HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0039 - CROCKER STEVE - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTIONL94 -0039
SOUTH LOT DEVELOP.
SUPERCEDED
BY E95 -0028
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION
October 2002
Decenter 2002
M T W T F S S
M T W T F SS
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
November 2002
11_1
12J
13
14 I
15
0 (8:30 AM) Out
0 (10:00 AM) Weekly
Update
0 (9:00 AM) Dept. Staff
Meeting
0 (10:00 AM) Staff
Meeting
0 (3:00 PM) review DRC
proposed short plat
0 (12:00 PM) Lunch
Coverage
0 (4:00 PM) shoreline
GIS
18
19 I
20
21
22 1
0 (10 00 AM) Weekly
Update
O (11:00 AM) Hillcrest
Apts.
0 (9:00 AM) Dept. Staff
Meeting
0 (10:00 AM) Meet with
Westfield reps re: Mall
expansion plans. They
will show us their
conceptual plans and req
0 (10:00 AM) Staff
Meeting
O (12:30 PM) GIS
Meeting
0 (12 00 PM) Lunch
Coverage
25 1
26
27
28
29
O (10.00 AM) Weekly
Update
O (7:00 PM) Admin BAR
to Council Hearing
0 (12 00 PM) Lunch
Coverage
0 (8:30 AM) Vacation
0 (9:00 AM) Dept. Staff
Meeting
0 (10:00 AM) Staff
Meeting
0 (8:30 AM) Holiday
0 (8:30 AM) Holiday
December 2002
2
3
4
5
6
0 (8:30 AM) Vacation
0 (9:00 AM) Dept. Staff
Meeting
0 (10:00 AM) Staff
Meeting
0 (8:30 AM) Vacation
0 (8:30 AM) Vacation
Nora Gierloff
1
11/13/2002 - 8:52 AM
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
November 23, 1994
Steve Crocker
Construction Manager
Trammell Crow Company
5601 Sixth Ave. S.
P.O. Box 80326
Seattle, WA 98108
Re: South 180th Street Development - SEPA File #L94 -0039.
Dear Mr. Crocker:
I reviewed your October 25, 1994, comments on the Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS) and discussed your issues with Ron Cameron, City Engineer.
My understanding is that you as well have discussed the right -of -way issue with Mr.
Cameron.
If I may, I would like to summarize the status of the MDNS. I issued the MDNS with
mitigation measures on October 7, 1994, with comments due October 21, 1994. Per your
request of October 24, 1994, I extended the comment period to October 25, 1994. On
that date you questioned some of the mitigation measures, one of which was dedication of
additional right -of -way. Per discussions with Ron Cameron you have tentatively agreed
to dedicate 30 feet for right -of -way and a 10 -foot utility and sidewalk easement.
Therefore, the remaining issue is the methodology used by Mr. Cameron to calculate your
fair share of traffic mitigation.
Your October 25, 1994, letter states the speculative nature of the tenants of the proposed
building and that projected traffic generation assumed a retail furniture use. You also
indicated the possibility of a much more intensive retail use that generates significantly
more traffic. The latter calculations have not been submitted.
While I understand your desire for "rebates" to occur if actual use of the building is less
intensive than a furniture store, SEPA does not now provide for that. However, SEPA
does provide for additional mitigation for more intensive uses. Therefore, to save time in
the existing MDNS process and spare future tenants from updating the MDNS, I need to
have your traffic engineer, in coordination with Ron Cameron, complete a traffic study
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fay (206) 4313665
Crocker Letter
11/23/94
Page 2
for an intensive retail use. The results of this study will yield traffic mitigation that will
permit almost any intensive use of the property, thereby avoiding tenant -by- tenant review
relative to the MDNS, which slows down tenant improvement permits.
Upon receipt of this additional traffic information, I will forward it to Ron Cameron for
final review and comment. As soon as possible after I receive his comments, I will
revisit the MDNS and likely issue new mitigation measures. My goal is not to increase
the amount of mitigation, but to impose mitigation that covers a broad range of retail
uses and facilitates quickly locating tenants in the building.
If you have any questions, call me at 431 -3681.
Respectfully
L. Rick Beeler
SEPA Responsible Official
cc: Ron Cameron
•
Control No. Pke—Cielr 0 i
Epic File No.
Fee $325.00 Receipt No. ,?7 `d7 •
•F 4 199z,' CITY OF TUKWILA
'`' Y ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
OUR JOB NO. 4969
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
South Lot Development
2. Name of Applicant:
Trammell Crow Company
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Steve Crocker
5601 6th Avenue South
P.O. Box 80326
Seattle, WA 98108
(206) 762 -4750
4. Date checklist prepared:
June 9, 1994
5. Agency requesting checklist: •
City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Phase I construction is scheduled to begin in August 1994 or as soon as
construction permits are issued. Phase II construction is scheduled for the Fall
of 1994.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further .activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been 'prepared,
or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
None to our knowledge.
Page 1 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If
yes, explain.
Not to our knowledge.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal.
A. Storm Drainage Permit
B. Sewer and Water Utility Permits
C. Street Cut Permit
D. Building Permit
E. Fisheries HPA Permit
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do
not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal. and should not
be summarized here.
The proposed project consists of a two - phased development of an existing parking
lot located at the southeast corner of South 180th Street and 57th Avenue South.
Phase I of the project will include the construction of two new entrances along
South 180th Street, modifications to the existing storm drainage system, and the
construction of a water quality feature. Phase II will consist of construction of
a 24,050- square foot retail building along with the necessary utility services and
landscaping. The total site area is approximately 4.8 acres.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to under-
stand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address,
if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur
over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). • Provide
a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic . map, if
reasonably. available. While you should submit any plans required by the
agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted
with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The project is located at the southeast corner of South 180th Street and
57th Avenue South within the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. The
site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 35, Township 23 North,
Range 4 East, of the Willamette Meridian. Please refer to the enclosed site plan
and vicinity map enclosed within this submittal.
13. Does the proposal he within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
The Sensitive Area Map identifies an existing drainage channel running through
the site as a Class III stream.
Page 2 of 19
4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
L Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly,
steep slopes, mountainous, other •
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent
slope)?
Approximately 3 percent in the existing paved areas and
approximately 15 to 20 percent in landscaped areas. An existing
drainage ditch running through the site has site slopes of
approximately 25 to 30 percent.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example,
clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification
of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
The site is currently developed as a paved parking lot to serve the
Pavilion Mall located across South 180th Street. The SCS soils
conservation service maps indicate the underlying soils as
Woodinville silt loam.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Not to our knowledge.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any
filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
An existing open drainage ditch running through the site will be
filled and replaced with a tight line storm system as part of the
Phase I construction activities. The open ditch will be replaced
with a water quality feature which will be excavated along the
north side of the project. - Grading for Phase II of the project will
include preparing a building pad for a future retail building. The
approximate quantities of excavation and fill for both Phase I and
Phase II is estimated at 800 to 1,000 cubic yards. Depending on
weather conditions at the time of construction, the type of fill will
be either Class A or Class B structural fill material from an
approved fill source.
Page 3 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or
use? If so, generally describe.
The potential for some erosion is possible during the excavation
and fill work related to the existing drainage ditch. However,
erosion control measures will be implemented prior to construction
to minimize the potential for erosion.
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)?
There is no anticipated increase in impervious area resulting from
the proposed development. The existing site is approximately 75
to 80 percent impervious and will remain generally the same after
construction of the project.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other
impacts to the earth, if any:
An erosion control plan will be prepared as required by the City of
Tukwila to reduce and control erosion during the construction
phase.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the
proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke)
during construction and when the project is completed? If any,
generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
During construction, normal emissions from construction equipment
will occur. After completion of the project, normal emissions from
automobiles will occur similar to those currently being created by
the existing use.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may
affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
Not to our knowledge.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other
impacts to air, if any:
None our proposed.
Page 4 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate
vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal
streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes,
describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state
what stream or river it flows into.
An existing drainage channel runs through the site via a
combination of open ditch and tight line storm drain. This
channel is identified as a Class III stream, according to the
City of Tukwila Sensitive Area Maps. The name of this
channel is not known.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent
to (within 200 feet) the described water? If yes, please
describe and attach available plans.
As part of the proposed project, a portion of this channel
will be filled in and replaced with a tight line storm system
as indicated on the enclosed plan. Near the north end of
the channel, a water quality feature will be constructed to
provide both water quality treatment and some additional
storage volume. Approximately 100 to 150 cubic yards of
material will be placed in or removed from- the drainage
channel as part of the proposed work. It is anticipated that
material removed from the water quality area will be used
to fill the existing drainage ditch further to the south.
Although the proposed work will be done during the driest
time of the year, some diversion may be required in order
to construct the tight line storm line and open'water quality
feature. At this time, it is not anticipated that surface
water withdrawals will be required.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that
would be placed in or removed from surface water or
wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Approximately 100 CY to 150 CY will be excavated and /or
placed within the drainage channel to fill in the ditch and
construct a water quality feature.
Page 5 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description, purpose, and ap-
proximate quantities, if' known.
No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If
so, note location on the site plan.
In accordance with the FEMA firm maps, the site is not
located within the 100 -year floodplain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste
materials to surface waters? If so, describe the types of
waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
The proposal does not require any groundwater to be
withdrawn or water to be discharged to groundwater.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the
ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for
example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such systems,
the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected
to serve.
There will be no discharge into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources.
Page 6 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and
method of collection and disposal, if any (include quan-
tities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
The source of runoff is from rainfall only. Existing catch
basins and tight line storm pipe currently collects and
conveys surface water runoff from the existing parking lot
to the public storm system within South 180th Street. All
storm flows from the project eventually discharge to the
east along South 180th Street via an existing storm pump
system and eventually enter the Green River.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters?
If so, generally describe.
Waste materials could only enter groundwater or surface
waters if directly dumped into existing catch basins or the
drainage channel.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any:
Other than maintaining the existing stormwater system as well as
constructing the proposed tight line system and open water quality
feature, no additional measures are proposed.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
X grass
_ pasture
crop or grain
_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage,
other
_ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_ other types of vegetation
Page 7 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or
altered?
Some of the existing .landscape vegetation will be removed for
construction of the tight line storm system and the open water
feature.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near
the site.
None to our knowledge.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures
to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Existing landscaping which is removed by construction of the new
tight line storm system under the Phase I work will be replaced
around the water quality feature area. Additional vegetation will
be planted along the side slopes and along the bottom of the water
quality area.
Animals
a. Circle any birds an animals which have been observed on or
near the site or are known to be on or near the site:
X birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other
— mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other
_ fish, bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or
near the site.
None to our knowledge.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Not to our knowledge.
Page 8 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
The proposed water quality feature will help preserve and /or
enhance wildlife.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove,
solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy
needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
It is anticipated that power and heating will be provided by
electricity and natural gas as part of the building construction
under the Phase II development.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by
adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
Not to our knowledge.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the
plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce
or control energy impacts, if any:
Energy conservation features will be provided as necessary to meet
City code requirements.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure
to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous
waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
No.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be
required.
Other than normal police, fire and medical services which
are currently available to the site, no other special
emergency services will be required.
Page 9 of 19 4969.003 [DKB/sdc/krj
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental
health hazards, if any:
None are proposed.
b. Noise:
1) What types of noise . exist in the area which may affect
your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation,
other)?
Other than normal noises from existing retail uses and
vehicular traffic, no other noises exist in the area that will
affect the project.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or
associated with the project on a short -term or long -term
basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the
site.
Normal noise from construction equipment will occur
during the construction phase from approximately 7 a.m. to
5 p.m. After construction is completed, standard noise
levels from retail uses will occur similar to those which
currently exist.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if
any:
None are proposed.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The current use of the site is an existing paved parking lot to serve
the Pavilion Mall. The current use of adjacent properties is mostly
office and retail space.
Page 10 of 19
4969.003 [DKB /rdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
It is not known whether the site was previously used for
agricultural purposes prior to development of the existing parking
lot.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The existing site does not contain any existing structures.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No structures will be demolished as part of the development.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The current zoning designation of the site is M2 (Medium
Industrial).
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation for the
site?
g.
The current comprehensive plan designation of the site is Medium
Industrial Development. •
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
Not applicable.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
The City of Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance classifies the
existing drainage channel running through the site as a Class III
stream. To our knowledge, there are no other environmentally
sensitive areas.
Page 11 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project?
J. •
After construction of the proposed retail building under Phase II,
approximately 10 to 15 people are estimated to work at the
. completed.project.
Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if
any:
None are proposed.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
The City of Tukwila Planning, Building and Public Works
Department will ensure that the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land uses through the permit process.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing.
Not applicable.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing.
Not applicable.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
Page 12 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any .proposed structure(s), not
including antennas; what is the principal exterior building
material(s) proposed?
The tallest height of the proposed structure under Phase II
construction would be approximately 24 feet. The principal
exterior building material is anticipated to be concrete tilt -up
panels.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if
any:
None are proposed.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What
time of day would it mainly occur?
None to our knowledge.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard
or interfere with views?
Not to our knowledge.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your
proposal?
None to our knowledge.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,
if any:
None are proposed.
Page 13 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /cdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
12. Recreation
a. What designation and informal recreational opportunities are in
the immediate vicinity?
The South Center Mall is located approximately 1 mile north of the
proposed project along South Center Boulevard.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational
uses ?. If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project
or applicant, if any:
None are proposed.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for,
national, state or local preservation registers to be on or next
to the site? If so, generally describe.
Not to our knowledge.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be -
on or next to the site.
None to our knowledge.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None are proposed.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show
on -site plans, if any:
Page 14 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /krl
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT .
The existing site is served by South 180th Street and
57th Avenue South. Access to the project will be from
57th Avenue South and South 180th Street.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Yes.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
How many would the project eliminate?
After completion of the Phase II building construction,
approximately 423 parking stalls will be provided on the site. The
proposed project will eliminate approximately 55 to 65 existing
stalls.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improve-
ments to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If
so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
The proposal will not require any new roads, streets or
improvements to existing streets. Two new entrances are proposed
along South 180th Street as part of the proposal.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity on
water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
Not to our knowledge. .
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes
would occur.
g.
Please refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis completed by
Chris Brown and Associates attached to this document which
indicates the vehicular trips and peak hour volumes which will be
generated by the completed project as well as other traffic
information.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,
if any:
None are proposed.
Page 15 of 19 4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT •
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public
services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health
care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
The project will not result in an increased need for public services.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any:
None are proposed.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural
gAS, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic
system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the
utilities providing the service, and the general construction
activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Phase I construction will not require any additional utility services
to the project. Phase II construction will require fire and domestic
water service to the building as well as sanitary sewer, power, gas,
and telephone.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its
decision.
Signature: /
Date Submitted: 6- /3- 9 +
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE
Page 16 of 19
4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NONPROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for
a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the
Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall
perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental
information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive
information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
The objective of this proposal is to obtain a two - phased permit for
development of the existing paved parking area. Phase I includes
two new entrances and storm drainage modifications; and Phase II
includes the construction of a new 24,050- square foot retail
building.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
We are not aware of an alternative means of accomplishing the
proposed objectives other than to complete the project all under
one phase.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred
course of action:
The alternative means would not allow adequate time to complete
the storm drainage improvements since an HPA permit from the
Fisheries Department may be required and the time frame to
complete this work is typically from June 15 to September 15.
Building permits for Phase I1 of the project would not be able to
be accomplished under this time frame. Therefore, the preferred
course of action is the original two - phased design.
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of
the Plan?
To our knowledge, the proposal does not conflict with policies of
the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
Page 19 of 19
4969.003 [DKB /sdc /kr]
IYSOdONd'd013A30 10114100S
uofeooloU mom
g ueid aus AJeumald ,•1111
soma YM '3111'38
H1/10S 3AY H1x1S 11099
duedwo3 MOJ3 /liawweJl
a • .r
ADJACENT PROPERTY .are
I' IIIIIIliIHII1 °1"7111111111�I11II11111.,;
a wn If1�UrlMrl IIIII pq Y•q gw•I•tl OUI
.., 40114 * 4.1400110I 1 W+"t'MMyN 1.001
mo=w: •,uI sJaaui6u3 6umnsuo)
.. b uasneg6ieg
I
14
•
=J II-t
,IA•I.°•w.
unman Nftvps ` Imb
I7IA AVINDI
•
J V
a iits I
N • IN i
le :Midi
0 HO:
• - ,.� -:sI
e far
! rat
*Iv
*Is
J 3
• g 1
o "
•
—['
6961
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
loilok/
Rick eeler
Ro Cameron
November 15, 994
TC MDNS questions
1. Fairshare denominator. The denominator is the projected
traffic increase from 1990 (3,899 trips) to 2010 (4,853trips).
The improvements costing $134,000 will maintain LOS at an
average of E or better for the CBD.
2. S 180 St /SR181 is being constructed; no further WSDOT funding
is available.
3. The mitigations are based on trip generation data provided -
that's for a furniture store which is one of the lowest trip
generation uses. If the use is auto or other that is higher
than the identified trips of SEP'1, then, further study would be
made to determine adjustments.
4. A Design Report has been prepared for 57 Avenue South. It
identifies that 80 feet of right -of -way is needed for the minor
arterial serving this area.
Steve Crocker of Trammel Crow asks if the improvements can be
accomplished with easement. Yes, a means to serve the travel
need including the Southlot traffic can be accomplished this
way.
The right -of -way research is not complete, the initial stages
have not located formal dedication of 30 feet of right -of -way
on each side but have found maps dating to the turn of the
century showing the road including various developments over
the last 80+ years. Therefore, a formal dedication of the
existing roadway is requested (30 feet) and a sidewalk and
utility easement (10 feet). This is the Trammel Crow
suggestion and work for both the City and TC.
MEMO
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
TO: Ron Cameron, City Engineer, and Ross Earnst, Director, Depart ent of. Public Works
FROM: Rick Beeler, Director, Department of Community Development j:, ,
DATE: September 13, 1994
SUBJECT: Southlot Development - SEPA Mitigation
I have reviewed your memo to Denni Shefrin dated September 9, 1994 regarding traffic mitigation. I am
reluctant to impose the mitigation as you have listed because the memo does not clearly state how the
impacts warrant the mitigation amount and in some cases, the impacted locations. Case law requires
such clarity.
According to your memo, "The Tukwila Deficiencies Study' was used as a basis for your calculated
mitigation. However, no explanation of the Deficiencies Study was provided to link impacts of the project
with the prorated mitigation amounts. As you are aware, mitigation can not be imposed to solve existing
system deficiencies.
The draft "Transportation Element ", has not been adopted and therefore, can not be used as a basis for
mitigation.
Regarding the crosswalk, SEPA requires the evaluation of known impacts prior to approval of any permit.
Therefore, it is necessary to specify pedestrian impacts in order to require mitigation (similar to traffic).
Again, the applicant can not be penalized for each existing deficiency. In this case, your direction needs
documentation for the required mitigation.
Regarding water and sewer, compliance with adopted ordinances is required through the normal
development permit process and is not a SEPA mitigation.
I also raise the following issues:
1. The City has not established an LOS standard. The Chris Brown Study indicates no change to
existing LOS levels. Therefore, you need to explain how you define cumulative impact based on
what methodology.
2. Do your conclusions discount mitigation of the existing parking lot, covered under a previous
SEPA determination?
3. The traffic study area seems to exceed that required for the other developments you cited.
Please provide clarification.
Because this Checklist was received June 14, 1994, we are well beyond the time frame of our SEPA
ordinance. I therefore need to request your response by Monday, September 17, 1994. Otherwise, we
are in some procedural jeopardy.
cc: Denni Shefrin
Jack Pace
Attachment
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Ron Cameron
Rick Beeler, DC
October 25,1' ' 4
South Lot Development - SEPA Conditions
The applicant submitted the following comments on the MDNS. I need you to respond in
order to finalize the MDNS.
I'm particularly interested in comment 3 which indicates a full retail use could be placed
on the site. This is, as I recall, a much different traffic generation scenario than originally
submitted. Based on that, justification exists for another traffic study and recalculation of
the mitigation.
When I receive your comments I will finalize the MDNS. If you need additional
information please contact the applicant directly and copy Libby.
Thanks.
cc: Libby Hansen
Trammell Crow Company
s ^. ?brr;e� :xi^ T.�:' .'Sfi`'�'3'rr4: Y.'.TU7ntw _K- 'i— .:7�i-i`R.Svy r,; `.;;errt.1A �.•.. "crnp•,FJ, %lnn�.+ ^i "_ic:,S.. .y3Ptr_
October 25, 1994
Via Personal Delivery Only
Mr. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
Parcel No. 352304 -9031
Address: South 180th Street
Dear Rick;
5601 Sixth Aveftue South
P.O. Box 80326
Seattle, Washington 98108
206/762 -4750
Fax: 206/763 -9871
We have reviewed the attached SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for the
referenced project and in particular the Mitigation Conditions applying to traffic. Our comments
are as follows:
1. In the aggregate, the eight intersection improvement projects (Items 1 through 8)
of the traffic mitigation fair share costs all involve a share of proposed future
improvements based on your contributed peak hour volume to the total (year
2010) intersection volume. Indeed, each fair share cost is based on the percent
of site generated peak hour traffic (as the numerator of the fraction) against the
total capacity of the intersection (the denominator). Thus, for Item 1 at
Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard, the site's share of the volume is 34 pear
hour trips against the year 2010 volume of 954 trips. But, with the proposed
improvement, (costing $134,000) is the 34/954 fraction truly representative of the
fair share of the intersection's enhanced new capacity? Stated another way,
should the denominator be 954 vehicles per hour or should it, in fact, be larger
in view of the proposed improvement program? If the new intersection design
capacity is greater than 954 v.p.h. then the fair share cost would be reduced. In
essence, how was the "denominator" derived and is it possible that it may even
be greater than now defined?
2. Item 7 looks to the improvement of South 180th Street at SR 181. However, as
a state highway, what should the fair share participation be if the WSDOT is able
to get an increase in gas taxes through the legislature this coming session and, is
then able to fund the project at a higher proportionate ( state share) level?
3. In all eight (8) cases you may note that the fair share costs are predicated on our
assumed land use with its attendant trip generation. Fundamentally, our travel
demand estimates are based on our speculation of the potential tenant, yet
unknown. It could be a furniture store with low peak hour dente €OEIi 1 E.I
be an auto parts emporium with a large vehicular demand. What happens if a
OCT 2 5194
COiv1MUNI TY
DEVELOPMENT
Trammell Crow Company
Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
October 25, 1994
Page Two
tenant then leases the space and their trip generation subsequently turns out to be
lower than that used in our study? Is there a mechanism for obtaining a rebate
if an actual tenant who leases the building has a demonstrably lower trip
generation rate than used in the traffic study?
4. Last, on page 2 there is an item called "Right -of -Way Dedication ". By donating
right -of -way the lot size will be reduced. In turn, and as a consequence, there is
a coincident lowering of building scale since that is usually based on lot size. Can
the needed street improvements be done equally well on an "easement" which
does not impact the size of the site? That would be a equitable way to address
this request for a new street building project. The legislature addressed the issue
of voluntary donations of right -of -way for needed highway improvements.
(Reference: 1991 Highway Access Management Act modifying RCW 47.50.)
If you have any questions regarding any of the above comments, please feel free to contact me
at anytime.
Sincerely,
TRAMj1 1 / ' ' OW COMPANY
e Crocker
onstruction Manager
Attachment
Chris Brown, Christopher Brown & Associates
Daniel Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
cc:
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATE' "'rETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIANCE (MDNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS AND 24,050 RETIAL BLDG
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION OF 2 NEW ACCESSES ALONG S.
180TH, MODIFCATION TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM
PHASE 2 IS CONSTRUCTION OF RETAIL BLDG. WITH
NECESSARY LANDSCAPING AND UTILITIES
PROPONENT: STEVE CROCKER
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS:
PARCEL NO: 352304 -9031
SEC /TWN /RNG: S 180TH ST V
LEAD AGENCY:
CITY OF TUKWILA
FILE NO L940039
The City has determined that the 'proposal does not have a:, probable.
significant adverse impact. on the environment. An environmental , i`npact
statement .(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c. 030(2) ('c)'''` —,This.'0
decision .was made after review of a completed,,, environmentalheck`lst
and other information on file with the " lead agency. This infor.,matfon
is available to the , public.. on request: ' 'The Conditions to ;this SEPA`','.: •
Determination .are attached.
This DNS is issued under 19711- 340(2)... Comments must be submitted by
:2.741:274. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
etaqAtZ./L__
L. R ck Beeler, Resp• .le Official Date.:,;,
City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk - _at;;City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the
above signature date by written appeal stating ; the` basis of the appeal
for specific factual objections.' :: You may be required to bear some of
the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City
Clerk and Department of Community Development.
Traffic
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
SEPA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE FOR
SOUTHLOT DEVELOPMENT - L94 -0039
MITIGATION CONDITIONS
The June, 1994 traffic study, prepared by Chris Brown, identified 1,017 daily trips and 136 noon peak hour
trips for a 25,000 square -foot furniture store. The Brown study for the 136 noon peak trips using the
Figure 4 trip distribution was used to determine traffic mitigations. The Chris Brown Study does not
identify specific LOS grade changes nor specific LOS impacts attributable to the increased Southlot traffic.
It identifies the South 180 Street crosswalk as being impacted and states that at a minimum, the crosswalk
should be retained, but does not identify crossing mitigations.
Traffic mitigations for the proposed development have been determined based on cumulative affects in
order that small and large developments are treated equally and fairly in mitigation assessments. While
a development such as Southlot may not result in a specific LOS grade change impact, it contributes to
the cumulative impact created by multiple developments. The process to determine mitigations has had
five steps:
1. determine traffic increases from 1990 to 2010 for cumulative growth;
2. determine the impacts due to the cumulative increases;
3. determine impact improvements and their costs;
4. divide the costs by the increased traffic;
5. determine development mitigation as the produce of the cost/trip and development trips.
For Southlot, the mitigations are as follows:
1. Southcenter Parkway /Strander increase to 2010 is 954 trips and the improvement cost is
$134,000. The prorated share is $140 /trip. The required mitigation is $4,760 based on 34 peak
hour trips.
2. Southcenter Parkway/ South 168th Street increase to 2010 is 899 trips and the improvement
cost is $250,000. The prorated share is $278 /trip. The required mitigation is $9,452 based on
34 peak hour trips.
3. Andover Park East/Baker increase to 2010 is 663 trips and the improvement cost is $250,000.
The prorated share is $377 /trip. The required mitigation is $12,818 based upon 34 peak hour
trips.
4. Andover Park East/Strander increase to 2010 is 694 peak hour trips and improvement cost is.
$94,000. The prorated share is $135 /trip. The required mitigation is $4,590 based upon 34 peak
hour trips.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665
Southlot MDNS
L94 -0039
Page 2
5. Southcenter Parkway / Mlnkler increase to 2010 is 907 peak hour trips and the improvement cost
is $122,903. The prorated share is $136 /trip. The required mitigation is $4,624 based upon 34
peak hour trips.
6. Andover Park West/Minkler increase to 2010 is 1350 peak hour trips and the improvement cost
is $121, 500. The prorated share is $89/trip. The required mitigation is $3,026 based upon 34
peak hour trips.
7. South 180th Street/SR 181 increase to 2010 is 3,200 trips and the improvement cost is
$1,520,000. The prorated share is $475 /trip. The required mitigation is $16,150 based upon 34
peak hour trips.
8. Interurban Avenue Bridge Widening increase to 2010 is 1,114 peak hour trips and the
improvement cost is $1,250,000. The prorated share is $1,122/trip. The required mitigation is
$7,854 based upon 7 peak hour trips.
Right of Wav Dedication
A design report has been prepared for 57th Avenue South. It identifies that 80 feet of right -of -way is
needed for the minor arterial serving this area. Southlot will need to provide a total of 40 feet from
centerline, or an additional ten feet to the 30 feet shown as existing on the assessor maps. The right -of-
way is being researched at this time to ascertain if the original 30 feet was formally dedicated. If has not
been dedicated, 40 feet would be needed. If dedication has occurred, then the additional 10 feet is
needed. This right -of -way provides for the street that will provide the left turn access. The westem
driveway is right in /out only as shown on the plan received August 18, 1994 with the SEPA Checklist.
Water
The Tukwila Water Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for a 16 -inch main in 57th Avenue South. A
no- protest/proportionate share agreement is required to mitigate the Southlot development water impact.
Sewer
A sewer no- protest Local Improvement District (UD) agreement (or proportionate fairshare agreement to
reimburse the City) for design and construction of a sewer connection to Minkler and the Minkler lift
station upgrade is required. Both of these improvements are identified in the comprehensive plan as
needed to serve cumulative effects of the development.
Administrative Design Review
Prior to submittal for building permits and /or site improvement permits for the approximately 25,000
square -foot furniture store /retail building, a conceptual development plan showing architectural details for
the building and site features, shall be provided to the Department of Community Development for
administrative review.
VIA FAX & MAIL
October 24, 1994
Mr. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila WA 98188
RE: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
Parcel No. 352304 -9031
Address: South 180th Street
Dear Rick:
5601 Sixth Avenue South
P.O. Box 80326
Seattle, Washington 98108
2061762.4750
2061763.9871 Fax
The purpose of this letter is to request a formal extension of the comment period originally stated to
be October 21, 1994. Pursuant to our discussion, I will have formal comments delivered personally to
your office no later than the close of business on Tuesday, October 25, 1994.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
TRAM = .% ' OW COMPANY
eve Crocker
Construction Manager
A F F I D A V I T
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
I Inez Lambert hereby declare that:
Notice of Public Hearing
O Notice of Public Meeting
O Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
O Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
0 Determination of Non -
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
O Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
0 Notice of Action
Official Notice
Other
Ej Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on October 14, 1994 .
FAXED TO SEATTLE TIMES (10- 14 -94, publication)
MAILED TO DOE /SEPA
MAILED TO APPLICANT (Mr. Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E.)
SENT TO CITY CLERK AND MAYOR'S OFFICE
Pktk(IU3 Tb fri9p1 er{N i .651.Evc e- goacie)
Name of Project Pavi l l ion So. Pkg. Lot Signatur
File Number L94 -0039
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SEPA File L94 -0039: : dth Lot Development
Rick Beeler, DC 10 . 1.
October 7, 199
Threshold Determination
The Public Works Department provided information in September 21 and 30
memorandums to supplement the record. I reviewed the cumulative record and the
requirements of SEPA and make the following threshold determination.
PROPOSED THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:'MDNS.
FINDINGS:
1. SEPA (WAC 197 -11) requires that mitigation measures:
"...shall be based upon policies, plans, rules, or regulations formally designated
by the agency ... as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect
..." (WAC 197- 11- 660(1)(a) (emphasis added)).
"... shall be related to specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified
in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated in writing by
the decisionmaker. The decisionmaker shall cite the agency SEPA policy that is
the basis of any condition...under this chapter..." (WAC 197- 11- 660(1)(b)
(emphasis added)).
"...shall be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the
identified adverse impacts of its proposal." (WAC 197- 11- 660(1)(d)) (emphasis
added)).
2. TMC 21.04.270 contains the "SEPA Policies" adopted by the City referred to in
WAC 197- 11- 660(1)(b). The TMC lists the following "policies ":
Zoning Code
Shoreline Master Plan
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan
Long Range Parks and Open Space Plan
Subdivision Ordinance
Comprehensive Sewer Plan
Memorandum
South Lot
Page 2
Comprehensive Water Plan
Uniform Building Code
Transportation Improvement Plan
Annexation Policy Plan
Sidewalk Ordinance
Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction
3. Traffic impacts were identified in the June 8, 1994, "Traffic Impact Analysis"
contained in the file. In the memo of September 21, 1994, Public Works
identified the proportionate share of infrastructure system costs to mitigate those
cumulative impacts, and others you identified, including potential dedication of
right -of -way in 57th Ave. S. pending investigation of the right -of -way status. The.
basis for those mitigation was cited to be a five step process to determine a fair
share of cumulative impacts projected to 2010 and a "design report" for
improvement of 57th Ave. S.
In the memo of September 30, 1994, Public Works explained that the mitigation
requirements were also based upon the adopted Transportation Improvement Plan,
Water Comprehensive Plan and Sewer Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation
Plan earmarks improvements to mitigate LOS F that will be reached by 2010. The
mitigation required is the percentage share to mitigate the cumulative impacts of
contributing to that LOS, in lieu of now paying mitigation costs that do not
include, or give credit for, addressing long -term cumulative costs. Over the past
few years this has been the typical methodology used by Public Works to
determine SEPA mitigation requirements.
5. Pedestrian impacts on the existing crosswalk in S. 180th were determined to be
indeterminable until after the proposal is constructed and in operation.
Unfortunately, the WAC doesn't allow for indeterminable mitigation of
indeterminable impacts. The specific adverse impacts must be identified in the
record and any required mitigation based upon TMC 21.04.270. Those impacts
are not identified in the record.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. WAC 197 -11 -660 clearly requires that "adverse impacts" be "clearly
identified" in the record and that those identified impacts be mitigated through
only use of adopted SEPA policies. The record here identifes "adverse impacts"
to traffic, 57th Ave. S., and water and sewer systems, but not to the existing
pedestrian crosswalk. Cited adopted SEPA Policies are the Transportation
Improvement Plan, Water Comprehensive Plan and Sewer Comprehensive Plan
for recommending mitigation.
Memorandum
South Lot
Page 3
2. Previous use of the "cumulative method" to require mitigation is precedential.
DECISION:
Based upon the above, a Mitigated DNS is appropriate per WAC 197-11-660 and that it
include mitigation contained in the September 21, 1994, memorandum, except for the
pedestrian crosswalk mitigation.
cc: Denni Shefrin
Jack Pace
south.sp2
•
879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A-201
Christopher Brown C.4 A880Ciat.C.8
Renton, WA 98055-1380
(206) 772-1188 Fax 772-4321
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANANYSIS
For The
Trammell Crow Company
SOUTH LOT BUILDING
(A Proposed Retail Store)
In
Tukwila, King County
June 8, 1994
1CFIVED
1 4 1994
FY
v iLCPMENT
...1.WL4...._10-
.,691•VAER
<0‘.AVAir° `5.
. . .
•9`)°,09.191-0"d3..-
Traffic Engineers Transportation Planners
•
A
PROPOSED RETAIL STORE
for
THE TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY
Table of Contents
Introduction
Location
Purpose 3.
Access 3.
Project Description 3.
Road System 4.
Public Transit 4.
Traffic Data 4.
Background Traffic 5.
Trip Distribution 8.
Trip Assignment 8.
Horizon Year 8.
Capacity Analysis /LOS 8.
Parking 13.
Mid -block Pedestrian Crossing 14.
Adverse Consequences 14.
Conclusions 15.
List of Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2.
Figure 2 Current Traffic Volumes 6.
Figure 3 Year 1995 Traffic, No Build Case Trip 7.
Figure 4 Distribution in Percent 9.
Figure 5 Traffic Assignment 10.
Figure 6 Year 1995 Traffic with All Projects 11.
List of Tables
Table I
Table II
Appendix
Trip Generation
Levels of Service
Site Plan
Capacity Calculations
5.
12.
Traffic Impact Analysis
for the
Trammell Crow Company
South Lot Building
Proposed Retail Store
Introduction
The proposed project consists of a 25,000 gross square foot
retail store to be located in the southern sector of the City
of Tukwila. The site is located on the southeast quadrant of
the intersection of S. 180th Street and 57th Avenue S.
The site is presently used for overflow parking needs generated
by the Pavilion Mall. However, its current marginal use as .a
parking lot, generally by mall employees only, suggests that
this peripheral or accessory use is not vital. Indeed, with a
safe pedestrian linkage maintained between the two sites, the
concept of "shared parking" can implemented while a higher or
more economically viable use of the site is established.
Given the proposed new or higher use of this site, it is
appropriate to examine potential impacts the new traffic
demands associated with the proposed project may involve.
Thus, if the projected traffic volumes are large, then the
operating ability of the access driveways and adjacent arterial
street system may be adversely impacted. Further, the
operating characteristics of the main access driveways with the
new higher traffic volumes can also be assessed and mitigated
if necessary.
In summary, with a new retail use on an existing lightly used
parking lot, the review of traffic circulation issues is an
important element.
Location
As noted above, the site is located on the southeast quadrant
of the intersection of S. 180th Street and 57th Avenue S. In'
turn, the retail building will be located on the southwest
corner of this site. The street system is shown on page 2,
•
Figure 1, the Vicinity Map.
-1-
Christopher Brown C4 Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
¥
1 -5
PROJECT
• SITE
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
Purpose
The purpose of this study is severalfold, as noted below.
o To gather a data base of current traffic operations on
the adjacent and access streets serving the proposed
retail store:
o to estimate the daily, noon and p.m. peak hour trip
generation for the developed site:
o to assign the generated traffic to the road network:
o to derive a traffic forecast for the baseline
condition, that is for 1995 without the site:
o to derive a.traffic forecast for 1995 with the site:
o to determine the existing and horizon year levels of
service (LOS) both with and without the project at the
key intersections and access driveways under present
street geometry and traffic control systems.
In addition, given that the development may immediately
proceed, a secondary function of the study is to identify any
possible changes or modifications in access and traffic control
systems to ensure the maintenance of safe traffic operations in
the future when the project is completed.
Access
Access to this new retail store will be from three different
points of entry. Two driveways will provide access to S. 180th
Street and a third to 57th Avenue S. The central driveway on
S. 180th Street, due to an existing mid -block crosswalk with a
center pedestrian "safety island" or "refuge ", will be limited
to right turn in and right turn out (RI /RO) movements.
Project Description
The project consists of a 25,000 gross square foot retail
(furniture) store, complying with Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) land use code (LUC) 814, and its associated
ancillary parking is included.
-3-
Christopher Brown Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
Road System
There are three major streets potentially impacted by the
proposed new development on this site. They are:
I. Southcenter Parkway north of the project site, a multi-
lane principle arterial constructed with curbs, gutters,
and other amenities throughout most of its length.
Immediately south of S. 180th Street, Southcenter Parkway
becomes 57th Avenue S., a two lane minor street widened
with a short left turn lane at S. 180th Street.
II. S. 180th Street is multi -lane principle arterial with
raised curbs, gutters, and a center two -way left turn
lane. Sidewalks are only found on the south side between
Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park W. In addition, a
mid -block pedestrian crosswalk, featuring a central
refuge island, links the project site with the Pavilion
Mall on the north side of S. 180th Street. This street
has a.posted speed limit of 35 mph.
III. Andover Park W. is a four lane arterial with raised
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and overhead illumination.
Andover Park W. provides access to a series of warehouse
and business /light manufacturing buildings which are
predominant in this part of the city.
Street design data and other capacity information including the
number of lanes, grades and traffic control devices are
contained in the Appendix as a part of the level of service
(LOS) analysis and computer data input.
Public Transit
Public Transit is provided to the site by METRO via routes #150
and #155 along S. 180th Street. These routes operate seven
days a week but may not carry many shoppers.
Traffic Data
Current noon and p.m. peak hour traffic data for the several
intersections along S. 180th Street were obtained from a.recent
study by David Hamlin and Associates for the Segale Business
Park dated August 1993. Since the data from the Segale report
is only one year old at the time of this writing, projected
1994 base conditions traffic volumes provided by that study,
were used as the "current" traffic volumes data in this study.
-4-
4 Christopher brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
The current 1994 p.m. and noon hour traffic volumes data used
in. this study are displayed on Figure 2.
Data references and sources used in this study include trip
generation data published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) in the Document, Trip Generation: 5th edition,
and the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, published
by the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. For the
latter item, reference is also made to the computer program
SIGNAL 85 for signalized intersection capacity and NCAP for
driveway capacity.
Background Traffic
Traffic growth in the general area, as described in the Segale
study, is expected to be fairly stable, increasing only
slightly in the near future. To be consistent with that study,
the increase in background traffic volumes will be taken at two
percent annually. This growth rate is used to determine 1995
horizon year traffic volumes without project implementation.
It does, however, include the expected generated traffic by the
adjacent site which should be fully operational by that time.
The horizon year traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3.
Trip Generation
Trip Generation data for the site is based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (I.T.E.) Land USE Code (814) which
applies to specialty retail centers similar to that being
proposed. The expected trip generation data is shown below in
Table I.
TABLE I
Trip Generation
Time Interval
-5-
A.W.D.T.
Noon Inbound
Noon Outbound
P.M. Inbound
P.M. Outbound
Volume
1,017 vehicles
78 vehicles
58 vehicles
71 vehicles
53 vehicles
per day
per day
per day
per day
per day
Christopher Brown Cif Associates\
879 Rainier Avenue N., quite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
•
•
3OUTHCENTER PKW
150
148
85
537
527
no
S. 180th STREET
ANDOVER PARK W.
104
159
75 IP
253 if
286
670 .
•
•
•
i
•
•
126
Y
a
cc
W
H
Z
W
0
i-
n
co 0
121
172
59
551
L� ., �� 44
L
���A 50p ,
NOON HOUR TRAFFIC
ANDOVER
334 125
274 203
467_ S. 180th STREET 72
87
68
To
•
0
74
648
770
4
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
PEAK HOUR VOLUME
•
124
208
28 8
11.617
6
P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 2
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
-6- CURRENT MAY 1994
•
•
•
153
151
87
237
577
574
270_
a
oc
W
H
Z
W
V
H
O
123
175
60
S. 180th STREET
,C-IX8Srp
\\ \\ aPj� ll 45
ANDOVER PARK W.
126
182
87
584
258 I(
292
715_
NOON. HOUR TRAFFIC
368
315
481
117
NOTE: HORIZON YEAR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ASSUME A
2% ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR BACKGROUND
TRAFFIC. ALSO INCLUDED IS PROJECTED TRAFFIC
FROM THE SEGALE RETAIL STORE.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
S. 180th STREET
ANDOVER PARK W
145
227
80
74
80
661
813
�Q 2
638
5
48
Ore
P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 3
5
-7-
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
HORIZON YEAR 1995- WITHOUT PROJECT
Trip Distribution
New traffic generated by the implantation of this project is
expected to be distributed in a manner similar to those approved
for the adjacent Segale project.. Inbound /outbound motorists will
access the local arterial street network system from the greater
regional transportation system consisting of I -5, I -405, SR -167,.
and SR -518 and the East and West Valley Roads. In order to be
consistent with the previously referenced Segale traffic study,
the traffic distribution assignment used in this report is the
same. This trip distribution is shown on Figure 4 and is
expressed in term of percent of all project generated trips.
Traffic Assignment
Using both the noon hour-and the p.m. peak hour trip generation
data with the traffic distribution described on Figure 4, the
trip assignment is .defined and shown on Figure 5. This data has
been included in the horizon year (1995) forecast base condition
to arrive at the projected horizon year traffic volume data with
project implementation. It is depicted in Figure 6.
Horizon Year
For the purpose of this study, the time period of project
implementation is taken one year hence so the horizon year for
full development is the year 1995. This is also consistent with
the construction schedule of the project.
With full project implementation, including traffic generated by
the completion of the adjacent Segale site and including the
anticipated growth in background traffic, the noon and p.m. peak
hour demands of Figure 6 will apply. This data is used to assess
potential traffic impacts and the optimum design.
Capacity Analysis /Levels of Service
The level of service (LOS) describes the quality of traffic
flow. This ranges from the best or highest level, 'A', usually.
denoted by an ability to select ones' own speed or the ability to
change lanes or overtake at will, down to the lowest of worst
level, 'F'. This LOS is the lowest possible level and is one
where traffic is severely constrained. It is denoted by "jam"
conditions and long traffic delays.
-8-
pher Brown ( ociates
879 Christo Rainier Avenue N. Ass, Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
/ (206) 772 -1188
15010
10%
5%
405 20'
•
1 1
1
1
1
•
5%
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
STRANDER
BLVD■
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
>-
w
-J
-J
1-
(1)
w
....-.m
S. 180TH ST.
15%
Iv..... 110..
PROJECT
SITE
FIGURE 4
10%
-9-
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
a
cc
W
1-
z
W
0
Z
1-
0
18
Er- SOUTHCENTER PKWY
1
17
fr""\A
2
1
S. 180th STREET
cc
4
a
cc
W
O
0
z
Q
11
16
18
�Qls C Th
t
11 re
NOON HOUR TRAFFIC
16
ANDOVER PARK W.
to
J
S. 180th STREET 14.
1
21
•
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
•
P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 5
ANNUAL GROWTH RATE ■2.0%
1 YEAR PERIOD
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
-10-
153 v'
151
105
238
3
a
¢
W
1-
z
W
7l H
O
123
175
76
30
NOTE: HORIZON YEAR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ASSUME A
2Z ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR BACKGROUND
TRAFFIC. ALSO INCLUDED IS PROJECTED TRAFFIC
FROM THE SEGALE RETAIL STORE.
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
591
271 S. 180th STREET 87
2.. i .� \ � - 602
\. 8 \ \ 8s yip 64
`� \ �� =apq SpiTr
137
589 19 8
•
258 a(
292
738_
2
NOON HOUR TRAFFIC
379
331
482
S. 180th STREET
155
241
80
ANDOVER PARK W.
9
74
1•
1_
80
661
834
P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
FIGURE 6
1S4
124
2
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
HORIZON YEAR 1995 -WITH PROJECT
Capacity computation were performed in accordance with Special
Report 209, the Highway Capacity Manual, using the computer
program Signal 85 for intersection analysis and NCAP for
driveway analysis. As noted earlier, all input data is listed
in the appendix along with computer output. The title and other
reference or descriptive materials, including the applicable
dates, are also shown.
Levels of service for the three conditions, current or 1994
traffic, 1996 without the project and 1996 with the project are
shown below in Table II.
TABLE II
Levels of Service
Intersection
Current 1995 W/O 1995 w/.
Year Project Project
S. 180th St /Southcenter
Noon
P.M.
S. 180th St /Andover Park
Noon
P.M.
W. Driveway /87th Ave. S.
Noon
P.M.
N. Driveway /S. 180th Street
Noon
P.M.
In the above table, note that the driveway LOS for S. 180th
Street is a worst case' representation since, for this analysis,
only a single driveway with full turning movements was assumed
-12-
Christopher Brown i Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
as a theoretical case. In actual fact, there are two
driveways. The most easterly one has access to the 2 -way,
left -turn lane while the central driveway is limited to right
in /right out only movements due to the proximity of the mid -
block pedestrian crossing.
The driveways on S. 180th Street will, at worst, operate at LOS
'D'. This is a satisfactory LOS and applies to the outbound
left turn movement, only. What this means is that the heaviest
queuing will be on site and, as a result, will not interfere
with arterial street traffic. Conversely, the inbound left
turns will operate at LOS 'A' and, consequently, that means
there will be negligible queuing on the street. For short, left
turn stacking in the 2 -way, left turn lane will not impede other
driveways nor arterial through traffic. Fundamentally, the
driveways will function very well.
Concerning the existing arterial signal operations, they were
considered fully actuated and signal timing was optimized for
the best results. The only intersection of concern was at
Andover Park W. at S. 180th Street. This is at LOS 'E' to -day
and will remain so for the next few years regardless of site
development. No mitigation is considered for this intersection
at this time.
Parking
As noted earlier, the existing site is used for supplemental or
overflow parking by the Pavilion Mall shoppers and staff. As
now planned, there are proposed 422 parking stalls on completion
of the new retail store.
Using the equations from the ITE publication Parking Generation
2nd Edition, the proposed new store, the South Lot Building,
will generate a peak demand for approximately 90 parking spaces
based on LUC 815 for the worst case, namely, a Discount Store.
With a demand for 90 stalls against a proposed supply of 422
stalls, yielding a surplus of 332 stalls, there is no reason to
believe that this site can not continue to serve as an overflow
parking area attendant to'the Pavilion.Mall. Indeed, existing
signage at the mall directing motorists to this site can
continue in full force when the South Lot Building is fully
occupied and operational.
-13-
Christopher Brown Cif Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 7721188
Mid -Block Pedestrian Crossing
Considering the foregoing parking surplus and the auxiliary
parking supply for the Pavilion Mall, it is axiomatic that the
large mid -block crosswalk be maintained for this ancillary
purpose. It will provide an important pedestrian linkage
between the two shopping areas and, in fact, inhibit unnecessary
cross - street vehicular maneuvering which can be detrimental to
traffic operation on S. 180th Street. In other words, there is
no necessity to shift cars from the subject lot to the Pavilion
lot (and vice versa) when shopping at both retail sites. The
cross walk is key to this consideration.
While some concern has been noted in the way of complaints to
the City by users, no data has been made available at this
writing as to the time, date, nature or the specific causes or
concerns leading to the complaint(s). Absent a more detailed
review, an appropriate amelioration program can not be well
identified.
Adverse Consequences
The inclusion of traffic generated by the project will not cause
any significant lowering of the levels of service at either of
the key intersections examined. Generally speaking, adequate
geometrics and signal systems exist to allow the additional
traffic to be accommodated without creating capacity problems.
Levels of service will remain acceptable except at S. 180th
Street and Andover Park W. where LOS 'E', considered marginal,
is found to -day and will continue in the future. No adverse
consequences are anticipated with the subject proposal at its
driveways, particularly along S. 180th Street.
While complaints have been registered by the city regarding the
mid -block crosswalk at the center of the site on S. 180th
Street, the.absence of details precludes an engineering
assessment �r analysis. Regardless, the extension of retail
activity to the south of S. 180th Street will make such a
crossing quite commonplace and, as a result, motorists will
become more aware and /or accustomed. Rigorous police
enforcement will do much to assist in pedestrian safety.
-14-
Christopher Brown CAS Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380 ___)
(206) 772 -1188
Conclusions
The following conclusions may be drawn:
1. The addition of project generated traffic will not
alter the current levels of service at any of the key
arterial intersections studied for both the noon and
p.m. peak conditions.
2. The project will generate about 1,017 additional
vehicular trips per day with 136 in the noon hour and
53 taking place in the evening peak hour. No account
was made for "pass -by" traffic so the data of the study
is considered to be a worst case assessment.
3. The mid -block pedestrian crosswalk currently linking
the Pavilion Mall with the project -site was originally
intended to provide ma-11 patrons with a supplemental or
ancillary parking area. It is lightly used by mall
employees.
4. The project will provide 422 parking stalls. Under a
worst case parking load scenario, the maximum demand
will be for 90 spaces. With a surplus of 332 stalls,
the area will continue to adequately provide ancillary
parking for mal customers.
5. The continued use of the mid -block crossing is urged so
that cross - street auto movements will be minimized from
shoppers who visit both facilities and otherwise might
use their cars for intersite travel.
6. On the arterial street system, the maintenance of good
levels of service, at their present standing, suggests
no adverse consequences in this regard.
7. Driveways will operate very well and.no queuing is
expected on the street system. Thus, there should be
no impacts to the adjacent'or cross- street driveways.
8. Outbound movements from the site to S. 180th Street may
be heavy and queuing will take place when the LOS drops
in the peak hours to 'D'.
In summary, the implementation of a new 25,000 g.s.f. store on
this site should not impact street or parking operations.
-15-
Christopher brown Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
TRAFFIC STUDY & INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Trammell Crow Retail Store
APPENDIX
I- Site Plan
II- Capacity Calculations with Signal 85 by Strong Concepts
Location /Hour Filename:
Intersection of S.180th St /Southcenter Pkwy
Noon Hour
Current (1994) Traffic TR -NN001
Horizon Year (1995) W/O Project TR -NN011
Horizon Year (1995) W /Project TR -NN111
P.M. Peak Hour
Current (1994) Traffic TR -PM001
Horizon Year (1995) W/O Project TR -PM011
Horizon Year (1995) W /Project TR -PM111
Intersection of S.180th St /Andover Park W.
Noon Hour
Current (1994) Traffic TR -NN002
Horizon Year (1995) W/O Project TR -NN022
Horizon Year (1995) W /Project TR -NN222
P.M. Peak Hour
Current (1994) Traffic TR -PM002
Horizon Year (1995) W/O Project TR -PM022
Horizon Year (1995) W /Project TR -PM222
III - Access Capacity Calculations with NCAP by METRO
Transportation Group, Inc.
Southcenter Pkwy /West Driveway
Noon- Horizon Year (1995)W/O Project TR -NN333
P.M.- Horizon Year (1995)W/ Project. TR -PM333
S. 180th Street /North Driveway
Noon - Horizon Year (1995) W/O Project TR -PM444
P.M.- Horizon Year (1995)W/ Project TR -PM444
•
L94 -0039
SOUTH LOT DEVELOP.
SUPERCEDED
BY E95 -0028
SHORELINE EXEMPTION
__.... -..1 a.:k�.....u'�u.aWAtir •.....+..••LSl.YJY:ce.:lti . l : tirii . l:!'..a ..r. • -.. ... •...nr.i ". - 511.1 .. :'.1 ,.. - - :Iist'.',a ..r.: «.k` • a ri//.sS "' (d� - "N'-
III III III III III III III 1 I I III III III III III III III I I i h...il:..l. i I I,.4• IIf i 1155;1 iL,:.�.• il tl i ijln lF il.- .r...�. c.�.li; lu il. la I I I... .III I I ®,I<I I sl I I III IIs,.l .-I il., i. rl il IihiLi IhI i ii.i iii. i•I.i .Ii i..'I I I IIi
O 16 THS INCH
2 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MAD" GFRMANY 1 2
6Z 9G GZ 9c SZ - '7G EZ. GG lZ 6l 8l. LL 9l. Sl bl. El.. Zl. Ll 6 8 [, 9 S i7 E Z L ww
OG O� O
I \
\ 1 t 1 - r 1 " . . 1 . i 1 . . 1 . 1 ? ' 1 : - 1 1 = 1 1 , . 1 1 , r.•. i L ti n ! � : 1 i I V . S 1k1�11.� 1,VS" 1 , . 1 r 1 r 1 1 K 1 " 1 3 r 1 1 1 . v 1 1 . p 1 . � \ 1 v 1 . , 1 i � 1 11...1. 1 . 1 . \ : 1 a 1 . • 1 1t1. 1 1 1 1 v I 1 w . 1 . Y : 1 ro i 1 d 1 . 11. , 1Ya13 I ., 1 . * 1 1 4 . ! 1 1 F 1 111 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 .1.,,14.1,.1.1 1 11 x 113k 111k1s . 1. - 1 .1gI ' 11.t1.1.1w11i1r�1�11�11}. 1 +1r.11I 111 1.1 �117� 1-` 1., A 1 rI •
1. . 111t.1., • .; • - n$�11 -r�. fb -+„ ...:�. .rx "5• , 'nI, i 1, . 1 ..Y 1. 1..•1 1111 1'l,II f1 111Sa1 1 1111111, 11 11111111.1.
1
.;fr` ,. ?,-5�k 1%��3.••.. -xs7'r
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS;
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
;-; \THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
A
STORM DRAINAGE AND ENTRANCE
MODIFICATION PLAN
SOUTH LOT DEVELOPMENT
PHASE
250'
w
do
REMOVE EX. CONE
WALK. CONSTRUCT
NEW 30' ENTRANCE
PER CITY OF TUKWILA
STDS.
UTH 180th STREET
REMOVE EX. CONC.
WALK. CONSTRUCT NEW
30' WIDE ENTRANCE PER
CITY OF TUKWILA STDS.'
REMOVE PORTION
OF EX. CONC. WALK
OODGATE
EX. MH
r' (WET WELL) fix EX. SD MH
// .12' E •019.37) END r /RIM • fg.67 ETO9REMAINI E)
• • EX. • CONE, WALK. '
x. CONC. CUR
REMOVE EX. CURB
AS SHOWN
I:. •
II
IE • 21.67 18' CMP) E.
CB TYPE 1
fE al II,m • 24.41
• 22.25 (IF CMP) E.
• 22.29 (8' CMP) S.
- - - --
EX. 10' S
REMOVE -
EXIST.
AC PVMT
NEW 6" EXTRUD-
ED CONC. CUR
EXIST.
__ --
8' SD = __ =� =__ _=
EXISTING PAVEMENT
JI
I
I�
I
II IE
4.92
23.22 (8' CMP) N.
• PLUG EXIST.
• 36" CMP
1E =19.66
/.%_ #E>Z DRA1 AG_CFIANI�E �.=t• - +... •
Vic - S 88 01' 56' V4 ,03.76'
2a`
vt
EX. CURB TO BE
REMOVED
NEW SD MH -TYPE 11 -54"
W/SOLID LOCKING 'LID
RIM = 24.5 ±(ADJUST TO GR)
IE =19.32
D
WI GREASE TRAP
RIM • 24.09
IE • 22.36 (GREASE TRAP)
IE • 20.16 (12' CMP) E.
IE • 20.26 18' CMPI W.
CONSTRUCT ADDITION
AL ROCK ARMOR
ALONG BANK @ 1.511
SLOPE AS REOUIRED
REMOVE PORTION
OF EX. Er so As
\\ \ SHOWN
REMOVE
EX. CURB
AS SHOWN
FLOWLINE OF
NEW CHAN-
NEL
\
INSTALL MIRAFI FILTER •
FENCE BAFFLES ALONG
OPEN CHANNEL DURING
CONSTRUCTION. TO FILTER
STORM FLOWS, MAINTAIN ON
REGULAR INTERVALS (TYP.
OF 4 BAFFL(tS) \}
)
r - --
.13
IE•19.
j
•
IE =19.15
/
RIM • p24'37 RRggpp
IE • 21.14 (8 cm-) NW RAP)
REMOVE EX. CURB
AS SHOWN
REMOVE EX. 36" STORM
1' \ LINE ); \ '
/ \\ / \\
/ \ EXISTING PAVEMENT , 1
\- I
\ I
RIM - 24.22
IE • 23.19 (GREASE TRAP)
IE•21.08 (IV CM
IE•21.31 (12' CMP) W.
1/
1
�/ - - -- \\
/ /6o LF 36" CMP SD \
//
//
//
//
//
// •
//
//
//
//
/ /�°
„ ///
If�
\ � I IE • 21.11 IB CMPI E
4ti0 O- \ \ \ • // EX. e' SD \\ • �� \ - �� �- IE�21.06 18' CMPI N. - EX_6_SD _- - - �3
A( \\ \, \. \\ \ \\
C I�
/IE • 21.84 (8' CMP) W.
h
ea,
EX. CURB
TO BE REMOVED
12' CMP LEI END
4' • 36' CMP (N) END IE •20.93
• 19.89
\\ 1
NEW EXTRUDED
CONC. CURB PER
DET. (TYP.)
CONSTRUCT ROCK CHECK
ARMOR -ALONG BANK @ 1.511
NEW ASPHALT PVMT.
2 CL. "B" AC PVMT.
4" CRUSHED ROCK
12" COMPACTED SUBGRADE
EX. 8' _
EX. CB TYPE 1
RIM • 23.74
IE • 22.17 1GREASE TRAP(
IE • 20.44 (15' CMP TO POND)
IE • 20.19 112' CMP) S.
IE•20,19(8' CMP) E.
EX. CB TYPE
\ IE • 21.06 Mr CM?) W
EX 1 T
IE • 22.01 18' CMPI W.
CB T PE I
IE • 22.27 (8' CMP) E.
NEW SDMH TYPE II -54'
W/SOLID LOCKING LID
RIM =25.0± (ADJUST TO GRADE)
IE =19.57
@
10'
1�2, STORM DRINAGE NOTES:
ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE 111 ACCORDANCE WITH "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS I'OR
MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION- PREP lED BY WASHINGTON STATE CHAPTER
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCII:TION, 1981 EDITION (APWA) AND CITY OF TUKWILA
STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
N 87' 50' 50'
1
EX. CURB
W 429.89'
EX. PAVEMENT
7. THE MCKFILL SHALL. BE PLACED EQUALLY ON BOIH SIDES OF THE PIPE IN LAYERS,
WITH A LOOSE AVERAGE DEPTH OF SIX INCHES (6 "), HAXIHUH DEPTH EIGHT INCHES
(8")',, THOROUGHLY TAHPINC EACH LAYER. THESE COlIPACTED'LAYERS HOST EXTEND
FOR ONE PIPE DIAMETER ON EACH SIDE OF THE PIPE OR TO SIDE OF THE TRENCH.
MATERIALS TO COMPLETE THE FILL OVER PIPE SHALL BE THE SAME AS EXCAVATED'
FROM THE TRENCH, EXCEPT THAT ORGANIC MATERIAL, FROZEN'LUMPS, OR ROCKS OR
PAVEMENT CHUNKS MORE THAN SIX INCHES (6 ") IN MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS, OR OTHER
UNSUITABLE MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE USED.
ALL STORM DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE CONCRETE RUBBER GA51(67,ED ASTH C -14 -2 OR ASTH
0 -76.11 OR 16 CA, GALVANIZED STEEL OR 16 G. ALUMINUM HELICAL CORRUGATED
METAL PIPE. STEEL OR AUJMINUH PIPE STALL HAVE WATERTIGHT CONNECTING BANDS
CONFORMING TO TH6 REQUIREMENTS OF APVA SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 60.30202.
STEEL PIPE SHALL RECEIVE TREATHENT.1 ASPHALT COATING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE,
OR BETTER.
9. BEDDIHC FOR RIGID PIPE (CONCRETE OR IRON) SHALL BE CLASS "8 "'PER APWA
STANDARD PLAN N0, 62 (PEA GRAVEL IRON FOUR INCHES (4 ") BELOW. PIPE TO
SPRINGLINE). BEDDING FOR FLEXIBLE PIPE (CORRUGATED METAL OR PLASTIC)
SHALL BE CUSS 'F' PER APWA STANDARD PLAN N0..62 (PEA GRAVEL FROM FOUR.
INCHES (4') BELOW PIPE TO SIX INCHES (6 ") MOVE PIPE), TRENCH WIDTH SHALL
BE 40 INCHES HAXIHUH OR 1 1/2 TIMES PIPE DIAMETER PLUS 18 INCHES, WHICHEVER
IS GREATER. MCKFILL SMALL BE PLACED IN SIX INCH (6 ') LAYERS COMPACTED
TO 95% IAXIMUH DENSITY.
2. THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEANS, METHODS AND SEQUENCES
'OF CONSTRUCTION AND FOR THE SAFETY OF WORKERS AND OTHERS ON THE SITE.
3. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IN -PLACE ALL 8.
UTILITIES AND /OR STRUCTURES, WHETHER SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.
DAMAGE DUE TO CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S
EXPENSE.
4. PROVIDE AND MAINIAIN TEMPORARY FILTER FABRIC SILT FENCE TO INSURE
SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER DOES NOT LEAVE THE PROJECT SITE. THE FACILITIES RUST
BE IN OPERATION PRIOR TO CLEARING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION AND BE MAINTAINED
UNTIL CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING ARE COMPLETED AND POTENTIAL FOR ON -SITE
EROSION HAS PASSED: AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND EXPECTED (SEASONAL)
CONDITIONS DICTATE: HORE SILTATION CONTROL FACILITIES HAY BE REQUIRED TO
INSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT., THEREFORE,
DURING INE COURSE. OF CONSTRUCTION, IT SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION AND
RESPONSITILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO ADDRESS ANY NEV CONDITIONS THAT HAY BE
CREATED BY NIS ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, OVER AND
ABOVE MINIMUIM REQUIREMENTS, AS HAY RE NEEDED TO PROTECT ADJACENT
PROPERTIES.
5.. ALL TYPE I CATCH BASINS, SHALL BE PER APWA STANDARD PLAN N0. 52 WITH APWA
TYPE 60A OUTLET IRAP AND APWA STANDARD P1AN N0. 49 FIUJIE AND CRATE.
6. ALL REQUIRED STORMWATER RETENTION /DETENTION FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED
AND I8 OPERATION PRIOR TO PAVING AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNLESS OTHERWISE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. •
10. EXTRUDED CURB SHALL BE BONDER TO THE ASPHALT SURFACE WITH AS EPDXY BONDED
AGENT SUITABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PLACE 18 INCH, 04 REBAR AT B' -0' O.C.
11.
IN ALL AREAS, OTHER THAN ROADS, WHERE CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES THE REMOVAL
OF SOD, ETC., THOSE AREAS SHALL BE HYDRO- SEEDED WITH RYE CRASS FOR THE
PREVENTION OF ON -SITE EROSION. ' ..
1
REMOVE EXIST.
CURB. MATCH NEW
EXTRUDED 'CURB
12. ALL PIPE SHALL BE LAID ON A PROPERLY PREPARED FOUNDATION ACCORDIN3 TO
WASHINGTON STATE SPEC. 7- 02.3(1). THIS SHALL INCLUDE NECESSARY LEVELING
OF THE TRENCH. BOTTOM OR THE TOP OF THE FOUNDATION MATERIAL, AS WELL AS
PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF REQUIRED BEDDING MATERIAL TO UNIFORM GRADE 50
THAT THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PIPE WILL BE SUPPORTED ON A UNIFORMLY DENSE
UNYIELDING BASE. IF THE NATIVE MATERIAL IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH MEETS
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR "GRAVEL MCKFILL FOR THE PIPE BEDDING' THE FIRST LIFT
OF PIPE BEDDING HAY BE OMITTED PROVIDED 1HE MATERIAL IH THE BOTTOM OF THE
TRENCH IS LOOSENED, REGRADED AND COMPACTED TO FORM A DENSE UNYIELDING BASE.
13.
STRUCTURES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN 10.00 FEET OF THE'SPRING LINE OF
ANY STORM DRAINAGE'PIPE(S), OR 15.00 FEET FROM THE TOP OF THE CHANNEL BANK.
14. THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING. TO THE APPROVED
'PLANS WHICH ARE ON PILE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. ANY DEVIATION.
FROH IIIE APPROVED PLANS WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE PROPER
AGENCY, CURRENTLY THE CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
15. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS HUST BE.•08 THE J08 SITE WHEREVER
CONSTRUCTION I5 IN PROGRESS,
16. ALL DRAINACE STRUCTURES NOT ON PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY SHALL HAVE ROUND,
SOLID - LOCKING LIDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS.
17. ALL ROOF DRAINS;.AND FOOTING DRAINS SHALL BE'TICITILINED TO THE ST0lU'
DRAINAGE SYSTEM.:
ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN ARE TO TOP OF PAVElIENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED. '
18.
m
1n
NEW 6" EXTRUDED
CONC CURB
SPECIAL NOTES:
11 THE FACES OF CUT AND FILL' SLOPES SHALL BE PREPARED AND MAINTAINED TO
CONTROL AGAINST • EROSION. THIS CONTROL NAY CONSIST OF EFFECTIVE PLANTING.
THE PROTECTION FOR THE SLOPES SHALL. BE INSTALLED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE
AND PRIOR TO CALLING FOR FINAL APPROVAL. WHERE =SLOPES ARE NOT SUBJECT
TO EROSION DUE TO THE EROSION- RESISTANT CHARACTER OF THE MATERIALS, SUCH
PROTECTION HAY BE OMITTED.
21 ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED FROM A FIELD
SURVEY AND FROM AVAILABLE PUBLIC RECORDS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR LOCATING ALL UTILITIES WHICH MAY CONFLICT WITH CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER
SHOWN OH THESE PLANS OR NOT. ENGINEER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ALL UTILITIES
HAVE BEEN SHOWN.
PAVILION PARKING LOT LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Those portions of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter
and southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, all in Section 35,
Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County,' Washington,
more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of the said southwest quarter
of the northeast quarter; thence 5 8B °54'46" E along the north line
of said subdivision, 449.30 feet; thence S O1 °05'14" W, 36.0 feet
to the southerly margin of South 180th Street and the true point
of beginning; thence continuing 5 01 °05'14" W, 365.78 feet; thence
N 88 °54'46" W, 424.89 feet; thence S 86 °58'00" 14 103.76 feet; thence
S 58 °20'50" W.74.23 feet to the easterly margin of 57th Avenue
South (Southcenter Parkway); thence N 08.43'18" E along said
easterly margin; 316.06 feet;. thence 11 14 °46'53" E along said
easterly margin,. 63.77 feet; thence on said easterly margin along
a curve to the right having a radius of 50 feet through a central
angle of 76 °18'21 ", an arc distance of 66.59 feet; thence S 88 °54'46" E
along the southerly margin of said South 180th Street, 485,16 feet
to the true point of beginning.
LEGEND: I ,
PROPOSED CURB
EXISTING CURE
PROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE
EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
EXISTING OPEN CHANNEL
EXISTING CONC SIDEWALK
MIRAFI FILTER. FENCE
ROCK ARMOR
OPEN WATER
ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANITY:
EXCAVATION 490 cy ±
FILL 470 CV±
rsG
21,•x,,.
j1J'I111lljlllJI IJIIIJI IJIIIJI IJIIIJI IJIIIJI IJIIIJI IJIIIJI IJllljl IjIIIJI 1JIIIJI IJhIIJI lJII1J1 IJIIIJI IJIIIJI IJIIIJI IJ.IIIIL IIIIIJI IJIIIJI I�IiIjI I�I+IJI IJI IJI III
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l i l l l l l l l l, l
0 MINS INCH 1 ? ICI 4 5 6
8 9 10 11 NnunNCnrN,rn 1i
1)t; 6Z 84 LE 94 SC Vc EZ Ce
IIIIIJIIIIIIIII� 11141f, ��JJ) �IrI��I��III�I�IIIIIIIIIJ�lllll ,�llYll�ll�lll III�IIIIIIIII
FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW
LZ oz 6i. el GI 91 S( v( Cl Z1 a Oi. sI e L I9 s vI e z 1 rww 0
l�ll41.41141W.!lllla�l1,Uk. 11101. 1�1�1<111 4111 11�11I llllll1lll!l1 ):411J111111.01l1,1ll1.1,11 11,1.1IIl111U1 11.1110.1l�l.111114110 11111111:,�,1111��I�1411 111111111111j1�111I�1►D�._,
m
4-
T
0 m
C 1'
0 =
5601 SI
0
C
0
0
0
e
0
6 -ZI -94
1 EXPIRES: 9- 23-95
"33
1B"M
IA.1r•I
1
1921°'_ 91
4 19011
tl o
19• N
1-
0
(n
W
z
z
r-
In
N
SEATTLE,
Q
Z
A
(n
Z S
Z
CNI -CD
Q V)
L- w
CV
o C EN J N Z�
cn co I iw'
EN N F.
I-(DC0 w
LLI N N U ((i)
212TH.;
11
7161N _S1-
z
KENT -
»'
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
1CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
;THE QUALITY OP THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
\ 1I6i11 Ir n,.
101
JUL 211994
olOO..O.44Ooisixopoor4sS000sok,:ipoorsosiooi0000ritos000sosO,O.o.6....,.....soo.os000.,,o.o....o.soosso.s.1.,.... s.1,...— ...... o s00000s' s' ossos000s-soss ' ..o. oo , , so.' o s0000 .. . os s o .., , soo.' 'so so oo ' o ' • s . o o o, ....- s .s I o o oo . , . . . „ or .
. . . . .. . . . . . .
•oto:o.k7",*.o'.f.".1:7,ro•.o'.'.:.•'71t.77,...''',1",...?o‘r.r.1`.;?..T4';'..r.'".:"..'.'..":,..!'"..n,'.°'''''....7'1'.'!'.?!.i'''.,',.•".'`'.1"...';'''.':‘,5"..`:7"•`"`'"'""'.:f.';'''''" .:•`::':".."•.:' '..."'1.‘• ‘" •'-''"' . ':• , • ..'' • • . '... '''':`:
f•
, r
ge,171,100 9
P 24,11(j471)
.6rreato 1(91
. . ,
S rrsr 401= eel
• •
Qcrliur
17, 401 .
Sreoitl, 121 !
11204ectie.f.rutrr
12= V:
6fro1R4 = 111
r4.21,1(X,P
pt. - to"
Mary = 101
bu4)
14,40.,..arr-INter
1011
It,
• . .
s
Juun- "-tieuP s
(wsr kw-24)
• 07.
1-10P5.14Y-Jitlar
1
.3uPire.rv4PAP
FOP00617
.
gmacl:
4,17-4X24r1146T
----,41;7¢%cflobiNar
r I 1,11'1,10(
(MAI fr...1,V.)
•••
12= JAI
oo•cro4.1oo
L_Pulft4y.4...)
4-lvt-e0C,14es-41.4.tr
12-
cofel".61
(.1111.1r(
PC7rtA
.4. '1.
pII
brrtAcl=
7.9
.1
roo
- ;
4.)
ilarhZa1049.14
p„,„
FerMeDp Srogl I C21
17:470
'5rriTtitt4Y
44A4707;
fr-.11(044) •
SlaitaCI IU1
(tA•lii 6,144)
Tit-I &AV-
, 17
;•srreati:
,),joir,r; '5643 11456
srivacir
PiNy.;:r
,
sivre,!41:= 2(•-
Ju4i rtttP F4'
t4 Q4-
17- •
. 71/taC:I.:Z(.0
J0-4Pee 64.1P.IpriAss. . •
3uFlifo.-q0E5'41°6
Juuire.g../
6111E4115 MA.'7
110
= ic?"
...rotoot
p by
• srranl
Pe,t71.1co r?„
12 • 1510
-sprsm
•442140717
5-1, 0' -
r•Ps/1t707
til
12'c
///
• 1/
,./
//
•
61,01r po LL
IR iv, sg,..r.,p,
• o
5461L .5 Xre;11e4:
prc 4! - .$ '
P1611-rAf
d
197611°.
51/1'01c1 7 20'
VA..A226f0125
6617e4Z--
1
f, rc.acl 7 Ira
NOR Ai
$c:Ate; V* $0°
• •
111i1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111i111111111ilil'IliIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111iiiiiIiiii1111111111
0 " T." "".• 1 7 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "Or...." 12 •-• - • • • ,•••
I ' io•I' of I, fl)//
CePAP
9: 1,
rea.,:l 12
„IWIrSabst
troV IWO
, 75% '7771
12
41-foci 7- 2)1
cf-f-ecril-lur
=
sr.e.47- K, a'
r7---
sinvad,
•
tfr
t,gcsicf.1 AII
p = 7-14"
sroxi '
:
4: •
f.f,PirlooP
P, Iv"
erwel= Ito
no OAK-
17.11
sre.c1=
3umett-7 .
8gizue. Fuk•-•`•
p:1011
•Srre = Z6)
1'
420,12
Huvrl-1Flii1-4/
hreaa
1"664,..B.6111.4rour
p,-0c1= 10
.-110444.C.14t•fl1-11.11"
." 47'; lI
/ erd.
1-6x64,6.14t.,511-11:r
tvl Huvit Tizoi-lk- L4-5)
p=.4 (-ems( c11,
710012
, sr, -
11
r?tc,p..Ar
6p.r.d
(Km-cp.-v.)
i" •
s=1
L.04,4.4r
ge,PW6'7r).
■,‘
/
7i-
i) l4 "
.5r—d
_ .511x4.-0
110
10
Srreod
0 I . : *:-....**--- up
\ .1 s,,
e
JUI-1Ir1 12- N4131-03
tol/ Y04,4161
tz.t.t.,t4vc.,p -trec L.LAWIC-R-•
D. 411, 1
t
Ivy lii
riv411-11P. 51APIFi
sitty,t.,1
rof.PVIDOP
or 41'
rocl
/I fl I
• f...
3141.44011
!„!
6 412/11Pe. 44gto44 .4* t..•...cpuTo e4.,616
cs-A-7rite'lvt2'
72. G6v AR- --rt.ea-
v=
10 t
PIT
Common
TREES
Coast Redwood
Western Red Cedar
Blgleaf Maple
Birch
Oregon Ash
European
Horsechestnut
Pin Oak
SHRUBS
Common Juniper
Faser Photinla
Bearberry
Cottoneaster
GROUNDCOVERS
Ivy
r1i VA IL,
T27. 12)1
.srrenci
I I
Botanical Name
Sequoia sampan/kens
Thula plicate
Acer macrophyllum
Betula sp.
&anus latifolla
Aesculus hlppocastanum
Quercus palustris
Juniperus commonus
Photinia (rased
Cottoneaster dammed
Hedera sp.
JuNt=tz-
-Aim- - tivi
lab
40
!-
JuPlecrz.-
6tlivo, MASS
12,411
6or(ieel
3u1-1 wee--
.61-12-UP t41/",
.)1-11.1111,12-
51-11?1-11?? HAa
tc,
-
1—
_ t-1 vAK--
10?
tyreo GI 2.0
-- fit-1 0A11-
=
6rreo c17.• 2V
r-
.7L
.9,6.v- :-
12, 11"
6r..0 cl: 37
CIO
so s." tool
latolitg
,orif..■.■■•"'"-rij I " .011
Quantity
•7
169
2
4
32
16
0,
sl
110
00 6Z 8C LZ 96. 55 EZ ad
lipli11111114 41, 1.0611.111111111141.1111AL
FLEXIBLE RULER-302
Oa 61. 81 L1 91 St VI. EL Et lot C":11. 6 0 9
1,
E Z 441 0
1p_akilipili).1.4.1Pillai.1.1411.0,d.U.41,11,k11111411,011),11A1141,1
, : , • • • - • • •
.. •
A
•
0
•
ti4/10
09 caPPir..-fi
p = e
411.,1
4 t
— Hr./r.l.ac NV-1Pu(
r'1 l»
tir/P.v.c.1-1t..rpu-r
c..tread
- Cc:v.9a-
1.2-. 11-12
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESSi
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT'
.\•
o s o „ , ,n , 4 ••■•■440,...log, 14tioet
•
•
PAVILION SOUTH LOT SITE
Based on requests from the City of Tukwila planning
deparlment, this vegetation inventory has been prepared to
describe and quantify the existing vegetation on the site.
All trees on the site were been inventoried. Tree trunk
diameters at breast height (DBH) vary from three inches (3
inches) to 14 inches. The definition of significant trees is
currently being revised by the City and many of the trees on
this she may not qualify as significant trees.
TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES: 233
TOTAL SITE AREA: 208,960 sf (4.8 AC.)
TOTAL TREE CANOPY AREA: 8,944 sf (.205 AC.)
PERCENTAGE OF SITE
COVERED BY TREE CANOPY: 4.3%
The existing shrub masses were also inventoried for character
and general location. These shrub areas width the type of
shrubs are shown on the plan.
0
LL
t.)
. or.
•.2,1„
.x!
0
•
0
co
8
1
.. .
r•e
Pemed2otir?
I
18011-/ ST
PcIqTI.NO R-PPP 44.7-g
•.^, •
. •
. . „ • • . . : • • • • : • a ••• . • •• '•.,•
. . .. • ...
....:„..-"".....„.,....,
.......
144N1. ,
i
,,,4 , •,-,,,,tt
,,,t ii,,, ..i,.,•,„ „.l.
,,. „,
: ,
,c..,
3 c•::,„,
t ,
• ,
ir ,... .
' • 4'0 . ;11.6 . . .."•4
ef •Si4) . trk
' ' ' ‘` .V 14.) !•1•,:,1
i, ,,, 1 .P., .i
,1 et
• f”! e? ,
' ,•lpg,','‘44.
I
qt/
•••.i.PCIOTINQ
EMERgeNT
-1110FILTRATiCiN
PCANTiNGS
/ 0Pg
(Typcio
DECIDUOUS TREES
(TYPICAt)
3' SPLIT RAIL
WOOD FENCE:
(TYPICAL)
EXI4TINQ PARKIN Q LQT
TRegf APIP Wifilliff
emefivedr 141,414,4■11"
14-017N00 PIANTINCI41
PKIPUPUS PMPERSTORY
AND puFfga SHRUB
fl-ANTINGS (TYPICAL)
MAN 1100q
OWN .1' PIAMFTER)
(TYPICAL)
$:1 $10P
comFgRous
EVERGREEN
TREE (TYPicAg.)
TOR OF BANK
(TYPICAL)
EMERGENT
BIOFILTRATION
PLANTINGS
RCP(' ARMOR BANK
TAWS MD SNOWS
12:1 SWPf
AT 1 $I,Off'
A'04 4
' ,
yr' .1/ 1./
•
- ilt:1:1I'LlYt41;grAttire•ZIGKI/21 /A Wel WAY;
-
IP OWN niwo
qf (wow Pi
POND CRPS8mSECTION
• Aar fr) W44-g
.• •
SUGGESTED
Common Name
TREES'
Western Red Cedar
Western Hemlock
Western White Pine
Quaking Aspen
Paper Birch
Vine Maple
Willow*
4
. 1
COAL STATEMENT
' Create a water quality pond that uses native emergent
wetland plants to biofilter stormwater flows and
1. provides a visual menity for pedestrian traffic.
Botanical Name
Thuja plicata
Tsuga heterophylla
Pinus monticola
Populus tremuloides
Betula papyrifera
Acer circinaturn
Salix spp.
Size
6'-8'
6'-8'
'6.-8'
4'-6'
8' -1 0'
4'-6'
slips or pots
• Slips are a seasonally dependant method of propagation and cannot be used during the May through October
growing season. Willows are to be only native species (i.e. Salix scou/eriana, Salix hookeriana and Salix
lasiandra) .
SHRUBS
Pacific Ninebark
Serviceberry
Pacific Rhododendron
Red Flowering Currant
Tall Oregon Grape
Nootka Rose
Snowberry
Salal
EMERGENTS AND AQUATICS
Slough Sedge
Small-Fruited Bulrush
Hardstem Bulrush
Arrowhead
Bur-reed
Cattail
Yellow Iris
Physocarpus capitatus
Amelanchier alnifolia
Rhododendron macrophyllum
Ribes sanguineum
Mahonia aquifolium
Rosa nutkana
Symphoricarpos albus
Gaultheria shallon
Carex obnupta
Scirpus microcarpus
Scirpus acutus
Sagittaria spp.
Sparganium spp.
Typha latifolia
Iris pseudacorus
2 gal.
5 gal.
5 gal.
3 gal.
3 gal.
2 gal.
3 gal.
3 gal.
root stock
root stock
sprigs/clumps
tubers
root stock
tubers
tubers
Nowt,
n,.7,7)...,.......:.,-..7...,!#.Nr'n,--.' 't, ., ,ffim.F.-erI.r.r17,7...,-;...,,,,.-1,6'4,-1,-„,..75.,,,--,,,,,•...-,(,..,1.-.*-..,..1,,,,,t4PY??,-,.,,,,y-,•,....■-;'..-■.,••
1 .
y.
..,, . - . ..:. , .-, .. , . .. . ..J,,,,..,..;.;. 1 . k 1 1111111111111111111111 11 1111111111111111111111111111111H111JITIIIIITIOillillitiplillillilli111141111 111111111111111111111H111111 1)11111 111.
111(11 11 1111111111111111111 11111 —
0 16 TH5 INCH 1
. ' '• '' ,'...'H''': { 7 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 HAVEN 61-IINIANY 12
' ' • .'',-,':f.':I I.
'. :•••:. ,• -".1...1
1.- •::', ' . :.'1'..1 o_; 6Z 8e L.Z '9. SZ ve E-e e.e. 1.Z 0 61. 81, LI.
I 1 1 i 1 ■ i 91. 91. 471. El. EL ll C)I, 6 8 c... 9 S -17 E 7 1 14v4 (-
%
KUM
FLEXIBLE RULER -302 Aw
- GERMANY-
011111.11.1.1
MEI
10' •0' 40'
SCALE? 111 = 201
z
w
0
2u.1
0>
0
80'
JUL 2 1 199
DAVID FANS AND ASSOC
- 118111 AVENt'E. S.E.
DRAWN •GBK
BELLEVI'E. ASIIINGION
gr.
r
-r
1
1
4
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
\THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT,
..*
1