Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-11-87 - ROUSSO AZARIA - GENCOR APARTMENTGENCOR APARTMENTS APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH LANDSCAPING & PARKING 5700 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. EPIC -11 -87 WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal a 57 -unit apartment complex Proponent Azaria Rousso.- Architect Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 5700 block - Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -11 -87 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it 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. El There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Address Date Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tuk . l''' . 88 firr /o Signature You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS DATE: TO: FROM: 1 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 ATTACHMENT C -1 FEBRUARY 25, 1988 EPIC -11 -87 GENCOR JACK PACE, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: SEPA ADDENDUM - MITIGATED DNS ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Memorandum from Ross Earnst, 2 -9 -88 Letter from Entranco Engineers, 2 -8 -88 Letter from Leon Grundstein, 1 -29 -88 Letter from Entranco Engineers, 1 -7 -88 GENCOR Noise and Traffic Study, 12 -18 -87 Exception from Valley View Estates EIS, 1 -86 In addition to the material above, the City Engineer has reviewed the soils report prepared by Geotechnical Services. The City Engineer agrees with the recommendation in the report. Additional detailed information will be submitted with the grade and fill permit and storm - drainage plan when the building permit is submitted. ATTACHMENT A *ILA City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor f3 r 7 D iFEB 01988 L CITY OF TUi ■voLA PLANNING DEPT. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM RICK BEELER R $�."EARNST February 9, 1988 GENCOR APARTMENTS ON SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY I have reviewed the traffic study for the proposed development and agree that the traffic on Southcenter Boulevard as a result of this project will not be significantly impacted. The turning movements into and out of the site will be eased by the installation of the signal at Macadam and Southcenter Boulevard. The property owners' offer to allow an easement at this entrance for access to other properties could help reduce the number of access points along that section of Southcenter Boulevard. This would improve traffic flow in this section of Southcenter Boulevard. RAE:cd • ATTACHMENT B • ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. February 8, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Gencor Noise and Traffic Study Addendum Entranco Project No. 88200 -10 Dear Mr. Beeler: LAKE WASHINGTON PARK BUILDING (206) 827 -1300 5808 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD N.E., KIRKLAND, WA 98033 �r-ri ce 1 (? Ei� •nr) LL) IJco CITY 0r I Lj tVVIL-A PLANNING DEPT. Gencor has asked us to provide additional analysis and discussion in response to some of the appellant's concerns regarding the 54 -unit multi- family project on Southcenter Boulevard and our report of December 18, 1987. This addendum includes the following: 1. A general discussion of the capacity of trees to attenuate sound levels. 2. A discussion of the relative traffic noise impact on an adjacent prop- erty caused by removal of the alder trees from a 20 -foot wide strip along the north boundary of the site. 3. An explanation for not including an engineer's stamp on the Entranco Engineers, Inc. report dated December 18, 1987. NOISE The FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model includes a rule of thumb to account for attenuation of traffic noise provided by trees (FHWA December 1987). If woods are very dense, i.e., there is no clear line of sight between the observer and the source, and if the height of the trees extends at least 5 meters (17 feet) above the line of sight, then 5 dBA attenuation is allowed if the woods have a depth of 30 meters (100 feet) . Recently, even this level of protection has been questioned and many noise analysts have lowered the value to only 3 dBA for 150 feet of dense woods. It is obvious that the 20 feet of alder trees on the site have little if any value in lowering the traffic noise reaching the property above the site. Once the trees are removed, landscaping planned for the area would have no effect on traffic noise reaching the adjacent property. A wall constructed in the EVERETT OFFICE: 516 SEATTLE -FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (206) 258 -6202 1602 HEWITT AVENUE. EVERETT. WA 98201 Mr. Rick Beeler February 8, 1988 Page 2 landscaped area would probably have little effect on traffic noise reaching apartments on the adjacent property because of their higher position on the slope; however, the new Gencor apartment buildings would probably provide some relief. The amount of attenuation provided by rows of buildings depends on the length of the row occupied by the buildings. Based on Gencor's drawings, the length of the buildings would occupy about 70 percent of the row, a quantity which could provide between 3,dBA and 5 dBA attenuation. Noise produced by cars in the parking lot of the Gencor apartments should have no significant effect on noise levels experienced on the adjacent property. Light traffic in parking areas generally produces average sound levels between 50 and 55 dBA. This is much lower than the ambient average sound levels in the area. Entranco's quality control officer has indicated that noise analysis is not considered engineering work, and therefore does not warrant an engineer's stamp. Recently, some municipalities have been requiring an engineer's stamp on traffic studies and Entranco's quality control officer agrees that it is appropriate. Consequently, a stamped copy of the December 18, 1987 traffic report has been enclosed. Sincerely, ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. 7 /// Edward W. Murray Project Manager EWM:gmw encl. cc: Steven M. Friedman Chris Crumbaugh, Attorney -at -Law JANUARY 29, 1988 MS. MAXINE ANDERSON CITY CLERK CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD TUKWILA WA, 98188 REFERENCE: APPEAL OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE; DATED JANUARY 14,1988; FILE NUMBER - EPIC. I AM WRITING ON BEHALF OF THE SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN THE MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE FOR THE GENCOR PROPOSAL. THE REASONS FOR THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THE REPORT FILED WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PREPARED, BY ENTRANCO ENGINEERING INC., DOES NOT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS RAISED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1987: 1) THE IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSAL AS IT RELATES TO THE NOISE LEVEL ON THE UP SLOPE PROPERTIES. 2) THE IMPACT OF THE RIGHT HAND AND LEFT HAND VEHICLE TURNS FROM THE SITE ON TO SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD AND THE IMPACT OF THE RIGHT HAND AND LEFT HAND TURNS FROM SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD ON TO THE SITE. IN ADDITION THE REPORT PREPARED BY ENTRANCO ENGINEERING DOES NOT HAVE THE SIGNATURE NOR THE SEAL OF A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. RYAN S. THROWER DIRECTOR SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 15232 SUNWOOD BLVD. TUKWILA WA. 98188 c c ATTACHMENT C GENCOR 11801 N.E. 160th STREET, SUITE G BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 (206) 488 -1197 January 29, 1988 Mr. Ross Earnst, City Engineer 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 ECEJVF:t. FEB • - 1 ii TUKWI l_ 6.. PUBLIC VI' r =rh-5 RE: Gencor Development property on 5700 Southcenter Boulevard Dear Mr. Earnst: As you know, we have had numerous discussions in recent City Council hearings regarding the development of our property at the above referenced address. The topic of traffic ingress an egress at this location and the existing difficulty occuring at the Denny's Restaurant /Arco driveways has been discussed in connection with our proposal for development. It has been suggested, and we have agreed to cooperate with the City of Tukwila and the adjacent property owners in efforts to improve the situation. At this point, please let this letter be an indication of our further agreement to grant an easement to the City of Tukwila for a mutually agreeable solution to the traffic access problem. Yours truly, ,\ -� Leon Grundstein LG;kt A F.I DAV I T Q Notice of Public Hearing [� Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [[ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet El Planning Commission Agenda Packet [[ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet OF DIST•BUTION hereby declare that: Q Determination of Nonsignificance Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [[ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Q Official Notice [r Notice of Application for ❑ Other Shoreline Management Permit [[ Shoreline Management Permit [[ Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on ,L)L, ��j�t,�c l / �{, /1.5' ,), 19 . cs, Name of Project C, EA(Cv �- File Number �70(!.,'!( 87 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: GENCOR 11801 N.E. 160TH STREET SUITE G BOTHELL, WA 98011 ATTN: STEVE FRIEDMAN CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD._ TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: RYAN S. THROWER 15232 SUNWOOD BLVE #H1 TUKWILA, WA 98188 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 WAC 197 -11 -970 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal A 54 -UNITE MULTI- FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX Proponent AZARIA ROUSSO - ARCHITECT Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 5700 BLOCK - SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC \\__s-1 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it 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. [[ There is no comment period for this DNS gii This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by JAN�ABY 29 1988 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal tor 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, T k 9818: Date JANUARY 14, 1988 Signature You may appeal this determination to the ty Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS • 1908 • City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 January 13, 1988 NOTE TO FILE - EPIC -11 -87 GENCOR SUBJECT: SEPA ADDENDUM - MITIGATED DNS ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A - EXCEPTION FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ATTACHMENT B - GENCOR NOISE / TRAFFIC STUDY ATTACHMENT C - LETTER, ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. The attached material is an addendum to the material submitted for the Environmental Checklist, dated June 8, 1987. . Based upon the noise study, (Attachment B), the applicant will build a one (1) inch thick solid wood fence which will reduce the exterior noise level from a high at 67 dBA (hourly Leq) to 52 dBA. The transportation study (Attachment B) concluded "the inpact at the site generated volumes on the 1990 volumes and proposed street improvements is insignificant." cc: S. Friedman ATTACHMENT A Excerpts from Nov.: 16, City Council Meeting • Mayor Van-Dusen said they just w ted to offer this as a way for e homeowners to present a pack to the Council. 1987 Mr. Thrower said he understood that position. Council President Morgan stated she would like a historic report on whether or not EIS's have been required on similar projects in the area. She stated she did not want to make a decision on the matter this evening. She would ask the City Attorney if there was a list of the concerns that have been discussed. There is the noise issue and the traffic concerns. The answer to these concerns will determine whether or not an EIS is desired. She said she would ask that the Council not make a decision on the EIS at this time. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated the City is in the budget process and some of these big issues will have to be added if there is an appeal to be added. Ord. #1448 - Levying gen. taxes for City for fiscal year Jan. 1, 1988. Mayor Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing_at 10:05 p.m. Councilmember Bauch.said he was not interested in a fullblown EIS process. He stated he was interested in some specific issues. We have not heard a report on the soils. The Planning Director says they are adequate. Have we asked anyone else if they are adequate? He stated he was willing to compromise if someone will come up with a list of answers to the concerns. *COUNCILMEMBER BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND (SIMPSON). MOVED BY MCFARLAND, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT A MITIGATED DNS BE REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT THAT WILL ADDRESS SPECIFIC ISSUES OF NOISE LEVELS BOTH WITHIN THE DWELLINGS, OUTSIDE THE DWELLINGS AND THE RECREATION AREAS, TO INCLUDE THE ISSUE OF DEALING WITH MAXIMUM RETENTION OF THE NATURAL VEGETATION AND INCLUSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL VEGETATION OR REASONABLY AND MEANINGFUL MITIGATE NOISE IMPACTS AND VISUAL IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO STIPULATE TO MORE SPECIFIC MITIGATING MEASURES IN COOPERATING WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE JOINT ACCESS PROBLEMS. * MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION AND ADD THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE APPLICANT ON SOILS STABILITY AND DRAINAGE. MOTION. CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE BAR DECISION TO DECEMBER 7. * City Attorney Martin said this information can be taken back to the BAR and they can determine the requirement. *MOTION WITHDRAWN BY COUNCILMEMBER SIMPSON, WITH APPROVAL OF SECOND ( DUFFIE). MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Martin read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Wash- ington levying the general taxes for the City of Tukwila in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1988, on all property, both real and personal, in said city which is subject to • e . ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. January 7, 1988 Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: LAKE WASHINGTON PARK BUILDING (206) 827 -1300 5808 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD N.E., KIRKLAND, WA 98033 , ridl.-.11-.1-Will--M !AN -• 8.1988 CITY OF IctirMILA PLANNNG DEPT. It is my understanding that, following review of Entranco's Noise and Traffic Study (December 18, 1987) for the Gencor site, your staff has recommended that noise mitigations be required for the recreation area. *A 1 -inch solid wood fence can provide up to a 15 dBA attenuation in,sound level, reducing the traffic noise to a level below the FHWA exterior noise abatement criterion of 67 dBA (hourly Leg). The fence must be high enough to break the line -of -sight between the observer and the noise source and should contain no cracks. A height of six feet should be more than adequate considering that the majority of the noise source is downslope from the site. Sincerely, ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. Edward W. Murray cc: Steve Friedman Gencor * The Audible Landscape: A manual for highway noise and land use,,Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Transportation, November, 1974. EWM: jng EVERETT OFFICE: 516 SEATTLE -FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (206) 258 -6202 1602 HEWITT AVENUE, EVERETT, WA 98201 GENCOR NOISE AND TRAFFIC STUDY FOR A 54 -UNIT MULTI - FAMILY APARTMENT SITE Prepared for Gencor Commercial Development and Construction Prepared by Entranco Engineers, Inc. 5808 Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827 -1300 December 18, 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NOISE STUDY Summary 1 Introduction 1 Noise Criteria 1 Noise Measurements 5 TRAFFIC STUDY Overview 8 Trip Generation /Distribution 8 Estimated 1987 Volumes 9 1990 Volumes and Improvements 9 REFERENCES 12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Noise Measurement Locations 2 Vicinity Traffic Volumes LIST OF TABLES Page 6 10 Table Page 1 Environmental Noise Levels for Residential, Hospital and Educational Activity 3 2 Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly A- Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA) 4 3 Gencor Site Noise Measurements 5 4 Total Vehicle Trip Generation Volumes 8 ii NOISE STUDY SUMMARY Two sound measurements were taken to estimate traffic noise impact on the Gencor apartment site in Tukwila. An hourly Leq of 66.4 dBA was measured in the recreation area location. An hourly Leq of 68.6 dBA was measured at the location for the western -most building, a location closer to the noise source than other building locations. These sound levels are within 1 to 2 dBA of the FHWA exterior noise abatement criteria (67 dBA), at which impacts occur for residences and recreation areas. Interior noise levels would be approximately 46 to 49 dBA with windows closed; i.e., below the FHWA interior abatement criteria of 52 dBA. Interior noise levels would be 51 to 54 dBA with windows open. Traffic increases by 1990 would increase vehicular noise by approximately 0.5 dBA. INTRODUCTION A brief noise study was conducted to estimate sound levels on the Gencor site, and to ascertain impacts of highway noise on the 54 -unit multi - family apartment complex planned for the site. Data was originally intended to be generated from extrapolations of existing noise information contained in the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental Assessment (City of Tukwila 1983); however, because of the site's topographical location and the greater potential influence of I -405, I -5, and the interchange, it was -- decided that new on -site measurements would be required. NOISE CRITERIA The following discussion explains noise descriptors and describes noise criteria, standards, and guidelines used by the USEPA, USHUD, State of Washington, and the FHWA. The suitability of criteria selected for this study and the relationship between traffic noise and noise descriptors are -also explained. Environmental noise is measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The decibel scale is a linear numbering scale used to compress the wide range of values associated with the logarithmic nature of sound. A- weighting assigns greater value (weight) to higher frequency sounds to which the human ear is most sensitive. 1 Duration of sound must be considered along with sound level when evaluating the effects of noise on people. To simplify estimates of duration, fluctuating sound is usually measured as an average sound level. The average sound level is the level of a steady sound that would produce acoustical energy equivalent to a fluctuating sound over a given time period. Thus, the average sound level is known as equivalent sound level (Leq). The Leq for a 24 -hour period is known as the day -night average sound level (Ldn). Because nighttime sounds are more annoying, they are weighted with an additional 10 dBA prior to estimation of the Ldn. Along highways and arterials the Ldn is approximately the same as the peak-hour Leq. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency noise guidelines (USEPA 1980) are shown in the attached in its original form (for residential, hospital, and educational activity). These guidelines indicate that an exterior Ldn of 55 dBA or less would generally produce no noise impact in residential areas. Noise impact would exist for an Ldn between 55 dBA and 65 dBA, impacts would be significant with an Ldn above 65 dBA, and unacceptable with an Ldn above 70 dBA. The EPA has stressed that an "Ldn = 55 is not a recommended standard because the EPA has not determined that achievement of that level is appropriate when considering other factors ". These guidelines are not legal standards and were established only to guide EPA personnel. U.S. Housing and Urban Development site acceptability noise standards (USHUD 1979) indicate that a housing site with an Ldn not exceeding 65 dBA is "acceptable ". An Ldn above 68 dBA but less than 75 dBA is "normally unacceptable ", without mitigation, and an Ldn above 75 dBA is "unacceptable ". On sites with an Ldn between 65 dBA and 70 dBA, HUD requires sound attenuation that is 5 dBA greater than what is normally accomplished for interior noise levels with standard construction. HUD standards apply only to HUD - assisted projects. The Washington State Administrative Code (Chapter 173 -60) establishes limits on the levels and duration of noise crossing property boundaries. Allowable sound levels depend on land use of the source and receiving property. Motor vehicle noise from public roadways is exempt from these regulations. 2 [ TABLE 1 ] FOR RESIDENTIAL, HOSPITAL AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY Environmental Noise Level' Associated with an Action (exterior environment) Ldn - 70 65 55 Qualitative Considerations Applicable to Individual Actions Levels have unacceptable public health and welfare impacts Significant adverse noise impacts exist: allowable. only in unusual cases where lower levels are clearly demonstrated not to be possible. Adverse noise impacts exist: lowest noise level possible should be staved for. Levels are generally acceptable: no noise impact is generally associated with these levels. :Some structures do not contain relevant exterior activity space and therefore. in these cases. special determination of the acceptability of the interior environment should be made. 3 [ TABLE 2 ] TABLE 1 - Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly A- Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA) 1/ Activity Category Leq(h) L10(h) Description of Activity Category A 57 60 Lands on which serenity and quiet are (Exterior) (Exterior) of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 70 Picnic areas, recreation areas, (Exterior) (Exterior) playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, a' churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 75 Developed lands, properties, or (Exterior) (Exterior) .activities not included in Categories A or B above. D Undeveloped lands. E 1 /Either 52 (Interior) L10(h) 55 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, .and auditoriums. or Leq(h) (but not both) may be used on a project. H"r1 w a. • CD � w I• rt r► Fl r• A• Co M asv 00 � b et ao 'c,l su 5 co w N � Cr) < fD O n a� rI r$. n 5 CD rt The Federal Highway Administration has adopted noise abatement criteria for federal -aid highway projects (U.S. Department of Transportation 1982). These criteria, shown in the attached table in its original form [Noise Abatement Criteria, Hourly A- Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA)], are based on peak -hour Leq sound levels. The peak -hour Leq for residences is 67 dBA (exterior) and 52 dBA (interior). The interior sound level criterion is applied only when there are no exterior noise - sensitive land uses or exterior areas are not significantly affected. Outside -to- inside noise reduction is typically about 15 dBA with windows partly open and 20 dBA with windows closed. Consequently, if the 67 dBA exterior criterion is met, the interior criterion of 52 dBA is met. Although FHWA noise abatement criteria were established to help local officials in the planning and design of federal -aid highways and noise abatement along highways, they were determined to be the most applicable criteria in judging impact to the Gencor development since motor vehicle noise is the predominant source of noise at the site. The 24 -hour noise guidelines and criteria are included to show that an Ldn of 65 dBA, considered to cause significant impact, is approximately equivalent to the FHWA 67 dBA peak -hour Leq. Therefore, the peak -hour data presented in the report also addresses the 24 -hour noise impacts. NOISE MEASUREMENTS A Bruel and Kjaer Type 2231 sound level meter with an integrating program was used to estimate sound levels at the Gencor site. Two Leq (hourly) measurements were taken on December 8, 1987 during p.m. peak -hour traffic (refer to Figure 1 for locations). This data is presented in Table 3. TABLE 3 Gencor Site Noise Measurements Approximate Distance Start From Centerline (feet) Leq (hourly) Time (P.M.) Location* Southcenter Blvd. I -405 66.4 3:50 1 300 450 68.6 5:00 2 210 370 * Refer to Figure 1 for location. 5 i 1 ' to . \ 4 • to IS T.e b 54 UN /TS : PROY /DfD /OB Pe-/N G STALL: NORTH 0 30 60 90 SCALE IN FEET so GT-4- C es GENCOR - APARTMENT COMPLEX e ENTRANCO ENGINEERS. INC. @Approximate Noise Measurement Location. Figure 1 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS As previously mentioned, the predominant source of noise was from traffic along I -405, Southcenter Boulevard, I -5, and the I -5 /I -405 interchange. The FHWA defines "traffic noise impacts" as occurring "when the traffic noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria." The measurement in the area planned for recreation (Location 1) approaches the peak -hour Leg abatement level of 67 dBA. Sound in the vicinity of the building that would be closest to the source of 'noise (Location 2) exceeds the abatement level by 1.6 dBA. Exterior sound levels between those two points would fall somewhere between, or would be approximately similar to, the two measured levels on building sides that would face the noise source. According to the FHWA definition, traffic noise would produce an impact at all planned building locations and in the recreation area. With no special acoustical design features, interior noise levels of the affected apartments would be about 46 to 49 dBA with windows closed and about 51 to 54 dBA with windows partly open. Although interior sound levels with windows partly open are within only 1 or 2 dBA of the FHWA cri- terion interior noise impacts would occur according to the FHWA definition. The traffic study for the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental Assessment (City of Tukwila 1983) and the accompanying recent assessment of that traffic study indicate that traffic on I -405 and Southcenter Boulevard is expected to increase up to 3 percent and 18 percent, respectively, by 1990. Additional traffic from the site apartments would have no significant impact on this level. A doubling of noise sources produces a sound level increase of only 3 dBA. The increase in traffic volumes described above would increase noise levels on the Gencor site by approximately 0.5 dBA. Considering the following facts, the decision maker may find that additional noise attenuation is not justified: 1. Traffic noise levels are an existing condition that would be essentially unaffected by Gencor apartment- generated traffic. 2. Motor vehicle noise from public roadways is exempt from Washington State and King County regulations (WAC Chapter 173 -60; KC Title 21, Chapter 12.88). 3. Recreational area exterior noise levels and interior noise levels with windows open would generally be within 1 to 2 dBA of the FHWA noise abatement level. 4. Interior noise levels with windows closed and with the proposed acoustical design features would be well below the FHWA criterion. 7 8 As can be seen from this table, a total of 33 vehicles trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 356 trips during an average weekday are estimated to be generated by this site. The trips to and from this site are estimated to distribute evenly to the east and west on Southcenter Boulevard. The distribution is shown in Figure 2. Based on this distribution, the average weekday traffic volumes (AWDT) on Southcenter Boulevard could increase by about 180 as a result of the project site's volumes. ESTIMATED 1987 VOLUMES The traffic volume data contained in the Transportation /Circulation section of the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental Assessment (SCEA) was used to estimate the 1987 traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site. The 1981 traffic volumes were compared to- the projected 1990 volumes, and an extrapolation was made to estimate the 1987 volumes. The 1986 traffic counts on I -405 (by the Washington State Department of Transportation) and 1985/1986 counts on Tukwila Parkway in the vicinity of S -Line Bridge (by the City of Tukwila) were used to test the validity of the traffic volume projections. Based on this analysis it was determined that the traffic volumes on the surface streets have closely followed but are slightly less than the traffic volume projections made in the SCEA. However, the traffic volumes on I -405 have increased at a sharper rate than projected. The AWDT on I -405 near the vicinity of the site is currently about 8,000 more than what would be projected from the SCEA data. The 1987 estimated values were developed mainly for the purpose of the preceding noise study. The estimated 1987 volumes are also shown in Figure 2. 1990 VOLUMES AND IMPROVEMENTS Based on the above findings, it is estimated that the projected 1990 volumes from the SCEA in the vicinity of this site are still within reasonable estimates for all the surface streets. Traffic volumes on I -405, however, will probably be 8,000 to 9,000 more than anticipated (see Figure 2). As mentioned above, the proposed site could generate an AWDT of 180 on Southcenter Boulevard. Comparison of our 1987 volumes on Southcenter Boulevard east of the site with the projected 1990 volumes, shows an increase of 4,900 in the AWDT of this section (6,400 with the Grady Way extension alternative). The site - generated volumes account for only about 9 SITE VowMES --� XX PM. PEA - 4 --(xx) WEEK -DAY C891� (89) 3p,5oo (35,4-10) [36,910] (/)' to I5o N (5,470 [8,490 3o, zoo (34, Zoo) [35, 700] 25,400 (30, 800) C31, OSo] LEUEND xxx ESTIMATED 1987 ( 15,400 AWDT (IS,2_3o) (xxX) PROJECTED 1990 CI6,2303 AWDT [xxx] PROJECTED 1990 AWDT W17I-1 REAL-I&NME IT O F G RADY A/AY I DU E. To SC BLVD. g- b 11 loo (24210) 9,400 [22,760] (Io,a3o [9,EA -o 13, 300 (95,850) .�� [92,15o 1°S GENCOR - APARTMENT COMPLEX e ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. Figure 2 VICINITY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 10 4 percent of this increase on Southcenter Boulevard over the next three years (3 percent for the Grady Way extension alternative). Therefore it is estimated that the projected 1990 volumes are inclusive of the traffic volumes from this site; the impact of the site - generated volumes on the 1990 volumes and proposed street improvements is insignificant. Street improvements planned for the near future in the vicinity of the site include the widening of Southcenter Boulevard from two lanes to five lanes on the section from west of 62nd Avenue South to east of 68th Avenue South. This project, which will be under construction next year, will greatly increase the capacity of Southcenter Boulevard east of S -Line Bridge. Other proposed improvements include the widening of the 68th Avenue South bridge from two lanes to five lanes, and the realignment of Grady Way Bridge to Southcenter Boulevard. The traffic impact of this latter improvement will be a shift of traffic from I -405 to Southcenter Boulevard. By the time of this realignment, Southcenter Boulevard will have been widened to five lanes and will have more than adequate capacity for projected traffic volumes. The impact of the site - generated traffic volumes on the future realigned Southcenter Parkway /Grady Way Bridge extension will be minimal. 11 REFERENCES City of Tukwila 1983 Environmental Assessment for Southcenter Boulevard - 62nd Avenue to Grady Way. February 1983. 1985 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Valley View Estates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1980 Noise Guidelines for Environmental Impact Statements. 1975, revised November. 24"; 1980. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1979 Environmental Criteria and Standards. 24 CFR Part 51. U.S_. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 1976 Federal -Aid Highway Manual. Vol. 7, Chapter 7, Section 3: Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. 12 REFERENCES City of Tukwila 1983 Environmental Assessment for Southcenter Boulevard - 62nd Avenue to Grady Way. February 1983. 1985 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Valley View Estates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1980 Noise Guidelines for Environmental Impact Statements. 1975, revised November 24, 1980. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1979 Environmental Criteria and Standards. 24 CFR Part 51. U.S_ Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 1976 Federal -Aid Highway Manual. Vol. 7, Chapter 7, Section 3: Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. 12 ATTACHMENT E EXCERPTS FROM VALLEY VIEW ESTATES EIS - JANUARY, 1986 SECTION III - EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS / MITIGATING MEASURES Noise Existing Conditions The project site, and adjoining properties, are exposed to significant noise levels due to their proximity to I -5. The extent to which noise poses a health hazard depends on its level, frequency and length of exposure. The range of health hazards associated with high noise levels are described in the Human Health section of this EIS. Existing day -night (Ldn) noise levels on the site are 65 -72 dBA, with maximum nighttime noise levels of about 77 dBA. (The day -night sound levels is an equivalent sound level over 24 hours with a 10 dBA penalty for nighttime noise. Definitions of other sound level descriptors may be found in Appendix B.) Day -night sound levels at the closest residential properties west of the site were found to be 63 to 65 dBA, with maximum nighttime levels of about 72 dBA. According to EPA's Noise Guidelines, significant adverse noise impacts (primarily speech interference and annoyance) occur at noise levels of 65 -75 Ldn. Noise levels in excess of 55 dBA can interfere with speech com- munication. Noise level measurements taken at the project site over a four - day period in October 1983 provide more detailed information about existing noise levels. It can be expected that these documented noise levels will increase somewhat over time with expected increases in traffic volumes on I -5. • SCALE 0 CO ADO •OD MOD SOO Existing Noise Measurement Locations TOWNE, RICHARDS & CHAUDIERE, INC. 80 FIGURE 8 Consultants in Sound & Vibration • • The noise measurements consisted of full 24 -hour noise monitoring at three locations and 19 hour noise monitoring at the fourth location, where adverse weather curtailed the measurement. A Digital Acoustic DA607P noise moni- toring system was used for the measurements. Results of the measurements in hourly Leg, hourly Ldn are shown in Appendix B, Figures 2 and 3. Locations 1 and 2 are on the site. Locations 3 and 4 are off -site, near residence immediately west of the site which have views across the site toward 1-5. The following is a summary of the measured day -night sound levels, Ldn, and nighttime maximum sound levels, Lmax: Table 3 Existing Noise Levels Location 1 2 3 4 Description SE part of site NE part of site Residence W of site Residence SW of site Existing exterior noise levels, dBA Ldn Night Lmax 72 77 65 (68 *) 77 65 72 63 72 *Location 2 had partial topographic shielding of highway noise, which is esti- mated to have - reduced Ldn by about 3 dBA compared to noise levels at a future upper story elevation. The day -night sound level (Ldn) is the reading used in EPA in Guidelines for noise levels affecting residential areas. Those Guidelines are as follows: Table 4 EPA Noise Guidelines Ldn Below 55 dBA 55 to 65 dBA 65 to 70 dBA Levels are generally acceptable: no noise impact is generally associated with these levels Adverse noise impacts exist: lowest noise level possible should be strived for. Significant adverse noise impacts exist: allowable only in unusual cases where lower levels are clearly demonstrated not to be possible. Uver 70 dBA Levels have unacceptable public health and welfare impacts 81 As a comparison of Tables 3 and 4 indicates, at two of the four sites where monitoring occurred, day -night sound levels exceeded EPA's threshold for significant adverse noise impacts. The other two sites were just below this threshold and at the high end of the range where ,adverse noise impacts can occur. Although EPA's evaluation of noise impacts is based on the day -night sound level and not on maximum noise levels, a review of maximum noise levels at the site over a 24 hour period (see Appendix B) indicates that maximum levels over 70 dBA are reached regularly. The noise level at the southern ' site location (Location 1) was found to have maximum levels exceeding 70 dBA during all 24 -hours tested and exceeding 80 dBA during the afternoon hours when people are apt to be outside. At the northern site location (Location 2) the maximum noise level was above 70 dBA during 10 of the 19 hours tested and above 80 dBA during six of these 19 hours. (Measurements were not taken from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) On the other two sites adjacent to the single family area to the west, noise levels measured above 70 dBA during 20 of the 24 hours tested at one site (location 3) and during 12 of the 24 hours tested at the other site (Location 4). Location 3 experiences maximum noise levels above 80 dBA during five hours (including the 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. period) while Location 4 experienced maximum levels above 80 dBA during the 6:00 p.m. hour. EPA sources specify that interior noise levels should have an Ldn of 45 dBA or less in order to protect health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Other studies indicate that to prevent the probability of sleep interference exceeding approximately 50%, interior maximum sound levels, Lmax should be limited to about 50 dBA in bedrooms. A different set of standards is utilized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to determine site acceptability for HUD projects. HUD's criteria are as follows: Table 5 H. U. D. Acceptability Standards Ldn Site Acceptability Standard Not exceeding 65 dBA Acceptable Above 65 dBA but not exceeding 75 dBA Normally Unacceptable Above 75 dBA Unacceptable On sites where Ldn is above 65 dBA but does not exceed 70 dBA, HUD requires that the type of construction used reduce interior noise levels by 5 dBA beyond the 25.dBA reduction that is typically accomplished with standard construction (i.e., a total noise reduction of 30 dBA). A reduction of an additional 10 dBA (35 dBA total) is required for sites above 70 dBA which do not exceed 75 dBA. 82 • Impacts Interior Noise Levels On -Site As indicated in Table 3, on the southeast part of the site (Location 1) the exterior day -night sound level (Ldn) was 72 dBA. On the northeast part of the site (Location 2) exterior Ldn was 65 d8A at a first story elevation and about 68 dBA at higher elevations. Nighttime maximum sound levels (Lmax) were 77 dBA at both locations. Since the exterior Ldn on the south half of the site is in the range of 70 -75 dBA and the Ldn on the north half of the site ranges from 65 to 70 dBA, the 25 dBA reduction attainable through conventional construction would result in noise levels inside the units of 45 -50 Ldn on the south portion of the site and 40 -45 Ldn on the north portion of the site. Thus, without special construction, noise levels_on the south portion of the site would exceed EPA's recommended day -night level of 45 Ldn. Since maximum exterior night- time sound levels at both sites were 77 dBA, conventional construction would reauce the nighttime maximum to 52 dBA at both locations which is above the 50 dBA threshold beyond which a greater than 50% chance of sleep interference exists. Construction to meet the HUD standards described previously would require 10 d8A of additional attenuation on the south portion of the site (total reduc- tion of 35 d8A) and 5 dBA of additional attenuation on the northern portion of the site (total reduction of 30 dBA). A comparison of interior sound levels with and without added attentuation, and with open windows, is shown in the following table: Table 6 Interior Evening Noise Levels within Proposed Development Interior sound levels, dBA Part of Site Ldn Night Lmax Construction 10 dBA added attenuation* 5 dBA added attenuation Conventional construction Open Windows 5 dBA added ttenuation* Conventional Construction Open windows *HUD Standard South 1/2 North 1/2 37 42 42 47 47 52 62 67 38 47 43 - 52 58 67 This comparison indicates that an exterior -to- interior noise reduction of 30 ddA (representing 5 dBA added attenuation) would provide generally acceptable interior noise levels on both portions of the site (interior Ldn below 45 d8A and interior nighttime Lmax below 50 dBA) when windows were closed, even 83 • • though the HUD standard of a 35 •dBA reduction on the south portion of the site would not be achieved. However, maximum noise levels within units on the south portion of the site would periodically exceed levels at which adverse noise impacts occur: i.e., reach 55 dBA or greater. With windows open, interior noise levels would far exceed EPA's recommended interior stan- dard of 45 dBA and in the discussion of Mitigating Measures, some form of forced -air ventilation would be necessary, especially in bedrooms, so that windows could be kept closed and noise levels maintained at acceptable levels. Exterior Noise Levels On -Site Exterior day-night sound levels (Ldn) on the site (i.e., 72 ,dBA on the southern part of the site and 65 to 68 dBA on the northern part of the site) are in a range above the 65 dBA where noise levels are considered to cause significant adverse effects according to EPA criteria. It should be noted that these levels reflect an average of 24 -hour day -night noise levels with a 10 dBA penalty for nighttime noise. During many hours a day at both sites, maximum noise levels exceeded 75 dBA, with 80 dBA's occurring several hours a day. Thus varying degrees of speech interference and annoyance -- often reaching high or unacceptable thresholds -- would be experienced by project residents in unprotected outside areas. The noise consultant recommended that noise mitigation for exterior spaces be considered, especially if the proposed children's play area is to be located on the northeast part of the site. Revisions to the site plan now propose to locate the children's play area in the southwest corner of the site where residential buildings should provide some reduction of freeway noise. Other potential mitigating measures are discussed in the Mitigation Measures section. New sources of noise resulting from occupancy of the development would include children playing and automobile traffic. However, according to the noise consultant, due to existing noise levels on -site, noise emanating from the residential development would be masked and is expected to be negligible. See Table 7, "Outdoor Evening Noise Levels On- Site." Noise Level Changes Off -Site Due to the residential nature of the proposed project, long term noise changes at off -site properties are expected to be negligible. The site currently has narrow -trunk alder growth which provides slight excess atte- nuation of I -5 freeway noise for properties west of the site. The trees were bare when monitored, and are estimated to provide at most 3 dBA of excess attenuation per 100 meters, or about 2 to 3 dBA excess attentuation for pro- perties west of the site. In summer, the excess attenuation would be slightly higher because of foliage. Construction of buildings on the site would provide partial shielding of views of the freeway, reducing freeway noise levels at properties to the west by about 3 dBA due to an approximate 5U percent shielding. This attenuation by the buildings would offset the loss of attenuation resulting from removal of existing trees on the site. According to the Noise Consultant, project traffic will have negligible impact on noise levels along local streets given the predominance of noise from the nearby freeways (I -5 and SR 518). 84 • Day -night sound levels, Ldn, from street traffic were computed using esti- mated 1987 daily traffic volumes with and without the proposed project as described in the Traffic Impact Analysis. It was assumed that 10 percent of traffic occurs during nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and that traffic speed is about 30 mph. The noise prediction was for a setback of 50 feet from street traffic. Where appropriate, the street traffic noise was com- bined with noise from I -5. Table 7 1987 Day -Night Sound Levels, dBA Outdoor Evening Noise Levels on Site Street 53rd Ave. S. north of site S. 160th St. west of site Slade Way and 54th Ave. S. south of site Street Noise Combined Noise Freeway Noise without /with project without /with project 65 72 55/56 66/66 54/55 54/55 44/45 72/72 The largest noise increase, 1 dBA, would occur along S. 160th Street west of the site. This amount of noise increase would not be noticeable. Noise increases on other more distant streets would also be negligible (less than 1 dBA increase). GENCOR 11801 N.E. 160th STREET, SUITE G BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 [206) 488-1197 44.4- Af.c.e.„ 2.04 .e4A-4•`'E'14,/ It/X - .- -.- .p..v-r7, -, • OCT -. 7 1987 1 . Uit Ur I ki:4,VisiLA PLANNiNG lYcS.PT. C‘2'. .00SA'e°A1C2jZ44,4r, 044Xd'e4 r'fj 4914A .40411% Pa49A;e ge7 ,er-4 1 -4A-eL October 1,. 1987 Mr. Leon Grundstein 11801 Northeast 160th Street,. #G. Bothell, Washington .98011. Re:'. Tukwila Apartment' Project .Dear Mr. Grundstei-n: Since June 24, you have evaluated several_ alternate building and -: road location schemes other than the one referred to in. my .report 'of that date. I made written reference to having reviewed one of those alternatives. in my letter of 'August 11: _ More recently, I have received and reviewed .a preliminary plan prepared;: by_ Ostergaard- Robinson;_this sheet :• is updated except for a red-stamped date of September 17. and .i t is more like the original layout than any of the other alternates. It is dissimilar to the original principally with respect to Building- "A ". Obviously the test, holes were dug with the original scheme in mind and the revised Locations-. are' not ideally represented by ten pits. Essentially, the recommendations.-of June 24 still apply. Building - "A" will require a pile foundation and Building "B" probably require the same: At some time this fall or winter, if you_have a backhoe working for other purposes, I suggest we dig.two or three new pits.-' I am not suggesting'that I have doubts about the feasibility of the latest plan, only questions about the proper foundation type for one specific building. For the record, I have reviewed the - latest plan and, exceptsas noted, believe that it is adequately ,covered by this and earlier correspondence. l��lE R4501,110) OCT - 19871 -j 1 CI Y EJ T :.,`KI iLA. • PLANNING U2PT. Yours 'very .trulAgp s N. Eaton, PEA 71 0431 • • JNE /lgb -air Aar s6 .AIM ■MIL JAMES EATON, PE (206) 682-6942 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES. Box 126 • Hobart,, WA 98025 SEPTEMBER 28, 1987 MS. MAXINE ANDERSON CITY CLERK CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD TUKWILA WA 98188 REFERENCE: APPEAL OF BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 -- FILE NO.87 -5 -DR: GENCOR I AM WRITING ON BEHALF OF THE SUNW000 CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION TO APPEAL THE DECISION BY THE TUKWILA BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVING OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED MATTER. THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS MADE AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1987. WE ARE DIRECTING THIS APPEAL TO YOU PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 18.90.020 OF THE TUKWILA ZONING CODE. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH MR. PACE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HAVE BEEN ASSURED THAT IT IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW. THE REASONS FOR THIS APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) ON AUGUST 13, 1987 A DECLARATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE WAS ISSUED FOR THIS PROPOSED DESIGN PLAN. SEPA RULES AND THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE ALLOWS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF A DECLARATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. WAC 197 -11 -340 (ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN TUKWILA ORDINANCE NO. 1331, SEC. 10) STATES "(2)(f) THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL SHALL RECONSIDER THE DNS BASED ON TIMELY COMMENTS AND MAY RETAIN OR MODIFY THE DNS OR, IF THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ARE LIKELY, WITHDRAW THE DNS OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS . . . . "(3)(a) THE LEAD AGENCY SHALL WITHDRAW A DNS IF: "(i) THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO A PROPOSAL SO THAT THE PROPOSAL IS LIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; "(ii) THERE IS SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION INDICATING, OR ON, A PROPOSAL'S PROBABLE; OR "(iii) THE DNS WAS PROCURED BY MISREPRESENTATION OR LACK OF MATERIAL DISCLOSURE; IF SUCH DNS RESULTED FROM THE ACTIONS OF AN APPLICANT, ANY SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ON THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE PREPARED DIRECTLY BY THE LEAD AGENCY'OR ITS CONSULTANT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE APPLICANT." (EMPHASIS ADDED) • • WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IN MAKING THE NON- SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION, INADEQUATE ATTENTION WAS PAID TO THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS: (1) ALL OR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY MAY BE DESIGNATED AS "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE " IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; (2) A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY CONTAINS SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 20%; (3) PROBLEMS WITH SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE EXIST; (4) NO ANALYSIS WAS MADE OF THE POTENTIAL VIEW BLOCKAGE, LOSS OF LIGHT AND AIR RIGHTS, AND THE GENERAL VISUAL IMPACT OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. FURTHER WE ARE CONCERNED THAT , IN THE EVENT THE APPLICANT SEEKS A BUILDING AND OTHER LAND USE PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT, THE APPLICANT WILL CONTEND THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE DNS WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF AN INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE CHECKLIST AND DESIGN PLAN, AND DID NOT CONSIDER MATERIALS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE ADDED OR REVISED. WE THEREFORE REQUEST THAT THE DNS BE WITHDRAWN ACCORDING TO EITHER WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f) OR WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a)(ii) AND FURTHER REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AT THE TIME THAT ANY PERMIT IS SOUGHT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. IN THIS CASE, SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES MAY DEVELOP BETWEEN THE NON- PROJECT BAR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. 2) THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF TMC 18.52.060 WITH RESPECT TO RECREATIONAL SPACE. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE INADEQUATE PROVISION FOR ANY COVERED RECREATION SPACE, OR OF ANY SINGLE PURPOSE PERMANENT FACILITY SUCH AS A SWIMMING POOL OR TENNIS COURT. IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED CALCULATIONS BASED UPON AREAS OF OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE SITE AND ATTEMPTED TO CAST SUCH CALCULATIONS AS FULFILLING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCOVERED RECREATIONAL SPACE. THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN "OPEN SPACE" AND "RECREATION SPACE, UNCOVERED ". TMC 18.06.580 DEFINES "OPEN SPACE" AS "THAT AREA OF A SITE WHICH IS FREE AND CLEAR OF BUILDING AND STRUCTURES AND IS OPEN AND UNOBSTRUCTED FROM THE GROUND TO THE SKY." TMC 18.06.650 DEFINES "RECREATION SPACE, UNCOVERED" AS "AN AREA OF GROUND CHARACTERIZED BY A NATURAL SURFACE, SUCH AS LAWN, FOREST, OR SANDBOX. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE AN INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS UNCOVERED RECREATION SPACE IS ON SLOPE GREATER THAN FOUR HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (4:1) SLOPE AS REQUIRED BY TMC 18.52.060(3)(B). FURTHER THERE HAS BEEN INADEQUATE SCREENING OR OTHER BUFFER TO SEPARATE THE RECREATION SPACE FROM PARKING AREAS, DRIVEWAYS OR PUBLIC STREETS. TMC18.52.060(4)(B). 3) THE APPLICANT HAS INADEQUATELY COMPLIED WITH CITY OF TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT, AND PLACES THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE IN CONTEXT AS AN IMPLEMENTATION DEVISE FOR THE PLAN'S GOALS. NOT ONLY HAS THE APPLICANT INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS SET FORTH IN THE. PLAN'S "GENERAL GOALS ". • THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF GOAL 1 WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY, "THROUGH THE REGULATION OF LAND USE AND COMMUNITY GROWTH, TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC ". IN ADDITION, GOAL 5 REQUIRES THE CITY TO "STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT. WHILE THE CITY SHOULD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT AND STRIVE TO PROVIDE A HEALTHY ECONOMIC CLIMATE, IT SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS AND HAZARDS IMPOSED BY THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE TREMENDOUS NATURAL AMENITIES WHICH THAT ENVIRONMENT AFFORDS ". FURTHER THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE GOALS FOR THE ELEMENTS OF "NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ",, "OPEN SPACE ", AND RESIDENCE ". WITH RESPECT TO THE "NATURAL ENVIRONMENT" ELEMENT THIS PROPOSAL FAILS TO MEET OBJECTIVES OF POLICY 1, 2 AND 3 OF OBJECTIVE OF OBJECTIVE NO. 1. WITH RESPECT TO OBJECTIVE NO. 3. THE PROPOSAL "DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 20 % ", POLICY NO. 2, TO "PRESERVE THE VIEW OF HILLSIDE RESIDENTS ", AND POLICY NO.3 TO "PRESERVE AND PROMOTE THE QUALITY OF NATURAL LAND FORM ". WITH RESPECT TO THE "OPEN SPACE" ELEMENT, THE PROPOSAL FAILS TO MEET THE GOAL OF OBJECTIVE NO.1, PARTICULARLY: POLICY 1, TO "STRIVE TO PRESERVE STEEP HILLSIDES AND WOODED AREAS IN A SCENIC CONDITION, ENCOURAGE REPLANTING AND REVEGETATION OF DENUDED AREAS NOT IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT ", ANO POLICY 3, TO PROVIDE FOR ACTIVE RECREATION AREAS (BALLFIELDS, TENNIS COURTS, SWIMMING POOLS, PLAYGROUNDS, COMMUNITY CENTERS) CONSISTENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY ". WITH RESPECT TO THE "RESIDENCE" ELEMENT, THE PROPOSAL FAILS TO MEET A NUMBER OF CRITERIA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING POLICIES: POLICY 7, TO "ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE WITHIN MULTIPLE - FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS "; POLICY 4, TO "ENCOURAGE MINIMUM CARE AND MAINTENANCE LEVEL FOR UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE ". 4) FINALLY DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO VIOLATE THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS AND TO GIVE RISE TO A REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THE CASE PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT HE HAD DECIDED THE CASE BASED, AT LEAST IN PART, ON INFORMATION OTHER THAN PRESENTED AT THE HEARING. WE DO NOT WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS AS AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY SURROUNDING ANY ACCUSATION OF IMPROPER CONDUCT; HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT WE MUST RAISE THIS ISSUE AT THIS TIME IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OUR RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO IT. IF THE CITY COUNCIL BELIEVES IT IS NECESSARY WE WILL BE PREPARED TO DETAIL OUR CONCERNS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS ISSUE. I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN ON PERSONAL BUSINESS FROM SEPTEMBER 30 THROUGH OCTOBER 14 AND WOULD, THEREFORE, REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT A DATE LATER THAN OCTOBER 14, 1987 TO CONSIDER A REVERSAL OF THE APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED MATTER. AT THAT HEARING WE WILL BE PREPARED TO FURTHER PRESENT OUR CONCERNS. • RULY YOURS, S. RYAN'S. THROWER DIRECTOR, SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 15232 SUNWOOD BLVD. TUKWILA, WA. 98188 August 13, 1987 Jack Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: EPIC -11 -87 / 87 -5 -DR Dear Mr. Pace: I wish to inform the City of Tukwila development proposal to include the foll that I have modified the owing: 1 • e—s•pk 1 c rcd._ 2. Design of surface water system shall include method to control water run -off to down hill properties. 3. As part of the development proposal, I will provide the City of Tukwila a trail easement for the property that abuts Macadam Road.25a— Sincerer August 11, 1987 Mr. Leon Grundstein '. 11801 Northeast ,160th Street, Suite G Bothell, Washington 98011 Re:- Tukwila Apartment Project Dear Mr. Grundstein: The City of Tukwila personnel,: have requested of me, through your office, clarification . of two matters which are standing_,in the way of permit processing. First, as was agreed at-our meeting with the City on_ July 14,, the. City is to consider my recommendations as requirements. In my June 24 report and my July 8 letter, expressions such as "recommend that", "advised=' and "Should" will be understood by. the City to. mean "shall or must This - • understanding is agreeable to me. Second, I am aware of•plan revisions made after June 24. With relocation of Building "A ", the augercast pile 'recommendations for that unit still apply. This is because of the - severe groundwater condition.noted at location 11 and the presence of groundwater at .location 10. I am coordinating with your architect regarding design parameters for the piles.' The revision also requires' modification of emergency mitigation measures, for plumbing mishaps. The main pressurized service lines will be protected as; advised in the June 24 report. Revision -is required to protect against breaches.in- service' lines downslope from - the - parking lot. There, _escaped water will be confined by stemwal l s and' carried .toward or through crawl . spaces of adjacent buildings, ultimately to a "safe "•outlet'in the vicinity of the proposed office building. The water would exit_the crawl space-of origin through either. plastic or metal pipe passing through or beneath the stemwall I am also coordinating this with your architect and with your civil engineer._.. Your - truly, J,mes N. Eaton:, P.E 71 -0431 JNE:shw JAMES EATON, PE (206) 682 -6942 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES . Box 126 • Hobart, WA 98025 ' July 8, 1987 Mr. Leon Grundstein 11801 Northeast 160th Street, Suite G Bothell, Washington 98011 Re: Tukwila Apartments MCKM.P JUL 1987 16 1 OF ?i'ti,�1::'r'ai� P► p,�iwd,, DEPT. Dear Mr. Grundstein: In my 24 June 1987 report there are several references to construction inspection service. You asked me to clarify for the City what inspections are required. I. shall address only those areas which relate to soils and foundations. Full -time inspection is needed for all structural fills. As a rule, such inspection is done largely by a technician working under the geotechnical engineer who would be myself, assuming that it is my recommendations which are being implemented. I would assume responsibility for inspections performed either by myself or by my technician. Inspection,should be made of all foundation bearing surfaces before concrete is poured. There is still uncertainty as to whether pile foundations are needed in light of the shifted location of. Building "A ". All pile installation should be under full -time engineer or engineer - responsible inspection. Where cantilever piles are drilled, as are likely for retaining walls alongside the access road, inspection could be done either by myself or by the designing civil or structural engineer. The civil engineer should inspect surface hydraulic facilities for adequacy and compliance with design. I would assume no responsibility for rockeries or other non - engineered structures. Yours very t mes N. JNE /shw. JAMES EATON, PE (206) 682-6942 fGEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Box 126 • Hobart, WA 98025 • • Slope Stability 19871 ESL, �'JNNG DEr DEPT. . The site it believed stable, with respect to deep or shear -type. sliding. That generality applies to the effectively unweathered and nominally . weathered soils below the depths of dense roots. With respect to surface raveling, sloughage under adverse climatic conditions, and erosion,.those slopes which. are now steeper than about 35° are no more'thanr marginally stable under present conditions. It appears that both sandy sediment and rocks gravitate. onto the existing parking lots, particularly the Denny's lot from time to. time. The only way in which human activities are seen to contribute is that the toe of the slope appears to: have been steepened in association with past commercial= development.. An asphaltic - cement lined shallow ditch appears to be effective at. intercepting surface runoff from .neighboring.- property.. to the north and to all appearances, the present 'hydrologic condition is either natural or slightly. drier than natural. With implementation of all. .recommendations herein, the following objectives .will be accomplished::_ • There-will be no slope movement beneath foundations, parking lots,_ or other- artificial. surfaces-; under natural conditions these soils will be. retained, confined,, or graded to safe inclines: • 0 With- respect to-unnatural . condi tions",. . these are seen as • incursions -of surface water from offsite or_from breached pressurized underground lines either onsite, or offsite to the north. Both- categories of :water" Will or would be directed to and confined. within subtle.` swales.designed: into the asphaltic surfacing,. where it:would be directed to a relatively harmless location along or-near Southcenter Boulevard. The steepest slopes will be unaffected. by development, except that they will :be slightly desiccated.by.the upslope artificial surfaces. and that hazardous - sized. rocks and other materials .which might roll° or slide- toward the south, property line-would be intercepted by a chain-1ink.fence-.. The slight.desiccation -would translate -to a slight =improv:ement in stability. -During the construction_ period, runoff. from. altered. surfaces will . not be - permitted to enter unaltered surfaces. It will either be contained and pumped :from temporary - basins. or. sumps within the improved-areas or it will. be directed to.a holding pond on the office building parcel. Underground Utilities Earlier reference was made to unnatural contributions to:slope instability, and it was.-explained that this included accidental breaches of pressurized, piping. For practical' purposes this refers to-Waterlines but could include-sewers. if they -are pressurized and effectively have infinite reservoirs. The imaginable ways in which breaching might occur include, but are not necessarily limited to, faulty, materials, faulty workmanship, seismic. induced strain,_impact by drilling or excavating- .equipment, -and water hammer or pressure surges caused by human. carelessness or equipment malfunction. June 24, 1987 Mr. Leon Grundstein 11801 Northeast 160th Street, Suite G Bothell, Washington 98011 Re: Tukwila Apartment and Office Project WHEN II JUL - 1 1987 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Grundstein: With your authorization, 1 have investigated the subsurface conditions as they relate to proposed construction of 57 apartment units and an office building in Tukwila. We met at the site on 14 May, at which time you showed me several preliminary site plans and the approximate ground limits of the property. I sent you a proposal dated 18 May, and on the same day summarized the proposal to you by telephone and informed you that it was my intention that the office site be included in the scope of work covered by the proposal, although the document did not specifically say so. You gave verbal authorization to proceed on 28 May, and I received your written proposal on 30 May.. On 1 June I picked up additional site plans at your office; these provided ground control points from which field measurements could be made. Field access preparation and subsurface exploration were accomplished on 1 and 2 June. This report describes the property the project proposed, the investigative procedures and summarizes conclusions and recommendations applicable to site grading, subgrade drainage, foundation and retaining wall design, and mitigation of earth - related hazards, whether those hazards are the result of development or not. Considering the steepness of terrain, generally favorable conditions were found. Exception is in the vicinity of Building "A "; there a combination of steep terrain, shallow groundwater, and erosion- cavitated sand which require that Building "A" be supported on augercast piles. Surface evidence suggests that there has been a continuing problem of poor surface drainage, sloughage and erosion in that vicinity, especially toward the west end of the property. The pile-supported building will be as secure as those on flatter terrain and more favorable subgrade conditions and to some minor degree, will bring about improvement of downslope surface flow and sloughage. JAMES EATON, PE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (206) 682 -6942 I VI Box 126 • Hobart, WA 98025 Mr. Grundstein June 24, 1987 Page Two I am also advising you that have an accurate topographic survey made as a logical next step and that you and your architect consider revisions in the site and grading plan. With this letter are three copies of my report of findings. Yours very truly, EARTH SCIENCE es N. Eaton 7 -0431 JNE /rlb Enclosures INTRODUCTION The property slopes moderately to steeply to the south and southwest; elevation differential is in the order of 100 feet. It lies north and east of the intersection of Macadam Road and Southcenter Boulevard. Your south property line represents the approximate toe -of -slope and common property line with Denny's Restaurant and the ARCO AM -PM Market. It appears that the lower reaches of the slope were artificially steepened beyond their natural grades at some time in the past. This is especially the case behind the AM -PM market and around the north and east peripheries of the trapezoidal parcel proposed for office development. Page nine of this report was prepared from a 22 May 1987 site plan prepared by Azaria Rousso /Architects and from an 18 June 1986 office site plan prepared by Mithun- Bowman - Enrich Group, P.S. Note that page nine consists of two separate plans, each to different scale; one is of the residential portion and one applies to the office portion. An earlier . undated site plan study prepared by Milbrandt Architects was used for its location of the existing apartments to the north. Some of the test locations plotted on page nine were measured from a demolished house which, for field purposes only, was scaled from a 1" =100 partial top sheet which you provided. Presently, the only improvements on the property are the basement floor and walls of the aforementioned house, the driveway which served the house, and several rockeries along or near the toe of the slope. A variety of trees exist in clusters at various parts of the property. The areas between clusters support a dense growth of blackberry bushes and other brush. Part of that brush, especially in the vicinity of Building "B" and "C ", was removed in preparing access for test equipment. At the time of field work, a spring emerged from the toe -of -slope area immediately north of your proposed office building. It ponded in a small artificially created depression near the northeast corner of that building area. Water was also noted emerging from the south of Building "A" location and north of Denny's. This water appears to originate as spring water from the general area around and north of Building "A ". It appears that shallow groundwater and associated surface drainage has been a problem for the existing apartments to the north since construction there. Several small ditches undermine the perimeter footings and transect the yard areas all directed to an asphaltic- cement lined swale which parallels your common property line. Some of the small ditches carried water when last observed less than a week ago and it can be presumed that flow varies seasonably, but that it continues to some degree through the summer. As now proposed, the 57 units would be divided among five buildings. The present grading plan shown as before and after contour shows Buildings "A ", "B ", "E ", and part of Building "C" on cut with an apparent net removal of borrow from the site. The apartment buildings will be of wood frame construction with slabs on grade. The office building will consist of three stories of wood frame construction with a first floor slab on grade. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Page nine shows the approximate locations at which 12 test pits were dug using a rubber -tire mounted construction backhoe. Log descriptions of conditions at each location were maintained from direct examination of the freshly exposed strata. With recording of soil descriptions and groundwater conditions, the pits were backfilled in the interest of safety. Summaries of the test pit conditions are presented on pages ten to twelve. The stratigraphically lowest material found and of relevance to development is sandstone bedrock, which was found essentially at the surface of locations one and two, representing the north portion of the office building. The sandstone is fine grained, friable, and varies in color from white to gray or yellow- brown. It grades increasingly hard with depth, and within a yard of its upper surface it could be further penetrated only by repeated raking with the bucket teeth under the full weight of the backhoe. It appears that the uppermost one to two feet within the general area of the office building have been disturbed or artificially modified in association with unknown past utilization. To the depths explored, the entire residential area and part of the office area are underlain by glacially associated soils. These soils are highly variable across the property, but range from clean sand or gravelly sand in the bank behind the AM -PM market and at locations 9, 10 and 12 to silt or clay hardpan at locations 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 12. Most of the test pits exhibited layering of more than one type of glacial soil. Between the extremes of granular and find - grained are loam and mixtures of course and fine- grained soils; some of these mixtures include cobbles and boulders. . In general, the glacially associated soils exhibit moderate to high bearing strength and good slope stability. Exception is in the very shallow range of depth -- generally less than on yard - -where weathering and root action have diminished the soil's strength and where the granular or partially granular soils are saturated either by surface or subsurface flow. Also in general, after wasting the topsoil and root - ladened soils, the excavated borrow will be suitable for compaction either on this site or on another. Most of the borrow generated will contain a sufficient fraction of fine - grained soil to place serious seasonal restrictions on compaction and to some degree on fresh cuts. Where there are alternating layers of permeable and highly impermeable soils as on your site, there is potential to accumulate thin layers of saturation either seasonably or at more -or -less random locations. Groundwater was observed at locations 8, 10 and 11. The number 11 location was significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conditions are favorable for conventional footing support of Buildings "B ", "C ", "E ", and the office building. A deep foundation is advised for Building "D" because of the proximity to a steep slope and the highly erosive nature of the soil. Unfavorable soil and hydrologic conditions were found in the vicinity of Building "A ", and terrain there appears steeper than shown by the topographic map. Because of the steep slopes and the erosive nature of the soil, unusual measures should be taken with respect to surface drainage and pressurized utilities. In its present condition, these are risks of falling rocks and accumulations of sediment or sloughage on downslope properties; surface evidence suggests that debris removal is routine, especially on the Denny's parking lot. Due to the considerable earthwork involved in this project and the potential risk to neighboring properties, especially those downslope, review of appropriate plans and conscientious inspection during construction are imperative aspects of development. Office Building. The foundation along the north side of the building will, necessarily, bear on sandstone. At a depth of about two feet below existing grade in that area, the sandstone is sufficiently hard to support conventional spread footing, yet it can be excavated by means of an ordinary construction backhoe or tracked loader. Moving south across the building area, the sandstone gets deeper and it becomes overlain by over - consolidated glacial silt. Considering the relatively high structural loads and the desirability of having all footings bear on generally similar material, I recommend that all footings be excavated either into hard sandstone or glacial hardpan; this would require excavating to 4.6 feet at location three. Allowable soil bearing pressures of 5 ksf are advised, subject to inspection of the bearing surfaces. The 5 ksf figure could be increased by one third to accommodate seismic and similar loads. Those areas which are to support slabs must also be graded down to firm native soil, subject to good judgment and common sense. Near the toe of the slope behind the office building, granular glacial deposits rest on . relatively impervious silt and sandstone. This permeable /impermeable relationship is the cause of spring emergence in that area. The footing drain should be laid with its invert at least one foot below slab grade; the drain and its granular washed backfill should be shrouded in filtering fabric, and along the west and north sides of the building the backfill should rise to finished grade. A similar drain should follow the toe -of- the -slope and should parallel the east edge of the parking lot to insure that the paving does not fail because of softening subgrade. A six -inch thick or greater layer of sand or pea gravel should separate the flow slab from natural soils. You or your architect should provide me with a copy of the foundation, grading and drainage plans for review when they are complete. I may advise removal of some of the existing rockeries, the collapse of which could damage the building. You mentioned the possibility of raising grade on the office building parcel using borrow generated from the residential area. If that is done, I recommend that the building still be supported by footings which bear on hard undisturbed natural earth. Fill which is to support paving or any other improvements should be placed and systematically compacted under inspection to assure quality. Topography and Grading, Residential It appears that the contour maps on which the site plans to date have been imposed was constructed from air photos and, in some cases, the contour lines do not accurately describe actual conditions. I recommend that a ground survey be conducted early on and that revisions be made in the site and grading plans based on the better .information. There might be advantages to making major site plan revisions to avoid situating buildings near the sides of steep bluffs and thereby eliminating the need for drilled or unusual foundations. It appears that Building "0" and at least part of Building "C" are now proposed to rest on structural fill. I recommend that either floor grades be adjusted or that building locations be shifted to place all buildings on cuts. In view of the severe topographic as well as subsurface restrictions at Building "A ", I am assuming that no part of the construction area will be filled and that no significant part of the building area will be cut below existing grade. Adjusting of locations may or may not necessitate additional testing or explanation. From the onset of earthwork, you are advised to contain all construction- related runoff within the property until it is control - released into the public stormwater system. Generally similar containment applies to the post- construction period. In accordance with usual good construction practice, the areas which are to support improvements of any type must be stripped of organics, topsoil, fills, or soft materials. It appears that there will be some filling in connection with parking lots. No unretained finished fill surface should slope at steeper than 2 1:1 and then only if it is compacted to at least 95 percent as defined by ASTM D1557. Compliance with this necessarily requires engineer inspection beginning with the stripped, unfilled surface. Cut slopes through any of the soil types described herein should be secure at 1 1:1. Existing slopes steeper than that and falling outside the construction area are to be left as they are. The basement walls of the demolished house must be removed and the basement and surrounding area should be reshaped to a saucer - shaped section to facilitate placement of fill in feather -edged lifts; this, of course, applies only if grade is to be raised above the existing basement floor level. Septic tanks, buried fuel tanks and similar voids if they exist are to be similarly removed, shaped, and filled under inspection. ■ ■ Slope Stability The site is believed stable with respect to deep or shear -type sliding. That generality applies to the effectively unweathered and nominally weathered soils below the depths of dense roots. With respect to surface raveling, sloughage under adverse climatic conditions, and erosion, those . slopes which are now steeper than about 35° are no more than marginally stable under present conditions. It appears that both sandy sediment and rocks gravitate onto the existing parking lots, particularly the Denny's lot from time to time. The only way in which human activities are seen to contribute is that the toe of the slope appears to have been steepened in association with past commercial• development. An asphaltic- cement lined shallow ditch appears to be effective at intercepting surface runoff from neighboring property to the north and to all appearances, the present hydrologic condition is either natural or slightly drier than natural. With implementation of all recommendations herein, the following objectives will be accomplished:. O There will be no slope movement beneath foundations, parking lots, or other artificial surfaces; under natural conditions these soils will be retained, confined, or graded to safe inclines. O With respect to unnatural conditions, these are seen as incursions of surface water from offsite or from breached pressurized underground lines either onsite or offsite to the north. Both categories of water will or would be directed to and confined within subtle swales designed into the asphaltic surfacing, where it would be directed to a relatively harmless location along or near Southcenter Boulevard. O The steepest slopes will be unaffected by development, except that they will be slightly desiccated by the upslope artificial surfaces and that hazardous -sized rocks and other materials which might roll or slide toward the south property line would be intercepted by a chain link fence.. The slight desiccation would translate to a slight improvement in stability. • During the construction period, runoff from altered surfaces will not be permitted to enter unaltered surfaces. It will either be contained and pumped from temporary basins or sumps within the improved areas or it will be directed to a holding pond on the office building parcel. Underground Utilities Earlier reference was made to unnatural contributions to slope instability, and it was explained that this included accidental breaches of pressurized piping. For practical' purposes this refers to water lines but could include sewers if they are pressurized and effectively have infinite reservoirs. The imaginable ways in which breaching might occur include, but are not necessarily limited to, faulty materials, faulty workmanship, seismic induced strain, impact by drilling or excavating equipment, and water hammer or pressure surges caused by human carelessness or equipment malfunction. Several design alternatives have been considered in designing protection against any of the above mishaps.' Those include location of the largest pressurized lines at unusual depth of burial or at plan locations where some of the causal factors could be partially mitigated, using particularly flexible or durable materials, and using concrete or other conduits or barriers. No one would provide protection against all causal conditions. I recommend that the water system be so designed that the soil at depth is protected from both saturation and scouring by an impermeable synthetic barrier in the form of a trench lining and that the force of leaking water be directed to the surface where it can be contained in subtle open channels in the parking lot and driveway. I would expect. to coordinate details of design with your civil ,engineer. Necessarily, the largest diameter lines would have to fall outside or near the edges of paving. Small diameter pipe might be exempt from location restrictions but would confine and channel leakage with the synthetic barrier. Apartment Foundations Building "A" will require an augercast pile foundation. For now I am assuming that this building will be terraced and underlain by crawl space. Terracing the building is not intended to mean terracing the slope. I anticipate that there will be no retaining walls for reasons we discussed. I will coordinate with your structural engineer about lengths, vertical capacities and horizontal design. Depending on the outcome of your topographic survey, other units including "D" will require deep foundations to afford protection against undermining,'which might be associated with encroachment of the nearby high angle bluff. To determine the proper foundation type for each building, I recommend that a 20 -foot horizontal distance be maintained between the foundation and daylight, measured through native soil. Judging from existing topographic data, conventional spread footings will be appropriate for most of the buildings. With the diversity of soil type from point to point, I recommend that all footings be sized to building code specifications or to 2 ksf soil bearing pressure. If, after topographic mapping and revision of the site plan, the 20 -foot condition cannot practicably be-met using spread footings, I will provide your architect with parameters for pile design. These would derive capacity from both friction and end bearing; it would be assumed that there was no friction through fill or through erosion or slide susceptible soils. The piles would be in the order of 14 to 16 inches in diameter and would penetrate beyond the depths explored for this project. For either type of foundation, inspection during excavation is essential to verify compliance with the intent of these recommendations and to confirm continuity of soil conditions between and outside the test areas. In general footings will be poured on stripped soil in place. Under some circumstances, it would be acceptable to support footings on compacted fill, and the recommended 2 psf allowable pressure is within generally accepted limits for such fill. It appears that, even after anticipated site plan revisions, it will not be necessary for any foundations to bear on fill. Retaining Walls. All of the soil types found within the residential area are types which would exert lateral wall pressures of magnitudes within a commonly assumed range for this locality.. Silt and silt- containing soils found at various locations across the site would exert pressures well beyond the assumed range if used as backfill. Selectively, the cleanest of onsite spoils generated would be satisfactory as retaining wall backfill. For walls which are free to deflect sufficiently to assume an active condition, for which the backslope angle does not exceed 20 °, and which the full height backfill is free draining, I recommend that P be taken as 35 pcf. P as 300 psf, and that the coefficient of friction between soil and concr /te be taken as 0.5. For the nonyieidable case, p would increase to 55. Neither the 35 nor the 55 figure includes any surcharge load other than the assumed 0 -20° backslope angle. Your structural engineer should coordinate with me about other parameters and assumptions. I anticipate that daylight basement walls will be of reinforced concrete and that cantilever timber bulkheads would be more practical in exterior areas. Rockeries, where used, will be limited to 4 feet height by City ordinance and they, of necessity, will not and cannot be engineered. Property Line Hazards Several unlikely but potential hazards could transcend property lines where the property bounds are in general proximity to steep slopes. In some cases they represent natural hazards, such as gravity movement of earth materials across natural slopes, and in other cases they could include collapse of already existing rockeries along the south edge of your property or the effects of a breach in a water main such as the one that is understood to run parallel to but outside your north property line. One of the objectives of . this report is to provide recommendations for development without creating new hazards. To some degree both natural and unnatural existing hazards will be reduced by development. The amount of water which percollates into the soil across the property will be greatly . reduced, having a positive effect on spontaneous sloughage and superficial slope instability. Plumbing mishaps from upslope properties, if not controlled by the existing asphaltic -lined ditch, would become contained by the paving, curbs, and gutters of this project, designed specifically for such purposes. The fence recommended for protection of the Denny's and ARCO properties would be installed prior to any grading above. Hopefully it can be installed along the edge of existing paving irrespective of whether it coincides with the property line. The fence is not intended as a retaining wall but as a catcher. Debris which assimulates behind the fence must be periodically removed to preserve the effectiveness of the fence. LIMITATIONS AND USE This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the addressee and his design teams for use on the specific residential and office projects described herein. It is not public information and is not to be used by real estate agents, lenders, future owners, or neighboring owners. In case of significant revisions of the'types of construction, finished grades, or building locations, the findings and recommendations of this report may be inappropriate. The undersigned should be consulted about the implications of any revision. Partly in recognition of the potential for creation of hazardous conditions by not strictly following the intent of the recommendations herein, inspection of all earthwork and related construction is imperative. Another reason for close inspection during construction is that the undersigned assumes no responsibility for work performed at variance with the recommendations of this report or which is of uncertain compliance; with foundations and earthwork it is usually not possible to determine compliance after the fact:' The only express or implied warrant carried by this report is that the professional efforts: in developing and presenting the information in it were performed conscientiously, in good faith, and to recognized standards of engineering practice as understood by the engineering community in this area and at this time. 24 June 1987' James N. Eaton, PE TUKWILA APARTMENT & OFFICE PROJECT #1 #2 0' 0.5' - 1.2' - TEST PIT LOGS Dark brown topsoil and organic matter (soft) Yellow -brown severely weathered clayey standstone (soft to medium) . White to yellow weathered. sandstone (hard) 5.3' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater encountered; dug with difficulty beyond 4' 1.4' - 1.8' - Brown silt associated with past excavation and rockery construction (soft) Yellow brown severely weathered clayey sandstone (soft to medium) White to yellow weathered. sandstone (hard) 4.3' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater encountered; dug with difficulty beyond 3.5' #3 0' 2.1' - 4.6' - 6.4' - #4 0' 3.3' Brown silty fine to medium sand (dense Brown fine to medium sandy silt (stiff to hard) Gray clayey silt with sandstone inclusions (hard) Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater encountered . Brown loam with fine roots throughout (soft) Brown fine sandy silt with occasional sandstone cobbles and small boulders throughout (medium to stiff) 5.9' Gray to tan clayey silt (hard) 8.8' Completed and backfilled June encountered 0.9' 5.6' 1987; no groundwater Brown slightly organic topsoil with roots (soft) Brown fine to coarse. sand (medium dense) Brown silty clay (hardpan) 7.4' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater encountered #6 0' Brown loam with fine and course roots throughout (soft) 3.0' - Brown fine sandy silt with occasional roots in upper 5', sandstone and hardrock cobbles and boulders throughout (medium dense) 8.8' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater encountered. #7 0 #8 0.8' - 2.1' - Brown loam topsoil with roots (soft) Brown silt (soft to medium stiff) Brown thinly bedded silt,(hardpan) 5.6' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater encountered 0.5' - 1.9' - Brown sandy loan topsoil with roots (soft) Brown fine to medium sand (medium dense) Brown slightly clayey silt (hardpan) 5.6' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; slight groundwater seepage from 1.9 feet -11 #9 0' 0.7' - Brown,gravelly loam topsoil with fine roots (soft) Brown silty fine to coarse sand with sandstone and hardrock gravel, cobbles and boulders (loose at 0.7' to dense at 4') 5.9' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater encountered #10 0' 0.8' - 4.8' - Brown sandy loam topsoil with roots (soft) Brown fine to coarse sand (medium dense) Brown fine sand with trace of silt (medium dense) 7.6''- Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; minor groundwater flow from 4/8' #11 0' Brown sandy loam with roots 0.4' - Brown fine sand with thin silty strimers (medium to dense) 6.8' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; moderate to severe groundwater 'flow ..from 3.5' to 5.5' depths #12 0' Brown fine to medium sand (medium dense) 2.6' - Brown thinly bedded silt (hardpan) 4.7' - Brown fine to medium sand (medium dense) 6.3' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater encountered; surface water across steep slope in near vicinity r9dr01-7�0,.1� -,- dV.4/ •J..... .' 'VM' V11Mill1 81N�W1ly�ddd dO�N3�7 - - - -- - -- Sw 1 j1'r • 0 a' o� vl�aviM .t9 -US Soto Nr�1t -. .30 sow moo,: AI Yftf. 111 . NV.. ; .•lS tl. .Ii 7!O 4144 •li+i .•. S i-..•r 1•v s' d w rvot1•v,o ..- .12'[h7�.d So,. �11h4'Y 114MV/1/q 'a is/•f./fa •lovne 4t•f 1711 sf'•Id'fln• ;Irk •••fNa1•R"1R. ♦ stNr.raa -.00n.4 Ae1 .11.',..,„ sRYw-nn� - '9V0•d -ir ann�f� -111 PRf.■ lov-it.p a-,sar Yi r \L'Ej1 ,I"' '1' 14'71. ••NI'fr Z •� 1fVViO' \fhw0 • ,..ii. • •, r4nr rlr`vw.r. re - - ,ava 441: o 40000 •.4663_.. ,...,..a. az x 011C.1 NI V n 1 n 41'71 C# ..di . ® P+ .a I . ♦ .1 •1 .•44 i• •4.L •144 4. i1•3q •011 14444 I. 414 041 •1 •4,.11. 10.2003 .•0 11.010 1•• 011 441.0 11«[[1{ •44 Nlrs•5.4 ••r« 4 4.444 4444 N ••II.N0w 1. •6661 444 •4 M••«a 44 •1 •5011 11.4.10 14.014 !. 1 41.1 •4144 441 !• paw Nll/ • /.w NI■ 1• •.4n.. '.{ Ned w • •4•al !• 01 •441.1 e, 0100.0.. 4.tta •N • • •• 14444 1 44111001 ••■•••01•1 r. 14 101 s• ..11.. ,.w .UMW 43....1.4.. a• II.. 44 £$ 44 •661.14 1• [110 441 •1 144110 114144114■ 0 ...I «•1 446 •4 514 n1. 0.0 44044 0..011 Nea3 4411.4.4. 011. 1. ••II 4.q :1'.:":41::':1.:.:58:411,:::14! N •1 M/M 1.,f 4..• •1 1.114 411• •0 I.1. 4..•41 Ise/ 101 1. •1. • 4 .4014 .1 . 311 41.• .p •. 3404. 1411. 46 41.44 000.04 113.0 111 i• •• e•lr • tows. 3144 N •11 41•• 044 1441• 44.10.44 11•1•111 s•3. . ••1 1t •ogso SO Mel 4441 .41, n { l apes 0. !a 311 1.44 1.s ow 1.114l N r•• 1 10.• 01•,1 •• M1•.441 •• Y ,•.0 13.0 1[ •1 311. 3.„ ..1I• 4411.44644 •1 •1 s 3.11 4 15 01.0 14.1• lY •4••••• . .4014 11[[141 •w .343 1.144 84«44 NI. •1 I1e..1..• ee /.4•11 •4 •41 44 ••tt 41.44 .4s •4I0 . Q4 ` 011• 0• 0.11 1.44 441 1. 4411644 441 40 NI «IN. S 1 44044116444 "1.0.4.440 00.0 •.1.4 14 41.1x044 '4[ 11444 /• 4/9 .44413.44 4•4 .1 11 43.4 n•• 1. 1044 011 •• 141.1411. 11 !4 1.• wiser... •• !• w. .. .a posses •16 •43.44 n.• 1. 11 144•[ ! .441•.4 1441 441.1 .5. 114144•.. S. 4.114 3.41 441 .. sei II•n• 4411 114«1444 •• .4•1■ wet Pl. 84416 4111 41.41 it 44.44 541•.4 *11.016. e N 100:111401.11 In -11 poi:• « ;4611 I n3. •4 «II 1....... ..1./•w 1u •44i a e. ell H•4 nee 3. ``' .1 • 1I IH41/ poi•• • 4•;. [.11 1 •41 .4. . 11 1•44 Hsl { 1..w ..4 .•n •4•i/ !• 4411 n -t 441 1.i! 44/143 11411 s• 1.n.... ••w • 6.. HI 1«3 It .4• •••01• •• **1.11.4 4444 •w NI 1.l! •••1144 61011 31.44••441... • •.. •s 1«! U •I ,.4. mod • I.! ell 044 14131 441I •• •S le . se • 0144• [• .4/ 1 11444.444 441 w 3114 • w 344 .w. t{ l[ ..se •s•.. Ilar • •, *3.i u'pI 344 .•1.K it .P44 •4431 nwl dome. .ell 1444 •4•44 0144 el 1.1 ••.4 roll .:11.11 N Y44w .44.4. 1.03 Oren 11 4s•434w •4 .461■ .1444 n« w .•114• 01.14 3 4444 ..0 n P:... ease.. 441 torsos eql 4, ..spew Iln b110.0.004 3 .4414 . 0111 •4 ' 1.44 .0[.11 N 1.•44. 441 �1�aH► •44 44 .a 144.2 /s .4•p 1401 .1 1..44'•3. •e 4«4.1• 1 II /4.01.•.. .4 pus '[seQ�l•• !e 1464••• 111•• •w 14.4••44 140.4 goo we •' 1 '31.00•441 ........ NI •4'!/ •44• •1. 0144 •1 41.44 444444 •/ 1444 on. 1.44 el ree144••► •• we {t rye• 0. 344 lapis Os. 1.61664144 • 0• ••! 4[ ••• Ns Si••II MM.. N 001103.1•4•1 .41 3 .1w11w •44444 q !• 11 s1. 1 .443! 0. _4116344 ••••••• •4 0144 i• 44111.4 4441 4•5.5 H• •••44 '11444 44 4.....4 '11 4411044 w 1/1 s wow., m.s [•'ev11 .4..3 A..N 0 111 1.1.1.3 •114 3ef .s. • s•4*NI 35 'on* (1. 14•.1 45 331.1 •I I.3I1 .e• w 4 .4I 1.• 1 •w 0011 44.41. .nn I• .II 11-1 .4. ! ...Wee 1401. 3 1.15.1« 4114. • si 1 15* NIN • w •/•143• .4y 641 .61151 [ '44$•44 1.e 41•.41.« ' /P..31'Us44 1.44 .01 44.0 •111.11.6 4•/1.1 3.,M. sq.. 10.. le 1.101.144 W • ; atl w• 0,1.1 •. 4441 • 111• .. 164.4 1414. le .• 1 u • Y1 0• 1015414•1 •YI se W .611•4 1 •e. •411 6 3 41.1.4 44 .141 .n.l.•'1 4141 Ltln1" but, 0 . •l■ .N• a ..... 0 nl .. 0.rio.olo .e1J 01 e• g4esy eq.ea ....... ,. .. .I ■ • 14•-• L[•nl[•► +'0660 MNWNno. 1466 Jrrwl.• 0'4114.3 1.1 O.nr ....ewe. ,e ql d..0y1 rm-ij -. __ \ , 1 6£ MMl��ye J[tYiw I 1 (� �• I 'I 4 ' i / / I �• • - /� 4444" // '. /// - .• // / /� / /� "•: ". 4/,''2.':;,' /.' /// ' ' //• . / • •%. • // % •••, /// yO� �`NJA` �9S r '• / / . •I- -: r_ •� :►_' -_ , -- !V ,: • • . / • , // / / / •/ ' / '/ •, / / ',�Ii /• /,� ,'/ / 'i . . • •• - _ - - , O WV f1.4CT•aC7 O[70/gnnS 4- - - - - 1--1[-,41.d I-2VDs'a O -1•.,99-1 PLUr PLAN 6R�.rMIL •� OW 20'10'58 41 1081 `R - r�i• 4111! PS1- U * - .•.8.2.61 - {ct :u. u ww. UTluTias .6i f/JM1J 0 4. covr.Ga.7ca. u 61A121... 6a1wt>z t. cTw.. f6•+R un.66 8 - P:70'h 8L •L0 .1�• .a.. DON.. R.Vf7JAAY R] CON.►ir S .r L.PT. UU,1 4 .. w' D Ps7>-1.,r00.' aP 4U- ... • PRO P,..m.1--( 1726: OV•...J•..l .- n=.44V0.... USVU -11.11 r8 -oc(..IIr.IS1n. • NU•1•6'TL of L2 r. • 71 PR0PO1.6D V6, 16 4...OWCD P *. £0.7 .70... • (v WA0v . OF P #..4.. uG Orr -u3: 114.... 2. 37 S. P4- V6.§71- tiR- 107 ■0..*8... • Voe.7 8. 0# 1/27'7#•/ r•R..ke, sTM.i6 7•os- Pw. IC.Ad.ur �WYPIr- J.PPSQ: P77:U. 1v.sNlum7o 4 SSTwgs 77.7Tlo pscutx�wKS... • 6U11.011 •[♦, ••••a4• •. • 6V•07.16 -A:... a 12. 1.,481•' • 1,1,16 •• .r.1aw.A•(6 6.140 2' •i0 i 60: asR+v. ar.CO•7a 1o0 . 910. a i P.OD•2�... w 1..•00.61... •ro..1 UT .17Y P.00'.. • t0 oar- r..6 4 60• (.••1v). O T22•6'7- #7.006.. . 6 • p7J1101r78. Sew WAi AIM %U1.D048 •2 LYCiPT L 212CH row., Dir7.6... TDP... 7 .00R 2.60.6 6.676.1 • put 4-124•441. rd- 1 ►.mws Q 1AS4 d # 1 401 .1 2. iTY.l2uA.v4 1.140 .' 6 120 2' 1 1216616 6•..5.07.71••• • 190• (146.' . i ►aCVJas)� . .. L aroa+r uTt■try Raw. # DO.' 6 08846 (44.110d414 /or) ETA..., C,oa ..66.E r .012L -. • pUt,..pl ma, .17:t 24.68 44 W1,60-11s.6L • _ ToTw.. F- 009...x16. • H.A16 7t♦ • 6UII.DII L U r.- .xaR-a Q. 7,884 • ♦,406 21 I. aT•7r' ' " 8. 140.8 a 1127 •, 2.6a••S6 66/..r.-•9•41222.• 640 2 (1.20• K 1- 114.67011211 S oa •i {(�.T(u6/ ,622e,«. - 8.0 •' 4 �5.K6 6. 20• (8'.d)• 1002' r rar.1- 54.004. mos... 5.146 2' • w17v1�rai �1.14u+c�uoas ai+c.tcaalD LION -- 30rYrl- 47 c.R•.r. 2ON1•..6 LOD1 •T7pV7_. sod ow. Ric. • Ftii wr+. iA ... . u.4aQ : w0...508 P.ors.... • 12.6 Dlr. . P.�...ua 4 CJ•L1A..h10•..R8.i 67.... S1 ' 2. S.C.w 6VUAl1`7v sw.Li_ C•11.•164 1-BSs Tw++ 1o,am .' ors 170(6.. sums ' 1. NO P..6.T 08 J'A•IY 26.71.01•76 WAWA. . • 6i .71116 114644 son hiI.Y MICA 4H( .DC.c awl.. wa.Dwa... • 6. Hal w•D0.14•17 SMALL. WI 680V1DS0 PR- D•A..M.% /A6 aifLUlRpD... p. sus 7' rA67u ssuc . Wr(12 /0 VT: WOW. D5..76w7.r8 TD #•i....1TAf'■ INCAI .i•.r 06 1161 7.76Mr. ,01116C.,-11116.- ' 1AiIF Li 57*8 666.11 ..�� 6..1.•6MT al . UI. 6t. a ..t 85.7 8'.' LY/ s 04.4.ess 6A1 6^`•116 SHALL. M 4611{.6.iGT611 4.661167,626 { -CITY Ant. 2'271 A..% 6.Aai.... :5PGGIAL Fr. ft. GRQAT'IUtJI.L AILBA 1JC>r L`'... L 5IU668.w 8'77.7..4 CCC6 411.6 PDS. 2520 Sq.51- 06 RCiO.TIO.. -' s sos- .Pw� 2s88s.7 ��u•a MIS P<oQSTCN-T wwO -1-11 a1Q.11at 11. r0012 T. �?0 -sorOS® (VS. 18 H.L0VW). TPMW0pam Ls 0t 177.400 80 F . 5V1•••∎, -4.SIi bi • =.:of 1-61414 ... .111 •COL Y 1 2'06 G..i.oP''66 TK6w1i&f6Va.YIGT PROVIDI S••5 ` • •a O# ii•�� 6 jI8 LCCi0K000UUL uo.r .26 .�+.. A6. AilISCUIS 7761•. 841-861.]1. 16-Ake A6^• SSP.{1P.1 1.F %N6 Ai6P.a... LN .004 ON T.71 7.•11845. 05.W 81 '.8. 8 45.4G 4.$5.eas ... r.alto .Rf SAL J08 . &AM 131 r7v6 P•_.5.4.16 sw o is vao1-8 8.r st. 6 ••••. 4 OF 166 J51.5547. -'r L7± Ts 50•G•s A. 1l470•CJ.FlaCI A6YI. AND ~If P74c 371Ew... 170 UNITE 040R1.,C2Y- 1111 8 .442.1.44 .R.f..... 2. =.0.24.1-1 088. 0 2'..D 1407 68.117 PW... ao C16.611JA■..0 -I, T44f ... PROW IGAM 7D swPaL'1.16 TIM TtA1 *-T" Live. '1'.688 -. •1 • 1 0.716 7.7 7/72 ti�S.J -011.2 .4 ia. 4u+7 4. Aa• ....-r 4- nlw.....,r -.. TD ADD T i T ( a 0/46 T I T S b a l . . . - „ 1 • 67 V771r 5.v5.0-1-,. 87+1 Co0r( 8Y• .o sD r•V21M1v�1 - 6u.D•T.. 11ti16-a. •• ......NO,1•D� 1_• .,.. .... f.. • -67 106 ...0: 61- 489 ammo 72EA.e.. .. aCrUSa6* . 1I040/4T.a� 501 7803.8.1. i1 TM. 2(1� sire G PL 1 PLANS 4.140-rtsi rR-ror5 0.011 Doao0.00...-,115 •oo oono0A11 alts.nortbolo Cao..00 loorto-orm0 00.41.01. 0 .1? 111M1i MI o.."-•=.....1., 1 li - ain i 4 rfil ---1—(4----. Ea- I I 1-i-- _ilig_ ill il I- m ra a 1-000100.00 e- T' to-7 ois" •te :Oa" gr.,..to.Too -oo..or ao. "r 1C-,1•4 • ro.t.orap /••rrob.1-. or.Plo•gto.iog 010 o o .170 o on o Nom ono so I. 1 o . , 1 o.."-•=.....1., ...,..ty._ we........ _ _ _ . . :`,...,.. 111 1 ...ii "s17,1 / 1 _ = - ---1—(4----. ''n"- Tr_tt t-7- .. . ._. omoo•ooloonowoomtutoiwo•ono•tmolllier•olOoM1I11111MMI'Mionollilot •1•1•• •11 1 1011 jolliMinoMoillilio•Mo•o1111 - 'WIMP= 1111 =r111111M1111111111111111 m E.ST ecl-EVAT ION 4, Teo poiCao.8 111.0. t.coOlo. foo..h.11 P/NR:F SOUTH OUfl- LV Et.1/4..oG:EV2. 124-046. P" 111•11‘...4. .4‘ rroas.r Jnl.4r moo.- oso.1.o.....sloom. VIEMMOI wrcoulritis. Or..41V-t4,61-4 PoomarY loaboo-o- S-0.4 orross-orporaana 14.oco.c.. sai Ano. 11100.0 0-1■ 00irr ibeD11.00/01, qo F • go - • —, ja,or ROM- Loll Lop! Moan LAA.C.A.T1171■4 0 17- P1-- • F - Lo II-- to %NG, 'Foo: oi ft` o`- Loom, • lowc, •1..ocono sorro-az :root, 1,9o, 1.001,- r 1,0M (3, o ...21,0 • .1116.•Ce solowo.-.4a.. • "WT. D000LcooMPAP.fr Poor.s..a. ro1.oro■ 0000 1.0,.07101-of ./G1. 100. Or11.. Uvimeiott-m-va 0 TNT. Fit."3"-4 • SLUM. Pomo- *moor - T F• GA. 1/4,141r . 111=‘:1=11==11 o r 2. 4' OP • .11==1, wm. ammo W-4 -v- "I'•••• mum TR. as • *LAO. DONVII. ,aor 101- o" i ro• ro-11=o1o=> UN I r La-, r.o, R. m..4.P.-1 •m•-•■,-.0,.... tzi m■ D PfaoLonl.00. l P ..41 Ce..2/1/4PLAWIL %moo so GillaJTWIL: 111KOIC. • In...WU,. WO.. 1 ••••• ao 11,21S WO 1 01- 07-.1 0aoso NOT.= ow.. ow 0.0. Ao. A 14.16. 65G., • A. 1201.4 Or ft,C•T lip 5,50. yr it.. sr. po.oramilL noolto040.-3,05 bult.-DiKiGsW."B*4%:".... 15-M6 sows - tcs /ovoaa • a asrao.v/ sly • niLS a s-col& _L 1.1r17ar. • ossncra vrava.0 L21 -L� : or .or L.- . -t:u•. • S r o loel:...M .•w• �-•: nl -•ax•. OIL. lcrldwo2 1•••••J•.••■■ 1Nfl L■ 101110ninu �.' • No11•4 nn1' 1san\ • ,v,..•Da11. • No11vA C e .vs 02 r iti�•- III I 1 a""",.7M d•ti• "'•a• r410-11 fl / s`N011VA'D-1M 4 CNV-vd =i10t:1-"r - s•enr•e.• • 0w1.O-11C141 °••ry.i••.,o -.1 wen '7l Of»d ,6L 9NIG'11(1% 'CNY • hfyd "ti CS nal °seat? -1� .16 • Ni+Td -a t1 G71-s „II, 'veinal • tvoU'v -too 1s 1=-M • . Jr •--- •1•r711J1 -•. • 8 -11=.44 "'•6,'1Cw • No - 1- 11nc).9.' • • ,7„ 9ry 1x^11 r' / %v.-4 LIN, M 4 ••01d "1c'o 'i>sSLTj -�nar1 •.z ra'afa /• Y•►11v1..n.oe-•. 'OYa It •a+s ••.o- ��••••q• r-110-1%n Si • 21 C701d '*-1-s• 1 • N•%, c 0'14 "'.;„•9C"19 • Nc)11vna -1q _Ls "/- •c• •,an, t4 -, ,ra • t-4 nos 3 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER gJL. 1) 18. 7 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM '13)2 TO: [[ BLDG. [J PLNG. P.W. C1 FIRE Q POLICE Q P. & R. PROJECT /,Y1 car 9-. 044A., •rlz- - L)41. J.3 )fir) ADDRESS fa J ft14• - ! OWit:7, DATE TRANSMITTED , A 4i pis-) RESPONSE REQUESTED BY J4,� ad peL C.P1S. STAFF COORDINATOR'(,1� GG RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: RI g mAki) Q. 0 Q Q 1 ) / b) In Jl H - v (SO VIA 1 t\) Vt-c-T1oi> Liu K_S' C7 LYE 1 a-o i s sw S 1 i - •'113, ,1:I Lam' Ci-}-q L...LL Fo ft S Fvvd - lT �L 1u\ (\eCt g-S 1 -1-17 D av Etahn - IM b4 -Y Q � LOD P (/10 vS Q 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED tO PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0 PLAN APPROVED [[ PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA • PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER git 1) 1S.7 _ CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM 40 >" l '172 d"-- TO: [[ BLDG. PLNG. [[ P.W. Q FIRE Q POLICE IN/(P. & R. PROJECT _� Gd 6e re 6, e%tL - 41 413 7 ADDRESS A/0 4111,1,4,••• (DQrji DATE TRANSMITTED , )(AP 3 1 )1I$') RESPONSE REQUESTED BY J4S ail pet_ C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR- RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINES) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: Q Q Q 0 Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 p� 0 0 0 D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [I PLAN APPROVED [[ -: PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA( PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER g)L. 1) 87 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM g7- 5 -4012 TO: BLDG. ❑ PLNG. P.W. Q FIRE ❑ POLICE Q P. & R. PROJECT mGor - O✓1etr &M- O4.1 v�.3 1 r) ADDRESS Ala t far ^ 1 644p>si DATE TRANSMITTED c )UKL a 4 118) RESPONSE REQUESTED BY J41' a, f! C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR gee.... RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: d6, i??‘ cocid 5)44 krze A, ❑ ❑ ❑ A4 y ckQ r,ves o uQrr y AIL), ❑ /c 7 �h�e. garrike-r al- L /45/` 5 are ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED M PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED ❑ PLAN APPROVED [[ PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 CillOrol No. Epic File No. EP /G 1) 6'7 Fee $100.00 Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: '14sa 2. Name of applicant:ReAritrw, 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:" r7 QJ6..R. 1 � o • =1■ —4' • • • 232r_ -35 - 4. Date checklist prepared: IJe S Iq 122, 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): N.,,,64. i 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. IL oNviar. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. N!!2ts m tkzl s►G e— - 1 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. _ C V v...I.Lah.�s �� 11..fl 11.1[,! Q�1/►� ..�. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. 197514.41.41004 40L. 0415114,44 i 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. 5 FV ♦♦ice -� �..+!'�i - - -- - 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? - SLr2, TO BE COMPLETED BY APIANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other 1+1 t—L..`-e • r • b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? '2.Cj 07 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. sm. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Q t at l A Evaluation for Agency Use Only e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of f 1 ._tsio �II_� ,�I 6 gegrAuetscepo. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. JIIL �� g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:LAIWE5 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: uQi�ClJL 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.__Isio le_ Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • 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 f i l l material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known.__Aslop„ 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._ Evaluation for Agency Use Only • b. Ground: • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. Na 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: surface, 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass _ pasture _ crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, 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 al t ered? _V -1113745 / J/C 0_ 4 f� c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.___Istz,„. 1 • d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, i f any : _ _L . I�Pi, f,WIL _ Q 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: 111 mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. ___ W,• c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. ��., d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:011r�� Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. ! —t b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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: autu®gbprass LICz,Q.>ieD 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health including exposure to toxic chemicals, ri and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, occur as a result of this proposal? describe. 10,, I-+ hazards, sk of fire that could If so, 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.1`,cao,,_.__, 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: _ .A,,_ • • b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other) ?_TR - tc.., 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. =.141tR,Ma4 T 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Lprtjp.eu _ .a lgt SOM6— 65f!!k. t 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current properties? use of the site and adjacent �s Vic_ ,_.• b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. Evaluation for Agency Use Only r r• 1 • d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Ta}4 f.. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? �^ g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? At••s h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. t4 •#E___ i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? SGQlAi Approximately how many people would the completed project displace ?owalii�„�� J• k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:_ d6 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: I'OI.. .. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1 • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing ?__'? ML - S #4.• b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. d c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? - ►��.t. p4� -tom..' b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? rhr c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: SuLLA:)/14a,S___Malia - -__ ■ us► . t. is vs. _'r r,.� ■ - i�:.Qt • —it s -✓ � L -W I • 0 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? 4`r %244C DTI b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if an : Letorzz_LmswfWG 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational tunities are in the immediate vicinity? jb oppor- b. Would the proposed project displace apy existing recreational uses? If so, describe. r c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:, �Pr1� sec r rC_•t*tt p. t�'S -14- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. NIC:› , b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. - - --+� c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: �4L►'Z� `�..,- 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Ar- b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate ?_ • • 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). _�N ret)- bis _wr,,ce • e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Nej•.• f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.] Evaluation for Agency Use Only g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Nmi.,,gEsi 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.440 ___ b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. h .• i • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currentl available at .- site: septic sys 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. _ 1G 'hl. w � r✓ I C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: w PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. Q , Let 65"1 TO BE COMPLETED BY APISANT D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) • Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Nc — 151011WOrbla,44.J7rIpq Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: gesca,u lRJ b. 2. How would the proposal be likel to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to protect or conserve lants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: �Q_VI •,, • 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: t40.4,xc 'V( b,., 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? cr _-e-T"'., Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 4 ij iag:: ZV IRS 14,_: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? K1 or PooPt,, 1,''x'4,_ Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: 4OL_,TQ,e_E r• How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan ?____44ct._ QLicArlaLE...., 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation n or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: �A� _.�1��Q►��� --- 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or re uirements for the protection of the environment. Np putG-`-.o • • 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? p e.• Proposed 'measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Evaluation for Agency Use Only. 10 BL CUMI'LL I LU E. SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSALS BY A•ICAN I • SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal. will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal ?"'f 'FQL Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Do t. 4, ,0.04 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Norr- prfputeAreLao, • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Np , Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -23- s . i - mrti ci.17,21. sZ31.4",r1,,M/mAerpetai .-. . •- ■ • CiSSLAID N•111141 - 4 -- __ _ _- , • ,, -. . . vusenworo, *I.iesripeurf .- .nr i--:=1- ,...... W. r-I ...070.■ • : • al ' ''1.44...Q1.81.": ,-..- . . . ... . _ .. . - . . . . , ---- -----. • •-...-w• Ason. 21Ma. mats --iislaiii:::-.--_9 !,... MisiA-M.M.... ans. amkivaCtrossApernemisassa. . OCEL.1[1.1.1met SZIMIZIA-o -TIO MEM Malleva, . so e.01. . Man 0....11.1.0-104121' 1130411VIT:rmi=L .1, MO ,10040 ITV ...____ . .. - ., -_- ---•-a.s..-Mma L.101 71910 cal.alo :I I- SI-GLIT- I. 0 -.titan ;< L.I.0,110 C12071-C1011•11.0•3001-0111•11.11.-01,01-11.011•11,21:0 _--.7-_--,..- -WIWI ..T.I1.4•71.L.70 'a •7 r. . . ----1,,rabc■ 7.1, NM. ■ maw-. i 0 1-s 1 v.:- _ A...1,...... 14.1...:-.... 1..e.1...zir4 i sg* •7*11.011.0/1* 01.1.11*I• ...isnt. sio Irma.. mal,Vala T.* 1 .0%.,cor lonIA.-Ocrys m...Mnsli aaL.1.-stas0t. 'T tr■ ao. Mai. stsvas.orl 1.m.Rrywn 11110.1.....1.01.41 . • : Mt-i.. ensn.R‘. mo.lsisrl Rams, smissratarsi : • ---. - --sana.l. sraniva las.. , 2-72 : • -.arm.% "tra.1.-4...s.. . .,...' r -,-t.lareum, •-■••••,.....-0)..■.-aors. - ._ - t,arrea ha ,onnie. slialt•onas Cal ar-1..... -"MO .10 ' r-OV-1.4 v:4-4 odY-75 cir-4.4, lir • min ...icrlda • - - C11,1139-1:- Vti I "'Val (1144 : +14 • , - . - r';.E4 . - -7-_, :'--: . ••• - - -- . - - - .- -- • • .1•••••••0. 7~1. JD. • •• . Slis.0.10rsa 1,01•01). -711.00.0C/ 101,01/ acivcrts.4 _ . .. --Csomsa. As-r.m....1 ma al. 111mati rn.R402 "--.1-r.Rns/ imr• smoma. rank... SAMS -Thiii:t ... TM. m..ra ,z 2-2 • . . . • al:01 1104 f a .. , _ .......• ••• . .... 0 • 0 :I • ... - , _ _ • .t^ • , . 91-Mtliall. r . .- . r. • ---- __ . allognins. . a. A . , 1 v/ri,c,aintPV :•-,It--..■,-sw. .-Maare. Ursall=4, -4,.. i= H , 7 " _. mixemsbs,„„„., % • nifit...F2r, •FA — - -. -, a P,,,,i.,...67,4,,761-- --- .....,.., rsmilmrsia -am.' trin..0 , 0 1 , ‘ „.... ol■II,:q1 enwiewm.memse......*.li . FitinsISMat a ••1 .... N.,,. ilkoNn .4.04 _ 11/51M.,,,,..44.444,44 -4174,1-ir'i W.PC5W4. crwa.e. •-...r..e Sntrre sturat.1. gor41.1.011,1111 010c-1.004,,e7 mDelsk comv.. ai-url..,aAssu-n 1.w..-s. i d ,-4r 4 r.1s-Ru*pmMm:r4a..im x. * a- ' :• -= . i ,a.a: - P 0'1 ‘,91 0-1[. Li;•1 ,.. ._ Lik,) hiNx-- n C • • 1V11-:, -inn...1 •-....11-rr . -0.....-00.0.■ ,.,.1 .... yrs2„-. 1.c..a .rvnm..IY ooA mo w I•F os• •...A..-.. s..4 ..40..01..7...... . . -«H 1 11,1,:10.. 11100W iLON2C. anrel l C.li'bk.lrollM051m ,...,.-„ ii 6 .\ cn 111 q 1 ' cq. c.0= 1M .• -s. VI 2 A,1. C , 61-xc-, 1 >1Z .I v .. Alti wool. ft...S. 1.40..1.:77 ANANTi -14,--t1.04).012 'All "anriCrai17...0 -aci'd7S•C-11,14-1 1..1 0,24,4150 03.h/6 0' -0" I... an 4404 4V141_311. 0!01-441 -S py 5C044.4-70 N•.. TU 14. AL• - 5o1.bo IBd Td 10 111.9S' GS \ 110 5 4114 .404 /A OP-0440 104 ►u- &S 00 S1b4.w4 r.WSTl.•F6 P Orr •. SGg 101*-404..101.41 lb`f COTCV MfJ7- RG1S11J30141 POOL 1.4A11S41 41144OA31, 3 c 1O-16 71.4e0IA44 F340P•a1►TY p- 161- 211.11..0! 41y....�RpCJLR`( Zl..bt�111r1O.J• -- NDl1! 63 cPd 14.11_'1 L0 .R+ 3.1.2W. I# 0401- .1:,.. TS6..S11.jNAL 410PS `e3 wTS ..Iu. to o 44 1-3.et P.•as. P re .1 t!4 ems.•x1-4.44440 \vh _ ft. 2!0.0040... P t--v1- PLAN t' 3R31.44 IG 6C.21-4ff .10 4H 13, t3' 140 1�E bEV GI.UPY�G 4 17ATA 7 PROP• 1'1 2.cn.6t, ,P.M_..i u10r / 1.50023. Fr. 2.U0WG 0 NWOEt- 02- u. crs: el r5OINO111a .3. 76 ■lyp.ICO ... (VOPte.r( 01ts T'M,3 PleOrPor 11Q, 16140. cr.. •OVSt.�.. PRO 66.-1- SIL• : 112.4501o..PT: 3 P..soJ.as PeoulDm :114.511.41S ...1. 5114uC s wore f $T .. S ^�- P,OSIUtLs' .lu..o.uP ► m_. 24.0033 ¢ 3,4502' 1,1_33.' 5so •suwolNa 6� • V vn.01 .G t' uo++_c.s1o3 yea£3 ts' r4.444 •.• Su'.vu= X p01'2 e' S Rmeat L' 0.' 1.433 A.l1'P eoan •O • 111.....416 410 oaccl ••O 1 A.O. . aU 14.21. -16 "O P40 4442 a' • svm...1.6'` • 4,i0S •' ur■uT+ lrmw 60 •T'P.14w4..r SW 34•.21 3 -.0 -1s 104 Mac.. 4 • tP174.RO0R est 1.262•• ipr►.•..MC. or /.4I.• 1110.11a.01.4Na•41 efte N. VGLAX4,11 W 4..q x 221-0 S. S elaa rw_C014?e, RTf. ■.3'504 4. ns�ta.__ 4i. P4 •••••R lir w T'TS 1 srvO.Oa ..11 unITa.. . .{.fir vn I(e ...2.e¢ VA _ LX44 r4 x4CYmre•Ma_..aa : 0.41.lmr- 00 .(V00 OCL no. 0.1.4PLANA 2410. IM-4.1b112. Com. 3.21041 oP 31.4401•444 op ...u_ L'<w40 .4 oe V11.1,4 1J(b 3 1322. 14+tiMd( 1002.._ PIRG P_ROT'EC•T -'1123 NVTaS #- t =1•1,+: aa.losss a ol..vay..es , �.•a.s £.J.4-as law 0R. l.ass_.•at w.......,.,s4 W • . 01T4IItAI.eD - Ro04..3023,_. • i.aw 11v4.01r•40 m••laa. GIM TRW 0,CMG a� 140 P r OP I444/ 334..D11 ,0 154.244- t LeeSS T Wi •G P<fr 223.( 1.P010 ANY r0STCp.r •44.014.2' ... 'i?I{ PO. we0V 4411 .4•... f• .a SPO FpalesI.-. _. 4 141402.0.4 •. r■or '4.33.& - �..V<r..RJI: . 1-`5. ex. r 32023 4AA.0O . 2 59 3 1•w.P Pet2M1 _: 4 u•]r��4�t.od1 ;•. t. t43.w4314. 3 VATS --- 24114.0... ....*IL 'm VW k iT31s430 64911x1.00.3'11 • S..432 set Pr _sly6.'e .. ►,043 S0. Dj 4 atG4 Sm.Fr:.e12Ti.ti_Sp =T et, a>ICTER -' - 1...10E.+iTp3:43 -- 15.1.33-I. rm., ue.ms 311..x. 53 1.4.0Vtap w4.•40 ... wsPlrsnTo0. 1.4A413B I.t .PP1ovp f.( 0-r,06-7th... :iii UR( 3..44.4- NIL rat a0.•O VIRGINAL a4o..•._. RV. • l.. T1344 I•P 11381 ilia.. WPI %NC�es M n1.ove r! c1T1 - bA rt...',D•. um"- P,1-. ves a ..•nlw... •T•,•••••.s; 4x04 Lie ew "TT aw UA1'tC7l4 1.1vrca b3: 41.4141.60.3 •PLM. oRwIJIa. 3V3.MT144.t 1. a.4sr1..6 Va3•T.111�....c.r sevry •wt aP brt • n. P.a4nit..r e1- 8006.• ,. .. .s ooc tt 00 .....t ..a1...11=R..cp ... /. 140142x0 1<010 4 614.21' aam. *.a-. �TM�ar lT^fJ•T 10 5 4GQ3.- CLw'.P L6K 112.9 • r.r� , 1. w.wplt0 .. P. :3 -4-•1 .2304 61-x21 4.%.48.)/. 342-491.52) • �6.ICti1 G'1- pos.. 4.4.40 r. g 2• Ii -1•bs -}_EVISEO PLOT - 1.1.244117.0,7.1.4 0 PR 1 i ■Id 11, 1111111 I ! I': i• Id il 3 2 9 • S,— -, NORTH so CE.� TF �F rsn..s s.,.AE .M.>V..1V JECT /ON 4 -A _ ,crrsrrne e..Ana- SECT /ON 8 -8 •CAL I: /-•i0' G M e. • 11OUINSOoN • ...pc. IOC. COMfKTIM IMtl MOO POO. A!7 UN /T AMRTNtNT COMPLEX FOR 6ENCOt PREY/AI/NARY 4RACV/1G PLAN C,rr s rn.rru• maw/ irt»' 7-/E4 • W•t CC b , is so Gls, CFNp F,P e A ALTf-RAl9TE JECT /ON 4 -4 _ ALTER1l9TE SECT /ON 8-8_ N OA' TN G OBTHROAARO• ROBINSON • •1$9C. INC. CONWLTIII,• IN•INSE•N d IINY� KOTC... maws. Immo [: ••-N• A 57 (/N /T A/MRTNENT CG•►LE.f PREL /Mri RAD/�RAD /N!j PLAN C/IY A• T Mll.1 WASAI /N(IOV 87-434 .00.0•011,814 ,7--'-wl -77/1021d ONY Nti d $ 31✓nuLt Yra ,fra, Yale r37bIrW 1N. S(19MIY 1/NA LD 0' •N wo11.i111o+i • • •d J • \ \ \ i \ \ 1 //I 1 «. - 1 h4 ON " Jcc,2. •.0 PARCEL A: Tract 35 of Brookvale Garden Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, on page 47, records of King County; EXCEPT that portion lying Westerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the North line of said Tract 35 with a line drawn parallel with and 70 feet Northeasterly, when measured at right angles and /or radially, from Mac Road centerline survey; thence Southeasterly, Southerly and Southwesterly, parallel to said Mac Road centerline survey, to a point 85 feet Northeasterly, when measured at right angles, from the 1 -RE line of State Highway Route 5 (PSH No. 1) , and the terminus of said line; ALSO, an unplatted strip of land adjoining said property on the East, lying between the East line of said property and the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; AND EXCEPT that portion of said Tract 35 of Brookvale Garden Tracts, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the West line of the East 25 feet of an unplatted strip lying East of said Tract 35 and as described in Deed from Tony S. Kato and Doris M. Kato, his wife, to Restaurant Industries, Inc., and recorded under Recording No. 720803 -0148, records of said County, with the Northerly line of State Highway as condemned in King County Court Cause No. 600726, thence North 65 16'34" West along said Norhterly line 163.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence North 24 43'26" East at right angles to said State Highway, Northerly line 160.00 feet; thence. North 65 16'34" West parallel to said Northerly line 305.00 feet; thence South 23 54'26" West 102.85 feet to a point; thence South 27 51'56" West to a point on the Northerly line of said State Highway, said line running Southeasterly from a point that is 70 feet Southeasterly, when measured at right angles, from the Mac Road centerline survey and 85 feet Northeasterly, when measured at right angles, from the 1 -RE line of State Highway Route 5 (PSH No.1) to a point opposite Highway Engineers Station P.C. (1 -RE) 158 + 93.3 on said 1 -RE line and 70 feet Northeasterly therefrom; thence Southeasterly along said line to said point opposite Station P.C. (1 -RE) 158 + 93.3; thence South 65 16'34" East along said State Highway. Northerly line 206.81 feet to the true point of beginning; AND EXCEPT that portion of Tract 35 of said Brookvale Garden Tracts, and of the unplatted strip of land adjoining on the East of said Tract 35 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., described as follows: 1 • Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said unplatted strip with the North line of State Highway as condemned in King County Court Cause No. 600726; thence Northwesterly along said North line to its intersection with a line which is 25 feet West of as measured at right angles to and parallel with the East line of said unplatted strip and the true point of beginning; thence continuing Northwesterly along the North line of said Highway a distance of 163 feet; thence North at right angles to the North line of the highway a distance of 135 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Highway to a point in said line which is 25 feet West of and parallel with the East line of said unplatted strip; thence South along said line to the true point of beginning; Situate in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. PARCEL B: That portion of Lot 11 of Interurban Addition to Seattle, as per plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, on page 55, records of King County, lying North of the Northerly line of Primary State Highway Route 1, as conveyed to the State of Washington, by deed recorded under Recording No. 5473599; EXCEPT the East 450.86 feet thereof; Situate in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS + PROTERTY ADDRESS (IF NDT OWNER•OCCUPIED) 0010 -03 Lavern L. Allen ,, 15249 Sunwood Blvd #A -1 • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 0020 -01 Sally Carver -Long 15429 Sunwood Blvd #A4 Tukwila, WA 98188 0030 -09 Don R. Wilson 15249 Sunwood Blvd #A3 Tukwila, WA 98188 0040 -07 William R. Hayes 15249 Sunwood Blvd #A11 Tukwila, WA 98188 0050 -04 David P & Ruth A Winiger 15255 Sunwood Blvd #A -12 Tukwila, WA 98188 0060 -02 Sharon Pieper 4317 Forest Ave 15255 Sunwood Blvd #A -13 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Tukwila, WA 98188 0070 -00 James E Higgins 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A21 Tukwila, WA 98188 0080 -08 Scott E. & Sara A. Stubbelfield 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A21 Tukwila, WA 98188. _ 0090 -06 Wayne A. Nomer 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A23 Tukwila, WA 98188 0100 -04 Philip A & Kathy Q Verhalen 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A24 • Tukwila, WA 98188 0110 -02 Donell.& Hideko Tekawa 9923 Beacon. Ave S 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A24 Seattle, WA 98118 Tukwila, WA 98188 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS 18 A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. • OWNER ' S NAME AND ADDRESS 1 PftOT N ADDRESS (IF NOT £ O WI�R•OCCUPIED) 0120 -00 Nancy 0. Peterson 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A27 r- Tukwila, WA 98188 . 0130 -08 Gary M. Cassidy 15255 Sunwood Blvd. EA27 Tukwila, WA 98188 0140 -06 Seattle First Natl Bank P.O. Box C -11022 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A31 Oreo Dept.- Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98111 0150 -03 Casey Y K NG 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A31 Tukwila, WA 98188 0160 -01 Harry SMyth 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A33 Tukwila, WA 98188 0170 -09 Everett L. Canfield 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A34 Tukwila, WA 98188 0180 -07 Donald L. Copenharve 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A35 Tukwila, WA 98188 0190 -05 Christopher Joe Long Loop 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A36 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Tukwila, WA 98188 0200 -03 James G. Baron 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A37 Tukwila, WA 98188 0210 -01 James L. Fridley 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A41 Tukwila, WA 98188 0220 -09 Russell B. Kober. 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A42 _ Tukwila. WA 981$8 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS I8 A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNER-OCCUPIED) 0230 -07 Jonathan David Laube 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A43 • e Tukwila, WA 98188 • 0240 -05 Roger W. Galicic . 3263 S 137th '15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A44 Seattle, WA 98168 Tukwila, WA 98188 0250 -02 Patricia L.Gratton 15203 Sunwood Blvd #B1 Tukwila, WA 98188 0260 -00 Patricia M. Lassiter 15203 Sunwood Blvd #B2 . Tukwila, WA 98188 . 0270 -08 Alan R. Doerschel 18219 154th P1 SE 15203 Sunwood Blvd #B3 Renton, WA 98058 Tukwila, WA 98188 0280 -06 Jose B Valdez 15209 Sunwood Blvd #B11 Tukwila, WA 98188 0290 -04 Luenna Ann Pullman_ 5910 S 149th 15209 Sunwwod Blvd #B12 Seattle, WA 98168 Tukwila, WA 98188 0300 -02 Teresa M. Groark 15209 Sunwwod Ave #B13 Tukwila, WA 98188 0310 -00 Joel C. Davison . ' 15209 Sunwood Blvd #B21 Tukwila, WA 98188 0320 -08 David A. Kazumora 15209 Sunwood Blvd #B22 Tukwila, WA 98188 0330 -06 Astrid .I Harmer 15209 Sunwood Blvd #B23 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS (1F NOT OWNER•OCCUPIED) 0340 -04 Germaine E Malgarini . 15209 Sunwwod Blve #B24 ''- Tukwila, WA 98188 . 0350 -01 Eliseo Eva Arranaga Lamont Dr 15209 Sunwwod BLvd #B24 Montery Park, CA 91754 Tukwila, WA 98188 0360 -09 Martin Overmyer 15209 Sunwwod Blvd #B26 Tukwila, WA 98188 - _.. 0370 -07 Don Tsuboi . 2222 NE 92nd #115 15209 Sunwwod Blvd #B27 Seattle, WA 98115 Tukwila, WA 98188 0380 -05 Terry J Pugh 317 Lake Desire Dr N 15209 Sunwood Blvd #B31 Renton, WA 98055 Tukwila, WA 98188 0390 -03 Yoshio J Shiota 4422 S Myrtle St. 15209 Sunwwod Blvd #B32 Seattle, WA 98118 Tukwila, WA 98188 0400 -01 Alma N Petersen 810 SW 117th 15209 Sunwwod BLvd #B33 Seattle, WA 98146 Tukwila, WA 98188 0410 -09 Keith K Corner 15209 Sunwwod Blvd #B34 Tukwila, WA 98188 0420 -07 Tetsuo Noyama • 125 Hanapepe Loop 15209 Sunwwod Blvd #B35 Honolulu, HI 96825 Tukwila, WA 98188 0430 -05 May Oaksmith 15209 Sunwood Blvd #B36 Tukwila, WA 98188 0440 -03 Yoshio J & Betty H Shiota 15209 Sunwood BLvd #B37 Tukwila, WA 98188 1 CERT 1 FY THAT TH OR Z!®A '1 - alb ACCURATE LAST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 0 0 FEET OF SITE PERIMWOW VD THE REST Of MY K LEDGE . MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNER-OCCUPIED) 0450 -00 Phillip J Keller . 15209 Sunwood Blvd #B41 ',- Tukwila, WA 98188 0460 -08 Rex L Wiles, Jr. 15209 Sunwood Blvd #B42 Tukwila, WA 98188 • 0470 -06 Allan B Shaw 15209 Sunwood Blvd #B44 Tukwila, WA 98188 - 0480 -04 Sidney V Raines 15209 Sunwwod Blvd #B44 Tukwila, WA 98188 0490 -02 David Bell 15278 Sunwwod Blvd #C11 Tukwila, WA 98188 0500 -00 Alan D Gammel 15278 Sunwwod Blvd #C12 Tukwila, WA 98188 0510 -08 Richard Q. Taylor 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C13 Tukwila, WA 98188 0520 -06 Lynn M. Radtke 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C14 Tukwila, WA 98188 1530 -04 David L. Pool • 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C21 Tukwila, WA 98188 0540 -02 Donald J. Fuller 223 Park Avenue N 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C22 Renton, WA 98055 Tukwila, WA 98188 0550 -09 Jon Alan Nagasawa 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C23 Tukwila, WA 98188 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS 1S A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF KY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER 1 S NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS IF NOT OWNER•OCCUPIED) 0560 -07 Kevin F Monohan 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C24 e- Tukwila, WA 98188 . 0570 -05 Darla J. Kurpius 11845 llth Ave. S 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C31 Seattle, wA 98168 • Tukwila, WA 98188 0580 -03 Calvin H W Kwok 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C32 Tukwila, WA 98188 0590 -01 Douglas J Pedegana 13255 SE 161st P1. 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C33 Renton, WA 98055 Tukwila, WA 98188 0600 -09 Ronald Wrightson 15278 Sunwood Blvd #C34 Tukwila, WA 98188 0610 -07 Jack R & Margery A Bennett 15266 Sunwood Blvd #D11 Tukwila, WA 98188 0620 -05 John L. Kosich 1850 101st Ave. NE 15266 Sunwood Blvd #D12 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tukwila, WA 98188 0630 -03 Ken & Dorothy Thynes 15266 Sunwood Blvd #D21 Tukwila, WA 98188 0640 -01 Bonnie D Scantlebury 10519 66th Ave E #2 15266 Sunwood Blvd #D22 Puyallup, WA 98383 Tukwila, WA 98188 0650 -08 Keeney Reed 15266 Sunwood Blvd #D31 Tukwila, WA 98188 0660 -06 Daniel L. Richardson 15266 Sunwood Blvd #D32 Tukwila, WA 98188 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 100 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNER•OCCUPIED) 0670 -04 Maxine Peter • 15254 Sunwood Blvd #E11 r- . Tukwila, WA 98188 0680 -02 Henry J & Karen D Warner 15254 Sunwood Blvd #E12 Tukwila, WA. 98188 • 0690 -00 Janet L. Tyree 15254 Sunwood Blvd #E12 Tukwila, 'WA 98188 070.0 -08 Walter Herman 15254 Sunwood Blvd #E22 Tukwila, WA 98188 0710 -06 Daniel Shames 15254 Sunwood Blvd #E31 Tukwila, WA 98188 0720 -04 Old Stone Bank Chidester -Reo 3605 132nd SE, Suite 214 15254 Sunwood Blvd #E32 Bellevue, WA 98006 Tukwila, WA 98188 0730 -02 Joseph D. Parente, Jr. 15242 Sunwood Blvd #F11 Seattle, WA 98188 0740 -00 Kenneth D. Porad 15246 Sunwood Blvd #F12 Tukwila, WA 98188 _ 0750 -07 James F. Simonson 15244 Sunwood Blvd #F21 Tukwila, WA 98188 0760 -05 Donna Schmiedeke . 19659 104th Ave. SE 15244 Sunwood Blvd #F22 Renton, WA 98055 Tukwila, WA 98188 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS 1 PRO ADDRESS (IF NOT T OWN 0WN ER•OCCUPIED) 0770-03 Janice Rusk . 15234 Sunwood BLvd #G1 e. Tukwila, WA 98188 . 0780 -01 Alice Coday 15236 Sunwood Blvd EG2 Tukwila, WA 98188 . 0790 -09 Diane J. Stubsten 15238 Sunwood Blvd S #G3 Seattle, WA 98166 0800 -07 Alta E. Rolfes . 15240 Sunwood Blvd #G4 Tukwila, WA 98188 0810 -05 Ryan S. Thrower 15232 Sunwood Blvd #H1 Tukwila, WA 98188 0820 -03 Gale Studer 2200 -A NE Andersen Rd 15 Sunwood Blvd #H2 Vancouver, WA 98661 Tukwila, WA 98188 0830 -01 Michael R. Dugger- 15228 Sunwood Blvd #H3 Tukwila, WA 98188 0840 -09 Gerald T & Lilian A. Smith 15226 Sunwood Blvd #H4 Tukwila, WA 98188 0850 -06 Wayne A. Barr . ' 15222 Sunwood Blvd #I -11 Tukwila, WA 98188 0860 -04 Morris V & Virginia Petersen 4235 S 249th 15222 Sunwood Blvd #112 Kent, WA 98032 Tukwila, WA 98188 0870 -02 Richard E. Hernandez 15224 Sunwood Blvd #121 Tukwila, WA 98188 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS 1S A TFIUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNER-OCCUPIED) 0880 -00 Vern & Glenita Aarhus 28110 128th Ct SE 15224 Sunwood Blvd #I -22 Kent, WA 98031 Tukwila, WA 98188 0890 -08 Touraj & Colleen Baghernejad 15210 Sunwood Blvd #J1 Tukwila, WA 98188 0900 -06 Nanette Mozeika 15165 62nd Ave S 15216 Sunwood Blvd #J2 Tukwila, WA 98188 Tukwila, WA 98188 0910 -04 Nancy Ho c/o Nanette Mozeika 15165 62nd Ave S 15216 Sunwood Blvd #J3 Tukwila, WA 98188 Tukwila, WA 98188 0920 -02 Toshie S. Pidgeon 15216 Sunwood Blvd #J4 Tukwila, WA 98188 0930 -00 Aubrey A. Haworth P.O. Box 1894 15185 Sunwood Blvd #A11 Chelan, WA 98816 Tukwila, WA 98188 0940 -08 Thomas Trullench 15185 Sunwood Blvd #Al2 Tukwila, WA 98188 0950 -05 Richard N. Reisinger 15185 Sunwood Blvd #A13 0960 -03 John Ackerman 15185 Sunwood Blvd #A21 Tukwila, WA 98188 0970 -01 Linda Sheetz 13700 135th Ave NE 15185 Sunwood Blvd #A22 Kirkland, WA 98034 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PER I METER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS I PROPERTY ADDRESS �(IF NOT OWIER•OCCUPIED) 0980 =09 Erika J. Lochow 15185 Sunwood Blvd #A23 Tukwila, WA 98188 0990 -07 Ruth Virginia Taisey 1233 N Mesa Dr #1128 15185 Sunwood Blvd #A31 Mesa, Arizona 85201 Tukwila, WA 98188 1000 -03 Russell & Marjorie Painter 2130 Jarvis 15185 Sunwood Blvd #A32 Anchorage, AK 99515 Tukwila, WA 98188 1010 -01 George T Sorana, Jr. 15185 Sunwood #A33 Tukwila, WA 98188 1020 -09 Charles R. Robinson 15195 Sunwood Blvd #B11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1030 -07 Perry W. Gorman 15195 Sunwood Blvd #B12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1040 -05 Nicholas P. Kuzovich 15195 Sunwood Blvd #B13 Tukwila, WA 98188 1050 -02 Mary Theresa Lollino 15195 Sunnwood Blvd #B21 Tukwila, WA 98188 1060 -00 Gregory D Lew 15195 Sunwood Blvd #B22 Tukwila, WA 98188 1070 -08 Susan I Kido 15195 Sunwood Blvd #B23 Tukwila, WA 98188 1080 -06 Anna J. Lavelle 15195 Sunwood Blve #B31 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 200 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNER-OCCUPIED) 1090 - 04 Eric K. Miyamoto 15195 Sunwood Blvd #C11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1100 -02 Douglas B. Joy 15195 Sunwood Blvd #B33 Tukwila, WA 98188 1110 -00 Gary L. Stevens 15165 Sunwood Blvd #C11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1120 -08 David L. Parks 15165 Sunwood Blvd #C12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1130 -06 Robert E. Mays 15165 Sunwood Blvd #C13 Tukwila, WA 98188 1140 -04 May I P Lam 15165 Sunwood Blvd #C22 Tukwila, WA 98188 1150 -01 Willis B. Jones 15165 Sunwood Blvd #C22 Tukwila, WA 98188 1160 -09 Diane M. Claeys 15165 Sunwood Blvd #C23 Tukwila, WA 98188 1170 -07 Gary W. Henson 15165 Sunwood Blvd #C31 Tukwila, WA 98188 11801 -05 Robert Murrell Lee 15165 Sunwood Blvd #C32 Tukwila, WA 98188 1190 -03 Lorraine Brave 15165 Sunwood Blvd #C23 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNER•OCCUPIED) 1200 -01 John R. Poetker 15020 SE 145th P1 15175 Sunwood Blvd #D11 Renton, WA 98056 Tukwila, WA 98188 1210 -09 Paul D. Hardin 15175 Sunwood Blvd #D12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1220 -07 Thomas P. Beatty 15175 Sunwood Blvd #D21 Tukwila, WA 98188 1230 -05 K K & Dataoka I T Hart 15175 Sunwood Blvd #D22 Tukwila, WA 98188 1240 -03 Pacific Townhouse Builders 1115 108th Ave NE 15175 Sunwood Blvd. #D31 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tukwila, WA 98188 1250 -03 Kevin N. Smith 15175 Sunwood Blvd #D32 Tukwila, WA 98188 1260 -08 Betty J. George 15141 Sunwood Blvd #E11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1270 -06 Steven H. Autio 15141 Sunwood Blvd #E12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1280 -04 Hurbert E. Vineyard 15141 Sunwood Blvd #E21 Tukwila, WA 98188 1290 -02 Rae Marla 4535 157th Ave SE 15141 Sunwood Blvd #E22 Bellevue, WA 98006 Tukwila, WA 98188 1300 -00 John L. Hammons, Jr. 15141 Sunwood Blvd #E31 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. . MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNER•OCCUPIED) 1310 -08 Old Stone Bank of Wash. 3605 132nd Ave SE, Suite 21 15141 Sunwood Blvd #E32 Bellevue, WA 98006 Tukwila, WA 98188 1320 -06 Philip L. Trautman 15153 Sunwood Blvd #F11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1330 -04 Benny R. Anderson 15153 Sunwood Blvd #F12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1340 -02 Thomas J & A E Milligan 15153 Sunwood Blvd #F31 Tukwila, WA 98188 1350 -09 Robert G. Shanks 15153 Sunwood Blvd #F22 Tukwila, WA 98188 1360 -07 Julius B Sadilek, Jr. 210 SW 299th Pl. 15153 Sunwood Blvd #F22 Federal Way, WA 98023 Tukwila, WA 98188 1370 -05 Maureen Robinson 210 SW 299th P1 15153 Sunwood Blvd #F32 Federal Way, WA 98023 Tukwila, WA 98188 1380 -03 Carol L. Richardson 15123 Sunwood Blvd #G11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1390 -01 Richard F. Burleigh, Jr. 15123 Sunwood Blvd #G12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1400 -09 Delbert Murphy . 15123 Sunwood Blvd #G13 Tukwila, WA 98188 1410 -07 Ronald Fetter 15123 Sunwood Blvd #G22 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER • S NAME AND ADDRESS I PROPERTY ADDREMS (1F NOT OWNER•OCCUPIED( 1420 -05 Diane H. Terry 15123 Sunwood Blvd #G22 Tukwila, WA 98188 1430 -03 Old Sone Bank / Hansen - Bottai 3605 132nd SE, Suite 214 15123 Sunwood Blvd #G23 Bellevue, WA 98006 Tukwila, WA 98188 1440-01 Marvin Wayne Hall 9400 E Iliff Ave #053 15123 Sunwood Blvd #G31 80231 Tukwila, WA 98188 1450 -08 Lisa S. Best 15123 Sunwood Blvd #G32 Tukwila, WA 98188 1460 -06 Dorothy C. Cameron P.O. Box 68396 15123 Sunwood Blvd #G33 Seattle, WA 98168 Tukwila, WA 98188 1470 -04 William C. Apperson 15113 Sunwood Blvd #H11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1480 -02 John D. Dancer 15115 Sunwood Blvd #H12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1490 -00 Lynn Carlton 8239 Northrop P1 SW 15115 Sunwood Blvd #H21 Seattle, WA 98136 Tukwila, WA 98188 1500 -08 Kathleen S Davis P.O. Box 142 15115 Sunwood Blvd #H22 Unionville, CT 06085 Tukwila, WA 98188 1510 -06 Terry H. Coyne 15105 Sunwood Blvd #I -11 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS (1 F NOT TE OMINER • OCCUP 1 ED ) 1520 -04 Denise M Wilham 15107 Sunwood Blvd #I -12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1530 -02 Mark W. Mincer 15109 Sunwood Blvd #I -21 Tukwila, WA 98188 1540 -00 Barbara J. Mjelde 15111 Sunwood Blvd #I -22 Tukwila, WA 98188 1550 -07 Henry D. Nichols 15101 Sunwood Blvd #J11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1560 -05 Gary A & Jeanne M Polk 15103 Sunwood Blvd #J12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1570 -03 Clyde Jay Davis 15100 Sunwood Blvd #K11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1580 -01 Nabi Taskin 2510 N Fairfax Dr #B 15100 Sunwood Blvd #K12 Arlington, VA 22201 Tukwila, WA 98188 1590 -09 Hung -Chung & Nancy Ho 15108 Sunwood Blvd #L11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1600 -07 Donald R Theophilus 15110 Sunwood Blvde #L12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1610 -05 Norman D Stephenson 15114 Sunwood Blvd #M11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1620 -03 George J. Nakamura 15116 Sunwood Blvd #M12 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS I (IF NOT owNER•OccUPIED) 1630 -01 Paul L Dudley, Jr. 15126 Sunwood Blvd #N11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1640 -09 Allan & Jean Blattner 15128 Sunwood Blvd #N12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1650 -06 Jacqueline M Stratton 15120 Sunwood Blvd #0 -11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1660 -04 Ann M. Birdlebough Michael J. Conklin 15122 Sunwood Blvd #0 -12 1670 -02 Daniel R Absher 15132 Sunwood Blvd #P11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1680 -00 Philip W. Fusselman 15134 Sunwood Blvd #P12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1690 -08 William Robert Brownell 15138 Sunwood Blvd #Q11 Tukwila, WA 98188 • 1700 -06 Kathleen Hurley 15140 Sunwood Blvd S #Q12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1710 -04 Gary G Stein P.O. Box 2066 15142 Sunwood Blvd #Q21 Renton, WA 98056 Tukwila, WA 98188 1720 -02 Gloria J Alamar 15144 Sunwood Blvd #Q22 Seattle, WA 98188 1730 -00 Ronald E. Wattam 15148 Sunwood Blvd #R11 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT O'WNER•OCCUPIED) 1740 -m8 Richard C Iversen 15150 Sunwood Blvd #R12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1750 -15 Linell M Jones 15154 Sunwood Blvd #S11 Tukwila, WA 98188 1760 -03 May M Terusaki 15156 Sunwood Blvd #S12 Tukwila, WA 98188 1770 -01 Rebeca Bravo 15158 Sunwood Blvd #S21 Tukwila, WA 98188 1780 -09 William H. Dobson 15160 Sunwood Blvd #S22 Tukwila, WA 98188 I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY IaVDWLEDQE.