Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E03-013 - WESTFIELD CORPORATION - DOUBLE TREE DEMOLITION AND 478 PARKING STALLSWESTFIELD DEMOLITION (DOUBLE TREE HOTEL) 205 STRANDER BV E03 -013 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670 DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) File Number: E03 -013 Applied: 05/07/2003 Issue Date: 06/30/2003 Status: ISSUED Proponent: WESTFIELD CORPORATION INC. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: DEMOLISH DOUBLE TREE HOTEL AND INSTALL 478 ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS. Location of Proposal: Address: 205 STRANDER BL TUKW Parcel Number: 5379200241 Section/Township/Range: 26/23/04 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 ✓t/I u /1, 0003 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 4 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 E03 -013 Printed: 06 -27 -2003 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I , C.F. -,SL /E HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing x Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: ,&/C //Zi4 Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this .2" day of J ✓/f i in the year 20 D3 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: W& 7`,r/e)_/J (701,' , Project Number: E (i 3-013 a Mailer's Signature: 4.6-11-/b— Person requesting mailing: ,&/C //Zi4 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM 0019;S aalaSpl John Goodwin Westfield Corporation, Inc. 11601 Wilshire Bl., 12 floor; Los Angeles, CA 90025 -1748 Jacquelyn Stoner Huckell Weinman & Associates 270 3 AV, Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 Mark Bandy Washington DOT NW Region, MS -120 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 Tasha Atchison The Transpo Group 11730 118 Av NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034 -7120 Jonathan Pool Centerplex Alice Neiffer Suburban Cities Association 6300 Southcenter Bl., Suite 202 Tukwila, WA 98188 Gloria Ramirez Urban Studies, UW Tacoma 12505 SE 75th Place Newcastle, WA 98056 ®091iLbJ'ii #'3ifisn •Brent Carson Buck & Gordon 1011 Western Av. Seattle, WA 98104 -1097 Michael Crowson PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Av. E., Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Ramin Pasooki, Planning Mgr Washington DOT NW Region, MS -240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 Paul Lenoue Tukwila Citizen Paul Carr Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 110 Union St., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 -2038 Gregg Zimmerman City of Renton Planning/Building /Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Susan Hempstead Puget Sound Energy P.O. Box 97034,OBC 11E Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 s qq l;SSvp Duane Huckell Huckell Weinman & Associates 270 3 AV, Suite 200 Kirkland, WA 98033 Tracy Harms Southcenter Courtyard by Marriott 400 Andover West; Tukwila, WA 98188 Stacy Trussler 6431 Corson Av. S. , NB82 -250; Seattle, WA 98108 -3445 Heather Bly Westfield Corporation, Inc. 633 Southcenter Mall Tukwila, WA 98188 Jake Batsell Seattle Times P.O. Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 Mike Hemphill Andover Company I ''' 415 Baker B1, Suite 200 Tukwila, WA 98188 wmaatiastiPjAad00ws 5 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Contact Sheet Name John Goodwin Company Westfield Corporation, Inc. Address 11601 Wilshire BI., 12 floor; Los Angeles, CA 90025 -1748 Phone corporate # = 310 478 -4456 Email jgoodwin @westfield.com Relation Developer Brent Carson Buck & Gordon 1011 Western Av. Seattle, WA 98104 -1097 206 - 382 -9540 bcarson @buckgordon.com Developer Consultant Duane Huckell Huckell Weinman & Associates 270 3 AV, Suite 200; Kirkland, WA 98033 425 - 828 -4463 dhuckell @huckellweinman.com EIS Consultant Jacquelyn Stoner Huckell Weinman & Associates 270 3 AV, Suite 200; Kirkland, WA 98033 425 - 828 -4463 jstoner @huckellweinman.com EIS Consultant 'eV 'Michael-Crowson PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Av. E., Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 206 - 522 -9510 mcrowson @pacland.com Developer Consultant Tracy Harms Southcenter Courtyard by Marriott 400 Andover West; Tukwila, WA 98188 206-575 - 2500ext. 608 Interested individual Mark Bandy Washington DOT NW Region, MS -120; PO Box 330310; Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 206 - 440 -4352 bandym @wsdot.wa.gov Affected Agency Ramin Pasooki, Planning Mgr.; Phil Segami, Assistant Planning Mgr. Washington DOT NW Region, MS -240; PO Box 330310; Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 206 - 440 -4710 pazookr @wsdot.wa.gov; segamip @wsdot.wa.gov Affected Agency Stacy Trussler 6431 Corson Av. S. , NB82 -250; Seattle, WA 98108 -3445 206 768 -5738 trussler @wsdot.wa.gov EIS Reviewer Tasha Atchison The Transpo Group 11730 118 Av NE, Suite 600; Kirkland, WA 98034 -7120 425 - 821 -3665 tashaa @thetranspogroup.com EIS Consultant Paul Lenoue Tukwila Citizen palenoue @mac.com Interested individual Heather Bly Westfield Corporation, Inc. 633 Southcenter Mall; Tukwila, WA 98188 206 - 246 -0423 hbly @westfield.com Developer Jonathan Pool Centerplex pool @centerplex.net Interested individual Paul Carr Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 110 Union St., Suite 500; Seattle, WA 98101 -2038 206- 689 -4085 Affected Agency Jake Batsell Seattle Times P.O. Box 70; Seattle, WA 98111 206 - 464 -2718 jbatsell @seattletimes.com Interested individual Alice Neiffer Suburban Cities Association 6300 Southcenter BI., Suite XXX; Tukwila, WA 98188 206- 433 -7168 sca @sububancities.org Interested individual Prepared by City Of Tukwila 06/30/2003 Page 1 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Contact Sheet Gregg Zimmerman City of Renton, Planning /Building /Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA 98055 Affected Agency Mike Hemphill Andover Company 415 Baker BI, Suite 200; Tukwila, WA 98188 206 - 244 -0770 mhemphill @andoverco.com Interested individual Gloria Ramirez Urban Studies, UW Tacoma 11a1.�5. 5677 oi(. Pp,U- kAS'R-e i tti k q ilseattle @msn.com Interested individual Susan Hempstead Puget Sound Energy P.O. Box 97034,OBC 1 TE; Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 425 - 456 -2838 susan.hempstead @pse.com Affected Agency Prepared by City Of Tukwila 06/30/2003 Page 2 CHEST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PEW MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES () .S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY R( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. IM NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY RANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT r) • EPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR () DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV "DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION' ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY 4QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT XPUGET SOUND ENERGY ( ) HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT AT &T CABLE SERVICES ki KENT PLANNING DEPT ( TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS ( ) POLICE ( ) PLANNING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ( ) MAYOR SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE ) K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR CC. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES () FOSTER LIBRARY () K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT j�Q OLYMPIC PIPELINE �O AL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT RENTON PLANNING DEPT CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ),CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL 4SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ,MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE () CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM WA enJYcY t EATTLE TIMES ( SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ADMINISTRATI V E \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC MEDIA �UWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE P.S. AGENCY OUND TRANSIT G., (eliv( t4i y- HIGHLINE TIMES CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW Moira Bradshaw - Re: Westfield -Red Lion - Double Tree - Pedestrian Connection Page 1 From: Moira Bradshaw To: Bill Fortunato Date: 9/30/03 10:27AM Subject: Re: Westfield -Red Lion - Double Tree - Pedestrian Connection Bill - I printed a copy of the attached site plan. Unfortunately the drawing of the parking lot is not legible; however, the notes are. You've got the square footage for the interior parking lot landscaping figured out. I was unable to verify where it will be located and I believe the parking number should be 630 instead of 631 based upon your existing to remain and proposed numbers. A landscape architect will have to sign and stamp a landscape /planting plan for permit submittal. It was difficult to read what is happening to the existing landscaping along Strander due to the ped path that will be installed. The site is nonconforming as to perimeter landscaping and it shouldn't be made any worse by the ped path. If need be you can stripe and mark all the stalls perpendicular to Strander as Compact, allowing them to be 16 feet in length, which hopefully should leave enough room to maintain any existing landscaping, put in the stalls and allow the minimum aisle width behind the stalls. Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX »> "Bill Fortunato" <bfortunato @pacland.com> 09/25/03 08:57AM »> Good morning - The attached sketch is of the revised layout per the previous discussions with your departments. 1. A pedestrian pathway has been added behind a row of parking along Strander along with a curb ramp at the driveway. The path is separated from the parking by wheel stops. 2. We have reviewed the landscaping requirements and have added some additional islands to reach the square footage requirements of the code. An area calculation has been added to the legend for your reference. Please contact me with any questions or comments you may have. If this these revisions met your expectations, please let me know as soon as possible. We would like to submit for the parking lot permit with a week. Thank you. Bill Fortunato, P.E. PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Office: (206) 522 -9510 Fax: (206) 522 -8344 Original Message From: Jill Mosqueda [ mailto :jmosqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.usl Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 9:46 AM Moira Bradshaw - Re: Westfield -Red Lion - Double Tree - Pedestrian Connection Page 2 To: bcarsonabuckgordon.com; Bill Fortunato Cc: Brian Shelton; Jim Morrow; Moira Bradshaw Subject: Westfield -Red Lion - Double Tree Brent and Bill, There have been some conversations between you, Moira Bradshaw and myself regarding installation of frontage improvements along Strander as part of the Public Works permit requirements for the paving of this site. The demolition does not trigger frontage improvements. The City Engineer, Brian Shelton, and I are aware of possible changes to Strander somewhere in the future. In recognition of possible future improvements, Public Works is open to exception to the required frontage improvements, per Chapter 11 of the TMC. Any exception to Public Works requirements must be negotiated through Public Works. In order to prevent double efforts and to prevent confusion regarding Public Works requirements for the paving project, please contact me as focal for the Public Works issues. My direct line is 206.431.2449. Thanks, L. Jill Mosqueda P.E. CC: Jill Mosqueda IA GENERAL NOTES ALL WDBR AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH AIL 01Y/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND OSHA STANDARDS, • THE OESLN SHOWN 15 BASED UPON THE ENGINEER'S UNDERSTANONG OF THE 0351196 CONDITIONS SHOWN NO THIS PLAN SHEET ARE 0ASEp UPON SURVEYRFREPARED 87 APEX ENGINEERING AND DESIGN DRAWNGS BY BROWW =RAON ENGINEERS, DATED 8- 21 -88. THE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO BOOING THE PROPOSED SIEIWoRK IIIPR0VI1ERIS 6 COIFUOTS ARE DISCOVERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY 184E OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PORTION OF THE STEWORK INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY S SHORN 04 THE PLANS, WHEW EXCEPEXLSIING 7 04*1 HAVE MADE, AT PUS OMIT 0OPEULSE, A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR AND SUEDE IT TO 171E OWNER FOR RENEW. CAUTION - NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR THE CONTRACTORS 52E0RCALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATXN AFD /CR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTRIRES AS SHOWN 01 THESE PLAINS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS Ummjia AND WERE POSSBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN N THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RETIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLEIE, THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL RILE APPROPRIATE UTUTY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF U1IU1IES. IT STILL BE THE RiSPONSBWTY OF 171E CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL COSTING U1WRLS AND 0051840 114PROVpi1415 W711O1 CONFUCT 14111 THE PROPOSED IMPROVWLENTS ON THE PLANS r ,REPAJR`COSTNG CURB AS NECESSARY 4. OOQISIONS 5HINN REFER TO FACE OF CURB, FACE 0 THE CENIE18JE OF PAVEMENT 311881NG, UNLESS 0114I AS NEEDED, S AU. PAVED PARKING LOT AREAS WITHIN THE UNITS O11D DEBRIS SHALL BE STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT UNLESS ODNSTRUCTION IT & ALL ON -STE PAINTED STRIPING SHALL BE DOUBLE CDRD21A0E EXISTING COATS SHALL BE APPUED NO SOONER THAN 4 HOURS 0R arm. (CONTRACTOR 10 REFER TO PROJECT SPE0FlCA110NS tAss IV PAVING MARKING REQUIREMENTS.) 7. PARKING LOT STRUNG SHALL BE 2610M, a WIDTH, ,, LOAONG UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. UGNT POLE BASES 10 BE PIP' MANUFACTURER'S YELLOW (DOUBLE COAT) & ALL ISMS NTH CURB AND CUTTER SHALL BE LAND REMAIN80 SANDS ARE TO BE STRIPED AS SHOWN THAT THE R. DOSING STRIJC1URES W1HIN CONS RUCTION UNITS AR OF GUTTER ALL COST SHALL BE 190.111 D N BASE BID. 10. CONTRACTOR 54ALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCA BUT NOT LOOTED T0, ALL U1UTR$ STORM DRAINAGE, FOR ALL NEW Nos. SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALL WORK SHAISURE ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES SPEORCAT APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE NQJAED WITH PM9IDNT, AND NPAYD AREAS SHALL CRM POURED E SHOWN N THE �-� NNOOSE DOWN RB SUBJECT AREA BOUNDARY NOSE DOWN CURB \ CURB RAMP TO ..1\..a1Y OF TUXWLA STANDARDS EXISTING SIGN TO YELLOW 4' LRD10VE BE REMOVED. STRIPING 1' 0.c. mow 4' NG 1'0.c No.: Dafe';74By..r-' -. . >R%aipnedBy s;eaue!;Oa -.^-e WE 70raivn By::, 9/19/03 PERIAT LKH ;611ecketl'BY' . 'Pro No:,v _}', MFF STRUCTURE SCHEDULE C84 TYPE R>r 1 (wi) 0 28.2 25.1 0 0 0 0 FUN CONTROL 210 28.9 280 210 217 710 71103 27.8 11.0 265 PIPE SCHEDULE FSPE DO EIER SUIT 0 100 0.000 0 S 100 0.065 0 0 8' IY • 0.048 6840 8• SITE DATA 12 60u COSTING 2071114G COSTING USE PROPOSED USE = NC = HOTEL (VACATION) RE1A6 PARKING DATA COSTING PARKING DATA: TOTAL (051186 STALLS = PROPOSED PARKING OATH: PROPOSED STALLS = EXISTING STALLS TO REMAIN = TOTAL - 323 STALLS 433 STALLS 197 STALLS 831 STALLS LANDSCAPE DATA REOIRED INTERIOR LANDSCAPE = 15 SF PER S1AIL " 631 STALLS = 9,485 SF OF INTERIOR LANDSCAPE INTERIOR LANDSCAPE DATA PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ISLANDS D3511146 ISLANDS TO REMAIN TOTAL LEGEND = 6.960 SF = 2.578 5F = 9,538 5F I 1 STD. DUTY PAVEMENT CREWED 0U118 ® NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS PER ROW �72 NUMBER OF COSTING PARKING STALLS PER ROW PRECAST ICED. STOP UNCUT UNE EX CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR SPOT ELEVATION iybl p 24' AccEss MANHOLE PER KM COUNTY REQUIREMENTS • TYPE I CATCH BASIN •9 TYPE R CATCH BASIN CLEANOUT TO GRADE (7.0.X.6.) —SO-- STORM DRAM PIPE re TOP OF CURB TP TOP OF PAVEMENT GRAPHIC SCALE ( DI FQ2) 1 Imo . 30 It Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.d. Page 1 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) H Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. UNITED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant/Cross Respondent, v. THE CITY OF MILL CREEK, Respondent/Cross Appellant. No. 45882 -5 -I. April 16, 2001. As Amended and Publication Ordered June 5, 2001. Developer brought action challenging city's imposition of mitigation fees, impact fees, and drainage improvement requirements prior to development of property. The Superior Court, Snohomish County, Larry McKeeman, J., entered judgment for city on fees, and for developer on drainage improvements. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals, Ellington, J., held that: (1) mitigation fees imposed for road and traffic impact did not duplicate earlier fees; (2) fees imposed for public parks and recreation were not duplicative of earlier fees; (3) city did not have to include effects of private recreational facilities when measuring impact of development on public parks; (4) imposition of mitigation fees was not an unconstitutional taking; (5) regulation allowing for mitigation fees did not violate due process; and (6) city could not require developer to make frontage improvements for drainage. Affirmed. West Headnotes 11 Administrative Law and Procedure €683 15Ak683 When reviewing an administrative decision, the Court of Appeals stands in the same position as the Superior Court. Ili Administrative Law and Procedure €676 15Ak676 Review of an administrative decision is grounded in Page 1 the administrative record. Ml Administrative Law and Procedure C='791 15Ak791 Mal Administrative Law and Procedure € 796 15Ak796 During review of an administrative decision, factual findings are considered under the substantial evidence standard, and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Ell Administrative Law and Procedure €791 15Ak791 Substantial evidence exists when the evidence in the record is sufficient to persuade a fair - minded rational person of the truth of the finding. M5� Zoning and Planning X382.6 414k382.6 A developer may not be required to mitigate the same impact twice. West's RCWA 82.02.050. MI Zoning and Planning €382.4 414k382.4 Fees imposed by city on developer for road and traffic impact were not mitigated in earlier stages of development process, where affected road systems contained in earlier assessment were different than current roads, and earlier assessment addressed road improvements, while current fees were in accordance with traffic mitigation formulas for vehicle trips explicitly "subject to subsequent preliminary and final plat review and approvals," and earlier report stating transportation impacts had been mitigated was for a different project. West's RCWA 82.02.050. L( Zoning and Planning )382.4 414k382.4 City's assessment of mitigation fees for public park was not duplicative of earlier fees assessed developer, where earlier report stating that recreation impacts had been assessed referred to a different project, and city council's finding that developer's dedication of land for public park was not mitigation was not challenged on appeal. West's RCWA 36.70A.080, 82.02.050. 18I Zoning and Planning €='382.4 414k382.4 Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.de Page 2 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) City was not required to include effects of private recreational facilities when measuring impact of development on public parks, where city council found that private facilities did not and could not satisfy public park service levels required by comprehensive development plan, value of land for private facilities was not in question, and city had no control over use of private facilities. West's RCWA 36.70A.080. 11 Eminent Domain €%.2(1.1) 148k2(1.1) 191 Zoning and Planning '382.2 414k382.2 1l Zoning and Planning €382.4 414k382.4 Mitigation requirements and fees for parks and traffic, which did not duplicate any earlier mitigation for parks and traffic, were not an unconstitutional taking of property. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. [101 Constitutional Law X278.2(1) 92k278.2(1) 1101 Zoning and Planning X86 414k86 Regulation allowing for mitigation fees for development was reasonable and did not violate due process in developer's action challenging city's assessment of fees; the regulation had a legitimate public purpose, and the means used were reasonably necessary to its achievement, and there was no argument that the fee was unduly oppressive. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's RCWA 82.02.020. 1111 Zoning and Planning X382.2 414k382.2 City could not require developer, whose development would have no effect upon drainage at the adjacent boulevard, to make frontage improvements for drainage. West's RCWA 82.02.020. 1121 Zoning and Planning €382.6 414k382.6 Mitigation requirements may be imposed where there is a reasonable and direct relationship between the effects of the proposed development and the required Page 2 mitigation. * *945 *684 Larry J. Smith, Jeffrey A. Beaver, Graham & Dunn, Seattle, for Appellant. Stephanie E. Croll, Scott M. Missall, Seattle, for Respondent. ELLINGTON, J. The principal developer of Mill Creek challenges the City's imposition of mitigation fees and other conditions for a recent subdivision. We agree with the superior court that mitigation fees for impacts on traffic and public parks were justified, that the City is not required to quantify and account for the effect of private recreational facilities in determining public park impacts, and that the developer cannot be required to make improvements to a road drainage system because the subdivision will have no impact on drainage at that location. We therefore affirm the superior court in all respects. BACKGROUND The development in question is known as Mill Creek 23. Because United Development Corporation (UDC) claims that several of the conditions for its approval are duplicative of requirements already imposed during the long process of developing Mill Creek, we briefly review the relevant history. In 1974, UDC began to develop Mill Creek, a master *685 planned residential community of approximately 1,200 acres in Snohomish County. The development was governed by an agreement between UDC and the County, which specified a staged process for County approval of the development in segments consisting of sectors, divisions, and plats. In 1981, UDC and Snohomish County entered into a road improvement agreement (1981 RIA), under which UDC would build six road projects for the County. In 1983, the City of Mill Creek incorporated, encompassing all of the master planned development. The City assumed all the County's planning and approval responsibilities. The City formally adopted the 1974 contract and the 1981 RIA. The City also instituted its own zoning code and development regulations. In 1985, the 1974 contract was formally amended to provide that future development approvals were Copr. CO West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.dc. Page 3 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) subject to the city regulations then in effect: 2. The parties intend to replace the procedures, process and criteria for approval for sectors, division of development and plats set forth in the [1974] rezone contract with the relevant procedures, process and criteria set forth in city ordinance. To that extent the rezone contract is deemed amended as follows: C. The procedures and criteria for revisions to subdivision approvals and for new subdivision approvals shall be the same as set forth in relevant provisions of city ordinances relating to subdivision approval and as the same may hereafter be amended by the City.,[FN11 FN I. Amendment to Rezone Contract at 2, Admin. Rec., Ex. 52, Tab 3. In 1986, UDC sought and obtained both an amendment to the agreement for a revision of the 1979 Sector 6 plan, and preliminary plat approval for development of Sector 6 as Mill Creek 16. The revisions to the Sector 6 plan involved an increase in the potential residential density. The Sector 6 rezone agreement again specifically provided that further development would be subject to "all rules, regulations, *686 ordinances and policies of the City of Mill Creek." FFN21 FN2. Concomitant Zoning Agreement for Sector 6 Rezone at 2, Admin. Rec., Ex. 52, Tab 5. Mill Creek 16 contained seven tracts intended to be further subdivided. One of the seven tracts in Mill Creek 16 was Tract 298, which later became Mill Creek 23. Final approval of the Mill Creek 16 preliminary plat specified that Tract 298 was "subject to subsequent preliminary and final plat review and approvals." fFN31 FN3. Respondent/Cross- Appellant's Brief, Attachment 10. In 1994, the City adopted its current comprehensive plan. The parks and open space element of the plan established a level of * *946 service standard for neighborhood and community park facilities (two acres of neighborhood park and five to eight acres of Page 3 community park for every 1,000 persons). In 1997, the City adopted a resolution establishing new traffic mitigation formulas and an ordinance establishing formulas for deriving park mitigation fees from the impacts of new development. fFN41 FN4. Resolution 97 -227; Resolution 97- 236. In 1998, UDC sought preliminary plat approval for the development of Mill Creek 23. The subdivision adds 29 single family lots and approximately 84 new residents to the City. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) [FN51 and the Mill Creek Municipal Code [FN6]. (MCMC), the City approved Mill Creek 23, conditioned upon UDC's payment of $39,547 in traffic mitigation fees, $33,445 in neighborhood park impact fees, and $27,801.43 in community park impact fees. The City also required UDC to make storm water drainage improvements to the road adjacent to the subdivision. FNS. RCW 43.21C. FN6. MCMC 17.48. UDC appealed these mitigation requirements to the Mill Creek Planning Commission. The Commission recommended that the City Council approve the development with the conditions. UDC appealed to the City Council, *687 which upheld the requirements. UDC filed a further appeal in superior court under the Land Use Petition Act JFN71 (LUPA). The superior court affirmed the park and traffic mitigation requirements. However, the court ruled the drainage improvements requirement not justified, finding: FN7. RCW 36.70C. UDC was required to complete Mill Creek Boulevard in 1986; that any contractual obligation was fulfilled at the time the City accepted the road; that the only justification the City would have for requiring further improvements is if the development in question impacted the road and its drainage system. And here it clearly does not._ JFN81 Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.dt. Page 4 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) FNB. Report of Proceedings (Nov. 19, 1999) at 8 -9. Both parties appeal. DISCUSSION I. LUPA Review Under the Land Use Petition Act, relief from a land use decision may be granted if the petitioner can show, among other possible grounds, that "the land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise." JFN9J Relief may also be granted if the petitioner can show that the "decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court." _ fFNI01 FN9. RCW 36.70C.130(b). FNIO. RCW 36.70C.130(c). f 11[21[31[41 When reviewing an administrative decision, we stand in the same position as the superior court._[FN111 Review is grounded in the administrative record._ [FN 121 Factual findings are considered under the substantial evidence standard, *688 and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo._ f FN 131 Substantial evidence exists when the evidence in the record is sufficient to persuade a fair - minded rational person of the truth of the finding._ [FN 141 FNl 1. Isla Verde b:t7 Holdings. Inc.v. City of Camas. 99 Wash.App. 127, 133, 990 P.2d 429 (1999), review granted, 141 Wash.2d 1011, 10 P.3d 1071 (2000). FN 12. Snohomish County v. State, 69 Wash.App. 655, 664, 850 P.2d 546 ( 1993). FN I3. Biermann v. City of Spokane, 90 Wash.App. 816, 821, 960 P.2d 434 (1998). FN14. Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Ass'n. Page 4 v. Island County. 126 Wash.2d 22, 34, 891 P.2d 29 (19951. UDC seeks review under both the error of law standard and the substantial evidence standard. But because UDC assigns no error to the findings of the City Council, they are verities on appeal._fFN15] We therefore review * *947 for substantial evidence only where no findings address the issue. FN 15. Stuewe v. Dept. of Revenue. 98 Wash.App. 947, 950, 991 P.2d 634, review denied, 141 Wash.2d 1015, 10 P.3d 1072 (2000) (administrative finding of fact not assigned error is verity on appeal); Hilltop. 126 Wash.2d at 30, 891 P.2d 29. 2. Duplicative Mitigation Requirements Projects with a significant development horizon may be conditioned as appropriate when the actual development occurs. [FN161 Consistent with the parties' explicit agreements and with express conditions upon previous approvals in the staged development process, the traffic and park mitigation requirements for Mill Creek 23 were imposed pursuant to the City's comprehensive plan and then - current development regulations. FN 16. See Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc., 82 Wash.2d 475, 513 P.2d 36 (1973) (SEPA evaluation may occur during any major stage of a single development project). [J UDC acknowledges that a developer may be required to mitigate the direct impacts of a development, and UDC does not challenge application of current regulations. But a developer may not be required to mitigate the same impact twice. ITN] 71 UDC claims that all traffic and park impacts for Mill Creek 23 were mitigated in earlier stages of the development process. FN17. RCW 82.02.050 provides, in part: "(1) It is the intent of the legislature: .... (c) To ensure that impact fees are imposed through established procedures and criteria so that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees for the Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.d. Page 5 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) same impact." *689 a. Road and Traffic Impact Assessment fj According to the City Council's findings, fFN181 which UDC does not challenge, "[Mill Creek 23] is expected to generate an estimated 278 new daily vehicle trips [which] will impact intersections and road segments throughout Mill Creek." JFN19] To this figure, the City applied its trip mitigation formula and assessed $38,553. Vehicle trips had not previously been the subject of a mitigation requirement, and UDC does not contend the formula was improperly calculated. Rather, UDC claims that at two points in the earlier stages of the development process, all traffic impacts for Mill Creek 23 were mitigated. FN 18. The City Council adopted the findings of the City Planning Commission, which in turn incorporated certain findings from the staff report to the Planning Commission regarding Mill Creek 23. See City Council Resolution 99 -265 at 7, Admin. Rec., Exhibit 68; Planning Commission Resolution 99 -79 at 2, Admin. Rec., Ex. 68. None of the findings expressly addresses whether the traffic mitigation requirements for Mill Creek 23 were duplicative of earlier mitigation. FN 19. Staff Report to the City of Mill Creek Planning Commission at 9, Admin. Rec., Ex. 68 (as adopted by City Council Resolution 99 -265). First, UDC relies upon language in the 1981 RIA describing its purpose: "[T]o fix and determine the entire fair share of UDC for improvements to affected road systems as a result of the Mill Creek project, and in particular the development of Sector 8 in the Mill Creek Community [.]" JFN201 UDC claims that its "entire fair share" of road improvements for the entire Mill Creek development was assessed by this agreement. FN20. Road Improvement Agreement at 9, Admin. Rec., Ex. 52, Tab 1 (emphasis added). Page 5 We reject this argument. The "affected road systems" addressed in the RIA were defined in the agreement, and consisted of portions of Mill Creek Road, Seattle Hill Road, and 23rd Avenue. Traffic mitigation fees for Mill Creek 23 were imposed for impacts on nine roads. Of those, only Seattle Hill Road was also considered in the 1981 RIA. The RIA required improvements only to the "[p]ortion of Seattle Hill Road within Sector 8 from north boundary to south boundary of sector 8." fFN211 Mill Creek 23 is in Sector 6, not *690 Sector 8. In addition, the 1981 RIA addressed road improvements, while Mill Creek 23 mitigation was assessed pursuant to the 1997 comprehensive plan and Resolution 97 -227 establishing traffic mitigation formulas for vehicle trips. The Mill Creek 23 traffic mitigation clearly does not duplicate the RIA. FN21. Road Improvement Agreement at 4, Admin. Rec., Ex. 52, Tab 1. Second, UDC contends that road improvements required for the 1986 Sector 6 rezone and the preliminary plat approval of Mill Creek 16 satisfied any mitigation for traffic impacts for Mill Creek 23, because the number * *948 of total residences to be authorized in Mill Creek 23 was then known, and all traffic impacts must have been fully considered. There are several problems with this argument. Approval of Mill Creek 16 was conditioned upon construction of the section of Mill Creek Boulevard running through Mill Creek 16 and installation of a traffic signal at its intersection with State Route 527. UDC does not explain how construction of part of Mill Creek Boulevard and installation of a traffic signal could mitigate all traffic impacts for all of Sector 6 /Mill Creek 16 - -much less for the individual subdivisions (such as Mill Creek 23), for which approval was to be sought years later. In addition, the restrictions on final approval of Mill Creek 16, which were not appealed, clearly mandated that resubmission for formal plat approval was required for further subdivision; development of Tract 298 (Mill Creek 23) was explicitly "subject to subsequent preliminary and final plat review and approvals." _ f FN221 FN22. Respondent/Cross- Appellant's Brief, Attachment 10. Finally, UDC relies upon a 1989 city staff report to Copr. CO West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.die • Page 6 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) the Planning Commission regarding the approval of Mill Creek 18 (another subdivision in Sector 6/Mill Creek 16). The report stated, "Transportation impacts for this project were mitigated previously with the approval of the plat of Mill Creek 16." _ f FN231 From this language, UDC argues that all *691 traffic impacts for all subdivisions in Sector 6/Mill Creek 16 "had already been assessed and collected when Mill Creek 16 was approved." _ fFN241 But UDC ignores the phrase "for this project," which clearly referred to Mill Creek 18, and also ignores the changes in the regulatory framework between 1989 and 1998. FN23. Staff Report to Planning Commission at 7, Admin. Rec., Ex. 52, Tab 7 (as adopted by City Council Resolution 89 -99). FN24. Appellant's Brief at 17. UDC's arguments that traffic impact fees for Mill Creek 23 were duplicative of previous mitigation are without merit. b. Public Park Impact Assessment 17_1 The City evaluated its public park needs, and established service standards in the parks and open space element of its comprehensive plan, adopted under RCW 36.70A.080. UDC concedes the City's level of service standard is "a nationwide benchmark commonly used by most jurisdictions in western Washington as the starting point for assessing the impact of subdivisions on public parks." fFN251 The City has adopted a formula by which public park impacts are assessed according to the per person cost of creating the necessary facilities, which is applied to the projected population increase attributable to the development. The city code requires that development approvals be conditioned upon mitigation of such impacts. fFN261 FN25. Appellant's Brief at 24. FN26. See MCMC 17.48.070(A), (C). The 1989 staff report on Mill Creek 18 also stated, "Recreation impacts have been mitigated by previous land and monetary contributions[.]" [FN27] Based on this language, UDC makes the same argument it Page 6 made for traffic impacts. But again, the staff report referred to a different project, mitigation for which cannot be said to be mitigation of the population - based impacts of Mill Creek 23. FN27. Staff Report to Planning Commission at 7, Admin. Rec., Ex. 52, Tab 7 (as adopted by City Council Resolution 89 -99). UDC also contends that the public park impact of Mill *692 Creek 23 was mitigated when UDC dedicated 2.27 acres of land to the City in 1987 as a condition of approval of Mill Creek 16. This land eventually came to be Library Park. UDC argues the Library Park dedication constitutes all the mitigation that can lawfully be required for public park impacts in all subdivisions in Sector 6/Mill Creek 16, including Mill Creek 23. The City Council found, however, that Library Park "was not required as mitigation for impacts to the City's park and recreation system or as mitigation for future impacts arising from subsequent property development; thus, [it] cannot be used to offset UDC's current obligation to comply with state and local * *949 laws[.]" _ f FN281 This finding is unchallenged, and therefore is a verity on appeal. fFN291 FN28. Resolution 99 -265 at 5, Admin. Rec., Ex. 68. FN29. Hilltop. 126 Wash.2d at 30. 891 P.2d 29. Public park mitigation assessed for Mill Creek 23 was not duplicative. c. Changed Circumstances In a related argument, UDC asserts that "[t]he City may not assess additional mitigation at subsequent phases of development review merely because of changed circumstances." JFN301 UDC's argument depends upon the premise that all impacts were mitigated at early stages, and cannot be recalculated later under more - stringent regulations. As just discussed, all impacts were not mitigated at earlier stages. As noted above, the parties agreed to a staged process subject to then - existing requirements. This expectation was also included as a restriction in the final approval of Mill Creek 16 (which was the preliminary plat of Sector 6), and explicitly applied Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.de Page 7 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) to Tract 298 (which eventually became Mill Creek 23). No appeal was taken from those conditions. Where there has been no duplication, UDC cannot now complain of the application of current regulations in assessing mitigation. FN30. Appellant's Brief at 39. *693 d. Private Parks, Public Parks LJ] Even if the mitigation is not duplicative, however, UDC asserts that at least as to parks, the assessment does not accurately reflect the impact of the development. UDC claims that because residents of Mill Creek 23 are members of the Mill Creek homeowners' association (MCCA), the City was required to consider the effect of the private recreational facilities inside MCCA when it measured the impact of the development on public parks._ f FN311 FN31. The private facilities in MCCA include a golf course, a swim club, a tennis club, a nature preserve, urban trails, and a playfield. UDC and MCCA have apparently denied the City's request to program the facilities for public use. UDC challenges neither the level of service standard nor the conversion formula, per se. Instead, UDC contends the availability of private recreational facilities for exclusive use of MCCA members reduces the likelihood they will use public parks. UDC argues that because only the direct impact of the development may be subject to mitigation, the private facilities must somehow be taken into account: "[T]he City should have calculated a demand standard that fits the circumstances of this Subdivision, rather than utilizing its customary ... benchmark." fFN321 FN32. Appellant's Brief at 36. UDC does not say how this calculation should be accomplished, except to complain that the City "failed to undertake site specific analyses and, instead, simply has applied a mechanical formula[.]" _ 1FN331 UDC acknowledges, however, that under Trimen Development Co. v. King County. fFN341 the City is not required to conduct a site - specific analysis Page 7 of direct impacts. FN33. Appellant's Brief at 19. FN34. 124 Wash.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). In Trimen. the County utilized a population derivative to determine the impact a proposed development would have on open space and public parks. The calculation was formulated from a comprehensive assessment of county open space and park needs, which indicated a deficit of park acreage based upon adopted County standards. The developer *694 challenged both the power of the County to require a mitigating dedication, and the formulation of the fees in lieu of dedication. Ruling that King County's impact formulation and mitigation requirements were within the mandate of state law, the Supreme Court held that it was within the discretion of the County to use such a standardized methodology: "The County's method of calculating ... the fees to be paid in lieu of dedication, was a reasonable, pro- active approach to the regulation of development ... as authorized by RCW 82.02.020." [FN35], FN35. Trimen. 124 Wash.2d at 275, 877 P.2d 187. * *950 The formula employed by King County and approved in Trimen is similar to the formula utilized by Mill Creek in evaluating the potential parks impacts of Mill Creek 23. Both rely on population as the key variable. Like King County, Mill Creek conducted a comprehensive evaluation of its parks needs before adopting the parks element of its comprehensive plan. Mill Creek then applied a population -based formula to determine the additional impact on public parks represented by Mill Creek 23. This is a rational means of determining the direct impact of a development. The City is granted some discretion in developing its impact formulations under RCW 82.02.020. The City Council found that private facilities did not and could not satisfy the public park service levels required by the comprehensive plan: "The council specifically finds that private facilities ... previously dedicated by UDC to MCCA are privately owned and operated and are not public; therefore, [they] do not Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.de Page 8 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) meet the criteria of or serve as a public community park as defined within the Comprehensive Plan [.]" _ JFN361 This finding is unchallenged on appeal. FN36. Resolution 99 -265 at 5, Admin. Rec., Ex. 68. UDC, however, argues that the City must somehow determine the direct impacts of each subdivision, and that the existence of private facilities affects the probable impacts of the development on public parks. UDC relies *695 heavily on Vintage Construction v. City of Bothell. [FN371 In Vintage. this court, relying upon Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, [FN381 rejected Bothell's methodology for conditioning approval of a proposed subdivision upon the developer's payment of a $400- per -lot fee for public parks, because the fee was not derived specifically from the value of the land the developer could have been required to dedicate to the City for park usage under RCW 82.02.020. [FN391 We held that a fee in lieu of a dedication must be based upon the value of the land the developer could be required to dedicate, and be reasonably necessary as a direct result of the specific project. IFN40] Here, however, value of land is not the question, and no site - specific determination is required. [FN411 FN37. 83 Wash.App. 605, 922 P.2d 828 (1996), affirmed, 135 Wash.2d 833, 959 P.2d 1090 (1998) (adopting this court's opinion). FN38. 124 Wash.2d 240, 877 P.2d 176 (1994). FN39. Vintage. 83 Wash.App. at 612, 922 P.2d 828. FN40. Vintage. 83 Wash.App. at 610, 922 P.2d 828. FN41. See Trimen, 124 Wash.2d at 275, 877 P.2d 187. UDC also attempts to draw inferences from Vintage because 'of its facts. Vintage Homes was a development designed to attract homeowners who Page 8 wished to keep and ride horses, and equestrian amenities were provided within the development. The Bothell Parks Board and City Council had agreed to recognize the development's horse trails as a partial substitute for neighborhood park facilities, but then had failed to account for them in the calculation of the fee in lieu of dedication: "[P]resumably [the horse trails] reduced the amount of land Bothell could require Vintage to dedicate for parks. Yet, because it was relying on a generalized formula, the City did not consider whether, or to what extent, the trails would alter the amount of the fee." . [FN421 FN42. Vintage, 83 Wash.App. at 611, 922 P.2d 828. Again, UDC's reliance on Vintage is misplaced. The development's horse trails were relevant to determining the proper calculation of the fee only because the city had *696 exercised its discretion to recognize the horse trails as a partial substitute for public park facilities [FN431. Nowhere in its opinion did the court imply that a city is required to consider private facilities in the calculation of a development's impact on local public park needs. Vintage involved a fee in lieu of dedication, which requires a site- specific determination: "The problem with Bothell's present analysis is that it still does not establish a site - specific relationship between the amount of the fee and the value of 'the land that would have been dedicated.' " JFN441 The * *951 impact fee for Mill Creek 23 is not a fee in lieu of dedication, and does not require a determination beyond the analysis approved in Trimen. [FN451 FN43. It is not apparent from the court's opinion whether the horse trails were open to the public. FN44. Vintage. 83 Wash.App. at 610 -11, 922 P.2d 828 (quoting Trimen. 124 Wash.2d at 275, 877 P.2d 187) (emphasis omitted). FN45. See Trimen, 124 Wash.2d at 275, 877 P.2d 187. UDC's assertion that the residents of Mill Creek 23 will make less use of public parks has superficial appeal, but it is largely speculation, especially in the Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.de Page 9 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) long term, and UDC presented no evidence supporting its assertion. We are unwilling to assume, for example, that golfers who pay dues to the Mill Creek golf club are different from other golfers in their use of parks; many golfers probably pay dues somewhere, but there is no reason to assume a resulting impact on neighborhood and community parks. It also seems likely that despite the private facilities of MCCA, residents of Mill Creek 23 will play organized soccer or softball in city parks. In addition, the nature and condition of private facilities would greatly affect their rate of use. As the City points out, it has no control over the facilities inside the gates of the development. Those facilities may change or even disappear. Since their future character -- except, perhaps, as required open space, which has been credited already - -is uncertain, we see no reason the City must assume their character will remain unchanged when assessing the long -term impact of the development on public parks. *697 In effect, UDC asks us to disallow the use of standards and formulas. We reject this contention. Taken to its logical conclusion, UDC's argument would require a municipality to make a study of every proposed development offering amenities to determine whether those entirely private facilities- - whether backyard swimming pools or sport courts, community pools, tennis courts or golf courses, or riding arenas, or an airstrip, or any of the innumerable possibilities and combinations - -would cause the development (at least when new) to have a measurably smaller effect on the use of public parks than is anticipated by the formula. As recognized in Trimen the law does not require such an analysis._ f FN461 FN46. See Trimen, 124 Wash.2d at 275, 877 P.2d 187. A City is entitled to set a minimum level of public parks facilities for all its citizens. Mill Creek's comprehensive plan contains its unchallenged assessment of public park needs, and UDC does not challenge the fee - conversion formula as a sensible means for assessing impact mitigation requirements generally. The City Council had discretion under the statute to determine whether the need for public recreational facilities for the residents could in any way be satisfied or mitigated by UDC's private facilities. The Council found the public need could not be satisfied by private facilities, and that finding is unchallenged here. The Council also refused to alter its mitigation formula for public parks because Page 9 of the private facilities, and nothing in RCW 82.02.020 prohibits the City's approach, which, like King County's in Trimen, is "a reasonable, proactive approach to the regulation of development." JFN471 FN47. Trimen. 124 Wash.2d at 275, 877 P.2d 187. 3. Constitutional Issues j9j UDC makes two arguments challenging the constitutionality of Mill Creek's imposition of impact fees. First, UDC contends that the mitigation requirements for parks and traffic are not "roughly proportional" to the subdivision's impact and therefore constitute an impermissible *698 taking. _ fFN481 Our discussion above resolves this issue. Only if the mitigation for Mill Creek 23 duplicated earlier mitigation for parks and traffic could it be said that the trip formula or the parks level of service formula is not roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision. Because there was no duplication, there was no taking. FN48. See Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground. 103 Wash.App. 721, 727, 14 P.3d 172 (2000); Sparks v. Douglas County. 127 Wash.2d 901, 915, 904 P.2d 738 (1995). MI Second, UDC contends that Mill Creek's mitigation requirements violate due process. This is a reasonableness question. 1FN491 In determining whether a regulation violates * *952 due process, we ask whether the regulation is aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose, whether it uses means that are reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose, and whether it is unduly oppressive on the landowner._ fFN501 FN49. Guimont v. Clarke. 121 Wash.2d 586, 608, 854 P.2d 1 (1993). FN50. Presbytery of Seattle v. King County. 114 Wash.2d 320, 330, 787 P.2d 907 (1990). As discussed above, both case law and statute allow the imposition of impact mitigation fees as Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - United v. Mill Creek.de Page 10 26 P.3d 943 (Cite as: 106 Wash.App. 681, 26 P.3d 943) reasonable conditions for development approval. The traffic and parks mitigation requirements for Mill Creek 23 have a legitimate public purpose, and the means used were reasonably necessary to its achievement. UDC makes no argument the fee is unduly oppressive. There was thus no violation of UDC's substantive due process rights. 4. Drainage Improvements along Mill Creek Boulevard JI11[121 The City cross appeals, challenging the superior court's decision that UDC cannot be required to make frontage improvements for drainage along Mill Creek Boulevard. As previously discussed, mitigation requirements may be imposed where there is a reasonable and direct relationship between the effects of the proposed development and the required mitigation. IFN511 The superior court held, and we agree, that the record does not support *699 the existence of such a relationship. Indeed, it is undisputed that Mill Creek 23 will have no effect upon drainage at the adjacent boulevard. FN51. RCW 82.02.020; Sparks. 127 Wash.2d at 915, 904 P.2d 738. The City defends the improvements condition by arguing that the need to bring the adjacent street "up to code" justifies the requirement. FFN521 This is apparently an extension of the argument that current codes control mitigation assessments. But that is true only where the development itself has an impact to be mitigated. The City has demonstrated no impact at all. FN52. Brief of Respondent/Cross - Appellant at47. Instead, the City argues that the drainage improvements are a good idea, and therefore can be required as a condition of UDC's subdivision even though the need for the improvements is not directly related to development of the subdivision. This is not the law, either under the Mill Creek code or the statute. [FN531 The superior court correctly reversed this requirement. FN53. See RCW 82.02.020; MCMC 17.48.020(C) ( "Proportional mitigation should be required from each property Page 10 developer for the impacts attributable to his development.... "). The judgment of the superior court is affirmed. Respondent's motion for attomey fees is granted with respect to fees incurred responding to UDC's appeal (fees are not awarded on the cross appeal). Respondents are directed to comply with RAP 18.1. BAKER, J., and APPELWICK, J., concur. 26 P.3d 943, 106 Wash.App. 681 END OF DOCUMENT Copr. © West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Moira Bradshaw - RE: Westfield -Red Lion - Double Tree - Pedestrian Connection Page 1 From: "Bill Fortunato" <bfortunato @pacland.com> To: "Moira Bradshaw" < mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 9/30/03 1:44PM Subject: RE: Westfield -Red Lion - Double Tree - Pedestrian Connection Moira - Thanks for the comments. I believe when we make the full permit submittal it will be more clear where the interior landscaping is proposed. The walkway is proposed behind the existing perimeter landscaping area. No disturbance of that area is proposed. Thank you for the comments. I will incorporate them into the permit submittal. Thanks. Bill Fortunato, P.E. PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Office: (206) 522 -9510 Fax: (206) 522 -8344 Original Message From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto :mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:27 AM To: Bill Fortunato Cc: Jill Mosqueda Subject: Re: Westfield -Red Lion - Double Tree - Pedestrian Connection Bill - I printed a copy of the attached site plan. Unfortunately the drawing of the parking lot is not legible; however, the notes are. You've got the square footage for the interior parking lot landscaping figured out. I was unable to verify where it will be located and I believe the parking number should be 630 instead of 631 based upon your existing to remain and proposed numbers. A landscape architect will have to sign and stamp a landscape /planting plan for permit submittal. It was difficult to read what is happening to the existing landscaping along Strander due to the ped path that will be installed. The site is nonconforming as to perimeter landscaping and it shouldn't be made any worse by the ped path. If need be you can stripe and mark all the stalls perpendicular to Strander as Compact, allowing them to be 16 feet in length, which hopefully should leave enough room to maintain any existing landscaping, put in the stalls and allow the minimum aisle width behind the stalls. Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX Moira Bradshaw - RE: sidewalk require, • Page 1 From: "Brent Carson" <BCARSON @BUCKGORDON.COM> To: "Moira Bradshaw" < mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 9/4/03 9:29AM Subject: RE: sidewalk requirements Thank you for this code information. As I mentioned to you, the law in this state is quite clear, particularly with regard to standard street frontage requirements. No mater what a city code may require for street frontages, unless there is a nexus between the city requirement and impacts caused by the proposal, the requirement cannot be imposed. In the attached case, Mill Creek sought to impose standard frontage drainage requirements but the court denied that requirement because the city could not meet its burden of proof to show that the project did not contribute to the need for drainage improvements along the frontage. As the court stated, there must be "a reasonable and direct relationship between the effects of the proposed development and the required mitigation." I do not see any nexus between the demolition and paving project and the need to provide sidewalk improvements. The paving will serve customers driving to the mall and walking from their cars to the Mall. They are not walking along Strander. As I noted in our call today, Westfield's objective is not to challenge frontage requirements, but to postpone them. They want to avoid having to make improvements to Strander now that could very well need to be torn out in the near future with the Mall expansion. We are seeking a deferral of this work. I would appreciate your help in working out such a deferral. Specifically, I would appreciate knowing as soon as possible if the city will support a deferral and which of the code mechanisms would be best. If a written deferral agreement is desired, I could draft one within a day or so. The key for Westfield, however, is knowing immediately that there is support for deferral. That will allow Westfield to let the contract for the abatement/demolition work. Original Message From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto :mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:56 AM To: Brent Carson Cc: Jill Mosqueda Subject: sidewalk requirements Brent - per your request - below is the relevant code language for frontage improvements from the Tukwila municipal code. Chapter 11.12 REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS FOR NEW BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENTS Sections: 11.12.010 Purpose of Provisions 11.12.020 Statute Adopted by Reference 11.12.030 Street Frontage Improvements 11.12.040 Dedication of Right -of -Way 11.12.050 Easements and Other Dedications 11.12.060 Sites Shall be Served by Paved Streets 11.12.070 Special Provisions - Additions, Alterations, or Repairs to Existing Structures 11.12.080 Special Provisions - Single Family Residence Moira Bradshaw - RE: sidewalk requires • Page 2 11.12.090 Inspections 11.12.100 Landscaping in Right -of -Way, Easements, and Access Tracts 11.12.110 Street Lighting 11.12.120 Private Streets 11.12.130 Acceptance of Dedicated Private Streets as Public Streets 11.12.140 Americans with Disabilities Act 11.12.150 Nonmotorized Facilities 11.12.160 Traffic Signals 11.12.170 Street Ends 11.12.010 Purpose of Provisions The purpose of this section is to implement regulations in connection with the development and improvement of land, and to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewer, surface water drainage, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, street and other public improvements by requiring the construction and dedication of such improvements at the time of the construction of industrial, commercial, or residential buildings or developments. The requirements set forth in this chapter are intended to supplement the requirements of RCW Chapter 58.17 and Title 17 of the Tukwila Municipal Code relating to subdivision of land. (Ord. 1995 §1(part), 2002) 11.12.020 Statute Adopted by Reference For purposes of this chapter, those factors set forth in RCW 58.17.110 as it currently exists and as hereafter amended are adopted by reference as constituting the conditions to be considered in the approval or disapproval of any building or development permit. (Ord. 1995 §1(part), 2002) 11.12.030 Street Frontage Improvements (See TMC Title 17 for further detail) A. The installation of street frontage improvements is required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction, other than single family homes, or prior to final approval for subdivisions and 5 -9 lot short plats and Planned Residential Developments. For additions and remodels to existing buildings, see TMC 11.12.070. B. Complete street frontage improvements shall be installed along the entire frontage of the property at the sole cost of the permittee as directed by the Direc - tor. Street frontage improvements may include curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, street lighting, traffic signal equipment, utility installation or relocation, landscaping strip, street trees and landscaping, irrigation, street widening, and channelization. Beyond the property frontage, the permittee shall provide ramps from the new sidewalk or walkway to the existing shoulder, and pavement and channelization tapering back to the existing pavement and channelization as needed for safety. C. When (due to site topography, city plans , for improvement projects, or other similar reasons) the Director determines that street frontage improvements cannot or should not be constructed at the time of building construction, the property owner shall, prior to issuance of the building permit, at the direction of the Directorf: 1. Pay to the City an amount equal to the property owner's cost of installing the required improvements prior to issuance of a building permit. The property owner shall provide documentation satisfactory to the Director that establishes the cost of the materials, labor, quantities; or 2. Record an agreement which provides for these improvements to be installed by the property owner by a date acceptable to the Director; or 3. Record an agreement to not protest a local ' mprovement district to improve the street frontage. D. If, at a time subsequent to the issuance of a building permit, a local improvement district is estab - lished that includes the property for which the building permit was issued, the property may be considered in the compilation of the local improvement district assessment with the appropriate amount of costs of construction expended by the developer. Moira Bradshaw - RE: sidewalk requirers Page 3 E. The Director under either of the following conditions may waive the requirement for installation of frontage improvements: 1. If adjacent street frontage improvements are unlikely to be installed in the foreseeable future; or 2. If the installation of the required improvement would cause significant adverse environmental impacts. (Ord. 1995 §1(part), 2002) Also from TMC 11.04 the following relevant definitions. 20. "Developer" means the owner and /or building permit applicant who is required - by any ordinance of the City, as the result of the review under State Environmental Policy'Act, or in connection with any decision of the City Council - to construct street system and /or utility system improvements which abut the development site. 21. "Development" means a private improvement to real property requiring electrical and /or communication services including, but not limited to, such services being distributed to subdivisions, short plats, planned unit developments, or single - family or commercial building sites. 22. "Development Site" means the lot or lots upon which real property improvements are proposed to be constructed. 23. "Development Standards" are those standards set forth in Chapter 11.08.130 of the Tukwila Municipal Code and the Department's Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards. Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX CC: "Fitchitt, Greg" <gfitchitt @westfield.com >, "John Goodwin" <JGoodwin @westfield.com >, <bfortunato @pacland.com> Moira Bradshaw - Westfield Page 1 From: "Bill Fortunato" <bfortunato @pacland.com> To: "Moira Bradshaw" <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Jill Mosqueda" <josqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 9/4/03 8:57AM Subject: Westfield Moira and Jill - Thank you for your attention in these matters. Please direct all further communication to Brent Carson, the land use attorney for Westfield. Here is his contact information: Brent Carson Buck and Gordon 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA Ph:(206) 382 -9540 Thank you. Bill Fortunato, P.E. PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Office: (206) 522 -9510 Fax: (206) 522 -8344 Moira Bradshaw - Fwd: RE: E03 -013 Weld Hotel Demo Page 1 From: Jill Mosqueda To: Bfortunato @pacland.com Date: 9/3/03 2:44PM Subject: Fwd: RE: E03 -013 Westfield Hotel Demo And one more item: The 07.15.03 e-mail subject is the PAVING PROJECT, not the demo. PW is NOT requiring frontage improvements for the demo. PW is requiring frontage improvements for the paving project. HOWEVER, for public safety, the construction fence must be moved as soon as possible. L. Jill Mosqueda P.E. CC: Brian Shelton; Jim Morrow; Moira Bradshaw Moira Bradshaw - RE: E03 -013 Westfiel,tel Demo Page 1 From: Jill Mosqueda To: Bill Fortunato Date: 9/3/03 2:36PM Subject: RE: E03 -013 Westfield Hotel Demo In an e-mail to you on March 24th, I listed the following comments: 1. The Metro sewer main in Strander is not a force main. Tukwila also has a main in Strander. Also not a force main. 2. All of the accesses along Strander that served the Double Tree must be closed. The new parking will take access from Strander at the Sears access. 3. Additionally, the paving projects will trigger street improvements along Strander per TMC 11 and our new PW Standards. On 04.28.03 I sent the standards to you. The standards reference Chapter 11 of the TMC. You can access the TMC on the City's website. On 07.15.03 I sent you an e-mail that clarified the scope of the frontage improvements along Strander. The scope is: 1. Close the three accesses. 2. Install a sidewalk along Strander that connects to the existing sidewalks. The sidewalk must be designed to current City standards and must provide ADA amenities. The property owner must provide an easement to the City for the sidewalk and other public facilities. The street lighting and fire hydrant must be located behind the sidewalk. The frontage improvements are limited to the sidewalk and utility relocation because the City is looking at changes to Strander. L. Jill Mosqueda P.E. CC: Brian Shelton; Jim Morrow; Moira Bradshaw Moira Bradshaw - Re: Followup on 3 WId Issues • Page 1 From: Moira Bradshaw To: Brent Carson Date: 9/2/03 5:11 PM Subject: Re: Followup on 3 Westfield Issues Brent - I will discuss these this week with Steve and get back to you. Moira »> "Brent Carson" <BCARSON @BUCKGORDON.COM> 08/21/03 04:07PM »> I wanted to get back to you on 3 issues we discussed on Tuesday afternoon. 1. Parking Variance - can /should a decision be made before the EIS is issued? As I mentioned, a parking variance is a categorically exempt action by the city. Like road standards variances that are often granted by agencies prior to final SEPA determinations, a parking variance can be considered and granted prior to the EIS. This is addressed in WAC 197 -11 -305 and WAC 197 -11 -070. If a measures is categorically exempt but is a segment of a proposal that includes a series of physically or functionally related actions, some of which are categorically exempt and some are not, the city can proceed with the categorically exempt action so long as such approval would not a) have an adverse environmental impact or (b) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. I believe that we meet this test. The parking variance is a segment of a proposal so, under WAC 197 -11 -305, you have to meet the 197 -11 -070 test of no impact and no limit of alternatives. We meet this test because the parking variance itself has no adverse impacts. We can only get approval of the variance by showing that the requested reduction in parking is justified because parking demand will be met at the lower rate. By meeting parking demand with on -site parking we have no offsite impacts. Also, you do not preclude reasonable alternatives by granting the variance before the EIS. Because we can demonstrate 4.5/1000 meets the parking demand, it would not be a reasonable alternative to require Westfield to build a larger garage or to scale down development to meet 5/1000. I believe what the drafters of this WAC section had in mind was proceeding with some exempt development that truly precluded how a project could be built in the future. That is not the case here. Also, from a practical standpoint, this really should be resolved sooner than later so that the EIS can show the development and parking as proposed with the approved variance. Otherwise, the EIS might need to show larger garages or less development in case the variance was denied. I don't think this complication is necessary, particularly when you have already established an administrative process to consider the 10% parking reduction and we will be able to provide you with the documentation from other malls to show why 4.5 is more than adequate in this case. Please let me know how we should proceed on this. In either case, we are gathering the data to submit a parking variance application. 2. - Status of Demolition and Request For Your Assistance on Hotel Demo Site Development Permit Issue Here is the current status on demolishing the old hotel. Submittal of the Demo permit is awaiting completion of the asbestos abatement work. There apparently is quite of bit to do. Bids have been requested by Westfield for a contractor to do this abatement work, the demolition and other necessary site work following the demo. When Westfield has selected the contractor and we have a firm schedule from them, we will let you know the approximate completion date. There is a Site Development issue associated with the Demo for which I could use your help. When PacLand came in to the city to discuss the plans for how the site would be finished up after the demo, a city staff person, Jill Miscalla (please forgive my spelling) noted that there was a segment of 6' concrete sidewalk that had to be built, with relocation of utilities in the that sidewalk area (including 2 Tight poles and a hydrant), and an easement granted to the city. I have spoken to John Goodwin about this request. Because there are improvements likely to occur in the future on the Strander frontage with the mall expansion, Westfield would like to defer any such improvements at this time associated with the hotel demolition. It would be a Moira Bradshaw - Re: Followup on 3 Weld Issues • Page 2 shame to have to remove newly constructed improvements. I would like your help to have the city reconsider any frontage improvement requirement that is imposed to be completed with the hotel demolition and parking lot conversion project. Let me know if you have any questions on this issue or if I should contract Jim Morrow or others to discuss this. 3. - Transpo Phase I Work Thank you Moira for confirming with Duane and Tasha the square footage. Your email also noted that you were checking on the hour to be used for the primary traffic impact study. Do you have an answer yet for Tasha on this? Can you now tell me when you expect Tasha will be able to complete her work on Phase I? John is out until June 8th and there is a status meeting with corporate officials when he returns. It would be great if by then we had Phase I done and were ready to move on to Phase II. Please let me know. I very much appreciate your taking the time to meet with me and John this week. Brent Carson Buck & Gordon LLP Seattle, Washington (206) 382 -9540 bcarsonebuckgordon.com (email) www.buckgordon.com (website) This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged information. If the reader of this e-mail is not the addressee, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please call immediately (206)382 -9540 and return this e-mail to Buck & Gordon at the above e-mail address and delete from your files. Thank You. Moira Bradshaw - RE: E03 -013 Westfiel.tel Demo • Page 1 From: "Bill Fortunato" <bfortunato @pacland.com> To: "Jill Mosqueda" <jmosqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 9/2/03 5:03PM Subject: RE: E03 -013 Westfield Hotel Demo Jill - Please provide the City of Tukwila code section which would require permanent pedestrian connections be provided with the submittal of a demolition permit. Thank you. Bill Fortunato, P.E. PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Office: (206) 522 -9510 Fax: (206) 522 -8344 Original Message From: Jill Mosqueda [mailto :jmosqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 1:13 PM To: Bill Fortunato Cc: Brian Shelton; Jim Morrow; Moira Bradshaw Subject: RE: E03 -013 Westfield Hotel Demo The idea is to have the fence moved back so that peds can use the parking lot as a ped connection. I believe that historically this was the ped connection between the two sidewalks. When Westfield /PacLand applies for the demolition permit, the plans must include a permanent ped. connection. CC: "Brian Shelton" <bshelton @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Jim Morrow" <jmorrow @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Moira Bradshaw" <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Moira Bradshaw - RE: E03 -013 Westfield.el Demo IIIPage 1 From: "Bill Fortunato" <bfortunato@pacland.com> To: "Jill Mosqueda" <jmosqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 9/2/03 12:08PM Subject: RE: E03 -013 Westfield Hotel Demo Jill - It was my understanding the fence being moved was to be in conjunction with the construction activities. I will contact their construction department to see if the fence can be moved back immediately. Please note, it is my understanding that the area in question is currently landscaped and would likely not be a proper pedestrian area. Thanks. Bill Fortunato, P.E. PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Office: (206) 522 -9510 Fax: (206) 522 -8344 Original Message From: Jill Mosqueda [mailto :jmosqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:57 AM To: Bill Fortunato Cc: Brian Shelton; Jim Morrow; Moira Bradshaw Subject: E03 -013 Westfield Hotel Demo ** High Priority ** ** Reply Requested by 9/2/2003 (Tuesday) ** Bill, Here is a follow -up on our conversation this morning regarding the construction fence along Strander Boulevard. On June 13th, you responded to an e-mail from Moira in which sje stated the fence needed to be moved back to allow a pedestrian connection between the two sidewalks. You stated you would contact the people at Westfield and that this would not be a problem. Today we received a complaint from a business owner saying the owner had observed a pedestrian, at this location, step into Strander Blvd. and almost get hit by a car. Please note this request does not mean a sidewalk must be installed. Please let me know right away why the fence was not relocated. thanks CC: "Brian Shelton" <bshelton @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Jim Morrow" <jmorrow @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Moira Bradshaw" <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Moira Bradshaw - Westfield and Tukwila. lities • Page 1 From: Jill Mosqueda To: Moira Bradshaw Date: 8/21/03 3:12PM Subject: Westfield and Tukwila utillities I spoke to Jim today regarding the storm, water, and sewer on the site that the City owns. Jim says he and Steve need to work out an agreement with John Goodwin. This is something we could do now, rather than waiting till way late in the game. Do you need to remind Steve? Moira Bradshaw - Re: Westfield - Red L. Paving - Frontage Improvements Page 1 From: "Bill Fortunato" < bfortunato @pacland.com> To: <josqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 7/15/03 10:39AM Subject: Re: Westfield - Red Lion- Paving - Frontage Improvements Jill - Thank you for the clarification on the scope of the frontage improvements. Bill Fortunato, P.E. PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Office: (206) 522 -9510 Fax: (206) 522 -8344 Original Message From: Jill Mosqueda <josqueda @ci.tukwila.wa.us> To: Bill Fortunato < bfortunato @pacland.com> CC: Brian Shelton <bshelton @ci.tukwila.wa.us >; Greg Villanueva <gvillanueva @ci.tukwila.wa.us >; Jim Morrow <jmorrow @ci.tukwila.wa.us >; Moira Bradshaw <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us >; Stan Anderson <sanderson @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Sent: Tue Jul 15 09:43:49 2003 Subject: Westfield - Red Lion- Paving - Frontage Improvements This project triggers frontage improvements. Since the City is looking at modifications to Strander and Klickitat and since the Mall project may include changes to the frontage along Strander, the frontage improvements along the Red Lion Strander frontage, per Brian Shelton, City Engineer, will be minimum and must consist of the following: 1. Close the three accesses. 2. Install a sidewalk along Strander that connects to the existing sidewalks. The sidewalk must be designed and constructed to current City standards and must provide ADA amenities. The property owner must provide an easement to the City for the sidewalk and other public facilities. The street lighting and fire hydrant must be located behind the sidewalk. CC: <bshelton @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <gvillanueva @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <jmorrow @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <sanderson @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <GFitchitt@westfield.com> Moira Bradshaw - SC Mall - Paving projlt Red Lion Page 1 From: Jill Mosqueda To: Brian Shelton Date: 7/10/03 1:11 PM Subject: SC Mall - Paving project at Red Lion Reply requested by 7/11/03 Bill Fortunato, from PacLand, came in to get permit application information. I told Bill the minimum frontage improvements on Strander would be connecting the sidewalks. Here are my questions: 1. Do we want an easement or do we want row dedication for the sidewalk? 2. What other frontage improvements do we want, considering Strander and Klickitat may change? 3. Should we charge a fee in lieu of improvements? When will we know how much the fee is? 4. Bill knows the three accesses into the Red Lion site must close. What improvements do we want at the access that goes to Sears? Will we allow an access that is greater than 35' wide? CC: Jim Morrow; Moira Bradshaw • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Memorandum To: Steve Lancaster From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: June 27, 2003 Subject: SEPA Determination File No. E03 -013: Doubletree/RedLion Hotel Demolition Project Description Raze hotel buildings and improve site with 478 additional parking stalls. Impervious surface area will increase from 4.19 acres to 5.3 acres with the proposal. The applicant will remove three curb cuts on Strander Bl. and redirect site access to the parking area from internal Mall parking lot driveways. Agencies with Jurisdiction City of Tukwila Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Required Permits /Approvals City of Tukwila Development Permit for demolition; and Type C permit for the parking lot; PSCAA Notice of Intent Relevant Elements Earth — The demolition/paving site is relatively flat and the applicant anticipates importing 1,500 cubic yards of fill for the basement and foundation areas of the hotel. A hillside along the west property line is outside the construction area and is demarcated by the edge of the existing westerly parking stalls. Proposed erosion sedimentation control measures as well as immediate plans to pave the site should provide adequate mitigation of potential erosion impacts. Air — No mitigation proposed. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency standards exist for the safe removal of asbestos prior to the demolition of the structure. In addition, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has guidelines for all construction to control harmful air emissions. They suggest: ♦ a dust suppression plan to control dust generated on site; and ♦ a dust management policy for trucks transporting excavation materials (e.g. adequate freeboard and coverage of all loads. "Construction" vehicle idling can also cause harmful emissions resulting in human exposure from toxic air contaminants. C:\mcb\mall \demosepareport.doc Page 1 of 3 06/27/03 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • Water The applicant's proposal results in a loss of approximately 1 acre of pervious surface. In order to meet adopted stormwater standards they propose providing stormwater detention for the 100 year / 24 hour event and providing both detention and mechanical water quality treatment, which consists of a vortechnics type product. The proposal will result in a .1 cubic feet per second increase in storm water runoff, which has been accepted by the Public Works Dept. Plants The existing hotel development was built in 1968, thirty-five years ago. Landscaping was installed around the building(s) and in the parking lot but has not been identified on the plans or in the checklist. The checklist only refers to grass and shrubs. It appears that most of the landscaping is proposed for removal. The applicant has responded that they will be keeping only the perimeter trees that are outside the sawcut areas. Transportation Strander Boulevard serves the site and there are currently three curb cuts along this frontage. Steep grades prohibit access from Southcenter Parkway, which is the site's other street frontage. The Tukwila Public Works Department requires removal of the three hotel curb cuts on Strander. Access to the new parking area would be via the main entry drives and then the internal circulation driveways. Infrastructure along Strander Bl. does not meet City standards. The proposal triggers frontage improvement including minimum six foot wide sidewalks. Public Works may consider payment in lieu of installation because of the potential improvements to the Klickitat/Strander intersection. The fence currently surrounding the vacant site does not allow room for pedestrians to move along the Strander Bl. Although no sidewalk exists from the westernmost driveway into the mall and the end of sidewalk along Southcenter Parkway at the Strander intersection, sidewalk does exist on both sides of the parcel. Public Works requests that a pedestrian connection be provided. This could be accomplished by moving the construction fence north, away from Strander BL. Aesthetics The tallest structure on the site is an existing pole sign that has been covered but not removed. It has not been identified on the plans or in the checklist. It is covered and no longer functioning as a sign and therefore can be considered a negative impact on the visual environment. When this concern was raised with the applicant they responded that they would be removing the sign. Comments Received Jonathan Pool: "Any plan to use land purely for parking stalls in the TUC exacerbates the adverse effects of vehicular traffic in the TUC. Persons traveling to the beneficial applicant's land by public transit currently have substandard station facilities that are more distant from the land's buildings than are many of the land's parking stalls. The construction of additional parking stalls with no corresponding improvement of facilities for persons who arrive and depart by public transit contradicts the public policy to encourage less harmful forms of transportation and fails to provide reasonable mitigation of the damages caused by additional vehicular traffic." C:\mcb\mall \demosepareport.doc Page 2 of 3 06/27/03 • • Puget Sound Energy: When the Double Tree/Red Lion gets torn down there will need to be a removal of PSE electric facilities. There would be primary metering, a switch, two transformers, 1 /10 and conduit. We would need to de- energize and prepare a notification to our service provider, Potelco, to do the work. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency: Prior to any demolition activities an asbestos survey must be performed completed by applicant to identify all asbestos containing materials present. A project notification must be submitted to PS Clean Air at least ten days before asbestos removal or demolition activities begin, and all friable asbestos - containing materials must be removed prior to demolition. Forms may be obtained by calling 206 689 -4090. An Asbestos Survey Report was conducted by ATS /Diagnostic Environmental Inc. in June 1994. Tukwila Fire Department Requests that they be notified prior to demolition in order to shut down the fire alarm system and that they be given a copy of the demolition schedule. Conclusions: 1. Nonconforming signs may not be reused and should be removed, which has been agreed to by the applicant. 2. Retaining existing healthy mature trees will soften and visually break up the effects of the large paved area, provide greater wayfinding and orientation for circulation in the large parking lot and provide shade. 3. Landscaping specifications should include techniques for aerating and improving compacted soil in order to provide hospitable soil in new planting areas. 4. Reasonable efforts that can be easily and cost effectively implemented should be made to minimize the toxic emissions from vehicles and debris from the demolished hotel and parking lot. 5. Removal of the existing curb cuts onto public right of way would be consistent with existing Westfield Shoppingtown site treatment because the proposed parking area is for mall customers and all existing parking is accessed via internal circulation drives and centralized access points. Recommendation: Determination of Non - Significance Attachment: SEPA Checklist Comment Letter from Puget Sound Energy C:\mcb\mall \demosepareport.doc Page 3 of 3 06/27/03 June 18, 2003 • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Public Works James E Morrow, P.E., Director Mr. Bill Fortunato, P.E. Project Manager PacLand 1144 Eastlake Ave. East, Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Subject: Doubletree Inn Demolition 205 Strander Blvd. - Parcel 537920-0241 Surface Water Requirements E03 -013 SEPA Dear Mr. Fortunato: I received your letter dated April 22, 2003, which provides an overview of the proposed storm system for the paving project following this demolition. Your proposal includes installation of a vortechnics type product for water quality and also request's approval of a detention system that would allow an increase in runoff of less than 0.1 cfs for the 100 - year /24 -hour storm event. Given the existing site conditions, including elevation challenges, proximity of the Green River and surrounding site conditions, the City accepts your proposal for water quality treatment and limiting the total runoff increase to less than 0.1 cfs. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue, please call me at (206) 433 -0179. Sincerely, &iL}a Rya f Larson, P.E. Senior Engineer RL:ad cc: Jill osqueda oira Bradshaw (P:alice \Doubletree Inn Demo) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 433 -0179 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 [Moira Bradshaw - Re: Doubletree Dem EPA Page 11 From: Moira Bradshaw To: Jill Mosqueda Date: 6/12/03 10:10PM Subject: Re: Doubletree Demo - SEPA I will not mention the street frontage improvements or payment in lieu of as this is an issue that can be addressed through existing ordinances /standards. Do you agree? »> Jill Mosqueda 06/12/03 03:08PM »> My SEPA comments are in the Permit Plus file. Attached is the electronic copy. Here is what I told Bill Fortunato in a March 24, 2003 e-mail: 1. all of the accesses along strander must be permanently closed, before the demolition work begins. The new parking must take access from strander at the driveway serving sears. 2. The paving project, not the demolition, will need to install street improvements. On item #2, I did not tell Bill that the City is looking at Klickitat improvements that may include Strander and that the City might be willing to accept payment in lieu of actual installation. Other topics: The ped connection must be made between the two sidewalks along SC parkway and Strander. Ryan L will draft a response letter to Bill's letter of April, 2003, included in the SEPA. SOUND TRANSIT MOTION NO. M99 -60 A motion of the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority to adopt Transit Oriented Development evaluation criteria to be used in the process of identifying and/or evaluating proposed development opportunities around Sound Transit facilities. Background: In September 1997, the Board established the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Task Force. Its mission was to develop a set of policies to address development issues associated with the construction of Sound Transit facilities. The culmination of the Task Force work resulted in the adoption of Motion No. M98 -25 outlining a set of general policies that allows for the use of Sound Transit resources to encourage development on and around Sound Transit station areas, transit centers, and park -and- rides. In addition, this motion also recommended the creation of a permanent committee to review development proposals and other real estate issues. In May 1999, the Real Estate and Transit Oriented Development subcommittee began meeting. Its first business was to develop a method of evalt Sting potential development projects that could be either solicited or proposed on/or surrounding Sound Transit facilities. This evaluation criteria, based upon the policies already adopted, would lead to identifying various roles Sound Transit could play in providing resources towards potential developments. Motion: It is hereby moved by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority that the following process and criteria be used during the development of Sound Transit facilities related to each mode of transit service. This process, summarized in Attachment A, includes the following components: A. Policy Review — Review the adopted policies to determine what types of options might be appropriate for site consideration. Policy review components include: • Preserve TOD development opportunities • Promote TOD on surplus properties • Preserve options to address Local Plans • Assist others pursuing TOD programs • Address legal issues that prevent the development of transit supportive projects • Develop incentive programs. B. Existing Influences In order to meet the policy goals above, staff evaluates how to balance the project needs outlined in Sound Move with the benefits of extending project resources to achieve TOD goals. Some of those influences include: • Project objectives, timelines, and budgets • Agency resources and obligations Moira Bradshaw - RE: Doubletree /RedlioyQemolition Page 1 From: "Bill Fortunato" <bfortunato @pacland.com> To: "Moira Bradshaw" <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 6/13/03 3:13PM Subject: RE: Doubletree /Redlion Demolition The perimeter landscape is to be protected. Any thing within the sawcut line or interior of the hotel was to be removed. I did call a plant rescue organization (local Seattle company that collects discarded plants) regarding the big Rhododendrons, however they are too big for them to relocate. Noted. Thanks. Bill Fortunato, P.E. PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Office: (206) 522 -9510 Fax: (206) 522 -8344 Original Message From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto :mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 2:33 PM To: Bill Fortunato Subject: RE: Doubletree /Redlion Demolition Hi Bill - one more thing. There is some substantial landscaping that exists around and within the site. We would like to know what can be saved and incorporated into your plan. The specs for the landscaping should include efforts to aerate and amend the soils that have been compacted and sitting under buildings. Moira »> "Bill Fortunato" <bfortunato @pacland.com> 06/13/03 07:56AM »> Moira - Thanks for the comments. I received them pretty late in the evening, I hope you were not working that late. Fencing: I will ask the folks at Westfield to move the fence back as soon as possible. I don't believe this will be a problem Existing Sign: We will add a note to have it removed. Landscaping: We will review the code for compliance. We will send a response regarding the landscaping to your attention. Please expect it upon your return. Storm: Moira Bradshaw - RE: Doubletree /Redlior pemolition — Page 2 We understand it is pending. I hope you are doing something fun and relaxing with your time away from the office. I will contact upon your return. Bill Fortunato, P.E. PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Office: (206) 522 -9510 Fax: (206) 522 -8344 Original Message From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto:mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:03 PM To: Bill Fortunato Cc: Jill Mosqueda Subject: Doubletree /Redlion Demolition Bill - I worked on the SEPA application but was unable to complete the report. I am waiting on a response from Ryan Larson on your memo in the Submittal regarding storm water. In my review however, a number of issues have been raised that will require a response and that you should be aware of: Puget Power is the energy provider not City Light. I will forward their email to me regarding your project. The permit application forms have changed and you will need to complete a new one and not use the old one as shown in your SEPA paperwork. Although no sidewalk currently existing in front of the hotel, Public Works requests that you setback the "construction" fence to allow pedestrian passage along Strander BL connecting the two existing sidewalks on either side of the project. Apparently the hotel's pole sign on Strander is still standing. The sign should be indicated on the plans and demolished along with the other structures on the site. The site plan for the parking lot does not appear to meet the City's landscaping requirements. Please refer to Landscaping, Recreation... Space Requirements (Zoning Code Chapter 18.52) For example, 15 square feet of site landscaping is required for each stall and landscape islands must be installed such that stalls are no more than 10 stalls or 100 feet from an island. I will be back in the office on the 27 of June. I will also try to touch base with you by phone on the 13th of June before I leave town to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Moira Bradshaw - Doubletree Demo - 3, • Page 1 From: Jill Mosqueda To: Moira Bradshaw Date: 6/12/03 3:08PM Subject: Doubletree Demo - SEPA My SEPA comments are in the Permit Plus file. Attached is the electronic copy. Here is what I told Bill Fortunato in a March 24, 2003 e-mail: 1. all of the accesses along strander must be permanently closed, before the demolition work begins. The new parking must take access from strander at the driveway serving sears. 2. The paving project, not the demolition, will need to install street improvements. On item #2, I did not tell Bill that the City is looking at Klickitat improvements that may include Strander and that the City might be willing to accept payment in lieu of actual installation. Other topics: The ped connection must be made between the two sidewalks along SC parkway and Strander. Ryan L will draft a response letter to Bill's letter of April, 2003, included in the SEPA. CC: Brian Shelton; Ryan Larson • • CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS PROJECT NAME: RED LION DEMOLITION 205 Strander Blvd FILE #: E03 -013 Review #: NA Date: Original 05.30.03 Amended 06.12.03 Reviewer: L. Jill Mosqueda, P.E. PW SEPA Review Comments: 1. Pg. 1 #6 Not answered. See #10. 2. Pg. 20 14a PW requires closure of existing accesses onto Strander. Access from Strander for trucks and employees will be the access just east of the easterly property line. (Driveway to Sears) 3. Pg. 22 15b The existing construction fence blocks pedestrian connection between the sidewalks along Strander and SC Parkway. Applicant must provide a connection. Also, FYI for the applicant: 4. The permit application forms have changed from the one in the SEPA submittal. When applying for permit, please use the new application form and provide all necessary information for the public works portion of the permit. Please contact Laurie Werle, Public Works Technician, at 206.433.0179, for Public Work's submittal requirements. 5. The SEPA submittal included a letter from Bill Fortunato to Ryan Larson regarding surface water. The SEPA should contain the response. Moira Bradshaw - FW: Southcenter / Wield Shoppingtown 111 Page 1 From: "Hempstead, Susan B" <susan.hempstead @pse.com> To: <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 6/10/03 2:35PM Subject: FW: Southcenter / Westfield Shoppingtown Moira, I believe you mentioned that you have a meeting with Westfield management tomorrow. Here is additional information regarding our electric utility system at Southcenter. We'll need to do additional research on the natural gas side. I do have a utilities map and our team can be available to meet. Additionally, when the Double Tree /Red Lion gets torn down there will need to be a removal of PSE electric facilities. There would be primary metering, a switch, two transformers, 1/0 and conduit. We would need to de- energize and prepare a notification to our service provider, Potelco, to do the work. Thanks, Susan Susan Hempstead Local Government and Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy PO Box 97034, OBC 11E Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 Phone: 425 -456 -2838 Fax: 425 -462 -3355 Email: susan.hempstead @pse.com www.pse.com Original Message From: Harris, Wayne Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:51 PM To: Hempstead, Susan B; France, H. Syd Cc: Kostek, Leann; Jainga, Joe; Kuhlman, Kellie; Bates, Joan; Kreshel, Stephanie J; Koch, Cathy; Swart, Brian Subject: RE: Southcenter / Westfield Shoppingtown Susan /Syd - sorry it took me so long to get back to you. When the electrical facilities were designed to serve Southcenter Mall, several very detailed ink and pen drawings were put together on mylar. They show not only our facilities but the onsite utilities such as storm and water and the original bldg and foundation details. These drawings were kept at the Renton Headquarters and I have hung onto them through the recent facility relocations. They are in a flat file here at South King. I am sending you a copy of one of the drawings that show our facilities on the south side of the Mall. These would appear to me to be the facilities that would be in conflict with the bldg expansion. Those facilities are approximately 120ft south of the existing structures. A 200 ft expansion would put them in the construction area. Relocating this system, maintaining service, and providing a new permanent service to the south side of the Mall would be a real challenge. It would take quite a bit of engineering and planning with the designers. The earlier we get into the loop on this the better. We would probably need a project manager and I am sure some engineering support from PSE. My best guess is that we would have a 50% load increase at full build out of their expansion. I would see the need to bring a third feeder circuit into the property, probably from our Southcenter sub at the southwest corner of the property, and tie this to the two existing Renton Junction feeders that serve the system from the east side of the property on Andover Park West currently. This would mean trench and duct on the west side of the Mall to intercept some of our existing spare duct work that you see on the map I am sending you. This is a very sketchy off the top of my head analysis. The key would be to get in on the planning process with the Mall early on to try to flesh this out into reality. Moira Bradshaw - FW: Southcenter / W ` field Shoppingtown • Page 2 This is a broad bush for the electric side. The map you get should make things a little clearer. I will cc Joan Bates and Stephanie Kreshel who could speak to the gas concerns. If you need more information regarding the map or other details prior let me know... Wayne Moira Bradshaw - Re: Notice of Applicati • Page 1 From: Moira Bradshaw To: Jonathan Pool Date: 6/2/03 9:44AM Subject: Re: Notice of Application Dear Mr. Pool: Thank you for your comments. They will be included in the file and considered by the SEPA official in making a determination and conditioning any related permits. Staff agrees that the transit stop on Andover Park West in front of Penney's is substandard for the amount of passengers it serves. The City is preparing a Transit Plan that will address that concern. As part of that planning effort, the City has surveyed transit passengers and will be conducting several focus groups of business /employers and transit users to assist in planning for better transit service to the urban center. Although a significant portion of the riders at that stop use the Mall, it is a public stop and will require public funds perhaps in partnership with adjacent private businesses to upgrade the facilities. The Plan will lay out the land area and improvements that are desirable for not only the adjacent businesses but the TUC as a whole. With regards to the demolition, Westfield, according to their plans for expansion, see this demolition and parking area as an interim treatment. For most of the year, some percentage of Mall parking space are typically vacant. We are assuming that the additional parking will not generate additional trips. Again thank you for taking the time to consider and comment. Sincerely, Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX »> "Jonathan Pool" <pool @centerplex.net> 05/31 /03 10:27AM »> >I am forwarding a Notice of Application for a demolition permit and >parking lot improvement that Westfield is planning. Thank you for this information. Comment: Any plan to use land purely for parking stalls in the TUC exacerbates the adverse effects of vehicular traffic in the TUC. Persons traveling to the beneficial applicant's land by public transit currently have substandard station facilities that are more distant from the land's buildings than are many of the land's parking stalls. The construction of additional parking stalls with no corresponding improvement of facilities for persons who arrive and depart by public transit contradicts the public policy to encourage less harmful forms of transportation and fails to provide reasonable mitigation of the damages caused by additional vehicular traffic. Moira Bradshaw - RE: Notice of Application Page 1 From: "Gloria Ramirez" <ilseattle @msn.com> To: "'Moira Bradshaw"' <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 5/30/03 9:20PM Subject: RE: Notice of Application I would like a copy of the site plan. My address is: Gloria Ramirez 12505 SE 75th Place Newcastle, WA 98056 Thank you for the update... gloria Original Message From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto :mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 4:51 PM To: Pool @centerplex.net; Palenoue @mac.com; ilseattle @msn.com Subject: Notice of Application As parties of record for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion plan, I am forwarding a Notice of Application for a demolition permit and parking lot improvement that Westfield is planning. I do not have electronic copies of the plans that show the existing hotel buildings to be demolished and future proposed stalls that will replace the structures. If you would like copies of these site plans, please forward me your mailing address. Sincerely, Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX .0 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency SEPA Document Review Key Issues Demolition Activities Prior to any demolition activities: (1) an asbestos survey must be performed to identify all asbestos - containing materials present, (2) a project notification must be submitted to PS Clean Air at least ten days before asbestos removal or demolition activities begin, and (3) all friable asbestos- containing materials must be removed prior to demolition. Forms may be obtained by calling 206.689.4090. Construction Dust Emissions Reasonable precautions to control the release of dust include: (1) installation of a wheel- washer to reduce dirt and mud track -out onto paved public roadways, (2) formulation of a dust suppression plan to control dust generated on -site, and (3) implementation of a dust management policy for trucks transporting excavation and other dust generating materials to and from the site (e.g. provide adequate freeboard and cover all loads). Vehicle Idling To reduce emissions and the exposure-to toxic air contaminants by the surrounding community, do not leave trucks, cars, or construction equipment idling unused for longer periods than five minutes. Diesel Emissions The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, along with a consortium of partners, has developed the Diesel Solutions program to make diesel vehicles in this region dramatically cleaner. To reduce diesel emissions for improvement in air quality related to air toxics and fine particulate matter, we encourage the use of ultra low sulfur diesel (15 ppm sulfur), bio- diesel, or alternative fueled vehicles (e. g. compressed natural gas, propane, hybrid, electric and fuel cell), depending on the particular circumstances. New Facilities The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency performs a pre- construction review of projects involving significant air contaminant emissions. Examples include automobile repair /painting, dry- cleaning plants, gasoline stations, coffee roasters, crematories, rock crushers, soil /groundwater remediation, and miscellaneous surface coating operations. A Notice of Construction approval is required before construction activities begin. Forms may be obtained from our web site at < http:// www. pscleanair. org /businfo /formsprocedures.shtml> or by calling 206.689.4049. SEPA Key Issues.doc 1 Feb 10 2003 !Met Sound Clean Air Agel y SEPA Document Review Key Issues Conformity On larger projects air quality analyses are required to insure conformity to the existing state implementation plan for meeting national ambient air quality standards. The Puget Sound region was designated as an attainment area for carbon monoxide, effective October 11, 1996 (Federal Register 10- 11 -96, page 53323); for ozone, effective November 25, 1996 (Federal Register 9- 26 -96, page 50438); and for particulate matter, effective. We were also designated as attainment for particulate matter, effective May 14, 2001 (Federal Register 3 -13- 01, page 14492). A regional conformity review at the program level does not preclude further emission reduction mitigation measures being required at the project level, particularly related to diesel exhaust and other toxic emissions. Regionally significant transportation projects require a project level conformity determination. Major, federally funded, non transportation projects may require a general conformity determination. Wood Smoke For residential construction we recommend incorporation of natural gas or propane burning fireplaces instead of wood burning fireplaces or wood stoves. Open Burning Open burning of land clearing debris and yard or household waste is prohibited in urban areas designated as growth management areas. We discourage open burning in any areas of our jurisdiction. Generally, there are reasonable alternatives to open burning, such as mobile chipping-and waste pick -up. Lawn Care We encourage the use of low- emission equipment to maintain lawn and grounds. Electric or manual yard equipment and mulching mowers will eliminate air contaminant emission during routine maintenance of landscape facilities. SEPA Key Issues.doc 2 Feb 10 2003 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION /, /_-c'SL. /E HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: j 193- 1)/-5 Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: ,'(40/,</k Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mai led ,to each of the addresses listed on this - 39r" day of /'-1Ar in the year 20 60 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: Me f - 4/11, Project Number: j 193- 1)/-5 Mailer's Signature: 1—'6. Person requesting mailing: ,'(40/,</k P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I" ' C HEREBY DECLARE THAT: • Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: T:03 -- ei. ) Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: 0 .p( t A Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda y it 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 50T4day of c f i n the year 20 Q P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM • Project Name: pA C V (vJ Project Number: T:03 -- ei. ) Mailer's Signature: L,c-i _ Person requesting mailing: 0 .p( t A P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM CITY OF TUKVVILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION PACLAND, on behalf of Westfield, Corporation, has filed a SEPA checklist for demolition of the vacant hotel, (formerly the Red Lion and the Doubletree Inn,) which is located at 205 Strander Boulevard, and improvement of the site for 473 parking stalls. Permits required include: Demolition Permit and Public Works Permit Studies required with the applications include: Asbestos Survey An environmental checklist has been submitted with the study identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The SEPA file is available at offices of the City of Tukwila. To view the file, you may request it from the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100, Tukwila, WA 98188. SEPA File: E03 -013 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., June 12, 2003. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. The Demolition Permit is appealable to the Hearing Examiner For further information on this proposal, contact Moira Bradshaw at (206) 431 -3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: May 7, 2003 Notice of Completeness Issued: May 12, 2003 Notice of Application Issued: May 29, 2003 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Contact Sheet Name John Goodwin Company Westfield Corporation, Inc. Address 11601 Wilshire BI., 12 floor; Los Angeles, CA 90025 -1748 Phone corporate # = 310 478 -4456 Email jgoodwin @westfield.com Relation Developer Brent Carson Buck & Gordon 1011 Western Av. Seattle, WA 98104 -1097 206 - 382 -9540 bcarson @buckgordon.com Developer Consultant Duane Huckell Huckell Weinman & Associates 270 3 AV, Suite 200; Kirkland, WA 98033 425 - 828 -4463 dhuckell @huckellweinman.com EIS Consultant Jacquelyn Stoner Huckell Weinman & Associates 270 3 AV, Suite 200; Kirkland, WA 98033 425 - 828 -4463 jstoner @huckellweinman.com EIS Consultant Michael Crowson PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Av. E., Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 206 - 522 -9510 mcrowson @pacland.com Developer Consultant Tracy Harms Southcenter Courtyard by Marriott 400 Andover West; Tukwila, WA 98188 206-575 - 2500ext. 608 Interested individual Mark Bandy Washington DOT NW Region, MS -120; PO Box 330310; Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 206 - 440 -4352 bandym @wsdot.wa.gov Affected Agency Ramin Pasooki, Planning Mgr.; Phil Segami, Assistant Planning Mgr. Washington DOT NW Region, MS -240; PO Box 330310; Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 206 -440 -4710 pazookr @wsdot.wa.gov; segamip @wsdot.wa.gov Affected Agency Stacy Trussler 6431 Corson Av. S. , NB82 -250; Seattle, WA 98108 -3445 206 768 -5738 trussler @wsdot.wa.gov EIS Reviewer Tasha Atchison ' The Transpo Group 11730 118 Av NE, Suite 600; Kirkland, WA 98034 -7120 425 - 821 -3665 tashaa @thetranspogroup.com EIS Consultant Paul Lenoue Tukwila Citizen palenoue @mac.com Interested individual Heather Bly Westfield Corporation, Inc. 633 Southcenter Mall; Tukwila, WA 98188 206 - 246 -0423 hbly@westheld.com Developer Jonathan Pool Centerplex pool @centerplex.net Interested individual Paul Carr Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 110 Union St., Suite 500; Seattle, WA 98101 -2038 206 - 689 -4085 Affected Agency Jake Batsell Seattle Times P.O. Box 70; Seattle, WA 98111 206 - 464 -2718 jbatsell @seattletimes.com Interested individual Alice Neiffer Suburban Cities Association 6300 Southcenter BI., Suite Met' Tukwila, WA 98188 --A(9 206 - 433 -7168 sca @sububancities.org Interested individual Prepared by City Of Tukwila 05/30/2003 Page 1 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Contact Sheet Gregg Zimmerman City of Renton, Planning /Building /Public Works Dept. 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA 98055 Affected Agency Mike Hemphill Andover Company 415 Baker BI, Suite 200; Tukwila, WA 98188 206 - 244 -0770 mhemphill @andoverco.com Interested individual Gloria Ramirez Urban Studies, UW Tacoma ilseattle @msn.com Interested individual Susan Hempstead Puget Sound Energy P.O. Box 97034,OBC 11E; Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 425 - 456 -2838 susan.hempstead @pse.com Affected Agency Prepared by City Of Tukwila 05/30/2003 Page 2 CHFIIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PIOT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. ( ) NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ( ) DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV IfbEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION .C. DEPT OF PARKS &REC K.C. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY t./QWEST ( ) PU T CITY LIGHT PUG S ET SOUND ENERGY ( HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () TTLE WATER DEPARTMENT AT &T CABLE SERVICES ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE ( ) POLICE ( ) FINANCE ( ) PLANNING ( ) BUILDING ( ) PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT O} OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWER/WATER DISTRICT ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ADMINI STRATI V E \FORMS \C HKLIST. DOC ( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT () HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW ) ) tcew, C0 13,11 For.64 `iedo OC/ Stxa G1111- TVaY PUP NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PELTS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) — Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:\ADMINISTRATIVE\FORMS\CHKLIST.DOC �rnuuui reeu aneets Activate Cellular Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Bargain Bags and Things Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Crystalix Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Evergreen Bonsai Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Italian Charm Bracelets Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Restore Vision Centers Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Tickers Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 • AVERY® Address Labels AK's Video Buttons Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 BCTI Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Crystal Springs Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Fortune Treasures Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Keychain Express Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Seattle Sports Cards Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Tupperware Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 /L/aeD • use template ror 5160` Ascente' Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Cingular Wireless Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Endless Innovations Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 GW Portraits Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Occasionally Kids Cart c/o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Sunglass King Cart c!o WEA Southcenter, LLC 633 SOUTHCENTER SEATTLE WA 98188 Laser 5160® Smooth Feed Sheets 2623049004 WESTFIELD CORP INC 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CA 90023 2623049023 WESTFIELD CORP INC 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CA 90023 5379200240 WESTFIELD CORP INC 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CA 90023 5379200330 WESTFIELD CORP INC 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CA 90023 2623049021 ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 400 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 ASHTON CAPITAL CORPORATION 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 502 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 CB RICHARD ELLIS, INC 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 100 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DITCHIK 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 510 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 FANA GROUP OF COMPANIES 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 204 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 FISHER ASSOCIATES INSURANCE BROKERAGE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 508 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049005 TARGET CORPORATION T 0627 P.O. BOX 9456 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440 2623049102 FANA CORPORATION 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY #204 TUKWILA, WA 98188 5379200282 REDLEY ENTERPRISES INC 13635 BELRED ROAD BELLEVUE, WA 98005 6437300020 DOUBLETREE 16500 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 ADAMS TEMPS 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 400 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 AUL REINSURANCE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 514 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 CHARLES A BURGESON, ATTORNEY AT LAW 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 407 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 THE DON HOTEL COMPANY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 305 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 FARMERS INSURANCE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 208 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 J. WILLIAM LARSON & COMPANY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 306 TUKWILA, WA 98188 Use template for 5160® 2623049021 SUNRAY INVESTMENTS 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WA 98188 a 2623049104 CHEVRON SERVICES CO P.O. BOX 285 HOUSTON, TX 77001 5379200290 ARGUS GROUP LTD 17171 BOTHELL WAY LAKE FOREST PARK, WA 98155 2623049005 TARGET 301 STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 AETEA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 300 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 BNC MORTGAGE, INC 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 405 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 DAVE WARNER INSURANCE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 206 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 EQUITY RESIDENTIAL 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 301 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 JOHN A FERGUALL, ATTORNEY AT LAW 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 201 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 MURPHY ROOMS, LLC 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 307 TUKWILA, WA 98188 LMGij ' R Address Labels Laser 5160 Smooth Peed SheetsTm 2623049021 CURTIS J. NAGAI FINANCIAL PLANNER 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 510 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 RONALD - NELSON ASSOCIATES 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 500 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 SEATTLE SOUTH CONVENTION & VISITOR BUREAU 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 210 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 SUNRAY INVESTMENTS 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 204 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 200 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049102 SLEEP TRAIN 235 STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA 98188 5379200290 SEE'S CANDIES & FLOWER SHOP 16425 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 RODRIGO INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 504 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 R.B. ENTERPRISES 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 308 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 ALAN M. SINGER, ATTORNEY AT LAW 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 407 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 SOUTHCENTER COSMETIC SURGERY & HAIR RESTORATION 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 101 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 VICTOR ENTERPRISES 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 308 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 YANEZ INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 504 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049104 CHEVRON SERVICES CO 220 STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA 98188 5379200330 SEARS 400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WA 98188 Use template for 5160® 2623049021 RIVIERA FINANCE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 404 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 SEATTLE SOUTHSIDE VISITOR INFORMATION 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 209 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 SOUTHWEST KING COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 210 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049021 LAWRENCE 5. WALLACH, ATTORNEY AT LAW 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SUITE 201 TUKWILA, WA 98188 2623049023 NORDSTROMS 310 STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA 98188 5379200282 MCDONALDS 16501 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WA 98188 6437300020 DOUBLETREE 16500 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WA 98188 ��'AWE ® Address Labels Laser 5160® Print Map Page King County Home News Services • Search Page 1 of 2 Parcel Map and Data � : ;�:. 3;49)4'6 t r, y{q' .1 lY 3 0- r �'EfPO4 .. r s{ 'r il� r{s wY )qqQ` Z 1 f 4 f! t r �{" • ''� c. S � �e `t. t f. -: 4 o t ,- is � STRANDERi ! Sa BLV zd9it id T w.I, Ir.:O. BM130fl J' IO�r• iT�it -. V + { 2002 11 ff �_,. Parcel Number 2623049004 Address Zipcode Taxpayer WESTFIELD CORP INC The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County." Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer 2623049005 301 STRANDER BL TARGET CORPORATION T 0627 Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer 2623049023 310 STRANDER BL 98188 WESTFIELD CORP INC Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer 2623049021 16400 SOUTHCENTER PW 98188 SUNRAY INVESTMENTS Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer 2623049102 235 STRANDER BL 98188 FANA CORPORATION Parcel Number 2623049104 Parcel Number 5379200240 Print Map Page Address Zipcode Taxpayer • 220 STRANDER BL 98188 CHEVRON SERVICES CO Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer 5379200241 205 STRANDER BL WESTFIELD CORPORATION INC Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer 5379200290 16425 SOUTHCENTER PW 98188 ARGUS GROUP LTD • Address Zipcode Taxpayer Page 2 of 2 WESTFIELD CORP INC Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer 5379200282 16500 SOUTHCENTER PW REDLEY ENTERPRISES INC Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer 6437300020 16500 SOUTHCENTER PW 98188 DOUBLETREE Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer 5379200330 400 SOUTHCENTER PW WESTFIELD CORP INC King County 1 GIS Center' News 1 Services 1 Comments 1 Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. c is In All") TAXPAYER NAME WESTFIELD CORP INC TARGET CORPORATION T 0627 SUNRAY INVESTMENTS WESTFIELD CORP INC FANA CORPORATION CHEVRON SERVICES CO WESTFIELD CORP INC REDLEY ENTERPRISES INC ARGUS GROUP LTD WESTFIELD CORP INC DOUBLETREE TENANT NAME TARGET Adams and Associates Adams Temps Aetea Information Technology Ashton Capital Corporation Aul Reinsurance Management Services BNC Mortgage, Inc CB Richard Ellis, Inc Charles A Burgeson, Attorney at Law Dave Warner Insurance Law Office of Michael Ditchik The Don Hotel Company Equity Residential Properties Management Fana Group of Companies Farmers Insurance and Financial Services John A Ferguall, Attorney at Law Fisher Associates Insurance Brokerage J. William Larson & Company Murphy Rooms, LLC Curtis J. Nagai Certified Financial Planner R.B. Enterprises Riviera Finance Ronald - Nelson Associates Address 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 9456 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY P.O. BOX 285 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 13635 BELRED ROAD 17171 Bothell Way 11601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD 16500 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY Address 301 STRANDER BOULEVARD 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY Suite City Los Angeles Minneapolis Tukwila Los Angeles #204 Tukwila Houston Los Angeles Bellevue Lake Forest Park Los Angeles Tukwila Suite City Tukwila 400 Tukwila 400 Tukwila 300 Tukwila 502 Tukwila 514 Tukwila 405 Tukwila 100 Tukwila 407 Tukwila 206 Tukwila 510 Tukwila 305 Tukwila 301 Tukwila 204 Tukwila 208 Tukwila 201 Tukwila 508 Tukwila 306 Tukwila 307 Tukwila 510 Tukwila 308 Tukwila 404 Tukwila 500 Tukwila State CA MN WA CA WA TX CA WA WA CA WA State WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA zip code 90023 55440 98188 90023 98188 77001 90023 98005 98155 90023 98188 zip code 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 98188 • • - - Rodrigo International Commodities Alan M. Singer, Attorney at Law Seattle Southside Visitor Information Seattle South Convention and Visitor Bureau Southcenter Cosmetic Surgery & Hair Restoration Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce Sunray Investments Victor Enterprises Lawrence S. Wallach, Attorney at Law Washington State Republican Party Yanez International Commodities Nordstroms Sleep Train CHEVRON SERVICES CO McDonalds SEE'S CANDIES & FLOWER SHOP Sears DOUBLETREE 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 310 STRANDER BOULEVARD 235 STRANDER BOULEVARD 220 STRANDER BOULEVARD 16501 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16425 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 400 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 16500 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 504 Tukwila 407 Tukwila 209 Tukwila 210 Tukwila 101 Tukwila 210 Tukwila 204 Tukwila 308 Tukwila 201 Tukwila 200 Tukwila 504 Tukwila Tukwila Tukwila Tukwila Tukwila Tukwila Tukwila Tukwila WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 • WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 WA 98188 • May 6, 2002 • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Michael Crowson PACLAND 1144 Eastlake Av. E., Suite 601 Seattle, WA 98109 Subject:Hotel Demolition E03 -013 Dear Michael: Your application for a demolition permit for the hotel buildings located at 205 Strander BL is complete as of 12 May 2003 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, please call me. Remember after you install the sign, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. Once you have notified me that the notice board has been installed I will post it with a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the comment period will start. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the demolition permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. There may be permits from other agencies required that are not yet identified. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project, feel free to call me at any time (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner cc: Engineer, Public Works Fire Marshall, Fire Department C:\mcb\mall\demoCOMPLETE.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-367Q • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 PACLAND State of Washington County of Sung City of Tukwila Fax :2065228344 May 29 2003 1727 P.02 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Comm w ilr Developrr+enz 6300 Southeenrer Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukglan(d ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I \ kzZ 1 rt.,v,rra (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 M.oy 09 2:03" the Public , Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at WEsrFXEL.b 5.-Pro'xi4Grema so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file numberEO3-.O /3 . I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. ' I / Applicant or Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me tl /i I11 4111 I v r 71.4 ,i 4 I Q to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary at and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBS %CRN to before me this otR_ day of ��SS1onEzp�9'' J41,eJape[er Y PUB ' d for the State of Washington • g at Akun-tlakeTarr , .WA My commission expires on M4rc I > atith • 1144 EASTLAKE AVE. E. SUITE 601 SEATTLE, WA 98109 T 022.9510 F 206.522.8344 WWW.PACLAND.COM RECEIVED May 7, 2003 MAY 0 7 2003 City of Tukwila DEVELOPMENT Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 -2544 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter — Demolition and Site Improvements SEPA Submittal To Whom It May Concern: As you are aware, PACLAND is currently contracted to prepare documents for the demolition of the existing hotel at the northeast corner of Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway. To facilitate the future expansion of the Southcenter Mall, the client will be utilizing this area for parking for the mall. The following items have been provided for your review: 1. Four (4) full size sets of civil and landscape plans 2. One (1) copy 8 -1/2 "x11" set of civil and landscape plans 3. Miscellaneous Permit Application (Demolition and Parking Lots) 4. Five (5) copies SEPA Environmental Review Application 5. Five (5) copies SEPA Checklist 6. Check in the amount of $500.00 for SEPA review fees. 7. Mailing labels for property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the property. 8. King County Assessor's Map 9. Stormwater memorandum to the City of Tukwila 10.Asbestos report for the existing building We expect these materials will provide you with the information required to deem our package complete, and issue a SEPA Determination. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. if you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Bill Fortunato, P.E. Project Manager Enclosures tkwfSEPAtrOl .doc z cn -3 O D3 n 0 D O n z� 0A18 f10NV IS \TERSTATE 5 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SOUTHCENTER MALL BLVD ANDOVER PARK WEST ANDOVER PARK EAST 7 D D 2J qO-1V1SEI n 0 C • • RECEIVED MAY 07 2003 CITY OF TUKWILA COMMUNITY EVELOPMENENVIRONME NT.L REVIEW Department of Community .Developmen? 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FA X (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan(ct7ci.tukwila.wa.us SEPA NAME OF PROJ.ECT/DEVELOPMENT: Westfield Demolition and Site Improvements LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s). block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LJST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. 205 Strander Boulevard; Northeast corner of Strander Blvd. and Southcenter Parkway. Quarter: NE Section: 26 Township: 23N Range: 4E (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 hill 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: PACLAND c/o Michael Crowson and Bill Fortunato Address: 1144 Eastlake Ave. E., Suite 601, Seattle, WA 98109 Phone: (206) 522 -9510 FAX: (206) 522 -8344 Signature: .itAPPtl4NU.. NDUSE.arPlscPAAPI.ntic. 0er16/00 Date: S- -7— FOR STAFF USE ONLY SIERRA TYPE P-SEPA Planner: File Number: Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJ.ECT/DEVELOPMENT: Westfield Demolition and Site Improvements LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s). block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LJST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. 205 Strander Boulevard; Northeast corner of Strander Blvd. and Southcenter Parkway. Quarter: NE Section: 26 Township: 23N Range: 4E (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 hill 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: PACLAND c/o Michael Crowson and Bill Fortunato Address: 1144 Eastlake Ave. E., Suite 601, Seattle, WA 98109 Phone: (206) 522 -9510 FAX: (206) 522 -8344 Signature: .itAPPtl4NU.. NDUSE.arPlscPAAPI.ntic. 0er16/00 Date: S- -7— Westfield demolition and site improvements 2. Name of Applicant: PACLAND 3. Date checklist prepared: March 28, 2003 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Summer, 2003 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Asbestos survey 8. 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. GAA PPIL4ML.ANDUSE.APP1SEPAAPP.DOC, T6l16$OO 1 Agency Comments -4)5r Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. City of Tukwila SEPA Determination City of Tukwila Sitework Permits, City of Tukwila Demolition Permits, Compliance with NPDES Stormwater Requirements 10. Give 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 your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. This proposal is the demolition of the existing on -site buildings and paving the area for additional parking. 11. 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. Extreme southwest corner of Southcenter Mall at the intersection gf Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land'Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Not to our knowledge. (, \ APPHAM S..Wt7L1SE.APP'SEPAAi'P.DOC. 06/i &"W 2 Agency Comments • • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 35% approximately Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: See item f above, 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust and vehicle emissions during construction. Vehicle emissions after construction from customer vehicles. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: If necessary the site may be sprinklered with water during construction to keep dust down. 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 or river it flows into. G :IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOC 08/31/00 8 ' • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: G:IAPPHANILANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOG 08/31/00 9 • • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. IY� b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 2) Describe waste materials 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: c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. On -site stormwater runoff from paved surfaces will be collected and transported via catch basins and underground storm drainage pipe to the on -site stormwater management system and released at the existing peak runoff rate, G:IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPLSPLAN.DOG 08/31/00 10 Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See item 6.c.1 above. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Fxisti ng grass and shrubs will be removed during the demolition of the existing buidlings, G:IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOG 08/31/00 11 Deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other Evergreen tree: 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? Fxisti ng grass and shrubs will be removed during the demolition of the existing buidlings, G:IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOG 08/31/00 11 • • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known, d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None proposed.. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, Mammals Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rodei4 Fish Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: none known Other b. List any threatened or endangered species know to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our knowledge G:14PPHAMLANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOG 08/31/00 12 Na` IG:IAPPHANILANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOC 08/31/00 13 • • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Ambulance and police. as associated with a retail parking lot, 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A 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 adjacent roads will not affect this project. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term construction noise. Long term noise from customer's vehicles, 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NLA G:IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOG 08/31/00 14 ! • • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: 8. Land and Shoreline Use ! a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is a vacant hotel. To the north. east and south the existing uses are retail. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not in recent history. ! c. Describe any structures on the site. existing hotel buildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? ! All on -site structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? TUC Tukwila Urban Center. G:IAPPHANILANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOC 08/31/00 15 • • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: G:IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOG 08/31/00 16 G :IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOG 08/31/00 17 • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: 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? No proposed buildings. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NLL® 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light from site lighting will produce light from dusk to dawn b. Will the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? G :IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOC 08/31/00 18 ' • • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: G:IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPLSPLAN.DOC 08/31/00 19 20 Agency Comments: G :IAPPHANILANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOC 08/31/00 21 Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None proposed. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NLA 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ec ci septic system, o i er;Csformwate�j tephon)Aranitary sewer G :IAPPHAMLANDUSE.APPISPLAN.DOC 08/31/00 22 ' • • ' Applicant Responses: Agency Comments: 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: �— Date Submitted: 377X3 G:IAPPHANIL4NDUSEAPPISPLAN.DOG 08/31/00 23 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist City o:fTukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: May 7, 2003 Applicant Name: PACLAND Street Address: 1144 Eastlake Ave. E., Suite 601 City, State, Zip: Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 522-9510 DIRECTIONS This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" ofchinook 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. January 25, 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 scheduled 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, rifling, 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 411630 Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the GreenfDuwamish 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. NO - ontinue to Question 4 -0 YES - Continue 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 1 73 -303 (see.TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue 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 exempt under TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 6 -0 - YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 January 25, 200.1 • City of Tukwila ES4 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 13: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not Iimited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the net question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 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 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 GreeniDuwarnish 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. ontinue to Question 1 -3 YES - Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will 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 ropriate response. ar Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 1 -4 January 25, 2001 3 • City of f Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part B (continued) 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 stonmwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NQ- Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) GES)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 GreeniDuwatnish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. ' + Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue 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 -3 YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will 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 YES - Continue to Question 2 -4 2 -4 Will 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 - Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 Will 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) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page. 2) January 25, 2001 4 • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please 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 -1 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. NO - Continue to Question 3 -2 YES - Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will 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 Greer/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 should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue 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 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 YES - Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 Will 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 ofa maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 January 23, 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 YES - Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids7 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. NO - Continue to Question 3 -8 YES - 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. NO - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) ,/anuary 25, 2001 5 • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Cornr D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON- PROJECT PROPOSALS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposals be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The increases to the production of noise would occur only during construction. All other increases listed are proposed to be mitigated. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: A temporary erosion control plan, asbestos abatement, stormwater detention, and treatment. 2. Flow would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Stormwater quality would be improved. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: A temporary erosion control plan minimizes impacts during construction and project proposes a water quality device. Ci'.APP1{AN,I.ANI)Ci$E. APPISHPAAPP DOC. 06l16/OO 20 • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 3. How would the proposal be Iikely to deplete energy or natural resources'? Since the site is currently developed NO depletion is anticipated. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: N/A 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitats, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Since the site is currently developed NO depletion is anticipated. Proposed .measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No affect anticipated. R \APP47ANSt AAiitt lCF APPICFPA A PP tlfir taVIM( 21 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: N/A 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? No increase anticipated. 4 fail L % 11►•� fit #i j l � Agency Collin Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demands) are: N/A 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts anticipated. f:∎APPYIA1.U.ANf flSI 6PWSFPAAPP IYK' Iffit1AhY1 22 tor I r yr I LI AVVIL 4 Permit Center 6300 Southcenfer Boulevard, Sulfa • Tukwila, WA 98188 (208) 431-3870 Miscellaneous Permit Application Application and plane must be complete In order to be accepted for plan review. Applications will not be accepted through the mall or facsimile PNrsst'fTplecr Shoppingtown Southcenter • Value ofConstructon: Site Address: City Slate/Zip: 205 Strander Blvd., Tukwila, WA Tag EryrieltfurBgni Props Owner. Westfield C .Corperation Inc. P hoe• (2�ti)445 -2457 Street Address: City State/Zip: 11601 Wilshire Blvd. 12th F., Los Angeles, CA 90023 Fax': (310)478 -4468 Contact Person: John Goodwin Phone Street Address: City State/Zlp: Fax Contractor. N/A • Phone: • Street Address:. City State/Zip: Fax ft: Awily ct Phone: . Street Addrese: City State/Zip: Fax a: PACLAND ('%522-9510 c�v S1144dEastlake Ave. E #601, Seattle, WA 98 Fax a: (206)522 -8344 Description of work to be done; Raze existing building(s), pave area of demolition. nEEMMTITAMMITRIMMYMNI Will there be storage of flammable/combustible hazardous material In the building? ❑ yea ❑ no Attach list of materials and storage location on separate 81/2 X 11 paper indicating qu titles & Material Safety Data Sheets ❑ Above Ground Tanks ❑ Antennas/Satellite Dishes ❑ Bulkhead/Docke Commercial Reroof 0 Demolluon ❑ Fence ❑ Mechanical ❑ Manufactured Houaing•Replacement only ® Parking Lots ❑ Retaining Walls ID Temporary Pedestrian Protection/Exit Systeihs ❑ Temporary FaolllUee ❑ Tree Culling .. a : YIe.iORk': •gr, ill.. -hY°3.{.3rsi4 .V•1 9y.•. w' >'� ❑ Water Meter /Exempt # Size(s): 0 Deduct 0 Water Only Water Meter /Permanent' Size(s): ❑ Water Meter Temp' Slze(e Est. quantity: gal Schedule' Miscellaneous Close 2 driveways Moving Oversized LoadlHauUng MoNT L'.1<^SE191/1 I:sfdl IAl>98 0 6WWWtfield Corporation Address: Phone: same as above 0 Water 0 Sewer I City/State/Zip :. 0 Metro . 0 Standby WATER Name: Westfield. Corporation 4/752=1/Mr.OMENN.firianii47 Y. Phone Addreee • ame as above ICity/State/Zip: IValue of Construction - In all cases, a value of construction amount should be entered by the applicant. This figure wUl be reviewed and Is subject to possible revision by, the Permit Center to comply with current fee schedules. ,lration of Plan Review - Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the applicant as defined in Section 107.4 of the UnUonn Building Code (current edition). No application shall be extended more than once. Dare application maple& MISCPMT.DOC 7/11/96 Date application expires: 'Application taken by: (Miele) I ALL MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING: ➢ ALL DRAWINGS SHALL BE AT A LEGIBLE SCALE AND NEATLY DRAWN ➢ BUILDING SITE PLANS AND UTILITY PLANS ARE TO BE COMBINED ➢ ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED ARCHITECT ➢ STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ➢ CIVIUSITE PLAN DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER (P.E.) SUBMIT APPLICATION AND REQUIRED CHECKLISTS FOR PERMIT REVIEW A4oye 'C�roynd:Tanks/Watei':Tanks Suppoil if;di otIYi��on.gi@de Submitghocklisl:; t • exceeding 5,000:gait tn"e nq *ri3Uo;otphOIght to dtam�iQtatri idtfk;: • �c excee.:, • f� ,.'/Sl2ft %hS•ri.'t>: .E'. Ynt,, r[,7rnQ' $,Jte �:t'.J t q',C i.7 ^::f��'S'3�� k t Z Y"i ' ', •1K •�Ay t ' • �' ..,.tl 'i,Il, II� U .4 , s._:�,, s�.�, fi K��%' G;�vz�Yr� . ,� zek„ ?k: <�t�.t;� .:,c;s• Cotivi� al: natifUriproveitjeilt • nil ri .itog i e ❑ Copy of Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Valid Contractor's License. If not avaliable at the time of application, a copy of this license will be required before the permit Is Issued, unless the homeowner will be the builder OR submit Form H-4, "Affidavit In Lieu of Contractor Registration ". I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT l HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOWTHE SAME TO BE TRUE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND I AM AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR THIS PERMIT. Print name: Bill Fortunato Address: P12°8 ) 522-9510 1 F(81e5) 522 -8344 Gty/State/Zip: MISCPMT.DOC 7/11/96. r • April 22, 2003 1144 EASTLAKE AVE. E. SUITE 601 SEATTLE, WA 98109 Ryan Larson, P.E. Senior Surface Water Management Engineer City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 -2544 Subject: Double Tree Demolition Proposed Detention Requirements Dear Mr. Larson: r 20b:522.9510 F 206.522.8344 WWW.PACLAND.COM VIA FAX AND MAIL (206) 431 -3665 As you are aware, PACLAND is currently contracted to prepare documents for the demolition of the Double Tree site at the northeast corner of Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway. To facilitate the future expansion of the Southcenter Mall, the client will be utilizing this area for parking for the mall. The project will be proposing a stormwater management system that will provide detention to mitigate the peak 100 -year/ 24 -hour storm event. The following letter will provide an overview of storm system proposed. It is the intent of this memorandum to receive the City of Tukwila's agreement with the conceptual stormwater design. The site is currently has a vacant hotel and associated parking. The hotel was constructed in approximately 1968. The proposed project would demolish the existing hotel and pave the site to provide parking for the Westfield Shoppingtown at Southcenter. As discussed in our meeting on March 20, 2003, it would be the desire of the city to provide the stormwater management for both stormwater quantity and quality. The proposed parking area would result in just over an acre of new impervious surface to the site. To mitigate for this increased impervious surface, we propose to provide 3,680 cubic feet of detention storage that will result in a net increase of less than 0.1 cfs for the 100 year /24 -hour storm event and install a mechanical stormwater treatment device prior to discharge into the existing storm system. The existing storm system in the vicinity is shallow and will not allow for deep tanks, vaults or large diameter pipes to be used for detention. It has been assumed a maximum of a three (3) foot diameter pipe could be used. Given these conditions, to provide the detention as stated above it would require an estimated 525 linear feet of pipe. The attached Figure 1 depicts the extent of the detention system required for this mitigation. A detention requirement requiring the project to return to pre -1968 conditions and would require a significantly increased amount of detention. The detention requirements would result in approximately 6325 cubic feet of detention volume or roughly 900 linear feet of Page 2 Ryan Larson April 22, 2003 pipe with the same parameters stated above. The calculations have also been provided for your reference. Stormwater quality will be provided through the use of a vortechnics or similar product. The vortex removes in excess of 80% of total suspended solids from runoff. The stormwater quality device will be sized to by -pass the 100 -year/ 24 -hour storm event. The proposed stormwater system will provide quantity and quality control to meet the goals of the project and the City of Tukwila. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Bill Fortunato, P.E. Project Manager Attachments tkwfrltrol .doc • I. -4 I I .vi - V''1, ..., , ......4. Lc, tlt ;;,,,:______ • • 1 . ..,......., --.....„.,,• k,... • ,C,.._'., 111.,1f.:•61 4 1 !ii-s-..... , ,;.,-) , ,,,.., (1..) 1 I • I , ! t • ) , ••:„.: ',-::1-• i I I, '1 STORM, STRUCTURE .:,....... 1 ■ ,e .L../. 1 1-- ', . I) 1 ! , : . . .7.7..........:3... ............., I 1 , „... ‘.., L .. ii..11. , 1 .77,„„, 7,..,,,v,,„.,,,,...- 4 7 ,p,-,,, ..., ;:::::,....,,'!-,1 1 ,...,. ' 1 it: ; v ...\ 1)..:".....:. :.1) t ii,.;.1 i 111;:.14 • -'11--..;.,vtiv„;,,,,,,,, :!7'4=''., , . ,, ; I - i . \ .1. 0 hf:; ...0. F; a4.:' % .3 i e I -...1 111:71.: 1 1 :=,-,•., \ \ 1 1---.1 . • i r - • , - % (... ' ' . i".T.S. .., 1 •-•.-:- 1 , Nz <zi-.•:.1-7, 1 1 kV, -- . , t._:,, i - "I li ' ■ .1....-'::: '-; 1 (....1:7;1 1 ".- , •:-.1 1 'I '''.t • ./../1 ..4 1 • : i , • L -11 ...- I If e.e.4074. ir , 4-7,19',F7 e 34.104; .7,3 Y. if I I 1 I cift -"Ct=t) ,;:ii, t, ' 7 :.....: f",".?:, iiele.:449.5fee ''' 1 lk:';.,,M.' ' ;5'2 • ... 1 ,P ..., .;'''inV4-'.;-.-!__,__,i .,A4Pir, .. .., ....',..,, , . . , ... ,,., qr---- 1 FIT _ 4. 77, 1.•. r 5.7 - S1RANDER SCSOILEVARD '") I /P) , ," 4 __..... . . 1 MA \v. • • • • _ • SITE DATA MAIO MEC TUC OXIDIC 111 HO U1 NATO!) POPO= USE • RETAL LEGEND S1W. WTI PAWNOR DORM atili NUIEER OF PAM= STALLS PER ROW Napo= CONTOUR SPOT Emma • my um BASIN • TIP( I CATCH a/301 CLEANCUT TO MAK (OTE.) STORM DUN PfPE TC TCP CP OM IP TIP Cf PIAINDIT -.tato-7.11.B . • • ■ • • • - - • • • - • ■ . • - • • • • • . . • • • • • • y • • • • ■ ■ - • • • • - • • • • • • . • • • . • • . • ■ • ION !WWII L T POO Tao= Sub MI I' 3214344 SolOs. VA TIM srladaacom field SHOPPINGTOWN - SOUTHCENTER PROPOSED DETENTION RG-1 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON AND TREATMENT ° k Ale7" SN 'EASE �F • /c -fr /CO yeAR Existing Development - 4.19 acres impervious, 1.77 acres pervious Modeled as grass till and impervious, Sea -Tac 1 hour Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:pre- dev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1.18 0.976 1.41 1.08 1.29 1.25 1.57 2.35 Computed Peaks 6 2/09/01 2:00 8 1/05/02 16:00 3 2/27/03 7:00 7 8/26/04 2:00 4 10/28/04 16:00 5 1/18/06 16:00 2 10/26/06 0:00 1 1/09/08 6:00 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 2.35 1 100.00 0.990 1.57 2 25.00 0.960 1.41 3 10.00 0.900 1.29 4 5.00 0.800 1.25 5 3.00 0.667 ' 1.18 6 2.00 0.500 1.08 7 1.30 0.231 0.976 8 1.10 0.091 2.09 50.00 0.980 Proposed Development - 5.3 acres impervious, 0.7 acres pervious Modeled as grass till and impervious, Sea -Tac 1 hour Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:postreal - dev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1.35 1.16 1.63 1.33 1.59 1.44 1.94 2.65 .Computed Peaks 6 2/09/01 2:00 8 1/05/02 16:00 3 12/08/02 18:00 7 8/26/04 2:00 4 10/28/04 16:00 5 1/18/06 16:00 2 10/26/06 0:00 1 1/09/08 6:00 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) 2.65 1.94 1.63 1.59 1.44 1.35 1.33 1.16 2.42 Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 Retention /Detention Facility - to meet Level 1 Flow Control Requirements (match peak flows for 2 -year and 10 -year event Type of Facility: Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Detention Vault 30.33 ft 30.33 ft 920. sq. ft 4.00 ft 0.00 ft 3679. cu. ft V`` 4.00 ft 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 1 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 4.50 1.100 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 0.05 0.05 46. 0.001 0.119 0.00 0.09 0.09 83. 0.002 0.168 0.00 0.14 0.14 129. 0.003 0.206 0.00 0.19 0.19 175. 0.004 0.238 0.00 0.23 0.23 212. 0.005 0.266 0.00 0.28 0.28 258. 0.006 0.292 0.00 0.33 0.33 304. 0.007 0.315 0.00 0.38 0.38 350. 0.008 0.337 0.00 0.48 0.48 442. 0.010 0.379 0.00 0.58 0.58 534. 0.012 0.417 0.00 0.68 0.68 626. 0.014 0.452 0.00 0.78 0.78 718. 0.016 0.484 0.00 0.88 0.88 810. 0.019 0.515 0.00 0.98 0.98 901. 0.021 0.543 0.00 1.08 1.08 993. 0.023 0.570 0.00 1.18 1.18 1085. 0.025 0.596 0.00 1.28 1.28 1177. 0.027 0.621 0.00 1.38 1.38 1269. 0.029 0.645 0.00 1.48 1.48 1361. 0.031 0.668 0.00 1.58 1.58 1453. 0.033 0.690 0.00 1.68 1.68 1545. 0.035 0.712 0.00 1.78 1.78 1637. 0.038 0.733 0.00 1.88 1.88 1729. 0.040 0.753 0.00 1.98 1.98 1821. 0.042 0.773 0.00 2.08 2.08 1913. 0.044 0.792 0:00 2.18 2.18 2005. 0.046 0.811 0.00 2.28 2.28 2097. 0.048 0.830 0.00 2.38 2.38 2189. 0.050 0.848 0.00 2.48 2.48 2281. 0.052 0.865 0.00 2.58 2.58 2373. 0.054 0.883 0.00 2.68 2.68 2465. 0.057 0.900 0.00 2.78 2.78 2557. 0.059 0.916 0.00 2.88 2.88 2649. 0.061 0.933 0.00 2.98 2.98 2741. 0.063 0.949 0.00 3.08 3.08 2833. 0.065 0.965 0.00 3.18 3.18 2925. 0.067 0.980 0.00 3.28 3.28 3017. 0.069 0.995 0.00 3.38 3.38 3109. 0.071 1.010 0.00 3.48 3.48 3201. 0.073 1.030 0.00 3.58 3.58 3293. 0.076 1.040 0.00 3.68 3.68 3385. 0.078 1.050 0.00 3.78 3.78 3477. 0.080 1.070 0.00 3.88 3.88 3569. 0.082 1.080 0.00 3.98 3.98 3661. 0.084 1.100 0.00 4.00 4.00 3679. 0.084 1.100 0.00 4.10 4.10 3771. 0.087 1.420 0.00 4.20 4.20 3863. 0.089 2.000 0.00 4.30 4.30 3955. 0.091 2.740 0.00 4.40 4.40 4047. 0.093 3.550 0.00 4.50 4.50 4139. 0.095 3.840 0.00 4.60 4.60 4231. 0.097 4.110 0.00 4.70 4.70 4323. 0.099 4.360 0.00 4.80 4.80 4415. 0.101 4.590 0.00 4.90 4.90 4507. 0.103 4.810 0.00 5.00 5.00 4599. 0.106 5.010 0.00 5.10 5.10 4691. 0.108 5.210 0.00 5.20 5.20 4783. 0.110 5.400 0.00 5.30 5.30 4875. 0.112 5.580 0.00 5.40 5.40 4967. 0.114 5.750 0.00 5.50 5.50 5059. 0.116 5.920 0.00 5.60 5.60 5151. 0.118 6.090 0.00 5.70 5.70 5243. 0.120 6.240 0.00 5.80 5.80 5335. 0.122 6.400 0.00 5.90 5.90 5427. 0.125 6.550 0.00 6.00 6.00 5519. 0.127 6.700 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 2.58 * * * * * ** 2.53 4.27 4.27 3929. 0.090 2 1.86 * * * * * ** 1.50 4.11 4.11 3784. 0.087 3 1.57 1.41 1.42 4.10 4.10 3770. 0.087 4 1.40 * * * * * ** 1.26 4.05 4.05 3727. 0.086 5 1.52 * * * * * ** 1.26 4.05 4.05 3724. 0.085 6 1.31 1.10 1.10 3.99 3.99 3673. 0.084 7 1.28 * * * * * ** 0.92 2.82 2.82 2594. 0.060 8 1.12 * * * * * ** 0.86 2.47 2.47 2276. 0.052 Design for Stormceptor System Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 2.65 2.35 2.35 4.99 4.99 6323. 0.145 2 1.94 * * * * * ** 1.49 2.01 2.01 2384. 0.055 . 3 1.63 * * * * * ** 1.38 1.74 1.74 1962. 0.045 _ 4 1.59 * * * * * ** 1.38 1.74 1.74 1956. 0.045 5 1.44 * * * * * ** 1.31 1.55 1.55 1671. 0.038 6 1.35 * * * * * ** 1.24 1.38 1.38 1419. 0.033 7 1.33 * * * * * ** 1.12 1.14 1.14 1087. 0.025 8 1.16 * * * * * ** 1.00 0.91 0.91 784. 0.018 Utilize a Stormceptor Model Number 4800 or a Stormgate Separator Model Dbmber SGS 4200 -V. = 4 I ` __`:..._ ,CONNECT._Lf)..RR.SIIN.C... -._ __. -.__t STORM '...„ RE I 1� L.I we/4m erzefry4 r,!/ /// /�''• _. f ✓r.�°fl� a .rlrr l • am�rurses�c,. Fael�:ieIV/ Yl4YJ/' -.� • Std* �, ,� STRANDE 1 pbUL SITE DATA MSURC MI6 • TIE EASING. USE • IIOla (YACATW° PROPOSED USE • REM LEGEND STD. DIM PAYMENT DORM ORB EWER OT PAM STALLS PER ROR PROMO) =TOUR SPOT OlWTIOR • Mt I CATCH BASIN e WE R CATCH BASSI • OEA M 10 GRADE (COLE.) —0 STOW CON ITPE IC IOP6OSS 1P TOP OF PATflm11 r uN tufts AtL 6m 60I 6ee►.eY. MIm T (fl ) M1510 (10q STI-W1 mahcLosamos Maw SHOPPWGTOWN — SOUTHCENTER TUKWILAI WASHINGTON PROPOSED DETENTION AND TREATMENT FIG-2 • gee /96S,! . Existing Development - 4.19 acres impervious, 1.77 acres pervious Modeled as grass. till and impervious, Sea -Tac 1 hour Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:pre - dev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1.18 0.976 1.41 1.08 1.29 1.25 1.57 2.35 Computed Peaks 6 2/09/01 2:00 8 1/05/02 16:00 3 2/27/03 7:00 7 8/26/04 2:00 4 10/28/04 16:00 5 1/18/06 16:00 2 10/26/06 0:00 1 1/09/08 6:00 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) 2.35 1.57 1.41 1.29 1.25 1.18 1.08 0.976 2.09 Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 Proposed Development - 5.3 acres impervious, 0.7 acres pervious Modeled as grass till and impervious, Sea -Tac 1 hour Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:postreal - dev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1.35 1.16 1.63 1.33 1.59 1.44 1.94 2.65 - Computed Peaks 6 2/09/01 2:00 8 1/05/02 16:00 3 12/08/02 18:00 7 8/26/04 2:00 4 10/28/04 16:00 5 1/18/06 16:00 2 10/26/06 0:00 1 1/09/08 6:00 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) 2.65 1.94 1.63 1.59 1.44 1.35 1.33 1.16 2.42 Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 Retention /Detention Facility - to limit runoff to existing 100 -year Runoff per Exception # 4 of KC -SWDM for redevelopment projects Type of. Facility: Detention Tank Tank Diameter: Tank Length: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Orifice # Height (ft) 1 0.00 5.00 ft 322. ft 5.00 ft 0.00 ft p 6325. cu. ft �^"' O vleel) 5.00 ft ft 12.00 inches 1 Full Head Pipe Diameter Discharge Diameter (in) (CFS) (in) 6.22 2.350 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 0.06 0.06 14. 0.000 0.268 0.00 0.13 0.13 45. 0.001 0.378 0.00 0.19 0.19 79. 0.002 0.464 0.00 0.26 0.26 125. 0.003 0.535 0.00 0.32 0.32 171. 0.004 0.598 0.00 0.39 0.39 228. 0.005 0.656 0.00 0.45 0.45 282. 0.006 0.708 0.00 0.52 0.52 349. 0.008 0.757 0.00 0.58 0.58 409. 0.009 0.803 0.00 0.68 0.68 516. 0.012 0.869 0.00 0.78 0.78 630. 0.014 0.930 0.00 0.88 0.88 750. 0.017 0.988 0.00 0.98 0.98 875. 0.020 1.040 0.00 1.08 1.08 1005. 0.023 1.090 0.00 1.18 1.18 1140. 0.026 1.140 0.00 1.28 1.28 1279. 0.029 1.190 0.00 1.38 1.38 1421. 0.033 1.240 0.00 1.48 1.48 1566. 0.036 1.280 0.00 1.58 1.58 1715. 0.039 1.320 0.00 1.68 1.68 1866. 0.043 1.360 0.00 1.78 1.78 2019. 0.046 1.400 0.00 1.88 1.88 2174. 0.050 1.440 0.00 1.98 1.98 2331. 0.054 1.480 0.00 2.08 2.08 2489. 0.057 1.520 0.00 2.18 2.18 2648. 0.061 1.550 0.00 2.28 2.28 2809. 0.064 1.590 0.00 2.38 2.38 2969. 0.068 1.620 0.00 2.48 2.48 3130. 0.072 1.660 0.00 2.58 2.58 3291. 0.076 1.690 0.00 2.68 2.68 3452. 0.079 1.720 0.00 2.78 2.78 3613. 0.083 1.750 0.00 2.88 2.88 3772. 0.087 1.780 0.00 2.98 2.98 3931. 0.090 1.820 0.00 3.08 3.08 4088. 0.094 1.850 0.00 3.18 3.18 4244. 0.097 1.880 0.00 3.28 3.28 4398. 0.101 1.900 0.00 3.38 3.38 4550. 0.104 1.930 0.00 3.48 3.48 4699. 0.108 1.960 0.00 3.58 3.58 4846. 0.111 1.990 0.00 3.68 3.68 4990. 0.115 2.020 0.00 3.78 3.78 5130. 0.118 2.040 0.00 3.88 3.88 5266. 0.121 2.070 0.00 3.98 3.98 5399. 0.124 2.100 0.00 4.08 4.08 5526. 0.127 2.120 0.00 4.18 4.18 5648. 0.130 2.150 0.00 4.28 4.28 5764. 0.132 2.180 0.00 4.38 4.38 5874. 0.135 2.200 0.00 4.48 4.48 5976. 0.137 2.230 0.00 4.58 4.58 6070. 0.139 2.250 0.00 4.68 4.68 6154. 0.141 2.270 0.00 4.78 4.78 6227. 0.143 2.300 0.00 4.88 4.88 6285. 0.144 2.320 0.00 4.98 4.98 6322. 0.145 2.350 0.00 5.00 5.00 6325. 0.145 2.350 0.00 5.10 5.10 6325. 0.145 2.680 0.00 5.20 5.20 6325. 0.145 3.270 0.00 5.30 5.30 6325. 0.145 4.020 0.00 5.40 5.40 6325. 0.145 4.830 0.00 5.50 5.50 6325. 0.145 5.140 0.00 5.60 5.60 6325. 0.145 5.420 0.00 5.70 5.70 6325. 0.145 5.670 0.00 5.80 5.80 6325. 0.145 5.910 0.00 5.90 5.90 6325. 0.145 6.140 0.00 6.00 6.00 6325. 0.145 6.360 0.00 6.10 6.10 6325. 0.145 6.560 0.00 6.20 6.20 6325. 0.145 6.760 0.00 6.30 6.30 6325. 0.145 6.950 0.00 6.40 6.40 6325. 0.145 7.130 0.00 6.50 6.50 6325. 0.145 7.310 0.00 6.60 6.60 6325. 0.145 7.480 0.00 6.70 6.70 6325. 0.145 7.650 0.00 6.80 6.80 6325. 0.145 7.810 0.00 6.90 6.90 6325. 0.145 7.970 0.00 7.00 7.00 6325. 0.145 8.130 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 2.65 2.35 2.35 4.99 4.99 6323. 0.145 2 1.94 * * * * * ** 1.49 2.01 2.01 2384. 0.055 3 1.63 * * * * * ** 1.38 1.74 1.74 1962. 0.045 4 1.59 * * * * * ** 1.38 1.74 1.74 1956. 0.045 5 1.44 * * * * * ** 1.31 1.55 1.55 1671. 0.038 6 1.35 * * * * * ** 1.24 1.38 1.38 1419. 0.033 7 1.33 * * * * * ** 1.12 1.14 1.14 1087. 0.025 8 1.16 * * * * * ** 1.00 0.91 0.91 784. 0.018 Design for Stormceptor System Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 2.65 2.35 2.35 4.99 4.99 6323. 0.145 2 1.94 * * * * * ** 1.49 2.01 2.01 2384. 0.055 3 1.63 * * * * * ** 1.38 1.74 1.74 1962. 0.045 4 1.59 * * * * * ** 1.38 1.74 1.74 1956. 0.045 5 1.44 * * * * * ** 1.31 1.55 1.55 1671. 0.038 6 1.35 * * * * * ** 1.24 1.38 1.38 1419. 0.033 7 1.33 * * * * * ** 1.12 1.14 1.14 1087. 0.025 8 1.16 * * * * * ** 1.00 0.91 0.91 784. 0.018 Utilize a Stormceptor Model Number 4800 or a Stormgate Separator Model Number SGS 4200 -V. DttQ .I I-14A9 FAX 2181.151:1 'MVPs Ave. KW. .iroe, INAMMOm 0-4u -ere ,iu•uueua , ut uvir. JAl_c. /vr3-+ All C/DIAGWOsnc ENVIRONMENTAL INC Christopher Winsor, AIA CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 900 Cottage Grove Road Bloomfield, Connecticut 06002 RE: ASBESTOS SURVEY DOIJBLETItUE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ATC PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 Dear Mr. Winsor: 2U1:0704/40;W 0/14 Ab/30mm, Moots Micznua Manupcmant IWt6frq thatryn rimkg ttiwn eenmenta1 Lnui papfQ ktna1 l ftimo AmiudWhIremwum July 19, 1994 Al. the request of CIGNA Investment Management, ATC Environmental Inc. performed an Asbestos Survey at the referenced property. ring analysis of the bulk samples, seven nonfriable samples were found to contain low percentages of asbestos. Upon discussion with CIGNA, ATC resubmitted the samples for point count analysis. The following samples were reanalyzed: #6, 29, 49, 50, 78, 80, and 126 All samples reanalyzed were found to contain less than 1% asbestos, and are therefore not regulated as asbestos - containing materials. As a result, Work Items #12 Flooring) and #8 (Joint Compound /Wallboard) are no longer valid. ATC will update the #but same logs for the project, and will forward them to your attention within the next 24 hours. if you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, .ATC ENVIRONM1 NTAL INC Jane P. Row Director of era lions Paget of 1 'AOEI .MPLE NO. v ry .. • .+ •• v..... Y l ♦.vau • Jru. & i V1 J'' ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 4uoo (C4 14i3;; 4/14 TYPE OF MATERIAL BULK SAMPLE LOG ESTIMATED FLOOR! SAMPLE POS.I ASBESTOS AIR QUANTITY LEVEL LOCATION NEG. TYPE % FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS 1 Thermal Insulation 1,000 SF 2 Sheet Roaring Made 3 Baseboard Mastics 4 Sheet Flooring Mastic S Baseboard Mastio .8 Leveling Compound 7 Sheet Rooting Mad° Baseboard Mastic Thermal Insulation 10. Sheet Flooring Mastic 11 Baseboard Masilo 12 Sheet Flooring Mastic 13 Sheet Footing Mastic 14 Sheet Flooring Mastic 15 Exhaust Duct Debris 16 Sheet Flooring Mastic 117 Sheet Flooring -/ Mask 2 Room 406 (Attic) N N/D 40 SF 2 Room 405 P Chrysotile 6% Nonfriable None None to Low Low 12 LF 2 Room 405 - 14 Tremorrto c1% 40 SF 2 Room 404 P Chtrotile 8% Nonlriable None None to Low Low 12 LF 2 Room 404 .N 14/0 320 SF 2 Room 417 (Under N Chrysotile c1% Carpet) 40 SF 2 Room 417 P Chrysotile 6% Nontrlable None Nono to Low 12 LF 2 Room 417 N Chrysotle e1% Tremolite c1% 1,000 SF 2 Room 431 (Attic) N N/D 40 SF 2 Room 431 P Chrysotile 6% Nonfriable None None to Low Low 12 LF . 2 Room 431 40 SF 2 Room 441 P Chrysotile 4% Nontriable None None to Low Low 40 SF 2 Room 458 P Chrysotile 3% Nonfriabie None None to Low Low • 40 SF 1 Room 342 P Chrysotile 5% Nonfriable None None to Low Low 100 SF • 1 Roam 147 N 1410 60 SF 1 Room 147 P Ch'ysotile 5% Nonfriable None 60 SF 2 Room 251 P Chrysotile 3% Northiable None None to Low .Low Low None to Low Low _ Haas analysis b1r v scud ft1li dranotes that the estimated materml querdly for the area has been included in referenced sample numbs. TN C RONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 u cu u= r a u • .. rnal 1 Li vvru . .UtLLJ/ VL J� ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LUDO ta'! /'W OF Of 14 'ICE/ ...anti TYPE OF ESTIMATED • - NO- MATERIAL QUANirTY 12 Baseboard Mastic BULK SAMPLE LOG FLOOR/ BAMPLE POS./ ASe68TOS LEVEL LOCATION NEG. TYPE % FRIAeILIYY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS AIR 12 LF 2 Room 251 N Tremonte .cl% 19 Thermal Insulation 1,000 8F 2 Room 22t (Attic) N 20 Sheet flooring Mantic 21 Carpet Mastic 22 Sheet Floodng Mastic 23 Baseboard Mastic 24 STIONFORIMM '�25 ' Sheet Roaring Mastic 26 Wallboard/Joint Compound Composite 27 ellffileliff 1111.811119130f4P 28 Wallboard/Joint Compound Composite Poured Flooring Red '29 30 Light Weight Concrete 31 Acoustic Pane) (2'x2') 32 Resilient Floor Tde (9" x 9") Green 33 Floor Tile Mastic Black Resilient Floor Tile (12" x12") White _James analysis by point count (Rit) denotes that the estimated material quaM#y for the area has been Included in referenced sample number. TC V1R MEN Al I N/D 40 SF 2 Room 218 P Chrysolite 6% Nonfriabte None None to Low Low 920 SF 2 Room 201 N N/D 408F 1• Room 103 P Chrysolite 6% Ncnfriable None None to Low Low 12 LF 1 Room .103 N Tremolite e1% 4steFr - noble War None to Low Vt)r 4 . ii3 Otis Low 40 SF 1 Room 307 P Chrysotfle 6% Nontriabfe None 300 SF 1 Room 307 N Chrysolite <1% P" 49614lattiongerset, laixaBtis , Friable 600 SF 2 Ice Room N Chrysolite 1% 160 SF 2 Ice Room N Chrysatile <1% 160 SF 2 ice Room N Chrysolite <1% SF 2 Corridor Outside N N/D Ice Room 50 SF 2 Kitchen Service N Chrysolite <1% Stairs 60 SF 2 Kitchen Service N Tremolte <19/. Stairs 55 SF 2 Kitchen Service N N/D Stairs None to Low Low None None to Low Low PROJECT NO. 800121602 avvvrvYrzvrrr U11'! ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 'ACE/ BULK SAMPLE LOG MPLE TYPE OF ESTIMATED FLOOR/ SAMPLE. P09.1 ASBESTOS AIR NO. MATERIAL QUANTITY LEVEL LOCATION NEC. TYPE x FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS 35 Floor Tile Maeda 55 SF 2 Kitchen Service P Chtys4Ule 3% Noniriabte None None to Low Black Stairs Low 36 Aooustio 11Ie 1.400 SF 1 Kitchen P Amosite 10% Friable Major Moderate High (12'x12'1Pin Hole 37 Aoousdo TUe (R36) 1 Kitchen P Amoeite 6% Friable Major Moderate High 12' x 121 Pin .Hole 38 Acoustic Tile (R38) 1 Kitchen (12' x 121 Pin Hole 39 Acoustic Tile 1,400 SF • 1. Kitchen N Tremoiite <1% Meetly 40 Acoustic Tile (R39) 1 Kitchen N NID Mastic 41' Aoouctio Ydo 1,300 SF- 1 Kitchen N NID • • (12'x12') X42 • Aoousib.Tila ) (R41) 1 Kitchen N N/) (12" x 127 (R41) 1 Kitchen N NID 1,300 SF 1 iKtohen N NID 43 Acoustic Tile (12"x12') 44 Acoustic Tile Mastic 46 Aoous* Tile (R44) .1 kitchen N N/D Made 48 Top Layer Floor 3,100 SF 1 Kitchen N N/D 47 Top Layer Floor (R46) 1 Kitchen N Chrysotile <1% 46 Top Layer Floor (R48) 1 Kitchen N Chrysolite c1% '49 Second Layer 3,100 SF 1 Kitchen N Chrysotite <1% Poured Flooring Red '50 Second 1 ayar (R49) 1 Kitchen N Chrysotite <1% Poured Flooring Red 51 Resilient Sheet 500 SF 1 Kitchen Storage P Chrysotile 10% Friable Major Moderate High Flooring Gray Room Mottled nolc : analysis by point count i) donates that the ealknated material quash( for the area has been included In referenced trample number. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL WC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 '•CEr OLE tIlle Or- ' O. MATERIAL 52 Resilient Sheet Flooring Gray Mottled 53 Reslitert Sheet Rooting Gray Mottled 54 Mastto/Resi lent Floor 'Tile (9' x 9' Green 55 Mastio1Reslient Floor Tile (r x 9") Green 56 Pipe Fitting Insulation Lagging (2') 57 Pipe Fitting Insulation Lagging (41) 58 Tank Insulation Lagging �9 Tank In8Idatlon Lagging — �s0 Resilient Floor Tie (12 "x12") BIue/Mastic 61 Resilient Root Tile (12" x 12") Blue/Mastio 62 Qold Mastlo 63 Gold Mastic 64 HVAC Rexible Connector 65 HVAC Flexible Connector 66 HVAC Flexible Connector 67 Resilient Sheet Flooring White Resilient Sheet Flooring White • - - -�-"` ✓. ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BULK SAMPLE LOG ESTIMATED FLOOR/ SAMPLE POS./ ASBESTOS °BAMT1TY LEVEL LOCATION NEC. TYPE % C00010414JilF 7/14 AIR FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS (R51) 1- Kitchen Storage P Chrysolite 20% Friable Malor Moderate High . Room (R51) 500 SF (R54) 5.E '13 E 80 SF (R) 240 SF (R60) 240 SF (R62) 1 1 1 Mohan Storage Room Kitchen Storage Room Kitchen Storage Room • P N N 1 • Kitchen Storage P Rodm • Chrysotle 26% Friable Major Moderate High Chrysolite <1% Chrysolite 41% Amoske 15% Friable Major Moderate High Friable Major Moderate High Friable Minor Moderate High 1 Kitchen Storage P Marsha 10% Room 1 Ktichen Storage Room P ' Chrysoae 5% Amasite 25% 1 kitchen Ch en Storage P Chrysolite 10 a % Friable . Minor Moderate High Room 1 Employee N NID Lounge 1 Employee N N/D Lounge 1. Employee N NiO Lounge (Under Wood) 1 Employee N N/D Lounge (Under Wood) 5 E 1 Employee N N/D Lounge (R64) 1 E nPloyee Lounge N N/D (R64) 1 Employee N N/D Lounge 100 SF - 1 Men's Locker N N/0 Room (R67) 1 Men's Locker N Room point metre ) denotoe that the eat aced malarial goodly for the area has been induded in relerenced sample number. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 v ...v v a r s v• uvn u T t/t S..VnI . art r a/ u•J-, ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LUOID tag /CI ;; ii/ 14 cv IPLE HO. 1TP! OF MATERIAL BULK SAMPLE LOG EaTIUATED FLOOR/ SAMPLE PM/ AsaESTOS QUANTITY LEVEL LOCATION KEG_ TYPE %• AIR FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS 69 Resilient Sheet Flooring White (R67) 70 Rodent Floor TIle 100 SF (9" x 9'j Red 71 Resilient Roor Tile 100 SF (9' x 9) Green 72 Resilient Floor Tile . (R70) (91 x D Red/Maetio 1 Men's Locker Room 1 Mertre Loiter Room 1 Merry Locker Room 1 Men's Looker Room 73 Acoustic Tie (1r x 400 SF . 1. 121 Mottled 74 Acoustic TUe (12" x 2{300 SF 121 Mottled 76 Acousdo Tile (17 x 300 SF' 12') Mottled Resilient Floor Tile 70 SF (9' x IT) Green Floor Tile Mastic 70 SF Black 78 Wallboard/Joint 800 SF Compound Composite 79 Resilient Floor Tie 20 SF (121x 121 Tan • !80 Wallboard/Joint 800 SF Compund Composite 81 Resilient Floor Tile 160 SF (12' x 12') Gray Marble 82 Boller Insulation 250 SF B•02 83 Boiler Insulation 250 SF B-03 84 O.D. Pipe Fitting 20 E Insulation (61 )85 O.D. Pipe Fitting 20 E insulation (3") Corridor 1 • Maple Room 1 Foyer 1 Phone Room P Chrysolite 2% Nordriable None Moderate High N N/D P Chrysalis 4% Nordrlable None None to Low Low N Chrysotie• <1% P Chrysolle 3% NonMoble None None to Low • Low N N N WO N/D 1 Phone Room N N/D 2 Upper Banquet N ChrysotNe <1% Storage . N N/D N Chrysalis <1% .2 Housekeeping Storage By Roam 417 2 Housekeeping Storage By Room 417 2 Housekeeping Storage By Room 235 1 Tank Room 1 Tank Room . 1 Tank Room 1 Tank Room N P Ohmage 2 % Friable Minor Moderate High AMOidtfa P Chrysotle 25% Friable Minor Moderate High Amosite 25% P Anlosite 10% Friable Major Moderate High P Amosite 10% Friable Major Moderate I Sigh ilk notes analysis by point count (RI) denotes that the estimated :tutorial quaru3y torte area has been Included in rdcrenced smote number. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT No. 80012.1402 • ,. ... ._.. uI •••& J'' LUCID 10414ijiiF V/ 14 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ?AGE/ __AMPLE 1YPB al= )NO. MATERIAL ESTIMATED QUANTITY BULK SAMPLE LOG FLOOR/ SAMPLE POS./ ASBESTOS LEVEL LOCATION NEC. TYPE X AIR FRIARIUTY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS • 86 Debris • 87 Pipe Fitting Insulation (8') '88 ' -Resilient Floor Tile (12'x12") 89 Resfant Sheet Flooring Gold 90 Leveling Compound 9i Carpet Mastic Gold 92 Resilient Floor Tile (iY x 12") j3 Plaster Finish Coat 94 Plaster Finish Coat 95 Resilient Floor lUe (12x121) Brown Mottled 96 Resilient Floor Ills (t2'x12')Tan 97 Roor Tile Mastic Black 98 ' sling d 99 Pipe Fitting lnsulejflon (try 100 Debris. 101 Pipe Fitting Insulation (8' -w) On Sprinkler Une r02 Pipe Fitting '� Insulation (4') denotes analysts by point count (Rd) denotes that the estimated Material cKsirdy for the Area has been Inducted In referenced earn* number. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 200 SF 4E 1 38 8F 1 362F 1 10 SF 1. 20 8F 1 20 3F 1 100 SF 1 (R93) 1 SF 1 30 SF 30 SF SF 24 E 100 SF Bent 50 LF Bumf 21 E . Bsmt 1 Tank Room P Amoelte 20% Friable Major Moderate High Purchasing P Amosite 5% Friable Minor Moderate High Storage Ice Room By N - NID Room 310 lee Room By P Chrysodle 60% Notifiable Nana None to Low Room 310 Low Ice Room By N N/D Roam 310 North Ice Room N N/0 By Room 315 North Ice Room N N/D By Room 315, North Ice Room N N/D By Room 315 North ice Room N N/D By Room 315 Employee Break N N/D Room 1 Men's Restroom N N/D Near Employee Break Room 1 Man's Restroom Near Employee Break Room ogee B R Bsmt Crawtspace Under Men's Restroom P Chrysatie 15% Nonfriabte None None to Low Low N/D P Amosile 10% Friable Major Moderate High Crawlspace N Under Men's Restroom Crawlspsce N Under Banquet Hall Crawlspaoe N Under Old Restaurant N/D NID NID PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 0-4U u= I L v• uuruUU r ui war. Jilin./ Vr3-' ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON zuoot041w; w1U/ 14 TYPE OP MATERIAL BULK SAMPLE LOG EsTIYATEO FLOOR/ SAMPLE POS./ ASBESTOS QUANTITY LE1/111. LOCATION HE O. TYPE % AIN FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT AOCESS 103 Debris 104 Debris 105 Debris 108 Debris 180 SF Bsmt CraaAspace P Arnosite 18% Friable Major Moderate High . Under Old Restaurant 50 SF Bsmt_ Crawlspace N NID Under Old Restaurant 100 SF 8smt Crawtspace N N/D Under Welk -In Cooler 10 SF Bent Crav (space P Amoaiie 10% Friable Major Moderate High Under Kitchen (in Din) Bsmt Crawlspace Under Kitchen (In • Diri) 10 SF Bsmt Crawlspace P Amosite 15% Fdeble Major Moderate High Under Laundry 20 SF' Band Crawlspace N NID Under Office . . 50 SP • t3smt Grawlepace P Amosite 15% Friable Major Moderate High Under Laundry. 107 • Wagboard Debris 100 SF 108 Pipe Insulation Debris 109 Debris 110 Pipe Run insulation r O.D. 111 Baseboard Mastic 112 . Acoustic Panel (7x27 113 Acoustic Tile (12' x 12") Fissure Type 114 Fireplace Mortar 80 LF 1 Lobby Seating N Area • 600 SF 1 Lobby Sealing N Area 200 SF 1 Men's Restroom N ( Labby) 20 SF 1 Fireplace Lounge N 115 Piaster Hnlsh Coat 100 SF 116 Spray - Applied Acoustic Material 117 Spray - Applied Acoustic Material 11 8 Spray - Applied Acoustic Material 119 Baseboard Mastic 1 Fireplace 'Lounge N (Above Fkeplaoe) 100 SF 1 Office N 700 SF 1 Accountant's N Office (R117) 1 Accountanrs N Office 40 LF 1 Copy Room N N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D •N /D . donates analysis by point count (RF) denotes The! the estimated materiel quarrly for the area has been included In referenced we number. TO ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012:1402 J cu-,Pt r A u• V urea r u 1 WA 1. OALLJ/ Vt J-' ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUDLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON zuoo /04/400F11/14 TYPE OP MATERIAL BULK SAMPLE LOG ESTIMATED FLOORI SAMPLE FM/ ASBESTOS QUANTITY LEVEL LOCATION NEC. TYPE % AIR FRIABILITY OAMACE MOVEMENT ACCESS 120 Piaster Gampnstta 100 SF 121 Moutltio Panel (2'x2') . 122 Acoustic Panel C2' x2� 1 Copy Room N 100 SF 1 Corridor N (R121) 1 Corridor N 123 Wallboard/Joint 80 SF Compound. • Composite 124 Light Weight 20 SF Concrete 126 Baseboard Made 2,000 LF '126 Wellboard/Jolnt 6,000 SF Co Cow 127 Resilient Roor Tile 80 SF (12'x12')Tan X128 Resilient Floor 7pe 30 SF (12" x 12'). White 129 130 131 132 Roofing Mastic Roofing Mastic Roofing Felt Roofing Shingle 1 Beltmen's N Storage 1 Room 109, N Storage i Corridor Between N Room 141 &143 N/D N/D N/D Nib 2 Corridor By Room N Chrysohle <1% 228 • 2 Maintenance N Shop 2 Maintenance N Shop SF Roof Root (11129) Roof Roof SF Roof Roof SF Roof Root N/D N/D N Chrysofile el% N Chrysotile c1% N N/D P Chryaotile 5% Nonfriable None Moderate High denotes anelynis by point count (RIO denotes that the estimated material quSoity let the area has been included in referenced eampb number. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO, 800121402 ...Iuv u, o- 40-V4 ,1 u• 1 UH1Yl u l i n.r. austorS-+ Interoffice Memo •) Thomas J. Podgorskl From: Christopher Winsor, S -319 setephone: 6-2657 subject; Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Doublctree Inn, Tukwila (Seattle), WA 20b5754740;412/14 CIGNA I have reviewed the ESA portion (Section I) of the report dated June 30, 1994 and prepared by ATC/Diagnostic Evironmental Inc I have the following comment= 1. The transmittal letter contains "use and rely' language benefitting CIl and CGLIC. ACUON: None required. 2. Prior to dcvelopincnt in 968 the subject site and abutting properties were undeveloped, marshlands existed on or near the subject. There are no above ground or underground storage tanks on the subject property. The following operating issues were observed on the subject .property: - Fluorescent light ballasts are likely to contain PCB oil. Cleanup and handling of leaking ballasts, and removal and disposal Of 'dean" ballasts Lambe done in accordance with applicable regulations. - There are two hydraulic lifts (used by laundry and kitchen staff), both require repairs of minor cylinder leaks. - Operating the trash compactor (during loading/unloading by the hauler) has resulted in hydraulic oil leaking onto the pavement, which must be leaned up. - - Stormwater drains are not connected to an oll/watcc separator, local requirements should be reviewed to determine if this is needed. ACTION The borrower should comply with recommendations # 2, 5, 6, and 7 of the report (page 18 and 19). 3. A Chevron gas statte n is located across Strander Boulevard (100 fet south of the subject). Agency. records Indicate. a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) for diesel fuel that was removed, but limited soli contamination remains. This LUST site is up or cross- gradient from the subject property. • ACTION: ATC recommends monitoring the agency records. 4. Adjacent to the subject and nn the Southcenter Mall property are three II1ST suns These pose no environmental threat to the subject, but 62 affect the underlying land (existing CG equity investment 41850191). - Two USTs were removed from the lrrederick & Nelson (now Sears) site, contaminated soil was removed, and a 'no further action' status was given by WDOE. - Four USTs were removed from the Firestone (ex J.C. Penney TIIA) In 10 /91, soil and groundwater are contaminated, and in 9192 WDOE required further investigation (presumably to be followed by remedlation). - Evidence of soil borings, monitoring wells, drums of water and cuttings wcre observed at the Southcenter Theater Cinema. There is no agency file on this activity. ACTION: Asset Management should be aware of the environmental activities that have occured or are being conducted on the fee. • CG owns the underlying land. The subject has not caused great environmental damage to the fee. cc 'Thomas W. Johnson proj.225 /9 6-23-U4 ;1 U :1 oAM ; ur (.'ol{Y. SAID /UrS-+ 2U65754745 m at 14 4 tntrofflce Memo July 28, 1994 To: Thomas J. Podgorski From; Christopher Winsor, S -319 Tetephere: 6-2657 Si Jett: Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) Survey Doubletree Inn, Tukwila (Seattle), WA CIGNA I have reviewed the ACM portion (Section II) of the report dated june 30,.1994 and prepared by ATC/Diagnostic Evironjmental Inc The purpose of the ACM Survey was to determine the extent of ACM in the property, in antldpation of - Mandatory ACM removal prior to' demolition, if the Inn was razed. - Necessary ACM removal prior to start of any renovations. - Scope of ACM•to be maintained under an O&M Program. . I have the following comments_ 1. The transmittal letter contains 'use and rely" language benefltting CH and CGLIC. ACTION: Done required.' 2. ATC took 132 samples, and a wide range of building materials were confirmed as containing asbestos. The following are highlights of the report a). Of particular concern was the pipe fitting insulation in the crawl space under the building, some is damaged and has fallen onto the bare dirt, and all Is subject to damage from maintenance personnel, and there is a severe risk of release of air -borne fibers. A copy of the report was sent to the Inn manager•and he has met with the ATC to review the problem and establish safety procedures for the crawlspace. b). There were a number of ACMs in back- of-bhouse spaces that are subject to damage, and it would be prudent to remove these as soon as possible. 4 Three ACMs had low % asbestos content (drywall joint compound, floor leveling compound under carpets, and red poured flooring in the kitchen), and I •requested that these samples be re- tested using the point count analysis. After re- testing these three materials were confirmed as nia containing asbestos. d). A number of the ACMs are in good condition and not subject to damage. These ACMs may be managed in place with an Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Program, until such time they become damaged or a renovation/demolition project would cause a release of airbome asbestos fibers. e). I have attached a tabulation of the ACM locations, with the costs and priority of removaL ACTION: We recommend that the priority 1A and 1B items be abated now or in the near future. We understand the borrower has a $20,000 proposal to abate Work Items #2, 3, 4, 5, and part of 7. Access to the crawl space is now restricted, and an abatement program remains to be done. For the priority 2 and 3 stems, an O&M should be established. Prior to the start of any renovations, or if any ACMs becomc damaged and airborne fibers might he released, the ACM should be abated. Any plan to demolish the bo�ld anticipate in excess of 1300,000 to remov asbestos. The borrower is spcndi i $20,000.01. immediate abatement, and anothe S25 000 uld soon be spent in the BOII an crawl space. When undertaking renovations of reroofing anticipate-significant -sums for abatement. - - pro1.225 /11 Review of A0/1 Report Doubletree Irn, Tukwila, WA • July 28, 1994 Page 2 of 2 Work ATC item rating Type of material 1 2 2 2 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 1 7 1 8 4 9 5 10 10 11 3 12 11 13 12 14 11 15 11 Crawl' space pipe fittings, debris Boiler room, pipe fittings Boiler Room, tank insulation Kitchen Storage, pipe fittings Kitchen Storage, tank Insulation Kitchen, acoustic ceiling tiles • Various BOH, sheet flooring Wallboard joint compound Fire doors Guest Rooms, flooring mastic 20,000 Kitchen, SOH poured red flooring - Guest Rooms, leveling compound - - Various, resilient floor tile, mastic 5,000 - ice machine room, resilient flooring 500 - Roofir.g shingles J.SO.OQO 255000 TOTALS 326,500 96,000 Cost to Cost to demolish . abate now 100,000 20,000 • 3,000 3,000 20,000 20,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 5,000 8,000 8,000 9,000 2,000 •9,000 5,000 5,000 Future cost to abate GI What to rang 40 now 80,000 lA 1B 1B ▪ 1B ▪ 1B ▪ 1B 7,000 1B • "- IB 50,000 2A 20,000 .3 5,000 3 500 3 125.000 2B 280,500 What ,to do later At service wing At guest room wings. All • . NIA 'lank And fittings N/A All NIA All . .N /A All N/A Damaged Balance of flooring. All (* preferred) N/A .Retested- material is not ACM. Damaged only Balance ■ renovations. O&M Remove @ renovations. Retested, material Is not ACM. Retested, material is not ACM. OS.M Remove @ renovations_ O&M Remove 9 renovations. Do with repairs Abate when reroofing. Not ATC rating (priority for removal) is listed on page 4 of their report. CII rating (priority for removal) is: _A Establish removal sequence and priority. Qwner to institute access controls and safety procedures to be used when performing maintenance work in the crawl space. Remove ACMs now from crawl space under the Kitchen and Service wing. Establish O &M Program to maintain pipe fittings insulation in the crawl space under guest room wings. 18 Remove loose or damaged ACM now. Establish a project to remove remaining ACM soon prior to planned renovations. 2A Remove damaged doors now. Set O&M Program. Replace balance of doors as part of planned renovations. 2B Remove ACM shingles affected by repairs. Set O&M Program. Remove (abate) balance of shingles as part of re- roofing. 3 Set O&M Program. Remove (abate) ACM materials prior to future renovations. proj.2Z5r 12 ATC / DIAGNOSTIC ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • 07/05/94 Environmental, Asbestos and Structural Report Christopher Wlnsor, AEA Vice President Real Estate Engineering -Real Estate Investment Services July S, 1994 Stephen D. Pletcher, Sr. VP, Tech Services Guest Quarters Doubletree Hotels 30 Rowes Wharf, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02110 CIGNA Investment Management Real Estate 5319 Hartford, CT 06152-2319 Telephone tto3) 726 -2657 Faalmlle (203) 726 -6328 RE: Environmental, Asbestos and Structural Report Doubletree Inn, Tukwila (Seattle), WA Dear Mr. Pletcher. Enclosed is the Report prepared.by ATC/Diagnostic Environmental Inc. for the subject.property. I have also sent a copy of Section II, the °Asbestos Survey-Report', directly to Dave Rhuelman for his information. Sincerely, • CIGNA Investments, Inc • l.r Christopher Winsor, AIA cc Thomas J. Podgorski Alan Inns Thomas W. Johnson David P. Blanchard North Coast Mortgage Company 600 University Street, Suite 2910 Seattle, WA 98101 David Reuhlman, General Manager Doubletree Suites Hotel 16500 Southcenter Parkway Seattle, WA 98188 proj.225 /8 • ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT --TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 WORK ITEM INVENTORY 3 SAMPLING AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES SAMPLE LOGS PLANS DEPICTING SPECIFIC SAMPLE LOCATIONS 16 ef 17 ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the request of CIGNA Investment Management, the Doubletree Inn hotel, located at 205 Strander Boulevard In Tukwila, Washington, was surveyed by ATC Environmental Inc. (ATC) on June 8 through June 14, 1994, for asbestos- containing construction materials (ACCM). The survey included visual observation for ACCM, sampling' of suspect materials, and laboratory analysis. Effort was made to survey all accessible suspect materials. Additional suspect but unsampled materials could be located between walls, in voids, or in other inaccessible areas; caution should be exerdsed regarding these areas. ATCs recommendations and the estimated costs for abatement and/or management of the ACCM discovered are included in this report. These recommendations have been arranged into several logical work items; finally,-the work items have been listed and their costs totaled, and the list has been sorted into an order of priority of action. • Cost of ATC Work Items .... $28,000 Estimated Cost to Remove All Known ACCM $400,000 Bulk Sampling Construction materials that contain asbestos fibers in percentages greater than one percent ( >1 %) were Wfound. Materials with these levels of asbestos concentrations are regulated by government agencies. These materials fall Into the following categories: ..)ServIce and Utility Areas Friable Materials Sample Location . Sample Location Kitchen, Ice Machine Room Pipe Fitting Insulation (Various Diameters) Telephone Room Kitchen Store Room • Tank insulation and Lagging Facilit Roof Kitchen Store Room Acoustic Ceiling Tile (12" x 12') Kitchen - ' Resilient Sheet Flooring (Grey) . Kitchen Store Room • Wallboard/Joint Compound • • Upper Banquet Storage, Corridor Near 41225, Housekeeping Storage . Pi. : Fitti • Insulation Various Diameters Hot Water Tank Room Pipe Insulation Debris Hot Water Tank Room • Pipe Fitting Insulation • Purchasing Store Room Pipe Fitting Insulation (Various Diameters) Crawls ace Under Build mq pe insulation Debris • Crawlspace Under Batiding Service and Utility Areas Nohfrlable Materials Sample Location . Poured•FlooringjRed) Kitchen, Ice Machine Room Resilient Floor Tile (9" x 9") Green Telephone Room Resilient Floor Tile Mastic Under 12" x 12" Tan Men's Restroom Near Em .10 ee Break Room Roof Shin .les • Facilit Roof ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 � est Rooms Friable Materials • Leveling Compound Guest Rooms • ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBi.ETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Sample Location Guest Rooms (Sampled in#417) INonfrlabie Materials Floor Coveting Mastic Sample Location Guest Room Restrooms 1 Conference and Public Areas Friable Materials Sample Location - - Fire Door Core Throughout Guest Room Conidors Resilient Sheet Flooring Ice Machine Room Near3l0 - , Wallboard Joint Compound .Corridor by Room #225 . Conference and Public Areas Nonfrlable Materials Sample Location . • Floor Masticfladc) Kitchen Service Stairs • Resilient Floor Tile (9" x 91 (Green) ' • Telephone Room ' Resilient.Floor file (9" x 9') (Red) and Mastic Men's Locdcer. Room Identified below are other materials which may contain asbestos but which could not be representatively sampled. Such materials should be assumed to 'contain asbestos until they are confirmed to be asbestos -free. . Suspect Materials Material Location Reason Excluded Fire- Rated/Insulated Door Core Various Locations Not Representative Joint Compound Many Locations Not Representative Flooring Mastic Various Locations Not Representative , Roofing Materials Root Not Representative Suspect materials sampled and found to.be asbestos -free include the following: Service and Utility Areas Blown -in attic insulation, lightweight concrete flooring, acoustic ceiling tile mastic, select acoustic ceiling tiles, select. resilient sheet flooring, select resilient floor Ole and mastic, HV.AC flexible connector, corridor plaster skim coat, select leveling compound, wallboard debris, and roofing mastic. • Guest Rooms Baseboard mastic, exhaust duct debris, carpet mastic, and wallboard/joint compound. Conference and Public Areas Acoustic Ceiling panels (2' x 2') and tiles (12" x 12 "), select resilient floor. tide (9" x 9") and- (12" x 121, fireplace mortar, wall plaster, select wallboard/joint compound, and lightweight concrete flooring. Asbestos Management Asbestos is a hazardous substance. Its condition, handling and disposal are regulated by federal, state and local agencies. if ACCM is disturbed or appears to have become damaged, the condition must be reported to the appropriate supervisor. All asbestos abatement work must be performed In accordance with governing agency regulations. If any construction, maintenance, or remodeling is conducted in an ;rea of the facility where there is the potential for employees to come into contact with, or release or disturb, asbestos or asbestos - containing construction materials, a sign with the following language must ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 2 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON `e posted: "CAUTION. ASBESTOS. CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD. DO NOT DISTURB ;1THOUT PROPER TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT." } ATC recommends that one staff member be assigned as an Operations and Maintenance (O &M) Program Manager, who will develop and manage the program. The person should receive appropriate. - training and be charged with coordinating the periodic O&M inspections. These inspections should Include surveying all asbestos- containing building products in the facility. Defects such as signs of Increased wear, water damage, vandalism and impact damage should be noted and repaired immediately. Construction or remodeling which occurs in the buildings should be reviewed by the O &M managers in the planning stage to see if preparatory abatement work will be required. A complete record should be maintained of all findings (including thls.report), procedures, and actions. This record should also contain names of technical advisors, inspectors, consultants, and all staff time, -material and costs associated with asbestos control and abatement. In the future, if cost recovery is sought from the manufacturers, suppliers, or contractors, or In the event of litigation, this information will be required. • ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 3 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 WORK ATC ITEM RATING TYPE OF MATERIAL • ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WORK ITEMS ESTIMATED OUANTITY MATERIAL LOCATION FRIABILITY RECOMMENDED • ACTION COST 13 12 Resilient Floor Tile See Below Various Locations Nonfriable O &M and Mastic • Findings: Asbestos- containing floor tiles . and associated mastics were observed at the following locations: Kitchen service stairs. mastic. under white. non- asbestos (12" x 12 ") resilient floor tile ... .55 SF Men's locker room, red resilient floor tile (9-x 9") and mastic • 100 SF Telephone room, green resilient floor tie (9" x 9 ")_...70 SF Men's restroom near employee break room, mastic under non- asbestos (12" x 12 ") tarp resilient floor tile......... ...... ......30 SF Maintenance shop and housekeeping store room, (12" x 12") tan tile and mastic 120 SF Back service corridor, women's locker room, red 9" x 9" red resilient floor tile 620 SF Similar materials are located in other places in the facility. These noniriable materials are in generally good condition and the mastics are protected by resilient floor tiles in all locations. This material does not pose a risk of contamination as long as it does not become damaged or deteriorated in such a way that it could release asbestos fibers into the air. This material is accessible to maintenance personnel and employees who enter the referenced locations frequently. Recommendations: Inspect the asbestos - containing floor tiles and associated mastics annually. Prohibit any disturbance to the flooring materials including sanding, chipping or the use of corrosive cleaning chemicals which may cause the generation of airborne asbestos fibers. Sample suspect materials prior to abatement, as some of the similar - looking tiles were found to not contain regulated levels of asbestos. Once removal of the floorings is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost for removal of these flooring materials is $ 5,000. so ATC' ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 14 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 nORK ATC TYPE OF ITEM RATING MATERIAL ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT ..DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ' WORK ITEMS ESTIMATED MATERIAL QUANTITY LOCATION FRIABILITY RECOIIYENOED ACTION COST • 14 11 Resilient Sheet Flooring 36SF Ice Machine Room Friable O & M Findings: - Asbestos- contalning gold resilient sheet flooring was observed in the ice machine room located near room 310. Similar materials may be located in other areas of the facility. The resilient sheet flooring consists. of two layers: the nonfriable vinyl covering and the asbestos- containing friable baddng. This material is in generally good condition in most locations. This material does not pose a risk of contamination as long as it does not become damaged or deteriorated In such a way that it could release asbestos fibers into the air. This material is accessible to building occupants, maintenance personnel, employees or the public who enter the referenced location: • Recommendations: Inspect the asbestos - containing resilient sheet flooring annually. Prohibit any disturbance to the resilient.sheet flooring including sanding, chipping or the use of corrosive cleaning chemicals which may cause the generation of .airbome asbestos fibers. Once removal of. the resilient sheet flooring is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost for removal of the resilient sheet flooring in the ice machine room is $500. $o 15 11 Roofing Material See Below Roof Nonfdable 0 & M $0 Findings: Asbestos - containing roofing shingles were observed on the roof. The roofing shingles are unprotected in all locations. The nonfrlable material is In generally good condition and does not pose a risk of contamination as long as it does not become damaged or deteriorated in such a way that it could release asbestos fibers into the air. This material is accessible to maintenance personnel who access the roof frequently. Recommendations: Additional sampling of these roofing shingles is recommended. Inspect the asbestos- containing roofing shingles annually. Prohibit any disturbance of the roofing shingles which may cause the generation of airbome asbestos fibers. Once removal of the roofing shingles is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost for removal of all asbestos-containing roofing shingles Is $150,000 ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 15 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 • ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON SAMPLING AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES BULK SAMPLING PROCEDURES ATC procedures meet or exceed standards recognized by governing agencies. As part of a site Inspection for suspect materials, ATC's project manager and evaluators review original • plans and specifications, as-bullts, and construction records when they are provided. The site inspection procedure Includes bulk sampling of accessible construction materials and associated debris known or suspected to contain asbestos fibers. Analysis of bulk samples, swipe tests, wipe tests, etc., for asbestos content are performed by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) according to EPA Interim Method of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples as defined in 40 CFR 763, Appendix A to Subpart F. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 16 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 • ) ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON SAMPLE LOGS Sample No. Type of Material Estimated Quantity Floor/Level Sample Location Pos./Neg. Asbestos Type, % Friability ta `,Movement Accessibility Note: �- DEFINITIONS OF BULK SAMPLE LOG CAPTIONS Numerical order of samples taken. Spray-applied fireproofing/ceiling materials, pipe or equipment insulation/lagging, ceiling panelsrtiles resilient floor tile/sheeting, plaster, 'Transits` panels, etc. Units of measure vary depending on type of material. SF is used for square feet, SY for square yards, CI for cubic Inches, LF for linear feet, and E for individual parts: • ' Bsmt, Mezz, Penths, Roof, 1, 2, 3, LL, UL represent basement, mezzanine, penthouse, roof, first floor/level, second floor/level, third floor/level, lower level, upper levet, etc.. respectively. The area and/or equipment from which the sample is taken. P — material containing greater than or equal to [1%) asbestos; N — equal or less than (1 %I.asbestos. Chrysotile. Amoske andlor Crocidolite, and their percentages. N/D denotes no asbestos detected during analysis. Nonfriable — well bound, will not release fibers during any appropriate end use, handling. storage or transportation; may or may not become friable during deterioration, demolition or renovation activities. . Friable — can be broken, crumbled, pulverfted or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry. None — material is intact, hard, well- bonded. Minor — occasional small areas of damage. Major — large areas of damage; material is noncohesive, hanging or falling, possbty generating debris. None to Low —not within an air supply or retum system. Moderate — within an air supply or return system but the material is remote from fan activity. High - within an air supply or return system and directly affected by fan activity. Low — the material is rarely or never contacted. High — buitding'users or maintenance personnel could come into contact with the material during normal activities. • Sample sequendng error, cross- contamination, or other sampling irregularities will result in a void sample. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. t7 PROJECT NO. S0012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Cv ~E/ !E TYPE OF n..: MATERIAL ESTIMATED QUANTITY BULK SAMPLE LOG FLOOR/ SAMPLE POS./ ASBESTOS AIR NEG. TYPE IS FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS LEVEL LOCATION 1 Thermal Insulation 1,000 SF 2 Sheet Flooring Mastic 3 Baseboard Mastic 4 Sheet Flooring Mastic . 5 Baseboard Mastic 6 Leveling Compound 7 Sheet Flooring Mastic 2 Room 405 (Attic) N : N/D 40 SF 2 Room 405 P Chrysotie 6% Nontriable None .None to Low Low 12 LF 2 Room 405 IV Tremolite <1% 40 SF 2 Room 404 P Chrysotile 6% Nontriable None None to Low Low 12 LF 2 Room 404 N N/D 320 SF 2 Room 417 (Under P Carpet) 40 SF Baseboard Mastic 12 LF Thermal Insulation 1,000 SF 10 Sheet Flooring 40 SF Mastic 1.1 Baseboard Mastic 12 LF 12 . Sheet Flooring 40 SF Mastic 13 Sheet Flooring 40 SF , Mastic 14 Sheet Flooring 40 SF Mastic 15 Exhaust Duct 100 SF Debris 16 Sheet Flooring 60 SF Mastic 60 SF Sheet Flooring Mastic 2 Room 417 P • • Clayaotle 2% Nontriable None None to Low Low Chrysotile 6% Nontriable None None to Low Low 2 Room 417. N Chrysotile <1% Tremolite <1 % • 2 Room 431 (Attic) N N/D r 2 Room 431 P Chrysotile 6% Nonfriable None None to Low Low 2 Room 431 N NID 2 Room 441 P Chrysotile 4% Nontriable None None to Low Low 2 Room 458 P Chrysotile 3% Nonfriable None None to Low Low - 1 Room 342 P ChrysotUe 5% Nonfriable None None to Low Low 1 Room 147 N N/D 1 Room 147 P Chrysotile 5% Nottiriable None None to Low Low 2 Room 251 ' P Chrysotile 3% Nontriable None None to Low ,...r) denotes That the estimated material quantity to the area has been included In referenced sample number. Low 4TC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON �f TYPE OF !► MATERIAL BULK SAMPLE LOG ESTIMATED FLOOR! SAMPLE POS./ ASBESTOS QUANTITY LEVEL LOCATION NEG. TYPE % AIR FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS 18 Baseboard Mastic 12 LF 2 Room 251 N Tremofte <1% 2 Room 221 (Attic) N N/D 40 SF 2 Room 218 P Chrysotile 6% Nordriable None None to Low Low 320 SF 2 Room 201 N N/) 40 SF 1 Room 103 P Chrysotile 6% Nonfriable None None to Low Low 12 LF 1 Room 103 N Treinofte <1% 40 SF 1 Between Room P Chrysotile 30% Friable Minor None to Low 301 & 303 Amosite 5% Low 40 SF 1 Room 307 P Chrysotile 6% Nonfriable None None to Low Low 300 SF 1 Room 307 N Chrysotile <1% 40 SF 1 Between Room P Chrysolite 85% Friable None None to Low 134 & 135 Low 600 SF 2 Ice Room 160 SF 2 Ice Room 160 SF 2 Ice Room. SF 2 Corridor Outside N N/D ice Room 50 SF 2 Kitchen Service N Chrysolite <1% Stairs 50 SF 2 Kitchen Service N Tremotite <1% Stairs 55 SF 2 Kitchen Service N N/D 19 Thermal Insulation 1.000 SF 20 Sheet Flooring Mastic 21 Carpet Mastic 22 Sheet Flooring Mastic 23 :Baseboard Mastic, 24 Fire- Rated/ Insulated Door Cores (2) (6•6` x 3') Sheet Flooring . Mastic Wallboard/Joint Compound Composite Fire- Rated/ Insulated Door Cores (2) (6'6' x 28 . Wallboard/Joint Compound • • Composite • 29 ' Poured Flooring Red 30 Ught Weight Concrete 31 Acoustic Panel (2'x2') 32 Resilient Floor Tile (9'x9 ") Green 33 Floor Tile Mastic Black `! Resilient Floor Tite �..! ,(12` x 121 White N Chrysotile 1% P Chrysotile 2% Nonfriable Minor Moderate High N Chrysolite <1% Stairs oerfdes that the estimated material quantity for the area has been included In referenced sample number. ITC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT " DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON TYPE OF MATERIAL • BULK SAMPLE LOG ESTIMATED FLOOR/ SAMPLE OUANTITY LEVEL LOCATION POS. ASBESTOS NEG. TYPE % AIR FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS 35 Floor Tile Mastic Black 55 SF 2 Kitchen Service P Chrysolite 3% Nonfriable None None to Low Low Stairs 36 Acoustic Tile 1.400 SF 1 Kitchen 12") Pin Hole 37 Acoustic Tile (R36) 1 Kitchen (1r x 1r) Pin Hole 38 Acoustic Tile • (R36) 1 Kitchen (1rx12")'Pin Hole 39 Acoustic Tile 1.400 SF 1 Kitchen Mastic 40 Acoustic Tile Mastic (R39) 1 Kitchen 41 Acoustic Tile 1,300 SF 1 Kitchen (12" x 121 Acoustic Tile (12'x12) (R41) 1 Kitchen 4s •% Acoustic Tile (R41)• 1 Kitchen (12* x 121 44 Acoustic Tile Mastic 45 Acoustic Tile Mastic 46 Top Layer Floor 47 Top Layer Floor 48 Top Layer Floor 49 Second Layer Poured Flooring ' Red 50 Second Layer Poured Flooring Red _) Resilient Sheet Flooring Gray Mottled 1) denotes that the estimated material quantity for the area has been included In referenced sample number. 1,300 SF 1 . Kitchen (R44) 1 Kitchen 3,100 SF 1 Kitchen P Amosite 10% Friable Major Moderate High P Amosite .6% Friable Major . Moderate High N N/D N Tremorjte <1% N NID N,• N/D N N N N N N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D (R46) 1 Kitchen • N Chrysolite <1% (R46) 1 Kitchen N Chrysolite <1% of 3.100 SF 1 Kitchen P Chrysotile 3% Nonfriable Minor None to Low (R49) 1 Kitchen Low P Chrysolite 3% Nonfriable Minor None to Low Low 600 SF 1 Kitchen Storage P Chrysotile 10% Friable Major Moderate High Room 'C ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT • CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON qP''"vt • TYPE OF MATERIAL ESTIMATED OUANTITY BULK SAMPLE LOG FLOOR/ SAMPLE LEVEL LOCATION POS./ ASBESTOS NEG. TYPE 1t• IR FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVAEMENT ACCESS 52 Resilient Sheet Flooring Gray Mottled 53 Resilient ( Shheet (R51) 1 en Storage P Chrysotile 25% Friable Major - Moderate High Flooring y Room Mottled 54 Mastic/Resilient 500 SF 1 Kitohen Storage N Chrysotile <1% Floor Tile (9' x 91 Green 55 Mastic/Resilient (R54) 1 IGtchen Storage N Chrysotile <1% Floor Tile. Room (9' x 95 Green • 56 Pipe Fining 5 E 1 Kitchen Storage P Amosite 15% Friable Major Moderate High Insulation Lagging ' Room (21 57 Pipe Fitting 13 E • 1 Kitchen Storage P Amosite 10% Friable Major Moderate High Insulation Lagging Room (4') 58 Tank Insulation 80 SF 1 Kitchen Storage ;P Chrysotile 5% Friable Minor Moderate High Lagging Room • Amosite 25% Ir.) Tank Insulation . (R58) ' 1 Kitchen Storage P Chrysotlle 10% Friable Minor Moderate High Lagging Room. Amosite 10% ..• 7.) Resilient Floor Tile 240 SF 1 Employee N N/D -(12"x 12) Lounge Blue/Mastic 61 Resilient Floor Tde (R60) 1 Employee N N/D (12' x 12') Lounge ' . - Blue/Mastic 62 Gold Mastic 240 SF 1 Employee .N N/D Lounge (Under Wood) 63 . Gold Mastic (R62) 1 Employee N N/D Lounge (Under Wood) 64 HVAC Rexible 5 E 1 Employee N N/D . Connector Lounge (R51) 1 Kitchen Storage P Chrysotile 20% Friable Major Moderate High Room Room 65 HVAC Flexible (R64) 1 Employee N N/D Connector Lounge 66 HVAC Flexible (R64) 1 Employee N N/D Connector Lounge 67 Resilient Sheet . 100 SF 1 Men's Locker N N/D Flooring White Room - Resilient Sheet (R67) 1 tvten's Locker N N/D Flooring White Room 4 denotes that the estimated material quantity for the area has been included in referenced sample number. • TC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON a'•�EI LE TYPE OF ESTIMATED FLOOR! SAMPLE POS./ ASBESTOS MR wa. MATERIAL QUANTITY LEVEL LOCATION NEG. TYPE % FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS BULK SAMPLE LOG 69 Resilient Sheet Flooring White 70 Resilient Floor Tile (9" x 9") Red . 71 Resilient Floor file (9'x9") Green 72 Resilient Floor Tile (9" x 9") Red/Mastic 73 Acoustic Tile (12" x 12") Mottled 74 Acoustic Tile (12" x 12 ") Mottled 75 Acoustic•Tile (12" x 12") Mottled 4L Resilient Floor Tile (9" x 9") Green Floor Tile Mastic Black • 78 Wallboard/Joint Compound Composite 79 Resilient Floor Tile (12" x 12") Tan 80 Wallboard/Joint Compund Composite 81 Resilient Floor Tile (12" x 12") Gray Marble 82 Boiler Insulation B -02 83 Boiler Insulation 8-03 84 0.0. Pipe Fitting Insulation (6 ") 4 J O.D. Pipe Fitting Insulation (3") (R67) 1 Man's Locker N Room 100 SF 1 Men's Locker Room N/D P Chrysolite 4% Nonfriable None • None to Low Low 100 SF 1 Men's Locker •N Chrysotile <1% Room (R70) 1 Men's Locker Room 400 SF 2.300 SF 300 SF 70 SF 70 SF 600 SF 20 SF 800 SF 180 SF 250 SF 250 SF 1 Tank Room 20 E 1 Tank Room 20 E 1 Tank Room P Chrysotile 3% Nordriable None None to Low Low 1 Corridor N N/D 1 Maple Room N N/D 1 Foyer N. • N/D 1 Phone Room P Chrysolite 2% Nonfriable None Moderate High 1 Phone Room N N/D 2 Upper Banquet P Chrysolite 2% Friable None Moderate High Storage 2 Housekeeping N N/D Storage By Room 417 2 Housekeeping P Chrysotile 2% Friable Storage By Room 417 2 Housekeeping N N/D Storage By Room 235 1 Tank Room None Moderate High P Chrysotile 25% Friable Minor Moderate High Amosite 25% P Chrysotile 25% Friable Minor Moderate High Amosite 25% P Amosite 10% Friable Major Moderate High P Amosite 10% Friable Major Moderate High • . .) denotes that the estimated material quantity for the area has been included in referenced sample number. kTC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 1 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON %I \L TYPE OF NU. MATERIAL BULK SAMPLE LOG ESTIMATED FLOOR/ SAMPLE POS./ ASBESTOS AIR LEVEL LOCATION NEO. TYPE S. FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS QUANTITY 86 Debris 87 Pipe Fitting Insulation (6") 88 Resilient Floor Tile (12" x 127 89 Resilient Sheet Flooring Gold 90 Leveling Compound 91 Carpet Mastic Gold 92 Resilient Floor Tile (12"x12] • 4 ) Piaster Finish Coat Plaster Finish Coat 95 Resilient Floor Tde (12" x 12") Brown Mottled. 96 Resilient Floor Tile (12" x 121 Tan 97 Floor The Mastic Black 98 Leveling Compound 99 Pipe Fitting Insulation (11 100 Debris 101 Pipe Fitting Insulation (8".10") On Sprinkler Line Pipe Fitting Insulation (4 ") (t) 200 SF 1 Tank Room P Antosite 20% Friable Major Moderate High 4 E 1 Purchasing P Amosite 5% Friable Minor .Moderate High Storage 36 SF 1 Ice Room By N N/D Room 310 36 SF 1 Ice Room By P Chrysotile 60% Nonfriable None None to Low Room 310 10 SF 1 Ice Room By N N/D . • Room 310 20 SF 1 North ice Room N N/D By Room 315 20 SF 1 North Ice Room. N N/D By Room 315 100 SF 1 North Ice Room N N/D By Room 315 (R93) 1 North Ice Room N N/D By Room 315 SF 1 Employee Break N N/D Room 30 SF 1 Men's Restroom N N/0 Near Employee Break Room 30 SF 1 Men's Restroom P Chrysotile 15% Nonfrieble None Near Employee Break Room 5 SF 1 Employee Break N N/D Room Low None to Low Low 24 E Bsmt Crawlspace P Amosite 10% Friable Major Moderate High Under Men's Restroom 100 SF Bsmt Crawlspace N N/D Under Men's Restroom 50 LF Bsmt Crawlspace N N/0 Under Banquet Hall 21 E Bsmt Crawtspace • N N/D Under Old Restaurant .q denotes that the estimated material quantity lot the area has been included in referenced sample number. TC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON TYPE OF MATERIAL 103 Debris 104 Debris 105 Debris 106 Debris BULK SAMPLE LOG ESTIMATED FLOOAI SAMPLE P08./ ASBESTOS QUANTITY LEVEL LOCATION NEG. TYPE >< AIR FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS 150 SF Bsmt Crawlspace P Amosite 18% Friable Major Moderate High Under Old Restaurant 50 SF Bsmt Crawlspace Under Old Restaurant 100 SF Bsmt Crawlspace Under Walt -In Cooler 10 SF Bstta Crawlspace Under Kitchen (In Dirt) Bsmt Crawlspace Under Kitchen On Dirt) 10 SF Bsmt Crawlspace P Arnosjte Under Laundry 107 Wallboard Debris 100 SF 108 Pipe Insulation Debris 109 Debris ) Pipe Run Insulation 2.O.D. Baseboard Mastic 112 Acoustic Panel (2'x2') • 113 Acoustic Tile (12- x 121 Fissure Type 114 Fireplace Mortar N N/D N/D P .Amosite 10% Friable Major Moderate High N N/D 15% Friable Major Moderate High N/D 50 SF Bsmt Crawlspace P Amosite 15% Friable Major Moderate High Under Laundry • N/D 20 SF Bart Crawlspace Under Office N. 60 LF 1 Lobby Seating N. Area 500 SF 1 Lobby Seating N Area 200 SF 1 Men's Restroom N (Lobby) 20 SF 1 Fireplace Lounge N 115 Plaster Finish Coat 100 SF 116 Spray- Applied Acoustic Material 117 Spray - Applied Acoustic Material 118 Spray - Applied Acoustic Material 411y ) Baseboard Mastic 1 Fireplace Lounge N (Above Fireplace) 100 SF 1 Office N 700 SF 1 Accountant's N Office N/D . N/0 N/D N/D (R117) 1 Accountant's N N/D Office 40 t.F 1 Copy Room N ul) denotes that the estimated material quantiy for the area has been included in referenced sample number. N/0 It ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON k TYPE OF h... MATERIAL ESTIMATED QUANTITY BULK SAMPLE LOG . FLOOR/ SAMPLE LEVEL LOCATION POS./ ASBESTOS AIR NEG. TYPE eA FRIABILITY DAMAGE MOVEMENT ACCESS 120 Plaster Composite 100 SF 121 122 123 124 Acoustic Panel (2'x2.) Acoustic Panel (2'x2') Wallboard/Joint . Compound Composite Light Weight Concrete 1 Copy Room N 100 SF 1 Corridor N (R121) 1 Corridor N 80 SF 1: Bellman's N Storage 20 SF 1 Room 109, N Storage 125 Baseboard Mastic 2,000 LF 126 Wallboard/Joint 5,000 SF Compound Composite Resilient Floor The 60 SF orxin Tan Resilient Floor Tile 30 SF (12• x 12') While 129 Roofing Mastic 130 Roofing Mastic 131 Roofing Felt 132 .J Roofing Shingle 1 Corridor Between N Room 141 8143 • N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 2 Corridor By Room.P Chrysolite 2% Friable None Moderate High 225 • 2 Maintenance N Shop 2 Maintenance N Shop SF Roof Roof (R129) Roof Roof SF Roof Roof SF Roof Root . N/D • N/D N Chrysolite <1% N Chrysotile <1% N/D P Chrysolite 5% Nonfriable None Moderate High .I denotes that the estimated material quantity for the area has been induded in referenced sample number. rc ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 95 1 6 9 st 3 ..AST GUEST WING )OUBILETREE INN SOT TO SCALE • • !' �ll .APLE ASBESTOS CONTENT • t lRONMENTAL INC. e >1% ❑o 51% PROJECT NO.80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY. REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON NQBTH GUEST WING POUBLVREE INN • NOT TO SCALE ASBESTOS CONTENT e >1% ❑x51% r ''JVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO.80012.1402 • ASBESTOS• SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1 { L 1 F i 1 • AMP • SOUTH GUEST WING DOUBLETREE INN NOT TO SCALE P' _.NWLE ASBESTOS CONTENT = >1% =51% • jVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO.80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON • • • • ti 32 CCE ROOM DOUBLETREE INN NOT TO SCALE 3.3 "111110°4MPLE ASBESTOS CONTENT AT IVIRONMENTAL INC. 31 r v..... 1.... 30 K • • = >1% �S1% PROJECT NO.80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON • KITCHEN POUBLETREE INN NOT TO SCALE At 48 46 TT • 54 55 45 44 42 60 62 43 61 63 LE ASBESTOS CONTENT ..11 4VIRONMENTAL INC. >1% 5 1% PROJECT NO.80012.1402 • ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 65 f f r 64 KITCHEN ATTIC DOUBLETREE INN NOT TO SCALE 66 ti AMPLE ASBESTOS CONTENT VIRONMENTAL INC. N. >1% fJ a 5 1% PROJECT NO.80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT • CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1 • BENS LOCKER ROOM pOUNLETREE INN VOT TO SCALE 1 71 1 67 6$ 69 �' ( ,IPLE ASBESTOS CONTENT M a 14" ':\NVIROVMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO.80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 122 116 OAF. & SERVICE AREA )OUBL ETREE INN . IOT TO SCALE 118 •VIRONMENTAL INC. = >1% On 51% 112 77 75 73- 74 PROJECT NO.80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON • • CRAWL SPACE POUBLETREE INN NOT TO SCALE • r( LE ASBESTOS CONTENT n(6' NVIRONMENTAL INC. o >1% a5196 PROJECT NO.80012.14o2 i ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT . CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 128 127 ROOF OOUBLETREE INN NOT TO SCALE 129 130 11 131 JMPLE ASBESTOS CONTENT }:NIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO.80012.1402 • 1. ASBESTOS. SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE 'INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. -- -- REPORT PRODUCTION TEAM The ATC Report Team is dedicated to providing engineering services of the highest quality. The signatures below attest to the team members' continuing personal commitment to that goal. PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT ASSISTANT . DATA ENTRY SECRETARIAL QUALITY CONTROL PUBLICATION REVIEWING PRINCIPAL 'aA Oa. 2ar(J L) \c9.. .L.6) ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 • ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WORK ITEM INVENTORY DEFINITIONS OF WORK ITEM CAPTIONS Work Item Numerical order of work items. Identical work Item numbers followed by consecutive letters (e.g., 3A, 3B) designate work items located In the same area and with the same recommendation but for different materials. ATC Rating ATC's system for rating by priority the various abatement and/or management recommendations. Type of Spray - applied fireproofing/ceiling materials, pipe or equipment Insulation/lagging, ceiling panels/ Material tiles. resilient floor tile/sheeting, plaster,'Transite panels, etc. Estimated Units of measure vary depending on types of material: SF is used for square feet,SY for square Quantity yards, CI for cubic inches, LF for linear feet, and E for individual parts. Description Material location and 'friability, findings, and the recommended abatement and/or management actions. Cost includes demolition, abatement, decontamination, and materials replacement (if applicable); does not include relocation expense, architectural and engineering fees, nor abatement administration and monitoring. Cost escalation historically exceeds 8% per annum. ) DEFINITIONS OF ATC'S PRIORITY RATING SYSTEM CODES ?1 Immediate total removal 2 Immediate repair, short -term removal 3 Immediate repair, long -term removal 4 Immediate repair, management with 6 -month inspection cycle 5 Immediate repair, management with 1 -year inspection cycle 6 Short-term repair, Tong -term removal 7 Short-term repair, management with 6 -month inspection cycle '8 Short-term repair, management with 1 -year inspection cycle 9 Short -term repair, management with 2 -year inspection cycle 10 Long -term removal 11 Management with 6 - month inspection cycle 12 Management with 1 -year inspection cycle Management with 2 -year inspection cycle 13 J ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 4 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 2 Pipe FRting Insutatbn and Debris 1,700 EA 800 SF Crawispace Under Facilty_... Friable Remove Findings: Asbestos - containing pipe fitting insulation was observed in the crawlspace located under the entire facility. The friable insulation was in generally poor condition with damage caused by water and various sources of impact Debris was observed in certain areas on the exposed soil tinder the facility. The insulation Is in a location vulnerable to disturbance by maintenance personnel. Asbestos fibers released from damaged Insulation may be distributed to the other areas of the crawl space via natural alr movement. This material Is accessible to maintenance personnel who enter the crawlspace infrequently. Recommendations: Restrict access to the crawlspace to personnel who are trained in asbestos and who are medically fit to wear respiratory protection. Respirators should be wom at all times in thecrawlspace until cleanup of the damaged insulation is complete. Remove all asbestos - containing pipe fitting insulation which is too damaged to repair or which is in a location vulnerable to impact by personnel in the crawispace. Replace with non - asbestos insulation. Repair all remaining insulation. Removal and repair of this material must be performed by a registered and licensed asbestos abatement' contractor. . Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel. Once removal of all of the pipe fvtting insulation is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost for abatement of extremely damaged fittings and cleanup of debris which requires immediate attention is $10,000. The estimated cost for abatement or repair of all damaged fittings, and removal of debris from the soil under the facility is $100,000. The replacement cost of the fitting insulation on active piping systems can be estimated at $10 per fitting. $10.000 ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 5 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON .� WORK ITEM 2 ATC RATING TYPE OF MATERIAL WORK ITEMS ESTIMATED MATERIAL OUANTiTY ' LOCATION RECOMMENDED FRIABIUTY ACTION COST 2 Pipe Fitting Insulation and Debris . 40 EA Hot Water Tank (Boiler) Room Friable..........Remove S1.500 200 SF Findings: Damaged asbestos - containing pipe fitting Insulation and associated debris were observed in the boiler room located at the north end of the north -south corridor, near the laundry facility and the adjacent purchasing storage room. The friable Insulation was in generally poor condition with damage caused by Water and various sources of impact. Debris was observed on the ground. The insulation Is in a location vulnerable to disturbance by maintenance personnel. Asbestos fibers released from damaged insulation may be distributed to the other areas- of the boiler room and possibly the Doubletree facility via.natural air movement. This material is ,accessible to maintenance personnel who enter the boiler room daily. ' Recommendations: Restrict access to the boiler room to personnel who are trained in asbestos and who are medically fit to wear respiratory protection. Remove all asbestos - containing pipe fitting insulation which is too damaged to repair or which is in a location vulnerable to impact by personnel in the boiler room. Cleanup all debris. Replace fittings with non - asbestos insulation. Repair all remaining insulation. Removal and repair of this material must be performed by a registered and licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Prohibit any dsturbance of this material by maintenance personnel. The estimated cost for abatement of the damaged fittings (approximately 10) which need immediate attention, replacement of fittings as necessary, and removal of debris from the boiler room floor is $1,500. The estimated cost .for removal of all fittings from the boiler room is $3,000. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 6 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ) WORK ATC TYPE OF . ITEM RATING MATERIAL ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WORK ITEMS ESTIMATED MATERIAL QUANTITY LOCATION 3 10 Tank insulation 500 SF Hot Water Tank (Boller) Room ..... .......Friable. 0 & M . Findings: Asbestos - containing tank insulation was observed in the boiler room located at the north end of the north -south corridor, near the laundry facility. Two vertical tanks are present in the room. The friable tank insulation was in generally good condition. The tank insulation is in a location vulnerable to 'disturbance by 'maintenance personnel. Asbestos fbers released from damaged insulation -may be tracked into the corridor by personnel working in the hot water tank rooms. This material is accessible to maintenance personnel who enter the boiler room daily. Recommendations: Inspect the tank insulation in the boiler room on a weekly basis. Restrict access to the boiler room. Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel. Include the insulation in the boiler room in the 0 & M Program. Once removal of an of the tank insulation is•complete, remove this work item from the 0&M. The estimated cost for abatement of the tank insulation, and replacement of the insulation as necessary is $20,000. 20 EA Kitchen Storage Room Friable 0 & M So • Findings: Asbestos - containing pipe fitting insulation was observed in the kitchen storage room. The friable Insulation was in generally good condition With minor spot.damage. The insulation Is in a location vulnerable to disturbance by maintenance personnel and hotel staff. Asbestos fibers released from damaged insulation may be spread to other areas of the hotel via natural air movement and by personnel working in the kitchen. • Recommendations: Inspect the asbestos - containing pipe fitting insulation on a weekly basis. Repair All insulation which becomes damaged. Removal and repair • of this material must be performed by a registered and licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel and hotel staff. Once removal of all of the pipe fitting insulation is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost for abatement of. all fittings, and replacement of fittings in the kitchen is $1,000. RECOMMENDED FRIABIUTY ACTION COST 4 10 Pipe Fitting Insulation $0 ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 7 PROJECT NO. 800111402 1 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT FOR CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 JUNE 30, 1994 ATC/DIAGNOSl'IC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. mAir. M W. AS107 208•781•1JJ9 FA 06.781•ts43 Christopher Wlnsor, ALA CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 900 Cottage Grove Road Bloomfield, CT 06002 RE ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 Dear Mr. Winsor: • A61SoAWater ArWysts Asbestos Management Building System Evaluation Environmental Engineering blWuatnat timers Remedial vesegae - .June 30, 1994 Attached is the Asbestos Survey Report for the above- referenced facility. The report includes an executive summary, a work item inventory with financial impact of options for abatement and/or management of asbestos, sampling and laboratory procedures, sample logs, and plans depicting itertecific sample locations. , —you have any questions regarding this report, please call this office. *Sincerely, Terrence S. McDunner Project Manager • Attachment Jane P. Rowc Director of Operations ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT . - -TABLE OF CONTENTS • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 WORK ITEM INVENTORY 3 SAMPLING AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES 16 SAMPLE. LOGS 17 PLANS DEPICTING SPECIFIC SAMPLE LOCATIONS ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DCiI1 m/ :T kin Qnnt 7 1 Afl • ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the request of CIGNA investment Management. the Doubletree inn hotel, located at 205 Strander - Boulevard In Tukwila, Washington, was surveyed by ATC Environmental Inc. (ATC) on June 8 through .tune 14, 1994, for asbestos- containing construction materials (ACCM): The survey Included visual observation for ACCM, sampling of suspect materials, and laboratory analysis. Effort was made to survey all accessible suspect materials. Additional suspect but unsampled materials could be located between wails, In voids, or in other inaccessible areas; caution should be exercised regarding these areas. ATC's recommendations and the estimated costs for abatement and/or management of the ACCM discovered are -included in this report. These recommendations have been arranged into several logical work items; finally, the work items have been listed and their costs totaled, and the list has been sorted into an order of priority of action. • Cost of ATC Work .Items .... ..... $28,000 Estimated Cost to Remove Al! Known ACCM $400,000 Bulk Sampling • IpConstruction materials that contain asbestos fibers in percentages greater than one percent ( >1 %) were 'und. Materials with these levels of asbestos concentrations are regulated by government agencies. - nese materials fall into the following categories: Service and Utility Areas Service and U Nontriable Materials Friable Materials Sample Location Kitchen, Ice Machine Room Pipe Fitting Insulation (Various Diameters) Kitchen Store Room Resilient Floor Tile Mastic Under (12" x 12 ") Tan Tank Insulation and Lagging Kitchen Store Room Facility Roof ' Acoustic Ceiling Tile (12" x•12 ") Kitchen - • • Resilient Sheet Flooring (Grey) Kitchen Store Room . . Wallboard/Joint Compound Upper Banquet Storage, Corridor Near #225, Housekeeping Storage Pipe Fitting insulation (Various Diameters) Hot Water Tank Room Pipe Insulation Debris Hot Water Tank Room Pipe Fitting' insulation Purchasing Store Room Pipe Fitting insulation (Various Diameters) Crawlspace Under Building Pipe Insulation Debris • Crawlspace Under Building w Service and U ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 Nontriable Materials Sample Location Poured 'Flooring (Red) Kitchen, Ice Machine Room •Resilient Floor Tile (9" x 9") Green Telephone Room Resilient Floor Tile Mastic Under (12" x 12 ") Tan Men's Restroom Near Employee Break Room Roof Shingles • Facility Roof ' ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 1 8 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON -lest Rooms Friable Materials • Leveling Compound Guest Rooms Nonfrlable Materials Floor Covering Mastic Sample Location Guest Rooms (Sampled in #417) Sample Location Guest Room Restrooms Conference and Friable Materials • Sample Location - - • Fire Door Core Telephone Room Throughout Guest Room Corridors Men's Locker Room Resilient Sheet Flooring ice Machine Room Near#310 - Waliboard Joint Compound Corridor by Room #225 . Conference and Nonfrlable Materials • Sample Location Floor Mastic (Bled() Kitchen Service Stairs - Resilient Floor Tile t9" x 9") (Green) Telephone Room Resilient.Floor Tile (Tx 9") (Red) and Mastic Men's Locker Room Identified below are other materials which may contain asbestos but which could not be representatively sampled. Such materials .should be assumed to contain asbestos until they are confirmed to be asbestos -free. . Suspect Materials er1 as Material Location Reason Excluded. ' Fire-Rated/insulated Door Core Various Locations Not Representative Joint.Compound . • , Many Locations . • Not Representative Flooring Mastic Various Locations Not Representative Roofing Materials Roof •. Not Representative of Suspect materials sampled•and found to be asbestos -free include the following: Service and Utility, Areas Blown -in attic insulation, lightweight concrete flooring, acoustic ceiling tile mastic, select acoustic ceiling tiles, select resilient sheet flooring, select resilient floor tile and mastic, HVAC flexible connector, corridor plaster skim coat, selectieveling compound, wallboard debris, and roofing mastic. Guest Rooms Baseboard mastic, exhaust duct debris, carpet mastic, and wallboard/joint compound. - Conference and Public Areas Acoustic Ceiling panels (2' x 2') and tiles (12" x 12 "), select resilient floor tile (9" x 9 ") and (12" x 12 "), fireplace mortar, wall plaster, select wallboard/joint compound, and lightweight concrete flooring. Asbestos Management Asbestos Is a hazardous substance. Its condition, handling and disposal are regulated by federal, state and local agencies. If ACCM is disturbed or appears to have become damaged, the condition must be '?orted to -the appropriate supervisor. All asbestos abatement work must be performed in accordance 1 goveming agency regulations. If any construction, maintenance, or remodeling is conducted in an •.ea of the facility where there is the potential for employees to come into contact with, or release or )sturb, asbestos or asbestos- containing construction materials, a sign with the following language must ATC ENVIRONMENTAL. INC. 2 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - COUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON posted: "CAUTION. ASBESTOS. CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD. DO NOT DISTURB - WITHOUT PROPER TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT." 'ATC recommends that one staff member be assigned as an Operations and Maintenance (O &M). Program Manager, who win develop and manage the program. The person should receive appropriate training and be charged with coordinating the periodic O &M inspections. These inspections should Include surveying all asbestos- cantalning building products in the facility. Defects such as signs of increased wear, water damage, vandalism and Impact damage should be noted and 'repaired Immediately. Construction or remodeling which occurs in the buildings should be reviewed by the O&M managers in the planning stage to see if preparatory abatement work will be required. A complete • record should be maintained- of all findings (including this report), procedures, and actions. This record should also contain names of technical advisors, inspectors, consultants; and all staff time, material and costs associated with asbestos control and abatement. In the future, if cost recovery is sought from the manufacturers, suppliers, or contractors, or In the event of litigation, this information will be required. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 3 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WORK ITEM INVENTORY DEFINITIONS OF WORK ITEM CAPTIONS Work item Numerical order of work items. Identical work Item numbers followed by consecutive letters (e.g., 3A. 38) designate work items located in the same area and with the same recommendation but for different materials. ATC Rating ATC's system for rating by priority the various abatement and/or management recommendations. Type of Spray - applied fireproofing/ceiling materials, pipe or equipment insulation/lagging, ceiling panels/ Material • tiles, resilient floor tile/sheeting, plaster, "Transite" panels, etc. Estimated Units of measure vary depending on types of material: SF is used for square feet, SY for square Quantity yards, CI for cubic inches; LF for linear feet, and E for indnridual parts. Description Material location and-friability, findings, and the rcommended abatement and/or management actions. . Cost Includes demolition, abatement, decontamination, and materials replacement (if applicable); does not include relocation expense, architectuiral•and engineering fees, nor abatement administration and monitoring. Cost escalation historically exceeds 8 %o per annum. DEFINITIONS OF ATC'S PRIORITY RATING SYSTEM CODES Immediate total removal 2 Immediate repair, short-term removal 3 Immediate repair, long -temp removal 4 Immediate repair, management with 6 -month inspection cyde 5 Immediate repair, management with 1 -year inspection cycle 6 Short -term repair, tong -term removal Short-term repair,. management with 6 -month inspection cycle • 8 Short-term repair, management with 1 -year inspection cycle 9 Short-term repair, management with 2 -year inspection cycle 10 Long -term removal 11 Management with 6 -month inspection cycle' 12 Management with 1 -year inspection cycle Management with 2 -year inspection cycle Z • ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 4 PROJECT NO. 80012.'1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - OOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WORK ATC . TYPE OF ITEM RATING MATERIAL • ESTIMATED ouANTrrr WORK ITEMS MATERIAL LOCATION FRIABILITY RECOMMENDED ACTION COST 1 2 Plpe Fitting Insulation and Debris 1.700 EA Crawispace Under. Facility. Fdable..........Remove $10,000 800 SF Findings: Asbestos - containing pipe fitting insulation was observed In the crawlspace located under the entire facility. The friable insulation was in generally poor condition with damage caused by water and various. sources of impact. Debris was observed in certain areas on the exposed soil under the facility. The insulation is in • a location vulnerable to disturbance by maintenance personnel. Asbestos fibers released from damaged insulation may be distributed to the other areas of the crawl space via natural air movement. This material is accessible to maintenance personnel who enter the crawlspace infrequently. Recommendations: Restrict access to the . crawlspace to personnel who are trained in asbestos and who are medically fit to wear respiratory protection. Respirators Should be wom at all times in the crawlspace until cleanup of the damaged insulation is complete. Remove all asbestos - containing pipe fitting insulation which Is too damaged to repair or which is in a location vulnerable to impact by personnel in the crawlspace. Replace with non - asbestos insulation. Repair all remaining insulation. Removal and repair of this material • must be performed by . a registered and licensed asbestos abatement' contractor. Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel. Once removal of all of the pipe fitting insulation is complete, remove this work item. from the O&M. The estimated cost for abatement of extremely damaged fittings and cleanup of debris which requires immediate attention is $10,000. The estimated cost for abatement or repair of all damaged fittings, and removal of debris from the soil under the facility is $100,000. The replacement cost of the fitting insulation on active piping systems can be estimated at $10 per fitting. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 5 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT . DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON •dORK ATO ITEM RATING NO- ' WORK ITEMS TYPE TRIAL ESTIMATED LOCATTIION 2 2 Pipe Fitting insulation and Debris ' ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. RECOMMENDED FRIABILITY . ACTION COST 40 EA Hot Water Tank (Boller) Room Friable Remove $1,500 200 SF • Findings: Damaged asbestos - containing pipe fitting insulation and associated debris were observed in the boiler room located at the north end of the north -south corridor, near the laundry facility and the adjacent purchasing storage mom. The friable Insulation was in generally poor condition with damage caused by, water and various sources of impact. Debris was observed on the ground. The Insulation Is in a location vulnerable to disturbance by maintenance personnel. Asbestos fibers • released from damaged Insulation may be distributed to the other areas. of the boiler room and possibly, the Doubletree facility via.naturai air movement. This material is accessible to maintenance personnel who enter the boiler room daily. • Recommendations: Restrict access to the boiler room to persbnnel who are trained in asbestos and who are medically fit to wear respiratory protection. Remove all asbestos - containing pipe fitting insulation which is too damaged to repair or which is In a location vulnerable to impact by personnel in the boiler room. Cleanup all debris. Replace fittings with non - asbestos insulation. Repair all remaining insulation. Removal and repair of this material must be performed by a registered and licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel. The estimated cost for abatement of the damaged fittings (approximately 10) which need immediate attention, replacement of fittings as necessary, and removal of debris from the boiler room floor is $1,500. The estimated cost for removal of all fittings from the boiler room is $3,000. 6 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • OOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON •WORK ATC ITEM RATING TYPE OF MATERIAL WORK ITEMS ESTIMATED MATERIAL OUANTR Y LOCATION 3 10 Tank Insulation FRIABILITY RECOMM ACTION DED . COST 500 SF Hot Water Tank (Boiler) Room.. Friable 0 & M • Findings: Asbestos - containing tank Insulation was observed In the boiler room located at the north end of the north -south corridor, near the laundry facility. Two vertical tanks are present in the room. The triable tank. Insulation was in generally good condition. The tank insulation Is in a bcation vulnerable to disturbance by maintenance personnel. Asbestos fibers released from damaged insulation may be tracked into the corridor by personnel working in the hot water tank rooms. This material is accessible to maintenance personnel who enter the boiler room daily. so • Recommendations: Inspect the tank insulation in the boiler room on a weekly basis. Restrict access to the boiler room. Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel. Include the insulation In the boiler room ip the 0 & M Program. Once removal of all of the tank insulation is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost for abatement of the tank insulation, and replacement of the insulation as _, necessary is $20.000. �, 4 10 Pipe Fitting 20 EA i itchen Storage Room Friable 0 & M $0 • Insulation • Findings: Asbestos- containing pipe fitting insulation was observed.in the kitchen storage room. The friable insulation was in generally good condition with minor spot.damage. The Insulation is in a location vulnerable to disturbance by maintenance personnel and hotel staff. Asbestos fibers released from damaged insulation may be spread to other areas of the hotel via natural air movement and by personnel working in the kitchen. Recommendations: Inspect the asbestos - containing pipe 'fitting insulation on a weekly basis. Repair .all insulation which becomes damaged. Removal and repair Of this material must be performed by a registered and licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel and hotel staff. Once removal of all of the pipe fitting insulation is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost for abatement of all fittings, and replacement of fittings in the kitchen is.$1,000. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 7 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT IGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT . DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON REM ATC TYPE OF RATING MATERIAL ESTIMATED auANTITY WORK ITEMS MATERIAL LOCATION RECOMMENDED FRIARairr ACTION 5 10 Tank Insulation �. 80 SF Kitchen Storage Room....Friable 0 & M Findings: Asbestos- containing tank insulation was observed in the kitchen storage room. The friable insulation was in generally good condition with areas of spot damage: The insulation is in a location vulnerable to. disturbance by maintenance, personnel and hotel staff. Asbestos fibers released from damaged-Insulation may be spread to other areas of the hotel via natural air movement and by personnel working in the kitchen. • Recommendations: Inspect the asbestos-containing tank insulation on a weekly basis. Repair all insulation which becomes damaged. Removal and repair of this - material must be performed by a registered and licensed asbestos abatement Contractor. Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel and hotel staff. Once removal of the tank Insulation is complete, remove this work 'ten] from the -O&M. The estimated cost for abatement of •tfte tank blanket, and replacement of the tank insulation in the kitchen is $5,000. so Acoustic Getting 2050 SF Kitchen Friable Remove $8.000 Tiles (irx12) . Findings: Asbestos - containing acoustic' ceiling tiles (12' x 12') were observed in the hotel kitchen. Similar tiles were observed throughout the back of house service areas. These friable- materials were very damaged and pose a risk of contamination as long as they are damaged or deteriorated in such a way that will release asbestos fibers into the air. This material Is accessible to employees who work in the hotel kitchen or back of house areas. Recommendations: Remove the glued -on asbestos - containing acoustic ceiling tiles and any contaminated non- asbestos tiles from the kitchen, ice machine room and other back of house service areas. Removal of these materials must be performed by a registered and licensed asbestos abatement contractor. in the interim, prohibit unnecessary disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel or other building occupants. Care should be taken to prevent any water leaks which may Loosen the tiles and cause them to delaminate more from the substrate. Once removal of the acoustic ceiling tiles Is complete, remove this work item from the 0&M. The estimated cost for removal of all asbestos - containing ceiling tiles is $8,000. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 8 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - OOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON wORK ATC .REM RATING TYPE OF MATERIAL 7 1 Resilient Sheet ESTIMATED GUANTITY See Below Various Locations Friable ...Remove/Repair Findings: Asbestos - containing grey resilient sheet flooring was observed in the following locations: WORK ITEMS MATERIAL LOCATION FRIABILITY • RECOMMENDED ACTION COST . Kitchen -500 SF Back of House Corridors 200 SF Women's Locker Room 120 SF Exit Corridor 50 SF This material may be present in other locations in the facility. The resilient sheet flooring consists of two layers: the nontriabte vinyl covering and the asbestos - containing friable backing. This is in damaged condition In many locations. • The flooring poses a risk of contamination as Idng as it remains damaged or deteriorated in such a way that it can release asbestos fibers into the air. This material is accessible to employees yvho enter the back of house areas frequently. • Recommendations: Remove asbestos- containing resilient sheet flooring that is too damaged to repair. Repair all flooring where the backing is or could become exposed. Removal of this material must be performed by a registered • and licensed asbestos abatement contractor. In the interim, before the flooring is removed, prohibit any. disturbance to the resilient sheet flooring including sanding, chipping or the use of corrosive cleaning chemicals which may cause the generation of airborne asbestos fibers. Once removal of the resilient sheet flooring is complete, remove this work item from the O&M. The estimated cost for the interim repair work is $2,000. The estimated cost for removal of all resilient sheet flooring is $9,000. $2.000 • ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 9 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT . DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WORK ATC ITEM RATING • TYPE OF MATERIAL WORK ITEMS ESTIMATED MATERIAL QUANTITY LOCATION 8 4 Wallboard/Joint Compound RECOMMENDED FRIABILITY ACTION COST See Below Various Locations Friable Lab Analysis Findings: Asbestos- containing joint compound .was. sampled on walls at the joints and seams in the following locations: Corridor by Room #225 Housekeeping Storage by Room #417 Upper Banquet Storage Room • Similar materials may be present in other areas throughout the fealty. This triable material is in generally good condition but is not covered by a protective layer 01 paint in all locations. This Material 1s accessible to building occupants, maintenance personnel, employees or the pubec who ente>'the various areas frequently. Recommendations: Resubmit the three samples collected for point count analysis. If the results of point count analysis reveal that the joint compound is asbestos - containing, cover all exposed joint compound locations with paint or a similar material. inspect the asbestos - containing joint compound annually. Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance personnel or other building occupants. Once removal of the joint compound is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost for point count of the joint compound samples is $300. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 10 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 r WORK ATC ITEM RATING TYPE OF MATERIAL ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WORK ITEMS ESTIMATED MATERIAL LOCATION OUANTITY RECOMMENDED FRIABILITY ACTION COST • 9 5 Fee -Rated Door Cores 50 EA Throughout the Facility Friable O & M Findings: There are several locations throughout the facility where fire- ratedrnsulated doors are in place. Fire - ratedlnsulated doors have a friable asbestos - containing core. It Is generally not possible to.detennine if a door has an asbestos core unless the core.is exposed- by damage or by a missing components (latches, hinges, louvers,- etc.). In this fadity, two doors had cores which were accessed for sampling. All doors which have been . shortened by cutting the bottoms should be removed and replaced. This material is accessible to maintenance personnel who may be required to work on the door hardware. Recommendations:' Remove asbestos containing • fire- ratedrnsulated doors If maintenance, renovation, remodeling or construction activities may cause the dsturbancenf.the material. Removal of this material must be performed by a registered and licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Prohibit any disturbance of this material by maintenance -personnel or other building occupants. Once removal of the fire- ratedlnsulated doors is complete, remove this work item from the O&M. . The estimated cost to remove and replace the fire -rated doors in the facirdy is $55,000 AI So 10 10 Floor Covering 4,000 SF Guest Rooms Nonfriable O&M SO Mastic Findings: Asbestos- containing floor covering mastic was observed in the guest rooms accessed during the survey. This nonfriabie material is in generally good condition and is protected by black rubber resilient floor covering in all locations. This material does not pose a risk of contamination as long as it does not become damaged or deteriorated in such a way that it could release asbestos fibers into the air. This material is not accessible to building occupants without special tools. Recommendations: Inspect the asbestos -containing floor covering mastic annually. Prohibit any dsturbance to the floor covering mastic including sanding, chipping or the use of corrosive .cleaning chemicals which may cause the generation of airborne asbestos fibers. Once removal of the floor covering mastic is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost for removal of all floor covering mastic is $20,000. ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 11 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT - DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WORK ATC ITEM RATING TYPE OF MATERIAL - WORK ITEMS ESTIMATED MATERIAL OUANTITY LOCATION FRIABIUTY RECOMMENDED . ACTION COST • 11 3 Poured Flooring See Below Various Locations Nonfriable Remove $6,500 (Red) Findings: Asbestos - containing poured floor covering was observed in the following locations: Ice Machine Room 160 SF Kitchen .3,100 SF Corridor 40 SF Back Service Area 140 SF Maple Room 100 SF Crawlspace Under Kitchen400 SF This material may be located in other areas of the fadity. This nonfriable material is in generally good condition with locations of minor damage. This material does not pose a risk of contafmination as long as it does not become damaged or deteriorated in such a way that it could release asbestos fibers into the air.. This material is • accessible to building employes and occupants who may access the various bcatlons. Recommendations: Inspect the asbestos- containing floor covering annually. Prohibit any disturbance to the floor covering lnctuding sanding, chipping or the use of corrosive cleaning chemicals which may cause the generation of airborne asbestos fibers. Remove asbestos - containing floor covering if maintenance, renovation,. remodeling or construction activities may cause the disturbance of the material. Removal of this material must be performed by a registered and Vicensed asbestos abatement contractor. Once removal of the poured floor covering is complete, remove this work item from the O &M. The estimated cost to remove the poured flooring which has fallen into the crawlspace under the kitchen is $6,600. The estimated cost to remove all of the poured flooring is $20,000. • ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 12 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 ) WORK ATC ITEM RATING ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT CIGNA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT • DOUBLETREE INN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON TYPE OF MATERIAL WORK ITEMS ESTIMATED MATERIAL .QUANTITY LOCATION FRIABILITY RECOMMENDED ACTION 12 11 Leveling Compound Under Carpets See Below Guest Rooms Friable 0 & M Findings: Asbestos- containing . leveling compound was observedin guest room # 417 under the carpeting near the tack strip. This material was only observed in the vanity areas of the guest rooms, and was not observed in the various other locations in guest rooms where the carpeting was pulled back. It is presumed that the leveiing compound is present sporadically under the carpet of the guest rooms. The leveling compound Is likely to be present in areas under carpeting throughout • the facility. This material was observed to be powdery and friable: This material does not pose a risk of contamination as long as it continues to be protected by the carpeting. This material is accessible to maintenance personnel who may access the underside of the carpeting for maintenance, activities. Recommendations: Point count analysis should be performed on these samples. Prohibit any disturbance to the protective carpeting which may cause the generation of airborne asbestos fibers from leveling compound located underneath. ;Perform an evaluation of the impact of the leveling compound if maintenance, renovation, remodeling or construction activities may cause the disturbance of the material. Removal of this material must be performed by a registered and licensed asbestos abatement contractor. Once removal of the leveling compound is complete, remove this work item from the O&M. An estimate of the cost for abatement of this material can not be provided based on the data collected during this study. • so ATC ENVIRONMENTAL INC. 13 PROJECT NO. 80012.1402 VICINITY MAP au CONSULTANTS aVIL• PACLAND 1144 EASTLAKE AVE E.. SUITE 801 SEATTLE, WA. 98109 (206) 522 -9510 CONTACT: MICHAEL CROWSON P.0. BILL FORTUNATO P.E. SURVEYOR: APEX ENGINEERING 2801 SOUTH 35111, SUITE 200 TACOMA. WA 98409 -7479 (253) 473 -4494 CONTACT: MElNN GARLAND Westfiefrl SHOPPINGTOWN - SOUTHCENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DEMOLITION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS UTILITIES GOVERNING AGENCIES WATER. SEWER, STORMWATER: aTY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA. WA 98188 CONTACT: RYAN LARSCN GAS PUGET SOUND ENERGY 1122 75TH ST. SW EVERETT, WA 98203 (425) 454 -2000 ELECTRIC: SEATTLE aTY LIGHT 700 5711 AVE. SUITE 3300 SEATTLE. WA 98104 -5031 (206) 684 -3000 QTY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA. WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 OWNER WESTFIELD CORPORATION 11601 WILSHIRE BLVD. 12TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES. CA 90025 -1748 SITE DATA EXISTING ZONING - TUC EXISTING USE - VACANT HOTEL PROPOSED USE - PARKING PARKING DATA EXISTING PARKING DATA: TOTAL EXISTING STALLS - 323 STALLS PROPOSED PARKING DATA: PROPOSED STALLS - 478 STALLS EXISTING STALLS TO REMAIN - 200 STALLS TOTAL - 678 STALLS 144 Eastlake Ave. E Sub 601 Seattle, WA 08109 T (206) 522.9510 F (206)522 -9344 PMnc.mv • [DRAWING INDEX SHEET NO. DRAWING TITLE CV -1 COVER SHEET D -1.0 DEMOLITION PLAN D -1.1 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C -1.0 PAVING, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN PL -1.0 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN RECEIVED MAY 0 7 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVISIONS SEPA SUBMITTAL 04/25/03 NO. DESCRIPTION DATE • SAUSOMUNVUOMOUTUDWARIOWIMMM Z, nl SOLITHCENTER PARKWAY, C gO 3 Ez c z� o ginpillw !mg pilamw iglbelog WHIN PA: Megigild I 15111 111 141 hMilillr 8 i:1 ua II 1 A , i irl it 91, Aggigi „ 1 ; ,11.5 rvo i 0 11' ■11 !!1►C•7IIIC.7i :C. .1 r rn Z 9 Pirli diR 11513 000 O O aS 1111 pgi Psi dogg :1;1 iiii; 00 0 M 11 MN! ° 21 g 1 81111a 11§ i° o_�� SO THCENTER PARKWAY- a a ;rim _:_._:.aim aye q shxmlo Tiiqh gi 611P4 iiiiigqg - - 21; '$ a s 1:caodze r r iipli gtglii 1;101;114 r; :IN/ [Ili hilli 1.1 R 0 0 Z 0 0 Z n • 1 • ipli = P aii pm ni: prii mi Ng al I PIN! $ ih d - i I 111 9 El IN / 1 R; 1 iii s a $a 0 a a a N M PPM 11 111 hh : 541 11 RiP gigi gi d PAN 2i p P 5111 14411 0 :11 1111$11 SSLON 1OW.NOO NOISOI:9 SV M- 011 01\111n1LA\RSVEIDWA'N4GSVU 1105 • • PLANTING NOTES 1. ALL PLANTS RUST 6E ISAMY. =WS MIORA FEE OF P615 MD 10000 2 ALL RAMS NUE E MOANER EDEN E BALKED AD MAPPED AS DONATED N DE RANI USE 1 ALL TREES NUSI E MARK URGED AND FULL BEADED ADD MEET ALL REQAE112115 WORM 1. ALL RANTS ARE SMUT D DE ARIDYAL GI TIE LADSC4A 410111E MERE DESK AID AFTER N51AI101DN S ALL 1015 MUST E WED 00 STAKED AS SNNN N DE DEEMS 6. ALL RARING WAS MUST E =Ri1RY awn AS SPEED. 7. PRAM 10 COSI010101, DE CONNACTOI MALL BE RESPOI0E FOR LOCATING ALL UNCEGRODD 016116 AND SHALL MOO DAW0 10 All 0011116 OGWG DE COURSE OF DE ■30. DIE GOIIRACIOI 0100001531000 WARING AMY MD ALL DANAE TD 1E01E1 STRUM= 9E ARINIFNASO$ ETC 11401 EWES AS A RESAT 10 DE INDSCDF CONSTRUCEN. A TM COIRACTOR 6 FOR 1EREEY211 ALL QUIRES 91011 al TEE PLANS BEM ROOD DE AM IL (1. 1 111 COORACIEI 6 05N6BEE FOR RUT UAW= ALL RAKING pawn BUT NOT (1GED DE G107)0. S'RAIN& MADAMS (101110111 ROME EEC) OF DE RARING AD 1111 AREAS 1011 TIE DOE 6 ACOPIED N TOTAL BE 11E 011110L 10. THE 0011IRAd1p 91A1. CCEEILIELT 040010410E ALL RAIN NA10RAL FOR A PERIOD OF OE (I) EAR M M0 ON DE GTE E TOTAL ACCEPTANCE. DE COORACTOR SHALL PROMPTLY I40)1441001001101150111401) AT DE OD OF DE GUARAW1 E P0201 IL AFTER BEM WC AT 111 10E29RY SOER0, 411. DOES 9 11.100)411.104161144110000 IRO (2) ENDS 11)00 A 405E 5)5104 MDR D 06TAILA1M. 12 ANY RANT ILEUM 11201 DES. T0015 N0OI. OR 060015 (PREIM TO TOIAI AAPTANE OF 11E ENO SNAIL E ROWDY REVVED FEN ME SITE AND RE LACED NM MATERIAL OF DE SALE SPECIES. OIAN11T. AND 911 RD KEW XL RAM UST Sf41)CA110K Il STANDARDS SET FORM 11 'AKRON STANDARD FOR 1105ED5 SEW NAME 016110 040EICAINES PLAY AID SNAIL (560011 MIEN COMM IEDWEI®I15 101 RANT MARR A/ It AIL MX OIO0 1 MIER AND SEASONAL 0008 AM IN. FAM11D ®S ARE 10 E 0TYPLE1111 COWED 11111 NAON UL MI D A IMMIX DEPTH OF TAO NOES. IS LCCADC S 6 E226150 SIRED 011EIV ODES 9011 a TIE FLOG ARE BASED (ION OLE AVAlAOE 017040101 AND ARE TO BE DOISIDERED ARROOMATE O 90111 BE 111 010007117 E 00 06410401/1 D EREY Dg LOC411016 OF 1111111 LOSS AID ADJACENT D 110E 00 AEA 11E 0011EAC1016 RE PCINESE ER 111E RDIECDOI OF ALL UORY 116 000 01015601C000 PERIOD 11 SAE OEAIAT WAKED 14DEEHAN AD WEIM AR ACCESS TO 4014011 PREEMIES MUST E WNTA1ED 11DDJ00 UT 11( 006WICOb1 MESS 17. OWN= DE GROOM ESSEX ALL WILLS SNAIL 84141) N A EASNT, VT& COOIDON 0100040000.E RE 1561)5001 0001 IB ALL PLANT W1E0ALS CUAN1D6 91000 ARE APPROMIAE =RACER SHALL E REESP01015E 004 EMPLE1E COMAE OF AIL 041419= EDS AT SPACING SHOO GRAPHICALLY. 11 ALL LAM AREAS ARE D REEVE 4. OF 7ESOL AL L410040E ® AREAS ARE D RECEDE 610 11PSOL SI 0 (0 10 0(EC:ECM 06 ER MI. 0NNA140) 11IDED FOR 00000(1A1R61 E PLANING RAMS 21. AL LANDSCAPED AREAS 400 D E 151E00 G 451WA1C 00*D01 SYS1111 • — PLANT SCHEDULE - (PRELIMINARY) SYMBOL BOTANICAL /COMMON NAME TREES DECIDUOUS TREE(PARKNG LOT SHADE) FIVEANG MERRY OR FE1R S1EET7gp1 ASN SHRUBS BARRIER/BUFFER EVERGREEN SHRUB LAMS 01)00 401E GROUNDCOVER PARKING LOT INTERIM OWL MAINE C 1000*5TEEAIEWD PNE W'OODLAND/BACKGROUND PERMETER: LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS EIEM — 10 SF PER PA1005 STALL — 672 MONO STALLS -- 12.172 SP MOWED PROYDC0. —Isms s LANDSCAPE NOTES 101 LEA11M15 9N111 ARE POUAmARY AND SUSECI D 09994 IN6ml 1e 10 a Revision DascEpNon Bi-1 I 'me RECEIVE[ MAY 0 7 200 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o: ON: I 1nV°3 PRELN °1)a PRELIMINARY PL -1.0 RO ai;edwein i LANDSCAPE PLAN Is, S. SU 6006.TN YIOf RECEIVE[ MAY 0 7 200 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o: i 1 1 Wstfiekt SHOPPINGTOWN - SSOUTHCENTE_R PRELIMINARY PL -1.0 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LANDSCAPE PLAN II. Eastlake AwE T(2C6)i2.10 S. SU 6006.TN YIOf A OM