Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L02-055 - HAYNES LUND - IMMIGRANT AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE CONDITIONAL USEL02 055 INS BUILDING IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION HOMELAND SECURITY CONDITIONAL USE 12500 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Bureau of Border and Transportation Services, New Office Facility Tukwila, King County, Washington Project Alternatives No Action u• N mo.uuro- 0uoi.ad.,aM April 30, 2003 Finding of No Significant Impact April 30, 2003 In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and General Services Administration (GSA) Order ADM 1095.1F, implementing the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500- 1508), I find that the project described in the attached environmental assessment (United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Bureau of Border and Transportation Services, New Office Facility, Tukwila, Washington, April 29, 2003) is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. Project Description The proposed project consists of the construction of a 137,500- square -foot building and associated facilities for use by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Tukwila, King County, Washington. The proposed facility would replace the existing DHS facility in Seattle, Washington, which has inadequate space and is functionally obsolete. The new DHS facility would provide additional office space for the Seattle District Office of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border and Transportation Services. The proposed project would include the demolition of one existing privately owned building on the site of the new DHS facility. No new property will be acquired for the project; the federal government is entering into a long- term lease with a private party, the Sabey Corporation, for this facility. Under the no- action alternative, the General Services Administration would not lease this facility, the existing Seattle District Office facility would be maintained in its current condition. The existing facility was built in 1930 and provides approximately 43,000 square feet of usable space. The building systems, including heating and ventilation and electrical, are inadequate for the increased load generated by an increasing number of staff and the increased use of computers and other electronic equipment in the building. 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Proposed Action The proposed action consists of one four -story office building, with three floors of underground parking beneath the building, uncovered surface parking, one level of uncovered structured parking, and two access driveways all to be constructed by the Sabey Corporation for long -term lease by DHS. This new facility would occupy approximately 14 acres of land, which is a portion of a 16.1 -acre site currently owned by the Sabey Corporation. The building would provide a total of 137,500 square feet of interior space. The footprint of the building would be 274 feet long by 131 feet wide. The height of the building, nearest Tukwila International Boulevard, would be approximately 58 feet. Parking would be provided for approximately 688 vehicles, including 405 stalls for clients and visitors and 283 stalls for employees and agency vehicles. Construction would occur between May 2003 and the middle of 2004. Monitoring In conjunction with the proposed action, monitoring measures will be implemented to ensure that the action has no significant impact on the quality of the human environment. These monitoring measures are described in the following subsections. Biological Resources Potential impacts on wetland buffers will be mitigated through revegetation with native species and monitoring will be conducted to determine the survival rates. As the facility developer, the Sabey Corporation will be contractually responsible for implementing these mitigation measures and for monitoring the revegetation of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffers will be replanted, if the following standards are not met: 100 percent survival after 1 year and 80 percent survival after 3 years. There will be no wetland fill as a result of the proposed project, no in -water work, and no direct impacts on Riverton Creek. The wetland buffers will be avoided as much as the topography of the project site allows, and any necessary impacts on the wetland buffers will be revegetated according to City of Tukwila standards (Tukwila Municipal Code, Section 18.54.130). Best management practices and temporary erosion and sedimentation controls, such as silt fencing, straw bales, and catch basin inserts, will be used to avoid or minimize all the potential direct and indirect adverse effects of construction activities, such as erosion, sedimentation, and accidental spills into the adjacent wetlands. The temporary erosion and sedimentation controls will be designed in accordance with current requirements of King County and the City of Tukwila. Visual Resources No monitoring or mitigation measures are required. The proposed action will improve the visual quality of the area by replacing an existing vacant building and construction materials storage area with a new commercial facility and appropriate landscaping buffers. Herrera Environmental Consultants 2 'M /00414I9A40 fn.r.doc April 30, 2003 Cultural and Historic Resources If archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation, the GSA Regional Historic Preservation Officer would be notified and will consult the Washington State Historic Preservation Office. After the consultation, the GSA will take the action it deems appropriate. Transportation Development of the proposed DHS facility will increase traffic along Tukwila International Boulevard. Of the 10 intersections studied for the proposed project, one intersection (Tukwila International Boulevard and the northern driveway into the DHS facility) currently has a level of service that is less than acceptable under the standards of the City of Tukwila. After the proposed DHS facility opens, traffic at this intersection will increase and delays will increase slightly. On the basis of the traffic analyses performed for this project, as well as the environmental assessment, it was recommended that a traffic light be installed at this intersection. The Sabey Corporation and the Washington State Department of Transportation are currently discussing the installation of a traffic light at this location, although approval from the Washington State Department of Transportation has not been granted. Land Use The proposed facility is compatible with the surrounding land uses and will include a landscaped buffer to screen adjacent residential land uses. The area surrounding the site has been extensively converted from low- density residential to commercial and industrial uses. Stormwater The stormwater retention and detention system for the site is consistent with the locally applicable standards and will result in a slight improvement in the existing water quality conditions in the area. Currently, stormwater runoff from the developed portion of the site and portions of Tukwila International Boulevard flow off the site untreated. Monitoring and mitigation of the effects of stormwater runoff are described under Biological Resources. RECOMMENDED: `.. 'a� _ . . • S cis Michael D. Levine Date Regional Environmental P1' : am Officer General Services Administration, Region 10 APPROVED: J Kvistad egional Administrator General Services Administration, Region trig R10.O1JIY41JUf,nd, ,c April 30, 2003 3 Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Date Date Herrera Environmental Consultants SABEY CORPORATIOV Z April 2, 2003 RECEIVED I=— w CITY OF TUKWILA APR 0 2 2003 6 o co 0 'Er1M1T CENTER J W L W O u ¢ . LO �. 2 = Z � Sabey Corporation is proceeding with the development of the above listed project. This project has I— 0 received Conditional Use approval and Design Review approval from the City of Tukwila. We are in the iZ I— process of preparing Building Permit submittal documents for this facility. We expect to submit them for Q review around the end of April. U O D O I— ▪ W � U LLB- John - O John McFarland City Manager City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Dear John: J REF: DHS SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 Tukwila International Blvd Tukwila, WA 98168 As you know, the Conditional Use approval is contingent upon receiving WSDOT approval for locating the north driveway within the existing area of limited access to SR 99. We have submitted our request for revision to the limited access restrictions and it is under review by WSDOT. We expect to receive their approval for this request within two to three weeks. However, WSDOT cannot issue a General permit for the construction of this access until they have performed a "Valuation Determination" review and collected the appropriate fees, if any. That process could take from 30 to 60 days after the change in access restriction is approved. We request that the City allow Sabey Corporation to proceed with construction based on WSDOT approval of the limited access revisions, but prior to receiving the General permit from WSDOT. This approval should be received prior to May 1, 2003, which is when the first construction permit is due to be issued. Your signature below indicates acceptance of this request. We appreciate the help and support that the City has provided for this project. Completing this project on schedule is in the best interest of all parties, and we believe that this request is a reasonable approach toward insuring that result. Please contact Haynes Lund at Sabey Corporation if you have any questions or require any further information. Very truly yours, SABEY CORPORATION Ra1j Hagler Vice President, Development Cc: Jim Morrow, Steve Lancaster REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Sabey Corporation CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4th Floor V E N T U R E FUNDING Seattle, Washington 98168-5121 206/281.8700 main line 2061282 -9951 fax line www.sabey.com Z March 12, 2003 Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd, 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 Re: Immigration & Naturalization Service Seattle District Office 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Conditional Use (L02 -055) Design Review (L02 -056) Boundary Line Adjustment (L02 -057) Gentlemen: City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director This letter is to review the list of items that will be required from you to -date in connection with DCD's review of your land altering and building permits. This information was previously provided to you in our January 14, 2003 technical review letter and in the Notice of Decision for the Conditional Use permit, dated February 28, 2003. 1. The geotechnical engineering study by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated September 18, 2002 needs to be updated to reflect the soils characteristics related to the building foundation for the proposed INS Building. The requirement must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the land altering permit. For specific criteria, please refer to the attached memo from Bob Benedicto, Tukwila Building Official, dated December 23, 2002. 2. The Boundary Line Adjustment application documents (under File L02 -057) must be approved by the City of Tukwila and evidence of recording provided to the undersigned prior to issuance of any development permits. 3. A reciprocal ingress, egress and parking agreement will be required for the parking lot(s) and driveway(s) located on Parcel 102304 -9080 for the benefit of the building parcel (Parcel 102304- 9082) as those parcels immediately to the south of the building (734060 -0581, 734060 -0602 and 734560- 0885). This agreement must be recorded against all affected parcels prior to the issuance of any land altering permits. 4. Sensitive Areas You have indicated that you will continue the enhancement of Riverton Creek and of the other wetland and stream buffers identified in the "Wetland and Stream Delineation and Mitigation Report" prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, dated October 17, 2000 and revised April 16, 2001. This work will be implemented under a separate Land Altering Permit application. a. Riverton Creek Buffers and Setbacks. A 35 -foot buffer and a 15 -foot building setback beyond that buffer must be maintained for Riverton Creek. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206.431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 - 3665 _1 Haynes Lund March 12, 2003 Page 2 z b. Wetland E Dispersion Trench. Installation of the dispersion trench in the buffer of Wetland E ? z • will necessitate the enhancement work described in the Wetland Report. ce w c. Wetland A Buffer Outfall. Installation of the outfall in the buffer of Wetland A will necessitate U O the enhancement work described in the Wetland Report. U 0 w = 5. Noise and Acoustics. —I F- SQ LL Sheet A -1 proposes one trash compactor and two generators. We have the following comments: 2 O a. Prior to the issuance of the building permit you must supply the following: u i. A report signed and stamped by a licensed acoustical engineer demonstrating that H w the ground equipment (trash compactor, generators) will meet the conditions of the z ' Tukwila Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22). This study shall include: z O 111 u a description of the equipment; v o N the noise levels created by the equipment; o t— w — any noise mitigation necessary to meet the requirements of the Noise H 0 Ordinance; and u.. 0 z • noise barrier analysis and specifications. v ii. A generator testing schedule that specifically addresses the hours of testing and the O duration and frequency of the tests. b. As a condition of final approval of the building permit, an inspection report (signed and stamped by the acoustical engineer) must be submitted verifying that the trash compactor and generators and any noise barriers have been installed in accordance with the acoustical report. 6. Stamped irrigation plans meeting the criteria of TMC 18.52.040(H) will be required as a condition of the building permit. 7. Per TMC 18.50.080 mechanical equipment rooms must be set back at least ten feet from the edge of the roof and may not exceed 20 feet in height. 8. Sign Permits must be approved and issued by the Department of Community Development for the proposed monument sign and eight internal information signs prior to their installation. Sign permits will not be issued prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design, size and placement of the proposed signs are outlined in the staff report dated February 11, 2003. z Haynes Lund March 12, 2003 Page 3 On February 27, 2003 the Planning Commission determined that your application for Conditional Use Z complied with applicable city and state code requirements and approved that application based on the = ►-= findings and conclusions contained in the staff report, subject to the following conditions: '~ w cc 6 = • The applicant will construct frontal improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, bus stop v O with shelter) on the east side of Tukwila International Boulevard, fronting the development, as a u condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. w = wO L Q = _ Z �. Z O ff . W w O - o t- w uj . H U . U =; O E- . z If you should have any questions regarding Public Works requirements, please contact Mike Cusick at 206- 433 -0179. Traffic specific questions are to be directed to Cyndy Knighton at the same number. Questions regarding Fire Department comments are to be directed to Don Tomaso at 206 - 575 -4404. Please contact me at 206 -431 -3663 with all other questions. Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Senior Planner The Planning Commission's approval of this proposal is subject to Washington State Department of Transportation ( "WSDOT) approval of a traffic signal, bus pullouts on both sides of Tukwila International Boulevard and associated pedestrian crossings. However, if WSDOT approval is not obtained, appropriate pedestrian safety features will be required (subject to the approval of the City Engineer) as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. cc: Steve Lancaster, Director, Community Development Bob Benedicto, Building Official Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator Ken Nelsen, Senior Plans Examiner Mike Cusick, Senior Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2003 The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Livermore at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair, David Livermore, Vice Chair, Kirstine Whisler, Commissioners: Vern Meryhew, Bill Arthur, Margaret Bratcher, Henry Marvin, and George Malina. Representing City Staff: Steve Lancaster, Deb Ritter, and Wynetta Bivens. GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 12, 2002. HENRY MARVIN SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chair Livermore swore in those wishing to provide testimony. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L02 -039 (Design Review) APPLICANT: Margaret Newton on behalf of the Bricklayers' Beneficial Association REQUEST: Approval of a Design Review application for development of a 10,000 sq. ft. office building to serve as the Bricklayers' Union Administrative office and as commercial office lease space. LOCATION: 15208 52nd Avenue South, Tukwila, WA Deb Ritter gave the presentation for staff. She gave a summary of the decision criterias for Design Review. Staff recommended approval of the Bricklayers Union Hall proposal as submitted. Margaret Newton, for the applicant, shared some of the personal characteristics of the project and provided color board samples for the commissioners to review. Margaret also offered to answer questions. There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Chairman Livermore. The Commission deliberated. GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CASE NUMBER L02 -039 FOR A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT. BILL ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Commission Livermore called a five minute recess so the Sabey Corporation could set -up for their presentation. Public hearing reconvened. PPPRIT-71) 40 Planning Commission Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L02 -055 (Conditional Use) APPLICANT: Sabey Corporation REQUEST: Approval of Conditional Use Permit application to develop a 248,454 sq. ft. office building (including three floors of structured parking) to serve as the Seattle District office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. An adjacent two -story parking garage for visitor parking will also be provided. LOCATION: 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard, Tukwila, WA Deb Ritter gave the presentation for staff. Staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will construct frontal improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, and bus stop with shelter) on the East Side of Tukwila International Boulevard, fronting the development, as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The Planning Commission's approval of this proposal is subject to WSDOT's approval of a traffic signal, bus pullouts on both sides of Tukwila International Boulevard and associated pedestrian crossings. However, if WSDOT approval is not obtained, appropriate pedestrian safety features will be required (subject to the approval of the City Engineer) as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. Jim Morrow, Director of Public Works, addressed highway improvements and answered questions regarding a mid - block pedestrian crossing and the bus shelter. Ralph Hagler, Vice President of the Sabey Corporation provided some background on the project. Sabey started the process approximately a year ago and subject to approval of the project, the earthwork will start in the early summer. Mr. Hagler stated it is necessary to start the project on the projected timeframe to coincide with phase II of the street enhancement, which is part of the Riverton Creek project. Sabey anticipates completion of the project in a maximum of 15 months. Therefore, the General Services Administration may be in occupancy of the building by mid - August 2004. Mr. Hagler also addressed the traffic signal issue, stating Sabey very much wants to have it in position. However, the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has the final say on the traffic signal. The Sabey Corporation is in negotiations with WSDOT regarding the traffic signal, to create a safe corridor. Greg Sherlock, a citizen, addressed his concerns regarding the intersection where Sabey is proposing to install the traffic light. Mr. Sherlock stated there is a bus stop in the vicinity of the proposed light where kids will be getting off the bus, which he is concerned about. He also stated that the left -hand turning lane would eliminate the ability for cars to go in and out of the apartment building. As he answered questions from Commissioner Arthur, Mr. Sherlock stated he had spoke specifically with the City engineer regarding the turn lane. From his understanding the City Engineer said there would be some type of cement raised curving in the left turning lane. Mr. Sherlock asked the Planning Commission to see to it that the City addressed his concerns. Bob Burnhardt, the property owner on the other side of the detention pond stated the project is a good idea. He talked about the vegetation, stating the 13 fir trees surrounding the detention pond would make a better barrier then the 3 or 4 foot high shrubs intended around the detention pond. He stated that he would be happy if the pond could be made a little smaller to insure that the fir trees are kept. Mr. Burnhardt's last comment was "I think you should pass this" . Mark Weisman, President of Weisman Design Group, addressed Mr. Burnhardt's comments stating his company has conscientiously worked to save as many trees as possible. Mr. Weisman stated due to the amount of grading that P: \Planning Commission \ Minutes \2- 27- 03.doc �rxe;E"° 1MZSt! Rtr•' �:. a^ g°+? 7S^-,': 4�. �;! rgp± �* r;n..i�.w.�.t�.r,..�,.'��'.',.' 4...: ;.i.�. .. .,.,.. � °"' „ ""rnTl . .'R" = � . �".. ...,'M'T^.. -�.., Planning Commission Page 3 they are unable to save some of the trees. However, they can look at adjusting and planting some larger evergreen trees. Mr. Weisman said the primary concern is to achieve life safety. Commission Arthur raised a question regarding location of property line. Ralph Hagler pointed out where the property line is between the Sabey property and the Burnhardt property. He also pointed out the complexity of the slope. Bob Fadden, architect and consultant for Sabey Corporation pointed out the property line that runs through the large mass of wooded trees, stating the impact off -site is fairly minimum. He stated one of the challenges was some of the City's policies on how to shape ponds, which restricts Sabey on the way they are developing the pond in the area. Gina Neilson, a citizen, indicated she spoke with Deb Ritter and the Public Works staff regarding her concerns. Ms. Neilson addressed an extensive list of issues, following are a portion: compatibility with existing neighboring property and zoning; a huge building in a residential area; lights on in the middle of the night causing glare from the inside of the building to shine into the neighborhood; generators creating noise and pollution; minimum separation provided; shrubs that will not provide a barrier; no balanced combination of visual and ground coverage; impact to the existing wild life habitat; the proposal that went out to the residents in January showed the detention pond going underground to accommodate more parking; safety; plans do not adequately represent the site as it exist, it does not list the amount of evergreen trees; little consideration given to service entrance; break in the retaining wall on south side of property, would like to see a continuation; need for increased landscaping; would like to see some consistency; no buffer between the MIC/L and the LDR zones; property value and the potential for the owners decreased ability to sell because it is adjacent to the Sabey structure; less desirable to future development. Ms. Neilson stated the project as a whole is a very attractive building that would bring good things into the City of Tukwila. She also said she is impressed with DCD, Public Works, and the developers' efforts to go above and beyond expectations to work with the community. Ms. Neilson ended by saying not all efforts were taken to minimize impacts and she hopes her issues will be considered before a Conditional Use Permit is issued. Rebuttal: Deb Ritter addressed Ms. Neilson's issues and concerns. She gave testimony reiterating that the applicant had met or exceeded all standards and code levels. She also answered questions. Mark Weisman addressed the site plans and the design team's efforts to separate the building from the residence. He also addressed issues of the parking lot, tree screening, location of vegetation, compatibility, separating the residence from noise, as well as the fact they exceeded code requirements. Mr. Weisman pointed out the vegetation area and also, answered questions for the Commission. Gina Neilson raised a question about impacts of car lights to residential area to the East. Haynes Lund, Project Architect, Sabey Corporation, addressed Ms. Neilson's concerns saying car lights would be above roofs of houses. Greg Sherlock stated he would prefer evergreen trees be used for screening since they will be in his line of sight. He also provided photos taken at the Intergate West Campus, showing tree examples. Mr Sherlock requested the Planning Commission recommend there be no emergency testing after business hours. P: \Planning Commission \ Minutes \2- 27- 03.doc .4 Planning Commission Page 4 There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Chairman Livermore. The Commission deliberated. HENRY MARVIN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONDITIONS FOR CASE NUMBER L02 -055 FOR A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT. BILL ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Chair Livermore called a five minute break. Public hearing reconvened. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L02 -056 (Design Review) APPLICANT: Sabey Corporation REQUEST: Approval of Design Review application to develop a 248,454 sq. ft. office building (including three floors of structured parking) that will serve as the Seattle District office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). LOCATION: 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard Applicant is also seeking Special Permission Signage approval for the size and quantity of the information signage proposed for the site. Deb Ritter gave the presentation for staff. Staff recommended approval as submitted. She also answered questions. Bob Fadden and Mark Weisman answered questions regarding ingress, egress, signage, and landscaping. Commission Malina suggested INS be encouraged to operate the testing of their generator between 8 to 5. Deb Ritter stated generator- testing schedules are required upon installation before Certificate of Occupancy is allowed. Ralph Hagler stated the majority of their traffic would occur at the INS building from 8 to 5 and in the evening there will be about 20 personnel on staff. Mr. Hagler stated Sabey would be more than glad to accommodate the testing schedule, to make sure they are in compliance. Commissioner Bratcher wanted to know how bright the 2 -foot candles are at the property line? Ralph Hagler said, he would provide that information. Mark Weisman stated 2 -foot candles would be considered a safe level of lighting without a glare. The proposed lighting would also be angled to the ground. Mark Weisman commended staff on their guidance and work with Sabey on the project. He referred to the plans displayed at the public hearing, stating they were the result of the "entire teams" effort, the City and the Applicant. Mr. Weisman talked about the challenges, the quality of materials and work, employee spaces, and the excitement in creating such a nice project. P: \Planning Commission \Minutes \2- 27- 03.doc Planning Commission Page 5 Bob Fadden echoed Mr. Weisman's comments. He also stated it was a pleasure working with staff on such a classy design. It was reported that well over 1000 hours of effort went into the project, which was a joint commitment to create a project everyone could be proud of. Ralph Hagler echoed the design team comments. He thanked the Planning Department and Public Works. Mr. z Hagler stated this project represents a $40 million capital investment for the Sabey Corporation. He directed his .z w comments to citizens present, informing them Sabey has tried to be sensitive and a good neighbor. He apologized for o: W any inconveniences caused in the past and stated Sabey will try to minimize inconveniences in the future. He v deferred a question regarding "armory and storage area for tactical equipment" from Commission Marvin, to the 0 0 Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). co w J = H co u_ wo James Gronewold, Assistant District Director of INS stated they are excited about the opportunity and the possibility g of moving to Tukwila. Tukwila is considered as ground zero, in terms of the population that they serve. The INS is g 5 the largest law enforcement agency in the world. A number of agencies are housed in the facility, one of which is the D detention deportation office. There is a requirement for firearms training for officers, which is housed at the facility. I W There are certain requirements for Federal law enforcement agencies to have a certain number of rounds of z = E- ammunition on site available. This facility would be the distribution point for the INS 35 plus locations for I-- 0 Washington and Idaho. A number of the rounds of ammunition are used for officers in this area to do their firearm w w qualification training. The detention facility will be a processing area for aliens. Mr. Gronewold stated security is m o state of the art technology and the aliens will always be in custody. Mr. Gronewold stressed this facility is not a 0 CP- detention center, but is only a processing center. The majority of the work will be done during the day, between 8 to o F- 5. The sleeping area on -site is an INS requirement, due to the amount of people arriving and possible time of arrive. i 0 L Greg Sherlock stated he did not realize the facility would have holding cells and that it concerns him. He submitted iii z another picture pertaining to planting evergreen trees. He also, expressed recognition that the Sabey Corporation has 0 worked hard, but stated as a homeowner that his concerns are important to him. 17= t-- Bob Burnhardt addressed security and the possibility of aliens escaping. He wanted to know what would keep them inside the area and if there was going to be a fence? He stated he would like a chain link fence around the area on the side of the residential area. He also addressed the noise from the generators in the middle of the night. Gina Neilson gave additional testimony, which she stated was a repeat of her previous testimony. However, she did ask for clarification on the armory on the INS site. She raised questions regarding the frequency of processing and where on -site processing would occur, and when. She addressed the lighting issue and the roof top noise, requesting any screening is maximized beyond requirements. Commissioner Livermore suggested Code Enforcement address the noise issue. Mark Weisman stated he appreciated and respected the residents' comments. However, the applicant feels they have exceeded the code. There will not be a fence around the property, but the pond will be fenced. Bob Burnhardt requested signs be posted in multiple languages. His request was opposed by Commissioner Malina. James Gronewold addressed Ms. Neilson's question regarding the armory on the INS site. He stated there is probably more weapons in a local gun shop then in the INS building. Commissioner Livermore called a conclusion to public testimony. P: \Planning Commission \Minutes \2- 27- 03.doc ;4'" +..r ` "1 t1T1«.1,1. ? <.a rn�rc - � 't..,.�. ✓. 155 -�„' :�^,.4rex `�+3fY !+wc z Planning Commission Page 6 There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Chairman Livermore. The Commission deliberated. Commissioner Whisler stated she hopes that staff and Code Enforcement continue to work with the citizens when they have problems. Commissioner Meryhew made a personal recommendation to Steve Lancaster that Code Enforcement determine the cause of the noise on the rooftop of the buildings. Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development, stated he would check into the noise issue. Bill Arthur stated that he hopes the operation of the building is held to standards within the code. He requested that the Sabey Corporation address any problems that may arise. He also stated he would like to Sabey to accommodate the landscaping request for more evergreen trees, if it's not too far out of line. GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONDITIONS FOR CASE NUMBER L02 -056 FOR A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND A SPECIAL PERMISSION SIGNAGE. HENRY SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Director's Report • Announcement of a new Code Enforcement Officer • City Council adopted a significantly revised Noise Ordinance • Announcement of a Joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop on 3/25/03. Commissioner Livermore opened the meeting for election of the year 2003 Officers. BILL ARTHUR NOMINATED KIRSTINE WHISLER FOR CHAIR AND GEORGE MALINA FOR VICE- CHAIR. VERN MERYHEW SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED, ALL IN FAVOR. Adjourned at 10:35 Respectfully Submitted Wynetta Bivens Administrative Secretary P: \Planning Commission \Minutes \2- 27- 03.doc Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I LS�/ HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: L. 02 -056 - Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: 27)58 Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 PL Other / Ivdri� 0 •0 Was mailed to 'each of the addresses listed on this A n of FB in the year 20 033 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: J571(6 Project Number: L. 02 -056 - Mailer's Signature: L-.. 4. Person requesting mailing: 27)58 Was mailed to 'each of the addresses listed on this A n of FB in the year 20 033 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM TO: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Sabey Corporation, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction All Parties of Record NOTICE OF DECISION This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project File Number: Applicant: Type of Permit Applied for: Project Description: I. PROJECT INFORMATION L02 -055 (Conditional Use) Sabey Corporation Conditional Use Approval by the Planning Commission (as to use) for the development of a 248,454 square foot office building (including three floors of structured parking) to serve as the Seattle District Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( "INS "). An adjacent two -story parking garage for visitor parking will also be provided. Location: 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard Associated Files: Design Review (L02 -056). Boundary Line Adjustment (L02 -057). Comprehensive Plan Designation /Zoning District: Manufacturing /Industrial Center -Light ( "MIC /L ") Manufacturing /Industrial Center -Heavy ( "MIC /H ") Commercial /Light Industrial ( "C /LI ") Low Density Residential ( "LDR ") II. DECISION Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director February 28, 2003 E2000 -031 (SEPA Determination) issued December 20, 2000 in connection with the proposed demolition of the Non -Stop Restaurant building. E2000 -033 (SEPA Determination) issued June 6, 2001 in connection with the proposed development of three research and development facilities and a freestanding parking structure. SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has determined that the project, as proposed, does not create any new significant environmental impacts from those previously considered under the two Determinations of Non - Significance issued on December 20, 2000 under E2000 -031 and issued on June 6, 2001 under E2000 -033, respectively. Page 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 Decision on Substantive Permit: The Planning Commission has determined that the application for Conditional Use complies with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will construct frontal improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, bus stop with shelter) on the east side of Tukwila International Boulevard, fronting the development, as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The Planning Commission's approval of this proposal is subject to Washington State Department of Transportation ( "WSDOT ") approval of a traffic signal, bus pullouts on both sides of Tukwila International Boulevard and associated pedestrian crossings. However, if WSDOT approval is not obtained, appropriate pedestrian safety features will be required (subject to the approval of the City Engineer) as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 4 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. One administrative appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's Decision is permitted. No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. If an MDNS was issued, any person wishing to challenge either the conditions which were imposed by the MDNS decision or the failure of the Department to impose additional conditions in the MDNS must raise such issues as part of the appeal. In order to appeal the Planning Commission's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision, that is by March 14, 2003. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS The administrative body hearing the appeal is the Tukwila City Council. The City Council hearing ° regarding the appeal shall be conducted as a closed record hearing before the City Council based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. The City Council's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Page 2 z =z a w QQ JU 00 co 0 cu J CD IL w � gQ co I-W z = zI- w w U� O - o I- w W 2 u" ..z w U= O ~ . z PAVV.0 4 -9 ,.41111111 *Mk 7 Any party wishing to challenge the City Council decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the City Council decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. Department of Community Development City of Tukwila VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Deborah Ritter, who may be contacted at 206 - 431 -3663 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Page 3 tr 4 t1:42urxtF. ry a�,::�,.�:.un+.....;.�..,�....: w...m,:., ..... _ __ ..- ............- .i..M......... .�:,....� 4s2.7.46 ..4ca .. f t HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: APPLICANT: REQUESTS: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: ZONING DISTRICTS: SEPA DETERMINATION: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION /BAR Prepared February 11, 2003 February 27, 2003 Notice of Application mailed December 30, 2002 to surrounding property owners and parties of record. Notice of Hearing posted and mailed February 13, 2003 to surrounding property owners and parties of record. Notice of Hearing published in Seattle Times February 14, 2003. L02 -055 (Conditional Use Permit) L02 -056 (Design Review) L02 -057 (Boundary Line Adjustment) L01 -030 (Riverton Creek Enhancements) Sabey Corporation A Conditional Use permit is required in the M1C/L zone for office buildings 20,000 square feet in size and over. Special Permission - Signage approval is required for internal information signs that are larger than four square feet in size per sign face and /or are greater than four in number. Design Review approval is required in the MIC /L and C /LI zones for new developments within 300 feet of residential districts. 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light ( "MIC /L ") Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy ( "MIC /H ") Commercial /Light Industrial ( "C /LI ") Low Density Residential ( "LDR ") Manufacturing /Industrial Center -Light ( "MIC /L ") Manufacturing /Industrial Center -Heavy ( "MIC /H ") Commercial /Light Industrial ( "C /LI ") Low Density Residential ( "LDR ") Determination of Non - Significance issued 12/20/00 under E2000 -031 in connection with the proposed demolition of the Non -Stop Restaurant building. Determination of Non - Significance issued 6/6/01 under E2000 -033 in connection with the proposed development of three research and development facilities and a freestanding parking structure. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 r Staff Report to the Planning Commission /BAR STAFF: RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Deborah Ritter, Senior Planner Immigration & Istaturalization Service Building L02 -055 (CUP) L02 -056 (BAR) Approval of the Conditional Use permit with conditions. Approval of the Special Permission — Sign permit. Approval of the Design Review permit. A. Applicant's Response to Conditional Use Criteria B. Applicant's Request for Special Permission — Signage C. Applicant's Response to Design Review Criteria D. Zoning Map E. Full Plan Set F. 8'/z' x 11" Reduced Plan Sheets G. 81/2' x 17" Site Plan of Entry Plaza with Section Detail H. 8 %" x 11" Building Elevations in Color 81/2" x 17" Color Perspectives J. 81/2' x 11" Color Elevation of INS Freestanding Sign K. Color Photos of Riverton Creek Enhancements L. Color copy of Color & Materials Board with Key (to be presented at Public Hearing) M. SEPA Determinations aY3•l: 43.4 aCli `2 1n:if:C•`�'•1�1'4�i:JCJi�' li�Y: itily:.t+uAl� k...c.ww..o.aua.. - " a,.—, L.z::tlLy3:ct.Y.1J`il7l.'tSua1T `11F".a`•.iti S"+:tii!'T.1 z 2 U . . U O co o w = ' lo J I- W O: g¢ I- W ' H = Z � O: Z 2 ? U � 'O N ` CI I—. W W I— U O. W U CD O I-- . Z Staff Report to the Planning Commission /BAR VICININTY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description: FINDINGS Immigration & ..aturalization Service Building L02 -055 (CUP) L02 -056 (BAR) The proposal is to develop a 14 -acre site with a 248,454 square foot office building that will serve as the Seattle District Office for the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( "INS "). The building will contain four floors of office (133,947 square feet) and three floors of structured parking for employees (approximately 114,507 square feet and containing 226 parking spaces). The office space will be located at and above street level with the employee parking located below street level. Additional surface parking for employees (57 parking spaces) will be located immediately south and east of the building. Five of the employee parking spaces will be designated as car pool stalls. Handicapped parking spaces are designated in all of the various parking areas. Visitor parking will be located to the north of the INS Building. This parking area will be comprised of a two level parking structure (containing 304 parking spaces) with associated surface parking (101 parking spaces). Visitors must pay a fee to park, obtaining a ticket on entry with payment on exiting. Site landscaping and the continued enhancement of Riverton Creek will also be provided. There are two entrances to the site, with the northern site entrance being forked. The north fork provides access to the public parking area. The south fork further divides to provide access to a number of areas: 1) key card access for employee parking, accessed on the north side of the INS building; 2) a traffic circle with visitor drop -off area; and 3) key card access to a secure route for INS transportation vehicles. The route wraps around the east side of the building to a "sallyport" providing secure pick -up or drop -off of passengers. INS transportation vehicles will then continue in a southerly direction, exiting at the site's southern driveway. The southern site entrance provides access to the employee surface parking area and key card access for employee parking, accessed at the east side of the INS building. Directional signage at key points will provide important visual cues for access and site circulation. The northern driveway lines up with the driveway of the Sabey Intergate West development across the street. Subject to future approval by the Washington State Department of Transportation ( "WSDOT'), a traffic light is proposed for that "intersection ". If WSDOT approval is not obtained, appropriate pedestrian safety features will be required, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Frontal improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and bus stop with shelter) will be provided along that portion of Tukwila International Boulevard fronting the INS Building. A second bus stop with shelter will be provided near the northwest corner of the new "intersection ". Existing Development: Due to its linear shape and location, the site occupies portions of four zones: Commercial /Light Industrial ( "C /LI "), Manufacturing - Industrial Center /Light ( "MIC /L "), Manufacturing - Industrial Center /Heavy ( "MIC /H ") and Low Density Residential ( "LDR ") (see Attachment D). The site is currently vacant with the exception of the Non -Stop Restaurant Building on the southernmost portion of the site. That building will be demolished prior to construction of the proposed improvements. Surrounding Land Use: The site is bordered by Tukwila International Boulevard on the west and Riverton Creek on the east. Properties to the west across Tukwila International Boulevard include multi- family (Hillside Apartments), single family and office uses (Sabey Intergate West) and are Page 3 BACKGROUND Staff Report to the Planning Commission /BAR Page 4 Immigration & ,vaturalization Service Building L02 -055 (CUP) L02 -056 (BAR) zoned Commercial /Light Industrial ( "C /LI "). The former Non -Stop Tavern on the southwest portion of the site is also zoned "C /LI ". Properties to the north, northeast and east across Riverton Creek are office /industrial /warehouse uses (Sabey Intergate East and Sabey Intergate East II) and are zoned Manufacturing - Industrial Center /Light ( "MIC /L ") and Manufacturing - Industrial Center /Heavy ( "MIC /H "). Properties on the south and southeast are residential and are zoned Low Density Residential ( "LDR "). Topography: = W The project will be located on the western half of the site on a level strip running adjacent —I v to the eastern side of Tukwila International Boulevard. The eastern half of the site slopes 0 o steeply downward to Riverton Creek. The steepest of these slopes is 80 %. 2 w J = 1— Vegetation: N w O Site vegetation consists of various grasses, weeds, blackberry brushes and scattered trees. Plants associated with wet soil or wetlands are also present, including cat tail, g buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, water lily, eel grass and milfoil. All site wetlands, u_ watercourses and their buffers will be protected and /or enhanced under the continued = d implementation of the Riverton Creek enhancement plan. A 20% tree canopy will be I— w required and incorporated into the project landscape plan. z t E- O Z I— w An earlier proposal by Sabey Corporation for the construction of three office buildings 0 (each containing structured parking) plus a separate parking structure was withdrawn. a '- However, associated enhancements to Riverton Creek were approved and partially w U w implemented under Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. See the attached color photos = of portions of Riverton Creek, before and after enhancement work (Attachment K). o The proposed INS facility will serve as the Seattle District Office for the Immigration and U � Naturalization Service (which will become part of the Department of Homeland Security z later this year). Approximately 300 staff will be employed at the facility, serving an 0 1- average of 600 visitors per day. For security reasons, visitors will be required to queue z up beneath the large exterior building canopy in order to obtain an appointment time on a first -come, first- served basis. All visitors must then pass through a security checkpoint when entering the building. Employees and their vehicles must also pass through other secured entries via key cards. Some visitors will pick up forms or meet with an Immigrant Information Officer to discuss requirements for citizenship or permanent residence. Others will be attending citizenship ceremonies. Staff functions include the secure transportation and secure processing of aliens for detention and /or deportation to and from other INS facilities in Puget Sound. No aliens will be detained at this site. The average length of stay for aliens being processed is four hours, with a maximum time of ten hours. Approximately 75% of the INS staff will work a normal 8 -to -5 shift with the other 25% working either a second or third shift. The facility will include an armory and a storage area for tactical equipment. Vending machines will be provided for the general public and employees in lieu of a cafeteria. Food will be catered for aliens being processed in the facility. This Staff Report is divided into three sections: Part 1 addresses the Conditional Use Permit decision criteria and conclusions, Part 2 addresses the Special Permission Sign decision criteria and conclusions and Part 3 addresses the decision criteria and conclusions for the Design Review. ,,.. - Staff Report to the Planning Commission /BAR DECISION CRITERIA — CONDITIONAL USE PART 1 i Immigration & .4aturalization Service Building L02 -055 (CUP) L02 -056 (BAR) The proposed project must comply with the five Conditional Use permit criteria detailed in TMC 18.64.050. In the following discussion, the Conditional Use criteria are shown below in bold, followed by staffs comments. For the applicant's response to these criteria, see Attachment "A ". (1) The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated. The proposed use is consistent with current zoning and the surrounding land uses, which are primarily combinations of office /warehouse /industrial. The project is bordered by a single - family residential area to the south and southeast. However, vegetative screening and a substantial grade separation will provide both visual and physical separation between these two types of land uses. 34th Avenue South and South 126th Street provide additional physical separation from these areas. (2) The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. The building will meet all development standards, including those for building and sensitive areas setbacks, height, parking and noise levels for the zoning districts in which it is located. The proposed landscape plan for the project exceeds our landscape code requirements. (3) The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. The Public Works Department has reviewed documentation from the INS and the applicant's traffic engineers regarding the function and uses of the proposed building and its resulting impacts on traffic and pedestrian circulation. As stated previously, a traffic light will be required at the northern entrance, subject to future approval by WSDOT. If WSDOT approval is not obtained, appropriate pedestrian safety features will be required, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Frontal improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and bus stop with shelter) will be provided along that portion of Tukwila International Boulevard fronting the INS Building. A second bus stop with shelter will be provided near the northwest corner of the new "intersection ". Although visitor parking will not be free, it is unlikely that visitors will park off-site for the following reasons: a) the approximate one - quarter mile distance along Tukwila International Boulevard from residential streets to the project site; b) the substantial grade separation, physical barriers and distance between the site and residential streets; and c) the provision for a convenient drop -off area for visitors immediately north of the INS building. Repeat trips by visitors are not anticipated (as would be expected with a retail or commercial use) reducing the use of off -site parking strategies. However, if off -site parking problems should develop, the Public Works Department has agreed to post "No Parking" signs in the affected areas. The Police Department has agreed to provide enforcement of those signs, if installed. The INS Building has been oriented toward Tukwila International Boulevard to minimize impacts on the residential areas to the south and southeast. The use of terracing and landscape buffers will create visual and physical separation from those uses. All of the building's mechanical and ground equipment will be screened and acoustically Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission /BAR Immigration b, Naturalization Service Building L02 -055 (CUP) L02 -056 (BAR) engineered to satisfy the Tukwila Noise Ordinance. All lighting standards on the site will meet Tukwila performance standards. (4) The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan The project will enhance Riverton Creek for wildlife habitat and water quality enhancement per Goal 4.1 and Policies 4.1.6 and 4.1.8. The proposed frontal improvements, traffic signal, bus shelters and site landscaping will create an improved pedestrian environment per Policies 8.1.1, 8.1.2 and 8.1.4. Mechanical, ground equipment and service areas will be screened per Policy 8.1.5. Visual and physical separation will be provided between the project site and adjacent residential uses per Policy 11.1.6. Five employee parking spaces will be designated as car pool stalls per Policy 13.3.8. If off -site parking problems develop, non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets per Policy 13.3.9. 5) All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts, which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. A Determination of Non - Significance was issued on December 20, 2002 in connection with the proposed demolition of the Non -Stop Restaurant building. A second Determination of Non - Signficance was issued on June 6, 2001 in connection with the proposed development of three research and development facilities and a freestanding parking structure. The proposal for the INS Building does not create any new significant environmental impacts from those previously considered under those Determinations. CONCLUSIONS — CONDITIONAL USE Heavy vegetative screening and a substantial grade separation will provide both visual and physical separation between the project and nearby residential land uses. The protocols associated with the daily functioning of the INS Building will maintain security at the site. The project proposal will meet or exceed all development standards. Pedestrian safety and traffic impacts have been addressed both on and off the site. The site layout and design create a logical circulation pattern that will reduce vehicular - pedestrian conflicts. A number of Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals will be accomplished through the creation of pedestrian and vehicular improvements, the enhancement of Riverton Creek, the screening of mechanical equipment, and the creation of visual and physical separation between the project and nearby residential uses. No significant environmental impacts will be created by this proposal. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will construct frontal improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, bus stop with shelter) on the east side of Tukwila International Boulevard, fronting the development, as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The Planning Commission's approval of this proposal is subject to WSDOT's approval of a traffic signal, bus pullouts on both sides of Tukwila International Boulevard and associated pedestrian crossings. However, if WSDOT approval is not obtained, appropriate pedestrian safety features will be required (subject to the approval of the City Engineer) as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission /BAR PART 2 DECISION CRITERIA — SPECIAL PERMISSION SIGNS Internal Information Signs Immigration & vaturalization Service Building L02 -055 (CUP) L02 -056 (BAR) Z Per TMC 19.22.010 and 19.22.040(2) up to four freestanding internal information signs, not 1 l - exceeding four square feet in size, are exempt from permit requirements. Signs differing from : tu that standard require Planning Commission approval. The applicant seeks approval regarding the size and quantity of the freestanding information signs being proposed for the project. A total 0 of eight signs (five signs measuring 7.75 square feet in size and three signs measuring 12.92 N o square feet in size), are requested. co = J I•- Most visitors will be unfamiliar with the site. Given the site's configuration, information signs are cn L.L. needed at key points to direct visitors away from restricted areas and to designated parking u j 0 locations. For these reasons it is important that directional information be clear and legible at a distance. Larger sized signs will provide information that is easy to read and understand the first Q time it is encountered. All directional signs will be consistent in appearance to emphasize their u) function. An example of a typical information sign is shown in Attachment B. Sign permits for the = a information signs will be processed administratively at the time of the building permit. t— _ z CONCLUSIONS — SPECIAL PERMISSION SIGNS z O The allowances set forth in the sign code for freestanding internal information signage will not o o meet the needs of the large number of visitors entering the site. Additional freestanding signs 0 us that are slightly larger, and consequently easier to read, will reduce the number of traffic conflicts. Q 1— w - RECOMMENDATIONS F U 1L Staff recommends approval of the Special Permission request as submitted. z 11.1 co PART3 0 z DECISION CRITERIA — DESIGN REVIEW Per TMC 18.30.070 and 18.36.070, design review is required for all projects in the Commercial /Light Industrial and Manufacturing /Industrial Center -Light zones that are within 300 feet of residential districts. In the following discussion, the Design Review criteria (TMC 18.60.050(B)(1) through (5)) are shown below in bold, followed by staffs comments. For the applicant's response to these criteria, see Attachment C. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. The proposed INS building and associated visitor parking garage have been placed along Tukwila International Boulevard to accommodate the site's shape and topography and to allow easy access to both buildings. Red Maples placed along Tukwila International Boulevard will continue the City's planting scheme along that street. Landscape islands, linear planting beds, sidewalks and pedestrian crossings will help direct vehicular and pedestrian flow. The site's landscape design and topography reduce the visibility of surface parking areas. Service areas are located at the rear of the site to reduce their Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission /BAR Immigration & ivaturalization Service Building L02 -055 (CUP) L02 -056 (BAR) visibility and enhance site circulation. The building's height and scale are in proportion to the site. The building will be set back from the street to accommodate a front plaza and seating area, providing an attractive transition to the street. 2. Relationship of structure and site to adjoining area. a. Harmony of texture, lines and masses is encouraged. < H b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. = W c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with established neighborhood Q it Q 2 character. W D d. Compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in U O terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. co 0 e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be W = encouraged. J N u_ u.l 0 The building's design is a unified composition of symmetrical, rectilinear shapes that are mirrored in the pattern of the entry plaza below. The use of Red Maples along Tukwila g International Boulevard has been continued on this site. Although there are a variety of LL- building uses and design approaches in this portion of the City, the use of muted building = c5 materials in the INS proposal are intended to create a subdued presence. On and off -site h- w circulation patterns have been designed or improved to promote a safe, logical and ? efficient flow of people and vehicles both on and near the site. The site's northern 1— 0 driveway is in alignment with the access to the Sabey Intergate West development. This W new intersection will be controlled by a traffic light and /or other appropriate pedestrian safety features (subject to approval by WSDOT and the City Engineer). U N O- 0 I-- 3. Landscaping and Site Treatment. = ui a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to the beauty and utility of a 1— 0 development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced. u- O b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety .. Z cn and provide an inviting and stable appearance. U c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and O important axis, and provide shade. I— d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. f. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination. g. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and paving of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used. h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. The INS building and associated visitor parking structures have been designed to accommodate the existing slope. The design of the building's eastern side mimics that topography through the use of terraced and landscaped retaining walls. The entry plaza and pedestrian walkways are located on the level areas of the site and are designed to provide safe and logical access between the building, the visitor parking and the street. Landscaping will be used extensively throughout the site and will respond to the building's scale and design characteristics. The proposed plant materials have been evaluated for appropriateness based on their placement, form, habit and cultural Page 8 Staff Report to the Planning Commission /BAR Immigration & Naturalization Service Building L02 -055 (CUP) L02 -056 (BAR) requirements. To adequately respond to the building's scale, Red Oaks (reaching a mature height of 70 to 90 feet) will be planted at the entry plaza. A visual barrier will be created along the south and southeast property lines through the use of evergreen trees and shrubs that will be a minimum of 6 feet in height and planted closely together. Plantings of Red Maples along the western property line will continue the City's existing planting scheme along Tukwila International Boulevard. Service areas have been screened and located to the rear of the site to minimize site circulation conflicts. Pole fixtures will be provided around the building and parking area for safety lighting. The applicant has verified that no direct illumination will occur off -site and that a maximum of two -foot candles will be allowed at all property lines. 4. Building Design. a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings. b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. c. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportion and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. d. Colors should be harmonious with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. e. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. f. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. g. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Although the building design will provide a significant presence on Tukwila International Boulevard, the style of the building has been deliberately understated. The building design is post- modern, combining geometric elements with traditional enhancements. It has been designed to provide a sense of stability and permanence. Building components, such as windows and doorways, are arranged harmoniously and are in proportion with one another. The color and material palette uses high quality finishes, but is intentionally muted in keeping with the building's proposed governmental function. Although the building footprint is rectangular, the modulated facade and portico create visual interest and depth. A modified version of that facade is repeated on the building's rear elevation and echoed in the pattern of the entry plaza and bench seating. Additional modulation is provided by the terraced retaining walls located at the rear of the building. Mechanical, ground equipment and service areas will be screened. The rooftop equipment will be set back at least 10 feet from all roof edges and will not exceed 20 feet in height. Light standards will be installed to provide safe lighting levels around the building and throughout the parking areas. Building surfaces will be illuminated from ground- mounted fixtures to wash the building with light at night for security and to provide visual interest. The portico will be lighted to accent its design. Supplementary lighting will be placed around the entry plaza. 5. Miscellaneous structures and Street Furniture. a. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with Page 9 Staff Report to the Planning Commission /BAR Immigration & ivaturalization Service Building L02 -055 (CUP) L02 -056 (BAR) buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Color, textures and materials similar to those used in the building facade are incorporated Z • into the entry plaza. Raised planting beds will be located along the building foundation. I 1 These plantings will create visual interest throughout the seasons and appropriate scale. Lu Visitor seating will be located beneath the building canopy and on 18 -inch granite -faced n walls located in the plaza. A flagpole area will provide a focal point in the entry plaza. 1 0 The proposed freestanding sign in the plaza meets sign code standards as to size and co p location. CO 111 CONCLUSIONS - DESIGN REVIEW CO L.L. ua Design Review Guidelines: g J 1. Relationship of Structure to Site: n D. a The proposed development has been designed to meet the functional requirements for 1._ i this type of land use while being responsive to the special characteristics of the site. Site F- O buildings are in proportion to property size and have been set back a sufficient distance W h from the street to allow for adequate landscaping and circulation. The site has been designed to promote a smooth flow of traffic with safe pedestrian access. n p O c 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Areas: 0 1-- = u While larger in scale than some commercial buildings in the surrounding area, the i— H building will be compatible by virtue of its site design, terracing and landscaping. The site u_ O design allows a logical on -site traffic flow, reducing the chances of pedestrian - vehicular w Z conflicts while accommodating and maintaining existing circulation patterns. U O I- 3. Landscape and Site Treatment: The proposed plant materials are appropriate to their location based on their form, habit and cultural requirements and will provide sufficient buffering along the south and southeastern property lines. The visual impacts of service areas, roof equipment and light fixtures will be adequately screened. 4. Building Design: The building's exterior design is balanced and understated. Visual interest is created through the use of architectural facade modulation, detailing and accent lighting. The applicant has satisfactorily integrated the code requirements for lighting, screening and signage into the building and site design. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture: The entry plaza provides pedestrian amenities while echoing the building materials. The proposal for the freestanding sign responds to the building design while satisfying the criteria of the sign code. Staff recommends approval as submitted. • DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION Page 10 1900065 /1. State of Washington, Counties of King and Snohomish, Affidavit of Publication Daniel S. O'Neal being duly sworn, says that he /she is the Authorized Agent of Seattle Times Company, publisher of The Seattle Times and representing the Seattle Post - Intelligencer. separate newspapers published daily in King and Snohomish Counties, State of Washington: that they are newspapers of general circulation in said Counties and State; that they have been approved as legal newspapers by orders of the Superior Court of King and Snohomish Counties; that the annexed, being a classified advertisement, was published in: Newspaper The Seattle Times Publication Date 02/14/03 And not in a supplement thereof, and is a true copy of the notice as it was printed and /or distributed in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers during all of said period, and that said newspaper or newspapers were regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20 day of February, 2003 Notary Public iiJnd for the State of Washington residing at Seattle STE VF I I - p ,•N ,,, s+ / , Q ;O " • — = O P r /,/ ' /s��, 10"0 -' `. . - -- I l I l sr ' 4 TE Of `4P_ RECEIVED FEB pp�� COMMUN0 fY DEVELOPMENT • ' City of Tukwila : ; • PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE'. Notice is'hereby, given`that':tiie City of Tukwila Planning Corn- ral will be of i s pub- lic hearing on February 27, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. located at 6200 South - center Blvd. to discuss the follow - BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.PUBLIC HEARING . ,. CASE NUMBER: L02-032' ..1 (Design Review) • • APPLICANT: Margaret Newton on behalf of the Bricklayers' Beneficial Association REQUEST: Approval of o Design Review: application for develop - to serve ast he Brf klayers' Administrative office and as com- mercial office lease space. LOCATION: 15208.52nd Avenue South . PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L02-055 (Conditional Use)',: • APPLICANT: Sobey Corporation REQUEST: Approval of Condi- tional Use permit application to develop a 248,454 s,t. office build- ing. (Including three liters of structured to serve as the Seattle District office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.,'An adjacent. two -story parking garage for visitor park - ng Will also be provided.: LOCATION: 12500 Tukwila Inter- national Boulevard . .. BOARD ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW,PUBLIC HEARING • CASE NUMBER: L02-056 (Design Review) - APPLICANT: Sabey Corporation REQUEST: Approval of Design Review application to develop a 248,454 s,f. office building (includ- Ina three floors of structured par- king) that will serve as the Seattle District office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. LOCATION: 12500 Tukwila ' International Boulevard -. Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by .appear- Inn at the public hearing. Infor- mation on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. • The City' encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above Items. Published: February _14, 2003, Seattle Times . A: ik:7:ai;CUau x ^uin :w.'ti3.f1.%'4a + ' , a ,::i �� •:1 KiiiJ:L:w.�YdY CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION Sabey Corporation has filed applications for development of a 248,454 square foot office building (containing three floors of structured parking) that will serve as the Seattle District Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( "INS ") to be located at 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard. An adjacent two -story parking garage for visitor parking will also be provided. Permits applied for include: Conditional Use Permit (L02 -055) Design Review (L02 -056) Other known required permits include: Studies required with the applications include: SEPA Determinations of Non - Significance (E2000 -031 and E2000 -033) Boundary Line Adjustment (L02 -057) River Creek Enhancements (L01 -030) Development Permit Traffic Analysis Acoustical Analysis Geotechnical Report An environmental checklist has been submitted with the studies identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC. REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: PRE02 -034 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You are invited to comment on the project at a public hearing before the Planning Commission, scheduled for February 27, 2003 at the Tukwila City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. To confirm this date call Deborah Ritter at the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3663. For further information on this proposal, contact Deborah Ritter at (206) 431 -3663 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: December 19, 2002 Notice of Completeness Issued: December 20, 2002 Notice of Application Issued: December 30, 2002 n'"res' ra«enrmvice"° z 1— z re 0 U, 11.1 w u. ? �'a = w z I— O z I- 2 0 O N O I- w w M z O w z U= O ~ Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I ' L ESL i _ HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: 1--02 - 063 - 402_ - 057p Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: 7i5J Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /3 day of fg5 in the year 200?) P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: .TICS RL v & Project Number: 1--02 - 063 - 402_ - 057p Mailer's Signature: L-11/7. Person requesting mailing: 7i5J Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /3 day of fg5 in the year 200?) P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila MARY A. HALL STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY-- PUBLIC M Y COMMISSION EXPIRES 12 -19 -05 I certify that on a - 3 03 12500 Tulc- %n *' 1 f3 \u e1. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tuicwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (306) 431 -3663 F - trail: tukolan( '..ci.tukwila.wa.us residing at My commission expires on AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I J--I AVNSE'S LutJ1=0 (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 13.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 13.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number -5 ..Da.- O S 3. AND Lo a - Oap I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. tt��.. pplic.� or Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me �1 fE Y\ to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that hefshe signed the same as hisAter voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1 ook day of 7`G bru / /I. g�!l. , /1 NO ' RY PUBb and for the State of Washington tZ - 19 OS' SABEY CORPORATION February 11, 2003 Deb Ritter Senior Planner Department of community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 REF: INS SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 Tukwila International Blvd Tukwila, WA 98168 Conditional Use (L02 -055) Design Review (L02 -056) Dear Deb: PECEIVE Fr ;I Sabey Corporation has submitted to the City drawings for the above referenced permit applications, which include the site signage for this project. This signage consists of a monument sign in front of the building and eight directional signs. The signs are located on Sheets A1.2 and A1.3, and elevations for the signs are provided on Sheet A1.5. The Tukwila Sign Code requires Planning Commission approval when more than four internal informational signs are proposed (Sec. 19.22.010). We request that the Planning Commission approve the signage as shown on these drawings. We believe the additional informational signs are appropriate for this facility. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has a large number of daily visitors. Many of these visitors will be unfamiliar with the facility. Each of the informational signs we have provided is located at a decision point for navigating the site. Often one of the choices at these points leads to a secured area. It is important that visitors know which routes are available to them. We believe any reduction in the number of directional signs will create difficulties for visitor traffic coming to the building. Section 19.22.040(2) requires Planning Commission approval for freestanding informational signs that have background area larger than 4 square feet. The signage drawings we have submitted show signs that are 7.75 and 12.92 square feet in area. The reason that we request the larger signs is to better insure that visitors see and understand the signage. It is important that our signs be noticeable, so that people can find help when they need it. It is also important that the signs be consistent in appearance, so that they will be recognized immediately as directional signs. Given the large number of visitors and the potential for confusion, we think it is prudent to exceed the normal guidelines for directional signage. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES VENTURE FUNDING Sabey Corporation / 206/281 -8700 main line 12201 Tukwila International Blvd.,4th Floor 206/282 -9951 fax line Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 www.sabey.com A Lu . E 2003 i DEB RITTER FEBRUARY 1 1, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 2 The attached colored drawing shows what a typical directional sign looks like. All our directional signs match this example, except for the text. We have endeavored to make sure that these signs will be an attractive element within the landscaping of the site. We trust that the Planning Commission will find our signage package acceptable. Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information. Very truly yours, SABEEY CORPORATIO s Haynes Lund Project Architect 4t1W:44 '�Y'C.:.r ��.l�Wi�''iG'.4. �u t4»a� &i..s.s �if> 't uauiWu1:Y2Ui2Sr•• .n.piWiLt�� • '6k:' "�lYil2" z ;H W re m JU 0 0 W = H U 10 - W W, -O ui z _ O ~' • z Immigration and Naturalization Service Seattle District Office 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Seattle, Washington ALUM. MOUNTING POSTS PAINTED WHITE 4" HIGH SCOTCHLITE 3M REFLECTIVE WHITE VINYL COPY - TIMES ROMAN BOLD NON- ILLUMINATED SIGN, ALUM. FACE PANELS PAINTED PMS REFLEX BLUE SABEY CORPORATION LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES A R C H I T E C T S • A I A NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR - THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Bureau of Border and Transportation Security, New Office Facility, Tukwila, Washington Prepared for United States General Services Administration and United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Bureau of Border and Transportation Security April 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Bureau of Border and Transportation Security, New Office Facility, Tukwila, Washington Prepared for United States General Services Administration 400 15 Street Southwest Auburn, Washington 98001 and United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Bureau of Border and Transportation Security 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206/441 -9080 April 30, 2003 Contents Executive Summary 1 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action 1 Proposed Alternatives 2 Environmental Consequences and Recommended Mitigation Measures 3 Biological Resources 3 Visual Resources 4 Cultural and Historic Resources 4 Transportation 4 Land Use 7 Stormwater 7 Description of Alternatives 9 Scoping and Identification of Issues 9 Proposed Action 10 Alternatives Considered But Rejected 11 Biological Resources 13 Affected Environment 13 Vegetation 13 Wildlife 14 Threatened and Endangered Species 15 Environmental Consequences 16 Recommended Mitigation Measures 17 Conservation Measures 17 Best Management Practices 18 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 18 Visual Resources 19 Affected Environment 19 Aesthetics 19 Architectural Character 20 Environmental Consequences 20 Recommended Mitigation Measures 20 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 20 Cultural and Historic Resources 21 Affected Environment 21 Environmental Consequences 21 Recommended Mitigation Measures 21 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 21 w Ca ; rirsarsutsuw z IF- z no . w 2 . • JU O 0: U � cn w J �. co w w O` w a z � 0. U co O H w w F=— 0 p• U O ~ z Transportation 23 Affected Environment 23 Environmental Consequences 25 Recommended Mitigation Measures 27 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 28 Land Use 29 Affected Environment 29 Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations 29 Land Use 29 Environmental Consequences 29 Recommended Mitigation Measures 29 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 30 Stormwater 31 Affected Environment 31 Environmental Consequences 31 Recommended Mitigation Measures 33 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 33 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity 35 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 37 Cumulative Impacts 39 Consultation and Coordination 41 Preparers of the Environmental Assessment 43 References 45 Distribution List 47 Appendix A Traffic Impact Analyses Appendix B Agency Correspondence ii G44 .1" cx 4,;;ir i Ur" d +G : 4irgakdotr ya lik YvL J in4` x •,n:s.n,t S:`:. rnti Tables Table 1. Level of service summary. 24 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Department of Homeland Security facility project site in W LL Q '. Figure 2. New building configuration and vicinity. 5 = a F- 0 Z F- w Lu 0 0E - , w LL 0 . z U� O • Z Tukwila, Washington. 2 =%. %.,.7 F.> ;.�.tW;: ;r.YS,r'w ;:.fie. �r: �5:7i:.:r.>;�w, '<a This environmental assessment addresses the proposed construction of a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facility to be located at 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard in Tukwila, Washington (see Figure 1). The proposed work is to be performed for the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). As a federal agency, the GSA is required to examine the potential impacts, alternatives, and mitigation for the proposed action in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. As the federal agency responsible for federal facilities, the GSA represented the DHS to solicit proposals for providing increased office space and additional facilities that meet the purpose and needs of the DHS. The Sabey Corporation responded to the GSA solicitation by offering a parcel of land and design plans to construct a new facility for long -term lease by the DHS. As part of the reorganization of the federal government to promote homeland security, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was moved into the DHS. This reorganization was effective on March 1, 2003. In this environmental assessment the agency is referred to by its current name (Department of Homeland Security) rather than its historical name (Immigration and Naturalization Services). Much of the,supporting analyses and documentation for this project were prepared before the reorganization; therefore, they include the historical name of the agency. The proposed project is the same as the project addressed in these documents; only the name of the agency has changed. The proposed DHS facility would house the Seattle District Offices of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border and Transportation Security. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for administering benefits and immigration services for applicants. There are two bureaus within Border and Transportation Security: the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection focuses on the movement of people and goods across the borders of the United States and through airports and seaports. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement focuses on enforcing immigration and customs laws within the borders of the United States and protecting federal buildings. For the purposes of this document, the proposed facility is referred to as the DHS facility. Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action The DHS needs a facility that is larger than the existing building that houses its Seattle District Office in order to accommodate an increasing demand for services and fulfill its mission. The current building was constructed in 1930 and provides approximately 43,000 square feet of usable space. The building systems, including heating and ventilation and electrical, are inadequate for the increased load generated by an increasing number of staff and the increased use of computers and other electronic equipment in the building. upJ MO41419.00 n., mkulln rn.d.c April 30, 2003 Executive Summary 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants 9 Joll I 0 2000 USGS 1:25,000 • • 38 1, e, • co . GoIf 0 --‘r- • .;•1. 14 B • . . 2 • sN. ...t 4000 feet '5 Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Department of Homeland Security facility project site in Tukwila, Washington. Proposed Alternatives This assessment evaluates one action alternative for the DHS facility and the no- action alternative, which are described as follows: April30, 2003 ■ Proposed action: The Sabey Corporation would construct one four -story office building, with three floors of underground parking beneath the building, uncovered surface parking, one level of uncovered structured parking, and two access driveways for long -term lease by the DHS (see Figure 2). This facility would occupy approximately 14 acres of land, which is a portion of a 16.1 -acre site currently owned by the Sabey Corporation. The building would provide a total of 137,500 square feet of interior space. The footprint of the building would be 274 feet long by 131 feet wide. The height of the western side of the building, nearest Tukwila International Boulevard, would be approximately 58 feet. Parking would be provided for approximately 688 vehicles, including 405 stalls for clients and visitors and 283 stalls for employees and agency vehicles. Construction would occur between May 2003 and the middle of 2004. • No action: The DHS would continue to use its existing facility and a new building would not be built. The Sabey Corporation site would remain available for another commercial or industrial development. Environmental Consequences and Recommended Mitigation Measures Because the entire site has been previously disturbed and a portion of the site previously developed, the scope of this environmental assessment is limited to those elements of the environment potentially affected by the proposed action. The elements of the environment analyzed for this project are biological resources, visual resources, cultural and historic resources, transportation, land use, and stormwater. Under the proposed action (construction of a new DHS facility in Tukwila, Washington), the primary adverse environmental impact would consist of a slight increase in traffic in the vicinity of the project. Development of the proposed facility would improve the visual quality of the area by the removal of the existing building and the disturbed construction staging areas. Development of onsite stormwater retention/detention facilities is expected to result in a slight improvement in surface water runoff from the project site. No other impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action. Biological Resources Most of the site has been previously disturbed for commercial and highway development and provides little intact wildlife habitat. Although the site currently does not provide high - quality rpJ /110•0141V- O40 ra.d 3 Executive Summary Herrera Environmental Consultants Executive Summary habitat for wildlife, the proposed action would result in the removal of grasses, trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, thereby affecting wildlife. Construction activities at the project site would be close to the West Fork of Riverton Creek; potential impacts would be avoided or mitigated through the use of recommended conservation measures and best management practices. The appropriate regulatory agencies concurred with the determination that the proposed project "may affect but is not likely to adversely affect" threatened, endangered, or candidate species (bald eagles, bull trout, chinook salmon, and coho salmon). Additionally, the project would have no effect on essential fish habitat for Pacific salmon. There would be no long-term impacts on the biological resources surrounding the proposed DHS facility. Visual Resources The visual quality of the area is expected to improve after construction of the proposed DHS facility. Current site conditions include the former Non -Stop Restaurant, cleared construction staging and storage areas, and vegetated steep slopes. In order to ensure that the building is a visual amenity for the community, the City of Tukwila Design Review Board evaluated and approved the design of the facility. Under the no- action alternative, there would be no impacts on visual resources. Cultural and Historic Resources According to the Washington State Historic Preservation Office the project is unlikely to have any impact on cultural or historic resources. If any cultural materials are uncovered during work, all work would stop in the vicinity and the GSA Regional Historic Preservation Officer and the Washington State Historic Preservation Office would be notified immediately. Transportation Transportation would be affected in the short term by construction - related traffic and in the long term by the addition of DHS staff and clients. Construction - related traffic would travel across the project site for the duration of the proposed work under the proposed action. This traffic would consist primarily of dump trucks transporting excavated material and trucks delivering construction materials. The results of traffic analyses conducted for the project indicated that traffic level of service would not be adversely affected by the proposed project. One of the 10 intersections studied (Tukwila International Boulevard at the northern driveway into the DHS facility) currently operates at an unacceptable level of service and this condition would deteriorate slightly when the proposed facility begins operation. Installation of a traffic signal at this site would improve traffic flow at the intersection. The Sabey Corporation and the Washington State Department of Transportation are currently discussing the installation of a traffic signal at this location. If Herrera Environmental Consultants 4 ,.p iaa-nuw- am Inv wk,.lI., earkso April 30, 2003 rr,1 cJ4 � ui Z. 5 . eD. • • * tml � N O �. c:::) cii cra tA NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR1HAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. ram approval is given, the Sabey Corporation would fund installation of the traffic signal. The results of the parking analysis indicated that the proposed 688 parking stalls would be adequate for peak demand for parking. The sight distance along Tukwila International Boulevard from the southern driveway entrance to the south is inadequate for the posted speed. Although this is not expected to be a significant impact, mitigation measures (lowering the speed limit along Tukwila International Boulevard, clearing vegetation, installing flashers, and restricting left turns from the driveway) should be considered to improve safety. Under the no- action alternative, there would be no impacts on the transportation system. Land Use The proposed action is consistent with the existing zoning regulations for the site, as well as the zoning for surrounding properties. The area to the north and east of the project site is in transition from low - density residential to light - industrial /commercial uses. Land use, as required by the City of Tukwila, would ensure that the facility is compatible with nearby residences. The area has excellent highway connections to the freeway system and is conveniently located near the Port of Seattle, Seattle - Tacoma International Airport (Sea -Tac Airport), and downtown Seattle; therefore, redevelopment of the area is likely to continue. The proposed action would further this redevelopment activity. No adverse impacts on land use are expected as a result of this project. Under the no- action alternative, the Sabey property would be available for another development. Stormwater The stormwater retention and detention and treatment system for the site would be consistent with the locally applicable standards and would result in slightly improved water quality in the area. Currently, stormwater runoff from the developed portion of the site (the Non -Stop Restaurant, the paved area around the restaurant, and the graveled staging area) and portions of Tukwila International Boulevard flow off the site untreated. Under the proposed action, the stormwater retention/detention and treatment systems would include a combination wet detention pond in the southeastern portion of the site and a combination wet detention vault in the northern portion of the site. These facilities would provide treatment for the new impervious surface as well as the existing impervious surface. Construction activities would be close to the West Fork of Riverton Creek, and potential impacts would be avoided or mitigated through the use of recommended conservation measures and best management practices. Under the no- action alternative, the current system would remain unchanged unless the site is developed for a different industrial /commercial use. IrpJ /011.01J1Y -O4 Inr tukulla mate April 30, 2003 7 Executive Summary Herrera Environmental Consultants This environmental assessment considers two alternatives, the proposed action and the no- action alternative. The proposed action includes the construction of a new 137,500- square -foot building, stormwater retention and detention, parking within the building, surface and structured parking, and landscaping. This facility would replace the existing GSA -owned facility that DHS occupies located south of downtown Seattle in the SODO District, which is too small to accommodate an increasing demand for services. A complete description of this alternative is presented in the section Proposed Action. Under the no- action alternative, the DHS would continue to use its existing Seattle District Office facility, and the Sabey property would remain available for another development. Scoping and Identification of Issues The scoping process under NEPA was initiated with the distribution of letters announcing the GSA's plans for developing the new facility. In addition to notifying public agencies, the GSA notified private citizens who reside in the immediate project vicinity of the proposed action and published notices of the proposed project in The Seattle Times. A public scoping meeting was held on January 8, 2003, at the Tukwila Community Center to inform interested parties about the project and solicit public and agency comments. Three of the 22 people in attendance were members of the public, while the rest of the attendees represented government agencies (INS, GSA, City of Tukwila, and Tukwila City Council) or the Sabey Corporation. (In the public record for this meeting, the agency now known as the Department of Homeland Security is referred to by its name at the time of the meeting [the Immigration and Naturalization Service] and this name is also used in the following discussion.) After a formal presentation, comments about the project were solicited. No comments were made. After the request for comments, questions from the audience were accepted. The questions received and the responses to these questions are presented in the following list: • Will the facility put pressure on the Tukwila Police Department to provide security backup? Answer: The facility does not detain individuals slated to be deported; therefore, there would be no need for the Tukwila Police Department to provide backup security. Armed guards from the Federal Protection Service would be stationed at the facility to provide security, and the presence of additional uniformed officers in the community would likely benefit the Tukwila Police Department. np. /00.01J19- 0J01nr mAviln u.uloc April30, 2003 Description of Alternatives 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants Description of Proposed Action • Will project financing come from the Homeland Security budget? Answer: The GSA will sign a long -term lease for the facility from the Proposed Action The Sabey Corporation responded to the GSA solicitation by offering a parcel of land and design plans to construct one four -story office building, with three floors of underground parking beneath the building, uncovered surface parking, one level of uncovered structured parking, and two access driveways for long -term lease by the DHS. This project would occupy approximately 14 acres of land, which is a portion of the 16.1 -acre site currently owned by the Sabey Corporation. The proposed facility would replace the existing, undersized DHS facility located in Seattle's SODO District. It would provide a total of 137,500 square feet of interior space. The footprint of the building would be 274 feet long by 131 feet wide. A site plan showing the configuration of the new building is provided in Figure 2. The height of the western side of the building, nearest Tukwila International Boulevard, would be approximately 58 feet. The elevation of the eastern side would be approximately 84 feet. The northern and southern elevations would average approximately 75 feet. Parking would be provided for approximately 688 vehicles, including 405 stalls for clients and visitors and 283 stalls for employees and agency vehicles. Construction would occur between May 2003 and the middle of 2004. Herrera Environmental Consultants 10 vp4 /OO- flUl9- OJOlnx lukuiln ra h,c April 30, 2003 Sabey Corporation, and the INS will pay GSA rent for the facility. z 11-: • Is the building being designed with potential growth in mind? Answer: 1- w The GSA is going to sign a lease for 125,500 square feet, with the option to expand an additional 10 to 12 percent if necessary. ,- .. -J 0 0) 0 • Will there be a traffic signal or pedestrian crosswalk to provide access to J 1 the building from the bus stop on the west (opposite) side of Tukwila cn u. International Boulevard? Answer: A traffic consultant is studying whether W 0 a traffic signal or crosswalk would be warranted. : �Q When there were no further questions, the meeting was adjourned. A scoping document for the = a project was issued on April 24, 2003, and mailed to all interested parties. E— _ z1.- I— 0 zr O • 0 O N The DHS needs to replace the existing, obsolete building that houses its Seattle District Office o I— facilities in order to accommodate an increasing demand for services. The current building was z 0 constructed in 1930 and provides approximately 43,000 square feet of usable space. The u~„ o building systems, including heating and ventilation and electrical, are inadequate for the iii z co increased load generated by an increasing number of staff and the increased use of computers 0 and other electronic equipment in the building. As the federal agency responsible for federal o /— facilities, the GSA represented the DHS to solicit proposals for providing increased office space z and additional facilities that meet the purpose and needs of the DHS. ANSN • F �� The building exterior would consist of architectural precast concrete, with granite cladding in some areas. The steep slopes on the eastern side of the building would be maintained by a retaining wall system that incorporates planters as a visual element. The exterior parking areas would be paved with concrete, and landscaping would be provided in compliance with the applicable City of Tukwila standards. Alternatives Considered But Rejected Remodeling the current Seattle District Office was considered and rejected because the existing historic facility would provide insufficient space for the DHS. Furthermore, the existing facility has 8- to 10- inch -thick masonry walls, making it difficult to install cables for computers and impossible to move interior walls (Gronewald 2003 personal communication). The GSA also considered but rejected alternative sites for the proposed facility. , p4 /MO14194JO Ins :Avila ea loc April 30, 2003 Description of Proposed Action 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants Affected Environment The site of the proposed DHS facility project is near the West Fork of Riverton Creek in Tukwila, Washington. It is located within the Duwamish/Green River and Lake Washington watersheds, which drain to Puget Sound. The project site is upgradient of Riverton Creek, which is a tributary to the Duwamish River. Riverton Creek has an east and a west fork (Figure 1), which join north of the project site and then continue to the stream's confluence with the Duwamish River, near the intersection of Tukwila International Boulevard (State Route [SR] 99) and SR 599. A small watercourse (Watercourse D) flows under the project site within a pipe and exits the pipe as it drains off the site into the West Fork of Riverton Creek. Wetland A is present on the north side of the project site, and Wetland E is present on the east side of the site; both are hydrologically connected to Riverton Creek (Figure 2). Wetland A is classified by the City of Tukwila as a Type 2 wetland, and is located adjacent to an existing parking lot that serves the Sabey Corporation's Seattle Intergate East office complex. Wetland E, which meets the City of Tukwila criterion for a Type 3 wetland, covers and area of less than 1 acre. The eastern portion of Wetland E extends into the riparian corridor of the West Fork of Riverton Creek, and the western portion is hydrologically fed by runoff from the adjacent fill slope to the west. Vegetation The site of the proposed construction is mainly devoid of vegetation, as it is covered by paved and gravel surfaces. The hill slope on the north side of the project site is vegetated with red alder (Alnus rubra) and cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) trees. English ivy (Hedera helix), swordfern (Polystichhum munitum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) are also present. Buffer vegetation at the project site is typical of a disturbed riparian area, with invasive species, weeds, and grasses dominating the buffer areas. Species noted in a 2000 survey (AOA 2001) consisted of creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), dock (Rumex sp.), Japanese knotweed , and Himalayan blackberry. One western red -cedar (Thuja plicata), some vine maple (Acer citinatum), and red alder were also observed. Adjacent to the project site, Riverton Creek flows through a ravine toward the Duwamish River. Vegetation within the ravine is dominated by big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder, Indian plum (Oen2leria cerasiformis), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), English Ivy, swordfern, and other locally common plant species (AOA 2001). Watercourse D enters a small artificially created pool that diverts water toward a concrete spillway, which enters the West Fork of upl /00.0!41V.U4Q In.. rnl,rif„ r„.r6c April30, 2003 Biological Resources 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants • Biological Resources Riverton Creek. Vegetation along this lower portion of the stream is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) (AOA 2001). Vegetation in Wetland A consists of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and a mixture of palustrine scrub -shrub vegetation dominated by red alder seedlings, Himalayan blackberry, and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense) (AOA 2001). The buffers of Wetland A have been heavily disturbed through historical clearing and grading activities, and much of the onsite buffer has been encroached upon by the existing parking lot. Vegetation within the unpaved portion of the buffer consists largely of monotypic Himalayan blackberry, most of which had been mowed in the fall of 2000 (AOA 2001). The eastern portion of Wetland E extends into the riparian corridor of the West Fork of Riverton Creek. Vegetation in the wetland is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and stinging nettle, but also includes scattered red alder, black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), willow (Salix spp.), Indian plum, red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) (AOA 2001). Wildlife The project site is likely inhabited by typical urban wildlife, such as house sparrows (Passer domesticus), pigeons (Columba livia), and starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). During a site visit in January 2003, a staff biologist from Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) observed that the walls and window ledges of the existing dilapidated structure on the site (the Non -Stop Restaurant) are likely used for perches by urban birds. Trees on the site and adjacent to the site and the crevices and ledges of the existing structure likely provide nest cavities usable by nonnative bird species (e.g., the common pigeon, house sparrow, and starling). Red - tailed hawks (Buteojamaicensis) are also present in the project area. Mammals that may be present in and around the project site include the house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus), and black rat (Rattus rattus). The following aquatic species may be present in Riverton Creek and are known to use the creek for spawning, rearing, and migration (Partee 2002 personal communication): • Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) o Coho salmon (0. kisutch) • Chum salmon (0. keta) • Cutthroat trout (0. clarki) o Three -spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) o Brook lamprey (Lampetra pacifica) o Largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) • Crayfish (Pacifastacus spp.) • Several sculpin species (Cottus spp.). Herrera Environmental Consultants 14 vp4 /00.01419.040 Ins mkuiln en.d.e April 30, 2003 Threatened and Endangered Species There are no known species in the project area that are listed as endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are listed threatened species regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that may be present within the vicinity of the project site. Species regulated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries that may occur in the project area include the threatened chinook salmon and the coho salmon, which is a candidate for listing. Chinook salmon are commonly known as either spring -run or summer /fall -run, depending on the time at which the adults return to freshwater. Summer /fall chinook are much more abundant than spring chinook; no self - sustained runs of spring chinook presently inhabit the Duwamish/Green River watershed (although a few spring chinook sometimes return to the Green River) (NOAA Fisheries 1997). Chinook salmon use Riverton Creek for spawning, rearing, and migration (Partee 2002 personal communication). Although Riverton Creek has been severely degraded by general urbanization, there are several stream enhancement and restoration efforts (including a mitigation site constructed by the Sabey Corporation) that are targeted to improve salmonid habitat (City of Tukwila 2002), making the creek more accessible to fish. Coho salmon is an anadromous species that is common in many coastal streams. Coho salmon are known to use Riverton Creek for spawning, rearing, and migration (Partee 2002 personal communication). Nesting habitat for bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest generally consists of a multistory stand of trees with old- growth components that are widely spaced, with an understory of tree saplings, shrubs, and trees that thrive on filtered light. The preferred habitat is generally located near one or more water bodies that support adequate food sources (Anthony et al. 1982). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) priority habitat and species maps (WDFW 2002) and correspondence with the WDFW Area Habitat Biologist indicate that there are no bald eagle nests or wintering territories within a 1 -mile radius of the project site. However, it is possible that bald eagles use Riverton Creek and the associated wetlands as foraging habitat or as a migration corridor (Fisher 2002 personal communication). The migratory bull trout moves between multiple habitats during its life cycle, while the nonmigratory type maintains a relatively small home range, typically completing its life cycle in small headwater streams. If bull trout were to be observed within Riverton Creek, given the existing habitat in the creek, they would be of the anadromous type and would be foraging rather than spawning in the creek. Despite the specific habitat preferences of bull trout, they are known to occur in the Duwamish River, of which Riverton Creek is tributary(Brennan -Dubbs 2002 personal communication). Bull trout are not known to occur in Riverton Creek (Partee 2002 personal communication). trp4 /110.O1J19 -O40 Inr rwlvlln cadhx April 30, 2003 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants Biological Resources Biological Resources Environmental Consequences • Accidental spills of fuels, oils, concrete leachate, and chemicals used during construction could possibly enter Riverton Creek via stormwater runoff. However, a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan would be implemented to manage possible spills. • Traffic control measures needed during construction could result in increased traffic congestion and vehicle delays. However, alterations to the established traffic flow in the project site vicinity are not expected to adversely affect habitat areas. • At temporary equipment storage and staging areas on the site, there is a potential for accidental chemical spills from construction machinery and vehicles. As a precaution, the locations of these storage and staging areas would be selected to avoid wetland areas and known sensitive areas. Thus, no effects are anticipated to result from temporary equipment storage and staging during project implementation. Implementation of best management practices such as silt fences and construction runoff control is expected to minimize this possible effect. Implementation of the proposed action would improve water quality in Riverton Creek, Watercourse D, and their associated wetlands by detaining and treating currently untreated Herrera Environmental Consultants 16 rp4 M04149-040 Ins lukuilo eo.,k.c April 30, 2003 Implementation of the proposed action would require clearing of vegetation on the project site to z accommodate the new structure and parking facilities. A portion of the vegetation would be = replaced with ornamental landscaping. Wetland buffers for Wetland E would be temporarily �.- w affected (i.e., vegetation would be temporarily removed) during required grading to D: accommodate the new stormwater combination wet detention pond. The total area of wetland o buffer impacts would be approximately 4,000 square feet (0.9 acre). c 0 u) III J = Wintering bald eagles and nesting bald eagles have not been observed within a 1 -mile radius of u) the project site. It is possible that bald eagles could use the Riverton Creek corridor for foraging w 0 and migration. However, construction activities are unlikely to affect bald eagles that may be foraging in or migrating through the project area. Because the area surrounding the project site u _ is largely developed with major roadways and industrial activities, the proposed project would = a not likely affect bald eagles that are already accustomed to noise and human activity. I-- _ zI-- Construction activities at the project site may affect fish species in Riverton Creek for the z 0 following reasons: w U • � • Runoff from recently cleared and graded areas may result in increased o El sediment entering Wetlands A and E. However, implementation of best w w management practices such as silt fences and construction runoff control is = 0 expected to minimize this possible effect. L-- 3 Ili = 0 . z It rri ri stormwater runoff originating from impervious surfaces at the project site and portions of Tukwila International Boulevard. This runoff currently enters Riverton Creek and its associated wetlands. Improved water quality would be a beneficial effect for fish, their food stocks, and their habitat in Riverton Creek. z Herrera prepared a biological assessment in support of the proposed construction and operation ct 2 of the proposed facility. Threatened and endangered species addressed in the biological 6 6 v assessment included bald eagle, bull trout, and chinook salmon. The biological assessment also 0 0 evaluated the potential impact on coho salmon, which is currently listed as a candidate species u under the ESA. The biological assessment concluded that the project may affect but is not likely MI I to adversely affect bald eagles and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect populations of w 0 bull trout or chinook salmon. The biological assessment also concluded that the proposed project would not likely result in significant impacts on coho salmon or their suitable habitat. Additionally, the biological assessment found that, with implementation of best management c practices and conservation measures, the proposed project would have no effect on essential fish w habitat for Pacific salmon in the project area. The USFWS concurred with the determinations z = regarding bald eagle and bull trout (see Appendix B). NOAA Fisheries concurred with the z 0 determinations regarding coho and chinook salmon (see Appendix B). (Note: The USFWS has w w ESA authority over bald eagles and bull trout, and NOAA Fisheries has ESA authority over coho and chinook salmon.) o 2 0(- Under the no- action alternative, the site would remain in its present condition until it is 0 redeveloped for another commercial /industrial activity. u, o Recommended Mitigation Measures Conservation Measures Biological Resources Wetland buffers for Wetland E impacts would be mitigated through revegetation with native species of the areas temporarily affected during grading activities. This buffer revegetation would be completed as required by the City of Tukwila Municipal Code, Section 18.54.130. These impacts are not expected to cause a net loss or degradation of wetland habitat or functions. In contrast, treating stormwater runoff generated in the project area would have the beneficial effect of improved water quality and improved wetland hydrology. The following conservation measures and best management practices are recommended to minimize impacts on plants and animals in the project area. • There would be no wetland fill as a result of the proposed project, no in- water work, and no direct impacts on Riverton Creek. • Any vegetation cleared for the proposed project would be replanted in Wetland E buffers, and monitoring would occur to determine survival upJ /00•0I4I9.040 In. fukvila rn.Joc April 30, 2003 17 Herrera Environmental Consultants w U= 0 Biological Resources rates. If the following standards are not met, replanting in the wetland buffers would occur: 100 percent survival after 1 year and 80 percent survival after 3 years. • The wetland buffers would be avoided as much as the project site topography allows, and any necessary impacts on the wetland buffers would be mitigated according to City of Tukwila standards. • All stormwater runoff from the proposed project would be routed through a combination wet detention vault at the north end and a combination wet detention pond and Wetland E at the south end of the site instead of being discharged directly to Riverton Creek. Best Management Practices • Best management practices and temporary erosion and sedimentation controls (TESCs) such as silt fencing, straw bales, and catch basin inserts, would be used to avoid or minimize all potential direct and indirect adverse effects of construction activities, such as erosion, sedimentation, and accidental spills into the adjacent wetlands. • The TESCs would be designed in accordance with current King County and the City of Tukwila requirements. • All areas to be cleared would be flagged, and all trees to be left in place would be flagged before any vegetation removal. • All stormwater runoff generated during project construction activities would be detained prior to release into the wetland buffers. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Because the vegetation disturbed during the construction would be replaced, there would be no unavoidable adverse impacts on biological resources associated with the proposed action. As detailed above, the appropriate regulatory agencies concurred with the findings of the biological assessment that the project may affect but is not likely to affect listed or candidate species in the project vicinity. Herrera Environmental Consultants 18 vM /00- 014194)40 h..r luLviln rn..i.c April 30, 2003 Affected Environment Visual Resources This section discusses the surrounding land uses and the architectural character of the proposed DHS facility in Tukwila, Washington. Aesthetics The proposed project would be constructed on a 14.1 -acre lot along the east side of Tukwila International Boulevard. The proposed site is part of a larger site owned by the Sabey Corporation. The DHS facility site is a relatively long and narrow lot running parallel to Tukwila International Boulevard. The DHS building would be constructed on a wider section in the southern portion of the site, and parking, both surface and structured, would run the length of the long narrow lot (see Figure 2). The southwest side of the property is currently fenced off and is mostly paved, while the northwestern portion of the site has a dirt and gravel surface. The site was previously used for a restaurant (the Non -Stop Restaurant) and associated parking or for construction staging; there are no trees present in the portion of the lot closest to the road. The former restaurant, a closed, vacant building, occupies the southern portion of the project site. The Non -Stop building is a gray box -like building built in the early 1960s, with air- conditioning and other mechanical components visible on the roof. There is no landscaping on the site. The center part of the property slopes steeply downward from the road, making other vegetation difficult to see from the road. The eastern portion of the site consists of a series of benches with grasses, shrubs, and some mature vegetation. Part of the eastern portion was previously cleared and graded and used for construction staging. Land use immediately east of the site consists of single - family residences. Farther east from the site, land use is industrial, including Sabey Corporation's Seattle Intergate East office complex and the King County Metro Bus Storage facility. The west side of Tukwila International Boulevard in the project vicinity differs from the east side in that the land on this side of the street slopes upward from the road and is more densely vegetated. Several commercial buildings, many with paved surface parking, are located between the roadway and the more vegetated land, especially across from the north end of the proposed DHS facility. These commercial buildings include an auto repair business, the Sabey Corporation's Seattle Intergate West office complex, and the Beverly Hills Apartments. The Beverly Hills Apartments is a one -story multifamily housing development. Large trees appear to grow taller on the west side of Tukwila International Boulevard as the land slopes upward farther away from the road, creating a green slope behind the structures and providing visual relief from the man -made environment. q,4 /0O.OIJIY•INII Ia. luAirlln ra.dre April 30, 2003 MofMA900.. . */$1 .r.�w^na±.nc,..Kw rH!.r»xwnyT, ;!ralm.. r.rxrr,. . 19 Herrera Environmental Consultants Visual Resources Architectural Character The architectural style of the existing buildings in the project vicinity consists of modern commercial buildings, as well as older single - family and multifamily residences. The Beverly Hills Apartments were built in 1946 and appear to have been built as a motel when Tukwila International Boulevard (then known as SR 99) was the major north -south roadway connection through western Washington. A visual inspection of the Beverly Hills Apartments indicates that the buildings are in good condition. Although the Beverly Hills Apartments are old enough to qualify as potentially historic buildings, consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Office did not identify any historic buildings located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Environmental Consequences Development of the proposed DHS facility would include demolishing and removing the former restaurant. The new facility would be built in its place and extend toward the north along the existing paved area. The building would occupy most of the southern part of the site, while surface and structured parking would be created in the northern portion. Landscaping would be provided throughout the site, in accordance with City of Tukwila requirements. Landscaping would reduce or eliminate the potential visual impact of a large, commercial structure on nearby residential properties. The GSA has stated its intent that the facility be architecturally appealing and reflect the importance of the role of the DHS. The project has received Design Review approval by the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development (see Appendix B). While final architectural drawings are not yet available, the design and appearance of the facility can be expected to improve upon the existing architectural character of the area. Under the no- action alternative, the Sabey Corporation site would remain in its current condition and would be available for another development. Recommended Mitigation Measures Because the proposed project would not adversely affect visual resources, no mitigation measures are recommended. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse affects are expected. Herrera Environmental Consultants 20 upI /00.01419.070 IM tui iln en Juc April 30, 2003 • tri Affected Environment The site of the proposed DHS facility was previously cleared and graded, and a portion of the site was developed for the former Non -Stop Restaurant, which was constructed in 1962 and does not qualify as a historic structure. Although the Beverly Hills Apartments are old enough to qualify as potentially historic buildings, consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Office did not identify any historic buildings or cultural resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Environmental Consequences The Washington State Historic Preservation Office has stated that there are no historic or cultural resources on site and that it is unlikely that archaeological resources would be found. Therefore, historic or cultural resources would not be affected by development of the proposed project. Although no decision has been made about the future use of the existing DHS facility, the GSA is currently considering various options for reusing the facility. Under the no- action alternative, the Sabey site would remain available for development. Given the amount of previous site disturbance, it is unlikely that any intact archaeological features remain. Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required for development of the new DHS facility in Tukwila. If archaeological resources are uncovered, the contractor would stop work in the vicinity of the discovery and immediately notify the GSA Regional Historic Preservation Officer and the Washington State Historic Preservation Office. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on either cultural or historic resources due to the proposed project. wit./ /00.Ol4!9.0JO lax t,L,rila rn.Mic April 30, 2003 Cultural and Historic Resources 21 Herrera Environmental Consultants Affected Environment up.; /00.O1419.010 L:x a.kuiln mike April 30, 2003 Transportation As an agent for the Sabey Corporation, Perteet Engineering, Inc. (Perteet), prepared a traffic study for the proposed Intergate Corporate Center East Development (Perteet 2000). As part of ' the NEPA environmental assessment for the DHS facility, INCA Engineers, Inc. (INCA) reviewed the findings of the Perteet study and evaluated the traffic impacts due to the DHS facility and its associated parking (INCA 2003). Both of these studies estimated that transit ridership to the DHS building would be similar to that of other types of government office buildings. After obtaining information indicating that immigration service clients are more likely to drive to the facility than clients for other government services, the City of Tukwila requested that the estimates of visitor parking demand be reevaluated (Lund 2003 personal communication). An analysis of parking demand conducted by Perteet indicated that additional parking would be necessary to meet peak demand by clients and visitors to the facility (Perteet 2003a). Perteet then revised its traffic study to evaluate the affects of this additional parking (Perteet 2003b). The revised Perteet traffic study, the parking analysis, and the INCA traffic study are provided in Appendix A of this document. The following section provides a brief summary of the potential traffic and parking impacts that would result from the proposed DHS facility. These impacts are based on the findings of the revised Perteet traffic study, the parking study, and the traffic impact review conducted by INCA. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) lists Tukwila International Boulevard in the vicinity of the proposed facility as a principal arterial roadway. Tukwila International Boulevard (also known as SR 99) is currently a five -lane arterial, with a two -way left-turn lane in the center, and two northbound and two southbound general - purpose lanes. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph). The project site is currently unused and does not generate any traffic. Traffic delay at stop - controlled intersections (such as stop signs, stop lights, or driveways) is measured as the average time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. The level of service is determined on the basis of the length of the average delay at the intersection during the peak traffic hour. Level of service (LOS) A indicates very short delays associated with very short queues, while LOS F indicates very long delays associated with longer queues (stop and go traffic flow). An analysis of level of service at 10 intersections in the vicinity of the DHS facility site indicated that traffic delays at 9 of the intersections have been at acceptable levels during the current year and will be at acceptable levels during the design year of 2004 (see Table 1). The level of service for nine of the intersections ranged from LOS A to LOS D, and one of the intersections operated at a LOS F. The intersection with LOS F (unacceptable delays) was located at the exit from the Sabey Corporation's Intergate Seattle West office complex onto Tukwila International Boulevard. The City of Tukwila's Concurrency Ordinance 1769 (Section 9.48.050 —LOS Standards for Specific 23 Herrera Environmental Consultants �ic•crers. 4.'}nt!'riXM Transportation Locations, Part C) requires that "A minimum LOS (Level of Service Standard) standard of E for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon calculation of LOS for individual intersections and corridor segments for all other minor, collector, and principal arterials principally serving commercially zoned property." Source: Perteet 20036. a Tukwila International Boulevard is also known as SR 99. Intersection Herrera Environmental Consultants Table 1. Level of service summary. 2004 Conditions 2003 Existing 2004 Baseline After Project Stop Conditions Conditions Implementation Control LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Tukwila International Boulevard a/ Signal C 31.0 C 32.0 C 33.9 East Marginal Way Tukwila International Boulevard/ Signal B 12.8 B 13.3 B 13.4 S. 112 Street Tukwila International Boulevard/ Signal C 21.9 C 22.9 C 23.6 S. 116` Street Tukwila International Boulevard/ Signal A 7.3 A 7.65 A 7.6 S. 130 Street Tukwila International Boulevard/ Signal A 3.1 A 3.2 A 3.2 S. 132 Street Tukwila International Boulevard/ Signal C 24.0 C 24.1 C 24.6 S. 144 Street Tukwila International Boulevard/ Signal D 35.8 D 37.4 D 39.0 S. 152 Street Tukwila International Boulevard/ Signal D 46.0 D 48.5 D 48.9 S. 154 Street Tukwila International Boulevard/ Stop F >100 F >100 F >100 Northern Driveway Tukwila International Boulevard/ Signal N/A N/A N/A N/A A 9.0 Northern Driveway, with Signal Improvement Tukwila International Boulevard/ Stop N/A N/A N/A N/A E 47.5 Southern Driveway Historical accident data for Tukwila International Boulevard in the vicinity of the proposed DHS facility were collected and evaluated to identify potential safety problems along the roadway corridor. WSDOT provided a history of all reported accidents on Tukwila International Boulevard from South 146 Street to the intersection of Tukwila International Boulevard and the SR 599 on -ramp for the 3 -year period of 1999 through 2001. There were a total of 125 reported accidents along Tukwila International Boulevard from S. 146 Street to just north of South 130 Street (milepost 21.0 to milepost 22.5), including 60 injury accidents and 2 fatalities. There were 16 reported accidents, including 9 injury accidents and no fatalities, along the segment of Tukwila International Boulevard from just north of South 130 Street northward to the SR 599 on -ramp (milepost 22.5 to milepost 22.8). WSDOT identified Tukwila International Boulevard 24 irp! /00.01419.O•0 ln. lulufla catiox April 30, 2003 f• sHa between milepost 19.50 and milepost 24.00 as a "high- accident corridor" in 2002 (INCA 2003). The project site is located with this high- accident corridor, and any additional traffic generated by the proposed facility would pass through it. Additionally, WSDOT identified several "high - accident locations" within the high - accident corridor; traffic generated by the proposed project z would pass through these high- accident locations. ,z z ce w The Sabey site is currently unused and there is no demand for onsite parking. m J U 0 King County Metro provides public transportation services in the vicinity of the proposed DHS co w facility. Currently, there is one transit route (Route 174) that runs along Tukwila International - i Boulevard, with stops on both sides of the roadway adjacent to the project site. Route 174 co u_ provides service along the Tukwila International Boulevard/SR 99 corridor from the South 2 Federal Way Park- and -Ride lot, Star Lake Park- and -Ride lot, Midway, Des Moines, Sea -Tac g Airport, Burien, White Center, and downtown Seattle. King County Metro, in coordination with Li- Pierce Transit, might eliminate evening and night service via Route 174 to the project area = a (INCA 2003). The bus stop facilities in the vicinity of the DHS facility are substandard; there Z 1 a no shelters, benches, or adequate pedestrian load /unload areas for bus patrons. E ... O z~- 111 Lu Currently, there are no sidewalks on either side of Tukwila International Boulevard. There are, D o however, wide shoulders along both sides of the roadway but no separation between traffic and o cn pedestrians. Additionally, there is no marked crossing area in the project vicinity. Pedestrians or o E- bus patrons have "no way to safely cross" the roadway (INCA 2003). Those individuals z 0 attempting to cross Tukwila International Boulevard have to cross five lanes of traffic traveling „� at 45 mph or more. The closest signalized intersection is at the intersection of Tukwila z International Boulevard and South 130 Street, which is more than 1,000 feet south of the v proposed project site. The two fatalities along this roadway segment involved vehicles hitting p i-- pedestrians who were walking along the roadway corridor. z The vertical and horizontal alignments of Tukwila International Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site affect a driver's ability to safely maneuver along the highway. A driver's ability to see ahead is crucial for the safe and efficient operation of a vehicle on a highway. Sight distance is the length of roadway ahead that is visible to the driver. The available sight distance should be sufficient to enable a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. The design standard stopping distance for the road segment south of the site (45 mph posted speed limit, 55 mph design speed, 3 percent downgrade) is 520 feet (INCA 2003). The INCA traffic study indicated that the sight distance of 400 feet to the south of the proposed DHS facility is inadequate under the current posted speed limit. Environmental Consequences The proposed DHS facility would consist of one building with 137,500 square feet of interior space, three levels of parking within the building, and exterior surface and structured parking. The building would house approximately 300 workers, with 225 employees working between irp4 Po0- U1419 -U4f Inx lubrlln cn..luc April 30, 2003 Transportation 25 Herrera Environmental Consultants Transportation 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and 75 working during other hours. In addition to the building workforce, there would be an estimated 570 clients or visitors to facility each workday. Approximately 370 of the 570 visitors would visit the DHS office between 9 a.m. and noon. Two driveways would provide access to and from the facility from Tukwila International Boulevard. The northern driveway would be used for visitors and deliveries, and the southern driveway would be for employees entering and exiting the DHS facility. Access for emergency vehicles would be provided from the parking lot north of the building to other areas of Intergate Seattle East and to the roadway system north and east of the site (see Figure 2). There would be no vehicular access from the site to 34 Avenue South or South 126 Street, although pedestrian access could be provided. During construction of the proposed facility, heavy equipment would travel through the area for the duration of the construction period. Traffic would consist primarily of dump trucks with excavated material and trucks delivering construction materials. Construction is expected to begin in May 2003 and would be completed by the middle of 2004. Construction operations would occur during normal business hours. The traffic analyses conducted by Perteet and INCA indicated that the level of service would not be adversely affected by the proposed project. As shown in Table 1, the level of service would not deteriorate, and delays would increase only slightly as a result of the proposed project. Table 1 also shows that the one intersection with unacceptable delays (Tukwila International Boulevard and the northern driveway from the DHS facility with LOS F) could be improved to an LOS A with the incorporation of a traffic signal. The quantity of parking proposed for the project (688 spaces) is adequate to meet the demand for facility staff and the peak demand for visitor and client parking. The sight distance along Tukwila International Boulevard from the southern driveway entrance to the south of the proposed facility is inadequate for the posted speed limit. A signal warrant analysis conducted by INCA for the intersection of Tukwila International Boulevard and the proposed northern driveway entrance indicated that "traffic volume on the major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street (Warrant #1 [Condition B]) ". Based on the signal warrant analysis, the installation of a signal at the driveway intersection is warranted to improve traffic flow and safety under the proposed action. The proposed project would increase the number of pedestrians walking along and attempting to cross Tukwila International Boulevard. After the facility begins operation, ridership on King County Metro Route 174 is expected to increase during business hours. Transit ridership is not expected to increase to any measurable degree during evenings or weekends. The traffic study estimated that approximately 50 pedestrians from the DHS facility would use the nearby bus zones and would cross Tukwila International Boulevard in this area. This volume of pedestrian traffic would not meet the warrant requirements for a pedestrian traffic signal ( Perteet 2003b). Herrera Environmental Consultants 26 ,p.l /00.O14IY.Q4OIn..lukidln ra.br April 30, 2003 Transportation The Sabey site would remain undeveloped under the no- action alternative, and traffic conditions would remain the same as those described in the section "Affected Environment ". The property would be available for another commercial or industrial development. Recommended Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to avoid significant impacts on traffic or the transportation system. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to meet the City of Tukwila's Traffic Concurrency Ordinance regarding acceptable levels of service. It is strongly recommended that a traffic signal be constructed at the intersection of the northern parking lot of the DHS facility and Tukwila International Boulevard. Both traffic reports concluded that operation of the proposed DHS facility would not cause the level of service to deteriorate to less than the city's level of service standard (LOS E), if a new traffic signal is constructed at the intersection of the northern parking lot and Tukwila International Boulevard. If no traffic signal is constructed, the level of service at this intersection would remain at LOS F. Additionally, the traffic signal would provide a controlled pedestrian crossing for the proposed facility. Because of the inadequate sight distance along Tukwila International Boulevard to the south of the facility, a traffic light would also improve safety for vehicles entering the roadway and pedestrians crossing Tukwila International Boulevard. The Sabey Corporation is currently discussing with WSDOT the installation of a signal at this location, although approval has not been granted (Lund 2003 personal communication). If approval is given, the Sabey Corporation would fund installation of the traffic signal. If possible, the southern parking lot should be relocated in order to increase the entering sight distances for the facility. Other possible mitigation measures include the following: April 30, 2003 • Lowering the speed limit along Tukwila International Boulevard • Clearing vegetation away from the roadway in the area southeast of the proposed site • Improving high- visibility signing with flashing yellow beacons to warn northbound traffic of hidden driveways • Restricting left-turns from the southern parking lot driveway. The current project design includes bus pull -off lanes on both sides of Tukwila International Boulevard to improve safety and transit operation. Additional recommended safety improvements are to improve lighting and construct sidewalks along both sides of Tukwila International Boulevard. w•M /00- 01419.0J0 rn.. ndvlln ratim 27 Herrera Environmental Consultants Transportation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No unavoidable adverse impacts on transportation are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Herrera Environmental Consultants 28 ' /00-01419440 Ins hilarila ca.doc April 30, 2003 •■•••■••. :Lt'tfesM cIAL z • w • 0 0: •w = LL, w g 11.. • D, (21 • -= uj • M. Z Lu t.) - 1, 0I z Land Use Affected Environment Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations Zoning in the area is a mixture of commercial and residential, with a preponderance of commercially zoned properties in the immediate vicinity of, and adjacent to, the project site. Property immediately south of the site is, however, zoned single - family residential. Land Use Existing land use in the vicinity of the proposed DHS facility is both residential and commercial. Historically, the area has remained lightly developed, with residences scattered among numerous vacant lots. In recent years, an increasing number of commercial developments have been constructed in the area. The proximity of Tukwila International Boulevard gives these commercial uses convenient access to this and other major roadways. Many of the properties adjacent to the proposed DHS facility are commercial in nature. These include the Intergate Seattle West complex, Intergate Seattle East complex, and King County Metro Bus Storage facility. The proposed DHS site is currently vacant, although it may be used occasionally by the Sabey Corporation for storage of construction materials or equipment. The only structure on the site is the former Non -Stop Restaurant building. Environmental Consequences Because existing land uses and zoning in the area are largely commercial in nature, development of the proposed facility would be consistent with existing and zoned land use patterns in the area. No adverse environmental consequences are anticipated in terms of land use. Under the no- action alternative, the DHS facility would not be built, and the Sabey Corporation property would be available for another development. The Sabey Corporation has received permits for demolition of the vacant former restaurant and may remove this structure at its convenience. Recommended Mitigation Measures Because the proposed DHS facility is consistent with existing surrounding land uses, no mitigation measures are recommended. irp4 /0041J19.0401naukvlln en.,km April 30, 2003 29 Herrera Environmental Consultants Land Use Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Herrera Environmental Consultants 111,4 /COANI➢ -OJO Ins mkldln rn.dkx 30 April 30, 2003 z • =z , mo c ¢ g J0 • .00 (0 0 (1) w' W =. JE... W 0' W Q`. d F • z �. ZF D p' 0 N; W W `. F -: LL' O LL! Z. H 2 . • z Affected Environment 1- w The western portion of the site has previously been cleared, leveled, and paved in some areas, v o and the former Non -Stop Restaurant is located in the southwestern portion of the site. The c central portion of the site has scattered trees and brush, and there are no existing structures or w z noticeable improvements. The topography of this portion of the site is steep, with slopes of up to cn 80 percent in isolated areas (Sabey Corporation 2000). The eastern portion of the site is covered w 0 with brush and scattered trees, and there are no existing structures or improvements. The topography of the eastern portion of the site includes flat benches and sloping areas. Current u. onsite features include no measures for stormwater retention, detention, or treatment. = Cl Z = The existing project area consists of areas of highly compacted gravel /fill material as well as '- paved impervious surfaces. There are also several man-made vegetated ditches at various z o locations in the project area that help route stormwater runoff away from the site. It is assumed that there is likely very little infiltration or ground water recharge occurring at the site due to the v N existing impervious surface and large areas of compacted gravel at the site. Stormwater runoff o sheet flows off the paved and gravel surfaces to informal ditches or to the edge of the project tu area, where it then flows down a steep fill slope toward the adjacent wetlands. These wetlands then drain to nearby Riverton Creek, either through a ground water connection or through a 0 z culvert on a fill berm located between the wetlands and the creek. cn H Stormwater runoff from the existing site, as well as runoff from Tukwila International Boulevard z that enters the project site, currently receives no treatment for water quality or flow control. Any pollutants entrained in runoff from the project area are transported directly to the adjacent wetlands. Likewise, there are no existing flow control facilities on the site; therefore, the high rates and volumes of runoff drain uncontrolled to the adjacent fill slope and wetland areas. Environmental Consequences The proposed project would include the construction of a stormwater detention pond and a stormwater detention vault to treat stormwater runoff generated from the parking areas. These stormwater facilities would improve water quality in Riverton Creek, adjacent Watercourse D, and adjacent Wetlands A and E (see Figure 2), which were identified in a previous site investigation (AOA 2001). There would be no project activities in Riverton Creek, Watercourse D, or the adjacent wetlands. However, the proposed project would require grading within the buffer of Wetland E and would be close to the adjacent wetlands (i.e., within 100 feet). The proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 8.8 acres of impervious surfaces (compared to existing conditions). The project includes plans to construct one wet up! /00.0/419.0401nxndvviln rn.tic April 30, 2003 Stormwater 31 Herrera Environmental Consultants Stormwater detention pond in the southeastern portion of the site and one wet detention vault under the parking structure on the north end of the site (see Figure 2). These facilities would provide both water quality and quantity treatment for 100 percent (9.16 acres) of the new and replaced impervious surfaces. Both the combined wet detention pond and the vault would be designed according to the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 1998). The City of Tukwila uses the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual as its design standard. The ' project design also would incorporate proposed conservation measures and best management practices to minimize stormwater- related impacts on Riverton Creek and the Duwamish River. Site grading and stormwater runoff discharge from the project area would be designed to minimize peak flow impacts on the fish spawning habitat created by the Sabey Corporation — sponsored fish restoration project in Riverton Creek east of the DHS site. Specifically, most of the site runoff (5.91 acres of impervious surface) would be routed away from the creek to the wet vault in northern portion of the site. The vault would discharge into an onsite pipe, connecting to an existing 42 -inch pipe that eventually discharges into Riverton Creek. The conveyance system would be a closed pipe used to convey onsite and offsite runoff and to carry the 25 -year -event flow with no overtopping. In order to improve water quality in Riverton Creek, all stormwater runoff from the proposed impervious areas would be routed through the new detention facility. Runoff from the remaining 3.25 acres of impervious surfaces would be routed to the southern combination wet detention pond and would discharge through a dispersion trench at the edge of the Wetland E buffer before entering Riverton Creek. Grading of the proposed detention pond would result in a total of approximately 4,000 square feet (0.09 acre) of wetland buffer impact due to the removal of vegetation. The proposed impervious surface that would be created as part of the project would decrease the site's capacity for ground water recharge. However, peak flows would be improved by the infiltration of water from the site into the combination wet detention pond and then into Wetland E before its drainage into Riverton Creek. In addition, Wetland E likely is hydrologically connected to the upland project areas and would replenish ground water to some extent. In addition to the existing 0.37 acre of impervious surface, areas of highly compacted gravel /fill material currently exist on the project site, limiting the potential for ground water recharge. No effective net change in groundwater recharge would result from the project. Other potential indirect effects of the increase in impervious surface area are alteration of the wetland hydrology, ground water recharge, and hyporheic' flow. With the proposed stormwater detention pond and vault, these functions could be improved, as stormwater would be metered out at a consistent rate. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the overall hydrological pattern. Hyporheic zone. Zone of substrate in a stream bottom extending 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) below the surface of the stream bed. The hyporheic zone consists of the resulting subsurface environments, which contain variable proportions of water from groundwater and surface water. These zones can be active sites for aquatic life; for example, the spawning success of fish may be greater where flow from the stream brings oxygen into contact with eggs that were deposited within the coarse bottom sediment or where stream temperatures are modulated by groundwater flows. Herrera Environmental Consultants 32 Bpi ro0.01419- OJ0lrt. fuhriF. man April 30, 2003 r 4 Under the no- action alternative, the current conditions on the site would continue until the property is developed at some time in the future. Any future development would likely include stormwater retention and treatment that meets the regulatory standards in place at the time. z '~ w Recommended Mitigation Measures re 2 JU The following conservation measures and best management practices are recommended as part u) o . of the proposed project. The following steps would avoid or minimize impacts on water quality w i J F. in the project area. U) w w • All stormwater runoff from the proposed project would be routed through 2 a detention vault and Wetland E adjacent to Riverton Creek, instead of =!' being discharged directly to the creek. cn a = w • Best management practices and TESCs such as silt fencing, straw bales, z 1- and catch basin inserts, would be used to avoid or minimize all potential z O. direct and indirect adverse effects of construction activities, such as 111 ui erosion, sedimentation, and accidental spills into the adjacent wetlands. n 0 • The TESCs would be designed in accordance with current King County w a. aj and the City of Tukwila requirements. i 0 u. ~O • All areas to be cleared would be flagged, and all trees to be left in place w z would be flagged prior to any vegetation removal. 1— I O . z Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed project would improve water quality in Riverton Creek, Watercourse D, and their associated wetlands by detaining and treating currently untreated stormwater runoff originating from the impervious surfaces at the project site and a portion of Tukwila International Boulevard. This runoff currently enters Riverton Creek and its associated wetlands. Improved water quality would be a beneficial effect for fish, their food stocks, and their habitat in Riverton Creek. Because the proposed project would meet the required stormwater standards prescribed by King County (1998) and the City of Tukwila, there would be no significant adverse affect on stormwater. 117,4 RMANlY•WO lax uibrila ca.th.c April 30, 2003 • All stormwater runoff generated during project construction activities would be detained before being released into the wetland buffers. Stormwater 33 Herrera Environmental Consultants 1 rzpI /(JO- OlJ19.O4O1ar lukulln rarkrc April 30, 2003 Relationship Between Short -Term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity Regulations administered by the Council on Environmental Quality under NEPA require that the relationship between short-term use of the environment and the maintenance of long -term productivity of the environment be addressed. The proposed project consists of the construction a new DHS facility. For several months after the initiation of the construction process, the Sabey site would be an active construction site; the existing DHS facility would continue to operate until the new facility has been completes. Construction activities would include excavation, construction of a new building, construction of a new surface parking lot and structured parking, construction of two driveways into the facility, and signing. Construction would generate economic productivity in terms of construction jobs created. Expanding the DHS facility is expected to improve the operational efficiency of the agency, which would increase its long-term productivity. klik�i ?9p: ;4 :!saii0 *....4,rrrx.44:.Kw;,;a420:Jha -4.44 35 Herrera Environmental Consultants Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources NEPA and CEQ regulations also require environmental documents to address irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated with a proposed action. Construction of the new DHS facility in Tukwila would result in both direct and indirect commitments of resources. In some cases (i.e., the use of construction equipment), the committed resources would be recovered in a relatively short time. In other cases, resources would be irreversibly or irretrievably committed by virtue of being consumed or by their commitment to a specific use, such as construction materials (i.e., steel, asphalt, and concrete), fossil fuels, and electricity. Construction of the new DHS facility would be a long -term commitment of currently vacant land to this use. Operation of the new DHS facility would result in a minor increase in the consumption of resources, such as energy. Construction and operation of the proposed DHS facility in Tukwila would not result in a significant irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. rp4 /110- OIJ!9.O4O Inrluk'dln cadac April 30, 2003 37 Herrera Environmental Consultants a,,z,P ,44 '' u$/ iilijrti . fd. 1' Llat�? ik: 4' F%+ Jit" rlliiti�Fl ±till'UAA:�::144,ii.1fF� ,..4,1.; Construction of the new DHS facility is expected to begin in May 2003 and be completed by mid -2004. There are no other known projects planned in the vicinity of the site during the construction period. Offsite impacts due to the new facility would be minor and limited to transport of soil, transport of demolition debris, construction traffic, and air and noise impacts. In the event that other projects occur in the vicinity of the facility during construction, the DHS facility would add only a minor amount to any cumulative impacts. In general, the area surrounding the proposed site of the new DHS facility appears to be in transition from low- density residential to commercial and light industrial uses. The Sabey Corporation recently developed the Intergate Seattle East office complex immediately to the northeast of the site, as well as the Intergate Seattle West office complex on the west side of Tukwila International Boulevard. The area has excellent highway connections and is conveniently located near the Port of Seattle, Sea -Tac Airport, and downtown Seattle; these factors make the area attractive for development. The proposed DHS facility is part of this transition. Future development is likely to be constrained, however, by the limited amount of easily developed vacant land in the area. Many vacant parcels have steep slopes and/or wetlands that restrict future development. The proposed DHS facility could induce a small amount of additional development in the area by encouraging immigration- related services, such as legal or translation services, to locate nearby. Other minor induced development may include restaurants and other conveniences to serve facility staff and visitors. At present, no plans have been filed with the City of Tukwila for additional commercial or industrial development in the area surrounding the proposed DHS facility (Pace 2003 personal communications). Because the new DHS facility replaces the existing, nearby facility, operation of the new facility is not expected to result in any cumulative impacts to the larger geographic area. opt /OOAIJIMMOh.m l,L,r Ia ca.ilm April 30, 2003 Cumulative Impacts 39 Herrera Environmental Consultants z w Ce _i 0 00 co cn Lu co u_ w I t—= z � zo w 2 U o en o o1— w �v �O i ti z U C 0 z Consultation and Coordination The following agencies and organizations were contacted for information during the preparation of this environmental assessment. City of Tukwila • Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development • Deborah Ritter, Planner, Department of Community Development. Washington State Historic Preservation Office • Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D., State Archaeologist. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service • D. Robert Hohn, Regional Administrator • Matt Longenbaugh, King County Representative. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Ken S. Berg, Manager, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office • Liane Wedemeyer, Biologist. vp! RM- OI4!9.O101nr!Avila ralloc April 30, 2003 41 Herrera Environmental Consultants z a United States General Services Administration =1-: 1 ._ z w 2 iu • Paul Oresik, Project Manager 6 = _., 0 1 co 0 • Michael Levine, Regional Environmental Program Officer. o 0 4 COW W = Herrera Environmental Consultants 0 • John Meerscheidt, Senior Environmental Planner — Project manager and -- I principal author for environmental assessment I g =1 u.. co n I a • Michael Cutts, Environmental Planner — Author of Land Use and z Aesthetics sections sections LLI uj • Brynie Kaplan, Biologist — Author of Biology section. --I I i 0— D 13 0 ( 0 — 1 2 0 INCA Engineers, Inc. , P: _ _ _ i • Ming Wang, Traffic Engineer, Prepared Traffic Assessment z' • Marty Peterson, Traffic Engineer, Prepared Traffic Assessment. w (4 , o F- I • z um! /00.01419.040 Ins iilbrila enahor April 30, 2003 Preparers of the Environmental Assessment 43 Herrera Environmental Consultants .54.1aumes.44... References Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat Used by Nesting and Roosting Bald Eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 47:3323 -342. Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC (AOA). 2001. International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Wetland and Stream Delineation and Mitigation Report. Prepared for Sabey Construction, Inc. October 17, 2000. Revised April 16, 2001. Brennan- Dubbs, N. 2002. Personal communication (telephone conversation with Brynie Kaplan, Herrera Environmental Consultants). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. March 18, 2002. City of Tukwila. 2002. Tukwila's Salmon Habitat website: < http: / /www.ci.tukwila .wa.us /pubwks /pwfish.htm >. Visited on December 24, 2002. Fisher, L. 2002. Personal communication (telephone conversation with Brynie Kaplan, Herrera Environmental Consultants). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4, Biologist. December 23, 2002. Gronewald, J. 2003. Personal communication (statement during public scoping meeting). Formerly with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, now with the Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, Washington. January 8, 2003. INCA. 2003. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Building, Traffic Impact Review, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared by INCA Engineers, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. April 17, 2003. King County. 1998. Surface Water Design Manual. King County, Seattle, Washington. Lund, H. 2003. Personal communication (telephone conversation with John Meerscheidt, Herrera Environmental Consultants). Sabey Corporation, Tukwila, Washington. April 14, 2003. NOAA Fisheries. 1997. Impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and on the Coastal Ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. Appendix E. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS -NWFSC 28. Seattle, Washington. Posted at: <http: / /www.nwfsc.noaa.gov /pubs /tml/tm28 /appe.htm >. March 1997. Pace, J. 2003. Personal communication (telephone conversation with John Meerscheidt of Herrera Environmental Consultants). City of Tukwila Deputy Director of Community Planning. April 29, 2003. Partee, R. 2002. Personal communication (email to Dan Weiss and Brynie Kaplan of Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.). City of Tukwila Fisheries Biologist. December 23, 2002. u1.J HXL01419.11J0 Lu lukulln radoc April 30, 2003 45 Herrera Environmental Consultants Perteet. 2000. Traffic Study for the Proposed Intergate Corporate East Development. Prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc., Everett, Washington. August 2000. Perteet. 2003a. Parking Analysis for the Proposed INS Building, Perteet Engineering Project No. 02T39 -00. Prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc., Everett, Washington. January 31, 2003. Perteet. 2003b. Immigration and Naturalization Service Building, Tukwila, Washington, Traffic Impact Analysis. Prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc., Everett, Washington. February 4, 2003. Sabey Corporation. 2000. State Environmental Policy Act Checklist — Intergate Coporate Campus East. Tukwila, Washington. September 8, 2000. WDFW. 2002. Priority Habitats and Species Database Search Report for the Proposed Project Area. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. January 8, 2002. Herrera Environmental Consultants 46 rp4 /0(1.01419.040 Instokldln max April 30, 2003 r9 The Honorable Patty Murray United States Senate The Honorable Maria Cantwell United States Senate The Honorable James McDermott United States Representative Mr. Thomas Eaton Environmental Protection Agency, Director, Washington Operations Office Ms. Liane Wedemeyer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rp4 400I4IY41J0Matuhrla raloc April 30, 2003 Distribution List Mr. Matt Longenbaugh King County Representative NOAA Fisheries Mr. Steve Lancaster Director of Community Development City of Tukwila Deborah Ritter Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila Ian Dapiaoen Media - International Examiner 47 Herrera Environmental Consultants . tu� �?.i'•t�'w= i�::x6 "a.l'i+��+y`�d "V." izzcaz -i >ti azi 4 i r;g4 " " t 4i1,0ei:iwi:GS i czi *..• " " z z re 6 • J U: U O N w i w 0 . I. w f;— _; Z zo n • o o (/) ▪ H w w' F H LL O .z . III U m O ~: z NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 02/05/2003 16:48 p 2535890399 Immigration and Naturalization Service Building Tukwila, Washington Traffic Impact Analysis Perteet Engineering, Inc. Civil and T'-anspartation Consultanrp 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 98701 (425) 252 -7700 / FAX (425) 339 -6018 Prepared For: Sabey Corporation February 4, 2003 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 4 9. 03 PERMIT CENTER PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 02/19 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 Immigration and Naturalization Service Building Tukwila, Washington Traffic Impact Analysis r EXPIRES 4 -8- Perteet Engineering, Inc. Civil and Transportation Consultants 2707 Co by Avenue. Suite 900, Everett, WA 0$201 (425) 252 -7700 / FAX (425) 339 -6018 PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 03/19 ,y--� Prepared For: Mr. Ralph Hagler Vice President for Development Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., Fourth Floor Seattle, WA 98168 Prepared By: Sanjeev K. Tandle, RE. Perteet Engineering, Inc. 3625 Perkins Lane SW, Suite 300 Lakewood, Washington 98499 Perteet Project No_ 02T24 -00 February 4, 2003 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 APPENDICES PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 04/19 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pane INTRODUCTION 1 Project Description and Site Access 1 T.R.AFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS 1 Existing Traffic Volumes 1 Trip Generation 4 Trip Distribution /Assignment , 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 8 Level of Service Analysis 8 Site Access .Analysis 11 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 14 A. Intersection. Turning Movement Volumes B. Level of Service Calculations tt,.i ,..r`!:. , Lt%:. �r . ±�rG'; ,r _iii.,rta = <''� e• •J'u:;x;.':i:i::::..;r .C,iset i:�rc.:lh'ti4'�": .a:..sls,Aa"t., z =1- z w u6D JU 0 O. co o. u)w w = w 0. g Q z a: w z � I-0 z f--. D 0 0 I-- ww w • z — _ O H: z 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 05/19 FIGURES P e 1. Site Vicinity Map 2 2. Site Plan 3 3. Assumed Visitor Distribution Curve 5 4. Project Trip Distribution 7 5. Site Access Driveway Volumes — AM Peak Hour 9 6. Site Access Driveway Volumes — PM Peak Hour 10 TABLES P 1. Trip Generations Summary 6 2, Level of Service Surnmary 11 3. Signal Warrant Analysis 13 z • • < w : te J V • o o .0 • J cn u. w O gQ co d . z 1-- o. UJ UO 'O N' !C:11-; w w . AL-: 0: 0 • w z o - I' . z 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 INTRODUCTION This report provides an analysis of, the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) building development in Tukwila, Washington. This report addresses the trip generation and distribution, level of service conditions, site access analysis, signal warrant analysis, and mitigation requirements for the proposed development in accordance with the City of. Tukwila Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. Project Description and Site Access As per the information provided by Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation, the proposed development includes a 144,500 square foot Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) building. The project site is located along the east side of SR -99 just south of the intersection with SR-599. Figure 1. shows the site vicinity of the proposed development and the arterial street network. Access to the project site will. be provided by two new driveways to SR -99 that•'are proposed to operate for all turn. movements. The proposed north driveway is located across from the existing Intergate West south driveway and will become the east leg: of the intersection. The north driveway, to the proposed INS site, would serve for visitors parking and for 168 employee parking stalls in the garage. The south driveway would serve the loading dock, 33 INS security parking stalls, and 111 employee parking stalls in the garage and on surface. Figure 2 shows the site plan and driveway locations for the proposed INS building development. 'The project is planned for completion and occupation by the horizon year 2004. TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS Existing Traffic Volumes The latest traffic volume data along SR- 99/Pacific Highway South/Tukwila International Boulevard. at East Marginal Way, S 112 Street, S 130` Street, S 132nd Street, S 144 Street, and S 154 Street, conducted in the year 2002, were obtained from the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. Traffic volumes at the other intersections along SR- 99 at S 116 "' Street, S 152 Street, and Intergate West south access driveway, were based on the turn movement volumes reported in the original traffic study for the Intergate Corporate Center East development dated August 31, 2000. To develop existing and future traffic volumes for the Year 2004 baseline and project build out conditions, an annual compounding growth factor of 1.73 percent, consistent with other recent studies, was applied to the existing traffic count volumes to account for background traffic growth. The detailed traffic counts and a summary of the p.m. peak. hour turn movement volumes for existing conditions, future baseline conditions, and future with project conditions are shown, in Appendix A of this report. PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 06/19 z = z w o:2 00 CO 0 CO W J F- M u_ w0 L Q co = w z = ° z w 0 01— W 1-- 0 wz to 0 O I— . z 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 PERTEET ENGINEERING, INC. Clvi/ and TransportaTfan Consu /1ant6 4. Boeing Access Rd PERTEET ENGINEERING INS Building Development Site Vicinity Map Figure 1 PAGE 07/19 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 ■ PERTEET ENGINEERING. INC. CI-110W reansixtriatIon Cansullant$ PERTEET ENGINEERING INS Building Development Site Plan Figure 2 PAGE 08/19 = z -J 0 O 0 co CO W W -J CO u_ w 0 2 g Q < I a ▪ W Z 0 Z 111 w o. 0 m O I-- W w I L I 0 • U) O I- 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 Mr. Ralph Hagler February 4, 2003 Page 4 Trip Generation, PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 09/19 The current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual provides trip rates for General and Government types of offices, however, does not provide a specific trip rate for INS building land uses. The proposed INS building is expected to have daily visitors and INS departments that operate 24 hours per day (e.g. detention and deportation). Therefore, the INS building would not fall under either General Office or Government Office category given the hours and types of operations. The daily and a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips generated by the proposed INS building were estimated using the information provided by William Johnston, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Seattle District Office, Seattle, Washington. The assumptions used to establish the trip generation estimates include the following: • Th.e information provided by INS indicates that the INS building facility would experience an average of 600 public visitors per day. • The INS letter indicates that the building will have approximately 300 employees with 225 employees working during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and 75 employees working during other hours_ • The INS data indicates that 5 percent of visitors would use public transportation. • Based on the above assumptions, a total of approximately 570 visitor vehicles arrive at the INS building per day. General visitors would generate two average daily trips each (one inbound and one outbound) and employees would generate three average daily trips each. • Of these 570 visitors, 200 visitors (35 percent) have prior appointments and visit the INS office during regular business hours. The INS letter indicates that the facility does not open till 9:00 a_rn and the average length of stay for these visitors is four hours. Therefore, it is assumed that these 200 visitors access the building site at a constant rate between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. resulting in approximately 50 visitors per hour. • Approximately 370 of the 570 visitors (65 percent) visit the INS office between 9:00 a.m. and noon. However, the INS website indicates that these visitors need to obtain a ticket in order to speak with an Immigrant Information Officer, available on a first -come -first served basis in the lobby of the office. Therefore, it is assumed that the majority of these visitors arrive at the building site at a constant rate between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. resulting in approximately 123 visitors per hour. • The INS letter also indicates that the average length of stay for the visitors is four hours. Based on . an assumed normal distribution curve, it is assumed that of the 570 visitors, 8 percent stay for one hour, 10 percent for two hours and 15 percent for three hours, 34 percent for four hours, 15 percent for five hours, 10 percent for six hours, and 8 percent for seven hours. The reason for this assumption is to distribute the visitor traffic within a normal. distribution curve, as shown in Figure 3, and maintaining an average length of stay of four hours. For conservative estimates, it is also assumed that the waiting time experienced by some of the visitors before 9:00 a.m. is not included in the average four -hour waiting time. 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 • Mr. Ralph Hagler February 4, 2003 Page 5 38 33 28 23 18 13 PERTEET ENGINEERING Figure 3 Assumed Visitor Distribution Curve 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 length of stay (hrs) a • The Trip Report published for U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Seattle District Office, Seattle, Washington INS Trip Report indicates that the existing site facility operates 86 Government Operated Vehicles (GOV). Though there is no information on the operations / schedule of these GOVs, it is assumed that all these vehicles would be used once a day at the proposed location. For conservative estimates during peak hours, it is also assumed that 15 percent of these GOV vehicles leave and enter the project site during the a.m and p.m. peak hours, respectively. • It is assumed that approximately 15 of the 300 employees (5 percent) would account for daytime high occupancy vehicles (HOV) such as carpools /ridesharing or public transit users. Based on this assumption, 210 regular - shift employee vehicles will be accessing the project site every day. • There is no specific information available on INS operations at the project site during the a,m. and p.m. peak hours. Assuming that 100 percent of regular - shift employees enter and leave the building during the peak hours, 210 regular shift employee vehicles enter and leave the project site during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. • The INS letter indicates that 75 of the 300 employees are other shift employees working during non- business hours. There is no information available about the schedule for the other shift employees. For conservative trip estimates, it is assumed that 50 of the 75 other shift employees (67 percent) leave and enter the building during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Based on the above assumptions, daily and a.m and p.m. peak hour trips for the proposed INS building were estimated. Table 1 summarizes the daily and a.m and p.m. peak hour trip generation estimates developed for the proposed project. The summary indicates that PAGE 10/19 Daily Trips Visitor trips 570 visitors x 2 trips - 1,140 trips Employee trips 285 employees x 3 trips - 855 trips GOV trips 86 GOVs x 2 trips - 172 trips Total 2,167 trips AM Peak Hour Trips (8;00 to 9:00 AM) Visitor trips 124 visitors entering 124 trips Regular Shift Employee trips 210 employees entering - 210 trips Other Employee trips 50 employees leaving - 50 trips GOV trips 13 GOVs leaving - 13 trips Total 397 trips PM Peak Hour Trips (41;00 to 5:00 PM) Visitor trips 92 visitors leaving - 92 trips Regular Shift Employee trips 210 employees leaving - 210 trips Other Employee trips 50 employees entering - 50 trips GOV trips 13 GOVs entering - 13 trips Total 365 trips 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 Mr_ Ralph Hagler February 4, 2003 Page 6 Table 1 the project will generate a total. of 2,167 average daily trips (ADT) with 397 trips and 365 trips occurring during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Trip Generation Summa PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE. 11/19 Trip Distribution /Assignment The trip distribution and assignment of the traffic generated from the proposed development are based on the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) demographics within the expected market area, existing travel patterns in the project vicinity, and the primary roadway connections to the local and regional arterial system from the project site, The trip distribution indicates that approximately 25 percent of, the project - generated tra0.0 is destined south along SR -99, 30 percent north along SR -99 to northbound I -5, 25 percent south along I -5, and 20 percent north along SR-599. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution and assignment of p.m. peak hour volumes generated by the proposed INS building development. z _� 6 00 N W • I • W WO g Q = • a z F- 0 z i-- w w 0 co O — O F-. W F- --- u O .. z W U = 0 z 02/85/2003 16:48 2535890399 167 34 227 47 22 L47 �16 75 16 ©5 21 18 4 13 60 PROJECT SITE 1� g 130th 5t 3 15 6 ® 44 S 152nd St 1 ® 3 1 ® 6 60 S 116th S S 125th St Legend ® Percent Trip Distribution X X PM Peak Hour Volumes S 144th St PERTEET ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Transportation Consultants 9 2 S 154th St PERTEET ENGINEERING 15 76 Boeing Access Rd S 112th St. PAGE 12/19 /NS Building Development Project Trip Distribution Figure 4 02/05/2003 16 :48 2535890399 Mr. Ralph Hagler February 4, 2003 Page 8 The project trip volumes were also distributed between the proposed site access driveways. As per the information provided by Sabey Corporation, the proposed north access driveway will serve for all visitor parking and for 168 employee parking stalls in the garage and the south access driveway will serve for 111 employee parking stalls. Table 1 indicates that 82 visitors and 180 employees leave the project site during the p.m. peak hour. and 110 visitors and 180 employees enter the project site during the a.m. peak hour. Based on the above numbers, it is estimated that 73 percent of the project - generated traffic, access the building from the north driveway, and 27 percent access from the south driveway during the p.m. peak hour. During the a.m. peak hour, it is estimated that 75 percent of the project - generated traffic, access the building from the north driveway and 25 percent access from the south driveway. Please note these driveway distribution estimates may vary during off -peak hours as the number of visitor and employee vehicles accessing the building site varies throughout the day. Figures 5 and 6 show the year 2004 a.m.. and p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes including the project - generated trips at the proposed site access driveways, respectively. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Level of Service Analysis In accordance with the City of Tukwila's traffic impact analysis /concurrency requirements, a level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted to determine the impact of the project- generated traffic at the study intersections. The level of service is an estimate of the quality and performance of transportation facilities including signalized and unsignalized intersections. As outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, transportation facilities are rated with any value between LOS A and F, with LOS A being free flow conditions and LOS F being forced flow or over capacity conditions. The level of service analysis was conducted for the signalized intersections along SR- 99/Tukwila International Boulevard/Pacific Highway South at East Marginal. Way, S 112` Street, S 116 Street, S 130 Street, S 132 Street, S 144 Street, S 152' Street, and S 154 Street. The LOS analysis calculations utilize the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board and Synchro 5.0 support software developed by the Traffieware Corporation. The LOS analyses were conducted for the weekday p.m. peak hours under the following scenarios: Year 2003 existing conditions and. Year 2004 with and without project conditions, Table 2 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis for the p.m. peak hour conditions. The LOS calculations are attached in Appendix B. PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 13/19 z cc w QQ � JU 00 CO Lui -i_ H w gQ I w Z t- 0 Z w U O - O H W W t- ..z w U= 0 z 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 13 19 PERTEET ENGINEERING, INC. C /v11 and Transporlatlon Consu /tant& 390 49 188 11� 137 122 63 359 62 I\ 1409 21 PERTEET ENGINEERING NORTH ORIVEWA7 ' 35 0 12 SOUTH DRIVEWAY 12 4 PROJECT SITE INS Building Development Site Access Driveway Volumes AM Peak Hour Figure 5 PAGE 14/19 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 IZI PERTEET ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Tronsporlollon Consultar7ls 1359 8 34 43 J • - 165 0 63 55 25 12 671 1464 13 f/ 647 4 PERTEET ENGINEERING PROJECT SITE NORTH DRIVEWAY SOUTH DRIVEWAY 62 20 INS Building Development Site Access Driveway Volumes PM Peak Hour Fini iro fr PAGE 15/19 Z z � w 6 a: JU 00 w w = J F.. N w LL Q _ • C3 z�. I- 0 Z I- W n • p U O � •c3 F- W • H O• .. W • Z Intersection s top F Control 2003 xisting Conditions 2004 Baseline Conditions 2004 Future with Project Conditions LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay SR 99 /East Marginal Way Signal C 31.0 C 32.0 C 33.9 SR 99/S 112 Street Signal B 12.8 B 13.3 F3 13.4 SR 99/S 116 Street Signal C 21.9 C 22.9 C 23.6 SR 99/S 130 Street Signal A 7.3 A 7.5 A 7.6 SR 99/S 132" Street Signal A 3.1 A 3.2 A 3.2 SR 99/S 144 Street Signal C 24.0 C 24.1 C 24.6 . SR 99/S 152" Street Signa] D 35.8 D 37.4 D 39.0 ' SR 99/S 154 Street Signal D 46.0 D 48.5 D 48.9 SR 99/INS North Driveway Stop Signal F N/A >100 N/A F N/A >100 N/A H >100 9.0 SR 99/INS South Driveway Stop N/A N/A N/A N/A E 47.5 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 Mr. Ralph Hagler February 4, 2003 Page 11 Note: Delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. The results of the above LOS analyses for the p.m. peak hour conditions indicate that all of the study intersections, except the proposed north access driveway, operate at LOS D or better under existing year 2003 conditions and will continue to do so under year 2004 future conditions with or without project traffic. In accordance with the City of Tukwila's Concurrency Ordinance 9.48.050, a minimum LOS standard of E for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon a calculation of average LOS for Pacific Highway South corridor from S 152n Street to Boeing Access Road. The analysis of the intersections along SR 99/Pacific Highway South indicates that all the study intersections currently meet City LOS standards and will continue to do so with the proposed development. Site Access Analysis Level of Service A level of service analysis was conducted at the proposed site access driveway intersections for existing and future conditions with, and without the proposed project, based on the trip distribution estimates at the site access driveways. The results of the LOS analysis, as summarized in Table 2, indicate that the proposed north access PERTEET ENGINEERING Table 2 Level of Service Summary PAGE 16/19 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 Mr. Ralph Hagler February 4, 2003 Page 12 driveway operates at LOS F under existing 2003 and baseline conditions in year 2004. Upon signalization, the operations at this driveway intersection improve to LOS A under future conditions with project - generated traffic. The results of the LOS analysis also indicate that the south driveway to the proposed INS site operate at LOS E in the Year 2004 with project volumes. For unsignalized intersections, LOS results arc shown for the worst -case turn movement at the site access driveways, which in this case are the left- turning vehicles exiting the project site. Although the results of the LOS calculations indicate that the south driveway operates at LOS E, left- turning vehicles exiting the site should find sufficient gaps between vehicle platoons arriving and leaving the nearby- signalized intersections. Channelization Criteria Based on the methodology outlined in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Design Manual, a peak hour right turn. volume of. 40 vehicles is necessary to meet th.e minimum criteria needed for the construction of a separate right - turn lane with, peak hour right -lane approach volumes of greater than 600 vehicles per hour. A minimum of 20 peak hour right turns with peak hour right -lane approach volumes of greater, than 500 vehicles per hour are needed to meet the minimum criteria for the construction of a right turn pocket under the same conditions. Figure 5 shows that the proposed north and south access driveways are projected to experience 63 and 21 a.m. peak hour right -turn ingress movements in the right -most lane on SR -99, respectively. This indicates that the north driveway exceeds the WSDOT's criteria for a right -turn lane and the south driveway marginally exceeds the WSDOT's criteria for a right -turn pocket. Signal Warrant Analysis Signal warrants were evaluated for the intersections of SR -99 with the proposed north and south access driveways under build out year 2004 traffic conditions. The signal warrant analysis were conducted as per Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Table 3 summarizes the signal warrant analysis for both the site access driveways. For signalization warrants based on the data available for this report, only Warrant 1 (Eight -Hour Vehicular Volumes) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volumes) were reviewed. The analysis assumed that 62.5 % of the p.m. peak hour volume is equivalent to the daily eighth highest hour. The results of, the signal warrant analysis indicate that Warrant 1 would not be met under build out year 2004 traffic conditions (i.e., volumes and channelization) at the SR 99 and north access driveway intersection for Condition A. (Minimum Vehicular Volumes) but would be met for Condition. B (Interruption of Continuous Traffic). However, the SR -99 and south access driveway intersection would not meet either Condition A or B outlined in Warrant 1. • PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 17/19 I q.41:-11.. ••;,;r2f • -11 . ..P .• ,.....:...t. 500 -210 900 - 1 In r:Valx.'. . j.a ” ;5• 200 - 2 In 159 • 1 In ' 7 1. - . g ',41:::L`;1" Warrarded? ' ig 111125113. -% : ; iir:..1:4±-1 1 : . 000 - 2In 760 - 1 In f • . - • * - ' . ' . • 100 - 2 In 79 - 1 In ...,..,..„ .....L ..5 .t Warranted? ciiiiiv Agax: pip . - . .:. - - . :i ' 1500 - 2In 100 - 21n 75 -11n 6)0.'3'; Ns: ...„.. ;, , , ...i. ,... !.. :.:■1 : Warranted'? 220% 00% no 140% 135% yes 141% 220% 1 yes -.,•;..:.w....:n.w -.. r:47412 i iii, ; ;.0 ,.,,,: War .h 600 - 2 in 2 200 - 21n W Warranted? 0 0110 • 21n 1 100 - 21n W Warranted? 1 15e0 - 21n 1 100 - g In W Warranted? 500 - / In 1 1 1 150-11n 7 75o - 1 In 7 75 - 1 In 7 75 - 1 In 221% 2 26% n no 1 147% 51% n no 1 141% 62% n no Major Minor Minor Major Minor Major Minor (both) (critical) (both) (critical) (per appr) (per eppr) . •-"I":1PtiN . f 2,121 82 WB 1,326 51 2 2 if ST :I fit )- ,t'- • ..^.-. • F,f," - ... - '+:.'..1 r AVIS= I rTtii;4/ . -1 . 7,, CEiF , &■*•4 P Tr...ji: .Hotit Vail . iline:G ' 0 0:4 '4*;404 ..,..• .4. .::wt .-A,,....., '' ,k' " 1 •-..''''.'" Year Major Minor Malor Minor Mayor Minor (both) (critical) (both) (critical) (per appr) (per appr) 2,109 220 We 1,318 138 2 2 • 02/05/2003 16: 48 2535890399 Table 3 Signal Warrant Analysis wit Z.: I • Sit 106 220 • • .;243.5 111 W t NI: sit PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 18/19 Signal Warrant Analysis for the Year 7004 at the intersection of SR-99/North Access Driveway PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Signal Warrant Analysis for the Year 2004 at the intersection of SR-99/South Access Driveway PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes -Feea.04..ati.e4 - • - • ..^.-. • F,f," - ... - '+:.'..1 r AVIS= I rTtii;4/ . -1 . 7,, CEiF , &■*•4 P Tr...ji: .Hotit Vail . iline:G ' 0 0:4 '4*;404 ..,..• .4. .::wt .-A,,....., '' ,k' " 1 •-..''''.'" Year Major Minor Malor Minor Mayor Minor (both) (critical) (both) (critical) (per appr) (per appr) 2,109 220 We 1,318 138 2 2 • 02/05/2003 16: 48 2535890399 Table 3 Signal Warrant Analysis wit Z.: I • Sit 106 220 • • .;243.5 111 W t NI: sit PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 18/19 Signal Warrant Analysis for the Year 7004 at the intersection of SR-99/North Access Driveway PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Signal Warrant Analysis for the Year 2004 at the intersection of SR-99/South Access Driveway PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes -Feea.04..ati.e4 - • - • • 02/05/2003 16: 48 2535890399 Table 3 Signal Warrant Analysis wit Z.: I • Sit 106 220 • • .;243.5 111 W t NI: sit PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 18/19 Signal Warrant Analysis for the Year 7004 at the intersection of SR-99/North Access Driveway PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Signal Warrant Analysis for the Year 2004 at the intersection of SR-99/South Access Driveway PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes -Feea.04..ati.e4 - • - • 02/05/2003 16:48 2535890399 PERTEET ENGINEERING PAGE 19/19 MT. Ralph Hagler February 4, 2003 Page 14 The results of the signal warrant analysis also indicate that Warrant 3 would be met under, build out year. 2004 traffic conditions at the north access driveway intersection, but would not be met at the south access driveway intersection. The information provided by the INS indicates that 30 visitors (5 percent of 600 visitors) would use public transportation to access the building site. It is also assumed that 15 of the 300 employees (5 percent) would account for high occupancy vehicles such as carpools or public transit users. New bus stops, convenient to the INS building and the other existing land uses in the project vicinity, are proposed to be built adjacent to the INS north access driveway. Based on these assumptions, an approximate total of 50 pedestrians from, the INS land use will be using these bus zones and would be crossing SR -99 at this location. The pedestrian signal warrants would require 100 or more pedestrians for each of any four hours or 190 or more during any 1 hour and therefore pedestrian warrants are not met at the north driveway. However, as the posted speed limit in the project vicinity is 45 mph, a signal would improve the safety of these transit riders. If a signal is not provided, it will be important to provide adequate street lighting and a refuge island area. Based on the above signal warrant analysis, Warrants 1 and 3 would be met 'at the intersection of SR -99 and north access driveway. Therefore, this driveway intersection is considered as warranted for signal installation under, project build out conditions, to improve traffic flow and safety. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Tukwila's Conourrency Ordinance requires a proportionate share mitigation contribution to the City when project - generated trips added to the future traffic volumes cause an intersection to deteriorate below the City's LOS standard, which is LOS E. The results of the level of service analysis (LOS) under future project build out conditions indicated that all study intersections would operate at LOS D or better with the proposed project. Therefore, the project traffic would not deteriorate any of the study intersections below the City's LOS standard and no mitigation is required at the study intersections for the proposed INS building. 01/21/03 TUE 11:38 FAX 206 2 Sabey Corporation 2012 Queue length Analysis: • Based on the old site. plan for the proposed INS building, the distance between the proposed north driveway and the existing south driveway for Intergate West building is 300. feet. • Queue length calculations are conducted based on year 2004 a.m peak hour project build out conditions at these driveways. • Existing South driveway. for Intergate West building: o Queue length analysis indicates that the queue length for the northbound left approach at this driveway is approximately 100 feet. o WSDOT's design manual recommends a taper rate of 1:4. to 1:15 to increase the number of lanes. Assuming a 1:6. taper rate, approximately 75 foot taper is needed. o Approximately 175 foot left turn lane including taper is needed for the northbound left approach. • Proposed north. driveway. for INS building:. o Queue length analysis indicates that the queue length for the southbound left approach at this driveway is approximately 125. feet. o Assuming a 1:6 taper rate, approximately 75 foot taper is needed. o Approximately 200 foot left turn lane including taper is needed for the southbound left approach. • .A total of 375 foot minimum spacing is needed between these two driveways and therefore. the available spacing of 300 feet between the two driveways is not adequate for normal traffic operations. Existing Intergate south driveway Legend: Existing Intergate south driveway queue length Proposed INS north driveway queue length SR -99 TEN 300. feet Proposed INS. north driveway , C4 ii ANNIVERSARY 1983.2003 U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Building Traffic Impact Review Tukwila, Washington Prepared For: Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Prepared By: INCA Engineers, Inc. 400 112 Ave NE Suite 400 Bellevue, Washington 98004 April 17, 2003 Table of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map 3 Table of Contents DRAFT MEMORANDUM 1 Project Background 2 Traffic Impact Study Scope 2 Level of Service of Evaluated Intersections 4 Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment 6 Safety Conditions 7 Transit Service . 9 Pedestrian Safety 10 Stopping Sight Distance 10 Entering Sight Distance 11 Signal Warrant Analysis 13 Conclusions and Mitigation 14 Table of Tables Table 1 AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary ....5 Table 2 PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary .5 Table 3 Trip Generation Comparison f .6 Table 4 Accident Severity (Jan. 01, 1999 to Dec. 31, 2001 .7 Table 5 Accident Type Along SR 99 (MP 21.00 to MP 22.50) 8 Table 6 Accident Type Along SR 99 (MP 22.50 to MP 22.80) 9 Z re LAI 0 00 to (O w u_ u j 0 g u.. < co a a I._ Li.' z • 0 z LU uj 2 a 0, 1- tU 0 1-+ U. I - Z' w V) 1 0 • z MEMORANDUM TO: John Meersheidt FROM: Ming Wang/Marty Peterson DATE: April 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Review for the Proposed Immigration and Naturalization Service Building This memorandum prepared by INCA Engineers, Inc. for Herrera Environmental Consultants summarizes our findings for the revised land use of the proposed Intergate Corporate Center East (ICCE) development in Tukwila, Washington. This memorandum includes a discussion on each of the categories listed below: • Project Background • Traffic Impact Study Scope • LOS of Evaluated Intersections • Trip Generation • . Safety Conditions • Transit .Service • Pedestrian Safety • Sight Distance (Stopping and Entering) • Signal Warrant Analysis • Conclusions and Mitigation As you will recall, the major portion of our work included the examination and review of the previously prepared traffic study information for both the ICCE and INS Buildings. The information presented in this memorandum will require coordination with both the City of Tukwila and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). L:\2002 \02- 084\ TRANS \Correspondence\mem INS TIR.doc 1 • East Marginal Way & Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) • South 112 Street & Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) • South 116` Street & Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) • INS Bldg. Driveway Access & Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) • South 130 Street & Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) • South 132 ' Street & Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) South 144 Street & Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) • South 152 " Street & Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) • South 154 Street & Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) • SR 518 EB On -Ramp and Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) lists SR 99 in the vicinity of the proposed INS Building site as a principal arterial (Functional Class 1) roadway. SR 99 is currently a five lane arterial, with a two -way left-turn lane in the center, two northbound and two southbound general - purpose lanes. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. I Traffic Study for the Proposed Intergate Corporate Center East Development by Perteet Engineering, Aug. 2000 L• 1200: 10=- 0841TRANS\Correspondencelmcm INS TIR.doc 2 Project Background A 144,500 square foot U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) building will replace the originally proposed Intergate Corporate Center East (ICCE) Buildings 7, 8, and 9 Project. Z The INS Building will be built on a site that occupies approximately 14 acres. The new project will be located on the east side of Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) between South 126` and 1— z South 129` Streets (see Vicinity Map Figure 1 on the following page). Ce Lii JU The INS building will be built on the southern portion of the parcel and two driveways from the w 0 proposed project site will provide access to /from SR 99. The north driveway will be used for = visitors and employees and the south driveway will be used for deliveries and employees entering and exiting the INS Building. The project is planned for completion and occupation by w 0 the horizon year 2004. 2 J u. The original traffic study' that was prepared for the ICCE development addressed the trip w a generation, traffic distribution, level -of- service (LOS), and mitigation requirements identified by I w the City of Tukwila Concurrency guidelines. The ICCE development included an estimated z i_ 450,000 square feet of general office floor area, which was planned for completion and z O occupation in 2003. A single driveway was to provide access to /from the site to SR 99. Iii ? . U� Traffic Impact Study Scope 0 D Originally a total of ten intersections, including a proposed site access driveway, were selected o w along SR 99 that would be affected by additional traffic trips generated by the ICCE Buildings 7, ' ` F =„ v 8, and 9 development. The intersections were selected based on known traffic volumes and area 1 -f- 0 iz traffic distribution patterns. z tii U = These intersections and the adjacent roadway system would also be affected by additional traffic • , 0 1 ' trips generated by the proposed INS Building. The selected intersections' include the following: Z ..■ INCA ENGINEERS INC. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION (INS) BUILDING VICINITY MAP FIGURE: 1.0 < . it— 6 c.) 0 u) 0 U) UJ WI -J A LL ill 0 g u_ I z 1— 0 z u j n 0 • co O — • I— W W • 0 F- F- L I 0 Z Lid co 0 Level of Service of Evaluated Intersections Level of Service (LOS) is a term used within the transportation discipline to describe the vehicular operating conditions at intersections, freeway ramp junctions, or along roadway segments. The level of service is described by a letter designation from "A" through "F'. The highest or best is LOS A which indicates little or no traffic congestion, while LOS F indicates extremely congested traffic flow conditions. The LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections is determined by the amount of delay (seconds per vehicle) experienced at the intersection. The delay (sec /veh) experienced by a driver at a signalized intersection can be used as a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. Delay at an intersection is the result of a number of factors related to traffic control, roadway geometries, traffic volumes, and accidents or incidents. Total delay is the difference between travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during ideal conditions in the absence of traffic control, in the absence of geometric delay, and in the absence of any accidents or incidents, and whether or not there are other vehicles on the road. The delay at a stop - controlled intersection (e.g. driveway) is measured as the average time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. The level of service is determined from the length of the average delay experienced at the intersection during the peak hour. LOS A indicates short average delays associated with very short queues, while LOS F indicates very long average delays associated with long queues. It should be noted that equal LOS values at different locations do not necessarily indicate equal overall performance of intersections. One location may experience a higher degree of delay for a considerable period of the day, while at another the peak period is of short duration. In addition, a poor LOS where delay is longer may be more tolerable to drivers at a low- volume intersection than at high- volume intersection. Capacity analysis for any stop sign controlled approach (e.g. an access driveway) is based on the assumption that the minor street movements do not affect the major street traffic. Only opposing major street traffic flow influences left turns from the major streets onto the minor streets. The calculated LOS for stop sign controlled intersections are for traffic movements on the minor street and left -turn movements on the major street. It is somewhat typical for driveways fronting arterial roadways to operate at LOS E with very low volumes. Therefore, a LOS D or LOS E at driveways should not carry as much significance as a LOS D or LOS E at a signalized intersection. In accordance with the City of Tukwila's Concurrency Ordinance 1769 (Section 9.48.050 -LOS Standards for Specific Locations, Part C.), "A minimum LOS standard of E for traffic capacity shall be maintained, based upon calculation of LOS for individual intersections and corridor segments for all other minor, collector, and principal arterials principally serving commercially zoned property." LA2002 102 -064 \TRANS1Correspondencelmcm 1N5 TIR doc 4 9. 5,: � Yy W " �9b�. �Mrv�ryw.:.i All of the intersections listed were analyzed as principal arterial intersections. M/) sia Location 2000 Existing Conditions 2003 Baseline Conditions 2003 Conditions w/ Project LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay East Marginal Way D 51 E 56 E 57 S. 112 Street D 41 D 52 D 53 S. 116 Street C 24 C 28 C 35 ICCE Access C 24 C 28 C 35 W/ Signal Improvements NM NM N/A NM C 24 S. 130 Street B 12 B 13 B 16 S. 132 " Street B 11 B 12 B 17 S. 144 Street C 30 C 34 D 40 S. 152 " Street C 33 D 37 D 40 S. 154 Street D 47 D 54 E 56 SR 518 EB On -Ramp A 7 A 7 A 7 Location 2000 Existing Conditions 2003 Baseline Conditions 2003 Conditions w/ Project LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay East Marginal Way D 38 D 39 D 39 S. 112 Street B 17 C 20 C 20 S. 116 Street C 20 C 23 C 23 ICCE Access C 18 C 19 F >50 W/ Signal Improvements N/A NM NM NM C 29 S. 130 Street A 9 A 9 B 11 S. 132 " Street B 11 B 12 B 14 S. 144 Street C 23 C 23 C 23 S. 152" Street C 29 C 31 C 33 S. 154 Street C 32 C 33 D 35 SR 518 EB On -Ramp A 10 B 10 B 11 The ten intersections selected for study were evaluated under three scenarios. Analyses were conducted at each of the intersections for year 2000 existing conditions and 2003 horizon year conditions with and without the ICCE development during the AM and PM Peak hours. The LOS results from the original traffic stud? are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 for the AM and PM Peak hour. Table 1 - AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summar Table 2 - PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summar Summarizing the results of the LOS analyses for both the AM and PM. Peak hours, almost all of the evaluated intersections operated at LOS E or better and would continue to operate at LOS E (or better) with the proposed ICCE development. The only intersection that did not satisfy the City of Tukwila's concurrency ordinance LOS E was the ICCE driveway access to SR 99. It was determined that the driveway would operate at LOS F during the AM Peak hour but operations could improve to LOS C with the addition of a traffic signal. 2 Traffic Study for the Proposed Intergate Corporate Center East Development by Perteet Engineering, Aug. 2000 L\ 200 2 \02- 0841TRANS \Cortapondrncc \mem INS T1R.doc 5 Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment The construction of the proposed INS Building will generate additional traffic on the adjacent roadway system. The overall impact this additional traffic creates in the area is dependent upon two factors: 1) Trip Generation, or the number of new trips generated by the proposed INS Building. 2) Trip Assignment, or the specific route these new trips will take. Trip generation is usually determined by identifying the type of land use being developed and the respective size of the land. Trip generation statistics for various land uses are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 6th Edition, 1997. The total number of trips can be extracted by using regression equations provided in the ITE Trip Generation manual. However, the ITE Trip Generation manual does not provide specific trip rates for INS Building land uses. The ITE manual does provide trip rates for General and Government offices but the proposed INS building is expected to have daily visitors and departments that operate 24 hours per day (e.g. deportation and detention). The daily and AM and PM peak hour trips generated by the INS Building were developed by Perteet Engineering using the employee and operations information provided in the Trip Report published for U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Seattle District Office, Seattle, Washington. Table 3 summarizes trip ends (trips in and out) generation rates between the proposed INS Building development and the ICCE Buildings 7, 8, and 9 development. Table 3 - Trip Generation Comparison INS Building ICCE Buildings 7,8, and 9 Office Area (sq. ft) 144,500 450,000 Source Document 1* 2* Average Daily Trips Ends 2167 4213 AM Peak Hour Trips Ends 397 618 AM Peak Hour Percent Difference 35.7% fewer than ICCE PM Peak Hour Trips Ends 365 584 PM Peak Hour Percent Difference 37.5% fewer than ICCE 1* Immigration and Naturalization Service Building, Tukwila Washington Traffic Impact Analysis by Perteet Engineering, February 2003. 2* Traffic Study for the Proposed Intergate Corporate Center East Development by Perteet Engineering, Aug. 2000. The comparison shows that the INS Building is expected to generate approximately 2167 average daily trip ends, which is less than the average daily trip ends that were estimated for the ICCE development. These daily trips represent the total number of trips, in and out of the complex. Because the INS Building is expected to generate fewer AM and PM Peak hour trips, one can conclude that all evaluated intersections could be expected to operate at or better than the City of Tukwila's concurrency standard of LOS E. L:\ 200= `.02- 084\TRANS \Cartespondcnce \mcm NS TIR.doc 6 Evaluated Location Accident Total Property Damage Only Injury Fatality Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total SR 99 (S. 146 St. to north of S. 130 St) .,,,,..7.,10.:::41-;':i! 63 50.4% 60 48.0% 2 1.6% SR 99 (north of S. 130th St to SR 599 On -ramp) (1 <; ;,;:; ; gin..' ' ::: 7 43.7% 9 • 56.3% 0 0% Safety Conditions SR 99 Accident Review Historical accident data for SR 99 in the vicinity of the proposed INS Building was collected and evaluated for the purpose of identifying potential safety problems that might exist along the roadway corridor. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) provided a history of all reported accidents on SR 99 (MP 21.00 to MP 22.5) from approximately South 146 Street to just north of South 130 Street. This accident data was collected over a three year time period from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001. For the same three year period, additional accident information along SR 99 was provided by WSDOT extending from the area just north of South 130 Street, to just south of the on -ramp to SR 599 (MP 22.5 to MP 22.8). The proposed INS Building site is located along SR 99 at approximately MP 22.4. Table 4 below summarizes the accident data by severity for each evaluated location According to the accident data, approximately 50% of the accidents at the evaluated locations resulted in property damage only, and 48% of the accidents resulted in injuries. During the study period, there were 2 fatalities that occurred which account for the remaining 2% of accidents. Both of the fatalities were a result of vehicles hitting pedestrians. The first fatality occurred on February 1, 2000 at approximately 8:30 p.m. The accident report indicates that the weather conditions at the time of the accident were wet and rainy. The second fatality occurred about a year later on February 17, 2001 at approximately 2:20 p.m. The accident report states that the weather conditions were clear at the time of the accident, however ice was present on the roadway. High Accident Corridors and High Accident Locations Every two years, WSDOT implements its High Accident Corridor (HAC) and High Accident Location (HAL) Program. The program is intended to identify sections of highways or locations within the highway system, which have a higher than average number of severe accidents over a period of time. Sections of highways and spot locations are rated by the assignment of "severity points" or a severity rate per million vehicles. Severity points are assigned as follows: 10 points per fatal accident, 9 points per disabling injury accident, 3 points per injury accident, 2 points per possible injury accident and 1 point per property damage only accident. After a series of statistical analysis, if a location's severity rate exceeds the average severity rate for that roadway category by a significant margin, then that location is identified as a HAC or HAL and is designated for L: 12002% 02- O84 \TRANS\Correspondencc1mem_INS TIR.doc able 4 - Accident Severity (Jan. 01, 1999 to Dec. 31, 2001 7 a, _ _J Accident Type Total number of accidents Percentage of Total Enter at Angle • 39 31.2% Rear -end Same Direction 28 22.4% Sideswipe Same Direction 15 12.0% Driveway Leaving 11 8.8% Left -turn Opposite Direction 10 8.0% Vehicle Hit Pedestrian 8 6.4% Driveway Entering 6 4.8% Vehicle Hits Fixed Object 5 4.0% Overturn 2 1.6% Right -turn Same Direction • 1 0.8% Sum '`oLTTotalMi-n:'; = Y:: '1. - i `;125 a .. , - `10(f* further study, including possible safety improvements. Each of the six WSDOT regions throughout the state, receives a list of HAC's and HAL's within their jurisdiction. These HAC's and HAL's are assigned a societal cost dollar amount. This amount reflects the estimated cost to society on a per -year basis for the reported accidents at that location. These same societal cost z factors are used when performing benefit/cost analysis for proposed improvements at specific ' °` = I- locations. The benefit is based on the societal cost of those accidents that will be reduced or eliminated by 0 the improvement. This cost is based on the construction costs of the project. The benefit /cost N w ratio is amortized over the life of the project so that comparisons can be made among several - = proposals on the same basis. W - u) w w The WSDOT identified a HAC on SR 99 between milepost 19.50 and milepost 24.00 in the year 2 0 2000. They also identified several HALs within the HAC. Any additional traffic trips that are u co generated by the proposed INS Building will pass through the HALs and HAC and will have a I a significant impact on traffic on SR 99. Information obtained from WSDOT in 2002 also _ Z identifies SR 99 between milepost 21.00 and milepost 22.5 as a HAC. �- I— O z t— Table 5 below summarizes the types of accidents that occurred along SR 99 between the dates of 2 Jan. 1, 1999 to Dec. 31, 2001 from the vicinity of South 146 Street to just north of South 130 v N uj Street (MP 21.00 to MP 22.5). o I w w u. 0 I— �Z U 2 O ~ Z According to the accident data provided, the predominant accident type along this segment of SR 99 was Enter at Angle (31.2 %) followed by Rear -end Same Direction (22.4 %). Enter at Angle accidents typically occur at the intersections of the cross streets and SR 99. The probable causes of these accidents can vary but may be a result of the following factors below: • Large turning volumes • Excessive speeds • Restrictive sight distance • Crossing pedestrians • Drivers following too closely L: X20021 02- 06a1TRANS',Correspondence\mem INS TIR.doc Table 5 - Accident Type along SR 99 (MP 21.00 to MP 22.50) . 8 • Accident Type . Total number. of accidents Percentage of Total Rear -end Same Direction 5 31.2% Opposite Direction • 3 18.7% Vehicle Hits Fixed Object 2 12.9% Driveway Leaving 1 6.2% Driveway Entering 1 6.2% Head -on Opposite Direction 1 6.2% Sideswipe Same Direction 1 6.2% Overturn 1 6.2% Same Direction 1 6.2% Sum - of:TotW=,ai`'=yjri' W141461 .r >:;: -x:100.% = - .. . Table 6 below summarizes the types of accidents that occurred along SR 99 between the dates of Jan. 1, 1999 to Dec. 31, 2001. The accidents listed extend from the vicinity of just north of South 130 Street to the SR 599 On Ramp (MP 22.50 to MP 22.80). Table 6 - Accident Type alone SR 99 (MP 22.50 to MP 22.80 According to the accident data provided, the predominant type of accident along this segment of SR 99 was Rear -End accidents (31.2 %). Transit Service King County Metro provides public transportation services along SR 99 in the vicinity of the proposed INS Building site. Currently there is one transit route (Route 174) that stops near the INS Building site. Route 174 runs north and south along Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) at 20 to 30 minute headways during the weekdays and weekends. The route extends from the South Federal Way Park and Ride northward to Star Lake,'Midway, Des Moines, Sea -Tac Airport, Burien, White Center and downtown Seattle. King County Metro and Pierce Transit are working together to improve bus service in Federal Way and northeast Tacoma. The changes that they are investigating would improve service by reducing duplication of some routes, increase the use of the Twin Lakes park- and -ride, provide new transit service and improve the hours of operation and trip frequency on other routes and introduce new inter - county connections between Federal Way and northeast Tacoma. Specifically, service on Route 174 would be changed so that all evening and night trips would start and end at the Federal Way Transit Center. According to King County Metro, due to very low ridership Route 174 would no longer operate between the Federal Way Transit Center and the South Federal Way park- and -ride via Pacific Highway South, South 336 Street and 9th Avenue South, after 8:30 p.m. on weekdays and after 6:30 p.m. on weekends. The bus stop facilities in the vicinity of the INS Building site are currently sub standard. Along both the east and west sides of Tukwila International Blvd, there are no shelters, benches or adequate pedestrian load/unload areas for bus patrons. The route signs indicate the stops are wheelchair accessible however field reviews would suggest otherwise. The bus stop locations consist of only a post and sign. There are no sidewalk facilities and drainage around the bus stop does not function adequately. See photo below: L:\2002102.08ATRANSTorrespondencemem_INS_TIR.doc 9 Facing north along Tukwila Inter Blvd (SR 99) 'Pedestrian Safety Currently there is an absence of adequate pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the proposed INS Building site. There are no sidewalks on either the east or west sides of Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99). There are wide shoulders along the east and west sides of the roadway but no separation exists bdtween traffic traveling along SR 99 and pedestrians that might be walking along the sides of the road. Other pedestrian safety concerns include lack of a safe crossing area in the vicinity of the proposed INS Building site. Pedestrians or bus patrons that are dropped off on the west side of SR 99 have no way to safely cross over to the east side of the roadway. Those pedestrians that want to cross have to cross five lanes of traffic traveling at or above 45 mph to do so. The closest signalized intersection with adequate crosswalks and curb ramps is the intersection of SR 99 and South 130 Street. This intersection is more than 1000 feet south of the proposed project site. Also, as discussed in this memorandum, a number of the accidents that occurred over the three -year study period included vehicles hitting pedestrians along the roadway corridor. Two of these vehicle /ped accidents resulted in pedestrian fatalities. Stopping Sight Distance The vertical and horizontal alignments of Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) in the vicinity of the INS Building site effect a driver's ability to safely maneuver along the highway. A motorist's ability to see ahead important in the safe and efficient operation of a vehicle on a highway. Sight distance is the length of roadway ahead that is visible to the motorist traveling at the design speed limit. The available sight distance should be sufficiently long enough to enable L\2002\02.0841TRANS \Correspondence \mcm_INS TIR. 10 Y 4 r i LMI z Q• = z tr � JU 0 cn fn J H U) LL 0 II U O N O I— W W 1 1 - :O w z U = O~ z a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed limit to be able to safely stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. Stopping Sight distance requirements are presented in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Exhibit.3-2 entitled Stopping Sight Distance on Grades, requires that a facility with a design speed of 55 mph (45 mph posted speed) and a 3% downgrade has a stopping sight distance of 520'. Entering Sight Distance As a motorist approaches the main roadway from a minor roadway (such as a driveway from the INS Building) they need an unobstructed view of the entire intersection and sufficient lengths along the intersecting highway to permit the driver to anticipate and avoid potential collisions. A drivers site line along the intersection approach legs should be clear of obstructions that might block a driver's view of potentially conflicting oncoming vehicles. Entering sight distance requirements for a vehicle waiting to turn left from a stop are presented in the AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Exhibit 9- 55 entitled Design Intersection Sight Distance (Case B1) Left Turn From Stop, lists a required - sight distance of 610' for a design speed of 55 mph (45 mph posted speed). The sight distance value is for a stopped passenger car tuming left onto a two -lane highway with no median. For a situation like the INS Building site, the entering sight distance would need to be closer to 800' to account for a vehicles wanting to turn.left from the driveway and crossing two -lanes of oncoming traffic (based on the AASHTO formula ISD =1.47V where ISD= intersection sight distance (ft), Vmajor= design speed of major road (mph) and t gap for.minor road vehicles to enter the major road (sec)). Field Review of'the INS Building Site The entering sight distance was measured near the proposed intersection of the INS Employee Parking Lot driveway and Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99). Field measurements were taken from the approximate driveway location and measured toward the south. The sight distance available was only 380' whereafter the roadway sight distance became obstructed by guardrail and vegetation. A photo taken from the approximate location of the INS Employee Parking Lot driveway and facing south down Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) is shown in the photo on the next page. 3 American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001 'American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Desien of Highways and Streets, 2001 LA2 002 \02. 0841 TRANS \Correspondence \mem IN5 TIR.doc 11 L:\2 002102.084 TRANS\Correspondencc\mem_1N5 TIR.doc Facing south along Tukwila International Blvd at INS Building site The measured entering sight distance does not meet the requirements set forth in AASHTO for a four -lane highway with a two -way left -turn lane and posted speed limit of 45 mph. An attempted left -turn maneuver from this location will likely increase the number of accidents that occur along Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99). The entering sight distance from the INS Employee Parking Lot driveway was also examined facing north along Tukwila International Blvd. The photo below shows that towards the north, there is adequate visibility. Facing north along Tukwila International Blvd at INS Building site 12 w.m Signal Warrant Analysis A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of SR 99 with the proposed INS Employee Parking Lot Driveway per Section 4C of the Manual 'of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The following is a summary of the warrants, used for the intersection analysis. Z re 2 Warrant #1 (Condition A); Minimum Vehicular Volume This condition applies where the traffic volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for .j o consideration of signal installation. The warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes exceed 600 vehicles co 0 per hour (vph) in both directions on the major street and 200 vph in one direction on the minor street for co w each of any eight hours of an average day. w Warrant #1 (Condition B); Interruption of Continuous Traffic w 0 This condition applies where the traffic volume on the major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. The warrant is g satisfied when the volumes exceed 900 vph in both directions on the major street and 100 vph in one direction on the minor street for each of any eight hours of an average day. = d E- W Warrant #3; Peak Hour (for populations greater that 10,000) ? This warrant applies to conditions where the traffic volumes on the minor street suffers undue delay when Z 0 0. entering or crossing the major street for a minimum of one hour of an average day. �0 The signal warrant analyses conducted for Warrant #1 (Conditions A and B) was based on 0 N , WSDOT signal warrant methodology, which includes the assumption that 62.5 percent of the ° 1 PM Peak hour volume would.occur as the eighth highest hour.. 0 The signal warrants analysis determined that the MUTCD criteria for Warrant 1 (Condition A) u. Z was not met however the criteria for Warrant 1 (Condition B) was met under the expected traffic v i conditions for the INS Building. Criteria for Warrant # 3 is Peak Hour is also met under the 0 /- expected traffic conditions. . Z Therefore, it is recommended that the intersection be signalized concurrent with the proposed development. L:\ 2002102 .084VTILWS \Cortespondence \mem INS_TIILdoc 13 w;oi "va..vl'l Yci , C;,,gi•> ry ; 4 . i Conclusions and Mitigation The conclusions of this traffic impact review for the proposed INS Building site are summarized below: • We recommend the employee parking lot driveway be relocated in order to increase the entering site distances needed to meet AASHTO requirements for a facility with a LV2 00TA2 .0BRTRANSTorrespondencelmem INS TIR.doc 14 z • As stated in the previous traffic analysis prepared by Perteet Engineering Inc., we . w concur that the proposed construction of the INS Building will generate approximately 397 AM Peak hour trips and approximately 365 PM Peak hour trips. . o These values are somewhat conservative in that no reduction factor was used to co o account for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) use such as public transit or carpools. It w is almost certain that a percentage of individuals arriving and departing the INS 1." J E ' U) u. Building site would be using other forms of transportation thereby reducing the w o overall number of traffic trips generated in the vicinity of the site. 2 LL Q • A stated in the previous traffic analysis prepared by Perteet Engineering Inc., we w a concur with the results of the LOS analysis in that the study intersections will operate w. at LOS E or better which satisfies the City of Tukwila's Concurrency Ordinance. The z'— project traffic will not deteriorate any of the study intersections below the City's LOS z O standard. w LLJ • We recommend that pedestrian improvements be made on both the east and west o sides of Tukwila International Blvd in the vicinity of the proposed INS Building. w w . w U Improvements should include the, construction of facilities that provide a safe place L-1-. ~ o and convenient path for pedestrians that effectively separates them from vehicular i . z traffic. Street lighting along the corridor should also be evaluated in order to ensure U there is adequate lighting for pedestrians. Improvements also need to include a z 1 pedestrian crossing device such as a pedestrian traffic signal or a pedestrian structure built over Tukwila International Blvd. A structure would enable pedestrians to safely cross from the west side of the street to the east side of the street without impeding northbound and southbound vehicular traffic. The location of the pedestrian crossing traffic signal (or structure) must be easily accessible to individuals with special needs and the construction must be ADA compliant. Improved signage warning drivers of the presence of pedestrian should be installed. • We recommend improvements be made at the existing bus stops. Bus shelters with adequate lighting should be constructed on both sides of Tukwila International Blvd in the vicinity of the INS Building. Other improvements should include the construction of bus pullout areas for buses traveling northbound and southbound along the corridor. These pullout areas would improve the safety of the roadway by removing the buses out of the traffic stream during loading and unloading operations. This would also improve the safety for the bus patrons as they wait to load and unload. The bus shelters need to be constructed close to the pedestrian crossing device or structure for easy use and ADA accessibility. A traffic signal installed further north of the INS Building site across from the constructed Intergate Corporate Center West could effectively serve both office building complexes as a single intersection. The installation of a traffic signal would increase the safety of traffic operations along the SR 99 corridor by; posted speed limit of 45 mph. Drivers entering the roadway from the driveway have an obstructed view of the oncoming northbound traffic. Field measurement indicates there is only about 400' of visibility to the south. This situation is especially dangerous for drivers wanting to make a left -turn from the driveway to merge into southbound traffic on Tukwila International Blvd. There are a number of options to mitigate this condition: They include the following: 1. Lower the speed limit along Tukwila International Blvd (SR 99) 2. Clearing the vegetation away from the roadway in the area southeast of the INS Building site. 3. Improve high visibility signing with flashing yellow beacons that warns northbound traffic of hidden driveways. 4. Restrict left -turns from the Employee Parking Lot Driveway. * We highly recommend the installation of a traffic signal and the development of a single access driveway into the INS Building. This driveway would be used for visitors, guests and employee's entering/exiting the building. The driveway should be able to accommodate vehicles turning into the facility and left and right turn vehicles exiting the facility. 1. Providing pedestrians a safe crossing area at the signal. 2. Provide a convenient pedestrian crossing area for bus patrons. 3. Allow the safe and protected movement of left and right turns into /out of the INS Building especially in this area characterized by a large number of accidents. 4. Effectively combining the operation of three separate "T - intersection" driveways in which the distances are offset from each other, into a single signalized intersection that services all driveways. 5. Increased lighting levels and enhanced security in the vicinity of the INS Building. L12002102.08a\ TRANS \Cortespondence\mem INS TIR.doc 15 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. In Reply Refer To: 1- 3 -03 -1 -0914 Mr. Jon Kvistad General Services Administration 400 15th Street, NW Auburn, Washington 98001 -6599 Dear Mr. Kvistad: United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 Phone: (360) 753 -9440 Fax: (360) 534 -9331 • This is in response to your letter dated March 5, 2003, and enclosed Biological Assessment (BA). The letter and BA for the Immigration and Naturalization Service building in King County, Washington, were received in our office on March 7, 2003. Your letter requests our concurrence with your finding that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). This request is being submitted in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We concur with your determinations. This concurrence is based on information provided in the BA and implementation of conservation measures described in the BA. This concludes informal consultation pursuant to the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 402.10 and 402.13). This project should be reanalyzed if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner, or to an extent, not considered in this consultation. The project should also be reanalyzed if the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to a listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this consultation, and/or a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this project. If you have any questions, contact Liam Wedemeyer at (360)753 -9536. cc: Herrera, Seattle (Meerscheidt) Sincerely, APR 012003 Ken S. Berg, Manager Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office MAR -21 -03 FRI 11:12 AM Jon Kvlstad Regional Administrator U.S. General Services Administration 400 15th Street, SW Auburn, Wahington 980016599 S ‘111 e t • r ,4 1[3 Of Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation and Magnuson - Stevens Fishery C'onservaticlu anti NI:A agentent Aet Essential Fish .1-Na1Jitat Co n uitadon for the Inrniigration and Naturalization Service Seattle District Office Project Biological Assessment (NMFS No. 2003/00220) (WRIA 9). Dear Mr. Kvistad: This correspondence is in response to your request for consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Additionally, this letter serves to meet the requirements for consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management .Act (MSA). Endangered Species Act The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMI ?S) has reviewed the above - referenced Biological Assessment (BA) received March 7, 2003. According to the BA submitted by U.S General Services Administration (GSA) , the GSA proposes to award a lease that would lead to the development of an Immigration and Naturaiization Service (INS) facility near the West Pork of Riverton Creek in Tukwila, King County, Washington. The proposed action would lead to the construction of an 137,500 square foot office building and a parking lot for iNS staff and clients. The proposed project would also include the construction ofstormwater detention facilities to treat Stormwater runoff from the site. The project will add approximately 8,8 acres of new impervious in the headwaters of Riverton Creek. Puget Sound (PS) cliinook (Oneorhynchta fshawytschn), which is listed as threatened under the ESA, are present in the I)uwamish Bstuaiy approximately one mile dcnvnstrcam of the project site. NMFS understands that the GSA will be making an award to lease the office space for the INS, GSA awarding of Lite lease for this project creates the Federal nexus, which is the basis for this consultation. FAX NO, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF National Oceanic and Atmospheric NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Northwest Region 7000 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg, 1 Seattle, WA 98115 March 14, 2003 P. 02 C M QE Alsip MA 19, 2003 r se . !CPO 42,4 .4 ,M. z 1 Z cc w 6 U O 0 U) 0 1.11 1- Q w 2 LLa CO ci ▪ w Z 1.0 Z 1— w 2 o. 0 O 2 O E- w 2 1- w z U � H 2 O I z MAR -21 -03 FRI 11:13 AN . .• -2- FAX NO, The 'Project proponent identifies several conservation measures that will avoid and minimize the potenlia1 effects of the project. These include: • Implementation of a temporary sedimentation and erosion control plan during construction. • Implementation of a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan during construction. • All conveyance, detention, and water duality systems will be sized per the King County Surface Water Design Manual (1998), Level 2. Since the proposed action has incorporated avoidance and minimization measures into this pre. ject, NMFS expects the effects of the action to be discountable or insignificant. Therefore, NM FS concurs with your determination that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" PS chin ook salmon. This concludes informal consultation on these actions in accordance with 50 CFR. 402.14(b)(1). GSA must re- analyze this ESA consultation: (1) if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species in a way not previously considered; (2) if the action is modified in a illarnner that causes an effect to the listed species that was not previously considered; or (3) if a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified actions. Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Nianagemrrent Act Federal agencies are required, under §305(b)(2) of the MSA and its implementing regulations (50 CIVR 600 Subpart K), to consult with NMFS regarding actions that are authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The MSA ( §3) defines EFII as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity," If an action would adversely affect F.,FH, NMFS is required to provide the Federal action agency with EFII conservation recommendations (MSA §305(b)(4)(A)). This consultation is based, in part, on information provided by the Federal action agency and descriptions of 13F11 for Pacific salmon contained in Appendix A to Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Pla (August 1999) developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce (September 27, 2000). The proposed action and action area are described in Section 2 of the biological assessment The project area includes habitat which has been designated as EFII for various life stages of chinook and coho (O. kisutc.h) salmon. Because the habitat requirements (Le., BM) for the MSA - managed species in the action area arc similar to that of the BSA- listed species, and because the conservation measures that GSA included as part of the proposed action to address ESA concerns are also adequate to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated 13FIi, conservation recommendations pursuant to MSA ( §305(b)(4)(A)) are not necessary. P. 03 MAR -21 -03 FRI 11:13 AM FAX NO, - 3 Silk° NMFS is not providing conservation recommendations at this time, no 30 -day response from the GSA is required (MSA §305(b)(4)(B)). • This concludes consultation under the MSA, if the proposed action is modified in a manner that may adversely affect EEl-I, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NM PS E1 lI conservation recommendations, the GSA will need to reinitiate consultation in accordance with the implementing regulations for El■td at 50 CPR 600.920(1). "Thank you for your effort to protect threatened PS chinook and I3PH. If you have any questions, please contact Bill Leonard of the Washington Habitat Branch Office at (360) 753 -9887 or Lleonard@nona.gov. Sincerely, D. Robert Lohn Regional Administrator P. 04 trrl 04/17/03 THU 12:11 FAX 206 281 0920 TO: Sabey Corporation, Applicant •• King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction All Parties of Record This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Protect File Number: Applicant: Type of Permit App'ied for: Project Description: Location: Associated Files: Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION I. PROJECT INFORMATION L02 -056 (Design Review) Sabey Corporation Design Review and Special Permission - Signage Approval by the Board of Architectural Review for the development of a 248,454 square foot office building (including three floors of structured parking) to serve as the Seattle District Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS "). i An adjacent two -story parking garage for visitor parking will also be provided. Special Permission- Signage approval for eight internal information signs that are each larger than four square feet in size. Sabey Corporation a002 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard Conditional Use (L02 -055). • Boundary Line Adjustment (L02057). E2000 -031 (SEPA Determination) issued December 20, 2000 in connection with the proposed demolition of the Non -Stop Restaurant building. E2000 -033 (SEPA Determination) issued June 6, 2001 in connection with the proposed development of three research and development facilities and a freestanding parking structure. Manufacturing /Industrial Center -Light ( "MIC /L ") Manufacturing /Industrial Center -Heavy ( "MIC /H ") Commercial/Light Industrial ("C/LI ") Low Density Residential ( "LDR ") Page 1 - 3 , "..a'wati C ,_,d a p. II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has determined that the project, as proposed, does not create any new significant environmental impacts from those previously considered under the two Determinations of Non - Significance issued on December 20, 2000 under E2000-031 and issued on June 6, 2001 under E2000 -C'33, respectively. Director Hr, 04/17/03 THU 12:11 FAX 206 281 0920 1. The name of the appealing party. Saber Corporation a003 V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS The administrative body hearing the appeal is the Tukwila City Council. The City Council hearing regarding the appeal shall be conducted as a closed record hearing before the City Council based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing conducted by the Board of Architectural Review. The City Council's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the City Council decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be irciuded in such an appeal. If no appeal of the City Council decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. Page 2 Decision on Substantive Permit The Board of Architectural Review has determined that the application for --- Design Review and Special Permission - Signage complies with applicable City and state code requirements z and has approved that application based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report, subject w to any conditions which are set forth in the Decision. 6 = J0 00 CO 0 III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS w w J F... The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 4 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code co u- 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. w o g 1 5 One administrative appeal to the City Council of the Board of Architectural Review's Decision is permitted. No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. If an MONS.was issued, any person wishing to c a challenge either the conditions which were imposed by the MDNS decision or the failure of the Department to I w impose additional conditions in the MDNS must raise such issues as part of the appeal. Z i IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING z o w In order to appeal the Board of Architectural Review's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice D o of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of 0 9. this Decision, that is by March 14, 2003. 0 H ELI The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials 1- shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: u_ z w U= O 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, . z association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement Identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 04/17/03 THtJ 12:12 FAX 206 281 0920 • Department of Community Development City of Tukwila • t Saber Corporation II004 Project materials. including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community *Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Deborah Ritter, who may be contacted at 206 -431 -3663 for further information. . Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. --- 4QZ0r4), ace__ VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Page 3 z ;_ z w � 6 JU UO . co o CO W —i i- W w O. Ll. ? , = w ' 4— _ z I �- z CI w t ill ': O w Z U co OH z 01/27/2003 17:35 FAX 2539317251 Mr. Stan Catchpole General Services Administration 40015` Street SW Auburn, Washington 98001 Dear Mr.Catchpole: GSA - PORTFOLIO STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office ofArchaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586 -3065 Fax Number (360) 586 -3067 •httpJ /www.aahp.wa.gov January 23, 2003 Re: INS Building Log No.: 012303 -10 -GSA We have reviewed the materials you provided to our office for the proposed INS Building at 12600 Tukwila International Boulevard, Tukwila, King County, Washington. Based upon this information we are of the opinion the proposed project will have no effect upon cultural properties included in the National and State Registers of Historic Places and the Washington State Archaeological and Historic Sites Inventories. Thus, no historic properties are affected. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations 36CFR800.4. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised, including information regarding historic properties that have not yet been identified. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity should be discontinued, the area secured, and the concerned tribes and this office notified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360)586 -3080 email: robw @,cted_wa.gov X102 wtt • 01/27/2003 17:35 FAX 2539317251 GSA January 21, 2003 Ms. Allyson Brooks, Ph.D. Washington State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 -8343 GSA - PORTFOLIO Co GSA 1•ivr:hwest /Aretia :c,glor Subject: Immigration and Naturalization Service Building in Tukwila, Washington. Dear Dr. Brooks: The US General Services Administration (GSA) and the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) propose to contract with the Sabey Corporation to build an office building in Tukwila, Washington to house the Immigration and Naturalization Service. GSA would like to begin historic and archaeological consultation under the Section 106 process for this activity. Herrera Environmental Consultants, acting as agent for GSA, is preparing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment, which will include relevant information regarding cultural and historic properties of the site. The property is located at 12600 Tukwila International Boulevard in Tukwila, Washington, in the SE 1 /2 Sec. 9, T23N, R4E. A vicinity map that includes the project location is provided as Figure 1. The proposed project is located on King County Assessor's Office tax parcel numbers, 12304 -9082, 734060 -0602, and 734560 -0885. The total area of the site is 300, 686 square feet. The proposed building would be approximately 144,500 square feet of office spaces and would create approximately 415 parking spaces. The facility would provide offices for INS staff and areas for processing INS applications. The site plan is attached as Figures A-1 (the southern portion) and A- 2 (the northern portion). (Please note that on Figure A -2 that the proposed development is along the western part of the property and that the area delineated in red along the eastern edge of the property is an existing development.) Portions of the property have been cleared, grubbed and paved while other parts are unimproved. The western section along Tukwila International Boulevard has been cleared, leveled and paved. The defunct Non -Stop Restaurant is located on this portion of the site. According to King County Assessor's Office Records, the building was constructed in 1962. I have attached six photos of the project site and the project parcel for your reference. The photos are described below: 1.5. 3anoral Adninlatreian 400 1Sth Streezt, SW Auburn, WA 011001 -6559 virtw.1sa 0ci 01/27/2003 17:35 FAX 2539317251 P hoto Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sincerely, It x (253) 931 — 7865 GSA - PORTFOLIO Photo Description Slope near the central section and eastern area bench Central section slope Non -Stop restaurant on the site Western section of proposed building footprint with Non -Stop Restaurant West section of proposed building site at the north end of the property West section of proposed building site The central section of the site has scattered trees and brush, and there are no existing structures or noticeable improvements. The topography of this portion of the site is steep, with slopes of up to 80 percent in isolated areas. These slopes were constructed as part of a project to widen Tukwila International Boulevard. The eastern section of the site is covered with brush and scattered trees, and there are no existing structures or improvements. The topography includes flat benches and sloping areas. There is a wetland on the eastern edge of the site that drains into Riverton Creek. The project would include demolition of the existing structure, clearing and grading to level the property, excavation of steep slopes, and construction of the new facility, surface parking, and stormwater retention, detention, and treatment facilities. If you have any questions or if you would like any additional information, please contact me by phone at (253) 931 -7865, by fax at (253) 931 -7251 or by email at stan.catchpoleagsa.gov. Thank you very much for your consideration on this matter. Stan Catchpole Regional Historic Preservation Officer General Services Administration 400 15th Street SW, Auburn, WA, 98001 el04 z z w QQ � J U 00 CO w • 0 2 = a 1 w Z zI- LL! w U � o v_, oI w W 1- U IL. w z U = o I- z : NOTICE: IF CE IT DOCUMENT IIS DUE TO THE QUALITY THIS NOTITY OF THE DOCUMENT. _.._ /IV CD 0 r ■ CD CD hti o P* 4 „ . ci) Existing Conditions 2003 Study Intersection NB SB EB WB L T R L T R L T R L T R Pacific Highway S /E. Marginal Way 0 108 344 482 334 605 164 560 41 219 702 130 SR 99/S 112th Street 24 544 53 8 1360 18 138 59 203 121 6 4 SR 99/S 116th Street 76 385 37 712 817 601 308 68 20 0 0 0 SR 99/S 130th Street 0 480 7 27 889 0 0 0 0 156 0 63 SR 99/S 132nd Street 17 520 0 0 896 108 34 0 35 0 0 0 SR 99/S 144th Street 114 471 65 57 772 103 104 202 65 100 250 25 SR 99/S 152nd Street 225 770 56 112 1082 44 40 91 27 80 38 31 SR 99/S 154th Street 269 593 37 105 971 153 229 123 176 107 240 121 Site Access Driveways SR 99 /INS North Site Access Driveway 25 599 0 0 1323 8 42 0 62 0 0 0 SR 99 /INS South Site Access Driveway 0 624 0 0 1385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Movement Volumes Count Volumes Study Intersection NB SB EB WB L T R L T R L T R L T R Pacific Highway S /E. Marginal Way 0 106 338 474 328 595 161 550 40 215 690 128 SR 99/S 112th Street 24 535 52 8 1337 18 136 58 200 119 6 4 SR 99/S 116th Street 72 366 35 676 776 571 293 65 19 0 0 0 SR 99/S 130th Street 0 472 7 27 874 0 0 0 0 153 0 62 SR 99/S 132nd Street 17 511 0 0 881 106 33 0 34 0 0 0 SR 99/S 144th Street 112 463 64 56 759 101 102 199 64 98 246 25 SR 99/S 152nd Street 214 731 53 106 1028 42 38 86 26 76 36 29 SR 99/S 154th Street 264 583 36 103 954 150 225 121 173 105 236 119 Site Access Driveways SR 99 /INS North Site Access Driveway 24 569 0 0 1257 8 40 0 59 0 0 0 SR 99 /INS South Site Access Driveway 593 1316 J i Sabev's INS Building Traffic Impact Study Traffic Volumes Growth Rate 1.73% Existing Year 2003 Future Year 2004 INS Building Development TIA 2/04/03 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Project Volumes Study Intersection NB SB EB WB L T R L T R L T R L T R Pacific Highway S /E. Marginal Way Pacific Highway S /E. Marginal Way 0 110 350 490 1 6 76 570 42 15 714 SR 99/S 112th Street SR 99/S 112th Street 82 553 54 16 1384 18 140 60 207 123 6 SR 99 /S 116th Street 9 82 76 38 32 831 611 313 2 20 0 0 SR 99/S 130th Street SR 99 /S 130th Street 15 488 6 69 904 0 0 0 0 159 1 SR 99/S 132nd Street SR 99 /S 132nd Street 13 529 0 60 9 2 35 0 36 0 0 SR 99/S 144th Street SR 99/S 144th Street 6 479 15 24 21 4 106 205 66 102 3 SR 99/S 152nd Street SR 99 /S 152nd Street 4 783 3 18 3 1 41 93 27 81 1 SR 99/S 154th Street SR 99/S 154th Street 1 603 6 3 9 2 233 125 179 109 1 Site Access Driveways Site Access Driveways - SR 99 /INS North Site Access Driveway SR 99 /INS North Site Access Driveway 62 12 34 13 1346 8 43 0 55 0 165 SR 99 /INS South Site Access Driveway SR 99 /INS South Site Access Driveway 12 4 13 55 1409 0 0 0 20 0 62 Baseline Conditions : 2004 Study Intersection NB SB EB WB L T R L T R L T R L T R Pacific Highway S /E. Marginal Way 0 110 350 490 340 615 167 570 42 223 714 132 SR 99/S 112th Street 24 553 54 8 1384 18 140 60 207 123 6 4 SR 99 /S 116th Street 77 392 38 724 831 611 313 69 20 0 0 0 SR 99 /S 130th Street 0 488 7 27 904 0 0 0 0 159 0 64 SR 99 /S 132nd Street 17 529 0 0 912 110 35 0 36 0 0 0 SR 99/S 144th Street 116 479 66 58 785 105 106 205 66 102 254 25 SR 99 /S 152nd Street 229 783 57 114 1101 45 41 93 27 81 39 32 SR 99/S 154th Street 274 603 38 107 988 156 233 125 179 109 244 123 Site Access Driveways - SR 99 /INS North Site Access Driveway 25 609 0 0 1346 8 43 0 63 0 0 0 SR 99 /INS South Site Access Driveway 0 635 0 0 1409 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INS Building Development TIA NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 2/04/03 Future Conditions with Project Volumes Study Intersection NB SB EB WB L T R L T R L T R L T R Pacific Highway S /E. Marginal Way 0 110 350 490 340 616 173 646 42 223 729 132 SR 99/S 112th Street 24 635 54 8 1400 18 140 60 207 123 6 4 SR 99 /S 116th Street 86 474 114 724 863 611 313 69 22 0 0 0 SR 99 /S 130th Street 0 503 7 33 973 0 0 0 0 159 0 65 SR 99 /S 132nd Street 17 542 0 0 972 119 37 0 36 0 0 0 SR 99/S 144th Street 116 485 66 73 809 126 110 205 66 102 254 28 SR 99/S 152nd Street 229 787 57 117 1119 48 42 93 27 81 39 33 SR 99/S 154th Street 274 604 38 113 991 165 235 125 179 109 244 124 Site Access Driveways SR 99 /INS North Site Access Driveway 25 671 12 34 1359 8 43 0 63 55 0 165 SR 99 /INS South Site Access Driveway 0 647 4 13 1464 0 0 0 0 20 0 62 INS Building Development TIA NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 2/04/03 JAN 28 '03 07 :15PM TUKW7'""NDCD'PW N �er S 112th Street 48 394 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN OUT 2,497 2,497 COUNTED BY: RT REDUCED BY: CN DATE: Mon. 5/13/02 TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4 :00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM T css a T TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING 18 1 1,363 1337 1,656 Pacific Highway 2,038 2,267 24 Tukwila, WA 675 611 S 112th Street 4 6 119 S 112th Street 129 118 DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/30/02 WEATHER: Sunny P.5/37 ti N SB NB WB EB INTRS, HV 4% 7% 5% 1% 5% PHF 0.87 0.87• 0,81 0.80 0.87 HV Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor TIME OF COUNT: 4:00.6:00 PM • yr z i I w 6 00 W = F— u_ WO u _ S./2 2 d F . in z = I— O z w I— • W U � O E • 1- W • w u' .. z w o Q 0 H O z — �P ir tWit TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT FROM NORTH ON Pacific Highway FROM SOUTH ON Pacific Highway FROM EAST ON S 112th Street FROM WEST ON S 112th Street INTERVAL TOTALS HV Left Thru flight HV Left Thm Right HY Left Thru Right HV Left T Right 02.15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_, 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 18 3 384 5 9 8 146 16 2 29 1 0 0 38 18 89 717 04:30 PM 9 1 299 1 12 6 117 14 2 25 2 2 1 39 14 32 552 04:45 PM 14 2 352 8 9 7 160 9 0 38 2 0 0 38 16 54 684 05:00 PM 20 2 302 6 15 3 110 13 3 27 1 2 1 21 12 45 544 05:15 PM 14 0 301 1 7 6 123 15 0 42 0 1 0 23 8 43 563 05:30 PM 9 1 312 2 12 2 157 13 0 24 1 2 0 27 18 39 596 05 :45 PM 12 3 254 1 1 3 140 17 0 30 0 5 0 14 8 25 500 05:00 PM 12 1 227 0 5 9 138 38 2 43 2 1 0 9 7 17 490 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 61 8 1397 18 45 24 535 52 7 119 8 4 2 136 58 200 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 1363 011 129 394 2497 % HV 4% 7% 5% 1% 5% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.87 0.87 0.31 0.80 0.87 JAN 28 '03 07:16PM TUKWIV ■DCD /PW LOCATION: Pacific Highway 0 S 112th Street HV • Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: CN Tukwila, WA T TRAFFIC DATA GAMIER/NC INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET DATE OF COUNT; Tue. 4/30/02 COUNTED BY: RT TIME OF COUNT: 0:00.6:00 PM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: ( 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny P.6/37 DATE OF REDUCTION: 5/13/2002 JAN 28 '03 07 :18PM TUKI4P— , DCD'PW co M Pacific Highway S l 1,285 751 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN OUT 3,625 3,625 COUNTED BY: BW /RB REDUCED BY: CN DATE: Wed. 5/15/02 T TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM 595 [1,3971 32B 583 474 1,792 i 1,027 Tukwila, WA 395 444 690 215 BoeinQAcess Road 128 A [1,033 1,362 P.1 S8 NB WS E8 INTRS. HV 5% 13% 5% PHF 0.99 0.92 0.96 5% 0.93 6 °/� 0.97 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor Pacific Hwy S/E Marginal Wy S @ Boeing Access Rd DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 5/7/02 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM w WEATHER: Overcast : 12/±+ .� Mn s�, �. '•� �xwtS.u�i.1ti+1�WT' Uit i4k1iL` �Cy4v` �YiililC�or asKrS • Ji TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT FROM NORTH ON E Marginal way 5 FROM SOUTH ON E Marginal Way S FROM EAST ON Boeing Acceaa Road FROM WEST ON Pacific Highway S INTERVAL TOTALS HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right NV Left Thru Right HV Leh Thnl Right 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 ;30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 ;45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 23 111 82 144 16 0 22 84 18 55 153 27 7 37 119 8 542 04:30 PM 7 103 53 128 6 0 27 63 14 51_ 188 33 10 38 138 9 807 04:45 PM 13 117 68 158 10 0 29 91 12 60 181 25 13 40 148 13 933 05:00 PM 22 126 91 132 18 0 21 75 17 50 174 _ 31 B 40 126 10 876 05:15 PM 25 113 89 149 17 0 31 90 14 57 163 36 _5 43 132 9 912 05:30 PM 18 118 80 158 12 0 25 82 13 48 172 33 14 38 144 8 904 05:45 PM 22 104 85 140 13 0 21 93 18 54 178 28 10 32 137 9 881 06:00 PM 27 113 93 158 8 0 29 88 14 51 162 29 8 38 118 5 992 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 76 474 328 595 57 0 106 338 58 215 690 128 40 161 550 40 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 1397 444 1093 _ 751 3625 % HV 5% 13% 5% 5% 6% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.99 0.92 0.96 0.93 0.97 JAN 28 '03 07:18PM TUKWF Th DCD /PW LOCATION: Pacific Hwy SIE Marginal Wy S ® Boeing Accesa DATE OF COUNT: Tue. S/7 /02 Tukwila, WA TIME OF COUNT: 4 :00.6 ;00 PM HV a Heavy Vehicle PHF = Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: CN 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: MIE TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET I 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM COUNTED BY: BW/RB WEATHER: P.11/37 Ovarvast DATE OF REDUCTION: 5/15/2002 JAN 28 '03 07:20PM DCD /PW 0 COUNTED BY: REDUCED BY: TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM TO 5 :30 PM Military Road 2 303 a 303 DATE OF REDUCTION: Mon. 5/13/02 TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING Tukwila International Blvd @ Military Rd Tukwila, WA SB NB WB EB INTRS. TRKS 4% 4 % #N/A 3% 4% PHF 0.87 0.93 #N /A 0.94 0.98 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN OUT 2,208 2,208 RT DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 4/25/02 CN TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny P.15/37 z ~w J U 00 N O W I J F. Q !L. WO 2 u Q to I • W Z = Z 0 W W U O - , 0 1- W W 2 1 u- O .. Z W O Z TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT FROM NORTH ON Tukwila International Boulevard FROM SOUTH ON Tukwila International Bouevare FROM EAST ON 0 FROM WEST ON Military Road INTERVAL TOTALS 1-11/ Left Thru Right NV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 :30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 :45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 :00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:48 PM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 7 0 240 0 7 0 213 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 57 510 04:30 PM 8 0 257 0 8 0 201 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 58 516 04:45 PM 20 0 248 1 13 0 235 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 72 556 05:00 PM 7 0 234 0 7 0 220 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 80 534 05:15 PM 6 0 295 0 8 0 198 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 70 683 05:30 PM 7 0 253 1 7 0 220 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 81 555 05 :45 PM 7 0 227 0 2 0 178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 462 06:00 PM 5 0 185 0 7 0 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 490 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 40 0 ---,— 1030 2 33 0 873 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 303 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 1032 873 0 303 2208 % HV 4% 4% #N/A 3% 4Y. PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.87 0.99. f1N/A 0,94 0.98 JAN 28 '03 07 : 20PM TUKW7'N DCD /PW LOCATION: Tukwila International Blvd 0 Military Rd DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 4125/02 COUNTED BY: RT NV N Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Flour Factor Tukwila, WA REDUCED BY; CN INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: IJ��J TRAFFIC DATA GATERI'YG TIME OF COUNT: 4:00.9:00 PM WEATHER: I 4 :30 PM TO 5:30 PM I DATE OF REDUCTION: 5/132002 Sunny P.16/37 JAN 28 '03 07 :22PM TUKWILA DCD'PW P.20/37 CD 5 154th Street 650 519 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 3,069 OUT 3,069 COUNTED BY: RT/KY REDUCED BY: CN DATE: Mon. 5/13/02 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM 225 121 173 Cu 0 0 0 cd 0 7 L I JAI TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 150 1,207 954 1,232 103 2,134 �---� 2,115 264 Tukwila, WA l 927 583 883 l 36 Tukwila International Blvd @ S 154th St 119 236 105 S 154th Street � A 460 260 SB NB WB EB INTRS._ HV 2% 8% 2% 16% 6% PHF 0.87 0.91 0.88 0.79 0.96 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor DATE OF COUNT: Thu. 5/9/02 0 h TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT FROM NORTH ON Tukwila International Boulevard FROM SOUTH ON Tukwila International Boulevard FROM EAST ON $ 154th Street FROM WEST ON 5154th Street INTERVAL. TOTALS NV Leh Thtu Right NV Left Thru Right HV Leh Thru Right NV Lett Thru Right 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 7 30 190 33 27 59 108 12 3 31 48 23 10 65 33 47 707 04:30 PM 8 21 232 28 20 55 164 3 1 24 73 33 18 84 37 43 797 04:45 PM 6 32 211 44 17 75 158 10 2 35 57 24 25 44 18 40 748 05:00 PM 8 28 224 42 15 81 123 14 2 29 48 35 23 60 46 35 745 05:15 PM 7 23 287 36 20 73 138 9 6 17' 58 27 18 37 20 55 779 05:30 PM 10 16 242 46 8 51 112 9 2 23 58 27 18 81 37 33 715 05:45 PM 3 23 187 46 10 53 95 18 2 35 86 23 9 73 38 51 708 08:00 PM 9 29 219 37 8 54 127 18 1 21 54 25 10 32 32 58 708 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 27 100 954 150 72 264 583 38 11 105 226 119 82 225 121 173 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 1207 883 480 519 3089 % HV 2% 8% 2% 16% 8% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.87 0.91 0.88 0.79 0,98 JAN 28 '03 07 :22PM TUKWILA DCD /PW D1E TRAFFIC DATA GATHERWG INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: Tukwila International Blvd tp S 154th St DATE OF COUNT: Thu.5/9/02 COUNTED BY: RT/KY HY = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: CN Tukwila, WA 4:00 -6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: T1MS OF COUNT: 4:00 - 8:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM P.21/37 DATE OF REDUCTION: 5/13/2002 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 1,582 OUT 1,582 JAN 28 '03 07:24PM TUKWILA DCD /PW 0 w TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6 :00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM S 132nd Street 123 67 COUNTED BY: REDUCED BY: 33 T TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING DATE OF REDUCTION: Mon. 5/13/02 Tukwila, WA Tukwila International Blvd S 132nd St SB NB WB EB INTRS. TRKS 2% 4% #N/A 3% 3% PHF 0.93 0.97 #N/A 0.88 0.97 HV Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor RB DATE OF COUNT: Wed. 4/24/02 CN TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny P.25/37 TIME INTERVAL ENDING • AT FROM NORTH ON Tukwila International Boulevard FROM SOUTH ON Tukwila International Boulevard FROM EAST ON 0 FROM WEST ON 3132nd street ______ INTERVAL TOTALS HV Left Thru Right NV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right NV Left Thru Right 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 5 0 103 17 5 0 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 317 04:30 PM 5 0 241 24 3 3 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 405 04:45 PM 8 0 216 27 8 5 129 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 10 396 05:00 PM 5 0 226 30 5 3 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 408 _ 05:15 PM 6 0 198 25 7 6 128 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 9 373 05:30 PM 3 0 193 21 3 2 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 8 346 05:45 PM 3 0 182 22 5 1 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7 328 08:00 PM 2 0 178 18 2 2 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 315 PEAR HOUR TOTALS 22 0 881 108 21 17 511 0 0 0 0 0 2 33 0 94 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 987 528 0 67 1582 `/e HV 2% 4% #WA 3% 3% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.93 0.97 #WA 0.88 0.97 JAN 28 '03 07 :24PM TUKWILA DCD /PW HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor Tukwila, WA REDUCED BY: CN T TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: Tukwila International 81vd 6 8132nd Sl DATE OF COUNT: Wed. 4124/02 COUNTED BY: RB 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: TIME OF COUNT: 4:00.6:00 PM WEATHER: sunny 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM P.26/37 DATE OF REDUCTION: 5/132002 JAN 28 '03 07 :26PM TUKWILA DCD /PW co w S 144th Stre et 459 365] INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN OUT 2,289 2,289 COUNTED BY: BD REDUCED BY: CN DATE: Mon. 5/13/02 DIE TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM 1,506 1,560 112 Tukwila, WA 463 I 64 639 •'•••••••••• Tukwila International Blvd @ S 144th St S 144th Street 369 319 SB NB WB EB INTRS. HV 1% 3% 2% 4% 2 PHF 0.95 0.85 0.90 0.86 0.90 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF cr. Peak Hour Factor DATE OF COUNT: Wed. 4/24/02 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny P.30/37 66 ck;. x ?,11 Yii�urr?t� , + :�i+!? _3 ?�::nY.' •. z _ w CC L JU O 0 CO W U U W W • O L.L. 2 I.. W Z t-- I— O Z I- U 0 O � O I— W W I- u- W U ( I ) . F O z TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT FROM NORTH ON Tukwila International Boulevard FROM SOUTH ON Tukwila International Boulevard FROM EAST ON S 144th Street FROM WEST ON 5 144th Street INTERVAL TOTALS NV Left Thru Right HV Lett Thru Right HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 02:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 :00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 1 9 188 13 5 23 100 14 2• 17 57 5 1 20 28 10 464 04:30 PM 3 13 187 25 2 18 125 • 10 1 22 62 7 5 24 44 16 551 04:45 PM 2 12 196 33 2 23 110 8 1 21 58 7 2 25 45 16 594 05:00 PM 3 14 182 15 8 28 110 21 3 24 80 6 1 22 53 14 549 05:15 PM 5 17 194 28 8 45 118 25 3 31 66 5 6 31 57 18 635 05:30 PM 2 15 172 21 8 32 68 20 5 25 55 8 3 23 415 15 525 05:45 PM 1 12 1131 18 7 20 106 12 1 22 47 6 1 27 36 10 497 08:00 PM 1 14 163 17 3 30 102 14 2 53 53 3 1 22 43 13 527 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 13 56 759 101 18 112 463 64 6 98 246 25 13 102 199 64 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 918 639 389 365 2289 % HV 1% 3% 2!. 4% 2% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.95 0.85 0.90 0.86 0.90 JAN 28 '03 07 :26PM TUKWILA DCD /PW HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF u Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: CN Tukwila, WA T TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET LOCATION: Tukwila International Blvd e S 144th St DATE OF COUNT: Wcd. 4/24102 COUNTED BY: BD 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: TIME OF COUNT: 4 :00.6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: 5/13/2002 P.31/37 JAN 28 '03 07 :28PM TUKW LA DCD /PW P.35,37 TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM SB NB WB EB HV 2% PHF 5% 2% #N/A INTRS. 3% 0.95 0.87 0.79 #N/A 0.97 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN OUT 1,595 1,595 DT TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING 901 874 27 Ir 1,027 1,435 1,506 —te- 534 472 Tukwila, WA a) 0 m c c0 S 130th St @ Tukwila International Blvd 62 153 S 130th Street 215 , 34 COUNTED BY: RT DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/23/02 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 4 :00 - 6 :00 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: Mon. 5/6/02 WEATHER: Sunny TIME INTERVAL ENDING AT FROM NORTH ON Tukwila International Boulevard FROM SOUTH ON Tukwila International Boulevard FROM EAST ON $ 130th Street FROM WEST ON p INTERVAL TOTALS HV Left Thru Right HV Left Thru Right •HV Lett Thru Right HV Left Thru Right 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 ;30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 PM 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:301:1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 :45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 12 13 205 0 5 0 107 1 0 33 0 21 0 0 0 0 380 04:30 PM _ 6 8 211 0 8 0 128 ' 1 2 25 0 12 0 0 0 0 385 04:45 PM 2 9 204 0 8 0 132 6 3 40 0 21 0 0 0 0 412 05:00 PM 5 5 220 0 2 0 105 0 0 36 0 13 0 0 0 0 385 05:15 PM 0 5 233 0 5 0 107 0 0 52 0 18 0 0 0 0 413 05:30 PM 6 8 180 0 7 0 119 1 0 40 0 22 0 0 0 0 370 05:45 PM 8 5 165 0 3 0 123 2 0 15 0 7 0 0 0 0 317 06_00 PM 8 9 175 0 2 0 129 0 0 16 0 12 0 0 0 0 341 PEAK HOUR TOTALS 22 27 874 0 23 0 472 7 5 153 0 62 0 0 0 0 INTERSECTION ALL MOVEMENTS 901 479 215 0 1595 % HV 2% 511, 2% *WA 3% PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.95 0.87 0.79 #WA 0.97 JAN 28 '03 07 :28PM TUKW'L-A DCD /PW LOCATION: Tukwila, WA T TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET S 130th St ® Tukwila International Blvd DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/23102 COUNTED BY:' RT TIME OF COUNT: 4 ;00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny P.36/37 NV = Heavy Vehicles PHF • Peak Hour Factor REDUCED BY: CN 4:00 • 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:16 PM TO 5:15 PM DATE OF REDUCTION: 5/642002 Z F W cc 2 O 0 J H • tL W g D. _ a E.. W Z = I— 0 Z I- U • 0 O N p I- W W H h L" O •Z W o ~ Z Perteet Engineering Incorporated Appendix B Level of Service Calculations " t" ';F ;.„Fl. `6 "i+•: "F.+":. .:11::rt»-e: sac"L+; nWari;Zt4?4iSttk6s i'Nfi:.:A3ekKi ��!?i'a ?�Fi =.tid ha+tii ^a ,..{ ",':.Idtte tilW a•'" -tZ4SS::yir - "' :a Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR -99 & E. Marginal Way lM4j�. # Lsrielo o. p Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) ; Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes:_''' Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector,(ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning' Speed(mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satct Flow,(prot) : Flt Permitted Satd:'•Flow;(perm) Right Turn on Red Satd Flow :(RTOR) Headway Factor Link`Speed (mph). ;, Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s)- Volume (vph) Peak;Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles ( %°) i4d� Flow (vph)��.: Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type`,....•'.s:` Protected Phases Permitted:,Plases Detector Phases M,nimum;lnitial;(s);; Minimum Split (s) Total Split:( -)` Total Split (%)" Maximum Green_ (s) Yellow Time (s) All- RedTim_ a (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode r Walk Time (s) Flash :DontWalk (s) Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) Act EffctGreen (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio . Uniform Delay, dl Delay . . LOS Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 r ., BLd 13T MERE , WBL7t, MMYV,8RYA Bla • BT�r NB ', B S OEM f t tt +t 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 0 150 150 0 100 150 0 1 1 0. 1 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 2 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 „15.. 0.97 0.95 0.990 0.950 3335 ; 3404 0.950 335 ; :,34041: 1.00 164 176 0 5 1.00 968 560 0.930; 5% 60 646 20.0 20.0 38:0 ' 38 0 25% 25% 3.5 3.5 °05 .0:5 `. 3.0 3.0 None_; None 5.0 5.0 11.0 " :..11.0 0 0 '26.0 26.0 • 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.81 33.6 39.0 38.5 42.9 D D 50 0 15 0.95 1.00 0.950 0.950 Yes 1.00 41 219 702 130 96 0 . 0.96 5% 5% 5% 5% '31 ' 135 228 731 135 it: k Prot 1.00 50 . . 50 0 0 9 _.. ` X15 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.850 3438 1538 • 3438 .1538 Yes 1.00 1.00 922 20.0 20.0 28% 28% ; 0 `38.0.':; 3.5 3.5 0.950 3195 ; 1429 " : 1810 '2707 0.950 <:. 3195:.;:1429 :3335', ...:1810 =;,2707 Yes Yes -374'; , : 61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 " 1.00 1.00 30= . 4'30. 875 948 • r' 21 :5 108 344 482 334 : 0 99 . ; - 13 6 /0 13% 13% 5% 5% ' . 117 :374 ` ';487: :337 T 6 � 117 374 487 337 611 .Prot Split ^ custom 2 6 6 6 3.0 3.0 3.0 None` None- =None 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.1 :0 `11.0 0 • 0 0 29.2 29.2 ' 29.2 ' : 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.50 0.81 0.29 33.9 37.3 12.7 38.8 41.0 -17.9 _ D D B 0% 4.0 50 0 0.95 50 0 9 1.00 0.850 3.0 3.0 Min • Min 5.0 5.0 11.0 11.0 0 0 11.2 11.2 0.10 0.10 0.36 0.78 45.7 0.0 52.7 5.7 D A 50 0 15 0.97 3.0 Min 5.0 11.0 0 27.1 0.24 0.60 36.2 39.8 D 2/3/2003 1900 :1900 200 4.0 4.0 50 : 50 0 0 "9 0.88 0 :850 1.00 605 0i99 5% 2 6 6 `4 :0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2 0.0 ~ 20.0 J.. . 31.0 : 39.0. 21% 21% 26% 26% 26% 27.0 ": 27.0" 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0 :5 .: ':0.5 0:5 3.0 3.0 Min ; Min 5.0 5.0 11.0 :. 11.0 0 0 27:1:- ' 0.24 0.52 0.76 .0.36 38.0 0.0 44.2 ;1 D A Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR -99 & E. Marginal Way Approach LOS D Area Type: Other Gj clg;Length 1..., " ;�, ' Actuated Cycle Length: 111.1 . rer• »�-sc.•�+- „•r^._ .,i� � 'S"tr. =!y�(ti r.:.V+:''<'4:.'.: ��`' ry „” � ' •> •�2 + Nat�raltG�/cIe:X90_ � � x - >. a , Yi:>' �i�L:�ilLtY' �v +'k''•�.'? �k� a. yt•. %k' .., r.. .... Control Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Splits and Phases: -0. Nip 4- 4\ . ate Vat \rAvkg. r.•t._.....z„ 7 Ctk'�Y 7; ���ySZ.,': Z�X• t7e- y- J�S�zy� :r�ti,:,:,.�:—y.:.,,'..r��:. `�ru�:•;.- �,,r, =-� � .is �'� � r� �t tris � rY � �- + '�' rat' "' i• }'.�u ,� a � :: :c�• C .a+..� �t. ":.s Z.'i.,J� ::.i...�h.L..? v:e:::s`�i'£ ... •f_..4•r.'S'.i !T ^"'rc• ^.a•rr.�7c^ '"`� �'' $' 7,p;:7 �� nr cnrr. ? r" r x.� - :J , ; r x , . xrtt^•. � " t "," s f t; g : ariff( gRat79: 0.83 r` � 4 t; ` r ti: i-• � i :71311 " :, t.r. ,,,,' �: r r , j,.h.. ' 1 : ..� r' '2•:ii i:^ ! y V?; k''�. .. rc..•..t..:. w^C c��>.^. �rtsr, � �c4'r a t' �'. z�;` ��: ,% } 7 •'..:.:- s.'`} t � J. P.•' sh' ri�^;. rtYY. L G` z` �i`.' t' i' �7J,: �+"' . } � :�.� � y uL::!r'.:afu .v, +`.'t• iii` y' y i�`:���%; %• biii Intersection Signal Delay: 31.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersectton;Ca aci Y Jtil¢ati06:1E j:4Y:v*?tf::�� . v : c.R• :4,7;7 4 r ` `; f Z:u OFF ht j,.r ,=1' '4y1F -9 ICIJ evel:of:Service.B: s2 } rz 7�� . a..4. .. ...._. ... ,4. �.:.. w: 2lJ+; S.A i.' RS� rs. S�J�i�: �: i% �. r:•���D:..��:' E7 •1 '"_._..2..-2::... 2/3/2003 Page 2 :+:.:,u..W.xt.s �e.Ru<u�xxsaau;ittas Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: S 112th Street & SR -99 l;•anaVo ' pt Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector'(ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd.Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow,(perm) Right Turn on Red Satd:? Flow'(RTOR) Headway Factor Link;Speed: (mph), Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Volume (vph) Peak HoiiFF,a6 or Heavy Vehicles ( %) Adj.Flow;(vpi) Lane Group Flow (vph) Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Tur'ii'Type; Protected Phases PermittedsFhases . Detector Phases Minimum,: Initial (s) Minimum S_ plit (s) Total;Split Total Split ( %) MaXimi m`Green r( Yellow Time (s) A ll= R ed,Time:(s) Lead /Lag ' Lead =L'a'g Optimize?: -` Vehicle Extension (s) Recall:' Mode'.' Walk Time (s) Flash Dent Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) ActEffct;Green (S) Actuated g/C Ratio ■/c Ratio;< Uniform Delay, dl Delay -. LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS •.1900 1900 -1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900'.1900 .1900: 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50;;,'` - 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 9 .15. ; 9 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.937 1.00 0.884 0.950 1787 < -1663 0.750 1.,. ; 1166 3 :=24 1.00 ;'30 466 10.6' 138 59 080 1% 1.00 1% 20.0 20.0 40% 40% 3.5 3.0 5.0 5.0 1. 0- ;:`';1.1.0 0 0 17:8 17:8 0.27 0.27 -0.45 '::0.69. 19.0 19.0 20.5 20.0 C B. 20.2 C 3.0 one.; '. 1 Yes 3.5 0.950 1719 0.406 735 1.00 1.00 203 121 i:80 ::f0.81 1% 5% 1.49. 149 12 'Perm 8 8 20.0 0 :`36.0 0% 40% 32.0 3.5 0.5 3.0 None 5.0 11.0 0 17.8 0.27 0.74 20.9 24.0 C 0.950 1696 0 :,1687: > 3374 0.080 1696 0 ; .:142 3374::1509 Yes 61. 1.00 1.00 1.00 30 477 480 ,10.8 24 544 I 53 8 1360 18 87 ' •0:87. 0.87 0.87 x0'87 0'87 7% 7% 7% 4% 4% 4% •9':.1563 21. 28 625 61 9 1584 0 Perm 20.0 40% 32.0 3.5 0.5`: 3.0 None. 1 5.0 0 .. 17.8 0.27 0.03 9.8 15.3 B 23.3 C Yes 1 .00 1.00 30 479 109 6 0.81 ` : 5% 5% 20.0 0% 2...', .6 2 20.0 20.0 20.0 60% 60% 60% 60% 50.0.:. `.:'50:0? 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 ?': 0:5 0:5 13.1 7.8 B A . 7.6 .. A 4.0 .50 0 ;15 1.00 0.95 0.850 ; 0.998 0.950 1509 : • -1736 3464.. 0.374 683 3464. : ?x'.•w,nnr,.. orate! etrntux«.. 7?. F4Ai' R�24:` C::"',', M'';' Y. 7, 77. ft 3r:!' rneMC:swm:rwr+"m��.mr,...nn.x�. �eLa..v,.* -s��. nor.+ ReYR° nwWf,+ r „•iq�Hyevr...e<a-:r- .� ^.rr.:,r. ^ ra-:,.- rrn�.- ;oy ^...�. 2/3/2003 1900 4.0 0.95 Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 20.0 60% 3.5 2.6 .:8.1 11.8 A A B 11.8 B ?0.0 0% 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0 '11 :0 X11.0 ` •1 1.0 ; . 11:0 ,... 0 0 0 0 0 .38 .3 : 38.3. :. `38.3. ' 38.3 : •38.3 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.33 ... : 0.31 0.07 .0.02 0.77 6.5 6.4 0.0 5.2 9.5 Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: S 112th Street & SR-99 erg.:(111.1(VAY'':: • ••' -, 1' • •• ••• ' • „ j•. • , %I. '4 "*' • • • • ^",•• • '• • ' • Area Type: Other Actuated Cycle Length: 64.9 N'ati.ifirtYare75-57-A7FIF,17.7TIF.,.5wEgre77,rept-:-.., f:.--n...-ci/f.,,,,.; Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated .: ..,. . ...„.,—,,„...., , ‘,..—..ri.....—., , -t:v.;;11-::::...,..11.12t5vti.i..evis , ,11:;LIt.tittc. , ....:::ic--farlsir•e-6 . .':6-,1.7.-' - r:', , ..L . f:..,. IVIaximunrm cl aflo.:.0.77,',,,•.1',:Ay..Z‘, A:e A...4;,1k•va/ -.., '..;'' 4, ' lc ;`:*.:•••...,-` .,..... ' ,4'icp,',.;:,:',A":"(,it.,VPI;Jori::7;1.•:ItIZI.„:„A" 41:41:r.,11q1),;74,21z-5';'":t4.\',72',/,';',':,,i•I',f,..,. ..q., v....t.4,.. ............-. -3 ....1.. A.... .. . Intersection Signal Delay: 12.8 Intersection LOS: B Inter.s,e_e_p_n,C_ap.acjty„',Ukiiiia_tion„ :,.. .1!.9f, ,,S.,, ......,-;„.:,...-..;:,..,..,.1. •,:-............ . ,,4. tql.:...goz;,::: Splits and Phases: 9: S 112th Street & SR-99 41. 02 o6 • ., t• t•• • t el...".2,/ • •••,....^-.••-• , • . • . • • • , 04 Bil fa8 Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 ............ 2/3/2003 Page 2 • -.4„„04,6,- Lanes, Volumes, Timings 13: S 116th Street & SR -99 Care, Groff p r 'kN iEBA EI3. • EBR#A.WB.MW. : WBI NBLAWB ; N6REMOLIP„S_B;lA.b,6� Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd.Flow (perm): Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow (RTOR) Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time, s Volume (vph) Peak Hour'Factor.,' - Adj. Flow (vph) Lane Group; Flow'(vph Turn Type Protected' Phases; Permitted Phases Detector Phase s`:`',_ Minimum Initial (s) Minimum';Split(sy Total Split (s) Total Split:.( %) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time';(s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s Recall Mode Walk Time(s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian .Calls( # /h_ r) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, dl Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 1900 `.1900...1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 •1900 1900 .1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50_ : ' :.50 ':' 50 ': 50 . ' ' 50 50 • 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 .9. =:: :•15 : 9 9 .15' "9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 :.:0.850 0.850.... -...: 0.85 0.950 0.950 : 0 ».1770'•. :3539 1583 :.1770 0.950 0.950 0 : ` 1770 ,•'; `3539, :. 1770 Yes 0.950 1770 :'1863 ?::1583 0.950 •.17701. 1.00 1.00 Split 0.5 1863 ; 1583 Yes 1.00 483 Perm 23.0 23.0 23.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 _�.....; 0.5 0.5 None None None 11.0 11.0 1 17.7 17.7 17.7 .. 021 0.88 0.19 0.06 32:0 `27.0.;' -' 0.0 47.4 29.4 12.2 D : C ':. : "B 42.5 1.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 +1 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 15 1.00 1.00 0 .92 0 0.0 76 .92 83 9.0 !Nfi'M.Y�i :z ! AM1!' Y.::' f%`f �" 1" y5' �K! P.` 1'. ce` {Mh'�fK'N��..!�•ve' {F:!��1,''�. fY;C��.'n nnr?!.a 1583 Yes 40. 653 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 563 477 2:8' 385 37 712 817 601 92 ::092'; L ; ;;0:92;:;;.0;92 418 40 774 888 653 :•:774 " ;:.888 Perm Prot Perm 3539 2/3/2003 _1583 3539 F >15$3 Yes 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 13.0 21.0 21.0 46.0 54.0 54.0 %: 23%:; 51% • :60 %` `60 17.0 17.0 42.0 50.0 50.0 5 35 ..:• 35::, : 3.5' 35; 35 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead; Lag Lag ,Lead .Lag' • Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3:0:- ` -3 :0' 3.0' 3.0 . • 3.0:?;t , 3:;0 None Min Min None Min Min 5.0; 5.0 50. 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 0 : 0 0: -. , 0 8.0 14.3 14.3 38.5 47.5 47.5 A.09. :::? 0:17 0.17 0.46. ; :.0.57: 0.57 0.50 0.69 0.13 0.94 0.44 0.55 37.3'.: 31.5 .0.0 . 21‘.6 -- . '' = 0.0 38.8 33.3 10.4 33.1 11.2 1.0 D.. C B C •B ' 32.5 15.6 C B Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 13: S 116th Street & SR -99 Intersection Summary >YP... Cycle Length: 90 Actua e4'C die'Le' n th':: 8 Natural Cycle: 90 �•. - �- ,.,,.T:.. - ,r';i�= :w.td Coritrol''T e: >Ad #uated =U ncoordir�ated_ Wr:jt1� -y S ' � .:.'1'� Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 -. : tersection S n.,,tr:..... -,.�� �. . i"nal� _ De .nr;.uv_ . . 9`'•r r*t:, !a ' .' i: `v'ir ^r4.;3� ?�,' In �f = . �F+ r ? ^' : °M Infe"r"secEi ! r l • SJ � H Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Splits and Phases: 13: S 116th Street & SR -99 ;, on LbS Intersection Capacity Utilization 83..0 %o ICU Lev of Service D -1�r: �. �. M.. f-... V.. yt, i�r�. ��bc '��r""1 "r1:i.` >.•°m °.,r;�.;. h' ... n ':$. �L f ir y7 it�n 5(, K ti.�r t;`•4+ F r^J ct: ' . r�i .• a�'�t .2�:;:t:J;); •��'Sy,Y y F gi 0Iii-NO:47�,c�mac:..': "ia:i! 2/3/2003 ",,' �::Y' •v'::R ' i t s;; t1' �r,• Page 2 01 t 02 '`.'+"' 04 g h. r ._!e�7.s�4L ,. .+..: .... - _ L_.....____.,._ 3 x. r4 R:` ::ar-..�:! . ..... . C4YlrS_v. x. >....: .7 .:� '. III 05 4 06 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 13: S 116th Street & SR -99 Intersection Summary >YP... Cycle Length: 90 Actua e4'C die'Le' n th':: 8 Natural Cycle: 90 �•. - �- ,.,,.T:.. - ,r';i�= :w.td Coritrol''T e: >Ad #uated =U ncoordir�ated_ Wr:jt1� -y S ' � .:.'1'� Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 -. : tersection S n.,,tr:..... -,.�� �. . i"nal� _ De .nr;.uv_ . . 9`'•r r*t:, !a ' .' i: `v'ir ^r4.;3� ?�,' In �f = . �F+ r ? ^' : °M Infe"r"secEi ! r l • SJ � H Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Splits and Phases: 13: S 116th Street & SR -99 ;, on LbS Intersection Capacity Utilization 83..0 %o ICU Lev of Service D -1�r: �. �. M.. f-... V.. yt, i�r�. ��bc '��r""1 "r1:i.` >.•°m °.,r;�.;. h' ... n ':$. �L f ir y7 it�n 5(, K ti.�r t;`•4+ F r^J ct: ' . r�i .• a�'�t .2�:;:t:J;); •��'Sy,Y y F gi 0Iii-NO:47�,c�mac:..': "ia:i! 2/3/2003 ",,' �::Y' •v'::R ' i t s;; t1' �r,• Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 LC�n� .. eR U p .. . .��. .4.� fin .� �. ��.y: 1f ^; ; AY':'�,C'�t� t:.'.r : E • Lane Configurations "i +1' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900) 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 -50. ' : , : 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) '15 9 1.00 1.00 0.95 '0:961: 0. 0.966 1729 0.966 1729 Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd ; Flow,(prot ) Fit Permitted Satd,yFlow'(perm);. Right Turn on Red Satd Flow Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel ; Tine:(s), Volume (vph) Pe"akHour;Factor Heavy Vehicles ( %) Adj 'Flow'(vpt) ; 'r' .. 197 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 77 Protected Phases PermittedaPhases: Detect Phases Minimum In itia l;(s); Minimum Split (s) TotaiSpiit'(s) Total } Split ( %) Maximum ().' , Y %37.( Yellow Time (s) All= Red;l'ime' Lead /Lag Lead; Lag'Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode r." Walk Time (s) Flash' Dont Walk'(s) Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) Act;Effct Green' Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, dl Delay LOS Approach Delay,.•. Approach LOS Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 f zt4y0'r 20.0 0 0 2% 2 %. 46% 3.5 3.0 5.0 1.1 :0 0 0.28 0.56; 10.9 10.3 B 10.3 B 5% 3.0 • 5.0 0% 54% 3.5 . 0 •.g 15 1.00 0.95 0.950 0 1770 - ':.3539 0.395 353 Yes Yes a28i F 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 609 297 156 ` 63 480 20.0 5% 5.4 .3_ • A A 0% 54% 54% • ;.YI 2% 0.95 1.00 817 2% '40'f 4 0 20.0 20.0 5 0,,' 4 3.5 3.5 • Y...: 2/3/2003 Cy 3.0 3.0 ilia;.! TV1irr 5.0 5.0 0 0 20.8 0.52 0.52 0.07 6.2 6.4 :.:7.1 A A )7.1; A Page 1 Th Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 Area Type: Other Y'Y`r -r'; '_ fS:�:"'^' •x'71 1. . f Actuated Cycle Length: 40.2 Naturalbyclee 40' Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated Intersection Signal Delay: 7 3 Intersection C apacity Utilization'4q 3 %, A Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 .:• • 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 • s�`nF T- 71 -71 h`"4y.` �i.T;lry E ., 1'::t • -J•i .0 i. �i.• rl' i r �l ,-Y747- i y Splits and Phases: lin EMI 2/3/2003 :.ij. •;`fi;_- ` •'7�ii: ?:,rt Y i�5'^'�1�n', ;7•t .F fi : .' h " . .� • ' , 'i ��. `�, ",,� -`� ' �.i . ; �y:'Y:`i.i'.`•J:a i �.:+ "4i•��!�.t ° _3:Y!i.� ��:'.,L�i'...t -.P` ��te�S' Intersection LOS: A ,ICU Levef`Of S @rVlce ; * ;{" t h l.4 . ' Fl ..... . ... �. .. .. ..t..�....•.. ..dr.�.•.��:.x�3kk. r. r..i..eT N.:i?h ?..n..:a...1.:f.:ft•ifi 1.t .. Page 2 z _� • W 6 0 (/) 0. W i — H: • O Q 0 W Z O . Z F—: W 0 • 0 U O N ;0 H W 2 • U •Z O z Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: S 132nd Street & SR-99 t rarel ''',14:vv.iii? :V1.7' Flt Protected Satd.'FloW (prot) Flt Permitted Setd.' Flow (perm) Right Turn on Red SatoFlow • Lead/Lag Lead Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Recall Mode ' None Walk Time (s) 5.0 Flash Dont Pedestrian Calls (#/hr Act Effct Green Actuated 9/c Ratio 0.12 . v/c Ratio 0 33 Uniform Delay, dl 13.4 Delay LOS A Approach DelaY '''; 7.5 - 2.6 3.1 Approach LOS A A A Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 . 06 F. 1.,141: 4 Lane Configurations ' ft ti 19 00 + Ideal Flow (vphpl) . . 00 1900 " 1900 1900 1900 .1900 .. : Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 -1: : ' ' . ‘: '50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 Leading Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) • 15 . .: :'9 ‘'.: . .. •-.‘. . : - 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Fri • :."/.. ..": 0.932 ,,: ...::-; -: .. ',",, :. ": • 0.98 - ..... .. - " 0.976 0.950 1 - 678'::-.,:::!0 . ,, : 3483 :.,,,. 0 ::. x ....:..-,:•:‘;',--. 0.47e 0.192 ..1876;..-':-::::: 7. r 3483 '' !1•., Yes .•,,-;-:;i',-.'s?-,':...;,-',•:•'•,.• Yes ...:.,:,...,,,....,,,,,,,, ,.,.,,: ' .. Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 :1 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 : - . --,•••-°;:--: '.:-.‘'"• '1• Link Distance (ft) ' '''''''''''':' ''''';:'''''''''''''' :i '''''''.:0 ''''';'...: '1:'.;'.:';:''''''':'. ". '“::4i::::''....4 643 715 9 Travel Time ( , ,....• , -:,.... , 14 6 . -:,..,...., , -.,.. , ,,,. - ::.. -,,,,,. ...... .1 - 6 8 , ;,7i,;-. , 16."3'- , -... .: '•-', : ' Volume (vph) 34 35 17 - 520 ' 596 108 Peak Hour Factor ; ::: Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 Flow :":''):::::;";:i:0°°8°::°§ke'''''''9:97:":1.9'97':''''P-9°;:.:'::!(13.-'‘'L'''' 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% i'' Adj.- iii:(0h) ,,,,, ,,,, ,, ..,-,.- ... ? 0 2% .,..' :.,!kk! 1 ;!'i :'4.-‘Yi' 1 8 53 •,:-:''''''.1' 963 '''''1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 0 .."'" - ' . ' .'' bio '-ib76 '.: v-l Turn Type '.. :. ,.. : .`",, , '" • - •- .' . ' '... ' :!.: '':±-''':..1, ';'...*":::- p . •.: '; ". ' '' r' ! ' '',.. . ; : "-- 'Pr::•• :61.:', : - ......--.. - Protected Phases '''''r ' . ''' ' '' ' ' ' ' 'ITn'':'!'::...''''''' '::13:‘.2::';'' 2 6 1 itted:phisetV4:Pi":: 4 , - Detector Phases ',•!" 6 Minimum Initial 4 ' •Col! ,' O minimum split (s) 6 . 6- 4 .•,:. ,,,' 20 '. '''..,.- ....2.2';,.1.., 4 0 ' ; , " i f.'''''•-'i'' '''':‘,' !: .0 20 0 20 0 * ' . '" .'''''''. Total Split (%) 3964) • 61oiiri...e.1 61 .. ,.,.:,t ;7 ''',',..',! :;!-:•`.-'''..^ '..'.'i!'i.'4f % 0% Maximum Greell!(s) 3 .. c`.".... __ 3 ; -':':•':;:',..'::, Yellow Time (s) . ,, , .5 3.5 3.5 3.5 A Time • (...);'?::,";;;',;":2,I; ,. 0 5 - ","'. , ‘.'0',.:f1?- 5 ,.. ;:p.:..‘,.•; - ' • k"/ • 350 0"0 55O55O 550 00 3.0 3.0 3.0 .1in Mm Mm 5.0 5.0 5.0 ,!•:11;..9:1•1 0 0 0 • 52.0 520 52.0 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.07 '•20.20 .h040 1.9 2.1 2.5 ;32 2.6 3.1 . A A A ,.2pSfmn."4, goTrt:vmw‘tv44,,, .• - •fe 2/3/2003 •••• :i••• '1.:1.... ••••••.`. 1 • Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: S 132nd Street & SR-99 • Area Type: Other '''' • - r l e "'" , Are; Actuated Cycle Length: 67.8 " ••• 7' "V;•••7""1 . • 1 t.;:=1;:?•" F; Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 16: S 132nd Street & SR-99 • Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 2/3/2003 • :, Intersection Signal Delay: 3.1 Intersection LOS: A n 670 I - ;eve' ; ervice ;- f„21‘ • . • . • Page 2 ; ( i f .. .1 ... ' : . ' ' 1 i • 7 .% ' 't" 4 'S -I: i:.+L:11.....,Z 2...L.......L .. ......L. 2.: ...,.. ■ - aLig .,.■.: , ..1.:2::."-1.1L A -1:.:-...........L -.: . , 0 ' • •;,;T:F7-11----.,...-7,7 r ‘"-', 7:77; -, '..t. x • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: S 132nd Street & SR-99 • Area Type: Other '''' • - r l e "'" , Are; Actuated Cycle Length: 67.8 " ••• 7' "V;•••7""1 . • 1 t.;:=1;:?•" F; Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 16: S 132nd Street & SR-99 • Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 2/3/2003 • :, Intersection Signal Delay: 3.1 Intersection LOS: A n 670 I - ;eve' ; ervice ;- f„21‘ • . • . • Page 2 Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 18: S 144th Street & SR-99 2/3/2003 f --0 -N t '(' 4- k " II \ Uri% .T01 .6. UM if PEW /WE - B. - ligM MAI FW.FAIMTEWAIIM: .11MTBW Lane Configurations ) I+ 1 1 I+ 1 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) . 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ' 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector '(ft) 50 50 • 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) .' - 15 • .: 9 15 . - ' .9 . Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt .. . . : .!. : ; :..,..,"- 0.963 0.986 • H.' •• . • • • , , . . • ,• • . • t 1 EtTieN (MOP $.13M tt r ++ r 1900 - 1900 1900 1900 .1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 " -50 • ...50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd.' Flow (prog :. '1759 ''''. ..: 7 0 :- 1770 , .-1537 '.., '. •.: 0 • .1752 : : 3 505 .. 1565 :%1757 : .3574 -, -1599 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Sald....,FloW:(PerSM),: ;1736 -,-. 1759;s:: :..0 .,,1770 ,..-157 :::' : ,o; 752 :.: 35051,-_ .:'.:; 3574 , : . .1599 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes setcl;' .,17 .‘"'";•., !••• . - -- •-l'';'' - ;' 5 ' ....,;..::::-..',;•"7"76 , ,., , .- -,10 Headway Factor 1.6o 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed '',1 '.::'..aP qt;i:.., -, ; ";80 7 ..-,..,,,)-Al Link Distance (ft) 481 727 442 715 Travel Time (s) . :VE::::::,...:::,::::::,, - '::: :9 1;: :: ,,‘ .,' : :::. :.'.' '2, ' ..' -10.0 :... :: , ' , :-.: - .--::-.:•: . ?„ , .....1 . 6.3::. Volume (vph) 104 202 65 100 250 25 114 471 65 57 772 103 F)eaK,tci...y(F00§171.:,`-T-5:;Y:P'10:::::; - :907:0:85-; y. 0.5 :--:::0.85:9.95::: : '0: . 95 ,'.! 0.95 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% Adj...:FlOW,(V0):'"..:'.::::: ',' 35'i :: - :- 554 ' - 60.;:t.•'.' 813 •": , i op Lane Group Flow (vph) 121 311 0 111 306 0 134 554 76 60 813 108 1. ''.:.::-::;''':?-. ei'4: ' ' i :. - l - -: -:-'' Permi Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 POM)ltadl:plia*ffcg.i'::?`::?.:....q '`•:"."'"..:: ;:t:•:: ,,. f".:t.': : ::••;"':''': .,..‘flii::.-.'4::.:;,..',...:!'.1.,=-...:-...',..- - : -.,.; - - -,.= .<-: Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 • 5 2 2 1 6 6 4.6 7 r:* .': '':::: '1: i :'t i ::' "74 0 , 2 ;.,.. 4.0 , --:: ' 4:0 4.0 ",: ..--'4.0 - , :.!‘.4:0, Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (6)::':: 1 5.0 :362.0 '`"::36.0 ' 12:0' ,',!: Total Split (%) 17% 30% 0% 17% 30% 0% 18% 40% 40% 13% 36% 36% MaXiiiii.0 .. '' il :0 :.:::,7.[28 ■ T :: '- • 820 :;', :320 80r ...-25.0:-:. Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Al1 ,',.;05 i , _, ' '0.5' - :‘ , ;':::::P.5' - :;:: : i.. ..; , ..-: , .0'.5.....'.;- 05 .". ";:;•0:5 '... 0,5 0.,:5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? ;; : .' .YeS 'Y : .:- : , : YeS:` Yes::: :.,' .,:::.:::::::.;,,,, yes'. Ye .' Yes - ',:,y:4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ReCeliMode:;-:', , i:.--: - . Nolie •--' : ':.! None . Min ",;: Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash DonfWalk (S) I: :.:: -.:.•--.:-,.*... -.,.:"...• 11.0 . .. "": 11.0 '.: .....":-.:.. 11.0 . : 11.0. ... 11.0 :11:9 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green' (s).; .1::f.•:•..10.0 ... 16.7 ; : . .9.8:.. "165 -. - . ,.,!, 35.1 r s : . 8.1 30.6 , ..30.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.23 0.14 0.23 0.15 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.44 0.44 Vic Ratio . .';:••••";.:::.: - ;. - ; ; ,;'0.50 •,.• 0.73 .."- 0.45 .0.7;1 - ." ;0:52 - -0.31 ' .0.09 - 0.30 0.51 ' "0.14 Uniform Delay, dl 31.5 27.2 31.4 28.4 31.2 13.1 0.0 33.3 17.0 0.0 Delay ' 2 ...." . :::-:',': ' • 35.8 27.0 ' 35.7 ..:279 . . - . 35.3 18.1 • •..5.2 - 37.9 23.6 " 5,2 LOS D C D C D B ADC A Approach Delay :. ' . 29.5 .30.p . :: - : : 19..8 : 22A ; .• ;,' Approach LOS C C B C Page 1 { Lanes, Volumes, Timings 18: S 144th Street & SR -99 Area Type: _ Other Cycle`1Leng111: '. .. Actuated Cycle Length: 69.1 Control Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated Maximum'iiiek6tio:tf=13 'a'�rc�- '�� " •; t= a..wu .:.4 ♦,.t<...., a.V- .whL� .. -J ... Intersection Signal Delay: 24.1 Intersection `Ca' aci}}� �Utilization766:3 % :" �` `— Splits and Phases: 18: S 144th Street & SR -99 Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 J v�tr. y i.S '. •i: �" #.Y • SY wI �:d:: s 2/3/2003 CF. Intersection LOS: C ICULevel:of ServicewB� %t + °�'a. ... .. ... .....� . _ .,r. _ .. ._..: �G>—.... s��Y '.`�.:k_'.it�'�'S:GA'r�u`^2:� �': SK..:w < <':s`ei.;•`� i . Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 21: S 152nd Street & SR-99 fanzaduraummer Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt "- ;0.977 0.932 ' • 0.850 :* 0.994 Flt Protected 0.988 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow ;; 1798 0 1770 1736 • • -*',0 1770 c3539 1583 .'--1770 3518 ,. Flt Permitted 0.952 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow, (pei=n1) Right Turn on Red Satd. FlOW'(RT,OF,2) Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) 30 'I %.*..;• Link Distance (ft) 1016 1364 574 442 Travel Time : • Volume (vph) 40 91 27 80 38 31 225 770 56 112 1082 44 Peak • Adj. Flow (vph) 43 99 29 87 41 34 245 837 61 122 1176 48 LaneGroiipFlow(yph) 1;.1224 : Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 • 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector • 5,i Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum ;,;', 200 • - Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 16.0 34.0 34.0 16.0 34.0 0.0 Toter Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 12.0 30.0 30.0 12.0 30.0 88. 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead • Lag *. :.Lag Lag Lead , 'r,;•Lag' Lead-Lag optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle 3.0 .3.0 • • Recall Mode None None None None Welk 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 : 6 5.5 9.3 27.2 0.06 0.11 0.33 1.44 0.44 0.12 0.0 *• 35.7 10.2 47.2 34.5 11.3 D C B 47.2 23.8 D C Pedestrian oo!'(#/hr) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C-Ratio v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, Delay LOS. Approach Delay Approach Los „ Egir Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 ,E-0-rgiamoiRawagigtemustanagorwErmegazzgrou 4+ 1 1 1+ tt r ft+ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 :1900 ' 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 • • . 50 50 50 ' 50 - - 50 50 50 •• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ... 15 9 15 •9: ; 15 .- 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0 733:) 0 . • •••1736 • ;." Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Atr41" L , th ; -;1 2/3/2003 None Min Min None Min 5.0 5.0. • 11.0 '11.0 11.0 0 • 0 - • 0 12.1 34.7 34.7 10.0 30.2 0.15 043 ;043 0.12 ;0.37 0.94 0.56 0.09 0.58 0.94 35.3 ' 18.6 •-• 0.0 36.0 -24.9 72.0 20.7 5.7 35.1 40.3 "E D 30.9 39.9 C . p ' :4,54 Page 1 4 \ 05 -- - q ---,* ,n • - - ..........,-;-...... -.-1 ''' ' 11.1.1.i.:,4 • ''' $ 06 03 V '" ' .' ........ '-. Edi .x....... -i....., • ' -4 07 ' ' 1 • ' , - _ -v-,-- - —0 ' 04 PI 1: • 4— o8 ---, Lanes, Volumes, Timings 21: S 152nd Street & SR-99 2/3/2003 Intersection Summary Other 3, Cycle Length: 90 Natural Cycle: 90 C ontrol 'DP q: 44. f Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.44 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1% ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 21: S 152nd Street & SR-99 Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 Page 2 Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 24: S 154th Street & SR-99 ffireT61374:17 Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 Frt Flt Protected 0.950 Satd.,Flow (prot) ;.1478 Flt Permitted Satd,,Flow (perm) 0.950 .,1478 Right Turn on Red Satd." FloW(RTOR). Headway Factor 1.00 Link Speed (mph) :. • Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) • Volume (vph) 229 Peak Hour Factor •=0.79 Heavy Vehicles (%) 16% Adj. 290. Lane Group Flow (vph) 217 Protected Phases 4 Prmitted Phases Detector Phases 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4 0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 Total Split (s) r20 0 Total Split (%) 22% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 All-Red Tirne'(e),'.4 " 0.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag pt mize7 . Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Recall Mode • None Walk Time (s) 5.0 Flash' Dont Walk ,(s) 11.0 • Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) Act Effct Green (s) 15.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 Vic RatiO ; 0.85 Uniform Delay, dl 36.2 Delay 49.2 LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS ■ FRA 4ir vi 4 r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 • • 50 450 50 0 0 0 0 9 15 • . 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.850 44 0.850 0.984 0.950 " t Rf =MKT '1 ft 1900, .1900 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 • 415 1.00 0.95 . . 0 0.950 1531 213922A681 1770 1583: .•-167414:_. 3343 0.984 0.950 0.950 131 :: ,1392 1681 1770 1583 1671 3343 Yes Yes 223 138 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 30 30 '4:30 609 862 525 138 196 141:.9 123 176 107 240 121 269 593 079 079 088 088 088 091 091 16% 16% 2% 2% 2% 8% 8% 156 223 122 273 138 296 652 229 223 122 273 138 296 652 Perm Split Perm Prot 4 . 8 5 2 8 44 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 40 40 40 40 40 40 4.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 ‘ 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 21% 38% '4;,f 15:0 .30.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 Lead Lag • - Yes Yes 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 None None...Ndrie 'None None None ; 'Min 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0.44:11.0 ,i11,.0 - 11.0 4.411.0 • s• 4 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.3 4- '-...15.3 15.5 155 : 15.5 '15.0 34.0 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.38 0 87 0 53 0.42 0.89 _ '0.35 '1.05 0.51 36.2 0.0 33.1 36.3 0.0 37.3 21.5 50.9 33.5 51.6 • .'6.3 . 23.0 D A C D A F C 35.1 4 ' 35.7 43.9 • D D D 2/3/2003 VSB *ji s:ry rvittr 1900. 1900 .1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 9.15 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 .850 ' 0.850 0.950 1495 1770 %.43539 4•*:...1553 1495 1770 435394 Yes Yes .' 41 176 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • " 4: " 30 574 • -4'4' 130 37 105 971 153 0.91' "0.87 087 087 8% 2% 2% 2% .41. 4 111 ip 41 121 1116 176 Perm Prot ; 1 6 2 • • '4 4'4 • 5 2 1 66 40 40 -4.04 4:f.40 20.0 • 8.0 20.0 20.0 34.0 160 310 310 38% 18% 34% 34% ,1 "=27: 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 = '..:0.5 ...• 05 05 Lag Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes ' • • ■;Ye s : 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 , Min None :4,4MinMin 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0 , 11.0 4 0 0 0 34.0 • -10.4 • - 4:4• 270 0.38 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.07 ;0.60 .1.04 0.0 39.0 30.9 0.0 7.0 :37.8 66.6 AD E A . 56.4 E NS Page 1 .�.-�...._��.._: l r 05 CtiF. t� ...�.�....,..w. .uar.. rc: ti�. • 4 o8 C1'1�:i::�.:' ,. , �'_. :::i.�._. ...i,i, i • ,1� ___....__.. _� ... _ Lanes, Volumes, Timings 24: S 154th Street & SR -99 a j. Area Type: Other a Cycle1 �ength:w -. Actuated Cycle Length: 88.8 Natu al C cle90" `PZI:. ° y 1:: '`ti "'. Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated taxi U V cM at : °: i a 1114; .j :, = i7 ;4 4 n , iT o v; x;�? : ; qtr , . esr;'., - •:tt;r- .: ;:� m m T"R to 05'�j� * �� �' j ,u��� , t, y +'• �,.. i �s...i lw•rl f .. .i. '6- :'1�`r� �::.. .,.1. .�., .,!..s t. w.Z.�'Sl;. .`.r!itl� ..:,C,:$ f!:.±+. ac�).^ ��Y� :�n�,PR3�.e'.f'��.,�Y31r: ° �i ?i e�l.s. vi:. I S! Intersection Signal Delay: 46.0 Intersection LOS: D Iiitersec�iori Ga" aci ° ` "Utdizatio �'87a0° . " P. ty cS:_�us : rx .�.s.�..t✓_<'f1v.Mt•...._._.._ ..}f. a._.0 u._...� ._... r... .... Splits and Phases: 24: S 154th Street & SR -99 Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 -. ' rf 0�77��,,,,� • ;ri1Y_: : 7 ..» et ' ! •Tf+77 n'�-li e. •;1 .� %ii5 is'r ,k %`i�' �.. ^1:4'i; f ij �^,-; •"� iS• i'. r, f�l - .4 ,., c;.�r., � ;i 4�:W >..t93 •� - •••,, t+•rae -.c x:c c-• •, •: < n•c :i:Xti7 T ALevel,iir erviceD � ' u .17 v �� . T ' i ''�'"'� i �...°°: " . �` ��# 0= 3. , >� .L:��` ✓%. 2/3/2003 Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: INS North Driveway & SR-99 4\ t tv17,7743,11WASEMBMW97.REMERMEW. Lane Configurations Pj Sign Control Stop Grade 0% Volume (./eh/h) Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 46 Pedestrians 1 -anOPIO.P11 2 .M.Y: Walking Speed . (ft/s) Percent Blockae 4 .; Right turn flare (veh) Median storage veh) cSH 65 Queue Length (ft) Existing 2003 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 r ft 44) Free Free 0% 0% ....i 62 25: 599 1323 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 272. 651 1438 olitkraMOVERR MEM S rhm6 tearclotor saiViaRDOW Average Delay lAq41002 Vol ilifie'i:TOCaTN:'*:::;; . . Volume Left 46 0 27 0 vc vc 1 , stage 1 conf vol V0 . T40tif-....OVii : §A!F. , :: : if.7.. i ;' , '.Ee.‘ ,.. ..- , .k-i s '••';...'::' , ..' ; '::: : :'..:!....!:'. , i' l .::: : :; .. ;.'` , .. r :; tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 ci.- tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 PP.'44:101(11§: ?;'.i..;'i4L ‘;:' ' - .................................................................................................................................................................. . , .. „ , .. ,.. ..„. ,....,_. cM capacity (veh/h) 65 . ' 368 ' 464 ,7,77,ilik - 2`.:7.41 i • y7,, y• • , • SE, Lane LOS F C Approach LOS 3.6 .509% ICU Level df :7. •-■-'.. -- .'"X v, -,v‘:,-,1-.7?1?..w-7.;yry 7;•;,:?:' :-x -,,,i.:::;;;:;; ; •7? ::- `,5).';',.?.;,,,, r; : : : , ... . ... . • 0 0 0 ' ciru 3. . : ;•. ■ 7:70 A r 4 . ,. .1■'"'. , 0 ..Z • ' 0 ' i.4 ............ o.r... ift.,.;:l'i:i 368 464 1700 1700 1700 1700 ; 019 056 ,i,.,..),::::..:,:i....-J.j.,,:.?..r,-1-...:7,;,74-1',:,-,0..:1•:,,,:,;.-Jiii.:4,,,,,-..1,5:i;....ii.-,-:.0.A.:,.,;;:?..:. 78 16 5 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 P'•'...--;.?:::'..0:0':,:ii7j0. .:;'F.,00,P,i;:::,:',i1'7,7.';.,v7,-7-fif'r,:,-TiT.7.M7PF:ir,-,?--W‘.k.1)4:.--;Iiitt5,7,' .. , .„... , ... !,..,...7..4:).:;. 4•.,1' -.'..)1 -.:•-.• • I . •., ...4•■ •-• • ! ` • .0,7'. . r' 7 , 2/3/2003 it • 1-!;•3;7;q Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR-99 & E. Marginal Way Ideal Flow (vphpl) Storage Length (ft) Storage Lanes Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) TYfrling Ppeed Lane Util. Factor Ert Flt Protected Satd;;FlOW Flt Permitted 4\ 1 \14 156.M.1 Lane Configurations VI ti+ 1900 .1900. 1900 ' 1900 ..190Ci 100 150 200 i 1 2 . :2 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 . , 50 ' , 50 50 :., 0 0 0 0 0 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 • .1900 1900 0 0 150 150 0 • • 1' 1. 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 • 50 ,50 : 50 - 50 . 50 . . 0 0 0 0 0 15 9 1 5 • 9 15 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.990 0.950 0.950 3335 3404 0 1719 3438 1538 • 0 6.650 0.950 sot0.ovv..(pprm) ::•6404::: ...1 ::::1666.,,.:.,:.. • • 0 ... 6196: -,4619.:.• Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd :-'''',- '"...,6 : ::...:,„.:-.-:,':.- .-... ..,.:.:::: ::'..i:.......,: Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 c iii=c:,sp' . 0eq.(rTiljn) . ...,-.:::, ,-., •,• 30,'! •'. ,...--..:::: : . '..2„, .60 . ',.30..1"•••••-•:,:',,,, Link Distance (ft) 968 922 875 946 71 '(S),•. 22:0::: , .19.9"-•:: Volume (vph) 167 570 4 223 714 132 0 110 350 490 340 615 !',•041...i.H00i::',..600(:•i "..1'..,1. . '':;9,s9 3 :;::-::' ;96:M.0 ::96 - :'.' '- ..92 -' 0 . 92. . - .7-.'9:0 2 -. :?" 0 . -0 9 . 0 .'99'':;.300.9. 5% 5% 5% 5% 13% 13% 13% 5% 5% 5% 232' '.0.... 232 744 138 0 120 3 495 343 621 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% AdjFlow(vph) 10 613 Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 658 Ti.iii(Tyi5:e ',. aPlit:'.. ..',', ,, , :..J:'; . :' ,...;'• - : - Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 6 6 6 Permitted Phases ,-, -,::'-''.::', i'.--;;;e;: . ii,x• -, . , .: ..1:... ..: ' :','.,'::';' Detector Phases 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 6 6 6 Minirricim:.InItial (s)1 tr.):.:::::. '49,' ' .` :;::t:1:i '.: :0 j Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 .. tiii'61 : 8Plit (s) '' , . , 0 0 :- s: :: 42.0 '.. ': 42.0 -: 0.6 ''. . :0,:-;::736 : .6:1--::::T.8 . 9 5 .0 .. ..:3:91:0 Total Bplit (°/0) 2 25% 0% 28% 28% 28% 0% 21% 21% 6 26% 26% Maximum Green (s)•;:: r ..-,1 . -.3t3.0- , 38:0 , . , :'.38.0 :._ 27:cir.:::27:0"...:05;o4;. Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.5 :A11=Red Time (s) ''. ':..':';:i:, '), 06: -. .: .o.6 :i: 0 . 5 ._ ' Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? . ". Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None :None . None Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) . 7 11.0 11.0 .:- .111.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) ' 26.9 26.9 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio :0.23 0.82 0.51' 0.82 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 34.5 40.1 35.1 38.7 13.5 Delay 39.0 44.5 39.6 42.7 18.5 LOS D D D D B Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 • • .15 ' 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 ' 0.950 •3195 0.950 2/3/2003 •• 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Min Min ' ; Min Min Min 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0 110 11.0 : . 11.0 . 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 11.5 ::-11.5 28.4 28.4 :59.7 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.52 0.38 • :0.78 0.60 0.76 0.36 47.3 0.0 37.0 38.9 0.0 53.6 : :5.7 40.5 D ADD A Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR -99 & E. Marginal Way .0E9 chtDelay . Approach LOS Area Type: G�ycie;�Cei gth 150 :; Actuated Cycle Length: 114.3 Splits and Phases: Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Other yk 7,117"M'.' 1: SR -99 & E. Marginal Way D ).9�,���_I ���. -'rx � ' Natural C�/cle:'90 1 67 1 ' #+ s ' y Y � � � �.. �.�, #: a:- '.,,�.:?::S��.F.�, � s•a:,�` _:� +? Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated r ,.,•- .rc.�..+-o ` t'? : .. T c'F. :A-' :3 T P'r'^ wn ,• r .. 7 11 , ,I - ..a . ± ... 14 ..4- Maimm :.y7c;l atio ::0 -.82 '; :^ 1 ,. 44 . , S' ? rvt..:?.. . * ; c,., . •• ° ;. ,f ,.. s ,..:; '�,�� � + ,�- rzdtf'i• +.d `x +�i 'd.._,y, t ; .,�r ^�'' �.�i x, anw ,+errixwutCw`.rht�.hr +r,. +. c.'ta.+, ... rrY ;;iaUr.:r3�.. _fS.:'.x� #S.k: .i �.. �: �S: avc. t�w' G:.. r'..` l4aaxa3 .a'G:�.rY.�.'�'�..-x.�,S, .cf::�.1 �• , Intersection Signal Delay: 32.0 A Intersection LOS: C In ersec ` l iiCa aci ' Ufilization 6 6a1% ' =r Li � 1 ; ?; ' Il of S ,.».:.u... /..,.� Y∎∎••6,4...1.. ,{X.:..,,<_,.. ...• ..2,, ..w .t.: ela. f �.....b 44.1...,5.1...- ...:VCI- r,w.n,.. 4 6:-.0 2/3/2003 4, ^ - S' : 'Y) ka/ 2[4c �2:;,ctn yk .::� -•�4 ��i .���k� Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: S 112th Street & SR -99 Lane Configurations T4 I* Ideal Flow (vphpl) • 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 9 15. 1.00 1.00 1.00 : 0.937 0.950 1.719 -.1696 0.398 .720 Yes 1.00 Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) ' 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.884 0.950 :1787 1663 0.750 Flt Protected Satd. :(prot) Flt Permitted Said. Flow_(pe'rm): : Right Turn on Red Satd.Flow(FtT Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Times) >: Volume (vph) Peak'Hou� Facto_ r Heavy Vehicles ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 Turri;Type �:r r ' ;3 ^ g? Protected Phases Pe Detector Phases Miniiiumnitial :,(s) Minimum S (s) Total Split (s): ' ? Total Split (%) Max mt.i ?n seen (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time(s)` Lead /Lag Lead- Lag`Optimize ? rP , Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Recall Mode 1 None Walk Time (s) 5.0 Flash Dont` 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 Act Effcf'Green•(s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Delay LOS Approach Deiay Approach LOS Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 1.00 140 1% 1.00 30.°;' 466 06_' 60 80 1 %o 7 334 3.0 None ` 5.0 0 .18.3 18.3 0.28 0.28 0.44 0.70 19.1 19.3 20.7 20.4 C C 20.5 c 1.00 207 N.+�aY..17Y;i:°!F.Yh': )ttAt'. ^ . , • ",�"°ry."+T'"Yin.�,nt: ;e 123 1.00 Yes ;5 1.00 1.00 '30 479 :10.9 6 4 1% 20.0 0% 40% 2:0 3.5 5. 5% 152 5 % 12 20.0 360:; 40 3.5 0.5 3.0 3.0 J one 5.0 5.0 �- 11:0 <,,; °•11.0 ' 0 0 18.3 ; :. ::18.3 0.28 0.28 0.76 0.03 21.2 9.8 24.4 15.3 C B 23.8 C N MINENDI BIB. SB. SB3T Sj 1900 ` 1900 .1900 • :1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50: ,50 : :. 50 50 0 0 0 0 •.9 " 15 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.850 0.950 1509 :'`1736 0.368 0.950 >1 3374 0% 3.5 _3374 :,•1509 Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 477 24 553 0.81. 0 87 :0.87:• ` 0. 5 7% 7% 7% 28 28 636 60% 60% 3.5 1.00 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Min Min 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ° 11.0 :, .:11.0 0 0 0 0 38.7 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0:33:" -0.32 0.07 :0.02 6.6 6.6 0.0 5.4 `113.3 ._ 8.1, .: 2 :6 . 8.2 B A A A 7.8 A •1900 : 1 900 4.0 4.0 .50 0 . <v 0.95 0.95 0.998 Yes c ?M�!S�iy 1.00 480 1384 18 0:87 0.87 4% 4 % 1591:c 2 1612 ,........,.. 3464 3 1.00 2/3/2003 6 6 :0- `4.0. 20.0 20.0 20.0 0' ,`" `'''54.0 60% 60% 60% 0% 0 ,:`50.0 50.0 MVO 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 • 0: 5:,x; isu�``'iy 3.0 5.0 11:0 :•' 0 38.7 0.59 0.79 10.0 12.5 " 12.5.:. B Page 1 ..r!NE'.M#^;ti'rT?_ ...�•.,:: rc t�...�.r.. y aK•!;nTYY;e.aay.N , ?: r�.�f;Si,ki..?%�.1^ry. ,j:•{Rf4.P��.;r.•__ Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: S 112th Street & SR -99 Area Type: Ufere Fanr.• ,.:i: �F�, Scv;.,. i. �F.. �, g.: ..;,z'+ ^•<Y "r'.p's;�'%w \"n2:..y ,. «�,,. Actuated Cycle Length: 65.8 _ n,r-„� , . -�-•s ...�...... -. c �?wnr.- v,.w�... . �.�.. nt— r '� �F::v;; - ''';.. Nafurai'G cfe.�55���: : ,�xs:••r; ,, �x: ri i ;�. Control Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated ., ... rv:,u.�'...Lr.....z......;, .1..:,w14wi..�.1J•: 9 : a,��.'„��'�'{i ei?'�..e,: t'• Intersection Signal Delay: 13.3 inferse — cITO Ca acs 7ri ilizallon 82':9% Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Other Splits and Phases: 9: S 112th Street & SR -99 2/3/2003 :7 ��'.^ ? lsnT 4 • : t , r; 1 ti.. y- qg'+ tk' y - jt. '�' ✓r ^^�. = : r .....- ,.- _ ••�..r... "• i..r..... 7. � :vr i+ aT a7 •+••r••+� r `'=r r m Yom` J,•a•c.; SGy C w � 'ti ..,`.r +;.:t .:., �.;r'a:T.`.i• .P:S%" `�! z; :y7yT,�,� � �r"@,'"'Lr n� ,�; r� �;: ' . t ���'� r� tt�� ;:3� t 1��� � r 5 f, icT�viy t '7 `j?':j�;• i '��•:.:. "t.ss.:FD.tt �4'.rt :�i' ilY .aY'Va ..R. Y.+.�ay )'+ < +:�1� Intersection LOS: B J;l:evel;of- Service D r,l Tx ,,�m���� f} { ,#� ;� xt���7�.a .:. .... .........1? .4c.._ct_ Afi f «�r��11t L�.9 �.� 'r,.i�:�,: 7 i • .�'.: L4�:.... :M.h��: �'Yi':.:f •: ... Page 2 'i 4'.SwT¢iX.O ±i'iva' `ei7ir5s4k3V.LlriliErA +N.4• +Lfi�lf iJA�YIeI`4:�J�i.l Lanes, Volumes, Timings 13: S 116th Street & SR-99 Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 *grV-1 1 • EB s C k t \*. 4/ Ear.0107.5.0TaM Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) •50 50 . 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 ; 9 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt . o.spo . Flt Protected 0.950 Satd. Flow:(prdt) 1770 1863 1583 0 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 Satd. Flow (pen:0 : •] 1770 . 0 : 0 Right Turn on Red Yes : 2 .. Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 483 607 Travel Time 1120; 13.8 Volume (vph) 313 69 20 0 0 pOok Hod( Factor,.. 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 340 75 22 0 0 0 Perm Turn Type Split Permitted Phases Detector Phases Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 MinimumSplit(s) '200 20 200 Total Split (s) 2.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 ?5! 0% ' :0% Maximum Green (s) 19.0 16.0 19.0 Ye! ( All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode None None None WalkTime(s) 50 50 50 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 Act Lifct Green (s) 16.6 18.0 Actuated o.21. , v/c Ratio 0.89 0.19 0.06 Uniform D' 32..5 27A :,.0.0 Delay 50.6 29.4 12.2 LOS ' D C B Approach Delay 45.1 Approach LOS • D EomEwpilaw .BirawsingoatirrowlaNwomsweam r '11 r r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 - 1 poo 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 mgamiztimTm AMA :P.1.‘WiZZEM • 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 15 . 9 15 ,f 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.850 0.850 • 0.950 0.950 0 1.770 3539 "'1583 1770' 3539, 1583, 0.950 • 0.950 0 1770 .. 3539 .1583 1770 3 539 :7158.3 Yes Yes Yes 4 1 ''2' " a'a 664 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 30 30 563 477 12.8 :198 0 77 392 38 724 831 611 0.92 092 092 092 092 092 092 0 84 426 41 787 903 664 0 84 426 41 787 903 Prot Perm Prot Perm 6 ::1 6 4.0 •:o 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 .80 200 200 80 200 200 0:0 13.0 21.0' 21:0 46.0 54.0 54.0 i44% 23% 9.0 17.0 17.0 42.0 50.0 50.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag Lag . Lead Lab Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 30 r 30 30 30 30 30 None Min Min None Min Min 50 5.0 ,: . •' 50 50 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.0 14.5 14.5 39.2 48.2 48.2 0.09 .0.17 :0.17 ' 0.47, 0.57 • ..057 0.51 0.70 0.13 0.95 0.44 0.56 37.8 32.1 0.0 22.1 106 00 38.8 33.6 10.3 35.4 11.2 1.0 a C BD B A 32.6 16.4 C B •; 2/3/2003 ' ,111,ROW Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 13: S 116th Street & SR -99 Intersection Summary Area'T e; Other Cycle Length: 90 Acfuafeo Cy cle Natural Cycle: 90 Control • Type: Actuated- U_ncoo'rdiriafe - Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95 Intersection Signal 22 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.2% Splits and Phases: 13: S 116th Street & SR -99 Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 • TOO Y uan'- TrTSS �^ -'�;� r. IntiFsection,LOS .0 ICU Level of Service D fi5400110AVOWnstosMawignanglagto i li 04 2/3/2003 :16 Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: S 130th Street & SR-99 Mr.0. 14n: `A.q•df.CT WWW13TORTatiN13-Rac.0.0.14,1011. Lane Configurations 1 Y r 41+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 .•_1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector.(ft) 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 Turning Speed ,(mph) 15 9 9 " 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt Flt Protected 0.966 0.950 Satd.PIOW,(peot) 1729 0 3431» 0 .1770 Fit Permitted 0.966 0.390 Satd Flow (perm) 1729 yO 3431 O, 726 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Link Spead(flih); Link Distance (ft) 609 297 Travel Volume (vph) 159 64 488 7 27 Peak Hour Factor .1 0 79 0 79 0 87 0 87 0 95 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 5% 5% 2% Adi Flow (Dh) ,201 81 56 * Lane Group Flow (vph) 282 Protected Phases Permitted Phass J( 's tf' '6 Detector Phases 8 2 6 6 Minimum'Ini 4 0 4 0 Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 3.5 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 1900 .. 4.0 50 0 0.95 t***TrITTAMMTP=Tr**Xwir.,.. v**vm*Pr*MMtkrn 3539 3539 1.00 817 '18.6 , 904 ?!0,95 2°k 0 • . ... • 3.5 3.5 3.5 Z o n 05 • Lead/Lag Lead,-Lag'',00iniZe Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall mede7 .;::'; ::Noner,:,;,' ::toiii',:: ::' -: . .,,:,,- : Mm ''., Min' Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash DontWalic:(s) :Y„ :119 .= - . .::,',.111..ct; - :- ., !-,2 , :-': :Y :: .11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) :.:, :', ll , • :: , ,. ..;; . .:209-....:; . . ; s.. 20.9 20.9 Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio .--t,.....' ''' 2.; -.,', - 0.56 . 0.28 ,. :,' 0.52 ' :0.07 '.-' :0.52 0.52 0.52 Uniform Delay, dl 11.0 5.5 4.8 6.3 Delay '. -..,-:. . 10.5 64 ,. 6.5 7.3 LOS B A A A Approach 'Delay, ...:,,.:.:- 10.5 -..:: i : : :::;. . . 7.2 Approach LOS B A A 2/3/2003 ... ............. • 's; 0 '1: 0 '• 40 0 • . , tt .; . • • 46% 0% 54% 0% 54% 54% 7 •`;,•-; • ' Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 +t4 _, i! ' r j� . p •fit 7 Area Type: _ -.. Hv �" -'?- > Y C c( ;Len fh� X 9 0 -� 3 . a. e r '} Y g o il ... ;t ; .._a:::,,:....:•T, Actuated Cycle Length: 40.4 Natural Cycle:.40 , s: ,t:ftl : Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Other Splits and Phases: 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 ... 5k'17421 .J YigTO, M rc.,•n•rq,an7nw•. _,.q. _ trf _Yl ';: ?`•a7 -;:rt t ;: ' ;?C','.4 L > y ,....r • '�_•...� { . ' S • M1 Y'4�y �. s,:r 1�':nT;;{:'• n� 7:i- •.F'.•. �.z aximum,v c: ' ti o• , . ^z. ; z� ..x � ,,, -:. ,.,.,•,;,.. , - / Ra '0.56.. ,� � .;: �:f.t:,• ��n.�:�;�,.�r�.�. - �:,.�r�.r'� -x,�, =� f�::• ;,; ;M • ���'�:.'.s : ':,,; : y _. ...•., X. I ,..M.. ti. t+. u. d` �• d i'... F ..cr. 2 ...xi3 � ..r....1•.rar §;._3�. ?� . .. s...,a —.it. ``'ti t.... t .F..c���.ztrtt.:..: Intersection Signal Delay: 7.5 Intersection LOS: A Intersection a aci Utilization ` 1 49: % ., i;. , -{ .� ......�....._..z':,...... p t Y ......... ......:.�,.......,....., ? .:•_:� ;� ; tr: t ?ICU � evel � ofS er vice ? " �� ��5� �- ;�:�';.�.:�+•.�,�>� �� �;z,�'.<�:..�; <:' #w�,; . � •? ti ...s... ,x.r....Q. . ... ...... ... i _ 2/3/2003 Page 2 aX+laNf •i?H'..•A3 a�42.Xtit: aiisu35 •arli'/..it:\ti.+:d,'.i ,. •:::••r rdizfsha7.ikx .+.yu m 'i 8 _ 06 'I [ ;1: -T r '�'4'� ,.._. _ S.h ` -�-".. _ 2�� �5: ; LL`- ..` M . t :. i+. 1 .r'.� i _ •,__ ' : S:'..>.. �i•1 1 i. al.�T•, .�), ....1 �.: YS.:..t �...i.::. ins :.._.�.J:_.._,.�.I.....::�a...s Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 +t4 _, i! ' r j� . p •fit 7 Area Type: _ -.. Hv �" -'?- > Y C c( ;Len fh� X 9 0 -� 3 . a. e r '} Y g o il ... ;t ; .._a:::,,:....:•T, Actuated Cycle Length: 40.4 Natural Cycle:.40 , s: ,t:ftl : Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Other Splits and Phases: 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 ... 5k'17421 .J YigTO, M rc.,•n•rq,an7nw•. _,.q. _ trf _Yl ';: ?`•a7 -;:rt t ;: ' ;?C','.4 L > y ,....r • '�_•...� { . ' S • M1 Y'4�y �. s,:r 1�':nT;;{:'• n� 7:i- •.F'.•. �.z aximum,v c: ' ti o• , . ^z. ; z� ..x � ,,, -:. ,.,.,•,;,.. , - / Ra '0.56.. ,� � .;: �:f.t:,• ��n.�:�;�,.�r�.�. - �:,.�r�.r'� -x,�, =� f�::• ;,; ;M • ���'�:.'.s : ':,,; : y _. ...•., X. I ,..M.. ti. t+. u. d` �• d i'... F ..cr. 2 ...xi3 � ..r....1•.rar §;._3�. ?� . .. s...,a —.it. ``'ti t.... t .F..c���.ztrtt.:..: Intersection Signal Delay: 7.5 Intersection LOS: A Intersection a aci Utilization ` 1 49: % ., i;. , -{ .� ......�....._..z':,...... p t Y ......... ......:.�,.......,....., ? .:•_:� ;� ; tr: t ?ICU � evel � ofS er vice ? " �� ��5� �- ;�:�';.�.:�+•.�,�>� �� �;z,�'.<�:..�; <:' #w�,; . � •? ti ...s... ,x.r....Q. . ... ...... ... i _ 2/3/2003 Page 2 aX+laNf •i?H'..•A3 a�42.Xtit: aiisu35 •arli'/..it:\ti.+:d,'.i ,. •:::••r rdizfsha7.ikx .+.yu Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: S 132nd Street & SR-99 mif _ 'EaRECRIMMTriara:A. Lane Configurations 'f ) ft liT+ Ideal.FloW•,(vphpl) '• . . :1900 1900 • 1900 - '1900 ' 1900 ::':.1900 • ' . Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading.Detector(ft) -.. • ••.:, 50 . • •-• • .'•.50 ••'• -..-.50 .• i • 50 -::-:',.':•-...::::;-....• :i Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 TurningSpeed!-(mph) -- . - 15 '..: - .- 9 ' • - • •" -, - Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt ':,:i-: :-.,:::,.;.:'..- :0.932 • ....•::, :••:.:•:•!:;:- ;,'-.- 0.9,84 Flt Protected 0.976 0.950 Setd'[..FICW ..,..3483: Flt Permitted 0.976 0.186 0tcl...;:if1*..0.9.,fir..0: 57A; ::, ' - 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Se0.''iEyjvpTr,oFyz::*.,:::,::,:',:,:41.:..:':;,,:i,:::,.,:,•:„,::.,';;,g,:,::,iW-:4,:...::i,'„I-,...'..'',,:::24;::;:,:;::,,:,:-..,!:;y...N.,g;p:,4.::,,,:,:,,,:,,,,. ,',:'!,;',i.:,.=.,,,,,::,...,:,:.,.•;,,,,.,, Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0::'' 643 715 297 48 ' 36 36 17 529 912 110 pealij• ,...,, ,.. 007:il'i;.::::0 :0:IiE:::: ..;...;,. Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 4% 4% 2% 2% Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Volume (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 81 TurnTy Protected Phases 4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 0 5 , Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 RecaII Mode, None • • Walk Time (s) 5.0 Flash, porkyyAk - (o) Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) Act EffCt:Greep (s) Actuated g/b Ratio v/C Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Delay LOS Approach Deley Approach LOS Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 t 0 4 ; 8.4 51 51.7 51.7. 0.12 0.34 13.3 7.6 A 7.6 A 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.41 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.6 3.1 A A A 3.1 •e A A •5•••• "i s *.i•••:. •i, •■,:• • • ' •• !•!•• ••••• ••:•...::- F ' ,01,92412 . 51 - ,P,I2as ' es:,;: ), Iiiiv . ..;,,, , 4,..; -e. ;:-4 •. : •• .‘, , ' , ?,;.' , ..., ,- ; • - •,' ;4: , ..- , ix;2 : j:t%; 1 : . 0: •, ,,; ; , - .J .,• , : ": , .,...:;.., ; .. * : ,•, . 7 , : :.`.. ,` ''. 7; ; ., •• •: :': " i - '''''' ''' Detector Phases 4 2 2 6 Miiiiiiifijiiiligrop.i:i•:.' :'.!.;2, oi:iv,., .. Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 1",, 50 ..: ,-;.:0. r. 5. .....-:-a • 550 .,•,/.- 5 Total Split (%) 39% 0% 61% 61% 61% 01/4, hil6AiiiiefileF:,',7', '.,:.3 I :0 •:::' ::': . , . 0 1.0'...:,::.:":61 •••••••• 3.5 3.5 3.5 ' 3.0 3.0 3.0 iin Min Min 5.0 5.0 5.0 110 'i 11 0 1 0 0 0 • .‘r 2/3/2003 . • , Page 1 trt.trtrrXrirrtt , Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: S 132nd Street & SR -99 • Area Type: Actuated Cycle Length: 67.5 Natu a1'CVcte: 40 Control Type: Actuated Uncoordinated Maximum�;v /c- Ratio"�'0:41 s:��, Intersection Signal Delay: 3.2 In "ter "s'ection Ca "ac'i ' Utdizatio Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Other 16: S 132nd Street & SR -99 c�"?i� o,hi y f ?: �AtiA=4jiA i •47 i.Y'�. ' 3 �v ..'���i .0 : fvGtf' s. t: E. r�. ii ca§3�c- i�dt"a?- F�nf'Fw�i� ?.; Intersection LOS: A 'o :Service < i i t arr'rt, • 2/3/2003 Page 2 } _. t � `..:% ?[E $7:: Y4 ?:a c• c!:f «:C S;a • • r.- Wne.n:F:4.iiz 's i�r, �srxi r ? °•s,4:cb�:;owa;cc Lanes, Volumes, Timings 18: S 144th Street & SR-99 2/3/2003 1 . Lane Configurations ) i+ ' I+ 9 +1 r vi +1 r Ideal Flow (vphpl) ''',. '.',' 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 - 1900 1900 ' 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.o Leading Detector (ft) 7 :50 50 - 50 50 . 50 _ 50 -.. ' 50 : .50 50 . :.50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (MPh) • :15 , • 9 ,15 , • • . 9 15 9 15 - : 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.60 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.963 0.986 .: : 1..: . : :,.. , rH.:.:',0.850 - 0.850 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (PfCit) 1759 .- t 0 1770 - 1837 :•.. ..1752;,: .3505 :, :1787 3574 . '1599 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 SOtd.'FloW,.(Fie ,:17.59 .. . :..p, 1770 ; • 1837 -; .:: :',...:,. 0 ... 17?:: apop .;:::, ::,1787.- .:3574 •,1599 , Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Sifd.'flow (RTP13) ',...'jT;.',::::.:,.. •::. '....,;,'• . -„,. .,-, . 5:;,... --:::, : :.•'::%,':',......:,,'.:,:-.“.; .,...*2•78 !.:!';...- : ..,.. -. : ,- 111 Headway Factor 1.00 1.60 1.6o 1.00 1.66 1.00 1.6o 1.6o 1.00 i .00 1.6o 1.00 Link Speed (mph) . . . ' .:.;.;,f :. : ::',,.';' .... .,-,-: 30 : .::',:,";:‘,..• :;.:':: '30 `,..':•.':.i• T*- :, .::::::: ' ,30_•,:::' Link Distance (ft) 481 727 442 715 It'pvel*Thile :. :'.10.9 109 165 .: . ,..::::: ', .,;:.'::'.• : 16.3 r.: . ... Volume (vph) 106 205 66 102 254 25 116 479 66 58 785 105 Peak HoU(FaCtOe• : ...0436 :. 10.90 : ';0:90 i.::!,-16:00 ' , : ,- .0.85,.,?:;,085,..;;•.t045 '. :::,:0:95 : 095 096 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% Adi",FJOW(145,1i),7:n17 ' ' : ; i.f.77, „ .•;:113 282,:c!E',"'28:..,:::,135. ''.."•"5641/ '......i..78 r :.',..; 61 826 '-;t:. 111, Lane Group Flow (vpi 123 315 0 113 310 0 136 564 78 61 826 111 Ttip:11:ii§:=:,T.;,115AN:7,'::‘;,:-:1..;.'i:O.t. : `. :"::q- : :.'-: '; (-'!-',' Prot '''-:''' . ' " Prot '.. s :,;. '::Pefri, -• :.Prot ' ': ':., • - pe'rrii Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 P _e■6.ij4001"bi406:YP32:.t'r•,.,-.".!,y;:.::10•';''..,,,,y.,-A,'.-.:',. r :;, .:::•.,?"-::! l'2:!,'1-.:',"-:•..,,,.„. ,....,.;•,..:;•,,.•,:. ....2 ..,.:t. , . .. -:',,r.,:;•::-..;0 Detecfor Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 6 6 __AA!!*!) , ,)':4:0 .: : , /,;‘.'4'.o: t. '.: ...', .: -:',?. ' 4.9 i::';1 , F 4.0 ii, :4.0 ..', 4.0, :- 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 8.0 2 0.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 Total i::.:',:;;;5•:,! 150 ..r -. 0.0 ' '.14.0;: T00 !: -,...-33.0 :•., 33.0 Total Split (%) 17% 30% 0% 16% 29% 0% 18% 41% 41% 13% 37% 37% Maximum Gree 6.(4yir' 11 0 - .:::"28.0 .. - 10:0::: '.-. 22 0 ..;::-::';, • : . 12 0 :.:;-•; 29:0 : :,29.6 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 A11 :•,.,;.!•.:::::::.•• ;':o.5 . -- ; O:p , - - 0.5 05 :::::';' l' ':-: 05 : ' .05 f -••:. 0.5 ' :. 0.5 0.5 :. ' :0:5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? ,;:,:Yes: !, - .. - YeS Ye :Yee,.: ::.:.: Ye Yes , -:: Yes . Yes '. , ....yeIS Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Made ''.: . :None '. : . . None None : '. :None Min .' Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont 11.0 - • . ' '.-', : -' 11.o . ' : , . . , .11 .0.-:- 11 .0 :, . - 11.o 11 .o Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green"(s). ; .•:110.0 16.9 : 9.5 ,".16.3 ,...."- . 10.6 :... 35.635.6 :8.2 31.1 . 31.1. Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.24 0.13 0.23 0.15 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.45 0.45 v/c Ratio ::. . :-,:•: . '0.50 0.73 0.48 - 0.73 ' - - , 0.53 0.31'; ,t0.09 ,.0.30 0.52 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 31.7 27.4 31.9 28.8 31.5 13.0 0.0 33.6 16.9 0.0 Delay . : . .:.,:'..,;•.' . 36.2 27.1 37.0 .: 28.6 .. -: 355 ' 17.8 .. -5.0 ' 38.1 23.3 5.0 LOS D C D C D B ADC A Approach Delay ... 29.6 ...'. 30.9 • , , • I- 7 .: : : ' 22.1 Approach LOS C C B C Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 Page 1 . ..„.. • . Lanes, Volumes, Timings 18: S 144th Street & SR -99 Area Type: Other Cjicle Length. P.:07 f ,,' �y:,j �I:<; ;: Actuated Cycle Length: 69.4 Control Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated Maximum v)c R ;073 'i"fl +•Y, !(jt:y<J.3:�1t'. Intersection Signal Delay: 24.0 Is�te� section Capac'ity:Ut�l zat or 67 Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Splits and Phases: 18: S 144th Street & SR -99 `G ' •�y i''� � c:, iv�}". i 1 c' • s �;'rt�Y " Z.; ' �n', " `,Y� ,. ';r ' �''i �i f'ri,. �;�...,s� H;;.r,rt... c.:s�•: ;: ,,+:;:�:��.:. . {'.n ...�,, f .� ...y TA - y; ;^ ?,z•r_r•�- .�.:• =y } > : °i .l.. ,'x.: "lii:)o. "tJ, :f, .r "r> .d.. y ...�1 ..IN�.X. .t: :: �, ?^.... - «L.1 n. .��.LL'•. .. �ti� Nl�. .:l'. �:.:{"( �c t�: Y. Y'.. r...:<.+ I..:I..YL'�r3.Y.'aftuJ.�..`.... i�: C�.. A-' Intersection LOS: C -•ti^ -",x«,.: -.,:.. ... :... ..r:iyz -•T,;n .i ; r�arrrc•:. Levet.of tervice f �.S .alp. °, .._, .._.......... .... :.....r..:. c:......- . ............. x...9 _ a.,........z ,ta; ��+. 01 1 05 1 02 06 .:.'J.`.' 1 .r..a10111 68 t 03 07 —+ 04 !I 71 4--- 08 2/3/2003 Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 21: S 152nd Street & SR -99 Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow "(perm)_ .: Right Turn on Red Satd: `Flow (RTOR) Headway Factor Link Speed (mph)'' `: Link Distance (ft) Travel .Time (s) Volume (vph) Peak `.Hour Factor Adj. Flow (vph) One GroupFlow'(v Turn Type Protected Phases; Permitted Phases Detector Phases' : Minimum Initial (s) Minimum Split (s) Total Split (s) Total ":Split ( %o) Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension s Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls( # /hr Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio:, v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Laile;Groupy ':' ; ;EBL;,ED3f rolilEBR .VS3 . VV 5.111YJIIBR BL. r3 ' ;IVaRgas.BL f£S.EIMS13 ++ r ft) ... . 1900 1900 •1900 :.1900 ..1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 ` 50 50 0 0 0 ,9 15 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.850: ".+: °` .; ' ;.0.994. 0.950 3539 ' ::1583 17`70 3518 0.950 3,539: .1583 ::. 1770 351 4) 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 50. .50 : 0 0 _15 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.978 0.987 1798'. 0.948 172 1.00 1st Prot 4.0 20.0 16.0 16.0 0.5 0.5 ;Lead Lag. Yes Yes 3,0 30 None None . ,:5 :0 11.0 11.0 0 5.5 0.06 1.47 0.0 :. . 48.1 D 48.1 D' 4.0 20.0 Yes 1.00 1.00 30 1016 3:1 41 93 :9 45 101 27 29 Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 50 . 50 0 0 .15.. . 1.00 1.00 0.932 0.950 0 y,.1:1770" . 1736 . :• 0.950 1.00 1.00 30 1364 31' 39 81 0:92 88 42 8 , Prot 4.0 4.0 r { ` .20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 22% 22% 16.0 16.0 3,5 3;5 0.5 0.5 ;Lead: . Lag :. Yes Yes 3:0 3.0 None None 5 :0. 5.0 11.0 11.0 9.3 27.2 0.11 0.33 0.44 0.13 35.8 10.2 34.5 11.3 C B 23.7 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 50 0 . 15 1.00 1.00 Yes 1.00 0.950 0 ;1770,: 0.950 0 ,:1770 1.00 32 35 0.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 31 574 13,0 229 783 .:0.92: ': ,0.92;: 249 851 '249 "' '851:, Prot Perm 2': Yes 2 4.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 12.0 33.0 33.0 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead.- Lag Yes Yes None Min 1.00 57 114 ' 1101 62 124 1197 62 124 '4246' 4.0 Prot 4.0 4.0 8.0 `..20.0 13.0 34.0 4/0 38°4 9.0 30.0 :35 435 0. 0.5 Lead :Lag Yes Yes Min : 5.0 11.0 ag Yes ..0 Min 11.0 11.0 None 0.95 1.00 442 2/3/2003 0.95 Yes 1.00 45 49 Y`..0 0.0 % %0 ;0 0 12.1 36.2 36.2 8.5 30.2 0.15 0.44 ;044 ••.0:10. 0.95 0.54 0.08 0.69 0.95 35.4 17..5 ; ;;' 0.0 ; 37.6 _ 25.2 75.3 19.2 5.1 44.1 43.5 E B A,. D . D.: 30.5 43.5 D Page 1 . ,y t !: `' s .� a' : •biF e3 ' 5: °[ r9�s,�.. ' n! ..�..i�e.^!.Tw,7v...-..�ST+.?.. rn.r..- vY.....r:. t..n�:�:!r :4?if•. TT °...._ .: e' Sx'r" Lanes, Volumes, Timings 21: S 152nd Street & SR-99 Intersection Summary , ;.. Cycle Length: 90 NeliraTedZialeleFidth': 81 "5' .„ Natural Cycle: 90 Colifrol :Typo: uated-Uncoor Ina ed-'7. " • •. ).. Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.47 Ihtersec Jon el on' LOS • A "• • • ; . Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.2% ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 21: S 152nd Street & SR-99 Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 01 t c 03 E1 7 TLJ 4 \ 05 06 07 —** 04 1- 08 71111111 7- .'sa-77- 71,7 7.1.7111;61 ffir-7- 2/3/2003 Page 2 •kor,...441„, • Lanes, Volumes, Timings 24: S 154th Street & SR-99 Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 2/3/2003 a tyofizi - v5m4 '' 7 i, ,,r0:1 ,WRITEffe.lix, Lane Configurations 1 4' r 1 4 V ) tt r 11 tt r Ideal FlOW (vphpl) : 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 • 1900 -- 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 : -50 . 50 50 : 50 H.,50' - ' 50 50 50 50 : 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuniing Speed (mph) 15 . . • .":.'l 9 . 15 2 : ' ': - 9. ' '.....15 . ' - ...f . „ 9 15 ' ,' 9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt - ::''' i.-:;;,::•'::::: . : . ,:.., ' 0856 . . - i: 0.850 - ;,:'.',''.:.. :, i... : 0.850 , . : s , ;. 0.850" Fit Permitted 0.950 0.984 0.950 0.950 0.950 Fit Protected 0.950 0.984 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. (pi'dt). ':,,.,1478 1531 - 1392.: 16812; - .17701583 q 1 ,:::, 6346 _1495 '.:1770 .3539 : Satd.:FloW,Oerni):,, 1478 1531 .,1392: 1681 : 1770 - ..: , ...15sp . . .1770 : - 3539,:, Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes • N':, Y PO d ::. F!*:(Fq°I) .:, 'Z , . .. . ,: 1 :• 227 ..:,:. :-:.:.: :149;;;..:-:::::::: ;42 , :;:.: ;:'.:,': Headway Factor 1.00 1 .06 1 .00 1.60 1.60 1.00 4.60 1 .00 1.00 1.60 1:06 1.00 1...irik,:s0e00.(i5P6) ,30 30.. r :!':: = . ::;j', 'T '80 ' ...`.. :: .: '-':' :30 ,. Link Distance (ft) 609 862 525 574 Tra■ie1 Tiri .::::' ' , ' :133 .1.!:: • 0.=: 1 ::.*Ii'-i:: 11.9i ...: ..':: .- .13.0 Volume (vph) 233 125 179 109 244 123 274 603 38 107 988 1 PeaKHOiiiFidtdr I.;0.79, , •079.079;' , ..:',088g:::088,;: 1- •.::.0.88..;.fi'091 ; '..,;',of,: : :: :.0.91 '087 -.: :0.87: Heavy' Vehicles (%) 16% 16% 16% 2% 2% 2% 8% 8% 8% 2% 2% 2% A0i2 295 ' ',...'..i .: '. l.:123 . '1136e.:!Z.1 79 Lane oroup Flow '(vph) 221 232 227 124 277 140 301 663 42 123 1136 179 i.iiti ....;:i: • ";.::::s Pen :..'.Prot - : '-:;2; Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 E erinitteo,F i tila10 - 0 . iii ,::... , . ,. ; -*.,: ) ... : - ! , :::: : ,. , - 1- 41 -,. , : d - ,;:....,:!;:?: , .i: :‘ ',:: ; ..-: :6 Detector Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 • MinttnUnlAnitia(s).....‘.40 r-:; '' 4:6 i 4 40 4O 40 40 ;;. ,.,;. 40 ',. ' ::.4.0 : ',.:' 40' Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 TOtaY,§131it .: ''20::0::!.'‘; 3410' Total Split (%) 22% 22% 2 22% 22% 22% 21% 38% 38% 18% 34% 34% Maximum Oi-orj (0)7::: ,116.0 ,.. 160 16 ::18.0•: : '1,5, r ' -'30.0 . 12.0 -::,;!.:.-:27.9•. Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 825 All-Red Tinie:(6).. '',..::-.: .: . 0.5 :.0:5,;; 0.5 ‘ :.. 05 : i.,.::!.‘0:.5' ‘;'; ',.., 0.5 : 05 :0.5 "[:.::.:6:8 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag LeedLeg:;',..001iniiZe? : .' :: - . - .:.: ,,. .`. , ;,::::.'A:'•;.(:::;':i -. ‘..1'.: . .,•::':: - ,':'f '.-..: .:2'',:: . Yes , Yes ydro,:_ Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 RecallMdde' i::.: ' None - NoffeT Non6::' ,Min ' -: Min None .. Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash Dont VVak (s) , . •- ' 11.0 . 110 ,...-:11':0 : 11.0 . .11.0 :: ,, 11.0 - .4,;''`':::•-':: - ..;. "110 :••• .11.0 - .'..-- ::' ' Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) ': . 15.4 15.4 .:; 154 . 15.6 , 15.61 :,.15.6-; .15.0 :33.9 . - 33.9 .104 . .27.0:::;';' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.30 0.30 v/c Ratio ;- .. .i• : , ' • 0.87 0.88 . - 0:53 . 0.42 • 0.89 .'...:0.38:l .2:, 0.52 - 0.07 '0.81:::::, A .op Uniform Delay, d1 36.2 36.3 0.0 33.2 36.4 0.0 37.4 21.6 0.0 39.1 . 31.0 0.6 Delay . : :.:: r.: ' 51.4 52.3 :',,': 33.5 53.4 . ' 6.2 ,. 99.9 23.1 7.0 37.9 .. 72.4.';',. 4.0 LOS D D A C D A F C A D E A Approach Delay 36.2 .'..1,:.; . 36.6 - ' ..,:\.:,' ..,,..-..- •: : 45.4 . ' ! 66.9' Approach LOS D D D E Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 24: S 154th Street & SR -99 Area Type: Other •. .o.e -rr•� ^, C cie l en ifi5 Y 9 Actuated Cycle Length: 88.9 NaturatC c1e 90 ?' =`• Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated axlmum v c: 'o ! Rati .'I0 Intersection Signal Delay: 48.5 intersection Ga aci ' gtiiizatioh 88:3% Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 i t tr; tom.• Splits and Phases: 24: S 154th Street & SR -99 P•lf' N C 7 4F . "l r ' ? ✓. +t onil .Yl�r:FV6:..8t.L'.4.::i1..:1. r,. .. ..: L 7 +.. {aL :5 • w•w� oie •r ti ";1):�c�!i?;:i �'e `' - }y. • iFr;�..,.: :t'r.:', .ei "`'r'':'y..� -,.xl �s �.,..s ...�.� .. . +FCX. •L.- :.�.*;�'���`sb ,Y + ':�s. ..h, .<:r. 7 ti^,';� r:�;�. ... .•.t...0 +... a.. an..+...:.,,...w:.r +a.,....F.:� ,.e.,an.raW.(� /.Ys�•lli; Intersection LOS: D tre el ofiService�` 2/3/2003 e • - M ` r , tl <SA F j 1 Page 2 '•.. ° �'?�:dll2i`er!S,Y('d:LS:ei.W:: YM .Li•y4 - -ka : ::::zur.1wAW!, + '.y': .4'Y,AFC� ?UI;CSAfwlkEiti'; 'y,:i.71riS:WiCX . • HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: INS North Driveway & SR-99 Lane Configurations 14' 41 Sign Control Stop Free Free • , - Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (Veh/h) 43 63 'c3;25 609 . 1346 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 FlOpilY,flotii 47 68 27 662 ;1463 • Pedestrians 1-0.0 Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Pii5ent la4lOokadd,riit:". ;- Right turn flare (veh) MediaiiN561 6667 Median storage veh) O?e et tC, single (s) 6.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 Baseline 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 B 6.9 4.1 cM capacity (veh/h) 62 362 454 !-'01 ENITT8T3Ta Volum& , o a 3 • Volume Left 47 0 27 0 • !" • t 0 UnlerT‘Igi IL V : • t 4 !'s. • 4 ....A . i.y‘ '''!!!!,!:.P .,••,/!!•• . Yr ;1*. 0 0 • .: !` • ".* !!! • ' IIL * • . ! : : • . • 3 , •'='1.:33• 'vrG vC1, stage 1 conf vol VC2tstage:2.conf. , , , • !•! !!!!!!!!!!!. 2/3/2003 .) • • , r 77gi!- :, • !••:,:, • -!.. !!!!!. •"!.- ';' , *C. i• ':!...3!!!!!! cSH 62 362 454 1700 1700 1700 1700 VOlUifieIFCAYaZifjP 3 0. 9 z! .. 57 ; . •.3.-.!,,..„.:, px.,,,.;-ct...; Queue Length (ft) 84 17 5 0 0 0 0 17 3 _. --r — • - -••• I 1% •• • U1./; '' -'..n.,if • ••:•• •.,,, •••• •• I - 13 - 4 .7 'Vn ' 0 O''''•?'''“' ,-, ,.,...,• ,..3:.. , Lane LOS F C B • „ • :! .05 ! !! Approach LOS rfir01- " y r! ' Average Delay 4.0 IfiteFiection Capicity .Utilization , .;!;:;;;;51:6 ICU Level of Service "`" _ _ • I;;;', Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR-99 & E. Marginal Way 47 1317,440,EiRtraanaBa Lane Configurations )) ft+ ) f r ft r 'in + rr Ideal FloW (vph01) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ::'''1900 : ;1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 150 leo 0 100 150 200 Storage Lanes ' 2 - 0 1 1 . 0 1 2 . ,'.; - :; Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 • 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 :-. . . ..,. * 50 . 50 250 ' , '. . '50 :. 50 :: 50 . ''':.'50 ..,:: :;§o Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turriing (mph) .15 •::!::', , .• ...;:. ': . 15 : . . • , .. . 7 . 15 . . : . 9 15 ' :•: .r. Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 F ri -* -:.**',, :' ''.: - -- • . ;0.9s1;' ,..:;.;:'!...:; ,': i %,.. - 0.850 .::...i... .. , .- - 0.850 - : 1. :: Flt Protected 0.950 • 0.950 0.950 Satd,:;::FidW,65rotI, ',. :.. , 3335 3407, ••••,' •-:., i;1719:.:, 3438 ', .:1638 . ...;:jr, 0 , .: 3195 ' 1429 , 3335, = ';;Y1 . 10:;27, ; Ci7 . 1 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 §,44qFIpw(Perrn)::,. , ....;.,. : 33357..,34071., -- 1719 3438 1538 ::.,:::,:;:,;,0,:.- 3195 1429 :3335 1810...:27,07 1 S00.:FloW(3:17.0,R) , ,,, ,',,!;..:„. Right Turn on Red :4 ,. .. ; ;;;,,-,... H , . - ...;. -. , . - 9 ',' ‘::":)-;!:.q:'.:4 -62 Yes Yes Yes Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !-. :,:.; .., !H ',.. ..:0.'::'- ..::,' '. ' .,::,:: - : .c:1 ..-‘!‘:'':,.-:: . ': ''-'.;'<':: :::-.,::;.:: 9 ':: :'-".. : Link Distance (ft) 968 922 875 948 Tre■iel i- ''.' : ;:::''. ' ': • 21.0 ,:,,: ,:::,J,, : -. .•:;:',•;t;;.::i21.:5:':1 1,1.:E.i Volume (vph) 173 646 42 223 729 132 0 110 350 490 340 616 P09: .0 4 ' :A: . . 9 : . :: -. ..:9;90 ; 0.90 ' 9 ?. . .: : . 0 :9 ;i: P, Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 13% 13% 13% 5% 5% 5% ACIVF10100)7,..:::':';:=-.'::'i''''': '. :::1 79 ..%;:136:-:: '" 7...1 20 . ...:-380 -:. 4052',,m048:,o622 Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 740 0 232 759 138 0 120 380 495 343 622 Toffi Split Prot :scilit..-::',.:CtiStIon,i, Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 6 6 6 E i O) 7 01 1 ,400; Phases .:''',,.:. - . c:' ,:, -.1.- : :;,. , , . :. ,:,,,,,,.,..: :. Detector Phases 4 4 8 8 8 2 2 6 6 6 .. , !' - !.:'• .4:0 •:, - 2: 4.0 ' ); 9...fe1:.0 .. ..,':',, ::' .)::. f.-4.0 . '::'.21::0:. , ?;4: - . 92,=,,i , ,T4A; Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) Maximum G reen (s) Yellow Time (s) N17 Lead/Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Re011Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) • • Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) Act Effat Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio .- Uniform Delay, d1 Delay LOS Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 3.0 3.0 None: 5.0 5.0 11.0...' 0 0 30.5 30:5 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.05' 34.3 41.2 45:6 D D 420 420 00 420 28% 28dk odk 28°A, 380 380 :`“ 3.5 3.5 3.5 0 5 05 05 42:0 28% 28% 0% 3§.0 3.5 3.5 • "- 0.5 ". ""95"' 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ';'• None None ".:None*... • Min 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0 11.0 ,11.0 0 0 0 31.5 31.5 .31 • 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.51 0.83 0.30 36.6 40.7 14.4 41.2 46.0 :192 D D B 5.0 11.0 0 11.6 0.10 0.39 49.8 55.5 E 2/4/2003 28.0 28. •; 19% 19% 25% 25% 25% 24.0 ':240 340340 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 '0.5 05 05''O5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Min Will Min 114iti, 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 .11.9 11.0 . 110 11.0 0 0 •o 0 11.6 284 - '" 284 , 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.53 0.79 0.62 - 0.80 . 0.36 0.0 39.9 42.0 0.0 5.7 ;- 43,3 50.3 1:3, ADD A Page 1 • •■ Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR -99 & E. Marginal Way Appro06:5 pelay; Approach LOS Area Type: Cyc Lengtfi 4 Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Other Actuated Cycle Length: 119.3 Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated +ar.�i'= .r�•:e+Y�! -, +.!r-••w - _'. 1i ?rye �M'��1 �' ..r 3. f`" n' M� mum�,Y7c,Ra iox•0,85 Intersection Signal Delay: 33.9 t t : I e sec ion:Ca aci 'Utiiiza n r tion p �Y {A' I iS Splits and Phases: 1: SR -99 & E. Marginal Way t i` { - y1 ^ �cf'l'`C�`]uY �',':• ;; ,: ';r ,S;.11'{ ))�.:•• r •1�,� -r - . {r '•` '`+ �' 1 - C_`�.L :^lt�.. Y_ �[ �_._..•:. ts: � 1 . �. ��. a.���.)- 'a..:i«��Si'I^t.L._•.. , . L. ._ yL t — 5L'_...�... i } ; 1 2/4/2003 L{:i �Z..�'�.t�.w 'G 4 . r•• rrn- - . •ev 7' 'i! aq y i - 1 , ( '•:S' y � 4 r" . .,(, f ' i •V::i i � � . � •vt .3Y • I.1` ' ... �.. ��� y . : 1,� •�. f 4 ':? • .y <.x . e:='. w'.. Yi. w" .I.ftw.'2..i't.;�.Y..f.k+.�.'�S ti iu ? -• • - i . •1`iis t � 1� S I•, t -S \ r*- r4•' f��.: M. �. r��:' �F• �% a11� ?,rtnrl Intersection LOS: C ,. �Fr j ' S s °n.,wr li' .. �.. r.'+C•[ y - r« r a }. ICLI teverof� Se rvice;B "S s'? t ' i � t i . 2 'lfL.�.tG,sSG' 2L�•i'!t9' :. rw„ i...:...... u.......... al.,.. r.•. 4...*. n. ......::7r:•3.iy�ti��rvd.�ii:. i'� l��Arr ^ "C�!�! liT„i L.:ert.•4.'f7i. Page 2 • .r'' fif': °ha: •?�;iuA:c�:a �i JV.hs3<G �`s'.�i�r a: SMmbFo-rwa ;di' ^�'a�a� `1'.af.6ti$•Y.S&'u'rLL.1hi . ter -.r. - M1t' rfF ' - f' � i . .�:�: :.. - -n.'� rr �-T ±. ,,. r � R .. 1 T Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: SR -99 & E. Marginal Way Appro06:5 pelay; Approach LOS Area Type: Cyc Lengtfi 4 Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Other Actuated Cycle Length: 119.3 Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated +ar.�i'= .r�•:e+Y�! -, +.!r-••w - _'. 1i ?rye �M'��1 �' ..r 3. f`" n' M� mum�,Y7c,Ra iox•0,85 Intersection Signal Delay: 33.9 t t : I e sec ion:Ca aci 'Utiiiza n r tion p �Y {A' I iS Splits and Phases: 1: SR -99 & E. Marginal Way t i` { - y1 ^ �cf'l'`C�`]uY �',':• ;; ,: ';r ,S;.11'{ ))�.:•• r •1�,� -r - . {r '•` '`+ �' 1 - C_`�.L :^lt�.. Y_ �[ �_._..•:. ts: � 1 . �. ��. a.���.)- 'a..:i«��Si'I^t.L._•.. , . L. ._ yL t — 5L'_...�... i } ; 1 2/4/2003 L{:i �Z..�'�.t�.w 'G 4 . r•• rrn- - . •ev 7' 'i! aq y i - 1 , ( '•:S' y � 4 r" . .,(, f ' i •V::i i � � . � •vt .3Y • I.1` ' ... �.. ��� y . : 1,� •�. f 4 ':? • .y <.x . e:='. w'.. Yi. w" .I.ftw.'2..i't.;�.Y..f.k+.�.'�S ti iu ? -• • - i . •1`iis t � 1� S I•, t -S \ r*- r4•' f��.: M. �. r��:' �F• �% a11� ?,rtnrl Intersection LOS: C ,. �Fr j ' S s °n.,wr li' .. �.. r.'+C•[ y - r« r a }. ICLI teverof� Se rvice;B "S s'? t ' i � t i . 2 'lfL.�.tG,sSG' 2L�•i'!t9' :. rw„ i...:...... u.......... al.,.. r.•. 4...*. n. ......::7r:•3.iy�ti��rvd.�ii:. i'� l��Arr ^ "C�!�! liT„i L.:ert.•4.'f7i. Page 2 • .r'' fif': °ha: •?�;iuA:c�:a �i JV.hs3<G �`s'.�i�r a: SMmbFo-rwa ;di' ^�'a�a� `1'.af.6ti$•Y.S&'u'rLL.1hi Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: S 112th Street & SR -99 Ra0e 01,4(31 EB RIM.B.R BG 1.,BTVXRINN.B Lane Configurations '+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900, 1900 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading gDetector.(ft); 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 Turning Speed, (mph). Lane Util. Factor Flt Protected Satd.Flow Flt Permitted Satd. Flow'(perm) Right Turn on Red Satd : Fiow; (RT,OR Headway Factor Link Speed;(mph) .; Link Distance (ft) Travel Tirne°(s); Volume (vph) PeakHour Factor:;. Heavy Vehicles ( %) Adj. Fiow (vph),» Lane Group Flow (vph) Protected Phases PermittedPhases +; Detector Phases Minimum: lnit'iaiL(s)i Minimum Split (s) Total,Split °(s) " Total Split ( %) Maximum 3reeri (s Yellow Time (s) All -Red Time'(s) ' Lead /Lag Lead -Lag' Optim lze .' Vehicle Extension (s) RecelfMOd'e': Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) >? Pedestrian Calls (## /hr) Act Effct:Green Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 15 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.884 0.950 87 • 1663 0.750 411 .1663 , 0 Yes / 21' . 1.00 1.00 1.00 466 140 60 V 207 ,0 80 0 80 0 : 80 1% 1% 1% 5% 175 75 259::- .:152 175 334 0 152 ?erm" Perm 20.0 20.0 Q, 36 40% 40% 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 10 -,11.0 0 0 :18 18.5 0.28 0.28 :.045 0.70 19.4 19.7 :20.9 .: 20.7 `. C C 20.8 C 1900 4.0 50 0 15 1.00 0.950 0 ;1719, 1697 0.398 :720; 1697 1.00 123 3.0 None 5.0 11.0 0 18.5 0.28 0.76 21.5 24.6 C 1.00 0.938 5 . 1.00 `30 479 10.9 6 :.0.81 5% :7 .. 12 20.0 20.0 36.0 0% 40% 40% 32.0 3.5 3.5 0:5 3.0 None;; 5.0 11.0" 0 18.5 0.28 0.03 9.9 15.3 B 24.0 C 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 50 0 9 15 1.00 1.00 0.950 ',.1687 0.080 0 '142 Yes 1.00 5% 1 9 BARN BR y SIEOM .• S,B , 1900 1900. 1900 :`. •:1900: ': 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 • 50: 50 • 0 0 0 :9' .. '`: 15. 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0:850 ::;:;': ; 0.998 0.950 . _ .. 3374 :150 1736: :. 3464 0.323 3374 590 ::',3464 1509; Yes 62. 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.0 3.0 3.0 <.M iri• . Miri; :;, .;M 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0.' 110 •::•11i0 1.00 477 24 635 54 8 1400 87 ' ;0.87 0 87 :0:87:,: >',0 :87.-.; 7% 7% 7% 4% 4% 28 730 62) 9 ;c1699 * . 28 730 62 9 1630 .Perm. Perm ' `Perm • 20.0 2 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 54:0 ; �•' .54 0 0% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% :.50 0 50 0 50 0 ;r 50.'0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 '`•0:5 0:5; . ,.0.5;: '0:5'. 6' 6 13.2 8.3 °.8.2. B A A A :... 8.0 A 480 3.5 2/4/2003 12.8 B 12.8 B Yes 1.00 1.00 1 . 8 0:87 4% :21 0% 3.0 3.0 Min Min: 5.0 5.0 11.0 0 0 0 0 0 , 39.3 39.3 " •:39.3 > :39:3 39.3 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.33 0.37 :0.07 ` 0.03 • -: 0:80 6.6 6.8 0.0 5.4 10.1 Page 1 im.+:t� =. r;' M. un; ro- w�, .y,..,...,.,....,,,•.n•.,me.,,, q, x-.-,* r» myak;.,, sw; � .:?M;4!^?."!ry?'.!t?sx- n*,...,; fi 1 l 1 ' 02 04 ti .. a .. r .... + ..... .... .. 61, :: (.(_._..'...l:u�...:. : G. •__r.:.. J._�.__'L. .i.: ..u.l _L....�.._._... ._..a aa........ ..._.::1.. ...rr.• ._ .. .. ._.�..W_'1.L '- 06 _ y •x {•Rir.1 } r F .j. . �� i � T . r r * n,7::n ' ;'. ; l � 7 _ L...r..�s , �.._ 1 ,._ :�L7f.._...,,:....: +:: L- i.r'_u•::x...:z,._�r= •r o.......,._. � y ;, ti •'� ...._.__._•: ,,,�...,, ; ... ♦ Y 08 _ �� g ' ,Tqr..:: - % .-, �112.(.'.'..'1W' ;F::`. ::_d Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: S 112th Street & SR -99 2/4/2003 • Area Type: Other G clejLen "tfi: `"t:: y g Actuated Cycle Length: 66.5 - t- .- «.,••. .'�•'rn.�Y- •• --�•�� j�H�} L 1 „.�71 "�':.5::1 ip.�r•.. • ar.t Natural'CycIe55.r,, R ' �`' >t. s,.ts "` Fay: Control Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated .r. , +.y'l., ..,... w•i . +.- •. � .,Sn.. hJ�{G:!*Y; U'7:'{a ^�+ii ��'r'. "� ^T-'v�.!SyF.'•,1,,: ",'x.����� %'i: Intersection Signal Delay: 13.4 Intersection LOS: :t +g.-t. L,,.,.vcn y n w .. � r3 ; WC Intersection Ga aci}�'` fiiization 83:4 %'.+ { = t � `� Levei o Seri . L_ "... .. ... .....�...,•L...... ^ ...,....._._.- _a.- x....,......_ .... + ..r.K. t .�'...•_u.. �.3..�.•s..,.. �....... .. , ,..,,:• e ^: rp sc r 4 Splits and Phases: 9: S 112th Street & SR -99 Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 B -�r ` .='. , s � G • �r.' }iYi+ A GP. \�. "?Jr.t'R � Y rT:" -�C .' �r` � 7" .. . I...:.Li.i.l. i':r. h:I�• I.M.1+.•+4.erirdJJ�.+.Yw.. sx?s,� • d ag c. d,.. t2!iv� ..�a.cO:�:� �a- Page 2 ; sa:isG'i, tt,5r .i,r. r5i<;>,:.�i:+S.i�,: #y •eaa+rs:.?w iinriw .4� 44.114' •:o.4iyrn>vi� .... 5s? wC ti' ai'l irivsdr.. .ic ' Lanes, Volumes, Timings 13: S 116th Street & SR-99 t arrowtrammeawakawminreamaymayoRmouNT tt 1900 4.0 50 0 Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd.:FIP ' Fit Permitted , Right Turn on Red s6ta., (1 Headway Factor Link Speed (rriph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Volume (vph) P,eaki,HPUTIFOCtor Adj. Flow (vph) Lane GrouFlow (vph) Turn Type Rirlim. Total Split (s) Total Split (%) Maximum Green (s) yellOW1" (s) • All-Red Time (s) Lead-Lag Optimize? yehicle (s) Recall Mode Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, dl Delay LOS y r! Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 '50 50 0 0 0 0 • 15 -9 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 850 • 0.950 1770 • 0 0.950 1770 1 : , Yes 1.00 1.00 'Lod 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 483 313 69 22 092 092 092 092 340 75 24 0 :340' 0 Split Perm Permitted Phases 4 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Approach Delay 45.3 Approach LOS D 23.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0% 19.0 19.0 19.0 10.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Yes • - • , , None None None None '0.. 5.0 50 11.0 11.0 11.0 o o 18.1 18.1 18.1 0.21 :.0.21 0.91 0.19 0.07 33.4. • 128.1 0.0 51.1 29.7 11.8 D C - B 0.950 .1770_ 3539 0.950 .0 0 1770 3539 Yes 30 '30 '3; do 563 477 . 13.8 - • 12.8 . 0 0 86 474 114 74 863 092 092 0.92 . :0.92 " 0.92 092 092 092 0 • 0 93 515 124 787 • 938 664 0 0 '93 515 124 787 938 664 Prot Perm Prot Perm : 2 5 - '2 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 • 4.0 4.0 20.0 • . 8.0 200 200 8.7 0.10 0.53 • 38.1 38.4 D ++ r 1900 •1900 ' 1900: 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 * - .50 0 0 '0 0 , • 9 : 15 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.850 '0.850 0.950 1583 :.•1770 '3539 583 0.950 15 83 Yes Yes 124 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 dikre,DM‘Ws--NP 21.0 21.0 46.0 53.0 53.0 '23% '';23%*: 1 51.7/ . d 59% 59 17.0 17.0 42.0 49.0 49.0 3.5 T3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.0 ::3.0 30 30 30 , • Min Min None Min Min 5.0 : :5.0 ..): 5.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 0 :•• *0 - 0 '':Fb 15.7 15.7 39.6 48.9 48.9 0.18 0.18 .0.46 0.57 : , 0.57 0.79 0.32 0.96 0.46 0.56 32.8 0.0 22.8 11.0 0.0 35.8 6.5 37.8 11.8 1.0 D A D B A 31.1 17.4 C. B ,•• "TAX}VP. 2/4/2003 Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 13: S 116th Street & SR-99 Intersection Summary Me 'aXifil* Ti in i'!::: ':'!:::. ''':;0..t ti 0 I,' :' ''.! '.:::::':( - . '.' .: ...?? . vg4!:-: e.:1-...,:;?..i :. ?-.; !„- , ..- • : : q-,:,-, t:: .!ns,::!..f i.:.; 7!';.'i. 13' , 'f..5 ,,,, : r ,‘...; -....: .. : ,..!f.;•:.,..-;...-:: .!:; ..s. ::., - A :,:i.v. ;-,.. i , 1 ‘.::!i': , ..z.:11.iii,_!! 7 it ;.; Cycle Length: 90 K elfaTeEr: 69.61 ei i rgi ' ...,.. Natural Cycle: 90 OiSiTir ,...,........,......Q ...,.....,........„ . . ......:..........,....! Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96 Frifer . Irsection•L ,,,,..., • -7 .',I,FCP■7,7n'=.tii7.•.;;:,.•?;7*..7.1'sri:",IFF";?::161.,;1417421;.Sliitrg.1.477.77 .... Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7% ICU Level of Service D Splits and Phases: 13: S 116th Street & SR-99 creTh .7" u Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 2/4/2003 Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) ' = 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) :. 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Turning Speed (mph) " Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 0:961 Fit Protected 0.966 Satd. '; _ 1729 " '• Flt Permitted 0.966 Satd ' Flow w ;1 729 Right Turn on Red Satd::Fiow.' RTOR Headway Factor Lir k‘Speed,;(mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time(s).'. Volume (vph) Peak : Flout Factor Heavy Vehicles (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) _.- Protected Phases Per:mitted?Phases ; ;` i ,;•, . Detector Phases Minimum In'it'ial (s)°y M inimum Spli (s) 20.0 Total Spiit () Total Split ( %) Maximum :Green'( Yellow Time (s) All =Red Time (s) ' Lead /Lag Lead -Lag O ptimize', Vehicle Extension (s) Recall. Mode.''ti { . , Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk`(s) Pedestrian Calls ( # /h_ r) Act Effct Green: (s) l 15 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 v/c Ratio :.0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 12. Delay ,;11,.5. LOS B Approach Delay: ::11 :5 Approach LOS B Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 4 !.1 1.00 609 159 2% 283 p. v 44 % 3.5 3.0 one. 5.0 : 61- fl 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 9 9 :.. 15 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.998 0.950 3431,- . ';'.0 . 1770 ;. ::3539,;. 0.383 65 '0:79 2% :" 3431, Yes Yes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 30- 297 6.8 503 .8.7 0:87 5% 78` 586 20.0 0% 56% 3.5 0.5 3.0 .Min 5.0 11.0 0 22.9 0.54 0.32 5.4 6.3 A 6.3 A rsrntir -rr� r te . . 1900 4.0 50 0 713 :3539 1.00 x;30 428 33 973 0.95 :9 2% 2% . 35:;`x;1024 35 1024 Perm` ' • 20.0 20.0 0% 56% 56% '':46.0: ;46:0 3.5 3.5 5 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 11:0 0 0 ;22.9 22.9 0.54 0.54 0.09 0.54 4.7 6.3 6.4 7.3 .. A A 7.3 . A 2/4/2003 aqe Gro.' Rr . BRA B B R SB f ; s, . ,4);M:5:11.4 4 a• Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 2/4/2003 Area Type: Other Actuated Cycle Length: 42.7 Natiural'_G' 81"6 40 l,rr�-, . ' .�:;r ....0..."1 . • • ., 4. 4 , .. 1., ‘4,,,,,,,...,,.„-,.....: Control ~ Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated ' :xT.fOrDW ,.0 _. j , ..,, ^ 7,cyw , - , et , ..rc ,£:, ,.^ *irr ..�:r:t._ tic^ V' b: ^ xi m u m ; I t io :- 0 : 5 8 - - �, ` ,- -r. k , Y .' r•a ?� t i E ;�: ��s .![y t . ktk� ei l". L = + ' q ty" Intersection Sign D elay: 7.6 Intersection LOS: A '...,1 * -", rW -,1.7 ,, t 0 g 1VA Y3• - • 0 . -�� A :J rt,i; ..1 - _ ,,,,,.,... n. , t erse ct i on 'Ca nacity, U t i lization •5 2•: , ;s t .` ,7 ' � � 1 , = - • 'l Leve i, - x eft ; ` h { gi n f 4 : y ' In I: .......-,< n,...... �...,. ,,,,,..w... >� :�........ - ...........:,. _..., �� .: � Lti6- �: j . ., ...... ,..... • ...,..•. t. ra.,>...,> �. �;.•, �t, '� � , •y ,...i ...F, Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 14: S 130th Street & SR -99 Page 2 a ier„ z; rfr.* ,:z:.:a:zot;'+1 i dA:sh(i.'.4:i -1 11.0".. t,;:itx.a 'ar :6:o Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt Flt Protected Satd. ,Flow:;(prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow(perm) Right Turn on Red Satd.,Fiow' Headway Factor Link Speed : (mph); Link Distance (ft) Travel.Times Volume (vph) Peak `Hour F actor . Heavy Vehicles ( %) Adj: FIow4(vph).;s _ `;,;:. Lane Group Flow (vph) TuFn' Type''`x r ' Protected Phases Perm itted PtiaeP Detector Phases Minimum °Initials 'w Minimum Split (s) Total-Spltt(s) r' Total Split ( %) Maximum Green `(s) Yellow Time (s) AII- Red:Time;(s) Lead /Lag Lead- Lag;:Optim iize? Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: S 132nd Street & SR -99 50 .. 0 1.00 0.933 0.975 1:678 0.975 1.00 30 643 37 y88 3% 83 20.0 38% 3.5 EB B. B5r Ni 013 [RE v 1900 ':1900:.,.1900 1900 1900 1900` 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 0 0 0.95 0.95 0.984 1 .00 Yes 1.00 36 3% 4\ 1.00 1.00 715 6.8 17 542 972 0.97. 0.93 v 4% 4% 2% 559. 1945 18 559 1173 20.0 20.0 20.0 X0;0, 0% 62% 62% 62% 0% .62.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode• , , None ;. ' ? :Min Min ' Min Walk Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Flash`DontiWaik (s) `..., ;;11A ;:.;:` -: ?f ' ,':11:0. -. 41.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) 0 0 0 0 Act EffctGreen,(s) 8.4, ° i;t` :: ,.52:6, ;.' 52.6 ' 52.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.77 0.77 0.77 v/c Ratio:' '•:'..,` .0.35 , 0.08 0.21 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 13.8 1.9 2.1 2.6 Delay ;8.1 'I3.3 . 2.6 3.2 LOS A A A A Approach 8.1 1 2.6 3.2 Approach LOS A A A ft +t 50 0 ; :.15. 1.00 0.950 :1,736 :: '3471.: 3483 : - 0.168 •3483 :25 1.00 :30 297 0.95 4.0 119 2% .fit✓ °r�r`F:'�C.�:;"C'.�ili9'4 . rFr ; f : ; ;IM ..I • t' 4 i k ti 2/4/2003 Page 1 r3!ttw•n.,... ee inrt..'e.'•A.r am!rf.;. nw "^�n„'e', , .+? e!^, mr +m,.rnY�.•.q.«..;+..�.•+.•n±.r rs'Jm. n..'.:" ? 1t1i.- `.y,- W`f.., .._1____S •`i•�..OF7.7'7�'SM ___ 4 4 o2 --A 04 ... -- ' .....--7-- ""'" -- ' ----. " --- ' - ' - ' . ----"`......" "77 -"'-' = ' ,.. -- .7777 v./ 1 •-", -11 • , . "E -. ';.: - .. • , :--,,,-, -, 1 . - • - -. ,-, ,,,....• , .:,.. - -.1 -- . .- :. , ' ; , ...„:_-.11: , 4:::,,_" ...,..z..1...._:..:..,.2._:.... , — ....., 77. Ula • •,',','",: / ..,:,, ;•',' ;•••••• ,,, 1 , . -.••,,, .... • ,, ,. •• • , .. ,;! ........,.,.......4._,.....1.1.1,.....-..-....-4 ,....,., - ,•,:..:,:, .,,,, r , ' I P 06 NI:\ S*7.!'...,...::.1 , ,— , - • . "--") Lanes, Volumes, Timings 16: S 132nd Street & SR-99 •1•••'•• • Area Type: Other Le' Cl y eJLengt 4 1" gut .,„ , , 1.. 4 . • ;•.. •••., Actuated Cycle Length: 68.3 • _ Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated MaximUm IcR *Av.- •• Intersection Signal Delay: 3.2 Intersection LOS: A Splits and Phases: 16: S 132nd Street & SR-99 Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 V'' • • :,,„; ; ;,.. . •,••••••• ••j•-•••+-1,,, j;,• • • ••••••• •-••••••,,..1x •7 ft; N 2/4/2003 '•" + Page 2 ' ' • F " • "' Lanes, Volumes, Timings 18: S 144th Street & SR-99 IfirleTO. Kin Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vph01) '1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading Detector(ft) 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 4 1 I ttit, Turning Speed (mph).15 9 15 Lane Util. Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt '• 0.963 - 0.985 Fit Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow(proty : .::'V*,*:- . 1736,1759' , .' , * : '0 1770 1835 '''. '.= . .0 : 1752 ' 3505 " 1 568 - 2 1787 Fit Permitted ' 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 ptd::,Floif,(0660):;:' ',.. ' : :* .'9:::: , 177 183 -1752 350 !'-' Right turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Satd. (RTOR): , 17.;:s ':,-,,',..,'. ---e , . ..2, .- ,`.•!::: es, : ;...:: , 's - ... f.i -.....:';78 Headway Factor 1.60 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.66 1.66 1.013 1.06 1.00 1.00 Link Speed '(hiph -"''-':' • 30 - 30 • 30'; Link Distance (ft) 481 727 442 TrOVI:ri0e'(S) .::;',1 :,.'!:-::j_.:;(.1"(1.6:P:'.::',' 16.5. .,,':: .:: -, ,:. .;:1,--, lo .o Volume (vph) 110 205 66 11:1/2 2521 28 116 485 66 73 Peak - 1Hour F6otof; : ,:e .;;: ,.„:9.:15 . ,, , :i0 :86 :R,'i :86, ,.:..: 0:90 ..: ."0.90 ... : . 0.85 . .:;:-.!0.85 . :. '0.95 Heavy VehicieS (%) 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1% AdjF., 1 : 77 - '. 282 :7;;:;3"1 ' ..."1 35 ,. .571 .. ;:78 -..- ,' 77 Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 315 0 113 313 ' 0 136 571 78 77 T4 i' ;0-at:‘ . '' .::? ..-:.!i: • :: ,:f,i7f9f - ' ,:.. : , .perrn Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 '2 1 PO:Triite.O'Pf.!a.40;74;;::'fi1::i:.:-‘,:. ... :. :;-,, :,,la, ' . .?,..... . i :,....: .:‘,.. ,. ,,,, .: . , : :,,--..:,, ..., -:: ,..: 2 Detector Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 2 1 MiiiithUin:lhitial ',:y.:e'v,i , 0 , :.4.0' ..-': 4.0! ':----%• '.' ' -; 4.0; ..:: . :. 4.0 . , ..... -,. Minimum Split (s) 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 8.0 Ti ''':14.0 . - .260 --','---.;; 0.0' .7,'.160'.:'‘i360 - :* 13.0 --,- Total Split (%) 17% 30% 010 16% 29% 0% 18% 40% 40% 14% IVI : • 16.0 •.226* ," 12.6.. ;320 , ::: : ` : .32.0 - '':9 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 AIF.Red Tirne1(s) 0;3' ' ;0 ,,',: , :,...• ,. 0:5 . ; ;'' .' : -:::p.5 . 0.5 :;:j 0.5 : '0.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag optiniiie?.:,,:;..' ‘ ;;,: ,: .'.':' Yes ..Y66'..:. .., s.YeS . •Yes ';',.-Yes . . Yet Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall MOdel:'., -:;.. s'i ..;' - .None . None .,=:: : None miric.H Min" 'None Walk Time (s) Flash Dont wok Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) Act Effct Green (s) - Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio - Uniform Delay, d1 Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 4 ' . t :47MTAW VigivyEal.0. 1900'i900 1900 1900. 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 '50 50 50 0 0 0 5.0 11 0 0 . 102 71 9.5 0.14 0.24 0.13 0.52 0.73 0.48 31.8 27.2 32.0 37.8 ,27.3 37.3 D C .30.3 9 1.00 5.0 .11.0 0 16.5 • :- 0.23 0.74 28.7 29.1: 31.3 -: ++ ' 1900 .1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 15 9 15 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.850 0.950 0.950 2/4/2003 r 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 50' '50 0 0 9 0.95 1.00 0.850 3574 •1599 1599. Yes :133 1.00 1.00 716 16.3' 809 1'o 1°/0 • 852 33 852 133 �rm 6 6 '4.0' , •*4.0 20.0 20.0 .33.0 , 33.0 37% 37% 29.0 . 29.0 3.5 3.5 0.5 ; Lag Lag Yes .:Yes 3.0 3.0 Min Min 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 0 0 0 0 10.6 33.6 33.6 8.8 31.8 31.8 0.15 0.48 0.48 0.12 0.45 0.45 • 0.53. 0.34 0.10 0.35 0.53 0.17 31.4 14.5 0.0 32.0 17.3 0.0 35.8 19.7 . 5.2 37.2 23.5 4.6 D B A DC A 21.0 : 22.1 Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 18: S 144th Street & SR -99 Area Type: Other __ C i&Lengtli::9Q, f;541 L ,; Vi Actuated Cycle Length: 70.3 Natural Cycle 60 . 1 , ,, vg ' •.S t v .. W .„':4�:7: D'. t r L 1:rR... Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated Maximum •:vf Ratio. 0 74 ��, - �:; t fe x - � Intersection Signal Delay: 24.6 .n. �v^•. �> TrvY r..r t tv'. �r� "}S }i�r:��'�T7., I�te�sectlon; Capacity: ltilization7.68.3 %= {yam „ ;t� Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 Splits and Phases: 18: S 144th Street & SR -99 Intersection LOS: C C ' LeV "i of:Seciiice` , .:,Sf r� r� s?.:,F:::� �iX`i5��kil:iY;`�i ��'•. ..A \O " 01 _.® 1I3T l 05 (� 02 4 7 06 c 03 " 07 — 'v 04 4— 08 2/4/2003 r•. ,4,: yr r .c. - ; • , • •N+j+t!f.•• 3 C u r•; +• �. �` . r�'1, Li.�i'4S.S�.:�.t,S'��' �f ;`�t��'.l�i i:•�ya..:� - yy ,. �� •"4 .t`.�,_. •; ?, Page 2 .�.i4?'vla• / = :�i� -`+ii tl;�!':;'f •3;it CC.E±{.gA45-: 4ja i cl :, > 'psi'aIWAciatt.,;''.1Ji5:t5 1 ° r ".i.+ =:j`:: JF45:f1- is"•bt^."Y'ie','iviu7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 21: S 152nd Street & SR-99 Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt Fit Protected Setd..:Flow (prot) Flt Permitted std. Right Turn on Red Satd:- Flow '(RTOR) _ Headway Factor Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Volume (vph) Yellow Time (s) All-Red Time (s) Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehi Extension (s) Recall Mode Welk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio at76701;57,537FMAMER,Taa T+ ft 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 •50 . 50 . : : 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 9 15 : f 9 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.978 0931 - ' 0.987 0.950 0.950 0 1798 0 1770 1734 0 ::1770 : 3539 0.946 0.950 0.950 3539 Yes Yes 10 36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 30 ,30 30 di 6 1364 574 231, 310 ; `;: ' 42 93 27 81 39 33 229 785 -. 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 46 101 29 88 42 36 249 853 Lane G 5 ! . .0:F 1 91.^/(v0) ,::;%.: T Turn Type Prot Pi Permitted Phases 12 '.-7 '1-..,s ........? Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20 3 . • :o ,20.0:-.-':i.,!:- ,.".,:-:•:!. Total Split (s) 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 16.0 37.0 37.0 13.0 34.0 0.0 Total split . (To) : ,', . . 2 oyc . ,. , ' : _.1 ..: '41% r!..41% Maximum Green (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 12.0 33.0 33.0 9.0 30.0 Approach Delay Apbroach LOS Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 . . , : ;13..5 , 3.5 ; 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lead Lag' Lead Lag Lead • Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 40 . : : '3:0 :3 0 None None None None 50 50 5.0 50 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 0 .0 5.5 9.3 27.2 12.1 • - 006 0.11 0.33 : - - 0.15 1.48 0.44 0.13 0.95 Uniform Delay, dl . o o : 35.s 10.1 35.4 Delay 48.4 LOS 48.4 ;48 Prot '8 34.5 11.2 C 'B 23.6 9 2/4/2003 r tT+ 1900 1900 1900 • 1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 50 50 :5O.1 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.850 ., 0.994 0.950 1583 1770 3518 0 0.950 .1583 1770 Yes Yes 62 ' 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 442 57 117 1119 48 0:92 0.92 62 127 1216 52 853 ' 62 Prot Perm Prot 5 2 1 • 2 2 - 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 80 20.0 !.. • None po; • - • 7 • • ■ ,• ■ • , • • 3•5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 :Lag Lag Lead Yes Yes Yes . 3.0 ',3 Min Min None 5.0 5.0„ 1 .`• 11.0 11.0 o - ":0 36.2 36.2 8.6 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.54 0.08 0.70 17.5 '00 :37.6 75.3 19.2 5.1 45.0 B A D 30.4 C easw 3.5 . • . • 0.5 Lag Yes Min 11.0 .0 30.2 0.37 0.97 25.4 47.0 D 46.8 D: Page 1 \III. 01 r:pr .,-,,,,, \�5 t 02 -%7.4.:.c.:,- lal.l..,.,....:.-.:.:_u.:,......,.:.... • 06 •;,, 03 ..... ...fr 07 ; .-,,L, —111 04 -;.i...... ni 4-- 08 ...._..:,...:—...,:_....--' - • Eq7. . - • ,.... .c.,.....:.,--.11.....-,....._..L......0.........-..-...........,...-,..... : '-:::: 1% 12 i'6'i4; 1±41tEE7 '::•;.:!'- Lanes, Volumes, Timings 21: S 152nd Street & SR-99 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 AZITaleITZTC Natural Cycle: 90 Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 ' • • •• • ' o'' Splits and Phases: 21: S 152nd Street & SR-99 2/4/2003 AzAt tr./0,,I,c;•• • .,• • . • - • • OCirTIFOrtr06'Wotilitadzlilif6 Maximum vic Ratio: 1.48 • • • •• • Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.9% ICU Level of Service C Page 2 A:443' 514.16'...i,t,to Lanes, Volumes, Timings 24: S 154th Street & SR -99 La Te airdre L Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Flt Protected Saki. Flow.(prot) FIt Permitted Satd Flow. :(perm) ,,, Right Turn on Red Satd Flow Headway Factor Link. Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time; (s). ;. Volume (vph) Peak;Hoiir, Factor Heavy Vehicles ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn.Type .` .. Protected Phases Permitl'edipliases'`��.`•, Detector Phases Minimum Initial; s Minimum Split (s) Total Split(s)_ Total Split ( %) Makimum1Green (s) Yellow Time (s) All -Red Split Lead /Lag Lead -Lag Optimize ?, Vehicle Extension (s) Recall; Mode' _° Walk Time (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls ( # /hr) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio': Uniform Delay, d1 Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 a ` 7EB1 meTawB ; j 1 Brow - Bi�2 Ewk a,NBT t iy" BR' RWS.WBWW QMS8}4 4 q ) 41 rr 1 ++ ? ) ++ r 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50 50 50 50 50: 50 • 50 • 50 50 50 ;50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 9 ... 15 _ .9 15 9 15 ; '. 9 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 . 0.850 0.850.. , :: _ . 0.850 ''' .:0.860 0.950 0.984 0.950 0.950 0.950 1478 1531 :.'1392 -1681 1770 -:1583 1 1671 - -3343: 1495 ..1770 = 3539 :. :1583 0.950 0.984 0.950 0.950 0.950 1478. 1531 .: .1 681..1 770 1. •16 71. _3343...1495 1770, 3539 Yes Yes Yes Yes '227 :141 42 190 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -30 - 30 609 525 2 0.0 20:0 22% 1 6.0 3.5 0.5 3.0 None 5.0 11;.0 0 15.4 0.17 0.87 35.7 51.8 D 05 13.8 :: 235 125 179 109 0.79 ` ;` ..0:79 ' : 0.79 16% 16% 16% 297,, 222 233 227 124 Split : Perm Spli, 4 .. 2% 20.0 20.0 20.0 22% 22% 22% 16.`0. ,?-16.0 16.0 3.5 3.5 3,5 0.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 None `- ` None 5.0 5.0 5.0 11 :0'` ; 11.0,`:: :...,11.0 0 0 0 15.4 .15.4 :15.6 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.88 "':0.53``:0.42 35.8 0.0 32.7 53.0 5.1``. 33.5 D A C 36.6 •,. D 1.00 30.. 862 19.6 244 0.88 2% 277•; 277 141 301 'Perm Prot 5 . 20.0 22% 124 274 I.88.f:; 2% 8% 141 : .301 20.0 :200:' 22% 21% 0 16:0. ,.15.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 : 0.5 8.0 Lead .. .Yes 3.0 3.0 3.0 None .None ` None 5.0 5.0 5.0 11.0 • : 11.0 ::,,.;:: 11.0 0 0 0 15.6 ' 15.6 15.0 :31 :2 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.35 0.89 0136 1.07 :0.57 35.9 0.0 37.0 23.4 53.4 : :6.2 `.99.9 24.6 D A F C 36.6. .. .... 46.4 D D Lag Lag Yes .Yes 3.0 3.0 Min Min 5.0 11.0 0 31.2 0.35 0.08 0.0 7.2 A .11:9.:,.:• 604 38 0.91 - ;.,:, 8% 8% 664 ' . • ..42 664 42 Perm :2 2 !4`.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 ;`33:0 33.0 37% 37% 29 :0 29.0 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 • 1.00 1.00 ..:.13.0 113 991 0.87 2% 2% 130 1139 130 1139 Prot Perri 1 8.0 20.0 20.0 ':0 ; '31 :0 x'31'0 19% 34% 34% 13.0 27:0 27:0 3.5 3.5 3.5 • Lead Lag Lag Yes : :; 3.0 3.0 3.0 None`;; ;;. Min::` ;; Mini 5.0 5.0 1 1:0 :..11:0 0 0 27.0`: ' 27:0 0.30 0.30 0.31 31.0 73.4. E 61.1 E 10.9 0.12 0.60 36.9 37.0 D 574 2/4/2003 165 2% .190 190 0.0 3.9 A Page 1 z = rt w QQ JU 0 D W H � w u. e5 = w zI Z O ILI ill O • D- O H ww 0 r- 11. Z w U = O ~ z Lanes, Volumes, Timings 24: S 154th Street & SR -99 te( =7 taa ' b•a3t L Area Type: Other Actuated Cycle Length: 89 NatiT4.1 c 5.;90 >; *Wi",1 � Control Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated - .uttt.. y ,,, Y VC.a7�ur '�, .•'•„v1.1:4;' '7 �' : "' r "!1 IMaximu v t _ m c Ra io. �:07..,.rr � �, ... Intersection Signal Delay: 48.9 �+i'NT A Rir T. Intersec i o n Capac6710izatioi '_88 5° Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever -sx51 24: S 154th Street & SR -99 :',r. •+•ei. ��..+�..Tit 4 �.:-' t: i'., �i: E:�y�.'q� T-,r. ,. . ,� r � �,�. ��:.. -�, - ,.- .,....,:•- ..... +rw .y F';:r: rM{� ;�,•. >�.;. hw�a:'i t•, ;•...._., • .' tL ..�'s. 2/4/2003 Cj:n ti y'�'..'r,�.,K ¢B'• F;;•r -- ...rt•,,r•;r,. .v Y.y ...: l' f tr'3 wti•'f:: �a�. yt.' (.f•tYrt':°7- iht*�r`'�.:� y+t r'r`+ l.l:.i5. i.%•ri''r'; ;" '�s'�:t�:.•w.`� �a Intersection LOS: D • :.c., r. s a.,. .. 4 .xfn:. ra. ' ..�,.r.f..:a.:.,....� = :_..:. �.:...r�,K . ;Pr..::X Page 2 z _~ o: 6 �U U0 : U O u) w J = F- O 2 g J u. Q' w � . . W Z � Z O ff; W W 0 O� w w I— H O w Z N , 0 Z Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: INS North Driveway & SR -99 Lars GGo kj " EBES Ew Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost Time (s) Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Turning Speed (mph) Lane Util. Factor Frt • Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Permitted Satd. Flow(perm) Right Turn on Red Satd. Flow,(RTOR) Headway Factor Link Speed (Mph). Link Distance (ft) Travel Time ' (s) Volume (vph) Peak Hour Adj. Flow (vph) up Lane`Gro Flow (vpi Turn Type Protected f?hases`2 Permitted Phases Detector Phases; " Minimum initial (s) Minimum' Split Total Split (s) Total Split;( %) , Maximum Green (s) Yellow Time.(s) All -Red Time (s) Lead /Lag :'` :...... Lead -Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) Recall Mode Walk Time. (s) Flash Dont Walk (s) Pedestrian Calls'( # /hr) Act Effct Green (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, di Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Future with Project 2004 INS Building TlA perteeever -sx51 1900 4.0 50 0 '15 1.00 1.00 4.0 4.0 50 • - 50 0 0 1.00 1.00 • 0.850 0.950 1770'; x°1583 0.250 '466 15 Yes 68 1.00 1900. 1900 1900 1.00 43 Split None 11 .0 244 3.0 `;3.0 One None 5.0 11.0 0 7.4 .11 ":;: 0.11 0.24 0.29 28.4 "-0.0 28.4 9.3 - C,,:' A 17.1 B � :i:IfiM �:i.t ryY7rlalL 3 1/1 .... Z L � � 11.0 7.4 TAlti.t2 V�,./6 4.0 4.0 4.0 •50 50 50 0 0 ... . 0 . 15 ): 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.850 0.950 ) ;:1770 ,'1583' 0.726 1 1.00 1.00 4_ 4 ` \" 4 \ t / 4' 4/ �T BT ,y,V INA B'L ".�, igg RCSB. 5 I r 41 fi 1900.'1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900. 1900.:,1900 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 50. : 0 0 0 15 9 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.997 478 63 55 2. ., 68 60 0 179 68 0 custom Split custom Perm o 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 50.0 56% 16.0 16.0 ' 16.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 5 ' :3.5 3 :5' 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 :3.0 :::;3. ,.i:•: ;3:0 -3.0 .. 3.0 None None None Min Min ;.'5 0: :.:< 5:0 , `:• 5 :0 : `.. 5.0 5.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 : '.0. 0 8.0 8.0 39.5 39.5 0.13. .0.13 '0:63 0.63 0.27 0.50 0.26 0.33 25.3: 0.0 5.6 5.9 27.3 5.8 10.4 6.7 C`..:: ; A B A 11.2 6.8 B. .. A (1583 Yes 179' 1.00 0.950 1770 '3529 0.087 ;:;.162 3529 ,3. 1.00 30; 388 8.8 25 671 :92 `0.92 27 729 .7.42 1.00 -0 0 Yes 1.00 1.00 12 34 0.92 ' 0,92 13 37 .0 37;; Perm 50 50 : Min 11.0 0 39.5 0.63 0.10 • '5.0 7.3 A. 2/4/2003 0 1.00 0.95 0.95 :0.999 t; 0.950 1770 3536, 0.304 566 1.00 x;30. 563 .12.8 • 1359 0.92 1477 1486,::: Yes 1.00 :92 4.0 4.0 0';` 0.0 50.0 50.0 `:56% ' '.r; 56% ', 0 %0 46.0 46.0 5 0.5 0.5 0.0 3:0 Min •5.0 11.0 0 39.5 0.63 0.67 '8.1 9.2 A 9.1 A. Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: INS North Driveway & SR-99 Intersection Summary : 1. • • t • f.",.■ • lip Th' .; Cycle Length: 90 AatiialiirC7Clorreiiatti Natural Cycle: 80 • Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.67 ""'" • t';';•t " .••••;!:. • Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service A Splits and Phases: 6: INS North Driveway & SR-99 Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 2/4/2003 Page 2 • .trAlu 3:thaz+W.sy.a.V.,:.4.0444.01■Ar .. ,- ■ ••,•,. i'.. -„•• ..-.• , ...-•,...,,i 1 • - • •i.: ,....i...,:,:. ) .•..;•.:::. - ....P.Z..;:' •.:.:....:--.._`-•.:,,,,..1 ! '-' '•'• WA:it; t'•••••• •• • •••••,. L.....7.1.6..v..:-.•:::--... ... . ,-• — - "t •••• •• • - • ' - -" ,'"7 . ., 7", ,..:7”-..7.,r17.777771..7' rti -'•''•-'•' ;''..i.11 - ..:::..i...T.,f,.7.•,.,:: :.._ ...-..• L..1. • • ••••••• Lanes, Volumes, Timings 6: INS North Driveway & SR-99 Intersection Summary : 1. • • t • f.",.■ • lip Th' .; Cycle Length: 90 AatiialiirC7Clorreiiatti Natural Cycle: 80 • Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.67 ""'" • t';';•t " .••••;!:. • Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service A Splits and Phases: 6: INS North Driveway & SR-99 Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 2/4/2003 Page 2 • .trAlu 3:thaz+W.sy.a.V.,:.4.0444.01■Ar HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: INS South Driveway & SR-99 WeileTtie771M21111W018.11WITRUNIWATIB 131WITWIRSB Lane Configurations I I r fr+ ) ft Sigh ContrOl StOP:;:..' ' ,,;: :Free . - - : . Free Grade 0% 0% 0% - - ; 647 „;‘: • . 4 1 ''.14P1; -:.:...:::-:;'-;.:!.:'. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vehlii) - ; - :;703 ; 4 . 14 ;1591:: Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) : :::Y -..--:',' • : ... Walking Speed (ft/s) Perderit BlaCkage'f: Right turn flare (veh) klP0.10. Median storage veh) VC;' 29,;;;;'f354 ), 708 vC1, stage 1 conf vol n "ri.f4 -0 v '-- t's„L 4,-r . .-:i,';' , 9 YQ?1 .,.—, - •-••••• !'.•••• .,...: ,....,:','.;.•:. ,,'• ':k"!'• ' ',' -',, :'.., * - • ,'.' - :• ;',,.‘; .: • • tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 • ,,•:,•,',,,, ::Z' tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 tc-':2 e ks — . , P0':Ciiietiefeei;% 9u ::,:i i.,..up,.4p. '.,T.:1 ii , ',• , ,,,..- n ' - -. • ': ” ,. • ,.-. !. •-•, -.% 'fin'n p.i' cM capacity (veh/h) 106 643 887 1, ,7 . '.1 ''„' ,.: ,,,,, ..-. ,.; ,,,,. .-. -,, , , ,w-:Tri.i , IT7 l' ' :-. ',. - :::-.1•:,LS -4 .?•:-',Z= 4.ft'.;:.ZriKei •::".','.: !' tf ••■ • :,:'-` .^'-,::. '. ..'. ' ;LI' 7„:1 Voiam t 22 67 Volume Left Lane LOS Approach DIay(s) 20 Approach LOS erA.Q01,1,14P_Mr,1341 IMO Future with Project 2004 INS Building TIA perteeever-sx51 rarrffittIrnaiegt,..4.1 - •• • . • , ••••••-•',• ••• • . • " Y.,:: • . , • • • • • • •;•' - • 2/4/2003 :.`••• f . 1 "-TZt : , • !'" • ••...1. • •••: ,•• 22 0 0 0 14 0 0 v s7,:711-71 •1V 7/• , , • v cSH 106 643 1700 1700 887 1700 1700 41 Queue Length (ft) 18 9 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay..(s) , .0 ‘1, 0.0 . - •- Average Delay 0.8 Irt:te*CtiOri (.1,11 861-Vide Page 1 Deborah Ritter - RE First Blush @INS - -- Tments From: Ross Heller < rossh @perteet.com> To: 'Cyndy Knighton' <cknighton @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, Sanjeev Tandle <SanjeevT @perteet.com> Date: 2/4/03 12:57PM Subject: RE: First Blush @ INS Comments Cyndy, I have reviewed your concerns with Sanjeev, and he is making corrections. The corrections include the following: 1. A 5 % total reduction for transit & HOV for both visitors and employees. This number was a given from INS. It does seem reasonable based on the transit services planned, and the opportunity for car pools. Please consider that the peak hour estimate as a whole is conservative. Sanjeevs model for the parking study attributes nearly 20% of the visitor trips to the peak hour; typical for ITE is 8% to 16% of the daily total in peak hour. The report will use 100% of the day shift and 66% of off shift employees to calculate AM peak hour trips (after deducting the 5% for HOV /transit). 5 -10% may actually arrive off -peak. The 16% credit (giving 84% of the total) used in the previous report will be eliminated - this was a mix of ITE directional distribution estimates and projected trips based on the design (apples and oranges) that should not have been used. This does increase the peak hour trips and we will update the analysis based on that. • Page z ~z � w 6 UO CO C cnw J U� 2. The 10% reduction will be eliminated. You are correct,the 10% was valid O F for the parking evaluation, but should not be used to change the trips. w w H • 3. No change to the total visitor trips. 110 trips (18% of the total) for u.. ~O visitors in the AM peak should be on the high side. Breaking them out iii z between those with appointments and those without is not relevant to the U evaluation. ~O I-- We have done our best to accurately project the traffic volumes based on the data provided by the INS; which we believe to be more accurate than the general rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Thank you for your help. We will deliver the revised report this afternoon. Ross Original Message From: Cyndy Knighton [mailto :cknighton @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:00 PM To: rossh @perteet.com; SanjeevT @perteet.com Cc: Deborah Ritter Subject: First Blush @ INS Comments Sanjeev, Ross, I've taken a first cut at reading the re- submitted traffic report for the INS building and will offer the following comments. • z Deborah Ritter -RE: First Blush @INS ^mments T ..__J,,�. .. w .,.... _ � n. Page2 F T 1. I think taking a 5% reduction for visitor transit use may be optimistic given the lack of transit service in the area. I'm also leaning to saying the 7% reduction in employee trips for HOV is also high. Sorry I didn't catch this before but be prepared for me to say no. I'll have to look and see if the change in trip generation is significant enough to warrant yet another update and Synchro run. You shoudl hope I'm in a benevolent mood tomorrow. 2. When it comes to trip reductions, I suspect you calculated the 10% visitor arrival in carpool, taxi, and hotel shuttle incorrectly. From what I could figure, it seems like you simply lopped off 10 %, implying that 10% of the visitors don't arrive in a vehicle at all. Is this truly what you are implying? 3. Page 7 shows 0 visitor trips entering in the AM peak for those with appointments. I think this is incorrect as all visitors with 9:00 appointments WILL be arriving in the 8 -9am peak hour. There are other items I still want to verify or clarify, but as of 7pm this evening, this is what I have to pass on right now. I will be in at 9 and able to work on this until my 10:30 meeting. After that, I'm pretty much unable to look at this until 3. Will do my best to get the rest of my comments to you, if there are any, asap. I will also discuss the transit reduction and get back with you soon. Cyndy Cyndy Knighton Senior Transportation Engineer City of Tukwila 206.433.0179 206.431.3665 fax CC: Deborah Ritter <dritter @ci.tukwila.wa.us> City of Tukwila Department of. Public Works To: Deb Ritter From: Cyndy Knighton Date: February 4, 2003 Re: INS Building Final Traffic Report Comments L02 -055, L02 -056, L02 -057 I have reviewed the February 4, 2002 Traffic Impact Analysis report by Perteet Engineering, Inc. for the proposed INS facility on Tukwila International Boulevard. The trip generation prepared for this study has been challenging to pin down but what is presented in this final report is conservative. This should represent a worst -case scenario. The report is acceptable. The additional memorandums regarding parking demand and queue length analysis for the previous site plan, dated January 31, 2003 and February 4, 2003 respectively, are also acceptable. The proposed INS facility does not adversely affect area level of service and therefore complies with our concurrency ordinance. Concurrency impact fees will be due at the issuance of the building permit. However, at this time, the actual amount cannot be calculated until Brian Shelton, City Engineer, returns from vacation. These fees are for impacts to the Tukwila International Boulevard projects known as TIB Phase 1 - Phase 3. Frontage improvements and driveway alignments, as shown on the site plan, are acceptable. The traffic report does indicate that WSDOT warrants for a right turn lane are met for northbound traffic at the northerly driveway and a right turn pocket for northbound traffic at the southerly driveway. The City of Tukwila will not be requiring either the turn pocket or the turn lane. However, should the applicant wish to install them at his own cost, and can continue to meet the design requirements for the entire site, the City would allow them to be constructed. \ \tuk2 \vol l \pubworks \cyndy \development review \tia memos by permit # \IO2 -55 ins building final comments 2- 4- 03.doc CIr( O F K W1/A FEB 0 5 2g03 PERMIT CENTER SABEY CORPORATION Narrative Description Design Review Submittal For IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard submitted January 31, 2003 Sabey Corporation is submitting for Design Review a new facility at 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard. This facility will consist of a 4 -story office building over a 3 -story parking structure. Additional parking will be located in a structure to the north. The facility would provide approximately 137,500 net usable square feet of office space for the Immigration and Naturalization Service Seattle District Office. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site • The site for this facility is located at the north end of Tukwila International Boulevard. It runs along the east side of the highway, from the access road to northbound SR 99 at the north end to the abandoned Non -Stop Restaurant at the south end. The site slopes steeply down to the east, away from the highway. The office building is located near the south end of the site, at the top of the slope, on grade with the highway. It is a simple rectangular shape with its long side parallel to the street. There is a major entry element in the center of the wall facing the street. In front of this entry will be a sky - lighted portico and a large, level plaza. The plaza will contain planting, benches, a flagpole and a covered waiting area with additional seating. This plaza is designed to blend in with the building creating a gracious public area to support a major government institution. • A large office building such as the INS facility requires a significant number of parking spaces. The vast majority of the staff parking for this facility is located in a parking garage under the building, with some additional on -grade parking to the east and south. Very little of this parking is visible from the highway. The service yard has also been placed below and behind the building. Not only is it completely hidden from the street by the building, but landscaping and fencing keeps it hidden from the neighboring residential areas as well. • This facility will serve a large number of visitors. To accommodate the visitor parking, an additional parking structure is included to the north of the building. This structure is set well back from the highway and is built into the hillside. There is extensive landscaping around and within the parking, which screens the structure from view. The net effect of these features makes the parking structure seem much smaller than its actual capacity. • The INS Seattle District Office achieves an attractive transition to the streetscape by its parallel alignment to the street and its large formal entry plaza. Parking and service areas are carefully screened and large paved areas are minimized. The siting and scale of the building give it a strong presence on the highway, which is appropriate for a major public facility. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area • The INS site is accessed strictly from Tukwila International Boulevard. There are two entry drives, one to the south of the building and one to the north. The south entry serves to provide access to the loading dock and to a portion of the staff parking in the lowest level of the parking structure. There is no public access from this driveway. The north entrance REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES VENTURE FUNDING Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 RECEIVED FEB 7 200 C©MIVIUNItY DE?LOPMENT 206/281 -8700 main line 206/282 -9951 fax line www.sabey.com DESIGN REVIEW NARRATIVE JANUARY 3 1 , 2003 PAGE 2 OF 6 provides staff access to the upper two parking levels, public access to the drop -off area adjacent to the building, and access to the visitor parking structure. There is no connection between the two driveways, except for a secure route for INS transportation vehicles. These busses and vans come on to the site via the north entry, drive past the east side of the building to drop off or pick up 'passengers at the sallyport, and exit via the south driveway. The only other access road is a driveway from the visitor parking structure to the north. This driveway serves for fire truck exiting from the site and as an emergency exit for INS, if it is ever needed. The driveway is gated to prevent any other vehicles from using this route. • This section of Tukwila International Boulevard has two northbound and two southbound lanes and a continuous center turning lane. The speed limit in this area is 45 mph. In an effort to reduce the conflicts•between turning movements, the north entry drive is located directly across from the south entry drive for the Intergate.West office park. This location creates a 4- legged intersection that allows for easy turns into and out of both developments. Pending WSDOT approval, this intersection will be signalized. • Access to the facility via public transportation was an important consideration in site selection for the INS. There is an existing bus zone directly in front of this site. For INS security reasons, the northbound stop has been moved further north. At the request of Metro Transit, the southbound stop is now located in front of Intergate.West office park. These locations direct pedestrians crossing the highway to the safety of the signalized intersection. • Public pedestrian access to the site is from the new sidewalk along Tukwila International Boulevard. Security fencing and retaining walls insure that there is no pedestrian access from any other direction. Visitors arriving by bus can follow the sidewalk along the street to the main entry plaza. Visitors who arrive at the drop -off area have a short level walk to the entry plaza. Visitors using the parking structure have a single pathway that leads them directly to the plaza. Staff enters the building directly from the garage levels under the building, or via a separate secured entry from the employee plaza. Only the pathway from the visitor parking structure crosses any driveway and that crossing is placed at a safe location with good visibility. All pathways from the handicapped parking to the building are within the slope requirements of the Washington Accessibility Code. • Bicycle racks for public use are provided in the entry plaza. Bicycle parking for staff use will be provided in the parking garage under the building. • The INS Seattle District Office is similar in form and massing to the existing office buildings along the highway. There is extensive landscaping that complements the building while providing buffers to the neighboring residential properties. The building provides an image of quality and permanence that will enhance the character of the highway corridor. Care has been undertaken to insure that pedestrian access to the site, and circulation within it, is safe, secure, and compatible with the area. Vehicular circulation has been specifically designed to increase safety through close integration with existing circulation patterns. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment • One of the major features of this site is the steeply sloping topography. The design of the building has been developed to utilize this slope. The parking garage under the building is built into the slope and is hidden behind terraced retaining walls with cascading planting. The retaining walls stretch out around the corners of the building and blend into the existing topography. They organize the slope into a series of terraces and serve as a transition between the native landscape and the formal landscaped areas. Trees and shrubbery are provided along these retaining walls to screen the parking or driveways. DESIGN REVIEW NARRATIVE JANUARY 31, 2003 PAGE 3 OF 6 From the residential area to the east, this site appears as a series of cascading terraces stepping up the hillside, filled with landscaping, that visually buffers both the terrace walls and the office structure above. • Landscaping is used extensively throughout the site, and is integrated with the building and site design. Planting materials for the project have been selected to provide visual interest, consistency, and variety, and to provide habitat value. They have been selected for seasonal color as well. Sloped areas on the site that have been barren in the past will receive new planting. Areas visible from the streets and neighborhood have been heavily planted and base areas around the building have been formally planted. Level areas around the building have accent planting and sod wherever possible. The area to the east of the building adjacent to the wetland has been left natural except for the water quality pond. Native planting is placed around the pond, in the buffer area, and in any area disturbed by construction. The natural forest around Riverton Creek to the east of the site separates the project visually from its neighboring structures. • The integrated landscape treatment also extends to the north around the visitor parking structure. Plantings are located here to provide shade and visual interest, but they are separated from drive lanes by curbs and walks, to minimize the opportunity for damage by vehicles. Utilizing the change in grade, the trees and shrubs along the west side of the parking area form a very effective visual screen from the highway. Plantings have been provided along the east side of the parking structure to buffer its appearance from the properties to the east. • The INS Building is set over 60' back from the street. On the west side of the building, between the front entry and the street, is a large paved public plaza. All visitors to the building are directed through this plaza on their way into the building. The plaza is set apart from other areas by low granite -faced walls with granite tops. There is a planting area with trees and base shrubs between the low walls and the building. Directly in front of the building entry is a flagpole, which is bracketed by broad granite- topped seating walls. On each side of this seating area is a row of decorative trees that serve to frame the entry. This arrangement manages to provide the security barriers that the INS requires while still creating a gracious and inviting connection between the building and the street. • Because of the layout of the site, large fields of parking have been eliminated. Only the loading dock area, which is hidden away at the back of the building, has any extensive areas of paving. This parking and service area is set behind a screened security fence. Since the visitor parking structure is cut into the hillside, the plantings along the uphill edge screen off a large portion of the parking area. • All rooftop equipment on the building structure is placed behind acoustical and visual screens. This screen wall is modulated to emulate the massing of the building and has a cornice element to reflect the wall design. All on -grade equipment is located in the loading dock area, behind the screened security fence or individual screen walls. No equipment for this facility is visible from the adjoining properties. • The exterior lighting has been designed to provide adequate coverage for all parking areas and walkways and to meet the tenant's security requirements. Because of the parking setbacks, fixture photometrics, and grade changes, there is no spillage of Tight onto adjacent properties. • The INS Seattle District Office is sited to fully utilize the existing topography to reduce the mass and screen parking and services. Sidewalks and parking areas are laid out and graded to insure that circulation is clear and safe while providing an attractive urban setting. The landscape treatment frames the building and creates a gentle transition between the structures and the surrounding area. Care has been taken to ensure the DESIGN REVIEW NARRATIVE JANUARY 3 1 , 2003 PAGE 4 OF 6 viability of the landscaping and to protect it from vehicles. Trees and shrubs are placed around and within parking areas to provide screening as well as shade. The service yard and all free - standing equipment is fully screened by the building, fencing and planting. Exterior lighting provides for pedestrian and vehicular safety while minimizing the impact on the surroundings. Additional exterior lighting is provided to enhance the entry plaza and to accent the building. 4. Building Design • This facility is designed as a best -in -class office building utilizing high -end materials such as granite and architectural precast concrete. The materials have been selected and detailed to provide an appearance of constancy and solidity that is appropriate to a federal facility. We have designed this facility to provide a dignified facade that creates a significant presence on the highway. This project is similar in size to the office buildings across the highway at Intergate.West and helps to form an impressive gateway for this entrance to Tukwila International Boulevard. • The materials for this building have been chosen to reflect a sense of permanence and stability. The durable, natural or pre - finished materials that have been selected will maintain their attractive look for many years. The palette is low key and dignified. Bright or trendy colors have been eschewed, as they are inappropriate to a facility designed for a long -term institutional tenant. However, the facade is rich and lively due to the variety of the architectural elements and the way they have been composed. • The office building has a continuous granite base. The base cladding uses a primary stone that has a variety of earthen and taupe tones. Accent panels of granite are used to create linear connections between elements and to add visual richness to the pedestrian level facade. To separate the building from the landscaping and paving at the base, the sill area has been clad with the accent granite. This granite is a darker crystalline stone that contains black, green, taupe and buff values. The aluminum windows along the base are recessed into the facade and have dark mullions. This arrangement creates deep shadows and, with the rich materials, conveys a sense of strength and stability. The granite base steps up in the center of the front (west) facade. At the main entry the entire facade is granite, as is the portico in front. The windows are still set deeply in the wall but they have been grouped into larger elements. This configuration gives the facade a sense of grandeur and importance that is appropriate to a major government building. • The exterior cladding includes architectural precast panels. These panels are set back behind the plane of the granite. Their smooth, even finish will complement the more varied coloration of the natural granite. The concrete will be integrally colored in a warm buff tone, which has also been chosen to complement the deeper taupe tones of the granite. The concrete panels change elevation as they move around the facade. They step up with the granite towards the entry and step down as they go around the corner. This configuration adds variety to the facade creating greater visual interest in the large mass of the building. The cornice element for all areas of the building, except the main entry, is also precast concrete. This element flares outward, adding variety to the facade and giving a traditional sense of completeness to the wall. The planter walls along the east side of the building are precast concrete, colored to match the panels on the building. They are capped by a buff colored precast concrete railing that coordinates with the building elements above. • The remainder of the wall surfaces will be clad with aluminum and glass curtainwall. The glass panels for this curtainwall will have a definite green tint, similar to the Intergate.West office buildings. The curtainwall framing will be clear anodized aluminum. Using the lighter ?. 6�P" dhM/ R1, 1. Y��• ,��„y4Ya'A+^� "�aM+'F[I`!Y�"��!w .ww..pm { DESIGN REVIEW NARRATIVE JANUARY 3 1 , 2003 PAGE 5 OF 6 colored framing members heightens their contrast with the glass and makes the building seem brighter. It also makes the mullions more visible, so their varied rhythms lend a greater liveliness to the facade. The curtainwall steps back at the front corners of the top floor, creating small decks. These notches help to break down the bulk of the building and add variety to the cornice line. • The screen walls on the roof have a pre- finished metal facing in a slightly lighter buff color than the precast wall panels. These screen walls include sound absorbing panels in accordance with the requirements of the Noise Report for this project. A matching metal cornice element is included to reflect the wall design. • The entry plaza is paved with integrally colored concrete. The concrete is a Tight beige color with darker brown edge banding and accent stripes. There is a flagpole directly in front of the entry with precast concrete seating walls facing the street. A freestanding canopy extends across the front of the building. This canopy has light steel framing and a glass roof. The steel is painted a parchment color to blend with the building. The employee plaza on the south side of the building will be similarly finished with integrally colored concrete. The patterning of this plaza carries around to the east plaza area and extends past the rear employee entrance. The precast seating elements in the plaza are a dark gray color that picks up the tone of the accent granite on the building. • The INS Seattle District Office is a high -end commercial office structure. Its style is basically post- modern, where the abstract elements of the modern movement have been overlaid with some traditional enhancements. However, the stylistic features are deliberately understated to enhance the sense of stability and permanence. The structure is in scale with its neighboring office developments. The proportion and modulation of the facade are well balanced and appropriate to the significance of the use. The colors are similar to neighboring commercial structure and blend well with the landscape treatment. All utility equipment on the building and on the site is fully screened. Exterior lighting enhances the building design by accenting building features while blending into the overall color scheme. Variety has been achieved in the design through the use of materials and the modulation of the facade. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture • Retaining walls across the site are generally constructed of integrally colored unit masonry walls. They have a buff color to blend with the building and the landscaping. Guardrails and handrails around the building are powder- coated aluminum in a dark bronze color. The security fencing at the loading dock area is vinyl coated chain Zink with obscuring slats. • The visitor parking structure is constructed of precast concrete members. The surfaces are finished with a textured paint that reflects the color scheme of the project. Railings on the structure and canopy elements are finished with white enamel. There is additional chain link fencing in this area. • Site lighting is provided primarily by pole- mounted fixtures. These poles and fixtures have a dark bronze finish to coordinate with the darker mullion color on the building. The poles will be 20' high and the fixtures will have a sharp horizontal cutoff, so spillage and glare are minimized. There is supplementary lighting around all the plazas and accent lighting incorporated into the soffits of the first floor window recesses. Pole lighting is provided along the perimeter of the west and south plazas. The plaza canopy is lighted to accent its design and create a feeling of warmth. Both the front and rear entry canopies are lighted as well. Recessed well lights are provided to Tight the flagpole. The building surfaces are illuminated from ground- mounted fixtures to wash the building with light at night for security DESIGN REVIEW NARRATIVE JANUARY 31 , 2003 PAGE 6 OF 6 and visual interest. The lamps used around the building will be color corrected metal halide. At the visitor parking areas sodium vapor lamps will be used. • The Immigration and Naturalization Service has specifically directed that there be no signage on the building. The facility is identified only by a monument sign directly in front of the entry plaza. There is directional signage at each site entry drive. All signage is sited and designed in conformance to all City requirements, including vision triangles. • The INS Seattle District Office utilizes miscellaneous structures and site furnishings to enhance the building design. All lighting on the site meets City guidelines while serving appropriate security and accent purposes. Consistency with Adopted Plans and Regulations • This project greatly advances the goals of the City with regard to development along Tukwila International Boulevard. It provides a source of jobs for the community and an increase in the business activity along the highway. Local shops and restaurants should see greater customer flow from both the additional workforce and the added public visits to the area. • This facility complies with all zoning regulations of the City, including building height, setbacks, landscaping and parking. • The Immigration and Naturalization Service requested a best -of -class office facility. This facility fully meets their requirements. Since it is situated at the north end of Tukwila International Boulevard, it establishes a standard for future development along the highway. This handsome, monumental edifice stands at a gateway to the City and will project a grand and enduring image of quality for years to come. SBEY CORPORATION Narrative Description Conditional Use Permit Submittal For INS SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard re- su.,mitted January 31, 2003 Sabey Corporation requests that the City of Tukwila grant a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new facility at 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard. This facility will consist of a 4- story office building over a 3 -story parking structure. Additional parking will be located in a parking structure to the north. The facility would provide approximately 137,500 net usable square feet of office space for the Immigration and Naturalization Service Seattle District Office. The site is located at the juncture of several different zones. The north end is zoned as Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy. The center area is Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light. There is a small area of Commercial /Light Industrial zoning in the southwest corner and the southeast corner is Low Density Residential. The new building will be located in the MIC /Light zone. According to Section 18.36.040 of the Tukwila Zoning Code, offices over 20,000 square feet are allowable in this zone as a Conditional Use. Per Section 18.64.050 of the Tukwila Zoning Code conditional use permits shall be granted if the project meets the following criteria: 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, landscaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. 5. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. The following describes how this project meets or exceeds these criteria: 1. The proposed facility will be a government office building for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS divides its work into two basic categories: enforcement and benefits. Benefits activities are directed towards delivering federally authorized programs to all people who are entitled to them, whether they are US citizens or aliens. The enforcement activities are directed towards ensuring that immigration rules and regulations are followed. This division will be maintained when the INS becomes part of the Office of Homeland Security later this year. This facility will house about 300 staff dedicated to these two activities. In addition, the INS serves an average of 600 visitors per, day. Some visitors will stop by just to pick up forms; others REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT / SabeyCorporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd.,4th Floor VENTURE FUNDING j Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 / CONSTRUCTION SERVICES i RECEIVED CITY OF / TUKWILA FEB ' 71000 i rzAMIT CENTER 206/281 -8700 main line 206/282 -9951 fax line www.sabey.com �^ �: ase: z*. s-...: a_. �—• r_.....• �' nwo-. m�cn� -- w.v^<n >.�•:...e';, °::.'.'v+4s .A�: nµ �:A�unP^s�� CONDITIONAL USE NARRATIVE RESUBMITTED JANUARY 3 1 , 2003 PAGE 2 OF 3 will spend several hours meeting with INS officials. Typically, visitors queue up in front of the building prior to its opening as services are delivered on a first come -first served basis. About one -third of the visitors will come for specific appointments. According to INS studies, the average length of visit is four hours. z ~ w o: 00 U) L1J WI None of these activities will be materially detrimental to public welfare or injurious to property in u) u_ the vicinity. Adequate parking will be provided for staff and visitors, as well as easy access from w O public transit. There will be a large plaza in front of the building for the pre- opening queue, which includes an extensive canopy for protection from the rain. The arrival and departure of the 5 u. Q detention busses will be secure and discrete and will not disrupt other activities in the building or u in the area. In all respects, this building will function much like the existing office buildings = a already in the area. F- m zF- 2. This development will meet all the requirements for permitted uses within the MIC /L zoning. It will z O meet all required setbacks for the MIC /H, MIC /L, C /LI and LDR zoning. Parking for staff will be 111 ui provided in the garage under the building with some additional surface spaces to the south and m o east. Parking for visitors will be provided in a controlled structure to the north. This structure will 0 cn operate strictly for the needs of visitors to the INS Building and would not be designed to serve 0 H any other purpose. The capacity of the lot will be calculated to meet the peak visitor demand. As w w a result, the total parking count for the site will exceed Tukwila standards for an office building. - v Landscaping will be provided in full compliance with the Tukwila landscape requirements, and will ~ u_ O provide a consistent look throughout the site, including the area around the visitor parking z structure. The 4 -story office building complies with the applicable regulations regarding building 0 height. H H O z As part of the INS's enforcement function, this facility includes some secure areas. These areas will be used for processing people on the way to detention in other locations. The processing may require that individuals remain in the facility, but no person will be held in this building for longer than 10 hours. There will be sleeping accommodations for these people and food service will be catered to the site. These functions will require a small number of INS personnel to be on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 3. The use of the land surrounding this facility varies considerably. To the south and east are single family residences, to the north and east are industrial buildings, across Tukwila International Boulevard are office buildings and multi - family residential. The impact of this project on these uses will be minimal. All access to this site will be from Tukwila International Boulevard, a major arterial for the area. The INS facility will have two separate access drives. The south drive will serve for a portion of the INS staff parking in the lowest level of the main parking structure and for the loading dock. The north drive will serve for visitor access for drop -off and for the visitor parking structure, and for staff access to the upper two levels of the main parking structure. This parking structure under the building will be secured and restricted to INS staff. The only connection between the two entry drives is the driveway for security busses. These vehicles will enter at the north driveway, proceed on a separate roadway to the east side of the building, enter into an enclosed and secure sallyport, and then exit around the building to the south driveway. No other vehicles can use the secure bus roadway. With this layout, there will be no access into the site from any residential street. There cannot possibly be any increase in the traffic on any neighboring residential street as a result of this project. The INS Building will face Tukwila International Boulevard. The building will present an impressive four -story granite, concrete and glass facade to the street. There will be a paved pedestrian plaza in front of the building with seating areas, canopies, planting and a flag. This plaza leads into a covered portico and a 2 -story lobby. Since the site slopes severely from east to west, the parking garage will be set into the hillside and hidden from the highway. The east wall of the parking garage will be a series of landscaped terraces. The loading dock will be « �+.V rnctrrr.* ,t'":'{?3;"r4Gi_3!�t:acrnrs!rr, rnY^+ 4. 5' S" ."rr prf,,, ? . ?Y ?�?s"7'•' +° CONDITIONAL USE NARRATIVE RESUBMITTED JANUARY 3 1 , 2003 PAGE 3 OF 3 hidden behind a screened fence. Thus, the view from the neighboring residential areas will primarily be of the landscaping. The offices will be located well above the residential area; no offices will have a view into the housing and vice versa. 4. This project strongly reinforces the goals of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Policy. Improving the visual quality and economic vitality of Tukwila International Boulevard has been a major focus of the city's planning for many years. This project will locate a class A office building at the north end of this highway corridor. It will serve, with the existing Intergate.West development, to create a gateway marking this stretch of the highway as being a major commercial district. This project will bring jobs to the area, as well as a steady stream of daily visitors. It will generate economic activity that should have an impact on the whole length of Tukwila International Boulevard. 5. The only adverse impact from this project is the location of office activities adjacent to residential. This impact is mitigated by separating the office from the residential, both horizontally and vertically, and by designing the treatment of the slope to enhance the view from the residential area. Since the traffic for this facility is kept entirely away from the residential area, there is no adverse impact to the residential street circulation. The noise from the mechanical and electrical equipment will be buffered so that the requirements of the Tukwila Noise Ordinance will be met at all adjacent residential properties. Site lighting has been designed to comply with both the security requirements of the INS and the spillage limitations of the City. Debiirgh Ritter - First Blush @ INS Con'"'nts' Page 1,..1 From: Cyndy Knighton To: rossh @perteet.com; Sanjeev Tandle Date: 2/3/03 6:59PM Subject: First Blush @ INS Comments Sanjeev, Ross, I've taken a first cut at reading the re- submitted traffic report for the INS building and will offer the following comments. 1. I think taking a 5% reduction for visitor transit use may be optimistic given the lack of transit service in the area. I'm also leaning to saying the 7% reduction in employee trips for HOV is also high. Sony I didn't catch this before but be prepared for me to say no. I'll have to look and see if the change in trip generation is significant enough to warrant yet another update and Synchro run. You shoudl hope I'm in a benevolent mood tomorrow. 2. When it comes to trip reductions, I suspect you calculated the 10% visitor arrival in carpool, taxi, and hotel shuttle incorrectly. From what I could figure, it seems like you simply lopped off 10 %, implying that 10% of the visitors don't arrive in a vehicle at all. Is this truly what you are implying? 3. Page 7 shows 0 visitor trips entering in the AM peak for those with appointments. I think this is incorrect as all visitors with 9:00 appointments WILL be arriving in the 8 -9am peak hour. There are other items I still want to verify or clarify, but as of 7pm this evening, this is what I have to pass on right now. I will be in at 9 and able to work on this until my 10:30 meeting. After that, I'm pretty much unable to look at this until 3. Will do my best to get the rest of my comments to you, if there are any, asap. I will also discuss the transit reduction and get back with you soon. Cyndy Cyndy Knighton Senior Transportation Engineer City of Tukwila 206.433.0179 206.431.3665 fax CC: Deborah Ritter January 31, 2003 Deb Ritter Associate Planner Department of community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 REF: INS SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 Tukwila International Blvd Tukwila, WA 98168 Conditional Use (L02 -055) Design Review (L02 -056) PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 3 2003 PERMIT CENTER 1. We have submitted today a Level 1 Downstream Analysis prepared by David Evans and Associates based on the requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Manual, per the supplementary memo from The City of Tukwila dated 1/27/03. We have revised all our site plan sheets to include the existing driveways, structures and grades along the west side of Tukwila International Boulevard. 3. We have submitted today a Traffic Impact Analysis and a Parking Study, both prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc. We have also included a letter from Sabey Corporation that clarifies the conflicting information that had been provided regarding visitor counts. U • D O . O I- =W Dear Deb: I— � . u' O Sabey Corporation submitted to the City today the revised drawings for the above referenced LL Z permit applications. The changes to the drawings were undertaken in response to the Comments U =` from the City on our original submittal for these permits. Those comments were delineated in a 0 H' letter from you dated 1/14/03. The following listing details the specific response to each of those Z comments. The organization of the list follows the organization of your comment letter. Deb ritter January 31, 2003 Page 2 of 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 4. We have submitted today a revised Narrative Description of the project to better address the issues for Conditional Use approval. 5. We have revised all our site plan drawings to show the lot lines as they will be when the pending Boundary Line Adjustment is approved. 6. We have revised all our site plan drawings to show the lot lines as they will be when the pending Boundary Line Adjustment is approved. 7. Sheet C3 has been revised to show all the tots affected by the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment. 8. We submitted to you today a new Certificate of Water Availability from Water District 420. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION 9. We have submitted today a Level 1 Downstream Analysis prepared by David Evans and Associates based on the requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Manual, per the supplementary memo from The City of Tukwila dated 1/27/03. 10. We have revised all our site plan sheets to include the existing driveways, structures and grades along the west side of Tukwila International Boulevard. 11. We have submitted today a Traffic Impact Analysis and a Parking Study, both prepared by Perteet Engineering, Inc. We have also included a letter from Sabey Corporation that clarifies the conflicting information that had been provided regarding visitor counts. 12. We have revised our site plan sheets to relocate the sidewalk along the west side of 34`'' Avenue South. The west edge of the sidewalk is now on the right -of -way line. 13. We have revised our site plan sheets so that they all show the same location for the sidewalk along 34 Avenue South. 14. Cut and Fill Volumes are now listed on Sheet C5. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 15. We have submitted today a revised Narrative Description of the project to better address the issues for Design Review approval. 16. We have revised all our site plan drawings to show the lot lines as they will be when the pending Boundary Line Adjustment is approved. z ¢ =z 6D. 0 O O. coo co W J cD u_ w 0 g .g2d W z � � Z I- W 111: U 0 El: .0 H w w t= H . L-1, O .. Z U� F O ~ z Deb ritter January 31, 2003 Page 3 of 4 17. We have revised all our site plan drawings to show the lot lines as they will be when the pending Boundary Line Adjustment is approved. 18. Sheet C3 has been revised to show all the Tots affected by the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment. 19. We submitted to you today a new Certificate of Water Availability from Water District n20. 20. Parking Sheet A -0 has been updated to provide complete parking summary. a. Public bicycle parking has been shown on Sheet A1.2. b. The northernmost parking lot has been totally revised. All drive aisles comply with TMC standards. See Sheets A1.3 and A2.11. c. • Public parking will be restricted to the north parking lot. Handicapped spaces have been-included in that lot. See Sheet A1.3. 21. Sianage a. The freestanding monument sign is shown on Sheet A1.2. Elevations for all site signage are provided on Sheet A1.5. A colored elevation for the monument sign is shown on an 8 -1/2 x 11 sheet included with our submittal. b. No wall signs are included with this project. c. Directional signs will be provided where shown on Sheets A1.2 and A1.3. 22. Sensitive Areas a. We have included with our submittal a letter from Altmann Oliver Associates, dated 1/29/03, describing the impacts of this project on their "Wetland and Stream Delineation and Mitigation Report". b. We have included with letter from Altmann Oliver Associates before and after photographs of the Riverton Creek Improvements, Phase 1. 23. Landscape a. The landscape plans have been revised to incorporate trees that are acceptable to the City and meet the design and availability requirements of the landscape architect. See Sheets L1.01 and L1.02. b. The landscape plans have been revised to incorporate foundation plantings that are acceptable to the City and meet the design and availability requirements of the landscape architect. See Sheets L1.01 and L1.02. c. The landscape plans are current with the site plans and reflect the ultimate design intent. We reserve the right to substitute plant materials due to availability, subject to the administrative approval of the Department of Community Development. d. See Sheet L1.04 for typical planting details for trees and shrubs. e. See Sheet L1.04 for typical planting details for trees and shrubs to be planted on slopes. f. See Sheet L1.04 for typical planting details for trees and shrubs to be planted in planters. g . See Sheet A1.2 for screen wall at trash area and at generator. h. See Sheet A4.2 for a section through the screen walls. Heights for the screen walls will be determined when the equipment is finalized. z z . Ce w QQ � J U 00 co 0 LLI J = H u_ w Q co = d � w z= H F— O w ~ U O 0 I- w H - L I O w z 0 z Deb ritter January 31, 2003 Page 4 of 4 i. We have eliminated the northernmost detention pond (see Sheet C6). All detention ponds meet the requirements of the Downstream Analysis and do not impact any setback requirements. 24. Exterior Building Design a. We have submitted a new Color and Materials Board. We will revise this board to make it more suitable for the Public Hearing. b. See Sheet L1.03 for a plan and elevation of the entry plaza. c. See Sheet A3.1 for our revised entry canopy. d. We will investigate the best method of preventing avian residue from marring our glass canopy. Nothing has been shown on the drawings in this submission. e. We have provided with our submission colored elevations showing the plant materials. Per agreement with the City, these plants are shown at a median size. f. See Sheet L2.03 for site sections through the entry plaza (per i.), and through the northern parking structure (per iii.). Sheet A2.02 shows the section line south of the building (per ii.). g Sheet A3.1 shows the west elevation of the building and canopy. Sheet L2.01 shows the west elevation from the street including trees, planting and benches. We have not extended the north and south elevations to the street because there is nothing significant in that area. h. We have included with our submittal perspective view of the building from the northwest and from the front. i. None of the glass on the building is reflective, which is only shown by the sample on the Color and Materials Board. j. We have revised our site plans so that all on -grade equipment is shown consistently on all site plans. See Sheet A3.1 for the elevation of the equipment enclosures on the east side of the building. k. The revised site plan eliminates the north employee plaza. The south employee plaza is open to the sun but protected from wind by the building and landscaping. 1. The colored elevations provided include the roof screens in color. m. See Sheet A4.2 for the typical driveway wall around the building. The revised north parking structure will include solid guardrails with a single top rail. FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 25. No driveway grade exceeds 15 %. Not particularly the grade of the fire truck exit roadway to the north of the northern parking structure, shown on Sheet C6. Very truly yours, SABEY CORPORATION Haynes Lund Project Architect SIBEY CORPORATION January 31, 2003 Dear Brian: Brian Shelton City Engineer Public Works Department City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 REF: INS SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 Tukwila International Blvd Tukwila, WA 98168 Conditional Use (L02 -055) Design Review (L02 -056) REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT / Sabey Corporation CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 12201 Tukwila International Blvd„ 4th Floor VENTURE FUNDING Seattle,Washington 98168 -5121 RECEIVE CITY OF TUISKNII.A JAN 3 '1 2003 PERMIT CENTER Sabey Corporation would like to clarify the information that we have provided to the City regarding the new Immigration and Naturalization Service Seattle District Office that we are proposing to construct at 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. This facility will be a government office building serving the general public. It will contain both departments engaged in delivering immigration services and departments engaged in enforcing immigration regulations. Because of these activities, the building will have a higher number of visitors than a typical office building. We have provided several documents to help the City understand the activities of the INS and assess the impact that those activities will have on the community. Those documents include: 1. Trip Report/Program Brief, March 20 -22, 2000 by BPLW Architects 2. Program Review Meeting, April 10 -11, 2000 by BPLW Architects 3. Letter from William Johnston, Acting District Director for INS, dated January 17, 2003 Documents 1 and 2 are reports from early programming meetings prepared by a consulting architect for the GSA. Sabey Corporation was provided these documents to help our architects understand the relationship between the various departments and activities of the INS. These documents were not intended for any use other than understanding the internal workings of the INS. They contain references to items or features (such as helipad, radio tower, firing range, cafeteria) that were considered for inclusion in this project. These items can be described as `wish list' items that the GSA later determined were not required for this project. The scope of work for this project has been defined by documents issued by the General Services Administration subsequent to those programming meetings. The drawings and documents submitted by Sabey Corporation for this project show the full scope of work as defined by GSA. 206/281 -8700 main line 206/282 -9951 fax line www.sabey.com BRIAN SHELTON JANUARY 29, 2003 PAGE 2 OF 2 Document 1 also includes a reference to the "high volume of public traffic" that this facility should be designed to accommodate. The figures given in that document were the first estimate of what the visitor count might be. Since the time of that meeting, the INS has studied the number of visitors further. Document 3 presents the results of that investigation. This document defines the scope of visitor traffic as 600 per day, with 95% arriving in personal vehicles. This information is based on data that has been continuously tracked for 2 years by an INS Quality Assurance Analyst. The transportation data was compiled from daily surveys of visitors, and the number of visitors was determined by monitoring the records of the magnetometers that count each person who passes through the security check. Regular checking of the magnetometers provided the information on the distribution of arrival times throughout the day. The INS is confident that this data accurately reflects the visitor volume that will be experienced at their new facility. We trust that you will find this narrative sufficient for your review of the documents and reports that Sabey Corporation has submitted. Please contact Haynes Lund at 206 - 277 -5219 if you have any questions or require any further information. Very truly yours, SABEY CORPORATION Ralp Hagler Vice President, Development xs:A;:vi t.✓.:++:+s a +a« <:r. ,wa,c.0 .w... . ,.:+.s+t'as�;«.1s�ioti ti .. Fih: is:. �waatCaa�w ..ati+.:anrVStr:.W.?eWwwis.w Perteet Engineering, Inc. January 31, 2003 Mr. Ralph Hagler Vice President for Development Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., Fourth Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 Re: Parking Analysis for the Proposed INS Building Perteet Engineering Project No. 02T39 -00 Dear Mr. Hagler: This letter report summarizes the findings and recommendations associated with the parking demands for the proposed Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) building development in Tukwila, Washington. The objective of the analysis was to determine the parking needs for the visitors and employees accessing the proposed INS building land use. Please note that the analysis is based on the information provided by William Johnston, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Seattle District Office, Seattle, Washington (dated January 17, 2003). As per the information provided by Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation, the proposed development includes a 144,500 square foot Immigration and Naturalization Service building. The project site is located along the east side of SR -99 just south of the intersection with SR -599. Access to the project site will be provided by two new access driveways to SR -99. The north driveway would serve for visitors parking and for 168 employee parking stalls in the garage. The south driveway would serve the loading dock, 33 INS security parking stalls, and 111 employee parking stalls in the garage and on surface. Visitor Parking Analysis The proposed INS building is expected to have daily visitors and INS departments that operate 24 hours per day (e.g. detention and deportation). The daily and a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips generated by the proposed INS building were estimated based on the information provided by INS. The assumptions used to establish the visitor trips and occupancy estimates for the parking analysis include the following: • The information provided by INS indicates that the INS building facility would experience an average of 600 public visitors per day. • The INS data indicate that 5 percent of visitors would use public transportation to arrive the building site. • It is assumed that 10 percent of visitors would arrive the building site using carpools, taxis, and hotel shuttle buses. This assumption is based on the facts that the proposed INS office would administer programs in the States of Washington 3625 Perkins Lane, Suite 300, Lakewood, WA 98499 • 253- 984 -7138 • Fax 253- 589 -0399 • www.perteet.com RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 PERMIT CENTER Mr. Ralph Hagler January 31, 2003 Page 2 Y� ^Y Yarr+Kij,}:n3? rat .7 A . er,r.' - and Idaho, and in Vancouver B.C., Canada resulting in out -of -town visitors and there are daily visitors attending citizenship ceremonies who most likely tend to carpool. • Based on the above two assumptions, a total of approximately 510 visitor vehicles arrive the INS building per day. Of these 510 visitors, 180 visitors (35 percent) have prior appointments and visit the INS office during regular business hours. The INS letter indicates that the facility do not open till 9:00 a.m and the average length of stay for these visitors is four hours. Therefore, it is assumed that these 180 visitors access the building site at a constant rate between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. resulting in approximately 45 visitors per hour. • Approximately 330 of the 510 visitors (65 percent) visit the INS office between 9:00 a.m. and noon. However, the INS website indicates that these visitors need to obtain a ticket in order to speak with an Immigrant Information Officer, available on a first- come -first served basis in the lobby of the office. Therefore, it is assumed that the majority of these visitors arrive the building site at a constant rate between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. resulting in approximately 110 visitors per hour. • The INS letter also indicates that the average length of stay for the visitors is four hours. However, no further details about the length of stay were available. Based on a normal distribution curve, it is assumed that of the 510 visitors, 8 percent stay for 1 hour, 10 percent for 2 hours and 15 percent for 3 hours, 34 percent for 4 hours, 15 percent for 5 hours, 10 percent for 6 hours, and 8 percent for 7 hours. The reason for this assumption is to distribute the visitor traffic within a normal distribution curve, as shown in Figure 1, and maintaining an average length of stay of four hours. For conservative estimates, it is also assumed that the waiting time experienced by some of the visitors before 9:00 a.m. is not included in the average four -hour waiting time. Based on the above assumptions, visitor parking trips and occupancy for the proposed INS building were estimated. Table 1 summarizes the number of visitors entering and leaving the project site and visitor parking demand every hour from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Figure 2 shows a graph depicting the visitor occupancy distribution from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Begin End Visitors with appointments Other visitors Overall In Out Cumulative In Out Cumulative 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 0 0 0 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 0 110 110 110 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 45 45 110 220 265 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 45 4 86 110 18 312 399 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 45 8 123 31 282 405 12 :00 PM 1:00 PM 45 15 153 44 238 391 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 30 123 91 146 270 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 33 90 70 76 166 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 45 45 39 37 82 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 45 0 37 0 0 Total 180 180 330 330 Mr. Ralph Hagler January 31, 2003 Page 3 Figure 1 Assumed Visitor Distribution Curve 38 33 28 23 18 13 8 • 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 length of stay (hrs) 7 8 Table 1 Visitors Parking Needs Summary '_';w:_4S c:1;4 r Mr. Ralph Hagler January 31, 2003 Page 4 Time period The above analysis indicates that the maximum demand for visitors parking was found to be about 405 spaces occurring between 11:00 a.m. and noon. Employee Parking Analysis Figure 2 Visitor Parking Occupancy Chart s The project site plan indicates that a total number of 312 parking stalls for employees and Government Operated Vehicles (GOVs) are planned for the proposed INS building. The total includes 168 employee parking stalls in the garage, 33 INS security parking stalls, and 111 employee parking stalls in the garage and on surface. The assumptions used to establish the employee trips and occupancy estimates for the parking analysis include the following: • The INS letter indicates that the building will have approximately 300 employees with 225 employees working during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and 75 employees working during other hours. • The Trip Report published for U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Seattle District Office, Seattle, Washington INS Trip Report indicates that the existing site facility operates 86 Government Operated Vehicles (GOV). Though there is no information on the operations / schedule of these vehicles, it is assumed that majority of these vehicles will be used at least once a day and 80 percent of these vehicles stay at the project site at any given time during the Mr. Ralph Hagler January 31, 2003 Page 5 regular business hours. Based on this assumption, 69 parking spaces are needed for these vehicles. • It is assumed that approximately 15 of the 225 regular shift employees (7 percent) would account for high occupancy vehicles (HOV) such as carpools /ridesharing or public transit users and the single occupant employee vehicles stay at the project site entirely during the business hours. Based on this assumption, 210 parking spaces will be needed for regular shift employees. • The INS letter indicates that 75 of the 300 employees access the building during non - business hours. There is a possibility of conflict between departure of some of the regular shift employees and arrival of other shift employees. However, if such conflicts occur, the other shift employees should have enough parking available in the visitors parking lot. Therefore, the parking requirements for the other shift employees will not have any significant impact on the overall parking needs for the proposed building. Based on the above assumptions, a minimum of 279 parking spaces (210 for regular shift employees and 69 for GOVs) would be needed to accommodate employees and GOVs at the proposed INS site. Therefore, the proposed 312 employee /security parking stalls at the proposed site would be sufficient enough to satisfy parking demand for employees and GOVs. Conclusions The above analysis indicates that approximately 405 parking spaces would be needed to accommodate visitors parking needs during peak hours and a minimum of 279 parking spaces would be required to satisfy employee /GOVs parking demand. We trust that this letter report will assist you in estimating the parking requirements for the proposed INS building site. Please call me at (253) 984 -7138 if you have any questions or comments regarding the information documented herein. Sincerely, PERTEET ENGINEERING, INC. Sanjeev Tandle, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer �:lu.. N '. AIAfT�YS� :w:7�J51.�$Ii2:.iG�%C+�1Yi Deborah Ritter - RE: INS Seattle -- visitor count letter From: "Haynes Lund" <HaynesL @sabey.com> To: "Cyndy Knighton" <cknighton @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Brian Shelton" <bshelton @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Deborah Ritter" <dritter @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 1/30/03 5:09PM Subject: RE: INS Seattle -- visitor count letter Yes, that is what we agreed to and the re- submittal drawings will include this information. -- Haynes Original Message From: Cyndy Knighton [mailto :cknighton @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 3:08 PM To: Brian Shelton; Deborah Ritter; Haynes Lund Subject: Re: INS Seattle -- visitor count letter Haynes, Per the discussion Brian and 1 had with you yesterday, and a following internal conversation between Public Works and Community Development, I am making one clarifying statement in response to your draft letter. Point #3 in your draft letter stated that Sabey Corp. was not going to show the southbound bus stop and associated transit/pedestrian improvements. Implied was that Sabey Corp. was not going to be making these improvements as part of the INS project. However, after yesterday's phone conversation between yourself, Brian and 1, we verbally agreed that you need to submit plans showing the future bus zone and associated improvements and said improvements are to be made concurrent with the other frontage and intersection improvements. Cyndy Cyndy Knighton Senior Transportation Engineer City of Tukwila 206.433.0179 206.431.3665 fax »> "Haynes Lund" <HaynesL @sabey.com> 1/29/03 3:18:34 PM »> Here is an updated version of the letter. I think I have clarified the issues as you requested. Please let me know if you think that any changes are needed. «L28jan03- Tukw.doc» Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect Sabey Architecture 12201 Tukwila International Blvd. Fourth Floor Seattle, WA 98168 -5121 phone: 206 -277 -5219 fax: 206 - 281 -0920 Page 1 ..1+N29x.COv s+x 44.44.+:.ee.,. www.0 �.t�:..:<tna:wiwsa's __J City of Tukwila Department of Public Works To: Deb Ritter From: Cyndy Knighton Date: January 29, 2003 Re: INS Building Traffic Comments L02 -055, L02 -056, L02 -057 h: \pubworks \cyndy \development review \tia memos by permit 1A102 -55 ins building 1- 23 -03.doc RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 2 8 2003 PERMIT CENTER z w o_ 2 JU 00 0 J w w 2 g< d = w z I-- 0 Z LLI • w U 0 O 2 ❑ I— W W 2 u'O z 2. The site plan needs to clearly delineate the State's limited access right -of -way. 1 • ~ 3. The drawings must clearly indicate where all nearby existing transit zones are located as well as Z indicate proposed new zones. 4. The traffic report needs to tie pedestrian and transit safety together with both the site design and the signal warrant analysis As we discussed earlier today, I have summarized the outstanding information which is required to be submitted by noon, January 31, 2003 in order for this project to successfully proceed toward a February hearing date. These 10 points were all previously made in either my January 7, 2003 or January 23, 2003 comment memos on traffic engineering analysis draft reports submitted for review. 1. WSDOT should be provided a copy of the traffic reports for comment. All the modified versions of draft reports should be passed on to WSDOT during the process. Applicant needs to demonstrate that they have concurrence with WSDOT from this effort. 5. The application must provide a study with detailed trip distribution and assignment. Level of service calculations at intersections in order to verify compliance with the City's Concurrency Ordinance are also required. 6. The GSA Trip Report dated March 20 -22, 2000, states 1400 to 1800 daily visitors are estimated. The April 10 -11 Trip Report does not modify this estimate. A January 17, 2003 letter from the INS, states the number of daily visitors is 600. The applicant needs to provide more documentation to explain and justify the estimated daily visitors. 7. Driveway distribution should be based on parking availability and estimated uses from the trip generation analysis. 8. Page 4 of the draft report indicates an assumption of how many employees enter and leave the site during peak hours (shown on last two bulleted items). What are these assumptions based on? Justification needs to be provided for using the 84- percent and 67- percent figures. 9. Clarification must be provided regarding the hours of operations and the times when unscheduled visitors arrive. Point 4 on page 4 of the draft report states that the INS facilities do not open until 9:OOam but point 5 states that visitors begin arriving as early as 7:30am to obtain their first -come- first -served ticket. I have to assume that the lobby is open at 7:30 for ticket collection and the visitor then waits a minimum of 90 minutes before their appointment. Is there a place for the visitor to wait the 90+ minutes or do they leave and return? Is this 90+ minute wait included as part of the average 4 hour stay or would these early arrivals actually be on -site for 4 hours plus the 1.5 hour wait, fora total of 5.5 hours? 10. Parking availability may be an issue. Without having the number of daily visitors finalized (600 or 1,800 ?), coupled with the length of stay and arrival/departure questions, there may not be adequate on -site parking available for the public. The traffic study, or a separate report, needs to study this issue further. h:\pubworks\cyndy\development review \tia memos by permit # \102 -55 ins building I - 28- 03.doc z • . i= z U 0. u) - I- w O . d = = z � o z 1- 111 wi U � o I .w • w 1✓ u 0 , ..z w = , O ~ z Deborah Ritter :INS bistrict off' Traffic comments From: "Haynes Lund" <HaynesL @sabey.com> To: "Deb Ritter (E- mail)" <dritter @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <cknighton @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <bshelton @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 1/29/03 9:55AM Subject: INS Seattle District office Traffic comments Cyndy: We have received your memo of 1/29/03 and the following is how we would like to respond. The numbers below correspond to the items from your memo. 1. WSDOT has been given a copy of the draft of the Traffic Report for this project. Sabey Corp. will forward to them a copy of the final report this Friday. 2. We have added to the site plan notations indicating the current extent of the limited access area. This will be included in our revised drawings to be submitted on 1/31/03. 3. We will indicate the existing bus zones are on the existing conditions survey drawings. We will show the proposed bus stop, including turn -out, sidewalk and shelter, on the east side of the highway. The work to construct the bus stop on the west side of the highway is outside the scope of this project. We will indicate the location for the new west side stop on our drawings, without showing any sidewalks or other details. 4. The Traffic Study will be revised to describe pedestrian and transit safety in more detail and to include pedestrian and transit access in the warrant analysis for the traffic signal. 5. We will include a full traffic study with our re- submittal on 1/31/03. 6. We have sent you a draft of a letter to explain and justify the estimated daily visitors to the site. The final version of this letter will be included with our re- submittal on 1/31/03. 7. The Traffic Study will be revised to reflect the current distribution of parking on the two driveways, based on the trip generation analysis. 8. The final Traffic Study will include an explanation of the justification for all assumptions incorporated into the study. 9. The INS project includes a plaza in front of the building with a canopy designed to provide rain protection for 200 people. The GSA included this requirement because of the INS's experience with visitors at their current location. Visitors who arrive before 9:00 AM will queue up outside the building on the plaza. The Parking Study has not included this pre- opening time in the 4 -hour average visit, which is the more conservative interpretation of the data. The Traffic Study does incorporate this early arrival behavior into its trip generation and distribution analysis. Page '1 I Debora Rttter - INS Seattle District offesN Faffic comments 10. Our re- submittal on 1/31103 will include a letter validating the 600 visitors - per -day count, a parking study indicating the peak parking demand based on the number of visitors and average length of stay, and a site plan and other drawings showing how we have provided the visitor parking stalls to meet the peak demand. Please let me know if you feel that any of these responses to your comments is inadequate in any way. Thank you for your help in making sure that our submittals for this project will fully meet the City's requirements. Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect Sabey Architecture 12201 Tukwila International Blvd. Fourth Floor Seattle, WA 98168 -5121 phone: 206 - 277 -5219 fax: 206 - 281 -0920 e -mail: haynesl @sabey.com CC: "Sanjeev Tandle (E- mail)" <sanjeevt @perteet.com >, "Ross Heller (E- mail)" <rossh @perteet.com >, "Ralph Hagler" <RalphH @sabey.com >, "Errol Garr (E- mail)" <efg @deainc.com> .. Page 2 ! :r�nWNamY >' tueia `. * r41 , 4.:44[,.iard,∎∎ `+.. Y:. uaw ..+�.a sur.ww•ww.�•:.�ao-r.��.. Q'��:, sFN::R.1A. . w., vu.:. n+..._. aw..... m..-... w.,.. r. w.« .......r.... .. January 28, 2003 Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4 Floor Seattle, WA 98168 Attention: Mr. Haynes Lund Subject: INS Seattle District Office Environmental Noise Study Gentlemen: Project Description Noise Ordinance SABEY CORP. JAN 31 2003 ARC RE GROUP This report addresses the issue of environmental noise generated by mechanical and electrical equipment serving the proposed project located at Building #9 in the Intergate East industrial park in Tukwila, WA. The purpose of this study is to determine if the proposed project will meet the environmental noise requirements set forth in the Tukwila noise ordinance, and if not, what steps are required to comply with this ordinance. This report does not address noise and /or vibration issues related to the interior spaces within the building. The proposed project is a 4 -story office building with 3 levels of underground parking, and is located at 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard. The site is on the east side of Tukwila International Boulevard, and it is at the extreme southwest corner of the Intergate East industrial park. There is an adjacent single family residential development to'the southeast, and there are residential properties on the opposite (west) side of the highway (Tukwila International Boulevard). These nearby residential properties represent the most sensitive noise receptors for this project. The Tukwila Noise Ordinance No. 2002 sets limits on noise levels at property lines, and the maximum allowable noise level is a function of the zoning of both the source and the receiving properties. This project is located on property zoned industrial. The maximum allowable noise level for sources located on industrial property is 70 dBA if the receiving property is also zoned industrial. If the receiving property is zoned commercial the 0C00ST1CS,10C. Consulting Services in Sound & Vibration Control levy G. Lilly, P.E. President 5266 NW Village Ruk Drive Issaquah, WA 98027 Phone: (425) 649.9344 Fax: (425) 649 -0737 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 PERMIT CENTER Tag Description Manufacturer/Model LwA (dB) AC -1 130 -ton A/C Unit Trane Intellipak 103 AC -2 130 -ton A/C Unit Trane Intellipak 103 AC -4 30 -ton A/C Unit Trane Voyager 99 AC -5 10 -ton A/C Unit Trane Precedent 90 RF -1 AC -1 Relief Fan Greenheck 40BISW -21 101 RF -2 AC -2 Relief Fan Greenheck 40BISW -21 101 SF -1 Elevator Pressurization Fan Greenheck TBI -4H48 107 SF -2 Elevator Pressurization Fan Greenheck TBI -4H48 107 SF -3 Stairwell Pressurization Fan Greenheck SWB-27-75 88 SF -4 Stairwell Pressurization Fan Greenheck SWB -27 -75 88 INS Seattle District Office Noise Study 01/28/03 Page 2 of 4 maximum allowable noise level is 65 dBA. If the receiving property is zoned residential, the maximum allowable noise level is 60 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night. Nighttime is defined as 10:00 pm to 7:00 am on weekdays and 10:00 pm to 8:00 am on weekends and on State - recognized holidays. It should be noted that noise from emergency equipment, including emergency generators and shaft pressurization fans, are exempt from the noise ordinance limits when they are operating during a power failure or during a fire alarm (see section 8.22.130.4 of the Tukwila Noise Ordinance). However, this equipment is not exempt from the noise ordinance limits when it is operated for routine testing. Equipment Description The proposed project will include one (and possibly two) emergency generator(s) located on the east side of the building approximately 120 feet from the closest residential property line. The generator is expected to be a 230 kW diesel generator manufactured by Kohler. The generator is available with either a standard "weather- proof' enclosure or a "sound enclosure ", which has lower noise levels than the standard unit. The overall A- weighted sound power level (LwA) of the standard weather -proof unit is 116 dB. The overall LwA of the sound enclosure unit is 101 dB at full load and 96 dB at no load. It is the "no load" rating that is significant, because generators are routinely tested at "no load" conditions. The project will also include several mechanical units located on the roof of the building. These units include two 130 -ton air - conditioning units, one 30 -ton air - conditioning unit, one 10 -ton air - conditioning unit, two centrifugal relief fans, and four supply air pressurization fans for the elevator and stairwell shafts. Table 1 itemizes each piece of equipment, including model number and A- weighted sound power level (LwA). Table 1. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment 0C00STICS, Predicted Noise Levels INS Seattle District Office Noise Study 01/28/03 Page 3 of 4 The predicted noise level from the emergency generator (equipped with the sound control package) at the nearest property line (approximately 120 feet southwest of the generator) is 59 dBA with the generator operating at no load. This calculation includes a contribution from the reflection off the east wall of the office building. If the generator testing is restricted to daytime hours, this will comply with the requirements of the Tukwila Noise Ordinance with a 1 dB margin of safety. If both generators are tested at the same time, the total noise level will exceed the Tukwila noise ordinance daytime limit by 2 dB (assuming identical generators). The predicted generator noise level at the nearest residential property on the west side of Tukwila International Boulevard is less than 35 dBA. This projected noise level is extremely low because the building will act•as a noise barrier, shielding the generator from these properties. The predicted noise level from all rooftop mechanical equipment at the closest residential property line southwest of the building is 48 dBA during the day and 43 dBA at night. The daytime noise level is higher because it includes operation of the emergency equipment (for testing purposes), whereas the nighttime noise analysis is based on the assumption that the emergency equipment is not operating. The predicted noise levels in this direction are fairly low because the top of the building is more than 100 feet above the ground, and the roof parapet acts as a noise barrier to shield these properties. The predicted rooftop equipment noise level at the nearest residence on the west side of Tukwila International Boulevard is 62 dBA during the day and 57 dBA at night. Even though the property line is farther from the building in this direction, noise levels are higher because the existing grade is nearly at the same elevation as the roof of the building. As a result, the roof parapet provides very little acoustic shielding from the rooftop equipment. The predicted noise level exceeds the maximum allowable noise level by 2 dBA during the day and 7 dBA at night. Noise Mitigation In order to meet the noise ordinance, the emergency generators must be provided with acoustical enclosures that reduce the overall A- weighted sound power level to 96 dB under no load testing conditions. This is equivalent to an A- weighted sound pressure level of 71 dBA at a distance of 23 feet. In addition, all testing must be conducted during daytime hours, and only one generator can be tested at a time. In order to meet the noise ordinance, the rooftop equipment must be shielded from the residential properties to the west with a noise barrier wall at the present location of the HC005T1C5.I0C. INS Seattle District Office Noise Study 01/28/03 Page 4 of 4 mechanical equipment screen. The noise barrier must extend vertically from no more than 6 inches above the roof to a point 2 feet above the top of the air - conditioning units. The horizontal extent of the noise barrier must be the full width of the mechanical screen. The rooftop noise barrier should be constructed from acoustical panels equal to Empire "Silent Screen" (see attached literature) with a minimum 22 gauge back tray and an overall thickness of 2.75 inches. The minimum STC rating for these panels is 25, and the minimum NRC rating is 0.95. The perforated side of these panels should face the noise source. The gap between the bottom of the noise barrier and the roof should be covered with a strip of 1.O lb. /sq.ft. loaded vinyl equal to Kinetics KNM -100B (see attached literature). This product can be screwed to the base of the wall (using a metal angle as a cover strip) and allowed to drape onto the roof. This will block sound transmission under the noise barrier while allowing water to flow to the roof drains. The Kinetics sheet vinyl material is locally available from Seattle Sound & Vibration at (425) 497 -0660. The predicted noise level at the nearest residential property to the west with the recommended noise barrier is 53 dBA during the day and 48 dBA at night. This will meet the daytime noise ordinance limit with a 7 dB margin of safety, and the nighttime noise ordinance limit with a 2 dB margin of safety. The noise level at residences farther west will be lower than these values. Summary The proposed mechanical and electrical equipment serving this project will meet both the daytime and nighttime limits specified in the Tukwila Noise Ordinance as long as the specified equipment is installed and the recommended noise mitigation measures are properly implemented. I strongly recommend that I be permitted to review the final construction documents to make sure that all acoustical requirements are properly documented. If you have any questions regarding this analysis and report, do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, JGL Acoustics, Inc. encl. Jerry G. Lilly, PE, FASA President Member INCE, NCAC 0C005T1C5,10C. ACOUSTICAL PANEL COMPRESSION SEAL SECTION `A -A' • 22 GA. GALV. STEEL MINERAL ROCK • WOOL 2'X 2'X 3/16' ANGLE . ANEL JOINTS (TYP.) B' 22 GA. GALV. PANEL DETAIL STEEL EMPIRE ACOUSTICAL SYSTEMS SILENT SCREEN STRUCTURAL 12/22/92 I G.L.R dilVdieiiirsiMINPMENINCIP NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. ORININIstoiewaaelas 44ki.ra mai+.sMni+M.rc•.jtats evisqlArreforsortinmpiwister.sivep PRODUCT TEST REPORT STC RATING Empire 'Silent Screen' 2.75' Thick Absorptive Panel — 22 Gauge Bacldray Empim 'Silent Screen' 2.75' Thick Absorptive Panel —18 Gauge Backtray Empire 'Siteent Screen' 2.75 Thick Absorptive Panel —18 Gauge Backtray — (Seams Caulked) Empire 'Silent Screen' 2.75' Thick Absorptive Panel —16 Gauge Backtray Empire 'Silent Screen' 4' Thick Absorptive Panel —16 Gauge Backtray Empire 'Silent Screen' 4' Thick Absorptive Panel —18 Gauge Backtray With Perforated Metal Septum Empire 'M -90' Wall Mounting 2.5' Thick Absorptive Panel — 22 Gauge Empire 'M -90' Absorptive Panels 25' Thick With 14 Gauge Backer Plate Empire 'Angielock' Reflective Panel EMPIRE ACOUSTICAL SYSTEMS OVERVIEW OF ACOUSTICAL TEST DATA RAL TL88 -150' RAL- A87-370 RAL TL91 -239' RAL-A87-370 RAL -TL91 275' RAL- A87-370 RAL -TL92 -204' 1 RAL- A87-370 RAL TL93204 RAL- A93217' RALTL90-352 RAL-A90-462 RAL -A90 -1 RALTL90 -71 RAL-A90-1 RAL -TL90 -265 26 30 35 35 46 39 37 23 NRC RATING 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.95 1.1 1.1 1.1 For additional information or copies of these test reports, please give us a call. All other hest reports are Included in this manual. z 6 00 N o W = J 1- U u- al O 2 < = • d H W z= I— 0 Z i- 2 U � O D : 0 W uJ 2 LL' O LLI U2 P 1- z Description Kaupi,. .oadod Vinyl Limp • Maass Easier Materials are useu :o' enclosing noise sources. either draped around equipmein suspended netwe equiprneni %and quit; areas. or lagged tC rhe equipment casing KNM Barrier can be used effectively to lag piping systems reducing valves etc and is highly effective as a cross talk barrier and septums KNM Materials are avai!able psf to 1 psf surface . ::eight in 54' ::Irie r 20 yard r.)!Is with acoustical rat rr( ;; of STC- 2 I : STO 2 Kinetics tvlodel KNM•0 Clearview Noise Barriers are transparent limp. heavy PVC and are recommended for use in applications where it is necessary to maintain visual contact with noisy equipment yet achieve a high degree of noise reduction. KNM -C materials are available in 48" wide by 20 yard rolls with acoustical ratings of STC -21 and SIC-2.7. Applications Pipe and duct norse'agging Machinery covers C' Iilg noise barrier;; Cr OSS talk barrier `Pi.a! and door septur•ns Noise curtain panel`; and enclosures Rooftop equiprner::;arners OEM applications KINETICS` Barrier Materials Model KNM L - - 1- 0N —I - -r—r —r Control Kinetics Noise Control, Inc. 6300 Irelan Place P.O. Box 655 Dublin, Ohio 43017 Telephone 614 889 -0480 Fax 614 889.0540 Product Description KNM -50C y PSF Kinetics Clearview barrier material, nonloaded and nonreinforced. Clearview is very limp, tough and water clear. Available in 48" x 20 yard rolls. KNM -100C 1 PSF Kinetics Clearview barrier material, nonloaded and nonreinforced. Clearview is very limp, tough and water clear. Available in 48" x 20 yard rolls. KNM -50B y2 PSF Kinetics limp barrier material, unreinforced and loaded v,'ith barium sulphate. Available in black color, in 54" x 20 yard rolls. KNM -100B 1 PSF Kinetics limp barrier material unreinforced and loaded with barium sulphate. Available in black color in 54" x 20 yard rolls. Physical Properties Products KNM -50C WI. Lbs. /Sq. Ft. Tensile Strength Lbs. /In. Tear Strength, Lbs. /In. Flammability Flameout, Sec. Afterglow, Sec. Char Length, In. Product KNM•100C Wt. Lbs. /Sq. Ft. Tensile Strength, Lbs. /In. Tear Strength, Lbs. /In. Flammability Flameout, Sec. Afterglow, Sec. 0 Char Length, Inc. 0 5 Sound Transmission Loss, dB 1 OG 400 140 3 0 50 201 70 3 0 05 10 105 20 0 0 02 Weight Product Sq. Ft. 125 250 KNM•50C 0 50 11 KNM•SOB 0 50 1• KNM -50R8 3 50 1 • KNM•100C 1 00 1 5 KNM•100B ' 00 15 KNM•100RB ' 00 15 KNM -100F1 1 00 15 19 12 12 12 tc 19 KNM -50RB ; PSF Kinetics limp barrier material, reinforced with a fiberglass screen, and loaded with barium sulphate. Available in light tan color in 54" x 20 yard rolls. KNM -100RB 1 PSF Kinetics limp barrier material, reinforced with a fiberglass screen, and loaded with barium sulphate. Available in light tan color in 54" x 20 yard rolls. KNM -100F1 1 PSF Kinetics limp barrier material achieves a Class 1 rating per ASTM -E84 tunnel test and is available in 38" x 45' rolls. Specifications Barrier material shall meet the sound transmission loss and physical properties performance and the flammability standards listed in this brochure. Barrier material shall have a minimum continuous operating temperature range from —40° to +180 °F ( -40° to 82.2 °C), be resistant to water, oils, weak acids, alkalies, and fungi, and have excellent weather resistance. Barrier material to be Model KNM by Kinetics Noise Control, Inc. 0 50 55 10 3 0 I. (NM -1008 KNM -10CRB KNM 100F1 15 15 15 2 t 21 21 21 KNM -50B KNM -SORB ' 10 300 100 0 0 02 20 20 20 28 28 28 28 26 26 26 33 33 33 33 0 50 300 100 3 0 02 32 32 32 37 37 37 37 1.0 400 50 Cla 1 500 1000 2000 4000 STC 21 21 21 27 27 27 27 KNM -2/92 �s•�k'�3StCti..� „it 3ti.” iG? ,a'aiccc74Niu iaatr..0i4 ':.a .awn ::.CVoL e.R's.NL:w:[ .. '•,. TABLE OF CONTENTS @ia I NC. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 Figure 1: Site Location 2 Figure 2: Riverton Creek Basin 3 Figure 3: Drainage Basins 4 II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 5 III. OFFSITE ANALYSIS 7 Figure 4: Downstream Conditions 8 •' Sii>'. Y�: ri. Y.. tJ.«, i... �,,.: w,. ix�r. U. 1 .viw:�.ii.:.k;U. ±F:..'.nsw.y.e. Downstream Analysis Page i INS Building January 27, 2003 SECTION 1 - PROJECT OVERVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION INC. z �~ w 2 UO . U o. U EXISTING CONDITIONS w = J H in u. a = w I- _ z '— The site lies within the Fostoria drainage basin. There are no significant drainage features within the proposed z 0 development area. The west tributary of Riverton Creek is located at the base of the proposed development. The w w creek is a Class 2 stream as identified by the KC Sensitive Areas Folio. Drainage from a portion of Highway 99 j p discharges through the site, and into Riverton Creek. The lower reach of Riverton Creek is near enough to the 0 co . Duwamish River to experience tidal influence. o i n U u. O .z cp The construction a multi -story office building is proposed. Detention facilities will be designed in accordance with v the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Level 1 flow control will mitigate for increased runoff rate 0 resulting from site development. Water quality will be provided for all pollution generating pervious and z impervious surfaces. An office building for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a parking garage, uncovered parking, and two access driveways are proposed. Detention and water quality standards will be met for storm water runoff, with the provision of a wet pond and wet vault designed in accordance with current King County requirements as found in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The site lies along the eastern margin of Highway 99, west of Riverton Creek and south of the Metro Maintenance Facility. A portion of the site is currently used as a temporary parking and trailer space, with the remaining area forested with conifers and mixed brush. Moderate slopes are located along much of the area to be developed. Soils are classified as Alderwood series. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Downstream Analysis INS Building Page 1 January 27, 2003 • ` '-1. 2?: 1 S7 :+XU,tit.3Ui ht.a ENC. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE Tukwila, Washington Vicinty Map Figure 1 •," 2 •. N•• nu c: S., x6 ;: NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. • sow CD • • t ml c!� CIS 1 SECTION 2 - CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SECTION 2 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY This section will address the requirements set forth by the King County Surface Water Management Design Manual Core and Special Requirements listed in Chapter 1. King County Surface Water Management Design Manual Core Requirements INC. 1 Discharge at the natural location (1.2.1): The project is tributary to Riverton Creek and generally sheet flows down to the creek in its existing condition. Detention discharge points will be at the edge of the southern wetland complex for the wet pond, and north of the recently completed stream enhancement project for the wet vault. 2. Off -site Analysis (1.2.2): Upstream basins have been identified and a hydrologic analysis will be included in the final TIR. Runoff from upstream and tributary flows will continue to discharge to Riverton Creek. Downstream conveyance capacity will be analyzed and calculations will be included in the final TIR. 3. Flow Control (1.2.3): Detention will be provided for the development through the construction of a wetpond for the southern basin, and a wet vault for the northern basin. The 1998 KCSWDM Level 1 Flow Control Standard will be met. 4. Conveyance System (1.2.4): Closed pipe system used to convey on -site and off -site runoff will be designed to carry the 25 -year event flow with no overtopping. 5. Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan (1.2.5): Erosion control measures will be designed in accordance with King County and City of Tukwila requirements. 6. Maintenance and Operations (1.2.6): A Maintenance and Operations manual will be prepared and included in the final TIR. 7. Financial Guarantees and Liability (1.2.7): Bonds will be provided in accordance with the City of Tukwila requirements. 8. Water Quality (1.2.8): Water quality will be provided by the wet pond and wet vault. The WQ components of the ponds will be designed in accordance with 1998 KCSWDM Basic Wet PondNault BMP requirements. Downstream Analysis INS Building Page 5 January 27, 2003 z ~ w re 2 0 0 rn 0 CO u- w 2 u_ Q = w . z F - F— 0 z I— LL! 0 O- 0 F-- W w u- O . .z U= O F— z SECTION 2 - CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS Downstream Analysis INS Building King County Surface Water Management Design Manual Special Requirements INC. z a 1 ce this time. = JU U O ( o Other Adopted Area Specific Requirements (1.3.1): There does not exist any area - specific requirements at Floodplain/Floodway Delineation (1.3.2): The project is not located within any FEMA designated floodplain. w = J f— w g 4. Source Control (1.3.4): The proposed project will provide water quality source controls applicable to the proposed project in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual and City of = a , Tukwila Requirements. z 5. Oil Control (1.3.5): Based on the criteria listed in Section 1.3.5, the proposed project does not meet the z O - thresholds that require oil controls. The site will not be subject to 100 ADT per 1,000 square feet of gross 2 j building area. 0 O co O I— w W I-- F O : w 0 z Flood Protection Facilities (1.3.3): There are no Class 1 or 2 two streams adjacent to the site that have an existing flood protection facility, nor is the construction of a flood protection facility proposed. Page 6 January 27, 2003 ' . i� .i•FYryt "= ,�n���..y.�=•:Li�;s�:tn�i'xs;< 5`:.7,:ae SECTION 3 - LEVEL 1 DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM ANALYSIS The Riverton Creek basin is approximately 434 acres in size. The proposed development is tributary to the west reach, which is approximately 226 acres in size at the point where it enters the Metro bus facility. The creek enters the site along a concrete stair -step structure and flows through the site in an engineered channel, passing through several culverts before exiting the site on the north side through a 42" concrete culvert. The creek will continue to bypass the new development undisturbed. All other upstream flows will be bypassed, including any runoff from SR99. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS The following downstream analysis was prepared from field observations taken on September 5, 2000 at 2 p.m. Weather conditions were dry and overcast. The proposed area of development is tributary to Riverton Creek, which crosses the base of the site from south to north. The southernmost detention pond will discharge at a wetland edge before entering Riverton Creek. The creek flows to the north in a channel and then travels underground for 300LF in a series of 30" diameter pipes. Approximately 1160LF downstream, from the southern wet pond, the creek daylights into a channel and passes through two recently installed over -sized "fish- passage" culverts. The northernmost pond will discharge at a small wetland and runoff will immediately enter a recently installed 24" diameter bypass line. The bypass line increases in diameter to 30" and 36" before discharging to Riverton Creek at the southern edge of the Metro Maintenance facility. This point is the confluence of the discharge from both ponds. At this point, discharge enters a 42" culvert with headwall, wingwalls and a debris rack. This culvert directs the creek to the northeast through the Metro Maintenance Facility for approximately 150 feet. At this point the creek daylights into an open- topped concrete box. This fenced box culvert is approximately 8 feet wide with 15 feet of depth. The creek flows back to the north in the box culvert for approximately 150 feet, whereupon it enters a 42" concrete culvert and is piped north for approximately 270 feet, exiting the Metro facility and daylighting into the ditch on the south side of SR 599. The creek passes under SR 599 in twin 48" culverts and enters the ditch on the north side of SR 599, discharging into a large silt - bottomed pool. This ditch is located on the south side of the Gateway Corporate Center North and follows the center along to the west. The ditch widens into a deep ravine with a tall rockery on the north side. The creek is bordered here by the SR 599 -SR 99 on -ramp and the Gateway Corporate Center North. The creek discharges into the Duwamish River at the northwest corner of the Corporate Center passing through the levy in twin 48" submerged CMP culverts. There was no visible indication of erosion or scour along the downstream route. This downstream system appears adequate to convey the detained runoff from the proposed development. Downstream Analysis INS Building Page 7 January 27, 2003 INC. tA Ch.) Z t'-' E Immi orD E • • .1. � N 4:, �. O tn cro � tli NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC. DATE: January 27, 2003 TO: City of Tukwila Department of Public Works FROM: Errol Garr, P.E. SUBJECT: INS Building Stormwater Standards PROJECT: INS Building PROJECT NO: DASC0021 COPIES: Haynes Lund ■/e•uu/'4. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 2 7 2003 PERMIT CENTER The City of Tukwila currently accepts both the 2001 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as its design standards. The subject development will address and meet where required, the 1998 KCSWDM Core and Special Requirements. More specifically, to satisfy Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis, the project will provide a Level 1 Downstream Analysis. Core Requirement #3 will be fulfilled with the provision of Level 1 Flow Control. To satisfy Core Requirement #8, the project will provide Best Management Practices from the Basic Water Quality Menu. 1620 West Marine View Drive Suite 200 Everett Washington 98201 Telephone: 425.259.4099 Facsimile: 425.259.3230 - : i�':,. we': a4� :id` +`>✓ +M�cf,.:�'',= v'i`;:i�` N. ?V i:: �:�:a ^i. ,eiw..:r _...n•..wa4mNr, z .. 2 6 �. U O U) W = —I I— W O g Q . co $ 3 I- w, z �. H O z n p U O U 2 tu U u 'O ' tii z U c o 0 H O z Gentlemen: Sincerely, City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Ralph Hagler Vice President, Development & Government Affairs Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 Re: Immigration & Naturalization Service Seattle District Office . 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Conditional Use (L02 -055) Design Review (L02 -056) This letter is a supplement to our January 14, 2003 comment letter, amending review comments issued by Mike Cusick of the Public Works Department. A copy of Mike's memo, dated January 24th, was faxed to your office on that date. Item 1. The downstream analysis prepared by David Evans and Associates dated December 18, 2002 must conform to the requirements of the 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Manual or the 1998 King County Surface Water Manual. You have incorrectly submitted a downstream analysis based on the 1992 DOE Manual. Please make the necessary revisions in your analysis and all associated plan sheets. Item 9. The downstream analysis prepared by David Evans and Associates dated December 18, 2002 must conform to the requirements of the 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Manual or the 1998 King County Surface Water Manual. You have incorrectly submitted a downstream analysis based on the 1992 DOE Manual. Please make the necessary revisions in your analysis and all associated plan sheets. If you have any questions regarding this item, please contact Mike Cusick -in Public Works. Deborah Ritter Senior Planner cc: Mike Cusick, Senior Engineer CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd, 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 VIA FAX 206 - 281 -0920 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite X100 • Tukwila, Il ashington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works To: Deb Ritter From: Cyndy Knighton CC: Brian Shelton Date: January 23, 2003 Re: Draft INS Trip Generation/Distribution and Signal Warrant Analysis Report by Perteet Engineering, Inc., January 21, 2003 PRE02 -034, L02 -055, L02 -056 h: \pubworks \cyndy \development review \tia memos by permit # \102 -55 ins building 1- 23- 03.doc RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 2 4 2003 PERMIT CENTER I have reviewed the draft report submitted by Sabey Corporation and have the following comments. This revised report is using a new estimate for number of daily visitors. From the GSA Trip Report dated March 20 -22, 2000, 1400 to 1800 daily visitors are estimated. The April 10 -11 Trip Report does not modify this estimate. However, based on a January 17, 2003 letter from the INS, the number of daily visitors is shown as only 600. This current draft of the traffic study is now using 600 visitors instead of 1800, which is a significant difference. The applicant needs to provide more documentation to explain and justify the change in estimated daily visitors from that which is already part of the public record. The report does not address the pedestrian safety issues discussed at our January 9, 2003 meeting. The report further does not address the benefits to transit, which directly ties into pedestrian safety, which was also discussed at our meeting on the 9 Because of the importance of the driveway relocation to the north to both pedestrian safety and transit users, as shown on current site plans, discussion must be included in this transportation study. Driveway distribution is estimated to be 75% using the north access and 25% using the south. This has been based upon available parking. I would like the traffic engineer to give further thought to this distribution based on users of the driveway and not driveway spaces. The northern access is the primary one for both visitor and employee ingress and egress. With the current site design, very little of the available parking is accessed through the southern driveway, and what is, is there for specific reasons. Peak traffic flows will be using the northern driveway. Page 4 of the draft report indicates an assumption of how many employees enter and leave the site during peak hours (shown on last two bulleted items). What are these assumptions based on? Justification needs to be provided for using the 84- percent and 67- percent figures. h: \pubworks \cyndy \development review \tia memos by permit # \102 -55 ins building 1- 23- 03.doc Clarification must be provided regarding the hours of operations and the times when unscheduled visitors arrive. Point 4 on page 4 of the draft report states that the INS facilities do not open until 9:OOam but point 5 states that visitors begin arriving as early as 7:30am to obtain their first- come - first- served ticket. I have to assume that the lobby is open at 7:30 for ticket collection and the visitor then waits a minimum of 90 minutes before their appointment. Is there a place for the visitor to wait the 90+ minutes or do they leave and return? Is this 90+ minute wait included as part of the average 4 hour stay or would these early arrivals actually be on -site for 4 hours plus the 1.5 hour wait, for a total of 5.5 hours? Parking availability may be an issue. Without having the number of daily visitors finalized (600 or 1,800 ?), coupled with the length of stay and arrival/departure questions, there may not be adequate on- site parking available for the public. The traffic study, or a separate report, needs to study this issue further. 01/21/03 TUE 11:39 FAX 206 '--\ 0920 Sabey Corporation �. Office of the District Director Mr. Ralpli Hagler Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwilla International Blvd. Fourth Floor Seattle, WA 98168 -5121 Dear Mr. Hagler: U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service Western Region, Seattle District SEADD #10/8 1000 2n Avenue, Suite 2650 Seattle, WA 98104 206 - 553 -4145 Fax: 206 -553 -1300 January 17, 2003 1-- O This letter is in response to your inquiry concerning activities that would be accommodated in a new District office building. You specifically requested the following n 0 information: 0 Maximum number of aliens being processed in the Building - -120 males, 60 females j 4 Maximum length of stay for aliens being processed in the facility —10 hours Typical number of aliens and typical length of stay — This building is only a processing facility. The INS is having a contract detention facility built in Tacoma, Washington that will be opened sometime next year. The average number would be 35 aliens. The average processing time is approximately 4 1/2 hours. Average number of trips per day for detention buses — Four to six buses will visit the facility on a weekly basis. Majority of detainees with be moved by the use of Airporter mini buses and 1 %s ton, 16 passenger vans. Food services provided — Food will be catered for aliens being processed in the facility and vending machines will be available for the use of„the general public and employees in the building. Approxuiiatcly 225 of the 300 employees will work a normal 8 -5 shift. Approximately 75 employees could work a 2nd or 3 shift. The normal period of time visitors spend at Seattle MIS is approximately four hours per visit. Most visitors remain in the building for the duration of their (four hour average) visit. Q013 K xWP. z W ce -3 C.) 00 . Wo UJ W � w < d w t— z � z 01/21/03 TUE 11:39 FAX 206 :'"Th0920 Sabey Corporation P IZ 014 Mr. Ralph Hagler Page 2 cc: ADDM z Z C-) 0 (0 0 U) W I: -J The majority of visits are between 9:00am and noon with the duration of their stay being 0 pretty consistent with the fours average. 2 g 7.1 u_ < a I-- W Z I— 0 Z Sincerely, LLJ 2 (1) 0 --- William Johnston ILI Acting District Director in 0 Ui c.) 0 z About 35% of the visitors to the office have appointments. There are an average of 600 visitors per day to the building. There are about 570 visitor vehicle trips to the building daily (95 % of visitors arrive by automobile and approximately 3% by bus). If you have any questions regarding this letter, contact Mr. James Gronewold, Assistant District Director for Management, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Seattle District, 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2650, Seattle, Washington 98104, or call (206) 553-0604. • ,..s.rti444: Ritter - S Seatt a District Off' - - Program From: "Haynes Lund" <HaynesL @sabey.com> To: "James Gronewold (E- mail)" <james.g.gronewold @ usdoj.gov>, "Paul Oresik (E- mail)" <paul.oresik @gsa.gov >, "Tyler M. Mason (E- mail)" <tmason @bplw.com >, "Jerry S. Kuriyama (E- mail)" <Jerry.S. Kuriyama @usdoj.gov> Date: 1/17/03 10:47AM Subject: INS Seattle District Office -- Program As part of the process of reviewing our permit applications, the City of Tukwila asked for information describing the INS activities that will be accommodated in this building. To answer that question, we provided them with a copy of the "Trip Report/Program Brief March 20 -22, 2000 ". This document was the best information we had regarding the number of daily visitors that the INS anticipates and other 'unusual' INS activities (mainly processing /detention). Unfortunately, this document mentions some items that raised issues for the City, but which are no longer included in the program. Some of these items were deleted at the "Program Review Meeting, April 10 -11, 2000" (firing range, helicopter - pad, vehicle fueling), and we will provide the City with a copy of that report. However, neither of these documents fully addresses the City's main concerns regarding the number of detainees to be housed in this facility and how they will be handled. We request that the INS send a letter to Ralph Hagler of Sabey Corporation that details the following items: * Maximum number of detainees * Maximum length of stay (we have been told 10 hours) * Typical number of detainees and typical length of stay * Average number of trips per day for the detention busses * Food services to be provided (we understand there will be catered meals for detainees and vending for public and staff use -- no food preparation area is included in the program) It would be helpful if this letter also addressed the questions we have sent you previously regarding staff and visitor traffic: average number of visitors per day, average length of visit, number of staff working 8:00 to 5:00, number of staff working 2nd and 3rd shift. Sabey Corporation will submit this letter to the City and it will become part of the public record for this project. By this step the City will have documentation to respond to questions from residents regarding the use of the building. this letter needs to be submitted to the City by January 31, 2003. Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect Sabey Architecture 12201 Tukwila International Blvd. Fourth Floor Seattle, WA 98168 -5121 phone: 206- 277 -5219 fax: 206 - 281 -0920 e -mail: haynesl @sabey.com z iI- 1— z cc uJ 6 JU U O co o • LIJ .1 • u- ua O g d �.. Z � I--O Z F- w o O ca 1-- uu O z w U = 0 z ora Ritter - " S Seatt e District • !- Program CC: "Ralph Hagler" <RalphH @sabey.com >, <dritter @ci.tukwila.wa.us> u.1dd.Lwi•ieYW�,tNi��uiMV.xcc w"t3L'sttsj.4Yaul: ?siY'Jtl: itsEri .s.40.1%:•!,496041 zr:.,5 a •z �w: 2 JU U u) W' W = J � :co LL: 2 :c am 1- O; z E-'. O N ' . W` L�.. O z W • 0' z • Deborah DNS ; Seattle == iiigiiway ylicth Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect Sabey Architecture 12201 Tukwila International Blvd. Fourth Floor Seattle, WA 98168 -5121 phone: 206 - 277 -5219 fax: 206 - 281 -0920 e -mail: haynesl @sabey.com From: "Haynes Lund" <HaynesL @sabey.com> To: "Bob Fadden (E- mail)" <bfadden @Imueller.com >, "Errol Garr (E- mail)" <efg @deainc.com> Date: 1/17/03 3:07PM Subject: INS Seattle -- highway width Brian Shelton contacted me with the following information regarding the frontage improvements along T.I.B.: The distance from the centerline of the highway to the face of curb = 31' (based on: 1/2 center lane = 6', drive lane = 11', outside lane = 14') The curb width = 6" sidewalk width = 8' -0" Please let me know if you require any further information. Page 1 CC: "Doug Goodell" <DougGo @sabey.com >, "Doug Gardner" <DougG @sabey.com >, "Dean Sabey" <DeanS @sabey.com >, "Ralph Hagler" <RalphH @sabey.com >, <bshelton @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Office of the District Director Mr. Ralph Hagler Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwilla International Blvd. Fourth Floor Seattle, WA 98168 -5121 Dear Mr. Hagler: U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service Western Region, Seattle District SEADD #10/8 1000 r Avenue, Suite 2650 Seattle, WA 98104 206 -553 -4145 Fax: 206 -553 -1300 January 17, 2003 - This letter is in response to your inquiry concerning activities that would be accommodated in a new District office building. You specifically requested the following information: RECE VtD JAN 27 'OW Maximum number of aliens being processed in the Building - -120 males, 60 females Maximum length of stay for aliens being processed in the facility —10 hours CIT OF KW JAN 2 7 2003 PERMIT CENTEP Typical number of aliens and typical length of stay — This building is only a processing facility. The INS is having a contract detention facility built in Tacoma, Washington that will be opened sometime next year. The average number would be 35 aliens. The average processing time is approximately 4 1/2 hours. Average number of trips per day for detention buses — Four to six buses will visit the facility on a weekly basis. Majority of detainees will be moved by the use of Airporter mini buses and 1 1/2 ton, 16 passenger vans. Food services provided — Food will be catered for aliens being processed in the facility and vending machines will be available for the use of the general public and employees in the building. Approximately 225 of the 300 employees will work a normal 8 -5 shift. Approximately 75 employees could work a 2 " or 3` shift. The normal period of time visitors spend at Seattle INS is approximately four hours per visit. Most visitors remain in the building for the duration of their (four hour average) visit. Vs4 iantaii. Mr. Ralph Hagler Page 2 About 35% of the visitors to the office have appointments. There are an average of 600 visitors per day to the building. There are about 570 visitor vehicle trips to the building daily (95 % of visitors arrive by automobile and approximately 3% by bus). The majority of visits are between 9:OOam and noon with the duration of their stay being fairly consistent with the four hour average. If you have any questions regarding this letter, contact Mr. James Gronewold, Assistant District Director for Management, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Seattle District, 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2650, Seattle, Washington 98104, or call (206) 553 -0604. cc: ADDM Sincerely, tit) " William Johnston Acting District Director 01/17/03 FRI 11:23 FAX 206 281 0920 12201. SABEY Fourth Floor International Blvd. ARCHITECTURE Seattle, Washington 88188 -6121 DATE/TIME 1/17/2003 / FAX No. 2064314665 CC: FOR YOUR: O INFORMATION 0 REVIEW AND COMMENT X AS REQUES FOLLOWING: Program Revew Meeting April 10-11, 2000 COMMENTS: IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS RECEIVING THIS FAX PLEASE CALL Sabey Corporation 206/. 281 -8700 main line 206/ 281 -0920. fax line www.sabey.com R E C E D 'i !AN 17 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPI :: ':T TO: Deb Ritter FROM: Haynes Lund FIRM: Tukwila Dept. of Community Development DIRECT LINE: 206- 277 -5219 PHONE: 206 - 431 -3663 PROJECT NAME: INS Seattle Regional Office SUBJECT: INS Traffic count PROJECT #: 99 -99-9 r ^'..7. ...... ........ _..... ..�. ..... .9.M4tistiiwtw, t*Y�MrcN. A' # OF PAGES 8 ACTION REQUIRED: 0 AS INDICATED ❑ NO. ACTION REQUIRED ,. it Fax The attached Trip Report Is a summary of a programming meeting for the INS Seattle' District Office. This report supplements the Trip Report/Program Brief which we sent to you previously. You will note that this report specifically deletes the Firing Range (item 7. on page 2), the helicopter pad (item 5. on the top of page 3), and the vehicle fueling (item 6. on the top of page 3). We have requested additional Information from the INS regarding the number and frequency of detainees. r• ORIGINAL TO. FOLLOW: X NO 0 BY MAIL 0 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 0 BY MESSENGER ❑ BY. EMAIL Michael Truman AT 206/ 281 -8700. This facsimile communication Is Intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it Is addressed and may contain information that Is privileged end confidential. If the reader of this cover page Is not the addressee, or the employee or agent of the addressee, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copyilg of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this facsimile In error, please notify us Immediately by telephone, and mall this fax to us at the above address. Thank you. Lj ooi 01/17/03 FRI 11:23 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation PROGRAM REVIEW MEETING April 10 -11, 2000 TRIP REPORT U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE; SEATTLE, WASHINGTON BPLW Project Number: 96052.063` The primary purpose of the meeting was to. review the information collected to date, and to agree on diagram layouts for each of the Programs. BPLW noted . that the design for the. new facility will be prepared. by the Lessor's design. team; the diagram layouts will assist the design team in designing the. building. The following comments were made on BPLW's Trip Report of March 20 -22, 2000. 1. Detention. and Deportation. (page 2): Although the District Office is intended to not be a more. than 24 hour holding facility,. there are many times when a cancelled. JPATS flight will leave. the District Office with. a number of detainees to hold over 24 hours. Seattle District is serving as a regional JPATS. hub for. other Districts, such as Portland. If American Corrections Association (ACA) standards. are followed, each detainee would. require 80 square. feet, instead of the INS. standard 20 square feet, of Hold Room space. While. there will be a new detention center, this facility will likely be operated by a contractor. JPATS arrangements are made by INS. personnel.. A desired arrangement is for. 50 permanent bunks, and floor space for 50 portable bunks,. but this would still have a significant impact on the size. of the. facility. ACA standards would. require an exercise yard and kitchen facility. A typical JPATS flight would carry 93 individuals. These. groups. are mostly male, with about 5% female, and. 2 %. juveniles. Meals are typically. catered. If the new District Office. is. closer to. Tacoma, then it might be more feasible. to. retum detainees from a cancelled. JPATS flight to the proposed new detention. center. After considerable discussion about the impact of increasing the size of the. Hold Rooms, it was. agreed that the sizes of the Hold. Rooms would. not be. increased,. and. permanent bunks. would not be provided. However, a storage room of. 200 SF would be provided to. store. 50 sleeping mats, and a total of 50. people. could. be accommodated on mats without increasing the. size of the Hold. Rooms.. 2. General (page 4):. The. Program Managers should be wlth the individual program's. 3. Exams. (page 7): If Exams. and the Records and Information Center are not on the same. floor, then 6. Applications Clerks will need to move to the Exams area,. with. a files work area. 4. Exams. (page. 7):. The three waiting rooms (Citizenship, Permanent Residence,. and. possibly the. Ceremony Room) should. be joined along the Q002 .vs..rrr.+rnx .rm.5wy <.`; ;tSaya'K:%1c{4.9h.LKit 01/17/03 FRI 11:24 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE April 10 -11, 2000 long sides, with folding doors to allow for flexible use. The DAO offices should wrap around the waiting rooms. 5. Exams (page 12):. The Asylum Officers will not all be relocated to Exams. The distribution will. be 3 in Exams, and 2 in. Detention and. Deportation. 6. Investigations. (page 12): There is one graphics scanner, not two. 7. Firing Ra:nge (page. 12): There are sufficient existing facilities; no further discussion required.. STACKING (DIAGRAMS 1.. The stacking diagrams (for consideration. of which programs could occupy which floors. of multi -story buildings) were discussed. 2. In the. three -story stacking diagram, the Cashier should be. by the. Mail Room. A more square configuration. for. Exams. would allow for the DAO's to wrap around the waiting rooms.. Deferred Inspections (Inspections) may be moved. to the Exams suite. 3. Another concept would be to have. the DAO's in a strip of offices, with moveable wall dividers, accessed from either side.. A partial height partition could divide each double space. into two. workspaces. Back doors would. be useful, allowing DAOs to come and. go without having to go through waiting areas. This will keep DAOs from being side tracked by people in the waiting rooms. 4. The Lessor will need to. know. the specific requirements for videotaping in. the DAO. offices— location of wall brackets, and electrical rough -in requirements. It was noted that even with videotaping, INS is experiencing some claims from the Exams interview process. This is a reason for having shared DAO. offices. 5. Regarding the six story diagrams, it would be acceptable, but not preferred, to divide Information and Records (the Information Officers functions can. be. separate from the. Records functions).. 6. The District Counsel should be located. adjacent to Detention and Deportation, and Investigations,. as they have a direct relationship with each other. SITE 1. Regarding parking,. the SFO will. have criteria for sufficient parking within two blocks of the facility. However, there. is a concern about staff and volunteers (some quite young) who work the evening and. night shift. It may. be. possible to use GOV parking for some of these. people. Local zoning ordinances will also. specify parking requirements to. be met by. the new facility. 2. Vehicle equipment (snow tires, chains) can be stored. off site at the remote storage facility. 3. A vehicle wash area (rinse hose. only) is needed, with an oil /water separator. Page. 2 Z003 01/17/03 FRI 11:25 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation ! U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT. OFFICE April 10 -11, 2000 4. Tower: A radio antenna is needed, with a line of site to a repeater or a base site. The base site will be the FBI building, but it is surrounded by taller buildings. Repeaters will be. needed. to the new building. location; it could be. a requirement of the. SFO for the. Lessor to provide these (along with negotiating rooftop leases), or for INS. to provide these. Whether an on site tower is required for the radio antenna is not known. The. requirement for a tower may depend. upon the. selected building site. 5. There is no need for a helicopter pad. 6.. There is rio. need for vehicle fueling or. maintenance. RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAMS DISTRICT DIRECTOR 1. The Intel Officers. should be in a shared workspace. There should be space for three. persons, and a plotter. The officers work mostly with Inspections,. as Intel is. an enforcement function.. It was agreed. that the. space. be. developed as an Intel Suite, adjacent to Investigations, with. two Intel Officer /Analysts. at 150 SF and three Intel Officers at 130 SF. A 50 SF workstation should also be provided. JOINT. USE 2. The outdoor covered area will be. handled as. a unique requirement by GSA, in the. SFO. 3. The Visitor Break Room could connect directly. to the. Records and. Information Waiting Room. 4.. The Training Room will be used by Records. twice a week, and by District outside groups for a week at a time. If the. ADP Training is combined with the other training, there will likely be facility use conflicts. 5. One of the ADP officers should be. adjacent to. the. Computer Training Room, for open. training sessions. 6. The mailing machine occupies. about 75 SF,. and should be in a separate. enclosed room in the Mail Room space to. reduce noise. 7. The. SFC' will need to. describe the. criteria for location. of ADP and telephone closets -- generally one per floor minimum, with a cabling distance limitation of 100 m less 20 feet at each end. for spare cable. 8. A 100 foot building setback is preferred, although. a 50 foot setback from the street centerline may be. acceptable to. INS. 9. The location of restrooms must meet GSA criteria for travel distances. The SFO could indicate. a preference for restrooms. to serve the dock. Page 3 RI 0 04 01/17/03 FRI 11:25 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DJSTRICT. OFFICE April 10 -1 1, 2000 INVESTIGATIONS 1. The outside processing area is for other than usual detainees (criminal deportations). Routine. cases can be processed at the. Inside processing area.. Detainees in routine processing should not see criminal detainees, and vice versa. 2. The files. should be dispersed throughout the. space. (2 file cabinets per Investigator). 3. Technical. Equipment:'/ of the. space should be for supplies accessible to walk - ins;' /4 of the space should be for technical equipment, controlled by the. Electronics Technician, with. a divider cage or wall.. 4. There needs to. be a separate suite. entry for informants, to keep them segregated. from the public, and from other detainees. Informants can be brought in. through a staff entry. There needs to be an. Interview Room adjacent to the. informant entry. 5. The van storage must be. locked, and screened. from view of the detainees. It should. be roofed, but have some. open air ventilation due to. battery. charging. 120. VAC power is. to be provided for trickle chargers. for the batteries. A • power ventilator may be considered. EXAMS 1.. The. Document Center needs. to be secured, as it is for naturalization certificates. This space needs to be close. to the. Ceremony Room, because there. are often last minute. certificate revisions required.. 2. Regarding files, the DAO usually gets. a bundle for the day; then they are. returned. to Records. There are also files at the. Duty. Officer, and continued files.. 3. A "Re- verifier' is a QA DAO.. 4. The. Training Room is for on- the -spot and new employee training and should be close to the. DAO's. The Training Officer is a DAO,. so. combining the office and. room could be considered. It was. later decided not to change the. SF81, and use the training room for individual training only. RECORDS AND INFORMATION SERVICES. 1. If the Triage function is at the Records Waiting Room,. and. not at a lobby (queuing room), then the waiting room of Records would have to increase in size. The concept of a queuing space for the Triage counter was. discussed, which would. occur in what would be a lobby type. space. There are. usually two Information. Officers working triage. There would. also. be several kiosks located in the queuing space to disseminate information to the public. .2.. A coin - operated copier should be available in the. Records Waiting Room, or a copier should be located. in the Volag space. Page 4 IZ00 01/17/03 FRI 11:26 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE April 10 -11, 2000 3. Secured files are classified and secret. Other files are semi - active and active (continued), in drawers. 4. The Information Officers should have a copier in their workspace. 5. The FOIA area serves the region, and will have three additional clerks. FOIA requires a separate dedicated copy machine that is located in the FOIA space. DETENTION AND DEPORTATIONS 1. The Long Term Storage will be a caged area within the Bulk Storage. Room. 2.. Investigations and. DDP should be located adjacent to. each other in the new facility. 3.. The. District Director has requested having two Deportation Officers per office. 4. If DDP and Investigations are on the same floor, the two Weapons. Vaults could be. combined with cages to separate each Program's. arms and munitions.. 5.. The Visitor Waiting Area is for persons posting bonds, and has. a lot of traffic. 6. The Mail Room is for sorting. and distributing time sensitive mail. from DDP's dedicated. PO. box; it can be. combined with the work room. 7. The files should be in. a centrally located room.. 8. The. A files. stay at the District Office, in the DDP area, and must be accessible. 24 hours per day. . DDP presently has 8800 files, increasing at a rate. of 200. per month; in five years the files on hand would double to 20,000. The space. for this room must be increased. 9. The travel lockers can be double tier, about 14 -15 inches square. However, the equipment lockers need to be full size, so these two. functions should be combined into (45)18. inch square, full height travel lockers.. These will. be located in a Tactical. Equipment Lockers Room of 400 SF. 10.Three of the. Deportation Assistants should. serve. the public contact counter; three. should serve. Deportation Officers; and one. should. assist the Desk Officer. 11.The graphic. scanning stations should be in the. Workroom.. 12..DDP should have a break area. INSPECTIONS 1. Deferred Inspections could be located separately in the Exams area, by the waiting room.. It should be located in Records, by the Information Waiting Room Triage Counter for easy referral by ILO's. 2.. The Workroom includes ammunition safes. 3. There should. be space for 6 inspectors at the Inspections office, but one may be located in. the Deferred Inspections space (which is located off of a public waiting room at RAIS). 4. Inspections should have a break room. Page 5 Ij006 • 01/17/03 FRI 11:27 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE April 10 -11, 2000 5. The dog kennel should be located in the secured area of the site, with no public access.. It may. need to. be heated. CCTV surveillance. may be needed. 6. A Conference Room of 200 SF should be provided. 7. A Tactical Equipment Room should be provided. There is a need. for lockers. for vests. and. equipment. Lockers will be full height, 18 x 18. inches in size; 10 will be provided in a room of 150. SF. MANAGEMENT 1.. Regarding ADP Officers, one is assigned. to the Region, and one supervises contractors. One of the. computer specialists is a Lead Technician, who should have. a 130 SF office. The. three remaining computer specialists will be in an. open office. 2. The "public ". that visits the. management suite is mostly INS employees. The employees seek assistance. with the personnel specialist, and on. workers comp issues... The. District will be implementing aspects of the new "INS Cares" program over the next 30 days. SUMMARY 1. Revised relationship diagrams were reviewed by each Program and found to be acceptable. (a few additional. revisions will be made for the DDP diagram). 2. The revised SF81 (as of 4/11/00) is attached. 3.. A proposed schedule. is attached. 4. The Government will review and determine the next steps and assignments in the. process. 5. DDP. personnel are interested in. visiting one of the New Mexico or Texas. US Border Patrol Stations. now under construction, in order to see. a holding area. BPLW left a drawing of the layout of the Deming Border Patrol Station,. for DDP to review. CONTACTS The contact persons for the District Office project are: James Groriewold, ADDM (206) 553 -0604 Richard Spring, OSH (206) 553 -1462 Representing the Westem Region. INS is: Manny. Rede, Facilities. & Engineering (949) 360 -3048 Other Seattle District Office persons contacted during the visit were: Patricia Schmidt, ADDI INV Page 6 (206) 553 -2238 21007 z w • 2 _J C-) O 0 U D • LU J = F- U) LL O 0 J u. _ c a = ▪ w zF- t- 0 Z ~ 0 O - O H w W L I o Z w U= o~ z 01/17/03 FRI 11:27 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE April 10 -11, 2000 Angela Stewart, INV Teri Tremper, Supv DO, DDP Blake Brown, DDP Kent Lundgren, DDP Luke Huffman, DDP. Dave Lambert, Exams Ron Hays, Inspections Ernestine Leslie, SDAO Julia Harrison, INSP James Broz, Union Representative Representing GSA were: Cynthia Tolentino, GSA Region 10 Paul. Dresik, GSA Region 10 Dusty Griffith, GSA Region 7 Margaret Hartigan, GSA Region 7 Phil Waggoner, GSA Gateway Program. Mgr. Bill Burns, BPLW Architects & Engineers Tyler Mason, BPLW Architects. & Engineers R6052063-002 Page 7 (206) 553 -7924 (206) 553 -5948 (206) 553 -0577 (206). 553 -0569 (206) 553 -0561 (206) 553 -0550 (206) 553 -0549 (206) 553 -0608 (206) 553 -2365 (425) 271 -1656 (206) 220 -4832 (206). 220 -4832 (817) 978 -4335 (817) 978 -7477 (415) 522 -3061 (505) 881 -2759 (505) 881 -2759 a008 008 January 14, 2003 Gentlemen: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Ralph Hagler Vice President, Development & Government Affairs Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 Re: Immigration & Naturalization Service Seattle District Office 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Conditional Use (L02 -055) Design Review (L02 -056) Boundary Line Adjustment (L02 -057) Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd, 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director We have reviewed your application materials submitted on December 19th in connection with your Conditional Use, Design Review and Boundary Line Adjustment applications. Certain additional information is needed from you to ensure that the project meets the substantive requirements of the City and to complete our review process. Please review the following comments carefully and contact us immediately with any questions. Your revision submittals for all three applications are to be provided at one time to the attention of the undersigned. When submitting your revisions, you must provide five sets of plans for each application. Each of these five plan sets in turn must be complete, containing all of the plan sheets applicable to that application, not just the sheets that have been revised. Each plan set is to collated and stapled. A minimum of one set for each application must be stamped by a licensed professional as would normally be required in a building permit application and must have an original signature. One complete set of high quality 8 -1/2" x 11" reductions representing the complete plan set for each application must also be provided with your revision submittal. Depending upon the extent and nature of your revisions, we suggest the use of "bubbles" or other visual markers to indicate where each revision occurs on each plan sheet. This will facilitate our review of your revisions. As you know, we have tentatively scheduled a hearing date of February 27th before the Planning Commission. However, in order to provide sufficient time for departmental review and submission to the Planning Commission, your final revisions must be received in this office on or before noon on Friday, January 31, 2003. If you do not meet the January 31st submittal deadline or, if as the result of our upcoming review, we determine that additional significant revisions are necessary, your public hearing date will be tentatively rescheduled for March 27, 2003. If your documentation should be approved for submission to the Planning Commission in February, you will be contacted early in that month regarding the number of additional copies that will be required. This 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 xw;v eagn,! w g =.,. ",.,1 S�t'.� f,15,, 470 .9 •! nnza _e k40.*PY+T.'R °k '.I s PAITir ",177 Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund January 14, 2003 Page 2 z documentation will include multiple copies of plans, elevations and perspectives, both in full and reduced = size. Some of these full and reduced copies must be in color. ;E w o: The following comments are broken into three sections: 1) Conditional Use; 2) Design Review; and 3) v Boundary Line Adjustment. Comments from reviewing departments will be provided within each of these 0 0 sections, as applicable. u) w J = H w PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS a. Q I ci I ._w z H zo w 2. Revise Plan Sheets A -1, A -2, C4, C5 and C7 to accurately show driveways and other features on the west side of Tukwila International Boulevard. 0 O— 3. On January 9th, the Public Works Department provided you with verbal comments regarding their w w review of your Traffic Analysis (prepared by Perteet Engineering, dated December 19, 2002). A H c- memo summarizing Public Works' traffic comments (prepared by Cyndy Knighton, dated January 7, u- ~O 2003) was faxed to you on January 10th and is also attached to this letter. If you should have any z questions regarding this memo, please contact Cyndy directly at 206 -433 -0179. o H= 0~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION 1. The downstream analysis prepared by David Evans and Associates dated December 18, 2002 must conform to the requirements of the 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Manual. You have incorrectly submitted a downstream analysis based on the 1992 DOE Manual. Please make the necessary revisions in your analysis and all associated plan sheets. 4. The City's staff report is for the benefit of the Planning Commission, outlining your compliance with various codes and regulations. Your narrative responding to the Conditional Use criteria will be an important part of your presentation, promoting your proposal and providing an opportunity to obtain the Planning Commission's support of your project. In anticipation of the Planning Commission's review of your narrative, we recommend that you revisit the Conditional Use criteria (TMC 18.64.050) and revise your narrative using as much detail as possible. You should be sure to include specific information about the building uses being proposed by the INS as well as a description of the site circulation patterns. Any changes that occur in your proposal or its design as the result of the requirements listed in this letter should also be incorporated in your narrative. 5. Revise Sheets A -1, C5, C7, L1.01 and Luminaire A -1 to delete the lot line between Parcel 102304- 9082 and the three parcels immediately to the south (734060 -0581, 734060 -0602 and 734560- 0885). This line will be removed as the result of the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment. 6. Revise Sheets A -2, C6, C8, L1.02 and Luminaire A -2 to reflect the lot line that will be created as the result of the division of Parcel 102304 -9080 into two pieces. This line will be formed as the result of the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment. z Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund January 14, 2003 Page 3 z 7. Plan Sheet C3 (Tax Parcel Map) does not show the other parcels affected by the proposed z • boundary line adjustment (Parcels 102304 -9080 and 102304 - 9079). Please make the necessary '� revisions. J U 8. A Certificate of Water Availability from Water District #20 must be supplied for the project. You have c) o incorrectly submitted a Certificate from Water District #125. w = J F- DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION 2 J PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS N a 9. The downstream analysis prepared by David Evans and Associates dated December 18, 2002 must Z i conform to the requirements of the 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Manual. You i, O have incorrectly submitted a downstream analysis based on the 1992 DOE Manual. Please make i I- the necessary revisions in your analysis and all associated plan sheets. If you have any questions 2 D regarding this item, please contact Mike Cusick in Public Works. v 0 O N 10. Revise Plan Sheets A -1, A -2, C4, C5 and C7 to accurately show driveways and other features on the 0 H west side of Tukwila International Boulevard. = v 11. On January 9th, the Public Works Department provided you with verbal comments regarding their u_ O review of your Traffic Analysis (prepared by Perteet Engineering, dated December 19, 2002). A ui co memo summarizing Public Works' traffic comments (prepared by Cyndy Knighton, dated January 7, U z 2003) was faxed to you on January 10th and is also attached to this letter. If you should have any Z ~ questions regarding this memo, please contact Cyndy directly at 206 -433 -0179. 12. The proposed sidewalk along the west side of 34th Avenue South must be moved so that the back edge of the sidewalk is on the right -of -way line. Please make the necessary revisions. 13. Plan Sheets A -1 and C5 do not show the same location for the proposed sidewalk on 34th Avenue South. Please make the necessary revisions. 14. Please show the cut and fill volumes on Sheet C5. For comparison purposes, please also include the cut and fill volumes that were proposed for Buildings 7, 8, 9 and Garage. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 15. The City's staff report is for the benefit of the Board of Architectural Review, outlining your compliance with various codes and regulations. Your design review narrative will be an important part of your presentation, promoting your proposal and providing an opportunity to obtain the Board's support of your project. In anticipation of the Board's review of your narrative, we encourage you to revisit the criteria (TMC 18.60.050(B)). We recommend that you update your design review narrative and revise that document using as much detail as possible. You should be sure to include specific information about the design theme of the building and proposed materials as well as the associated landscaping. Please include a complete description of the Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund January 14, 2003 Page 4 vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns. Any changes to your design that occurs as the result of this letter should also be incorporated in your narrative. 16. Revise Sheets A -1, C5, C7, L1.01 and Luminaire A -1 to delete the lot line between Parcel 102304- 9082 and the three parcels immediately to the south (734060 -0581, 734060 -0602 and 734560- 0885). 17. Revise Sheets A -2, C6, C8, L1.02 and Luminaire A -2 to reflect the lot line that will be created as the result of the division of Parcel 102304 -9080 into two pieces. 18. Plan Sheet C3 (Tax Parcel Map) does not show the other parcels affected by the proposed boundary line adjustment (Parcels 102304 -9080 and 102304 - 9079). Please make the necessary revisions. 19. A Certificate of Water Availability from Water District #20 must be supplied for the project. You have incorrectly submitted a Certificate from Water District #125. 20. Parking Plan Sheet A -0 identifies 473 parking spaces (235 exterior spaces and 238 interior spaces). Of that total, there will be 408 regular spaces, 5 carpool spaces, 52 compact spaces, and 8 handicapped spaces. Based on the square footage information provided, you are only required to supply 402 parking spaces, 30% of which may be compact (i.e., 121) and 5 of which must be designated "CAR POOL ". a. The location of the required 16 bicycle spaces has not been provided. Please revise all applicable plan sheets to document that you have satisfied the criteria provided in TMC 18.56.130(B) and (C). b. Per TMC 18.56.040, the aisle width for two -way traffic is 25 feet. The aisle width in the northernmost parking lot must be increased from 24 feet to 25 feet. c. It is our understanding that parking for the general public will be restricted to exterior parking spaces in the site's northernmost parking area. However, the only exterior handicapped stalls are located immediately south of the building. To prevent traffic conflicts and reduce confusion, you may wish to provide handicapped parking for the general public in the "roundabout" located immediately north of the building. This approach (if permitted under ADA criteria and if supplemented by appropriate directional signage), will allow public parking to be restricted to the areas north of the building. 21. Signage All signage will meet the requirements of Tukwila's Sign Code (Title 19). Per the requirements of TMC 19.32.140 you will be allowed one wall sign and one freestanding sign. a. Freestanding Sign. Per TMC 19.32.140(D) the freestanding sign will be subject to size, height and setback limitations. Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund January 14, 2003 Page 5 b. Wall Sign. Per TMC 19.32.140(A) the wall sign will be subject to size limitations. • � w QQ � JU 0 Although your sign permits will be processed administratively, it is the preference of the Planning Co w UJ Commission that you incorporate sign design and placement in your proposal. To that end, and for purposes of the design review hearing, staff recommends that you provide dimensioned and scaled co u_ drawings of the freestanding sign (and wall sign, if any). The location of the freestanding sign and internal information signage should be indicated on the landscape plan and all other applicable plan sheets. The location of any wall sign should be indicated on all applicable elevations. u. cn 22. Sensitive Areas H w Z = I— O Z ~ O • � c. Internal Information Signage. Internal information signs may be used to designate public versus employee parking areas, subject to the criteria in TMC Chapter 19.22. a. Please provide an amendment to the "Wetland and Stream Delineation and Mitigation Report" prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, dated October 17, 2000 and revised April 16, 2001, acknowledging the scope of the INS proposal and identifying, describing and illustrating all report changes that will be required as a result. b. We strongly recommend that you supply us with 8 -1/2" x 11" color photos of the enhancement work that has been completed to date on Riverton Creek. As we get closer to i v a definite hearing date, we will advise you of the number of additional color copies you • H should supply. . O w z 23. Landscape H O a. The planting plan for the area encompassing the west side of the building should provide for trees that will adequately respond to the building's large scale and proposed use. In the area between the west property line and the flag pavilion, we recommend that you substitute Quercus rubra (Red Oak) and Liriodendron tulipifera (Tulip Tree) for the Pyrus calleryana (Pear) and Acer rubrum (Red Maple). These trees may be grouped in a park -like arrangement to provide visual interest while accommodating their larger size. You may also wish to consider the use of Fraxinus pennsylvanica (Red Ash) or Fraxinus angustifolia 'Raywood' (Flame Ash) for areas closer to the building. We would also recommend that another, more suitable tree be substituted for the Pyrus calleryana in the traffic circle at the northern driveway. b. We recognize that this is a site plan requiring a large amount of reliable, hardy plantings. However, given their characteristics and the quantities required, we would discourage the use of Euonymous alata (Burning Bush) and Lavandula (Lavender) as a foundation planting on the west side of the building. We believe that plant materials such as Pieris japonica (Pieris), Magnolia stellata (Star Magnolia), Osmanthus delavayi (Delavay Osmanthus), Azalea 'Nino- crimson' (Evergreen Azalea) and a variety of Rhododendrons should be incorporated at certain points in the foundation plantings on the west side of the building. These plant materials will provide visual interest and relief from the large numbers of Viburnum tinus (Spring Bouquet Viburnum) that are being proposed. z Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund January 14, 2003 Page 6 z c. Given the large quantities of plant materials proposed for this project, we strongly z z • recommend that the applicant coordinate with the project landscape architect regarding the w availability and size of all plant materials listed on the Landscape Plan. Per TMC D 18.60.030(D), no changes to Board approved designs shall be made without further Board uJ approval and consideration of the change in the context of the entire project. All other u) 0 modifications (which are determined to be minor and insignificant by the Department of u) III Community Development) made after the date of the public hearing must be pre- approved -J I by the Director prior to plan revision or implementation. u- w d. The planting plan shall include typical planting details for trees and shrubs. 11 J u_ Q e. The planting plan shall include separate planting details for trees and shrubs to be planted N a on slopes. H at z f-- f. The planting plan shall include separate planting details for trees and shrubs to be planted z O in raised beds and terraced walls. w IA g. Outside storage areas for garbage, recycling bins and ground level equipment (such as v N transformers) shall be appropriately sized and screened per TMC 18.52.080, o co 18.52.040(D) and (E). Please provide dimensioned and scaled site details for these at w areas on the landscape plan. H v L I h. Please provide dimensioned and scaled elevations of the screening that is proposed for z the outside storage areas and ground level equipment (garbage and recycling bins, trash v compactors, generators and transformers). This requirement may be modified upon our i = 1 review of your sightline documentation. , z i. As indicated above, the two proposed detention ponds must be revised to accommodate the requirements of the 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Manual. When revising the design of these ponds you must retain all required sensitive areas and building setbacks. Please be advised that the retaining wall for the detention pond located at the northernmost end of the site is currently located within the 20 -foot setback required for the MIC /H zone. 24. Exterior Building Design a. The color and materials board you have supplied must be replaced with a board that is durable and at a size suitable for display during the Public Hearing. This replacement board must be supplied with your other revisions on January 31st. b. Staff recommends that you provide a detailed plan, elevation and section for the front entry plaza. Please indicate the type, pattern, color and extent of paving and bench materials. These materials should also be referenced on the color and materials board. c. The canopy you have proposed for the main building entrance helps to bring the building down to a human scale. However, we suggest that you consider adding a decorative element to emphasize the barrel vaulted entryway and to provide visual interest. Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund January 14, 2003 Page 7 z d. As we have indicated previously, you may wish to have the glass building canopy along the western facade electrically wired to discourage bird droppings and roosting. ;z W o: 2 e. The color elevations and perspectives should reflect the location, form and habit of the plant v materials provided in your landscape plans. The landscaping shown on the elevations and 0 O perspectives should reflect the size and spacing that will result approximately one year from u) w completion. Lu _ H N u_ f. As we have indicated previously (and for purposes of the design review hearing), staff w O recommends that you provide sections crossing the site in a number of locations as follows: 2 J i) a cross section extending easterly from Tukwila International Boulevard through the N D pedestrian access point at the front entry plaza, through the building, the rear z w parking area and down to Riverton Creek. Z H ii) a cross section should extend easterly from Tukwila International Boulevard through w O the southern parking area down to 34th Avenue South (this has been provided as 2 w Section 1 on Sheet A -11). v o ON iii) a cross section should extend easterly from Tukwila International Boulevard through o H the northern parking area and down to Riverton Creek. = w ill g. For purposes of the design review hearing, staff recommends that you modify your Li. z w U = i) both the color and the black and white elevation of the west side of the building (as z 1— depicted on Sheets A -10 and L2.01) should be modified to incorporate the entry plaza, flag and benches. elevations as follows: ii) both the color and the black and white elevation of the north and south sides of the building (as depicted on Sheets A -10 and L2.02) should be extended to the curb of Tukwila International Boulevard. Planting materials in that extended area should also be depicted on L2.02. h. The elevations you have submitted should be augmented by a variety of perspectives. At a minimum, we encourage you to include perspectives from the Hillside Apartments as well as from the residential area on South 126th. These perspectives should include roof top equipment or service areas, as applicable. i. For the purposes of the design review application, please address whether the glass proposed for the window systems will create any reflectivity and to what degree. j. The location of the trash compactor, INS generator and building generator as inconsistent as they appear on Sheets A -1, L1.01 and Luminaire A -1. These items are not indicated in elevation on Sheets A -10 or L2.01. k. Please indicate whether (and how) the two "Employee Plaza" areas will be protected from the elements. Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund January 14, 2003 Page 8 I. The rooftop mechanical equipment rooms are depicted in black and white on the color elevations. Please revise these elevations to indicate the equipment rooms in color. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 26. The Preliminary Record of Survey prepared by David Evans Associated (dated December 18, 2002, Sheet 1 of 1) must be revised to satisfy the requirements of TMC 17.04.060(A), 17.040.060(B) and 17.08.030(B)(2). Please familiarize yourself with these requirements and contact Deborah Ritter as soon as possible if you require additional information or clarification. 27. Revise Sheet A -1 to delete the lot line between Parcel 102304 -9082 and the three parcels immediately to the south (734060 -0581, 734060 -0602 and 734560 - 0885). This line will be removed as the result of the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment. 28. Revise Sheets A -2, C6, C8, L1.02 and Luminaire A -2 to reflect the lot line that will be created as the result of the division of Parcel 102304 -9080 into two pieces. This line will be formed as the result of the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment. 29. Plan Sheet C3 (Tax Parcel Map) does not show the other parcels affected by the boundary line adjustment (Parcels 102304 -9080 and 102304 - 9079). Please make the necessary revisions. m. What type of fence is being proposed for the top of the retaining wall located along the 0 0 eastern side of the northernmost parking area? Please provide this information on the w w landscape plan and all other applicable plan sheets. J FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS w 0 25. Finished grades of all driveways shall not exceed 15 %. g = Z = Z W ui You have agreed to consolidate the lot containing the proposed building (Parcel 102304 -9082) with the lots located immediately to the south (Parcels 734060 -0581, 734060 -0602 and 734560- 0885). You also wish to v divide the lot to the north of the proposed building (Parcel 102304 -9080) into two pieces and to divide the lot O - to the east of the proposed building (Parcel 102304 -9079) into two pieces. The Boundary Line Adjustment w w documents must be approved by the City of Tukwila and evidence of recording provided to the undersigned v . prior to issuance of any development permits. u- ~O .z . w U= O z Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund January 14, 2003 Page 9 As a courtesy, we are providing you with additional information. Although this information is not required at this time, you may wish to obtain this information prior to applying for land altering and building permits. 30. The geotechnical engineering study by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated September 18, 2002 needs to be updated to reflect the soils characteristics related to the building foundation for the proposed INS Building. The requirement must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the land altering permit. For specific criteria, please refer to the attached memo from Bob Benedicto, Tukwila Building Official, dated December 23, 2002. 31. A reciprocal ingress, egress and parking agreement will be required for the parking lot(s) and driveway(s) located on Parcel 102304 -9080 for the benefit of the building parcel (Parcel 102304- 9082) as those parcels immediately to the south of the building (734060 -0581, 734060 -0602 and 734560- 0885). This agreement must be recorded against all affected parcels prior to the issuance of any land altering permits. 32. Sensitive Areas COURTESY COMMENTS You have indicated that you will continue the enhancement of Riverton Creek and of the other wetland and stream buffers identified in the "Wetland and Stream Delineation and Mitigation Report" prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, dated October 17, 2000 and revised April 16, 2001. This work will be implemented under a separate Land Altering Permit application. a. Riverton Creek Buffers and Setbacks. A 35 -foot buffer and a 15 -foot building setback beyond that buffer must be maintained for Riverton Creek. b. Wetland E Dispersion Trench. Installation of the dispersion trench in the buffer of Wetland E will necessitate the enhancement work described in the Wetland Report. c. Wetland A Buffer Outfall. Installation of the outfall in the buffer of Wetland A will necessitate the enhancement work described in the Wetland Report. 33. Noise and Acoustics. Sheet A -1 proposes one trash compactor and two generators. We have the following comments: a. Prior to the issuance of the building permit you must supply the following: A report signed and stamped by a licensed acoustical engineer demonstrating that the ground equipment (trash compactor, generators) will meet the conditions of the Tukwila Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22). This study shall include: a description of the equipment; the noise levels created by the equipment; Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund January 14, 2003 Page 10 Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Senior Planner • any noise mitigation necessary to meet the requirements of the Noise Ordinance; and • noise barrier analysis and specifications. ii. A generator testing schedule that specifically addresses the hours of testing and the duration and frequency of the tests. b. As a condition of final approval of the building permit, an inspection report (signed and stamped by the acoustical engineer) must be submitted verifying that the trash compactor and generators and any noise barriers have been installed in accordance with the acoustical report. 34. Stamped irrigation plans meeting the criteria of TMC 18.52.040(H) will be required as a condition of the building permit. 35. Per TMC 18.50.080 mechanical equipment rooms must be set back at least ten feet from the edge of the roof and may not exceed 20 feet in height. Upon receipt of Items 1 through 29 above, we will be able to continue our review. If your revisions do not adequately respond to the requirements outlined in Items 1 through 29, we will not be able to proceed to a hearing date on February 27th. If you should have any questions regarding Public Works requirements, please contact Mike Cusick at 206 -433 -0179. Traffic specific questions are to be directed to Cyndy Knighton at the same number. Questions regarding Fire Department comments are to be directed to Don Tomaso at 206 - 575 -4404. Please contact me at 206 -431 -3663 with all other questions. DJDcol_k, cc: Steve Lancaster, Director, Community Development Bob Benedicto, Building Official Brian Shelton, City Engineer Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Ken Nelsen, Senior Plans Examiner Cyndy Knighton, Senior Engineer Mike Cusick, Senior Engineer Don Tomaso, Fire Marshall i. �t4F' m: If+ ry! iM�ti1YL1�aW %l�kliNfx��W.+i�'3'� ='�tii' v�k�s"L:_•� 'lrYi; 01/10/03 FRI "13:20 FAX 206 281 0920 SBEY DATE/TIME TO: FIRM: PHONE: SUBJECT: CC: ARCHITECTURE 1/10/2003 FOR YOUR: D INFORMATION 0 REVIEW AND COMMENT. X AS REQUESTED 12201 Tukwila International Blvd. Fourth Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 FAX NO. 206 -431 -3665 Deb Ritter Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 206 - 431 -3663 INS Traffic count . FOLLOWING: Trip Report/Program Brief, March 20-22, 2000 Sabey Corporation 206/ 281 -8700 main. line 206/281 -0920 fax line www.sabey.com FROM: DIRECT LINE: PROJECT. NAME: PROJECT #: ACTION REQUIRED: i ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW: X NO 0 BY MAIL In BY OVERNIGHT. DELIVERY # OF PAGES Haynes Lund 206 - 277.5219 INS. Seattle Regional Office 99 -99-9 UAS INDICATED 0 NO ACTION REQUIRED 0 BY MESSENGER Q BY EMAIL tool Fax 14 COMMENTS: This is the information we provided to Perteet Engineering to support their traffic study. Please see that Cyndy Knighton also receives a copy of this report. IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS RECEIVING THIS FAX PLEASE CALL Michael Truman AT 208/ 281 -8700 This facsimile communication Is Intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Information that Is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this cover page is not the addressee, or the employee or agent of the addressee, please be advised that any dissemination. distribution, or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited. If you received this facsimile in error, please notify us Immediately by telephone, and mail this fax to us at the above address. Thank you. 01/10/03 FRI 13:20 FAX 206 281_0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10 :03 25358903' PERitEi ENGINEERG SUMMARY ORGANIZATION FACILITIES U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON BPI.W Project Number: 96052.063 TRIP REPORT 1 PROGRAM BRIEF MARCH 20 -22, 2000 The purpose of the trip was to achieve an understanding of the organization and operations of the Seattle District Office, and to verify the information to be provided in the SF81 Form. This report summarizes conversations with personnel from various programs of the Seattle District Office, for the purpose of obtaining background information for development of the project. GSA Region 7 (Fort Worth, TX) is assisting GSA Region 10 (Seattle, WA) on this project because GSA Region 7 is the INS Center of Expertise. GSA Region 7 in turn is contracting with BPLW Architects & Engineers, Inc. (Albuquerque, NM) to provide pre - design planning and programming. BPLW has recent experience with the design of the iNS District Offices in Harlingen, Dallas, and El Paso, Texas. Project Goals include developing the new facility so that all District staff (who are not detailed to a particular site) can be together in a single facility. The facility should separate public, detainees, and staff such that, the deeper one is inside the facility, the more trouble that person is in." The facility should mitigate the problems of congestion and Inefficiency encountered In the older District facilities. The facility should be able to function for the District as currently structured, or for the proposed split of Benefits functions from Enforcement Functions, The facility should promote team work through working groups and peer groups,. The Seattle District Office occupies two principal sites, and a number of satellite locations. The District Director, Management, investigations, Inspections, District Counsel, and EOIR, are principally located at 1000 Second Avenue. Exams, Records and Information Services, Detention and Deportation, Holding Cells, Loading Dock and ADP are principally located at 815 Airport Way. Both facilities are in the central business district of Seattle, 815 Airport Way is an historic building that has housed immigration services since 1930. The facilities are cramped and In need of modernization. 1000 Second Avenue is a modem high rise building in the city center, with sweeping views and good proximity to downtown businesses. PAGE 00712 01/10/03 FRI 13:21 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10:03 25358903r PERTEET ENGINEEPT'°'G U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT—March 222, 2000 PROGRAMS The Seattle District Office has the following Programs: District Director's Office, Management, Benefits/Examinations /Records and Information Services, Detention and Deportation, Investigations, Inspections, and the District Counsel (Litigation). The Executive Office of Immigration Services (EOIR) courts are housed at 1000 Second Avenue. It is anticipated that a 500 bed INS detention facility will be constructed in the Seattle - Tacoma area in the near future, which will relieve the District Office of providing overnight accommodations for detainees. It Is also anticipated that a new Federal Courthouse will be constructed in the central business district, at 8th and Olive. It is believed that EOIR will remain in their current facilities at 1000 Second Avenue. FUNCTION The Seattle District Office administers programs In the States of Washington and Idaho, and in Vancouver, BC, Canada. The Seattle District Office reports to the INS West Region Headquarters in Laguna Niguel, CA. There are District Sub Offices in Yakima and Spokane, WA. There are currently 293 employees in the District Offices facilities in Seattle, and 496 employees around the District. The District Office, often houses staff from Sub Offices, Application Support Centers, and other facilities on a temporary basis, for training and other activities. BUILDING ACCESS The facility will operate during normal business hours. However, the Detention and Deportation program, and Records and information Services, operate 24 hours per day, and requires special considerations for access and building services. The high volume of public traffic (1400 — 1800 per day estimated) needs to be better managed and accommodated. A sheltered location for waiting, before the public enters the security checkpoint, is highly desirable in Seattle's wet climate. A Triage counter is planned to assist the public with locations of services in the facility. The access to the existing detention area is inadequate and not very safe. Bus access is extremely constricted, and detainees are often brought out to the public street to board the buses. The District Office has an average of about 500 detainees in custody each night. Page 2 PAGE 0315 3 01/10/03 FRI 13:21 FAX 206 281_0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10:03 25358903'' PERTEET ENGINEER =•IG U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT —March 20 -22, 2000 SiTE A site has not been selected. The market survey has not been conducted, but may begin in the near future. The delineated area currently describes the central business district of Seattle, and encompasses both principal facilities- -1000 Second Avenue and 815 Airport Way. The size of the site, based upon local land costs, will be a major determinant in the shaping of the new facility. A comparable facility, configured for two stories, requires around 8 —10 acres of land. A facility can be placed on less land area, if the building is more than two stories high, or if a parking structure Is provided, or both. Some functions —the detention area with Detention and Deportation. Exams, and Records and Information Services—are preferred to be located on the first floor, for reasons of public access and vehicle movement. However, these functions comprise over half of the size of the new facility, A building of more than three stories will require some compromises in terms of public access to some of these spaces. Expansion of the delineated area was discussed, as a way to allow for a low rise building solution. it was suggested that GSA Region 10 advertise a market survey for properties within the current delineated area first, with the INS - required 50 foot security setback included. if no responses are obtained (which is likely given the requirements for setback and property size), then GSA Region 10 would noti y the city government of the intent to locate outside the central business district. Then the market survey rocess can be expanded to a larger area, most likely south of the central business district. SITE FACILITIES The facility will require parking for 86 GOV in a controlled area. The GOV include fifteen 1 -ton vans, and a number of SUV type vehicles. Two outside parking spaces have also been requested. There is a desire for parking for employees who work at night. Public parking for the 1400 -1800 per day visitor traffic is also desired. Seattle is fortunate to have a good transit system, which would mitigate the need for some visitor parking. Other facilities mentioned which would be desirable include tire storage, vehicle equipment storage and maintenance, a vehicle wash area, an enclosed garage for an Investigations van with surveillance equipment, and a single dog run. Other facilities, which may need to be considered, would be a radio tower, and a helicopter pad. These were not discussed during the visit. Security issues for the new site include the feasibility of providing the required 50 setback. in some urban locations this has been measured from the center of the PAGE 0415 Page 3 01/10/03 FRI 13:22 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10 : @3 25358903E PERTEET ENGINEER' U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT —March 20 -22, 2000 street. A site outside of the central business district would more likely allow for meeting the criteria. SPACE ALLOCATIONS The Seattle District Office has an employee -based Space Allocation Committee, which has provided guidance in developing! the SF 81, along with input from the Program directors. A special activity of the District Office Is the computerization of files and information, and making this information available on web pages. This system "Docushare" requires scanning stations for each program. As part of the goal of enhancing teamwork, small break areas should be provided for each floor of the facility, In addition to the common break room. The SF81 was reviewed with each Program, with some adjustments made. Some additional comments are noted below. DISTRICT DIRECTOR 1. The Director's concept is for managers and employees to work in teams when appropriate. The existing facilities for conferencing and teamwork are inadequate. A large conference room, which could also serve as a command post and media room, is very desirable. The room would serve for executive conferences, and video conferencing. 2. Private restrooms for each sex should be provided In the suite. 3. There may be a preference for the ADD's to be located near the District Director. DETENTION AND DEPORTATION !! 1. Detention and Deporation operates 24 riours per day. 2. The A file storage is for persons in custody. 3. Self- defense classes and simulations will occur in the new Enforcement Mutti- Purpose Space (Joint -Use). 4. The Visitor Waiting and screening area will serve 30-40 at a time. 8. The existing holding area EOIR courtroom facilities will be located at the proposed Detention Facility, not at the District Office. 6. Video - Conferencing Is required; a space will be used for that purpose. 7. Detention and Deportation requires a separate mail room for time sensitive materials (receipt of bond information). Mail for this purpose is sent to a separate PO Box in Seattle. 8. Provide audio - visual storage near the Conference Room. 9. Access to supplies is required on a 24 hour basis. A cage could be provided for Detention and Deportation within the Bulk Storage Room. Detention and Page 4 PAGE 0015 5 01/10/03 FRI 13:23 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10 :03 25358903' " PERTEET ENGINEER'r` U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZA7 SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT — March 20.22, 2000 Deportation Officers store vehicle related materials, such as chains, In the office. 10.A workroom for the combined copier, storage and supplies functions is desirable. 11. Provide a tactical equipment room. 12.The Armory (for Detention and Deportation) needs to house 97 weapons. 13.The Processing Area may also handle detainees brought in by Investigations, and by Inspections. The Processing Area currently holds detainees waiting transportation by JPATS. 14.The segregation (isolation) cells are needed to separate populations. Isolation calls can be constructed the same as quarantine cells, for flexibility In use. 15. Showers are needed, as some detainees arrive from overseas (some have ved locked in shipping containers for weeks at a time). 16. ur of the five interview rooms should be located for access by detainees. 17. vide gun lockers on the Sallyport wall. Provide Search and Short Term Property Storage Rooms as well. Long'Term Property Storage occurs off site. 18. Processing Counters will be mainly used by Investigations and Inspections. Some of the counters (6 of the 16) should be outside, at the Sallyport, with the rest at the holding Cell area. 19.A Control Room should be provided. 20.The dispatch function Is handled by the'Desk Officer, who will be located in the office area of the Detention and Deportation suite. 21. For the VIERS officer provide a board for the vehicle keys (a small key cabinet is used now). 22.A fingerprint and photo area should be provided In the processing area, with a solid light color background. 23.The Sallyport should be able to accommodate two MCI buses at 52 passengers each. These can park side by side. The Sallyport must be enclosed. INVESTIGATIONS 1. The senior Investigators also perform OCDETF functions. 2. A workroom combining copier, storage end supply functions is desirable. 3. There are three safes, requiring an area about 12 feet x 8 feet. 4. File cabinets can be located in aisles; each officer has two cabinets. 5. The Technical Equipment Room is for Maintenance of technical equipment. 6, The Tactical Equipment Room will require 35 full lockers. 7. Investigations prefers to have its own weapons vault; a shared central location could be used if it Is not accessed through another program. 8. Investigations will need two temporary holding spaces outside of the detention area; these will need to have toilets. 9. A secured room for the "cold phone" is heeded, Page .5 PAGE 0015 6 01/10/03 FRI 13:23 FAX 206 281_0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10:03 25358903r PERTEET ENGINEEF - '"G U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZA1fION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT —March 20 -22, 2000 10.The Evidence Room will have a safe; evidence is held for the length of the investigation. INSPECTIONS 1. Inspections includes the Seaport unit. 2. A public contact counter, with waiting area, is required for Deferred Inspections. 3. A safe file cabinet is needed near the public contact counter. 4. Inspections has gun lockers, and a vault is needed for ammunition (40 caliber). 5. A Workroom combining copier, storage and supply functions is desirable; the weapons lockers and safes could be in this room as well. This room is also suitable for storage of technical equipment. 6. The senior Immigration Inspectors at the Seaport, when visiting the District Office, require a dog run. 7. Inspections uses 6 GOV (vehicles). JOINT USE 1. The Training Room serves employees from all over the District. 2. An audio - visual storage room Is desirable for the training room. 3. The Bulk Storage Room handles materials to the northern ports and Vancouver, BC, as well as materials for the District Office Itself. There Is a warehouses at Sand Point, which Is apparently not very convenient for use. This space could be absorbed by the new Bulk Storage Space. Storage space is also available at the Federal Records Center South, In south Seattle. Tire storage could be moved to the Federal Records Center South. 4. The Common Break Room Is a place where employees can get together, away from their workspaces. Vending machines and microwaves are likely equipment. GSA Region 10 to check on Randolph - Shepherd Act criteria for this facility, which provides for vending facilities operated by the blind. Paul Gallegos is the contact; there might be a need for full food service. 5. A screened outdoor area is desirable, either for breaks or light recreation. 6. Approximately five each telephone and LAN closets should be provided in the facility. In a vertical building, one each Will be placed on each floor. In a horizontal building, the closets need to be placed to recognize cable distance limitations (about 100 m or 300 feet for fiber optic). 7. Visitor Rest Rooms for the truck drivers at the dock are desirable. RECORDS AND INFORMATION SERVICES 1. The RATS waiting room Is the initial point of public contact for the District Office. Page i6 PAGE 00415 007 01/10/03 FRI 13:24 FAX 206 281._0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10:03 25358903' PERTEET ENGINEEP'•IG 1J, S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT —March 20.22, 2000 2. A District innovation will be to provide self -help touch - screen computer kiosks (6) for public use. 3. Each Information Officer manages 100 forms, and has a computer and printer at the workstation. The INS standard it based on a counter type arrangement. The Seattle District has innovated a sit -down arrangement for public contact with the Information Offiders, In order to present a friendlier image. The existing configuration is a 5 foot desk with 5 foot return, and bookshelf., about 80 square feet. 4. The Triage space is a public contact counter. 5. Vertical files In the main storage room Will be for continued files. 8. A waiting area outside of the security checkpoint is desirable. 7. There are no plans for "Ask INS" at this:time. 8. Secured fomis are kept in the Supply Room. 9. The Computer Storage Room is for a secured location for the Lucent system, and for the file server for a stand alone Network. 10.A Workroom for combined copier and storage functions is desirable; it will need to accommodate two copiers due ito the volume of information handled. 11. Visitor rest rooms are required (but theta will not be part of the Rentable Area). 12.The Mail Room handles boxes from 33 locations in the District. EXAMiNATIC)NS (ADJUDICATIONS) 1. The Congressional Affairs Officer Interacts with Adjudications. 2. Exams conducts citizenship ceremoniet daily, and will conduct ceremonies twice a day later this month. 3. The Citizenship Waiting Room, Permanent Residence Waiting Room, and Ceremony Room could be adjacent to each other, with moveable wall dividers, for more flexibility in useage, Community relations meetings occur after hour3. However, the ceremony and waiting functions occur at the same time. Customers often wait all day for processing, review, and citizenship. 4. Each District Adjudications Officer (DA()) has two computers at present, due to software Incompatibility. The officers also use bookcases, which may need to be in hallways, or in the library. The existing offices, in the historic building, are sized to accommodate two offlcers;°this has been useful for having a witness to a proceeding. 5. The Exams Assistant (in Records and information Services) is to be moved to Exams. 6. The Volag space should accommodate two volunteers. 7. Visitors rest rooms should be provided. DISTRICT COUNSEL (LITIGATION) 1. The District Counsel has close interacticbn with both the District Office, and with the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). Private attorneys Page 7 .:.• 4v N v. '..w.....,.«.; .n `" L' = frZ :tt t ^C' sr.+ ? i;». "M'"«...:..y.,eK•,N, 4ttrx., PAGE 008 01/10/03 FRI 13:25 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation ' 01/10/2003 10:03 25358903r U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT —March 20-22, 2000 also need to access the District Counsel and EOIR, sometimes on the same trip. There is a concern about inconvenience if the District Office moves away from the central business district. EOIR should be involved in the discussions z a about the new facility. For space planning purposes only, it will be assumed = that the District Counsel will move into the new facility, while EOIR remains at w Lij 1000 Second Avenue. 6 2. The Volag space is for law student externs and student aides. o o 3. Files are maintained on shelves, not In Cabinets. Some file storage can be 0) w shared with Detention and Deportation. i 4. There will be a 4' x 4' safe in the file room. U o w MANAGEMENT L_Q 1. The server room and ADP staff, provide'support for growth and for the other U = d offices. The sizes of the ADP spaces should allow for this activity. i- _ 2. The Computer Training Room Is a joint -fuse space, z 1 3. The "INS Cares" program will be introduced to the District this year. w o 2 w NEW INS DISTRICT OFFICE STANDARDS : D o o ( - 1 2 1 . A new draft of the INS District Office Standards is in progress. Apparently, w w some of the following spaces may be reassigned to Joint -Use from their i 0 current program areas: Enforcement Radio Room (Desk Officer), Mail Room, u. o and Armory. i ;,i z 2. Some space standards appear to be changing: Detention Enforcement o Officers will become Type G at 65 SF; Investigators /Special Agents will o I become Type F at 80 SF. z EXISTING FACILITIES Existing District Office –1000 Second Avenue occupies approximately 10,000 SF on floors 19, 25, 26 and 29. District Director: 1. The existing executive furniture will be eelocated. The existing memory boards (approximately 4 SF of wall spaere):will also be relocated. 2. A card access system similar to the existing Is to be provided In the new facility. 3. Server rooms require appropriate cooling. 4. District staff will need to provide more detailed information for the development of the Solicitation for Offers (SFO), such as equipment lists indicating receptacle configurations and electrical power requirements. Page , 8 a009 PERTEET ENGINEERTG PAGE 09/15 01/10/03 FRI 13:26 FAX 206 281_0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10:03 25358903', PEKittT ENGINEEF " -IG I U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZAT SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT —March 20-22, 2000 Investigations: 1. The Technical Room has countertop aldng wail with open shelving below and above; a workbench is also needed. 2. The locker room lockers are for tactical equipment. 3. A phone needs to be available for the two small hold rooms. 4. The graphic scanner station would work best as an "L" shape module (includes PC as well as scanner). Management: 1. A small room for meeting with job applidants, with direct access outside of the secure area (and a second access to the suite), is very useful. 2. In almost all of the suites the public reception counter consists of a pass tray and window with speaker hole arrangement. 3. Most offices are identified with slideiin type room signs. 4. The Intel Office should be a continuous 'workbench for 3 people (one of whom is listed under investigations). • 6. The Break /Conference Room is combined, with a moveable divider and separate entries for each half. 6. The Computer Training Room has 16 36" x. 42" workstations. It should be adjacent to a Computer Specialist The`paired folding panel walls are good for large conference room dividers. District Counsel: 1. Thls suite has Its own servers to serve thational INS programs. 2, The conference room is about 500 SF. 3. The law library has been mostly replaced with electronic media. Existing District Office - 815 Airport Way is;about a mile south of the 1000 Second Avenue facility, occupying a basement, five floors and an attic, Joint Use: 1. The existing dock has three large safes';in an area of about 50 SF. The existing dock is very cramped and Ineffldient 2. The Weight Room has twelve large piecles;of exercise equipment, each about 3' x 8' in floor area. 3. The Mail Room has one large machine,•Which is noisy. There needs to be a file shipping and preparation area; the existing room is about 16' x 24'. Detention end Deportation: 1. A separate elevator is used for the detainees, who are housed on several floors above the detainee entrance level. 2. CSC is a contract service manager for the detention facility. CSC handles camera surveillance as well. In this facility; INS employees do INS paperwork and manage the transporation of detairieeS. In the new office, INS employees will manage the holding areC. Pagel!) • it PAGE 10915 010 01/10/03 FRI 13:26 FAX 206 281 0920 01/10/2003 10:03 25358903r U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRiP REPORT—March 20.22, 2000 3. The IDEN'T function will stay at the proses Ing counters; fingerprinting and photography can be In another part of thi3 : recessing area. 4. There are several categories of property t be maintained by DDP: for detainees In FDC custody; for detainees' I (the District Office holding area; and for some long term storage. At present storage of property is haphazard and unsafe, with a shipping container Irk parking area serving for some property storage. � 5. The VARS office has locked materials X71 I ; binets, and a key cabinet. 6. Officer workstations are cramped and of fared. 7. Scanning stations should be in or near th Ifile room. 8. NCIC flies require 24 hour per day access 9. Detention Officers travel frequently and Sh' uld have clothes lockers; 12 wardrobe lockers in 100 SF suggested, 10.An existing document grinder (responsIblliy of facility manager) occupies a significant; amount of floor area and is very noisy. It is not anticipated that this item will be moved to the new facility. ADP: I 1, The Server Room has fiber optic and tele hone access, and occupies about 180 SF. The room needs special HVAp nsiderations for cooling. 2. There is riot good separation between sto age and repair functions, and there are not separate workspaces for record ;loping. Records and Information Services: 1. The records storage area has been gredu lly reduced to provide for more workstations. A large number of files were shipped to the Federal Records Center South in Seattle to make room Tor the workstations. 2. The EAD area is near the Triage area,1end has one PC, one typewriter, one 16' cart with a machine in an area about 12' 3. Some of the Information Officers have a d forms storage; printers are behind the jNo The other Information Officers have cubic panels in an area about 7' x 8'. In all cas or desk, with the Information Officer also is handled by the Triage Counter, whlc)i i public, 4. The FOIA space has to handle a large vol Exams: 1. The District Adjudication Officers (DA0) a; a in two person offices, about 13' x 26'. This arrangement is thought to prpvi : e a means of witnessing Interviews. Some spaces have video set -ups, but it i i not clear if videotaping is being conducted. ' 2. At present the Citizenship ceremony is o ce a day, with over 100 in attendance, Before the end of the month here will be two ceremonies a day. I :Ii Page' t Sabey Corporation i PER 1 tt.1 ENGINEERr` -'G skand return, with a bookcase for station, in an area about 7' x 7'. es, with alternating solid and open s the customersits at the counter Ming. Much of the incidental traffic the initial point of contact for the me of documents. ii011 PAGE 11/15 01/10/03 FRI 13:27 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10:03 25353903'' ` PERTEET ENGINEER•'MG U. S. IMMiGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT March 20 -22, 2000 The ceremony is about 20 minutes long, although some customers will wait all day in the room for the ceremony to begin. Z ; INITIAL CONCEPTS /COMMENTS w ce BPLW presented two potential concepts fQr the new facility. In a central o business district location it is likely that land economics would result in a high rise o o solution, so a six level concept was presented to show how that might be w w arranged. If the delineated area is expanded to the south, it would likely allow a - low rise facility, 2-3 stories; a three story concept was also presented. The o purpose of the concepts was to suggest how the programs might fit in the 2 buildings; these concepts are not likely to be the final form of the building. The g program representatives are to review the.concepts and provide feedback on u_ a general relationships and adjacencies to BPLW by April 4. z w I- _ 1 . in general, Enforcement groups (investigations, Inspections, and Detention Z o and Deportation) should be together, and Benefits groups (Exams, RAIS) z LLI W should be together, !: D 2. The multi -story concept would be difficult to navigate for public and staff. A o two or three story scheme is preferred; flexibility, and as a better approach o i- to solving people issues. However, flgor plates in the central business district w w average around 22- 23,000 SF; a threelstory scheme would require floor I- plates of about 40,000 SF. The 50 foot security setback requirement would LL. I6 be difficult to achieve in the central business district. w z 3. Cashier: there is no public access to this space; it needs to be secure, and z near the Mail Room. The Mall Room Should be near the remainder of the o I- Records and Information Services space, as there are clerks and a supervisor assigned to the Mail Room. 4. The Exams waiting and ceremony rooms should be adjacent with divider walls, for flexible use. 5. The DAO's, DO's and Investigators will be two per office. 6. There is a safety concern about the amount and location of power receptacles. . 7. The Immigration Information Officer spaces should be adjacent to the waiting area. 8. The Triage space should be at the building entry, before entry to the waiting area for FtAiS. 9. An exterior canopy may be a solution for having a covered area outside of the security checkpoint, but not In the buil' Ing. Visitors must be contained until they have passed the security checkpoint. 10.A top floor location for the holding area allows for higher ceilings, which are desirable for security purposes. A topfloor'location also allows for rooftop HVAC systems to provide the make - air and exhaust systems more efficiently. 11. Is it feasible to utilize the roof for break and exercise areas? PAGE 12/15 012 01/10/03 FRI 13:28 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation 01/10/2003 10:03 25358903' PERTEET ENGINEEF' '4G U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT—March 20-22, 2000 12. Fitness may work best if located close to Investigations and Detention and Deportation. 13. The "A" file room could possibly use moveable shelving to reduce space a needs. File rooms not on the ground floor will require additional structural = z support over normal floor loading. re w 14.The five Asylum Officers will move from Detention and Deportation to Exams. 6 D 15.The e DAO's should be adjacent to the Waiting Room, and close to the file _, o rooms. 0 16.1f Exams is separate from RAIS, then a file room and clerical spaces would w = need to be added to Exams. N u_ 17.The immigration Information Officers could be separate from the remainder of w 0 the Records area, but the remaining Records area should be adjacent to the g n. Exams area. u_ a 18. inspections has a public contact function, but is an Enforcement program. CO ▪ a Deferred Inspections could be with Exams and separate from the remainder }- _ of Inspections if need be. . 19. There must be a Juvenile Hold Room for ach sex; divide the space allocated w o • w U� o D- O H w I F-~ `-`o iii U= o I in half. 20. Deportation Assistants need to be close the waiting area, for prompt processing of bond information. 21.About 100 SF is needed for a classifled storage area; this could be a subdivision or room within the larger file room. 22.The Desk. Officer (dispatch) should be with the Detention Enforcement Officers. 23.The DDP Workroom should be near the ADD, the Deportation Officers, and the clerks. 24.At least one Investigations scanner should be near the file room; clerks do not need to be near the Tactical Equipment Room. 25.A Visitor Property Room of about 100 SF would be very useful for DDP visitors when they are screened; this should: be added to the SF81. 26.Although the Training Room is controlled by Management, It will be mostly used by Exams as a separate joint-use space. The room serves people from around the state. 27.There was a question about an indoor firing range, but this is not within the project scope, PROCESS AND SCHEDULE The Seattle District Office Housing Plan Prospectus indicated 96,252 Useable (Rentable) Gross Square Feet for the facility, as of September, 1998. The most recent SF81 (March 21, 2000) shows about 118,077 Rentable Gross Square Feet Rentable, so It is believed that an Amendment to the Prospectus is required. If a Prospectus Amendment is required, it would have to be submitted to the GSA Region Office, GSA Headquarters, and possibly the Congressional Office of Management and Budget (GSA Region 10 to verify). INS Headquarters approval Page 12 PAGE 13/15 z 01/10/03 FRI 13:29 FAX 206 281 0920 . 01/10/2003 10:03 25358503 U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRiP REPORT - - -March 20 -22, 2000 would also be required. In order to proceed to the next step, the District Office requirements must be finalized as soon as possible. z a The GSA Team will prepare the Solicitation for Offers (SFO). GSA has special i w clauses for some of the special features and requirements, such as special re maintenance schedules and security requirements. Data Sheets can convey 0 a information particular to each kind of space, including adjacencies and o o relationships. A site diagram could be part of the package. Block diagrams may cn w be part of the package. INS District Office Standards would be referenced. The amount of Information to be provided has to follow guidelines from INS u) w Headquarters. 2 o GSA will use a two -step source selection process, which allows for Lessor u_ a (Design - Builder) selection on other factors in addition to price. The first step = C gives offerors 45 days to propose, with information on experience and technical 1- _ approach. A Selection Board composed of iNS and GSA. representatives would z ~ review the proposals and select a short list of 3 or more qualified offerors to z o proceed to the second step. For the second step, the Offerors propose concepts 2 m and submit prices. The Selection Board reviews the proposals, and selects the D 0 most qualified proposal. There is a final negotiation before award of the contract. o � W — A tentative schedule could have the Lease awarded by November of this year, 1 o with 6 months for design (assuming 3 reviews); and 18 months for construction, u. o . resulting in an opening around November of 2002. Ili z Uco it was agreed that the next meetings for finalizing requirements will occur April o = 10 -12, 2000. z ACTION ITEMS 1. GSA Region 10: Advertise for market survey, with 50 foot security setback, in the central business district. If, as anticipated, there are no respondents, then expand the market survey to include the sopthern area of Seattle. 2. GSA Region 10: Verify Randolph - Shepher `Act requirements with Paul Gallegos. 3. Seattle District Office (administration): Verify if District Counsel is to be included in SF81. 4. Seattle District Office (all): Review BPLW's;concepts and provide comments with focus on relationships and adjacencies before April 4 to James Gronewold or Richard Spring. 5. GSA Region 10: Verify if Prospectus Amendment required; verify if review by the OMB is required. 6. GSA Region 7: Recommend appointments for Source Selection Board. 7. GSA Region 7: Recommend schedule for source selection. 8. All: Attend next round of meetings, April 1042. • Sabey Corporation PERTEET ENGINEEP'1 • Page 13 PAGE 1415 4 01/10/03 FRI 13:29 FAX 206 281 0920 01/10/2003 10:03 253589039 Patricia Smith, INV Joe Neifert, EOIR Irene Mortensen, PIO Robert Coleman, Director Teri Tramper, Supv DO William C. B6rkett, Litigation Dave Lambert, Exams Ron Hays, Inspections David G. Srein, RATS Luke G. Huffman Sylvie Thompson, SDAO Ernestine Leslie, SDAO James Doyle, Intelligence Representing GSA were: Cynthia Tolentino, GSA Region 10 Paul Dresik, GSA Region 10 Darrell Dickerson, GSA Region 10 Scott Matson, GSA Region 10 Lacey Leigh, GSA Region 10 Dusty Griffith, GSA Region 7 Margaret Hartigan, GSA Region 7 Bill Bums, BPLW Architects & Engineers Tyler Mason, BPLW Architects & Engineers R6052003- 001.dca Sabey Corporation PERTEEr ENGINEERT -- i U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERV10E SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE TRIP REPORT March 20-22, 2000 CONTACTS The contact persons for the District Office project are: James Gronewold, ADDM (206) 553 -0604 Richard Spring, OSH (206) 553 -1462 Other Seattle District Office persons contacted during the visit were: Page 14 (206) 553-2238 (206) 553 -5953 :(206) 553 -0596 :(206) 553 -4145 1206) 553 -5948 ;(206) 553 -2317 1206) 553 -0660 '(206) 553 -0549 (206) 553 -0677 • (206) 553 -0561 (toe) 553 -0609 :(206) 553 -0608 (206) 553 -1474 (206) 220-4832 (206) 220-4832 !.(206) 220 -5389 (206) 220 -5388 (206) 220 -5084 (817) 9784335 (817) 978 -7477 (505) 881 -2759 (505) 881 -2759 '• PAGE •15Ylg15 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works To: Deb Ritter From: Cyndy Knighton Date: January 7, 2003 Re: INS Building Traffic Comments L02 -055, L02 -056, L02 -057 The following are my comments on the December 19, 2002 Traffic Analysis conducted by Pelted Engineering, Inc. There are some concerns regarding the proposed trip generation rate. The applicant needs to provide a copy of the Trip Report published for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Seattle District Office for our review. Since this is a non -ITE Trip Generation Manual rate, detailed information needs to be provided before its use can be approved. A detailed description of the actual use of the building needs to be provided, if not already included in the above report. This will allow us to determine the appropriate trip generation rate but also factors in to the trip distribution. The traffic analysis did not conduct any trip distribution and assignment, justifying it through the lesser impacts of this proposal vs. the previous 7, 8, & 9 Buildings. Depending on the type of building use, the trip distribution of this facility could be vastly different than the previous analysis studied. Because of the unusual nature of this building use, Brian and I both agree that WSDOT should be provided a copy of the traffic analysis for comment. This can be done concurrent with the City's review process. The proposal needs to clearly delineate where the State's limited access right -of -way begins. Accurately locating this demarcation is critical. Safety is of utmost concern. At this point, there appears little analysis of Metro zone locations as they relate to the INS building and how the users are expected to safely cross the highway. The drawings must clearly indicate where all nearby existing zones are located as well as indicate proposed new zones. If new zones are proposed, has Metro been contacted for support? Has an analysis been done on impacts of zone relocation, if proposed? These answers must be provided. One possible solution to pedestrian (transit users) safety would be to provide a signalized intersection near bus zones. In the original 7, 8, & 9 TIA, a signal warrant analysis was conducted for the \ \tuk2 \vol l \pubworks \cyndy \development review \tia memos by permit #\102 -55 ins building 1- 7- 03.doc Please let me know if you have questions about any of my comments. northerly driveway. However, this current proposal for the INS building has the northerly driveway in a different location. Further study needs to be done on providing a signalized entrance, with full pedestrian access, and coordination with transit zones. Queuing analysis needs to be done for the site access points. Of particular concern is the southbound left turn queue although the traffic analysis may indicate additional issues worthy of study. The current traffic analysis erroneously states that no proportionate share mitigation contributions are required so long as intersection level of service remains above LOS E. This is not the case. Impact mitigation fees are collected regardless of intersection level of service impacts, but additional mitigation is required if the level of service drops below the City's threshold. Mitigation fees may be required, but prior to their calculation, the City must accept the trip generation rate and the application must provide a study with detailed trip distribution and assignment, at a minimum. Level of service calculations may also be required at intersections in order to comply with the City's Concurrency Ordinance. \ \tuk2 \vol l \pubworks \cyndy \development review \tia memos by permit #MO2 -55 ins building 1- 7- 03.doc x�uG a :tom v: :.sai�;r ,Wi.itUtr" Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION i, GEsL / - HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: 5.4rger ( p .lk,(S 3 /LLb /D✓G- Notice of Public Meeting Mailer's Signature: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance B Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda X Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 30TH day of .DEG in the year 20 pA P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFF1DAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM .v ...444f -,44 ' !tvca.x -i. ti *mss,:; Project Name: 5.4rger ( p .lk,(S 3 /LLb /D✓G- Project Number: ,LAS— 0 ,) L D o?— 0510 ()) LDa -- P57(11.4- Mailer's Signature: Person requesting mailing: B Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 30TH day of .DEG in the year 20 pA P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFF1DAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM .v ...444f -,44 ' !tvca.x -i. ti *mss,:; CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Sabey Corporation has filed applications for development of an office building (approximately 134,000 square feet) which will serve as the Seattle District Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( "INS ") to be located at 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard. Permits applied for include: L02 -055 (Conditional Use Permit) L02 -056 (Design Review) Other known required permits include: L02 -057 (Boundary Line Adjustment) Development Permit Studies required with the applications include: Geotechnical, Level I Drainage Analysis A SEPA Determination of Non - Significance was issued on December 20, 2000 for the demolition of the Non -Stop Tavern and is still in effect (File E2000 -031). A SEPA Determination of Non - Significance covering an earlier proposal for the development of three office buildings with parking garage was issued on June 6, 2001 and is still in effect (File E2000 -033). The INS proposal does not create any new significant environmental impacts from those previously considered under E2000 -031 and E2000 -033. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: PRE02 -034 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., January 13, 2003. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, tentatively scheduled for February 27, 2003. To confirm this date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3670. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. Conditional Use (L02 -055) is appealable to the Tukwila City Council. Design Review (L02 -056) is appealable to the Tukwila City Council. For further information on this proposal, contact Deborah Ritter at (206) 431 -3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: December 19, 2002 Notice of Completeness Issued: December 20, 2002 Notice of Application Issued: December 30, 2002 .L f U /ZUUZ 10:3b FAA ZUIntinlObl GSA SAk ki CORP tgj uu GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING ACTION: The US General Services Administration (GSA) hereby gives notice that it intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (NEPA: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1506.6) and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, for the proposed construction of an Immigration and Naturalization Service building at 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. in Tukwila, Washington. The GSA has scheduled a meeting to solicit public comment to identify issues and concerns related to the proposed project and the "No Action" alternative. Presentation materials will be available for review and project staff will be in attendance to discuss the project during an open house beginning at 6:00 pm on January 8, 2003, in the City of Tukwila Social Hall: 12424 42 Avenue South; Tukwila, Washington. The public scoping meeting will begin at 6:30 pm in the same location. The purpose of this process is to address potential environmental effects on the natural and built environment. Written and oral comments will be accepted during the public meeting. Written comments will be accepted until January 27, 2003. Written comments may be addressed to: Michael D. Levine, Regional Environmental Program Officer, 10PDTB, General Services Administration, 400 15th Street SW, Auburn, WA, 98001 For further information contact John Meerscheidt at: Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2200 Sixth Ave, Suite 1100, Seattle, Washington, 98121 or call 206 -441 -9080 He may also be contacted by phone at (253) 931 -7263, by fax at (253) 931 -7308 or e -mail at Michael.Levine( GSA.GOV. RECEIV L D DEC 2 7 2.002 C‘Abe\f C°` P December 20, 2002 Gentlemen: Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Senior Planner City of Tukwila Haynes Lund Stanley Paulus Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 Re: INS Building 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Conditional Use (L02 -055) Design Review (L02 -056) Boundary Line Adjustment (L02 -057) cc: Mike Cusick, Senior Engineer Lt. Don Tomaso, Fire Marshall Ken Nelsen, Senior Plans Examiner NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Your applications for Conditional Use, Design Review and Boundary Line Adjustment have been found to be complete as of December 20, 2002 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. Essentially, this means that you have supplied the required items listed on the application checklists for these types of permits. We are enclosing two laminated copies of the "Notice of Application" and associated maps for posting on December 30, 2002. This is the same day that we will be mailing public notice to property owners, tenants and businesses within 500 feet of the project. After you have posted the laminated Notice and site map on the two notice boards, please return the signed and notarized "Affidavit of Installation and Posting" to me. We are about to commence our technical review process, which is the next phase in the processing of your Conditional Use, Design Review and Boundary Line Adjustment applications. Although your applications have been found to be "complete ", the items you supplied may have to be revised or amended. The City may also require that you submit additional plans and information to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City and to finalize the review process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 206 -431 -3663. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: International Corporate Campus East File 12540 Tukwila International Blvd. E2000 -033 (SEPA) Non -Stop Tavern File 12606 Tukwila International Blvd. E2000 -031 (SEPA) INS Building 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. L02 -055 (Conditional Use) L02 -056 (Design Review) FROM: Deb Ritter DATE: December 20, 2002 RE: Addendum to Two Existing DNS E2000 -031 and E2000 -033 A SEPA Determination of Non - Significance was issued on December 20, 2000 for the demolition of the Non -Stop Tavern and is still in effect (File E2000 -031). A SEPA Determination of Non - Significance covering an earlier proposal for the development of three office buildings with parking garage was issued on June 6, 2001 and is also still in effect (File E2000 -033). It has been determined that the proposal for the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( "INS ") Seattle District Office does not create any new significant environmental impacts from those previously considered under E2000 -031 and E2000 -033. Per my conversation with Barbara Ritchie of the Department of Ecology SEPA Division on November 21, 2002, public notice and public comment are not required and no additional documentation is necessary. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Y To: Steve Lancaster From: Deborah Ritter 9 Date: December 20, 2000 Re: Air Water Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM E2000 -031 (SEPA Determination) Demolition of Non -Stop Restaurant 12606 Tukwila International Blvd. Project Description: This SEPA review is for the demolition of the existing Non -Stop Restaurant building which is 6,591 square feet in size. This demolition will create a temporary site for adjacent, construction - related - parking, storage and staging by Sabey Corporation. Agencies with Jurisdiction: None. Summary of Primary Impacts: Earth The existing building and parking lot are located on the western one - quarter of the site. These improvements are located on a level, rectangular- shaped strip running adjacent to the eastern side of Tukwila International Boulevard. The balance of the parcel slopes steeply downward to the east. Riverton Creek is approximately 400 feet east of the site. Erosion control measures will be required to prevent sediment from leaving the area of demolition. Dust and exhaust emissions will be generated during construction, with watering as necessary to control dust. There is an existing storm water collection system which will not be altered. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 - 3665 E2000 -031 Demolition of Non -Stop Restaurant December 20, 2000 Page 2 • Plants z The site has no existing landscaping. � z w • • Environmental Health 6 JU oO • Noise generated by construction equipment will occur on a short-term basis. The hours w= of construction will comply with the City's noise ordinance. Compliance with Puget J Sound Air Pollution Control Agency regulations will be required. O . • Land/Shoreline Use 2 � J u_ Q The project is located in the Commercial /Light Industrial zone (C /LI). Properties to the = a north are zoned C /LI and Manufacturing Industrial Center - Light (MIC /L). Properties to I- _ the south and east are zoned Low Density Residential (LDR). z o Historic and Cultural Preservation w w o : No known places or landmarks. o N ILI Transportation v t- The project will be accessed from Tukwila International Boulevard. Metro bus service is z available along this street. No significant traffic impacts are expected during the o proposed temporary use of the site. o � - Public Services No significant increase in public services is expected. Utilities Electricity, natural gas, water, sewer, garbage and telephone service are currently available at the site. Recommendation: Determination of Non - Significance. z I ADDRESS: PARCEL NO: SEC/TWN/RNG: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF NON-STOP TAVERN BUILDING PROPONENT: SABEY CORPORATION (-A CITY OF TUKWIL.A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) z < • }— w Z Ce -J 00 CO C CO WI 1..- 0 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO E2000-031 co I a w z o z 111 0 2 M O D. 1- 111 This,determination is final and signed this20 day of 1. 7 L I 0 O w O 1- z LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY 12606TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BL 734060.-0602' The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental , checklist and, other information on file with the lead agency: This information is available to the public on request. ************************************************************************** Steve Lancaster,. Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3670 6300 Southceriter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 1 98188 . . Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development.. State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) ( L — " (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 13.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on \ Z ' C) - O Z the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 13.104.110 acid e `` ot er nplisable guidelines were posted on the property located at I Z50O '1tt IJO. I n ' t 1.6)11 so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file numbers Loa-055 °-.Loa -C • I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. On this day personally appeared before me CITY OF TU KWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukvila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E - mail: tuknlan(i ci.tukwila. to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and knowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3) day of OO e_Crti , ' , .290y NOTARY PUBLIC in and for he State of Washington residing at t-- L- U,vt My commission expires on Applicant or Project M 4 ager's Signature CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION Sabey Corporation has filed applications for development of a 248,454 square foot office building (containing three floors of structured parking) that will serve as the Seattle District Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") to be located at 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard. An adjacent two -story parking garage for visitor parking will also be provided. Permits applied for include: Conditional Use Permit (L02 -055) Design Review (L02 -056) Other known required permits include: Studies required with the applications include: SEPA Determinations of Non - Significance (E2000 -031 and E2000 -033) Boundary Line Adjustment (L02 -057) River Creek Enhancements (L01 -030) Development Permit Traffic Analysis Acoustical Analysis Geotechnical Report An environmental checklist has been submitted with the studies identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: PRE02 -034 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You are invited to comment on the project at a public hearing before the Planning Commission, scheduled for February 27, 2003 at the Tukwila City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. To confirm this date call Deborah Ritter at the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3663. For further information on this proposal, contact Deborah Ritter at (206) 431 -3663 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: December 19, 2002 Notice of Completeness Issued: December 20, 2002 Notice of Application Issued: December 30, 2002 SBEY CORPORATION Narrative Description Conditional Use Permit Submittal For INS SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard submitted December 19, 2002 Sabey Corporation requests that the City of Tukwila grant a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new facility at 12500 Tukwila International Boulevard. This facility will consist of a 4 -story office building over a 3 -story parking structure. Additional parking will be located on grade to the north. The facility would provide approximately 137,500 net usable square feet of office space for the Immigration and Naturalization Service Seattle District Office. The site is located at the juncture of several different zones. The north end is zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy. The center area is Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light. There is a small area of Commercial /Light Industrial zoning in the southwest corner and the southeast corner is Low Density Residential. The new building will be located in the MIC /Light zone. According to Section 18.36.040 of the Tukwila Zoning Code, offices over 20,000 square feet or allowable in this zone as a Conditional Use. t4=TV Si, Per Section 18.64.050 of the Tukwila Zoning Code conditional use permits shall be granted if the project meets the following criteria: 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, landscaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. 5. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. The following describes how this project meets or exceeds these criteria: 1. This project will provide government office space. There will be no activities associated with this building that will be detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding improvements. 2. This development will meet all the requirements for permitted uses within the MIC /L zoning. It will meet all required setbacks for the MIC /H, MIC /L, C /LI and LDR zoning. Parking will be provided in accordance with Tukwila standards for office space. Landscaping will be provided in full compliance with the Tukwila landscape requirements. The project will comply with all applicable regulations regarding building height. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES VENTURE FUNDING Sabey Corporation 206/281 -8700 main line 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4th Floor 206/282 -9951 fax line Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 www.sabey.com 5.;EIVED (..H )FTUKWILA D C 1 9 2002 P FilMI T CENTER 3. This facility is surrounded by a wide variety of uses. To the south and east are single family residences, to the north and east are industrial buildings, across Tukwila International Boulevard are office buildings and multi - family residential. The impact of this project on these uses will be minimal. All access to this site will be from Tukwila International Boulevard, a major arterial for the area. There will be no increase in the traffic on any residential streets from this project. The site also slopes severely from east to west, with the office building set at the level of the street frontage to the west. As a result, it will be separated vertically from the residential units to the west. The parking structure and hillside will be terraced so that the view from the neighboring residential areas will primarily be of the landscaping. No offices will be directly adjacent to housing and vice versa. 4. This project strongly reinforces the goals of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Policy. Improving the visual and economic quality of Tukwila International Boulevard has been a major focus of the city's planning for many years. This project will locate a class A office building at the north end of this corridor. This office building will generate activity along the highway as well as greatly improve the appearance of the streetscape. 5. The only possible adverse impact from this project is the location of office activities adjacent to residential. This impact has been mitigate by separating the office as far as possible from the residential, both horizontally and vertically, and by designing the treatment of the slope to enhance their view. Since the traffic for this facility is kept entirely away from the residential area, there is no adverse impact to the residential street circulation. 0/L1 )p23049080 M1C/H 73 0606 MIC/L LDR 7340600602 734560088 1023049079 • 30490 • • 1 ;4'063600 36 7340600623 LDR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ICCE — PROPOSED GARAGE TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E-2579-31C September 18, .2000 • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ICCE — PROPOSED GARAGE TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E-2579-31C September 18, 2000 PREPARED FOR SABEY CORPORATION ymond A. Cogl. , P.E. Project Manager • • rt S. Levinso Principal Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643 -3780 Toll Free 1- 888 - 739 -6670 I RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA SEP 2 6 2000 PERMIT CENTER :• ✓.isY75.T»w�aavuu ict a.c.464 ryv 54„t i w;nurs vaw.c.m rx., • .. .. ‘, J:•a:.iu:... • • IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences. The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you reduce the geotechnical- related delays, cost - overruns and other costly headaches that can occur during a construction project. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of project - specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, and the level of additional risk which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory program. To help avoid costly problems. consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors which change subsequent to the date of the report may affect its recommendations. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not be used: • When the nature of the proposed structure is changed. for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage. or if a refriger- ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- frigerated one; • when the size or configuration of the proposed structure is altered; • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; • when there is a change of ownership. or • for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- ered in their report's development have changed. MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- technical engineers who then render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda- tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist. because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate- rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated. but steps can be taken to help minimize their impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly - changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- neering report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not he based on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- technical consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground- water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise. this report was prepared expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use by any other persons for any purpose. or by the client for a different purpose. may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. • ^ ^ . v ,•"."'"";'Y YA il ^''M._:�J^ `M1RC4�tnN.R.�'Tf" . C �'YNf"�'W' .t .",^�i. .� ....:i..N. ^,�.•n.r�Y . _ . ... Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Boulevard Fourth Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 Attention: Mr. Dave Sabey Dear Mr. Sabey: Sincerely, EARTH INC. . C_.Ro' S. Levinson, P.E. Principal Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scient tits September 18, 2000 E- 2579 -31 C We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, ICCE — Proposed Garage, Tukwila International Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. In our opinion, construction of the proposed garage is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations are related to foundation support, and reducing post - construction settlements. In the vicinity of the proposed garage structure, medium dense fill underlain by very loose sand and silt soils were encountered. Bearing soils suitable for support of pile foundations were encountered at depths of approximately thirty (30) to fifty five (55) feet below the existing grade. In our opinion the proposed garage structure can be supported on pile foundations. Slab -on -grade construction can be considered for the lower parking level, provided site grades are not raised. Raising of site grades will induce settlements in the underlying deposits of silt. Recommendations for foundation support, and site preparation are presented in the following sections of this report. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future phases. Should you or your consultants have questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. RAC/RS L /bkm 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643 -3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739 -6670 INTRODUCTION General Project Description APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate Al Plates A2 through A53 Plates A54 through A59 Plates B1 and B2 Plates B3 and B4 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-2579-31C • Legend Boring Logs Test Pit Logs Field Exploration Laboratory Test Results Vicinity Map Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Cross Section A -A' Cross Section B -B' Cross Section C -C' Typical Footing Subdrain Typical Utility Trench Fill Grain Size Analyses Atterberg Test Limits Data PAGE 1 1 1 SITE CONDITIONS K 1 Surface 1 Subsurface 2 Groundwater 2 Laboratory Testing 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 General 3 Site Preparation and General Earthwork 4 Foundations 4 Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls 5 Seismic Design Considerations 6 Slab -on -Grade Floors 7 Site Drainage 7 Excavations and Slopes 7 Rockeries 8 Utility Trench Backfill 8 Pavement Areas 9 LIMITATIONS 9 Additional Services 10 General Project Description GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ICCE — PROPOSED GARAGE TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E- 2579 -31 C INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Study completed by ECI for the proposed garage structure to be located at the north end of the proposed ICCE office development in Tukwila, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, and based on the conditions encountered, develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. A schematic representation of the overall ICCE development, proposed building locations, and our exploratory locations are approximately as shown on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. The proposed garage structure is located on the north end of the proposed development. The majority of the building site is located in an existing pavement area, and the topography is relatively flat. We understand the footprint of the garage structure will have . an area of approximately 60,000 square feet. The building will be a two -story structure consisting predominantly of pre -cast of cast -in -place construction. We understand the existing site grades will not be raised as part of the planned development. Based on the proposed building construction, we estimate column loads will be in the range of 400 to 600 kips. We estimate slab -on -grade loading will be in the range of 150 pounds per square foot. If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. Surface The proposed building area for the garage structure is relatively flat, and an existing pavement area is currently located in the area of the proposed structure. A combination of light weight fill (hog fuel) and structural fill was originally placed at the site as part of the previous warehouse development located east of the building site. The approximate existing topography in the vicinity of the proposed garage structure is represented on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). SITE CONDITIONS Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sabey Corporation September 18, 2000 At the time our subsurface exploration was performed (July, 2000), the existing slopes located to the south and west of the proposed building location were observed for signs of instability. Based on our observations of the existing slopes, there appears to be no indications of instability. Slide scarps, tension cracks, or areas of severe erosion were not observed. Subsurface The proposed ICCE building sites were explored by drilling sixteen (16) borings and excavating six (6) test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the boring logs, Plates A2 through A53, and the test pit logs, Plates A54 through A59, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the vicinity of the proposed garage structure (Borings B -14, B -15, and B -16). Gravel, silty sand with gravel, and light weight fill (Hog Fuel) soils were observed at the building site to a depth of approximately eight feet. Underlying the existing fill, loose to very loose silty sand, sand, and silt soils were encountered. These deposits were encountered to depths of approximately thirty (30) to fifty (50) feet. Dense to very dense bearing strata consisting of dense sand and silty gravel was encountered below depths of approximately thirty (30) to fifty -five (55) feet. At boring location B -15 located near the south end of the building footprint, the bearing strata was encountered at a depth of approximately thirty (30) feet. At boring locations B -15 and B -16, the bearing strata was encountered at depths of approximately fifty (50) to fifty -five (55) feet. The bearing strata encountered below depths of approximately thirty (30) to fifty -five (55) feet is suitable for support of pile foundations. Groundwater In the vicinity of the proposed garage structure, the groundwater table was observed at a depth of approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet below the existing parking area grade. Groundwater levels and the rate of seepage are not static, and fluctuations in the level and rates can be expected depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runofi, and other factors. Generally, the level and rate of seepage is higher in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). .s �;y�q E-2579-31C Page 2 Earth Consultants, Inc. °"sril Txvrt:.pr,;w.."nasn r s , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sabey Corporation September 18, 2000 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B, or at the appropriate sample depth on the boring and test pit logs. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. General DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS E- 2579 -31 C Page 3 Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion construction of the proposed building is feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the final design. The primary geotechnical considerations for the project are foundation support and reducing post- construction settlements. In our opinion, the proposed parking structure can be supported on pile foundations bearing in the dense to very dense strata encountered at depths of approximately thirty (30) to fifty -five (55) feet. In our opinion, the building slab -on -grade can be supported a minimum of one foot of structural fill. If feasible, the existing asphalt pavement can be crushed and used as fill below the slab. Recommendations for site preparation and foundations are presented in the following sections of this report. We understand existing grades in the building area will not be raised as part of the proposed development. Due to the compressible nature of the deposits located below the existing fill soils, raising of site grades will induce settlements. If site grades are raised, ECI should be contacted to assess our recommendations and the magnitude of settlement. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Sabey Corporation and their representatives. The report was prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sabey Corporation September 18, 2000 Site Preparation and General Earthwork Foundations The proposed development areas of the site should be stripped and cleared of the existing asphalt pavement and other deleterious materials. If desired, the existing asphalt pavement can be crushed and used as fill below the building slab -on- grade. The asphalt should be crushed to fragments of three inches or Tess. Existing utility pipes that are abandoned should be plugged or removed. The ground surface where structural fill, or foundations are to be placed should be observed by a representative of ECI. Loose or unstable subgrade soils should be compacted or replaced with structural fill. The native soils are moisture sensitive, and will become unstable when exposed to excessive moisture. Compaction and grading of these soils will be difficult if the moisture content of the soil is above the optimum moisture content. Fill for use during wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction. Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other Toad- bearing areas. Structural fill under slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D -1557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. In our opinion, the proposed garage structure can be supported on pile foundations bearing in the dense to very dense strata encountered at depths of approximately thirty (30) to fity -five (55) feet. Due to the anticipated building loads, we recommend the use of eighteen (18) inch diameter augercast piles. The use of high capacity driven steel pipe piles can also be considered. If driven piles are used, several test piles should be driven prior to ordering the production piles to help estimate pile lengths. Due to the variation in the elevation of the bearing strata, variable pile lengths will be necessary if driven piles are used. This report will specifically address eighteen (18) inch diameter augercast piles. ECI can provide recommendations for other pile types, if requested. Earth Consultants, Inc. E- 2579 -31 C Page 4 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sabey Corporation September 18, 2000 • The augercast piles should be embedded into tl e bearing strata a minimum distance of five feet. As discussed previously, the bearing strata was encountered at depths of approximately thirty (30) to fifty -five (55) feet. For design, an allowable capacity of sixty (60) tons can be used for eighteen (18) finch diameter augercast piles embedded at least five feet into the bearing strata. For piles embedded at least ten (10) feet into the bearing strata, an allowable cc 2 capacity of seventy (70) tons can be used. For uplift, an allowable capacity of twenty (20) 6 tons can be used. For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable lateral load capacity of five (5) o tons can be used, assuming one -inch of deflection (free head condition). A point -of- fixity can c be assumed at a depth of fifteen (15) feet (free head condition). Lateral resistance from grade beams and pile caps can be calculated using an equivalent fluid ° of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pcf).' Friction along pile caps and grade al beams can also be assumed for resisting lateral loads. For design, a coefficient of friction of co 0.35 can be used. Due to the potential for liquefaction related settlements, friction should be z W neglected for dynamic loading conditions. The above values assume the grade beams and pile Z caps are backfilled with granular structural fills. z o iu The piles should be spaced with a center to center distance of at least three diameters. Due to the loose conditions of the upper native deposits, a relatively large amount of grout may be o rn necessary to complete the piles. Ratios of pumped grout to the theoretical volume could be as high as two for some piles. ECI should be on -site during the pile installation to verify 0 bearing strata, depths of embedment, and pumped grout volumes. u.. o co z Provided the foundations are installed in accordance with the recommendations contained in v this report, we estimate total settlements of approximately one inch and differential settlement o of approximately one half inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls E- 2579 -31 C Page 5 Retaining walls, and foundation walls that function as retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from the retained soils, and any surcharge loading. For walls designed to yield a minimum of 0.002 times the height of the wall, lateral earth pressures can be calculated using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty -five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). For non - yielding walls, the equivalent fluid pressure should be increased to fifty (50) pcf. The above lateral earth pressure values assume horizontal backfill conditions and no hydrostatic pressures behind the wall. The above lateral earth pressure values assume no surcharges due to traffic, adjacent foundations, construction loads, or any other loadings. If surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressures. To account for traffic surcharges, a two foot soil surcharge can be included in the retaining wall design, where applicable. Earth Consultants, Inc. ..:_. �."-°• T�.. �. s�*.«_ �.._+, s_ ,�,,�mar,- eervr„�+i� r! *r.�,M„ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sabey Corporation September 18, 2000 The walls should be provided with a perforated PVC drain pipe and backfilled with a free - draining material. The free - draining material should extend at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. As an alternative, a sheet drain such as Mira -Drain 6000 or equivalent can z be used in lieu of the free draining backfill described above. re w Seismic Design Considerations 6 J U The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The o co w largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal (intraplate) events, . ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have exhibited cn no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock (1989) researched the probable or known source w o areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone earthquakes in the Washington and Oregon area. Crustal and intraplate earthquakes are the only events in Washington and U- j Oregon in which there is a historical record. Shallow crustal earthquakes occur within the = d North American Plate, and typically do not exceed focal depths of approximately 20 I-- _ kilo meters. Intraplate earthquakes occur in the subducting Juan de Fuca plate, and typically z occur below depths of 40 kilometers. The subduction zone earthquake, in which there is no w o o historical record in the Washington and Oregon area, would have its source along the interface between the North American Plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate. Magnitude 8 + 8 earthquakes are thought to be possible along this interface, and would occur at depths of o '- approximately 50 to 60 kilometers (Weaver and Shedlock, 1989). = w U- The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are used as „ z a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our o opinion that soil type SE from Table 16 -J of the 1997 UBC should be used for design. o Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and /or differential settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying soils. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to -grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of time. To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium - dense; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that the site has a moderate to high susceptibility to liquefaction. Pile support of the structure will help mitigate the impacts of liquefaction related settlements to the building. Settlement of the slab - on- grade, however, is possible. Structural support of the building slab would help mitigate the impacts of liquefaction related settlements to the building slab. In our opinion, liquefaction related settlements could be in the range of two inches to six inches, and would not occur uniformly across the site. Earth Consultants, Inc. v!% E- 2579 -31 C Page 6 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sabey Corporation September 18, 2000 Slab -on -Grade Floors E- 2579 -31 C Page 7 Slab -on -grade floors can be supported on competent native soils or structural fill. As z previously discussed, the existing asphalt pavement can be crushed into fragments of three z l- inches or less and used as fill below the slab. Loose or unstable subgrade soils should be w stabilized prior to construction of the slab. The use of a geotextile and crushed rock can be 6 D considered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if necessary. A four -inch capillary break iJ o consisting of a free draining poorly graded sand or gravel with less than four percent fines co 0 (percent passing tile #200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction) should be placed w = below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6 -mil 2 o plastic membrane can be placed beneath the free draining sand or gravel. ECI should observe w proofrolling of the slab subgrade prior to placing the slab capillary break material. La L co = 1- w zI The site must be graded such that surface water is directed away from the buildings. Water 1--- o must not be allowed to stand in •construction areas. During construction, loose surfaces w L— w should be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration 2 o into the soils. Interceptor trenches should be provided along the perimeter of excavations to 8 - intercept groundwater seepage before it enters the construction area, where necessary. o F- L11 w . Heavy groundwater seepage conditions should be expected in excavations that are advanced i below a depth of approximately six feet. Temporary dewatering of deep excavations may be w z necessary. c) o~ Site Drainage Perimeter footing drains should be installed to help reduce the potential for water infiltration. A typical footing drain detail for the perimeter footings or grade beams is provided on Plate 6. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing or foundation wall drain systems. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Earth Consultants, Inc. z GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sabey Corporation September 18, 2000 E- 2579 -31 C Page 8 In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration, the soils observed would be classified as Type C by OSHA. As such, temporary cuts in these soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). ECI should observe the excavations to observe soil and groundwater conditions, and verify the OSHA soil type. ECI should review the temporary slope and grading plan and observe conditions during excavation to verify soil and groundwater conditions. If temporary slopes cannot be constructed in accordance with OSHA guidelines, the use of temporary shoring may be necessary. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1 V. Cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surf icial layer of soil. Rockeries If rockeries are planned at the site, the construction should be in accordance with the Associated Rockery Contractors (ARC) Guidelines. Rockeries are erosion control features, and are not intended to function as retaining structures. ECI should observe excavations made for rockeries, and periodically observe the rockery construction. In areas where rockeries are placed in front of fills, the use of geogrid reinforcement within the fills may be necessary. ECI can provide recommendations for reinforced earth fills, if necessary. Utility Trench Backfill Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, remedial measures may be necessary for support of utilities located below the elevation of the existing fill soils. A woven geotextile and rock ballast can be used to provide support for utilities where weak soils are present along the trench subgrade. Below a depth of approximately six feet, heavy groundwater conditions should be expected in the trench excavation. Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement in pavement areas. It is important that the utilities be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the haunches of these structures. Fill should be carefully placed and tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe or tanks before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non -load supporting areas is presented on Plate 7. • Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sabey Corporation September 18, 2000 Pavement Areas • E- 2579 -31 C Page 9 The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. z To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and = I-: prepared as described in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. ,� z This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D- 1557). It is possible that some localized -J o areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater u) W thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. w I The following pavement section for lightly - loaded areas can be used: w o gQ • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or 1 a = w I- _ • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. z i- o o z i- w Heavier truck - traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement 2 n life and site traffic. As a general rule, the following sections can be considered for truck- o � . trafficked areas: o F- 111 L u 0 • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or „ o z • Three inches of AC over four and one -half inches of ATB. o oI- These pavement thicknesses may be modified based on anticipated traffic loads and z frequency. Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D -1557 laboratory test standard. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. Earth Consultants, Inc. A ATIMITA re ___ he GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sabey Corporation September 18, 2000 Additional Services Earth Consultants, Inc. E- 2579 -31 C Page 10 The recommendations submitted in this reporf-are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in "the construction specifications. We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing i C't6:k;59;o,s+ - A :1 ietaioi:�w 'Lxl..a41, SaLKMILtir .Ybl L.tTs 12471i 1. • .1i 1 H 12; S 7 5 !1,29rri Ilind ST r '••• i• s 13til T . rJ •.t 17 7: — R.1 t '31" •••C .••••• S e Reference: Puget Sound Area King County / Map 655 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 2000 • •-• • / NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. ) T (.1.47ERIATIONAL AL9PC,IRT - • .T••••• • . , - • • • • • • •-•• - . HiLL •,)1 J • .'1 S MB' ST %.•:•••• *. 1 1'171 3261'14 ST '■.' ' 1: ' L_ . ----- - I I .) , C .....1 V. 1 "7.: ,... ---....- - . .._•.A TV. .5; 1 ern , . 1 - ....,- t, • • s r 4:- r14 ....-, 141711 ST 1 •t r• .fliXt 0 " • 1 --1 IS-3 H t2,1 1:Mt • 137TH cr — — .71:41::71W GYL) • ,= 1 4. , j114 , • • • • -• 1."` . - - .1. SEA TTLE S or,:rii • - c...9469,7r • k ir ,■r• Earth Consultants, Inc. Geolechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental scientists Vicinity Map International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Drwn. GLS Checked RAC Date Aug. 2000 Proj. No. 2579-31 Date 8/7/00 Plate 1 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEARTHAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 6 inch min. 4 inch min. Diameter Perforated Pipe Wrapped in Drainage Fabric 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. •• Slope To Drain '�. �.•� -o • - •A •.s • . • f • 12 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING ° . 0 oy • • • O • • O • • • C • 0 • p • O 0 .0 o •• • u O o • • o p • o • • 0 0 0 0 0 • •• • .o ° • • • c • 0 • � 0 • 0 • ° 0 p a ° e a . • o O • • • • o 0 • 0 a - ° • 0 • _ 0 0 • o • o ° ° 0 • 0 ° 0 • 0 0 °• ao _ 18 inch min. t 2 inch min. LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9 -03.1(2) of the WSDOT Specifications. O Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. Earth Consultants Inc. Geotectvtltal Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Proj. No2579-31C1 Drwn. GLS 1 Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC 1 Date 8/30/00 I Plate 6 r r 1r 4 TO Beddirl. ; c • c °p° 0 ° • n V10:0 1'.0 .;• 3 "C LEGEND: Asphalt or Concrete Pave. Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On -Site Soil or lr4 Material as Described in the Site Prepara... Earthwork Section of the Attached Report '1 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 -78 (Mod1, Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Te:, Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufach. Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. Earth Consultants Inc. Ceotechniol Engineers. Geologists & Envtmnmrntal Sorntnls Proj. No2579-31C1 Drwn. GLS I Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC I Date 8/30/00 I Plate 7 i TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington APPENDIX 'A FIELD EXPLORATION E-2579-31C Our field exploration was performed during May, June, and July, 2000. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by observing sixteen (16) borings and six test pits. The approximate boring and test pit locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans. The locations of the borings and test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineer from our office, who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System that is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented in the Appendix A, Plates A2 and A59. The final Togs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Consultants, Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL • TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Coarse Grained Soils ore Than 50% Material Larger Than No. 200 Sieve Size Gravel And Gravelly Soils More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Retained On No. 4 Sieve Clean Gravels (little or no fines) to b b C 0 • 0 • 0 • • • • 41111. 1 • • • 1 1 1 GW gyy Well- Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gp gp Poorly - Graded Gravels, Gravel - Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines ' Gravels With Fines ( appreciable amount of fines) ' � ' . ' : GM gm Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sapd - Silt Mixtures IP lI , ' GC gC Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Sand Clay Mixtures Sand And Sandy Soils More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Passing No.4 Sieve Clean Sand (little or no lines)!!- • • 0 0 0 ' ,. o 0 o SW SW Well- Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines .� +�:::.:•' a> "'�. *ti`::!: : >::k;• A;• >:z: %ft >z Si' S Sp Poorly- Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines Sands With Fines (appreciable amount of fines) SM Sm Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures '• ":': SC SC Clayey Sands, Sand - Clay Mixtures Fine Soils More Than 50% Material Smaller Tt •And No. 200 Sieve ve Size Silts Liquid Limit al And Less Than 50 M L ml Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flol,r,Silty- Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity 7) CL CI Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean I I I I Hill I I I I I ,. of Organic Silts And Organic Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity Silts Liquid Limit Clays Greater Than 50 • MH mh Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire Sand Or Silty Soils CH Ch Inorganic Clays Of High Plasticity, Fat Clays. i / / / / / OH Oh Organic Clays Of Medium To High Plasticity, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soil . . � !/- 1 . L ,r, J r � `` r pT pt Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils With High Organic Contents Topsoil ' y y y �' Humus And Duff Layer Fill • • • • • • • • • • � • Hfyhly Variable Constituents C qu W P Pcf LL PI NNW The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. TORVANE READING, tsf PENETROMETER READING, tsf MOISTURE, % dry weight SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft. LIQUID LIMIT, % PLASTIC INDEX DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicate borderline soil classification. Earth Consultants inc. 611UI11uil .I) ENO S.I ,(4 }Augisls 6 IJI\Ifi }IIIII1II.I xw }nu+s I 2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER 24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER i WATER OBSERVATION WELL 2 DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER DURING EXCAVATION 2 SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE LEGEND Proj. No.2579 -31 Date Aug.2000 Plate Al �......:. ,...... N.¢eMTfnM:WriPrw4bwam. ^n!.+s'.'+f+Y* ^wr.•.fr.•e.•M�e r,..- •^- +.r+x..n• • n t- .�....e -----• �.--=. �. �. , ..- .......-.+. .+ ......_... �. �. �... � ..._.......�......._._.. _:_._ _... ... :S':. _.__- .,......a.Y.. _... �.- •, . -_. � .. . � re••�w -.n.. .vc�'eM!N • '+F�,�!m. Project Name: Sheet of International Corporate Campus East 1 2 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Start Date: 5/24/00 - Completion Date: '; 5/24/00 Boring No.: B Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 80' - Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) — No. ;_ 2 _ . i t Blows 2- 72 Ft. . c > T LL J; to E = u'i Surface Conditions: $ is a W -, a 22.0 14.6 25.3 16.0 15.9 ∎�� �•� i SM Brown to black silty fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist (Fill) • : - • • • • + •4 'i ■ III ML Brown sandy SILT, medium dense, moist (Fill) ���44 II . ..4 te.4i 'i**-' .. ...s 15 ■ �• • • • • • • • � 6 II SM Brown silty fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist (Fill) ■■ •�•���4 •.• . • . . !4!.!i r•�� -• -4 • 17 4V • � 4 • ••. •� & &&4 • ML Brown sandy SILT, medium dense, moist (Fill) - contains fine gravel II 21 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 SM Brown silty fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist to wet (Weathered Glacial Till) - becomes gray and wet, light seepage at 15' - becomes very dense ,,,► �ti: ,i�► k ( 4i g / \ %vJ1 \ _, Earth Consultants Inc i/ Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington E cS - m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Own. GLS 1 Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A2 ' Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and lop ion of this e oratory hole m odified by engmeenng tests, analys+s an ludgiTeftt Ttl2y.are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretahon by others of � � eta i lrsii! .. *°* -as . �r r��.. T , r . ��„r -ten M < L,, , •Ra+rmm,n w« p�• rr, .el M }i+{�r'Inn , �'n•'"' ._ `K. •,�"r.n.a�,.:,.....- �...•nNn •rem „K- i .•r�mc�t^rn[`*�'RC"�^.'K Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 2 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Start Date: 5/24/00 Completion Date: .•.• '5/24/00 Boring No.: B-1 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 80' - Hole Completion: ' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer El Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W ( % ) No. Blows Ft. Graphic Symbol Depth Ft. Sample IogwtS szsn LL =51 PL =25 P1=26 N. Z F.- 0 0 U W O. 9.1 9.4 19.0 50/5.5" 82/10" 74 SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND, very dense, moist (Glacial Till) • • - contains trace gravel . -contains gravel . 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 CH Gray fat CLAY, hard, moist Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 15.0 feet during dnlling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. NOTE: Elevations estimated from Site Plan provided by Client. 17 co g , ►: t up 6L i iv/i Nap Earth Consultants Inc. CRxcctinIcrlFniOnor x. C rolosLV56Fnv1rmnxnralSclrnn.;n Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington m Proj. No. 2579 -31 I Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A3 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis an udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of .; ..:.aa: - r1 •.... "^ ?a• "!+.f'•,: .,• n+' i •7rrees.+^v ^,yennt•.�yiKwearoem+. .,,nr,• +.x1:^+ .'t'. isx?a+cxa ,:v; Project Name: S Sheet of Job No. L Logged by: S Start Date: C Completion Date: . ,. B Boring No.: Drilling Contactor: D Drilling Method: • S Sampling Method: Ground Surface Elevation: H Hole Completion: ' General 2 (%) F No. ' r — ' .c L r rn TS Surface Conditions: $ 1 16.5 S 23 •-• • • SM B Brown to black silty fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist (Fill) 1-- 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — • S SM B Brown silty fine SAND, medium dense, moist (Glacial Till) 6 7 — — 8 9 .4 0* 0 A B Boring Log o Proj. No. 2579 -31 D Dwn. GLS D Date Aug. 2000 C Checked RAC D Date 8/15/00 J P Plate A4 . Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and oca ion of this e>cploratory hole, modified by englneenng tests, analysis a udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of err:{ ^?e- :�.r.^rw:�.ru•n,....� -w•.•w :.,*ad�>xi....y- .,.........rte...,.. -..: �.rm..r,+n•...r�.. wog- ...nu«.+e...ee..rrc•r ^.:�r? !!;',!1,7'4 Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Start Date: 5/24/00 Completion Date: „ . :5/24/00 Boring No.: B-2 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 75' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Plezometer El Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W 0%) No. Blows Ft. s , E 6 c• o • .c a) • it E 0 c` cn u) E m N LL =33 PL =23 P1 =10 5 0 0 U W -, a. 12.7 20.2 19.5 21.7 38 34 60 • SM Gray silty fine SAND, dense, moist (Glacial Till) 21 ML Gray SILT, dense, moist . . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 39 CL Grades to gray lean CLAY, hard, moist - becomes very dense — 0 z 0 Boring Log Proj. No. 2579 -31 Earth Consultants Inc. Caort:c•Imlca, FnghN:rxs. G.:040 , 0s* & Fnvlronnxnral k'Irnn. Dwn. GLS Date Aug.2000 Checked RAC Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Date 8/15/00 Plate A5 . Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and •udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Boring Log Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Drilling Contactor. Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 75' General Notes W ( %) 24.1 26.3 26.7 26.3 Proj. No. 2579 -31 No. Blows Ft. 47 23 25 31 U 0 to L N a.1 E o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Start Date: 5/24/00 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite j 2 U rn E E U, ML Earth Consultants Inc. G xrctinkal F n g t n r : r a t i . G-,l b tt& FnvImnnxnrnl SctrnrL+n Dwn. GLS Completion Date: '5/24/00 Checked RAC Sheet of 3 4 Boring No.: B-2 Sampling Method: SPT Gray SILT, dense, moist - becomes medium dense - contains very fine grained sand laminations - becomes dense Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Date 8/15/00 Plate A6 I Date Aug.2000 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 4 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Start Date: 5/24/00 Completion Date: •*.' . 5/24/00 Boring No.: B-2 Drilling Contactor. Gregory • Drilling Method: . HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 75' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 1 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) No. ws BFtL Graphic Symbol Depth Ft. Sample USCS Symbol a 5 LI U W a 25.1 25.9 22 32 ML Gray SILT, medium dense, moist . - becomes dense 61 62 63 sa 65 66 Boring terminated at 66.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. 1, o N ' 10'1-, 44h \. : af , P i' \ w vir/ Earth Consultants Inc. Cccxnymkal Fn(ilncras. Ccob¢tin b Fnvlmonmml kirrutin - Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A7 ' Boring Log Subsurface conditions dep'cted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of fat 1 a a i .mow { E , rv,"'' �.^ ver .. " •` a. ,,. lF�..�E2c� !�.. uR;� 5rai*� +r��+ ,. . Y �.��............ ''�.i Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 6 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Start Date: 5/24/00 Completion Date: ... :5/25/00 Baring No.: 3-3 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 80' Hole Completion: • ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 4 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes w j No. Blows Ft. s— � E 6 cn .c a u. E o (73 cn 8 E D cn Surface Conditions: $ 5 0 c? 0 w ., a. 16.0 30.5 11.1 19.5 • 10 33 •�• • • • • • • ••! ■ ! ■ I • • ■ • • • ∎��: • • • • ���• -•� SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND, loose, moist (Fill) - becomes loose, contains wood debris and organics - contains organics 11 15 16 17 18 19 ML Gray SILT, dense, moist - contains trace of fine grained sand i lei 8 co o C) p A. _ � / C ` \ p Earth Consultants Inc. Gin:ci mica' Pn¢?nea%,G.okxjsz & EnvImomenntl ScItnrW. Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington z GO Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A8 • • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota ion of this eploratory hole mo b y engtneenng tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ,nfnm,alinn nrnonnlnrl nn !hie Inn .. - .r•4 rt5�•aawprra *w .••x ar•- ... ..P :. .r. .. •„ ..... A? ta.' �!+ g !7�l�+vt'nr!m'n „»nw.+e.*n•cvr. +i +,eM,..•,w,�•.+t'.*w.gr'r iii'.:`;... w,rm'. .. .: e... .... .- erenn_ Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 6 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Start Date: 5/24/00 Completion Date: .. : 5/25/00 Boring No.: B-3 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT . Ground Surface Elevation: 80' Hole Completion: • ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer FA Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W �%) No. Blows Ft. L E 6 cn .= a E ° 'a°i 8 E D ti F- 9 U W a 20.2 19.6 24.3 26.4 55 51 39 21 ML Gray SILT, very dense, moist • • • - - becomes dense - becomes medium dense • 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 N C7 J LI /,►. a 44 kv 41(' /111 Earth Consultants Inc. 114/ `r vi GxrclmlcalFngtnecas.fwroo LVS & MNmnmrnr,,I'clrortm; Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington co z Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A9 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and coca ton of this eoratory nose, , 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of tnfnrrn,linn nvaaantad nn Hue Inn ` rTna}i lilt i. • itrVi!tyZ Wr .3,v,t-!.f0 •. �r�t sr -,+.x ! ,^ f e m. rl.M. C:r! r wa a!r ".3•t•••�.r •. r« �.: !. Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 3 6 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Start Date: 5/24/00 Completion Date: . :• • 5/25/00 Boring No.: B-3 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: . • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 80' Hole Completion: ' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ka Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W ��j No. Blows Ft. s 2 fa- E 6 .c o. o LL cn $ ? E T rn N 5 0 0. U W a 27.8 26.5 25.9 26.3 1) 23 24 21 ML Gray SILT, medium dense, moist • 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 0 O � ��r 0 ALA, E»: 44 [ [ Earth Consultants Inc. 4 ' � �� 1 `�r� Gro dinkal Fngtne ns Cec* 1sl & Fnvlmnnr- tictrnK;n Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z E Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A10 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineenng tests, ana l s an 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ,nfnr,.reHnn nreonntet4 an Ohio Inn I?f"L`z tt' k."''' ""'"7 a ""',"1 S wr w,•r„ �m;nrt;^* J 't ? . n•rmrY.rrm`:r .,e ec'5; {nFri ra•eNn?rnrnac.m....�, -N nr.syr r....0 ''. `.x.:57" '� 1MMrr ej. ia_ Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 4 6 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Start Date: 5/24/00 Completion Date: ... 5/25/00 .' Boring No.: 6-3 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 80' Hole Completion: • ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 4 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W j No. Blows Ft. 6 a E 5 rn . 92 . ° " E. °' Li E o g 03 'o v E vi E m v is o c. w 0 0. 25.5 26.7 2 29.3 24 28 33 37 ML Gray SILT, medium dense, moist - becomes dense 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 CL Grades to gray lean CLAY, hard, moist 0. i3 .a► E»: 441V it - Earth Consultants Inc. J 1 `II Gtion ink Fngt a as. C o4osLv+R Environmental tictrnnitt Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z CE Proj. No. 2579 -31 own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 , Plate A11 Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this e�loratory hole mod ified by engineering tests, a nal y s i s and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of w.•.r.�.nfo.1 .... rti ie inn #� , �'�.+�atua¢ w. A+ S" �w��7- 3g+�.�� °:'y'7CCY',!'^5.`.'c�. r.5T4�S:`.`A.+'�.�:N!.mT+�•n^' ., .., r �t?rh r¢.«.er�rr aC?� ,..i3.1K+c.Ym,.,�`, r. �.M�s 1 ,�r ..,...v, y a�+n Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 5 .6 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: WRJ Start Date: 5/24/00 Completion Date: .."‘ '5/25/00 Boring No.: B-3 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 80' Hole Completion: ' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 4 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes w (%) Blows Ft. a `` � ur ° • '' o a cn v m T cn LL =33 PL =24 PI =11 $ 5 F- 0 0. U W a. 26.4 35.2 30.1 7.9 30 26 5016" CL Gray lean CLAY, very stiff to hard, moist • • - becomes very stiff - contains sand interbeds - becomes hard - containing silty sand layer 81 82 83 84 — 86 87 — 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 — 95 97 98 99 SM Grades to brown silty SAND, very dense, moist 0 . 1 1»' t 4., 1 ;1 8 ' ` i J AV ,u►, _ [ a1 it Earth Consultants Inc. G-cxecl mica! Fnghxras.C: oust+nRFnNmnnk:nralS.tirnitim Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington E Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate Al2 d Boring Log r Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this a proratory hole, moc6fied by englneenng tests, analysis an ` 1 udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of . �^n'^ J�vl n.� tare Irv. y ew+ ? r �w .v..l 'Y'"y - m. ^`r+" "'3 ,..,.. -. _. „ �s,:,:.-:..,.. r....... .,,...w. «• .. i rntte�rw.wagT•royalt�3..'T.7: tlry � nc�•.n... eMw.. ��`�'"F a Boring Log Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Job No. 2579 -31 Drilling Contactor. • Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 80' •' General Notes Logged by: WRJ W No. -°_ 2 E ,0„ Blows - E o E Ft. Q cn en 80 i c O O e. 101 Dwn. GLS Start Date: 5/24/00 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well en 2 0 E SP -SM Earth Consultants Inc. G ORK1 %nK4I Fn¢hxerv, Gcoknt n & FiwNmnmenr.N SctrnhI l% Date Aug. 2000 Completion Date: 5/25/00 ❑ Piezometer Checked RAC Boring No.: B-3 Sampling Method: SPT Sheet of 6 6 ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite Gray poorly graded SAND with silt, very dense, water bearing - medium grained sand ' Boring terminated at 101.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 100.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Date 8/15/00 Plate Al 3 1- U W a c9. i� J o Proi. No. 2579 -31 m l Subsurface conditions depicted represent cnt Vu1 oagcn a at the tim modfied by engineering tests, analysis and e u . ...w exploratory _._ ,,.,��p jud enq�the wware not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of "w 1 d r�` {„".w`117 O. ... �1�f;� Y:r .. .. . 7aP!„ „*.c.m. ,.. {7 , Y . 9F.'A M .. Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: ., 6/16/00 Boring No.: B-4 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT . Ground Surface Elevation: 120' - Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer l►7 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W No. Blows Ft. 2 - ( 9 - E 6 s a t i E in' ? E cn Surface Conditions: 5. is - a 13.5 10.0 15.5 14.9 18.5 21 18 5 8 •� �� • � i ■ ■ . • ■ !i!i!i • iyjiJ: ■ •��. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 4 ■ �• � ���� •� • ■ •i�ii •�i�i�i • ■ ∎• - -• ►•���� ■ �i��. ■ ����. ■ ■ � • j ►��� ■ ��� GM Brown silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist to wet (Fill) SM Grades to black silty SAND, medium dense, moist (Fill) -trace brick fragments - contains asphalt, concrete and brick fragments - becomes loose, moist to wet -trace brick U 8 10 • 11 ' • 12 1 �� ML Gray sandy SILT, loose, wet (Fill) -light seepage at 10' -trace slag tailings •• .1 s ■ VJJ ••••••• 18 ■ ����• • •♦�•��• Gray sandy SILT, loose, moist (Possible Fill) -trace small gravel 2 i p Faxth Consultants Inc. (11(""ii►� r�ri Geexe�e: lmk- alFnghxnaGeok >glsn 0 Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington E Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A14 Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion or this exploratory hole modified by engmeenng tests, analysts and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Wet .!. ...... .. . -.! nr :?r= 5ra.m�kr?,- ur+.'trJf+an?: t+oraax >- .,5w.n.g.v.,r.>rm•.�� t^!±j:.?,^l**.+M:•r• .v n.. .. !s.grY.�nr _v..q, q ..,. , m. 2- n: rM' i. :«. ic- c` FC•. e- r .,.�."'p'yfX!!^n�r,— Q'.R'I;!Kt1 . Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: '' . 6/16/00 Boring No.: &4 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 120' - Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W X 94) N `—' o . ra Blows E m ` i E Ft. c7 tii ° u) U o U E = u 8 is 0. t3 W a 24.1 13.2 9.0 8.6 12.0 • 1 CL Grades to brown lean CLAY, medium stiff, wet (Possible Fill) ..&.. Or � • ��� ML Brown SILT with sand, loose to medium dense, moist (Possible Fill) -2" sand interbeds -trace gravel • - mottled, wet P • 22 • — i�i�i�i 4 23 �� — • o • 4 24 ■ •� • • ■ -- ■ �����• o• . 25 • -• -• � 19 15 35 26 ML Brown sandy SILT with gravel, medium dense, moist 27 28 29 30 31 32 SM Grades to brown silty fine SAND, medium dense, moist -trace interbeds of poorly graded sand -26% fines -trace gravel, becomes dense -still pockets of poorly graded sand 35 80 36 37 38 39 ML Grades to brown sandy SILT, very dense, moist -trace gravel -trace sand interbeds d ». ���: - ��► . 8 �t� e � a, Earth Consultants Inc. ��i dj 4) Gcor :cttnk bourn mralSolrnriis Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS l Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A15' Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location o this a loratory hole m by engineenng tests, udgr,,e not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of " 'M#""" 674:01 nn °this. b.n su .7n. <.. m��c,r.. ».,...,m,e a ws,,,,_-,. .,,y,,,,,, . - ...:.n<o.•r>..nr;:rnn !nx:i�. Project Name: International Corporate Campus East of 3 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: ....-s ' 6/16/00 Boring No.: B-4 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 120' .. Hole Completion: • Well ❑ Plezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W X 96) No. Blows Ft. . o a E c9 „, L a, iv it E 0 en cn a v E rn . 0 U W a 5.5 4.9 5.7 • ss , a ' 56 • o a a a a a a a a a a C 0 a a a a a 0 a '0 a Vi a c a a 0 a . • c a ,' a a:.c • .0 a 0 o_ a c , a 0 a , • a 0 SP -SM Grades to brown poorly graded SAND with silt, very dense, moist . • . - becomes dense 41 42 44 45 r 46 47 48 9 N 50 51 Boring terminated at 51.5 feet below e>asting Srade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 10.0 feet below existing grade. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. cv ul 8 J 1 's'' SW. 411V t��� 0 N if mkt Earth Consultants Inc. s Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington z E Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A16 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory ho m by engineenng tests, analysts and ► judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of kNOtffi!mmait. oasr,ldi ,... ►►.ie I,... rs+,. ?cK zenevx? !asa• ..,w+,nx..mt'?1}??i"M �v ;rs.frrrv+r Psa+*' +xrPtv.!, M rs ,...r+.:o ;.•,, •^ t' a,P2,Me' _1_+_ Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: , '6/16/00 Boring No.: B-5 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 125' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W �%� No. 2 2 L a Blows a E i ii E Ft. a cn a i Surface Conditions: 18.4 25.0 26.7 30.1 18.0 . � . i • SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) . ��� , 1 — � • ' 2 — 4 4 6 3 ML Brown SILT, loose, moist (Fill) -trace brick fragments (small) - becomes very loose -trace brick, plastic ! jI I 1 I � 5 3 ), . • ■ � j ����� 7 • — 4 8 9 10 5 11 12 13 14 15 3 16 17 18 19 ML Mottled brown and gray SILT, very loose to loose, moist (Possible Colluvium) - contains roots - comprised of angular silt fragments in fine grained sandy silt matrix - becomes loose -trace organics (wood) - becomes very loose 1:1(- ,�4�. � �, IF; Iii y Earth Consultants Inc �y,nICaIFn¢Tneris.CwMo lsJ &Fi 1mn,ne, tllclrid;l, Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A17 ' Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota on of this exploratory hole modified try engineering tests, ana an udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of : i 1 ET 't v+,._ r^• 2t = 40m ' f X nn hie n -wn .. _ , Project Name: • International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: ••'' ' 6/16/00 Boring No.: B-5 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 125' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W %) No. Blows Ft. s 51. E 5 rn . n. E o co S 8 E rn LL =29 PL =21 P1 =8 § 5 1- 6 a 24.0 26.5 27.9 23.3 24.7 2 5 3 7 7 CL Gray lean CLAY, very soft to soft. moist to wet (Possible Colluvium) - comprised of small angular clay fragments in fine grained matrix • • - becomes medium stiff - becomes soft • - contains 3, 1/4" sticks - mottled, trace organics, medium stiff 21 22 23 24 — 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 — — — 39 ML Dark brown to black sandy SILT, loose, moist (Possible Colluvium) -trace organics, organic odor 0 . , N 1 p A , � • r I f ka IV If ■ ) Earth Consultants Inc. Ccoote tiniculFnstnr ns. Gaobgtys & Fnvlmnnx:ntalSCtenniirs Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 • Plate A18 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions dep'cted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole rr actfi ed by engineering tests, ana and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of lo 6dt37rsx »3:1s3F.�04747. w+.+.w.c�+urRiyma a3��4.., Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 3 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: • '6/16/00 Boring No.: B-5 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 125' _ Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Plezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W � No. °— o s d Blows m E E Ft. 6 c , c a i co o 8 E - a $ is k 0 0 a W -, a 18.3 33.8 6.3 5.1 SM Grades to greenish gray silty SAND, loose, wet (Possible Colluvium). • -trace small gravel -small rootlets 6 41 42 43 44 11 ML Grades top mottled brown SILT, medium dense, wet - appears to be undisturbed 46 47 55 49 50 51 52 53 54 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense, moist - contains gravel - becomes very dense T 74 56 58 ss SM Grades to light brown silty SAND, very dense, moist -14% fines 0. .u►. ih-. , 41, ., ( 0 1 Earth Consultants Inc. 8 q1 r,/ Nig, vi J G,%xrlink:al Fn¢hxcas.Cw-MO¢Ls t; & F.roelmomcnral :KyrnTLicfl J LI Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A19 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota on o this exploratory hole modified by engineenng tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ? , oaon sari nn 11•ic Inn . _ IS!M_�rr �y : tCaYY Boring Log Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Job No. 2579 -31 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 125' General Notes ( %) 4.1 Logged by: MGM No. Blows Ft. 61 t. a l9 C7 c) 61 Start Date: 6/16/00 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well co o 0 13 cn E S Earth Consultants Inc. CcO rcYinI<aI Fngtn S. CcolosIs R F.nvIronti Iffy& StimulaS Completion Date: B116/00 Boring No.: B-5 Sampling Method: SPT ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite Light brown silty SAND, very dense, moist Sheet of 4 4 Boring terminated at 61.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 40.0 feet during dnlling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington 0 Prni Nn 2579 -31 own_ GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A20 • m Subsurface conditions IUJ LF Jt' LCV represent vu1 observations .a wrvn a... ..... and by engineering analysis and ...- .... ..... of ...... - . -._., .. -•- modified tests, 'udgment: They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ,..,,,z...� H ,..,.. N. .�^ ^,A�,N,�" . .,$M$ -.. .,d...s.,.... ••,.t. .. ..sue} kf.i i:�4.14;gir� isttia:�r .:. .. ._ '1 Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: . 6/16/00 Boring No.: B-6 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 105' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W toy) N0 ' Blows Ft. v — L 2 ,� T C5 cn a� = a o Cl) N 2 ? >. Surface Conditions: $ is • f- 0 I. U w a 10.3 14.1 14.5 15.0 26.8 10 5 5 3 14 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ML Brown sandy SILT, loose, moist - contains gravel - becomes dark brown, very loose • 16 17 18 19 ML Mottled brown SILT, medium dense, moist N 8 d„►. i��. 44IV h1:4( .- 1,1411 ` Earth Consultants Inc. 1 g Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A21 ' Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by engineering • tests, ana an judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of L... , fp, wonfo.l , fhio i..n a - iktirsw+t ' V/7ita !Rr X!?f;i^.eM.'r..!.^!e.•..*� Project Name: International Corporate Campus East .. Sheet of 2 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: .. : 6/16/00 Boring No.: B-6 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: • 105' Hole Completion: ' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer M Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W ��� No. Blows Ft. t ,� E 6 cif z u . d E 0 c . g cn 8 E D cn . LL =39 PL =26 PI =13 � a I- o CO. w 0. 24.9 25.5 27.2 25.1 15 23 20 29 • ML Mottled brown SILT, medium dense, moist - massive -trace vertical hairline fractures - - becomes gray 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 937 ' /// 36 38 39 CL Grades to gray lean CLAY, very stiff, moist tr PP 9 PP Y 15 -20 -trace fine sand laminations dipping at approximately degrees — 0. r, 8 J m do ll.. i h : 44IV g i l l( ` iri Earth Consultants Inc. trt// CcocnclinICal FngIn .GO4O 1.S AFnvlmnmrnrflSClcnrin Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington m Proj. No. 2579 - D GLS Dwn. Date Aug 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A22 . Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this ora tory hole m oo�nea oy englneenng lesls, anelya+� ar 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of info •linn nrocon/orl nn hL.ic Inn a•.:n:+ne.rnrn,f+<rr .o.. -„ ., a- •∎•,,w +.w..m.mo n oenN.NA,1 %941 C W'i'nk, Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 3 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: 6/1 6/00 Boring No.: B-6 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 105' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer (►:1 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W No. Blows s 2 m E .c a iu E to I 8 LL =49 PL =24 P1=25 28.2 24.6 25.9 3.2 29 41 CL Gray lean CLAY, very stiff, moist - massive, trace fractures • • - becomes hard -trace pockets of wet sand -trace vertical fractures, slickensides along fractures - becomes dark brown at 46', trace gravel 41 42 43 44 ` 47 48 49 So 51 52 53 54 - ML Grades to gray SILT, dense, moist to wet - massive 55 56 SM Grades to light brown silty fine SAND, very dense, moist -1/8" thick silt interbeds Boring terminated at 56.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 45.0 feet during dniling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. this i (II: 44a . j \� �t Earth Consultants Inc. `' �l? nlcalFngmfns .GOasts*RFi lvlmnnirnr,?Iti4lrnh:T Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 2579 -31 own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A23 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota ion o this exploratory hole modified b y engineer a ry tests, analyses an judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of InlnrrwvtMn nroennldl nn laic Inn Va i; S; ':(;Y- s"«""k�,ya�au�n'.�mae +ynw ova;• qnw -w.macro +•+x )11 . 4 1 VZIA2r.4.1a ?r.4 ?. ••M+ us xn:' 'u+t+uf T �+a M — •rn lepe., - ._— ._...._�.. +... n, or* +.- .....,...,n,+.r „ nnneraIONOt” . iii kNFx Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 2 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/19/00 Completion Date: _. • 6/19/00 Boring No.: B-7 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 70' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes % ( ) No, r - a s Blows m 2 2 u, E Ft. 0u o if) co 8 E , > in Surface Conditions: • i. $ 5 r3 U W a 15.1 11.9 10.1 10.9 • �•� i SM Dark brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, most (Fill) . ' ■ • 1 • — •4 ■ 2 �∎ � ■ • 28 62 SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist (Weathered Glacial Till) - contains small gravel 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist (Glacial Till) 15 15 16 SM Grades to brown sandy SILT with gravel, medium dense, wet (Glacial Till) -no recovery - becomes very dense, moist 78 17 16 19 O J di ►� ���: -i� e I r ' , G u Far th Consultants Inc. GcoltdmicaiFrt 1< hxcaaCRoiostI n6FnNmometrwalSclrnK;n Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington CO Proj. No. 2579 -31 Own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A24 . d Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time an loca ion of this e hole modified try engmeenng tests, analysis an judgment. �� They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of IfYI(/yy�/ IMAww.,/1/�/M('�'M�tiIO -^ xSn: .. t.�.• +. Mrnrs;xT.^ +a^.: ..�n�y*7.�*... ��'"'....'. YT. �' Sy^ W'.'""" �mr +�'.� %,.�...,- ...- .a'�'j,..wr�� x+ �5».,�.ta ++++mi+.«rowrny :�r.ar� �r.;�ST, .�,�.....�.�.....- y��••. Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 2 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/19/00 Completion Date: 6/19/00 Boring No.: &7 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT . Ground Surface Elevation: 70' Hole Completion: ' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 1 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) No. Blows Ft. Graphic Symbol t Depth Ft. Sample lo4W /S sosn LL =30 PL =20 PI =10 a 5 5 L a 9.6 9 . 5 18.7 41 78/10" as ML Gray sandy SILT with gravel, dense, moist (Glacial Till) . - -light seepage at 25' - becomes brown, very dense 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 j /, 30 31 CL Grades to gray lean CLAY, hard, moist - massive, trace silt laminations — Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 15.0 and 25.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. 0. as ry N ta ,1►; PI 44 li �? '& V \nri!, Earth Consultants Inc. Cc orttcltnicalFns Ine:+s.Crolost r<FnvlmnnxrualScfrnrtn Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A25 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and •udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of .n /nrwrsKnn rvecen /a'l nn *tie IM YlO�yl ^P,�!C'+:rof!+pt!�!�l'»�.�.u� . i"."..../. ti''. PF_..,.•. ��.'. ,,�'.e1euW�'.�S'7Yff+.�1.1....r T!' C! t/ iY ,w!.27''7����ry�.iE7'.iR:Jl''!� fHf t�TN. W.bf3'.R ^., :5'�F'i�l?�� Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/19/00 .. Completion Date: '6/19/00 Boring No.: &8 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 92' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General I W (%) No, Blows Ft. t E c cn s °' v u. E a U ) 8 E a cn Surface Conditions: $ is o 0 0 a 14.8 18.0 14.9 9.5 ■ 9 14 13 9 11 I i • � ••i A ����� i� •iii • , • � 111 ����� ���� ■ ii �i • ■ ■�j���j ����i ��� ■ ■ ■ ��� ∎����� I i •�• ����; ∎��� i •�i�i� ■ � • ∎: ■ •4 • ∎i ■ • �� •� � �� •�•���4 � j��� 0 ���� ■ *4 SM Dark brown silty SAND, loose, moist (Fill) -trace gravel - becomes black ra - contains organics and sandy silt laye 13.5 - becomes dark , medium dense 9 Y -trace organic debris -36% fines - becomes loose -trace wood - becomes medium dense -trace organics -trace brick, painted wood 3 s 8 10 11 15 1s 17 18 19 • 0 ,,, p , �, N �` 1 p ity � 11 'w J 0 Earth Consultants Inc. C c rd%nlcal F to vi i. G[okrtL.0 & FnNmnnx:nril Scientists Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington o Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A26 . Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota ion of this exploratory ho mo by engeneenng tests, analyses and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of • o .,,, �tiInn sa a& . 2,11 F� . a ;a e ,`LL'f� ?'°xs ^n M pl�Na nNfi?P»?w t.,..Naw, ha Ki• s A4M d` aM1!"SF iii e+ fir- rxw�FY? ° °Y7R `p *d ?NiY Jr?r aRtp+: p wNxA4.; n ?g� °ira S fR x"R C3"R Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/19/00 Completion Date: ..,. 6/19/00 Boring No.: &8 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 92' Hole Completion: • ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W ( %) No BI Ft. U o= d n a - j a c7 u >,.. o it 33 c o U '° = cn • a I-- 0 Q. U W 14.0 14.8 14.1 5.8 13 ■ ■ 21 7 21 • + + +� • ML Dark gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist (Fill) • -trace slag, small wood debris -large piece of wood in sampler + + + • 21 • .+++++i 22 +i +i + i i 23 +i +i + . . +i +i + — r ' '$' ■ • ■ + + ++ ++ +• ++ ++ +. 25 �+ + + + +• + + + + S +� +� +� SM Dark brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist (Fill) -trace glass debris (blue) o i +� +i-. 27 o + + + + +• +++� ■ + ++ + +• 28 i i ■ ■ i i i 29 • ■ ∎i i i ■ ■ + + + + + ■ + j + j 30 • t + +. — — — --- 31 32 33 SM Brown silty SAND, loose, moist -trace gravel, trace of wood (red) 35 36 37 38 39 SM Grades to light brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist -contains small gravel - contains interbeds of poorly graded sand 0 \ fi:- E�� ;i4►>,. 1 � , JtC \ ri/ Earth Consultants Inc. C�rcimkalFn¢Inrx:t .CroO5L,n Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington o Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A27 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and iota ion of this exploratory hole m by engineenng tests, ana and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of .nfn.mo /inn nreeenleel nn tk.o Inn „�. .... e.x.. :,' e +... :sa.rc ^w.•M•ne..srntw, �.�.,«+h..�.rn+....- .- �.....„- n�*arr.. :,'".S '"`."".. -. ..!. ..... -., r,,m.�nrrc....;+p...,x > -. ; ta.!' r+ n" PS' Y !�'rit"r�fii"�'P�7fJ%*42�'1,TEr!t Project Name: International Corporate Campus East ' Sheet of 3 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/19/00 Completion Date: •• • 6/19/00 Boring No.: &8 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 92' Hole Completion: . ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Plezometer • with bentonite 0 Abandoned, sealed General Notes W (%) No Blows Ft. g - 6 m T 6e,-0 .c 2 o Li E cn U o co T cn is p- 0 0 U W a 6 .2 ' 26 , - 0 ° .:a SP -SM Light brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist • • 41 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. • la'' 0: -4111` - ir l l, l t ' t -ili) Earth Consultants Inc. rtxenml Scrnrtn �.Ccokogsrs& `` N10/ GartimIalFnghxti LI Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A28 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by englneenng tests, analyses and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ,N+ e A'�'s?7 =.TS+, :n2!�"�Mxe« :?m•,+X�t � ;�!(�:�^`�e4`��y`'+,�ow:��r^?5+ -m ic.-- .. .•�+�:+...a:.. !FC !e�+'�! +?n�t�n+ cave .g►ay.�=rntm?- .Wn�nr�e•ncrres n�cyci '2�':�!."•�t'Y+�';rr?rt?w� Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/19/00 Completion Date:. ;- : 6/19/00 Boring No.: B-9 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 75' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) No. Blows Ft. U — s 2 °- E r; cn .c • ° • LL o in U U = ai Surface Conditions: $ is 0 W a 12.7 15.3 21.1 24.0 ■ 3 20 9 • L [ ' f1 5M ■ ! • ►• ' ���� • �. ��. • • Brown silty SAND, very loose to loose, moist (Fill) - becomes gray • - contains abundant glass fragments '•�i�i� ‘�����∎ • ■ ♦� • • ■• ■ •1 ���� �i�i�i• ���••! • IPjl ��•�•�! *AA,. 4 SM Reddish brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist (Possible Fill) -trace gravel -trace wood debris -43% fines s 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 — -- � / OH Dark brown organic SILT, loose, moist SM Gray silty SAND, loose, wet o 0 ,a►. Est,: 4411. � a Earth Consultants Inc Ohl( N W N � All C�:ar.d nfcalFngfi .Cw rea :o4o L n &FnvlmnmenralScicnn.,•n Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington z g o Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A29• Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this a ploratory hole m odified by englneenng tests, analyses and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of nra.0.40A nn Ihic In . .,.w�. `.�. ., 4lnirtrnr i e,1 rX r}7 "��''+../. }%.`:.::-.f+ 5'.'� • t!?i�i.Y!«r!S'R Aerrtlw.lM"7"� :},? ?? Sh• ?)2u+"(YSW'CL ... .. ..' )) . 1K79 ...f "9 _.. 7 .. _ . ... Boring Log Project Name: Intemational Corporate Campus East Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Drilling Contactor. Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 75' General Notes LL =15 PL =14 PI =1 W (`6) 28.1 16.9 19.9 28.8 No. Blows Ft. 7 1 24 U n.0 0 co 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Start Date: 6/19/00 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Plezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite N �0 U E T ML SM Earth Consultants Inc. Ccorrctln Ica! Fngn, i .Cwt> ltiri Completion Date: 6/19/00 Sheet of 2 3 Boring No.: B-9 Sampling Method: SPT Grades to mottled brown SILT with sand, loose, saturated - becomes gray, very loose, water bearing Gray silty SAND, very loose, water bearing - becomes brown, medium dense -trace gravel -layer of gravel at approximately 31.5' - contains silt laminations Date Aug.2000 Checked RAC Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Date 8/15/00 Plate A30 • Proj. No. 2579 -31 I Dwn. GLS Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Ioca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of �t'4r1Q ara7ctmn ^W? , m'ttrr, w* :d > r - ,^'s,•^_... • w "' ,w+ �.c.u.i. T7• .wuvr,n.•rr,,.,�w+�r,._ S+�Fr±#!�'R, ,,.w.::H"t�3..?rm_.::,.. T,.:.n'��''iT?c.7t',�114Y�i n!bn,.y�.�„,r.. ^'!r�• _ �;;r=M': � rare Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 3 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/19/00 Completion Date: .... '6/19/00 Boring No.: B-9 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 75' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ' with bentonite 1►4 Abandoned, sealed General Notes w X16) No. B10 Ft. : n m E 5 CO .c o a ill E a in u) 72 S E a u'i . • 8 5 I-. 0 cD. 0 W a 15.6 . 29 . I.. • o O ' ° ° ° . SP -SM Brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, water bearing • 41 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 16.0 feet during dnlling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. • c.9 ": a 444 I i' Earth Consultants Inc. II Ccxxectinfcal Gx�tn¢Lsn &FnNmnnKnrflktirnKir: Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A31. Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by engineering test ana an 'udgment. They are not necessari ly representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of n rvevonla.i M lhia Inn A?Mj76r,1 rtes "Pnrnu. .. Boring Log Project Name: International Co •orate Campus East Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Drilling Contactor. Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 80' General Notes W (%) 12.6 11.2 10.7 24.2 No. t Blows m E v E Ft. C7 cn ° in 20 32 30 Dwn. GLS 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 19 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite Start Date: 6/16/00 cn U E N T ML S M ML Earth Consultants Inc. Gaorrct inIcal Fn(Unc ras. Ceolo¢Lvs k Fnvlmnnk:nrnl Sc1rnr s Completion Date: ' 6/16/00 Boring No.: B-10 Sheet of 1 2 Sampling Method: SPT Surface Conditions: Brown sandy SILT with gravel, medium dense, moist (Possible Fill) Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered Glacial Till) - becomes very dense (Glacial Till) Mottled brown SILT, medium dense to dense, moist Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Date 8/15/00 Plate A32 Proj. No. 2579 -31 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ►• oaan►eil nn ►kic Inn ?•1 Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 2 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 6/16/00 Completion Date: •,,, 6/16/00 A Boring No.: B-10 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 80' Hole Completion: • ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W ) No. Blows Ft. .c.n° T cg co s .2 a cn co a E D co 1.L =46 PL =24 P1 =22 s is I- a 0. U W a. a- 29.3 23.6 24.8 14 24 31 / ` CL Gray lean CLAY, stiff, moist . - massive • • 21 22 23 24 — 25 ML Grades to gray SILT, medium dense, moist -6" wet zone 26 27 28 29 30 31 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 26.0 feet during dnlling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. Z a 0 m Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Gconttl mica!Fn¢tn, . CroiosIsts hFnvlmnnmcnrtlScitnrlit0 Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. ,nfnnna+M MOLnntw4 nn IF, 10 IM Vf4"3r,t, m±.7.. Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A33. ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 • Completion Date: :7/13/00 Boring No.: B-1 1 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: - • HSA Sampling Method: SPT . Ground Surface Elevation: 136' Hole Completion: ' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Plezometer N Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W 0%) No. Blows Ft. .° -2" E 6 cn c a ,i E O i N E m c• Surface Conditions: LL =30 PL =19 PI -11 5 I- 0 U W 0. 29.7 30.0 23.2 26.7 ■��� ■ 30.1 1 1 2 3 3 •�����i � �� . GM Brown silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist (Fill), comprised of angular gravel �j�j��� � �����_ � ,�� % ML Brown SILT, very loose, moist (Possible Fill) 2 — CL Brown lean CLAY, very soft, moist (Possible Colluvium) - comprised of highly fractured angular clay fragments in silt / clay matrix - massive - becomes soft -trace wood debris - appears disturbed, trace wood debris - appears disturbed, trace gravel, charred wood - becomes blue gray with pockets of brown -no gravel, trace organic stringers 4 6 7 — B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 — W .40' J 0 fill 44kl � Eart Consultants Ic G:o c 1 inlcalFngtn re•+ S. G coingL,n &Mv1r nn ,clnrnK;n . Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Ft Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A34. r-- Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole m try englneenng tests, analyses and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ,n fnrn .tine nroconfori nn this Inn v,I+2 .t.e;msmt^�v - A5'.17:.&m.m ,.r.+asrr,'"u". �.�'�.."".aJ''.»+zr -?.;C j ?t'- c'�elrf .•R'y?+�snF*:et ...;.�+*.w . t. y - __ ,. .. _.v_ Y".< �xim ?;:7:.:....��:i,..�....r„w :r•rn:•.. ..:.,r�r�c .""..��`.�...�'�:'St.� �'?''' r�grfit 're- 9�p.°�SE'1Ex?r!•'i*,+ Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 _ Completion Date: .•, : 7/13/00 Boring No.: B-11 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: , - HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 136' Hole Completion: ' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Plezometer 1 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W X96) No. Blows Ft. z -° m E C-5 cn .c a i v it E o cn USCS Symbol LL =38 PL =26 PI =12 i 5 0 0 U W a 29.8 11.1 24.4 20.7 68 45 as //1. / / CL Gray lean CLAY, very soft, moist to wet (Possible Colluvium) - becomes dark brown . 21 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense, moist 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ML Grades to brown SILT, dense, moist - contains vertical laminations, iron oxide staining along laminations -light seepage in sand pocket at 35' - contains 1/4" thick vertical sand laminations -trace gravel c� g 8 ,a 11} 44 IV 01 Earth Consultants Inc. w p Nut, Nli J Core:el Fnglntsis. G:•ntngL,n & FnNmnnkwel SC111IIS S Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A35 Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota ion of this eploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of rnfoume /inn nieeen /eri nn t pie Inn �Yi'!m ,v'i• ^K :........wry, ,•,x�� «��.r*a�+,?*, !'a �: fe. ws;; �?�ynf' ht.`? F' incfi�rz�;?.',_ �l.' xtAhY? �xm .,xr•.mn:,.r,,.- .,r..:rv„x,4..w .. - • - -i! -- - 7,^i sti?'�v3 ` M1Ma Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 3 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 Completion Date: .. : 7%13/00 Boring No.: B-11 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 136' Hole Completion: ' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 4 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) No. BIFtt. Graphic Symbol Depth Ft. Sample USCS Symbol 5 0 0. a W Q. 12.6 9.0 73/10" 80 • SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist • • - contains pockets of wet sand • • 41 42 43 44 -- `3 Boring terminated at 46.0 feet below e>astin9 grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 35.0 feet during dnlling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. L7 g N liA►; li Pr. 441V t Earth Consultants Inc. Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A36 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca on of this exploratory hole modified try engineering tests, ana an judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of infewmolinn nramo..n/url nn floe Inn Boring Log Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Job No. Logged by: 2579 -31 MGM Drilling Contactor. Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 130' General Notes LL =34 PL =25 PI =9 W ( %) 20.7 19.0 26.9 26.9 26.5 No. Blows Ft. 1 3 2 6 2 U Lib T c7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite Earth Consultants Inc. Cn;O"'Ch InIC4l Fngtnrrn. GmbgL+n & Fnvtmnmenral tidmfI. Z Dwn. GLS Start Date: 7/13/00 Drilling Method: HSA (1) O U � E T ML ML Surface Conditions: 2.5" of Asphalt Brown SILT, very loose, moist (Possible Fill) -trace gravel Mottled brown SILT, very loose, moist (Possible Colluvium) - mottled, no gravel - contains angular silt fragments in silt matrix -trace organic debris -some massive - becomes blue gray with pockets of greenish gray -trace small gravel Date Aug. 2000 Completion Date: 7/13/00 Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Checked RAC Boring No.: B-12 Sheet of 1 3 Sampling Method: SPT Date 8/15/00 Plate A37 . Proj. No. 2579 -31 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota ion of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of on /nem.finn nreeenle.l nn ►hie I..., ,+pi- ,m,•�.,ris+n rr, r,•rY7g+nwnFa� -.. Yn':: a -^ Ss' a ^7,.^.P,ieS???:r�.r!T;.hr...vrr SM'.';Rr nr4, .'*.'%? Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 . Completion Date: :7/13/00 Boring No.: B-12 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: - HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 130' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) - No u ° .c d Blows m T o • E Ft. Q cn w USCS Symbol 5 0 0 U W 1 D. 48.4 15.4 . 26.7 14.2 CL -ML Greenish gray lean CLAY, very soft, wet, massive, does not appear disturbed 2 / 111101 21 ML Dark brown SILT with organics, very loose, moist • 22 10 11 ML Mottled brown sandy SILT with gravel, very loose to loose - becomes loose to medium dense 24 — 25 26 27 28 29 -- 3o 31 32 33 ML Brown SILT, medium dense, moist - vertical laminations with iron oxide staining 13 35 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet -light seepage at 35' 36 37 38 39 ML Brown SILT, medium dense, moist - massive - contains gravel interbeds - contains cobbles t2. .ii All 44k ca N t �t �y aif Ears l�C ons ultants Inc. o �1 \� 1l /tt�G�I J Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A38 . Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis an j udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of n /nerrefinnnrecanfa-1 nn Ellie I.+n i1+aN"tt .. ,. `..'%'+'nS:K: 1« , �,' ft." f;`: t^+A.' C* ,"'`"fT#+W4thpa........ry1'N'Y. F` °Sµ%H•:•,C"!/�1?:Si R„+i.•"•••• - - .,.: e;•::`,a 2? �: :SKf { k 7 5= art?¢' VP. �a^* rr-+..- �- »., •�«,.� , e°.!f'n ry, Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Job No. 2579 - 31 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 130' General Notes Logged by: MGM W ( %) 16.5 Completion Date: 7/13/00 No. Blows Ft. 34 Q dn 41 Earth Consultants Inc. G, ot, iinlcal Engloms. Geologists & FnNmnmenral $clenita& Dwn. GLS Start Date: 7/13/00 Boring No.: B Sheet of 3 3 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Plezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite E 7 N ML Sampling Method: SPT Brown SILT, dense, wet - vertical laminations, trace gravel at 40.5', sand in tip Boring terminated at 41.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 35.0 feet during dnlling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. Date Aug.2000 Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A39 Boring Log Proj. No. 2579 - Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of e04 nn +hie I. .,fir f .m*yw ... � n......- ..- z.. 1..' ". �R:... �:^' , ^. ^,^^r•- «- e- •..•_..•.n- ,.:. -- «r��...._._......� ...- .....,- y...N.c.tmv�..xet^i:y I?Y:2te2?re�;.4Sb7^1S�n,.. Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 Completion Date: : 7/13/00 Boring No.: B-13 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 126' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer LI Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) Blows s - c. . T o " ') Ft. u v) IoqwAs sosn Surface Conditions: Gravel Parking Area 8 a 0 0 U W a 16.2 25.1 25.5 29.6 31.1 • � ���� i � GM Brown silty GRAVEL, dense, moist (Fill) 0 ••• • 1 — • o � • � • � • • 2 0 ��•� — ML Brown SILT with sand, very loose, moist (Possible Fill) -trace small gravel ����� • • 3 3 ° ■ ---- • • 2 2 2 ML Brown SILT, very loose, moist to wet (Possible Colluvium) - comprised of angular silt fragments in silt matrix -trace organic debris - distinct iron oAde staining 6 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 IIIIMI 15 ML Blue gray SILT, very loose, moist to wet, massive 16 17 18 19 ML Brown sandy SILT, very loose, moist - contains organic charred wood -trace small gravel S J r., dos. fiv. 44k � 11 a, Earth Consultants Inc. !?i''i CetxenItni calFng hirtyaGOk )iL+r+6FnN+rnnxrnral5dmrlrs Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate . A40. r Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of in /nnnalinn nreean /arl nn /hiv Ir.n Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 Completion Date: , , :7/13/00 Boring No.: B-13 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 126' Hole Completion: . ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) - No. r S .c n. Blows ,a E Cr_ E Ft. cn o cn cn a N E cn $ 5 1- 0 0 U W a. 21.2 13.9 10.0 9.1 SM Blue gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet - recovered only small sample - 31 21 22 24 13 76/10" 76/10" 2s ML Grades to brown sandy SILT, medium dense, wet -trace small gravel 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 SM Grades to silty SAND with gravel, very dense, wet 35 4s 36 SM Brown silty SAND, very dense, moist -trace gravel -thin silt interbeds, becomes dense -34% fines 37 38 39 C7 2 P. 8 0 11,► �� .,44. , 1 n, wp � , s ir", Earth Consultants Inc. Ccotrc,mIcal rs stn( s. Gloioglirs & FnNmnnrnrnl tide:mt n Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington z o Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A41. Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Iota ion of this exploratory hole, modified try engmeenng tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of info rn-afinn nrmnn /nrl nn Ihie Inn �.... ... .. :. .... ..... . ^..- ...... -::::: :...•..._.; ?' ��n' rez : +;... -. « .. �ir� xrrv.• rt! 7'.• ?+, SaC'sMx ^i'^+wt.• -vmx �. a.. �+ rn„_+ �.,,• ' r�nn� _+ar.r -n- .,. r,,,+^+= �+: dM.* � ?NJ75b!�,'iY?°'SyL?°rryYs^h <y, Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 3 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 Completion Date: ,. 7/13/00 Boring No.: B-13 Drilling Contactor: Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 126' Hole Completion: • ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Plezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (54 No. Blows Ft. Graphic Symbol 1. Depth Ft. Sample 1 p ciwAs s3Sn LL =56 PL =26 P1=30 $ 5 p 0 co U W a. 10.8 23 19.4 27.6 30 4s 73 47 SM Light brown silty SAND, medium dense to dense, moist - contains silt and poorly graded sand interbed -trace gravel • 41 42 43 44 CH Grades to brown fat CLAY, hard, moist (Older Colluvium) - highly fractured, comprised of angular clay fragments in silt / clay matrix -trace gravel -trace pockets of sand - becomes blue gray, massive at 50' - 51' - becomes brown, highly fractured - comprised of angular clay fragments in silt / clay matrix, some of the fragments contain laminations, others are massive - moderate seepage at 55' / fe l/ 4, 4, 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 55 _ — 56 58 59 ML Brown SILT, dense, moist - contains vertical interbed of saturated, poorly graded sand 0 1/0L` Eat: 4141V E arth Consultants Inc. q114(i'indilp 0 i \ l G • d niC i Fnah. . Cr:! gsrs & Fnvlmnnxnral tielrnh,T o t1 Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A42 . Boring Log Subsurface conditions dep'cted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole m by engineering tests, analysis and •udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of oninrnvalinn nreeunlu.l nn /lie Irv. rv. tee. err. w.. v« y�. 1. ,,,y..,....ti....�......`sn..... .w- rn.r... -. .. ,....,x +.- .ca_„r..- n.,..ea . . , 14:J.1.0 ,.. "Kiln. Boring Log Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Job No. 2579 -31 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 126' General Notes W ( %) 6.9 Logged by: MGM No. Blows Ft. 51 U C7 to IL y 61 a U W 0 t7 N C, 0 J C, z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Start Date: 7/13/00 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well to E N ML SP -SM Earth Consultants Inc. Crxxrdlnlag Fnglner s. C, 4O,tvs & FnNmnmcnral SC1rnIttiS Completion Date: :7113/00 ❑ Plezometer Boring No.: B-13 Sampling Method: SPT ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite Brown sandy SILT with gravel, very dense, moist Brown poorly graded SAND with silt, very dense, moist Boring terminated at 61.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 55.0 feet during dnlling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Sheet of 4 4 Plate A43. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this eploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ntnnyvafann .vnen..taari M 0,42 I.... y Y ?an wS�rnyri re 'tYP?J :.r!�t�.! o r . - . s ue + `:W ��s ...•:.. �'; !wr.n a*�MTr ;773,.., ,,rr�„ „ _...... Sd: n+ t+ tn�s�nr�r. n, nr.,- q+•-. :•nn«••,.+rot.`."e+."r °`� ;. a 1- 0 U W a 0 Boring Log Job No. 2579 -31 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 17' General Notes Projeu Name: International Corporate Campus East ( %) 46.6 37.9 Logged by: MGM No. Blows Ft. 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Start Date: 7/13/00 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well Earth Consultants Inc. Cc< t d,nk-al Fz !n, as. Gnoloststs & Fnvlmnmental Xlrni im Completion Date: , 7/13/00 Surface Conditions: 2.5" of Asphalt - contains large cobbles Boring No.: 8-14 Sampling Method: SPT • Sheet of 1 4 ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite Brown silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist (Fill) Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -no recovery, becomes loose to medium dense Dark gray to black silty SAND, loose, wet Dark brown sandy SILT with organics, very loose, wet Grades to dark gray SILT with sand, very loose, water bearing Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington 0 Proj .jr, 2579 -31 Dwn GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A44. m Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Ioca ion of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of in /nnnolinn rvoaanlo'4 ie Inn Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 Completion Date: .. . 7/13/00 Boring No.: B-14 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 17' Hole Completion: • Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer M Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes w (53) No. Ft. Ft. s 78 m E Co cn = n air m t«gwAs s3sn $ is a 0 Q. 0 W -, a 25.0 24.0 24.4 27.0 ' 4 ° 0 • 7 ° ' ° 26 1 4 . a ° ° ° , ° •O ° ° c ° O I . ' 0 ' o a • c ; G a '.a a °.. Q . 1 , ° . c 0 ° , ' c ° a 0 o . c a ° ° : ° Y a ° ° • � SP -SM Grades to black poorly graded SAND with silt, very loose, water bearing • • • • -blow count at 25' is elevated due to heave in augers, soil is still very loose - flushed out augers after drilling to 30' -thin silt laminations 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30.. 31 11 32 33 36 37 38 39 _ SM Grades to dark gray silty SAND, very loose to loose, water bearing -trace organics 0. .u► E , ,�►�, 0 qlikill-fild0 , h C oltt Ic. �nkalFnglnecti Gnk�l+nhFnNmnnKnrfllctrnrtr� Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington z o Proj. No. 2579 -31 Own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A45 • Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet or 3 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 Completion Date: ,. :7/13/00 Boring No.: B-14 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT . Ground Surface Elevation: 17' Hole Completion: • ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W fob) No. Blows Ft. : . ° n s n . m E o it E w cn IA LL =29 PL =22 P1 =7 0 W a. 40 34.5 23.3 6.8 t 1 42 / CL -ML Dark gray silty CLAY, very soft, water bearing • . • 41 42 / / / 45 � 46 47 48 49 50 11 ill • 51 52 53 54 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, very loose, water bearing - contains shell fragments 1i I N 56 l'' ii li � i, 1. t t r GM Gray silty GRAVEL with sand, dense, water bearing ■ 4A:A 0 44kk ∎ tpl,ki;#010 h Consultants Inc. o l CcOfttyinkaIFnglnnas.Ccoiost4. Nmnnrnrd!Sctnrtn J LI Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington 2 m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A46 Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca on of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analyses an 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ,n/nrn,atinn nroeenlarl nn 14.io Inn m * "sue �r<xw: qtr%.. _. .. �::;5';. ^_ Xs •: xmc..v;R.�g.un« _ ;,r,`-`."• r'..' rt`EV�. 7 � ___: . �7re;n....�.,.�, »..fir,- ,n._......•�t!an�.r7 Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 4 4 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/13/00 Completion Date: .:.. ' 7/13/00 Boring No.: B-14 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 17' Hole Completion: ' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 0 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (53) No. Blows Ft s - °- E (sc, a iu li E o cn cn E c(). r` 5 a 0. U W a. 11.7 7.9 50/6" 50/4" II I e I. I GM Gray silty GRAVEL with sand, very dense, water bearing ' 61 62 i — I 63 • I 64 e • 1 65 T Boring terminated at 65.5 feet below e>asting grade. Groundwater table encountered at 15.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. 0. .u►', N Lt , 1 1Ii ill: AV ` a , I Earth Consultants Inc. 1 ' \1r`� 1 ink Fri ghimS.G.dcnLVti nrelScientL,n Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington $ Proj. No. 2579 -31 Own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A47 Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and ioptlon of this exploratory hole, modified by engeneenng tests, analyses and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/14/00 . Completion Date: . :7/14/00 Boring No.: B-15 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 17' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer 4 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) No. Blows Ft. t— .c °. °- E v u_ E Cp cn ° v> rn N E ° (n Surface Conditions: 2.5" of Asphalt $ a (2 W 0. 12.1 45.6 138.0 36.5 33.7 • ►� 9 7 1 2 4 � ���� i GM Brown silty GRAVEL, medium dense, moist (Fill) • "��� •������ 2 ML Gray sandy SILT with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) • • _ • • •��� • ����• • A ! 'i.•�i�i 6 ML Dark brown SILT with organics, loose, moist (Fill) •i•ii • yy 8 fff� s 1 OH Brown organic SILT, very soft, moist 11 12 13 14 15 ML Brown SILT with organics, very loose, wet to saturated - contains organic stringers, organic odor -6" interbed of peat V • • o ,• ° a . '° . • - 16 17 18 19 SP -SM Black poorly graded SAND with silt, very loose to loose, water bearing co ,u ►: -a► qlpilia `0, \ +�tI) h C onsultants Inc. ( , C , 1inIC�alFnghM M. C,olo R.Fnvlrt�" J 2 Boring Log C East International Corporate Campus Tukwila, Washington g z E Proj. No 2579 - Dwn GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A48 . Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca on of this exploratory hole m oile d by engineenng tests, ana and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Infnrrnolinn rvocentorl nn 11.ie Inn .._.,.w..... r.n- - n- „*a•:.� ,x�,.. ` �.,�....w.�.: .ncarr- ,rte «;,.yrr *.- .a.,n.,... _ ..,.......,..w - , - .. r:,. sr Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 2 . 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/14/00 Completion Date: „ 7/14/00 Boring No.: B-15 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 17' Hole Completion: • ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer V.4 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W %� No. r 2 t a Blows c • T o , E Ft. C7 cn cn I io4 W As sosn 8 is c? Li W co 22.7 8.0 8.4 1 1 SM Bray silty SAND, very loose, water bearing - contains 6" interbeds of very Icose silt with organic stringers -shell fragments • -no recovery, gravel blocking sampler - slightly elevated blow count due to heave in auger 21 23 24 25 26 li :1� � 27 t 1 '111: , 28 i i 1 29 i �P� t l n GM Gray silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense to dense, water bearing 50/6 50/6" • - 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 SP -SM Grades to brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, very dense, water bearing -9% fines co 'u ►. E »: ,u ►�` /yC`�, 11 Earth Consultants Inc rt wrii \ j Gtxrcl�niral Fnstnrxl . Gc oic i srs R. FnNmnnrrxal tidm : Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A49 . Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of infnrmolinn rvaaanlarl nn this. Inn . , , . .. .. ,n.Y... fie.. ... Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 3 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/14/00 . Completion Date: ,, :7/14/00 Boring No.: B-15 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: - • • HSA Sampling Method: SPT . Ground Surface Elevation: 17' Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer - • with bentonite F3 Abandoned, sealed General Notes W , %j No. B Ft. s 1s m a- T C7 . n. 1 r m 0 .8 ? T co 5 0 U W CI- 9.6 66 � I i GM Gray silty GRAVEL with sand, very dense, water bearing 41 Boring terminated at 41.0.feet below e>asting grade. Groundwater table encountered at 16.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. • 0 I 1II ail; , al► La i e� Ai Earth Consultants Inc. "8 WP \ of if Cr inlealFnalnem..CrOlo $n &FnNmn,i nr ISctrntt L7 Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A50. t Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, ana an udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of nlnlTOtinn MoCOnfae4 M floe IM ... . .,._ ,. ... . '" fC'.> 3x.^ k�+`reciT.^.p'^++ial.OLnae:ttMt a!irwvrf ..'a>rNJ;rh?t r.:: Y.-3.•. ,.: 1^'t'. 7.'vq`?aFry+..'I'P .. .._ Nwts'.3t`�'."M. wr�.i�A'f'JCmh 133 t3°"c5riry�. . M1u.,y.�nxiV'.+T '+?'�tyh•.T,Tr,�ry:+., Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/14/00 Completion Date: , :,• :7/14/00 Boring No.: B-16 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT . Ground Surface Elevation: 17' Hole Completion: • ❑ Monitoring Welt ❑ Plezometer 4 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W l Bows Ft. ° 2 E 6 cn o. a r: �, it E o in v 2 N E D cn Surface Conditions: 3" of Asphalt is I. § 0. U W a. 15.5 14.6 84.1 46.2 27.8 3 9 6 2 4 • � • : .�:vv •• • • � • • t 6. GM Brown silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist (Fill) . - contains cobbles 1 — 2 3 SM Gray silty SAND, very loose, moist to wet (Fill) - contains gravel -45% fines - becomes loose 4 6 8 ' = = PT Brown fibrous PEAT, medium stiff, moist 9 10 11 ML V Gray SILT with organics, very loose, wet 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 SM Dark gray to black silty SAND, very loose, water bearing - contains interbed of silt L7 c .u $11: 4411, r ` o� Earth Consultants Inc. p Nut/ r ��� Geo feet inIcalFngherx.4 Geologists hFnNmnnxnralSclenrLin 8 \ r Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A51 . 0..1.--...4-....- ........4:,..... �..., :_,,.,, .................e .....W...,..., «,,.,w we +tie wn,a and Inr.tinn of this uvr,lnrntnry fink. mrxfrfied by enaineerina tests. analysis and a Boring Log judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of .nfnn+, -fin" nrmanfnel new thic Inn .,..«..J =v. �.� •'�.s!n�"x'. +n^ - m4 ^ .•�.,esr.^�e`n �r.nb*gsu,�.nr. r:*.+ r. ��r*. Y.�.a.!.,..rm..;y+re•:'FV+r:tiu? .. �..�+,- �°� r,.�.narr,.�•;�.. 8 0 W a 0 J Z Fe 0 m Boring Log Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Job No. 2579 -31 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Ground Surface Elevation: 17' General Notes W (%) 48.1 32.5 21.0 15.0 Logged by: MGM No. Blows Ft. 2 5 16 0 in • 3 ' c 0 • • • ° .Q , • G 0 • 24 25 26 27 28 Start Date: 7/14/00 Drilling Method: HSA Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well Earth Consultants Inc. G, orrc:t}nIcal Fn EiTnera1. G ok)gUn & Fnvlmnn,'nral Sclrn!t S Completion Date: 7/14/00 ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned, sealed with bentonite Gray SILT, very loose, water bearing - contains shell fragments - contains organic stringers -1 "- 2" thick silt interbed - abundant shell fragments - contains gravel (small rounded) Boring No.: B-16 Gray silty SAND, loose, water bearing Sampling Method: SPT Dark gray to black silty SAND, vary loose, water bearing - contains organic stringers and shell fragments Sheet of 2 3 Grades to dark gray poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, water bearing Boring Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A52 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and j udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of nfnnmelinn nreconlerl nn +Hie Inn nTd- 5�SYyiw,• h .tr_•fJ'ft;- ,.<+;iR.;t*+ra+�� "' e.+ 2nW. wn :•.yrs..+,[o.:....w'rs..nt�1r•x p -w..q. ,rCm.0 ev:`M4'n. ,rne«�: !.*:- aarv!.°- Fat + ?'!!y�e!.w.arriin.nwr...,•" Fro.., .+fury?!Syvo,,zw1,71, Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 3 3 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 7/14/00 Completion Date: :7/14/00 Boring No.: B-16 Drilling Contactor. Gregory Drilling Method: _ • HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: 17' Hole Completion: . ❑ Monitoring Well . ❑ Piezometer 4 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W ( %) Bows Ft. t 2 fa. - ; �� L o �` l � loqwAs s3sn a 0 r3 W n O. 16.2 6.0 25.9 12.4 20 88/11" 95/9" SM Gray silty SAND, medium dense, water bearing . - contains small gravel - becomes medium dense to dense - becomes very dense 41 42 43 7I • ire �I�I I I ,I I IA1 ! I VI I 47 '1 48 'I M 50 GM Brown silty GRAVEL with sand, very dense, water bearing 51 52 53 54 55 SM Gray silty SAND, loose, water bearing -6" layer of poorly graded sand with silt w w . $ . i r 56 GP -GM Gray poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, very dense, water \hearing r Boring terminated at 56.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 11.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with bentonite and cuttings. 0 o J "»' i �� ��t►l. it` �y `�i Eart C onsultants Inc. \ll' /J il�F�� C<: aexY mlCalFnghxn a G f�N� Boring Log I nternational Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Z m Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/15/00 Plate A53 Boring Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loci ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, ana an 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of infmn•rmfinn nrneunfall nn ih■a Iles '''""9'v:M'- '" "" Y.^!^ -" �{_}. r." r':. ne... +'�+.•" ..�.�:r:e ..-.! S. I'. w' i!!. lCn.. r,✓ nl:' XWRf • ln."! IU.. t +MwJ:fK1.YYiR'ItM�u � f. _,�.._.. n .. �_._._.....ti ....._,... ..,. - .....,_...._..,.. .. rT:r•, arm � .,=.:... •w' rr.• r,���u.r. X54 ':nk•t•S�a�S.it''r?hpet,:�;r. Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: RAC Date: 5/15/00 Test Pit No.: TP -1 Excavation Contactor. . " Client Provided Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: . General Notes W (%) o n • . c7 �, o • n. o "- IA o U D r Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 6" 1- 0 0 0 W 2 0 24.3 •�� ••�• • • • � • • .& . SM Brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) -roots at 2' -some 4" to 6" cobbles 2 SM Light brown to gray silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist to wet, mottled (Native) 6 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. , ►. �� ,�,� * (('1 �� ( Earth Consultants Inc. ),, \VdF \tr6 / crowliwcw Fi,glnn1s.c„009L &FnvImm r.lvflk'trlt Test Pit Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington a F Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/31/00 Plate A54 Test Pit Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, mod ified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of .n /nrrnvlinn nrac•nta,l nn Ihic Inn '.^ e�:a_ 2;c.i.:�:^; 7M'..'.J..'':.'-J��' tug".• re...._ n.°..' r".+., !x...o1ra•!�µn°- '.16?,4"'4r+t rYT w�.' . : . TT.' tTF *lvrr,;}°,+'YF4*•,+,YY?✓fMYfY v�" F!HNVHNIP A.Kyy,'.. . Project ,,lame: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: RAC Date: 5/15/00 ...... Test Pit No.: TP -2 Excavation Contactor. Client Provided Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W ( %) v o t a '° >. R. • . o `L R o n ? r Surface Conditions: g 0 0 w 0 0 18 +� + + + • • • 4 • • +++ + + + + + • •• ++ . +• A � SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, moist to wet (Fill) - becomes wet, trace organic debris, branches - caving, asphalt fragments, branches 2 3 — 4 — SM Brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist to wet (Native) s Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. if ►_ t . 441V ;�l lj J / \Itflmtrr a Earth Consultants Inc 'd 'n Mai F nstn e ci s, Cct >io¢luy6FnNrotumnr,�lti..ltruL+h Test Pit Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington No. 2579 -31 F Dwn. D GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked Chked RAC Date 8/31/00 Plate A55 • 1 ' t Test Pit Log p Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and lo ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, ana an udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of infnnna /inn nr000nlnd an thin Inn + 9�. s" t* trnr, ?A !Fr,,Rws•M7n9'3R+a;Y+^ftr.;.w u..L� w'. �"...'' �: L" �*, QRS7 !�!"`?t��,�„5!"'t+J...�.'Pr,.. nx»ay.4. t .,»aM i.� Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: RAC Date: ,,,• 5/15/00 Test Pit No.: TP -3 Excavation Contactor. Client Provided Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) o g c; = d ° " u) —5 n ei Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 2" 0 0 U W a 0 • * • ��� ∎• •2.2. . -.., %% • +2. � • • .0 • • • • • • • ♦�• • • SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, moist, some washed rock (Fill) • • 1 — 2 SP Gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (Fill) — 3 - 4 — 8 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below e)asting grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. n IN g mg/ !- „'I' iii, 44IV 1,1( ly `�, \ \ v Earth Consultants Inc. CrOmcttnkalFnsln: cr.C:pkrgbn word! kYMUlin Test Pit Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington W Proj. No. 2579 -31 Own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC I Date 8/31/00 Plate A56. Test Pit Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified try engineering tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of nfnn»a/inn nneennlosl nn !lie Inn 'd !'"ti! .'o"l'+ 'y,• . -. i:.... ..::.t..........-,..;.:..'..,i: ' 1R`':9i'�i�/ i.`?rv!+� �t'+� .;. � 4M � t r � Tn2 R "•3 � i '�a " t+ ..�� ne • v,., i , ,••nC4 . :Rw� F�x';4��nF� N"<"riT+'R°7:�R"'?�'j'Fc' w �aaa rr•'e',P#'y,'4?ra:+M r.'?� Project Name: International Corporate Campus East I Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: RAC Date: 5/15/00* Test Pit No.: TP-4 Excavation Contactor. Client Provided Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) s S R >• C9 u) r n o " m co ( T cn Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 18 ": branches 0 C 0. U W a. C7 0 • • ♦♦ • TPSL Duff and roots to 18" 1 — • K i . • • . • ���j • ♦�•�� ♦t♦ ♦♦ ••�� •�• 2 SM Gray silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, wet (Fill) • - o c c a s i o n a l wood debris -large concrete rubbles obstruction — — 4 - 5 — 6 — Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. o o J F ,up t t (I'` ii1: 44 4 1, �� \ ?i 6U `�` Earth Consultants Inc. G:actnitnk'dlEn to cati.CcokMLsn &Fnvl rtxui*�nrdiSti Nlrn a Test Pit Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington a. W Proj. No. 2579 -31 Dwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/31/00 Plate A57.. I d Test Pit Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engin@Clniy tests, ana y51s an udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of .nfnnna inn nroconlarl nn thic Inn sq:;r, s; 29rJ Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: RAC Date: , , 5/15/00 Test Pit No.: TP -5 Excavation Contactor. Client Provided Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: • ' General Notes w (%) ,_ o 1 O >. n C7 � t • a• p � m to N a N a Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 6" q w W -, a. 16.5 38.3 ��� � •�i�i • • • • • • ?:I: • • SM Light brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, moist to wet (Fill) • • - increasing coarse sand, fill — 4 — ML Gray SILT, medium dense, moist, varved (Native) 7 8 g Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. • d c7 At ii1. 444. /yC.• i( I I' N wiry Earth Consultants Inc. CaneCtinlcolFnp,nr:+aCc IO Lt & FAN m(u,x7uaISiriTtrS Test Pit Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington a w Proj. No. 2579 -31 Own. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC Date 8/31/00 Plate A58. r Test Pit Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, anaiysls an judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of n evoaa;4 nn •hic l�.n i� � .,R .. ............... ., tc: P'.': T' a.L".cae'P".+`l�'_'F •.4,'_. ate t ... _._ _ .. ,.... , .. ...G in Project Name: International Corporate Campus East Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 2579 -31 Logged by: RAC Date: ,••. 5/15/00 Test Pit No.: TP -6 Excavation Contactor: Client Provided Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (96) C7 � — r .° 1 Q > 1 — • o- o " 7, (7, co 0 a° m e; Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Duff 6" 0. U W -, a a SM Light brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, moist to wet - becomes medium dense.to dense, till like, near optimum - lightly coarse, mottled 2 s a 5 s Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e>asting grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. d n a, ►:1 � ��, , i( A, `l 10/ \I \� Earth Consultants Inc. u,n,,iSdcCut;r, �"ci tnMal ms,G OI.vgh+R w Test Pit Log International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington 0. W Own. Proj. No. 2579 -31 O GLS Date Aug. 2000 Checked RAC l Date 8/31/00 Plate A59 , Test Pit Log Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory ho m by engineering tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of •nfnnmnn nr w nn fi n►l 'hie Inn .. ,, ..ms, .g, tkt't es, .. �,..: •.._ : • = �.2. - .. �..,:.... e .._..w�'r N,'b ",,,mod., ! ^°"a¢r'1:+ r !! _ r. rq^ 7rw' tn!. rq�rs n«.u;..v�Ka*r«sr•n».x� • .ra . "' "'"" '-'^�`— � ,.. +eh•+r+ err. es�nr �a. �nvr•+ st.+ e•. �: o•,.. xa, e�qw.. nrt :r.:v!+ +�.�EC2iL`"x7*`.+'4 • NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. f • r 03 0 XI m m Z X G ca m cn C r CCl) 0 U) H n rj w rt r-1 H. L) E w > D H. Z w C) to •• O N • m w o Ch h P 0 w rt (o 00 rt 0 C to rt KEY 0 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD 100 90 80 m C") 70 z -n 50 Z m 50 03 -G 4o F --I 30 20 10 0 N N t0 d M N I r — 1 T TT '1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 00 l0 V M N C) N tO.n O 00 t0 Q CO 0 to N M d M m 03 0 t 0 N N r- O m V C) N , 00 m GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS O . to 0 0 q q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • O O to 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 N 0 O N O 0 0 0 0 COBBLES COARSE 1 FINE GRAVEL COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE SAND FINES 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 Boring or Test Pit No. B -4 B -5 B -8 DEPTH (ft.) 30 55 5 USCS SM SM SM HYDROMETER DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND Brown silty SAND Dark gray silty SAND ANALYSIS GRAIN SIZE IN MM Moisture Content ( %) 9.0 5.1 13.5 LL PL '17 s is to ns m C :Do i o O • O n co n , co NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. `Iw I 4 - ) E;) d 7 �-h 0. 0 U) rt CD rl rt H N• E w N• I- N w C) O w m r1 a'w H. rt M 00 rr C] 0 b C co w In rt N 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 CO� 0 o o O O Cl N COBBLES COARSE 1 FINE GRAVEL COARSE 1 MEDIUM FINE SAND FINES O KEY . —. SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 0 0 0 O 00 tD Boring or Test Pit No. B -9 B -13 B -15 B -16 0 0 0 Q M N DEPTH (ft.) 10 35 30 2.5 SIEVE ANALYSIS 0 03 tD USCS SM SM SP —SM SM NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U STANDARD Q M N O f0 0 0 0 00 0 Co. r N M d (0 t0 0 .- .- 00 tD V CI N '7 O GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS DESCRIPTION 0 cD st M N O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 Reddish brown silty SAND Brown silty SAND Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel Gray silty SAND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS GRAIN SIZE IN MM r CO 0 c o O 0 0 O 0 0 0' 0 ' 0 0 0 0 O 0 N O O N O O Moisture Content ( %) 15.5 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. O O LL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 PL Key Boring/ Test Pit Depth (ft) Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L. • P I. Natural Water Content • • ® 0 6 0 B -5 20 Gray lean CLAY CL 29 21 8 24.0 B -6 20 Brown SILT ML 39 26 13 24.9 B -6 45 Dark brown lean CLAY CL 49 24 25 24.6 B -7 30 Gray lean CLAY CL 20 30 10 18.7 B -9 25 Gray SILT with sand ML 15 14 1 16.9 B -10 20 Gray lean CLAY CL 46 24 22 29.3 100 80 x 60 w 0 Z 0 20 40 LIQUID UM IT 60 80 100 Earth Consultants Inc. GoaedVUd E, glf =TS. Goobgls • En 1mrrnmrd SCien•sa Atterberg Limits Test Data International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Proj. No.2579 -311 Date Aug .2000 I Plate B3 • ©" ' A -Line © e 0 O CL -ML In & 3 A 100 80 x 60 w 0 Z 0 20 40 LIQUID UM IT 60 80 100 Earth Consultants Inc. GoaedVUd E, glf =TS. Goobgls • En 1mrrnmrd SCien•sa Atterberg Limits Test Data International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Proj. No.2579 -311 Date Aug .2000 I Plate B3 Key Boring/ Test Pit Depth (ft) Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L. P I. Natural Water Content • 4 O 0 4 B - 11 10 Brown lean CLAY CL 30 19 11 23.2 B -11 30 Brown SILT ML 38 26 12 24.4 B -12 15 Blue gray SILT ML 34 25 9 26.5 B -13 50 Blue gray fat CLAY CH 56 26 30 19.4 B -14 40 Dark gray silty CLAY CL -ML 29 22 7 40.9 W a z 100 80 x 60 U i-40 ca J CL 20 0 20 40 LIQUID LIMIT 60 80 100 „I, Earth Consultants Inc. Geaecfinkal Engineers. Geologists i Envircnmenral Scientists Afterberg Limits Test Data International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 2579-311 DateAug.2000 [Plate B4 AP . 0 `` ' A -Line g 0 0 @ ■ I W a z 100 80 x 60 U i-40 ca J CL 20 0 20 40 LIQUID LIMIT 60 80 100 „I, Earth Consultants Inc. Geaecfinkal Engineers. Geologists i Envircnmenral Scientists Afterberg Limits Test Data International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 2579-311 DateAug.2000 [Plate B4 AP • , • , :...• : a •e comp eted by applicant). . Site Address (Attach map a d Leal Descri• 'on showing hydrant location and size of main): _ :.; ;: : �-� The improvements required to upgrade the water system to bring it into compliance with the utilities' comprehensive plan or to meet the minimum flow requirements of the project before connection: • IV� Ow a fnfo at : r: s = e. • <: �_;:�v NO. ron:k ~;' ;_ ::;.. ...,.. ✓ = .. r. .: s;;t_.. w :;.�,, =... ~, , =:::s; O '�anfaetr ex"-san.. 2.4g•, ,. -Name: lA21, � 9 Name: I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct. K+:rn Oa-ter 0 i . -* GS ie ,..A .........., 7 -' z / Agen hone 9 (o- viol -C151-11- Date M d ess• d r Address: / '' -- 11 U G�J •`7 _ ' Phone: c s -a j --- y�f ' This certificate is for the purposes of: ❑ Residential Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat _ Commercial/industrial Building Permit ❑ Rezone ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Other Estimated number of service connections and meter size(s): Vehicular distance from nearest hydrant to the closest point of structure ft. Area is served by (Water utility district): Owner /Agent Signature: Date: PART B: (To be completed by water utility district) - The proposed project is located within IZ tk_____ '1 ,,,k_ i _74 (City/County) The improvements required to upgrade the water system to bring it into compliance with the utilities' comprehensive plan or to meet the minimum flow requirements of the project before connection: • IV� (Use separate sheet if more room is needed) as d upon the improvements listed above, water can be provided and.will be available at the site with a flow of U S ( qpm at 20 psi residual for a duration of 2 hours at a velocity of /, fps as documented by the attached calculations. I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct. K+:rn Oa-ter 0 i . -* GS ie ,..A .........., 7 -' z / Agen hone 9 (o- viol -C151-11- Date CITY Of "UKWI LA Permit Center DEC 9 ZOO?. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA 981.8.8_, Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 Certificate of Water Availability PROJECT #: Hmlla (Required only if outside City of Tukwila water utility district) i�'wiE �iWY+�inii�.: 2 F_S :4'!!*k4Y:....� nN ....�.....�...^wv.Niltnm «...., w.).._«.... .......r.«�..�...«.....�._..��- ...�....�.... PART C: (To be completed by governing. jurisdiction) Water Availability: ❑ Acceptable service can be provided to this project ❑ A cceptable service cannot be provided to this project unless the improvements in item C2 are met. ❑ S ystem isn't capable of providing service to this project. Minimum water system improvements: (At least equal to B2 above) (Use separate sheet if more room is needed) A oencv /Phone By Date. _ — ._ nr* Z 1-z e4 w 6 —I U 0 W I ( f) U- w 0 2 u..j a I F- Z � I-0 LL! O • - O F- ww I H u. O .Z U= O Z PART A; - (To be completed by applicant) Site Address (Attach map and Legal Description showing hydrant location and size of main): 2500 -v producing 3500 gpm (a 20 psi. Please see Hydraulic Study for Gateway East. i<vvI (-... 1rJ• - ft.N.i4. - no Ns.t, 1,t_'/D. Owner Information: Agent/Contact Person: I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct. King Co Water Dist 20/206- 243 -3990 ��� - -1 ______) 01 -28 -2003 Name: 1-1,,s,yrJc \_.c,,uD Name: 1t.t G wn.+,G.114 L.I- -C Address: I22o I - 1 . 316....Hc.A I mo.? vv Address: t2.2ot TL w4,,Lap IN-T-L. Eiva 5 o WA- Phone: ZOCD- 213 -t loo 'lb 1 '6 Phone: 20[0- 71 -51, t9 0I13168 This certificate is for the purposes of: ❑ Residential Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Short Subdivision 0 Commercial /Industrial Building Permit ❑ Rezone ❑ Other Estimated number of service connections and meter size(s): 1 / 3 t..t,F i Vehicular distance from nearest hydrant to the closest point of structure Coo ft. Area is served by (Water utility district): \/g l .. 1 . - rtztcs•k - 2.0 Owner /Agent Sig ature �j.44ern i y '` 1' EGd 4-7T�� LLC 6 So,(oe.,,, C.�Perd+v» !,t. Oat.... '1' 1 as..... - , ...� . can Date: � ( /2.$lJ. PART B: (To be completed by water - utility: district) The proposed project is located within City of Tukwila /King Co (City /County) The improvements required to upgrade the water system to bring it into compliance with the utilities' comprehensive plan or to meet the minimum flow requirements of the project before connection: With irbprovements to Water District 20's system, the system will be capable of producing 3500 gpm (a 20 psi. Please see Hydraulic Study for Gateway East. (Use separate sheet if more room is needed) Based upon the improvements listed above, water can be provided and will be available at the site with a flow of 3500 gpm at 20 psi residual for a duration of 2 hours at a velocity of 5 fps as documented by the attached calculations. I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct. King Co Water Dist 20/206- 243 -3990 ��� - -1 ______) 01 -28 -2003 Agency /Phone : Date CITY OF "s►KWILA RF "''ED CITY ( IKWILA Permit Center N ��1. �� g�8 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukw), Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 PERMIT CENTER H-ha Certificate of Water Availability PROJECT #: (Required only if outside City of Tukwila water utility district) PART C: (To be completed by governing jurisdiction) Water Availability: El Acceptable service can be provided to this project ❑ Acceptable service cannot be provided to this project unless the improvements in item C2 are met. El System isn't capable of providing service to this project. Minimum water system improvements: (At least equal to B2 above) (Use separate sheet if more room is needed) Agency /Phone By Date LVTRAVAIL.DOC 6/5/96 Part A: (To Be Completed by Applicant) . Purpose of Certificate: . I Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ Other ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Rezone Proposed Use: ❑ Residential Single Family ❑ Residential Multi - Family rgl Commercial ❑ Other Applic Name S 4 ye " Co 1 p Phone: -2S - A S`9 -Lib j y 6,,, ,, Property Address or Approximate Location: Ii/ e3 of ,3 cli 7 - S r ) Legal Description(Attach Map and Legal Description if necessary): , ,1i -4 CL? c 1 Part B: (To Be Completed by Sewer Agency) 1. 0 a. Sewer Service will be provided by side sewer connection only to an existing IS i1 size sewer ` VT) / feet from the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. OR ❑ b. Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of: ❑ (1) . feet of sewer trunk or lateral to reach the site; and /or ❑ (2) the construction of a collection system on the site; and /or ❑ (3) other (describe): 2. (Must be completed if 1.b above is checked) ❑ a. The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan, OR ❑ b. The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. 3. p a. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the District, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the District, OR ❑ b. Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. Service is subject to the following: a. District Connection Charges due prior to connection: GFC: $ SFC: $ UNIT: $ TOTAL: $ (Subject to Change on January 1st) King County/METRO Capacity Charge: Currently, $1090 /residential equivalent, will be billed directly by King County after connection to the sewer system. (Subject to change by King Co/Metro without notice.) b. Easements: ❑ Required May be Required c. Other: / C 11 G V , cJ + 66= d��"r r -w► e_c{ By rtn.L I hereby certify that the L NWORKING TOWARD A 9ET r ER ENVIRONMENT 1 ti l SEWER ISTRICT Certificate of Sewer Availability J J s +, /`- Title 14816 Mi Jy Road South P.O. Box 69550 Tukwila, WA 98168 Phone: (206) 242 -3236 Fax: (206) 242 -1527 CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY /N ON.AVAILABILITY OR ❑ Certificate of Sewer Non - Availability bove sewer agency information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year fro date of sigr7a re. r, 7/1 //00 Date C' �t; tf MA R:; x�xp•. +,s�oc.wT':7fi21^41^rt �.,: r....,. *A' t.-rMSh.4... '�^a ='t :�j. n ?.r:MV.-•M1•�yT•o-hn DEC 19 2002, CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development PER: .;IT CENTER 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E - mail: tukplan a,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at 125e5e> "&i..Vr for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. SS EXECUTED at Tip te — t t. - 4 (city), WAe (state), on ' PS cal-4115E3z V9 20 OZ "r-h }} rre.-4;44. Gc:tt..� 6c�! LLG S St-Lt CGYP.�/'ku� / Jelsnrs ace .A6,0 / CC1J ((Print Name) 1221 - ru ►Ly,/ 1 LA. N" ieIZ.tJ4Tteln7A1/4t_'tr.V D SB n-E; WA. (Address) 2.01 — Ze l tat o0 (Phone Number) On this day personally appeared before me executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME 0 19 My Commission expires on OF �� (Signature) �Jr reLe-S ki • I to me known to be the individual who that he /she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and NOTARY PUBLIgr and fx the Stgte o4Washington residing at t^ J GG11 a et /1.. , 20 0 .3/13)03 DEC 1 9 2002 —J November 22, 2002 Gentlemen: 1. Required Land Use Permits a. 2. Parking Requirements City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Ralph Hagler Vice President, Development & Government Affairs Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 Re: Immigration & Naturalization Service Seattle District Office 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Pre - Application (PRE02 -034) SEPA b. Boundary Line Adjustment. Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd, 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director This letter amends our November 18th letter and is a follow -up to our Pre - Application meeting (held on November 21st) and my meeting with Haynes Lund, Bob Fadden and Jon McNamara (held on November 22nd). The following is a summary of the additional items we discussed during those two meetings. The existing SEPA Determination of Non - Significance issued June 6, 2001 under E2000- 033 for Buildings 7, 8, 9 and Garage is still in effect. The existing SEPA Determination of Non - Significance issued December 20, 2000 under E2000 -031 for the demolition of the Non -Stop Tavern is also still in effect. The INS Building proposal does not create any new significant environmental impacts from those previously considered under the two existing SEPA Determinations. Therefore, a new SEPA determination will not be required. You have agreed to consolidate the lot containing the proposed building with the six lots located immediately to the south. You also wish to divide the lot to the north of the proposed building into three pieces. All of these actions will be accomplished under one application for a Boundary Line Adjustment. The Boundary Line Adjustment must be recorded prior to issuance of any development permits. a. A continuous wheel stop shall be provided in standard -sized parking spaces (where required under TMC 18.56.040(7)(e)) to prevent cars from protruding into the public right -of -way, walkways, off the parking lot into landscaped areas or striking buildings. The depth of the standard parking space will be no less than 17 feet with an additional 18- inches of ground cover provided beyond the 6 -inch continuous wheel stop. All required landscaping will be 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Ralph Hagler Haynes Lund November 22, 2002 Page 2 Deborah Ritter Senior Planner placed outside of the 18 -inch groundcover strip. This configuration shall only be applied to = standard -sized spaces. w re 2 b. A reciprocal ingress, egress and parking agreement will be required for the parking lots and 0 driveways located north of the building site. The agreement must be recorded against all cn o affected parcels prior to the issuance of the development permits. cn w -I z: H w w Please provide an amendment to the "Wetland and Stream Delineation and Mitigation Report" g prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, dated October 17, 2000 and revised April 16, 2001 acknowledging the scope of the INS proposal and identifying, describing and illustrating all report cn a changes that will be required as a result. = w z �. � Z- w Lu a. Outside storage areas for garbage, recycling and ground level equipment shall be 2 appropriately sized and screened per TMC 18.52.070, 18.52.080, 18.52.040(D) and (E). v to Please provide dimensioned and scaled site details with elevations for each area. This O — — o f-- requirement may be modified upon review of sightline documentation. w w tL O ..z w 0 F- 3. 3. Sensitive Areas Landscape. b. The two proposed detention ponds will incorporate 3:1 slopes instead of retaining walls and will be planted with native vegetation. c. Separate planting details shall be provided for all tree and shrubs to be planted on slopes. 5. Public Comment You have indicated that INS will schedule a public meeting in January. As a courtesy to the public, we suggest that the date, time and place of that meeting be provided in our Notice of Application. Please provide that information at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact me at 206 -431 -3663. Sincerely, — 1 - D-UbC ( cLk. - 6e cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator Mike Cusick, Senior Engineer Don Tomaso, Fire Marshall z 1 z J U 00 � CO ILI - _ H w 2 J = = w z � Z F- We have reviewed your pre - application materials submitted on November 12th. The following comments are 2 � provided as a courtesy and in anticipation of your Pre - Application meeting to be held on November 21st. 0 Please do not make any changes to your plans or associated application materials until after the Pre- a'- Application meeting has occurred. Although our comments provided in this letter are not exhaustive, we will w w recommend that the requested items be incorporated into your land use application materials to expedite the � 0 technical review process. u_ ui z U HI— a. Design Review. The proposed building footprint will be located in the Manufacturing 0 Industrial Center /Light ( "MIC /L ") and the Commercial /Light Industrial ( "C /LI ") zones. Due to the building's proximity to a residential district, Design Review will be required (TMC 18.30.070, 18.36.070). November 18, 2002 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Ralph Hagler Vice President, Development & Government Affairs Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4th Floor Seattle, Washington 98168 -5121 Re: Dear Ralph: 1. Immigration & Naturalization Service Seattle District Office 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Pre - Application (PRE02 -034) Required Land Use Permits b. Unclassified Use. The proposed use of the building is to house the Seattle District Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( "INS "). This use meets the definition of Essential Public Facility under TMC 18.06.270. The Unclassified Uses portion of the MIC /L standards (TMC 18.36.050(3)) exempts Essential Public Facilities listed as permitted or conditional uses from Unclassified Use permits. This means that given the building's size (over 20,000 square feet) and primary use (an INS facility), a Conditional Use permit will be required per TMC 18.36.040(7). c. Lot Consolidation. The proposed building will be located on several parcels and will cross several zoning districts (i.e., MIC /L, C /LI and LDR). These parcels are all subject to a variety of landscape and building setbacks which must be measured from the lot lines of these parcels. Improvements requiring a building permit or retaining walls three feet in height or more are considered structures and, as such, may not be located in a required setback. Our preliminary review shows that you have setback violations in the following areas: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Ralph Hagler November 18, 2002 Page 2 z i. The curved retaining wall near the southwest corner of the building is encroaching _ �. into the 5 -foot side yard setback for the C /LI zone. This comment is based on the F- w assumption that a building permit will be required and /or the wall will be a minimum ce g of three feet in height. 6 v 00 ii. The curved retaining wall near the southeast corner of the building is encroaching 0 into the side yard setback for the MIC /L zone (the setback in this location is 15 w 1 feet wide due to its proximity to the LDR zone). This comment is based on the u) LL. assumption that a building permit will be required and /or the wall will be a minimum W 0 of three feet in height. 2 iii. Two parallel retaining walls located at the southeastern quadrant of the site are u_ both encroaching into the side yard setback for the MIC /L zone (the setback in = a this location is 15 feet wide due to its proximity to the LDR zone). This comment — w is based on the assumption that the walls will be a minimum of three feet in Z 1.- height. z O LLI al iv. The retaining wall running parallel to 34th Avenue South is located in the 20 -foot D p front yard setback required for the LDR zone. This comment is based on the 0 — assumption that a building permit will be required and /or that the wall will be a a 1— minimum of three feet in height. w v. The retaining wall at the southwest corner of the site is encroaching into the side LI Z yard setback for the C /LI zone (the setback in this location is 15 feet wide due to iij its proximity to the LDR zone). This comment is based on the assumption that U due to surcharges, a building permit will be required. p I— vi. The retaining wall at the southwest corner of the site is also encroaching into the 25 -foot front yard setback for the C /LI zone. This comment is based on the assumption that due to surcharges, a building permit will be required. vii. Several of the freestanding walls located in front of the flagpole are encroaching into the 25 -foot front yard setback for the C /LI zone. This comment is based on the assumption that the walls will be a minimum of three feet in height. You have two alternatives: Consolidate the parcel containing the building footprint with those parcels immediately south of the building footprint. By virtue of a lot consolidation, the setback violations described in Items 1(i), 1(ii) and 1(iii) will be eliminated. Additionally, if a lot consolidation occurs, the required setback from 34th Avenue will be classified as a "second front" in the LDR zone (thereby reducing the setback to 10 feet in width and eliminating the setback violation described in 1(iv)). PLEASE NOTE: the setback violations described in 1(v), 1(vi) and 1(vii) will not be eliminated by a lot consolation. • Relocate certain walls to accommodate the required setbacks. l �,.. .:ter - ." Z Ralph Hagler November 18, 2002 Page 3 2. Parking Requirements Z z a. Based on the square footage information supplied on your pre - application project summary, o: w a minimum of 407 parking spaces will be required on the site. Of these, 30% may be compact spaces (122 spaces). While your project summary 0 - 0 P p ( y p j ry indicates that you will only be U O providing 384 spaces, your plans indicate that you will be providing 427 spaces. Please CO 0 provide a Plan Sheet Index containing all of the following information: w = J H i. Total number of surface parking spaces broken out by standard, compact and w O handicapped. Our preliminary review of Sheets A -1 and A -1 shows 189 surface M parking spaces, 2 of which are handicapped. No compact spaces were shown. 5 LLQ ii. Total number of structured parking spaces broken out by floor and type (standard, _ a compact and handicapped). Our preliminary review of Sheets A -7, A -8 and A -9 1— in shows a grand total of 238 spaces (190 Standard, 6 Handicapped and 42 ? I-- Compact), broken out as follows: z O in w U D O E O 1- ww b. All compact spaces shall be designated "COMPACT" per TMC 18.56.090(b). F 0 u- O c. Wheel stops shall be provided to prevent cars from protruding into the public right -of -way, iii Z walkways, off the parking lot into landscaped areas or striking buildings (TMC 0 E- H 18.56.040(7)(e). O 3. Exterior Lighting 4. Signage Level P1 Level P2 Level P3 84 total spaces (69 Standard, 2 Handicapped, 13 Compact) 82 total spaces (73 Standard, 2 Handicapped, 7 Compact) 72 total spaces (48 Standard, 2 Handicapped, 22 Compact) d. Bike racks shall be provided per the development standards outlined in TMC 18.56.130. e. Of the 407 required parking spaces, approximately 5 will be designated "CAR POOL" to accommodate Commute Trip Reduction requirements. The exact number of required car pool spaces will be determined prior to the issuance of the building permit. A luminaire plan shall be supplied with the Design Review application demonstrating compliance with TMC 18.50.100 and containing the following: location and type of street and site lighting, proposed fixture cut sheets, site illumination levels in foot candles, and the effectiveness of shielding to contain all direct illumination on the site. All signage will meet the requirements of Tukwila's Sign Code (Title 19). Per the requirements of TMC 19.32.140 you will be allowed one wall sign and one freestanding sign. a. Freestanding Sion. Per TMC 19.32.140(D) the freestanding sign will be subject to size, height and setback limitations. b. Wall Sign. Per TMC 19.32.140(A) the wall sign will be subject to size limitations. Intiadra Z Ralph Hagler November 18, 2002 Page 4 ;- z c. Internal Information Signage. Internal information signs may be used to designate public i I L—. versus employee parking areas, subject to the criteria in TMC Chapter 19.22. W 2 5. Sensitive Areas -1 0 U) o You have indicated that you will continue the enhancement of Riverton Creek and of the other U) = wetland and stream buffers identified in the "Wetland and Stream Delineation and Mitigation Report" I co u_ prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, dated October 17, 2000 and revised April 16, 2001. This W O work will be implemented under a separate Land Altering Permit application. n a. Riverton Creek Buffers and Setbacks. A 35 -foot buffer and a 15 -foot building setback L j beyond that buffer must be maintained for Riverton Creek. The proposed retaining wall for N d detention pond (north of South 126th Street) is encroaching into that setback. Please make I w the necessary revision. z 1 . I- O b. Wetland E Dispersion Trench. Installation of the dispersion trench in the buffer of Wetland E w w will necessitate the enhancement work described in the Wetland Report. m o c. Wetland A Buffer Outfall. Installation of the outfall in the buffer of Wetland A will necessitate 0 ', the enhancement work described in the Wetland Report. w w d. Please locate all vaults and tanks (either below or above ground) on applicable plan sheets. u_ ~O Aboveground structures must accommodate all applicable setbacks and sensitive area Z buffers. U u) H= O F' e. Per TMC 18.54.140(B)(1) and (2), the site shall have a minimum canopy cover equal to 20% z of the site area. The canopy cover of each new tree shall be calculated at 314 square feet. To achieve a 20% canopy coverage, Sheet L -1 indicates that 214 new trees are proposed. Please itemize these trees in the landscape schedule on that plan sheet. 6. Noise and Acoustics. Sheet A -1 proposes one trash compactor and two generators. We have the following comments: a. - Per 18.52.040(E) the trash compactor and generators must be screened from view using materials compatible with the building design. Please provide elevations illustrating your proposal for screening. b. Prior to the issuance of the building permit you must supply the following: A report signed and stamped by a licensed acoustical engineer demonstrating that the ground equipment (trash compactor, generators) will meet the conditions of the Tukwila Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22). This study shall include: a description of the equipment; the noise levels created by the equipment; • Ralph Hagler November 18, 2002 Page 5 • any noise mitigation necessary to meet the requirements of the Noise Ordinance; and z cC w • noise barrier analysis and specifications. 6 = .J U ii. A generator testing schedule that specifically addresses the hours of testing and the c o o duration and frequency of the tests. w J F- c. As a condition of final approval of the building permit, an inspection report (signed and w p st by the acoustical engineer) must be submitted verifying that the trash compactor n and generators and any noise barriers have been installed in accordance with the acoustical report. co 7. Landscape. H = Z I.- a. Due to the requirements of TMC 18.52.020 and 18.52.030 pertaining to landscaping in the E- O M IC /L zone, the high visibility of the project's perimeters and the Board of Architectural w w Review's desire to maintain consistent landscape standards across a site, it is staffs recommendation that you expand the landscape plan to include the following areas: v O i. the northern half of the site; and w w 1 — — ii. the southeast quadrant of the site. u_ ~O z b. The planting plan shall be stamped by a landscape architect licensed in the State of v Washington (TMC 18.52.050(A). The plan shall also include planting notes. 0 H z c. The planting schedule shall be revised, listing the following information for each tree, - shrub and groundcover: symbol, quantity, botanical name, common name, spacing, caliper (2 inch minimum for all deciduous trees) and height (6 foot minimum for all evergreen trees, 18 -inch minimum for all shrubs) (TMC 18.52.050(B)). d. Please clarify what is meant by "perennial accents ". If perennial plants are proposed, they must be included in the planting schedule per the requirements of Item 7c above. e. Provide mix specifications for seeded areas, including percentages and application rates. f. The planting plan shall include typical planting details for trees and shrubs. g. Outside storage areas for garbage, recycling and ground level equipment shall be appropriately sized and screened per TMC 18.52.070, 18.52.080, 18.52.040(D) and (E). Please provide dimensioned and scaled site details with elevations for each area. h. Stamped irrigation plans meeting the criteria of TMC 18.52.040(H) will be required as a condition of the building permit. In perimeters located adjacent to residential zones, 75% of trees and shrubs shall be evergreen (TMC 18.52.030(D)(4). N.1g4 { „,C.yti.� S Y �11'.. ^'•G JAfty'di!\Y!d .N:r.:.rJfi.•r..L'NW. SgiA F%N 440 • • • Ralph Hagler November 18, 2002 Page 6 j. Due to their depth, the two proposed detention ponds will require safety fencing and z associated screening. = z �w k. Staff recommends that you provide more detailed plans and elevations for the front entry D plaza. Please indicate the type, pattern, color and extent of any paving materials. Please 0 amend the planting plan to incorporate any proposed plantings in this area. co p cow I. Staff recommends that you provide more detailed plans and elevations for the "Employee -J H Plazas" located on the north and south sides of the building. Please indicate any outdoor u) w seating and planters and whether the areas will be protected from the elements. w O 8. Exterior Building Design Li. Q CO D a. The elevations you have submitted should be augmented by a variety of perspectives. At a =0 H- w minimum, we encourage you to include perspectives from the Hillside Apartments as well as z '- from the residential area on South 126th. These perspectives should include roof top Z 0 equipment or service areas, as applicable. For purposes of the hearing, final color w elevations and final color perspectives will be recommended. ? o U � b. The color elevations and perspectives should reflect landscaping that meets the code o F- requirements for that location. The landscaping should reflect the size and spacing that will w Lij result approximately one year from completion. H v LL O c. For the purposes of the design review application, please address whether the glass z proposed for the window systems will create any reflectivity and to what degree. U co P2 d. For purposes of the design review hearing, staff recommends that you provide sections 0 H g. h. Screening for HVAC and other mechanical equipment has not been provided on Sheets A- 10, A -11, A -12 or A -13. Please revise accordingly. 9. Public Comment We may recommend that a neighborhood meeting be held approximately one month prior to the hearing to provide an opportunity for Sabey Corporation and City staff to meet with all concerned • z crossing the site in at least two locations. One cross section should extend easterly from Tukwila International Boulevard through the front entry plaza, the building, the rear parking area and Riverton Creek. Another cross section should extend easterly from Tukwila International Boulevard through the southern parking area down to 34th Avenue South. e. A color and materials board will be required as part of the Design Review application. f. The location of the garage entry/exit on Sheet A -13 is incorrectly shown at Level P2. Please revise to show its correct location to Level P1. Staff recommends that more information be provided about the building canopy along the western facade. Is this canopy clear? If so, we recommend that it be electrically wired to discourage bird droppings and roosting. Ralph Hagler November 18, 2002 Page 7 10. Public Notification If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact me at 206 -431 -3663. Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Senior Planner citizens. Please provide us with a variety of your preferred evening meeting dates. We will then try to coordinate staff and venue availability. Please indicate where and when the public notice board will be installed on the site. Public notice must be posted and mailed within two weeks of our determination of a complete land use application. cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator Mike Cusick, Senior Engineer Don Tomaso, Fire Marshall t5.r;i.:�1' a:,r�:.�� >:a:,�.. a:,:; �•m:._.�.�,;:1- :�..�_nc�:.,w�. ��.�:e�::km.u:,r+�::�:. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type (� a File Number: Le 2 -- Q Planner: �� ' Q3 Application Complete (Date:12• 20 - 02) Project File Number: 1:)(2_,E, 0 2. - 0 3 9- Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: L02. -- Q (� (D..) Lo Z -0 59- (& ) , APPLICATION L0 1 - O 'S 0 6S.A 0 Vgg NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: I MMa41.#1-104 4 gserutoeuldiznot3 t( dEM l ��TR.t rr LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. I Z r2/ 0c) `�v 1c.�' 1 �} I N'T 'Rtll�2CtO ' ?'LVr QAcRcmc.s : 1023 o4°.0 1 049OPO,' - 14 OtoCOCoOZ 1 5Co 0 0 P) D5 Quarter: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: 1.- 1AY/J ES L 1 $ Address: 12201 TO id.W1► \N-r 2/t AJAa. LVv � \Alm 9f51 Phone: 20 Co - 21 1 - 114, 2 1 FAX: ZO - Z Dl - d °120 Signature: Section:' n Township: G:4 WPPHAMLANDUSE.APPICUPCKLST.DOC. 12/07/99 I Range: t. , RECENED CITY OF 7 UK W)tJ CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 1 9 2002 Department of Community Developmt 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA. 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Date: 19 Dc OZ Immigration and Naturalization Service Seattle District Office 12500 Tukwila International Blvd. Seattle, Washington 11 -O" CORPORATION 6" HIGH CUT OUT LETTERS, TIMES ROMAN BOLD )4" ALUM. PLATE MOUNTED FLUSH TO THE SIGN BODY PAINT WHITE NON- ILLUMINATED PYLON SIGN, ALUM. FACE PANELS PAINTED PMS REFLEX BLUE ALUM. FABRICATED REVEAL PAINTED WHITE CAST -IN -PLACE CONCRETE BASE 4" HIGH CUT OUT LETTERS, TIMES ROMAN BOLD }4" ALUM. PLATE MOUNTED FLUSH TO THE SIGN BODY PAINT WHITE . LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES A R C H I T E C T S AIX • A t A NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 7 2003 PERMIT CENTER 1' -O" WINDOW SASH TAGS Atu' i,t. GLAZING:.'.' G?EE+i Evil. .S GLASS C.__4 ) ALUMINUM COPING C5 % ALUMINUM RAIL ) DECORATIVE MEDALLION t 8D ANODIZED ALUMINUM AWNING CI 5 ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL 22) ANODIZED ALUMINUM SKYLIGHT • (9 ' MECHANICAL SCREEN .WALL :•. r � 18 ) SCREEN WALL-CORNICE. 7 PAINTED CONCRETE WALLS UGn::�cY • ',�.. — :`ZC.:En ::UL:::rCO:CPS 14) PENTHOUS WALLS • c:.:. :AUK BACCG;ClC:l UGnT lrGE . . NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. ' PAI .TED. NETAL RNUNO ENTRYF?AME"ATIG. ,.::$1;- GF Ytne 'CANOPYE RAM 12 CONCRETE PAVING': ,j PRECAST SEATING'. RECEIVED FEB 7 - 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE :.olor, Finish and Material Code Building Envelope Glazing Precast concrete building panels Granite - body Granite - accent Modular block wall Aluminum coping Aluminum curtain wall Aluminum window sash Aluminum rail Decorative medallion Mechanical screen wall Screen wall cornice Anodized aluminum awning Concrete walls Penthouse walls Anodized aluminum skylight Entry Plaza and Employee Plaza Concrete paving Precast seating Accent bands Planter walls Concrete walls Precast walls Canopy frame Parking Garage Painted concrete walls Painted metal railing Entry frame Evergreen Buff Taupe Dark Buff Silver Silver Black Silver Silver Light Beige Light Beige Silver Speckled Light Beige Silver Beige Dark Grey Brown Accent granite Speckled Buff White Speckled White White RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 PERMIT CENTER .• PROJECT TEAM BUILDING CODE DATA: OCOPMCr OR.1P% IS. *1 A -1 P -L H OCOPANT LOADS. 01.00. S.) WOO 01 MOO. 01 WAC0 OONMCT 5(PARATIOM1 B. 01 01 TO 02114.4 1811* 1.1.3 *150 NO 181. 0 1./. CDOIRCTEN TIES. TVSI IS PRE PWRACT01A 4 STSIO111Rp01T 39 0 1 . g g in -4 ! = Firs I RlMR 0. STOWS ALLOWED. VlM= 0011001101/000 WALLS. 2. 1101E LOW DAM S• 1wO1 LOT LAO WINO* PM OM.ARE6 SIALL& ME41 MATED 0*ATd THAN Of - 1O RAT* .Otte NAanC•11 ).R 11T1R1CR VLSI MARNO IMLI.S. Hat OTRI:7OLM. RLM11, 1' 00.21118 000 "CAR HALLS A 2418 MOOR ST*411. . 2.1* 100117 C1l . 2.10L CORM 0 PIbnC11D LEY 111404 20 11AAPT2. 2. [MOW 101001110.110. 18TH SPILN LER DO &CLONED& 2.1t EwT STAR 04:1-00015 1 2.1* ZONING CODE DATA: - SOARS r14. 4L LON 5(TOAOC 1e0RROa1 P18:NT 218' N SOS 1100 • OM 1110 REAR ADO LOOSCAPSO 112CR@10. MOW 0• • P1:A. O• • 41 N. ODE NOS •04111 REAR NOM 1YRD1611001T. 4 STOWS PAWNS RAMS. P41804 R101RtD SPICE )O CMS PER .O0 d 1187115(AOL1 AREA *OTC* EAROtl IRIOACED 440 STALLS POI MOTOO DIPLOIM PAWNS P10NDED 25( STALLS LOAD*2 SPACES. 2 P 140ACCD 04 SPACE AT 571)18 MO 00 SPACE AT 07188 *CYCLE SPACES. 2 Y SCR 1401 M 1812,180 PARCELS STALL/ .0.31018 % 2 • 1/MACES INDEX TO THE DRAWINGS A.O COAX OCR All 001 PLAN AD SITE PLAN ALS WE PLAN ALA SEE PLAN All SWUM S OVALS AD EMT FLOC* PLAN 413 5(000 MOOS ELAN 423 TAO MOOR ELAM 41.4 5018171 MOOS PLAN AM 5.I PMK)O MIL RAN 420 P.2 PARO* LEVEL PLAN A2.1 P.) PARCW LEVEL PLAN A21 MCC PT.AN O* 01 PLAN a SL 413 PM 41840 IM.. Au DEMOS ELEVA7100 441 18R01120107100 A.S. 5(D.* 5(11000 01 LOC -0104 OAP C.2 P. PLAN NAP C.) TA1 PARCEL MAP C'' DOWNS COpQ1ODELAN 0.0 PRLSS4ARr OOP* PLAN C.0 P.[LEMARE aRAD042 PLAN eS corolETII OMIT PLAN LIP LMdCJPE PLM LUC .0 IC PI PLAN LII) PLAZA OLMCIrOrt L104 LMOSC -AP1 5010LL1 000 OOTAL0 UP 1011(0145 `• 4 SITE V e. 6 WO, �. $ °'1 DePl:loper: Architect: Civil E1QIEeen: Landscape Architecture: 5047 0140.0k. Lan*M*OO& Anocirte OvidEv5A And Associates, Ice Well= Desi2017.0up Sc A roA1 Blvd. u: Lakeside / 2001620 W. Ma Dine 2729 East Mdilm saw 122017W l la*ti* Seale, WA 92168-3121 S401I, WA 98122 Evan. WA 92201 Sad WA 98112 Td:206221.E700 Td 21167212227 Td 122.239 099 Tel: 206722.1772 F.206-2111.0920 Fa:20 - 3220524 Fs. 423.2393230 5 206722.1799 � 2,; " " ♦ p 6 0 - a Ytw LANCE *YELLEN a ASSOCIATE■ P•.�J./i18� CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATIJRALIZ4TION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 0500 TUOIIILA INTERNATIONAL DLVD. SEATTLE. W/L IRYaTON ®a COVER COVER SKIT e O .. A GiFR ••••••' Y. " ' 120 LACES= - SEATTLE. .A 1.122 - 200 )2S 24.2 1141 2110 11.00 an NS. R11R DATE Irmiatigratiort anal.: ition Sei'yjce Washi CITY OF TUKWILA gtorL JAN 3 1 2003 DECEMBER I8, 2002 C0LA1T f`C'A1T NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. i4 43 c�7 � kt \♦ SHEET AI.4 9 SWEET A13 : 1 r.m NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 PERMIT CENTER =1 1.4111C• YYRLLCR t A��OCIATp I j 1.71 CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVIC SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TIKWLA PRERNATICNAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASNIN aTCFI /� . +�.� A21 d SITE PLAN SITE P � e 1 ^ ■ T� wnn a,. , 130 u■anx • tuTrtt. •5122 • as 325 assa Fn�a .0 laau! an NM Wal OATS i4 43 c�7 � kt \♦ SHEET AI.4 9 SWEET A13 : 1 r.m NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 PERMIT CENTER =1 LANCE ..u.��.. . ASSOCIATES CORPORATION �` ' Y IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE x500 TWIIILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE, 1LL45HNGTCN ol .. SITE PLAN _ SKIT A1.2 w WOW j , ��a p � } )�Y iao LAM= • suTns. 011122 • za. 322 zaps •+ rw eF • a••••• .n i.e DATE .n I.esa DAM 6 LL . t 'ff a' O ri •f • 5 a • I t s i` • • 0U 5 -\ �\ - - ' ' i SITE PLAN r• ai.v 0 55 ai R V NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. CO OR F•1614 AND HATTRIAL CODE p, l.rCre.W O rw O 0a 0 r.oaao O .Cis, Imo* O sir, p. aeorr 0 a Oe mare mow r /re O p.m ow O ° ,u.m... s 0 ......rr 34 th A IF RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 PERMIT CENTER :w.cs YUGLLiN a a..o wTG• stiB �� CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE D500 TUOI LA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASNMGTCN o , W (k12= � . '' R •• SITE PLAN WART Al G3 T.Z. w �. alt 1 �• 130 NsKtTIG[ • SWILL Mw NM • soa •'• ,,•• o •ra No. DATE ND 114.1E DATE ► y} . / BUILDING 27 -03 ,,. �,i J•.. • ��,__ __..t e , �♦ _.. -. !: •`•'r •i . _V SIQA • • ..- ``7'°'ti^.t�c�— ..oar: —_..— — eaT ae aer —••._ a b m � _ ,� ..:��:. - -- - -- -- — — IIO[III SITE PLAN r.)p.e- a M L TO e Tsar • NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 PERMif CENTER BU►LC w T LANCE YUILLIt t AttOC1ATlt CORPORATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 0500 TIKWILA INTERNATIONAL 6LVD. U I4 ,TON A '� • / -' of SITE PLAN EMIT ., T2 - .� ..t. •++ � EP. A . x T! a T A 130 LAWS= • SEAM; .w 11•122 • aas III asta o:e.ta Ya nea DAM Na NM an SITE PLAN r • te•e- o Is x e o •.x NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 L•NCE MUELLER E All•OCIRTEEI L./N/N/N ISO LAKESIDE • S TTTTT E. WA 10122 • 205 520 2053 sit BEy CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TUNwiLA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON' U.AFFfi (.• r........T.5.,c ... •••• 02,35 SITE PLAN St* E 1 A 2 _ " a - or. .112-02 „ 15511C DATE NO 159A DATE 5 511 0501 1:: ..... • ... • 3e rn OK,. now A' 3 POINT-TO-POINT PHOTOMETRIC STUDY AGA ELECTRIC 12/10/02 : NON.. SITE PLAN 30' -0 o Is' J0 . off so NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. U1Y OF TUICVII1LA DEC 19 2002 PERMIT CENTER • • • .. • - 1,44.4•41 14r.44 4•41 4412 SITE SECTION SITE SECTION c 91 • FMCA.C.I.I. Z.:.`"`" - 4.6144 4444.LN. Pa 1 "---- 1 1,44 . 41414 444. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. axon. smital 14.014 41141. 114 4 •••11C 44444 L__/■./N./N IA. ■ •• 1 •A■4 • U. •111. I . ■•• vas," • Ara 4,4 ....4,1 sIBEy CORPORATION it-it-ii, 4NIC. 1\!4TuR:o 1. '-')ER/'CE ...E..... :".•:$ Cf.:CE 1:!•:.^:: Tonallt..1 INTEI.:?/:.1 M. :r.• 6E.ITTLE. V.1.4INGTON WEISMAN t 1.- ''' 1:ic:;:.litiito!.., tuesr.yt mom= 11441 01.14. Nam 414104.414V4 Nwaal mot MA MB ■ ,...,7",:::- ...., • I ..... • I t 1 : • 1 • I •••••• ••••••••••••••, •,• 0 ti W.f. 0.4te 4•44I L2.03 • • • .. • - 1,44.4•41 14r.44 4•41 4412 SITE SECTION SITE SECTION c 91 • FMCA.C.I.I. Z.:.`"`" - 4.6144 4444.LN. Pa 1 "---- 1 1,44 . 41414 444. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. axon. smital LANCE SILILLI.Lit L • 44 OCILlt• s CORPORATION ir 4.ND NLTUR,20 TI.'S'N! S.;- E500 TuKtu...1 INTERN.:-T:CNAL el."..:, eEATTLE. 11.a5i4INSTON W ISMAN 1... .::. .i 15,,,.:7„ 1401.0•LLEILICum — ... • I I". 1 .!.. - I ."'" I , - , 1 _ P*21 ...........,, ..i...e I : . I •■• a il ..: i :_ _ I D.:TEI.21 . -:___ _ 15.* DATE _ $.4LI L2.04 • I. " .. • . • " .% • 40122 • 205 32% 2".1. •S.II • SLAM Vt 130 L rL ,-\SITE SECTION • - ---‘SITE SECTION ‚PC - SITE SECTION .......,..- ............ 1 -e,-...!. , ,-.. ........„.., •NI ft IP* 1) "CL,K, • ,e r....471 P.W.111•11 LINE NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. nalsomammummianmaawassmasaaamigmamgm=======-32 NOLINDMAIMICE MB i rirdni l lat i VaiRMAMOMIM i _ I. lab I . 1 111111 II us ray NP Not 4NrNa YUMA,. A Ago cr 211 COON. nosu AND WREN. COOT Pump coant 0121-040112 NAM AWL E0020 -0401 PONIID 02010 1040- wit 0. 1111 LL 04. -, -.J.,••••• 4 % 5:-F5-&- == ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....— at ...................=mw--,...- ........ WEST ELEVATION L. EAR IN wart ME Cs suer SOUTH ELEVATION u =t t z , ja c c ,---4,NNANC/a11. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 49 UPPER LEVEL PLAN LOWER LEVEL PLAN — P2 I LANCE NU LLLLL t ASSOCIATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT CFFICE 12500 TLKAUILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WABNINGTCN W . ;I II .* -' • . . ' ' 1.11=SMICILIC011 N - • ANN. ''' L2.05 s • • I • I30 LANOJNIC • ICATINI. NA GNI. • 204 320 2053 CORPORATION .. " ■ AAA tANNIA • mr: ,,,,,, ISSUE Dan NO. ItOLIE PATE _ nalsomammummianmaawassmasaaamigmamgm=======-32 NOLINDMAIMICE MB i rirdni l lat i VaiRMAMOMIM i _ I. lab I . 1 111111 II us ray NP Not 4NrNa YUMA,. A Ago cr 211 COON. nosu AND WREN. COOT Pump coant 0121-040112 NAM AWL E0020 -0401 PONIID 02010 1040- wit 0. 1111 LL 04. -, -.J.,••••• 4 % 5:-F5-&- == ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....— at ...................=mw--,...- ........ WEST ELEVATION L. EAR IN wart ME Cs suer SOUTH ELEVATION u =t t z , ja c c ,---4,NNANC/a11. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 49 UPPER LEVEL PLAN LOWER LEVEL PLAN — P2 W !ElliallEFRIZIEM iRgiatdDiMaginiagliinipag I . 1 : 1.:;.1 I i 1.11.i :: ' 's : g 1 IPIRIIIMingliMillEiTe -W. - ....71:7: El I ;- I!' . ,...:ri:-..) 1 . .?i,..■ 7-= 11211111BRIM1112111611112g._ 1.7 I :!1:*:,.. fiLl I 4 . ..:17‘...310111351F2EIRMEIMEIFiritiellig 1,1. --- "W" is MIEISIIMMIVICIII iiiJI:i..: . . 1-1:1-,--11, ... . 1:4' 1 1.-:117 7I : - il- -. 1111;16110111Vai iit 13/11111111 timplitmaltseir vastur silasItal;n11:i.....: 101:17: 11 ',.3i FOLVIZEMIEfilalltIF12112=0P3941211Zillf17 . F l il.:!:+,•::1 ri , ii,,, 1 :..-- i ,--. 1 ILO! l ist1 -,,....1! i ...,...., . r ......_ ,--......, _,.. , _..a.: ilLal 41,211V,1 ill . . WEST ELEVATION buniniumis 1 1 n•m11011000112M BHIBI36 11103 m II om II IMIIIII wi tril m , IMMINIIMI red Irma I II 11111111-- i M dii In 8 us n ilininso = _,.. 1 119Emi u is imen.cominsmi ip _BIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIg! III 1111 I Walla:FA Inn s iiilai n/.1 IminniraolojE on ILIZE111=11122:N=1=11222111=11=11=121=211=11=113=11 1=11 NIMINIMMINIT IIMONEMPARIV (?. EAST ELEVATION I 7:1 " I • glimap re ••••••-• ••••••—• , C5 • hotimmEgouramirpiamorargE1 , 4:-,-Inamsags Magi umitanisl - 111R1Irrammta igristrawrionmenrinutrunorzei indirang lin Id El i0 iii q :CM SOUTH ELEVATION 0- NORTH ELEVATION V 0.■••••• PO - dHI! 111111111 III i iIHJ .11E11.11 RIME in 1111 • sf DEC 1 9 2002 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. -c) LEGEND 0.115.••• COP*, I G•■•.•• 12,00.• •1.•••••.. ••■Pel• ••••••1 • •..•••••• CO•••• • •ef •■•••••• • 1.6.•• ••••••••• L.L•e-••••• • f.I•d• • •110.1...•11. be••••••••• ICI••••• •• 4..1 ••••• .1.1.••••••t1 • 1•••••4111 0.•••• • •••• • WM* Ewe tele..01,1C[ ••••••C• ••■••■•%•• • •••■•••••••••101 ••■■ CA RR A AWBOC AAAAA L.z.N./N/N • • • ,. 130 3011(3100 • SEATIX. WA 30133 - 203 333 2333 slimy CORPORATION IMMIGRATION ND NATURALIZ4TION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 'TUKWILA INTERNATICNAL BLvD. SEATTLE. WASUNCITON .....`...... : i e 3 6, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SWEET A 10 fil.. trWei ., DC -- c•■• eI7 ,,,,,, iSsoF 0^Te .c. 130•10 0.1111 W !ElliallEFRIZIEM iRgiatdDiMaginiagliinipag I . 1 : 1.:;.1 I i 1.11.i :: ' 's : g 1 IPIRIIIMingliMillEiTe -W. - ....71:7: El I ;- I!' . ,...:ri:-..) 1 . .?i,..■ 7-= 11211111BRIM1112111611112g._ 1.7 I :!1:*:,.. fiLl I 4 . ..:17‘...310111351F2EIRMEIMEIFiritiellig 1,1. --- "W" is MIEISIIMMIVICIII iiiJI:i..: . . 1-1:1-,--11, ... . 1:4' 1 1.-:117 7I : - il- -. 1111;16110111Vai iit 13/11111111 timplitmaltseir vastur silasItal;n11:i.....: 101:17: 11 ',.3i FOLVIZEMIEfilalltIF12112=0P3941211Zillf17 . F l il.:!:+,•::1 ri , ii,,, 1 :..-- i ,--. 1 ILO! l ist1 -,,....1! i ...,...., . r ......_ ,--......, _,.. , _..a.: ilLal 41,211V,1 ill . . WEST ELEVATION buniniumis 1 1 n•m11011000112M BHIBI36 11103 m II om II IMIIIII wi tril m , IMMINIIMI red Irma I II 11111111-- i M dii In 8 us n ilininso = _,.. 1 119Emi u is imen.cominsmi ip _BIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIg! III 1111 I Walla:FA Inn s iiilai n/.1 IminniraolojE on ILIZE111=11122:N=1=11222111=11=11=121=211=11=113=11 1=11 NIMINIMMINIT IIMONEMPARIV (?. EAST ELEVATION I 7:1 " I • glimap re ••••••-• ••••••—• , C5 • hotimmEgouramirpiamorargE1 , 4:-,-Inamsags Magi umitanisl - 111R1Irrammta igristrawrionmenrinutrunorzei indirang lin Id El i0 iii q :CM SOUTH ELEVATION 0- NORTH ELEVATION V 0.■••••• PO - dHI! 111111111 III i iIHJ .11E11.11 RIME in 1111 • sf DEC 1 9 2002 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. -c) LEGEND 0.115.••• COP*, I G•■•.•• 12,00.• •1.•••••.. ••■Pel• ••••••1 • •..•••••• CO•••• • •ef •■•••••• • 1.6.•• ••••••••• L.L•e-••••• • f.I•d• • •110.1...•11. be••••••••• ICI••••• •• 4..1 ••••• .1.1.••••••t1 • 1•••••4111 0.•••• • •••• • WM* Ewe tele..01,1C[ ••••••C• ••■••■•%•• • •••■•••••••••101 " "" "" N " " ° """' IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 6tATTL! D16TRACT OPF C! 4600 T[KIDLA Mta6L1TICWAL BLVD. WeN6nTLH 1N PARKING GARAGE ELEVATIONS PARKING "DT A2.11 ' V ��• ' NV WW1 I 31-111 S al • [� .` H LAX.. • a[am[, .A .a.at • aw ». 1.3 CORPORATION Lt.. MMES EAST ELEVATION OIL R V A ! a i 4 W k __ _ _ _ ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- 1- - -� ..� ELEVATION Q Q O I I r i 4 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I . I � ' I � 1 I Ilium IIIII iII 1101II11 111111111 1111II H I1 t 1 i I 1 r r I I P r I I l s r c y H it I l l l lil I '1 L i u , I r i mn. 11.1 NM WILL as p P.m) maul .0 - 9[onm ® MOM 1[4[ a*.c - .Pu ® MPI.m o°-. - ..0 7 SOO ELEVATION NOFITH ELEVATION r • -ar•r [ [ [ [ T T T T T T ii iiii�iii�iil�iiiii [ [ III NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. [ [ uPP R LEVEL PLAN — P1 0 0 0 0 .0 • /■/ ET 0 . mjaar n.. 0 MOTOX110:01011/ 0 NOM° i * OE OTTATTITTOITE ' IA IMI■ • M1101” M1 • .1"Ja2M. 2 . tr ; IMP.12•M! pelininiiiiiimumliliiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimumiliiiiiinnung . r..—...rumpsisminpu:—.......glomninammen=-=.:Hums.111111111111111r...... a Ilialliammimeipliliiiiiiilineniiiliailiiiliiillimmiummiiiiiligill ...--nempine.an......--mago.vefsal=.—neenuerninr.=.:2 . L limilimihmerimiliiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiilisesselegillg o° mignmatitessaststalvaratastoseantstspei=.---Nalsettamsgunnscasmatimumm . UNE ni iiii al &jail iiiiiiiiiihirrilinii iiiiiitiiiinitiiiiimillfiaill ....- :_::---,:_.:_.:. ...-.... -.......,.. ..._:=-:.-_--:----........ WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION Ae- . . . 0 111111111■1111MMI17 a 2 IIMM—nr—ve "MI! I e ii nim ii n iiiIiiiiihiriiiiiininiimiiiiiiiIn iminillimiliimillibillii mesiqin usu solg,1-4,...:—:,,,...:.--m. 111111111111•1111111111••••■11 a illu Mid iliiiiimmiiii uniiiiihniliiiiiiiiliiilimii iiiihmiiiiMinii • . -11....gpmumnpn.:.—:=IBENNEELF=.............mmiumnwling= tatlantaiSSMIMIZ ., intrale_sel 3 . : IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMENHaliMiliiiiillnealikliliiiiiiiiiiiiIM intamilmmurlanaMIWIEWENEL MI NiMMENNINI 0--- 1111111 - MimiEhm.stwilin M4.1 lElgi i MOM Mil ... . ..- . 1. .lat me • a ===. a a aim • :1 SOUTH ELEVATION __LTE II R IIII P .1 - 1111 WHIMIMMil a Q nhiliiihuhubsdnunmeni NORTH ELEVATION 1.A.11 AOSOCIAT. 1__/N./N/N TAO LAM.* • SEATTLE. WA 22222 • 704 310 ESEE1 SIBEY CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12S00 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL !SLY°. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON $ 0 Ilusiorriminamisamminnill �i. jjijjjiiiijiIiiilIiiIiiuUiilli 0 •111111111•111111111::======f: ° sMt.no...1 Nom MI NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. CC11.12ELEBISI ASIZEISTESIACDDE A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS — gtiRRNFZMF — ert ....., ro. 0304* IMILSE OAR NO NSA DAR 0 0 0 0 .0 • /■/ ET 0 . mjaar n.. 0 MOTOX110:01011/ 0 NOM° i * OE OTTATTITTOITE ' IA IMI■ • M1101” M1 • .1"Ja2M. 2 . tr ; IMP.12•M! pelininiiiiiimumliliiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimumiliiiiiinnung . r..—...rumpsisminpu:—.......glomninammen=-=.:Hums.111111111111111r...... a Ilialliammimeipliliiiiiiilineniiiliailiiiliiillimmiummiiiiiligill ...--nempine.an......--mago.vefsal=.—neenuerninr.=.:2 . L limilimihmerimiliiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiilisesselegillg o° mignmatitessaststalvaratastoseantstspei=.---Nalsettamsgunnscasmatimumm . UNE ni iiii al &jail iiiiiiiiiihirrilinii iiiiiitiiiinitiiiiimillfiaill ....- :_::---,:_.:_.:. ...-.... -.......,.. ..._:=-:.-_--:----........ WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION Ae- . . . 0 111111111■1111MMI17 a 2 IIMM—nr—ve "MI! I e ii nim ii n iiiIiiiiihiriiiiiininiimiiiiiiiIn iminillimiliimillibillii mesiqin usu solg,1-4,...:—:,,,...:.--m. 111111111111•1111111111••••■11 a illu Mid iliiiiimmiiii uniiiiihniliiiiiiiiliiilimii iiiihmiiiiMinii • . -11....gpmumnpn.:.—:=IBENNEELF=.............mmiumnwling= tatlantaiSSMIMIZ ., intrale_sel 3 . : IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMENHaliMiliiiiillnealikliliiiiiiiiiiiiIM intamilmmurlanaMIWIEWENEL MI NiMMENNINI 0--- 1111111 - MimiEhm.stwilin M4.1 lElgi i MOM Mil ... . ..- . 1. .lat me • a ===. a a aim • :1 SOUTH ELEVATION __LTE II R IIII P .1 - 1111 WHIMIMMil a Q nhiliiihuhubsdnunmeni NORTH ELEVATION 1.A.11 AOSOCIAT. 1__/N./N/N TAO LAM.* • SEATTLE. WA 22222 • 704 310 ESEE1 SIBEY CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12S00 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL !SLY°. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON $ 0 Ilusiorriminamisamminnill �i. jjijjjiiiijiIiiilIiiIiiuUiilli 0 •111111111•111111111::======f: ° sMt.no...1 Nom MI NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. CC11.12ELEBISI ASIZEISTESIACDDE A3.1 West Elevation Sad,3/32'N,47 East Elevation Salo 3/3? N,'-fr NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. DEC 1 9 ?002.. i L ANG• YCNLLNN N A•UCCIATN• • N 1 • • 1 • 130 $.A1o1$ • SAME, WA 51122 • 204 323 2553 • SIJBEY CORPORATION . IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT GFFICE I2500 11JOIWILA INTERNATIONAL MVP. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 we ti LEST NC. A4A —tn.Y DATE I Na L2•o1 DAI North Elevation 8ts.3/32 1'.q NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. DEC 19212 . ,W, ,YYOq■1, • =KM= 611.1. Y 001gb OYL H■lw ■RAI■A. M./l! MIIT /O0f ■ • LD/MUL+COtIrYO • M /MWY • AS�fO/ LAUD■ YY ■LL ■A • A ■ ■DDIAT■■ • . M.. . , . 130 IAKLLO[ • WATTLE. WA 6S122 • 2W 33.1 21133 ♦ ►. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE ols � �� • 0500 WILA INTERRATIGNAL BIM,. • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON IEIMANDE516�16ROI1P�r ;� i S � I� I � y .` - i ; /r. ° • [.2.02 m� p � i 3 . WOW !k7 ME : DATE North Elevation 8ts.3/32 1'.q NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. DEC 19212 . ,W, ,YYOq■1, • =KM= 611.1. Y 001gb OYL H■lw ■RAI■A. M./l! MIIT /O0f ■ • LD/MUL+COtIrYO • M /MWY • AS�fO/ . ••• 141a II. • Mall .01 Eal 40•00 WIL K( Vra••w at O ROOF SCREEN maw mama `I• m ocai m O CANOPY SECTION Mme- MILK. anal O GENERATOR SCREEN O DRIVE WALL i LANCE YUILLI. . A•ICC,ATf• •3a CR0.6. • 11.,,tt. _: wail" • 30. 330 3." S BEY CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATlJRALIZ4TICN SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 0500 TUICIUILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASFIINGTCN EXTERIOR SECTIONS Md M.rN416 3111 .. wo 444 OATS Mel oat. OMIT A4.2 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Ei F3 -nmf lWl. MK MM WWI W ao • •a aW • Wa ra MO 112.2 awl, Wt. ...WW1 as a 7.17 /Maw OW Mn a p .. w eau•Aw:a NW La •CAW Mn — as m•17 110 WIWI WON .. Cm- r 'y' a OCCI a 1► "WW1.. • WO WO Mn MMt r.aVIP . 01 • FMCS •1a M i Wee •11..M ..o WWI SW IWK ono O1. W O•AM. MC. - NW a• 0f M1 ••M W m / K w- 1. r• m1 mc.a um Iwo II WIT / Kw - .r i WI Wye. CL Wm ra um gm l• Imam moor olio WIC OM 007071$ W Caa. MC •r O. OM w ow WU. BUILDING SEdT OI_N WK. wit • .M mfr 1•0 MAW •.a WO. MI PIM, MIMIN pp e1� • ra w .r ▪ ••••• O ltV. = wan rams urw_r d w ••• B_JILDI G SECTION_ Y4 WW1 NM 4 1 ▪ • 4 mop a .we 1.a an. W OOL u • m aru. Wt* •us aw1 WNW ua Jo. WO ara.- •• • WC* •aa WIC ua o mi •.• LIP ••••• tad •f Wadi W QtDYW11C• ML aatM W 1•• aaw M W 1MmM nM W •••• WWII. WC to •uaM u• Pa a .n WON WY S — Kw .5- 11.. MWO Um ▪ sat. as � hLDING SEC ION WWII WOW MC MM /WW1 u■ rso{WC .1O Sin aaa 5—a WI VIM Ya n1M. Ma faO- a23 W NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. YuO•a war - um r• A4 ®BUILDIN er Mt mol AM an ••-••••••1 •10111•01 .A rM a.Ma ^ `n aaM w• ICI WIWI. ••• WI WA WM. m a. ■MY a . MO \r/ MaM Sc a•. �w Wes. •••• Kw -a.• MM 01117 was em u.. -1111. SECTION a..t• na•a..a • •••aC1A.11. � .BEY ��e►j� i CORPORATION - IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 6EATTLE D16TRICT OFFICE 17500 TIKWILA INTERNATIONAL 131-v0. !SEATTLE. WA9NU1'.TON ' " ` i ro., SECTIONS EXTERIOR SECTIONS WM A4.1 en =E RI ...1�.1 - 1311 1-011[1••• • MAMA. •• 11M22 • 204 JIB 211.3 UMW b aW OATS .O 111Ma OAT. Ei F3 -nmf lWl. MK MM WWI W ao • •a aW • Wa ra MO 112.2 awl, Wt. ...WW1 as a 7.17 /Maw OW Mn a p .. w eau•Aw:a NW La •CAW Mn — as m•17 110 WIWI WON .. Cm- r 'y' a OCCI a 1► "WW1.. • WO WO Mn MMt r.aVIP . 01 • FMCS •1a M i Wee •11..M ..o WWI SW IWK ono O1. W O•AM. MC. - NW a• 0f M1 ••M W m / K w- 1. r• m1 mc.a um Iwo II WIT / Kw - .r i WI Wye. CL Wm ra um gm l• Imam moor olio WIC OM 007071$ W Caa. MC •r O. OM w ow WU. BUILDING SEdT OI_N WK. wit • .M mfr 1•0 MAW •.a WO. MI PIM, MIMIN pp e1� • ra w .r ▪ ••••• O ltV. = wan rams urw_r d w ••• B_JILDI G SECTION_ Y4 WW1 NM 4 1 ▪ • 4 mop a .we 1.a an. W OOL u • m aru. Wt* •us aw1 WNW ua Jo. WO ara.- •• • WC* •aa WIC ua o mi •.• LIP ••••• tad •f Wadi W QtDYW11C• ML aatM W 1•• aaw M W 1MmM nM W •••• WWII. WC to •uaM u• Pa a .n WON WY S — Kw .5- 11.. MWO Um ▪ sat. as � hLDING SEC ION WWII WOW MC MM /WW1 u■ rso{WC .1O Sin aaa 5—a WI VIM Ya n1M. Ma faO- a23 W NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. YuO•a war - um r• A4 ®BUILDIN er Mt mol AM an ••-••••••1 •10111•01 .A rM a.Ma ^ `n aaM w• ICI WIWI. ••• WI WA WM. m a. ■MY a . MO \r/ MaM Sc a•. �w Wes. •••• Kw -a.• MM 01117 was em u.. -1111. SECTION LANCE 1212 LLLLL a .511a0CtaTta L__ z■/■./N • • C 4. 130 lakCSont • .12•51212. 555 115122 • 2011 325 2555 SABEY CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TUKWILA INTERNATIC7NAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 1. '". • 1 . 1 ••• ...1, OVA, ...Won 1 1 - 1 Polo 1.5.3 SITE SIGNAGE 5"m Al 5 . _ •••/•Ien doIe Clopleyee Parting o jy BUS ACCESS PARKING GARAGE A -------- ..... ....... ...... ....... PROJECT SIGN A PARKING GARAGE ACCESS orour. MOS wen mew scooter WS Ion - OAS Ella VAS Iel,l1O.VIS Sok SW LT Posta ...MS Mr. MM. IA NM OA OA MAL IOU b. war aut Ru ALAS IL. IC IN SO ION I InAl A 10.-olAo■IDI ARM 1431. Au IRO nel ■111.11 aual515.11•504 n+001 CR2....5.12 =Xi las as. 111■1 Moot MA A- A.A. Mona FILIN la MI SO NOV NO OW EMPLOYEE ENTRY SIGN EMPLOYEE PARKING n==4\\ .0•51. m51.55•ARD Imen 5 1.555rt my • ORS a.s. IGO ...01mv510 U"s5 AIN — wolf ernIS An +MI. A 1011104 OEM Ora. to. NM. 415025‘ •111 VAIL - FAS Aso IOLA 10. 41..11 SAA. 1 MOS MKS OA MAO soo Iltuoi KIM Is•AO I I I 8.5 Acoms 11 0 a Aro SOSO■Ilf isal OW la.. lallS Alaft 10.• 10,-IIILS.110 SOL •LIS elotif ro.010 II. AMIE PUBLTCENTRYilail NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 4A. 116.0.1■4 KIDS Ir. ow( 5. W. =MAI 24 *mew car - VAS 205.5 50“5004101305■122. 1 MOO I.NIO ANS PRIVATE DRIVE MO% toms e ma. NOMA .III MAIM. In. OM lay - Wei IIAA ims.toomolll SOL MAI PoollS HMIS AK IOUS slA FIRST FLOOR PLAN NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. LAMO3 °p3LLe" • •"°CATS• T i)T ►3 .I.P1J CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE OLA INTERNATICNAL DLVD. 0500 TUII SEATTLE. 11.1A614INGTON 4 FIRST FLOOR PU1 y N i � L � A2.1 3n _ F�P'L7� 1 31- "......, as' • 530 3AR33O[ • SEAMS. WA 11131 • au 311 3133 a3r•1 MD Mti DAM M1 *OM DAIS FIRST FLOOR PLAN NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. �._ c { SECOND FLOOR PLAN NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. � � ;;;:a SECOND FLOOR PLAN NIT A2.2 .A•=■ V • A••Op1AT•• - . y IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT CFFICE A500 TIKWLA NTERNATICNAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 1 - e, 2.1.841 .o +au[ Din .n 1114K 0An ' 120• ...MISS. • tuma, nw uLaa • aw 315 fnaa CORPORATION �._ c { SECOND FLOOR PLAN NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. L••`• ° °•..•" a "'• ° " " "' L7N/N/N Ile u•.uoa • •.•nu, r• wsaa • sw MI6 "•a slimy co R V O R A T 1 O N IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 17900 TUCLIILA INTERNATIONAL DL VD. SEATTLE WASHINGTON f (IR *j}A1 •��GG.�ii W» THIRD FLOOR PLAN "••' ' �" ""'^ • •r•• r° YaT OATS w0. Ya OMB _ THIRD FLOOR PLAN l i NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. L""" YULLLEN ` "'°"""' �j�{��i „i„.,� �iIIL� IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE SEATTLE. 17900 TIIOLILA INTERNATIONAL 6LVD. 6EATTLE. LUAR NWGTON N %a FOURTH FLOOR PLAN ��* an ^ j r 0/. A / K. � �>• uu�pt ..a•rtu. wok .»aa • to. ». Mal Cara .,O yaat DAM .0 NY rr I O - --- -- o -{ - -- r.S•s.0 a•.r y.r a•.r .I I FOURTH FLOOR PLAN r.,: r* ••• ya T tra r rr Oa rr � r rri Jfl.0 rr JCr— •• I MCA NAT Y-c ! rr iy rr near r ri r.r COG =MN V. r{lrttr We a !! Rr NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. —P J ar STAR f mm oe PARKING LEVEL ONE PLAN O 9- - -f -I J 1 Mt PARIONG GED PARKING - L(r - ---- Tk- - - - - -- DATA/ CLIII IaL a t l 1 Ira NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. r{ re sr ti ••C• IIUrLI•II a •••OCI•TO• • ' ' Iw wcTanr • arnnTa, ra wlaa • MI Mae aaaa S . n �� CONPONATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT CFFICE RS00 TIXUULA INTERNATIONAL MVO. SEATTLE, IIlA6NWGTCN ,.,, !{�.� 6 1M w a PARKING LEVEL ONE PLAN IIKrT A2.5 — a " _ iiE " d a•a.a yp rat DAN rn Sea an J ar STAR f mm oe PARKING LEVEL ONE PLAN O 9- - -f -I J 1 Mt PARIONG GED PARKING - L(r - ---- Tk- - - - - -- DATA/ CLIII IaL a t l 1 Ira NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. r{ re sr ti PARKING LEVEL TWO PLAN 1 LAAIC■ MOULLr11 t "SOCIAL,. 1!O LAA.00, UUATTLr. WA MI]r rM 111 fw S4 BEY CORPORAT $OH IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 6EATTLE DI6TRICT OFFICE R5DO TU013LA INT ERIAATIORAL DLVD. LEATTLE. yjApHPGTQ RONAN PARKING LEVEL TWO PLAN .0 au DAM WWI DATE ►alt A2.6 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. _OOMc • Si, PARKING LEVEL THREE PLAN vr.r -r NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. LAM C• YU•LLIN A A10 OCIAT•• L_"./N/N tap LA CC • want. 1•A 08133 • 201 320 3163 SLBEY CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 1250 TUOULA INTERNATIONAL DLVD. SEATTLE. WAANMGTCN Y+ i•121 PARKING LEVEL. THREE PLAN YpT NO own own A2.7 saw MX . . | I | | | | | | ROOF PLAN am wow Law M. coop. Mt. 14740.1 Moraelala GMT -Oa MOO. act. IVA .4., .--' |''---'---'---|--''--�'---- --'---'---'--| u / x WE~~ _ _03.■~ = | �.| � ) cz L_J / ` ~~ IF THE DOC MENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT Lail Mot ..�.|| --_-'__'''L_'_---__'---� - - ' }� i \ ) . ' | | | | | | | | ` ^^= ^""``"^ ~ ^^^^"'~^^ I IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE ���,= ��T . 2.1 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN MEET A2.8 ur" ,~=^ ^ ~~ ~~� ' ,t^ � . .�^��~' Mat ." •~~....~. _ _ ����/ o° 11.1.-= ,.., 411.111 =~ ~. lai~ =M saw MX . . | I | | | | | | ROOF PLAN am wow Law M. coop. Mt. 14740.1 Moraelala GMT -Oa MOO. act. IVA .4., .--' |''---'---'---|--''--�'---- --'---'---'--| u / x WE~~ _ _03.■~ = | �.| � ) cz L_J / ` ~~ IF THE DOC MENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT Lail Mot ..�.|| --_-'__'''L_'_---__'---� - - ' }� i \ ) . ' | | | | | | | | r - I L I: '•147, ' ••'• , • • •••••••2 1 6E E 2 53- 0 22,2" ,2 0.2. \ •-t •1,;," • r • V s l i • . • 0 12) • Ji * /:e \. , • /7 • PL (.--- , 6; 20 6 1.151.fk 'f"G5 .• / 550,20E5 OL,E T.g5 7 21.21202 ;1 • .• 1"" - • - •<' .;,.• 2 C ..c :.276 \ " / / 1 491 ;la= -sr 6 a li • C5 _ I . _ TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD •-•• I— i .■—•• • I • 1 • •• I I • of1 • • 1 2 I ....• WUIU.II ASIO�IATIS LWN ISO 1,1(25101. • 5261 'on 95112 • 206 223 20!3 SI13EY CORPORATION Ir-11-1!GR.z.".:TION 4N117) N4TUR.:4_!Z•••TION SE FR /ICE E.E.::771.E " CCCE s• IC;. N..1.S7. WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP: iMISCUM31$111 0.22012.12121.121. 19111RIMIIIMARC 2.11allat 1111 LANDSCAPE PLAN f , 6.4E r L1.01 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. j RECEIVED • - ITV OF TUKwILA 77'%1' ' J AN - AN 3 1 2003 ''RERIAIT CENTER / • / • .- • 14 • ; : _ • •,. 3 4Ih s KIM 0' IS 37 67 97 SCALE f- 30 -17 i ; ! • • • • - "e•gcte e ' • ; clsr4/zeere-c ';;..e.; • Mb. et. av, ea - .6 " .f.<:•574 ••• 'a? • 3:63.••■••••i020007•0••0••■•1 6:• ;4, 0 ii■ Cri " 2" •••■• 1 -- ?-t•;?* 3- 1:17 -- --.. ... --- • itC - '''''.'c ----- --.4 — — l'..,. --- ..(7...:. e - 7- • . ....._ ...-- ' * , ,':!'!■ . . ''':••„, `*--1 ... " - . - .=. - - 1 ." --- E 10 5 .;; C•.61 ? ! ..W.... 5 T 'GEE .E -- 1 - r rd'.11 6.2:1G :.5 • cloi:4 • • ' 4 -- AGE.T.T._ . WEEMS e • 2E 63ED •17 30 6 1. - • .0. . . 0 ...; . • • . •••••••21:-.6,66.3. :34301• If: i' 1-------__.„.2-I ll - 1 .4 ./ . 2: r, ; r - I _ • • - • • • - . -• • • ! I • - . • ir) F • • , . • • • , • • C - • ; ... • s 7 ' : • • ; •-■ • I • • • OD, eta ..... • 1,2) (fi S tick ootattiecleeeri t X ___ .__._ __ • 1 : - NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. • _ . . � XI 1,4 'TM FrLIF r.3a-Ct .•- .6 . L*1113 • MUULl.I IAT E, L/ • • • • 1 • 1 • 130 1..3.3510( • 53•1333. 0o. 05122 • 256 325 2553 SABEY CORPORATION Mr- 4ND N4TURALIZ4TION SERVO 5E.1.77:_r7 CroTRiC CIE !2•5,•:= - ,..<4:....4.51 , ..aev.47•47.N.:, EL/. WEINAN DESIGN GROUP: Us=14110EIRRIE 61•1•1•111•01131 11.1•11.11111101•1. 133.112111123•1•23101 wrrnINIMIKISCI. LANDSCAPE PLAN • 5.5-E 5-ES L1.02 - _ - - -ruKivER1400144-131,-Yti. a-- -- -a- II— - • _ L.-- - - 0__O TREE PLANTING f B CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING CONIFEROUS 0 SHRUB PLANTING ?•: 0 ... ) , C.•••••so. Soo. - roo•-o- *MO 1.00 -g; •-•••••••0 e•oa ert=a-KAa• — ugs vases sar ‘04 '• GENERATOR LANDSCAPE SCREENING a•es ••■• • ,•••,..-••••• It•ccro•••ates ori„,e14, glace N'eri evcE MOROI 0 .1 (Z)__ ON A SLOPE j w1.1 :I! ta N. 4.• Oa V& wWWW1 I r I " a: • Ai ! L • • I, "•••••••••••••• •••"•''' • i 0. I 1 ••••••—•••- (19 CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING ON A SLOPE .S M!!!! ;I: r It ; . ••••,--otraa• •••• DAY. WO Let3whaff .1 WA ad.< MOM walc carat ma rod K MAW wet •• swe cract a arm,. WT,12 WA.G. - : -s■' : '..! . , = .,- \ ._ . . , „. 4 v . „ • ,,--,—.....\.,, , ......4, .•,..._,,,_,. AtT 5 .EE CCVERLOE P.O..E4T 57E. ACV .1.1:00 CNA. W.BWPW.1 ...NCI, 4,0, ewe,* C. Sewn .A•e• Cc GENERATOR SCREEN WALL TREE PLANTING IN PLANTER C-%CrP 0545■55 KECLI MEC ■20.. O. 5TE, CAKC CC IPEES ...L..05E0 NEW POSES W.VA./. CM AWAWSLA ••‘•••• Ww•WW, wet.70 • o .., --- • K....a...a ••-•K ::::•=7;7......7.... O .......*..... O ..----- -....— :::::---..-=.7. --..- O ....... .--t....."-=r...-...••••• o •••-•-. *---............. .........-.... o •,.......... ,.............. ...***. • ......• •---- .-.....-. .......-:-.......- o .....--- ---....-• w v.v. w er eye.. e ww.l.wwww•ww.wWw WAWW. ...w e ww.wwww. W.A.. Wow wwo w ....,Z ow A 1:77.V..nr...:: e• •••••• ....a..., '''.....'... =1 ... - ......="... e •■•■■•........... .....e.../••••• t . ....... a. ww.....,-.... 0 ........--....--- .---•-• '''"--"'""":"'-"'"'" (" SHRUB PLANTING IN PLANTER 60 S. TIPS Loall 6-7SS *.7s, • say, • G5256 S. 75 S. (12, RAY•ANG %OTC! ILL WEST LO.OS.C.LPE 4•£ *0 OE WL,E.ED 4TM La .0.0 WATER CONSEa ..•00-41.5 5.55E.• 2 CL NEW SK.GO OROVO COdER • -tar To Os SU.C..• Via P5101,1r OE,. C. 6 MS-Ca RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWIIA JAN 3 1 260 pER490i":" TER r••••7•1••• • 0 - 0 0 =-••••••• 0 _5500.-JPES5 - 11.52.1110. ::: ,.....74:••■■•■ WSTpond t5nd3cu15c kr,10e dpw • ......•■•■■■•• wan ova 0. I cnOsc cpe Schecigle A e 1:; • .■••••••••■■••-er Wow.. w.w....... W SWIasfew•ACWWWww WNW, WowARAWW4 illwAareeniM wOOLS Anall! WWIA.A.W7 W1cAi/N, WW•NreWww‘ WNW. ILW 41.(w/1.0 eafs• WW1AW• 01. w as•NOAS • meow we '7•7.=::::::••••••■••• NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. awl. ▪ .■•••• WW,AWW.Awww. : NAW :row w • w ...ow ••••••••• •covei.oeetne. ...ow IlwArAwwW Ow. www www ••• • • • • • • ::::: ATS1 L../N/N/N ISO LAKESIDE • sEAE WA 5512: • 206 325 2553 SAtBEY CORPORATION :rimIGR4T ON .AND N2*'' TUR4L I Z 4TION SE RVIC::-E C=!CE WOSMAN DESIGN CROUP; laraRAICROM rtmllunalaarn atarlag al.100724.,K70. •10.47■••aat LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS 5-Er • L1.04 LANCE MU LLLLL •a A•110 SIAM L /N./N./.■ sit BEy CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON .... LOCATION MAP MEET C 1 _ : ....•■• _ 130 LAKESIDE • SEATTLE. WA 98122 • 208 325 2553 '..* . NO rSSUE DATE NO. ISSUE DATE a NORTH NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEARIHAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 31 2003 PERMIT CENTER DAMD EVANS AND ASSOCIATES MC •411 sat SVPM. ■•••an .... 04::sprztirri; AO lai I Iv " PROJECT SITE THIS AREA S SHOWN ON MAP NUMIER 530=0957 A ...... ri m.. . a II= l'irup ii IN Ner N 011111 lip I i ►i " I ' ' I f l ilIIIIII i l 1I I ij11 0 I i I ''III Ill; i ll� fll' ` 6 a 1! (II t II f I tl l l i l i d i I� II Iii o 1 I 1 i I I, II1 111. 1 1 1 01101,111,111 i Ii II i 1 Ili I I'Ill'iri 1 � rl I I i 11101.1! l t�! i t I' I III '< 'ii! II 1 I p II Ira f.I 1 1 1 1 ICI li hi 1 MIA maim 1114 nom & .... u MIMI 7 . 0 . 1 - gx-- Ma MI THIS AREA IS SHOWN ON IMP NUMIER 53033C0959 _ ■-‘14111 _ 1 / 1 P 1 a MIL um I gig ®1 Im I I Jr' \ 41 ,....... - PI ill u " 2 3 LANDS MUILL1112 A••OCIATO4 130 LAKESIDE • SEATTLE. WA ISIS! • 206 325 2553 swx IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON FLOOD PLAIN MAP 11 /111., SKEET 'MVO ISSUE DATE ISSUE DAM NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 I 2 PERMIT CENTER a C) F2.1 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOOATES. TIC MP WO, MOICS".•■11. OMOY *AWN LANCE 4 8 ASSOCIATED sit BEy CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE A 70 ,! -- TAX PARCEL MAP 51W C3 •■•■■ I— ........ SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON • NOMIT•C T• •I A 130 LAKESIDE • SEATTLE. WA 98122 • 200 325 2553 f IMAM ISSUE DATE 14 ISSUE DATE C:o FC1 . — r n n I I I I I I I I I I _ weranT1 'art I —1" PITCPCSED LOT I 31 AC M=NCD MZMW2C=M t2Cni =E= M7MV7=S,•• wmmtic wrawc,,-wm-ra -nfl WIM!T,=1 M17•WSST:M1=17 ME.M•G,TL,44E,2= =930=31,6MIM1,3114 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 PERM4T CENTER DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATED WC KA 0.7 0•0144.11*Mawl•el ash tra.M.•••••• LANCZ 9/DILLON I All•OCIATE• L._/ \ / \./.■ 130 LAKESIDE . SEATTLE. VOA 90122 . 206 325 2555 s a k BEy CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TUKWILA INTEFtNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON A Ic.!,.ii) :4 .... EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN SNEET C4 ...... 4 ....... „„, DIP,' 11 ,e. at ..4.• .1/41•1 ITO DADE DATE DO ISSUE DATE n/ww■N■mw il! 1 ,11i I ir ! I ------- .... .. -- It! - - - - - - - - • HJLOIND 21-04 ,) ..;;.21.;.1.',.. • • . . / '. - ----' ' - "'-- ....„. :. ---- !------_ -- ▪ ",., : .•-;.:::-,--- '' . '''''.:.:., L., - 1 :-.--- ' '" --f-:---.;_)_!---.7.*--_;--.6-cr\wf ,._1 --..---'----.•-:::illiimmiA .:!-. -:•':::::::::::=,------;:-----i--\\-\----\A-ca-r1-co‘ ..., ,1\,,.._,A,,z,7‘.0.‘w.,... _.___\.. I/ F .,... A so ..;,...--- \\‘\ VA --, itW_‘.1■\M: -'. . ..: - - \\\%\\\ --, ,".' .. 00\ '•*..\)-.. \\\\., -....-----, :\,.....,r • 4 .. -. ..-,-.---- ....--• _.-- ' ...• ---- \ i : . . . . .-, : : -: : % . . .- . . , .- 5 \\ V■ , . t g . . ? ; c ? \ .\ - ''f' - - ..":" ." `■ ; :l 111.11.1:11Mg0 131-21221 2H:6 — 7,— • ■ ▪ - . • >75. ' • , ; I . . • ■ - - --•`- eux, • NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 8 1 2CiO3 NI C3 I71-1 1••••■••••1■1 • • PEROT CENTER DAVID EVANS MID ASSOCIATES INC los *In loar.....ww. am an room L•11CD YU EEEEE E. A••13CIATE• i..._"./■./N 130 LAKESIDE - SEATTLE. WA 95122 • 205 325 2553 sABEy CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TUKVVILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 141 .... PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C5 ....., .1171771„,,,,==1113177111 MI Mr IMM .......r M i■i MMI — .■.■1 _ ..... DO ESSUE DATE 00 DIAL DAIS • : - _ I - EARTHWORK OURITMES, Rtni. St LOOP OH '.. \ \ / / i .: .. .. . -.. ' I I I I : . • • / • \ “r" / — ..... . ... : . ....... • ............ . ' : • • =11 " • . . . fi • ; ; 7 • 02 / , NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 PERMIT CF.JITER c■Ft aath : 8 j • 7. ; —0 :I.:,• II I ; 4 - -•tf-- f —f- i . : fl .,.,f -... -........-.... . . ... 0*110 SEMIS MID ASSOCIATES,OC LANCE MUELLER it Ef•OEIETE• L_/N/N./N 130 LAKESIDE • SEATTLE. WA 95122 • 206 525 2555 sixEy CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 4 n• .• PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SKEET C6 ...... 11/6/11 ha ISSUE DATE NO ISSUE LIME , • . .... . .. - • . • • • . JK .- • • . ... .... ...... _ - • • ..... — ••" ... . "- • 10: — . • 1W. A I: • .... ... ..... .......... - ... . „ .......... . .... ....... • : 7'•• • 4344:11 1°411 4111#11111118 114A 114 lAdri liArTff" l: ......... ; .... . .. .... • • .V1 .. .... ••. Ls ., F ..... .. ........ .. ■■■••• - 7 7: ....... ........... ..... . .......... ... ..... ......... ... , . • . .. ............ • ..... ... ... t • . . ........ . . : 1■101R:TF-1 • X X PERMIT CENTER / i ; I ..... :* . ----- . . : .... ... ........ ... ..... _ .. ...... . ................... . . ___...._ . __•• _ •__• ._• — _ _ — 1 • . ••••.. .••. _..____ • • • • • • . NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TLIKVVILA N 3 1 2003 DAVID EVAN! AND ASSOOATES. SC KT NIX 1.•••• •■• OVA XXI,* LANCE YU LLLLL 11. •••OCIATE• 32 5 2553 sit,BEy CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 12500 TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON Of 5fteco, .. COMPOSITE UTILITY PLAN SIEET C7 .... ••-•-■•• ., 130 LAKESIDE • SEATTLE. WA 90 In • SOO !.....••••• ... ',!". MO ISSUE DATE NO ISSLE DATE 1,............. ,..3 • • ''''''''''''''' • .. • •`: --4 •-■ • 0 ” --- -v • • • • !:,' cs, . -.;...: ri 0 - .----'"-',..4,..-,.-- ---,i- .,...... _... _ •-• .. • - '-..----;.:..:. . .."-.- .. .... : „ . ^ . I._ . .-_:." .. 7:7: -,::': ''.:•.-`:!- .................................. ":.; • ''''' 17 . . ...... ........ ;.• , •r• - • •., 7.7 ............ : .... ... . 1 , .. ........ * 4 , / < . : J." 6. • ..... ..... ...................... •"' ....... ! ! I 1 / / / NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKLA JAN 31 2003 peRisT,OENTER IV CO Ft -r1-1 34ch %Ike 1 I _ I • ••• . . 1 I - , ....... , 10...1. I I . 1 I - —I-- TUKWILA INTERNKBONAL BLVD —5--5--- ________ _ -- ____ . . _ . . OA= EVr MO ASSOCIATES. INC wwwwww, Lc::D..DDDA..DCiATD: SBEY CORPORATION IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE I2500TUKWILAINTERNATIONALBLVO. SEATTLE. WASH - � COMPOSITE UTILITY PLAN O LADETEDE TDATTD. WA DDTAA • TAD TAD zaaa "' NO DalE DATE NO OTUE DATE 1 - 3 I- I.. ••' ZlA —•/ RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 3 1 2003 pFJMTCENTR TT-ft - .-•--T .. ...... -- ---- __--_;_ -- 1. -- -- - _TTTr-. -- •• —.. - - --. - --- ----- 0 - ----- — -- - - - - - - • • - -- -- - — - -F ,/ _r AVTOENO9000alOCIATESWC - - - - - - --- - - -- - - - - - F - --- ----- - --- - - -- NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 1111111111 1 1111M1 WI F .1 4 � �� n i ..>.�� =s> rrG' w= s> �V.4411117.1MI ' � ii�rti - � ,,.' ms liiST t _�l�a�� } � ' • r Ma I I 111111111 P 44 * tat . • .... oi .. , , i , •^.�.�\ � Z .t..� N ){ O. 1 (5 Y4) ort or e.� a � ,r„K -lT£ - M� %M f y+• r 11 / '4 cf . 4 • I N / ,.� ±4t• _ � / ` °' c•7r` , h[>-- ``-mil yq kAi .�� • �- ..,y: a ` .° y /z OOr • / 1 3 • .C'N.0 „ ALVA. (ricrc Nrr s rN e � — ice' , • \, i S �V MI � a t 1 � t rJl • �/ � 0 • D O ERV C -a7 3/" 4 IMMO i I < -Ye alma COM +: • M ESSORL- M AP eu. V 11 M '• � IOtlt DATE NO. ONE DATE ria RAF Ir tl 0 MOP 430 L44CC [ • StATSX. rs 48122 • aos ias 2322 • . Lag 0 s SEATTLE DISTRICT CFFLCE- 125 TtKIUILA MTERNA1ICt3AL BLVD. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON • • • NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. t; .. 1 DEC 11 ap "O.tr 1 L s - - A Lame* tau LLL•IL t L•.-acsara• •53 LAKESIDE • SEATTLE. WA •5122. 204 323 2533 • 4 1 i! ;•It ' a`ill '`d,u.' twF \t E •�t"�': - I^-' .� 7Rwr�rrr.� v PA (tool _ - ' rio +�v�...�s " CIfIC HY 5 ,lyfC RNAT/q p/LA 1 L -11 " i I i . . cox 17 TT p • 1 II'I' LL'LIy �..•L ^� � (! ; l ,. 4 11" A • =—�`_ -to • • ..� , •.1' • X11j 1,11P � I.11 1 1 1 n'1 '1 at 1'1 � ' J 1 I.�� � • 1" ",841' dd ili9q� ° l:, ; ;ti4' 4•I' - 3 P1' Ci''111111111�`i'1∎,n1 11�,111'l' ='. , ate ' •?. 1,; "� j4 11}i1 . 44411,,. 4,1 a >' I • Chi EV OPE Ery -I L F A MI y E - SjptN — �. =ter ;Y ONFOWA"LlON_ IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE OEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE I2500_J1P11_G INTERNATIONAL, 8L•. SrdTT , Lu,UHINGTOM - — - .... . / 3 SS P. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. s =r DEC 1 9 2002 1 CU - 1 Nork4 NIMit Zoning of INS Site • GIS Tukwila , P PI I d I rori FILE NUMBER OR NAME OUT LOO -v FILE NUMBER OR NAME OUT DATE OUT TO FILE NUMBER OR NAME OUT Nl� UPC 53910 No. 225 -OG 111 HASTINGS. P NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. tio.22S- OGHAMM — LOS ANGELES ®Ilse,©H.® fil@OREGOR TX. — LOCUST GROVE, OA. t9. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. I _ ..,..r A i - is 4 ,E ..... 44: :: E.7 r ME tio.22S- OGHAMM — LOS ANGELES ®Ilse,©H.® fil@OREGOR TX. — LOCUST GROVE, OA. t9. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. f L02-0055 35mm Drawing #1 if Figure 2. =rt ttfr i TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD 1A•0 11.11 4,11 New building configuration and vicinity. ' 1111 v ;:.. ) 3 4 5 6 mm Drawing uti! Basin Boundary 1.14 .1:11 ' b� ei ii. 14 ' s ii III I 1..01[IIlI i.IIIJIIll.IIIII.IIIIIIIiII InI.nli.1110nililn ....a_....�:�L':.,,4•t,^�,. :!i?;�,i:?x�L'%;rr;ga:�: ?: �7 ?'1•' ?'S3,..y.,.„ did .$'.iY'i.� +:ra'<"'.�.T+'..jY���n. .v� »•T c''stt��'?n7�'T" t`":� s " �" ,. ... ......., " •- +'KLi7 � .Y�. P��'T1415t�F 6I IIII I!lI IIIIIIJIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIltpII IIIIIIiIII, IIIIIILIIIIII !IIIIIIIIIIIlIIIII_ • I. hlli•i I•, I \ I .R F O N S I Oh \1 \VA I Ill\ i JAI I IN :• \ \:\(iI.:N I' PL;1"! •. 1c1.'7 5 I— N In BOEING FIELD/ KING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Lake Washington Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 1917 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 84TH AVE S h CITY OF TUKWILA SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . " J111.1.1111..111.1 IIIIIIII IIIIIIII�IIII 111111111 II11 1.1. I. I111IIIIJ IIIIIIIIII! I, IIJIIIJJJI !ll!IIIIII1Iiiii liiI I_.__, PERIMETER SEATTLE— TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT • LEGEND SE CBD TUKWILA CITY LIMITS MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND CREEK CORRIDORS Ce i DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY figure • • • • s.,r ". • rawing ,. • .,• 1111 1111111111111 ii "i'i T ITT it it .41. 1 0).11. 11 iiii Iii!I!!I!IIJiIIIII IiIJ.IJjjl ti i.ijii ji ' ; • . '• • • . ' • ' • • , • ' • • -• 9'9 C2r 0 '9 %3 aa , SIP . Olt Si AO 1-I /It =MA mss. tglia0 SY 0• 007. sY ' t td - Tk 13 c 0 .2 1 v O y ► r C � 3 o•e a7 - $b -t jtCtN 6'9 X s 9/+ X fr as \' - \ \\ N N \� ` ��\ � \ \`1 N \ \ \ \ 1 \0 rawing • { Drwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Proj. No. 2579-31C Checked RAC Date 8/30/00 Plate 2 B -1— i — Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E- 2579 -31, May - July 2000 TP -1— 1 — Approximate Location of ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. E- 2579 -31, May 2000 • Subject Site 30 60 Approximate Scale 75 150 LEGEND 60 70 80 300ft. r Cross Section Line (See Plates 3 thru 5) 90 I Proposed Building Existing Building 100 ;721-05 1 20 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black &white reproductions of this plate. 20 .. 110 PA GfIG 30 1G \AW AN s. lsa 99, I . II ` .50 40 120 C' L 1 1 7 \ 34th AVENUE S. L IB -9 ' oT - - - - -- . _ T\ 1, U 80 90 Earth Consultants, Inc. Geolechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists Boring and Test Pit Location Plan International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington • I I I I I - I 111 � I 'I 1 1 1 f 1 1.1 l I l l CI I III - l II 1 1 Ill Ill 1 l r - 1TI - Ili. Ill 1 ; s I I I I I I .l.l � � 1�.. I � ... 21 (` L... ` ' ) 41 I 1 111 �. I ' I i i _ 51 • I �. . I .61 Inch - 1/113 V 56 q" L .. ` BY .J 6 L 9 ,;9 9 E . Z I• W o • II Illl�llll 111.1Ill)11111111.1.1.11. 111 1 .1L1i11111111�1111111111, 1IIIII�� .IIIII111)10.h.1ll.1.1l1011 ► 1IiII�N�� f , 7i Drwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Proj. No. 2579 -31 Checked RAC Date 8/8/00 Plate 3 A Proposed Access Approximate - oad Proposed Finish Grade (Boring Silty SAND ___ _- Horizontal Scale 0 15 30 Vertical Scale SILT 55 ?.- 51 SILT 15 30 6 FILL ` I FILL a Silty SAN Z 34 I i 21 —., 17 23 24 21 24 28 33 30 Lean CLAY 2e 39 9 - - =� Silt s _ _ _? Poorly Graded SAND with Silt 60ft. 60ft. (Boring 13.1 Offset 100' S.) B -I (Boring 13•2 Offset 36' N.) B -2 16 16 21 22 60/6.6' 82 1 1 -•' -- Fat CLAY` r Approximate Footprint of Proposed Building 7 FILL 84 69 Silty SAND 34 SILT Lean CL749- - ? .M._ ........ __ •ai -9 23 25 31 22 32 8 SILT NOTE: The stratification lines shown on this cross section represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions may be either more gradual or more severe. They are based on our interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered at the individual boring locations and our judgement and experience. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of the data by others. Existing Asphalt Drive NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Existing Grade Existing Building Existin 1 91 Asphalt Drive I . A — 120 — 90 — 60 W O — 30. w. -0 —,30 Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists Cross Section A -A' j International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington 1 ., 11 I11I i iIIi . f . Inch 41 LJP1_;11.1I'i IIIIIIIlIIIi ,Iiiiilill,illl.1111,1 llii)aIilii illllllii. ' I1 �Ii h � I'II 'iIl111[11 a c s 5 v e > z we I l ,r v. r'�a.I I I (illl Ili' l Ili l!llIJIlI IIILIJI)I. Ill,iliilI)I.11 � • liil Jlll Iiiillll iili� Drwn. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Proj. No. 2579.31 Checked RAC Date 8/8/00 Plate 4 150 — 120— w 90— LL z O W 60— 30 — 0— Approximate Proposed Finish Grade Horizontal Scale 0 15 30 Vertical Scale 0 15 30 Access Road Sandy S.IL SILT 7- - 60ft. 60ft. Silty SAND with Gravel 13.6 Offset 80' N.) B-6 10 3 Lean CLAY 9— — , T SW SAND 4 6 23 29 7 43 CT NOTE: The stratification lines shown on this cross section represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions may be either more gradual or more severe. They are based on our interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered at the individual boring locations and our judgement and experience. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of the data by others. Approximate Footprint of Proposed Building 8 Existing Grade (Bering 8•7 Offset e6yS.) _ B -7 11 8 L. Silty S AND with Gravel 7 Sandy S IL with Gravel 9 . Lean CLAY 16 7e G acial TI!! ? i 78/10 Glacial Till r NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Approximate Proposed Finish Grade Existing Parking ti4 Lot —150 —120 — 90 iu u W . z 0 —60 w — 30 0 Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists a Environmental Scientists Cross Section B - International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington ■ I II °II( Il�I I(TII,I I I 1116 v [J,atVl:yi'' no um I:II 1:I I'II:III III:11 I:1,1771 I' I I'III!II l`I Illll.liii LLII I�LII ,I III , II11.11�111IIIIII(il l l llli.I !Illlll.11�lllll _ z,. • Drwri. GLS Date Aug. 2000 Proj. No. 2579 -31 Checked RAC Date 8 /8 /00 Plate 5 120 — 1 90 60 — 30— 0— C Property Line 150— I -/ Approximate IP Proposed Finish Grade (Borin 8.13 Offset 40'N.) B -13 3 F /LL 2 2 SILT ?- - _ ?- - Horizontal Scale •_ 0 15 30 Vertical Scale 0 15 0 30 as Silty SAND with 60ft. 60ft. FILL SILT 9 - - . can CLAY - - _ Sandy; SIL T with Organics i 1 - 6/10' S/ - -- = \ 746676- . / g-- ._; - 1 .;; .x.. ILT --- Gravel:!:..�.__ 73 — — Fat CLAY --- \ -- -9 61 SILT - (Boring B -6 Offset 26' N.) B -5 5 6 3 5 3 - 3 2 Silty SAND Possible Colluvium 74 61 FILL NOTE: The stratification lines shown on this cross section represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions may ne either more gradual or more severe. They are based on our interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered at the individual boring locations and our judgement and experience. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of the data by others. Existing Grade Approximate Footprint of Proposed Building 9 FILL -- \ — SilfySANDwithGravel - - -�� --- \ \ - _� =�- -r- _2= ? - - -_ __ r (Boring B-8 Offset 60'S.) B -8 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the Information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. • 9 4 0 Silty SAND 11 1a - - - ? FILL, 21SILT Silty SAND (Boring 13-9 Offset 66' N.) B -9 22 24 29 Silty SAND yo � 7Silt _ i ; - - - 1--- ... silty S ND 26 - — — — — — — S ilty SAND Silty SAND - - - - � 1 S /LT - --4-- -_? —150 — 120 — 90 — 60 — 30 — 0 Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists 6 Environmental Scientists Cross Section C -C' International Corporate Campus East Tukwila, Washington '4 c r;Ii�i .dill .L:`. ' 51' 44 Li ZL L4' : iiI1111L1I 1i11I IIIII1iLLIU1IIILIi WI IN N 1,1 I11 ll WO III!lIIII1 111161, 111,111111 liiIIIIII 111 _IIIIIIIIII,III,IIIIIIIIII