Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-29-88 - PARKSIDE PROPERTIES - FOSTER CENTER BUILDINGSFOSTER CENTER (PARKSIDE PROPERTIES) OFFICE & RETAIL BUILDINGS AT GREEN RIVER SO. 58T" ST. & INTERURBAN AVE. S0. EPIC 29 -88 WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Construct two office /retail buildings on the west bank of the Green River: the first is one -story with 19,255 sq. ft. while the second has two stories with 59,640 sq. feet. Proponent Parkside Properties Ltd. Location of Proposal, including street address, if any SE corner of the So. 58th Street/ Interurban Ave. So. intersection in the SE -; of Sec.14, Twn. 23, Rge. 4; Tukwila, Wa. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC 29-88 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. Q There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Position /Title Planning Director Addre 0a t /7/00 Signature C Rick Beeler 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Phone 433 -1846 You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS • • $UPPLNT TO SEPA DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Prepared December 12, 1988 This DNS is issued for the proposed project as it reff i s the following characteristics; 1. Maule Avenue vacation is completed and no internal lot lines exist. 2. South 142nd Street is developed as a 20 foot wide, asphalted emergency access driveway with a raised curb, landscaping on the south and curb blocks on the north. 3. The driveways on Interurban Avenue S. and South 143rd Street can function at Tukwila Public Works Department standards. 4. Proposed flood protection improvements satisfy Tukwila Public Works Department standards. Any significant changes in the above or other characteristics of the proposed project shall result in reconsideration of this DNS and its possible withdrawal. BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Area 206/323-4144 Fax 206/323-7135 December 7, 1988 Mr. Phil Fraser Department of Public Works City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Foster Center - Tukwila BRH Job No. 88278.00 Dear Phil: We have completed our review of the points reviewed by Dave Clark of the King County River & Water Resource Section in his of letter of November 23, 1988, concerning the above project. We have discussed many of these elements with Andy Levesque of King County and Larry Basisch of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Our discussions have provided agreement on the following items: i°t 4 A6 -') 1. The location of the F.I ne by FEMA. Andy stated he would accept any location set by berry- evesgtre of FEMA including the location approved for Tukwila Ministorage. Larry reviewed the F.I.R.M. line shown on the 1988 map and found that the line did not reflect the location approved by Larry in his letter of February 13, 1987 for the mini warehouse project. Larry stated that he would stand behind his February 13th, 1987 letter and approve that location for the Foster Center Project. 2. In discussions with Andy it was decided that we would do everything possible to save the existing cottonwoods and leave the trail landward of the trees. 3. That grading, swale and dike construction issues raised in the letter from King County will be resolved during review of construction and utility plans by the City of Tukwila. In order to further clarify the flood plain and dike construction issues we have revised our conceptual site plan and cross sections to better show all relevant information. Based on all items noted above we feel we can comply with the City of Tukwila development requirements. Should you require further information or have any questions please call. 0 Robert W. O'Connell Jr., P.E. RWO /cd cc: Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer, River & Water Resource Center Darrell Donovan, Park Properties Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller & Associates V t>. • Park Properties Development Company 310 Leschi Lakecenter 140 Lakeside Avenue Seattle, Washington 98122 (206) 328 -6000 December 7, 1988 Mr. Vernon Umetsu Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Foster Center Tukwila, Washington Dear Vernon: This letter will serve as written confirmation of our meeting today, in which we discussed the above - referenced project; more specifically the Memorandum dated December 6, 1988 from Ron Cameron to yourself regarding the Foster Center project. We have reviewed and agreed to make such amendments as may be necessary for the development of the project as addressed in the aforeto mentioned Memorandum. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should need any further information for your design review meeting. Sincerely, PARK PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Darrell Donovan Vice President cc: Ron Cameron, City of Tukwila Phil Frazier, City of Tukwila Bob O'Connell, Bush, Roed & Hitchings Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller & Associates TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor I DEC 71988 i, b` 1. "si PLT :, '•.:;NC, ' .+ MEMORANDUM Vernon Umetsu Ron Cameron, December 6, 1988 Foster Center Following are the Public Works comments. 1. The Steve Lovell traffic analysis states that adequate storage is available for left turns to 58th northbound and to the main entrance southbound. Review of the July 1987 Gibson traffic analysis for the site on the west side of Interurban was made. The future access to the west side property will have to align with the Foster Center driveways to provide for' left turn movements between 58th and 143rd to the driveways. The existing left turn channelization (TWLTL) will have to be erased and double yellow left turn channelization installed at the time of developing the west side property driveway. The Foster Center will need to provide a means of paying half the cost of the channelization charge and the western property the other half if the development occurs concurrently; otherwise, Foster Center will need to provide the erasure of existing markings and the installation of new centerline and pavement markings (arrows /legends) prior to building occupancy. The plans, including traffic control, must be approved and permits obtained prior to the work commencing. 2. The existing northbound bus pullout needs to be relocated to 58th providing northbound rights; or the curb extended from the pullout (on the plans) to 58th. This will increase safety and capacity with the right turn lane, al lowing buses to merge back into traffic at the intersection instead of forcing the buses into traffic 75 feet ahead of the intersection. MEMO Vernon Umetsu Dec. 6, 1988 page 2 3. On 58th Avenue South: A. A profile plan needs to be submitted for Public Works approval (to provide for safe vehicle and ped travel of the new development). (1) The new intersection needs to be shown with lane widths, pole locations, and the signal (2) With a 61 sidewalk on the south side (3) Curb and gutter section on the south side (4) Future 33 feet of paving on the east leg with an 11 foot eastbound, 11 foot westbound left, and 11 foot through /right turn lane (5) The corner radius has to be 35 foot minimum. B. The developer will need to provide frontal improvements, including the 33 foot paving. 4. Note: the Foster Center development would function with better traffic safety by not having the center driveway: A. More of their traffic would use the 58th signal, left turn queuing would be reduced and the total number of conflicting movements would be reduced B. The separate four legged intersection created by the driveway on site would be reduced to an internal left turn only three leg intersection. 5. Interurban will need frontage improvements, including sidewalks constructed to the Interurban plan - 8 feet wide in the bus zone and 6 feet elsewhere. Two street Fights will be required per the Interurban plan. Also, curb and gutter, drainage improvements, slotted drain and landscaping will need to be constructed per the Interurban plan. 6. South 143rd is to be a 40 foot section. Foster Center will need to provide frontal improvements for their half of the 40 foot section, including curb and gutter and sidewalk. 7. The October 31 Public Works memo included a list of permits. A State hydraulic permit will also be required to new storm outfalls into the river (page 3, question 10, Permits). The other conditions of the October 31 memo need to be met. • • MEMO Vernon Umetsu Dec. 6, 1988 page 3 8. Completion of the Maule Avenue vacation, including donation of the 20 feet of right -of -way. 9. Mitigations and conditions of the Dave Clark, King County November 23, 1988 letter will need to be met (copy attached). We're aware that this work is underway. 10. Design and construction of Maule Avenue (Interurban Avenue South) water main per Maule /Interurban Avenue South water main plans on file with the City. 11. The internal private storm system that now accommodates public storm runoff from South 143rd Street shall continue to take these flows, until such time as the City determines to redirect these flows through a new storm system to the south. 12. Per environmental review: A. Page 8, Item No. 2 is yes. During periods of overflow at control manholes (plan shall show King County control manholes). B. Page 8, Item No. 3,d: Temporary erosion control devices shall be spelled out here during construction phase. Permanent facilities include swales and control manholes to control runoff. C. Page 12, Items No. f, g and h have not been answered. D. Page 14, Item 11,d has not been addressed. E. Page 16, Item 14,g has not been addressed. F. Page 16, Item 15,a: also include water main, street /sidewalk, recreation and dike /levee maintenance. G. Page 17, Item 16a: availability of water is conditioned on providing water main extension per Comprehensive Water Plan. H. Page 17, Item b: Elaborate. Attachments (2) October 31, 1988 memo November 23, 1988 letter xc: Foster Center file CD:DISK 9 FOSTCTR.MEM TELEPHONE MEMO RE: Fes-702 CeNrV2 €O r '. C/cf (6-72(c. -a7-88) PERSON CONTACTED: f!M Fi /4 C-EY (7+7- SC (8) PERSON CALLING: /� io^/- (,1. errsc9 DATE: % Z /�/8 8 INFORMATION ITEMS: >> exerzgLe,the � F foo 700 /(.,06i2 • • King County Surface Water Management Division Department of Public Works 701 Dexter - Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -2585 November 23, 1988 Mr. Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer Department of Public Works City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Fareway Center - River Protection Easement Dear Mr. Frazer: NOV 29M e TU'-CwiLA CUBUC !f'd�1Pei \deb As a result of the November 4, 1988 discussions in Tukwila about the above - referenced proposal and levee access requirements, Bob O'Connell (Project Engineer) has provided me with a schematic grading and utilities plan for the project site. These plans were received on November 17, 1988. Andy Levesque, River and Water Resource Section Senior Engineer, has briefly reviewed these plans for consistency with project requirements discussed at the November 4, 1988 meeting. Based on Mr. Levesque's review, I have the following comments about the schematic grading and site layout: 1. The floodway edge shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) September 1988 Flood Insurance Rate Maps appears to be accurately located on the site plans. As discussed on November 4, 1988, no struc- tures or fills are to encroach in this floodway area. A. Both section A -A and especially section D -D show fill slopes for the combined levee access roadway and trail corridor as encroaching riverward of FEMA's floodway edge. Site layout will need to be modified such that all fills will be placed landward of this flood - way edge. B. The 4.5 feet to 5.0 feet high rockery shown supporting the riverward edge flood control access roadway in sections B -B and C -C will not be acceptable. All fill slopes prepared for construction of the access road must be designed and built at a uniform 2H:1V slope angle. C. The 2H:1V backslope shown between the parking area and the levee in section A -A does not appear to be accurately scaled. Similarly, the rockeries shown in sections B -B and C -C are out of scale. These ele- ments hinder meaningful interpretation of the project drawings in precisely those locations where accuracy is most needed. • • Mr. Phil Fraser November 23, 1988 Page Two 2. The plans accurately depict the 12,000 cfs discharge (measured at the Auburn guage) as corresponding to elevation 19.5 feet (NLVD) at the proj- ect site, yet pavement areas shown in cross - sections A -A and D -D are significantly lower than this elevation. Similarly, the site plan shows several drainage inlets and paving areas below this elevation. Such areas will be subject to flooding when flood stage river flows close the flapgates at the site outlet(s). A. I recommend that these lower paving areas be uniformly raised to a minimum elevation of 19.5 feet to prevent such ponding. B. Raising paved areas along the riverward margins of the project will help minimize fill slope gradients between parking areas and the finished flood control access roadway at elevation 21.5 feet. This should help conserve space along the trail corridor, allowing some margin for a "buffer" strip to be planted between the trail and parking areas. 3. Also noted at the November 4, 1988 meeting was a need to provide a minimum five -to -seven foot wide landscape planting-strip landward of the trail edge to help screen the trail from the site proper. A. Inadequate provision is made for this buffer in cross - sections B -B and D -D. B. Please also see comment 2.A. above. 4. In the plan view, portions of the westernmost building and the easternmost parking area intrude into the proposed River Protection Easement area. A. All site improvements must be located outside the easement area. B. Response to items one through three above may increase the project area affected by this concern. C. Revised site plans will be needed which clearly show a demarcation between the easement edge and the proposed site improvements. 5. Grass -lined swales are proposed for construction within the easement/ setback area. A. While appropriate for water quality treatment of site runoff, it is not clear as to how or by whom these facilities will be maintained. B. The westernmost swale may pass too close to the existing top of the riverbank, thereby adversely affecting the stability of the bank. This will need to be addressed in any geotechnical evaluation of the project design. C. The proposed discharge of the two outfall swales over the top -of -bank will require special engineering to ensure bank stability. Plans for this outfall must include an adequate filter blanket placed over the native silty sands forming the riverbank, adequate rock armor to dissipate the energy of flows cascading down the bank in this loca- tion, and full restoration of any existing vegetation disturbed during construction of the outfall. Mr. Phil Fraser November 23, 1988 Page Three In summary, the proposal is basically compatible with the requirements outlined on November 4, 1988. Space, however, appears to remain at a premium within the area proposed for the combined River Protection Easement /access roadway and recreational trail. Careful avoidance of the floodway edge, uniform 2H:1V fill slopes, an adequate planting buffer, landward of the trail, and the exclusion of site improvements from the easement area need to be further addressed. Minor adjustments to the project layout should be able to resolve these remaining con- cerns. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this proposal. If you have any questions, please call Andy Levesque at 296 -6519. Sincerely, 4-dotcauL Dave Clark, Manager River and Water Resource Section DC :AL:dc(1122.2 -.4) cc: Robert W. O'Connell, Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. Jim Kramer, Manager, Surface Water Management Division ATTN: Ken Guy, Assistant Manager Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer, River and Water Resource Section GEOTECH • CONSULTANTS 13240 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747 -5618 (206) 343 -7959 November 9, 1988 JN 88383 Park Properties 140 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 310 Seattle, Washington 98122 Attention: Daryl Donavan Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Fairway Center Interurban Avenue South & South 143rd Street Tukwila, Washington Gentlemen: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Fairway Center to be constructed at Interurban Avenue South and South 143rd Street in Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our work was to explore site conditions and provide earthwork and foundation design criteria. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with five test pits and three test borings. We found the site to be underlain by loose to medium -dense sands with a thick covering of fill. Several options for founding the proposed structures are possible. They include conventional spread footings following a preload or insitu soil compaction program,- and deep foundations consisting of piles or piers. The attached report contains a more detailed discussion of the study and recommendations. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. »Mt1+J. James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. I Nov 1 1988 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY FAIRWAY CENTER INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (` C t i`.i l t. NOV 1 6 1988 This report represents the results of our geotechnical engineering study of the site of the proposed Fairway Center, an office /retail development, in Tukwila. The site is located at Interurban Avenue South and South 143rd Street. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Based on preliminary plans furnished to us, we anticipate that the project will consist of two buildings, one a single story, the other having two stories. The first will cover nearly 24,500 square feet and the second nearly 39,000 square feet. We understand that the site grade will be raised by four to six feet. The site plan given to us included the footprint of the proposed structures and topographic information. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The property is a seven - sided, nearly six -acre tract located just south of the Foster Golf Course. The nearly flat site is bounded on the north by the Green River, on the east by Oak Harbor Freight Lines, the Riverside Inn on the west, and Interurban Avenue South on the south side. South 143rd Street fronts for a short distance on the very southeast corner of the property. The western corner of the site has been used informally to park tractor trailer rigs, while the remainder of the site is overgrown with tall grass and sapling deciduous trees. Older trees and dense underbrush occupy the north edge of the site, along the river bank. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by five test pits and three borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The borings were drilled on November 1, 1988, using a truck- nt'nmt'nu nnMCT IT m A 10,-PC TM(' Park Properties November 9, 1988 JN 88383 Page 2 mounted hollow stem auger drill. Samples were taken at five (5) foot intervals using a standard penetration sampler. This two - inch outside diameter split spoon sampler is driven into the soil with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. The test pits were excavated on October 27, 1988 with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Excavating. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits and the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 5, and the Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 6 through 8. The upper soil unit is medium -dense fill consisting generally of silty, gravelly sand with areas of extensive concrete and asphalt rubble. The fill thickness was found to vary from about six feet to more than thirteen feet. Underlying the fill is loose black sand which becomes medium -dense at twenty- thirty feet. This soil unit was penetrated to the maximum explored depth of thirty -nine feet. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. The relative densities indicated on the test pit logs are interpretative descriptions based on the conditions observed during the excavation. GROUNDWATER No groundwater seepage was observed in any of the test pits, although groundwater was encountered at seventeen feet in two of the borings and twenty -five feet in the third. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that the groundwater level is controlled by the level of the river and will approximate the level of the river, although there will be a time lag between groundwater levels and the river level. The groundwater level will reflect more of an average river level rather than peak flows. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Park Properties November 9, 1988 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL JN 88383 Page 3 We explored the subsurface conditions of the property with five test pits. and three borings. The site was found to have six to more than thirteen feet of fill overlying loose to medium - dense black sands. We interpret the black sands to be fluvial and /or flood plain deposits, although it is also possible that some areas of the loose sand, represent a hydraulic fill placed in a former meander loop of the river. Review of historical airphotos, taken as early as 1936, show the site was used almost continuously for farming into the 1970's. We were provided with a copy of a letter from Terra Associates to the Architectural Consultants, Inc., dated February 14, 1986, entitled "River Bank Stability, Proposed Tukwila Mini - storage Complex ". Terra stated that they observed no signs of major bank instability and it was their opinion that the river bank was in a stable configuration. It was their opinion that localized instability is possible but should not affect the proposed building provided surface water is not allowed to flow over the bank. We concur with their opinions. From our analysis of the historical photographs, the river bank shows no significant erosion in the last fifty years. Also, the site is on the inside of the river bend where erosion is unlikely to occur. A casual inspection of the Oak Harbor Freight Line facilities revealed no obvious evidence of differential settlement, however, its foundation system is unknown to us. A similar inspection of the Riverside Inn building found some minor distress in a concrete block wall but no evidence of substantial settlement. It is our opinion that the fill and loose upper native soils, in their present condition, should not be relied upon to support important structures. If some differential settlement can be tolerated and if a risk of some damage due to seismic liquifaction is acceptable, the site soils may be improved in place by several possible methods. If not, deep foundations which transfer structural loads through the fill and into the more dense sand layers will be necessary. Several methods of insitu soil densification could be used including vibroflotation, dynamic compaction or a rolling surcharge. The vibroflotation approach consists of a closely spaced network of densified soil created by vibrating a hollow- GFOTFCN CnNSTTT.TANT4 _ TNC _ Park Properties November 9, 1988 JN 88383 Page 4 stem mandrel into the soil at close spacings and filling the voids with compacted sand or gravel. Dynamic compaction, as the name implies, is a procedure whereby a large weight is dropped from a considerable height over the entire building site. Probably a more practical and efficient method for this site is the rolling surcharge, described in greater detail in subsequent paragraphs. Building performance or perhaps economics may dictate the use of a deep foundation system. Here again, several options present themselves. Deep foundations capable of transferring structural loads to the more dense strata of native sand may consist of concrete augercast piers, driven timber piles, or Franki piles. We can provide additional information and design criteria for these systems should a deep foundation system approach be chosen. The use of deep foundations would involve little risk of foundation settlement but would probably be the most costly foundations. Pile or pier depths on the order of forty feet are anticipated. ROLLING SURCHARGE The steps in this procedure would be: (1) Initial clearing of the site and removal of obviously unsuitable material; (2) placement of a mound of material fifteen feet higher than the planned subgrade, and perhaps sixty feet wide at the base across the first building site; (3) advance the mound across the building site using front -end loaders or bulldozers; and (4) final disposition of the surcharge mound as site grading or remove from site. Advance of the rolling surcharge mound is made at the rate of ten to twenty feet per day. Depending on the amount of material available for use in a rolling surcharge, a number of variations can be considered. For example, should the available material form a mound only one -half or one -third of the way across the building, either two or three (respectively) tracks would be needed. An overlap of ten feet, measured at the top of the mound slope, should be used between adjacent tracks. As an example of the application of a two -track rolling surcharge, approximately twelve hundred (1200) cubic yards of material would be placed on the building site to form a mound fifteen feet high and sixty feet wide at the base. It would overlap the building line by at least ten feet and the centerline by at least five feet. The mound would be advanced to the opposite end of the building, then shifted to allow it to be returned to the other side of the building site, thereby (_FnTFrf -i cnmc TIT TAMTQ TTJr Park Properties November 9, 1988 JN 88383 Page 5 giving complete coverage to the entire proposed surcharge site. It would .then be moved to the second building site and the process repeated. FOUNDATIONS Following completion of a soil densification program, the proposed structures may be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill soils above the existing fill. Fill placed under footings should extend outwards from the edge of the footings at least an amount equal to the depth of fill underneath the footings. Exterior footings should be bottomed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent outside finish grade. Footings bearing on structural fill should be designed for a bearing pressure of two thousand (2000) psf. Continuous spread footings should have minimum widths of twenty -four (24) inches. A one -third increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering short term wind or seismic loads. For this design criteria, it is anticipated that total settlement of fbotings founded on structural fill placed over the densified existing soils will be less than two inches, with differential settlements of approximately one inch. Almost all settlement due to dead loads from the building structure should occur during construction. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.40 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of the densified existing fill, undisturbed natural soils, and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) . SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS We recommend that concrete slabs be placed over at least one foot of structural fill. Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. Control and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction. Saw cuts or preformed strip joints, used to control shrinkage cracking, should extend GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Park Properties November 9, 1988 JN 88383 Page 6 through the upper one - fourth of the slab. The spacing of control or expansion joints is a function of the amount of steel placed in the slab. Reducing the water /cement ratio of the concrete and curing of the concrete by preventing evaporation of free water until cement hydration occurs will also reduce shrinkage cracking. A 6 -mil polyethylene plastic vapor barrier should be used under floors likely to receive an impermeable floor finish or where passage of water vapor through the floor is undesirable. Based on American Concrete Institute recommendations, we suggest placing a two to three -inch layer of sand over the vapor barrier to protect the vapor barrier and to allow some moisture loss through the bottom of the slab to reduce warping in the curing process. Sand should be used to aid in the fine grading process of the subgrade to provide uniform support under the slab. PERMANENT RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls that are designed to yield an amount equal to at least 0.002 times the wall height can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty -five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) . If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, a uniform force of one hundred (100) pounds per square foot (psf) should be added to the equivalent fluid pressure force. For calculating the base resistance to sliding, we recommend using a passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pcf and a coefficient of friction of 0.40. It is assumed that no hydrostatic pressures act behind the . wall and that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed. above the walls. If surcharges are to be applied, they should be added to the above lateral pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free - draining granular soils containing no organics. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. Alternatively, a geotextile drainage product such as Miradrain or Enkadrain may be used. The purpose of this is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build -up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. r1?nT1 rN CDNSi1T.TANTS _ TNC: _ Park Properties November 9, 1988 SITE DRAINAGE JN 88383 Page 7 We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all footings and earth retaining walls. Roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. The footing drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one - inch -minus washed rock. The rock should be wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar materials) . At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and /or crawl space and it should be sloped for drainage. A typical footing drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 10. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES No excavated slopes are anticipated other than for utility trenches. In no case should excavation slopes be steeper or greater than the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four feet may be made vertical. For slopes having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. It should be noted that the sands will cave suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cut slopes into native dense soils should be inclined no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). Fill slopes should not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. PAVEMENT AREAS All parking and roadway areas may be supported on native soils or existing fills provided these soils can be compacted to 95 percent density and are stable at the time of construction. Structural fill and /or fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet or unstable areas. We recommend using Supac 5NP, manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company, or a non -woven fabric with equivalent strength and permeability characteristics. In most instances, twelve (12) inches of • granular fill will stabilize the subgrade except for very soft areas where additional fill could be required. The subgrade GEOTECH CONSHLTANT4 _ Tnrr Park Properties November 9, 1988 JN 88383 Page 8 should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc. after the site is stripped and cut to grade. The upper twelve (12) inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density. Below this level, a compactive effort of 90 percent would be adequate. All subgrade areas ,must also be in a stable, non - yielding condition prior to paving. The pavement section for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of two (2) inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four (4) inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or three (3) inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). We recommend that heavily loaded areas be provided with three (3) inches of AC over six (6) inches of CRB or four (4) inches of ATB. The heavily loaded areas are those areas such as main driveways and areas with truck traffic, especially where trucks are turning. Where the subbase is composed of silty, water - sensitive soils, and there is irrigated landscaping adjacent to and at an elevation higher than the pavement, we suggest that perimeter drains be installed to intercept the water that would otherwise saturate the pavement subbase. These guidelines are based on our experience in the area and on what has been successful in similar situations. We can provide recommendations based on expected traffic loads and R value tests, if requested. Some maintenance and repair of limited areas can be expected. To provide for a design without the need for any repair would be uneconomical. SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK We recommend that the building and pavement areas be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or, if desired; stockpiled for later use in landscaping. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should observe site conditions prior to fill placement. Structural fill under floor slabs and foundations should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -78 (Modified Proctor) . The fill materials should be placed at or near the . optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks and behind retaining walls should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. The allowable thickness of the fill GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Park Properties November 9, 1988 JN 88383 Page 9 lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment and the number of passes made by the equipment. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. Grading operations will be difficult if the moisture content of the imported soil exceeds the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The moisture content must be at or near the optimum moisture content as some soils cannot be consistently compacted to the required density when the moisture is greater than optimum. If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the soils are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains. Moisture sensitive soils will be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. During excessively dry weather such as may occur during the summer or early fall months, it may be necessary to add water to achieve optimum moisture content. Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular soil having no more than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The percentage of particles passing the 200 sieve should be measured on that portion of the soil passing the three - quarter inch sieve. LIMITATIONS Geological factors such as stratigraphic discontinuities that occur between test pits, test borings and soil exposures, or variations in groundwater conditions are not predictable with a limited exploration program or conventional engineering analysis. Such non - quantifiable risks must be borne by the owners. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Park Properties and their representatives. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The conclusions and GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Park Properties November 9, 1988 JN 88383 Page 10 recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. The scope of our work did not include a hazardous materials assessment, however, we can provide this service, if requested. We recommend that this report, in . its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We recommend that a representative of our firm be present during placement of structural fill to observe the process and to conduct density tests in the fill. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Plate 2 Plates 3 - 5 Plates 6 - 8 Vicinity Map Exploration Location Plan Test Pit Logs Test Boring Logs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Park Properties November 9, 1988 Plates 9 - 10 • Grain Size Analysis JN 88383 Page 11 Plate 11 Footing Drain Detail Attachments DBG /J RF : c vb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Dennis B. Green Geotechnical Engineer James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. Principal VICINITY MAP PROPOSED FAIRWAY CENTER TUKWILA, WAShINGTON Stephen B. Lovell and Associates Consultants in Urban Transportation TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Office /Commercial Center Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Prepared for Park Properties Development Company 310 Leschi Lakecenter 140 Lakeside Avenue Seattle, Washington November 1988 1614 - 40th Avenue • Seattle, Washington 98122 • (206) 329 -9463 1. Introduction Park Properties Development Company is proposing to develop a vacant parcel of land into a combination office /commercial center. The site is located within the city limits of the City of Tukwila on the east side of Interurban Avenue South and south of the existing signalized intersection of Interurban Avenue South with 58th Avenue South, as shown in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, the site would have three proposed access points to /from Interurban Avenue South: o At the signalized intersection of 58th Avenue South which would provide two driveways into the site, o At the unsignalized intersection of Interurban Avenue South and South 143rd Street, and o Mid -block between 58th Avenue South and South 143rd Street. The site would provide a total of 85,145 square feet of office and commercial space, of which 23,363 square feet would be classified as light industrial and the remainder, 61,782 square feet, as general office space. A total of 288 parking spaces would be provided on -site (Figure 2). 2. Existing Conditions o Roadways Interurban Avenue South is the principal arterial roadway which connects the Southcenter Shopping area with the growing industrial areas in the north part of the City, as well as the Foster Golf Course, which is located on the east side of Interurban Avenue South and south of the I -5 freeway. Interurban Avenue South connects with East Marginal Way South to the north, in King County, and to the West Valley Highway south of the I -405 freeway. The West Valley Highway, SR 181, then continues south to serve the cities of Kent and Auburn, as well as unincorporated King County. SR 181 terminates at SR 18 in the City of Auburn. Interurban Avenue South is a five -lane major arterial with two lanes operating in each direction plus a two -way left -turn. The shoulder -to- shoulder roadway width is•52 feet. Fifty- Eighth Avenue South is presently a three -lane roadway of 38 feet in width at the intersection with Interurban Avenue South, with only the west side of the intersection improved. The east side of 58th Avenue South is undefined, and is primarily used for truck. parking and access to the Riverside Inn. i6 i(itfiitt`'i ' ;H WIWI 1111- z fi I IiIII it,�l t 1 11d i't(l it a i' 1 1 Twill 1 I� f6 1If III 1 11l I`i 11 1 F F F Willi i M APO MO Mr.. • - ow* .0,00. OD. MOO OM. PARK PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OFFICE /COMMERCIAL CENTER TUKWILA PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN Figure 3 displays the existing daily, PM Peak hour and AM Peak hour traffic volumes on Interurban Avenue South in the vicinity of the proposed project at 58th Avenue South. The daily and peak hour directional traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Tukwila, while the PM Peak hour turning movement volumes were counted on November 1, 1988. o Transit METRO Transit operates buses along Interurban Avenue South, principally during the peak commuter hours. A bus stop is located on the east side of Interurban Avenue immediately south of the easterly extension of 58th Avenue South. o Level -of- Service Level -of- service, as generally defined, is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and /or passengers. A level -of- service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety (Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985). Levels -of- service follow an alphabetical order from LOS "A" through LOS "F ", where "A" represents the best operating conditions and "F" the worst. Level -of- service "A" is generally represented by free flow conditions where the individual UR ra are virtually unaffected by others in the traffic stream, and level -of- service "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point. The 1985 version of the HCM establishes levels of effectiveness for each facility type, which best describes the operating quality for the subject facility type. For signalized intersections, the measure of effectiveness is average individual stopped delay in terms of seconds per vehicle (sec /veh). Table 1 illustrates the general range of vehicular delays associated with the levels -of- service for signalized intersections. TABLE 1 Levels -of- Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level -of- Service Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (sec) A < or = 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F > 60.0 Level -of- service analysis were evaluated at the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and 58th Avenue South during the AM and PM Peak hours for existing operations. The results of this analysis is shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 Existing Level -of- Service Intersection of Interurban Avenue and 58thAvenue AM Peak (est.) LOS A Average Delay (sec /veh) V/C Ratio 3. Trip Generation and Distribution o Trip Generation PM Peak A 4.3 0.255 Trip Generation for the proposed project was conducted using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition. General light industrial (ITE code #110) was used for the industrial portion of the site and General Office Building (ITE Code # 710) was used for the office use. The results of the trip generation are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 Trip Generation Land Use Daily AM Peak PM Peak in /out in out Office 956 115/17 21/111 Industrial 163 22/2 4/22 TOTAL 1119 137/19 25/133 o Trip Distribution The vehicle trips from Table 3 were assigned to the adjacent road network, Interurban Avenue, based upon the current traffic flows during the day and peak hours, as being most representative of the fashion which traffic from this new development would travel. Figure 3 displays the daily, AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes with the development traffic assigned to the intersections and Interurban Avenue South. Assignment of traffic volumes to the driveways was based upon the following assumptions, and historical patterns of using the first assess point reached by the employees: o The main entrance to the site, south of the 58th Avenue intersection, would be attractive for a majority of employees, since it would serve a greater number of the parking area. Therefore, 50 percent of the employee trips were assigned to this driveway. o The intersection of 58th Avenue, because it is signalized, would be attractive to some employees traveling to /from the north, and it is the first entrance to the site from the north. Therefore, 25 percent of the employee trips were assigned to this driveway. o The southernmost entrance was assigned 25 percent of the employee trips. It is the first driveway for employee traveling to /from the south. Figure 4 displays the trip distribution to /from the site for daily, AM and PM time periods. 4. Impacts The City of Tukwila has requested that two areas of impact be evaluated for the proposed development: A. Level -of- service at the Interurban Avenue /58th Avenue intersection, and B. Left -turn storage requirements at the intersection and the main entrance to the site, south of 58th Avenue. A. Level -of- Service with Proposed Development Table 4 displays the results of LOS analysis at the Interurban Avenue /58th Avenue intersection with the proposed development. TABLE 4 Future Level -of- Service Intersection of Interurban Avenue and 58thAvenue AM Peak PM Peak (est.) LOS B B Average Delay (sec /veh) 6.1 V/C Ratio 0.318 B. Left -Turn Storage Requirements The City of Tukwila has stated a concern with southbound left - turn storage at the signalized intersection of Interurban Avenue and 58th Avenue South, and northbound left -turn vehicle storage with southbound left- turning vehicles using the main entrance to the site, south of 58th Avenue South. Both the northbound and southbound left -turn lanes have approximately 110 feet of storage for left- turning vehicles at the intersection. Beyond this approximate 110 foot distance, the center lane becomes a two -way left -turn lane. The City furnished a noon peak hour turning movement count at the intersection of Interurban Avenue and 58th Avenue South. This was supplemented with a PM peak hour count in order to conduct LOS analysis as the PM peak hour is typically the highest hour of traffic volumes. The noon peak hour northbound left -turn volume was 38 vehicles, while the PM peak hour northbound left -turn volume was 62 vehicles. No AM peak hour traffic volumes were available. The average signal cycle length during the PM peak hour was 68 seconds (approximately 53 cycles per hour). If we assume that the vehicles arrive at the signal randomly over the peak hours, the average arrival per cycle would be one vehicle (0.72) during the noon peak and two vehicles (1.17) during the PM peak. If we assume that the northbound left -turn volume during the AM peak hour would be similar to the PM peak hour, then two vehicles (1.17) would be waiting during the AM peak hour. (The maximum number of vehicles observed queueing during the PM peak hour was two vehicles) . Using a similar approach for the development traffic would result in one left- turning vehicle at 58th Avenue South and at the main entrance. However, if we double these volumes to allow for random arrival, and to be conservative, the following left -turn vehicle arrival would occur at each location: o At 58th Avenue South southbound left -turn = 2 vehicles northbound left -turn = 4 vehicles o At the Main Entrance southbound left -turn = 2 vehicles The Main Entrance to the site is approximately 235 feet south of the stop bar on the south side of the 58th Avenue intersection. This would provide approximately 125 feet of storage for left - turning vehicles into the site, which would easily accommodate five vehicles. The northbound left -turn lane at the intersection would provide storage for four or five vehicles.. No conflicts should exist between left- turning vehicles at the Main Entrance to the site, and adequate storage is available for left- turning vehicles both at the site entrance and the Interurban Avenue /58th Avenue intersection. 5, Mitigation Based upon the level -of- service analysis and the analysis of left- turning movements for storage conflicts, both of which are adequate, no off -site traffic operations related mitigation improvements would be required. On -site transportation improvements, such as driveways and internal access roadways would be built to City of Tukwila standards. 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION58th Ave. So./Interurban AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST ..... SBL DATE 11/1/88 TIME PM Peak Hour COMMENT Tukwila Office/Commercial Center VOLUMES • GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 30 6 62 2 : LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 2 4 580 436 : R 12.0 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 26 4 4 36 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 • 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ Pk G BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (7.) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 0.00 N 0 5 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 WB 0.00 5.00 N 0 5 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 NB 0.00 5.00 N 0 5 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 SB 0.00 5.00 N 0 5 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 68.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EE LT X NB LT X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB _LANE 0.149 0.132 16.9 C 16.9 C R 0.146 0.132 16.9 C WB LTR 0.079 0.132 16.7 C 16.7 C NB L • 0.312 0.132 20.6 C 3.1 A TR 0.252 0.779 1.3 A SB L 0.005 0.603 4.1 A 4.1 A TR 0.266 0.603 4.1 A INTERSECTION: Delay = 4'3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.255 LOS = A 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 'SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION58th Ave. So./Interurban AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST SBL DATE 11/1/88 TIME Future PM Peak Hour COMMENT Tukwila Office/Commercial Center VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 30 8 62 7 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 2 4 618 444 : R 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 26 34 5 36 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 0.00 N 0 5 0.90 0 N 20.5 3 WE 0.00 5.00 N 0 5 0.90 0 N 20.5 3 NB 0.00 5.00 N 0 5 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 SB 0.00 5.00 N u 5 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 68.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.o GREEN G.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LT 0.149 0.132 16.9 C 16.9 C R 0.146 0.132 16.9 C WB LT 0.057 0.132 16.7 C 16.9 C R 0.195 0.132 17.0 C NB L 0.312 0.132 20.6 C 5.8 B TR 0.347 0.603 4.4 A SB L 0.035 0.132 19.5 C 4.4 A TR 0.270 0.603 4.2 A INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.318. LOS = B • • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 1 �.f(..r'� jyin(a IT O. .. �1 .'/,r1,1' bii' 11988 c MEMORANDUM TO: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer .64,►•. DATE: October 31, 1988 SUBJECT: Foster Center The following comments are in response to the site plan review: 1. The 141st Street right -of -way needs to be established. 2. The western driveway on 141st Street cannot be allowed as it is too close to Interurban Avenue. The close location results in two intersections too close together, affecting safety and capacity. 3. A trip generation summary of AWDT and peak hours (noon and p.m.) should be prepared showing trip assignments for: Plan A - The remaining three driveways shown and evaluate signal warrants and safety at the Interurban driveway. Evaluate northbound left queing from the 58th Avenue signal into southbound left queue storage at the proposed Interurban driveway. Plan B - Using a main driveway on 141st Street to focus the traffic (access) at the signalized intersection, focusing vehicle and pedestrian traffic at the signal will be safer for arterial traffic and development traffic. Plan B access is the prefered alternative for intersection safety, queueing concerns, bus rider /other pedestrian crossing concerns, and similar safety reasons. Should traffic analysis of Plan A alleviate safety and capacity concerns, then, Interurban will need to be widened with a right turn (accell /decel) lane from south of the proposed driveway to 141st Street. Plan - B would need a right turn lane on the northbound approach to the 141st signal. • Vernon Umetsu MEMORANDUM October 31, 1988 Page 2 A plan and cross section of Interurban Avenue is attached showing the frontage improvements to be provided. Sidewalks are required. Conduct a riverbank /dike stabilization study identifying any stabilization needs that will need to be corrected to receive a Flood Control Zone Permit. Provide riverbank /dike (trail) easements. Typically the dike easement is 30 feet wide but may be wider as determined in the dike study. The trail easement is 20 feet within the 30 foot dike easement. Provide an elevation overlay of the Foster site plan onto the mini storage site plan to verify the 12,000 CFS one hundred year flood elevation and determine if the elevations are adequate for flood protection. Complete easement for dike and trail. Determine if the state hydraulics permit issued for the mini storage can be extended or reissued for this development Complete the Maule Avenue utilities easement. Maxine Anderson, City Clerk, may be contacted for additional information (the documents). The City will relinquish the easement if the developer relocates the utilities from vacated Maule Avenue to Interurban Avenue right -of -way. Complete vacation of Maule Avenue. Design and construct the Maule Avenue (Interurban Avenue) watermain in accord with the City watermain plan. Phil Fraser may be contacted at Public Works, 433 -0179, for additional information. The following permits will be required: Channelization /Striping /Signing Curb Cut /Access /Sidewalk Fire Loop /Hydrant (main to vault) Flood Zone Control Hauling (2,000 Bond, Cert, Ins.) Landscape Irrigation Sanitary Side Sewer Sewer Main Extension (private) ? Sewer Main Extension (public) ? Storm Drainage ' Water Main Extension (public) Water Meter (exempt) ? Water Meter (permanent) Water Meter (temporary) ? RC /kjr TUWAY MESSAGE FROM ���� rsy, -�✓ SU BJECT - DATE 4f G l � . I , i .. L—%1 -.f ! /J� / 1 f !! ' • ''' • ✓ i _ J �� / air _ _ SIGNED R E P L Y _ DATE: SIGNED J ASSOCIATED Lt -A2375 PRINTED IN U.S.A. ' -CITY OF T€JKWILA • • CN CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC ;29-88 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: n BLDG j PLNG FILE P.W. [l FIRE n POLICE 0 P & R PROJECT f 0S Tc C e)4 7- LOCATION S( y So < S8 J a .S T"i4gt".2.0L. F I L r . DATE TRANSMITTED /0/4/6315 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR 4X;C' RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE / COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • CN EPIC ;29-8e) FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: LDG PLNG (] P.W. (j FIRE (i POLICE f P & R PROJECT POS:7 -CO C UN TCt LOCATION SC ccofS8 ST /G FIL . DATE TRANSMITTED /0/4/2315 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR (X RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT i,x 4 , ,A /14,0 -09 a 10 ?(1/1 '4r 7 AA. 0 gsrY Q.,257144/s1€411-6 a) //irk. /0/te2 . Po coy f (d PS5o� YM Zf fier/ A.e4 6/04 frOcedirk9- DATE /j -M- .34r COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Epic File No. 2?-88 $100.00 Receipt No. 5-SOS"' A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: %'v".' 4-6-VA-7.4Z 2. Name of applicant: MA7-71- itz". 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: / A;r% 4. Date checklist prepared: 2 4 ) 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 1.57Z4:1— s-1PLA5r- 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or . further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. A/1 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directlylated to this proposal. 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. ,va -2- PURVIED OCY101988 .1.0. List any governme1approvals or permits that wile needed for your proposal. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi. checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no-. . need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. 71c-74 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this �,�checklist. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? A/O -3- • Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, st a slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope the site (approximate percent slope)? A- 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. c d.. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. A)O e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. G,/0/./72E 47' f.. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 769h Agency Use Only h. Proposed meas�s to reduce or control erosio� or other impacts to,,the h, if any: 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts o_ air, if any: 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. 2) Will the •ject require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 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. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. .4d 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Y� 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. A Agency Use Only b. Ground: • 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. /vp 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are ex ected to serve. AIM." 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. ,e50424(/ sue/ Agency Use Only 2) Could wasSmaterials enter ground or surTace waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: / deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture _ crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? �L Sly c. list threatened or endangered jpecies known to be on or near the site. ��.. r♦ Y I Y Y Y I V I I 11.01 Agency Use Only d. Proposed land ping, use of native plants, orlher measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on site, if any: t50622 _A4'601X0K Agency Use Only 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: �4 /fl44s/ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endang ed species known to be on or near the site.- -1�i.� c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO d. Proposed measures tp preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: • 6. Energy and NaturaSsources Agency Use Only • a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. ND 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: 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. AlO 1) Describe special emer ency services that might be required. iftry f 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards if any: n. -10- Agency Use Only b. Noise 1 • 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? _42,34V204- b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. /(/p c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any stru•res be demolished? If so, !t? NO e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? /5/7- / f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. i . Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 4 t — j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace ?_ ,j ,/ k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Ay,��j 24.2f//1_ -,_ Agency Use Only Agency Use Only 9. Housing • a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? - b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate .wheer high, middle, or low - income housing. /j//� c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:,. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? /' -(m,1/ b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Nil/,' c. Proposed measures to reduce or control. aesthetic impacts, if any: Agency Use Only ,11. Light and Glare • • a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NDrt/ 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? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and . glare impacts, if any: 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? 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: -14- 13. Historic and Cultuft Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. AC'O • b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. iC/OXi& c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site •lans, if any. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate ?/1,045: 215 8 cvaivatiion ror Agency Use Only Agency Use Only d. Will the prop4101 require any new roads or sts, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. 1(.io f. Now many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. AdW.- g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: 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. .. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Agency Use Only .16. Utilities 411 411 a. Circle utilities currently available a ; e site: el city, nab g s; 050, > use ervice, to o 9 s►riitar 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. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on th o a ,e its(%ecision. 4Q:1,AL) 7., SO Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHE• FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PACT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: AZCZIE V• y• V Y w • V I 1 I J Agency Use Only • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? )0e, Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -23- GREEN R/ VER 8-2 S. /43rd ST. TP-I B-2 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS d LEGEND APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS SITE EXPLORATION PLAN FOSTER CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ✓o1 Ne.+ 88383 Owe+ 1 NOV., 1988 seem, I 1 =80� J PN M+ 2 I \�1 0‘° Jae o� + c,� uscs 0 5 I0 15 TEST PIT Description E/evolion: SM Tan /gray silty gravelly SAND, moist, medium dense, (FILL) Concrete debris and boulders, metal and garbage r �e° �J,�l e • (J uscs 0 10 15 — S 44• Test Pit terminated at 10 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. TEST PIT 2 Description Elevation: Gray silty clayey gravelly SAND, moist, medium dense (FILL) asphalt and concrete fragments Black silty SAND fine grained, moist to wet, loose to medium dense Test Pit terminated at 14 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. GEOTECH ,CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED FAIRWAY CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON rob No., Ooli, LoggN er, �1ti5V3 I �fl,r�7r �l I DRQ Nolo 3 e 404 uscs 0 L� l I0 15 0 10 15 S TEST PIT 3 Description Gray —brown silty clayey gravelly SAND, moist, medium dense, (FILL) Orange slightly silty SAND, moist, medium dense Black silty fine SAND, fine grained, moist, loose to medium dense uscs Test Pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade.. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. TEST PIT 4 Description M Gray silty gravelly SAND, moist, medium dense, (FILL) occasional boulders and concrete debris plastic and asphalt extensive asphalt and concrete fragments Test Pit terminated at 13 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED FAIRWAY CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ✓00 No.' Ool01 Lopped 8 ' H i ti\ ° w \r *$ 0� +0 USCS 0 10 15 • TEST PIT 5 Oescrip /ion E /evo/ion: S Gray silty gravelly SAND, moist, loose to medium dense (FILL) large rocks and boulders concrete and metal pipe Test Pit terminated at 13 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. C a' xxazsa1..■rr14. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED FAIRWAY CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job No.' Dobt LoppM BY' PIM, ,)�J�ec, _04 , k� • o \ot 0 0 tp uscs • BORING 1 Elevation: Description Depth -15.6 I0 15 20 25 30 35 40 19 15 32 r 1 1 II[ Mottled gravelly silty clayey SAND, moist, medium dense . SP _ Black SAND, fine grained, wet, loose occasional silt layers medium grained dense 39 Test Boring terminated at 39 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 17 feet while drilling. TEST BORING LOG PROPOSED FAIRWAY CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ./ob No.: 'Dote: Lopped By: 88383 11/1/88 DBG I Polo: 6 0 5 I0 15 20 25 30 35 40 o`$41-- co, • 11.7 5.5 USCS BORING 2 Description Elevation: Depth 1 2 24 19 MI. •SM: Gray to brown silty gravelly clayey SAND, fine to medium grained, moist, medium dense, (FILL) ML Dark gray sandy SILT, moist, medium dense '• Black SAND, medium grained, moist, loose 4 14 'Sp becomes medium dense • 5 22 • 6 44 becomes dense and saturated 7 19 '• ;•'. becomes medium to coarse grained, saturated 8 38 f.. Test Boring terminated at 39 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 25 feet while drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 72 39 TEST BORING LOG PROPOSED FAIRWAY CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 116163 Vail m3 4y, 1 17"1 BORING 3 Elevation: Description Depth Gray /reddish -brown silty slightly gravelly clayey SM : SAND, moist, medium dense, (FILL) Brown slightly silty SAND fine grained, moist, medium dense 171 Black SAND, fine to medium grained, saturated, loose becomes medium dense 51 I.• : becomes dense with silt layers Test Boring terminated at 39 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 171 feet while drilling. TEST BORING LOG PROPOSED FARIWAY CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job No. � Doti cogged ell Mori+ 88383 1 11/1/88 DBG 18 100 90 80 13 70 73 'z 60 vol MprEITITEMBEEITp ao AVf 1IV3 aas i ....1 04 Ell WED] z m 5 2 30 20 10 0 0 O SIEVE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH US STD HYDROMETER ANALYSIS GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS A W N .5 O O $ O O S 8 0 0 b g b O -00 A 01 N 8 I f I O O O O O 0 O COBBLES 1 11 1 ►_ I I m en A $ COARSE 1 FINE GRAVEL 1 1 m in A I_ 11 N — O GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COARSE r MEDIUM FINE SAND A O N O O 8 to 0' A W C C O O FINES 0 N BORING/ TEST PIT DEPTH SAMPLE MOISTURE KEY SYMBOL SOIL CLASSIFICATION TB -1 T3-2 25%4' �2 - -w 3 15.69. 5.5Z 0 10 20 m 300 m. z 40 0 0 23 0) 50 m m -c 60 m 0 _ 70 —I 80 90 100 • . SZNao TI4 1IV3 aaS0d01I. 100 90 80 v 70 m Z 60 1 z50 40 m 0 X 30 20 10 i SIEVE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH US STD HYDROMETER ANALYSIS GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS N • W m0 Oi O O O 8 8 O A W N O O O00r O O ^001 8 I f I 1 r 00 41 tj 0 0 0 0 0 COBBLES 11 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 p o W A W COARSE 1 FINE GRAVEL BORING/ TEST PIT DEPTH SAMPLE 1 11 1 1 1 m 6 :I. W 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COARSE r MEDIUM SAND T FINE 11 1 - g0 O� A W N -- O g 00 00 O1 at 4. W FINES 00 0 10 20 m z 30 m -4 60 m c) 70 _1 80 90 100 O O MOISTURE KEY 11.74 15.3', 1-13.- 3 1,-5":_14' 3 17_8% SYMBOL 0-0 SOIL CLASSIFICATION Slope bockfi// owoy from foundation. WASHED ROCK 6 f - FREE -DRAINING SAND /GRAVEL BACKF /L L See text for requirements. TIGHTL /NE ROOF DRAIN Do not connect to footing drain. VAPOR BARRIER SLAB ` % , :.' `:., 4" min. NONWOVEN GEOTEXT /LE FILTER FABR /C 4" PERFORATED HARD PVC P /PE Invert al /east as /ow as fooling and /or crawl space. S/ope to drain. P /ace weepho /es downward. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL PROPOSED FAIRWAY CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ✓00 No.' 0018+ 88383 NOV. 88 I Sea N.T.S. IPlots, 11 1a son man rr RY 5a.G5• -_s-st iT oT- r�� \. Iu &MT� o••• - • =.56 ;Sr.; a1 6•a`n.iiia s.e< ,t! yo o u ei • TeP 1661 tuvilOCT 00,65 , wsar T • \b• 2• \SB 44: O� iiiiii IO14.81S 1u <aT •.o.as.C.o•a.P' �LL TTOan oa. U 76..1•O%E • • O c• S 9 aT 4 •, " . ' 15' 1>v 6y Ju mrOn.,mo -(1•••••••. m.wrtwu)'. . wp. CerrrWU,00n • • 166 111.14.7. n> iDP •'.D.1.( ,n) \e tr \ \ >r• • ro+1 �,i. Y x La . t \ :x vw $ ( to 7,2, .N :1, a \ `'roe\ \ ' � � \\� - ^. °r`y.•„L 3 ''>'' ry a � \� z. \ _.t e N. as \\k �. - M\ -eT - munrao Ta.- aP..o.,c • w`'ORp"T\ \ T\ Y� \ - °.46¢,.6.0' Por/aa \ \\ty -DS- _u TAnY °6wc4 - PO.fY \ \ \io.i� e �� 17.7.7.0 (0....L. P.P<) \\ 7t-er u./0.2 q�5S • _e.5 J FL • '29i 9� Ea�:,�.a .'L a 110. 0.9�\ M.. d � f ,en . �/ • • • 031701Y•161e00 ‘stiecorta,om ou 9 ro,,o.la,000> ....ro ... -.,oaa T ,g• w • %T,aP 661• 6760 • • DU`VA'MIS 4 R►V ER.- u • • : .4o • ik • .AI W S' . 1(e' 24- fi J WI' CD -1.02 44.11 • �SID�L 5.u0 0a6-� S 79. 22.09" 6 ._ /J 29.04 $ Btea SSA 2.4 6 19.04 BaI.11 u ' "S E - S tl2. 65 S4- E Nis:2:W' . ` S BS* 29• S2'. E • 12'1 94 52.lu /a -50- x.0170, J oe 50,07101•66001/ 0.: 017-10.6.00 ao-rorrou,. o> rrri w eau� P a . 0..s. � c. 5°O.:Pea-r . \\ \ w MSS - - • t • % for ro-rrov.mo i 1 r. non 1 , 03770,160 06 • Toil. 0,60 • a ,u r< • (a: ) .o (,a•) w • PIS ■ ' - I I'1 • .I1 ur.urY r � O u, w :T 6.67 e,roE • .0127 I•I ryJ: II � I I o�vl 1 I 1 I '5'1 j_ rI I . • 1 2 .. � Q1 m • I IJI V ti� ; :0 "i • I 01 ICI J n 10.01 d ,,pp wfldl : °�,•1� it..'.-"T I ,I °n- 1 l° > -a Capps III - ISO.5O - - -' • 7 6�° •a -4j EU�LSZ.d \sue°. S 4 • OS'oo \Pao To av`. vo `a \ 5 S 2S• 40 I• ' J 21.00. • e- u5' _T .+ ern GALT ate, Y•jur ten.•. •.)' • A i u • 6106 • Ap TUM: _ •5.,'•62 • ,5 La .w .0•.t ' ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.2.D. DATA ,BASED ON B.M. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: (fl." ...CO,. 4 -M: • CHISELED SQUARE IN CORNER OF CONCRETE WALK APPROXI MATELT 8 FEET -rm. FROM 5.0. CORNER OF BRICK OFFICE BUILDING AT 14945-15000 INTERURBAN V. AVENUE 501JTN (MORTON DENNIS NO. 5) ELEVATION LISTED AS 25.823 SCALE I" =40 DESCRIPTION:- PARCEL A • : .. A PORTION OF LOT r1 -AND ALL OF LOTS 2,'3, 4, -5, 6, AND 7, BLOCK 18, HILLMAN'S . SEATTLE GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE-PLAT- THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 24, .14 KING. COUNTY,. WASHINGTON, AND THAT ACCRETED LAND ADJOINING 'IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23'- NORTH, RANGE 4 -EAST, IN KING • COUNTY ,' WASHINGTON,- ALL DESCRIBED. AS FOLLOWS: .' • BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF • SAID TAT 7;. THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE • EASTERLY LINE THEREOF; 315.0EET TO. THE LEFT BANK OF THE DUN /NISH -RIVER AS - ORIGINALLY PLATTED; THENCE CONTINUING ON 'A NORTHERLY- PRODUCTION OF SAID EASTERLY LINE 220 'FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE LEFT BANK OF SAID RIVER,. .1,5 IT- EXISTED AT THE DATE OF ENTRY •00• JUDGMENT TO QUIET TITLE IN KING COUNTY . SUPERIOR' COURT CAUSE N0. 81 -2- 05910 -4; THENCE', WESTERLY: ALONG SAID BANK TO AN INTIRSECIION 0216 160 NORTHEASTERLY PRODUCTION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE' OF . .''THE NORTHWESTERLY 72 FEET OF SAID' LOT 1; . THENCE. SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID• 1.262 PRODUCTION 200 FEET, KOBE OR LESS,' TO•THE LEFT BANK -OF THE DWAMISR RIVER AS ' - PLATTED'IN THE ORIGINAL• PLAT;j.THENCE •CONTINUING IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION - ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY. LINE -OF THE NORTHWESTERLY 72 FEET OF SAID LOT 1, 55 'FEET, 'MORE OR LESS, TO.THE :SOUTHWESTERLY LINE' OF SAID' LOT 1; THENCE - .SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG .SAID LINE. TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH MARGIN OF SOUTH 143RD STREET (FIRST AVENUE) THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID MARGIN TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. • ■• - ' . PARCEL B: .- A PORTION •OF PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY •IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ,QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, 'W.M. , IN COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BOUNDED ON THE NORTHEAST -BY MAULE - • AVENUE, ON THE. SOUTHWEST•BY SR!. 181. W THE SOUTHEAST BY RIGHT -0F -WAY N0..5 AND • THE NORTHWEST BY RIGHT- OF -WAYF N0: 6, BOTH RIGHT -OF -WAYS AS DEFINED IN QUIT_ • CLAIM DEED PROM PUCET-00260'POWER 6 .LIGHT. COMPANY TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA RECORDED UNDER .RECORDING N0.; 6557639. • • ,.• 'i • SITE CONTAINS 244,150 - SQUARE FEET •05 5.6049 ACRES. ._ • • EASEMENT' NOTE: - . EASEMENTS SHOWN ARE TABEN FROM CHICAGO TITLE •INSURANCE CO. REPORT N0 .130966', . • • DATED DECEMBER 29, 1987 AND SUPPLEMENTED JUNE .24, 1988, AND SEPTEMBER • 22, • CERTIFICATION: .. - - TO PARR PROPERTIES AND CHICAGO TITLE- INSURANCE COMPANY: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP 011.-PLAT -AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH -IT I1 BASED :WERE MADE IN 'ACCORDANCE '(1116 "MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL 'REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA /AGSM LAND TITLE 5URVEYS, "'JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED •BY ALTA AND • AGSM IN 1986 AND MEETS THE .ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS OF A CLASS "A" SURVEY, A5. • DEFINED THEREIN. REGISTRATION N0. 22333 THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE I5 BASED UPON WORK PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING PRACTICE.- WE MARE NO OTHER WARRANTY, EITHER., EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. • 011 5TRUCNRE01- • BURIED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN AS INDICATED 08 RECORD MAPS FURNISHED -BY OTHERS AND VERIFIED WHERE POSSIBLE BY FEATURES LOCATED IN THE FIELD. WE ASSUME NO LIABILITT 005 THE ACCURACY OF THOSE RECORDS. FOR THE'FINAL - LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES IN AREAS CRITICAL TO DESIGN CONTACT THE UTILITY 'OW1@R /AGENCY. v1 O . -U. • z' ; C -1 V - • z_> = (n 60 Ott (C2 • W W :OZ W J Aa > • iU'a: y� - • Z .: W $ M A J 72.1788 88 88278.02 • Q .../1 •.MAw/lilvf . .K/ /ol\_JATEC Sc PAR TOQ 1‘ 145o -V1 <-1 AI1Td .MAP • NT}, w- LeG..a. DaYR.PToN' LOTS 1, 2, ),4,5{.1T,.6�oLK 16, 44�.wN G.aaav T..cTa, E.cwe On A L•.. L... O. L.. \ AT A Po.. 12 F...' 9em.. v O. Ilea telpee Was v Cow o. S.,e. Lot P.m, Face. S.A. Py.. • NoaT...OTW ...(- . . Lwa O. loT \ A..e T.e.P¢aeucTlo..T .;T6 . 2. e 2c aTao l+..e+aAm K¢ I T.. 9wY T..e SE S. O. Seal.... WT.�va.., 2S N..T... , 5..0 9eaT.e... Or M..... A....y. Aes..c...T Aw... V..c 2... C%TY O.T ...�, O¢o.......ca Oro Flo.rer O. P..s.. Se...o 2....ae a Qa.T 0. as Dn. wa.. 1•• Qt.sas O. S....., IZa<eags I.. Em +2O O. S......., P.e. LW; ..... • . lace. e. v Coa- 0 Tq W9o0D01\ !VeaTwuTSa.�T - 92AS Pea-. Aa...s T:.. NoaT.....a.a¢.Y ��p Las. PesT .. T.� Foss W.ea..*.s O. S.+Taaw.n.¢.i ... -.o... Se..T.. L.. C.T. 0. Tu.Gw.r.. 0.o.....c¢ Z, 210, O P. .. rn cif o C7} z TT �" W Q W Wz • c7D Oz. Q. �w w 'J• ui CJ) ¢_ O' W .. ti 61 • t1 a./ W 7.3 North Ii1�.7jp•- N - Y LN�t.ITY I:idrE'. s../a.TE R. 4.'6on11T4\2-7' . .SG.JE2 ?Rp.Ii17EJ EbY -. T.Y.. OP TJ\e-..J 1 .1 =EXTENSION BECTON. • �_ uus,.'s .6 • . T T IS . uDDLA :,mn TYY G S - -- GEC/• . U..IkJ 4....na.E . 14-3 RD 4 -OI 4 4�enIC'yr�nQG h.vl.. • p r.\JT �0J- :.FIRc. H-fD: -'. 'OECTION. ee0 K0.01 2.0D• RPW 008/404RD 11ROIICAT00N3 — 7-1/Pe ..22-"C C:'H''s THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR PERMIT APPLICAUON AND IS SUB- JECT TO REVIEW AND MODIFICATIONS BY GOVERNM IES. 00 NOT USE RORTRUCTION DEC 7 1988. _ BIKE PAIN LE. 21.so .g JY �. mgt.' L1nIE PER 1188 MAP j atiq Prn ELEv =21.So` ToPof. E•nJS L.LIE' -E PEEL i11KwILn.MMl 61PRnc,E, 0Ni'((p0 K-'sE4:1100. Foft . given F04-f . G E I.KE g. .':. Itl'(Egu z5AM AVE, 4 5.9' AVE TUiwIL Wr. BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS . 2009 MINOR AVE EAST, ' SEATTLE; WA 98102 BRH(208) 323 -4144