HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-224-84 - NORTH HILL ASSOCIATES - REZONE TO PONORTH HILL OFFICE
5900 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
13989 - 57'" AVE S
EPIC- 224 -84
l.'AC 197 -11 -1350
DECLARATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal rezone from RMH to PO
Proponent North Hill Associates
Location of proposal approximately 5900 Southcenter Boulevard
Lead agency City of Tukwila
File No. EPIC - 224 -84
This proposal has been determined not to have a probably significant
adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS)' is not required under RCW 43- 21C.020(c). This decision was made
after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist
and other information on file with the lead agency. - This information
is available to the public on request.
Responsible official Brad Collins
Position /title Responsible Official
Address and phone 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 433 -1946
Date (4-16- g`f
Signature
COMMENTS:.
This declaration of non - significance pertains only to the legislative
act of rezoning the subject property to a more intensive professional
office use catagory. The Responsible Official reserves the option to
perform a separate threshold determination for any project submitted
for approval following the rezone action, and to require thereby
completion of an expanded checklist or completion of an Environmental
Impact Statement.
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: sul BLDG
PLNG P.W.
P R OJECT k)=-1.
LOCATION Mocx, 5c(y)' L, IsLNO
DATE TRANSMITTED 4-113
STAFF COORDINATOR tZ(C._ 15, RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
• CN 8e- -(( 7
EPIC 224- 8+
FILE A- -(( -
FIRE 1 POLICE
P & R
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY -(13 0Oc )
ITEM COMMENT
DATE fL -/ L COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: dBLDG' I PLNG
PROJECT
P.W. FIRE
•CN 84--( (-7
EPIC Z24— 634
FILE °M -- -(( - �2�2or3
POLICE
P &R
LOCATION Aflortp., Scf j S. L, $L_NO
DATE TRANSMITTED 413
STAFF COORDINATOR jZ((1_4_ 15,
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4( 18 Ob00
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH _
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM
COMMENT'
,501 u c k_ i v) f D I b
L17`\ ft -j 41.()1
IPLL
; A-10,11-0131147-1
(AWL -40 /P -M .& Zr /4 ED -gt11)71 VG 7D /»»Aiicr
o ►\r' Tv P f c)(4-4- • TrzoilLeuTqa
colt-.10(-11:51 A2w )U' r FL,Tu r _W-L-13 ®,
DATE 4 /DD
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
RECE
• • VIE
By • APR 13 1984
TUKWILA FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO:, BLDG
PLNG 1 P.W. r- FIRE
PROJECT) hiLl_ Qc
•CN 8' —(( 7
EPIC 2-24— e+
FILE cc3M'-(l —j2Zor3€
84 —to —\e ie,,11.15-00
POLICE
P &R
LOCATION Mioito., 5CQO
DATE TRANSMITTED
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
4( IS u(0,0
STAFF COORDINATOR ?...K4.!_ 150 RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT // /
8 44 ; 4 w� 1 i e Y - 3`./i r z 1 tj �j � ,1;" 1-i -
%� J I
Q si 4 f i c- f;-sr,,M/zr-
f'- c/1.7 4 A/ // 41
DATE 4 /4- ' , COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: •
BLDG
PL NG
PROJECT ►_�.�LL QC -E.
III CN 84--(
EPIC Z24- E34-
FILE -}Z�L 3€
84- (o- Yt6ivcc-
P.W. I FIRE ® POL10E
P &R
LOCATION Apecx, sci o S, L- isLNO
DATE TRANSMITTED q-113
STAFF COORDINATOR 1_{C
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4118 iiboU
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
•__ Co p s ID gn447c. auti srn ill 2c- G ry r f4 c' c Lrx ?
l 1 Li1,777a u! Cam/ Ex I T •fit? t es-wn -c l t 5 7-0 71 j urezzs CTT2fY )
1• svv-t e.7 3c u D.:
o�-
Vcvak /4-0,,/,- 49
.stfa i s S//vvv /d / �� , t' 77-M-7 77/Z•- 1-
i -az..p .-4 e
g 6 /4i /-4-74/7-7-- s 4) 'TD /trrfj
10dt ll Jew o e R'i / ,,v cri o
Sv oT t-{
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY Gte_
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO:
BLDG
PLNG P.W.
PROJECT Ott
LOCATION Aloim, 5C((O S, L- 0
DATE TRANSMITTED �(3
STAFF COORDINATOR 12.1(!_ 151
•cN 8 —f C-7
EPIC 2_24- e4-
FILE °n4 -((
84- (o—
FIRE POLICE
P &R
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4i 18 /JO(*)
. RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
(I/e 7' 2, /h a✓ /� c�r� i J i`r_.` ✓e z o• l
/10 w ever /,' , s 7L 76%A— 1.'s4r- ,%s_ %..1 /•✓.'pox A
2 p'e/e sr1 74X sot-.1 f /.t /it, : J' ✓ `s..'
If e ! t
)4 h e 0-1 a..401 s;.6.r .. - j /erg l
Gas c m£ dw TJ�2 C "0/ 'A M/. r s•—• 7 T /e4c_
rit•tAfri ' r/f • raj y. i✓`erso, root— 114. 404% -iti
DATE '— //— 8'Y COMMENTS PREPARED BY�
C.P.S. Form 11
• •
Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc.
Consu%ting Engineers
April 16, 1984
Mr. Vince Ferrese, AIA., P.S.
The Mithun Associates
2000 - 112th N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
RECEIVED
APR 18 '84
THE MIIHUN
ASSOCIATES, P.S.
ARCHITECTS
SUBJECT: COMPUTER FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED NORTH HILL
ASSOCIATES OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED IN TUKWILA ALONG
SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD JUST EAST OF THE ARCO STATION
AND DENNY'S RESTAURANT
Dear Mr. Ferrese:
APR 2 0 1984 1
crr i Or 1 Lit,,.
PLANNING DEPT.
Per your notice to proceed, we have completed the fire flow analysis
for the subject small office building. Since no 8 -inch watermain is
available along the north side of Southcenter Boulevard., we assumed that
a new 8 -inch deadend waterline would have to be extended fromthe existing
8 -inch watermain located along the south side of Southcenter Boulevard.,
north under the street to the back of your proposed building a.total of
about 290 feet. One fire hydrant would be located at the end of the new
8 -inch line at the back of the building and the second hydrant would be
located about 110 feet south near the front of the proposed office building.
Fire flow from two hydrants was simulated to test for the estimated
fire flow required for the office building. The minimum required residual
pressure of 20 psi at the highest hydrant used for the test was used as a
the controlling factor in determining available fire flow for test No. 1.
During each fire flow simulation, a maximum instantaneous background demand
flow of 4,600 gpm. in the Tukwila Water System was also simulated.
As shown: in the test results listed below, a fire flow of 3,870 gpm is
available at the site with a residual pressure of 20 psi at the highest hy-
drant used. Under these conditions, the pressure on top of North Hill would
drop to 2.0 psi. Since 2.0 psi is not acceptable, a second simulation yielded
a fire flow of 2,200 gpm @ 80 psi at the site with a residual pressure on top
of North Hill of 18 psi.
6133 Sixth, South;; Seatt e, Washington 98108 Phone 767-3456
Mr. Vince Ferrese
Page 'Two
April 16, 1984
APR 0'1984 -1
are
PLANNINC
RESULTS OF COMPUTER SIMULATED FIRE FLOWS ON TUKWILI°WATER- SYSTEM -• - •-- --..u-
Test Condition
Flow and Residual Pressures
At Proposed Office Site
1. Peak flow condition for
Tukwila Water System plus
fire flow at site of
3,870 gpm.
2. Peak flow condition for
Tukwila Water System plus
fire flow at site of
2,200 gpm.
Q=
P =
3,870 gpm.
20 psi.
Q = 2,200 gpm.
P = 80 psi.
At Top of North Hill
(NODE 46)
Q = 30 gpm.
P = 2.0 psi.
Q = 30 gpm.
P = _18 psi.
According to current Washington State Standards *, the following pressures
shall be provided in all water distribution systems.
"New public water systems or additions to existing systems shall provide
a design quantity of water at a positive pressure of at least 30 psi (200 KPA)
under maximum instantaneous demand flow conditions measured at the water meter
or at the property line of the premises when meters are not used. When a
system is being designed to provide fire flows, a positive pressure shall be
maintained throughout the system under fire flow conditions at the water meter
or at the property line."
Based on this and previous
Standards, the existing Tukwila
development while providing the
taneous demand flow conditions,
during a fire flow of 2,200 gpm
test results, and the above minimum State
Water System is adequate to serve the proposed
minimum required 30 psi during maximum instan-
and positive pressures throughout the system
at the proposed office building site.
Based on these test results and our experience, it is our opinion that an
8 -inch deadend waterline with two fire hydrants would be adequate to deliver
a fire flow of 2,200 gpm at the proposed site while maintaining: :.positive water
pressures of 18+ psi at the top of North Hill. Actual fire flow requirements
for the proposed development must be determined by the Tukwila Fire Marshall.
If you desire additional tests or information, please call us.
Sincerely,
HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AEM:gjn
*Rules and Regulations of the State
Systems, Revised, August, 1983.
Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc. •
Alan E. Meyers, P.E.
Board of Health regarding Public Water
Consulting Engineers • Seattle, Washington
440 cv ci/c/
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
APR 5 1984
CITY OI . i L:: \.VILA
PLANNING DEPT.
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the a p-°i�cati`o'n- "far---
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A fee of 20.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: The Mithun Associates, P.S.
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2000 -112th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 454 -3344
3. Date Checklist Submitted: 04 April 1984
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila, Planning Department
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: North Hill Associates
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
Rezone of property from RMH to P.0 to allow for a professional office building
of three floors totalling approximately 14,500 sq. ft.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
The maiority of the 1.75 acre site is an open dirt /gravel basin surrounded on
the north and east by sparsely vegetated steep hillsides of 30 feet in height.
It affronts Southcenter Boulevard to the south. To the west, the property adjoins
an Arco Mini -Mart, a.Denny's Restaurant and their corresponding parking.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: February 1985
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc.. YES x NO
(b). King County Hydraulics Permit YES x NO
(c) Building permit YES x NO
• •
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO x
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES x NO
(f) Sign permit YES x NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES x NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES x NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES x NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x NO
(1) Other:
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
No
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
N/A
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
YES MAYBE NO
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil?
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures?
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
x
x
yES MAYBE NO
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the .
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? ----
Explanation:
Building footing and foundation work shall be at existing grade. However
some soil disruption shall occur during backfilling. Temporary erosion
control shall be maintained during construction.
x
x
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Explanation:
x
x
During roofing application of approximately 2 days some objectional odors
may occur.
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception• of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
-3-.
x
x
x
x
• 0 •
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the .
ground waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies?
Explanation:
Runoff of water shall be controlled via on -site retention system.
Total occupancy will not exceed 140 people.
YES MAYBE NO
x
4. Flora. . Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in.a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
x
x
x
x
Explanation:
The southern one -third of the property is barren of vegetation. The
proposed project and corresponding landscaping will beneficially
increase the quantity and quality of plant species.
5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)? x
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna? x
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
' Explanation:.
x
x
YES MAYBE NO
. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels?
Explanation:
The construction process of + 5 months will occur during normal business hours.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
Explanation:
While automobile headlights are screened by the contours of the site some
off -site lighting may occur.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
Explanation:
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
x
x
11. Population.
Explanation:
• •
Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
The proposed project is only + 14,500 gross sq. ft.
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? _
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
YES MAYBE NO
x
x
x
x
Explanation:
The proposal may result in a possible increase of vehicular movement
through employees and other corresponding users'of..the building.
A mini traffic study will occur prior to building plan submittal.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
x
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Other governmental services? x
Explanation:
The proposal will only require basic services. The size of the proposal
does not warrant a need for new fire or police protection services.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:
Energy savings will be a high priority.
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water? x
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
A water flow analysis is currently under study by Horton
Dennis.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental' health)?
Explanation:
-7-
x
x
x
x
x
x
• •
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
The site is presently used as a parking lot.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his-
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
YES MAYBE NO
. I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead: agency
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon' this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Signature and Title Date
x
x
x
•
THE HITHER!!
ASSOCIATES TO
Af?CHITECTS &PLANNERS
2000 112TH AVENUE NE
BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON
98004 206 45/1 33/14
NORTH HILL ASSOCIATES
• SOUTHCENTER.. BOULEVARD
TUKW W
ILA WA 98188
May 3, 1984
City it Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
Western Pacific Properties
13975 Interurban Ave. So.
Seattle, WA. 98168
RE: EPIC :284
Dear Applicant:
Chapter 43.21C.RCW requires the attached notice be given in order to limit
any potential appeal of the City's decision to issue a Declaration of
Nonsignificance for your proposal. The City leaves the decision to give
this notice to you. If you elect to give notice, it is your responsibility
to follow the attached Section 43.21C.80.
Our recommendation is that you give this notice to minimize exposure to any
appeals on environmental basis. Potential delay to your project could
occur if 43.21C.80 RCW is not followed.
Respect 11
Rick Beeler. .
Associate Planner
RB /blk
•
SUBJECT
MESSAGE
DATE 4 /
Thrt5 LS �-r--aNE Neln\Nttil. 14 N 2(:)18¢.
i / cumvw s T
SIGNED
rt REPLY "T c6)19 Ft (1.v M hf\s)-I nk.lr.._
2U a 1A A-4 sc I u "'oil
C D P4sA c nP PLV >
J�V�-�• \L., w\U
TGL l uf\ -n.) istcrtc
REDiFoRM ® 4S 472
C-1110,7 1F i ' ,145 PIi 13 -
oP
Ltr
SIGNED .
SEND PAWS Y AND 3' WITH CAIN INTACT -
PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY.
DATE
POLY PAK (b9 SETS) 4P472
. *.
_THE ;MITHUN
ASSOCIATES
„ • ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS
t‘toS000',112TH AVENUE N E
vE3TEAEVU,E,:., WASHINGTON
98 454,, • 3344
714/Vibi Ifiept (//frai •
C6443/1A uid yte8
•
PS
LETI,[73 OF 112tOSEI]ocuIrta
DATE
JOE NO.Ewa
ATTENTIO
C..A. Reee....4.)
i
RE:
10.1-/-k //e16 A-ssoa. /3/d7.
1 frf7.) FP 17::‘;
i 11, P P ';' is, -,c-,, .
. , ,, ,... I 1 , • • •
f f
I
.' L.,•.- i , - ,
I
21--ANINIT :•,;.
WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Attached 0 Under separate cover via the following items:
0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications
O Shop drawings 0 Prints
O Copy of letter
0 Change order
COPIES
DATE
NO. '
DESCRIPTION
/
ih WE( /
ba-ye:S.
Ri-e flow
/'.
o,9
/015-ed
Mftl',
14
.
.
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
O For approval
O For your use
0 As requested
O Approved as submitted
O Approved as noted
O Returned for corrections
O Resubmit copies for approval
O Submit copies for distribution
O Return corrected prints
O For review and comment 0
O FOR BIDS DUE 19
0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
.-14 •
COPY TO
SIGNED:
• •
Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
April 16, 1984
Mr. Vince Ferrese, AIA., P.S.
The Mithun Associates
2000 - 112th N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
RECEIVED
APR 1 8'84
THE MIIHUN
ASSOCIATES, P.S.
ARCHITECTS
i
c r
PLANN!NC DEPT.
SUBJECT: COMPUTER FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED NORTH HILL
ASSOCIATES OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED IN TUKWILA ALONG
SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD JUST EAST OF THE ARCO STATION
AND DENNY'S RESTAURANT
Dear Mr. Ferrese:
Per your notice to proceed, we have completed the fire flow analysis
for the subject small office building. Since no 8 -inch watermain is
available along the north side of Southcenter Boulevard., we assumed that
a new 8 -inch deadend waterline would have to be extended from the existing
8 -inch watermain located along the south side of Southcenter Boulevard.,
north under the street to the back of your proposed building a.total of
about 290 feet. One fire hydrant would be located at the end of the new
8 -inch line at the back of the building and the second hydrant would be
located about 110 feet south near the front of the proposed office building.
Fire flow from two hydrants was simulated to test for the estimated
fire flow required for the office building. The minimum required residual
pressure of 20 psi at the highest hydrant used for the test was used as a
the controlling factor in determining available fire flow for test No. 1.
During each fire flow simulation, a maximum instantaneous background demand
flow of 4,600 gpm in the Tukwila Water System was also simulated.
As shown in the test results listed below, a fire flow of 3,870 gpm is
available at the site with a residual pressure of 20 psi at the highest hy-
drant used. Under these conditions, the pressure on top of North Hill would
drop to 2.0 psi. Since 2.0 psi is not acceptable, a second simulation yielded
a fire flow of 2,200 gpm @ 80 psi at the site with a residual pressure on top
of North Hill of 18 psi.
6133 Sixth Ave. South, Seattle, Washington 98108 • Phone 767-3456
:?
• •
Mr. Vince Ferrese
Page Two
April 16, 1984
ir.,i� tit. !;!�•, ; i
i 1
CFf u
L nor,
RESULTS OF COMPUTER SIMULATED FIRE FLOWS ON TUKWILA—WATER `SYSTEM
Test Condition
Flow and Residual Pressures
At Proposed Office Site
1. Peak flow condition for Q = 3,870 gpm.
Tukwila Water System plus P = 20 psi.
fire flow at site of
3,870 gpm.
2. Peak flow condition for
Tukwila Water System plus
fire flow at site of
2,200 gpm.
Q=
P =
2,200 gpm.
80 psi.
At Top of North Hill
(NODE 46)
Q = 30 gpm.
P = 2.0 psi.
Q = 30 gpm.
P = 18 psi.
According to current Washington State Standards *, the following pressures
shall be provided in all water distribution systems.
"New public water systems or additions to existing systems shall provide
a design quantity of water at a positive pressure of at least 30 psi (200 1 A).
under maximum instantaneous demand flow conditions measured at the water meter
or at the property line of the premises when meters are not used. When a
system is being designed to provide fire flaws, a positive pressure shall be
maintained throughout the system under fire flow conditions at the water meter
or at the property line."
Based on this and previous
Standards, the existing Tukwila
development while providing the
taneous demand flow conditions,
during a fire flow of 2,200 gpm
test results, and the above minimum State
Water System is adequate to serve the proposed
minimum required 30 psi during maximum instan-
and positive pressures throughout the system
at the proposed office building site.
Based on these test results and our experience, it is our opinion that an
8 -inch deadend waterline with two fire hydrants would be adequate to deliver
a fire flow of 2,200 gpm at the proposed site while .maintainiing:•.positive water
pressures of 18+ psi at the top of North Hill. Actual fire flow requirements
for the proposed development must be determined by the Tukwila Fire Marshall.
If you desire additional tests or information, please call us.
Sincerely,
HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AEM:gjn.
•
Alan E. Meyers, P.E.
*Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health regarding Public Water
Systems, Revised, August, 1983.
Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc. • Consulting Engineers • Seattle, Washington
TO
•
THE MITHUN
ASSOCIATES _PO
ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS
2000 112TH AVENUE N E
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
98004 206 454 3344
C / 2 7 &, /1 444to/J1&
7ZI&»'/%, w4 7'/88
1
CSC ��C G3 OF inumenoinr n
DATE /,/ `� /p/
/7 /
JOB NO.Ewa
ATTENTIO
` /moo ,Q / /�/ L
/_
RE:
ZIA #/7/s /4-S
See . �I- / .
th WS1
rFO rerir.)i-p7,-;7-..,:77-.----.7.-----,
IJULL1 ti1!'i :`I_
i i Y1 1R 2 r, j1.1,),, + 17t
1MANN"
i
I
WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
/
th WS1
bia,rjc o' Fire Pte Dka ,Ooscd on w b /oC3 .
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑- Resubmit
❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit
❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR BIDS DUE
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
19
❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
914_,a u k . urn, •
COPY TO
SIGNED:
-_-_-----
: I •
-•-•.
• ,•! t•-•
•• i • .
(1";
• ,..• -••• • - -V -•-- -••
z
,11 HozTH
THE MITHIPH
ASSOCIATES TO
APCHUMS .ri.ANNE17.3
nr-NrIn 11TI 1 MA"k11C Alt
NORTH HILL ASSOCIATES
RCM ITI-InFNTER ROUE EvAnn
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: dBLDG
PLNG
PROJECT W O (C
P.W. t'- 'iFIRE
CN 84
EPIC 224-
FILE 1!4 -(a
84 -to -YrzicE.
i
POLICE
P &R
LOCATION AflorpK, 5C( Q 5, C BEAD
DATE TRANSMITTED 44 13
STAFF COORDINATOR �z(,C._•
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4118 0000
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11