Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E01-018 - OPUS NORTHWEST - OPUS OFFICE BUILDING AND PARKING STALLSE01 -018 OPUS PARK 5/405 1491O5fTAVS City �fTlkwi1a Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670 DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) File Number: EO1 -018 Applied: 07/19/2001 Issue Date: 12/18/2001 Status: ISSUED Proponent: OPUS NORTHWEST Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: OPUS OFFICE BUILDING- THREE STORY 69,920 SQUARE FEET AND 164 PARKING STALLS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 3.3 ACRE SITE. Location of Proposal: Address: 14910 51 AV S TUKW Parcel Number: 7661600061 , 7661600030 Section/Township /Range: NW 23 -23 -4 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. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by January 2, 2002 The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 December 18, 2001 Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21 C.075) doc: Miscperm E01 -018 Printed: 12 -17 -2001 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, LE S L /, . HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Project Number: g o l- o d Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Person requesting mailing: Planning Commission Agenda Pkt I E 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 /r'day of DECin the year 20 0/ P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: OPUS ,A f' Project Number: g o l- o d Mailer's Signature: X44102a { Person requesting mailing: il, l).1 / I E P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM City of Tukwila • Z('1 i U) I Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR OPUS OFFICE BUILDING I -5/405 File No: E01 -018 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposal includes construction of a three story 69,920 square feet office building and 164 parking stalls on an approximately 3.3 acre site. The first floor will be used for light assembly, repair, or storage of electronic equipment and the upper floors will be used for office space. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Opus Office Building I- 5/405. Applicant: Location: Andy Taber Opus Northwest LLC 915- 118` "Avenue SE Suite 300 Bellevue WA 98005 The project is located in NW quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. The project site is located on tax lot numbers 7661600030 and 7661600061, which are west of I -5 and east of 51' Avenue South. The street address is 14910 51' Avenue South, Tukwila. Zoning: The current zoning for the subject site is Office (0). Comprehensive Plan Designation: The current Comprehensive Plan for the subject site is Office (0). Notice: Notice of Application was issued on August 27, 2001. The following information was considered as part of review of this application. 1. SEPA Checklist dated July 18, 2001 and ESA screening checklist dated August 3, 2001. 2. Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Elevations prepared by Sconzo Hallstrom architects, Topographic /Boundary Survey and Sensitive area/Tree Survey prepared by Gerald C Retzlaff, Preliminary Grading, Paving, Drainage and Utility Plan prepared by Hugh G Goldsmith and Associates, Preliminary Landscaping Plan prepared by Site Studio Landscape 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • architects. 3. a) Preliminary Findings Geotechnical Engineering study dated November 15, 2000 prepared by Terra Associates Inc. b) Geotechnical report and site sections prepared by Terra Associates dated September. 21, 2001, c) Supplemental geotechnical review dated November 9, 2001, by Terra Associates analyzing grade transitions and impacts to groundwater as a result of placing fill on the site. 4. Level 1 Drainage Analysis and Stormwater Control Plan, prepared by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc, dated July 2001. 5. Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc, dated February 22, 2001. 6. Wetland Delineation report by B & A Inc. (Bredberg & Associates, Inc) dated 2/15/01, Peer review of the wetland report prepared by Adolfson Associates dated 4/25/01, Wetland/watercourse peer review memo by Gary Schultz dated 4/16/01, Addendum to wetland report by Bredberg & Associates, Inc dated 9/21/01, Wetland/watercourse review memo prepared by Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist dated November 20, 2001. 7. Handout on citrus longhomed beetle and plant quarantine; and new emergency rules adopted by Washington State Department of Agriculture. NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced above may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, 98188, Phone: 206 - 431 -3685. III. REVIEW PROCESS • The proposed action is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as the project does not meet the exemptions listed under WAC 197 -11 -800. In addition to the SEPA review the project is subject to Type 2 Director's Decision for piping a watercourse and the Design Review decision of the Board of Architectural Review. IV. BACKGROUND /PROPOSAL 2 The proposed office building is a three story 69,920 square feet building on an approximately 3.3 acre site. The building is proposed to be used for general office technology type business. The first floor will be used for light assembly, repair, or storage of electronic equipment and the upper floors will be used for office space. The proposal includes approximately 164 on site parking stalls and two truck docks on north and south side of the building. The site is accessed by two driveways along 51' Avenue South. The building is proposed to be 51 feet high concrete building. Due to the proposed grade and fill the building will appear like a two story building on the west side (along 515t Avenue South) and all three stories shall be visible on the east side (along I -5). On the west side the second floor of the building shall be directly accessed from the proposed parking that will be at the street level. The project site contains two Type 3 watercourses that flow from the west and a Type 2 watercourse segment along the east side within the WSDOT I -5 right -of -way that eventually flows into Gilliam Creek. There are two offsite wetland areas with some buffer areas extending onto the site: Type 2 wetland with a 50 feet buffer on the south side and Type 3 offsite wetland with a 25 feet buffer on the north side. No work is proposed to be performed within the wetlands or their associated buffers. The northern watercourse that is a maintained drainage channel with low riparian/habitat function is proposed for piping under the parking lot. Per Tukwila Municipal Code mitigation is required for piping to replace the open channel and its functions. The mitigation concept involves creating a new channel along the east side of the site. The details of the mitigation plan will be finalized as part of Type 2 Special Permission, Director's Decision. Fill material is proposed to be placed over most of the site area to achieve the construction grades. It is estimated to be approximately 20,000 cubic yards. The fill depth will range from a minimum of about 2 feet to the east to a maximum of about 12 feet to the west. A Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) system using geo -grid fabric mats is proposed to be used to stabilize the slope of the fill at the property lines. Preliminary drainage indicates that on -site runoff will be cleaned and will flow into an underground detention vault below parking on the east side of the proposed building. The vault will discharge to an existing Type 2 watercourse along Interstate -5 that eventually flows into Gilliam Creek. Traffic mitigation measures were identified in the traffic impact analysis, and the project shall include street frontage improvements along 5151 Avenue South; improvements to South 154th Street and 52nd Avenue intersection; and payment of a pro -rata contribution to the City's street improvement projects. 3 • 1 V. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements contained within the Environmental Checklist submitted for the proposed project. The numbers in the staff evaluation correspond to the numbers in the Environmental Checklist. If staff concurs with the applicant's response, this is so stated. If the response to a particular item in the checklist is found to be inadequate or clarification is needed, there is additional staff comment and evaluation. A. BACKGROUND: 1 -2— Concur with checklist. 3- Contact is also applicant Andy Taber, Opus NW LLC. 4 -6 Concur with checklist. 7 -This SEPA application is only for one 69,920 square feet office building. A separate SEPA application and review will be required for any future development that does not meet the exemptions listed under WAC 197 -11 -800. 8 —In addition to the information listed in the checklist, additional information is listed above under II) General information heading. 9— Concur with checklist. 10— Hydraulic Project approval from Washington State Department of Fisheries may also be required. 11 —The project was revised and the proposed building is 69,920 square feet with 164 parking stalls and a height of 51 feet. The building is proposed to be used for general office technology type business. The first floor will be used for light assembly, repair, or storage of electronic equipment. 12 -- Concur with checklist. 13— In addition to steep slopes the following sensitive areas are present in the vicinity of the project: Type 2 watercourse with a 35 feet buffer that is parallel to I -5; two east -west watercourses (Type 3) with 15 feet buffers; Type 2 offsite wetland with a 50 feet buffer on the south side; Type 3 offsite wetland with a 25 feet buffer on the north side. 4 • • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: a -d -- Concur with checklist. e— According to the Geo- technical report prepared by Terra Associates, fill material will be placed over most of the site area to achieve the construction grades. It is estimated to be approximately 20,000 cubic yards. The fill depth will range from a minimum of about 2 feet to the east to a maximum of about 12 feet to the west. Applicant shall follow all recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. A Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) system using geo -grid fabric mats is proposed to be used to stabilize the slope of the fill at the property lines. Applicant was requested to analyze other site development alternatives in order to reduce the amount of fill on the subject site. However, applicant concluded that there was no other satisfactory design alternative. In light of that applicant was asked to further address any environmental impacts of the proposed fill on the subject site or adjoining properties, specifically the applicant was asked to provide an analysis of hydrological effects of soil loading on groundwater at surrounding properties and downstream 1/4 mile. Applicant submitted a letter from their geo - technical consultant that was reviewed and accepted by the City's Public Works Department. The letter stated that placement of fill material on the site would have no affect on current groundwater seepage conditions or on adjacent properties. Also, prior to issuance of building permit, a traffic control plan shall be approved by the City's Public Works Department that shall address and mitigate all impacts associated with construction truck traffic. f -- The project shall meet all requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual related to temporary erosion control and all impacts associated with temporary erosion control shall be mitigated. g— Concur with checklist. h— Applicant shall follow all recommendations of the geo - technical report. All King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements shall be followed regarding temporary erosion control. 2. Air: a -c -- Concur with checklist. Applicant shall meet all Puget Sound Clean Air Agency requirements to address any emission to the air. 5 3. Water: a(1) - -The project site contains two Type 3 watercourses that flow from the west and a Type 2 watercourse segment along the east side within the WSDOT I -5 right -of- way that eventually flows into Gilliam Creek. There are two offsite wetland areas with some buffer area extending onto the site: Type 2 wetland with a 50 feet buffer on the south side and Type 3 offsite wetland with a 25 feet buffer on the north side. a(2) –Work will be preformed within 200 feet of the above described streams and wetlands. Compliance with applicable Tukwila Municipal Code(TMC) Sensitive Areas Ordinance will mitigate any potential adverse impacts associated with the project related to wetlands and streams. According to Tukwila Municipal Code the wetlands and streams present on site or in the vicinity of the site are rated as follows: Type 2 watercourse with a 35 feet buffer that is parallel to I -5; two east -west watercourses (Type 3) with 15 feet buffers; Type 2 offsite wetland with a 50 feet buffer on the south side; Type 3 offsite wetland with a 25 feet buffer on the north side. No work will be performed within the wetlands or their associated buffers. The northern watercourse that is a maintained drainage channel with low riparian/habitat function is proposed for piping under the parking lot. Per TMC mitigation is required for piping to replace the open channel and its functions. The mitigation concept involves creating a new channel along the east side of the site. The details of the mitigation plan will be finalized as part of Type 2 Special Permission, Director's Decision and all impacts related to piping will be addressed and mitigated during the Type 2 permit process. Also, attached to this staff report is the memo from Gary Schultz dated November 20, 2001, that details the analysis of impacts to wetlands and streams. a(3) -- Concur with checklist. a(4) - -The northern watercourse is proposed for piping under the parking lot. As discussed above compliance with Tukwila Municipal Code Sensitive Areas Ordinance that requires mitigation for the piping of a watercourse will address and mitigate any impacts associated with piping a watercourse. a(5) -a(6)— Concur with checklist. b (1) —The project shall meet all King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements and follow all recommendations of the licensed geo- technical engineer incase any groundwater is encountered during any site excavation or during the construction of the underground detention vault. 6 b(2) -- Concur with checklist. c (1) – There are two east -west watercourses that traverse the property and according to Tukwila Municipal Code they are considered Type 3 rated watercourses and are not just drainage channels. All surface water drainage design for the storm water run- off will meet the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements. Detailed review of the drainage onto and off the site will be designed by the applicant's licensed engineer and reviewed by the City during construction permit review. At this time a preliminary drainage analysis and stormwater control plan has been reviewed. On -site runoff will be cleaned and flow into a detention vault and be released at existing run -off rates. The vault will discharge to an existing Type 2 watercourse along Interstate -5 that eventually flows into Gilliam Creek. The project site is entirely within the Gilliam Creek sub -basin of the Green River Basin. The project site is located approximately .25 miles upstream of the main stem of Gilliam Creek and about 1.5 miles upstream of Gilliam Creek's confluence with the Green River just south of the I -405. c(2) -- The project will meet all erosion and sedimentation control requirements of King County Surface Water Design Manual. Best Management Practices will prevent oil spills from entering the surface or ground water. d -- Concur with checklist. 4. Plants: a -b -- Concur with checklist c —To help prevent the citrus longhorned beetle from becoming established in Washington, State Department of Agriculture on November 27, 2001, established a plant quarantine in Tukwila. This project site lies within the quarantine that extends about Y2 mile around the site where three citrus longhorned beetles were captured in August 2001 and entomologists found evidence that 5 beetles escaped. There are restrictions on removal of plants or parts of plants from this quarantine area in order to prohibit live beetles, larvae, eggs, trees or other plant material that may be infested by the beetle. Applicant shall comply with all State Department of Agriculture requirements and obtain all necessary State permits for disposal of removed trees or other vegetation material. Attached is the information handout and new emergency rules adopted by Washington State Department of Agriculture related to the establishment of the plant quarantine. 7 • • d – Final landscaping plan shall meet all Tukwila Municipal Code landscaping requirements. 5. Animals: a- Three citrus longhorn beetles were captured in the vicinity of the project site (Bonsai Northwest nursery) and evidence was obtained that five beetles had escaped. As a result Washington State Department of Agriculture established a quarantine area and established rules and procedures to prohibit spread of the deadly beetle. Applicant is responsible for compliance with all Department of Agriculture rules and procedures. b -d -- Concur with checklist. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: a -- Concur with checklist. a (1) -- Concur with checklist. a (2) —The soils report had indicated that the individual performing the environmental review should be informed of the existing fill on site, particularly old paint cans and environmental review will likely require some level of sampling and testing of the existing fill on the site to determine if regulated hazardous materials are present. Applicant was asked to clarify what additional studies were performed. Applicant responded that the buried debris noted in the soil report was asphaltic concrete, concrete and paint cans. There is no indication of a gas station or other activity at this location to cause soil contamination. Prior to starting construction more subsurface investigation of this area will be conducted. If any contamination is discovered applicant shall be responsible of contacting the City and Department of Ecology and shall meet all their applicable requirements. b (1) -- Concur with checklist. b (2) - -The project shall meet all local and state noise standards. 8 • b (3)— Concur with checklist. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a -g -- Concur with checklist. h -- In addition to steep slopes the following sensitive areas are present in the vicinity of the project: Type 2 watercourse with a 35 feet buffer that is parallel to I -5; two east -west watercourses (Type 3) with 15 feet buffers; Type 2 offsite wetland with a 50 feet buffer on the south side; Type 3 offsite wetland with a 25 feet buffer on the north side. i -j -- Concur with checklist. k —No formal application was received for development of this site prior to the Opus project. 1— Concur with checklist. 9. Housing: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 10. Aesthetics: a – The building design was revised and the building is currently proposed to be 51 feet in height. b— Concur with checklist. c —The project is subject to Design Review and shall meet the design criteria outlined in Tukwila Municipal Code. 11. Light and Glare: a -d -- Concur with checklist. 12. Recreation: • • a -c -- Concur with checklist. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 14. Transportation: a -b -- Concur with checklist. c —There are 164 parking stalls proposed. d —Based on review of the traffic impact analysis, a traffic mitigation fee of $3,679 is required by the City's Concurrency Ordinance. The other area requiring mitigation is the intersection of South 154`h Street at 521d Avenue South. The intersection improvement would include widening of South 154`h Street to accommodate an eastbound left turn pocket/southbound left turn acceleration lane as well as widening on 52 "d Avenue South to provide two southbound lanes. All traffic related impacts will be addressed and mitigated as part of building permit review by the application of Tukwila Municipal Code and Concurrency Ordinance. e -g— Concur with checklist. 15. Public Services: a -b -- Concur with checklist. 16. Utilities: a -- Concur with checklist. b —The site is within City of Tukwila Sewer district and the sewer line is currently proposed along 5151 Avenue South and South 1515` Street. V. COMMENTS In response to the notice of application, written comments (dated September 7, 2001) were received from Richard and Virginia Botham. The comments included questions and concerns regarding retaining walls, storm drainage, parking and underlying easements. A response letter by the city dated December 7, 2001, addressing each of the concerns raised was sent to them. 10 • • VI. CONCLUSION The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -340, a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for this project This DNS is based on impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above "Final Staff Evaluation for Application No. E01- 018 ", and is supported by plans, policies, and regulations formally adopted by city of Tukwila for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions. Prepared by: Minnie Dhaliwal Date: December 7, 2001 11 • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director December 7, 2001 Richard & Virginia Botham 16334 Linden Avenue North Shoreline WA 98133 -5620 Re: Opus project at 14910 -515t Avenue South, Tukwila. File numbers LO1 -050, E01 -018. Dear Mr. & Ms. Botham: This is in response to the comments submitted by you regarding the Opus project at 14910 -51Jt Avenue South, Tukwila. Thank you for providing comments related to this project. We have reviewed your comments and concerns and the remainder of the letter addresses each of the items listed in your letter dated September 7, 2001. 1. Retaining Walls: The project has been revised to not include retaining walls. There will be no concrete or block retaining walls along the property line. Instead a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) system using geo -grid fabric mats will be used to stabilize the slope of the fill at the property line. Attached is the information provided by applicant regarding such systems. Detailed review including structural review of the mechanically stabilized earth system will be performed during design review and building permit review. The applicant is not proposing to dig on or disturb any adjacent land at this time. However if they need to access any adjoining lots they shall be responsible for obtaining any such rights from the adjoining property owners. Storm Drainage: At this time, this project is being reviewed for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Design Review. Building permits will be issued after the Design Review is complete. - Only preliminary drainage review is done at the SEPA and Design Review stage. Actual engineered design is reviewed at the building permit stage. All surface water drainage design will meet the 1998 King County Surface Water Design manual (KCSWDM) requirements. The storm drainage will be designed by a registered civil engineer. A complete report submitted by the developer's engineer will address the level of retention 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • required. The report will contain a complete account of the drainage onto and off the site. The City's Public Works Department will be reviewing the proposed drainage design. I have passed on your comments and concerns to them. Their response is that at no time will the City knowingly approve a design which would cause water to backup onto another property and the City can honor your request to require a Level 2 detention only if the design and site conditions warrant that level of detention. The contact in Public Works Department is Jill Mosqueda and you can reach her at 206 -433 -0179 for further information and questions regarding drainage. Bonds; The City does not require bonds for any future anticipated failures. However the project must be built according to the approved drawings and prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy a final inspection is done to verify that all conditions and requirements of the building permit have been satisfied. 4. Parking: The project has been revised and applicant has submitted a revised site plan. Some of the layout and sizes of the stalls have been revised. The project will meet Tukwila Municipal Code requirements regarding number and size of parking stalls. 5. Easement: Along the south property line of tax lot number 7661600030, the site layout has been revised and the proposed south drive aisle to be used for access from 51s` Avenue South has been aligned with the underlying easement. Additionally, along the east property line of the same lot, the parking has been removed from the easement area. Also, the proposed retaining wall is to be replaced by mechanically stabilized earth system. Perimeter landscaping is also proposed along the east property line as required by the City's zoning code. Applicant was asked to submit all recorded documents related to the easements in question since the title report did not include detailed information regarding the ingress /egress easements but only referenced a separate document (recording number 8701270486) in relation to the easement. The easement is actually recorded under a real estate contract (recording number #7306290088), which is referenced in the Statutory Warranty Deed (recording number 8701270486). Based on review of these documents and the revisions made to the site plan, the city will proceed with the approval of this project. If there is any other legal dispute regarding the easement issue please provide any additional documentation for our review. At this time we are in process of reviewing SEPA and Design Review applications and anticipate issuing SEPA determination in the near future. At the SEPA review stage only environmental impacts are analyzed. And any outstanding issues related to the easements (based on any new documentation submitted by you) will be addressed prior to the issuance of building permit. • • Again thank you for providing comments on this application. I will also be calling you to see if you had any further questions or if you wanted to set up a meeting to review the revised information that was submitted by the applicant. You can also reach me by phone at 206 -431- 3685 or by email at mdhaliwal @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner C: Andy Taber, Opus NW Jeffrey M. Eustis Encl: Revised Site Plan Information regarding mechanically stabilized earth systems OPUS. THE OPUS GROUP A R C H I T E C T S C O N T R A C T O R S D E V E L O P E R S December 5, 2001 Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED DEC 0 6 2QO1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. 915 118th Avenue Southeast, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone 425 - 453 -4100 Fax 425 -453 -1712 www.opuscorp.com Re: Additional information for Opus Park 1 -5/405 project — File Nos. L01 -050 and E01 -018 Dear Minnie: This letter and its enclosures are in response to our phone conversation on November 20, 2001 for additional SEPA information. The information about the existing north and south ditches and the relocated north ditch to the east edge of the property are identified in the enclosed Sconzo/Hallstrom drawing P1.01, Revision Number 6, dated 11/06/01. The landscaping plan for the entire site can be seen on the enclosed Site Studio drawing L -1, Revision Number 2, dated 12/03/0L This drawing lays the landscaping over the Sconzo drawing so all the information requested is on a single sheet. Two copies of these two sheets and Site Studio L -2 Revision Number 2, dated 12/03/01 are enclosed. In addition two copies of drawings P1.01 and L -1 have been reduced to 11 x 17 size and are enclosed for your use. I believe these drawings address the items in our conversation. Please call with any questions or if more information is needed. Sincerely, Opus •rthwest, L.L.C. dy Sr. R anager P:\REDEV\TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Con:espondence \City Tukwila \Minnie Dhaliwal SEPA Itr 011205 .doc Allentown • Atlanta • Austin • Chicago • Columbus • Dallas • Denver • Fort Lauderdale • Houston • Indianapolis • Kansas City • Los Angeles • Miami • Milwaukee • Minneapolis Orange County • Orlando • Pensacola • Philadelphia • Phoenix • Portland • Sacramento • San Francisco • San Jose • Seattle • St. Louis • Tampa • Washington, D.C. A • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve - Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Jack Pace, Planning Manager FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist it/ DATE: November 20, 2001 RE: Opus Park 5/405 Office Building: Wetland/Watercourse Review (2°d) - Permit #'s E01 -018 & L01 -051. Per your request, I have reviewed the recent submittal (9/28/01) for the Opus Northwest project — Opus Park 5/405 located along the eastside of 5151 Avenue S. The submittal includes a geotechnical report (Terra Associates, Inc. 9/21/00), an addendum letter to the original wetland report including a watercourse mitigation report (A.J.Brederg, B & A Inc. 9/21/01 Letter and Attachments). In addition to the plan submittal for site design, there is a preliminary Landscape Plan. Preliminary comments for SEPA review were sent to the applicant (Community Development Letter, 8/16/01). My technical review comments were sent in a Memo dated August 27, 2001. The following is specific to the current submittal but is focused on the review needed for SEPA Determination. The proposed mitigation will be reviewed for final plan approval after SEPA is issued. The following information is intended to document the sensitive area review necessary for SEPA. Wetland/Watercourse Background Initially, a project application for land altering included the project property and several additional parcels of land on both north and south sides of the current Opus Park site. Three separate wetland consultants are known to have worked on these sites during the past 4 years. The B & A, Inc. wetland delineation was questioned by staff after reviewing the limited wetland boundary and conservative approach to classifying the sensitive areas. Adolfson Associates, Inc. was contracted to perform a peer review of the wetland delineation report and wetland/watercourse areas on the entire project area bordering the I -5 corridor. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • Opus Park Review Memo November 20, 2001 Page 2 The following are the reports / correspondence related to wetland and watercourse sensitive areas on the "site ". The "List of Reports" is not the total of file documents but is intended to include those that are relevant to the sensitive area issues and SEPA. As mentioned, the "site" initially included the majority of land between the I -5 corridor and 5151 Avenue S. from S. 1515t Street north to approximately S. 146th Street. This land included several ownerships (8) and parcels (11). List of Reports 1.Planning Division Comments — Memo Re: Permit MI — 018, Opus Northwest (2/6/01, C. Lumb) 2.City of Tukwila Wetland Delineation Report by B & A Inc. (Bredberg & Associates, Inc.2 /15/01) 3.Correction Notice — Illegal Land Altering sent to landowners (City of Tukwila 3/2/01) 4.Letter to Lisa Verner, Commercial Development Services from (Bredberg & Assoc., Inc. 3/14/01) 5.Planning Division Memo to Utilities Committee from (Jack Pace, Planning Manager 3/20/01) 6.Draft Peer Review for Property Located at S. 1515t Street & 51St Avenue S. (Adolfson Associates, Inc. 4/5/01) 7.Opus Property Project Memo — Wetland/Watercourse Peer Review (DCD Schulz 4/16/01) 8.Peer Review for Property Located at S. 15151 Street & 51st Avenue S. (Adolfson Associates, Inc. 4/25/01) 9.Letter to Steve Lancaster, DCD Director from Opus Northwest (A. Taber & B. Brynestad 5/10/01) 10.Letter to Andy Taber, Opus Northwest re: Mitigation Planting Plan from (Bredberg & Associates, Inc. 7/16/01) 11.Letter to Andy Taber, Opus Northwest re: Complete Application - DCD (Minnie Dhaliwal 8/16/01) 12.Opus Park Office Building Memo — Wetland / Watercourse Review (DCD Schulz 8/27/01) 13.Addendum to Wetland Report - Opus Park 5/405 (Bredberg & Associates, Inc. 9/21/01) • • Opus Park SEPA Memo November 20, 2001 Page 3 Several site visits were conducted with City staff, Adolfson Associates, and Bredberg Associates to cooperatively agree on revisions to wetland boundaries and ratings. As a result, the wetland/watercourse mapping was revised and accepted for permit review. However, the wetland delineation report by Bredberg & Associates, Inc 2/15/01 (Number 2 above) is not approved. The Adolfson Associates peer review (Number 8 above) recommended numerous revisions, additions, and clarifications to this wetland report. In addition, the Addendum to Wetland Report by Bredberg & Associates, Inc. 9/21/01 (Number 13 above) cannot be approved because it does not correct the original wetland report. Current Project Review The current project, Opus Park I- 5/405, consists of one building permit for a 65,600 square -foot office complex. The proposed project is located in the central portion of the original development site that was evaluated for the extent of wetland and watercourse areas. The project land contains two, Type 3 watercourses that flow from the west and a Type 2 watercourse segment along the east side within the WSDOT I -5 right -of -way. The related wetland areas are located off -site on both north and south sides with very little buffer extending onto the site. The northern watercourse is a maintained drainage channel with low riparian, habitat functions. This drainage is proposed for piping under the parking lot. Per TMC 18.45.080 D., mitigation is required for piping to replace the open channel and its functions. The mitigation concept involves creating a new channel along the east side of the site. It is assumed the proposed watercourse channel will convey the same natural flows and provide water quality improvement and a habitat benefit. The details of the watercourse mitigation plan will be finalized after the SEPA process is complete. The I -5 watercourse was inventoried and mapped by the City and rated a Type 2 (Watercourse # 23 -11). The Addendum (Bredberg & Associates, Inc.) provides re- evaluation of the segment that crosses the project site. City staff verified that the proposed rating change from Type 2 to Type 3 for this segment of the drainage is not warranted. Watercourse # 23 -11 remains rated as Type 2 with a standard buffer of 35 feet. This watercourse is adjacent to the project site and the buffer extends onto the project site. However, the proposed watercourse mitigation area can be allowed in the existing buffer as part of an enhancement plan. Most of this buffer area is dominated by Himalayan blackberry. At a minimum, the standard buffer setback of 15 feet will be required for the new Type 3 watercourse. • • Opus Park SEPA Memo November 20, 2001 Page 4 The following information will be labeled on the site plan: The I -5 right -of -way watercourse is a Type 2 with a 35 -foot buffer. The two watercourses on the site are Type 3 with 15 -foot buffers. The southern wetland, off -site, is a Type 2 with a 50 -foot buffer. The northern wetland, off -site, is a Type 3 with a 25 -foot buffer. The watercourse mitigation will be a Type 3 area with a 15 -foot buffer. Summary This memorandum is purposely written to document the sensitive area assessments and mapping for the project's SEPA Determination. There are no direct wetland impacts associated with the project. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.080 D. 6.) allows for piping a Type 3 watercourse with adequate mitigation. If approved by the DCD Director, a watercourse segment of low functional value would be piped and fully replaced on the site as part of an approved mitigation plan. The watercourse mitigation has been approved as a concept. The details of a final mitigation plan will reviewed and completed after the SEPA determination. Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director WATERCOURSE RATING FORM - CITY OF TUKWILA INSTREAM ELEMENTS Width of watercourse (OIIWM) Channel capacity Ample, no overbank Adequate, slight evidence Insufficient flows of overbank flows overbank flows common Score = 3 Score = 1 Score = 0 Sc Channel stability { No scour or downcuuing Score =3 Slight scour or downcuuing (25% of channel) Score = 1 Obvious scour or downcuting Score = -1 Moderate scour or downcuuing ( 25 to 50% of channel) Score = 0 Score 1 ) Fish use Salmonids present Score = 3 Potential for migratory salmonid use Score = 2 No potential for salmonids and little potential for restoration Score = 0 Potential for stocked salmonids but other species present Score = 1 Score x2= 0 Fish habitat Spawning, rearing, and Two of three habitat overwintering types present Score = 3 Score = 2 Rearing or overwintering habitat present Score = 1 Score 0 Date 7/20 Watercourse ti 23 -11 From S. 146th St. To S. 151st St. TOTAL INSTREAM SCOIit 6 ci /09 57*(1 lo CORRIDOR FEATURES Corridor Quality n inn `,Y1' /_ v pg. 2 LEFT RIGHT BANK BANK Width of unmaintained vegetation from OHWM >50 feet Score = 3 25 to 50 feet Score = 2 5 to 25 feet Score = 1 Vegetation diversity High diversity. Open forest or shrubs Single layer multi - layered with understory with minimal diversity Score = 3 Score = 2 Score = 1 For each bank, multiply the subscores of the above two elements to determine total scores Left Bank Ri ht I Subscore t 2\ Subscore 2 mil. Subscore 3 Subscore 3 1 t Total Total 1 Score 6 Score 6 Corridor Barrier Function Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% Score = 3 Dense forest or shrub 50 to 75% Score = 2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score = 1 I Score 2 I Score Surrounding land use Immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each catagory) Forested Score = 3 Shrub or unmaintained grassland Score = 2 Active agriculture or pasture Score = 1 urban: urban: residential/maintained lawns industrial/commercial Score = -1 Score = -2 S TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DETERMINE TOTAL REACH SCORE Creek runs parallel and adjacent to I -5. Dense canopy, no access, little flow (<0.1 cfs); can't really see channel. 5 Score 7 Score 6 5 Score 6 Score 6 /41 SCORE 13 SCOREJ1 // ,�► • WSDA milin% WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Citrus longhorned beetle December 2001 P.O. Box 42560, Olympia, Washington 98504 -2560 Quarantine provides tool to control the citrus longhorned beetle To help prevent the citrus longhorned beetle from becoming established in Washington, the state Department of Agriculture on Nov. 27 established a plant quarantine in Tukwila. It extends about V2 mile around the site where three citrus longhorned beetles were captured in August, and entomologists found evidence that five beetles escaped. The live plants or parts of the plants listed on page 4 of this fact sheet should not be removed from the quarantine area or discarded in yard waste bins. This includes tree prunings, logs and firewood. Residents can discard woody yard waste for free at "chipper days" being sponsored by the City of Tukwila and the Department of Agriculture. The first chipper day is Dec. 8. Please call (800) 443 -6684 for information. The quarantine, which is in effect for an indefinite period of time, prohibits moving out of the quarantine area live beetles, larvae, eggs, or trees and other plant materials that may be infested by-the beetle. It includes about 1,000 properties. Tukwila residents wondering if they are in the quarantine area may call the Department of Agriculture at (800) 443 -6684 for information. What does the quarantine do? It restricts the movement of any plant material that may be infested with the citrus longhorned beetle out of the quarantine area. See page 4 for a list of host plants. Most hardwood trees and shrubs are potential host plants for citrus longhorned beetle. The following items cannot be moved out of the quarantine area: • Untreated hardwood grown in the quarantine area • Firewood from hardwood species • Deadwood, stumps, tree trunks and similar portions of hardwood species • Tree prunings • Live hardwood trees, and hardwood trees or parts of trees cut within the quarantine area. Conifer trees and shrubs, nuts, fruit, leaves, lawn clippings, azaleas, rhodo- dendrons, and plants less than 'A inch wide at the base are excluded. The Department of Agriculture may permit movement of low risk plant material. Updated Dec. 4, 2001 :Tukwila Quarantine Area f'; u 139Th T$\j, 1l. t/It f -. E 154TH. .4; 51ST ' : 'oi The quarantine restricts movement of hardwood trees and shrubs out of the area roughly 1/2 mile in all directions from the intersec- tion of Macadam Road S. and S. 144'h St. Plants or parts of plants listed on page four of this factsheet should not be removed from the quarantine area. Residents can discard of woody yard waste free at "chipper days" being sponsored by the City of Tukwila and the Department of Agriculture. The first chipper day is Dec. 8. For information about chipper days, or to find out if your property is in the quarantine area, please call the Department of Agriculture at (800) 443 -6684. 1 Host plaits for the citrus Iongborned beetle All species of the following genera of plants are potential host plants for citrus longhorned beetle. Living plants that are more than 1/4 inch wide at soil level, and plant parts should not be removed from the quarantine area. This includes tree prunings, logs and firewood. alder cherry lemon pear silk tree amur chestnut locust pecan snowbell tree apple cottonwood mallow Photinia spicebush apricot . crabapple maple plane tree Stransvaesia ash elm mulberry plum sumac _ aspen fig oak poplar sycamore beech firethom orange raspberry walnut birch hickory pagoda tree rose wild olive blackberry holly peach rose of Sharon willow Camellia Japanese cedar Updated Dec. 4, 2001 4 F, STATE w �:: ;y;,:;:4. RULE - MAKING ORDER -� °� °'' x ��y�..oy" (RCW 34.05.360) 1889 b _ C R -103 (7/22/01) Agency: Department of Agriculture ❑ Permanent Rule ■ Emergency Rule (1) Date of adoption: November 27, 2001 ❑ Expedited Rule Making (2) Purpose: Adoption of regulatory mechanisms necessary to prevent citrus Ionghorned beetle establishment in the state. Currently there are no rules in place specific to the non - native insect citrus Ionghorned beetle and closely related species. Establishment and /or spread of this pest would cause significant environmental and economic Toss to the state. (3) Citation of existing rules affected by this order: Repealed: Amended: Suspended: (4) Statutory authority for adoption: Chapter 17.24 RCW Other Authority: Chapter 15.13 RCW PERMANENT RULE ONLY (Including Expedited Rule Making) Adopted under notice filed as WSR on (date). Describe any changes other than editing from proposed to adopted version: EMERGENCY RULE ONLY Under RCW 34.05.350 the agency for good cause finds: /1 (a) That immediate adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule is necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and that observing the time requirements of notice and opportunity to comment upon adoption of a permanent rule would be contrary to the public interest. ❑ (b) That state or federal law or federal rule ora federal deadline for state receipt of federal funds requires immediate adoption of a rule. Reasons for this finding: Citrus Ionghorned beetle is an exotic pest which has escaped into a wooded area of Tukwila, . WA. It attacks and kills otherwise healthy hardwood trees, and it is extremely difficult to control. If the insect is not eradicated, it will be extremely harmful from both an economic and an environmental standpoint. Left to itself, the beetle is likely to spread slowly, affording time to eradicate it. However, any movement of live hardwood trees or other untreated wood containing concealed beetles presents a significant risk of rapidly spreading them beyond our ability to eradicate them. Such items are commonly dumped or moved at this time of year, and this emergency rule is intended to confine these items to a restricted area. (5.3) Any other findings required by other provisions of law as precondition to adoption or effectiveness of rule ?: ❑ Yes ly No If Yes, explain: . (6) Effective date of rule: CODE REVISER USE ONLY Permanent Rules Emergency Rules ❑ 31 days after filing ■ Immediately t ❑ Other (specify) ❑ Later (specify) crr)r rr_, ;m=:' OF,FIr;5 *(If less than 31 days after filing, specific finding in 5.3 under RCW 34.05.380(3 is required) Name (Type or Print) Jim Jesernig :...NOV 2 7 2001 re .. /vIIy T L ;it: Titl Date _- PM D. ctor November 27, 2111 WSR 6 /..14,1) (COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) Note: If any category is left blank, it will be calculated as zero. No descriptive text. Count by whole WAC sections only, from the WAC number through the history note. A section may be counted in more than one category. The number of sections adopted in order to comply with: Federal statute: New Amended Repealed Federal rules or standards: New Amended Repealed Recently enacted state statutes: New Amended Repealed The number of sectionsadopted at the request of a nongovernmental entity: New Amended Repealed The number of sections adopted in the agency's own initiative: New Amended Repealed The number of sections adopted in order to clarify, streamline, or reform agency procedures: New The number of sections adopted using: Amended Repealed Negotiated rule making: New Amended Repealed Pilot rule making: New Amended Repealed Other alternative rule making: New Amended Repealed LONGHORNED BEETLE QUARANTINE New Section WAC 16-470 -800 :Establishing quarantine for longhorned beetles of the genus Anoplophora. Beetles of the genus Anoplophora include the citrus longhorned beetle (Anoplophora chinensis) and the Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis). There are no species of Anoplophora native to North America. These beetles are serious pests in their native ranges in Asia and are highly invasive species which have entered and may become established in Washington State. The establishment of any species of Anoplophora beetle in Washington would cause reduction in native vegetation and ornamental plants and great economic loss to the forestry, nursery and agricultural industries of the state. The director of agriculture, pursuant to authorities in RCW 17.24 and RCW 15.13, has determined that the regulation and exclusion of all life stages of beetles of the genus Anoplophora and of any potentially infested host material is necessary to protect the environmental quality, forests and agricultural crops of the state of Washington. New Section WAC 16- 470 -810 Prohibiting possession, transportation or distribution of living beetles of the genus Anoplophora. Possession of any living life stage of any beetle of the genus Anoplophora, including but not limited to citrus longhorned beetle (Anoplophora chinensis) and Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), is prohibited. Transportation or distribution of any living life stage of any beetle of the genus Anoplophora into or between points within the state of Washington is prohibited. Any Anoplophora beetle eggs, larvae, pupae, or adults should be killed at the site of discovery. Trained employees of the department are available to assist the public in identifying Anoplophora beetle life stages and can be reached at toll -free telephone number (800) 443- 6684 or email pestprogram @agr.wa.gov. New Section WAC 16-470 -820 What is the area under quarantine for citrus longhorned beetle? The boundaries of the area under order are within the City of Tukwila in King County. The area under order consists of all properties lying primarily within a circle with a radius of a half mile, centered at the property immediately southwest of the intersection of Macadam Rd. S. and S. 144th St. Any property on the border of the circle, which lies at least 50% outside the circle, is excluded from the area under quarantine for citrus longhorned beetle. A map of the area under quarantine can be obtained through a request to the department at toll -free number (800) 443 -6684 or email pestprograrn@agnwa.gov. • • New Section WAC 16-470 -830 Prohibition on moving living plants from the area under quarantine for citrus longhorned beetle. (1) All species of the following genera of plants are declared to be potential host plants for citrus longhomed beetle: (a) Acer (maple) (b) Albizzia (silk tree) (c) Alnus (alder) (d) Betula (birch) (e) Camellia (f). Carya (hickory, pecan) (g) Castanea (chestnut) (h) Citrus (orange, lemon) (i) Cryptomeria (Japanese cedar) (j) Elaeagnus (wild olive) (k) Fagus (beech) (1) Ficus (fig) (m) Fraxinus (ash) (n) Hibiscus (rose of sharon, mallow) (o) Ilex (holly) (p) Juglans (walnut) (q) Lindera (spicebush) (r) Maackia (amur) (s) Malus (apple, crabapple) (t) Morus (mulberry) (u) Photinia (v) Platanus (sycamore, plane tree) (w) Populus (poplar) (x) Prunus (cherry, peach, apricot, plum) (y) Pyracantha (firethom) (z) Pynts (pear) (aa) Quercus (oak) (bb) Rhus (sumac) (cc) Robinia (locust) (dd)Rosa (rose) (ee) Rubus (blackberry, raspberry) (ff) Salix (willow) (gg) Sophora (pagoda tree) (hh) Stransvaesia (ii) Styrax (snowbell tree) (jj) Ulmus (elm) (2) The following species are declared to be potential host plants for citrus longhorned beetle: (a) Eriobotrya japonicus (b) Fortunella marginata • • (c) Poncirus trifoliata (3) Movement of living potential host plants with a diameter of greater than one quarter inch at soil level from the area under quarantine for citrus longhomed beetle to outside the area is prohibited, unless a permit has been issued by the department pursuant to WAC 16-470 -870 below. New Section WAC 16-470 -840 Prohibition on moving wood and prunings from the area under quarantine for citrus longhorned beetle. (1) The following articles are declared to be potential host material for citrus longhomed beetle, and their movement or transportation from the area under quarantine is prohibited: (a) untreated hardwood grown within the area under quarantine (b) firewood from hardwood species (c) deadwood, stumps, tree trunks and similar portions of trees from hardwood species (d) prunings (2) Lumber not grown in the area under quarantine, softwood (that is, wood from coniferous plants such as pine or Douglas fir), fruit, nuts, leaves, wreaths, finished wood products such as furniture, and wood chipped to a maximum size of five eighths of an inch are excluded from this section. New Section WAC 16- 470 -850 Exemption for articles in transit. Articles declared in WAC 16 -470- 830 and WAC 16-470 -840 to be potential host material for citrus longhomed beetle are exempt from the requirements of WAC 16- 470 -820 through WAC 16-470 -870 if all the following conditions are met: (1) The articles originate outside the quarantine area for citrus longhomed beetle, (2) They enter the quarantine area for citrus longhomed beetle as an incidental portion of transportation to a location outside the quarantine area, and (3) They are not unloaded or parked overnight within the quarantine area for citrus longhomed beetle. New Section WAC 16- 470 -860 Disposal of articles regulated under longhorned beetle quarantine. Any regulated articles that are in violation of this longhomed beetle quarantine are subject to destruction or other disposition in a manner prescribed by the department. New Section WAC 16- 470 -870 Special permits — longhorned beetle. The department may issue special permits for actions otherwise forbidden under provisions of WAC 16- 470 -800 through WAC 16 -470- 860. These special permits shall be conditioned to minimize the risk of spreading longhomed beetle. 0.4 OPUS., THE OPUS GROUP A R C H I T E C T S C O N T R A C T O R S DE V E L O P E R S November 16, 2001 RECEIVED NOV 16 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. 915 118th Avenue Southeast, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone 425 - 453 -4100 Fax 425- 453 -1712 www.opuscorp.com Re: Response to October 26, 2001 Request for additional information for Opus Park 1 -5/405 project — File Nos. L01 -050 and E01 -018 Dear Minnie: This letter and its enclosures are in response to your letter of October 26, 2001 referenced above. Our comments below follow the numbering system in your letter seeking additional information. 1. Overall comments: a) Easements: 1) Copies of recording documents 6299225, 8701270486, 7306290088, 3234343, 867965 and a letter from Transnation Title Insurance Company dated November 14, 2001 are enclosed. Documents 6299225 and 8701270486 are Statutory Warranty Deeds for previous sales on the property. Document 7306290088 is a Real Estate Contract for the property to the west of our north parking area. Document 3234343 is a real estate contract from 1942 for all of Tract Four, which includes our north parking area and the land to the north and east of our north parking area. There is a reference in it to a water right to a spring on another parcel. Document 867965 is a real estate contract from 1913 and makes reference to the same water right to a spring. Transnation's letter indicates that the water right is to a parcel beyond Tract Four. 2) The existing conditions of the easement area are slopes covered with blackberries. Access for ingress, egress and utility purposes would be difficult. The access from 51' Avenue South is very steep in the east/west direction and the same is true for the easement area running north/south along the east property line. Our site plan and structured fill greatly improve the easement areas for their intended purposes. The existing uneven and sloping area, when completed, will be level and clear of brush and trees for seventeen -feet. The next five feet will be landscaped and level. The remaining three -feet will be the face of the new slope. In the event the asphalt or landscaping is Allentown • Atlanta • Austin • Chicago • Columbus • Dallas • Denver • Fort Lauderdale • Houston • Indianapolis • Kansas City • Los Angeles • Miami • Milwaukee • Minneapolis Orange County • Orlando • Pensacola • Philadelphia • Phoenix • Portland • Sacramento • San Francisco • San .lose • Seattle • St. Louis • Tampa • Washington. DC • • where something needs to run, the asphalt or landscaping can be removed and replaced just like any existing surface material or landscaping would need to be removed and replaced. The three enclosed 8.5x11 sketches illustrate the easement area, the existing and future contours, and a cross section of the slope, landscape and asphalt surface area. We have discussed the relocating the easements with the neighbor to the north and east, the Bothams, but they were not interested in relocating them. b) The Type 2 permit application will be submitted as the next step after SEPA determination is issued. 2. SEPA comments: a) B.1.e. Site design alternatives: Several alternative concepts for placement of the building were considered such as turning the building ninety degrees, placing the building closer to 51 ", moving the building more to the east or north or south. Lowering the fill and increasing the slope from 51' into the parking area was considered, too. The main entry to the building needs to face 5l and be on the second or middle floor as this is the first all office floor. Parking needs to be near the front door. Dropping the west parking area would prevent us from having a front door at parking level and would make the area between the building and 51't to the west feel dark and canyon like. Therefore, both moving the building closer to 51't and lowering the parking level at the front door are unsatisfactory alternatives. Turning the building ninety- degrees places more of the building into the slope and eliminates much of the glass that is needed as an office building. This alternative would redistribute the fill from the west area to the north and south areas. However, we believe some of the fill between the west parking area and 51St Avenue North can eliminated. In response the City's Public Works request for a geo -tech report on the hydrological effects of soil loading on groundwater we have enclosed a report from Terra Associates dated November 8.2001. There are no adverse hydrological effects of the soil loading on the groundwater. b) 7.a.2. The buried debris noted in the soil report was described as asphaltic concrete, concrete, and paint cans. There was no indication of contaminated soil. Historic and more recent aerial photographs of the area show the site as an open field. There is no indication of a gas station or other activity at this location to cause soil contamination. Prior to starting construction more sub surface investigation of this area will be conducted. In the unlikely event some contamination is discovered, tests will be conducted, the City and DOE informed, and appropriate action taken. Therefore, we request that SEPA determination be issued subject to Opus performing additional investigation and correcting any unacceptable condition prior to issuance of a building permit and starting construction. 4. Design Review Comments: a) Parking: The parking stalls have been revised and wheel stops added per code. The sidewalk adjacent to the building provides a minimum of four -feet clear walking area in front of the vehicle bumpers. The enclosed revised site plan dated 11/06/01 revision number 6, illustrates these revisions. b) Landscaping: P:\REDEV\TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Correspondence \City Tukwila \Minnie Dhaliwal SEPA Itr 011116 .doc Pg 2/3 • • The perimeter landscaping area along the north property line is now dimensioned to indicate.an area of five feet or greater. This is in addition to any area required for the structured slope of the fill. The enclosed 8.5 x 11 inch sketch of a cross section for our structured slope referenced above illustrates this plan. The plant material along all the property lines will be similar to the Type I landscaping indicated along the south property line. b) Retaining walls: We have deleted the "lock block (Typ.)" retaining wall system or equal called for on sheet C -3 of the civil drawings. There will be no concrete retaining walls or lock - blocks along the property line. A Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) system using geogrid fabric mats will be used to stabilized the slope of the fill at the property line. A letter explaining this method more fully from our soils engineer, Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 9, 2001 is enclosed. The enclosed Stabilized Slope Cross Section sketch referenced above illustrates this slope technique. Also, enclosed are photographs of a MSE slope that is 70 feet high in Issaquah, Washington. The four enclosed photos illustrate the landscape area at the top of this existing slope and how grass and other plants grow on the slope creating a natural look. c) Building Design: We, too, like our buildings to have a prominent entrance. Our tenants like to have a front door. We believe our current overhang when properly painted and combined with appropriately painted panel areas at the entrance will create a prominent portal to our building. Sincer 0 orthwest, L.L.C. dy Sr. Real Enclos a to Manager • ' ecorded documents 6299225, 8701270486, 7306290088, 3234343, 867965 and Transnation Title Company letter of November 14, 2001. • Letter about the mechanically stabilized slope from Terra Associates, Inc. dated November 9, 2001 • Five photographs of the stabilized slope in Issaquah, Washington. • Three 8.5x11 sketches illustrating the north parking lot easements, the existing and future contours and a cross section of a typical stabilized slope with the landscape, all dated 11/06/01. • Sconzo/Hallstrom drawing P1.01, Revision 6, dated 11/06/01. P:\REDENTUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Correspondence \City Tukwila \Minnie Dhaliwal SEPA Itr 011116 .doc Pg 3/3 TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 14450 N.E. 29th Place I Bellevue, WA98007 1 425451 -7301 1 fax 425 -558-3563 1 800 -4,f: 01 Transnation A LANDAM111.1r.A COMPANY November 14, 2001 Andy Tabor OPUS Northwest L.L.C. 915 118th Avenue SE Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Transnation Title Commitment No. 870146 Burns Dear Mr. Tabor: ouJ2).>' 00,v 1 Enclosed herein per your request are copies of documents recorded under Recording Nos. 3234343 and 867965. You had expressed a concern as to the impact of the water rights noted in the document under Recording No. 3234343 and how it affects the title to the real property under the above referenced commitment. The answer from a title perspective is that there is no impact. Neither document imposes any permanent encumbrance on the subject property. The document under Recording No. 3234343 sets forth a right to use water and maintain a pipeline over other property, the same as was reserved in the second document under Recording No. 867965. The right to the water and to maintain a pipeline are not shown on the title commitment as it covers property outside of Tract 4 of Seattle Land Company's Five -Acre Tracts, and as such, does not affect the subject real estate. If there are any additional questions on this matter, please feel free to . contact the undersigned. Si erely 7306290088 Pioneer Nation&I i� Title Ir surancc Company l yw1worow nru DI C . REAL ESTATE CO,v .RAC: t m CONTRACT, ttaade and catered into ta:e 11th �1 CD lc1'°r Ralph A. Engle and Flora A. Eagle, his wife, ti rl darer Jt:ns , 1973 tr..w.. evr eaten the "seam.' sod Terris J. Forcier, a single woman aet•aaalter oL'ed the "portbaort err TSSE t. Tact tie neon acme* to ten to the ptareheeer ec.! ]e purchiuer acmes to purst+x trots tier clew-rowel re.l vitate, with the attou^`embee in jiZg Co..ntr. State at W,o Woo attached the Ione.,v.c That portion of Tract 4, of Seattle Land Company's 5 Acre Tract, according to plat thereof recorded under volume 6 of plats, page 90, records of King County, Washington, described as rolicws: Beginning at the intersection of the south lire of said Tract 4, with the westerly line of Pri:..ary State Highway No. 1; t:aer,ce westerly along said southerly line 150 feet; thence northerly - ,"-•' 'cat line of said Tract 4, a distance of 199.25 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing, northerly along raid ;parallel line 20.00 feet; thence westerly r:ara11e1 with the southerly line of said Tract 4, a distance of 40 :het; tnence nortLerly parallel with the westerly line of said Tract 4 to the north lire of said Tract 4; thence westerly along said north line to the northwest corner of ::aid Tract 4; =hence southerly along the went lime of said Tract 4 a distance of 14a feet; thence east- erly to the true point of beginning. TCGE:iiT -R WITH' ail easement for ingress, ogres!, and utility purpccee •.o:•er the Southerly 25 feet and the Eaaterl, c5 feet of the following deocribed parcel: Beginning at the inter5ectioe of the south line of said Tract 4 with the wec.terly line of Primary State Highway No. 1; thence we.r.te+rly along r.')id mcutherly line 150 feat to the true point of beginning of thte parcel; thence Northerly parallel with the wept line of said Tract 4 a 4ietan.:e of 199 -25 feet; thence Wecterly to a point on the Westerly line of said Tract 4+ which le 148 feet eout.h of the Northwest corner of r..ai. Tract 4; thence Southerly along the westerly line of raid-Tract !: to the Southwettt corner of said Tract 4; thence F...4terly along the Southerly line of said Tract 4 to the true p ^in '. of beginning. -506 7-9aodg ra z� cehsa. e_ t restrt ti:ts -ad :s get=s rec4.; y u so .a.e.. bo oatraharmer aae It n.v ft 10 p<0 tAf1_ - -. ) r1a1 ne widen TEN THOUSAND in= 6t/ouoZD 7:1-"TT r.. - -• -- D Ofd THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND r:,l100- (t 1, 100.00 - - - --) Don teat. 0 been paid. the norm( whe e:a is hurbY anew d. and the bale: el acid ponMan pasta Ant.' he *.1 a leases• CD TWO BUMMED FIFTY AND 80 1100 - - -- ($750.00) will be paid to seller within 6 menthe fres date of c1os:.ne of this contract. with no interest. This $250.00 Is (rcuy-ed ;45 by a prmeissocy note from purchaser to seller, of even data with this contract. CD The balance of $9,500.00 will be paid as follows: $90.00CNINTT! AND NO /100)or more at purchaser's option on or before the 25t1Way of July. 1973. and $90.00(NINETT AND 90 /100) or more at purchaser's option on or before tam 25th del of each succeeding calendar ¢-nth until the balance of said purchsre price shall have been fully paid. The purchaser further agrees to pay interest on the diminishing balance of $9,500.00 st the raise of SEVEN 1/2 % per annum from the 25th day cf June, 1973, which interest ale: be deducted from each installment payment anal the balance of each payment applied in reduction of principal.Al1 payments to be made be•■inder shall be made at or at such other place as the seller may direct :.a writing. Purchaser to pay taxes and inzursnee separately, when due and payable, and provide proof ^` payment to seller here's. Seller agrees purchaser may move existing garage if parking is provided. All payments to be made hereunder to be rode at 14710 51st Ave. So. Seattle, Wash. t Y poumeni ar►.• eedw ss a.at.w.iba►e a spameem etr.wwas a7settteet swritine. As referred to in this contract. °d:r_ of closing" shell be June 25, 1973 t 1 r The v -�`•'^ arman and agrees to pay before dehnemency an taxes and assessment, that rtuy as between .- -nnt.,r and grantee be. reatter become • lien on mad nal estate; and if by t` 'ernes of this coarrar- the purebaser has maimed payment of any monetize. renir•rr or other encumbrance. or has smattered payment of or amend to purchase object to any taxes or assessments now a lien e.^. sa,r Rat estate, the pt.amtaaer agrees to pay the ...... vie M _...). '! The purchase agrees. mall the pur':aae pace is 1..ly paid. to keep the building new and hereafter placed on said real es:ate insured to the actual cash value thereof against lass or damage by both fire and windstorm in a company acceptable to the seller and inn :Lc sellers benefit, u bin interest any spar, and to pay all premiums therefor uad to deliver all oolkiex and reer'aais thereof to 'etc seller. (t; The pu:.Mser agrees that tall insprcboo of said real estate has been recede and that neither the seller nor his assigns shall be h&j t. any covenant respecting the m- _dirion of any =movements thereon nor shall the purchaser or seller or the assigns of ether be hrid t. . covenant or agreement for alterations. improvements or repairs unless the cover-art oe agreement relied on is ecutaioed herein or in ,.Thin: and attached to and made a part of the cuetract. (4! the pu:.L.aer assumes all hazard. of damage to use deraucti n of any improvements now on said real estate or hereafter plarr.: therr.,n, and of the taking of said real elute or say pan thereon nor pa' use: and agrees t`.et nu such damage. destruction or taking sh.;1 constitute a failure of remade :a:ice. In are any part of said mil estate is taken for public rue. the portion of the ror.de;natina au_rd_ reelau.ing after payment of reaseaabf enpc.•ues of procuring the same shall be paid to the teller and applied as payment on the eurrh.,o prise he•ern unless the teller elects to allow the purchaser to entity all or a portion of .•..n condemnation award to the rebuilding or ❑.-t•rt.,- tun 01 any Fnprovementa damaged by such tatting. In case of damage or destructs :u :dine a peril insured against. the ararero. •: ^tsuranc: re.- ..aawnt after pat•meet of tae reasonable eope.ue of procuring the same shall be devoted to the restoration or re1uildine of >.,, i• improvements within a reasonable time. cols; ptartbaser de.•ets that said proceeds shall be paid to Inc seller ler application on th, pu•t t_v pc ,. herein.. (3, The seller has deliverer. or agrees to deliver within 15 days of the date of closing. a purchasers polity of title in.uranrr :n standard f. error, nr a commitment therefor. issued by PI.... wanor.sa Ina, t..u...c.:nv.•... , msurine the purchaser to the full amount suer purct.se price against low or damage by reason of defeat in seller': We to said real estate as of :he date of closing and ron:ua:.an. nn excepaions other than the following: a. Proud general exceptions appearing its said policy form: u I .ens w encumbrances which by the terms of the contract the purchaser is to assume, or as to which the conveyance her :o Se made subject: and c An, ez_ting coed :art o. cosy -'s under which seller is purchasing said real estate, and any mortgage or other otlic_ttoo, etirf• salkr Ls the contract agrees to pay, none of whist, for the purpose of this paragraph ( "a) shall be deemed defrcts m seller's i (6) If sdids tSk :o said toil as.es u subject W as caries contract or matrura sifter whim .tice is purebesini rid real estate, Of !.=y rtptse e>1 other obligation. whack seller is to pay, seller asses to stake sued perm u � t b r thriven. � node upon default, the pun:haaee shall have the Arta to make any pay , nacea r be applied to the peymmta nest Want doe t' a seller under this roetrsd ;7) The seller agrees, woe essaying loL spemeat of the puede= pries tad hoterest. (a the manner above opedb.d, to execute sad deliver tr purchaser • statutory warranty 'AI': llmen _ dead t' • said reel erats, excretion fey pan 116 -=l '= pu 7 _L: — — other that the seller, cad taken for magic sac, !re'! o! etetnnbnrsses tsept area that tray attach after dole of dosing through any f�� subjxt to the ftdlowe•DZ: '7YS.ft i, >3G tT_n is• __:4:d. ' .1 Un)e • different dale to prosidzi for herein, the nurbarr shall be entitled to posswon of wilt mai estate on date of dome and 1y retain pose nos so toes[ u .adasaer is Dot. in &Mu.'. bercuoder. The purchaser covenants to keep the tesiklinm and other impcoye- mess on saee` Baal estate in good repair and as to perms[ waste and not to use, or permit the use of, Se real estate for any illegal purpou- The purchaser covenants to pity all service, t=alkaticits or comtturt sit charms for water, sear-, electricity, earbaspe or Sher atiNey atrvices forniskthi to Baia red caste Orr hie elate iendsasa is =died to poses:on. (ut 1. case the purchaser fails to mart any paymrot herein provioi or to maintain iaa:trtDCe, as herein regt:i:ed, the slier may sake such payment or effect such inane!. and any amo.ia• .o p.d b!, the seller, tour br: with Sweat at the rats of 10% per annum tf.meoe from date of payment vela re *id. shall be repayable by purmac on acid desaaod..11 wbbout prejudice to any other right the seller misbt are by reason o' suds deist It (10) Time is of the esmce of this coot:ad., and it v agreed Put in sat the 0sthsser &hail fail to comply with or perform soy cooditioo or agreement hereof or to make any payment requimd hereunder promptly at the time and in the manner besein requited, the seller may ant to decker* aII the puret ner's rights n under 'remitted. and upon his doing so, all payments made by the pun:tuner hereunder and all improvements placed upon the real e&ta.e mail be 1w(.ated to the seller u liquidated damages, and the seller shall R r*; t to e- 0t and take poeude0 of hs rol e..,,,; sad no waive: by the sd:r of any default on the part of the purchaser null be construed as a waiver of any mbsequent defauh. Service upon purchaser of all demands, notices or other papers with respect to forfeiture and termination of purchase's rights may be town a7 United Suta >tfa4 postage pre -pad, return receipt requested, direct14 to the purrhaaer al his address )ass known to the seller. (ll) Upon se:iv's election to bent suit to enforce airy covenant of this contract, inciudicg :_it to c =0! Lnv hereunder, the purchaser aslyeer to pay a reasonable sate as attorney's fees and all cogs and expenses in connection with such suit, which sums shall be included In icy judgment or decree entered in such suit. If the idler shall bring suit to mower an adjueticatinn of the 1mminatio0 of the purchaser's rights hereunder, and judgment is so metered, the purchaser agrees to pay a r uesuahle sum as attcrmy's fees and sL caste and =panes in t resection wit. such suit, and also the seasonable out of araul 9 scores to determine '',Lc r^edition of title at the date such shit is commenced, which sums shall Se included in any jodgrsnt or decree entered in soda suit Th; ^Mar ••- •'o " 'hereto have executed this instrucnt as of the date first written above STATE OF WASHINGTON, County of f� • �+2 On this day personally appeared before ere R•'ts -e /, n q E,..)r ;�� n = -a .1_ot2q (cent) .cs. esi't_F to ere known to be the adividual described to and who maned the within and foregoing inatrumert, and adenowiedeed that flea . free and voluntary am and deed, for the uses and purposes tea signed the stmt as tbatin coentiood G1vEN under my hand and of sal seal this 2.7r= '.hay of .. NE ‘`,7 3 • yr_ • • Notary Fiatlie 'vin sad Jar tisa Stale if'-jfeteidaokon.; • 'Tian( at - ..__.....e,.. ••-r . 'HSYM '3111V3S '0? SNI 311.11 JJJMnO3S in 1Sanba)4 le D103,10 Jni fl 7 ' ts J.11 r`:. .) Jr tai .. ., .., ere'.. ,n . r, 79[6 YM ';1:;. -,. O'. !'V PhWeer tiaHou( TlU, hIsenece Cemp1r WASHINGTON TIT•..f DIVISION Filed fur Record nt Request of f1 for KeCO 0 al Request 51 a, TO i''r\ ;-1 :B6A-\.)■w1 o 16. 3�`I Cv,..k�. Av�f N `l E f '3.3 CO riEL�• et I I y Thu. . It.. Sr.Ct i'3 rv(C .pr F: C:?':•_ N ?' n .1 • . ; TLX PAID ON COSBAI.T i: '; ;12 -t%4 !I I NG CO. Rum; Statutory Warranty D.od 87/131,27 THE GRANTOR Ralph A. Engle and Flora A. Engle, his wife, RECD F CASHSL for and in consideration of $10.00 and other good and valuable consideration is sand paid, conveys and warrants to Terris T. vorefer, a single woman, wefollowing described real estate, situated in the County of • e70 I27 64-86 7 FORM LStUF 6.00 40µQ.6 B *x+16.00 , State of That portion of Tract 4, Of Seattle Land Company's 5 Acre Tract, , according to plat thereof recorded under volume 6 of plats, page ' 90a records of King County, Washington, described as follows: .Beginning at the. intersection of the south line of said Tract 4, with the westerly line of Prir/.ary State Highway No. 1; thence:. westerly along said southerly line 150 feet; tI1en•_n northerly parallel with the wt7.st lino of said Tt•ac:t II, ,1 distance of 199.25 feet to the true point of beginning; thence co:;tinuinr northerly along eaid� parallel line 20.00 feet; thence westerly parallel with the eouther:y line of said Tract 4, a distance of 40 feet; thence . northerly.. parallel with tna westerly line oi' said 'tract 4 to the -north line of said Tract 4; thence westerly along said north line .to -the northwest corner of said Tract 4; thence southerly along the west line•of said Tract 4'a• distance of 148 feet; thence east -. erly to the true point of beginning. • TOGETHER WITH'ia easement to. ingress, 'green and utility purpoeee ...over the Southerly 25 feet and the Easterly 25 feet of the followin deocribed parcel: Beginning a.t the intersection of the south line of maid Tract 4 with the westerly line of Primary State Righway No. 1; thence wenterl,� along maid southerly line 150 teat to the true point of beginning of this parcel; thence Northerly parallel with thn went line of said Tract 4 a distance of 199.25 feet; thence Westerly to a point on the Weaterlei line of said Tract 4 which is 148 feet south of the Northwent corner of said Tract 4; thence Southerly alonr the weaterly line of eaia'Tratt 4 to the Southwest corner of said Tract 4; thence £anterly plan, the Southerly line of said Tract 4 to the true point of beginning. 3234343 THIS AGH .IMNT made and ertere •►' d into. t..�s" :13th• • i2, between •Eu'A i'r"�1, Seattle ; : i�ashinon,• here Za!Ler "�, "Seder" and )ORGAN':F..' S3•;ITH and HAZEL VF SMITH; • Lis. wife ,- • t ashington,•hereiriafter.called .the "Purchasers ", _..WITNESSETH • That the Seller agrees to sell to the .Parc:aoe.*•e and_`•: she Purchasers 'agree : to 'purchase of the •Seller the following" de - scribed real aatate, with: the appurtenances,. - ..situate in :the Count:. o.: .1 Ting,•' State' of Washington, to-wit: , Tract. Four (L) , Seattle .Land Conoa-ny'3 Five -Acre Tracts,: according to plat ' _..__Kyercof : e:e ,Jr .gin von-: 6 of Plats, . ?fie• ' 90,..records :. of tre Count. Auditor: of. King County; • ,together with, a _oerpettial water _ _t for a one -inch o,ne the spring starting on.• Lot 8, Bloc;: •5, Adams Home: Tracts, fine County., Washington, according to plat "thereof. recorded ir: the office of . the:.•Auditor, of King. County,' Washington; runninis ocroco • said lot and to. the premises herein: conveyed;" .isith:.the riC:.t at •any time to ..go: onto. said lot -.for the purpcse of repairing s^i'd pipe or spring, :he said pipe, if repaired or replaced,:.to be laced in its•:preoent•position beneath the surface,.'so.ao not to .interfere With the cultivation of said land; '.these water ' rights being .,the..same „reserved by the grantors,. John .rieyen Fine, •Emma .Heyen,, his wife, .in•their deed to one Claude E.4iainez3, dated. September" 26;:•.1911, • and' filed for: record on '.ay 22,• 1913, under, F.11e :No. •867965, : are recorded in +t:�e • office of t'.:e Auditor• of King••County, . Washington, in Vol. 836 of D.eeds, at • Page 499 ; ` i t • being • :understood that a further • ano. additional source of water supply, •' 1" t t "' t • p Y, cons..s�_..g ., •one•• �nree fourt�tis "inc.. •_pipe line running from al, spring. originating: •5, al?—said Adaias ocio-•Tracts; King County, pre aes''hereln 'conveyed; ,.shall be shut: `off. within :thir'ty (30) . Yasziigon,;to. the. cia.ynom the date of the.•execution of t•gis• ;.'co'nt•radt.and:.s!alh. not oe: deemedappurteriant• to the`- prem., sea' herein:: conveyed, • _nd7 :all ,use. of• said* water su.pply:•_by the .-grantees.•:herein. shall :oease and.. terminate at said time, with. respeot".to�,,said'..'seccnd 3234343 REAL ESTATE CONTRACT ELMA NEYEN MORGAN SMITH HAZEL SMITH "I'ti :Ri Ls; .;4•~x'i ,�. sy 1., sue. µ` • �,. 300 or ..more; � • shall'. her � eum,• .in the • amount .o� . �� , or before the:l6th.day .of.. July, 1942, making a' • ,. . '• �paid�'on' otal`;o_';:at,• least. $1500; 00. upon the principal which shall. have been. paid • 'by the ..16th.: day or •Jul.y ,' 1942; and a •further • sum oY; ':500.00 , or more, -:.shall•:be ;paid within nine .(9)• . . .._•,,:,.moxit�s:; thereafter „:.making'a�:aotaT•�payaent� • o: $2,000.00;. 'Cr •`•.. • 'shall , have' ben pai6.,upon: -•tae principal of -•the r ;y;::purehase price within one year from . 16th ..day on- th.e_.a. e.„4 1. 1terest .at • the • rate • of five ('5 %) • per annum: accruing upon said pr Ina ipal'shall be :paid for the period' ending April :18;•• 1943.. • • Monthly• payments; •'in - addition' to; the payments hereinabbve • •.” "provided• for shall be paid as •follows : Forty. Dollars ($4-0 :00) or °,.more pe.r.' month, together .with interest at the..rate of . r five. = pecent. (5%) per annum on deferred »balances, the • first.'. of.;aaid nonthl payments upon principal and interest to be .' made ,on, the 16th • day • of •LiaY • • , 1042; and 'a • similar :.payuieht.on principa1- and •- Interest to be made on the _16th. .dnyot_.each .and every: month -the reater during •.the' first year :-of. ntthh' its o•.. conpptlray ct; the aald- . payment s. -:•of ..$40 00. or. more , per : upon • the ,sum. of '- $2,000.00 which' must be r�uptiri'..the 'principal •during tYie:•_*irst•.yea: of t is. contract.. ?.After ,•said time, • the -first year of th, s contract',. the :Wont'r_ly:' •''Ipaythents hereunder,shall'be reduced' to Thirty Dollars ($30.00)` or. more per month,• plus interest at the rate oi,five per: cent,. $5%) .:pe.r. annum. upon deferred, payments, the •firs•t''of: said. • 30 :00' monthly payments, • t o be made on : or before .the' 16th 'day • of•: May; 1943 and a similar payment cn:principal and .intere st •. t'o'.be..made 'on •the.16th day c.f'•each and ever;; month, thereafter . ".'lultil.' the . balance due., upon' thi6 ..contract,, together with :,':accrued .interest thereon, shall •have :been •paid in full. :The Purchasers agree to: 'pay before. delinquency all taxes and - assessment•s.that may as between grantor and grantees hereafter: be- .:..come a :lien on said. premises. -. • The :Purchasers :assume:. all 'iazards of damage ..-to . o ^..d.estruction of: any :improvements now on said land or hereafter to ;,oe• placed. there- Of ..the ' taking of . said premises Or any part - t:iereof for pub lip uroe: • . • - • :The:Purcha A agree,' until full pa;;ment:o: the said:pUrche.se °• prioie ;'• to•keep' buildings on said. described. premises insured to ie.�u11 .insurable value thereof against loss or damage •by fire in. someooaroany aoceptable•.to the Seller and for the Selle.r's_ :benefit ::•s;;lziterest• may appe. , and-to: . pay:;all..premiums therefor, and to- deliver air .policie an renewals thereof. to . the Seller; icase rdhaeera_shall fall ;t o. make a.-iy. •paymet here_"oefore:: • . :1:11711ded'by..'the Pu hasers `to be made; . the : Seller .may.'make; such paI exit, ar& ar ,,amount sol.paid by 'the Seller, together•,with`.interest t}ie an~;fnom date' of payment until' repaid •at the ratevot :ten per.•.cent x �l ) rper tarnttim, .'sha11: be x'epayabl-e by the :Purchasers'::on •demand}::' -- ;$ 12 "Jr'tiioutID— .)U-di ce.• to any- other 'right';trie:8eller.'rigllt havE: :bye• ?'eaeoa bf suoh derail t. • �` 'Purc�rieera :agree Ghat full -: izabe aticn, Of aeci'd desc ri. bed r" ��Ye�h i been:` made; and tl^.at -neith.er ..the.: Seller ::nor .ifs eig.*ss.`Bii, Ne;4' • Vin• ^ =.:: ..- ::i• -: ;r �-'••' -"•'' • • " The :.Seller has-procured :o'r : agree s, .within ten, days °rro ' da.;e '. •;• envoi" '• to •.,'procur e • rrom 'Washington Title Insurance . Company a purchaser ' s•: policy . or title :insurance , . Insuring the Purchasore to the• 11...amoantfor }the .said' -purchase price against lose or:cis: ,e • by reason-of de ec' in: the :title of . a�he.:Seller • scribed:;prenises, or :'by` reason ar :'prior liens not.assumed by the 'PUrchasere under this a eercont: The Seller agrees; to make and execute a good and sutf,icie -t warranty. deed of said descrioed premises, •said deed .to. be placed in escrow ut the. Washington _lutu a1Savlrgs 3a_., Seattle . for deli'veryto the Purchasers upon full payment of the purchase price hereunder.. This con•tract.. shall be placed at the lipstlin Eton Mutual Sov's.;� . ' 3ank,•.Seat.tl e ':Was 'in s ` ^- 1-lpct I or. , 'and a'°t l.Tt 3 , r � ^r UC •'a� „e - ;ioreu:ider :shall be mace -by the Purchasers to said bank. . 'Time. is of she••oaoenee o. th!o contract*. In case the Pun ,..Irr;re ..Shall fail to make: any :payment of the said 'purchase price pr � J :.'.l :tl�i •'at -tile :time the same Shall fall due to hereinbeiore specified, or, :;• .promptly•. to perform any covenri -t or agreement aforesaid; t:^.e Seller may_ elect to declare forfeiture and oa:_cellation . of this contract; .• and 'upon such elect.lon ie.,ng made, .al.]. ~.ic....a of the Purchasers • :•. • hereunder shall cease and determine and. any payments theretofore made neretinder-i-Sy the ?urcliasers shall be retained by the Seller In liquidation of all dnrages .oustairied by reason o:. such {allure _ ..;. •Service: of all 'desands _,._notioee or other papers with respect to ouch, .:declaration of forfeiture and _ cFT1C e��n io?._may-- be- made- b- "culste :led _ mail a one roT :ow_n5 ndd 'e.s s, to-wit : or at: such other :address ae the Purchasers will :indicate 1_.�'^'_t! ^� , the . Selller. . • Or..the . Seller may elec = to ;:ring action, or act. ::s, any :,intermediate�cverdue installment, or: on a:^.y payment, on pa;- • :mente, made oy the:.s'eller arid repayable by 'the Purchasers,' it oein stipulated that 'the c .,enaInt `o uaj. 1. ^.te.rme3it te' installments cr to ' • 7:pay :items repayable by the Purchasers, are independent •o_t the cove - ' ..: r an t,;to:6.kke a deed and that ever;, such: action is an.• action arising .6n.•con"`Ct nor ,the~recovery of . money only,' as if the proolse 'to,: ' .payt..ha een• expressed in : a different .''i ns.t:ument,..and ;that : .no euc'.i action•'.aralh-' :constitute an election not to. nroc•eed :othe"Wise'as to ;any; :subsequent•.default; and. no 'waiver Vy the Seller: o'. any.`default. '.`on: the: part of•.the Purchasers shall oefcon'strued. 'aa,.a' Waiver .of 'any *. • :.- suboequont default . •-.• .- : :,`M: :WI'I'NE36 :rirrr,r'LFOr the parties hereto have- .evecuted : this nstrument' 'in duplicate the day .and- vea••' first- herei ^.•W= '= tter :.• of. • • - • • ;11L.:41 4hi'S :Aa'St individUaldeficribed t and licknow before me •HEYEN, to me • , . .. .in..a.nd•who••execg,,cd. ulie within ' • redged:i;hat., she ...81.•Gned. the Game.:;.. atc.,,eni ....43.7tvcrie.e. ,.....7......, , .:. . ,. .., ::: ,... :,... , . fi...;.• for...the.,.ues',1:.a.ndT.pLit-podes. '.....•' . - • ••••• • • • • .• ..• 4:At'.7•"'r"'F*.: - — . . • • • . . . - . • ;1:•N,,...• • 4tAlP ••■•••.t•e: • • • • 1, • • • • ...t...1'.,.);441%",ft.0101itr4',4=2;*;•.....:. • ••■• I: :•17:-:T • t • 1.•••.1...1...•••• r•—• • s; • • F." • MORRIS AUQITC Statutory Warranty Deed rl THE GRANTOR RALPH ENGLE and FLORA ENGLE, his wife, Iowa W cv tai and in consideration of TEN ($10.00) Dollars and other good and valt} able consideration in hand paid. conveys and warrants to EDDIE BOWYN and VIOLET BOWYN, his wife, the rnitmring described real estate. situated in the County of King , State 01 Washington: Beginning at the Northwest corner of .Tract 4 Seattle Land Company's 5 acre tracts, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plata, page 90, records of said county; thence Easterly along the North line of said tract 4, a distance of 280 feet, more or leas, to the Westerly, line of primary State Highway #1 and the true point of beginning of the tract herein described. Thence Southerly along the Westerly lino of said primary State Highway #t to the Southerly line of said Tract 4; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Tract 4 a distance of 150 feet; thence Northerly along a line parallel to the Westerly line of said Tract 4 a distance of 219.25 feet; thence Westerly parallel to the Southerly line of said Tract 4 a distance of 40 feet; thence Northerly parallel to the Westerly line of said Tract 4 to the Northerly line thereof; th $tce Easterly along said North line to the point of beginning. To- C^ether with an casement for roadway and utility purposes over, across and) tpon the Southerly 25 feet of the Westerly 160 feet of said Tract 4. Dated this SALES TAX LIEt4; P .tft ' Dttay of iFEti =� M./J.. R ,W+� S BY '.. •••?l44tF�'s` April, 1967 y amewed Iref,.te nw Ralph A. Engle and Flora A. Engle, his wife, r• s . , t M•�'1`[.ro>s.kQfe individual s dexrJx•A in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and •ct( i/,•+Jr �?J 1{ialr� they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the u. kd urjmnn'IJeF•eIn mentioned. eilVEN under my hand and official e,I this day of April, 1967. .rate y Pith& end /w the State el W*aA streaw, resrdiisr it • • TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences November 9, 2001 Project No. T-4800 Mr. Andy Taber Opus Northwest, LLC 915 — 118th Avenue SE, Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Review Opus Park 5/405 Tukwila, Washington Reference: Geotechnical Report, Opus Park 5/405, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., Project No. T -4800, dated September 21, 2001 Dear Mr. Taber: As requested, we have reviewed two issues regarding development of the site as they relate to geotechnical considerations. These include accommodating the grade transition adjacent to the property lines along the north and south sides of the site, and impacts to groundwater as a result of placing fill on the site to establish desired construction elevations. The following summarizes our comments and recommendations. Grade Transition As discussed in the referenced geotechnical report, grad transition along the property lines can be accomplished without constructing a retaining wall by stabilizing an over - steepened slope at the transition using reinforcing geogrids. This type of technology is commonly referred to as mechanically stabilized earth (MSE). A general detail of how a MSE slope would look in section along the property line is attached. The exposed over - steepened slope face can be_readily vegetated using a turf reinforcement material, in combination with hydroseeding. Alternatively, plantings such as willow shoots could be installed between the reinforcing layers projecting out of the slope face during the MSE slope construction. Landscaping can also be readily accomplished along the top of the MSE slope. Please have your landscape architect coordinate with us in the unlikely event the placement of landscaping will require the penetration through any of the grid. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phnno (Z17cl R71 -7777 • Fax (42 51 821 -4114 • terra @terra - associates.com Mr. Andy Taber November 8, 2001 Groundwater As discussed in the referenced report, we observed groundwater seepage at a depth of approximately 11 feet below existing site grade along the proposed western building margin, and at a depth of 5 to 6 feet below existing site grade below the eastern parking lot area. These depths correspond to elevations of about 85 feet to the west and 83 feet to the east. The groundwater resides and flows through a medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel to gravelly sand unit that exhibits moderate permeability. Because of these characteristics, the stress imposed on the subsurface soils by the fill material that is required to achieve desired construction grades would not result in consolidation or an increase in pore water pressure. Therefore, placement of the fill would not cause an increase in the elevation of the current groundwater seepage. Also, no active springs or seeps would be sealed off or covered by fill placement. Therefore, a damming affect, which would cause the elevation of the groundwater to rise upgradeint of the fill, would not occur. Based on these considerations, it is our opinion that placement of the fill material on the site would have no affect on current groundwater seepage conditions or on adjacent properties. We trust this information is sufficient for you current needs. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. cc: Mr. Bill Bieber, Opus Northwest, LLC Project No. T-4800 Page No. 2 Me,c\.a rN 1 c U.1 `\I G kvS \ c\ C1/4L I e, c i- a_ q-1 \A. S /4o - • TvP X0'1 —S mine •Ims• Gore ?0.lIce..J\ t � : A = PROJECT 0 r?0 ?ctir 5- IV o $' BY I d_ ( SHEET 1 TERRA LOCATION — 10 \w'i10. w � CHECKED -.= ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants CLIENT D- ,� )sa .) DATE lk'-I ! 0 t 12525 Willows Rd., Ste. 101 • Kirkland, WA 98034 • (425) 821 -7777 7' ` OO JOB NO. • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 26, 2001 Andy Taber 915 118`h Ave SE Suite 300 Bellevue WA 98005 Re: Request for additional information for Opus Park I -5/405 project. File numbers L01 -050 and E01 -018. Dear Mr. Taber: Based on a review of your resubmittal for Design Review and SEPA, please address the following comments: 1. Overall comments: a) Title report for the Burns property references two easement documents, recording numbers 6299225 and 8701270486. However only the second document was submitted and it further references two documents- recording number 7306290088 and 3234343. Please submit all documents related to any easements on the subject site. Also, retaining wall and required perimeter landscaping are shown within the easement area. From the documents reviewed so far it seems that 25 feet must be unencumbered for access and utility purposes. One option may be to record a new easement document to relocate the easement west of its current location. b) Please submit a Type 2 permit application (Special Permission Director) for the stream relocation and other buffer intrusions. 2. SEPA comments: Following are comments pertaining to corresponding item in the checklist: a) B.1.e. Additional information was requested regarding the proposed grade and fill to fully understand the impacts associated with 20,000 cubic yards of fill. Based on review of the site sections and geo- technical report it is not clear why this design that requires massive fill was selected. Please explain if any other site development alternatives were explored. As we discussed on the phone, one such alternative seems to be to construct a retaining wall along 51St Avenue South and do some 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 b) • • grading to meet 15% grade to get to the parking lot that would be lower than 51st Avenue South grade. Also, if it is determined that no other alternative is feasible, further analysis is required to address any environmental impact of the proposed fill on the subject site or adjoining properties. City's public works department has requested that the geo -tech report must provide an analysis of hydrological effects of soil loading on groundwater at surrounding properties and downstream 1/4 mile. 7.a.2 The soil report states "The individual performing the environmental review should be informed about the fill, particularly the old paint cans. Environmental review will likely require some level of sampling and testing of the fill to determine if regulated hazardous materials are present." Further in your September 28, 2001, letter you have indicated that you are working with an environmental consultant to investigate the report of buried debris and they will review with Department of Ecology any findings that indicate regulated hazardous materials are present. Further information is required related to this issue prior to issuance of SEPA determination. Please inform us of the timing of the investigation and if it has been completed then forward us any findings. Also forward any correspondence with Department of Ecology. 4. Design Review Comments: a) Parking: Parking stall sizes are shown as 17'x9' (14'x8' for compact) with two feet overhang in the landscape area. However per TMC 18.56.040 (7)(e), wheel stops shall be required on the periphery of parking lots so cars will not protrude off the parking lot. Wheel stops shall be two feet from the end of the stall of head -in parking. Any landscaped area whether it is required perimeter landscaping or any additional landscaping may not be used to meet the minimum parking stall size requirement. Also, revise the parking stall sizes along the building front that are shown to extend into the walkway. b) Landscaping: A revised landscape plan prepared by the licensed landscape architect, which shows all the plantings, must be submitted prior to Design Review. Construction drawings related to automatic irrigation sprinkler system may be submitted prior to issuance of construction permit. The perimeter landscaping along the north property line is dimensioned as "varies ". Five feet of Type I landscaping is required along the entire north and east property lines exclusive of the retaining wall width. Dimensions and calculations must be shown for the interior parking lot landscaping. b) Retaining walls: Retaining walls over three feet in height are considered a structure pursuant to TMC 18.06.800, and thus must meet minimum setbacks of the underlying Office zone (front -25', 2 • • side 10' and rear 10'). The current location of retaining walls does not meet this code requirement. Other alternatives to site development that would avoid or reduce the amount of grade and fill must be explored in order to avoid the massive retaining walls. Depending on the analysis of your response to exploring other site development alternatives to reduce the amount of grade /fill and analysis of the environmental impact of large amount of fill, if it determined that retaining walls are inevitable then please provide details to show what steps will be taken to soften the impact of large blank retaining walls from the adjoining properties. Also, additional details related to structural design and drainage will be required prior to design review approval. c) Building Design: All of the comments related to building design were addressed as part of your resubmittal. However the overhang that was redesigned to highlight the entrance to the building does little to make the entrance more prominent. Instead of an just an overhang, it could be revised to include some vertical elements like columns, or redesigned like a portico, or other articulation added around the entrance area so that there is some relationship of the overhang to the ground level. 5. Public Works Building permit comments: a. Based on review of the traffic impact analysis report, City will require mitigation fee of $3,679 (61% of $6,030) for building A. A remainder of $2,351 shall be paid for building B with that building application, provided building B does not substantially change from current proposal. Late comers agreement is standard with this sort of improvement. b. A full drainage report and surface water drainage design per 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual shall be submitted with the building permit application. The report shall address the Sensitive Areas Ordinance when preparing the report. We are still in the process of reviewing your addendum to the wetland report and will have some additional comments regarding the wetland report and stream relocation and mitigation plan, which we will get to you by next week. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 206 -431- 3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner 3 0.4 OPUS. THE OPUS GROUP A R C H I T E C T S (2 O N T R A C T O R S D E V E L O P E R S October 10, 2001 Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. 915 118th Avenue Southeast, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone 425 - 453 -4100 Fax 425 -453 -1712 www.opuscorp.com Re: Opus Park 1 -5/405 project — File Nos. L01 -050 and E01 -018 Dear Minnie: Attached is the rendering of our new revised building elevations for the Opus Park 5/405 project. Also enclosed is the revised site plan indicating how we can accommodate the easement on the northern parcel on our site without impacting the development of the property. We submit these as additional information to the SEPA and Design Review package we gave you on September 28. Sincere Opus •rthwest, L.L.C. Senior Rea to Manager Allentown • Atlanta • ,Austin • Chk.tgo • Columbus • Dallas • Dcnvci • Pert I.audcrdalr • li nr,t m • Indianap, Ii> • h.m.a, City • Lo„ Angelo, • Nliatni • Milwaukee • Minneapolis Orange County • Orlando • Pensacola • Philadelphia • Phoenix • Portland • ti(era men to • tiara Francisco • tian lase •'rattle • tit Lnuis • Tampa • Washinl;tnn.DC OPUS. THE OPUS GROUP A R C H I T E C T S C O N T R A C T O R S D E V E L O P E R S September 28, 2001 RECENED CITY OF TUKWILA r :i Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal PERMIT CENTER Associate Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukewila, WA 98188 • OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. 915 118th Avenue Southeast, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone 425- 453 -4100 Fax 425 -453 -1712 www.opuscorp.com Re: Response to August 16, 2001 Notice of Complete Application and Request for Additional Information for Opus Park 1-5/405 project — File Nos. L01 -050 and E01 -018 Dear Minnie: This letter and its enclosures are in response to your letter of August 16, 2001 referenced above. The sign was posted on August 27, 2001 and the signed Affidavit of Posing was delivered to your office on August 27, 2001. Our comments below follow the numbering system in your letter seeking additional information. 1. Current title reports for both tax lots are enclosed. 2. A complete geo- technical report dated September 21, 2001 is enclosed. 3. A Type 2 permit application (Special Permission Director) will be submitted for the tight lining of the north ditch/watercourse and a short extension of the culvert under 515` Avenue South to the south ditch/water course. The culvert under 51' Avenue South will be relocated slightly to the south. The water exiting this culvert will be enclosed in an extension of the culvert for a distance of approximately 40 -feet. The north ditch/water course begins where a second culvert crossing under 51' Avenue South discharges water in to a ditch that has been maintained as a drainage ditch over many years. Because this watercourse is where our parking is planned it will be place in a culvert under the parking. Mitigation for these culvert extensions will be through construction of a new watercourse along the east side of the development with appropriate enhancement plantings. A J Bredberg of B & A Inc. describes this work in his letter of September 21, 2001, copy attached. 4. A Boundary Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation application will be submitted. Please note this cannot become final until Opus purchases the two parcels. Issuance of a building permit will need to be contingent on recording the Boundary Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation. Allentown • Atlanta • Austin • Chicago • Columbus • Dallas • Denver • Fort Lauderdale • Houston • lndianapolts • Kansas City • Los Angeles • Miami • Milwaukee • Minneapolis Orange Countv • Orlando • Pensacola • Philadelphia • Phoenix • Portland • Sacramento • San Francisco • San Jose • Seattle • St. Louis • Tampa • Washington. D.C. 5. Use of the building: The proposed use of the building will conform to the requirements of Chapter 18.18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The first paragraph of the first page of Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. cover letter of February 22, 2001 accurately describes the office building as two floors of office (approximately 43,200 square feet) over one floor of high tech assembly space (approximately 21,600 square feet). We believe this is consistent with 18.18.020 (9) Permitted uses, that reads "(9) High -tech uses including research and development, light assembling, repair or storage of electronic equipment, instruments, or biotechnology with at least 35% office." Our percentage of office will be at least 35 %. The reference to "light industrial" use referenced in your letter is found in the traffic report when the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation document is referenced. The ITE document does not have a "high- tech" classification. Light industrial is the closest traffic category, therefore, this category was used for the report. It is only a convenience and does not describe the use of the building other than as a surrogate for high -tech and automobile trips. The reference in the SEPA Check List on page 14, paragraph 14.f to "light industrial" is a reference to the ITE document and not a direct reference to the code permitted use planned for the first floor of the building. 6. Sanitary sewer: We have met with Mike Cusick, Jill Masqueda, and Pat Brodin of the Tukwila Public Works Department. Based on their direction, our sanitary sewer line will be revised from crossing three lots to being placed in 51' Avenue South with a pump station, and then east in South 15 Street to the existing sewer line at 52nd Avenue South. 7. SEPA comments: A.11 The building will provide workspace for general office technology type businesses. A typical tenant could be a technology company with a need for light assembly, repair, or storage of electronic equipment it sells as part of its business. This assembly, repair or storage would be on the first floor and the employees responsible for the marketing, sales, management, and accounting for the business operations would work on the second and third floors of the building. B.1.e. Cross sections indicating the existing grade and the final grade can be seen on sheet P4.03 and five sheets labeled Site Cross Sections by Terra Associates. Copies are attached. A discussion about fill procedures can be found in the enclosed Geothecnical Report dated September 21, 2001. Actual routing of trucks will be worked out with the City of Tukwila prior to issuance of a building permit. B.3.a 1 & 2 We will refer to the watercourses as "ditches/Type 3 streams. See 13 & A Inc. letter of September 21, 2001 for additional comments (Copy attached.). 7.a.2 A Applicant is working with its environmental consultant to investigate the report of buried debris. The environmental consultant will review with the Department of Ecology any findings that indicate regulated hazardous materials are present. 8.k It is noted that the City did not receive any formal application for this site until Opus made its submittal on July 19, 2001. 8. Design Review Comments: P:\REDEV\TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Correspondence \City Tukwila \Minnie Dhaliwal SEPA It( 010926 .doc Pg 2/4 • • a) Parking: Applicant's architect, Sconzo/Hallstrom has revised the drawings and responded in their letter of September 19, 2001. A copy is enclosed. b) Landscaping: Applicant's architect has reviewed and responded in their letter of September 19, 2001. A copy is enclosed. Construction drawings for the landscape will include the appropriate landscaping in the five -foot area along the north and east property lines. The drawings will also include an automatic irrigation sprinkler system. Sheet C -2 indicates the trees and the sensitive area buffers. The proposed project will eliminate most of the few trees outside of the sensitive area buffers on the two parcels. c) Building Design: Applicant's architect has reviewed and responded in their letter of September 19, 2001. A copy is enclosed. d) Lighting Plan: A preliminary lighting plan and specifications are enclosed. e) Signage: Applicant's architect has reviewed and responded in their letter of September 19, 2001. A copy is enclosed. 9. Public works Comments: a) Email from Cindy Dinghton dated 8/13/01: The first paragraph identifies a payment of $6,000 for a mitigation fee for both Buildings A and B in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Traffic Report) . We are submitting on Building A only at this time. Building A represents 61% (85/140) of the PM Peak Hour trips. See Table 2 in the Traffic Report. Therefore, the mitigation for Building A should be $3,643, which is 61% of $6,000. The second paragraph identifies the intersection of S 154th Street and 52nd Ave S for widening improvements. The Traffic Report indicates another development on 52nd South prepared an impact analysis that identified this intersection as needing improvements with the ultimate build out of nine nearby properties. We will prepare a cost estimate for the work, however, prior to making any improvements we request a late comers agreement with the City for reimbursement by future developments in the immediate area that impact this intersection. The design submittal should be a requirement for the issuance of a building permit and the completion of the improvement for occupancy of Building A. b) Underdrains in parking area: The enclosed Geotechnical Report dated September 21, 2001 on Page 10 states that the existing groundwater seepage is at elevations 83 to 85 feet and that the parking areas will be at elevations 92 feet to 110 feet, significantly above any groundwater seepage, therefore, underdrains in the parking area will not be necessary. c) Water quality treatment: Water quality treatment is per the City's code and contained within the vault. The treatment is more completely described in our civil engineer's "Level one Drainage Analysis and Stormwater Control Plan" by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. dated July 2001. This was submitted with the original application on July 19, 2001. 10. Fire Department Comments: a) Four -inch fire line: The drawings show a new eight -inch water line to be installed in 51st Avenue South and a 4 -inch line leading to the building. Our civil engineers will meet with the P:\REDEV\TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Correspondence \City Tukwila \Minnie Dhaliwal SEPA Itr 010926 .doc Pg 3/4 City's Public Works and the City's Fire Department to determine the proper size for the fire line into the building. The final solution will be detailed on the building permit drawings. b) Fire hydrants: There are fire hydrants along 51' Avenue South. Our civil engineers will meet with the City's Fire Department to determine the proper placement of fire hydrants. The final solution will be detailed on the building permit drawings. Wetlands and stream relocation: Responses to your City of Tukwila FAX of August 28, 2001 and a memorandum from Gary Schulz to you dated August 27, 2001 are detailed in A J Bredberg's letter of September 21, 2001, copy attached. Easements on the Burns property: The City has received a letter dated September 6, 2001, from the attorney representing the Bothams, the owners of three parcels immediately to the north of our proposed project. The north parcel of our project, Tax Lot 30 of Tract 4, is traversed by a 25 -foot easement along its south and east sides for ingress and egress. We are having discussions with the owners representative to resolve this issue. Issuance of the building permit should be subject to the resolution of this item. A copy of the easement is attached. We believe these comments will assist you to better understand our plans and to bring them into compliance with your codes. Please call me with any questions or request for additional information. Sincerely, Opus Np6thwest, L.L.C. Andy T Sr. Rea Enclos to Manager • Current Title reports for Pollinger and Burns parcels • Geotechnical Report, by Terra Associates, Inc. dated September 21, 2001 • Site Cross Sections by Terra Associates, sheets 1 through 5 • B & A Inc, letter of September 21, 2001 to Ms. Minnie Dhalwal from A. JL edberg \ • Revised drawings: P1.01, P4.01, P4.02, P4.03 from Sconzo/Hallstrom. C ►'G �v' Qavil 'fie J • Preliminary Lighting Plan Sheet„ 1�� �o�f 1 and Preliminary Lighting Plan Specifications (A". C1 Sheets 1 and 2 C & J- t-0r') 'Y'11114') 1-€-) • Sconzo/Hallstrom letter of September 19, 2001. l S t,w �l ^2"''Tb(l ) • Easement documentation including a Deed with recording number 8701270486, and Safeco title report dated August 26, 1977, for Sheila Burns (owner of the burdened parcel). P:\REDEV\TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Correspondence \City Tukwila \Minnie Dhaliwal SEPA Itr 010926 .doc Pg 4/4 ISSUED BY TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Transnation A LANDAMERICA COMPANY Gl7 y op7V fIA PERM?' CENTER Transnation Title Insurance Company, an Arizona Corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the exceptions and conditions and stipulations shown herein, the Exclusions from Coverage, the Schedule B exceptions, and the conditions and stipulations of the policy or policies requested. (See reverse side of this cover and inside of back cover for printed Exclusions from Coverage and Schedule B exceptions contained in various policy forms.) This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsements and is subject to the Conditions and Stipulations on the back of this cover. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. NOTE: THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR MAY BE EXAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITMENT, AND A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT WILL BE FURNISHED PROMPTLY UPON REQUEST. TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY aQ Commitment - WA By: Attest: President Secretary TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 14450 N.E. 29TH PLACE BELLEVUE, WA 98007 Prepared for: COLLIERS REAL ESTATE TWO UNION SQUARE 601 UNION STREET, #5300 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Attn: MICHAEL GEORGE Transnation No. 870144 Customer Reference: Escrow No. Seller BuyeerA /Borrower UV( By Pollinger 0 u NW � _ � ,( For service on this or er cal_: (425) 646 - 8589/1- 800 - 441 -7701 JOHN W. JONES, MARK S. NIKLASON, RANDY MC CRORY or J. JAY PUGH (FAX #(425) 646 -8593) THIRD COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 2001 at 8:00 A.M. 1. Policy or policies to be issued: Amount ALTA Owner's Policy $744,660.00 (Residential Resale Rate) Extended Policy Proposed Insured: OPUS NORTHWEST LLC, A DELAWARE LLC Premium Tax Premium Tax 2. Title to fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: $1,348.00 $ 115.93 $ 578.00 $ 49.71 JOHANN POLLINGER AND HILDEGARD POLLINGER, TRUSTEES OF THE POLINGER LIVING TRUST U /T /A DATED FEBRUARY 4, 1993 3. The land referred to in this commitment is described as follows: See "LEGAL DESCRIPTION:" • • Order No. 870144 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TRACT 5. AND THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE WEST 100 FEET OF TRACT 6 OF SEATTLE LAND COMPANY'S 5 ACRE TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 90, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; EXCEPT THAT PORTION DEEDED (SRS) BY DEEDS RECORDED UND 5528319, LYING EASTERLY OF DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 ER RECORDING NOS. 5484213 AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF PROPERTY UNDER RECORDING NO. 5561902; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Paae SCHEDULE B Order No. 870144 REQUIREMENTS. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest co be insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. EXCEPTIONS. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. B. Standard exceptions set forth in inside of back cover. C. Special exceptions: 1. Real Estate Excise Tax pursuant to the authority of RCW Chapter 82.45 and subsequent amendments thereto. As of the date herein, the tax rate for said property is .0178. 2. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES and SERVICE CHARGES, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent, May 1; 2nd half delinquent, November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 766160 - 0061 -08 2001 $5,917.42 $2,958.71 $2,958.71 Total amount due, not including interest and penalty: $2,958.71 Levy Code: 2414 Assessed Value Land: $342,000.00 Assessed Value Improvements: $ 69,000.00 3. INTENTIONALLY DELETED 4. RELINQUISHMENT OF ALL EASEMENTS existing, future or potential, for access, light, view and air, and all rights of ingress, egress and regress to, from and between the land and the highway or highways to be constructed on land conveyed by deed. To: Dated: Recorded: Recording No.: State of Washington August 20, 1962, August 27, 1962 and February 7, 1963 September 25, 1962, January 8, 1963 and March 27, 1963 5484213, 5528319 and 5561902 Page 3 Order No. 870144 5. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: ADDRESS: LOAN NO.: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: Lawrence F. Warner and Rose E. Warner, husband and wife Safeco Title Insurance Company, a California corporation Johann Pollinger and Hildegard Pollinger, husband and wife 2659 South 150th, Seattle, Washington 98166 $260,000.00 February 18, 1981 February 20, 1981 8102200262 THE BENEFICIARY'S INTEREST IN THE ABOVE DEED OF TRUST MAY BE MERGED WITH THE LEGAL TITLE TO THE LAND. ANY SUCH MERGER SHOULD BE EVIDENCED BY A RECONVEYANCE OF THE DEED OF TRUST. Investigation should be made to determine the present balance owing with the appropriate lender /agency /individual. 6. ANY SERVICE, INSTALLATION, CONNECTION, MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION CHARGES FOR SEWER, WATER, ELECTRICITY, OR GARBAGE COLLECTION OR DISPOSAL, OR OTHER UTILITIES UNLESS DISCLOSED AS AN EXISTING LIEN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 7. Matters relating to questions of survey, rights of parties in possession, and unrecorded liens for labor or material. An ALTA "as- built" survey must be furnished to this Company which shows the location of all improvements and reveals all encroachments, driveways and easements which encumber the property. We will review the survey and make an inspection of the premises, and will report the results of both the review and the inspection by supplemental report. NOTE 1: We are informed that Opus Northwest LLC is a Limited Liability Company (LLC). A copy of the duplicate original of the filed LLC Certificate of Formation, the LLC agreement, and all subsequent modifications or amendments must be submitted to the Company for review. NOTE 2: According to the application for title insurance, the proposed insured(s) is /are Opus Northwest LLC, a Delaware LLC. We find no pertinent matters of record against the name(s) of said party (ies) . Pace 4 Order No. 870144 NOTE 3: The above captioned description may be incorrect, because the application for title insurance contained only an address and /or Parcel Number. Prior to closing, all parties to the transaction must verify the legal description. If further changes are necessary, notify the Company well before closing so that those changes can be reviewed. Closing instructions must indicate that the legal description has been reviewed and approved by all parties. NOTE 4: The tax assessor's records disclose the current property address to be: 14910 51st Avenue S., Tukwila, WA 98168 NOTE 5: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. PTN TRACT 5 SEATTLE LAND COMPANY'S 5 ACRE TRACTS VOL 6 PAGE 90 NOTE 6: The Trust agreement under which the vestee holds title must be submitted to the Company for its review prior to closing. END OF EXCEPTIONS Investigation should be made to determine if there are any service, installation, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, or electricity. In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. msn Copies have been sent to the following: OPUS NORTHWEST L.L.C. 915 118TH AVE SE #300 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 Attn: ANDY TABER JAMESON, BABBITT, STITES & LOMBARD 999 3RD AVE, #1900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Attn: DAVID LOMBARD CLAYTON GROUP SERVICES 4636 EAST MARGINAL WAY S #215 SEATTLE, WA 98134 Attn: MARCEL KHOUW Page 5 • • 4 r s r l 1 60 s. is,sr sr. ' '•t : "' q,'S ' :51 t'- \� ••.s .1 This sketch is provided, without charge, for your information. It is not intended to show all :natters related to the property including, but not limited to, area, dimensions, easements. en- crc..ac ^'^ens. or location of boundaries. it is not a part of, nor does it modify. t..:: comrnil -ment cr policy to which it is a =ched. The Company assumes NO LLABILIZY for any mater related to this ChI"111111 f1 1 .aT f P T•](1 r ^•r{7 {P CII1■)■ll t/lT t71Tt1PT intnrm�rinn • • CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY 1990 The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attomeys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use; or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the and is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or govemmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has bren recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceabdity of the Tien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (10- 17 -92) and AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD OWNER'S POLICY (10- 17 -92) The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attomeys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or govemmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (1) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the affect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any govemmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in wnting to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankniptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (a) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer or (b) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (i) to timely record the instrument of transfer, or (ii) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. SCHEDULE B STANDARD EXCEPTIONS SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY - STANDARD COVERAGE AND CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY 1. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the and or which may be asserted by persons in possession, or claiming to be in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey of the and would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. Any lien, or right to a lien, for labor, material, services or equipment, or for contributions to employee benefit plans, or liens under workmen's compensation acts, not disclosed by the public records. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 7. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the and resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. 8. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY - EXTENDED COVERAGE 1. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Underground easements, servitudes or installations which are not disclosed by the public records. 3. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 4. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the and which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. 5. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. • • ISSUED BY TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Transnation A LANDAMERICA COMPANY otecotvgo CITY CF TUKWILA S &e 2.4 PERMIT CENTER Transnation Title Insurance Company, an Arizona Corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the exceptions and conditions and stipulations shown herein, the Exclusions from Coverage, the Schedule B exceptions, and the conditions and stipulations of the policy or policies requested. (See reverse side of this cover and inside of back cover for printed Exclusions from Coverage and Schedule B exceptions contained in various policy forms.) This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsements and is subject to the Conditions and Stipulations on the back of this cover. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. NOTE: THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR MAY BE EXAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITMENT, AND A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT WILL BE FURNISHED PROMPTLY UPON REQUEST. TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By: Attest: President Secretary J 44�'{*Ar5N a4^W : Commitment - WA Cover Form 1004 -274 TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 14450 N.E. 29TH PLACE BELLEVUE, WA 98007 Prepared for: COLLIERS REAL ESTATE TWO UNION SQUARE 601 UNION STREET, #5300 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Attn: MICHAEL GEORGE Transnation No. 870146 Customer Reference: Escrow No. Seller Burns Buyer/Borr wer Opus NW By(v"� �._ For service on this d c al e r cl: (425) 646- 8589/1- 800 - 441 -7701 JOHN W. JONES, MARK S. NIKLASON, RANDY MC CRORY or J. JAY PUGH (FAX #(425) 646 -8593) SECOND COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 2001 at 8:00 A.M. 1. Policy or policies to be issued: Amount ALTA Owner's Policy $250,000.00 (Residential Resale Rate) Extended Policy Proposed Insured: OPUS NORTHWEST LLC., A DELAWARE LLC Premium Tax Premium Tax 2. Title to fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: $648.00 $ 55.73 $278.00 $ 23.91 SHEILA J. BURNS, AS HER SEPARATE ESTATE 3. The land referred to in this commitment is described as follows: See "LEGAL DESCRIPTION:" • • Order No. 870146 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 4 OF SEATTLE LAND COMPANY'S 5 ACRE TRACT, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 90, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 4, WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 150 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT 4, A DISTANCE OF 199.25 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT 4, A DISTANCE 148 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHERLY TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 4; THENCE EASTERLY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Page 2 • SCHEDULE B Order No. 870146 REQUIREMENTS. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. EXCEPTIONS. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. B. Standard exceptions set forth in inside of back cover. C. Special exceptions: 1. Real Estate Excise Tax pursuant to the authority of RCW Chapter 82.45 and subsequent amendments thereto. As of the date herein, the tax rate for said property is .0178. 2. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES and SERVICE CHARGES, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent, May 1; 2nd half delinquent, November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 766160 - 0030 -06 2001 $2,045.01 $1,022.51 $1,022.50 Total amount due, not including interest and penalty: $1,022.50 Levy Code: 2414 Assessed Value Land: $69,000.00 Assessed Value Improvements: $73,000.00 3. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: Roadway and utilities AREA AFFECTED: South 25 feet RECORDING NO.: 6299225 4. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDING NO.: Ingress, egress and utilities South and East 25 feet 8701270486 Page 3 Order No. 870146 5. RELINQUISHMENT OF ALL EASEMENTS existing, future or potential, for access, light, view and air, and all rights of ingress, egress and regress to, from and between the land and the highway or highways to be constructed on land conveyed by deed. To: Dated: Recorded: Recording No.: State of Washington August 15, 1962 September 25, 1962 5484212 6. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: Sheila J. Burns, a single woman TRUSTEE: Chicago Title Insurance Company BENEFICIARY: North American Mortgage Company ADDRESS: 3883 Airway Dr., Santa Rosa, CA 95403 LOAN NO.: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: $85,000.00 November 17, 1997 November 26, 1997 9711261112 Investigation should be made to determine the present balance owing with the appropriate lender /agency /individual. 7. The land described in this commitment appears to be residential in nature and may be subject to the provisions of R.C.W. 6.13.060 provided the land is occupied as a homestead. If the land is occupied as a homestead, all instruments conveying or encumbering the land must be executed by each spouse, individually, or by an attorney -in -fact. 8. ANY SERVICE, INSTALLATION, CONNECTION, MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION CHARGES FOR SEWER, WATER, ELECTRICITY, OR GARBAGE COLLECTION OR DISPOSAL, OR OTHER UTILITIES UNLESS DISCLOSED AS AN EXISTING LIEN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 9. Matters relating to questions of survey, rights of parties in possession, and unrecorded liens for labor or material. An ALTA "as- built" survey must be furnished to this Company which shows the location of all improvements and reveals all encroachments, driveways and easements which encumber the property. We will review the survey and make an inspection of . the premises, and will report the results of both the review and the inspection by supplemental report. NOTE 1: We are informed that Opus Northwest LLC is a Limited Liability Company (LLC). A copy of the duplicate original of the filed LLC Certificate of Formation, the LLC agreement, and all subsequent modifications or amendments must be submitted to the Company for review. Page 4 Order No. 870146 NOTE 2: According to the application for title insurance, the proposed insured(s) is /are Opus Northwest LLC, a Delaware LLC. We find no pertinent matters of record against the name(s) of said party(ies). NOTE 3: The above captioned description may be incorrect, because the application for title insurance contained only an address and /or Parcel Number. Prior to closing, all parties to the transaction must verify the legal description. If further changes are necessary, notify the Company well before closing so that those changes can be reviewed. Closing instructions must indicate that the legal description has been reviewed and approved by all parties. NOTE 4: The tax assessor's records disclose the current property address to be: 14710 51st Avenue S., Tukwila, WA 98168 NOTE 5: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. PTN TRACT 4 SEATTLE LAND COMPANY'S 5 ACRE TRACT VOL 6 PAGE 90 END OF EXCEPTIONS Investigation should be made to determine if there are any service, installation, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, or electricity. In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. msn Copies have been sent to the following: OPUS NORTHWEST L.L.C. 915 118TH AVE SE #300 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 Attn: ANDY TABER JAMESON, BABBITT, STITES & LOMBARD 999 3RD AVE, #1900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Attn: DAVID LOMBARD CLAYTON GROUP SERVICES 4636 EAST MARGINAL WAY S #215 SEATTLE, WA 98134 Attn: MARCEL KHOUW Page 5 • • Order No. 870146 This sketch is provided, without charge, for your information. It is not intended to show all matters related to the property including, but not limited to, area, dimensions, easements, en- croachments, or location of boundaries. It is not a part of, nor does it modify, the commitment or policy to which it is attached. The Company assumes NO LIABILITY for any matter related to this . sketch. References should be made to an accurate survey for further information. CLI4111TANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLIC 0 The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attomeys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or govemmental regulation (including but not limited to budding or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the oc :upancy, use; or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (10- 17 -92) and AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD OWNER'S POLICY (10- 17 -92) The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attomeys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or govemmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the affect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or govemmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any govemmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (a) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (i) to timely record the instrument of transfer, or (ii) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. SCHEDULE B STANDARD EXCEPTIONS SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY - STANDARD COVERAGE AND CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY 1. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession, or claiming to be in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey of the land would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. Any lien, or right to a lien, for labor, material, services or equipment, or for contributions to employee benefit plans, or liens under workmen's compensation acts, not disclosed by the public records. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 7. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the and resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. 8. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY - EXTENDED COVERAGE 1. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Underground easements. servitudes or installations which are not disclosed by the public records. 3. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 4. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. 5. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. 1004 -274A CmaOFT 1J Wj 5E P 2: Er 2001. PERMIT CENTER GEOTECHNICAL, REPORT:' Opus Park 5/405 Tukwila, Washington Project No. T -4800 Terra Associates, Inc. Prepared for: Opus Northwest, LLC Bellevue, Washington September 21, 2001 • TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences September 21, 2001 Project No. T-4800 Mr. Bill Bieber Opus Northwest, LLC 915 — 118th Avenue SE, Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Subject: Geotechnical Report Opus Park 5/405 Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Bieber: As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates the building site is generally underlain by medium dense silty sand with gravel. Test pits excavated in the northern portion of the site revealed uncontrolled fill containing construction debris to depths of six feet to the west, and greater than 15 feet to the east. In our opinion, soil conditions in the southern building area will be suitable for support of the structure as proposed. It is also our opinion that construction of a paved parking lot can be completed as planned over the existing fills in the northern portion of the site, provided the owner is willing to accept some risk of future pavement settlement. Further discussion and detailed recommendations regarding these issues, as well as other geotechnical considerations, are provided in the attached report. We trust this information is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. stia n„...,?: Sincyre1 yo . L' ?''� Ti • ! ep ore 'J;,, Scl Pr,m,{f4l3a1-Erig i , sr TJS:ae yam tES 6/18/03 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821 -7777 • Fax (425) 821 -4334 • terra@terra- associates.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Project Description 1 2.0 Site Conditions 1 2.1 Surface 1 2.2 Soil 2 2.3 Groundwater 2 3.0 Geologic Hazards 2 3.1 Erosion 2 3.2 Landslide 2 3.3 Seismic 3 4.0 Discussion and Recommendations 3 4.1 General 3 4.2 Site Preparation and Grading 4 4.3 Excavation and Dewatering 5 4.4 Slopes and Embankments 6 4.5 Foundations 6 4.6 Slab -on -Grade Construction 6 4.7 Lower -Level Retaining Walls 7 4.8 Detention Vault 8 4.9 Drainage 8 4.10 Utilities 8 4.11 Pavements 9 5.0 Additional Services 10 6.0 Limitations 10 Figures Vicinity Map Figure 1 Exploration Location Plan Figure 2 " Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Figure 3 Appendix Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Appendix A Geotechnical Report Opus Park 5/405 Tukwila, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planned development will include constructing a three -level office structure, along with associated utilities and paved access and parking. The lower floor of the structure will daylight to the east, with the upper floor at grade with 51st Avenue South to the west. The structure will also include dock -high loading areas or truck wells on both the north and south sides of the building. Access to the site will be off of 51st Avenue South, with surface parking provided at the structures perimeter. Fill material will be required over most of the site area to achieve the planned construction grades. The fill depth will range from a minimum of about 2 feet to the east to a maximum of about 12 feet to the west. Along the east and south sides of the site, the fill will be supported by retaining wall construction. Development stormwater will be routed for collection and controlled discharge to a detention vault below the eastern parking area. The vault foundations will require excavation of about 12 feet below current site grade. The recommendations in the following sections of this report are based upon our understanding of the above design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations, as required. We should review final design drawings and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Surface The project site is located east and adjacent to 51st Avenue South, approximately one block north of South 151st Street in Tukwila, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Currently, the site is occupied by single - family structures with associated driveways and outbuildings. The area of the site is predominantly open and landscaped with grass, shrubs, and trees. Overall grades on the site slope gently to the east, with approximately 20 feet of relief carried over a slope gradient of less than 10 percent. Isolated east - facing slopes are present in the northwestern and southwestern corners of the site, where locally, 18 to 22 feet of elevation relief occurs over gradients ranging from 40 to 100 percent. Two drainage swales, one located in the north - central portion of the site and the other in the southwestern corner, convey surface water runoff from 51st Avenue South to a drainage swale adjacent to Interstate 5 (I -5), immediately east of the site. September 21, 2001 Project No. T-4800 2.2 Soil. Seven soil test pits were excavated to depths between 4 to 15 feet below current site grades. Five test pits were located in the building area, and two test pits were located in the north parking lot area. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2. Test pit logs describing conditions observed are attached as Figures A -2 through A -5. Soil conditions we obsert'ed in the southern office building area consisted of 8 to 24 inches of dark brown topsoil overlying medium dense silty sand with gravel. At depth, the silty sand transitioned to relatively clean sand with gravel, also in a medium dense field condition. We observed what appears to be an isolated fill area at Test Pit TP -1 excavated in the west portion of the site. At Test Pit TP -2, which was excavated adjacent to Test Pit TP -1, we did not observe fill soils. In the north parking lot, we observed about 6 feet of fill to the west, and greater than 15 feet of fill to the east. The test pit excavated along the eastern edge of the north lot did not get through the fill. The fill is comprised of old construction debris including asphalt, concrete, brick, rebar, and paint cans. Based on our observations, it appears that the flatter portion of the north parcel, and the eastern slope below, is comprised entirely of old fill. 23 Groundwater We observed groundwater at three of the seven test pits excavated on -site. These included Test Pits TP -2, TP -3 and TP-4. The groundwater was observed at a depth of about 11 feet below current site grades at Test Pit TP -2 and 6 to 7 feet at Test Pits TP -3 and TP-4. These depths correspond to elevations of about 84 to 85 feet to the west, and 83 feet to the east. The groundwater was observed flowing from the cleaner sand and gravel formation encountered at depth in the test pits. It is likely that groundwater is present year round and fluctuates in elevation with seasonal weather variations. 3.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 3.1 Erosion Soils at the site will be subject to erosion when in an exposed condition. The greatest risk for erosion will occur during construction grading. Given the relatively gentle sloping terrain to the east, we would not consider the site as an erosion hazard area. However, erosion protection measures, as required by the City of Tukwila; will need to be in place prior to starting grading activity on the site. 3.2 Steep Slopes During our site visit, we did not find any evidence suggesting past landslides or slope movement. The site slopes appeared stable, and we did not observe any surface features indicating past slope stability problems. In our opinion, provided the recommendations in this report are followed, development of the site as proposed will not increase the potential for slope instability on -site or on adjacent properties, and the risk for such an occurrence would be minimal. Page No. 2 September 21, 2001 Project No. T -4800 3.3 Seismic The Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3, as classified by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Based on the soil conditions . encountered and the local geology from Table 16 -J of the 1999 UBC, soil type SD should be used. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine - grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from intergranular friction. The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular friction; thus, eliminating the soil's strength. Coarser - grained deposits of sand and gravel are normally not affected because their hydraulic conductivity allows for drainage or dissipation of these excess pore pressures. Silts and clays are normally not affected because of the cohesive component of their shear strength. The vibration source typically considered in liquefaction analysis is, a seismic event or earthquake. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions we observed, in our opinion, the risk for liquefaction related impacts to the planned development is minimal. 4.0 . DISCUSSION AND. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 General Based on our study, in our opinion, there are no geotechnical considerations that would preclude development as proposed. The structure can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils observed below the upper 12 to 24 inches of organic topsoil. Alternatively, structural fill placed and compacted above these native soils can be used to support the building foundations. Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported. The existing debris fill observed in the northern parking lot area would not be suitable for support of building foundations or floor slabs. Paved parking can be constructed over the fill, provided the owner is willing to accept some risk for future pavement settlement. The native soils encountered at the site contain a significant amount of fines and will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use native soil from site excavations as structural fill will depend on its moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities will take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free - draining granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. Detailed recommendations regarding the above issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. Page No. 3 September 21, 2001 Project No. T-4800 4.2 Site Preparation and Grading Site preparation will require demolition of existing structures. Demolition should include removal of building foundations and floor slabs from below areas of new building foundations. Where structural fill will be placed to achieve construction grades, the existing slabs and pavement will not need to be removed, provided the fill has a minimum thickness of two feet. Where not removed, the pavement and slabs should be fractured in place prior to filling to prevent them from acting as a single rigid element below the new structural fill. Demolition should also include removal or sealing of abandoned utility pipes and other subterranean structures. Following demolition, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials should be stripped and removed from areas of new construction. Surfacing stripping ranging from 8 to 24 inches should be expected to remove the organic topsoil layer. Stripped vegetation debris should be removed from the site. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill but may be used for limited depths in non - structural areas. Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired building grades. Prior to placing fill, all exposed surfaces should be proofrolled to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. Proofrolling should also be performed in cut areas that will provide direct support for new construction. If excessively yielding areas are observed, and they cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, the affected soils should be excavated and removed to firm bearing and grade restored with new structural fill. If the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, use of a geotextile reinforcing/separation fabric, such as Mirafi 500X or equivalent, can be considered in conjunction with structural fill. Our experience has shown that, in general, a minimum of 18 inches of a clean, granular structural fill over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. Our study indicates that soils in the northern parking area are composed of debris laden fill that extends to depths of 6 feet below existing grade to the west, and greater than 15 feet to the east. In our opinion, construction of a paved parking lot in this area is feasible provided the owner is willing to accept some risk for future pavement settlement. To establish suitable immediate support for the pavement structure, the above outlined procedure should be followed. In addition, we recommend the pavement be supported on a minimum of 18 inches of new structural fill. This will require some excavation and removal of the existing fill in the northern portion of the parking area where final grades are relatively close to existing. The top 12 inches of subgrade should also be amended with Portland Cement to construct a soil cement base as recommended in the pavement section of this report. Our study indicates that the native soils contain a sufficient percentage of fines (silt and clay size particles) that will make them difficult to compact as structural fill if they are too wet or too dry. The existing debris laden fill in the northern portion of the site is not suitable for reuse as structural fill or utility trench backfill and should be removed form the site when excavated. The ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on the soil's moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take place. Native soils that are too wet to properly compact could be dried by aeration during dry weather conditions or mixed with an additive, such as cement, cement kiln dust (CKD), or lime to stabilize the soil and facilitate compaction. If an additive is used, additional best management practices (BMP'S) for its use will need to be incorporated into the temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESC) for the project. Page No. 4 September 21, 2001 Project No. T-4800 If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months or if they are initiated during the summer and extend into fall and winter, the owner should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements: U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 6 inches 100 No. 4 75 maximum No. 200 5 maximum* *Based on the 3/4 -inch fraction Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D -698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In non - structural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. 4.3 Excavation and Dewatering All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and lower building levels, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Occupational Safety and Health Administration . (OSHA) regulations, these soils would be classified as Group C soils. Accordingly, for excavations more than 4 feet and less than 20 feet deep, the side slopes should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). If there is insufficient room to complete the excavations in this manner or if excavations greater than 20 feet deep are planned, you may need to use temporary shoring to support the excavations. Groundwater seepage should be anticipated within excavations extending below elevation 85 feet. Based on our study, the volume of water and rate of flow into the excavation would be moderate. For excavations that will extend more than two feet below the groundwater table, the contractor should plan to predrain the excavations using dewatering wells. This should be specifically planned for the stormwater detention vault in the eastern portion of the site where the excavation to construct the vault will extend six feet below the groundwater table we observed at the time of our field exploration. The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. Page No. 5 4.4 Slopes and Embankments September 21, 2001 Project No. T-4800 All permanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finished inclination of no greater than 2:1. Upon completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. Water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slope face: If surface runoff must be directed towards the slope, the runoff should be controlled at the top of the, slope, piped in a closed conduit installed on the slope face, and taken to an appropriate point of discharge beyond the toe. All fill placed for embankment construction should meet the structural fill requirements in the Site Preparation and Grading section. In addition, if the new fills will be placed over existing slopes of 20 percent or greater, the structural fill should be keyed and benched into competent native slope soils 4.5 Foundations Spread Footings The building may be supported on conventional spread foundations bearing on competent native soils or on structural fills placed above competent native soils. Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading section. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should be a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. Foundations can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a one -third increase in this allowable capacity can be . used. With structural loading as anticipated and this bearing stress applied, estimated total settlements are about one inch, of which one -half inch would be differential in nature. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backf lied with structural fill as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section. The values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5. 4.6 Slab -on -Grade Construction Slabs -on -grade may be supported on the subgrade prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading section. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four -inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free - draining sand or gravel that has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Page No. 6 September 21, 2001 Project No.. T -4800 Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable plastic membrane should be placed over the capillary break layer. The membrane should be covered with two inches of clean coarse moist sand or fine gravel to guard against damage during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. 4.7 Lower -Level Building and Site Retaining Walls The magnitude of earth pressure development on lower -level building and site retaining walls will partly depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Below improved areas, such as pavements or floor slabs, the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry unit weight, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D -698 (Standard Proctor). In unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must also be installed. A typical recommended wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 3. With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, we recommend designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included. For a 2:1 back slope condition, an earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 50 pcf should be used. To account for normal traffic surcharge loading, the walls should be designed for an additional height of two feet. Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in the Foundations section. Several wall options are available for the site retaining walls that will be used to accommodate vertical breaks in grade at the perimeter of the development. These would include conventional cast -in -place concrete walls, gravity block walls, and mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls faced with segmental blocks or with a fabric wrapped face. Soil parameters, as recommended, in the preceding paragraph should be used for design of cast in place or gravity wall systems. For design of MSE walls, we recommend using a soil unit weight of 130 pcf and a soil internal friction angle of 36 degrees in the reinforced and backfill soil zones. For the foundation, a soil unit weight of 120 pcf and internal friction angle of 34 degrees should be used. The MSE walls must be constructed using a granular structural fill in the reinforced soil zone. The structural fill should have a maximum aggregate size of 3 inches and a maximum of 30 percent passing the number 200 sieve. The eastern retaining wall that is planned along the northern parking area will require excavation and replacement of the existing fills with structural fill to establish suitable foundation support. At minimum, we recommend excavating and replacing three feet of the existing fill with structural fill that is placed and compacted as outlined in the Section 4.2 of this report. Improvement of the wall foundation should extend two feet laterally from the edge of the wall footing. Page No. 7 September 21, 2001 Project No. T-4800 4.8 Detention Vault As noted earlier, dewatering will be required for the vault excavation during construction. The stormwater detention vault can be designed using parameters as recommended. in Sections 4.5 and 4.7 of this report. In addition to normal earth pressures, the vault design will need to consider uplift or buoyancy forces and hydrostatic loading on the vault walls if perimeter wall drainage of the vault is not provided. Typically, because of grades, it is not possible to install the drainage to the base of the vault and provide for discharge of the collected groundwater. In this case, we recommend that perimeter wall drainage be installed with the drainpipe tied to discharge at the elevation of the vault outfall pipe. The uplift force on the vault that would need to be considered in the design would be equal to the difference in elevation from the base of the vault to the drainpipe invert. For design of the vault walls, hydrostatic loading would only need to be considered for that portion of the wall below the drainpipe invert elevation. For hydrostatic loading considerations, an earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 85 pcf should be used. 4.9 Drainage Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the site at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent t� foundations or within the immediate building area. We recommend providing a minimum drainage gradient of three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. Surface water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the crest of the site slopes and embankments. Surface water should be directed away from the slope crests to a point of collection and controlled discharge. If site grades do not allow for directing surface water away from the slopes, then water should be collected and tightlined down the slope face in a controlled manner. Subsurface In addition to wall drainage for below grade building walls, we recommend installing perimeter drains adjacent all exterior building foundations. Foundation drains should be tightlined separate from the roof drain system to a controlled point of approved discharge. 4.10 Utilities Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. At minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill as described in Section 4.2. As noted, with the exception of the debris laden fill in the northern portion of the site native soils excavated on -site should be suitable for use as backfill material. If utility construction will take place during the winter, it may be necessary to import suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling. Page No. 8 September 21, 2001 Project No. T-4800 4.11 Pavements As a means to prepare a_ stable subgrade and pavement base, we recommend using a soil cement application. The soil cement can be constructed using the native soils below the organic surface layer or imported mineral fill soil. The subgrade should be initially prepared as recommended in Section 4.2 of this report. Following grading, we recommend scarifying the top 12 inches of the subgrade and then blending in Type 1 Portland Cement at a rate ranging from of 65 to 80 pounds per square yard of surface area. The actual rate required should be determined when the subgrade is rough graded. The cement should be blended uniformly with the soils, with the mixture also moisture conditioned, as necessary. The soil cement moisture should be within —1 to +3 percent of optimum, as determined by ATSM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor) prior to compaction. Once blended and conditioned, the soil cement should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by this ASTM standard. The soil cement should achieve a minimum three -day compressive strength of 150 psi. Initial compaction of the soil cement should be accomplished with a sheep's foot compactor. Once compacted, rough grading can be completed with final compaction achieved using a steel -drum roller. Compaction and rough grading should be completed within a two -hour time period following application and blending of the cement with the soil. After grading and compaction, traffic should stay off the soil cement base for a minimum of three days to allow the base to cure and gain its initial compressive strength. Pavement construction should then be completed shortly following this initial curing period. If the soil cement base will not be paved over following initial curing, and traffic will traverse the base, we recommend placing a two -inch thick layer of crushed rock over the soil cement to reduce surface degradation. Quality control during construction of the soil cement base should include verification of the following: • Cement application rate • Moisture and compaction • Compressive strength A minimum of three test specimens from the same soil cement sample should be prepared for compressive strength testing for each day's construction. Traffic at the facility will mainly consist of cars and light trucks, with occasional heavy traffic in the form of delivery trucks, buses, and trash removal vehicles. We recommend that the pavement section constructed over the 12 inches of soil cement base consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC). The AC should meet Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B mix. _Long -term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly- drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. For optimum pavement performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some degree of longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. Page No. 9 September 21, 2001 Project No. T-4800 As noted earlier, we observed groundwater seepage at elevations ranging from 83 to 85 feet below existing surface grades. With proposed pavement grades ranging from Elev. 92 to the east and Elev. 110 to the west, subdrains beneath the pavement to control groundwater flow, which would prevent subgrade instability, would not be required. 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Terra Associates, Inc.. should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design. We should also provide geotechnical services during construction in order to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc., and was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This report is intended for specific application to the Opus Park 5/405 project and for the exclusive use of Opus Northwest, LLC and their authorized representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based upon data obtained from the test pits excavated on -site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. Page No. 10 < ` `"eo a a ' � �•.. ' 'y p pJ a ",,, `�y! .y 1 1 ..N0 B BUCK R E ER • wb 124 s `sA F k k 1.14 T . �✓ 90Q 139TH a , � • , !71•i S ST op . . pK 3 3 \ : : \ \ �, , T ��.�.. '.._.. '. EN . S : 1 = 4 4400 _ D ST $ _ � .4> ' 142H0 ' �} 1�i \ \err. , ,' \ < < < 5 5900 s H . _ N .5 150 $ . s 5.149TH s l s z S1 T z ♦ F F 4200 i !s t\ I o �, 153RD .. o S 156TH S ST � � D yl ` ` - c£ •, g g ` `, =0I 159TH 4 4, P 60TH 4 �IN » I B CRESTVIEM DR 5 BLVD ce nIIIIIIMMUM1■111i/MiariMMIUM 9 9 ., O Or. $TRANDER B BLVD I ,'` $ TRECK I \ K I , - KviST S 167TH ST 5'� m ST then+ 5T L I Q CORPORAT v a \ f5 a owrsrru W . W� � 4400 5 v C 5100 ' v REFERENCE: Thomas Guide, Metropolitan Edition, 2001. Page 655. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants VICINITY MAP OPUS PARK 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4800 I Date SEPT 2001 Figure 1 • • . 25' BUFFER AT CENTER WITH 3.1 610E SLOPES 14,6' EACH SIDE) *250 LF • APPROX. 102 HyOROSEED FOR STABILITY OR OTHER OTHER PLANTING PER PLANTING OR MITIGATION PLAN • PRIMARY ST ATE HIGH* Np. 1 (S .R 5) WETLAND A 'LOCK BLOCK (TYP.) RETAINING WALL. SYSTEM OR EOUAL 15 16' SD --155 0 ARMOR OUTFALL WITH RIP -RAP I21 • 6 W • L' THICK WATER OUALITY WATER SURFACE - 62.0 BOTTOM VAULT VARIES • *79 REO'D DETENTION VIL, • 055 ....Ft. REO'D WATER OUALITY VOL. - 027 Ar.Ft., RIP'- RAPV12'). • 6'W •"2' THICK ' IV BUFFER STORMWATER CONTRO SIR CTUR BUFFER COMPENSATION AREA PROPOSED CLEARING LIMIT (TYP.) • SLEEVE I6' SD THROUGH WALL FO 94.0 FO 315 e0 YP I BYPASS STRUCTURE FF 94.0 CB TYPE IL RIM - 53.0 ROOF DRAIN LEADER (TYP.) C• TO DET. VAULT LX /TY/./ LOW POINT RIM • 103.7 PROJECT AREA A 5 TRENCH DRAIN (TYP.) • BOTH LOADING 85) 2 ELEV • 50.0 15 S' OUT TO DET VAULT • 62.5 TOP OF-BANK • F61040 Fs 104.5 LOW POINT RIM • 105 7 F6 /00.4 F01109. F6 110. CURB RAMP 12" SD JTAGE )S SIBLE FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT FACE NEw VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER 14' EAST OF NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IT SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN PURPOSES. CB TYPE II CONNECT. TO EXISTING STORM \a_Lter_51st AVE SOUTH I LOW POINT LEGEND: N APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION REFERENCE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY HUGH GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED JULY 13, 2001. 0 100 200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET • ABANDON EXIST. 16- SO CONSTRUCT NEW 16• SD TO NEW TYPE II C8 IN FLOWLINE EAST OF CENTERLINE IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND B 'LOCK BLOCK (TYP.) RETAINING WALL SYSTEM OR EQUAL BUFFER COMPENSATION AREA 15' BUFFER PROPOSED CLEARING LIMIT (TYP.) TRANSITION TO EXISTING ROAD SECTION 10' SD OUTFALL TO EXISTING DITCH ARMOR OUTFALL WITH RIP -RAP ILL • 6'w • 6' THICK Terra Associates, EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN OPUS PARK 1 -5/1 -405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON'. Proj. No. 4800 , Date SEPT 2001 l Figure - 2 12" MINIMUM 3/4" MINUS WASHED GRAVEL 12" • SLOPE TO DRAIN SEE NOTE 6 "(MIN.) 1 1 II 'MC COMPACTED TRUCTURAL FILL • -�'S1.... r ,fix; ' • • 12" OVER PIPE r y EXCAVATED SLOPE (SEE REPORT TEXT FOR APPROPRIATE INCLINATIONS) S! /�! /•. .. ^. t; N't 'ice`:!- :`:i'�`:i,•(���:./':�i /� / 3" BELOW PIPE 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE NOTE: NOT TO SCALE MIRADRAIN G100N PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS OR SIMILAR PRODUCT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE 12 -INCH WIDE GRAVEL DRAIN BEHIND WALL. DRAINAGE PANELS SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM OF SIX INCHES INTO 12 -INCH THICK DRAINAGE GRAVEL LAYER OVER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL OPUS PARKS 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj.No. 4800 Date SEPT 2001 Figure 3 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Opus Park 5/405 Tukwila, Washington On November 2, 2000, we performed our field exploration using a rubber -tired backhoe. We explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating seven test pits to a maximum depth of 15 feet below existing grade. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately determined by measurements from existing property features. The Test Pit Logs are presented on Figures A -2 through A -5. A geotechnical engineer from our office conducted the field exploration and classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A -1. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the Test Pit Logs. Project No. T-4800 lir MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL Mr TYPICAL DESCRIPTION COARSE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% material larger than No. 200 sieve size GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines) - GW WeII- graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. GP Poorly- graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. Gravels with fines GM Silty gravels, gravel- sand -silt mixtures, non - plastic fines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. SANDS More than 50% of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve Clean Sands (less than 5% fines) SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SP Poorly- graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. Sands with fines SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non- plastic fines. SC . Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. FINE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% material smaller than No. 200 sieve size SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit is Tess than 50% M L Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit is greater than 50% MH Inorganic silts, elastic. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS SAND or GRAVEL Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows /Foot 2° OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER 2.4° INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER Y WATER LEVEL (DATE) Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Very loose 0 -4 Loose 4 -10 Medium dense 10 -30. Dense 30 -50 Very dense >50 SILT or CLAY Standard Penetration Consistency Resistance in Blows /Foot Very Soft 0 -2 Soft 2 -4 Medium stiff 4 -8 Stiff 8-16 Very stiff 16 -32 Hard >32 Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OPUS PARK 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON _ , ::: {~ \\ ■ Proj. No. T -4800 Date SEPT 2001 Figure A -1 Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 10 15 • Test Pit No. TP -1 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 98 Moisture Content (°/0) FILL: tannish -brown silty sand witfgravel, loose, most to dry. (SM) Test pit terminated at 4 feet. No groundwater encountered. Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0— 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -2 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 96 Moisture Content l %) • 8 inches dark brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. 22.6 22.5 Brownish -gray silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist, fill. (SM) Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist to damp. (SM) Gray slightly silty SAND with gravel to dean gravelly SAND, medium dense, wet. (SM/SP) Test pit terminated at 14.5 feet Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at 11.5 feet. Terra Associates. Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS OPUS PARK 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T -4800 Date SEPT 2001 Figure A -2. • Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 • Test Pit No. TP -3 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 90 Moisture Content ( %) 12 inches dark brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. Reddish -brown silty SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist to dry. (SM) Brownish -tan silty fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist. (SM) 21.5 Gray slightly silty GRAVEL with cobbles, medium dense to dense, wet. (GM /GP) Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet. Light groundwater seepage below 7 feet. Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -4 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 89 Moisture Content ( %) NMI 2 feet dark brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. Brownish -gray silty SAND to dean gravelly SAND, medium dense, moist, becomes wet. (SM/SP) Gray fine sandy SILT with clay, medium stiff, damp to wet. (ML) Gray clean SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet. (SP) 15.9 22.5 Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet. Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at 6 feet. Terra Associates. inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS OPUS PARK 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T -4800 Date SEPT 2001 Figure A -3 • Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 • Test Pit No. TP -5 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 102 Moisture Content N 14 inches brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. 6.6 13.4 Reddish -brown silty SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist to dry. " (SM) Brownish -tan silty fine to medium SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist. (SM) Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater encountered. 15— Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -6 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 109 Moisture Content %) 8 inches dark brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. FILL: dark gray gravelly silty SAND with brick, asphaltic concrete, concrete, rebar, loose to medium dense, moist. (SM) Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist. (SM) 13.1 10.5 Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS OPUS PARK 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T -4800 Date SEPT 2001 Figure A -4 • • • Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -7 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 104 Moisture Content 5 inches dark brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. . ALL: brownish -gray silty SAND with gravel, brick, asphaltic concrete, and concrete, paint cans, loose to medium dense, damp. (SM) • Becomes dark gray to black. Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater encountered. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS OPUS PARK 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T -4800 Date SEPT 2001 Figure A -5 APPENDIX A Sensitive Area Folios 0. 1/2 WETLANDS SOURCE: SENSITIVE AREAS MAP FOLIO, KING COUNTY, WA (DEC. 1990), TTLE :1 Pr•: ri Ma '�,j;rceY n.tz',i:LS r. i' • Vek vii <•'— =-;�;x.:_ Lam:: F }-f .. ottlifflink 1/2 STREAMS /FLOOD HAZARD AREAS SOURCE: SENSITIVE AREAS MAP FOLIO, KING COUNTY, WA (DEC. 1990), • •T • •.1 i to +¢ar+.i t N ° 12 EROSION HAZARD AREAS. SOURCE: SENSITIVE AREAS MAP FOLIO, KING COUNTY, WA (DEC. 1990) t0 1/2 N SOURCE: SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO, KING COUNTY, WA SEATTLE (d'JE nom _._ �.a ?mow �i►- � -.: { t 0 1/2 6ri SOURCE: SENSITIVE AREAS MAP FOLIO, KING COUNTY, WA (DEC. 1990). SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS. 0 1/2 -4 3 idi/ COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS SOURCE: SENSITIVE AREAS MAP FOLIO, KING COUNTY,: WA (DEC. 1990). APPENDIX B USDA SCS King County Soils Survey Map ‘,__ • Wadirl� T &webs 0 Hillto Sch �•GlacierRighSch 1171 Ro•7Nl�I� • Fbster — H Riverto •,Riyerton,H:i Ur f Tukwila Sch F eservoir iirallft.111111 ashi Me Van - I ow4r.: EATTLE 0 24,000' �.■� - -L.. 1 Ur-URBAN LAND SOURCE: U.S.D. A., SOIL CONSERATION SERVICE, 1972 APPENDIX C Hydrologic Analysis Existing Conditions Peak Flow Rates: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:aex.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.264 4 2/09/01 15:00 0.528 1 100.00 0.990 0.175 6 1/05/02 16:00 0.296 2 25.00 0.960 0.296 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.280 3 10.00 0.900 0.143 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.264 4 5.00 0.800 0.175 7 10/28/04 16:00 0.264 5 3.00 0.667 0.280 3 1/18/06 16:00 0.175 6 2.00 0.500 0.264 5 11/24/06 3:00 0.175 7 1.30 0.231 0.528 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.143 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.451 50.00 0.980 Developed Conditions Peak Flow Rates: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:adev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.994 7 2/09/01 2:00 1.94 1 100.00 0.990 0.876 8 1/05/02 16:00 1.49 2 25.00 0.960 1.21 3 12/08/02 18:00 1.21 3 10.00 0.900 1.02 6 8/26/04 2:00 1.21 4 5.00 0.800 1.21 4 10/28/04 16:00 1.06 5 3.00 0.667 1.06 5 1/18/06 16:00 1.02 6 2.00 0.500 1.49 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.994 7 1.30 0.231 1.94 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.876 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.79 50.00 0.980 Vault Discharge Peak Flow Rates: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:aout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.277 2 2/09/01 19:00 0.874 10.40 1 100.00 0.990 0.127 8 1/06/02 5:00 0.277 10.17 2 25.00 0.960 0.227 5 3/06/03 21:00 0.275 10.04 3 10.00 0.900 0.133 7 8/24/04 0:00 0.265 9.48 4 5.00 0.800 0.168 6 1/05/05 10:00 0.227 7.59 5 3.00 0.667 0.265 4 1/18/06 22:00 0.168 5.85 6 2.00 0.500 0.275 3 11/24/06 7:00 0.133 3.68 7 1.30 0.231 0.874 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.127 3.36 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.675 10.37 50.00 0.980 x00112!!.812 OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Page C -1 Proposed Detention Vault: Retention /Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 44.47 ft Facility Width: 44.47 ft Facility Area: 1978. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 10.25 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 20271. cu. ft Riser Head: 10.25 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.60 0.220 2 5.90 1.00 0.055 4.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.02 0.02 40. 0.001 0.009 0.00 0.03 0.03 59. 0.001 0.013 0.00 0.05 0.05 99. 0.002 0.016 0.00 0.07 0.07 138. 0.003 0.018 0.00 0.08 0.08 158. 0.004 0.020 0.00 0.10 0.10 198. 0.005 0.022 0.00 0.12 0.12 237. 0.005 0.024 0.00 0.13 0.13 257. 0.006 0.025 0.00 0.31 0.31 613. 0.014 0.038 0.00 0.48 0.48 949. 0.022 0.048 0.00 0.65 0.65 1286. 0.030 0.056 0.00 0.83 0.83 1642. 0.038 0.063 0.00 1.00 1.00 1978. 0.045 0.070 0.00 1.18 1.18 2334. 0.054 0.075 0.00 1.35 1.35 2670. 0.061 0.081 0.00 1.52 1.52 3006. 0.069 0.086 0.00 1.70 1.70 3362. 0.077 0.090 0.00 1.87 1.87 3698. 0.085 0.095 0.00 2.04 2.04 4034. 0.093 0.099 0.00 2.22 2.22 4390. 0.101 0.103 0.00 2.39 2.39 4727. 0.109 0.107 0.00 2.57 2.57 5083. 0.117 0.111 0.00 2.74 2.74 5419. 0.124 0.115 0.00 2.91 2.91 5755. 0.132 0.119 0.00 3.09 3.09 6111. 0.140 0.122 0.00 3.26 3.26 6447. 0.148 0.125 0.00 3.43 3.43 6783. 0.156 0.129 0.00 3.61 3.61 7139. 0.164 0.132 0.00 3.78 3.78 7476. 0.172 0.135 0.00 3.96 3.96 7832. 0.180 0.138 0.00 4.13 4.13 8168. 0.188 0.141 0.00 4.30 4.30 8504. 0.195 0.144 0.00 4.48 4.48 8860. 0.203 0.147 0.00 4.65 4.65 9196. 0.211 0.150 0.00 4.82 4.82 9532. 0.219 0.153 0.00 5.00 5.00 9888. 0.227 0.155 0.00 5.17 5.17 10225. 0.235 0.158 0.00 5.35 5.35 10581. 0.243 0.161 0.00 5.52 5.52 10917. 0.251 0.163 0.00 r00112!!.812 OPUS Park 5/405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Page C -2 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. 5.69 5.69 11253. 0.258 0.166 0.00 5.87 5.87 11609. 0.267 0.168 0.00 5.90 5.90 11668. 0.268 0.169 0.00 5.91 5.91 11688. 0.268 0.169 0.00 5.92 5.92 11708. 0.269 0.170 0.00 5.93 5.93 11728. 0.269 0.171 0.00 5.94 5.94 11747. 0.270 0.173 0.00 5.95 5.95 11767. 0.270 0.175 0.00 5.96 5.96 11787. 0.271 0.176 0.00 5.97 5.97 11807. 0.271 0.177 0.00 5.98 5.98 11826. 0.271 0.178 0.00 5.99 5.99 11846. 0.272 0.178 0.00 6.17 6.17 12202. 0.280 0.186 0.00 6.34 6.34 12538. 0.288 0.193 0.00 6.51 6.51 12875. 0.296 0.199 0.00 6.69 6.69 13231. 0.304 0.204 0.00 6.86 6.86 13567. 0.311 0.209 0.00 7.04 7.04 13923. 0.320 0.213 0.00 7.21 7.21 14259. 0.327 0.217 0.00 7.38 7.38 14595. 0.335 0.222 0.00 7.56 7.56 14951. 0.343 0.226 0.00 7.73 7.73 15287. 0.351 0.230 0.00 7.90 7.90 15624. 0.359 0.234 0.00 8.08 8.08 15980. 0.367 0.237 0.00 8.25 8.25 16316. 0.375 0.241 0.00 8.43 8.43 16672. 0.383 0.245 0.00 8.60 8.60 17008. 0.390 0.248 0.00 8.77 8.77 17344. 0.398 0.252 0.00 8.95 8.95 17700. 0.406 0.255 0.00 9.12 9.12 18036. 0.414 0.258 0.00 9.29 9.29 18373. 0.422 0.262 0.00 9.47 9.47 18729. 0.430 0.265 0.00 9.64 9.64 19065. 0.438 0.268 0.00 9.82 9.82 19421. 0.446 0.271 0.00 9.99 9.99 19757. 0.454 0.274 0.00 10.16 10.16 20093. 0.461 0.277 0.00 10.25 10.25 20271. 0.465 0.279 0.00 10.35 10.35 20469. 0.470 0.589 0.00 10.45 10.45 20667. 0.474 1.150 0.00 10.55 10.55 20864. 0.479 1.880 0.00 10.65 10.65 21062. 0.484 2.680 0.00 10.75 10.75 21260. 0.488 2.960 0.00 10.85 10.85 21458. 0.493 3.220 0.00 10.95 10.95 21655. 0.497 3.450 0.00 11.05 11.05 21853. 0.502 3.680 0.00 11.15 11.15 22051. 0.506 3.880 0.00 11.25 11.25 22249. 0.511 4.080 0.00 11.35 11.35 22447. 0.515 4.260 0.00 11.45 11.45 22644. 0.520 4.440 0.00 11.55 11.55 22842. 0.524 4.610 0.00 11.65 11.65 23040. 0.529 4.780 0.00 11.75 11.75 23238. 0.533 4.940 0.00 11.85 11.85 23435. 0.538 5.090 0.00 11.95 11.95 23633. 0.543 5.240 0.00 12.05 12.05 23831. 0.547 5.380 0.00 100112!!.812 OPUS Park 5/405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Page C -3 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 1.30 * * * * * ** 0.87 10.40 10.40 20569. 0.472 2 0.66 * * * * * ** 0.28 10.17 10.17 20106. 0.462 3 0.93 0.28 0.27 10.04 10.04 19858. 0.456 4 0.70 * * * * * ** 0.27 9.48 9.48 18756. 0.431 5 0.79 * * * * * ** 0.23 7.59 7.59 15017. 0.345 6 0.76 0.17 0.17 5.85 5.85 11564. 0.265 7 0.64 * * * * * ** 0.13 3.68 3.68 7279. 0.167 8 0.56 * * * * * ** 0.13 3.36 3.36 6642. 0.152 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:adev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:AOUT Inflow /Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 1.30 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.874 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 10.40 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 10.40 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 20569. Cu -Ft 0.472 Ac -Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:aout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.277 2 2/09/01 19:00 0.874 10.40 1 100.00 0.990 0.127 8 1/06/02 5:00 0.277 10.17 2 25.00 0.960 0.227 5 3/06/03 21:00 0.275 10.04 3 10.00 0.900 0.133 7 8/24/04 0:00 0.265 9.48 4 5.00 0.800 0.168 6 1/05/05 10:00 0.227 7.59 5 3.00 0.667 0.265 4 1/18/06 22:00 0.168 5.85 6 2.00 0.500 0.275 3 11/24/06 7:00 0.133 3.68 7 1.30 0.231 0.874 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.127 3.36 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.675 10.37 50.00 0.980 r00112!!.812 OPUS Park 5/405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Hugh G. Goldsmith Sr Associates, Inc. Page C -4 ' r00112!!.812 OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Page C -5 RscsiivE CIA cm( of ?Emig CENTER February 15, 2001 Andy Taber Opus NW, LLC 915 118th Avenue SE Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: COVER LETTER TO WETLAND DELINEATION LETTER OPUS TUKWILA PROPERTY Dear Mr. Taber: Please find the accompanying Wetland Delineation Report for the property located north of South 151st Street and east of 51st Avenue S. This is a complicated site and needs to be reviewed by parties with appropriate credentials. Certified Professional Soil Scientists (CPSS) performed the site review and wetland delineation based on historic disturbances, geomorphologic interpretation, soil mapping, and soil morphology. Hydrology of the site has been altered by road construction and storm water discharge. A thorough understanding of soil water movement, including training in soil physics, is necessary for accurate interpretation of the site. The report addresses land forms, using common geomorphic terms, as shown on the Landform Map (Figure 8). These terms need to be fully understood for a proper interpretation of the site. Richard C. Herriman and A.J. Bredberg have 45 and 25 years experience, respectively, in their field. It would be anticipated that anyone reviewing this work would have similar experience, education, and background in order to provide a peer review. We anticipate the' City will provide such CPSS personnel and a CPSS will be involved in the review. A CPSS ensures that accountability for any decision will be subject to proper peer review. 3303 43rd St. NW, P.O.Box 1337, Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA 253.858.7055 Fax 253.858.2534 ba @harbornet.com Whereas, the site is highly disturbed and difficult to interpret, we have spent numerous days on -site over several months making the proper technical determination. It would be sound practice that we be present for any field review with City personnel. The numerous days we have spent reviewing the site have generated information and understanding too lengthy and voluminous to be included in the report. Some of the site characteristics are subtle and cannot be accurately described in a report. On this basis, we anticipate being on -site with any reviewer to cooperate fully and transfer our knowledge and data to facilitate the City's review. If there are any questions or additional information needed, please contact us. Sinc A.J. Bredberg Enclosure cc: Lisa Verner 3378L2/ajb/smh/2/15/01 2 CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT PREPARED FOR: OPUS NW, LLC 915 1178TH AVENUE SE, SUITE 300 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 425 - 453 -4100 PHONE 425- 453 -1712 FAX SURVEYOR: HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC 1215 114TH AVENUE SE BELLEVUE, WA 425 - 462 -1080 PHONE PLANNER: LISA VERNER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES P.O. BOX 70372 SEATTLE, WA 98107 206 - 286 -8575 PHONE 206 - 286 -8426 FAX PREPARED BY: B &A, INC. 3303 43RD STREET NW GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 253 -858 -7055 PHONE 253 - 858 -2534 FAX BA #3378 FEBRUARY 15, 2001 3303 43rd St. NW, P.O.Box 133Z Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA 253.858.7055 Fax 253.858.2534 ba@harbornet.com TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND LAND USE HISTORY SITE DESCRIPTION METHODOLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY WETLANDS WATERCOURSE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES STREAM MITIGATION /RESTORATION SUMMARY LIST OF FIGURES: FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION FIGURE 2: TUKWILA WATERCOURSE INVENTORY FIGURE 3: SOIL MAP FIGURE 4A: WETLAND A FLAGGING FIGURE 4B: WETLAND B FLAGGING FIGURE 4C: WETLAND C FLAGGING FIGURE 5: SITE MAP FIGURE 6A: NORTH DITCH FIGURE 6B: MIDDLE DITCH FIGURE 6C: SOUTH DITCH FIGURE 7: USGS MAP FIGURE 8: LANDFORM MAP ATTACHMENT 1: WATERCOURSE SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 2: WATERCOURSE RATING FORM ATTACHMENT 3: DATA SHEETS INTRODUCTION A wetland delineation has been performed on several parcels under contract with Opus NW, LLC for future development. The parcels are located north of 151st Street and east of 51st Avenue South (Figure 1). This delineation report addresses the wetland delineation, justification of locating flags, wetland categories, watercourse categories and associated buffers. This report does not address functions and values or proposed developmental impacts. Once the boundaries and regulatory status of the watercourse and buffers have been established, a development proposal will be finalized. When the development proposal is finalized, the impacts to the critical areas and any necessary mitigation will be addressed in a separate report. The wetlands were originally delineated in the fall of 2000. Since the delineation, seasonal rains have brought the water table up, requiring additional scrutiny of the wetland boundaries. We know that some of the flags need to be moved out and some of the flags need to be moved in, as we fine -tune the delineation with the onset of late winter hydrology. Any movement of flags will be done based on the correct methodology, and those flags moved will be measured off the existing wetland flagging map and adjusted for the final site plan. BACKGROUND A wetland delineation completed by B &A, Inc. was recently submitted to the City. This delineation was performed in the late fall of 2000. The City also has a wetland delineation prepared for Tramwell Crow. Per the platting division comments of February 6, 2001, there is a discrepancy between the Tramwell Crow delineation and the delineation addressed in this report. The Tramwell Crow delineation was available when we prepared our delineation, and we found that we can substantiate our delineation, keeping in mind there may be some minor modification and movement of flags with the onset of the wet season. We have observed several of the areas where the Tramwell Crow delineation was larger than our delineation and those areas either lacked hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydric soils. The watercourse /stream /ditch issue will be discussed in detail in the appropriate sections of this report. Discussions with the City indicate that the middle ditch and the south ditch are to be regulated as streams. We understand this and do not challenge it, as Opus, the proponent, can most likely work within the constraints of those ditches regulated as critical areas. However, as Certified Professional Soil Scientists (CPSS), we are bound by a code of ethics requiring us to present the proper technical information. Presented herein is the proper 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 1 technical interpretation of these areas, and that evidence supports the conclusion that no stream naturally occurred on or adjacent to the sites. This report discusses this interpretation at length and does not intend to be contentious; we are merely providing the correct technical interpretation for discussion. LAND USE HISTORY The area was logged and cleared for pasture land approximately 100 years ago. In the 1960s, 1 -5 was constructed. The construction involved a broad corridor on the eastern boundary of the subject properties. Soil disturbance of the area was widespread. Heavy equipment was staged and traversed the area causing soil compaction. A large ditch was constructed paralleling the 1 -5 easement at the base of the 1 -5 fill. The ditch is from 4 to 8 feet deep and 8 to 16 feet wide, running in a north -south direction. All existing structures in the 1 -5 right -of -way were demolished or moved. The natural drainage corridor, a glacial meltwater channel with no stream, was obliterated by the construction of 1 -5, as can be interpreted from the U.S.G.S. Map (Figure 7). Approximately 75 years ago, 51st Avenue South was constructed. It runs in a north -south direction and has been rebuilt several times since its original construction. Hillslope topography along this street required substantial cuts and fills. The soils were disturbed through the grading, cutting and filling. Storm water runoff along 51st Avenue South was captured in catch basins and a storm drain system that leads to 12 to 18 inch concrete culverts under 51st Avenue South, discharging to the east onto the subject properties. Three 12 to 18 inch culverts outlet under the subject properties. Historically constructed ditches picked up the storm water where it discharged onto the property from culverts underneath 51st Avenue South. The ditches carried the water east, delivering it to the large 1 -5 ditch. No easements were granted from King County or the City of Tukwila to discharge storm water across the private properties. Therefore, the land owners have performed all ditch maintenance for many years to convey the storm water from the point source discharge at the culvert to the 1 -5 corridor or to the large wetland delineated as Wetland B. Additional development in the upslope watershed has dramatically increased storm water flows. Peak flows of storm water discharges are many times the historic level of water reaching the site from the west. 3378R/ajb /smh /2/15/01 2 All existing buildings and houses have had grading /filling or some type of soil disturbance. Large lawns, garden, berry patches, and patches of orchard areas are historic across the properties. A nursery existed in the southwestern corner of the property and horses were grazed in the southern portions of the site. Routine maintenance has occurred on ditches throughout the property. The state has cleaned the'I -5 ditch on various occasions. The north ditch has been maintained by that land owner. In addition, the same land owner has used a backhoe to carry the water away from his house along the middle ditch corridor. The backhoe ditch is still evident. A blueberry patch and garden was maintained for several years near the middle ditch's outlet into the wetland. Additional disturbance and maintenance to the middle ditch is evidenced by a large blue - green PVC pipe visible where the current middle ditch has been recently cleaned. The middle ditch was channeled from the concrete pipe outlet, under 51st Avenue South, down the slope and into a blue - green, 6 -inch PVC pipe, discharging to an unknown location. The south ditch has been maintained over the years and has been recently cleaned via the current land owners. SITE DESCRIPTION Two constructed ditches enter the property from the north and discharge uncontrolled storm water into the north of the property. The northwestern corner of the property is steeply sloping, dropping down to a level pad of fill that contains a single family residence. This is the northernmost residence shown on Figure 5. To the east of this residence is a steep fill bank, dropping down to relatively undisturbed soils that break away to Wetland A. To the north of Wetland A is an area of Himalayan blackberry. This area had wetland hydrology but is dominated by a 100% canopy of Himalayan blackberry. It lacks hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation, thereby, this area was not delineated as a wetland. We recognize this area is wet, and if it had hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils, it would meet the three parameter criteria. To the south of the area described above is a ditch running east -west. This is what is referred to as the north ditch. This is a constructed ditch carrying storm water from the concrete discharge pipe along 51st Avenue South to the 1 -5 ditch. To the south of this ditch is an area of uplands, steeply sloping along 51st Avenue South but gently sloping to the east. This area contains five single family residences and other outbuildings. This area is all uplands, but has the middle ditch crossing the southwestern corner of the area. 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 3 To the south of the above described area is the middle ditch entering from the northwestern corner, discharging into Wetland B as delineated. Wetland B occupies the eastern half of this segment of the property. The western segment of the property steeply slopes up to 51st Avenue South with two single family residences. The southern quarter of the property is dominated by uplands with two single family residences and various outbuildings in the southeastern corner. The property slopes gently at first from the east to steeply sloping in the west along 51st Avenue. The southerly ditch enters the property at the northwestern corner of the southern quarter of the site flowing in an easterly direction and discharging into Wetland B. In the southeastern corner of the property is Wetland C. It is a small, isolated wetland discharging into a pipe running underneath the driveway and discharging into the 1 -5 ditch. Along the eastern portion of the property is 1 -5 at several tens of feet above the subject property. At the toe of the fill for 1 -5 is the deeply and widely constructed ditch flowing the length of the parcels. To the north of the parcels are single family residences. To the west of the parcel is 51st Avenue South with single family residences and developed land and other developments to the west. To the south of the parcel is South 151st Street with single family residences immediately to the south and a commercial building and parking lot to the southeast. Vegetation of the site is mixed. Around the houses are ornamentals. Garden areas, berry patches, and fruit trees are also present. Other areas are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and other scrub vegetation. Various trees are present. In the wetlands are primarily red alder and black cottonwood. Portions of the site are heavily vegetated with willow and other scrub /shrub vegetation. Western red cedar and Douglas fir are also present. METHODOLOGY The 1997 Department of Ecology Wetland Delineation Manual was used to perform the delineation. A modified comprehensive determination was used in making the evaluations, combined with disturbed site methodology. The forms for the comprehensive determination were not necessarily used for vegetation. In all areas, except the northern area of Himalayan blackberry, vegetation is considered hydrophytic, and the only parameters in question were soils and hydrology. In the case of the northern area of Himalayan blackberry, if there is a 100% canopy of Himalayan blackberry, hydrophytic vegetation criteria is not met and the area is, therefore, not a wetland. No documentation is necessary in this area as it is clearly within the parameters of nonwetland. 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 4 The Soil Survey of King County, City of Tukwila Watercourse Rating Data Sheets, City of Tukwila Water Source Rating and Buffer Recommendations, Tukwila Municipal Code, Department of Natural Resource Stream Rating System, and the City of Tukwila Wetlands Map were all used in making this wetland delineation report. Also available was the Tramwell Crow Wetland Delineation, personal communication with land owners, and information gathered from numerous test pits. The site was observed in November and December 2000, and data was gathered throughout that period. A geomorphology map was prepared in January 2001 (Figure 8), and additional observations of off -site hydrology around the site were made. At the time of the original flagging and original determinations, hydrology was not observed. Hydrology and lack of hydrology have been observed on subsequent visits and flags will need to be adjusted accordingly. Test holes were dug to observe soil and hydrologic conditions (Attachment 3). The site has been heavily disturbed, leaving horizons of various textures not naturally found. Varying textured horizons provide for the movement of water laterally in the soil, which is not a water table. Bands of water of a few inches thick travel laterally down slope. If a shovel hole is dug into the bands, the hole will rapidly fill with water. The water is a result of the lateral flow in the few -inch band that does not constitute a water table, and thus does not constitute wetland hydrology. The actual water table is sometimes found at depths below 12 inches, below the critical area for meeting wetland hydrology conditions. The bands of water flowing above 12 inches give the false indication of wetland hydrology. GEOMORPHOLOGY Figure 8 is the geomorphology of the site. The natural Iandforms involved include basin floors, alluvial fans, fan terraces, and hillslopes. The unnatural Iandforms include the large areas of fill. The geomorphology explains the presence and location of wetlands along with the lack of presence of natural streams. Wetlands A and B are on the basin floors and comprise natural wetlands. These were closed basins present near the head of the large north to south drainageway. Typically, the upper watersheds of the lower Puget Sound streams are occupied by a number of small closed basins. These are leftover from the glacial meltwaters. Wetlands A and B were naturally occurring closed basins. 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 5 In closed basin Iandforms, no water obviously leaves the basin, therefore it follows that no streams naturally flowed into the basin or out of the closed basin. The only source of water flowing into the basins naturally was from the subsurface water flows that were under head from the surrounding watershed. Currently, the source of water flowing into the basin is the uncontrolled storm water from the surrounding developed areas. This includes road runoff, lawn, and other storm waters. Hillslopes occupy the areas off -site to the west. Between the hillslopes are glacial meltwater channels. The glacial meltwater channels are the result of large volumes of water flowing when the glaciers melted. The large volumes of water left relatively broad channels contrasted with deeply incised channels created by stream flow. Currently, storm water discharges into these meltwater channels where it has been channeled through constructed ditches eventually reaching 51st Avenue South and discharging through the concrete culverts onto the subject properties. Alluvial fans and fan terraces are mapped at the bottom of the glacial meltwater channels. These landforms have unique characteristics, one of which is that they do not contain wetlands. The wetlands associated with fan terraces and alluvial fans are located at the toe of the fans. WETLANDS Three wetlands are delineated on the subject property. Wetland A is located on the northern portion of the property, Wetland B is in the central portion of the property, and Wetland C is on the southern portion of the property (Figure 5). Wetlands A, B, and C flagging is detailed on Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C respectively. Wetland A is located in the northeastern portion of the property. Wetland A is fed by groundwater from the surrounding upland watershed. Wetland A is dominated by bull rush and reed canarygrass. A small upland area is located in the middle of Wetland A, dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Wetland A is bordered on the east by the 1 -5 ditch. The wetland had hydrology at or near the surface during the site visit. The soils of the wetland most closely match that of the Norma series. Wetland B is located in the central- eastern portion of the property. Hydrology is supported by the surrounding upland watershed and by the discharge from the storm water in the ditches entering from the concrete pipes underneath 51st Avenue South. The wetland discharges into the 1 -5 ditch. The wetland is dominated by red alder, black cottonwood, and reed canarygrass. Wetland B 3378R/ajb /smh/2/15/01 6 Wetlands A and B. This truncation is noted at the straight edge at the eastern boundary of both wetlands. ' 3378R/ajb /srnh /2/15/01 7 NORTH CONSTRUCTED DITCH The north constructed ditch flows from a 12 -inch culvert delivering large quantities of water from 51st Avenue South and the adjacent areas to the west. There are no streams, seeps or other sources of water flowing into the storm water system feeding this ditch. On this basis, this is clearly a constructed ditch and not regulated as a stream. Discussions with the City have confirmed this designation. The north ditch -is lined up almost due west and due east in a straight line. If a stream were naturally present, it would tend to roll off the apex of the alluvial land form. Such a surface flow would be directed to the southeast rather than flowing in a straight west to east line. This strange conveyance could not be a naturally occurring stream course. In addition, the soil profiles adjacent to the ditch are representative of alluvium. New fan alluvium is a series of flat, layering (thin) deposits. This is opposed to the stream alluvium associated with the naturally occurring and flowing stream course. MIDDLE DITCH An 18 -inch culvert delivers storm water directly under 51st Avenue South to the sites. This water is conducted from the watershed west and upslope from 51st Avenue South. The constructed ditch below 51st Avenue South runs through man -made fill (Figure 8) and across the alluvial fan into Wetland B. Below 51st Avenue South, the owner has filled most of the area, causing the ditch to flow up against the hilislope. Storm water flows have been very large during peak discharge periods. This is evidenced by ditch segments that are severely eroded followed by segments that contain thick recent sediments. This watershed is rather small geographically and could not have produced a significant flow in an 18 -inch culvert. This swale is part of a glacial meltwater channel. The sandy bottom end of the swale did not have a channel. The water from the small watershed infiltrated into the soil and was conveyed underground to the closed basins downstream, Wetland B. No historic stream flowed where the middle ditch is constructed. The small watershed upslope would not generate enough water to support a natural stream in the glacial meltwater channel. Channels observed under current conditions are constructed ditches and the flow they carry is storm water from upslope. Furthermore, no stream was historically through this area as the sediments on the subject property are permeable. Even today, the small flows reaching the site generally infiltrate coarse textured sediments. 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 8 There is no stream below the constructed ditch; the water infiltrates into Wetland B. If a historic stream were present, there would be some evidence of channel downslope below the constructed ditch. SOUTH DITCH A 12 -inch culvert delivers storm water to the subject property via a constructed ditch (Figure 8). This ditch crosses a fan terrace. There is no evidence of any naturally occurring stream course in this vicinity. This ditch was constructed to carry storm water almost due west to east. Due to the large storm water flows during peak discharge periods, a man -made gully formed causing the lower portion of the ditch to veer to the northeast. Remnants of the original ditch are still evident. Alluvial fan deposits are highly susceptible to gully erosion. This is especially true when slope gradings range from 3 to 6% and the K factors are .30 to .40. This ditch is aligned at the base of a large fill located to the north side of the ditch. This is not the location one would expect a naturally occurring stream to be found. We investigated the source of water west of 51st Avenue South directly across the street from the discharge point of this culvert. The source of water reaching the culvert is some distance to the west of 51st Avenue South. Two glacial meltwater channels converge to the southwest of the house and the water flows through a constructed channel lined with cobbles. This channel is at least several decades old and has the general appearance of being natural to those not understanding the geomorphology and affects of storm water on a drainage basin. This water flows in a semiconstructed channel over to the road where it spills out over the cut bank onto the road side. Water then flows along the road side into a catch basin and discharges onto the subject property. If a natural stream flowed down this hill, there would be a channel other than the constructed armored channel present off -site. Furthermore, if a natural stream flowed down the hill, the construction of the street would have accommodated a natural stream. The construction of a road would not permit a natural stream to flow directly onto the road surface and run into a catch basin. Rather, an invert would have been placed to intercept the water and deliver it to the catch basin below the surface of the road. The current situation, with water running on the road, creates a hazard. On the basis of the landforms, the sources of the water upslope and lack of attention to any natural stream in the construction of the road are evidence that no natural occurring stream flowed through this area. 3378R/ajb /smh/2/15/01 9 NORTH DITCHES Two small ditches on the north of the property are shown on Figure 8 in a fan terrace Iandform. Storm water is dumped from the area of 51st Avenue South down across a large fill and onto the fan terrace below. This water flows in the fan alluvium until it begins to surface on the slopes above the wetland. This soil water is moving downslope along a gradient of 3 to 6 %. The soil water is high in oxygen and, not unexpectedly, the representative soil profiles are not hydric soils. In addition, the vegetation is a 100% canopy of Himalayan blackberry. This area is disturbed from construction activities associated with 1 -5 construction in the 1960s. Soil disturbance includes surface compaction and some grading. These areas do not meet the criterion for hydric soil or hydrophytic vegetation. WATERCOURSE RATING In the spirit of working with the City, watercourse ratings are provided for the north bank of the middle ditch and the south bank of the southern ditch. Discussions with the City shows agreement on the north ditch not being regulated. The 1 -5 ditch is, from discussions with the City, Type 2 water course. Type 2 water courses are designated 35-foot buffers and Type 3 is 15 -foot buffer. WATERCOURSE SUMMARY Watercourses are defined by the City of Tukwila as "a course or route formed by nature modified by man, generally consisting of a channel or bed in banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, storm water runoff channels or devices, or other entirely artificial water courses unless they are used by salmonids or to convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such devices." Based on the above definition, we have established that all watercourses on or near the site are artificial and did not convey or pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of the ditches. However, in Tight of the desire of the City to regulate the middle ditch and th'e south ditch as watercourses, rating forms are provided for each of them. 3378R/ajb /smh /2/15/01 10 It should be noted that the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Stream Typing System defines streams as conveying water to a Type 1 or 2 stream. In this instance, the significance is that the middle and south ditch did not convey water to a Type 1 or 2 stream. The middle and south ditch carry water from a storm water culvert and discharge it into a wetland. There is no channelized or overland flow from the discharge point of these ditches to another stream. On this basis the south and middle ditch would not meet the criteria of a stream under the state definition. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES Proposed activities are not available at the time of this writing. Once the wetland boundaries and buffers have been agreed upon and the regulatory status of the water courses and their buffers agreed upon, a site plan can be addressed with regard to impacts to the critical areas. At this point in the site plan development, it is intended that no wetlands be filled and all buffers be respected. There may be some encroachment into watercourse buffers if they are instituted. Buffer averaging, restoration, and mitigation will all be used to the fullest extent to provide a net improvement over existing conditions. STREAM MITIGATION /RESTORATION A February 6, 2001, planning division comment, Item 3, identifies that a regulated stream had been ditched without a permit. If this is a regulated stream, then mitigation would be appropriate. The historic condition of this ditch is not favorable from an environmental standpoint. The ditch is clearly in a down cutting situation, providing sediments to the wetland downstream. There is little water quality benefit or wildlife benefit. Any of the ditch maintenance activities that may be in violation of City Code will be mitigated to the fullest extent with numerous provisions as stated below. Any regulated watercourse that has been disturbed will be replanted with native vegetation and the bottoms of the ditches armored or check dammed to minimize erosion. The check dam will prevent down cutting and maintain water quality. Vegetation will be planted that will enhance wildlife habitat. The importance of shading the streams is minimal as water discharges into the wetland where it dissipates into a broad area or infiltrates into the ground. Upon confirmation that the ditches are regulated watercourses, a full mitigation plan will be prepared. In addition, at the site visit with the City's consultants, we can discuss appropriate mitigation measures such that there will be consensus 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 11 of what should be done, what we will submit, and how it will be reviewed by the City's consultant. It is the intent of the proponent, Opus, LLC, that all stream restoration /mitigation will be included with the site plan development. This will include improved water quality features and vegetative components for all the water courses. The overall benefits to the site and all the watercourses, whether regulated or not, will be substantial over existing conditions. SUMMARY Numerous parcels were evaluated for wetlands. This is a wetland delineation report for three wetlands, Wetlands A, B, and C, located on the subject parcels. Four ditches are present on and adjacent to the parcels that could convey buffers onto the parcel. The middle ditch and the south ditch are open for regulation, per discussions with the City. The north ditch is agreed upon as not regulated. We feel the technically correct interpretation of all the ditches is that none are watercourses as they did not occur naturally, prior to the construction of the ditches. However, the proponent is open to discussion with the City as their plan can accommodate the buffers and provide for stream enhancement as part of the site plan. 3378R/ajb/smh/2/15/01 12 11 ! Mag 16.00 Mon Nov 13 10:33 2000 Scale 1:7,812 (at center) 500 Feet 200 Meters Secondary SR, Road, Hwy Ramp c= Interstate/Limited Access Town, Small City Population Center Lake, Ocean °Tukwila ! I sl I :12trnE FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION 111 1.4 ism, _ =1- t4 iL 4a I t1 AVE $ IT 515T AVti S __ I J. 5 s ti 1F 5 3 RD AV S - AVE .11 Ti7 1 6<.' * 1 ''''''''' ---..,--.---- 1 te.,.. , lr..1". -.--"------- --1(1::>------:---- __.. - ...---------- 5 3RD --1- -- (1\1"14 de z rn z 0 55111 AVE S - 4W Sr.". ir 581-14 AVE S AV S 57Th AVE S 58TH AVE S st11./„.0v 181)1" ) I ll- 1-7'1 1 1 1 1 1 591 1 AVE S AVE e , • a • s • ■ • • . • •. • • 4♦ •4•>r • • •. • OS Foster Golf Course 7 a • a • • s • ■ • ' • • i 5•• • ■ "152 s • a i • •• a • • a a • I a • • a a a I 1 • •' a :• • II • • • I1 I • • • • • • • • • i • • • ■ •II• • =— 1.1• • • f ` cAIT t 111 ■ a a a • • •• a • • a l 11011111611 1 ■ • • • • • • a a a ■ • • ;: • l/ • a a • a Imo• • • • • ▪ a a • BM • •, • • • • • • • It _ • I a ■ • FIGURE 3 : SOIL MAP OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) WETLAND A AREA = 484C SQ. 0.11 ACRES 25 100 0 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 150 FIGURE 4A : WETLAND A OPUS / TUKWILA B &A, INC. GIG HARBOR_ WA 98335 (BA #3378) 0 0 D � w C o 23 C Drn D�-i� CD Z�� wn__„� FE D > Z v w co w co l d W'a� OSl � � . ON �d 1\1\ / Z 25 100 0 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 150 EXISTING 5 RIM = 90. I.E. C IR. C FIGURE 4C : WETLAND C OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) SOUTH 151st STREET FIGURE 5 : SITE MAP OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) N SCALE 1" = 100' FIGURE 6A : NORTH DITCH OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) 25 Z 100 .._ forairovirea; -130 FIGURE 6B : MIDDLE DITCH OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. (SIG HARBOR. WA 98335 (BA #3378) 51st FIGURE 6C : SOUTH DITCH OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) TT N SCALE 1 " =50' -_ ral . l rat\�F'�fll® 'r J•`'-.Or � `(L ��sl �" ._ t 4'• ' z \ a ' 'mil. .t ' •., y'... .� � n .:;, r.5.,......:.. ^N ` r.' � : • „z: LIMN WPM: I,,, S s �.. ......,. r } r A 'f^ ' n S �� 1 - 4 O ' S . 2 44: a iv , • y a� '(([ a p ".A - _ k*N. k • ..,; fit:;: • 4 .„,,,,,o,N,,,-. i „......\\,.. it , , `'•,. s t.'�6 7tM t66 tl • ecy.+. ' .S r ,,,. fir+� Y ... i' y. ��Y :I:r 6 ':-A!..4?-. y7 , om•', - '4;:: mss ; 4, • SS " re, ,.(•-;!- AS :,.„ � y e c't , ., 0 ` r •_ r Abu %��X l ^E. '. • .ti:; "•, t't 4 5 " ♦ Nk • �1�1. lif • Su�4 .t•,' .• •:t •i.. ,.i :;•`•:'.-',..".,,:-v•-• `b` jdal' 1. SITE , in A , n h �,:',...,,i-'4°: . _ '4 A ;l r, �' 'i !r,ry• • \ -fir Y..,, - r . T. ilk�i If . -Iii.,:w . J t ..c....,..„,..,.,,,...,:.. ,..,....„„.„...„..i, Yf'ii ` 4 '�',bz �,;;< ,fr ,,,,..4:::.„ F -4"..M.:10....""milin , S l,f� .Qr„+p_ Q • I . t- e "'r's<°.' <i`.Gi. ill S \ -- , ,. \) e.,,_ 1 'y' ` ••f•,•- �����_'1. ,,A, .1tIllagiN:::‘,1; 4 h t,^r A. is :..4..•'• ' ' q•I y V,� .: • �v`t��,�,C:� C r.�— • •. "� i, ,.tea , , :.D1 3 tl IMMO ?..,.:•4........):!,....,:,-...-.. ,...,,.. , J V. ,� , ? \ . .,.. lit • ,,,,,,...,:_ ?S. l ij _ _.. ti ro `'.: s = °' 1 1 : -s� FIGURE 7 : USGS MAP OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR WA 98335 (BA #3378) enter 3 -D TopoQuads Copyright C 1999 DeLorme Yarmouth, ME 04096 Source Data: USGS 00 ft Scale: 1: 12,800 Detail: 14-0 Datum: WGS84 ,1 r*4-A.) ci 11 7-fi ,e/.1/.6" J'oo 141 L L S�LC%IES L /J Al.0 ,col r1yS. • 3 ,9 s, iu r- 0/ • //LL, A /3 tis • F /9 AJ T QZi2 / z S y/L_ aPEs ti FIGURE 8 : LANDFORM MAP OPUS / TUKWILA B & A, INC. GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (BA #3378) ATTACHMENT 1 WATER COURSE SUMMARY WATERCOURSE NUMBER TABLE 4 CITY OF TUKWILA WATERCOURSE SUMMARY TOTAL SCORE TYPE LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT BANK BANK BANK BANK NORTH 3 -1 3 -1 9 -1 9 -2 10 -1 10 -2 10 -2 17 17 20 20 4 3 4 3 16 16 20 17 15 15 10 -2 10 -2 10 -3 10 -3 10 -3 10 -3 14 -1 14 -1 6 6 5 5 9 9 2 2 9 9 9 9 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 12 •3 2 2 14 3 2 15 -1 15 -1 15 -1 15 -1 15 -1A 15 -2 15 -2 15 -2 15 -2 15 -3 15 -3 15 -3 15 -4 15 -4 15 -5 15 -5 15 -6 15 -14 15 -15 15 -16 15 -16 21 21 1 9 9 9 7 15 16 9 15 3 3 2 3 2 14 14 2 9 7 2 3 21 21 1 4 7 7 2 2 7 7 13- 13 2 7 20 20 8 8 20 20 10 10 7 7 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 TOTAL SC WATERCOURSE NUMBER LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK 16 -1 19 19 2 22 -1 7 7 3 22 -1 7 7 3 22 -1 12 12 2 22 -1 20 20 2 22 -1 14 14 2 22 -3 6 7 3 22 -3 12 19 2 22 -4 20 18 2 22 -4 11 8 2 3 22 -5 12 17 2 22 -7 21 21 1 22 -8 19 9 2 3 23 -1 5 5 3 23 -1 8 8 3 23 -1 8 8 3 23 -4 14 14 2 23 -4 4 4 3 23 -5 3 3 3 23 -6 6 6 3 23 -9 5 9 3 23 -11 •13 12 2 23 -11 ' 9 8 3 25 -1 8 8 3 26 -1 5 17 3 2 35 -3 25 14 1 2 35 -3A 21 21 1 35 -3 7 4 3 35 -3 6 6 3 SOUTH 3 -1 A 10 10 3 3 -1 B 23 14 1 2 3 -1 C 0 0 3 3 -1 D 5 5 3 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 11 -20 -3 -10 See Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations Study — May 1990 10/31/90 ATTACHMENT 2 WATER COURSE RATING FORM I:igurc 4 1V,11•1•:itt'tt1IIRSF. R:\TI\'G FUI01 - CITY 01' TtJR%VILA INSTREAM ELEMENTS Width of watercourse (OUWM) >5 feet Score = 3 1 to 5 feet Score = 2 <I foot Score = 1 Score Channel capacity Ample, no overbook Adequate, slight evidence insufficient flows of overbank flows ovcrbank flows common Score = 3 Score = 1 Score = 0 Score 0 Channel stability No scour or downcutting Score = 3 Slight scour or downcutting (<25% of channel) Score = 1 Obvious scour or downcutting Score = -1 Moderate scour or downcutting ( 25 to 50% of channel) Score = 0 Score Fish use • Salmonids present Potential for salrnonid use Score = 3 No fish present and little potential for restoration Score = 0 Score = 2 No potential for salmonids but other species present Score = I Score x 2 = Fish habitat Spawning, rearing, and Two of three habitat overwintrring types present Score = 3 Score = 2 Rearing or overwintering habitat present Score = 1 Score V Date 2/(5/0 ( / 1 Watercourse # /�� R a {e cc /i;JiIe Frorn sl C14. S To (5 TOTAL INSTREAM SCORE 4)•r+ s, -de o,., 11 Figure 4 CORRIDOR FEATURES Corridor Quality Tukwila Watercourse Rating pg. 2 LEFT BANK Al* r�-� f�IEMT BANK Width of unmaintained vegetation from OIIW M >50 feet Score = 3 Vegetation diversitv High diversity. multi - layered Score = 3 25 to 50 feet Score = 2 Open forest or shrubs with understory Score = 2 5 to 25 feet Score = 1 Left Bank Right Bank Subscore Subscore Single layer with minimal diversity Score = 1 Subscore Subscore For each bank. multiply the subscores of the above two elements to determine total scores Total Total Score — Score :z Corridor Barrier Function Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% Score = 3 Dense forest or shrub 50 to 75% Score = 2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score = 1 Score Score 1 Surrounding land use Immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each catagory) Forested . Score = 3 Shrub or unmaintained Active agriculture grassland or pasture Score = 2 Score = I urban: urban: residential/maintained lawns industrial /commercial Score = -1 Score = -2 Score _ Score Score Score TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DETERMINE TOTAI. REACII SCORE Score Score .Z Score _ Score P% SCORE_ SCORE t- - - - - - - Figure 4 1v,vPlitt t)t'1i51: It: Tir∎'(; FOR,11 • CITY OF TUlovii.,t INSTREAM ELEMENTS Width of watercourse (O11WM) >5 feet Score = 3 1 to 5 fcct Score = 2 <1 foot Score = Scure Channel capacity Ample, no overbank Adequate, slight evidence Insufficient flows of overbank flows ovcrbank flows common Score = 3 Score = I Score = 0 Score 3 Channel stability No scour or downcutting Score = 3 Slight scour or downcutting (<25% of channel) Score = 1 Obvious scour or downcutting Score = -1 Moderate scour or downcutting ( 25 to 50% of channel) Score = 0 Score Fish use Salmonids present Potential for salmonid use Score = 3 Score = 2 No fish present and lisle potential for restoration Score = 0 No potential for sahnonids but other species present Score = Score x 2 = Fish habitat Spawning, rearing, and Two of three habitat overwintering types present Score =3 Score = 2 Rearing or overwintering habitat present Score = I Score Date a//7/°( Watercourse# XgoK4-ti d` From s/ St. 4t? c .s To Ae /ri D 5,. 4 sale TOTAL INSTREAM SCORE • • Figure 4 CORRIDOR FEATURES Corridor Quality Tukwila Watercourse Rating pg. 2 LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Width of unmaintained vegetation frorn Oil Wht Left Bank Kikht Bank >50 feet 25 to 50 feet 5 to 25 feet —_ Score = 3 Score = 2 Score = I Subscure Subscorc Vegetation diversity High diversity, multi- layered Score = 3 Open forest or shrubs with understory Score = 2 Single layer with minimal diversity Score = For each bank, multiply the subscores of the above two elements to determine total scores Subscorc Subscore i Total Total Score Score 3 Corridor Barrier Function Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% Score = 3 Dense forest or shrub 50 to 75% Score = 2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score = 1 Score Score 1 Surrounding land use Immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each catagory) Forested Score = 3 Shrub or unmaintained Active agriculture grassland or pasture Score = 2 Score = 1 urban: urban: residential/maintained lawns industrial /commercial Score= -1 Score = •2 Score Score 2 Score _ Score _ TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DETERMINE TOTAL REAt.II SCORE Score Score h Score Score 3 SCORE SCORE � ATTACHMENT 3 DATA SHEETS OM Name Phase) (sub: ou wr /au° DI), cz46 4 - Drainage Class / Field observations confirm Yes PC7 mapped type? Dticripition Depth Horizon (iMe) 1 .2 Matrix color (Munsell moist) 14) ANTI 4 Manic colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast 1fc Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match de_scrintioa) Weil* Soil Inelleatorai (check all that apply) HiStosoi Hittic Epipeclon Sulficlic Odor jAquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed orLow-Chrome Co :HYdriciSogS prang" Yes 1taidon4le fix &cation/Remarks: Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination . • (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/. Site: 7-0414) A�- 4 Applidan4owner: e .4 OS Investiea br(s):C Date: / 4,, d / County: k/1 % /AJ) ‘;,, State: LUI9 S/T1R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? &MI no is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? art3 no Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes JR Cornrnur iry CD: at-7.1.1;401AI Trnnsect ID: D,; Cc) ET' Plot ID: 7)f 4$ /7 -e, T4,44 4 VEGTTATIO N ! i Dominant Plant Species Stratum tndicatcr Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator r , ` HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBI.. FACW, & FAC: / 0 C i• Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Regional knowledge of plant communities Wetland plant •.ist (nat'l or regional) OT-i Physiologil or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data .Base Hydrophyitic vegetation present. no Rationale for decision/Remarks: 1 - — >PRO1�OGY :- • Is it the grgwing season? yes /gin j'' Based n: ' �-- Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: ves no Drift Lines: es no Drainage Patterns: ves no Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Local Soil Survey: ves no Depth to free water in pit: 1- inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water- stained Leaves: yes no Depth to sanuated soil: inches Check all Stream La<e at apply & explain below: or gage data Other: Aerial ph grap odobsL _Other: Wetland hydrology present? v - no Rationale for decision/Remarks: ' es "." e Descri>ation Depth (inc 3) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (jnatch descrintiap) 7-7 p 8 A /0.,iL 2l;- _____ ,.�. L.�,._ g -ill- , .5 "1 4( '', 5 17/2 57 A ,;1. c,/ rcPL. Yy _1 • Hydric 40u Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils T---- Sulfidic Odor • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils J Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Fileyed or Low a Colors Other (explain in ternaries) Hydric sines present? yea no Rarticinale for decision/Re t 1 Wellqn ,'Deteirmmation (circle) Hy., Hy- W- . .p. • •c vegetation present? no c • present? ( ,e " no Is the sampling point Cves :} no • d ., cfrolb �� • resent? /'` a no within a wetland? u--� " ` Rs b' • :arks: - •�- ./Y0/2/ o r L • DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (Wit. State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1 ' Co ,s Wetland Delineation Manual) 'Applicant/Owner: V P V S teas): 441/4i: Da Nohnal Cis,ctatnstauces exist on the site? 1i the 4t significantly disturbed (atypiaai situation)? b the vies a. potential Problem Area? V'$G 'ATIQN R �PHYTIC VEGETATXON INDICATORS: 'of dominants OBL. FACW, dt FAC: YO % Date: 2 ( ' p County: k4 4r, State: W4T S/T/R: Community ID: '7 •_ Transco: ID: Plot ID: Indicator Dominant Plant Species f indicators that apply & explain below: n4 lmdwledge of plant cottmxtttiues 41hysicrit gfcai or rt productive adb ptations 41 Literature Orbs vegetation present? for decision/Remarks: yes Stratum Wetland plant Iist (nat'l cr regional) Morphological adaptations W Plant Data Base Indicator 01"1 R Water Marks: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Sediment Deposits: ves no Drainage Patterns: yes no to sant¢aaed;sail: k that apply dt explain below: 'for gage data inches Other: Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no FAC Neutral• ves no Other. Local Soil Survey: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no • hydrola present? yes for.decisLon/Remarks: 110 • iV o Le...) -7— /9-i5oU I << ,.• Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or DATA FORM 1 1987 Corps Wetland Project/Siie: • / -0 ,� : Appli6ancfowner: e 4 V S i n� Investi:ator(s): ke . d'4! L Dazc: j (p y d / —__� county- ,i/.0 State: i.4.),9 S /TIR: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the sire? no Is the site 'significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? no Is the area! a potential Problem Area? ves Community ID: <.:':' . M a Transect ID: OP (....e- f) Plot 1D• '%i} 4 // -c? ,-[: vEGITA.TION -t Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Derninant Plant Species Stratum Indicator j i 1 L l HYDROPEYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: ice' Check all indicators that apply at explain below: Regional knowledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) 07—MR Physiological or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes ) Rationale for decision/Remarks: HYDE/94'Q9Y • Is it the growing season? yes n Based on:: Water Marks: ves no Sediment Deposits: ves no I Drift Lines: ves no Drainage Patterns: ves no Dept. of inundation: inches Depth to free water in pit: / - inches Depth to saturated soil:_ iuches Oxidized Rot (live roots) Channels <12 in.yes no Local Soil Survey: :/es no FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: ves no Check all tlsu apply & explain below: Stream: Lace or gage data Aerial pbotbgraphs: Other: Other: eland hydrology present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: Yes Project/Site: 701e 6(.•, Applicant/owner: V S Investigaior(s): i /4145. DATA FORM 1� Routine Wetland Determination': "`�' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Co •s Wetland Delineation Manual) Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the sire significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is thearea a . •tential Problem Area? VgGrrikTION Dominant Plant Species Stratum te 7 `-‘11 Indicator HYDROIq$YTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dontinanu OBL. FACW, & FAC: Daze: 2,/ County: State: 4149 STIR: Community ID: eater Tra nsect ID: ,),) y) , f, Plot ID: ' -/S" Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator L 3c *'(_:? Check all indicators that apply & explain beloo w: Regional knowledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTHER Physiologi6al or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Technnit:al Literature Wetland P!ant Data Base Hydrophykic vegetation present? yes no Rationale for decision Remarks: F4YDROI,O9Y Is it the gralwing season? Based on: Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: Depth to sakurated soil: yes inches inches inches t�7ft Water Marks: ves no Drift Lines: ves no Sediment Deposits: ves no Drainage Patterns: ves no Soil Survey: yes no Oxidized Root (live rocts) Channels <12 in. ves no FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no Check all that apply & explain below: Stream„ Lake or gage data: Aerial .hotb; - •hs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: Other: Yes yes ves Drawing of soil profile (match description) /d Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in. Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) rg-:� Is tie sampling point 7 within a wetland? /'. /Z / yes . -1 g season? yes no in adation: inches water in pit: 6 inches t:ratedl soil: inches o. ar apply & explain below d or gip data: h#: logy present? f deciiion/Remarks: Water Marks: Drift Lines: ves ves no no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Sediment Deposits: ves no Drainage Patterns: ves no Local Soil Survey: yes no FAC Neutral: yes no Water- stained Leaves: yes no Other: Other: ao • I.r i Map Unit/slat* (Series. Phase) T oni 4) ne.7JD i749 1) el/ ,L2/96 Matrix color (Minion invite) /OR Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes mapped tvpe? Mottle colors (Munsell moist). Mottle abundance site & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Soll'Inditaters: (check all that apply) HiStosol HiStie Epipedon Sadie Odor AqUic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions GI ed orLow Colors present? e ter deo:stodge migeOatiem present? present? • sent? •JCs) no L.31 110 Drawing of soil profile . (mAtch desctuja) Concretions - High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soil Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List • Listed on National Hydric Soils List „_ Other (explain in remarks) Is the sampling point within a wetland? MNI*11.1101■•• /42Y0/2/C J-41r3c._ no ; c ! ? - (WA State Wetland Delineation Mantwlor , 197 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual '• =` ' Pro Apps ' . -. Inv ... • Sit;: sndOwnei: : 11/iCt )I409 Iv 4 U s • • a(s): . aC61/4 l ,� ' Date: (o dD J County: �ir.0 a. State: S/TJR: 4119 Community M: Transect ID: v f Plot ID: 7# .} FC/js C -/ • Do N• Ia the la the ring Circumstances exist on the site? no ite gnificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? no , _ a potential Problem Area? . yes A • .: t • Plant S•cotes Stratufl Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator /.._ IZ.�. Tkk i YDAOFEYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ,'96 oi.db • • .•ts qBL, FACW, & FAC: /a X19 �, Chock : ' - - . . Phylie • :• . 1-, 'cats rs that apply do explain below: wledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) OTrMR - or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations ' - . re Wetland Plant Data Base - • , , c vegetation present? 0 no , • decision/Remarks: • :li! » 1 Y its it . • :. .wing season? yes ?Water • • Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: ves no Drift Lines: es no Draina_e Patterns: ves no Deli. • dation: inches .Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. ves no Local Soil Survey: yes no y7Depdf water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no • Water- stained Leaves: yes no ,..: • , ' soil: inches °Q eck. apply St explain below: • . - or data: Other -.: Ls_.• •s: _ Other. . - -- - 9 I -. ; . .., . . logy present? ao 1 Ratl- .- • decision/Remarks: . y , ydsio toils present? ?VV9ett byt old resent? :3d0 nlie iteasarka: no no no Is the sampling point within a wetland? no ,z/9.lJiliz Jib /&. J ;.,,,��><Ro� :.DATA FORM I utlne Wetland Determinatfon ..... (WA State Wetland Delineation Mantiiil or 19E7 Cotis Wetland helms ition Manual)' Pm t/Site: i -0 rto antlowner: i� iJ S rmat Circthmstances exist on the site7 ite significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? 1 potential Problem Area? ATIQN Date: County: State: SIT/R: Community I76W Ttansect ID: :D? L. Plot ID: - it C -1 •IAlant Species r. Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator P#PITIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of minims OSL, FACW, & FAC: .Check . indicators that apply & explain below: knowledge of plant communities !Play 031 or reproductive adaptations ec hn al 4.iteranire hytic vegetation present? yes for deciision/Remarks:. Wetland plant list (net or regional) Morphological adaptations w _ ..d Plant Data Base OTHER OLOG' tls it wing season? aaed inundation: inches .free water in pit: C7 inches Drift Lines: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no PAC Neutral: yes no Sediment Deposits: ves no Drainge Patterns: ves no Local Soil Survey: yes no Water - stained Leaves: inches yes no Other: MLA Map Umt Natne (Sal -s &.Phasic) /2? J2_c Di) _,496 c':/ Drainage Class To ouiy (subgroup) Pt+ettle Dirscription i Depth Horihon (inches) Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance (Mansell (Meensell size & contrast moist) moist /oy/L34, I As /oy /z 3 S to oin Indicators: (check all that apply) Hi$tosol .,_,,,.,,. Hii<oic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor T Acjuic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions I . GI ed or Low-Chrortta C 1Hydricsaii preliettt? Yes o r deci8ion/Remarfcs: Field observations confirm Yes , ' mapped type? Texture, concretions, structure, etc. /331 (� 2 Drawing of soil profile (match descrig ,og) 5 _ �.` Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Solis Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) :E • Proimisite: 7T oft4) I e- AppHaandowner DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determinadon (WA State Wetland Delineadon Manual or 19,7 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ' hivestklator(s): 4,40,709.4rta 'Do NornalCircumstances exist on the site le the $ ite significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the *ea potential Problemj%rea? Daze: tp / County: State: 4119 S/T/R: YEGPATIoN Dcessisaprit Plant qjsecies Stratuth Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: cat Indicator PHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: teams OBL, FACW, & MC: DZ, &atoll that apply & explain below: lasewledge of plant caramUnities or reproductive atiapulions Literature Wedand plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OTHER Yes inches waver in pit: :4; 1* inches no Water Maria: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in, yes no FAC Neutral: yes no Sediment Deposits: ves no Drainage Patterns: ves no Local Soil Survey: yes no.i Water-stained Leaves: Other: hydrology present? fordeciaion/Rernarks: ;! cif Nape & -Phase) 7> /d Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes Not trapped e? 1.�: (okia34 fota31;.. 7,11//24- C /G/ Soa Indicators: (check all that apply) ;.�. Ttosol ._ ,. Mimic Epipedon Sulifdic Odor ._...._ &laic MOW= RegiYae Reducing Conditions' Goad or Low.Cttrot is C ! 77) le-4 Owner. evu,s• DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1907 Co •s Wetland Delineation Manual) hives s): • Do N 'Circumstances exist on the site? h the ita signifitantly disturbed (atypical situation)? • the •tential Problem Area? County: State: SEM: le/Alo tie no Community no ?mascot II); es Plot ED: "r& 674 Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Seecies Stratum IndicacoL aliments OBL, FACW, & FAC: &Atom that apply & explain below: lmowledge of plant cotamenities or reproductive adaptations gterarure ytic vegetation present? fot decition/Remarks: asserarr Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTHER Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base Yes no Water Marks: es no Sediment De Drift Lines: es no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no FAC Neutral: yes no osits. es nti Draina e Patterns: ves na Local Soil Survey: yes ne Water-stained Leaves: • • • ; 11�p Dit Name { - &;Phase) -7 Drainage Class _ �' /c (;,.( Field observations confirm Yes mapped,type? Matrix :color (Manse}! Mottle colors (Monsen .}st Mottle abundance size & contrast Drawing of soj profile /e) t 1,,w4 Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Bydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other ex .lain in remarks) Is the sampling point within a wetland? . . nit Narne &'Phae) 'Horizon Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture. concretions, structwc, etc. /6.-rz'1, .•) , i1'2 Drawing of soil profile (match a crin ) 4 /,3w 8� Sell Indtentors: (check all that apply) , HiStosol Blade Epipedon Sdic Odor Moisture R egigne Reducing Contrutens ` Glt:yed or Low-Qrogia C Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Solis Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List ___ Other (explain in remarks) Is the sampling point yes within a wetland? ' !` Pro' - :App' ... 'Inv.,,,. Do . Is the I�tba' DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or Co Wetland Delineation Manwti) Site: '/ /i,,4 owner: t0 l US A • ; •: •, : s : I • Circumstances exist on the site? 4151 no • significantly disturbed (atypical einmtion)? '1,0713' no - h potential Problem Area? es Date: a 4, i CJ 1 County: k ti, 4,, State: 14/09 STI'/R: 4 COliiinurllij� IXi: Transect ID: Plot ID: �—i9 4 8 YE rt :M ArOr;1 • , • tPiot S. tea Stream Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator tii r li . • • ►R•PITY'I'IC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ' of • • • - • u OBL. FACW & FA1C: , lc - h2dicato s that apply & explain below: - ! Imewiedge of plant colnmcinities Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) OTTER • gird or reproductive adaptaxions Morphological adaptations • ,: • _ Literature Wetland Plant Data Base ..... .'' - 9: itie vegetation present? yes {,n - laps deci$ion/Remarfcs: 4:IY' tt tb0 - • • • g season? Yee no Water Marks: es no Sediment De • osits: ves n • Drift 'Lines: es no Draina:e Patterns: es n . • , i . • ,• •• inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes nO In • free water in pit inches p PAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no i.4 . •. • :Wit: inches ;• - .. .. • • • *I apply dt explain below: dam. Other: a• Ohdr: .... �k hydrology prat? Yee ar for decilion/Remarks: e nit NAM (dr/ &Phase) b Drainage Class 442' el Zei,z-U Field observations confirm Yes No mapped txpe? Hori/on Matrix .colcir Nowell moist) Mottle colors (Mtmsell moist) Mottle abunciare, concreti,org of soil size & contrast structure. etc. profile Indkators: (check all that apply) Hilstosol Histic Epipedoa Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions' G ed orLo. • •nia C 8,...„) • Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other explain in remarks • Is the sampling point yes (267 within a wetland? /co /-ifiR/c (Po(e._ 11111•01•11, • DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 19$7 Coe s WetJattd DeEineation Manual) L. . ., I. ' i rro . oua: 7 Ural /C A' , ,... Owner: 0 I) U� / • DoN a: �~ •' CirCurnstances exist on the si e? no is the significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? no It the xyotetltial Problem Area? • • e$ _._. Date: �//o % County: A //4b 4; State: �T S/'T/R: Community ID: 4 , Transect ID: Plot T ID. # �! ,� M Irl ei: g A, ON . ' t Pant S� ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S •ecies Stratum Indicator a �•�) t�k ir ill ri9e44) se Y1 • II t R ►PHYTIC VEGETATITON:INDICATQRS: ;of • • • • • .Its OBL, FACW, dt PAC: 6 7) 4iA) i 1 i indicators that apply * explain below: i ' :• • . leadwledge of plant eotntmittities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTHER ..- or reproductive &O rations Morphological adaptations . *kid i • • Literature Wetland Plant Data Base • yell vegetation present? (' no for decision/Rematirs: . X . • it the • • • yes no Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes n Drift Lines: Yea no Drainage Patterns: yes no , t • ; . • • .a • „ • inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no . f ee'water in pit: inches , PAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no I • : - • ;soil: inches I,. w, - • . that appl & explain balmy! :or gage data: ,,.. Other. irap • Other _ ... r. ,. •,• • present? ye! no foi: 3elC' on/Remarks: • i• nit Name /I1 Pbage) sub + •u• ' Horiton Matrix coke Mottle colors (Mutual (Munsell Mottle abundance size & contrast Drawing of soil profile Uriatsh descrinti j C /`,/ref Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Sots Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List _.._ .. _ Other ex .lain in !emetics) • 1..- L'_ vegetation present? !pint? hi oNY Present? Is the sampling point within a wetland? Z' /Z /G Site: 70a4,171:::4 4wher; kit 40/474a Circumstances exist on the sitel • signifiCantly disturbed (atypical situation tial Problem • 1S. DATA FORM I Routine Wetland Determination (WA Stage Wetland Dellneadon Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) 0 rfl Piaat Species Daze: County: k'?/.4.b State: WO9 S/TJR: Community - • Transect 1D: Plot ID: 0 ' Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum PEITTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: OBL, PACW,. FAlC: ii:ticators that apply at extlain below: th‘wiedge of plant conitminities or reproductive adaptations Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations W d Plant Data Base OTHER g season? inches free water in pit 7Hnches Sanded soil: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no FAC Neutral: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes nO Water-stained Leaves: yes no I • 9 I :4 • 9 Matrix Color (Munsell my*? Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes No mayasl type? Mettle colors Mott" abwdace retions, (Iviunsell size & contrast structare, etc. Moist) 1•1111■1 :11,414,Air 00* present? Yee Ask decision/Remarks! "'"r*" • Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy So* ' Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) Drawing of soil profile (match •••••••■■ : • . ; Is the sampling point within a wetland? iU0 /-111)M7 DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Deterrnlnat7on ( A Stye Wetland Delineation Manual or s Wetland Delineadon Manual) T i droner Ds Do N Is the If the YIN Circumstances exist on the sitt7 1rtit"icarrtly disturbed (atypical: situation)? potettial Problem kea7 'OWN Date: 2 4, d / county: .t." J. state: 4/I9 S/I'/R: Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: Indicator Dominant Plant S •ecies Stratum indicator PE YTIC VEGETATjON ]NDICATORS: u Oi3L, FACW, A FAC: Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) OTHER Morphological adaptations W d Plant Dare Base g season? immdati fee water in pit .atta ratty i soil: yes inches _— inches incites Water Marks: yes no Drift Lines: Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. no PAC Neutral: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes nQ, yes no . Drainage Patterns: ves ntt Local Soil Survey: yes nO Water - stained Leaves: yes no. nit Name & Phase) only (subgroup) 1 Drainage Class Field observations confinai Yes mapped type? Horaon Matrix color (Mansell Mottle C01011 (Mansell moist) Mottle abundance size 4 contrast Texture, concretions, structitre, etc, seibi Pit? t� decision/Remarks: • ! . veguation mime. present? .. • OP • • • • Conattions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local flydric Soils List Listed on National I-Iydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) Is the sampling point yes rio within a wetland? /uo c JO/c. DATA FORM Rodtine Wetland Determination (WA Stale Wetland Delineation Manual or 1 • ,s Wetland Delineation Manual) Site: /4.,4 Dace: 2/4./2 / dwtter; e , v s counry:.�ir� �, �0sj: �'�t g fa yc State: G../d9 f SITIR: Cirmirnstancas exist On the Ott? no Community ID: J si ificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? �(' i no J Traasett ID: medal Problem Aral? cs Plot ID: 7-49 At /; N ..✓ t Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator C VEGETATION' INDICATORS: OBL, FACW, 4 FA{C: • Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) OTHER Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base Water - stained Leaves: hydroloqy present? ye . fordeciion/Remarks: : Unit Name & Phase) Discal tkin Horizon Matrix color (Mansell molts) MOW M MU et colors (Klestil moist Mottle abundance size & contrast ••■■••,•••• Drainage Class 7X-/ GC.td.L. Field observations confirm Yes mapped tYPe? Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil structure, etc. profile (match gsgatitic) Hydria Se0 indicators: (check all that apply) fristosol /attic Epipedou Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors mils present? yes &es.) for decision/Remarks: • vegetation present/ yes !present? yes hydrology present? yea Is the sampling point *thin a wetland? iuo /4-0a /c.., yes DATA FORM 1 Rottbine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delfneatlon Manual or 19$7 Coins Wetland Delineation Manual) ltec ¢�� t Plant S • cies Strati nn C VEGETATlON`YNDICATORS: is OBL, FAC W, 8s FA: m ieators that apply it explain below: Imowled a of plant car cities or reproductive adaptations i��';�.. �S - no Water Marks: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Sediment De.osits: es no Local Soil Survey: yes nd finewwater in pit: FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: Unit Name Phase) •-lt b •u• Description orison Matrix color (Mansell moift) • !' Mottle colors (Mansell rmsoist) :ii Mottle abundance size & contrast Drainage aass 42 t Field observations confirm Yes rna•.d i•? Texture, concretions, structure, etc. e /, C/J 4,fyiz3/4, Svfl Indicators: (check all that apply) �,... Hiatosol Epipedon Sulfidie Odor Aquic Moiottrre Regime ....:_ Reducing Conditions • Ole ed or Low -Chrome . . sae present? Yes le tot decision/Remarks: /.Fd FJ7 Drawing of soil profile (itch descri ) Concretions . Hiigh Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) c9 DATA FORM 1 Routfne Wetland Determination (WA Stag Wei Ddineation Manual or 1 ' Co Wetland Delineation Manual dater' (1 Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator PBXTic VEGETATION LNDICATORS: OBL, FACW, & PAC: CJ indica of that apply & explain balow: :tgso!wledge of plant corninuaities Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) Of reprcducave 116041oas : Morphological adaptations larvae W d Plant Data Base vegetation present? yes ltiridecislon/ReTnarhs: Water Marks: es no Sediment De ()sits: es Drift•Lines: es no D :e Patterns: FAC Neutral: yes no Water- stained Leaves: i.1■ • Imoom present? yea n/Rema zits: 77/z/ 4/' uit Nate at. Phase) sub Mari): color (Munsall Drainage Class z() Field observations confirm Yes mapped type? Mottle colors Mottle abundance Textute, concretions, (Mansell size & contrast stricture. etc. •■■■••••••,, Drawing of soil profile (match descrintog) / Concretions MO Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in nsmarks) DATA FORM 1 Routine Wedand Detetmfnatfon (WA State Wedand Delineation Manual or 1 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual 'Circumstances exist on the sure? the significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? i potential Problem ikre4 4llOrj :plant S .. cies : ttatu Date: 4, ' 0 County: Al.tb State: anvil SIT/R: no Community rip : no Trausect m: Plot ID: 7' At /6" Indicator_ Dominant Plant Species t4J Stratum Indicncar is 419L. FACW, et VAC: indicators that apply explain bole latda+ledige of plan conimtt cities cr reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Literature Wetland Plant Data Base yids vegetation preset t? no tut+ decftion/ltetaarks: = season? yet no Water Marks: yes Drift Lines: yea Sediment Deposits: Yes nO Drainage Patterns: yes nd Local Soil Survey: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no' nit Nude St'Phase) Drainage Class 22 Field observations confirm Yes mapped rwe? Horizon Matrix =kr Nunsall rnoisV Mottle colors (Mansell moist) Mottle abundance size at contrast Drawing profile (natchslosaintso) 73) 26 /iii, /Y " SoB rs: (check all that apply) Histosol Epipedon __Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Condotis G)iyed or Low-Chrozna Cp so& present? yes 7no ki deciision/Remadcm Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy SoiLs Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) ,-.11/11 - don (circle) Is the sampling point yes no within a wetland? :Is it the, • OGX seasoo? yes Wetland plant list (nat'1 or regional) OTHER Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base (t_.4) Water Marks: Drift .Lines: dation: inches water in pit: .A1O inches eded soil: apply & explain below: or gage data: inches yes no Sediment Deposits: ves no yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no FAC Neutral: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no Water- stained Leaves: yes no Other Other: lationale f og' present? yes decision/Remarks: s I Map Pnit Name (Se 45 ii Phase) Taxonomy (subgroup) 1 1 Pr tae o Description Depthl, Horizon (inches) Matrix color Mottle colors (Munsell (Munsell moist) moist) Drainage Class Field observations confirm 'Yes d mapptype? Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture. concretions, structure, etc. L Drawing of sod profile (match descriction) Jj )3 C. Hydriei Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol 1 Histic Epipedon 1 1 Sulfidic Odor • ; 1 Acp.fic Moisture Regime i 1 Reducing Conditions 1 Gleved or Low-Chroma Col s Hydricisoils present? yes 'o Rationale for decision/Remarks: YVed24(1•1?etarmination (circle) Hydropitytie vegetation present? • Hydric aaiii present? Wettanti h to • resent? 3 Rados:Ile/Remarks: Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Laver of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) yes yes ves Is the sampling point yes within a wetland? 410 c j-07 NOT • Proj -. f" I Appl• is Tnves I, Do N. - It the #ite is the !` ` i7• ' aimIEIPMIIIIIIIIIIIInl t will7/11..1M1111FINA. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE 1 111111 SYD• • 4 of • • Si --' t eP: • • (WA • 1987 : To .r 04.4 owner. e U S /7 . 3 ; C Circumstances exist on the site? .• ptificantly disturbed (atypical a .. tential Problem Area? '. ant $ •ecies • DATA Routine State Wetland Co . s Wetland Ars situation)? Stratton Mum FORM Wetland Determination Delineation Delineation aft no no . es lis Indicator 1 Manual or Manual) Dominant Plant Date: � County: 41#.4,6 State: &1d9 S!T/R: Community Transect ID: Plot ID' Species (o, 0 / 1D: ' • - Stratum .3--- a Indicator C VEGETATION INDICATORS: •• tit OBL, FACW, tit FAC; kQ p chock ' dicators that apply & explain die :• • owledge of plant communities ' 'Phyeioli) : or reproductive adaptations IT • • . iteature below: Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OTHER 6 • c vegetation present? no • decision/Remarks: , ti it the gro .' g season? yes Water Marks: es no Sediment De • osits: ves no Drift Lines: es no Draina_e Patterns: ves no •• * • Deptb ', ► • , . anon: . inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes no water in pit: /6).-• inches _. • soil: . inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no e, ".. ,,,_ ;- • • 'Ratio .• - f• apply & explain below: or gage data: Other: Other: .u.:- WI: drology preterit? yea decision/Remarks: no t Name Phase) sub DcripOon ;Horizon Matrix color (Mutual! moiSt /0/d Mottle colors (Munsell. Moist) Mottle abundance size Zit contrast Drainage Cass Field observations confirm Yes e9 mapped type? Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (matchAescriptigio) sop Indicators; (check allt--"Irl I Histosol I Maio Epipecion suifidic Odor I ; mule Moist= Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low-Chro C soil, Kermit? yes an fni decision/Remarks: Concretions MO Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Sods Organic Streaking is Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) 00 sii41.11." " Is the sampling point yes within a wetland? aria: /t) 7-9M/c LPOf • .� DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Dellne�tion Manual) Pro' Apglicamt/• • invest Si' : -jri at) /if.- 4 er: ©,� US Q 'V � • . • 3): , CO r'1` Date: 9, County: ,�//,t State: 44.14 S/T/R: (. 0 / 4, g Do No Circumstances exist on the site? its no '1'a the to ignifncantly disturbed (atypical situation)? 4' no '.Is the it potential Problem Area? • yes Community Transect t : Plot ID: Species ID: G - , 7 9 * �..z? Stratum Indicator ' VECTITATION ' "Doom nt Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant _ (8.e4LcA 64) .#64 1 ;HYDR a PHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of - • • • .. is OBL, FACW. & FAC: ;Q •?Cfieck indicators �Re• - knowledge illtyai. • :• •• j 'ec • •:.: Literature that apply & explain of plant communities or reproductive adaptations below: Wetland plant Iist (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OTHER - - -.,. • , . b s tatic • vegetation present? yes ea, decision/Remarks: a it the :• • . g season? yes 40r eel • ater Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: Yes no Drift Lines: es no Drama .e Patterns: es no -Veg. • inundation: bepth p ... inches Oxidized Root (live roots) hannels <12 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes no o water in pit: VO inches soil: inches PAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no 'Check ,Ill rw : ' 10 Il , tladonale f• at apply & explain below: - or gage data: Other:.. ye Other. . • :: , logy present? decision/Remarks: • Is the sampling point within a wetland? yes o) xvo 4�oc Tote__ • DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1977 Corps Wetland Deineadon Manual) 1 Projedt/Site: Appl. Do N. Is the It the t' Tr/, .),g- 4 owner. e) 4 US �� Circumstances - - Date: 2/(0 DD / ( f County: /ice ab State: 4.04 SIT / R: . exist on the site? eil no ite `' gnificantly disturbed (atypical situation)? i►'lss no - *potential Problem Area? es Community ID: /.- . �, Transect ID: Plot ID: 7-j4 4 4...._ ?I • ..., tPPlant „e•N Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S •ecies Stratum Indicator SA FRz( q) �� �• ,� / reA, t fY l .. ° l60 / [''A— /r INDBpP$YITC VEGETATION INDICATORS: ''96 of ddeaiiiants OBL, FACW, & PAC: 0 'Check all • `;Regioni1 kilowledge thy►siolOgieal ST Literature cators that apply & explain below: of plant conuaunities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTr R or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base • ;By bytic '.1tatio fbr i loi vegetation present? yes decision/Remarics: r . I.19GY •i it the ilasat : a►ing season? yes Water Marks: yes no Sediment D posits: ves no Drift Lines: yes no _ Drainage Patterns: yes no . Dept. o inundation: • bepth to free Lj.'• ,. saturated inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels 42 in. yes no water in pit inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water- stained Leaves: yes no soil: . inches + :Qedt Eat at apply elk explain below: *ream, ig or gage data: Other: .r ... ::.. . • Other: _,,,,, Wed= Raaona.e , . , • logy present? yes no f•rdecisioa/Remarks: . . /MY Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes mapped ype? Mottli cblors Mottle abundar,ce Textwe, concretions, (Munseil size A contrast . structUre, etc. tnoi 6- Drawing of profile • (mach ararizist) 4 Sea indfeaters: (check Lthat apply) Histosol —.1— }auk EPiPedele • 461411.41MINV Sado Odor _I...Maio Moisture legime Reducing Conditlent Gliyed or Lowuthroina Colars soilla present? yes VA) fdt decision/Remarks: Concretions — MO Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Otherlexplain in remarks) • • • • nThr t ic.4 4:wner: of" DATA FORM 1 Rotidne Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Ddineabon Manual or 19111 Co. Wetland 'Dellneadon Manual), ■ Date: County: Al "0 ao State: 4./.#9 SPUR: Transeet ID: Plot ID: 7:4/ ,5•75 no no Rut Species .•■■•••■••■ Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ISYTIC VEGETATION:INDICATORS: OiBL, FACW. & PA:C: t that apply & explain below: kadwledge of plant curtmtinities Wetland pint list (nail or regional) or reproductive adsptations Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base vegetation present? doeiiion/Remarks: 1 OTHER 1 season? • Drift Lines; yes no Drainage Patterns: yes ne Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in. yes no FAC Neutral: yes no Water-stained Leaves: yes no ; ! • ` 9 -,3 Horizon Matrix color (Mansell moist) /010/4 /0-0/3 Mottle colors ' Mottle abundance (Munscll size & contrast moist) Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes ma. • d a•e? Texture, concretions, structure, etc. 44' ifg-14,1 13* c 4)/246 /4 3 dt Said Indicators: (check all that apply) I Hilton! • _Li_ Histic Epipedoa Sulfidic Oder Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Condidcns Gleyed or Low-Orome C. • 1•11,ritit se441 present? Yel , . rustle kir deeision/Remarks: Determinatbag (circle) vegetadon present? present? hYdrniert Present/ Yes Yee • _red Drawing of soil profile (ms�tch desc ttiow Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils • Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ , r, Other explain in remarks) Is the sampling point within a wetland? yes 0/Z / c TV/44) dfwhe Of9 D Vde • DATA FORM 1 Ronda* Wetland Determination • (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1917 Coips Wetland Delineation Manual Date: County: State: S/T/R: Conununity 61*•-e-eL Transect ID: Plot ID: .211 att Zt; 0 Indicator Dominant Plant 9 Stratum Indicator that apply & explain below: Pwledge of plant consminities or reproductive adaptations ikerantre Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base ••■•••■• g se. ma? yes • inches water in pit , inches isoil: Water Maric.s: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes n2 FAC Neutral: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes it Drainage Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no Water-stained Leaves: present? Yes deci 'on/Remarks: • ' ! : ! Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes matocql Matrix dolcir MOnle c Olor mottle abundance tore, concretions, (Mussel!! size & contrast structUre, etc. mois0 moist) Indicator= (check all that apply) Hissosol }natio Epipeclon Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Condidens G or Low-Citron:a Co Drawing of sod— profile (1111110Audzigg0 8'4-) E C • Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other ex lain in remarks (circle) vegetation Fes eut? iptesent? ogy present? Is the sampling point within a wetland? yes DATA FORM 1 Ro4tine Wetland Determination • (WA State Wetland Ddlneadon Manual or 1907 Corps Wetland Delineadon Manual) . s D County! Scare: srrIR: 41, /0 Stratum (.5-* t4 .) meee Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicatx C VEGETATION - ::INDICATORS: o 01111-, FACW, dt ?AC: ; & / Y r�i Mots that apply & explain below: 4wiedge of plant connmta ities or reproductive adaptations vegetadon present? decision/Remarks: Water Marks: es no Drift tines: yes _ no Sediment De•osits: es n Drainage Patterns: yes n4 Local Soil Survey: yes no +ever in pit: inches Water stained Leaves: t Name • Phase) Horikon Matrix color (Mimsell Mottle colors Mottle abundance (Munsell sizz & contrast moist) Drawing of sod profile Onathstraximisim C Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hyciric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) vegetation prisostl ixesent? present/ ■•■•••■■•■•=4,10. DATA FORM I Ratite Wetland Determination (WAS State Wetland Delineation Manual or 194? Coins Wetland 'De !nation Manual `weer Circumstances exist on lie site gnzfitantly disturbed (atypical situation)? %tidal Problem Date: ,-Z, cr/ County: k, State: 4109 srrIR: Community ID: Transect ID: P1o41 'r '4L nes Straturir Indicator Dorninant Plant Species Fla.) Stratum Indicator �E that apply & explain below: 1%4s/edge of plant OOQtlmtinities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTI-iFR n reproductive adaptations --- Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base vegetation present? deci#ion/Remarb: water in pit: yea no Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes ne _ inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no Channels <12 in. yes no inclta� PAC Neural: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes n4 oty present ?. on/Remarks: Is the sampling point yes no within a wetland? J ,. • ; • • • DATA FORM I Routine Wetland Determination CWA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 198E Corps Wetland Delineadon Manual) Pro jadt/S 1u: -TTJ Acto /e._ 4 Appiisan owner: ,4 0 s Inveni s): C# ,�i Date: / 4,, / D / r County: ,(•• ,,1D State: EtJ� S/T/R: Do Normal • Is the Cite Is the ken �. Circumstances exist on the site? no significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? m no a potential Problem Area? - es Community ID: Z. Ar- Transect ID: Plot ID: _ TjFit yEGET Dominant ON,.� Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator .�� sp lir we_ JP A __• f A'YD 1% of demiaants PE YTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: OBI. FACW, & FAC: ' J /; Check IRegio au ilsdicators that apply & explain below: l kirowledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'I or regional) OTF '2 rphysio •jTechni4al gical or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations Literature Wetland Plant Data Base Hydras '< • • „ hy$c vegetation present? no • fin decision/Remarks: • ..ri .lif it the growing season? yes no Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes no S' ased Drift Lines: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no _ Drainage Patterns: yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no . O in ndation: inches Depth • e water in pit; /LC, inches soil: : ..„,—.f inches �� FAC Neutral: yes no Water- stained Leaves: yes no that apply & explain below: :seem. ► or gage data: : • :ILZ.,, • ha: Other: Other: Wetland Rationale . ! hydrology present? yes , o for decision/Remarks: 1 l MapiUn:t Name (SeriOs & Phase) od't. sub Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) 474-Yreelo Mottle abundance size & contrast Drainage Class 9 Field observations confirm Yes ma.. d ,. 7 Texture, concretions, structure, etc. s� L Sydrit sa�7 Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Histic Epipedon I Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions GI ed or Low -Chroma C leI 1 present? yes ne Rations - decision/Rernarks:�� Drawing of soil profile (match d1ntign) —// Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) (circle) vegetation present? no present? yes drolo _, • resent? es arks: Is the sampling point yes within a wetland? A.)0 M on/ J-0 /z__ A • DATA FORM I Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or • 19$9 Co .5 Wetland Dellneadon Manual) Project/Si • TT) if.-- 4 App er: ePos loves ' Ks): k% Date: 2, (P r 0 f County: Ai' nth a 4119 S/T/R: Do N Circumstances exist on the site? Is the ce • •ficandy disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Area? no a2 zi no es Indicator Dominant Plant Community ID: r- - AY Transect ID: Plot ID: f/f At l (' Species Stratum Indicator VRGET TION Stratum Dornia¢nt ant Species // 710 i9k Iree / f 44( 0-3-4-C-1-4-- 44- Ftn- irk c - 7 I--ez- 470 tf En • • P : C VEGETATION INDICATORS: { % of • •i •i is OBL, FACW, & PAC: d O * eck theaters that apply & explain '.i #Re_: • • owledge of plant communities iPhyei peal or reproductive adaptations ,.. iterature below: Wetland plant list (nat'1 or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OTTER Iydresb *atlon c -- vegetation present? no decisiontRentarks: 77457759 n L it the ::• • • • g season? yes no • • : Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes no Drift Lines: yes no no Drainage Patterns: es no Local Soil Survey: yes no • •• ,,,,,,•„� ' otl: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes water in pit: inches . • .1 -• • soil: inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: yes no Cheek �. �arat� Aerial • apply & explain below: or gage data: Other. Others ttsapbs: h drology present? yes ey • , • f • r decision/Retnarks: • V Map(U, t Name te/itrt.4171e-ls (Series Phase) Tar• • „ sub:•u.) dl (inches) ption Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (MunseU moist) Mottle abundance size 8t contrast Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes mapped type? Texture, concretions, structure, etc. 0 -43 /0<a°2/4 4-s * cif / / ei) /Ale/ f5'4 / 6 Hydrie Seri Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol a iiistic Epipedott Sulfidic Odor Aquie Moisture Regime � _ Reducing Conditions Gleyed orLow- Chroma Co Hydrae sees present? yes i ationale for decision/Remarks: Drawing of soil profile (match description) /3 arfU��er/� Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain is remarks) (circle) vegetation present? 1Fiydric •, present? !Wetland hydrology present? Is the sampling point within a wetland? February 15, 2001 Andy Taber Opus NW, LLC 915 118th Avenue SE Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 1 9 2001 PERMIT CENTER RE: COVER LETTER TO WETLAND DELINEATION LETTER OPUS TUKWILA PROPERTY Dear Mr. Taber: Please find the accompanying Wetland Delineation Report for the property located north of South 151st Street and east of 51st Avenue S. This is a complicated site and needs to be reviewed by parties with appropriate credentials. Certified Professional Soil Scientists (CPSS) performed the site review and wetland delineation based on historic disturbances, geomorphologic interpretation, soil mapping, and soil morphology. Hydrology of the site has been altered by road construction and storm water discharge. A thorough understanding of soil water movement, including training in soil physics, is necessary for accurate interpretation of the site. The report addresses land forms, using common geomorphic terms, as shown on the Landform Map (Figure 8). These terms need to be fully understood for a proper interpretation of the site. Richard C. Herriman and A.J. Bredberg have 45 and 25 years experience, respectively, in their field. It would be anticipated that anyone reviewing this work would have similar experience, education, and background in order to provide a peer review. We anticipate the City will provide such CPSS personnel and a CPSS will be involved in the review. A CPSS ensures that accountability for any decision will be subject to proper peer review. 3303 43rd St. NW, P.O.Box 1337, Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA 253.858.7055 Fax 253.858.2534 ba @harbornet.com Whereas, the site is highly disturbed and difficult to interpret, we have spent numerous days on -site over several months making the proper technical determination. It would be sound practice that we be present for any field review with City personnel. The numerous days we have spent reviewing the site have generated information and understanding too lengthy and voluminous to be included in the report. Some of the site characteristics are subtle and cannot be accurately described in a report. On this basis, we anticipate being on -site with any reviewer to cooperate fully and transfer our knowledge and data to facilitate the City's review. If there are any questions or additional information needed, please contact us. Sinc A.J. Bredberg Enclosure cc: Lisa Verner 3378L2/ajb/smh/2/15/01 2 0, .v M OM TFA m September 21, 2001 Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard - Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: ADDENDUM TO WETLAND REPORT OPUS PARK 5/405 Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: The wetland delineation report was prepared in February, 2001, and submitted to the City. The original wetland delineation report was for several parcels, including the current Opus Park 5/405 project. Whereas, the report addressed a larger project, it has been downscaled to the current project. This addendum deals with the issues relative to the current Opus Park 5/405 project, comments from the peer review by Adolphson and Associates, Inc. dated April 25, 2001, the letter to Andy Tabor dated August 16, 2001, the fax from the City of Tukwila to Andy Tabor dated August 28, 2001, and the City of Tukwila Memorandum from Gary Schultz dated August 27, 2001. Most of the issues in the letter from Adolphson and Associates, Inc. dated April 25, 2001, have been resolved in the field or are not pertinent to the northern properties comprising Opus Park 5/405. All of the issues in the Adolphson letter regarding the wetland delineation have been resolved in the field, agreed upon, surveyed and confirmed as accurate. The Adolphson review requests additional information on the ditches /streams. The following information addresses channel width, depth, and type and amount of vegetative cover for the ditches /streams. 3303 43rd St. NW • Gig Harbor, WA 98335, USA 3378LR/ajb /smh /9/21 858.7055 • Fax: 253.858.2534 • ba @harbornet.com Dhaliwal Page 2 The north ditch is approximately 1 to 2 feet wide and from 2 to 5 feet deep. The vegetation on the western portion of the ditch consists primarily of Himalayan blackberries with several poplar trees at the far northwest side of the ditch. The eastern end of the ditch is lined with red alder trees. The amount of vegetative cover is heavy dominated by Himalayan blackberry, while the poplar and alder trees cover short segments of the ditch. The ditch south of the Opus Park 5/405 site has a ditch less than one foot wide and in the non - excavated area is only a few inches deep, while the excavated area is approximately 2 feet deep. The southern ditch is dominantly vegetated with Himalayan blackberry and salmonberry. The functions and values of the wetlands are addressed as follows: Flood and Storm Water Both wetlands serve as storm water detention areas. Storm water from the watershed is discharged into the wetlands where the dense vegetation slows the flow providing a limited amount of detention. The southern wetland occupies a broad level plain allowing it to detain considerably more water than the northern wetland. Sediment Erosion Both wetlands are heavily vegetated and provide high value for the removal of sediments and eroded materials prior to discharging water into the 1 -5 ditch /stream. Pollution Control The dense vegetation of both wetlands removes pollutants prior to discharging to the ditch /stream along 1 -5. The dense vegetation and detention time within the wetlands provides biofiltration. The upslope watershed feeding the wetlands is heavily urbanized with considerable runoff from streets and roofs, providing a source of pollutants to be removed. Wildlife The wildlife value for the wetlands is low as they are in the middle of an urban area. The southern wetland contains a forested canopy, but is too fragmented to provide much wildlife use. The low designation of wildlife on the southern wetland is subjective and this, being a forested wetland, 3378LR/ajb /smh /9/21 /01 •1 Dhaliwal Page 3 could be considered to have high wildlife function. The northern wetland is primarily scrub /shrub and dominated by Himalayan blackberry, providing a minimal amount of wildlife habitat. Fish There is no fish habitat directly related to the wetlands; however, the wetlands provide water quality benefits to downstream fish habitat areas. Aquifer Recharge and Discharge The wetlands are neither aquifer recharge or discharge wetlands as they do not contain hillslope seeps, nor do they have permeable sediments allowing infiltration to support aquifer recharge. Education The wetlands have minimal education value as they are highly disturbed and vegetated with exotic species. Aesthetic The southern wetland has high aesthetic value as it-is- forested. The northern wetland has minimal aesthetic value as it is primarily a Himalayan blackberry dominated wetland. Cultural The wetlands have no evidence of cultural value. Biological Support The wetlands serve to export organic material to the 1 -5 ditch /stream which, in turn, discharges to down stream fisheries. The impact assessment on the wetlands of the project shows that there will be no direct impacts on the wetlands. All activities will be outside the designated buffer for each of the wetlands. The watercourse /ditch discourse has come to agreement that the ditches will be regulated as watercourses. It has been agreed upon that the north and south ditches for the Opus Park 5/405 project are rated as Category 3 watercourses. 3378LR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 Dhaliwal Page 4 Discussion of the 1 -5 ditch /watercourse in the field with Adolphson staff came to the conclusion that the watercourse would rate a Category 3 rating. Please find the accompanying Watercourse Rating Sheet (Attachment 1) with a total score of 9 based on a site specific review of the Opus Park 5/405 site. The stream segment just south of the subject project area would rate a Category 2 watercourse based on the surrounding land use points that would be picked up as it is a forested category. The subject property has urban residential /maintained lawns while, in the wetland to the south, it would be a forested community and would score a total of 13 points. The following items per the letter dated August 16, 2001, are addressed per relevant portions. Item 3 addresses a Type 2 permit application and the need to address Section 18.45.080D of TMC for applicable Code criteria. The discussion addresses how the proposed project meets the Code criteria for work proposed in the sensitive areas or watercourses. Attachment 2 is the Mitigation Report for the activities in the watercourses. Item 7b.3.a.1 & 2 addresses that all three watercourses are determined to be Type 3 and regulated. The report by B &A, Inc. dated February 18, 2001, categorized the north and south ditch /watercourse as Type 3. It is only in review of the watercourse adjacent to Opus Park 5/405 and preparing a new rating form, site specific, that the ditch /watercourse adjacent to the subject project is also a Type 3 watercourse. The memo from Gary Schultz dated August 27, 2001, is addressed as follows: Item 1: The original wetland delineation report is revised in the form of this letter and the accompanying attachments to address the project and associated wetlands. The wetland delineation has been approved by City consultants, and a new determination on the ditch /watercourse paralleling 1 -5 is provided as Attachment 1. Mitigation for tightlining the north drainage and modifying the drainage on the southwest corner is presented in conceptual form as Attachment 2. Item 2: The project site plan labeling has been completed, showing the 1 -5 drainage ditch adjacent to the subject property as Type 3 with 15 -foot buffers. It should be noted that, immediately south of the subject property, the ditch /watercourse becomes a Type 2 as previously described. 3378LR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 Dhaliwal Page 5 Item 3: Sheet C3 shows the north watercourse relative to the final grade and how it is necessary to tightline the ditch /watercourse. The existing outlet is at elevation 93, while the final grade will be elevation 112. There is a 9 -foot difference in elevation between the proposed final grade and the existing culvert outlet that feeds the north ditch. Midway through the north ditch where it outlets onto the property line between the site northeast of the subject property and the subject property the final grade is at 102, while the elevation of the ditch is at 92, an approximate 10 -foot differential. Based on examination of Sheet C3, it is not possible to maintain the existing ditch in its current location or configuration and yet provide a reasonable site for the proposed project. Item 4: Watercourse mitigation around the southeast corner of the property in the area planted with salal was initially proposed. However, elevation of the outlets prevents placement of any water quality structures in this area. The outlet for the storm water vault is at 82 feet. The tightline exits from underneath the parking lot at an elevation of approximately 87 feet. To provide a water quality structure for the discharge of the storm water control vault, there would have be an excavation of 5 feet just to reach the discharge elevation from the vault. This would put any water quality control structure below the elevation of the ditch along 1 -5. There is not sufficient fall to put a water quality structure between the project and the 1 -5 ditch. The outlet of the tightline of the existing northern ditch /watercourse is at elevation 85. The water flows through the approximate 1`)/0 grade to the southeast corner of the site where water discharges into the 1 -5 ditch. There is not enough fall to incorporate other water quality features, other than the seeded bioswale and the addition of rock check dams in the swale. Item 5: All desirable, existing, native vegetation in the new watercourse area will be retained if possible. Specifications on the landscape notes and in the mitigation plan will make provisions for this. The fax to Andy Tabor dated August 28, 2001, contains two issues. Number 1: A creek cross - section for the new creek and channel restoration and bank stabilization mitigation plan will be provided. 3378LR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 Dhaliwal Page 6 Number 2: The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has been contacted to review the stream relocation proposal and determine whether a JARPA or HPA is needed. This concludes the comments from correspondence with the City and, in addition to the accompanying attachments, provides a conceptual mitigation for the buffer restoration. If additional information is needed or there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A.J. Bredberg attachments 3378LR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 ATTACHMENT 1 WATERCOURSE RATING SHEET Figure 4 CORRIDOR FEATURES Corridor Quality 6,)4.4eTCo r52t drFc`l opc3 41,-4R s/yos" Tukwila Watercourse Rating pg. 2 LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Width of unmaintaincd vegetation from O} I Wf`1 >50 feet Score = 3 Vegetation diversity High diversity, multi - layered Score = 3 25 to 50 feet Score = 2 Open forest or shrubs with understory Score = 2 5 to 25 feet Score = I Single layer with minimal diversity Score = I For each bank, multiply the subscores of the above two elements to determine total scores 1-eft Bank WI Dank Suhscurc Suhscnrc Subscorc Subscorc Ai/1 Total Total Score 3 Score "4 Corridor Barrier Function Dense forest or shrub 100 to 75% Score = 3 Dense forest or shrub 50 to 75% Score = 2 Dense forest or shrub 25 to 50% Score = I Score L Score Surrounding land use Immediately outside of corridor (multiply percentage of area in each catagory) Forested • Score = 3 Shrub or unrnaintained Active agriculture grassland or pasture Score = 2 Score = 1 Cuban: urban: residential/maintained lawns industrial /commercial Score = -1 Score = -2 Score Score _ Score Score TOTAL CORRIDOR SCORE Add "A" for Enhancement Potential (Briefly describe) ADD INSTREAM ELEMENT TO DETERMINE TOTAL REACH SCORE Score //5 Score Score tP Score SCORE 7_ SCORE '44 I:iburc -I WA FF:Rt'ttttltSE ItA I'It; F012111 - CITY OF i 11KWILA INSTREAM ELEMENTS Width of watercourse (O111YM) >5 feet Score = 3 1 to 5 feet Score = 2 <1 foot Score = 1 Score o� Channel capacity Ample, no overbank Adequate, slight evidence Insufficient flows of ovcrbank flows ovcrbank flows common Score = 3 Score = I Score = 0 Score Channel stability No scour or downcutting Score = 3 Slight scour or downcutting (<25% of channel) Score = I Obvious scour or downcutting Score = -1 Moderate scour or downcutting ( 25 to 50% of channel) Score = 0 Score l Fish use Salmonids present Score = 3 No fish present and little potential for restoration Score = 0 Potential for salmonid use Score = 2 No potential for sahnonids but other species present Score = I Score x 2 = 0 Fish habitat Spawning, rearing. and Two of three habitat Rearing or overwintering overwintering types present habitat present Score = 3 Score = 2 Score = I score 0 Date `- 16-4P1 Watercourse q rs ()4 rer C co4irSe1 d,TGIN From To PGr. S/v o s S.Ve TOTAL INSTREAM SCORE 4 ATTACHMENT 2 MITIGATION REPORT FOR ACTIVITIES IN WATERCOURSES • CITY OF TUKWILA WATERCOURSE MITIGATION REPORT SITE: OPUS PARK 5/405 ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: HUGE G. GOLDSMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1215 114TH AVENUE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98004 425 -462 -1080 PHONE 425 - 462 -7719 FAX PREPARED BY: B &A, INC. 3303 43RD STREET NW GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 253 - 858 -7055 PHONE 253 - 858 -2534 FAX ba @harbornet.com EMAIL BA #3378 SEPTEMBER 21, 2001 3303 43rd St. NW • Gig Harbor, WA 98335, USA 253.858.7055 • Fax: 253.858.2534 • ba @harbornet.com • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 BASELINE INFORMATION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS & OBJECTIVES 4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 5.0 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 6.0 MONITORING 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 8.0 PERFORMANCE SECURITY DEVICE 9.0 MITIGATION TIMING ATTACHMENT 1: COST ESTIMATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION Two watercourses will be rerouted. Discussions with the City to date indicate that this is acceptable. There are no salmon associated with the ditches or watercourses, nor is there any critical wildlife habitat. Mitigation plans have been prepared and are detailed on Sheets C -3, L -1, and L -2. Reduced copies of these sheets accompany. For detailed and to scale view, please see full size sheets. 2.0 BASELINE INFORMATION Two watercourses, one at the south and one midway through the north side of the project, will be rerouted. Both watercourses are Type 3. The south watercourse will have approximately 40 feet of its westerly end tightlined. The watercourse begins at a discharge from a culvert underneath 51st Avenue S. and flows in an approximately 2 -foot wide constructed ditch, then into a shallow channel where it eventually infiltrates into Wetland B. The southerly ditch /watercourse does not flow directly into the 1 -5 ditch but dissipates into the wetland. The ditch is approximately 2 feet wide and is a few inches to 2 feet deep. The vegetation is predominately Himalayan blackberry and salmonberry. The area where the ditch will be tightlined is not heavily vegetated. A restoration planting plan is provided for the area that will be tightlined up to the property line, including portions of the watercourse /ditch that will not be tightlined. The northerly ditch /watercourse will be tightlined its entire length. The current ditch is approximately 1 to 2 feet wide and from 2 to 5 feet deep. The ditch is vegetated along its eastern end with red alder trees, and the western end of the north side has poplar trees. The majority of the remaining vegetation consists of Himalayan blackberry. The ditch begins at the discharge from a culvert under 51st Avenue S. and flows in the constructed channel, east and into to the 1 -5 ditch. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS The purpose of the mitigation measures are to replace the functions resulting from the tightlining of the watercourses. A new watercourse will be constructed and enhancement plantings made along its entire length. In addition, enhancement plantings will be made along the existing ditch at the southwest corner of the property that will be unimpacted by the tightlining. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 1 The site selection for the mitigation area is driven by the topography of the site. The site has been selected for mitigation on the eastern edge of the development, paralleling the 1 -5 ditch. The site is selected as it has the proper slope and is long enough to accommodate the replacement watercourse. There are no direct target evaluation species as the watercourses have minimal habitat. The resource functions targeted with the replacements have to do with water quality and the creation of habitat associated with enhancement of the watercourses. 4.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The performance standards for success of the project will be based on the successful creation of a watercourse. Additional standards will call for 80% survival of the plantings. Additional standards are per TMC as listed on page 18 -76 Section 18.45.080d2(3). 4.1.0 There will be improvements of the stream channel dimensions as the gradient will be decreased. Currently, the streams are on a slope such that there is down - cutting and erosion. The replacement watercourse will be on a 1% grade, with check dams to prevent any erosion. 4.1.2 Bank and buffer configuration will be provided in an enhanced state over the original watercourse. A detailed planting plan (Sheet L -1) details the plantings. 4.1.3 The channel bank and buffer areas shall be replanted with native vegetation which will be an improvement over the original species, sizes, and densities. 4.1.4 The stream channel bed will be better than the original stream. The original streams have unvegetated stream bottoms. The new stream will be hydroseeded and vegetated. 4.1.5 Fish and wildlife habitats will be enhanced over the original conditions. Currently, there is minimal vegetative habitat for wildlife, while the restored watercourse will be vegetated with enhancement plantings. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 2 4.1.6 Relocation of the watercourse will not extend any sensitive area or its buffer off the subject property onto any adjacent property. 5.0 DETAILED CONSTRUCTION PLAN Detailed construction plans are provided on Sheets C -3, L -1, and L -2. Construction of the watercourse will be concurrent with construction of the project. 5.1 PROTECTION OF SITE Locate all existing and new underground utility lines prior to any construction. Save and protect existing trees designated to remain. Repair any damage done to curbing, sidewalks, fences, and any other damage caused as a result of this contract. 5.2. SUBGRADE PREPARATION Remove from site all invasive weeds (i.e. grasses, blackberry, Scot's broom) and rocks /debris larger than 1 inch size from planting areas prior to placing topsoil and as uncovered during tilling and planting. Till all planting areas to a depth of 6 inches prior to placement of topsoil unless otherwise noted on plan(s). Save and protect all existing willow and native vegetation at stream restoration areas. 5.3 TOPSOIL Imported topsoil shall be a prepared two -way or winter mix topsoil from,an approved commercial supplier. Provide 3 -inch minimum depth in all lawn areas. Provide 10 -inch minimum depth in all shrub beds and 6 -inch minimum depth in ground cover areas. Provide imported topsoil to depth only in planting areas outside of any existing trees designated to remain. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 3 • • Pocket plant shrubs and ground cover with topsoil backfill in planting areas that occur within driplines of existing trees. 5.4 MULCH Provide 2 -inch depth, medium Douglas fir bark mulch in all shrub and ground cover areas. 5.5 GRADING Landscape contractor to be responsible for maintaining finish grading in all planting areas as indicated on plans, in typical details and cross - sections and as discussed during preconstruction meetings. Verify provision of rough grade by general contractor or owner to plus /minus one -tenth foot. Notify owner's representative of any discrepancy or potential surface or subgrade drainage problems prior to starting work. For turf areas, finish surfaces by raking smooth and even, lightly compact with roller, level out surface undulations and irregularities. 5.6 PLANT MATERIALS All plants shall conform to Code of Standards set forth in the latest edition of American Society for Nursery Stock. All deciduous trees with single trunks to be size and variety specified in plant legend; straight trunked, symmetrically branched, with lower branches pruned for head clearance. All evergreen trees to be size and variety specified in plant legend with full symmetrical branching low to the ground. All plant material to be nursery grown and purchased by contractor to match within each variety in size, quality and character as indicated in plant legend (see Size and Remarks). All ground cover plantings to be triangularly spaced on center as indicated in plant legend throughout designated planting areas to dripline of low branching shrubs and evergreen trees. Plant material not matching these requirements shall be rejected. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 4 5.7 FERTILIZER Fertilize all plant material with 71 gram Agriform tablets. Provide four (4) tablets per tree, two (2) per shrub, and one (1) per ground cover. Place tablets around root ball after backfilling by 50% for tree, shrub, and ground cover plantings. For turf applications, apply 16 -24 -16 starter fertilizer at the rate of 10 pounds per 1000 square feet. Apply dolomite limestone at the rate of 30 pounds per 1000 square feet, rake to incorporate. 5.8 SOIL POLYMER Provide Soil Moist, or approved alternate. Provide three (3) ounces per caliper inch of tree trunk diameter. Provide one (1) ounce per shrub and one -half (1/2) ounce per ground cover. Add soil polymer to backfill mix of trees, shrubs and ground cover. For turf applications, distribute at the rate of six (6) pounds per 1000 square feet. Broadcast with a drop spreader and ensure even disbursement. Till polymer into soil to a minimum depth of four (4) inches. 5.9 STAKING AND GUYING See typical planting details. 5.10 SOD Sod lawn shall be JB instant lawn, Country Green Farms, or approved alternate. Sod shall be cut within 24 hours of installation on site. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 5 5.11. HYDROSEED Provide one application to the designated area(s) of the Landscape Plan at the following rates of slurry: Seed (see plant legend for seed mix and application rate). Fertilizer: 10 -10 -20 with urea form FTE at 40 pounds per acre. Hydromulch: Silve -Fibre by Weyerhaeuser (or equal) at 1,600 pounds per acre. Lime: to achieve pH between 5 and 7 Water: 5,000 gallons per acre. Tackifier: 40 pounds per acre on slopes greater than 40 %. 5.12 IRRIGATION All planting areas shall be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system. Irrigation system shall include double -check per jurisdictional requirements and inspection, sch. 40 main lines and class 200 laterals trenched to a 12 -inch minimum depth. Provide Rain Bird 1812 series heads and nozzles and Rain Bird DVF or PGA series automatic remote control valves. Controller to be Irritrol Total Control series with two free zones above the system requirements for future expansion. Controller shall be located and mounted per owner approval. Irrigation system shall have complete head -to -head coverage with separate zones for north, south, east and west exposure, as well as lawn and shrub /ground cover areas. Nozzles shall be adjusted to provide optimal coverage with minimum overspray. Irrigation system shall have automatic rain shut off. 3378MR/ajb /smh /9/21 /01 6 • Irrigation system bid shall include first year winterization by compressed air blow -out and spring start -up. Irrigation contractor to provide as -built drawing showing locations of all main lines, laterals, valves and indication of zones. Irrigation contractor to provide one -year warranty against defects in materials and workmanship. 5.13 MAINTENANCE Landscape Contractor to maintain all planting areas until final acceptance of the job by owner. During this period, all damaged, dead, diseased, dying, or broken plant materials shall be replaced immediately by the landscape contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Site shall be maintained during landscape construction to keep site clean of excess soil or excavation on paved areas. Landscape contractor to coordinate with Best Management Practices (BMPs) of the jurisdiction of the site. 5.14 WARRANTY Landscape contractor shall warrant the purchaser that all new and restored lawns and new nursery stock plant materials such as shrubs, trees, flowers and ground cover shall, at the time of installation, be free from defects due to disease or damage caused by mishandling or improper planting. Warranty shall be for a period of ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE. The landscape contractor shall have the right, at its own expense, to test the item to determine the cause of a defective or damaged condition. 5.15 CLEAN UP Prior to final acceptance and payment, landscape contractor shall remove from site all trash and debris caused as a result of this contract and shall pressure wash or wet broom all soil from pavement. 3378MR/ajb /smh /9/21 /01 7 6.0 MONITORING The site will be monitored for three years to confirm 80% survival of the plantings. Two fifty -foot transects along the constructed watercourse will be shown on the first monitoring report. The sampling transect will be 50 feet long by the width of the buffer, which is approximately 30 feet plus the width of the ditch. The monitoring will take place for three years and submitted annually to the City by November 15. The monitoring reports will document survivability of the vegetation and condition of the segment.of the watercourse. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN Should the project not meet the performance standards during monitoring, the City will be notified within two weeks of the problem and remedial actions taken. Should it be observed that the performance standards are not being met, the reason for lack of success will be determined and remedial actions taken. The only likely problems anticipated is a lack of survival of the plantings. This could be due to insufficient watering, disease, insects and /or theft. If lack of watering causes loss of plant materials, a supplemental irrigation will be needed. Disease, insects or other pests or the presence of invasive weeds would need to be controlled. Theft would call for the replacement of the plantings. Should the grass in the ditch not survive or the watercourse show signs of erosion or other negative attributes, additional check dams or seeding may be required. 8.0 PERFORMANCE SECURITY DEVICE The landscape architect has prepared a total of $9,575.49 for plant materials and installation (Attachment 1). The cost estimate includes all site materials and grading. 3378MR/ajb /smh /9/21 /01 8 The costs of monitoring, including the As- Built, are as follows: TABLE 1: As -Built $ 300 Monitoring Year One $ 300 Year Two $ 300 Year Three $ 300 TOTAL $1,200 The cost of monitoring is $1,200 for the project for a three -year period. The $1,200 can be added to the $9,575.49 for a total of $10,775.49 for plantings, installations and monitoring of the project. A bond or other performance or security device will be calculated based on this cost estimate at a percentage per City requirements. 9.0 MITIGATION TIMING The installation of the new watercourse will be during the early part of the construction of the project, prior to tightlining the existing ditch. 3378MR /ajb /smh /9/21 /01 9 • MIL 1.1."'stIo""nrIrrAin."nrirr::: gtrirorsie aoc..1 C . rzflliCa Qa9 Hugh G.. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting brewers • Stumm • Planners till MOE Amin. n &Om. VA now P.O. Eve MOS Delimit, VI MOOD MI 11:1: a4 ■•■••••• ••••••f•I ■•••• Y.4 f • 10 1111.. DAM ff0 fa OM, •••••• lt• Ol•••■■• LB, Mi .•.• MM. •••f“Yee , CPUS KLLLC. DMZ PRELIMINARY GRADING. PAVING. Et DRAINAGE PLAN FOR OPUS PARK 5/405 CRY Of TUKWILA •ASHOISTOM C- 3 ::: :.fie.......' R * II �1 -��5 ��Ly �C1 ®i ®�i ` arAigi arAin&�8ffi'.G i /�M»Sls y��aa� �s se::�� �°me �l aiu'i ®viliiiW�.� 1 __ter —. '_ au;iec c.rza> =� Yam► – - vGsmmonwn� ~' Hugh G. Goldsmith & AisocI.tel, Inc. Coniillio` Eegieeerl• Surveyor Plums 111111,,tA 11 1..1... • e.o.1.. I1rf T11: U1 111 -1111 M...., n rurr ur: a1� rrs»u -- 1 IMMI1===1■ PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR OPUS N.W. L.L.0 preliminary landscape plan ATTACHMENT 1 COST ESTIMATE • Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 5 to (t icy P425.788.8326 F425.671.0647 PROJECT @SITE•STIJDIO.COM WWW.SITE- STUDIO.COM PO BOX 1 542 DUVALL. WA 98019 Cost Estimate Architect's Estimate of Installed Costs For: OPUS NW LLC 5/405 ESA Restoration SITE MATERIALS Hydroseed Topsoil Bark Mulch Rough and Fine Grading Quantity Unit 2,600 CY 80 CY 30 CY 4,200 SF PLANT MATERIAL TOTALS (see attached summary) Trees Shrubs and Groudcover Estimate Subtotal WSST 8.8% Date: 09/21/01 Job #: OPUS 5/405 By: JW Price Per Unit 0.12 24.00 28.00 0.18 Price Per Quantity 312.00 1,920.00 840.00 756.00 Subtotal 3,516.00 Price Per Quantity 999.00 4,286.00 Subtotal 5,285.00 ESTIMATE TOTAL 8,801.00 774.49 9,575.49 PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLED COST ESTIMATE OPUS NW LLC 5/405 ESA Restoration Trees Western Red Cedar Douglas Fir Strearribank Willow Date: 09/21/01 Size Quantity Unit Price Per Unit Price Per Quantity 6' Ht. 15 EA 6' Ht. 3 EA 3 -4' BR 34 EA Shrubs and Groundcover Red Osier Dogwood 18" BR 105 EA Oregon Grape 5 G. 28 EA Pacific Wax Myrtle 5 G. 27 EA Nootka Rose 18" BR 14 EA Sala/ 1 G. 460 EA 45.00 675.00 40.00 120.00 6.00 204.00 Subtotal 999.00 4.00 420.00 25.00 700.00 30.00 810.00 4.00 56.00 5.00 2,300.00 Subtotal 4,286.00 Total 5,285.00 • • CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Project Name: Opus Northwest File #: E01 -018 Date: 09.19.01 Reviewer: L. Jill Mosqueda Subject: Letter from Richard and Virginia Botham Public Works has the following response(s) to the letter dated 09.07.01: 1. Questions regarding the integrity of engineered retaining walls should be directed to the Building Department. Retaining wall footing drains also belong within the Building Department's purview. 2. This project is being reviewed for SEPA and Design Review. Only a cursory review of storm drainage is appropriate at this stage of the permitting. Storm drainage design can, and often does, change significantly from the proposed at this stage to the actual engineered designs at the development permitting stage. All surface water drainage design will meet the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) requirements. The storm drainage will be designed by a registered civil engineer. All surface water drainage design will receive thorough technical review, by City engineers, during the development permitting stage. At that time the surface Projects /Opus /09.19.01 letter to neighbors 1 water drainage design will be reviewed for concurrence with the current KCSWDM requirements. A complete report submitted by the developer's engineer will address the level of retention required. That report will also contain a complete account of the drainage onto and off of the site. At no time will the City knowingly approve a design which would cause water to backup onto another property. The City can honor your request to require Level 2 detention ONLY if the design and site conditions warrant that level of detention. 3. This question belongs to Building Department. 4. and 5. These two questions belong to Planning. 0C(,10 0l - e w�ctcx�'G� Projects /Opus /09.19.01 letter to neighbors 2 Richard & Virginia Botham i6334 Linden Avenue North Shoreline, WA 98133-5620 206- 542-7793 botham@>serv.net Owners of lots 29, 31 & 95 September 7, 2001 Minnie Dhaliwal, Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206 - 431 -3670 or 206- 431 -3685 mdhali ak ci.tukw la.wa.us fax 206 -431 -3665 Re: Project Lo1-050, Eo1 -018 OPUS Project at 14910 - 51st Ave S - Tukwila RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA SEP 1 0 2001 PERMIT CENTER We have read the project file and are abutting Property owners of this project. We support reasonable development but have questions about several design issues within this project. 1. This project has several engineered retention walls along various property lines abutting our land. a. High wall at the NW corner of Burns property When this retention wall is installed along the property line, we want assurances that our land will not be dug on, or disturbed. We do not want our land to slide downhill onto the project site during or after excavation /construction of the engineered retaining wall. b. Parking wall along E side of Burns property and N side of Pollinger property Will this engineered retaining wall have seepholes that drain water from the development onto our property or will all water drainage from this project be directed into the project's surface water system. We request that all surface water drainage flow through the water cleaning detention vault underneath the parking lot, and then south (no north overflow during storms, please) into a developer created "stream" that flows into the south- flowing DOT ditch and not drain or overflow onto abutting properties. We are especially concerned these parking lot retention walls will act as drainage traps and channel water onto our property via seepage either under the walls or thru specific outlets left in the walls for just such a purpose. 2. This project has minimal surface water retention capacity (Level 1, not Level 2). If we have a 10 -year storm (very common: e.g. this past August's 2" in 24 hours), a 20 -year storm, a 50 -year storm or a loo -year storm, where will all the excess stormwater overflow into the DOT ditch or onto abutting properties? Is it possible to require Level 2 stormwater detention for this project? • • According to the file, this project is 77% impermeable surface (3.3 acres) and will provide Level 1 control standards for surface water. The file says it will meet the 1998 King County Surface Water Standards for 2 -year and to -year storms. The ditch that collects stormwater from ditches along 51s1 Ave South will be piped underground and released without cleaning into the DOT ditch on the west side of I -5. 3. This project adds an unusually large amount of fill and requires much re- shaping of the land contours. Will a sufficient bond be required to guarantee the continued reliability of the engineered retaining walls, guarantee to cover all correction and restoration costs associated any failures, and that NO drainage water will overflow onto our property? We own property [downhill, ] abutting the retaining walls. 4. Reading the file, I found staff comments indicating that parking stalls are undersized and an excess are for subcompacts; the parking stalls as configured do not meet Tukwila code requirements for size or mix. Additional parking is not available on 5181 Avenue South or anywhere else nearby. Please require adequate parking for this project. 5. Map C -1 has notes re easements and Map C -4 shows a 25 -foot wide utility /access easement along the south and east sides of Lot 3o. We would like guarantees from the City of Tukwila that this project will not be allowed until after the unresolved Roadway /Utility easements on Lot 3o have been solved. Lot 30 is included in this project; lots 29 and 31 are not included in the project and their roadway /utilities easement rights encumber Lot 30. These recorded easements provide for a free and unencumbered egress and access along a 25' wide corridor, as well as access directly onto 5181 avenue S., at all times. The current plan doe_ s not abide by the easements' provisions. Map C -1 Topographic and Boundary Survey for OPUS PARK 5/405 says: 5. EASEMENTS; TWO EASEMENTS EXIST THAT AFFECT /ENCUMBER THE OVERALL PROPERTY AND BOTH AFFECT TAX LOT 0030. 1) A.F. 6299225, SOUTH 25 FEET FOR ROADWAY AND UTILITIES 2) A.F. 8701270486, SOUTH 25 FEET AND EAST 25 FEET FOR ROADEWAYAND UTILITIES Sincerely, THE BENEFITING PARCELS ARE TAX LOT 0029 AND TAX LOT 0031. IP THESE PARCELS WERE MERGED INTO TAX LOT 0630. THE EASEMENT WOULD BE EXTINGUISHED. Richard & Virginia Botham • •� 'Ibis sketch is not based upon • survey of the.properry described in Order No. �(crigZIP3 of ` °f c.O Title Insurance Company of Washington. It is furnished without charge solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the said premises. It does not purport to show a {1 roads or easements. The Com- p y assumes so liability for inaccuracies therein. 0 • • . . 2 °JD 'Ibis sketch is not based upon a survey of the.propern1 described in Order No. v ��g� . of `aft=cO Title Insurance Company of Washington. It is furnished without charge solely for the. purpose of assisting in locating the said premises. It does not purport to sbov a }l roads or easements. The Com- pany assumes no liability for inaccuracies therein. 2teO.t lI V X40 I I.2f J .4 I 'I� 2s IN a E it :3-3) z. l ill IN ' _N -1 150 _ _ _ — N..► 4 1 4 4 4 A " "_roo'± RECE WED SEP 0 7 2001 COMMUNITY DEVEL.OPMEN1 f. RICHARD ARAMBURU• JEFFREY M. EUSTIS Attorneys at Law 505 Madison Street, Suite 209 Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 625 -9515 Fax: (206) 682 -1376 September 6, 2001 Andy Taber OPUS Northwest, LLC 915 - 118th Avenue SE, Suite300 Bellevue WA 98005 Re: Opus Park 5/405 Dear Mr. Taber: This office represents Richard and Ginger Botham, the owners of Tax Lots 29 and 31 within Tract 4, Seattle Land Company's Five Acre Tracts. These tax parcels abut to the north and the northeast property upon which your firm is proposing construction of an office park. The proposed office park site includes Tax Lot 30 of Tract 4. As you are aware, Tax Lot 30 is traversed along its southerly boundary by a 25 -foot easement which is appurtenant to the Bothams' Tax Lot 31. Additionally, a 25 -foot easement traverses the southerly and easterly boundaries of lot 30 which is appurtenant to Bothams' Tax Lot 29. The topographic and boundary survey prepared by Goldsmith & Associates discloses these two easements. See sheet C -1. Your proposal designates the easement areas as parking spaces, aisles and related structures. These proposed improvements interfere with the Bothams' right for use of the easement for access. Even though the easements are not currently improved, permanent obstructions would interfere with the Bothams' rights to their use. There is continued interest in the development of the Botham property, for which the easements would be necessary. Moreover, your construction of permanent, legally required parking upon the easements would likely preclude the removal of parking stalls and structures in the future to allow for improvement of the access easement. Accordingly, the Bothams regard the proposed parking spaces, aisles and related structures as an interference September 6, 2001 • Page 2 • with their easement rights which they are prepared to take legal action to prevent. The Bothams insist that permanent parking spaces and structures not be placed over their easements. If you propose alternative means to resolve this conflict, you may contact the Bothams through this office. By copy of this letter we are providing notice of this potential encroachment to the underlying property owners and to the City of Tukwila. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JME /py cc: Richard and Virginia Botham Minnie Dhaliwall Sheila Burns Johann Polinger ; • Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter BI, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206 -431 -3665 Fax To: Andy Taber City of Tukwila From: Minnie Dhaliwal Fax: Date: August 28, 2001 Phone: 206 -431 -3685 Pages: 3 Re: Opus-I-5/405 project at 51st Ave S. File number L01 -050 & E01 -018. As per our conversation, attached are comments from Gary Schultz, Urban Environmentalist related to review of your wetland /stream report. Also, the ESA screening checklist was reviewed by Ryan Partee, Fisheries Biologist, and following are his comments that must be addressed: 1. Please provide creek cross section for the new creek and channel restoration and bank stabilization /mitigation plan. 2. JARPA application for Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from Washington State Department of Fisheries may be required for the stream relocation work. Please contact Washington State Department of Fisheries to get more details about the JARPA application. If you have any further questions, you can reach me at 206 -431 -3685. City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Jack Pace, Planning Manager FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: August 27, 2001 RE: Opus Park Office Building: Wetland/Watercourse Review - Permit #'s E01 -018 & LO1 -051. Per your request, I have reviewed the initial submittal for the Opus Northwest project — Opus Park 5/405 located along the east side of 51' Avenue S. The submittal includes a preliminary geotechnical report (Terra Associates, Inc. 11/15/00), wetland report, and watercourse mitigation concept letter (A.J.Brederg, B& A Inc.). In addition to the plan submittal for site design, there is a preliminary Landscape Plan. Comments for SEPA review have been sent to the applicant (Community Development Letter, 8/16/01). My . technical review comments are listed as follows: Wetland/Watercourse 1) The current project of a proposed 3 -story office building, Opus Park, requires a wetland/ watercourse study to document the work that has occurred. The original wetland report is not complete. A new or revised wetland report is required to reflect the project and associated wetlands including the wetland delineation and determination of watercourses on the subject property. The mitigation for piping the north drainage and modifying the drainage on the southwest corner can be presented as a conceptual plan. This information is required to complete the SEPA review and determination. 2) The project site plan labeling should include wetland and watercourse ratings and standard buffers as follows: The I -5 drainage watercourse is a Type 2 with a 35 -foot buffer. All of the watercourses on the site are Type 3 with a 15 -foot buffer. The southern wetland just off -site is a Type 2 with a 50 -foot buffer. The northern wetland is a Type 3 with a 25 -foot buffer. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Opus Park Review Memo August 27, 2001 Page 2 3) The north watercourse needs to be shown on at least one of the site plan drawings to clearly show its location relative to proposed development. This mapping will demonstrate the difficulty with retaining it as an open channel. 4) If the stormwater drainage system design allows, the watercourse mitigation area should also be considered for water quality improvement functions. We can permit a dual use of this area if it replaces the open watercourse to be piped. There is a significant area being shown as just groundcover plantings (salal) within the lower, southwest area of the "open space" that could be utilized for water quality. In addition, the watercourse that crosses the southwest corner would be piped to facilitate the new driveway. The area would be regraded and approximately 40 feet of this watercourse piped. Even though the area is shown with new landscaping, the piping mitigation will also be replaced in the "open space" area. 5) Some existing vegetation in the new watercourse area is native (Pacific willow trees) and should be retained if possible. All new plantings in the mitigation "open space" area will be native to the region. Cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Jill Mosqueda, Associate Engineer State of Washington County of King City. of Tukwila CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukoIanaci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) r b`f 1-446 (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 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 Pj 27 - 0 1 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 149 I O - 515-r AYE so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary' vehicular access to the property for application file number Lt1 1-0S0 4 E 6 1 I herewith. authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and . ' ediately di i property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourt - �n (14) : ays os e. of the sign at the otice letter. or ' roject Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me 41v .0s a Z. rL. to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged 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 l day of !—f'L-t -c5l ( , -'c NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of shington (j residing at t'A'' /0q My commission expires on \2- / 1 1 q Dept. Of Community Development • City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT .OF DISTRIBUTION I . j-ESL l C„- HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Project Number: Z.O/'∎OJ (2�,r7t4 ) 2EV1 Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice awn) Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Person requesting mailing: lut t ijl-!E_ Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda y 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 2 ?ry day of4t ? in the year 200f P:GINA WYNETUA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM • Project Name: Opus /1' Project Number: Z.O/'∎OJ (2�,r7t4 ) 2EV1 v) Eof- of awn) Mailer's Signature: Person requesting mailing: lut t ijl-!E_ P:GINA WYNETUA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM • City of Tukwila Steven i14. Mullet, Mayor August 16, 2001 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Andy Taber 915 118`" Ave SE Suite 300 Bellevue WA 98005 Re: Notice of complete application and request for additional information for Opus Park I -5/405 project. File numbers L01 -050 and E01 -018. Dear Mr. Taber: The Department of Community Development received your application to construct 65,600 square feet building at 14910 51S` Avenue South. Based on a review of your submittal relative to those requirements as set out in the Complete Application Checklists for Design Review and SEPA review, your applications are deemed complete. Based on a review of your application for submittal requirements for Design Review and SEPA, your application is deemed complete as of August 16, 2001. Per Tukwila Municipal Code, a notice of land use application must be distributed within 14 days of this date. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site by August 30, 2001. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. Please call me to obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. At this time we have started code related review of your application and the following information is required to further process your applications: 1. A title report is required for both lots (tax lots 766160 -0030 and 766160 - 0061). The title report submitted with the application was for only one lot 766160 -0030. Also the title report should be not older than 30 days from the date of application. 2. Preliminary soil report was submitted. A complete geo- technical report is required. Please refer to the attached geotechnical report guidelines handout for details that need to be addressed as part of this report. 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98/88 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3b70 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 3. Type 2 permit application (Special Permission Director) is required for the stream relocation and other wetland buffer intrusions. Refer to the attached application handout and Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section for 18.45.080 D for applicable code criteria. Application must include discussion on how the proposed project meets the code criteria for any work proposed in the sensitive areas or its buffers. 4. Boundary Line Adjustment application to consolidate the two lots (see attached), 5. Please explain in detail the proposed use of the building. The traffic impact analysis and SEPA checklist talk about one floor of the building to be light industrial use. However the property is zoned Office and light industrial is not a permitted use in that zone. 6. Sewer line is proposed to be micro - tunneled under the wetland buffer. Please explain why no other alternative location was selected. Also, are there easements on adjacent lots for this line? 7. SEPA comments: Following are comments pertaining to corresponding item in the checklist: A.11 Be more specific about the proposed use instead of stating the uses will be as permitted in the office zone. B.1.e. Please provide more information about the grade and fill. This is required to fully understand the impacts associated with 20,000 cubic yards of fill. Also address the erosion and sedimentation impacts, truck/traffic impacts etc. The civil' drawing must include site sections to illustrate existing and proposed grade and fill. B.3.a.1 &2. Since all three watercourses have been determined to be Type 3 regulated watercourses, all references to these features, as storm water runoff ditches is incorrect. 7.a.2 The soil report states "The individual performing the environmental review should be informed about the fill, particularly the old paint cans. Environmental review will likely require some level of sampling and testing of the fill to determine if regulated hazardous materials are present." Please clarify what additional studies were performed and if any approval was obtained or discussions were held with Department of Ecology. 8.k The checklist incorrectly states that property owners have been trying to obtain development approval for years. Prior to your application that was submitted on July 19, 2001, city did not receive any formal applications for this site. 2 • • 8. Design Review Comments: a) Parking: Please refer to the attached parking dimensions chart for the required dimensions of parking stalls and drive aisles. The two -way drive aisle must to 25 feet if the 90 degree parking stalls are 8.5'x19' and curb length is 8.5' and unit width is 63'. The drive aisle can be 24 feet if the 90 degree parking stalls are 9' x 19' and curb length of 9' and unit width of 62'. The site plan only shows 24' drive aisle and 8'x18' of parking stall. Also, only 30 percent of total parking stalls can be compact. Further bicycle parking must be provided. Refer to attached TMC 18.56.130, for development standards for bicycle parking. Also, per TMC 18.56.040, wheel stops must be provided two feet from the end of the stall of head -in parking. For the number of parking stalls shown, Table F of Washington Barrier Free Code requires six accessible stalls. b) Landscaping: Five feet of Type I landscaping is required along the entire north and east property lines. Portion of this is missing where the retaining wall is proposed. Interior parking lot landscaping must meet the standards listed in TMC 18.52.035(2)(c), i.e. a minimum of 200 square feet plus 15 square feet for each parking stall over 40. Also, per TMC 18.52.035(4), landscape islands shall be placed at the ends of each interior row with no stall more than 10 stalls or 100 feet from the landscape area. The minimum size of interior parking lot islands is 100 square feet and they must be minimum of 6 feet in any direction and generally the length of adjacent parking space. Also, a minimum of one evergreen or deciduous tree is required per landscape island with remaining area to contain a combination of shrubs, living groundcover and mulch. The landscape plan also must include a note that all landscaped areas shall be covered by automatic irrigation system. The tree survey must indicate all trees that will be removed and also all sensitive areas and their buffers must be shown on that tree suvey. This is required per TMC Chapter 18.54. Tree Regulations. c) Building Design: The long building facade must be modulated to provide some interest and break the monotony. The entrance to the building must be made more prominent. 3 A pedestrian plaza could be incorporated near the building entrance. The plaza could include bicycle parking, benches for employees and planters etc. The HVAC equipment screen wall must be designed so that it is consistent with design of the primary structure. The choice of material should be such that it consistent with the proposed building. The entire pedestrian path that leads from 51st Ave South to the entrance of the building must be of concrete instead of striping on the asphalt. Colored concrete is preferred to highlight the entrance of the building. Please provide details of the retaining walls. Based on the information submitted at this time, it is not clear why retaining walls are proposed along the entire south side and along substantial portions on the north and west side. As stated earlier, site sections must be submitted along with retaining wall details. Site design must avoid long blank retaining walls. Provide a detail of the railing along the loading dock. Maximum allowed height in Office zone is 35 feet or 3 stories. Please provide documentation from your architect that it is considered a 3 -story building per Uniform Building Code and not a two -story building with a basement. Recycling storage space must be provided to meet the minimum amount specified in TMC 18.52.080. The architectural design of the screen wall must be consistent with the design of the proposed building. d) Lighting Plan: Please provide a lighting plan that includes location and type of street and site lighting. Parking and loading areas must include lighting in scale and height of the associated structure. Refer to item #24 in the submittal checklist for details related to lighting plan. Also, refer to TMC 18.52.065 for additional lighting requirements. e) Signage: The location of the monument sign is within 40 -foot vision triangle. Please show the revised location. Please note that setback of the freestanding sign from the property line is equal to the height of the sign. The sign must be set in a landscaped area. 9. Public Works Comments: a) Traffic Impact analysis: See attached email from Cyndy Knighton dated August 13, 2001. b) Since the area is wet, underdrains in the parking area should be considered to reduce the potential of pavement failure. 4 • • c) The plan does not show water quality treatment, which is required by the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 10. Fire Department Comments: a) Four -inch fire line is shown on the plans. It must be increased to 8 inches. b) Fire hydrant may be required around the perimeter of the building. Locations must be shown on the site plan We are still in the process of reviewing your wetland report and may have some additional comments regarding the wetland report and stream relocation and mitigation plan, which we will try and get to you by next week. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner Encl.: Geotechnical report guidelines handout Type 2 permit application handout- Special Permission Director TMC 18.45 Sensitive areas TMC 18.54 (Tree regulations) Boundary Line Adjustment application handout TMC 18.56 Parking TMC 18.52 Landscaping /recycling /lighting Email from Cyndy Knighton- TIA comments 5 Jill Mosqueda -- opus_ __ From: Ryan Partee To: Jill Mosqueda Date: 8/15/01 7:49AM Subject: opus Essentially, these are the things I'd like to see from OPUS. They also answered questions 1 -1 and 3 -2 incorrectly. 4 -{Need site-plan �2. New creek cross section and channel restoration and bank stabilization plan /mitigation. - 3. Detention vault and water quality features cd Trrnit 5. JARPA application for HPA -g. Ryan - • I .. S _ • P.S. enjoy the Aero Bar City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: _ O Applicant Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip: Telephone: PLW LL-c- 7 j' - / /rte � S � Sa +G��Cl _gcd: gLe-Uf&n.ut C A L(-2-5- -4(53 - q(uo DIRECTIONS This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of chinook salmon, coho salmon, or cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. RECE R ` J AUG 0 TUI<V, ;!; PUBLIC WORK,, May 24. 2001 1 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but -not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and sche duled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (see Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.06, Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 YES)- Continue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (see Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -8). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 YES ontinue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 1 I the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. N ontinue to Question 4-0 YE - ontinue to Question 3 -1 (Page 5) 4 -0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site d construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO - ntinue to Question 5-0 YES - Continue to Question 5-0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 and 18.45.080E.4, or would require a geotechnical report if not e tt under TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO i ontinue to Question 6-0 YES - Continue to Question 6-0 May 24. 2001 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A (continued) 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -13). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. NO — Checklist Complete Y S — CChecklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answe r. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 1 -2 G a-e, " Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and /or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1 -3 Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 `ill the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -12). Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES' Continue to Question 1 -4 Party -4eo flinued) May 24, 2001 3 nyt "4"°\ pg`�v 41 Nei, CIF ftria evays. Amur- RAJ Kc swcw S�v�a s City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 1-4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) i ontinue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YE ontinue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast- height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 S - ontinue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 1 the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or. Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 OPO ontinue to Question 2-4 2-4 ill the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 1) YES - ontinue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 ill the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) ES ontinue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) May 24. 2001 4 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Ple ase review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish /Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. N • ontinue to Question 3 -2 4:0P ontinue to Question 3 -2. 3 -2 '1 1 the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access resd •nswer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. • ontinue to Question 3 -3 a`o Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NContinue to Question 3 -4 YES - Continue to Question 3-4 3-4 • Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -5 a, Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 "111 the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity s • d answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. 6 ontinue to Question 3 -6 S Continue to Question 3 -6 May 24. 200/ 5 -h24 a 'to Grc�i q„„ Geeela- - •4 CltoWitatb, S. fir PLA.J fl4, a, . City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D (continued 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -7 aY Sontinue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 t the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. :Continue to Question 3 -8 Continue to Question 3-8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) ontinue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) May 24, 2001 6 CJ4r.r '— 'a-et 00 t4+a►- 't /41 M'Mb. .00 —Zoo,. IiimnoMasi, /rig . an IM, IMINIMIk MEMORANDUM • • Commercial Development Solutions Consultants to the Real Estate Industry TO: Minnie Dhali # . , City of Tukwila FROM: Lisa Verne DATE: August 3, 200. RE: ESA SCREENING CHECKLIST FOR OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA APPLICATION RECEIVED Attached are 6 copies of the completed ESA Screening Checklist that should have accompanied the SEPA application submittal for the Opus Park 5/405 project. Please accept my apologies for inadvertently leaving it out of the submittal documents. I understand you are continuing to review the submittal package in order to determine its "completeness" within 28 days from the submittal date. Questions regarding the answers on this checklist should be directed to either Keith Goldsmith at Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates (425- 462 -1080) or to Andy Taber at Opus Northwest LLC (425- 453- 4100). Thank you. C: Andy Taber, Opus Northwest LLC Keith Goldsmith, Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates Don Marcy, Cairncross & Hempelmann AJ Bredberg, BA Inc. AUG r' , n1 Pn1 . ,7. 1 • Post Office Box 70372 • Seattle, Washington 98107 City Memo ESShec LiSt:¢pp 75 • Mobile 206.601.4951 • lisa@cdspermits.com • Fax 206.286.8426 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Date: City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist --01 Applicant Name: 0 Street Address: /5 //r-ix / SEAS Z, ;k- _goo City, State, Zip: 2_t.tr ?—et 11-/1 alk Telephone: (725'S gl Uo DIRECTIONS This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of chinook salmon, coho salmon, or cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. AUG PE • 03 2001 May 24, 2001 1 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and sche duled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (see Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.06, Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 YES Continue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (see Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -8). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 YES ontinue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 11 the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. N - ontinue to Question 4-0 YES - ontinue to Question 3 -1 (Page 5) 4 -0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site d • i . construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO - P.ntinue to Question 5-0 YES - Continue to Question 5-0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 and 18.45.080E.4, or would require a geotechnical report if not e t under TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO , - ontinue to Question 6-0 YES - Continue to Question 6-0 May 24, 2001 2 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A (continued) 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -13). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. NO — Checklist Complete YES>Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answe r. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. ck41 rr�,� Continue to Question 1 -2 tvezve, eitA -1 7A-ell.'�'�' d ! YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and /or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1 -3 (YES Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 ill the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -12). Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES -)Continue to Question 1 -4 inued) May 24, 2001 3 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 1-4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) ontinue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) (Yr---v- ES7tontinue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self- supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter- breast-height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 drontinue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 "i the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 40Pontinue to Question 2-4 2-4 ill the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 1) YES - ontinue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 ill the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) ES ontinue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) i May 24. 2001 4 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Ple ase review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish /Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. 1 ontinue to Question 3 -2 0 ontinue to Question 3-2 3 -2 I'll the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man-made or artificial structure that precludes fish access s i 9 d answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - ontinue to Question 3 -3 YES - Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -4 S - Continue to Question 3-4 3-4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-5 0 Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 "111 the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, Togs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity s • d answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - ontinue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3-6 May 24, 2001 5 • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D (continued 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -7 - ontinue to Question 3 -7 - t the r ' tin 3 7 project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. c NO - Continue to Question 3-8 S - Continue to Question 3-8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) ES - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) May 24, 2001 6 j%I j 11 vriSr•_ I � il=O/' : Ili. August 3, 2001 • • Commercial Development Solutions Consultants to the Real Estate Industry RECEAVFD AUG 03 2001 DEVEN O Plifi fi T Minnie Dhaliwal City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Opus Northwest's Opus Park 5/405 SEPA and Design Review applications Dear Minnie and Jack, This letter is to let you know that I will no longer be working on Opus Northwest's Opus Park 5/405 SEPA and Design Review applications. Andy Taber at Opus Northwest is now the primary contact person for the applications. His contact information is as follows: Andy Taber Opus Northwest LLC 915 118th Avenue SE, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 425- 453 -4100 andy.taber@opusnw.com Please change the records in the SEPA and Design Review files. All future contact on this application should be with Andy. I have enjoyed working with you on this project and want to thank you for all your time and help. Please contact me at 206 - 286 -8575 if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, L(/ Lisa Verner Principal C: Andy Taber, Opus Northwest LLC CityLtr2.doc Post Office Box 70372 • Seattle, Washington 98107 206.286.8575 • Mobile 206.601.4951 • lisa @cdspermits.com • Fax 206.286.8426 1 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan n,ci.tukwila.wa.us s SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: RECENED Cfl �,a WILA ����g2001 LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. PERMIT CENTER / `f ?/ 0 5-/ f /ht- 5 � rt _- c,vi�Q 71,0(P(oO - 6-0(0I / 7V49/66--e°30 Quarter: P(,l)Section: 23 Township: 2-3. Range: Oct' (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: 14Stt V e o'✓ a/ Address: Pb oox 7037'. / (4 7- y$l 07 Phone: !o p-$(9 - g'$ 75— FAX: <)(a -i7(o -c-tFZdo Signature: 6i9- e-wELOyc ) //Se-i6; C.ee.f e-r/ruty. corn Date: 7 -/9`0/ UC 1T 4niem 7v- opU,�L /UDC 9/6- //7tt. A-tst s E, --L k- 3 va WA- 9 s t)pt znw. c G: \APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP \SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 FOR STAFF USE ONLY SIERRA TYPE P-SEPA Planner: File Number: 01 • 01 S V Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: RECENED Cfl �,a WILA ����g2001 LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. PERMIT CENTER / `f ?/ 0 5-/ f /ht- 5 � rt _- c,vi�Q 71,0(P(oO - 6-0(0I / 7V49/66--e°30 Quarter: P(,l)Section: 23 Township: 2-3. Range: Oct' (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: 14Stt V e o'✓ a/ Address: Pb oox 7037'. / (4 7- y$l 07 Phone: !o p-$(9 - g'$ 75— FAX: <)(a -i7(o -c-tFZdo Signature: 6i9- e-wELOyc ) //Se-i6; C.ee.f e-r/ruty. corn Date: 7 -/9`0/ UC 1T 4niem 7v- opU,�L /UDC 9/6- //7tt. A-tst s E, --L k- 3 va WA- 9 s t)pt znw. c G: \APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP \SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 4 2• PAtei NI I "any 3 • TY-Oit, 1 w-p• ei-- dial 15i 5 Srr e Ave.w15 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 192001 PERMIT CENTER OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA RCW 197 -11 -960 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: OPUS PARK 5/405 2. Name of applicant: OPUS Northwest LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Contact: Andy Taber Lisa Verner OPUS Northwest LLC Commercial Development Solutions 915 118`h Avenue SE, Suite 300 PO Box 70372 Bellevue, WA 98005 Seattle, WA 98107 425- 453 -4100 206 - 286 -8575 andy.taber @opusnw.com lisa @cdspermits.com 4. Date checklist prepared: July 18, 2001 5. Agency Requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction of building in Spring, 2002 for occupancy in Summer, 2002 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. a:\sepal.doc , 1 • OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 2 OPUS may apply for permits to construct a building at the corner of 51s` Avenue South and South 150 Street in the future. While they are two separate projects, they are in the same vicinity and will be constructed by OPUS. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • City of Tukwila Wetland Delineation Report, prepared by B &A, Inc (BA #3378) • Preliminary Findings Geotechnical Engineering Study I -5/1 -405 Development Site Tukwila, Washington, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc (T -4800) • OPUS Park 5/405 Level 1 Drainage Analysis and Stormwater Control Plan, prepared by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc, April 2001 • OPUS Park I -5/1 -405 Traffic Impact Analysis City of Tukwila, prepared by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc, February 22, 2001 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,. explain. . No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. SEPA Environmental Review Design Review Building Permit Street Use Permit Tree Permit Boundary Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation Permit Sewer and Water District Approvals Sign Permit 11. Give a brief complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of you proposal. You-do not need to repeat those.answers on this ,page. . _. The proposed OPUS Park 5/405 project is a 3.3 acre commercial development consisting of one office building and adjacent parking. The uses will be as permitted in the "Office" zone of the City of Tukwila Zoning Code. The proposed building is 65,600 square feet with three levels for a total building height of 35 feet. Parking stalls provided total 199 and . there will be two (ruck OPUSTukwila/SEPACheckl ist 1 • OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 3 docks (one on either side of the building). There will be two entries from 51st Avenue South. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located west of Interstate 5 and to the east of 51s` Avenue South at 14910 51st Avenue S. The northern project boundary is approximately 200 feet to the north of South 148th Street and the south boundary is approximately 400 feet to the south. The project site is in the northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, WM, in Tukwila, Washington. A legal description, a topographic map and a vicinity map are included on the site plan drawings submitted with this Checklist. _ '' ' ' ;- 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes. The environmentally sensitive map indicates possible steep slopes adjacent to 51st Avenue South and a possible stream parallel to Interstate 5. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of the= slope)? The steepest slope is approximately 30% and covers about 40 feet before flattening out. It is located in the northwest corner of the site and is a result of the fill used for 50 Avenue S. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck ?) If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. OPUSTukwila/SEPAChecklist • • OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 4 Ur — Urban Land, according to the USDA SCS King County Soils Survey Map (see Level 1 Drainage Report). (The site was filled prior to 1979.) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate the source of fill. Fill will be imported to the site to provide a level building pad. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of fill will be brought onsite. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion will not occur as a result of the office use on the site. It is not , ;: anticipated that erosion will occur during clearing or construction because a - temporary erosion and sedimentation plan (TESCP) will be in effect. The TESCP will include barriers to the wetlands adjacent to the site. g. What percent of the site will be covered with impervious: surfaces after project. construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 77% of the site will be covered by impervious surface after construction. h. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impact to earth, if any. A temporary erosion and sedimentation plan (TESCP) will be used during ' clearing, grading, filling, and construction to control erosion. The amount of fill to be used is the least amount possible to create a level building pad. The, building has:an entry on the second level on the west side and an entry on - first level-On the east side in order to-reduce the amount of fill needed. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. O PUSTukwil a/S E P ACheckl i st OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 5 Upon completion, the only anticipated emissions will be from cars using the parking lot and the occasional truck using the truck dock areas. Uses in the office building will not generate emissions. During construction, emissions will come from construction vehicles during the grading and filling stage and from construction workers' vehicles as they arrive and depart the site. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The "Office" zoning limits the type of uses allowed on site, and this controls emissions. Limiting the grading and filling through building design will also help to reduce and control emissions. 3. WATER a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream of river it flows into. :. 1) There is a small wetland (Type 3) east of the north portion of the site (.,Wetland A). 2) There is also a wetland (Type 2) south of the site (Wetland B). 3) There is a storm water runoff ditch (Type 3 watercourse) which bisects the middle of the site and runs from west to east; i is clearly manmade and actively maintained. 4) There is also a ditch (Type 3 watercourse) with storm water runoff in the southwest corner of the site. All of these waters flow into ..the 'man-made ditch,(Type 3 watercourse) on the west side ofIriterstate 5. This: ditch eventually flows intoGilliam:Creek: For additional information, please see the "City of Tukwila Wetland Delineation Report" prepared by B &A, Inc and submitted with this Checklist. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. OPUSTukwila/S EP ACheckl ist OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 6 Yes. 1) The project is within 200 feet of the small wetland (Wetland A) but outside any required buffer area (this wetland is on property not owned by the applicant). 2) The project is within 200 feet of the southern wetland (Wetland B) but does not encroach within the required 50 foot buffer. 3) The northern manmade ditch (Type 3 watercourse) will be piped as it crosses the site with continued discharge of the upstream drainage into a new drainage swale /stream (to be created for mitigation purposes) which will connect with the ditch parallel to I -5. 4) Regarding the southern ditch (Type 3 watercourse), limited grading will occur within the buffer area as it daylights after exiting the culvert under 50 Avenue South. The southern entry to the site will be partially located in the buffer on the north side of the this ditch; a retaining wall will be used to separate the ditch from the new development and water passage will be unimpeded. The project plans are included with this submittal and should be viewed in conjunction with the City of Tukwila Wetland Delineation Report. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste material to surface waters? If yes, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Groundwater will not be withdrawn. A detention vault will control on -site peak storm water runoff rates at their existing rates. The facility will be designed using the KCRTS Level 1 flow control standard controlling both the OPUSTukwila/S EPACheckl ist • OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 7 2 -year and the 10 -year release rates at the existing rate. More detail is found in the "Level 1 Drainage Analysis and Stormwater Control Plan" by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates which accompanies this Checklist. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. The building will be connected to a sanitary sewer system. c. Water Run -Off (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of run -off (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Existing conditions include two ditches which carry upstream storm water runoff across the site from west of 51st Avenue South eastward to the ditch that parallels Interstate 5. The northern ditch.will be piped as it crosses the project site and the southern ditch will remain daylighted; both will continue to carry upstream storm water runoff and not connect with the on -site system. On -site, run -off will come from the building roof and from parking areas. This runoff will be cleaned, flow into a detention,y.aktit, and be released at existing run -off rates. The vault will discharge to the ditch along Interstate 5 east of the project. The ditch eventually flows into Gilliam Creek. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. The building will be connected to a sanitary sewer system. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and run -off water impacts, if any: An on -site storm . water detention system will control water n off andrelease `" run -off generated from the building and parking areas at the pre - development, rate. This will control run -off and not impact the site beyond current conditions. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: O PUSTukwila/S E P ACheckl i st OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 8 x _deciduous trees: alder, maple, aspen, other: apple, oak x_evergreen trees: fir, cedar, pine, other: x shrubs x_grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The existing deciduous and coniferous trees will be removed, except those within the wetland /stream buffer areas. The grasses and shrubs around the existing buildings will also be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Landscaping, including the use of native plants, will be used to enhance and replace vegetation on the site. Landscaping will include native trees (Douglas fir, western red cedar, crepe myrtle) and native ground cover (Oregon grape, knick - knick) in addition to a small lawn area/berm at the entry. The landscaping concepts are shown on the landscape plan which was submitted with this Checklist. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds .and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on-or -near the site: x birds: hawk, heron, -eagle, .. songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. OPUSTukwila/SEPACheckl ist OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 9 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Unknown. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. Buffers will be maintained around the adjacent off -site wetland and around the on- site-ditch/stream. The buffers will allow continued wildlife habitat. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used as the source of energy for the project. It will be used to run the HVAC system. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The building design complies with the Washington State Energy Code. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: OPUSTukwilaJSE PACheckl ist OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 10 None. Hazardous materials will not be used on -site. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example, traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from Interstate 5 currently exists in the area. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise from construction vehicles will occur on a temporary, short-term basis during construction. Construction would occur between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Long -term noise would come from building workers arriving and leaving in their vehicles; generally this noise would occur between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of the site is residential and vacant. North: • residential /vacant East: Interstate 5 South: vacant West: residential /vacant b. Has the site been used for agriculture ?. If so, describe. Yes, property owners indicate the site was logged and cleared for pasture land approximately 100 years ago. There are remnants of small orchards on the site. (51s` Avenue S was built approximately 75 years ago and I -5 was constructed approximately 40 years ago.) c. Describe any structures on the site. OPUSTukwila/SEPACheckl ist OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 11 There are currently six (6) single family residences and four (4) outbuildings on the site; 2 of the residences are abandoned and 4 are occupied. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All of the residences and outbuildings will be removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Office (0) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Office (0) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. The environmentally sensitive map indicates possible steep slopes adjacent to 51s` Avenue South and a possible stream parallel to Interstate 5. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Between 200 and 250 people will work in the completed project. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? There are 9 people who live in the 4 occupied residences and they will move when construction begins. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. The majority of the existing residences are rented with the understanding that development may occur in the near future. The existing zoning calls for Office Uses on the site; property owners have been irying.to obtain development approval for years. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land use plans, if any. OPUSTukwila/SEPACheckl ist OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 12 The project is an office project; this is consistent with existing land uses south of South 151St Street and with the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Six (6) units of housing will be removed. They are rentals and provide middle to low income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The building height is 35 feet. The principal exterior building material is painted concrete. (The building is of tilt -up concrete construction.) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The views of Interstate 5 by residents west of 51st Avenue South would be altered. c. Proposed measures to reduce or-control-aesthetic impacts, if any. The building will be lowered onto the site to take advantage of the topography; two floors will be visible from 51St Avenue South and three floors will be visible from Interstate 5: Landscaping in conformance with City codes will be located around the building, in the parking areas, and on the site perimeter; landscaping will include native trees (Douglas fir, western red cedar, crepe myrtle) and native ground cover (Oregon grape, knick - knick) in addition to a small lawn area/berm at the entry. OPUSTukwila/SEPACheckl ist OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 13 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Generally, the proposal will not produce glare. Lights will be seen from off - site during evening hours'from two sources: security lighting around the site and from windows of any late- working employee. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Overhead lights and vehicle headlights from Interstate 5 may affect the project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. While a lighting plan has not yet been developed, applicant will ensure that lights located adjacent to walkways and in parking areas will be focused downward to light the site and not the surrounding area. Wattages will be as low as possible and still provide security. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreation opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The closest facilities are ballfields at Thorndyke Elementary School and a foot trail on 46th Avenue South between South 148th Street and South 150th Street. There is no direct access between-these facilities and the project site due to the hill on the west side of 51St Avenue South. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. OPUSTukwila/SEPACheckl ist • OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 14 None. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site abuts 51s` Avenue South and Interstate 5. Two access points to 51s` Avenue South are proposed. These access points are shown on the site plan drawings submitted with this Checklist. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Metro Transit (System Map, February 1999) identifies on bus route ( #128) in the site vicinity. This route serves S. 144th Street, about seven (7) blocks north of the project. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will have 199 parking stalls. It will eliminate approximately 12 stalls (2 per residence). OPUSTukwila/SEP ACheckl ist OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE15 d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No new roads are required by this project. The project applicant will construct half - street improvements (widening, paving and curb /gutter /sidewalk) along the property frontage abutting 51st Avenue South (minor arterial). These improvements will be dedicated to the City. t. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Office building tenants may locate in the building because it is close to SeaTac Airport. Water and rail transportation are not nearby. Sound Transit is evaluating a proposal to locate its light rail line in the Interstate 5 right -of -way which abuts the east side of the project site; it is not anticipated that a station would be located in the immediate vicinity. f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes will occur. g. Average Weekday trip generation is identified as 626 trips for the office building, with net new trips identified as 575 trips. (Average Weekday trip generation is based on one floor of "light industrial" uses (according to ITE) and two floors of "general office" uses (also according to ITE).) In the AM Peak Hour, 87 trips would be generated by the office building, and in the PM Peak Hour, 85 trips would be generated. Net new trips in the AM Peak Hour are 83 trips and net new trips in the PM Peak Hour are 79 trips. Additional information is available in the "OPUS Park 1 -5/1 -405 Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. which was submitted with this Checklist. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. "OPUS Park 1 -5/1 -405 Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc identifies traffic mitigation measures which mitigate the impact of the project. _These include construction according to applicable city requirements, site frontage improvements along 51st Avenue South, access driveways per the City's criteria, working with the City and other area developers to include the South 154th Street /52nd Avenue South intersection to the City's street improvements program, and payment of a pro - rata contribution to the City's street improvement projects. The applicant agrees to these mitigation measures. OPUSTukwila/SEPAChecklist OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 16 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other ?) If so, generally describe. Yes, the project would generally provide the need for a slight increase in public services. Since office uses generate far less demand for public services than residential uses, for example, and this is a small office project, the need for additional personnel and equipment is slight. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public service, if any. None. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, waters refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. This site is served by Water District #125; water service is available through a Developer Extension and an upgrade of the existing water line in 51s` Avenue South to an 8" DI line from South 151s1 Street to the north edge of the site. The Certificate of Water Availability in included in the Checklist submittal. The site is served by Val Vue Sewer District; sanitary sewer service is available through a Developer Extension (or other agreement with the District) and installation of a sanitary sewer main from the site to the existing manhole at the intersection of 52nd Avenue South and South 151` Street. As shown on the drawing submitted with this Checklist, applicant will install the sewer line in a microtunnel under the wetland south of the site and bring the sewer to 51s` Avenue South, in conformance with the District's comprehensive plan. OPUSTukwila/SE P ACheckl ist OPUS PARK 5/405 SEPA CHECKLIST FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 17 C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: (Lisa Verner) Date Submitted: 2—/T-0/ O PUSTukwila/SE PACheckl ist • • TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Mr. Andy Taber Opus Northwest, LLC 915 — 118th Avenue SE, Suite 300 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Subject: Preliminary Findings Geotechnical Engineering Study I -5/1 -405 Development Site Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Taber: CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 1 9 2001 PERMIT CENTER November 15, 2000 Project No. T-4800 As requested, on November 2, 2000, we observed soil and groundwater conditions at seven soil test pits excavated at the subject site. The purpose of our work was to provide a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the conditions observed with respect to proposed project design and construction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand the project will consist of constructing a two -story office building with one level of below grade parking. The below grade parking level will daylight to the east and be constructed at a site elevation of about 95 feet. This will require an excavation approaching 15 feet along the western building margin with about 2 to 3 feet of structural fill needed to achieve grade along the eastern building margin. Parking areas are also planned east and north of the structure. EXPLORATION OBSERVATIONS Seven soil test pits were excavated to depths between 4 to 15 feet below current site grades. Five test pits were located in the building area and two test pits were located in the north parking lot area. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 1. Test pit logs describing conditions observed are attached as Figures 3 through 6. In the south building area, along the west site margin, we observed about three to four feet of fill overlying medium dense silty sand with gravel and clean sand with gravel. The fill was absent to the east. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • ' • • Mr. Andy Taber November 15, 2000 Groundwater was observed at an elevation of about 89 feet to the west and 82 to 83 feet to the east. In the north parking lot, we observed about six feet of fill to the west, and greater than 15 feet of fill to the east. The test pit excavated along the east edge of the north lot did not get through the fill. The fill is comprised of old construction debris including asphalt, concrete, brick, rebar, and paint cans. Based on our observations, it appears that the flatter portion of the north parcel, and the eastern slope below, is comprised entirely of old fill. DISCUSSION Soil and groundwater conditions observed on the south parcel will not preclude construction of the office building as planned. With a lower floor elevation of 95 feet, it does not appear that groundwater will be a significant issue. The native soils will provide reasonable foundation support for conventional spread footings. An open cut along the western building margin should also be possible, with the building location as planned. The north parcel will present some challenges. Constructing an asphalt concrete surfaced lot will likely require excavating and removing the top 18 inches of existing fill, and replacing it with a gravel base or a cement - amended mineral soil. Soils for utility trench backfill in this area should come from the southern building excavation. Due to the depth of the existing fill, there is the potential for non- uniform surface subsidence that could result in birdbaths developing on the lot. Also, if walls are required to accommodate grade breaks along the western margin of the lot, they should be engineered walls and not rockeries. The individual performing the environmental review should be informed about the fill, particularly the. old paint cans. Environmental review will likely require some level of sampling and testing of the fill to determine if regulated hazardous materials are present. We can prepare a full geotechnical report with recommendations for design and construction if Opus Northwest, LLC moves forward with the project. In the meantime, if you have any questions or require additional information please call. We trust the information presented is sufficient to meet your current needs. Sincerely yours, TERRA SOCIATES, INC. eodore J. Sche •T er, P.E. Principal DKW/TJS:ae cc: Mr. Bill Bieber, Opus Northwest, LLC Encl: Figures 1 — Exploration Location Plan Figure 2 — Unified Soils Classification System Figures 3 through 6 — Test Pit Logs Project No. T-4800 Page 2 .'43'54•E )0 nn• 0 a) 7) 1- way end t. 41. 1 t2 13 r 3 . ;r 2} 1 N9 130 0 Hou !4702 ��• Ist,7 J 0' 0 I • 98.2 10 6 0 • 1\.J 1p5•� 106.0 . Ol 1 �•I. :1471C� ti TP -6 to 104.0 6 TP -7 109. of• 104.2 q' 1 b . tit• D • 7p21 p u\ II . itch .o a• /0,1 Soto - -110 ,3 8 onc. 'all • 1 z O U ,off TP -5 1 carport a ���p• X01• carport on cep. 14 02 voria le p r, ,'. �hei ht c. all a 141:ee 11 10.70, G TP -2 �4 TP -1 IS' b •1 step • 102.8 02.5 i 1015 95.8 N X14910 5.6 96.6 garpge .3 2 d of le ring •1 91.4 • o ir h .9 ----WETLAND B 9 Area = 24,395 sq.ft. 0.56 acres 25' easement for roadway & utilities 18701270486 APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF FILL 'AS OBSERVED BY TERRA ASSOCIATES 6- .6' •10.8 • • 92.4 .0 • 87.3 • 91.6 q•. ,4 151 TP -4 1 •88.7 3 -99i 92.8 - onc. driveway ' TP-3 b CO 5 9 - - 94.3 q2.1 9), 1 10 ,149121 •r g se, 9 m, gdge of ,Nearing 87.0 87.9 CD U) 0 ()' (1) z c -J 1,3 'j iao N 0 c. 83.0 n Q 1/149141 0 " / 4.0 cP. 3 0 /• 88.8 .e 86 ■ 1294 -f\to \527 . ?`pq Z s 9eZ LEGEND: APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION 87.8 0 (bb� •,86.9 APPROXIMATE SCALE 100 200 ft. . . . . IN . . . . REFERENCE: SITE PREPARED BY SCHOETER SURVEYING, JOB Nos. 351/12 AND 359/9, PROJECT No. 99093add, DATED 01/20/00. TERRA , ASSOCIATES ' eotechnical Consultants EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN 1 -5/1 -405 DEVELOPMENT SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj.No. 4800 Date NOV. 2000 l Figure 1 MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION COARSE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% material larger than No. 200 sieve size GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines) GW Well- graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. GP Poorly- graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines. Gravels with fines CM gravels, gravel- sand -silt mixtures, non - plastic fines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. SANDS More than 50% of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve Clean Sands (less Than 5% fines) SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SP Poorly- graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. Sands with fines SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non - plastic fines. SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. FINE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% material smaller than No. 200 • sieve size SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit is less than 50% ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit is greater than 50% M H Inorganic silts, elastic. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS SAND or GRAVEL Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows /Foot T 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT 1 SPOON SAMPLER 1 24" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER . OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER 1 WATER LEVEL (DATE) Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Very loose 0 -4 Loose 4 -10 Medium dense 10 -30 Dense 30 -50 Very dense. >50 SILT or CLAY Standard Penetration Consistency Resistance in Blows /Foot Very soft 0 -2 Soft 2 -4 Medium stiff 4 -8 Stiff 8 -16 Very stiff 16 -32 Hard >32 TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 1 -5/1 -405 DEVELOPMENT SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON �`` Proj. No. T-4800 Date NOV 2000 Figure 2 Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -1 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 98 Moisture Content %) FILL: tannish -brown silty sand witt ravel, loose, moist to dry. (SM) Test pit terminated at 4 feet No groundwater encountered. Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -2 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 98 Moisture Content ( %) 8 inches dark brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. Brownish -gray silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist, fill. (SM) Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist to damp. (SM) Gray slightly silty SAND with gravel to clean gravelly SAND, medium dense, wet. (SM /SP) _'test pit terminated at 14.5 feet Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at 11.5 feet. 1 TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS 1 -5/1 -405 DEVELOPMENT SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T -4800. Date NOV 2000 Figure 3 Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -3 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 90 Moisture Content ( %) 12 inches dark brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. Reddish -brown silty SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist to dry. (SM) Brownish -tan silty fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist. (SM) Gray slightly silty GRAVEL with cobbles, medium dense to dense, wet. (GM /GP) Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet. Light groundwater seepage below 7 feet. Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -4 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 89 Moisture Content ( %) 2 feet dark brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. Brownish -gray silty SAND to clean gravelly SAND, medium dense, moist, becomes wet. (SM /SP) Gray fine sandy SILT with clay, medium stiff, damp to wet. (ML) Gray clean SAND with gravel, medium dense, wet. (SP) Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet. Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at 6 feet. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS 1 -5/1 -405 DEVELOPMENT SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4800 Date NOV 2000 Figure 4 Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -5 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 102 Moisture Content ( %) 14 inches brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. Reddish -brown silty SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist to dry. (SM) Brownish -tan silty fine to medium SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist. (SM) Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater encountered. Logged by: DKW Date: 11/02/00 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -6 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 109 Moisture Content ( %) 8 inches dark brown TOPSOIL, loose, moist. FILL: dark gray gravelly silty SAND with brick, asphaltic concrete, concrete, rebar, loose to medium dense, moist. (SM) Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist. (SM) Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS I -5/1 -405 DEVELOPMENT SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4800 Date NOV 2000 Figure 5 Logged by: DKW Date: .11 /02/00 Depth (ft. ) 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP -7 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 104 Moisture Content ( %) 5 inches dark brown TOPSOIL, loose. moist. FILL: brownish -gray silty SAND with gravel, brick, asphaltic concrete, and concrete, paint cans, loose to medium dense, damp. (SM) Becomes dark gray to black. Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater encountered. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS 1 -5/1 -405 DEVELOPMENT SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T -4800. Date NOV 2000 Figure 6 July 16, 2001 Opus NW, L.L.0 Andy Taber 915 118th Avenue SE, Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN TUKWILA SITE Dear Andy: A planting plan to mitigate for the tightlining of the north ditch on the above referenced site is being submitted as part of the landscape plan. The plan includes a detailed planting of native plants east of the parking lot. The native plants provide a screen along 1 -5. The planting plan will be self - sufficient after the first several years. A new stream is to be constructed; per the plan, paralleling the 1 -5 ditch. This new stream replaces and mitigates for the tightlining of the northern ditch. The new stream will be planted on the east side with red willow and the west side with red dogwood. The plantings will provide shade for the stream and potential habitat for wildlife. Additional native plantings will augment the potential for wildlife habitat between the parking lot and 1 -5. A 15 foot buffer will be maintained between the 1 -5 ditch and the parking lot. This will be a no clear zone designated with an orange construction fence. All planting and other activities will be west of the buffer. Best Management Practices will be used to protect the 1 -5 ditch buffer. P. 0. Box 1337, Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA 253.858.7055 FAX 253.858.2534 3378 L4 /aj b/s m h/7/ 16/01 Page Two July 16, 2001 Tukwila Site If additional information is needed, please have the City provide a brief description of the items that need to be addressed. A.J. Bredberg 3378 L4 /aj b/s m h /7/ 16/01 OPUS Park 5/405 Level 1 Drainage Analysis and Stormwater Control Plan Prepared for: OPUS N.W. L.L.C. Prepared by: Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. July 2001 EXPIRES 8/ 12 /a`L q)%00 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Table of Contents Purpose and Scope 4 Task 1: Study Area Definition and Maps 5 Project Description 5 Existing Site Conditions and Drainage Patterns 5 Task 2: Resource Review 12 Task 3: Field Inspection 15 Task 4: Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions 16 Task 5: Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems 17 Figures 1 Vicinity Map 7 2 Site Plan 8 3 Regional Basin Plan 9 4 Regional Topography 10 5 Aerial Photo 11 Exhibits 1 Existing Conditions 19 2 Developed Conditions 20 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to fulfill the requirements of a Level 1 Drainage Analysis for the proposed OPUS Park 5/405 commercial development as required by City of Tukwila development guidelines. These guidelines require that the Level 1 Drainage Analysis be completed as per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Core Requirement #2. The format of this report follows the report format outlined in Section 1.2.2.1 and 2.3.1.1 of the 1998 KCSWDM. Existing hydrologic conditions on -site and downstream of the proposal site have been researched and observed. A description of these conditions are described herein. These existing conditions include topographic features such as ground elevations and slopes, wetlands, drainage patterns, ground cover, structures and soil types. Potential drainage related problems upstream, on -site and downstream of the proposed plat site are also addressed in Task 4 and 5 of this report. Identified downstream drainage problems are qualitatively discussed and potential mitigative measures are presented. An hydrologic assessment for the proposed development has also been completed. As part of this assessment preliminary sizing of the required stormwater control facilities are also provided in Task 5 of this report. r00112!!.812 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Page 4 Task 1: Study Area Definition and Maps Project Description The proposed OPUS Park 5/405 is 3.3 acre commercial development consisting of an office building and adjacent parking. The project site is located west of Interstate 5 and to the east of 51st Avenue South. The northern project boundary is approximately 200 ft to the north of South 148th Street and the south boundary is approximately 400 ft to the south. The project site is in the northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Tukwila Washington. A vicinity map showing the location of the project is shown on Figure 1. Access to the site is via 51st Avenue South. A preliminary site plan is shown on Figure 2. The project site is entirely within the Gilliam Creek sub -basin of the Green River Basin. The land area of the Gilliam Creek basin is about 1,835 acres in total. The proposed developments project site is located in the upper reaches of the Gilliam Creek Basin in the 1 -5 West Sub -basin as defined by the report titled, Gilliam Creek Basin, Description of Existing Conditions and Alternatives for Improvement, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Feb 2000. The 1 -5 West sub -basin is about 117 acres in size. Figure 3 shows the location of the project site in relation to the regional sub - basin. The project site is located approximately 0.25 miles upstream of the main stem of Gilliam Creek and about 1.5 miles upstream of Gilliam Creek's confluence with the Green River just south of the 1 -405. Existing Site Conditions and Drainage Patterns As discussed above, topographically the site is located within the 1 -5 West Sub -basin of the Gilliam Creek Basin. Drainage from this sub -basin is generally from the east side of a ridge running roughly parallel to 46th Avenue South as shown on Figure 4. Drainage within this basin flows to the east before heading south to the main stem of Gilliam Creek. Drainage within this sub -basin is conveyed through a combination of open channels, ditches and pipe segments. The eastern basin boundary is defined by the 1 -5 embankment, to the north by South 144th Street and to the south by SR 518 (Figure 3). The following is a detailed description of the existing site area and the on -site drainage conditions. The existing site conditions are shown on the enclosed Exhibit 1. A detailed description of the drainage system downstream of the site is given in Task 4 of this report. The site boundaries are shown on the enclosed preliminary site plan (Figure 2) and on the aerial photo (Figure 5). There are currently 6 single family residences, 4 outbuildings and both paved and gravel access roads located on the project site. Five of these residences are clustered around the southern portion of the site with the remaining home located near the northern limit of the site. The total impervious area of the project site is approximately 0.5 acres. The area surrounding the existing buildings is comprised of mainly grassed lawns, garden areas and individual trees. The area around the peripheral area of the site is more heavily vegetated. This vegetation includes Black Berries, tall grass, scrub and more densely treed areas. Significant grading and filling activities have occurred on the site and as part of construction of the 1 -5. Soil conditions on site are consistent with the SCS Urban Soils classification as shown on the SCS soils map in Appendix B and described in the Task 2 section of this report. These conditions have existed prior to 1979, therefore as per the 1998 KCSWDM, are considered as the existing site conditions. x00112!!.812 OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Page 5 The western edge of the site is defined by the steep fill slope of 5151 Avenue South. The main site area directly adjacent to 5151 Avenue South slopes to the east at about a 10% slope before flattening to approximately a 5% slope across the site. This area drains directly towards a drainage ditch running parallel to the 1 -5 as shown on Figure 2 and Exhibit 1. This ditch is classified as a Type 3 stream. The northern site area, the area west of Wetland A, is more steeply sloped away from 515' Avenue South. The ground is sloped at about a 30% slope for about 40 feet before flattening out over the existing fill area constructed for the northern most residence. This flatter area is sloped at approximately 2.5% before descending at a slope of about 20% down to Wetland A. Given these existing site conditions this portion of the site drains eastward towards Wetland A before discharging to the 1 -5 drainage ditch. Drainage from the off -site area upstream of the site flows across the OPUS Park 5/405 site in two locations. Drainage from portions of 515' Avenue South and the area west of 51" Avenue South crosses the road through a stormwater collection system and discharges to one of two manmade drainage ditches. These drainage ditches are classified as Type 3 streams. Each of these ditches show signs of recent excavation or maintenance. One channel is directly to south of the project site and the other crosses near the middle of the site. These ditches are identified on the existing conditions plan, Exhibit 1. These channels convey upstream drainage eastward across the site either directly to the 1 -5 ditch or to Wetland B directly adjacent to the 1 -5 ditch. A detailed description of these ditches is given in Task 4 of this report. rOO112!!.812 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Page 6 11- I■-a.111P NM MO Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. a Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 1215 114th Avenue BS Bellevue, TA 98004 P.O. Box 9585 13 426 462 -1090 Bellevue, IA 98009 211 425 482 -7719 PLOTTED: 00112VOLdvg RNIX 04/25/01 Ik07 SCALE: I. • 5000' DATE: Apr II. 2001 DRAWN: RNIX DESIGNED: VIEW: XREF: APPROVED: LSF: FLD BK: PG /: VICINITY MAP OPUS PARK 5/405 ACAD DWG.: 0OII2VO1 PSSF: CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON 11 6 O Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 1215 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 P.O. Box 3585 TEL (425) 482 -1080 Bellevue, WA 98009 FAX: (425) 482 -7719 PLOTTED: 00112.06.dwg MWONG 07/16/01 12:56 SCALE: r .100 VIEW: OJ DATE: Apr 17. 2001 XREF: DRAWN: RNIX LSF: DESIGNED: FLO BE: APPROVED: PG /: ACAD DWG.: 00112E06.dr g PSSF: OPUS NW, L.L.0 SITE PLAN OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON JOB NO: 00112 SHEET FIG. 2 1 4 h Street • • 146TH ST.I Legend Major streets Open channel Piped flow — — — Subbasin boundary ■•■•• Political boundary RIVERTON HEIGHTS SUBBASIN 1 -5 WEST SUBBASIN 0 960 feet Approximate scale • 150TH 1 Northw: st Tribu 1 -5 EAST SUBBASIN wetland South Tributary CITY HALL SUBBASIN Seattle Tacoma International Airport Southwest Tukwila Tributary City Llmite Soulhcenler Mall CRYSTAL SPRINGS SUBBASIN of SeaT SOUTHCENTER SUBBASIN 1661h Street Figure 1. Gilliam Creek basic characteristics. SOURCE: GILLIAM CREEK BASIN STUDY, HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. FEBRUARY, 2000 REGIONAL BASIN PLAN FIGURE 3 •• PLOTTED. 0002E02.4vg RNIX 04/23/01 0:51 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. SCALE - 1' • 500• Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners DATE: Apr 16. 2001 1215 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 P.O. Bo: 3565 Bellevue, WA 98009 DRAWN. RNIX VIEW DJ JOB NO. 00112 SHEET FLD BK: APPROVED: M: \AC AD \PLATS \00 \00112 \O0112E;02.dwg ACAD DWG 00112E02 dwg PSSF: REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON 111dElll !ir X46, %+t' I�..�.. .aw 4!e 0 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 1215 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 P.O. Box 3585 TEL (425) 482 -1080 Bellevue, 9A 98009 FAX: (425) 482 -7719 REV. NO DATE DESCRIPTION ef. MADE BY CHECKED PLOTTED: 00112E09.dvg RNIX 04/23/01 11:52 SCALE: 1• • 300' DATE: Apr IL 2001 DRAWN: RNIX DESIGNED: APPROVED: ACAD DWG.: 00112E09.d■ VIEW: XREF: LSF: FLD BK: PG /: PSSF: AERIAL PHOTO OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON JOB NO: 00112 FIGURE FIG. 5 The following is a summary of the resources and documents reviewed for this downstream analysis. Relevant maps from these reports have been included in the attached appendices as referred to below. • Sensitive Area Folios - Appendix A The Sensitive Area Map Folio for King County, Washington (December 1990) indicates potential sensitive areas within, adjacent, and downstream of the proposed site. Copies of these maps are included in the attached appendix. Wetlands: There are no wetlands upstream or downstream of the project site indicated on the Sensitive Area Folio Wetlands map. Streams and 100 -year Flood Plains: There are no streams identified on the project site. The nearest stream identified is an open channel portion of Gilliam Creek adjacent to SR -518 west of 51st Avenue South upstream of where drainage from the OPUS Park 5/405 site enters the main channel of Gilliam Creek. No portion of the site is in a flood plain. The only 100 -year flood plain identified downstream of the project site is the Green River flood plain over 1.5 miles downstream of the project site. Erosion Hazard Areas: There are no erosion hazard areas identified near the project study area. Landslide Hazard Areas: No landslide hazard areas are located near the project study area. Seismic Hazard Areas: No seismic hazard areas are located near the project study area. Coal Mine Hazard Area: No coal mine hazard areas are located near the project study area. • Wetland Inventory The King County Wetlands Inventory, identifies no wetlands upstream or downstream of the project site. However, there are two wetlands not identified by the inventory that are located adjacent to the project site. These wetlands are referred to as Wetlands A and B. Wetland A is a Type 3 wetland and Wetland B is a Type 2 wetland 1.34 acres in size. Detailed information regarding these wetlands are given in the wetland report, City of Tukwila Wetland Delineation Report, prepared for OPUS NW LLC by B &A, Inc. Feb, 2000. • USDA SCS King County Soils Survey - Appendix B SCS mapping indicates that the proposed project site is underlain by Urban Soils. Urban soils are identified by the SCS as those soils where the natural soil layer has been modified by the addition of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial ii0112!!.812 OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Page 12 or housing projects. In the Green River Valley the fill ranges from 3 to 12 feet in thickness. To the west of the site, soils information is not indicated on the SCS King County Soils Map. For more detailed information refer to the project geotechnical report. • Floodplain / Floodway (FEMA) Maps There are no floodplains identified on -site or adjacent to the project site. The nearest flood plain areas indicated on the FEMA map (FEMA Map Number 53033C0978) are along the Green River. Although there are no floodplains indicated along Gilliam Creek, areas of ponding south of the 1 -405 and east of the 1 -5 along portions of Gilliam Creek are identified (FEMA Map Number 53033C0959). This is consistent with the findings of the adopted basin report entitled Gilliam Creek Basin, Description of Existing Conditions and Alternatives for Improvement, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Feb 2000. This basin report indicates this area is prone to frequent ponding in particular when the Green River is at a high stage. The basin report identifies improvement projects to address this problem. Projects are identified to improve the outlet of Gilliam Creek to the Green River. This project is identified as Project D1. Project D1 proposes a pump station to lower Gilliam Creek flood levels. • Critical Drainage Area There are no critical drainage areas specified by the 1998 K.C.S.W.D.M. • Landslide Hazard Drainage Area Map The project site is not located in a landslide hazard drainage area. • Flow Control Applications Map The project is located in a Level 1 Flow Control Area. • Water Quality Application Map The project is located in a Basic Water Quality Treatment Area. • Adopted Basin Plans and Finalized Drainage Studies The project is located within the Gilliam Creek Sub -Basin of the Green River Drainage Basin which has the adopted basin report entitled Gilliam Creek Basin, Description of Existing Conditions and Alternatives for Improvement, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Feb 2000. • Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports The basin reconnaissance has been completed as part of the report referred to above. There are not specific problems or mitigative measures listed by this report impacted by the proposed OPUS Tukwila project. The report recommends only one project in the 1 -5 West Sub - basin, a detention pond identified as the proposed mitigation for problem D19. This project is to address inadequate detention in the sub - basin. Drainage to the proposed pond is from 51st Avenue S. 150 feet north of South 152nd Street to South 154th Street. Drainage from the OPUS Tukwila project site is not impacted by this project. r00112!!.812 OPUS Park 5/405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Page 13 • Topographic Information Topographic field survey data was collected by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. for the plat site and adjacent areas (2001). • Aerial Mapping Aerial photos taken in 1996 and 2000 were examined for site conditions. Figure 5 shows this image. The image north of South 1515t Street is the 1996 as taken by NIES Aerial Photography. The area south of South 1515t Street including the 1 -5 / 1 -405 Interchange is a 2000 orthophoto obtained from WASH DOT. r00112!!.812 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Page 14 Task 3: Field Inspection A Level 1 inspection for the OPUS Park 5/405 project was conducted during the project topographic and wetland surveys (Winter 2000/2001) and again on April 16, 2001. The latter inspection was completed using the guidelines for a Level 1 inspection as given in Section 2.3.1.1 of the 1998 KCSWDM. On the inspection date the air temperature was approximately 65° F, with clear skies. Basin boundaries shown on Figure 3 were verified, along with an examination of on- site and off -site drainage conditions and systems. Ground cover, slopes, soil types, wetlands and other topographic features were also observed. At the time of inspection flowing water was observed in the downstream system and the drainage channels adjacent to the development area. Saturated soils with some standing water was observed in the wetlands down stream of the project site. A detailed description of the drainage system and observed problems are presented in Task 4 of this report. r00112!!.812 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Page 15 !!.812 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Inc. OPUS Park 5/405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Hugh Page 16 Task 5: Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems No drainage problems were identified in Task 4 of this report that may be created or exacerbated by the proposed OPUS Park 5/405 development. A stormwater control plan is proposed that will adequately control upstream drainage and safely control drainage generated from the proposed development site. It is proposed that upstream drainage will bypass the proposed stormwater control facility. One element of the control plan addressing upstream drainage is to replace a portion of the northern drainage ditch with a piped system discharging to a drainage ditch running in a north -south direction along the east property boundary. This ditch is proposed as mitigation for bypassing and removing the north drainage ditch. The upstream drainage control of the area flowing to the south drainage ditch will remain unchanged following development with the exception the proposed storm pipe reconfiguration and limited grading where the 51st Avenue South storm system discharges to the ditch. A detention vault is proposed to control on -site peak runoff rates at their existing rates. This facility will be designed using the KCRTS Level 1 flow control standard controlling both the 2 -year and the 10 -year release rates at the existing rate. It is proposed that the detention vault discharge to the 1 -5 ditch directly east of the project site. The developed site conditions are shown on the enclosed Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 shows the proposed stormwater control system along with the proposed site grading and building layout. The following are details of the hydrologic calculations associated with the analysis of the on -site drainage and the detention facility sizing. As described in the Task 1 section of this report the existing site conditions include several buildings, road area, and both grassed and treed areas. These site conditions existed prior to 1979 and are therefore, as per the 1998 KCSWDM, considered as existing site conditions for analysis of existing site hydrology. The land cover breakdown under the existing and the proposed developed conditions are given in Table 1 below. The developed site conditions used are based on the preliminary site plan as shown on Figure 2. The KCRTS hydrologic program was used for modeling the site hydrology. Refer to Appendix C for KCRTS output files based on the site conditions from Table 1. Using the KCRTS Level 1 standard the required detention volume (with a 10% factor of safety) is 0.55 ac. -ft. Table 2 below summarizes the existing and developed release rates. Water quality control is proposed to be through the use of a basic water quality vault. Details of this calculation are also given in Appendix C. The required water quality volume is 12,300 CF. Table 1 Land Cover Conditions Note: As per the 1998 KCSWDM existing grass area was modeled as till pasture. Regional rainfall factor = SeaTac 1.0 (KCSWDM Figure 3.2.2.A, page 3 -22) 100112!!.812 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Page 17 Impervious (ac.) Till Grass (ac.) Till Pasture* (ac.) Till Forest (ac.) Total Area (ac.) Existing 0.54 0 1.97 0.49 3.0 Proposed 2.54 0.46 0 0 3.0 Note: As per the 1998 KCSWDM existing grass area was modeled as till pasture. Regional rainfall factor = SeaTac 1.0 (KCSWDM Figure 3.2.2.A, page 3 -22) 100112!!.812 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. OPUS Park 51405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Page 17 Table 2 Peak Flow Rate Comparison Event Existing Rate (cfs) Developed Rate (cfs) 2 -year 0.175 0.168 10 -year 0.280 0.275 r00112!!.812 OPUS Park 5/405 - Level 1 Drainage Analysis Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Page 18 Q 51st AVE SOUTH 0 0 • 0 0 1- J 0 REV. NO. DESCRIPTION MADE BY CHECKED 0 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 1215 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 P.O. Box 3565 TEL (425) 462 -1080 Bellevue, WA 98009 FAX: (425) 462 -7719 PLOTTED: 001I2e05.d,q MWONG 07/16/01 SCALE DATE: OPUS NW, L.L.C. JOB NO: 00112 EXHIBIT DRAWN: DESIGNED: APPROVED Apr 17. 2001 XREF: ACAD DWG.: 00112E05.dri PSSF: EXISTING CONDITIONS OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON 0 25 50 SCALE 100 150 111 = 50' HIGHWAY NO. 1 (S.R. 5) PRIMARY STATE 4 4 OFF -SITE BYPASS. - OUTFALL WETLAND B I WETLAND 4A 4 4 4 v o N_ 0 0 Al 0 o o • 0 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. i- � Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners J A. 1215 ll4th Avenue SE p Bellevue, WA 98004 a P.O. Box 3565 TEL (425) 462 -1080 a Bellevue, WA 98009 PAY: (425) 462 -7719 51st AVE SOUTH 13' DESCRIPTION MADE BY CHECKED PLOTTED. 00II2.07.drq MWONG 07/16/0114:18 OPUS NW, L.L.C. JOB NO: 00112 SCALE DATE. EXHIBIT DRAWN: DESIGNED Apr 17. 2001 XREF: FLD BK: APPROVED ACAD DWG.: 00112E07.d• DEVELOPED CONDITIONS OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF TUKWILA EX 2 WASHINGTON APPENDICES A Sensitive Area Folios B USDA SCS King County Soils Survey Map C Hydrologic Analysis OPUS PARK 1 -5 /1 -405 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF TUKWILA Prepared for OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. 915 =118th Ave. S.E., Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98005 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223 - 112th Ave. N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 455 -5320 Fax: (425) 453 -5759 http: / /www.tranplanenq.com February 22, 2001 EXPIRES ass, OZ. 0Z.L2.0r The summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 8 of this report. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding street ' network. Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan prepared by Sconzo Hallstrom Architects. The plan consists of a three -story 64,800 sq. ft. building, Building A, a two -story 37,000 sq. ft. C:1- ProjectslT PROJECTSIT0846011T084601TIA.doc Andy Taber, Sr. Real Estate Director OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. Februarjr 22, 2001 Page 2 Tpf building, Building B, parking for 337 vehicles, including eight handicap, and four driveways. Building A is located in the northern portion of the site and Building B in the south. A wetland segregates the two buildings from one another and thus no internal vehicular circulation is provided between the buildings. Full development of the Opus Park 1 -5/1 -405 is expected to occur by 2002/2003, pending timely permit approval. However, to ensure a conservative analysis, a horizon year of 2006 is used for this study. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The project site presently is developed with 10 single - family dwelling units. These units would be removed from the site to make way for the subject project. Street Facilities Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of street lanes, number of approach lanes at intersections, and other pertinent information near the project site. The primary streets in the study area and their classifications are as follows: ♦ SR 5 Freeway ♦ SR 405 Freeway ♦ SR 518 Freeway ♦ SR 99 Principal Arterial • Southcenter Blvd. Principal Arterial ♦ Southcenter Pkwy. Minor Arterial ♦ 51s' Ave. S. Minor Arterial ♦ S. 154th St. Minor Arterial ♦ S. 144th St. Collector Arterial ♦ Klickitat Drive Collector Arterial • Macadam Rd. S. Collector Arterial • 53rd Ave. S. Unclassified Local Access • S. 156'h St. Unclassified Local Access ♦ 52nd Ave. S. Unclassified Local Access Pedestrian Facilities Paved shoulders exist on 51st Ave. S. in the site vicinity. No pedestrian facility currently exists on S. 151s1 Street. Note: The development of Building `B" of the subject project would, in conjunction with frontage improvements, provide a pedestrian sidewalk. C:1- ProjecfslT PROJECTSIT0846011T084601TIA.doc Andy Taber, Sr. Real Estate Director OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. February 22, 2001 Page 3 Transit Facilities TpE Metro Transit provides transit service in the King County Region. The Metro Transit System Map, February 1999 identifies one bus route, route 128 in the site vicinity. This route serves S. 144th St. about seven blocks north of the proposed project. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Based on discussion with the City of Tukwila staff and our traffic engineering experience, the following intersections were identified for analysis: ♦ 5151 Ave. S. /S. 144th St. ♦ 51" Ave. S. /S. 15151 St. ♦ 51' Ave. S. /SR 518 westbound ramp ♦ 51" Ave. S. /SR 518 eastbound ramp ♦ Klickitat Dr. /SR 5 SB on -ramp ♦ 52nd Ave. S. /S. 154th St. ♦ SR 5 southbound off- ramp /S. 154th St. ♦ Southcenter Blvd. /SR 405 SB off -ramp ♦ Southcenter Blvd. /Macadam Rd. S. ♦ Southcenter Blvd. /61' Ave. S. Figure 4 shows existing PM peak hour traffic volumes at these intersections. Traffic turning movement volume counts for the intersections were conducted by Trafficount Consultants, Inc., a firm specializing in the collection of traffic data. Copies of the turning movement counts are included in the appendix. The turning movement counts were conducted in January 2001. Southcenter, a large regional shopping mall influences traffic volumes in the area. Traffic data collected by the City at their control count locations by month and year provides insight into traffic volume variation throughout the year. Review of the City's traffic data indicates that the monthly variation at both Klickitat Drive west of 53rd Ave. S. and Southcenter Blvd. west of the S -line shows a moderation in seasonal , variation in recent years. The traffic volume variation from the average month in 1998 was nine and four percent at the Klickitat Drive and Southcenter Blvd. control locations, respectively. Figure 5 shows the adjusted traffic volumes to better reflect average traffic conditions. The collected, January data, traffic volumes were increased by a factor of 10 percent. We believe that 10 percent is a reasonable approach. The 10 percent increase is likely conservative based on existing traffic volume trends at the City control location reviewed. C:1- ProjecfslT PROJECTSIT0846011T084601 TIA.doc 4PE Andy Taber, Sr. Real Estate Director OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. February 22, 2001 Page 4 Level of Service Analysis Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate, and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated levels of service (LOS) for existing conditions at the pertinent street intersections. The LOS were calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209, 3rd Edition updated December 1997. The LOS and corresponding average delay in seconds are as follows: TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F Signalized < 10 > 10 and < 20 >20 and < 35 > 35 and < 55 > 55 and < 80 >80 Stop Sign Control < 10 > 10 and < 15 >15 and < 25 > 25 and < 35 > 35 and < 50 >50 The analysis at the SR 405 southbound off- ramp /Southcenter Blvd. indicated worse LOS than observed. A field delay study during the PM peak period for the northbound to westbound motorists showed the average delay to be about 28 seconds, with occasionally delays up to 70 to 80 seconds. Many motorists arrived, stopped at the stop sign and proceeded to turn left in a very short time period. Other motorists arrived at a time where significant eastbound traffic was present. These motorists, on occasion, had to wait for a minute or so with other motorists sometimes queuing behind them. The maximum queue observed was six vehicles. The calculated LOS using the volumes shown in Figure 4 resulted in average delay of 62 seconds, double the time observed. Significant gaps exist in the eastbound traffic stream due to the operation of the signal at the SR 5southbound off - ramp /S. 154th St. intersection. Adjustment to the upstream signal data inputs were done to better reflect field observed gapping. The data was adjusted until the resultant LOS and delay matched the recorded field data. We believe that this approach provides a better reflection of the intersection operation. C:1- Projects \T PROJECTSIT0846011T084601 TIA.doc Andy Taber, Sr. Real Estate Director OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. February 22, 2001 Page 5 Accident History TpE Traffic accident data was requested from the City. The City provided three corridor reports. These reports are: ♦ S. 144th St. between 51" Ave. S. and S. 160th St., 01.01.96- 12.31.00 ♦ Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Dr. and S. 154'h St., 01.01.96 to 12.30.00 • S. 154th St. between 51st Ave. S. and Macadam Rd. S., 01.01.96 to 12.30.00 ♦ Southcenter Blvd. Between 515' Ave. S. and Macadam Rd. S., 01.01.96 to 12.31.00 General review of the City's data, attached, does not reveal any unusual patterns. The signalized Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Dr. and Southcenter Blvd. /Macadam Rd. incur a higher number of incidents which is typical at higher volume intersections. The bulk of the incidents at these signalized intersections were of the rear end type. Rear end incidents tend to be associated with queues formed during red phases of the signal cycle. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 6 shows projected 2006 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background growth. The growth factor used in this report is two percent per year. This factor was determined by comparing yearly traffic data from the City's control count locations. PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS City of Tukwila The City of Tukwila's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 2001 -2006 adopted 06.05.00 identifies one street improvement project in the vicinity of the subject site. The project is S. 144th St. from Pacific Hwy. to Military Road. This project is priority 28 of 29 projects and comprises designing and constructing widening including paving. The project is scheduled for engineering in early 2006 and is budgeted at $35,000.00. In addition to the six year TIP projects, the City of Tukwila has identified a number of street improvements in their Transportation Element December 1993. Table 12 Mitigation Proportionate Fair Share Costs, contained in the Transportation Element identifies the street improvements. A copy of this table is in the appendix to this report. The TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS section of this report further details these street improvement projects. C:1- Pro %ectslT PROJECTSIT0846011T084601 TIA. doc Andy Taber, Sr. Real Estate Director OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. February 22, 2001 Page 6 WSDOT TpE The WSDOT's Sunshine Report, dated 02.12.01, does not indicate improvements on either SR 5 or SR 405 in the immediate vicinity of the project site. TRIP GENERATION Definitions A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. Traffic generated by development projects consists of the following types: Pass -By Trips: Trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Diverted Linked Trips: Captured Trips: Primary Trips: Project Generated Traffic Trips attracted from the traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator but require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the site. Trips shared by more than one land use on a single development site. Trips made for the specific purpose of using the services of the project. Table 2 shows the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the AM and PM street traffic peak hours for the proposed office building project. The trip generation values are calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997 for Light Industrial and General Office Building (ITE Land Use Codes 110 and 710, respectively). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter, visitor, recreation, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Existing Traffic The project site is currently developed with 10 single - family detached housing units. These units would be removed from the subject site. Residents of these homes generate traffic. Table 2 shows the traffic generated by the residents based on the trip generation rates contained in the Trip Generation for ITE land use code 210, Single Family Detached Housing. C:1- ProjeclslT PROJECTSIT08460f1T084601TIA.doc Andy Taber, Sr. Real Estate Director OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. February 22, 2001 Page 7 Net New Traffic The net new traffic that is projected to be generated by the project is calculated to be as follows: Average Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour TRIP DISTRIBUTION 938 trips 137 trips 130 trips Figure 7 shows the calculated site - generated trip distribution and assignment. The distribution is based on the characteristics of the street network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trips, origins and destinations (residential, shopping, social and recreational opportunities). FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Traffic Volumes Figure 8 shows the projected 2006 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site - generated average daily and PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 were added to the projected background traffic volumes shown on Figure 5 to obtain the Figure 7 volumes. The calculated LOS for future "without" and "with" the project conditions indicate that the 52nd Ave. S. /S. 154th St. intersection would operate at LOS F. The City may request that improvements at this intersection be made. The following provides a brief synopsis of an enhancement that would improve the operation of the 52nd Ave. S. /S. 154`h St. intersection. Our analysis indicates that improvements to the existing channelization could improve the LOS operations of the 52 "d Ave. S. /S. 154th St. intersection. The improvements would provide a short southbound to westbound right turn pocket on 52 "d Ave. S. and a left turn refuge lane on S. 154th St. to facilitate the southbound to eastbound left turn movements. Providing these improvements would likely entail some modest pavement widening. Conceptual sketches of the existing and proposed channelization are included in the appendix of this report. The above improvement is needed "without" or "with" the project to improve the LOS at the intersection. The proposed Opus Park 1 -5/1 -405 projects proportionate share impact at the S. 154th St. /52 "d Ave. S. intersection is as follows: S. 154th St. /52 "d Ave. S. C:1- Projecfs1T PROJECTSIT0846011T084601TIA.doc 4PE Andy Taber, Sr. Real Estate Director OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. February 22, 2001 Page 8 �pE 73 PM peak protect trips 1,628 total PM peak trips = 4.5% Subsequent to the above analysis, we received and reviewed a copy of 52nd Ave. S. Office Building Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Urban Regional Research Planning Consultants dated March 25, 1999. This report was prepared for a 22,162 gross square foot two -story office building to be located at 15208 - 52nd Ave. South. The report included an analysis of the impact of buildout of nine nearby parcels at the 52nd Ave. S. /S. 154th St. intersection. Their analysis concluded that improvements to the 52nd Ave. S. /S. 154th St. intersection would be required with buildout of these nearby parcels. The recommended improvements were to widen S. 154th St. to provide an eastbound left turn lane and an eastbound refuge /acceleration lane. These improvements are similar to those proposed in our analysis. We believe that our proposed improvements to rechannelize the intersection utilizing existing pavement with modest widening would be more practical. Our improvements also recommended the installation of a southbound right turn pocket on 52nd Ave. South. The 52nd Ave. S. /S. 154th St. intersection does not appear to be identified by the City for improvements. We would recommend that the applicant work with the City of Tukwila staff and nearby developers regarding adding this intersection to their street improvement program. We recommend that the improvements identified in this report to be appropriate. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City is currently collecting pro -rata share contributions for eleven street improvement projects on their six -year transportation improvement program. Fee rates have been developed for each of the eleven projects. The rates are based on the street traffic noon peak hour. Attached is a copy of a fax transmittal from the City dated 05.22.97 including a copy of Table 12 — Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs from the Transportation Element of the City's comprehensive plan. The City's Table 12 shows the derivation of the fee rates, including a rate change and two projects which have been added to the list in handwritten form. Table 3 shows the net new noon peak hour project trips, fee rate and pro -rata share contribution at each location for the proposed Opus Business Park 1 -5/1 -405 project. The City's mitigation is based on noon peak hour trips. Our trip generation analysis provides daily and AM and PM peak hour trip data. Future employees of the office could occasionally run errands and /or go out for lunch. This trip making is likely to be less than either the AM or PM peak hours. For analysis we presumed that the noon peak that the noon peak would be about 90% of the PM peak hour value. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report used existing traffic data collected at the pertinent street intersections identified for analysis. Level of service analyses were performed for existing and projected Cl- ProjecIsl T PROJECTSIT0846011T084601 TIA. doc Andy Taber, Sr. Real Estate Director OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.C. February 22, 2001 Page 9 future traffic volumes, using the collected traffic data, for the without - project conditions. The evaluation of the traffic impacts of the proposed plats was determined by adding project generated traffic to the future traffic volume projections and calculating the levels of service. The with - project traffic operations were then compared to the without - project operations. The comparison of traffic operations "with" and "without" the project identified that the project would not cause a significant adverse affect on the operation of any of the study intersections. However, two of the analysis intersections currently operate at LOS F and would continue to do so "without" or "with" the project. Based on our analysis the Opus Park 1 -5/1 -405 should be approved with the following traffic mitigation measures. 1. The project should be constructed according to applicable City of Tukwila requirements. 2. Site frontage improvements along 5151 Ave. S. and S. 151st Street. 3. Access driveways per the City's criteria. 4. Coordinate with the City of Tukwila staff and nearby developers regarding adding the S. 1541h St. /52nd Ave. S. intersection to their street improvements program. The stop controlled southbound movement is currently, and projected to operate, at LOS F "without" or "with" the project. The proposed developments pro -rata share amount at the intersection is 4.5. 5. Payment of $6,030 as a pro -rata contribution for the City of Tukwila's street improvement projects. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call me at 425.455.5320 or e-mail me at mjacobs @tranplaneng.com. MJJ:sv Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Mark J. Jaco'b's, R-E., P.T.O.E. Associate C:1- ProjedslT PROJECTSIT0846011T084601TIA.doc 11pE TABLE 1 OPUS PARK 1 -5/1- 405 - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Intersection Movement Existing 2006 Without Project 2006 With Project 5151 Ave. S. /S. 144th St. OVERALL B (10.3) B (11.1) B (11.2) 51St Ave. S. /S. 151st St. OVERALL A 98.2) A (8.3) A (9.0) 5151 Ave. S. /SR 518 westbound ramp NBLT B (10.1) B (10.9) B (11.5) 515t Ave. S. /SR 518 eastbound ramp EB B (15.0) C (17.2) C (19.2) Kiickitat Dr. /SR 5 SB on -ramp SBLT B (12.6) B (13.8) B (14.3) 52id Ave. S. /S. 154th St. EBLT SB B (10.6) F (50.6) B (11.5) F (120 +) B (11.5) F (120 +) B (11.5)(1) F (120 +) B (11.5)(12) E (35.8) SR 5 southbound off - ramp /S. 154th St. OVERALL C (34.9) C (39.6) D (40.2) Southcenter Blvd. /SR 405 SB off-ramp NBLT . D (32.1) E (35.5) E (48.9) Southcenter Blvd. /Macadam Rd. S. OVERALL B (17.8) B (22.3) B (22.7 Southcenter Blvd. /61st Ave. S. OVERALL D (40.8) D (46.3) D (47.4) NOTES: The number in parenthesis () is the average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle per the Highway Capacity Manual, updated December 1997. LOS with separate SBRT and SBLT approaches LOS with rechannelization of S. 154th St. to provide left turn channelization C :1- ProjectslT PROJECTS1T0846011T084601TIA.doc X = 1,000 square feet, # of dwelling units T = Trips A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation values identified in the above table account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter, visitor, recreation, service, and delivery vehicle trips. C:1- ProjeclslT PROJECTSIT0846011T084601TIA.doc TABLE 3 OPUS PARK 1 -5/1 -405 — TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PRO -RATA SHARE CONTRIBUT ONS FOR CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Location Net New Peak Hour Trips Cost Per Net News Noon Peak Hour Trip Pro -Rata Share Contribution Southcenter Pkwy. /Strander Blvd 7 $140 $980 Andover Park E. /Strander Blvd. 2 135 270 Andover Park W. /Strander Blvd. 4 317 1,270 W. Valley Hwy. /S. 180th St. 1 475 480 Andover Park E. /Baker Blvd. 1 377 380 Andover Park W. /Minkler Blvd. (n /s lefts, signal) 1 392 390 Southcenter Pkwy. /S. 168th St. 3 167 500 W. Valley Hwy. /Strander Blvd 1 283 280 Interurban Bridge over Green River 1 1,122 1,120 Southcenter Pkwy. /Minkler Blvd. 2 137 270 Andover Park W. /Minkler Blvd. 1 89 90 TOTAL $6,030 Noon peak hour trips for the subject project presumed to be about 90% of the PM peak hour trips. C:1- Projects %T PROJECTS1T0846011T084601TIA.doc 61 59E, Itatn St\`� ` th St r Bill `f sf_/_ 40th St S 144th S W III n 146th St > � Ill • 7D L4811s1 Q °' larPROJECT SITE y 11 � w v 1150tILSt '° D- a • IF10 n -co ° Heights 8 3 St b 0 r+ — ). a S L54- tn Sty__ u► I i 1 9th S Fost '`o • 518 S 15 \ s 100th St \ d S 166th St 0) .m Mc' tih S1 1 S. @4th St Nik 0) 170th St • an \s172r1d St_ 1 405 ukwll tA- \p a 1 So Pk t,/ Se121 2 128th St 11 r2 31st 31 0 N S 135th ander_Biv 8s er 8 Tukwila w • Q • 0 a C Q d nder Blvd `•o nuerorL®, Streets Plus 0 mi 0.2 0.4 0.6 S 21st S 0.8 VICINITY MAP OPUS PARK I -5 /I -405 - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SITE PLAN OPUS PARK I -5 /I -405 - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS iAt4 r ..1- S. 144th St. - Y V \\ N.- _--...-...... -s- , N not to scale oil— r LEGEND O Traffic Control Signal el Stop Sign XX mph Posted Speed Limit --. Approach Lane & Direction XL Number of Roadway Lanes Is. tr EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS OPUS PARK I -5 /I -405 - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Tuesday 01.25.01 1645 -1745 Wednesday 01.24.01 1645 -1745 ■1010 "6-644 1468 --•r CAD h O N N Tuesday 01.25.01 1645 -1745 S. 144th St. Tuesday 01.25.01 1645 -1745 140 --1518 136 —/ 1560 --► Wednesday 01.24.01 1645 -1745 Wednesday 01.24.01 1645 -1745 Wednesday 01.24.01 1645 -1745 N not to scale .--749 0-208 489 —' 1184' 11--# 339 Tuesday 01.25.01 1645 -1745 LEGEND X-► PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction 24-1 444 —' Tuesday 01.25.01 1645 -1745 Wednesday 01.24.01 1645 -1745 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND DISTRIBUTION OPUS PARK I -5 /I -405 - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS E "FIGURE" 4 Jj t 00 r7 d- c0 N not to scale LEGEND MGM V—.10 JI`-0-210 r' 35 20 195 --► 1 t r 50—'1/4 ooln c0 r7 S. 144th St. 0 u) co O O JjL 420 —a. 20—% 1. . .-680 '-35 o0 154th St. t_90 -*-825 10--/ 3751 IL t-10 0-70 25—if 490 — 4 1615 0 0 N N JL —1110 X710 )r (no —N X155 •-1670 v c N n 150 —/ 17151 0 4 540—.- 1300' x-825 0-230 00 coop O) � t a vto X1 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction * Collected January 2001 traffic volumes increased to better reflect average peak conditions by 10% a_ a) c m 0 0 405 ADJUSTED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES OPUS PARK I -5 /I -405 - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS X--• PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction PROJECTED 2006 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/0 PROJECT OPUS PARK I -5 /I -405 - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS E rFIGURE\ 6 J N not to scale PROJECT GENERATED NET NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS ENTER 17 EXIT 130 LEGEND X--► PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction Soutl ( PROJECT GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND DISTRIBUTION OPUS PARK I -5 /I -405 - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS X—► PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction PROJECTED 2006 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/ PROJECT OPUS PARK I -5 /I -405 - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 FIGURE, 8 J\ J APPENDIX - - = 33 0.848 112 33 0.848 9 3.8 5 191 81.6 58 34 234 14.5 9 72 05:00 PM 5 58 9 72 0.813 04:15 PM 16 193 42 251 6.4 76.9 16.7 05:00 PM 5 58 9 72 0.872 30 26.5 10 28 24.8 6 55 48.7 15 05:00 PM 10 6 15 04:30 PM 29 34 25.0 29.3 45.7 05:00 PM 10 6 15 113 31 31 0.911 53 116 31 0.935 44 18.3 16 178 74.2 42 18 7.5 3 0 240 0.0 0 61 05:30 PM 17 47 2 0 66 0.909 05:00 PM 44 179 23 0 246 17.9 72.8 9.3 0.0 05:30 PM 17 47 2 0 66 0.932 0.887 699 197 1 TRAFFICOUNT 4820 YELM HWY B -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360- 491 -8116 File Name : TPE02301P Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 01/23/2001 Page No : 2 51ST AVE S From North Start Time Right Thm I Left App. Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection Volume Percent 05:00 Volume Peak Factor High Int. Volume Peak Factor 04:45 PM 29 50 25.9 44.6 4 18 S 144TH ST From East Right Thru I Left 1 App. Total 51ST AVE S From South Right 1 Thru Left App. Total S 144TH ST From West Right I Puy I Left I Truck 1 App. Total Int. Total 1 33 112 29.5 11 33 05:00 PM 4 18 11 33 0.848 9 3.8 5 191 81.6 58 34 234 14.5 9 72 05:00 PM 5 58 9 72 0.813 30 28 55 113 44 178 18 0 240 26.5 24.8 48.7 18.3 74.2 7.5 0.0 10 6 15 31 16 42 3 0 61 05:00 PM 05:30 PM 10 6 15 31 17 47 2 0 66 0.911 0.909 T North 1/23/01 4:45:00 PM 1/23/01 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY r' h] 1z7 1 1'0 I 2411 Out In Total 51ST AVF S V J 0.887 699 197 2 145 45 45 0.806 145 45 0.806 9 12.5 3 0 0.0 0 63 87.5 13 72 16 05:30 PM 2 0 19 21 0.857 05:00 PM 11 0 68 79 13.9 0.0 86.1 05:45 PM 5 0 18 23 0.859 17 13.6 4 108 86.4 24 0 0.0 0 04:45 PM 4 33 0 04:45 PM 17 108 13.6 86.4 0.0 04:45 PM 4 33 0 125 28 37 0.845 0 125 37 0.845 0 0.0 0 3:45:00 PM 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.961 342 89 3 I1 WASHINGTON 1ST AVE S TRAFFICOU NT 4820 YELM HWY B -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360- 491 -8116 File Name : TPE02302P Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 01/23/2001 Page No : 2 Start Time ak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:45 PM Volume 0 134 Percent 0.0 92.4 05:00 Volume 0 42 Peak Factor High Int. 05:00 PM Volume 0 42 Peak Factor 51ST AVE S From North Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total S 151ST ST From East Right Thru 1 Leh 1 App. Total 51ST AVE S From South Right 1 Thni 1 Left 1 App. Total From West Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 Truck 1 App. Total Int. Total 1 11 7.6 3 3 145 45 45 0.806 9 12.5 3 0 0.0 0 63 87.5 13- 72 16 05:30 PM 2 0 19 21 0.857 17 13.6 4 108 86.4 24 0 0.0 0 04:45 PM 4 33 0 125 28 37 0.845 0 0.0 0 3:45:00 PM 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 51STAVES arm 7ttru Lgft 11 L� T North 1/23/01 4:45:00 PM 1/23/01 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY L19z1 2 L322] Out In Total 51ST AVE S Z s m 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.961 342 89 4 199 O 58 0.858 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 3:45:00 PM O 0 04:00 PM O 0 0 0.0 0 O 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 572 0.0 17.8 81.4 0 29 160 05:00 PM O 29 6 703 0.9 2 191 160 2 191 0.920 04:45 PM 0 125 572 0.0 17.8 81.4 0.9 05:00 PM O 29 6 703 160 2 191 0.920 0 0.0 0 3:45:00 PM 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 894 249 0.898 IrKWILA, WASHINGTON 1ST AVE S SR -518 WB ON RAMP IOC #3A TPE01022M TRAFFICOUNT 4820YELM HWY B -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360- 491 -8116 File Name : TPE02303AP Site Code : 00000025 Start Date : 01/23/2001 Page No : 2 51ST AVE S From North SR -518 WB ON RAMP From East 51ST AVE S From South SR -518 WB ON RAMP From West StartTime Right Thru Left Truck Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:45 PM Volume 41 150 0 0 Percent 21.5 78.5 0.0 0.0 05:00 Volume 11 47 0 0 Peak Factor High Int. 05:00 PM Volume 11 47 Peak Factor App. Total Right Thai left Truck App. Total Right u Left Truck App. Thr Right Thru Left Truck Total App. Total Int Total 191 58 0 0 58 0.823 O 0 0 0 0 0 125 572 6 703 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.8 81.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O 0 0 0 0 0 29 160 2 191 0 0 0 0 0 3:45:00 PM O 0 05:00 PM 3:45:00 PM 0 0 0 0 29 160 2 191 0.920 SR -518 WB 0 w—r L h 2 1- 51ST AVE S T North 1/23/01 4:45:00 PM 1/23/01 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY I 1501 8531 Out In Total 51ST AVF S 894 249 0.898 6 App. Total Right 51ST AVE S From South Right 1 Thru I Left 1 App. Total SR -518 EB OFF RAMP From West Right 1 Thru 1 Left I App. Total Int. Total 150 44 44 0.852 150 44 0.852 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 100.0 0 1 0 05:15 PM 0 0 1 1 0.250 04:30 PM 0 0.0 05:15 PM 0 0 1 1 0.0 100.0 0 1 1 0.250 0 0.0 0 672 100.0 190 05:00 PM 0 190 04:45 PM 0 672 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 100.0 0.0 05:00 PM 0 190 0 672 190 190 0.884 672 190 0.884 444 94.9 117 0 0.0 0 24 5.1 8 05:00 PM 117 0 8 468 125 125 0.936 04:45 PM 444 0 24 468 94.9 0.0 5.1 05:00 PM 117 0 8 125 0.936 1291 0.899 359 7 UKWILA, WASHINGTON 1ST T AVE S SR -518 EB OFF RAMP 1OC #3 TPE01022M TRAFFICOUNT 4820 YELM HWY B -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360- 491 -8116 File Name : TPE02303P Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 01/23/2001 Page No : 2 51ST AVE S From North SR -518 WB ON RAMP From East 51ST AVE S From South StartTlme Right 1 Thru I Left 1 App. Total Right 1 Thru 1 left 1 App. Total Right I Thru I Left 1 App. Total SR -518 EB OFF RAMP From West Right I Thru 1 Left I App.Total Int Total ak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection Volume Percent 05:00 Volume Peak Factor High Int. Volume Peak Factor 04:45 PM O 150 0.0 100.0 0 44 0 0.0 0 150 0 0.0 44 0 0 1 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 1 05:00 PM 05:15 PM O 44 0 44 0 0 0.852 1 1 1 0.250 O 672 0.0 100.0 0 190 05:00 PM O 190 0 0.0 0 0 672 190 190 0.884 444 0 24 468 94.9 0.0 5.1 117 0 8 125 05:00 PM 117 0 8 125 0.936 51ST AVE S Out 1 6961 T North 1/23/01 4:45:00 PM 1/23/01 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY 1 12671 Out In Total 51ST AVF S 1291 0.899 359 8 752 183 194 0.969 753 194 0.970 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 3:45:00 PM O 0 0 0 04:00 PM O 0 0 0 379 32.4 113 792 67.6 224 05:00 PM 113 224 0 1171 0.0 0 337 0 337 0.869 04:45 PM 379 792 0 1171 32.4 67.6 0.0 05:00 PM 113 224 0 337 0.869 0 0.0 0 3:45:00 PM 0 0.0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 1923 0.925 520 9 eak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04 :45 PM Volume Percent 05:00 Volume Peak Factor High Int. Volume Peak Factor 1 -5 NB ON RAMP From East Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total KLICKITAT DRV From South From West Right 1 Thin 1 Left 1 App. Total Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total Int Total 0 716 36 752 0 0 0 0.0 95.2 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 172 11 183 0 0 0 05:30 PM 3:45:00 PM 0 179 15 194 0 0 0 0.969 0 379 792 0 1171 0 0 32.4 67.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 113 224 0 337 0 0 05:00 PM 3:45:00 PM 0 113 224 0 337 0.889 KLICKITAT DRV Out 1 7921 Thru L North 1/24/01 4:45:00 PM 1/24/01 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY 1 7161 T r 1887 Out In Total KI ICKITAT DRV O 0 0.0 O 0 1923 0.925 520 10 eak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 By Approach Volume Percent High int Volume Peak Factor App. Total S 154TH ST From East Right Thru Left App. Total 52ND AVE S From South S 154TH ST From West Right l Thru Left 1 App. Total Right I Thru I left I App. Total InL Total 04:00 PM 23 0 74 23.7 0.0 76.3 04:15 PM 6 0 21 94 31 31 0.758 97 27 0.898 81 9.7 19 751 90.3 192 0 832 0.0 0 211 05:00 PM 22 200 0 222 0.937 04:30 PM 82 762 0 844 9.7 90.3 0.0 04:30 PM 20 203 0 223 0.946 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 3:45:00 PM 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 339 98.9 95 11 350 3.1 2 97 05:30 PM 0 95 2 97 0.902 04:45 PM O 339 11 350 0.0 96.9 3.1 05:30 PM O 95 2 97 0.902 1276 0.941 339 11 Intersection Volume Percent 05:30 Volume Peak Factor High Int 05:30 PM Volume 11 Peak Factor 04:45 PM 26 27.7 11 0 0.0 0 68 72.3 20 0 20 S 154TH ST From East 52ND AVE S From South S 154TH ST From West Right I Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total Right i Thru i Left 1 App. Total Right 1 Thru l Left 1 App. Total Int Total 94 31 31 0.758 81 9.7 19 751 90.3 192 0 832 0.0 0 211 05:00 PM 22 200 0 222 0.937 O 0 0.0 0.0 O 0 3:45:00 PM 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 339 96.9 95 11 3.1 2 350 97 05:30 PM 0 95 2 97 0.902 3 0, 2 g -► 52ND AVE S Out i 921 T North 1/23/01 4:45:00 PM 1/23/01 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY 0 V O 1276 0.941 339 12 By Approach Volume Percent High Int Volume Peak Factor 04:30 PM 209 12 969 17.6 1.0 81.4 05:15 PM 58 6 240 1187 277 304 0.960 1190 304 0.979 S 154TH ST From East Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total 0 0.0 0 618 94.8 165 53RD AVE S From South Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total S 154TH ST From West Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total Int Total 34 652 5.2 7 172 05:30 PM 0 165 7 172 0.948 04:15 PM 0 637 24 681 0.0 96.4 3.6 04:30 PM 0 171 7 178 0.928 37 64.9 8 0 0.0 0 05:15 PM 13 0 20 35.1 7 4 04:45 PM 37 0 20 64.9 0.0 35.1 05:15 PM 13 0 4 57 13 17 0.838 57 17 0.838 17 4.3 4 382 95.7 107 O 399 0.0 O 111 05:30 PM 4 107 0 111 0.899 04:45 PM 17 382 0 399 4.3 95.7 0.0 05:30 PM 4 107 0 111 0.899 2275 0.993 573 13 154TH ST IOC #6 TPE01022M 1 -5 SB OFF RAMP From North Start Time Right Thru I Left [—App. Total eak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:45 PM Volume 195 10 962 1167 Percent 16.7 0.9 82.4 05:30 Volume 40 0 237 277 Peak Factor High Int. 05:15 PM Volume 58 6 240 304 Peak Factor 0.960 TRAFFICOUNT 4820 YELM HWY B -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360- 491 -8116 File Name : TPE02306P Site Code : 00000006 Start Date : 01/23/2001 Page No : 2 S 154TH ST 53RD AVE S S 154TH ST From East From South From West Right Thru I Left App. Total Right Thru Left [-App. Total Right Thru I--Left App. Total O 618 34 652 37 0 20 57 17 382 0 399 0.0 94.8 5.2 64.9 0.0 35.1 4.3 95.7 0.0 O 165 7 172 6 0 7 13 4 107 0 111 05:30 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM O 165 7 172 13 0 4 17 4 107 0 111 0.948 0.838 0.899 co H O 1 -5 SB OFF RAMP Out 1951 101 90 Right Tttru Left 1—I T North 1/23/01 4:45:00 PM 1/23/01 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY Out In Total 51RD AVE S Int Total 1 2275 0.993 573 14 SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW From East 1 -405 NB OFF RAMPS From South SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW From West Right 1 Thnr.l Left 1 App. Total Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total Int Total 1 0 0 0 0 1010 61.1 282 644 38.9 0.0 155 0 0 1654 437 05:00 PM 282 155 0 437 0.946 04:45 PM 1010 644 0 1654 61.1 38.9 0.0 05:00 PM 282 155 0 437 0.946 227 67.8 0.0 47 0 0 108 32.2 32 04:45 PM 79 0 31 04:15 PM 256 0 102 71.5 0.0 28.5 04:45 PM 79 0 31 335 79 110 0.761 358 110 0.814 O 1468 0.0 100.0 0 363 0 0.0 0 363 1468 05:30 PM O 396 0 396 0.927 05:00 PM O 1480 0 1480 0.0 100.0 0.0 05:30 PM 0 398 0 396 0.934 3457 0.983 879 15 UKWILA, WASHINGTON 405 NB OFF RAMP SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW IOC # 7 P TPE01022M TRAFFICOUNT 4820 YELM HWY B -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360 - 491 -8116 File Name : TPE02407P Site Code : 00000007 Start Date : 01/24/2001 Page No : 2 1 -5 NB ON RAMP From North Start Time Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM 1005:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:45 PM Volume 0 Percent 0.0 05:00 Volume 0 Peak Factor High Int Volume 0 Peak Factor 3:45:00 PM 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW From East Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total 1 -405 NB OFF RAMPS From South SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW From West Right 1 That 1 left 1 App. Total Right I Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total Int Total 1 1010 644 0 1654 227 0 108 335 0 1468 0 1468 61.1 38.9 0.0 67.8 0.0 32.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 282 155 0 437 47 0 32 79 0 363 0 363 05:00 PM 04:45 PM 05:30 PM 282 155 0 437 79 0 31 110 0 396 0 396 0.948 0.781 0.927 1 -5 NB ON RAMP Out 1 10101 Right Thru T North Left L, 1/24/01 4:45:00 PM 1/24/01 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY T r do `fzil E f 3351 L_335J l oI Out In Total 1-405 NR OFF RAMPS 2 3457 0.983 879 16 215 57 57 0.943 222 60 0.925 140 8.4 27 1518 91.6 422 0 1658 0.0 0 449 05:00 PM 27 422 0 449 0.923 04:45 PM 140 8.4 05:00 PM 27 1518 0 1658 91.6 0.0 422 0 449 0.923 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 3:45:00 PM 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1560 92.0 362 136 1696 8.0 44 406 05:30 PM O 417 28 445 0.953 04:45 PM O 1560 136 1696 0.0 92.0 8.0 05:30 PM O 417 28 445 0.953 3569 0.978 912 17 EUKWILA, WASHINGTON ACADAM RD S SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW IOC # 8 P TPE01022M TRAFFICOUNT 4820 YELM HWY B -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360- 491 -8116 MACADAM RD S SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW From North From East From South Start Time Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total Right 1 Thni 1 Left eak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:45 PM Volume 108 0 107 215 140 1518 0 1658 0 0 Percent 50.2 0.0 49.8 8.4 91.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 05:00 Volume 34 0 23 57 27 422 0 449 0 0 Peak Factor High Int 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 3:45:00 PM Volume 34 0 23 57 27 422 0 449 0 0 Peak Factor 0.943 0.923 File Name : TPE02408P Site Code : 00000009 Start Date : 01/24/2001 Page No : 2 App. Total SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW From West Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total InL Total 0 0 0 1560 136 1696 0.0 0.0 92.0 8.0 0 0 0 362 44 408 05:30 PM 0 0 0 417 28 445 0.953 CO 0 J m ce U m N D0cr 0 cn — d 2 MACADAM RD S North 1/24/01 4:45:00 PM 1/24/01 5:30:00 PM PRIMARY 2 "00 0 m3. —4 m —1p 3569 0.978 912 18 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 749 78.3 189 208 957 21.7 43 232 05:00 PM O 187 67 254 0.942 04:45 PM 0 749 208 957 0.0 78.3 21.7 05:00 PM O 187 67 254 0.942 61ST AVE S From South Right Thru r Left App. Total 73 0 891 964 7.6 0.0 92.4 18 0 219 237 05:00 PM 14 0 266 04:45 PM 73 0 891 7.6 0.0 92.4 05:00 PM 14 0 280 0.861 964 266 280 0.861 SOUTHCENTER BLVD W From West Right Thru 1 Left App. Total 1184 70.8 320 489 29.2 129 04:45 PM 331 122 O 1673 0.0 O 449 O 453 0.923 04:45 PM 1184 489 0 1873 70.8 29.2 0.0 04:45 PM 331 122 0 453 0.923 Int. Total 3594 0.979 918 19 IKWILA, WASHINGTON ST AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW iC # 9 P TPE01022M TRAFFICOUNT 4820 YELM HWY B -195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360 - 491 -8116 File Name : TPE02409P Site Code : 00000009 Start Date : 01/24/2001 Page No : 2 Start Time From North SOUTHCENTER BLVD SW From East 61ST AVE S From South Left eak Hour From 04:00 PM 1005:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:45 PM Volume 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 05:30 Volume 0 0 0 Peak Factor High Int. 3:45:00 PM Volume 0 0 0 Peak Factor App. Total 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 749 78.3 189 App. Total 208 957 21.7 43 232 05:00 PM 0 187 67 254 0.942 73 7.8 18 0 0.0 0 891 92.4 219 05:00 PM 14 0 266 SOUTHCENTER BLVD W From West App. Total 964 237 280 0.861 1184 70.8 320 489 29.2 129 App. Total 0 1673 0.0 0 449 04:45 PM 331 122 0 453 0.923 North /24/01 4:45:00 PM /24/01 5:30:00 PM Ls3921 CI L �sl Out In Total 61ST AVE S 4 -2 m Int Total 3594 0.979 918 20 port Period: 1/1/96 to 12 /31 /00 t0' trriclon S 144 ST between 51 AVE S and S 160 ST 4 8 Page 1 Iotals: 3 Totals: 0 0 0 0 3 3 21 'whin :of Fatalities: mber of Injuries: Number of PDOs: 0 (0.00 %) 1/0 25.00 %) 3 (75.00% Page 2 22 Me- 017,6/1999 5:05:00 PM Thu- 05/27/1999 10:47:00 AM Mon-06/14/1999 8:20:00 PM Wed - 08/11/1999 7:13:00 AM Tue -08124/ 1999 12:40:00 PM Fri - 08/27/1999 6:55:00 PM Fri- 1022/1999 2:05:00 PM Wed - 1124/1999 3:39:00 PM Pri- 12/03/1999 3:20:00 PM Sat - 12/04/1999 5:44:00 PM -Tarty Totals: Number of Collblon Year. 2000 Date Time Of Collision Collision Mon - 01/03/2000 8:43:00 PM Wed -01/05/2000 1:50:00 PM Fri- 01212000 10:30:00 AM Thu- 02/10/2000 8:35:00 PM Wed - 02/162000 11:45:00 AM Mon - 08/142000 11:55:00 AM Sat - 08/262000 9:54:00 AM Sat-09/30/2000 12:12:00 PM - Yearly Totals: Number of Collision Link Totab: Number of Collisions Totals for Corridor Number of Collisions: Total Vehicles Involved: Number of Fatalities: Number of Injuries: Number of PDOs: pproac urn 9904136 Rear End 9904617 Sideswipe 9906233 Sideswipe 9906629 Approach Turn 9906742 Right Angle 9908334 Rear End 999242 Approach Turn 999475 Rear End 999508 Sideswipe Case Number Type of Collision 00077`Sideswipe 0000123 Right Angle 00545 Approach Turn 001071 Sideswipe 0001205 Right Angle 006015 Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle 006325 Rear End 007189 Approach Turn N - >S Prk E - >W E - >W N - >S N - >S S - >W N - >S E S->W W - >E Prk W - >S N - >S E - >W Prk S - >N S- >N Totals: P 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 2 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh E - >W S - >W W - >S S - >W N - >S N - >W W - >E S - >N 8 37 37 80 0 (0.00 %) 25/8 67.57 %) 12 (32.43% Page 2 E - >W N - >S 1 N - >S N->W S- >W 2 P W - >E 1 H N - >E P Totals: 0 4 Z T Totals: 0 8 12 5 80 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 I5 24 1.11)' 01 1 UKW1IR Corridor Report 02/15/2001 Report Period: 1/1/96 to 12/31/00 Corridor: SOUTHCENI-ER BLVD between 51 AVE S and MACADAM RD S SOUTHCENTER BLVD at MACADAM RD Year: 1996 Date Collision Time Of Case Collision Number Type of Collision Direction Veh 2 Veh 1 Mon - 01/22/1996 Sat- 03/02/1996 Tue- 04/30/1996 Sun - 05/19/1996 Tue- 07/30/ 1996 Sat - 11/16/1996 Thu-11/21/1996 6:37:00 PM 9:35:00 PM 2:15:00 PM 5:50:00 PM 3:10:00 PM 11:36:00 AM 8:45:00 AM Yearly Totals: Number of Collision Year: 1997 Date Time Of Collision Collision Sat-04719/1997 3:27:03TPM Wed-04/30/1997 10:00:00 AM The-06/03/1997 5:10:00 PM Sat- 07/05/1997 4:40:00 PM Fri - 10/03/1997 5:40:00 PM Mon - 11/10/1997 2:09:00 PM 960682 RearEnd 962013 Approach Turn 963804 Approach Turn 964368 Right Angle 966489 Approach Turn 969984 Right Angle 9610148 Approach Turn 7 Case Number Type of Collision 973431 Rear End 973753 Right Angle 974774 Rear End 975709 Rear End 9708485 Rear End 979647 Rear End W - >E W - >E E - >W W - >N E - >W N - >E - >S - >S N - >E E - >W W - >E N - >E W - >N N - >W Totah: Direction Veh 1 Veh 2 W ->E E - >W N - >E W - >E W - >E E - >W E - >W E ->W Prk E->W 13 Yearly Totals: Number of-Collision 6 Year: 1998 Date Collision Time Of Collision Tue -0 4 1998 1:00:00 PM Sun - 04/26/1998 5:00:00 PM Wed -04 /29/1998 6:03:00 PM Set- 05/09/1998 12:00:00 AM Tue -05 /26/1998 3:13:00 PM Sat - 06/20/1998 4:41:00 PM Sat- 10/03/1998 12:55:00 PM Case Number Type of Collision 985 ' ' ig t Ang e 983647 Approach Turn 983739 Rear End 9804022 Rear End 984563 Rear End 985370 Rear End 988448 Right Angle Num Num Fat Inj PDO 2 P 1 P P U 4 4 Num Num Fat Inj PDO P P 1 P 1 P Totals: 0 2 4 Hit & Tot Run Veh 2I 2 2 H 2 2 2 2 1 14 Hit & Tot Run Veh 4 2 2 2 3 2 0 15 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh -> E->W W - >E W - >E W - >E W - >E E - >W N - >E W - >E Prk Prk N - >E Yearly Totals: Number or Co1U [ou 7 Year: 1999 Date Time Of Case Page 1 Totals: 0 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot 25 Collision un- 1 :t .,• Sat - 03/20/1999 Sun - 04/04/1999 Sun - 04/04/1999 Mon - 04/05/1999 Sat - 11/13/1999 Sun - 1128/1999 Mon - 11/29/1999 Wed - 12/08/1999 Fri- 12/10/1999 Sat - 12/18/1999 Collision •• 11:51:00 AM 2:46:00 PM 7:05:00 PM 5:49:00 PM 12:30:00 PM 1:23:00 PM 10:50:00 AM 4 :40:00 PM 10:25:00 AM 12:09:00 AM Number Type of Collision 5 Rear End 992253 Right Angle 992697 Pedestrian/Cyclist Involved 992701 Rear End 992721 Rear End 998922 Rear End 999334 Rear End 9909358 Sideswipe 999616 Approach Turn 9909664 Rear End 999882 Other Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veit W - >E Prk 1 S - >W W - >E P 2 E -> W N - >E P 2 W - >E W - >E P 2 W - >E Prk 1 2 W - >E W - >E 2 W - >E W 3 W >N W - >N 2 W - >N E ->W 2 E -> W Prk 2 N - >S 1 1 Yearly Totab: Number o[Cothsion Year: 2000 Date Collision Wed - 05/312000 Sun - 11/122000 Fri- 11/242000 IT Time Of Case Collision Number Type of Collision 12:02:00 PM 004065 Approach Turn 10:16:00 AM 00 -08328 Right Angle 11:40:00 AM 00 -08626 Right Angle Totals: U 3 3 0 24 Direction Veh 1 Veh 2 E - >W W - >N E - >W N - >E E - >W N - >E Yearly Totab: Number of Collision 3 Link Totals: Number of Collisions 34 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. 004000 ft. £ 01_53 AVE S Year: 1997 Date Time Of Case Collision Collision Number Type of Collision 1 Fri- 0926/1997 6:20:00 PM 978246 Rear End Yearly'1'otals: ISumber oECouislon I Link Totals: Number of Collisions SOUJTHCENTER BLVD. 50 FT N of 53 AVE S Year 1997 Date Collision t -1 Time Of Case Collision Number Type of Collision • : • • '71:59 Rig t Angle Num Num Hit & Tot Fat Inj PDO Run Veh P 2 P H 2 P 2 Totals: 0 0 3 l 6 Totals: 0 16 15 2 74 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh E->W Prk P 2 o a :f IT Totals: 0 0 1 0 2 Direction Veh 1 Veh 2 early '1 otals: Number of-Collision 1 Year: 2000 Date Collision Wed - 07/19/2000 Time Of Case Collision Number Type of Collision 5:13:00 PM 003363 Sideswipe ear y o a s: ' um • er o o t:non Link Totals: Number of Collisions 2 Totals for Corridor Number of Collisions: Total Vehicles Involved: Number of Fatalities: 37 80 0 (0.00 %) Page 2 Num Num Hit & Tot Fat Inj PDO Run Veh P 221 Totals: 0 0 1 0 2 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh E - >W E - >W 1 2 oa Totals: 0 1 1 0 4 26 Lily (11 1 unwua Corridor Report 02/15/2001 Report Period: 1/1/96 to 12/31/00 Corridor: S 154 ST between 51 AVE S and MACADAM RD S S 154 ST Lit Till Year: 1998 Date Time Of Case Collision Collision Number Type of Collision Sat - 03/2811998 4:52:00 PM 982769 Rear End Yearly Totals: Number of Collision 1 Year: 1999 Date Time Of Case Collision Collision Number Type of Collision L Thu- 10/28/1999 6:30:00 AM 9908334 Approach Tum Yearly Tot`ls:Number of Collision 1 Link Totals Number of Collisions 2 S154 ST, 001300ft.EofTED Year: 2000 Date Time Of Collision Collision 1 Mon - 08/07/2000 10:10:06 PM Yearly Totals: Number 01 Coliision I Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh S - >E S -514 1 H 21 Totals: 0 1 U 1 Z Direction Num Num Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO S - >E S - >E 1 Case Number Type of Collision 005877 Backing Link Totals: Number of Collisions 1 S 154 ST. 100 FT E of PACIFIC HWY SO. Year: 1996 Date Time Of Case Collision Collision Number Type of Collision —171:-)8/09719V6 5:15:00 PM 3667114—Approach Tum Yearly tats: Num-ber ofCooUision 1 Year: 1997 Date Time Of Collision Collision Totals: Hit & Tot Run Veh 2 0 1 0 0 2 Totals: 0 2 0 1 4 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh Bck 13 P 21 Case Number Type of Collision Sun-06/087199T 5:25:00 PM 974898 Rear End I otats: U 0 1 0 2 Totals: 0 0 1 0 2 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh 1i->S E ->W 1 O 9 8: Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh W - >E W - >E 1 2 Page 1 27 IYearly Total: Number of Collisi-on Link Totals: Number of Collisions 1 2 S 154 ST. 150 FT E of PACIFIC HWY SO. Year 1997 Date Collision Time Of Collision Case Number Type of Collision Totals: U 1 11 D 2 Totals: 0 2 0 0 4 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veb 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh u- Tue- 04/22/1997 :01 P 972 40 Approac rn 4:40:00 PM 973517 Sideswipe W -> E - >W ear y o Year: 1999 urn er o o ton Date Collision Sat - 10/09/1999 Time Of Case Collision Number Type of Collision 2:10:00 PM 997968 Sideswipe Yearly Totals: Number of Collision Year. 2000 Date Collision Wed - 08/02/2000 Time Of Collision 4:14:00 PM Yearly Totals: Number 61Co7luron Link Totals: Number of Collisions 1 Case Number Type of Collision 005748 Approach Turn 1 4 S 154 5T. 200 FT F of PACIFIC HWY SO. Year: 1996 Date Collision un- 1 11. Time Of Collision • Case Number Type of Collision • • • 5 Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle ->W E->W o a 9: P 2 2 Direction Num Num Veh 1 Veh 2 E - >S E - >W oas: Hit & Tot Fat lnj PDO Run Veh 2 0 0 U U 2 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Run Veh W -> -> P 2 7 otals: U 0 1 0 2 ear y OHS: 'um•ero o .1011 Year: 1999 Date Time Of Collision Collision - Tue- 04/13/1999 4:45:00 PM Case Number Type of Collision 9902958 Approach Tum Totals: 0 0 3 0 8 Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Rt.n Veh W - >r"'- P 11 '- Ttais: 0 if I 0 T Direction Num Num Hit & Tot Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PDO Rtm Veh W - >N E- >W 2 Yearly Totals: Number of Collision Link Totals: Number of Collisions Totals for Corridor Number of Collisions: Total Vehicles Involved: Number of Fatalities: Number of Injuries: Number of P1)Os: 2 11 21 0 (0.00 %) 6/4 54.55 %) 5 (45.45% Page 2 Totals: u U 2 Totals: 0 0 1 0 3 28 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425 - 455 -5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425 - 453 -5759 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: S 144th St /51st Ave S City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, S14451ex Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, existing Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 144th St North /South Street: 51st Ave S Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 1 Eastbound 1 Westbound I L T R I L T R I L 1 1 Volume 120 195 50 135 210 10 Thrus Left Lane 1 T Northbound 1 Southbound R 1 L T R1 1 160 30 35 135 55 30 1 1 1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration - LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 278 267 130 124 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 278 267 130 124 29 Left -Turn 21 36 63 36 Right -Turn 52 10 36 31 Prop. Left -Turns 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 Prop. Right•Turns 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Adjustments Table 10 -40: hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT•adj •0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 278 267 130 124 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.25 0.24 0.12 0.11 hd, final value 4.81 4.92 5.30 5.28 x, final value 0.37 0.36 0.19 0.18 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.3 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Li L2 Flow Rate 278 267 130 124 Service Time 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.3 Utilization, x 0.37 0.36 0.19 0.18 Dep. headway, hd 4.81 4.92 5.30 5.28 Capacity 528 517 380 374 Delay 10.62 10.71 9.54 9.46 LOS B B A A Approach: Delay 10.62 10.71 9.54 9.46 LOS B B A A Intersection Delay 10.29 Intersection LOS B 30 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425 - 455 -5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425-453-5759 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: S 144th St /51st Ave S City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, S14451fu Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, 2006 wk project Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 144th St North /South Street: 51st Ave S Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics I Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound 1 I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 Volume 120 215 55 140 230 10 165 35 40 140 60 35 I % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 304 294 146 141 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 304 294 146 141 31 Left -Turn 21 42 68 42 Right -Turn 57 10 42 36 Prop. Left -Turns 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 Prop. Right•Turns 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Adjustments Table 10-40: hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.1 0.0 •0.1 •0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 304 294 146 141 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.27 0.26 0,13 0.13 hd, final value 4.98 5.09 5.49 5.49 x, final value 0.42 0.42 0.22 0.21 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.5 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 304 294 146 141 Service Time 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.5 Utilization, x 0.42 0.42 0.22 0.21 Dep. headway, hd 4.98 5.09 5.49 5.49 Capacity 554 544 396 391 Delay 11.53 11.65 10.06 9.98 LOS B B B A Approach: Delay 11.53 11.65 10.06 9.98 LOS B B B A Intersection Delay 11.08 Intersection LOS B 32 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425-453-5759 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: S 144th St /51st Ave S City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, S14451wp Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, 2006 w/ project Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 144th St North /South Street: 51st Ave S. Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound 1 Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I Volume 120 215 56 141 230 10 170 38 45 140 60 35 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 305 295 160 141 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 305 295 160 141 33 Left -Turn 21 43 73 42 Right -Turn 58 10 47 36 Prop. Left -Turns 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 Prop. Right -Turns 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Adjustments Table 10 -40: hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 305 295 160 141 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.27 0.26 0.14 0.13 hd, final value 5.02 5.14 5.51 5.53 x, final value 0.43 0.42 0.24 0.22 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.5 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 305 295 160 141 Service Time 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.5 Utilization, x 0.43 0.42 0.24 0.22 Dep. headway, hd 5.02 5.14 5.51 5.53 Capacity 555 545 410 391 Delay 11.69 11.82 10.28 10.05 LOS B B B B Approach: Delay 11.69 11.82 10.28 10.05 LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 11.23 Intersection LOS B 34 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425-453-5759 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: S 151st St /51st Ave S City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, S15151ex Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak existing Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 151st St North /South Street: 51st Ave S. Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 1 Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 I L T R 1 L T R I L T Northbound I R I L T R Southbound Volume 10 0 0 170 0 10 10 120 20 110 145 0 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 83 147 162 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 Geometry group 3b 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 83 147 162 35 Left -Turn 73 0 10 Right -Turn 10 21 0 Prop. Left -Turns 0.9 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.1 0.1 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 3b 1 1 1 Adjustments Table 10-40: hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Li L2 Li L2 Flow rate 83 147 162 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.07 0.13 0.14 hd, final value 4.63 4.17 4.25 x, final value 0.11 0.17 0.19 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.6 2.2 2.3 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 83 147 162 Service Time 2.6 2.2 2.3 Utilization, x 0.11 0.17 0.19 Dep. headway, hd 4.63 4.17 4.25 Capacity 333 397 412 Delay 8.18 8.02 8.25 LOS A A A Approach: Delay 8.18 8.02 8.25 LOS A A A Intersection Delay 8.15 Intersection LOS A 36 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425-453-5759 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: S 151st St /51st Ave S City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, S15151fu Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, 2006 w/o project Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 151st St North /South Street: 51st Ave S. Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics I Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound I I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1 Volume 10 0 0 175 0 10 10 130 20 110 160 0 I % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate • 88 157 178 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 Geometry group 3b 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 88 157 178 37 Lett - I urn %8 0 10 IRight -Turn 10 21 0 Prop. Left•Turns 0.9 0.0 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.1 0.1 0.0 IProp. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 3b 1 1 1 Adjustments Table 10 -40: 38 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425-453-5759 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: S 151st St /51st Ave S City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, S15151wp Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, 2006 w/ project Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 151st St North /South Street: 51st Ave S Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics I Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T I R I L T R 1 Volume 10 0 0 195 0 20 10 134 23 150 192 0 I % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L•1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 121 165 254 % Heavy Veh 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 Geometry group 3b 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 121 165 254 • Left -Turn 100 0 52 Right -Turn 21 24 0 Prop. Left -Turns 0.8 0.0 0.2 Prop. Right -Turns 0.2 0.1 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 3b 1 1 1 Adjustments Table 10 -40: hLT -adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 121 165 254 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.11 0.15 0.23 hd, final value 4.84 4.38 4.41 x, final value 0.16 0.20 0.31 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 2.8 2.4 2.4 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 121 165 254 Service Time 2.8 2.4 2.4 Utilization, x 0.16 0.20 0.31 Dep. headway, hd 4.84 4.38 4.41 Capacity 371 415 504 Delay 8.77 8.47 9.39 LOS A A A Approach: Delay 8.77 8.47 9.39 LOS A A A Intersection Delay 8.97 Intersection LOS A 40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 on Analyst: MJJ, klicwbex Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 WB on -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 630 140 165 45 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 663 147 173 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LT I v (vph) 663 C(m) (vph) 1361 v/c 0.49 95% queue length 2.96 41 Control Delay 10.1 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 IMark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 IBellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425 - 455 -5320 Fax: 425-453-5759 42 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 2 -stage 4.1 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 t(f) 2.2 Worksheet 5- Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9.2) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q1) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) ID(10) p(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x s Px V c,u,x 220 C r,x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.47 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.58 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.58 Movement Capacity 1.00 0.47 0.58 0.58 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 193 742 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.47 1.00 Movement Capacity 90 742 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 725 193 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.47 Movement Capacity 725 90 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.47 Result for 2 stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 Ct Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 212 842 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.47 1.00 Movement Capacity 99 842 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 842 212 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.47 Movement Capacity 842 99 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.47 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.58 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.58 Movement Capacity 1.00 0.47 0.58 0.58 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 Ct Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 0.51 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 147 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P *(oj) 0.47 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 10.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 5.4 49 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 on Analyst: MJJ, klicwbfu Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 WB on -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 695 155 180 50 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 731 163. 189 52 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LT 1 v (vph) 731 C(m) (vph) 1337 v/c 0.55 95% queue length 3.65 50 Control Delay 10.9 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 'Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 Fax: 425-453-5759 ' E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com TWO -WAY STOP. CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS 51 Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows rvie' ivai uapat;lly Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 241 Potential Capacity 1337 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1337 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.45 Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St. 0.40 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.40 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.52 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.52 Movement Capacity 1.00 0.40 0.52 0.52 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 162 729 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.40 1.00 Movement Capacity 64 729 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 710 162 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 0.40 iviovement Uapacity /1u 104 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.40 Result for 2 stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 Ct Probability of Queue free St 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 179 826 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.40 1.00 Movement Capacity 71 826 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 826 179 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.40 Movement Capacity 826 71 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.40 0.52 0.52 1.00 0.40 0.52 0.52 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 Ct Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 56 volume (vpn) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10- Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT v (vph) 731 C(m) (vph) 1337 v/c 0.55 95% queue length 3.65 Control Delay 10.9 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 0.45 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 163 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P *(oj) 0.40 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 10.9 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 57 ut,laIIK,l) Delay WI SUedlll L us 1 U. 58 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 on Analyst: MJJ, klicwbwp Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 WB on -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 695 162 219 63 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 731 170 230 66 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT v (vph) 731 C(m) (vph) 1277 v/c 0.57 95% queue length 3.97 59 Control Delay 11.5 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425-453-5759 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 on City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, klicwbwp Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, 2006 w/ project Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 WB on -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 695 162 219 63 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 183 43 58 17 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 731 170 230 66 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume 60 riuuiry riuw ikd1t, nrrN Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped /hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft /sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 170 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4- Critical Gap and Follow -up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 61 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.1U Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 2 -stage 4.1 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 t(f) 2.2 Worksheet 5- Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9.2) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q 1) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result 62 PL ) U.VVU p(5) 0.000 p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x 296 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 63 r uWCIIUa1 L.apdLRy Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 296 Potential Capacity 1277 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1277 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.43 Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 0.36 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmrit Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.36 0.49 0.49 1.00 0.36 0.49 0.49 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 161 694 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.36 1.00 Movement Capacity 59 694 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 672 161 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 0.36 64 ivlovement capacity 6/2 59 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.36 Result for 2 stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 Ct Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 177 786 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.36 1.00 Movement Capacity 64 786 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 786 177 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.36 Movement Capacity 786 64 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.36 0.49 0.49 1.00 0.36 0.49 0.49 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 Ct Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 65 r VI.11I1c 1vpI ) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10- Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT v (vph) 731 C(m) (vph) 1277 v/c 0.57 95% queue length 3.97 Control Delay 11.5 LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 0.43 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 170 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P *(oj) 0.36 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 11.5 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 66 ULi IK,1) L./tidy iur sueaiii c ui / .j 67 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 off Analyst: MJJ, klicebex Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 EB off -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 740 165 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 778 173 Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 25 490 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 515 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config j 1 L R v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length 26 515 291 876 0.09 0.59 0.21 4.03 68 uelay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS JU.0 C B 15.0 - B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425 - 455 -5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425. 453.5759 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 off City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, klicebex Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, existing Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 EB off -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 740 165 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 195 43 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 778 173 Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 490 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 7 129 69 rtourly How (Kate, HI-K zo 010 ' Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 10.16) J.w v. U v.iv V.4- Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 6.4 6.2 2 -stage 5.4 6.2 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 0 t(f) 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5- Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9.2) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q1) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result 71 NV-) V.VVV p(5) 0.000 p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 951 173 s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 173 778 s 1700 P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 173 72 rolentiat uapaci1y uie Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 876 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.41 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 951 Potential Capacity 291 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.41 Movement Capacity 291 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 410 760 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 410 760 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 760 410 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 73 ivRVveInelII l,apdLiiy /oV 411/4) Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Result for 2 stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 Ct Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 173 Potential Capacity 456 862 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 456 862 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows . 778 Potential Capacity 660 456 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.41 1.00 Movement Capacity 272 456 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 951 Potential Capacity 291 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.41 1.00 Movement Capacity 291 Results for Two -stage process: a y Ct 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 291 Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 74 v VIUI I IV' `Vpa l) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) LV U1J 291 876 Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Csep 291 876 Volume 26 515 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10- Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L R v (vph) 26 515 C(m) (vph) 291 876 v/c 0.09 0.59 95% queue length 0.21 4.03 Control Delay 18.6 14.8 LOS C B Approach Delay 15.0 - Approach LOS B Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes u(rank,l) Ueiay tor stream z or 5 76 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 off Analyst: MJJ, klicebfu Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 EB off -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R IL T R Volume 815 180 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 857 189 Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 30 540 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 31 568 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config I 1 L R v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length 31 568 255 858 0.12 0.66 0.36 5.14 77 ...di k..01 uvI�-.� C-1.1 i /.v LOS C C Approach Delay 17.2 Approach LOS C HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425-453-5759 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 off City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, klicebfu Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, 2006 w/o project Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 EB off -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 815 180 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 214 47 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 857 189 Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 30 540 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 8 142 78 rluUlly riuw rcdle, rirrs 31 006 iku,g) U.GU U.LU U.lU U.LU U.GU U.IU Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 6.4 6.2 2 -stage 5.4 6.2 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 0 t(f) 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5- Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9.2) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q1) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result NV) U.vuu p(5) 0.000 p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single-stage Two•Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 1046 189 s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 189 857 s 1700 P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 189 81 I ILL HI,U1 Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 V.IV 1.00 858 0.34 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1046 Potential Capacity 255 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.34 1.00 Movement Capacity 255 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 377 748 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 377 748 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 748 377 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 iviUVCI I iel IL L c1IJGLl ly Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Result for 2 stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 Ct Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 189 Potential Capacity 419 848 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 419 848 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 857 Potential Capacity 631 419 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.34 1.00 Movement Capacity 213 419 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1046 Potential Capacity 255 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.34 1.00 Movement Capacity 255 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 C t 255 Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 83 volume (vpn) dl bbt5 Movement Capacity (vph) 255 858 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 255 858 Volume 31 568 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10- Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L R v (vph) 31 568 C(m) (vph) 255 858 v/c 0.12 0.66 95% queue length 0.36 5.14 Control Delay 21.1 17.0 LOS C C Approach Delay 17.2 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes 84 ..i1 C41 \,l) UV uy 101 JL Qd 11 L V .) HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 off Analyst: MJJ, klicebwp Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 EB off -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 820 219 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 863 230 Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 32 540 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 33 568 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config 1 1 L R v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length 33 568 239 814 0.14 0.70 0.43 5.74 86 uontroi Delay LL.5 19.0 LOS C C Approach Delay 19.2 Approach LOS C HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425-453-5759 TWO -WAY STOP,CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 518 off City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, klicebwp Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, 2006 w/ project Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR 518 EB off -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 820 219 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 216 58 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 863 230 Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 1 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 32 540 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 8 142 hourly I-low mate, Ht -I-‹ Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade ( %) Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration id 5b8 0 0 0 0 1 1 L R No Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped /hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft /sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4- Critical Gap and Follow -up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 0 88 U.LU U.LU U.lU U.LU U.LU U.IU Grade /100. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 6.4 6.2 2 -stage 5.4 6.2 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 0 t(f) 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5- Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9.2) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q1) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result P(z) U.000 p(5) 0.000 p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 1093 230 s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 230 863 s 1700 P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 230 90 UICI IUdI L cycALlly Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 014 1.00 814 0.30 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L•Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1093 Potential Capacity 239 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.30 1.00 Movement Capacity 239 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 374 718 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 374 718 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 718 374 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 91 iviOV I IL l.uq.JcILily / Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Result for 2 stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 Ct Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 230 Potential Capacity 416 813 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 416 813 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 863 Potential Capacity 605 416 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.30 1.00 Movement Capacity 183 416 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1093 Potential Capacity 239 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.30 1.00 Movement Capacity 239 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 C t 239 Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 92 v VIUI I IC kV4.1I I f 33 300 Movement Capacity (vph) 239 814 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 239 814 Volume 33 568 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10- Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L R v (vph) 33 568 C(m) (vph) 239 814 v/c 0.14 0.70 95% queue length 0.43 5.74 Control Delay 22.5 19.0 LOS C C Approach Delay 19.2 Approach LOS 0 Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(iI), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes 93 ut)anK,l) Ueldy 101 suealll L 01 Z 94 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 5 SB on Analyst: MJJ, klicsb5e Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR SB on -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 870 415 40 790 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 915 436 42 831 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L 1 v (vph) 42 C(m) (vph) 516 v/c 0.08 95% queue length 0.18 95 1iU111I UI UCIdy 14.0 LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 2223 112th Avenue N.E. Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425 - 455 -5320 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425-453-5759 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 5 SB on City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, klicsb5e Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: PM peak, existing Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR SB on -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 870 415 40 790 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 229 109 11 208 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 915 436 42 831 Percent Heavy Vehicles •• 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 1351 516 1.00 516 0.92 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.92 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.94 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.94 Movement Capacity 1.00 0.92 0.94 0.94 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 354 354 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.92 Movement Capacity 354 325 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 354 221 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.92 1.00 100 Volume (vph) IMovement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) IWorksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.92 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes 12.6 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 103 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 5 SB on Analyst: MJJ, klicsb5f Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR SB on -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 960 460 45 870 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1010 484 47 915 Percent Heavy Vehicles - 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L 1 v (vph) 47 C(m) (vph) 455 v/c 0.10 95% queue length 0.29 104 Control Delay • LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 13.8 Volume 960 460 45 870 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 253 121 12 229 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1010 484 47 915 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume 105 Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 2 -stage 4.1 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 t(f,HV) P(HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 t(f) 2.2 Worksheet 5- Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9.2) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q1) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result V c,x s Px V c,u,x 1494 C r,x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.90 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.90 0.92 0.92 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 320 320 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.90 Movement Capacity 320 287 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 320 188 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.90 1.00 1.00 Volume (vph) IMovement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.90 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes 13.8 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Klickitat Drive /SR 5 SB on Analyst: MJJ, klicsb5w Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: SR SB on -ramp North /South Street: Klickitat Drive Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 965 460 65 889 Hourly How Rate, HFR 1015 484 68 935 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L 1 v (vph) 68 C(m) (vph) 453 v/c 0.15 95% queue length 0.53 113 Control Delay 14.3 'LOS B Approach Delay Approach LOS Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 115 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 'Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 2 -stage 4.1 P(HV) 0 t(f) 2.2 Worksheet 5- Effect of Upstream Signals. Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9 -2) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(q1) g(q2) g(q) Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 Ip(5) 0.000 p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion Iunblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II 9 12 Conflicting Flows 117 Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 1499 453 1.00 453 0.85 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.85 0.85 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.85 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.88 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.88 Movement Capacity 1.00 0.85 0.88 0.88 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 318 300 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.85 Movement Capacity 318 255 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 300 187 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.85 1.00 1.00 Volume (vph) IMovement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) IWorksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.85 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes 14.3 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 121 ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: S. 154th St /52nd Ave. S. 'Analyst: MJJ, s15452ex Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 154th Street INorth /South Street: 52nd Ave. South Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ' Major Street: Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R I L T R IVolume 10 375 825 90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 394 868 94 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided IRT Channelized? No Lanes 0 1 1 1 Configuration LT T .R Upstream Signal? No Yes IMinor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 IL T R I L T R Volume 75 0 30 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 78 0 31 ' Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 Median Storage 1 0 Flared Approach: Exists? No ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering LL.tJ 11 Lill r1Vtl. I.L. JUIW il/1 IBellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425. 455.5320 Fax: 425. 453.5759 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 0 0 0 t(f) 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog 680 20 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 1700 1700 Arrival Type 3 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 31 12 Cycle Length, C (sec) 120 120 Rp (from table 9.2) 1.000 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.258 0.100 g(q1) 35.6 1.3 g(q2) 23.7 0.0 g(q) 59.3 1.3 Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked IYIV 11c.,,L V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha 0.550 beta 0.645 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 5.831 Smoothing Factor, F 0.326 Proportion of conflicting flow, f 0.707 0.021 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 1202 14 Min platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Duration of blocked period, t(p) 55.6 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.464 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.464 p(dom) 0.464 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? u Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two - Stage - Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) 0.536 p(4) P(7) p(8) P(9) p(10) 0.536 0.000 0.000 p(11) 0.536 0.000 0.000 p(12) 0.536 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 972 1302 1302 888 s 1700 1700 1700 1700 Px 0.536 0.536 0.536 0.536 V c,u,x 343 958 958 186 C r,x 1227 288 259 861 C plat,x 658 154 139 462 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 878 424 878 424 s 1700 1700 1700 1700 P(x) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 V(c,u,x) 0 0 0 0 C(r,x) 1029 1029 900 900 C(plat,x) 0 0 0 0 Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations 125 Conflicting Flows 888 Potential Capacity 462 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity 454 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.93 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 972 Potential Capacity 658 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 653 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 0.98 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 1302 Potential Capacity 139 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity 134 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1302 Potential Capacity 154 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.89 0.96 Movement Capacity 147 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 878 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.99 Movement Capacity 0 0 Probability of Queue free St. 0.00 0.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 424 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.97 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1302 Potential Capacity 139 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 Movement Capacity 134 0.98 0.96 126 I %Gaul l 101 L. alat.. Ni a y Ct Probability of Queue free St. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 134 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 878 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.99 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 424 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.00 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.00 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows • 1302 Potential Capacity 154 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.89 0.96 Movement Capacity 147 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 C t 147 Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 78 0 31 Movement Capacity (vph) 147 134 454 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 182 Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 147 134 454 78 0 31 n max C sh SUM C sep n 182 127 L. 41.1 Worksheet 10- Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service IMovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LTR v (vph) 10 109 C(m) (vph) 653 182 v/c 0.02 0.60 95% queue length 0.00 2.96 Control Delay 10.6 50.6 LOS B F Approach Delay 50.6 Approach LOS F Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 0.98 1.00 v(iI), Volume for stream 2 or 5 394 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P *(oj) 0.98 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 10.6 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.2 128 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 ITWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: S. 154th St /52nd Ave. S. ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425.455 -5320 Fax: 425 - 453.5759 E•Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: S. 154th St /52nd Ave. S. City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, s15452fu Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: 2006 w/o project Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 154th Street North /South Street: 52nd Ave. South Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 10 415 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 3 109 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 436 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal? No 910 100 . 0.95 0.95 239 26 957 105 No 1 1 T R Yes Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade ( %) Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 0 85 0 35 0.95 0.95 0.95 22 0 9 89 0 36 0 0 0 0 No 0 1 0 LTR Movements Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped /hr) 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft /sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet 130 S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left-Turn 20 1700 3 12 120 35 300 Through 750 1700 3 31, 120 35 300 Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 436 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4- Critical Gap and Follow -up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 0 0 0 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10. Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2 2-stage 4.1 5.4 5.5 6.2 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 0 0 0 t(f) 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog 750 20 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 1700 1700 Arrival Type 3 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 31 12 Cycle Length, C (sec) 120 120 Rp (from table 9.2) 1.000 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.258 0.100 g(q1) 39.3 1.3 g(q2) 31.0 0.0 g(q) 70.3 1.3 Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked 131 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha 0.550 beta 0.645 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 5.831 Smoothing Factor, F 0.326 Proportion of conflicting flow, f 0.706 0.019 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 1201 13 Min platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Duration of blocked period, t(p) 66.6 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.555 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.555 p(dom) 0.555 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? U Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) 0.445 p(4) P(7) p(8) P(9) p(10) 0.445 0.000 0.000 p(11) 0.445 0.000 0.000 p(12) 0.445 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 1072 1433 1433 977 s 1700 1700 1700 1700 Px 0.445 0.445 0.445 0.445 V c,u,x 288 1100 1100 74 C r,x 1286 237 214 993 C plat,x 572 105 95 442 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 967 466 967 466 s 1700 1700 1700 1700 P(x) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 V(c,u,x) 0 0 0 0 C(r,x) 1029 1029 900 900 C(plat,x) 0 0 0 0 Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations 132 Conflicting Flows 977 Potential Capacity 442 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity 435 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.92 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 1072 Potential Capacity 572 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 567 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 0.98 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 1433 Potential Capacity 95 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity 91 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1433 Potential Capacity 105 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.87 0.95 Movement Capacity 100 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 967 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.99 Movement Capacity 0 0 Probability of Queue free St. 0.00 0.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 466 Potential Capacity 0 0 . Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.97 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1433 Potential Capacity 95 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 Movement Capacity 91 0.98 0.96 133 a y Ct Probability of Queue free St. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 967 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.99 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 466 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.00 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.00 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows , 1433 Potential Capacity 105 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.87 0.95 Movement Capacity 100 Results for Two -stage process: a y Ct 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 89 0 36 Movement Capacity (vph) 100 91 435 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 129 Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 100 91 435 89 0 36 n max C sh SUM C sep n 129 134 Worksheet 10•Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LTR v (vph) 10 125 C(m) (vph) 567 129 v/c 0.02 0.97 95% queue length 0.00 5.47 Control Delay 11.5 136.5 LOS B F Approach Delay 136.5 Approach LOS F Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 0.98 1.00 v(iI), Volume for stream 2 or 5 436 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 p *(oj) 0.98 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 11.5 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.3 135 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 ITWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: S. 154th St /52nd Ave. S. HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 E -Mail: mjacobs ©tranplaneng.com Fax: 425.453.5759 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: S. 154th St /52nd Ave. S. City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, s15452wp Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: 2006 w/ project Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 154th Street North /South Street: 52nd Ave. South Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 11 415 Peak•Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 3 109 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 436 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal? No 910 107 . 0.95 0.95 239 28 957 112 No 1 1 T R Yes Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade ( %) Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 143 0 42 0.95 0.95 0.95 38 0 11 150 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 No 0 1 0 LTR Movements Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped /hr) 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet 137 Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 0 0 0 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2 2 -stage 4.1 5.4 5.5 6.2 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 0 0 0 t(f) 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog 754 20 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 1700 1700 Arrival Type 3 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 31 12 Cycle Length, C (sec) 120 120 Rp (from table 9.2) 1.000 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.258 0.100 g(q l) 39.5 1.3 g(q2) 31.5 0.0 g(q) 70.9 1.3 Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha 0.550 beta 0.645 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 5.831 Smoothing Factor, F 0.326 Proportion of conflicting flow, f 0.705 0.019 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 1199 13 Min platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Duration of blocked period, t(p) 67.3 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.561 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.561 p(dom) 0.561 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? u Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) 0.439 p(4) P(7) p(8) P(9) p(10) 0.439 0.000 0.000 p(11) 0.439 0.000 0.000 p(12) 0.439 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 1079 1435 1435 977 s 1700 1700 1700 1700 Px 0.439 0.439 0.439 0.439 V c,u,x 286 1097 1097 54 C r,x 1288 238 215 1019 C plat,x 566 105 94 448 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 967 468 967 468 s 1700 1700 1700 1700 P(x) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 V(c,u,x) 0 0 0 0 C(r,x) 1029 1029 900 900 C(plat,x) 0 0 0 0 Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations 139 Conflicting Flows 977 Potential Capacity 448 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity 441 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.90 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 1079 Potential Capacity 566 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 561 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 Maj L•Shared Prob Q free St. 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 1435 Potential Capacity 94 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity 90 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1435 Potential Capacity 105 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.86 0.95 Movement Capacity 100 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 . First Stage Conflicting Flows 967 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.99 Movement Capacity 0 0 Probability of Queue free St. 0.00 0.00 Part 2 . Second Stage Conflicting Flows 468 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.97 Part 3 . Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1435 Potential Capacity 94 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 Movement Capacity 90 0.98 0.96 140 c Probability of Queue free St. IStep 4: LT from Minor St. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 1.00 1.00 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage 967 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.99 Part 2 • Second Stage 468 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.00 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.00 Part 3 - Single Stage 35 Conflicting Flows 14 4 5 Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.86100 0.95 Movement Capacity Results for Two-stage process: a y Ct 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 IWorksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 150 0 44 Movement Capacity (vph) 100 90 441 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 121 Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 100 90 441 150 0 44 n max C sh SUM C sep n 121 141 Worksheet 10- Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service IMovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LTR v (vph) 11 194 C(m) (vph) 561 121 v/c 0.02 1.60 95% queue length 0.00 12.20 Control Delay 11.5 370.2 LOS B F Approach Delay 370.2 Approach LOS F Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 0.98 1.00 v(iI), Volume for stream 2 or 5 436. v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P *(oj) 0.97 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 11.5 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.3 142 143 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425.455.5320 E•Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com Fax: 425. 453.5759 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: S. 154th St /52nd Ave. S. City /State: Tukwila, WA Analyst: MJJ, s15452wt Project No.: T084601 Time period Analyzed: 2006 w/ project and sbrt /It Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 154th Street North /South Street: 52nd Ave. South Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 11 415 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 3 109 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 436 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal? No 910 107 . 0.95 0.95 239 28 957 112 No 1 1 T R Yes Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 L T R L T 10 11 12 R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade ( %) Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 143 42 0.95 0.95 38 11 150 44 0 0 0 0 No 1 1 L R Movements Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped /hr) 10 10 0 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 0 1 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet 144 t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 0 0 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog 754 20 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 1700 1700 Arrival Type 3 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 31 12 Cycle Length, C (sec) 120 120 Rp (from table 9-2) 1.000 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.258 0.100 g(q1) 39.5 1.3 g(q2) 31.5 0.0 g(q) 70.9 1.3 Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.550 0.645 5.831 0.326 0.705 0.019 1199 13 1000 1000 67.3 0.0 0.561 0.000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.561 p(dom) 0.561 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? u Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) Single-stage Process (2) (3) Two•Stage.Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) P(7) p(8) P(9) p(10) P(11) p(12) 0.439 0.439 0.000 0.000 0.439 Computation 4 and 5 Single-Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x 566 1079 1700 0.439 286 1435 977 1700 1700 0.439 0.439 1097 54 1288 238 1019 105 448 Two-Stage Process 7 8 Stagel Stage2 Stagel 10 11 Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s P(x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) 967 468 1700 1700 0.000 0.000 0 0 1029 1029 0 0 Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations 146 Conflicting Flows 977 Potential Capacity 448 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.98 Movement Capacity 441 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.90 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 1079 Potential Capacity 566 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 0.99 Movement Capacity 561 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1435 Potential Capacity 105 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.87 0.96 Movement Capacity 101 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 . First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.99 Movement Capacity 0 0 Probability of Queue free St. 0.00 0.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 Movement Capacity 0 0 1.00 0.97 Part 3 Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity 147 I \OJUIL 1V1 . J log.. Fn Vl.c JO. a y Ct Probability of Queue free St. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 • First Stage Conflicting Flows 967 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.99 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 468 Potential Capacity 0 0 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.00 Movement Capacity 0 0 0.99 0.00 Part 3 • Single Stage Conflicting Flows . 1435 Potential Capacity 105 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.87 0.96 Movement Capacity 101 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.00 0.00 y 0.00 0.00 C t 101 Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 150 44 Movement Capacity (vph) 101 441 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 101 441 Volume 150 44 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n 148 L. (4.L Worksheet 10•Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service IMovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L R v (vph) 11 150 44 C(m) (vph) 561 101 441 v/c 0.02 1.49 0.10 95% queue length 0.00 9.31 0.27 Control Delay 11.5 338.8 14.1 LOS B F B Approach Delay 265.2 Approach LOS F Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 0.98 1.00 v(iI), Volume for stream 2 or 5 436 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.97 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 11.5 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.3 149 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: S. 154th St /52nd Ave. S. Analyst: MJJ, s15452wc Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: S. 154th Street North /South Street: 52nd Ave. South Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 11 415 910 107 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 436 957 112 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- Median Type TWLTL RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal? No Yes Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 143 0 42 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 150 0 44 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L 1 1 LTR v (vph) 11 194 C(m) (vph) 562 303 v/c 0.02 0.64 95% queue length 0.00 3.84 Control Delay 11.5 35.8 LOS B E Approach Delay 35.8 Approach LOS E HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 150 L�VV J. .4-1.l11111V11vv Y.&_. v...��.. IBellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425-455-5320 Fax: 425-453-5759 E -Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn 20 1700 3 12 120 35 300 Through 754 1700 3 31 120 35 300 Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow -up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 0 0 0 0 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2 2 -stage 4.1 5.4 5.5 6.2 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 0 0 0 0 t(f) 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog 754 20 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 1700 1700 Arrival Type 3 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 31 12 Cycle Length, C (sec) 120 120 Rp (from table 9.2) 1.000 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.258 0.100 g(q 1) 39.5 1.3 g(q2) 31.5 0.0 g(q) 70.9 1.3 Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked 1YIVV,.IIf,.,$L L •4UW,lIIVI,1 .J V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha 0.400 beta 0.714 Travel time, t(a) (sec) 5.831 Smoothing Factor, F 0.375 Proportion of conflicting flow, f 0.705 0.019 Max platooned flow, V(c,max) 1199 14 Min platooned flow, V(c,min) 1000 1000 Duration of blocked period, t(p) 67.9 0.0 Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.566 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.566 p(dom) 0.566 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? u Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two- Stage.Process movements, p(x) Process Stage 1 Stage 11 p(1) p(4) P(7) P(8) P(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) 0.434 0.434 0.434 0.434 0.434 1.000 0.434 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 1079 1435 1435 977 s 1700 1700 1700 1700 Px 0.434 0.434 0.434 0.434 V c,u,x 270 1090 1090 36 C r,x 1305 240 217 1042 C plat,x 567 104 94 453 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 967 468 967 468 s 1700 1700 1700 1700 P(x) 0.434 1.000 0.434 1.000 V(c,u,x) 13 468 13 468 C(r,x) 1015 634 889 565 C(plat,x) 441 634 386 565 Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations 153 .�wf. .a.• i,i liven I ..... ... .... Conflicting Flows 977 Potential Capacity 453 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity 445 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.90 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 1079 Potential Capacity 567 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 562 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.98 Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows 1435 Potential Capacity 94 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity 91 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1435 Potential Capacity 104 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.86 0.96 Movement Capacity 99 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 967 Potential Capacity 565 386 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.99 Movement Capacity 549 383 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 468 Potential Capacity 300 565 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.97 Movement Capacity 298 549 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1435 Potential Capacity 94 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 Movement Capacity 91 0.98 0.96 154 r %t uI L 101 UL.caa. a y Ct Probability of Queue free St. 0.91 0.91 0.64 246 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 • First Stage Conflicting Flows 967 Potential Capacity 634 441 Pedestrian Impedance Factor. 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.99 Movement Capacity 616 437 Part 2 • Second Stage Conflicting Flows 468 Potential Capacity 367 634 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.89 0.97 Movement Capacity 328 616 Part 3 • Single Stage Conflicting Flows • 1435 Potential Capacity 104 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.96 0.96 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.86 0.96 Movement Capacity 99 Results for Two-stage process: a y Ct 0.91 0.91 0.65 277 Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 150 0 44 Movement Capacity (vph) 277 246 445 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 303 Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 277 246 445 150 0 44 n max C sh SUM C sep n 303 155 Le u�a Worksheet 10- Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 . 11 12 Lane Config L LTR v (vph) 11 194 C(m) (vph) 562 303 v/c 0.02 0.64 95% queue length 0.00 3.84 Control Delay 11.5 35.8 LOS B E Approach Delay 35.8 Approach LOS E Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 0.98 1.00 v(iI), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P*(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 11.5 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 156 Opus Park I -5/I -405 S. 154th St /SR 5 SB existing (s154sr5e) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver Traffic Impact Analysis off -ramp 1.02.16] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) Sq 71 /.\ North 01/30/01 12:24:56 0.71 Vehicle Delay 34.9 Level of Service C Phase 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3 *> * G/C =0.543 G= 65.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.096 G= 11.5" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =57.6% G/C =0.262 G= 31.4" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =70.5% C =120 sec G =108.0 sec = 90.0% Y =12.0 sec = 10.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% ILane (Width /I g/C I Service Rate' Adj HCM ' L '90% Mal Group Lanes Regd Used ®C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue N Approach 27.2 C+ LT 12/1+10.452 0.543 867 1 I 811 970 1 659 10.856 1 21.8 l*CC +1 508 ft1 S Approach 53.5 D ILT +TH +RTI 12/1 -0.255 10.096 1 I 112 I 63 10.450 I 53.5 *D I 96 ftl E Approach 45.0 D+ TH LT 1 12/1 10.267 10.261 0.261 l 216 31 l 142 I 716 37 10.780 0.228 i 35.5 I *D +I 446 ftl ftl W Approach 38.2 D+ TH +RTI 24/2 10.292 0.261 I 215 I 911 I 463 10.508 I 38.2 I D +I 288 ftl 157 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis S. 154th St /SR 5 SB off -ramp existing (s154sr5e) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC(Ver 1.02.16] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N -2.0 50 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 215 10 1060 0.0 12.0 12.0 0 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 1495 1787 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 50 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 680 35 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3511 620 71 ALL NO NO NO YES YES YES 120 120 30 65.11 11.51 31.38 4.00 4.00 4.00 2 8 5 0 NO YES S 0.0 50 NONE 0 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 40 0 20 0.0 12.0 0.0 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 1455 0 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 01/30/01 12:25:07 W 0.0 50 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 20 420 0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3483 0 NONE 0.00 0.0 NONE 1 0 158 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis S. 154th St /SR 5 SB off -ramp 2006 w/o project (s154sr5f) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation Sq 71 /•\ North 01/30/01 12:24:15 (v /c) 0.78 Vehicle Delay 39.6 Level of Service D+ Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 *> * G/C =0.543 G= 65.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G /C =0 .096 G= 11.5" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =57.6% G/C =0.262 G= 31.4" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =70.5% C =120 sec 0=108.0 sec = 90.0% Y =12.0 sec = 10.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width /' g/C ' Service Rate' Adj i HCM L 190% Maxi Group Lanes Reqd Used QC (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue N Approach 33.5 C TH+RT1 12/1-10.564 10.543 0.543 1 867 1 970 1 726 10.748 1 24.4 l*D+C +1 560 ft S Approach 54.1 D 1LT +TH +RTI 12/1-10.257 10.096 1 1 1 112 ( 68 10.486 1 54.1 *D 1 104 ftl E Approach 49.8 D TH 1 24/2 '0.341 LT 12/1 0.277 W Approach 10.261 0.261 216 27 1 123 1 789 42 10.859 0.294 1 36.6 1 *D +1 491 52 fti 39.1 D+ TH +RTI 24/2 10.298 10.261 1 215 1 912 1 510 10.559 1 39.1 1 D +1 318 ftl 159 Opus Park 1 -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis S. 154th St /SR 5 SB off -ramp 2006 w/o project (s154sr5f) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N -2.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 235 10 1170 0.0 12.0 12.0 0 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 1514 1787 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 750 40 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3511 547 71 ALL NO NO NO YES YES YES 120 120 30 65.11 11.51 31.38 4.00 4.00 4.00 2 8 5 0 NO YES S 0.0 25 NONE 0 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 45 0 20 0.0 12.0 0.0 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 1465 0 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 01/30/01 12:24:24 W 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 20 465 0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3487 0 NONE 0.00 0.0 NONE 1 0 160 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis S. 154th St /SR 5 SB off -ramp 2006 w/ project (s154sr5w) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Capacity Analysis Summary 01/30/01 12:23:18 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) 0.79 Vehicle Delay 40.2 Level of Service D+ Sq 71 Phase 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3 /\ North + + + +> + + ++ v *> * *• * * G/C =0.543 G= 65.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.096 G= 11.5" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =57.6% G/C =0.262 G= 31.4" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =70.5$ C =120 sec G =108.0 sec = 90.0% Y =12.0 sec = 10.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane (Width /I g/C I Service Rate Adj I HCM L 190% Max Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue N Approach 33.8 C ITH +RTI 12/1 - 10.565 10.543 I LT 12/1+10.482 0.543 725 822 766 867 I 970 I 728 10.932 0.751 I 24.5 l*D+C +I 562 ftl S Approach 54.1 D ILT +TH +RTI 12/1-10.257 10.096 I 1 I 112 I 68 0.486 I 54.1 *D I 104 ftl E Approach 50.3 D TH 24/2 0.342 0.261 LT 1 12/1 10.287 10.261 I 216 I 918 I 21 100 742 10.353 1 37.9 I *D +I 495 52 ftl W Approach 40.5 D+ TH +RTI 24/2 10.307 10.261 I 215 I 913 I 572 10.627 I 40.5 I D +I 356 ftl 161 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis S. 154th St /SR 5 SB off -ramp 2006 w/ project (s154sr5w) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC(Ver 1.02.16] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N -2.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 238 10 1170 0.0 12.0 12.0 0 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 1514 1787 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 754 40 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3511 456 71 ALL NO NO NO YES YES YES 120 120 30 65.11 11.51 31.38 4.00 4.00 4.00 2 8 5 0 NO YES S 0.0 25 NONE 0 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 45 0 20 0.0 12.0 0.0 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 1465 0 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 01/30/01 12:23:37 W 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 20 523 0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3490 0 NONE NONE 0.00 1 0.0 0 162 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SR 405 SB off /Southcenter Blvd Analyst: MJJ, sr405ofe Project No.: T084601 Jr' ¢ ,\LI " Date: 1/30/01 V East /West Street: Southcenter Blvd North /South Street: SR 405 off ramp Intersection Orientation: EW. Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 1468 644 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1545 677 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- •- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized? Lanes 2 2 Configuration T T • Upstream Signal? Yes No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 106 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 111 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Median Storage 4 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 1 Configuration L Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config 1 L 1 v (vph) 111 C(m) (vph) 166 v/c 0.67 95% queue length 3.39 Control Delay 62.1 LOS F Approach Delay 62.1 Approach LOS F HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 163 L «J 14.L1.11 1V1 IBellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425.455.5320 Fax: 425.453.5759 E•Mail: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com • S2 Left-Turn 962 1700 3 65 120 35 1000 Through 382 1700 3 31 120 35 1000 S5 Left -Turn Through Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog 382 962 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 3400 3400 Arrival Type 3 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 31 65 Cycle Length, C (sec) 120 120 Rp (from table 9.2) 1.000 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.258 0.542 g(q1) 10.0 15.6 g(q2) 1.3 6.1 g(q) 11.3 21.7 Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.400 0.714 19.436 0.153 0.247 0.623 710 2059 2000 2000 0.0 4.5 0.037 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.037 p(5) 0.000 p(dom) 0.037 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? u Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) Single-stage Process (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) P(7) p(8) P(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) 0.963 0.963 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x 1903 3400 0.963 1845 68 65 Two-Stage Process 7 8 Stagel Stage2 Stagel 10 11 Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 1555 348 s 3400 3400 P(x) 0.963 1.000 V(c,u,x) 1484 348 C(r,x) 178 692 C(plat,x) 171 692 Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations 166 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1903 Potential Capacity 65 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.99 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 Movement Capacity 64 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 183 455 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 1.00 Movement Capacity 181 455 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 455 183 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.99 Movement Capacity 455 181 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 167 ResuiL 101 Z wage 1..nU ao. a 0.98 0.98 Y Ct Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 • First Stage Conflicting Flows 1555 Potential Capacity 171 472 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 1.00 Movement Capacity 170 472 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 348 Potential Capacity 692 452 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.99 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity 686 448 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1903 Potential Capacity 65 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.99 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 Movement Capacity 64 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.98 0.98 y 0.17 C t 166 IWorksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 111 Movement Capacity (vph) 166 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 166 111 n max C sh SUM C sep n 168 Worksheet 10•Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service IMovement Lane Config 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L v (vph) 111 C(m) (vph) 166 v/c 0.67 95% queue length 3.39 Control Delay 62.1 LOS F Approach Delay 62.1 Approach LOS F Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(iI), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 169 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223 - 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (425) 455-5320 FAX (425) 453 -5759 130 11 elc7 (sec l IS' /6 `f r JOB SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE RE* De( . /z /✓:� ✓J `Fo Y 22- Y. 3f 37 Z 8 36 2Z so 67 / 2-. 1, 20 73 S-7g j�c J� °7 `,r'�r -��.7 /J,2OO( 1760 /7 /C De(c76 -c) be/C7 ((cc) 2Z a C S L 9 6 2Z �?- 7Z 25 1z 2y 20 l2 r S 62, 8•( gr 3S y-0 2Y t( gC t = 27.7 a v e..,< -s e 170 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SR 5 SB off /Southcenter Blvd Analyst: MJJ, sr405ofe ,. - � c J (ter Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: Southcenter Blvd North /South Street: SR 405 off ramp Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 1468 644 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1468 644 Percent Heavy Vehicles ' -• -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized? Lanes 2 2 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? Yes No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 106 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 106 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 4 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 1 Configuration L Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config 1 L 1 v (vph) 106 C(m) (vph) 260 v/c 0.41 95% queue length 1.86 Control Delay 28.1 LOS D Approach Delay 28.1 Approach LOS D HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 171 Left-Turn 382 1700 3 50 120 35 1000 Through 962 1700 5 30 120 35 1000 S5 Left-Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: IWorksheet 4- Critical Gap and Follow -up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 7.5 t(c,hv) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 P(hv) 0 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade /100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,It) 0.70 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 6.8 2 -stage 5.8 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 3.50 t(f,HV) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(HV) 0 t(f) 3.5 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog 962 382 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 3400 3400 Arrival Type 5 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 30 50 Cycle Length, C (sec) 120 120 Rp (from table 9.2) 1.667 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.417 0.417 8(ql) 19.8 7.9 g(q2) 17.7 1.0 g(q) 37.5 8.9 Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked 173 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.400 0.714 19.436 0.153 0.655 0.260 2224 681 2000 2000 25.0 0.0 0.208 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.208 p(5) 0.000 p(dom) 0.208 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? u Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) Single -stage Process (2) (3) Two- Stage. Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) P(7) P(8) P(9) p(10) p(11) P(12) 0.792 0.792 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x 1790 3400 0.792 1366 141 112 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 1468 322 s 3400 3400 P(x) 0.792 1.000 V(c,u,x) 960 322 C(r,x) 337 713 C(plat,x) 267 713 Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations 174 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L•Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1790 Potential Capacity 112 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 112 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 . First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 268 471 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 268 471 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 • Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 471 268 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 471 268 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 175 wb r a y Ct Probability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 1468 Potential Capacity 267 490 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 267 490 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 322 Potential Capacity 713 785 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 713 785 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1790 . Potential Capacity 112 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 112 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.98 y 0.26 C t 260 0.98 IWorksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 106 Movement Capacity (vph) 260 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 260 106 n max C sh SUM C sep n 176 Worksheet 10•Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service IMovement Lane Config 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L v (vph) 106 C(m) (vph) 260 v/c 0.41 95% queue length 1.86 Control Delay 28.1 LOS D Approach Delay 28.1 Approach LOS D Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(iI), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 177 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SR 5 SB off /Southcenter Blvd Analyst: MJJ, sr405ofe Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: Southcenter Blvd North /South Street: SR 405 off ramp Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 1615 710 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1615 710 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized? 2 Lanes 2 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? Yes No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 115 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 115 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 • 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 Median Storage 4 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 1 Configuration L Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config 1 L 1 v (vph) 115 C(m) (vph) 245 v/c 0.47 95% queue length 2.24 Control Delay 32.1 LOS D Approach Delay 32.1 Approach LOS D HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering S2 Left-Turn 420 1700 3 50 120 35 IThrough 1060 1700 5 30 120 35 S5 Left-Turn Through 8 9 10 11 12 R L T R t(cbase) t(f, HV) P(HV) t(f) 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 3.5 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog 1060 420 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 3400 3400 Arrival Type 5 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 30 50 Cycle Length, C (sec) 120 120 Rp (from table 9-2) 1.667 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.417 0.417 g(q1) 21.8 8.6 g(q2) 23.6 1.2 g(q) 45.4 9.9 Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p , 0.400 0.714 19.436 0.153 0.656 0.260 2230 712 2000 2000 33.2 0.0 0.277 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.277 p(5) 0.000 p(dom) 0.277 p(subo) 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? U Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) (2) (3) Single -stage Two -Stage Process Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) P(7) p(8) P(9) p(10) p(11) P(12) 0.723 0.723 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x 1970 3400 0.723 1423 129 93 Two -Stage Process 7 8 Stagel Stage2 Stagel 10 11 Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 1615 355 s 3400 3400 P(x) 0.723 1.000 V(c,u,x) 932 355 C(r,x) 348 686 C(plat,x) 252 686 Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations 181 A. • 111 14Looll IConflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor IMovement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1970 Potential Capacity 93 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 252 440 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 252 440 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 440 252 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 440 252 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 182 a 0.98 0.98 Ct Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 IStep 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 1615 Potential Capacity 252 454 Pedestrian Impedance Factor , 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 252 454 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 355 Potential Capacity 686 744 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 686 744 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1970 . Potential Capacity 93 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Results for Two-stage process: a 0.98 0.98 y 0.27 C t 245 Worksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 115 Movement Capacity (vph) 245 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 245 115 n max C sh SUM C sep n 183 Worksheet 10- Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L v (vph) 115 C(m) (vph) 245 v/c 0.47 95% queue length 2.24 Control Delay 32.1 LOS D Approach Delay 32.1 Approach LOS D Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(iI), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 184 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SR 5 SB off /Southcenter Blvd Analyst: MJJ, sr405off Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: Southcenter Blvd North /South Street: SR 405 off ramp Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 1785 785 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1785 785 Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized? Lanes 2 2 Configuration T T Upstream Signal? Yes No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 125 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 125 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Median Storage 4 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 1 Configuration L Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config 1 L I v (vph) 125 C(m) (vph) 239 v/c 0.52 95% queue length 2.61 Control Delay 35.5 LOS E Approach Delay 35.5 Approach LOS E HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 Mark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering 185 IBellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425. 455.5320 Fax: 425-453-5759 E -Mail: mjacobs@tranplaneng.com t(c,base) t(c,hv) P(hv) t(c,g) Grade /100 t(3,It) t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 2 -stage 7.5 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 6.8 5.8 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 L L L T 8 9 10 11 12 R L T R t(f,base) t(f,HV) P(HV) t(f) 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 3.5 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog 1170 465 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) 3400 3400 Arrival Type 5 3 Effective Green, g (sec) 30 50 Cycle Length, C (sec) 120 120 Rp (from table 9-2) 1.667 1.000 Proportion vehicles arriving on green P 0.417 0.417 g(q1) 24.1 9.6 g(q2) 32.4 1.5 g(q) 56.5 11.1 Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.400 0.714 19.436 0.153 0.655 0,261 2228 745 2000 2000 44.4 0.0 0.370 0.000 Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p(5) p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? 0.370 0.000 0.370 0.000 u Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) Single -stage Process (2) (3) Two•Stage Process Stage I Stage 11 p(1) p(4) P(7) p(8) P(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) 0.630 0.630 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x 2177 3400 0.630 1459 122 77 Two-Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 1785 392 s 3400 3400 P(x) 0.630 1.000 V(c,u,x) 837 392 C(r,x) C(plat,x) 390 658 246 658 Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations 188 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 10 Conflicting Flows 2177 Potential Capacity 77 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 243 407 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 243 407 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 407 243 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 407 243 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 189 Ct Probability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows 1785 Potential Capacity 246 415 Pedestrian Impedance Factor , 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 246 415 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows 392 Potential Capacity 658 648 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 658 648 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 2177 Potential Capacity 77 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Results for Two -stage process: a 0.98 y 0.29 C t 239 0.98 IWorksheet 8- Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 125 Movement Capacity (vph) 239 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9- Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 239 125 n max C sh SUM C sep n 190 V 4v• Lane Config 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L v (vph) 125 C(m) (vph) 239 v/c 0.52 95% queue length ,2.61 Control Delay 35.5 LOS E Approach Delay 35.5 Approach LOS E Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 191 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 ITWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SR 5 SB off /Southcenter Blvd IAnalyst: MJJ, sr405ofw Project No.: T084601 Date: 1/30/01 East /West Street: Southcenter Blvd INorth /South Street: SR 405 off ramp Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 IMark Jacobs Transportation Planning & Engineering IBellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425. 455.5320 Fax: 425 - 453.5759 E -Mall: mjacobs @tranplaneng.com t(c, base) t(c,hv) P(hv) t(c,g) Grade /100 t(3,It) t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 2 -stage 7.5 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 6.8 5.8 Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 L L L T 8 9 10 11 12 R L T R t(f,base) t(f,HV) P(HV) t(f) 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 3.5 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time 2Upstream Signal Movement V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9.2) Proportion vehicles arriving g(q1) g(q2) g(q) 1170 523 s (vph) 3400 5 3 30 50 120 120 1.667 1.000 on green P 0.417 0.417 24.1 10.8 32.4 2.0 56.5 12.7 3400 Computation 2- Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked V(t) V(I,prot) V(t) V(I,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.400 0.714 19.436 0.153 0.635 0.284 2158 848 2000 2000 41.8 0.0 0.349 0.000 Computation 3- Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p(5) p(dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? 0.349 0.000 0.349 0.000 U Proportion unblocked for minor movements, p(x) (1) Single -stage Process (2) (3) Two•Stage Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) P(7) p(8) P(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) 0.651 0.651 1.000 Computation 4 and 5 Single•Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x s Px V c,u,x C r,x C plat,x 2236 3400 0.651 1613 97 63 Two•Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) 1843 393 s 3400 3400 P(x) 0.651 1.000 V(c,u,x) 1009 393 C(r,x) 318 657 C(plat,x) 207 657 Worksheet 6- Impedance and Capacity Equations 195 v... ,.. �. .. i .. ..... ......... .. .. Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj L- Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 2236 Potential Capacity 63 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 Movement Capacity 63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Worksheet 7- Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 208 406 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 208 406 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity 406 208 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 406 208 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 196 ttesuit wr t stage p,ut:ras: a 0.98 y 0.24 C t 202 0.98 IWorksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 127 Movement Capacity (vph) 202 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 202 127 n max C sh SUM C sep n 197 Worksheet 10•Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service IMovement Lane Config 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L v (vph) 127 C(m) (vph) 202 v/c 0.63 95% queue length ,3.30 Control Delay 48.9 LOS E Approach Delay 48.9 Approach LOS E Worksheet 11- Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(iI), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P *(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 198 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /Macadam Rd. S existing (southmce) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Capacity Analysis Summary 01/30/01 12:37:42 Intersection Averages: Degree of,Saturation (v /c) 0.70 Vehicle Delay 17.8 Level of Service B Sq 13 North Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 * * ** + + + +> A + + ++ < * * ** G/C =0.148 G= 17.8" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.175 G= 21.0" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =18.2% G/C =0.577 G= 69.2" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =39.0% C =120 sec G =108.0 sec = 90.0% Y =12.0 sec = 10.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width /1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj l 1 HCM L 190% Max Group. Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue N Approach 38.6 D+ RT LT 1 12/1'10.272 10.148 I 363 1 I 205 1 126 10.226 0.543 I 50.0 1 *D +1 181 ft 1 E Approach 23.6 C+ RT TH 1 24/2 10.284 0.533 10.577 1 1948 1 2041 1 1758 10.140 0.861 1 25.4 1 *C +1 628 ftl W Approach 9.5 A TH LT 1 12/1 10.547 0.275 10.785 0.175 2756 2756 1 1805 158 10.510 1 46.2 14,17-.) 322270 ftI 199 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /Macadam Rd. S existing (southmce) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N 0.0 25 NONE 0 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 120 0 120 12.0 0.0 12.0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 1561 0 1561 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 155 1670 0 12.0 24.0 0.0 1 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 1536 3539 0 13 ALL NO NO NO YES YES YES 120 120 30 17.79 21.02 69.19 4.00 4.00 4.00 3 12 5 0 NO YES S 2.0 25 NONE 0 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 0 0 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 01/30/01 12:37:56 W 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 1715 150 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3511 1770 NONE 0.00 0.0 NONE 1 0 200 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /Macadam Rd. S 2006 w/o project (southmcf) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Capacity Analysis Summary 01/30/01 12:35:39 Intersection Averages: Degree of ,Saturation (v /c) 0.77 Vehicle Delay 22.3 Level of Service C+ Sq 13 Phase 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3 North * * ** + + + +> A + + ++ < * * ** G/C =0.148 G= 17.8" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.175 G= 21.0" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =18.2% G/C =0.577 G= 69.2" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =39.0% C =120 sec G =108.0 sec = 90.0% Y =12.0 sec = 10.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width/ g/C Service Rate Adj Group I Lanes' Reqd Used 1 ®C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S I9Queue N Approach 39.6 D+ RT LT 12/1 10.275 12/1 10.275 0.357 I 363 I 557 0.148 1 205 137 137 10.246 0.591 ' 1 + 51.7 *D ' ' 197 ft E Approach 32.0 C TH 1 24/2 10.288 0.575 '0.577 1 1948 1 2041 1 1942 10.154 0.951 I 34.6 1 *C 1 693 ftI W Approach 10.6 B+ I TH LT I 24/2 1 12/1 10.279 10.175 2756 2756 1995 10.561 10.724 I 7.4 I A I 362 ft 47.6 *D I 242 ft 201 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /Macadam Rd. S 2006 w/o project (southmcf) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N 0.0 25, NONE 0 . 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 130 0 130 12.0 0.0 12.0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 1561 0 1561 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 170 1845 0 12.0 24.0 0.0 1 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 1536 3539 0 13 ALL NO NO NO YES YES YES 120 120 30 17.79 21.02 69.19 4.00 4.00 4.00 3 12 5 0 NO YES S 2.0 25 NONE 0 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 0 0 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 01/30/01 12:36:11 W 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 1895 165 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3511 1770 NONE 0.00 0.0 NONE 1 0 202 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /Macadam Rd. S 2006 w/ project (southmcw) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Capacity Analysis Summary 01/30/01 12:32:58 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) 0.78 Vehicle Delay 22.7 Level of Service C+ Sq 13 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 North G/C =0.148 G= 17.8" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.175 G= 21.0" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =18.2% G/C =0.577 G= 69.2" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =39.0% C =120 sec G =108.0 sec = 90.0% Y =12.0 sec = 10.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width /1 g/C 1 Service Rate Adj I 1 HCM L 190% Mal Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue N Approach 39.6 D+ RT LT 12/1 12/1 10.275 1 363 6 0.148 1 1 205 137 137 10.591 1 51.7 1 *D +1 197 ftl E Approach 32.3 C 1 TH 1 24/2 10.288 0.576 10.577 1 1948 1 2041 1 1946 10.154 0.953 1 34.9 l *C 1 695 ft1 W Approach 11.6 B+ TH LT 1 12/1 10.287 10.175 1 2756 1 1 2756 286 1 2024 10.734 l 51.0 1 *D 1 282 ftl 203 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /Macadam Rd. S 2006 w/ project (southmcw) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N 0.0 25 NONE 0 • 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 130 0 130 12.0 0.0 12.0 1 0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 1561 0 1561 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 170 1849 0 12.0 24.0 0.0 1 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 1536 3539 0 13 ALL NO NO NO YES YES YES 120 120 30 17.79 21.02 69.19 4.00 4.00 4.00 3 12 5 0 NO YES S 2.0 25 NONE 0 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0. 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 0 0 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 01/30/01 12:33:17 W 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 1923 193 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3511 1770 NONE NONE 0.00 1 0.0 0 204 Opus Park I -5/I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /61st Ave S existing (south6le) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Capacity Analysis Summary 01/30/01 12:20:15 Intersection Averages: Degree of,Saturation (v /c) 0.78 Vehicle Delay 40.8 Level of Service D+ Sq 12 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 / \ North * * ** v < + + ++ G/C =0.444 G= 53.3" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.139 G= 16.7" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =47.7% G/C =0.317 G= 38.0" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =65.0% C =120 sec G =108.0 sec = 90.0% Y =12.0 sec = 10.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width /1 g/C l Service Rate Adj l l HCM L 190% Max Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue S Approach 60.2 E+ 1 LT 12/1+ 12/1-10.534 10.444 0.444 1 544 1 686 1 574 11.038 0.837 1 38.5 1 * D +1 538 ftl E Approach 42.7 D+ TH LT 1 12/1 10.363 0.301 10.489 0.139 1 1549 1 1 1718 219 1 256 10.534 1.036 1 118.7 1 *F +1 372 ftl W Approach 28.6 C RT 1 12/1 10.417 10.317 1 2163 TH 324 2163 590 1 1600 10.668 1.017 1 82.4 1 *F 1 692 ftl 205 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /61st Ave S existing (south6le) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N 0.0 25 NONE 0 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.90 0.90 0.90 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 0 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 825 230 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.90 0.90 0.90 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3511 1770 12 ALL NO NO NO YES YES YES 120 120 30 53.27 16.74 37.98 4.00 4.00 4.00 8 6 11 0 NO YES S 2.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 80 0 980 0.0 12.0 12.0 0 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.90 0.90 0.90 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 1311 1546 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 01/30/01 12:20:25 W 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 1300 540 0 24.0 12.0 0.0 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.90 0.90 0.90 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 2726 1863 0 NONE NONE 0.00 1 0.0 0 206 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /61st Ave S 2006 w/o project (south6lf) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Capacity Analysis Summary 01/30/01 12:18:16 Intersection Averages: Degree of,Saturation (v /c) 0.82 Vehicle Delay 46.3 Level of Service D Sq 12 Phase 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3 / \ North * * ** v G/C =0.444 G= 53.3" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.139 G= 16.7" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =47.7% G/C =0.317 G= 38.0" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =65.0$ C =120 sec G =108.0 sec = 90.0% Y =12.0 sec = 10.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane (Width /I g/C I Service Rate' Adj I HCM L 190% Max Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume v/c Delay S Queue S Approach 70.0 E LT +RTI 12/1 +10.471 10.444 0.444 I 544 I 686 I 600 11.086 0.875 I 42.5 I *D+ I 563 ft1 E Approach 46.3 D TH I 24/2 LT I 12/1 W Approach 0.304 10.489 0.139 1 1541 1 1219 I 958 68 10.558 1.085 1 133.4 1 *F +I 389 ft1 32.7 C 6 RT TH 1 12/1 10.427 10.317 1 2324 1 2590 1 1626 11.061 I 95.3 I *F 1 722 fftt1 207 Opus Park I -5/I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /61st Ave S 2006 w/o project (south6lf) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N 0.0 25 NONE 0 . 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM O 0 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 910 255 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3511 1770 12 ALL NO NO NO YES YES YES 120 120 30 53.27 16.74 37.98 4.00 4.00 4.00 8 6 11 0 NO YES S 2.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 90 0 1080 0.0 12.0 12.0 O 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT O 1312 1546 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 01/30/01 12:18:28 W 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 1435 595 0 24.0 12.0 0.0 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 2726 1863 0 NONE 0.00 0.0 NONE 1 0 208 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /61st Ave S 2006 w/ project (south6lw) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC(Ver 1.02.16] - Capacity Analysis Summary 01/30/01 11:46:27 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) 0.82 Vehicle Delay 47.4 Level of Service D Sq 12 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 < + + ++ G/C =0.444 G= 53.3" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.140 G= 16.7" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =47.7% G/C =0.317 G= 38.0" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =65.0% C =120 sec G =108.0 sec = 90.0% Y =12.0 sec = 10.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 'Lane (Width /i g/C l Service Rate' Adj i l HCM ' L 190% Maxi Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) QE Volume v/c Delay S Queue S Approach TH +RT LT E Approach 70.0 E 12/1 +10.471 10.444 0.444 1 544 1 686 1 600 11.086 0.875 1 42.5 1 *D+ 1 563 fti 46.3 D TH LT 1 12/1 10.370 0.304 10.489 0.140 1 1549 1 1718 1 960 68 10.559 1.085 1 133.4 l *F +) 389 ftl W Approach 35.3 D+ RT TH 1 12/1 10.591 0.432 10.794 0.317 1 2164 324 1 2164 590 1 1526 640 10.705 1.085 1 103.1 l *F 1 738 ftl 209 Opus Park I -5 /I -405 Traffic Impact Analysis Southcenter Blvd /61st Ave S 2006 w/ project (south6lw) SIGNAL97 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.02.16] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS UPSTREAMVC Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS STARTUPLOST ENDGAIN IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N 0.0 25 NONE 0 0 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 0 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 0 912 255 0.0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 0 3511 1770 12 ALL NO NO NO YES YES YES 120 120 30 53.27 16.74 37.98 4.00 4.00 4.00 8 6 11 0 NO YES S 2.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 90 0 1080 0.0 12.0 12.0 0 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 0 1312 1546 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 01/30/01 11:46:42 W 0.0 25 NONE 0 4 0 0.00 RT TH LT 1450 608 0 24.0 12.0 0.0 2 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 2726 1863 0 NONE NONE 0.00 1 0.0 0 210 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223 - 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (425) 455-5320 FAX (425) 453 -5759 i i JOB SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY / DATE / /+ RE: Eicrff/1-',t L9�•GGp /v'^ 2 /J La Yo ✓'r S2'^ /i/ 1. 211 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223 - 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (425) 455-5320 FAX (425) 453 -5759 JOB SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE / �+ RE' EKIT f / /%--3 (,J ^Geoff L� Rio •'f t,J. /Ghc..,Yi e! 212 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Table 12 - Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs ' , , , 1990 2010 Pk Vol Improvement Cost/ •11.Inteisection or Link 1 - 1 Pk Vol Pk Vol Diff Cost Trip Southcenter/Strander 3,899 4,853 954 $134,000 ' $140 widen for WB left turns Andover Pk E/Strander widen for n/s left tums Andover Pk W/Strander widen for n/s left tums S 180 St/SR181 widen n/s and e/w Andover Pk E/Baker n/s lefts, signal Andover Pk W/Minlder n/s lefts, signal Southcenter PkWy/168 signal W Valley/Strander NB dual left tum lanes Interurban Bridge widen for dual lefts * This is a "planing level" estimate. Future (Beyond 6 years (2000)): Minkler (APW - Southcenter PkWy) construct 3 lane street S 178 St (Southcenter PkWy-WCL) realign (cap/safety/transit) Andover PkWy (T PkWy-180) widen to 5 lanes Andover Pk E (T PkWy-180) widen to 5 lanes @ ints. Southcenter PkWy (180-200) construct 3 and 5 lane street 3,211 3,905 694 $94,000 $135 3,082 4,016 934 $296,000 $317 5,236 7,760 2,524 $1,200,000 $475 790 1,453 663 $250,000* $377 2,441 3,078 637 $250,000* $392 2,425 3,324 899 $250,000* $278 3,433 4,316 883 $250,000* $283 2,831 3,945 1,114 $1,250,000* $1,122 0 1,015 1,015 789 1,424 635 1,112 1,833 721 970 1,420 450 408 1,600 1,192 213 November 1993 . 1 .', doaa.„0-Q__ S; car • I1 If IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: 214 TUICWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. - 6300 Southcenter .E 1ud, Tttkwtia WA 9R I RR - Inn) •• his isra "'pinnu, level" estimate. s� Y wy J� Future (Be fi AGyen Future (Be tl 6 year 00)): Minkler (APW - Southcenter PkWy) Construct 3 lane street S 178 St (Soutltcenter PkWy -WCL) realign (cap /safety/transit) Andover PkWy (1' PkWy -180) widen to 5 lanes Andover Pk E (T PkWy -180) widen to 5 lanes ® ants. Southcenter PkWy (180 -200) construct 3 and 5 lane street . 4 elk) fM /)k - 3,899 4,853 954 3,211 3,082 • 5,236 790 improvement Cost/ Cost Trip $134,000 $140 3,905 694 .$94,000 4,016 934 $296,000 7,760 2,524 $1,200,000 1,453 . 663 $250,000* 2,441 • 3,078 2,425 3,324 3,433 2,831 3,945 4,316 X57.3 0 1,015 $ 135 $317 $475 $377 637 $250,000* $392 Igo 899 !2 0,Q1:1O, 42.7.1.111/1 • 883 $250,000* $283 1,114 • $1,250,000* $1,122 1,015 789 1,424 635 1.112 1,833 721 970 1,420 450 12-3960 408 1,600 1,192 c 214 Z l 21 215 ' November 1993 • 110 �`{� ������pqq••��Cyty�3�ayf. N brk rt, 1 a 1-kt- ∎ ttA. ∎ b ►'\, Q /405' 5caie : t-Eoc, vet. 1"=.10' Site Cross Sections Sheet 5 of 5 • OUTFALL OF RELCC.:TED DITCU —. INi= S'r•= TOP OF STTZF4M PROPOSED — RELOCATED DITC18 S(0P1Z0 4JALLSTJ2001 ARCHITECTS. P.S.C. 919 17479 AVE rK Bp1EVUE 94 98905 TEL 425.455.3203 FM: 425 .455.9331 w�.r�e"idgM•9m.E9•, WETLANDS STABILIZED — c. TOP OF ,\ EARTIaL._ -- -^la DITCW \\ 'SCOPE 1 S+ 55 1 561 5' 1 581 59 4 dal .RECTO ING / • \I 53 O BIKE STORAGE SPACE U' LDIASTER 52 O PARK9VG (135 5F. INJ AK) ENCLOSUI� �F'' ` 51 = a• 15' a 4 ~^ e. 1 6- 16-' 651 661 16a165I ▪ • M1 50 C 9a I •5 I ,,-.,11031104 l05I10611C1 •'C8 • WETLANDS < Q 9 A S 9 <I ®d4.,Q J• 7D \v. / _ _ _ _ _ _ STABILIZED SLCP5 vARIE5 (5' nIN.) i 3' 5TA51Ll I. 1 _ARTu SLOPE / 1 / / f / /` /‹ le VAR155 (5' MIN) 1. 4 -3 r I 6:;'..,,-,,,.‘‹" e.,.-. 1 r 2. sm• < T!P.I SETBA� �/< it • a r_ STABILIZED ART8 / SLOPE 4ixt C • Z1 z: 6a NGRESS/EGFSS' EASEMENT •12,4 s r.. cicicjc�cl::Icic�cl� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :8129130131I3:133131115136i 3.1 ���9. ! :61:5:1 ' :31: 1 1 ;I . °. I l I - � I • I 36 66 I 116 1 Al • n• 1 119 142_ 1 121 1:1::3 Ii!' I II P EXIST. DRCN 70 BE RELOCATED • 4. • I •••-•—■ I I 1 ;:51::611:2.1 i30 l29 137• 131 113: 133' V M1 rr9. I 1 PEDESTRIAN ) 4,---r I f`CCLORED CvvCRETE PATU I •1 1 ; 1 1 I 'SI tae 1 14 5 1140 1 I5' II '5 :I153I Ma '991136115' I;951;99 I:6C''9.. 1 1'631164 —'—= --- "'F' - �I Z la I ,r— r''' §' • 1'•a - 1:33' . .1!251'39 I•III;I 14011 t.: 143 $A.• 14151 la6I la' 89 / 5 / MIN. TO: OF STREAM el S / / 0 4 MO1811ENT SIGN PROJECT DATA DR •_ �Ir .540.•0:' 1 \ ZONING: OFFICE (0) BUILDING AREA (50. FT.1: LEVEL ONE LEVEL TWO LEVEL 14R55 TOTAL CORICN AIMA: (CORRIDORS, RESTROCMS. ETC_) • RA USABLE FLOOR AREA • PARKING RECJIRED: PARKING PROVIDED: STANDARD COMPACT ACCESSIBLE TOTAL BUILDING •EIG•T• EXIST. =FALL LIGHT CQ!CE ASSEMBLY 11520 11920 23.••0 - 23.440 58.400 11520 • 69.920 (1008) (1383) 51352 10131 • 61525 311000 1:1000 154 10 • 164 • 132 • 26 • • 6 • 164 51' Is t 4V =NUE SOU T 4 2•• DRIVE CUTFALL OF RELOCATED DTC>a TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1°L1<TI L SITE FLAN SCALE: I" • 30' -0" 0 IF 30' — EX15T. DITC:I 70 5E RELCCATED -- EXIST. OLTFALL NCRTI-1 lV - u '.il v Vi Psi t Fr P DEVELOP, •_?yT F1:01 r UETLMED • OUTFALL OF RELOCATED Di T CN 8D E'¢ CAL __GS TO ROOT ZONE OF INisiRsTAT'E 5 TCMP reTontangeGH AT 'NAM CLEARD49 TO REMIT- - • �T�aP+ eIFFER AWN TO IMIT 4009'8 UETLM D 8' TO F6E7T"1ADi (Tl'I'J AT D0' UIE11.40 BUFFER Y �Tlul:.Ys.. aft edilliktirill, I0 ID e D O O ime to 1e ,., '11 Il `‘'A — I STAILED YF'. ti EAR. ! - _ �._ P 1 r ;, j 7 f u6066i)60U60e51 066060600000. ',,B 00006:96d.o --;^60060000600 1 O, vJ:t,. itN4ckstVliC!>a1vJe:.v�f,411ALinit Acv.. ivtlMtYY►MtlfMdnot -1161101. 1,\ REC CLiNr - S:KE STOR =.GE SFACE \ Sr MIN ) Lrz� EX16TING TTRET1AN (TTPJ .2"10a :S.3.0.0 A4 ` :1 ; 115 119 120 12! 122 I- Lti 15 SUM Of CL:y 10' 2m' =Afar 7ec4LE I "•20' CCNC. UA4LK (SEE CML PLANS) -E> 1ST. OUTFACE 5IST AVE SOUTH ADO 811@01 FI BERM ALE 2 LAM AREA 0 Hugh G. Goldsmith Consulting Engineers 1215 II4Ib ATeunese'` ,`., . Be11evue, WA 98004 Belleiae, WA 98009 & Associates, Inc. Surveyors • Planners ••:TBL: (423) 46241080..: FAX: (425) 462.7719..' REV. HO DATE DESCRIPTION MADE BY CHECKED PLOTTEDI. 1/16/01 Revlaron to Prelmlxley Plan SCALE/ I' - 20' VIEmt 124014/01 RsVUH7n to PMImla6ly Plan DATE I 04/10/01 KREFI BRAINS Tw; 0E•I0ME01.- :- APPRUVEDI • }Jn'. :PO b., . :ACAD D00 ;i, R T DITCH TO BE RELOCATEE DEC C C ?001 COMMUNITY OPUS N.W. L.L.0 .DEVELOPMENT JOB 00. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR OP.0 SHEET :CITY OF:T.UKWII.'AI.`. .WASHINGTON I00 400 SCALE: r • 200' 0040000553 "i999600165 SF SF / 0040000635. y 0040000640 0040000645 7999600205 004000 0647. • VAC. 79996 0040000650 . 66160 0040000655 SF. 0040000660 S. 148711 ST. •. SF 004200M60. 0042000147 0042000170 004200046 'ADJACENT OWNERSHIPS TAX" • STR IDS NAME 8 ADDRESS 0040000631 JAMES D OC ONNOR; 4819,5146TH ST; SEATTLE. WA 98166 .. . 0010000635 JAME818 H MARGARET ANGLE 4831 8 148TH ET; TUKWILA. WA 98168 0400 0640 JAMES 18 H MARGARET ANGLE: 4831 S 146TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168. 0010000645 NARDITO 11 FERRER 14116 43RD AVE 8: SEATTLE WA ewes _ . 0010000847 NEC W BOYD;; 14831 51STAVE 8; SEATTLE. WA 98166 040000650 HAZEL M ICETgLERSED. 14637 51ST AVE Et SEATTLE WA 98166 " 0040000655 HAZEL H KETCHERS ;14837 61ST AVE S; SEATTLE WA 98168 • 0040000660 Him. Al IC£TCHERSID; 14837 61ST AVE S: SEATTLE. WA 98166 0047000147. LILLIAN M MOTT; 24921 B; KENT. WA 98031 - 0047000160 WCBJODINESMANAOCT. 4820 El 150TH ST; TUKWILA. WA 98188 . 004700163. HOAI CONG 8 HIE N OINK 4818 S 150114 ST; SEATTLE, WA 98186 0042000155 RONALD C B DAWN C STEWARTJR :48188150THST ;T1.11OVSA, WA 98188 0042000180 PHIWP H & DOI4NAJ SWANBERG; 14809 51ST AVE E SEATTLE. WA 98168 0041900170 MELVIN E8 MYRTLE ROBERSOR PO BLOC 88543 SEATTLE. WA 98186 - 0042000170. MELVIN Ell, MYRTLE RASERSOTt PO 80X 66543 SEATTLE. WA 98168 , 004200 0180 MARC D 8 RONALD ENa 4838 S 150TH ST; TUKWILA, WA 98188 " ' 004M0 0353 GREGORY ICONTOS; 4519 3160TH ST; IIACWILA WA 98188 004 2000394 JERRY R 8 CAROL J HEM; 7337 44TH AVE SW; BATTLE. WA -98136 • 004200 040. DI71 LERT .1 CHENEY; PO 00X 244; AZALEA OR. 97410 . 04200 0401: GUILLERMO MALDONADO; 4837 8150TH ST; TUKWILA. WA 98188 0062000105 - JAMES PW4t 17855 S CENTER PONY; TUKWILA. WA 98188- ' • - - 766100029 RICHARD H BOTHAM 16334 LINDEN AVE Pt SEATTLE, WA 98133 • . 768160 031 RICHARD H BOTHARt 16334' LINDEN AVE it SEATTLE. WA 98133 76610 0090 DANIEL J ROCH01t 5136 8151ST ST. SEATTLE. WA 98188 _ 766100091 NETTIE C*JNNINOHAM; 10114 2ND AVE Z SEATTLE WA. 98168. • . . . .7010092 RUTH I HAVES; 18834 63RD AVE B; SEATTLE, WA 98188 • ' 786180003- ROBERT MCELREA; RR 180X 391; HARRISON. AR 72661 . .- - 788100094 - DANIEL .1 ROCHOtt 6138 8151ST ST: SEATTLE. WA 98188. _ ..786100120 DANIEL .1 R0CHON; 5136 8151ST ST; SEATTLE WA 96188. • - • 768100120 DANIEL JROCHOR 5138 S 151ST ST; SEATTLE. WA 98188 788100121 STEVE 8892IF115 OAKSMR1t 6815 36TH AVE NW SEATTLE. WA 98117 768100183 - CARL R HAGLUND;1111 E MADISON ST #131; SEATTLE WA 98122 788180 0185 - CARL R NAOLUND ;1111 E MADISON ST 1131; SEATTLE WA 98122 . 70100210 ARNOLD E SCH 86 ER It 6436 8150711 ST; SEATTLE WA 98188 - - 768100212 "ALHADEFF PROPERTIES COASTED PA; ;. - 768100240 ERIC E & JENNIFER HERGERT 14720 MACADAM FM S TUCWLLA. WA 96168 ... 76610 0242 • DON WATIIMS; PO BOX 32 MINA ID 83636 • 766180 0245 FRED 6 MARILOU FERRER. PO BOX 6934Z SEATTLE. WA 98168 . 7999600030 YiUTAM ALOONEY; PO BOX 60918EAT4LE WA 98166 ' 79930 0031 WILLOW A 8 TRUDY SC±HAEFER LOONEY; 4110 9 282ND PL; ICBM. WA 98032 799960 0185 CAL W C.V4TONWINE 13733 45714 AVE 8; SEATTLE. WA 98166 799980 0195 -. RICHARD H 80711481.16334 LINDEN AVE N SEATTLE, WA 98133 " ' 798960 0215 WILL M A LOCREY; . PO BOX 88091 SEATTLE WA 98186 • . 8733000 OMB AUTADEFF PROPERTIES UNITED PA:.•.... . 873300 041 ARNOLD E SC1�3ER 15438 8150TH ST SEATTLE WA 98166. 040000640 RESIDENT: 14829 51ST AVE 8; TUKWILA WA 90168 . • 0/000645 RESIDENT; 1489551ST AVE 8; TUKWBAWA98/68' 0100 0655 RESIDENT; 14839 519T AVE 8; TUKWILA WA 98188 0040000680 RESIDENT; 14641 51ST AVE B; TUKWILA WA 98168 • • 0t 2100170 - RESIDENT; 14859 51ST AVE S; TUKWILA WA 98168. 004200 0170 RESIDENT; 14859 51ST AVE 8ti TIIKWILA WA 98168. 042000394" RESIDBIT :'4815 515081 ST; TUKM6LA WA99188 .042000100 RESIDER; 15005 51ST AVE 8; TUKWILA WA 98188,•... 067000405 RESIDENT; 15099 51S7 AVE B; TUKWILA WA 98188 , . ". 76810 0029 RESIDENT; 14702 51ST AVE 8;TUKWILA WA 98188. . 76610 092 RESIDENT; 14940 51ST AVE S; TUKWILA WA 98188' " - 786100093 RESIDENT; 1493461ST AVE 5; TUKWILA WA 98188 • 766100210 RESIDENT; 14906 MACADAM RD 8; TUCW LA WA 88188 79986 10031" RESIDENT; 14517 53RD AVE 8; TUKWILA WA 88166 . - .. 7988600185 RESIDENT; 144545191 AVE S;T KWO:AWA98168. . 873300041 RESIDENT 14920 MACADAM RD 8; TUKWILA WA98168. -- 7661600092 S. 150TH ST. LAND USE SF 5563315 FMmY RESIDENTIAL . .: MF' MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" VAC ..VACANT . 8 9 Hugh G. Goldsmith "& Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners - 1215 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 P.O. Box 8565 TEL: (425) 462-1080 Bellevue,; WA 98009 FAX: (425) 482- 7719 REV, 140 DATE, WOE 67 CHECKED 41L071E6 0012E07. V4106X 04/10/01 09.20 too' 2601. DATE - Ay 06. 2001 ORAVIt OPUS 19W..L.LC. J09 No. 00112 w LANDUSE IDENTIFICATION 81 ADJACENT' OWNERSHIPS , OPUS 'PARK 5/405: 0EBKNIER - OF. •. R9 BK: PO /: • ACAD DOS: 0002006.0.0 P66F: - It @0126 • 16/9/ 4. 60.11• 1644/ • A 'TUKWILLA - • WASHINGTON RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT CENTER 25' BUFFER ER WITH .1210E- 14.5' 5 14.5' EACH 2t0E) ,250 LF • APPROX. 102 NYOROSEEO FOR STABILITY OR.. OTHER PLANTING PER PLANTING OR MITIGATION PLAN GHW AY No I (S. R. 5) (MARY SAT HI. PRIMARY E WETLAND A IE 15' SD - 85 0 ARMOR OUTFALL WITH RIP -RAP ILL X VW , 2' THICK WATER OUALITY.W4TrR SURFACE,• 620 BOTTOM VAULT VARIES • 176 REO'O OETENTIONVIL. • oSS Ae.FI. REO'D WATER OUALITY VOL - 0.25 Ac.Ft. • RIP-RAP y12'L • 6'W ,.2' THICK BUFFER COMPENSATION AREA 15' BUFFER PROPOSED CLEARING LIMIT (TYP 1 SLEEVE 11' s0 THROUGH WALL F0 14 0 F0 515 'LOCK BLOCI( ITYPI RETAINING WALL SYSTEM OR EQUAL 1 BYPASS STRUCTURE C: P I RIM - 53.0 LOW POINT RIM •103.7 IMES MIS PARKING ' 05' CSBC •CL 8 YP. F0 /05.0 \FF 14.0 ROOF DRAIN LEADER ITYP.) • C TO GET. VAULT C T LOW POINT RIM • 30.9 BUFFER TRENCH GRAIN ITYP.) BOTH LOADING BAYS, ELEV • 30.0 • IE S' OUT TO DET VAULT • 6 is /TYP.) TOP OF BANK FF 111.0 F01000 F0 104.5 LOW POINT R M • 105 7 FC 104. F0 110. . CURB RAMP 5Ist AVE SOUTH ABANDON 65157. 16- SO CONSTRUCT NEW 16' SO TO NEW TYPE R C8 IN FLOWLINE EAST OF CENTERLINE IMPROVEMENTS ++ t ITAGE )S218LE FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT FACE NEW VERTICAL CURB AND CUTTER 14' EAST OF NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IT SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN PURPOSES. • CB TYPE II CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM LOW POINT LEGEND: 87 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION REFERENCE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY HUGH GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED JULY 13, 2001. 100 200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET WETLAN0.8 'LOCK BLOCK (TYP.) RETAINING WALL SYSTEM OR EOVAL BUFFER COMPENSATION AREA IS' BUFFER lb' 30 OUTFALL TO EX1ST1NG OIT CM PROPOSED CLEARING ARMOR OUTFALL WITH LIMIT 1TYP.) RIP -RAP 12•1 • VW • z.16165• TRANSITION TO EXISTING ROAD SECTION LO 0 i- 0) 0) s u) Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN OPUS PARK 1- 5/1.405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 4800 Date SEPT 2001 Figure 2 WIIM■I Sheet 2 of 5 Site Cross Sections Ito _ 110 . _ 100 10 5d� ..�J.vti1r% a 10Vti T- 0psJS POrk /Nc Sc.0.it. I4 r, t "= o' ve k . ( "s lo' J 1 ri_ 20l. t s- `.70 Site Cross Sections Sheet 3 of 5 70 - kt. /so.vtA, o ? vt. Tuk w ;la. , w R Scc ; 10' V elk . 1" =10 .. 7D ISite Cross Sections Sheet 4 of 5 I =FALL OF RELOCATED DITCH -� INTE_RSTAT= TOP OF STREAM PROPOSED RELOCATED DITCH WETLANDS DIPIPSTER 410 ENCLOSURE TYP 12411:511:6 � r1 0. /may' .r,: • 1,( -- EXIST. DITCH TrP. 'I I TO BE RELOCATED c - - - ‘ 28 o in 130E 131 1 132 0 133; 341:25' ^ I � TTP )F COLORED CONCIFTE PEDESTRIAN PAIN 1 L' I I1. 1: 13 1�! 15-1 140 L. I1 <: 114311<41451146114 3 PROJECT DATA ORNE . EXIST, OUTFALL ww51 151 1 621153 054 MONUMENT SIGN I 19511 %1ST1156115 °1 1 11 -, u 0 JJ L'ITCM ZONING: OFFICE (0) LIGHT BUILDING AREA (SO. FT.) 0aICE ASSEMBLY LEVEL CNE 11.520 11520 LEVEL TWO 23440 - LEVEL THREE 23.440 - TOTAL 58.400 11.520 • 69.920 COMMON 4R_4 (CORRIDORS, RESTROOIS, ETC., • 12% (1,005) (1383) USABLE FLOOR AREA • 51992 10,131 • 61323 PARKING REQUIRED: 3,1000 1:1000 154 0 • 164 PARKING PROvIDED, STANDARD • 132 COP!P40T • 26 ACCESSIBLE • b TOTAL BUILDING HEIGHT: • 164 51' is AVE.NUE SOUTH PARTIAL SITE PLAN SCALE. I" _ 30' -0" 0 15' 30' _ 60' 90' LEXIST. DITCH TO BE RELOCATED EXIST. OUTFALL NORTH RECEEVED DEC AA ����U5 ?,1111 COrQm f jNI Y DEVELOP;v°LNT 4I .UuUT.SIom ARCHITECTS. P.S.C. 919 124111 AVE NE BELLEVUE. WA 98005 TEL 425.455.3203 FAX. 425.455.9351 .....ee W wnae.He, W so,,, a 1 t 0 0 13 a 2 OPUS PARK 5/405 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN J015 NO, 2000030 DRAWN, MT, OF CHECKED, JG91 DATE, 0V3V0I F 1: 1 h�1- tgI2.cro1 ► ig, 1111. milmo= 111 �► rrr11W1•.^ - / t �� � 1 V � �iIi �i `111k 1 MIN" an Epp 111111a mum■mmagnalt11411. ' ' 0 2500 5000 III = 5000' 0 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 1215 114th Avenue 3B Bellevue, wA 99004 P.O. Bat 5595 Bellevue, wA 98009 184 429 492 -1080 PAIL• (425 48E -9719 PLOTTED: 001I2VOLdwg RNIX 04/25/011507 SCALE: 1• • 5000' VIEW: DATE: Apr II, 2001 DRAWN: RNIX DESIGNED: XREF: LSF: FLD BK: • APPROVED: ACAD DWG.: 00112V01 PG 0: PSSF: VICINITY MAP OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON J08 NO: 00112 SHEET OPUS.. Opus Group•mpanies- Architects, Engineers, Contractors, Developers Pi AL • Project()RAj 5• A-OS Date bA — (c- ol By Ai' Sheet \ of CR sE \. 1.01\,) LI ( \1 t4-0 (Lit, r r LL Antl i L 2:4 1 N it.. Sg.crioN A A Nod Ta SC.ii2}Lt . . • 1E 18" SD = 85.0 . ARMOR OUTFALL WITH •: . RIP-RAP 12'L x 8W--x 2' THICK A▪ .1.=-Srl • SLEEVE 18" SO THROUGH-W-SCL /- al z.°05 A ( WETLAND A .---3YPASS. STRUCTURE 7 PP'r ....--\ . . / . / 0/ ) 7, "LOCK Bt.(TT). RETAININa4WALL 'UAL • • "' CB. TYPE 1 0ni POINT . ' I • t•• • . • - .103.55 o --- FtrAs.oRAir) (so) sT .• -165 - r7G /0a.r3 •••••••• \N \ • 77: L E-1:› St-A1) Lcx...A--TIO sEE k-n-A • ?'d -11:1101 INTF-gSTACCE 1-5 S /WA. se. 4. Ater AtAtft.. • to. '44r,„itto, ... ....... ...... Se 55 Go 6:- 52 : • 19.111p3TER lEll_csuRE<= • L. s t• cgoSs 5 Gertot4 ■ I I 4 2198*-0" 1 !ft, .*T-'i .'" ■ . ".4 C&'';&."<'(' ■ Wai& .'•■•■U .. i ■ .' . NA . .". e i Mir s ig % N .A.NIN_ 51C E6C 5C 54 c 4. 33C TTP, 52 C 61: 58 121.-441311;1s, • 0 0 516 1 Eoc 14' 14. 24* J 45 456 446 Maria DATA ZCNts*,, CEECC (0) ELWIN& AF-A !San-A LEVEL ONE LEVEL TU LEVEL 11-1REE TOTAL CO-T-191, 4RE.11., (COSRJCCF5, RE5 TRC0-t5. ETC./ .15z, LisaeLE •1_0651 AREA 11.516 33.44,5 23,440 513400 (56401 1:6 3 STORY OFFICE BUILDING 69,970 S.F. Ai 4. 110 111 112 25 141 15161 Ir. Ce pit I '2 es. E531,37 is; 1351 '31 13.7.123 3,1.56. r_91/ -rp 15.E 1535.-0" '56R-15 1!-5153114.5 p1• :4E70:52:16.76•' ... te"---COLORED CZNCRE E ree 1.1 67..63 u —t- ia i.../ 6 F --" /....! . E ..'• k '64 s. Lea .. ' 24' f cRivi- 141 .• '31-441145 1-inn1171E-744 5*t4 0 0 2- c 1- c r ir 2 1. 5-fl .4.55ErteLrsn 11.5:6 11.520 • (1,62, 51st. AVENUE SOUTI-I • 603.42712 PARTIAL SITE PLAN SCALE. • 30.-0" 15' 30. 60' 67.576 meliee141.0.411•1•MPIInismaum... Mechanically Stabilized Earth System Close -up of stabilized slope mat material used to stabilize the soil. P: \RI I)IiV\'I'UKWILA COMMERCIAL \Pictures \Stabilized Slope \Stabilized slope last Pointe 2.doc 'I'ukwila File No.s Lo1-050 and E01 Mechanically Stabilized Earth System Close -up of stabilized slope mat material used to stabilize the soil. I': \RGDI3V \"TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Pictures \Stabilized Slope \Stabilized slope East Pointe 2.duc Tukwila File No.s Lo1 -050 and Ii01 -018 0�0 00 x'0000 i�.0000 0000 x`0000 ]D000 4� 000 • • Mechanically Stabilized Earth System Plants growing on stabilized slope. P: \RI:DEV \TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \ Pictures \Stabilized Slope \Stabilized slope East Pointe t.doc Tukwila File No.s LoI -050 and FOI -Ol8 • • Mechanically Stabilized Earth System Stabilized slope at landscape and parking level. Landscape area at top of stabilized slope. P: \REDIiV \TUKWILA COMMERCIAL \Pictures \Stabili•z.ed Slope \Stabilized slope Last Pointe l.duc Tukwila File No.s 1,o1-050 and E0I -0I8 sc o n:Z0 41411.1.STJtOm ARCHITECTS P.S.C. 9•9 124TH AVE ME OaLEVUE. WA 99005 Tar 42.4553203 (AC 425.455.935 wv4.rnnxonolxvo1nNA a 6 • It STABILIZED EARTU SLOPE ARIES (S' n913 9' ZONING■ OFFICE (0) BUILDING AREA (SCJ. FT.. LEVEL ONE LEVEL TWO LEVEL THREE TOTAL COMMON AREA, (CORRIDORS. RESTROOMS. .... ETCJ •`QIL... .. USABLE FLOOR AREA • RECLIIRED. EXIST. OUTFACE :(13831 RECEIVED: ' DEC 06200t • - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • -.PARKING PROVIDEDs STANDARD ACCESSIBLE .' II INAR1 SITE PLAW JOB NO. 2000030 DRAM, "-MT; OF • CHECKED, JGH DATE2 0V3V01 F1.01 .. . . • ' • • • " • • OUTFALL OF • R.4.7.LOCATEb DITC14 Dr4attrace-ce teceReaceLfAeLRE6 TO ROOT WE GP • it,neRsun IFTS--TREAM EAFFER TL.W4811. DM &Sas. lEICSITICe -VV.ATICN t pwatt . • asamoc o spasm" CUTSIDE CF OF - • . . . , . - .-.. , . .. .,.. .. .„ . . - - I CP 9' 11141-7442 wiwAttow =CrIO"SPIN LPUT OF MOLAR) 113' TEC1WIN. TIN9 X • re' IIETLA),11::. BLFFER • / RECYCLING - 5.— IF STORAGE KSPACE • "PAR(ING -7 ('SF " ' mama TREES TO REMAIN (TM.) . ' • • . • ". ' ' 4-10•43-61 tpqj 606.0e 6-;•.1)-,-; 9, Oia- 0 0 019 13 Co Co 0,7:6; 9.0-49f,79 0 C. rava.u.■J11.1:19.VIIICIANACNINAvi:.e.,,u_94,N,Ag9,4,-; •••.';'''.-0 4 ,..1 v.4,1 a■1F .4" q:61,t, ox tilliWEL?:;F:Ole W. 'Ati 6 o.i.einitll,tr. I. 'i■ vo • iSI,Aerl iii......-., , ...." • . tet,54,- ' . .. . .:L°f, . , , _.- ••:■•••••••17-. _ . ............. • . i. _ . ,- .1 .-LILs.j. 't-I'''.- . . ........ : (1.:-.11 I 17. '1 :: . .0.1*.!,...,C , l 1;. : . N . : . . , • .: • " 7 . -. . -M . - . " - . , ' - - • . . . , . . . . -.-.I-- .. -.,1:-7 .- .. - .. . • . -- .....- - -- '- - - . - -.7 .,' - - . - . -- - - .-. -.'.'..-• - _ - • , . - • : • - 1 1 26 26 24 23 22 21 '20 k*.t4 ), I 19 120 121 122 1 WA EY,151, DrC1-1 TCE RELOCATED 40 141 142 143 144 145.146 1 .5t14:Cti# • AFL; 47 • • LantiscapeArditechmi .,,,,,_Nv/&A wailer • • GpArannarkalber4ces lorigaant • Yrommmetrublo.ocei 710832=ECTM tr(Wf C“?1.01147• Pr nArPI. Poem 15621:MALL.WADMIDIS /1° blY CAC. WALK MEE Choll. PLANS) • 5IST AVE SOUTH . . \--EXIST. OUTFALL • ()Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers. Surveyors Planners 142114a, •51i ,• : ..• 44251462 I BO • ' Wenn •WA 98009 1: • .* : • PAX: (423) 462.7719 REV. MO. DATE IWO 2 MM. CI • .• • DF_SCRIPTION • . Revision to Preenreej Plan ROAN= to Prebentrg Plea • MADE BY CRECRED PLOTTED.. SCALD 20. VIED; DA1E1 04/11/01 • '.'l.IF. '.DEet REED: :*. .•PO EXIST. DITCH - ..• TO BE RELOCATEE ,• • .. . ' • . • • - ' : • • • OPUS N.W. L:L.O. JCS MD. .• • • • :• • • • , r ►-� fp 0 n • NO .. y' • • Z 0 SC OHIO 4R LLsT .ROm • ARHfLECTS P.S.C: L. 19 12TH AVE 1YF E LE'4!JE, 34 00003 EL1 425.455.3203 '425.455A3St ...scer.zo�em,cpn . WETLANDS MEN ■a ■I ■ouu •u•le pule 4 43 4 4 144 45 46 41 8 9 95 156 131 158 69 161 162 163 C C 164 165166 nE1 n91130 182 183 1 184 1 185 11E61 181 1535' -0" 3 91 152 193 194 195 91 155 199 PROJECT DATA' EiUILDOJG AREA (sand: LEVEL O1.1! ..- 22.400 LEVEL 1310 ..21,&00 LEVEL TFIREE . 21b00 0 15' 60' PRELIMINARI- SITE PLAN DATE. 0USV0I -0 smarm PINIEI4 CONCRETE ANOD ALUM. -0 PETAL HVAC . . TINTED GLAZE* pa 1 HI t DOOR • -Q STEEL ox Door -0 BPbOTH MOW CONCRETE - .4 100. ALLItt t1NTED aLazPlo STEEL CAHOPT. EAST ELEVATION SCALE. VS' • THEY .. • -0 - PETAL WAG '. EMIR SCREEN -0 SMOOTH MUSH , 1. CONCRETE NORTF•I ELEVATION SCALE, 1162 .. P-O• .. . COLOR LEGEND ALL COLORS ARE AS M MFACnOED..; er SHERR2N WILLIAMS QI TOWWQISE TAN SWISS • 0RUILDROBE eua282 ® CARTSELIAN SUR10B sc0NI0 F.777 r( I 11 NI 41 Gr1LJLJ �A UST O m ARCHRECTS P.S.C. '010 124TI AVE NE B TEL 42 NA 20003 7EL• 423.455.920 •AK: x.455.5251 amrcolwellatmmmm PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS JOD NO 2000080. DRAM. C.F CHF -OCED. .qH DATE. OVEIAU F4.01 FRAME WITH -p METAL EIVAC WIMP. SCIEHI 1 - WALL_ 3RD ROOK L REVEAL (TTPJ elooT• FRIER FRAME tUIGI TREED GLAZIFG WEST ELEVATION SCALE. yr • r-m' 1 !via_ IFIVAC EQUIP. SCREEN . *MGM PRIEM • SMOOTH SHIM 1 - REVEAL ma.) j SOUTH- ELEVATION • SCALE, VN . r-0' • . . 0 SIM GUARDRAIL - _F4Cr�4LE IGT - RPIISM GRADE —1 __ -__ _.J... • COLOR LEGEND ALL CCLCRS ARE AS MANIPACTUREI, B7 SHERWIN WILLIAM 0 TQUN IOUSE TAI SUQiSO O7 =moose .EIIQ7ffi . Q CARNELEAN IMAMS. AVERAGE REM GRADE SC0 "11Z'0 $11 LLS TO 0 m ARCHITECTS P.S.C. 919 124Th Aft NE . BELLEVUE WA OB005 113.: 425.455.3203 MU 425.455.9351 1 1 4 a a O UKWILA, WASHINGTON PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS Jos No. 2000050 DRAIN CJR DATE.. 01/31101 - ohs BUN. .1. A8 THE PURPOSE OF THIS IRAWING.IS TO ASSIST OPUS NIRTIIEST L.L.O. .1N EVALUATING THE SUBJECT'PROPERTY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT FCR .. • COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. .. DATUM . HORIZONTAL:' NAD 83/91 - • . HELD THE COORDINATE FOR THE WEST QUARTER OF•SEC11oN 23 -23-4 PER KING .'COUNTY SURVEY SECTION CONTROL DATABASE. VERTICAL: CITY OF-TU2Y114 • _ - BENCHMARK: INVERT OF SANITARY SEWER MAIOALE APPROXIMATELY 125' EAST OF • THE SOUTINIEST CQdP) OF TAX LOT 0121 IN SO. 1515T STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY. " RIM ELEVATION - 90.0 FEET NOTE: CHECKED TO PUBLISHED I.E. TO WEST OF 75.5 FEET. 0.1 FOOT. ACCEPTED UOECCRDID SURVEY. BY SCKDETER 8 ASSOC. FL OVERALL BOUNDARY. GOLDSMITH WAS TRAVERSED FROM WEST QUARTER CORNER TO NORTHMEST SECTION • CORNER AND 04248(EO TO EXISTING COMERS BY OTHERS WITH ACCEPTABLE .RESULTS.. - . .. BOUNDARY CALCULATIONS: -. • THE BEARING OF NORTH LINE OF THE SOROETER. SURVEY (mum MARGIN SO. 148TH • • 51HeLR) WAS HELD AS THE SAME•BEANING AS THE SOUTH LINE OF PLAT OF STERLING .- ADDITION (COMA! LINE OF TRACTS 3 AND 4 OF SEATTLE LAND.00.;5 ACRE TRACTS). THE BALANCE CR THE INTERIOR EAST-NEST LOT LINES 8ERE"•PRORATED arrow) THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LINE AND THE LINE CONON TO TRACT5.7 AND 8 OF SAID PLAT (4 (T)4-MARSIN OF 50..1515T). .. ' THE OVERALL EAST BOUNDARY (WEST RIGHT-0F‘W1Y OF 1-5) IS ACM PER ' SCHROETER SURVEY. UPON REVIEW OF-TIE ROOT RIGHT- OF-WAY PLANS THIS LINE ..'MAY CHANGE SLIGHTLY. - - _,..THE-IARTM -SOUTH LINE BOXED! TAX LOT 0091 AND 0093"15 SUBJECT TO VARIOUS, INTERPRETATIONS' AS TO LOCATION. FURTHER RESEARCH AND EVALUATION WOULD ' .'.BE REQUIRED IN THE EVENT THAT. A DEFINITIVE LOCATION OF THIS .INTERIOR LINE • BECGES CRITICAL. ' , . • • EASEMENTS: TWO EASEIEMS'EXIST THAT •AFFECT /ENQNBER TIE OVERALL • PROPERTY NO BOTH AFFECT TAX LOT 0030. .I) . A.F. 6299225. SOUTH 25 FEET FCR MAMMY AND UTILITIES 2) - A.F. 8701270486,• SOUTH 25 FEET AND EAST 25 FEET FCR MAMMY AND - -. UTILITIES. • - ' THE BENEFITTING PARCELS ARE TAX LOT 0029 AND TAX -LOT 0031.' IF .THESE PARCELS WERE MERGED INTO TAX LOT 0030, TIE EASEMENT WOULD BE EXTINGUISHED. EIGHT TITLE REPORTS WERE RECEIV.FROM ITINERATION TITLE INSURAME CCNPANY ANA EVALUATED A5 FOLLOVS: 2 N 2) 3) 0195 870148 ' .. 0030 10/23/2000 .. 870144 0081 10/23/2000 • PROJECT AREA A 221D C0811TENT ' . . .. ..12/12/2000' SUPLEIENT /I TO - --- - _ . 21113 COMMENT COMITMEHT 1/8/2001 ..' 4) 870143 '5). 870142 8) 870141- . 870139 0090' .. ,•_ -0094. -0120 8) 870140., . - , '. 0121 10/23/2000 -SOUTH 15111 STREET tlwL•••• IE QTR. CRAMS • T54 - SCALE: I' • 200': - TYPE NI STREAM • 189F291: 4 � . e UTILITY POLE i-- GUT WOVE • TELE MH 4 . W5.BO4 • WATER METER si611 _. W WATER VALVE • , O TYPES CATCH BASH O TYPE I CATCH BAIN . • DR.1 HOLE • . TEST PIT ITS RA) • TEST 801E (BREOBE88) .10/23/2000 . 10/23/2000 - 0092 - - :.'10/23/2000..' - SUPPLEMENT /I TO 2ND COMIITMEM COMMITMENT TO ORDER /870144 ELIMINATED A PREVIOUS ACCESS EASEMENT PER A.F. /5555888 • NETLANDS,- DITCHES. AID /OR STRUMS 511041 HEREON WERE IDENTIFIED 'AND/CR. DELINEATED BY A.J. BREDBERG AND ASSOCIATES IN DECEMBER 2000. AND JANUARY 2001 AND SURVEYED BY GOLDSMITH l ASSOCIATES IN THE SAME' PERIOD. - PRELIMINARY WETLAND AND/OR STREAM BUFFERS ARE SNONN BASED. ON INFOMATICR PROVIDED BY THE WETLAND:810.001ST •AND 15 SUBJECT TO.REVISI04. TOPOGRAPHIC IN%RMATI01 SHOWN HEREON WAS COLLECTED" IM'THE FIELD ON JANUARY 2001 AND IS CURRENT TO THAT DATE 48411. .- 5LOPE5'GEATER'THAN OR EQUAL TO 20R AND GREATEN THAN 10'-1N HEIGHT ARE S1DI4 - -- HEREON AS INTERPOLATED FROM A.TRIANGULAR IRREGULAR NETWORK -OF THE SITE TOP°. PROJECT .AREA -A. AND PROJECT AREA B.BONDARIES ARE PELIMINAR AND SUBJECT TO REVISION AS THE PROJECT PROCEEDS 106*80'C06TRUCTION. . PROJECT AREA 'A . - . • (PER TRN6NAT10N TITLE REPORT NOS. 870148 AND 870144) .. • THAT PCRTION"CR TRACT 4 OF SEATTLE LAMA C0PANY'S' 5 APE TRACT, AS PER PUT . ' RECORDED -IN 201915 6 OF PUTS. PAGE 90, DESCRIBED AS 56.10115: 'BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH. LINE OF SAID TRACT 4. WITH THE WESTERLY ' -LINE CR PRIMARY STATENICMYAY'N0. I; " THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 150 FEET TO THE TRITE POINT OF THEN= - THENCE 49(7X5611 PARALLEL-WITH THE WEST LINE W SAID TRACT 4: A DISTANCE 08:199.25. - 5221; • . THET'L 04 EESTERLY TO A POINT 8152 WEST LINE OF SAID 52*21 4. A DISTANCE 148 FEET.: SOUTHERLY OF THE -NORTH ESTU CORNER THEREOF: THENCE SOUTHERLY TO E TRUE SOUTHWEST COMER OF SAID TRACE 4; •- '-THENCE EASTERLY TO THE TRUE POINT.OF'BECINNING; TOGETHER WITH TRACT-5 OF SEATTLE LAND- COMPANY'S 5 ACE TRACTS. AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 8 OF PLATS, PAGE 90, RECORDS'0F KING COUNTY; .EXCEPT THAT PORTION' DEEDED FOR PRIMARY STATE' HIGHWAY NO. 1 (SR5) BY DEEDS' RECORDED' UNDER RECORDING NOS. 5484213 AND 5528319, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY 1165- F PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED UDER RECORDING ND. 5581902 ;. • - SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF.WASHINGTCR. ..PROJECT AREA 6 , (PER TRANSNATION.TITLE REPORT NOS. 870139 AND 870140) . • TRACT 7 OF SEATTLE LAND COPANY'S 5 ACRE TRACTS,'AS PER PLAT"RECODED IN VOLUME' 6 OF PLATS..PAGE 90, MOWS OF KING COUNTY; . - EXCEPT THAT'PORTICN CODEINED IN KING-COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE M0. 694285. FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHNAY,ND. 1; :SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TU(WIU. COUNTY OF KING. STATE'OF WASHINGTON SLOPED 204 OR GREATER ;39•5• W 62.85 a Hugh G. Goldsmith'' & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers •.Surveyors Planners' 1215 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004'.. P.O. Box 3585 TEL (425) 482 -1080 Bellevue, WA 98009 ' • •FAX: (425) 482 - 7719:- REV. N0. DATE - DESCRIPTION RACIEST QECIED PLOTTED: 00N2XOLN1 MADAMS 07/13/0115:45 SCALE: F • 30' DATE: 7/6/15 ORAWN DESIRED: 115W: XREF: APPROVE• GCR/BPF ACA) OWL: 0012501.4.4 FLASK: DJ 01511515 - 2440 PO /: - I-2S • PS5F: TOTAL WETLAND AREA PER BREWERS A *89011.146 ACRES OPUS N.W. L.L.C. 905 60. 00112 TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEY' FOR OPUS :PARK :5/405` • CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON WETLAND: OP. DITCH/STREA •I5' BUFFER ''PROJECT=;:AREA.' A NOTES': 1. THE PURPOSE Of TMS DRAR010 18 TO PROVIDE AN ONENTORY OF'ALL TREES 4. OR • GREATER N SEE WITHIN PROPOSED PROJECT AREA A AND PROPOSED PROJECT AREA TYPE R STREAM � iuuuinni HE1.0 THE COORDINATE FOR THE WEST OUARTER OF SECTION 23 -23-4 PER KM COUNTY SURVEY SECTION CONTROL DATABASE . VERTICAL• BENCHMARK: IN OF TOF SAN THE SO INVERT OF SANITARY TARP SES'ER MANHOLE APPROXIMATELY ES' EAST OF THE ELEVATION CORNER OF TAX LOT OWN 80. MIST STREET p161R -0F -R■T. RAT ELEVATIOI . 80.0 FEET 'MOTE: CHECKED TO P08USIEO LE TO REST OF 75.5 FEET. 4 OJ FOOT. . 3.. ACCEPTED UNRECORDED SURVEY BT 5CINOETER B ASSOC. FOR OVERALL B0ONDART. OOLDSUTH HAS TRAVERSED FROM WEST. 0IARTER CORNER TO NORTHWEST SECTION CORNER AND CHECKED TO FRONTON CORNERS BY OTHERS WITH ACCEPTABLE 4. PROJECT AREA BOIBOARES ARE GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OILLT AND DO NOT REPRESENT. 1 DRIPLRIES WORN ARE AVERAGE AREAS AS DETERMINED BY FIELD OBSERVATION 01 WRCO AND APRA 2001..._ 6, TREE 0968 SHOWN ARE DIAYETEA OF nu/8( 40 ABOVE GROUND., .. .. 0 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. )) Consulting Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 1215 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 P.O. Box 3585 TEL' (425) 482 -1080 Bellevue, WA 98009 FAX: (425) 482 -7719 DESCRIPTOR MADE 115 PLOTTER 0002807x.0 LADAMB 07/13/0113:44 SCALE. r.30' DATE; 7/0/0 ORARI! DTO DESIGNED. APPROVED: GCRTH:IF ACRD DWG.: 00021(024.) OPUS N.W. L.LC. JOB NO 00112 11EN: DJ . %REF: 0002302 Llf: . .00021(02: FLO WC 2440 PG f: - . 1•25. SENSITIVE AREA AND TREE SURVEY FOR OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF.TUKWILA - WASHINGTON . . ' STORMWATER MON MIN ,COMFMTNINJ P6020310 8702001 CENTERLINE 111. DEEP AT COTTER WITI• SO SIDE 01.0218 (0.5 Lac.: SIMI 023011 • *PPM.. LOS 070008EE0 FOR STABILITY OR OTNER PLMTING PER PLANTING OR IMMATION PLAN (0)7(0100 220 LONG • 22' INDEI TOR LID • 890 DESIGN RATER SURFACE • 87.0 WATER OUAuT7 RATER SURFACE • 82.0 BOTTOM VAULT RAISES • 08 6(03 02178000) M. • OAS 0*51 REM) RATER OUALITY 701. • 0.29 A•71, IM SD OUTTALL TO TOP ESISTRIG DITCH/FENCELNE IE • ILO re"Vt-k.511 • • SCALE: r 30* ...• •' • •. . .. • ..• • • • • • • .. • ••• STORMWATER' re ye. exe • 18 SD OUTFAU. •/, TO EISTNDDIT /:R0F R,RAPg. FA TYPE II PISTON, STORY Mae Aft.r.re) ~wet P020 f013001. to 40E . . • • FRONTAGE MPROVENENT FACE NEW VERTICAL 0.01EI AND GUTTER pl EAST OF CENTERLDE IMPROvEREM. BACK OF 8211 12 WEN COM WALK 00.8 EAST Of 038701* 12)00)10)2 MPROVEMENT L08 POon fewscorsa 0. s COAL DRIVERAT DROP . YWANsinaTio. 8E7, 00 FRONTAGE INPROVENENTS , SOUTHERN LIMIT OF FALL . • DROP LIFILACE EXISTING TYPE 1791 8 AB NEEESSARY .• • . • . . . • NOTE; PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (BUILDINGS AND PAVING) ARE SHOWN PER SITE-PLAN RECEIVED FROM SCON20 ARCHITECTS 3/23/01 Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Surveyors: Planners REV 60 DATE DESCRIPTION RAM 87 CHECKED PLOTTED 00112.071.0.0 1POP119 07/0/0)3.3* SCALE f • 30 VIE• DATE 7/0/0. DRAInt LC• DESIGNED. /02E2 OPUS N.W. L.L.C. On KO 00112 PRELIMINARY GRADING, PAVING, tEk DRAINAGE PLAN OPUS PARK 5/405 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON 00E2E04 11.080. P.O. Box 3585 '1'EL: (425) 482-1080 Bellevue, WA 98009 FAX: (425) 462—'7719 APPROvED 0.4 •CAD DwGz ooteco*.d., PSSE. 00220 Z- 25 :.. (00 :. 50 SCALE: r - SO. IE 015 CHANNEL • 754 ' YS' ACCEBS/IQA.RY- TRW "EXISTING UTILITY POLE E— GUY WIRE 0. TELE MH 0 'MAIL BOX e WATER METER SIGN W WATER VALVE. PROPOSED. ��1: 1 fli�6 �� pNff ff s �, urn. poi �� iei�,.. ' Viii' \!� �� ;" SMH '$ 0010 C[ COWECiNW TYPE m STREAM V 15' BUFFER LOEB F11 PR NCR 1- MN REDUCER RETARD KR RALR • 5II;t1 AVE SOUTH TYPE • STREAAI' AT SANRARYIBERER MAT01014 RDIS 8E601 •OF 0. STOW AT R RATER 13E: 03IST•0 DRAPE (TT? -9.00 8.00 '6.00 '5.00 r. 4.00 2.00 1.00 0.00. - Hugh G. Goldsmith )�. Consulting Engineers . • 1215 114th Avenue 58 . , Bellevue. WA 88004 P.O. Box 9565 Bellevue, WA 98009 DESCRIPTION DATE. - 7/13/01 APPROVED:.. -53. PG it 1-25 ACRD DWG, 000280Lary OPUS N.W. L.L.C. 40.. 00112 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN • OPUS PARK 5 /405. CITY OF TUKWILA - WASHINGTON s sty at► �� r oo°c...00 �t'OL:C�v iJG Ui�U�t•iJG r. 4 � AVOW 1. A :ip ®® R✓>m ® ®D® ® ®o ®Wm ® ® ®mmem ®m ® ® ® ® ® ®WS =1122® ®11•1m&S M i+c • - ..7/j7 /4/ Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates, Inc.; Consulting Engineers- Surveyors • Planners. 1215 114th Avenue SE BeIlevne, WA 96004 P.O. Box 3565 Bellevue, WA 96009 FAX: (425) 462-7719 TEL: (425) 462-1080 DATE •m aI•111 MUM =I= DESCRIPTION Mammon to Pral®eNry Plan MADE BY (NECKED PLOTTED:. SCALE: 1' • 20'. DATE: 04/18/01 DRAWN: JTV DESIGNED: JTT APPNOvED: • 418 ACRD DWD.t MEP: LIFT • FLD 8Wt PO 02 OPUS N.M. L.L.C. JOB NO. preliminary landscape plan