Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-28-88 - SPIEKER PARTNERS - TUKWILA POND CENTERTUKWILA POND CENTER (SPEIKER - 2ND VERSION) RETAIL SHOPPING ADJACENT TO TUKWILA POND STRANDER BLVD & ANDOVER PARK WEST EPIC 28 -88 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER 1(m'L t AR1), TUKWIL A. WASHINGTON !MISS P!IO.V@' # (?(1(i) 433 1X(11) Gt ny L l•anl)usvn, Muem May 22, 1990 Walter S. Kaczynski Project Director Spieker Partners 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA. 98005 -3855 Re: Amendment to EPIC -28 -88 Tukwila Pond Dear Walter: This letter is inresponse to your request to construct a fire exit and stairway for Building "A ". As noted in your letter dated April 13, 1990; the 5'x 5' exit platform will protrude into the 25' buffer zone. In your letter, you proposed mitigation in three areas, Access, Landscaping and Aesthetic. In review the past EPIC record; discussion with Joe Miles, Seattle Audobon Society; and your proposed mitigation, the SEPA official approves your request for the minor modification to the SEPA mitigation condition. Sincerely Yours, Jack Pace Senior Planner 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 -3855 P.O. Box 97022 Bellevue; WA 98009 -9722 206 453 -1600 • FAX: 206 455-4105 April 13, 1990 Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 APR 17 1991 EKE PARTNERS ITY OF Ti.JIW ji A__ PLANNING DEPT. APR 7 1990 CITY L PLANNi, Re: Request to Amend SEPA Decision for Southcenter, Phase I Request to Amend BAR Decision for Southcenter, Phase I Request to Amend Landscaping Submittals, Phase I & Burger King Dear Jack, This is to confirm the decisions reached at this morning's site meeting attended by yourself, Joe Miles and Vince Ferrese regarding the above. In short, we are requesting approval to construct a fire exit and stairway for Building "A ", as shown on the attached sketches labeled SK -1 and SK -2. Vince has previously submitted full -sized copies of these prints to you. Since the 5' x 5' exit platform will marginally protrude into the 25' .buffer zone established for this project, we will provide the following to mitigate its effects: Access: To emphasize the emergency use only of this door and limit human activity through it, we will provide a door knob on the inside only, with no external hardware, and alarm and label the door "Emergency Exit Only - Alarm Will Sound ". Further, to the extent permissible by City building and fire codes, we will install an exit - only gate at the eastern stair landing, thus limiting access to the pond. To reinforce this limited access, this area will be conspicuously posted "Private Property - No Trespassing ". Mr. Jack Pace April 13, 1990 Page 2 Landscaping: In addition hydroseeding all disturbed areas behind Building "A" per the requirements of the currently- approved landscaping plan, we will provide additional plantings in the buffer zone in the area of the new fire exit. Further, to help mitigate the effects of this exit, we will provide plantings further west in the buffer zone, in the area adjacent to the overlook pagoda. We propose that the specific locations and varieties be determined in the field by our landscape architect, David Olson, with the advice and counsel of the Seattle Audobon Society, and include wetland- sensitive vegetation from the following list previously approved by Rex Van Wormer of IES Associates: Sour Cherry, Black Cottonwood, Nootka Rose, Red -Osier Dogwood, Red - Flowering Currant, Mockorange, and /or Wild Plum. Aesthetic: To offset the visual aspects of this proposal and to provide further amenities for the general public, we will provide a glass covering for the overlook pagoda at the west end of Building "A ". Finally, it is our intent, if and when the tenant currently scheduled to occupy the west end of Building "A" vacates the premises, to use our best efforts to reconstruct the fire corridor in its original state so as to permit exiting from the East end of the building. If this occurs, then we will permanently seal the proposed exit door to prohibit any human intrusion into the buffer. Jack, I believe that the consensus we reached this morning truly results in a better project all- around, and that all parties stand to gain from this proposal. I will await your favorable reply. Cordially, Walter S. Kaczynski Project Director cc: Joe Miles, Seattle Audobon Society Vince Ferrese, Mithun Partners 0=44erPI•e 315raNiir A.10 .----, `11-164e".. 1444 A 1-4 9 0 0 e 1-4c, W/ 3T1^ ' t4,1H 11"112-&-t-,:7- FAIL . 34 'tkra:vs. E.),IEND t-1 IL. I2` Tor 14-' -Go vlov4 MIMI „FUT-IFS 20 MI ■,1 I 0-x4 pf-lk -610054.20 -rre •Stili I 0.1E 12- 117 rarf Temft-AN.-s 44c..K4 -n-ftw:v7 11Jikk-4 1A100,7 44.4.41-1/45 COHTI LJ6 f'S!‘44:34 I-4 ,Oz•MOIL- C.A-I )1■4413V 1"1"1*07.4 • /Hogia oiPt 2 leoky e'" rI-201-01' 2x 2 I I Iz PI M. iCetk4 L. e St' I. I a.V (T 1 r. • 4 4 }a, fT FIR. N( I.1AtL. ■J/ !.A1,4 12) F 1 •/24. lopx 'No L. q 144e-1"221 PD «144 !Al �— I�GISQ x8 cads. 4%8 FRI M :1o1 ?tA- TtoU✓l CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SUUTHLENTER BUULE VA RD, TUKWILA, W. SH/NGTON 98188 October 23, 1989 Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 -3855 /'HONE ;1206)4334800 Gury L. liu:Drorn, Mayor RE: TUKWILA POND CENTER - EPIC -28 -88 SEPA MITIGATION MEASURES - SUPPLEMENT Dear Joel: Based upon recent plan revisions dated incorporate the following changes: 1. Building has been reduced in size and moved further away from Pond. 10- 16 -89, which 2. Increase in width of buffer zone between driveway and pond. 3. Four foot high berm /masonry wall along site frontage adjacent to pond to form continual buffer. SEPA mitigation measure is amended as follows: 1. Buffering will be accomplished by the placement of a 4 -foot high (minimum) berm /masonry wall. The original condition required an 8 -foot high wall. This mitigation measure is based on the revised site plan. If you have any questions, please contact me at 433 -1846. Sincerely, &th, L. Rick Beeler, Director . Department of Community evelopment cc: J. Miles, Audubon Society Department of Ecology TO: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners FROM: Rick Beeler, SEPA Official DATE: July 25, 1989 SUBJECT: Tukwila Pond Center: EPIC -28 -88 SEPA Mitigation Measures - Supplement Attachments: A - Revised Site Plan B - Traffic Report - Christopher Brown and Associates - May 23, 1989 C - Drive - through Window; Potential Impacts - R. L. Van Wormer - July 5, 1989 D - Seattle Audubon Society, July 14, 1989. Based upon the degree of mitigation proposed and information submitted, the following mitigation measures will be supplement to the conditions in EPIC 23 -88. 1) Six to eight foot high masonry wall along the west side of the drive - through. The height will be determined by noise specialists who will determine the appropriate level to minimize impact upon the pond wildlife. 2) The masonry wall will be incorporated in the design modification on the trash area to minimize noise from this activity. BUILDING AND SITE INFORMATION ZONE: C-P. BUILDING AREA 3600 Si. PARKING STALLS REG. 36 •STALLS .PROVIDED 43 ATTACHMENT A Cf..r..til nor N ®IDIDIN116 4 "N TUKWILA POND ELEV. 13' SfTE-PLAN* • NITHUN Christopher brown Us Associates 879 Damicr Avenue N.. ,Suite A -201 Demon. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 May 22, 1989 Mr. Walter S. Kaczynski Spieker Partners 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 -3855 Re: Burger King Site Southcenter Plaza Traffic Elements Dear Mr. Kaczynski: Per your request we have examined the potential effects of the second driveway cut from Southcenter Plaza to Andover Park West. This letter is intended to supply you with the results of our analysis. The driveway is intended to serve as the exit point for the drive through facility associated with the proposed Burger King store located in the southeast corner of the site. The new driveway is to be located approximately 240 feet south of the main site access to Andover Park West. It is our understanding that the driveway will be limited to exit movements only. In order to determine the number of vehicles using the drive through facility at the proposed Burger King, a traffic count was performed at the McDonalds store located on Southcenter Parkway during the noon hour of a typical weekday. Vehicles exiting the drive - through lane were counted. Since the McDonalds is very similar both in the type of food served as well as the size of the building, the traffic demand should likewise be similar. During the noon hour a total of 138 vehicles were seen using the driveway facility. Rounding, we estimate that 140 vehicles will use the drive - through at the proposed Burger King. Capacity calculations were then performed for the new driveway using the 1990 traffic volumes shown in Figure 5 of the traffic report for the Southcenter Plaza project. It was assumed that one -half would exit to the left and one -half would exit to the right from Traffic Engineers b Transportation Planners ATTACHMENT B Mr. Walter S. Kaczynski May 22, 1989 Page Two the driveway. These calculations, which are attached, show that the level of service for the left -turn movement from the driveway would be 'E'. However, any queues which would form as a result of delays would do so on site, and, as a result, no interference with operations on city streets would occur. The LAS for the right -turn movement from the driveway would be 'A', signifying little or no delay. Since the driveway is to be located 240 feet away from the nearest other driveway and is to be limited to exit only, we see no operational difficulties between the two. In conclusion, the proposed driveway for exiting vehicles from the Burger King drive- through will not have a significant impact on traffic operations along Andover Park West in it's proposed exit only configuration nor will it effect the operations of the either the other driveway from Southcenter Plaza to Andover Park West or on Andover Park West. If you have any questions please feel free to call us. Yours truly, Michael D. Riggs, E.I.T. mdr /s cc: Mithun Partners Ferris Company CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/22/1989 BURGER KING - TUKWILA BRG002 INTERSECTION : DRIVE THRU EXIT @ ANDOVER PARK WEST WEEKDAY NOON 1990 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH CBD ?N T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S CHRISTOPHER BROWN BURGER KING - TUKWILA INTERSECTION : DRIVE THRU EXIT @ ANDOVER PARK WEST WEEKDAY NOON 1990 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH CBD ?N 5/21/1989 BRG002 GRADE HV. ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( % ) ( % ) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (pads /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S EB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) NB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN SB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 EB 6.80 5.70 G E O N E T R I C S / V O L U M E S NB 0.00 LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 SB APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 70 0 70 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 596 0 T 2 24.0 SB 0 605 0 T 2 24.0 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O L A N E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 70 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 NB 0 298 0 0 298 0 0 0 0 SB 0 302 0 0 303 0 0 0 0 • U N S I G N A L I Z E D • APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 62 625 LEVEL OF SERVICE E A NB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE MAJOR STREET - NB /SB • . IES ASSOCIATES July 5, 1989 TO : City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention : Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner SUBJECT : Drive- through'window; potential impacts. Dear Jack: 1514 Muirhead Olympia, WA 98502 Ph: (206) 943-0127 8835 SW Canyon Lane Portland, OR 97225 Ph: (503) 297-6081 I apologize for the delay in this response, however we felt it necessary to visit the site with the site map to determine the exact location of the drive - through in relationship to the natural vegetative buffer that is being retained along the bank of Tukwila Pond. The proposed drive- through includes a hedge and a retaining structure between the drive - through and the top of the gabian. Also, the drive - through has been set back a distance from the gabian, which will reduce noise and the potential for trash to be thrown from cars over the hedge into the riparian area adjacent to the pond. Major impacts will be the lights from the vehicles using the drive - through. These impacts will be greater in the winter, when the leaves are off the deciduous vegetation that borders the pond. To compensate for the lack of vegetation in the winter months, we are recommending that a hedgerow contain plant species that retain their leaves through the winter (i.e., coniferous plants, laurel, myrtle, or some other dense - growing plant hat can be trimmed to increase the density and maintain the•heisht and width so it would not interfere with the drive - through . • ATTACHMENT C Mr. Jack Pace July 5, 1989 The impacts will be greater for the first few years, until the hedgerow matures and reaches an elevation and density sufficient to act as a total screen. Conclusion : With proper plantings of the right size, the light impacts should be limited after the first two to three years of operation. Until that time, we would expect there to be some light impact on the trees, but no light into the pond because of the elevation of the pad in relationship to the surface water elevation of the pond. After a short period, the hedge should satisfactorily screen out lights, thus eliminating potential for disturbance to wildlife using the pond. Because of the lights in relationship to the entire project, there will always be some light disturbance to birds utilizing the trees. If you have any further questions on this, please contact me at 943 -0127. • 2 Sincerely, .L. Van Wormer Senior Biologist IES Associates 3,3ea-ttle Audubon Oacietp 3 Washington Nonprofit Corporation 619 Joshua 206e22-669 July 14, 1989 Molly A. Headley, Assistant Pl�noer Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Burger King.Proposal for Tukwila Pond Dear Ms. Headley: The Seattle Audubon Society's Conservation Committee has reviewed the "Conceptual Landscape Plan" treceived by City May 25, 1989) for the proposed Burger King restauravt a`jja.ent to Tukwila Pond. The summary of our review includ�s Lhe fulluwing list of concerns: 1. Encroachment within the 25 foot buffer' Following a field inspection at the site of the proposed Burger King, it appears that the gabinn wafl has been constructed within the 25-foot buffer established by the SEPA mitigation for the Tukwila Pond Center (EPIC-23-88). Even during the dry summer months the edge Of the water is less than 25-feet from the base of d`e gabion wall. A field survey by an independent licensed land surveyor should verify the location of the gabion with respect to the 25- foot buffer as described by the SEPA mitigation. If the wall is within the buffer area, appropriate mitigation must implemented to restore the buffer E.rea' ATTACHMENT D • 2. Activity -nt to Tukwila Pond. As discussed on prior proposals, the homan and vehicular activity immediately adjacent to Tukwila Pond must be minimized. The current Burger King project proposes to construct a vehicular "drive-through" immediately adjacent to the sensitive wetland area. The addition of vehicle movement, headlights and speaker noise adjacent to the pond will potentially impact the sensitive wildlife species which currently utilize the wetland. The other buildings proposed adjacent to the wetland have been oriented with the back or "non-active side " immediately adjacent to the pond. We strongly recommend that the pond be viewed as an amenity, with the enclosed dining area of the building oriented adjacent to the pond and all vehicular and outdoor human activity relocated away from the pond's edge. 3. Storm drainage and water quality. The SEPA mitigation for the Tukwila Pond Center included an enhanced biofiltration swale to maintain water quality. Previous site plans showed a biofiltration swale in the vicinity of the currently proposed Burger King Project. The current proposal shows a parking lot over the location of the originally proposed biofiltration system. The applicant must present a proposed storm drainage plan that illustrates compliance with the original SEPA mitigation. 4. Light and Glare. 5. As required by the SEPA mitigation to minimize the disturbance to wildlife the exterior illumination of the proposed building and parking lot should be of minimal intensity, shielded and directed downward to prevent light spillage into the wetland area. Fencing. The Burger King Proposal would introduce intense public activity to the sensitive shoreline of Tukwila Pond. To prevent uncontrolled access to the pond, a permanent fence or hand-rail must be installed. 6. Litter. The proposed Burger King project would generate large volumes of litter. Floating litter poses a serious hazard to wildlife. The trash compactor, a potential source of litter, shown the plan should be relocated 'away from the edge of the pond. • •-','- Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Burger King project. The Seattle Audubon Society continues to be sincerely concerned about the potential impact proposed projects may have on Tukwila Pond, its associated wetlands, and wildlife. We are hopeful that the items raised in this letter will be specifically addressed by revisions to the project. Please notify us immediately of the.City's SEPA determination. If you have any questions please contact Joe Miles of our Conservation Committee at 622-8254. Sincerely, ` �� /� v~«�-*�L-~' ��=�' Gerry Adams Vice President cc: Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners Geo koopo En ine 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 TO . Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue Southeast Bellevue.,..... Washington 98005 L, r S' i �II fi. FE B 151989 IL= ©`EaREa_0= DATE February•13, 1989 JOB NO 1192 -26 -1 WE ARE SENDING YOU J Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Copy of letter ATTENTION MrJ Walter Kaczynski RE: Construction Monitoring Target Stores Southcenter Plaza Tukwila, Washington, ❑ Plans the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 1 2/10/89 Field Reports 16 - 22 Evaluation of Excavation Claim - Retail Stores THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US Target Stores Inc., Mr. Terry Jacobs Barghausen Engineering, Mr. Dana Mower JCity of Tukwila, Mr. Duane Griffin Engineer.. Northwest, Mr. Richard Janke Lumpkin Construction, Mr. Ned Lumpkin McCann Construction, Mr. Jack McCann COPY TO SIGNED. 1 (I If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us jh �' James E. Brigham • s\ City of Tukwila iso8. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -0179 Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director February 13, 1989 Mr. Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue. WA 98005 R-VVEI 7. 1 FEB 2 21989 C. 1' • Reference: Pond Development (Target Stores) at Southwest Corner of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West - Request for Settlement Monitoring Dear Joel: The Public Works Department is in receipt of your January 27, 1989 letter responding to my January 19. 1989 letter requesting offsite monitoring relative to surcharging of your own site. As this matter was considered of significant importance. the City has retained Touma Engineers to carry out an offsite monitoring program. It is requested that your geotech contact Touma Engineers and request Touma's monitoring data as it is developed. This data is to be incorporated into your documentation and analysis. Also, any parts of your proposed monitoring program identified in the January 27, 1989 letter not covered by Touma shall be provided through your geotech and copies of this data sent to Public Works Department as it is generated. Your continued cooperation in this matter working with the City would be most appreciated. Sincerely, Ross Earnst. P.E. Public Works Director xc: Rick Beeler Tom Touma Duane Griffin Jack Pace Development file: Tukwila Pond CD:DISK 9 BENOLIEL.PRF GeoEngineers III 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 206 746 -5200 � ) • FIELD RE T File No. //92_-2--- / Project: r �d `.-tore. Date: 2 /i0 /S9 Owner: - f. - peg kee 1--)our-hers Report No. 2 Z Prepared by: R06 M C- Thit0 k Location: I TtA.kw;/0- Arrival Time: //30 Page: / of / Purpose of Visit: -0115-Fracki'in-1 hi 01 flinrifri ci Weather: Scwny /C40( _ Depart. Time: / 2110 Permit No. Y VfS,fe, 44e Sr -/v evat 2 --/lie. SOtre/hOty e 7/ ill bet,7, pXlcc1 n-rx Y'�,,,, 7�,,,-1- i u t115i c,11 p0�, 7-tie, ed.,"k -E P`Y/ Ala,/ bee h �/f A9 4 li1KJG7%/ j L, J 27 o J Aid ,� , El'n /o u e' G_`.. . I v arrk / b'rc. C.!t'!1 n fir. X10.4.,,, c. r..)(4' .. 9&Cc', Jr IA ,�J , ,4 ,^r,. �'e. &e5 -12lPA rij- �/l °_ be.t / /;klc, rr'I' Qo_e, J ✓ 1 This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: Distribution: Signed. �64-kAt E (z, GEI 45 -87 This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or .site safety on this project. Attachments: Distribution: Signed: 1 1 2 / 2 2 GEI 45 -87 GeoEngineers I. 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746 -5200 T REP FIELD File No. ///2---2.7- 1 Date: 2 / /0, j Project: +�4 t 1 -'fc v"..:2`, Owner: �1e4r (Y ;:11 f ./. S Report No. Prepared by: Rt Me. "1-k\-Oz.). I-‘ Location: �t� :w; I" Arrival Time: Page: of Purpose of Visit: Weather: Depart. Time: Permit No. EU _( V �. T 1 6. Q e- E C •�. v s.. 4 :e),••% c 1. G. ■ rM — � - -- ' 1 s t t, - CS /,t !3 P � 1 / G { . � l h y Y4•,� ; - r17,-4.71; G) -- r -A'ee1 4 Ow_ r G-t~f ►'ce� v ���qj j :Jc Mc e evy, h .7,;( a yc/ 1 c . c f -,.. f /3(2l [�)c C1✓'t°. in ,-1 ,-1 c. ►- 4-,,= :/ris. -1-- - c.f irr - j. `r'`% -"lilt (ire..) < . . S t i ,',.'C�f /("� :..t i fi /,r..i"v:. %r\ !'• : h �. ' 1! =1%�16': rYi I et,/ c';1 "e -=_ J"- 41- c.!r_-TI_. ` /1-r-1-- r ,j/VIC ,,,� iL4•'l:.c/ ,: f'. r C� Cam, / //-L �E � 1 f_ • f ;1►•,.ct 51�ru,�h 4 5 Ar 6-A., 1 • r Are_A_ I 1/ s _ .5+-ti I- . e.,, 0-.1' � . _ , . e...i'' 6..r ii?:-. fe-:,/ 1. -n.I- � , i-,, .1 f Irem-,, jv ; r'rm �� , "�r.frac f v�i`',l', :T rfif,!� /r.�r i-! (•;•.. 8 0.,1.rl Ella_ p /I e7 he-td II. *, z Wi r -)a ,r k; r 6 6'i. eG- a laT�. /crLr:. (211:.:'4//-(Y/;/:.;4-4j././ (-11 -1;77-7/- ,.,� 1., ; _:. 5c--'7-74 �0/ . • J i This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or .site safety on this project. Attachments: Distribution: Signed: 1 1 2 / 2 2 GEI 45 -87 . Geo Engineers I 9. � 2405 - 140th Ave. N. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746 -5200 FIELD REP T � File No. //q2_- -26 _ / Project: l a v', - 7ov-e Date: L %(/ ?9 Owner: - ',)efk"� P,,,-/,,,,,s Report No. Z1 Prepared by: Rob /4c I- 1, Location: likto'rick Arrival Time: /030 Page: / of / Purpose of Visit: (rns +rl rrt )Tirij;- !cr;ro, Weather: Suhny /Coo 1 Depart. Time: /130 Permit No. 1 Heee( , e s,'+e- -� eyed btel* "i'h e. S- -v`u,�c//7` mi ' - ,' 1I b el,7 4 / (IF /are ch e. leg (I lib-5d- b1[i /�/V) 'ei�rJ6k aVr�S -/ e SOGc��hwes c 'n,,, I o ' e Sr%e, 11,1 -H car or /A eAst- 'A - —M e Ii/d,', n t l'// pa I. 7 4, 11 /ad j iai°.v�/a .l w11.a /AK,S ll��C:�rI -= �/�i.. ^� .5:,+/-:-.71-ii y ,'( -r,,;/ `':'Yi(- /r'1 ,,:`C b - ‹/ r� - vr��fio. } / I S ri co*-11, / CLCt 'rl;t,z / -/ �_;. ,f--,I 4(p4 _ Fcr, -r 1 � / 1 e � �nJ . ' J yl't� for 7e. I f , .. `'Fr'f Lkr /-• 1 r -t-,'l/ GUl!< /13r liar/t Stilt! -4 /22(! pi./ 1 ! ( or�a.A... ,'n /1 f . /.j' ,t" -. /�. /c (-' f,-,q,., ;1 Jr (f� r, e'.5 ,it L'/ so/ ( Ea 'i-. J /, f- (AV -S rrtheac eft. bl (t- 11,1rdritr rol%r E•01) r..l\ 711?1olt SP.n'r?l G � Se� lv -1.^ 11. 'n - lace de,,. t ? , Tf 7ki�r_-( -in7c..r' !!t `,I'4t ce,7 -;'l 'e // / 'r � t A.. %7r/.e4r6^ so;/ s .4e7; c n ,rc.�:e 0 l� %.Y-'� 11115 i'T PI CE., d�/li s 'I- -i-e,t s t%' ✓! cri•i Y / 4/eC%i ObSee voi1 071- l' —(; r r;ire? :: ; _ 4, 2 /1i cfr/i.xdi,eital - ,'ll -,ei /a.laS ,r ; Arr". ��1 na.-rl I e.16n i.1.�.:-:-'4tz.aTei e a c74 , C..._ 'vs [L ',,° -t- -1 %%fJl« bFf ii/i'i . /4eY'5 411. II e rh -4e *,fek 4urha4/mr.•, ae" :', c a-- -H ?e rice- 6,-p 6,2A me 17 b4, /_//;.,a - // 1 r-vn 4, .4.,-/-64- /.. --,rte -lc- - L-'24i;r,.. -�l,e. 4r9 (71 : :c-I ev_.. tired Al / i -ale �J 4-e 14E_ , . be e.. T /.1 so L-• . � oil A C -C- r ,: %a`- T, / / Al Att e/ Pct. n �, ,d i , f bee ,t1 -_ /, -Son e- G.�r er IG?.( d(:t S'' , /t l 1'.✓./r fr.i. �2 a 507d. //3.' s1 C--+rn ,ss. r f/ t' -Me bu, .1 / +°7 ,,i t / 11 e 1 evs ti SF as ✓r4r/7- ("L4i -96.- -I'/1 /rnS ;a . This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: 1 f'tA -«- Distribution: 141 v 1•„r c .-, +,) b colj� i- 'T -s 1' /1-''-.1',..1t5 Signed. T C 5 G E► 45 -87 PR0JECT5p6k6i. - Ti n)(71" 1O1^(. FILE NO. M2--2(0- / SHEET / OF / SUMMARY OF IN -PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS TEST NUMBER TEST DATE TEST METHOD GENERAL LOCATION ELEV. (FEET) FEET . TO GRADE SOIL TYPE TYPE TYPE COM- PACTOR FIELD MOIST. % % ± DRY DENSITY (PCF) so COMPACTION FIELD MAX. FIELD SPEC. / 974v W i2 r-f bl/ti, Its I S V // - b RI-7- /l ? /o0-f ,-C z ., % Al" ).)e/ /e f i : ; NO O / / 2.. I /if? %s.o 1 IIN -PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS 1 PERCENT COMPACTION BASED ON: DENSITY TEST METHOD ❑STANDARD PROCTOR(AASHTO T 99 PROCTOR.(AASHTO T 180 TYPE OF COMPACTOR -57, ASTM D -57, ASTM D PLATE 698) 1557) ABBREVIATIONS I AREA MODIFIED 3167) N - NUCLEAR SC - SAND CONE RB - RUBBER SOIL TYPE (ASTM D 2922) (ASTM D 1556) BALLOON (ASTM D s - sandy g - gravelly si - silty c - clayey R - RUBBER -TIRED ROLLER V - VIBRATORY COMPACTOR S - SHEEPSFOOT ROLLER GD - GRID ROLLER L - LOADED SCRAPER JJ - JUMPING JACK BV - BACKHOE VIBRATORY VP - VIBRATORY PLATE HT - HAND TAMPER OMC - OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT RT - RETEST OF AN Si - SLIGHTLY S - SAND G - GRAVEL Si - SILT C - CLAY GeoEngineers Il� 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746 -5200 Prepared by: Project: Owner: �f>o Mai -406ti Purpose of Visit: C-01Strtccrllh_ t'vt(Th t.�� Location: Weather: Sunny /e-col FIELD RE•RT Sier'ker ( �V`I"✓t�{/S Arrival Time: %rti1%v.IA 0900 File No. //912._— 210-1 Date: 2 /fti Report No. Depart. Time: iy30 �UU Vktfe4 Iii€ Srfe -f-v evcducc.ie e Sfrc~cf-kra c',1 be,�.ly to/- nh -Hie, 19,6 cf. Pile- 1P At- 1ur4111/1. k 11 fad 1n7A)a.rds 48- ,<D71;#111/( 5 Gerrier -1-h e, _S fit✓ - %7► e -F,7/ 'ntee^ral /VAS 561141 lu ceI -tc ` y r o '/ 9 r�.t Ki �^m�, ��ie /eAf P,, / al rerr, rfle,r, e)- r 44e 11; i / _ < P! te( r re-A Wet bra gf , i' G-r.. / , r HA. / / C filer^ $oi /4 � G ena- 2 few st,ths ue7L- �' /0 /v /L. 1,1e.1).2. Was dernpseie •� /o rhi!S< Vibri4,ty roller t1 /; sFvevr l p <es L G vee - 11 a3ed 5"1 restJ1 s F .1.1r -, /ce 4e sis i e -01 / or V. < OL seer ✓edl o"h %✓t, 7 l f eira � ci r' , j beer.. adef u, i(eI1 1 }�(' / 20 Page: / / of / Permit No. This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project Irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: Distribution: c,�t- Signed: .l E nri .r .,. PROJECT .�f)erkev' iiiot"vev5 6,0".c: JIore- FILE NO./M-26,- / SHEET / OF / SUMMARY OF IN -PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS TEST NUMBER TEST DATE TEST METHOD GENERAL LOCATION, drn_ ELEV. (FEET) FEET TO GRADE SOIL TYPE TYPE C0�1— PACTOR FIELD MOIST. $ ± DRY DENSITY (PCF) % COMPACTION OMC FIELD MAX . FIELD SPEC . / /£ /1/ Erna+^ ,c ,:sV' �, �xie,�c � ' " '` ' /z' e > ✓ /G'. S //- P , / / /`7 /.7 c 5- 2 „ " io 'AI a{ :Ay <<(.;. 4 i`farl 2' ', /2. Z- / /G'./5- ,' clq�0 ,. ✓7 ,: '3 3'D7S i 2.D'l'i o `JI✓in5/ie evn✓ 1' /7-.? Pi2,0 '' vlC• , 3 • . kwommi el IN -PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS i • :' i PERCENT COMPACTION BASED ON: DENSITY TEST METHOD ❑ STANDARD aMODIFIED PROCTOR (AASHTO T 99 PROCTOR (AASHTO T 180 ;TYPE OF COMPACTOR -57, ASTM -57, ASTM PLATE D 698) D 1557) ABBREVIATIONS AREA N - SC - RB - SOIL NUCLEAR SAND CONE RUBBER TYPE (ASTM D 2922) (ASTM D 1556) BALLOON (ASTM D 3167) s - sandy g - gravelly si - silty c - clayey R - kV - 5 - GD - L - IJJ - jBV - iVP - ;HT - RUBBER -TIRED ROLLER VIBRATORY COMPACTOR SHEEPSFOOT ROLLER GRID ROLLER LOADED SCRAPER JUMPING JACK BACKHOE VIBRATORY VIBRATORY PLATE HAND TAMPER OMC - OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT RT - RETEST OF AN Si - SLIGHTLY S - G - Si - C - SAND GRAVEL SILT CLAY Geo Engineers I 9 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746 -5200 FIELD RE 14111T t=ile No. 092 -'26,- l Project: 1Ar ef" S"i`b(e Date: Z U fel Owner: J SpeiKee. Partt&r5 Report No/ / Prepared by: RCb 44c --r-nf < A Location: Tu ,'lek Arrival Time: 0900 Page: / of / Purpose of Visit: Cmi.s- 1-rc.,e.--t1.0n IncYll' -ff r149 _ Weather: i Sunny 7 eiao Depart. Time: /'/ zo Permit No. .1 Vfr5r`fe( $e site, -Iv evar'ic e -/l'ie fill 6e('jj ifer - e - place" arye- 1)041 09, 7 e f,'If Cm<iste1( or 9ralid, brevh y(,Li 1 '6-i,-,, Ae. /1167/ire ;1I Pi 't li,;44, abaft LAO (e' (13 aF b7 In ,.v/ 4tat, s0+ a,r-et r e)vve•I tt.iberA &n5 n7 ,X ed, ttl,`„ift i--176,.. 1'; If truttei, a ' crY) Metye t/'S //ay. r'rll p)aaca crh #46._ Imo, c '/iiL� Ltrr,/,'ty f;'ll /was _ / 0 In '(-1-1; i c -kt :1h !:. / :•cT" :,(1,1� {IG•il O -Hie- hivflei/Y j r!1 a,) l;l r Ila.1 /, TT � . iP7t 2 7' e2 D �� � �ik. `attt'1� ::G �l � `� Ss r ' ./�. �:: ! .s..�.. /LC�e '!,/',•t t-E�` • fns r , ,ia5 t_e ereet w, 1..L�. r G1 dJJ r I�� p // // �� l eff l�, el- IC !+k ,, f 4 ,,,c.4,6'..5 . !,(k re owirrke e ;� ( i � — tCe -aG•r- r^r7 !.?;-. / virzi> bE /laiei o1 64 1.114 t .bit -We €i- ,r,cr -fit /a,�rn n -5/ru.,, iV^4,/ -I'// In f1 ` Arr." ( MO r X /00 /) , "14-e -7Crc�- ,,. m F,,,, ,'eti co ash ‘74464-L- Pm 51, a a-i"¢ fc wa rr./S -i'') S014,-#1.1:le £ i nets. CFc/ - s, e.. e 1r»Gi -/f /1 wa.5 '1� -.rf 4e;l_ t / /, Cori 40 / l fit_ V �:I�4tOrrl/ re /!ff ' trfAir 1- I7" je- SE./e-1/1c1/ I 5595 QVPj.' </ lie �7�/. . -p lac e- /1<l eil5 r -/-6;5-,1--s ,Jet^/ -ltkr.r, e' i -/-% rl!tiri pt 7 -1' // a � /:,A? Vi n/ c,;,_ . ae. �sfijC. �l a /4" r . �i(�` 6'p/fa r G'?'I � rAi ✓ kl�� 71e,.. / J?/( 06F63.d— l 1 . This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: --17-41, ' p'"� Distribution: �cl oi e.n9, +"?- 4 + iZ es I I'S Signed* o�ecr 1l1. L GEI 45 -87 � c PROJECT �p�1�Cr �•'�►�Fy'� - 14r9r1 F I L E NO. / / <Jy 2_G -/ SHEET / OF / SUMMARY OF IN- PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS DRY DENSITY (PCF) % COMPACTION ELEV. (FEET) i FEET TO GRADE SOIL TYPE TYPE COM- PACT FIELD' MOIST• % % ± TEST NUMBER TEST DATE TEST METHOD GENERAL LOCATION OMC FIELD MAX. FIELD SPEC. / /G/fl /✓ W, f1, /LIv `` /��'ef cx►�,are...fnr ; r /OR V /1 ,L) 4'/1•o //'/ l /(. �r Z ;o' •ii+. '- 5• ;,s;d4 re„r, i .. :' �� i i. 2- 9r (., " /09.0 el J I • 1 IN -PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS • PERCENT COMPACTION BASED ON: ❑ STANDARD PROCTOR(AASHTO T 99 ❑MODIFIED PROCTOR (AASHTO T 180 DENSITY TEST METHOD TYPE OF COMPACTOR -57, ASTM D -57, ASTM D PLATE 698) 1557) ABBREVIATIONS AN AREA N - NUCLEAR SC - SAND CONE RB - RUBBER SOIL TYPE (ASTM D 2922) : R - RUBBER -TIRED ROLLER (ASTM D 1556) . V - VIBRATORY COMPACTOR BALLOON (ASTM D 3167) . S - SHEEPSFOOT ROLLER 1 GD - GRID ROLLER 1 L - LOADED SCRAPER s - sandy ; JJ - JUMPING JACK g - gravelly iBV - BACKHOE VIBRATORY si. - silty : VP - VIBRATORY PLATE c - clayey ' HT - HAND'TAMPER OMC - OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT RT - RETEST OF S.l - SLIGHTLY S - SAND G - GRAVEL Si - SILT C - CLAY GeoEngineers Il� 2405 - 140th Ave. N. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746 -5200 FIELD RE T File No. im 2 - 26-- 1 Project: _____?.- ,.�.r 2e -fore v31/2-9 Report No. / S Owner: / S k':r f A.r-"hers Prepared by: 1 c- Rob M .t0 5 Lt Location: 1lc160; l r'ti Arrival Time: 0930 Page: / of Purpose of Visit: ( s+r rrM t�✓ at i -1-0r;rt 9 Weather: / ski,vof z t d C. Depart. Time: /572 -0 Permit No. Z Vg`sf',-e 4e .5i-fe- -Ao two.- 114x.+6 -PM hen 7 I9� »/a i;t r9 ,,74- h,, rr /d,.,1 G1 . all o' ' /fie icc r%1i n, c- E_ r'i of / �aLve �k /Ne,,, 1'e. lco.-�/, 1 ns,dei f^ui /Pi, ///le.,. Jja f ee - - I-raxi "L % - ,'a. e. Lc?AYA s- rti-- Gti' Ail , he 4 /( LoWt1., Gva< pl/Lee/l -Vat( was c.14.)-44y-tie. 4' /1 rnaferz/ 64/45' he,), �;/..(> CA e SoL�.eas+ ,� -tr.�- ,..4 1-i bu; 1; ■ J 7:7- e Sut'y/ hA t'tiLE -Fit( c ern •.5 .6 t E /T 7 r ;7 (7 C. a /'YU� 54441 T% -e'rn Ph e- /fie f c /4 y P, f - W,`/4 i vrvi y / W k hrL%vri ;24' -4' 64) ;' it /Pi>' -ri'n (/1 5 �, lore el Ac &a$-f- ;ti. w /A- arc C Car,,/ aai, 2 ^ e arm ��.r' /OI Sli19/e, N� bah ''"1e. %2YYniv,i 5/ill- { G[) %-1'h (r'A/-_(A �r /l J'j 5171- a,i� Pees n /f'Gfli( l /4 IA).a ?Alt brood' o O e 6,:fe, `,,nr . Jack /14G- C4..i n ei ;�a r.K Mc C ,'1,i s- l- r,/,, ,e-4-,1 }ta /d fl►e. >t ..o_71- f l (d%QS Jr) hr S -.(> : ).-07)l,4-,?f-U1, q1,1 L.Gcah K ih r�..rr' %�� _:i.r_,.1;n7�.. �1 � %3C ��..�:i41 Cii /��,i /. / Oil 2-s'716.6 GuJ e 4 I5 C7- ` �' / I A /2 p 7-il z :/- ; � ,//ir `f'�% � ... -i5'_' :r!'.= '. ,' .�. %/ 9 /%11/4 , /1lre -- d .bI'- ` vbfydffr �y 7 ie.,. ' -,I( i'crQ b kA 0,-, .s/"::?_ //leT;11 Cf'1irie Of 4 r fi , )-,/1 !;rte mss. < ✓� 1 ,1i, 7rt e,1 - *td C rave/ % =�i i -- . r`'Gr_710 / vl ed SO»-► ,„ - .14j Zf k/rs,e /dw 4 accApj- Al-i -I-71 r//ei-e_.. 40.s/ , r ilq„,?S ,-i:' 6Aeet /'n . /h,'$ '1' it ! mair,riai c Ja s ilicl G5' c no ah lz diip . cio ge- ar; '}r e; -,;� 4- (A,,' // /.7 ` ,66, for L, —m,ia #e S lir.4 r/ ,f is ^e-� c X1,4 7 ice hu ter,'I wl,, d, l L, r � br l lii— oh.k � Sll e_ ph < . �,1 a 1,., ti—Y—• n -I V1, e, surc-1 e. P' /./ . soy /, /9r This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not rciude supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: ,-s+ Distribution: r..J (Je.ns. 1 r C . > Signed• .5k 77/ 7' E. 5 G E 145 -87 * FlLE NO. /02 / SHEET ( OF / ` ', SUMMARY OF IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS • '- TEST NUMBER TEST DATE TEST METHOD GENERAL LOCATION ` � ELEV. (FEET) / FEET TO GRADE � .* � 0{L TyPE , ' TYPE COM- PACTOR FIELD MOIST ' % % ± OMC DRY DENSITY (PCF) % COMPACTION GeoEngineers Inc. FIELD MAX' FIELD SPEC'' / ��o� /^/^ ' »/ '° ^�� ��q ''^- ' '~ � | �� «/ � � � ^ � /�� ��� �� '' ~~ f�� �� / . . / ! . . , | � [ /\ . / \ � � A ! ~ �_- -'-- `` ._ ' _ �~ � ~ IN -PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTSI -~____-_ ` ` � ' ��. � * ` | PERCENT COMPACTION BASED ON: FlSTANDARD )PR0CTOR{AASHT0 T 99-57/ ASTM D 698) r�'r.~ ` ���D}F{ED PR0CT0R(A/\SHT0 T 180-57^ ASTM D 1557) . DENSITY TEST METHOD TYPE OF COMPACTOR ABBREVIATIONS N - NUCLEAR (ASTM D 2922) • - RU8B`R-TIRED ROLLER OMC - OPTIMUM MOISTURE SC - SAND CONE (ASTM D 1556} V - VIBRATORY COMPACTOR CONTENT RB - RUBBER BALLOON (ASTM D 3167) S - SHEEPSFOOT ROLLER RT - RETEST OF AN AREA SOIL TYPE GD - GRID ROLLER L - LOADED SCRAPER SI - SLIGHTLY S - SAND s - sandy J - JUMPING JACK G - GRAVEL g - gravelly BV - BACKHOE VIBRATORY PLATE Si - SILT si - silty VP - VIBRATORY PLATE C - CLAY c - clayey HT - HAND TAMPER 1909 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM ROSS EARNST /RON PHIL FRASER January 30. 1989 ERON /RICK BEELER/DUANE GRIFFIN Pond Fill Permit - Phone Conversation with James E. Brigham of GeoEngineers. Inca (Reference to memo of January 20. 1989) - Clarification of January 20. 1989 Memorandum Per Phone Conversation with Mr. Brigham on January 24. 1989 Per my phone conversation with Mr. Brigham on January 24. 1989. Mr. Brigham wished to provide a correction /clarification to Item No. 5 to my January 20. 1989 memo as follows: Buildings by the site development are allowed and acceptable for .2G earthquake loads with non filled sites and building pads no closer than 25 feet; building pads on filled sites shall be no more than 75 feet from the edge of the pond. However. parking pads are allowed up to 25 feet from the edge of the pond on filled sites on a fill pad. xc: James Brigham. GeoEngineers Tukwila Pond Development File Becky Davis. Utility file CD:DISK 9 PONDFILL.MEM GeoEngineers Ii ` 2405 - 140th Ave. N.e7 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746 -5200 FIELD REfT File No. ,.//9z- Z.i., Project: 1 % � r� �� S I �'�G Date: 1730/N Report No. Owner: Prepared by R ob me,t„ -i-o, k_ Location: —7;06,,,,,),,_ Arrival Time: 0q/s-- Page: 1 of Purpose of Visit: ! C.-GhS +rc� CT crn illGYI;-/-0rlfn9 Weather: 1 RGt n /Crt, Depart. r Time: Permit No. , [ v,'S;-f-e. -fie. si-te. -fa ii4u.4ee -Me. / jr d I// he, itrri.c-tko r+1 e. T rr,,?f- buddLy, F0I ulas pla,cei cr. E 1..)eS-ila ic r//t,e. bt; l f, 1o, e" .1tE rier'/. 4 - n .ce-t4 f b1q;/,Y r; , / U r,,1,, '.ii € -P' /f .1 ,. The, r 1 .. i t� �, �i • '`' �Pim a r „�ior^ t �" Y h e. � Yc-f � � S f :'1',.' U„!�Y' 1' � iv, ' // was zIs o Ler ,71q/ -174/9 47/ 4re-e.�le , 7&- L•"%rA∎as /4 eI it-, //,415-C71 CI Lr:4. - /0 ;r, c!, ec Jic e `IA cI I a/77.1 ,,r,1 -,-- ,, S K 7,r,,V:,/ �C ,� 7 ,Dct,. � - ►7f 41 L,/ (1-t. LA E. / ! �-s IRA, 1 4 .'? 3 0 ,,, 4Y-)y, -.�% s,7 i .,; -t c4--r,:..,,( /i;2 -...1 r - e.-- .c-� c r r rr -l. n s, -le. ,:-, %ice o, /a . T e_ 76;1I /W/64^ irvi 'kl V1 3.G i/e4/42 s* e 5 r /F:, v' l‘� Was i '7r i- jt z,' fr44-, _ v 1 ✓yofl r` y laa _' f' 11, - pI r,,� de s_Phr +es is /A ' a,re fA.'...� -1 el-\./41-1e- ('.orm�a r -eel 771 A-r base( cn --/ . -Les- rF at l s r �r i S owV' f� f 1 n , iv'n `��.lrf.. `(�t A' // /�ti`.° i , / /� t� bf.P�n ,51 rte, g ,,, , ,„ (95- °7o 0 inc re. - 6--4-' - `Me kr) A)6"re, Urri dicey DI PAY► s l'�y 01 `»'); e i n Gt Cc...0 r 4 ui c - 0,),•41,-, 4-,s-r44 b / 5-S7�) • / i -l: /!?..Cr (t?�': j <rT�iw �t�� = ?` e tr.: -.7 =i'c- /11 14. 51:— %.Itm' .h7 oacro 4416; m v=4-1-1 .a / a i P.0- 7 0 c hr n 5 /1 h e5 . "The.... S 4 r2sul7LS / n . 'r_ y'it - �i L _J / E 0-6-r, ,I' n /l.J r,' I1 'T- leer f-t,'�, c ( /57% oe, re.?: ;'-i' °� nia,t /2 ii-r, -:f d dC4 -)5,- . Paeei ell_ q-Ais 14kr,ia :e1-1. , � s c7-(1/' cr.'',7 c�, _. iP 44fi; .S0ib little �`,'II .o.4//. U d kru✓ b ,.. A&41 %% e-0)/p4--.74 --T-0-1 `, h e 1,1s+- / 1.e,/!i eppti .L G/a5 e- -f - ,',- ':/"e1 4474-- /S e `` ? ' < G r /f+ /w( %,eyam,. ie..,- . -, 1,, ZY `(?,d / C14,i c- .e-ill r `L/ /4445 bk,111(43 , Q! Ste/ m d, sGas.5/ „( i, 2;' J /14,- Ct -�1,1 r ' c7 -,;/<- /l- /c._Gti -2,-1 (,n, S f-i4m- *,'m, 0.-r.4. I aipl, Rob eye_ o ' 1_u�/ /(i n L'. stru f; er, i',4- cyre4rr 4416 4 abru /DO ,`c I, 4,Kis , ,5 /l+ hr ( be i, /0/a.ca, &r» 1'I1 h a( 1.-,,,,,,..,-, ,li e4 e -}, Sai-ak-d4.7 /riosf /z 4- , -. 1- , c . , t(///1 ale- L 111 '/ :x%14 41-, 6 7 7 ` ,c / /,-n rC i i 1-.1, / l (///1 / , I i1-/r 1 . , L- in /r / / fih �licd ()Ver --/-1,.c., 1, ).PS- -e'e-, h/1 ,iil/= buuI/,?< !A)), '� (m ,,( , llditi This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comp with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: Distribution: -1'I c. I�t.Srf� T cs+ G. {� 7) Signed: G(-16t7r G E 145 -87 PROJECT 5pC- 1kcc7' `1(1,1 "CK-1 .'irnf. FILE NO. /7 "2 %` SHEET / OF I SUMMARY OF IN —PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS TEST NUMBER TEST DATE TEST METHOD GENERAL LOCATION ELE,V. (FEET) FEET TO • GRADE • SO TYPE i TYPE COM— PACTOR FIELD MOIST. % ± DRY DENSITY (PCF) % COMPACTION OMC FIELD MAX. FIELD SPEC. l v?,,, ;5.;7 Al Ind. (-..1 et 1 /.1c. ; '-L. ,- j.S /2. .to 1/ /243,5- /17 • :- t., =.;- 2. ( ( Middle- lt/.<<i tili(c), V,_. •• S /2.0 / /6"--0 c15—.'/ /- 3 l ) A'ddle.. PAtia. �- 8o'ivol s •re(9P I ,. JO, 1 /2_,---,--1-- - /OC> \ 4t ( 1' /V.( -(,l• 'I;AL- IS'rorpti rent,- ! ''Y' /7-3 /l /, 9 //( O '?(- ? / r" v 4/0 a"i" bldg. , $ /3 / /H, 120,5— q5—.3 `•Y I ' 1 • IN -PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST' I I 1 PERCENT COMPACTION BASED ON: ❑ STANDARD PROCTOR (AASHTO T 99 ®•MODIFIED PROCTOR (AASHTO T 180 1 DENSITY TEST METHOD i TYPE O.F. COMPACTOR -57, ASTM -57, ASTM PLATE D 698) D 1557) ABBREVIATIONS AREA N — NUCLEAR SC — SAND CONE. RB — RUBBER SOIL TYPE (ASTM D 2922) R — RUBBER —TIRED ROLLER (ASTM D 1556) j V — VIBRATORY COMPACTOR BALLOON (ASTM D 3167) ; S — SHEEPSFOOT ROLLER GD — GRID ROLLER L — LOADED SCRAPER s — sandy { JJ — JUIMPING JACK g — gravelly i BV — BACKHOE VIBRATORY si — silty ; VP — VIBRATORY PLATE c — clayey 1 HT — HAND TAMPER OMC — OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT RT — RETEST OF AN Si — SLIGHTLY S — SAND G — GRAVEL Si — SILT C — CLAY GeoEngineers 11 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. • Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 746 -5200 FIELD RE T File No. 89 z - ZCo- / Project: % e— -S-1-ore- Date: / /,4/8r9 Repo No. l(D Owner: Prepared by: Rob Mc_Zrvtosin Location: /uAw ;lo•. Arrival Time: O9Z0 Page: / of Purpose of Visit: Cans- ruc.fr'crn Mg(r-iorin,,, Weather: Par'f/ye-ly y /.col - Depart. Time: /S/30 Permit No. I /151-}"eel -I-AP c fe. 77) e-ugl e- �A .. s-i'ruc, ;f .l c,'/f � E% /i e_ e. �f f:, For 41,2. 1ofrretet bcc.s/d., /he ,ill ioh,r./,, Jan' be.e:1t . ,J -d.�.� .., f�� !2/ ye5t,- SGT -44fli 71-- Gins- iie-r^ crF 7rt.e._ bt ill," arFel. i44 < r6c...r el /te^ /GSA- I?.,7, jt -.)a rot a,% ,7.4. Vet ,,e,.? e..-- . -111€. re.-.---..,.ifs `G o I h - 101p. - e-71.5., '-,17/ teSf< - 44'641 i4...',' ,11-, G� /. f Y1 ti.c ett ►^ S ; 13 demon G. ,4-- , an ° �` r-r'E� ,�V..l -,fir I ; E. � r (-'1.7-1.?, -L .? 0-1 Y "/lGJ j�'IlU . rj� r��.r, /'v /'! %� c� ,r, i/7 '' - 1s- _ ^,.,:. /. , / F. ,41 , t /1-.(; %/1/i /b /s-----, {� , c G v'F� ., )as. I row {,t' r� hi ti ; i 4 ►'n i� fed �.. ..%771 e SGf r- 644 -r� e. rr�.ede.7r,�. , / , ✓ /�A� / was &, �r , jr lt�� t / an 4 i's Gy,�AL. ,n 4-4iE Gt.7"rGr^rrcrn . Ii1e Gtr^ . 7016- 11lr \ LeP`.4 - /s Y�� .../J' L!t ,/? � IdiE br,l in I ii, s -, PPi r /� 1 Tr Th (— ki )--44,101,',/, 1 L.t cks 10 r i 4.1-- i) 411 % l G, N %i= . /i , . ,q, 1W--.)- (%kt e o r/fer. /0 1(I ... 1 ✓ ,, , c r. c e- { C• '�. cc (/Vr' f1 b a s ✓�%�. 16/ 4,461 Liffj r k � ._ V I /J I A)71 r y r ()/le 4 //� .w at /ea c4 `7S /') 1")' Poi :f c - #1 t; nut. , i t4.01, Iii �1:.<„ T 1 -.4 te/ c 4/ e re's', ./fit r -- !�. � / —Re '11 udder,( 11.1'0, ,'s fa .: ,n I et-, ,z7: l hreii ✓n. S .r-.,I alt in ,o%vc / J ,1 / / Sall /,c -'r�� cr,7I�- 4rewe-( till, li ?o.:c / «. rn 4 €_. 4100 1.3� -84-S /iJI),G4 UAV.- e5C-i1.,F� J t ` ve,r o?,6 ar^c�r Inotaoris Siif ,vac rlae ,r ,:t- '11 t l P'f' oric 4br,,c* 6-9,,,c4es /dose :�, r„.< c wh 'cik o-m S in r Xr /A) , /I <4-r.. I d p jdt6 fel ,'r, 44e 1ritV` 1'11 p/G�c S'n,TAw e ,-f frC� 41 141e__ bl��l i r L1�1 t `F i /l wa..5 Ar Oa.c� 7G G& i r ✓Yri ti-i1 rnnr toi i ;Pi eiin J !L-r. J-;�, T!/'?-% 4,X-el ii �,c� r> `i- ,, h t.. .,),'l11i l �`` d ,S? / (- �Y Joel, .Cs?1) t�i`>^ Elf �"d� (( _ /� nefl ited Awe_ ke•es, oiler", 4,..(7 � v, p,,- , 41,:cr u s s r'oh (0 ;4, J , .„ er,,' ii.,,,-L r,),O,Q,_ �� o4 L`ur ti 1i- 15 r, /' cri,ki'r.+,_ -11-1,12t / '!h ! 5 l+ c ',,/ r. rm r � r ,�1�.�bt/��. /l ht,, rn Corl�or�P� rrt, �ii.:'1 �. / J' ur!J_Ar4 avrvl ,.✓CJk Jr��l4 -nA err J<- /�'/G t4Y;i1 �Ch c.4i ^q.r�',9Y SS- a / -!/�77 e ' f 1,41-16 s,! !v . L., _. 4 - , �, e ," J / is -1,-. . `�, /arIlif- This report presents opinions formed as a result of our observation of activities relating to geotechnical engineering. We rely on the contractor to comply with the plans and specifications throughout the duration of the project irrespective of the presence of our representative. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Attachments: g of Distribution: - Pt�« (*Are - Signed: f /�r ed— /%, /1/G1 r% J F13 GEI 45 -87 PROJECT � � �ip'kp rs � FILE NO. //��-�'C'/ SHEET / OF / °. , SUMMARY OF IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS TEST NUMBER TEST DATE TEST METHOD GENERAL LOCATION ' ELE ' ' (FEET) i FEET TO GRADE�' . ' SOIL TYPE TYPE COM- PACTOR FIELD MOIST. ' % % ± OMC DRY DENSITY (PCF) % C0MPACTlON. GeoEngineers Inc. FIELD MAX. FIELD SPEC. / ^�^L `7�y� »/ Sri 0n^*r bp~ | ' /' /1 2— /<77/v /�^i '�5~i" 9, 2- ^ ^ (���^ ~/ �� �'�'cw� - \ �' 9 '' l i ' �/�-� ///) '/ ' ' //l ` . . '' . ` � . ' .'��' � ii.m, | \ .`��' ` i . .`. i-..:11,=,' ! .:H. IN -PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS' / /.;i � J \ ,.,`. i':��� PERCENT COMPACTION BASED ON: DENSITY TEST METHOD Fl 5TANDARD O NODlFlED 1��!� )''^ � PKOCT0R SHT8 T 99-57^ ASTM D 698) : .] PR0CTOR',{AASHT0 T 180-57, ASTM D 1}57) !/ ' TYPE OFH[OMPACT0R ABBREVIATIONS N - NUCLEAR (ASTM D 2922) SC - SAND CONE (ASTM D 1556) R8 - RUBBER BALLOON (ASTM D 3167) SOIL TYPE R - RU8ER-TIRED ROLLER OMC - OPTIMUM MOISTURE V - VIBRATORY COMPACTOR CONTENT S - S '-` SF00T ROLLER RT - RETEST OF AN AREA GD - GRID .ROLLER � L - LOADED SCRAPER Sl - SLIGHTLY JJ - JUMPING JACK • BV - BACK HOE VIBRATORY PLATE VP - VIBRATORY PLATE • HT - HAND T/\MPER ` ' S - SAND s - sandy G - GRAVEL g - gravelly Si - SILT si - silty C - CLAY c - clayey • ~ • �u S S CSI f LAST z -� /` c/ 0 G t N� itT S 1 lC crr-c poems N`D ,GYRE— "TNT -T NE. NA() ) A I -rba.f 'k; 661.1 ` -r L J4 O 19w 89 - P L: 2e_nu, N o &,.Jr- A-1-11 Lv - 1-0 (-eve 'Consulting Geotechnical act.) S U L`; 1 ti•:T TJ cn n 11'/ C �T T H ( 7) ix) G- °1r `Engineers and Geologists ft /T- u S S ( c.( js o 1-)q) 70 (h1 tr 6 Tlfis (l- fi2hkw-T/ &71/1 1100 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Geo* Engineers Attention: Mr. Duane Griffin, Building Official Gentlemen: We have reviewed your letter of January 19, 1989 in which you describe the type of settlement monitoring data you wish Spieker Partners to obtain along the east, north and west boundaries of the Tukwila pond site. These requirements were not previously included in the SEPA Mitigating Measures dated November 8, 1988, nor had the owner previously requested the monitoring which you describe. In addition, we suggest that the number of data points which you have described will result in considerable redundant data. Our experience in monitoring a large number of projects in the valley area has shown that more- widely spaced data points will provide' appropriate information. A reduced copy of the Barghausen Grading /Temporary Erosion Control Plan is attached on which we have shown the on -site settlement markers we are monitoring and suggested locations for perimeter monitoring points. Typically, markers on the order of 150 to 200 feet apart along the perimeter of areas being filled will provide sufficient information. There is no value in establishing and reading points along the central portion of the site along Strander Boulevard at this time inasmuch as no fill is presently being placed in this area. Points in this area should be set when earthwork actually takes place. We do not expect any lateral movement to occur along the property lines for the amounts of fill being placed. We suggest that, if the initial three or four sets of readings indicate no lateral movement is occurring and filling has been completed, that this requirement be waived. We also request clarification on your indication that monitoring should be accomplished along the bank of the pond. To do this near the water's edge will require clearing of vegetation through the buffer zone which has been established for the purpose of protecting the existing ground cover. If desired, elevation stakes can be established at the edge of the buffer zone. GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746-5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 w . 1 • • City of Tukwila Planning Dept. January 27, 1989 Page ,2 Data from the initial sets of readings on the settlement markers within the fill area are now being accumulated. These data will be reported to your office as soon as the information is made available to us and we have evaluated it relative to expected performance. JKT:cs Attachment cc: Mr. Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners Mr. Dana Mower Barghausen Engineers File No 1192 -27 -1 o s very truly, G- - .Engineers Inc. A'..,(?)*Zft- Tuttle incipal •ER at - ....ltS •S M:(S:.[• w•(C t r&t..• r0C 04 :I.ltS ` -. -4 S(.4 ST.: C; •(Urfa••(( elm SP_S .(...(D 0• GIG (•0.4(•1 •(• .0i0 U ".. ••7 It C. :10•1 DT 1.( SD• •S C•.C.[[`• N •C C•C ; •('.D :K COO;[a[:C. .•..11 -:•O.I 0. • • I0•tr.l• •••• SI•IC *4,,. l••••C. T.. • • >�T t l:Y • ------ - - -. lr:c — — — • I us us g -4 - -- — —rl ' ; \ 441ffie SURVEY CONTROL ESOA. O(SC.1V 1.041 700U ACCESS ••1S TO SE IMP Om• 51151 xtwST 4. 001 I[ 0 1'•: c(• .ao:::4 a : -G u. " aSSO c CC-CI 0 n1(. C'OG[a..•T 14.00? ••C['C(C 111 Stt..0 440 •SS• 'CUTt S. O.r(D 5.1(4•(0.101 •14.•• V 0.1. 'STA. •SVISID 1MOMS:(O *7 STEPA0 1 •SSOC. :t••Yae. • S.(. I45 T WE OC SEMI ST.•OAro £PP*C 0ATEL T 000 *551 C(•{'•000( S•Si •tSt• 0(•(KK( 10110• •0101 la■P 111001) •44.00ACt SODT A$0 FL000 4 l..•. WOKS' SE 00. 40 a 3 44000 UDA 5 r( 5100 03[0 C01M0% 41 O�115TEi. C[.•lOal 0-015 5.000 (4(0570.4 •(0 •.• • If LEGEND (44540 5100 DAV •::• 'tI$T•0 CC.:7:_A .0•CU0 COU?C:Al • . r•Eq 5•(• 10 •(uaa4 4.r S?:':f(. +E3(( :AT 1(.C( nM.Y• 1.05[50 100. EMPC • PE1.-F7/-1 FEPLACE mattAFi FACP,C FEtt•t:E C• ELN PEMOYE REPLACE HAYBALES AS NEF:ES INSPECT) CLEAN POND OUTFA NSTA__ Sim L 4 •-• SPECIAL NOTE: / --- -.- . . • -ALL EARTHWORK, SITE PREPARATI0.4, COMPACTION, ETc. ' ' -: • DIRECTIONS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER IN THE FIELD. THE SHALL BE IN STRICT A CCORDANCE WITH .SOILS 'REPORT ,EmPORARY OUTL T WNTREi PREPARED BY GEO-ENGINEERS DATED 10/6/88 AND 11121:88 OVERFLOW ELEV. • 2c.5 ' ..•: -sIATRTORC IE. - , •.5 - \.. FIELD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RrPORT INFORMATION _ — — PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ' ft- — , --- ' 1 — — -- ---.. -- ! 1 i• TUKWILA PIA / ill, "EmPORARY SEDmENT.T.ON . bk.TROE—PD-45-12— AX. w.S. ELEA/. . 20.5 • BOTTOM POND ELEV. - :7.5 POND STORAGE - 12.000 C.F. • ° • Deep e rne.),^Kits" / STATIC WATER SURFACE' 13.01 • - • , ( P.^occ,5:se4 st2,:ti/e4nesti-rileut-Ke. 1 !ttltT:. ...:4•4:1STUPEEZ tCtt"E, PEP m•-• tt.t.TEE• S•tt.-. :A 1ED NC•• BuFFE. sE-64CK 2 vE-ASL1PED F•Pcm. 7.C.'CONTC•JR ANL' •41.c,L.,E,' C1,--•••■• SIL,t:ED Ett• •-•" — — — — — . :....-_,,;_;;ETELC,•: RED:mEt:; A S • coNSTRIXT \PER DEIAIL, SHT. 2 tzt t.0% SLOPE •• 4: \ 2.0RARY OUTLET Cot.TPOI,,•_.:-.Lt:T1.,RE.__ 1, ;`R-1--r.r- '2 — — ..,' t.. • ,82 -1 1 ._. , t ... . 31.0," _314 is 3„.0 • . ,,,77,_;.•,:_.,-...;•;•„; • • 21,2. w 1. • ..• 1, • I• 4611' L /// SURCHARGE PAD •• • LIS'dzuGH 6ABION wALL-T0 BC _ •• NED BY, SOtLS:MNSUL.AN, • TEMP:. SEDIMENDATION..• ••,t1 ,1 • . •• CONTROL POND, AN MAX. ' ": • t.! ',- • .• BOTTOM OF POND .18.2 STORAGE VOLUmE. .• 50000 c.. - tt,.•PoRARY . 65 -F- tEr CMP .• NI / .1 / ' - 31.21. TOP.-0F SURCHARGE PAD- ' (T. 'It; t' .4-9.--,...--... ". r • 1 .' • 1 f,• 2E0 *R-T-5FEYIE N 88 15'33" W LEGAL DESCRIPTION SILT FENCE • t , PER DETAIL . • ay tet-'• 1,1 220' 'a 1 \ I 1 1 31.0 LS-n•'' •—•,- ____:_:—_.._ _ 1 .....--.....4— ._....._-_L-__:,... . . L:.-.• '. - I .. V.. .. ' ,r;t:tit:-..t::••:.•tt-•.'.-.:-..:,.....-• IJ •,••:, -7-1 -• „ 1 /1/'..1.--:- '. • ' . .: ..- -1-.. ft -_ - . - •••, . , .* is .'2 PI S • / sf_. ../ B. . . -/ • - —.. .....--, . / ) .-. ...-.e.•..I-e., ..) . 1. r . 1306.00' . - 7 1 "--#:: -. ‘4°'F.2e v ' 401F 12 CvP TEmPORAP -1- •' , TEuORAP E E7.---a - 4 7 :;_— .2 t4A SGRADE STRANDER BOULEVARD i AP044R iLT FENCE . , MATCH EX)50...74.ADE i 'SURVEY CONTROL.:L- • PROV;DEE, LTEP.A7: ...TES. DATE: OCTOBER 1986. 7C,PDGF.AF‘'HY SURVEY PRovIDED 5Y STEPAN AND ASS- OCIATES, DATED SEPTEMBER 1986. :ATumt N.G.S. (974, REVISED, PROVIDED BY STEPAN 8 ASSOC. -ENCHm4RK - S.E. BOLT AT .s.P,,EE OF LIGHT STANDARD #2907 ON NORTH. S:DE OF tSTRANDER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 800' WEST OF c. ANDOVER PARK WEST- rLEV. • 24.81 REFERENCE WORK. WORK MAP FOR FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP AND FLOOD BOUNDARY AND FLOODING MAP, SHEET 22 OF 33 CONTRACT *tEMW-85-C-1893 AS PREPARED BY CH 2 'MILL FOR FEMA FOR KING COUNTY (CITT OF RENTON) ON-SITE FLOOD ELEVATION.PER NAP . 25.8 THESE ACCESS POINTS TO BE USED ONLY AFTER JANUARY 1, 1989.—( ttf • LEGEND :,/FRLAND FLOW DIRECTioN •••.. ,-xtsTING CONTOL:R t'ROPOSED CONTO:JR POPOCED :POT Et_E7ATiC-NS ,-:FFER AREA TO REMAIN uNDISTUSEE, 7:-7 botacyb000d, LT FENCE WITH HAY :.-7..ALts PROPOSED D) 8)1 r ; . • • MEMORANDUM TO: ROSS EARNST, RON CAMERON, RICK: BEELER, DUANE GRIFFIN FROM PHIL FRASER DATE: 1/20/89 SUBJECT: POND FILL PERMIT - PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH JAMES E. BRIGHAM OF GEOENGINEERS, INC. ON 1/19/89. PER CONFIRMATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS REQUESTED IN MY PHONE CONVERSATION WITH JAMES E. BRIGHAM OF GEOENGINEERS, INC. ON 1/19/89 AND 1/20/89, A SUMMATION OF MR. BRIGHAM'S COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE SETTLEMENT MONITORING PROGRAM CURRENTLY BEINGG CONDUCTED BY GEOENGINEERS, I5 FOR ON -SITE SETTLEMENT ONLY. GEOENGINEFRS, INC. DOES NOT CURRENTLY ANTICIPATE CONDUCTING AN OFF -SITE MONITORING. 2. RESIDUAL SETTLEMENTS BEYOND SURCHARGES, TO ADJACENT PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTIES, ANTICIPATES GRADUAL OR TRANSITIONAL SETTLEMENTS, BUT WILL INCLUDE NO (OR NO SIGNIFICANT) DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTS. SPECIFICALLY, NO RUPTURE TO THE OLYMPIC PIPELINE IS ANTICIPATED DUE TO RESIDUAL SETTLEMENT NOR DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTS DUE TO THE POND SITE FILLING OPERATIONS. LIKEWISE, NO CRACKING NOR BREAKING UP OF ADJACENT PUBLIC STREET PAVEMENTS I5 ANTICIPATED DUE TO RESIDUAL NOR DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTS CAUSED BY THE FILLING OPERATIONS AT THE POND SITE. 3. GEOENGINEERS, INC. CONSIDER NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING STRUCTURES, STREETS OR UTILITIES WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN THE SURCHARGING OF THE SITE. 4. PER MY MENTION THAT THE CITY IS CONSIDERING THE ADDITION OF EXPANDED MONITORING OF SURROUNDING INFRASTRUCTURES, MR. BRIGHAM INDICATED THAT MORE INFORMATION GATHERING IS WELCOME, BUT DECLINED TO SEE IT AS NECESSARY. 5. CLARIFYING THE NOVEMBER 21, 1988 REPORT REGARDING THE POND ITSELF, THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN RELOCATED TO 75 FEET AWAY FROM THE POND. PER THE FINDINGS OF GEOENGINEERS, THE STATIC LOADS OF THE COMPLETED BUILDINGS AND FAR' =:ING FACILITIES, WITH FILL, WILL PRODUCE NO IMPACT ON THE POND ITSELF. HOWEVER, WITH OR WITHOUT THIS FILL /DEVELOPMENT, DURING A SEVERE EARTHQUAKE, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR A GENERAL SOILS BEARING CAPACITY FAILURE THAT COULD EFFECT THE POND AND CREATE SOME GRACKING OF THE PARKING LOT PAVEMENT. STILL, THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND THIS SITUATION AND MINOR RECONSTRUCTION TO THE PARKING LOT ( & FOND :' BANK) IS THE MOST THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED. 1 • PAGE 2 TUKWILA POND - 1/20/89 MEMO PER MY PAST DISCUSSIONS, THROUGH THE GRADE AND FILL PERMIT PROCESS, I WOULD STILL RECOMMEND SOME FORM OF OFF -SITE MONITORING PROGRAM FOR STRUCTURES (SIMILAR TO THE MONITORING PROGRAM ANTICIPATED IN THE ABANDONMENT OF LIFT STATION NO. 3 PROJECT) TO VERIFY THE ASSUMPTIONS BY GEOENGINEERS, AND CONCUR WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S LETTER OF JANUARY 19, 1989. XC. JAMES E. BRIGHAM, GEOENGINEERS, INC. POND PROPERTY FILE BECKY DAVIS, UTILITY FILE City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 January 19, 1989 Mr. Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, WA 98005 Subject: TUKWILA POND FILL PERMIT Dear Mr. Benoliel: As required in the SEPA mitigation measures, the current fill operation requires monitoring of subsidence, lateral transfer and pond elevation. This is not now evident on the site. Therefore, this is a reminder and reiteration of the survey work to assure that the settlement does not affect adjacent properties or the streets. In addition, we want to clarify this requirement and add specific requirements. The specific work is to monitor elevation and lateral movement on 100 -foot centers along the Andover Park West curbline, Strander curbline and west property line for the area shown on Barghausen's November 15, 1988 "Grading /Temporary Erosion Control Plan" drawing and the bank of the pond. The measurements are to be made on Mondays and Thursdays during the filling operation. After filling is complete, measurements shall continue until subsidence shows no change for a month. Weekly reports showing the survey findings are to be provided to my office. A table showing locations and measurement dates would be our preference for the report form. cc Dana Mower, Barghausen Engineers Jack Tuttle, GeoEngineers, Inc. City Engineer File: Tukwila Pond Developers File aneGriffin Building Official --' 33ocietp 33ea-ttle Audubon Washington Nonprofit Corporation 619 Joshua 206/622-6695 January 11, 1989 City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Tukwila Pond Center. Case No 88-12-DR. Dear Members of the Board, The Seattle Audubon Society is an incorporated non-profit organization comprised of over 4500 members,'many of which live 'within or near the CitY of Tukwila. Our society is dedicated to the protection, preservation and enjoyment of wildlife, plants and their supporting habitats. For nearly a decade, our society has reviewed and commented On the various projects proposed for the-Tukwila Pond site The Seattle Audubon Society's commitment to Tukwila Pond stems from the pond's regional significance as wildlife habitat. With the rapid urbanization of the Green River Valley, Tukwila Pond has become a valuable and important refuge to wildlife. Annually, hundreds of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and songbirds use the pond for resting, breeding and feeding. Some of the species of migratory ducks and shorebirds are very sensitive to human disturbance. These include the green-winged teal, the canvasback, the least sandpiper., and the dunlin. Unlike the mallard and the red-winged black bird, these birds are very intolerant of human activity and will rfftdily flush from the shoreline when approached or disturbed by humans. Although surrounded by intense commercial development, these birds continue to use Tukwila Pond, because the shoreline is buffered with dense vegetation and the existing developments consist of parking lots and buildings which do not encourage human jntrusion of the buffer. • The Seattle Audubon Society believes it is very important that the public be given the opportunity to observe wildlife on Tukwila Pond, but the observation must be from a controlled location which does not disturb the wildlife, the pond, or the surrounding buffer. We also believe that development can occur on this very sensitive site provided Tukwila Pond, its associated wetlands and buffers are protected from disturbance. Over the past eight months we have worked with the City's Planning Department and Spieker Partners' on the current proposal titled the "Tukwila Pond Center". Most recently we have reviewed the "Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review" prepared January 4, 1989 and have the following comments. 1. Recommendation 1. requires that the detailed landscape plan be prepared by a firm with experience in wetland-related landscape plans. The Seattle Audubon Society concurs with this requirement, and recommends that the firm have a professional biologist on staff who has knowledge in native wetland vegetation and local experience in wetland revegetation and enhancement projects. We also recommend that the wetland biologist supervise the planting of the yegetation and monitorthe success of the plan for several growing seasons. The vegetation plan should be fully bonded to guarantee success. 2. Recommendation la. requires that the design of the area between the parking area and the pond be revised to provide screening of the parked cars. The Seattle Audubon Society agrees . with this requirement. Headlights from vehicles parking along the southern row of the parking lot should be blocked so that light is not cast across the pond. 3. The conceptual plan and Recommendation la. require the incorporation of an Outlook Tower in the final plan. Seattle Audubon concurs with the use an Outlook Tower which, provides for controlled public viewing of the pond and restricts human intrusion of the buffer area 4. Recommendation 1c. requires the final plan to include details of the specific trees, shrubs and ground cover to be used Audubon concurs with this requirement and recommends that the buffer be enhanced with native vegetation (such as Crataequs sop.) which is beneficial to wildlife yet discourages human intrusion into the buffer area. In addition, a detailed planting scheme must be shown for those areas of the buffer which have been disturbed during the construction phase of the project. • • 5. Recommendation 1e. requires that the final plan provide details to show how the swales will meet stormwater requirements for treatment. Since Tukwila Pond functions hydrologically as a closed depression it is extremely important that further detailed designs are provided which will ensure that all mitigating measures pertaining to water quality are satisfied. The biologist specializing in wetland vegetation should work with the engineer in the design of storm water swale system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the current proposal. The Seattle Audubon Society continues to be sincerely concerned about Tukwila Pond, its associated wetland and wildlife. We are hopeful that the items raised in this letter will be addressed by the project. If-you have any specific questions, please contact me or Joe Miles of our Conservation Committee at 622-8254. Sincerely, Gerry Adams Vice President &axle Atuduk'n ccie4 Washington Nonprofit Corporation 619 Iosbw Green wilding • Seattle. WA 111101 • 2061622-6695 December 9, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Tukwila Pond Center /Determination of Non - significance (No. EPIC- 23 -88) Dear Mr. Beeler: This letter is intended to confirm that Spieker Partners and the Seattle Audubon Society have reached an agreement in principle to resolve all outstanding issues concerning development of the above - referenced project. Therefore, we hereby withdraw the appeal by the Seattle Audubon Society of the Declaration of Non - significance. This withdrawal is subject to receipt by you of a letter from Spieker Partners indicating its agreement to include in the project design the additional mitigation specified as items 3 -8 in the Audubon Society's appeal letter dated November 18, 1988, and Spieker Partners' agreement to formalize the buffer area required for the project in the form of a covenant to run with the land. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please let me know. GA:blw cc: Spieker Partners Very tru ly yours, Gerry Adams Vice President GLENN J. AMSTER JOEL N. BODANSKY LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. CLARK • SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CLARK, MARTIN & PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 500 GALLAND BUILDING 1221 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -2925 (206) 623 -1745 TELECOPIER (206) 623 -7789 TELEX 4947650 December 9, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Tukwila Pond Center /Determination of Non - significance (No. EPIC- 23 -88) Dear Mr. Beeler: DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN, JR. MARK C. McPHERSON ANNE E. NILES LOUIS D. PETERSON RICHARD M. PETERSON THOMAS F. PETERSON STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL E. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT MATTHEW P SMITH THERESA R. WAGNER RICHARD R. WILSON On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we are writing to advise you that we have reached an agreement in principle with the Seattle Audubon Society to resolve the appeal of the above - referenced matter. Pursuant to our agreement, and subject to the withdrawal of the appeal by the Seattle Audubon Society by 4 p.m. December 9, 1988, Spieker Partners hereby modifies its proposal to include the additional mitigation specified as items 3 -8 in the Audubon Society's appeal letter dated November 18, 1988. Further, Spieker hereby agrees that the buffer area described in the "SEPA mitigating measures" for the project shall be formalized in a covenant to run with the land. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and look forward to working with you toward the successful completion of the project. In the meantime, if you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. GJA:blw cc: Spieker Partners Seattle Audubon Society 007160.D110 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor December 8, 1988 Seattle Audubon Society 619 Joshua Green Building Seattle, WA 98101 RE: TUKWILA POND Dear Sirs: I have been advised by my staff of the development proposal of the Tukwila Pond property and your subsequent discussions with the developer regarding the SEPA appeal. This letter is to express my preference that representatives of the City of Tukwila be involved in any ensuing discussions between the Seattle Audubon Society and the developer of the property. As you are aware, there is a long history of development proposals associated with this property. The City of Tukwila formulated policy decisions that applied to those proposals and have set the tenor for dealing with the proposal before us today. We recognize the wetland habitat and public interest value of this property. We also recognize this site as the last significant part of our business district to be developed. Therefore, we want to participate in any discussions that will effect the outcome of development of the Tukwila Pond. In the planning for the future of Tukwila Pond, I want to work with the Audubon Society, the developer, and other interested parties to create a workable relationship between wildlife needs, the public enjoyment, and the property owner. I believe this site has tremendous potential to be a functional wetland as well as an educational experience. • • Seattle Audubon Society December 8, 1988 Page 2 Please contact Jack Pace of my staff if you have any questions or if you would allow the City's participation in planned discussions with the developer. Mr. Pace can be reached at 433 -1847. Sincerely, ij i VOA /At Gary L. VanDusen Mayor GLV /JMM /jec cc: City Council Jack Pace, Planning Department Joel Benoliel BELLEVUE OFFICE KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE 500 - 108TH AVENUE N.E. SUITE 2100 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 TELEX:32-1087 FAX:(206)454 -5719 (206) 453-1711 RICHARD U. CHAPIN BELLEVUE OFFICE LAW OFFICES OF FERGUSON & BURDELL 29r. FLOOR, ONE UNION SQUARE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TELEX: 32-0382 FAX: (206) 682 -6078 (206) 622 -1711 Mr. Rick Beeler. City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 November 29, 1988 UFv �t p ANC RA E' OFFICE FERGUSON, BURDELL S; RUSKIN RESOLUTION TOWER 1031 WEST 4TH AVENUE SUITE 500 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 FAX: (907) 272-1710 (907) 277-1711 Re: Southcenter /Tukwila Pond /Strander Boulevard/ Sidewalks and Parking Dear Rick: As legal counsel for JVJ /Southcenter, I am in receipt of your mitigated DNS concerning the Tukwila Pond Center and have noted your comments on page 4 of your memo dated November 8, 1988, concerning traffic mitigation measures. We note that some of the traffic - related mitigating measures being imposed on Tukwila Pond include dedication for the widening of Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard for turning lanes, sidewalks, etc. Southcenter has previously gone on record as opposing the imposition of any requirement on Southcenter to dedicate additional right -of -way which would reduce parking on the Southcenter property. We have made this position clear to the Department of Public Works, the Planning Department and the Planning Commission in connection with the continuing sidewalk studies. I am writing this letter to re- confirm Southcenter's position so that all concerned departments in the City are aware of that position as they make other decisions relative to both Andover Park • • RUC- 49.wpf Mr. Rick Beeler November 29, 1988 Page 2 West and Strander Boulevard. If you have any questions in this regard, I would be happy to discuss them with you. Sincerely, FERGUSON & BURDELL By: RUC:rim cc: Mr. Patrick Pauken Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila Department of Public Works Mr. Vernon Umetsu t.t.troJ Richard U Chapin * METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 November 29, 1988 Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Determination of Non - Significance File No.: EPIC -23 -88 Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners Dear Mr. Beeler: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division I a DEC 11988 GMB:plg CYea-ttle Audubon 33ocetj, � '----—--- � � ! ,!U| -����|!,|' ' '` ..". |; .� ! V., '/' | NOV i w'�vu .|i�, �` . ~ i ^ ___ Y CITY OF TUKvilA CI? n;;� • --_~',~-~���=�=__~..--_ Washington Nonprofit Corporation 619 Joshu 206m22-6695 November 18, 1988 Maxine Anderson, City Clerk 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 pFcp!Vc[) � �/ NOV - I 1988 RE: Tukwila Pond Center, SEPA Appeal. File No. EPIC-23-88. Dear Ms. Anderson, The Seattle Audubon Society is comprised of over 4,500 members and is incorporated as a non-profit organization under the laws of the State of Washington. The Society is dedicatated to the protection, preservation and enjoyment of wildlife, plants and their supporting habitats, and to the conservation and wise use of energy, water and natural resources. We are concerned about environmental issues throughout King County, including the Green River Valley and the City of Tukwila. For nearly a decade, the Society has reviewed and commented on the various projects proposed for the Tukwila Pond site. The most recent proposals have been titled the "Tukwila Pond Center" and were submitted by Spieker Partners of Bellevue. For a historical rewiew of Seattle Audubon's comments on the most recent proposals, please review our letters to the City of Tukwila Planning Department dated July 14,1988 and October 10, 1988, on file with the Planning Department. As stated in our letter of October 10, 1988, we wish to acknowlege the major steps taken by the applicant, since the last proposal, to protect the wetlands and wildlife which comprise the sensitive environment of Tukwila Pond. While recognizing the improvment of the current proposal over past proposals, our October 10, 1988 letter listed eight remaining items which must be addressed by specific mitigation to fully avoid a probable significant adverse impact to the environment. In a memorandum to Spieker Partners, dated November 8, 1988, the City's SEPA official listed the proposed mitigating measures for the proposed project. Since the mitigating measures did not appear to fully address the eight items listed bl ober 10, 1988 letter, the Seattle Audubon Society � appeals the current mitigated determination of nonsignificance as written. To clarify the intent of the proposed mitigation, members of our sitatl- • conservation committee met with the applicant on November 14,1988 • to discuss the discrepenci€_. We found the meeting beneficai in clarifying the intent of the proposed mitigation. It is our understanding that the applicant is willing to modify the proposed mitigation to address the majority of the eight items liated our October 10,1988 letter. It appears that if the applicant modifies the current mitigation as discussed, all but one of the items would be sufficently addressed. The following is a 1i.st of the items :inwhich we understand the applicant is willing to address with further and more specific mitigation. Item 3. Fencing. In addition to maintaining the native vegetation and landscaping the revised mitigation should state the use of .handrails and concrete walls to limit human intrusion into the pond area. The concept of a viewing platform or lookout with intrepretative signs as described in the October 10, 1988 letter should be included in the project proposal. Item 5. Storm Drainage Plan and Water Quality. Rather than the limited 25 to 30 foot b i of i l trot i on swa.l e proposed by the current mitigation, the final mitigation should . include an enhanced storm drainage system as described in the October 10, 1988 letter. Ctem 6. Light and Glare. The existing mitigation as written is appropriate, therefore no modification is needed. Item 7. Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control. The existing mitigation as written is appropriate, therefore n•.-., further modification is needed. Item 8. Protecting Shoreline Vegetation during Construction. The .final mitigation should include the installation of a temporary highly visible fence along the edge of the wetland buffer to clearly delineate the limits of construction. The fence should remain in place through the construction phase of ~ • the project to prevent the accidental encroach/rent of construction equipment into Lhe sensitive buffer area. The only remaining issue which is not included in the project as a mitigating measure invovles the following items of the October 10, 1988 letter. Items 1. a"d 2. Ruffering Tukwila Pond and its Shoreline Habitat and Permanent Protection to the Tukwila Pond Wetland. Few ponds such as Tukwila Pond remain in the entire Green River Valley. The pond is used by a variety of unique wildlife species including birds of prey such as Red-Tailed Hawks and Copper's Hawks and migratory waterfowl such as Canvasback, Shovelers, Green-winged Teal and Ruddy Ducks. All of these species and others are sensitive to the disturbance which will be generated by the proposed project' To avoid a probable and significant adverse impact to these species, the project depends upon an appropriate and permanent buffer. If the Tukwila Pond wetland and its buffers are not provided permanent protection, there will be a continual risk of significant impact by further activities, expansions or additions to this project. To avoid the potential impact, the pond its associated wetlands and buffers must be provided permanent protection. The permanent protection could be provided by a either changing the current zoning of the wetland areas to a nonbuildable open- spare designation or by the recording of a native growth or conservation easement. The Seattle Audubon Society continues to be sincerely concerned about the potential impact the proposed project may have on Tukwila Pond, its associated wetlands and wildlife. We are hopeful that the items raised in this letter will be addressed with revised mitigation which could result in the withdrawal of this appeal. If you have any specific questions please contact me or Joe Miles of our Conservation Committee a 622-8254. Gerry Adams Vice President AFFIAVIT OF DISTRIOTION I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: [[ Notice of Public Hearing [[ Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [[ Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Determination of Nonsignificance (�X Mitigated Determination of Non - significance J Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice [[ Notice of Application for E] Other Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1988 (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project TUKWILA POND File Number EPIC -28 -88 WAC 197 -11 -970 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Tukwila Pond Center, a retail shopping facility adjacent to Tukwila Pond (See Figure 2). The pond and adjacent wetland areas total 22.2 acres of the 33.9 acre property. The proposed development will occupy, with buildings and paved areas, about 14 of the remaining 16.7 acres of property. Proponent JOEL BENOLIEL, SPIEKER PARTNERS 915 - 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue: WA 98005 Location of Proposal, including street address, if anyThe project is located at the southwest intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -28 -88 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. [i There is no comment period for this DNS [ This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by November 23, 1988 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Date ;Mai 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. Phone 433 -1846 FM.DNS N LANDSCAPING /0w 0z5 / yr' TUKWILA POND 44 sl ;-* ONMONIOMONNWNSVIZNIER• STFIANDER BLVD SOUTFI CENTER L CI c -a a ■ 4_ 0 25 50 100 200 300 Tukwila Pond Center Expanded Environmental Checklist Site / Landscape Plan Figure 2 • City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 TO: Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners FROM: Rick Beeler, SEPA Official DATE: November 8, 1988 SUBJECT: TUKWILA POND CENTER - EPIC -28 -88 SEPA MITIGATING MEASURES The following are mitigating measures that I understand you agreed to meet in development of the Tukwila Pond Center Project. These measures are based upon your submittals, Department of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife comments, public comments, and past information submitted. I EARTH 1. All fill slopes adjacent to the pond shall be protected from erosion by installing silt fences and a row of hay bales along both the top and toe of the fill slope,. The slope face between the two bale /fence lines shall be covered with straw which is staked in place to minimize wind disturbance. Any runoff from the fill surface shall be directed to the sediment detention pond. 2. Erosion would be controlled during construction by minimizing the area of exposed soil at any given time with pavement, tarps, and vegetation, as well as temporary erosion - control devices such as mirafi filter fabric fences, siltation /sedimentation pond, hay bales, rock check dams, and temporary erosion control conveyance ditches. 3. Settlement of fill brought on -site would be addressed such that: 1) the building areas would be filled as the first phase of construc- tion; 2) preload fill would be placed to five (5) feet above planned final floor grades; 3) settlement markers would be placed to monitor the rate and magnitude of settlements during construction; 4) when preloading is complete, the excess fill would be used to complete parking area grading; and 5) final grading of parking areas would take into account settlement patterns observed during preloading MEMORANDUM to: November 8, 1988 Joel Benoliel Page 2 such that the planned surface drainage gradients would be main- tained as subsequent settlements occur. Some subsequent mainten- ance and remedial grading should be anticipated if localized "bird baths ", or small depressions that collect water, develop. 4. After construction has been completed, the potential for erosion would be significantly reduced because the storm drainage would flow directly into the pond where the water would be biofiltered prior to discharge into the downstream storm drainage system tribu- tary to the Green River. Also, the catch basins would incorporate a T design which would operate as an effective oil /water separator. Retention of a 25 -foot buffer (as measured from the 13.0 foot con- tour) and existing vegetation would also lessen the potential for soil erosion. The storm drainage plans will incorporate a 25 -foot to 30- foot long grass line swale prior to discharging storm drainage from the parking lot area into the pond. The 25 -foot to 30 -foot long biofil- tration will be relatively flat (slope 0 percent to 0.5 percent) and will be approximately three feet wide and will incorporate a flat three foot wide bottom with 2:1 side slopes. The depth of the ditch will be between two and three feet. Storm drainage from the roof tops of the buildings will not need to be biofiltered prior to discharge into the pond. The storm drainage system draining the building roofs will be tightened directly into the pond. For further discussion of this storm system, see Water Resource, paragraph 3 below. 5. A carefully monitored erosion control and sediment collection plan will be implemented to collect and control any erosion of the newly placed fill. 6. All construction activities will not impinge on the buffer zone around the pond. If the buffer area is disturbed during construction, native vegetation will be replaced in -kind. II AIR OUALITY 1. Areas of exposed soils such as storage yards and construction road- ways will be sprayed with water as a dust suppressant. 2. Areas which might be exposed for prolonged periods will be paved, planted with a vegetation groundcover or covered with gravel. • • MEMORANDUM to: November 8, 1988 Joel Benoliel Page 3 3. Soils carried out of the construction area by exiting trucks will be minimized by wheel washing and covering dusty truckloads. 4. That soil which does escape the construction area on exiting vehicles could be reduced with a daily street - cleaning effort or as needed to keep adjacent streets clean. III WATER RESOURCE 1. This pond will be maintained throughout the course of surcharge and construction at all times in accordance with City standards. 2. On -site conveyance pipes would route storm drainage from the paved area into the existing pond. The storm drainage would be filtered through a series of T -type, Type I and II catch basins with oil /water separators prior to release into the pond. Significant biofiltration would result to enhance downstream water quality by project storm drainage being conveyed through the pond. Significant biofiltration would not only be provided by the pond itself. but also by utilizing a 25 -foot to 30 -foot long biofiltration swale prior to discharge into the pond. Storm drainage from the asphalt areas of the site would be collected through the storm drainage conveyance system and filtered through the T /oil/water separators located within each catch basin throughout the conveyance system. Additional biofiltration would occur within the biofiltration ditches (one on the east side of the proj- ect and the other on the west side of the project) prior to discharge into the Tukwila Pond. IV PLANTS /ANIMALS 1. Maintenance of the native vegetation and landscaping of the devel- oped portions of the site would also serve to limit human interaction with the pond. This also will provide filtered visual access to the pond. while minimizing human interference with the habitat. Native vegetation in the buffer area that is disturbed during construction would be replaced in -kind. 2. The proposed landscape plan will add a mix of tree /shrub along the slope to provide a light buffer and limit human interaction with the pond. Spacing would give a filtered view access to the pond but keep interference impacts lower. MEMORANDUM to: November 8, 1988 Joel Benoliel Page 4 V NOISE Limiting construction hours in accordance with the City's noise and nuisance ordinance between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. will avoid disturbance to nearby hotels during evening and weekend hours. VI TRAFFIC 1. The owners of Southcenter mall have agreed to pay one -half the cost of signal installation. To mitigate the impacts of this proposal, the applicant has agreed to pay the other one -half cost of the signal installation. 2. Andover Park West - The applicant agrees to dedicate to the City 6" of right -of -way along Andover Park West. The property owner will be credited for the right -of -way provided for the future LID along Andover Park West. - The applicant agrees to a No Protest Agreement to the formation of an LID for widening and improving Andover Park West to accommo- date an additional lane of traffic, and construction of a sidewalk and street lighting.. - At the time the LID is formed, the property owner will dedicate an easement up to six feet in width along the east boundary of its prop- erty for the construction of a sidewalk. The easement may meander to accommodate existing utilities. Strander Boulevard - - The applicant will dedicate the right -of -way and make the im- provements for an 11 -foot wide right -turn lane at the major entrance to the site. - The applicant will dedicate the right -of -way and make the improvements for an 11 -foot wide right turn lane from Strander Boulevard eastbound to Andover Park West. MEMORANDUM to: November 8, 1988 Joel Benoliel Page 5 - The owner agrees to a No Protest Agreement to the formation of an LID for widening and improving Strander Boulevard to accommodate an additional lane of traffic. The property owner will be credited for the right -of -way provided now for a future LID along Strander Boule- yard. The third driveway (just east of the Target store) will not be permitted at this time. VII LIGHT /GLARE 1. To minimize the disturbance to wildlife, the exterior illumination of proposed buildings and parking lot should be designed to meet security requirements. but shall be shielded and directed downward to prevent light spillage onto the Tukwila Pond area. GLENN J. AMSTER JOEL N. BODANSKY LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CLARK, MARTIN & PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION DEBORAH S. MALANE __GEORGE W. MARTIN, JR. 500 GALLAND BUILDING MARK C. McPHERSON 1221 SECOND AVENUE ANNE F. NIL 1 i \ - ! LOUIS D. PETERSON ERSON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -2925 -: RICHARD M. PETERSON TELECOPIER (206) 623-7789 THOMAS E. PETERSON (206) 623 -1745 ? NOV �l �QQQ STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL E. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT TELEX 4947650 ';. HERE MATTHEW P. SMITH SA R. WAGNER RICHARD R. WILSON November 4, 1988._ Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Tukwila Pond Center /SEPA Determination Dear Mr. Pace: On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we want to thank you for taking the time to discuss with us the preliminary draft of the conditions which the City proposes to impose on this project under SEPA. As you requested, we are writing to clarify for you some of the conditions that were proposed in the technical reports and to reiterate our client's position on the conditions designed to mitigate the transportation impacts of the project. Our comments are keyed to the preliminary draft dated November 3, 1988, and the additional language which we are recommending be added to each specific section is underlined. I. EARTH 1. See attached memorandum from Jack Tuttle. 2. Erosion would be controlled during construction by minimizing the area of exposed soil at any given time with pavement, tarps, and vegetation, as well as temporary erosion - control devices such as mirafi filter fabric fences, siltation /sedimentation pond, hay bales, rock check dams, and temporary erosion control conveyance ditches. Mirafi fabric fence shall be placed at the edge of the pond. In addition, a second protective layer of hay bales shall be constructed and maintained on the lower half of the pond bank. 3. See attached memorandum from Jack Tuttle. 4. Eliminate from draft DNS. Mr. Jack Pace November 4, 1988 Page 2 5. After construction has been completed, the potential for erosion would be significantly reduced because the storm drainage would flow directly into the pond where the water would be biofiltered prior to discharge into the downstream storm drainage system tributary to the Green River. Also, the catch basins would incorporate a T design which would operate as an effective oil /water separator. Retention of a 25 -foot buffer (as measured from the 13.0 foot contour) and existing vegetation would also lessen the potential for soil erosion. The storm drainage plans will incorporate a 25 -foot to 30- foot long grass line swale prior to discharging storm drainage from the parking lot area into the pond. The 25 -foot to 30 -foot long biofiltration will be relatively flat (slope 0 percent to 0.5 percent) and will be approximately three feet wide and will incorporate a flat three foot wide bottom with 2:1 side slopes. The depth of the ditch will be between two and three feet. Storm drainage from the roof tops of the buildings will not need to be biofiltered prior to discharge into the pond. The storm drainage system draining the building roofs will be tightlined directly into the pond. For further discussion of this storm system, see Water Resource, paragraph 3 below. 6. GeoEngineers (September 16, 1988) A. This issue has been covered under Earth, paragraph 1 above. Also, see attached memorandum from Jack Tuttle. B. The primary areas of potential impact on the adjacent pond from site filling are: 1. The direct impact of fill being placed into the existing pond area. This will be avoided by maintaining the indicated buffer zone between the edge of the pond and construction activities. An approximate 25 -foot buffer will be maintained between the edge of the fill activity (building surcharge areas) and Mr. Jack Pace November 4, 1988 Page 3 • • the edge of the pond as measured by the 13.0 foot contour. If the buffer area is disturbed during construction, native vegetation will be replaced in -kind. The combination of the filtering offered by the native vegetation as well as the proposed mirafi filter fabric fence and second hay bale fence discussed under Earth, paragraph 1 above, will effectively mitigate the erosion potential for this project. 2. Discussion in draft is adequate. 3. Sedimentation impacts on the pond resulting from erosion of the newly placed fill - a carefully monitored erosion control and sediment collection plan will be implemented to collect and control any erosion of the newly placed fill. The combined use of the mirafi filter fabric fence as well as hay bale fence will effectively mitigate potential siltation of the pond areas during construction and thereafter. 4. Discussion in draft is adequate. II. AIR QUALITY Discussion in draft is adequate. III. WATER RESOURCE (Checklist - September, 1988) 1. During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. Siltation fences and temporary ditches with rock check dams would be constructed at the base of the pond bank. Stormwater would be conveyed to a temporary settlement pond to settle sediments from the water before it is released into the pond. Specifically, the applicant will submit for approval as part of the grading and fill permit process a detailed temporary erosion control plan which will • • Mr. Jack Pace November 4, 1988 Page 4 incorporate the use of mirafi filter fabric fences (primarily along the Tukwila Pond 25 -foot buffer area) as well as hay bales, rock check dams, temporary collection swales, and temporary sediment control ponds. A temporary sediment pond will be designed to collect silt laden storm drainage water during the surcharge and construction activities on the project to make sure that as much of the settlement is removed from the on -site storm drainage water prior to discharge into the Tukwila Pond. This pond will be maintained throughout the course of surcharge and construction at all times in accordance with City standards. 2. On -site conveyance pipes would route storm drainage from the paved area into the existing pond. The storm drainage would be filtered through a series of T -type, Type I and II catch basins with oil /water separators prior to release into the pond. Significant biofiltration would result to enhance downstream water quality by project storm drainage being conveyed through the pond. Significant biofiltration would not only be provided by the pond itself, but also by utilizing a 25 -foot to 30 -foot long biofiltration swale prior to discharge into the pond. Storm drainage from the asphalt areas of the site would be collected through the storm drainage conveyance system and filtered through the T /oil /water separators located within each catch basin throughout the conveyance system. Additional biofiltration would occur within the biofiltration ditches (one on the east side of the proiect and the other on the west side of the project) prior to discharge into the Tukwila Pond. With the three proposed types of oil water separation for the project, the effects to the pond due to oil and other pollutants will be negligible. 3. Staff Measure A major water quality concern is the piping of polluted storm water to Tukwila Pond with oil /water separators acting as the only method of remaining pollutants. In addition to the oil /water separators, a vegetated settlement pond or biofiltration swale shall be included • • Mr. Jack Pace November 4, 1988 Page 5 in the storm water drainage plan. See Earth, paragraph 5 above. The parking lot and roof drainage from the site will be separated. The building roof storm drainage will be conveyed directly into Tukwila Pond and no significant pollutants will be injected in the pond due to the lack of oil and other pollutants associated with the building themselves. The oil and other pollutants generated by automobiles and truck traffic throughout the project will be conveyed via a separate parking lot conveyance storm drainage system into the pond. A 25 -foot to 30 -foot long biofiltration ditch will be incorporated into the design on the final engineering plans to further filter water prior to discharge into the pond. IV. PLANTS /ANIMALS (Checklist - September 1988) 1. The proposal will not disturb Tukwila Pond or the mature trees on the northern edge of the pond. In addition, to eliminate any potential impact to the pond, the development will be set back from the pond a distance of approximately 25 feet from the water's edge (approximately 13 -foot contour). Maintenance of the native vegetation and landscaping of the developed portions of the site would also serve to limit human interaction with the pond. This also will provide filtered visual access to the pond, while minimizing human interference with the habitat. Native vegetation in the buffer area that is disturbed during construction would be replaced in -kind. V. NOISE (Checklist - September, 1988) 1. The discussion in the draft is adequate, subject to the following change to the first condition: Limiting construction hours in accordance with the City's noise ordinance will avoid disturbance to nearby hotels during evening and weekend hours. VI. TRAFFIC • • Mr. Jack Pace November 4, 1988 Page 6 1. Add at the end of the first paragraph: "The owners of Southcenter mall have agreed to pay one -half the cost of signal installation. To mitigate the impacts of this proposal, the applicant has agreed to pay the other one -half cost of the signal installation." Also, the exception from the two -lane exit capability requirement, described in the second paragraph of this section, should be revised to include the second most westerly driveway (i.e., the Target driveway). 2. Andover Park West. The City proposes to form an LID for the widening and improvement of Andover Park West to accommodate an additional lane of traffic. The applicant agrees not to protest the formation of the LID. In addition, to accommodate the proposed improvements, the owner agrees to reserve six inches of its property for future acquisition by the LID and, at the time the LID is formed, to dedicate an easement up to six (6) feet in width along the eastern boundary of its property (which easement may meander to accommodate existing utilities), for the location of a sidewalk. Strander Boulevard The City intends to form an LID for the widening and improvement of Strander Boulevard to accommodate significant traffic in the area that only is in small part attributable to the proposed project. The owner agrees not to protest the formation of the LID. In addition, to accommodate the LID improvements, the applicant agrees to reserve up to seven (7) feet of its property for acquisition by the LID and to dedicate an easement up to six (6) feet in width along the entire Strander Boulevard boundary and to construct a sidewalk in the easement area. The sidewalk shall be constructed in conjunction with the development of the shopping center project. There shall be no driveway entry into the project between the main entrance and the westerly most entrance • • Mr. Jack Pace November 4, 1988 Page 7 (i.e., the Target entrance) until such time as the LID improvements are constructed. We understand that the engineering department proposes to require the applicant to construct right -turn deceleration lanes at the project main entrance and at Andover Park West. The applicant does not agree with the imposition of these conditions, particularly at Andover Park West. Nevertheless, should the responsible official determine this condition to be appropriate, rather than the condition stated above, the condition should also include a provision requiring the Target entrance to be designed with an island or some other mechanism to ensure that it will be used as a right -in /right -out access only. VII. LIGHT /GLARE 1. The language should be modified to state as follows: To minimize the disturbance to wildlife, the exterior illumination of proposed buildings and parking lot should be designed to meet security requirements, but shall be shielded and directed downward to prevent light spillage onto the Tukwila Pond area. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the proposed conditions. We look forward to receiving the responsible official's final determination. GJA:blw ruly y urs, nn J. Amster cc: Spieker Partners Mithun Partners Barghausen Consulting Engineers The Ferris Company 007078.D110 Nov 04,88 16:09 C;I.CNN J. AMSI kR 1(11,1, N. H4)1)AN5KY LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. C:I.Akk SAI•I.Y N. CLARKL T. RYAN DURKAN c;1AKY M. FALLON ROBERT O. r1K5O RICHARD E. (;IFFORD JEROME 1.. III1.1.IS GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRF.SOVIC.•H SARAH E. MACK I.AW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CLARK, MARTIN & PETERSON A PROFESSIONAI. S•KVlC>: CORPORATION 500 QALLAND BUILDING 122) SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101.2925 (206) 623 -1145 r1.I.H. WIFR (201 623.7789 TELEX 49416S0- TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION DEDOkAH S. MALANE c;I•.t)RGE W MARTIN, 114. MARK C. Mcl'H1•.KSON ANNI, F: NILES LOUIS D. PETERSON RICHARD M. PETERSON THOMAS F. PEI EKK )N S1 F.V1 N K. KUVIG MICHAEL r. SC.HUMAc:HER MICHAkI. R. SCOTT MATTIIEW R SMFIH THERESA K. WAGNER RICHARD R. WIl.Sf1N Date: I (4 ) kY 0 Time: PHONE FROM: NUMBER OF PAGES, including cover page If you do not receive the correct number of pages, please contact at (206) 623 -1745. We are transmitting from a Burroughs DEX 3700. Thank you. MESSAGE: T� dL1iutd +OJaOJ( ea ce_) Nov 04,88 16:09 GLENN J. AMSTER JDH.I. N. $ODAN$KY LAURIE LOOTENS CI(YZ MARK 5. CLARK SALLY H. ('L ARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALL ON RUSER1 U, FIKSO RICHARD E. GIFFORD 11•90MP. L.. HILLIS GREGORY E.KELLER CEUk(I. A. kkE.uVI. H SARAH F. MACK I AW UFFICLS OF HILLIS, CLARK, MARTIN & PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORA( ION 500 C AI.I.ANU BUILDING 1271 SI:.CONO AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -2925 1206) 62.1.1745 TELECOPIER (206) 621.7769 TELEX 494(tSl November 4, 1988 Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Tukwila Pond_ Center /SEPA Determination Dear Mr. Pace: P.02 UhIiORAII S. MALANF GEORGE. W. MARTIN. 1R. MARK C. MrPIIERSON ANNE 1 1(n)(S 1). NI PkTEI.F.S RSON RICHARD M. PE11•.KtiUN THOMAS t. PF'1'ERSON STtvEN R. ROVIG MICHAEI. I tit HUMACIIER Mlt:HALL R. SCOTT MT HE:KF:SA ATTIIEW K. P. WSMACiNER KICHARD R. WILSON On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we want to thank you for taking the time to discuss with us the preliminary draft of the conditions which the City proposes to impose on this project under SEPA. As you requested, we are writing to clarify for you some of the conditions that were proposed in the technical reports and to reiterate our client's position on the conditions designed to mitigate the transportation impacts of the project. Our comments are keyed to the preliminary draft dated November 3, 1988, and the additional language which we are recommending be added to each specific section is underlined. I. maul CV See attached memorandum from Jack Tuttle. 2. Erosion would be controlled during construction by minimizing the area of exposed soil at any given time with pavement, tarps, and vegetation, as well as temporary erosion- control devices such as mirafi filter fabric fences, siltation /sedimentation pond, hay bales, rock check dams, and temporary erosion control conveyance ditches. Mirafi fabric fence shalljka ]aced at the edge of the Dond. In addition a second ect ' ve la o ,„•�.�. =L • -. -hall be constructed an maintained on th= rower hal of the•Mond bank. 3. See attached memora dum —from Jack Tuttle. 4. Eliminate from draft DNS. Nov 04,88 16:12 Mr. Jack Pace November 4, 1988 Page 5 • • P.06 in the storm water drainage plan. See Earth, paragraph 5 above. The parkinct lot and roof drainage from the site will be separated. The building roof storm drainage will be conveyed direct]v into Tukwila Pond and no sianifioant pollutants will be,iniected in the pond due_to the lack of oil and other o t ants associated with the building themselves. The oil and other pollutants aenerated by automobiles and truck traffic throuahout the protect will be v d e v ate parking lot _conveyance storm drainage system into the pond, A 25 -foot to 30 -foot 1Qna biofiltration ditch will be inc po orrated into the design on the final engineering_ „plans to further filter water prior to discharge into the pond IV. PLANTS /ANIMALS (Checklist - September 1988) 1. The proposal w disturb Tukwila Pond or the mature trees on the northern edge of the pond. In 'tion t ate a nt a to the he dev t wil et bac the pond a distance of approximately 25 feet from the water's edge (anoroximately 13 -fo t contour). Maintenance of the save vegetation and landscapina of the developed portions of the site would also serve to limit human intection w ra ith the pond. This also will provide filtered visual access to the pondd. while minimizing human interference with th habitat. Native vegetation n the • a are ,. 's d s duri • - ,struc would be replace - kind., • , V. NO S (Checklist - September, 1988) 1. The discussion in the draft is adequate, subject to the following change to the first condition: u ti n h Limiting Nod constrco ours in accordance with the City's noise V ordinance5wi11 avoid disturbance to earby hotels A durin ni an ekend hour VI. TRAFFIC Nov 04,88 16:12 Mr. Jack Pace November 4, 1988 Page 6 • • 1. Add at the end of the first paragraph: "The owners of southcenter mall have aareed to pay one -half the cost of signal installation. To mitigate the impacts of this proposal. the applicant ha agreed to pay the other one -half cost of the sip inataliation." P.07 Also, the exception from the two -lane exit capability requirement, described in the second paragraph of this section, should be revised to include the second most westerly driveway (i.e., the Target driveway). 2. Andover Park West. The City o o form an Lib for he widenina and improvement of Andover Park West o accommodate an additional lane of traffic. The applicant agrees not to protest the formation of the LID. In addition. to accommodate the proposed improvements, the owner agrees to reserve six inc es of its orope ty for future . ,ii, c isitio LID and at the time the LID is (')� formed. to dedicate an as eement up to six�(6) feet in wid = •,. the eas - # .. td- of o t (which a - in t for the location of a sidewalk. Strander Boulexard The City intends to form an LID for the widening and improvement of Strander Boulevard_to accomod m ate sianificant traffic in the area that only is in small part attributable to the proposed Dro'ect. The owner aarees of to t e rm of the LID. ID addition. to accommodate the LID improvements the t a re reserve seven (7) feet of its oropert fo qio n n by the LID and to dedicate a Basement UD to siuis it x 6) ( feet in width ai ng the entire tran•e. evard b._..= and to •, -tr a - ''ewal in the = - - ement - - ,. - _ o There shall be no_drivewav entry into the proiect between the main entrance and the westerly most entrance 4 -88 FR I 15 : 00.E I EELLE4'UE W A M E M O R A N D U M P TO: Glenn Amster PROM: Jack Tuttle, GeoEngineers, Inc. DATE: November 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Suggested Rewording for Mitigating Measures - Spieker Partners Tukwila Pond Project The following revisions to the items in Jack Pace's memo to Rick Beeler are suggested, as discussed with Walter Kaczynaki of Spieker Partners. Earth Earth 1. All fill slopes adjacent to the pond shall be protected from erosion by installing silt fences and a row of hay bales along both the top and toe of the fill slope. The slope face between the two bale /fence lines shall be covered with straw which is staked in place to minimize wind disturbance. Any runoff from the fill surface shall be directed to the sediment detention pond. Reasoning - 1. It is pointless to hydroseed in the late fall or winter as nothing is likely to germinate. 2. The fill which will be placed will be permeable enough so that little ponding should occur on the surface of the preload; thus, there is no real reason to "cover" the top of the preload fill. 3. Settlement of fill brought on -site would be addressed such that (1) the building areas would be filled as the first phase of construction, (2) preload fill would be placed to five (5) feet above planned final floor grades, (3) settlement markers would be placed to monitor the rate and magnitude of settlements during construction, (4) when preloading is complete, the excess fill would be used to complete parking area grading, and (5) final grading of parking areas would take into account settlement patterns observed during preloading such that the planned surface drainage gradients would be maintained as subsequent settlements occur. Some subsequent maintenance and remedial grading should be anticipated if localized "bird baths," or small depressions that collect water, develop. Reasoning - The comments by Pace reflect the general preloading plan for the "build over the pond" concept rather than the building layout now planned. .6. GeoEngineers (October 6, 1988) FR I 1 S :0 1 0 7,E I BELLEVUUE WA • P _ 03 The date change should be made to reflect the report which applies to the concept now planned. A.2, Fill is placed to establish the grades in the proposed building areas, the building areas are preloaded, and portions of the parking areas are filled as described by GeoEngineers. Filling of the remainder of the parking areas to final grades will be deferred until preloading is completed. r. GLENN J. AMSTER JOEL N. BODANSKY LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CLARK, MARTIN & PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 500 GALLAND BUILDING 1221 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTQN9810172925,; ; ;1 (206) 623 -1745 TELECOPIER (206 623 -7789 TELEX 4947 5N 0V 2 1988 el November 2, 1988 Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Tukwila Pond Center /SEPA Determination Dear Mr Pace: DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN, JR. MARK C. McPHERSON ANNE E. NILES LOUIS D. PETERSON RICHARD M. PETERSON THOMAS E. PETERSON STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT MATTHEW P. SMITH THERESA R. WAGNER RICHARD R. WILSON On behalf of our client, Spieker Partners, we are enclosing a letter prepared by the Ferris Company responding to the comments of the Seattle Audubon Society dated October 10, 1988. The letter generally is self- explanatory. Nevertheless, we want to take this opportunity to provide you with a few additional comments on the issues raised by the Society's letter. The State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21C, authorizes local government to condition a project to mitigate.; -_ adverse environmental impacts. However, this authority is not without its limitations. Specifically, a project may be conditioned to include mitigation measures that are not otherwise a part of a proposal only if those mitigation measures are (1) based on policies, plans, rules, or regulations formerly designated by the local government as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority; and (2) related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in the environmental analysis that accompanies the proposal. In our view, the additional mitigation suggested by the Audubon Society, particularly items 1 and 2, would exceed the City's authority under SEPA. In item 1, the Society suggests "a minimum 20 -foot buffer measured from the top of the pond's bank." The environmental documents, however, are unequivocal in concluding that the current project configuration, including a 25 -foot buffer from the edge of the pond, would not impact the sensitive areas. (See Environmental Checklist, page A -9; Biological Evaluation prepared Mr. Jack Pace November 2, 1988 Page 2 by IES Associates, page 23.) In view of this conclusion, additional mitigation is inappropriate. In item 2, the Society suggests that the project proponent record a conservation easement and transfer ownership of a substantial portion of its property. This suggestion is unsupportable under the law. First, despite the Society's claims to the contrary, the proposal is not expected to result in any specific adverse environmental effects to Tukwila Pond. Thus, the proposed mitigation measure is unwarranted under SEPA. Moreover, requiring a dedication of Spieker Partners' property, absent a substantial and legitimate connection between the proposed dedication and the development proposal, would be unconstitutional. See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 107 S.Ct. 3141 (1987). There is simply no basis in law or fact for a condition requiring Spieker Partners to dedicate a large portion of its property to a non - developable status. The environmental checklist correctly states, as the Society acknowledges, that the owner currently has no plans for future development of the property. There is no requirement under the law that our client guarantee maintenance of the existing condition of the property. If and when additional development is proposed, it can be evaluated under the laws and regulations in effect at that time. To suggest that the owner guarantee that nothing will occur in the future is simply beyond the authority vested in the City under the law. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this and the enclosed response to the Audubon Society's comments. If we can provide you with any additional information or if you have any questions, please let us know. GJA:blw cc: Spieker Partners Ferris Company 007073.D110 NC+'`V 2 —@@ WED 1 1 : EXECUSERVE • P . • 1 November 2, 1988 Glenn Amster Hillis, Clark, Martin :nd Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Secohd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98 01 -2925 Re: Tukwila Pond Cent Dear Glenn: Per your request we have provided our responses on several issues raised in: the Seattle Audubon Society lettter October erd10ional 1988. Their letter con twins several suggestions mitigating measures which the Society feels are necessary to "fully avoid a probable significant adverse impact to the environment ". In general, it is our belief that the development proposal, as now configured, would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Imprementation of mitigating measures identified in the Expended Checklist would reduce impacts in all critical areas. The following reapons s are keyed to the Audubon Society's numbered' comments: 1. The 'proposed sit plan provides for 25 -foot buffers, meae,ured from the water's edge. The Audubon Society is regtiesting that I0 -foot buffers be provided from the top of the bank, in ordr to protect the sensitive vegetative 4 habitat located long the shoreline. It is apparent from the site plan th t the sensitive habitat referred to is located along th shoreline. Thus, it would be protected within the propo ed 25 -foot buffer. In addition. the Expended Checkli t identifies preservation of the mature trees along the orthern edge of the pond as a mitigating mea$ure (p. A -12 . It is, therefore, not necessary to "buffer the buff r ". Further, there w nld be no need for, nor would it be posiible for, ma ntenance equipment to encroach into the shoteline habits . The landscape plans call for retention of axisting tree in the area between the pond and all development. Co struction- period encroachments can be controlled throu h temporary fencing as discussed in comment No. 8. Reducing:the parking supply per the Society's suggestion, to c eate larger buffers would create additional environmental im acts: unmet parking demand and unnecessary vehicle idling i parking areas. These impacts would create additional traff c and decrease air quality. This additional measu e is not warranted in our opinion. ee 'Rust eukfin9, Suite 3oo 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue. WA 98004 206 / 462.7650 NOV -60 WED Glenn Amster November 2, 1988 Page 2 . • 1 1 :ill E><ECUSERVE P . 02 2. It i'a our opiaion\that all significant impacts can be adequately mitigated by implementation of those measures identified in th4 Expanded Checklist. .Permanent dedication of the remaining portion of the property is not warranted as miti'gati'on per SPA (WAC 197 -11 -660), as it is not reasonable and dies not relate to a specific impact. 3. The Audubon'Society suggests a permanent fence be provided along their pro gsed buffer to keep humans away from. the pond'. Human intt1usion is not likely to be significant in the area suggested because the human activity associated with a shopping center use would be focused on shopping and dining businensed. Public access would be controlled through 'project olesign and landscaping. For example, the restaurant patio would allow no access to the shorelinet and,' parking are +s could be edged,with a continuous hedge or buffer to restrict movomeat._.The lookout is the only'plece where humane vou1d be encouraged to approach the pond. This lookout is not c rrently designed with shoreline access. Implementation o this measure is, therefore, not warranted. 4. Whether the look the pond or stop litter or wildli provision of lit rnateriale the. Au desirable public environaental co ut extends (cantilevered) a few feet over at the edge would not significantly affect e disturbance (noise). We believe er receptacles and the interpretive ubon Society has proposed would alloy for access and education at a negligible t. 5. It is our undere ending that the proponent is now proposing the :use of biofi tration evales as a means to filter atoi'mwater runof prior to discharge to the pond. This System would, th refore, alleviate the Society's concerns. 6. Lighting fixture are proposed to be shielded and directed dovdward (see Ex ended Checklist, p. 16). Lighting intensity should'►be determined by security needs. Intensity (imiiacts to surr¢unding properties) is not a primary concern in end of itself in this intensely developed commercial are1. Additions mitigation is not warranted. • 7. The :proposal inc udes preparation and submittal of a Temporary Erosio and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) conAistent with ity of Tukwila requirements prior to conAtruction. T e reference to the base of the pond bank (pa$e A -7) is to the outer base of the bank, not the shoreline edge. WED 1 1 : 1111 EYCECUSERVE Glenn Amster November 2, 1988 Page 3 • P . 0 3 8. We believe that a temporary construction fence would be a reasonable mitigation, because it would clearly delineate a "no —go" zone for . onstruction personnel. The burden for enforcing such a imitation would shift form construction superintendents o City inspection staff to personnel in the field, reducing t e potential for disturbance of the buffer area. This concludes our rec mmendations. We hope that our responses are helpful In clarifying issues and resolving any remaining concerns.* Please call! me if you have any further questions. Sincerely; • ichael J, lumen Program Manager MJB;elw cc: Joel Benoliel MITHUN P A R T N E R S 22 October, 1988 Ron Cameron City Engineer City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Tukwila Pond MP. 88066.00 Dear Mr. Cameron: Using data provided by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) I have estimated the fire flow demand for the Target Store to be 2615 gpm. This calculation will be reviewed by a fire protection engineer and the City Fire Marshall at the time of building permit submittal. DATA: One story 112,000 square feet store. Non - combustible construction. Fire sprinklered. Exposure on west side only ±120' away. CALCULATION: Basic gpm required per ISO chart 4,740gpm Fire sprinkler reduction at 50% -2,375 GPM increase for west exposure' at 5% + 240 "Target" flow required 2,615gpm This flow should be available off.of Strander Blvd. However, since the exist 8" water- line is on the north side of Strander Blvd. and Target will wish to have their water enter the south side of their building we may find it more economical to extend a line from the shops east of the Target Store. These shops will obtain their water from the 12" water line on our side of Andover. Sincerely, Vince Ferrese, AIA Principal cc: Jack Pace - Senior Planner Dana Mower - Site Engineer Nick Olivas - Fire Marshall Joel Benoliel - Spieker Partners ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 1 12TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 ( 206 ) 454 3344, FAX (206) 646 4776 Mr. Nick Olivae� •TUKWILA FIT*, smAROAti 444. Andover.:Park -East::_. Tukwila, WA 9488,::.,:. Re: Tukwila'Pond ' Job No.;;8.8066 0 Dear Mr..Olivas To 'meet. the:, requirement of providing: .'fire vehicle access to within 150,: feet of all portions._:of,.the. long building .we propose. the following:, • -1. C A '14.5: feet- dead:end.fire; lane ,accessing -'the rear ::of the building ::from the _.east.. = . This,` would .leave 280 feet_ of building which.. can_ be re ldhed', from .the 'west end, of the building or this;',acces;s ":drive:: - We 'will be happy'to;:resolve „the_ best 'technique :for all during-. our- building permit: process: Sincerely,. a.`Cty r:Hali' ARCHITECTURE • F.LANNING,.& : • INTERIOR'DESIGN •'. 2000 1 12TH AVE NE • BELLEVUE WA 98004- (206) 45,4 3344.'” 'FAX(206)646 47762 -,'`1: TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM Jack Pace, Senior Planner Ron Cameron, City Engineer October 20, 1988 Tukwila Pond SEPA Review In reviewing the report with Ross and Phil, the following comments have been prepared. SEWER WATER Service lines are adequate. The sewer shall be connected to a grease separator of baffle capacity before connecting to the City sewer. Tt that the separator be located outside of the building for maintenance purposes. Lines will need to be upgraded in accord with the water comprehensive plan. To meet fireflow system demands the developer will need— tomprav4de—a—: "' analysis to determine system upgrades. Review of the Comprehensive Plan indicates the following: 1. The 8" line on Strander may need to be upgraded to 12" (development east to Andover Park West); 2. Strander (Andover Park West to Andover Park East) 8" to 10 "; 3. Andover Park West (Strander to Baker) may increase form 8" to 10"; 4. Baker Boulevard (Andover Park West to Andover Park East) may go from 8" to 10 ". The flow analysis will be the basis for determining system upgrades. • • Jack Pace MEMORANDUM October.20, 1988 Page 2 STORM WATER The plan presented in the report is in agreement with Ross' and Phil's previous comments. It is in accord with Alpha Engineer's 1984 P -17 Drainage Study; the connection shall be into the Andover Park West drainage system. TRANSPORTATION The third access (2nd from the west) can be allowed by widening Strander with a third east bound lane. A third east bound lane providing right turn access at the (to be) signalized driveway and continuing to Andover will be needed in accord with the previous Entranco report and September memorandum. Andover will need to be widened 6'1-eet to provide a left turn lane. This lane could be restricted to north bound left turns in the future. Sidewalks for pedestrian traffic are to be constructed on Strander and Andover frontage. Additional pursuit of a joint west access should be made to combine the access at a single point; if unsuccessful then the access should be designed and constructed in order to combine the access point and traveled way when the western property redevelops. The applicant will need to assure the Fire Department access (turn around needs) and that the area in back be unobstructed so that service trucks do not back into or from Strander. Additional analysis assuring that preloading will not affect adjoining structures should be provided to approval of a fill procedure. RC /kjr 14 — ,/et4v— 110— coa, mirx TO: Jack Pace FROM: Nick Olivas SUBJECT: Tukwila Pond DATE: October 20, 1988 Ordinance 1398 states that fire apparatus access roads shall be required when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access. The road shall be an all weather road, 20 feet wide with an unobstructed vehicle clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. The 32,000 sq. ft. shops building has a severe access problem at the rear of the building. Ordinance 1398 also states that all dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The turning radius shall be approved by the chief. A turn around is needed for the road to the west of the anchor store and for the parking area north of Pad B. Other project considerations such as required fire protection, hydrant requirements, etc., will be addressed in the pre -app for this project. 7�� /c�✓i �- (c2c_re / i (P-S /1 Jul � AM c= Da- (,/AJT `g8 ober+ -37 4- r tvtd-rol IL Lis /I LC 0,9 D, WEb Lwtfr4 0. 614°A te1hJ5iree. I ZL, Sle./6-67C ti TNg✓' 4i 6_1A"‘Y F7eqie7LAAe/rl Rckei Lo &Seel 1= r--e/1/ ms's Co. . IIIMAVA1 zithtglawr. 13� r�S mot.•_.'- ��'�'S 1_,(A0-e,A 4 Walter S. Kaczynski, Jr. Project Director 915 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005-3855 206 453 -1600 FAX: 206 455 -4105 SPIEKER elm RICHARD H. HARBERT, P.E. Engineering 1410 Market Street P.O. Box 1180 Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 827 -6400 n ga rdiod ! J ac (L G�- U[CC.1 , � o� CO YY1 LOS a hAI /s► S Po s,+ bo'Pi' wa r -e kAi e QC S - ral -eIec- ! Ja,c e),er Pk w 11ne aAi-c/ .. e LV-\ e c I s- wa.s v s /- Los D A AS ln e. fc'Svir JIIr" �'�e `\ eXiS1 i ✓5 aA1i' � Grrv-c� LOS cor $� .2\ lcj D w,th P r� r-ci clG�� , wht c T,1IS 5 04-wGr e lJ�� rr l '� I�,1ri`frk4 e.ci u r Si r A f ►y► r rr1 2 v� Lett % Ur1 II s r/ 1 ^� S 1//vw.S A e c' C 1 t WI s . T4 _ 1 4,j 1 J 4��,i'� T�d'44-da 1 k spt-} wore C�(�r'S m-\ �) Qv Z a h C. G� 17�� lam I,47 f' u22z7 -On 7e-k2 c<< <i s+- r a i s S se (,e ra I II ; .-ir S Q c a ,/ 1 f c s Gi' Y e. VN d h / 246- t- w'' 4e re- SLJc be o.C, I v "(N (7 '( Vc) � & &Ac /C ro ✓cam (j ro 4l- . `,n ca f ar-^ti �.� C C0(ire 1i01 --5 w0 fcI '';f 1 h /s� • TIC 3 cei 61 (i vew�- c,e, ,,^eF bc all owec(, l � wootc ( A &c\ a {^o�T L r C c c SS Q ►h. 1 T'+o c 1 I h/C a re" / eIc oCIPh C1 art v< wa7 cov` PSl' /G^ Gcrt( SG YpL��� Y' �n L) % Severe r t f �[ I T.� G.ct Ct , I-I Oral c c 0 I i L f / v.` ° j/Y\ rJ ✓e ►�r r,7s' c r r-04 -c 1 W D V`G` e‘ PC lrotSe..._ S Y-C l�- y.c) ���c eke T� P2 •• J ,.v v -\- 0 V`C c t'aS c G� c' f' ' r l r el i C n�-ro ti d +-L 6 t . " 0 I r 01 41)01.-...S LS S O tA-1 -1 c .pvi 1l' is once e e- I >^ +0 (-e s t r i ci-- a r 1 v e I. 'A ` `ry,v�/.�),,,,A,_* o� 1 w- v�e pct 'NP T- , \-A el e- c t r, �,..sc.: /C a ^Ct , a y.-\ coal 561", h 1 it (e0),ce � 4L vr5 i- � v\Q\ ,•(t,, /� , ' ~ 3-_------- Audubon 3Sxiei Washington Nonprofit Corporation 619 Joshua 206a22-66* October 10, 1988 Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (ocT _' 0 19 vw •;;;--� RE: Tukwila Pond Center Checklist. EPIC 28-88 Dear Mr. Pace, • The Seattle Audubon Society's Conservation Committee has • reviewed the "Expanded Environmental Checklist for Spieker Partners' Tukwila Pond Center" dated September 22, 1988. The present proposal shows that major steps have been taken by the applicant, since the last proposal, to protect the wetlands and wildlife which comprise the sensitive environment of Tukwila Pond. While recognizing the improvement of the-current pr'oject over past proposals, several environmental concerns still remain. The following items must be addressed by additional mitigation to . fully avoid a probable significant adverse impact to the environment. 1. Buffering Tukwila, Pond and its Shoreline Habitat. As mitigation to offset the impact to plants and wildlife, the applicant proposes to retain a 25-foot buffer between the edge of the pond and the development. The mitigation should be • revised to include a minimum 20-foot buffer measured from the top of the pond's bank (i.e. approximately the 19-foot elevation contour) to the development. A 20-foot buffer measured from the top of bank, rather than the water's edge, would protect the sensitive habitat located along the pond's wetland shoreline. It is not only the water's edge that needs a protective buffer but the vegetative habitat 1pcated along the pond's bank. A 20-foot buffer measured from the top of the pond's bank would allow construction and'future • • maintenance equipment to work around the buildings and parking lots without encroaching into and damaging the shoreline habitat located along the pond's bank. The Environmental Checklist (page 5.) states that the current proposal provides 6 parking spaces per thousand square feet of retail space, while the City Code requires only 2.5 spaces per thousand square feet of retail space. By slightly reducing the number of parking spaces, enough flexibility should be available to satisfy the City Code and provide for the revised buffer. 2. Permanent Protection to the Tukwila Pond Wetland. The Environmental Checklist (page 2.) states that there are no plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal. To guarantee that this requirement is fulfilled into perpetuity, Tukwila pond, its associated wetlands and buffers must be legally separated into a separate tract. A conservation easement and/or a native growth protection easement must be recorded on the tract. The tract should also be transferred to an appropriate agency to ensure its long term maintenance for wildlife. The Seattle Audubon Society is available to supply assistance in fulfilling this requirement. 3. Fencing. The current proposal would introduce intense public activity to the sensitive northern shoreline of Tukwila Pond. Uncontrolled public access to the shoreline would undoubtedly disturb the wildlife and ultimately degrade the shoreline habitat. To prevent uncontrolled access to the pond, a permanent fence. must be installed along the revised buffer where human intrusion is likely from the proposed development. 4. Viewing Platform / Lookout. The Site / Landscape Plan (Figure 2.) of the Environmental Checklist shows a proposed lookout along the northern shore of Tukwila pond. Passive wildlife observation at a controlled location such as the lookout is encouraged. The design of the lookout must, however, have some specific constraints. The lookout should not provide access to the remainder of the shoreline. The lookout should not extend out into the open water of the pond. The structure should stop at the pond's edge to avoid increased disturbance to wildlife and to reduce the introduction ��� ��`�� of floating litter (which poses a serious hazard to wildlife, especially waterfowl). The lookout should include interpretive signs which promote wildlife appreciation and discourage littering and feeding the waterfowl. The Seattle Audubon Society has a variety of members with expertise in wildlife education available to participate in the development of interpretive signs for the site. 5. Storm Water Drainage Plan and Water Quality. The Drainage Plan (Figure 4.) of the Environmental Checklist shows the conceptual design of the storm sewer system for the proposed buildings and parking lot. A major water quality concern is the piping of polluted storm water to Tukwila Pond, with oil/water separators acting as the only method of removing pollutants. As noted in the Environmental Checklist (page A-5.), Tukwila Pond appears to function hydrologically as a closed depression. This means that pollutants which enter Tukwila Pond will tend to remain in the pond and accumulated over time rather, than being conveyed downstream. Since the hydrologic basin contributing runoff to the pond appears to be limited to the site itself, it is important that the water continues to reach the pond, and be of high quality. In addition to the standard oil/water separators, the use of permanent vegetated settlement ponds, grass-lined swales (a minimum of 200-feet in length), and dispersal trenches must be included in the final drainage design. It appears that these additional measures could be installed in the open space areas located south of the Target store loading area, and south of the proposed restaurant. Vegetated settlement ponds and biofiltration swales are commonly integrated into the landscape plans of projects similar to this one. These facilities should not, however, be constructed within the buffer area surrounding the pond. 6. Light and Glare. To minimize the disturbance to wildlife the exterior illumination of the proposed buildings and parking lot should be of minimal intensity, shielded and directed downward to prevent light spillage into the Tukwila Pond Area. 7. Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control. The Environmental Checklist (page 7.) states, "Siltation fences,and temporary ditches with rock check dams would be constructed at the base of the pond bank." To protect the shoreline habitat along the pond these temporary erosion control measures should be located at the top of the pond bank rather than at the base. 8. Protecting Shoreline Vegetation during Construction. Prior to any clearing or grading activity, a temporary highly visible fence should be erected along the edge of the wetland buffer to clearly delineate the limits of construction activity. The fence should remain in place through out the construction phase of the project to prevent the accidental encroachment of construction equipment into the sensitive buffer area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the most recent Environmental Checklist for the Tukwila Pond site. The Seattle Audubon Society continues to be sincerely concerned about the potential impact the proposed project may have on Tukwila Pond, its associated wetlands and wildlife. We are hopeful that the items raised in this letter will be specifically addressed by the applicant with additional mitigating measures. Please notify us immediately of the City's SEPA determination, and the deadline for a timely appeal, if necessary. If you have any specific questions please ti le contact Joe Miles of our Conservation Committee at 622-8254. Sincerely, Gerry Adams Vice President TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM Jack Pace, Senior Planner Ron Cameron, City EngineerE:7i? October 6, 1988 September Tukwila Pond Expanded Checklist 1. The checklist states that Strander service level will be increased by the new signal and created gaps for additional, new driveway traffic. It will create a short westbound "gap" between westbound through and southbound to westbound right turn traffic. It will have no affect on eastbound traffic. Therefore, the projected level of service decrease at the west Southcenter driveway from D to E with Tukwila Pond can be expected. The middle Tukwila Pond Strander driveway cannot be allowed. a. For safety reasons of opposing left turn traffic on Strander. b. Additional affects on the west Southcenter driveway traffic safety and replaced LOS for D to E (page 18). c. There are no plans or drawings included that would physically limit it to a right only without affecting existing driveway traffic movements nor the proposed truck /employee service driveway. 3. As previously explained in the September response, Strander has been projected to need seven (7) lanes. This project will need to dedicate right -of -way to a seven (7) lane plan line width and provide a POA for a future L.I.D. The improvement will be needed for Tukwila Pond's traffic access as well as through traffic. RC /kjr • City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 30, 1988 Ted Muller Dept. of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd Mill Creek, Wa. 98012 Subject: Tukwila Pond Center Check List EPIC 28 -88 Dear Ted: Attached is the Expanded Environmental checklist for Tukwila Pond Center. I would appreciate your review and comments on the revised project by October 10, 1988. If you should have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Jack Pace Senior Planner JP:mm City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 30, 1988 Andy McMillan Dept. of Ecology Baran Hall Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, Wa. 98504 Subject: Tukwila Pond Center Check List EPIC 28 -88 Dear Andy: Attached is the Expanded Environmental checklist for Tukwila Pond Center. I would appreciate your review and comments onn the revised project by October 10, 1988. If you should have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Jack Pace Senior Planner JP:mm City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 September 30, 1988 Joe Miles Seattle Audubon Society 619 Joshua Green Bldg Seattle, Wa. 98101 Subject: Tukwila Pond Center Check List EPIC 28 -88 Dear Joe: Attached is the Expanded Environmental checklist for Tukwila Pond Center.- I would appreciate your review and comments on the revised project by Octob er 10, 1988. If you should have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, �(rs�‘61 Jack Pace Senior Planner JP:mm ;g4-- &57;14f 62//s- gfisit o 41zus� c /(4cl �`7� fJ l // 10 OA ltied 5 /r(--(6 fu ,(( Gd/`l 5� , 1 4/ a 4/ n7/5 -� VYQ-Q7 recorc,. yyot/ ceit# ` — 9cynix I 6( %Ql � rc� 5767? l You('5 1$ /(oui 'co/ r c, 9y? /12 gi,fik, • 3e# kk TO iTC !`„ ti • RECE "FD ¶cr SEP 2 6 1988 O SUBJECT` ur..w t;p MESSAGE DATE -24 58 lj LAI . t&1• :il►_ ] 5 M 0 11C�.�1.1`0 REPLY A?e_k ?- hAve Sri 'JJ" AreY A Su a rm iZ,' - z irfai,TFOK) .. %?rSCal iia►J 1.1 nr� AT Lam- Deie ire Is poi -71-t- Come SIGNED REDIFORM,. as 472 SEND ARTS 1 AND -3 INTACT - PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. carbonless POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P472 September 22, 1988 Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Tukwila Pond Project Expanded Checklist Dear Jack: HE FERRIS COMPANY VI SEP 221988 We have completed the Expanded Checklist for the Spieker Partners' project at Tukwila Pond. Included are attachments covering the elements of the environment identified for coverage in the scope for the EIS on the earlier proposal. We have also included a list of mitigation measures proposed by the sponsor for your convenience; it can be found at page C -1 of this submittal. We have enclosed copies of letters for your files; one is from GeoEngineers regarding construction methods for the project, and the other is from Chris Brown regarding traffic volumes. Also, the calculations for the traffic analysis are enclosed for your reference. We trust that the document contains all that the City will need to reach a new threshhold determination, but if you have any questions, please call us at 462 -7650. Sincerely, 6/4'et.e 46V-/V'12-- Michael J. lumen Leslie Lloyd Project Manager Program Manager LAL :slw Enclosures cc: Joel Benoliel Glen Amster Seattle Trust Building, Suite 300 10655 NE 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 206 / 462 -7650 • chris opher brown pc 9688 rainier avenue & 1sale washi • . 7234567 ••:118 Mr. Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners 11400 S.E. 8th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 September 20, 1988 SEP 2 21988 Re: Tukwila Pond Center - Spieker Partners Shopping Center Traffic Study: Impacts with Minor Increase in Scale Dear Mr. Benoliel; The question has been asked, "What are the traffic impacts if one of the peripheral buildings is increased from 61,000 g.s.f. to 68,000 g.s.f. ?" I am presenting below the data from Table II of page 8 of the study along with the new trip production estimates with the enlarged building to show the difference. In this case, the shopping center is essentially increased from 162,900 g.s.f. to 169,900 g.s.f. Net Trip Generation, Tukwila Pond Center (Two Different Scales of Development) Time Interval Volume with Scale as Noted 162,900 g.s.f. 169,900 g.s.f. A.W.D.T. P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Noon Inbound Noon Outbound 4,390 v.p.d. 169 v.p.h. 176 v.p.h. 180 v.p.h. 178 v.p.h. 4,509 v.p.d. 173 v.p.h. 180 v.p.h. 184 v.p.h. 182 v.p.h. In terms of traffic operations, the additional traffic brought onto the system by the larger scale option is not significant. Indeed, it is so small being in the order of eight vehicles per hour that it probably could not be measured. It will not reduce any of the LOS values described in the study. - Yours truly, C. V. Brown, P.E. encl. cc. The Ferris Co. F R O M k ' j SUBJECT ipkitLJ P \D " m' , ,,A DATE. /1 cr. /66 j 4: MESSAGE . 1t2 f)C q i!� 1 �Cj (IIR A IQ 1 -� i M J i' i G 1r., Ok )0Q_,. < • -4- -1r 0L'# kNOD 11 .>t i 12__ k rte, . i. hr) JOftt n tia . TUtz ( -i - Pa`s I. 11 -2. UN A- r £bLkluG t a\-- `! t ) i' 1 h "'iJ --k.7 1 ' , ` - L s 11 a • 1 1., CAA e eir- 0 SIGNED i. REPLY REDIFORM,; as 472 SIGNED _ . DATE SBJD •PARTS't AND 3•iNTi►cT .' carbon /ems: POLY. PAK (50 SETS) 4P472 PART '3 WILL BE'RETURNED WITH REPLY. „ DETACH AND FILE FOR FOLLOW -UP Geo iktoi Engineers Spieker Partners P.O. Box 97022 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Mr. Joel Benoliel Gentlemen: September 16, 1988 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists • SEP 2? 1988 Potential Impact of Construction Proposed Commercial Development Andover Park West and Strander Blvd. Tukwila, Washington File No. 1192 -12 -1 A description of the construction methods which we anticipate will be used in developing the site of a proposed commercial development at Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard in Tukwila, Washington and discussion of potential impacts on the pond on the site are presented in this letter. We have prepared a geotechnical engineering report for this project dated July 5, 1988. The project, as proposed at the time that report was prepared, would have included construction of several buildings extending out over the pond which exists on the property. The building layout has been modified such that all buildings will be located in the land area between Strander Boulevard and the north bank of the pond. We understand that a minimum buffer zone of 25 feet between the edge of the pond and any construction activities will be maintained. A major portion of this area presently has a ground surface elevation of between 19 and 20 feet. Fill will be required to establish parking area grades and, unless structurally- supported floor slabs are used, to establish building pads such that the lowest finished floor elevation will be about Elevation 26 to 26.5 to meet 100 -year design flood criteria. GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 • • Geo 40,Engineers Spieker Partners September 16, 1988 Page 2 The placement of fill required to establish these grades will result in consolidation of the underlying strata of compressible soils. Excess fill may be placed to simulate the structural loads and induce further consolidation during the period between when the fill is placed and the structures are built. This excess fill would subsequently be removed and used to grade the remaining portion of parking areas. This procedure has been successfully applied on many projects in the Southcenter /Andover Industrial Park development. The general construction procedure for the development will be as follows: 1. The site is cleared of vegetation, although the sod cover is typically not stripped. 2. Fill is placed to establish the grades in the proposed building and parking areas (as noted above, filling in all of the parking areas to final grades will likely be deferred until preloading is completed if this option is chosen). 3. The slopes at the edge of fill are constructed at an angle which is the steepest practical compatible with the type of fill being placed and with considerations of stability of the underlying native soils. 4. Once the excess fill has been placed, a waiting period is observed during which the consolidation of underlying compres- sible soils occurs. S. Once the settlement readings taken during the waiting period indicate that the magnitude and rate of settlement due to this consolidation have diminished to an acceptable level, the excess fill is removed and construction of the building proceeds in a normal fashion. Geo NogEngineers Spieker Partners September 16, 1988 Page 3 The primary areas of potential impact on the adjacent pond from site filling are: 1. The direct impact of fill being placed into the existing pond area — this will be avoided by maintaining the indicated buffer zone between the edge of the pond and construction activities. 2. Displacement of the bottom of the pond due to overloading the perimeter soils and causing failure in underlying strata of weak materials — the area in which new fill will be placed is already mantled with some 8 to 10 feet or more of fill which has been placed during past site grading activities. Our analyses indicate that, with the indicated buffer zone, the heights of fill required to grade the site for the proposed project will not result in instability along the perimeter of the pond. 3. Sedimentation impacts on the pond resulting from erosion of the newly placed fill — a carefully monitored erosion control and sediment collection plan will be implemented to collect and control any erosion of the newly placed fill. 4. Installation of foundations — construction activities relative to foundation installation will not impact the pond. This applies both to construction of shallow spread footings and the installation of piles. In either case, all construction activities will not impinge on the buffer zone around the pond. We conclude that the planned site grading and foundation installation activities for development of this project will not result in any adverse environmental impacts on the pond, providing that normal erosion control and sedimentation collection procedures are followed. This letter is • • Geo trIEngineers Spieker Partners September 16, 1988 Page 4 intended to provide general backup for the environmental checklist for the project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Youyfs very truly, GegEngineers, Inc. JKT:wd Three copies submitted cc: The Ferris Company (2) Seattle Trust Bldg. 10655 N.E. 4th St., Suite 416 Bellevue, WA 98004 ✓ Attn: Ms. Leslie Lloyd Tuttle rincipal TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 1 \SEP 2- 1988 MEMORANDUM Rick Beeler, Planning Director Ron Cameron, City Engineer !0 ■ September 15, 1988 Tukwila Pond SEPA This memorandum explains why seven lanes are needed on Strander. 1. Entranco Engineers prepared a Transportation Improvement Plan that was submitted in October 1979. It included short and long range improvements. It was an extensive report including inventory analysis and projections. The long range needs were based on 1990 volume projections. That work shows Strander needing seven lanes to carry 1990 traffic. Their noon peak forecasts for Strander (past the pond) showing the peak volumes are being approached. *extrapolated FORECAST JULY 1988 Eastbound 630* 720 Westbound 1,180 970 TOTAL 1,810 1,690 2. The PSCOG Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan report projects the north -south volumes in the vicinity of Strander and Andover will increase between 2 and 2.5 times by the year 2000. That would result in the Strander volume increasing from about 15,500 to over 30,000. Our counts indicate that the growth rate is faster. A seven lane section will be needed for this. • Rick Beeler MEMORANDUM September 15, 1988 Page 2 3. The EIS projects that 10,090 trips will be generated by the 160,145 gsf (page 6). The analysis adjusts for passby, reducing the through by 50% to 5,046. This is a normal analysis practice, however, the site will still generate 10,090 and probably more due to the lack of ready /easy pedestrian access. That creates over 10,000 new intersection trips on Strander and Andover. That's the problem that Entranco's recommended seven lanes will serve. A five lane facility can be expected to operate in continuous LOS F with a 30,000 AWDT, the high volumes of intersecting driveway traffic, and limited east /west area capacity. A continuous five lane LOS F could be expected to detrimentally affect the pond development. Seven lanes will require longer pedestrian times at the signals. During the "day" (7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.) vehicle traffic will require similar timing; night time pedestrian crossings will require longer times than the vehicle volumes will need. There is little night pedestrian traffic so this should be of no measure. A practice being employed in similar situations is to accept a Power of Attorney for a future L.I.D. to provide the improvements (widening, sidewalks, lighting, traffic control, etc.) and for the developer to deed the right -of -way. This allows the development to proceed on a street that is operating while providing for the known future needs. This would be acceptable to Public Works in providing for the identified seven lane section needed for traffic safety and capacity. RC /kjr CC: City Administrator TARGTO1 TARGT02 TARGT03 TARGT04 TARGT05 TARGT06 TARGT07 TARGT08 TARGT09 • • TUKWILA POND CENTER `- A Proposed Shopping Center S E' 2 2 1988 APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Current Traffic Analysis Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Entrance (west) Horizon Year Analysis, Project Built Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West Strander Boulevard /Site Entrance (East) Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Entrance (west) Andover Park West /Site Entrance Strander Boulevard /Site Entrance (West) With Right In /Right Out At Strander Boulevard /Site Entrance (West) TARGTA6 Strander Boulevard /Site Entrance (East) TARGTA9 Strander Boulevard /Site Entrance (West) Accident Data - Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Entrance (east) Driveway Location Map • • 9/14/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGTA9 STRANDER BOULEVARD E/W STREET 2 - - *> v STRANDER BOULEVARD E/W STREET 909 > < - -- 2 827 EB TOTAL WB TOTAL 1023 114 0 827 . SITE ACCESS (WEST) v N/S STREET v 0 29 <. .> 1 NB TOTAL 29 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/14/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTA9 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS (WEST) WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 NB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 0 909 114 TR 2 24.0 WB 0 827 0 T 2 24.0 NB 0 0 29 R 1 14.0 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/14/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTA9 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS (WEST) WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L GAPS CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN EB WB 5.00 NB 6.50 - -- 5.00 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LANES LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 0 511 0 0 398 114 0 0 0 WB 0 413 0 0 414 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY 718 LEVEL OF SERVICE A MAJOR STREET - EB /WB • • 9/14/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGTA6 SB TOTAL 263 <' > 175 i 62 v 26 N W - +- E SOUTHCENTER ENTR. N/S STREET <* v *> <* STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 230 ^ EB TOTAL 914 582 SITE ENTRANCE N/S STREET 102 v A *> ^ 206 WB TOTAL 565 831 60 v STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 8 A 228 36 <. .> NB TOTAL 272 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/14/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTA6 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SITE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 10 Y 15.0 3 WB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 10 Y 15.0 3 NB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 10 Y 18.0 3 SB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 10 Y 18.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 230 582 102 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 WB 60 565 206 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 NB 228 8 36 L 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 SB 62 26 175 L 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R EB 1 L L 8 92 EB 2 L TR LR 16 84 EB 3 TR R 39 61 WB 1 L L 8 92 WB 3 TR R 39 61 NB 3 L TR LR 37 63 SB 3 L TR LR 37 63 • • ' PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/14/1988 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SITE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTA6 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT EB L 230 256 1.00 256 1.00 0.00 TR 684 760 1.00 760 0.00 0.15 WB L 60 67 1.00 67 1.00 0.00 TR 771 857 1.00 857 0.00 0.27 NB L 228 253 1.00 253 1.00 0.00 TR 44 49 1.00 49 0.00 0.82 SB L 62 69 1.00 69 1.00 0.00 TR 201 223 1.00 223 0.00 0.87 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 TR 1800 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 3528 WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1693 TR 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 3421 NB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1080 TR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1566 SB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 1476 TR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1566 • ' PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/14/1988 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SITE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTA6 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N CAPACITY ANA L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV. ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB L 256 0 1710 0.150 Y 0.240 410 0.624 TR 760 0 3528 0.215 N 0.550 1940 0.392 WB L 67 0 1693 0.040 N 0.080 135 0.496 TR 857 0 3421 0.251 Y 0.390 1334 0.642 NB L 253 0 1080 0.234 Y 0.390 421 0.601 TR 49 0 1566 0.031 N 0.390 611 0.080 SB L 69 0 1476 0.047 N 0.390 576 0.120 TR 223 0 1566 0.142 N 0.390 611 0.365 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.635 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.698 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS EB L 0.624 0.240 100 25.8 410 2.1 1.00 27.9 D TR 0.392 0.550 100 9.8 1940 0.1 0.85 8.4 B 13.3 B WB L 0.496 0.080 100 33.5 135 2.4 1.00 35.9 D TR 0.642 0.390 100 18.9 1334 0.8 0.85 16.7 C 18.1 C NB L 0.601 0.390 100 18.5 421 1.7 0.85 17.2 C TR 0.080 0.390 100 14.6 611 0.0 0.85 12.4 B 16.4 C SB L 0.120 0.390 100 14.8 576 0.0 0.85 12.6 B TR 0.365 0.390 100 16.5 611 0.2 0.85 14.2 B 13.8 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 15.5 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C • i 9/13/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGTO1 SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET 2 2 v *> A *> 2 1 SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET W - +- E SB TOTAL 1127 v .> 692 435 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET A *--- 1 * - -- 1 v 778 435 A .> NB TOTAL 1213 A 373 v WB TOTAL 486 859 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO1 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE WB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 NB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 SB -2 3 N 0 0 0.86 0 N 18.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD WB 486 0 373 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 778 435 T 2 24.0 R 1 12.0 SB 435 692 0 L 2 24.0 T 2 24.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R WB 3 L R LR 44 56 WB 1 R R 20 80 NB 2 T R R 36 64 NB 3 R R 44 56 SB 1 L T L 20 80 SB 2 T 36 64 Y • PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO1 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT WB L 486 565 1.00 565 1.00 0.00 R 373 434 1.00 434 0.00 1.00 NB SB T 778 905 1.00 905 0.00 0.00 R 435 506 1.00 506 0.00 1.00 L 435 506 1.00 506 1.00 0.00 T 692 805 1.00 805 0.00 0.00 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1500 R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 NB T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3528 R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 SB L 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3312 T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 • • 'PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO1 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL C A P A C I T Y ANAL Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO WB L 565 0 1500 0.377 Y 0.440 660 0.856 R 434 0 1500 0.289 Y 0.640 960 0.452 NB T 905 0 3528 0.257 N 0.360 1270 0.713 R 506 0 1500 0.337 Y 0.800 1200 0.422 SB L 506 0 3312 0.153 Y 0.200 662 0.764 T 805 0 3600 0.224 N 0.560 2016 0.399 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 1.156 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.270 L E V E L O F SERVICE LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS WB L 0.856 0.440 100 19.1 660 7.6 1.00 26.7 D R 0.452 0.640 100 6.9 960 0.2 0.85 6.0 B 17.7 C NB T 0.713 0.360 100 20.9 1270 1.3 0.85 18.9 C R 0.422 0.800 100 2.3 1200 0.1 0.85 2.0 A 12.8 B SB L 0.764 0.200 100 28.7 662 3.7 1.00 32.4 D T 0.399 0.560 100 9.5 2016 0.1 0.85 8.2 B 17.5 C INTERSECTION DELAY : 15.8 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C • • 9/13/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT02 SB TOTAL 779 <1 .> 123 i 285 v 371 W - +- E ANDOVER PARK WEST N/S STREET 2 < *> v STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 113 ^ EB TOTAL 634 402 119 v A < *> i 2 ANDOVER PARK WEST N/S STREET ^ 209 WB TOTAL 452 751 90 v STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 331 172 1 56 <. .> 1 NB TOTAL 559 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT02 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ ANDOVER PARK WEST WEEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.88 0 Y 18.0 3 WB 0 2 N 0 0 0.80 5 Y 18.0 3 NB 0 4 N 0 0 0.87 0 Y 15.5 3 SB 0 2 N 0 0 0.87 7 Y 15.5 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 113 402 119 L 1 12.0 TR 2 21.0 WB 90 452 209 L 1 11.0 TR 2 20.0 NB 172 331 56 LTR 2 25.0 SB 285 371 123 LTR 2 27.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R EB 1 L L 12 88 EB 2 TR R 28 72 WB 1 L L 12 88 WB 2 TR R 28 72 NB 3 LTR LR 27 73 SB 4 LTR LR 33 67 • • 'PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT02 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ ANDOVER PARK WEST WEEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT EB L 113 128 1.00 128 1.00 0.00 TR 521 592 1.00 592 0.00 0.23 WB L 90 112 1.00 112 1.00 0.00 TR 661 826 1.00 826 0.00 0.32 NB LTR 559 643 1.00 643 0.31 0.10 SB LTR 779 895 1.00 895 0.37 0.16 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 TR 1800 2 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 3317 WB L 1800 1 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1642 TR 1800 2 0.94 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 3183 NB LTR 1800 2 1.02 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 3474 SB LTR 1800 2 1.05 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 3579 • • -PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT02 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ ANDOVER PARK WEST WEEKDAY NOON 1988 CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB L 128 0 1710 0.075 Y 0.120 205 0.624 TR 592 0 3317 0.178 N 0.280 929 0.637 WB L 112 0 1642 0.068 N 0.120 197 0.569 TR 826 0 3183 0.260 Y 0.280 891 0.927 NB LTR 643 0 3474 0.185 Y 0.270 938 0.686 SB LTR 895 0 3579 0.250 Y 0.330 1181 0.758 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.770 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 12 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.875 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS EB L 0.624 0.120 100 31.8 205 4.0 1.00 35.8 D TR 0.637 0.280 100 24.0 929 1.0 0.85 21.2 C 23.8 C WB L 0.569 0.120 100 31.6 197 2.8 1.00 34.4 D TR 0.927 0.280 100 26.6 891 11.2 0.85 32.1 D 32.3 D NB LTR 0.686 0.270 100 24.9 938 1.5 0.85 22.4 C 22.3 C SB LTR 0.758 0.330 100 22.7 1181 2.0 0.85 21.0 C 21.0 C INTERSECTION DELAY : 25.2 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : D • • 9/13/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT03 208 ^ EB TOTAL 208 0 A N W - +- E SB TOTAL 252 <1 > 190 1 62 v 0 SOUTHCENTER WEST DR N/S STREET ^ 84 WB TOTAL 665 749 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET A < * -- 2 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT03 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER WEST DR WEEKDAY NOON 1988 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST CBD ?N T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 0 3 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 SB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 208 0 0 L 1 12.0 WB 0 665 84 TR 2 24.0 SB 62 0 190 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT03 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER WEST DR WEEKDAY NOON 1988 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST CBD ?N U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L GAPS CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN EB 5.00 - -- WB SB 6.50 5.00 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LAN E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 375 0 0 290 84 0 0 0 SB 62 0 0 0 0 190 0 0 0 APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 326 LEVEL OF SERVICE B WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY 120 663 LEVEL OF SERVICE MAJOR STREET - EB /WB D A • 9/13/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT04 SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET 2 2 A *> 2 1 SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. N/S STREET SB TOTAL 1218 v .> 669 549 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET A * - -- 1 * - -- 1 A 489 v ` 753 493 A .> t i NB TOTAL 1246 v WB TOTAL 541 1030 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT04 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE WB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 NB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 SB -2 3 N 0 0 0.86 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD WB 541 0 489 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 753 493 T 2 24.0 R 1 12.0 SB 549 669 0 L 2 24.0 T 2 24.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G , APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R WB 3 L R LR 45 55 WB 1 R R 24 76 NB 2 T R R 31 69 NB 3 R R 45 55 SB 1 L T L 24 76 SB 2 T 31 69 • • PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT04 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT WB NB SB L 541 R 489 T 753 R 493 L 549 T 669 629 1.00 629 1.00 0.00 569 1.00 569 0.00 1.00 876 1.00 876 0.00 0.00 573 1.00 573 0.00 1.00 638 1.00 638 1.00 0.00 778 1.00 778 0.00 0.00 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1500 R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 NB T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3528 R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 SB L 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3312 T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 • • PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SOUTHCENTER PRKWY. WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT04 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO WB L R NB T R SB L T 629 0 1500 0.419 Y 0.450 675 0.932 569 0 1500 0.379 Y 0.690 1035 0.550 876 0 3528 0.248 N 0.310 1094 0.801 573 0 1500 0.382 Y 0.760 1140 0.503 638 0 3312 0.193 Y 0.240 795 0.803 778 0 3600 0.216 N 0.550 1980 0.393 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 1.373 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.509 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS WB L 0.932 0.450 100 19.8 675 14.3 1.00 34.1 D R 0.550 0.690 100 5.9 1035 0.5 0.85 5.4 B 20.5 C NB T 0.801 0.310 100 24.1 1094 3.1 0.85 23.1 C R 0.503 0.760 100 3.5 1140 0.3 0.85 3.2 A 15.2 C SB L 0.803 0.240 100 27.2 795 4.2 1.00 31.4 D T 0.393 0.550 100 9.8 1980 0.1 0.85 8.4 B 18.7 C INTERSECTION DELAY : 18.0 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C jl • 9/13/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT05 1 <' 124 SB TOTAL 792 > 275 v 393 N W - +- E ANDOVER PARK WAY N/S STREET 2 r < *> v A \ / A < *> STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 2 114 ^ EB TOTAL 659 425 ANDOVER PARK WAY N/S STREET 120 v ^ 210 WB TOTAL 476 785 99 v STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 342 A 173 70 <. .> NB TOTAL 585 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT05 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ ANDOVER PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & ROADWAY C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.88 0 Y 18.0 3 WB 0 2 N 0 0 0.80 5 Y 18.0 3 NB 0 4 N 0 0 0.87 0 Y 15.5 3 SB 0 2 N 0 0 0.87 7 Y 15.5 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 114 425 120 L 1 12.0 TR 2 21.0 WB 99 476 210 L 1 11.0 TR 2 20.0 NB 173 342 70 LTR 2 25.0 SB 275 393 124 LTR 2 27.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R EB 1 L L 10 90 EB 2 TR R 30 70 WB 1 L L 10 90 WB 2 TR R 30 70 NB 3 LTR LR 26 74 SB 4 LTR LR 34 66 • • PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ ANDOVER PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT05 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT EB L 114 130 1.00 130 1.00 0.00 TR 545 619 1.00 619 0.00 0.22 WB L 99 124 1.00 124 1.00 0.00 TR 686 857 1.00 857 0.00 0.31 NB LTR 585 672 1.00 672 0.30 0.12 SB LTR 792 910 1.00 910 0.35 0.16 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 TR 1800 2 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 3317 WB L 1800 1 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1642 TR 1800 2 0.94 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 3183 NB LTR 1800 2 1.02 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 3498 SB LTR 1800 2 1.05 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 3579 • • PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ ANDOVER PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT05 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB L 130 0 1710 0.076 Y 0.100 171 0.760 TR 619 0 3317 0.187 N 0.300 995 0.622 WB L 124 0 1642 0.076 N 0.100 164 0.756 TR 857 0 3183 0.269 Y 0.300 955 0.897 NB LTR 672 0 3498 0.192 Y 0.260 909 0.739 SB LTR 910 0 3579 0.254 Y 0.340 1217 0.748 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.791 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 12 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.899 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS EB L 0.760 0.100 100 33.3 171 11.9 1.00 45.2 E TR 0.622 0.300 100 22.9 995 0.9 0.85 20.2 C 24.5 C WB L 0.756 0.100 100 33.3 164 12.0 1.00 45.3 E TR 0.897 0.300 100 25.5 955 8.0 0.85 28.5 D 30.6 D NB LTR 0.739 0.260 100 25.8 909 2.3 0.85 23.9 C 23.8 C SB LTR 0.748 0.340 100 22.2 1217 1.8 0.85 20.4 C 20.4 C INTERSECTION DELAY : 25.0 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C • • 9/13/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT06 SB TOTAL 263 <' .> 175 i 62 v 26 SOUTHCENTER ENTR. N/S STREET STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 230 ^ ' EB TOTAL 914 582 > 102 v < * A 1 SITE ENTRANCE N/S STREET ^ 206 < v WB TOTAL 574 817 37 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET 120 <. 1 1 8 A NB TOTAL 164 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT06 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SITE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 10 Y 15.0 3 WB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 10 Y 15.0 3 NB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 10 Y 18.0 3 SB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 10 Y 18.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 230 582 102 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 WB 37 574 206 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 NB 120 8 36 L 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 SB 62 26 175 L 1 12.0 TR 1 12.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R EB 1 L L 8 92 EB 2 L TR LR 16 84 EB 3 TR R 39 61 WB 1 L L 8 92 WB 3 TR R 39 61 NB 3 L TR LR 37 63 SB 3 L TR LR 37 63 • • PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SITE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGTO6 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT EB WB NB SB L 230 256 1.00 256 1.00 0.00 TR 684 760 1.00 760 0.00 0.15 L 37 41 1.00 41 1.00 0.00 TR 780 867 1.00 867 0.00 0.26 L 120 133 1.00 133 1.00 0.00 TR 44 49 1.00 49 0.00 0.82 L 62 69 1.00 69 1.00 0.00 TR 201 223 1.00 223 0.00 0.87 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 TR 1800 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 3528 WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1693 TR 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 3421 NB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1080 TR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1566 SB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 1476 TR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1566 • • PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ SITE ENTRANCE @ SOUTHCENTER ENTR. WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT06 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N C A P A C I T Y ANAL Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB L 256 0 1710 0.150 Y 0.240 410 0.624 TR 760 0 3528 0.215 N 0.550 1940 0.392 WB L 41 0 1693 0.024 N 0.080 135 0.304 TR 867 0 3421 0.253 Y 0.390 1334 0.650 NB L 133 0 1080 0.123 N 0.390 421 0.316 TR 49 0 1566 0.031 N 0.390 611 0.080 SB L 69 0 1476 0.047 N 0.390 576 0.120 TR 223 0 1566 0.142 Y 0.390 611 0.365 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.545 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.599 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS EB L 0.624 0.240 100 25.8 410 2.1 1.00 27.9 D TR 0.392 0.550 100 9.8 1940 0.1 0.85 8.4 B 13.3 B WB L 0.304 0.080 100 33.0 135 0.4 1.00 33.4 D TR 0.650 0.390 100 18.9 1334 0.8 0.85 16.7 C 17.4 C NB L 0.316 0.390 100 16.1 421 0.2 0.85 13.9 B TR 0.080 0.390 100 14.6 611 0.0 0.85 12.4 B 13.4 B SB L 0.120 0.390 100 14.8 576 0.0 0.85 12.6 B TR 0.365 0.390 100 16.5 611 0.2 0.85 14.2 B 13.8 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 14.9 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : B 411 410 - 9/13/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT07 217 ^ EB TOTAL 217 0 W - +- E SB TOTAL 271 <' .> 198 1 73 v 0 WEST SOUTHCENTER DR N/S STREET A \/ 1 - - -* 2 - - -> ^ 96 WB TOTAL 772 868 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET A < * -- 2 STRANDER BLVD. E/W STREET CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT07 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ WEST SOUTHCENTER DR WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST T R A F F I C & ROADWAY C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 0 3 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 SB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 217 0 0 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 WB 0 772 96 TR 2 24.0 SB 73 0 198 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT07 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BLVD. @ WEST SOUTHCENTER DR WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L GAPS CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN EB 5.00 WB SB 6.50 5.00 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LAN E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 434 0 0 338 96 0 0 0 SB 73 0 0 0 0 198 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP. LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 247 - -- LEVEL OF SERVICE C WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY 58 602 LEVEL OF SERVICE MAJOR STREET - EB /WB E A • 9/13/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT08 W - +- E SB TOTAL 626 <1 v 68 558 ANDOVER PARK WAY N/S STREET 2 <* v 67 ^ EB TOTAL 114 47 A \/ 1 - - -* v 1 - - -* v SITE ENTRANCE E/W STREET 48 548 <. A NB TOTAL 596 A <* 2 ANDOVER PARK WAY N/S STREET CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT08 INTERSECTION : SITE ENTRANCE @ ANDOVER PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 NB 0 4 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 SB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 67 0 47 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 48 548 0 LT 2 24.0 SB 0 558 68 TR 2 24.0 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT08 INTERSECTION : SITE ENTRANCE @ ANDOVER PARK WAY WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I CAL GAPS CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN EB 6.50 - -- 5.00 NB 5.00 - -- SB V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LAN E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 67 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 NB 48 178 0 0 370 0 0 0 0 SB 0 313 0 0 245 68 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 89 855 LEVEL OF SERVICE E A NB RESERVE CAPACITY 568 LEVEL OF SERVICE A SB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE MAJOR STREET - NB /SB • • 9/13/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TARGT09 STRANDER BOULEVARD E/W STREET 2 - - *> v STRANDER BOULEVARD E/W STREET 854 > * - -- 1 v < 0 EB TOTAL WB TOTAL 968 114 23 23 . SITE ACCESS (WEST) v N/S STREET v 108 29 <. .> i NB TOTAL 137 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT09 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS (WEST) WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 NB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 0 854 114 TR 2 24.0 WB 23 0 0 L 1 12.0 NB 108 0 29 LR 1 14.0 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/13/1988 TARGET STORE - TUKWILA TARGT09 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS (WEST) WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN EB WB 5.00 - -- - -- NB 6.50 5.00 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LAN E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 0 484 0 0 370 114 0 0 0 WB 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 108 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP EB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE MAJOR STREET - EB /WB LANE 1 389 B 147 D LANE 2 LANE 3 vy w1 Traffic Accident Record System Corridor Summary Report Time Interval: January 1, 1985 to August 19, 1988 Time Interval: January 1, 1985 to August 19, 1988 Location: STRANDER BOULEVARD at SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY (cont) • Direction Tot Num Num PDO Report # Date Day Time Type of Accident Veh #1 Veh #2 Veh Fat Inj H &R 870332 01/13/87 Tue 870903 01/31/87 Sat 871033 02/05/87 Thr B71991 03/09/87 Mon 871985 03/09/87 Mon 871819 03/03/87 Tue 871730 02/28/87 Sat 871587 02/23/87 Mon 871266 02/13187 Fri 870731 01/26/87 Non 871760 03/01/87 Sun 874733 06/08/87 Mon 874713 06/07/87 Sun 876239 07/30/87 Thr 876674 08/14/87 Fri 878233 10/02/87' Fri 8710405 12/07/87 Mon 8710196 12/02/87 Wed 8710240 12/03/87 Thr 8710246 12/03/87 Thr 8710396 12/07/87 Mon 8710841 12-18 -87 Fri 880537 01 -18-88 Mon 880719 01 -24 18 Sun 2155 Rear End S - N 1450 Approach Turn W - N 1210 Approach Turn E - W 1210 Right Angle N - E 1655 Right Angle E - W 1135 Approach Turn E - W 1440 Sideswipe E - W 1540 Right Angle E - W 815 Sideswipe N - S 1540 Rear End S - N 1445 Approach Turn N - E 1545 Fixed /Obj-Parked Veh N - E 1400 Right Angle E - N 1357 Right Angle 1652 Rear End 1230 Approach. Turn 1200 Approach Turn 1223 Rear End 1220 Approach Turn 1525 Right Angle 1200 Right Angle 1030 Right Angle 1350 Right Angle 1910 Rear End S -.N 5 -N E -W 14 -N E -W W -N N -E N -E E -W E -N S -N S -N 2 P E -W 2 P W -N 2 1 E -W 2 P N -E 2 P W - 5 3 1 E -W 2 P N -E 2 P N -5 2 P S -N 2 P S - N 2 P' 1 P S -N 2 P 14 -E 2 1 S -N 2 P W -N 2 P E -W 2 P E -W 2 2 E -W 2 P E -W 2 P E -W 2 P N -E 2 P S -N 2 P 5 - N 2 H &P TOTALS # of Acc =68 0 24 56 TOTAL P00 Acc =52 TOTAL H &R Acc =4 Location: STRANDER BOULEVARD btwn SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY & ANDOVER PARK WEST Report # Date Day Time Type of Accident Direction Tot Num Num PDO Veh #1 Veh #2 Veh Fat Inj H &R 8610541 11/20/86 Thr 863183 04/11/86 Fri 852899 10/27/85 Sun 851166 04/27/85 Sat 8611660 12/22/86 Mon 8611643 12/22/86 Mon 8611112 12/08/86 Mon 8610969 12/04/86 Thr 874588 06/03/87 Wed 8710660 12/13/87 Sun 1208 Right Angle N -6 E W 1110 Right Angle E -W N - 6 1440 Right Angle E -W N - 5 1602 Right Angle N -S E - W 1540 Right Angle 5 -W E - W 1300 Backing --W -E W - E 1310 Approach Turn • W -N E - W 1240 Approach Turn W -N E - W 1215 Right Angle IS -W E - W 1500 Right Angle N -W E - W 2 P 2 H &P 2 P 2 P 2 P 2 H &P 2 3 2 1 4 1 2 1 TOTALS # of Acc =10 0 6 8 TOTAL PDO Acc =6 Tf1TAI HLR Acc =2 August.l9, 1988 0. Andover Park West Site Access Driveway // ,� /i • 1 / I / I / 1 1 71)1 wIL" pi: Iwo • N 0I1.004,11P. M.W. Main Driveway 101,104 7 West Site Access Driveway —1 West Southcenter Driveway Service Driveway Driveway Location Map err M E M O R A N D U M %/ TO: Ross Earnst' FROM: Rick Beeler DATE:, September 3, 1988 SUBJECT: Tukwila Pond SEPA Conditions This memo is to repeat our longstanding request for your justification and specification of off -site traffic related improvements per SEPA from this development. Now being proposed is a 160,000 square foot strip shopping center of the design Jack Pace showed you and the DRC. A revised environmental checklist is to be submitted next week, but the applicant continues to challenge the extent of off -site traffic improvements you have requested so far. Today I confirmed with Larry Hard that'any off -site traffic improvements ( "mitigation ") must be based upon YOUR JUSTIFICATION per YOUR ANALYSIS (emphasis added). In other words you will need to submit an analysis to support your mitigation requests, BASED UPON THE IMPACTS DIRECTLY RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSAL. I'll need this analysis within a couple of weeks in order to make the required threshhold decision on the checklist. cc= ohn McFarland JJack Pace 12 ,September, 1988 Jack-Pace Senior Planner CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA. 98188 :. Tukwila Pond MP Job No. 88066.00'. Dear Jack: Thank .you. for - taking the time to discuss the Tukwila Pond site, with us. Although our "desires are to build over a portion of the pond, we.do not -have the luxury of time to await the completion of an environmental-impact study. It is my understanding that the following-dates are goals which. we-intend-to meet: • September 19 -...20 .October 15 or sooner October 20th "October 21 or, "later ;' December.:1, 7:00 pm .January 2 Should you wish Sincerely, Vincent Ferrese AIA Vice President - Joel Benoliel WalterKaczynski Lisa Verner Glenn Amster SEPA Checklist Submitted to- City of Tukwila ' Cut off date' for design. review board application - SEPA decision from-.City Submit for grading and fill permit- Design- Review Board Presentation City Council approval of Design Review Board's determination as well as hearing_of any appeals to SEPAL f.these dates, please phone-me.- cc:, ARCHITECTUR -E - PLANNING•.& • INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 I12TH AVE'NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 (206)-45 4 3344 FAX (206) 646 47'7,6 TUKWILA POND S•PIEKER PARTNERS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DISTRI_., SEPA (NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 ATTN: ANDY MCMILLAN STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT - REGION 4 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD ATTN:CTEDKFILLER98PROG MANAGER JOE MILES AUDUBON SOCIETY 22431 - 10TH AVENUE S. DES MOINES WA 98198 MRS. JOHN J. WAGNER 16047 47TH AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98188 DHARLENE WEST TUKWILA MCMICKEN ACT'N COMMITTEE 5212 S. 164TH TUKWILA, WA 98188 KEITH MASTERS 633 SOUTHCENTER MALL TUKWILA, WA 98188 ANDOVER & AS "I: S 854 EAST MERCER LA W 98040 ATTN- R. HOMA YEDOR AUDUBON SOCIETY ROOM 619 JOSHUA GREEN BUILDING SEATTLE, WA 98101 ATTN: DYANE SHELDON CHAMBE F COMMERCE 950 DOVER T ILA.AI 9= 88 CHEVRON USA 220 STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA 98188 DOUBLETREE PLAZA 1600 SOUTHCENTER PK TUKWILA, WA 98188 ATTN: GEORGE J. NEUMANN FIRESTONE 215 ANDOVER PK W. TUKWILA, WA 98188 ATTN: DENNIS MCGRIFF LARRY HANSON J.C. PENNY CO. REGIONAL TAX OFFICE #4015 BUENA PARK, CA 90624 KING CO SURFACE WTR MGMT DIV ATTN JIM CRAMER 701 DEXTER HORTON BLDG 710 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 KING CO. TRAFFIC & PLANNING KING CO. ADMIN BLDG 9TH FL SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN: JOHN LOGAN, MANAGER 4 ICK SANDAAS PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 200•W. MERCER #205 SEATTLE, WA 98119 -3958 ATTN: ARTHUR DAMMKOEHLER PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVMTS 216 FIRST AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN: BARBARA HASTINGS RAINIER NATIONAL BANK CONTROLLERS DEPARTMENT 086 P.O. BOX 3966 T14 -1 SEATTLE, WA 98124 • 7/1/88 M.A. SEGALE P.O. BOX 88050 TUKWILA, WA 98188 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SECTION P.O. LBOOX WCq- 37g5g5 ATT 124 TNFR'DWEINMANN 22x5 U.S. DEPARTMENT HUD VALUATION DEPARTMENT 1321 SECW1D AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT EAST 4217 MAIN STREET SPOKANE, WA 98202 WASHINGTON ST DEPT, OF GAME PROGRAM MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS TEAM 600 NORTH CAPITOL WAY OLYMPIA, WA 98504 WA HI '•TON TAT, D PT OF ECOLOG MA OLY A, W.S.D.O.T. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 15325 S.E. 30TH PL BELLEVUE, WA 98007 ATTN: R F JOHNSON W.S.D.O.T. 6431 CORSON AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98104 'ATTN: J. SCHUTZ OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS 4224 6TH AVENUE S.E. ROWE 6 BLDG 2 M.S. PY -21. LACEY, WA 98504 CITY OF TUKWILA MAYOR CITY CLERK • • METED ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION 821 SECOND AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98104 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 111 WEST 21ST AVENUE KL -11 OLYMPA, WA 98405 ATTN: ROBERT F. WHITLAM KING CO PARKS, PLANNING & RES. 1108 SMITH TOWER 506 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 A;TN: ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR John Edison 5834 NE 75th, #B204 Seattle, WA 98115 Jean Sundborg 121 SW 171st St. Seattle, WA 98166 T. Makey 15639 16th Ave. SW Seattle, WA 98166 Peggy Dunlap 15639 16th AVe. SW Seattle, WA 98166 Sandra J. Stowell 2225 Jones Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 Koreyne K. Simpson 815 S. 216th St. #27 Des Moines, WA 98198 -6396 Christopher Brown PE 9688 Rainier Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98118 Elizabeth Jovanovich -Miles 22431 10th Ave. S. Des Moines, WA 98198 Scott Salzer 233 SW 184th Seattle, WA 98166 • • Dharlen- est, P Tukw a McMic 5 S. 16 ukwila A 981 Michael & Carley Roedell P. 0. Box 953 Seahurst, WA 98062 Pat Jo ton 2201 108 Pl. K 9831 Agnes Wilder 815 S. 216th Des Moines, WA 98198 Richard A. Carothers 814 E. Pike St. Seattle, WA 98122 Mary Auryansen 4233 S. 182d St. Seattle, WA 98188 Robert A. Swoffer 1048 Industry Dr. Seattle, WA 98188 Joel B_ o1 is�Y 1140! SE th S B ev e, W - "98004 James L. Lutz PE 15325 SE 30th P1. Bellevue, WA 98007 -6568 omm. Alice C. Yvanovich 11513 Stone Ave. No. #334D Seattle, WA 98133 Charles R. Dowd 3200 W. Concord Way #446 Mercer Island, WA 98040 John M. Wolf 14893 Interurban AVe. S. #15 Tukwila, WA 98168 Deborah Dowd 3200 W. Concord Way #446 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard L. Hutchins 2908 13th Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98144 Paul Bosman 22301 Foothill Blvd. Hayward, CA 94541 Mike Riggs 9688 Raineir Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98118 ScottSchlosser 22301 Foothill Blvd. Hayward, CA 94541 Ly n Ta uc 12 t N , le e, 33, Bldg.3 004, R. L. Van Wormer 1514 Muirhead Olympia, WA 98502 Rich rd U. Chapin/-\\ 5001108th Ave., Suite 2100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Glenn J. Amster 500 Galland Bldg. 1221 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 Jan Roen 13023 SE 237th Ct. Kent, WA 98031 Paul Mer 2 .01 ooth' Blvd. yw rd, C 94541 Vincent Ferrese Scott S Mithun Partners Mery 2000 112th Ave. NE 22 i1 Bellevue, WA 98104 .ywar'd, C& •4541 Theodore A. Muller Dept. of Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012 Andy McMillan Dept. of Ecology Mail Stop PV11 Olympia, WA 98504 -8711 Edward M. Schaffnit Inc. 1111 3rd Ave. #700 Seattle, WA 98101 Nancy L. Purcell, MD 401 S. 43rd St., #230 Renton, WA 98055 Lynn T Suit 30 11 e4'ue , W 98005 Michael Daley 3725 SW Rose St. Seattle, WA 98126 vd. • Geo Engineers MacKenzie /Saito Associates Inc. Building 3, Suite 233 300 — 120th Avenue Northeast Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Mr. Lynn Takeuchi Gentlemen: Iltii��! F.. ...-._ a .� .. ._....�..� Y MAY G 5 1988 April 6, 1988 r°! ,-, zy,N r DtrikonsultingGeotechnical • Engineers and Geologists Assessment of Geotechnical Construction Impacts on Adjacent Facilities Proposed Commercial Development Andover Park West & Strander Blvd. Tukwila, Washington File No. 1192 -12 -1 This letter presents our assessment of geotechnical construction impacts on adjacent facilities resulting from construction of the planned commercial development adjacent to the "Tukwila Pond" in Tukwila, Washington. The project site is located on the south side of Strander Boulevard, west of Andover Park West. The site is presently vacant, has an area of approximately 12 acres, and is covered with grasses, brambles, and small trees. A seven story office building located well off site to the west and two smaller structures near the northwest corner of the site are the only significant structures in the immediate vicinity. An Olympic Pipeline Company line, as well as other utilities, is present along the south side of Strander Boulevard. Other utilities also exist along Andover Park West. We understand that present plans for site development are to construct one or two large (60,000 to 100,000 square foot) retail store GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 E EWER APR 7 1988 MACKENZIE /SAITO & ASSOC. P. S. Geo 61OEngineers MacKenzie /Saito Associates, Inc. April 6, 1988 Page 2 buildings together with some smaller, single -story retail shop buildings. This will require the placement of fill to raise at least a portion of the site. Depending on building loads and construction schedules, a portion of the planned buildings may require pile foundations. The site soils generally consist of surficial fill overlying compressible organic silt and peat extending to depths of about 40 feet below the average surface grade. These soils are underlain by medium dense sand to about 70 feet. This sand stratum is, in turn, underlain by soft to medium stiff silt to about 100 feet deep. Medium dense to dense sand underlies the silt. The fill required to establish yard grades and floor grades for soil- supported slabs will induce considerable consolidation in the underlying compressible strata. While this will result in substantial settlements in the central portion of the site, it is our experience, from extensive project experience in the Southcenter and Andover Industrial Park areas, that any settlements along the street embankments will be small (probably on the order of 1 to 3 inches). Differential settlements of utility lines will not be abrupt and are not expected to be detrimental to the utilities. Pile foundations will extend into the intermediate or deep sand layers underlying the site. Piles founded in the intermediate sand layer may be driven piles or augercast piles. In the latter case, these will be no ground vibrations generated in drilling the piles. In the case of driven piles, we conclude that the level of any driving- induced ground vibrations will be too small to have any effects on existing structures or adjacent utilities due to their distance from anticipated building locations. Geo es Engineers MacKenzie /Saito Associates, Inc. April 6, 1988 Page 3 If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. JEB:JKT: Three copies submitted Yours very truly, Ge¢F,pgineers, Inc. J" ck,K. Tuttle Pj ricipal cc: Mr. Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners 11400 SE 8th ST., Bellevue, WA 98004 Geo 40 Engineers REPORT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RETAIL STORE SITE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ANDOVER PARK WEST AND STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR SPIEKER PARTNERS INTRODUCTION The results of our geotechnical investigation for the retail store portion of the planned commercial development adjacent to the "Tukwila Pond" in Tukwila, Washington are presented in this report. The project site is located on the south side of Strander Boulevard, west of Andover Park West. The retail store site will be located at the west end of the site, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed retail store structure having an areal extent of approximately The proposed tenant is Target Corporation. loadings for of about 60 will be a one —story 102,000 square feet. We understand that structural the Target store include interior and exterior column loads and 35 kips, respectively. Bay spacings are about 34 by 44 feet. The planned finish floor elevation is 26.0 feet, which conforms to the 100 —year design flood elevation for the site. The area surrounding the retail building will be used for parking and access roads. Fill will be required to establish design grades. Fill elevations will be about 25.8 feet near the northeast building corner and will slope downward to as low as Elevation 22 feet to the southwest. SCOPE We have previously prepared a geotechnical report for the overall commercial development dated July 5, 1988, with addenda dated August 5 and 26, 1988. However, the building locations have subsequently been changed. Geo e. 2,,�Engineers • • Area Central portion of parking area fill South side at midpoint of parking area Southeast corner of parking area fill Southwest corner of parking area fill North side (adjacent to Strander Blvd) at midpoint of parking area fill Central portion of retail store South side at midpoint of retail store North side at midpoint of retail store Estimated Ultimate Settlements 3 - 7 inches 3 - 7 inches 2 - 6 inches 2 - 4 inches 2 - 5 inches 8 - 14 inches 7 - 9 inches 4 - 6 inches The major portion (about two- thirds) of these settlements will result from consolidation in the soils above the intermediate stratum of sand. The remainder will result from consolidation of the deeper silt layer. We estimate that settlement of an on -grade floor slab due to applied floor loads could be as much as 2 to 4 inches if the building area is not surcharged. This would be in addition to any remaining settlement resulting from the fill loads. The rate at which this consolidation will occur is highly variable. We estimate that the major portion (80 to 90 percent) of the consolidation in the upper soils will occur in about one year, while three to four years or more will be required to achieve 90 percent consolidation in the lower silts. Final site grading should take into account the actual settlement behavior such that the planned surface drainage gradients will be maintained as postconstruction settlements occur. Some subsequent maintenance and remedial grading should be anticipated if localized "bird baths" develop. SURCHARGE PROGRAM We recommend that a surcharge fill be placed over the building area or fill areas located within 75 feet of foundation piles to preinduce a major portion of the settlement that would otherwise occur after the building loads are applied. 7 Geo NO Engineers We recommend using a surcharge fill extending at least 5 feet above design floor grade if it is desired to achieve 90 percent consolidation in the upper soft soil strata in about five to six months. We expect settlements of as much as 13 inches during this period. Residual consolidation in the lower silt stratum due to fill required to achieve site grades is expected to be about 1 to 2 inches after surcharging in this manner. This represents about 50 percent of the ultimate settlement from this layer. Differential settlement at the ground surface after surcharging is not expected to exceed 1/2 inch over a distance of 50 feet. The surcharge fill should be of the same quality as the underlying structural fill. This material can then be used to fill the parking area to the east when surcharging is completed. If shallow foundations are planned, the crest of the surcharge should extend a minimum of 5 feet outside of the building to the north, south, and west sides. The remaining areas to be filled on these sides of the building should be brought to grade along with the building pad fill. The crest should extend a minimum of 50 feet outside of the building area on the east side where future fill will be placed for the parking area after surcharging. If piles founded in the intermediate sand layer are planned, surcharge fill extending at least 5 feet above design floor grade should be placed over fill areas located within 75 feet of piles. Fill settlements should be monitored to determine the magnitude and rate of settlement. These data will be used to determine when consolidation of the underlying soils has slowed sufficiently to allow removal of the surcharge. We recommend establishing 6 settlement plates under the surcharge, one near each corner and two at the one —third points on the east —west centerline of the structure. Nine additional settlement plates should be established across the parking area fill. These should be placed in 3 rows of 3 each in an east —west direction across the fill. The plates nearest the corners and edges of the fill should be located roughly 40 feet in from the edge. The remainder should be placed at equal distances from the outer markers. A detail of a typical plate is shown in Figure 2. 8 ip Geo oEngineers The plates must be set and initial elevations taken before any fill is placed. The elevations of the plates should then be surveyed every other day during filling. We will advise on the appropriate interval for post- filling readings based on the rate of settlements recorded during and after filling. If a rod is bent by construction equipment, it should be straightened and resurveyed as soon as possible. The rod elevations should be referenced to a benchmark located well outside the influence of the site fill, roughly 200 feet from the embankment. A benchmark to the west, near the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway, is preferable. The settlement data should be provided to us immediately after each set of readings is taken so that we may review and comment as appropriate. Settlements due to the influence of the fill loads will extend beyond the actual limits of filling. We estimate that settlements of 1 to 2 inches will occur some 50 to 60 feet beyond the edge of the fill. Fill- induced settlement of the existing bank building adjacent to the site is expected to be less than 1/4 inch. FOUNDATION SUPPORT General: The structure can be supported on shallow spread and strip footings if a sufficiently long surcharge program is completed. Pile foundations will be required for any portions of the structure that are highly settlement- sensitive or heavily loaded. Fill areas within 75 feet of piles founded in the intermediate sand layer must be surcharged for a sufficient time period prior to pile installation. Support requirements are discussed below. Shallow Foundations: We recommend that footings be supported on sufficient structural fill to reduce the influence of footing loads on the underlying soils. Footings should be underlain by a minimum of 5 feet of structural fill. Foundations supported in this manner may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2500 psf. This value applies to all long -term live and dead loads exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill, and may be increased by one -third when considering short -term loads such as wind or seismic. 9 Geoo Engineers Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. 0 0 0 The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. We are available to review the final design and specifications to see that our recommendations are properly interpreted. Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. es E. Brigham /,,,,,,T Y� 2\ i ■ rr• :SS /ONAL -�°,1 JEB:JKT:da r • 0.7 ect Enginea1r ck K. Tuttle Copyright © 1988 GeoEngineers, Inc., All Rights Reserved 15 • • -EAF S e-4-4 eN Ker/FL 6(J( -r(7( Tic (7u _/ -1) (D G A- -1g-t/t_ cleze8- ro ccoa -72UC— FvC 4 -@ o1 d- sr ew4ct!C? >— 4 IT STANDARD ) THE SOUTH N REMOVE 30 L.F. OF CONCRETE DRIVEW MATCH EXISTING Y. $1',1pEDICATION FOR FUTURE EXISTING ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 24.5' ITY EA (.0 T DEDICATED FOR FU URE SIDEWALK N 01°05'05" E LANDSCAPE 191 24 srl co 14 ALLS S 9' 121 _ VEHICLE OVERHANG ITYP.) GUST ENTRANCE 16 SIALLSI $ 9' + 144' TYP." FIRE EXIT • 0 -J - Indoor Pool & Spa F.F. ELEV. = 26•0./ —2 FIRE EXIT "ON Expanded Environmental Checklist for Spieker Partners' Tukwila Pond Center Septemb6, r 2:2-icr,L.71118, II SEP 23 1988 • - • .; •' • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page COVER SHEET TABLE' OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map 5 FIGURE 2 Site /Landscaping Plan 6 FIGURE 3 Site Survey 8 FIGURE 4 Drainage Plan A -8 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Supplemental Environmental Assessment A -1 ATTACHMENT B Traffic Study B -1 ATTACHMENT C Summary of Mitigating Measures C -1 ii Expanded Environmental Checklist RCW 197 -11 -960 Environmental Checklist 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. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information 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, shoreline,_and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies 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 agency to which you submit this checklist 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 world "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. 1 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Tukwila Pond Center (see Figure 1 for location) 2. Name of applicant: Spieker Partners 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Joel Benoliel Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 453 -1600 4. Date checklist prepared: September 22, 1988 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction Fall of 1988 or as soon as permit is available. 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. There have been several previous public and private development proposals for the site and area for which environmental and other documentation has been prepared. These documents are on file with the City of Tukwila. 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, if known. Design Review Grading Permit Building Permit Street Use Permit Hauling Permit 2 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal is to develop a retail shopping facility adjacent to the Tukwila Pond (see Figure 2). The area of the entire property owned by the applicant is approximately 38.9 acres. The pond and adjacent wetland areas total 22.2 acres of the 38.9 -acre property. The proposed development would occupy, with buildings and paved areas, about 14 of the remaining 16.7 acres of property. The shopping center would have approximately five buildings to be occupied as follows: Target Department Store 102,000 gsf Retail Shops /Restaurants 61,000 - 68,000 gsf 163,000 - 170,000 gsf The retail shops would be occupied by nationwide or local outlets similar to the types of tenants in other nearby shopping centers. The buildings would all have one story with exteriors in a combination of architectural block and integral brick banding. Modulation of exterior faces would be provided to create architectural relief. Parking for about 825 vehicles is proposed to be located on the site. The City of Tukwila code requires 2.5 spaces per thousand square feet of retail space and 6 spaces per thousand square feet of restaurant space. The proposal provides 5 spaces per thousand square feet of total space in the project which would exceed the City's requirements. Access to parking is proposed from Andover Park West on the eastern edge of the site, and from Strander Boulevard on the northern edge. A total of three driveways are proposed along the site's 1,320 feet (approximately) of frontage along Strander Boulevard. Two are to provide access to customer parking and the third is to provide access to employee parking and delivery vehicles for the Target Store. The subject proposal is a revision of an earlier proposal for more retail space (221,5000 gsf) and more parking (1,105 spaces). The earlier proposal also entailed construction of four buildings over the pond. However, the revised proposal eliminates the over -pond construction; all construction is now proposed on upland portions of the site. A 25 -foot landscaped buffer is proposed between the pond and any buildings. Stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be directed to the pond after flowing through oil /water separators in parking lot catchbasins. Pond outflow would be directed through.a culvert next to Andover Park West into a tightlined system to connect to the City's underground system which eventually discharges into the Green River. 3 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 applications related to this checklist. The project is located at the southwest intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West (see Figure 1). 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive: Yes. Portions of the property are designated as environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map due to the presence of surface water (pond). The site area of the proposed development is excluded from this designation, however. 4 Tukwila Pond Center Expanded Environmental Checklist Vicinity Map Figure 1 LANDSCAPING l Y• TUKWILA POND SHOPS m,¢ov 1 PAD 1ypy/ yy 11W/M jE 4 STRAHDER BLVD SOUTH CENTER TARGET IoLans.► 7 0 rD Q 0 25 50 100 200 300 Tukwila Pond Center Expanded Environmental Checklist Site / Landscape Plan Figure 2 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1% — 3% (see Figure 3 for site survey). 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. See Attachment A, pg. A -1. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Based on available information, there is no indication of unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. See Attachment A, page A -2 for a more complete description of fill amounts. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. During site preparation activities, the potential for erosion would be increased. With implementation of erosion control measures, no significant impacts are anticipated. 7 - - - - - - - - Area Wthin 13' Contour is Approximately 15 Acres Tukwila Pond Center Expanded Environmental Checklist Survey Plan Figure 3 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Of the total property owned by the applicant, about 25 percent will be covered with asphalt or retail buildings. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Prior to any construction activity, a temporary erosion control plan will be submitted for approval to the City of Tukwila Public Works Department. 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. See Attachment A, pg. A -4. 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: See Attachment A, Pg. A -4. 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. See Attachment A, Pg. A -5. 9 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. See site plan, Figure 2. 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. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 —year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes (see site plan). No finish floor will be constructed below the 100 —year floodplain elevation of 23.00 feet (1981 study). 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No • b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals....; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste materials will be discharged into the ground. 10 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. Site runoff will be collected into the site's storm sewer system and directed into the existing City system. See Attachment A, Pg. A -5. 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: Implement on -site detention facilities, including oil/ water separators. See proposed stormwater drainage plan, Figure 4, Pg. A -8. 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 pasture _ crop or grain _X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other X water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? See Attachment A, Pg. A -9. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. 11 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A 25 -foot buffer is proposed along the pond's edge; additional landscaping is proposed on -site, including in and around parking areas. Retention of native deciduous trees, located along the north edge of the pond, is also proposed. See Site Plan, Figure 2. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: See Attachment A, Pg. A -10. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: See Attachment A, Pg. A -11. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: See Attachment A, Pg. A -12. 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. All of Washington is part of the Pacific Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Buffering along the pond and retention of several existing trees would provide additional visual screening of the developed area. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and natural gas will be used for heating and air conditioning. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. 12 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal: List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: In order to conserve energy the buildings will be designed in compliance with the Washington State Energy Code. 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: N/A b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 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: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal construction and traffic noise generated by a project of this type. See Attachment A, Pg. A -12. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Buildings will screen the pond and associated habitat from traffic noise in the long term; see site plan, Figure 2. For construction noise mitigation, see Attachment A, Pg. A -13. 13 8. Land and Shoreline Use EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant /undeveloped. Adjacent properties are being utilized for a number of commercial uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. To the best of our knowledge it was used for agricultural purposes at previous times. c. Describe any structures on the site. No structures on —site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CP (Planned Business Center) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. Portions of the property are designated as environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Maps due to the presence of surface water (the pond). i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 230 FTE (full —time equivalent) employees. 14 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal entails preservation of the existing pond and existing trees at the north edge of the pond, provision of a 25 -foot buffer around the pond, and landscaping of the developed portions of the site. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The proposed exterior walls will be one story in height. Exterior building materials may include a combination of split -face block and brick, subject to Design Review approval. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. 15 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: See response to 8(1) above. The applicant will work with City staff to develop buildings which are aesthetically pleasing. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Direct light in evening hours from exterior lighting fixtures and automobile headlights, and reflected light from automobiles on sunny days will be generated. No glare is expected from buildings because of the low reflectivity of the proposed building materials. 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? Similar sources on nearby commercial (shopping center) uses. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Use building materials and landscaping to minimize glare and use cut -out fixtures and sensitively place exterior fixtures. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The on -site pond may be used currently for passive recreation. Nearby recreation opportunities include: Christensen Greenbelt Park, Bicentennial Park, Tukwila Park, Fort Dent Park and Longacres Race Track. Christensen Greenbelt and Bicentennial parks are 1/2 mile east of the project site. Tukwila and Fort Dent parks are within one mile to the north of Tukwila Pond Center. Fort Dent Park is a key regional recreation facility for the area. In addition to the public parks, Longacres Race Track offers recreation opportunities to the public. Longacres is located about one mile to the northeast of the project site in the City of Renton. 16 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None provided. Public access to the pond for passive use is not provided given the potential conflict with wildlife habitat. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. B ). Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West (see Attachment b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project would provide 825 parking spaces; none would be eliminated. 17 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). See Attachment B. 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. See Attachment B. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See Attachment B. 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. Yes, but none beyond what is normally required for this type of development. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. It is unlikely that this project will have any negative impact to existing public services because it is located adjacent to a major regional shopping center and other existing support uses. On -site security measures will include construction safety measures (usual and customary OSHA practices, safety inspections, site enclosure, etc.), and in the long -term, remote monitoring by an accredited guard protection service. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. 18 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. Electrical (Puget Power); natural gas (Washington Natural Gas); sewer & water (City of Tukwila); phone (Pacific N.W. Bell); refuse service (SeaTac Disposal) C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make- -its decision.' • %� y iii Signature: Date Submitted: •1 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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 information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? Develop a Target Store and compatible retail /commercial uses in this C -P zoned property. 2. What are the alternatives means of accomplishing these objectives? Alternative means are directly influenced by Target's client needs and related to the types of other tenants in the project. Once more definite tenants are identified for this project, minor modifications to the proposed plan may be submitted for review. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The preferred course of action is as illustrated in the attached site plan, Figure 2. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? are: No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) 20 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Attachments ATTACHMENT A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1. EARTH The site is presently undeveloped. The area north of the pond is covered with grasses, brambles, and small trees. The area surounding the pond has been previously filled. North of the pond, present ground surface elevations range between about 18 and 20 feet over most of the site. Fill elevations as high as about 26 feet exist near the northeast corner of the site. The pond depth ranges up to 3 to 4 feet, based on a survey conducted in November, 1986 when the surface elevation of the pond was 13.5 feet. Soils explorations indicate that five predominant soil layers underlie the site. From the existing ground surface downward, these layers consist of silty sand and sandy silt fill, organic silt and peat, an intermediate layer of sand with silt, clayey silt, and a deep layer of sand with silt. The surficial fill soils extend to a depth of up to 16 feet below surface grades at boring locations. The fill is absent in the ponded water area of the site. The surface water elevation in the pond is about +13 feet. The pond surface elevation is generally representative of groundwater elevations in filled portions of the site. Ground and surface water levels are expected to vary seasonally. Development of the project as proposed would result in approxi- mately 25 percent of the entire property being covered with impervious surface in the form of buildings or paved areas. The remainder of the site would be left undisturbed, including approximately 15 acres of ponded water. Only the north end of the property located immediately adjacent to Strander Boulevard and the northeast portion of the site along Andover Park West would be developed, with all other areas remaining undisturbed at this time. The developed portion of the site would be graded and filled, requiring importation of structural fill materials. Two options are under consideration for constructing foundations for the future buildings: building on pilings (either mechanically driven or auger cast); or surcharging (preloading) building footprints to compress subsoils prior to pouring structural slabs. Under either option, fill would be necessary to establish parking lot grades which conform to the required minimum flood elevation. The soil would be placed along the entire frontage of Strander Boulevard for a distance of approximately 380 feet south. The fill would consist of clean general fill or structural fill material; a source has not yet been determined. Expressed in cubic yards, the fill amounts compare as follows: To pre -load building footprints Surcharge Piling 179,000 0 To establish building grades (26.5 feet) (44,000) To establish parking lot grades (22.5 feet) Excess to be removed Net fill on -site at end of construction 132,000 88,000 (88,000) 88,000 (47,000) 0 Prior to construction, areas to be graded or built upon would be cleared of existing vegetation, top soil, and organic materials, and replaced with the inorganic fill material. The fill for the project would terminate at the north edges of the buildings with the toe of the fill under the buildings. The slope would be 2 feet (horizontal) to 1 foot (vertical). Fill material would not be placed in the pond. The proposed grades of the fill for the parking areas would match the existing grades as much as practical on this site especially immediately adjacent to Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. Because the proposed development is a shopping center, the developed grades would be relatively flat (approximately 1 percent minimum to 3 percent maximum). Settlements resulting from the filling are expected to be quite variable across the site. The major portion (about two- thirds) of these settlements would result from consolidation in the soils above the intermediate stratum of sand. The remainder would result from consolidation of the deeper silt layer. Settlements due to the influence of the fill loads would extend beyond the actual limits of filling. It is estimated that settlements of 1 to 2 inches would occur some 50 to 60 feet beyond the . edge of the fill. These amounts of settlement are not considered significant and could be addressed by 1) designing the parking area to with- stand settlement and 2) placing the buildings on pile foundations or 3) surcharging building footprints. With surcharging, fill would be placed in the future building footprint areas and allowed to remain for six to twelve months, during which the majority of the settlement would occur. Then all but 44,000 cubic yards of fill would be removed; 88,000 cubic yards would go to establish parking lot grades, and 47,000 cubic yards would be removed and disposed of. The remaining 44,000 cubic yards would establish building grades according to the minimum required fin- ish floor elevation. Building construction would then follow. The preloading would not b'e expected to result in bottom displacement, sedimentation or other impacts on the pond due to the presence of the buffer (see GeoEngineers' letter of September 16, 1988, in project file) and settlement of adjacent buildings (beyond 60 feet) due to this option is expected to be less than a A -2 quarter of an inch. Although surcharging, as an alternative to pile foundations, involves more time and possible minor settlement, it has less noise and vibration impacts on the environment than piledriving. Alternatively, piling foundations entail less filling on the site. The potential for erosion of on -site soil would be the greatest during the construction period. Due to the low slope gradient on the site (for both the existing and proposed grades) erosion should be minimal. Following construction the buildings would cover the support edges and toe of the fill and eliminate the potential for erosion of fill material into the pond. MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigating measures which the applicant has included in the proposal are as follows: 1. All disturbed areas on -site would be hydroseeded to minimize the potential for erosion if construction activities in those areas would not begin within 30 days of disturbance. 2. Erosion would be controlled during construction by minimizing the area of exposed soil at any given time with pavement, tarps, vegetation, as well as temporary erosion - control devices such as mirafi filter fabric fences, siltation /sedimentation pond, hay bales, rock check dams, and temporary erosion control conveyance ditches. 3. Settlement of fill brought on -site would be addressed such that (1) the parking area would be filled as the first phase of construction, (2) it would be graded to at least 6 inches above planned final grades, (3) settlement markers would be placed to monitor the rate and magnitude of settlements during construction, and (4) final grading would take into account actual settlement patterns such that the planned surface drainage gradients would be maintained as subsequent settlements occur. Some subsequent maintenance and remedial grading should be anticipated if localized "bird baths ", or small depressions that collect water, develop. 4. City of Tukwila requirements for grading and excavation would be followed and carefully implemented. 5. After construction has been completed, the potential for erosion would be significantly reduced because the storm drainage would flow directly into the pond where the water would be biofiltered prior to discharge into the downstream storm drainage system tributary to the Green River. Also, the catch basins would incorporate a T design which would operate as an effective oil /water separator. Retention of a 25 -foot buffer and existing vegetation would also lessen the potential for soil erosion. 2. AIR QUALITY Construction activities could produce temporary, short -term air quality impacts. The largest impact from construction of the proposed action would be airborne particulates (dust). Excavation and grading work would breakup the soil and generate dust which could be carried by winds out of the construction area. Other sources of dust include soil blowing from uncovered dump trucks and soil carried out of the construction area by vehicle frames and tires; this soil could be deposited on adjacent streets and could become airborne. Construction would require the use of heavy -duty vehicles such as bulldozers, road graders and heavy trucks, and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants which would contribute slightly to the degradation of local air quality on a temporary basis. Road and parking lot paving with hot asphalt would release hydrocarbons and associated odors to the air. Air quality in the immediate vicinity would be slightly degraded on a short -term basis by the addition of construction - generated traffic. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons and other traffic - related air pollutant concentrations would increase slightly. After development, increased traffic can be expected to slightly decrease air quality. Major portions of the Seattle- Everett- Tacoma region are designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as non - attainment areas for carbon monoxide. The primary source of carbon monoxide in the project area is motor vehicle exhaust. The proposal's effect on this pollutant is not expected to be significant because the traffic increase will be relatively small. Further, carbon monoxide dispersion is fairly rapid under normal traffic and meteorological conditions. MITIGATING MEASURES The following are mitigating measures the applicant would incorporate into the proposal: o Emissions from construction equipment and trucks would be reduced by using relatively new, well- maintained equipment. Avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling and selecting electrical rather than engine - powered equipment would also reduce emissions. o Dust produced by construction would be reduced by using a number of techniques. Areas of exposed soils such as storage yards and construction roadways would be sprayed with water as a dust suppressant. Areas which might be exposed for prolonged periods would be paved, planted with a vegetation groundcover or covered with gravel. Soils carried out of the construction area by exiting trucks could be minimized by wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads. Finally, that soil which does escape the construc- tion area on exiting vehicles could be reduced with a periodic street - cleaning effort. o The parking lot areas would be designed with adequate ingress and egress points and driving lanes so that cars would not be idling for long periods of time. This would reduce the accumulations of carbon monoxide in the area. 3. WATER RESOURCES The site is located in the Green River drainage basin. The Green River is located 2,000 feet west of the site running in a south to north direction. The site does not receive drainage from surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are fully developed and are drained via tightline storm drainage systems that convey drainage to the Green River through the City of Tukwila subsurface drainage systems in the adjacent public roadways. Drainage tributary to the site (and pond) is from direct precipitation (rainfall). According to the published rainfall curves, the site receives 8.5 inches of precipitation during a 100 - year -7 -day storm. This site receives four (4) inches of precipitation during a.100- year -24 -hour storm. This is equal to a total volume of 27.6 acre -feet of stormwater for the 100 - year -7 -day storm, and 13.0 acre -feet of stormwater for the 100 - year -24 -hour storm. The existing pond on the property maintains a static water surface elevation of approximately 13.0 (City of Tuwila datum) as determined by field surveys during October and November of 1987. The static water surface elevation in the pond is believed to be indicative of the groundwater table elevation in the immediate area. The pond covers a surface area of approximately 15 acres (at elevation 13.0). The pond storm drainage outlet is connected to the City of Tukwila's storm drainage system along Andover Park West via a depression located on the eastern margin of the property. The outlet incorporates a floodgate which prevents the City's system from backing up into the site and allows water to only exit the property. The City of Tukwila's P -17 Drainage Basin Study, dated April 1984, established that the maximum rate of release from the developed property would be 1.0 cfs with a storage requirement equal to the volume of precipitation received in a 100 - year -24 -hour storm. Once storm drainage is released from the site, it is conveyed to the Green River through the City of Tukwila's storm drainage system by one of two possible routes. The first route conveys the drainage through a tightline system in Andover Park West northerly a distance of 2,000 feet, and then easterly in a tightline in Tukwila Parkway a distance of 1,500 feet before discharging to the Green River. In 1984, the City of Tukwila installed a slide gate in a catch basin at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West that can be mechanically closed by the City of Tukwila, preventing drainage from the site from entering the Green River. When this slide gate is closed, the drainage is backed up in the Andover Park West storm system and drains southerly via an overflow channel a distance of 1,300 feet along Andover Park West and easterly a distance of 2,000 feet along Minkler Boulevard to the City of Tukwila's P -17 pump station and storage pond. The pump station discharges the stormwater into the Green River. As previously discussed, the City of Tukwila provided a storm drainage outlet to the property which has an invert elevation of 15.4 based on the survey by Stepan and Associates. This means that the pond must rise up to an elevation of 15.4 before it starts to flow into the City's system. Assuming a static water surface elevation of 13.0 and a pond surface area of 15 acres, the pond would rise to elevation 14.8 for the 100 - year -7 -day storm, and 13.9 for the 100 - year -24 -hour storm. Therefore, the site appears to have adequate capacity to contain all drainage from development that would be received in the 100 - year -7 -day storm without discharging to the City's system. The site can discharge up to a maximum rate of 1.0 cfs to the City's system. Presently, the site is undeveloped. Due to the flat topography of the site, it is estimated that the average on -site overland flow velocity is approximately one -half- foot -per- second. Drainage from the upland areas of the site flows directly into the pond. The upland area surrounding the pond has been previously filled. The soils investigations that have been completed have indicated that the fill contains a high percentage of silt which is relatively impervious. The estimated pre - development runoff coefficient for the filled upland portions of the site where the development will take place is estimated to be 0.6. This means that approximately 60 percent of existing storm drainage on the site results in runoff. Erosion on and around this site is currently not a problem. The on -site upland areas are vegetated with grasses and small trees which help prevent erosion and sedimentation tributary to the pond. The surrounding properties are completely developed with paved parking lots, tightline storm drainage systems, and mature landscaping which limits the amount of erosion from off -site areas. The downstream drainage flow paths are tightlined to the Green River, so there is no significant erosion in the downstream drainage systems. The FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Tukwila, dated August 3, 1981, shows a 100 -year floodplain over the site with an elevation of 23.0. Additionally, FEMA has prepared an updated flood study (scheduled to be distributed in draft form in September 1988) that reports the 100 -year floodplain of the site is 25.0 based upon special conditions. The levee on the west bank of the Green River in the area of this site currently is in need of improvements before it can meet the levee requirements of. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The King County Surface Water Management Drainage Utility is in the process of completing the design plans and implementing the construction efforts necessary to restore the levee to minimum standards. Mr. Andy Levesque, representing King County Surface Watr Management Division, reported that the levee improvements will be completed in approximately 18 months, around March 1990. At that time, the FEMA maps would then revert back to the previously established flood elevation of 23.0. Preliminary grading and storm drainage plans for this project have established the minimum finish floor elevation of the buildings on this project at 26.0, which is 1.0 foot above the 25.0 flood elevation. Historical evidence indicates that the actual 100 -year flood elevation of the site is on the order of 16.0 (U.W. Army Corps of Engineers aerial photographs, 11/25/86). Approximately 14 acres (36) percent of the property would be converted to impervious surfaces, either buildings or parking and vehicle circulation areas. The post - development runoff coefficient would be about 0.85, indicating that 85 percent of storm drainage on the developed portion of the property would result in runoff; this represents a 25 percent increase in stormwater runoff. The quantity of stormwater runoff from the proposed development will be restricted to a maximum outflow rate of 1.0 cubic foot per second with pond storage equal to the precipitation received during 100 -year storms. Under these conditions, the pond has adequate capacity to handle additional runoff from the project. Therefore, no significant surface water impacts are expected. Because the elevation of the storm drainage outlet provided by the City is 2.4 feet above the pond's normal level (13 feet), and .6 feet above the maximum pond level (14.8 feet), the project would rarely release any storm drainage to the City system. The proposal is to capture roof and asphalt drainage in catch basins, then tightline the drainage to the pond. The runoff from roof areas would be essentially clean water; runoff from vehicle areas would contain oils and other pollutants. Oil /water separators would be provided in T -type catch basins to filter oil and sediments from the runoff. Runoff would then be discharged into the pond in three locations (see Figure 4, Drainage Plan). Water quality in the Tukwila Pond would not be reduced significantly because separation of oils and debris from the water would effectively reduce pollutants before water would reach the pond. MITIGATING MEASURES 1. During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. Siltation fences and temporary ditches with rock check dams would be constructed at the base of the pond bank. Stormwater would be conveyed to a temporary settlement pond to settle sediments from the water before it is released into the pond. 2. On -site conveyance pipes would route storm drainage from the paved areas into the existing pond. The storm drainage would be filtered through a series of T -type, Type I and II catch basins with oil /water separators prior to release into ----- ----- TUKWILA POND EXISTING STATIC WATER SURFACE ELEVATION = 13± 'NEVI I 5- SO LEGEND Id *15,3' • Tukwila Pond Center Expanded Environmental Center Drainage Plan Figure 4 the pond. Significant biofiltration would result to enhance downstream water quality by project storm drainage being conveyed through the pond. 4. PLANTS AND ANIMALS Plants Tukwila Pond is an approximately 15 -acre pond situated in a 38.9 - acre undeveloped tract (refer to Figures 1 and 3). The pond comprises about 39 percent of the entire property owned by the applicant. There is a culvert near the east end of the pond. During low water periods, small mudflats form along the south bank of the pond. The site floods during the winter, forming a shallow grass meadow. During the summer, the area is dry and the reed canarygrass grows to six feet tall. There is a small crescent - shaped pond in the extreme southeast corner of the site. This pond is bordered by marsh plants along the west edge and several native, deciduous trees on the north edge. The south boundary of the property abuts a railroad spur that is on fill, creating a steep slope between the lower wet meadow and the rail bed. The bank and edge of the track support stands of trees and blackberry. The narrow east border between the pond and Andover Park West has been filled, but still contains depressions that hold seasonal water and support wetland plants. The west side of the pond has also been filled. It holds standing water during the winter and supports wetland plants. The riparian border on the west side is a narrow stand of young red alder. Upland Communities The upland habitats of the site are confined to the filled areas surrounding the pond and are generally located on the west and north sides of the pond. These areas comprise about 35 percent of the site. The western edge of the site supports a steep, narrow bank of willow and black cottonweed trees and shrub border of blackberry and limited grasses. Areas above the steep banks are dried uplands and support species such as dock, quackgrass, johnsongrass and clover. Impacts from the proposal would include loss of upland vegetation consisting of a mix of grasses, scotsbroom, and ragworts including tansy ragwort, dandelion, and other invader. -type forbs. There would be a 25 -foot setback between the buildings and the pond edge so that the riparian areas would not be impacted. There may be some shading from the buildings on small portions of the pond, but the water habitat would not be displaced, and impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Wetland Communities The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Army Corps of Engineers definition of wetlands accepted by the City of Tukwila is "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater A -9 at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions ". Tukwila Pond and the adjacent wetlands comprise about 22.2 acres of the entire site. According to the U.S,. Fish and Wildlife's classification of wetland and deep water habitats, the project area contains the following three classes and acreage amounts: 1) Palustrine, emergent: this is the 5.4 acres of wet grass meadow along the south bank of the pond in the southeast corner of the project site abutting Andover Park West on the east and the railroad tracks on the south. It is comprised mainly of reed canary grass; 2) Palustrine, scrub — shrub: this is the 1.8 acre riparian border located in the east end, adjacent to Andover Park West; and 3) Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom: this is the 15 acre open water portion of the area. Because the buildings would be set back from the pond's edge, there would not be any impacts on the wetland areas. Also see discussion of Earth and Water Resources, Pg. A -1, A -5. Animals The property is a well —used wildlife and waterfowl area which is integrated with the Green River to the east. The variety and productivity of animal life in the site are high for some species and marginal to low for others. Bird Communities Biological data suggest that the site is a highly used waterfowl area in conjunction with the Green River to the east. Birds use it as a stop —over resting area, and long —term wintering and nesting ground. The site is within the Pacific Flyway, and as such is utilized by birds that normally migrate through the western Washington area in spring and fall. The pond is heavily used by both waterfowl and shorebirds. The uplands and riparian border are used by goldfinches, siskins and other small birds. Due to the high density of vegetation and the lack of vegetative diversity, the south edge of the pond and wetlands up to the railroad fill have limited summer value to waterfowl and marsh birds. However, in winter months, when the grass area supports standing water, it does attract and supply food to waterfowl such as pintail, mallard and widgeon. Short —term impacts would be created during the construction period. Short —term impacts include the effects of noise from construction on waterfowl and other birds using the site. The level and effect of the impacts would be dependent on a number of factors. These factors include: (1) timing of construction, (2) the total length of the construction period, and (3) the types of construction activities occurring during different time periods. Following construction, it would be anticipated that bird activity in the wetland adjacent to the building would be typical of the rest of the marsh. Based on limited observations of the Koll-Creekside project in Beaverton, Oregon, in which a small number of over -water buildings were part of the project, it is not anticipated that buildings at least 25 feet from the pond would affect the utilization of the area by wintering waterfowl. The distance from the back of the buildings to the south pond bank would still be greater than the distance that was required to flush canvasbacks during preliminary surveys in 1985 and 1986. As long as human activity was limited to select observations points, the presence of the buildings in a passive capacity would not affect existing winter waterfowl activity. Mammalian Communities Eastern cottontail, meadow mice, shrews and voles use the wooded edge that extends from wetland to upland for nesting, feeding and cover. The edge of the pond is used by mammals for drinking and hunting. Along the riparian border snags,: crevices and broken limbs supply isolation from roads or traffic needed by some wild- life. Plant easters, such as mice and rabbits, require water, and predators, such as hawks, exploit this need when hunting the water's edge. A variety of seed eaters and grazers, including meadow mice, voles and eastern cottontail rabbit, use the riparian border and uplands. Rabbit use appears to be fairly heavy in the dense thicket in the southwest end of the proposed project site. Mammal activity is limited along the south shore of the pond because of the high density of the canarygrass, small size of the site, the site's proximity to the railroad track and the parking area, and isolation from a larger tract of upland habitat. Impacts would include the loss of the upland properties between the north edge of the pond and Strander Blvd. However, wildlife use of this area is limited to small mammal and birds because of the physical conditions of the site. The area is also used by people, particularly as a place to allow dogs to run. Effects on mammal communities are not expected to be significant because only a small amount of what is currently marginal mammal habitat would be affected. Reptiles and Amphibian Communities Preliminary work reports indicated that there was a presence of tree frogs, and possibly a presence of red - legged frogs. Additional surveys failed to confirm the use of the area by the red - legged frog. However, bullfrogs were identified in the small pond in the southeast corner of the site. Frogs are using this area because of the habitat, which includes water -lily and smartweed growth within the pond. The presence of bullfrogs indicates that there are other types of marine life in the pond, since bullfrogs are carnivorous predators. No bullfrogs were located in the main pond. Garter snakes have been seen on the sloped bank adjacent to the crescent - shaped pond in the southeast corner of the site and in the alder thicket areas in the southwest corner. No significant impacts are expected on reptiles, since the pond would not be disturbed. Fisheries A 1988 study conducted by The Watershed Company indicates that the only species of fish found in the pond is the brown bullhead catfish. It was also determined due to the consistency of the size of the fish collected, that the majority of the fish collected were adults of a maximum stunted size which was regulated by a limited food source. The lack of younger fish indicates that there is limited population due to poor breeding in the pond or that predation by the adult population is preventing any juvenile survival. Prior to 1976, there was no water in the pond or the water in the pond was intermittent, with the pond drying up during the summers. The fish appear to have been planted sometime after 1976. Because the additional stormwater runoff through the pond would not represent a major increase and would be effectively filtered following development, no significant adverse impacts on fish are expected. Threatened and Endangered Species No threatened or endangered plant or animal species as defined by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the State Department of Wildlife are anticipated to use the project site, including the wetland area, as a regular nesting and feeding habitat. MITIGATING MEASURES o The proposal entails preservation of the pond and mature trees on the northern edge of the pond, provision of a 25- foot buffer around the pond, and new landscaping of the developed portions of the site. Native vegetation disturbed in the buffer area during construction would be replaced in -kind. 5. NOISE The proposed project is located in a light industrial, commercial and industrial park area with several noise- producing activi- ties. Noticeable noise sources are heavy trucks and rail traffic serving Parkway Square, the Bon Marche Distribution Center, the Boeing Company and other businesses. Noise from vehicular traf- fic also occurs on both Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. Although no measurements were taken for this study, a 1987 , report prepared for the City indicates the most current noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the site were monitored at three locations in 1979. At that time, noise levels were 60, 62 and 59 (Ldn) for ,the west, north and east sides of the site, respectively. Ldn refers to the total noise exposure over 24 hours, or the day - night. average. It should be noted that the Parkway Square Shopping Center was under construction at that time, and apparently this affected the reading on the west side (Entranco 1987). It is reasonable to assume that noise levels are relatively the same or slightly greater due to increased traffic volumes under current conditions. Short -term noise impacts typical of construction projects would occur with the operation of equipment during the project's six - month construction period. Noise levels could vary from 70 to 95 decibels (dBA, a measure of a single noise event, as distin- guished from Ldn, a daily average of noise) in the immediate vicinity of the project construction area. Some higher peaks could occur if impact equipment, such as jackhammers, are used. Construction noise would cease when the project was completed. Long -term increases in traffic noise levels would occur in the immediate vicinity of the project site near Strander Boulevard due to the additional traffic generated by the project. A noise analysis for a previously proposed development on the site (Entranco 1987) predicted a 1 to 3 (Ldn) noise level increase in the project vicinity based on an increase in, traffic of 28,000 vehicle trips per day and other associated activities. This is considerably greater than the anticipated traffic levels to be generated from this proposal, hence the noise levels could be expected to be significantly less than those previously projected. Increases of less than 5 Ldn are considered slight impacts according to the U.S. EPA. MITIGATING MEASURES The following mitigating measures would be included in the proposal: Construction Noise o Limiting construction hours to normal working hours to avoid disturbance to nearby hotels during evening and weekend hours; Limiting truck traffic construction and actitivies to noise levels contained in the City of Tukwila noise ordinance; o Using electric rather than gasoline or diesel - powered machinery whenever possible; o Placing acoustic screens around particularly noisy machinery; o Fitting pneumatic equipment and internal combustion engines with mufflers; and o Turning off idling equipment. � A -13 ATTACHMENT B TUKWILA POND CENTER A Proposed Shopping Center in the City of Tukwila by the Speiker Partners Christopher brown p\ 9688 rainier avenue a attle washi • • 7234567 '•:118 Traffic Study .o. September 13, 1988 TUKWILA POND CENTER A Proposed Shopping Center in the City of Tukwila by the Speiker Patners Traffic Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1. Purpose 1. Location 2. Project Description 2. Access 2. Traffic Data 4. Data References and Sources 5. Background Traffic 5. Trip Generation 7. Traffic Assignment 9. Horizon Year Traffic 9. Levels of Service 9. LOS Discussion 13. Future Improvements 15. Accident Experience 16. Mitigating Measures 17. Conclusions 17. LIST OF FIGURES 1. Location Map 2. Current Traffic Volumes 3. Trip Distribution as a % of All New Trips 4. Pass -by and Diverted Link Trip Distribution as a % of Total Trips 5. Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With Project LIST OF TABLES I. . Gross Trip Generation II. Net Trip Generation III. Levels of Service APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Input and Results Accident Data Driveway Location Map 3. 6. 10. 11. 12. 7. 8. 14. TUKWILA POND CENTER A Proposed Shopping Center in the City of Tukwila by the Speiker Partners Traffic Study Introduction Creating a new shopping center on presently vacant property in a major suburban community will increase vehicular traffic demands on the adjacent collector and arterial road system. If the projected traffic volumes are large and /or if projected increases in traffic demands due to the change in land use associated with the proposed project are large, then the traffic carrying ability of the adjacent street and arterial systems may be impacted. Accordingly, it is appropriate to review both current and future traffic conditions to determine what the possible traffic impacts might be from such a commercial development and, in concert with the proposed commercial development, define the appropriate mitigating measures, if any, to ensure the continuation of adequate traffic operations. Purpose The purpose of this study was to gather a data base of current traffic operations on the adjacent collector and arterial routes serving the proposed shopping center which for the purposes of this traffic study is called the "Spieker- Southcenter Project ", to include traffic from existing, adjacent developments, to define the probable trip generation for the site under the proposed development scenario, to estimate the driveway and arterial street traffic demands for the horizon year, in this case the 1990 traffic demands, and to quantify the existing and horizon year levels of service (LOS) at the key intersections and access driveways serving the site. Further, given that the development may immediately proceed, a secondary function of the study is to also identify any possible changes in access and traffic control systems to ensure the maintenance -1- christopher brown 9688 rainier avenue s. Seattle washington tee 7234567 98118 of adequate traffic operations on the impacted system in the future when the project is completed and occupied. Location The Spieker - Southcenter project is to be located on a site lying to the east of Southcenter Parkway and west of Andover Park West, on the south side of Strander Boulevard in the the City of Tukwila, King County. The site location is sketched on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. Project Description The site, as proposed, is a community shopping center with a Target department store as the major tenant. A building having a gross floor area of 101,900 square feet will be occupied by the Target store. Two smaller, near -by buildings will also be constructed for additional retail space. They will have a combined floor area of 61,000 gross square feet bringing the total floor area of the shopping center to 162,900 gross square feet. On site parking will be provided on the balance of the site sufficient for the projected retail facilities. Access Access to the site is to be from both Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West as shown on a reduced scale site map in the Appendix. Andover Park West, a four lane facility, will be accessed by a single driveway that will provide full turning movements. Strander Boulevard, at the present time a five lane facility which carries significantly higher traffic volumes, will provide primary access to the site via two driveways; one to be constructed opposite the present most easterly access driveway to the Southcenter Shopping Mall and the second to be located about 250 feet to the west of the first driveway. In this study it has been assumed that a traffic signal will be installed at the first or "main" driveway. This signal will serve both the Tukwila Pond Center as well as Southcenter Mall. Channelization for the main driveway will consist of one left -turn only lane and one through -right turn lane on both the northbound and the southbound approaches. Furthermore, left -turn only lanes will be provided on the east and westbound -2- Christopher Brown 9688 rainier a e ue a &cattle washington tel.7234567 98118 a fLtWIU I x 1 E 5-- 3 `J p� 041^ ifII1 rr�w Ir ; q 4 -1 Data 1. al�fra �L°" -�Si ►! .. Z' 1041,1 jf 36 FIGURE 1 Lc; cation Map Christopher brown pe. 9688 rainier avenue s. e 757ashing812346 918 Strander Boulevard approaches since these will have vehicle detectors for traffic signal operation. This channelization will use the existing two -way, left -turn lane on Strander Boulevard. The existing two eastbound and westbound lanes will make up the complete system for serving through and right turning traffic; additional lanes are not necessary as a result of this project. The second, or western driveway will be stop -sign controlled. This driveway, leading to the front of the Target store, enhances internal circulation elements. However, only a single lane exit will be needed on this driveway. A third access to Strander Boulevard is shown on the site map in the Appendix. Leading to the rear of the Target store, this is intended mainly for delivery truck and employee traffic. Because it is generally the case that delivery trucks and employee vehicles constitute a low percentage of a shopping center's daily and peak hour traffic demands, and indeed they usually arrive during non -peak times, this access was not analyzed. That traffic which might use it was added to the volumes of the main entrance on Strander Boulevard in order to give a worst case scenario. Geometric parameters, lane volumes and and other data for the key arterial intersections as well as the driveways are shown as a part of the data input to the capacity analysis appended to this study. Traffic Data Traffic data used in this analysis is from field counts taken in the latter part of August, 1988. Being in late August, the data includes the influence of "back -to- school" shopping sales and is therefore considered to be a representative sample of normal conditions. The 1988 data was in turn compared to 1984 traffic volumes published in a report prepared by Entranco Engineers of Bellevue entitled, Traffic Impact Study, Lot 1 Spring Ridge Short Plat prepared as a part of the environmental impact analysis for a project which was to have been located on the same piece of property. The Entranco report gives the 1984/1985 ADT, a.m. peak hour, noon hour, and p.m. peak hour turning movements for the intersections of Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West and the Southcenter Mall -4- Christopher brown pe 9688 rainier avenue s. wattle washingtton to : 7234567 8118 driveways /Strander Boulevard. From both this study and from the August 1988 field observations, the noon hour has the largest traffic volumes and, as a consequence, the noon hour should be considered as the "design hour" for project impact analysis. In addition, it may be noted that on comparing current turning movement counts with the 1984/1985 volumes from the Entranco report, the total approach volumes are essentially identical at both the intersections of Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West. The 1988 volumes are in fact only about one (1) percent higher than the 1984 volumes at both locations suggesting a net increase of about 0.25 percent per year in the traffic volume. In other words, over the last few years, traffic demand has levelled off; growth is very low. Turning movement volumes for the intersections of the Southcenter Mall driveways with Strander Boulevard, on the other hand, show that driveway volumes have increased about 7.7 percent per year for the eastern driveway and about 2.1 percent per year for the western driveway. The difference is doubtless due to increased local demand. The vehicular volume data is shown on Figure 2, Current Traffic Volumes. As noted before, the data is also replicated in the appended materials on capacity calculations as computer input. Data References and Sources Data resources used in this study include the aforementioned study by Entranco Engineers, population forecasts by traffic analysis zones prepared by the Puget Sound Council Of Governments, accident data prepared by the City of Tukwila, trip generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the document, Trip Generation; an Informational Report, 4th edition, and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. For the latter item, reference is also made to the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2, published by Roger Creighton and Associates, New York, and the FHWA highway capacity software also used under license for this study. Background Traffic Background traffic, that is the traffic demand for the case that -5- christopher brown 9688 rainier avenue s. s 1723456washing981118 Nt] 283 �90 37/ .3.3/ 113 N 0 tns� w v 4-J 13.) C U 0 0 4 1J 0 205 h a0 Andover Park West (1-32 to 373 Strander Boulevard ,,,48 c, 92 778 `'outhcenter- Parkway -6- 593 584 ro 0 Site Figure 2 Current (1988) Traffic Volumes Christopher Brown pe 9688 rainier avenue s. tse :7234567Uashing9818 does not include the project, is based on the horizon year of 1990. Background growth was derived by comparing the 1984 volumes from the Entranco report with the current volumes obtained for this study. As a consequence, a background growth rate of 0.25 percent per year is assumed at the Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West intersections and growth rates of 2.1 and 7.7 percent per year respectively are assumed at the west and east Southcenter Mall driveways to Strander Boulevard. Trip Generation The trip generation data for the project site is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (I.T.E.) Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code 820 which applies to shopping centers of this size. The trip generation for the project developed as a 162,900 g.s.f. shopping center, not delimited for pass -by traffic, is shown in Table I, below. TABLE I Trip Generation, Tukwila Pond Center (Gross Traffic Demand, No Delimitation for Pass -By) Time Interval Volume A.W.D.T.* 10,210 vehicles per day A.M. Inbound 164 vehicles per hour A.M. Outbound 70 vehicles per hour P.M. Inbound 393 vehicles per hour P.M. Outbound 410 vehicles per hour Noon Inbound 419 vehicles per hour Noon Outbound 414 vehicles per hour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic Rather than generate totally new traffic, land uses such as shopping centers attract much traffic from the passing stream of traffic. According to the Trip Generation Manual, trips can be broken down into three categories. o Primary Trips o Diverted, Link Trips o Pass -by Trips christopher Brown p 9688 rainier avenue s. wattle washington Le :7234567 98118 A primary trip is one where the purpose of the trip is shopping and the trip pattern is usually from home -to- shop -to -home. A diverted, link trip and a pass -by trip are ones in which the shopping destination is a secondary part of a primary trip with a trip pattern such as home -to- work -to- shopping -to -home or from and to another shopping destination. Essentially, a diverted, link trip involves a route diversion where a vehicle leaves one route for another in order to reach an attractor. A pass -by trip occurs when a vehicle comes directly from the traffic stream passing the attractor with no diversion required. Table V -1, page 11 of the Trip Generation Manual, 4th edition, lists the trip composition characteristics of various shopping centers. Entry number 31, the Chestnut Hill Mall in Newton, MA. is 275,000 g.s.f. in size. Its' data is based on some 790 shopper interviews and can thus be considered the most accurate model in this regard. (It may be noted that the Tarpon Square shopping center in Tarpon Springs, FL. with 176,000 g.s.f. had less than 30 percent primary trips but that conclusion is from a data base of only 124 interviews.) For the 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. time period, the Chestnut Hill Mall had the following trip composition characteristics. o Primary Trips o Diverted Link Trips o Pass -by Trips 43 percent 20 percent 37 percent Since the subject project is of similar design, it can be assumed for planning purposes that its' trip composition will also be similar. Accordingly, forty -three percent of the total traffic will be attracted to the site and will therefore be "new" traffic. Thus, net, new traffic added to the external system will be as shown below in Table II. -8- TABLE II Net Trip Generation, Tukwila Pond Center Time Interval A.W.D.T.* A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Noon Inbound Noon Outbound Volume 4,390 vehicles per day 71 vehicles per hour 30 vehicles per hour 169 vehicles per hour 176 vehicles per hour 180 vehicles per hour 178 vehicles per hour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic Christopher brown I2:N 9688 rainier avenue a wattle Washington tel: 7234567 98118 Traffic Assignment Site generated traffic is assigned to the network on the basis of the 1990 population distribution in the South King County region as supplied by PSCOG. The traffic distribution, as a percent of all new site traffic, is described in Figure 3. As noted above, the site will also attract pass -by and diverted link trips. Figure 4 shows the pass -by and diverted link trips as a percent of the site generated traffic. This distribution model is based upon the existing traffic volumes on roads surrounding the site. The horizon year traffic movement volumes, without the site, were altered to account for the movements of the diverted link trips since a vehicle entering the site would be making a different intersection movement than if the trip was not diverted. New trips were then added to these to determine the design hour, horizon year traffic volumes with the project in place. Horizon Year Traffic Since the noon hour traffic volumes include both the home based or primary shopping trip as well as work site based (lunch and shopping) trips, they tend to be higher than the customary p.m. peak hour of the average suburban arterial street. As a consequence, the noon hour is used for the design hour as described earlier. Thus, for the purposes of this study, the noon hour is the worst case and is therefore used for assessing impacts and attendant mitigating measures. With the project built in the proposed 162,900 g.s.f. configuration the horizon year of 1990, including the background traffic, will have the daily and design hour traffic demands shown on Figure 5. Levels of Service The Level of Service (LOS) describes the quality of traffic flow. This ranges from the best or highest level, 'A', usually denoted by an ability to select ones' own speed or the ability to change lanes or overtake at will, down to the lowest of worst level 'F'. This LOS is the lowest possible level and is one -9- Christopher brown p 9688 rainier avenue s. e35Washing81L 246 918 5 % Andover Park. West 010 60 Boulevard ."-uthconter Parkway 10- 9 I 0 Based Upon PSCOG Population Data For South King Co. Figure 3 Trip Distribution As A Percentage Of All New Trips christopher brown 9688 rainier rainier M/Mle 8 cattle washington tet:7234567 —98118 0. 0 UT. (1) 4-) 4-) 1) C. 0 cjj ..; .1 0 Andover Park West 9 2% Site rrj rrj Figure 4 Pass-by And Diverted Link Trip r3-2. Distribution As A % Of Total Trips 7:1 • 2 . % • • .--:outhcenter Parkway christopher brown pc 9688 rainier avenue seattk wash.irion tel. 7234567 98118 ea4� 393 20(01 2(v 230 rn a a, 0 rfl P 0 JJ v � 4- 0 0U 0 0 cn N tl• 342 Andover Park West (/%02 0 r/ /4 eo 753 558 543 Site 4) Figure 5 Horizon Year (1990) Traffic Volumes sJ With Project v m Southcenter Parkway - -12- christopher brown p 9688 rainier avenue 8. s�a23456Washing98118 where traffic is severely constrained. It is usually denoted by "jam" conditions and attendant long traffic delays. Capacity computations were performed in accordance with Special Report 209, the Highway Capacity Manual, using the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2 published by Roger Creighton and Associates. Signalized intersection analysis was done with the "Operations and Design" methods which are more rigorous than the "Planning" method. STOP sign controlled intersections used parameters for arterial roads with speeds under 35 m.p.h. and surrounding urban populations over 250,000. At signalized intersections, right turn movement volumes have been adjusted to account for right- turn -on -red in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual (page 9 -11) and a one hundred second cycle lengths have been assumed on the basis of expected future signal inter - coordination. At unsignalized tee - intersections the opposing through volume approaching from the right on the major street has been eliminated in those cases where a two -way left -turn lane exists since that lane is available to left turning vehicles from the minor approach as an acceleration/ merge lane. As noted earlier, all input data is listed in the appendix, along with computer output. When reviewing the appended computer data, it may be noted that each set of data has its' own file reference number. This is located at the top right of each data sheet. The title and other descriptive material is on the upper left corner. Levels of service for both conditions, Current or 1988 traffic and Horizon Year traffic with the completed project are shown in Table III on the next page. LOS Discussion There is a one step shift in the LOS at one intersection; Strander Boulevard at the "west' Southcenter driveway as shown on the table. This is to be expected given the increase in traffic on Strander Boulevard due to the project coupled with the somewhat larger traffic growth of driveway volumes as noted previously. It should be recognized that the noted LOS is for the left turn movement and that the LOS for the right turn movement from the driveway is currently at and will remain at LOS 'A' following project completion. With a signal installed at the intersection of the main -13- Christopher brown p� 9688 rainier avenue a Le 7234567 1Washing9818 // Intersection TABLE III Levels of Service 1988 w/o site Horizon Year w/ project Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Parkway C C Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West D D Strander Boulevard/ Site Entrance (East) NA B Strander Boulevard/ Site Entrance (West) NA D Andover Parkway/ Site Entrance NA E Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Entrance (West) D E driveway on Strander Boulevard, an alternate route will exist for left turning vehicles should delays at the west driveway prove too long. Essentially, the traffic signal is a mitigation measure for the minor driveways since it guarantees easy access to the arterial traffic stream. Indeed, an improvement in the LOS on the minor driveway might be expected as left- turning traffic diverts to the main driveway to utilize the new, proposed signal at the common site /Southcenter Mall entrances. In addition, the proposed signal, positioned about midway between the Andover Park West and Southcenter Boulevard signals, will increase the degree of vehicular platooning of traffic on Strander Boulevard which will, as a result, create gaps which can be utilized by minor driveway, left- turning vehicles. Indeed, the level of service will likely be better than calculated (appendix) due to the introduction gaps which now occur less frequently from the signals at the east and west ends at Andover Park West and Southcenter Boulevard. It may be further noted that the procedure for analysis of "unsignalized intersections" assumes random arrivals on the major street. In situations where platooning is predominate, better levels of service are often experienced. -14- Christopher brown p 9688 rainier avenue s. Seeattle washin%on // te(:7234567 "98118 While current observations of the operating conditions of the intersections indicate that delay seems worst at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway with Strander Boulevard, this intersection has a calculated LOS of 'C' with current traffic loading. The queues which can be seen to form on the westbound approach currently back -up at times on Strander Boulevard to block the west Southcenter Mall driveway. However, this queue is cleared with each signal phase indicating that delays are only short term on the westbound approach. The level of service at the site access driveway to Andover Park West will be at LOS 'E' in 1990 following completion of the project. This is due to the high through volumes on Andover Park West conflicting with the left - turning traffic. However, the existence of the traffic signal at Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West introduces gaps into the through movements on Andover Park West. This allows the left- turning traffic to more easily enter the traffic stream than if the signal did not exist. Also, since the site entrance on Strander Boulevard will be signalized, the left-turning motorist can divert to that exit should delays at the Andover Park West exit prove unacceptable, as discussed earlier. The level of service for the west site access driveway to Strander Boulevard is calculated to be 'D' with project completion. This assumes full turning movement capability and the use of the two -way left -turn lane as a merge /acceleration lane for left - turning traffic from the driveway. Due to the existence of the Southcenter Mall driveway about 275 feet to the west of the projects driveway some interference may result from Southcenter Mall traffic also utilizing the two -way left -turn lane as a merge /acceleration lane. Furthermore, left- turning traffic at the new signalized intersection about 250 feet to the east will be entering their left -turn lane in the vicinity of the west driveway. This may result in interference for both the left -turn in to and out of the west driveway. For this reason level of service analyses were performed for the case which assumes a Right In /Right Out configuration at the west driveway. With left turns in and out of the west driveway prohibited, the level of service for the west driveway will be 'A' in the horizon year. The left- turning traffic in to and out of the west driveway would then utilize the east, signalized driveway which would have a horizon year level of service in the 'C' range. Future Improvements The City of Tukwila has proposed that Strander Boulevard be -15- Christopher brown pe 9688 rainier avenue a s attle washington to 7234567 98118 widened from the existing five lane section to a seven lane section. This widening would add an additional lane in both the east and westbound directions. While the widening to a seven lane section would improve the levels of service at the intersections of Strander Boulevard with Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West as well as at the main access driveway to the site, the widening of the approaches at these intersections will also necessitate the lengthening of the traffic signal crossing times for pedestrians. This in turn will require that the signal phases which include the pedestrian crossing interval be lengthened which may cancel out any LOS benefit. A seven lane roadway requires that 24 seconds be reserved for pedestrian crossing signal intervals. Also, the Strander Boulevard intersections at both Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway is constrained by the width of the north -south street system. Unless the additional lanes that would be created on Strander Boulevard can also continue onto facilities of a like width, bottlenecks will occur thereby inhibiting traffic flow on Strander Boulevard to the extent that advantages of a seven lane section would be nullified. From a street capacity stand point, two additional lanes on Strander Boulevard are not needed at this time since the volumes on Strander Boulevard, irrespective of the intersections, are not great enough to warrant them. Adding lanes in this context would make vehicular movements from the inside lane to the outside lane (weaving) more difficult, especially in the small distances that this weaving maneuver would occur. For these reasons, the project would probably not benefit from the two additional lanes on Strander Boulevard between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. A seven lane section is not recommended at this time. Capacity restraints on the north -south system, especially on Southcenter Parkway, suggest that it would be to no avail. Accident Experience Accident data, obtained from the City of Tukwila, shows that for the period of January 1st, 1985 to August 19th,1988 a total of 10 accidents occurred on Strander Boulevard between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. Based upon an average daily traffic volume of 13,000 v.p.d. on Strander Boulevard, the rate of accidents can be calculated to be about 0.6 accidents per -16- Christopher Brown 9688 rainier avenue s. e�7234567�ashing98118 ' million vehicles. Given the operating environment of Strander Boulevard in this area this rate can be considered insignificant. Regardless, the installation of the proposed traffic signal at the site's entrance should further reduce the accident rate, especially for right angle type accidents. Mitigating Measures The single and key mitigation measure for addressing the project's traffic impacts is the installation of an actuated signal at the intersection of the site's entrance on Strander Boulevard, across from the driveway serving the Southcenter Mall. It should be noted that this would also benefit the Southcenter Mall patrons by improving the level of service on that driveway, too. All driveways to the subject site, with the exception of the western most driveway to Strander Boulevard, should be provided with a two lane exit capability. One lane should be a dedicated left -turn exit lane while the other may be a through- and -right turn lane. Furthermore, the main entrance off Strander Boulevard should be provided with a two lane entrance; one lane to collect westbound left turn and southbound through movements and the second lane exclusively for eastbound right- turning traffic. The western most driveway to Strander Boulevard can have a single lane exit capability. Conclusions The construction and operation of the 162,900 g.s.f. Tukwila Poind Center project will increase traffic demands on the adjacent collector and arterial road system by about 4,390 new vehicular trips per day and the noon hour traffic volumes by about 358 new vehicle trips per hour. In addition, about 475 vehicles will enter the site on a pass -by or diverted link shopping trip basis during the noon hour. The road system serving the project site, including the adjacent signalized intersections along Strander Boulevard at Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway, are capable of accommodating site generated traffic within acceptable LOS standards. However, there will be a one step shift in the LOS at the intersection of the west Southcenter Mall driveway and Strander Boulevard, a stop sign controlled intersection. -17- christopher brown 9688 rainier avenue s. wattle ■ashington to 7234567 98118 At the most westerly driveway entrance to the Southcenter Mall from Strander Boulevard, the level of service will drop from LOS 'D' to 'E' following project completion. Nevertheless, the addition of a signal at the central or main driveway will probably result in some of the left turning traffic diverting to the new signal. This will act to improve the LOS at the west driveway. Furthermore, the aforementioned signal will increase the degree of vehicular platooning of traffic on Strander Boulevard which will, as a result, create gaps which can be utilized by the left turning traffic at the unsignalized intersections. Indeed, the level of service will probably be better than calculated due to the introduction of more defined gaps than presently occur on the street from the signals at Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway. The driveways serving the site from Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West should be constructed to allow for two —lane exiting movements. One lane should be dedicated for left- turning traffic while the other can accommodate the through and right -turn movements. Additionally, the main driveway from Strander Boulevard should have a two lane entrance with one lane for the westbound left -turn and southbound through movements and the other for the eastbound right -turn movement. A proposal for widening Strander Boulevard from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West has been introduced in other city planning documents. It does not appear that this is required for the subject project within the immediate future. Also, it is not really appropriate since capacity restraints at both Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway nullify those gains made by such widening. It is also noted that a seven lane section on Strander Boulevard would entail substantial pedestrian crossing signal interval timing at signalized intersections which may curtail or hamper traffic operations. A seven lane section is not recommended on this linkage. It may be concluded, with the above considerations, that a safe and expeditious traffic system can be assured. The proposed project should not adversely impact traffic on the arterial system serving the site to a level less than now present, given the noted driveway design and signalization at the main driveway. -18- christopher brown p 9688 rainier avenue a e 1:7234567�ashing98118 ATTACHMENT C MITIGATING MEASURES PROPOSED BY APPLICANT 1. Hydroseed site to minimize potential erosion; minimize soil exposure; grade and monitor fill settlement; comply with City of Tukwila grading and excavation requirements; and implement short and long -term erosion control. 2. Limit idling and use efficient equipment to reduce pollutant emissions; reduce dust by watering, laying gravel, or planting; clean wheel wells on -site; and design parking lot layout to reduce idling of customer vehicles. 3. Filter storm drainage through catchbasins with oil /water separators; preserve downstream quality with biofiltration through pond; design drainage system so that no greater storm flows would result than those created under the predevelopment rate; minimum velocity design to prevent sediment buildup; and establish temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (silt fences, hay bales, other similar techniques where appropriate). 4. Retain a 25 -foot buffer between pond and buildings; retain existing deciduous trees along pond's north edge; and provide new landscaping in parking areas and along site borders to offset impact on plants and animals (see page A -11). 5. Limit_ construction work to normal hours; comply with City of Tukwila noise ordinance; substitute with electric machinery wherever possible; and incorporate berm with landscaping in parking areas. 6. Provide funds to match Southcenter contribution toward signal at site entrance across from Southcenter Boulevard. Expanded Environmental Checklist for Spieker Partners' Southcenter Plaza Phase II TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER SHEET i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ii ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map 4 FIGURE 2 Site /Landscaping Plan 5 FIGURE 3 Site Survey 8 FIGURE 4 Drainage Plan A -7 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Supplemental Environmental Assessment A -1 ATTACHMENT B Traffic Study B -1 ATTACHMENT C Summary of Mitigating Measures C -1 ii RCS 197 -11 -960 Environmental Checklist 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. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information 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, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies 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 agency to which you submit this checklist 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 word "project ", "applicant ", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer ", and "affected geographic area," respectively. 1 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Southcenter Plaza: Phase II 2. Name of applicant: Spieker Partners 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. Joel Benoliel, Spieker Partners 915 - 118th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 453 -1600 4. Date checklist prepared: June 8, 1989 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is scheduled to begin in late winter, 1989 to spring, 1990, and to be complete in fall, 1990. No phasing is proposed. 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. There have been previous public and private development proposals for the Southcenter Plaza Phase I and Phase II sites, including the Phase I project now under construction (City of Tukwila design review approval dated 1- 11 -89, file number 88- 12 -DR). Planning, environmental and construction documents for these proposals are on file with the City of Tukwila. 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. 2 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA Review Design Review Clearing and Grading Permit Building Permits Street Use Permit Hauling Permit Utility Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal is to develop a hotel and restaurant complex adjacent to Tukwila Pond in the City of Tukwila (see Figures 1 & 2). The Phase II hotel /restaurant proposal would occupy an approximately 4.1 acre site. The applicant also owns the property to the north and east of the project site which includes the Phase I retail shopping center development and Tukwila Pond. Development of the project as proposed would result in approximately 80 percent coverage of the Phase II site, or approximately 3.2 acres, in impervious surfaces in the form of buildings or paved areas. The remainder of this site would be left undisturbed, including a 25 -foot buffer adjacent to the pond. The hotel /restaurant complex would consist of two buildings, a 75,500 - square foot hotel and an 8,000 - square foot restaurant. The hotel would be seven stories over underground parking and would contain 150 rooms. The restaurant would be one story over underground parking. Surface parking would also be provided. Building exteriors would be of high quality materials, subject to approval of the architectural review committee. The City of Tukwila code requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant (80 spaces for the proposed 8,000 - square foot restaurant) and 1 space per room for hotels (or 150 spaces for the proposed 150 -room hotel). The proposal would meet the City's requirements. Parking for 230 vehicles is proposed to be located on the site; 98 surface parking stalls and 132 below -grade parking stalls. The primary access to the proposal would connect with Southcenter Parkway to the west, passing between Parkway Square and the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center at S. 168th Street. This access would be constructed over a 46 -foot right -of -way resulting from dedication of the applicant's 16 -foot easement over the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center property and the City's 30 -foot easement over the Parkway Square Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist Vicinity Map Figure 1 168TH STREET ACCESS TO SOUTHCENT PEwT) PHASE 11 SITE TOYS -R -US n L fi PARKWAY SQUARE 1 u Li Uj TUKWILA POND 8000 S DOUBLETREE' SUITES HOTEL (8 STORIES) J 7 i Luja kw: rig 808188 Itlo RK. On 1 80,088 courAUn8an .. Tu.n. W.N. me 8881. 8811-08 TARGET STORE STRANDER BOULEVARD ,---- SECURITY PACIFIC BANK 17 CHEVRON STATION Scale 0 200 NORTH Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist Site / Landscaping Plan Figure 2 property. A secondary access would be provided to connect with Strander Boulevard to the north. This secondary access would be right -in, right -out only. The majority of the stormwater runoff from the site would be directed to the pond after flowing through oil /water separators in parking lot catchbasins and a 200 -foot biofiltration swale. Pond outflow would be directed through a culvert next to Andover Park West into a tightlined system to connect to the City's underground system, which eventually discharges into the Green River. Stormwater runoff from the underground parking would drain to the sanitary sewer system, as required by the Uniform Building Code. 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 applications related to this checklist. The Phase II site is located in the southwest quadrant of the Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection in the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1). The Phase I retail shopping center and Tukwila Pond are located to the north and east of the Phase II site, respectively. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes. Portions of the property may be designated as requiring special design considerations by the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map due to the proximity of surface water (the adjacent pond). 6 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1 percent - 3 percent (see Figure 3 for site survey). 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. See Attachment A, page A -1. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Based upon available information, there is no indication of unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. See Attachment A, page A -1. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. During site preparation activities, the potential for erosion would be increased. With implementation of erosion control measures, no significant impacts are anticipated. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 80 percent of the Phase II site or approxi- mately 3.2 acres, would be covered in impervious surfaces following construction of the proposal. 7 \ - — , Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist Survey Plan Figure 3 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Prior to any construction activity, a temporary erosion control plan would be submitted for approval to the City of Tukwila, Public Works Department. 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. See Attachment A, page A -3. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Adjacent roadways, such as Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard, are sources of vehicular traffic with emissions which could affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: See Attachment A, page A -4. 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. See Attachment A, page A -4. 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. See Site Plan, Figure 2. 9 4 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes (see Site Plan, Figure 2). No finish floor level of the occupied space would be constructed below the 100 -year floodplain eleva- tion of 23.00 feet (see Attachment A, page A -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. Stormwater runoff from driveways and parking areas would contain some pollutants from motor vehicles and would be at a slightly elevated temperature. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial, containing the following chemicals....; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste materials will be discharged into the ground, since the site would be served by sanitary sewers. 10 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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. See Attachment A, page A -6. 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: See Attachment A, page A -8. 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 pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation Also see Attachment A, page A -8. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The majority of the upland vegetation on the Phase II site would be cleared in order to construct the proposal. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. 11 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A 25 -foot buffer is proposed along the pond's edge. Additional landscaping is proposed on -site, including in surface parking areas (see Site Plan, Figure 2). 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small mammals fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: brown bullhead catfish in Tukwila Pond Also see Attachment A, Page A -9. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. All of Washington is within the Pacific Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Buffering along the pond's edge and retention of several existing trees would provide additional visual screening of the developed area. Also, see Attachment A, Page A -11. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and natural gas would be used for heating and air conditioning. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. There are other equally tall buildings in the project vicinity (i.e., the Doubletree Suites Hotel to the west). 12 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal: List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: All buildings would be constructed to meet or exceed the Washington State Energy Code. 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. None. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: Does not apply. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise is presently generated on Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard, to the west and north of the site, respectively. Commercial uses in the area also generate noise. See Attachment A, page A -11. 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: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal construction and traffic noise generated by a project of this type. See Attachment A, page A -12. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Buildings would screen the pond and associated habitat from street and parking area noise (see Site Plan, Figure 2). For construction noise mitigation, see Attachment A, page A -12. 13 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The Phase II site is currently vacant. Construction of the Phase I retail shopping center to the north is under- way (surcharging of the soil is taking place). Adjacent properties to the west and south are in commercial uses. Tukwila Pond is located directly east of the Phase II site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. To the best of our knowledge, the site was used for agricultural purposes at previous times. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are currently no structures on the Phase II site; Construction of the Phase I retail shopping center to the north is underway. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CP (Planned Business Center) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. Portions of the property may be designated as requiring special design considerations by the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Maps due to the proximity of surface water (the adjacent pond). 14 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 10 people would work in the proposed hotel and approximately 10 people would work in the proposed restaurant. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal is compatible with the existing commercial land uses in the area, as well as with the City's plans. Provision of a 25 -foot buffer around the pond and landscaping of the developed portions of the Phase II site are also proposed to ensure compatibiity. 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 eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 15 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The proposed hotel would be seven stories or a maximum of 70 feet in height (Note: The Doubletree Suites Hotel to the west of the site is an 8 -story building). Exteriors of the hotel and restaurant would be in high quality materials, subject to approval by the architectural review committee. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. The commercial uses to the west are generally oriented toward Southcenter Parkway. Views of Tukwila Pond from the Doubletree Suites Hotel would not be obstructed by the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: See response to 8(1) above. The applicant would work with City staff to develop buildings which are aesthetically pleasing. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Direct light in the evening hours from exterior lighting fixtures and automobile headlights, and reflected light from automobiles on sunny days would be generated. No glare is expected from the buildings because of the low reflectivity of the proposed building materials. 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? uses. Similar sources on nearby commercial (shopping center) 16 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Building materials and landscaping would be used to minimize glare. Cut -out lighting and sensitively placed exterior light fixtures would also be included. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The pond to the east of the Phase II site may currently be used for passive recreation. Nearby recreation opportuni- ties include: Christensen Greenbelt Park, Bicentennial Park, Tukwila Park, Fort Dent Park and Longacres Race Track. Christensen Greenbelt and Bicentennial Parks are 1/2 mile east of the project site. Tukwila and Fort Dent Parks are within one mile to the north of the site. Fort Dent Park is a key regional recreation facility for the area. In addition to the public parks, Longacres Race Track offers recreational opportunities to the public. Longacres is located about one mile to the northeast of the project site in the City of Renton. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any? None provided. Public access to the adjacent pond for passive use is not provided given the potential conflict with wildlife habitat. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, 'scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None to our knowledge. 17 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Any significant historical, archaeological, scientific or cultural discoveries made during construction would be reported to the proper authorities. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West are public streets which would serve the site. The primary access to the site would be from a driveway at Southcenter Parkway, linking the south end of the site at S. 168th Street. This access would be constructed over a 46 -foot right -of -way, resulting from dedication of the applicant's 16 -foot easement over the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center property and the City's 30 -foot easement over the Parkway Square property. It is anticipated that S. 168th Street would be improved as a public street. A secondary access to the site would be from a driveway at Strander Boule- vard. This secondary driveway would operate as a right -in, right -out driveway only (see Attachment B). b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposal would provide 230 parking spaces, 98 surface parking spaces and 132 below grade parking spaces. No spaces would be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. See Attachment B. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. 18 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The hotel would generate 1,190 vehicular trips per day and the restaurant 765 vehicular per day. The largest traffic volumes would occur at the noon hour (12:00 to 1:00 p.m.). See Attachment B. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See Attachment B. 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. Yes, increased police and fire protection would be required, but not beyond what is normally required for this type of development. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. It is unlikely that this project would have any negative impact on existing public services because it is located adjacent to a major regional shopping center and other existing support uses. On -site security measures would include construction safety measures (usual OSHA practices, safety inspections, site enclosure, etc.), and in the long- term, remote monitoring by an accredited guard protection service. 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. Electrical (Puget Power); natural gas (Washington Natural Gas); sewer and water (City of Tukwila); phone (Pacific Northwest Bell); refuse service (SeaTac Disposal). See Attachment A, page A -13. 19 C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the le .d agency is relying on them to make its sion. Signature* Date Submitted:.. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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 information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? Develop a hotel and restaurant complex on this C -P zoned property. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The applicant has determined that there are no other suitable sites in the immediate vicinity with appropriate zoning and on -site ammenities to support the proposal. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The preferred course of action is as illustrated on the attached site plan (see Figure 2). 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Does not apply. 21 ATTACHMENT A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1. EARTH The Phase II site is presently undeveloped. This site has been previously filled and ground surface elevations generally range between 19 and 20 feet. To the north of the Phase II site, the Phase I retail shopping center area has been cleared of vegetation and is being surcharged for construction. To the east of the Phase II site is Tukwila Pond. The pond depth ranges from 3 to 4 feet, based on a survey conducted in\November, 1986, when the surface elevation of the pond was 13.5 feet. Soils explorations by GeoEngineers in April, 1988, indicate that five predominant soil layers underlie the Phase II site. From the existing ground surface downward, these layers consist of silty sand and sandy silt fill, organic silt and peat, an intermediate layer of sand with silt, clayey silt, and a deep layer of sand with silt. The surficial fill soils extend to a depth of up to 17 feet below surface grades at boring locations. The surface water elevation in the pond to the east of the Phase II site is approximately +13 feet. The pond surface elevation is generally representative of groundwater elevations in filled portions of the Phase II site. Ground and surface water levels are expected to vary seasonally. The developed portion of the Phase II site would be graded and filled, requiring importation of structural fill materials. The proposal is for construction of a hotel and restaurant over an underground parking garage. The finish floor elevation of the underground parking is proposed to be a minimum of 20.0 feet, or approximately 1 foot above the existing ground elevation in the area. The minimum finish floor elevation of the hotel and restaurant would be a minimum of 10 feet above the underground parking. Based on the proposed site plan (see Figure 2), the grades for the surface parking would match closely with the grades of the developed properties to the west. The proposed buildings and parking garage would be supported on pile foundations (either mechanically driven or auger cast) extending to the intermediate or deep sand layers. Fill would be necessary to establish parking lot grades which conform to the required minimum flood elevation. The soil would be placed along the west boundary of the site. Based on the preliminary grading plan (see Figure 4), it is estimated that approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill would be required. The fill would consist of clean general fill or structural fill material; a source has not yet been determined. Prior to construction, areas to be graded or built upon would be cleared of existing vegetation, top soil, and organic materials, and replaced with the inorganic fill material in parking lot areas. No fill material would be placed closer than 25 feet from the shoreline of the pond to the east of the Phase II site when the pond water level is at elevation 13.0 feet. Fill material would not be placed in the pond. Settlements resulting from the filling are expected to be quite variable across the Phase II site. The major portion (about two - thirds) of these settlements would result from consolidation in the soils above the intermediate stratum of sand. The remainder would result from consolidation of the deeper silt layer. Settlements due to the influence of the fill loads would extend beyond the actual limits of filling It is estimated that settlements of 1 to 2 inches could occur some 50 to 60 feet beyond the edge of the fill. Post construction settlement in the surface parking areas could be effectively reduced to acceptable limits by placing fill sufficiently far in advance of construction to allow the major part of the consolidation to occur. New fills would not extend close enough to the pond edge to cause bottom displacement, sedimentation or other impacts to the pond. The potential for erosion of soil from the Phase II site would be the greatest during the construction period. Due to the low slope gradient on this site (for both the existing and proposed grades), erosion should be minimal. MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigating measures which the applicant has included in the proposal are as follows: o Erosion would be controlled during construction by minimiz- ing the area of exposed soil at any given time through the use of temporary pavement or gravel, tarps, vegetation, as well as other temporary erosion - control devices such as mirafi filter fabric fences, siltation /sedimentation pond, hay bales, rock check dams, and temporary erosion control conveyance ditches. o Settlement of fill brought to the Phase II site for the parking areas would be addressed such that (1) fill would be placed as the first phase of construction, (2) fill would be placed to at least 6 inches above planned final grades, (3) final grading would take into account actual settlement patterns such that the planned surface drainage gradients would be maintained as subsequent settlements occur. Some subsequent maintenance and remedial grading should be anticipated if localized "bird baths ", or small depressions that collect water, develop. o City of Tukwila requirements for grading and excavation would be followed. o After construction has been completed, the potential for erosion would be sufficiently reduced because the majority of the storm drainage would flow through a 200 -foot long grass -lined swale and then into the pond to the east of the Phase II site where water would be biofiltered prior to discharge into the downstream storm drainage system tributary to the Green River. Also, the catch basins would incorporate a "T" design which would operate as an effective oil /water separator. Storm drainage from the underground parking would be directed to the sanitary sewer system, as required by the Uniform Building Code. Retention of a 25- foot buffer adjacent to the pond and other existing vegetation would also lessen the potential for soil erosion. 2. AIR OUALITY Construction activities could produce temporary, short -term air quality impacts. The largest impact from construction of the proposed action would be airborne particulates (dust). Excavation and grading work would break up the soil and generate dust which could be carried by winds out of the construction area. Other sources of dust include soil blowing from uncovered dump trucks and soil carried out of the construction area by vehicle frames and tires; this soil could be deposited on adjacent streets and could become airborne. Construction would require the use of heavy -duty vehicles, such as bulldozers, road graders and heavy trucks, and smaller equipment, such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants which would contribute slightly to the degradation of local air quality on a temporary basis. Paving of roads and parking lots with hot asphalt would release hydrocarbons and associated odors to the air. Air quality in the immediate vicinity would be slightly degraded on a short -term basis by the addition of construction - generated traffic. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons and other traffic - related air pollutant concentrations would increase slightly. After development, increased traffic can be expected to slightly decrease air quality. Major portions of the Seattle- Everett - Tacoma region are designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as non - attainment areas for carbon monoxide. The primary source of carbon monoxide in the project area is motor vehicle exhaust. The proposal's effect on this pollutant is not expected to be significant because the traffic increase will be relatively small. Further, carbon monoxide dispersion is fairly rapid under normal traffic and meteorological conditions. MITIGATING MEASURES The following are mitigating measures the applicant would incorporate into the proposal: o Emissions from construction equipment and trucks would be reduced by using relatively new, well - maintained equipment. Avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling and selecting electrical rather than engine - powered equipment would also reduce emissions. o Dust produced by construction would be reduced by using a number of techniques. Areas of exposed soils, such as storage yards and construction roadways, would be sprayed with water as a dust suppressant. Areas which might be exposed for prolonged periods would be paved, planted with a vegetative groundcover or covered with gravel. Soils carried out of the construction area by exiting trucks could be minimized by wheel washing and covering dusty truck loads. Finally, that soil which does escape the construction area on exiting vehicles could be reduced with a. periodic street - cleaning effort. o The parking lot areas would be designed with adequate ingress and egress points and driving lanes so that cars would not be idling for long periods of time. This would reduce the accumulations of carbon monoxide in the area. 3. WATER RESOURCES The Phase II site is located in the Green River drainage basin. The Green River is located 2,000 feet west of the site running in a south to north direction. This site does not receive drainage from surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are fully developed and are drained via tightline storm drainage systems that convey drainage to the Green River through the City of Tukwila subsurface drainage systems in the adjacent public roadways. Drainage tributary to the Phase II site (and Tukwila Pond to the east of the site) is from direct precipitation (rainfall). Tukwila Pond maintains a static water surface elevation of approximately 13.0 feet (City of Tukwila datum) as determined by field surveys during October and November of 1987. The static water surface elevation in the pond is believed to be indicative of the groundwater table elevation in the immediate area (i.e., on the Phase II site). The Tukwila Pond storm drainage outlet is connected to the City of Tukwila's storm drainage system along Andover Park West. The outlet incorporates a floodgate which allows water to only exit the Phase I and Phase II properties. The City of Tukwila's P -17 Drainage Basin Study, dated April, 1984 established that the maximum rate of release from the developed Phase I and Phase II properties would be 1.0 cfs with a storage requirement equal to the volume of precipi- tation received in a 100 - year -24 -hour storm. Once storm drainage is released from the Phase I and Phase II properties, it is conveyed to the Green River through the City of Tukwila's storm drainage system. (See the September, 1988 Expanded Environmental Checklist for the Phase I retail shopping center for details of how the City's storm drainage system reaches the Green River.) The Phase I and Phase II sites appear to have adequate capacity to contain all drainage from the developed sites during the 100 - year -7 -day storm without discharging to the City's system. The sites can discharge up to a maximum rate of 1.0 cfs to the City's system. (See the September, 1988 Expanded EIA for the Phase I retail shopping center for additional information on these capacity calculations.) The August, 1981 FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Tukwila, shows a 100 -year floodplain over the Phase II site at an elevation of 23.0. FEMA has prepared an updated flood study that reports the 100 -year floodplain on the site as 25.0 feet, based upon special conditions. The levee on the west bank of the Green River in the area of this site currently is in need of improvements before it can meet the levee require- ments of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. King County Surface Water Management Division has indicated that the levee improvements will be completed around March, 1990. At that time, the FEMA maps will revert back to the previously established flood elevation of 23.0 feet. Preliminary grading and storm drainage plans have established the minimum finish floor elevation of the occupied space for the Phase II development at 30.0 feet, which is 5.0 feet above the 25.0 foot flood elevation. Historical evidence indicates that the actual 100 -year flood elevation of the site is on the order of 16.0 feet (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers aerial photographs, 11/25/86). The Phase II site is currently undeveloped. Due to the flat topography of this site, it is estimated that the average on -site overland flow of velocity is approximately one -half foot per second. Drainage from this site flows directly into the pond located immediately to the east. The upland areas of the Phase II site have been previously filled to what appears to be a depth of approximately five to ten feet. There is approximately five to ten feet difference in grade between the western property line and adjacent properties. The soils investigations indicated that the fill contains a high percentage of silt, which is relatively impervious. The estimated pre - development runoff coeffi- cient for the filled uplands portion of the Phase II site where development would take place is estimated to be 0.6. This means that approximately 60 percent of the existing storm drainage on the site results in runoff. Approximately 3.2 acres (80 percent) of the Phase II site would be converted to impervious surfaces, either buildings or parking and vehicle circulation areas, with development of the proposal. The post - development runoff coefficient would be about 0.85, indicating that approximately 85 percent of storm drainage on the developed portion of the property would result in runoff; this represents an approximately 25 percent increase in stormwater runoff over the pre - developed condition. However, Tukwila Pond has sufficient capacity to absorb any increase in storm drainage runoff from this property. Phase I of the project incor- porated a free - draining storm drainage system outletting into the pond. The area represented by Phase II is signifi- cantly smaller than that of Phase I; therefore, the pond has sufficient capacity to absorb the additional storm drainage runoff from development of the proposal (Barghausen Engineers, 1989). The quantity of stormwater runoff from the proposed development would be restricted to a maximum outflow rate of 1.0 cubic foot per second, with pond storage equal to the precipitation received during the 100 -year storms. Under these conditions, the pond has adequate capacity to handle additional runoff from the Phase II project. Therefore, no significant surface water impacts are expected. Because the elevation of the storm drainage outlet provided by the City is 2.4 feet above the pond's normal level (13.0 feet), and 0.6 feet above the maximum pond level (14.8 feet), the project would rarely release any storm drainage to the City system. The proposal is to capture roof and surface asphalt drainage in catch basins, then tightline the drainage to an area adjacent to Tukwila Pond. The runoff from roof areas would be essentially clean water; therefore, this drainage would be conveyed directly into the pond. Prior to discharge into the pond, storm drainage would be conveyed through a 200 - foot long biofiltration ditch, which would act as a natural filter, removing oil and heavy metals from the storm water runoff. Runoff from vehicle areas would contain oils and other pollutants. Oil /water separators would be provided in "T" -type catch basins to filter oil and sediments from the runoff. Runoff would then be discharged into the pond (see Figure 4, Drainage Plan). Water quality in Tukwila Pond would not be adversely affected by the proposal. The Uniform Building Code requires that the storm drainage from covered parking areas (in this case the underground — • — — — • • r-- z- - - - - -� TUCWLA POND STATIC W.S. ELEVATION . MO* PHASE 11 SITE WEIALTON RP Rip OUTFALL L —, WT. TIT OF CROSS -HATCH INDICATES LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE F.F. = 20.0 +wrtwla RASA MY; I OIT 11.1.11L• MOM ni .wiom J. O. �e PROPOSED TARGET m*.o.G FY .•• 2600 I-" 1 r,E: Y J I I I i I I `. I 1 `Q} L_ 1 NRRD I I 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 I I L___ __ - -J NORTH Scale 0 200 LEGEND EX. or SD Akir32.o -• EXIST. STORY PPE WI CATCH BASIN IKD Ire+ --•_ •• PROPOSED STORY PPE WI CATCH BASH .40 MST. GROUND SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXIST. CONTOUR �► _ PROPOSED BRAN UM SWALE NOTE: Finished floor elevation would be a 30.0 feet minimum. _J • AO T elt. or EEASEN ITT"D I PAEOST. EDGE V[YDIT -YYPC °X DOTTER ST DONE LIM DRIVEWAY X Y D' E — NEW HO it IEaI RAYON • rJ. lrJ K1 it ED . CrfOIE FENS ERICSD yE. u T. CA. AT OF PAVErENT ALA �MT.Ir ROAD KR M' PAYED ROAD- WAY 1I a OVTTER NDTR SCENALX aN 8011 PAY. NORM COST. • PRDYaI(AiCI WOK ION SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY— — Southcenter Plaza: Phase II Expanded Environmental Checklist Drainage Plan Figure 4 parking garage) must drain into the sanitary sewer system. The finish floor elevation of the parking garage would be too low for a gravity connection and a pump would be required. Drainage for the underground parking would be collected by a series of floor drains and must pass through a Metro - approved baffle -type oil /water separator before being pumped into the sanitary sewer system. MITIGATING MEASURES o During construction, temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures would be implemented, in accordance with City of Tukwila standards. Siltation fences and temporary ditches with rock check dams would be constructed at the base of the pond bank. Stormwater would be conveyed to a temporary settlement pond to settle sediments from the water before release into the pond. o On -site conveyance pipes would route storm drainage from the surface paved areas into a biofiltration swale and then into the adjacent pond. The storm drainage would be filtered through a series of "T" -type, Type I and II catch basins with oil /water separators prior to release into the pond. Significant biofiltration would also be provided in the form of a grass -lined swale and the pond itself. Storm drainage from the underground parking areas would be directed to the sanitary sewer system, as required by the Uniform Building Code. 4. PLANTS AND ANIMALS IES Associates prepared a biological study for the September, 1988 Expanded EIA for the Phase I retail shopping center development. The following discussion is based on that study. Plants Upland Communities This Phase II site consists primarily of upland habitats. This site supports a steep, narrow bank of willow and black cottonwood trees and shrub border of blackberry and limited grasses. Areas above the banks are dried uplands and support species such as dock, quackgrass, johnsongrass and clover. Impacts from the proposal would include loss of upland vegetation consisting of a mix of grasses, scotsbroom, and ragworts (including tansy ragwort), dandelion, and other invader -type forbs. There would be a 25 -foot setback between the buildings and the pond edge so that the adjacent riparian areas would not be impacted. The Phase I development currently under construction also includes a 25- foot buffer area. With the Phase II development, there may be some shading from the buildings on small portions of the pond, but the water habitat would not be displaced, and impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Wetland Communities Tukwila Pond and adjacent wetlands are located to the east of the Phase II site. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's classification of wetland and deep water habitats, this area contains palustrine emergent, palustrine, scrub -shrub and palustrine, unconsolidated bottom classes of wetlands. See the September, 1988 Expanded Environmental Checklist for the Phase I retail shopping center for a complete description of the adjacent wetland area. Because the proposed buildings for Phase II would be set back 25 feet from the pond's edge, there would be no impacts on the wetland areas. Also see discussion of Earth and Water Resources, pg. A -1, A -4. Animals The Phase II site, in conjunction with the Tukwila Pond and wetland areas to the east, is a well -used wildlife and waterfowl area which is integrated with the Green River to the east. The variety and productivity of animal life on the Phase II site are high for some species and marginal to low for others. Bird Communities The Phase II site is within the Pacific Flyway, and as such is used by birds that normally migrate through the western Washington area in spring and fall. The Tukwila Pond to the east of the site is heavily used by both waterfowl and shorebirds. The uplands and riparian border are used by goldfinches, siskins and other small birds. Short -term impacts would be created during the construction period for the Phase II project. Short -term impacts include the effects of noise from construction on waterfowl and other birds using the site and adjacent pond and wetland area. The level and effect of the impacts would be dependent on a number of factors, including: (1) timing of construction, (2) total length of the construction period, and (3) types of construction activities occurring during different time periods. Following construction, it would be anticipated that bird activity in the pond adjacent to the proposed buildings would be typical of the rest of the marsh. Based on limited observations of the Koll - Creekside project in Beaverton, Oregon where a small number of over -water buildings were part of the project, it is not anticipated that buildings at least 25 feet from the pond would affect the use of the area by wintering waterfowl. The distance from the back of the buildings to the pond bank would be greater than the distance that was required to flush canvasbacks during preliminary surveys in 1985 and 1986. The presence of the buildings as proposed would not affect existing winter waterfowl activity. Mammalian Communities Eastern cottontail, meadow mice, shrews and voles use the wooded edge that extends from the _wetland areas to the east to the upland areas on the Phase II site for nesting, feeding and cover. The edge of the pond is used by mammals for drinking and hunting. Along the adjacent riparian border, snags, crevices and broken limbs supply isolation needed by some wildlife from roads and traffic. Plant eaters, such as mice and rabbits, require water, and predators, such as hawks, exploit this need when hunting the water's edge. A variety of seed eaters and grazers, including meadow mice, voles and eastern cottontail rabbit, use the adjacent riparian border and the on -site uplands. Impacts of the proposal would include the loss of upland habitat between the west edge of the pond and the west property boundary. However, wildlife use of this area is limited to small mammal and birds because of the physical conditions of the site. The area is also used by people, particularly for running dogs. Effects on mammal communities are not expected to be significant because only a small amount of what is currently marginal mammal habitat would be affected. Reptiles and Amphibian Communities Several species of frogs were identified in studies for the Phase I reail shopping center project. Garter snakes have also been observed in the adjacent pond /wetland area. No significant impacts on reptiles and amphibians are expected with the Phase II development, since the pond would not be disturbed. Fisheries A 1988 study of the adjacent pond conducted by The Watershed Company indicates that the only species of fish found in the pond is the brown bullhead catfish. That study observed that the population is limited by poor breeding in the pond or predation by the adult population which prevents any juvenile survival. Because the additional stormwater runoff through the pond from the Phase II proposal would not represent a major increase and would be effectively filtered following development, no significant adverse impacts on fish are expected. Threatened and Endangered Species No threatened or endangered plant or animal species as defined by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the State Department of Wildlife are anticipated to use the Phase II site as a regular nesting and feeding habitat. MITIGATING MEASURES o The proposal includes provision of a 25 -foot buffer around the pond and new landscaping of the developed portions of the Phase II site. Native vegetation disturbed in the buffer area during construction would be replaced in -kind. 5. NOISE The proposed project is located in a light industrial, commercial and industrial park area with several noise - producing activities. Noticeable noise sources are heavy trucks and rail traffic serving Parkway Square, the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center, the Boeing Company and other businesses. Noise from vehicular traffic also occurs on both Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. Although no measurements were taken for this study, a 1987 report prepared for the City indicates that the most current noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the site were monitored at three locations in 1979. At that time, noise levels were 60, 62 and 59 (Ldn) for the west, north and east sides of the site, respectively. Ldn refers to the total noise exposure over 24 hours, or the day -night average. It should be noted that the Parkway Square Shopping Center to the west of the site was under construction at that time, and apparently this affected the reading to the west (Entranco, 1987). It is reasonable to assume that noise levels are essentially the same or slightly greater due to increased traffic volumes under current conditions. Short -term noise impacts typical of construction projects would occur with the operation of equipment during the project's approximately six -month construction period. Noise levels could vary from 70 to 95 decibels (dBA, a measure of a single noise event, as distinguished from Ldn, a daily average of noise) in the immediate vicinity of the project construction area. Some higher peaks could occur if impact equipment, such as jackhammers, are used. If mechanically driven pilings are used, animal communities could be temporarily impacted. Construction noise would cease when the project construction was completed. Long -term increases in traffic noise levels would occur in the immediate vicinity of the project site near Southcenter Parkway due to the additional traffic generated by the project. A noise analysis for a previously proposed development on the Phase I and Phase II sites (Entranco, 1987) predicted a 1 to 3 (Ldn) noise level increase in the project vicinity based on an increase in traffic of 28,000 vehicle trips per day and other associated activities. This is considerably greater than the anticipated traffic levels to be generated from the Phase I project currently under construction and the Phase II project; therefore, the noise levels could be expected to be significantly less than those previously projected. Increases of less than 5 Ldn are considered slight impacts according to the U.S. EPA. MITIGATING MEASURES The following mitigating measures would be included in the proposal: Construction Noise o Limit construction to normal working hours to avoid disturbance to nearby hotels during evening and weekend hours; o Limit truck traffic construction and activities to noise levels contained in the City of Tukwila noise ordinance; o Place acoustic screens around particularly noisy machinery; o Fit pneumatic equipment and internal combustion engines with mufflers; and o Turn off idling equipment. o If mechanical pilings are used, construction would be limited to periods when waterfowl are least sensitive. 16. Utilities With regard to the sanitary sewer design, the proposal would connect to the gravity sewer system that would be extended along the west property line from Strander Boulevard. City code requires that the drainage from the covered parking areas (in this case the underground parking garage) must drain into the sanitary sewer system. The finish floor elevation of the parking garage would be too low for a gravity connection and a pump would be required. Drainage for the underground parking would be collected by a series of floor drains and must pass through a METRO approved baffle -type oil /water separator before being pumped into the sanitary sewer system. The proposed water system would be extended via an 8 -inch water main along the west property line from Strander Boulevard. The proposal includes a "deadend" water main approximately 1,000 feet in length. Further calculations would be necessary to verify that the required fire flow could be provided to the restaurant and hotel without a "looped" system. ATTACHMENT B Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 SOUTHCENTER PLAZA (Tukwila Pond Center) PHASE II in the City of Tukwila by the Spieker Partners Traffic Study May 8, 1989 Traffic Engineers C4 Transportation Planners TUKWILA POND CENTER PHASE II in the City of Tukwila by the Speiker Partners Traffic Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1. Purpose 1. Location 2. Project Description 2. Access 2. Traffic Data 4. Data References and Sources 4. Background Traffic 4. Trip Generation 6. Traffic Assignment 7. Horizon Year Traffic 7. Levels of Service 7. LOS Discussion 10. Mitigating Measures 11. Conclusions 12. LIST OF FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2. Current Traffic Volumes 3. Trip Distribution As A % Of Total Trips 4. Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With Project LIST OF TABLES 3. 5. 8. 9.. I. Trip Generation 6. II. Levels of Service 10. APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Input and Results TUKWILA POND CENTER PHASE II in the City of Tukwila by the Speiker Partners Traffic Study Introduction While major commercial institutions create significant peak hour traffic demands, often hotels and restaurants have peak hour demands that are not coincident with the peak hour of the adjacent arterial and collector street system. Nevertheless, for a worst case analysis, it is perhaps appropriate to define a peak hour that is coincident for both. With this scenario, then, the traffic carrying ability of the local, adjacent street and arterial systems may be determined. , Accordingly, for a land use scenario consisting of a motel as one option and a destination, high quality restaurant, this study will review the traffic impacts for the site located alongside and sharing common boundaries with a previous commercial enterprise, the Tukwila Pond Center. From these, the analysis of both current and future traffic operations is made. As before, it is then possible to suggest the appropriate mitigating measures, if any, to ensure the continuation of adequate traffic operations. Purpose The purpose of this study was to gather a site specific data base of current traffic operations to use with prior data on the arterial routes serving the proposed project, which for the purposes of this traffic study is called "Tukwila Pond Center, Phase II ", to include traffic from the existing, adjacent developments, to define the probable trip generation for the site under the proposed development scenarios, to estimate the driveway and arterial street traffic demands for the horizon year, in this case the 1990 traffic demands, and to quantify the existing and horizon year levels of service (LOS) at the key intersections and access driveways serving the site. Further, a secondary function of the study is to identify changes in access and traffic control systems to ensure the maintenance of adequate traffic operations on the impacted public street system when the project is completed and fully occupied. -1- 4 Christopher Brown a Associates\ 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Rcnton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 .} Location The Tukwila Pond Center, Phase II project is to be located on a site lying to the east of Southcenter Parkway on the west bank of Tukwila Pond, to the south of Strander Boulevard in the the City of Tukwila, King County. The site location is sketched on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. Project Description Development of the site as proposed consists of a 150 room motel and an 8,000 square foot "quality" restaurant. Parking will be on site with a total of 230 spaces provided in a surface parking lot and an underground parking garage. Access Access to the site is to be from both Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway via driveways serving the north and south end of the site. Southcenter Parkway will provide primary access with a linkage from the south end of the site to Southcenter Parkway via S. 168th Street. This access will be shared with the Bon Home Improvement Clearance Center and will be constructed to public road standards on the proposed S. 168th Street alignment as identified in the D.E.I.S. by Entranco Engineers. Strander Boulevard, at the present time a five lane facility, will provide secondary access to the site via a single driveway. It is assumed that this driveway will be operated as a right -in, right -out only driveway due to it's close proximity to the east driveway of the Security Pacific Bank located on Strander Boulevard. In this way the congestion problems which otherwise might be expected from closely spaced, adjacent driveways will be minimized. Channelization for the driveway to Southcenter Parkway will consist of one left -turn only lane and one right -turn only lane. The existing two -way, left -turn lane on Southcenter Parkway will remain and will be used by left- turning traffic from the driveways as a refuge /merge lane allowing the left -turn movement to be completed in two steps, effectively removing main street through traffic approaching from the right from conflicting flow. Channelization and signing will be used to enhance the right -turn in, right -turn out limitations at the driveway to Strander Boulevard. -2- k. Tow' Christopher brown 0 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. quite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 e -3.- FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map Christopher Brown & Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 \` Renton, WA 98055 -1380 // (206) 772 -1188 Geometric parameters, lane volumes and and other data for the key arterial intersections as well as the driveways are shown as a part of the data input to the capacity analysis appended to this study. Traffic Data Traffic data used in this analysis is from the traffic report for Phase I of the Tukwila Pond Center project and from field counts taken at the Security Pacific Bank driveways as well as at the S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway intersection on Tuesday, February 28th, 1989. From the Phase I study, the noon hour has been identified as having the largest traffic volumes and, as a consequence, the noon hour should be considered as the "design hour" for project impact analysis. The vehicular volume data is shown on Figure 2, Current Traffic Volumes. As noted before, the data is also replicated in the appended materials on capacity calculations as computer input. Data References and Sources Data resources used in this study include the aforementioned Phase I study by this firm, population forecasts by traffic analysis zones prepared by the Puget Sound Council Of Governments, average daily traffic volumes prepared by W.S.D.O.T., trip generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the document, Trip Generation, 4th edition, and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. For the latter item, reference is also made to the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2, published by Roger Creighton and Associates, New York used under license for this study. Background Traffic Background traffic, that is the traffic demand for the case that does not include the project, is based on the horizon year of 1990. Background growth was derived in the Phase I report and is again utilized in the preparation of this report. As a -4- Christopher Brown i Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Mite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Southcenter Pkwy. Strander Blvd. 3(0 22 IN Security Pacific Bank S: .168th Street FIGURE 2 Current Traffic Volumes (7315 Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainicr Avenue N.. (Suite A -201 \\ Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 consequence, a background growth rate of 0.25 percent per year as determined in prior studies is assumed at the Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard /Site Entrance and S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway intersections. Also included as background traffic in this report are those volumes which can be expected to be generated by Phase I of the project. Trip Generation The trip generation data for the project site is derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (I.T.E.) Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code 831 which applies to "quality" restaurants and Land use Code 320 which applies to motels. For the purposes of this study it has been assumed that the motel will have an average occupancy of 80 percent or 120 occupied rooms. The trip generation for the project developed with a 150 room motel and a 8,000 gross square foot "quality" restaurant is shown in Table I, below. -6- TABLE I Trip Generation, Tukwila Pond Center, Phase II Motel, 150 Rooms, 80 % Occupancy Time Interval A.W.D.T.* A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Noon Inbound ** Noon Outbound ** Volume 1,190 vehicles per day 31 vehicles per hour 53 vehicles per hour 38 vehicles per hour 38 vehicles per hour 47 vehicles per hour 47 vehicles per hour "Quality" Restaurant, 8,000 g.s.f. Time Interval A.W.D.T.* A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound Noon Inbound ** Noon Outbound ** Volume 765 vehicles per day 7 vehicles per hour 1 vehicles per hour 40 vehicles per hour 18 vehicles per hour 56 vehicles per hour 26 vehicles per hour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic ** Used to derive a "worst case" scenario Christopher brown Cis Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 It should be noted that the Trip Generation Manual does not list noon hour generation rates for the above land uses. It has been assumed that the rates listed for the "p.m. peak hour of the generator" can be used for the noon hour generation rates in lieu of specifically defined noon rates. In actual fact, the peak hour of the generator is usually later in the day, well after the peak hour of the adjacent street. Accordingly, this study presents a worst case analysis. Traffic Assignment Traffic assignment for the project assigns site generated traffic to the network on the basis of 1987 average daily traffic volumes found on the state highways (I -5, I -405, SR 181 and SR 518) surrounding the site. This trip distribution, shown as a percentage of all new site traffic, is shown in Figure 3. Horizon Year Traffic Since the noon hour traffic volumes include both the home based or primary shopping trip as well as work site based (lunch and shopping) trips, they tend to be higher than the customary p.m. peak hour of the average suburban arterial street. As a consequence, the noon hour is used for the design hour as described earlier. Thus, for the purposes of this study, the noon hour is the worst case and is therefore used for assessing impacts and attendant mitigating measures. With the project built as a 150 room motel with an 8,000 g.s.f. restaurant and with the background traffic included, the horizon year, design hour traffic demands shown on Figure 4 should be achieved. Levels of Service The Level of Service (LOS) describes the quality of traffic flow. This ranges from the best or highest level, 'A', usually denoted by an ability to select ones' own speed or the ability to change lanes or overtake at will, down to the lowest of worst level 'F'. This LOS is the lowest possible level and is one where traffic is severely constrained. It is usually denoted by "jam" conditions and attendant long traffic delays. Capacity computations were performed in accordance with Special -7- Christopher Brown a Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., quite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 1 (206) 772 -1188 Southcenter 8- 1 f Strander Boluevard 0 0 ' S. 168th Street 4.8% lr7 f OcJ-/- FIGURE 3 Trip Distribution As A Percentage Of Total Trips Site Access 0 N Christopher Brown (c Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 \\ Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 S9C, /Z 0 938 Strander Boulevard 94Z Southcenter Parkway 0. 0 -9- 493 h 989 413Th b v x cu S. 168th Street /036. (ere s FIGURE 4 Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With Project Site Access Christopher Brown i Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton. WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Report 209, the Highway Capacity Manual, using the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2 published by Roger Creighton and Associates. Signalized intersection analysis was done with the "Operations and Design" methods which are more rigorous than the "Planning" method. STOP sign controlled intersections used parameters for arterial roads with speeds under 35 m.p.h. and surrounding urban populations over 250,000. At signalized intersections, right turn movement volumes have been adjusted to account for right- turn -on -red in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual (page 9 -11) and a one hundred second cycle length have been assumed on the basis of expected future signal inter - coordination. At unsignalized tee - intersections the opposing through volume approaching from the right on the major street has been eliminated in those cases where a two -way left -turn lane exists since that lane is available to left turning vehicles from the minor approach as an acceleration/ merge lane. As noted earlier, all input data is listed in the appendix, along with computer output. When reviewing the appended computer data, it may be noted that each set of data has its' own file reference number. This is located at the top right of each data sheet. The title and other descriptive material is on the upper left corner. Levels of service for both conditions, Current or 1989 traffic and Horizon Year traffic with the completed project are shown below in Table II. Intersection TABLE II Levels of Service 1989 w/o site Horizon Year w/ project Southcenter Pkwy. /S. 168th Street D D Strander Blvd. /Bank Exit Driveway E E Strander Blvd. /Southcenter Pkwy. C C Strander Blvd. /Site Access Driveway * A * - Right in /right out only operation LOS Discussion Currently, the "intersection" of the Security Pacific Bank exit driveway with Strander Boulevard operates as a four leg intersection with the driveway to the Double Tree Inn being the -10- Christopher Brown Cc Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Mite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 fourth leg. The level of service for the left -turn from the bank's driveway is currently 'E'. No change in the LOS is expected in the horizon year with the addition of the traffic from the subject proposal. It should be noted that the proposed signal to be constructed at the intersection of the main Phase I driveway and Strander Boulevard, positioned about midway between the Andover Park West and Southcenter Boulevard signals, will increase the degree of vehicular platooning of traffic on Strander Boulevard which should, as a result, create gaps which can be utilized by minor driveway, left- turning vehicles. For this reason, the level of service will likely be better than calculated (appendix) due to the introduction of gaps which now occur less frequently from the signals at the east and west ends at Andover Park West and Southcenter Boulevard. It may be further noted that the procedure for analysis of "unsignalized intersections" assumes random arrivals on the major street. In situations where platooning is predominate, better levels of service are often experienced. The intersection of S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway will continue to operate at a LOS 'D' in the horizon year with the project. The D.E.I.S. document for the S. 168th Street connection anticipates that a signal will be installed at this intersection eventually. However, at this time it does not appear that signal warrants will be met with the implementation of Phase II of the project. Regardless, the calculated LOS 'D' at this location for the left - turning movement from the S. 168th Street leg is adequate. The LOS at the new site access to Strander Boulevard will operate at 'A' in the horizon year of 1990. In the noon peak hour, only 15 vehicles are predicted to be exiting the driveway to the right into the eastbound Strander Boulevard traffic stream. This low volume should present no operational difficulties to traffic exiting the Security Pacific Bank driveway to the west of the site access. Mitigating Measures The single and key mitigation measure for addressing the project's traffic impacts is the limitation for right -in /right -out only access at the site access driveway to Strander Boulevard. In this way, potential interference between the Security Pacific Bank exit driveway and the site access driveway will be minimized. The prohibitation should be enforced through the construction of pavement markings to define channelization and signing at the driveway /Strander Boulevard Christopher Brown Associates \ 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 j intersection. Signing should also be provided internally to the project to alert motorists to the prohibitation and direct them to the south entrance should they wish to travel in a direction which involves a prohibited movement. The driveway to Southcenter Parkway site should be provided with a two lane exit capability. One lane should be a dedicated left -turn exit lane while the other may be a through- and -right turn lane. Furthermore, that driveway should be provided with a two lane entrance; one lane to collect the southbound left turn movement and the second lane exclusively for the northbound right- turning traffic. As previously stated, signalization of this intersection is not required as an integral part of this project at this time, although all design should be accomplished with the eventual signalization of this intersection in mind. Conclusions The following conclusions may be drawn: 1. With the site developed as a 150 room hotel and a "quality" restaurant with a floor area of 8,000 g.s.f., a total of 1,955 vehicles per day will be generated. In the design hour, taken as 12:00 to 1:00 p.m., a total of 173 vehicles will be generated. 2. Two accesses opportunities will be provided. The north entrance will access Strander Boulevard and will be limited to right -in /right -out only operation so as to minimize operational conflicts with the existing exit driveway for the Security Pacific Bank, located west of the site access. The south entrance will access Southcenter Parkway at S. 168th Street. It will be shared with the Bon Marche Home Improvement Clearance warehouse located to the south of the subject site. 3. The existing LOS for the Security Pacific Bank exit driveway /Strander Boulevard intersection is 'E'. No change in this LOS will occur as a result of the implementation of the subject project. 4. The LOS for the right turn movement from the north driveway to Strander Boulevard will be 'A' in the horizon year. Also, due to the prohibitation of left -turn movements and the low volume of traffic likely to exit the north driveway to the east, no operational difficulties will occur even with the close proximity of the Security Pacific Driveway to the west. -12- Christopher Brown Associale� 879 Rainier Avenue N.. (Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 �� ; = (206) 772 -1188 -13- 5. The LOS for the S. 168th Street /Southcenter Boulevard intersection is currently at, and will remain at 'D' in the horizon year with the project, regardless of the scenario as chosen. While the S. 168th Street D.E.I.S. anticipates the signalization of this intersection, clearly signal warrants will not be met following implementation of the subject project, and, in any case, the LOS will remain adequate with the project under the current control system. Christopher Brown a Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N.. (Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 TUKWILA POND CENTER PHASE II APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Current Traffic Analysis TUK001 S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway TUK002 Strander Boulevard /Bank Exit TUK003 Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway Horizon Year Analysis, Project Built TUK021 S. 168th Street /Southcenter Parkway TUK022 Strander Boulevard /Bank Exit TUK023 Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway TUK024 Strander Boulevard /Site Access Driveway • CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : 168TH STREET S.W. @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1989 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK001 APP WB NB SB T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) 0 1 -1 0 2 2 N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O N D I T I O N S CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 N N N 0.0 0.0 0.0 ARR TYPE 3 3 3 APP WB NB SB G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD 8 0 0 1066 22 0 30 L 1 12.0 R 18 TR 2 24.0 0 L 1 12.0 1 12.0 CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : 168TH STREET S.W. @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1989 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK001 U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S APP WB NB SB CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN 6.50 5.00 5.50 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LANES LANE 1 LANE 2 APP L T R L T R WB 8 0 NB 0 542 SB 22 0 O 0 0 30 O 0 524 18 O 0 0 0 LANE 3 L T R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 176 566 D A SB RESERVE CAPACITY 335 LEVEL OF SERVICE B MAJOR STREET - NB /SB CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ BANK EXIT @ HOTEL DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1989 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK002 APP EB WB NB SB T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) 0 0 0 -4 1 2 0 0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O N D I T I O N S CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0 N N N N 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ARR TYPE 3 3 3 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 18 782 0 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 WB 0 803 4 TR 2 24.0 NB 48 4 88 LT 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 SB 6 0 12 LTR 1 12.0 3 MVM LNS WD CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ BANK EXIT @ HOTEL DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1989 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK002 U N S I G N A L I Z E D CRITICAL GAP S APP EB WB NB SB CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN 5.00 5.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 APP EB WB NB SB V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O L A N E S LANE 1 L T R 18 0 0 403 48 4 6 0 0 0 0 12 LANE 2 L T R O 391 O 400 O 0 O 0 0 4 88 0 LANE 3 L T R O 391 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP EB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 482 A 28 E 151 D 712 A • — — • = 5/7/1989 CHRISTOPHER BROWN CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 INTERSECTION TUK003 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET 2 2 V *> 2 1 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET W - +- E SB TOTAL 1130 v .> 694 436 TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK003 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1989 CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C 6 R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE WB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 NB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 SB -2 3 N 0 0 0.86 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD STRANDER BOULEVARD - -- E/W STREET WB 487 0 374 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 780 436 T 2 24.0 R 1 12.0 SB 436 694 0 L 2 24.0 T 2 24.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G * - -- 1 ^ 374 APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R v. - -- - - -- - --- -- --- --'------- WB TOTAL WB 3 L R LR 44 56 487 861 WB 1 R R 20 80 • NB 2 T R R 36 64 v NB 3 R R 44 56 SB 1 L T L 20 80 SB 2 T 36 64 780 436 .> NB TOTAL 1216 • • - - - - • PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK003 TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK003 INTERSECTION : INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1989 CBD ? N WEEKDAY NOON 1989 CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T CAPACITY ANA L Y S I S APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C --- - --- - - -- - - -- APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO WB L 487 566 1.00 566 1.00 0.00 - -- - -- - - -- R 374 435 1.00 435 0.00 1.00 WB L 566 0 1500 0.377 Y 0.440 660 0.858 R 435 0 1500 0.290 Y 0.640 960 0.453 NB T 780 907 1.00 907 0.00 0.00 R 436 507 1.00 507 0.00 1.00 NB T 907 0 3528 0.257 N 0.360 1270 0.714 R 507 0 1500 0.338 Y 0.800 1200 0.422 SB L 436 507 1.00 507 1.00 0.00 T 694 807 1.00 807 0.00 0.00 SB L 507 0 3312 0.153 Y 0.200 662 0.766 T 807 0 3600 0.224 N 0.560 2016 0.400 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL t OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 1.158 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.273 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1500 LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS NB T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3528 WB L 0.858 0.440 100 19.1 660 7.7 1.00 26.8 D R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 R 0.453 0.640 100 6.9 960 0.2 0.85 6.0 B 17.7 C SB L 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3312 NB T 0.714 0.360 100 20.9 1270 1.4 0.85 19.0 C T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 R 0.422 0.800 100 2.3 1200 0.1 0.85 2.0 A 12.9 B SB L 0.766 0.200 100 28.7 662 3.7 1.00 32.4 D T 0.400 0.560 100 9.5 2016 0.1 0.85 8.2 B 17.5 C INTERSECTION DELAY : 15.8 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C • • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : 168TH STREET S.W. @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH 5/7/1989 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 TUK021 TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK021 INTERSECTION : 168TH STREET S.W. @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( % ) ( % ) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S WB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) NB 1 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN SB -1 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 - -- WB 6.50 5.50 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S NB LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 SB 5.00 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD WB 12 0 85 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 1096 23 TR 2 24.0 SB 73 0 0 L 1 12.0 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LANES LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R WB 12 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 NB 0 559 0 0 537 23 0 0 0 SB 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 WB RESERVE CAPACITY 129 500 LEVEL OF- SERVICE D A NB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY 268 LEVEL OF SERVICE C MAJOR STREET - NB /SB • CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD 8 BANK EXIT 8 HOTEL DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST 5/7/1989 TUK022 APP EB WB NB SB T R A F F I C 6 R O A D W A Y GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) 0 0 0 -4 1 2 0 0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O N D I T I O N S CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0 N N N N 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ARR TYPE 3 3 3 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 18 989 0 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 WB 0 938 4 TR 2 24.0 NB 48 4 88 LT 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 SB 6 0 12 LTR 1 12.0 3 MVM LNS WD CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ BANK EXIT 8 HOTEL DRIVEWAY WEEKDAY NOON HOUR 1990 W/ PROJ. UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST CBD ?N 5/7/1989 TUK022 U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S APP EB WB NB SB CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN 5.00 5.00 6.50 6.50 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 APP EB WB NB SB V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O L A N E S LANE 1 L T R 18 0 0 471 48 4 6 0 0 0 0 12 LANE 2 L T R O 494 O 467 O 0 O 0 0 4 88 0 LANE 3 L T R O 495 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP EB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 407 A 1 E 104 D 626 A • • 5/7/1989 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TUK023 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET 2 2 v *> 2 1 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N/S STREET SB TOTAL 1295 v .> 699 596 CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL 5/7/1989 TUK023 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE WB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 NB 2 3 N 0 0 0.86 10 Y 18.0 3 SB -2 3 N 0 0 0.86 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD STRANDER BOULEVARD --- E/W STREET WB 562 0 489 L 1 12.0 R 1 12.0 NB 0 808 493 T 2 24.0 R 1 12.0 SB 596 699 0 L 2 24.0 T 2 24.0 v S I G N A L PHA S I N G ^ 489 APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R - WB TOTAL WB 3 L R LR 44 56 562 1051 WB 1 R R 23 77 NB 2 T R R 33 67 v NB 3 R R 44 56 SB 1 L T L 23 77 SB 2 T 33 67 808 493 .> NB TOTAL 1301 • PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK023 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T PAGE 2 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY WEEKDAY NOON ACTUATED SIGNAL CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA POND PHASE II 1990 W/ PROJ. CBD ? N 5/7/1989 TUK023 C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C --- - - -- - - -- - - -- APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO WB L 562 653 1.00 653 1.00 0.00 - -- - -- ---- R 489 569 1.00 569 0.00 1.00 WB L 653 0 1500 0.435 Y 0.440 660 0.989 R 569 0 1500 0.379 Y 0.670 1005 0.566 NB T 808 940 1.00 940 0.00 0.00 R 493 573 1.00 573 0.00 1.00 NB T 940 0 3528 0.266 N 0.330 1164 0.808 R 573 0 1500 0.382 Y 0.770 1155 0.496 SB L 596 693 1.00 693 1.00 0.00 T 699 813 1.00 813 0.00 0.00 SB L 693 0 3312 0.209 Y 0.230 762 0.909 T 813 0 3600 0.226 N 0.560 2016 0.403 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL i OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 1.405 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 1.544 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E WB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1500 LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS NB T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3528 WB L 0.989 0.440 100 21.1 660 24.4 1.00 45.5 E R 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1500 R 0.566 0.670 100 6.7 1005 0.6 0.85 6.2 B 27.2 D SB L 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 3312 NB T 0.808 0.330 100 23.3 1164 3.1 0.85 22.4 C T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 R 0.496 0.770 100 3.3 1155 0.3 0.85 3.1 A 15.1 C SB L 0.909 0.230 100 28.5 762 10.6 1.00 39.1 D T 0.403 0.560 100 9.5 2016 0.1 0.85 8.2 B 22.4 C INTERSECTION DELAY : 21.2 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK024 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS DRIVE WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/7/1989 TUKWILA POND PHASE II TUK024 INTERSECTION : STRANDER BOULEVARD @ SITE ACCESS DRIVE WEEKDAY NOON 1990 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( % ) ( % ) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S EB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) WB 0 2 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN NB 2 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 --- EB G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S WB 5.00 LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 NB 6.50 5.00 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 0 1036 47 TR 2 24.0 WB 0 0 0 NB 0 0 15 R 1 15.0 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LANES LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 0 541 0 0 495 47 0 0 0 WB 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE NB RESERVE CAPACITY 679 LEVEL OF SERVICE A MAJOR STREET - EB/WB ATTACHMENT C MITIGATING MEASURES PROPOSED BY APPLICANT 1. Hydroseed site to minimize potential erosion; minimize soil exposure; comply with City of Tukwila grading and excavation requirements; and implement short and long -term erosion control. 2. Limit idling and use efficient equipment to reduce pollutant emissions; reduce dust by watering, laying gravel, or planting; clean wheel wells on -site; and design parking lot layout to reduce idling of customer vehicles. 3. Filter storm drainage through catch basins with oil /water separators; preserve downstream quality with biofiltration through a grass -lined swale and the adjacent pond; design drainage system so that no greater storm flows would result than those created under the predevelopment rate; minimize velocity design to prevent sediment buildup; and establish temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (silt fences, hay bales, other similar techniques where appropriate). 4. Retain a 25 -foot buffer between the adjacent pond and proposed buildings; and provide new landscaping in parking areas and along site borders to offset impact on plants and animals. 5. Limit construction to normal working hours; comply with City of Tukwila noise ordinance; substitute electric machinery wherever possible; incorporate landscaping in parking areas; and limit construction to periods when waterfowl are least sensitive if mechanical pilings are used. 6. Limit access at the Strander Boulevard driveway to right -in/ right -out only to minimize conflicts between the Security Pacific Bank exit driveway and the site secondary access driveway; and provide two lane exit capability at the Southcenter Parkway driveway.