and wetland modifications. Provisions in these guidelines pertain to the full anticipated build-out of the wetland's watershed. This analysis hypothesizes a fluctuating water stage over time before development that could lluctuate more, both higher and lower after development; these greater fluctuations are termed stage excursions. The guidelines set limits on the frequency and duration of excursions, as well as on overall water level fluctuation. after development. To determine existing hydroperiod use one of the following methods, listed in order of preference: • Estimation by a continuous simulation computer model- The model should be calibrated with at least one year of data taken using a continuously recording level gage under existing conditions and should be run for the historical rainfall period. The resulting data can be used to express the magnitudes of depth fluctuation, as well as the frequencies and durations of surpassing given depths. [Note: Modeling that yields high quality information of the type needed for wetland hydroperiod analysis is a complex subject. Providing guidance on selecting and applying modeling options is beyond the scope of these guidelines but is being developed by King County Surface Water Management Division and other local jurisdictions. An alternative possibility to model ing depths, frequencies, and durations within the wetland is to model durations above given discharge levels entering the wetland over various time periods (e. g., seasonal, monthly, weekly). This option requires further development.] • Measurement during a series of time intervals (no longer than one month in length) over a period of at least one year of the maximum water stage, using a crest stage gage, and instantaneous water stage, using a staff gage--The resulting data can be used to express water level fluctuation (WLF) during the interval as follows: Average base stage = (Instantaneous stage at beginning of interval + Instantaneous stage at end of interval)/2 WLF = Crest stage -Average base stage . ------------------- • • Compute mean annual and mean monthly WLF as the arithmetic averages for each year and month for which data are available. To forecast future hydroperiod use one of the following methods, listed in order of preference: • Estimation by the continuous simulation computer model calibrated during pre- development analysis and run for the historical rainfall period- The resulting data can be used to express the magnitudes of depth fluctuation, as well as the frequencies and durations of surpassing given depths. [Note: Post- development modeling results should generally be compared with predevelopment modeling results, rather than directly with tield measurements. because different sets of assumptions underlie modeling and monitoring. Making pre-and post-development comparisons on the basis of common assumptions allows cancellation of errors inherent in the assumptions.] • Estimation according to general relationships developed from the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Program Research Program, as follows (in part adapted from Chin 1996): _ Mean annual WLF is very likely (100% of cases measured) to be < 20 cm (8 inches or 0.7 ft) iftatal impervious area (TIA) cover in the watershed is < 6% (roughly corresponding to no more than 15% of the watershed converted to urban land use). -Mean annual WLF is very likely (89% of cases measured) to be> 20 cm ifTlA in the watershed is > 21 % (roughly corresponding to more than 30% of the watershed convet1ed to urban land use). -Mean annual WLF is somewhat likely (50% of cases measured) to be> 30 cm (1.0 ft) ifTIA in the watershed is> 21% (roughly corresponding to more than 30% of the watershed converted ta urban land use). -Mean annual WLF is likely (75% of cases measured) to be > 30 cm, and somewhat likely (50% of cases measured) to be 50 cm (20 inches or 1.6 ft) or higher, ifTIA in the watershed is> 40% (roughly corresponding to more than 70% of the watershed converted to urban land use). -The frequency of stage excursions greater than 15 cm (6 inches or 0.5 tt) above or below pre-development levels is somewhat likely (54% of cases measured) to be more than six per year if the mean annual WLF increases to> 24 em (9.5 inches or 0.8 ft). • • -The average duration of stage excursions greater than 15 em above or below pre-development levels is likely (69% of cases measured) to be more than 72 hours if the mean annual WLF increases to > 20 cm. 2. The following hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands with relatively high vegetation species richness and apply to all zones within all wetlands over the entire year. If these limits are exceeded, then species richness is likely to decline. Iflhe analysis described above forecasts exceedences, one or more oflhe management strategies listed in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limits. • Mean annual WLF (and mean monthly WLF for every month of the year) does not exceed 20 cm. Vegetation species richness decrease is likely with: (I) a mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF increase of more than 5 cm (2 inches or 0.16 ft) if predevelopment mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF is greater than 15 cm, or (2) a mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF increase to 20 cm or more if pre- development mean annual (and mean monthly) WLF is 15 cm or less. • The frequency of stage excursions of 15 em above or below predevelopment stage does not exceed an annual average of six .. Note: A short-term lagging or advancement of the continuous record of water levels is acceptable. The 15 em limit applies to the temporary increase in maximum water surface elevations (hydrograph peaks) after storm events and the maximum decrease in water surface elevations (hydrograph valley bottoms) between events and during the dry season. • The duration of stage excursions of 15 cm above or below predevelopment stage does not exceed 72 hours per excursion. • The total dry period (when pools dry down to the soil surface everywhere in the wetland) does not increase or decrease by more than two weeks in any year. • Alterations to watershed and wetland hydrology that may cause perennial wetlands to become vernal are avoided. 3. The following hydroperiod limit characterizes priority peal wetlands (bogs and fens as more specifically defined by the Washington Department of Ecology) and applies to all zones over the entire year. If this limit is exceeded, then characteristic bog or fen wetland vegetation is likely to decline. If the analysis described above forecasts exceedence, one or more of the management strategies I isted in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limit • The duration of stage excursions above the predevelopment stage does not exceed 24 hours in any year. • • Note: To apply this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to be employed. The model should be calibrated with data taken under existing conditions at the wetland being analyzed and then used to forecast post- development duration of excursions. 4. The following hydroperiod limits characterize wetlands inhabited by breeding native amphibians and apply to breeding zones during the period I February through 31 May. If these limits are exceeded, then amphibian breeding success is likely to decline. If the analysis described above forecasts exceedences; one or more of the management strategies listed in step 5 should be employed to attempt to stay within the limits. • The magnitude of stage excursions above or below the pre-development stage does not exceed 8 cm~ and the total duration of these excursions does not exceed 24 hours in any 30 day period. • Note: To apply this guideline a continuous simulation computer model needs to be employed. The model should be calibrated with data taken under existing conditions at the wetland being analyzed and then used to forecast post- development magnitude and duration of excursions. 5. Ifit is expected that the hydroperiod limits stated above could be exceeded, consider strategies such as: • Reduction of the level of development; • Increasing runotTintiltration [Note: Intiltration is prone to failure in many Puget Sound Basin locations with glacial till soils and generally requires pretreatment to avoid clogging. In other situations infiltrating urban runoff may contaminate groundwater. Consult the storm water management manual adopted by the jurisdiction and carefully analyze infiltration according to its prescriptions.]: • Increasing rUlloffstorage capacity; and • Selective runoff bypass. 6. After development, monitor hydroperiod with a continuously recording level gauge or staff and crest stage gauges. If the applicable limits are exceeded, consider additional applications of the strategies in step 5 that may still be available. It is also recommended that goals be established to maintain key vegetation species, amphibians, or both, and that these species be monitored to determine if the goals are being met. - 'il'r77 o 00 .t-ao - . • 4 UN:TED STIJTES l .ORM 3547 fee due $0 .• First·Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid POSTIlL SERVICE uSPS Restricted Data Pen"it No. G /0 !l&J"'w.~ 8.,...""' .... OfficeoftneOtyClefl< '1R®1IDit©l1il. e o· • ~l .~.~._..-= ~-~.'':;:;;1r~ ~ {~ .. ' :0:5~~~ lOSS South GradyWay 8~ ~"'fL:,'n.l': '4·v~_"'...-s ,:")~-5~':E '12 11A S 00.;;13 0 Renton WA 98057·3232 -= 4~~~~ 00042.85521 JAN10 2015 ff ty.,.; .... • .. ··F r.wt!tII"ftOl.' ZlPCOD! gaOl2 .A~~o~~;r r .-. -..... ,,""" '0G~~-1rcr 1724 Edmoads way SE Renton. WA 98058 I "\, c:P\S '.:::.:.:~.:::.r'~./ .. .;..l:.. •.• ~~.~::: tNT 1 '0/ '1 . \ &;2 I-RSCNMP seose 11·1'1·I·tll·h'llll~unhll·hllhl'I"I,lh'!nlilHhll'I,1 \ OLD: NEW: MAXWEL LlGON·-··''''· 1714 EDMONDS WAY SE RENTON WA 98058·4615 2114 SE 8TH DR RENTON WA 98055-3944 01/13/15 17:322100770000102 cl:J proc:20150112 eff:2014071I PLANET: id:OO Code;03620184510045768398Q58461524 .-------~-.-------~--- TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON W A 98057-9998 1111",1111111111111111,111111,,11111'111'1111111'11111 11 ,,11111' First-Class Mail .4 UNITEDSTIJTES I FORM 3547 fee due $0.57 Postage and Fees Paid POSTIlL SERVICE t uSPS OLD: NEW: Offi<eoftn.OtyCI~1®IDr~@lID. j 10SS South GradyWltt Renton WA. 98057-3232 ADDRESS S8MCE REQUESTED , ()~/~Q)c.- CJ>~ "'\, '1 d- \ 1j/ tP\S .. -- ROBERSON. 1724 EDMONDS W.4 Y SE RENTON W.4 98058-4615 2114SE8THDR RENTON W.4 98055-3944 01/12115 17:31 2000770000005 cl:l pmc:2.0150111 eIT:2014Q710 Restricted Data Pern/it No. G 10 . .,...- a" rlt.y~ 8 {IY ,-::--..""""",," ~~ "'~.~" '"~' '.' ~_1:'..~~ ~""~'~" _ '~OV~""''''-~. ~ ... i'K('"~(.:r.· 02 1M $ CO • .:160 ~~ rP.~~~~~ 1:I00428552B JAN10 2015 .~ "'...-, •••• _ .. ,. WoILfDFROMZlPCCQE.lIa032 .. '.o=J.r.'-. ----...... . ---..:~.,.:;: .. .;..,,-,;.;. Pamela Roberson 1724 Edmonds W'ily SE Rilinton, WA 98058 ~'''''':::''':::.:::-'' -' ~~,,:~::.:..::.::= TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055SGRADYWAY RENTON W A 98057-9998 111"111 111"'1 1"'1"11,11,1,111111,11"11111"11.1'11111 111,11, I -~~ First-Class Mail ~j 'ED STJJ.TES IJ!iiiiii POSTIlL SERVICE ,ORM 3547 fee due $O.~ Postage and Fees Paid USPS Restricted Data PernJit No_ GIO ... """ Offi<eolth.OlyO~"1l®lfu'tt©)llll e l<l"{lfl'illl' ""-~~ !~~~: _ lS,!f .c7..~~ -.. e'-'.t ::-;.,3 3 't~.v "='" ....... ,_.'U 10.550 .... GqdyWoy ". ~~-~ S 00 "60 ---::-"1'~ o~ I'~ • _-;' ~-02 1/.1 ' . .-1 ;; ~-:-'~.l-'!§ 00042B5521 JAN10 201$ .~ !~.r' '·;.·~I fMlLfDFROfJIZIPC00&980ll , Ce:.D ,kK.~~~~~ cv~~ 1706 Ofympa AIiISE _WA ..... -'\\ -s'1)-:::;v-~_=':!..~:-:-"-:-~..':;..:,,,_~;; t?\ rNT \ . - \(h/ 62 /..ASQ'NHP gaOSa ·1I1,1,11I1·1II11."I" .. II" .... I,·h .. "IIIIHI1I1"·IIII··lh I SATHRE . ,-_._-_ .. - -·OLD: 1706 OLYMPIA AVE SE RENTON WA 98058-4749 TO THE POSTMASTER OF NEW: 32536 36TH AVE SW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023-2601 01113115 17:322100770000100 cl:! proc:20150112 efT:20140527 PLANET: Id:OO Code:036201845 10045664198058474906 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON W A 98057-9998 ,III I I I I 11'111 11 " I 1'11111, I 1111 I II""" 1'1 I I I 11111,,1'11 I ",I, I ,.-------- I -First-Class Mail • JI UNITED STIlTES FORM 3547 fee due $0.57 Postage and Fees Paid POSTIlL SERVICE uSPS Restricted Data Pemlit No. G I 0 OLD: NEW: Office oIth.Oty CIerlo -1®Thl~©)l!il9 lOSS South GtadyWzy Reomn WA 911OS7-1232 ADDRESS SER'IICE REQUcmV G~ ~G·--0- ,,\"\: -S" \tl;~\ &2 SARAH R BRENDEHL 2509 SE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98058-4675 L..RSCNMP 2451 GTLLEITE DR SE PORT ORCHARD W.4 98366-3029 01/13f15 17:322100770000101 cl:1 proc:201501 [2 etT:201409(}4 PLANET: Id:OO Code:03620184510045768098058467509 I "".-~ o· r";=;;)l ,,', ,-=,:~---.- OW ~.Ii:"'J~~ ~t4" ~':"':":':';".o= .5 • '"1;0'':, -•• "" .:.v _ .. rw __ 1 o· ,~~; " 'M S 00.,,6' w~ !~~~-~3 00042ilS528 JANIO 101'S ~ Ih .. _. ~....... WJLED FROrJ ZlPCOOE gSG l2 '~~-=-=~.=~c..-;-.::.l-::::;'=':;":..I Sar3h Btendehl 2S09 se 16th St Renttln, WA 98058 ~~-;:;:::~-.-.~., --~:-::::"'::':-":':':;;.I':..::r 'flT ge05a h·III ... III·III'·II1III·I11I",·I,I,I.I1II"I""I"II·\I·1I·1 .. TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON W A 98057-9998 . \ \ 111,1,1, ,11111"111"",111'1,111"'11,,1,,,,1111 11 1" ",,1'11,11 . , . , January 9,2015 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING •• CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) JASON A. SETH, City Clerk .for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 9th day of January, 2014, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail the HEX's Decision for Reserve at Tiffany Park (LUA-13-001S72) to the attached parties of record. Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 iiil&iii&iiil&Jiiii1i&WiiiliS&:lL Caroline Fawcett Lynn Family 3207 SE 19th Ct 12904 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 f'mlDBlij)ii!I.'Il' •• '1ii ' Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 Maxwel Ligon 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 r~~~~2;i2I{~~2i~:;:!~:J < Belinda Calhoun 1708 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 l i~';$.:;;.itiJ!:'it;i,;;;'",\l,'5,$.!; '~!\\i'*$~q Marie Antoinette Gallardo 1832 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Gary Schultz 7700 5 Lakeridge Dr Seattle. WA 98178 Christine Wren 1831 Ferndale Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez Ie gabarit AVERY® 5160® James & Mary Haber 1716 Monroe AYe SE Renton. WA 980S8 BOBBY SENGVILAY 1701 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98057 , Mr'! !"_~~~ RYan & Jennifer Soencer I 3313 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 June Ritualo 1633 Edmonds Way Renton. WA 980S5 EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Gayle Millett 1602 Olympia AYe SE Renton. WA 98058 Tracey Compton 19426 68th AYe S Kent. WA 98032 Sens de rh,unpmj:mt Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler Ie rebord POp_UpMC Renton. WA 98058 t Helen Pacher 1809 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Henley USA LLC 11100 Main St. 100 Bellevue. WA 98032 ··.~~Jk~;..; '-~;fj-·-¥;::='dili£~~f..1'"\;'-; John Knutson Renton School District 300 SW 7th St Renton. WA 980S7 Barbara Yarrington Henley USA 11100 Main St, Ste, 100 Bellevue. WA 980S8 ~~;'~~~~f-Zz;E~:~~~~f,pi;tr:.·~r .. ' Rachael Villa 8309 52nd St W Gig Harbor. WA 98335 Gary Taylor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 JANE WORDEN 15624 129th PI SE Renton. WA 98058-4744 Emma Gutierrez 1802 Kirkland Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Silvestre Cesar 2524 Edmonds Ct 5E Renton, WA 98058 t::.-;:gi;1~W¢~~iWlT~_m~<: Michael Melanson 1701 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Warren & Nancv McPherson 3213 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 Barbara Smith 300 SW 7TH ST 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98055 Dewavne Klinger 2201 Maple Valley Hwy, #86 Renton, WA 98057 tillliiL:iIbIiR~~f e] Claire Jonson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Jav Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Ethel Garman 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 r:«~~~±':i1t;~~~¥!5~:)1j*"~ ,~ Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 980S8 Wayne Potter Novastar 18215 72nd Ave 5 Kent. WA 98032 :",.>:i.:;_..:~}~f~,~;.Sl :J~h~!dE£ I Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Ben & Rose Depusav 3208 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Bruce Wilson 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Adele & Ed Harvev 3226 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Ed Baker 3209 SE 18th St Renton, WA 980S8 Renton, WA 98058 Pamela Roberson 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 • ; '1 •• ,~:~i!:!.;j,iI·L::' William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 fa i~~~1k01~;;;i\i<'::f~,~:;Y1i:~ ,~,ti ___ ~;"""''"V'·'''':''',",,' __ ,_-I Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton, WA 98056 iNdSh&:@iftit::·, ,:y/\,,~,~~,,:.-" ';'::t -'" ". =~ Jill & Derek Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 ••••• M.m.·~'~r.'!JII1 'i!1I.I;.!l!!FEl1!l!!!!1!!l1!Z.~.' ;::q1n:Ji;:i'21~~~' .', .. ... ~':"'''l,.~E,o'''' -. ' __ '_. Erik Fisher Karen Collen 12364 SE lS8th St 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Cynthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 , Wi a6p3 dn-dod asodx9 : 0:). aUII 6uole puas I _ Jadedpaa;l -" ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY L JONES 3624 SE 19TH CT Renton, WA 98058 ____ IIIIli!!l~;R' ~~i ~ __ ~<:.~:f._. Renata Santos 181S Lake Youngs Way SE Renton, WA 98058 T I I I ®09L5 ajeldwal ®fuahlf asn sl<lql!l ®I<I<ld ~se3 YVONNE'BURGESS 15629 129th Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 i~~~7.~~g;;;;~~TZ14::J ~ lIahe Hamidivade~hani 3000 Royal Hills Dr SE Renton. WA 98058 Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 F. ;!t'7,~_:,-;-p', .. ;;;:k1:'v~'\-:, .. ";;';':iUfL~~~-t1:~:} ! 1.~~:::..t;am;,.~4~Jm;; ~ -,>', ,'-'4diTtih 1 Mike Mastro 1717 Edmonds Way 5 Renton. WA 98058 Lvnn Desmarais 15632 159th Ct 5E Renton. WA 98058 ~;& ,j~!iIiilI!ldE~: Maraea Albinio 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 '5'FrfWfmifljif;:'\iiii&.Dtl;II;~~Y Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 James Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Rachael Mandv 1402 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 James Roberson 1724 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Donna Thorkildson Phil & Tammv Schaefer 2621 SE 16th St 3301 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 "~J.l~'iif;j.il;,;iij!:·I;M'IJli1I~~HJiliiiliil J Pat Velotta Preslev Richardson 1708 Pierce Ave 5E 3113 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Asher Mill AveS Renton. WA 98057-6022 Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 MICHAEL GARMAN 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058-4613 Kvleigh Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 n trjWki£#~,,£;.,Tj Robert & Cynthia Garlough 3203 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Gurmit Gill 19314 138th Ave 5E Renton. WA 98058 Imogene Graves 1808 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 f~iliiiih~p~'mllllll!l.iiJitlf;~(i DAVID & RENATE BEEDON Dennis McClaughlin Vicki Hou 1725 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058-4747 ;MfIiRW.:_~·: LARRY GORG 1800 lake Youngs Way SE Renton. WA 98058-3812 Eddie Rivera 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton. WA 98058 1633 Edmonds Way SE 1717 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Aaron Brendehl 2509 SE 16th St Renton. WA 980S8 Rachael Bell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton. WA 98058 , WJ. a6p3 dn-dod asodxa : 01 aUlI 6uole puas I Bob & Suzanne Swanson 3307 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 980S8 Dennis Anderson PO Box 58338 Renton, WA 98058 ,. I I I ®09~S aleldwa! ®fuaN'I asn slaqe, ®Iaad Ase3 Belinda'Mathers '2806 SE 16th St Renton. WA 980S8 f:~1.'g~PNJtl Anita & Patty Phillips 1517 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 rtli'_0'iilf_"A::.'!t4~ilt._5tifR : Laura Silbernagel Clint Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 980S8 r~~"""::iii'rtlii'!'t,.,,,ry·~ir';;ir( ; ':='·'''''G.'~\lllf'</'~··''~¥'-,;,; Sheryl Anderson 1727 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058-3809 r""'<~, -4<".. -:":5"-,~ii '9 ,r-::TI~V ~'Nilxii1~'7;f( . 1.....2:.:.....: "",', .. , . ~~':.:c" ..,-",p.",-> ,~, ." 't"'1 Ray Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 h :-, ~~,;) ~,r:' .-i,A'?i0fJhti'; ?;.:.. ~~'1';~~r+&§?:" Af-! ~ Delbert Sharp 1800 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 \.A';;;jEi:;:i~.iIi~iii!'; ,',iIli:,-$;~{ : Mike Harwood 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98055 Laura Kilgore 182S Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 kKarsten Sathre 1706 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ,M , 'i'!f!'~iHV& Lisa CabalQuinto 1824 Edmonds Way 5E Renton. WA 98058 ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton. WA 98058-4754 Diane Taylor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Ave SE Renton. WA 98059 Frances Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Jan & Spero Rockas 1686 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ! L'ua6P3 dn·dod asodxa I o~ aUII 6uoi0 puas _ Jaded paa~ . -" N H+MIATKE MARY L JONES SE 19TH CT ' Renton. WA 98058 ALAINE IKUTA 1709 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058-4747 'I"1WMWtWF 1j4iS~tMimk';!hlfjiC:J DOUR. Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Geoff & Meredith Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 • =nrrrrJ!!!!P!!'!"W'[3 Daniel Goldman 1608 Glennwood Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 \"""""W'f:""""~,·,·,, "',.',' """ , !~~ ~~~;,!~, ~:':""i.::'.~' -~;( .c: _' __ -' Sarah Brendehl 2S09 SE 16th St Renton. WA 980S8 • ieiM'4Q1t:;;r4,¥..;, 2tiTk~'';;'''A "'~~~;--t' " t • --'tv ... " '"I-fi); _-"I Greg & Jenny Swanson 1819 Ferndale Ave S Renton. WA 98055 , I I I ®09~5 a\eldwal ®fuaA", asn slaqel ®Iaad Ase3 ,-- " .' Denis Law Mayor January 8, 2015 Wayne Potter Novastar •• 18215 72 nd Avenue South 'Kent, WA 98032 Subject: Notice of Hearing Examiner Decision City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC Reserve at Tiffany Park, LUA13-001S72, ECF, PP, CAR Dear Mr. Potter: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a decision on the Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal dated January 8, 2015. The Hearing Examiner Decision is immediately available: • Electronically on line at the City of Rentpn website {www.rentonwa.gov}; • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7'h floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm, Ask for the project file by the project number LUA13-001572; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner Decision is $6.60, plus a handling and postage cost of $2.00 {this cost is subject to change if documents are added}. APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110{Ej(14} requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen {14} calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision, Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, {425} 430-6510. 1055 South GradyWay • Renton,Washington 98057. (425) 430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6516. rentonwa.gov • • RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of areconsideration decision. Please contact me for help viewing or payment for the Hearing Examiner's decision. I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov: Thank you. Sincerely, ~ ason A. Seth City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council liaison Henley USA, llC, Applicant Parties of Record (111) '"" . --.- . , . , , -, '.' " ~asy t'eel-LauelS I ~~~-='c~a~~L' Andreas Benson _Uline Colsrud .12633 S£ 158th St 606 SE 158th St Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 ~ll:MI'.~ __ '!ill ~~~SS"Y~ri\ Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 ~~~\'!l:,,~~,~ ~~E;; 1..J.t!:.t~~.J!:..i~, Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 _4:lf&i'!fAiIl'b'~'1i:Em:t~<:! Maxwelligon 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 ;"'~1 • "~.3':", Mi, 7'":~~-;rt!:, ~,~;~d..."'ml'5:. "'::'2', -l~n~, ~~4:~~~1::~~;:..r.:'"'-~." linda Shink 12910 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 Belinda Calhoun 1708 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 " ~5#~:;lnrr'i;prJ'i~'~~~:~~;Sif§~~'AJV ~ ........ "" ~., 'Co ~ "'l":t.-"'{'" ''.:''''. 'l;o:.~'''':::';'' Marie Antoinette Gallardo 1832 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 O!~"'~"""'''''''~~'~~;~-'' ::'~,t~lU'f:.:J;!:,~4";' ,';'t,;mf.i \i~"'ih:.< Gary Schultz 7700 S Lakeridge Dr Seattle. WA 98178 ~"'''''!~.,,,,,,,,,,,,,=,,-,.,¥,,,,.'';l '4~:~e~w~tJ.,~~:;'~~:4 .. y;.;..\. Christine Wren 1831 Ferndale Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 HSE.a __ Lvnn Familv 12904 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 James & Mary Haber 1716 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ~""{;g:'9" 4W.mf.'7'-':-== 'h·,' >,' _ .. __ "", ____ ... ",,,,! .. ~~~t;'~;r_~~~ BOBBY SENGVILAY , 1701 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ~~ "~~~il{ Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98057 _~}f;{:F~~4t~~~":'&:$~:'~ Rvan & Jennifer Soencer 3313 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 mrmii~T~;r'jiri_iJli,~;;;:( June Ritualo 1633 Edmonds Way Renton. WA 98055 Wi'l ___ qii-iIllJMllfilJi~'1 . EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ...,....;-i.'f_'l·~~\.i4&tl? Gavle Millett 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 BJjwaliii~il::iii;r~-m'" -. 4~',,;,,~-:;:&=? ;:~~ Henley USA LLC 11100 Main St. 100 Bellevue. WA 98032 HK::~~~;;;'~';' 4;~~~ !;,:~..-,.:.~ ~ _. John Knutson Renton School District 300 SW 7th St Renton. WA 98057 Barbara Yarrington Henley USA 11100 Main St. Ste. 100 Bellevue. WA 98058 ~l"',",''''''-'-'''I\'I' -, ~:-H3.JtY:4~',;: ... ·_;.ri . Rachael Villa 8309 52nd St W Gig Harbor. WA 98335 iiPf*U'iil~~~}~,: .. ~\·-ii~~~~~ ~ Gary Tavlor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 'SU WLJ<1I<'rc":i\il£;\i' --v· ." -,--?,~, ' ~T~if~4 -:.r:.. ... -, .. ;},,:>;",w.,.;.;~"':~"_>. JANE WORDEN 15624 129th PI SE Renton. WA 98058-4744 Emma Gutierrez 1802 Kirkland Ave 5E Renton. WA 98058 ,liitiiiiii1<,,~:v~~~~) ~;~~~t"~'i!i.>;::~~.' ""') "'!''r.q~ ""~' ~~,,,, A"?';"""1'.t:\P-t, .l di .... ~::...:..J_q>; .i±:£~ __ Colleen Bowman Tracev Comoton 2600 Edmonds Ct SE 19426 68th Ave S Renton. WA 98058 £tiquettes faciles II peler Utilisez Ie gabarit AVERY® 5160® Kent. WA 98032 .. Sens de rh;<lrnpmpnt Repliez a la hachure afin de reveler Ie rebord POp·UpMC Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY I I I I • ,~ ....... w __ ........... L~""",§i~,~~",~, . ~o:.~"""" :. ... ·,G~';KlI.,.~~~~· -= Kipepeo Brown .honv & MarRa ret Dean .. 1725 Edmonds Way SE 17 114th Ave SE Renton, WA 980SS Renton, WA 98058 Silvestre Cesar 2524 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 ' ',' ,./:MP¥:.1J. y,,;::£d:i.t:';~:-t?;{~~~Tjg;"';;:;~~'t('''i.} ~~t?!"~,.,~ '~~' -A1::.:e?"~' RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300 5W 7TH 5T Renton, WA 98055 r·iM$,~~~~;'~i$lSOOt'~~ Claire Jonson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Jav Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 HMs,:'iI~~ati"i.'~;;;~~ , Ethel Garman 1816 Edmonds Way 5E Renton, WA 98058 "'"iil'I!Y~~"~JI"" ,.;>:n·, ~·~'~~·~~W·? 1''r'1 ~~~j;rff;~'e.I~.r..:'-1!/':J<\'· .o:.~·l:as;''<--h..;t;,'~ \ Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Michael Melonson 1701 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 ~_~3tY:~~~'li~~ Barbara Smith 3619 5E 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Ben & Rose Depusav 3208 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 980S8 Bruce Wilson 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 ~';<~<'C~;ff>:'';::'''''\l,iW:0'~'' '1 ~~.;. -~~~,,:-:.t.l. Adele & Ed Harvev 3226 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 980S8 A:Yil.liiM_m'~lflP";'< Ed Baker 3209 SE 18th St Renton, WA 980S8 ~~7~.'f" ~_li":' :::~~~1k:;7:t":~,;/. ~~~'t;~':~~~~~iJ*,j,"'j:..t."",' Erik Fisher 12364 SE 158th St Renton, WA 98058 Warren & Nancv McPherson 3213 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 ~~;'';'1if';~~~~liN~<:r:~';l,B;i2; :;:. , ~'~ ,""~~~'.' .... Heidi Maurer 260S Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 \1~!~Fllil*I_~;J!. ~·~~~~·G··~."'·~:;'1·.?,I."!~~ .. ~7·"F;A;:.';;<"·-L_~ ~.l:.::.:~l~,'-::,:".t;r::J:t... }.c'" ';·'1 <!:. Pamela Roberson 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 'liili1lIi!l'ill~.~~--"-. --3¥L!" _. J'?'SI7'2"!R~;t-;t..i,,;t,:L··,:,::~!a..~·-"{' .' . William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 '~~!f.mr~:-~r-~ . ~ --'-~''f''.\~ -,' .... ~ .a;;!{.~'I\'"'~:~ZZ::~L"; y_ ... -;::.;."'''''':-~ ~:; ,;~,:,:- Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton, WA 98056 Jill & Derek Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Karen Collen 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 ~~-,*~. _~ "eS~,;@M'fft1itf?:~~ Wayne Potter Novastar 18215 72nd Ave S Kent. WA 98032 Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 Marina HiRRins' 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Wl!iICEi4If~'iiI';I!;i" ___ u,;(i0!jj; Cynthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 , w!a6p3 dn·dod asodxa 1 0\ aUlI 6uOIe puag I ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY l JONES 3624 SE 19TH CT Renton, WA 98058 1Mlir,D· •• -~£~";;t~¥::·~, Renata Santos 1815 lake Youngs Way SE Renton. WA 98058 or I I I ®09~S o,eldwol ®,uaA\f o'n slaql!1 Cll)laad Ase3 I J ..••• _ .... ,---~ "" •• -,"',,"." ap suss : UIJ ........... UJ).~ ....... ~" "':"--.---'--·:1:"'" l sp u!Je aJmpell el r: Za!ldaH ~ .. J ~ijg _hAsher Mill AveS .alad • sal De' sauanbq' ~ ,YVONNE BURGESS .,15629 129th Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 • araea Albinio 24 Edmonds Way 5E Renton. WA 98058 ':,"','~ '~~~".5;;"y,,;:rJ0;;: .. , ,., ,r, .';;;&·,J'~,;O~if '5,t~, :j'i~;~ 1 UiJ,; ..:;. ';)' V$t#~~d:f~k~~~ -'w:.J: . lIahe Hamidivadeghani 3000 Royal Hills Dr SE ' Renton. WA 98058 l~t\\EEiIJ<i!~dl!\~Ml;gr.~7:m.~ Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ';.--~""""""'"''''.-~....-....:---' "',"',j-·~~·'-v-~.,.....,~~"--~l r;,..~~ .. :;.~f'.~:· : ,~.,-.~ :!.f' ",-. ... ,.~ ''''r1'';t+: ,,¥: #: ,j :'1' ' .... l"\"_ . '~~...c:...'~.::r .... ~.,' ... ";t;~/t.:~~:.;. ...c .... ~ .. '\ Mike Mastro 1717 Edmonds Way 5 Renton, WA 98058 ~~"""2§g'i'i¢.i:tY"t~~ Lvnn Desmarais 15632 159th Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 I;f'-"~~"5~~Vtl;,~~~<"7'-""''''~:'''''~~ ~~·~'li::i_~~i~l:.~~~~-=.~,t.....:...2.~..t;'_~. Donna Thorkildson 2621 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 ..-,r.1 .... ~<:""'%""~ '~-~,.-r.,"'fVr:\i.it!;:-'J;f.%4~'~'!'r:4....,-'~~ , :..;...;..~Vc::~;"'l,_--' ~' .. k<:::,J·~ .. ~..:::!'; 'i"-<:M~' •. , Pat Velotta 1708 Pierce Ave 5E Renton, WA 98058 ~~~'~~-:''''~~'''''''''~'.~~~.~''''i'''''' ;:Z~.f'.~~.:r~.:.,\,.:.t!£i~iG,tii~~~:..~r,J}~, DAVID & RENATE BEEDON 1725 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-4747 ~~·ff1tIF£~~1ir~*,-~·?}~~~i;";i·;\:·?iW~h LARRY GORG 1800 lake Youngs Way 5E Renton. WA 98058-3812 ~~~' Eddie Rivera 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton, WA 98058 1?A~~~~~:~T-;,i::~"~:A~~~W:t-, Y;, ~~~1!!'!!b:~j.ilitj'S.'!Ji~""" ,'" .' '.itt; Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 ~~ James Ahlbeck 3228 SE'19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Rachael Mandy 1402 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 _1~1(~;;r~{ James Roberson 1724 Edmonds Ct 5E Renton, WA 98058 ~ .. -""""""'='"""""-~ ,..-'---,' r=n:&!'~~.w1~d:-,~.::.;_:~ Phil & Tammy Schaefer 3301 5E 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 'EM\i~~£~'tli;;~ Presley Richardson 3113 5E 18th 5t Renton, WA 98058 ~_ ",,~~, ~~; M.':'~ :::..J~ ___ , ~'M"""~~("I Dennis McClaughlin 1633 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Aaron Brendehl 2509 5E 16th St Renton. WA 98058 RachaelBell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton. WA 98058 , w.l.a6P3 dn-dod asodxa : 0\ aun 6uole puss I Renton. WA 98057-6022 i('Il.ii4"'~>-:; ';: B'"'' , " ' ,{>fffl5~ ;," ~ ,,' • ___ ::'i .r-,-:",' .. Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 'til' !!iliJllti\iiIlf'_~i~,{~.-~ I MICHAEL GARMAN 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058-4613 ia~~~::;;~': 2;'~;<i£;~:;.:..~.r Kvleigh Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 ~,l ~,,'1:l~~'W:l:ni...h~rtt-'--;~,_lj{~'-?~i-"':':' ~: .. ~~~~~~';.C'-,,1f..-·u.;,',.!k!.I.,.~ • ..,;t:..--·f Robert & Cynthia Garlough 3203 5E 18th St Renton, WA 98058 ~~~:g1:;;;·.:;iE~2~.' ~;-... i~:;~;;:~~2.:~ Gurmit Gill 19314 138th Ave 5E Renton, WA 98058 Imogene Graves 1808 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Vicki Hou 1717 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 t'$", -.iWi'::.t!j.'::~'7~:~~':';' ':,. ~.",-i_· __ Bob & Suzanne Swanson 3307 5E 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 RKt"ae?t~:j;i::~~~~;:t~;:'f Dennis Anderson PO Box 58338 Renton, WA 98058 , , I I ®09~S aleldwal ®,uaA\f asn slaql!1 ®Iaad Ase3 Belinda Mathers • 2806 S'E 16th St Renton. WA 98058 _UraKilgOre 25 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ~1h,¥*!~d':i;ill Anita & Patty Phillips 1517 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 'iMM*~~~ Clint Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 r."!:!'!~"F-',".'\I",=';jf' ,'1::-"'. ;T<-~"8l\::· we;:1 , .. ~~,J;;I.?~~~~.;::n~"!~~~~~;,,4"/kk~ .. 5hervl Anderson 1727 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058-3809 " ~~~~I:1~j<fs·>~~~~~~;'74it~J;i~'J~ Rav Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ~~~~liak!Ei£~~;~'d;1~~l;.'k:~r~, . Delbert Sharp 1800 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 {I~\m~g~~~~·~_i'1·.r~~ Mike Harwood 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98055 kKarsten Sathre 1706 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ~!iiiiifj~~~.,,;i:J.L'i5[( Lisa Cabalouinto 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ~WM ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton. WA 98058-4754 Diane Tavlor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 li:~~W-"~ I ~""'T'r' " ~i:.~g~;~~r1t1tj.,:,~' .. < Claudia Donnellv 10415 147th Ave SE Renton. WA 98059 ~l¥~~; Frances Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ~~~~&~~:ttR1 Jan & Spero Rockas 1686 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 , lIII,Ls6P3 dn·dod asodxa : Ot aUII 6uOIe puas I _ Jaded paa;t . _ 'f H+MIATKE MARY L JONES SE 19TH CT Renton. WA 98058 ALAINE IKUTA 1709 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058-4747 Mliii&~. ~if'-mj,_W.1.i't~-;: 1 M' a.'I ••• ' Doug. Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 'B.lr'l~l!"~~;' -,:';t" :;i."""~:> Geoff & Meredith Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 _====.==--~".~E":-.. rrm.m~~.aV~51i~:.~!.li-~;'~~I~:<':".-; ~ Daniel Goldman 1608 Glennwood Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 ~;,~:'!t··.J<"iUti!f.·r ". ",j" ,", ~ . ;~~..:'1.':b~'~db;~t;,,,'I' -< ~"';.>:;-r~Ji.~:;t-:::: ... - Sarah Brendehl 2509 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 1IiIIi! """-~r:-"~~ ?<:,,~,_..,.~ ...... '1' -~.~,~ : • ~lr'Ci\·+'i~iti%~'+.~tM'$t'ii~~:;·~ _ Greg & Jennv Swanson 1819 Ferndale Ave S Renton. WA 98055 T , I I ®09~S aleldwa! ®f.JaA'tf asn slaq"1 ®Iaad Ase3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 CRY OF RENTON • • JAN 082015 RECEIVED CRY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) ) RE: The Reserve at Tiffany Park ) Preliminary Plat ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEP A Appeals ) ) LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE ) FINAL DECISION I. SUMMARY 18 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of21.66 acres into single-family 19 residential lots and several critical areas tracts located at the dead end of SE 18 th Street and bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline along the southern property boundary and the Mercer Island Pipeline 20 21 22 23 24 25 along the eastern property boundary. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ("TPWAG") filed one of the two SEPA appeals and the applicant submitted the second appeal. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions. The TPW AG SEP A appeal is denied. The applicant SEPA appeal is sustained, in part. The Critical Areas Exemption is approved. 26 TPW AG raised numerous issues in its SEPA appeal regarding the conversion of the 21.66 acre PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • subject property from a community recreational resource to a residential subdivision. The property is entirely undeveloped and is covered with trails, tree forts and other similar structures that reveal years of community use. In its SEPA appeal TPW AG argues that the loss of this long-time recreational use is an environmental impact that should be subject to SEPA review. As detailed in this decision, the fact that the applicant has allowed neighbors to use its property in the past (or worse, the fact that neighbors may have trespassed in the past) does not justify the imposition of any SEPA requirements because the neighbors will lose that privilege as a result of the development. Similarly, the fact that the applicant has chosen to retain the trees on its land in the past and through that choice provided neighbors with an appealing arboreal view does not put the applicant in a position where it must now continue to offer that type of view to neighboring properties. With one exception the applicant proposes development that is aesthetically similar and compatible with surrounding uses. For this reason, there is no legal basis for imposing any further environmental review or mitigation to address aesthetic impacts. The one exception is retaining walls. The applicant proposes numerous retaining walls that will reach heights of up to 21 feet. Retaining walls of this height are not present in the vicinity and the aesthetic impacts of these structures are not similar or compatible to the structures on neighboring properties. Consequently, the MONS mitigation measures will require ten foot wide perimeter landscaping designed to aesthetically buffer these walls from neighboring uses. TPW AG alleged more technical environmental impacts related to the geotechnical studies, hazardous materials, drainage, wetlands impacts, groundwater impacts, landslide hazards, seismic hazards, and retaining walls. The expert testimony and reports provided by the applicant, verified by experts from the City staff and in some cases, third party peer review, proved to be more compelling than the expert testimony provided by TPW AG, especially when factoring the substantial weight that must be given the SEPA responsible official's determination that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. One issue that did require some additional mitigation was hazardous waste. An appellant expert testified that the prior ownership of the property by the US Department of Defense raised a concern that the property may contain hazardous waste. The applicant refused to grant access to the subject property for purposes of testing for hazardous waste or any other site investigation. The applicant also acknowledged that it did a Phase I hazardous waste environmental review when it purchased the property, but never offered the review into evidence. Given the somewhat suspect conduct of the applicant, an MONS condition of review will require that the applicant submit its Phase I review to staff prior to development, to verify that there is no hazardous waste issue with the site. The applicant's SEPA appeal was more limited in scope and only challenged three of the City's MONS conditions, specifically Conditions I, 3 and 6. At hearing the City and applicant agreed to revised language for Conditions 1 and 3. Condition No.6 remained the only contested issue in the applicant's appeal. The condition required a IS-foot landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 ------------l r-.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 3 • • of the development. This decision only found a ten -foot buffer necessary, limited to areas adjoining proposed retaining walls to conceal the walls from neighboring view. A summary of testimony is attached as Attachment A. The summary is provided as a convenience and reference to those who would like an overview of the evidence presented at the two days of 4 hearings on this application. The testimony section should not be construed as any formal findings 5 of fact and also do not represent what was determined to be important to the final decision. 6 CONTENTS 7 l. SUMMARy ......................................................................................................................... 1 TESTIMONY ....................................................................................................................... 3 EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................................ 3 8 II. III. 9 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT .......................................................................................................... 4 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................................................ 24 10 SEPA APPEAL.. ......................................................................................................... 24 PRELIMINARY PLAT .............................................................................................. 30 II VI. DECISION ......................................................................................................................... 39 12 13 II. TESTIMONY 14 Please see Attachment A for testimony summary. IS 16 III. EXHIBITS Please see Attachment B for the exhibits admitted during the hearing. Exhibits admitted after the 17 hearing are as follows: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit AS: Exhibit AT: Exhibit AU: Exhibit AV: ExhibitAW: Exhibit AX: Exhibit A Y: Exhibit AZ: Exhibit BB: City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 11, 2014) TPW AG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 14, 2014) TPWAG Motion -Late Filing (December IS, 2014) Henley Response to TPW AG Motion -Late Filing (December 15, 2015) Henley (Proposed) Order Denying TPW AG Motion -Late Filing (December 15, 2014) Hearing Examiner Ruling -Late Filing (December 15,2014) Henley Response -TPW AG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 19, 2014) Henley Reply -City of Renton Preliminary Plat Condition Revision Response (December 19,2014) City of Renton -TPWAG Post Hearing Closing Argument (December 22,2014) PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 \3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: I. Henley USA, LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeals was held on November 18, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The record was left open for the appellants to provide a SEPA Closing Argument by December 12, 2014. City staff was also given until December 12,2014 to provide a SEPA Rebuttal. City staff and the applicant had until December 19,2014 to provide SEPA closing arguments and preliminary plat comments. Substantive: 3. Project Description and Appeal. A. Project Description. The' applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 21.66 acres into 97 single-family residential lots. There is an alternate plat with 96 lots to allow for 30% tree retention (Exhibit 3). The property is located at the dead end of SE 18 th Street. It is bordered on the south by the Cedar River Pipeline and on the east by the Mercer Island Pipeline. Two appeals of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") were consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The subject property consists of four parcels. The majority of the site is located in the R-8 zone. A small portion is located in the R-4 zone. All proposed lots are located in the R-8 zone. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500sfto 8,456sf. The average lot size is 5,399sf. Under either the 96 lot or 97 lot scenarios, density would be equal to or less than 5.70 dwelling units per acre. In addition to the residential lots, 13 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, tree retention, storm drainage, access, pedestrian connections, and open space inel uding an existing 10 foot wide vegetated buffer along the northern boundary. Access to the site would be gained from SE 18th Street with secondary access extended from I 24th Place SE. The site is currently vacant with 1,305 significant trees. The applicant has proposed to retain or mitigate 188 trees in order to achieve the objective of 30% tree retention requirement. Adequate tree retention requires approval of the 96-lot alternative. The site slopes generally to the west/northwest at an approximate average slope of 10-15% with localized slopes of 25%. The site contains three Category 2 wetlands (Wetlands A, C, and, D) and two Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands B and E). The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street through portions of the buffer associated with Wetland E. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • The applicant has submitted a Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, Arborist Report, and Habitat Data Report. Independent secondary studies for Transportation and Wetlands are included with the application. B. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") was issued for the. proposal on September, 2014. Two timely appeals of the threshold determination were filed by the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) and Cairncross & Hempelmann on behalf of Henley USA, LLC. 1. Applicant SEPA Appeal. The applicant challenged three of the City's MONS conditions, specifically Conditions I, 3 and 6 on the grounds that they impose unlawful obligations on the applicant and restrict the applicant's ability to develop the plat. a. MONS Condition I. The applicant argued MONS Condition I should be revised because the condition required earthwork to comply with an earlier, preliminary version of the geotechnical report which has since been. superseded. The applicant requested the SEPA condition be revised to state the earthwork shall be consistent with the final geotechnical report submitted prior to construction (Exhibit J). City staff and the applicant then agreed upon the following language for Condition No. I, which is found to adequately address pertinent environmental impacts: All earthwork perjiJrmed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final City-approved geotechnical report. b. MONS Condition 3. The applicant's concerns over MONS Condition No.3 became moot since the filing of its appeal and the City and applicant have been able to agree upon a revised condition that acceptably mitigates against environmental impacts. MONS Condition 3 provides as follows, The applicant shall be required to retain 30% of the significant trees on site with exclusions for those trees that are considered dead, diseased, or dangerous. trees located within proposed rights-of-way, and trees located within the critical areas and their associated buffers. The applicant initially argued the condition should either be struck as a SEPA condition or modified to require compliance with the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) which complies with the 30% retention requirement (Appeal Exhibit A, Attachment II). PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 • • City staff disagreed. They argued that there are probable averse environmental impacts that are being mitigated by the MONS condition. The City argued the MONS Condition prevents the applicant from using mitigation under RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)(i) to replace trees and instead requires retention of significant trees. The Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, completed by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. (August 27, 2014) established that overall the proposal will actually meet the City's SEPA 30% tree retention requirement. To meet this requirement, the applicant must retain or mitigate 188 on-site trees. The Washington Forestry Consultants plan proposes to save 181 of these trees and mitigate the final seven trees. The applicant's tree retention plan analyzed just the 96 lot alternative. However, Mr. Galen Wright of Washington Forestry Consultants stated new field studies performed since the August 27, 2014 report have identified additional significant trees on-site beyond those mapped in the original field survey. These trees will be retained, bringing the total retention to well above the 188 required trees. Mr. Wright stated he was much more confident now regarding the location of trees, their health and which might be viably preserved. Since the applicant ultimately achieved the 30% retention objective, the City and applicant agreed to the following tree retention language as a condition of approval, The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed walls would not impact trees proposedfor retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. c. MONS Condition 6. MONS Condition No. 6 remains the only contested 19 portion of the applicant's appeal. MDNS Condition No. 6 as adopted by the SEPA 20 responsible official required a IS-foot landscape buffer around the entire perimeter of the development. For the reasons identified in FOF No.5, this perimeter has been reduced to ten 21 22 23 24 25 26 feet and must only be placed in areas to conceal proposed retaining walls from neighboring View. 2. TPW AG SEPA Appeal. TPW AG raised several issues in its SEPA appeal, alleging both inadequate review and probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The impacts identified by TPW AG are addressed in FOF No.5. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • 4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development. To the south it is bordered by the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. To the east, it is bordered by the 60 foot wide Mercer Island Pipeline. The zoning surrounding the subject on all sides is single family residential (R-S), though there is also a small portion ofR-4 zoning to the east. 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposal does not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No.6. As noted in Finding of Fact No.5, two appeals to the threshold were filed. The issues on appeal from the applicant, Henley, are discussed first. The issues on appeal for the project opponent, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group, are then discussed. Finally, other impacts not related to either appeal but related to the preliminary plat are discussed below. A. Applicant SEPA Issue. As identified in FOF No.3, only one issue remains in the Applicant's SEPA appeal, specifically the need for perimeter landscaping. It is determined that only the applicant's proposed retaining walls create probable significant environmental impacts and that these impacts can be reduced to nonsignificant levels with ten foot sight obscuring landscaping limited to perimeter areas in front of the retaining walls. I. Proposed Development Aesthetically Compatible with Surrounding Development. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A site visit and aerial photographs (Ex. K.6.c) reveal that the surrounding neighborhoods are not exceptionally wooded or treed and that the amount of trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than surrounding development. Further, although the applicant proposes a modest increase in density, reasonable minds would certainly differ as to whether this difference in density would create a significant aesthetic impact. The developed portions of the plat are all in the R-S zone, though the proposed residential density will be 5.7 dwelling units per acre. The minimum density requirement in the zone is 4.0 dwelling units per acre. All adjacent properties are zoned R-S. Proposed lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,456 square feet with an average lot size of 5,399 square feet. While the proposed lots appear to be, on average, somewhat smaller than those of the surrounding developments, they are not significantly smaller and are at a density that is lower than would otherwise be allowed within this zone. Further, because of the presence of the two pipelines and the perimeter location of the critical areas tracts, very few of the lots will be directly adjacent to existing residential PRELIMINAR Y PLAT - 7 .--------------------------------------------------------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. • • lots. The pipelines do not offer much in terms of vegetated screening but they do physically separate the proposed lots from existing lots. Any difference in the size of the lots will not be aesthetically significant, especially given the separation of the project from the surrounding neighborhood. Loss of Trees Not a Probable Significant Environmental Impact. It is determined that the loss of trees beyond those required to be retained by City code does not qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. In its environmental review, the City suggests that the perimeter is necessary to make up for the fact that a significant number of trees will be removed, thereby adversely affecting the views currently enjoyed by neighboring properties. Numerous adjoining property owners also commented on this impact. It is determined that the loss of trees owned by the applicant does not qualify as a significant adverse environmental impact. Of course, almost all development of vacant parcels involves the removal of trees. As discussed in COL No 5, in order to justify mitigation beyond the minimum standards set by the City'S landscaping code, the project must involve some fairly unique or significant impacts that were not anticipated in the adoption of that code. The existence of such a large parcel (and large number of associated trees) is arguably unique, but that argument is undermined to a large degree by the subjectivity involved in aesthetic review. Given that the applicant is retaining 30% of the trees, it is debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. The assessment of aesthetic impacts occasioned by the loss of trees is also tempered by the fact that it is debatable from a legal' standpoint whether the applicant can be made to mitigate against the loss of a voluntary aesthetic benefit it has provided to the surrounding community. The applicant has had no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. SEPA only requires mitigation and analysis of impacts created by development. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been removed at any time prior to development. The site visit, the record and the code do not reveal that any other properties in the vicinity have had to retain perimeter landscaping or that they provide a similar aesthetic benefit to the surrounding community. Given that no such need was found in the past when PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 ,-----------------~------------------------------ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. • • trees were removed by other development it is at least somewhat questionable why that is found necessary now in the absence of any code provision expressly requiring such a perimeter. Retaining Walls Create A -Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impact. It is determined that the retaining walls proposed by the applicant in excess of four feet create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. As noted in the Staff Report, the applicant is proposing multiple walls on the proposed project. Some of the walls will be rockeries. Some walls are retaining walls which will face into the site. These are walls that allow for a finished grade for a lot to be below the surrounding grade. Other walls will be lock and load walls that allow for a finished lot grade above the surrounding grade. Six foot fencing is allowed on top of both types of walls. These walls are visible from outside the site. Staff notes the applicant has proposed lock and load walls ranging in height from four feet potentially up to 21 feet high. During testimony, Mr. Talkington stated revised grading plans may allow for reduced retaining wall heights. A site visit to the surrounding neighborhoods was conducted December 28, 2014. Though the subject is largely surrounded by pipeline easements, these easements are cleared of vegetation allowing a direct line of sight into the development and of the retaining walls. The site visit demonstrated that high retaining walls are not a common feature of the surrounding development. The applicant proposes solid rock or concrete walls of up to 21 feet in height. These walls will impact the view of the property from surrounding residences, especially given they are an uncommon feature in the area. As proposed, the view from surrounding residences will be significantly impacted as they change from forest canopy and surrounding homes to rock wall faces of nearly two stories tall in places. The Staff Report notes several walls will be seen by . I the public (proposed Lots 40, 41,46,47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94) . When considering retaining wall impacts, the height of the wall affects the significance of the impacts. Low retaining walls do not block sunlight and air or obstruct views. The building codes only require building permits for I In any discussion of lot numbers, this decision is referring to the numbering scheme utilized in the 97-lot alternative (Exhibit 2). The nomenclature of the 96-lot alternative is exactly one lot lower for each lot because the Tree Retention Plan recommended the elimination of Lot I of the 97 lot alternative to maintain 30% tree retention. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 ~----------------------------------------------------------------.---.--------------------------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. • • retaining walls four feet or more in height (RMC 4-5-060(E)(2)(c)(iv)). This serves as a good threshold height for aesthetic impacts. Retaining walls lower than four feet do not obstruct views for a person of average height. They also tend to be more commonly found in neighborhoods since no building permit is required. For these reasons, the findings in the preceding paragraph on retaining wall aesthetic impacts are limited to retaining walls over four feet or more in height. Retaining walls less than four feet in height are not found to create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Ten Foot Perimeter Landscaping Fully Mitigates Retaining Wall Impacts. The aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by the by a ten foot perimeter landscaping strip. The City is recommending a fifteen foot buffer of trees. During testimony, the applicant's arborist stated a ten foot wide buffer with a staggered double row of conifers would create a very dense screen in 10 years. He noted a 15 foot buffer is not sufficient in width to plant a third row of conifers, which would require a 30 foot buffer. The City's arborist concluded that at least 35 feet was necessary to provide for a site- obscuring buffer of trees and that ten verses fi fteen feet would not make any material difference in screening (Decision Attachment A, page 7). Given that. staffs 15 foot recommendation is counter to the recommendation of its own ~rborise and that the applicant's arborist provides a reasonably good explanation of how a ten foot buffer can effectively screen the property, it is determined that the ten foot buffering advocated by the applicant's arborist will provide a fully sight obscuring buffer to the retaining walls and as such 2 I Staff also advocated for a 15 foot buffer because it would help retain some of the treed character of the project site. See Exhibit A I. page 19. As outlined in FOF No.5.A.I, the applicant cannot be legally made to compensate for the loss of trees on its property. Further, staff also based its 15 foot buffer requirement upon RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b). This perimeter buffer provides for aesthetic screening between single and multi-family housing. This standard does' serve as a good analogous standard for retaining wall impacts. Unfortunately, the standard only requires six foot high vegetation. A six foot high hedge set against a 21 foot high retaining wall does not accomplish a great deal of aesthetic mitigation. For this reason, the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) buffer does not serve as an ideal analogous landscaping standard. What the RMC 4-4-070(F)(4)(b) and other RMC 4-4-070 perimeter buffer requirements does show is that the City Council was uncomfortable requiring more than a fifteen foot wide buffer in any situation. Requiring more than 15 feet does in fact to place an unreasonable burden upon the applicant for something as subjective as an aesthetic impact. It is for this reason likely that the City went against the findings of its arborist and only required a fifteen foot buffer instead of a 30 foot buffer. This was an appropriate approach, but did not go far enough since as testified by the applicant's arborist, a fifteen foot would not provide for any significant protection beyond a ten foot buffer. Given that a 30 foot buffer would be unreasonable mitigation, the imposition of a ten foot buffer has to be found acceptable even though there a small chance it may not provide for 100% screening as concluded by the City's arborist. PRELIMINARY PLAT -10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 \3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. • • will prevent the retaining walls from creating probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Limiting the landscape perimeters to the areas where the retaining walls are four feet or more in height should also completely obstruct them from the view of neighboring property owners. For these reasons, the conditions. of approval will require the applicant to revise its landscaping plan to provide for site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47,80,82,83-90,93 and 94. TPWAG SEPA Issues. 1. 2. Aesthetic Impact Due to Loss of Trees. The appellants argue there is a significant adverse aesthetic impact due to the loss of trees. With the exception of retaining walls (addressed separately), the proposed development does not create any probable significant impacts because of aesthetic incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed above in Finding of Fact 5.A.I, the surrounding neighborhoods are .not exceptionally' wooded or treed and the amount of trees proposed for retention by the applicant would not be less than surrounding development. As described in Finding of Fact 5.A.2, the is retaining 30% of the trees. The applicant has had no obligation to retain all of the trees on its property in the past. Surrounding property owners have no entitlement to this currently existing aesthetic benefit. The loss of trees in excess of those required by City code is not an impact created by the development, since those trees could have been removed at any time prior to development. It is also at best debatable whether the loss of the other 70% creates a significant aesthetic view impact to neighboring property owners, especially with the buffering that will be required by this decision to obscure retaining walls. Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials. No impacts from hazardous materials are anticipated. The appellants demonstrated the subject property had at one time been owned by the Department of Defense. They alleged there might be hazardous materials on site based on this former user. For the past 65 years, for all intents and purposes, the site has been covered by a seemingly healthy forest canopy. The appellants were unable to demonstrate evidence of any overt signs of contamination visible on the site that might justify overturning the substantial weight due the SEPA official's determination that PRELIMINARY PLAT -II 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. • the project site does not contain any hazardous waste necessitating further environmental review. However, nor were the appellants granted access to perform their own studies. The applicant also neglected to submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment it said was prepared for the proposal, even after the appellants made the study an issue during the hearing. The actions of the applicant on the hazardous waste issue create uncertainty as to whether the project site is free from hazardous waste. Given that this issue remains unresolved, a condition of approval will require the applicant to submit the results of the Phase I ESA to City staff for confirmation that there are no hazardous materials on site. Wildlife Habitat and Connectivity. No probable significant adverse impacts to wildlife habitat are anticipated and the SEPA Responsible Official had sufficient information to adequately assess the. impacts. The applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (Exhibit 5), a Habitat Assessment (Exhibit 6), and two Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandums (Exhibits 16 and 17). The City required an independent secondary review of the wetlands report (Exhibit 14). As noted in Conclusion of Law 3.B below, the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal (WAC 197-11-335). These multiple studies and memoranda were more than adequate to fully assess the wildlife impacts of the proposal as the appellants have not demonstrated any additional information that could have made any material difference in the official's conclusions. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated for wildlife or habitat connectivity. With the exception of pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats, the fish and wildlife habitat assessment found no listed or endangered species or priority habitat on site. Though the property may function as marginal habitat for many common species, it is geographically isolated from the Cedar River corridor by the Mercer Island Pipeline easement, a residential street, residential lots, a steep slope and the Bonneville Power Administration's easement. Testimony from all sides spoke to the heavy human disturbance on the site including recreational walkers, bikers, unleashed dogs, and the presence of unpermitted structures and pits including forts and paint ball hides. The applicant's wildlife expert, Racheal Villa of Sound view Consultants testified that the formalized protection of the wetlands and buffers on site would result in an improvement in habitat conditions for PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. 5. • • both pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bats over the present situation due to the fairly degraded condition of the habitat at present. Seismic Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to assess the seismic hazards and no probable significant adverse impacts are anticipated in regards to these hazards. As to adequacy of review, the applicant provided a geotechnical report by AES (Exhibit 7) that was reviewed, by the request of the applicant, by Earth Solutions, NW (Exhibit K.2). The AES conclusion in the geotechnical report stated the site, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, is suitable for support of conventional paving, lightly loaded structures and typical buried utilities, all typical improvements in a single family residential subdivision. The AES preliminary geotechnical report and subsequent peer review by Earth Solutions, NW provide information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal under WAC 197-11-335. The appellants note the nearest USGS mapped fault zone is 3.9 miles away, though they· feel additional testing should occur to determine if there are. unmapped fault zones. The appellants argued there was evidence of ground movement in the form of bent trees and hummocky land which could indicate several things including seismic shifting or landslide activity caused by a shallow groundwater table. The City has mapped the site as a Low Seismic Hazard area and outside of the Coal Mine Hazard areas. The applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed at the applicant's request by Earth Solutions, NW, the firm hired to perform geotechnical work for the applicant going forward. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no seismic hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 21). Mr. Coglas went on to state with respect to site stability and groundwater, the stability of the predominantly flat to gently sloping property is good. In his opinion and based on geologic mapping and subsurface data for the site and surrounding area, the site is very similar to the surrounding developed residential area. There is nothing in the record to indicate an increased danger of seismic hazard beyond that of the surrounding properties. A single-family residential plat in this area is in no more probable seismic danger than the surrounding developed properties. The proposal will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts in regards to seismic hazards. Landslide Hazards. The SEPA Responsible Official had adequate information to assess landslide hazards. They appellants argued the soil under the plat has PRELIMINARY PLAT -13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • structural anomalies that require further study to determine if there are landslide or other geologically hazardous conditions. The appellants point to bent trees and uneven surfaces located on the site may indicate shallow or slightly deeper ground movement which may be indications of landslide activity in the past or future propensity of slides. They note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, the appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. As noted above, the applicant has provided a geotechnical report by AES that was reviewed by Earth Solutions, NW. Mr. Coglas of Earth Solutions, NW testified there are no landslide hazards on the property (Decision Attachment A, Page 20). The City's Development Engineering Manager, Mr. Lee, testified he concurred with Mr. Coglas' assessment of the landslide hazard risk. Mr. Lee is a professional engineer with extensive experience in site development and civil engineering in Washington. He noted, the steep areas are very small (15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is only 10% or so. There arc no sensitive or protected slopes on the subject property. The majority of the subject site has less than 15 percent slopes. There are a few areas with slopes of IS percent to 35 percent. These areas arc characterized as Medium Landslide Hazard areas. Mr. Lee stated the City code does not require additional slope stability analysis for these areas. The appellant also asserted that the number and location of test pits were insufficient to evaluate slope stability. Mr. Lee testified there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts on ground movement from groundwater on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require 'extra analysis during final engineering as the design is finalized. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site (See Decision Attachment A, Page 24). Mr. Lee's objectivity as a staff employee and his engineering expertise are determinative on the slope stability issue. He clearly reviewed the geotechnical reports in detail and found no need for further investigation or additional information. The findings of the geotechnical analysis are also compelling on their own and the relatively modest slopes of the project site do not raise any apparent cause for concern. For these reasons, it is concluded PRELIMINARY PLAT -14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. • • that the SEPA responsible official had reasonably adequate information to assess the slope stability of the project site. Groundwater. The SEPA Responsible Official had reasonably adequate information to assess the ,groundwater impacts and there are no probable significant adverse groundwater impacts associated with the proposal. The appellants argued there was insufficient study of the groundwater situation on site and the potential affect groundwater might have on development. They note they requested access to perform their own studies but were denied. Specifically, they appellants have requested expanded soils tests, percolation tests and more test pits and borings to measure localized hydraulic conductivity. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), a peer review of the geotechnical report (Exhibit K.2), a wetlands report and a revised wetlands report (Exhibit 5), and a drainage report (Exhibit 8). The wetlands reports were independently reviewed by Otak (Exhibits 14 and IS). The City's Development Engineer, Mr. Lee stated the applicant had provided a sufficient number of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site (Decision Attachment A, page 24). Given the extensive information provided and the peer review, the applicant has provided information sufficient for the SEPA Responsible Official to issue a threshold determination with respect to groundwater impacts. There are no anticipated adverse impacts related to the groundwater table. The appellants argue groundwater saturation levels at this site make it undevelopable. They point to the AES geotechnical report (Exhibit 7), the Shultz wetlands report (Exhibit 5), the Technical Information Report by Barghausen and the Otak wetlands reviews (Exhibits 14 and IS) as all demonstrating the groundwater table is at or within seven inches of the surface in all wetland areas. Groundwater near the surface is defining feature of wetlands. However, the appellants argue the water table is a flat contour throughout the project site and, as a consequence of a high water table, water intrusion will disrupt or prevent proper installation of utilities, foundation drains and the storm water vault. The applicant's geotechnical engineer, Ray Coglas, testified there is perched groundwater on the site, rather than a flat table, a statement Mr. Lee concurred with during testimony (Decision Attachment A, pages 22 and 25, respectively). If the site had a flat water table close to the ground surface all over the site; the whole site would be underwater because of the varying PRELIMINARY PLAT -15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. • • topography, which is of course not the case. He stated perched waters trapped by impervious soils are limited in area and capacity and will drain away when cuts are made to hillsides. The water AES encountered was seepage from perched water rather than the actual groundwater table (Decision Attachment A, page 22). Mr. Cog las referred to the AES test pits and stated they showed no caving or seepage which would indicate weakness in the soils or significant groundwater at or near the surface outside of wetland areas. He stated though there will be some groundwater seepage, he does not expect the site will require dewatering or extensive pumping. AES found no groundwater in its test pits. Mr. Coglas stated even if the appellants' are correct and that groundwater is at zero elevation, it could be managed without damaging the feasibility of the project. Mr. Lee also concurred with this statement. Mr. Cog las noted the soils at the subject are not unique to this subject. The entire subject is surrounded by existing development at a similar intensity to the proposed development on similar topography and soils. There is no indication from the record or from the site visit to suggest the utilities; infrastructure or house foundations in the surrounding neighborhoods have failed due to perched groundwater or a high water table. Mr. Coglas noted the presence of groundwater will not preclude development if best management practices are followed. Given Mr. Lee's concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Cog las and the substantial weight required of the findings of the SEPA responsible official, it is determined that the proposal will not create any probable significant adverse groundwater impacts. Downstream Impacts. The SEPA Responsible Official has information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the downstream impacts of the proposal. The City required a Level I downstream analysis. The proposed Level 2 Flow Control (Exhibit A, page 3 I) will restrict the flow of the 2-year release rate to 50% of the pre-developed site conditions, which will help to reduce an existing drainage issue. Mr. Lee stated the City is uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water downstream of the project site and have therefore requested a Level 2 downstream analysis to be performed prior to building permit approval. They want to make sure the project will not exacerbate existing downstream flooding issues. An NPDES permit will be required for the project, which will stipulate the allowable discharge into the conveyance system (Decision Attachment A, Page 25). The City additionally PRELIMINARY PLAT -16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. 9. • • established a SEPA mitigating condition requiring Level 2 downstream analysis for y" mile from the project site. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. With these conditions in place, the City has reasonably sufficient information at this stage of review to evaluate down stream impacts. Discharge into Wetlands. The proposed discharge of roof run-off into wetlands will not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The detailed local, state and federal standards applicable to stormwater run-off are determinative on the existence of adverse impacts. If the proposed drainage is compliant with applicable regulations, there are no adverse impacts. The appellants assert that the proposed roof run-off into wetlands is in violation of the Clean Water Act. As noted by the applicant, the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual specifically excludes drainage from roofs (except untreated metal roofs) from consideration as pollution generating sources (Exhibit AF). The appellants have not provided any citation or court opinion that roof run off discharge constitutes a violation of any applicable regulation and no such violation is apparent from the reading of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Talkington, in his testimony for the applicant, noted that discharge of clean or non-point source polluted stormwater into wetlands is common practice and is required to hydraulically charge the wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the applicant had complied with all city, state and federal code requirements with respect to stromwater. Mr. Lee testified the codes are sufficient to address all probable storm water impacts. He further noted a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit will be required for the project, which will ensure that no storm water pollutants are released into wetlands or groundwater. The permit will include background and discharge monitoring. No building permit or construction permits will be issued until the NPDES conditions are met. Since the proposed stormwater discharge is consistent with all applicable regulations, is a standard practice for development and also meets the approval of staff, it is determined that the proposed discharge to wetlands will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Air Quality. No significant adverse impacts to air quality are anticipated. During the construction phase of the project, there will be exhaust from trucks and heavy equipment. However, after the construction phase is over, the subdivision will function similarly to the surrounding development with respect to emissions and air quality issues. The proposed development is , PRELIMINARY PLAT -17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 , 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • functionally the same as the existing development pattern. Nothing in the record indicates there will be significant adverse impacts with respect to air quality. C. Other Impacts Related to the Preliminary Plat. 1. Wetlands. As proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to wetlands. There are five wetlands on site. Three of the wetlands are Category 2; the others are Category III. The applicant submitted a Wetland Determination, prepared by C. Gary Schulz, Inc. (October 30, 2013) and a revised Wetland Determination in response to revisions to the plat including the use of a drainage vault, instead of a drainage detention pond, and the inclusion of a vegetated buffer along portions of the site perimeter (February 28, 2014). Based on public comments (See Exhibit 10.6), staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's wetland analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. On April 3, 2014 an independent secondary wetland review was provided to the City by Otak (Exhibit A, Attachment 14). Following the completion of recommcndations in the Otak memo, the applicant submitted a Revised Wetland Determination and Response (June 3, 2014) (Exhibit A, Attachment 5). At the hearing, members of the public expressed concern regarding the protection of wetlands and wildlife habitat. There was specific concern regarding removal of trees and wetland hydrology. During testimony, Ms. Villa of Soundview Consultants stated she was hired by the applicant to perform supplementary wetland review for fish and wildlife habitat. [n her study, she found no state or federally listed or protected species on the site. She noted the habitat is fairly disturbed now with evidence of a lot of human intrusion. In her opinion, protection of the wetlands and habitats with proper . fencing and signage would result in better protection for the habitat than exists currently. The Otak Supplemental Independent Secondary Review concluded water quality, wetland hydrologic function and flood storage will be protected. The applicant proposes buffer averaging provisions (RMC 4-3-050(M)(6)(t). The buffer averaging plan provides additional buffer area at ratios that range from PRELIMINARYPLAT-18 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. • • 1.6:1.0· to 9.5:1.0. Wetlands A, B, C, and D would have buffer areas significantly greater following the buffer averaging proposal. However, staff are concerned the proposed adjustments will not provide adequate buffering on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C to take into account the proposed "lock & load walls" in those locations. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Mitigation Plan (RMC 4-S-120(W)) demonstrating appropriate mitigation for all wetlands and buffer impacts prior to permit approval. The applicant has requested a critical areas exemption allowing a permanent buffer impact to 14sf of the Wetland E buffer. The exemption would allow the applicant to construct the required full street improvements at SE ISth Street (RMC 4-6-060). This area (219st) has already been impacted by past infrastructure construction. Staff recommends approval of the critical areas exemption with mitigation for the impact. The critical areas on site have a total area of IIS,494 square feet (2.72 acres) and would be located in (Tracts B, G, K, & M). The applicant is proposing to increase wetland buffers which would result in a total native open space used to preserve native forest habitat of approximately 175,199 square feet (4.02 acres). As conditioned, no impacts to wetland habitat are anticipated. Given the extensive review of wetland impacts, staffs review and approval of wetland mitigation, and the applicant's compliance with all applicable wetland regulations, it is concluded that the proposal will not create any adverse impacts to wetlands. Tree Retention Required. The proposal provides for adequate tree retention because it complies with the City's tree retention standards, RMC 4-4-130(C). The applicant submitted two versions of the preliminary plat application. The first version is a 97 lot alternative that does not achieve 30% significant tree retention. The second plat alternative is a 96-lot preliminary plat that achieves 30% significant tree retention and implements the applicant's Tree Protection Report (Exhibit 3). Since the 96-lot alternative implements the applicant's tree retention plan and is consistent with the agreed upon SEPA mitigation measure requiring 30% retention, this is taken as the applicant's proposal and is the design approved by this decision. [f the applicant was still intending to pursue a 97-lot design, it should request reconsideration. PRELIMINARY PLAT -19 --~------------------------------------------------- 2 • • No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 3 6. Adeguacy of InfrastructurelPublic Services. The project will be served by adequate 4 5 6 7 8 9 infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure facilities has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the City of Renton water service boundary. There is an existing 8-inch water main stubbed to the site in SE 20 lh Court, in SE 19 1h Court and SE 18 1h Court. This site is located in the 590-water pressure zone. Static pressure in the area ranges from 65-82 psi. The site is located in the City of Renton sewer service area. There is an 8-inch sewer main in SE 18 1h Street. . lOB. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staffs indicate that sufficient II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision of Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $479.28 per single family residence. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drainage. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate drainage facilities. In order to address concerns raised by staff, as recommended by them a condition of approval requires a Level 2 downstream analysis for Y, mile from the project site to determine if the proposed project would exacerbate existing downstream capacity issues. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Barghausen, dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 8). Staff has determined that the preliminary plan is . consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters I and 2. Full compliance with the Manual will be required during engineering review. D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal is consistent with adopted parks and open space standards and, therefore, provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-8 district. However, the applicant is proposing a total of 1.26 acres of passive and active open space, in addition to critical areas on site, for the open space needs of the subdivision. PRELIMINARY PLAT -20 1 2 • The applicant will also be require to pay park impact fees prior to building permit issuace to ensure that the development pays its fair share of system wide park improvements. 3 E. Streets. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate streets and associated 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 infrastructure. The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the plat; SE 18th St and 124th Place SE. The primary neighborhood streets which would serve project traffic include 1161h Avenue SE, 1261h Avenue SE, SE 168 1h Street, SE Petrovitsky Road, S. Puget Drive, and 108 th Avenue SE-Benson Road S. The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 123'd Avenue SE. Staff received comments from interested parties with respect to traffic specifically related to the need for additional analysis, trip generation, lack of public transit, level of service, sight distance, the Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16th Street-Edmonds Way SE intersection, the use of speed bumps for traffic calming, stop signs, and traffic impact fees (See Exhibit 10). The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TranspoGroup, (November, 2013) as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. The TIA concludes that all affected intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service, except the intersection of Benson Drive SIS' Puget Drive, which will fall to LOS E by 2018 with or without the proposed project. The addition of AM peak hour project traffic would add approximately five seconds of average delay to this intersection. Staff concluded that this minor amount of delay did not justify additional mitigation and the reduction in LOS will not violate the City's adopted level of service. The applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of building permits, which provides adequate mitigation against the modest traffic impacts created by the proposal. The TIA noted limited sight distance exists today for southbound motorists on Monroe Avenue SE approaching SE 18 1h Street due to the roadway geometries and existing obstructions (fence and on-street vehicle parking). The site distance issue was remedied by an MONS condition that requires the applicant to install a stop sign. PRELIMINARY PLAT -21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • .. Included in the Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 13) was a recommendation for sight distance analysis at the 1241h Place SE and SE 1581h Street intersection. The report identifies this intersection as a possible sight distance concern. Given the provided TIA does not include an analysis of the sight distance at this intersection, a SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant submit a revised TIA including an analysis of the 1241h Place SE and SE 1581h Street intersection sight distance and recommend appropriate mitigation if needed (Exhibit 22). Site distances at all other study intersections were deemed adequate with the exception of Beacon Way SE at SE 16 1h Street. The vertical curve of SE 16'h Street presents a visibility concern. A crest vertical curve obstructs sight distance where SE 16'h Street crosses Beacon Way SE especially if car speeds exceed posted speed limit signage. There are existing signs (Steep i-Iill, Slippery I ' When Wet, Advisory 15MPH Speed) at SE 16" Street northeast of Beacon Way SE which help to calm existing traffic at this intersection. Approximately 60% of the project's trips are anticipated to utilize this intersection, Therefore, the ERC issued a SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to install an additional warning sign for a CROSSROAD (W2-1 symbol) with a 15MPH advisory speed on the southwest directional approach to Beacon Way SE, along the north side of SE 16'h Street (east of Beacon Way SE) (Exhibit 22). The ERC issued another SEPA mitigation condition at this intersection to reduce cut thru traffic. The applicant is required to install directional information signage (white letters on green background) at S. Puget Drive and 1161h Avenue SE facing west (Exhibit 22). The signs are required to read "TIFFANY PARK" with a left arrow and "CASCADE" with a right arrow. Several public comments requested the use of speed bumps as a traffic calming measure along SE 16 1h Street to address sight distance (including vertical), cut through traffic, and spin out concerns which would be aggravated by traffic generated by the proposal. The City does not support the use of speed bumps on public streets. Speed bumps are not desired due to noise, excessive speeds between installations (so drivers can make up time), and result in a reduction in response time of public safety vehicles s~ch as fire engines and aid cars. Several public comments requested internal pedestrian connectivIty, connections to neighboring developments/abutting pipelines, connectivity to Tiffany Park Elementary, and the crossing at SE 16th St and Edmonds Way SE intersection (See Exhibit 10.22). No frontage improvements are required on adjacent street frontage. The internal public streets have been proposed with a right-of-way width of 53 feet which meets the City'S PRELIMINARY PLAT -22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • complete street requirements for residential access streets. Pavement width of 26 feet, 0.5 foot wide curbs, 8 foot wide landscaped planters (on both sides of the street), 5 foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of the street), drainage improvements, and street lighting are required. The applicant is proposing two pedestrian connections to neighboring developments and an abutting pipeline via Tracts C and E. City staff evaluated the intersection of Edmonds Avenue SE/SE 16 th Street-Edmonds Way SE with respect to pedestrian improvements in 1996, 2005 and again in 2007 and determined that crosswalks were not warranted at this location. The additional development traffic will not exceed the threshold to warrant installation of a crosswalk at this location. As noted in staff testimony above, the proposal will not exceed six dwelling units per acre and therefore is not required to provide alley access. Several public comments dealt with construction traffic (See Exhibit 10.30). The developer will be required to comply with the Renton Municipal Code for haul hours, construction hours, and noise levels. A final Traffic Control Plan complying with the Renton Municipal Code will be required to be submitted and approved prior to construction. F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. The Renton School District anticipates it can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Tiffany Park Elementary (0.4 miles from the subject site), Nelson Middle School (1.7 miles from the subject site) and Lindberg High School (0.9 miles from the subject site). RCW 58.17.110(2) provides that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. Tiffany Park Elementary and Lindberg High School are within walking distance of the subject site while Nelson Middle School would require future students to be transported to school via bus. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along on-site roadways which would connect to the existing sidewalk system providing adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. PRELIMINARY PLAT -23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 • Sidewalks would provide a route bet~een the project site and nearby Tiffany Park Elementary School, including available marked crosswalks at the Kirkland Avenue SE/Lake Youngs Way intersection. The Kirkland Avenue SElLake Youngs Way intersection is approximately 300 linear feet from where SE 18th St intersects Lake Youngs Way. Given the number of homes proposed, it is very likely that a large influx of students would attempt to cross Lake Youngs Way SE, at the SE 18 th Street intersection, which does not currently have a marked crosswalk. In order to provide a more practical safe route to Tiffany Park Elementary from the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant provide a marked crosswalk at the intersection of SE 18 th Street and Lake Youngs Way. No current bus stops exist for this property as it is currently undeveloped. The Renton School District will be making provisions for the location of bus stops for those students who will be attending Nelson Middle School. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will also be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. Currently the fee is assessed at $5,455.00 per single family residence and would increase to $5,541.00 on January 1,2015. v. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 17 I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070(R) and RMC 4-8-110(A)(2) grant the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The majority of the subject property is zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). A small portion of the subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). Only the R-8 portion of the property is proposed for residential development. The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPAAPPEAL PRELIMINARY PLAT -24 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 • 3. Review Standard. There are two reasons a DNS can be overturned to overturned: (I) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued a DNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197- 11-330(1)(b). WAC 197-11-782 defines "probable" as follows: 'Probable' means likely or reasonably likely to occur, as in 'a reasonable probability of more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment' (.\·ee WAC 197-11-794). Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test. I f such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the DNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an environmental impact statement would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City'S SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(viii). An appeal of an MDNS is judicially reviewed under the clearly erroneous standards. Under the clearly erroneous standard; the decision of the SEPA responsible official can only be overturned if, after reviewing the entire record, the decision maker is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. RMC 4-8-110- (E)(12)(b)(v). The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. RMC 4-8-IIO(E)(12)(a). Adequate Environmental Review 18 B. 19 The second reason a DNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. WAC 197-11-335.' 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. No Grounds for an EIS. TPW AG has not demonstrated a need for additional SEPA mitigation, environmental review or the issuance of an environmental impact statement. All of the grounds for SEPA appeal are addressed in Finding of Fact No.5. As determined in that finding, none of the impacts identified by TPW AG qualify as probable significant adverse environmental impacts and TPW AG has not identified an PRELIMINARY PLAT -25 --------------------------------------------------------------- 2 • • impact for which the SEPA responsible official did not have sufficient information to reasonably assess impacts. 3 D. Perimeter LandscaQing, 4 5 6 7 8 9 \0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MDNS Condition No.6 is modified to only require 10 foot perimeter landscaping along the retaining walls that are over four feet in height, specifically in proximity to lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. The applicant argues that no perimeter buffering is required because the City's landscaping standards do not require buffering and that those standards should be determinative in assessing the need for landscaping. The applicant is correct up to a point. RCW 36.70B.030(3) and RCW 43.21 C.240(2)(a) does allow a city to use its development standards as the exclusive source of mitigation for environmental impacts. However, RCW 43.21 C.240(2)(a) provides that in order to use development regulations in this manner the City must make a determination in the course of permit review that the development standards in question are adequately addressed by the development regulations. RCW 43.2IC.240(4) further clarifies that for development standards to be found to adequately mitigate impacts, imposition of the standards must either avoid or mitigate the impacts; or the legislative body of the city has determined that the development standard sets acceptable levels of impact. Renton's landscaping standards do not adequately address all of the aesthetic impacts created by the proposal. As noted previously, one of the two ways that a development standard can be found to adequately address impacts is if the City Council intended the standard to set acceptable levels of impact. See RCW 43.2IC.240(4)(b).The Renton City Council expressly determined that the landscaping standard would not set acceptable levels of aesthetic impact, stating the purpose clause of the landscaping standards that "it is not the intent of these regulations that rigid and inflexible design standards be imposed. but rather that minimum standards be set." The other, more difficult issue involved in ascertaining whether the landscaping standards would adequately address aesthetic impacts is if the standards actually mitigate the impacts. Given the subjectivity of aesthetic perimeter impacts, one would have to conclude that in the vast majority of typical subdivisions the landscaping standards do set an adequate standard. In not imposing any perimeter landscaping requirements between single family residential uses, the City Council must have determined that for the typical subdivision, such landscaping is not necessary. However, the proposed subdivision is not typical. As determined in Finding of Fact No.6, the proposal will involve up to 16.6 foot high retaining walls that will create a stone wall to the neighborhoods across from it, which in turn can be topped with 6 foot fences. The site visit revealed that no other homes in the vicinity have such retaining walls or similar edifices bordering on public roads. Consequently, the impacts of the subdivision are not typical and likely not the type of impact the City Council considered when it omitted any buffer requirements for adjoining residential uses. Additional PRELIMINARY PLAT -26 ,-------------------------------------------------------------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • mitigation through SEPA is well justified in this case to mitigate against the impact of retaining walls. The City's environmental report also cites that buffering is necessary to off-set the impacts of the densities of the proposal, which are higher than adjoining densities. This does not serve as an adequate justification for buffering. Setting a threshold for adverse aesthetic impacts based upon a difference in density or lot sizes is a completely arbitrary action in the absence of any legislative guidance. The difference in density between the proposal and adjoining uses is not so high that reasonable minds would share the same opinion as to whether the difference is aesthetically adverse. Though both the surrounding areas and the subject are zoned R-8, the developed density of the proposal will not exceed 5.7 dwelling units per acre. Indeed, unlike the retaining walls of the project, differences in residential densities are something that one would reasonably anticipate the Council would have considered in adopting its landscaping standards, and it adopted no perimeter requirements between residential zoning districts with different densities, except as between multi- family and less intense residential uses. For these reasons, the comparatively higher density of the proposal does not create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Another issue with respect to the SEPA's mitigation measure is to ensure that the City has adopted a SEPA policy that requires the impact to be addressed. RCW 43.2IC.060 requires that SEPA mitigation must be based upon policies adopted by the local government authority. Interestingly, the City hasn't adopted its development standards as part of its SEPA policies, so the purpose clause of the landscaping regulations, which promote aesthetic compatibility, can't be used. There are plenty of other SEPA policies that promote aesthetic compatibility. RMC 4-2-070(M)(2)(ii) provide that one of the gqals of SEPA review is to assure aesthetically pleasing surroundings. The City's comprehensive plan is another adopted SEPA policy. One of its community design goals is to "raise the aesthetic quality of the city". Objective CD-M recognizes that well designed landscaping provides aesthetic appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy and general welfare of the community. Policy CD-88 provides that street trees and landscaping should be required for new development to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. All of these policies are served by the perimeter landscaping required by this decision, since such landscaping will raise the aesthetic quality of the city, provide for aesthetic appeal and buffer against the transition from the higher density residential development and its associated retaining walls to the lower surrounding residential densities. The applicants argue in their briefing that requiring perimeter landscaping would be unreasonable because homes would lose yard space. In the alternative, of course, the applicant may have to lose some lots. Given the judicial construction of "reasonable" in due process and takings cases, the loss of a few lots or yard space would not be considered unreasonable. PRELIMINARY PLAT -27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • As a final matter, SEP A mitigation can only be used to impose mitigation against probable significant adverse environmental impacts. As determined in the Finding of Fact No.5, the solid walls created by the higher portions of the retaining wall easily qualify. No reasonable minds could differ on the opinion that high retaining walls are at odds with the general design of the community and create a mass of rock or concrete wall that is aesthetically adverse. The remaining issue is how high the wall should be to be considered adverse. Again, reference to existing codes is useful as it provides an objective and consistent standard for application. Retaining walls fewer than four feet in height do not require building permit review. Consequently, it can be reasonably anticipated that decorative retaining walls under four feet may not be that uncommon, whereas property owners will only go through the time and expense of building permit review for higher walls when they are necessitated for stability as opposed to decorative purposes. A four feet height is also still low enough to retain the views of surrounding trees, vistas and other natural and landscaped features. For this reason, those portions of the proposal with retaining walls that exceed four feet in height shall be subject to the 15 foot wide perimeter landscaping requirement imposed in the MDNS. E. Retaining Wall Height. The six-foot retaining wall height limitation recommended by staff will not be adopted. Renton does not have any standards imposing height limits on retaining walls outside of setback areas. There is nothing in the record that establishes the potential for any adverse impacts other than aesthetic, and those impacts will be adequately addressed by the staffs recommended landscape perimeter. The retaining wall condition presents two code interpretation issues: (I) whether the City'S fence and hedge regulation (RMC 10-4-040) applies to retaining walls, and (2) if RMC 10-4-040 does apply, whether it imposes a six foot height limit on retaining walls. As to the first issue, RMC 10-4-040 probably does apply to retaining walls. RMC 4-4-040(A) provides that the purpose of RMC 4-4-050 is to regulate the material and height of "fences and hedges." "Fence" is not defined in the RMC. However, walls are addressed throughout RMC 4-4-040. Most pertinent, RMC 4-4-040(C)(1) provides in relevant part that,"In cases where a wall is used instead of a fence, height shall be measured from the top surface of the wall to the ground on the high side of the wall." This sentence strongly suggests that the wall in question can include retaining walls, since the sentence acknowledges that one side of the wall can be at a higher grade than the other. Retaining walls that project above the higher grade would meet this definition. The applicant argues that this reference to "wall" as well as others pertains to "European or California-style stone walls." Nothing in the language of RMC 4-4-040 suggests that walls be limited to stone walls. In addition to providing some clarity on the applicability of RMC 4-4-040 to retaining walls, RMC 4- 4-040(C)(I) also establishes that retaining walls that do not project past the higher grade have a height of zero feet, which is below all the height limits set for walls by RMC 4-4-040. The sentence PRELIMINARY PLAT -28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • clearly states that retaining wall height is to be measured from the "high side of the wall", which would be zero in the case of the retaining walls proposed by the applicant. This result makes sense in light of the other limitation of RMC 4-4-040, that it applies only "in cases where walls are used instead of a fence." If a retaining wall does not extend above the higher grade, it doesn't take the place of a fence and hence is not subject to the height limit. In short, retaining walls that only serve to retain soil, as proposed by the applicant, are not subject to the height limits of RMC 4-4-040. Practically speaking, this means that RMC 4-4-040 doesn't apply to retaining walls solely used to stabilize grade separations, since no other provisions in RMC 4-4-040 apply as well. Since the six foot height limit is not required RMC 4-4-040, staff would have to find some other code provision to require the fence. Plat criteria requiring conformance to the comprehensive plan, see RMC 4-7-080(1)(1), include the policies addressing aesthetic impacts identified in COL No. 5.A. t: As determined in Finding o( Fact No.6.C, the aesthetic impacts of the retaining walls can be fully mitigated by perimeter landscaping. Staff acknowledged as much at page 13 of the staff report. Therefore, the record contains no adequate justification for a limitation on retaining wall height. F. Loss of Recreational Use. The appellants assert that the project site has been used as a recreational resource by the surrounding community for decades and that its loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The loss of recreational use from the property is not an environmental impact of the proposal subject to SEPA review and mitigation. Even if it were, that loss does not result in any violation of the City's detailed park policies and regulations, compliance of which assures that development will not create demand upon park facilities that exceeds legislatively adopted level of service standards. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this decision does not address the prescriptive rights claims made by the appellants to the project site. As ruled in Ex. AG, the Examiner has no authority to address the prescriptive easement claims asserted by the SEPA appellants. Practically speaking, this decision will not prejudice the appellants' prescriptive rights claims if the appellants diligently pursue those claims in superior court, the proper forum for such a claim. Should the appellants actually' succeed in persuading a court that the public has prescriptive rights to the public school property (which appears unlikely at this juncture), they could acquire injunctive or other judicial relief to prevent development of the proposal. No additional SEPA review or mitigation is merited on the recreational use issue because the loss of that use cannot be considered an impact of the proposal. In the absence of any prescriptive rights to the project site, project opponents are left with the argument that the applicant should fund further environmental review or provide for additional mitigation to compensate for the fact that either (I) the applicant was benevolent enough to allow the public to use its property; or (2) the public repeatedly trespassed on the applicant's property. From an equitable standpoint, such a position PRELIMINARY PLAT -29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • borders on the absurd. More importantly, the applicant could prevent the public from using its property at any time, with or without the proposal. For this reason, the loss of recreational use should not be considered an impact of the proposal for purposes of environmental review. Even if loss of the recreational use of the site could be legitimately considered an environmental impact for purposes of SEPA, its loss would not qualifY as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The City's comprehensive plan, park impact fees and open space requirements are all designed to assure that each developer is required to provide its proportionate share contribution to the park needs of the city and that the park needs of the public will be met as development progresses. The applicant's proposal is consistent and compliant with all of these requirements. In point of fact the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant is also providing for 1.2 acres of open space, even though no open space is required for subdivisions in the R-8 zone. As would be expected, none of the City'S park policies or regulations penalizes a developer for withdrawing the ability of the public to use or trespass upon its property. Since the applicant is acting fully within the requirements of the City's detailed park policies and regulations, its proposal cannot be considered to create adverse impacts to the City's (i.e. public's) parks and recreational system. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(8): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: I. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. RMC 4-4-080(1)(7): a. Benefits of Joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and thereby improve safety and reduce congestion while providing for additional on-street parking PRELIMINARY PLAT -30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • opportunities. Joint use driveways should be encouraged whenfeasible and appropriate. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995) b. Where Permitted: Adjoining commercial or industrial uses may utilize a joint use driveway where such joint use driveway reduces the total number of driveways entering the street network, subject to the approval of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Joint use driveways must be created upon the common property line of the properties served or through the granting of a permanent access easement when said driveway does not exist upon a common property line. Joint use access to the driveway shall be assured by easement or other legal form acceptable to the City. 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 1(2) of the staff report in the portions related to density, lot dimensions, setbacks and building standards (Pages 12-13) are adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all associated recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 2, most of the lots will directly access a public Road (Road A, SE 18th Street or I 24th Place SE). As noted in Finding of Fact 6.G, shared driveways are proposed for Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 79-81. Staff additionally suggests Lot II and Lots 78 take access from the shared driveway. There are no topographical or critical areas issues to preclude these three lots from having' shared access. The shared access would reduce the number of curb cuts at the entrance of the plat at 124th Place SE and along the cuI de sac at the end of the same street. Potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be lessened by consolidating driveways. However, the applicant testified use of the shared driveway for Lot II is problematic because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of the garage. The applicant objected to the inclusion of Lot 78 in a shared driveway. There appear to be no material differences between Lots 78 and 81 in terms of orientation or width. As these lots are very near to the subdivision entrance, limiting potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts is desirable. Though a change to the design of the house on Lot II is not an unreasonable accommodation to allow for vehicular and pedestrian safety at the cui de sac, the driveway for Lot II would be at an undesirable angle to the shared driveway. The cui de sac serves a limited number of houses. In this instance, the safety effect of removing one driveway access to a cuI de sac does not outweigh the impact to Lot II caused by the creation of off kilter driveway. The approval will be conditioned to require the inclusion of Lots 12-14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. PRELIMINARY PLAT -31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II • • RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 1(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as ifset forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the repiclfting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City ,Ipecifications) to an existing street or highway. 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the internal road system connects to SE 18 1h Street and 1241h Place SE, both pub,lic roads. RMC 4~ 7-120(8): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plansfor streets in the City. 10. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the proposed internal road system extends two existing stub roads, 12 SE 18 1h Street and 1241h Place SE. Both extensions will be constructed to City road standards. 13 Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 14 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an ojJicially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made jiJr reservation of the right-ofway or for easements to the City for trail 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 purposes. 11. According to the Renton Trails and Bikeways Map (Exhibit 20) a pedestrian trail is designated within the Seattle Pipeline abutting the site. The applicant would be required to obtain right-of-way or an access easement across the pipeline for secondary access via 124th Place SE (see Finding 35.6, Streets). In addition, the applicant would be required to provide a safe crossing for the designated trail across the extension of I 24th Place SE. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: I. Land Unsuitable jiJr Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (I'uch as lands adversely ajJixted by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT -32 ,---------------------------------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 • • a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW bejiJre the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which' indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 20 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision. As determined in Finding of Fact 5.B, the stormwater 21 22 23 design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and all critical areas will be protected. As detennined in Finding of Fact No. 5.B, no lots with primarily 40% slopes will be created. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as detennined in Finding of Fact No. 5.A. 24 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 25 dedication of land or providingfees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 26 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The PRELIMINARY PLAT -33 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • • requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. See also the discussion on loss of recreational use in Conclusion of Law 3.F above. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection £3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed internal roads extend two existing stubs, SE 9 18 th Street and 124th Place SE. The internal Road A creates a loop connection between the two 10 public streets which did not exist previously. 11 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. As conditioned. 12 15. 13 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 14 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. None of the proposed streets intersect with a public highway or arterial. 15 16. 16 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Departmenl. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twentyjivefeet (125') are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety 17 18 19 20 21 measures. 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. 22 RMC 4-7-150(E): 23 1. Grid: A grid street pal/ern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the 24 predominant street pal/ern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 25 2. Lin/wges: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -34 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 • • of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment betv.>een roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pal/ern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-l, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alleY(i>~ is not feasible ... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due 16 to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pal/ern is physically 17 possible. 18 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 2, the proposed street system contributes to the grid system by 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 creating loop access which did not previously exist. Both of the intersecting public streets are currently stub roads. Alley access is not required because the proposed density does not meet the 6 dwelling unit/acre threshold. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. The cui de sacs proposed cannot be extended to connect the road network because of the presence of two pipeline easements. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-olway and new rights-olway dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as .Ipecified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. PRELIMINARY PLAT -35 2 3 4 5 • • 19. As proposed all roads will meet City street profile standards for road with and frontage improvements. RMC 4-7-1S0(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offuture adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be required in certain imtances to facilitate filture development. 6 20. As shown in Ex. 2 to the Staff Report, the proposed roads may not be extended due to the 7 8 presence of pipeline easements. The subject is 'surrounded on all sides by existing residential development. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial 9 to curved street lines. 10 II 12 13 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(8): Each lot muit have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 14 22. As previously determined and conditioned, each lot has access to a public street. 15 16 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate jilr the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 17 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 18 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 19 23, As previously determined and as conditioned, the proposed lots comply with the zoning 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their jrJremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (I) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 24. The applicant has proposed several lots including Lots 14, IS and 38 which do not meet the minimum frontage width requirement. As discussed below in Conclusion of Law 27, each of these lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. Or, as PRELIMINARY PLAT -36 ,------------------------------------------ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • .. discussed in Conclusion of Law 5 above, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements. RMC 4-7-170(E): No residentially zoned lot shall have a depth-to-width ratio greater thanfour-to- one (4: I). 25. As conditioned, all pipestem lots will be eliminated or revised to meet minimum lot width requirements which will bring all of the lots into compliance with this criterion. RMC 4-7-170(F): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offtfteenfeet (15'). 9 26. As proposed all lots meet this criterion. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-170(G): Pipestem lots may be permittedfor new plats to achieve the minimum density within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achieving the minimum density. Minimum Lot Size and Pipestem Width and Length: The pipestem shall not exceed one hundred fifty feet (150') in length and not be less than twenty feet (20') in width. The portion of the lot narrower than eighty percent (80%). of the minimum permitled width shall not be used for lot area calculations or for the measurement of requiredfront yard setbacks. Land area included in private access easements shall not be included in lot area calculations. Pipestem lots shall not abut one another. 27. The proposal exceeds the minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre by 1.7 dwelling units per acre and therefore pipestem lots are prohibited. The appliCant has proposed several pipestem lots including Lots 12, 14, 15, 17, 38, 40 and 79. As a condition of approval, each of these lots must be eliminated or revised to meet the minimum frontage width requirements. As an alternative, the applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements as discussed above in Conclusion of Law 5. RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 28. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(B): Due regard shall be shown to all naturalfeatures such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. PRELIMINARY PLAT -37 .----------------------------------------------------------------------, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 • • 29. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No.5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 30. As conditioned. RMC. 4-7-200(8): An adequate drainage ,Iystem shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include 1 1 detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to 12 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 33. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that IS In conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Findings of Fact No.5 and 6. The City's storm water standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution ,ystem including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 31. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface materia/. Easements may be required for the 23 maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 24 32. All utilities including the stormwater vault are proposed to be placed underground. As 25 conditioned, utility installation will be inspected and approved prior to paving of surface materials above the utilities. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -38 2 3 4 • • RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 5 shall be re;,ponsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to 6 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and .Ipecijications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certifY to the City that it is properly installed. 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 33. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 18 34. 19 As conditioned. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 VI. DECISION The proposed 96-lot preliminary plat as depicted in Ex. 33 to the staff report, and critical area· exemption as described in the findings of this decision, are approved subject to the following conditions: 3 All references to the plat map in this decision in the findings and conclusions have been to Exhibit 2 of the staff report. Those references are accurate. However, the plat approved by this decision is depicted in Exhibit 3 of the statfreport, which is the 96 lot subdivision as opposed to the 97 lot subdivision. PRELIMINARY PLAT -39 --l 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated September 22,2014 except as modified below: a. MONS Condition 1 shall be revised as follows: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28, 2012 or consistent with the recommendations of the final City-approved geotechnical report. b. MONS Condition 6 shall be stricken and replaced with the following: The applicant shall revise its landscaping plan to provide for a 10 foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots and a 10 foot wide, site obscuring perimeter landscaping adjacent to areas where the retaining walls are four or more feet in height, specifically in the perimeter areas close to Lots 40, 41, 46, 47, 80, 82, 83-90, 93 and 94. Landscaping at maturity must exceed the height of the adjacent retaining wall. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 2. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the minimum 50-foot lot width requirement for all lots with less than 50 feet in width at the foremost points (where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) pursuant to RMC 4-11-120. The average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan and landscaping plan depicting curb bulb-outs where on-street parking is located. The revised plat and landscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat and landscaping plan, which are elements of the City's required construction plan set, depicting curb bulbouts at street intersections where on-street parking is located or calling for no curb bulbouts and installation of "no parking" designations where street parking is prohibited at street intersections. The revised plat and landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT -40 ----, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • 5. The applicant shall eliminate individual access directly from internal public streets for those lots abutting private streets and/or shared driveway access easements, specifically Lots 12- 14, Lots 15-17, Lots 38-40 and Lots 78-81 in shared driveways. Said lots shall be required to take access from the abutting private street and/or access easement and shall not exceed access thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-6-060.J and K. Lot II may access the public street directly. The revised plat plan shaB be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. Furthermore, the access restriction for such lots is required to be noted on the face of the Final Plat prior to recording. 6. The applicant shaB revise the proposed mitigation plan to depict aB retaining walls on site, including lock & load walls on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C. The applicant shaB also identify if proposed walls are anticipated to impact critical area buffers and provide appropriate mitigation for such impacts. A Final Mitigation Plan, pursuant to RMC 4-8- 120. W, shaB be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 7. The temporary buffer impacts consisting of mmor intrusions or disturbance from construction activities shall be restored with appropriate grading, soil amendments, and the planting of native species to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised mitigation plan shaB be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8. The existing wetland mitigation plan already assures that 1,331 square feet of additional wetland buffer area is being provided to mitigate for both existing buffer impacts to Wetland E that are not associated with the Plat, as well as the loss of 14 square feet. of the Wetland E buffer which loss is associated with the extension of SE 18 th Street. To provide an additional offset for the impacts resulting from the requested exemption associated with the fiB of 14 square feet of buffer to extend SE 18th Street. The applicant has agreed to provide and shall provide enhancement to the Wetland 'E' buffer immediately abutting SE 18 th Street, as well as enhanced plantings adjoining that buffer area within Tract M. A revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 9. The applicant shaB be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over those parts of the site encompassing wetlands and their associated buffers and place fencing and signagc along the outer buffer edge prior to Final Plat approval. 10. The applicant shall be required to submit a fill source statement, if fill materials are brought to the site, in order to the City to ensure only clean fill is imported prior to construction. PRELIMINARY PLAT -41 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • II. The applicant shall provide a final Tree Retention Plan, complying with the 30% tree retention SEPA mitigation measure while demonstrating proposed retaining walls would not impact trees proposed for retention. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 12. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan, which is an element of the City's required construction plan set, depicting a safe pedestrian crossing, across the 124th Place SE extension, for the Seattle Waterline Pedestrian Trail. The revised plat plan, as part of the construction plan set, shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, Community Services Department, and the Transportation Department prior to construction permit approval. 13. The applicant shall be required to obtain right-of-way or a public access easement through the Cedar River Pipeline, for the extension of I 24th Place SE, to the satisfaction of the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 14. Pedestrian lighting shall be depicted on the lighting plan at the entrances of Tracts C and E (from the proposed right-of-way). The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 15. The Preliminary Plat plan shall be revised so that no more than 4 lots may gain access via a shared driveway and that at least one such lot shall meet minimum lot width requirements along a street frontage pursuant to RMC 4-7-170.0 (a minimum of 80% of the required lot widthl40 feet or 35 feet along a street curve). The lot(s) which provides physical frontage along the street shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. In order to provide shared access, Lots 14, 17 and 38 shall be widened to 35 feet and take primary access from the shared driveway. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 16. The plat plan shall be revised so that all lots have no less than a 40-foot lot width where side lot lines intersect with the street right of way or for radial lots be a minimum of 35 feet in width. Specifically, proposed Lots 14, 17, and 38 would be required to be widened to 35 feet in order to comply with the condition. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised plat plan depicting the elimination of all pipestem lots (lots which are less than 40 feet in width where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way or for radial lots are less than 35 feet) within the subdivision. Specifically, PRELIMINARY PLAT -42 ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • proposed Lots 12, 14, 15, 17,38,40, and 79 would be required to be eliminated or revised to meet minimum frontage width requirements. The applicant may also submit an alternative plat plan which includes a combination of all lots fronting onto a public street meeting minimum lot widths and those portions of the lots now proposed for shared driveway/access easements could be placed in Shared Driveway Tracts with easements placed over them pursuant to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 18. Any proposal to convert the Stormwater vault within Tract A to a Stormwater detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7- 080M.2. 19. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners' associatIOn and maintenance agreement(s) for the shared utilities, landscape areas and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 20. The applicant shall submit the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to the City for review. Appropriate mitigation, if any, shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. 21. All road names shall be approved by the City. 22. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 23. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be. installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 24. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line. 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. PRELIMINARY PLAT -43 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - ----------------------------~ • • DATED this 8th day of January, 2015. PhIA. OlbtCclllS City of Renton Hearing Examiner APPEAL RIGHTS AND V ALUA TION NOTICES RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-IIO(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(0)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change 10 valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT -44 • • ATTACHMENT A The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals (LUA13·001572, ECF, PP, CAE) TESTIMONY SUMMARY SEPA Appeal #l-'Applicants Applicant Testimony Ms. Nancy Rogers, applicant's Attorney, stated the applicant had filed an appeal to the City's SEPA MONS based on three issues, They felt the geotechnical report should be updated to reference the current geotechnical report, They have issues with Conditions #3 and #6, They believe it's better for the project and environment to have Henley comply with a tree protection plan and have Henley's arborist work with the City's arborist to assure that as many trees as possible are preserved, They requested amendments to Condition 3, In addition, Condition 6 was imposed in the MONS, It would impose a IS-50 foot perimeter buffer around the entire site, This is overreaching and unduly burdensome, The applicant is going above and beyond to provide buffering, which is not necessary because they are proposing single family uses next to single family uses, There are two rights of ways along substantial portions of the borders, the Mercer Island Water Pipeline and the Cedar River Water Pipeline, One is 60 feet wide; the other is 100 feet wide, There is already substantial buffering between existing uses and the project site, They have an analysis responding to the City staff SEPA analysis filed last Friday (Exhibit Kll), Ms, Rogers summarized this analysis, They appealed Condition #L Staff felt that Condition #1 would be acceptable if they amended the condition to include compliance with the revised geotechnical report The applicant agrees, With respect the appeal to Conditions #3 for tree preservation and #6 for the proposed perimeter buffer, mitigation conditions under SEPA are subject to state and federal law, statutory and case law that establish a nexus of rough proportionality, That nexus is required to be shown by the City prior to imposition of these mitigation conditions, Case law dealing with the imposition of buffers had held that buffers need to be imposed when two very dissimilar uses are proposed adjacent to each other. That is not the case here, With respect to Condition #3, the scope of that condition has morphed from the SEPA MONS to the staffs current opinion, The applicant appealed this condition to require compliance with the applicant's tree protection plan rather than the more general requirement that they comply with relevant City codes, Staff is requiring 30% retention of trees rather than the Code requirement that • • allows for replacement of trees through mitigation (RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(e)). The condition is overreaching and overly burdensome. The City has failed to identify an adverse significant environmental impact related to tree preservation in the applicant's proposal. They are intending to preserve 30% of the trees. The developer needs to be able to replace trees that might be inadvertently damaged during construction rather than complying to a hard set retention percentage. They aren't intending to clear cut. They plan to protect the 30% of the trees. A few extra might come down through inadvertent damage. If so, those will be properly mitigated. With respect to Condition #6, the perimeter buffer, as stated in the original MDNS condition it was a "minimum 15 foot buffer" which became 15-50 feet in width around the entire perimeter. There is no significant environmental impact here and the City is not entitled to impose mitigation here. There is no legal authority or justification by the City to require Henley to protect one use from another when the use is the same. The neighboring property owners could plant trees in their own yards. As designed by Henley, the project already minimizes visual impact to neighboring uses in ways that are not required by the code. The code does not impose a perimeter buffer of any sort on a single family project like this. The majority of this site includes a perimeter buffer of 10-15 feet. There is more on critical areas tracts. The average buffer width is 55 feet. In addition, they have the two pipeline rights of ways, which are 60 feet and 100 feet wide. Adding in the pipelines, the average buffer goes up to 100 feet between homes from this project and adjacent homes. This is well outside of rough proportionality. Mr. Barry Talkington is a civil engineer with Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Mr. Talkington described his education and qualifications. He prepares designs and layouts for single family projects. He designs roads, infrastructure, storm ponds, etc. He's prepared about 50 preliminary plats. It is typical for him to design a preliminary plat and then start into more detailed engineering design. They have prepared preliminary and final grading plans. Ms. Rogers presented Exhibit A-II, the ultimate plat layout. Mr. Talkington described the exhibit, the 96-lot version of the plat There was an earlier version with more lots but they removed one to meet the 30% tree retention requirement. They eliminated Lot I from the original submittal. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Talkington described the various perimeter buffers, ranging including 50 feet in Tracts Band M and near Lots 13 and 14, the buffer is 15 foot wide. They have a 10 foot buffer that increase to nearly 80 feet by Lot 19 by the Mercer Island Pipeline. The minimum proposed buffer is 10 feet. By Tract G, the buffer is 100 feet. The Mercer Island Pipeline is 60 feet wide. The minimum setback along this area is 70 feet. Some lots do touch the property boundary, though that is adjacent to the 100 foot wide Cedar River Pipeline. There is additional greens pace in Tract H, G and 1. In some places the buffer goes from 15 feet to 200 feet. The average buffer width is approximately 50 feet. With the pipeline areas, the average buffer width is over 100 feet. Only six • • lots touch the perimeter of the property, all along the Cedar River Pipeline. In his opinion, the project does not result in a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighbors. With respect to retaining walls, Mr. Talkington stated retaining walls are not purely cosmetic, though they can be. The purpose is to shorten the distance needed for a grade transition. There is grading involved in nearly all projects in the Pacific Northwest. Grading is accomplished via slopes or retaining walls. To create a hypothetical lot, either grade more land or build a wall along the edge and grade less. Lots with significant trees were designed with retaining walls to retain more trees. A building permit is required for a wall of 4 feet high or greater. Mr. Talkington has prepared building permit applications for this project and the associated grading plans which will be submitted today. Ms. Rogers asked about Exhibit K6, related to the grading plans. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked if this was the Erosion Control plan set. Mr. Talkington confirmed it is. In response to Ms. Rogers, for Lots 18-21, Mr. Talkington stated the retaining walls would be rockeries. The lot grade is below the existing grade. He noted the top and bottom of the wall elevations. For example, Lot 19' s wall is 4.5 feet. A cut wall is for when a retaining wall is retaining the existing grade when the pad grade is below the existing grade. For a pad above the existing grade, they would use a fill wall. These walls are constructed differently. Fill walls require extra stabilization. In eyery place where there is a cut wall, the face of the wall will be to the interior of the project. For the fill walls, the face is to the exterior of the project. Mr. Talkington addressed the staff Report (Page 13) concern about the height and visibility of walls along the Cedar River Pipeline. The wall at Tract A will be visible, though there will be landscaping planted between the walls and the perimeter. For Lots 79 and 81 (Exhibit K6a, Lots 80 and 82), there is a cut rockery wall. This wali will not be visible from outside the project. For Lot 40, there is a retaining wall. It is 4-6 feet to prop up the access drive. This will be visible. There's another wall at 7.5 feet. Lots 45 and 46 have a fill wall at 16 feet tall. In response to the staff Report, Mr. Talkington reviewed the heights of the walls. They prepared an alternative design to reduce the heights of the walls. The wall will now be 6 feet tall (Exhibit K6b, the revised grading plan for Lots 44-47). The portion of Lot 46 that borders the Cedar River Pipeline has a 2 foot wall. The wall at Lot 47 is 1.7 feet to 6 feet tall. Henley will be willing to agree to a Plat Condition that will call for the walls to be the revised height. Ms. Timmons asked about the relevancy of this line of questioning to the SEPA Appeal, specifically Conditions #3 and #6. Ms. Rogers stated she understood the staff's buffer requirements to screen the adjacent neighbors from the development, including the impact of retaining walls. Ms. Timmons agreed to relevance. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Talkington to speak to the walls along Road A near Tract K. Mr. Talkington referred to this wall as a fill wall. There is an open space tract, Wetlands Band C, which will provide a screen for the wall. Focusing on this part of the plat, Mr. Talkington stated there was no significant adverse environmental impact withrespect to the aesthetics. • • Ms. Rogers addressed staff Report (page 21) regarding retaining walls. She stated the staff felt those retaining walls would interfere with tree retention. She asked, in general, does designing a site to include retaining walls help or hinder tree preservation. Mr. Talkington responded it can help by reducing grading requirements along the perimeter of the site and protect trees. When he designs a plat, the cost of construction is considered. Retaining wall construction is more expensive than grading. They were directed to save trees, which meant construction of retaining walls. Ms. Rogers asked who Mr. Talkington turned to when he needed to determine the effects of his design for retaining walls on tree preservation. Mr. Talkington said that's a question for the arborist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Talkington to describe his thought process on providing the buffers he provided and their merit. Mr. Talkington stated it started with the road network. They had two locations to tie into for an internal road. In creating the road corridors, they tried to layout lots that would be evenly distributed on both sides of the road. They looked to use the property most efficiently for the lot layout with respect to the grading. They tried to reduce the overall grading. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington saw merit in providing a perimeter buffer. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't show as many buffers initially. They initially looked to retain trees in larger pockets in other areas. As the project evolved to its current configuration, they considered saving trees as part of the buffer. Ms. Timmons asked as a practical matter, how would a 15 foot buffer affect plat design? Mr. Talkington stated that he had considered it. There are many alternative scenarios. They looked at how the buffer would impact their original design. There was a significant change in lot yield. Ms. Timmons asked if Mr. Talkington considered aesthetics in his design. He stated he did because he wanted the project outcome to be pleasing. Mr. Steve Lee, Renton Development Engineering Manager, stated typically the City doesn't see as much of a concise grading plan proposed for preliminary plat. He is glad Mr. Talkington prepared one. He asked Mr. Talkington to describe the setback from the walls. Mr. Talkington stated that is a question for the geotechnical engineer, however there is no need for a setback from the geo-grid. Mr. Lee asked if construction of the geo-grid caused excavation in to natural areas. Mr. Talkington . stated it did. Also, cut walls will require a wall drain behind them. Mr. Lee asked if the walls would need to be setback into the lots in order to reduce the impact on the natural areas. Mr. Talkington said they design the walls to be entirely on the subject lot and not within the open space. Mr. Lee asked if a tree is located near a drainage wall, would the tree be impacted. Mr. Talkington stated he didn't know. Mr. Galen Wright, of Washington Forestry Consultants, is an arborist. Mr. Wright described his education and qualifications. He has owned his company for 21 years. Their focus is on urban forestry consulting. He personally has 35 years of experience. He's worked on 1,400 similar projects • • of many scales since 1994. He stated in general, his tree protection plans are accurate. The trees he has designated for protection are saved. Though, occasionally, they will find an edge tree that doesn't look as good after the project and before. In that case, they mitigate the tree. The tree protection plan exhibits are Exhibit A4 (June) and Exhibit Al2 (August). The August plan is tied to the most recent layout. Ms. Rogers noted the report concludes this is a "well treed site". By that, Mr. Wright stated means he was able to save two or three clusters to break up the clear cut look. If they supplement with lot trees and street trees, in 10 years the property will be well treed. There is a nice low brush community on the site that improves the buffer capacity of the vegetation. The wetlands on site are also well treed. Ms. Rogers stated the 30% tree retention requirement translates to preserving 188 on-site trees. The August tree retention plan proposes to save 181 trees and relocate others. Mr. Wright stated his understanding of the Renton code with respect to construction damage means the tree can be replaced at a ratio of 2: I. He stated he is familiar with SEPA staff Condition #3. He said his understating of the requirement was not to mandate a hard 30% requirement without field judgment. The code allows them to save trees but mitigate those that can't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright how many trees would be saved. Mr. Wright replied well in excess of 188 trees would be saved. They have re-analyzed the edges and found there were more trees than they had earlier expected before a more formal survey was undertaken. Mr. Wright discussed the relationship between retaining walls and trees. He stated he had the grading plan in hand when he did his follow up evaluation. They had been very hard on the edge trees initially. Later, he was able to perform a tree by tree analysis with the grading plan in hand. Trees respond very differently to walls based on where the majority of their roots are growing. He did a tree by tree analysis to determine how much, if any, intrusion could be done to a tree's root protection zone. This is usually a later stage analysis. He's very confident in his current estimation of the number of tree that will be viably preserved. He knows exactly which trees will be impacted, and how for each edge tree. Mr. Wright said the next step is to have a pre-construction meeting. They always ask to be included in that conference. At that time the clearing limits are staked. He walks those boundaries. If there is anything different from current knowledge, then they will make field adjustments. They mapped tons to trees. Sometimes, they'll find the survey and field location don't quite match. They adjust clearing limits during the field observation. They'll remove hazardous trees if they find them. After that, they put up tree protection fences. If anything changes during construction, then Mr. Wright asks to be included in the decision of how to treat the trees. • • Ms. Rogers asked if this process is described in the tree protection plan. Mr. Wright said it is. He stated he has no doubt this project will retain more than 30% of trees even accounting for field adjustments for hazardous trees or others that can't or shouldn't be saved. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Wright about the perimeter buffer. She said the City is concerned about a 50% sight obscuring buffer. She asked about the 10 foot buffer specifically. Mr. Wright stated he understood the buffer and the tree retention within the buffer. He stated he also is familiar with Henley's plan to provide 6 foot fences along the backyards. With the 10 foot buffer and fences, the 50% screening requirement will be met. New trees can also be planted in any gaps. In his opinion, a 15 foot buffer would add a few more trees, but not a huge amount. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Wright thought there was a significant adverse environmental impact from the project. The City Attorney objected. The Examiner stated the question limited to aesthetic impacts is allowed. Mr. Wright stated the 6 foot fence is sight obscuring. There are trees everywhere but the stormwater facility and a few in the pipelines. There are several layers of buffering. There will be places where you can see new houses better than others, but there will be a fence and trees. Within a few years trees will fill the , gaps. Ms. Rocale Timmons asked Mr. Wright if he knew how many trees exist on the site. He stated there were 1,305 trees on-site. This is a contiguous canopy cover. The canopy is viewed by surrounding property owners. They are proposing to keep 181 trees plus the trees in the critical areas and buffers. There are 626 significant trees in the buildable areas. There are many other poor quality trees. They will remove over 400 significant trees. Ms. Timmons asked how the removal of so many trees would impact the surrounding property owners. Mr. Wright said it's aesthetic. There is no other impact. Ms. Timmons asked about the revised tree retention plan. She asked if the new plan is approvable as is. Mr. Wright stated it was and they will exceed the minimum 30% requirement. He stated it is a valuable contribution to the environment. In response to Ms. Timmons, he stated an adequate width for a natural vegetated buffer depends on the type of trees, the age of the trees and the how they are growing. There are places on site where the screen is dense and others that are thinner. They didn't map alders and cottonwoods. They didn't include those in the survey. Ms. Timmons asked what buffer width is necessary to provide screening in a natural vegetated state. Mr. Wright stated it depends on site conditions. Mr. Wright stated if they plant in a 10 foot buffer with a double staggered row of conifers, it will create a very dense screen in 10 years. A IS foot buffer is not adequate to add a third row that would require about 30 feet of buffer. City Testimony Rocale Timmons addressed the applicant's testimony with respect to Conditions #3 and #6. The City's mitigation measure is not intended to preclude replacement of trees damaged during • • construction. The applicant is citing the wrong code. Condition #3 is solely designed to require a tree retention plan. The applicant has provided a plan that does not meet the requirement. It is not detailed enough to be used during construction. Staff analysis (Exhibit N) goes through the significant adverse impact of removing such a large tree canopy. The staff feels the MDNS condition defines a significant impact and provides appropriate mitigation . . With respect to Condition #6, Ms. Timmons stated staff has demonstrated a significant impact to surrounding property owners with respect to aesthetics. Staff feels the mitigation measure adequately addresses these impacts. Mr. Terry Flatley, City of Renton Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager, described his education and qualifications. He has reviewed at least 50 tree retention plans for the City. Mr. Flatley stated he had not visited the site personally. It is a fully timbered site with 100% canopy cover. He described the site as a large woodland area in the middle of the City in the middle of a subdivision. This is a rare site. He believes it is necessary to protect the tree canopy. The City tries to retain as much canopy as possible. Be believes the appropriate amount of trees to protect is a minimum 30%. In response to Ms. Timmons, Mr. Flatley stated a 10 foot buffer is adequate to support a natural vegetated perimeter, depending on the type of vegetation. This strip will retain smaller vegetation, but not large mature trees. He provided a recommendation for a perimeter buffer of 35 to 100 feet. To his knowledge, the City requested a 15 foot buffer. In terms of accommodating trees, there are some extra trees being protected. Five feet is a very minor increment. It would allow for more planting. Mr. Flatley stated he felt a buffer is needed along the southern perimeter because buffers are to moderate climate and obscure sites from view. It's an aesthetic issue for trail users and adjacent neighbors. The buffer would provide privacy. Mr. Flatley stated without an adequate screen there would be significant adverse aesthetic impacts to trail users and neighbors. A 15 foot buffer would reduce the impacts. In response to the Examiner, MLFlatley stated the difference between a 10 foot and a 15 foot buffer is not significant in terms of mitigating impacts. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had reviewed the revised tree protection plan for the project. He stated he had reviewed Exhibit II today but his review is based on the 2013 version. Ms. Rogers asked if it was possible Mr. Wright's tree retention plan would assure protection of 30% of the trees on the site. Mr. Flatley stated with oversight it is possible. Ms. Rogers asked if he provided that oversight. He said he didn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the City's MDNS Condition #3 was essentially a restatement of City code. Mr. Flatley agreed that is was. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had provided SEPA mitigation measures to staff and asked the staff to implement them. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if the • • condition would be adequate to require a tree protection plan and have it approved by the City. He stated it could. With respect to MDNS Condition #6, the buffer requirement was for sight obscuring and was 15 feet wide. The staff analysis (Exhibit N) increased that buffer from 15 feet to 15-50 feet. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Flatley had read Exhibit N. He stated he hadn't. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was generally familiar with it. He stated he was not familiar with specific policies. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Flatley to review a large area photo with respect to his earlier testimony (Exhibit K6c). Mr. Flatley stated he recognized the area and that there are a number of green, treed areas around the subject. He agreed there is a large protected corridor along the Cedar River and at Tiffany Park. He further agreed that with or without Tiffany Park, there will remain treed areas near the project. Mr. Flatley stated the City's landscaping code with respect to screening allows planting and fencing. He agreed the project plan includes fences and vegetation. Mr. Flatley stated he didn't have any knowledge of buffers on adjoining properties but didn't see any in the aerial photo. Ms. Timmons stated that staff is standing by their analysis. For mitigation measure #3 it sounds as if the appellant intends to meet the 30% requirement. That's all the City is requesting. The applicant is failing to consider the City's intend is to protect the existing tree canopy. The mitigation measure is intended to preclude replacement tree. The code is inadequate to do that without the mitigation measure. However, a tree retention plan is amenable to the City. For mitigation measure #6, the staff feels they have proven impact and provided adequate mitigation. Staff feels the public are the appropriate people to provide information on impacts. Applicant Testimony In response to the Examiner, Mr. Talkington stated in the northern portion of the plat, the 15 foot buffer would be preserved but clearing and a wall would be located in the lots themselves (Lots 11- 14). No additional clearing will go into the buffer area. For Lots 15-18, there will be no wall. All other improvements would be within the lot area. There will be no additional clearing. Ms. Rogers asked the Examiner to read the SEPA Appeal argument letter dated November 18,2014. As stated in that letter, the City staff and the applicant are in agreement to Revised Conditions # 1 and #3. However, they would argue to keep the existing language in the condition, but add a comma and add a statement that an updated tree protection plan and land clearing plan to be submitted and approved prior to construction. Condition #6 deals with a perimeter buffer. No perimeter buffer is required in this. zone and none exist surrounding the subject. The requirement would be unique in this area and they would be buffering their single family uses from surrounding single family uses. • • There is no significant impact in terms of aesthetics. They have voluntarily provided 10-200 feet (50 foot average) buffers and two pipelines of 60 to 100 feet (Mercer Island Trail and Cedar River Trail corridors, respectively). Only six lots touch a property boundary. Some have fill walls, the highest currently proposed is 6 feet high. There is a 100 foot Cedar River Trail buffer adjacent to these properties and between adjacent properties. The City's SEPA analysis cited Comprehensive Plan Objective CDG and Policies 50 and 55 as justification for the perimeter buffer. Those policies do not apply here. The City omitted the citation of the objective, which does not appiy here. These uses are not different. The proposed use and adjacent use are the same. The tree canopy is being protected. There is no need for a perimeter buffer of 15 feet, let along 50 feet. Addition of a buffer after the fact will invalidate the proposal and violate state law. Public Testimony Ms. Claudia Donnelly lived in the Renton Potential Annexation Area in Renton Highlands. Ms. Donnelly stated she had submitted questions. In February 2014, in an article in the Renton Reporter, Ms. Timmons stated all 1,300 trees would be coming down. How will the protected trees be protected? This developer will clear cut all of the trees and put in replacement trees. At Ms. Donnelly's subdivision, Windstone, and at Piper's Bluff, this same developer clear cut all of the trees; Who will make sure the trees won't be clear cut? Ms. Donnelly stated she was concerned about the proposed stormwater detention pond failing and. impacting the development. At Windstone, the detention pond failed three times spilling water and mud into a wetland and Honey Creek. At Piper's Bluff, the detention pond failed and dumped yellow water into May Creek. Renton officials do not work on the weekend; they will not protect the wetlands. Ms. Donnelly stated Renton allowed Safeway to build on wetlands three summers ago. They started getting water coming up through the floor and had to rope off the area. The hours of construction ordinance must be followed. How will it be? Renton has an ordinance keeping dirt off of the road and protecting streams during construction. The laws are not being enforced. Renton doesn't allow working on Sundays. This developer had contractors working on Sundays in at least Windstone and Piper's Bluff. No staff person will be there to monitor them. The City does not require the contractor to get the necessary NPDES permit from DOE prior to start of work. Additionally, the City doesn't require erosion control fences near wetlands, private property or streams before clearing starts. They don't make the contractors have the necessary permits for clearing before building permits. In the late 1990s a builder cleared without permits and there was no consequence. Ms. Donnelly expressed concern about the Renton appeal process. On November 26, there was a notice in the paper talking about the appeal timeframe for this development, yet the document itself • • had not been released. She had to request it from the director. If there is no notice before the appeal starts, how can the City be trusted? On June 14, 2012 the Renton Reporter asked if Renton's tree preservation policy was just for show. Ms. Donnelly presented pictures of Piper's Bluff. Forty-seven trees were supposed to be retained or mitigated. Some of the trees were saved. Many were cleared. The trees being planted are decorative and replacing Douglas Firs and other large trees. Some trees must be saved. She also showed examples of construction dirt on the road in front of her house. The dirt is washing into Green Creek and May Creek. No one at Renton cares about the street or the environment. Ms. Barbara Smith stated considering the greenbelt surrounding the pipelines is not realistic. Those are dirt paths without trees. Ms. Smith stated she should not have to plant trees on her yard, plus the trees are 80-100 feet high. Replanting trees won't compensate. They are losing their quality of life. The wildlife that's there will be removed. The school district shouldn't have sold it. They didn't provide proper notice of sale. They were denied access to do further studies but the developer was allowed on it. She encourages the City to put strict enforceable timelines. She found 97 reviews on this developer online. Only 5 were positive. They are local and speaking to poor construction, leak issues, mold in new homes and poor customer service. People wait years to have construction defects repaired. SEPA Appeal #2 -Project Opponent TPWAG Appellant Testimony Mr. Daniel McMonagle is the attorney for the project opponents, the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group. The opponents have lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and have historically used the woods. Mr. David Beedon is a member of the TPW AG and has lived in the neighborhood since it was built 34 years ago. He lives at 1725 Pierce Avenue SE in Renton. Mr. Beedon lives directly adjacent to the project. He can walk to the former school property in five minutes. The TPW AG is composed of five persons who hold officer positions in a non-profit corporation formed in March 2014. The purpose of the group is to mitigate as much as possible any environmental or other impacts coming out of this development. He has experience in the woods. He has been walking in these woods since 1982. He exercises there and watches wildlife. The character of the woods has been mostly unchanged for all that time. Some changes there were related to dirt embankments on paths .to facilitate mountain biking. There are teepee and treehouses built here. The woods have never been fenced, except along the Cedar River Pipeline. The fence has been there at least 34 years. It has been un maintained. The fence is along the City of Seattle Watershed property line. It is not a school district fence. The woods property has never been signed no trespassing. ----------------------------------------- • • There is an extensive trail system in the woods that were there when he moved in. There are nine separate access points along the two pipeline rights of way and other at the end of 18th Street. These are trailheads. The trails are a large loop with several connector trails. The outer loop is about a 15 minute walk. Mr. Beedon has personally been pruning and trimming trails to keep them open. He believes the school district performed maintenance there four times in the last three decades including cutting down dangerous trees and removing trash or yard waste. He is aware of no other activity from the school district on the property. The school district performed maintenance there in 2000, 2010, and twice in 2011. Each of these incidents was related to a request for action to the school district by a member of the public. Mr. Beedon spoke to the school district in 2000 about illegal activity on the property. That prompted the 2000 maintenance and the placement of signage discouraging dumping. In 20 I 0, Mr. Beedon called the school district to ask why some trees had been removed. The school district stated there were dangerous trees. In 20 II he spoke with the school district about illegal trash and a fire pit on the property. The school district responded by cleaning up the trash and removing the fire pit. Mr. Beedon quoted an email sent to him by Mr. Mike Rouch of the school district. The email stated, "I got the sense this is an important asset to your neighborhood and I wanted our folks to do what we could to restore the beauty there." Mr. Beedon stated the school district had essentially left the property alone. Mr. Beedon stated the trails have been used for recreational walking, running, dog walking, bicycling, socializing, wildlife viewing, and inventorying plants. Kids build forts and tree houses. This area is used extensively for recreation, on a daily basis there are at least a dozen people in there. Over the years, thousands of people have used it. Use of the area has increased due to the informal maintenance of the paths. Aesthetically, the woods are beautiful. It's a wild area with a variety of vegetation and wetlands. The topography is interesting. There are seasonal creeks. It reminds him of the foothills of the Cascades, though with less dramatic topography. Mr. Beedon described wildlife he has seen on the property including bobcat, pileated woodpecker, red headed sapsuckers, ducks, crows, other types of birds, deer, and owls. Mr. Beedon stated there are a rich variety of plants on the property. There are also at least two geocaches on the property. Mr. Beedon showed pictures of stormwater accumulated on the two pipelines on the property. The pipelines drain onto the school district property. Recently, the City of Renton cleaned out drain pipes to improve the drainage and reduce flooding. In response to Mr. McMonagle, Mr. Beedon stated he had hired Mr. Neugebauer in September 2014 to perform studies on the property and review the applicant's studies. The TPW AG had asked the • • school district to allow them to do a third party wetland evaluation. The school district denied the request stating it did not further the interest of the school district or the developer. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to tie the historic use of the property to a SEP A impact, noting the public did not have a right to use this property in the first place. How is there an adverse impact under SEPA? There could be a prescriptive use, but the Examiner does not have the authority to adjudicate prescriptive use or adverse possession. The Examiner noted Halverson v. Bellevue, and the limits on restrictions of Hearing Examiner authority, specifically Legune v. Clallam County, and others. The Examiner's authority is limited to those described specifically in the City code. The Examiner asked Mr. McMonagle to provide a brief on the issue of the authority and relevance of the public prescriptive right to the property by November 28th with applicant and City response by December 5th. Mr. Steven Neugebauer of SNR Company is a licensed hydrogeologist and engineering geologist. He presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the relevant issues from his report (Exhibit M49). Mr. Neugebauer described his qualifications. He stated the biggest issue with this project is groundwater and the engineering geology of the site. The big thing is the SEPA document is' inadequate. His scope for this project is to assess the applicant's studies and to review the environmental impacts of the project. SEPA should produce information regarding impacts. The SEPA checklist is not designed to gather all the impacts. There should be more intensive studies done here because of the intensity of the development and of the surrounding development. There are only preliminary studies, which are inadequate. Mr. Neugebauer stated the history of the site needs to be reviewed as far back as possible. His presentation will focus on the SEPA issues. Only four studies have been incorporated in the SEPA checklist, there are now 22 studies. Mr. Neugebauer described the wildlife corridor link along the greenbelt from the subject to the Cedar River. This is the only significant open area in the local region. The moor is surrounded by development except for this narrow wildlife corridor on the northeast corner. He showed maps dating back to 1865 to show historical water flows. In 1898 the Black River still flowed, the Green River Valley was the White River Valley and the Duwamish Waterway was still a river. There are wetlands shown on the map in this area as back as 1898. The entire regional drainage system has changed since then. The title report shows in 1936 this subject property had been cleared and was owned by the railroad and in 1945 by a Department of Defense corporation. This is an important issue to SEPA because there might have been wartime activity here with potential contaminants. Mr. Neugebauer states there should have been a Phase I ESA. Mr. Neugebauer showed the development pattern in 1990. It has been forested since the 1940s. The oldest trees are about 65 years old. Mr. Neugebauer showed the geomorphology of the area. The property had been in a melt water channel from the last ice age that became the Cedar River. Drainage goes both to the southwest and northeast. The area has many depositional environments for soils. There are structural anomalies in • • the area. There are no geological reports performed by the applicant and they couldn't perform their own. He stated there should have been more soils tests, percolation tests, more test pits and borings. There is neither engineering geology nor hydrogeological studies. He showed a geologic map of the area and pointed to geologic issues from the confluence of two seismic faults. This might influence landslide activities. The USGS maps show that the closest fault zone is 3.9 miles, though there may be others nearby that haven't yet been mapped. Geologists look for bend trees and uneven surfaces. There are many bent trees here. That indicates ground movement. The ground is moving slowly and the trees are bending with it. There might be shallow or slightly deeper ground movement. He walked the site, but didn't perform studies because the school district wouldn't allow it. The SEPA documents say there are no structures on the site, but there are treehouses and forts. The site is vacant but not unused. The Opponents state there is no SEPA document, only a report from the City's Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Steven Neugebauer discussed the title report's historical accounts of ownership of the project . site (Page 12). There is an easement for a natural gas pipeline. There are several other easements for various purposes. Ms. Rogers asked about the relevance of this testimony. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Neugebauer to describe the relevance of this testimony in terms of SEPA. Mr. Neugebauer stated the SEPA checklist asks about potential hazardous wastes on the property. No studies were conducted. The title report shows potential hazardous uses in the past. A phase 1 environmental site assessment should have been conducted. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant hadn't shown how they were dealing with the City's drainage easement, which is part of the City's drainage system. Ms. Rogers noted that the drainage easement was released. Mr. Neugebauer stated his concern from a geologic perspective is that there were no geologic or hydrogeologist studies performed for this site. There isn't enough information. This site could have fault zones. Also, there is potential evidence of ground creep or slumps. His specific concern is that these mobile soils must be dealt with, which would require further study. He also stated the SEPA Checklist is wrong because the studies came later. He stated the Checklist was wrong because it ignored recreational activities and recreational structures on the property. Mr. Neugebauer stated 14 days is insufficient to review the many studies that were performed as part of this application. He stated he had reviewed all of the documents and believes an Environmental Impact Statement should have been required. The SEPA Checklist was the only document presented. The SEPA document should show what the conditions are in a summary format. Another issue is the hydrology and geology of the site. The wetland determination by Gary Shultz and the Technical Information Report from Barghausen and the Otak report show groundwater saturation levels that make this site undevelopable. The groundwater will be too high in the rainy season. Mr. Neugebauer referred to the Shultz report. He stated the depth to the water table is zero ------------- • • inches below ground level. Groundwater is a flat line, it is not contoured. This site needs additional study to determine how it can be developed. An EIS should be required. Mr. Neugebauer read definitions for various types of groundwater and hydric soils from the USGS. The applicant's report shows so much water there that development without pumps may not be feasible. Groundwater is also protected from pollutants. It's illegal to discharge pollutants into groundwater. Water from the. homes cannot be discharged into the wetlands. Mr. Neugebauer stated the AES geotechnical report is not adequate to satisfy SEPA requirements. It stated that in the report. There have not been the extensive studies that should have been prepared. There were inadequate numbers of test pits. Though they acknowledge groundwater will be near the surface in winter (8" from surface), but don't describe how they plan to deal with it. The report was paid for by the school district and was inadequate in scope. The report shows the site has geotechnical critical areas, specifically erosion, site stability and other indicators of shallow ground creep or slumping. The site will need deep infiltration strategies to get the stormwater down below the high water table and into a more permeable layer. There is no capacity for stormwater infiltration on this site. This may be why the developer has chosen a stormwater vault because a pond won't infiltrate. Anything excavated below the surface will have groundwater issues. Drainage ditches will be full of water. If you put a vault where groundwater is at the surface, the vault will have to be tied down to bedrock or it will float out of the ground. There need to be much more detailed studies. The geotechnical report says the slope angles are for areas where groundwater seepage is not present at the face of the slope. There will need to be some sort of temporary de-watering. Mr. Neugebauer stated the water will come back and flood basements and keep stormwater from flowing. Based on our review, the deposits are not the type the report suggests. This soil is impermeable. The AES report assumes the soil is permeable. The soils promote shallow ground creep and slumping. Mr. Neugebauer reviewed the Environmental Review Committee report. He believes it is inadequate and an EIS should have been prepared. This project was done in too many disjointed steps. On page 8 of AES, the report says the wetlands may be groundwater influenced. However, there is no further study to determine what to do. Having groundwater within 8" of the surface is a major issue. There is a 12" culvert discharging stormwater into the wetland. That's illegal under the Clean Water Act. They cannot discharge to a point source. There need to be better studies. The Environmental Review Committee report states the project will result in minimal loss of vegetation to the site. That's impossible given the current proposal. According to the Washington State !?epartment of Fish and Wildlife, there is priority habitat here. The removal of existing vegetation will remove a great deal of the evapotranspiration on this site. The trees may remove as much as 75% of the water from the site. The ERC is more worried about views than the more critical water issues. • • Mr. Neugebauer stated the ERC is basing its opinions on studies that are too preliminary. The issue of liquefaction isn't addressed at all. There is no study as to how the displaced groundwater will affect neighbors. Mr. Neugebauer's final point is that there is no cohesive and conclusive SEPA document. You can't make a final environmental determination on a document that doesn't exist. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer if he'd read the drainage report in the application packet. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had. Ms. Timmons asked Mr. Neugebauer to relate his testimony to the drainage report. Mr. Neugebauer stated the applicant put the cart before the horse because there are no studies for groundwater hydrology. There isn't enough information to form a drainage report. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Neugebauer stated he would have done test pits and boring, piezometer studies and look for the groundwater. If the wetlands are there, the groundwater is there. We need additional studies to determine where the water really is. If it's at the surface, the drainage report is incorrect. The Examiner asked if they know the groundwater is, why does there need to be additional study. Mr. Neugebauer stated the drainage plan isn't taking into account the groundwater. A building pad cannot be placed where the groundwater at the surface. Utilities cannot be placed within the groundwater, particularly sewer which would be continuously draining groundwater. Ms. Rogers asked if he was familiar with the 1995 Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B). Mr. Neugebauer stated he wasn't. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was aware of the SEPA provisions that provide that city regulations can be sufficient to mitigate environmental impacts. Mr. Neugebauer stated he had looked at it and, at the requirements for an EIS. Ms. Rogers asked if he had worked with real estate developers who are speculatively buying property. He stated he did and that developers did feasibility studies. He stated phase I environmental site assessments (ESA) were common. He had not seen the applicant's Phase I ESA and couldn't speak to whether one existed. It is a typical procedure. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Neugebauer was familiar with the City's preliminary plat procedures. He responded he was slightly familiar with them. Mr. Neugebauer stated a project of this size would typically have an EIS. He had never seen a development of this size with this much contention without an EIS. Ms. Rogers stated the applicant had prepared a SEPA Checklist June 2014. Mr. Neugebauer was not aware of the newer checklist. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Neugebauer stated the test pits from Mr. Shultz's report were taken throughout the project site, though most are in the wetland areas. He stated there are high levels of water throughout the site because water tables are flat. He stated he was not aware of a 303D listing for any water on the site, though all wetlands are expected to be so listed to allow discharge. • • Mr. Neugebauer stated storm water is being directed to a vault but it will not treat the stormwater for heavy metals. Ms. Rogers referred to the 2012 AES report. The top of page 2 states the site is suitable for buried utilities, paving and structures. Mr. Neugebauer stated they also said additional studies would be conducted. Ms. Rogers asked if he understood that detailed construction and . engineering review and much more intensive studies will be conducted before final plat. Mr. Neugebauer reiterated he felt the cart was being placed before the horse in that the SEPA review is now for a reason. It allows for adequate public comment. Later phases do not. Ms. Rogers referred to the aerial photo (Exhibit K6c) and asked Mr. Neugebauer if the project site isn't completely surrounded by similar residential developments. He stated there is forested land around here and existing development is less dense. He did agree there are existing houses and roads surrounding the project. He doesn't know if there are existing geological or hydrological issues affecting the existing homes, however he speculates that may be why the areas to the northeast and east are not developed. Applicant Response Mr. Kevin Jones, Transportation Engineer, Transpo Group, prepared the traffic report for this project. He also reviewed the public comments and will respond to them. He's responding specifically to letters from Mr. Roenicke and Ms. Garlough. Mr. Roenicke was concerned that the traffic counts were conducted in June 2013, a time period when the adjacent elementary school is out for summer. Mr. Jones responded by noting that they acknowledged school was out of session. As such, they added to their counts school traffic based on the enrollment of school at the time, which is within eight students of the current student count. They looked at average trip rates for elementary schools and inflated the counts by 210 AM Peak and 70 PM Peak hour trips. Ms. Garlough claimed to have taken counts themselves and compared them to the Transpo report. Ms. Garlough stated the traffic volume was 30% higher than Transpo's measurements. Mr. Jones agreed that traffic volumes fluctuate day to day; however, the traffic volume in the neighborhood is low. The volumes are low enough that you could double traffic and still have Level of Service (LOS) A or B at all of the surrounding intersections. The intersection operation will stay high and not fall below an acceptable LOS that would require mitigation . . Mr. Jones responded to another comment about the impact of new residential traffic on school pedestrian traffic by stating that the overlap in traffic conditions would be in the morning. The residence peak happens after school is out. The projected increase in volumes on Lake Youngs Way is 10-45 +/-trips in the AM Peak hour. This increase, on average, is one vehicle or less per minute during that time period. Traffic volumes fluctuate and there may be an extra car or two in that time period. The school traffic tends to be concentrated in 30 minute intervals. Most of the project traffic won't mix with school traffic volumes. • • Me. Jones spoke to potential safety issues for school pedestrian traffic. He stated there won' t be much impact because the volumes are low. Also, they are providing a pedestrian crosswalk at 18th and Lake Youngs Way. Given the speed limits, the pedestrian crossing and relatively small increase in volumes, there do not anticipate a safety hazard. There is concern about visibility on 16th Street and there was a suggestion this is an accident prone area. They review the accident logs from the City for this location. Specifically, they reviewed collision records for SE 16th Street between Beacon Way SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. For a four year period, there were no collisions reported in this area. There is a grade difference between Beacon and Ferndale. They looked at the collision records and measured daily traffic volumes over a seven day period. 16th Street serves about 3,300 vehicles per day. 4.8 million vehicles traveled along that section in four years without a single reported collision. There was one in February of this year, though that was related to icy conditions. Me. Jones stated the data does not support the assertion this location is a collision prone location. They will also add additional signage on the north side of 16th Street indicating there is an intersection approaching. The geometrics of the road make it difficult to see the intersection. There is a sign now recommending speed limits of 15 mph in this area. There are sidewalks along the route to the school (Exhibit A9, Figure I). Me. Jones responded to a comment from Ponderosa Estates. Residents in this subdivision are concerned about long waits nearby intersections, specifically the intersection labelled Intersection 13 in the Transpo report. They evaluated the intersection from a delay standpoint in the AM and PM Peak. The intersection was not originally reviewed, but was added at the City's request. The review of this intersection was this year while school was in session. Based on the data and the stop control of this intersection, they found this intersection has 15 seconds of average delay or less. The delay will not significantly increase with this development looking out to 2018. It's currently 13 seconds in both the AM and PM Peak. The LOS is B now and will stay that way. This is an acceptable delay under the City's standards. No change in traffic control is necessary. Another issue with respect to school traffic is whether there will need to be extra traffic control personnel from the school. Me. Jones stated he didn't know, but that the use of traffic crossing guards is a typical occurrence in this area. He doesn't anticipate the school district will need to hire traffic control personnel they don't already have. Me. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the changes from the original to the revised traffic study. Me. Jones stated that in both cases, there were the two proposed entrances there are right now. Me. McMonagle asked Me. Jones to explain the route persons in the subdivision would use to get out to a minor arterial. Me. Jones stated that 60% of the Tiffany Park traffic was assumed to go to the west and the remainder would go south. Of the westbound traffic, they assumed' the majority of it would go to SE 16th Street via some route. They would then access Edmonds Avenue. They revised the study because there was a lot of public comment about the absence of that intersection in the study. For the southbound traffic, they assumed the traffic would mostly go to SE 18th Street to Lake • • Youngs Way. Some would go to SE 16th Street; others would go to Royal Hills. Other traffic would go to Beacon, Ferndale or other routes to SE 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue. He stated SE 16th Street had more grade than SE 18th Street; otherwise the roadway geometry was comparable. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Jones about the development's proposed roads. Mr. Jones stated the development will have roads designed to the current standards. Ms. Racheal Villa, of Soundview Consultants, described her experience and qualifications. Her company conducted the fish and wildlife habitat assessment for the property (Exhibit K, page 40). Together, all the scientists who worked on this report have about 80 years of experience. She is a qualified senior author for biological assessments under WSDOT, which is fairly unique. Ms. Villa stated she had visited the project site. She was hired to perform supplementary wetlands review for fish and wildlife habitat. They reviewed the wetlands assessment. They reviewed lists of species from the USFW and the W A DFW for priority habitats and species offsite associated with the Cedar River corridor. There was nothing specifically mapped on site, so they looked to see what was on-site. In their normal critical areas assessment, they would usually incorporate wetlands and habitat scientists. They found nothing specifically listed for priority protection. They reviewed a . wider area for noise and stormwater impacts (Exhibit A, Attachment 16). Ms. Villa noted the habitat here is fairly disturbed on a large scale basis. There is a lot of human intrusion. It's not directly connected to the Cedar River corridor. There are trees, but the wildlife has to cross the 60 foot wide water easement, cross a residential road, cross residential yards, cross a 40% slope and then the Bonneville Power Administration's easement to the Cedar River corridor. It's discontinuous, isolated and highly disturbed. The prior testimony documents that by mentioning the extensive use practiced here. Ms. Villa stated they looked at all potentially regulated species on site including all state and federal listed species and habitat. They found habitat potentially associated with pileated woodpeckers and Townsend's bat, both Washington State listed species. Ms. Villa stated there is a great deal of woodpecker activity. She didn't see nests, but she did see snags. Pileated woodpeckers utilize 1,480 acres, which would include the whole Cedar River corridor. It is possible the woodpeckers are foraging on site. Woodpeckers are a residential, non-migratory species. Ms. Villa stated Townsend's bats might use the site seasonally during the summer for foraging for insects. The DFW would require protecting wetlands, associated buffers and large trees. Ms. Villa stated the plat will not result in a loss of significant, protected habitat for these two listed species. Ms. Villa stated the bobcat is not a listed species. It's a hunted species that doesn't have specific requirements for habitat protection. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa her opinion of the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Villa stated if the wetlands and buffers are protected and off-leash dogs and people on bikes were kept out, the • • wetlands would be better protected than they are now. A typical buffer around a critical area is split rail, which does not keep wildlife out. They function to keep humans and their pets out. Ms. Rogers asked Ms. Villa to summarize her November 18,2014 memo. Ms. Villa summarized the letter by saying they reviewed for potentially regulated species and habitats in accordance with the City of Renton's codes. They concluded the proposal will not likely cause adverse impact on listed species or critical habitats with implementation of best management practices. Protection of wetlands, buffers and significant trees are proposed. She also mentioned the current condition with anthropogenic structures, unleashed pets and many other disturbances to wildlife currently occurring on the site. With respect to non-game species, they were surveyed in the review. She reiterated this is a highly disturbed, isolated patch. Ms. Villa discussed the stormwater filtration system which will remove many pollutants. There is no direct downstream connection to Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to Cedar River. The plan as proposed will protect the downstream areas. Mr. McMonagle stated he didn't understand the description of the critical areas fence. Ms. Villa described what a wooden, split rail fence looks like. Mr. Gary Schulz is a wetlands ecologist. Mr. Schultz described his education and qualifications. He is a sole proprietor who does habitat assessments, mitigation planning, and wetland and stream studies. He is a water and sewer district commissioner. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz if he had visited the project site. He stated he had, many times. His work was focused on wetland delineation and stream identification. He used the ACOE, the DOE Wetlands Manual. He put transects on the property and walked the site in a pattern to determine the location of wetlands. He delineated the wetlands. His delineation was reviewed by Otak, the City's peer reviewer. Mr. Schultz concluded the wetlands are isolated and separated from downstream habitats and water. The southern pipeline dams the site and prevents the flow of surface water off site. They are pocket depressions that are influenced by perched groundwater on a seasonal basis. He visited the site during March and June to view where the water was by season. Ms. Rogers asked if Mr. Schultz tracks weather patterns. He stated he used the SeaTac rainfall record. His review was conducted in March 2014, when the rainfall was 5-6 inches above normal for that time of year. According to the news, it was record breaking month, though he couldn't quote the record. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Schultz about shallow groundwater and the data plots described by Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Schultz stated they were all near wetlands boundaries. Mr. Schultz reviewed these extra data points at the request of Otak. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Neugebauer used the term 'aquake regime'. This term means hydric soils. A lot of these plots were outside the wetland boundaries and didn't have hydric soils. They aren't part of the wetland, though it was a wet time of year. Mr. Schultz stated the soils on site are Alderwood, which typically overlay' an impervious till layer. ~~--l • • Perched, seasonal high water is common. Mr. Schultz stated the areas that will be wet in the winter will be protected. In June 2013, there was no water at all on site. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Schultz whether he's a hydrogeologist. Mr. Schultz stated he wasn't. He is a wetland ecologist. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Schultz can interpret hydrology. Mr. Schultz stated delineating wetlands requires an understanding of wetland hydrology, though he didn't provide either a hydrology report or a geologic report. Mr. Ray CogJas, of Earth Solutions NW, described his education and qualifications. He is a licensed geotechnical engineer. He's been a registered geoengineer since 1998. He is the president of Earth Solutions NW. Mr. Coglas stated he had been present for the TPW AG testimony and had visited the project site. He submitted a letter as part of the exhibit package (Exhibit K, page 33). Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss his letter and his response to Mr. Neugebauer. Ms. Rogers asked to discuss the soil and groundwater characteristics on the site, specifically as they related to the ability to develop the project. Mr. Coglas stated his role was initially to review the AES report. His portion was review of prior reports, field surveys and review of public comments. With respect to the AES report and some of the testimony he'd heard, the AEA report is standard practice. The site is fairly to moderately sloping site, mainly glacial tillthoughthere may be some outwash. The level of investigation that was done as part of the AES report was similar to what his firm would have done. A lot of time geotechnical reports are driven by the proposed use. Kurt Merryman authored the AES report. He is reputable. The report was valid. They adequately characterized on site conditions. The one thing that stood out to Mr. Coglas is that AES didn't throw up any red flags. There's nothing in the report that would suggest major problems. AES was working for the school district and would have been required to tell the district if they thought there would be issues for development. All sites are unique, however this is a typical glacial till site. The level of investigation was appropriate with test pits. If it had been him, he'd done the same type of review for the intended use. If this was proposed to be a 25 story office building with three levels of underground parking, then far more intensive study would have been needed. The analysis that was done was appropriate for the scale of the site and proposed type and intensity of use. In preparing his summary, he looked at all that. He agrees with the AES conclusions. A lot of what a geotechnical engineer does is determining the scope of analysis needed. They could have done a lot more, but the budget and type of project didn't require it. Most of the activity will be near surface and low intensity. Ms. Rogers asked if there would be additional geotechnical analysis to support construction and engineering design at the permit stage. Mr. Coglas stated as far as the actual engineering of the project when it comes to assigning actual values for designer, his firm will prepare a geotechnical report that mayor may not include more information. The final design isn't finished, so they don't know yet where they'll need more specific information. ----• • With respect to shallow groundwater, Mr. Coglas stated there is groundwater in the northwest. He stated the various depths of groundwater testified to before (6", 8", or 2'), AES characterizes the water table at 8' in depth during the summer. It fluctuates seasonally. There's nothing in the AES report suggesting 2' in the summer. It reports 8' in depth. The thing he wants to point out is this site is a perched groundwater condition. Glacial till is dense and cemented and does not allow vertical penetration of surface water to depth. That's common. He is not surprised that during wetland studies they encountered shallow or ponding water in the depressional wetland areas. To suggest the whole site will be underwater is not consistent with a perched groundwater table. There are recessional sands at the surface that allow water to pass through. That water then gets trapped in the impervious layer. He deals with groundwater on all of his projects. It is not a condition that precludes development. There's nothing unique to the plot of Tiffany Park or its surrounds geologically speaking. The Kent Valley is a flat, deep alluvial deposit with a level groundwater table that fluctuates evenly across the valley floor. The Kent Valley is like a deep bathtub. That's not the case here. The till layer is shallow and undulating in Tiffany Park. The elevation change across Tiffany Park is 40'. For example, if the groundwater table were level here, a change in 40' in elevation across the site would cause most of it to be underwater. That's not the case. There are seep environments that are seasonally wet, but they are localized based on the topography and glacial till layer. Groundwater seepage is managed during construction; it doesn't preclude construction. Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Coglas to discuss managing stromwater during construction, specifically, will the stormwater vault float? Mr. Coglas stated that almost every single project he's on has stormwater facilities, many of them are vaults. He's done hundreds of vaults. They look at excavation, the base, storage capacity, stability of the side slopes, and backfill. Tiffany Park is not an environment where he would be concerned with buoyancy of his vault structure. There might be a large seep at the beginning of the cut because of built up water pressure. This usually attenuates over time as the trapped water is drained. They always put a footing drain around the vault if they are concerned the groundwater seam might create excess hydrostatic pressure on the concrete walls. They aren't concerned about buoyancy here. He has done projects that do have buoyancy issues. In that case, there are many best management practices to prevent the vault from being displaced. Ms. Rogers asked to turn back to the AES report. She asked Mr. Coglas to discuss the log reports for the test pits. Mr. Coglas stated geotechnical engineers dig test pits to evaluate soil profiles. Notes suggesting no caving or seepage are very useful because it speaks to the strength of the soil. Groundwater seepage is different from the groundwater table. In the Kent Valley, they would call any water they found the groundwater table, rather than seepage. In this case, there is a difference. Mr. Rogers noted Mr. Neugebauer asked for additional studies. Mr. Coglas described his report and its detail of the geological hazards on site. Mr. Coglas stated there were no slopes that met the City'S criteria for sensitive or protected areas. There are some local, isolated areas that may meet the 40% criteria, but as a geotechnical engineer, he looks at stability. The code specifies the boundaries. Mr. Coglas stated there are no landslide hazards or high erosion hazards on the project site. • • . Erosion is something to be managed. They derive the characterization of erosion from the USDA (now NRCS) soil characterization. These soil types were derived for agriculture. When working fields, it was good to know which soils had high erosion qualities. In development, the type of erosion hazard is not significant. Tiffany Park has some slight to moderate erosion areas. However, . they control erosion through many different methodologies. The final product is stabilized. Erosion is managed through engineering solutions. Mr. Coglas stated there are no seismic hazards on this property. The Seattle fault is 3.7 miles north. We live in a tectonically active environment. There might be a splay or other features under Tiffany Park, but none are known. It's important to know that the residential building code for this area is sufficient to offset seismic risk in this region. A more intense structure or development would require more studies, but low density residential development does not. There is a low seismic hazard here, according to the City. With respect to coal mine hazards, Mr. Coglas stated they had reviewed the coal mine maps. AES also addressed this. They are outside the boundary where further study is needed for coal mine hazards. Mr. Coglas stated there are no potential adverse environmental impacts in relation to geotechnical issues. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Coglas stated he was hired as peer review for the AES report. He was also hired to respond to public comments. Mr. Coglas stated he disagreed with Mr. Neugebauer's conclusions the entire site is somehow going to be underwater or flooded. The groundwater is perched on glacial till that undulates and is uneven. Mr. Coglas said in these environments, based on studies and his experience, it's likely there will be some groundwater seepage when they do utility excavations or cuts/fills. This is not a site that will require dewatering or extensive pumping. The groundwater table is perched with various, isolated seams. In the Kent Valley, pulling water out would draw the whole water table down. This isn't the case here. The water table will be shallow near the wetlands. The AES report, except for the narrative, doesn't document any observed groundwater in the test pits. In exploration pit #6, they noted weak groundwater seepage below 8 feet. It was the dry season. The Examiner asked if Mr. Neugebauer is correct in his conclusion the groundwater level is at zero elevation, would that cause a problem for construction. Mr. Coglas said that would be a problem, but that is not the case. However, if it was at zero elevation, they could manage it. The stormwater system might need to change, but it could be feasibility changed. Mr. Coglas stated the notion that the groundwater is right at the surface everywhere on the project is absurd. Mr. McMonagle asked Mr. Coglas about the test logs in the back of the AES report. Mr. Coglas stated the pits were all test excavations, rather than borings. He agreed there were 12 test pits on the .22 acres dug on September 6, 2012. He agreed all of the pits were done on the same day (Exhibit • • A7, Figure 2). Mr. Coglas stated he is a licensed civil engineer, not a licensed geologist or hydro geologist. They have them on staff. He reviews those reports and has studied these specialties. He's familiar with the two basic groundwater environments at this site. Mr. McMonagle referred to Page I of the AES report that there is a caution the report should be reviewed and revised to support a specific development proposal. Mr. Coglas stated he was retained in October 2014. He was hired to provide peer review of the AES report, prepare a site evaluation, review the plat proposal and provide feedback on community comments. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Coglas had done physical investigation of the site. Mr. Coglas said he had not and was unsure of whether he would be asked to going forward. He anticipates what he would do on a follow up report which would include further review of plat plans. Mr. Coglas stated construction is done year round right now. He prepares different recommendations to deal with groundwater, depending on the season. With respect to the vault, the physical dimension for this vault is very large, but he doesn't know exactly how big. His role is to help the contractor to install the vault and deal with any groundwater or geotechnical issues to ensure the vault is installed correctly and will function. The vault will probably be 12-18' deep. They will have 100 times more bearing capacity than is needed. There will be a soil cap. He'll look at the stability of the excavation to ensure the walls hold. Mr. Cog las showed where the storm water vault will be located on the plat. Mr. Coglas agreed the deepest test pit was 10.5', though he's gone deeper on other projects. The shallowest test pit was 8'. He agreed the only test pit in the vicinity of the vault was Test Pit # II, to a depth of 8.5'. Ms. Rogers asked Mr. Cog las to clarify his role in the project going forward. He stated his firm is the geotechnical engineer of record and will assume that role going forward. Mr. Barry Talkington, of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, is the civil engineer for the project and designed the plat. Mr. Talkington spoke of the drainage release on the title. A drainage release states there is stormwater leaving a property and draining on another property. It is not an easement with an exact location. His design of the plat addressed the release by looking at upstream drainage basins around the property. The drainage release in the title is for the Ponderosa subdivision, at least a half mile from the property. It is uphill, but there is no physical way water can drain from that property on to the project property. The drainage release was executed in 1965, before much of the present development was constructed. The drainage release described the entire section (640 acres). It's just an historical remainder. Mr. Talkington stated discharging clean stormwater into wetlands is a common practice. The drainage is discharged into the buffer to recharge the hydrology of the wetland. With respect to street widths, the streets inside the project are narrower than in the surrounding ,communities, in conformance with current city code. • • Mr. Talkington stated the preliminary plat process starts with city approval. The next step is preparation of full construction plans and drainage reports. Additional information will be requested from sub-consultants. They prepared a preliminary drainage report for the general storm drainage design. They will do a final, more specific drainage report next. The final drainage report is usually a fine tuning, though there may be changes that require more extensive revisions. Mr. McMonagle asked if Barghausen Consulting is an engineering firm. Mr. McMonagle asked whether Barghausen was paid hourly from the consultant or as a contingent fee. Mr. Talkington stated it wasn't contingent. Staff Response Mr. Steve Lee, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, described his position with the City and his relevant work experience and qualifications. Mr. Lee he had reviewed the project files and performed a site visit. He has experience in the Cedar River area for the last ten years. Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Neugebauer's testimony. He stated Mr. Neugebauer's points were very general. Most of the issues Mr. Neugebauer raises were dealt with well by Mr. Coglas. Mr. Lee stated the Cedar River issues will always be present. The river system is young and new. There have been sloughing issues, but they were caused by deforestation in the early 20th century, earthquakes and other acts of nature. The Cedar River is now controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE). There is a bit of control in the form of two upstream dams. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) has the capability of metering the flow of the Cedar River. Within the last five years, there was an 80 year event of 1O,000cfs. In the past, that would have causes landslides and flooding at Boeing. That didn't occur because of the controls in place by the ACOE and SPU. Mr. Lee stated Mr. Coglas has performed at least 20 projects in the City of Renton. He is correct in his review of the geotechnical study by AES. The site is very similar to other sites in the city. The steep areas are very small (15-20' feet long) and do not warrant slope stability analysis. Overall on the project site, the approximate slope is 10% or so. The City does not require additional slope stability analysis. With respect to the number of test pits in the AES study, Mr. Lee stated there were sufficient numbers of test pits to gauge impacts of potential groundwater on site. He would have preferred to see a few more, especially in the vault area. However, as Mr. Coglas testified, the City may require extra analysis. He stated he does not typically require additional geotechnical analysis at this stage of the process. They may ask for deeper borings or excavation pits. The residential nature of this proposal wouldn't usually require it. They will look at this again to determine if more geotechnical information is needed for the walls, cuts, grading and the stromwater vault. Mr. Lee felt the information provided was adequate to allow for a determination of impact on the site. The AES didn't mention issues of groundwater on the site. Therefore, they didn't feel the need to require secondary review. The City determined the AES report was adequate. • • Mr. Lee spoke to the stormwater drainage issues. The only concern the City may have is the placement of the vault. They may require additional and deeper test pits to determine if there is groundwater that would have a detrimental effect on the vault structure. In that instance, they will do a buoyancy calculation to determine the static water volume. A certain amount of water will hold the vault down. They need to know how much water that is and when it will be in the vault. In response to Ms. Timmons; Mr. Lee stated the storm drainage water will be pre-treated and will prevent polluted water from running off into the wetlands. The vault will treat all PGIS run off and discharge to a closed conveyance system. None of the pollution generating systems will discharge into a wetland. Mr. Lee stated the City of Renton will require a Level 2 downstream an'alysis to describe the downstream conveyance after leaving the site. They are uncertain of a segment of the pipeline that takes the water. They want to make sure there is no downstream flooding. An NPDES permit will be required for the project. The permit stipulates allowable discharge into a conveyance system. That will include background monitoring as well as discharge monitoring. All of the requirements must be met before a building permit or construction permits are issued. Mr. Lee summarized the local, state and federal code requirements. The applicant has complied with all code requirements. He stated these codes are sufficient to address all probable stormwater impacts. He said the Seattle pipeline is monitored by SPU. If they see even a fraction of a movement in that hillside, they'll know. This is the drinking water in the City of Seattle. In response to the Examiner, Mr. Lee stated the deep, static groundwater level was uniformly along the wetland level at the project, it could affect the development. They would discover this instance during construction. If grades are lower than the wetland level, they will require more borings and test pits. The Examiner asked if the code regulations would allow the City to ask for more borings. Mr. Lee stated it comes down to professional liability as defined in the RCW. The person stamping the plans is responsible. The City is responsible for life safety only. The engineering staff can require more borings if they think there might be an issue. If there are groundwater issues present, the proposed vault is the best solution. In response to Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lee stated there is a difference between the perched groundwater table and the static, deeper groundwater level. There are no indications of the static groundwater level above 8'. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Coglas' assertion that the surface groundwater could be addressed during construction. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware the geotechnical report was prepared for the school district rather than the applicant. Mr. Lee stated he was. Mr. McMonagle asked if there shouldn't have been at least one test pit per acre. Mr. Lee stated the geotechnical engineering consultant will get a representative sampling of the site. They add more bores if they see dissimilarities in the site. Mr. McMonagle asked if Mr. Lee was aware AES limited its number of test pits based on budgetary • • constraints. Mr. Lee stated he was not aware of this. With respect to the stormwater, Mr. Lee stated the initial design was for a pond but changed to a vault sometime this year. Mr. McMonagle asked if the vault addition would typically trigger the need for additional review. Mr. Lee stated they would typically ask for more information but they haven't yet requested more geotechnical information from the applicant. Ms. Timmons asked if the City can get the extra information in an engineering packet. Mr. Lee stated it could. Ms. Rocale Timmons stated the studies provided by the applicant; especially the technical studies will be fine-tuned in detail at the time of construction permit submittal. These studies are used to determine if there are probably adverse impacts from the development. The appellant has asserted there hasn't been adequate time to review the proposal and the attendant studies. This project has been in review for nine months. The file has been available. The appellant has been provided with these studies, including the revised studies from June 2013. There were two Notices of Application released. Ms. Timmons entered Exhibit AK. The September 2014 notice included the revised SEPA checklist. With respect to wetlands, the City asked for a third party study. That study was completed by Otak. Otak provided two separate memos in response to revised studies from Mr. Schultz. Otak affirmed the final wetland determination (Exhibit AS). Otak determined there was a wetland missed by the applicant. The studies were revised to acknowledge the fifth wetland on-site. Otak then affirmed all of the r~visions made by Mr. Schultz. Staff agrees with the TPW AG appellant regarding tree preservation for wildlife on site. With respect to transportation, staff agrees with testimony provided by Mr. Jones of Transpo Group. Perteet, the City's consultant, concurred with the Transpo study. They feel all potential impacts are mitigated. Staff agrees with the testimony provided by Ms. Villa with respect to critical areas and buffers. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Rogers stated the applicant agrees with staff on every issue with the exception of the requirement of a 15 foot buffer. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Neugebauer stated he was concerned about the stormwater vault filter. There are no specifications on this. He has never seen a filter that can remove dissolved metals. He is concerned about the maintenance of the filter. Who will change it or maintain it? • • Mr. Neugebauer 'said he's been practicing hydrogeology for 33 years. He stated perched, groundwater doesn't occur on slopes. The water drains through. The groundwat!!r follows the contour of the land. He stated the unsaturated zone flow is at negative pressure. Groundwater is at atmospheric pressure. The applicant is describing an impossible scenario. They can see the groundwater through pressure gradients. He stated the water table at an elevation is a water table. He stated they are using the applicant's information which is incomplete. The groundwater will go with the slope of the ground. Either the water's at the surface and there is a wetland or it's not. In the upper 30", the bioturbation zone, the ground is unsaturated. The water flows through the pore space and creates a vacuum behind it. There is just not enough information to really say where the groundwater is and where it's going. Finally, Mr. Neugebauer stated groundwater is regulated under the Clean Water Act. Point sources cannot be wetland hydrology. Preliminary Plat Staff Testimony Ms. Rocale Timmons gave a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit AL). The site is located in the Benson Hill community planning area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. It is 22 acres located in the R8 zone. It is bordered by the Cedar River Pipeline and the Mercer Island Pipeline. There are 1,300 trees on this vacant site. It is owned by the Renton School District. It is surrounded by existing single family residences. It ties into two existing street stubs which will be extended into the site. The applicant is requesting critical areas exemptions and preliminary plat approval. The City has received 72 comment letters. Staff was present at a community meeting held by TPW AG and conducted a separate meeting in September 2014. On September 22, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a MONS decision with 11 mitigation measures. Two appeals were filed. The environmental determination did not include new issues related to zoning, permitted uses, density, construction mitigation, and others. The applicant is proposing 97 lots. There is a 96 lot proposal to allow 30% retention of trees. There will be a 5.7 du/acre density. Average lot size is 5,400sf. The site has five wetlands (three Category II and two Category III). The applicant is propo'sing buffer reductions with mitigation in the form of buffer extensions. The applicant is asking for a critical areas exemption for the extension of SE 18th Street to allow for a small buffer impact. Staff supports the requested exemption. Staff relied heavily on the Comprehensive Plan. There are many significant trees, critical areas, wildlife and an established density and use pattern that are unique. Ms. Timmons described the Comprehensive Plan policies the staff relied on in their analysis. The staff attempted to provide harmony and balance between existing and new neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan as conditioned. • • The proposal meets most bulk and dimensional standards if all conditions of approval are met. The only issue is Lot 19. This lot may not meet minimum lot width standards, but will be conditioned to meet the standard. The applicant has provided a landscape plan. This plan does not comply with the code, but could with minor modifications. Per the development standards, there are several proposed walls ranging from 4' to 21' on-site. These walls are outside the height limit. Staff has requested a height limit on walls. Staff would be open to terracing of walls to reduce the overall height. With respect to critical areas, most requirements are met with conditions. The applicant has asked for modifications to wetland buffers. There are impacts from walls that must be revised. There were public comments related to habitat. The site provides· habitat for non-listed species. The tree preservation plan is sufficient to provide habitat. Based on the provided tree inventory, approximately 679 trees were excluded from retention calculations. At least 188 trees must be preserved on site or replaced at a mitigation ratio to allow 30% tree retention. The applicant proposes to protect 181 trees and mitigate seven others. In terms of the analysis from subdivision regulations, the proposal complies if all conditions of approval are met. The applicant must provide a safe crossing for the trail. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there is no applicable street plan in the area. There were several comments regarding transportation issues. The proposed development would generate 1,000 weekday trips. Intersections near the project would remain at acceptable levels of service. A SEPA mitigation measure requires a new stop sign at Monroe Avenue. Staff has included an additional condition of approval to address sight distance, concerns. Staff has also recommended additional signage. Staff feels as conditioned, all impacts for transportation are mitigated. With respect to residential lots, there are several pipe stem lots. Staff would like to see the applicant revise these lots to comply with code or provide for shared driveways. Shared driveways are preferred to reduce curb cuts. Parks, police and fire staff indicate there are sufficient resources to support the development if all fees are paid. Adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students are provided. Sidewalks will be constructed to connect to the existing sidewalk system. Staff has recommended a SEPA mitigation measure to include a crosswalk improvement at Lake Youngs Way at SE 18th Street. Adequate provision for water and sewer are provided. The drainage report complies with the 2009 Stormwater Manual. There will be a vault within Tract A. The applicant will need to provide a downstream analysis for storm water conveyance. _._--------------------------------, • • In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated there will be no alley access. This proposal does not meet the threshold. There are two zones on the property. Applicant Testimony Ms. Rogers presented a letter describing the applicant's rationale for revised conditions of approval along with a set of revised conditions for the plat (Exhibits AM and AN, respectively). Ms. Rogers asked for approval of the plat subject to revised conditions. They are generally supportive of the staff report. They have a few areas of disagreement. Ms. Rogers wanted to emphasize a point that the client is under contract to purchase the project from the Renton School District. This is surplus land the district cannot use. Ms. Rogers noted they are asking for revisions to Conditions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 16-18. They are requesting additional changes to conditions to fix typographical errors, repetition, and non-contested issues. The City has recently changed its justification for Condition 3 for the 15 foot buffer. The City had originally erroneously relied on incorrect Comprehensive Plan policies. They are now turning to policies that also don't support the need for a buffer. Aesthetics are not an adequate basis to impose a perimeter buffer. There is already an average 50 foot perimeter buffer proposed along with two pipelines. There is no need for an additional buffer. With respect to Condition 4, they have proposed a modification to the location of curb bulb outs. They feel the City will agree with this revision. Condition 5 is the biggest issue. This is the condition that City is asserting that retaining walls must be limited to 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the back yard. The City is referencing a condition related to aesthetic dividers, not retaining walls. None of the retaining walls concepts are referenced in this condition. Even if this particular code were to apply, the measurement of height does not apply. The walls they have designed are essential to the design of the plat. Exhibit AM, Attachment B, are two staff reports for current amendments to the walls and hedges section of the code. Title 4 does not have standards for retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment C is a city handout that establishes a difference between fences, hedges and walls and engineered retaining walls. Exhibit AM, Attachment D is the pre-application memo for the original meeting Henley had with the City. You never get a written report again until you see the Hearing Examiner. The City stated the proposed retaining walls are not subject to the fences portion of the code. Even if the code has recently changed, they are vested to the old code. If the retaining walls are reduced or eliminated, we'll end up doing more grading. That will result in impact to trees and increased construction impacts. They have submitted a grading plan with reduced retaining wall heights. Conditions 6 and 16 are about shared private driveways. They are concerned the City is demanding an extra lot use the shared private driveways. There is a specific instance when this will not work. • • Condition 9 is the wetland mitigation associated with Wetland E, at the southeast section of the site. The wetland mitigation plans show they have already exceeded the required buffer. They have to extend the street. The critical areas exemption is for 14sf of impact from the required sidewalk. The City has asked for additional buffer area. They disagree but will agree to provide enhanced plantings. Condition 17 is a typographical error. Condition 18 is related to pipe stem lots which are really about the shared driveway issue. Mr. Gary Schultz, the wetland ecologist, described the mitigation impacts the applicant is providing. His testimony is specifically related to Condition 9. Mr. Schultz described the I ,331sf of additional buffer the applicant is proposing. Ms. Rogers stated Ms. Timmons agreed to the revised Conditions I, 4, 9, 13 and 17. Ms. Timmons stated they disagree with applicant revised Conditions 3, 5, 6, and 16. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Vanessa Dolby, stated she would not be opposed to changing Condition 5 to allow them to request a variance. She could not comment on whether staff would support a variance. These would be administrative variances. Ms. Rogers stated that they did not apply for a variance because they were told they didn't need to. Mr. Barry Talkington spoke to the difference between cut and fill walls. A cut is needed when the finished lot grade is below the existing grade. The wall stabilizes the grade. A fill wall includes fill on top of existing grade. The finished lot is above existing grade. This is and engineered wall with reinforcing fabric. Mr. Talkington stated the revised plan reduces the 21' high wall above Tract A and the 18' high wall along the Cedar River Pipeline. That wall will come down to 6'. The height from the high side of the walls is zero if they apply the code in effect when they submitted. In their case, the finished grade is the top of the wall. Mr. Talkington described the limits on site grading imposed by two entrances, ADA standards, etc. The overall objective is to balance cutlfill on site. They are limited by the road access and ADA standards for road slopes through intersections. They can only change grades on site so much. As the plan is laid out there are grade differences from lot to lot that requires walls. They attempt to maximize lot areas and reduce impacts to surrounding buffers. If they meet the City's conditions, they will lose lots, reduce lot sizes and impact the buffers. Use of walls allows them to . decrease impacts. For Conditions 6 and 16, Mr. Talkington spoke to a set of maps (Exhibit AO) depicting the shared driveway plans. He prepared the plans. For lots 9-14, the shared driveway easement will be used Lots 12 cI4. Lot 14 has direct access to the cul-de-sac but there will be no driveway there. The City would also require Lot II to use this driveway. This is not desirable because the driveway would be at an angle to the roadway which would also change the design of the house to allow side loading of • • the garage. The City is attempting to apply the amended code to the plot rather than the code under which the project vested. The staff Report stated Lot 14 had inadequate frontage. This has been corrected. For Lots 15-17, they had originally designed the shared driveway to service Lots 15 and 16. They have now included Lot 17 on the shared easement. They have also corrected the frontage of Lot 17 to comply with code. Next to Lots 15-17, there is a pedestrian tract. For Lots 38-40, the issue is the same as for Lots 15-17. They have revised the lots to allow Lot 38 to comply with the width requirement and access the shared easement. For Lots 79-81, Lot 81 was added to allow access to the shared right" of way. Lot 78 will not access the shared driveway. With the applicant's revised condition language, they are willing to ensure access to shared driveways for three lots rather than the City's suggested four. Public Testimony Ms. Jill Jones is a Renton resident. She's heard experts testifying and noted that many of these people testifying have not walked the roads. She has lived there and walked therefor years. This is a valuable resource. The Cedar River corridor cannot be walked by residents. There is no access here because it is steep. The woods are fully canopied, with easy trails. Henley says because the development is single family residences, they shouldn't have to provide a buffer. The development is much denser than the existing neighborhoods. The trees are mature and were pre-existing 30 years ago. The road is wide. There are many trees. Grass planting strips absorb the rain. Ms. Jones showed an example of other Henley developments that have no trees and narrow parking strips. The homes will be taller and larger than the existing houses on much smaller lots. There will be no stormwater areas. Currently Tiffany Park floods in heavy storms. She has serious doubts about the ability to provide adequate storm water drainage. She also observed a pileated woodpecker in the woods on April 14,2014. Ms. Beedon would like to ask the Examiner to walk the woods before he makes a decision. This is important. She has listened to all of the testimony. The experts seem to care but they have shown no concern about what they are tearing down. This piece of wood should be preserved. They are taking away something irreplaceable. She feels this piece of property should be preserved for future generations and all of us. She asked the Examiner to walk this area. Also, she has observed pileated woodpecker nests in these woods. They don't migrate. This is not about not wanting development. This is about preserving a precious piece of woods. She wouldn't care if they built a prison there is it was cleared. This is about nature and the trees. She can't imagine all these trees being torn down. If the citizens hadn't become active, the forest would be clear cut. They have a right as citizens to be heard and care about the environment. ,--------------------------------------------------------------- • • Ms. Barbara Smith stated she didn't realize she needed to submit the reviews for Henley Homes (Exhibit AQ). Ms. Rogers noted they were not a comprehensive review. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Timmons stated for the driveway portion of the code, please review RMC 4-4-080. This code allows discretionary authority in the code to limit the number of driveways accessing the street. staff does not agree with the proposed revisions to Conditions 6 and 16. They want to see. Lots 11 and 78 to access abutting shared driveways. • • ATTACHMENT B The Reserve at Tiffany Park Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeals (LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAE) EXHIBITS ADMITTED DURING HEARING SEPA Appeal Exhibits Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: Exhibit J: Exhibit K: Exhibit L: Exhibit M: City of Renton Environmental Analysis (Attachments 1-18 are listed as Preliminary Plat Exhibits 1-18 below) Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (Preliminary Plat Exhibit 22 below) Environmental Checklist (June 10,2014) . Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Transportation and Community Design Elements) Acceptance and Notice of Application Affidavit Service by Mailing (November 24,2014) Notice of Application and Off Hold Notice Affidavit Service by Mailing (July 25, 2014) Commitment for Title Insurance TPWAG Letter to Renton School District (September 10,2014) Renton School District Letter of Denial to TPWAG (September 16, 2014) Henley Appeal Henley SEPA Appeal Exhibits 1. a. HEX Staff Recommendation Report b. Pre-Application Notes c. Wetland Determination (October}O, 2013) d. Wetland Determination (February 28, 2014) 2. Letter Report from Ray Coglas 3. RSD Resolution No. 0312/13 4. SPU Letter (November 4,2014) 5. Drainage Release 6. Site Maps and Aerial Photos 7. Airsoft Guns Documentation 8. Revised Plans, Alternate Layouts 9. COR COW Meeting (September 9,2013) 10. Area Water Well Logs 11. Legal Analysis and Argument (November 18,2014) 12. Soundview Consultants Letter, Racheal Villa 13. Grete Associates Report, 2008 TPW AG Appeal TWPAG SEPA Appeal Exhibits 19. TIR Report (November 12,2013) ----------------- Exhibit N: Exhibit 0: Exhibit P: Exhibit Q: Exhibit R: Exhibit S: Exhibit T: Exhibit U: Exhibit V: Exhibit X: Exhibit Y: Exhibit Z: Exhibit AA: Exhibit AB: Exhibit AC: Exhibit AD: Exhibit AE: Exhibit AF: Exhibit AG: Exhibit AH: Exhibit AI: ExhibitAJ: Exhibit AK: • • 21. TIA Report (November 2013) 23. Tree Protection Report (November 13,2013) 24. SEPA Checklist (November 13, 2013) 39. Miscellaneous Photographs of Surrounding Site 40. Professional Qualifications -Steven Neugebauer 41. Neugebauer Expert Report (November 17,2014) 47. Pre-Hearing Statement regarding Prescriptive Easement (November 18, 2014) 48. . TPW AG Correspondence with Renton School District Staff Appeal Analysis (November 18,2014) Henley Pre-Hearing Order Request Hearing Examiner Order Requesting Reply to Pre-Hearing Order Request TPW AG Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request City Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Henley Response to Pre-Hearing Order Request Pre-Hearing Order McMonagle Notice of Appearance Flatley Resume Lee Resume Declaration of Timmons Not Used Renton Reporter Article (Donnelly) Letter to Editor (Donnelly) 5 Photographs (Donnelly) TPW AG Memo on HEX Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (November 28, 2014) City of Renton Response to TPWAG Memo of 11128114 (December 5, 2014) Henley Response to TPW AG Memo of 11128114 (December 5, 2014) Hearing Examiner Ruling on Examiner Authority and Halverson v. Bellevue (December 7,2014) Title Report/Chain of Title (TPW AG) Roenicke TPW AG Summary Testimony Garlough TPW AG Summary Testimony Timeline Preliminary Plat Exhibits Exhibit I: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: HEX Report Preliminary Plat Plan (July 16, 2014) Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (July 16,2014) Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (June 3, 2014) Habitat Assessment (January 16,2014) Geotechnical Report (September 28, 2012) Drainage Report (February 24, 2014) Traffic Impact Analysis (April 23, 2014) Exhibit 10: Exhibit II: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: . Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit AL: Exhibit AM: . Exhibit AO: Exhibit AP: Exhibit AQ: • • Public Comment Letters: '10.1-10.70 Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014) Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) Independent Secondary Review -Traffic Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (April 3, 2014) Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (July 9,2014) Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (February II, 2014) Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (June 12,2014) Landscape Plan (July 16,2014) Transportation Concurrency Approval Renton Trails and Bikeways Map Environment Review Committee (ERC) Staff report SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (September 22,2014) Public Meeting Notice Notice of Application Affidavits Staff PowerPoint Presentation Applicant Letter of Revised Plat Conditions (December 8,2014) Shared Driveway Jones, Photographs Henley Homes Reviews from Internet • • , Office of the City Clerk ". 1 055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 -.: .. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTE~:,,-­ c.. ~"-' __ :::P-" . . e-(5) Q~ S-<i}. Gc:.;.. \~\Cf .. ~. ---00\ ~ )'-'~\J [:>(/(2:; y\J..'~ ~J/:;,:~;~"; ~---'-;;'W S€lS011 " /~ " ' ,. ",;---' ... -----.. .. _,..----. lvnn Desmarais 15632 159th Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 HI XI E 0'" Ul'./} ~:J 0° ",>- UJ'" ",,,, a.U: ~,::i-S POs!: ~ -1c;... f I~/::~;;~i{:"§~~~~;=' 02 :tA $00.460 (1IJ(Ll26~,528 DC-COG 2014 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 9ao 32 CITY OF RENTON DEC 12 20:-1 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 980 DE 10W9 0012/10!~'4 RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH NUMBER UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 98057323255 "0626-07536-07-31 1,111,11,,11111111'111,1111 \ II'I"I'I! '1111111111111'1111",11,1.1 ~ ,/ ::':i8CiE:.E§±~e:0i ~'~3~~j~i~ Office of the City Clerk "'1.Pr~J1Ji~@IID e 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED . \:P~ ,,~~() ~c.... G~ V \z..~ -'1?---~J~ .00 <-::' --'\ '.f><-A ~/ \)---, ' Iv- te· ........ ~, ~..fIi , ____ ~E.E.tI~~; 's~'''' S€aSOI"l -Ill> '--~--~ 0'" w") >-"" ",-' 0° ",>- ILl'" u.:!Y. ('La: ~\(.~PC~S·J: <§ -1(,'> .. '( .. ~" •. ".,>~ '" ' ..... ,." .. "t'C. •• \L .• : /iJ J .:-. --.:t-n ,cr=I.·J,.<:t;:r.1!.'"C: ....... :r.t' or ... '. ~ '" .-:~ ." ... .a:r.::.J.~.-~ ... . !t.~~. z 10, ".,""·dI"j"'''''~mw ::.;}~~~~::' ::;:l 'Ir,t", ............ r" .... I'tlt,HVIIOW"!. ~'" "2 ,.. $ 00 46° ....... ,:;;:. . '-, .,,,1 • '.a~;.~~ .. ;~ t~ 0004235520 DEC 06 2014 !~t~ MAILEDFROI~ZIPCODE 98032 CfTy 0" R~IV"'Otv ~ .. ,-" "-." ....... ,-.... . lIahe Hamidivadeghani 3000 Royal Hills Dr SE Renton, WA 98058 DEC 12 20/4 I/~C~/Vt::D ClryCL~1/ .' NI XI E ,2' :'. r 1f's O""'Ct: 98 0" 0 E ~ 0 3 6 . 001.zI~-O/14 RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD 4 ~IR8PNI'-1P 961 .98057@3Z3Z BC: 98057323255 *2589-02334-10-4. 1,,11,11 111111'11' 11111,11,1,1,,1'1111111111,111,11,1, 111,,/'11 J I i I I j I; I , ------------------------~------------------------~--------------------------------- Denis Law.·· . M.aYor December 5,2014 Wayne Potter Novclstar o ' .' .• 18215 nndAvenue,South .. Kent, WA 98032 .' City Clerk ,-Jason A Seth, CMC , c Re:' Rel]t()n'sReplyto the TPWAG Memorandum re: Hearing Examiner Authority Reserve atTiffanyPark -LUA-13~cio15n·. ' . . . , . . ." . Dear Mr. Potter: . Attached is your copy of Renton's Reply to the TPWAG rviemorand'um re: Hearing Examiner Authority dated December 5, 20i4,in the above-ref~~enced matter. ." If I. can provide further information,please feelJree to contact me; . .' . -.. Sinc/h '.'."' .. '~' .. . . .' . Chris L. Chau D~putyCity Clerk' ,'Erk: cc: Renton;s Reply to TP\V~G Memorandum . Hearing Examirier ' . . . Rocah~. Timmons, Senior Planner ,Jernifer Henning, Planning Director, , Vanessa Dplhee, Current'Pla~·njng,~anag.er .Steve Lee; DevelopmentEngineering Manager .. Craig Burnell, Building Official' ....... ' . " Sabrina fv1irante,.~ecreitary~ Plan"ning Division· 'Ed Prince~ City (:ountilmemb:er . Julia Medzegian, City Council Liai~on Henley USA, LLC:, APpiicant,," . 'Parties' of Record (198) . lOSS South GradY,Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425)430-65; 0 / Fax (425) 430-6516. rentonwa,g~v 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • .CITY OF RENTON DEC 052014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON IN RE THE APPEAL OF A MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE BY TPWAG AND HENLEY, USA, FOR RESERVE AT TIFFANY PARK No. LUA 13-001572 RENTON'S REPLY TO THE TPWAG MEMORANDUM re HEARING EXAMINER AUTHORITY I. RELIEF REQUESTED The City of Renton, by its attorney of record, Garmon Newsom II, requests that the Hearing Examiner finds that no material issue of fact exists as to the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance, and affirms the administrative decision concerning environmental impacts under RMC 4-8-110.E.12.b. II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 1. TPWAG concedes that the Hearing Examiner does not have authority to decide the merits of an estoppel claim or a prescriptive easement. In its November 28, 2014 memorandum (Memorandum), TPWAG conceded that under the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) the Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to Renton's Reply 1 Renton CIty Attorney 100 S 2nd St 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • • determine the merits of an estoppel claim, or more specifically, a prescriptive easement claim. (Memorandum, p. 1 I. 23 -p. 2 I .1, and p. 3. I. 5 -10). Despite this concession, TPWAG continues to assert a prescriptive easement based on "the character of the trails that cut through and circumnavigate the property, the long term use of the trails to walk dogs, view habitat for wildlife and plants and serve as a sanctuary where the residents may find peace in the middle of the city ... "l See Memorandum, p. 3 I. 11-19. The trouble with TPWAG's claim is that TPWAG has never properly claimed any easement or possessory interest in any of the RSD's property. Despite acknowledging that the Hearing Examiner does not have the authority to find such an easement, TPWAG asks the Hearing Examiner to act as if such a finding or claim has been made. Since TPWAG has not shown that there is a pending easement or estoppel claim, TPWAG has failed to identify why its questionable or possibly unlawful use of RSD property should be a basis for the withdrawal of the MDNS environmental determination or the imposition of additional mitigation measures. 2. TPWAG cannot rely on the Halverson decision. The Halverson analysis only applies to facts involving a final plat approval. In Halverson the court addressed the question of whether "a claimant" with "only a contingent ownership interest" rather than a "record owner" was required to consent to the proposed final plat. Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (Div. I, 1985). In Halverson, the appellant "filed a lis pendens and complaint to quiet title to establish her ownership by adverse possession of a strip 1 Parenthetically, the "trails" are not trails under the RMC or RCW. The RMC does not define "trails" but requires that "trails" be built to specific standards and be "dedicated to and accepted by the City of Renton as a public trail prior to final plat recording or short plat recording, or building permit final occupancy for non-subdivision projects." RCW 47.30.005 defines a "trail," in pertinent part, as "a public way constructed primarily for and open to pedestrians, equestrians, or bicyclists, or any combination thereof .... " These requirements are not satisfied here. Renton's Reply 2 Renton City Attorney 100 5 2"' 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • • of land," and then gave the city of Bellevue notice of her claim. Halverson at 458. Bellevue approved the final plat after receiving notice of Ms. Halverson's claim to quiet title. Thus, Division One said that Bellevue's approval was improper under RCW 58.17.165. The facts in the instant matter are significantly different. TPWAG and its members never filed a lis pendens or a complaint to claim adverse possession or a prescriptive easement. RCW 58.17.165, which requires each owner's confirmation for a final plat approval, does not apply to a MDNS. As a result, TPWAG and its members cannot use the Halverson decision to have the MDNS reversed or modified. 3. TPWAG may not claim adverse possession or a prescriptive easement against the RSD. The RSD is a municipal corporation and not a private property owner.2 The generally accepted rule of law is that a party may not gain title to property held by a municipal corporation by adverse possession or an easement by prescription. See Benton City v. Adrian, 50 Wn. App. 330, 337 (Div. III, 1988) (citations omitted). RCW 7.28.090 provides that adverse possession "shall not extend to lands ... owned by the United States or this state, nor to school lands. nor to lands held for any public purpose." (Emphasis added). TPWAG has not established why neither the statute nor this well-known rule applies under these facts. Even if TPWAG could establish adverse possession, the sworn facts do not demonstrate that TPWAG's usage was actual, open and notorious. The Washington State Supreme Court has stated that "in order to give a prescriptive right, the use must at least be such as to convey to the absent owner reasonable notice that a claim is made in hostility to his title." Northwest 2 The City of Renton does not represent or speak for the RSD. Renton is simply defending its process in this Reply. Renton's Reply 3 y Renton City Attorney ~~ a 1005t><l5t ~~ P.O. Box 626 . ~ i Renton, WA 98057-0626 ~~N'fO phone, 4254306487 Fax: 425.255.5474 .------------------------------------------------------------- .' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • • Cities Gas Co. v. W. Fuel Co., 13 Wn.2d 75, 86 (1942) citing Watson v. County Commissioners, 38 Wash. 662, 80 Pac. 201. TPWAG's usage does not meet this standard. TPWAG's actions undermine its claim of a prescriptive easement or adverse possession. TPWAG requested permission to enter the RSD's property to conduct a study; and TPWAG acquiesced to the RSD's refusal to allow TPWAG to conduct studies on the so-called "trails" or RSD property.3 TPWAG Appeal, October 10, 2014, p. 4, § 2, pp. 3. TPWAG's actions do not demonstrate a hostile use or intent. As a result, TPWAG has shown that it does not have a prescriptive easement on RSD property or a claim for adverse possession. III. CONCLUSION Based on the facts and arguments stated above, the administrative environmental determination of a MDNS should be affirmed in its entirety and TWPAG's appeal should be denied in its entirety as TPWAG has failed to demonstrate any material fact that would justify remanding this matter or reversing the administrative decision, thereby failing to meet its burden under RMC 4-8-110.E.12.b. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED this 4th day of December, 2014. LAWRENCE J. WARREN Renton City Attorney By: /s/ Garmon Newsom II By: GARMON NEWSOM II, WSBA No. 31418 Senior Assistant City Attorney 1055 S. Grady, Way, Renton,WA 98057 Telephone: (425) 430-6487 E-mail: gnewsom@rentonwa.gov 3 "TPWAG requested permission from the school district 403 to have independent wetland studies conducted and was denied permission from the School District." TPWAG Appeal, October 10, 2014, p. 4, § 2, pp. 3. Renton's Reply 4 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St • December 5, 2014 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) • CHRIS L. CHAU, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the . age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 5th day of December, 2014, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail the Renton's Reply to the TPWAG Memorandum re: Hearing Examiner Authority RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park (LUA-13-001572) to the attached parties of record. Chris L. Chau, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 5th day of December, 2014. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 Renton. WA 98058 Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 Maxwel Ligon 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Linda Shink 12910 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 Belinda Calhoun 1708 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 June Ritualo 1633 Edmonds Way Renton. WA 98055 JANE WORDEN 15624 129th PI SE Renton. WA 98058-4744 Emma Gutierrez 1802 Kirkland Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Albert & Sharon Ocho 1711 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Lynn Family 12904 SE 160th St Renton. WA 98058 James & Mary Haber 1716 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 BOBBY SENGVILAY 1701 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Lee I Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98057 RYan & Jennifer Spencer 3313 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Gary Taylor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Christine Wren 1831 Ferndale Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Colleen Bowman 2600 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Ki pepeo Brown 1725 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98055 r msBP3 dn-dod a50dxa : en sUIl BUDle puag I Helen Pacher 1809 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Henley USA LLC 11100 Main St, 100 Bellevue. WA 98032 John Knutson Renton School District 300 SW7th St Renton. WA 98057 Barbara Yarrington Henley USA 11100 Main St, Ste. 100 Bellevue. WA 98058 Marie Antoinette Gallardo 1832 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Gayle Millett 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Tracey Compton 19426 68th Ave S Kent. WA 98032 Anthony & Margaret Dean 16917 114th Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 r I I I ®09~5 a~eldwal ®fuaA'!lasn slaq., ®Iaad ,{se3 -----" T AH~JW-09-o0B-l r ,.dn-dod PJoq.'.1 '.I~'~' ~u:w:~~e~, r ®09l5 ®AH3/1V ~!.eqe6 al ZaS!I!ln lttF;':~:' ::!~":.:;.,,~~~.~;~.-; ',--.,---;::<. ~)~,""--"" ,.t'i~f~~~~~~~~~'~'~~!:~~~~-7v"r:t'c~: ~~";':~J tll-y",,,,,,-::s-",,,!. -.-t-;'--~.~~ t~~,I~~~~.t,:~a~~l~;i :.:':":1:: :,' ","~".".~ ':::~~,",j~~~~~-,:,::,~:~.:-.~::~~:::;.::,::, !'3~:~' ';' : .• >~;. ;'~. f~i~...:J;..ll~:~~'h.:::~l:::":':::::'::" j.;\li:;':":;:':,':;· ~ :_::"~.~::L:~:::L __ ~_ ~:~ Art Dahlberg ilvestre Cesar ichael Melonson 2604 Edmonds Way SE 2524 Edmonds Ct SE 1701 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Warren & Nancv McPherson 3213 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Heidi Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Pamela Roberson 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton. WA 98056 Jill & Derek Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Karen Collen 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY L JONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON. WA 98058 Renato Santos 1815 Lake Youngs Way SE Renton. WA 98058 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON. WA 98055 Dewavne Klinger 2201 Maple Valley Hwy. #86 Renton. WA 98057 Claire Jonson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Jav Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Ethel Garman 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 I I"'l~G~;;::Z1j'f;l;r:"lJ;<-. -~ ""tr':~-r;-;r::""n'ry""-:~ 311, ''';;''It,~.Jl.~1S·re>H''' ;.~;pl)-!. "l"-'~~I ~~c-~ , ' .,;:1 l~ .. :<>.::..:..:..d.....:i Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Wayne Potter Novastar 18215 72nd Ave S Kent. WA 98032 Robert Schauss 3227 SE 18th St Renton. WA 980S8 YVONNE BURGESS 15629 129TH Ct SE RENTON. WA 98058 , ....... 6p3 dn-dod asod •• I ~ eun 6uOl8 pues I _ Jadedpaa:l -,. Barbara Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Ben & Rose Depusav 3208 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Bruce Wilson 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Adele & Ed Harvev 3226 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Ed Baker 3209 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Erik Fisher 12364 SE 158th St Renton. WA 98058 Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Cvnthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Maraea Albinlo 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 980S8 , I I I ®09l5 aleldwal ®fua.v asn ~ slaQI!1 ®Iaad Ase3 r AlI~/lV-o!)-o08-l r ,.dn-dod PJoqilJ al Ja"'~J lu:w:~~e4) ( ®09L5 ®AII3/1V ~!Jeqe6 al zas!l!m I, ' W(D"I~"ilAI!"MMM "" :'~"', :~,,:.,~_=,~ "',f-~::'-~.·;--;,:,:.~:~~;~~;?:~_;, ',; Beth Asher I ap uUe ilJn4>e4 ." zaudall P 5 I Jalad ~ salpepa~anb!H ,~.i~_,:E:::c~":i.".1 tJ::~J~~~~:;fiw?:~~~j~;1,~;:·,.1~~-;;;~~=~JiJ~i:.~.~:;.~~<;}i0, .~~~~7':r.2~::t1j~i:~:·:'~~'~.::;;-,:~~,~·,~:!.:~·.:;".;: .. -~,~,:":::,~~:,,_~:,~_:) ahe Hamidivadeghani aroline Fawcett 436 Mill Ave S Renton, WA 98057-6022 Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 MICHAEL GARMAN 1816 EDMONDS Way SE RENTON, WA 98058-4613 Kvleigh Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Robert & Cvnthia Garlough 3203 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 k 1~!_~~~~u;;;;F'!:;;'; ·;·~j:::::~~1~·1:e1~1!#J:~~i?=:;J Gurmit Gill 19314 138th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Imogene Graves 1808 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Vicki Hou 1717 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 ~? ::;;Jft#l~:~~~~~~~~'lli~Eil~~t;;;~K.'77:,r·rl2ff=~:;:~;1 , Bob & Suzanne Swanson 3307 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Dennis Anderson PO Box 58338 Renton, WA 98058 3000 Royal Hills Dr SE 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Art Dahlberg James Ahlbeck 2604 Edmonds Way SE 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Mike Mastro 1717 Edmonds Way S Renton, WA 98058 Lvnn Desmarais 15632 159th Ct 5E Renton, WA 98058 Donna Thorkildson 2621 SE 16th St Renton, WA 98058 Pat Velotta 1708 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 DAVID & RENATE BEEDON 1725 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON, WA 98058-4747 LARRY GORG 1800 LAKE YOUNGS Way SE RENTON, WA 98058-3812 Eddie Rivera 3609 SE 18th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Belinda Mathers 2806 5E 16th St Renton, WA 98058 Rachael Mandv 1402 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 James Roberson 1724 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Phil & Tammv Schaefer 3301 SE 20th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Preslev Richardson 3113 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 Dennis McClaughlin 1633 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Aaron Brendehl 2509 SE 16th St renton, WA 98058 Rachael BeU 1402 Olympia Ave Renton, WA 98058 Laura Kilgore 1825 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 'i r ....... 6p3 dn-dod .sodxa : OJ &un Quole pueg I _ Jadedpaa~ -" r I I ®09L5 a~eldwal ®liJa .. '1 BSn o-zJ> slaq., ®IBad ~5e3 T A1I3J\"-09-008-~ I WO)-A.l8AII"MMM J'3Eji'i':i',ff~3~,1 ;1t;:5j ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY L JONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON. WA 98058 ALAINE IKUTA 1709 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON. WA 98058-4747 Doug. Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Geoff & Meredith Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Daniel Goldman 1608 Glennwood Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 5arah Brel,delhl 2509 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 Greg & Jennv Swanson 1819 Ferndale Ave S Renton. WA 98055 Laura Silbernagel Clint Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Shervl Anderson 1727 Monroe Ave SE Renton'. WA 98058-3809 Rav Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 I)pit,prtSharp 1800 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Mike Harwood 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98055 r w.Ls6P3 dn-dod asodxa I ~ BUll BUOI" puas _ Jaded pea:. -" Lisa CabalQuinto 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18TH Ct RENTON. WA 98058-4754 Diane Tavlor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Claudia Donnelly 1041S 147th Ave 5E Renton. WA 98059 Frances Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Jan & Spero Rockas 1686 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 r I I I .----------------------------------------------------------------, , " Agencies Parties of Record Renton School District Henley USA, LLC Wayne Potter, Novastar (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) SS ) See Attached See attached , .,-,,' -,'--------1 """.\\ ", p .::-" \. '< 0 ~v, . .;: 0'" !ro.""\\\\"", ~A_ ff ~ i:~" • .tt::"" 'U I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante '3 Ic' +OT~J. \% signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for t~e u't~ an" pcrrpo~~ ; mentioned in the instrument, ~ ~ \.. :"8\.\C,1 .I ~ j Dated: ~, "~'''·29· '\ ,fo' '" _,' '" -~O II~,"""","'" ~(:) ."' "" ~ S~~ .,." Public in and for the State of Washingt'611 """, Notary (print): ____ UOL,;-~JL"""'I---1?.J......:OW"""""'.u<:;""-'------------ My appointment eXPires:O~W',+ d. Cf ( ;)0/1 The Reserve at Tiffany Park I LUA13.001572, ECF, PP, CAE template -affidavit of service by mailing l~lu •• _III8lIllIIIllIIII~ •• "'I.ib"'ijlM.1 Andreas Benson au line Colsrud Wi. Riddle 12633 SE 158th St 12606 SE 158th St 12620 SE 158th St Renton. WA 98058 Caroline Fawcett 3207 SE 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave 5E Auburn. WA 98092 _U_~_ L Maxwel Ligon 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Linda Shink 12910 5E 160th St Renton. WA 98058 Belinda Calhoun 1708 Edmonds Way 5E Renton. WA 98058 !flwm __ -IiIIIIlIIIM_ June Ritualo 1633 Edmonds Way Renton. WA 98055 JANE WORDEN 15624 129th PI SE Renton. WA 98058-4744 i~~ Emma Gutierrez 1802 Kirkland Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Lynn Family 12904 5E 160th 5t Renton. WA 98058 James & Mary Haber 1716 Monroe Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 BOBBY SENGVILAY 1701 Edmonds Way 5E Renton. WA 98058 Lee & Adrienne Lawrence 1721 Pierce Ave SE Renton. WA 98057 . ( RYan & Jennifer Spencer 3313 5E 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Gary Taylor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Christine Wren 1831 Ferndale Ave 5E Renton. WA 98058 Colleen Bowman 2600 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 ~ti!~· .......... .. Albert & Sharon Ocho Kipepeo Brown 1711 Pierce Ave SE 1725 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98055 Renton. WA 98058 Helen Pacher 1809 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Henley USA LLC . 11100 Main St, 100 Bellevue. WA 98032 _WMMSiMW--1 John Knutson Renton School District 300 SW 7th 5t Renton. WA 98057 Barbara Yarrington Henley USA 11100 Main St, Ste. 100 Bellevue. WA 98058 Marie Antoinette Gallardo 1832 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 EVAN & Lanissa YOUNGQUIST 1720 Pierce Ave 5E Renton. WA 98058 Gayle Millett 1602 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Tracey Compton 19426 68th Ave S Kent. WA 98032 Anthony & Margaret Dean 16917 114th Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 , '-" ~m.1IIi1llmJI_.JJIW.·"iIllllllllllllll_IIIIII •• "_1III'IiIIIIlIII Art Dahlberg ilvestre Cesar ichael Melonson 2604 Edmonds Way SE 2524 Edmonds Ct 5E 1701 Monroe Ave 5E Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 _111_~ _I'!lIlIilllB!li/lllllll'llll Warren & Nancv McPherson RENTON SCHOOL DI5T 403 Barbara Smith 3213 SE 19th Ct 300 SW 7TH 5T 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98058 _1lIlIIIlIIIr~ Heidi Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 1l1ti~ Pamela Roberson 1724 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 William Roenicke 3112 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 ~ Karan Gill 11622 SE 76th Ct Renton, WA 98056 Jill & Derek Jones 1413 Newport Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 IDJMiiIUiiii/lliiiiWiiWi/iiilliillli Karen Collen 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY LJONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 Renata Santos 1815 Lake Youngs Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Dewavne Klin~er 2201 Maple Valley Hwy, #86 Renton, WA 98057 Claire Jonson 1719 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Jav Ahlbeck 3228 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Ethel Garman 1816 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Barbara Owens-Smith 3619 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Wayne Potter Navastar 18215 72nd Ave 5 Kent. WA 98032 Robert Schauss 3227 5E 18th St Renton, WA 98058 YVONNE BURGESS 15629 129TH Ct SE RENTON, WA 98058 Ben & Rose Depusav 3208 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Bruce Wilson 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Ed Harvev 3226 SE 19th Ct Renton, WA 98058 Ed Baker 3209 SE 18th St Renton, WA 98058 Erik Fisher 12364 5E 158th St Renton, WA 98058 Marina Hi~gins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Cynthia Sharp 1800 Edmonds Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Maraea Albinia 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Beth Asher 436 Mill Ave 5 Renton. WA 98057-6022 I: • Marina Higgins 1401 Olympia Ave SE Renton. WA 98058 Hamidivadeghani 3000 Royal Hills Dr SE Renton. WA 98058 Art Dahlberg 2604 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 James Ahlbeck 3228 5E 19th Ct Renton. WA 98058 I""".,. __ IIJI.JIIJI IqllJ~1"'1~ lit~ MICHAEL GARMAN Mike Mastro Rachael Mandv 1816 EDMONDS Way SE 1717 Edmonds Way S 1402 Olympia Ave SE RENTON. WA 98058-4613 Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 ...... !!!MI!m!!!IM Kvleigh Jones Lvnn Desmarais 1413 Newport Ct SE 15632 159th Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Robert & Cynthia Garlough Donna Thorkildson 3203 SE 18th St 26215E 16th St Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 ~1_1III.If/IIIiIII Gurmit Gill Pat Velotta 19314 138th Ave SE 1708 Pierce Ave 5E Renton. WA 98058 Renton. WA 98058 Imogene Graves 1808 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 DAVID & RENATE BEEDON 1725 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON. WA 98058-4747 James Roberson 1724 Edmonds Ct SE Renton. WA 98058 Phil & Tammv Schaefer 3301 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 iW4"et'jf I MPII1!ji;;tijiiliiiiii,w Preslev Richardson 3113 SE 18th St Renton. WA 98058 Dennis McClaughlin 1633 Edmonds Way 5E Renton. WA 98058 __ IIJI~ __ ~ mrr-..r'i'''=''''.''i Vicki Hou LARRY GORG Aaron Brendehl 1717 Edmonds Way SE 1800 LAKE YOUNGS Way SE 2509 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 RENTON. WA 98058-3812 renton. WA 98058 Bob & Suzanne Swanson .3307 SE 20th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Dennis Anderson PO Box 58338 Renton. WA 98058 Eddie Rivera 3609 5E 18th Ct Renton. WA 98058 Belinda Mathers 2806 SE 16th St Renton. WA 98058 Rachael Bell 1402 Olympia Ave Renton. WA 98058 Laura Kilgore 1825 Edmonds Way SE Renton. WA 98058 ,..;0.. ROBIN H+MIATKE MARY LJONES 3624 SE 19TH CT RENTON, WA 98058 i & Patty Phillips 1517 Newport Ct SE Renton; WA 98058 ~1~JlIRJl~_~ ALAINE IKUTA Laura Silbernagel 1709 PIERCE Ave SE RENTON, WA 98058-4747 , Doug, Elizabeth and Michael Frisch 1717 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Geoff & Meredith Erickson 1719 Pierce Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 .""-,,,P1lIlM- Daniel Goldman 1608 Glennwood Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 __ 1I!iIIlIIlII1Il Clint Maurer 2605 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 Shervl Anderson 1727 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-3809 __ BI_ Ray Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Sarah Brendehl Delbert Sharp 2509 SE 16th St 1800 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98058 IlOi!lhmliijlliillll_llImiililliilii1ilJliIJ_iIiIilIiIiiiiii "fi'jIWlllW.!ill11f~JIillW.ii~~~ Greg & Jenny Swanson Mike Harwood 1819 Ferndale Ave S 2609 Edmonds Ct SE Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98058 Lisa CabalQuinto 1824 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 ROSEMARY QUESENBERRY 3609 SE 18TH Ct RENTON, WA 98058-4754 Diane Taylor 1709 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Frances Roberts 1700 Edmonds Way SE Renton, WA 98058 Jan & Spero Rockas 1686 Monroe Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 I • Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group 1725 Pierce Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 October 10,2014 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Office of the City Clerk City of Renton Renton City Hall, 7th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 02014 RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13·001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Roeale Timmons, Senior Planner; Property Owner Renton School District Number 403, 300 SW 7~ St; Renton, WA 98055; Applicant: Henley USA LLC, 11100 Main Street, Suite 100; Bellevue, WA 98004; Contact: Novastar Dev Inc.; Wayne Potter, 18215 72' Ave S; Kent, WA 98032 To the City of Renton Hearing Examiner: Attached is our appeal to the City of Renton Draft Environmental Review Committee Report (DERCR) Dated September 22, 2014 that includes a determination of mitigated non·significance (DNS·M) for the proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13·001572 development. Thank you for your consideration. Renate Beedon, President Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group .----------------------------------------------------------------------- • October 10, 2014 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Office of the City Clerk City of Renton Renton City Hall, 7'" Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • RE: Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Property Owner Renton School District Number 403, 300 SW 7~ St; Renton, WA 98055; Applicant: Henley USA LLC, 11100 Main Street, Suite 100; Bellevue, WA 98004; Contact: Novastar Dev Inc.; Wayne Potter; 1821572' Ave S; Kent, WA 98032 Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. The proposed development of Approximately 22 acres of forested land into 98 residential parcels on 4 King County Parcels owned by the Renton School District Number 403 (as of October 7, 2014) King County Parcel Numbers: 2123059061, 2123059044, 2123059051, and 2123059054 To the City of Renton Hearing Examiner: The Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG) is submitting the following comments as an appeal to the City of Renton Draft Environmental Review Committee Report (DERCR) Dated September 22, 2014 that includes a determination of mitigated non-significance (DNS-M) for the proposed Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13-001572 development. 1.0 OVERVIEW It should be noted that the 14 days allocated for citizens comments is insufficient and that the City seems to have deviated from the standards SPEA procedures for this project in an apparent attempt to avoid the required environmental impact statement (EIS), per RCW 43.21 C.031 , even though this project has gone on hold twice to develop more information and additional stUdies that would already be consistent with an EIS. Additionally there are several documents and iterations of site plans that are not provided to the public, and studies (including numerous revisions) that are provided, however, many of these studies have revisions and it is difficult to determine what to evaluate in the review process. It was not until the September 22, 2014 DERCR was prepered that the citizens knew which studies (and reports) the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee would use in the DERCR. This means 18 documents must be reviewed and commented on in 14 days, and the interesting part about the DERCR is that it does not include the November 2013 SEPA checklist as an exhibit, even though this is the only SEPA document the DERCR is using in its SEPA analYSiS, and this SEPA checklist has numerous incorrect statements and incorrect analysis based on subsequent studies conducted after this document was prepared. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group 1725 Pierce Avenue S.E., Renton, WA98058 206·715·3785 renton-opposites@comcast.net Page 12 • • COOlments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-OO1572. ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10. 2014 As the DERCR states on pages 5 and 6: The applicant has submitted the following reports for review and analysis in support of the July 16, 2014 plat plan: • Exhibit 1 ERC Report • Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Plan (dated July 16, 2014) • Exhibit 3 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (dated July 16, 2014) • Exhibit 4 Tree Protection Report (June 6, 2014) • Exhibit 5 Revised Wetland Determination and Response Letter (dated June 3, 2014) • Exhibit 6 Habitat Assessment (dated January 16, 2014) • Exhibit 7 Geotechnical Report (dated September 28,2012) • Exhibit 8 Drainage Report (dated February 24,2014) • Exhibit 9 Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 23, 2014) • Exhibit 10 Public Comment Letters: 10.1-10.70 • Exhibit 11 Alternative Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan (August 29, 2014) • Exhibit 12 Alternative Tree Protection Report (August 27, 2014) • Exhibit 13 Independent Secondary Review -Traffic • Exhibit 14 Independent Secondary Review Wetland (April 3, 2014) • Exhibit 15 Supplemental Independent Secondary Review -Wetland (July 9,2014) • Exhibit 16 Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated February 11,2014) • Exhibit 17 Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum (dated June 12, 2014) • Exhibit 18 Landscape Plan (dated July 16, 2014) This is a lot of documents to review and some of these documents are signed and stamped by licensed geologists and engineers which are too complex for the members of the TPWAG to review and comment on, therefore, the TPWAG retained the services of a principal hydrogeologisUengineering geologist from with SNR Company based in Duvall, Washington to conduct a site visit and review the geotechnical and other geologic/engineering documents. This hydrogeologist and engineering geologist (Steven Neugebauer) has over 34 years of experience in the geologic sciences and in environmental studies, including the preparation of SEPA and NEPA EIS and reviewing EISs, EAs, and checklists. After reviewing the SEPA process for this project, Mr. Neugebauer has indicated that the review process should have become an EIS process. This is especially the case with number of additional studies that were required after the SEPA review process began and because of the holds that were placed on this project simply to address the additional information that would have been required by an EIS anyway. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 .------------------------------------------------------- • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Par!< Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number lUA 13·001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7,2014. Renton. WA October 10. 2014 All of the supporting documentation required by the City of Renton would be consistent with the actual EIS instead of a SEPA checklist and having to piecemeal the review process while still have an incorrect SEPA checklist, which is the only actual SEPA document that was prepared. As stated above, the only actual SEPA document is the SEPA checklist and it unusual that the City of Renton did not require an update for the SEPA checklist prepared in November 2013 or for the Geotechnical Report September 28, 2012 considering these studies and documents were prepared before the City required additional studies (which is why the project was placed on hold twice and is why an EIS should have been Page 13 required per RCW 43.21 C.031 -Significant impacts). Although the DERCR does not discuss the accuracy of the only SEPA document that is offICially being used in the decision making process, the TPWAG has included comments on this document. It should be noted that due to time constraints associated with only 14 days to review and comment on over 18 documents, these comments are limited because there was insufficient time to comment on all documents, with these comments focusing on the primary sturdies and reports, the November 2013 SEPA document and the September 22, DERCR document. It should also be noted that per the October 7, 2014 e-mail from Rocale Timmons (City of Renton PM for the Tiffany Park Woods project) states: Comment periods are always held prior to decisions/determinations in order to inform the decision process. Two formal two-week comment periods were held (the second comment period was a courtesy not required by code). The first comment period ended on December 10, 2014 (I have attached the Notice of Application and comment period announcement). The second comment period ended on August 8, 2014 (/ have attached the Notice of Application and comment period announcement). Finally, staff informally held the comment period open to the public to provide comments on the project. As long as comments are received prior to the determination/decision we are able to include in our analysis. Therefore, the Cffy will continue to accept comments all the way up until the close of the Public Hearing. However, comments are no longer able to be considered for the SEPA determination as ff has already been issued. Comments received from now on will only be considered when issuing a decision on the Preliminary Plat. The appeal period commenced on September 26, 2014 and will end at 5:00 pm on October 10, 20141s ff correct that the appeal would go thru the City Clerk to the Hearing Examiner for a fee of 250.00. Yes, Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 10,2014, together with the required fee wffh: Hearing Examiner, Cffy of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Oddly, most of the 'm~igation' recommended in the DERCR pertains to development related mitigation rather than actual environmental mitigation. TIffany Par1; Woods Advocar:y Group October 10. 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods MiocaOj Group ReselVe at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Rentoo, WA October 10, 2014 This is just one example of the confusion with commenting, it is typically unclear what is to be commented on and there is never any discussion of making comment periods longer. The typical time frame to comment on SEPA documents is 30 days, not 14 days. The City of Renton allocated citizen review time of 14 days makes reviewing and commenting on all of the supporting reports and the actual DERCR draft document virtually impossible, especially when the City of Page 14 Renton should have required an EIS. 2.0 SEPA CHECKLIST As discussed above, the SEPA checklist prepared by Wayne Potter with Novastar Development on November 7, 2013 is the only 'SEPA' document that is presented and still used in the evaluation process (which was provided for public review). It is unclear why the City did not require a revised checklist at a minimum, but based on the number of additional studies required and environmental sensitivity of the proposed development area (the site), the City should have required a SEPA EIS that would be current and discuss all of the environmental issues in one document will all reports used to make the DNS-M determination, included as an Appendix. The proposed Tiffany Park Woods development is located in Renton, Washington as is shown in Figure 1. It consists of four parcels owned by the Renton School District number 403 (as of October 10, 2014). This property was 'purchased' in the early 1970s as public property for the eventual construction of schools. It has been used as an outdoor recreational area (like a park) for over 3 decades and over the 3 decades, citizens have constructed trails, forts, swings, bicycle tracks, and made other improvements. In fact the site is STILL public property but is being treated as if it were private property (e.g., the TPWAG requested permission from the school district 403 to have independent wetland studies conducted and was denied permission from the School District). Regardless, this site has been used by 100s of citizens for over 3 decades for recreation and these citizens have made improvements on this site. Additionally, there is a drainage easement on the site (listed in the preliminary Title Report) that is not discussed in any document that the TPWAG or SNR reviewed. The SEPA checklist that is still being used by the ERC only included five studies that were used to prepare the SEPA checklist: 1. Storm water Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated November 2013 2. Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences dated September 28,2012 3. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by the Transpo Group dated November 2013 4. Wetland Determination Report prepared by C. Gary Schulz Wetland/Forest Ecologist dated October 30,2013 5. Tree Protection Plan and Report prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated November 13, 2013 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUAt3·001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to 1he November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Stud!" prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton WA October 10, 2014 Only one of these documents is still used in the DERCR, the Associated Earth Sciences Geotechnical Report, which is discussed in the next section. This means that there were more than 18 other studies and reports prepared for the 'SEPA determination' after the SEPA checklist was prepared, yet the SEPA checklist was never updated. The site is approximately 22 acres in size and is the only undeveloped, forested area in this portion of Tiffany Park. It is surrounded by high density residential developments (Figure 2) and provides the only significant green space for the residents in the area because it IS public land and this is one of the reasons it has been Page 15 used recreationally for decades. Figure 1 • Site Location on Google Earth July 2013 Air Photograph Figure 2· Site on May 2013 Air Photograph from Google Earth Professional, 2014 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 ,------~----------------------- ------------------------------- Page 16 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Pall<; Project Number LUA13'()01572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014, Rent"" WA October 10, 2014 The subject property is located in the southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 23 North, and Range 5 East; (Figure 3) the northwest property comer (at SE 18~ Street) is located at latitude 47.463995° and longitude" 122,175224°, at an approximate elevation of 399 feet above mean sea level (ASL), Figure 3 -From the King County Quarter Section Map, SEQ Section 21, T23N, R5E Based on the SEPA checklist, the proposed development (site or subject property) consists of ninety-eight (98) parcels with a total area of approximately 22 acres (Figure 4), The site is generally dipping to the west, northwest at an approximate average slope of 5%, with areas that have slopes up to 35% (e,g. at the dead end of SE 18~ Street and elsewhere), It should be noted that the number of lots has continued to change, with the current number of lots either being 97 or 96 (this is unclear). The site is undeveloped, in 1990 (Figure 5 -July 1990 Air Photograph of Subject Property and Vicinity, from Google Earth Professional, 2014) and continues to be undeveloped, school district reserve land, However, just because the land is not developed, does not mean that the land was not used and that improvements were not made by citizens. However, the site was completely cleared (as was the surrounding area) in 1936 -Figures 6 and 7 and it is unclear whal the site was being used for in 1936, However, it is possible that activities included those that dealt with hazardous materials, which is not discussed in any environmental document (no Phase I ESA was conducted, however, the DERCR indicates that there are no environmental impacts on the site, even though no studies were conducted). Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 ---I ---------------- • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUAt3-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. i . -·1 .' , , , ........ L Figure 4 -From the Preliminary Plat Plan Figure 5 -July 15, 1998Air Photograph from Google Earth, 2014 Renton, WA October 10. 2014 The 1860 Land Office Map (T23N, R5E) that includes the subject property and vicinity (Figure 8) and the 1895 USGS topographic map of the Tacoma Quadrangle (Figure 9) suggest that there may be structural anomalies associated with the proposed development site. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 17 Page 18 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods AcMx;acy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. RootOO, WA October 10. 2014 Figure 6 ·1936 Air Photograph of Site and Vicinity -High, from King County iMAP, 2014 Figure 7 • 1936 Air Photograph of Site and Vicinity· Mid, from King County iMAP, 2014 The geomorphology of the area (Figure 10) suggests that the school district property (site) may be on a relict landslide or affected by a fault; possibly a splay of the Seattle Fault Zone that is located approximately 3.9 miles north of the site (Figure 11). During the site visit, hummocky ground and bent trees were observed; these features are often an indicator of ground movement through surface creep or deeper slumps (landslides). The September 28, 2012 Associated Earth Science studies (the report does not state when the field studies were conducted) suggest that there are two deposits on this site (the test pit logs were interpreted by Mr. Neugebauer), recessional outwash depoSits ove~ying glacial till, with the till typically being encountered at about 4 feet below the ground surface. The ove~ying recessional outwash depOSits have higher interpreted hydraulic conductivity which means that unsaturated zone prefenential flow will be pnesent at the outwash/till contact, which can create conditions that are conducive to surface creep and shallow slumping. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October to. 2014 --------------------- • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13·001572, ECF, PP. CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist. Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10. 2014 The zone of bioturbation (usually present within 40 inches of the ground surface) creates macropores which can quickly transport surface water to the contact with the glacial till and the overlying recessional outwash deposits. This water combined with any impacts to the isostatic equilibrium of the slope (such as the toe of a slope being cut off) can result in surface creep and shallow slumping. Figure 8· From the 1860 Land Office Map T23N, R5E (Section 21) Figure 9 • From the 1895 USGS Topographic Map of the Tacoma Quadrangle, from Google Earth Professional, 2014 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 19 Page 110 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13-OO1572, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 1, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Figure 10-Terrain Map from Google Maps, 2014 Figure 11 -July 2013Air Photograph with USGS Holocene Fault overlay, Google Earth Professional, 2014 The 1895 USGS topographic map of the Tacoma quadrangle suggests that a wetland area was located south of the proposed development. This wetland is in a linear alignment with other isolated water features to the west and east, with the trend being northwest to southeast. It is very possible that these features are sag ponds associated with earthquake faults that have impacted the structural geology of this area, Unfortunately, there are no new geologic maps for this area that were created after 2006 when LiDAR became available, Without LiDAR or actual field studies on the subject property being conducted for the geologic map, the surface geology is based on older studies that have been ,co?ducted in the mapping area, Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number lUA 13·001572, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Regardless, the geomorphology of this area strongly suggests that recessional outwash deposits will be present on the surface (as does the Associated Earth Sciences September 28, 2012 test pit logs). Figure 10 (Terrain Map) strongly suggests that either a landslide scarp or relict river bank is present to the west of the site. If this is a relict river bank, it is highly likely that the surface deposits are recessional outwash deposits overlying glacial lodgement till. Mullineaux, D. R, 1965 (Figure 8) suggests that there are several structural features in the vicinity of the site, including the Renton anticline (folding). The geologic map suggests there is a wide range in geologiC ages Page \11 for the deposits in the vicinity of the site, which also suggests that structural controls are present (folding and faulting). This map does suggest that glacial till deposits are present on the site, however, based on Mr. Neugebauer's interpretation of the geomorphology, Associated Earth Sciences (AES) test pit logs, and a review of boring and well logs for this area obtained from the department of Ecology most, if not all of the surface deposits on the site are more likely to be Vashon Age recessional outwash deposits (river deposits), which are most likely fluvial deltaic deposits associated with the draining glacial lakes, which generally drained to the west, south, and southwest before the Juan de Fuca plate began to melt and float. Figure 12 -From the 1965 Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, Mullineaux, D. R., USGS These delta complexes became relict glacial meltwater channels that are currently occupied by underfit rivers in what is identified as river valleys. These river valleys are actually remnant deltas that were cut when the glacial lakes drained after the Juan de Fuca plate no longer blocked the Strait of Juan de Fuca (this is similar to the Oso area where there are numerous relict landslides present because the delta materials are inherently unstable without the water they were deposited in). Tiffany Part Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve al Tiffany Park: Project Number LUAI3-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR: Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2Ot3 SEPA cheokli,t, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 20t4, Renton. WA October 10, 2014 What this means is that the geology, especially the structural geology in this area is complex, as is the ground water hydrology, However, the AES studies were preliminary and did not include the level of study to identify potential geologic hazards and issues with near surface ground water hydrology as is stated in all of the wetland reports prepared for this site, All of the wetland reports state that the water table is present at or within 7 inches of the ground surface in all Page 112 wetland areas, The water table is, as it sounds, a flat surface that covers a large area (even perched aquifers), however, there is no conclusive evidence that perched ground water conditions are present because no piezometers were installed to make this determination, The potential impact to development (and to ground water quality) is not discussed anywhere, even though the wetland reports have been accepted and the AES studies indicate that ground water can be present to the ground surface on this site, If this is the case, there will be a lot of problems with grading, installing underground utilities, and with foundation drains, More importantly, the proposed vautt could have problems staying submerged because ~ the ground water rises to the ground surface, the vault can float and rise above the ground surface, Because both the wetland studies and the AES studies state that the ground water table has been identified to be at the ground surface (AES simply states it will be present during the rainy season), because of this, detailed hydrogeologic studies should have been conducted to determine ~ development is feasible and to identify any potential impacts to ground water quality, Regardless, the following subsection provides the TPWAG comments that are specific to the ONLY SEPA document provided (and used) by the DERCR. 2,1 COMMENTS FOR THE SEPA CHECKLIST Item 11 on the SEPA Checklist states: Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site, The project involves the subdivision of approximately 21.7 acres of land encompassing four tax parcels into 98 sing/e·family detached homes, As part of this development there are three sensitive area/open space tracts consisting of approximately 2,8 acres (or 13 percent of the site) which have been set aside to preserve existing wetlands and significant trees, There will be approximately 3,700 linear feet of public roadway (with utilities) constructed to serve the proposed lots, This is completely incorrect, Subsequent studies indicate that there are five wetland areas and the area required for significant trees (or planting) has changed as has the number of lots (there will be 97 to 96 lots), This checklist should have been updated, because review by citizens is difficult when the only SEPA document that was included in the DERCR review is inaccurate, Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Pari<; Proiect Number LUA t3-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the Noyember 7,2013 SEPA checktist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Stlpplemental StudIes prepared for this project after November 7, 2014, Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Item 1(c) (Earth) states: 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, Please reference the soils report prepared by Associated Earth SCiences, Inc, Pagel 13 The AES studies are report were preliminary and were limited based on budget (the Renton school district hired AES) and state that additional studies are required, Page 1 of this report states: This report is intended to provide a general geotechnical feasibility analysis of the site, This report is not intended to be used as the sole geotechnical input for any site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton MuniCipal Code Section 4-3-050 J2. Interestingly the DERCR stipulates that this report will be the sole geotechnical document that will be used to develop this site, as stated on page 7: The geotechnical report does include specific recommendations in order to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts including: site preparation, temporary cut slopes, site disturbance. Winter construction, structural fill, foundations, pavement recommendations. Therefore, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations included in the provided Geotechnical Engineering Report (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: 1. All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc" dated September 28, 2012. The AES report will be discussed in the next section. Item 1 (d) states: Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. Tiffany Pari< Woods AdyocaOi Group October 10, 2014 Page 116 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ReselVe at Tiffany Pari<; Project Number LUA13-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the Novembsr 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Rentoo, WA October 10, 2014 Item 1 (d): Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. A preliminary grading plan has been prepared for this project and a copy has been attached. Based on this plan, we anticipate that the on-site structural grading to balance is approximately 95, 000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The on- site strippings (topsoil) is estimated at 22, 000 cubic yards and will either be spread on the finished lots and/or exported off site. At this time no import or export of material is expected. Some additional grading will occur on a lot by lot basis during the home construction phase. Again, this is incorrect. The DERCR indicates that 70,000 cubic yards of material will be moved and 21,000 cubic yards of material will be stripped. Also, it is very likely that stripped materials will be exported offsite. Item 1 (g); About what percent of the sae will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example. asphaff or buildings)? The total on-site impervious surface (roadways) will be approximately 4. 65 acres (or 21%) of the site area (21. 7 acres). Based on a maximum impervious area per lot of 75 percent, we have estimated a total impervious area (for 98 lots wah an average lot size of 5, 200 square feet) of approximately 8.75 acres or 382,255 square feel. This suggests that there will be 13.45 acres of impervious surfaces on the site, it is unclear how many impervious surface acres remain after all of the changes that have occurred since the November 2013 SEPA checklist was prepared. However, considering approximately 4.5 acres of wetlands and retained trees will be present this only leaves about three acres that are not impervious that are not associated with a critical area or with tree retention and proposed buffers. This suggests that during a normal year with approximately 40 inches of precipitation, would generate approximately 44,83 acre feet on the site each year, with most of the precipitation occurring from November to April. There are 325,851 gallons in an acre foot. This does not include runoff from yards and other cleared areas, which will be much higher than the current forested conditions. The current runoff from the forested site is estimated to be less than an acre foot due to evapotranspiration (up to 75% of preCipitation is removed by this) and infiltration (up to 20% can be removed via infiltration). Item 2 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 Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13·001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Commenll pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 20t4. Renton, WA October 10. 2014 project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During plat and home construction, emissions from construction equipment and vehicles will occur on a temporary basis. When houses are completed there will be emissions generated from automobile/service truck traffic. At this time there are no known quantities. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The sffe is surrounded by existing single-family developments that generate typical residential emissions; however, there are no known emissions that will affect this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: All equipment will be in compliance with EPA standards for engine emissions, and during construction watering will be provided to control dust particles. Fireplaces will be used in accordance with requirements of the Puget Sound Air Quality Board (this is actually the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency http://www.psc/eanair.org/.) Per SEPA requirements, this should be compared to a no action scenario (comparable to existing conditions). The TPWAG did not observe any studies or reports that addressed air quality relative to existing conditions nor does the SEPA checklist address deadheading trucks for the offsite transport of soils that cannot be used on the site or the impacts to air quality after the development is completed such as wood smoke from fire places, automobiles, emissions from furnaces and gas water heaters, etc. It is still unclear what air quality impacts will be present during construction and after construction because this has not been quantified. Item 3(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. Yes. There are three isolated wetlands located on site. Please reference the wetland report prepared by C. Gary Schulz. This is incorrect, there are five (5) wetlands present site and the report prepared by Schulz is not even provided because other studies (by Schulz and Otak) have been conducted since the SEPA checklist was prepared. Additionally, there is no discussion regarding the drainage easement on the site (shown in the Title insurance report). Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Pagel 17 Page 118 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13.()()1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studi .. prepa,"" for this project after November 7, 2014. Renlcn, WA October 10, 2014 Additionally, if, as ASE, Schulz, and Dtak suggest that a water table is present at or within 7 inches of the ground surface, there will be surface water flows all over this site during the winter because if ground water is present at the ground surface, the soil becomes impervious, Item 3 (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, Yes, Plat and home construction will occur within 200 feet of the on-sfte wetlands; however, all construction will be located beyond the required buffers as established by CUy Code, Page 10 of the DRECR states: Supplemental Independent Secondary Review (Exhibft 15), there does not appear to be buffer adjustments on the north and east sides of Wetlands Band C to take into account the "lock + load walls" proposed, It appears fhat portions of the walls may fall wfthin the proposed final buffer edges, If this is the case, the plans should be revised to avoid these impacts, or to accurately show the permanent buffer impacts, This strongly suggests that some activities will occur within buffer areas, Item 3-3 Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected, Indicate the source of fill material, None, This is incorrect based on the grading plans that would include filling ephemeral drainage networks on the site and the drainage easement on the site, Item 3-4) Will the proposal require surface water wfthdrawals or diversions? Give general deSCription, purpose, and approximate quantffies if known, No, There is a significant amount of storm water that is diverted onto the site through the drainage easement and from other sources, The proposed development would obviously divert these flows and the natural ephemeral drainage system, Item (3-6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge, Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 ------------ • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13-001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Commtttee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10. 2014 This is incorrect. Storm water will be generated on the streets and this storm water becomes point source flow in the storm water system (including unlined drainage ditches). Additionally, because no Phase I ESA has been conducted it is unknown if any potential contaminants are located on this site (or other potential environmental impacts). However, per the Clean Water Act Section 502, point source waters is considered to be polluted: Page 119 (6) The term 'pollutant' means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into wate~ This term does not mean (A) 'sewage from vessels' within the meaning of section 1322 of this title; or (8) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilaate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authomy of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources. (14) The term 'point source' means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduff, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural stonnwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture. (19) The tenn 'pollution' means the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, phYSical, biological, and radiological integmy of wate~ This is especially the case, if as stated in the wetland reports and the AES geotechnical report, that the ground water table is at or within 7 inches of the surface, suggest that waters of the State can be impacted by contaminants of concern that cannot be removed by a screen. It also suggests that ground water quality can be impacted due to the presence of ground water at or within 7 inches of the surface. It also suggests that there could be much greater quantities of storm water generated on the site during the rainy season when ground water is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface (saturated soils at the ground surface are impervious). Item 3-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. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 120 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUAI3.()()1572, ECF. PP. CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7.2013 SEPA checklist. Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 There will be no groundwater withdrawn as a resuff ofthis project (public water will be provided); however, stormwater will be collected by a gravity drainage system and discharged to an on-site storm pond. The stormwater collected will be discharged at an approved rate into the existing storm system within SE 18 th Street. Also, some stormwater collected from the house roof drains will be discharged into the on-sffe wetlands fo provide a re-charge during sform evenfs. This is incorrect. Wetland hydrology is ground water hydrology which means that storm water will be discharged directly into ground water in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State codes such as the Underground Injection Control Permit (UIC) requirements when discharging directly into ground water. Additionally, as previously stated, all wetland reports and even page 4 of AES report (this does not indicate an elevation that AES believes the ground water will reaCh), indicate that ground water will be present at higher elevations during the rainy season. Two different wetland studies indicate the water table was at or within 7 inches of the ground surface (the water table is equivalent to an unconfined ground water aquifer). Based on the fact that all hydrologic studies indicate that at or near surface ground water is present, it would be very difficult not to impact ground water on this site when the water table is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface. Detailed hydrogeologic studies should be conducted as would have been required if an EIS was required by the City (as is required by RCW 43.21C.031). In reality an EIS should have been required when the City put the project on hold to allow the developer or property owner fulfill all of the necessary studies at once and to insure that all SEPA documents are actually current and accurate. This also states that a storm pond will be used when in reality a storm water vault will be used (this creates its own problems because of the required maintenance (storm water vaults must be cleaned yearly and any screens or filters many need to be serviced or changed more frequently -if these facil~ies are not maintained correctly, they will allow all pollutants to enter the 60 inch storm water system and reach waters of the United States (Ginger Creek, which is a tributary to the Cedar River). Item 3-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. Sform wafer will be collected by a series of catch basins and conveyed by sformwafer pipe to fhe on-site sform pond (detention) designed in accordance with fhe Cify of Renton Sform wafer Design Manual (Addendum fo the King Counfy sformwafer guidelines). The sysfem will also convey drainage from roof and foofings drains fo the storm pond. Tiffany Park Woods Adv0C3Cf Group October 10. 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at TIffany Park; Project Number lUA13-OO1572, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Oraft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 This statement is incorrect. A stonn water vault will be used and these vaults require a lot of maintenance to operate correctly. Who will provide this maintenance and be responsible for the water quality leaving the stonn water system on this site? Item (3-c-2) could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Unlikely. As discussed above, all storm water will be collected and conveyed to an approved detention pond. Furthermore, the storm water will pass through a storm filter vault (water quality) prior to discharge off site. This states that there will be a stonn water detention pond and then to a 'storm filter vauH". It is unclear if a stonn water pond will be used on this site, however, if it is and is unlined, there can be direct discharge to ground water when the ground water table is at or within 7' of the ground surface. Direct discharge of stonn water to ground water is prohibited by State Health Codes, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act unless a UIC permit is obtained (and this requires a high level of treatment before the water can be discharged into ground water), Item 3 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As previously discussed, all drainage will be collected and treated (storm filter vault) prior to discharge (for more detailed discussion see the attached storm water TlA prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.). See comment above. Item 4 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Upon completion of the project, al/ vegetation within the developable portion of the property (approximately 18.6 acres) will be removed/altered. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sae. None to our knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the sae, if any: As required by code, we will be preserving 30 percent of Significant trees (and/or) providing mitigation with replacement trees) and protecting the on-site wetlands. The existing trees to be saved (approximately 102 trees) and wetland/buffers total 2.8 acres, or 13 percent of the sae. TIffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 121 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group ReselVe at Tiffany Park; Project Number lUA13-OO1572, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checkiis~ Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014. and Supplemental Studtes prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Rent"', WA October 10, 2014 Additionally, the habitat studies did not focus on vegetation, including species that are state heritage plants (not detailed plant studies were conducted by any botanists). These studies would be required by an EIS, Item 5 c. Is the sffe part of a migration route? If so, explain Not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: There will be approximately 2.8 acres of undisturbed open space provided to help mitigate urban wildlife. There is a known migration route to the northwest, however, it is unclear why this site is not a migration route or what will happen with the wildlife that uses the site as a habitat when approximately 18 acres are cleared (and about 4 acres of isolated wetlands will be left along with a buffer area 10 -15 feet wide)? This could drive the wildlife into the surrounding neighborhoods and can present a danger to the existing residents in this area (and their pets) when the existing forested habitat is destroyed. The site is connected to the northern forested area (that bounds the south side of the Cedar River) which suggests there is a corridor to the river from this site. Additionally, it is likely that more deer will be hit by automobiles when the habitat is completely removed. Item 7 -Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Unlikely However, during construction there is always the risk of an accident involving construction equipment and diesel fuel or gasoline during house building. ConSidering a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has not been conducted and the site was completely cleared in 1936 it is unclear how anyone knows if any hazardous wastes are present in the soils or the ground water on this site. It is unclear what will happen if contaminated soils or ground water are encountered. A Phase I ESA should have been conducted as part of the SEPA process and is required for an EIS. Item 8 -LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant undeveloped land. Adjacent properties include single-family residential and public utility right-of-way b. Has the sffe been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 123 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve al Tiffany Park; Project Number LUAI3·001572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to Ihe November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renlon, WA October to, 2014 It js unclear what the site was used for in the early 19305 and earlier, however, it was completely cleared in 1936 and it is unclear if agricultural activities were conducted on the site, Item 8 (h). Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. There are isolated wetlands located on site. For additional information please review the wetland report prepared by C. Gary Schulz. Also, the site is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. This is incorrect, page 2 of the AES document (which is referenced in the SEPA checklist) states: Item 8 The site contains areas that meet City of Renton definffions for Geotechnical Critical Areas. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: As part of the preliminary plat process, the project will be reviewed in accordance with the R·B development standards which are compatible wffh the surrounding property. The site has been historically, and still is, public property and is used as a green area/park for recreational purposes. It is estimated that 100s of nearlby residents use this area recreationally. The proposed development would permanently remove the site from public use and recreation. The impact fees for parks will not replace the recreational element of the site and will impact 1 OOs of local citizens. The existing land use is recreational and site provides habitat functions, surface water controls, and the site is linked to forests to the north which are a corridor to the Cedar River, This has not been addressed in ANY document but would be required to be addressed in an EIS. Item 10 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 131 Page 132 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the TIffany Park Woods Afi.Iocar:t Group ReselVe at Tiffany Pari<; Project Number lUA13-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies preparad for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Not applicable, c, Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: All future homes within the project will be subject to the City building design standards at the time of building perma review, This is incorrect. The site is currently a 22 acre forest with diverse vegetation and habitat functions. The view is that of a forest with a relatively dense understory that includes numerous species of shrubs, herbs, and grasses. The view will be substantially changed when the 18.5 acres of the site is cleared, not to mention the loss of a major recreational area and the impacts to vegetation, wildl~e, and surface water in this area (remember there is a deeded drainage easement on the site). Item12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The subject properly is located wffhin 655 feet of Tiffany Park Elementary School which provides some limited recreation opportunities. Also, the sae is within 1,000 feet of Tiffany Park which is connected by pedestrian pathways to the Tiffany-Cascade Connector open space and to Cascade Park. Also, abutting the east and south property lines are the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way and Mercer Island Pipeline right-of-way that provide walking trails used by the public. 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: Each Building Permit will be required to pay a parks impact fee of $530. 76 to reduce or control recreational impacts. This is incorrect. As previously stated the site has been used by 1 ODs of local citizens for over 3 decades for recreational purposes. Citizens have built trails, forts, and bike tracks, and have made other improvements on this site including what appears to be a structure. The current estimate is that 97 lots will be developed, but it is unclear how $47,768.40 can provide equivalent recreational uses for the 22 acres of public property used by 100s of local citizens that will be removed permanently by the proposed development. This should have been assessed and would have been assessed if an EIS were required. Item 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 ---------------------------------------- • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13·001572, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None, c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable, The SEPA checklist is incorrect. As stated above, the site is a major source of recreation in this area and has been for at least 3 decades, There is geologic scientific equipment located on the site (see Figure 20), There have been no studies for state heritage plants identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) as shown on http;//wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdeskllists/plantmk.html. It is clear that no research was done to determine if any sensitive plant species or state heritage sites are located on the site, which would be required by an EIS. Item 14 -Transportation b. Is site currently served by public transit? if not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. This incorrect, the April 2014 Transpo Group document states; The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within the study area, The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 123rd Avenue SE, each near the project access points. It is clear that there are several metro routes in the vicinity of the site, This is one of many errors that are present in the environmental checklist that the City has adopted and has used in the environmental review process to make a DNS-M determination. The use of incorrect information and the complexity of having several iterations of the same documents that also contain errors or do not fully address the site conditions and the environmental impacts (including ground water) is inconsistent with the purpose of the SEPA review process, It is apparent that the City did not want to request an EIS for some reason, however, it is clear that an EIS must be conducted to correctly address all environmental impacts the proposed project will have. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 133 Page 134 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Pari<; Project Number LUA13-OO1512. ECF. PP. CAR; Commen .. pertaining to the November I, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22. 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November7,2014. Renton, WA October 10. 2014 3.0 CONCLUSIONS The SEPA process for the proposed Tiffany Park Woods project is convoluted, including two holds, the City is adopting a completely incorrect SEPA checklist, and the City apparently purposely avoided an EIS that is called for (based on all the required additional studies, that include several iterations) by WAC 197-11-600 and RCW 43.21 C.031. The City of Renton has adopted Chapter RCW 43.21 C in in the Renton Municipal Code: Per RMC 4·9·070 (C): The City of Renton adopts as its own the policies and objectives of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as emended (chapter 43.21C RCW). As these comments discuss, the City's review deadline of 14 days to complete a review and comment on all documents that have been prepared for this SEPA process, including addressing the City's DERCR (and sorting through numerous iterations of the same documents) and to prepare this appeal document is unreasonable. The City has a much time as ~ wants because it can Simply impose another hold, however, the citizens do not have this authority. Because of 14 day time lim~s and a lot of confusion over what process the citizens were required to use to comment on the SEPA related issues (comments or an appeal), the TPWAG could not include detailed comments for all documents that were reviewed by us and Mr. Neugebauer. Therefore, add~ional comments are provided for each report reviewed in PDF format (using Adobe Acrobat 10 or higher) on the CD that accompanies this report. The comments can be viewed by simply clicking on comments. The included CD includes all documents reviewed and a PDF copy of this document. The SEPA process is supposed to be a process that protects the citizens and the environment. however, the citizens comments have been ignored in the past and have gone unaddressed. This is the last chance the citizens have to have their concerns addressed and to insure that the SEPA process is fully implemented and accurately reflects the environmental impacts. The City of Renton apparent did not check the documents it requested for accuracy, consistency, errors, or applicability (such as the September 28, 2012 AES geotechnical report) and the ERC apparently does not include a licensed geologist, engineering geologist, hydrogeologist. The AES report clearly states that it is preliminary, the first paragraph of the report states: This report is not intended to be used as the sole geotechnical input for any site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4·3-050 J2. TIffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 • • Comments for the Ci~ of Renton Hearing Examiner from !he TIffany Pari< Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA 13·001572, ECF, pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. The DERCR states (page 7) Therefore, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply WITh the recommendations included in the provided [AES] Geotechnical EngIneering Report (ExhIbit 7). Mitigation Measures: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28,2012. The AES report (page 1) states: Within the limITations of scope, schedule. and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared Renton. WA October 10. 2014 This indicates that the scope of work was limited by scheduling, but more importantly budget. Per Mr. Neugebauer (SNR Company), AES was not provided the scheduling and budget to conduct the level of study warranted for this site, especially when the wetland specialist(s) indicate that the water table is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface. This warrants a sign~icantly enhanced study for slope stability, impacts to ground water quality, impacts to the developed homes, and impacts to all unlined storm water facilities on the site. Additionally, ~ the ground water table is located at or within 7 inches of the ground surface, it is very likely that a buried storm water detention vault will float and erupt from the ground without adequate anchoring. Had AES had the budget and time, it would have noted the bent trees, hummocky ground surface and would have identified the recessional outwash deposits that are typically present up to 40 inches below the ground surface and that the contact of the recessional outwash depoSits and the glacial till is creating a potential rupture surface, especially when this contact is prone to relatively high amounts of unsaturated zone preferential flow. This can lead to unstable slopes especially if the toe of the slope is disturbed as it has been on the site, which is apparently leading to near surface creep and shallow slumping. There are numerous problems with the SEPA process for this project and it is clear that the City should have required an EIS when it placed the project on hold on December 16, 2013. Instead, the City created a process that was fragmented which impacted citizen input and made the review process very difficult. Additionally, by refusing to acknowledge that the proposed project does pose significant environmental impacts; including impacts to existing recreational uses of the site (for at least 3 decades), which was NEVER addressed in any document suggests a unbiased, thorough, scientific and social review was NOT conducted. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 135 --------- • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Par1l. Woods Advocacy Group RaselVe at Tiffany Part<; Proiect Number LUAt3-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 It is clear that the City should have requested that an EIS be conducted and that all supporting documentation must be thorough, unbiased, consistent, and current. Additionally, for projects this complex and with this much documentation, the citizens must be provided at least 30 days review time which is consistent with SEPA protocols in RCW 43.21C which the city of Renton has adopted into its code. The TPWAG is submitting this appeal document as a request to the Hearing Examiner to deny the City's Page I 36 request for a DNS-M and to require the City to follow the correct protocols for SEPA studies and documentation for complex sites where significant environmental impacts are present (the City has acknowledged this by placing two holds on the project and requesting more information, but the City did not focus on many of the SEPA requirements and all proposed mitigation pertains to construction activities rather than addressing environmental impacts. It is clear that the existing documents, and this document support the need for an EIS and that more citizen review time is necessary for citizen review time and commenting. Sincerely, TIFFANY PARK WOODS ADVOCACY GROUP ~<lb ~J2Qk- Renate Beedon President SNRCOMPANY 0tl~ Steven F. Neugebauer Principal hydrogeologisUengineering geologist TIffany Part< Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 L tl .. , i ... t • CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 425·430·6510 o }:ash ty Check N o,_Q..LSILlLS5,",,--_ tJ <;OpyFee [\VAppeaJ Fee ¢ .c. ,. 1 , , -' • Receipt 2151 ,Date' 10 / (0 I J 4 I o Notary Service 0 ________ _ Description: ,-1R".,fL,5,lJ;J';,.Ll..!l)/.",l.:...{""i:t-=----.J..<II,...:WFt' ll.,ti,¥JH-¥-p.ufk""-VL::k'--'.,5,l.C,~""le-L"'tJ..J.X-'C'-;!p.~ ~1iJ..lII~ed:..?t.l':;~f-'{t----- f f(fl---I 3 -' 601577 =10 tt 'C.-_ Funds Received From: \" '" Amount $ L;::;O ---((11(111'8. ((lr t (I Jg/\t{ S !d 110 (({(U (tlf/t' > Address ChI') P u'.i((e A 1fJ' ,<.1-, , Name p + 11/'01') I (I ,r'I r:i 'S Dt::./K City/Zip City Staff sigiiature j Page 114 • • CommenlS for It1e City 01 RenlDn Heari1g Examiler ~0011h. Tiffany Park Woods ~ Group ReseMI at Tiffany PlIIt<; Projed Number lUA13-OO1572 , ECF, pp , CAR; Commonts perfllining to the Novtmbtr 7, 2013 SEPA cheddist, Draft E",ironmtntal R .. iew Committee Report dated September 22 , 201., .nd Supplement.al Studl .. propar1d for thl. projIct .fter Novomber7 ,201 •. Renloo , WA October 10, 2014 SNR observed hummocky ground and 'bent' trees throughout this s~e (Figures 13 and 14), especially on steeper slopes . Bent trees and hummocky ground are typical indicators of ground movement. There were no comments in the AES report regarding these conditions nor were any studies conducted to determine ~ ground movement is occurring on the sile (the geotechnical study was preliminary and was limited due to budget constraints). Figure 13· Trees on the left are bent which is common where near surface ground creep Is occurring The geologic map , the geomorphology of this area , the proximity to the Seattle Fau~ Zone (a splay may pass through the site), the stratigraphy , and the subsurface hydrology strongly suggests that the site is a candidate for shallow ground movement and shallow slumps. However, this was never addressed with additional , full scale geotechnical and engineering geology studies . The grading plans assume that there is no near surface ground water or slope stability issues , however, all wetland reports indicate that the ground water table was present at or within 7 inches of the ground surface in the wetland areas when the studies the studies were conducted and the AES report states that ground water will be much higher during the rainy season . Also , as stated above , the Simplest method to suspect unstable slopes Is to look at the trees and walk \he ground surface . If bent trees are present and a hummocky surface is present , it is very likely that ground movement has and probably still is occurring. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10. 2014 • • Com_Is for the City of R",ton Heari1g Examiler ~om the rdfany POll< Woods ~ Group R ...... at Tlffany POll<; Project Number LUA1J.OO1572 . ECF. PP . CAR; Comments portalning to !he November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft E".lronmen1a1 R .. 1ew Committee Report dated StpIembtr 22, 2014, Ind Suppltmen1a1 Studies_red for thlo project .ft" No .. mbtr 7, 2014 . Figure 14 • More bent Trees R",1on, WA October 10. 2014 Tlffany POll< Woods ~ Group October 10. 2014 Page 115 ,--------------------------------------------------- • • Comments fo< the City of Renton Hearing Examiner ftom the Tiffany P,"" Wood. Advocacy Group R ....... at TiKany Par1c; Project Number LUAI3-OO1572. ECF . pp . CAR ; Commen\1 pertaining 10 lhe November 7, 2013 SEPA checkiis1, Droft Environmental Review Committee Report dated Sep1ember 22. 2014. and Supplemental Studl .. prepared for thit projeo1 after Novamber 7, 2014. Reoton . WA Octotler 10. 2014 This is incorrect based on the DERCR , however, it is unclear how many acres will be cleared (this checklist suggests that 18.6 out of 22 acres will be cleared). The habitat studies did not include more than one day of field studies therefore it is diffiCult to determine what species are actually present , especially migrating species . The studies would need to be more comprehensive ~ an EIS were required . However, citizens have provided the city with photographs of sensitive species , such as the Pileated Woodpecker and other species , such as Page 122 bobcats , Figure 15 -Male red-breasted sapsucker, note the numerous woodpecker holes; Pileated Woodpecker have been observed on the Site Tiffany Park Woods Advrx:¥:'/ Group Octotler 10. 2014 --------------------------------- Page 124 • • Commonls for tho City of Renton Hearing Examiner ~om tho Tiffany Pari< Woods ~ Group ReseMl at Tiffany Pari<; Project Number LUAI3-OO1572. ECF. PP. CAR ; Cornmenlo pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, O .. ft Envlronmenlol Review Committee Report dated Septomber 22, 2Ot4, and SUpplemental Studl" prtt>Onod for this project after November 7, 201 •. Renl",. WA October 10, 2014 No. c. Describe any structures on the site . None . d. Will any structures be demolished ? If so, what ? Not applicable . This is incorrect. The site is public land at the time these comments were prepared (owned by the Renton School District) and has an extens ive trail system that was constructed by and maintained by local citizens , improvements , and there is apparently a structure located on the site . The site has been used as a green space and recreational park area for at least 3 decades as is shown in the following photographs . Figure 16 • Fort constructed on the s~e Almost all structures that are related to forts are for airsoft war games conducted often (players come from as far away as Puyallup, maybe farther). As previously stated , this site is a major source of recreation for local cijizens and others in the area . Tiffany Part< Woods Advoca<:f Group October 10. 2014 • • Cammen~ for Itle City of Renloo Hearing Exam~", tram Itle Tiffany Pari< Woods Mvocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Pat<; Project Number LUAI3-OO1572, ECF , pp, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Repcrt dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental studt.. prepared forthl. project after November7 j 2014. Figure 17 • Fort on site , note bent trees and hummock appearance of ground surface Renloo , WA October 10 , 2014 Figure 18 • Banked curve for bicycles local citizens destroyed about five of them to reclaim the trail Tiffany Pa1< Woods Advocaq Group October 10 , 2014 Page 125 Page 126 • • CommeolS for the City of Renton HeaIiIg Exam~ .. tram the Tiffany PIII1< Wood. Mvo<ar:i Group Reserve at rlffany Pari<; Project Number lUA13-OO1572, ECF , pp, CAR : Comments pertaining to the Nov"""r 1, 2013 sePA checl!liIt, Dl1ft E ... lroomental Review Commlttoe Report dated Soptembtr 22, 2014, Ind Supplemental Sludltt preparocl for this projec1.fter November 1, 2014 , Renton , WA October 10, 2014 rlffeny PIII1< Wood. Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Figure 19 -Structure located on Site • • Cammenls lor !he City of R ... 1Ilf1 Hearilg Examiler ~om !he rdfany Park Woods i>IJvocacy Cl'oup R-.. at Tifflrly Pon; Project Numilet lUAI3-OO1572 , ECF , PP , CAR; Comments pertaining to !he November 1, 2Ot3 SEPA checklist, o"n Envlronmentsl Review Committee Ripon dated September 22, 2014, and SUpplementsl Sludiet _red for thil projoct In" NOYernber 1, 2014 , RIJIton WA Figure 20 -GeocacI1e 00 the site ~10 ,2014 Tiffany Park Woods i>IJvocacy Group ~10 ,2014 Page 127 Page 128 • • Can_Is for lila City of Renloo HeIrilg Examner ~orn Ill. TIffany P8I1< Woods ArMx:acy Group R ...... at T1f!aly Park; Project Number LUA13-OO1Sn, ECF, pp, CAR; Cornmont1 pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Dl1ft Environmental Revitw Committee Report dated Sopttmber 22, 2014, and Suppfemental Studies proparod for this project after November 7, 2014. Rental , WA October 10, 2014 Figure 21 • Another fort 00 the site Figure 22 -Another "fort' 00 the site on ooe of the main trails T1"",y P8I1< Woods ArMx:acy Groop October 10, 2014 • • Comments for til. City of Renton Hearing Examiner ~om Ifl. Tiffany Par!< Woods Mvocar:y (](oop Resef'Ie at rlflany Par!<; Project Number LUAI3-OO1572, ECF , PP , CAR; Comments pertaining to tho November7, 2013 SEPA che<klill, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22,201(, and &lpplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Figure 23 -Another Fort on the site along one of the trails Figure 24 Another fort on the site on one of the trails Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Tiffany PM< Woods Mvocar:y Group October 10 , 2014 Page 129 Page 130 • • Commenls for the City of Renlon HeaMg Examiner from Ill. Tiffany ParI< Woods Mv<x:aq Groop Reserve at Tiffany Pari<; Project Number LUA13-OO1572 , ECF, ?p, CAR; Comments pertaining to tho November 7, 2013 SEPA eheckl~~ Drift E ... lronmentol Review Committee Report doted Stptsmbor 22, 2014 , and Supplemtntll Studies preparld for th~ project after November 7, 2014, Renlon , WA ~10,2014 Figure 25 -Cleanup activities conducted by citizens at the large 'rope swing' weUand in the northwest part of the site Tiffany Parle Woods /vlvoeaey Group October 10 , 2014 Figure 26 • Another fort on one of the Irails • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Pari<; Project Number LUA13-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 It is unclear what the site was used for in the early 1930s and earlier, however, it was completely cleared in 1936 and it is unclear if agricultural activities were conducted on the site. Item 8 (h). Has any parl of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive' area? If so, specify. Yes. There are isolated wetlands located on site. For additional information please review the wetland report prepared by C. Gary Schulz. Also, the sae is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. This is incorrect, page 2 of the AES document (which is referenced in the SEPA checklist) states: Item 8 The sae contains areas that meet City of Renton definffions for Geotechnical Critical Areas. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: As parl of the preliminary plat process, the project will be reviewed in accordance wah the R·8 development standards which are compatible wah the surrounding properly. The site has been historically, and still is, public property and is used as a green area/park for recreational purposes. It is estimated that 100s of nearby residents use this area recreationally. The proposed development would permanently remove the site from public use and recreation. The impact fees for parks will not replace the recreational element of the site and will impact 1 ODs of local citizens. The existing land use is recreational and site provides habitat functions, surface water controls, and the site is linked to forests to the north which are a corridor to the Cedar River. This has not been addressed in ANY document but would be required to be addressed in an EIS. Item 10 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Tiffany Pari< Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 131 Page 132 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number lUA13-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7,2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 1, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: All future homes within the project will be subject to the City building design standards at the time of building permft review. This is incorrect. The site is currently a 22 acre forest with diverse vegetation and habitat functions. The view is that of a forest with a relatively dense understory that includes numerous species of shrubs, herbs, and grasses. The view will be substantially changed when the 18.5 acres of the site is cleared, not to mention the loss of a major recreational area and the impacts to vegetation, wildlife, and surface water in this area (remember there is a deeded drainage easement on the site). Item12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The subject property is located wfthin 655 feet of Tiffany Park Elementary School which provides some limited recreation opportunities. Also, the site is within 1,000 feet of Tiffany Park which is connected by pedestrian pathways to the Tiffany-Cascade Connector open space and to Cascade Park. Also, abutting the east and south property lines are the Cedar River Pipeline right -of-way and Mercer Island Pipeline right -of-way that provide walking trails used by the public. 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: Each Building Permit will be required to pay a parks impact fee of $530. 76 to reduce or control recreational impacts. This is incorrect. As previously stated the site has been used by 1 DOs of local citizens for over 3 decades for recreational purposes. Citizens have built trails, forts, and bike tracks, and have made other improvements on this site including what appears to be a structure. The current estimate is that 97 lots will be developed, but it is unclear how $47,768.40 can provide equivalent recreational uses for the 22 acres of public property used by 1 DOs of local citizens that will be removed permanently by the proposed development. This should have been assessed and would have been assessed if an EIS were required. Item 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10. 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group Reserve al Tiffany Pari<; Project Number LUA13-OO1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Renton, WA October 10, 2014 a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cuffural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. The SEPA checklist is incorrect. As stated above, the site is a major source of recreation in this area and has been for at least 3 decades. There is geologic scientific equipment located on the site (see Figure 20). There have been no studies for state heritage plants identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) as shown on http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantmk.html. It is clear that no research was done to determine if any sensitive plant species or state heritage sites are located on the site, which would be required by an EIS. Item 14 -Transportation b. Is site currently served by public transit? if not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. This incorrect, the April 2014 Transpo Group document states: The project site is currently served by King County Metro Route 148 with Routes 102 and 155 also operating within the study area. The nearest transit stop for Route 148 is located on Lake Youngs Drive SE and 123rd Avenue SE, each near the project access points. It is clear that there are several metro routes in the vicinity of the site. This is one of many errors that are present in the environmental checklist that the City has adopted and has used in the environmental review process to make a DNS-M determination. The use of incorrect information and the complexity of having several iterations of the same documents that also contain errors or do not fully address the site conditions and the environmental impacts (including ground water) is inconsistent with the purpose of the SEPA review process. It is apparent that the City did not want to request an EIS for some reason, however, it is clear that an EIS must be conducted to correctly address all environmental impacts the proposed project will have. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 133 ,------------------------------------------- Page 134 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods AcNocar:; Group ResefVe at Tiffany Park; Project Number lUAI3'{)()1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checklist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014, Rentoo, WA October 10, 2014 3.0 CONCLUSIONS The SEPA process for the proposed Tiffany Park Woods project is convoluted, including two holds, the City is adopting a completely incorrect SEPA checklist, and the City apparently purposely avoided an EIS that is called for (based on all the required additional studies, that include several iterations) by WAC 197·11-600 and RCW 43.21 C.031 , The City of Renton has adopted Chapter RCW 43,21 C in in the Renton Municipal Code: Per RMC 4-9-070 (C): The City of Renton adopts as its own. the pOlicies and objectives of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended (chapter 43.21C RCW), As these comments discuss, the City's review deadline of 14 days to complete a review and comment on all documents that have been prepared for this SEPA process, including addressing the City's DERCR (and sorting through numerous iterations of the same documents) and to prepare this appeal document is unreasonable, The City has a much time as it wants because it can simply impose another hold, however, the citizens do not have this authority, Because of 14 day time limits and a lot of confusion over what process the citizens were required to use to comment on the SEPA related issues (comments or an appeal), the TPWAG could not include detailed comments for all documents that were reviewed by us and Mr, Neugebauer, Therefore, add~ional comments are provided for each report reviewed in PDF format (using Adobe Acrobat 10 or higher) on the CD that accompanies this report, The comments can be viewed by simply clicking on comments, The included CD includes all documents reviewed and a PDF copy of this document. The SEPA process is supposed to be a process that protects the citizens and the environment, however, the citizens comments have been ignored in the past and have gone unaddressed, This is the last chance the citizens have to have their concerns addressed and to insure that the SEPA process is fully implemented and accurately reflects the environmental impacts, The City of Renton apparent did not check the documents it requested for accuracy, consistency, errors, or applicability (such as the September 28, 2012 AES geotechnical report) and the ERC apparently does not include a licensed geologist, engineering geologist, hydrogeologist. The AES report clearly states that it is preliminary, the first paragraph of the report states: This report is not intended to be used as the sole geotechnical input for anv site development proposal, and is not intended to satisfy City of Renton requirements for a Special Study as outlined in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 J2. TIffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods AdVOCtJOj Group Reserve al Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13'()()1572, ECF, PP, CAR; Comments pertaining to Ihe November 7, 2013 SEPA che<:klist, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. The DERCR states (page 7) Therefore, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations included in the provided [AES} Geotechnical Engineenng Report (ExhibiT 7). Mitigation Measures: All earthwork performed, implemented by the applicant, shall be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated September 28,2012. The AES report (page 1) states: Within the limitations of scope, schedule. and budget. our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared Renton, WA October 10, 2014 This indicates that the scope of work was limited by scheduling, but more importantly budget. Per Mr. Neugebauer (SNR Company), AES was not provided the scheduling and budget to conduct the level of study warranted for this site, especially when the wetland specialist(s) indicate that the water table is at or within 7 inches of the ground surface. This warrants a significantly enhanced study for slope stability, impacts to ground water quality, impacts to the developed homes, and impacts to all unlined storm water facilities on the site. Addijionally, ~ the ground water table is located at or within 7 inches of the ground surface, it is very likely that a buried storm water detention vault will float and erupt from the ground without adequate anchOring. Had AES had the budget and time, it would have noted the bent trees, hummocky ground surface and would have identified the recessional outwash deposits that are typically present up to 40 inches below the ground surface and that the contact of the recessional outwash depoSits and the glacial till is creating a potential rupture surface, especially when this contact is prone to relatively high amounts of unsaturated zone preferential flow. This can lead to unstable slopes especially if the toe of the slope is disturbed as it has been on the site, which is apparently leading to near surface creep and shallow slumping. There are numerous problems with the SEPA process for this project and it is clear that the City should have required an EIS when it placed the project on hold on December 16, 2013. Instead, the City created a process that was fragmented which impacted citizen input and made the review process very difficult. Additionally, by refusing to acknowledge that the proposed project does pose significant environmental impacts; including impacts to existing recreational uses of the site (for at least 3 decades), which was NEVER addressed in any document suggests a unbiased, thorough, scientific and social review was NOT conducted. Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 Page 135 ------------------ • • Comments for the City of Renton Hearing Examiner from the Tiffany Park Woods AdvocaOJ Group Reserve at Tiffany Park; Project Number LUA13'()01572, ECF, PP, CAR; Cornment1 pertaining to the November 7, 2013 SEPA checkt~t, Draft Environmental Review Committee Report dated September 22, 2014, and Supplemental Studies prepared for this project after November 7, 2014. Rental, WA October 10, 2014 It is clear that the City should have requested that an EIS be conducted and that all supporting documentation must be thorough, unbiased, consistent, and current. Additionally, for projects this complex and with this much documentation, the citizens must be provided at least 30 days review time which is consistent with SEPA protocols in RCW 43.21 C which the city of Renton has adopted into its code. The TPWAG is submitting this appeal document as a request to the Hearing Examiner to deny the City's Page 136 request for a DNS-M and to require the City to follow the correct protocols for SEPA studies and documentation for complex snes where significant environmental impacts are present (the City has acknowledged this by placing two holds on the project and requesting more information, but the City did not focus on many of the SEPA requirements and all proposed mitigation pertains to construction activities rather than addressing environmental impacts. It is clear that the existing documents, and this document support the need for an EIS and that more citizen review time is necessary for citizen review time and commenting. Sincerely, TtFFANY PARK WOODS ADVOCACY GROUP ~ <lJb-~ J2QL Renate Beedon President SNRCOMPANY 0tl~ Steven F. Neugebauer Principal hydrogeologistlengineering geologist Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group October 10, 2014 ... zo lSi iiitirj, 5 4_. ,_ ~ iQJ .. M • CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 425-430-6510 i. " , . Ii. 0 (. Receipt 2151 Date ---,-I 0"-,;1,-,-1-,,,-0-+'-,-/ -'.4 __ o S;:ash IO'Check No,,_Q...L!LS..l.2.l?t).L __ tJ <;opy Fee WAppealFee o Notary Service 0 ________________ _ Description: _R~e~5LeL(JIL! l:!,.:.-.!i:JLi:t:::.., _-1./ 1~#,:p'~.t.!4lf}f--'JrlL) au:, 'x-v.r:::k'----'.s.:ut::::., +--PAW-.1..C,-+/:W1 Ii"'-I·.wl !...J:eL'1Jl;7{)1-t{,------- f (fA ----/ 3. -' 601571 =to \-\--ex t1 Funds Received From: ' I Amount $ -, '-l" , ' L~/ Name -rljj (1/1/1 (II ,V IL 1{ ) ,,,\if ~ A rivo ((1 C! I ({ff/lJ''----,-. _______ --1 J) Q_" I, '_ 0- Address / Q I') P 1.1'.(( e A \ Uo;, I: , ' City/Zip i ':-I City Staff Signature