Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E06-021 - OPEN FRAME LLC - RESTAURANT AND FITNESS CENTER (PARK WEST PLAZA)OPEN FRAME PKWY PLAZA * LAND USE CD AT FRONT DESK IN LAND USE CD BINDER " E06 -021 THIS FILE ALSO INCLUDES A CD LOCATED WITH DCD, IN LAND USE CD FILE T FRONT DESK FILE # 6-O0 -OZ l City oinukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: http://www.atukwila.wa.us Steve Lancaster, Director MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) File Number: E06 -021 Applied: 12/11/2006 Issue Date: 04/10/2007 Status: ISSUED Applicant: OPEN FRAME LLC Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: Construction of a 6,000 sf restaurant and 30,000 sf fitness center along with associated parking and landscaping. Frontal improvements will be constructed along both Andover Park West and Baker Bl. Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township /Range: 150 ANDOVER PK W TUKW 0223100010 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The conditions for this SEPA Determination are amended at the end of this document. r This MDNS is issued under WAC 197 -11 -350. The conditions are attached. Comments must be submitted by /r`� fI 014 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. For a copy of the appeal procedures, contact the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. L Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) doc: MDNS -06 E06 -021 Printed: 04 -09 -2007 City oPTukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax: 206 -431 -3665 Web site: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us File Number: E06 -021 Applied: 12/11/2006 Issue Date: 04/10/2007 Status: ISSUED SEPA Determination Conditions: Steve Lancaster, Director 1: Prior to issuance of any building permits on the site the property owner must record an easement allowing shared use of the driveway onto Baker Bl. at the southeast corner of the site. If the easement is not recorded only one driveway onto Baker will be allowed. doc: MDNS -06 E06 -021 Printed: 04 -09 -2007 4IP Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION /.. S wSCtlil 04_ HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: Notice of Public Meeting Project Number: .(AQ —UD-- itigated Determination of Non - Significance ). evvrOCIC Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt 4. Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this'll- day of year 2001 n the P: ADMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMSWFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION Project Name: fC14/vL$L__- Project Number: .(AQ —UD-- Mailer's Signature: ). evvrOCIC Person requesting mailing: 4. l P: ADMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMSWFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGI S ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINI, TION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () () () () () rCIJCIV4,I. nVGw�V-/ () U.S. ENVIRENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY () U.S. DEPT U.O. () NATIONAL INE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE « () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DMSION• ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHICLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS 11TH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT 12 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DMSION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT () TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT UBRARY • - . () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY () QWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT . () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES, UTIUTIES CITY AGENCIES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE () POUCE () FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () CITY CLERK OTHER LOCAL AGE ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL. ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM • () WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ADMTN ISTRATIV E \FORMS \CHKLIST. DOC ( ) HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) KC. TRANSIT DMSION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY () K C PUBLIC UBRARY • ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT 1120 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA -TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS () CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. NCIES () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.VWWV DAVID KEHLE-ARCHITECTS 1916 BONAIR DR. SW SEATTLE, WA 98116 SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) Any parties of record • send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division. —SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MD/4S) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS:. . Notice ofAppllcation for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21-day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant •Indian Tribes.. 'Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Any parties of record • send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attornev General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline — Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:W DMINISTRATIVEIFORMSNCHICLIST•DOC • • MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official FROM: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor RE: Park West/ACME Bowling Redevelopment DATE: April 6, 2007 Phase 2 Project Files: E06 -021 L06 -085 Design Review Associated Phase 1 Files: L04 -081 Design Review E04 -022 Applicant: David Kehle, Agent for Open Frame LLC Project Location: 150 Andover Park W Parcel #022310 -0010 Studies submitted with the applications include: Trip Generation, Distribution and Impact Fee Analysis by Transpo dated December 4, 2006 Technical Information Report by Barghausen Engineers revised December 4, 2006 Geotechnical Report by Earth Solutions NW dated June 28, 2005 Attachment: A. Site and Landscape Plans Project Description: In March 2005 Mt. Adams Holdings received BAR approval for Phase 1 of a project to remodel a warehouse into a 40 lane bowling center with associated restaurant and lounge known as Acme Bowl. Also included was approximately 9,700 square feet of retail, demolition of an existing 19,000 square foot office building and associated revisions to parking and landscaping across the site. The current application is for Phase 2 of the project. The adjacent parcel at the northeast corner of the intersection of Baker Bl. and Andover Park West will be redeveloped with a new 30,000 sf fitness center, a 6,000 sf restaurant and associated parking and landscaping. The existing 28,000 sf warehouse building will be demolished. Frontal improvements will be constructed along both streets, see Attachment A. • • Agencies With Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Comments to SEPA Checklist: No comments were received. Summary of Primary Impacts: 1. Earth - During construction the warehouse building will be demolished, its foundations will be removed. Both building pads will be preloaded to reduce settlement. Up to 4,000 cu yd of structural fill is planned for the footings and pad areas. Minor soil erosion during construction is a possibility, but the site is nearly flat and this should be easily controlled. No negative earth impacts are expected to result from the project. 2. Air - There will be exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks carrying the fill soil and construction materials during the project. The project's air emissions when complete will consist of automotive traffic to and from the site and kitchen exhaust. A trip generation report and traffic study were submitted as part of the environmental review. 3. Water — The storm drainage system will provide onsite, underground detention and treatment. 4. Plants - The majority of the existing trees and shrubs on site will be removed and replaced. Some existing street trees will be kept along Andover Park West. New landscaping will be installed along edges of the site, around the buildings and throughout the parking areas, see Attachment A. 5. Animals —The site does not contain significant animal habitat. 6. Energy and Natural Resources - The project will require energy for construction equipment, vehicles coming to the site and building operation after completion. The project will be required to meet current energy codes. 7. Environmental Health — Construction activities would create short-term noise impacts. No long term impacts are expected beyond those typical of a commercial development. 8. Land and Shoreline Use - The proposed project will not affect the shoreline. The Green/Duwamish River is approximately `/a mile east of the site. 9. Housing - The proposal will not result in a change to the housing supply. • • 10. Aesthetics - The project is subject to the design review process including a hearing before the Board of Architectural Review. The building permit drawings must agree with the BAR approved design. 11. Light and Glare - Additional site lighting will be provided by new light standards and building lighting. The project is located in a commercial zone and the additional lighting will enhance safety without causing glare or spillover onto adjacent properties. 12. Recreation - The proposal will provide a private recreational fitness facility. A widened sidewalk will be provided along Baker Bl. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation - The site is not known to have any historical or cultural significance. 14. Transportation —Four and a half feet of additional right -of -way will be dedicated along Andover Park West in preparation for a City of Tukwila street widening project. The applicant has agreed to provide an easement allowing the adjacent property to the east along Baker Bl. to share the new driveway at the southeast corner of the site when it redevelops. This will minimize the number of curb cuts along Baker, which is planned to be a major pedestrian link between the commuter rail station and the mall. Pedestrian paths will be provided between the Acme Building and the fitness center, from Baker to the fitness center and from the corner plaza to the restaurant. Two driveways are planned along Baker and this site will share the existing driveway onto Andover Park West with the Acme site. The Department of Public Works has determined there is a direct nexus between this project's impacts on the transportation network and the Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project (Klickitat). The Park West project will be subject to a traffic concurrency fee at the time of building permit, a portion of which would be assessed due to the Klickitat project. Open Frame has the option of paying the complete traffic impact fees in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit and later receiving a credit for the Klickitat portion against the LID assessment or paying the non - Klickitat fees and signing a no protest LID Agreement for the Klickitat Project. If Open Frame signs the no protest agreement their fair share for the Klickitat Project will be assessed as part of the LID process. 15. Public Services - The project will increase demand on public services due to the more intense use of the site for recreation and restaurant instead of warehousing and office. 16. Utilities — There is adequate utility capacity to serve the site. Recommended Threshold Determination: Determination of non - significance. • 4ne.,a4xr. • ANDOVER PARK WEST NEW PROJECT SIGN EX SIDEWALK FEDE5T1AN TO BE REMOVED BOLLARD LIGHTS PL 76043' T'� 6' SIDEWALK INSTALLED ffi EX COLORED 60 PLAT NEW x'510 BACK 116 CRIER 4'x4' PLANTE r EX RETAIL F53105E EX PEDESTRIAN CORECiION NEW CURB ON PER q1T SIDE C MEW ®223 FTITICL =STING ACME BC9lta TOTAL AREA 60656 5F- ACME BOILING. MACS 5F. (40 LA185) RETAIL, 10010 5F. !94512246 PARKING • 165 (5 COMPACT/ NEW PEDESTRIAN L3K (5') 2.043687E EX QRB 011 CUT TO BE OJT 0Y 0 BE SR. LNE- 9 EX DUiP61ER D UPON TO EAST SITE PLAN PARK UJEST PLAZA SCALE: r.40' 486 TOTAL GARS NOTE: NEW LANDSCAPE ISLANDS TO BE SAW CUT, REPAIR AS REQ, PROVIDE SEALED EDGES WERE REQ. DU'>PSTER 6'- 812x5' -10'D 'IV OR6' -3'24 TILT -UP WALLS 1'- 6' 404 UY 35554L5 5111 T/ L_ TALI. S1iEL GATE LEA 91#1.1194 3032 INTO catc. REVEAL /I` �■ PL446' 75. STALLS •711 STALLS - P•7 - P•3 DUMPSTER PLAN ELEVATION SCALE: I/4 °.I' SCALE: IA' 41' P-7 ga 111111 I 111 11111 1111111 11" I 1111 cRO36 BRACE STEEL GATES P •7 36'704' DIA CONE BOOT5 • P -1 P•3 P •7 TSUILDINCs AND SITE STATE L BUILDING CODE IBC 2003 1210242253 TUC Y134LA URBAN CFt4TER 3. SITE AMA, 50641 ff 4. CODE SETBACKS: R6214T TAM 5' SECOND paw, 5' SIDE9 10 REAR, 0 MAX22V1BOLDING FEIGHT. 15' (ORIENT I•8H7 1302 5. FITNESS 30080 6. RESTAURANT (FUTURE), 6000 4F 6. OCCUPANCY 6ROP FI7NE59 43 (G1I1445N'1) • 1. BU4D2G COST. TYPE, 111.5 SP354321 ED & 922.011.8 AMA (1.111E565 A3 • 9500 $FI M • 0900 5F USE 43 FOR N0•SEPARATED USES (IBC 30231) • 9900 5F FRONTAC8, $0,74 58' EAST 92 SEW 46' (TO FE5TAIR441)' HORN 36 TO FL 11 • 10010 0251 • 8010.10 - 25)1 • 453 41 • 5500 • (25122B455 (2600&300(. °35004421503 0 • 47715 SF 100 704 T1EREF07E. 911DS6 IS OK FOR AREA 470 NON•5EPARAIED USES 9 FIRE RESISTIVE RAT61G. (TABLE 60) TTFE 111 -5 CONSTRYTIO4 • 5TRICTURAL FRAME, NO RATING • E)TEFIOR SEARING WALL 7 4R - NTE1CR BEARBY B4LL. NO RATt8 • NTERIOR NON BEARING NO RAT56 • ROCF CONSTRUCTION. NO RAT18 FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALLS (TABLE 602) • DISTANCES GREATER T44N 30', NO RAT56 • GR£A1ER T149410, LESS 114424 5' - 483 OF 51411 CAN BE INFROTECTED PER 1048) SPR5KLER&. 5) L450404P8 RECUMBENT} • FRONT • 5' CAN NCLUDE FEDE5TRN 45'84119 • SIDES • 0 - PARKING LOT OVER 40 STALLS 5 SFA3TALL (MN 6' WDE, Mk 80 5F) • P4RC51G LOT Ld1D1CAPE SKIN 1000045 SF • PARC56 LOT LANDSCAPE REWIRED: 706 X 5 • 3035 5F 5 PARK56 (EXCLUDES ACME 501116 4 EX5T5G RETA&X 265 54OW ROARER FITNESS CENTER 464000 2114BLE • 144 REMOED REOIRED: RESTAURANT 10.1000 USEABLE 60 ReO )RED TOTAL PAWING fECUED 704 STALLS 5240114 75 STALLS. MAX1111303 CO'9'ACT Y' • CGNPACT TEXT ON PAV226 FEGLL4R STALLS • 9 x • PLUS 7' meat** AN0 24' AISLE - 89' X T1' PLUS 7' OVERHANG AND 75' AISLE COIPACT • 6' x I4' PLUS Y OVEF44428 AND 75' AL5LE (76 STALLS) HANDICAP • 9' x 0' PLUS Y 0553612248 450 74' AISLE (1 UITH 7 VAN) I Fr.4) DPSCRPICN• 2.012020111' CF TUORI.A 005DART 2.5E ADMITS/4T NO. L -05 -075. RECORDED I220EJR RECOFDNG N0. 700509789170006; RECCRO5 6 556 CONTT, W45H561O4 TAX ID. 017310.0010 STEEL GATE Nair' '..'EVE! OPMFM?- t g o S 8 55 O II ft Et WASHINGTON PARK WEST 0 1 s=l ELEVATION \ \Wkst -4 \'documents \CAC iDENAT WEST PLAZA \SD -1 -A- ZON7.DWG, 4/4/2007 4:43:43 PM, Desi 'i]et 500 MAD SCALE: I /4'.1' I SCALE: 1/4'.1' SCALE: I/4 °.I' co 0 • 30' SIGHT DISTANCE LINE ANDOVER PARK WEST cp- SD: ��STGGT -- (DISTANCE LINE co V - I N4 -,,,j: _ 'RID \:I \V ti ,! \li'' Y1► ..... rMMINIUAI• MUST n- --unEre�u I_ IMMEl•MIUPIO U. HC C 1.`� UtiMillMor Oa 45' DEDICATED ROLL C4� 30' DIST LINE C C 1 1 1 1 a` o BIt I I I I 1111111111 L 1 1 CO — INSTALL ILEED BARRIER AS • -• , ALONG EAST SIDE OF BUILDPG� ----------- MULCH • I ITa, - MULCH PATH ` clu 30' SIGHT DISTANCE LINE 9'11= 11 =1'4 ,mil "I ''—I' I�i9! I ►s. =1� 4- �'.= 11 -11= 11►= 11 -�1„ a� ►= 1,,11 ►;.�F, miCholfroVaOR 1 PLANTING NOTES L ALL NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS ARE TO BE WATERED LATH AN AUTOMATIC WATER CONSERvNG IRRIGATION SYSTEM 2. ALL NEW N4RUB AND GROUNDCOvER AREAS ARE TO BE rtI.CHED IAN A MNPIJ1 2' DEPTH aF SPECIFIED P IILCH. 3. (WERE GRANDCOVER 15 PROVIDED, IT SHALL BE PLANTED AT THE SPECIFIED SPACING THROUGHOUT THE BED, NCLUDSG AREAS UNDERNEATH TREES AND SHRUBS, START FIRST ROW O• FROM EDGE OF BED. SECURE GROWDCOVER N GRAND, WITH METAL STAKES, TO PREVENT BIRDS FROM UPROOTS* THEM. 4. TREES SHALL BE RANTED A MNWMIPI aF 10 FEET FROM INDERGROIND WATER SEDER AND STORM DRAPAGE PIPES. 5. REFER TO SPECFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RE(JIJIREMENTS. • • LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE SYM OTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES 4 ACER R i5RJ'1'AUTIfTI BLAZE' / AUTUMN BLAZE RED MAPLE 16 ACER T. GINIALA FLAME' / FLM1E NAIR MARE 5 FRAXINJS PEN45TLVANICA MARSHALL' / MARSHALL A5 4 1 PRPUS 5. M. FUJI' / MT RJI FLALERNG CHERRY 1 OUERCUS RUBRA / RED OAK DECIDUOUS ACCENT TREES O1 ACER CIRCNATIPt / NNE MAPLE EVERGREEN TREES 1 PPUS STLVESTRS / SCOTCH PINE PSEUDOTSXA MENZIESII / DO.JG FIR EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN SIZE / CONDITION 8 KEENING / PERIMETER SHRUBS 0 5 NBUN411 TINU5 'SPRING BOUQUET' / VIBURNIP1 5 00 MINUS LAUROCER4SU5'OTTO LUMEN' / OTTO LINKER LAUREL O 50 PW415 MUGO MUGO' / MUGHO PPE ® 22 PRINZ LUSITANICA / PORTUGAL LAUREL PARKING LOT 1 ACCENT SHRUBS O 52 EUONttUS AL ALA 'COMPACTA' o 16 ESCALLONIA NEWPORT DWARF' / ESCALLONIA ® 31 CISTUS X HYBRIDUS / WHITE ROCKR05E 5 35 SPIRAEA BUMALDA 'ANTHONY WATERER' / SPIRAEA 0 10 THUJA OCCIDENTAL'S 'EMERALD' / AMERICAN AR30RNTAE n =u -u -i 11= 1� =11= GROUNDCOVER ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UvA -UR51 / KP041KPA41CK RJBIS CALTCINOIDES / BRAMBLE SEEDED LAWN MULCH AND WEED BARRIER AS APPROVED 2' CAL. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER, MATCHED, FULL, 545 (3) 3/4' CANES, MATCHED, RILL, BM 6' 141, MATCHED, FULL 4 BIJ5NY TO BASE, BIB 6' 141, MATCHED, RILL 1 BUSHY TO BASE, 545 I8• -II• HT, RJLL FOLIAGE, 54B OR CONT. 8' -II• HT. SPR, FULL FOLIAGE, 545 OR CONT. 6' HT. FULL 4 BU5HY TO BASE, B1B OR CONT. 4' POTS • 14' OL, RU1.1 FOLIAGE CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE SYM OTY BOTANICAL NAME I COMMON NAME SIZE / CONDITION DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES ®.I O2 Z ACER T. GSNALA FLAME' / FLAME AMR MAPLE DECIDUOUS ACCENT TREES LAURA NOBILIS / BAY LAUREL MAGNOLIA GRANDFLORA LITTLE GEM' / MAGNOLIA EVERGREEN TREES O 2 CUPRE55U5 SEMPERVIRIENS / ITALIAN CYPRESS FOUNDATION SHRUBS • 8 BUXUS SEMPERVIRENS 'SUFFRJTIC05A' / TRJE DWARF BOXI OOD p 13 CISTUS X H'BRIDUS / UNITE ROCKROSE • 28 DESCNAMF5IA CESPITOSA BRONZESCHLEIER / HAIR GRASS • 41 EUONYMUS JAPONICUS MICROPHYLLU5' / BOX -LEAF EUONttAJS o 18 ILEX CORNITA ROTWDA' / DWARF CHINESE HOLLY 05 5 SARf'C0Cr4 HOOKER•IA HUMUS / SLEET BOX • 15 ROSEMARPIJS OFFICINALIS / ROSEMARY e 32 SALSA OFFICINALIS PURPIORA$GENS' / COMM SAGE • 10 SANTOLPA VIERS / 5ANTOLINA O 3 SPIRAEA 505141.04 'ANTHONY WATERER' / SPIRAEA • 20 TEUCRDI O4AMAEDRI'S / GERMANDER o 21 111J4 OCCIDENTAL'S 'EMERALD' / AMERICAN ARBORNTAE IA5 NOTED IAS NOTED GROUNDCOVER PACHYSANDRA TERINALIS / JAPANESE SRURGE RIMS CALYCNOIDES / BRAMBLE 054LD5TENIA FRAGARIOIDES / BARREN STRAWBERRY 2' CAL. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER MATCHED, FULL, 845 5' -6' HT, PRISE INTO STANDARD TREE FORM, FULLY HEADED, 54B 2' CAL. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER MATCHED, FULLY HEADED, 545 4' -6' HT, MATCHED, FULL I BUSHY TO BASE, 54B IS' -21• HT, HILL FOLIAGE, 545 OR CONT. 18' -21' HT, FULL FOLIAGE. 545 OR CONT. 1 GALPOT, FULL FOLIAGE. 543 OR CONT. I GAL. POT. RILL FOLIAGE. CONT. IB' -21' HT, FULL FOLIAGE, BIB OR COST. I8' -2P SPR, FULL FOLIAGE, BE OR CONT. 18"-21" HT, FULL FOLIAGE, BIB OR CONT. 1 GAL. POT, FULL FOLIAGE, CCNT. IB' -21' HT, FULL FOLIAGE, BE OR CO4T. 18' -21 HT, FULL FOLIAGE, 545 OR CONT. 1 GAL. POT, RJLL FOLIAGE, CANT. 6' HT, FULL I BUSHY TO BASE, 516 OR CONT. 4' POTS • 24' OL, RILL FOLIAGE RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THIS PLAN 15 FOR CODE SUBMITTAL TO GOVERNING JURISDICTIONS AND 15 NOT FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION. STATE IX WA9O'GT01 0' 15' 30' 60' 90' IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII NORTH SCALE 1'= 30' -0' LANDSCAPE PLAN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Scale. AS NOTED Date. 3.30.07 AML/ Drawn By. AE /JM-1 Checked By. MJK Revisions. DESIGN REVIEW 22204 BAR. 33007 L1.0 Sheet. 1 of 1 June 6, 2007 city of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Public Works James E Morrow, P.E., Director Mr. David Kehle David Kehle Architects 1916 Bonair Drive SW Seattle, WA 98116 Re: Open Frame — Park West Plaza, Phase 1& 2 Traffic Impact Fees Dear Mr. Kehle: The City has reviewed Mr. C. V. Brown's April 13, 2007 traffic impact analysis wherein he alleges that there are no additional traffic impact fees required for Phase 2 of the development and further alleges that a rebate in the amount of $53,067.11 is due Open Frame. Mr. Brown's analysis was in response to the City's March 14, 2007 memorandum that stated an additional $194,799.34 in traffic impact fees were owed as a result of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Park West Plaza Project. Mr. Brown's analysis purporting that a rebate is due is based upon three premises: 1. A credit for the previous tenant's (Fatigue Technology) p.m. peak hour trips should be applied; 2. A 25 percent reduction for pass -by trips for the proposed fitness center should be applied; and 3. The trip generation from specific land use calculations should be modified. In response to Mr. Brown's analysis, the following addresses the three premises: 1. Credit due for the previous tenant's p.m. peak hour trips; Fatigue Technology is still a Tukwila business - actually located a few blocks to the southeast of the Park West Plaza site — and their impact upon the traffic system never went away. Therefore no credit is due. 2. Applying a 25 percent reduction for pass -by trips: Open Frame's original 2004 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) did not identify or consider any reductions for pass -by trips for the proposed fitness center. Given the demographics of the site and the nature of the surrounding businesses, this is a reasonable conclusion because the majority of Open Frame's development is considered to be a destination site not a spur of the moment decision for a traveler. In addition, the fitness center is a "Members Only" club. Mr. Brown's April 13, 2007 analysis 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 433 -0179 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • has not provided any compelling evidence to overturn both the City and Open Frame's acceptance of the original TIA. 3. Specific trip generation by land use types: Mr. Brown's analysis has ignored the facts presented by this development. The original TIA analyzed a proposed project that would retrofit existing buildings on -site to accommodate a 40 -lane (52,500 square foot) bowling center, a 22,000 square foot fitness club, and 16,900 square feet of general retail. Phase 1 of the project built the bowling center and 10,090 square feet of general retail. Please note that the bowling center and the general retail space all occupy the same building. Phase 2 is to construct the fitness center and a 6,000 square foot restaurant. Looking at the 10,090 square feet of general retail that has been constructed, the UPS Store and the EQPT store occupy 2,723 square feet. They are not a "Specialty Retail Center" as proposed by Mr. Brown. Qdoba occupies 2,242 square feet of the building and was classified as a "Fast Food Restaurant without a drive - through window." It is not a "High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant" as proposed by Mr. Brown. Sushi Land restaurant is, however, classified as a "High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant." Further, Mr. Brown classifies the on -site management office that occupies 1,500 square feet of the building as a "Single Tenant Office Building," which it clearly is not because, again, it is one of the occupants in the building. Again, Mr. Brown fails to provide any creditable evidence to overturn the land use types and the resulting trip generation calculations used by the City in its March 14, 2007 memorandum. In summary, the City finds that the facts of this development do not support Mr. Brown's analysis. Therefore, the $ 194,799.34 traffic impact fee as presented in the City's March 14, 2007 memorandum is required of this development. The impact fee must be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 2. Sincerely, James F. Morrow, P.E. Director, Public Works Cc: Director Community Development City Attorney 7 PI david kehle, April 20, 2007 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Ms. Nora Gierloff Re: Park West Plaza Dear Nora, RECEIVED APR 2 3 2001 DEVELOPMENT I have attached the final response regarding the traffic mitigation outlined by Cyndy Knighton of March 14, 2007 which was attached to your comment letter. Mr. Christopher Brown's letter of April 13, 2007 responds specifically to Cyndy's memo and discusses previous uses, actual traffic counts to ACME Bowl, etc. Please forward to Cyndy for her review, comment and re- evaluation of the mitigations. If she has any questions, she can call Christopher directly or comment back through you to me. Thank you and I look forward to seeing staffs report and the meeting on the 26th David Kehle DK/mt Enclosure: Christopher Brown letter 4 -13 -07 Cc: Ms. Bonnie Hanson 0631 /citylet4-20 -07 1916 Bonair Drive S.W. Seattle, WA 98116 (206) 433 -8997 fax (206) 246 -8369 email: dkehle @dkehlearch.com • RECEIVED APR 16 25 7 COMMUNITY NT Christopher brown Cn Associates 9688 12ainier Ave. (S. (Seattle, WA 98118 -5981 (206) 722 -1910 Fax (206) 722 -1909 April 13, 2007 Ms. Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Park West Plaza L06 -085 & E06 -021 Traffic Mitigation Fees Dear Ms. Gierloff: Since the project architect, Mr. David Kehle of the David Kehle Architects firm, is out of town for a few days he has asked that I send a copy of my recent letter to him regarding traffic mitigation fees your review, reference, use, distribution and /or files. As you will see from the attached there are no additional traffic mitigation fees required for the subject projects and, indeed, a rebate in the amount of $53,067.11 is due from fees already paid. Naturally, if you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call at any time. C. V. Brown, P.E. encl. cc John Stokke, Esq. Bill Williamson, Esq. Traffic Engineers g Transportation Planners • • John P. Stokke, Esq. 2365 Carillon Point Kirkland, WA 98033 . Re: Park West Plaza L06 -085 & E06 -021 Traffic Mitigation Fees Dear Mr. Stokke: Christopher brown Cn Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. 8. Seattle, WA 98118 -5981 (206) 722 -1910 Fax (206) 722 -1909 April 13, 2007 The enclosed correspondence concerning traffic mitigation fees for the subject developments are for your review, reference and files. Yours truly, C. V. Brown, P.E. encl. cc Bill H. Williamson, Esq. Traffic Engineers CS Transportation Planners Bill H. Williamson, Esq. The Williamson Law Office P. 0. Box 99821 Seattle, WA 98139 -0821 Re: Park West Plaza L06 -085 & E06 -021 Traffic Mitigation Fees Dear Mr. WiUm`son: Christopher brown (n Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98118 -5981 (206) 722 -1910 Fax (206) 722 -1909i April 13, 2007 The enclosed correspondence concerning mitigation fees for the subject developments are for your review, reference and files. Yours truly, encl. cc John Stokke, Esq. Traffic Engineers CAS Transportation Planners • Christopher brown el Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98118 -5981 (206) 722 -1910 Fax (206) 722 -1909 April 13, 2007 Mr. David Kehle David Kehle Architects 1916 Bonair Drive SW Seattle, WA 98116 Re: Open Frame — Park West Plaza, Phase 2 File L06 -085 & E06 -021 Traffic Mitigation Fees Reductions /Credits — Revised Fee & Trip Generation Computations Dear Mr. Kehle: In my memorandum of March 21st, 2007 I set out a series of changes concerning the mitigation fees for the L.A. Fitness Club and previously for the Acme Bowl. The former concerned a reduction in mitigation fees so that the p.m. peak hour traffic associated with the building's previous tenant (Fatigue Technology Inc.) was properly accounted for and the latter to take into account the real or true p.m. peak hour traffic associated with the Acme Bowl. I would like to take this opportunity to further amplify these changes and to also set out the basis for them. As we discussed last April 19th the appropriateness and fairness of traffic impact fees is addressed by RCW 82.02.060 (4) that requires the (agency) in part, "... to consider unusual circumstances in specific cases to ensure that impact fees are imposed fairly." Typically, this involves two elements. One element is to deduct prior p.m. peak hour traffic (or ADT if so used by the agency) generated by the earlier land use so that only "net new" generated traffic by the proposed new use is assessed. The second is to validate the estimated trip generation data to ensure the forecast volumes are reasonably appropriate if the referenced ITE trip data has been based on only a relatively few field observations. For the latter, you may wish to note that for the TIA for the Grand Central Casino on Interurban Avenue, Ms. Knighton required us to validate the estimated trip production for Traffic Engineers Transportation Planners Mr. David Kehle April 13, 2007 Page 2 that facility by also observing peak hour traffic at the Silver Dollar Casino in South Tacoma. That validation proved useful to the city. Also, for that TIA we deducted the trip generation for the site's former land use (light industrial) in keeping with the above referenced state code. Fundamentally, deducting traffic from prior site land uses to obtain net new volumes added to the street network and validating traffic estimates with locally gathered field data is sound engineering practice. It is an established practice in the City of Tukwila. To this end I have taken the opportunity to review a few of the factors for ensuring the proposed traffic impact fees described in the Knighton memorandum of March 14, 2007, attached to the Nora Gierloff letter of March 16th, are correct. These are set out below. PART I. The 30,000 square foot (sf) facility for L.A. Fitness (see Trip Generation Summary, Fitness Club, Phase 2, Net New Trips, column 7) with the trip generation shown in the Knighton memorandum to Jim Morrow dated March 14th (page 1) indicates a p.m. peak hour trip generation of 122 vehicles per hour. For your reference this data was derived from the 7th edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Land Use Code 492 — Health /Fitness Club. However, since there was an immediate prior use (light industrial) it is necessary to subtract the trips from that prior use so that the traffic mitigation fees are assessed on the net increase in new p.m. peak hour travel. This is in conformance with the above noted statute and our previous city experience described above for the Grand Central Casino. The previous tenant, Fatigue Technology Inc., complies with ITE Land Use Code 110, Light Manufacturing, of the above referenced Trip Generation Manual. Based on the number of employees on site when they last occupied that building (125) it had an ADT of 399, an A.M. peak hour demand of 104 vehicles per hour (vph), and a p.m. peak hour demand of 94 vph. These are all based on the published ITE regression equations. Accordingly, the 122 vehicles per hour (vph) noted in the referenced Knighton memorandum (see page 1, Trip Generation Summary, Phase 2, Line 3, Column 7) needs to be revised to (122 — 94) 28 net new p.m. peak hour trips. Mr. David Kehle April 13, 2007 Page 3 In turn, this suggests the total number of peak trips for Phase 2, also described in the above referenced table on page 1 (Trip Generation Summary, Fitness Club, Phase 2, Total New Trips, bottom line), be revised to read (177 — 94) 83 net new trips. The revised mitigation fee based on the Traffic Impact Fee Summary on page 2 of the Knighton memorandum, at a calculated rate of (Zone 1 Fee at $1,736.80 X 83 trips X trip length factor of 0.84) now becomes $121,089.70 representing a reduction of $56,897.57 in recognition of the prior site usage by Fatigue Technologies, Inc. Continuing, the net number of new p.m. peak hour trips for the L.A. Fitness Club described above curiously does not include any reduction for "pass -by" traffic. That is atypical for most commercial enterprises. It will be seen in the footnote on page 1 of the Knighton memorandum that this fact was so noted. "Fitness club trips used the Health Club rate of 4.05 /1000gfa with no reduction for pass by." (emphasis added) However, when this consultant was engaged for an analysis at the Pro - Sports Club in Bellevue, a similar (scale) athletic club, significant numbers of p.m. peak hour pass -by trips were observed. These were well in excess of 50 percent. As a.consequence, it would be incorrect to disallow reductions for pass -by traffic. Apparently, the TIA did not consider pass -by traffic as a significant component, as pointed out in the Knighton memorandum, where "... the TIA submitted in 2004 established that no trip reduction is associated with this fitness center,... (March 14th memorandum, page 2, paragraph 3, line 9.) Why the use of pass -by trips for trip reduction was not used in the original Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not clear. Nonetheless, Ms. Knighton particularly advises that the city's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) schedule includes these by noting it ... includes a generic 25% reduction due to pass by traffic and other trip reducing characteristics." (March 14`h memorandum, page 2, paragraph 3, line 8.) Given the inclusion of pass -by trip reductions in the city's TIF schedule I would suggest that the L.A. Fitness Club avail itself to the codified 25 percent trip reduction. From local studies it is clearly applicable from observations made at the Pro - Sports Club in Bellevue. • • Mr. David Kehle April 13, 2007 Page 4 With the 25 percent reduction for pass -by traffic, the L.A. Fitness Club forecast p.m. peak hour travel (noted in the previously described Trip Generation Summary, Phase 2, Line 3, Column 7 at 122 trips) is thus reduced to (122 X 0.75) 92 trips. Then, deducting the previously derived 94 p.m. peak hour trips credited from Fatigue Technology Inc. the net new p.m. peak hour traffic subject to mitigation fees becomes (92 — 94) —2 trips. Considering this negative two trips ( -2) and its associated trip length factor (0.94) the credit for this L.A. Fitness Club fee becomes ( -2 trips X trip length factor of 0.84 X Zone 1 Fee of $1,736.80) exactly - $2,917.82. Next, there is one other development in Phase 2. This is the proposed California Pizza. The (negative) 2 trips or conversely the credit of $2,917.82 described in the above paragraph for the L.A. Fitness Club can be deducted from the mitigation fees due for the California Pizza. Continuing, the California Pizza restaurant noted on line 5 of the above referenced table is still proposed at 6,000 gsf. Similarly, its pass -by traffic has also been noted in the Knighton memorandum at 15 percent. No change in this p.m. peak hour travel estimate is recommended. Likewise, the trip length adjustment factor of 0.92 also remains. As a result, the mitigation fee computation for the California Pizza restaurant is now computed as (55 net new trips X trip length factor of 0.92 X Zone "1 Fee of $1,736.80) $87,882.08. With the revised L.A. Fitness Club's net new peak hour traffic ( -2 trips) and the same net new peak hour traffic for California Pizza, as described in the Knighton memorandum at 55 trips, the Total Phase 2 Net New Trips now becomes (- 2 + 55) 53 vehicles per hour. This figure should be used for the bottom line, column 4 of the Trip Generation Summary table on page 1 of the March '14th memorandum for the project's Total New Trips. Stated another way, on the bottom line of the Trip Generation Summary, the column 4 data showing "177 trips" should be edited to read "53 trips ". As a result of this revision to Total New Trips on page 1 of the March 14th Knighton memorandum under Traffic Impact Fee Summary on page 2, at column 7, must then also reflect the new Trips as "53" in place of "177 ". With this revision reflecting the net new Phase 2, trip generation the corresponding Cost in column 8 then becomes (California Pizza fee of $87,882.08 less the credit of $2,917.82 for Fatigue Technology Inc trips and the codified fitness club pass -by trips) $84,964.26. This new fee, $84,964.26, should be noted on the bottom line of this table as the total Phase 2 Cost. Mr. David Kehle April 13, 2007 Page 5 The next item to consider, and previously described in my earlier memorandum of March 21st, 2007, concerns a lower p.m. peak hour trip rate for the Acme Bowl based on actual current observations necessitating a request for a refund on any prior fees paid for that part of the development. For simplicity, that study and its findings are repeated below. PART H. The Trip Generation Summary (Table) on page 1 of the Knighton March 14th memorandum shows the `Bowling Alley ", producing 69 Net New Trips. This data came from the original TRANSPO study of December 4, 2006 and is shown on column 3 and column 5 of the summary table. Ms. Knighton had asked that we confirm the trip generation data used for The Grand Central Casino project in Tukwila since it was based on limited trip generation data. Thus, it can be reasonably assumed that in a like manner a local source of peak hour trip data would be of value in this traffic mitigation fee process. To this end we studied the Acme Bowl in the Park West Plaza on both a Monday (March 19th) and Tuesday (March 20th) to obtain the true p.m. peak hour trip generation of this 40 -lane facility. Of importance please understand the Acme Bowl also includes a video arcade and a "sports bar" as well. Additionally, Monday and Wednesday are heavily used for bowling "league" nights that typically begin at about 7:00 p.m. The Monday and Tuesday p.m. peak hour observations at the Acme Bowl are shown below. Table I Acme Bowl P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Time In Out Total In Out Total Average Monday Tuesday 2 -days 4:00 - 4:15 8 3 11) 6 2 8) 10) 4:15 -4:30 5 3 8) 5 1 6) 7) 4:30 - 4:45 3 3 6) 8 6 14) 10) 4:45 — 5:00 3 2 5) 7 7 14) 10 5:00 - 5:15 2 3 5 NA NA NA 5:15 — 5:30 3 1 4 NA NA NA Mean = 37 vph Mr. David Kehle April 13, 2007 Page 6 The sequence of half - closed parenthesis symbol is used in the above table to show the true peak hour based on the four consecutive highest peak 15- minute intervals. Additionally, in the above table note that both the Monday and Tuesday p.m. peak hour was in the same 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. time interval. The Monday peak hour, at 30 vph, and the Tuesday peak hour at 42 vph indicates the average weekday p.m. peak hour volume is [(30 +42)/2] 37 vehicles per hour. The inbound /outbound p.m. peak hour split is 0.63 on Monday and 0.62 on Tuesday. For these two days they are essentially identical. To continue, the estimated average weekday p.m. peak hour traffic volume from the March 14th Knighton memorandum, on page 1, Trip Generation Summary, TIA, Net New Trips, column 2, shows 69 vph (vehicles per hour) based on the Transpo study. The true average weekday p.m. peak hour volume is 37 vehicles per hour. Note that this average weekday data includes a Monday that is a "league" night at the bowl. This difference between theoretical and true peak hour volume data is (69 — 37) 32 vph. On comparing the actual (true) average weekday p.m. peak hour volume for the Acme Bowl against the theoretical (Transpo) volume described in the Knighton memorandum, it is apparent that for this land use there was an over - estimate of (37/69 X 100) 54 percent. In turn, as before with the L.A. Fitness Club, this suggests the TIA mitigation fees published on page 2 of the March 14th memorandum be revised to reflect the true trip generation data. Consequently, the Trip Generation Summary, Permitted Net New Trips, on page 1 of the memorandum should be corrected. Accordingly, the top line for Bowling Alley, columns 3 and 5, showing 69 trips need to be corrected to show true demand of 37 trips per hour. The mitigation fee for the Acme Bowl bowling alley in Phase 1 should be revised on the Traffic Impact Fee Summary on page 2 of the memorandum. With both the TIA and Permitted trip generation of 37 trips instead of 69 trips the traffic mitigation fee for the bowling alley becomes ($222,710/201 trips X 37 trips) $40,998.37. This indicates an overpayment of [($222,710/201 trips X 69 trips) - $40,998.37] $35,454.32 was made for the bowling alley for Phase I of the development. In summary, this section, Part II, corrects the traffic mitigation fee for the Acme Bowl by using real on -site traffic data. As a result, a refund of $35,454.32 is proposed. Mr. David Kehle April 13, 2007 Page 7 PART III The "General Retail" portion of he Phase 1 development, originally established at 16,900 sf by the TIA, and then set at 10,090 sf under the Permitted section with 26 net new trips, as shown on Line 2 of the Trip Generation Summary on page 1, in column 5 of the Knighton memorandum, is subject to revision since smaller land uses have actually been constructed. Among these are the facilities noted below. Table II As -built Tenants and Leased Space The Eqpt Store 1,301 gsf The UPS Store 1,459 gsf The Sushi Land restaurant 2,967 gsf The Qdoba restaurant 2,242 gsf On Site Management office 1,500 gsf NOTE: The above leased space is from the records of the property manager. The actual trip generation for these includes the following. Table III As -built Tenant's ITE LUC & Traffic demand Facility The Eqpt Store The UPS Store Sushi Land Qdoba Manager Office • ITE LUC Type ADT P.M. Peak Trips 814 Specialty Retail 58 814 Specialty Retail 65 932 Hi Turnover Rest. 377 932 Hi Turnover Rest. 285 715 Single Tenant Off. 17 4 vph 4 vph 32 vph 24 vph 3 vph NOTE: The ITE Land Use Codes shown above reflect the actual tenancies. Total new traffic, ADT and P.M. Peak Hour 802 67 vph In the Trip generation Summary, page 1 of the Knighton memorandum, the total Permitted Net New Trips in column 5 for the General Retail, Fast Food Restaurant and Restaurant categories totaled (26 +29 +27) 83 vehicles per hour. Mr. David Kehle April 13, 2007 Page 8 As a consequence, the traffic fees already paid for these elements, based on the above noted 83 vph should be revised to reflect these actual "as- built" uses on the site with the new peak hour volumes (67) as described on Table II and summarized in Table III. The Traffic Impact Fee Summary on page 2 of the Knighton memorandum describes the Permitted Trips Cost on the bottom line of the table at $151,640. This is based on the total Permitted Trips being (4 +12 +10 +138 +8 +21) 193 trips. The corrected number of trips is (83 -67) 16 trips less. At a pro -rata trip fee of ($151,640/193) $785.70 per trip, the reduction by 16 trips leads to an additional rebate of (16 X $785.70) $12,571.19 over and above the proposed rebate (credit) described in the Knighton memorandum on page 2, last paragraph, line 3, of $71,070. To summarize this portion, it .is recognized that the Knighton memorandum properly recognizes the difference in mitigation fees paid, based on the original TIA, versus what should have been paid pursuant to the Permitted development. The difference shown in this memorandum is ($222,710 - $151,640) $71,070 as described in the above paragraph. The difference between the two reflects a lower development density and a change in some of the on -site land uses. Based on the actual final occupancy and site uses shown on Tables II and III on page 7 of this letter, the $71,070 credit described in the Knighton memorandum needs to be increased by $12,571.19 to reflect the actual, final on -site true uses. Finally, to summarize all of these findings, we can state the following considerations. • The Phase 2 traffic mitigation fee is based on two proposed developments: the L.A. Fitness Club and the California Pizza. • The light industrial was by Fatigue Technologies, Inc. with 125 employees. • Fatigue Technologies, Inc. p.m. peak hour traffic demand was 94 vph. • Considering a credit for the prior manufacturing use and the codified 25 % pass - by trip rate, the L.A. Fitness Club mitigation shows a credit of 2 trips. • The 2 -trip credit for the L.A. Fitness Club facility in turn produces a credit for traffic mitigation of ( —) 2 trips X trip length factor of 0.84 X the Zone 1 fee of $1,736.80 for a credit of $2,917.82. • • Mr. David Kehle April 13, 2007 Page 9 • The California Pizza has a traffic mitigation fee of 55 net new trips X trip length factor of 0.92 X the Zone 1 fee of $1,736.80 for a fee of $87,882.08. • The total Phase 2 mitigation fee for both the. L.A. Fitness Club, with a credit of $2,917.82, and the California Pizza with a fee of $87,882.08 indicates a net fee of ($87,882.08 - $2,917.82) $84,964.26. • The recommended credit of $71,070 per the Knighton memorandum, page 2, last paragraph, on line 3, was based on the difference in the TIA forecast of 201 p.m. peak hour trips versus the Permitted forecast of 138 p.m. peak hour trips. • The Permitted forecast of 138 p.m. peak hour trips is incorrect since the Acme Bowl produces only. 37 p.m. peak hour trips: not the 69 trips forecast in the TIA. • The difference between the forecast 69 trips and the actual observed 37 trips at the Acme Bowl necessitate a credit against fees already paid. • The rebate based on the permit fees is (69 -37) X $1,424.71 = $45,590.72 • The rebate of $45,590.72 to correct the Acme Bowl discrepancy can be added to the recommended credit of $71,070 per the Knighton memorandum, page 2, in the last paragraph, on line 3. • A reevaluation of the 10,090 sf "general retail" and the "fast food" at 2,242 sf and "restaurant" at 2,911 sf of the "permitted" use estimate in the Trip Generation Summary was made. • These permitted uses were revised to include a 1,500 sf "single tenant office ", two "high turnover restaurants" at a total of 5,209 sf, and "specialty retail" at 2,760 sf. • These changes also suggest a, credit against the original permit fees. • The as -built uses in Phase 1 generate 67 vph. • In the permitted use section, column 5 of the Trip Generation Summary the p.m. peak hour was shown as totaling 82 vph. • The difference between the forecast 82 trips and the as -built uses with 67 trips is 15 trips less which necessitates a rebate. • The rebate based on the permit fees is (82 -67) X $1,424.71 = $21,370.65 • As above, the rebate of $21,370.65 to correct the discrepancy between permitted uses and the as -built uses can be also added to the recommended credit of $71,070 per the Knighton memorandum, page 2, in the last paragraph, on line 3. • The total rebate, to address the corrected trip fees is therefore $45,590.72 to reflect true Acme Bowl traffic, plus $21,370.65 to reflect true on -site uses, plus $71,070 per the Knighton memorandum to reflect the difference between the TIA trips and the estimated "permitted use" trips. • To summarize, the total rebate for the three corrections is ($71,070 + $45,590.72 + $21,370.65) = $138,031.37 Mr. David Kehle April 13, 2007 Page 10 • As noted at the top of page 9, the Phase 2 traffic mitigation fees for both the L.A. Fitness Club and the California Pizza is $84,964.26. • As noted at the bottom of page 9 the Phase 1 rebate for traffic mitigation fees already submitted is $138,031.37 • Considering these, the total rebate becomes ($138,031.37 - $84,964.26) $53,067.11 From the foregoing, a claim of $53,067.11 is appropriate to correct the traffic mitigation fees already collected ($222,710) with no additional traffic mitigation fees necessary for the Phase 2 permits. I trust you will find the above matter understandable. I have attempted to base the credit on the data of the Knighton memorandum, which is attached for your reference along with a corrected copy of that memorandum so you can see how these revisions were derived. If you have any questions, please feel free to call at any time. Yours truly, C. V. Brown, P.E. encl. Knighton Memo of March 14th, corrected to show As Built data. Knighton Memo of March 14th to Jim Morrow, copy of original w/o revisions cc John Stokke, Esq. Bill Williamson, Esq. 1 Public Works Department, Engineering Memorandum TO: Nora Gierloff FROM: Cyndy Knighton DATE: April 4, 2007 RE: Open Frame Phase 2 SEPA and the Klickitat Project After review of the SEPA submitted for the above referenced project, the Department of Public Works has determined there is a direct nexus between this project's impacts on the transportation network and the Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project (Klickitat). The direct linkage has been demonstrated by the applicant's traffic impact analysis report for Phase I submitted in 2004 as well as the fact that Phase I impact fees have already been collected toward this project. Since the City is currently working toward forming a Local Improvement District as the final funding source to construct the Klickitat project, Public Works requests that the SEPA determination include two options: (1) Traffic impact fees in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit will be paid and Open Frame shall receive a credit against the LID assessment for the Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project; or (2) The applicant can sign a no protest LID Agreement for the Klickitat Project and Open Frame's fair share for the Klickitat Project will be assessed as part of the LID process. Suggested language to use in your SEPA determination is as follows. No Protest LID Agreement. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Open Frame LLC shall execute a no protest LID Agreement for the Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project. Open Frame LLC shall be assessed their fair share of the benefits which are attributable to the Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project. This agreement to not protest the formation of a future Local Improvement District shall include the right of Open Frame LLC to protest the methodology and/or specific amount of any LID assessment. For clarity sake, I suggest that you consider the following clause to also be included. Covenant Running with the Land. The No Protest LID Agreement and its component parts shall be covenants running with the land and/or equitable servitudes, and shall be binding on Open Frame LLC and its successors and assigns, and on all subsequent owners, purchasers, lessees or lessors, and transferees of every nature as set forth herein. Open Frame LLC shall record a full and complete original of the No Protest LID Agreement against title to the Property within five (5) days following the effective date of the Agreement with the Real Property Records Division of the King County Records and Elections Department. c: \docume- 1 \nora—l.sie \locals- 1 \temp\xpgrpwise \open frame no protest lid sepa condition memo 4- 4- 07.doc J cia/% • ! Public Works Department, Engineering Memorandum. TO: Jim Morrow FROM: Cyndy Knighton DATE: March 14, 2007 RE: Park West Plaza o pr oa w /Cod,, -G -ions f�fu / • Jim, as requested, I have reviewed the past traffic analysis submitted in late 2004 for the Acme Bowling site. At the time of submittal, the applicant was proposing a 40 lane bowling alley, a 22,000sf fitness center, and 16,900 general retail. Impact fees were collected in 2005 for the above. configuration. However, what was built did not include all of the proposed: only the bowling alley, 4,937 of general retail,. 2,242 of fast food restaurant, 2,911sf of sit down restaurant, and none of the fitness center. The two. restaurant uses were substituted for general retail. The new . application today for Phase 2 shows a 30,000sf fitness center and a 6,000sf restaurant. The restaurant and 8,000sf of the fitness -center- were not covered under the previously submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Trips associated with the new restaurant and the additional fitness center size should - :be studied for concurrency. and the-test- fee required to- issue a : concurrency determination and certificate;is $5,.4.0.0,(14,000sf of "retail uses "). The fee is based on- the-recently- adapted amendment to the Concurrency Ordinance. As you have directed, I have :identified the trip generation associated with three scenarios: the TIA, which is what was presented to. the city in 2004; the Permitted, which is what was actually permitted and built in Phase 1; and Phase. 2, which is what is currently submitted for consideration by Open Frame LLC.. �i hie /10 Pe M• inn 0a Trip Generation Summary' ,4 Tgvi /b Type TIA clil Phase 2 Size Net New Trips Size. Net New. Trips Size Net New Trips Bowling Alley 40 lanes 69 40 lanes 49 0 0 - - Oenefel Retail 16,900sf 43 290 — 40,09esf 2.6 8 0 0 Fitness Club 22,000sf 89 Osf 0 30,000sf —2 Fast Food Rest. Osf 0 2963 2�sf 29 32- 0 0 Restaurant Osf 0 22N2 2.9i-tsf 2- 2y 6,000sf 55 Total New Trips 201 1seo 138j s � 53 Trip generation was calculated using the rates in the December 2004 TIA for the bowling alley, retail, and fitness club uses. Pass -by rates used are in accordance with the TIA. A 32% pass -by rate was applied to the retail. The restaurant trips were generated using the High - Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant (ITE LU 932) rate of 10.86 /1000gfa with a pass -by rate of 15% and Fast Food without Drive through rate of 26.15/1000gfa with a pass -by rate of 50 %. Fitness Club trips used the Health Club rate of 4.05 /1000gfa with no reduction for pass -by. c:\docume -1\ nora- 1.sie\locals- 1 \temp\xpgrpwise \park west plaza tia- impact fee review 3- 14- 07.doc • • :If what is proposed for Phase 2 is built in its entirety, the overall net new p.m. peak hour trips associated with this development will be 315, which is 114 more p.m. peak hour trips than was originally proposed. The TIA identified 201 net new p.m. peak hour trips associated with the proposed development, and included a calculated impact fee of $222,710 which was collected in 2005. What was built in Phase 1 was less than that projected in the TIA. Fewer new trips are generated with the reduced site plan; therefore, the impact fee paid in 2005 was in excess of that required. Since $222,710 was collected in 2005 and no building permit application was submitted in time to preserve the impact fee rate previously used, the oity owes. a ..credit. of $7.1 ,070 to the property owner. The excess payment is available to apply against impact fees due for Phase 2. Phase 2 is subject to the current .codes, including the recently updated Traffic Impact Fee Schedule (TIF) for 2007. The TIF has been designed to be easy to use and impact fees are based on standard land use types defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The city's TIF does not include a line item for the type of restaurant proposed in Phase 2 (High- Turnover Sit- Down vs. the Quality Restaurant on the TIF Schedule) and the trip generation rate is higher for this type of restaurant. The impact fee associated with the restaurant was calculated manually using the .15% pass -by rate and a trip length adjustment factor of 0.92. The fitness center impact fee was also adjusted manually because the TIF schedule includes a generic 25% reduction due to pass -by and other trip reducing characteristics. Since the TIA submitted in 2004 established that no trip reduction is associated with this fitness center, the impact fee amount was calculated manually. A trip. length adjustment factor of 0.84 was applied, consistent with the TIF Schedule. umma r TIA Permitted Phase 2 Project . ImpactFee Trips Cost Trips Cost Trips Cost Southcenter Parkway /S 168` $190 6 $1,140 4 $760 n/a n/a W Valley /Strander: NB dual left turn lanes $280 18 $5,040 12 $3,360 n/a n/a Interurban Bridge: widen for dual lefts $240 14 $3,360 10 $2,400 n/a n/a Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander): widen to 5 lanes $550 201 $110,550 138 $75,900 n/a n/a Southcenter Blvd (51 S — TIB): widen to 3 lanes $2,300 12 $27,600 8 $18,400 n/a n/a Tukwila Urban Access Improvement Project $2,420 31 $75,020 21 $80,820 n/a n/a Zone 1 $1,736.80 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1-7-7" s3 8I5 W?.6 • Total $222,710 $151,640 Phase 2 generates 177 new trips above those associated with Phase 1. Applying the 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule, as modified per the above paragraph, an impact fee in the amount of $265,869.34 is required of this development. Applying the credit of $71,070 yields a new due amount of $194,799.34. The remaining inpact fee mu t be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 2. �e 40i-o— v h`� / / /o7A•� #'S //e c� • c:ldocume -1\ nora- 1. sie\locals- 1 \temp\xpgrpwise\park west plaza tia- impact fee review 3- 14- 07.doc Public Works Department, Engineering Memorandum TO: Jim Morrow FROM: Cyndy Knighton DATE: March 14, 2007 RE: Park West Plaza Jim, as requested, I have reviewed the past traffic analysis submitted in late 2004 for the Acme Bowling site. At the time of submittal, the applicant was proposing a 40 lane bowling alley, a 22,000sf fitness center, and 16,900 general retail. Impact fees were collected in 2005 for the above configuration. However, what was built did not include all of the proposed: only the bowling alley, 4,937 of general retail, 2,242 of fast food restaurant, 2,911 sf of sit down restaurant, and none of the fitness center. The two restaurant uses were substituted for general retail. The new application today for Phase 2 shows a 30,000sf fitness center and a 6,000sf restaurant. The restaurant and 8,000sf of the fitness center were not covered under the previously submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Trips associated with the new restaurant and the additional fitness center size should be studied for concurrency and the test fee required to issue a concurrency determination and certificate is $5,400 (14,000sf of "retail uses "). The fee is based on the recently adopted amendment to the Concurrency Ordinance. As you have directed, I have identified the trip generation associated with three scenarios: the TIA, which is what was presented to the city in 2004; the Permitted, which is what was actually permitted and built in Phase 1; and Phase 2, which is what is currently submitted for consideration by Open Frame LLC. Trip Generation Summa Type TIA Permitted Phase 2 Size Net New Trips Size Net New Trips Size Net New Trips Bowling Alley 40 lanes 69 40 lanes 69 0 0 General Retail 16,900sf 43 10,090sf 26 0 0 Fitness Club 22,000sf 89 Osf 0 30,000sf 122 Fast Food Rest. Osf 0 2242sf 29 0 0 Restaurant Osf 0 2911 sf 27 6,000sf 55 Total New Trips 201 138 177 I Trip generation was calculated using the rates in the December 2004 TIA for the bowling alley, retail, and fitness club uses. Pass -by rates used are in accordance with the TIA. A 32% pass -by rate was applied to the retail. The restaurant trips were generated using the High- Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant (ITE LU 932) rate of 10.86 /1000gfa with a pass -by rate of 15% and Fast Food without Drive through rate of 26.15/1000gfa with a pass -by rate of 50 %. Fitness Club trips used the Health Club rate of 4.05 /1000gfa with no reduction for pass -by. q: \parkwest \park west plaza tia- impact fee review 3- 14- 07.doc • • If what is proposed for Phase 2 is built in its entirety, the overall net new p.m. peak hour trips associated with this development will be 315, which is 114 more p.m. peak hour trips than was originally proposed. The TIA identified 201 net new p.m. peak hour trips associated with the proposed development, and included a calculated impact fee of $222,710 which was collected in 2005. What was built in Phase 1 was less than that projected in the TIA. Fewer new trips are generated with the reduced site plan; therefore, the impact fee paid in 2005 was in excess of that required. Since $222,710 was collected in 2005 and no building permit application was submitted in time to preserve the impact fee rate previously used, the city owes a credit of $71,070 to the property owner. The excess payment is available to apply against impact fees due for Phase 2. Phase 2 is subject to the current codes, including the recently updated Traffic Impact Fee Schedule (TIF) for 2007. The TIF has been designed to be easy to use and impact fees are based on standard land use types defined in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The city's TIF does not include a line item for the type of restaurant proposed in Phase 2 (High- Turnover Sit Down vs. the Quality Restaurant on the TIF Schedule) and the trip generation rate is higher for this type of restaurant. The impact fee associated with the restaurant was calculated manually using the 15% pass -by rate and a trip length adjustment factor of 0.92. The fitness center impact fee was also adjusted manually because the TIF schedule includes a generic 25% reduction due to pass -by and other trip reducing characteristics. Since the TIA submitted in 2004 established that no trip reduction is associated with this fitness center, the impact fee amount was calculated manually. A trip length adjustment factor of 0.84 was applied, consistent with the TIF Schedule. Traffic Impact Fee Summa Phase 2 generates 177 new trips above those associated with Phase 1. Applying the 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule, as modified per the above paragraph, an impact fee in the amount of $265,869.34 is required of this development. Applying the credit of $71,070 yields a new due amount of $194,799.34. The remaining impact fee must be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 2. q: \parkwest \park west plaza tia- impact fee review 3- 14- 07.doc TIA Permitted Phase 2 Project ImpactFee Trips Cost Trips Cost Trips Cost Southcenter Parkway /S 168th $190 6 $1,140 4 $760 n/a n/a W Valley /Strander: NB dual left turn lanes $280 18 $5,040 12 $3,360 n/a n/a Interurban Bridge: widen for dual lefts $240 14 $3,360 10 $2,400 n/a n/a Andover Pk W (T Pkwy - Strander): widen to 5 lanes $550 201 $110,550 138 $75,900 n/a n/a Southcenter Blvd (51 S — TIB): widen to 3 lanes $2,300 12 $27,600 8 $18,400 n/a n/a Tukwila Urban Access Improvement Project $2,420 31 $75,020 21 $80,820 n/a n/a Zone 1 $1,736.80 n/a n/a n/a n/a 177 $265,869.34 Total $222,710 $151,640 $265,869.34 Phase 2 generates 177 new trips above those associated with Phase 1. Applying the 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Schedule, as modified per the above paragraph, an impact fee in the amount of $265,869.34 is required of this development. Applying the credit of $71,070 yields a new due amount of $194,799.34. The remaining impact fee must be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 2. q: \parkwest \park west plaza tia- impact fee review 3- 14- 07.doc • Cizy of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION January 5, 2007 David Kehle 1916 Bonair Drive SW Seattle, WA 98116 RE: Park West Plaza L06 -085 E06 -021 Dear David: Your application for design review and SEPA approval for a restaurant and health club building located at 150 Andover Park West has been found to be complete on January 5, 2007 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is to provide public notice of the application. If you have not already made arrangements with FastSigns for installation of a notice board please do that now. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. The City finds that additional review time will be necessary to process your permit application because the additional information requested by this letter is needed to complete the review process. The precise amount of additional review time which may be needed will be the number of days between the date of this letter and the submission of the additional information. I would like to give you some preliminary review comments, though since the other departments have not completed their reviews additional comments will be forthcoming. 1. While I appreciate the amount of transparency that you have incorporated into the south, west and north walls the fitness center building does not display an acceptable level of design quality for a newly constructed building. Though it is similar to the approved Acme Bowl building that was a remodel of an existing warehouse and NG 01/05/2007 - 1 - Q:\ParkWest \COMPApp.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 r' • • therefore the design options were limited. Even that building provided a greater range of materials, textures and colors along the most visible western facade. The California Pizza Kitchen is so different in color and design from the Acme Bowl building that I'm not sure it makes sense to model the fitness center on either one unless there is some flexibility on the' restaurant design. Either way one building will look like it doesn't belong. The design guidelines call for buildings to be harmonious with adjacent developments while avoiding monotony of design. 2. The elevations of the California Pizza Kitchen show foundation landscaping that is not reflected on the site landscape plans. Please provide that information in your next submittal. 3. There appears to be an electrical transformer at the southeast corner of the California Pizza Kitchen that is not reflected on the landscape plan. This should be screened to the degree possible. 4. The California Pizza Kitchen will be visible from all sides. The service yard enclosure along the north side would be improved by continuing the detailing from the other walls such as the stone facing and perhaps installing downlights. 5. The two parking spaces on either side of the plaza at the intersection of Baker and Andover are awkward. Since they are not needed to meet parking requirements expanding the plaza and landscape areas would make for a more graceful corner treatment. 6. I did not see any information about the freestanding sign that is called out in the corner plaza, please provide a design. California Pizza Kitchen is showing sign locations far in excess of what will be allowed by code. If they are listed on the freestanding sign they will be limited to a single wall sign, otherwise they may have two wall signs. 7. I have asked the Fire Department to review the location of the Baker driveway for compliance with fire engine turning requirements. It may need to be moved to line up with the aisle directly west of the fitness center. 8. Moving the pedestrian connection between the fitness center and the Acme Bowl retail one stall to the east would create a straighter, more convenient path through to the street. The paths should be concrete, rather than striped asphalt as on the Acme site. 9. While the lighting levels through most of the parking lot are reasonable, there is little lighting adjacent to the buildings. Has the building mounted lighting been taken into account on the lighting plan? If so than some additional lighting is warranted. NG 01/05/2007 2 Q:\ParkWest \COMPApp.DOC ,.J it • 1 If you have any questions feel free to call me at (206) 433 -7141 or email at ngierloff @ci.tukwila.wa.us. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Don Tomaso, Fire Department NG 01/05/2007 - 3 - Q:\ParkWest \COMPApp.DOC City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number eve,.- (:), L v - L-20S LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: Building L!i Planning X Public Works 'Fire Dept. j Police Dept. Parks /Rec Project: Address: / 1 4 ) - 13 l Date transmitted: 1/ 1/ 0.7 Response requested by: I f 6 i 0 7 Staff coordinator: &I ;',,-i.2 Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration- is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and /or support materials as needed.) Plan check date: Comments prepared by: Update date: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Park West Plaza Addition Of Acme Bowling Facility NEC — Baker Boulevard and Andover Park West Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: David Kehle, Architect 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 116 Seattle, WA 98168 December 9, 2004 Revised January 17, 2005 Revised April 19, 2005 Revised December 4, 2006 Our Job No. 12631 0 • tr1''Q eNG04 0 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 — Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 410 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL • 12631.001.doc [IP.1/tep] 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW o • • PROJECT OVERVIEW FOR PARK WEST PLAZA ADDITION The proposed Park West Plaza development is Phase II of the Acme Bowling facility, which was designed and constructed under the original permit for Phase I of the project. The storm drainage detention/water quality facility was sized and constructed under the original permit set. Please refer to the following Technical Information Report prepared under the original permit set for sizing and related information. 12631.001.doc [JPl /tep) • • 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Acme Bowling facility is a ±7.92 -acre site located on the northeast corner of Baker Boulevard and Andover Park West within the City of Tukwila, Washington. More particularly, the site is located within a portion of Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 23, and the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. Please see the attached Figure 1 — Vicinity Map for the exact location of the project site. Currently, the site is developed with a two large buildings, appropriate drive aisles, landscaping, parking lot, and stormwater collection and conveyance. The site has been abandoned and there is currently no occupants in the buildings at this time. The proposal for this development is to demolish almost the entire site and construct new impervious surfaces and new buildings, including parking lots, drive aisles, landscaping, and flow control and water quality facilities, all in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. Under existing conditions, there is approximately 5.34 acres of impervious surface with 2.58 acres of till grass. Under proposed conditions, there will be 6.59 acres of impervious surface with 1.33 acres of till grass. Since this project is adding over 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, flow control and water quality facilities are required for this site. The proposal is to construct a detention tank with a StormceptorTM for water quality located in the approximate center of the site discharging to the same location the site does under existing conditions. The difference in grade across the entire site is approximately 5 feet; therefore, this project site is essentially flat since it is so large. However, the site tends to drain through a catch basin collection and pipe conveyance system toward the west and into the right -of -way of Andover Park West. The on -site soils are classified as Urban Land and are characterized by disturbed soil and are not classified within any one hydrologic soils group. 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] • FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP • • • FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP • • STRANDER4 Sa IIICEMTER N • lU2A wr rl RAW: PARtla 119w41r' POND S 3661) ST' c. N 26 CORPORA) n DR N Slept-IA& , I Vacinity Job No. Page No. 1 • FIGURE 2 DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS • 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY • • • • 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements: Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at Natural Location. Response: This project will discharge to the right -of -way of Andover Park West, which it does under existing conditions. Core Requirement No. 2: Off -Site Analysis. Response: Please see Section 3.0 of this report for the off -site analysis prepared for this project. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: As required by the City of Tukwila, Level 1 Flow Control will be provided for the new impervious surface over and above what currently exists at the site. Please review Section 4.0 of this report for sizing calculations. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: This project will size its proposed conveyance system based on Manning's equation utilizing the Rational method as allowed by the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) with an initial time concentration of 6.3 minutes and a precipitation rate of 3.4 inches consistent for a 25 -year storm in this portion of King County, Washington. The on -site conveyance system will be sized to convey, without overtopping any manholes, the entire 25 -year developed conditions storm event. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: All erosion and sediment control measures for this project will be instituted based on Appendix D of the KCSWDM such that clearing limits will be specified, cover measures will be instituted, perimeter protection will be provided in the form of silt fences, and on -site sediment retention will be provided in the form of a sediment pond trapping sediments before they leave the site. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance of Operations. Response: This project will conform to all maintenance and operations requirements of the City of Tukwila for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: This project will conform to all financial guarantees and liability requirements of the City of Tukwila for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: Since this project is adding over 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic, water quality must be instituted on this project site. The City has indicated that Basic Water Quality will be the required means of treating runoff from the project site. This project is proposing a Stormceptor"" to treat runoff from the Basic Menu for the entire site, 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] • • including roof runoff, which is a more conservative design than what is actually required for this site. Analysis of the First Special Requirements: Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area - Specific Requirements. Response: To the best of our knowledge, this project is not part of a critical drainage area, master drainage plan, basin plan, a lake management plan, or a shared facility drainage plan; therefore, this requirement does not apply. 12631.001.doc [1P1 /tep] • 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS o c,HAV 4fil- S 4 A .' CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES . ? 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX ? • :,' ; ,:a ? BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA 0° `r p u�v e' www.barghausen.com ,~C Era 001' LEVEL 1 OFF -SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Proposed Acme Bowling Site NEC — Baker Boulevard and Andover Park West Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: BGI Group 2365 Carillon Point Kirkland, Washington 98033 December 9, 2004 Our Job No. 11672 (EXPIRES 10/10 /0 & 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C Vicinity Map Downstream Drainage Map Upstream Basin Map TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT I FEMA Map Sensitive Areas Folios SCS Soils Map Assessor's Map Wetland Inventory Map Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION EXHIBIT J Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Table 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS 11672.001.doc • TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS • TASK 1 STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The proposed Acme Bowling site is approximately 7.92 acres in size, located within a portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 23, and the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. More specifically, the site is located on the northeast corner of Baker Boulevard and Andover Park West and comprises three parcels. Under existing conditions the site is almost totally developed with 5.34 acres of impervious and 2.58 acres of lawn area. The proposal for this development is to demolish almost the entire development on site and reconstruct two large buildings, drive aisles, parking, planters, landscaping, and catch basin collection and pipe conveyance facilities draining to a water quality and detention vault, ultimately discharging at the same point the site does under existing conditions. There is very little topographic relief across the site with grades ranging from elevation 30 feet down to 25.5 feet. The site tends to drain to catch basins on site and sheetflow towards the west out to the right -of -way of Andover Park West. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Based on our site visit, it appears there is no upstream flow onto the subject property since the area surrounding the site is all developed and the site is bound on two sides by streets, and on the remaining two sides by existing commercial development, both of which have their own catch basin collection and pipe conveyance facilities draining to their own systems. There is no upstream basin contributing runoff to this project site. 11672.001.doc EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map EXHIBIT B Downstream Drainage Map • • ^ • _ • _ • _ • _ • _ • _ • _ • - • _ - • _ \or ; 359700 0245 359700-0257 022300 0010 022300 0040 022300 0045 359700 0240 359700 0246 /0062 (1.87 Ac.) 636420 0010 Assessor's Map] 022310 0075 I Job No. 0031 sl I \j\ 0085 Page No. 1 144 101 5 1 PowNSTEEN1 pKAINA&E CO Lits€ MAP EXHIBIT C Upstream Basin Map o.f • 359700 0245 359700-0257 am VI 022300 0010 022300 0040 022300 0045 359700 359700 0240 (1.87 Ac.) 636420 0010 Assessor's Mapj 022310 0075 Job No. 022310 0085 Page No. 1 ?-751 AM 13A5IN uRSTUA M 'A5IH MAP • TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW TASK 2 RESOURCE. REVIEW • Adopted Basin Plans: The site is part of the Green River Basin. Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable. • Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: Once again, the site is located in the Green River Basin. Less than one -half mile from the project site, the site discharges to the Green River. • Critical Drainage Area Maps: According to the City of Tukwila Water Quality Applications Map for this area, the site will require Basic, Water Quality and the Flow Control Applications Map requires Level 1 Flow Control for projects in this area. In addition, since the site was previously developed, flow control is based on sizing the existing site as impervious surface and the proposed site with greater impervious surface, creating a need for detention more than what is present under existing conditions. ▪ Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the enclosed Exhibit D — FEMA Map utilized for this analysis. As indicated by this map, the proposed project site does not lie within a floodplain or a floodway of a stream. Other Off -Site Analysis Reports: A review of Exhibit I — Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report and the site investigation were conducted in preparation of this Level 1 Off -Site Drainage `=Analysis. The United State Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service (SCS) map is also provided. See Exhibit F — SCS Soils Map. • Sensitive Areas Folios: Based ona review of the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folios, it was found that the subject site does not lie within any sensitive areas; however, the site drains to the Green River, which is less than one -half mile away. • Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable. • United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on the Soils Map for this area, the entire site is located within Urban Land type soils, which are characterized by disturbed soils and are not mapped within a particular hydrologic soils group. • Wetland Inventory Map: A Wetland Inventory Map for this area is include herewith. See Exhibit H — Wetland Inventory Map. There are no wetlands located on the project site. Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable. 1 1672.001.doc EXHIBIT D FEMA Map ler NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 959 OF 1725 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) CONTAINS: COMMUNITY SEATAC. CITY QF TUKWILA CITY 00 NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX 530320 0959 F 530091 0959 F MAP NUMBER 53033C0959 F MAP REVISED: MAY 16, 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency 97 °07'30 ", 32 °22'30" Elevation Reference Mark River Mile Horizontal Coordinates Based on North American Datum of 1927 MAD 27) Projection, NOTES This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program: it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drelnege sources of small size, or all planimetric features outside' Special Flood Hazard Areas. Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD. and include the effects of wave action: these elevations may also differ significantly from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurricane evacuation planning. Areas of Special Flood Hazard 1100 -year flood) include Zones A. AE, 4H, A0. A99, V, and VE. Certain areas not In Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control structures. Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Floodway widths in some areas may be too narrow to show to scale. Floodway widths are provided in the Flood Insurance Study Report. This map may incorporate approximate boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resource System Units and /or Otherwise Protected Areas established under the Coastal Barrier .Improvement Oct of 1990 (PL 101 -5911. Corporate limits shown are current as of the date of this map. The user should contact appropriate community officials to determine if corporate limits have changed subsequent to the issuance of this map. For community map revision history prior to countywide mapping, see Section 6.0 of the Flood Insurance Study Report. For adjoining mao panels and base map source see separately printed Map Index. MAP REPOSITORY Refer to Repository listing on Map Index EFFECTIVE DATE OF COUNTYWIDE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: SEPTEMBER 29.1989 EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION(S) TO THIS PANEL: Revised May 16.1995 to update map format. To determine if flood insurance is available. contact an insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638-6620. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 500 0 500 Wu. SOW If 152ND STREET ZONE X 53R0 SOUTH 15TST Pt ACE trt STREET 23 SOW 15.3RD SIRE ET 22 ZONE AH TEL 231 PARKWAY ZONE AH (EL 231. ZONE AH )EL. 23) ST RE El CITY OF TUKWILA 530091 STREET SOUTH CENTER BAKER BOUT EVARD ZONE X •1 E LIMITS L • AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. 1.4 0 S1 BANDER BOUL EVARD CITY OF TUKWILA CITY OF SEATAC FEMA Map SLAOE WAY \ SOUTH 1661H STREET Job No. Page No. 2 • EXHIBIT E Sensitive Areas Folios • ETLANDS 1■1 Stream & 100 Year Floodplainsl Girt A 4- •s* (0 e.100 4- !Job No. Page No. 1 I Erosion Hazard •q.&-' A V 41.x► I Job No. Page No. 1 Landslide Hazard Job No. Page No. 1 I Seisrnic Hazard Job No. Page No. 1 I Coal Mine Hazard Areas Job No. Page No. 2 EXHIBIT F SCS Soils Map EXHIBIT G Assessor's Map Assessor's Map' Page No. 1 I 359700 0245 359700 0246 26/2304-9086 (on,) i 359700-0257 359700 0240 022300 0010 ANSI VER INN 0 TPARK 0 LL� 022300 0040 OWL 022300 0045 ) - 022300-0050 Wrn; I = 022300 -0060 13.2300 /0062 02 10 033 022 0 36 022 0 35 (1.87 Ac.) 636420 0010 022310 0075 Job No. 0031 nn _ - BAKER SW°___._ �� r Atv v - 022310 0085 / • EXHIBIT H Wetland Inventory Map • EXHIBIT I Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 24 LOWER GREEN. RIVER BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District 1 Cynthia Sullivan. District 2 Bill Reams, District 3 Lois North, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 Department of Public Works Don LaBelle, Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River & Water Resource Section Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section Contributing Staff Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Bruce Barker, Engineer Arny Stonkus, Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Staff Don Spencer, Associate Geologist, Earth Consultants, Inc. John Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth Consultants, Inc. P:CR Parks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Natural Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Bill Eckel, Manager, Basin Planning Program Contributing Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager & Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologist ..Cr. Team Leader Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda, Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Dyanne Sheldon, Wetlands Biologist Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Robert Radek, Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bentler, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Support Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Support Technician Brian Vanderburg, . Planning Support Technician Carolyn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Typesetter Lela Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, Office Technician TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION 1 III. FINDINGS IN LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN 2 A. Overview 2 B. Effects of Urbanization 4 C. Specific Problems 4 1. Erosion damage . 5 Threat of landsliding 3. Sedimentation 4. Destruction of fish habitat 5 5 5 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 6 A. Prevent accelerated erosion and landsliding 6 B. Improve habitat 7 V. MAP APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Estimated Costs A -1 APPENDIX B: Capital Improvement Project Ranking B -1 APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations • C -1 1. SUMMARY The Lower Green River Basin is located in southern King County between the cities of Tukwila and Auburn. The study area considered here includes the unincorporated areas of the basin, which can be roughly separated into northern and southern portions that are divided by the Lower Green River. The two portions are distinctly different in their development patterns, with the northern area dominated by the commercial development of South Center shopping mall, two major interstate freeways, and light industrial activities. In the southern portion, single - family residential land uses dominate. Urbanization processes in this basin are expected to continue, with impervious surfaces in some areas expanding as much as five times their present levels. As might be expected in a basin so heavily urbanized, there are numerous environmental problems. The basin contains many sensitive areas, particularly along the steep slopes of tributary valley walls that are susceptible to erosion and landsliding. Stortnflows, which have increased as the basin has been developed, have caused gullying, landsliding, and other damage along many steep slopes. These problems have also increased sedimentation downstream. Flooding has occurred in some places as both natural and artificial conveyance systems have become clogged with sediment. Worst -case examples of erosion were found at the Kent Highlands landfill, adjacent to King County's Grand View Park, where storm flows have caused erosion of the landfill material. Sediments and chemicals from decomposing trash have washed into the stream system. Flooding potential was found on Tributary 0068 at two locations. Fish habitat losses were significant in the northern portion of the basin, with one of the worst examples located on Tributary 0036. Recommended solutions in the Lower Green River Basin include 1) preventing further erosion and landsliding by using both natural and artificial retention /detention (R/D), prohibiting certain harmful development practices (such as routing storm flows over steep slopes), and revegetating streambanks; and 2) improving habitat in the basin by preventing the further deterioration of water quality, protecting riparian corridors, and reestablishing streams and streambanks, where feasible. IL INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began with an initial investigation of three basins —Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks -- in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recommend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investigations used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology, and habitat conditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important element of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage. problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage conditions in the County in order to transmit information to policymakers to aid them in developing more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They P:LGR 1 are not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion problems; instead, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case -by -case basis by County officials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among competing projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site - specific basis for any proposal. III. FINDINGS IN LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN The field investigation in the Lower Green River Basin was conducted in February 1987 by Ray Heller, resource planner, Arny Stonkus, engineer, and Lee Benda, geologist. Their findings and recommendations are presented in the following discussion. A. Overview of the Basin Geographic and land use features. The Lower Green River Basin is located in southern King County between the cities of Tukwila on the north and Auburn on the south. Parts of the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Auburn lie within the basin, which is divided into two portions. The southern portion lies east of the Green River between the cities of Kent and Auburn; the northern portion lies west of the Green River between the Kent -Des Moines Road and State Road (SR) 518. The southern portion of the basin, which includes large residential and commercial areas within the city of Auburn, was not included in the study area. The areas that were studied - -the unincorporated parts of this southern portion of the basin -- are primarily contained in the Soos Creek Community Planning Area. Single - family residential land use dominates in this area, although small farms also occupy sizable acreages. The effects of future development may be dramatic, as some subcatchments are projected to expand in impervious surfaces to as much as five times their current levels. This development will be mainly single - family residential, interspersed with some multi- family units. The northern portion of the basin is dominated by the commercial areas of the South Center shopping mall, its surrounding commercial and light - industrial land uses, three major arterials (Interstates 5 [I -5J and 405 [I -405J and Pacific Highway south), and the shopping district north of Seattle- Tacoma (Sea =Tac) International Airport. Single- family residences greatly outnumber multi- family units in this portion of the basin, which is contained in the Highline and Green River Community Planning Areas. Future growth in this northern portion will consist of commercial and multi - family land uses, including the conversion of some areas presently zoned single- family to denser zoning classifications. Dominant geologic and geomorphic features. The composition of the geologic materials in the Lower Green River valley is dominated by glacial sediments. The glacial sediments include an extensive till layer that is located at the top of the valley scarp. Deposits of recessional outwash sand and other glacio- fluvial sands are locally P:LGR 2 interspersed on top of the till deposits and along the edges of the valley. The valley bottom is made up of more recent alluvial sand and silt deposited by the Green and White Rivers before diversion of the White into the Puyallup River in 1906. The wide floodplain through which the Green River used to meander (before it was diked) is composed of deep floodplain, channel, and lacustrine sediments up to 100 feet thick. There are a few outcrops of sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Puget Group in the basin. The morphology of the Lower Green River basin is dominated by the valley that was formed by the Green and White Rivers prior to the most recent glacial advances. The east and west valley walls were cut by numerous minor tributaries originating in the uplands above the valley escarpment. These tributaries formed steep -sided valleys and alluvial - debris fans at the mouths of the basins. Along the tributaries, landslides and slumps play an active role in maintaining the steep, hummocky valley walls. Historically, the Green and White Rivers meandered through the extensive floodplain located between the valley walls. The White River was diverted south to the Puyallup River, the Green has been straightened, diked, and cleaned of organic and inorganic debris, such as trees and boulders. This essentially isolates the river from its natural floodplain and reduces its present role as a geomorphic agent along the valley floor and walls. The upland areas of the basin have a general morphology indicative of glacial abrasion, deposition, and more recent fluvial erosion caused by minor tributaries. Hydrologic and hydraulic . features. The Lower Green River Basin is composed of numerous smaller subbasins which are significantly different from each other in their drainage characteristics. The subbasins are mostly urbanized in . the northern and rural in the southern portions of the basin where flows enter the Green River via relatively natural stream channels. Alterations in natural stream corridors occur at or near either the Lower Green River itself or at I -5 culvert crossings. Whereas most subbasins studied exhibited serious effects from urbanization, many were in relatively good condition and /or might be potential sites for stream restoration projects. A number of wetlands in the southern section of the basin and a few small lakes scattered throughout the basin help to mitigate some of the effects of peak flows and excess volumes generated from urbanization. Tributaries flowing from the northern side of the basin into the Lower Green River are highly urbanized drainages which are in need of R/D facilities to reduce the present and anticipated runoff associated with . expanses of impervious areas. The rural southern drainages are slated for the greatest increases in impervious surface due to proposed developments, and are in need of regional R/D/ facilities. Habitat characteristics. The habitat conditions in the streams of the Lower Green River Basin vary considerably. In the northern portion of the basin habitat has been almost completely destroyed;. in the southern portion, there are reaches which have been damaged but might be restored to use by fish and other wildlife. At present, there are no tributaries in this basin which support anadromous fish. Commercial development in the northern portion of the basin has severely altered streams and riparian corridors. The clearing and filling of land, construction of buildings, and roadways and piping and diking of streams have eliminated spawning gravel, and other natural features necessary for fish use. In addition, the extensive acres of impervious surfaces associated with intense commercial development have greatly increased the volumes and rates of storm runoff, thereby eroding and destroying those P:LGR few remaining natural- reaches downstream in the northern portion. Complicating these conditions even further are the flap gates placed along the main stem of the Green River at most points where tributaries enter, these structures would effectively prevent any fish from entering the streams. The southern portion of the basin experiences many of the same habitat problems as the northern portion, however to a lesser extent. This problems could worsen as residential development expands these next few years. Without specific efforts to protect the environment, habitat will be lost in the southern portion of the Lower Green River Basin, as it has been in the northern portion. B. Effects of Utbaniration in the Basin As in many other rapidly growing basins in the County, the Lower Green River Basin suffers from increased rates and volumes of runoff generated by the impervious surfaces of roofs, roads, and parking lots. When this runoff flows into natural channels, it causes erosion, scour, and downstream sedimentation. Sedimentation fills spawning gravels and pools, eliminates fish habitat; limits channel capacity, and creates the conditions for bank overtopping and flooding. Surface water originating on pavement incorporates greases, oils and other toxic hydrocarbons associated with urban areas. The stormwater that enters drainage ditches flows at an even faster rate than in natural channels, thereby magnifying the damage it can cause. The damages caused by increased runoff in urban areas such as the Lower Green River Basin might be less severe if wetlands, floodplains, and other natural features had been left intact to attenuate and filter the. flows. These elements for the most part have disappeared with development. While development has been accompanied by the installation of artificial conveyance and R/D systems, these have often been undersized, poorly designed and installed, or otherwise inadequate to handle the cumulative . effects of runoff from new development. For example, the lower portions of Tributaries 0061, 0068, and 0069 were found to contain particularly serious damage in the form of erosion, scour, sedimentation and the elimination of vegetation from streambanks and corridors. Flooding in these tributaries seems to have increased, in part, from the use of undersized drainage pipes. This problem is repeated along the lower reaches of Tributaries 0036A, 0036B, 0036C, and 0038, where flows have have been piped on their approach to I -5 or the Lower Green River. Several extreme cases of erosion - incised channels, and landslides -- in part resulting from flows .diverted from their natural drainage course and passing through King County Grandview Park were noted on the Kent Highlands landfill area. The destruction of pre- existing tightlined conveyance systems has caused surface water at this location to flow unchecked over the unconsolidated former gravel pit slopes and natural hillslopes. Erosion in this case will also cause water quality deterioration, as toxicants from deteriorating garbage and sediments eventually enter the . Lower Green River. C. Specific Problems Identified Problems -- both existing and anticipated -- in the Lower Green River Valley are clearly development - related. Earlier descriptions of the basin and the effects of urbanization pointed out these problems in a general way. Specific details of the most serious problems identified during reconnaissance are provided below. 1. Erosion is damaging both public and private property in the Lower Green River Basin. The majority of the erosion problems in the basin are P:LGR 4 associated with the steep slopes within the small tributary valleys and along the major valley walls. a. Gully erosion is occurring adjacent to King County's Grandview Park, where the routing of concentrated storm flows over the steep hillslopcs could cause even more serious mass- wasting. Such intense gullying is also occurring in the glacio- fluvial sand adjacent to the Kent Highlands landfill, a situation requiring immediate solution. b. Channel and bank erosion from high peak. flows is occuring along many tributaries, particularly those with narrow, relatively steep sides. On Tributary 0016 (RM. 10) and Tributary 0069 (RM. 50) there are examples of this type of erosion. 2. Landsliding is both a present , and future threat on steep valley walls. The removal of vegetation, as well as the routing of stormwater along steep slopes (see also 1.a. above), may result in landslides. Many of the valley walls show evidence of historic landslide activity, such as scarps, tilled blocks, chaotic terrain, and tilted trees. A portion of land along the valley wall in the landslide terrain has been put up for sale at S 312th St. and 104th Ave. SE. This area should be assessed for its stability prior to development and all regulatory safeguards (statutory and other regulations) should be used to prevent landsliding. 3. Sedimentation accompanies the kind of erosion processes discu.sed above. For . instance sediment is filling the stream channel on Tributary 0068 at river miles .30 and .60. This is . reducing . channel capacity (increasing the possibility of flooding at these locations), as well as degrading fish habitat and water quality. Severe sedimentation in the lower . portion of Tributary 0069, where a sediment fan presents a potential barrier to fish. 4. Fish habitat has been destroyed by urbanization . throughout the basin, particularly in the northern portion. a. The elimination of habitat features from streambeds and riparian corridors has made most of the basin's tributaries unusable for fish. As discussed in III.A. above, stream channels have been severely altered in the Lower Green River Basin. As a result, large organic debris, pools, gravels, and other elements of godd instream habitat have disappeared. One of the worst cases was found on Tributary along the north side of SR 518 near 42nd Avenue S. Poor water quality is caused by three separate problems in this basin. First, streams are contaminated by the domestic garbage dumped directly into streambeds and ravines. Second, streams are being adversely affected by the accelerated erosion in the Kent Highlands landfill. Sediment from the landfill is being carried downstream, polluting water and eroding banks along the way. The latter is expected to continue and worsen, if not addressed. Third, greases, oils, and toxic hydro- carbons from highways, parking lots, and commercial areas around South Center are degrading water quality. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS The solutions proposed for this basin focus on eliminating damage to the natural drainage system, restoring natural drainage conditions where possible, and preventing further damage P:LGR 5 / . f AVE rt` suing LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN (North Section) Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary OCollection Point Stream 0038 Tributary Number •3205 Proposed Project Sr IT .- -] . .1D Itninior 1 _,5 2�'.���•r JulY,1987 11 • LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN (South Section) Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary OCollection Point �i Stream ow Tributary Number •3201 Proposed Project July, 1987 GREEN RIVER COAIMUNITI- COLLEGE st AYf S W SW AW ® k6.JSowt VE N_ AVE4,11 AVE!: •M uF 5 ....._I ittn E e \ air 26 \— _. 3T Sfi �- bJ..� A l APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN NOTE: Indicates project was identified by the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance. I' Project Collect. Number Point Project Description 3201* 18 Construct R/D facility with 3.0 acre -ft. of storage adjacent to upper end of Wetland 3226. Interceptthe roadside runoff on SE 312th so that it will he retained in the upper wetland. Further biological assessment is needed to assure this project does not decrease habitat values. 3204 15 Construct R/D facility on Trib.0061 at RM 1.25 which would have a capacity of approx. 3.7 acre ft. 3205' Install a control structure and excavate two existing stream channels to. provide 2.5 acre -ft. of storage (Trip. 003613, 0036C). Problem Addressed Decreases potential downstream flooding and improves water quality. Lessen impact on downstream riparian habi- tat. Provides storage for runoff from future development. Eliminates channel scouring, road erosion and potential downstream flooding P:LGR.APA A -1 Estimated Costs • and Comments $99,000 (subject to right of way acquisitions). $160,000 (dependent on land • acquisitions). $85,000 • (Dependent on right -of- Way acquisit ions) APPENDIX 13 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN A total of three sites had been proposed for Surface Water Management (SWM) projects prior to the field reconnaissance of the Lower Green River Basin. One project remains proposed as iden- tified, one project has been changed to an R/D facility, one R /D. facility has been added, and one proposed R/D facility has been eliminated by the consensus of the .field team because it is located in the wetland serving as the city of Kent's water supply. The previous SWM project list for the Lower Green. River Basin had an estimated cost of 5700,000, compared to a revised figure of 5344,000 for the remaining three projects. The revised costs are a result of lower estimates for right -of -way acquisitions. These projects are listed in the table below, which summarizes the scores and costs of the proposed projects in the basin. These projects were rated according to criteria set forth by the SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee. The first rating question,. ELEMENT 1: "GO /NO GO," could be answered affirmatively for the projects below. These projects can now be considered for merging into the "live" CIP list. Any projects scoring more than 100 points should be considered for incorporation into the six -year CIP plans. Project No. Score 3201' 103 3205* 73 3204 60 Rank No. 1 3 TOTAL Cost $ 99,000 85,000 160.000 5344,000 ' Indicates project was identified by Surface Water Management prior to reconnaissance. P:CLGAPB /mlm B -1 APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN • All items listed here are located on final display maps in the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Basin Planning. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item` River Mile Point Category Prop.. Proj. Conditions and Problems 1 Section 15 12 Geology & Runoff from Kent Highlands Hydrology landfill and sub -basin tributary to King County Grandview Park is causing extensive gullying and steep- walled valleys. Presents a potential hazard. Extensive sedimen- tation is resulting from erosion. 2 0001 RM .29 -.30 16 Geology 3 0001 20 Geology RM .31 4 0001 20 Geology RM 30.60 P:LGAPC /mlm Lower portion of channel is experiencing channel and bank erosion. A very large gully (small valley) is developing due to discharging con- centrated flow on steep slopes. Landslide arca is posted for sale. C -1 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Continued extensive erosion. Fill material will continue to scour away because of lack of compaction. Considerable volumes of fill (contributing to poor water quality) will still be conveyed. Uncontrolled runoff is the cause. Increasing erosion with in- creasing flows in the basin. Continued erosion; may be a public hazard due to 30' vertical walls. Possible hazards associated with development could occur. Recommendations Tightline runoff down to valley floor in a safe, nonerosive manner. Plan and. develop adequate regional R/D facilities in the basin. Determine whether existing facilities should. he upgraded for greater control of flows and storage. 'I'ightlinc drainage to Green River. Perform critical prcdevelopmcnt review. Trib. & -Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile Point Category Project Conditions and Problems 5 0001 20 Geology RM 31.00 6 0036A 9 Ilabitat RM .80 7 0036B 8 0036B 9 0036B 10 003613 P:I..GAPC /mlm 4 1lydrology 3205 4 Habitat 4 Hydrology 4 Geology Large gully (small valley) formed by development- related drainage. Wash water from Segale truck center flowing under Trager Rd. contains oil film and quantities of algae. Backwater in channel appeared to be caused by defective riser control. Low- gradient stream chan- nels on Tribs. 0036B and 0036C. Floodplain approxi- mately 25' wide. Stream corridor and in- stream habitat both heavi- ly impacted by erosive storm flows, clearing, and sedimentation. Manhole inlet with trash rack next to new extensive roadfill. Damaged inflow pipes into manhole control structure. Channel is experiencing channel and bank erosion. Cause is probably high flows. C -2 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Continued erosion. Same. If no upstream R/D exists, then water may back up during storms. Riser replacement may eliminate this problem. Further deterioration of the stream system. Roadfill embankment will continue to erode. Erosion will continue. Recommendations "I'ightline drainage. Install and maintain a wastewater treatment facility before releasing water to ditch and ultimately the Green River. Excavate and install control struc- ture for an R/D pond. This system needs R/D to lessen impacts on the system from urban runoff. - Locate control at intersection of Tribs. 3613 and 36C. - Reduce existing storm flows. - Restrict future development to release runoff at nonerosive rates. • - Require setbacks from tops of ravines. - Repair and replace pipes in manhole structure. - Stabilize roadfill. Build upstream RI!) facility. • Trib. & Collect. Item River Mile Point 11 . 0036D 12 0061 RM .00 -1.40 13 0061 RM .01 -.15 Proposed Existing Category Project Conditions and Problems 7 Hydrology 14,15 1 labitat Geology 14 0061 14 hydrology RM .02 P:I.GAPC /mIm R/D berm has collapsed. Severe instream erosion above and below the faci- lity. Sedimentation and erosion in lower reach by farm adjacent to the Green River. Middle reaches have nice pools and riffles.. Four waterfalls up to 10' high keep this from being an anadromous stream. Stream ravine is steep and mostly vege- tated. Best trout stream habitat in the basin. I3ank erosion and sedimen- tation in channel located on private property at mouth of basin. Erosion is limited to this sec- tion. Cause of this ero- sion is not certain. Scouring, bank erosion, channel erosion, sediment build up in stream. The channel capacity is too small for the flows pre- sently generated. C -3 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Instream erosion will con- tinue. No energy dissipation from Drisco pipe above berm arca. Sediment build up from erosion will migrate. downst ream. Future development could create up to four timcs the current amount of impervious surface. This could fill pools with sediment and destabilize the large organic debris in stream. Possibly continued erosion with increased development in the basin. Degradation of riparian corridor will continue. Erosion will continue. Recommendations - Stabilize and upgrade earthen berm. - Provide energy dis.sipators for Drisco pipe outflow. - Establish a stream corridor pro - ,tccting the stream and adjacent ravine sidcslopes from clearing. - Future development should release stormwater at nonerosive rates. - Develop adequate R/D for the basin to prevent erosion. - Reestablish the channel floodplain at the mouth of the basin. Use onsite infiltration to the maxi- mum extent po. ihle for new const ntct ion. Trib. & Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile Point Category Project 15 0061 15 Ilydrology 3204 RM 1.25 16 0061 14 Llydrology RM 1.50 17 0068 17 RM .25 -.35 18 0068 17 RM .25 19 0068 17 RM .30 P:I.OAPC /mIm Habitat Hydrology habitat • Conditions and Problems Stream segment meanders with little change in ele- vation. Erosion and down - cutting exist in lower segments of stream. Existing outlet of Wetland 3224. floods over existing gravel road. This wetland is owned by the city of Kent as a water supply source (approx. 86 acres). Nice - looking stream with few pools. Good stream - side cover and instream stabil -ity. Lots of benthic organisms. No fish observed. Outfall has instream ero- sion taking place. Large fill of combustible and construction debris on lctt hank. Fill is unstable and sliding downhill toward stream. (: -4 Anticipated Conditions and Problems No change in existing con- ditions. Impact on downstream areas will con- tinue. Increased flows and flood frequency due to develop- ment. Use as a well field for water supply. Further instream. instability from future development storm runoff. Probable vegetation clearing in stream corridor from development. Erosion of stream channel/ bank, if flows continue unchecked. Ilealth and water quality hazard. Recommendations Construct an R/D facility with 3.7 ac /ft. of storage to mitigate downstream problems. Develop an intcrlocal agreement to examine the possibility of using part of the wetland for a regional R%D facility. - Establish and enforce stream corri- dor guidelines. - Future development should release stormwaters at non - erosive rates. Subcatchmcnt 17 should use onsitc R/D and infiltration systems to the maxi- mum extent possible for Control of peak flows. -BALD grading and filling section has been contacted. - Stabilize and revegetate slope down to stream. - Prohibit filling in stream ravine. Trite. & Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile Point . Category Project Conditions and Problems 20 0068 17 RM .60 21 0069 18 RM .00 -.90 22 0069 18 RM .10 -.90 23 0069 18 RM .10 P:LGAPC /mlm Habitat Habitat Geology Geology Stream becomes eroded from road ditch flows above 108th Ave. S12. Fill occurring adjacent to stream in SW corner•of SE 219th St. and 108th Ave. SE. Minimal fish habitat potential in this stream. Access to stream is open to Green River, but stream is heavily impacted by runoff. This is causing sedimen- tation of the channel in lower portion, erosion and garbage in mid- section, and ditches by trailer park in upper section. 1-ligh frequency of bank erosion, some small streamside landslides associated with bank ero- sion. Sedimentation resulting from channel and bank erosion described •above. Sedimentation is occurring over a large area and may threaten private property. C -s Anticipated Conditions and Problems More erosion and possible flooding due 'to fill in the stream corridor.'` Subcatchment projected to quadruple in amount of impervious surface. The subcatchment is pro- jected to expand in imper- vious surface five times that in 1985. All problems exhibited in 1987 will pro- bably get worse. As development increases in the basins, erosion will increase. Sedimentation will increase with continued development in the basin. Recommendations No obvious regional R/D sites, so onsitc R/D will he critical in this subcatchment. Release rates of stormwatcr should be at nonerosivc levels. Assess. the fish - habitat potential of this stream before doing any habitat projects. Reducing existing and future storm runoff will he key to maintenance of a good stream. Releasing stormwatcr runoff at nonerosivc rates would help accomplish this goal. _ Plan and develop adequate R/D as population and development increase in the basin. Same as RM .I0 -.Q0. Also construct sediment detention ponds at the mouth of the stream. • • Trih. & Collect. Proposed Existing • Trent River Mile Point Category Project Conditions and Prohlems 24 0069 18 RM .10 25 0069 18 RM .65 26 0069 18 RM .90 -1.10 P:LGAPC /mlm 0 Hydrology Ilabitat Ilydrology 3201 Undersized pipe for existing flows. Evidence of debris from backwater. Garbage pushed over ravine embankment is blocking stream. Presents fish blockage and is visually very unpleasant. Wetland 3226. is bissected by SE 312th St. Flows into the northern wetland are blocked due to non- functional culvert on opposite side of SE 312th. This has caused the asphalt road to begin to fail from saturation and standing water. Welland 3226 contains 'a wide variety of trees. C -6 Anticipated Conditions and Prohlems Increase in flows from development in upper catch- ment. Instream erosion and headwall erosion will result. Possible water quality problem and further fish blockage. Potential road failure of SE 312th St. Continued impact on northern portion of Wetland 3226 if road- side ditch flow is not curtailed. Introduction of petroleum by- products into wetland system. Recommendations • Increase the capacity of the existing pipe system. Consider project to remove garbage to allow fish passage without further destabilization of the streambed. - Construct an R/D facility on • the southern portion of Wetland 3226. - Intercept the roadside flows on SE 312th. to southern portion of Wetland 3226. This will incorporate a major flow source of the region into an R/D facility and mitigate a major impact • on the northern section of wetland. -Perform a detailed wetland study to determine environmental impact. TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION EXHIBIT J Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Table Basin: Green River OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Subbasin Name: Subbasin Number: ,...- V. 4 4: - o7,,r , f . „ OzS ,. '1 ; ■ ,....4., Drainage omponent Type ame4ik t ,t. .•:,.,,•• - , . Drainage grip_iir.. ...,.Siope ::. :' ...:::'' : 5i.:,ii"...!i,*i1i"-i-- ., : fronSi '..#4,tii06 tintv 7.,:71410*§ii4 Potehtbil ,C„ , . .i. bs0.„ e- ra,.,.r ...t,„ i'o.'„' n..- ...K., s ,R, wXvfo..t..ZF...„WitI.,M...d.ai4-1g,,7.. l.t,:.ec r.` Pimr.-., esburcS;Revis er,OP Resident See Map Type: sheet flow, swale, stream, channel, pipe, pond; size, diameter, surface area Drainage basin, vegetation, cover, depth, type of sensitive area, volume % Ft. Constrictions, under capacity, ponding, overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism destruction, scouring, bank sloughing, sedimentation, incision, other erosion Tributary area, likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential impacts 0 48-inch SD Flows north in Andover Park West Flat 0'-1,210' None noted None noted C) 84-inch CMP Flows east on the north side of Tukwila Parkway --- 1,210'-2,000' None noted None noted C) Large vegetated ditch 1:1 side slopes, 12 feet to 15 feet deep, 10-foot bottom, flows east under 68th Avenue South 2 2,000'-2,415' None noted None noted 11672.002.doc • TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION There were no problems reported or observed during the resource review, nor did the field reconnaissance find any potential constrictions or lack of capacity in the existing drainage system downstream from the site. 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) Conveyance system nuisance problems, in general, are defmed as any existing or predicted flooding or erosion that does not constitute a severe flooding or erosion problem. Conveyance system nuisance problems are defined as flooding or erosion that results in the overflow of the constructed conveyance system for runoff events less than or equal to a 10 -year event. Examples include inundation of a shoulder or lane of a roadway. Overflows collecting in yards or pastures, shallow flows across driveways, minor flooding in crawlspaces or unheated garages/outbuildings and minor erosion. Based on our site visit, there was no evidence of past conveyance system nuisance problems occurring, as it was raining heavily at the time of the field reconnaissance and there was no lack of capacity in the convey systems on site or downstream from the site. 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) Severe erosion problems are defined as downstream channels, ravines, or slopes with evidence of or potential for erosion/incision, sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems or propose a landslide hazard by undercutting adjacent slopes. Severe erosion problems do not include roadway or minor ditch erosion. Based on our site visit, there is no evidence of, or potential for erosion/incision sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems evident anywhere along the downstream drainage course as the vast majority of this downstream drainage course occurred through pipe systems, except for the final 400 feet prior to discharge into the Green River. 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) Severe flooding problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems are defmed as follows: • Flooding of the finished area of a habitable building for runoff events less than or equal to the 100 -year event. Examples include flooding of finished floors of homes and commercial or industrial buildings. Flooding in electrical/heating systems . and components in the crawlspace or garage of a home. Such problems are referred to as "severe building flooding problems." • Flooding over all lanes of a roadway or severely impacting a sole access driveway for runoff events less than or equal to the 100 -year event. Such problems are referred to as "severe roadway flooding problems." As mentioned previously, there was no evidence of flooding from the site visit downstream of the subject property. The entire downstream drainage course is through developed land and very shortly, within one -half mile of the project site, discharges into the Green River. The vast 11672.001.doc majority of the downstream drainage course consists of pipe conveyance systems with large diameter pipe. Please review the Exhibit J - Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Table for the sizes of the pipes. The field reconnaissance for this off -site analysis drainage report was conducted on December 6, 2004. It was raining during the downstream analysis and the skies were overcast. The high temperature on this day was approximately 40 to 45 degrees. 11672.001.doc TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS • • TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS Runoff leaves the site by exiting off the western property line of the site along the frontage of Andover Park West and flows through pipes into a large diameter, 48 -inch storm drain, which flows northerly in Andover Park West until crossing underneath Tukwila Parkway. The runoff then enters a catch basin and is discharged through a larger diameter pipe, which is 84 -inch CMP, and courses in an easterly direction for several hundred feet, discharging to a large, deep ditch, which ultimately discharges into the Green River, 400 to 600 feet away from the discharge point of the 84 -inch CMP culvert. Since it was raining heavily the day of the downstream analysis and there were no flooding or other problems occurring at that time, it is assumed that the downstream drainage course is adequate to convey runoff from the project site. 11672.001.doc TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS • TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS The area downstream of this proposed project known as Acme Bowling does not exhibit any potential problems, nor is there evidence of any existing problems in this downstream drainage course. Since the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual has been adopted by the City Tukwila and the City has indicated that Basic Water Quality and Level 1 Flow Control are the required means of treating and detaining runoff, this project assumes that those are adequate for this site. This project will neither aggravate nor create a problem as specified in the problem - specific mitigation requirements set forth in Section 1.2.2.1 of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual as delineated in Task No. 4 of this report. A Level 2 or Level 3 off -site analysis should not be required for this project site as there is no evidence of existing or potential problems identified in this Level 1 analysis. The site does not contribute more than 15 percent of the total peak flow drainage downstream from the site. 11672.001.doc • 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • • • 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology • • This site is entirely developed under existing conditions; however, we are adding impervious surface under proposed conditions by approximately 1.25 acres of new impervious surface. The site existed as a building known as Fatigue Technologies. The entire site was graded, cleared, and landscaped with appropriate drive aisles, parking, and catch basin pipe conveyance facilities previously designed to the City of Tukwila standards. The proposal for this development is to demolish the entire site and start over with the design of new facilities. B. Developed Site Hydrology Under developed conditions, the detention system has been sized to collect runoff from the entire site and detain/treat it to City of Tukwila standards such that Level 1 Flow Control will be provided for the new impervious surface. The system was modeled as an existing condition with 5.34 acres of impervious surface and 2.58 acres of till grass, with a developed condition of 6.59 acres of impervious surface and 1.33 acres of till grass. Detention is provided such that the 2- and 10 -year pre - developed peak runoff rates for this project site are matched under developed conditions. C. Performance Standards Once again, the detention facility on the site is sized to detain runoff based on Level 1 Flow Control. The conveyance system design standard is to convey the entire 25 -year storm within the pipes and catch basins based on the Rational method. The area- specific water quality treatment followed for this project site was the Basic Water Quality Menu, of which we are proposing a wet vault below the live storage in the wet/detention vault. D. Flow Control System Please see the illustrative sketch within this section of the report for the flow control system prepared for this development. E. Water Quality System Please see the illustrative sketch within this section of the report for the water quality facility proposed for this project site. 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA Existing Conditions: Impervious = 5.34 acres Till Grass = 2.58 acres Total = 7.92 acres Proposed Conditions: Impervious = 6.59 acres Till Grass = 1.33 acres Total = 7.92 acres Detention volume required = 2,945 cu. ft. • • 12631.001.doc [JPl /tepl • Vr Vb • • SIZE THE BASIC WATER QUALITY WET VAULT [0.9 A; = 0.25 Atg] (0.039) [(0.9)(6.59) + (0.25)(1.33)] (0.039)(43,560) 10,641 cu. ft. (3)(V0 = (3)(10,641) = 31,923 cu. ft. 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] • KCRTS Command L eJ'4 Co'1 f--o 1 CREATE a new Time Series A9 Production of Runoff Time Series '-- Project Location : Sea -Tac �� _ O Computing Series : 11672pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTG60R.rnf Till Grass 2.58 acres Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STEI60R.rnf Impervious 5.34 acres Total Area : 7.92 acres Peak Discharge: 3.07 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:11672pre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage /Discharge curve:11672pre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:11672pre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:11672pre.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea -Tac Computing Series : 11672dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTG60R.rnf Till Grass 1.33 acres Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STEI60R.rnf Impervious 6.59 acres • Total Area : 7.92 acres Peak Discharge: 3.40 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:11672dev.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage /Discharge curve:11672dev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:11672dev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:11672dev.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command Size a Retention /Detention FACILITY Edit Facility Loading Time Series File:11672dev.tsf . Time Series Found in Memory:11672dev.tsf Saving Retention /Detention Facility File:11672convey.rdf . Starting Documentation File:C: \kc_swdm \kc_ data \example \kcrts \11672convey.doc Time Series Found in Memory:11672dev.tsf . Edit Complete Retention /Detention Facility Design Saving Retention /Detention Facility File:11672convey.rdf . Starting Documentation File:C: \kc_swdm \kc_ data \example \kcrts \11672convey.doc Time Series Found in Memory:11672dev.tsf . Retention /Detention Facility Design Edit Facility Time Series Found in Memory:11672dev.tsf Saving Retention /Detention Facility File:11672convey.rdf . Starting Documentation File:C: \kc_swdm \kc_ data \example \kcrts \11672convey.doc Time Series Found in Memory:11672dev.tsf . Edit Complete Retention /Detention Facility Design Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:11672dev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1.72 6 2/09/01 2:00 1.47 8 1/05/02 16:00 2.07 3 12/08/02 18:00 1.67 7 8/26/04 2:00 1.99 4 10/28/04 16:00 1.83 5 1/18/06 16:00 2.42 2 10/26/06 0:00 3.39 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 3.39 1 100.00 0.990 2.42 2 25.00 0.960 2.07 3 10.00 0.900 1.99 4 5.00 0.800 1.83 5 3.00 0.667 1.72 6 2.00 0.500, 1.67 7 1.30 0.231 1.47 8 1.10 0.091 3.07 50.00 0.980 • • Retention /Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 130.00 ft Facility Width: 40.00 ft Facility Area: 5200. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 0.70 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 26.00 ft Storage Volume: 3640. cu. ft Riser Head: 0.70 ft Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches Number of orifices: 1 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 8.40 1.601 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 26.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.04 26.04 208. 0.005 0.358 0.00 0.07 26.07 364. 0.008 0.506 0.00 0.11 26.11 572. 0.013 0.620 0.00 0.14 26.14 728. 0.017 0.716 0.00 0.18 26.18 936. 0.021 0.801 0.00 0.21 26.21 1092. 0.025 0.877 0.00 0.24 26.24 1248. 0.029 0.947 0.00 0.28 26.28 1456. 0.033 1.010 0.00 0.32 26.32 1664. 0.038 1.070 0.00 0.35 26.35 1820. 0.042 1.130 0.00 0.39 26.39 2028. 0.047 1.190 0.00 0.42 26.42 2184. 0.050 1.240 0.00 0.46 26.46 2392. 0.055 1.290 0.00 0.49 26.49 2548. 0.058 1.340 0.00 0.52 26.52 2704. 0.062 1.390 0.00 0.56 26.56 2912. 0.067 1.430 0.00 0.60 26.60 3120. 0.072 1.480 0.00 0.63 26.63 3276. 0.075 1.520 0.00 0.67 26.67 3484. 0.080 1.560 0.00 0.70 26.70 3640. 0.084 1.600 0.00 0.80 26.80 4160. 0.096 2.170 0.00 0.90 26.90 4680. 0.107 3.120 0.00 1.00 27.00 5200. 0.119 4.310 0.00 1.10 27.10 5720. 0.131 5.700 0.00 1.20 27.20 6240. 0.143 7.260 0.00 1.30 27.30 6760. 0.155 8.770 0.00 1.40 27.40 7280. 0.167 9.380 0.00 1.50 27.50 7800. 0.179 9.960 0.00 1.60 27.60 8320. 0.191 10.490 0.00 1.70 27.70 8840. 0.203 11.000 0.00 1.80 27.80 9360. 0.215 11.490 0.00 1.90 27.90 9880. 0.227 11.960 0.00 2.00 28.00 10400. 0.239 12.410 0.00 2.10 28.10 10920. 0.251 12.840 0.00 2.20 28.20 11440. 0.263 13.260 0.00 2.30 28.30 11960. 0.275 13.670 0.00 2.40 28.40 12480. 0.287 14.060 0.00 2.50 28.50 13000. 0.298 14.440 0.00 2.60 28.60 13520. 0.310 14.820 0.00 2.70 28.70 14040. 0.322 15.180 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 3.39 * * * * * ** 3.25 0.91 26.91 4737. 0.109 2 2.42 * * * * * ** 1.87 0.75 26.75 3887. 0.089 3 2.07 1.83 1.84 0.74 26.74 3855. 0.088 4 1.99 * * * * * ** 1.68 0.71 26.71 3715. 0.085 5 1.83 * * * * * ** 1.64 0.71 26.71 3673. 0.084 6 1.72 1.53 1.51 0.62 26.62 3247. 0.075 7 1.67 * * * * * ** 1.32 0.48 26.48 2498. 0.057 8 1.47 * * * * * ** 1.21 0.40 26.40 2096. 0.048 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:11672dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:11672rdout Inflow /Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 3.40 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 3.25 CFS at 7:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 0.91 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 26.91 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 4737. Cu -Ft 0.109 Ac -Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:11672rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 1.51 6 2/09/01 4:00 3.25 0.91 1 100.00 0.990 1.21 8 1/05/02 17:00 1.87 0.75 2 25.00 0.960 1.83 3 2/27/03 8:00 1.83 0.74 3 10.00 0.900 1.32 7 8/26/04 3:00 1.68 0.71 4 5.00 0.800 1.68 4 10/28/04 17:00 1.64 0.71 5 3.00 0.667 1.64 5 1/18/06 17:00 1.51 0.62 6 2.00 0.500 1.87 2 10/26/06 1:00 1.32 0.48 7 1.30 0.231 3.25 1 1/09/08 7:00 1.21 0.40 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 2.79 0.87 50.00 0.980 • 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • • • 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance standard followed is to size all pipes based on the Rational method utilizing a 25 -year precipitation and a Manning's equation "n" value of 0.014 for the on -site pipes. • • 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] • 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES • • • 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] 7.0 OTHER PERMITS • • • 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Other permits required for this project site include: • Side Sewer Connection Permit ➢ Water Connection Permit • Right -of -Way Use Permit • Clear and Grade Permit • Building Permit • • 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] • 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • • • 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The erosion and sedimentation control facilities for this project have been sized based on Appendix D of the KCSWDM. Calculations for the sediment pond are included herewith. Sediment retention will be maintained on site such that no sediment -laden rainwater will be allowed to be discharged from the project site during construction due to the institution of the following measures, including perimeter protection by using silt fences, and installation of temporary V- ditches with rock checkdams to route runoff to the sediment facility. At least one rock construction entrance will be installed. Cover measures will be instituted to prevent stockpiled material from leaching into the runoff. Clearing limits will be specified for the project site. • • 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] • 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATIONS OF COVENANT • • • 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT • • 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] • 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL • • • • 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL • 12631.001.doc [JPJ /tep] RECEIVED JUL 5 2005 FOUSHEE & ASSOC June 28, 2005 ES -0062 Open Frame, L.L.C. c/o Foushee and Associates 3260 - Southeast 118th Avenue Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Mr. Nigel Starr Subject: Subsurface Exploration and Findings Proposed Building Pad Leveling Acme Bowling Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Starr. • RECEIVED DEC 111 2006' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earth • Earth Solutions NW«c Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineers • Geologists • Environmental Scientists • Construction Monitoring Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) recently drilled six borings at the site for purposes of assessing the potential for post- construction settlements related to the proposed building pad leveling. Six borings were drilled on June 7, 2005. The approximate boring sites are illustrated on the attached site plan. The field logs describing the subsurface conditions, standard penetration blow counts, and moisture contents are also attached. Project Description and Background We understand the ongoing remodel of the north building will involve leveling of the existing floor slab in preparation for the proposed bowling alley construction. Recent surveying of the existing building and floor slab revealed several inches of elevation change or deviation across the floor slab. The point of greatest deviation is located at the extreme southeast comer of the building floor slab. Recent investigation throughout the building suggests that the deviation in the floor level is not associated with prior settlements of the building foundations or floor slab. To level the floor area, gravel fill and an additional four inches of concrete will be placed. The maximum stress increase associated with the added gravel and concrete slab will be on the order of 140 psf. This added stress will occur throughout a relatively localized area at the southeast comer of the building. Elsewhere, the stress increase associated with the added gravel and concrete will be on the order of 50 to 120 psf. With respect to other elements associated with the bowling alley construction, added stress to the existing floor slab area is anticipated to be relatively minimal. We understand the pin -setter equipment weighs on the order of 1,800 to 2,000 pounds and will be spread over a relatively large area. Other elements include a raised observation area that will be elevated using light weight geofoam fill. 2603 151st PI. NE • Redmond, WA 98052 • (425) 284 -3300 • FAX (425) 284-2855 • Open Frame, LLC ES -0062 ' cio Foushee and Associates Page 2 June 28, 2005 In order to further evaluate a possible cause of the building floor deviation and the potential for possible post - construction settlement associated with the weight of the added fill and concrete, a series of subsurface borings were drilled around the building site. Subsurface Conditions Six borings were drilled for purposes of assessing subsurface conditions around the existing building structures. Specifically, borings B -1 through B-4 were drilled around the north building. The attached site plan depicts the approximate locations of the boring sites. The boring Logs are also attached. With respect to the north building (Borings B-1 to B-4) subsurface conditions generally consist of loose to dense fill underlain by low to moderately compressible alluvial soils. The fill ranged in depth from approximately 4 to 5 feet along the north side of the building (Borings B-1 and B- 2), to approximately 7 to 20 feet along the south side of the building (Borings B -3 and B-4). The deepest. fill was encountered at boring B -3 located near the southwest comer of the building. The fill generally consisted of a mixture of medium dense to dense silty sand and silt with gravel. Moisture content of the fill was generally in the range of 7 to 20 percent moisture. The native alluvial soils underlying the fill consisted primarily of loose silt and organic silt deposits, with occasional deposits of sand. Moisture contents were generally in the range of 60 to 90 percent, with the higher moisture content soils located below a depth of approximately 25 feet. These higher moisture content silts and organic silts would be considered moderately compressible. Relatively high moisture content soils were encountered at boring B -3 below a depth of approximately 25 feet. The moisture content of these soils was between 100 and 190 percent moisture. These higher moisture content soils would be considered to have a moderate to high potential for compression. In' addition to the four borings drilled around the perimeter of the north building, two additional borings were drilled around the south building (borings B -5 and B-6). Conditions were generally similar to the other borings, with fills of approximately 10 to 15 feet underlain by loose alluvial deposits. Conclusions Based on our findings at the boring locations, we do not anticipate the fill and concrete leveling will induce significant settlement of the underlying soils. The boring data indicate the building area is underlain by several feet of fill. The underlying native alluvial silt soils would be considered to have a low to moderate potential for compression. As described above, the maximum stress increase associated with the gravel and concrete leveling slab will be on the order of 140 psf throughout a relatively localized area. The stress increase throughout the majority of the areas will be on the order of 50 to 120 psf. This stress increase associated with the added gravel fill and concrete is relatively minimal, and should not initiate significant long term settlement of the underlying fill and native deposits. Immediate settlements associated Earth Solutions NW, LLC G Open Frame, LLC ES -0062 • c/o Foushee and Associates Page 3 .tune 28, 2005 with the addition of the fill and concrete should be expected, and will likely be on the order of one -half inch or Tess. As a precaution, a series of monitoring points should be established throughout the building foundation areas prior to leveling the floor.. To the extent possible, subsequent monitoring of the completed floor slab should also be performed prior to proceeding with construction of the hardwood floors and bowling lanes. We trust this assessment meets your current needs. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Raymond A. Coglas, P.E. Principal 7/M/ u 21 Attachments: Site Map and Field Logs Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1 r 1 i I: i 1 1 i 1 1. . A., JOB NO. 40 47.2 CUENT _4 ci.., e .BY sep , ,.. .:-.., Eot.o/;-,1 • ELEVAT ION . 2 ' t 8 BORING NO. DATE _ti, I ?ios-- 44 DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD SHEET i of Z.... HAMMER WT. WT. . . DROP , DRILLING CONTR. ' • E -6 v 0. 0 mi = > z ul'• S) 8_ SURFACE CONDITIONS J.2...,1,20_ kf,..r„,i4 { . Jose 4. " — — 0 I I 511i : . ' • __*123(2n_ _itiiii_ iiii14- 4,344ct 7 • 'Leak t. -1-01 r.....424: we", 14,4$1: ' K S k 5 --.t t k — ... _.,..7., ..1.,..., • • ., 1 • 111 2 3.1 di— • III • #.....),_.-)e-\ '-f- Z-trr -Aor •••• Tit. 1111 , I .1.-ak.-y—. N..--2,1. P' ) i.• I z ; !. ' . ; • . .!' I Eri'. , : 1 ' . .1( ' . ri • • . . , frit;40 a- Flegykili _4e.A.....g.._ • . • II _ • _ . : , • IIII III . • • • . • . • . .. • ' • • • 111 • • 1-Ya.c.e. sa" A . 4 ret.o-d. L. an ct. dr e4.-1. C4 -1 , . ri A Ri Pal 1 __ • 10 ill Fa 0 - • . . im otta_S-1 .it-ty.14-1 • . 2 1 . Ill ,... • - . - - - . 4 1111 . :,•. .. _ ,.__r . • .11 v 4 t a t . 10 0S4 " •0:3- lvr,..3 — • 6 I • II 111. • - ___.4 ,. . . • ' • -, • El • :4;,:- . : .*:tr, . . . • • • . . III • . • • 8 9l • 1 • II MI . . Boring terminated att. feet belOw codsting grade. roundwater (table / Oet;page) encountered at _20Lfeet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to (bottom of boring) feet Lower feet • slotted. Boring bacicfilled with 64.,4:12,..:J.A., a.."4 C.44,k+Iftlaii) Earth Solutions NWux . •.t *4 • • JOB NO. 6306, 2 0 . . CUENT e..fry, 4 3c43,0 Lf-.1 _ BORING NO. E -1 DATE (017/0 s' BY ,G- p ELEVATION 2 a ' t DRILLING METHOD 14 s A SAMPLING METHOD . SHEET? nf HAMMER WT. DROP DRILLING CONTR. Ili Eg sie I t 2. tg.a. E i E e A' 2 ._ 411 a u) 23 03 2 g z c E 0.— ?a S s-0 zi m 8 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3 WI _ ... i-f 20 If Pil _ilfrIt 463.41_:=radtitri.-4iadiaLS,1An .et_it,.i01 Siti ' . Wit() uvr 1'7 4 re _ II_ I - - - . . • • • , . • -33.2 .‘.. '.. . , • . . - .,- . - - -r.-P • ' • - - - - 54 -0 3 rd :. grcis,th..or 0-0..;:c AtIL; 4. 6- ve. :... °mos= 0 7.--e_Ar Li.latif i.*- — - II ...- ' . - - - 1 • . •-?-4.-.4; --.„2„5.- , . . -. . . - - - 1 1111 . , 1 . . 1 . . , • . 7 _ • • Boring terthinated at 31)5 feet below existing grade Groundwa seepage) encountered at 20' feet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to (bottOrn tboring) feet Lower feet slotted. Boring badcfilled with btet ttrtai. ga4 cw4,14,10 Earth Solutions NWu.c A =,1 JOB NO. 6,060,2 • CLIENT —.6 wi e 0.43,)/1 .,.7 BORING NO. 8 -2- DATE 6l7 /05" BY • E P ELEVATION Z DRILLING METHOD /45A SAMPLING METHOD SHEET of HAMMER WT. DROP DRILLING CONTR. m Ea o E h . Z' 5 ..- w C.) D o SURFACE CONDITIONS 0FL • 4i/ . - -- 3 ' Pal • 'Own 2- + 16 — iri 4-L _4 F: 6 li • . qq 716 �3 4 °`c .; ;,.,r y . • __ ■ . Boring at 311 terminated_ at 3 85 r feet belo w e asting grade. • Grouridv� ter (te51e�l� feet during drilling. 3(4" PVC standpipe installed to (bottom of boring slotted. Boring backfilled with 1244-0,-,-;./t/ • Earth Solutions NWu.c • seepage) encountered feet., ..;Lower feet • JOB NO. dex„. z. • CLIENT ,...4,, -e 04,--4,1X--1 A BORING NO. DATE 6/ 1 /05- •BY Sa-c ELEVATION 2E3 ' !.. DRILLING METHOD 45 A SAMPLING METHOD SHEET of HAMMER WT. DROP • DRILLING CONTR. 0 Eo) 2 cit in g Zi c -2 g Z .c sr! -8 & w 18 D8 SURFACE CONDITIONS 1,,,L J3 clam AA,vt; _1 a ag_e_;due.4_tizti. t_,Criterued, _ 1 II — 2 3 1 1111 - . • i - - - III • -- 1-1-4 u ti • 6E . . ; ,.., .,,..v. .fr p it _ _ 8 ll . se s . --- 0 0 3 / 15 i .St^ ::. 1)We _ _ ;_kao.4-41*Lfet___. :,.. . . • , . ,. itz 1 ie_ , 4 (9 35 7 8 9 I ;j SP- g_ . Dori. 42scil. _potAisair-. e. t,..iti;tic,..k.4 _ _ _ . I. oOS C- j ■..,›Drie 6-1-411tt . ,- - . . • 1 _ 0 • • - • Boring terminated at feet below existing grade. (NO) Groundwater (table / seepage) encountered at feet during drilling. 314" PVC standpipe installed to (Witt m of boring) _feet. Lower feet slotted. Boring.bacldled with . 'Earth Solutions NWu.c tAnk JOB NO. Oa& 2..., IP CLIENT -C1r) C c.)r..J //.. BORING NO. B —3 DATE 6 h-ioc .BY 6E/c) - ELEVATION Zei ' 1: DRILLING METHOD H s-il SAMPLING METHOD SHEET / of 1..- HAMMER WT. DROP DRILLING CONTR. - Isampte number co Z. moisture p 73 ' 4 es = To _., • c Z cn 0 cip SURFACE CONDMONS - - - 1 ML . - • • - - . 1 1 • . - 2 . . . 3 _ • i • 4 5 6 7 I r FA ti 1 . ' 'Lb 1 3 - Tir /'> 0 _C-act-i-A_ 4444 liglii4iitiitiatsaz.:-$.4.tiegaisi I-nal:44 Pi" I i • . . • • - -- - • -- • • • r . - - - * - • . ' • -1-.1 _ 13 iv t 0 p 4 SP" - -- S.4..,C1 tst vIti.. -761:Cdatl -.2.J.141-7.k.Qt_th....f.144.1:-..Y.47. • • • . . 2 . . . . , • 3 4 .... . . . .... __.... / - • - - i if -4( 6 ig. • . . . - - - 1 • .1 . . .. ___. - 0 • . . . • • 3,1.4r.e •. a-rito.e..7 Boring terminated at --.35.L- feet below existing grade. i: ,t) Ground ' page) encountered at Z-4 feet during dnlling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to (bottom of boring - feet. Lower _feet slotted_ Boring backfilled with b.btryik)L42, "), _if &I 41,1-i xop ; 0 _1710r■-1- edet Earth Solutions NWLLC Boring terminated at feet below existing grade. (NO) Groundwater (table / seepage) encountered at 2(pt feet during drilling. we PVC standpipe installed' to (bottom of boring) feet. Lower--.feet • ' slotted. Boring backfilled with Irdivv4-bn.iiti- Lam- Earth Solutions NWu.c CLIENT cd-i.e . mow k. BORING NO. $'3 1 JOB NO. x!a, • DATE (o/ 7-100 BY 56-P ELEVATION 2g' - DRILLING METHOD Ns p SAMPLING METHOD SHEETLef Z HAMMER WT. DROP DRILLING CONTR.. co E o Z, 1kh1 = _ CD SURFACE CONDITIONS 1 2 3 0 I . _ _ - . i. ., - P'-cb"''�'- 4 N - - . , 16 S . 4 ■ . ■ • Boring terminated at feet below existing grade. (NO) Groundwater (table / seepage) encountered at 2(pt feet during drilling. we PVC standpipe installed' to (bottom of boring) feet. Lower--.feet • ' slotted. Boring backfilled with Irdivv4-bn.iiti- Lam- Earth Solutions NWu.c JOB NO. opla� •_ CLIENT e $ow /inJ• BORING NO. /3- `i DATE 6,/7. /0 5 BY -6'p ELEVATION Z3 ' % DRILLING METHOD H s /1 . SAMPLING METHOD SHEET / of Z HAMMER WT. DROP DRILLING CONTR. 11 N b..h _a a) z. co • S$ SURFACE CONDITIONS . ..itsPil • 3 i_. 'aid_ a[ , I 5 7 p Fi ; 1 . ML . i nt.r�2A 5-0, 1i_ T-74..fa UJ - -- 0 7 • • , _ _ _ . -CnYru,L 1;4•.t w .. 5a.r „_,t 4w .veJ jvosej- I a . 2 - -- 4 . - -- I5 7 8 n 1 s' _ w _ = �, c ___ A t - : _ . Boring terminated at 3115 feet below existing grade.140 roundvira (tabl I seepage) encountered at feet during drilling. 314" PVC standpipe installed to (bottom of boring) feet. Lower feet slotted. Boring backfilled with {, r1n -its "� i , c6 Cti, 1 .Earth Solutions NWu.c JOB NO. IV 4, Z • CLIENT S' -e -a z---+ , BORING NO. R - I/ DATE (0105 .BY ev ELEVATION 29' DRILLING METHOD imA SAMPLING METHOD SHEET of HAMMER WT. DROP DRILLING CONTR. sample number .�� 0 moisture _.- ., G) c SURFACE CONDITIONS ` (Cj t _IL s I I Z 0 ' n ri [1 stn .s-e-s. _ — (-Iv_ g4_,L -11 4, wiEr s=1 d�rgucir _ . 30 OS - • ,..tc.. 'A IfiZe 'c L 1:24At.r1;1,. _ G J . J - -- 1 II • earz 3 40 /A15 i ak . - 'l.- G , (� r9 Gt r firo� f i _ -.tl� i t 0.c 2. ; 1!i • • • `__ 8 _ –. 0 Boring terminated at 3- 52 feet below existing grade. ( Groundwater (table / seepage) encountered at IS r feet during dnlling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to (bottom of boring) feet. Lower feet slotted. Boring backfilled with ►a. &Qru, cu, PAuth "Pe Earth Solutions NWu.c JOB NO. naG 2 •� CLIENT ..,44,4/ • BORING NO. 3 - S DATE � �d # BY Pte/ ELEVATION ' DRILLING METHOD /iS SAMPUNG METHOD SHEET/ oft HAMMER WT. DROP DRILLING CONTR. m m . • Q"� EE w a m Ea 3 o �. N c,� . k w g T3 a > z •6 � az I,E U m 8 m 8. SURFACE CONDITIONS fpa - -- o - -- 'N.i _o+d --� • it? 6.t ±F, U • / - -- 1 2 ; • - - - -- . • 114 )i CJ 5 s {lfl moist'.) - II T 10 iJ S� Lr • • q.--f i 1_ Et I 2 f nL I II ■ "tall: sr. s t li mh 4t P,tJ 1/ • _ - -- s pc-4- —. 3 ' 15 ;- — YJSit- ' s4TT' yam. ��/ 5 • 0 • Boring terminated at 311 5' feet below existing grade. 4136.roundwat r (table seepage) encountered at feet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe Installed to (bottom of boring) feet. Lower `-.feet slotted. Boring baddilied with • Earth Solutions NWuc JOB NO. 666, 2 CLIENT �cAzs )I BORING NO. [Y5 DATE /7 /a( BY 5 O ELEVATION Z8 ' : SHEET L ofL DRILLING METHOD ././s14 SAMPLING METHOD HAMMER WT DROP DRILLING CONTR. a biz. a E� �, N • 43 o. m .c Z Um CO no SURFACE CONDITIONS . 32•4 1-0 1 F III ITV SP-Chl ' tJKJ1.. L. L. 1 ! .i f l 14 (� _, :%.a.t. .r. �(: <. a_`;== :�YY..`at J . - -- 3 1 1 1 13•7 21 ' � . fill Vii —1 • 30 i� L D 4/4.1.�.l:�c aY 4W,i. ____I p_t ai-o- Li__ I - ti �i - -- - 5 • _ • 7 ' Boring terminated at feet below emoting grade. (NO) Groundwater (table / seepage) encountered at feet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to (lftom of bring) feet. Lower feet slotted. Boring backfilled with • .z. Earth Solutions NWu.c JOB NO. 0 B , 2 1 CLIENT „-li.t, BORING NO. 8-6 DATE w-�16 s— BY 56-p ELEVATION 24 t. DRILLING METHOD //sp. SAMPLING METHOD SHEET/ ofz. HAMMER WT. DROP DRILLING CONTR. - ar cQ cm o E o . a_a CO a Z .E nT -c .�m is M 0 SURFACE CONDITIONS D, _5671/ (Dose 7. _ - rav{.t . 3 w_ . _ _ ,t. ; *- � X54 -- t� S t 1 381 r a Pi !I cs- f tra _ T . _ca_ - v _ • st4 -_ __ - 15 ■11 iii s: . 1113 . . • Boring terminated at .3-1117-- feet below eidsting grade. (p j Groundwater (table ! ac ericoiintered at ) rJ feet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to (bottom of boring) feet. Lower .. feet slotted. Boring back%Iled with 6.61-ap17,« (1'` Earth Solutions NW u c • fib JOB NO. O/6 2. i• CUENT "1-6 BORING NO. e' 6 DATE 67 1.-70.5"- .13Y ,;5.70 �G ELEVATION Gv DRILLING METE HOD # S/7 SAMPLING METHOD - SHEETpf 2_ HAMMER WT. DROP DRILLING CONTR. o 6 a > t a-- � CA 8i D.0 SURFACE CONDITIONS . C 1 2 '; ji 0 L eq:;:eri� P 1 a�F.rs t� ate• .gib E , . �. 2 . .. • 3 s FA ti ci • - Carte _r s24. -`_ ' t iIX�S�� wi��.i ,b.. -� , s • • ratio VoKAL.7 pi4t-t- L .t:r - - - - ,'L 8 Z:4 • 2 • 5 ■ • ' ' s 1 III . __ _ • • , 8 0 , -- • Boring terminated at feet below existing grade. (NO) Groundwater (table / seepage) encountered at feet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to (bottom of boring) feet. Lower feet slotted. Boring bacicSUed with Earth Solutions NWuc Nigel Starr, 09:07 AM 8/29/200 -0700, RE: Park West Plaza - Good Fait?- Survey and S... Page 1 of 2 Subject: RE: Park West Plaza - Golkaith Survey and Soils Report Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:07:00 -0700 X -MS- Has - Attach: yes X -M S -TN E F -C o rre l ato r: Thread - Topic: Park West Plaza - Good Faith Survey and Soils Report Thread - Index: AcbLerJGZ+ F89SKHSWi7EOpHY9CQgwAApyNwAAB3pxAAATAiUA == From: "Nigel Starr" <nstarr @foushee.com> To: "Loch Anderson" <lnderson @foushee.com >, "Bonnie Hanson" <BHanson @egisrealestate.com >, "Chris Miller" <chrism @bgi- group.com >, "David Kehle" <dkehle @dkehlearch.com> Cc: "Mark Stillwell" <mstillwell @foushee.com >, "Randy Moore" <rmoore @foushee.com >, < kyle .campbell @earthsolutionsnw.com> Team — I also located a subsequent report for borings performed by Earth Solutions in June of 2005 — see attached. Kyle, our proposed building footprint will in the SE comer of the property (basically rotate the existing building 90 degrees) near TP -3 and B-6 — site plan coming from David Kehle soon. Thank you. Nigel MIN s FousHc -c Nigel Starr — Project Manager 1P 425- 746 -1000 1F 425- 378 -2168 1E nstarnc foushee.com From: Loch Anderson Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:26 AM To: Nigel Starr; 'Bonnie Hanson'; 'Chris Miller; 'David Kehle' Cc: Mark Stillwell; Randy Moore; Kyle Campbell ( kyle .campbell @earthsolutionsnw.com) Subject: RE: Park West Plaza - Good Faith Survey and Soils Report Team- I added Kyle to the Cc: list so you have his and he has the soils report. From: Nigel Starr Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:11 AM To: 'Bonnie Hanson'; 'Chris Miller; 'David Kehle' Cc: Mark Stillwell; Loch Anderson; Randy Moore Subject: RE: Park West Plaza - Good Faith Survey and Soils Report Here are the documents... MIN PousHCE Nigel Starr — Project Manager 1 P 425- 746 -1000 1F 425- 378 -2168 1E nstarr; cWoushee.com From: Nigel Starr Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:52 AM Printed for David Kehle <dkehle@dkehlearch.com> 8/29/2006 RECEIV 1DEC + 12 1006 SEPA CITY OF TUKWILA p�C ��PNINT Department of Community Development ENVIRONMENTAL 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanna,ci.tukwila.wa.us REVIEW :APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Parkway Plaza, Fitness Center and Restaurant LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. Corner of Andover Park West and Baker Blvd. 150 Andover Park West LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 022310 -0010 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: David Kehle, Architect Address: 1916 Bonair Drive SW, Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: 206 - 433 -8997% FAX: 206 - 246 -8369 E -mail: dke Signature: Date: 12 -6 -06 C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \Documents \0600 \0631 Parkwest Plaza \SEPAApp- 12-06.doc December 8, 2006 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus -TYPEP -SEPA Planner: File Number: `^v & ,- cj9, Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: P%L(."6,- -0cf5 Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: L_O& -i 3 NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Parkway Plaza, Fitness Center and Restaurant LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. Corner of Andover Park West and Baker Blvd. 150 Andover Park West LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 022310 -0010 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: David Kehle, Architect Address: 1916 Bonair Drive SW, Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: 206 - 433 -8997% FAX: 206 - 246 -8369 E -mail: dke Signature: Date: 12 -6 -06 C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \Documents \0600 \0631 Parkwest Plaza \SEPAApp- 12-06.doc December 8, 2006 RECEIVED City of Tukwila 'DEC' 12 2006 Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist ogatiNITYT Date: 2 -6 -06 Applicant Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip: Telephone: David Kehle, Architect 1916 Bonair Drive SW Seattle, Washington 98116 206 -433 -8997 Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, -or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project,' organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \Documents \0600 \0631 Park-west Plaza \SEPAApp- 12- 06.doc December 8, 2006 Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (TMC 18.06.370). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 Continue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (18.06.145). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 - Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the GreenfDuwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. 0 Continue to Question 4 -0 YES - Continue to Question 3 -1 (Page 5) 4 -0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (TMC 18.06.385). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 5 -0 YES - Continue to Question 5 -0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. 0 Continue to Question 6 -0 YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \Documents \0600 \0631 Parkwest Plaza \SEPAApp- 12- O6.doc Part A (continued) • City of TukwiSA Screening Checklist 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (TMC 18.06.490). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. NO — Checklist Complete Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 1 -2 YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 1 -3 YES - Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development. Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development (TMC 18.06.445). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Continue to Question 1-4 City of TukwioSA Screening Checklist 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. N - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) ontinue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast- height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. NO - ontinue to Question 2 -3 YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 2-4 YES - Continue to Question 2-4 2 -4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NOContinue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) • YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) City of Tukwil1SA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish/Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -2 YES - Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as slougJhs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man-made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -3 YES - Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, . including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-4 YES - Continue to Question 3-4 3 -4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -5 YES - Continue to Question 3-5 3-5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a • City of TukwiloSA Screening Checklist watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -7 YES - Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -8 YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3-8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) RECEIVED DEC' 12 1406, belr STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Park West Plaza 2. Name of Applicant: Open Frame LLC, c/o David Kehle, Architect 3. Date checklist prepared: 12 -6 -06 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction to begin upon issuance of permits — March 2007 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. - Previous Environmental Checklist and DNS #E04 -022 dated 12 -6 -04 for ACME Bowl and this site - - Upated traffic study, Transpo Group dated 12 -04 -06 (attached) - GeoTechnical report, ERM dated 06 -28 -06 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. - Design Review Board - Demo Permit Pre - load/Grade and Fill Permit - Building Permit Storm, Water, Sanitary Utility and Site Work 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Remove an existing approx. 28, 000 SF tilt -up concrete warehouse with existing landscape and paving along Baker Blvd., relocate some ex. parking islands and pedestrian walkways; construct a new 30,000 SF Fitness Center and 6,000 SF restaurant pad along with Associated parking and site improvements. 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency; you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. NE corner of Andover Park West and Baker Blvd., south of the ACME Bowl facility —150 Andover Park West Attached is the site plan which includes the legal description 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site is flat with approximately a 4% grade b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 4% 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. . Soil is fill over native allinial soils of loose silt, organic silt and sand (See attached Sois Report) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The existing site has been graded. after the existing building is removed both the new buildings will be preloaded for soils consolidation. There may be approx. 4,000 cu. yards of structural fill impact for overexcavating footings and pad fill. Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. There could be erosion occuring during the rainy seasons until the site is paved and buildings constructed. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 85 -90% will be impervious with balance being landscaped. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,.or otherimpacts to the. earth, if any:: Temporary erosion control measures are in place from previous work and-will be upgraded and replaced as required. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, type vehicle exhaust, and potentially dust during earthwork in dry weather. When completed vehicle exhaust and the restaurant will have exhaust from the kitchen. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Adjacent traffic and restaurant uses in the area. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Typical Best Management practices will be used to limit emission impacts Watering of site will occur if dust becomes a problem. 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. No 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 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. N/A Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type 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. No. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve: No waste materials will be discharged into the ground. Site is served by sanitary and storm sewers. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water will run off the parking lot via catch basin collection and through existing detention and water quality systems. The roof water will be collected with roof drains and run to the detention. system. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The site will utilize landscaped areas to lessen paving areas and surface water will be collected and detained via storm control measures. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Some existing landscape planters will be relocated to accommodate traffic . circulation and new parking lot striping. New perimeter site landscaping and internal landscape will be installed to match the existing.ACME .site (see landscape plan) c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscape will match the existing ACME Bowl and meet City standards. • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, gbir son , dsother: Ducks, Seagulls, Blackbirds Mammals Deer, bear, elk , beaver, other: None Fish Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None Other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Utilize native landscape per landscape plan 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. Electrical will be used to run lights, equipment and air conditioning. Natural gas will be used for heat. Agency Comments • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, building location would not cause shadows negatively impacting adjacent sites. 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: Buldings will be designed to meet State Energy Codes, all building envelope will be insulated, glazing with insulated units, and high efficient mechanical and electrical equipment. 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. Fire Department responses to any emergency (grease fire, etc.) are Adequate. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None required. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Vehicle Traffic 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. During construction, typical construction noises during demolition and construction activities during normal business hours. No long term noises should occur beyond normal operations. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None required. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Existing site is now vacant, previously retail use. Sites to north is ACME Bowl and retail, west is retail shopping center, south is car dealership and east will be redeveloped to retail. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not in any recent time since the 1960's. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Describe any structures on the site. A one story tilt -up structure of approx. 28,000 SF which will be removed. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the existing 28,000 SF tilt -up structure. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Tukwila Urban Center f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NA h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? In the Fitness Center approx. 20 people will be working and the restaurant approx. 15 stall. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None required. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project uses comply with current zoning and the comrehensive plan. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? N/A Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle; or low- income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior,building.materia1(s) proposed? The highest portion of the building will be approx. 28'. The Fitness Center will consist opf painted concrete (both smooth and textured), glass and exterior canopies. The restaurant exterior will be and glass with awnings and canopies. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views will be obstructed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The Fitness Center will utilize materials, details and similar design to to the ACME Bowl building with similar heights and colors. The restaurantwill be approx. the same height with materials and colors matching the chain designs and of similar scale to other restaurants in the adjacent shopping center. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Lighting in parking lot will match the existing fixtrues of ACME Bowl previously approved, canopy lighting and wall accent lighting will occur on both sides of the structures and pedestrian lighting at the plazas. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No light or glare should result in a safety hazard or interfere with views. The existing ACME Bowl is being matched. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Adjacent street lighting and adjacent projects may be seen from this site or light the site. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Utilzing fixtures to match the ACME Bowl and using direct cutoff type fixtures to help limit light spillage beyond our site. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is the ACME Bowl facility directly to the north. The trail along the Duwamish is several blocks away. Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 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: Pedestrian connection from the Fitness Center to the ACME Bowl facility with street connection to Baker Blvd. will be developed. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be' on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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. Andover Park West is a major north/south arterial that connects to I -405, Baker Blvd. is a secondary arterial connecting Andover Park West and East to the mall. Access to site will be via the common access on Andover Park West and a re -built curb cut on Baker Blvd. One curb cut on Baker Blvd. will be eliminated b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, via Public Transportation on Andover Park West. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Approximately 215 stalls will be provided on this site incorporating some already installed during the ACME Bowl construction. Approx. 20 stalls will be eliminated south of the existing bulding being removed. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No, existing curbs, gutters, planters and sidewalks exist on both Baker Blvd., Andover Park West and Evans Black Road connection exist. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transp ortatio 1 n? If so, generally describe. No. 1 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The previous traffic study for ACME Bowl anticipated 221 trips which included the anticipated 22,000 SF Fitness Center, 8,000 SF of retail and a 4,000 SF retail pad on this development. There will be an increase of 53 vehicle trips from the new restaurant use at 6,000 SF and a Fitness Center of 30,000 SF and no new retail uses. (See updated traffic study by Transpo Group). g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Project will pay any increased traffic impact fees required by the City. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No, existing services are adequate. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Buldings will be sprinklered with fire alarms, burgler alarms and security lighting to provide for visual surveylance. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: other: septic system Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: PSE Gas: PSE Sewer: City of Tukwila Water: City of Tukwila Telephone: Qwest C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand.. that the lead agency is ;fit �`�j�; to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: �zlnla(g (NON- PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). • MEMORANDUM • RECEIVED The DEC' 12 2006 Tmnspo COMMUNITY Group DEVELOPMENT Date: December 4, 2006 TG: 04282.01 To: Nora Gierloff, City of Tukwila Cindy Knighton, City of Tukwila From: Dan McKinney, Jr., The Transpo Group, Inc. Bart Przybyl, The Transpo Group, Inc. cc: Bonnie Hanson, EGIS Real Estate Services David Kehle, David Kehle Architects John Hunt, LA Management Subject: Parkwest Plaza - Trip Generation, Distribution and Impact Fee Analysis The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City of Tukwila with a trip generation, distribution, and impact fee analysis for build -out of the proposed Parkwest Plaza development. The analysis supersedes the information included in the ACME Bowl TIA prepared in December 2004 which evaluated a bowling alley, fitness center, and retail space. This current land use proposal includes a larger fitness center, a new sit -down restaurant, and a reduction in the amount of retail space. Project Description The proposed project is located at the northeast corner of Andover Park W /Baker Boulevard. The location of the site is shown in Figure 1. The land uses utilized in the December 2004 included a 40 lane bowling center, a 22,000 sf fitness club, and 16,900 sf of general retail space. The current proposal includes a larger fitness club (30,000 sf), a 6,000 sf sit -down restaurant, and a reduction of the retail space to a total of 10,090 sf. Figure 2 includes the current proposed site plan. Project Trip Generation and Distribution Trip Generation Weekday PM peak hour and Saturday mid -day peak hour trip generation from the proposed project was estimated using rates from counts at similar facilities and from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. Specifically, the bowling center trip generation rates were based on counts at three existing facilities that are similar to the proposed site. For the remainder of the site, the ITE trip generation rates from the categories Shopping Center (LU 820), Health /Fitness Club (LU 492), and High- Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (LU 932) were used as they most closely represent the proposed uses. Finally, pass -by rates provided by the ITE Trip Generation Handbook for the Shopping Center (LU 820) and The Transpo Group Inc. 11730118th Avenue N.E.. Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034 -7120 425.821.3665 Fax: 425.825.8434 High- Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (LU 932) were applied to arrive at new trips for the site. A summary of the resulting weekday PM peak hour and Saturday mid -day peak hour trip generation estimates are provided in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Table 1. Project Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use Pass -by Total New New Size Rate Total Rate New Inbound Outbound Previous Land Uses ACME Bowl Retail Space Fitness Club Total for Previous Uses 40 Lanes' 1.74' 69 0 69 39 30 16,900 sr 3.754 63 20' 43 21 22 22,000 sfz 4.05' 89 0 89 45 44 221 20 201 105 96 Current Land Uses ACME Bowl Retail Space Fitness Club Restaurant Total for Current Uses Increase in Trips 40 Lanes' 1.74' 69 0 69 39 30 10,090 sfz 3.75' 38 13' 25 12 13 30,000 sR 4.05' 122 0 122 62 60 6,000 sfz 10.926 66 28' 38 23 15 295 41 254 136 118 74 21 53 31 22 1. Number of bowling lanes proposed for ACME Bowl Site. 2. Size in square feet. 3. Based on average trip rates of three bowling centers in the region that are similar to the proposed facility. 4. Based on ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition) Average Trip Rate for Shopping Center (ITE Land Use #820). 5. Based on ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition) Average Trip Rate for Health /Fitness Club (ITE Land Use #492). 6. Based on ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition) Average Trip Rate for High - Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (ITE Land Use #932). 7. Based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook Pass -by Rates for Shopping Center (ITE Land Use #820). 8. Based on 1TE Trip Generation Handbook Pass -by Rates for High - Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (ITE Land Use #932). As shown in Table 2, the current proposal is anticipated to generate a total of 254 new vehicle -trips during an average weekday PM peak hour. This represents an increase of 53 vehicle -trips from the uses evaluated previously (31 entering and 22 exiting). In addition, approximately 21 more pass -by trips are expected at the driveways. The Transpo Group Page 2 Table 2. Project Saturday Mid -Day Peak Hour Trip Generation Pass -by Total New New Land Use Size Rate Total Rate New Inbound Outbound Previous Land Uses ACME Bowl Retail Space Fitness Club Total for Previous Uses 40 Lanes' 2.49' 100 0 100 46 54 16,900 sfz 4.974 84 22' 62 32 30 22,000 sf' 1.93' 42 0 42 23 19 226 22 204 101 103 Current Land Uses ACME Bowl Retail Space Fitness Club Restaurant 40 Lanes' 2.94' 100 0 100 46 54 10,090 sf' 4.974 50 13' 37 19 18 30,000 sf' 1.93' 58 0 58 32 26 6,000 sr 206 120 528 68 41 27 Total for Current Uses 328 65 263 138 125 Increase in Trips 102 43 59 37 22 1. Number of bowling lanes proposed for ACME Bowl Site. 2. Size in square feet. 3. Based on average trip rates of three bowling centers in the region that are similar to the proposed facility. 4. Based on ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition) Average Trip Rate for Shopping Center (ITE Land Use #820). 5. Based on a study of Saturday trip generation conducted at four fitness clubs on the West Coast (between 1-3 PM on Saturday); ITE has only one data point on Saturday for this land use. 6. Based on ITE Trip Generation (7th Edition) Average Trip Rate for High- Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (ITE Land Use #932). 7. Based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook Pass -by Rates for Shopping Center (ITE Land Use #820). 8. Based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook Pass -by Rates for High - Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (ITE Land Use #932). As shown in Table 3, the current proposal is anticipated to generate a total of 263 new vehicle -trips during an average Saturday mid -day peak hour. This represents an increase of 59 vehicle -trips from the uses evaluated previously (37 entering and 22 exiting). In addition, approximately 43 more pass -by trips are expected at the driveways. Trip Distribution and Assignment New project traffic was assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the trip distribution patterns used in the December 2004 TIA. That distribution was based partially on retail distributions completed for the We Oeld Shopp ngtown Southcenter EIS. The result is shown in Figure 3, while the assignment of project trips at nearby study area intersections is shown in Figure 4. Transportation Impact Fees The City of Tukwila has established transportation impact fees in TMC 9.48 and Ordinance 2111. The current transportation impact fee schedule identifies that any development which generates new weekday PM peak hour trips must pay a fee per trip. The current fee per trip for Zone 1 (the Southcenter area where the development is located) is $1424.71. Based on the additional 53 new weekday PM peak hour trips that the current proposal is expected to generate, the project is required to pay approximately $75,510 in impact fees to the City of Tukwila. This assumes that the The Transpo Group Page 3 traffic impact fees related to the land uses studied in the December 2004 TIA have been paid. Summary and Conclusions The following provides a brief summary of the trip generation, distribution and impact fee analysis performed for the proposed Parkwest Plaza development. • The current proposal for the Parkwest Plaza project includes a 40 lane bowling center, a 30,000 sf fitness club, a 6,000 sf sit -down restaurant, and approximately 10,090 sf of retail space. These uses differ from those evaluated in the December 2004 TIA which included a 40 lane bowling center, a 22,000 sf fitness club, and 16,900 sf of general retail space. • The proposed project would generate a total of 254 new trips during the weekday PM peak hour and 263 new trips during the Saturday mid -day peak hour. This is approximately 53 more weekday PM peak hour and 59 more Saturday mid -day peak hour trips than the previous proposal. • Based on the additional 53 new weekday PM peak hour trips that the current proposal is expected to generate, the project is required to pay approximately $75,510 in impact fees to the City of Tukwila. This assumes that the traffic impact fees related to the land uses studied in the December 2004 TIA have been paid. The Transpo Group Page 4 I • A N NOT TO SCALE S 160TH ST STRANDER BLVD S 168TH ST 11 Figure 1 Site Vicinity Parkwest Plaza 8 v BAKER BLVD 8 v S 180TH ST ICI ce RECEIVED Ti DEC '1 2 2006 pCOMMUNITy �fiOPME VT r N� NOT TO SCALE ANDOVER PARK NEST Figure 2 me Site Plan Tram() Parkwest Plaza P M:104104282.01 Parkwest PlazalGraphics\Graphic01 <B> robertm 1210510615:09 • • NOT TO SCALE S 160TH ST LEGEND at2LCUU CIn TY, is 9 10% • = PERCENT OF NEW • PROJECT TRAFFIC Figure 3 Project Trip Distribution Parkwest Plaza M:\04104282.01 Parkwest Plaza \Graphics \Graphic01 <C> bartp 12101/06 16:16 RECEIVED DEC' 12 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Transpo Gruup rn ITCWNI h h 1 BAKER BLVD STRANDER BLVD S 168TH ST MINKLER BLVD M )Id 213AOcN 3 Nd 213AOONd v /4-cw m S 180TH ST A N NOT TO SCALE (16)131 (6(8) 11 (11) 3(3) CD C o TRAFFIC VOLUMES # = WEEKDAY PM PEAK ( #) = SATURDAY MID -DAY PEAK Figure 4 The Project Trip Assignment RECEIVED Trarispo Parkwest Plaza Group DEC 12 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANDOVER PARK WEST — o -51FAT (INSTANCE LINE CD Oa 45' DEDICATED ROAL 30' SIGHT DIST LINE LY SD: =_ I FEATHER NEW LAIN INTO 1 EXISTING. REPAIR ALL LALLN 1 DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION. SD: LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE BYM CITY BOTANICAL NAME 1 COMMON NAME DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES 4 ACER RJBRMI 'AUTLMIN BLAZE' / AUTUMN BLAZE RED MAPLE Memoir. 41 CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN 16 5 1 1 01 ACER T. GMNALA FLAME' / FLAME AMUR MAPLE FRAXNUS PENNSTLVANICA MARSHALL' / MARSHALL ASH PRINS5 5. M, FWI' / MT FWI FLOILERDG CHERRY C RCJS RJBRA /RED OAK DECIDUOUS ACCENT TREED ACER CRJNATUM / VINE MAPLE n EfiEDEEDUDEED 1 PUS 5riVERSTS / SCOTCH PINE 5 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZBSII / DOUG FIR LIMITS OF IIJORK 30 SGNT DISTANCE LINE cp1111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111 9,>� tT, 111411111 11111 • ■ 1I1IMEMMI114E3 ;.a PURE FITNESS MULCH PATH `- 30' SIGHT DISTANCE LINE 9'.., 1_11 .' 41,- I_IILII =I•�14i=- u.iu+, -:''', _ •'_n11gTiPal• -rr..21i1 -•,„� a 11 =: -� .- 1 -�� 11 -I.� �•I -� I-IIu,II a= II- 11= 1 =11-p a=1 -11 ;.0 ►_,;11;;fl -lid �►_,;il,- -II ;III a1 ► =11; 11= a1►= L,a1 ►;.I�II;;11- 11= 1.af;11 -11- 11;,11-1 �1 ►,;IIF1' �'�, 1 0' 15' 30' 80' 1111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111 90' NORTH SCALE 1'0 30' -0' LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANTING NOTES L ALL NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS ARE TO BE WATERED WITH AN AUTOMATIC WATER C015ERNUG LIGATION SYSTEM. 2. AU. NEW SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS ARE TO BE MULCHED WITH A MNI U11' DEPTH OF SPECIFIED MULCH. 3. MERE GROINDCOvER 44 PROVIDED. IT SHALL BE PLANTED AT THE SPECFIED SPACING TFIROLGHOJT THE BED, INCLUDING AREAS UNDERNEATH TREES AND SHRUBS, START FIRST ROW D' FROM EDGE OF BED. SECURE GRONDCOvER M GROLND, WITH METAL STAKES, TO PREVENT BIRDS FROM UPROOTING THEM. 4. TREES SHALL BE PLANTED A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM UNDERGROUND WATER SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE PIPES. 5. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REOJIR9MENT5. EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAD( 6RE / CONDITION adlEElaNG 1 PERIMETER BHNUBS 0 5 VIBLR AM TINUS 'SPRING BOUOJET' / v18URIUM ® 110 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS 'OTTO LUMEN' / OTTO LUMEN LAUREL O 50 PROS NtG0 TWO' /111G140 PINE e 22 PRJNJS LLSTAMCA / POR1I14A1 LAUREL PARKING LOT / AC12c1IT MIISIBB © 52 EUONYMUS ALATA Y:OMPACTA' 0 16 ESCALLaUA'NEUPORT MAW' / ESCALLONIA 0 31 CISTUS X HTBRIDUS / IWITE ROCKROSE 0 39 SPIRAEA BUMALDA'ANTHOIY WATERER' / SPIRAEA o 10 TMlJA OCCIDENTALIS'EMERALD' / AMERCAN ARBORVITAE jj/ GROUNDDDVER ARCTOSTAPHYLOSUVA -URSI /KNNWMIICK RUBUS CALTCNOIDES / BRAMBLE SEEDED LAWN MULCH AND WEED BARRIER A8 APPROVED 2' CAL STRONG CENTRAL LEADER MATCHED, FULL, 81B (3) 3/4' CADS, NAMED, FULL BIB 6' NT, MATCHED, FULL 18151Y TO BASE, 848 6' NT, MATCIED, FUJI t BUSHY TO BASE, 818 18' -21' NT, FULL FOLIAGE, BIB OR CONT. 18' -21' NT. I SPR, FULL FOLIAGE, 818 OR CON'. 6' 14T, FULL 4 BUSHY TO BASE, 81B OR CONT. 4' POTS • 24.00, FULL FOLIAGE CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE SYM QTY BOTANICAL NAME 1 COMMON NAME SIZE / CONDITION ® R 0 AggiggaSuMLQUIM# ACER T. GINIALA FLAME' / FLAME AMUR MAPLE RODECHRAGEEELBEll LAURJS NOBILIS / BAY LAUREL MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM' / MAGNOLIA EYEflGREER 1REE8 O 2 CJPRESEUS SEMPERVIRENS / ITALIAN CYPRESS FOUNDATION 8HRU80 • 8 BUXUS SEMPERVIRENS 'SUFFRJTICOSA' / TRJE MAW BOXWOOD © 13 CISTUS X NYBRIDUS / WHITE ROSE • 28 DESCNAMFSIA CESPITOSA BR7NZESCHLEIER / HAIR GRASS • 41 EUONTMU5 JAPONICUS MICROP4YLLUS' /BOX-LEAF EUONYhNS o 18 ILEX CORWTA'ROTUNDA' / DWARF CHINESE HOLLY 8 9 SARCOCCCCA WOOQ_RANA MMIILIS / SWEET SOX • 5 ROSEMARNUS OFFICINALIS / ROSEMARY • 32 SALVIA OFFICMALIS'WJRPURASCENS' / CO I MCN SAGE • 10 SANTOUNA ARENS / SANTOLINA O 3 SPIRAEA 81MMALDA'ANTHONY WATERER / SPIRAEA • 20 TEUCRUMI CNAIAEDRI'S / GER'IAHDER o 21 TIILLJA OCCIDENTALIS 'EMERALD' / AMERICAN ARBORVITAE 4A5 NOTED, tAS NOTED DROUNDCOVER PACHYSANDRA TER'IINALIS / JAPANESE SPURGE RUMS CALYCNOIDES / BRAMBLE WALDSTEMIA FRAGAROIDES / BARREN STRAILBERRY 2' CAL. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER MATCHED, FULL, BIB 5'4' HT, PRMIE INTO STANDARD TREE FORM, FULLY HEADED, BIB 2' CAL. STRONG CENTRAL LEADER MATCHED, FULLY. HEADED, 816 HT, MATCHED, FULL 4 BUSHY TO BASE, BIB IB' -2T NT, FULL FOLIAGE, B18 OR CONT. 18 ° -21' NT, FULL FOLIAGE, BIB OR CONT. 1 GALAOT, RILL FOLIAGE, BIB OR COLT. I GAL. POT, FULL FOLIAGE, CONT. I8' -21' NT, FULL FOLIAGE, 848 OR CONT. 5° -21' SPR, FULL FOLIAGE, 8IB OR CONT. 18'.21' NT, FULL FOLIAGE, BIB OR CON'. I GAL. POT, FULL FOLIAGE, CONT. 111'-21' NT, FULL FOLIAGE, BIB OR CONT. 18'-21' NT, FILL FOLIAGE, BIB OR CON'. I GAL. POT, FULL FOLIAGE. COLT. 6' NT, FULL I BUSHY TO BASE, 81B OR CON', 4' POTS • 24' OL, FULL FOLIAGE RECEIVE COMMONiTY DEVELOPMENT THIS PLAN IS FOR CODE SUBMITTAL TO GOVERNING JURISDICTIONS AND IS NOT FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION. 0' 15' 30' 80' 90' 1111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111 NORTH SCALE 1'2 30' -0' LANDSCAPE PLAN 1111111111111111111111111111 W CF A9 •GT * 100 Seale. AS NOTED Date' 3.30.07 MML/ Drawn Bp AE/-JM -1 Checked Byr MJIC Revisions. DEEM 2EVIEW 22206 OAR. 33007 L1.0 Sheet. 1 011 ANDOVER PAM( WEST L LOT 2 a car cP 11101M BOICART LSE A W E11130 MD L•06-08. SECCRDED NICER TECOTCEG ND. 20Z5CFSO60OD06, RECORDS OF. ICPG =p tt. 56.6106701 TAX EP DII310.000 o DAM 0006 13C 1403 2. 2010 TM 11133.4 1331344 CI3 L EDE 43E6 00341 EF 4. CODE EEwa& F=art YARD, B' amass ffYNT. B' . 6313.30 FEAR b 11158U1 li !ULM 40851, d (0/MO WEERT 2351) E. RPM 304310!0 FEI8TARAM IRIIREL 6400 S 6.000PNCT CA DA A3 KTIIIAE0V 1. SLUNG COIET.117613 -8 EPRICLEFED 561058 AREA 0111€86■ 6• IMO BtM• ¢3OOSF FEE A3 FOR lCN- SERARA1ED IEEE TEC 30231) . 10616 5. FR7NTACZ 301RH 604 EAST H EE3T 146' (TO MUM MA )425131 3a TO PL 6• MM. O73) 326• MDT0.T0. IS) I. 4Es. 13 30 . M • WO • M 443» (*VW. '800.0'006300 • 4270 30 14ammaE 131.DSOO E OK i013 mu ATC 101-SEPARATED IEE1 . • SPORE RE6151140 RAM& (TABLE 60U TTPE 31-8 CC 8131C'TICN - 613131113141. ROE NO 12.4110 . • D0H60R 0EMN' WALL 2 FR . - INTESCR 404408 CAL. NO 134118 - MERCK NM 005313 ND 314118 • FCCP c 10131CTWL IID Ram PRE 581613 EX1H11oR 15LLb (TAME 602) - DETOCES GREATER RIM 30.131 RATIO • GREATER 11144 b'. 3066 1)4414 6• • 46s OF MALL 0414 FEE LWRarEL1® PER 1044) EPR340.ERS. m. LA/CECNE 8II131306 - 331130 - B' UN MIME M 4.0'136156 - - R 6446 BF. FlooR ELeo 23 • REM •0 • FA/408 LOT 04.04 40 STALLS S &STALL MN WIVE 3313 08 EF) • PA31OG LOT 141160531'51131014 30 • PA3101 LOT 1488058 FFOIID: 306 X 6 •343E SF L PAM& 09C1IDE6 AO* 502118 1 DOST1PG FETAL) 5 FETAL 402001BEAME 144 FSOOED RC- FE6T41RNR) 1140014 25 6T41La VICINITY MAP 060.000 1III•.i11111IIJ!jJ _ FEDEST1004 LIK . 067 COCiEIE 1. .. :�� I I I II I I • 20 STALLS. TA STALLS SITE PLAN. PARK UJEST PLAZA SCALE: 1'.40' 486 TOTAL CARS NOTE: NEW LANDSCAPE ISLANDS TO WE SAW QLT, REPAIR AS REQ., PROVIDE SEALED EDGES LLERE REQ DU'P61ER • 6'- 640s S'•10'D 111 OR 6'• 344 IOGN 0 FEVEAL6 6` sm ■ Ti - L TATS STIEEL GATE LEAR GRAN N BODT INTO CQG 10d"'111,1t1iii111 Int 1111, 0-011 s T TALL STS GATE LEAF 8 TALL. FLUSH BOLT INTO CQCRETE DUMPSTER PLAN ;ELEVATION SCALE: V4`.I' SCALE V4'.I' ELEVATION V4•.I' 36904• DM. COE BOOTS ELEV4TION SCALE: V4'•I' 51141 GATE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4`•I'. • U 1 PARK WEST PIAZAISO.1 -A-2 REVISFD.DWG. 5311. 12211=06 8:35:54 AM 05 0 a n i •WW1 a 8 5 o' a d' EO 1-- O) coc. I M 40 •C N co co CN Z • 8U. RECEIVED' 'DEC' 11 2006' COMMUNITY SD -1 NORTH nT z��� isam BAKER BatEVARD 1- G= z nl 1 �IL,EU I I I i � h u r- IF] T(ETITr1m17nT-ITn d 1. =I JI111.1.11111U 111111111 I — C nl J i l i l l l i lfll l l i l i l l l if i - 1 +1-++ -I +HI H +F- -Ig+H i UI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I IUI I I 1 I 1 III 16L_1 1 1 u ®L1 • J -o d \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ *YA,V\\ \ \ A J o 1111111 A PROPOSED NEW BUILDING FOR: FITNESS CENTER PARK WEST PLAZA 150 ANDOVER PARK WEST TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PHONE (206) • 433 -8997 FAX (206) 246 -8369 kighlg12720 GATEWAY DRIVE SUITE 11 SEATTLE, WASHINGTOI 9 ' 8 . 1 6 architect STY DATE . • DESCRIPTION.- - PROJECT 09/22/06 BUBMIT TO OIiNER DRAWN BY • . DATE CHECKED BY :' D. KEHLE .. - DATE' 08 -22 -06 .. A PROPOSED NEW BUILDING FOR FITNESS CENTER PARK WEST PLAZA 150 ANDOVER PARK WEST TUKWILA, WASHINGTON • PHONE (206) 433 =8997 FAX (206) 246 -8369 gag 12720 GATEWAY DRIVE SUITE 111 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9 8 1 6 8 architect SYN DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT 0631 09/22/06 611BMIT TO OWNER DRAWN BY DAJWa1MN . - DATE 09 -2I -06 CHECKED BY D.KENLE 1 - DATE 09 -22 -06 30' SIGHT DISTANCE LINE 43' DEDICATED ROW. 30' SIGHT DISTANCE LINE ANDOVER PARK WEST LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE SYM OTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME OECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES 22 : ACER T. GDNALA FLAME' / FLAME AMR MAPLE 1 MAGNOLIA KOBUS / KOBUS MAGNOLIA. PRWIS 5. M. FUJI' / MT FWI FLOUERTG CHERRY 9 CRER:US RUBRA / RED OAK SIZE / CONDITION 2' CAL. 5TR046 CENTRAL LEADER MATCHED, FULL, 54B DECIDUOUS ACCENT TREES OI0 ACER CIRCNATUM / VIE MAPLE (3U 3/4' CANES, MATCHED, FULL, B4I5 EVERGREEN TREES l PEWS SYLVESTRIS / SCOTCH PINE b' HT, MATCHED, RILL 4 BUSHY TO BASE, B46 PSEUDOTSUS.A MENZIESII / DOUG FIR 6'14t, MATCHED, FULL 4 BU5i1Y TO BASE. 646 NEW RESTAURANT BUILDING LIMITS Cc WORK EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN SING / PERIMETER SHRUBS 0 10 vI6URd4P1 THUS 'SPRAG BOUGIET' / VIBURNUM 0 18 PRN1I5 LAUROCERAEU5 'OTTO LUYt(EN' / OTTO LUYKEN LAUREL 0 21 PINUS MUGO 7116O' / MAY,HO PINE 0 39 PRUNUS LUSITANICA / PORTUGAL LAUREL PARKING LOT / ACCENT aw3 . 0 53 EUONYM115 ALATA 'CCMPACTA' - o 11 ESCALLCNIA HELP, i DWARF' / ESCALLONIA 0 33 CISTUS X HYBRIDUS / WHITE ROCKROSE 0 48 SPIRAEA BIUMALDA 'ANTHONY WATERER / SPIRAEA o 10 . TNUA OCCIDENTALIS 'EMERALD' / AMERICAN ARBORVITAE 18' -2P HT, RILL FOLIAGE. 646 OR CONT. 18'-11' HT. 44 SFR, RILL FOLIAGE, 64B OR CONT. 1 � 6' HT. PILL 4 BUSHY TO BASE, 546 OR CONT. c c JuIui 1II11 11111h 1 LD9T5 . UKURC —+' I GROUNDCOVBI ARCTOSTAPHYLOS WA-U 4i'SI / KPNIKNNICK 4' POTS •24. OC, RILL FOLIAGE R1BU5 CALYCINOIDES / BRAMBLE SEEDED LAWN.: MULCH AND WEED BARRIER AS APPROVED TREE RETENTION FENCE 30' SIGHT DISTANCE LINE MULCH PATH dID.. 1 i lrt- 4--4.g fi =n °T AI ►� nnn��i 417. ►ltP4_,A nnir1Itair` ti- 1►i . L GG G s.:.,O.GGGG 41► '2.'1 . �r 11►a4_1FI , 11„ ►jl ►II. -11.,, 11 ►�;T�41► llrl -11, ►4401 -11 =LL, IIeNo. l :A PLANTING NOTES I. ALL NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS ARE TO BE WATERED UN AN AUTOMATIC WATER CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2. ALL NEW SHRUB AND GROWDCOVER AREAS ARE TO BE MULCHED WITH A MNIMAJl r DEPTH OF SPECIFIED MULCH. 3. WHERE GROINDCOVER 15 PROVIDED, IT SHALL BE PLANTED AT THE SPECIFIED SPACING THROUGHOUT THE BED, INCLUDING AREAS WDER•EATH TREES AND SHRUBS, START FIRST.RCW 0' FROM EDGE OF BED. SECURE GROINDCOVER IN GRAND, AS NECESSARY, TO PREVENT BIRDS FROM UPROOTING THEM. 4. TREES SHALL BE PLANTED A MINIMIM OF. 10 FEET RCM WDERGROWD' - WATER SEVER AND STORM DRAINAGE FIFES. 5. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REGUIRE'ENTS. RECEivE0 'DEC/ 2006 IIIIIIII1 11 11 5' 30' • 60' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII .90' NORTH SCALE 1'= .30' -0' LANDSCAPE PLAN 'STATE OF WAAosTc Scale. AS NOTED Date. 1129.06 Drawn By. MML Checked By. M-K Revisions. DESIGN RE/EN 1129,06 L1.0 Sheet. 1 of 1 ELOPED C.NPOPF SMLAR TO ADE • BART CANOPT (STEEL 111)1 GUM PANT® S EET PETAL ' RACIM2 (PU. PM USER TO MATCH PETAL PROFILE 04 ACME R ETAL PANT TO 11.4101 COLOR (R3) SPNOREL. GLOB - WIMPS GLASS SPANDREL GLASS UJEST ELEVATION SCALE VIS'.I' FORT L ER TO MATOIPETAL PTd:FILE 04 ACM PPETAL • PANT TO PPATOP CGOR (P -3) __ -_ MI � I I ���m p „ , r 0 = �iiilll�I n H�0!01 r�r r n n n , r r r rI SPNOREL. GLOB - WIMPS GLASS SPANDREL GLASS UJEST ELEVATION SCALE VIS'.I' FORT L ER TO MATOIPETAL PTd:FILE 04 ACM PPETAL • PANT TO PPATOP CGOR (P -3) • '- PACKED TLT4P CONCRETE OP-22 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: VI6•.I' ST1130. MATEFIAL COLOR PI TOP PANTED RANING COLOR P2 SPDOPN 111.1-1P C0CFEIE COLOR P3 - FORT LNBS N TILT-IP PANTED COLOR P4 PETAL CANOPY PANTED COLOR P5 CLEAR ARXZEO AMMO/ - . COLOR WACO 440 MATC3410 SPANDREL PASTED TLT.lP COY#1E (P-2) — SPANDRB GLA)6 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: VIb'.V — )PAIDFEL GLASS - SPANDREL GLASS . S+VI AB ACPI PETAL �- PANTED TILT-UP CO OEM (P -L SPAICTE.L GLASS — SPA/D1EL GLASS ECM LOPER TO P(4101 PETAL . . FRC LE GN AQE FETAL PANT TO MATCH COLOR (P.3) PETAL ELANOG PAWED TO M4104 AOE PETAL (P -U PANTED TLT.P COPC ETE (P -22 r C0CFEIE PEWAL • EAST ELEVATION SCALE: VI6'.P Y Dd (CO.OR TO M41CN' • ADJACENT EFFACE COLOR) • CLONES. L EBTORT WOW& GEAR ANC MO AILMIIM W 1ILLATED GLALL • PANTED TLT•1P C0 IE (P -2) 00 N N • 0 CD t 0 41 A -2 LNkW1COamwrb\CAD(713O611831 PARK WEST PP A7A)14 .i. 7 rmr: • Warm. o.s..... p „ , r 0 n r r�r r n n n • '- PACKED TLT4P CONCRETE OP-22 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: VI6•.I' ST1130. MATEFIAL COLOR PI TOP PANTED RANING COLOR P2 SPDOPN 111.1-1P C0CFEIE COLOR P3 - FORT LNBS N TILT-IP PANTED COLOR P4 PETAL CANOPY PANTED COLOR P5 CLEAR ARXZEO AMMO/ - . COLOR WACO 440 MATC3410 SPANDREL PASTED TLT.lP COY#1E (P-2) — SPANDRB GLA)6 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: VIb'.V — )PAIDFEL GLASS - SPANDREL GLASS . S+VI AB ACPI PETAL �- PANTED TILT-UP CO OEM (P -L SPAICTE.L GLASS — SPA/D1EL GLASS ECM LOPER TO P(4101 PETAL . . FRC LE GN AQE FETAL PANT TO MATCH COLOR (P.3) PETAL ELANOG PAWED TO M4104 AOE PETAL (P -U PANTED TLT.P COPC ETE (P -22 r C0CFEIE PEWAL • EAST ELEVATION SCALE: VI6'.P Y Dd (CO.OR TO M41CN' • ADJACENT EFFACE COLOR) • CLONES. L EBTORT WOW& GEAR ANC MO AILMIIM W 1ILLATED GLALL • PANTED TLT•1P C0 IE (P -2) 00 N N • 0 CD t 0 41 A -2 LNkW1COamwrb\CAD(713O611831 PARK WEST PP A7A)14 .i. 7 rmr: • Warm. o.s..... ELEVATIONS 2 . SCALE IN FEET I 118E- PV $0M14 RIM: 27.20 I.E. 11.20 (48" 5) 10' unUTY EASEMENT: (PLAT) • • WV I(2)CP 10 PORTIONS. OF THE SE1 /4 SE1 /4 OF SECTION 23 AND NE1 /4 NE1 /4 OF. SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY WASHINGTON N 89'54'57 "E 477.91'(') 477.91(C) 60' TUKWILA PKWY BUILDING SETBACK LINE (PLATS A.I.P. NOS. 1 & 2) 1 9 • CH GM 8 "P "12 "PL P "P 8 "P 8 P 10 "P h> (: O P 2d - P 09 ESMT. FOR UTLITIES PER AMENDMENTS UNDER REC. N0: 5332848. 5500900 &_6138154 0 0 0 4 12 -P 12'P EASEMENTS LOCUS OF EASEMENT OF UNSPECIFIED WIDTH TO PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY FOR OVERHEAD TELEPHONE FACILITIES UNDER RECORDING NO. 5317883. - • • • GRANTEE: - • • - PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RECORDING NO.• 8610130440 A RIGHT -OF -WAY 10' IN WIDTH HAVING 5 FEET OF SUCH WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF A. CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS THE CENTERLINE OF GRANTEE'S FACILITIES AS CONSTRUCTED OR TO BE CONSTRUCTED (AFFECTS PARCEL C). • SIDEWALK AND SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA UNDER RECORDING N0. 9511300537. AFFECTS WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY SIDES • OF PARCEL C. -CORRECTIONS TO DESCRIPTIONS HAVE BEEN APPLIED. 15' UTILITY EASEMENT TO UNDISCLOSED GRANTEE. THIS EASEMENT APPEARS ONLY UPON THE MAP ACCOMPANYING THE CITY OF TUKWILA SIDEWALK AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT EASEMENT UNDER RECORDING NO. 9511300537. NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOR SUPPORTING INFORMATION IS GIVEN. 10' UTILITY EASEMENT DELINEATED ON FACE PLAT OF ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK N0. 2. SETBACK LINES (BUILDING LINES) ARE DELINEATED ON -THE FACE OF PLATS AS NOTED. WEST 10' OF PARCELS A AND B. CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA BY OUIT CLAIM DEW OF GIFT UNDER. RECORDING NO. 8307110471. . ABANDONED EASEMENT 27 IN WIDTH, AS NOTED: v: `- I a LP WCBo-I 'n CB • lc cr Q i ' 12 "M a CC w � 1a N o I '12" I it Iv- < • Io I3., °, I Z . FH OI GP'v 40'1 EMMEN NI CORNER • NE3/4NE%4 ORIGINAL PLAT BOUNDARY SDMH Rim: 27.40 I.E. 11.31 (48" N) I.E. UNABLE (48" S) BOTTOM: 11.24 • NW CORNER NE'/4 NEV4 SECTION 26 (PLAT) -- BUILDING FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION • S0.60' • SOUTH 803E BUILDING, WESTERLY DOORWAY TR. 1 s 8825.27- E TR. 2 ►..x'_ SEC. 23 Y '� . • SEC. 26 • ABANDONED CITY OF SEATTLE PIPELINE RIGHT -OF -WAY PER - RECORDED SURVEY 9012319002,." AND PLAT .A.I.P. NO. 1 9.17 AT BLDG Ce4. S88"25'27 "E '7.05' AT BLDG CDR. • SEE DETAIL TRACT 3 A.I.P. NZL -1 TRACT 8 Aa:P, Nn. 2 1, SEC. 23- T23N -R4E, WM 17 SEC. 26723N-R4E, WM .Y N 8825'27' W 853.70' (PER PLAT A.I.P. N0. 1) DETAIL 1 • C60_ • J ASPHALT - • RIM: 27.60 \ 1 .I.E. •11.80 (48 ". N) 8'M 18 "CH 16 "ORN BUILDING FINISH 814 • ELEVATIONS 5188' IO"CH a NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING, a "ORN CENTER OF BUILDING, • DOORWAY nil iti. II SI 11 _i_:;a1611051mt ilitc.,;_ 4. N .....� •�.kx: , r' ILA" GB v p ate® ...„ AlYYT1i ._ es 3ti�ZTA7 %A �R: ►TAtAl� `f?�yZ> i^ r i g z rA L I "000 0 © ©6M $'M 6M , - - - (3)7591 6 "ORN 12 "M 14 M 4- M(2)12" 12 "M PV P V P (2)GP 8"P. ESILT. FOR UTLITIES PER AMENDMENTS UNDER REC. NO. 5332848. 5500900 & 6138154 • 8 - �-t1 -- � 40.00' 1086.97(MEAS) 1087,00 ')PLAT) BAKER BLVD BUILDING SETBACK LINE • (PLAT A.I.P. NO. 2) 606.97' N 88'25'27' W - BASIS OF BEARINGS . 440.00 440.02 • LEGEND TR. .2 TR. 1 DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT VISITED THIS SURVEY 23 0 24 ANDOVER PARK EAST 25 MONUMENT OF RECORD . FOUND MONUMENT IN CASE FOUND REBAR WITH. CAP 0' SET REBAR - W\CAP. MARKED LS 17364 IC1'o • IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE - WM 93. - WATER METER - FH-0- FIRE HYDRANT - .WVE,' WATER VALVE "E WATER VAULT • 0P • BOLLARD YLk(- YARD LIGHT .LP):(. LIGHT POLE PPO POWER POLE - TSB ® TRAFFIC BOX pJ8® - POWER JUNCTION BOX S a SIGN'` rspaz,=., TRAFFIC LIGHT . . 14B 0 ELEVATION DATUM NAVD 88 'CONTROLLING KING COUNTY SURVEY CONTROL BM 17405 -6. BASIS OF BEARINGS • MONUMENTED CENTERLINE•OF BAKER BOULEVARD HELD AT N 88'2527" W PER PLAT OF ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK N0. 2 AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 71 OF PLATS, PAGES -68 & 69, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A - TRACT 2, ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 66 OF PLATS. PAGE(S) 36, IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 10 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8307110471. PARCEL B: _ TRACT 2, ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK N0. - 2.. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 71 OF PLATS. PAGE(S) 68 AND 69, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT 711E WEST 10 FEET THEREOF 'CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8307110471. ' PARCEL C: TRACT 1, ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT _•THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 71 OF PLATS, PAGE(S) 68 AND. 69,.IN • KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. FLOOD INSURANCE NOTES .ALL OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDED BY THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS SURVEY IS IN ZONE X - ARE DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. SEE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP #5303300328D, PANEL 328 OF 650, EFFECTIVE DATE SEPTEMBER 29, 1989 AS .PREPARED BY FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA). SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION TO. MUSTANG LLC, MT. ADAMS HOLDINGS, LLC AND CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE (4) IN ACCORDANCE WITH • "MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYS," JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND ACSM IN 1992, AND OF TABLE A THEREOF. AND (9) PURSUANT TO THE ACCURACY STANDARDS (4S ADOPTED BY ALTA AND ACSM AND IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THIS CERTIFICATION) OF AN INSERT • URBAN SURVEY, WITH REGARD TO BOUNDARIES AND LOCATIONS OF - BUILDING, UTILITIES AND OTHER CULTURAL FEATURES. TELEPHONE JUNCTION -BOX • • SANITARY MANHOLE ® STORM MANHOLE -0 .'CATCH BASIN CONIFER .P - PINE' F- FIR 'DECIDUOUS M - MAPLE - 0 - OAK W - WILLOW . HAW - HAWTHORN' CH - CHERRY MAD - MADRONA .8 - BIRCH UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE •• UNDERGROUND POWER WATER LINE • GAS LINE SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION TO MUSTANG LLC, MT. ADAMS HOLDINGS, :1.10 AND CHICAGO TITLE .INSURANCE COMPANY. ' THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT I5 BASED WERE MADE (I) 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH "MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA /ACSM LAND - TITLE SURVEYS." JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND ACSM IN 1992. AND OF TABLE A THEREOF, AND (ii) PURSUANT TO THE ACCURACY STANDARDS (AS ADOPTED BY ALTA AND ACSM AND. • IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF-THIS CERTIFICATION) OF AN INSERT URBAN SURVEY, WITH REGARD TO PROPERTY CORNERS,. DELINEATION OF EASEMENTS AND BUILDING SETBACK LINES. - DATE: CY6,7,01---- REGI TRATI NN NO. 17364 NOTES. ' THIS SURVEY EXCEEDS CURRENT FIELD .TRAVERSE STANDARDS . • CONTAINED IN .WAC 332-130-090. PER WAC 332 -130 -100, A SIX SECOND TOTAL STATION (THEODOLITE AND COINCIDENT EOM) WAS USED FOR ALL FIELD MEASUREMENTS. THIS INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN ADJUSTMENT ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND HAS BEEN CALIBRATED' ON A N.G.S. BASELINE WITHIN 7HE LAST YEAR. . TITLE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY COMMITMENT FOR TIlL.E INSURANCE ISSUED BY CHICAGO nos INSURANCE COMPANY AS A SECOND COMMITMENT UNDER ORDER NO. 1131536. DATED JULY 7,-2004. . • ABBREVIATIONS. A.I.P. ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL. PARE: RECEIVED (P) - PER FACE OF PLAT : (C) -CALCULATED THIS SURVEY.; - OECi11. A.P. ANGLE POINT n4,, "'� _ '" art CHS • 12507B8-REDROAD 8167E101 BELLEVUE WA 90005-:7606 ' ALTA /ACSM SURVEY . °Ns ENGINE RSwc. 78. (425,637-8683 FAX (429 687 -9884 DM BY FOR AC /VLG FATIGUE - CHKD BY WONT /HHB TECHNOLOGY INC. DATE 08/06/04 JOB N0. 600320 SCALE SHEET 1" = 50' 1 OF 1 SEC. 23 & 26, T 23 N, R 4 E,. W.M. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1- 800 -424 -5555 COVERSHEET. OF PARK WEST PLAZA A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23 AND NE 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M, CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1' -50' 25 50 100 vaNmr MAP DEUA■8910'33' R.50.00' L -771.11" ' . PPROJOESETFR`JTIOTe— ELEVATION DATUM NAVD 88 - CONTROLLING KING COUNTY SURVEY. CONTROL BM 17405 -6. BASIS OF BEARINGS MONUUENIED CENTERLINE OF BAKER BOULEVARD H L) AT IT 86'25'2? W PER PLAT OF ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL' P6191 NO. 2 AS RECORDED 01 VOLUME 71 OF PLATS. PAGES 88 & 69, RECORDS Cr KING CCUPITY, WASHINGTON. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (New) LDT 1: Q .Z 0 Z w a. 0.0 3 o z § Q �[ cs oo �. TRACT 2, MOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK N0. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT. THEREOF RECORDED W VOLUME 68 OF P1A15, PAGE(S) 34'01 TONG COUNTY, WASMNGTO10 EXCEPT THE WE51 10 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE 011 OF TUKWRA EN DEED RECORDED UNDER RECO 90 G N0. 807110471. • - AND 1)441 PORI014 -OF TRACT 2. ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK 60. 2, ACCORDPG TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 71 OF PLAT5, PACE(S) 68 AND 69,1■ KING COUNTY. osmium. DING NCR HERLY OF 11E FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE COLINDMING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 2; THENCE NORTH or or or FIST. 38.94 FEET A1ONG DE 0000 TUNE OF SAD TRACT 2 10 7161E PUNT OF BEGINNING OF HEREIN [(SCR01ED- -UNE; TF4]10E NORTH 88. 51' 02' WEST, 440.00 FEET To THE WEST TIE -0F SAID 112.C1 2 AS CONVEYED 80 THE CITY OF TUKWIA BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8307110471. AND THE TERMINUS. LOT 2: TRACT 1. Ag00V51 .INDUSTRIAL PARK N0. 2. ACCORDING 10 71E RAT . THEREOF RECORDED IN 'A IE 71 OF PLATS. PAGE(S) 68 AND 69, N 11LAT PORTION OF TRACT 2. ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK NO 2. TO THE PLAT THEREOF. RECORDED IN VOLUME 71 OF RA5, PAGE(S) 68 AND 69, N K9D COUNTY, WASHINGTON. LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED UNNE: COMYENC90 -AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 2: THENCE NORTH 01' 05' 06' EAST, 38.94 FEET ALONG THE FAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 2 TO 116UE POINT OF BEGINN910 OF HEREIN OESCRGD LIE; INDUCE NORTH 86' 51. 02' WEST. 440.06 FEET TO THE WEST LIE OF SAID TRACT 2 AS COt1VLYED TO 11E CITY OF TUKYALA BY DEED RECOROFD UNDER RFCODPIG No. 8307110471, AND THE 113600.5. INDEX OF MEETS Cl of 4 COVER SHEET C2 of 4 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN C3 of 4 PREIJMINARY WATER AND SANITARY SEWER PLAN . C4of4 NOTES AND DETAILS EARTHWORK OUANT111ES CUT 2.500 Cr Ell - 2,00 CY NOTE: THE STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION AND WATER OUAIJTY FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT INCLUDING THE EXISTING ACME BOWLING AND NEW FITNESS AND RETAIL FACILITIES WERE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED UNDER. ORIGINAL PERMIT SUBMITAL FOR PHASE .1 (ACME BOWUNG) CONSTRUCTION. L- Z Ai W CV z CO 00 CO N �� N N Yvv bg g UNLIT C ME IC.T TCC E CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY ALE FOR OBTAINING PER1 ITS FROM TIE WASMNGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR REMOVING AVID RERAUD ALL SURVEY MONUMENTATIDN THAT MAY BE MNt76It1.1 EN CONSTRUCTION AC1MTY. PURSUANT TO WAC 332 -120. APPLICATIONS 111157 BE COMPLETED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMTI5 TO REMOVE MONUMENTS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE WASHNGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, OR BY CONTACTING THEIR OFFICE BY TEIEPIONE AT (206) 802 -1190. RECEIVED TECi 200.5• `i & F' N's � AM�Ii, dt 0 • CAU1101* - • L OF ALL 051910 MUTES BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING WHET SHOWN ON THESE PLANS E LOCATION, 6 NOT BY POT OLING THE D� URTIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.' THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING URUY LOCATE 0 1 -800- 424 -5555 AND THERE POI1OUNC . ALL OF THE EXISTIO UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UNITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT COIEUT.IS FIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID MIMES AS SOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED IF =NUMB SOUL OCCUR CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT BARON. TO VARWION. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 10 RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO P600000PO WITH CONSTRICTOR. WA5HONGION STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PUBLIC LAND SURVEY OFFICE 1111 WASHINGTON STREET S.. . P.O. BOX 47060 OLYMPIA WASHINGTON 98504 -7060 . UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL UONUYEN1S 5514,0CEO. REMOVED, OR DESIRO100 SHALL BE REPLACED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR AT TIE COST AND AT THE DIRECTOR OF THE CONTRACTOR PURSUANT TO THESE REGULATIONS THE APPROPRATE FORMS FOR REPIACEMED OF SAID M CN/U1ENTA11DN SHALL ALSO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR 8 E a DA1E'APPROVED: 0 15 30 60 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN OF PARK WEST PLAZA A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23 AND NE 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST WM, CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1'-30' ° efk 6 ° ° ANDOVER PARK WEST j SD :SD: SD :SD: -Oa VIC m r-+cv :25QiY:_S5 'fi -',: ":" Norm' 30' q It 11 Ill . 11l 1111 lll. 111 Ill gr.g fiat IAr. NEW RTNESS CENTER 30,000 S.F. FF ELEV. - 29.5 x 501'05'061V ° A 501'02'481v —q1 dwq Dale/Time 12/ THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE VEIN 7NE CRY OF MAMA ENWIEERINC 06610N. APPROVED EY: DATE APPROVED PRELIMINARY WATER AND SANITARY SEWER PLAN OF 0 15 30 ' 6 EMU MEM n,_. _,.w. I.E. 6.66 (12' N) I.E. 6.56(12' 5) EX. 12 S.S. 0 0.65 EX.' 8' WATER A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23 AND NE 1/4 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 -EAST W.M, ' CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Y. •,¢it s. �C4 -r - ,___.SD F- F EX.-17 5.5. , 6 EXISTING IRRIGATION I CONTROL VALVES 250.72 - • CITY I EvECTOR WILL DETERMINE - .IF EXISTING WATER METER, RPBA AND SERVICE TO REMAIN OR BE 'ELOCATED. - - 88.70 EX W.M.6 8 NOT AND 1.5 SERVICE LINE 6. FIRE LINE TO ROOM WITH TY IRO NG 1E 8' '- =2 .74 TO'6 "•S= 1.5 f =25.0 EX. SIDE SEWER STUB 1£ =79.49 _ CONNECT TO AS TUB. CONTRACTOR TO T. CO STR .rl ®I GIN' ER I IA Y NO 10 DI Ai .w 6,000 SF., F3..00R E..EV. - 29.0 PP'05. La 110 OF EXIST. 1.4 RE • . PRIOR T CONSTRUCTION VERIFY SIZE, DEPTH AND LOCATION. NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY CONFLICTS. 22 II 6" rvs 55101 .3 . RIM -1263 =19.55(IN) . • 8. =19.45(OUT) E70STING DDCV, FCC AND PA/ WITHIN • COMMON 6k10' ' VAULT. - MIN. REPLACEMENT CF VAULT LID WITH 2 -3', OR 1- 4',,4' U . C,. M•,EL N0. 4000 GALLON - ' RIM =29.5 1 =24.8 (IN) IE =24.7 (OUT) VERIFY CONDITION OF EXISTING FCC,- DDCV VAULT AND SERVICE. CITY INSPECTOR WILL DETERMINE IF THEY NEED TO BE' REPLACED. 813C0 RIM =.SOS I0 =24.3 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, VERIFY' SIZE. TYPE. DEPTH AND LOCATION OF EX. FIREUNE. NOTIFY ENGINEER OF CONFLICTS. NEW 15 10 6" PVC • SIDE SEWER 0 2.05 MIN. RIM..27.6 EXISTING SPRINKLER ROOM. INSTALL NEW DMA IN BUILDING EXJM.4 WATER Y. AND WATER MANHOLE ND tNNG RETMIN 1 METER OSING GATION ALVES R TO ,I CATE STUB R TO 0 TOTION AND DEPTH. B SPRINKLER IDE SEWER 0 2.0. Its PF+s,N �u :I Diautrilutst Z.1 tat -EX. WATER SERVICE TO BE REMOVED EW GREASE INTERCEPTOR U.V. CO. MODEL N0. 577 -CA 600 GALLON . D3. RIM =29.8 `(-NEW 43 LF 6 "-NB- .10=26.8 NN) • _ - SIDE SEWER 0 2.05 MDT. . 10 -26.7 (OUT) 02 DUMPSTER - - NEW FRTESS CENTER 30,000 S.F. FF ELEV. -29.5 SSCD £ =19.23 89BfAL D 1-8•11' 1-8' CATE CONC. 18 -29.4 Wf20.0 S0112'481Y . CALL BEFORE DIGGING (800) 424 -5555 NOTE: FIELD LOCATE EXISTING IRRIGATION METERS AND RECONNECT TO NEW IRRIGATION SYSTEM. RECEIVED DEC 11 2006' THESE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF TUKWRA EHGBIEERING DM:MON. • APPROVED BY: • DATE APPROVED: 5 roll; h.; 1/1101:121ri h 11; Ogi ; P' e 151i 41/4 ; 5i:10m r! 111 g;!!ii Phic ! 4r: :5 Pa reg 0.6 A 0 a City of 0 �: : Tukwila . mm -,mu, aa.0 N-'I o ,1. ... DESIGN Number Of Meals j( Waste Floc x Retention x Storage = Capacity • II FORMULA- • Per Peak Hours Rate . Time Factor . In Gallons SIZING/CHART Fg ° =T bd O W OF THESE STANDARDS. )MPRESSIVE STRENGTH.fc = 4500 PSI RARE 60. - ADE 65. AIDING CODE ENIMUM STRUCTURAL DESIGN LOADINC RECAST CONCRETE WATER AND WASTE /HEEL WITH 30% IMPACT PER AASHTO. ER PRIOR TO START UP OF SYSTEM. PLY & INSTALL ALL PIPING E SAMPLING T (CEPT DISHWASHERS. BLACK WATER SI • 9 N1^ { II6�II Ix OGN HEx' ill1.172114 I id �1I 1._ nil i M EL 1 5 YasC. iIii.... 51 a= Arvaavw B. SHELTON 1 GREASE INTERCEPTOR SINGLE VAULT WITH DOUBLE BAFFLE a ���`� ��`,^ar . I1 II r I tsevwcraw taw:a4v a—i . ;:I� ■ � , fJ I1 ffl �^ � l � g iiii38 „ 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES oplpnsd Down NO ra Chocked _ DKB Appoond De.11 -31-06 Norlxontcl AS SWAN No. • i By ma. Ippr, ReNebn PARK WEST PLAZA SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188 P: \12000e \12631\preliminary \12631- d2.DWG Dote 0no:12 /6/2006 10:14 MI Scele:l• - 1 RESIES %ref: ,x12631- blslog don- b.dwg, 212631- 1.dwg. x12631- pe.dwg, 211672- e.dwg, x11672 -t.dwg NOTES AND DETAILS OF 100 ANDOVER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON NW flm ur CEIIECtE • L 1 -2 L AREA: +/ -6,090 S.F. SEATING INTERIOR SEATING DNNG COINER DNNG - 20 TOTAL D!@G SEATH 186 : PATIO SEATING PATIO 76 TOTAL SEAT G 7Q SOUTHCENTER, SEATTLE, WA FLOOR PLAN A 9001 �LIY mcmarms oK 1490 -6 41 / 0,•, MOOT LEOP.90ME COSTA 0E9A'9I9MMA 92926 Phone (719) 414 -4969 FAX (144) wa =3ieo DESIGN REVIEW: DEC. 07., 2006 aalmFaiaASm , I'I ._ A Fvbl I I i% !1_��1/ OWEST ELEVATION �•. r-0 09. rrE�9AM 0 AMINE 1.1.41D1 e1101 DAOW FOR aaER CHM DANN CEMB FERR mOu ROMS 00 0 ®r 10443 1FT OA mom mum DAC FOR aAETT OM, WPM. WEER 1 70441 WOOS EXTERIOR FINISHES FS-1 STUCCO MANi 870 COLOR, ODTGT COLOR 70 MATCH MERLIN WI 1 W'B PANT 0016380 R1.13LE GOLD FNWi SMOOTH SAND F5-7 BTICCA , rMNT 670 COLOR. MTaM COLOR 70 MATOI BHBiW 401LAM PAM 00000 EMPIRE GOLD 191014. BF100114 SAND F8-3 STICCENWF. eTO • COLOR O STOM caaz TO MATO1 .. BBNMN MOOR: PANT FMSK 61100711 SAID F8-4 5T5C00 . MAMA. STO QBT011 COLOR TO Fl4TO1 PRATT R L.APEERT CCLOW •PCR -II94- OBSIDIAN PNEM 611UOIN Dl -2 DOORAMMOD SYSTEM . COLOR BLACK ...comp P41 FETAL TYPE. 1646- GA 301 Al eTAHEee STEEL MONA B12blm 11-3 FETAL TYPE le -IS GA. MEET FETAL FIRMA : -' eT -1 STOW rvHNER) MAMA OLTMED SIGN .. iTPE •OBV -70001 COUNTRY LEDGESTCHE COLORS CARREL 8T -3 SIG NE OSL9CTRT7 ' MAMA VICFORNN.DESIGN TYPE EXT. INDOW SILL, BABE 1 WALL CAP COLO2 TAN MEM 5F100171 • DOME ME BBORMFK M NF SI E18LA - WSeBT COLOR. eIIFLOOER TELL001 NOTE, 6Y+urt MDE R SEPE RATE REVIEW ANO APPROVAL V CMG OUR 470Y w ALL-D 1SMW FRED 01.00116-1 • ©• R6u3 COME AIEFMWel@i6-1 NORTH ELEVATION OSTMIa ERR .TONAL Clog ra sa AaHSMORD Ta 43a741 t FREER ' C I 10 MIL MS • '‘. 1111111111111111 nil l II III I— _. En- ROr9)ma5aeSI • ma■ma =�_= ._= 1, momnm = =I— 1' w i1wIN1•m���������•• =li�� =4•li �� ∎ =liiImmli��va4� L•YY— ,0001110.1ll=m10m NMWE Nwe•aa1E7i msaS1mE19��iFaSt9agamorlMim EV119om osIBLII rarloEl9IAN EF34� 55Salflpmil , 1ir -.RRr t9 ASOEl9 e.or=mal9l ••■ l . .rOM m8�pca8mie • �me�m8�m8�ev --�as-�m8�.eoll�.1•,�F�m�—m� maa>•= �acorno.rli�= w— �YOe�r�cs�r�c.rmo.� pap=: 11-!u — o�_�CM —. A TtlllRaal 00 ' V lode ooM MOM1T ERE39 TO 3814 Pal California PIZZA KITCHEN SOUTHCENTER,. SEATTLE, WA • EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCEER W4*VA DONOR' RIFT ARCMILCIS 8M. • 3190 -R 3RPO4771.0OR OWE STA RESA COMDR. 97676 W SCALE: 1/4 = • Plum (714) 444-1900 FAX (714) 144-3160 DESIGN REVIEW: DEC. 07, 2006 6J 0 nE1AA9 B• e.r u9AAnwnP� R, s47 UWCILI3 47.0 6 IMMO RABID 947 AS 1FDNCK 1M139 n DIOD RAZE ID 947 AR. EAST ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISHES P6-1 07CCO TIARA 9TO COLO6 CUSTOI CCLCR TO MATCH 0I4E61N pRLWS PANT 9016390 61O13-E COLD PNBW!MOM 9ND P13-1 STUCCO MAMA STO - CCLOR CUSTOM COLOR TO MATCH . SPERM 01114,413 PANT 4611000 error COLD - PNSK 911006.1 SAM PS -3 0111000A4i STO" . COLOR. Q3T0P1 CCLOR 10114701 BBAIA91 PIOORE PANT MEN 61120N14 SAID 19-4 STCCO . • TW4P 0tO CUSTOM COLOR TO PLtTOl PRATT 4 LAMBERT COLOR. 'POR- 2294-000 OBSOI/P/ . EX -1 DOORASOWI eT9TBM .. COLOR BLA° 1'"CD® - M -I FETAL TYPE -16-19 W 309 49 STAN -ESB STEEL FN1914 BREW" M -3 PETAL TYPE 16 -1S w SWEET PETAL... 6T -1 6TOE 1v8EB0 ' • MMTA OLTIAZED StME TYPE. 06,20001 COUNTRY LEflGt9T0E CCLOR CAROM. St -3 SUM OI190:tT) man vILTOSYI DESIGN TYPE TOM WOOD ELL BASE 4 WALL CAP cam TAM MIEN !MOM v -1 A4NN0a I'YWA 96 ..LA - PRESET COL.Ob SUAQIER TE LOD NOTE 6IGNAGE UDER SE'ERATE REV®I AND AFYT00✓AL MG 61.65 47.06• PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION - SERVICE YARD WALLS �• .. r-0 california PIZZA KITCHEN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SOU THCENTER, SEATTLE, 'WA SCALE: 1/4. 1' -0• MEEK LAM 000017 TREY AR00TECT3 NC 3190 -0 AIRPORT . LOOP MIRE COSTA a CALFO09A 92025 PPa• (714) 444-1100 BR (114) 444 -3160 DESIGN REVIEW: DEC. 07, .2006 0 ho, to o to to nn nr to ha oH'C ho b.o ho 'bo to o ho Dg= .ho o to to to . to 0 to bo_ o ho h. to to bo . ho . ho to ho • to • o to to - ho b.o ho to to _to to b.o ho to ho .. -ho to to to to to ho to - ho. to to to to " to .o ho ho to 'to. ho ho to ho ho o ho A ho to to to to . ho to 'ho . b.o h9 7-9. ho ho to ho• "ho bo to to ho. to to - to ho ho to to to to ho b.o . to to to ho "ho. to ho to to Co to to ho ho ho ka b.o ho to b.o b.o bo b.o b.o • b.o b.o to b.o to to to b.o ho bo ho ho ho ho to ao to .b.o to • b.o ' to to to b.o ho b.o to to ho to ho b.o b.o O h, . hi • b., .h, to ,ho ho ho h ho ho to b.o `ho to o o h, hi 0 ho to h, h1 ho califOPni8 PIZZA KITCHEN 6,090 S.F. ho ho h, ho ho h, ho' ho h2 b.o • ho b3 ho ho . h. ho ho h2 he to to IA 3.. ho o 2y h, ' t1 hi h, h, b., hi h, b., h, h,' h, h, h, h, b.2 h2 h2 t, h, b.3 b.3 b.2 b.2 h, t. b. h3 h2 h2 b.o to b.o to to bi7oThi.o ho b.o ' ho h, to b.o to ho b., .1, b.o ho to b1 k1 ho to to b.o " to ,. ho b.o b.o to to b o. ho to b o to to b o ' ho b.o b o to to b.o to to . ho b.o " b.o ho ho to to to to to to h, ti h, t, h, bT hs b3 b.z h, " 1, ' h, hi 117 b.. • : 11.2 h, 1.e t9 to h2 b, ' h, ho ho to to ho. ho to to to b to t o ho o ho to to ; to to to, to to to to to to to to to ho to to to ho ho • to ho ho ho ho ho ho - to ho ho to ho ho ho to ho to to to to to \. b.o /bo ho 3s h1 to to ho to to to • to to 1.7 bT to b.2 bn h, h, to ho. b.o ho ' to. to to to ho b.o Is 32 15 • , he h. 13.2 721 h, h, to ho - b.o to to to • to to to " b.o b.2 he 1.9 ho h. . h2 b., h, h, ho ho ho ho ho ho . ho ho ho ho 1.7 1.13 - 1.3 bT h. h2 h, h, h, ho _ ho b.o b.o to to to . ho ho b.o 9 he' ha h3 h2 hr t, h, to to to to to ho to to ho ho hs "bs to h 3 h h2 , " , h, �\to ho 11.3 ho ho ho h2 b.o to to ' ho to to h, to to .b.o ho bo bo ho b.o. ho• to ho ho bo ha b.o b.a bo ho ho. o h, 'b_i h3 h3 b.2 h, h2 h2. h2 h2' h, b.2 b1 h, h, h, h, h, . b., h, b, h, h, h, h, h, to to to ho ho to to to to to to • to to to to to to to to , to ' ho 1 to to to to to to to ho h, .o ho ho 10 ho bo '10 ho o ho ho ' ho to o bo ho to ho 'ho : to to to to to to bo to to b.o to b.o to ho ho ' .ho to to • to . ho to • ho ho b.o bo b.o b.o to to . ho ' to b.o to to to ho to • ho ho bo to to . to .ho ho bo bo- to ho b.o bo .ho ho bo to to to to to to to to to to bo ho to to to to to to to to to to ho .ho ho to . to to to to to to ho l ho, ho ho to ho b o ho bo - ho to to I "to ho" to .1 ho to ho to to to , ho b.o to to b.o - ho to to to to ho to ho ho to ho to to to to to to . to to to to to to to to ho to to • to to to to b.o to to to to to to to -to' to • 1 to •ho to to to to to " to ho to b.o ho to ho' ho to . ho ho - bo to ho b.o to to to to to to to to bo ho to ho DEC 072006" can ▪ omia- PIZZA .KITCHEN ho o SOUTHCENTER, SEATTLE, WA SITE PHOTOMETRIC SCALE .1/8. = 1. -0- SORTER TANA A DEMO% RILEY ARaM,ECIS Ma. 3190 -A AIRPORT IODP oM.F COSTA MESA CAI0ODoA 92926 • Phone (714) 144-1900 FAx (714) 4114-31130 DESIGN REVIEW: DEC. 07, . 2006