Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 81-13-W - MCNAMARA - CONDOMINIUMS WAIVER81-13-W 53RD AVE S MCNAMARA CONDOMINIUS WAIVER AMY L. KOSTERLITZ THOMAS M. WALSH Mr. L. C. Bohrer President Tukwila City Council City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Bohrer: LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. WALSH 1111 THIRD AVENUE BUILDING. SUITE 2600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 12061 464 -1580 April 18, 1982 RE: McNamara Waiver Application 81 -13 -W On behalf of my client, Mr. Edward F. McNamara, I am again writing to protest the manner in which the City Council has handled his waiver application. At its meeting on April 6, 1982, the City Council voted to postpone consideration of his waiver application until April 13, 1982. This is the third time in the last two months that the City Council has delayed consideration of this application. During the meeting of April 6, you indicated that this matter had not been removed from the agenda for a previous meeting. In response to your comment, the record reflects that regardless of whether or not the item was placed on an agenda, the City Council has consistently and deliberately delayed its consideration of this matter. Enclosed is a copy of correspondence from the City of Tukwila advising us that the City delayed consideration of this application from March 9 to March 23, 1982. Also enclosed are copies of the agendas for the meetings of March 23 and April 6, showing Mr. McNamara's application as an item for consideration. At both of these meetings, the City Council voted not to consider the application but chose instead to delay. At each of the previous two City Council meetings, my client has appeared with his consultants in preparation for the Council's consideration of his application. In addition, the City's own engineering and planning staff have attended the meetings in anticipation of the Council's Mr. L. C. Bohrer April $8, 1982 Page 2 consideration of this application. All this time and effort has been wasted, which has caused and is continuing to cause my client severe damage. My client has done everything that he can to process his permits and approvals. He has submitted all required information and incurred considerable expense in developing additional information in response to the City Council's request. He has asked on numerous occasions that his application be considered and a decision made by the Council. My client continues to protest the City Council delays which continue to frustrate his efforts to seek the necessary permits and approvals for his project. TMW/ ehk encl. cc: Edward F. McNamara Very truly yours THOMAS M. WALSH 4 19 08 MC /ibm 4 City of Tukwila Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor L.C. Bohrer, President Tukwila City Council Tukwila, WA 98188 SUBJECT: Application 81- 17- W,McNamara Condominium Waiver At the Council meeting of 13 April 1982, the McNamara application was discussed by the committee -of -the whole. During that, discussion, it became evident that some confusion exists as to the extent to which the supplemental studies. on traffic and soils have been distributed to in- dividual council members. Therefore, we have prepared the attached compilation of the studies along with their follow -up reports for your review prior to continued analysis of the McNamara application at the council meeting of 20 April. This booklet will be given to each council member and to the Mayor prior to the close of business today; if any further information is needed, please let me know. , TUKWI NNING DEPT. Mar Caughey Associate Planner 15 April 1982 McNamara 4/9/82 DATE ACTIVITY November 1980 - March, 1981 f CHRONOLOGY OF ACTIVITIES ON McNAMARA PROJECT (Supplementary to Chronology in staff report) McNamara interviews and selects professional consultants to assist him in preparing the plans, project application, and permit materials; consultants include land use attorney, appraiser, urban planner, engineer, architect, and soils engineer. March 16, 1981 McNamara submits waiver application for 54 unit multi- family residential development at project site. April 13, 1981 McNamara submits application for building permit for proposed development. April 13, 1981 City Council discussion of application; McNamara submits extensive written materials and oral information regarding engineering and architectural plans, land use analysis, appraisal report, soils report, and other information; City Council requests supplementary soils and traffic investigation. April 17, 1981 McNamara's consultants meet with City staff regarding building permit application materials; building department staff indicates that there would be no further processing of building permit applications until waiver processed. April 28, 1981 McNamara and attorney meet with City planning staff regarding additional information requested by City Council. May -June, 1981 McNamara confers with his consultants to outline scope of response to City Council's request and assign work tasks; McNamara consults with soils engineer regarding proposed scope of work on soils investigation; McNamara retained Transpo Group to conduct traffic investigation; Transpo Group gathers data and conducts traffic analysis; McNamara's attorney advises City staff of progress in developing initial information. 1 June 11, 1981 C McNamara's architect writes City Building Department confirming City's decision not to process building permit application until waiver processed. June 29, 1981 McNamara's attorney advises City staff regarding progress in gathering information and seeks information regarding rezone. July 1, 1981 McNamara's attorney advises City staff regarding progress in gathering information and seeks information regarding rezone. July 15, 1981 McNamara's attorney advises City staff regarding progress in gathering information and seeks information regarding rezone. July 16, 1981 McNamara and attorney consult regarding soils engineer and selection of new soils engineering firm. July- August, 1981 McNamara contacts soils engineering firms and requests proposals for conducting soils engineering analysis; McNamara interviews soils engineering firms submitting proposals for work; Transpo Group submits preliminary draft of traffic investigation report. August 18, 1981 October 2, 1981 McNamara's attorney advises City staff regarding progress in gathering information and seeks information regarding rezone. September - McNamara makes contact with additional soils November, 1981 engineering firm to verify cost and scope of work suggested by firms contacted earlier. September 30, 1981 McNamara and attorney meet to discuss selection of soils engineering firm to conduct investigation. McNamara consults with Transpo Group regarding changes in draft report due to pending down zone of project area. October 20, 1981 McNamara submits to the City report of the Transpo Group regarding traffic investigation; report includes analysis of existing conditions and potential impacts of five possible development scenarios. 2 November 5, 1981 McNamara and attorney consult regarding selection of soils engineer. November 12, 1981 McNamara's attorney advises City staff regarding progress in gathering information and seeks information regarding rezone. December 10, 1981 McNamara receives City Public Works Director's report on Transpo Group traffic study, and forwards report to Transpo Group for review. December, 1981- McNamara retains Hemphill Consulting Engineers January, 1982 to conduct detailed soils investigation of project site; engineer conducts soils investigations and prepares report. January, 1982 McNamara and consultants confer with soils engineer regarding previous soil's work and scope of work for engineer's report. February 10, 1982 McNamara submits to the City the soils report prepared by Hemphill Consulting Engineers and requests consideration of his application. February 16, 1982 City schedules McNamara application for March 9, 1982, City Council meeting. March 3, 1982 City cancels McNamara application which was scheduled for March 9 and reschedules for March 23 March 23, 1982 March 25, 1982 April 6, 1982 April 8, 1982 McNamara and consultants attend City Council meeting; City Council does not consider application, but tables application until April 6, after decision on new zoning ordinance McNamara's attorney sends letter to City Council protesting delay and requesting action on application McNamara and consultants attend City Council meeting; City Council votes to not consider McNamara application, and to again delay McNamara's attorney again sends letter to City Council protesting delay and requesting action on application ;1908 encl. 4 City 'Of Tukwila Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor Thomas M. Walsh Attorney -at -Law 1111 Third Avenue Bldg. - Suite 2600 Seattle, WA. 98101 SUBJECT: McNamara Waiver Application 81.13 -W 18 March 1982 As.I indicated to you in my letter of 9 March 1982, this report is a follow up to the meeting of 9 March 1982 which included your project soils engineer Dale Hemphill, Acting Public Works Director Phil Fraser and myself. Our pur- pose in meeting was to review the 6 February 1982 soils study prepared by Mr. Hemphill,and to try to resolve some of the questions about the study which were raised during interdepartmental review of the document. The outstanding issues of concern are outlined in the attached memorandum, and the meeting . concluded with Mr. Hemphill stating his willingness to reply to these matters in writing. I spoke to Mr. Hemphill on the afternoon of 16 March 1982 to ascertain his progress on the written response. He indicates that the mater ial should be ready by late this afternoon; I shall then use this data to complete the department's staff report for the committee -of- the -whole meeting of 23 March 1982. xc: Ping. Dir. City Atty. TUKWIL ING DEPARTMENT MarVCaughey Associate Planner AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION CI T Y OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 81 -13 -W McNamara Waiver - -54 unit Condominium In April, 1981, the McNamara application was presented to the City Council along with a staff report addressing the criteria pertinent to waiver re- view. The applicant's presentation generated some concerns and questions resulting in your council's request of the applicant to undertake addition- al study in the topic areas of traffic and soils stability according to the following outline: Traffic 1) Peak hour trip- generation characteristics of the project 2) Maximum carrying capacity of 53rd Avenue So., compared to present volumes 3) Comparative theoretical traffic volumes on 53rd Ave So., Klickitat Drive and the residential street network of that portion of the McMicken Heights area within the Tukwila corporate limits assuming full build -out of all existing RMH properties at 20 units /acre and at 5 units /acre as provided in the comprehensive plan 4) Intersection capacity for Klickitat /53rd Ave. under each of the alternatives described under 3) above Soils 1) The basic issue to which the council is seeking a, conclusive answer is that if unstable soil conditions, either surface - level or subterranean exist, can such conditions be overcome by foundation design and site grading which will not require excessive modification of existing ground contour especially by cutting? The supplemental studies have now been received and reviewed by the staff. The traffic report was analyzed last December, while the soils material was receiv- ed in February, 1982. Before discussing the conclusions of these reports, however, please note the following chronology of efforts taken by the staff and the applicant to follow - through with these studies: 13 April 1981 -- C.O.W. requests supplementary soils and traffic investigation C 24 April 1981- -Staff sends "scope of work outlining additional study as requested by Council to T.Walsh, applicant's counsel 20 May 1981 -- Written follow -up to Mr. Walsh from staff to ascertain progress on supplemental studies 22 May 1981 -- Response received from Mr. Walsh indicating requested material to be forthcoming 27 May 1981 - -Staff notification in writing to Mr. Walsh indicating application scheduled for C.O.W. of 9 June 1981 if supplemental materials received by 1 June 1981 28 July 1981 --Planning Director reports. to C,Q.W. that supplementary studies not yet received; Council rep- affirms their desire to have the requested material before proceeding with further waiver review 22 October 81- -Staff receives traffic study as prepared by the TRANSPO Group on 9 October 1981 22 October 81-- Planning Dept, staff referred the study to the Public Works Department for technical review and analysis 23 October 81-- Written follow -up to Mr. Walsh indicating receipt of the traffic study and that the soils report is still awaited 7 December 81 -- D.P.W. comments transmitted to Mr. Walsh; staff advises him that the traffic study will be placed before the Council as an informational item on 22 December 1981 14 December 81-- Written staff response to Ur. Walsh indicating that per his instruction, no council action will be scheduled until the soils report is received by staff 11 February 82- -Staff receives preliminary soils investigation prepared by Hemphill consulting engineers, 6 February 82 11 February 82- -Soils study transmitted to Public Works Department for review and comment 16 February 82- -Staff notifies E.F. McNamara in writing that soils re- port is under review and that waiver action is scheduled for review on 9 March 1982 •*; 23 February 82-- Comments on soils study received from Public Works 3 March 82 - -Staff notified by council president L.C. Bohrer that the McNamara application will be removed from the 9 March agenda 3 March 82 - -Staff notifies Mr. McNamara and Mr. Walsh by hand deli- vered written correspondence that the waiver application is scheduled for the 23 March 1982 Committee of the Whole. Meeting requested with project soils consultant to dis- cuss D.P.W. concerns with soils report 4 March 82 -- Letter received from 'Mr. Walsh to L.C. Bohrer protesting removal of the waiver application from the 9 March calendar 9 March 82 -- Meeting with soils consultant Dale Hemphill, Acting public Works Director Fraser and Associate Planner M. Caughey -- Mr. Hemphill agrees to provide written follow -up to Mr. Fraser's comments of 23 February A lfi March 82 - = 17 .'ollow -up conversation with Mr. :amp requesting receipt of his comments p inclusion in staff report to C.O.W. 18 March 82 --- Written follow -up to Mr. Walsh indic March 1982 meeting with the soils co 19 March 82 - -Soils consultant delivers written fo to be included in C.O.W. packets DISCUSSION Traffic Report: The study as prepared by the TRANSPO gr is adequate carrying capacity for proj 53rd Avenue, and that there will be li on the established McMicken Heights re by project- related traffic. The Publi morandum of review does not dispute th the TRANSPO study and the Public Works agree, however, that implementation of will entail the need for turn- movement other lane - capacity improvements at th Avenue intersection. The exact config ments would be determined at a later s waiver action be granted. Soils Report: CONCLUSION In the opinion of the staff, the proje port is not conclusive as to the abili present on the site to be declared fit drainage characteristics necessary vis of the McNamara condominium project. sultant indicates that a responsible c is not feasible in advance of actual f That the project can be built on this by either the city engineer or the soi however, no conclusions are offered at is being written which speak to the co degree of disruption of existing site necessary to prepare the site for cons requirements. The data provided by the applicant is, in staff's opini complexity usually requested in the waiver review sequ received has not satisfied all the concerns relating t project, due to the environmental sensitivity of the si that further environmental assessment be undertaken th outlined in the State Environmental Policy Act, rather process. ill from Mark Caughey for to 19 March for ting outcome of the 9 sultant low -up to staff comments up concludes that there ct- generated traffic on tle anticipated impact idential neighborhood Works Director's me- se conclusions. Both Department follow -up the McNamara project rechannelization and Klickitat Drive /53rd ration of these improve - age of review should the t soils engineering re- y of soil conditions for the bearing and a -vis the present scale Indeed, the soils con - nclusion on this topic undation excavation. ite is not in question s consultant; the time this report t feasibility, or the overing conditions ruction based on soils n, beyond the level of ce. The information the construction of this e. We recommend, however, ough the procedures than through the waiver Mr. L. C. Bohrer President, City Council City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Bohrer: TMW /ehk cc: Edward F. McNamara LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. WALSH Illt THIRD AVENUE BUILDING, SUITE 2600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 AMY L. KOSTERLITZ THOMAS M. WALSH 12061 464 -1560 March 4, 1982 RE: McNamara Waiver Application 81 -13 -W Yesterday, I received a telephone call and a letter from Mark Caughey, Tukwila Planning Department, regarding the City's consideration of Mr. McNamara's waiver application. Mr. Caughey advised me that you have decided to cancel the City Council's scheduled consideration of Mr. McNamara's application at the March 9 Council meeting, and reschedule it for a later meeting. Please be advised that my client strongly objects, to the City's delay in the consideration of his application. Mr. McNamara has submitted all required information regarding his application, and he and his consultants were prepared to attend the March 9 meeting to discuss the information he has submitted. In Mr..Caughey's letter, he requested that a meeting be arranged between the City's Engineering Department and Mr. McNamara's consulting soils engineers. Although further involvement of Mr. McNamara's consultants is enormously expensive, and further discussion causes more delay, we are willing to cooperate with the City and we are prepared to arrange this meeting at the City's earliest convenience. y truly yours, THOMAS M. WALSH �C�6f�Od�D MAR 9 19 82 CITY OF TUKWILA PL . .NNING DEPT. N Z 0 Q [0 N w Z w 0 L ( 1 .9 1 z 2 J O II II N W_ 0 Q N 3 w 0 0 Z z 0 Z_ Q Q Q (9 ❑ • (3 Z Z 0 F w Q Z 0 C- Z w w Z W 0 < IL 0 N D CO Z w 0 0 D w a Z 0 F Y 0 w ti 0 U Gc CE = N w Z > Q w O • a • HEM RHILL 4612 170th SOIL ENGINEERING FOR THE PROPOSED 54 UNIT CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE McNAMARA INVESTMENT COMPANY DATE: 6 FEBRUARY, 1982 PROJECT NUMBER 6290 PTL SE 2467 CONCJLTI NG ENGINEERS PLACE N. E. • REDMOND, WA. 98052 •'(206) 883 3924 4r T A B L E O F C O N N T S PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION I -1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1 I -2 AUTHORIZATION FOR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT . . 1 I -3 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT 1 1 -4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1 I -5 ASSUMPTIONS 1 I -6 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT 2 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION S -1 GEOLOGIC RESEARCH 3 S -2 SURFACE DESCRIPTION 3 S -3 EXPOSED CONDITIONS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. • • • 3 S -4 SUBSURFACE STUDIES 4 S -4A TEST PITS 4 1. TEST PIT LOCATIONS . • • . . . . 4 2. TEST PIT LOGS 4 S -4B FIELD TESTS 4 S -5 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 4 S -6 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE STUDIES 5 ENGINEERING STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS E -1 EARTHWORK 6 E -1A REMOVAL OF UNDESIREABLE SOILS 6 E -1B STRUCTURAL FILL 6 1. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL FILL . . 6 a. STRUCTURAL FILL TO SUPPORT STRUC- TURES AND PAVING 6 HEMPHILL . STRUCTURAL FILL FOR DR NAGE . . • 2. PREPARATION OF SOIL TO BE USED FOR FILL 3. COMPACTION OF STRUCTURAL FILL E -2 ALLOWABLE BEARING SOILS AND CAPACITIES E -2A ALLOWABLE SOILS E -2B ALLOWABLE FILL E -2C EARTHQUAKE AND WIND LOADS 8 E -3 FOOTINGS E -3A MINIMUM ALLOWABLE DEPTH OF FOOTINGS. . • • 1. FOR FROST PROTECTION 2. FOR BEARING CAPACITY 3. PLACEMENT FOR STABILITY • • E -3B MINIMUM ALLOWABLE FOOTINGS SIZES E -3C PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE FOR FOOTINGS . • • 1. PREPARATION OF SOILS 2.. PREPARATION OF BEARING CAPACITIES IN BEARING CAPACITIES IN SUBGRADE SUBGRADE UNDISTURBED STRUCTURAL IN UNDISTURBED IN STRUCTURAL 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 FILL E -4 SETTLEMENT E -5 FOUNDATION WALLS E -5A LATERAL DRIVING PRESSURES AGAINST FOUNDA- TION WALLS 1. FOUNDATION WALLS SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL FILL 10 2. FOUNDATION WALLS SUPPORTING UNDISTURBED SOILS 10 3. DRAINAGE BEHIND FOUNDATION WALLS . . 11 E -5B LATERAL RESISTING PRESSURES AGAINST FOUN- DATION WALLS 9 10 10 10 1 1 HEMRHILL 1. (4SSIVE SOIL RESISTANCE TO( SIDING . . 11 2. FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE TO SLIDING . . . 11 E -6 RETAINING WALLS (ROCKERIES) 11 E -6A SLIDING BETWEEN ROCKS 11 E -6B OVERTURNING BETWEEN ROCKS 12 E -6C SLIDING BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL 12 • 1. PASSIVE RESISTANCE TO SLIDING 12 2. FRICTION REISTANCE TO SLIDING 12 E -6D QUALITY AND SHAPE OF ROCKS 13 E -6E PLACEMENT OF ROCKS 13 I E -6F FILTER SYSTEM 13 E -6G ROCKERY DESIGN OPTIONS 13 E -7 DRAINAGE 14 E -7A SITE DRAINAGE 14 E -7B DRAINAGE FOR FOUNDATION WALLS 15 E -7C DRAINAGE FOR PAVING 15 E -8 FLOOR SLABS 15 E E -9 PAVING 15 E -9A FULL -DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING 17 HEMPHILL E -9C1 FOR HEAVING TRUCKS 18 E -9C2 FOR PASSENGER CARS. . . . . . 18 E -9D ROADWAY PAVING 18 E -10 RECOMMENDED DESIGN PROCEDURES 19 E -11 RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 19 L I S T O F F I G U R E S FIGURE TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OPPOSITE PAGE NO. 1 LOCATION OF SITE 1 2 PLAN OF PROPOSED SITE 2 3 PLAN OF EXISTING SITE 3 4 TEST PIT LOCATIONS 4 5 TEST PIT LOGS 5 6 BEARING AND SETTLEMENT FOR FOOTINGS 8 7 OVER - EXCAVATIONS FOR FOOTINGS 9 8 LATERAL PRESSURES ON FOUNDATION WALLS 10 9 ROCKERY FILTER SYSTEM 12 10A ROCKERY DESIGN PARAMETERS 13 10B ROCKERY THICKNESS VS SAFETY FACTORS 13 10C ROCKERY THICKNESS VS TILT -BACK 14 11 PROTECTION OF FLOOR SLAB FROM CAPILLARY BREAK 15 HEMP FIGURE 1 C LOCATION OF SITE • \ • \ \ N N . ■ \ \ N � \ \ fin 0 - \ \ \ \ : `:3 T\ \ t a� \ \ \ I \\P, 1 ; � �\ a I \ \ 1 :.] \ ,. . \ � I • I -1 PURPOSE of REPORT INTRODUCTION C The purpose of this report is to present the results of the subsurface investigation, and to present recommendations for designing the foundations, floor slabs, retaining walls, drainage, and paving for the proposed 54 unit condominiums for McNAMARA INVESTMENT COMPANY, to be located as shown in Figure 1. I -2 AUTHORIZATION for INVESTIGATION and REPORT On 14 January, 1981, Tony Mottar, of PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY gave a verbal authorization to Dale Hemphill of HEMPHILL CONSULTING ENGINEERS to conduct a preliminary soil investigation at the site of the proposed 54 unit condominiums. On 18 January. 1982, during a meeting at the site. Tony Mottar authorized HEMPHILL to prepare a soil report. 1 -3 SCOPE of INVESTIGATION and REPORT The request by the client for HEMPHILL to act as soils engineer obligates HEMPHILL to investigate and make recommendations concerning all phases of design and construction that would be affected by soils and foundations. Included in the studies are groundwater and drainage, bearing capacities and settlements for footings in both undisturbed soils and in structural fill, sub - grade preparation for floor slabs and paving, lateral soil pressures for retaining walls and foundation walls, and drainage for groundwater. I -4 DESCRIPTION of PROJECT The description of the existing site and proposed project are approximately as shown in 18 drawings by William S. Tsao and Co., identified as their Job No. 8024, and dated approximately 6 April, 1981. The project will include 5 buildings with 2 and 4 story condominiums, each located approximately as shown in Figure 2 . I -5 ASSUMPTIONS The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on the following assumptions: 1 HEMPHILL FIGURE 2 PLAN OF PROPOSED SITE A. That site conditions will not change due to natural causes, or construction operations at or adjacent to the site. B. That the subsurface investigation revealed conditions that are representative of subsurface conditions throughout the site. C. That the assumed soil properties are correct, and are representative of all the soils at the site, and that those properties will be verified by HEMPHILL after the excavations have exposed the true nature of all the bearing soils. I -6 LIMITATIONS of REPORT A. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the owner, the architect, and the engineer to design the project, and to prepare construction specifications. B. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the requirement that the presumptive soil properties, the assumed soil conditions, and the drainage requirements will be verified by HEMPHILL after the soils have been exposed during the excavating process. 2 HEMPHILL , i ! I • . 0 120 f -- rn i • i N Il I 0 . ; 125 • 0 V ; 4)• too ez • • . . ., • crt 0 � . S.• , -' - '- • ,,. • • - I ' .-•-- - - -- • - F ,• • • • - - - - S e • • • I t 165 / - I , • , I . - , S I / 1 • ' I • -- , • i 160 ,r '� , �? , • •6 , ; 155 150fr • th e. • •' ••'t • 1: 5 0 • • • Is - �, Of -- , r - � 145. X44,7 , , I • • • • ' • ! l • . ... • E. ,„ • ..•! v / ` I, • ste.i. e ,% ,� „�c " e , • (tTT • I 1 i • . 01 • • • // - "Sty • •, , t -. err • i • / ;a/ 5- 0 i • • • • • 140 135 • 130 125 120 120 T C in W S -1 GEOLOGIC RESEARCH SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Geologic research revealed that the general vicinity of the site is composed of glacially compacted soils. Generally the soils have been deposited in fairly horizontal layers. The lower layers are composed mostly of silts and clays, generally identified as the Lawton Clays, which are overlain by sands and gravels, generally described as the Esperence Sands. S -2 SURFACE DESCRIPTION As shown in Figure 3, the existing ground surface at the site slopes down to the northeast at an average angle of 5 degrees, and has maximum slopes of approximately 20 degrees. The site then drops fairly steeply to Klickitat Way at approximately 35 degrees. To the north of the site the ground surface slopes fairly gently to a marshy area. Portions of the site had been cleared leaving trees and heavy blackberries over the other portions of the site. The southwest corner of the site had been excavated to nearly level and then fill was placed over the area. S -3 EXPOSED CONDITIONS on ADJACENT PROPERTIES Erosion and excavations on other properties in the general vicinity of the site have exposed the glacially compacted clays and sands. Near the top of 53rd Avenue South on the west side of the road, very dense glacially compacted sands are exposed, and a seepage zone occurs at a slightly lower elevation, indicating a probable clay layer. Downhill and to the east of 53rd Avenue South, much of the surface soils are sands, but some of the deeper soils exposed by erosion channels are hard glacially compacted clay. A large landslide had occurred in the recent past destroying portions of South 160th Street. There was other evidence that smaller slides had occurred. Much excavating had been conducted on the slopes during the construction of South Center. therefore it was difficult to determine what soils had been involved in landslides, what soils had been excavated, and to what extent the excavations might have caused any landslides. 3 HEMPHILL MUM powo ' • , i • • o ; i 1112 o 165 � . ,• �• , 1 / "� ; % i 1 /� , , 1 / . i • • 160 � ,(%' , a © ' • ,v� ; • o i e 0 1 1' ' •' • �[ • j ' 150x'•' `° ' • �' , ' , • � • / '� /6 � '+ /' • , -r• ,' 14 �. 0 ,'"- • •'C ,' � -- . ' ' I • I e a) . • 14 i • 4tPt • s • f� ` • o N 1 13 5i' I. / / • • • • X60 • • 53rd AVENUE SOUTH • • • • 140 .135 • 130 125 120 120 S -4 SUBSURFAd STUDIES S -4A TEST PITS 1. TEST PIT LOCATIONS S -4B FIELD TESTS r 10 test pits were located approximately as shown in Figure 4. The locations were chosen to minimize disturbance of the proposed building areas, but in a manner that would determine the consistency of the soils at the site. Since the test pits and exposed eroded soils revealed similar conditions, and since this report is based on the condition that the soil conditions will be verified after the excavations are completed, then HEMPHILL assumed that further testing within the building areas was not necessary. 2. TEST PIT LOGS Logs of the test pits are shown in Figure 5. The logs show visual descriptions of the soils, depths of changes in the soil types, groundwater observations, and any other pertinent observations or field tests. HEMPHILL conducted field penetration tests and vane shear tests in the test pits to determine the approximate strength characteristics of the soils. S -5 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS The test pits revealed that groundwater is moving in the upper sandy soils on top of the undisturbed, unweathered clays. Some seepage surfaces at lower portions of the site. The source of the groundwater is probably storm water infiltration from properties to the west and will require an interception system. Additional studies will be required during construction to determine the quantity and source of groundwater. and to determine the required drainage materials and filters. 4 HEMPHILL C FIGURE 5 TEST PIT LOGS DEPTH 0 1 2 3 • 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DEPTH 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TP 1 SEW R BACK ILL HARD GRAY SILT BOTTOM TP 6 WEATHERED HARD GRAY a BROWN SILT TP 2 WEATHERED DENSE BROWN FINE SAND BROWN VERY DENSE VERY FINE SA LA YERS HD. GY. SILT TP 7 FILL MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE BROWN a GRAY COARSE SILT AND V.F. SAND TP 3 WEATHERED DENSE BROWN V. FINE TO FINE GRAY SILT DENSE GRAY • SAND TP 8 FILL DENSE GRAY a BROWN SILT a SAND TP 4 'WEATHERED HARD YELLOW a GRAY SILT, SAND, GRAVEL. a COBBLES TP 9 FILL HARD BROWN a GRAY SILT HARD GRAY SILT TP 5 MEDIUM DENSE FINE TO MED. SAND HARD a DENSE GRAY SILT a SAND HARD GRAY SILT TP 10 WEATHERED DENSE BROWN a GRAY SILT a SAND DEPTH 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DEPTH 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 S -6 SUMMARY . SUBSURFACE STUDIES - Visual observations and test pits conducted at the site reavealed fairly consistent conditions that were similar to exposures on adjacent properties. The glacially compacted clays and silts are very strong, and capable of very high bearing capacities. The sands overlying the clays and silts could be combinations of the original glacially deposited and compacted esperence sands, and sands that have been eroded from uphill seepage zones. The fill soils encountered in the upper portion of the site are of poor quality and cannot be used for support of foundations or paving. The fill soils can be used for buffer zones or other aesthetic purposes. Test Pit 1 was located near a manhole not shown on the drawings. The manhole appeared to be connected to another manhole nearly directly south and on the adjacent property. The sewer backfill was encountered to a depth of 10 feet. Test Pit 11 revealed backfill, but was not completed to avoid damaging the sewer pipe Because of the high shear strength of the undisturbed soils, deep seated slides would be unlikely. Any instabililty would be the result of sloughing of the upper few feet of weathered soils, or movement within any fill deposits which generally exist along the upper portion of the site, or would result from heavy water erosion. Removal of the fill soils, and properly designed drainage, should help to stabilize the upper portion of the site, and will decrease future erosion and instability in the lower portions of the site. 5 HEMPHILL CAUTION: Because of the possibility that the present proposed location of Building 5 is over a deep sewer line and questionable backfill, HEMPHILL recommends that the sewer line be located exactly. and that appropriate action be taken. If the sewer line is located as suspected by HEMPHILL, and if Building 5 is not moved, then special footings must be designed to span the excavation, or the backfill must be removed and replaced with structural fill. E -1 EARTHWORK ENGINEERING STUDIES and RECOMMENDATIONS E -1A REMOVAL OF UNDESIREABLE SOILS HEMPHILL recommends that the 3 to 5 feet of soft organic soils at the proposed location of the upper level condominiums in the southwest corner of the site be removed, and, if necessary, replaced with structural fill. Those soils are composed of poor quality fill, and should either be removed from the site, or used as buffer zones, or other aesthetic purposes. E -1B STRUCTURAL FILL 1. DESCRIPTION of STRUCTURAL FILL a. STRUCTURAL FILL TO SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND PAVING Structural fill is defined as any soil that can be properly compacted to have the necessary physical properties to support foundations, to transmit the loads to the softer soils below, to have minimum compressibility, and to resist attracting capillary water to the underside of the floors and footings. Any of the natural inorganic sandy soils from the site can be used for structural fill, provided the soil is properly compacted. The ability of the existing sandy soils to be compacted would depend on the water content of the soils, as described below. HEMPHILL C b. STRUCTURAL FILL FOR DRAINAGE Some drainage requirements, such as beneath slabs, paving, and behind retaining walls and foundation walls, could require soils of specified grain sizes. Those requirements should be determined after the excavations have exposed the natural soils, and the water conditions have been determined. 2. PREPARATION OF SOIL TO BE USED FOR FILL Prior to placement and compaction, all soils to be used for filling should be either wetted or dried to the optimum water content to help to achieve the required compaction. To determine the required compaction and the optimum water content, each soil used for filling should be tested to determine the maximum density that can be achieved in a Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D 1557, Method D). 3. COMPACTION of STRUCTURAL FILL Structural fill at this site should be compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95% of the maximum density achieved in the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D- 1557). The procedures to achieve the proper density of a compacted fill are dependent on the size and number of passes, of the compacting equipment, the water content of the soils, the thickness of the layer to be compacted, and some soil properties. If it is determined that the laboratory and field testing required to control the compaction of the soils is not warranted at this site, then HEMPHILL recommends that the soils be placed in layers not thicker than 8 inches, and the soils be compacted with several passes of a heavy vibrating type compactor. The soils should not be too wet or too dry during the compaction. Generally. poorly compacted soils are the result of poor workmanship, or soils with a high degree of silt being too wet, or coarse grained soils being too dry. HEMPHILL FIGURE 6 k N 9t BEARING AND SETTLEMENT VS FOOTING DEPTH AND SIZE • N . v 7 ; • ..... ..1 2 3 4 5 6 DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) E -2 ALLOWABL BEARING SOILS AND CAPACIT S NOTE: HEMPHILL should identify the design bearing soils, and should verify their presumed bearing capacities at the time that the excavations for the footings are conducted. E -2A ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITIES in UNDISTURBED SOILS The minimum allowable bearing capacity of natural undisturbed sandy soils between 2 and 5 feet below the existing ground surface is 2000 psf. The bearing capacity of sand increases with depth below the final proposed ground surface, as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6 can be used to design footings for bearing capacity in accordance with the acceptable settlement. E -2B ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITIES in STRUCTURAL FILL Structural fill that is properly placed and compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum density will have a minimum allowable bearing capacity of 2000 psf. Higher bearing capacities in fill can be achieved if approved by HEMPHILL, or in accordance with Figure 6. E -2C EARTHQUAKE AND WIND LOADS The allowable bearing capacities can be increased by 1/3 for temporary loadings from earthquake and wind forces. E -3 FOOTINGS E -3A MINIMUM ALLOWABLE DEPTH of FOOTINGS 1. FOR FROST PROTECTION Footings to be adjacent to unheated areas should be placed a minimum of 18 inches below the final ground surface to protect against uplift due to frost expansion, or loss of bearing capacity due to softening from thawing conditions. 2. FOR BEARING CAPACITY Footings should be placed on the undisturbed soils which exist approximately 2 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface. 8 HEMPHILL FIGURE 7 C PROCEDURE FOR OVER- EXCAVATING AND PREPARING BASE COURSE FOR FOOTINGS '■■,^we FINAL GRADE a. Excavate D below proposed final grade as specified, or for b. Over- excavate d = soils engineer. frost protection. B, or as specified, or at direction of c. Extend excavation a distance b = . beyond all edges o footing. d. Probe bottom of excavation to verify consistency of soils,aild to locate any soft spots. e. Backfill to the proposed footing level with structural fill as described by the soils engineer, and compact the back fill to a minimum density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum density in accordance with ASTM D 1557. PLACEMENT FOR STABILITY r All footings located adjacent to slopes should be placed at a depth so that the slope will not kick out from the footing loads. The required depth of footings placed on slopes should be verified by HEMPHILL at the time of construction. E -3B MINIMUM ALLOWABLE FOOTING SIZES The minimum allowable footings sizes should be 18 inches for a three story building, and 15 inches for a 2 story building, in accordance with the requirements of the UBC. E -3C PREPARATION of SUBGRADE for FOOTINGS All organic soils and grass or shrubs should be removed from beneath any footing locations. If soft soils are encountered at the proposed elevation of any footing, then the excavation should continue to competent soils approved by HEMPHILL. 1. PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE IN UNDISTURBED SOILS The subgrade for footings in undisturbed soils should be prepared by hand cleaning to remove any soils loosened by the excavating process. Fill soils should not be placed into irregularities to smooth the bottom of the excavation. 2. PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE IN STRUCTURAL FILL If any footing is over - excavated to remove unsuitable soils from beneath the footing, the over - excavation can be back fi1led with structural fill compacted to 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum density. The sides of the excavation should extend beyond the edges of the footing by a distance equal to 1 foot for each 2 feet of depth of the over- excavation, as shown in Figure 7. That allows the stresses beneath the footing to dissipate through compacted soils, rather than through the weaker existing soils. HEMP H LL FIGURE 8 LATERAL PRESSURES AND BENDING MOMENTS ON FOUNDATION WALLS D E S C R I P T I O N of P R O J E C T PMOJELT NAME s MCNAMARA CONDOMINIUMS PHOJEeT NUMBER t 6291 LOCATION OF SECTION s FOUNDATION WALLS D E S C R I P T I O N of S L I D I N G W E D G E A. SHAPE OF WEDGE SLOPE 1 ANGLE of SLOPE • 90 DEG HEIGHT of SLOPE 14 FT SLOPE 2 ANGLE of SLOPE 0 DEG HEIGHT or SLOPE • 0 PT B. NO SURCHARGE LOADS on WEDGE C. SOIL PARAMETERS UNIT WEIGHT . 120 PCF COHESION . 0 PSF INTERNAL FRICTION • 25 DEG HEIGHT TOTAL INCREMENTAL MOMENT OF LATERAL LATERAL OP SLOPE 1 FORCE FORCE OVERTURN (ft) (lbs) (LBS) (ft lbs) 0.00 I 1.00 16 16 5 2..1 64 40 41 3.rl 144 80 139 4.00 256 112 334 5..0 400. 144 657 6.00 576 176 1,140 7.00 785 208 1,816 8.00 1,w25 240 2,715 9.00 1,297 272 3,810 10..0 1,601 304 5,314 11..0 1,947 336 7,078 12.00 2,306 368 9,194 13.00 2,706 400 11,694 14.00 3,138 432 14,611 E -4 SETTLEM' r Settlement of footings placed on undisturbed soils should be minimal, and will be dependent on workmanship during the preparation of subgrades and placement of concrete for footings. Settlement of footings placed in structural fill will vary in accordance with the type and thickness of soil placed beneath the footing. Any differential settlement should be 1 inch or less if placed in accordance with the recommendations in this report, and using soils approved by HEMPHILL. E -5 FOUNDATION WALLS E -5A LATERAL DRIVING PRESSURES AGAINST FOUNDATION WALLS The lateral pressures of soils against the exterior foundation walls will vary with the soil type and condition, the degree of compaction, and the rigidity of the wall. 1. FOUNDATION WALLS SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL FILL HEMPHILL recommends that the soils be well compacted by hand within a 45 degree angle from the base of the wall. Figure 8 shows the anticipated lateral pressures and bending moments that can be developed for each foot of depth for a 14 foot high backfilled foundation wall. The lateral pressures are for the worst permissible backfill soils that presently exist at the site, and assume no surcharge loads, and no hydrostatic pressures. The backfill soils, drainage materials and filters, and compaction procedures should be approved by HEMPHILL. 2. FOUNDATION WALLS SUPPORTING UNDISTURBED SOILS When foundations walls are adjacent to excavations into the existing undisturbed soils, lateral pressures could be minimal. If the soils are fine grained and hold water by capillary tension, lateral pressures can be as low as 10 pcf equivalent fluid pressure. Such conditions cannot'be anticipated prior to excavating for each foundation wall, and should be approved by HEMPHILL at that time. Any additional surcharge loads should be added to the "at -rest" pressures. 10 HEMPHILL X DRAINAGE BEHIND FOUNDATI .. WALLS Any drainage materials placed behind foundation walls should be properly filtered to prevent any fine grained soils from eroding into the drainage system. The required filter soils should be determined by HEMPHILL after the undisturbed soils have been exposed, or the backfill soils have been chosen. E -5B LATERAL RESISTING PRESSURES AGAINST FOUNDATION WALLS 1. PASSIVE SOIL RESISTANCE to SLIDING The lateral passive resistance to kick -out exterted by the soils adjacent to the sides of the footings and foundaton walls will vary according to the condition of the undisturbed soils and workmanship. The lateral pressures for the worst conditions will be approximately equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf. The lateral movement required to mobilize the full value of passive resistance could be damaging to the structure. 2. FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE to SLIDING Frictional forces resisting sliding under the footings will be approximately 0.3 x the vertical loads. E - 6 RETAINING WALLS (ROCKERIES) The three ways that a rockery can fail are by sliding one rock over the top of the other, by overturning the entire rockery above any section, or by sliding the entire rockery on the soils below. E - SLIDING BETWEEN ROCKS The lateral pressures behind the rockery are resisted by the friction forces between the rocks. The friction forces are determined by the weight of rock above. The greater the weight of rock above an intersection between 2 rocks, the greater the friction force that will resist sliding. The resistance to sliding can be increased dramatically by tipping the rockery back so that the upper rock must slide uphill on the lower rock. 1 1 HEMPHILL FIGURE 9 ROCKERY FILTER SYSTEM P • 6 41 10 0 4.11ti di* . • ligte0 till' - .a `ire 4 $ 4114: -- . 1.61 OS-WU $ s l ue i te a -0,13 .-I.1► 1,N..: ® ..r t e .. ftgas STRUCTURAL FILL MIN. THICKNESS 6" f Th values of friction are`:airly consistent, and generally are not dependent on the area of contact between the two rocks, unless the area of contact becomes so small that the total weight of rock above causes the point of contact to pulverize, which then lowers the frictional resistance to sliding. Each rock should be placed so that there is a large area of contact between rocks. E -6B OVERTURNING BETWEEN ROCKS Overturning can occur at any intersection between two rocks. The upper portion of the rockery will rotate at the outermost point of contact. If the outermost point of contact is at the outer edge of the upper rock, then the rocks above have the greatest resistance to overturning. If the outermost point of contact is somewhere inside the outer edge of the upper rock, then the resistance to overturning will be decreased in direct proportion to the distance from the backside of the rockery to the point of contact related to the distance from the backside of the rockery to the front point of the rockery. When the minimum allowable thickness of rockery at a section is required to resist sliding, then the pivot point of the rockery can be behind the outer edge and still be within the required safety factor. If the required minimum thickness of rockery is to prevent overturning, then a rock should be placed that is in contact at or near the outer edge, or a thicker rock should be placed. E -6C SLIDING BETWEEN ROCK and SOIL 1. PASSIVE RESISTANCE to SLIDING The soils that will resist the movement of the rockery wall are composed of silty sands. Those types of soils can become stronger with depth if the silt content is small. A conservative value of 300 pcf equivalent fluid pressure was used to calculate the resistance to sliding at the base of the rockery resulting from the weight of the soil in front of the rockery. 2. FRICTION RESISTANCE to SLIDING Also resisting the sliding of the rockery will be he friction forces between the bottom rock and the natural undisturbed soils, which would be approximately 0.4 x the value of the perpendicular, or normal, load. 12 HEMPHILL FIGURE 10A FIGURE 10B D E S C R I P T I O N of SLIDING K E D G E REQUIRED WALL THICKNESS for VARYING SAFETY FACTORS (SLOPE of WALL - 25 DEGREES) A. SHAPE OF WEDGE SLOPE 1 WA ANGLE - 65 DEG HEIGHT SLOPE HEIGHT - 10 FT - - - -- SLOPE 2 10.0 ANGLE - 0 DEG 9.0 SLOPE HEIGHT 0 PT 8.0 B. NO SURCHARGE LOADS ON WEDGE 7.0 C. SOIL PARAMETERS 6.0 UNIT WEIGHT - 128 PCF COHESION - • PSF 5.0 INTERNAL FRICTION - 25 DEG 4.0 DESCRIPTION of ROCKERY 3.0 A. ROCKERY DESIGN PARAMETERS 2.0 1.I -1.0 DEP DEPF HR HDPT VOLR BPRSH BPRST VERTICAL HEIGHT of ROCKERY - 18 FT MINIMUM THICKNESS AT TOP - 1.5 FT SLOPE ALONG BACK of ROCKERY ■ 25 DEG DENSITY of ROCK - 165 PCF % MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VOIDS - 20 % FRICTION FACTOR for ROCK on ROCK - 0.55 FRICTION FACTOR for ROCK on SOIL - 0.40 FRICTION FACTOR for SOIL on ROCK - 0.30 PASSIVE SOIL RESISTANCE - 308 PC? DESIGN SAFETY FACTOR - 2.00 SAFETY FACTOR MINIMAL INSPECTION - 2.50 SAFETY FACTOR CONSTANT CONTROL - 1.80 B. CALCULATION VARIABLES INCREMENTAL HEIGHT of ROCKERY - 1.0 FT MAXIMUM FAILURE PLANE ANGLE is CALCULATED for EACH INCREMENT of HEIGHT of ROCKERY SAFETY FACTOR NOTE: 25 DEGREES IS THE RECOMMENDED ANGLE OF TILT 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 OVTn SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1: 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 2.1 1.5 2.5 1.i 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.5 1.6 2.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.3 1.6 2.d 1.9 3.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.8 1.5 2.6 1.9 3.2 2.2 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.8 2.9 2.2 3.5 2.6 4.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.6 2.5 2.1 3.2 2.5 3.9 2.9 4.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .4 .3 .- -.3 -.6 -.9 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 5.1 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.3 7.9 10 20 24 28 33 37 3005 469 2539 3567 3984 4164 6559 3712 191 -1122 - -1728 - 2025 NO GOOD! E -6D NO GOOD! E -6E GOOD! E -6F E -6G QUJITY AND SHAPE OF ROCKS To prevent deterioration from weathering, only top quality rocks should be used. The rocks should be hard, sound, and durable, and should be free from seams, cracks, and other defects tending to destroy resistance to weathering. The rocks should have a density of at least 165 pcf. PLACEMENT OF ROCKS Rocks should have fairly flat tops and bottoms to allow for adequate contact to resist overturning, and to allow for a relatively tight wall. Rocks should be placed so that the vertical seam between 2 adjacent rocks is not above or below the vertical seam for the upper and lower layers. In other words, as much as possible, each rock should overlap at least two different rocks below. Rock shapes should be chosen and placed so that no more than 20% of the wall face is voids. A lower percentage of solid rock reduces the required weight of rock needed to resist overturning and sliding. FILTER SYSTEM A properly constructed filter system behind the retaining wall is imperative to prevent the loss of structual fill behind the rockery resulting from seepage erosion from infiltrated rainfall or runoff. As shown in Figure 9 the first layer of the filter system behind the rockery should be composed of crushed rock or other granular material that is well graded from the approximate size of the void spaces of the rockery to a coarse sand. Any further filter requirements will depend on the type of structural fill, and should be determined by HEMPHILL. ROCKERY DESIGN OPTIONS The design of a rockery is based on numerous variables, such as the lateral pressures induced by the structural fill and surcharge loads behind the rockery, the soils resisting sliding in front of the rockery. the allowable percentage of void spaces, the density of the rock, and the friction factors for both rock and soil. Those values have already been established for design purposes. 13 HEMPHILL FIGURE 10c DEGREES 8 5 REQUIRED WALL THICKNESS for VARYING ANGLES of TILT (assuming constant location for top of wall) SLOPE of WALL 18 15 28 25 38 35. 40 45 WAIL HEIGHT OV'rr SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID 10.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.b 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 9.8 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5. 1.5 1.5 8.1 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 7.8 1.2 2.6 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 6.0 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.7 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 5.8 1.o 4.4 1.6 3.4 1.5 2.6 1.5 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.8 2.2 5.3 1.9 4.1 1.6 3.1 1.5 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.8 2.6 6.2 2.3 4.7 1.9 3.6 1.6 2.8 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.s 1.5 2.0 3.0 7.1 2.6 5.4 2.3 4.2 1.9 3.2 1.5 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 3.4 7.9 3.8 6.1 2.6 4.7 2.2 3.6 1.7 2.7 1.5 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.8 8.8 3.4 6.8 2.9 5.2 2.5 4.0 1.9 3.0 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 - 1.8 4.2 9.7 3.8 7.4 3.3 5.7 2.8 4.4 2.2 3.4 1.6 2.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 4.7 10.6 4.1 8.1 3.3 5.7 2.8 4.4 2.2 3.4 1.6 2.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 - 3.8 5.1 11.5 4.1 8.1 3.3 5.7 2.8 4.4 2.2 3.4 1.6 2.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 DEP 3.0 2.8 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 DEPP 3.0 1.3 -.1 -.1 .- .1 .1 -.1 BR 13.0 12.0 11.2 11.4 11.7 12.1 12.7 13.4 14.4 15.6 HDPT 18.8 7.6 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.8 6.6 7.7 9.2 11.8 VOLR 84 58 48 34 28 24 21 28 22 23 BPRSB 4243 3989 3711 3620 3318 2539 618 26 1334 2688 BPRST -2302 -2067 -1781 -1504 -948 191 2650 3513 2145 676 NOTE: 25 DEGREES IS THE RECOMMENDED ANGLE OF TILT E -7 DRAINAGE OC,r values that have an rfect on the required th ckness of the rockery are the angle of slope of the rockery. and the factor of safety. The safety factor is an indication of the amount of over - design to prevent a failure. Generally. the more that is known about the materials and the better their placement is controlled, the lower the safety factor. HEMPHILL has determined that if a high level of inspection is conducted to control the placement of the structural fill and the rockery, then a safety factor of 1.8 could be employed. If minimal inspec- tion is conducted, then a safety factor of 2.5 should be employed. HEMPHILL recommends a safety factor of 2 be employed, and that some inspection of the rockeries be conducted. Once the degree of inspection to be conducted has been determined by the owner based on the relative costs, then the thickness requirements for the rockery at each depth is shown in Figures 10 a, b, and c for any slope of wall chosen by the owner. Each design of wall has the same safety factors against overturning and sliding. E - 7A SITE DRAINAGE HEMPHILL recommends that an interceptor drain be placed near the west property line on the top of the site to intercept any water seeping onto the site from adjacent properties. The excavating process for the site might expose the surface that supports the groundwater and other drainage methods might be desireable. If any interceptor ditch is placed, the size of pipe should be determined by the quantity of water either observed or anticipated. It is important that the drainage ditch be backfilled with a proper gradation of soils that will permit the expected quantity of water to flow to the drainage pipe, but will prevent the natural soils from seeping into the drainage system. The filter requirements should be determined by HEMPHILL after the soils have been exposed. 14 HEMPHILL FIGURE 11 CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB PLASTIC CAPILLARY GRAVEL FILTER• SAND SILT or CLAY • _ s. • .: . . • __• •• GROUNDWATER LEVEL PROTECTION OF FLOOR SLAB FROM CAPILLARY WATER • V .. • • • £ . /► • • ,, . ► • • • • ▪ • • • i • • • • A , CAPILLARY WATER . .' . • r • E -7B D INAGE for FOUNDATION WALL"" Any drainage requirements for foundation walls should be determined after the soils have been exposed during the excavating. The required height of drainage material and the composition of the material, should be determined by HEMPHILL after the soil and water conditions have been exposed. E -8 FLOOR SLABS E- 9 PAVING E -7C DRAINAGE for PAVING Any drainage soils placed beneath the paving should be properly filtered to prevent the existing fine grain soils from seeping into the drainage system. Any coarse soils placed beneath paving as a subgrade should be underlain by a proper filter soil to prevent the coarse soils from punching into the existing fine grain soils. Floor slabs can be placed directly on any granular material, provided that the percentage of fines is low. Silty soils are capable of raising water from the groundwater table by capillary action. As shown in Figure 11, any floor slabs placed directly on silt soils where dampness could be undesireable, should be underlain by a 4 inch thick capillary break composed of gravel approximately 1/4 inch in size. The gravel should be underlain by a 2 inch layer of fine to coarse sand to prevent the gravel from punching into the finer underlying soils. The gravel should then be overlain by a plastic material to prevent the wet concrete from seeping into the gravel and clogging the pore spaces. The plastic material will also act as a vapor barrier against the forming of condensation on the underside of the concrete due to differential temperatures. For minor parking lots and access roads in the Seattle area, the usually accepted asphalt surface, base course, and subbase have limitations that are generally tolerated based on economic requirements. 15 HEMPHILL A 'perm ent' asphalt surface wc` .d require design and construction procedures similar to the requirements for highway paving. Those procedures require that the existing site soils be investigated and tested for the soil modulous, which determines the amount of deflection that occurs for given loadings. If a structural fill is placed to achieve the required grade, then the soil modulous of that soil must be determined by either laboratory or field testing of the structural fill in its specified compacted condition. A base course and asphalt topping are then designed to distribute the anticipated concentrated wheel loads to the underlying soils in a manner to limit the amount of deflection to the specified amount and to prevent shear failures within the underlying soils. A critical factor to be considered in the design of the base course is the depth of freezing to be anticipated. Generally the cost of the engineering, the testing, and the materials required for a permanent asphalt surface is considered to be excessive. Owners and architects usually consider that repair and replacement is more feasible than the costs for the overdesign required to cover all possible modes of failure. The generally accepted practice is to place a standard thickness of asphalt and base course over the underlying soils that are compacted to 90 or 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum density. Such asphalt surfaces sometimes crack and rut because of shear failures in the subgrade soils after they have softened from freezing and thawing conditions, or from unusually heavy concentrated loads. The failures will occur because the asphalt and base course cannot dissipate the heavy loads to the allowable strength of the underlying soils. THE OWNER SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE ASPHALT PARKING SURFACE, AND SHOULD LIMIT THE ALLOWABLE VEHICLE LOADS. AND SHOULD LOWER THE ALLOWABLE LOADS DURING PERIODS OF THAWING. If drainage is not installed, or if water is to be acceptable in the upper load supporting soils, then free draining soils must be placed as structural fill. If the soils are too fine grained, then water trapped in the pore spaces cannot escape as the soils are compressed under a wheel load, and the load will be temporarily supported by the pore water. Since the water has no strength. a displacement failure will occur where the load punches into the soil. and adjacent soils heave around the load. 16 HEMPHILL E -9A OCL -DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING Because a large portion of the site is covered with silty soils, HEMPHILL recommends that a full depth asphalt pavement be placed directly on any areas with less than 2 feet of structural fill over the existing site soils. The advantages of full depth asphalt without a gravel base course are: a. Water will not collect under the pavement. b. The pavement will be strong enough to . distribute traffic loads where any softening of the soils occurs from thawing conditions. c. There is no gravel to punch into the underlying fine grained, softer soils. d. The thicker asphalt can bridge larger soft spots. e. The thicker asphalt can withstand greater differential settlement. Prior to placement of any full -depth asphalt, the areas to be paved should be proof - rolled to tighten up any loose soils. E -9A1 FULL -DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING FOR TRUCK PARKING Where heavy trucks will be parked during loading and unloading procedures, the pavement should include a 1.5 inch asphalt concrete surface, and a 5.5 inch asphalt concrete base, for a total thickness of 7 inches. E -9A2 FULL -DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING FOR CAR PARKING In areas where only passenger cars will be parked, a pavement with a total thickness of 4 inches will be satisfactory, including a 1 inch asphalt concrete surface and a 3 inch asphalt concrete base. E -9B PAVING FOR PARKING AREAS WITH MORE THAN 2 FEET OF STRUCTURAL FILL If more than 2 feet of select structural fill is placed directly over the existing site soils, an alternate asphalt paving could be: (A filter soil might be required to separate the crushed rock from the structural fill) 17 HEMPHILL 47 E -9B1 PAVING for TRUCK PARKING on STRUCTURAL FILL E -9D ROADWAY PAVING In areas where heavy trucks will be parked, a 4.5 inch thick asphalt surface should be placed over a 4 inch crushed rock base. E -9B2 PAVING FOR CAR PARKING on STRUCTURAL FILL In areas where passenger cars will be parked, a 3 inch thick asphalt surface should be placed over a minimum 3 inch thick crushed rock base. .E -9C ALTERNATE ASPHALT PAVING An alternate asphalt paving for parking areas over natural soils includes a crushed rock base overlain by a thinner asphalt surface. A filter soil might be required to separate the crushed rock from the fine - grained natural soils. E -9C1 FOR HEAVY TRUCKS In areas where heavy trucks will be parked, a 4.5 inch thick asphalt surface should be placed over a 6 inch crushed rock base. E -9C1 FOR PASSENGER CARS In areas where passenger cars will be parked, a 3 inch thick asphalt surface should be placed over a minimum 4 inch thick crushed rock base. Any roadway paving placed on the original . undisturbed site soils can be designed based on a CBR value of 40 or a subgrade modulous of 300 pci. Roadway paving placed on structural fill compacted to 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum densiy can be designed based on a CBR value of 30 or a subgrade modulous of 250 pci. E - RECOMMENDED DESIGN PROCEDURES HEMPHILL should review those portions of the final plans and specifications which pertain to earthwork and foundations to determine that they are consistent with our recommendations, that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted, and that we have not misinterpreted preliminary construction plans, or omitted some recommendations due to design changes, or because of our incomplete knowledge of the project because of the preliminary nature of the project at the time of our involvement. E - 11 RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 1. HEMPHILL should inspect the soils that are exposed during excavating to verify that the the allowable bearing soils have been encountered and that there are no unexpected conditions that would require changes in the foundation design. 2. HEMPHILL should inspect any footing excavations located on or adjacent to slopes to determine that the footings will be placed at the required depth into the undisturbed soils to achieve stability. 3. HEMPHILL should inspect, and if necessary conduct tests, to determine that any fill is composed of the proper soils, and that the required density has been achieved by the compaction process. 4. HEMPHILL should inspect the excavations to verify any suspected groundwater conditions, or to determine any unexpected conditions that will require design changes. 5. HEMPHILL should determine that any drain pipes are placed at the proper locations, and within the proper soils, and that any backfill has the required permeability, and that properly designed and installed filter systems will protect against subsurface soil erosion and clogging of drainage. 19 . HEMPHILL P. f ' REGISTERED ENGINEER NO. 14777 STATE of WASHINGTON HEMPHILL a W1LA City O i Tukwila ; 1909 Frank Todd, Mayor MR. THOMAS M. WALSH Attorney At Law 1111 Third Ave. Bldg. Seattle, WA 98101 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 MC /co cc: Mayor Todd City Attorney Planning Director Acting.Public Works Director Council President Bohrer E. F. McNamara March 3, 1982 Hand - Delivered SUBJECT: MCNAMARA WAIVER APPLICATION 81 -13 -W Mark Caughey Associate Planner This letter is a follow -up to our telephone conversation of this morning wherein I informed you of City Council President L. C. Bohrer's decision not to place the McNamara application before the Council on March 9, 1982, as indicated in my letter to Mr. McNamara of February 16, 1982. Mr. Bohrer requests your cooperation in delaying this matter to the Committee of the Whole meeting of March 23, 1982, so that the Council may complete several pressing matters of legislation which have been under review for some time. The Planning and Public Works Departments have just completed careful re- view of the February 6, 1982 soils report prepared by Hemphill Consulting Engineers; some questions which remain unresolved could best be answered, we believe, by meeting in person with your consultant. We ask, therefore, that you arrange a time mutually convenient for yourself, your client and Hemphill Consultants to meet with us. Mr. Fraser and I will then make every effort to accommodate your schedule. Of course, we should like this meeting to take place as soon as possible. Please call me at 433 -1849 if I can be of assistance. TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Brad Co3. ins, Director Comments received from Phil Fraser, Acting Public Works Director, regarding the soils investigation of 6 February 1982 prepared by Hemphill Consulting Engineers for the McNamara 54 -unit condominium project: A) Page 3, Item S(3), Paragraph 4: The report indicates that extensive excavation occurred on the slopes during construction of Southcenter; however, no mention is made of similar excavation impacts as a result of constructing I -5. The final soils report should evidence coordination with the State Department of Transportation regarding measures taken to mitigate excessive earth removal and drainage problems as a result of these prior slope disturbances. B) Utility Location /Identification: Existing utilities adjacent to and traversing the property should be shown as part of the preliminary soils report so that appropriate conclusions can be reached as to the relationship of surrounding soils to the maintenance of existing utilities. Utilities of concern include sewers, water mains, storm systems and the retaining walls adjoining Klickitat Drive. The manhole near test pit 1 described on Page 5, S(6) paragraph 4 is not, and should be shown on the site analysis drawings. The cautionary note at the top of page 6 is appropriate; however, without adequate research of the existing sewer lines and its location and pur- pose it is difficult to determine whether the sewer line can be relocated as is suggested in the caution note relative to the location of the building 5 foundation. Page 7, Item b: There is an indication that some drainage requirements beneath the project's paving slabs, retaining walls, and foundation walls could require soils of specified grain sizes. Rather than provide the design criteria in this report, it indicates that the requirement should be determined after the excavations have exposed the natural soils and water conditions have been determined. It would seem to me that a report of this nature should provide background data and suggested design criteria to be applied in the final plan. D) Page 10, Item E(5A), Part 2: While the report references foundation placement techniques in undisturbed soils areas, it should include also 'a discussion of appropriate techniques for foundation placement on disturbed soils, since the initial text of the document indicates extensive presence of disturbed soils on this site. MC /blk E) Page 11, Item E -6: This section is entitled "Retaining Walls" and, in brackets, "rockeries." Rockeries are not retaining walls and have no structural significance; therefore, the equation of rockeries to retaining walls is rejected. F) Figure 9: Per the diagram, Fig. 9, Rockery Filter System, we question whether French drains behind the rockery should be included in the design, con- sidering there was mention of a great deal of seepage through the filters of soil in the area. G) Page 19, Item E -11: It appears that there are several instances wherein the report cannot be used to determine preliminary site desi:gn parameters in advance of beginning actual field work. For example, in Item 5 of the "recommened construction procedures" it seems that a determination of the project's ability to pick -up subsurface drainage will be finalized in the field . since an adequate investigation of subsurface conditions is not provided. We know that the State instituted elaborate improvements to deal with the substantial drainage from the hillsides in this area. Similar, though smaller -scale problems can reasonably be presumed to exist on this site and preliminary design alternatives should be discussed in relation to the scope and nature of anticipated drainage problems prior to the construction phase. The preliminary site plan for the project suggests that some portions of the various condominium buildings will be placed on slopes exceeding 20 %, yet no where in the preceding text is placement of foundations relative to slope steepness discussed. Recommendations 1 and 2 suggest that final footing designs should be left to field investi- gation. While the report discusses standard foundations designed for placement in standard soil conditions, unusual soils conditions as they influence stability and configuration of footing structures is not included. Staff believes that design alternatives based on predictable estimations of slope and soil instability should be included in the report. Mr. Brad Collins Director, Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: THOMAS M. WALSH ATTORNEY AT LAW IHI THIRD AVENUE BUILDING. SUITE 2800 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 464 -1580 October 20, 1981 Re: McNamara application 81 -13 -W In response to the City's letter of April 24, 1981, my client retained The Transpo Group to conduct a study and prepare a report of the existing and projected traffic in the vicinity of our proposed development. Enclosed is copy of their report. It is my understanding that, during the time period since the City's April 24 letter, the City has taken steps to downzone the area, including my client's property, to single - family zoning. Therefore, we asked The Transpo Group to consider the potential traffic impact of a "mixed zone" alternative reflecting RMH zoning for the subject property and R -1 zoning for the balance of the project vicinity. The Transpo Group analyzed this alternative along with the others requested in the April 24 letter. The report concludes that the vicinity road system has sufficient capacity to accept the additional traffic to be generated by my client's proposal along with other traffic growth in the area. It also concludes that traffic at the Klickitat /53rd Avenue intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service under all scenarios, except for the scenario of full development of the entire vicinity under the former RMH zoning which now appears unlikely to ever occur. Traffic increases at the Klickitat /53rd Avenue inter- section resulting from growth and development in the Southcenter area will have a more significant impact on the intersection's level of service than development of the subject property and Mr. Brad Collins TMW:pm -2- October 20, 1981 its vicinity. By 1990, it would be desirable to channelize the intersection to provide left -turn lanes on all approaches, but this improvement will be necessary because of general traffic increases and not because of the development of this parcel. The enclosed report confirms our position that the project will not have a significant traffic impact on the vicinity road system. Therefore, we urge the City to move with all due haste to approve this project. Thank you very much for your consideration. V ry truly yours, cc: Mr. Ed McNamara Mr. Jim MacIsaac, The Transpo Group 1st THOMAS M. WALSH o 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 o i l 0 0 0 O o o 0E4 00 Olio/ 0 ul 2 2Z 2 leZz2l 2,Wul W 22 (11 '�22 22 rr y Y Y YrrYYY Y fl\ r) l - , to r o 0 0 0 .9 to 0 t o to 0 Ul o . 1P 0 0! tJl \ 0 i� In prow r . Qrno�fr) Ifi o— O��MN`� vtS1���n / 1 I ( ( (' t ( I • ' t I t I 1 ; I { + 9 m i p 9 r c0 cf I �4 N el - -Q -Q - -I- 4 - a ' tp to ;? .fie P N [ M M M M t Sri if inn di t) 1� h. b b D? �' fi 1 D b � rrt b- - o 0 o c 3 • NN � � o 1) o �a �� r 0 1 j , 1 i I 1 ► ) 1 I 1 ► 1 1 ► / 1 f 1 i , i i t i ► —bb �av'— p i`1 —bN u r �W 0 N p .rte cn p �� .p N 0 W - w ut J (c r - - -('1 ..... Ncn o Uo U vov UN vv 0 vo I ^Pi v r ° , m p Question D: Mary different types of soilh. can be suitable as structural fill, provided that the moisture content can be controlled to achieve proper compaction, therefore availability of the soils, weather, and groundwater conditions can each determine the types of soils that will be suitable for both compaction and drainage. It would be difficult for HEMPHILL to specify any filter soils, drainage soils, or capillary break soils that would be suitable for use with each of the wide range of soils that would be suitable for use at the site under each of the conditions. Such a list of specified filter and drainage soils would still require a person skilled in soil mechanics to recognize the structural soil. Some man -made materials are also available for use as filters that, under some difficult situations, can save much construction time. Interaction between the soil engineer and the contractor can benefit the contractor by saving time and making more materials available, thereby lowering construction costs. The contractor can request approval of available soils under different construction conditions, and can use construction methods that are more suitable to his equipment and knowledge with the approval of the soil engineer. Such flexibility can be of benefit to the owner, and still assure that the intended results are achieved. HEMPHILL has determined that no disturbed soils at the site are suitable bearing soils. Generally the description 'disturbed' soils means soils that have been softened due to the weathering process, such as freezing and thawing, and wetting and drying, that have been loosened by root action, by sliding and sloughing, or by man disturbance. Disturbed soils are generally inconsistent and are considered to be low in bearing and high in compressibility. The only soils permitted by HEMPHILL for bearing are the natural, undisturbed soils described as glacially compacted clays, silts, and sands. Because of the inconsistency of those soils at the site, HEMPHILL cannot specify a consistent depth to the proper bearing soils; also some soils could be difficult for untrained persons to recognize. The other soil type that can be a suitable bearing soil is structural fill. Structural fill can be composed of a wide range of soils that must be placed in a controlled condition that is not 2 HEMPHILL r nece - sarily consistent with diferent soils. Question E: A properly designed and constructed rockery is structural. Structural indicates that all of the physical parameters of the rockery are known, and the rockery can be placed in a specified manner within a reasonable range that is exceeded by the safety factor. The same soil parameters are required for the design of a rockery as are required for the design of a reinforced concrete retaining wall, except that the rockery is a series of retaining walls with overturn and sliding points at each intersection of rock. Enclosed is a computer printout of a rockery design. The various parameters used in this program are exactly the same as the parameters that would be used for the design of any retaining wall, and like any retaining wall the data that is used is only as good as the control of the construction. Question F: The rockery filter system is necessary to prevent the soils behind the rockery from either pushing or eroding through the void spaces in the rockery. The large crushed rock behind the main rockery members prevents the next sequence of finer grained soils from eroding through the rock voids, creating void spaces behind the rockery that would eventually work to the ground surface and create subsidence. The number of different grain size layers required behind a rockery is dependent upon the void size or the rockery vs the grain size of the structural fill or natural soils that must be prevented from moving into the void spaces of the next larger filter material. Filter soils of this type can be incorporated into a drainage system, but are also necessary even without the drainage. Question G: Soil conditions can be highly variable, often times within short distances, and therefore not revealed by the subsurface investigation. Soil properties can also vary greatly with different weather conditions. Soils are often affected different ways by different construction procedures that are not obvious to the untrained technician. 3 HEMPHILL .T- The Complexity of soils and gr‘.rndwater conditions are such that a soil report that answers all possible conditions would be extremely complex, and difficult to comprehend, and each range of condition would not be obvious to an untrained technician, therefore the section of the soil report titled, "Recommended Construction Procedures ", is to allow HEMPHILL to observe and control any phases of contstruction that are affected by soils and groundwater. There are numerous slopes at the site, and some footings will be placed on slopes. The required depth that a footing would be placed into a slope to resist the lateral uphill pressures is dependent upon the height of soils on the uphill portion of the footing wall, the type and condition of the backfill soils, the strength of the soils on the slope, and the steepness of the slope. Since those conditions can all be variable, and the combination of the those variable conditions could become very complex, then the final placing of those footings should not be the decision of the contractor, or anyone not knowledgeable in soil mechanics. Some soil information is sometimes required for design purposes, and estimates of the worst conditions are presented to the structural engineer. That information should not be presented to the contractor to be used at his descretion, or . to be used as an indication of exact conditions to be expected throughout the site. Since structural designs are sometimes based on the estimated worst conditions, footings and foundation walls can sometimes be raised with the approval of the soil engineer to the benefit of the owner. C. Hemphill, P.. Registered Engineer No. 14777 State of Washington HEMPHILL Comments received from Phil Fraser, Acting Public Works Director, regarding the soils investigation of 6 February 1982 prepared by Hemphill Consulting Engineers for the McNamara 54 -unit condominium project: A) Page 3, Item S(3), Paragraph 4: The report indicates that extensive excavation occurred on the slopes during construction of Southcenter; however, no mention is made of similar excavation impacts as a result of constructing I -5. The final soils report should evidence coordination with the State Department of Transportation regarding measures taken to mitigate excessive earth removal and drainage problems as a result of these prior slope disturbances. B) Utility Location /Identification: Existing utilities adjacent to and traversing the property should be shown as part of the preliminary soils report so that appropriate conclusions can be reached as to the relationship of surrounding soils to the maintenance of existing utilities. Utilities of concern include sewers, water mains, storm systems and the retaining walls adjoining Klickitat Drive. The manhole near test pit 1 described on Page 5, S(6) paragraph 4 is not, and should be shown on the site analysis drawings. The cautionary note at the top of page 6 is appropriate; however, without adequate research of the existing sewer lines and its location and pur- pose it is difficult to determine whether the sewer line can be relocated as is suggested in the caution note relative to the location of the building 5 foundation. Page 7, Item b: There is an indication that some drainage requirements beneath the project's paving slabs, retaining walls, and foundation walls could require soils of specified grain sizes. Rather than provide the design criteria in this report, it indicates that the requirement should be determined after the excavations have exposed the natural soils and water conditions have been determined. It would seem to me that a report of this nature should provide background data and suggested design criteria to be applied in the final plan. D) Page 10, Item E(5A), Part 2: While the report references foundation placement techniques in undisturbed soils areas, it should include also a discussion of appropriate techniques for foundation placement on disturbed soils, since the initial text of the document indicates extensive presence of disturbed soils on this site. E) Page 11. Item E -0: This section is entitled "Retaining Walls" and, in brackets, "rockeries." Rockeries are not retaining walls and have no structural significance; therefore, the equation of rockeries to retaining walls is rejected. F) Figure 9: Per the diagram, Fig. 9, Rockery Filter System, we question whether French drains behind the rockery should be included in the design, con- sidering there was mention of a great deal of seepage through the filters of soil in the area. G) Page 19, Item E -11: It appears that there are several instances wherein the report cannot be used to determine preliminary site design parameters in advance of beginning actual field work. For example, in Item 5 of the "recommened construction procedures" it seems that a determination of the project's ability to pick -up subsurface drainage will be finalized in the field since an adequate investigation of subsurface conditions is not provided. We know that the State instituted elaborate improvements to deal with the substantial drainage from the hillsides in this area. Similar, though smaller -scale problems can reasonably be presumed to exist on this site and preliminary design alternatives should be discussed in relation to the scope and nature of anticipated drainage problems prior to the construction phase. The preliminary site plan for the project suggests that some portions of the various condominium buildings will be placed on slopes exceeding 20 %, yet no where in the preceding text is placement of foundations relative to slope steepness discussed. Recommendations 1 and 2 suggest that final footing designs should be left to field investi- gation. While the report discusses standard foundations designed for placement in standard soil conditions, unusual soils conditions as they influence stability and configuration of footing structures is not . included. Staff believes that design alternatives based on predictable estimations of slope and soil instability should be included in the report. MC/blk THOMAS M. WALSH Dear Mr. Collins: ATTORNEY AT LAW 1111 THIRD AVENUE BUILDING, SUITE 2600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (2061 464 -1580 May 22, 1981 Mr. Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 WHEW ' MAY 21 1981 CITY OF TUKWII.A PLANNING DEPT. Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1981, regarding the scheduling of our application for review by the City Council. On April 24, 1981, Mark Caughey requested additional information from us regarding traffic and soils. Mr. McNamara and I met with you and Mr. Caughey on April 28 to discuss this request for additional information. Following our meeting, Mr. McNamara retained the con- sultant services of the Transpo Group to gather the necessary traffic information to respond to your request. In addition, Mr. McNamara has retained consultant services to respond to your request for information on soils. The consultants are now in the process of gathering information and preparing written responses to your request. As you know, gathering this information and responding to your request is a time consuming and expensive process. I will forward the information to you as soon as it has been gathered and put in appropriate form for your review. I can tell you now that the preliminary results of our additional work indicate that the project will not have a significant impact on traffic flow in the area and the soils are adequate to allow the development we have proposed. It is unfortunate that Mr. McNamara must undergo the delay and bear the expense of this additional work to show what we already know - -that our proposed project is suitable for this ,.. Mr. Brad Collins May 22, 1981 Page Two site. However, in the interest of cooperation with the City, we will be providing you the information you request- ed. TMW:jb cc: Mr. Ed McNamara Ver truly yours, c GVVt (jig ti THOMAS M. WALSH J A 1906 20 May 1981 BC/blk City of Tukwila Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor Thomas W. Walsh, Attorney -at -Law Suite 2600, 1111 3rd Avenue Bldg. Seattle, WA 98101 Subject: Application 81 -13 -W: McNamara Waiver Request In a telephone communication with Mark Caughey in early May you indicated to Mark that Mr. McNamara has retained 'Transpo Group" to complete a traffic study of the street network surrounding his McMicken Heights property. During this conversation you thought that the materials on trans- portation and geology associated with the McNamara site would be submitted by now. At last night's City Council meeting (City Council now meets on Tuesday nights), the McNamara application was put forward one week as you re- quested, anticipating that the traffic study and other material requested in our letter to you of 24 April 1981 would be submitted for our review in time for the 26 May 1981 Committee -of- the - Whole. It appears now that with the 26th approaching rapidly, there may not be sufficient time to conduct adequate review of the material prior to that meeting, since we have not yet received it from you. All of this brings me to the point of the letter: That is, we would like to have an indica- tion of a probable date at which you anticipate submitting the material to us. If necessary, we would also ask your concurrence to put forward Council review to the Carmittee-of- the -Whole meeting of 9 June 1981 to allow adequate prior review by staff. Please advise us as soon as you can relative to these matters, and thanks as always for your cooperation. Tukwila Planning Department, Brad Collins Planning Director Thomas Walsh, Atty. Suite 2600 1111 Third Ave. Bldg. Seattle, WA 98101 (- City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor Subject: Application 81 -13 -W: McNamara Waiver request 24 April 1981 At the City Council's regular meeting of 20 April, 1981, the subject application was put - forward on the calender approximately thirty days to allow time for staff analysis of materials presented by your design team on 13 April 1981. To assist us in this effort, we are requesting your help in providing or clarifying some of the research material we shall need to respond to the Council. As principal spokesperson for Mr. McNamara, we believe that you are the appropriate coordinator of information flow betweeen the project's consultant group and the City. If for any reason you are not at ease with serving in that capacity, please advise me as to the appropriate person with whom we should be speaking. Areas of concern for which we ask your help are as follows: A) Traffic: In his presentation, Mr. Tsao referenced some statistical data regarding project - specific traffic generation intensity and carrying capacity for S3rd Avenue So. and other streets in the immediate McMicken Heights area. We request that Mr. Tsao's analy - sis be provided to us in written form, and that it address the follow- ing topics: a) Peak hour trip generation activity of the project. b) Maximum carrying capacity of 53rd Ave. S., compared to present volumes. c) Comparative theoretical traffic volumes on 53rd Ave.. S., Klickitat Drive, and the residential street network of that postion of McMicken Heights within the Tukwila corporate limits assuming full build -out of all existing RMH properties in McMicken Heights at 20 D.U. /ac., and ,5 D.U. /ac. as provided in the Comprehensive Plan. f Page -2- Tom Walsh 24 April '•1981 d) In concert with 'item c), discuss intersection capacity for the Klickitat /53rd Ave. junction under each of the alternatives above: i.e., present volume conditions, build -out of "RMi" and build -out of "R -1 ". The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate conclusively the incremen- tal impact that the proposed McNamara project will have on both existing and anticipating neighborhood traffic conditions. Also, since the Council is concerned that the land -use intensity level which may be approved for the McNamara property will influence the development pattern for other RM-i- zoned sites in McMicken Heights, we are asking you to help us understand the neighborhood wide/ traffic - engineering implications of such a precedent - setting approval action. The foregoing outline is offered to try to des- cribe the response that we are anticipating -- feel free to add other inputs as you see fit, keeping in mind the general objectives which we have des- cribed. B) Soils/Geographic Stability: Over the past several years, the City has been provided with fragmentary input on soil conditions in the easterly- M.Micken Heights area. We believe that the Council would be helped greatly in their efforts to render a fair decision on your project if a comprehensive, clearly summarized soils investigation was prepared by Mr. Hong. Some of the material which appeared in his letter of 13 April 1981 as presented to Council would seem to form a good basic outline for a more exhaustive analysis. The basic question to which the Council is seeking a conclusive answer is that if unstable soil conditions, either surface -level or sub- terran- ean exist, can such conditions be overcome by foundation design and site - grading which will not require excessive modification of existing ground - contour, expecially by cutting? We recognize that the complexity level and degree of detail requested in this correspondence go beyond that which is usually presented in the context of a waiver application. However, I think you will agree with me that the circumstances of the present case are rather unique, in that the Council has spent much time agonizing over land use decisions in this part of the Tukwila community without making much headway. We hope that by providing Council with a detailed analysis of some of the problem areas which have come up time -and- again without resolution, they can be helped toward the development of a clear, unambiguous land use policy for ItMicken Heights, and along therewith an expeditious decision on the McNamara proposal. Please call me if you have any question; and thanks as always for your cooperation. MC /blk xc: Ping. Dir. Proj. Plnr. Tukwila g Dept. Caughey Associate Planner TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITT).OF THE WHOLE MEETING July 28, 1981 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Update on McNamara Condominium Waiver request. NEW BUSINESS P &L Co. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. *MOTION CARRIED, AS CORRECTED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES AS PUBLISHED: JUNE 29, 1981 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW, JULY 6, 1981 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW, JULY 1.3, 1981 ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW, JULY 14, 1981 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. * Councilman Phelps noted Page 15, Line 5, of the July 14 Minutes and asked for a clarification. She said "for the six years she was employed in the City the policy has been that the Fire Department check the fire hydrants." Also, the extent of her state- ment concerning the Xerox Building was that the Professional Office zoning allows retail use but only up to 50% of the development; not that their use would be contrary to the zoning, It is not. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED. Brad Collins said he has been in contact with Mr. Wallace, attorney for Mr. McNamara. Mr. Wallace indicated they would not be ready to come back to Council by August 11. He asked what Council wanted to do about the request based on their decision on zoning at the Zoning Review Meeting of July 13. Is the information still essential to a decision on the waiver process? Attorney Hard said it would be appropriate to table this request until they are ready to come back to Council with all of the requested information. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE McNAMARA WAIVER REQUEST BE TABLED UNTIL THE INFORMATION COUNCIL REQUESTED IS RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WHEN IT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE NEXT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Collins explained that the Planning Commission recommended this item be forwarded to Council with certain stipulations. At the July meeting of the Planning Commission they took action on the rezone and it will come to Council at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. Attorney Hard said, referring to Stipulation No. 1, that the law in the State of California is clear and will probably affect the State of Washington, that a City cannot pass an ordinance rezoning property with a deadline that is in the future. He recommended that Council not impose this kind of a condition. Councilman Johanson suggested that, if this is the case, Council not consider rezoning until the completed plans are available. Mr. Richard McCann, attorney for P &L Company, explained that Mr. Lynch and Mr. Patterson are developers of the existing Xerox facility and will be the developer on this new proposal. They have met with the neighbors to hear their concerns and feel that they have them all resolved at this time. Staff has also recommended a number of conditions and the developers have no objection to them. He urged Council to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Their project, as proposed, will be a benefit to the City of Tukwila. Mr. McCann explained that retail use is not planned for the building, it is intended to be office space. The function of the new building is about the same as the existing building. It is not their intention to include accessory non - retail uses. Mithun Associates of Bellevue designed the building. The plans have been reviewed by the Planning Commission. One of the recommendations is that final site plans be subject to'BAR review. Councilman Hill asked about the access and egress to this property. Mr. McCann explained that the primary access will be to the south through the existing property. They will have an easement recorded to protect this access. There is a limited access proposed for 65th, TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMJ E OF THE WHOLE MEETING April 13, 1981 Pag. 3 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. Shimatsu Rezone - request from R -1 to C -2 - contd. Bob Scofield, real estate broker, said he had worked with the Shimatsu family for about three years, discussing plans to bring an income to the family from the property. He said they walked from McDonalds to Levitz. They discussed what a reasonable approach would be. They had topographical surveys done. They believe the 250' line was a reasonable line. It was far less destructive to the hillside. If soils were put in and sloped up to the existing slope you would have better stability. With that plan they went to the Planning Commission and they felt it was their recommendation that Mrs. Shimatsu be able to utilize the 250 feet by not cutting into the bank. He said it was a surprise to hear the recommendation from the Planning Department. He said he thought the recommendation they have made is a reasonable proposal. It will be the best looking hillside along there. The Shimatsu family is reputable, they will put in the lease that development cannot take place beyond the 250 feet. What they are asking is reasonable. He said they will be happy to cooperate in saving the hillside. Councilman Bohrer said it is his understanding that the agreement'. the Shimatsu family has with the tenant is on a per square foot basis. Mr. Scofield said it is conditional upon zoning, platting, etc. If there is no rezone there is no deal, if 20 feet is lopped off the price is down. Councilman Johanson said in Mr. Scofield's assistance to the family did he not know the City had discussed the 20 foot slope. Mr. Scofield said he has not done work in the City and when he read it he was not sure what it was aimed at, residential or what. It still is not clear. Councilman Johanson said it is general criteria. Councilman Harris said if the rezone is done the property owners will have to participate in the LID. The R -1 was exempt. Mrs. Shimatsu said she had already paid for the LID in the amount of approixmately $10,000. Councilman Harris said a check would be made to see if it was already paid. Councilman Hill asked if the fill is put in how much higher will it be than Zachs? Mrs. Shimatsu said it would be about 22" higher. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE SHIMATSU REZONE REQUEST BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Van Dusen said staff will draw up two ordinances, one using staff recommendation and the other the Planning Commission recommendation. McNamara Condo Tom Walsh, 1111 3rd Avenue, Seattle, attorney for Mr. McNamara, said Waiver - Request for their 54 unit proposal is a new one. The architect will define 54 units. how the trees will be saved, the planner will describe the project, and the soils engineer will offer a soils analysis. Councilman Bohrer said staff has suggested that Council delay any decision on this matter until the new zoning ordinance /map review is completed. Larry Hard, City Attorney, said if someone has completed all of the steps to be heard on a waiver request, they are entitled to have the matter considered. Councilman Bohrer said this waiver request is similar to another proposal that was denied by Council. City Attorney Hard said he did not know, but he thought Council should go through the steps. Bill Tsao, engineer, explained the planned development of 54 condos with wall charts. He said trees would be planted to surround the area and there will be doubled glazed windows and insulation to cut out the noise from the freeway. It goes much beyond the code requirements. Regarding the height of the building roof elevation of 170', it is only 21/2' above 53rd Avenue South. Drainage has been TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMI April 13, 1981 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. McNamara Waiver - 54 units Condo Request for - contd. ..E OF THE WHOLE MEETING provided. Traffic on 52nd Avenue is two way. It will accommodate 15,000 vehicles per day. With the 54 units the maximum would be 250 to 260 additional cars daily. Mr. Tsao listed his professional qualifications. Mr. James Braman, Planner, said the site meets the criteria customari felt by planners to be necessary for good multiple residential devel- opment. It has excellent access to the regional freeways without the necessity of travelling through single family neighborhoods. A bus stop is located within easy walking distance. Southcenter is approximately one -half mile from the site, operates as a terminal for several local and regional bus routes. The shopping and employme opportunities of Southcenter and the industrial parks are within cycling and walking distance. Although there are a few scattered houses on large lots near the site, the nearest densely developed single family neighborhood is about 700' from.the site and separated from the site by steep slopes. The nearest homes in McMicken Heights lie at an elevation more than 125' higher than the highest part of the proposal site. The multifamily development will allow a greater number of persons to enjoy the view potential of the site. A higher investment in soundproofing is feasible for multifamily development because of the savings inherent in common wall construc- tion. Multifamily development will allow clustering of units and efficient parking layout to maximize the amount of natural vegeta- tion that can be retained in a buffer around the perimeter. The site's proximity to parkland, which lies across 53rd Avenue to the west, and to the Tukwila trail system, enhances its use for multifamily development. Construction of single family homes on the site would be inappropriate since the noise level of traffic on I -5 and SF -518 is extremely high. Development of single family homes on individual sites would result in disruption of the topography and natural growth. Multifamily development of this site would be consistent with existing pattern of development around I -5 and SF 518 interchange. Mr. Braman said people would not pass through the residential areas from the condominium project. Mr. Braman referred to the table they had prepared, showing the relation to the comprehensive plan goals and policies. He said they felt the plan is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Sa Hong, soils engineer, said he visited the site to review the existing slop conditions as well as subsoils. He said two test pits were dug on the slope. The retaining walls along Klickital were inspected to detect any soil movement in the vicinity of the site. The walls showed no signs of cracks or movement. The walls are well designed to withstand the earth pressure from the slope. Mr. Hong said he found that medium brown clay silt or sandy silt encountered on the site has competent shear strength characteristics. The on -site stiff silt will not create landslides because the existing slope is very gentle and the stiff silt has favorable shear strength characteristics . to withstand any probable slide on the site. A residential dwelling located at the north of the site shows no indication of slide damage. Surface drainage is oriented towards the northeast direction. No severe erosion was observed. During construction the site work will include the storm drainager retention and pipe systems. Test borings conducted at the other property improvement located immediately south of 47th Avenue South showed that the subsoils were over - consolidated, and found to be competent. He said based on all of these observations, it is his opinion that no slide conditions exist in the subject site. Mr. Walsh, attorney for the developer, said (verbatim transcript) they had checked with Mr. Fraser to see if there was anything they had not covered in the history of slides at this site or in the area that would affect this site and the response we got was negative. There was no knowledge of any slides on this site or in the area that would affect it. I would like to wrap up and again I would like to briefly review the waiver criteria and to respond briefly to the comments in the staff report. The first waiver criteria asks whether or not this proposal represents a unique condition? We believe it is. The staff also agrees that it is. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMM =E OF THE WHOLE MEETING April 13, 1981 Paga 5 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. McNamara Condo Waiver - Request for 54 units - contd. We have a difference in our reasons for why we say "yes." The staff says it is because it is the first intensification of resi- dential land use pattern in the east McMicken Heights area. As you have heard this evening, however, the residential land use pattern of east McMicken Heights is a considerable distance and 135' above this particular site so we are not going to affect the exsiting single family residential concentrated area. The second criteria asks whether or not our proposal was significant in scale. We believe that it is not for the reasons that we cited in our application for a waiver. The staff however indicates that we are not keeping our modifications to an absolute minimum. However, it is our contention that there is really very little difference between the modifications that are being made in our proposal and what would be made in single family development that we are keeping the modifications approxi- mately the same as would be the case for single family as you heard from previous witnesses. Secondly, the staff says that other properties in the area will develop at similar intensity. It is our view that it is not a valid argument because we simply cannot make decisions based on speculation as to what may occur in the future. If you are concerned about future development in the area then the way to resolve that of course is through rezoning the property through the appropriate rezoning procedures. Also, we believe that we have sufficient natural buffering in distance and topography to protect the single family neighborhoods from any potential multiple family development in this area. Number 3, are there any reasonable alternatives available which would not require a waiver? We say none are available, we believe that single family, which the staff indicates is not reasonable, for all of the reasons that you have heard this evening. Criteria Number 4, are sufficient mitigating measures provided? We question, first of all, the extent to which mitigation is required and to the extent it is required we believe we are adequately providing that mitigation. Let's go through the three main areas where we need to be concerned about that. One is soils. Our soils engineer, as you have heard, has testified that the soils are stable, that we do not have a soils problem on this site. We believe that the environmental base map which at least indicated one area perhaps there may be a question, we believe that map painted.. with too broad a brush and should'not include this site, as our testimony has shown. What about water run -off in drainage? We have explained we will have the reten- tion system and a metered flow system, the rate of flow under our proposal will be no greater than the rate of flow that currently exists on the development. And finally, looking at the questions of trees, as we have shown, we have mapped every tree of significant size and noted we are saving over 80% of the existing trees of any relative size. In addition, we are adding additional trees and overall tripling the number of trees on the site. The staff says that you are taking our word for it that we are providing adequate mitigating conditions, but I think based upon what we have brought you tonight you can see that you are not having to take our word for it, I think we have shown you the facts regarding any potential concerns and the extent to which we have mitigated them. Criteria Number 5 asks whether or not we are consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Now, as we indicated in our application, it is indicated in the matrix attached to Mr. Braman's report to you, we have reviewed every applicable goal and policy in the comprehensive plan and shown you that we do in fact comply. In response to the staff report, we have discussed the fact that one building is in an area of greater than 20% slope but as testified by our experts it will be safe and we have no cause for concern with that building. Criteria Number 6, would the waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site? Everyone agrees that it will. Number 7, does this approval necessitate a.major policy commitment prior to adoption of the new zoning ordinance and map? We believe that approval of our project does not necessitate a major policy commitment because the existing law, the zoning, the comprehensive plan policy, SEPA, allow this develop- ment to occur. In addition, existing market forces all point to multifamily development of this site. It is the only possible residential use of the property, that is multifamily. Asmuch as TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMI( E OF THE WHOLE MEETING April 13, 1981 Page 6 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. McNamara Waiver - 54 units Condo Request for - contd. some people might like to see single family here, it simply is not going to happen given the current market forces. Single family makes no sense on this site. Therefore, we believe that to do what existing law allows and what market forces dictate is the only reasonable course and that is not a major policy commitment. We believe that to deny our waiver, in fact, would be the major policy commitment, because that would be the major policy of change. There would be a change from what the existing law allows and a change from market forces have dictated. So we believe that to deny our waiver in fact would be the major policy commitment. With those reasons, we believe we do satisfy the waiver criteria and it is justified to grant us the waiver in this case. I have mentioned before and I would like to remind you in closing that we would very much urge you to not delay your decision. It makes no sense in this case. We don=t know how long it is going to take to do the zoning, we have complied with all of the requirements in terms of applications. We ask that you make a decision tonight or if not tonight certainly within the next couple of weeks if you can. Finally, we have a letter from our appraiser who has reviewed the site and looked at the values inherent and would like to submit appropriate number of copies to the clerk. Are there any questions? Councilman Johanson said when Mr. Hong referred in his analysis to a couple of core studies that he accomplished, what is the date? He said they had been taken previously. Mr. Hong said they had been taken in 1969. Dick Goe, Tukwila resident, said he wondered why it was necessary to have an international engineering firm like William Tsao or an international soils expert or multi -state architect or the interna- tional firm of CH2M Hill do that piece of property. They have put on a great show for us. It is the same project they presented before. The only thing that is different is that they tell you it is different. He said he could not see anything that was changed. We have it a little more in detail. The only way you can mitigate noise is to put up fir trees to a 100' depth. They are not going to do it, they can't. He said he took a look at the statistics. Mr. Tsao gave the ability of 53rd to handle, not just 53rd, it is that type of street, 15,000 cars per day. At 24 hours per day that puts us 625 vehicles per hour that that street could accommodate which means we could put in a lot of these projects around the hillside, if the intersections could take it. We already know they cannot take that kind of volume. They can't take it now with the volume they have. The interesection of 53rd and Klickitat is frequently clogged with people coming down 53rd. He said he travels it so he knows. The volume who travel between the 518 corridor and the I -5 corridor across that little corner there, whether they are coming through off 51st or coming off 518 heading toward Southcenter or 253rd or whether they are coming out of Southcenter create sufficient traffic at certain times of day that 53rd is virtually blocked in getting onto Klickitat. It does not happen all day long, it just happens at certain times of the day. But because of that same volume, people who want to turn left on 53rd have got the same kind of traffic flow, the same kind of traffic hazard to face trying to cross one lane of traffic to get onto a street that can handle 15,000 vehicular trips a day. We have been told there are many things that we do not have to worry about because they have been sure in their arguments and their presentations that everything that has been brought up before has been answered. Not necessarily appropriately, not necessarily properly, but it has been answered. It is my suggestion that you not be dazzled by the footwork. Consider as much wilt they haven't said as what they have said. Mr. Ed Bauch, Tukwila citizen, said he would like to point out something that the citizens already know, but what the soils enginee was unaware of, and that is in 1959 the whole hillside slid away. It slid again when they built the freeway. Within the last two or three weeks the City has spent many man hour on the hill putting gravel in and repairing the street that is sliding down again. It does it every year. I don't know when he went out there but the soils engineer must have gone during the dry spell. That hill does slide and has slid. All of you are aware of that. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMM( :E OF THE WHOLE MEETING April 13, 1981 , •Page 7 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. McNamara Condo Ethel Cole, Tukwila citizen, said she has been fighting for Waiver - Request for several years to keep apartments off'the hill. They make beauti- 54 units - contd. ful signs, they make beautiful presentations. She said she knew they made these same presentations when they werethinking about 42nd Avenue. If any of you have made a trip down 42nd Avenue within a couple of months all of those beautiful trees have been bulldozed off to put something in. She said even when they put in single family homes they doze the hill and take off the growth. It has been single family residence up there. We have plenty of places in King County where they aren't so particular as they are where she lives. Tukwila is a nice residential area up on the hill. On 42nd and Military and up in there they have made one apartment house after another and the country is nothing like it was before. Most of them look like just what they are -- apartment houses. She said she thought we should keep single family residence the way it has always been on the hill. Thomas Morris, Tukwila, said some of the engineers, architects, and planners have stated their credentials in their field. He said his credentials were in the humanitarians. If these apart- ments go in we will have a greater density of people, a larger police force. We have gone through this before. Mr. Goe has done an excellent job. The traffic up 160th is bad. In order to leave the area we go the other way just to escape the congestion. We are opposed to increasing the density on the hill. Mr. John Barnes, 15814 58th Avenue South, said everytime this . development comes up he hears the same arguments. He said he was brought into Tukwila with the promise that his property would be RMH in the next six or seven years. He said he had heard a lot of arguments as to why it should be changed back to R -1. He said he hears the arguments as to how the pople on the hill are going to get hurt, but what about his loss? He said that is the way he feels about it. He said he has no objections to the plans formulated tongiht. This is the fourth time he has gone over it. Larry Hard, City Attorney, said he thought the Council would have to consider the waiver request that has been properly submitted. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE MCNAMARA CONDOMINIUM WAIVER REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR 54 UNITS BE ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Golf Course Leasehold Acting Administrative Assistant Joe Mathews said it is the Tax Resolution. recommendation of staff to have one monetary contract for the golf course leasehold tax. He said the Tax Audit Division has taken the position that the City's contract with Golf Course Management involves 3 separate contracts: Golf Course Lease, House Rental, and Equipment Lease. Larry Hard, City Attorney, said the proposed resolution is being offered so it will be one monetary contract and not piece -meal. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE ON THE AGENDA OF APRIL 20, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Call for Bids for LID Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said he would like to call #30 Str. Improvement for bids on LID #30 as soon as possible. City Attorney Hard said Project. the City has reached an impasse and will have to start condemnation proceedings. Some money should be put in escrow. It is about $12,OC Mayor Todd said we do not want to buy the property unless we know we are going to need it. Councilman Bohrer asked about the time involved in getting the condemnation. City Attorney Hard said he did not know what the calendar was, but the lawsuit can be filed this week. Councilman Bohrer said he thought it is foolish to go out for bids until we know the time element and know if the condemnation goes through. Mayor Todd said this could stall the final assessment roll. City Attorney Hard said if the City gets the court order TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING April 13, 1981 Page 8 NEW BUSINESS - contd. Call for Bids for LID then we can go ahead and construct. The condemnation can start #30 Str. Improvement this week. The call for bids can be delayed one or two weeks. Project - contd. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to see what the City's potential risk is. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE CALL FOR BIDS • FOR LID #30 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE APRIL' 20, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Legislative amendments MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE to SEPA. ON THE AGENDA OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT 11:00 P.M. MOVED BY. HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Gary L. Van Dusen, Council President Norma Booher, Recording Secretary TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, RUC ',R MEETING April 20, 1981 ;age 8 NEW BUSINESS - Continued Ordinance #1210 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -1 -7.2 to C -2 (Shimatsu) (cont.) McNamara Condo- - minium Waiver (McMicken Hts.) 3/7- Section 3. New Paragraph B: Any development of the property hereby rezoned will not involve cutting into the hill beyond the toe -of -slope (approximate elevation of 25 ft. MSLD). Placement of fill material shall be allowed in the C -2 zone, provided that the finished grade of the fill is consistent with that of the adjoining property to the south. Section 3. Paragraph C: Changed only by adding "grading and" in third sentence between architecture and landscaping. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1210 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Councilman Harris asked about the fill. Attorney Hard said the wording "consistent with that of the adjoining property to the south" was intentionally kept in there. Mr. Collins said the words would have to be interpreted by the B.A.R. It does not necessarily mean it is exactly the same grade level. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. Mayor Todd called attention to the memorandum from Thomas M. Walsh, Attorney. Memo contained statements of qualifications for the planning consultants who prepared the report on the McNamara proposal. Mr. Thomas M. Walsh, Attorney for Ed McNamara, noted that the site in McMicken Heights is very appropriate for multi - family use. . It is adequately buffered from the single family by topo- graphy. He asked Council to approve the request. They would like Council to make the decision now instead of waiting for the Comprehensive Zoning Plan to be completed. It is important for Council to make decisions on pending applications. Councilman Van Dusen asked if Staff has had time to analyze the data submitted last week. Mr. Collins said, no. Mr. Walsh said they have submitted all of the information mentioned last week. Mr. Caughey, Planning Department, said that some of the information was presented in verbal form. Councilman Van Dusen suggested Council defer action on this until: (1) Council has had the hearing on the zoning map, and (2) Staff has had time to respond to the additional information. He sug- gested this be tabled to the 19th of May. Mr. Walsh said he felt this would be unfair to the applicant. They have gone to a great deal of effort to furnish Council the infor- mation and have submitted everything they have been asked for. He said he was under the assumption a decision would be made to- night. To delay it would be contrary to what they believe to be expeditious and fair proceedings. Waiting until the city holds a hearing on a totally separate process is not fair. Given the existing laws and rules on which the city is required to make a decision - -a decision must be made one way or the other. He asked Council to face the decision and make it. Councilman Van Dusen said we need to know if all questions have been resolved. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL RESCHEDULE THE MCNAMARA CONDOMINIUM WAIVER TO MAY 19TH AND ALLOW A DIS- CUSSION PERIOD ON THE MOTION.* Councilman said he would like time for staff to check the information and submit a report to the Council. Councilman Bohrer said he noted that there was additional infor- mation submitted at the last meeting. The purpose of the waiver process is to allow staff time to consider the information. TUK4+, 'ILA CITY COUNCIL, REQ \R MEETING April 20, 1981 age 9 NEW BUSINESS - Continued McNamara Condo- minium Waiver (McMicken Hts.) (cont.) Christensen Group Hotel Waiver- -for 8 story hotel tower (Christensen Rd.) Criteria No. 1 Criteria No. 2 Attorney Hard said Council cannot go out and independently seek information. The applicant is entitled to know what information Council is taking into consideration when granting a decision. Councilman Harris said she is not satisfied with the 1969 soil's report. Attorney Hard said Council has a right to visit the property, but not to perform any type of test. Council has to weigh the infor- mation submitted. Councilman Bohrer said it is very important based on this, that staff has time to look at the data. Mr. Walsh mentioned that they have no objection to Council getting as much information as is necessary and with staff having time to prepare a report. A project can be killed by delay. He asked Council to bear this in mind. When the information is there, please make a decision. Councilman Phelps said she can make a decision without hearing all the input on the new zoning map. She asked for clarification on the soil's test report as to when some of the tests were done. Mr. Walsh said they will submit a written report to staff. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK TO COUNCIL AT HIS DISCRETION. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Harris asked why the number of units requested has been changed from 33 to 54. Mr. Walsh said (1) The initial proposal was for tri -plex units. The new concept will allow a greater number of units without additional impact on the site; (2) The applicant feels very strongly that any proposal with substantially less than the number of units currently allowed under the existing zoning is not economically feasible. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 1. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - HILL - VAN DUSEN - BOHRER - JOHANSON - HARRIS - PHELPS - YES YES YES NO NO NO YES *MOTION CARRIED: 4 - YES; 3 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 2. Is the proposed action significant in scale ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - NO BOHRER - YES JOHANSON - YES HARRIS - NO PHELPS - YES SAUL - YES *MOTION CARRIED: 5 - YES; 2 - NO. _.3/76 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION AGENDA ITEM . (81 -13 -W) - McNamara Waiver INTRODUCTION The applicants are requesting pre- liminary waiver approval for 54 condominium units on 2.7 acres in the McMicken Heights neighborhood. This application is nearly identi- cal with that which was presented to the Council last Fall (M.F. 80- 41-W) , and which was denied on 17 November 1980. This application also represents the third effort by Mr. McNamara to obtain Council approval of a multi- family resi- ' dential project on this site, the first application for 33 units having been denied in May, 1979. Once again, the waiver action is necessary for two reasons: . - Inconsistency between Comprehensive Land Use Plan Category and Existing Zoning Clarification: At this time, the property is zoned "RIff' (multiple - residential high density). However, the property appears on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map density residential" at a maximum density of 5.0 D.U. /acre. Ordinance 1137 requires that development proposals must either conform to the Comprehensive Plan or that a waiver from the use restrictions of the Comprehensive Plan be granted. Project Site is an Identified Area of Environmental Sensitivity: The Compre- hensive Plan Environmental Base Map indicates that this site warrants special analysis of the following factors: A) Vegetation Cover - The site contains many large, healthy trees, occur - ing as individual specimens or in groves at the south and east edges of the site. The Environmental Base Map depicts this site as a major wooded area characteristic of the City's valley wall. as "low» Staff response: Staff response: B) Geologic Conditions - The underlying g is questioned in the Environmental Bas ility. Figure 1 -2 (Geology) in the Ci labels underlying geology of the site tend to be seismically unstable. - Expanded written responses to the waiver cri eria - New Exhibit "B" - Inventory of existing trees - Modified Exhibit "C" - Bldg. 5 relocated slig tly northward - Preserved trees locat - New Exhibits "E ", "F" - Elevations of bldgs. ,4,5 ANALYSIS Waiver Criterion #1 -- Applicants response: Waiver •Criterion #2 -- 14 the pnopo4ed action a.igni ,cant in mate? Applicants response: 'Pau the pnopo.aa.e. nepnedent This proposal is unique for s choice of different types of dable housing to moderate inc to the urban core, which redu urban fringe. Although pres located in a high -rise tower project is limited to a max only 54 units. While the foregoing statement do not'lend any unique charac moderate - income housing devel found in similar proximity to Our opinion is that the proje that it would represent the f existing residential land -use if the waiver application is The proposal is insignificant is insignificant in relation under the current zoning. It the high density commercial the other quadrants of this f significant in that the propo environment to an absolute mi We disagree sharply with the sents an "absolute minimum" m or neighborhood -wide environm density and its associated ph grading of the site will be n Page -2- Staff Report 81 -13 -W ological structure of the site Map due to potential instab- 's data inventory booklet s "Lacostrine Deposits" which In comparing the application material submitted in 6 tober, 1980 for 54 units, with the material before you at this time, we note the following changes: unique condition? eral reasons. It affords a ousing and it provides affor - •ie people. It is located close ses demand for sprawl on the ;at zoning would allow 195 units p to 150 feet in height, this height of four stories and may be factually correct, they eristics to the project; many • pments of similar density are the Tukwila urban core. t may claim to be unique in 'rst intensification of the pattern of east McMicken Heights, pproved. in scale for several reasons. It o the maximum allowed development is insignificant when compared to d residential development on eeway interchange. It is also in- al has kept modifications of the ssertion that the project repre- ification of the site - specific t. To accomodate the proposed sical development, extensive essary. If the waiver action C. Page -3- Staff Report 81 -13 -W is approved at the proposed 20 D.U. /AC. density level, other properties in the immediate vicinity will most likely develop at a similar intensity, exacerbating traffic and air quality impacts in the neighborhood. Thus, we conclude that this project is significant in scale. Waiver Criterion #3 -- Na6 the apptic.ant 4hown that no nea6onab.ee atte'.nativea ate avat,eabte which woad not &equine a wa..vex? Applicants response: No. The Tukwila waiver ordinance requires a waiver for any development on this site, since this site is located in an area designated on the environmental basemap as having certain en- vironmental characteristics. Staff response: The applicant's statement that any development of the site is subject to waiver review is not completely correct: Single family homes (density not exceeding 5 D.U. /AC.) are specifically - exempt for the waiver ordinance. Other development alternatives under RMH zoning are available, which might present a lesser impact on site environment, and which might provide for a less - abrupt transi- tion of building intensity in M Micken Heights. These alternatives include fewer dwelling units (the 1979 McNamara application discussed above was judged too intensive at 33 units), and "clustering" development activity to one sub -area of the site, leaving the rest relatively undisturbed so as to maintain natural valley wall ameni- ties. It seems to us that the Council's previous actions to reject the 54 unit project indicates that any future reconsideration would presuppose a genuine alternative proposal. Such is not the case with the present application since the project is virtually unchanged from that which was denied last fall. Waiver Criterion #4 -- the teque.6t ion waivek invo.eve.4 building, grading, ceean.ing, excavation, on bitting in a geogtaphi.ca2. area genera. ty £den - pled by the env.uconmen ae babe map ab an area of high na,tutat amenity on development con taint, axe du Tent mitigating mea4unes provided? Applicants response: The Comprehensive Plan's environmental basemap designates the area in which this property is located as having certain envir- onmental characteristics related to geologic conditions and vegetation. These designations are erroneous. The soils on the property are stable and fully capable of supporting the proposed development. The property is not heavily wooded, and contains only a limited number of large trees. The applicant is aware of the soil conditions on the property, including soil stability during extreme wet weather. The proposal fully addresses the soil characteristics of this site including its characteristics during extreme wet weather. In addition, the applicant has calculated the potential increase in surface water runoff which could be created by this develop- ment, and the plan includes sufficient surface water runoff Staff response: Waiver Criterion #5 Applicant's Response: Page -4- Staff Report 81 -13 -W control. Finally, all large and unique vegetation on the property has been identified, and the proposed development will retain most of this vegetation. The applicant's statement that the City's Environmental Basemap is "erroneous" in regard to this site is mere opinion, in that we have seen no specific documentation attesting to site - specific soil stability conditions. The City's base map information has never been represented as.site- specific;rather, it is intended to indicate a topic of concern (such as geologic stability) which is worthy of site - specific investigation at time of development. Regarding vegetation cover, one need only visit the site in person to become convinced that the tree cover (both large and small specimens) is extensive. If surface run -off calculations have been made, they have not been furnished to staff, nor have their mitigating conclusions been discussed with us. On the whole, we must conclude that this criterion has not been addressed, and that the City Council is expected to "take their word for it" that somehow the potential environmental problems will go -away. We believe that engineering solutions to the site's environmental elements are feasible; however, we believe that they should be discussed at least in broad - outline fashion at the preliminary waiver stage. 14 the neque4t ban w ive& ean4i ten. with the goa.ea and paticLea ab the Campnehena.ive Land Uae Poticy Natural Environment: The development will retain most of the large and unique vegetation. Additional new trees and shrubs will be included in the landscaping. Opportunities afforded by the topography of the property will be used accordingly: No slopes in excess of 20% will be developed; views of hillside residents will be preserved; and the natural land form will be preserved and promoted to the extent possible. The proposal will not pollute any bodies of water, nor lower the air quality of the area. Residence: This proposal is a medium- density development and is therefore an appropriate "transition area" between the freeway and the McMicken Heights residential neighborhood. The property is located functionally convenient to primary and secondary arterial streets. There is sufficient buffering, both in terms of topography and distance, between this proposed development and the DtMicken Heights residential neighborhood. The proposal includes sufficient noise barriers and visual screens between the residences and the.freeway. The proposal includes access to pedestrian rights of way, and includes Staff response: Page -5- Staff Report 81 -13 -W recreational open space within the development. In addition, the proposal provides diversity of housing types, including owner - occupied multi- family residential units. A multi - family development can be designed to buffer noise in a more economical and efficient manner than single- family developments. The total design of the project will include crime - reducing ele- ments. We find that the applicant's response indicates a good under- standing of what the topical areas of environmental concern are; however disagree with their conclusions about the resulting environmental integrity of the proposal. For example, their statement that no slope area above 20% is affected by the proposal is contradicted by the site plan. Nearly all of building 2 is placed on ground at or above 20% slope. As such, we are inclined to disagree that "natural land form will be preserved ", in this instance. Conventional foundation and building forms, as indicated on the condeptual elevations drawings, will necessitate extensive grading and terracing, threatening vegetation preservation efforts. We find that the project conforms to the comprehensive plan policies which encourage development of diversified housing opportunity in the community and owner - occupied multi- family units. We also find that the project represents a transition use between the "high- intensity" uses of the I -5 corridor /South- center commercial area, and the low- intensity McNicken Heights neighborhood. What remains is the Council's duty to decide • whether or not the degree of transition represented by the project's proposed dwelling unit density level is consistent with the emerging policy interpretations of the Comprehensive Plan. Waiver Criterion #6 -- 'Do the neguitementta o6 thia waive& ordinance impsde a 4pec,i.aL handb h,ip to .th i.a 4Lte? Applicants response: The waiver ordinance imposes a hardship on the use and develop- ment of this site. The ordinance requires that no development take place on any site which is designated on the Environmental Basemap as having certain environmental characteristics. The Environmental Basemap designates this property as having cer- tain environmental characteristics, and therefore the ordinance prohibits any development without seeking a waiver from the City Council. Staff response: Staff concurs with the applicant's assertion that development under RMH zoning is constrained by the waiver process. Page -6- Staff Report 81 -13 -W Waiver Criterion #7 -- Wowed you grant o i the waLv en neced 6Ltate a ma j on. pot i e y commitment 'onion to the adoption o i the new zoning ordinance and map? Staff contends that approval of the waiver action as requested will commit the pre- sently -zoned RMH properties in McMicken Heights to an intensive development pattern not anticipated in the Comp. Plan. Your Council has already begun review of the Planning Commission's recommended text for the new zoning ordinance and new zoning map. The Commission's recommendation is to create R -1 zoning in the McMicken area, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. You may also recall that the Commission, during formation of the Comprehensive Plan, recommended medium density land use classification for "RNIf' properties in that area. Clearly, approval of the present waiver request will indicate a significant shift in land use policy for the McMicken Heights neighborhood, in advance of official action on the new zoning documents. RECOMMENDATION Our recommendation is the same as it was on the previous 54-unit application: We encourage the Council to withold a decision on this application until you have the opportunity to study the new zoning documents. You will then be in a better position to judge the matter of establishing land use intensity for the Mc.Micken Heights sub -area in light of land use controls suggested for the community as a whole. 1 2 3 I Lc =1E1) / / / /// I i, / 1 / /, <' / / / 4/ d ,-- � 7 a 11111v11100 q4 ''4 unit xt2Mernury ittcwIL.A. 61AN1MAto i / /l , ( // / ► X7 / / , � / / ,/ / / WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO.. P.S. ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 211) EASTLAKE AVENUE EAST SEATTLE WASHINGTON 11102 USA. (201) 1241110 E T1 c'3‘7€'1 4 13 11 /11 tes / / // ' . I _ /1 / / 1 1 • • i.s /' // /' \ I 1 / // / I' / / 1 11 • „,•• . dra , / ' ti I' / '/ 'ti elli / ass' f ji , G ' _ • -6 • / . �' . �.' 1 � I / I / • ' , ' S 00,, /® • / • 94 1 ' I i • • •/.. • I ji i''.„) . C / r, ► / / I 'U7 / a •z m -13 53RD AVV- I • s / ♦ / E S , / , / 1 i bt uNlr tomoonrium n'r�1AR rn,EL,TP1Er,f m wyswriOM N ' / a. / /' t o p R WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO., P. S. ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 2312 EASTLAKE AVENUE EAST SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 11102 U.1A. 12011 224.1110 0111 tit IIOiI VI 0 10111 11019111141% 'i1UYJI 1v1 i0Nil1V ilvlltVi esti 51331IHD V V SB33N19N3 'S'd ''03 9 OVS L 'S WVI11IM ua014M.+M c� Jflw1yanj1 11 "4 wnlLIIWoa1do9 liwn 49 '.nwwr11. Z n .11 2 6 4 Wrf rIG�MINIUI1 r111'11At1AMA I11VC41r1q•r( (i0. 11 HAeoini,.T' 1611 WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO.. P. S. ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 1111 (A$TLANI AVINUI EAST $IATTLE. WASHINGTON 11102 USA. 1201) 2241110 m X I Co Q N L k LNrr aki al-uHIum M M • tian IM/E'JfMCtfr Go. 11AKW11.A., Wo%N. ) co JJ WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO., P. S. ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 2312 EASILAKE AVENUE EAST 1EATTtE, WASHINGTON 11102 U SA. 1200) 2211210 - n --1 rn 2 111111■1610.11 lucatt.A. grt Lttr eavairiutl trrwic" gArrigirr 7 1 WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO., P. S. ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 2117 EASTLAKE AVENUE EAST SEATTLE WASHINGTON 11102 U SA. (2OI) 324 1710 rrT 2: 111 C Transportation Engineering & Planning Consultants October 9, 1981 TRAN5P0 Mr. Thomas M. Walsh 1111 Third Avenue Building Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: APPLICATION 81 -13 -W; McNAMARA WAIVER REQUEST; TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Dear Mr. Walsh: Per your request, we have reviewed the letter from the City of Tukwila dated April 24, 1981 regarding the subject application. In that letter the City requested more detailed analyses of: (1) Existing traffic con- ditions in the project vicinity, (2) Added traffic impacts of the proposed project, (3) Cumulative traffic impacts of full area development under the then current "RMH" zoning (20 D.U. /acre), and (4) Cumulative traffic im- pacts under a City proposed reduced zone of "R -1" (5 D.U. /acre). In addition, we have prepared a "mixed zone" alternative reflecting "RMH" zoning for the subject property and "R -1" zoning for the balance of the project vicinity. The discussion below, supported by the attachments hereto, reflect the findings of our analyses. (1) Existing Conditions Attachment 1 illustrates the project vicinity street system. Streets that will be impacted by development of the subject site and /or any surrounding sites, will be 53rd Avenue S and its intersection with Klickitat Avenue, and S 160th Street leading to Military Road and local commercial /retail activities. We estimate that about 75 percent of the project traffic will move via 53rd Avenue to /from Klickitat (see Attachment 4), and that 25 percent will travel through the McMicken Heights neighborhood via 53rd Avenue and S 160th Street. On Thursday, May 7, 1981, we collected traffic turning movement counts at the intersection of Klickitat /53rd Avenue during a period from 3 :30 to 5:30 PM. The highest one -hour traffic count occurred between 4 :15 and 5:15 PM. These peak hour counts are summarized on Attachment 2. From this sample count, we estimate that Klickitat is currently carrying from 10- 15,000 vehicles per day (vpd), and that 53rd Avenue is carrying about 2400 vpd on its approach to Klickitat. To the south, 53rd Avenue and other vicinity streets are estimated to be carrying traffic volumes of 2,000 vpd or less. T■%vnt■-three 148th A■enue Southeast • Belles ue, Washington 98007 • (206) 641 -3881 Mr. Thomas M. Walsh October 9, 1981 Page 2 TRANSPO Techniques for analyzing level of service at unsignalized intersections are outlined in the Transportation Research Board Circular No. 212 -- the now commonly accepted source for such analyses. Applying its tech- niques to existing traffic conditions at the Klickitat /53rd intersection, we find that that intersection is currently functioning at level of service "B" or better during the peak hour of the day. The supporting calculations are shown on Attachment 3. Other streets in the vicinity are functioning at only 20 to 50 percent of their tolerable traffic carrying ability. (2) Traffic Impact of Proposed Project Two trip generation rate sources•are generally accepted as guidelines for estimating project traffic impacts: (1) Institute of Transportation En- gineers, Trip Generation, revised in 1979; and (2) Arizona Dept. of Transportation Trip Generation Intensity Factors (T.G.I.F.), revised 1979. These survey sources find that multi - family dwelling units generate daily vehicle trip ends ranging from 3.7 trips /D.U. for "Hi -Rise Apartments" to 7.2 trips /D.U. for low density luxury condominiums. For the proposed project, a conservative (high) rate of 7.0 vehicle trips /D.U. was selected for "worst case" analysis purposes. About 10 percent of residential generated trips occur during the afternoon work - commuter peak hours of the day. Hence, we estimate that the subject project proposal with up to 54 condo- minium units on its 2.69 -acre site could generate up to 380 added vehicle trips per day on the vicinity street system. Of these, 38 trips will occur during the PM peak hour, with 30 inbound to the project and 8 out- bound. These trip generation estimates, and the estimated distribution of these project generated trips, are illustrated on Attachment 4. The net result of the proposed project will be a 10 to 15 percent traffic increase on 53rd Avenue S, and a 2 percent increase in traffic moving through the Klickitat /53rd Avenue intersection. 53rd Avenue, as a 2 -lane street with 4 to 6 -foot shoulders, can carry up to twice its current traffic volume without experiencing any significant traffic operations problems. Its limiting factor is its intersection with Klickitat. Attachment 5 illustrates the peak hour impact the project will have on the intersection of 53rd and Klickitat. During the PM peak hour, the most significant impact will be an increase in left turns from Klickitat to 53rd. Even so, this movement is still computed to operate at level of service "A ". The left -turn exit from 53rd will cause exit conditions from 53rd Avenue to drop to level of service "C" -- still a quite acceptable level of service. Mr. Thomas M. Walsh October 9, 1981 Page 3 TRANSIT From these observations and calculations, we conclude that the proposed project traffic impacts can be accommodated by the existing street sys- tem without further improvement. (3) Cumulative Impact of Full Area Development Under "RMH" Zoning The former "RMH" zone covered about 25 to 30 acres of land area in the vicinity, and permitted residential development densities of up to 20 D.U. /acre. Since much of this area is subject to rather severe topo- graphic relief, it is not possible to estimate how much of the land is developable until detailed site and soils surveys are made and feasible site plans are synthesized. Because of soil conditions and topography, we expect that much of the land area formerly zoned "RMH" cannot be developed to its maximum potential under that zone. We have been advised that since the date of the City's traffic analysis request, the City has taken steps to downzone this area to single family zoning. Therefore, analysis of this scenario of full development under "RMH" zoning may be superfluous. Nevertheless, we have carried out an analysis of this scenario with the following results. Based upon our cursory review of slopes and topography, and upon our involvement in similar topographical restraints for residential projects elsewhere in the region, we estimate that full development of all the formerly "RMH" zoned properties may optimistically yield up to 300 dwelling units, including the subject proposal, as illustrated on Attachment 6. If this many dwelling units could be developed in the project vicinity, they would result in a total vicinity traffic increase of about 2100 vehicle trips per day (vpd). The distribution of these potential trips is illustrated on Attachment 6. A maximum impact of +1600 vpd will re- sult on 53rd Avenue between the subject site and Klickitat Avenue. Added to the existing 2400 vpd on this section of 53rd Avenue, we esti- mate that this increased traffic volume is well within an acceptable capacity for this street section. Net increases of 500 vpd or less would be anticipated on 53rd Avenue to the south, and on S 160th /161st Street -- again, well within their traffic carrying abilities. The only point of conern on the vicinity street system under this full development scenario is the intersection of 53rd and Klickitat. The proportional increase of traffic on this intersection (including the proposed project traffic) would be +11 percent. The left -turn movement from Klickitat to 53rd Avenue during the PM peak hour would be increased by 75 percent -- a factor of concern from the standpoint of safety as well as capacity. Mr. Thomas M. Walsh October 9, 1981 Page 4 TRANSPO If the full development scenario were to occur, we would recommend an improvement of the 53rd /Klicki'tat intersection -- as sketched on Attach- ment 7 -- to provide a left -turn lane on the east approach, and a north - to -west left -turn shelter and acceleration pocket on the west approach. The former will eliminate delay or blockage of westbound through traffic on Klickitat, and the latter will expedite a safe left -turn movement from 53rd Avenue to eastbound on Klickitat. With these improvements, the intersection will continue to operate at level of service "B" or better during peak hours, except for the north -to -west left -turn movement from 53rd Avenue which would operate at LOS "D ". (4) Cumulative Impact of Full Development Under "R -1" Downzone The downzone of the 25 to 30 acres formerly zoned "RMH" to "R -1" which allows up to 5 D.U. /acre could result in up to 75 single family dwelling units. Again, soils conditions and topograhy were considered as limi- tations to a higher dwelling unit estimate. The ITE and T.G.I.F. trip generation rates for single family homes indicate an average 10 vehicle trips /D.U. /day. King County surveys have found that single family residences can generate trip rates up to 12 /D.U. /day. At this higher rate, 75 single family homes could generate up to 900 vehicle trips per day of additional traffic on the vicinity street system, with 10 percent occurring during the PM peak hour -- about 40 percent of the level predicted under the "RMH" full development scenario. This "R -1" full development scenario would result in a net traffic increase of about 700 vpd in both directions combined on the 53rd Avenue leg of the Klickitat intersection, and about 70 trips during the PM peak hour. During peak hours, Klickitat would continue to operate at LOS "B" or better, and the 53rd Avenue approach would operate at LOS "D" or better. (5) Cumulative Impact Under Potential "Mixed Zone" Alternative The project Applicant proposes to maintain and support the former "RMH" zone for his 2.69 acres of property. Hence, a fifth scenario was hypothe- sized for analysis. This scenario analyzes the impact of traffic generated by 54 multi - family units on the McNamara property, plus single family de- velopment on the remainder of the formerly "RMH" -zoned properties. For the purpose of this analysis, we have assumed development of 65 single - family homes on the remainder of the formerly "RMH" -zoned properties. Under this scenario, the McNamara property could generate up to 380 vehicle trips per day as noted in section (2) above, and the 65 single-family homes could generate up to 780 additional daily trips (at 12 /D.U.). This could total up to 1160 added daily vehicle trips on the vicinity street system, and up to +880 vpd on the 53rd Avenue approach to Klickitat. Mr. Thomas M. Walsh October 9, 1981 Page . 5 TRANSPO A level of service analysis for the 53rd Avenue /Klickitat intersection was carried out for this scenario, with the results shown on Attachments 8A and 8B. Attachment 8A indicates that during the PM peak hour Klickitat would operate at LOS B or better, and the 53rd Avenue approach would still operate at LOS C (as for the "project only" scenario (2), and the "R -1" zone (4) scenario). The AM peak hour analysis indicates that the 53rd Avenue approach would experience an LOS "D" condition -- still an accept- able level of service. (6) Thru Traffic Impact on Klickitat The above analyses all reflect existing (1981) through traffic volume levels on Klickitat. In reality; thru traffic on Klickitat may also be expected to increase as growth and development continues to occur in the Southcenter area of Tukwila. Estimates of 1990 traffic conditions through this intersection were pre- pared using the forecasts for Klickitat prepared by Entranco Engineers as part of its Transportation Improvement Plan study prepared for the City of Tukwila in 1979. These estimates for the PM and AM peak hours were combined with traffic forecasts on 53rd Avenue under the "mixed zone" alternative above, and are shown on Attachments 9A and 9B, respectively. Capacity analyses of these 1990 future conditions indicate that the Klickitat /53rd Avenue intersection, as it currently exists, can still operate fairly adequately by 1990. However, it would be desirable to add a 50 -foot right -turn lane on the 53rd Avenue approach to allow right - turning traffic to bypass the left- turning vehicle queue on this approach -- particularly during the AM peak hour. To lessen delays to westbound through traffic on Klickitat resulting from left turns to 53rd Avenue, it may also be desirable to expand Klickitat to include a center left -turn lane before 1990. This improvement would be equally, desirable under all of the development scenarios for the project vicinity. It would only be necessary, however, under the scenario where all land is developed under the former "RMH" zone. Summary and Conclusions None of the residential land use scenarios hypothesized for the project site and its surrounding land parcels formerly zoned "RMH" will result in significant traffic impacts on the vicinity road system -- impacts that would warrant street improvements to maintain acceptable traffic operating conditions. The only potentially critical area sensitive area spot is the intersection of Klickitat Avenue and 53rd Avenue South. • Mr. Thomas M. Walsh October 9, 1981 Page _6 1 Capacity analyses of the Klickitat /53rd Avenue intersection indicate that it will operate at LOS "B" or better relative to east -west travel and turning movements from Klickitat under all scenarios. Traffic on the 53rd Avenue approach will operate at LOS "C" to "D" conditions under all scenarios except for the scenario of full development under the former "RMH" zoning which now appears unlikely to ever occur. Through traffic increases at this intersection resulting from growth and development in the Southcenter area will have a more significant impact on its level of service than most of the development scenarios for the project vicinity. By 1990 it would be desirable to channelize the inter- section to provide left -turn lanes (shelters) on all approaches. This will be desirable under any of the development scenarios for the project vicinity, an necessary for the full development scenario under "RMH" zoning. . The subject site and its surrounding land parcels, being an isolated sector of the McMicken Heights neighborhood convenient to regional highway access, would appear to be a desirable area for high density residential zoning.. Topography will limit the number of dwelling units actually achievable under any zone. Traffic impacts, however, do not appear to be a significant factor in the choice of zoning for the area.' Very truly yours, The TRANSPO Group Inc. !' James W. Maclsaac, P.E. Principal Engineer JWM /lf Attachments (6) TRANSPO 111111111111111111111 U { ��/ 71{41111111{ ^R.y 411MIM111 e.Ir 8 I fuming EIIItl11111IIIIII111111iU1f111 .n'' de w•... „... • ••••..,. .. . •�.. .;1; •M■1Nt11 hkj, W (11111111111111 / p 111 % I1 .•"7. lull RW1IC KNIT I LOCAT I O" I A r Vitoct. `l1 53Y TIME WEATHER PREPARED BY • COUNTED BY L- Awl Chin (o8 MANUAL TRAFFIC COUNT t— TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY ( �T 17 1.' 53 ASE So. PEDESTRIANS WB I I I EB DAVID D. MARKLEY & ASSOCIATES THE TRANSPO GROUP F- 6.0 U` S I TIME 'T; 15 . t'j; IS Fry, PEDESTRIANS WB I Z PM P►k 14a1IR TRAFP c C'OLWT A CAMEIJr 2. Step 1 —X_ Right Tltrn from C C„ t Conflicting Flows = M at Ifrom Fig. I I Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = • Shared Lane — See Step 3 1 AN + AT IS" + 427: = 412 ,,, = 670 6'4.0 sec M = M, .M No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay do level of Service (Table 3) Ca M, — C,r = Volume Pell = , NM 777 Step 2 Left 'Turn from B • B, r ` Conflicting Flows = M = • (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 • Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) A„ + + 427 . 5.0 sec M„ = N E 100 (B,JM �/ �� � �0 Step 3 Left Turn from C C ..1 Conflicting Flows - MN - (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Tabk 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust f o r Impedance 'A, + A + B + F Z7+ LL+? + sec . M M,,,, x P, = h No Shared Lane Demand - Available Reserve - Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C M3 — C1 _ ��// _1S_ w „ti IN Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane - Available Reserve - Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Ca + CL = C,,,, (C + C,` M " _ � C.. pr* /Ms 3 � ' = „h - 3 o 4 _ (C041) + IC,, Mss M,, — c.,. 51, ail Da* sr . .1 / —! 7 Approach A T' B r C '- Movement AT —4• A,, 1 B r B +— C 1 C„ Volume 417 30 137 777 4 73 pch two: Tat* I _ lg S �0 UnsicAlized "T" n Capacity CaicI . lion Form Intersection LI C I TN T 4 S 3 k c. So . di; )bill Location Plan: Counts: 73 Sir Date S /7 /ri — - Day 7 y 457 Time 3 3,.1 VP 5.. 3= j?"` Control Prevailing Speed 4 3S Overall Evaluation 500 Hourly Demanc from 4 to 5 1S. _p m /n7 Gise i or+►∎ (.•wee •+a t et es al LOS Q" or B S r . Ex, ST /A/G ealainAti I�1 ,rIIour Peal cT Las A IJALy Sl S A 3. ATrACMMEiT 3. • C 'D4 Unit GGmCerl nat I fish/., ~l,P1A IPf TNtryf LO. ^v v. • I , ' . • 0 Aueraye G&1eekJv 2 4 - Ioar 2 -WGy Trnjjic. V PM Peak. Your llopix10., ' Trtc #1c. *ed.. m G . TRIP GEuetAT /o'J — 54 L limn A to or Rale. = 5.1 7u 7.2 VTE'$ /.rat ; Use 7. PM Pk.Nfi Ate= 0•6 t £ e7 dTF's /I ; asc o. 7 b uy. 141cdcJa1 t/c4;�e.7. -; = s�dK �s c 7.o /41k = 380 /fa Pm peak. iloctr tieki dz7ritl = $4lu's a 0.70414 = 3g volt K=Iu7o Intou...0 . 3o ✓D& D=gc7e 7(?;P 6 EWE iiATiDN 4 Dis77 Mu7tvw DA 01,4 = 9 ✓p& D =z o7• EST/mAWS DEC pico,vsED pirewe T 47T/3c1MEQT 4. WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO.. P. S. ENGINEERS $ ARCHITECTS 1311 Ia11iu1„Hrl•u1 1111 MIAMI •••• •; ". 1111.•1 71 a ••m, !!. Ill Step 1 • �_ Right Mira from C C f ' Conflicting Flows = M = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, a Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane - See Step 3 1 A + A = 41_ + 27 - 'p„ sec _____ M = M1 = 570 ,ra . No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 31 C = C r' ,,. MI — Ca - ,,,4 iti 15?, Step 2 • Left TLrn from B 77 Conflicting Flows = M = . (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) An + A - 3S + *27 = 4LZ CO 0 sec M,. = MI- 750 Pc,, B _ 17 L ,K, 100(B = 2- % P, ...1.3_ f � Nis �� S� „y t-r [1] ` $4 Step 3 Left Urn from C C '1 Conflicting Flows = M = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 is Adjust for Impedance 1/2 An + A + BL + Br • IIL + +17?-1.Tna I94 m ....1.1_ sec M11, - 70 , Mx, x P, - M, _ , No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C _ X Shared inn M - C = a " EN Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve Si Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C + C = CRL = ) I Ka (C + Cd M ' a = IC + (CL/M3) M13 -lit pt , C 11 = 24 f,,,,, - A1/3.7 1frr~ pe a / a [y Approach A 1' B `'( C `V' Movement A, -=. An 1 B5 f B, +- Cc '1 C r' Volume 427 35 15?, 777 G 77 pch ratT�hk11 _ 172 7 ` $4 Unsig( zed "T" Intersection Capacity Calcu( )n Form • 111-1 s:K:s' S3rd Aya�,WE S Ersth� - f - Prv'cf Intersection A /�'� � \ � c .l Counts: Location Plan: +1 A +S +11 4' �1s S% Hourly De and T c Volumes from to Date 44 Da) B Time Control Prevailing Speed " Fall S77NG CouDmav PLUS !k oPoseo 59 - dor ammo Pet' Overall Evaluation L e b - Liroveme dr needed. Los ANALYSIS A rrAcHMExlrr c - 01 Berm'- "tri..- et - res t • a C_ IL j Q o „/ /% ij i --�� / • / RM Posy de 44 4I ✓ S i 42 �'`l7.� 5 —' _+ _ ""'S 's 5, TRIP C UERATI0 N 30o pu's e-7/pct = Zl0O Id 300 DLL's e,•0•7/1:44 = ZI , VIA 200 10 S. I G 07h Sr 7 s ). 70 6 ral' U i t /tat •4 untt C 7n rrr1 I'Sr.r1 1r"A1 15 %A •Ph!.STNtn1 (O. A r%J" 8. .. • .J RMN 7S Pu 6zi 44, I. I N /' I ; % 7 8 DU's i J / / / /1 1 C � v /jam ], / 0 L-41 1;1160 / / / / / 1 A uER44E WEEi BA V TRAFFIC 1NeREACE$ UI.rH Full. DFUEItJP- MEor OF RAIN ZoNFs AT Zo Du'speke ,471 G WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO P. S. ENGINEERS ARCNITECTS 1111 I1fAA/AA 111421 1111 1l3r21l w••. 21''u Iny I••• !:•1'q Step I Right Urn from C C, f' - Conflicting Flows = M = (from Fig. l) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 i/ A + Ar 1. 2 7 + 4 27 = 4s4- ish 6.0 sec Ms. = Mi = 570 ,,.,, . X No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C, = 1 Of , — C= A I' Z , .LL i �.,, �'I 4_ N o tail 21:3 55 Step 2 Left Turn from B B, ► Conflicting Flows = MN = ' (from Fig. 1) • Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) .. A. _ SS + 417 = 482 _ ..,,5.0 sec M. = M, = 720 B,, - 2 17.,t,, 100 (B,JM,) = _-_Z P _d �;�/ B, _ '4 53 „�, L1 W & or AM & �] 10 Step 3 Left 'Mtn from C C,. '\ Conflicting Flows = MN 15 (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = for Impedance � A + A + B, + B - 22 + 7 +� +L • 14 1,,, ?. S see MN. _ 12 _ yes, MN, x P, - Mot 4 L ,,,,, No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) CL = _ _,,,, M - C , _ - ,�,,, Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C + C = C =11./._,,,, (C, + C Mia _ (C + (CL/Ma) M = a oh Mr, — C- �--- L � a .. � tab flJcri f 1t.[ it DU Approach A ' 8 7 C Y Movement A —0- A 1 B r B -0- C,, \ C„ r" Volume x}27 55 243 777 9 90' pch i.ccT+hkI0 267 10 ,Qg Intersection Location Plan: A 425' Overall Evaluation UnsiC ized "T" Intersection Capacity Calm. on Form I cxlraT .C3 rJAu E. So. y fi; t Ful/RtriN) U xz� � C y 3 41111 i-- Hou m J raffic Volumes from to m a ce:mm -l� b ra Counts: Date Da) Time Control Prevailing Speed ' ExI sr'NG Cd,b,T«rt! 1,tJ ITN Avve_LI ZAT/0lll IMPAOVEME/t1T5, Wan Nobs ED 54 -Ui)IT C40100 PRW Eef, AND 1411T14 AMOTHE72 2 Si, Da's ON fhNEg RIII /1 Tad Tra egG )v1ei u 4 crA 53rd iiikc,h11J: AWaT 300 Ou'.$ a /Olt 7rlo = +lGov ap pat P Sou Ou's 0.7/ x7.5 gbo 1 n t,)u Ail: 13 09 .4 01.4140.,141.7: 30 v/1 ATrme»MFor 7. �!'!► RAIN Approach A B 7 C" y Movement A -a- A„ 1 B,, ( B •=- C,. =' 1 C„ /' Volume A Z7 43 193 777 7 $'G pch i vet. Table I I i zoo g 90 r Unsi.rized "T" Intersection Capacity Calm( ion Form Intersection k C N /TAT .S3 i-d Atiaquhte co. Location Plan: Step I Right Turn from C Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = X Shared Lane - See Step 3 No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Step 2 Lett Urn from B Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. 11 Critical Gap from Table 2T„ = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand as Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Step 3 Lett Urn from C Overall Evaluation Conflicting Flows - M = (fmm Fig. I ) Critical Gap from Table 2T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance v Shand Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = 4 ?V .. 4 'I'i 970 No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 31 Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) CC Hourly mand Traffic Volumes 'hA + A, - Z +41 =4L9,,,, sec M =M,= SGv B, 43 + 47 = 5-13 5:0 sec M.v. = M = 7 ,rl, B, - ZOO ,rp loo (BL/MI) = 29 'k p 1 = D -79 C,. C„ = 'hA + A + B,, + B - f742 + 1 4z�,,, MN. xP , = M, = tL„rry G +c,, - (C,,+ C,,) M, -c.. 2Zi M13 _ CL = .r+ t = rM Counts: Date Day B Time Control Prevailing Speed D Lvs beZT * Ex sT,wn Cv vos77 va PLu S PRoPo.E0 C/N iT PPvlEcT PLUS "T3u,LDoaT "dr Sui2h'vu& ,rn' • LAND AREA Ar d= I "ZavE ATIAC IMENT IA. Unsigr, zed "T" Intersection Capacity Calcu( )n Form Intersection /6_1u/rim S3rJ A1%rA)4 So• Location Plan: 34 i — T 407 A $T 3 141 j 141 B C Hourly mad' A pproach Movement Volume pch ito* T� i i A Ar AN S" B Cy' cL '�)c. r' Bir1Br - a47 1 Z6t 3? ; ?GS 40 380 74c Prevailing Speed ffic Volumes f 7 to Q Step 1 Right Turn from C Conflicting Flows = MM - (from Fig. 11 Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 do Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 31 Step 2 Left Turn from B Conflicting Flows = M = (from Fig. 11 Critical Gap from Table 2 T, Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = A Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Step 3 Left Turn from C Conflicting Flows = M = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) CR ' ' AR + "Or 5 4,, (.o see M... = N41- 4-SD , C V2A,,+ A + B + B = �T 4. ? -2�= 994,E 1.1_ sec M,,,, _ xP2= m,=15 0 CL = • i...l C + C = C = Z ZD (C + C Rh MU- (G + (CL /M,) it E i ST /A!6 Cevomai) Ft-s s PRoosrO. 5- 11 -llr it PROJECT PLUS "eu,Lcvar" OF $G RROUNOI Jf LAND AIE4 AT "1?-1" 200E. Overall EvihY y Las 1- 0,e �'' �� 4arv a Los 0T fl d)41+G►ta.4. Counts: Date Day Time Control A71`A NEW r $ 13• Step 1 Right Torn from C C„ E Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 'h A + A = 23 + ST4' = 607 G' 0 sec M, = M, = 445 . , . Br r No Shared Lane Demand = C, = — 21z , - C = 37; Available Reserve = Decay & Level of Service (Table 3) a .„ Q er 44 Step 2 Left Turn front B B,, r Conflicting Flows = MN = • (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, 3. Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) AN + ..,, _ .4` + 5s4 = 63O , ,,, ...celL sec M = M, = GO pe„ B, = 200,,, . 100 (B,JM,) = 33 % p, = 0,76 M, — BB a� tiro '/ ,,.,, 46 I', eft ile".1___ Step 3 Left Turn from C C '1 Conflicting Flows = M = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance ' A, + A + B + B - Z3 + 5 4 + 200 + lo3Z. j839.„ 241 sec M,- = G D re+► MN. x P, = M, is 4S „ No Shared Lane Demand = C,, _ ,,, M _ Available Reserve • Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) iN„„ !— SharedLaneDemand= X Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane - Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C, + C =C,,= !oQ , 1 (C, + Cc) M13 = (C + C /M ,IM,) ) 1 � � Mu Z 1 — C,,, .3 �,,,,,, — r _ e Ern Approach A B 7 C 'Y Movement A, -- A„ 1 Br r B r •"1— C,, C, , Volume 5T4 44 193 /1)3z S n pch owe TAW I I ZO i i) 9 • Unsigil,. ,zed "T" Intersection Capacity Calcuc .,n Form Intersection 16L1 CktT7T S3 fa 1711EAR E So. Location Plan: / o 4 D /2Z;" Counts: /032 Date ST4 9, 3 Day 630 $ 6 B Time 67o Control 63 F Ads !� Prevailing Speed Hourly Demand raffic Volumes from -f i to J m Esr,mATE_D 1990 7R e- W rn,► Ptv>r%sE0 PkvJ ECT Pcus v euILDottr'' ©F $uRnvua 3 nu& LANG AREA Ar'k -l" ZoiuE ATrAc NMEN " T 944: Overall Evaluation Step I Right Turn from C C„ r' Conflicting Flows = MM = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 1 4 AN + AT = A_ + 76 7G10 6• sec MA. = M, _ ,�„ B ( Br — No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C = )Fa Volume ,M C;= 0 > ,,., AM - 47 Step 2 Left Turn from B B, r Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. I) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) AR + Ar = g + 742 = 77 S• 0 sec M, = M, _ VV _ , B,, _ _ , 100 (B = _JD— % p, _ 0.93 M X ;� 7� � - LA I- a q I- AA, (1�,Y � Step 3 Left Turn from C C,. ..1 Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. I ) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance %A + A + B + B = 4 + x 2 50 + 483= 1299. 7• S sec m 9 0 . . M x P, = M3 _ 4 „rh No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C _ .AQ,,, M, — C = 60 ,,, V (1] Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve - Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) C + C = C, = 210 Rrh (Ca + , M" _ (CR/M,) + (C,, /M,) • M„- 23 M,3 — C _ I I/01 f1 � KLCAT! 0 Approach A B 7 C ''y- Movement A —r An 1 B ( Br — Cc 1 Ca E s. Volume 762 1 47 433 37 !a pch Nee Tat* 11 _ 5) 40 I80 Intersection Location Plan: 0 A Overall Evaluation l;nsignalized "T" Intersection Capacity Calculation Form I�LI .WIT -7" > S3 rd Avetvt,4t 762 7 1r 31 IG�S Hourl maitd Trffic Volumes fro to S Counts: �' Date Da y . B Time Control Prevailing Speed IV ESTIMATED 1990 AFF, C, M771 /3?w'SFC 5 -1 10V it PR0JEcr PL-us "Oult.Dokr "OF 51 IZ eotcNOla16 L4/.'c AREA 47"R-1" ZQ VE ,4 rrActlw ENT 9 B. STEWART L. CLARK, M.A.I. DAVID R. SAMPPALA, Mgr. MARTY VAN ENGELEN L. RAY RAJAMAKI KEVIN B. CLARKE LANCE T. L. BLOOMER STEWART CLARK & ASSOCIATES, INC REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS - CONSULTANTS April 7, 1981 Mr. Ed Mc Namara Mc Namara Investment Co. Inc. Suite # 1 1600 Dexter Ave. N. Seattle, ashington 98109 Dear Mr. As reques of market Washingto essential as reques the diffe Residence Market va terms of exposed f amount of the uses for which acting un .The prope Garden Tr thence so point on west; the radius 38 tract and in straig highway." Namara: Re: 2.69 acre site 53rd Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 11 Post Office Box 7060 1500 N.E. 171st Street Seattle, Washington 98133 Phone 2061363-0722 ed, I have completed . an investigation and analysis value for the above referenced property in Tukwila, . Further, this report is summarized to state the facts and conclusions inl. brief narrative format ed. The purpose of this appraisal is to determine ence in market value of the land for RMH (Multiple as compared to single family density. ue may be defined as being "that price estimated in oney which the property will bring if it were r sale on the open market, allowing a reasonable time to find a purchaser with full knowledge of all nd purposes for which the property is adapted and it is capable of being used, with neither party er undue compulsion to buy or sell." ty is leagally described as "Lot 9 Brookvale cts less beginning 330 feet west of northeast corner; th to southeast . corner; thence west 170 feet to urve where radius bears south 89 degrees 59' 24" ce northerly and westerly along said curve to left .47 feet to point 50 feet south of north line said 300 feet west of east line; thence northwesterly t line to beginning less south 30 feet less state MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS 11 IP Subject is located west of southwest quadrant of I -405 and the I -5 freeway system through Tukwila. It is directly opposite, west of Southcenter Shopping Center which forms the southeast freeway quadrant. The northwest freeway quadrant to the north comprises a small business center and retail business establishments constructed within the past five years. The northeast freeway quadrant at this location contains several newer apartment houses and condominiums on sloping hillside land. The subject parcel is sited on a bluff area directly over- looking Southcenter and the freeway system. It is irregular in shape, with 283 feet frontage on 53rd Avenue South, a total of 482 feet on the south line and 310 feet'along.the north property line. Frontage on Klickitat Avenue to the east varies to some.260 feet. It has gently sloping topo- graphy rising from 120 feet gradiant at the southeast corner . up to 165 feet gradiant at the west. Ground cover is deciduous alder and fir trees with brush. Street surfaces are oiled gravel on blacktop. Utilities available include public sewer lines, water, electricity and telephone service. Land area is 2.69 acres or approximately 117,000 square feet. Zoning is RMH, multiple residence, high density. Land area requirements of the code would tend to indicate 200 allowable units of apartments or condominiums. STEWART CLARK & ASSOCIATES, INC. STEWART CLARK & ASSOCIATES,. INC. To reference the chronoligical history of the immediate area, this writer participated in the appraisal of numerous parcels, including subject, for acquisition by the Washington State Highway Department prior to the development of Southcenter. More recent assignments include several apartment house developments on the northeast quadrant, and the business center on the north- west quadrant for financing purposes. It is your appraiser's opinion, based upon a twenty year working experience within the immediate neighborhood, together with subjects freeway location and overview of heavy commercial activity, that a reasonable highest and best use would be the 54 unit multiple residence condo- minium depicted by William S. Tsao, Architect dated. March 13, 1981.. This density of development (20 units per 'acre) would command ready' acceptance within the primary and secondary financing market. Evaluation (Part I) Multiple Residence In order to determine present market value �f the subject proeprty, based upon its potential highest and best use as a multiple residence site, I have searched the surrounding area encompassing Tukwila and Renton for sales exhibiting similar highest and best use. Few were found that exhibit similar high density as subject within the immediate area. For this reason it was necessary to expand the sales search, revealing the following data: Sale No. Location 1. 1154 Monroe NE Renton, Wa. 2. 1200 block Puget Drive Renton, Wa. 3. 12250 Military Road South King County 4. 15433 62nd S. Tukwila, Wa. 5. 3780 S. 158th King County ' Sale Date 4/3/80 37 4/27/79 11/7/80 41 Size /SF 7/24/80 24,750 SF R -3 $129,534 $5.24 17 units $7,620 2/22/79 88,800 SF 88 units 34,089 SF RM -900 $130,000 units /King Co 113,256 SF R -3 $350,000 75 units 74,000 SF RM -1800 $150,000 units /King Co. The sales range, unadjusted, is $2.03 to $5.24 per square foot, or $3,466 to $7,620 per allowable apartment unit. Value for subject is judged to be $3.00 per square foot or *6,500 per apartment unit as proposed. '117,000 square feet times $3.00 equals or 54 units at $6,500 each equals $351,000 rounded to $350,000. Since subjects potential highest and best use estimate at 1 unit per 2,178 square feet of land area (117,000 SF - 54) is less density than any of the sales indications, its market value will tend to derive the upper indication of per unit value and correspondingly lower per square foot indication. The reverse would be true if maximum allowable 200 unit count were utilized in this analysis. STEWART 'CLARK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Sale Price/ Zoning Price SF /Unit R -4 $305,000 $3.44 $3,466 $3.81 $3,514 $3.09 $4,667 $2.03 $3,659 Sale No. Location Evaluation (Part II) Single Family Residence The second part of this appraisal involves the determination of market value for subject under the assumption it would be rezoned for single family residence highest and best use. Again, land sales exhibiting single family residence potential were investigated in the area. Sale Date Size Zoning Price Price /Acre 1. 16500 block, 54th South 5/28/80 4.1 ac. R -1 $106,660 $26,015* Tukwila, Wa. (Bel -Crest Heights Plat) 2. 6100 Block, S. Langston Rd. 7/27/79 1.1 ac. RS -7200 $13,500 $12,272 Renton, Wa. 3. 14700 block, 51st South 4/1/80 1.1 ac. RS -7200 $6,000 $5,454 Tukwila 4. 11200 block, 49th South 8/29/80 5.2 ac RS -7200 $60,000 $11,538 King County 5. 4900 block, South 109th 9/21/79 3.6 ac. RS -7200 $55,000 $15,277 King County' *Sale No. 1 is the closest in proximity to subject. However, it was purchased as an approved preliminary plat of Bel -Crest Heights (14 lots), and a large portion of the sale price included engineering, platting and survey etc. expenses. This sale was appraised by the writer for financing purposes, with ' raw land attributed $15,000 per acre. Sales 2, 4 and 5 are all in superior locations further north and indicate a range of $11,538 to $15,277 per acre. Sale 3 at $5,454 per acre however, is some eight blocks north of subject, adjacent to I -5 on 51st Avenue South, exhibiting similar exposure to the freeway as subject. Subject is sited above the freeway whereas the sale property is on lower terrain thereby indicating the lower limit of value. STEWART CLARK & ASSOCIATES, INC. SLC:cmy After considering the above differences, market value for subject, if single family residence zoned, would be $10,000 per acre which times 2.69 acres indicates $26,900 rounded to $27,000. Recapitulation Evaluation (Part I) multiple residence Evaluation (Part II) single family Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. Respectfully submitted, Stewart L. Clark, M.A.I. STEWART CLARK & ASSOCIATES, INC. $350,000 $ 27,000 0•••••-• •,../.0% • ••■••■ • • I • • 1 ! • "4 sz 4 ••• ••• ••■ •■••• I 1_1115.b .: • _ : 1:;11 . a4S5 1 1 I r 36 64» 6, C Of: S ATLAS OF SEATTLE KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC, SEATTLE _SCALE 200 cr.: 1 IN. COPYRIGHT K M.GO., INC. • amall••• ( REPRODUCTION OR PART FOR PERS01 RESALE IS PROHIBIT CERTIFICATION The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: I have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of the appraisal report. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of the appraisal report or the parties involved. To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon the analysis, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting con-. ditions (imposed by the terms of my assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analyses, opinions and conclusions contained in this report. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Pro- fessional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Real Estate Boards. Stewart L. Clark, M. A. I. STEWART CLARK & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS This is to certify that the appraiser, in submitting this state- ment of opinion of value of subject property, acted in accordance with, and was bound by, the following principles, limiting con- ditions, and assumptions. No responsibility is assumed for matters which are legal in nature, nor is any opinion rendered on title of land appraised. Unless otherwise noted, the property has been ap- praised as though free and clear of all encumbrances. Where the value of the land improvements is shown separately, the value of each is segregated only as an aid to better estimate the value which it lends to the whole parcel rather than the value of that partic- ular item if it were by itself. All maps, area, and other data furnished your ap- praiser have been assumed to be correct. Personal inspection of the property. To the best of the appraiser's knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this report are true and correct, and no important facts have been with- held or overlooked. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the written consent and the approval of the author, particularly as to valuation conclusions, and the identi- ty of the appraiser or firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or the M.A. I. designation. There shall be no obligation required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal, with reference to the property in question, unless arrange- ments have been previously made therefore. STEWART CLARK & ASSOCIATES Appraisal Experience Education Court Experience Business & Professional Associations Major Clients, among other, include: APPRAISER'S QUALIFICATIONS Stewart L. Clark, M. A. I. Independent fee appraiser Northwest United States since 1959. Owner of Stewart Clark & Associates, Inc. , Appraisers and Consultants since 1972. Attended University of Washington. Completed American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Courses I - Basic Appraisal Techniques and Principles II - Appraisal of Urban Properties Member, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers since 1972. Seattle -King County Real Estate Board. American Right -of -Way Association Qualified as expert witness in Superior Courts of King, Snohomish and Okanogan Counties as well as U.S. Federal Court representing both government agencies and private property owners. City of Seattle, Departments of Engineering and Community Development City of Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond and Normandy Park Seattle First National Bank and Rainier National Bank Firstbank Mortgage • Shoreline School District, Lake Washington School District National Park Service, United States Attorney Bonneville Power Administration STEWART CLARK & ASSOCIATES. INC. el 1 Major Clients, Continued -2- Reynolds Metals Company, Xerox and I. B.M. Exxon and Standard Oil Company Westside Federal Savings & Loan Association Quality Pacific, Inc.' Equitable Relocation Service and United Airlines Episcopal Diocese, Boeing Company Investors Diversified Service Various attorneys and private individuals. Typical Appraisals & Studies All types of residential, commercial and industrial as well as special purpose properties. Feasibility studies of optimum land use and transportation routes. Numerous apartment houses and condominiums. Important assignments include Olympic National Park; Domed Stadium Site; Federal Office Building Site; Rich Whitman Schools; Pike Place Market; University' and Central Seattle Urban Renewal; Arterial road systems for Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond and Kirkland; Pacific Village Apartments. STEWART.CLARK & ASSOCIATES • Geotechnical Engineering • Material Testing • Construction Quality Control Inspection • April 13, 1981 William S. Tsao & Company 2367 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Attention: Mr. William S. Tsao Subj ect: Dear' Sir: Sa Hong Consulting Engineers A brief review of slope stability of property located at Klickitat and 53rd Avenue S., Tukwila, Washington At your request, Sa H. Hong, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer, visited the site to review the existing slope conditions as well as subsoils. The vicinity map is attached herewith. Two test pits were dug on the slope utilizing a backhoe. The following represents our findings: A. An average site slope angle ranged from 5 to 20 degrees from the horizontal. B. Retaining walls along Klickitat were inspected to detect any soil movement in the vicinity of the site. The walls showed no signs of cracks or movement. It is our opinion that the walls are well designed to withstand the earth pressure from the slope. C. Sa Hong found that medium brown clay silt or sandy silt encountered on the site has competent shear strength char- acteristics. The on -site stiff silt will not create landslides for the subject site due to the fact the existing slope is very gentle (5 to 20 degrees from the horizontal) and the stiff silt has favorable shear strength characteristics to withstand any probable slide on the site. 17809 65th PI. W., Lynnwood, WA 98036 • (206) 743 -4774 17774 - • • I William S. Tsao & Company, April 13, 1981 Page 2 D. A residential dwelling located at the north of the subject site shows no indication of the slide damages. E. Surface drainage is oriented towards the northeast direction. No severe erosion was observed. We under- stand that during construction the site work will include the storm drainage retention and pipe systems. It is our opinion that the drainage of the area will be controlled in an orderly manner. Based on the above observation, it is our opinion that no slide conditions exist in the subject site. Respectfully, Sa H. Hong, •P.E: Geotechnical Engineer. SHH:clk enclosure /1. F. Test borings conducted at the other property improvement located immediately south of 47th Avenue S. showed that the subsoils were over - consolidated, and found to be competent. ■ •UI•ft 11011 Yen tom N0IDHIH,r11 I L►lt IIVI 1111 IMI IUt1111,1 l /tt 11173119399 9 193391993 3'11'03 9 OVS11 V V1111M • • • • x.11 • • 1: • fp �•i 1_� • • ici i • • 11441S1/W1 � '1 a %1 u 014'41.1 4 UnluI J o ruov 1.114 Pc, / - ■1 -.•■■• / / / AL 4 / . / / t=3 E e CH2M HILL APRIL 10, 1981 'SUITABILITY OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON MCNAMARA PROPERTY IN CITY OF TUKWILA CH2MIIHILL CH2MIIHILL INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the findings of James D. Braman, Jr. regarding the appropriateness of the site commonly known as the McNamara property for multiple- family or single - family residential development. CH2M Hill has been retained by Mr. Edward McNamara to provide a professional opinion regarding this matter. Resumes of the experience of Mr. Braman and of Mr. Carl Stixrood of CH2M HILL, who assisted in the study, are attached. SUMMARY The proposed development is consistent both with general planning principles and with many policies of the Tukwila comprenensive plan; additionally, it represents a much lower intensity of development than that permitted under existing zoning. Ideally, multifamily development occurs in locations that have direct access to main transportation routes, are close to employment and shopping, and are separated from single - family areas by topography, distance, and /or transitional uses. The subject site fulfills these criteria since it has excellent access to the regional freeway network, is located close to a Metro bus stop, is within walking distance of major shopping and employment centers, and is well separated from concentrations of single - family developments. Multifamily development would also permit greater sensitivity to several special site factors than would single - family development. Furthermore, these factors would make it difficult or impossible to develop and market single- family homes on the site. Reasons underlying these conclusions are outlined in the following pages. GENERAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The subject site meets a number of criteria customarily felt by planners to be necessary for good multiple - residential development, as follows: 1. It has excellent access to the regional freeway network without the need to travel through single- family neighbor- hoods. The nearest 1 -5 access point is less than 1/4 mile from the 53rd Avenue access to the site. 2. A Metro bus stop is located within easy walking distance of the site on 53rd Avenue South. Southcenter, approxi- mately 1/2 mile from the site, operates as a terminal for several local and regional bus routes. 3. The shopping and employment opportunities of Southcenter and Andover Industrial Park are within bicycling and walking distance of the site. Recent development has included the Doubletree Plaza Hotel, additional retail stores in Parkway Plaza, and a high -rise office building occupied by Boeing. 4. Although there are a few scattered houses on large lots near the site, the nearest densely developed single - family neighborhood is about 700 feet from the site and separated from the site by steep slopes. The nearest homes in McMicken Heights lie at an elevation more than 125 feet higher than the highest part of the proposal site. In addition to those general considerations, several special factors also support multiple - residential development on the site. These are: 1. Multifamily development will allow a greater number of persons to enjoy the view potential of the site than would be the case with single - family development. 2. A higher investment in soundproofing is feasible for multifamily development because of the savings inherent in common wall construction. 3. Multifamily development will allow clustering of units and efficient parking layout to maximize the amount of natural vegetation that can be retained in a buffer around the perimeter of the site as well as in open spaces in the site interior. 4. The site's proximity to parkland, which lies across 53rd Avenue to the west, and to the Tukwila trail system, a unit of which borders the site to the south, enhances its use for multifamily development, since certain recreation needs of the residents in such development can be met close at hand. 5. Construction of single - family homes on the site would be inappropriate, since: a. The noise level from the traffic on Interstate Highway 5 and State Highway 518 is extremely high. The edge of the interchange of these two highways, which is one of the busiest in the state, lies just 190 feet from the site. This noise would make it extremely difficult to market single - family homes on the site. b. Development of single- family homes on individual sites would result in substantial disruption of the topography and natural growth on the site. • 6. Multifamily development of this site would be consistent with the existing pattern of development around the I- 5/SH518 interchange. The northeast quadrant of this interchange is developed in commercial and multifamily residential uses; the southeast quadrant is the site of Southcenter and the northwest quadrant is developed with large commercial uses. Furthermore, multiple resi- dential development occurs along both the north and south sides of SH518 between I -5 and US99. EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL ON SINGLE - FAMILY AREAS It is possible that the city has some concern that approval of the proposed development would lead to further multiple - residential development to the south and west that might ultimately encroach on single - family areas in the McMicken Heights area. It is beyond the scope of this report to prepare a detailed proposal for an amendment to the comprehensive plan, which specifically addresss where to draw the line between single and multifamily areas, but a general approach can be outlined. Briefly, if a narrow band of multifamily development were allowed along the freeway with a transition zone behind, the dual objectives of protecting existing single - family areas from encroachment and allowing a logical development of vacant lands could be achieved. This pattern of development would be consistent with topography in the overall area. The subject site lies at an elevation ranging from 125 to 175 feet lower than the nearest part of the McMicken Heights residential area. Under this approach, the subject site could be developed with multiple - family residences, as shown above to be desirable, without concern about such development ultimately spreading into single - family areas. CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSAL WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES The proposed design responds to most applicable policies of the Natural Environment Section of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan in a positive way, particularly with respect to preserv- ing existing vegetation and minimizing view blockage from surrounding property and streets. Any development which occurs on land with this degree of slope will require grading. The proponent has determined that the most desirable treatment of some steeper slopes is to utilize the building foundation as a retaining wall, thus allowing two•levels of entries on opposite sides of the building. Although this approach may not appear to be entirely consistent with policies encouraging minimum site disturbance, it does make the most advantageous use of existing grades from an economic standpoint. Furthermore, the steep slopes involved are short enough to be covered almost entirely by the building, so that land both above and below the building will experience minimum change in grade. The proposed design is supportive of most applicable policies of the open space and residence sections of the comprehensive plan. Although a multiple- family development is sometimes considered incompatible with single - family housing, in actuality, this is not a serious problem with this development in this location for the following reasons: o Adjacent residences are on large lots and set well back from the proposed development o The nearest densely developed single - family neighbor- hood is approximately 700 feet away and separated from the site by steep topography o The site plan provides a transition zone of two - story townhouses along the edge of the property closest to this dense single - family neighborhood. o Although driveways of two homes are located between the site and freeway access points, it is not neces- sary to drive through dense single- family areas to reach the site. The following matrix includes responses concerning the rela- tion between the project and each applicable policy of the comprehensive plan. Element 1. Natural Environment Objectives 1. Recognize the aesthetic, environmental, and use benefits of vegetation and promote its retention and installation. 2. Promote the retention and pres- ervation of certain highly suitable areas for wildlife habitat and natural areas. 3. Recognize the advantages and and opportunities afforded by the topography and plan its use accordingly. RELATION TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: GOAL & POLICIES Policies 1. Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in slope stabilization. 2. Encourage the use of live vege- tation in development landscape plans. 3. Discourage disturbance of vege- tation when not in conjunction with the actual development of the property. 1. Strive to retain viable areas of wooded hillsides, agricultural lands, wetlands, streams, and the Green River for wildlife habitat and natural areas. 1. Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent. 2. Preserve the views of hillside residents. 3. Preserve and promote the quality of natural landform. 4. Discourage filling, grading, or excavations of land when not in conjunction with actual development of the land. Implementation The plan calls for the retention of many of the site's significant trees. Of the 2.7 acres in the site, approxi- mately 50 percent of the total area will remain in landscaping or natural open space. A building permit will be obtained before clearing is done. Areas within the site that will not be used for buildings or • parking will be undisturbed except for clearing of underbrush where required. The perimeter of the site will be retained or developed in a buffer which will support wildlife habitat to some extent. Structures are situated to maximize views. The majority of the building and parking sites are on areas of less than 10 percent slope. A portion of one building is in an area of 16 percent slope and a portion of another building is in an area of little over 20 percent slope. The two buildings are set into the grade to minimize their apparent height. From the street only the rooftops of the two closest buildings are seen and surrounding residential development has its views preserved. Unit and building types'have been designed to take advantage of the slope by having separate entrances at opposite sides of the building on different levels to minimize the need for stairs. Element ' Objectives 1. Natural Environment (continued) 4. Realize the ability of natural streamways, ponds, and marshes to handle storm runoff while acting as significant natural amenities. 5. (not applicable) 6. Recognize the characteristics of local geology and consider them in the land use planning process. 7. (not applicable) 8. Recognize the Environmental Basemap of the Tukwila Planning Area which depicts the distribu- tion and extent of natural amenities based on the previously mentioned objectives and use this map as a general planning guide. Policies 1 -3 (not applicable) 4. Encourage the preservation of marshes and ponds for the retention of storm runoff. 1. Discourage development in areas where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of slopes is questionable, allow develop- ment only after a qualified professional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site modification. 2. (not applicable) Implementation Marshes and ponds were not identified by site analysis. However, low areas of the site will be used for stormwater retention. A soils investigation has been conducted and has revealed no evidence of soils instability on the site. The type of development proposed can be accommodated with normal excavation and construction features. The environmental base map has two factors indicated for the site, one of which is for only a portion of the site. These factors are vegetation cover and geologic stability. The vegetation on site is small and medium size trees with underbrush, blackberry bushes and some large shrubs. The underbrush and blackberry bushes will be cleared and replaced with ground cover and additional trees in areas of the site that will be undeveloped. Trees and shrubs will be saved where possible. A soils investigation indicates that the site is stable. Element Objectives 2. Open Space 3. Residence (Section 1) 1. Provide for an adequate and diversified supply of open spaces and include them in an open space system. 2, 3, 4. (not applicable) 1. (not applicable) • 2. Minimize the incompatibilities between different types of residential uses. Policies 1. Strive to preserve the hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic con- dition. 2. Encourage the preservation of marshes, ponds, and water- courses for open space purposes and include them in the open space system. 3. Provide for active recreational areas consistent with the needs of the community. 4. Provide for passive recreational areas (parka, natural reserves, picnic grounds) consistent with the needs of the community. 5. Locate public recreational facilities where they are easily accessible to the resident population. 6-8. (not applicable) 1. Provide for medium density •transition areas* between high and low density residen- tial areas. 2. Multiple - family developments should be located functionally convenient to a primary or secondary arterial street where traffic generated by these uses does not pass through single - family residential areas. 3. (not applicable) Implementation The proposed perimeter buffer will help maintain some of the present wooded character of the site. Marshes and ponds were not identified by site analysis work; however, low areas of the site which are used for stormwater retention will also function as open space areas. The site is located immediately across the street from an undeveloped 11 -acre City park. (See response to Policy 3.) (See response to Policy 3.) The site plan includes two -story townhouses along the 53rd Avenue boundary as a medium density transitional use. Although a few single - family homes are located on large lots near the site, the closest densely developed single - family neighborhood is 700 feet away. The site is 1/2 block from a collector arterial in an area that is not densely developed with single - family residences. The site is less than 500 feet from one of the largest freeway interchanges in the state. 2. Maintain a suitable, liveable housing supply in the planning area. Element Objectives 3. Residence 1. Assure a diversified supply of (Section 2) housing in the planning area. 3. (not applicable) 4. Encourage incorporation of crime reducing elements into the residential developments in the planning area. Policies 1. Encourage housing developments which provide diversity of housing types. 2. Encourage the development owner occupied multiple - family residential units. 3. (not applicable) 1. (not applicable) 2. (not applicable) 3. Encourage the use of noise insulation materials in the construction of residential structures in areas which are seriously impacted by freeway or aircraft noise. 4. (not applicable) 1. Encourage housing designs in which building forms and spaces allow residents to adopt proprietary attitudes beyond their living spaces. 2. Encourage housing designs which provide for the visual surveil- lance of public spaces both from the dwelling units and the street. 3. Encourage the adequate lighting of residential streets and parking lots. Note: The elements of commerce /industry, and transportation /utilities are not applicable. Implementation The project has divided the 54 units into five buildings in three different con- figurations. The units are a combination of townhouses and flats and buildings vary in height and number of units. of Units shall be owner occupied. Energy and sound insulation will be used in exterior walls of the building as well as between units. The project has been divided into five smaller buildings. Each unit has its own individual exterior entrance and windows will be placed to allow observa- tion into individually defined private spaces. By not using an interior common corridor, the project eliminates a common space that is hard to monitor. Each unit has windows placed to allow observation of the parking and common areas. Exterior lighting will be used on pathways, in parking areas and for the safety and security of residents and their guests. Element Objectives 2. Residence (continued) 3. Diminish the environmental effects of natural and man- made systems which adversely affect the quality of living in the Tukwila planning area. Policies 1. Encourage the use of vegetative or fence -like screens adjacent to freeways and along noisy use districts to protect residential areas from high noise levels. 2. (not applicable) 3. Encourage the undergrounding of all utilities and the general beautification of the residen- tial areas. 4. Encourage a minimum care and maintenance level for undeveloped open spaces. 5. In addition to parking space for tenants encourage the provision of adequate parking space for guests and recrea- tional vehicles within multiple - family developments. 6. Encourage the development of pedestrian rights -of -way, over- passes and well - lighted trails which can provide safe passage from residential areas to commercial, service, and recreational areas. 7. Encourage the provision of recreational open space within multiple- family developments. 8. (not applicable) Implementation The buffer proposed along Klickitat Drive will help maintain a vegetative fence -like screen adjacent to the freeway. The project will have underground utilities and about half of the site will consist of maintained landscape areas. The project will be maintained in a neat and attractive condition. The site plan follows the parking require- ment of the 1*411 zone requiring 3 parking spaces for every two units. In order to limit the amount of impervious surfaces, parking greater than that ratio was not planned although there is roam in the landscape areas. Pathways will be developed within the site and will be linked to Tukwila Trail No. 9 to encourage greater use of this facility. Some units will have their own yards, and several on -site areas are of a size and location that can be used for passive recreation. MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM FEES: RCPT. M.F. EPIC. NOTE: Please write legibly or type all requested information -- incomplete applications will not be accepted for processing. SECTION I. GENERAL DATA 1) APPLICANT'S NAA m . S . Tsao & Co., P. TELEPHONE: ( 20q 324 - 8780 2) APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 2367 Eastlake Ave. E. ZIP: Seattle, WA 98102 3) PROPERTY OWN'ER'S NAME Edward F. McNamarclupHbN (206 285 -6646 4) PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS 1600 Dexter Ave. N. ZIP: 98109 5) LOCATION OF PROJECT: (geogr p iic legal de) 1 SEE ATTACHED SHEET 6) MME OF PROJECT(OPTIONAL) Kroll Page: 344 SECTION II: PROJECT INFORMATION 7) BRIEFLY DESCRIBE 1HE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE: 54 unit condominium consisting of 34 Townhouse units, 20 Flats, all in 5 buildings with required parking area (s). 8) DO YOU PROPOSE TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT IN PHASES? OYES 9) PROJECT a. NET ACRES 2.69 b. GROSS ACRES 2.69 e. LOT AREA COVERAGE BLDG27, 280 SQ.FT. LANDSCAPE 513,W5 SQ. FT. PAVING , 625 SQ, FT. 10) DOES THE AVERAGE SLOPE OF THE SITE EXCEED 10 %? !__.1 YES NO 11) EXISTING ZONING RMH 12. EXISTING CCMP.PLAN R -1 13) IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION IS YES* IINO ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE MAP? 14) IF YOU WISH TO HAVE COPIES OF CITY CORRESPONDENCE, STAFF REPORTS, OR OTHER DOCUMENTS SENT TO ADDRESSES OTHER THAN APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER, PLEASE INDICATE BELOW. 4t4 -15ele a. NAME: *Mb \i/M.54, a'r'k'(. ADDRESS: 1111 3% AV %UV 945 b. NAME: ADDRESS: * Yes on some maps, but not all maps. c. PARKING SPACES 81 d. FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION 2 to 4 a NO OVER SECTION III: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT I, Edward F. McNamara , being duly sworn, declare that I an the contract purchaser or owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATE 3 - 13 - 81 X / / ..7. X-r� &-e (Signature of Contract Purchaser or owner) Subscribed and sworn before me ( � 1 � 17r & 1 SOON �.. this 4, daY_ of , ' � 19 0l 1+ v F "• 1, • •• S c., t4OTAI7y Tw o No P li in residing at 7/6 tor the State of Washington SECTION IV: SUPPORTING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF APPLICATION REZONING( T CONDITIONALUSE VARIANCE SCHEDULE F, 3,5,9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT SCHEDULE D, 2,3,4,5,9 SHORELINE MGM T . PERMIT SCHEDULE B, 2,3,4,5,8 X WAIVER SCHEDULE A, 2,3,9,10 SHORT SUBDIVISION 3,4,7 r1 SUBDIVISION 2,3,4,5,9 +,12 BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2,3,4,6,9 [iARcHITEcmRALREvIEw 9,10 F 1LANDSCAPE REVIEW 11 * *SEE TABLE 1 FOR DESCRIPTION + OPTIONAL• ' AT STAFF'S DIRECTION : '°tiB1.1G v. � Po; !r (• 1 3 • A • • • \ 1 11 � i . p F W As \ As SUPPORTING MATERIAL ** SCHEDULE E, 1,2,3,4,5,9 SCHEDULE C, 1,2,3,5,9 MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM Conditions affecting this site which require waiver review: Inconsistency between zoning and comprehensive plan use designations Site located in area of special development consideration 1) Describe briefly the project you propose SEE ATTACHED SHEETS SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONAIRE Schedule A WAIVER APPLICATION 2) Does your project represent a unique benefit to the Tukwila Community? SEE ATTACHED SHEETS 3) Is your project significant in scale relative to its neighborhood setting? SEE ATTACHED SHEETS 4) Are reasonable alternative development approaches available to you which would not require waiver review? SEE ATTACHED SHEETS 5) If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, vegetation re- moval, excavation or filling in an environmentally sensitive area, what miti- gating solutions are proposed to offset the impact of such activity? SEE ATTACHED SHEETS 6) What goals and policies of the comprehensive plan can you identify which sup- port your request for waiver approval? (Attach seterate sheet) 7) Do the requirements of the waiver process impose a hardship on the use and de- ' velopment of this site? SEE ATTACHED SHEETS ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON SCHEDULE "A" MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM McNAMARA APPLICATION TO CITY OF TUKWILA Introduction to Answers The applicant proposes to construct a multi - family residential development. His property is currently zoned multiple residence high density (RMH), however, the comprehensive land use plan map designates lbw density residential for the area in which.the applicant's property is located. In addition, the comprehensive plan's environmental basemap indicates that the area in which the applicant's property is located has certain environ- mental characteristics. The Tukwila Waiver Ordinance (No. 1109 as amended) requires that an applicant seek a waiver from the City Council when his proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive land use plan map and when his property is located in an area identified on the environmental basemap as having certain environmental characteristics. Therefore, to comply with the requirements of this ordinance, the applicant is submitting this application to the City Council for a waiver. The applicant requests that the waiver be granted for the following reasons: a. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The property is appropriate for multi - family residential use and is not appropriate for single- family residential use. b. The environmental basemap is erroneous in designating this property in a general category of unstable soil; the soil on this property is stable. Furthermore, the proposed development will include sufficient geologic mitigating measures, and it will be structurally sound. c. The environmental basemap is erroneous in designating this property as a major wooded area; there are a limited number of large trees on the property. Further- more, most of these trees will be retained by the proposed development. 1. The applicant's property is located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange of I -5 and I -405. The proposal is for a 54 -unit condominium development, including a mix of townhouse -type units and single -floor units. The units will be constructed within five wood -frame structures, which will be located sixty feet apart and sited to take advantage of the view, topography and existing trees on the property. The buildings will be sited at an angle to 53rd Avenue South so as not to create a "wall of buildings" along 2. the street front. The development will retain a significant amount of open space and natural vegetation. The structures will vary in height from two to three stories, and, on some elevations, to four stories. Plans have been submitted to the City with this application. 2. This proposal is unique for several reasons. It affords a choice of different types of housing and it provides affordable housing to moderate income people. It is located close to the urban core, which reduces demand for sprawl on the urban fringes. Although present zoning would allow 195 units located in a high -rise tower up to 150 feet in height, this project is limited to a maximum height of four stories and only 54 units. 3. The proposal is insignificant in scale for several reasons. It is insignificant in relation to the maximum allowed development under the current zoning. It is insignificant when compared to the high density commercial and residential development on the other quadrants of this freeway interchange. It is also insignificant in that the proposal has kept modifications of the environment to an absolute minimum. 4. No. The Tukwila waiver ordinance requires a waiver for any development on this site, since this site is located in an area 3. designated on the environmental basemap as having certain environmental characteristics. 5. The comprehensive plan's environmental basemap designates the area in which this property is located as having certain environmental characteristics related to geologic conditions and vegetation. These designations are erroneous. The soils on the property are stable and fully capable of supporting the proposed development. The property is not heavily wooded, and contains only a limited number of large trees. The applicant is aware of the soil conditions on the property, including soil stability during extreme wet weather. The proposal fully addresses the soil characteristics of this site including its characteristics during extreme wet weather. In addition, the applicant has calculated the potential increase in surface water runoff which could be created by this development, and the plan includes sufficient surface water runoff control. Finally, all large and unique vegetation on the property has been identified, and the proposed development will retain most of this vegetation. 6. Numerous goals and policies for the City of Tukwila's compre- hensive land use plan support this waiver application. 4. 5 . Natural Environment: The development will retain most of the large and unique vegetation. Additional new trees and shrubs will be included in the landscaping. Opportunities afforded by the topography of the property will be used accordingly: no slopes in excess of 20% will be developed; views of hillside residents will be preserved; and the natural land form will be preserved and promoted to the extent possible. The proposal will not pollute any bodies of water, nor lower the air quality of the area. Residence: This proposal is a medium - density development and is therefore an appropriate "transition area" between the freeway and the McMicken Heights residential neighborhood. The property is located functionally convenient to primary and secondary arterial streets. There is sufficient buffering, both in terms of topography and distance, between this proposed development and the McMicken Heights residential neighborhood. The proposal includes sufficient noise barriers and visual screens between the residences and the freeway. The proposal includes access to pedestrian rights of way, and includes recreational open space within the development. In addition, the proposal provides diversity of housing types, including owner - occupied multi - family residential units. A multi - family development can be designed to buffer noise in a more economical and efficient manner than single- family developments. The total design of the project will include crime - reducing elements. 7. The waiver ordinance imposes a hardship on the use and devel- opment of this site. The ordinance requires that no development take place on any site which is designated on the environmental basemap as having certain environmental characteristics. The environmental basemap designates this property as having certain environmental characteristics, and therefore the ordinance prohibits any development without seeking a waiver from the City Council. 6. C P VC limi L,,I.d.M 3 . TB A,Q dc. CO1V11 T :E? . Engineers & Architects Lyle N. Kussman, Architect 2367 Eastlake Avenue E. a Seattle, Washington 98102 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 54 Unit Condominium LOT 9 BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS LESS BEGINNING 330 FEET WEST OF N.E. CORNER; THENCE SOUTH TO S.E. CORNER; THENCE WEST 170 FEET TO POINT ON CURVE WHERE RADIUS BEARS SOUTH 89 59' 24" WEST; THENCE NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO LEFT WITH RADIUS OF 382.47 FEET TO POINT 50 FEET SOUTH OF NORTH LINE SAID TRACT AND 300 FEET WEST OF EAST LINE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY IN STRAIGHT LINE TO BEGINNING LESS SOUTH 30 FEET LESS STATE HIGHWAY. 2061324 8780 ^ " � « ^ , I S.CA.LE...._i . 20 1 • h 0 0 S � 1 0 4 0 izo 5. /58TH, ST &IfA • 2o CO,JJor/ - BWIDING & UN /T No. ?ARK/NG 9'r2o & No. pARK/.aG HA/JO/c4 &. NO. Co./c,CEft . . S /De WIAL/< SA N!TA ;y SEW A_ , . LiA /GT'I • TN/S CONTRA o . Li.GEND • EiC/Sr/N 6 Su(f AC f <ur.1 off f ,2oA4 )3 /o'• /?Z A-fANyoLE, No. & /NVERT El E VAT' N — � — W WATER. MA/.d * S/I E M/rat� \'OOQ CAra'/ Top & /NveaTELEV. Et. • S WAL-E.. • . .S1? °T. ..I I E.VA7, e.../ .r .7oP_M 4 AA ix/ ; 3 /ZE ct. AppKo. LEN 8 .' ioa' DRA/NAG'E 8 0Uti/pARY 1 -- DA.A` IN/ A GF AREA'• 4a 4.13" '..° ?'CpAVEO) 0.0 ro1/oTNe,es) 3D6 ` `- ... . C/ 0' S fAIn e P//DE L /n/E w 6 ° R /GN7 of ,,/Ay 5 ou7N f L ow EAS7 • TM's roNjR,t j D Er! Nr/oN powo -. Vol. • 2, f 60 cu./7. B ar7°M E LE.✓ / /.6. f ,T oP .of e'"-e°". /240 . w / /FT. f/LEEBoAXI) /LLAK, lA/A.jE�2. $ uR. /Ac( - . /2 0.0 1/6. o M/E 72 . 0 STO CazairiApfA 440 12 L � /LOO cefM, we %LCLcre /nod to w . aw9ade iG /”. 9B RECEIVED cir/ op TUKWILA AUG 24 i5 ? • DUILDIna DEPT. $I �� 3 -W r Ca • BUILDING DEPT, i,cC ={'IED . CITY cP TUKWILA _ / /A N anod GLO dor , d /02. ZS ezdeZC.EfeOr za 4/447 7,e.o.cps. W. V ulc�; a �.. •CCU W . Q CC 40 u) ... Z c a owe ui N 3 1 rn z _ o Vl cc_ DATE ( /A5/ .9.-2•' STORM D,Q, /NAGE PL ' JOB NO. 8 o ? SHEET . I 01111 T�tj 0,11101iT�ftl(I� "1 Illji'h7111�1�1I1�IiTIrj'ri fiflTF1[ lfjtRm ' ni' i l` IY( I�Il1pflI�illjljl `jf�T(f�17T1'f�IT1118 • IS LESS IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT 6 24x ... I OE 6z ee tz sz sz ez ez zz ,z oz et 9{ ti 01 sI P1 'CI zi a Oti /f l .._ Ii�il6m�iuiluii�agbilllipiligl�I11�I�n111llilil�l lu�ln�1�11111���iluhui�lmluli�lu�lui��uuliu����iilllu�l��lh1a�11u1�1�l��tulut�lltdm��111diio�uilluu�ulibll�l��' CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO{ THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT' • L xZ /3a /32 r_ _.. r.0 •STA / - A 2 8 )• • I. 45° BENO kiJieM SCA.!_E._.../ =..20 ° ' .✓ T E sG '8 X8 x6 Tit .M✓xMJ P...:. /- ..6 "G.✓. &Box f[cM 7..3': 1.•.S „'M ✓o HYDRANT •' Gaetc . BE ock /N0 S• 58pl. ST Si( /ST /NG STA Of Ex7SpArG /- G. /• B"TEE 1 a” /I/ ?EP. e'7 0 o ! EDuctA„ MJ x pL fL. jQAwit •Dw ocoo¢ sr 5f / U x 20 I ? FE /50 0 ■ B "G.V., M✓rfC STA 0 ;\251 /- 18'7•EE ftxfL 2• 8 "G. Ttx Al./. 1 8' A Aptf� L < A4 ✓. STA 94-7 • /AGM So ?At (b 1 :-. / O o _ - GOAT JOUR. B u,Z D /LAG & U A//T N o. .PAR :K /LAG 9'x2o £. No. PAai /SIG NA/Jo/cAp .k Mo. :Ce i °eTt, S/DE ' SAK!TAitY fSEiv[.r%, LINO .!E l APPa TMs CONTRACT • - 125 Go " W ^1 . • Ek/spNG ^ 4 ! 13 E PJqJ(., No;To B %LAVER IL5 �o,o M A P T CATcN BAT A✓ & 7op .EI EV• s►,/Ai[ - t. 8 w ... WAITER MA/n/,. S /IE & AptROK. f M3PY 336' S7,4 6 02 t / - ?2/2' BE /1) MJx M./ CITY of SE ATTLE P /PE R / GHT . of 1N/Ay ' nos G ONTA Ac T " 90.00 l 0.0 0 nrs M/172 .5 .5t o /`45' A/Q . �L rMJ I. 8" G V 14 X MJ 0 4/70 E Nys ASCE (T)P) ,8. 57A 01 /- 15 ° 8EA/O '^ AV 41J I F � cu Gi• TU &tiv1 AUG 24.1S lS0 BUILDING DEFT. /ATE 2 D /STijBUT /ON SANirAgY Sf wE, . PL AN • L EG f ND' 11,415•41 Inc =1veo • EX /ST/NG . .... rN /S CONTRAt7 CIIV G TUrwL CLi ANOUT & /LAVER EIAV. I f /RE i45yDRANT ASSEMBLY CUlLD61G DEPT. GATE VALVE & VALVE BoX ' • --10.11---. ,/L WA TER. ` ME rE/� & S'1 E — • . �Y ° %a-AL C�i2 w 4 0..e.4°. J29 � ez/) de.i Zate.A 2S . /246P4 a q. z�4L), G Ca-e, GuE..'QJJe. X20.1{ 6&Qex. G' faviulazSed - G2 o' ,. . Qex ttL.a d /!o, / P4 , : ~ En ' V W W I— W' GI ^• • CC W C • z �' � r gym = Qz "' DATE l,//5/ ? D7s7R SEiNE2 PLA'1<( JOB NO:8.044; • r T . I�I�Ii�il ( � l�ih1 1 ��Iin' f' Irfi��1ir �' I' I' IIII�IIililll�i�iP�ir���f��� {ri�r�i 2 3 4 5 6 7 oc az BL Lz 9E 9z trz GE EE tt OZ Ut at Ll 9t St 4t 'Et Et 11 OL .,.. �IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111IIIII�IIIIIJ IU�IIIIIIUI�IIIIIIIII�pII�IIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIpIIIIIpIIIIIIpIIIILIIIIIII�LIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII�II IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS' CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE T01 THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ; l y /}3ffn.!tc, r t /4o /3 / /20 /1 /'40 3 .0 .... / ?0 a.6 'SS , 0.00 7 /35. N /34.s T /3 6.90 //,//sHEO GA 8. "- /73 S= o,00f A DE /JABS/ /20 f -f /N /S 90 S = o.o0 9 h 'G/z A0t L7�7/ /2ooB GRADE 0 1 1\ //9.41 ST 0/2M D/ZA/N PROF /CES A. ADE 82" 5". o.oa 40 S: AO/ /i \ /19,0/ 8• . /9 B • S.= o 9. S$/ ' f IIIIrir Iji]iIl rrgr1T P[ii. III I` 7 rlrl1�1 rjr ni iii "1'17 IIr1 r�1 lji iC 1�1 �tlji Pal lj rjT rlrtti 111 I 1 f'• • 0 " + "• "" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _QFLE%IeLE t1ULEe•]e] 5,10mu. - (]c eZ eL LZ VZ SZ bZ CZ ZZ lZ OZ at al Ll 9l 6t b 'Cl Zl tl 0 '_._. 1IIIIIIIIIII111IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII011111 g4111llll1111lIll11I�IIDIL�II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIgIIIpIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1II1111. 11IIIII111110UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII101111IIIIIIIIIiII 1111 • o SA TA R• S•Ekv 2 Pl2ofLLES • /1/0 SCALE HoR / 1 ✓4R7 /11= ¢, Y I5./ 2 EX /ST rE WEAK • IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS ' CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TOI ' THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT! GENERAL NOTES • : ,; . Materials {.. 1, • Alt work and aterials shill bs In confor•rriilloe with the standards and spediflntlons,of•ths Ctty,af Tukwila'PUbtic Worka Department and otter ippllcabls slit WIties, „ All halation' of editing utilltlei sho ' a nrecapprcnlrtMte:and'.itlhaltba the Cantrsctcr'. . rsaporeiblllty,to verify the thus and 'Correct looattbn'ao to aJoid•demags‘or disturbance,. 3. • • It shall be Mr : Contractor's ras to 'secure all nisessaarypermits pilot *starting • cantruction, ' • :4. Impaction will be eccariplished by. .r. sSs itlw Wild City cot Tutor/ilia other - ' applicable au611a •tile!. It shall be the didiritetWolirieponsibilliii to messy the agencies .. 24 hairs .in advidhcs of hick/Ming all cortitruatlon... 5; All wailer main yips to be c.ment linictductila'iren pipe corforming to ANSI•Spscs .A -21 -51 -1076 or latestnvtstm, t Ickresa,Olfta21Q. Capital Mortar tiring arid Oat • • costing ihallooeform 'toANSIA- 21- 4- 7=-or'laWt rwtalen,',1?,Ips joints tribe push -on or re:alchemic/4 joint. Bedding to bs Class B. P,VC plows and fillings may be hoed If, • approved by alUMoritisi. ... - . . 6. AU fittings to be'Cast'iron, cementtired, Clets:250, unlesil 'oterwtes specified on drooling ' curtaining toANSI•Spsc. A -21 -10 -1877; ANSI A- 21.11 -f977 or latgt.rsvlsion; All. : '' fitting jolnwto6i . medhsntcat'joint:o. flanMd, Flanged, joints shall a. drilled In • accordance with:ANSI 13 21.10 and shall.ba 126 le,• corfigurotlon, Unless at ar Ise specified on drawing. ';'. ` •• • 7. Typical Hydrsrht - 6" x 6" CI 'TEE (MI x' FLO) ult iaa otorwlsa,ndted, M,. Ol,f)V,(FLSi x ` MJ) 6" DI Nipple teivitti as esqul 6l( MVO!•ydr•antAtiembiy(M:J(), Cone. 13114,'V Drain Rock i $Mckis Red, Qonc: Guard Post. • ' ' B, Typical sarvlo, corriection Mill be par City d Tlikwlli etuidiird for•Ilf" water meter w/mtn• 2" servles,cdrrectil ta �t •Instal 2" gar vilvea,betwwn misters and buildings.' AU water`, shell lie ata'.�'hlnlnium of 36 Ira*. below finlsh•geiide.• •; .10. Alt wawr:ma na St*II a pr osiers watsd and'diitnhe4id In accorincs'with the, specific. -, there d toiClty of Tulwvila, AirrIttooSterflard.C11501 Of latest revlilan, Ssotlon 74 d "Swnitthrd�Spselfloatllane ", All pr+eiiusrtesting;shill be done In :the presence d a' rapr -fe laths art ssiCity,N Tukwila.. • • • : • ,•••• • ' 11. OOnbvctor^I:oproaifds pNe� and tvrperary blow -riff issembilss for •teatini and purity icciptaideeprior.trnnaI is -In.. . 1Y, Alt auriacs,,ilelt his mitered to original canditlon Lyon corplstion, • ,l3. Storm drabs shalt be corrupewA,mettill•plps (COP), slurNnuenr _16'`gaupe.. _ '`.. •13edd%tg for cori'igabid mslal pips (CMP)'Ne11 Lis Olsss Nattoi tiedellrit materials shall • ' not. conwln itonsa:lirgsr thin 3 Inches'; frasn.roots, or motstor'a•ln excess of let par- milting thorough compaction. ` •.. • 16; Trvncli shalt be. water settled or •mschhsnically;cornpected prier • to pipe aeoaptsnoe by tin's' • ..engineer. - 16. ' basins sh all•bs Type I or Type III ctirb • foist shall bs Typs and frame and .grate . shell - •conform to Srahndard Plan No 49. • 17. All rod drain shill be Olreewd to'drainage system via & eat flow or e11.M:eerrugatad loVC. • 15. The tildes aihd bottirn of I e detention pond shall to seeded with a suitable grass wilatyrs.., 1B. "MarhotSs ethill' be standard pier 34, excipt provide eccentric core and 24" , m dlaswr cover • except as n*d. 20. Sanitary Sevier. pipe material alternhtlws: A. Concrete, - ASTM C14-2: B. PVC ASTM D3034, SDR 66I jotnts•ehall corforrn to D3212 using a restrained rubber gnlist . caforning tOASTM F477. 21. • Bedding for • concrete pipe shall be Class "B ", bsdd ng for PVC pipe shall be per Sac. 3,030 of APWA; , .. '22. Trench shall . be wswr settled or mechanically comrpacEsd prior to Pk* aeeeptand. W w • 23. • Corkn•sctor to mplate :0A l public and private Improvements In condltlon'squal to that which . exlstidprior. to conatriicthon. Construction area to be fins graded upon completion in •unimproved ireas.• , 24. Conniption to dl. s1 ii ing.line shall be madewith the written approval of City of Tukwila ' 48'hioura (rsguler Working days) adevance notice•must be given.. 5✓ ." -' Io . t ■ , ' 'l:` �''1 :} `r ; 1 : 7ti � V. `"e.).,�: .. . a .''' ; r l : ' a = +;1 '. � •y „3c yp `le ,;r... :'.• , •:J . •.t,..5r; •Y . -. 1 • • 26. • Eklstlig utllitNa lydlcated the drawing have been plotted from the bast 1/formation available to the engineers. Under,, no ciruxnatar!cas witlerrors or omissions In location • d Lentils,. or improvements be comldsrod as a•besla for extra or addlttoret:conpsneatlon to Me Ci nlractor.. ' r NOW Rgj..4TIVE Ki.0_NNECTION TO EXIST! ACILJTIES: _.• tgw�rstorenWn G> Mn�ksattlt' • i pcitat ieiddi`Fee is f li181101i ;frar liar••, • Ovt A/ LOW ELE✓ SHOWN 0 1 P LAN VCR o s s B 00Th t r- /'./veRT RE V. Platy/At on/ PLAA% h P LA t, W� i , T T op IA /G' SHOWN v b w p L A N in/E L D _ . pLATf To OffSE-T 'F,eAM£ GRATE SO 7WAT AQsr;vc.T.o/t DEVICE /f v's 4•T EDGE. Of Opi%vG • $ "D /AkEGrLy. TNL L drv Aeote. ;. covt4 • SHALL BE SO felt Loc;$0 • r Top ELE i4 .SNO14/.4 pc An/ CATCH • • BAS / 1/ /TN•0IL•.sipA & /R'ESTALIcTo* CNA/N 200 L4 cA SLACK WHEN.G4 /f Does, WCLD cWA/N re CB faA IL - -- STD CB LADDER. Trios /n/LET • S/1 E ' S/Or/N ON PLAN RECEIVED . CITY OF TUIrmul . AUG 24 1,90 ' DUILD= DEPT. • /AiVER.j ELE!/ Viewed ON LAN WATER'7TGNT "1 4; G . A Ti. /TH M ! N elEA 8 GAUGE . SL /DE CAJ' BAs /n/, $I •.13- �/ RECEIVED CITY CR' uILDRio DEPT NO7i ' • .O W&ts..n4L L Co"ncem, dO[U.2ri Z4zeL A[ METAC'PARTf 4' MusT BE MADE Of CoAROS/vC & Y e 2 . 4 . , Gem / d 4 / n a d t 6 4i x . e e n t o n . d o u i e t / i 1 isTAN ] ..'MA !/�!.4 L O i l GA C V 4 AA/R_'t 0 -di-. C CATiO WiT'l A JP.h'FL T: ,1:144.Mtrlrc•Ai . O,L :.OVAL • , .. 0 tn W i0e DATE 6/A5 2 PROF /LET, DE 7A / L S NOTE S . vs • JOB NO. 80 24 A . SHEET C3 co 60 N y l - m H N W tar I'. = = Z • CA W 4 CC Qa W et re Q onj Ci3 -A co _ U.1hZ W W Z r. CD m S M Z Q W eV 3 La a H 0 ti OF • VAN 6 ". ;e .1e0Fl1 : t P1PM?IH (N�fi11'lA+-- 1;Atlf. cA F0 A.F1E:Pv. PPi •eP==i i (`r ii t'}, ti IF. .: i:. . {�J4,; .ri•t •• "Q'V .:y� .J. ..y.; r{41T ...j. r'1_ Yt'. 'hn• 't,'!., ;•!:•.. G , t� 1. '').: •':N'a."' :1:' 1. y�M-.4 t' .n. J.' {�'::•�� I rl'!':: ��. ;.. l : a ,.,.t . t 9. %ure.w. • `';�r" airnlea:ru� � : x,•P "r..ufcsmicya...n�eu• _ �'�,i . �.xt ��• �...:{.. ,! oaf.'.. �.>•.,��., , ...b . o. yilloil ooloilwrilll rilll�I������� �luiri�l��� oilli�l���l���l�� polloriliwilliplivoi���l�oinil 'o I O •+�• •• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (24x OE 6Z BL LZ 9z 9Z bz CZ ZS R OE 6l W hi 91 9l 9I 'El zl ll cm, Inulmi1uuluu1mdun1unluu1uu6ui1mdun1uulmi1mi6m1uulmi1nnhnilnn6m1uulmi1mi6iii1mdm1uulmi1milim1milwi1uuhm1uuhni1mihm1u z O N W '• SHEET`;;{ DATE JOB. NO IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ..._..._�...�,.o.o �rnevetr tnanhra emr•.rr�;'. +r t to .'...�•" 1