Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA EPIC-258-85 - KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - BEDFORD / BOEING EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION (BECU)
TUKWILA PROJECT FOR KAISER DEVELOPM [NT COMPANY - GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT INTERURBAN AVE SO. & 50. 133RD STREET INCLUDING BEDFORD PROPERTIES & BOEING EMPLOYEE CREDIT UNION OFFICE BUILDING -BECU 12644 - 12878 INTERURBAN AVE. SO. & GATEWAY DRIVE EPIC - 258 -85 To Mayor Van Dusen PN , Ron Ca.oero.` Date: August 4, 1989 Subject: Bedford/BECU developer acceptance The issue of accepting & who signs for tilvr Tukwila has come up for developer agreements. Its been discussed with Attorney John Colgrove, Planning, and Public Works. The specific agreement in question is the Bedford/BECU document. The agreement spells out their share of costs for signal and street improvements. The share has been caIculated using the proportion that the development traffic is of the total projected increase in traffic. Developer fair, share costs were determined by multiplying the traffic proportion (fraction) times the cost estimates for improvements needed to serve the projected traffic. The agreement spells out about $160,000 of developer costs for improvements. These improvement needs are similar to water line extensions, curb/gutter/sidewalk, sewer and other public works infrastructure that are processed by permit. The difference here is that the developer is signing an agreement to provide the funds if or when the City proceeds with the projects - within the next seven years. The developer is not donating or providing property. The developer (as in all cases) is in a hurry, has been patient while the improvements and fair share were determined. The improvements and agreement are SEPA mitigations, it is my understanding that changing them would be a major legal concern. The recent Embassy Suites and Tukwila Pond agreements brought to Council were examples of tinis - changing the mitigations and the legality of doing so. In both cases, Counsel advised the City Council to not change the agreements. Two action choices are 2. sign the agreement and inform the Council or Transportation Committee of the mitigations put the agreement on as an agenda item asking authority for the Mayor to sign. The problems with #2 are delay to the developer and that no property is being provided as was the case with Tukwila Pond and Embassy Suites. Both of those agreements were frustrating to Transportation Committee and Council as they had no modification/decision authority and viewed it as a rubber stamp exercise. Therefore, option # 1 is recommended. XC: John C, Rick B INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT .AGREEMENT South 133rd Street. Interurban Avenue South and SR 599 Project Number 89- THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on August 1989, between the CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the City "), Bedford Properties Corp., a Washington corporation (hereinafter referred to as "BECU /Bedford ") . WITNESSETH: Whereas, the increased Bedford Gateway development traffic creates the need for vehicle and pedestrian safety and capacity improvements on Interurban Avenue and S 133rd St. as identified in the July 7, 1989 memo to Moira Bradshaw in the Tukwila Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the City and BECU /Bedford believe that the design and construction of said improvements will result in a safer and more efficient traffic flow in the area; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that each will benefit from a coordinated design and construction effect and a sharing of the costs of these projects. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. The work to be performed under this Agreement includes four projects: A. A traffic signal at the intersection of South 133rd Street and the SR 599 Southbound off ramp; B. A traffic signal at the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and the SR 599, Northbound off ramp; C. A traffic signal at the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and the SR 599 Northbound on ramp;and D. Improving South 133rd Street by widening with curb, gutter and sidewalk from the intersection of Interurban Avenue South through the SR 599 Southbound ramp intersection. The four projects shall be designed, constructed and undertaken generally in accord with the July 7th memo to Moira with planning level cost estimates by Bell- Walker Engineers. The estimated cost for the above work is $668,871. Said costs include those for design, construction, administration, and 10% contingency costs. One, all four or any combination can be designed and construction started during the next 7 years.. The City shall engineer and design the work. The cost for such engineering and design shall be borne by the parties in the same ratios as the overall cost for the work. 3. Construction Funding. A. (1) BECU /Bedford shall pay 20% or $24,803 of the $124,019 estimated cost for the traffic signal on the southbound off ramp at South 133rd Street and Sr 599. (2) $17,090 or 18% of the $94,946 estimated cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and the SR 599 Northbound off ramp. (3) $13,603 or 12% of the $113,361 estimated cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and the SR 599 Northbound on ramp. (4) $104,329 or 31% of the $336,545 estimated cost of the curb /gutter /sidewalk from the intersection of Interurban Avenue South through the SR 599 Southbound off ramp intersection. B. The City will pay or arrange for the payment of the remaining costs for the above four items of work. C. Payment by BECU /Bedford shall be made into an escrow account pursuant to an escrow agreement which shall instruct the escrow agent to disburse moneys for work performed in accordance with directions from the City. BECU /Bedford shall make its deposits within 30 days of receiving the written notice from the City; the written notice will be sent at the time of project advertisement for bid. D. In the event the bid(s) of the lowest responsible bidder(s) for any of the four items of work exceed by 10% or less the estimated cost, BECU /Bedford agrees to pay the same percentage of said excess costs as the percentage it is paying for each of the four items and shall make the deposit within 30 days of written notice. The City shall pay or arrange for payment of the balance of such excess costs. E. If design and construction costs are less than the estimated costs, any remaining escrow account balance will be repaid to BECU /Bedford upon completion of the work. F. This Agreement expires if the construction contract or any part thereof has not been awarded by September 1, 1996. 4. No Waiver of Rights. Failure of any party to insist on the strict performance of any of the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of that party's rights thereafter to strictly enforce any such term, but the same shall continue in full force and effect. 5. Binding Agreement. This agreement shall be binding upon parties, their respective heirs, legal representatives, assignees, transferees, and successors. 6. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded with the King County Auditor and the cost of said recording shall be paid by BECU /Bedford. 7. Litigation. In the event that either party shall commence litigation against the other in order to enforce any term or condition of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to recover its costs, including reasonable attorney fees. 8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding among the parties hereto, and except as expressly provided herein no other agreement, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto or to have any other force or effect. CITY OF TUKWILA BEDFORD PROPERTIES CORP. By Gary Van Dusen Joseph Layman Its Mayor Its Vice President ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY OF KING I certify that there appeared before me a person that I know or have satisfactory evidence was GARY VAN DUSEN, who signed this INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of THE CITY OF TUKWILA to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: , 1989. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that there appeared before me a person that I know or have satisfactory evidence was JOSEPH LAYMAN, who signed this INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Vice President of BEDFORD PROPERITIES CORP. to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: , 1989. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 TO: John Colgrove City Attorney's Office PHONE # (206) X133.1800 Gary L. VhnDnse'n. Manor FROM: John McFarland City Administrator RE: Developer's Agreement for BECU /Bedford DATE: August 3, 1989 Attached for your review and pursuant to our earlier discussions is a request from Ron Cameron to George Hartung for the drafting of a developer's agreement. As briefly discussed with Moira and me, we would like to move the Council out of the approval process on these matters. I think now is as good a time as any to effect a change in how we deal with these agreements. I spoke to the Mayor earlier regarding the use of a process that would essentially condition the building permit. He agrees that the process could be streamlined and simplified. Additionally, the Council puts themselves in a potentially difficult situation in both approving agreements and also possibly acting in an appeal agency. It would seem that particularly in those instances where council action will be required as part the actions stipulated in the agreement (i.e. acceptance of right -of -way, vacation of public property, etc.), that their approval is not necessary. Please move forward in an expeditious manner in the drafting of the agreement, and call me regarding the methodology for execut- ing the document without Council involvement. CF: Ma or oira Carr - Bradshaw To: John McFarland From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Date: 31 July 1989 Subject: SEPA Mitigating Measures Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City is required to conduct an environmental review of a proposal and make a determination as to significance or non - significance. Often, impacts of projects can be mitigated and a determination of non- significance made through various conditions imposed and /or agreed to by the developer. These conditions are based on impacts identified in studies required as part of the SEPA review. SEPA however is simply an informational process, conditions therefore have to be imposed or made through some permit mechanism associated with the request for development. Public Works has been implementing SEPA identified conditions through developers agreements reviewed and approved by the City Council. Environmental procedures, outlined in the Washington Administrative Code and codified in TMC Section 21.04.280 specifically state, that any person may appeal the conditions of a requested action made by a nunelected city official. For Tukwila this appeal is to the City Council. If a developer's agreement is the preferred choice for conditioning a permit, review and approval should not be through the City's legislative body; except perhaps as an informational item. Council review results in a de facto appeal process and erroneously leads the City Council to believe that they have some authority to change the conditions, which, the City Attorney has advised, is not the case. The City Council's time is limited and developers are always anxious to proceed without delay. Council review therefore, seems to be a needless delay in the building permit process. If the developer or any member of the community does not feel that the conditions are appropriate, then an appeal for Council review is warranted. cc: Planning Director Public Works Director City Engineer To: George' Hartung From: Ron Cameron Date: July 24, 1989 Subject: Developer's Agreement for BECU/Bedford Please prepare a developer's agreement similar in format to the S 180th/Sperry improvement agreement. Traffic analysis shows the need for signalization and roadway improvements to serve increased traffic; the developer's improvement cost share is the fracation that the development traffic is of the new traffic. New traffic is the difference between current traffic and traffic volumes projected for the year 2000. The projections are based on CH2M forecasts for the Tukwila, TDA work for the developer and PSCOG data. a copy of the city report is attached. The agreement will provide for the developers to pay their share of the improvement costs. They can either bond or put up a cash assignment for their share. The agreement term will be for construction to be awarded or 7 years; expiration will need to provide for return of bond /assignment. The costs are for the design, construction, and construction administration for: 1. a traffic signal at S 133rd St /SR599 SE Off Developer's cost of $24,803 (207. of 124,019) 2. a traffic signal at Interurban /SR599 NB Off Developer's cost of $17,090 (187. of 94,946) 3. a traffic signal at Interurban /SR599 NB On Developer's cost Of $13,603 (12% of 113,361) 4. Curb /gutter /sidewalk on S 1.33rd from Interurban through the SR599 SB Off intersection Developer's cost of $104,329 (317.. of 336,545) The signals will need to be coordinated and interconnected with the S 133rd /Interurban signal (costs included in estimates). The four different projects may go out as one project or four separate construction projects. The costs were prepared by adding 15% design, 20% construction administration, and 107. contingencies to construction cost estimates prepared by Bell- Walker Engineers. The. City will be responsible for the design and construction as well as work approval. Please put in wording /clauses similar to the 180th /Sperry agreement for payment and award - items 36, 3C, 3D using 10% over the estimated cost for each (improvments 1 - 4), 3E for more than 10%, 3F, 36 for Sept 1, 1996. Signatures 'by Mayor and Joe Layman, VP, Bedford Properties. As with all of these, the developers are in hurry and have been delayed by the City coming to terms on the agreement. Your prompt help will be appreciated. Please call me at 433 -0179 if I can help. XC: '1M. Bradshaw, Planning 2/clfr,-1727 '' 1 SUBJECT &- t/ �j .. DATE �' 1'/ /G MESSAGE -/UO_ `7d7(1541 •" / ce 106%86/3-- ri _5 /2 7-20 czetkz//(1(-7--- • icL-- ,:e(17, 'W6 Re- ai/Z- ,(1,i/ , , I 7-?/71- 3/J d jp M ?I/ /2 //1/%y z ; ► SIGNED REPLY REDIFORMe as 472 SIGNED DATE / / SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 INTACT PART 3 WILL BE.RETURNED WITH REPLY: DETACH AND FILE FOR FOLLOW -l1P POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P472 • 1 To: Moira Carr-Brad From Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bedfbrd/BECU expansion Date: July 7, 1989 This memo explains the Fair Share and mitigations to serve the INCREASE Bedford/BECU traffic. The 1984 traffic analysis projectOd 2,696 vehicle trips per day (VPD) with the build out of 493,850 GSF; TDA reports that the 249,112 GSF constructed is generating 2,748 VPD. TDA projects the new build out traffic generation to be 12,601 in the year 2000 and 9,763 in 1990. That's an increase of 9,905 VPD in the year 2000 and about 7,000 in 1990. The City's approval of the project was for 2,696 VPD, not 12,601. The Fair Share and mitigations described in this memo are for the increased traffic, the difference between the 2,696 and 12,601 VPD. The Fair Share was determined by: measuring existing traffic (Figure 1) developing a trip distribution (Figure 2) distributing increased BECU/Bedford traffic (Figure 3) determining future traffic (Figure 4) and calculating the per cent that the increased BECU/Bedford traffic is of the total increase (future traffic - existing). The existing street system and control is essentially operating safely and efficiently. The increase in traffic will require widening, signal control, pedestrian improvements, lighting, and similar safety and capacity needs. The Fair Share is the fraction calculated by dividing the increased development traffic by the total traffic increase. EXISTING TRAFFIC The current daily traffic totals are shown on Figure 1. Additional counts have been made to supplement the TDA information. Further counts are being made to complete the analysis. TDA reports LOS for existing conditions in Table 3. The SR599 NB Off left turn at Interurban and the SR599 SB Off at S 133rd Street have LOS E. The report explains that signals. are warranted for these two ` locations. It is important to remember that warrant volumes are threshold numbers - meeting warrants does not require a signal but allows signal installation. TRIP DISTRIBUTION To Moira Carr-Bradshaw From Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bedford/BECU Date: July 1989 A trip distribution was developed. The 1984 Wilsey & Hamm distribution was the basis and it was modified to reflect the extensive Boeing development in the Riverton area that a substantial amount of the increased traffic is projected to be generated by the Boeing Credit Union and considering proximity of Boeing employees; the TDA information, and PSCOG GRVTAP information. Figure 2 shows the distribution and Figure 3 shows the increased BECU/Bedford traffic distribution. FUTURE TRAFFIC CH2M is currently completing Tukwila's Transportation Plan by generating Year 2010 volumes and identifying capacity deficiencies. Additional work is to be performed in the Gateway area. Future volumes have been identified using the CH2M work, growth factors determined using the CH2M findings, PSCOG projections, TDA projections, and existing count data. These were reviewed, discussed with CH2M, and revised where additional work was needed. The Future volumes are shown on Figure 4. INCREASED TRAFFIC The 1990 increased traffic generated by Bedford/BECU will be about 7,000 VPD (9,763 less 2,696) as shown in Figure 6 of TDA's report. TDA projected the increased traffic using credit union transaction data and the existing rates for the Bedford expansion. The existing rates were determined from TDA counts and existing GFA. Calculating trip generation using ITE rates shows a higher amount. TDA also calculated trip generation for the year 2000. That projection is for 12,601 VPD - an increase of 9,905 VPD (12,601 - 2,696). The current 7,000 increase is about 4 times the original projection. The year 2000 increase of 9,905 is about 5 times the original projection. The original study assumed a warehouse - light industrial use actually, it is developing with office and retail. The ITE trip generation difference between office park and warehouse/light industrial is about 4 times as much. For example, office parks generate trips at 196 per acre compared to warehouses at 56 per acre. In all likelihood, the use will continue to evolve. This is what is occuring throughout the area. Gateway has excellent access with 15, 1405, and SR599 freeways as well as E Marginal Way, Pacific Highway, and Interurban/W Valley Road. The excellent access will probably accelerate the evolution to "higher" use. The fact that one-half of the originally proposed development is To Moira Carr-Bradshaw From: Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bedford/BECU Date: July 1989 generating more traffic than the original projection substantiates the change. The fair share traffic amount being used in this analysis is the rounded difference between the current 9,763 projection and the original 2,696 projection. It is rounded to 7,000 VPD recoginizing that the projection can't be precise to the unit. It is conservative from the development perspective by using the current 7,000 increase instead of year 2000 increase of 9.900 trips. FAIR SHARE The Future volumes show definite need for signal control and roadway capacity and safety improvements (vehicles and pedestrian). The existing conditions analysis by TDA reports signal warrants are met but no significant LOS deficiencies are occuring Volume increases from existing to future create the safety and capacity needs for vehicles and pedestrians including the signals, widening, sidewalks, lighting and so on The Fair Share is calculated by the proportion that the development traffic increase is of the total increase. Following is a tabulation of the Fair Share calculations for the S 133rd St/SR 599 SB Off Interurban Ave/I5 NB On Interurban Ave/SR 599 NB On Interurban/SR599 NB Off S 133 St (Interurban - SR599 SB Off) Intersection Approach S 133/SR599 SB Off SB Off Westbound Eastbound Northbound Total Fairshare INCREASED BECU 1, TOTAL TRAFFIC FUTURE 500 / 8,000/ 1,050 700 2,250 = 11,000 4,000 1,200 _ 24,200 Increased BECU Total Increase intersection intersection intersection intersection segment TOTAL EXISTING = 3,500 6,000 2,800 800 13,100 2,250 11,100 = TOTAL INCREASE 4,500 5,000 1,200 400 11,100 20% • • To: Moira Carr-Bradshaw From Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bedford/BECU Date: July 1989 Intersection Approach INCREASED BECU Interurban/I-5 NB On TRFFC FUTURE - EXISTING = INCREASE Northbound 700 15,000 11,000 4,000 Southbound 700 15,000 11,000 4,000 Total 1,400 30,000 22,000 8,000 Increased BECU 1,400 Fairshare = = = 18% Total Increase 8,000 Interurban/SR599 NB On FUTURE - EXISTING Northbound 750 16,600 9,200 Southbound 450 9,500 5,300 Total 1,650 35,600 19,800 Increased BECU 1,650 Fairshare = = Total Increase 15,800 = INCREASE 7,400 4,200 15,800 Interurban/SR599 NB Off FUTURE - EXISTING = INCREASE NB Off 350 9,000 4,400 4,600 Northbound 1,050 20,000 10,000 10,000 Southbound 1,050 13,000 6,700 6,300 0 0 0 0 Total 2,450 42,000 21,100 20,900 Increased BECU 2,450 Fairshare = ---- = = 12% Total Increase 20,900 S 133 St (Interurban - SR599 SB Off) FUTURE - EXISTING = INCREASE Westbound 1,050 9,500 6,200 3,300 Eastbound 1,200 9,500 5,500 4,000 Total 2,250 19,000 11,700 7,300 Fairshare = Increased BECU 2,250 Total Increase 7,300 = 31% • To Moira Carr-Bradshaw From Ron Cameron Subject: Gateway Bedford/BECU Date: July 1989 MITIGATIONS AND FAIRSHARE J The improvements to provide for the increased traffic include widening �r Interurban and S 133rd Street, interconnected and coordinated signals, S' lighting, signing, and pedestrian improvements. The City is currently working with WSDOT on a grant to improve Interurban with the grant to /l/ �7. provide about half of the funding. No other funding sources have been �/ identified for the other improvements. The Fair/ Share portion of improvement costs and improvements for the unfunded projects: 20% S 133 St/SR599 SB Off coordinated signal, intersection 18% Interurban/I5 NB On coordinated signal, intersection Interurban/SR599 NB On coordinated signal, intersection 12% Interurban/SR599 NB Off coordinated signal, intersection Interurban/S 133rd St coordinate signal 31% S 133rd St (Interurban-SB off) roadway safety/capacity. --_' The mitigation costs will include design, construction, and construction administration. WSDOT coordination will be required. Cost estimates hav not been made, even "planning level" estimates~as they have not been anticipated as being needed this soon. � A developer's agreement should be entered that provides for Bedford/BECU funding the Fairshare improvement cost prior to construction award. The agreement should be based on planning level cost estimates, the developers agree to their shares, a bond or similar measure is provided for the fair share, escrow deposit of the funds is required of the funds prior to construction award, and further award agreement is provided if the low bid is substantially more than the estimate. Lower or higher bids would be proportionately shared. The agreement has an expiration date. cs 1 ING a 4 ocir v 0 Lu st■St /.1..41,1,, g)tNeln r: 17, ,t4 etwi 01,51RISUTION) 0016 14olwr.tk.t sic) core 1 ►'Y Savvy" Ql'\ CtdA Q 00-L O fl . :;:k I . ' (r :� F°1 c. 4 V 0 NA 17 PRoectioms . Cit "f Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor June 8, 1989 James L. Lutz, P.E. District Utilities/ Developer Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, Wa. 98007 RE: Determination of non - significance Bedford Properties File No. Epic 258 -85 Dear James, This letter is in response for the request of the Amended Mitigated Determination of non - significance (DNS) that our office made on May 15, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of the updated Traffic Projections for Gateway Center Buildout with Addition of Boeing Employees Credit Union prepared by Bedford Properties and Boeing Employees Credit Union. Should you have any questions, please contact Darren Wilson or Moira Bradshaw at 433 -1849. ank You Darren W •n Assistant Planner cc: M. Bradshaw June 2, 1989 BDFORD PROPER,ES rt Ur- u7 JUN 2 1989 Moira Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Gateway Corporate Park Traffic Projections Dear Moira, Attached are two copies of the revised traffic projections for Gateway Business Park requested by Ron Cameron. TDA conducted warrant analyses for seven intersections in the vicinity of the Gateway Park and and also provided their recommendations for mitigation. TDA also includes in their discussion Bedford's prior contribution (the signal at the 133rd and Interurban Ave intersection) as a result of the 1985 Master Plan traffic study. Please expedite your review of this study; we understand that resolution of this matter is the only thing holding up issuance of permit for Building No. 3 and the permit for ,BECU. I will call you early next week to arrange a meeting to discuss the report and what, if any, assessments or agreements need to be made. Robert Hart Project Manager Bedford Properties, Inc. Mailing Address Telephone A Diversified Real Estate 12870 Interurban Ave. So. (206) 241 -1103 Development and Seattle, Washington FAX Management Company 98168 (206) 241 -2191 TS(BNICAL MSRMORA DUM To: Bob Hart Bedford Properties Gerry Park Boeing Employees Credit Union From: Ross Tilghman Date: June 1, 1989 (Revised) File: #1534 Subject: Updated Traffic Projections for Gateway Center Buildout with Addition of Boeing Employees Credit Union This Technical Memorandum updates traffic volume forecasts for Bedford Properties' Gateway Center business park located in Tukwila at Interurban Avenue and 133rd Road South. A previous traffic study was conducted for this development's Master Plan approved in 1985. The Master Plan traffic study anticipated light industrial uses totaling 494,000 gross square feet (gsf) generating a total of 2,696 daily vehicle trip -ends. The currently built portion of the project totals 249,000 gsf with a mix of office and warehouse uses. An additional 98,000 gsf is planned or under construction by Bedford Properties. Also planned is a 144,000 gsf building for the Boeing Employees Credit Union (BECU). Table 1 compares the original Master Plan with current floor area projections. Table 1. Current Floor Area versus Master Plan Original Master Plan Floor Area Use 494,000 gsf Light Industrial Current Projections Bedford Properties Built & Occupied Planned BECU Planned Buildout Total 249,112 gsf 97,888 gsf 347,000 gsf 144,000 gsf 491,000 gsf Office and Warehouse Office and Warehouse Office Credit Union Source: Bedford Properties; BECU This memo addresses current traffic generation, buildout traffic projections in years 1990 and 2000, and recommendations for improvements based on the net increase in project traffic over the Master Plan approved volumes. TDA • • ■ Current Traffic Volumes and Generation Traffic entering and exiting the Gateway Center site was counted between Monday, April 10, 1989 and Friday, April 14, 1989. Automatic counters were set at both access points to the site on Gateway Drive to record both daily and hourly entering and exiting volumes. Figure 1 shows counter locations. A counter was also placed at the adjacent First Interstate Bank driveway which connects with Gateway Drive in order to isolate Gateway Center traffic (the First Interstate facility is not part of Gateway Center). Figure 2 illustrates existing site generated traffic patterns. Figure 3 shows existing traffic volumes on area streets. It should be noted that current volumes on Interurban Avenue are lower than usual due to King County's closure of the Interurban Bridge approximately one mile north of the site. The bridge is being rebuilt and is expected to reopen in late 1989. Based on 1987 traffic counts prior to bridge closure, an additional 600 peak hour vehicles would return to Interurban Avenue at Gateway Center when the bridge reopens. Traffic Volume 320 300 — 280 — 260 — 240 — 220 — 200 — 180 — 160 — 140 — 120 = 100 — 80 — 60 — 40 — 20 — 0 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6am 7am Bam gam 10am 11 am 12pm 1 pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm Hour 0 Inbound + Outbound 0 Total Volume Figure 2. Existing Hourly Volumes on Gateway Drive 6pm Figure 1 Let'end Project Site • GATEWAY CENTER /BECU Traffic Counter Locations N TDA= Figure 3 Legend Project Site 0000 PM Peak Hour Volumes 00000 Daily Volumes GATEWAY CENTER /BECU Existing Traffic Volumes N TDA= Table 2 shows thelonversion of existing tratic to a trip generation rate per employee and per 1,000 gsf. Occupied floor area and employment information as of March, 1989, was supplied by Bedford Properties. Table 2. Existing Trip Rates By Employment and Floor Area BUILDING 1 2 4 5 6 EMPLOYMENT WARE - OFFICE HOUSE TOTAL EMPLOYMENT DENSITY WARE - OFFICE HOUSE TOTAL 133 32 165 5.16 0.61 6.20 94 11 105 1.94. 0.16 4.69 71 71 142 3.47 1.73 6.93 69 7 76 6.99 0.18 2.58 79 79 158 3.03 1.73 8.10 446 200 646 3.42 0.80 5.45 BY FLOOR AREA: BUILDING FLOOR AREA WARE - OFFICE HOUSE TOTAL 1 26619 25761 52380 2 22394 48393 70787 4 20485 20484 40969 5 29500 9876 39376 6 19515 26085 45600 118513 130599 249112 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM PM DAILY PEAK PEAR 2748 258 153 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM PM DAILY PEAR PEAR 2748 258 153 TRIP RATES/1000GSF AM PM DAILY PEAK PEAK 11.03 1.04 0.61 TRIP RATE /EMPLOYEE AM PM DAILY PEAR PEAR 4.25 0.40 0.24 The 1985 traffic study assumed a daily trip rate of 5.46 trip - ends per 1000 gsf. Actual daily trip making is 11.03 trip -ends per 1000 gsf, approximately twice the estimated rate. This is due to the mix of office and warehouse uses which was not anticipated in the 1985 study. Peak hour trip rates, however, are less than anticipated in the afternoon (0.61/1000 gsf versus 0.95/1000 gsf estimated) and essentially equal to original projections in the morning. Existing levels of service at adjacent intersections for the afternoon peak hour are shown in Table 3. The afternoon peak hour was selected since street traffic volumes are higher then than in the mornillI peak hour. Only four insections on Interurban Avenue were analyzed in the 1985 traffic study. For this analysis the City of Tukwila has requested that three additional intersections be evaluated for level of service. These include: o Interurban Ave /I -5 northbound on ramp o Interurban Ave /I -5 southbound off ramp o 133rd Road S. /SR -599 ramps. Level of service was calculated according to procedures described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Table 3. Existing Intersection Level of Service PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Unsignalized: Interurban Ave. /Gateway Dr. (north) left -turn out g other movements A Interurban Ave. /SR -599 on ramp northbound left turn A other movements A Interurban _Ave-.. /SR -599 _off <1eastbdund left turn E eastbound right turn -A other movements A Interurban Ave. /I -5 on -ramp left -turn D other movements A 133rd Road S. /SR -599 ramps southbound movements E eastbound movements A northbound movements A westbound movements A Signalized: Interurban Ave. /133rd Road South g Interurban Ave. /I -5 off -ramp g Source: TDA Inc. Only two of the study area intersections are currently signalized. Existing traffic volumes, however, are sufficiently high to warrant installation of two other signals: at- 133rd_Road1 CS .- / -SR -5 9 9- ramps_,1 and at Interurban_Ave SR 5.9 9 northbound off; ramp. (Signal warrant calculations are attached). It a likely that these signals would be warranted even if Gateway Center did not exist. This is because Gateway Center traffic currently accounts for only 7.5% of traffic at the 133rd Road S. /SR -599 ramps and for only 3.5% of traffic at the Interurban Ave. /SR -599 off ramp. • • Buildont Projections Current plans show a buildout total of 491,000 gsf, slightly less than the Master Plan's 494,000 gsf. In addition to the existing floor area, Bedford Properties plans to complete two more buildings totaling 97,888 gsf within the next year. Boeing Employees Credit Union would construct a 144,000 gsf office and customer service building by 1990. Table 4 shows the added square footage, employment and traffic based on observed trip rates for Bedford's buildings. Table 5 shows area, employment and traffic projections for the BECU building in 1990 and 2000 when employment levels will increase. Credit Union traffic has been estimated based on information supplied by BECU about employment, and the number of transactions for drive -up windows and inside teller windows. Area Table 4. Bedford Properties Added Traffic Daily P.M. Peak 1,351 77 97,888 gross square feet Source: TDA Inc. • Table 5. BECU Traffic TOTAL AREA DAILY AM PK PM PK IN OUT YEAR 1990 144000 GSF RENTABLE OFFICE 36000 GSF 638 83 84 13 71 CREDIT 108000 GSF UNION ADMIN. EMPL 182 EMP 726 95 90 14 76 SERVICE EMP 83 EMP 367 0 0 0 0 265 EMP 1730 178 174 28 146 CUSTOMERS 3934 197 354 156 198 TOTAL 5664 375 528 184 344 YEAR 2000 144000 GSF RENTABLE OFFICE 24000 GSF 470 59 60 10 51 CREDIT 120000 GSF UNION ADMIN. EMPL 342 EMP 1257 176 167 27 140 SERVICE EMP 83 EMP 367 0 0 0 0 425 EMP 2094 234 227 36 191 CUSTOMERS TOTAL 6408 320 577 254 323 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- 8502 555 804 290 514 • • Comparison of Traffic Volume Projections The following table compares previously projected traffic volumes to current projections. Table 6. Gateway Center /BECU Traffic Comparison ANALYSIS DAILY PM PEAK BUILDING AREA TRIPS TRIPS ORIGINAL STUDY 493850 GSF 2696 469 EXISTING BUILT 249112 GSF 2748 153 YEAR 1990 BEDFORD 347000 GSF 4099 229 BECU 144000 GSF 5664 528 TOTAL 491000 GSF . 9763 757 YEAR 2000 BEDFORD 347000 GSF 4099 229 BECU 144000 GSF 8502 804 TOTAL 491000 GSF 12601 1033 Source: TDA Inc. Afternoon peak hour volumes in 1990 would be approximately one and one -half times greater than originally estimated. Daily i- vvolumes would over —three times_greater_`� By year 2000, peak hour olumes would be slightly more than twice the original projection with daily volumes increasing to more than four times the original. Traffic Operations Additional traffic from office and warehouse uses has been assigned to the street system consistent with the observed directional patterns. Credit union customer traffic has been assigned based on the locations of Boeing employment centers and access routes from them. Figure 4 shows the 1990 project traffic assignment to area streets and Figure 5 shows total traffic for year 1990. Figure 6 shows project traffic only for year 2000 and Figure 7 shows year 2000 total traffic. The affects of buildout traffic on intersection levels of service is shown in Table 7 for year 1990 and 2000. Figure 4 Legend 0 Project Site GATEWAY CENTER/BECU Project Total Traffic -Year 1990 4 N TDA= N 0 400 5040 Figure 5 Legend Project Site 0000 PM Peak Hour Volumes 00000 Daily Volumes GATEWAY CENTERBECU Projected 1990 Traffic Volumes N TDA Figure 6 Legend 0 Project Site GATEWAY CENTER/BECU Project Total Traffic -Year 2000 N TDA Figure Legend 0 Project Site 7 0000 PM Peak Hour Volumes 00000 Daily Volumes GATEWAY CENTER/BECU Projected 2000 Traffic Volumes N TDA= • • Table 7. Projected Levels of Service P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Existing 1990 LOS 2000 LOS Unsignalized: Interurban Ave. /Gateway Dr. left -turn out B F F other movements A A A Interurban Ave. /SR -599 on ramp northbound left turn A E F other movements A A A Interurban Ave. /SR -599 off ramp eastbound left turn E F F eastbound right turn A A C other movements A A A Interurban Ave. /I -5 on -ramp left -turn D F F other movements A A A 133rd Road S. /SR -599 ramps southbound movements E F F* eastbound movements A B C northbound movements A A A westbound movements A A A Signalized: Interurban Ave. /133rd Rd. S. Interurban Ave. /I -5 off -ramp * LOS C with signal. B B Source: TDA Inc. B C B B Decreases in levels of service by 1990 result as much from traffic returning to Interurban Avenue due to the Interurban bridge reopening as from increases in project generated traffic. At Gateway Drive(north) /Interurban Avenue, an unsignalized intersection, westbound left -turns may experience delay commensurate with LOS F by year 2000. This indicates that some traffic may shift to the main access point at 133rd Road South where a signal controls traffic to minimize delay. Traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored to determine the actual future level of service. At the Interurban Ave. /SR -599 on ramp, northbound left turns could experience LOS F delays by year 2000. Gaps created in traffic by the adjacent signal at 42 Ave. S. may improve the actual level of service over the estimated level. • • Traffic on the SR -599 off ramp to Interurban Avenue will experience LOS F conditions. Conflicting traffic volumes and queues stretching south from the adjacent 133rd Road S. intersection reduce left turn capacity from this ramp. Even though existing traffic volumes warrant a signal, a signal may not be desirable at this location due to intersection spacing. the 1985 traffic analysis recommended against signal installation at this location. Both Tukwila and WSDOT would have to coordinate review of any potential signal to identify its effects on traffic flow on Interurban Avenue and the SR -599 off ramp. A traffic signal may not provide an adequate long -range solution for the ramp; for example, alternative ramp alignments may ultimately be required. At 133rd Road S. /SR -599 ramps, level of service would deteriorate for southbound traffic without installation of a signal. ,The signal is warranted by existing traffic volumes. With a signal LOS C could be achieved for year 2000. Any signal installed at this intersection should be interconnected to the 133rd Road S. /Interurban Ave. signal to assure effective coordination. At Interurban Avenue /I -5 on -ramp, long delays would likely occur for southbound left -turns in both 1990 and 2000. This is a result of growth in conflicting traffic movements. A signal would be required to improve level of service. A preliminary warrant analysis indicates that a signal would not be justified by 1990 projected volumes but would be justified by year 2000 volumes. At Interurban Avenue /133rd Road South, level of service would remain at very good ratings with one minor alteration: the eastbound and westbound approaches should be restriped so that the inside lanes are for left -turns only and the outside lanes for through plus right - turns. The lanes are currently unmarked. Fair Share Estimates Table 8 shows the project's share of total traffic at the intersections analyzed. This percentage is frequently used to indicate the "fair share" responsibility the project has to contributing to improvement costs where needed. Year 1990 and 2000 daily traffic volumes have been used to determine fair share proportions. Table 8 also shows the share as a percentage based on the net increase in project traffic over the Master Plan traffic volumes. This reflects a subtle but important point: the purpose of the analysis is to identify impacts due to the increase in project traffic above that which was approved in the Master Plan. In approving the Master Plan, Tukwila defined mitigation conditions related to the four intersections analyzed in the 1985 traffic • • study. Project traffic up to the Master Plan level at other locations not analyzed became Tukwila's responsibility for any future improvements (in effect it became general public traffic). Now, three new intersections are being analyzed and the original four reanalyzed. Additional mitigation does appear necessary, but financial responsibility for it should only be assessed against the net new (above Master Plan) project traffic. This approach would avoid placing the project in the "double jeopardy" situation of paying twice to mitigate the same traffic and it would fairly acknowledge the project's incremental impact to area streets. Table 8. Fair Share Estimates Based on Daily Traffic Intersection Full Project Share of Total 1990 2000 Increment over M. Plan Share of Total 1990 2000 Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban Interurban 133rd Road Ave. /SR -599 on ramp Ave. /133rd Road S. Ave. /SR -599 off ramp Ave. /I -5 off ramp Ave. /I -5 on ramp S. /SR -599 ramps 10.3% 21.6% 8.9% 7.7% 5.7% 23.9% 9.9% 5.2% 6.0% 22.3% 16.1% 17.9% 8.9% 6.2% 6.6% 7.7% 5.1% 5.8% 8.5% 3.7% 5.6% 26.7% 22.1% 25.2% Source: TDA Inc. Pedestrian Crossing The City of Tukwila indicates that it has received complaints from persons attempting to cross Interurban Avenue at 133rd Road S. that the crossing is difficult. Crosswalks are provided across Interurban Avenue on the south side of the intersection and across 133rd Road South on the east side and are controlled by pedestrian signals. A METRO bus stop on the west side of Interurban Avenue creates a need to cross Interurban to reach the project and adjacent properties. METRO indicates this is a temporary stop for rerouted route #124 which will be removed later this year once King County reopens the Interurban Bridge. Route 124 will then follow its regular route and would not stop on this section of Interurban Avenue. It should be noted that the crosswalk paint markings are badly faded and difficult to see. This appears to be a maintenance issue for the City of Tukwila. Also, no sidewalks exist on either side of Interurban Avenue to lead pedestrians to and from the crosswalks. This too is a City issue regarding design standards for street development and pedestrian facilities. • • Recommendations Based on this analysis, we recommend that: o the project proponents participate in the future installation of a traffic signal at the 133rd Road S. /SR -599 ramps intersection. This should be on a fair share (pro - rata) basis of net new daily project daily traffic to total daily traffic at the intersection. o the project proponents participate in the future installation of a traffic signal at the Interurban Avenue /I -5 on -ramp intersection. This should be on a fair share (pro rata) basis of net new project daily traffic to total daily traffic at the intersection. However, additional study may be necessary to determine whether this signal should be installed. o the intersection of Interurban Avenue /133rd Road South should be restriped on the east and west approaches to provide a left -turn only lane and a through plus right - turn lane. o additional engineering study be undertaken by Tukwila and WSDOT to determine whether a signal should be installed at the Interurban Ave. /SR -599 off ramp. o traffic volumes should be monitored annually to assess the actual need and timing for traffic control improvements. In assessing the project for the cost of this additional mitigation, the project should receive credit for its contribution to the entire cost of the signal it installed at 133rd Road S. /Interurban Avenue. This signal was required for Master Plan approval even though the signal was warranted by non - project traffic volumes as early as 1979 (according to the 1985 Master Plan traffic study) and even though the project would account for no more than 22.3% of traffic at the signal at buildout. In short, the project should be credited up to 77.7% of the cost (100% - 22.3% = 77.7 %). This should be applied against assessments at other locations to determine the actual cost of mitigation due to incremental increases in project traffic. • • �Washington State �I/ Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, Washington 98007 Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation SR 599 MP 0.16 CS 175900 Amended Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance for Bedford Properties File No. EPIC - 258 -85 This letter is in response to the Amended Mitigated Determination of Non - significance (DNS) that we received from the City of Tukwila on May 15, 1989. The proposed development, located at 12644 -12878 Interurban Avenue South and Gateway Drive, is for a Board of Architecture Review consideration of a 491,000 sq. ft. mixed use office /industrial park with banking facility on a 36.62 acre site. The 1985 projection of uses for the development has changed; therefore, an amended mitigated DNS is issued pursuant to new traffic information. The Department of Transportation has reviewed the above referenced document and we concur with the additional mitigation requirements that the City of Tukwila is imposing upon this development. So we can keep our file on this job updated, we would appreciate a copy of the new traffic information. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Donald Hurter (562 -4274) or Robert Eichelsdoerfer (562 -4297) of my Developer Section. RTE:rte ES L. LUTZ, P.E. istrict Utilities/ eveloper Engineer IDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1, Wendy Bull Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet hereby declare that: (i Determination of Nonsignificance Mitigated Determination of Non - significance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Ei Notice of Action Q Official Notice J Notice of Application for Egg Other AMENDED MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit (] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on May 11, 1989. SEE ATTACHED LIST: FAXED TO: JERRY PARKS OF BOEING EMPLOYEE CREDIT UNION & VALLEY DAILY NEWS. Boeing Employee Credit Union Name of Project Bedford Properties File Number EPIC - 258 -85 , 19 CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAILINGS ) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ) Federal Highway Administration ) Office of Archaeology ) Transportation Department Department of Fisheries Office of the Governor ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X) WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ()Q_ Deaf ; a trczA5ro <izt4.06, J c -st -z ( )Dept. of Social and Health Services ( )Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division ('<)Dept. of Ecology, SEPA Division * ( )Department of Game ( )Office of Attorney General * Send checklist with all determinations KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Dept. of Planning & Community Devel. ( ) Fire District 18 ( ) Boundary Review Board ( ) Health Department ( ) South Central School District ( ) Tukwila Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Washington Natural Gas ( ) Water District 75 ( ) Seattle Water Department ( ) Group W Cable ) Kent Planning Department Tukwila Board of Adjustment ) Tukwila Mayor Tukwila City Departments: ) - Public Works ) - Parks and Recreation ) - Police ) - Fire ) - Finance ) - Planning /Building ( )Fire District 1 ( )Fire District 24 ( )Building & Land Development Division SEPA Information Center SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )Highline School District ( )King County Public Library ( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library UTILITIES )Puget Sound Power & Light )Val -Vue Sewer District )Water District 20 )Water District 25 )Water District 125 )Union Pacific Railroad CITY AGENCIES )Renton Planning Department )Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Council Members: Edgar Bauch Marilyn Stoknes Joe Duf f i e Mabel Harris Charlie Simpson Jim McKenna Wendy Morgan ( )- ( )- ( )- ( )- ( )- ( )- ( )- OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES Puget Sound Council of Government(PSCOG) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce ) Daily Journal of Commerce Renton Record Chronicle — oagfPuows 6e- )METRO Environmental Planning Division Office /Industrial 10,000 gsf or more Residential 50 units or more Retail 100,000 gsf or more MEDIA )Highline Times )Seattle Times (ha nU 5. '�v 7Cft 8 CITY,F TUKWILA • FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433-1833 TO: JERRY PARKS DATE: May 11, 1989 TITLE: FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw COMPANY: BOEING TITLE: Associate Planner DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: Planning FAX NO. 764-3285 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: 3 4:11.ctdka:stwolve SENT BY (INITIALS): wB SUBJECT: Amended Mitigated Determination on Nonsignificance COMMENTS/MESSAGE: ,ARRANA,AKRAR•st. IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: Moira at 433-1848 TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433-1800 03/24/89 0 CITY OF TUKWILA FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 TO: Valley Daily News (Record Chronicle) DATE: May 11, 1989 TITLE: FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw COMPANY: TITLE: Associate Planner DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: Community Development FAX NO. 854 -1006 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: 3 SENT BY (INITIALS): WB SUBJECT: Amended Mitigated Determination of Significance COMMENTS /MESSAGE: PLEASE PUBLISH IN THE VALLEY DAILY NEWS ON SUNDAY, MAY 14, 1989. IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: Moira at 433 -: :i Ef TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/24/89 0 WAC 197 -11 -970 • • AMENDED MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Board of Architecture Review consideration of a 491,000 square foot mixed use office/industrial park with banking facility on a 36.62 acre site. (1985 projection of uses for park has changed; therefore an amended mitigated a mligiwft DNS is issued pursuant to new traffic information). Proponent BEDFORD PROPERTIES AND BOEING EMPLOYEE CREDIT UNION Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 12644 - 12878 Interurban Avenue South and Gateway Drive Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 258 -85 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. [l There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by May 25, 1989 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tuk i Date May 10, 1989 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 • • Amended Mitigation Measures EPIC: 258 -85 In addition to any original outstanding 1985 mitigation measures, the following conditions are attached: 1. Fair share payment of intersection improvements in proportion to 1990 buildout of Gateway Center traffic over existing May 1989 traffic volumes at the following three intersections: Interurban/ I -5 Northbound ON Interurban/ SR -599 Northbound Off SR -599 Southbound Off/ 133rd 2. Intersection improvements on Gateway Drive south and Gateway Drive north and Interurban Avenue to accomodate 1990 buildout traffic patterns from Center. 3. Provide appropriate pedestrianimprovements for bus riders and the handicapped using transit both northbound and southbound on Interurban Avenue S. These conditionsmust be completed or agreedto by affected parties through a developer's agreement, or other bindingagreement, prior to issuance of a building permit. CITY 0."' TUKWILA 4°21,/q/4, FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 TO: / #07l-nik DATE: , 'g 1/(67/w TITLE: FRO/fM�: 97/ eA Jle/L 4 6/*Ar4 ) COMPANY: . ki MA/1 MiMet-Wi / TITL . /----.4,_.7/71 DEPARTMENT: DE ARTM : FAX NO. & ?3 -46 5 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: .3 SENT BY (INITIALS): Loa *t9X4X1:01:0,kM k: COMMENTS /MESSAGE: i/eda ddei/t arng IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT �j CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: 3 /CJ% TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/24/89 0 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: 1 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM Moira Carr - Bradshaw, Associate Planner Ron Cameron, City Engineer May 9, 1989 Boeing Employees Credit Union at Gateway The intersections affected by Boeing Employees Credit Union and TDA findings /nonfindings: 11 (Interurban /I -5 Northbound ON!c' Interurban /I -5 Southbound OFF .1 Interurban /SR -99 Northbound OFF ;irl.- Interurban /133rd SR -99 Southbound OFF /133r d Interurban/SR-99 Northbound ON Interurban /Gateway North Interurban /42nd TDA proposes fair share of future signal and left -turn control. TDA shows LOS B, "NFAN ". TDA did not address. Mitigation could include "fair share" of signal and operational /safety improvements. Interconnecting signals. TDA did not address. Mitigations could include East /West and /or North /South separate left signal control and interconnect on a "fair share" basis. TDA did not address signal and operational /safety mitigations. Not addressed. Left -turn signal and operational /safety improvements. TDA recommends monitoring for the future need determination. No volume assignment or range was made. Not addressed. Moira Carr - Bradshaw MEMORANDUM May 9, 1989 Page 2 A trip assignment overlay map showing existing and "with project" volumes for the area was requested. It is still needed to determine traffic impacts. No assessment of pedestrian traffic, particularly the bus riders crossing Interurban, is included. Specifically requested was needs for handicapped based on the complaints received. The text between table 3 and 4 and data of tables 4, 5 and 6 needs clarification. A trip generation showing the rates used, distribution, and analysis needs to be provided to enable our evaluation. RC /kjr File: Gateway Center Developement TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Joe Layman Bedford Properties Gerry Park Boeing Employees Credit Union Date: May 2, 1989 File: #1534 From: Ross Tilghman Subject: Updated Traffic Projections for Gateway Center Buildout with Addition of Boeing Employees Credit Union This Technical Memorandum updates traffic volume forecasts for Bedford Properties' Gateway Center business park located in Tukwila at Interurban Avenue and 133rd Road South. A previous traffic study was conducted for this development's Master Plan in 1985. . The Master Plan traffic study anticipated light industrial uses totaling 494,000 gross square feet (gsf;. The currently built portion of the project totals 249,000 gsf with a mix of office and warehouse uses. An additional 98,000 gsf is planned or under construction by Bedford Properties. Also planned is a 144,000 gsf building for the Boeing Employees Credit Union (BECU). Table 1 compares the original Master Plan with current floor area projections. Table 1. Current Floor Area versus Master Plan Floor Area Use 494,000 gsf Light Industrial Original Master Plan Current Projections Bedford Properties Built & Occupied 249,112 gsf Planned 97,888 gsf 347,000 gsf BECU Planned 144,000 gsf Buildout Total 491,000 gsf Office and Warehouse Office and Warehouse Office Credit Union Source: Bedford Properties; BECU This memo addresses current traffic generation, buildout traffic projections in years 1990 and 2000, and recommendations for improvements. TDA INC. • • Current Traffic Volumes and Gern ration Traffic entering and exiting the Gateway Center site was counted between Monday, April 10, 1989 and Friday, April 14, 1989. Automatic counters were set at both access points to the site on Gateway Drive to record both daily and hourly entering and exiting volumes. Figure 1 shows counter locations. A counter was also placed at the adjacent First Interstate Bank driveway which connects with Gateway Drive in order to isolate Gateway Center traffic (the First Interstate facility is not part of Gateway Center). Figure 2 illustrates existing site generated traffic patterns. Figure 3 shows existing traffic volumes on area streets. Traffic Volume 320 300 - 280 - 260 - 240 - 220 - 200 - 180 - 160 - 140-+ 120 i 100 - 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 - 0 1 1 i 1 ,i 1 1 1 1 1 1 6am lam Sam 9am 10am 11 am 12pm 1 pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 0 Inbound + Outbound Hour o Total Volume Figure 2. Existing Hourly Volumes on Gateway Drive Table 2 shows the conversion of existing traffic to a trip generation rate per employee and per 1,000 gsf. Occupied floor area and employment information as of March, 1989, was supplied by Bedford Properties. Figure 1 Leizend Project Site CoebureR GATEWAY CENTER/BECli Traffic Counter Locations N TDA k.) o\' Figure 3 Lezend Project Site GATEWAY CENTER/BECU Existing Traffic Volumes k- N T DA g! Table 2. Existing Trip Rates By Employment and Floor Area BUILDING 1 2 4 5 6 EMPLOYMENT WARE - OFFICE HOUSE TOTAL EMPLOYMENT DENSITY WARE - OFFICE HOUSE TOTAL 133 32 165 5.16 0.61 6.20 94 11 105 1.94 0.16 4.69 71 71 142 3.47 1.73 0.93 69 7 76 6.99 0.18 2.58 79 79 158 3.03 1.73 8.10 446 200 646 3.42 0.80 5.45 BY FLOOR AREA: BUILDING FLOOR AREA WARE - OFFICE HOUSE TOTAL 1 26619 25761 52380 2 22394 48393 70787 4 20485 20484 40969 5 29500 9876 39376 6 19515 26085 45600 118513 130599 249112 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM PM DAILY PEAK PEAR 2748 258 153 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM PM DAILY PEAK PEAR 2748 258 153 TRIP RATES /1000GSF AM PM DAILY PEAR PEAR 11.03 1.04 0.61 TRIP RATE /EMPLOYEE AM PM DAILY PEAR PEAK 4.25 0.40 0.24 The 1985 traffic study assumed a daily trip rate of 5.46 trip - ends per 1000 gsf. Actual daily 'trip making is 11.03 trip -ends per 1000 gsf, approximately twice the estimated rate. This is due to the i i of f firce, o warehouse uses which was not anticipated in the 19.85stu•y. Peak hour trip rates, however, are less than anticipated in the afternoon (0.61/1000 gsf versus ,0.95/1000 gsf estimated) and essentially equal to original projections in the morning. Existing levels of service at adjacent intersections for the afternoon peak hour are shown in Table 3. The afternoon peak hour was selected since street traffic volumes are higher then than in the morning peak hour.' Level of service was calculated according to procedures described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. • • Table 3. Existing Intersection Level of Service PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Interurban Ave. /Gateway Dr. (north) left -turn out B other movements A Interurban Ave. /133rd Road South B Interurban Ave. /I -5 off -ramp B Interurban Ave. /I -5 on -ramp left -turn D other movements A Source: TDA Inc. Buildont Projections Current plans show a buildout total of 491,000 gsf, slightly less than the Master Plan's 494,000 gsf. In addition to the existing floor area, Bedford Properties plans to complete t ow more buildings totaling 97,888 gsf within the next year. Boeing Employees Credit Union would construct a 144,000 gsf office and customer service building by 1990. Table 4 shows the added square footage, employment and traffic for Bedford's buildings. Table 5 shows area, employment and traffic projections for the BECU building in 1990 and 2000 when employment levels will increase. Credit Union traffic has been estimated based on information supplied by BECU about employment, and the number of transactions for drive -up windows and inside teller windows. Table 4. Bedford Properties Added Traffic Area Daily 97,888 gross square feet 4,099 Source: TDA Inc. P.M. Peak 229 Table 5. BECU TOTAL APEA 0 A 1 L Y AM PK: PM PK IN OUT EIRP. 1990 144000 GSF PEN:TABLE OFF I CE OPE° I T UNION j. 108000 . F GS T taflc ; R0 33 84 13 ADM 1 N . EMPL 102 EMP e 4:.b i b 1 12. 95 913 14 76 SEPV I CE EMP 021 EMP :R.7 0 11 13 ill 255 EMP 1.780 170 174 28 145 CUSTOMEPS 3934 197 354 --- 156 190 TOTAL ,ffJ yL4 5664 :375 520 184 .344 YEAP ;2000 PENTAEtLE F:IFF: CE CPEO I UN T ON ADM N. EMPL EP') I CE EMP TOMEPS TOTAL 144000 GSF 24000 GSF 1200C1 GSF EMP R EMP 4:25 EMP \et,S.9 470 59 tii3O 1287 SC 175 367 0 21194 234 167 17,7 10 51 31; .41:1 5408 :320 577 254 32:1.1 9502 555 004 2913 514 • • Comparison of Traffic Volume Projections The following table compares previously projected traffic volumes to current projections. Table 6. Gateway Center /BECU Traffic Comparison DAILY PM PEAK ANALYSIS BUILDING AREA TRIPS TRIPS ORIGINAL STUDY EXISTING BUILT 249112 GSF YEAR 1990 BEDFORD 347000 GSF 4099 BECU 144000 GSF 5664 TOTAL 491000 GSF 9763 493850 GSF 2696 469 2748 T 153 .I 229 528 757 7 YEAR 2000 BEDFORD 347000 GSF 4099 229 BECU 144000 GSF 8502 804 491000 GSF 12601 1033 Afternoon peak hour volumes in 1990 would be approximately one and one -half times greater than originally estimated. Daily volumes would over three times greater. By year 2000, peak hour volumes would be slightly more than twice the original projection with daily volumes increasing to more than four times the original. Traffic Operations Additional traffic from office and warehouse uses has been assigned to the street system consistent with the observed directional patterns. Credit union customer traffic has been assigned based on the locations of Boeing employment centers and access routes from them. Figure 4 shows 1990 traffic volumes on area streets and Figure 5 shows them for year 2000. The affects of buildout traffic on intersection levels of service is shown in Table 7 for year 1990 and 2000. Figure 4 Lettend C:j Project Site GATEWAY CENTER/BECU Projected 1990 Traffic Volumes N TDA Figure 5 Leerul Project Site GATEWAY CENTER/BECU Projected 2000 Traffic Volumes N T DA • • Table 7. Projected Levels of Service P.Zi. Peak Hour Intersection 1990 LOS 2000 LOS Interurban Ave. /Gateway Dr. left -turn out D D/E other movements A A Interurban Ave. /133rd Rd. S. B C Interurban Ave. /I -5 off -ramp B B Interurban Ave. /I -5 on -ramp left -turn E F Source: TDA Inc. At Gateway Drive(north) /Interurban Avenue, an unsignalized intersection, westbound left -turns may experience delay commensurate with LOS D/E by year 2000. This indicates that some traffic may shift to the main access point at 133rd Road South where a signal controls traffic to minimize delay. Since the rating is a borderline case, traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored to determine the actual future level of service. At Interurban Avenue /I -5 on -ramp, long delays would likely occur for southbound left -turns in both 1990 and 2000. This is a result of growth in conflicting traffic movements. A signal would be required to improve level of service. A preliminary warrant analysis indicates that a signal would not be justified by 1990 projected volumes but would be justified by year 2000 volumes. At Interurban Avenue /133rd Road South, level of service would remain at very good ratings with one minor alteration: the eastbound and westbound approaches should be restriped so that the inside lanes are for left -turns only and the outside lanes for through plus right- turns. This is the reverse of the current markings. • ' 4 Recommendations Based on this analysis, we recommend that: o the project proponents participate in the future installation of a traffic signal at the Interurban Avenue /I -5 on -ramp intersection. This should be on a fair share (pro rata) basis of total traffic at the intersection in the peak hour. o the intersection of Interurban Avenue /133rd Road South should be restriped on the east and west approaches to provide a left -turn only lane and a through plus right - turn lane. o traffic volumes should be monitored annually to the actual need and timing for traffic control improvements. • TDA A: =s=x" INC. April 3, 1989 Mr. David Kehle David Kehle Architect 12878 Interurban Avenue S. Seattle, Washington 98168 Dear David: This letter provides trip generation information for the Gateway Center Phase 4 building. Specifically, it compares current floor area projections and anticipated uses to the original estimate used in the 1985 traffic analysis (prepared by Wilsey & Ham). The results are summarized below. Floor Area Original 34,500 gsf Current 22,573 gsf 15,049 gsf 37,622 gsf Daily PM Peak Use Trips Trips Light Ind. 188 33 Light Ind. 207 40 Office 331 41 538 81 It should be noted that the original study used Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 3rd edition trip rates while the current proposal is based on updated ITE 4th edition trip rates. The current proposal, a slightly larger building with a mix of office and light industrial uses, would generate approximately Transportation Planning, Economics & Management 316 Second Avenue South / Seattle, Washington 98104 / (206) 682 -4750 • • Mr. David Rehle April 3, 1989 Page 2 48 more p.m. peak hour trips than the original analysis indicated. Also, approximately 350 more daily trips would result with the current proposal. It is unlikely that the small peak hour increase would significantly alter area intersection levels of service. Please call me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, TDA, Inc.- r AS5 11/00."--- F. Ross Tilghman Associate L 4:e:ZiN1F6 Caty ®f Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor March 31, 1989 Dave Kehle 12878 Interurban Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98168 Subject: EPIC 258 -85 Kaiser (Gateway Development) Dear Dave: I am writing to summarize my understanding of where in the process you are in providing the City with an addendum to the original environmental document for the Kaiser Gateway site. A joint effort will be made by Bedford properties and the new owner of Lot 7. Two projects within the site, Building #3 and the Boeing Employees Credit Union, are currently pending with the City for permits and approvals. The requested addendum on transportation must be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to any action by the City. If the existing Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is sufficient, the projects may proceed ahead. If the existing MDNS must be withdrawn and a new one issued, than a fifteen day comment period ensues, during which no action may be taken by the City. We are planning on an April 27 BAR meeting for BECU; therefore, submittal of the updated information is important for the BECU applicant to stay on their schedule. I understand you have contacted Ron Cameron, City Engineer to discuss the content of the addendum and that you will be the contact person on the addendum. Yours truly, Darren Wilson CC: Ron Cameron Bob Hutnick 1908 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 March 13, 1989 Mr. Dave Kehle 12878 Interurban Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98168 SUBJECT EPIC - 258 -85 SEPA FILE - Kaiser Development Dear Dave: In May, 1985, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - significance for a 500,000 square foot industrial park to be built in phases. A Wilsey and Ham Access and Circulation Analysis was done for the entire project and used a trip generation rate of 5.46 typical for light industrial uses. As the project continues to be developed, the land uses are actually more intense than what was originally projected. In addition, the actual square footage is beginning to exceed original estimates. We request that you supplement the existing information on file for the project so that we have an updated assessment of the impacts. If you have any questions regarding the scope of the assessment, please contact Ron Cameron, City Engineer at 433 -1879. We are pleased that the project is flourishing and that leasing is successful. Please feel free to call me at 433 -1848 if you need any assistance. Sincerely,// ) 1 ff (I ,_-!-///4641l Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner MCB /jj ) ;111,ea 6 ruemi k b or <1 : w-41445) • tO3NA lit/i9 —16 ift6 POW 14, 1 ef. itu efieo b taft--k 041 ow rlitro4 er AA. )20 afriw OL) b 404/-411, A Ilk. apoL lopubitivi. Woo uvittuilt. 1 r 0— 604autrislo 0,1crQ lUttiato Cuolutoocho, 606 i • I le. tatAnu4 1 ert-tio 92-102:0 Stej /oil F1 /LSI wlel, (o tr o4mos9 14al 40,4(01 4?;* iansti4Li *horst ylorve,e. 4*, um /5I14coi SF! j Ca2-. (ette. o) V611blfb af0810104(11144 1614,101N (760t/o) lAste4L7 ex) Mae_ 0)&1' buurc.-7 IA \Wool/a J1ic c0 110414.1) !Pcobet *triatekg_r_iscr - CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN EPIC 3 - 89 FILE 89 -3 - DR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM 89 - 3- SMP TO: n BLDG n PLNG P.W. n FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT BOEING EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION OFFICE BUILDING LOCATION 7700 E. MARGINAL WAY SOUTH FILE NO. 89 - 3 - DR DATE TRANSMITTED 3/8/89 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 3/20/89 STAFF COORDINATOR DARREN WILSON ' 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 PLEASE HAVE ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS PREPARED BY 3/20/89 THANK YOU. 1120 -e rr.,Ct_Ltcc s N FLUt D CaYVZML 7vp4 'r Cf I Lc- %BLS 11 y1Atse 17 Is N5-1 FlL.LE1D ,ou i 1 Of PL/INc Y2-0g DJ f.) % Z it •N t 14 1{oT f) %S T7JL _ .►'f A-1--r)) 61\ ST &If ceru M s e'Yt lei`/ IZ- LI (ft '1Z F7v‘QV/1( c�YL R.EcLu I I �l�l Io /tiz / L s Ys-jur\ -- 1- C l rt / . Cn 7 I NJ-T.1 7,.a4)(4 G1t5 • Ace .0 _c_s' 7o 'pi te15 Ste'' i4.13 pin).0--0 0 PA-L"T 1- 111\e -5 matAu IN c —s Nocre T i Tb w 76) (1.1C_ /7- 2--- Jr , p04) LJT ilL `s 1 NT A-Nce- DATE 3 2. -43/S COMMENTS PREPARED B C.P.S. Form 11 • • CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CN EPIC 3 - 89 FILE 89 -3 - DR 89 - 3- SMP TO: n BLDG [ PLNG n P.W. FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT BOEING EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION OFFICE BUILDING LOCATION 7700 E. MARGINAL WAY SOUTH FILE NO. 89 - 3 - DR DATE TRANSMITTED 3/8/89 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 3/20/89 STAFF COORDINATOR DARREN WILSON 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 PLEASE HAVE ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS PREPARED BY 3/20/89 THANK YOU. DATE 07k /o' (ad,- 4 p. -7 /%po N COMMENTS PREPARED BY ca.,. C.P.S. Form 11 It g WA 6 1989 • "'`'` '`' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PL A. BACKGROUND Con No. Epic rile No. 3 gY Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 6'15 1 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Boeing Employee Credit Union Office Building 2. Name of applicant: The Callison Partnership 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98101 - 623 -4646 - Mr. Bob Hutnik 4. Date checklist prepared: March 6, 1989 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start site development in July of 1989 Start building construction in September of 1989 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Subsurface explorations have completed. 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. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. City of Tukwila Permits Shoreline Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi. checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no . need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The pro,iect, consists of a 6 story, 144,000 asf office, banking and utmpue_r center. Also included is surface parkjng with landscaping for 464 cars, and.. 1 level parking deck for 180 cars. A landscaped entry boulevard with try plaza and a members patio on the river /east side of the buildng are also included. 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. See submitted plans dated 3 -6 -89, address is 12,788 alteway Dnive. Section 15, 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The proposed project will be within t aroma_ of the Breen mod__ it's associated wetlands. -3- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIc B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth • Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat pastureland. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1 -2% other than the river bank. 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. Silt & sand d.. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. _ Fill material of approximately 5,000 cubic_yards will be returne3 to complete the previously approved surcharge program for the site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 76% 1 • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 0 Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or ``''� 16144 �/ other impacts to the earth, if any:Construction Iv " �1 drainage ditching and sediment control ponds. 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. Normal construction activities of trucks and work crews. After completion only normal automobile usage associated with office and bank functions. b. Are .there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 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. Yes, Duwamish River • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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. Yes CiZrtto;0 3)`7 Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Only that required by normal minimal fill requirements for building pads and parking areas. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No N/61 Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year in • floodplain? If so, note location on the site P� plan. Yes. Flood plain'is 13.2' building pads are at 19.5' 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 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. None 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. Storm water from roofs and parking areas will be collected and discharge into the gateway area .th in- aqe easements and drain into the Duwamish River. -7- 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No Proposed measures to reduce or control .surface, g ound, and runoff water impacts, if any: A city approved storm water detention fa.cj] ities have een installed by the Gateway Area Develope_rs 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass x pasture M _ crop or grain ,� _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, ili' water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other skunk cabbage, other ef" other types of vegetation ��' c / b� What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed _ ( a6,� lJ or Pasture and shrubs altered? �L 0 ► G r � �r�) W� P c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None • Evaluation for fea� Agency Use Only p �� Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other VP* measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the • G site, if any: P��►6 See submitted landscape plan ,_y\� �� 5. Animals 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: None mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: None fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d1 Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, ' i f any : None S• Evaluation for Agency Use 0 101 a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, 14 wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and natural gas primarily for lighting and some manufacturing. Energy and Natural Resources b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No 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: Insulation and orientation of building. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None 0 410 Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Tr a f f ice_ 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. Construction during normal working hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. Land and Shoreline Use What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current use is vacant land previously approved for 3 buildings of approximately 151,000 gsf adjacent � sites are a business park and trucking facilities. /� b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Pastureland previous to initial sitework completed by prior owner. c. Describe any structures on the site. None 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M -1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light industrial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shoreline area near the Duwamish River. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, shoreline areas. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 400 - 500 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed building functional uses are rnmpatihle with existing uses. •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? Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 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? 93' to top of mechanical trrePn 78' to top of building Principle exterior building materiaL_is._custom -co1o. integrated pre -cast cnnrrPte b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Buildings and landscaping berms are sited to screen the majority of truck loading areas and drive ',p —banking stacking lanes from street view. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? None currently but a future area wide river trail could be installed by the City of Tukwila b. Would the proposed project displace any existing . recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The project will respect the shoreline zone designated for the future trail. -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. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 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. Gateway Drive connects to interurban south. SPP site plan. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Do not know. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate ?___ 644. WouldTeL m ;ndte none4r-ior- p,roject approved And ,ea-ek */== 8-00=spa.cesA n— tha-s- parcel 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). On site roads indicated by site plan. They would be private. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No Evaluation for Agency Use Only How many vehicular trips per day would be generated VII° ��- by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. � The project would be consistent with the prior project volumes or less. i P ■ g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: None 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No other than what is normally associated with a office /credit union complex. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Power (Puget Power), phone (U.S. West). Water (City Qf Tukti 1 a) . gas (Washi neon Natural Gas ;Joj 11 extend service to the site if requested). 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 decisio'. *(//1-1 Signature: Date Submitted: 3 . G0.8 PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC• D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. rlow would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: • . Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: Now 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? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 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? • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. • .Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: ' TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLI• • Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS 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? THE OBJECTIJLE OF THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSOLIDATE B.E.C.U.'S PRESENT MULTI - FACILITIES OPERATIONS LNTO A SINGLE CAMPUS. THE CAMPUS AND BUILDING WILL BE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEXT 10 -15 YEAR ANTICIPATED GROWTH IN AN ORDERLY FASHION. THE AREA SHOULD BE CENTRALLY LOCATED BETWEEN BOEING COMPANY'S NUMEROUS FACILITIES. PROGRAMMING OF B.E.C.U.'S NEEDS SUGGEST DIFFERENT SIZE FLOOR PLATES. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? 1. BUILD A SINGLE. TERRACED 6 STORY STRUCTURF. 2. BUILD A SINGLE. 4 STORY STRUCTURE, 3. BUILD MULTIPLE BUILDINGS. 4. LOCATE ELSEWHERE. 5. NO ACTION. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: THF PRFFFRRFD TS Nn 1 WHTrH RESPONDS TO THF NFFDS OF R_F_C_I1_ AND PROVTDFS A SFCUPE, VISUALLY INTERESTING SOIUTION. ITEM 2 BECOMES TOO MASSIVE AND THF FLOOR PIATFS ARF ToO_LARGE 1: ITEM 3.CREATES A SFCURTTY PROBIFM AND SFPFRATFS R F C II STAFF. TE11 4 UNACCEPTABLE DO TO THF HARDSHIP OF SFIITNG FXTSTTNG PROPERTY AND FINDING A NFW IOCATTON WHICH TS FQIIALLY ACCEPTABLE TO B.F.C.II. ITEM 5 B.E.C.U.'S CURRENT FACILITIES ARF TOO SMAII FnR THEIR CURRENT AND FUTURE OPERATIONS. • • 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? Nn Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: NOT APPLICABLE -23- • • & C FILE DATE GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER co L i j ' c 7r �f DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT This Agreement, for purposes of identification, dated Acge.s / 5 , 1985, is made and entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation, hereinafter re- ferred to as "City" and "KAISER GATEWAY ASSOCIATES ", a California Partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Developer ". RECITALS: A. Developer has presented to City a Preliminary Development Plan of land located within the corporate limits of City, said plan having been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City Public Works Director. B. The proposed development of land is commonly known and described as Gateway Corporate Center, and more particularly described in Exhibit A. Said development is hereinafter referred to as "The development ". C. Developer has requested approval of the plans and specifica- tions prior to the construction and completion of improvements, including, but not limited to streets, highways. or public ways, public utility facilities, and design standards which are part of the provisions for lot grading and drainage in or appurtenant to the development, that are required by the City Public Works Director and the Ordinance of the City. Said improvements are shown on the documents described in Exhibits A and B, and are hereinafter referred to as "the Candidates for Turnover" 49b 7/16/85 1 • • AGREEMENTS: The parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Performance of Work: Developer agrees to furnish, construct and install at his own expense all required improve- ments as shown on the plans and specifications of said develop- ment, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Public Works Director and is incorporated herein by reference, along with any changes and modifications as may be required by the City Public Works Director due to errors or omission on the plans. 2. The City shall select and manage an inspector for the candidates for turnover. The Developer shall pay the costs of said inspector At the time of application for any street use /utility permits for public street /utility improvements, the City shall furnish to the Developer an estimate of the City's inspection costs. The Developer shall deposit with the City the full amount of such estimated costs prior to the issuance of any permits authorizing construction. 3. Work; Satisfaction of City Engineer: All of the work on the required improvements is to be done at the places, of the materials, and in the manner and at the grades, all as shown upon the approved plans and specifications and the City's Standard Specifications, and to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Director. The Developer's Soil Engineer and Surveyor shall supply the City with copies of all tests, records and survey notes performed for the Development. At the time of the issuance of building permits, Developer will provide City with a 'performance bond, in the form of Exhibit F attached hereto, in such amount as is approved by the Public Works Director (which 49b 7/16/85 2 • amount shall include the estimated cost of the anticipated .traffic signal at the intersection of 133rd South and Interurban). At the time of closing, Developer will provide City with a maintenance bond in the form of Exhibit G in an amount approved by the Public Works Director covering the warranty contained in paragraph 11. 4. Work; Time for Commencement and Performance: City fixes the time for the commencement of the work to be done on the day permits for such work are approved by Planning Director and /or Building Official, and for its completion to be within 365 calendar days thereafter. At least four (4) working days prior to the commencement of work hereunder, Developer shall notify the City Public Works Director in writing of the date fixed by Developer for commencement thereof, so that the City Public Works Director shall be able to provide services of inspection. 5. Time of Essence; Extension: Time is of the essence of this Agreement, but the dates for commencement and completion of the work of construction may be extended as herein provided. The City Public Works Director may extend said dates for delays in said work actually caused by inclement weather, riots, strikes, lockouts, fires, earthquakes, floods and conditions resulting therefrom. Extension of said dates for any other cause shall be made only by the City Council. 6. Request for Extension; Granting: Requests for exten- sion of commencement and completion dates shall be in writing, shall be delivered to City in the manner hereinafter specified for services of notices. Extension shall be granted in writing 49b 7/16/85 3 and an oral extension shall not be valid for any purpose what - ;. oever . 7. Extension; No Release of Obligations: In the event it is deemed necessary by the City to extend the time of commence- ment or completion of the work to be done under this Agreement beyond the dates specified herein, such extension as shall be granted shall in no way release any guarantee given by Developer pursuant to this Agreement, or to relieve or release those providing improvement security pursuant to this Agreement. The sureties in executing the bonds shall be deemed to have expressly agreed to any such extension of time. 8. Extension; Conditions: The granting of any extension may be conditioned upon Developer providing City with new or amended surety bonds in amounts increased to reflect increases in the costs of constructing the required improvements that have occurred prior to the granting of the extension or are likely to occur prior to the completion of work. 9. Dedication to City: Developer intends to petition the City to accept the Candidates for Turnover as described in Exhibits A, B and the Bill of Sale, Exhibit C as full performance of all dedication and improvement obligations arising from the Development; and the City will consider the acceptance of said improvements provided that the Developer fulfills the following conditions: a. Developer shall execute and deliver to the City a Bill of Sale for the Candidates for Turnover in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C. City and Developer agree that the descrip- tive information in the Bill of Sale was obtained by the 49b 7/16/85 4 • Developer from Exhibits A and B and the Developer shall prepare he information from the "As Built Drawings ". The Bill of Sale shall be in the format approved by the City and shall contain a materials list and unit costs. b. Developer shall convey to the City the easements attached as Exhibits D -1 and D -2 for general utility construction and maintenance in connection with the utilities conveyed by this Agreement. Owners shall also dedicate to the City the street right -of -way in the form of a Statutory Warranty Deed attached as Exhibit D -3. All descriptions and easements shall be prepared as required by State law. c. Developer shall perform the obligation described in paragraph 9.a. and 9.b. prior to AUgUSr 5 , 1986, which date shall be referred to herein as the Closing Date. The City shall execute and record by or on the Closing. Date the easements and Statutory Warranty Deed delivered by the Developer in accordance with paragraph 3'.b. d. Developer shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the City all permits, "As Built" drawings on mylar and inspection reports prepared by the Developer's consultants. 10. Title to Improvements: Title to and ownership of all improvements constructed hereunder by Developer shall vest absolutely in City, upon completion and acceptance of such improvements by City. 11. Repair or Reconstruction of Defective Work: If, within a period of one (1) year after final acceptance of the work performed under this Agreement, any improvement or part of any improvement furnished and /or installed or constructed, or caused 49b 7/16/85 5 to be installed or constructed by Developer, or any of the work one under this Agreement fails to fulfill any of the require- ments of this Agreement or the specifications referred to herein, Developer shall without delay and without any cost to City, repair or replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the work or structure. Should the urgency of the case require repairs or replacements to be made before Developer can be notified, City may, at its option, make the necessary repairs or replacements or perform the neces- sary work, and Developer shall pay to City the actual cost of such repairs. 12. Developer Not Agent of City: Neither Developer nor any of Developer's agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of City in connection with the performance of Developer's obligations under this Agreement. 13. Successors: This Agreement shall constitute an ease- ment, servitude and covenant running with the land' upon the Property described in this Agreement and shall be binding upon the heirs, assigns, grantees, and successors in interest to Developers. 14. The City and Developer agree that the following are a part of this Agreement: a. Express and implied warranties of title, ownership or power to convey shall continue in force. b. Developers shall continue to maintain the land- scaping planting in Gateway Drive until the responsibility is assumed by individual property owners. 49b 7/16/85 6 • • c. Obligations arising from this Agreement which are ersonal to the Developer and which had not been assumed by, nor legally imposed upon Developer shall not be affected in any way by this Agreement. 15. Trail and Street Extension: Developer acknowledges that the City has plans to improve a recreational trail within the 40 foot setback along the river fronting Developer's property and to extend a public street (60 feet in width along the southeasterly boundary of property) from the street configuration shown on the Developer's plans to the river as part of a future river crossing and that the mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance (D.N.S.) for the Developer's project is conditional upon Developer accommodating such trail and street extension. The Developer, in designing and constructing its project, agrees to leave sufficient space to construct such street extension and recreational trail to City standards. Developer further agrees to, and hereby does, waive any and all severance damages attributed to any future acquisition of property by the City of Tukwila for a trail and /or street extension in such locations. 16. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of City and Developer and shall not be modified except in writing executed by both parties. This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Washington. The prevailing party in any action to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. 49b 7/16/85 7 49b 7/16/85 A G R E E D: KAISER GATEWAY ASSOCIATES, A California Partnership (Developer) By: General Par By: .� <<���l,�,� General Partner CITY OF TUKWILA, A Municipal o p• - tion (City) '! V: ATTEST: an •usen, •ayor By: 7/ /ax .0CL Maxine Anderson, City Clerk 8 APPROVED AS TO FORM, City Attor STATE OF COUNTY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A11C On this date, before me, personally appeared K ! u+,tpt and c. g E.R r t',1 16,16 9 ti , to me known to be the G-ErslepAL i T,v, RS , respectively of KAISER GATEWAY ASSOCIATES, a California Partnership, the entity that executed the within and foregoing Gateway Corporate Center, and acknowledged said instru- ment to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said entity, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he /she was authorized to execute said instrument. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL on VIOLET i Notary Public in and for the State of NOT:. '.;California, residing at . COUP" !,1! Cc.... -_.:a M y 14, 1866 '- 49b 7/16/85 9 EXHIBIT LIST Gateway Corporate Center, 25 sheets, dated May 17, 1985. Sheets 1 through 25 prepared by Mackenzie /Saito & Associates B Documents prepared by Wilsey & Ham, Inc. C Bill of Sale D Easements for crossing City Light Property D -1 Easement for Utilities from Interurban Avenue (133rd Avenue South) along new loop road to Interurban Avenue (North access) to the north. D -2 Easement for. Storm Drains D -3 Statutory Warranty deed (New loop road) E Right -Of -Way Dedication F Performance Bond G' Maintenance Bond 49b1 7/16/85 • 1 EXHIBIT A 1. Sheets 1 through 25 of plans dated May 17, 1985, prepared by Mackenzie /Saito & Associates, P.E. Sheet Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 -7 Street and Storm 8 -10 Sanitary and Water 11 Water 12 -13 Sanitary and Water 14 -16 Misc. Utilities, Pavement Markings and Signage 17 -19 Off- Street Storm 20 Interurban Avenue Restriping 21 -24 Details 25 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 49b1 7/16/85 1. EXHIBIT B Sheets 1 through of plans dated prepared by Wilsey & Ham. Inc., as follows: Sheet Title These drawings are for the signal design and traffic channelization along Interurban South. Final design on this work will not be complete until Washington State Department of Transportation approves design report and plans. This is expected in Spring 1986. 49b1 7/16/85 EXHIBIT C BILL OF SALE KAISER GATEWAY ASSOCIATES, a California partnership ( "Grantor "), in consideration of one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby convey to the City of Tukwila, Washington, a municipal corporation ( "Grantee "), Grantor's interest in the personal property constituting the following Gateway Corporate Center utilities systems and street improvements; the water system, sanitary sewer system, storm sewer system, lighting system, streets, signs, curbs and sidewalks. Such utilities systems and street improvements are further described in the documents listed in Exhibit A to the Gateway Corporate Center Developer's Agreement. Such personal property is further described in the list attached hereto. Such descriptions have been provided by Grantee and are not warranted by Grantor. Grantor is transferring the utility systems and street improvements as stated in the Developer's Agreement. Dated this of , 19 GRANTOR By ACCEPTED: CITY OF TUKWILA By Pursuant to Resolution No. 49b1 7/16/85 • • EXHIBIT D EASEMENTS FOR CROSSING CITY LIGHT PROPERTY 49b1 • • NORTH ENTRY SEATTLE CITY LIGHT EASEMENT That portion of the C.C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmis- sion line right -of -way, at a point bearing N22 °20'26 "W 1,722.57 feet from the quarter corner between Sections 14 and 15; thence N48 °13'44 "W along said northeasterly margin 1,207.05 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described herein; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING from a tangent that bears S61 045'03 "W, along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 219.50 feet and a central angle of 19 °58'47 ", an arc length of 76.54 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 28.50 feet and a central angle of 61 °18'20 ", an arc length of 30.49 feet to a point on the southwesterly margin of said right -of -way; thence along said southwesterly margin, N48 °13'44 "W 90.63 feet; thence leaving said southwesterly margin from a tangent that bears S76 °55'24 "E along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 28.50 feet and a central angle of 61 018'20 ", an arc length of 30.49 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 280.50 feet and a central angle of 15 030'30 ", an arc length of 75.92 feet to a point on said northeasterly margin; thence along said northeasterly margin S48 °13'44 "E 64.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. L.S. 11568 • • SOUTH ENTRY SEATTLE CITY LIGHT EASEMENT That portion of the C.C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmis- sion line right -of -way, at a point bearing N22 °20'26 "W 1,722.57 feet from the quarter corner between Sections 14 and 15; thence N48 °13'44 "W along said northeasterly margin 424.29 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described herein; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING from a tangent that bears S61 °45'03 "W, along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 219.50 feet and a central angle of 18 055'47 ", an arc length of 72.52 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 28.50 feet and a central angle of 91 °03'00 ", an arc length of 45.29 feet to a point on the southwesterly margin of said right -of -way; thence along said southwesterly margin, N48 °13'44 "W 118.01 feet; thence leaving said southwesterly margin from a tangent that bears S48 °13'44 "E along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 28.50 feet and a central angle of 89 °21'04 ", an arc length of 44.44 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 280.50 feet and a central angle of 14 °51'34 ", an arc length of 72.75 feet to a point on said northeasterly margin; thence along said northeasterly margin S48 °13'44 "E 64.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. w L.S. 11568 EXHIBIT D -1 EASEMENT FOR UTILITY LINES The Grantor(s) for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) in hand paid, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant, sell and convey to the City of Tukwila, Washington, a municipal corporation, Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, nonexclusive easement and right -of -way over, through, under, across, upon and in the following described real property situated in King County, Washington, TO -WIT: SEE ATTACHED FOR DESCRIPTION For the purposes of constructing, reconstructing, replacing, repairing and operating utility lines, including but not limited to water, storm drainage and sanitary sewer lines and all necessary connections and appurtenances thereto, together with the right of ingress and egress therefrom for the purposes of enjoying the easement. This easement is granted with the understanding that upon completion of any work on the easement, the property affected will be restored as nearly as possible to the condition in which it was at the commencement of such work. The Grantee also agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Grantor(s) from any liability or damages (including costs and attorney's fees) arising from the acts or omissions of Grantee and Grantee's agents, employees and contractors in the exercise of the rights granted herein. DATED this day of , 1985, at Grantor Grantor Approved and accepted this 49b1 day of , 1985. CITY OF TUKWILA By: Mayor Attestation: By: City Clerk STATE OF ss. ,COUNTY OF THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the General Partner of Kaiser Gateway Associates, a California partnership, that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said trust for the uses and purposes herein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. STATE OF ss.. COUNTY OF Notary Public in and for the State of residing at THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the City of Tukwila, the municipal corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said trust for the uses and purposes herein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 49b1 10' UTILITY EASEMENTS ADJACENT TO LOOP ROAD Those portions of the C.C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, and being more particularly described as follows: Parcel One Commencing at a point on the northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmis- sion line right-of-way, at a point bearing N22 °20'26 "W 1,722.57 feet from the quarter corner between Sections 14 and 15; thence N48 °13'44 "W along said northeasterly margin 490.87 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of Parcel One; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING along said northeasterly margin N48 °13'44 "W 10.27 feet; thence leaving said northeasterly margin from a tangent that bears N54 °42'02 "E along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 290.50 feet and a central angle of 10 051'53 ", an arc length of 55.09 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 209.50 feet and a central angle of 23 047'39 ", an arc length of 87.00 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N41 °46'16 "E 613.27 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 109.50 feet and a central angle of 90 °00'00 ", an arc length of 172.00 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N48 °13'44 "W 250.43 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 109.50 feet and a central angle of 71 013'30 ", an arc length of 136.12 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve S60 °32'46 "W 829.37 feet to a point on said northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmission line right -of -way; thence along said northeasterly margin N48 °13'44 "W 10.56 feet; thence leaving said north- easterly margin N60 °32'46 "E 832.77 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 119.50 feet and a central angle of 71 °13'30 ", an arc length of 148.55 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve S48 °13'44 "E 250.43 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 119.50 feet and a central angle of 90 000'00 ", an arc length of 187.71 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve S41 °46'16 "W 613.27 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 219.50 feet and a central angle of 23 047'39 ", an arc length of 91.16 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 280.50 feet and a central angle of 10 023'43 ", an arc length of 50.89 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of Parcel One. • Parcel Two Commencing at a point on the northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmis- • ;,sion line right -of -way, at a point bearing N22 °20'26 "W 1,722.57 feet from the quarter corner between Sections 14 and 15; thence N48 °13'44 "W along said northeasterly margin 1271.05 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of Parcel Two; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING along said northeasterly margin N48 °13'44 "W 10.36 feet; thence leaving said northeasterly margin from a tangent that bears N56 043'59 "E along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 290.50 feet and a central angle of 03 °48'47 ", an arc length of 19.33 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N60 °32'46 "E 837.37 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 190.50 feet and a central angle of 71 013'30 ", an arc length of 236.81 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve S48 °13'44 "E 250.43 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 190.50 feet and a central angle of 67 °06'39 ", an arc length of 223.13 feet; thence non - tangent to the preceding curve S41 °46'16 "W 31.90 feet; thence from a tangent that bears N28 °15'14 "E along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 180.50 feet and a central angle of 76 °28'58 ", an arc length of 240.94 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N48 °13'44 "W 250.43 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 180.50 feet and a central angle of 71 °13'30 ", an arc length of 224.38 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve S60 °32'46 "W 837.37 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 280.50 feet and a central angle of 03 °16'00 ", an arc length of 15.99 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of Parcel Two. Parcel Three Commencing at a point on the northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmis- %sion line right -of -way, at a point bearing N22 020'26 "W 1,722.57 feet from the quarter corner between Sections 14 and 15; thence N48 013'44 "W along said northeasterly margin 427.66 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of Parcel Three; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING from a tangent that bears N58 °59'47 "E, along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 219.50 feet and a central angle of 06 034'09 ", an arc length of 25.17 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 280.50 feet and a central angle of 12 °57'36 ", an arc length of 63.45 feet; thence non - tangent to the preceding curve S41 °46'16 "W 39.42 feet; thence from a tangent that bears S60 015'49 "W, along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 290.50 feet and a central angle of 05 018'06 ", an arc length of 26.88 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 209.50 feet and a central angle of 05 °43'09 ", an arc length of 20.91 feet to a point on the northeasterly margin of said transmission line right -of -way; thence along said northeasterly margin N48 °13'44 "W 10.49 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of Parcel Three. Ida] (i L.S. 11568 EXHIBIT D -2 EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAIN The Grantor(s) for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) in hand paid, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant, sell and convey to the City of Tukwila, Washington, a municipal corporation, Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual, nonexclusive easement and right -of -way over, through, under, across, upon and in the following described real property situated in King County, Washington, TO -WIT: SEE ATTACHED FOR DESCRIPTION For the purposes of constructing, reconstructing, replacing, repairing and operating storm drainage lines and facilities and all necessary connections and appurtenances thereto, together with the right of ingress and egress therefrom for the purposes of enjoying the easement. This easement is granted with the understanding that upon completion of any work on the easement, the property affected will be restored as nearly as possible to the condition in which it was at the commencement of such work. The Grantee also agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Grantor(s) from any liability or damages (including costs and attorney's fees) arising from the acts or omissions of Grantee and Grantee's agents, employees and contractors in the exercise of the rights granted herein. DATED this day of , 1985, at Grantor Grantor Approved and accepted this 49b1 day of , 1985. CITY OF TUKWILA By: Mayor Attestation: By: City Clerk • • STATE OF ss. BOUNTY OF THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the General Partner of Kaiser Gateway Associates, a California partnership, that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said trust for the uses and purposes herein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF Notary Public in and for the State of residing at THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of , 19 , before.me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the state of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the City of Tukwila, the municipal corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said trust for the uses and purposes herein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 49b1 STORM EASEMENT NORTH OUTFALL That portion of the C.C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmis- sion line right -of -way, at a point bearing N22 °20'26 "W 1,722.57 feet from the quarter corner between Sections 14 and 15; thence N48 °13'44 "W along said northeasterly margin 1281.41 feet; thence leaving said northeasterly margin from a tangent that bears N56 °43159 "E, along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 290.50 feet and a central angle of 03 °48'47 ", an arc length of 19.33 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N60 °32'46 "E 837.37 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 190.50 feet and a central angle of 08 °16'11 ", an arc length of 27.50 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described herein; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING N58 °15'15 "E 32.54 feet; thence N29 °27'14 "W 267.96 feet; thence N00 °41•14 "W 358.06 feet; thence N27 °20'48 "E 36.76 feet; thence N31 °52'01 "W 25.98 feet to a point on the mean high water line of the Duwamish River; thence along said mean high water line N72 °25'00 "E 30.00 feet; thence leaving said mean water line S11 °14'40 "E 33.79 feet; thence S27 °20'48 "W 39.84 feet; thence 500 °41'14 "E 347.94 feet; thence S29 °27'14 "E 279.72 feet; thence from a tangent that bears S85 020'51 "W along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 190.50 feet and a central angle of 1603P54 ", an arc length of 54.96 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this easement. • • STORM EASEMENT EAST OUTFALL That portion of the C.C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmis- sion line right -of -way, at a point bearing N22 °20'26 "W 1,722.57 feet from the quarter corner between Sections 14 and 15; thence N48 °13144 "W along said northeasterly margin 400.00 feet; thence leaving said northeasterly margin N41 °46'16 "E 824.09 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the easement to be described herein; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, from a tangent that bears N18 °52'55 "E along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 190.50 feet and a central angle of 22 °33'46 ", an arc length of 75.02 feet; thence non - tangent to the preceding curve S48 °13'44 "E 21.86 feet; thence N41 °46'16 "E 295.07 feet; thence N21 °23'49 "E 51.68 feet to a point on the mean high water line of the Duwamish River; thence along said mean high water line S30 °00'00 "E 40.00 feet; thence S41 °46'16 "W 392.68 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this easement. L.S. 11568 • 49b1 EXHIBIT D -3 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED • 4 9b 1 EXHIBIT E RIGHT -OF -WAY DEDICATION GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER • • LOOP ROAD DESCRIPTION That portion of the C.C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmis- sion line right -of -way, at a point bearing N22 °20'26 "W 1,722.57 feet from the quarter corner between Sections 14 and 15; thence N48 °13'44 "W along said northeasterly margin 427.66 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the road right -of -way to be described herein; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING along said north- easterly margin N48 °13'44 "W 63.21 feet; thence leaving said northeasterly margin from a tangent that bears N55 °10'12 "E along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 280.50 feet and a central angle of 10 °23'43 ", an arc length of 50.89 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 219.50 feet and a central angle of 23 °47'39 ", an arc length of 91.16 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N41 °46'16 "E 613.27 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 119.50 feet and a central angle of 90 °00'00 ", an arc length of 187.71 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N48 °13'44 "W 250.43 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 119.50 feet and a central angle of 71 °13'30 ", an arc length of 148.55 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve S60 °32'46 "W 832.77 feet to a point on said northeasterly margin of the City of Seattle's transmission line right -of -way; thence along said northeasterly margin N48 °13'44 "W 63.95 feet; thence leaving said northeasterly margin from a tangent that bears N57 °16'46 "E along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 280.50 feet and a central angle of 03 °16'00 ", an arc length of 15.99 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve N60 °32'46 "E 837.37 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 180.50 feet and a central angle of 71 °13'30 ", an arc length of 224.38 feet; thence tangent to the preceding curve S48 °13'44 "E 250.43 feet; thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 180.50 feet and a central angle of 76 °28'58 ", an arc length of 240.94 feet; thence non- tangent to the preceding curve S41 °46'16 "W 708.19 feet; thence from a tangent that bears S52 °36'20 "W along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 280.50 feet and a central angle of 12 °57'36 ", an arc length of • • 63.45 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence tangent to the preceding curve along Ve arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 219.50 feet and a central angle of 06034'09 ", an arc length of 25.17 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. • EXHIBIT F Project Name: City Permit No: PERFORMANCE BOND WHEREAS, , hereinafter referred to as "the Principal ", has applied to the City of Tukwila, hereinafter referred to as "the City ", for to construct the project known as on a site located at and WHEREAS, the City approved the requested action on , 198 , and WHEREAS, the approval granted by the City and the provi- sions of the Tukwila Municipal Code require certain improvements to be made in connection with construction of the project, which improvements are shown on the approved site plan, other required plans and further defined by the conditions identified in the City file, NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned Principal and , a corporation authorized to transact surety business in the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the Surety ", agree and bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, unto the City in the sum of lawful money of the United States, according to the following terms and conditions: 1) If the Principal does not complete all improvements required by the above - referenced conditions and plans, and file by , 198 , then the Surety shall, upon demand of the City remit to the City within ten (10) days of receipt of said demand the amount of this bond or such lesser amount as may be specified in the demand. 2) In the event the Principal fails to complete all of the above - referenced improvements within the time period speci- fied, the City shall have the right at its sole election to enter on the property described above for the purpose of completing the improvements. This paragraph shall not be construed to obligate the City in any way to complete such improvements. 3) In the-event that any lawsuit is instituted by the City of Tukwila, the Principal or the Surety to enforce the terms of this bond or to determine the rights of Any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to recover from the losing party its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred as a result of such lawsuit. 4) This bond shall remain in full force and effect until Ow obligations secured hereby have been fully performed and a bad guaranteeing maintenance of all improvements for a period of one year from acceptance has been submitted to the City in an amount of not less than ten percent of the cost of the improve- ments, and until released by the City in writing at the request of the Surety or Principal upon expiration of the period speci- fied in paragraph 1 above. DATED this day of , 198 Countersigned Principal Residing Agent Surety Accepted by: CITY OF TUKWILA By Date EXHIBIT G • Project Name: City Permit No: MAINTENANCE BOND WHEREAS, , herein- after referred to as the Principal ", has constructed and installed certain improvements in connection with a project known as on a site located at and WHEREAS, in order to provide security for the obligation of the Principal to repair or replace any improvement which proves defective within year(s) from acceptance of the improvement by the City (77-TURWra, hereinafter referred to as the City ", and to enable the City to release the performance bond provided in connection with said improvements, this bond has been secured and is hereby submitted to the City, NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned Principal and , a corporation authorized to transact surety business in the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "the Surety ", agree and bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, unto the City in the sum of , lawful money of the United States, according to the . following terms and conditions: 1) The Principal and Surety agree that in the event any of the improvements installed by the Principal or Surety pursuant to the above referenced plans, conditions and file fail to remain free from defects in materials, workmanship or installation, or in the case of landscaping, fail to survive, for a period of ( ) year(s) from the date of acceptance of the installation by the City, the Surety shall, upon demand of the City and failure to cure the defect within a reasonable time as determined and specified by the City, remit to the City within ten (10) days -of receipt of demand for remittance, the amount of this bond or such lesser amount as may be specified in the demand. 2) If the Principal fails to cure any defect within the time period requested by the City, its employees and agents are hereby authorized to enter onto said property and to perform such work. This provision shall not be construed as creating any obligation on the .part of the City or its representatives. 3) In the event that any lawsuit is instituted by the City of Tukwila, the Principal or the Surety to enforce the terms of this bond or to determine the rights of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to bcover from the losing party its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred as a result of such lawsuit. 4) This bond shall remain in full force and effect until the obligations secured hereby have been fully performed and until released in writing by the City at the request of the ' Surety or Principal. DATED this day of , 198_ Countersigned • Principal Residing Agent Surety Accepted by: CITY OF TUKWILA By Date WILLIAM R. WILKERSON Director a� sTer�` • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -6600 • (SCAN) 234 -6600 Mr. Brad Collins, Director City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: June 4, 1985 1-JEMIomN JUN G 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance- Kaiser Development Company, File No. EPIC - 258 -85 One of the major impacts to rivers and streams in urban areas is the introduction of pollutants such as oils, heavy metals, phosphates, etc. These pollutants enter the rivers and streams through storm runoff systems. Most runoff systems are designed using underground pipe leading to either underground detention vaults or detention ponds designed to prevent downstream flooding. Unfortunately, even with oil /water separators, these systems concentrate pollutants then discharge them to the receiving waters. Therefore, it is necessary to provide some means, in addition to the standard oil /water separator, to remove the pollutants typical of urban runoff. This can be accomplished by designing shallow grass -lined swales leading to open detention ponds in place of a closed pipe system. The detention pond must be large enough to allow the establishement of vegetation within it that will create a bio- filter. A major short -term impact of a project is the discharge of silt -laden water from the site during construction. Every effort must be exercised during all phases of the project to prevent silt -laden water from leaving the site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Rick A. Trosper, Regional Manager Habitat Management Division , cc: Mackenzie /Saito and Associates, P.S. 3 A.F F 410'A IT OF D I S �u T 1 0 N kA n /3S 1, L hereby declare that: (1 Notice of .Public Hearing_ (l Notice of Public Meeting [-I Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit 'ED Declaration of Significance and Scoping Notice. was mailed to each of the following addresses on Mel- JC. 1985 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail .Stop .PV -11 Olympia,-WA 9.8504 Washington State Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, WA 98504 i 1 King County Building & Land Development j Environmental Review - SEPA Information ' 431 King County Administration Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 Name of Project k=lcg)l— Fi1e Number J C_ 25 King County Hydraulics Division 900 King County Administration Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 Kaiser Development Company 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94643 Washington State Dept. of Natural Resot P.O. Box 68 Enumclaw, WA 98022 r SAC 197 -11 -970 • REVISED MITIGATED • DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal 500,000 square foot industrial park development on a 36.62 acre site Proponent Kaiser Development Company Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Interurban Avenue South and South 133rd Street. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -25885 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. CJ There is no comment period,for this DNS [l This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not -act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by May 31, 1.985 Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Q� Date May 16, 1985 Signature �d"`CCb -�--� 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. This determination is made per the attached mitigation measures. Mitigation measures EPIC 258 -85 1. Accomodation of the future potential extension of 45th Ave. S. across the southeasterly 55 -foot portion of the property if and when the extension is included in the City's adopted 6 -year transportation and improvement plan. 2. Signalization and rechannelization on SR 181 in the vicinity of S. 133rd St. per traffic engineering reports. 3. Rechannelization on SR 181 to allow the left and right turns in and out at the secondary access per traffic engineering reports. 4. Construction of the internal access loop and utility corridor to City standards. 5. Dedication of a public trail easement along the riverfront dike. 6. Building, utility and street foundations being constructed per requirements of geotechnical and hydrological engineering reports. 7. Utility crossings will accommodate METRO sewer and effluent transfer system and Seattle City Light requirements. 8. Washington State Department of Transportation limited access restrictions being removed. 9. Storm drainage system will discharge into the Duwamish River per applicable State, County and City requirements. 10. Provision of right -of -way for the new access points from the project onto SR 181. • 11. Provision of necessary right -of -way in SR 181, if needed, to accommodate signalization and channelization per traffic engineering reports. /C4!5ER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INDUSTRIAL /COMMERCIAL NORTHWEST April 30, 1985 Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RHINE MAY -2 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Subject: Mitigated DNS; File No. EPIC - 258 -85 Dear Ms. Anderson: Kaiser Development Company wishes to appeal the above Mitigated D.N.S. Specifically, Measure number 1. The word accommodation of the extension of 45th Ave. S. is not clear to us as to how our property is affected. The City of Tukwila Transportation Improvements Plan (T.I.P.) does not indicate any roads in this area and our site plan proposes one new loop street with potential connection to 48th Ave. S. We also need clarification on Measure 5 as to the timing of this dedication, and we wish to integrate the trail system into the development of this third phase. We are not objecting to dedication, only the timing. Lastly, Measure number 8 requires that the City of Tukwila be the lead advocate to remove or modify the limited access by the Washington State Department of Transportation. We intend to do as much as possible to assist the City in this endeavor. It is my understanding that our appeal will be heard at the first City Council meeting following required public notice. If you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 271 -3844. Sincerely, G. L. Kirkpat i:',k Division Engineering Manager GLK :ak cc: Bryan Sneva - ^- -Rich Beeler - Lynn Takeuchi Randy Hammond 12P KAISER CENTER: 300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94643 TELEPHONE: (415) 271 -3010 TELEX: 335315 RANCHO CALIFORNIA, CA/HAWAII KAI, HI /KAISER CENTER, OAKLAND, CA/INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES- WESTERN STATES /KAISER ALUMINUM REAL ESTATE FACILITIES - WORLDWIDE City of Tukwila City of Tukwila - Mackenzie /Saito' - Wilsey & Ham A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation G4C 197 -11 -970 MITIGATED • DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal 500,000 square foot industrial park development on a 36.62 acre site Proponent Kaiser Development Company Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Interurban Avenue South and South 133rd Street. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC45 &85 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 [! This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by May i (qo'i Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date 2-L1 , 19x5 Signature P›-t-6_14 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. This determination is made per the attached mitigation measures. Mitigation measures EPIC 258 -85 1. Accomodation of the future potential extension of 45th Ave. S. across the southeasterly portion of the property. 2. Signalization and rechannelization on SR 181 in the vicinity of S. 133rd St. per traffic engineering reports. 3. Rechannelization on SR 181 to allow the left and right turns in and out at the secondary access per traffic engineering reports. 4. Construction of the internal access loop and utility corridor to City standards. 5. Dedication of a public trail easement along the riverfront dike. 6. Building, utility and street foundations being constructed per requirements of geotechnical and hydrological engineering reports. 7. Utility crossings will accomodate METRO sewer and effluent transfer system and Seattle City Light requirements. 8. Washington State Department of Transportation limited access restrictions being removed.. 9. Storm drainage system will discharge into the Duwamish River per applicable State, County and City requirements. 10. Provision of right -of -way for the new access points from the project onto SR 181. 11. Provision of necessary right -of -way in SR 181, if needed, to accomodate signalization andochannelization per traffic engineering reports. KAISER DEVELOPMENT MDNS The ultimate construction of about 500,000 sq. ft. of office & warehousing will create issues of traffic generation and geotechnical concerns. About 2700 daily trip will be created, and the soil conditions will require . engineered foundation footings. In the specific setting of the proposal and considering the existing and projected traffic on Interurban and the Interurban improvement project (circa 1988) the impacts of the development are not significant. Traffic studies indicate the cumulative effect of traffic is less than a 10% increase ultimately in traffic on interurban. Mitigation measures are necessary to assist the flow of traffic and access the site along Interurban. But the existing traffic conditions and projected picture on Interurban appears expected to accomodate the development without a significant impact. Preload will be placed on the site to prepare adequate footing material for the development on this river - bottom site. The underlying soil is soft and mushy at various levels, but the geotechnical consultant recommended conventional footings over the landfill should be sufficient. If one issue were to be single out for consideration of its impact, the traffic causes me the most concern. The 2700 ADT figure is large, however, this is tempered by the existing traffic conditions on Interurban. Public Works is satisfied that traffic engineers expectation of slight impact on Interurban is reasonable. On that basis I'm satisfied. Speed Message® 44 -9oc,' ��%/������� /�������/ ��/�!iGseria ieisne/V - - —. `yl /fl 111 11 To C\ Subject From Speed Message - - - - -- - Date L! ' Z 2 Ow K. 9/ 2.3.(8g` D L CLISS i 0'� �1 Pr Gf `-I/ 7 3 L pfj V—e) 12).40C- i M.13 T-? 12 -..CTS -kLl_ t Obi.. \`M Pt' S i 1(:i =i l N t -a- 0 WilsonJones GRAYLINE FORM 44 -900 2 -PART .1983 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. 483 0 frO 7. Fitov (A / F-0 it, _ (-// z3 r 5-ff-6E-cTs - I 3 Z3 (Li s ? ) Stz-301,4c) s-riatti -to -o;€30421T--. t3 4 ); LS o 19 1 r A r N WDD `6,81Q1Q p M145t(z. <It) 4", WINI) ..• siciks A-u7-2.4#71se _ 3(3 L-- )c-k_( J-c Q. CLK)SVLOCT, a@Dic--esThiS r-l\t,zr(os)61 <ONC-E 01) LRAM goL.101pLA rPa)Pert CW1/0 Cq33 _ 6/1t, 14A1 A “r1 L (err U-10 WANCD4D _ers y3E)ISLk i2(\fn\L .5 cehrzsa-LF ..nrc›.1 \ • t \.) ,cdeLAcb?„ !GO WILSEY& HAM 198+0 l l2th Ave. N.E./P.O. Box C- 97304 Bellevue, WA 98009 (22116) 454 -3250 April 2, 1985 File No. 3- 280 - 0402 -30 Mr. Phil Fraser Office Engineer City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Fraser: Tull Free Numbers Everett 353 -8837 Tacoma 475 -6880 Re: Kaiser Development Corp. We have completed several additional study tasks relating to the traffic impacts of the above - referenced project, as requested at our meeting of March 27, 1985. Specifically, we have investigated the existing and potential accident hazards near the proposed primary access driveway, reviewed the opportunity for signal interconnection and have examined the feasibility of widening and channelization at the secondary access drive. The results of these studies are summarized below. The primary access drive will be developed as a northeastward extension of South 133rd Road across Interurban Avenue. The Interurban /133rd intersection is proposed to be signalized, since it is estimated that the MUTCD signal warrants one and two will be met. City police representatives have expressed concern that the adjacent intersec- tions along Interurban Avenue, serving the SR 599 on- and off - ramps, should also be signalized, based on accident experience. The accident records for this intersection system were compiled for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983 and tabulated below: INTERSECTION ACCIDENT HISTORY Interurban Avenue SR 599 S. 133rd SR 599 Off -ramp Road On -ramp Fatalities 0 0 0 Injury 0 3 2 Property Damage 3 9 0 The accident record at the Interurban /133rd intersection included four right -angle accidents. These types of collisions are susceptible to correction by signalization. public improvements engineering /development services/public policy planning and analysis/environmental affairs /surveying Offices located in: Bellevue, \Vashington • Portland, Oregon • Foster City and Fresno, California 1 • The off -ramp intersection does not reveal particular accident hazard characteristics. Two of the three accidents involved turning vehicles attempting to enter Interurban Avenue, but no rear -end accidents were reported. The MUTCD signal warrant for accident experience requires that five or more accidents be reported per year, and that they be of a type susceptible of correction by traffic signal control. Thus, it appears that the Interurban intersection with the SR 599 off -ramp does not currently meet the MUTCD traffic volume or accident warrants. In addition, the projected traffic volumes related to the proposed Kaiser project will not trigger the MUTCD volume warrants. Traffic volumes at the Interurban intersection with the SR 599 on -ramp do not approach the MUTCD volume warrants, nor is the accident warrant met. In general, the installation of a traffic signal at S. 133rd Road should benefit traffic flow throughout this system of intersections. Southbound traffic flow on Interurban will be interrupted at this intersection, thus providing gaps at the SR 599 off -ramp intersection. By using a cycle length of 80 to 100 seconds at the new signal, queue lengths in northbound traffic can be minimized, so that they will not interfere with left- turning vehicles exiting the off -ramp. Accident potentials at all three intersec- tions will be reduced by the proposed signalization plan. It should be noted that most accidents along this portion of Interurban Avenue appear to be caused by turning traffic related to the truck terminal, motel and restaurants near the Interurban /48th intersection to the south. The need for signal interconnection along Interurban Avenue also was examined. Currently, the off -ramp intersection from I -5 southbound to Interurban Avenue is signalized. This intersection is approximately 1,250 feet south of the proposed signal installation at S. 133rd Road. As a general guideline, vehicles can remain in platoons for distances of 1,000 to 1,200 feet, but progressive movement tends to deteriorate beyond these distances. The benefits associated with signal interconnection are therefore marginal. The current TIP does not anticipate installation of a signal at 48th Avenue S., but this would appear to be a prerequisite to maintain progressive flow along Interurban Avenue. It should be emphasized that any plan to signalize the three closely- spaced intersections along Interurban Avenue at SR 599 might serve as a further obstacle to progressive traffic flow. These intersections are separated by only 250 feet, and an extremely short cycle length (40 to 60 seconds) would be required if these were to be interconnected. However,. such a short cycle length would seriously compromise the peak -hour capacity along this important arterial. The feasibility of channelization at the proposed northern driveway has been reviewed in detail. Interurban Avenue currently consists of two basic lanes at this point, with open drainage and minimal shoulders on each side. A total right -of -way width of approximately 60 feet is available. A field survey of this area revealed that there is sufficient width for widening to add a center left -turn lane. However, the lane widths and lengths of taper will need to be compromised somewhat to preserve the required drainage slopes. We are currently proposing widening of Interurban Avenue at a point approximately 850 feet northwest of S. 133rd Road. An 11 -foot left -turn lane will be developed of 100 feet in length, with 200 -foot tapers on both sides. The mainline lanes on Interurban Avenue will be restriped to 11 -foot widths through this area. This design will provide • for full turning movements at the secondary access drive, adequate storage for turning vehicles, and safe, efficient traffic flow for through traffic. The driveway approach will be provided with STOP sign control.. We trust that our program of commitments will serve to mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the Kaiser proposal. Please contact us should you require additional information. Sincerely, WILSEY & HAM H. Randy Hammond, P.E. Transportation Engineer HRH /dmc 32 L (:sS_ octsey2-. grL _ iiati E3311'0 S��v awe6---(LT. mct_ totvais s . _wer4snk\ Ire-45/L- bokieci evAta 9w_ciaro iozao rte-_ oF atm 2R '��6�s� ? -S �-c_ Cdr -�.- KVizkaVo • �J�vJILA �'9S City of Tukwila o y uJ 1905 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM To: FILE FROM: Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer DATE: 3/26/85. SUBJECT: KAISER DEVELOPMENT at Sr 181 & S. 133rd Street • Public Works has reviewed the preliminary design concept plans per the March 12, 1985 letter to the Planning Department from Lynn Takeuchi or. the MacKenzie /Saito & Associates architects for the Kaiser Development Company (Job #384421). Submitted for review was one copy of plan sheet Nos. PL -1, PL -2, and SP -3. To date, several meetings have been held with the developers and the representatives regarding the subject project. City staff have provided the developers with information relative.to their inquiries as they have'developed their proposal to date. At this time, a formal Pre - application meeting is considered necessary by myself and will be held 3/26/85 at 4 PM with all DRC staff invited to review the proposed application as processed to date, and provide the developer with preliminary criteria for further processing of his proposal. Attached is a general sequence diagram to give the developer a basic concept of the permitting process. This diagram is only a general guide and is not intended to be inclusive. Also attached are an appropriate set of criteria for use in development of the plan drawings for the utilities proposed by the developer to be turned over to the public at the completion of the project (turnover at which phase of the project has yet to be determined). This criteria is from another City project called 168th Street South - New Link Arterial. Also, attached is a Preapplication Advisory Form. This form is a compliation of initial reviewsof the various Departments, including Public Works, for necessary processes and permits associated with the development as presented at this time. Again, this is a preliminary data sheet and may not be inclusive. A brief lo-k at the lastest submittal PL -1, PL -2 and SP -3 as shown in these plans identifies a proposed public looped roadway system with a new intersection at S. 133rd Street. Comparing this proposal to staff input and City requirements to date, the following: KAISER DEVELOPMENT AT SR 181 & S. 133`tD STREET PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (3/26/85) 1. 48 foot wide roadway pavement 2. Right -of -way provided: A.Section A -A: 55 feet ROW/ 10 foot easement on west side only. B. Section B -B: 60 feet ROW/ 10 foot easement on both sides 3. Sidewalks: A. Section A -A: 5 foot sidewalk on North side only B. Section B -B: 5 foot sidewalk on each side. CITY REQUIERMENTS (same) Right -of -way required: A. Section A -A: 61 feet ROW with 10 foot easements both sides. B. Section B -B: Per section A -A above. Sidewalks: . A. Section A -A: 6 foot sidewalk on both sides. B. Section B -B: (same as A -A above) 4. Roadway section: 2" Class B over (same) 4" Crushed surfacing over 12" Class B gravel 5. . Concrete -curbs and gutters, both sides - (same) 6. Roadway configuration: Roadway loop City Staff input: Roadway look with 2 with 2 accesses onto SR -181 accesses onto SR -181, plus extension of S. 133ft Street to the River. 7. Design speed standard: 25 MPH 8. Easements across Seattle City Light- ROW adjacent to SR -181 for both connection to SR -181. 9. Coordinate with WSDOT -seek permits to cross limited access line for new public roadway access into S. 133rd. Street. 10. Restrict secondary access road (north of S. 133rd Street) to right turn movements only. (No response to date) (same) (same) (same) City Staff input: Provide full left -in /out right in /out turning movements at secondary access. Included will be necessary rechannelization and widening of SR -181. Coordinate with Metro on ETS line in. SR -181/ provide utilities accordingly. Per original requirements for environmental review (see attached) Public Works is still awaiting a revised Transportatation study and Hydrological report as part of the environmental checklist process. This report will be necessary before a determination as to the need for signalization and rechannelization in the vicinity of the development in SR -181 is appropriate and to what degree. Additional items that need review are requirements of the Recreation Director for a Dike -trail improvement (see Rec. Director's comments attached). Also, the final detail plans shall be stamped by the developer's civil engineers, registered in Washington State. A 1,000,000 professional liability insurance is also required (specifics may be obtained through the City's Attorney, Jim Haney - phone 622-2991). At the time of this report it is obvious that the full development proposal is incomplete at this time and City staff are awaiting additional infor- mation before continuing their review processes. cc. Public Works Director Planning Director Recreation Director City Engineer Fire t larschal l ; Building Official Associate Planner Police Department Permit Coordinator File Attachments (4) NOTE: EACH TIME PROPOSAL CHANGES THIS KAISER DEVELOPMENT - GENERAL DIAGRAM OF EVENTS LEADING TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW /B. OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS MAY BEGIN AGAIN (IF VARIANCES REQUIRED) PROCESSES • ISSUE SHORELINES PERMIT SUBMIT INITIAL PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT OF SUBMIT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSE THRESHOLD DETER- PRELIMINARY`\ K •'� , BY DEVELOPER 1--� TO CHECKLIST ; BR MINATION ON CHKLST. - TOUGH TRAN 0_ DETAIL PLANS._-(" COMMMIITTEE �( CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TRAFFIC STUDY / / STAFF REVIEW TRANSPO/ HYDROLOGICAL STUDY �' �� PROPOSED UTILITY UTILITY COM.' \ PRELIMINARY } OK TURNOVER 72:___(-) REVIEWS \THROUGH UTIL.)1TIES // DEVELOPER /AGENCY AGREEMENTS FOR FUNDING 1'4 STAGING OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, ETC. AGREEMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT FINANCED INSPECTIONS, ADMINISTRATED BY CITY, FOR PUBLIC UTILITY _TURNOVER CANDIDATES. APPLICATION BY DEVELOP,:. FIIJAL INSPECTIONS FOR MENT FOR TURNOVER OF BUILDING & UTILITY (ThUTILITIES TO CITY PERMITS & SIGN -OFF COUNCIL DECISION TO ACCEPT /NOT ACCEPT • -- UT -I -t I.T I ES .•P.S - - -- -= PUBLIC TURNOVER EXECUTED SIGN OFF PROJECT CLOSURE UTILITIES STAY \IIT Fro EVECOPMENT ISSUANCE OF BUILDING & BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UTILITIES PERMITS �C.I�. floU fto_ 0 1UIVAM.X+ 4'C V'U t leaWitt3r COMMITTEE DO (SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT) 1 YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD FOR WARRANTY PERIOD PROJECT CLOSURE! KD APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN D.O.E. /CITY FLOOD ZONE CO ROL PERM I-T FINAL INSPECTION CITY OF TUK1I LA Central Permit System PREAPPLICATION ADVISORY FORM NAME OF INQUIRING PARTY KAISER DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY SITE OR LOCATION SR 181 & S. 133RD. STREET" THIS FORM HAS BEEN DEVISED TO HELP YOU BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR PROJECT. A CHECK MARK IN THE BOX OPPOSITE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS INDICATES THAT THE ITEM MAY BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT YOU DESCRIBE. SECTION 1 -- LAND USE 0 FILE SUBDIVISION /SHORT PLAT /B. ^,IP /BLA (TMC TITLE 17) ❑ CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION OR COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION (TMC 18.80; 18 84) idOBTAIN CONDITIONAL OR UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (TMC 18.64; 18.66) COMPLY WITH LANDSCAPE SETBACK, HEIGHT, LOT SIZE, DENSITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE M -1 ZONE (TMC 18.50 18.52 AND 18.56) OBTAIN SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COMPLY WITH SHORELINE MASTER PLAN POLICIES (TMC 18.44) OBTAIN VARIANCE (TMC 18.72.020) Deviations to City requirements, if applicable. COMPLY WITH POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN 0 OBTAIN B.A.R OR INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT APPROVAL (TMC 18.60) FILE SEPA CHECKLIST AND FEE (ORDINANCE 1211) ISZIFILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FILING FEES (TMC Irrigation Sprinkler system w /Planning & Public Works Board of Adjustment for variances, if appropriate. -Coordination w /Tukwila Recreation Department on dike -trail system &associated Shoreline Permit requirements. SECTION 2 -- INFRASTRUCTURE 18.88) PROVIDE SIDEWALKS PER ORDINANCE 1158, 1217 AND 1233 OR OBTAIN WAIVER ROVIDE CURB, GUTTER, PAVEMENT, DRIVEWAY APRON AS REQUIRED PROVIDE UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED.' WATER MAIN XTENSION �@ WATER METER O DRAINAGE OR RETENTION SEWER MAIN EXTENSION SIDE SEWER CHANNELIZATIOII /STRIPING /S'IGNING IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY ;RERAI.R.UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED PROVIDE EASEMENTS OR DEDICATION OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY AS REQUIRED • -FILE'APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FEES .DOE & City Flood Zone Control Permits Coordination w/ WSDOT, METRO. - bus'stops /ETS /METRO SFWFR CONNFCTTON Coordination with WSDOT on limited access in SR -181 Coordination with King County Surface Water Management /Coordination w /DOE & City on ShorelinE Permits & approval pro . COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 19.82, EEDITI N (AS AMENDED; TMC TITLE 16) SECTION 3 -- CONSTRUCTION PERMITS PROVIDE ACCESS AND EQUIPMENT FOR ACCOMODATION OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS NOTE: ? 4.:�, 1 C• OMPLY �) ,O• BTAIN OBTAIN WITH STATE ENERGY CODE PERMIT FOR HOUSE MOVING HAULING PERMIT OBTAIN DEMOLITION PERMIT OBTAIN SIGN PERMIT (TMC TITLE 19) ( )PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FEES Comply with City adoped Uniform Mechanical Code per Ord. 848 REQUIRED or Building Code which is most current for each phase of construc tion at time of final review of completed buildir plans by City. SECTION 4 -- MISCELLANEOUS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES. ---DOE &. CITY ARE LEAD AGENCIES F4� Flood Zone Con OBTAIN STATE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE PERMIT`I1KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT o1 Permits ��,.., OBTAIN FLOOD CERTIFICATE, FEMA (ORDINANCE 1220, 1225) lO OBTAIN STATE ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND • OBTAIN PLUMBING PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS (SEATTLE KING COUNTY OBTAIN CITY OF TUKWILA BUSINESS LICENSE (TMC TITLE 5) CONTACT TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS gy Obtain necessary approvals from ieLSDOT, King County and Tukwila far Si ana 1 izati ons , rechanne' izations, charnelizatioas, signing, etc in SR -1A1. INSPECTIONS (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES) HEALTH- DEPARTMENT) THE. FOREGOING ADVISORY CHECKLIST WAS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF REGULATIONS IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE AND IS BASED ON THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU PROVIDED DURING THIS INTERVIEW. CHANGES IN THE CONCEPT OR.SCALE OF YOUR PROJECT, AS WELL TIONS OR JURISDICTION OF OUTSIDE AGENCIES MAY AFFECT•THE GOING ITEMS. CHECK WITH CITY STAFF TO OBTAIN THE LATEST SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OR IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT AT ANY TIME AS CHANGES IN THE VARIOUS REGULA- APPLICABILITY•OF.ANY OF THE FORE- INFORMATION ON APPLICABILITY OF AS TO YOUR PERMIT OBLIGATIONS STAFF INTERVIEWER STAFF INTERVIEWER Phil Fraser DATE DATE 3/26/85 PLAN 'REVIEW ROUTING FORM PROJECT: KAISER DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: SR -181 & S. 133RD STREET_ .- REQUESTED BY: PHIL FRASER TRANSMITTED ON: TRANSMITTED TO: 3/26/85 P.W. Admen .P.W. Sewer Dept. P.W.. Street Dept. P.W. Water Dept. �/ Planning Fire Department qPolice Department •. �T Recreation Dept. Other: TJo eJ PLE. -SE• RESPOND BY: 3/27/85 AT 10 AM • RESPONSE RECEIVE PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PLANS AND RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS ON THE PLAN AND. THIS 5 COMMENTS: THIS INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR A PRE - APPLICATION !MEETING WO WEIICH YOU ARE INVITED ON 3/27/85 AT 4 P IN CONFERENCE ROOM #3 WITH KAISER DEVELOPERS. PLEASE FILL OUT YOUR PRE - APPLICATION FORM AND HAVE IT BACK TO MY DESK BY • .10 AM. TUESDAY SO THAT I MAY HAVE BECKY PROVIDE A COIPOSITE PRE- APLICATION FORM FOR THE MEETING AT 4 P!i. AT THE MEETING WE WILL DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND ORDER IN WHICH DEVELOPMENT WILL APPLY FOR PERMITS, ETC. r�• r“rfV TRTr. 1D1 !^ J t.i n_rntirr -r■ PROPERTY SITE OR LOCATION THIS FORM HAS BEEN DEVISED. TO HELP YOU BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR PROJECT. A CHECK MARK IN THE BCY. OPPOSITE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS INDICATES THAT THE ITEM MAY BE REQUIRED IN ORDE -r. TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT YOU DESCRIBE. SECTION 1 -- LAND USE 0 FILE SUBDIVISION /SHORT PLAT /BSIP/BLA (TMC TITLE 17) EDCHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION OR COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION (-r. 18.80; 18.84) ❑ OBTAIN CONDITIONAL OR UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (TMC 18.64; 18.66) ❑ COMPLY WITH LANDSCAPE SETBACK, HEIGHT, LOT SIZE, DENSITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONE (TMC 18.50 18.52 AND 18.56) ❑ OBTAIN SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COMPLY WITH SHORELINE MASTER PLAN POLICIES (mc 18.44) ❑ OBTAIN VARIANCE (TMC 18.72.020) ❑ COMPLY WITH POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN ❑ OBTAIN B.A.R OR INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT APPROVAL (TMC 18.60) ❑ FILE SEPA CHECKLIST AND FEE (ORDINANCE 1211) ❑ FILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FILING FEES (TMC 18.86) ❑ SECTION 2' -- INFRASTRUCTURE _PROVIDE SIDEWALKS PER ORDINANCE 1158, 1217 AND 1233 OR OBTAIN WAIVER PROVIDE CURB, GUTTER, PAVEMENT, DRIVEWAY APRON AS REQUIRED PROVIDE UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED: 0 WATER MAIN EX ENSIGN 0 WATER METER 0 DRAINAGE OR RETENTION 0 SEWER MAIN EXTENSION 0 SIDE SEWER CHANNELIZATIOU/STRIPING /SIGNING IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY ❑ REPAIR UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED 0 PROVIDE EASEMENTS OR DEDICATION OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY AS REQUIRED ❑ FI E AP ROP,AATE /APPLICATION FORMS AND FEE$ ® 7,f i 7 /) /f/,l �G. 6k1hiVA ii,/d V ft, Aj t 4' .f //“ 7 /� %r'l'5�1 " / i,4 /if4It/ -.0 �n - /"/_ .? ; lit 47 f) 1A— Fri ,;/' //'._ 1'f'7' ❑ )t 54 Ill /1 T �ti /' T / g/ / /v, f//4 4.-7- ;,,i 7., SECTION 3 -- CONSTRUCTION PERMITS COMPLY WITH'PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 1982 EDITION (AS AME DED; TMC TITLE 16) / n /� PROVIDE ACCESS AND EQUIPMENT FOR ACCOMODATION OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS 4 / " /:� /.%� COMPLY WITH STATE ENERGY CODE ❑ OBTAIN PERMIT FOR HOUSE MOVING ❑ OBTAIN HAULING PERMIT ❑ OBTAIN DEMOLITION PERMIT ❑ OBTAIN SIGN PERMIT (TMC TITLE 19) 0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED ❑ FILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FEES 0 8 SECTION 4 -- MISCELLANEOUS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES. • OBTAIN STATE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE PERMIT (KING COUNTY SURFACE RATER MANAGEMENT) • OBTAIN FLOOD CERTIFICATE, FEMA (ORDINANCE 1220, 1225) ❑ OBTAIN STATE ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS'(DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES) ❑ OBTAIN PLUMBING PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS (SEATTLE KING COUNTY HEALTH' DEPARTMENT) ❑ OBTAIN CITY OF TUKWILA BUSINESS LICENSE (TMC TITLE 51 ❑ CONTACT TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS ❑ ❑ I THE FOREGOING ADVISORY CHECKLIST WAS'PREPARED ON 114E BASIS OF REGULATIONS IN EFFECT ON THIS • L r I l KW2 LA - PUSU L 1-,'Dr K5 PARI1.;Cii I • A N 1 • L-, REVI E.! RDU+T.I.NG FORM. PROJECT: KAISER DEVELOPMENT. LOCATION: SR -181 'S S. 133RD STPEET _. REQUESTED BY: PHIL FRASER`_:.7 T J S! iTTED 0N: TRANSMITTED TIED TO: 3/26/85 P.W. Adnin .P.W. Sewer Dept. P.W. Street Dept. P.W. Water Dept. ,J Planning u Fire Department Police Department Recreation Dept. Other= 1.-).3t,,) Wgyp (1.W' 'U PLEASE' RESPOND BY: 3/27/85 AT 10 AM • • RESPONSE RECEIVE PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PLANS AND RESPOND WITH YOUR COV.MENTS ON THE PLAN AND THIS S COM=NTS: THIS INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR A PRE - APPLICATION MEETING WO WHICH YOU ARE INVITED ON 3/27/85 PT 4 P IN CONFERENCE ROOM -3 WITH KAISER DEVELOPERS. PLEASE FILL OUT YOUR PRE - APPLICATION FORM AND HAVE IT BACK TO MY -DESK BY •10 AM. TUESDAY SO THAT I MAY HAVE BECKY PROVIDE A CO1POSITE PRE- APLICATION • FORM FOR THE MEETING AT 4 Pit. AT THE MEETING WE WILL DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND ORDER IN WHICH DEVELOPMENT WILL APPLY FOR PERMITS, ETC. CITY OF TUK•LA Central Permit System PREAPPLICATION ADVISORY FORM NAME OF INCJIRING PARTY PROPERTY SITE OR LOCATION THIS FORM HAS BEEN DEVISED TO HELP YOU BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR PROJECT. A CHECK MARK IN THE BOX OPPOSITE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS INDICATES THAT THE ITEM MAY BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT YOU DESCRIBE. SECTION 1 -- LAND USE 0 FILE SUBDIVISION /SHORT PLAT /BDIP /BL# (TMC TITLE 17) 0 CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION OR COMP, PLAN DESIGNATION (TMC 18.80.; 18.84) -0 OBTAIN CONDITIONAL OR UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (TMC 18.64; 18.66) ��g[ ICOMPLY AWITH LANDSCAPE SETBACK, HEIGHT, LOT SIZE, DENSITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1 "'"1 ZONE (TMC 18.50 18.52 AND 18.56) 0 OBTAIN SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COMPLY WITH SHORELINE MASTER PLAN POLICIES (TMC 18.44) ELOBTAIN VARIANCE (TMC 18.72.020) 6 COMPLY WITH POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN OBTAIN B.A.R OR INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT APPROVAL (TMC 18.60) 0 FILE SEPA CHECKLIST AND FEE (ORDINANCE 1211) DFILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FILING FEES (TMC 18.88) , D 0 0 SECTION 2 -- INFRASTRUCTURE • PROVIDE SIDEWALKS PER ORDINANCE 115E, 1217 AND 1233 OR OBTAIN WAIVER ,0 PROVIDE CURB, GUTTER, PAVEMENT, DRIVEWAY APRON AS REQUIRED 0 PROVIDE UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED; 0 WATER MAIN EXTENSION 0 WATER METER 0 DRAINAGE OR RETENTION ❑ SEWER MAIN EXTENSION ❑ SIDE SEWER 0 CHANNELIZATIOU/STRIPING /SIGNING IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -FAY O REPAIR UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED PROVIDE EASEMENTS OR DEDICATION OF RIGHTS •OF -WAY AS REQUIRED 0 FILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FEES D 0 0 SECTION 3 -- CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ® COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 19.82 EDITION (AS AMENDED; TMC TITLE 16) O PROVIDE ACCESS AND EQUIPMENT FOR ACCOMODATION OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS 0 COMPLY WITH STATE ENERGY CODE DOBTAIN PERMIT FOR HOUSE MOVING O OBTAIN HAULING PERMIT DO8TA•IN DEMOLITION PERMIT MOBTAIN SIGN PERMIT (TMC TITLE 19) _ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED FILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FEES O SECTION 4 -- MISCELLANEOUS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES. O OBTAIN STATE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE PERMIT (KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT) i. OBTAIN FLOOD CERTIFICATE, FEMA (ORDINANCE 1220, 1225) OBTAIN STATE ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES) OBTAIN PLUMBING PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS (SEATTLE KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT) OBTAIN CITY OF TUKWILA BUSINESS LICENSE (TMC TITLE 5) CONTACT TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS 0 0 THE FOREGOING ADVISORY CHECKLIST WAS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF REGULATIONS IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE AND 1S BASED ON THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU PROVIDED DURING THIS INTERVIEW. CHANGES IN THE CONCEPT OR SCALE OF YOUR PROJECT, AS WELL AS CHANGES IN THE VARIOUS REGULA- TIONS OR JURISDICTION OF OUTSIDE AGENCIES MAY AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF ANY OF THE FORE - GOING ITEMS. CHECK WITH CITY STAFF TO OBTAIN THE LATEST INFORMATION ON APPLICABILITY OF SPECIFIC REOUIREMENTS OR IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT AT ANY TIME AS TO YOUR PERMIT OBLIGATIONS. STAFF INTERVIEWER STAFF INTERVIEWER DATE DATE IT;' G: TU };:,'iLA - PLELIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 'LAN REVIEW ROUTING FORM PROJECT: KAI SE= -='•'ELOPME? T LOCATION: SR-1E1 & S. 133RD STREET_ .. REQUESTED BY: PHIL FRASER,��. R NSN.ITTED•ON: TRANSMITTED TO: 3/26/85 P.W. Adni n P.W. Sewer Dept. P.W.. Street Dept. P.W. Water Dept. (2.) Planning Fire Department Police Department- 3 Recreation Dept. . Other: t� RESPOND BY: RESPONSE RECEIVED 3/27/85 AT 10 AM PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PLANS AND RESPOND :: -I T;; YOUR COMMENTS ON THE PLAN AND THIS Si COMMENTS: THIS INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR A PRE - APPLICATION MEETING WO WHICH YOU COMMENTS: ARE INVITED ON 3/27/85 PT 4 PM IN C0';FERE CE ROOM `3 WITH KAISER DEVELOPERS. ' PLEASE FILL OUT YOUR PRE - APPLICATION F R:. AND HAVE IT BACK TO MY •DESK BY .10 AM. TUESDAY SO THAT I MAY HAVE EECK; PROVIDE A COMPOSITE PRE- APLICATION • FORM FOR THE MEETING AT 4 Pit. AT THE MEETING WE WILL DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND ORDER IN WHICH DEVEL0r.EiT WILL APPLY FOR PERMITS, ETC. c1_ E?Aro fl TF: ��7^/ / iJ/4',,..� t s= / ;-c1 mot- �:,��. ✓/ — 5--1"..5 PLAN S__1 :: ,,At REQUESTED '!'�- --..r CITY OF TU K• LA Central Permit System PREAPPLICATION ADVISORY FORM NAME OF INQUIRING PARTY PROPERTY SITE OR LOCATION THIS FORM HAS BEEN DEVISED TO HELP YOU BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR PROJECT. A CHECK MARK IN THE BOX OPPOSITE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS INDICATES THAT THE ITEM MAY BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT YOU DESCRIBE. SECTION 1 -- LAND USE DFILE SUBDIVISION /'SHORT PLATlB;IP /BLA (TMC TITLE 17) 0 CHANGE OF ZONING.CLASSIFICATION OR COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION (TMC 18.80; 18.84) 0 OBTAIN CONDITIONAL OR UNCLASSIFIED. USE PERMIT (TMC 18.64; 18.66) 0 COMPLY WITH LANDSCAPE SETBACK, HEIGHT, LOT SIZE, DENSITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONE (TMC 1£.50 18.52 AND 18.56) OBTAIN SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COMPLY WITH SHORELINE MASTER PLAN POLICIES (TMC 18.44) OBTAIN VARIANCE (TMC 18.72.C20) L� y/J'.// COMPLY WITH POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN �i ✓B h 7 / �" Da,OBTAIN B.A.R OR INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT APPROVAL (TMC 18.60) 0 FILE SEPA CHECKLIST AND FEE (ORDINANCE 1211) 0 FILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FILING FEES (TMC %8.8E) 0 0 0 SECTION 2 -• INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDE SIDEWALKS PER ORDINANCE 1158, 1217 AND 1233 OR OBTAIN WAIVER ROVIDE CURB, GUTTER, PAVEMENT, DRIVEWAY APRON AS REQUIRED PROVIDE UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED: ❑ WATER MAIN EXTENSION ❑ WATER METER ❑ DRAINAGE OR RETENTION ❑ SEWER MAIN EXTENSION ❑ SIDE SEWER ❑ CHANNELIZATIOU/STRIPING /SIGNING IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY O REPAIR UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED PROVIDE EASEMENTS OR DEDICATION OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY AS REQUIRED OFIIL_E APPROPRIATE APPLICATIONFORR MS AND FEES 0 J!C ✓rC� 7L-42- t 194- / -�1?, �JD /�li�✓ /YOh 0 -- - - - K - � - 4' - ! C 7Y Lam/ i -I A r /t / rid jyc .4rjJ R P / (-■..._ rQ_ ' / �7 - 9/r - r/ SECTION 3 - - CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ID COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 1982 EDITION (AS AMENDED; TMC TITLE 16) DPROVIDE ACCESS AND EQUIPMENT FOR ACCOMODATION OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS DCOMPLY WITH STATE ENERGY CODE DOBTAIN PERMIT FOR HOUSE MOVING 0 OBTAIN HAULING PERMIT DOBTAIN DEMOLITION PERMIT DOBTAIN SIGN PERMIT (TMC TITLE 19) ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED 0 FILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FEES 0 0 0 SECTION 4 -- MISCELLANEOUS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES {_JJq OBTAIN STATE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE PERMIT (KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT) /D \OBTAIN FLOOD CERTIFICATE, FEMA (ORDINANCE 1220, 1225) D OBTAIN STATE ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS,(DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES) O OBTAIN PLUMBING PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS (SEATTLE KING COUNTY HEALTH' DEPARTMENT) 0 OBTAIN CITY OF TUKWI'LA BUSINESS LICENSE (TMC TITLE 5) \ D CONTACT TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS , D____ f' - 4 Ste\ �,.. -' �e = f clS rG r�[rG; 7./..‘70 rte- p4� r .L - � . .r d / Lf!? #.4-•—/;- i v,- > �F Q DP_NO/s -.t+ f ;1- r�I i c-.r .4a _.<-S' c,C -- ..- c%rrp -e-!i THE FOREGOING ADVISORY CHECKLIST WAS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF REGULATIONS IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE AND IS BASED ON THE 1NFORMATION WHICH YOU PROVIDED DURING THIS INTERVIEW.. CHANGES IN .THE CONCEPT OR SCALE OF YOUR PROJECT, AS WELL AS CHANGES IN THE VARIOUS REGULA- TIONS OR JURISDICTION OF OUTSIDE AGENCIES MAY AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF ANY OF THE FORE- GOING ITEMS. CHECK WITH CITY STAFF TO OBTAIN THE LATEST INFORMATION ON APPLICABILITY OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OR IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT AT ANY TIME AS TO YOUR PERMIT OBLIGATIONS. STAFF INTERVIEWER DATE .2 — DATE CITY OF TUKWILA - FCELiC i,'DRKS DEPARTMENT PLt,N REVI [r. ROUTING INN FORM: PROJECT: KAISER DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: SP. -181 & S. 133RD STREET_ <<.7. {[ {may kz.. _._ - ,t� t •. REQUESTED BY: PHIL FP.ASERjyf'�% _ �;�l�A F:nt F �'cr;ilUf� BUREAU T ANS!'.ITTED ON: TRANSMITTED TO: PLEASE' RESPOND BY:. • RESPONSE RECEIVEC 3/26/85 U� P.W. Adni•n P.W. Sewer Dept. P.W. Street Dept. P.W. Water Dept. Planning Fire Department Police Department- Recreation Dept. Other: 1)O 1►V10 (L( .k , "Y .D 3/27/85 AT 10 AM • PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PLANS AND RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS ON THE PLAN AND THIS S1 COMMENTS: THIS INFORMMATION IS NEEDED FOR A PRE - APPLICATION MEETING WO WHICH YOU - ARE INVITED ON 3/27/85 AT 4. Pt" IN CONFERENCE ROOM =3 WITH KAISER DEVELOPERS. PLEASE FILL OUT YOUR PRE- APPLIC.ATION FORM AND HAVE IT BACK TO MY -DESK BY • .10 AM. TUESDAY SO THAT I MAY HAVE BECKY PROVIDE A .COMPOSITE PRE - APLICATION • FORM FOR THE MEETING AT 4 P11. AT THE MEETING WE WILL. DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND ORDER IN WHICH DEVELOPMENT WILL APPLY FOR PERMITS, ETC. 2e-7:z2 G, 44- /Yla/h li 41k-447/3'e-1 -:'.� 4_ry. rbG4 1/e S ifi; rict— ! 2_4k,--E c d ice- au !r-e3 . c c o rev\ (-3) V-k--- re-k- 1 (mil l tC) I klcil ui (-/ Z a ` e / GvLl D 4/146n11-e/-Iv1 cf r / % UTF : PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED _ d�� CITY OF TUKILA Central Permit System PREAPPLICATION ADVISORY FORM NAME OF 1NQUIRING PARTY PROPERTY SITE OR LOCATION THIS FORM HAS BEEN DEVISED TO HELP YOU BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR PROJECT. A CHECK MARK IN THE BOX OPPOSITE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS INDICATES THAT THE ITEM MAY BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT YOU DESCRIBE. SECTION 1 -- LAND USE 0 FILE SUBDIVISION /SHORT PLAT /BSIP /BLA (TMC TITLE 17) 0 CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION OR COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION (TMC 18 80; 18.84) DOBTAIN CONDITIONAL OR UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (TMC 18.64; 18.66) DCOMPLY WITH LANDSCAPE SETBACK, HEIGHT, LOT SIZE, DENSITY AND PARK:NG REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONE (TMC 18.50 18.52 AND 18.56) DOBTAIN SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COMPLY WITH SHORELINE MASTER PLAN POLICIES (TMC 18.44) 0 OBTAIN VARIANCE (TMC 18.72.020) DCOMPLY WITH POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN DOBTAIN B.A.R OR INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT APPROVAL (TMC 18.60) DFILE SEPA CHECKLIST AND FEE (ORDINANCE 1211) DFILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FILING FEES (TMC 18.88) 0 0 0 SECTION 2 -- INFRASTRUCTURE DPROVIDE SIDEWALKS PER ORDINANCE 1158, 1217 AND 1233 OR OBTAIN WAIVER DPROVIDE CURB, GUTTER, PAVEMENT, DRIVEWAY APRON AS REQUIRED DPROVIDE UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED; ❑ WATER MAIN EXTENSION ❑ WATER METER ❑ DRAINAGE OR RETENTION ❑ SEWER MAIN EXTENSION ❑ SIDE SEWER ❑ CHANNELIZATIOII/STRIPING /SIGNING IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY O REPAIR UTILITY COMPONENTS AS REQUIRED DPROVIDE EASEMENTS OR DEDICATION OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY AS REQUIRED DFILE.APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FEES 0 D SECTION 3 -- CONSTRUCTION PERMITS O COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 1982 EDITION (AS AMENDED; TMC TITLE 16) • PROVIDE ACCESS AND EQUIPMENT FOR ACCOMODATION OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS D COMPLY WITH STATE ENERGY CODE 0 OBTAIN PERMIT FOR HOUSE MOVING 0 OBTAIN HAULING PERMIT DDETAIN DEMOLITION PERMIT DOBTAIN SIGN PERMIT (TMC TITLE 19) 0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED DFILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FORMS AND FEES 0 0 0 SECTION 4 -- MISCELLANEOUS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES OBTAIN STATE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE PERMIT (KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT) OBTAIN FLOOD CERTIFICATE, FEMA (ORDINANCE 1220, 1225) D OBTAIN STATE ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS ( DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES O OBTAIN PLUMBING PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS (SEATTLE KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT) 0 OBTAIN CITY OF TUKWILA BUSINESS LICENSE (TMC TITLE 5) DCONTACT TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS 0 ) THE'FOREGOING ADVISORY CHECKLIST WAS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF REGULATIONS IN EFFECT ON THIS DATE AND IS BASED ON THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU PROVIDED DURING THIS INTERVIEW. CHANGES IN .THE CONCEPT OR SCALE OF YOUR PROJECT, AS WELL AS CHANGES IN THE VARIOUS REGULA- TIONS OR JURISDICTION OF OUTSIDE AGENCIES MAY AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF ANY OF THE FORE- GOING ITEMS. CHECK WITH CITY STAFF TO OBTAIN THE LATEST INFORMATION ON APPLICABILITY OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OR IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT AT ANY TIME AS TO YOUR PERMIT OBLIGATIONS. STAFF I NTERV I EWER STAFF INTERVIEWER DATE DATE . �. Dames & Moore Kaiser Development Company 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, California 94643 155 N.E. 100th Stree. P.O. Box C -25901 Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98125 -0711 (206) 523-0560 TWX: 910 - 444 -2021 Cable address: DAMEMORE March 19, 1985 Attention: Mr. Gerald L. Kirkpatrick Division Engineering Manager Gentlemen: We transmit herewith our "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 37 -Acre Development, Tukwila, Washington," for the Kaiser Development Company. The planned scope of our services for this project was outlined in our proposal of January 16, 1985 . and proposal. addendum of January 24, 1985. The investigation was authorized by your Professional Services Contract No. BPN -8506 dated January 30, 1985. Prior to the investigation an assessment of potential site develop- ment feasibility was provided in our January 10, 1985 letter. Prelim- inary verbal recommenations have been provided to Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Lynn Takeuchi of MacKenzie /Saito Engineering, Inc. during the course of our investigation. These are confirmed and expanded in this report. We appreciate the opportunity to conduct this investigation and look forward to assisting you during subsequent phases of the project. We are available to provide further consultation or to answer any questions regarding the information and recommendations presented in this report. Yours very truly, DAMES & MOORE /Joseph Lamont; Jr. JL:JBH:emw 5 copies submitted cc: MacKenzie /Saito Engineering, Inc. Attention: Mr. Lynn Takeuchi (2) Senior Partner • • REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED 37 -ACRE DEVELOPMENT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON for the KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INTRODUCTION We present in this report the results of our geotechnical investi- gation at the site of a proposed building development for the Kaiser Development Company in Tukwila, Washington. The project site encom- passes approximately 37 acres of undeveloped pasture land between the Duwamish River and Interurban Avenue South, as shown on the Site Plan, Plate 1. The south property line is nearly coincident with 133rd Avenue South (extended). As currently envisioned, the proposed development will ultimately consist of nine one -story buildings which will be utilized for distribution and office facilities. The initial construction will include Buildings 1 and 2 and a proposed roadway, as shown on Plate 1. Other buildings will be designed and constructed as tenant leases are obtained. The structures will consist of slab -on -grade or dock -high concrete slab construction with floor loads in the 100 to 200 pound per square' foot (psf) range. Finished floor grades will vary for each building. Currently, minimum final floor grades for Buildings 1 and 2 are planned at Elevation) 15 and 18, respectively. Filling will be required to establish planned grades in most building areas. Some cutting will also be necessary in the northeast portion of the site based on preliminary floor grades for Buildings 8 and 9 and near the center of the project area at the proposed Building 4 location. 1A11 elevations in this report refer to USC & GS Mean Sea Level (MSL) datum. -1- Gimme S'Mocre SCOPE The purpose of our geotechnical investigation, is to provide engi- neering recommendations for site development and foundation support of the proposed buildings based on exploration of subsurface conditions, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. Specifically, the scope of this investigation includes: 1. Exploration of site subsurface conditions by means of drilled borings, Dutch cone probes, and backhoe test pits. 2. Laboratory testing of the soils encountered to identify their pertinent physical characteristics relative to the planned construction. Our laboratory program has included moisture density determinations and consolidation tests. 3. Engineering recommendations regarding site preparation. We include alternatives for preloading and surcharging proposed building areas, general gradation /compaction criteria for on- site and imported fill soils, and evaluation of the suitability of on -site soils for use as fill. Estimates of ground settle- ment due to fill placement and building floor loads are pro- vided. 4. Recommendations for foundation support of Buildings 1 and 2 and preliminary recommendations for support of the remaining build- ings envisioned for the development. Allowable soil bearing pressures, minimum footing width and depth requirements, and estimates of footing settlements are included. 5. Evaluation of subgrade soils underlying the alignment of the proposed roadway as a basis for recommendations regarding pave- ment design and construction. We include criteria for prepara- tion of subgrade soils, compaction criteria for on -site and imported soils and recommended CBR values for design of flexible pavements. -2- - • • SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The project area is currently utilized as pasture land. A resi- dence and appurtenant farm outbuildings are located in the extreme north portion of the site. Surface grades vary generally from about Elevation 20 along the Duwamish River to about Elevation 9 at the extreme south corner of the project area near Interurban Avenue South. Surface drainage is generally fair to good, except in the aforementioned low area. The entire site surface, with the exception of the fenced barn- yard areas, is covered with a topsoil layer containing abundant organics and a thick root mat extending at least 1 foot below grade. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface soil and ground water conditions underlying the project area were investigated by 2 drilled borings, 4 Dutch cone probes, and 21 test pits. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Plate 1. Equipment and procedures utilized during the field program, in addition to logs of the explorations, are contained in the appendix. Soils which underlie the project area are comprised of alluvial silt, organic silt and sand deposits. The near - surface soils consist of silt and organic silt which are generally soft to medium stiff in place and extend to depths on the order of 6 to 9 feet below current site grades at the locations of our explorations. These soils are character- ized by low to moderate strength and moderate to high compressibility. The upper soils are underlain by deposits of loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand with a variable silt content. These soils extend to the depths explored at the locations of our borings and Dutch cone probes. The sand deposits possess moderate strength and relatively low compressibility characteristics. They are interlayered at various depths with deposits of medium stiff sandy silt and soft to medium stiff organic silt. The deep layers of silt and organic silt are moderately compressible and possess low to moderate strength. The extent and thickness of these compressible deposits is variable throughout the pro- ject area. -3- Dames c f ;yore • Ground water levels in the borings were not measured due to the drilling method utilized. However, water was encountered in most of the test pit excavations at depths ranging from about 1 to 10 feet below current site grades. We anticipate that ground water levels beneath the site will fluctuate seasonally with variations in the amount of precipi- tation and the level of the nearby Duwamish River. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL We conclude, on the basis of our site, exploration and analysis, that construction of the distribution and office buildings, as planned, is feasible provided adequate site preparation is implemented. The structures may be safely supported on conventional shallow footings. Settlement due to fill placement and building loads will be variable, but can be significantly reduced by preloading or surcharging as sub- sequently recommended. Specific recommendations for site preparation; fill placement; and foundation, floor slab and pavement design /construc- tion are contained in the following sections. SITE PREPARATION Planned finished floor grades will be established by placing fill within the limits of the proposed structures. Six to seven feet of fill will be required within the limits of Buildings 1 and 2. Fill also will be required to establish planned elevations in yard areas, parking lots, and along the proposed roadway alignment. All fill soil, whether it is to be used as structural fill or as preload material, should consist of clean sand or sand and gravel with not more than about 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The existing near - surface silty soils will not be suitable for this purpose. Structural fill in building and pavement areas should be placed in lifts not exceeding about 8 inches before compaction. Each lift should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on the ASTM D -1557 test procedure. No specific degree of compaction is required in landscaped areas or for soils used as preload. -4- .rues Mco -e The surficial layer of topsoil with roots and organic material should be left in place where at least 2 feet of imported fill will be required to achieve planned elevations. Excavation and removal of the topsoil layer in areas where cutting will be required should be done only during periods of dry weather, using wide- tracked bulldozing equip- ment. The intent of this recommendation is to reduce the potential for significant disturbance of the underlying silt and organic silt depo- sits. Immediately after removal of the topsoil, a blanket of fill, 12 to 18 inches in loose thickness, should be placed and compacted to about 90 percent of the recommended ASTM D -1557 criteria. Construction equip- ment should be restricted from .these .areas until the initial fill cover is in place and compacted. Placement of the fill should be accomplished by pushing end- dumped, imported material onto the exposed site soils using tracked equipment. Subsequent lifts of material should be 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to the 95 percent criteria. BUILDINGS 1 AND 2 Settlement: The fill soils placed the weight of the proposed structures, induce consolidation of the compressible to achieve planned elevations, and building floor loads will silt and organic silt deposits which underlie the project area. The magnitude of consolidation, and measurable settlement at the ground surface, will depend upon the thickness and compressibility of the alluvial soil deposits, the height of fill and areal loads induced by the structure and its contents. Estimated settlements within the limits of Buildings 1 and 2 are tabu- lated below based on the planned finished floor elevations and an assumed floor loading of 150 psf. Planned Finished Estimated Total Settlement Building Floor Elevation (Inches) 1 15 2 18 8 to 12 4 to 6 Greater settlements should be expected if higher finished floor grades are established and if areal floor loads exceed 150 psf. • • A portion of the estimated settlement noted above will be realized as post- construction settlement induced by application of building foun- dation and floor loads. The magnitude of these settlements will depend on several factors, including the distribution of loads throughout the building area and the characteristics of the underlying compressible soil deposits. If the building areas are not preloaded or surcharged, differential settlements in the range of 2 to 5 inches may be expected at Building 1, and 1 to 3 inches at Building 2. The consequences of these anticipated differential settlements include cracking of plaster, concrete walls, and floor slabs; separation of wall panels; and other detrimental architectural displacements. Without preloading or sur- charging the risk of such occurrences is moderately high. Preload and Surcharge Programs: We have considered, as part of this study, two alternatives which can be used to preinduce consolida- tion of the compressible soil layers which underlie the Building 1 and 2 sites. Each alternative is discussed in some detail in the following paragraphs. Alternative 1: An alternative, which we consider as a feasible approach to site preparation, is to preload each building area under a weight of fill which is equivalent to the distributed weight of the building and the weight of the building floor loads. This is in addi- tion to the fill required to achieve planned elevations. For purposes of planning building preload quantities, we suggest that 1 foot of pre- load soil be assumed to equal 100 psf of floor loading. However, a minimum preload height of 2.5 feet is recommended assuming a 150 psf floor loading additive to a building weight equivalent to about 100 psf. We recommend that the full height of building preload fill extend at least 10 feet beyond the building line on all sides of the proposed structure. At the south end of Building 1, however, the preload should overlap the west end of Building 5 by about 15 feet to reduce the poten- tial for additional consolidation beneath Building 1 if the Building 5 area is preloaded at a later date. The Building 1 preload should be left in place for a period of approximately 4 to 6 weeks after the preload reaches full height, or -6- =a n-F : et V :. _1 r • • It will be very important that the preload and surcharge soils have a low percentage of silt or clay particles, especially if these mate- rials will be reused elsewhere on the site. As discussed previously, a maximum of 5 percent fines is recommended. No specific compaction cri- teria of the upper portion of the preload or surcharge soils is required except that necessary to maintain trafficability for construction equip- ment. However, since a portion of the preload fill will settle below planned floor subgrade, the bottom 12 inches of preload material should be compacted to the 95 percent criteria. Foundation Support: We recommend that all footings constructed for support of the proposed buildings be founded on at least 2 feet of clean granular fill material compacted as recommended previously. This cri- teria may require some overexcavation of the existing site soils at some locations. Overexcavation should extend beyond the sides of each foot- ing a distance equal to the depth of soil removal beneath the footing. The base of each footing excavation should be inspected prior to placing backfill. If loose, wet or soft areas exist they =should be removed to an additional depth of 2 feet or firm bearing, whichever is less, under the direction of a representative from our office. We recommend that all footings be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Individual foundations should have a minimum width of 3 feet. Continuous wall footings should be at least 16 inches wide. Foundations designed and constructed in this manner may be apportioned for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, assuming that building areas are preloaded or surcharged. Settlement of footings should be less than about 1/2 inch. Most of this settlement should occur rapidly as the loads are applied. Post - construction dif- ferential settlements will be negligible. FUTURE BUILDINGS Settlement: Filling to achieve planned grades during future devel- opment in other areas of the site will induce consolidation of • compressible soils which underlie the project area. Settlements will vary with fill and building loads, and the thickness of compressible -8- • • soil deposits. In general, roughly 1 inch of settlement will.occur for each foot of fill or 100 psf of applied structural and live floor load,. assuming 6 feet of silt soils are present immediately below current site grades. Deeper compressible deposits which exist beneath some proposed building areas also will consolidate, resulting in ground settlements which will be additive to those noted above. Preloading and Surcharging Programs: Preloading or surcharging of other proposed building areas should be anticipated unless conditions more favorable than those encountered in Buildings 1 and 2 exist elsewhere on the site. Programs similar to those outlined for proposed Buildings 1 and 2 will be appropriate. The duration of these programs will probably vary between about 2 to 6 weeks, depending on subsurface conditions, required fill heights and building design loads. Foundation Support: Conventional shallow foundations, designed and constructed as previously recommended, will be feasible for properly prepared buildings areas throughout the remainder of the project area. Overexcavation /replacement of site soils in some areas will be required to provide uniform and firm foundation support. Allowable soil bearing pressures of 2,000 psf are appropriate for preliminary planning purposes assuming design /construction commensurate with the recommendations con- tained in this report. SUBSURFACE CONSTRUCTION Excavation for utilities, electrical systems, and other facilities for the proposed development which will require construction below grade could encounter ground water. The extent and volume of ground water will depend on the depth of excavation, types of soils encountered and season of the year. Excavations into the surficial silt and organic silt-deposits will encounter moderate amounts of seepage. Deeper exca- vations which encounter the underlying sand deposits will encounter significant volumes of ground water. Pumping from sumps or installation of well pints for dewatering should be anticipated as a possible method for subsurface construction. ;pr, „g:focs.e PAVEMENTS The surface topsoil layer and underlying deposits of silt and organic silt possess low strength and moderate supporting capability for pavements. We suggest a CBR value of 4 be used for pavements which will be supported directly on the existing site surface. This corresponds to a resistance (R) value of 15. If pavements are supported by at least 2 feet of granular fill placed and compacted as previously recommended, a subgrade CBR value of 10 (approximate equivalent R value of 40) should then be used for pave- ment design. We suggest a pavement section consisting of 6 inches of crushed rock (approximate CBR value of 100, R value equal to about 85) and 3 inches of asphalt pavement in roadway and drive areas. Two inches of asphaltic concrete should be sufficient in passenger car parking areas. oOo The following plates and appendix are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Site Plan Plate 2 Detail of Suggested Settlement Plate Appendix Site Exploration and Laboratory Tests March 19, 1985 gi i,3, LA • ��.aa //f Respectfully submitted, DAMES & MOORE B And Joseph Lamont, Jr. Senior Partner mes B. Harakas Senior Engineer 4a) 4 . _._ __I__ t_---,C.) IPtitile, ----- 0, oithed 4-6 2.* 5O1 LS 0 ' 54A/bim) bte, 61 J- l'od ielO 1515- _ 3. INIPtc..1* , • , _ ___._FWE_SEr-,\4LCZs , CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM 4 CN ' 85'05 EPIC 25515 - FILE TO; 0 BLDG n PLNG P.W. n FIRE n POLICE 11! P &'R PROJECT. J: ' /0 , LOCATION Th GLP/ 7OJL 4�- . 4� /33rd FILE NO. - DATE TRANSMITTED //////25-- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR OCki Via/41 RESPONSE RECEIVED (-Z -`-'- 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 44)9,-", •••-- r r � 7 G C+ frV .Lf n•••.- .c .4"� Xd w '., --e-✓ cf -_� /v,� P = i •K.. V'd r GK-- cam / i a� v.-. d Y r �!� ✓ 4�1 i / ms s. 2�� w/� �"4�.`�1 4:71A.) S�irce a µma f'�i7 C.o_ 6t/r7l r/`G�vtis -2 /fir �l � 1 b•e' 0,- /-r7 igsa- 0;1? /75-- COMMENTS PREPARED C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL 'PERMIT SYSTEM CN K-00/0 :EPIC • 0955'157 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL EVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; Q(BL PLNG ri P.W. (—j FIRE 0 POLICE . 0 P & R PROJECT. r LO CATION %- sinta/�O-''L 0% l �'I DATE TRANSMITTED l / /l /,5-' STAFF COORDINATOR " OCL vl Qi 41 FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 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:THEATTACHED CENTRAL' PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM BLDG PLNG PROJECT.:Ln .oy /tu < 345.-:D/0 EPIC 250'0 FILE P.W. n FIRE n POLICE &R: LOCATION .&17i ,t/h0-X. DATE, TRANSMITTED. l /11 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR j(t/a/bc RESPONSE RECEIVED 1�3rd roLL FILE NO. z :THE. ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTALHECKLIST-WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. -PLEASE. 'REVIEW'AND7COMMENT.BELOW TOJADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL- REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION.' - THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART -..' MENT :'THROUGH THE. ABOVE`.,STAFF' 'COORDINAT.OR 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.:. EXPLAINATION OF PROJECT ::ACCESS; AND CIRCULATION: The City will review the need .of :the - development -for. access & circulation and require a Traffic study to include, need for two accesses, impact to SR 181, requirements of utility 'R /W through which access is desired and limited access requirements by WSDOT (if any) Alco; requirements for signalization at S. 133rd will be addressed:;. Finally, if roadway and utility corridor are to lbe turned over to the City AC puhlic, such a proposal will be reviewed through the City. Council, the on1yrauthority to make such determinations. h. The existinq.ditch /drain system adjacent to sR -1111 shall be kepttcleae throughout construction.phase. a,3 Until both Flood Zone Control Permits issued through nnF and tbp City are provided, this question may not be completely answered. d, Page 4 : City shall require review of downstream storm lines and properties - to assure that flooding of downstream properties will not occur to 100 year storm. 12b Question: from adjacent development's sidewalk /trail. do .loggers now use this trail system through your undeveloped property? • 14b transit route exists on Interurban now. 14d .Refer to first comment under ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 14y .Anticipated mitigations which will be reviewed from your traffic study are the following: reduce the number and location of the accesses; reduce .the no of lanes and/or the number of turning movements at accesses; .,provide new rechannelizations /signalizations for vehicular traffic and OVER - pedestrian traffic in SR -I3 :; provide a new sidek p . di.nance 1233 in S -181 etc. DATE �� /� COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 15 a Page 16 If streets turned over to City and /or new channelizations /signalizations /sidewalks result in SR 181 by this project added maintenance for City Public Works Staff will result. BEGINNING OF REPORT: UNDER UTILITIES 1. SANITARY SEWER As the City is in the process of taking over the Pump Station in the adjacent development, if this same pump station could be used it would be cost effective and maybe recommended as a perferred alternative by staff. This alternate proposal should be explored with adjacent property owes: ITEM 6 on PAGE :1.0 IS IN CONFLICT WITH ITEM 16a ON PAGE 17. ARE YOU GOING TO USE NATURAL GAS OR NOT? 16a PAGE 17 SANITARY SEWER is not necessarily available until final site elevations can be secured. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FOR TO; E] BLDG n PLNG '. P.W. (l FIRE n POLICE (T P & R PROjECT . /61-15-6)2's 5-6)2's 4WX LOCATION ,/j, I�GLI4,0...PC. QL j //3 )/ '� • FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED t4///f- • RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1 STAFF COORDINATOR Pleb --iiii-0,4ze,k4 RESPONSE RECEIVED i 2, z16,3 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 X5-0/0 EPIC X55' 05 FILE ITEM • COMMENT EXPLAINATION OF -PROJECT:-ACCESS AND CIRCULATION: The City will review thee need of the development. for eccess & circulation and require a Traffic study to i nrl side, need f;,r t''o accesses, impact to SR 1g1, rcqui rcenis 'of utility 'R /W through which..access is desired and limited access requirements by MOT (if any A] cn rPrni, remen +s for s icn :l i zati on at E. 13Crd will be addressed.. Finally., if roadway and utilicy corridor are to be turned over to the City AS p lio -s'.oh a proposal wr!11 `c rcvkwed through the City'Council, the only authority to make such determinations. h. The existing-ditch/drain system adjarPnt to CR_1R1 ch ?11 he "ept r eaq . • throughout construction.phase. • a,3 Until both Flood Zone Control Permits i ssiied thrnw,nh flflF ?fld rho ri ty • are provided, this question may not be completely answered.. d, Page 4 : City shall require review of downstre P - to assure that flooding of downstream properties will not occur to 100 year storm. OVER ..0 .111 1 12b Question: from adjacent development's sidewalk /trail, do ioogers now use this trail system through your undeveloped property? Transit route exists on Interurban now. 14d Refer to first comment under ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 1•;y, -NntTclpated mitigations wnich will be reviewed from your traffic study are the following: reduce the number and location of the accesses: DATE r - e no o anes and or t e number o turning movements at accesses; provide new rechannelizations /signalizations for vehicular traffic and Ntdcstrtan trattnc in SK-I8;; provide a new sidev%a k peg9.rdi.nance 1233 in S -181 etc. //DA—. COMMENTS PREPARED BY . C.P.S. Form 11 15 a Pace 16 If streets turned over to City and /or new channelizations /signalizations /sidewalks result in SR 181 by this project added maintenance for City Public Works Staff will result. BEGINNING OF REPORT: UNDER UTILITIES 1. SANITARY SEWER As the City is in the process of taking over the Pump Station in the adjacent development,--if this same pump station could be used it would be cost effective and may be recommended as a perferred alternative by staff. This alternate proposal should be explored with adjacent property ower.: ITEM 6 on PAGE 10 IS IN CONFLICT WITH ITEM 16a ON PAGE 17. ARE YOU GOING TO USE NATURAL GAS OR NOT? 16a PAGE 17 SANITARY SEWER is not necessarily available until final site elevations can be secured. 168WSTREET SOUTH - NEW LINK ARTERIAL STREET Between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West SCOPE OF SERVICES During the term of this Agreement, the CONSULTANT shall provide design services in connection with the following project: 168th Street South -.New Link Arterial Street between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West The scope of work shall include the furnishing of all services and labor, materials, equipment, supplies and incidentals to conduct and complete the work as follows: Phase I a. Preliminary design and surveys. b. Design report. Phase II a. Design street paving; curbs and gutters, sidewalks, driveways. b. Design storm drainage. e. Design utilities. The CONSULTANT shall prepare construction plans in conformance with standard practice of City for plans prepared by its own staff. Procedures shall be consistent with the provisions of the current edition of the Department,of Transportation "Highways Design'Manual" and amendments thereto. The CONSULTANT shall provide the following basic engineering ser- vices for the project consisting of the preparation of detailed construc- tion drawings and specifications, estimate and other relative information' including, but not limited to the following items: I. Preliminary Design Phase - Phase I 1. Survey The field surveying work shall consist of the following items: a. Research. b. Field survey and mapping. c. Field surveying work for right -of -way computations, staking of right -of -way, and title reports. d. Preparation of right -of -way plans. e. Preparation of right -of -way takes for inclusion into the preliminary Design Report. Scope of Services Page 2 2. Soils investigations The geotechnical work under this contract shall consist of: a. Geologic reconnaissance. b. Engineering analysis and consultation. c. Report preparation. 3. Preparation of Preliminary Design Report: This item shall consist of the following items: o Vicinity map. o Executive summary. o Project narrative. o Description of existing conditions, deficiencies in existing street network, design parameters to be used, design restraints. • Discussion of alternatives including number of lanes, vertical and horizontal alignment, sidewalk location, and private access. o Recommendation of an alternative and discussion. • Preliminary cost estimate for recommended alternative. o Traffic analysis (super block only). This items will include data collection, design year traffic projections, population and industrial growth projections, turning movement analysis, signal warrant study, trip generation analysis, capacity analysis, acci- dent analysis, pedestrian movement. o Railroad spur lines impact. This item of work shall include data collection from railroad company and businesses served by the railroad, evaluation of possible relocation, evaluation of possible abandonment, evaluation of design restraints. o Discussion of utilities involvement. This item shall consist of review of utility comprehensive plans, location and identification of existing utilities, identification of utilities requiring relo- cation, discussion of relocation alternatives, include utilities required to support comprehensive plan, discussion of power undergrounding for illumination. o Identification of permit needs and discussion. o Roadway cross - sections including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and preliminary pavement section. o Preliminary. Horizontal Alignment drawing. Preliminary Vertical Alignment drawing. o Preliminary storm drainage analysis. o Preliminary commercial access improvement analysis. o Commercial parking disruption discussion. o SEPA Checklist. Including a recommendation in the report whether EIS or EA will be required. City Planning Department will make the final determination. Scope of Services Page 3 ' Bar chart schedule for improvements including final design engi- neering and construction. o Final report. ' Public meetings. This item shall also include preparation for meetings, attendance at-the meetings and exhibit preparation. o Client coordination and review meetings as needed. At the completion of this engineering analysis work, a Preliminary Design Report with 20 copies shall be submitted to the City. • II. Final Design Phase - Phase I1 Preparation of detailed construction plans and specifications including the following: 1. Plans shall be prepared with such provision and in such detail as to permit the convenient layout in the field for construction and other purposes within a degree of accuracy acceptable to the CITY. 2.. Plans shall include complete details for the construction of the pro- posed improvements including details for paving, concrete curb and gutter and concrete sidewalks, and the installation of storm drainage, sanitary side sewers, and utility adjustments. 3. Plans will consist of a title sheet; plan and profile sheet(s) cross - sections, typical sections; special details and special layouts. 4. Plans shall be in such detail as to permit the development of an accurate estimate of quantities for several pertinent items of work to be performed in the construction of the project. 5. Plans shall be prepared in ink or equivalent on 36" x 24" mylar sheets. 6. The title sheet shall include the following: a. Project title and number o. Vicinity map c. Sheet index 7. The plan and profile sheet(s) will include the following: a. All rights -of -way, easements and property lines. o. All storm drainage catch basins with their corresponding invert and rim elevations, all connecting lengths or pipe with their lengths, slopes and diameters noted. All storm drainage catch basins shall be numbered in both the plan and profile. c. Profile of existing roadway and proposed roadway centerlines. 8. The scales to be used, the lettering and general delineation of the plans, shall be such as will provide legible reproduction when the plans are reduced to one - fourth of their original size (50 percent reduction). Scope of Services Page4 9. The minimum horizontal scale for the plans shall be "one inch equals 50 feet". 10. Plans shall include details for pavement marking, signing, and city streets revisions (paving, curb and gutter, storm drainage). as necessary. Plans shall show all the existing physdical features surface and sub - surface facilities, as determined by field survey or indicated on CITY or utility company records for each area included in the right of way, or greater, if necessary, outside the right of way to include pertinent details adjacent to the right of way. 11. Special Provisions shall be included in the contract plans for items of work which are not covered by the APWA and State Standard Specifications as may be required to properly'cover the work con- templated by the plans. 12. The CONSULTANT shall furnish such pertinent information and data with respect to the plans and design as the CITY may request, including, but not necessarily limited to one (1) copy of the quan- tity and design computations. 13 Field surveys required to complete the plans in the Agreement shall be furnished by the CONSULTANT. The field surveys shall include sufficient referencing to permit the re- establishment of all necessary points to the satisfaction of the CITY. 14. Plotting of street sections and profile, calculation of earthwork quantities. 15. The CONSULTANT shall review all plans and specifications with the CITY to check for any omissions, duplications, unnecessary require- ments, and conformance with CITY standards. The CONSULTANT shall finalize the plans and specifications in accordance with any CITY comments. The CONSULTANT shall make such minor changes, amend- ments, or revisions in the detail of the work as may be required by the CITY. This item does not constitute an "Extra Work" item.. The CONSULTANT will be held responsible for the accuracy of the work even though the work has been reviewed and acepted by the CITY. Scope of Services Page 5 16. Preparatin of the bid items and quantities for the contract proposal and detailed special provisions will be prepared by the CONSULTANT. The CITY will furnish the standard specifications and contract documents to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will put together and retype the standard specifications as required. 17. The CONSULTANT shall assemble the plans and specifications in a form approved by the CITY that can be used by suppliers and /or contractors as a basis for formal bids. 18. Supervise any subconsultants used in connection with preparing design services (as required). 19. Prepare estimate of construction costs based upon the approved construction plans, bid item quantities and current unit bid prices-. 20. Coordinate with the utility companies in connection with the design phase of this project and any utility adjustments /undergrounding necessary. The contemplated utility companies are enumerated as follows: 1. Puget Power and Light • 2. Pacific Northwest Bell .3. Group W Cable 4. Washington Natural Gas Company 21. Prepare and bind contract documents. 22. Coordinate with the CITY on all phases of work. II1. Bidding Phase 1. Assist in obtaining bids. 2. Prepare tabulation of bids. 3. Assist in evaluating bids and awarding contract. IV. Post- Construction Phase 1. Prepare As -Built drawings from information provided by contractors, record drawings and other inspection reports. 2. Provide CITY one (1) set of appature cards reproduced from the As -Build Construction Drawings. Scope of Services Page6 V. Design Criteria The CITY will designate the basic premises and criteria for the design. Plans and specifications to be extent feasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments at the time of Notice To Proceed of the following: 1. APWA WSDOT 1984 standard specifications for road, bridge and municipal construction. 2. City of Tukwila design standards. 3. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. 4. Washington State Department of Transportation "Highway Design Manual" and Construction Manual ". VI. Documents To Be Furnished By The Consultant the following documents, exhibits or other presentations for the work covered by the Agreement shall be furnished by the CONSULTANT to the CITY upon completion of the various phases of the work. All such material used in the project shall become and remain the property of the City and may be used by it without restriction. 1. Three (3) sets of Preliminary Plans for review. 2. Five (5) sets of Final Plans and specifications for review. 3. Thirty (30) sets of contract plans. 4. Thirty (30) sets of Contract Documents and Specifications prepared from the work performed under this agreement. 5. Two (2) copies of the detailed estimate of cost of the work to be constructed. 6. One (1) set of all sheets comprising the set of contract plans on per - manent'scale mylar reproducibles, together with one (1) copy of all reports, drawings, etc., appertaining thereto, plus an equal number of revised copies, if review discloses that revisions are necessary. 7. One (1) copy of all survey notes taken by the CONSULTANT. 8. One (1) copy of the quantity and design computations for the work per- formed under this Agreement. Scope of Services 40 Pagel 9. One (1) copy of Environmental checklist. 10. One (1) copy of each license to construct agreements with plan street profile and cross - section for each property. (CITY to provide executed license to construct). 11. One (1) set of.appature cards reproduced from the As -Built construction drawings. 12. All drawings, plans, data and other materials produced by the CONSULTANT shall be deemed to be the property of the CITY and shall be delivered to the CITY upon its request. VII.. Documents To Be Furnished by CITY 1. the CITY shall provide all criteria and full information as to City's requirements for the Project, including design objectives and constraints, space, capacity and performance requirements, flexibility and expandability, and any budgetary limitations; and furnish copies. of all design and construction standards which CITY will require to be included in the Drawings and Specifications. 2. Assist CONSULTANT by placing at his-disposal all available information .pertinent to the Project including.previous reports, As -Built Plans, and any other data relative to design or construction of the Project. 3. Average weekday traffic counts and traffic projection rates. (SCUPE1 -2) M.6 -: CITY.OF ,TUKWILA,. CENTRAL. • CN �S-Olb -EPIC -- -0955 05-- • FILE' ENVIRONMENTAL "REVIEW ROUTING.FORM •TO;. 1=3 PLNG ' PROJECT. gaf 5e -,t2tit ri FIRE [J POLICE LOCATION-' FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED t 23771 "' RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF._ COORDINATOR iJj RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED_` ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOWTO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE. OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD 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 or-Arr A/ /,-, c J -t) y WILL. wiz **;‘ ra cis ",eie "• , ■i9-2vv 1Ib :$camc€ s/vG JE r ➢-s •• -'��4 t ie-Aiv0' / A1.9-y .P- d9a�o�y /d��.srYda- DATE /-- /6 - f COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA. • CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO;. BLDG 11 PLNG j P.W. FIRE F-1 POLICE ri P & R PROJECT. 1eceo:5e.v' A2e,//r LOCATION 72-&riLi/ba-Alt QL oL- FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 6/5-- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR Oa) Via, 41 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 6.--61/61 EPIC ,25i-5 FILE ITEM • COMMENT a-c_ t; 04.3, • °L- LL LQ r- fizet-Pt-eSZSZ. Lti ctiaLy ath-xi/J ca o)_ • ne-a2-4 0,-er-t,S/-8‘ cLO_Sleri3s (JLja,,D /rel. DATE. //AY igS COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. orm 11 CITY OF .TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; 0 BLDG . [:=1 PLNG _ Q P.W. ( 1 FIRE ] POLICE 0 P 8,R PROJECT. LOCATION 74- &i/GLf��a-it j /35'e1' FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED t ///1fK RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR QJCk, va,154 L 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 -55'Dl0 EPIC 09505-- ITEM COMMENT • 14 TRANSPORTATION The addition of._2;000':to"-3,000 additional vehicular trips per day including passenger "vehicles and large trucks will heavily impart thp ,,,rp,-cp ,4tir of St. South and Interurban Ave. 15 , PUBLIC .SEKVICES • . The addition.oe the.first two buildings. and the eventual. completion of -the - project with .a' "total of 9- buildings 'in: all "will impact upon calls for servi rP and— response time of the_ .Tukwila POlice Department. While' there" are no estimates detailing the number of persons to be employeed and/or :the number of visitors to Se planned for the estimated 2,000 to "3, 000 additional 'yehicle trips per day to the . site would suggest"a fairly heavy traffic pattern. The additional traffic load plus the "•addition of possibly several hundred additional workers intothat'area will require an upsurge of police service. This along with the other...plarined" structures along n erurban.ta ±ls tor a study of manning levels at some time in the future when all projects are in operation. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THE ARCHITECT AND BUILDER WORK IN CLOSE HARMONY WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER ON THE QUALITY OF SECURITY DEVICES AND THE PLACEMENT OF LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. DATE1 /14/85 COMMENTS PREPARED BY •PJL C.P.S. Form 11 '1 % (&-. 471a1 /.5. ii4/ v? area - Wz "vo / ' ae,4(iriz, _a2322r2______ _,_S I / 44A4 / j- - 7 /16,7 37 Ape PE "d L .s', • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Mackenzie /Saito & Associates Letter 2. Explanation of Project 3. Master Land Development Application 4. Environmental Checklist 5. Appendix - Drawings Submitted ,SD -1 Site and Vicinity Plans SD -2 Site Grading Plan SD -3 Site Utilities Plan SD -4 Site Development Plan \''' !A`'.; 11. 1985 PLANNING E: PT. i enc. cc: Jerry Kirkpatrick Richard Petersen DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: APPLICANT: REPRESENTED BY: REQUEST FOR: SITE LOCATION: Kaiser- Tuwila Project for Kaiser Development Company Environmental Checklist Submittal Kaiser Development Company 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, California 94643 Jerry Kirkpatrick Mackenzie /Saito.& Associates, P.S. 300 120th Ave. N.E. Bldg. 3 Suite 233 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (Architects and Engineers) Declaration of Nonsignificance for Environmental Checklist Submittal for first phase of project consisting of approximately 117,500 sq. ft. multi -use buildings and approximately 435 parking spaces. 36.62 acres north of Interurban Avenue near the intersection of Interurban and 133rd Road South. ZONING: M -1 • • EXPLANATION OF PROJECT The 36.62 acre site is to to be developed into a well planned multi - tenant environment. The project will be comprised of approximately 493,850 sq. ft. of office, research and development, light industrial and warehousing space to be constructed in two to three phases. The first phase of approximately 117,500 square footage will provide buildings with a minimum of 16 ft. clear height with on -grade and some dock -high loading doors and extensive use of glass facades and heavy landscaping. Every structure will be designed to be energy and space efficient and responsive to the natural environment. A consistently high level of design will be maintained for all aspects of the project. This well planned ultramodern business community will provide its occupants and the community a pleasant and functional working environment. SITE PLANNING The buildings are sited to provide excellent views from the buildings and good visibility of the buildings. The 117,500 sq. foot first phase of buildings will provide a minimum of 435 parking spaces. The number of parking spaces is above the City of Tukwila minimums for reasons of practicality and marketing. The first phase is a portion of the site most remote from the shoreline 200 ft. environment. No building is closer than 250 ft. to the 200 ft. shoreline area. ACCESS Access to the entire project is by two curb cuts .onto Interurban Avenue South. One access point will line up with the existing improvements for 133rd Road South as requested by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. Improvements to this access point including signalization have been discussed. Construction of these improvements through a local improvement district were also discussed. At this time it is undecided whether the boulevard road through the site will be a private or public road. Rows of parking heavily buffered by wide planting areas extend out from the buildings. The rows of parking are broken by islands to provide visual buffers to rows of parking. CIRCULATION Pedestrians can access the buildings from a sidewalk which will be installed on one side of the main boulevard access road. Sidewalks next to the buildings extend out to the paved areas. • • ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The design of the first phase buildings is intended to set a tone of quality for the entire Kaiser - Tukwila Project. Buildings have been sited maximizing views of landscaped common areas while reinforcing the visual impact of the meandering central loop boulevard. The boulevard is paralleled by 15 to 20 ft.. of landscap- ing on each side. During this master planning phase, the buildings in plan view appear as simple rectangular forms. However, when developed further and refined more, the high quality of the project will be strengthened. For example, cutting off corners of some of the buildings will soften their visual impact, make the buildings appear more compact and allow for wider vistas for views from or to the buildings. The building plans emphasize flexibility to appeal to a broad range of tenants. The form of the buildings will complement the horizontal nature of the site. Precast concrete panels, flat roofs and an extensive use of glass and landscaping will be used to create a pleasing business environment. All mechanical equipment and trash receptacles will be screened with enclosures or positioned such that they are not visible from the street. Parking and site lighting will be provided per city standards and limited building illumination is planned. LANDSCAPE DESIGN The existing site has virtually no trees. The landscape plan will be developed in conjunction with city staff to develop a simple but refined character. Maintenance will be of the highest quality and all planted landscape areas will be covered by an automatic irrigation system. UTILITIES Utilities are generally available to the project and /or will be extended to the site. All on -site utilities will be underground. The general intent is to bring a loop of utilities in through the boulevard access road. 1. Sanitary Sewer The existing sanitary sewer system consists of an 18 -inch line paralleling Interurban Avenue South, actually on Kaiser property in a 20 ft. easement (to be confirmed) next to the City Light 100 ft. right of way. As part of this project, a loop on -site sanitary system will be extended into the site in the street boulevard. It is possible some buildings could be directly connected to the existing sanitary sewer system and the remainder will be serviced by the extended line. It is also possible a sanitary sewer lift station may be installed to service the buildings furthest away from Interurban Avenue. 2. Water System There exists a 12 -inch waterline parallel to Interurban Avenue South in the same easement as the sanitary sewer. It is anticipated a waterline will also be extended in the boulevard street. It is planned that this line will supply the domestic and fire flow requirements. 3. Gas A Washington Natural Gas line is to be extended from 42nd Avenue South. The line will be extended along Interurban Avenue South. 4. Telephone The area is serviced by Pacific Northwest Bell who will service this project with appropriate conduits and service connectors. 5. Electricity Puget Power service is to the site. Appropriate conduits and transformers will be provided. 6. Storm Sewers and Drainage Currently no pipe -storm sewer system exists. Storm water is collected in a series of ditches paralleling Interurban Avenue South or discharges overland into the Duwamish River. Storm drainage from this development will be collected and transported from the developed areas on the site in a system of pipes. The water from these pipes will ultimately be discharged into the Duwamish River through approved outfall structures. The exact size of detention systems and outfall structures have not been determined. 7. Grading The site will be graded to accommodate the buildings, access roads, and parking spaces with a minimum impact on the natural environment. General subsurface soil conditions and development characteristics are outlined in a Dames and Moore letter accompanying this submittal. Dania & Moore 155 N.E. 100th Street,Iite 500 , P.O. Box C - 25901 Seattle, Washington 98125 -0711 (206) 523-0560 TWX: 910 -444 -2021 Cable address: DAMEMORE January 10, 1985 Mackenzie /Saito and Associates, P.S. 300 120th Avenue N.E. Building 3, Suite 233 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Mr. Lynn Takeuchi Gentlemen: Consultation Site Developement Feasibility 37 -Acre Parcel Tukwila, Washington, for Kaiser Development Company This letter is responsive to Mr. Takeuchi's request for consultation regarding the feasibility of site development and construction of one - story warehouse structures on a ,37 -acre parcel of property in Tukwila, Washington. The site is bounded on the west by Interurban Avenue South and on the east by the Duwamish River. The south property line is located about 850 feet north of 48th Avenue South. Our reconnaissance of the site indicates it is undeveloped and currently used as pastureland. Our preliminary evaluation of the subject property was accomplished by site reconnaissance and review of available information developed by Dames & Moore and Pacific Testing Laboratories during independent soil investigations for others on properties which adjoin the subject 37 -acre parcel. Dames & Moore completed a soils investigation and provided engi- neering recommendations in 1968 for a freight terminal which was sub- sequently constructed on the property immediately south of the project area. Our investigation included 6 borings which ranged in depth from approximately 45 to 95 feet and 12 test pit explorations. The ,soils encountered by our explorations in general consist of an approximate 5- to 10- foot thickness of silt and organic silt which overlies alluvial sand deposits. A relatively deep layer of silt, interlayered with the sand, was encountered at the location of four of the borings. Bedrock Mackenzie /Saito anlssociates, P.S. January 10, 1985 Page 2 Dames & Moore was encountered beneath the alluvial sand and silt deposits at three boring locations. Our engineering services continued after completion of our soil investigation and included consultation during preparation of the terminal building areas. The general soil stratigraphy described above was encountered during a 1980 geotechnical investigation by Pacific Testing Laboratories for the property located immediately north of the subject development. That investigation was accomplished to provide site development and foundation recommendations for the four warehouse buildings which now exist on that site. Based on the results of our reconnaissance and information review, we conclude that the subject 37 -acre parcel can be developed for ware- house type structures as envisioned. We expect that conventional shallow foundation support and concrete dock high or slab -on -grade construction will be feasible. Selective overexcavation /replacement of the existing surficial site soils should be anticipated in some areas where foundation grades will be near or below existing elevations. This procedure will be necessary, generally where the moderately compressible silt and organic silt soils exist. Preloading or surcharging of some building areas may be required to preinduce settlements which might otherwise occur after construction as a result of structural fill placement and application of building floor loads. Our experience on the adjacent property to the south suggests that the general procedures described herein will constitute satisfactory site preparation and building support. However, it will be imperative to complete a program of subsurface exploration to identify specific soil conditions as a basis for detailed engineering recommendations which should be incorporated into the design and be implemented during construction. A proposal for geotechnical engineering services will be provided under separate cover. Mackenzie /Saito 411 Associates, P.S. January 10, 1985 Page 3 Dames & Moore We appreciate the opportunity to provide this consultation and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions or require additional information please call. JBH:adn 3 copies submitted Yours very truly, ES & MOORE OR ames B. Harakas, P.E. Senior Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instruction for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepara- tion of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise infor- mation known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shore- line, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Hl d 1 1 i c, c cITY PLANNING DEPT. A. BACKGROUND-- --- --- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Co4111o1 No. 3 O)D Epic File No.rg0 Fee 5100.00 Receipt No.53QC, 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:Iakijla Project For Kaiser Development Company 2. Name of applicant: Marken7iP /Saito & Associates. P.S. 3. Address.and phone number of applicant and contact person: 300 120th Ave. N.E., Bldg. 3 Suite 211, RPllevue. Washington 98005. 451 -1005, Mr. Lynn Takeuchi 4. Date checklist prepared: January 11. 1985 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start fhnctrurtinn of Phace i Summer of 1985. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Additional survey work for shoreline application, subsurface exploration Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No -2- r 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. City of Tukwila Permits ' Shnreline Permit King County Flood Control Zone Permit State Fisheries Permit for Outfall Structure 3 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICT Evaluation for B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat Pastureland b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1 -2% other than the river bank 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. Silt & sand d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Minimal fill for buildings, access road and parking. No Quantity. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 79.72% Agency Use Only III Evaluation for 5 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. Yes 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Only that required to install storm outfall structures 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No Evaluation for Agency Use Only • b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 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. None 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. Storm water from roofs and parking areas will be collected in pipes and discharged into the Duwamish River. Evaluation for Agency Use Only, • 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally,describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: City approved storm water detention facilities will be installed to reduce peak runoff. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass x 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 altered? Pasture and shrubs c. List treatened or endangered species known to be on or nea the site. None Evaluation for Agency Use Only 111 411 Evaluation for -9- 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. Flertrir and natural gas. primarily for lighting. heating and some manufacturing. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No 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: Insulation and orientatinn of huildingc 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: Nnne Evaluation for 4 . Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what ?. Wood shed /barn e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M -1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light Industrial If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shoreline area near,. J uwamith River h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, shorelines area. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project ?_400 -500 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed building functional uses will be compatible with existing uses. • 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? Does not apply b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. Does not. -apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: nnec not apply 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? Tallest height 30'. Principal exterior building material is painted concrete b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Buildings are sited to screen the majority of truck loading areas from street view. Evaluation for Agency Use Only. • 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The large gas ctation. signs are egativP d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Cut off light fixtures to rPdure glare. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: We - •- as 1 • - - • - 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. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.Nnne c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 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. jnterurban Avenue South. See site plan. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Do not know c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 1550 Would eliminate none. Evaluation for Agency Use Only. • 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). On site road indicated on site plan. Unsure at this time whether it would be public or private. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so; generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. pprnXimata1y 2 QO0-O g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: None 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No other than what is normally associated with a business park. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None -16- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. 1 Evaluation for Agency Use Only, • Kaiser Development Company Proposed Industrial Development Tukwila, Washington • ACCESS & CIRCULATION • ANALYSIS WILSEY & HAM Road South. Vehicles utilizing Interstate 5 to and from the north are provided with a half- diamond interchange at Interurban Avenue. Traffic to and from the south on I -5 must utilize SR 599 to reach the site. A system of three intersections along Interurban Avenue serves movements to and from SR 599. None of these ramp terminals is currently signalized, nor is the Interurban /133rd intersection. The City of Tukwila, in a joint project with Washington State Department of Transpor- tation (WSDOT), plans to signalize the three intersections along Interurban Avenue between 1987 and 1989. The central intersection (Interurban /133rd) currently meets the warrants for signalization as defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This study examines the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. Trip generation, traffic distribution and assignment, and capacity analyses are provided, together with an analysis of options regarding driveway connections and intersection improvement options. Access & Circulation Analysis for Kaiser Development Co. PROJECT LOCATION scale in feet north 1000 Access & Circulation Analysis for Kaiser Development Co. SITE VICINITY wilsey & ham 3 Figure 2 DAILY TRIP ENDS Trip AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Generation Building Rate (trip Traffic Traffic Traffic Area ends per Volume Volumes (vph) Volumes (vph) (S.F.) 1,000 S.F.) (vpd) In Out Total In Out Phase 117,350 5.46 641 100 18 -118 38 74 112 Phase II 284,150 5.46 1,551 241 43 284 91 179 270 Phase III 493,850 5.46 2,696 420 74 494 158 311 469 Trip Distribution The patterns of access and egress to and from the site were estimated by examining the regional distribution of population in the area, and travel times to and from the site. For the - purpose of this analysis, a 20- minute driving time was considered as represen- Mtative of a work trip in the Seattle metropolitan area. Zonal population projections for 1990 within this travel time contour were obtained from the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). A generalized gravity model was used to distribute traffic among the zones in the study area. Traffic Assignment The directions of approach and departure for project - related traffic are indicated on Figure 3. Approximately 40 percent of the traffic will approach from the northwest on SR 599 and on Interurban Avenue. Over 30 percent will arrive from the southeast on Interurban Avenue and 20 percent from the north on I =5. 4 Access & Circulation Analysis for Kaiser Development Co. DIRECTION OF APPROACH Access & Circulation Analysis for Kaiser Development Co. 1984 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC uiileov 4. k m a-ini,re A Intersection Three Access & Circulation Analysis for Kaiser Development Co. Intersection Four 1985 PHASE 1 PEAK VOLUMES Access & Circulation Analysis for Kaiser Development Co. •iil•o• 4 F.�m 1987 PHASE 3 PEAK VOLUMES a Cif4..r/. C /. . 1 SITE ■ A A AM B PM ¢./ o seXVtCL 1985 w/o Project ▪ 7▪ y north SITE A 45.. I / / D A B �M Level. of Ser\/ice- 1987 w /South Drive Only ▪ -i A AM B PM Le4 oS ser IjcR _ 1985 w/ Phase 1 Improvements Access & Circulation Analysis for Kaiser Development Co. v • c' P, SITE A C Bp .l•e�en_ or ser.'tce. 1987 w /Two Driveways INTERSECTION OPERATIONS wilsey & ham 10 Figure 7 Conditions in 1985 with the addition of Phase I project traffic also are displayed on Figure 7. These analyses considered the installation of a traffic signal, and the construction of two driveway connections to serve the project site. The south drive would originate as a northeastward extension of 133rd Road South, with a signal at the Interurban /133rd intersection. The north drive would intersect Interurban Avenue further northwest. Outbound left -turn movements at this north drive will be difficult during the pm peak due to the lack of acceptable gaps in the traffic stream on Interurban Avenue. It may be necessary to prohibit left turns in the peak hours or provide a right -in, right -out design at this location. With these improvements, intersection operations can be maintained at acceptable levels throughout the study area. The 1987 capacity analyses, also on Figure 7, consider the traffic impacts of full occupancy of the project at buildout of Phase 3. At the request of the city, two alternatives were examined, with and without the north driveway. With only the south drive to serve all project traffic, operations at the signalized intersection will deteriorate to level of service E during the pm peak. This is attributable to heavy lef t- turn demands on the northeast and southeast approaches. With two drives to serve Phase 3 of the project, acceptable traffic opeations can be maintained at both intersections. At the north driveway, intersection channelization may be required if full turning movements are allowed. Even with turning prohibitions or right -in, right -out restrictions, this drive serves a valuable function by supplementing the am inbound and pm outbound right -turn capacities. The 1987 analysis also indicates satisfactory operations at the SR 599 ramp terminals without signalization. The traffic increases associated with the project will not cause significant deterioration of service levels at the adjacent intersections. At the proposed signalized intersection, project traffic will contribute 5 to 8 percent of total traffic during Phase 1, and 15 to 19 percent during Phase 3. Design Recommendations The combined effects of growth in background traffic and project traffic will require several improvements in traffic control • and channelization to adequately serve the projected volumes. During Phase 1, it is recommended that the Interurban Avenue/ 133rd Road intersection be signalized, and that the primary site access be through this intersection. Two approach lanes will be required on this driveway in advance of the signal. Separate left -turn lanes and signal phases will be needed on Interurban Avenue, • with split phasing of the cross traffic. The lane geometrics of the existing intersection are satisfactory and can be adapted to the signalization plan with improved signing and striping. A conceptual layout of the proposed design is presented on Figure 8. Installation of signals at the SR 599 ramp terminals is not recommended. This analysis indicates that .adequate levels of service are maintained using unsignalized control. Because these ramp terminals are separated from 133rd Road by only 250 feet, signal interconnection may actually reduce capacity by creating queues which impede the operation of an adjacent intersection. It is also recommended that a second drive to Interurban Avenue be constructed approximately 900 feet to the northwest of 133rd Road. The capacity analysis indicates that a single driveway access cannot adequately serve the ultimate traffic demands of the project. This proposed secondary access can accommodate the heavy right -turn traffic demands associated with the site. It will be less effective in serving left turns, particularly for outbound vehicles in the peak hours, due to the continuous heavy traffic flow on Interurban Avenue. For this reason, it is recommended that movements at this driveway be limited to right turns in and out of the site during Phase 1. Future traffic volumes associated with Phase 2 and 3 should be monitored with respect to the need for channelization at this secondary access. If additional peak -hour left- turn capacity is required, it will be necessary to widen and channelize Interurban Avenue to provide a separate left -turn lane. However, an alternative traffic control measure would be left - turn prohibitions only during the morning and afternoon peak hours. In this way, the secondary access will provide relief for the Interurban /133rd intersection, the conveni- ence of off -peak left turns will remain, and the absence of peak -hour left turns will increase capacity and safety. Both access points will cross the property of Seattle City Light on easements. Currently, one easement serves the site midway between the proposed driveways. Negotiations are currently underway to relocate site access to the proposed driveway locations. Summary Development of the proposed project will create additional traffic demands in the vicinity of the site. With the proposed access design and improvements, satisfactory traffic operations will be maintained through buildout of the project. 12 Secondary Access O 4> o • 's it'o it rso ct� oo oOtf , o f `�+J % o `` 'r hdso _ 0' SITE Primary Access co a not to scale north \;61)4330 Access & Circulation Analysis for Kaiser Development Co. PROPOSED ROADWAY CONFIGURATION •filce• A hnm 1� Fintire 8 CITY OF TUKILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM LEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION 1: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ 9StP APPLICANT: O ER: (ontrac` ' Purchaser) PROJECT ❑SHORT PLAT ❑ SUBDIVISION ®SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ CONDITIONAL ❑ UNCLASS. D VARIANCE USE USE L1 © Environmental Checklist NAMEMackenzie /Saito & Associates, P.S. ADDRESS300 120th Ave. N.E. Bldg. 3 Suite ❑ PRD ❑ PMUD ❑,INTERURBAN ❑CHG. OF ZONING ❑ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT TELEPHONE (206 ) 451 -1005 233, Bellevue ZIP 98005 NAME Kaiser Development Company TELEPHONE (415 ) 271 -5767 ADDRESS300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland, California ZIP 94643 LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) Interurban & South 133rd St. SECTION 11: PROJECT INFORMATION 5) 6) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YQU. PROPOSE .Multi-use (warehouse, research and development and office) buildings, phased construction, built on speculation ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM May /1985 TO May /86 (1st Phase) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES? J YES ❑ NO IF YES, DESCRIBE: 2-3 phases Buildings closest to Interurban developed first -- see site plan PROJECT STATISTICS: A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL11FLOORS TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA SITE UTILIZATION: ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS: - STANDARD SIZE - COMPACT SIZE - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE AVER. SLOPE GROSS EASEMENTS 1 493,850 INCLUDES ❑ BASEMENT ® MEZZANINE INCLUDES: ❑ BASEMENT ® MEZZANINE EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES M -1 1 ight Indus 443,500 ❑ 323,317 ❑ ❑ 828,350 ❑ ❑ 0 1,100 420 30 30 min. OF PARKING AREA 12 %-3% OF SITE E) IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR MAP? A YES ❑ NO 1 -2% SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE SECTION 111: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT 1. R.S. Dumper , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I Am THE CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE- GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE DATE / - SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME -1" £1.1' £ —/—?- TH 1 S `V .Ot i%I` DAY OF BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. , 19 SS. NOTARY PUaL 1 C IN AND FOR THE STATE OF V,!litirS0441,4S,V4DN RESIDING AT):) NIC Kai.; (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER) OFFICIAL SE A`. iq VIOLET MACDONALD POTARY PU3LIC- CA!.:rORN;A COUNTY GP ALMA ZiA (ti • Ny Coswission Expires May 14, i a ii ° � JCS ?i ,LL. 1 V A 1985 yy C## •Y OtiUi ‘∎V LA PLAN N ! N G c.; F: 't I . LEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION 1: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ 9StP APPLICANT: O ER: (ontrac` ' Purchaser) PROJECT ❑SHORT PLAT ❑ SUBDIVISION ®SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ CONDITIONAL ❑ UNCLASS. D VARIANCE USE USE L1 © Environmental Checklist NAMEMackenzie /Saito & Associates, P.S. ADDRESS300 120th Ave. N.E. Bldg. 3 Suite ❑ PRD ❑ PMUD ❑,INTERURBAN ❑CHG. OF ZONING ❑ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT TELEPHONE (206 ) 451 -1005 233, Bellevue ZIP 98005 NAME Kaiser Development Company TELEPHONE (415 ) 271 -5767 ADDRESS300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland, California ZIP 94643 LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) Interurban & South 133rd St. SECTION 11: PROJECT INFORMATION 5) 6) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YQU. PROPOSE .Multi-use (warehouse, research and development and office) buildings, phased construction, built on speculation ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM May /1985 TO May /86 (1st Phase) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES? J YES ❑ NO IF YES, DESCRIBE: 2-3 phases Buildings closest to Interurban developed first -- see site plan PROJECT STATISTICS: A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL11FLOORS TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA SITE UTILIZATION: ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS: - STANDARD SIZE - COMPACT SIZE - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE AVER. SLOPE GROSS EASEMENTS 1 493,850 INCLUDES ❑ BASEMENT ® MEZZANINE INCLUDES: ❑ BASEMENT ® MEZZANINE EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES M -1 1 ight Indus 443,500 ❑ 323,317 ❑ ❑ 828,350 ❑ ❑ 0 1,100 420 30 30 min. OF PARKING AREA 12 %-3% OF SITE E) IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR MAP? A YES ❑ NO 1 -2% SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE SECTION 111: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT 1. R.S. Dumper , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I Am THE CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE- GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE DATE / - SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME -1" £1.1' £ —/—?- TH 1 S `V .Ot i%I` DAY OF BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. , 19 SS. NOTARY PUaL 1 C IN AND FOR THE STATE OF V,!litirS0441,4S,V4DN RESIDING AT):) NIC Kai.; (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER) OFFICIAL SE A`. iq VIOLET MACDONALD POTARY PU3LIC- CA!.:rORN;A COUNTY GP ALMA ZiA (ti • Ny Coswission Expires May 14, i a ii